Miami Will Be Underwater Soon. Its Drinking Water Could Go First(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Miami Will Be Underwater Soon. Its Drinking Water Could Go First
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-08-29/miami-s-other-water-problem
271 comments
Well one of the issues is that no one knows what the sea level rise will be in Miami in 100 years but we do know that the average rise won't necessarily be evenly distributed. Also that geology and geography are against the city in those respects (as they are against Venice, or New Orleans).
And the point of the article isn't strictly limited to global sea rise, but rather the multiple issues facing Miami's water supply due to its history of development, the fact that most of its freshwater comes from underground sources, and its geography. I didn't find the article to be either misleading or "fluff" though it isn't something that would be helpful to a geologist or someone who is already familiar with alot of this already.
Your point about the title is also misleading since, in nearly all news outfits, the editor picks the title not the author. To me, the main story the article is trying to tell isn't "the city is drowning", but rather that if you're considering investing in Muni-bonds for Miami (as a typical Bloomberg subscriber might), then you need to do more research compared to other cities as there are alot of issues under the surface. The same probably goes for real estate and other development (also typical subscribers to Bloomberg).
And the point of the article isn't strictly limited to global sea rise, but rather the multiple issues facing Miami's water supply due to its history of development, the fact that most of its freshwater comes from underground sources, and its geography. I didn't find the article to be either misleading or "fluff" though it isn't something that would be helpful to a geologist or someone who is already familiar with alot of this already.
Your point about the title is also misleading since, in nearly all news outfits, the editor picks the title not the author. To me, the main story the article is trying to tell isn't "the city is drowning", but rather that if you're considering investing in Muni-bonds for Miami (as a typical Bloomberg subscriber might), then you need to do more research compared to other cities as there are alot of issues under the surface. The same probably goes for real estate and other development (also typical subscribers to Bloomberg).
I think what you want is an encyclopedia article. Some (a lot) of us enjoy reading about people, places, and the narratives of their lives and struggles.
I couldn't agree more. It seems to be an increasing trend in the media lately that articles are driven by narrative and emotional appeals than actual facts. This creates the bizarre scenario where you can read a 3,691 word story on how Miami will soon be underwater and yet be unable to explain Why the article is proposing this might be the case.
So for instance the first thing I did after seeing this headline was to go cross-reference the data with the NOAA. They put Miami's expected sea level rise at 0 to 1 feet over the next century [1]. So what is the reason for the discrepancy? Which figure is more likely? Why? 3,691 words and the reader will be in no way whatsoever capable of even proposing a suggestion to this question.
[1] - https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
So for instance the first thing I did after seeing this headline was to go cross-reference the data with the NOAA. They put Miami's expected sea level rise at 0 to 1 feet over the next century [1]. So what is the reason for the discrepancy? Which figure is more likely? Why? 3,691 words and the reader will be in no way whatsoever capable of even proposing a suggestion to this question.
[1] - https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
> They put Miami's expected sea level rise at 0 to 1 feet over the next century
That's a false description of what NOAA says. The sea level trend is an instantaneous rate, not a projection of any sort.
That's a false description of what NOAA says. The sea level trend is an instantaneous rate, not a projection of any sort.
“The relative sea level trend is 2.39 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.43 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1931 to 1981 which is equivalent to a change of 0.78 feet in 100 years.”
The last time I did the math (it's been a while now), assuming that I did this correctly it showed that the current rate of sea level rise is something like half the average rate of the last ten to fifteen thousand years. So the current rate would basically have to double just to get us back to the long-term average. And it might very well do that someday, and do so perfectly naturally, too. (Nobody has ever said that the natural rise in sea level has stopped since the beginning of the last interglacial period.) But that wouldn't be good news for places like Miami.
That's right. It's an instantaneous rate. The instantaneous rate is constantly increasing. It's not a forecast. What's hard to understand about this?
Isn't Zillow ignoring the immense value created from all those new beachfront properties?
Lex Luthor would like a word with you.
This is actually a joke i have told my wife who has family in Florida: The only way i would buy property in Florida is if im allowed to build an artificial hill/mountain on it, so that in 100 years my family will own a private island.
I wonder if there is a long term business model here... Invest in land and prepare it to survive being surrounded by water, build infrastructure etc and then sell it to the same type of people who buy bunkers for end of the world situations.
I wonder if there is a long term business model here... Invest in land and prepare it to survive being surrounded by water, build infrastructure etc and then sell it to the same type of people who buy bunkers for end of the world situations.
You're behind the game. Seriously, there was a major supreme court ruling in 2013 that allowed floating homes to be legally classified as homes instead of marine vessels which affords a whole slew of critical protections and distinctions. In everything from protection against seizure to the coast guard not being able to walk into your home to inspect for life jackets.
Kind of makes you wonder why we haven't already been doing this on areas just off the current coast. Guess that old saying really is accurate -- necessity is the mother invention. Dutch Docklands is one of the companies building these new facilities. Their mock ups [1] look amazing.
[1] - http://www.dutchdocklands.com/Development/United-States
Kind of makes you wonder why we haven't already been doing this on areas just off the current coast. Guess that old saying really is accurate -- necessity is the mother invention. Dutch Docklands is one of the companies building these new facilities. Their mock ups [1] look amazing.
[1] - http://www.dutchdocklands.com/Development/United-States
That works better when the land isn't 100 miles wide with ocean on both sides. Miami City has a better ring than Miami Keys.
The article isn't saying Miami will be underwater soon. It's saying that Miami's water supply is at risk, partly due to rising sea levels, partly due to human activity damaging the aquifer (limestone mining, toxic waste).
Moreover, six feet of sea level rise isn't going to happen instantaneously. It will take decades. Property will slowly be lost, but people will just move inland (or move away). And a key question is, whose property goes underwater? If it's wealthy people on the beachfront, they can afford the loss. If it's poor people, that's something else. We saw that in New Orleans, where the worst Katrina flooding happened in the poorest neighborhoods.
This also excludes the idea of simply building seawalls to protect low-lying areas. I mean, that's half of Holland, so it works. Making major social decisions on a distaste for the concept of global warming is foolish, though. Governments should operate pessimistically when it comes to threats to the land and people they govern. It should be assuming it will happen, on the worst-case side, not denying the threat because we don't like to think about it. Think that way, you might as well disband the fire department too. It's expensive and your house probably won't burn down.
Moreover, six feet of sea level rise isn't going to happen instantaneously. It will take decades. Property will slowly be lost, but people will just move inland (or move away). And a key question is, whose property goes underwater? If it's wealthy people on the beachfront, they can afford the loss. If it's poor people, that's something else. We saw that in New Orleans, where the worst Katrina flooding happened in the poorest neighborhoods.
This also excludes the idea of simply building seawalls to protect low-lying areas. I mean, that's half of Holland, so it works. Making major social decisions on a distaste for the concept of global warming is foolish, though. Governments should operate pessimistically when it comes to threats to the land and people they govern. It should be assuming it will happen, on the worst-case side, not denying the threat because we don't like to think about it. Think that way, you might as well disband the fire department too. It's expensive and your house probably won't burn down.
Sea walls won’t work for Miami. The ground is too porous, so the water would just seep under.
Yeah, a better example would have been stilt houses, which are already scattered around the Florida coast due to the flooding from hurricanes
Yeah, I was thinking of that, but didn't want to extend the post.
Just like those guys in Casablanca will always have Paris, I tell people when I compare Miami and New Orleans that the latter will at least always have drinking water, even if it is reduced to the French Quarter and Algiers Point.
> The article isn't saying Miami will be underwater soon.
I beg to differ, it's the first sentence of the title of the article: “Miami Will Be Underwater Soon. […]”
Then there's, “Barring a stupendous reversal in greenhouse gas emissions, the rising Atlantic will cover much of Miami by the end of this century. The economic effects will be devastating: Zillow Inc. estimates that six feet of sea-level rise would put a quarter of Miami’s homes underwater, rendering $200 billion of real estate worthless.”
I don't know what you're arguing against the GP for. The question is, how are we to figure out how _concerned_ we should be? Clearly one day the good citizens of Miami are not going to be waking up to water lapping at their bedsheets. What timescale are we talking about? Who are Zillow? What options does the city of Miami have? Comparatively speaking is Miami an outlier or a typical case? I think journalists and news outlets do a major disservice to an important topic when they make alarmist headlines and skirt around the practical matters at the heart of articles such as this. The crux of the story, that Miami's freshwater is in peril before Miami's real estate is a valuable story to tell us.
