4 ms·

The sea level rise is slow enough, at less than 1cm per year projected average to 2100, that it doesn't have a material affect on your decision, unless the land

by eloff 7y ago

The sea level rise is slow enough, at less than 1cm per year projected average to 2100, that it doesn't have a material affect on your decision, unless the land is freakishly flat and low (like a sand atoll somewhere) So respectfully, I think your aversion is more emotional than logical. Lots of emotional down-voting going on. I'm still right.

JofArnold 7y ago
That’s not how it works. That’s why you are getting downvoted. Firstly the rise is not the same everywhere - some places will have vastly higher sea levels. Secondly Venice didn’t suddenly get flooded by going from from 0cm too high to 1cm too high this year; the issue with climate change is not just the level but also the highs from more energetic, wetter storms etc.
- eloff 7y ago
  No, I'm still right. It is true some places will have more rise, but also some places will have lower rise. Also storms are not getting noticeably stronger either, that's just as slow. Really you can buy ocean front property, and the concerns are more to do with local tides and weather and topography than anything to do with climate change. Cost will still be the primary concern, beachfront property is not cheap. The local issues dwarf climate change to the point that it likely doesn't even feature in your final decision, if you're being logical and not emotional.
  - seanccox 7y ago
    In my work with climate data, scientists in my cohort are instructing caution that many (linear) models are incorrect, and those are the figures you quote (1cm/year sea-level rise). However, not only have past sea-level rise projections been incorrectly low(1), but tropical storms/hurricanes have become measurably more frequent, more powerful, and slower(2), which also causes increased flooding. So, even if your beachfront property is not at increased risk from sea level rise, there is an increased risk of flooding and storm-surge exposure (in some places). When I was attempting to establish historical storm trends for the Florida Keys in the early 18th century (for an archaeological study), one colleague suggested I not use post-2004 data, because the warming of the oceans was skewing everything from mean wind directions to the number of hurricanes to the current patterns. The costs associated with beachfront property are also rising, due to the insurance industry's discomfort with the risks and the additional maintenance costs(3). Even the US's National Flood Insurance Program is increasing the charges of its subsidized coastal insurance products(4), because private industry deems many coastal properties uninsurable. So, I gotta ask: On what data are you basing your opinions? 1) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z 2) https://www.theguardian.com/weather/ng-interactive/2018/sep/11/atlantic-hurricanes-are-storms-getting-worse https://www.theguardian.com/weather/ng-interactive/2018/sep/... 3) https://www.allpropertymanagement.com/blog/post/what-climate-change-means-for-coastal-real-estate-values/ https://www.allpropertymanagement.com/blog/post/what-climate... 4) https://www.gulfshoreinsurance.com/summary-of-nfip-program-changes/ https://www.gulfshoreinsurance.com/summary-of-nfip-program-c...
    - eloff 7y ago
      I'm looking at the same data as you, and agree with your points. It's possible sea level could rise faster, but even at worst case protections climate change probably doesn't make the top ten factors when considering a specific property. If the property is so vulnerable to rising sea levels or storm surge, it is going to be vulnerable with and without climate change. Climate change itself doesn't seem to change the calculus much.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    Your confidence is misplaced. For example, improving the reliability of measurement indicates storms are in fact getting stronger. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/11/05/1912277116 https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/11/05/1912277116
    - eloff 7y ago
      That's in terms of damage, not strength. Huge difference, depending on what we build and where. Although I'm not denying storms are getting stronger, it's slowly, just like sea level rise. I wouldn't buy waterfront property in Florida, but mostly for the problems inherit with doing that today, not because of future climate change.
  - arbitrary_name 7y ago
    In financial markets, expectations of future gain and loss impacts pricing today. In exactly the same manner expectations that the future value of real estate may be impacted by climate change should be reflected in the price today. Even if the house I buy today does not flood in 20 years (my lifetime), in 20 years I will have to sell to someone who will have an investment horizon of 40 years from today (my 20 years, plus their hypothetical 20 years). Since that person may demand a lower price from me in 20 years, I should factor that into the price I pay today, since it effects my returns. As a real example, I factored in expected flood insurance pricing rises on some riverfront property I purchased recently in Australia. The insurance price increases are driven by industry and government modelling to reflect tropical storm intensity and frequency and an increased risk that storm surges overlap high tides. Sea level rises contribute to the risk, but not in a meaningful level. The end result was that my total cost of ownership increased by single digit %. I reduced my bid price accordingly to meet my % return requirement from the investment. To put it concretely - my future expectation of increased climate-driven risk reduced the value of the asset to me. Your confidence is misplaced, and your condescension is irksome.
daveslash 7y ago
Yes, it will be slow. My family has a guest house on the beach. It's on short (5 ft) hill about 30 ft back from the ocean. The back sits on the hill and the front is help up by support beams. The yard is barely (1-2ft) above the average high tide mark. I was visiting during a storm and was in the guest house looking out of the window and it dawned on me that if (when) we get a bad-enough storm during a high-neap-tide, the support beams holding up the front room be washed ou. It would only be partial damage, and most people would probably consider it a "once in a 100 year storm", so I'm sure the damage would be repaired. With sea level rise, a 1:100 year storm will quickly become more like 1:50 or less, then 1:20, then 1:10, etc. At some point, we (or future owners) will give up rebuilding. If you only want a small get-away cottage on the water, then I'm sure sea level rise will be slow enough that you'll be fine. If you want a home on the water that you can pass onto your kids or grand-kids as a family investment, then I'd stay away.... or at least, consider the geology/topography/distance to the water.
Retric 7y ago
A difference of even 2 feet makes a difference across huge swaths of US beachfront property. A storm surges can get up to 34.8 feet at current sea levels. Moving that to 36.8 would both more frequently destroy structures within 35’ of sea level, and B put massive numbers of new buildings at risk.
- imglorp 7y ago
  Right, the rising average sea AND the rising weather/atmospheric energy combine to make formerly rare flooding events more common. Eg Wall Street flooded during Sandy.
- eloff 7y ago
  You just classified the difference in storm surge as 6%. That is too small to be a defining part of your final decision.
  - Retric 7y ago
    People want to build as close to the ocean as they can, they also want to build in a safety factors After all that 34.8’ is the highest level ever recorded. Is 30’ is good enough how about 25’? And when you go down that road it gets very non linear with 10’ being almost worthless and 40’ near total protection from storm surges. Thus it’s not a question of absolute levels, but rather safety factors and insurance premiums that are at issue. PS: Though this is simplified as it’s both storm surge and high waves that cause problems, but that’s another story.
    - eloff 7y ago
      If you're making any decision with only 6% tolerances on one side and vague things like storms and tides on the other, you're in trouble. I just don't see that as making the difference in a decision to buy or not buy. I don't even see it making the list of things to weigh.
      - Retric 7y ago
anigbrowl 7y ago
You're not right. You have neglected to consider the impact of tides, because the 1cm rise in average sea level is not evenly distributed.
- eloff 7y ago
  Which means it also has to be less in some places, and those places would be slightly more attractive. So use that projected tidal value if you want when weighing your decision. Factor in stronger storms if you want as well. Ocean front property is so expensive that if you do that and add the cost of raising your construction on stilts and/or raising the land to compensate, it barely makes a difference.
dang 7y ago
Please don't break the site guidelines by going on about downvotes: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. (Secondarily: language like "your aversion is more emotional than logical" is best avoided on HN too. I appreciate your intention to be respectful, but it's still a gratuitously personal comment. If you converted it to an actually respectful expression of the point, you wouldn't need to label it "respectfully".)
- eloff 7y ago
  It's a statement of fact, if my reasoning holds. I agree I could have made my point without making it personal though. It's offensive in the same manner as saying your religion is a lie (also a statement of fact, but not one that will win any friends.)

