Slashdot Mirror
Sea Level Rise Already Causing Billions in Home Value To Disappear (axios.com)
Sea level rise may seem like a far-off threat, but a growing number of new studies, including one out this week, shows that real estate markets have already started responding to increased flooding risks by reducing prices of vulnerable homes. From a report: According to a new report by the nonprofit First Street Foundation, housing values in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut dropped $6.7 billion from 2005 to 2017 due to flooding related to sea level rise. Combined with their prior analysis of 5 southeastern coastal states with $7.4 billion in lost home value, the total loss in 8 states since 2005 has been $14.1 billion. A recent slew of studies show how the housing market is responding to the increasing risk of coastal flooding -- with billions in value disappearing as investors wake up to the systemic risk.
What? To raise the sea levels worldwide by ~2.5cm, you need about 9200 cubic kilometers of volume (a bit over 360 million square km of ocean). There are about 6.5 barrels of oil per cubic meter (42 gallons per barrel, 3.78 liters per gallon), and we pump about 83 million barrels of oil a day. Doing the math, it would take about 1900 YEARS of pumping at today's rate to create enough volume to raise sea-level by 25mm - assuming 100% conversion to plastic and dumped into the ocean.
Your statement is patently false, doesn't even pass a sniff test. But I guess that is what passes for science these days...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Not necessarily stupid: just misled by developers and into homes that are relatively cheap. Some people would assume that it would be illegal to build homes on floodplains and the government would be looking out for their interests. As usual, the government didn't care. Developers bought the flood plain lands because they were cheap and put housing on it. Fortunately the government has finally started to wise up to the concept that allowing homes to be built on lands that have been flooding for hundreds of years might not be a good idea.
Oddly enough this site you link to documents that sea levels are rising, and accelerating, most everywhere, except were post-glacial rebounding is occurring (the home page helpfully mentions this -- "glacial isostatic adjustment"). A single spot like Battery Park in Manhattan only shows that Battery Park in Manhattan is not showing the long term rise to be accelerating, perhaps due to local subsidence.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
This house here? the one that's three kilometres inland and 150 METRES above sea level?
Hmm...I wonder what he thinks is going to happen...
If every bit of land-based ice melted, the oceans would rise about 160 ft.
I think that number is only for all of Antarctica. The number I've seen most often and what I got when I calculated it myself is more like 210 feet.
Greenland has about 2,850,000 cubic kilometers of ice. Antarctica has about 26,500,000 cubic kilometers of ice. I'm going to ignore the rest of the ice because it's practically at rounding error levels. So the two of them together add up to 29,350,000 km^3 of ice. The surface area of the worlds oceans is about 361,000,000 km^2.
So 29,350,000 km^3 divided by 360,000,000 km^2 equals 0.081527 km or about 267 feet. Of course the ocean spreads out as it rises so you have to take that into account so that's how they get 210 feet.
Also that doesn't take into account sea level rise from thermal expansion. That is currently causing about 1/3 of the sea level rise we see.
Also that doesn't take into account sea level rise from thermal expansion. That is currently causing about 1/3 of the sea level rise we see.
Uhh, no. Thermal expansion of SEAWATER does not cause a 33% increase in volume. Unless you are using some odd definition of "thermal expansion". Source: I sell pressure relief valves used for thermal expansion.
Thermal expansion of water/seawater causes a very small increase in volume. Certainly there are things that can cause a large increase in volume (like turning that water into steam) but that is not the case - at all - for thermal expansion. Your assertion is drastically incorrect.