But please spare us the melodramatic, “What nobody knows is when that will happen, or what happens next.”
You mean to say that the people in charge of managing these water systems are standing by dumbfounded and helpless? Maybe we should replace them by people who are able to problem solve in the face of adversity.
I beg to differ, it's the first sentence of the title of the article: “Miami Will Be Underwater Soon. […]”
Then there's, “Barring a stupendous reversal in greenhouse gas emissions, the rising Atlantic will cover much of Miami by the end of this century. The economic effects will be devastating: Zillow Inc. estimates that six feet of sea-level rise would put a quarter of Miami’s homes underwater, rendering $200 billion of real estate worthless.”
I don't know what you're arguing against the GP for. The question is, how are we to figure out how _concerned_ we should be? Clearly one day the good citizens of Miami are not going to be waking up to water lapping at their bedsheets. What timescale are we talking about? Who are Zillow? What options does the city of Miami have? Comparatively speaking is Miami an outlier or a typical case? I think journalists and news outlets do a major disservice to an important topic when they make alarmist headlines and skirt around the practical matters at the heart of articles such as this. The crux of the story, that Miami's freshwater is in peril before Miami's real estate is a valuable story to tell us.
But please spare us the melodramatic, “What nobody knows is when that will happen, or what happens next.”
You mean to say that the people in charge of managing these water systems are standing by dumbfounded and helpless? Maybe we should replace them by people who are able to problem solve in the face of adversity.
Miami lies on an outcropping of rock that is very close to sea level. On the inland side of that ridge is their aquifer. In a 6' scenario, most developed ground near Miami will literally be underwater, and the aquifer will be no longer be viable. Underwater isn't that melodramatic.
Considering that almost all projections have undershot global warming and sea level rise, and recent empirical observations have supported accelerating increases, we should be looking at worse that RCP8.5 scenarios which is already a full meter by 2080-2100.
Sea level rises by 2100 that are only 1"/.3m all rely on huge decreases in CO2 emission and global policy responses, which is unlikely based on existing evidence.
edit: https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70189089 (saline intrusion in Biscayne aquifer, access via referrer https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/07/06/global-warmin... and free access)
edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P... (nomenclature for future climate scenarios)
edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report (assessments and risks under future climate scenarios)
edit: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0146-0 (evidence that projections are below current observed rates and overly conservative, even in some worst cases)
Considering that almost all projections have undershot global warming and sea level rise, and recent empirical observations have supported accelerating increases, we should be looking at worse that RCP8.5 scenarios which is already a full meter by 2080-2100.
Sea level rises by 2100 that are only 1"/.3m all rely on huge decreases in CO2 emission and global policy responses, which is unlikely based on existing evidence.
edit: https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70189089 (saline intrusion in Biscayne aquifer, access via referrer https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/07/06/global-warmin... and free access)
edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P... (nomenclature for future climate scenarios)
edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report (assessments and risks under future climate scenarios)
edit: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0146-0 (evidence that projections are below current observed rates and overly conservative, even in some worst cases)
Yes, it would probably help if officials in Florida could say the words "climate change" or "global warming". https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article129837...
> Maybe we should replace them by people who are able to problem solve in the face of adversity.
One of our political parties has been paid to ensure that doesn't happen.
One of our political parties has been paid to ensure that doesn't happen.
And sadly, the one I prefer is in effective at anything but self-inflicted lower extremity gunshot wounds.
I never said the melodramatic "What nobody knows is when that will happen, or what happens next", so consider yourself spared.
As for whether they're helpless or not... that depends largely on whether the rising sea level infiltrates the aquifer to the point where it becomes brackish rather than fresh water. And even then, the problem can be dealt with, by turning to desalination (probably of straight seawater).
For "Who is Zillow?", they're the #1 real estate website. Property values are their business, and they have lots of data (and a corporate perspective, rather than a scientific one, for better or worse). What options does Miami have? Spend more money on protecting the aquifer from mining and contamination, and maybe invest in desalination. Is Miami an outlier? Kinda. Most coastal cities are also on river mouths, and thus have better fresh water resources. But overstretching the fresh water supply is often a problem, even if that fresh water isn't itself endangered - see Los Angeles, for example.
As for whether they're helpless or not... that depends largely on whether the rising sea level infiltrates the aquifer to the point where it becomes brackish rather than fresh water. And even then, the problem can be dealt with, by turning to desalination (probably of straight seawater).
For "Who is Zillow?", they're the #1 real estate website. Property values are their business, and they have lots of data (and a corporate perspective, rather than a scientific one, for better or worse). What options does Miami have? Spend more money on protecting the aquifer from mining and contamination, and maybe invest in desalination. Is Miami an outlier? Kinda. Most coastal cities are also on river mouths, and thus have better fresh water resources. But overstretching the fresh water supply is often a problem, even if that fresh water isn't itself endangered - see Los Angeles, for example.
At this point in time people who deny climate change is occurring are impervious to logic and reason. They are like people who deny evolution or the people who believe the Earth is around 10,000 years old. Nothing is going to convince them they are wrong.
It's too burdensome to ask that all articles about the detrimental effects of climate change present a proof of said claims. At some point in time it's pointless to engage in an endless reproving of claims that most sane people already believe in.
It's too burdensome to ask that all articles about the detrimental effects of climate change present a proof of said claims. At some point in time it's pointless to engage in an endless reproving of claims that most sane people already believe in.
Honestly, the fact that your comment is downvoted speaks volumes about the audience here. The people who deny climate change are no different than antivaxxers.
That is a more apt comparison. I was trying to think of one that didn't have the appearance of being anti-religious. Yes, they are like anti-vaxxers.
It is actually more than pointless to argue with these people, as many of them actively engage in conspiracy theories: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla...
I personally know someone with the belief that climate change is a political conspiracy. Any evidence to support climate change just points to a bigger "cover-up" and validates their beliefs. Almost always this is not an isolated belief but a pattern of thinking, and the person holds similar conspiracy theory beliefs about other issues. This is not a political left/right issue (the person I happen to know happens to be a left-wing conspiracy theorist). This is an issue of mild paranoid psychosis that is not being recognized and treated seriously because the symptoms are not very disturbing to others, and the people suffering from it happen to be relatively high-functioning. Eventually as these people age the symptoms get worse and they end up driving those close to them away.
I personally know someone with the belief that climate change is a political conspiracy. Any evidence to support climate change just points to a bigger "cover-up" and validates their beliefs. Almost always this is not an isolated belief but a pattern of thinking, and the person holds similar conspiracy theory beliefs about other issues. This is not a political left/right issue (the person I happen to know happens to be a left-wing conspiracy theorist). This is an issue of mild paranoid psychosis that is not being recognized and treated seriously because the symptoms are not very disturbing to others, and the people suffering from it happen to be relatively high-functioning. Eventually as these people age the symptoms get worse and they end up driving those close to them away.
Actually, those folks going around saying "we're all doomed, because climate change" are also suffering from a form of psychosis. More people should be recognizing this, too.
According to NASA [1], global sea levels have been rising at a fairly steady 3.2 millimeters per year since 1993.
According to NOAA [2], the "relative sea level trend" in Miami Beach is 2.39 mm/year.
At those rates, in 100 years, the sea will have risen about one foot, not six.
1: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
2: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/
According to NOAA [2], the "relative sea level trend" in Miami Beach is 2.39 mm/year.
At those rates, in 100 years, the sea will have risen about one foot, not six.
1: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
2: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/
Only if that rate remains steady, and it very well may not.
True. And some scientists believe that rate is accelerating, for example Steve Nerem et al:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180212150739.h...
That accelerating projection "has the potential to double the total sea level rise by 2100 as compared to projections that assume a constant rate -- to more than 60 cm instead of about 30".
Two feet instead of one. I still don't see where six feet is coming from.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180212150739.h...
That accelerating projection "has the potential to double the total sea level rise by 2100 as compared to projections that assume a constant rate -- to more than 60 cm instead of about 30".
Two feet instead of one. I still don't see where six feet is coming from.
I still don't see where six feet is coming from.
I read $SOMEWHERE recently that the the worst case scenario predicted six feet. But that's, IIRC, if we do absolutely nothing, the methane in the Arctic is all released, and Greenland melts. The more likely scenario is somewhere from 1-3 feet.
So unless memory fails me, the article didn't just pull it out of its arse, but a source would've been nice rather than just throw a number out there with no backing whatsoever.