by eloff 7y ago

JofArnold 7y ago

That’s not how it works. That’s why you are getting downvoted. Firstly the rise is not the same everywhere - some places will have vastly higher sea levels. Secondly Venice didn’t suddenly get flooded by going from from 0cm too high to 1cm too high this year; the issue with climate change is not just the level but also the highs from more energetic, wetter storms etc.

eloff 7y ago
No, I'm still right. It is true some places will have more rise, but also some places will have lower rise. Also storms are not getting noticeably stronger either, that's just as slow. Really you can buy ocean front property, and the concerns are more to do with local tides and weather and topography than anything to do with climate change. Cost will still be the primary concern, beachfront property is not cheap. The local issues dwarf climate change to the point that it likely doesn't even feature in your final decision, if you're being logical and not emotional.
- seanccox 7y ago
  In my work with climate data, scientists in my cohort are instructing caution that many (linear) models are incorrect, and those are the figures you quote (1cm/year sea-level rise). However, not only have past sea-level rise projections been incorrectly low(1), but tropical storms/hurricanes have become measurably more frequent, more powerful, and slower(2), which also causes increased flooding. So, even if your beachfront property is not at increased risk from sea level rise, there is an increased risk of flooding and storm-surge exposure (in some places). When I was attempting to establish historical storm trends for the Florida Keys in the early 18th century (for an archaeological study), one colleague suggested I not use post-2004 data, because the warming of the oceans was skewing everything from mean wind directions to the number of hurricanes to the current patterns. The costs associated with beachfront property are also rising, due to the insurance industry's discomfort with the risks and the additional maintenance costs(3). Even the US's National Flood Insurance Program is increasing the charges of its subsidized coastal insurance products(4), because private industry deems many coastal properties uninsurable. So, I gotta ask: On what data are you basing your opinions? 1) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z 2) https://www.theguardian.com/weather/ng-interactive/2018/sep/11/atlantic-hurricanes-are-storms-getting-worse https://www.theguardian.com/weather/ng-interactive/2018/sep/... 3) https://www.allpropertymanagement.com/blog/post/what-climate-change-means-for-coastal-real-estate-values/ https://www.allpropertymanagement.com/blog/post/what-climate... 4) https://www.gulfshoreinsurance.com/summary-of-nfip-program-changes/ https://www.gulfshoreinsurance.com/summary-of-nfip-program-c...
  - eloff 7y ago
    I'm looking at the same data as you, and agree with your points. It's possible sea level could rise faster, but even at worst case protections climate change probably doesn't make the top ten factors when considering a specific property. If the property is so vulnerable to rising sea levels or storm surge, it is going to be vulnerable with and without climate change. Climate change itself doesn't seem to change the calculus much.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  Your confidence is misplaced. For example, improving the reliability of measurement indicates storms are in fact getting stronger. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/11/05/1912277116 https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/11/05/1912277116
  - eloff 7y ago
    That's in terms of damage, not strength. Huge difference, depending on what we build and where. Although I'm not denying storms are getting stronger, it's slowly, just like sea level rise. I wouldn't buy waterfront property in Florida, but mostly for the problems inherit with doing that today, not because of future climate change.
- arbitrary_name 7y ago
  In financial markets, expectations of future gain and loss impacts pricing today. In exactly the same manner expectations that the future value of real estate may be impacted by climate change should be reflected in the price today. Even if the house I buy today does not flood in 20 years (my lifetime), in 20 years I will have to sell to someone who will have an investment horizon of 40 years from today (my 20 years, plus their hypothetical 20 years). Since that person may demand a lower price from me in 20 years, I should factor that into the price I pay today, since it effects my returns. As a real example, I factored in expected flood insurance pricing rises on some riverfront property I purchased recently in Australia. The insurance price increases are driven by industry and government modelling to reflect tropical storm intensity and frequency and an increased risk that storm surges overlap high tides. Sea level rises contribute to the risk, but not in a meaningful level. The end result was that my total cost of ownership increased by single digit %. I reduced my bid price accordingly to meet my % return requirement from the investment. To put it concretely - my future expectation of increased climate-driven risk reduced the value of the asset to me. Your confidence is misplaced, and your condescension is irksome.