I read $SOMEWHERE recently that the the worst case scenario predicted six feet. But that's, IIRC, if we do absolutely nothing, the methane in the Arctic is all released, and Greenland melts. The more likely scenario is somewhere from 1-3 feet.
So unless memory fails me, the article didn't just pull it out of its arse, but a source would've been nice rather than just throw a number out there with no backing whatsoever.
If Greenland melts, you get 6 meters (20 feet).[1]
1: https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html
1: https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html
Greenland is melting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...
I found it curious that this research only went back 450 years or so, since that takes you back to just before the Little Ice Age, a time of unusually cold temperatures, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. One wonders what they would have found had they kept going further back in time.
BTW, they already know that a lot of the melting in Greenland is from the bottom up (geothermal) rather than from the top down. But of course you don't hear too much about that, do you?
https://www.newsweek.com/puzzling-heat-deep-inside-earth-mel...
BTW, they already know that a lot of the melting in Greenland is from the bottom up (geothermal) rather than from the top down. But of course you don't hear too much about that, do you?
https://www.newsweek.com/puzzling-heat-deep-inside-earth-mel...
Check this out for real time data about the Greenland ice mass budget. (Spoiler: Greenland is not melting)
https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-shee...
https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-shee...
You are right, it's not losing mass through melting.
But it is losing mass when iceberg calving is accounted for.
"Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr."
Edit: And i thought this article on the scale of a gigaton of water was interesting as well:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...
But it is losing mass when iceberg calving is accounted for.
"Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr."
Edit: And i thought this article on the scale of a gigaton of water was interesting as well:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...
200 Gt = 0.007% of the ice mass of Greenland.
Or 0.5mm sea level increase (from your link).
Or 0.5mm sea level increase (from your link).
Here's a (the?) source for 3' that Bloomberg omitted
https://www.coast.noaa.gov/states/stories/data-models-sea-le...
Misreading the link - as many newspapers have done, and it's wrong absent further data - results in 6'
EDIT: As noted by Accipitriform I made the same mistake I pinned on many newspapers.
Misreading the link - as many newspapers have done, and it's wrong absent further data - results in 6'
EDIT: As noted by Accipitriform I made the same mistake I pinned on many newspapers.
Actually that link makes no prediction at all about how much sea levels will rise. It merely looks at the impact if the sea level were to rise by the given amounts.
I read $SOMEWHERE that most sea level rise is/will be due to thermal expansion of water, not melting ice.
[deleted]
The rate of increase is increasing.
http://www.southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/wp-content/upl...
http://www.southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/wp-content/upl...
[deleted]
NOAA has data on miami from 1939 to 1981, so it isn't exactly current. I have no idea why the timeline is so bad though.
[deleted]
That ignores storm surges, which can be massive.
I am not sure it is reasonable for every article about the effects of climate change to start with the evidence that climate change is real. If you come to this article from the angle of "climate change is a myth", a single article from Bloomberg was never going to be the turning point in your belief anyway.
I think it would be better for the writer to provide specific evidence for the specific pretext. You don't need to convince me that climate change is real, but climate change is a general term. I'd rather see some evidence backing up the sea level increase in Miami claim.
Which claim exactly are you taking issue with? If you're going to be pedantic, you need to also be specific, otherwise you're basically asking for some kind of blanket trigger warning about climate change.
The article itself did not focus on making predictions on global warming. The title, while a bit sensationalised, is not wholly inaccurate and was probably picked by the editor not the writer. The other two claims that I could find were about the potential damage of a six-foot sea level rise, which was probably accurate even if it didn't list out the likelihood of such a rise, and the article by the Union of Concerned Scientists which made a claim about the likelihood of increased flooding that seemed reasonable to me.
The article itself did not focus on making predictions on global warming. The title, while a bit sensationalised, is not wholly inaccurate and was probably picked by the editor not the writer. The other two claims that I could find were about the potential damage of a six-foot sea level rise, which was probably accurate even if it didn't list out the likelihood of such a rise, and the article by the Union of Concerned Scientists which made a claim about the likelihood of increased flooding that seemed reasonable to me.
Evidence that the sea level is rising? Or that the cause is anthropogenic climate change?
Probably not but I think GPs point is that if the rhetoric of the article was different and better data included then stuff like this would be harder to tear up and dismiss. This happens on both sides on all issues.
I think most of the people making this criticism are misunderstanding both the intended audience for the article and the point the writer was trying to make. The article was focused on problems Miami will likely be facing in the next 40 years due to rising sea levels and their pattern of development over the past 50 years.
It is not trying to make the case for/against global warming to a non-scientific audience. It is trying to make the case against bullish development in S. Florida to investors who subscribe to Bloomberg. The point is basically, "Even if these guys don't end up under the ocean in 50 years, they're still going to have to pay more in taxes and water rates just to keep the city afloat"
It is not trying to make the case for/against global warming to a non-scientific audience. It is trying to make the case against bullish development in S. Florida to investors who subscribe to Bloomberg. The point is basically, "Even if these guys don't end up under the ocean in 50 years, they're still going to have to pay more in taxes and water rates just to keep the city afloat"
llandho(1)
> If you come at this from the angle of "climate change is a myth"
Is it really a fair critique to insist that articles must be written to make sense to people who believe the moon is made of green cheese? And that every couple hundred words written for the general public must be fully-cited?
Is it really a fair critique to insist that articles must be written to make sense to people who believe the moon is made of green cheese? And that every couple hundred words written for the general public must be fully-cited?
Very many HN discussions begin with a comment criticizing the article, almost always with some easy Internet-style cynicism, hyperbole, anger, etc. It diminishes the quality of HN for me; it contributes little or nothing to my understanding.
Blame everyone who upvoted this clickbait low-quality article to... over 200 points. Jesus
> Barring a stupendous reversal in greenhouse gas emissions, the rising Atlantic will cover much of Miami by the end of this century.
Note that your home does not need to be permanently underwater to have it destroyed by a storm. Not even a hurricane-type thing; there are parts of Miami that require permanent water pumps today to stay dry. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/...
Note that your home does not need to be permanently underwater to have it destroyed by a storm. Not even a hurricane-type thing; there are parts of Miami that require permanent water pumps today to stay dry. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/...
The flooding referenced is the kind of thing that happens when you build infrastructure that is below sea level to begin with. (!?!) And then put in a drainage pipe system that allows water to flow out quickly during low tides, but lacks the check valves needed to prevent that water from flowing back in just as quickly during high tides. (!?!)
At the 4th Climate Assessment of the State of California (this week in Sacramento) the officially accepted number is now 9'ish feet mean sea level rise by 2100. ( still reading summary as linked below) correction: 95th percentile of summary prediction is shown as 20 inches by 2050 (page 9 link below) (more specific report on this topic http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/rising-seas-in-...)
To be more specific, 9 feet (2.7m) is the report's worst-case upper bound, the 99.9th-percentile results of running a new simulation model, RCP 8.5, not a prediction of what's likely to happen. That model has a huge range: Its 50th-percentile (median) estimate is only 1 foot (0.3m) of rise, and its 95th-percentile estimate is 7.5 feet (2.3m). There's discussion of that on pp. 31-32 of the summary report here (PDF): http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/docs/20180827-Stat...
The chart on p. 32 is a bit tricky to read, because this particular model is estimating maximum sea levels, not mean sea levels. Maximum sea level here is measured relative to a fixed reference of year 2000 mean sea level, and the 20th-century typical max was 1.5m above mean year 2000 sea level. The 99.9th-percentile line at 4.2m is therefore showing a 2.7m rise in the max sea level above pre-2000 norms. The colored blue and red ranges below the 99.9 lines represent the 50th-95th percentile estimates of the two different models. (In this case, at La Jolla specifically.)
The chart on p. 32 is a bit tricky to read, because this particular model is estimating maximum sea levels, not mean sea levels. Maximum sea level here is measured relative to a fixed reference of year 2000 mean sea level, and the 20th-century typical max was 1.5m above mean year 2000 sea level. The 99.9th-percentile line at 4.2m is therefore showing a 2.7m rise in the max sea level above pre-2000 norms. The colored blue and red ranges below the 99.9 lines represent the 50th-95th percentile estimates of the two different models. (In this case, at La Jolla specifically.)
hm I would reword that response .. still reading the two reports now
> Would a giant sea wall work?
No. Miami (and pretty much all of South Florida) sits on top of a sand bar on top of porous limestone rock. The ocean will just come up through the limestone rock and through the sand no matter how tall your sea wall is.
No. Miami (and pretty much all of South Florida) sits on top of a sand bar on top of porous limestone rock. The ocean will just come up through the limestone rock and through the sand no matter how tall your sea wall is.
Is that also true if the wall is say 5 km wide? (as some plans for the Netherlands propose).
Of course. The sea doesn't care how wide or tall the wall is. It will just go under it no problem. If the wall were put deep into the ground until it hit bedrock (a quick google search indicates the wall would have to go down at least 20,000 feet), then the water could not get through. But I imagine at that point it would be cheaper to move the entire city.
The Netherlands has a completely different geology, so plans for one place can't be compared with plans for the other.
The Netherlands has a completely different geology, so plans for one place can't be compared with plans for the other.
Yes. I think the issue is that mainstream "journalism" is actually entertainment in all respects other than the fact that it carries a fairly widespread credibility among its audience as not being entertainment but rather a factual, verifiable source of information - one that is beyond the audience's ability to understand. Sort of like the unquestioning acceptance that many give to doctors or lawyers because (it is assumed) neither medicine or law can be understood without them.
What I mean is, if you watch a movie, you suspend disbelief and willingly assume the context they give you to be real for the sake of the movie without questioning it. You do that because you want to be entertained. And if you took everything literally and demanded that the context be aligned with reality, it wouldn't be any fun. As such, few people walk out of something like a Mission Impossible movie believing that any of it was actually possible.
I had a discussion in online chat with co-workers in the last week or so regarding the wild fires currently burning in the US west. One lamented how sad the effects of climate change like these are. Out of curiosity, I looked at historical stats for wildland fires. Without getting in to a lot of detail, the source I found was very reliable and did not show any upward (or downward) trend in either count of fires or total acreage on an annual basis since the 1960s. I pointed this out - not as proof that climate change did not affect fires - but as a simple data point that didn't seem to match his assertion. The person was surprised and admitted that he didn't have any actual reason to believe that the occurrence or size of fires was more or less - he just assumed they were more and that the cause was climate change.
So to be clear, I'm not saying that climate change doesn't exist. Nor am I saying that wildland fires are not somehow affected by climate change. Only that people tend to take narratives that are created and repeated by journalists as facts, without questioning them, much as they would a movie.
What I mean is, if you watch a movie, you suspend disbelief and willingly assume the context they give you to be real for the sake of the movie without questioning it. You do that because you want to be entertained. And if you took everything literally and demanded that the context be aligned with reality, it wouldn't be any fun. As such, few people walk out of something like a Mission Impossible movie believing that any of it was actually possible.
I had a discussion in online chat with co-workers in the last week or so regarding the wild fires currently burning in the US west. One lamented how sad the effects of climate change like these are. Out of curiosity, I looked at historical stats for wildland fires. Without getting in to a lot of detail, the source I found was very reliable and did not show any upward (or downward) trend in either count of fires or total acreage on an annual basis since the 1960s. I pointed this out - not as proof that climate change did not affect fires - but as a simple data point that didn't seem to match his assertion. The person was surprised and admitted that he didn't have any actual reason to believe that the occurrence or size of fires was more or less - he just assumed they were more and that the cause was climate change.
So to be clear, I'm not saying that climate change doesn't exist. Nor am I saying that wildland fires are not somehow affected by climate change. Only that people tend to take narratives that are created and repeated by journalists as facts, without questioning them, much as they would a movie.
The National Interagency Fire Center stats for fire suppression costs paint a completely different picture [1]. While the total number of fires has decreased by about 10-20% since 1985, the size of the fires in acres and the amount of money spent has skyrocketed. The annual average from 1985 to 1989 is ~2.9 million acres while from 2013-2017 the average was over twice that at ~6.7 million acres. Furthermore, inflation adjusted expenditures have increased over five fold, meaning that we're spending significantly more resources on fighting fires and yet, the number of acres on fire continues growing.
This data suggests that our houses are built with better standards, fewer people are smoking, and our appliances are safer so there are fewer fires but it's pretty clear that our problems have grown much worse overall.
[1] https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_documents/SuppCosts.p...
This data suggests that our houses are built with better standards, fewer people are smoking, and our appliances are safer so there are fewer fires but it's pretty clear that our problems have grown much worse overall.
[1] https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_documents/SuppCosts.p...
The increasing cost of a service has nothing to do with climate change. The cost of everything has gone up since 1985.
According to Google, after adjusting for inflation, the average price of a new car in 1985 was $21-28k in today's dollars, and the average new car costs $30-40k today. The price of a Big mac: $1.17 in 1985, $3.50 today. Gasoline: $1.50-2/gal, today: $3-4/gal.
We now spend over 5 times as much on fire suppression at the federal level than we did 30 years ago after adjusting for inflation. This growth outpaces cost of living, healthcare, and inflation significantly.
We now spend over 5 times as much on fire suppression at the federal level than we did 30 years ago after adjusting for inflation. This growth outpaces cost of living, healthcare, and inflation significantly.
The estimates that I've read say that up to 90% of modern wildfires are started by man, rather than being started by natural causes such as lightning. Subtract out much of that 90% from the current numbers and what do you get?
Entirely agree that many of our opinions are often not based on much in the way of facts.
But to try to do do better: what's your source on fires?
But to try to do do better: what's your source on fires?
People also sometimes cherry-pick or carve up data so that they can find a "surprising" result, to use one of ~pg's favorite adjectives.
Your coworker had the impression that wildfires are becoming larger and more damaging, and that climate change is a principal cause of this, due to widespread coverage to that effect (examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]). (Which I suppose was your point.)
And many of those journalists are repeating each other, but eventually you find that a lot of those statements originate from the National Interagency Fire Center [7]. There, the raw numbers pretty clearly show an upward overall trend from, oh, about 1953 or so. Before 1953, the numbers look a lot different, and if someone were to just casually plug all those values into a graph, they could make the point that wildfires aren't getting worse after all. That person would be completely ignoring the massive increase in wildfire suppression efforts over that same period, of course, but they wouldn't want that to get in the way of their surprising finding.
Further investigation into the subject would start to reveal all kinds of neat subtleties that would be missed from a quick glance at numbers, both from non-climate-related factors like increased habitation in the wildland-urban interface areas [8], as well as climate-related factors like the massive number of dead trees in western forests as a result of increased bark beetle activity [9] [10].
And then someone might begin to be in a position to have a more interesting discussion on the subject. :-)
[1]: https://www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2018-08-01/wi...
[2]: http://www.climatecentral.org/western-wildfire-trends
[3]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/08/14/wildfires...
[4]: https://www.npr.org/2018/07/31/634369281/wildfires-could-be-...
[5]: https://www.vox.com/2018/8/7/17661096/california-wildfires-2...
[6]: https://theconversation.com/wildfires-in-west-have-gotten-bi...
[7]: https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html
[8]: https://www.wildfirex.com/2013/07/25/population-climbs-in-wi...
[9]: https://www.fs.fed.us/research/invasive-species/insects/bark...
[10]: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-sierra-dead-tr...
Your coworker had the impression that wildfires are becoming larger and more damaging, and that climate change is a principal cause of this, due to widespread coverage to that effect (examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]). (Which I suppose was your point.)
And many of those journalists are repeating each other, but eventually you find that a lot of those statements originate from the National Interagency Fire Center [7]. There, the raw numbers pretty clearly show an upward overall trend from, oh, about 1953 or so. Before 1953, the numbers look a lot different, and if someone were to just casually plug all those values into a graph, they could make the point that wildfires aren't getting worse after all. That person would be completely ignoring the massive increase in wildfire suppression efforts over that same period, of course, but they wouldn't want that to get in the way of their surprising finding.
Further investigation into the subject would start to reveal all kinds of neat subtleties that would be missed from a quick glance at numbers, both from non-climate-related factors like increased habitation in the wildland-urban interface areas [8], as well as climate-related factors like the massive number of dead trees in western forests as a result of increased bark beetle activity [9] [10].
And then someone might begin to be in a position to have a more interesting discussion on the subject. :-)
[1]: https://www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2018-08-01/wi...
[2]: http://www.climatecentral.org/western-wildfire-trends
[3]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/08/14/wildfires...
[4]: https://www.npr.org/2018/07/31/634369281/wildfires-could-be-...
[5]: https://www.vox.com/2018/8/7/17661096/california-wildfires-2...
[6]: https://theconversation.com/wildfires-in-west-have-gotten-bi...