daveslash 7y ago

Yes, it will be slow. My family has a guest house on the beach. It's on short (5 ft) hill about 30 ft back from the ocean. The back sits on the hill and the front is help up by support beams. The yard is barely (1-2ft) above the average high tide mark. I was visiting during a storm and was in the guest house looking out of the window and it dawned on me that if (when) we get a bad-enough storm during a high-neap-tide, the support beams holding up the front room be washed ou. It would only be partial damage, and most people would probably consider it a "once in a 100 year storm", so I'm sure the damage would be repaired. With sea level rise, a 1:100 year storm will quickly become more like 1:50 or less, then 1:20, then 1:10, etc. At some point, we (or future owners) will give up rebuilding. If you only want a small get-away cottage on the water, then I'm sure sea level rise will be slow enough that you'll be fine. If you want a home on the water that you can pass onto your kids or grand-kids as a family investment, then I'd stay away.... or at least, consider the geology/topography/distance to the water.

Retric 7y ago

A difference of even 2 feet makes a difference across huge swaths of US beachfront property. A storm surges can get up to 34.8 feet at current sea levels. Moving that to 36.8 would both more frequently destroy structures within 35’ of sea level, and B put massive numbers of new buildings at risk.

imglorp 7y ago
Right, the rising average sea AND the rising weather/atmospheric energy combine to make formerly rare flooding events more common. Eg Wall Street flooded during Sandy.
eloff 7y ago
You just classified the difference in storm surge as 6%. That is too small to be a defining part of your final decision.
- Retric 7y ago
  People want to build as close to the ocean as they can, they also want to build in a safety factors After all that 34.8’ is the highest level ever recorded. Is 30’ is good enough how about 25’? And when you go down that road it gets very non linear with 10’ being almost worthless and 40’ near total protection from storm surges. Thus it’s not a question of absolute levels, but rather safety factors and insurance premiums that are at issue. PS: Though this is simplified as it’s both storm surge and high waves that cause problems, but that’s another story.
  - eloff 7y ago
    If you're making any decision with only 6% tolerances on one side and vague things like storms and tides on the other, you're in trouble. I just don't see that as making the difference in a decision to buy or not buy. I don't even see it making the list of things to weigh.
    - Retric 7y ago

anigbrowl 7y ago

You're not right. You have neglected to consider the impact of tides, because the 1cm rise in average sea level is not evenly distributed.

eloff 7y ago
Which means it also has to be less in some places, and those places would be slightly more attractive. So use that projected tidal value if you want when weighing your decision. Factor in stronger storms if you want as well. Ocean front property is so expensive that if you do that and add the cost of raising your construction on stilts and/or raising the land to compensate, it barely makes a difference.

dang 7y ago

Please don't break the site guidelines by going on about downvotes: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. (Secondarily: language like "your aversion is more emotional than logical" is best avoided on HN too. I appreciate your intention to be respectful, but it's still a gratuitously personal comment. If you converted it to an actually respectful expression of the point, you wouldn't need to label it "respectfully".)

eloff 7y ago
It's a statement of fact, if my reasoning holds. I agree I could have made my point without making it personal though. It's offensive in the same manner as saying your religion is a lie (also a statement of fact, but not one that will win any friends.)