[7]: https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html
[8]: https://www.wildfirex.com/2013/07/25/population-climbs-in-wi...
[9]: https://www.fs.fed.us/research/invasive-species/insects/bark...
[10]: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-sierra-dead-tr...
I also used the NIFC data. I mis-spoke on a couple of points.
First, I only used data from 1983 and later (not the 1960s as I said, and certainly not prior to the 1950s as you assert that some people do) because their footnote said that the sources for data prior to 1983 are not known or can't be confirmed.
Second, I graphed the data since 1983 and there was somewhat of a trend upwards (not no trend like I said). But it didn't look significant to me. Especially not in climate terms. And especially given that realiable data only covers 35 years. And especially given that the numbers swing wildly with how we manage fires. That is, a trend in either direction could easily be created by increasing or decreasing budgets to keep them from starting and/or fighting them, like the swings you reference prior to the 1950s.
But in any case, as I said, I not saying that wildland fires are not somehow affected by climate change. Only that people tend to accept narratives that are repeated over and over without critically questioning them.
First, I only used data from 1983 and later (not the 1960s as I said, and certainly not prior to the 1950s as you assert that some people do) because their footnote said that the sources for data prior to 1983 are not known or can't be confirmed.
Second, I graphed the data since 1983 and there was somewhat of a trend upwards (not no trend like I said). But it didn't look significant to me. Especially not in climate terms. And especially given that realiable data only covers 35 years. And especially given that the numbers swing wildly with how we manage fires. That is, a trend in either direction could easily be created by increasing or decreasing budgets to keep them from starting and/or fighting them, like the swings you reference prior to the 1950s.
But in any case, as I said, I not saying that wildland fires are not somehow affected by climate change. Only that people tend to accept narratives that are repeated over and over without critically questioning them.
> Only that people tend to accept narratives that are repeated over and over without critically questioning them.
Sure, but the challenge is that critically questioning a common narrative takes significantly more effort than a quick review of a single dataset, especially when that narrative is coming from a fairly large body of professional researchers in multiple fields.
This is a big problem right now in the politics surrounding several different fields. A lot of interested laymen now have the tools to do some quick analysis on datasets, and then they draw conclusions from that that are contrary to the accepted science in that field. It's especially common in climate science because it's always been such a politically charged topic.
People accepting common narratives is essentially "epistemic learned helplessness" (http://web.archive.org/web/20130111103623/http://squid314.li..., one of my favorite essays), and that's a good thing. It's an immune response to bad ideas like being opposed to vaccination.
There is certainly room for asking questions about accepted ideas. Any time something doesn't make sense in some subject, absolutely go searching for an answer. You may even get to be one of the fortunate and talented few who find a significant question or even a flaw in some field. But, there's a fine line between asking questions, and drawing conclusions from a brief review and then indicting other people for not "critically" examining the subject.
Sure, but the challenge is that critically questioning a common narrative takes significantly more effort than a quick review of a single dataset, especially when that narrative is coming from a fairly large body of professional researchers in multiple fields.
This is a big problem right now in the politics surrounding several different fields. A lot of interested laymen now have the tools to do some quick analysis on datasets, and then they draw conclusions from that that are contrary to the accepted science in that field. It's especially common in climate science because it's always been such a politically charged topic.
People accepting common narratives is essentially "epistemic learned helplessness" (http://web.archive.org/web/20130111103623/http://squid314.li..., one of my favorite essays), and that's a good thing. It's an immune response to bad ideas like being opposed to vaccination.
There is certainly room for asking questions about accepted ideas. Any time something doesn't make sense in some subject, absolutely go searching for an answer. You may even get to be one of the fortunate and talented few who find a significant question or even a flaw in some field. But, there's a fine line between asking questions, and drawing conclusions from a brief review and then indicting other people for not "critically" examining the subject.
I didn’t draw a conclusion. This is now the third time that I’ve pointed that out. It seems like you badly need me to do that to make your point somehow. Is this causing you to not see it when I write it?
Secondly I’m not sure I’m “indicting” anyone. Only observing that there was absolutely zero knowledge about facts behind the situation and no ability to respond to my two minute gathering of facts. This isn’t an indication of a lack of critical thinking. It’s an indication of a lack of thinking of any kind whatsoever.
Secondly I’m not sure I’m “indicting” anyone. Only observing that there was absolutely zero knowledge about facts behind the situation and no ability to respond to my two minute gathering of facts. This isn’t an indication of a lack of critical thinking. It’s an indication of a lack of thinking of any kind whatsoever.
From your first comment:
> Without getting in to a lot of detail, the source I found was very reliable and did not show any upward (or downward) trend in either count of fires or total acreage on an annual basis since the 1960s. I pointed this out - not as proof that climate change did not affect fires - but as a simple data point that didn't seem to match his assertion.
That is called a "conclusion", no matter how many weasel-words you salt it with or how many times you say, "no, really, I wasn't drawing a conclusion". You've since walked it back to, "oh, I meant there wasn't a significant trend", and I shrugged and accepted that and replied solely to your criticism of other people.
Which was:
> Only that people tend to accept narratives that are repeated over and over without critically questioning them.
And now, you're choosing to expand from "people aren't critically questioning things" to, "oh, actually, I meant that they aren't thinking at all". Before you do that, you might want to think a little bit more about epistemic learned helplessness.
> Only observing that there was absolutely zero knowledge about facts behind the situation and no ability to respond to my two minute gathering of facts.
Nice, you're doubling down. Well, your "two minute gathering of facts", first, was erroneous, and second, your "observation" was either obvious, or wrong, pick your flavor. Obviously, people accept any manner of statements without personally verifying them. Nobody has the resources to become an expert on every bit of news coming from legions of researchers or journalists, and further, if they spend just two minutes attempting to verify a single factoid in something, they may well get it wrong, as you did.
Instead, people rely on other people to develop the specialized knowledge required to gather and synthesize the facts of a subject, and then other people still to report on that. It's imperfect, and sometimes (often) somebody somewhere in that chain gets something wrong, but it's still a better approach than armchairing everything you read, which has a far greater chance of leading you to the wrong ... well, "question", I guess, instead of "conclusion".
By the way, re-framing conclusions as questions is such a well-known tactic that it has a name: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
> Without getting in to a lot of detail, the source I found was very reliable and did not show any upward (or downward) trend in either count of fires or total acreage on an annual basis since the 1960s. I pointed this out - not as proof that climate change did not affect fires - but as a simple data point that didn't seem to match his assertion.
That is called a "conclusion", no matter how many weasel-words you salt it with or how many times you say, "no, really, I wasn't drawing a conclusion". You've since walked it back to, "oh, I meant there wasn't a significant trend", and I shrugged and accepted that and replied solely to your criticism of other people.
Which was:
> Only that people tend to accept narratives that are repeated over and over without critically questioning them.
And now, you're choosing to expand from "people aren't critically questioning things" to, "oh, actually, I meant that they aren't thinking at all". Before you do that, you might want to think a little bit more about epistemic learned helplessness.
> Only observing that there was absolutely zero knowledge about facts behind the situation and no ability to respond to my two minute gathering of facts.
Nice, you're doubling down. Well, your "two minute gathering of facts", first, was erroneous, and second, your "observation" was either obvious, or wrong, pick your flavor. Obviously, people accept any manner of statements without personally verifying them. Nobody has the resources to become an expert on every bit of news coming from legions of researchers or journalists, and further, if they spend just two minutes attempting to verify a single factoid in something, they may well get it wrong, as you did.
Instead, people rely on other people to develop the specialized knowledge required to gather and synthesize the facts of a subject, and then other people still to report on that. It's imperfect, and sometimes (often) somebody somewhere in that chain gets something wrong, but it's still a better approach than armchairing everything you read, which has a far greater chance of leading you to the wrong ... well, "question", I guess, instead of "conclusion".
By the way, re-framing conclusions as questions is such a well-known tactic that it has a name: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
He said, "Too bad climate change is causing more fires"
I said, "I just looked at this data and don't see a big trend. Even if there was a trend, how do you know it's climate change?"
He said, "I have no idea, I just assumed that from what I heard"
I didn't have a conclusion then, and I don't have one now. If you take out two 3-year clusters in the last decade there is no trend at all. And 35 years of reliable data seems a little light to me. One would think we'd need several centuries to get real confidence.
But what I really question, are variables that would affect the numbers and size of fires such as how many were created by people, and the amount of effort put towards fighting them. The data we're looking at is not an observation of just nature. But it seems to be treated as if it is.
I didn't have a conclusion then, and I don't have one now. If you take out two 3-year clusters in the last decade there is no trend at all. And 35 years of reliable data seems a little light to me. One would think we'd need several centuries to get real confidence.
But what I really question, are variables that would affect the numbers and size of fires such as how many were created by people, and the amount of effort put towards fighting them. The data we're looking at is not an observation of just nature. But it seems to be treated as if it is.
> If you take out two 3-year clusters in the last decade there is no trend at all.
I would love to address each of your statements point by point, but it's been an interminably long week and I don't have the time. But this one I can knock out pretty fast.
I pulled the 1983 - 2017 series data from NIFC and created four different data sets from it, and charted each one. Each chart shows the values in red, the simple linear regression from 1983 to 2017 as a single red line, and a 5-year-running average in blue.
First, the raw data: https://ibb.co/iNQi8U ... there's a negligible change to the running average from 1983 to 1997, but from 1997 to 2009 there is a visually obvious increasing trend. The linear regression shows a 400% increase in acreage burned per year from 1983 to 2017.
Now, there are three different ways someone might "take out" 6 of the last 10 years. I think it's completely absurd to make any kind of argument by just deleting 60% of the data you don't like until the result looks the way you want it to look, but I'll play along. For each of the following charts, I just edited the same 6-highest years from 2007 to 2017.
One way to do this is to simply delete the years from the dataset. You pretend they didn't happen, and see what the overall data looks like then. And here it is: https://ibb.co/gRuzhp ... so here we see that there's still a clear upward trend, even with those years removed. The trend has been reduced to a mere 300% increase from 1983 to 2017, but there it is. You can see the obvious change in the data in the sharp decrease in the 5-year running average line.
A slightly more correct way to handle this is to decide that there's something wrong with the data for those years, and replace those years with approximate average values for the time period. This is occasionally done in climate science by people much smarter than me in cases where it's discovered that, say, a weather station sensor malfunctioned for a period of time. This chart looks like this: https://ibb.co/fvr1v9 ... it's fairly identical to the previous one.
Now, the other way we can do it, the most dishonest way we can do it, is to replace the values for each of those years with "0". As in, for that entire year, we subtract all wildfire activity, and pretend that the year went by with nary a spark. What does it look like then? https://ibb.co/hEWehp Ah! Now we finally get the flat trend we wanted. You can see the really obvious negative forcing on the 5-year running average when those years are left in the dataset but with "0" values.
There are answers to your other questions. The neat thing about news articles on this subject is that most of them can be traced back to some study, expert statement, or research paper. So if you're really interested in getting your questions answered, it shouldn't take more than a few hours' effort.
For example, one of my earlier links, https://theconversation.com/wildfires-in-west-have-gotten-bi..., included a nice graph of federal funds spent on fire suppression. At the bottom of that graph is a link to the NIFC data it was sourced from. So, there's a reasonable answer for "the amount of effort put towards fighting them".
And then you could look at that graph, and then look back at the increase-in-acreage graphs, and imagine what they would look like if federal spending on wildfire suppression were mostly flat, maybe just tracking with inflation.
I would love to address each of your statements point by point, but it's been an interminably long week and I don't have the time. But this one I can knock out pretty fast.
I pulled the 1983 - 2017 series data from NIFC and created four different data sets from it, and charted each one. Each chart shows the values in red, the simple linear regression from 1983 to 2017 as a single red line, and a 5-year-running average in blue.
First, the raw data: https://ibb.co/iNQi8U ... there's a negligible change to the running average from 1983 to 1997, but from 1997 to 2009 there is a visually obvious increasing trend. The linear regression shows a 400% increase in acreage burned per year from 1983 to 2017.
Now, there are three different ways someone might "take out" 6 of the last 10 years. I think it's completely absurd to make any kind of argument by just deleting 60% of the data you don't like until the result looks the way you want it to look, but I'll play along. For each of the following charts, I just edited the same 6-highest years from 2007 to 2017.
One way to do this is to simply delete the years from the dataset. You pretend they didn't happen, and see what the overall data looks like then. And here it is: https://ibb.co/gRuzhp ... so here we see that there's still a clear upward trend, even with those years removed. The trend has been reduced to a mere 300% increase from 1983 to 2017, but there it is. You can see the obvious change in the data in the sharp decrease in the 5-year running average line.
A slightly more correct way to handle this is to decide that there's something wrong with the data for those years, and replace those years with approximate average values for the time period. This is occasionally done in climate science by people much smarter than me in cases where it's discovered that, say, a weather station sensor malfunctioned for a period of time. This chart looks like this: https://ibb.co/fvr1v9 ... it's fairly identical to the previous one.
Now, the other way we can do it, the most dishonest way we can do it, is to replace the values for each of those years with "0". As in, for that entire year, we subtract all wildfire activity, and pretend that the year went by with nary a spark. What does it look like then? https://ibb.co/hEWehp Ah! Now we finally get the flat trend we wanted. You can see the really obvious negative forcing on the 5-year running average when those years are left in the dataset but with "0" values.
There are answers to your other questions. The neat thing about news articles on this subject is that most of them can be traced back to some study, expert statement, or research paper. So if you're really interested in getting your questions answered, it shouldn't take more than a few hours' effort.
For example, one of my earlier links, https://theconversation.com/wildfires-in-west-have-gotten-bi..., included a nice graph of federal funds spent on fire suppression. At the bottom of that graph is a link to the NIFC data it was sourced from. So, there's a reasonable answer for "the amount of effort put towards fighting them".
And then you could look at that graph, and then look back at the increase-in-acreage graphs, and imagine what they would look like if federal spending on wildfire suppression were mostly flat, maybe just tracking with inflation.
llandho(1)
Whenever I read articles like this these days, I just sort of automatically mentally strikethrough any mentions of climate change so that I can, you know, concentrate more on the real problems.
There are technical solutions to all of this. I come from a country that has been fighting back the sea for centuries (Netherlands) and that has been exporting it's knowledge to do so for a long time as well. The basic consensus is that we'll need bigger dikes and a few other things over the next decades. Plenty of time to build that. Not a problem. At least not in places that can afford to invest in solutions.
Basically build some dikes, desalination plants, pumping stations, etc. and start planning which areas to protect and which areas to abandon. Problem solved.
All of this requires money of course. Luckily, Miami is still a pretty rich city in a relatively rich state; it can handle this.
If the worst happens, it will be because of ignorance and mismanagement and not because of a lack of solutions or means. It may take a few minor incidents before people figure this out but the smart thing would be to not wait for that.
Basically build some dikes, desalination plants, pumping stations, etc. and start planning which areas to protect and which areas to abandon. Problem solved.
All of this requires money of course. Luckily, Miami is still a pretty rich city in a relatively rich state; it can handle this.
If the worst happens, it will be because of ignorance and mismanagement and not because of a lack of solutions or means. It may take a few minor incidents before people figure this out but the smart thing would be to not wait for that.
Dikes don't work in Miami because the ground is too porous.
Not only that, the article is about the fresh water supply and to protect that would need a dike around most of south Florida (and all the interior rivers if that were possible given the limestone) and part of the Everglades.
Or build desalination plants and stop draining the natural reserves of fresh water. Probably a lot cheaper. The point of the dikes would be to prevent flooding; not protecting fresh water supplies.
What is the bedrock of the Netherlands, geologically speaking? Pumps, dikes, and the like won't help that much in Miami because the porous limestone underlying the city allows water under and around these traditional methods.
Non existing. Basically every building in Holland is build on 'stilts'. 40-100 feet long beams of wood or concrete that reach through the 'bog' surface until it reaches a stable layer of sand.
See https://youtu.be/5GEGWP95HFw?t=2m0s for an example of how those stilts are placed. Note that until 2:30 it's basically just using a big weight. From about 2:40 the machine starts to get serious.
Beyond dikes we've had mills keeping ground water levels steady since at least the 10th century.
See https://youtu.be/5GEGWP95HFw?t=2m0s for an example of how those stilts are placed. Note that until 2:30 it's basically just using a big weight. From about 2:40 the machine starts to get serious.
Beyond dikes we've had mills keeping ground water levels steady since at least the 10th century.
I've had a class in hydrology. The article did a good job covering the actual threats to the water supply. It ended on a note of "But the impact of people's choices is the bigger threat to Miami's survival." I think that's true. However, I feel it did a poor job of really spelling that out.
Despite pockets of extreme wealth—one study estimated that the Miami metro area has the nation’s eighth-highest number of millionaires—the county overall is poor. Its median household income of $44,224 is almost one-quarter lower than that of the country as a whole.
It's not uncommon for ocean front property to be very desirable and very expensive. I'm guessing that a lot of those millionaires live near the beach or on the beach and their homes may be some of the ones most at risk of ending up under water as sea levels rise.
Rich people are typically the most able to up and move elsewhere. If the rich people in waterfront property homes start leaving, you are left with a bunch of relatively poor people and hard-to-solve, expensive problems.
This means you don't need sea levels to rise six feet to significantly alter the city of Miami in ways that can spell Miami's doom in some sense. Like Galveston, which was an important and rich city at one time and then was devastated by a single hurricane, Miami could become a shadow of its former self with no hope of recovery.
You only need it to rise however much would serve as some kind of tipping point where rich folks would stop feeling it was a desirable place to be. Maybe that's when their yard is inundated. Or maybe it will be determined by some other metric entirely.
The reality is there may be no one who is capable of predicting where that tipping point is. Once it's reached, there may be no reversing the problem. Miami may be left with a poor population, a raft load of expensive problems and no means to readily solve any of them as their poor population slides deeper into debt to keep surviving.
Edit/footnote: It's a lousy title. Even the article itself is not actually predicting that the entire city will ever be completely under water like the title suggests.
Despite pockets of extreme wealth—one study estimated that the Miami metro area has the nation’s eighth-highest number of millionaires—the county overall is poor. Its median household income of $44,224 is almost one-quarter lower than that of the country as a whole.
It's not uncommon for ocean front property to be very desirable and very expensive. I'm guessing that a lot of those millionaires live near the beach or on the beach and their homes may be some of the ones most at risk of ending up under water as sea levels rise.
Rich people are typically the most able to up and move elsewhere. If the rich people in waterfront property homes start leaving, you are left with a bunch of relatively poor people and hard-to-solve, expensive problems.
This means you don't need sea levels to rise six feet to significantly alter the city of Miami in ways that can spell Miami's doom in some sense. Like Galveston, which was an important and rich city at one time and then was devastated by a single hurricane, Miami could become a shadow of its former self with no hope of recovery.
You only need it to rise however much would serve as some kind of tipping point where rich folks would stop feeling it was a desirable place to be. Maybe that's when their yard is inundated. Or maybe it will be determined by some other metric entirely.
The reality is there may be no one who is capable of predicting where that tipping point is. Once it's reached, there may be no reversing the problem. Miami may be left with a poor population, a raft load of expensive problems and no means to readily solve any of them as their poor population slides deeper into debt to keep surviving.
Edit/footnote: It's a lousy title. Even the article itself is not actually predicting that the entire city will ever be completely under water like the title suggests.
This is one of the best articles I've seen on climate change. We are now looking to a 3 degree rise in surface temps by the middle of this century - well within our lifetimes. Miami is headed underwater. I wouldn't be buying real estate in any low-lying area if I can avoid it.
"Three-degree warming is a prescription for short-term disaster: forests in the Arctic and the loss of most coastal cities. Robert Watson, a former director of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has argued that three-degree warming is the realistic minimum."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/clim...
"Three-degree warming is a prescription for short-term disaster: forests in the Arctic and the loss of most coastal cities. Robert Watson, a former director of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has argued that three-degree warming is the realistic minimum."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/clim...
The idea that it's 2018 and we don't have solar powered desalination plants for some of our largest, sunny, water-limited southern cities boggles my mind. Los Angeles has a nuclear plant just to the north, but no desalination, and more sun than anyone wants. It's insane.
It’s still a really expensive way to get drinking water.
It's cheaper than having your economy collapse when the aquifers empty, and it's only going to get cheaper if money is invested in it.
Fun fact, kids. If you pump down an aquifer (any aquifer, anywhere) faster than it is being replenished from above via rainwater, then any other water sitting around it will eventually start to intrude. And if that outside water is salty or otherwise non-potable, then problem! Meaning that saltwater intrusion in coastal areas is a pretty much constant potential risk anyway, regardless of any sea level rise.
Have we seen any sea level rise in the US yet? I think people would buy into it more once we have pictures of roads and buildings being hit by water at high tide.
Parts of Miami flood during every king tide and it didn't always happen, also every Miami road project builds the new roads higher. (2014) https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/us/florida-finds-itself-i...
It doesn't change a whole lot of people's minds, out of sight, out of mind.
[deleted]
Yes. Here you go (from the Chesapeake Bay foundation): http://cbforg.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?app...
Miami has been trying to raise their streets due to regular flooding.
https://www.npr.org/2016/05/10/476071206/as-waters-rise-miam...
https://www.npr.org/2016/05/10/476071206/as-waters-rise-miam...
See this article from 2014, about the port city of Norfolk, Virginia: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-norfolk-e...
At high tide on the small inlet next to Norfolk’s most prestigious art museum, the water lapped at the very top of the concrete sea wall that has held it back for 100 years. It seeped up through storm drains, puddled on the promenade and spread, half a foot deep, across the street, where a sign read, “Road Closed.”
The sun was shining, but all around the inlet people were bracing for more serious flooding. The Chrysler Museum of Art had just completed a $24 million renovation that emptied the basement, now accessible only by ladder, and lifted the heating and air-conditioning systems to the top floor. A local accounting firm stood behind a homemade barricade of stanchions and detachable flaps rigged to keep the water out. And the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Norfolk was looking to evacuate.
“We don’t like being the poster child for climate change,” said the Rev. Jennifer Slade, who added that the building, with its carved-wood sanctuary and soaring flood-insurance rates, would soon be on the market for the first time in four decades. “I don’t know many churches that have to put the tide chart on their Web site” so people know whether they can get to church.
At high tide on the small inlet next to Norfolk’s most prestigious art museum, the water lapped at the very top of the concrete sea wall that has held it back for 100 years. It seeped up through storm drains, puddled on the promenade and spread, half a foot deep, across the street, where a sign read, “Road Closed.”
The sun was shining, but all around the inlet people were bracing for more serious flooding. The Chrysler Museum of Art had just completed a $24 million renovation that emptied the basement, now accessible only by ladder, and lifted the heating and air-conditioning systems to the top floor. A local accounting firm stood behind a homemade barricade of stanchions and detachable flaps rigged to keep the water out. And the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Norfolk was looking to evacuate.
“We don’t like being the poster child for climate change,” said the Rev. Jennifer Slade, who added that the building, with its carved-wood sanctuary and soaring flood-insurance rates, would soon be on the market for the first time in four decades. “I don’t know many churches that have to put the tide chart on their Web site” so people know whether they can get to church.
[deleted]
I'm getting the feeling lately that the freedom in speech and action that is the foundation of the United States doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
Florida has a rather right leaning/libertarian persuasion, which as the article pointed out, allowed the Miami Drum Services Inc. superfund site and Lake Belt limestone mine to cause contamination of drinking water as recently as 1997.
I'm from Idaho and am well aware of the environmental impacts from superfund sites and mining. The corporations go in and make their millions, then taxpayers are on the hook for the cleanup. Now we can't even fish many rivers and lakes here because mine tailings have contaminated the water with mercury (from gold mining) and other nastiness.
Due to a long history of this short term thinking where profits are privatized and externalities are socialized, Miami is going to have to come to terms with losing its drinking water and either pipe it in from far away or move to desalinization. It's going to be expensive and unfortunate, but I wonder if it will be enough for people to shift their politics. Judging by the political stalemate in my state, I'm guessing not.
Florida has a rather right leaning/libertarian persuasion, which as the article pointed out, allowed the Miami Drum Services Inc. superfund site and Lake Belt limestone mine to cause contamination of drinking water as recently as 1997.
I'm from Idaho and am well aware of the environmental impacts from superfund sites and mining. The corporations go in and make their millions, then taxpayers are on the hook for the cleanup. Now we can't even fish many rivers and lakes here because mine tailings have contaminated the water with mercury (from gold mining) and other nastiness.
Due to a long history of this short term thinking where profits are privatized and externalities are socialized, Miami is going to have to come to terms with losing its drinking water and either pipe it in from far away or move to desalinization. It's going to be expensive and unfortunate, but I wonder if it will be enough for people to shift their politics. Judging by the political stalemate in my state, I'm guessing not.
"Good news, everyone!"
Now, now, let's focus on the positives here:
- more pollution from shipping routes through the Arctic circle (and yucky-looking icebergs that tourists don't like)
- less beachfront property
- more desalinatable water
- hotter heat
- more revulsive detestable significant others (displaced global unrest)
- costs of responding to natural disasters occurring with greater frequency due to elevated ocean temperatures
- less parking spaces (!)
What are the other costs and benefits here?
- more pollution from shipping routes through the Arctic circle (and yucky-looking icebergs that tourists don't like)
- less beachfront property
- more desalinatable water
- hotter heat
- more revulsive detestable significant others (displaced global unrest)
- costs of responding to natural disasters occurring with greater frequency due to elevated ocean temperatures
- less parking spaces (!)
What are the other costs and benefits here?
I've received a number of downvotes for this comment. I think it's misunderstood, and that's my fault: I should have included [sarcasm] around the whole comment [/sarcasm].
I've written about our need to address climate change here in past comments. I think the administration's climate change denials (see: "climate change politifact') and regulatory rollbacks are beyond despicable: they're sabotaging the United States by allowing more toxic chemicals into the environment that we all share, and allowing more sites that must be protected with tax dollars that aren't there because these industries pay far less than benchmarks in terms of effective tax rate. We know that vehicle emissions, mercury, and coal ash are toxic: why would we allow people to violate the rights of others in that way?
A person could voluntarily consume said toxic byproducts and not have violated their own rights or the rights of others, you understand. There's no medical value and low potential for abuse, so we just sit idly by while they're violating the rights of other people by dumping toxic chemicals into the environment that are both poisonous and strongly linked to climate change.
What would help us care about this? A sarcastic list of additional reasons that we should care? No! Miami underwater during tourist season is enough! I've had enough!
So, my mistake here - my downvote-earning mistake - was dropping my generally helpful, hopeful tone for cynicism and sarcasm that wasn't motivating enough.
We need people to regulate pollution in order to prevent further costs of climate change. Water in the streets holds up commerce, travel, hampers national security, and destroys the road.
We must stop rewarding pollution if we want it - and definitely resultant climate change - to stop. What motivates other people to care?
I've written about our need to address climate change here in past comments. I think the administration's climate change denials (see: "climate change politifact') and regulatory rollbacks are beyond despicable: they're sabotaging the United States by allowing more toxic chemicals into the environment that we all share, and allowing more sites that must be protected with tax dollars that aren't there because these industries pay far less than benchmarks in terms of effective tax rate. We know that vehicle emissions, mercury, and coal ash are toxic: why would we allow people to violate the rights of others in that way?
A person could voluntarily consume said toxic byproducts and not have violated their own rights or the rights of others, you understand. There's no medical value and low potential for abuse, so we just sit idly by while they're violating the rights of other people by dumping toxic chemicals into the environment that are both poisonous and strongly linked to climate change.
What would help us care about this? A sarcastic list of additional reasons that we should care? No! Miami underwater during tourist season is enough! I've had enough!
So, my mistake here - my downvote-earning mistake - was dropping my generally helpful, hopeful tone for cynicism and sarcasm that wasn't motivating enough.
We need people to regulate pollution in order to prevent further costs of climate change. Water in the streets holds up commerce, travel, hampers national security, and destroys the road.
We must stop rewarding pollution if we want it - and definitely resultant climate change - to stop. What motivates other people to care?
Part of the problem here is exacerbated by all the flood insurance that effectively subsidizes building in flood plains. In addition to long term measures to mitigate climate change, we should have a tax on areas that are threatened by flooding and water levels rising so that we can reduce the immediate issues by incentivizing people to move away from them.
A proper flood insurance would be a tax for flood-prone areas. Rates are calculated so that for any given house the expected insurance payouts are slightly lower that the insurance premiums over the next few decades. The insurance has a high incentive to get those numbers right (or overestimate payouts) because that's their profit margin.
Government subsizided flood insurance is a really weird subsidy that just shouldn't exist.
Government subsizided flood insurance is a really weird subsidy that just shouldn't exist.
This planet money episode seems relevant : https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/09/29/554603161/epis...
Yeah, no private insurance company will knowingly insure houses in those flood prone areas that are pretty much guaranteed to flood. With the subsidized government insurance, people keep on rebuilding and collecting that free money.
I'm not sure how insurance is a subsidy. Doesn't the cost get spread between insurees and the insurance company takes the foam off the top for itself?
Flood insurance is a different program.
No actual company is stupid enough to put money that a floodplain won't flood. Instead the federal government uses tax money to basically back insurance so that when, surprise, your floodplain floods, the insurance companies aren't actually losing money.
No actual company is stupid enough to put money that a floodplain won't flood. Instead the federal government uses tax money to basically back insurance so that when, surprise, your floodplain floods, the insurance companies aren't actually losing money.
Not for flood insurance. There's no profit in it. The National Flood Insurance Program is a federally-subsidized program that loses about a billion dollars a year.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53028
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53028
National Flood Insurance is run by the government, it's not the same as most property insurance.
FWIW, I can’t speak for Miami but I do know that the costs for flood insurance are high enough in coastal areas that some people skip it entirely.
The other side of this is to adopt coastal retreat policies as well though. Its not enough to drive insurance up, you need to prevent people moving in anyway because it's cheap land because of that.
SciAm recently had a good article about these policies and the challenges they face:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/surrendering-to-r...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/surrendering-to-r...
Interesting - you had your fun at the ocean front. Now if you want money for the lost property, you have to buy three streets back?
That's not a bad idea.
That's not a bad idea.
Should we also tax people living in earthquake-prone and tornado-prone areas? How about blizzard-prone areas? Keep going with this and we will run out of places (in the USA) where it’s ok to live.
Also, as someone who lived in south Florida, flood insurance is a joke and unavailable near the coast anyway. Nobody expects it to pay out enough in a major catastrophe, including hurricanes and flooding.
Also, as someone who lived in south Florida, flood insurance is a joke and unavailable near the coast anyway. Nobody expects it to pay out enough in a major catastrophe, including hurricanes and flooding.
Blizzards don’t typically level buildings, and a tornado’s path of destruction is narrow enough that the lucky homeowners can sufficiently subsidize the unlucky ones through insurance.
Neither of those risks are comparable to earthquakes and hurricanes/flooding, which can be relied upon to thoroughly destroy huge swaths of cities, regularly.
Neither of those risks are comparable to earthquakes and hurricanes/flooding, which can be relied upon to thoroughly destroy huge swaths of cities, regularly.
California regularly survives 6.0 earthquakes with minimal damage, because our building codes require earthquake-safe construction. For example, the 2008 Chino Hills quake, at 5.5 intensity, caused almost no damage other than the unsecured contents of store shelves falling onto the floor.
In contrast, a slightly stronger quake in DC (5.8) caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to structures, including to the Washington Monument, because the local building codes did not contemplate earthquakes.
In contrast, a slightly stronger quake in DC (5.8) caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to structures, including to the Washington Monument, because the local building codes did not contemplate earthquakes.
You mean like blizzards like this: https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Sports/2010/1212/Vikings-Metro... ?
> Should we also tax people living in [...] blizzard-prone areas?
We already do; municipalities in blizzard-prone areas factor snow removal costs into their annual expenditures, which show up in residents' taxes.
We already do; municipalities in blizzard-prone areas factor snow removal costs into their annual expenditures, which show up in residents' taxes.
Yes homeowners should bear the full cost of their choices. It's entirely possible to build a modern house strong enough to survive earthquakes, tornadoes, and hurricanes with only minor damage. Flooding is more difficult to design around.
Some risks are not insurable since they're guaranteed to happen. That's why no private insurance company will offer flood insurance, but since these owners of capital have enough political clout, they are able to secure a taxpayer funded bailout fund (nation flood insurance program).
I am guaranteed to die at some point. Yet (at least in Germany) I can go to a private insurance company, agree to pay a few euros each month and in return they pay out 10000€ when I die to cover my funeral, no questions about cause of death asked. It's an insurance that is guaranteed to pay out, but it still insures against uncertainty because I don't know when I will die.
Flood insurance is fundamentally the same, the payouts are just not well spread, requiring a large geographically diverse insurance company.
Flood insurance is fundamentally the same, the payouts are just not well spread, requiring a large geographically diverse insurance company.
In order for the insurance company to pay you 10,000 euros when you die, they have to collect that much from you plus their operating expenses minus the investment gains expected over your expected lifetime. This is whole life insurance, and it's usually a better idea to stick the money into index funds and avoid paying the insurance company for their operating expenses.
And we're not talking about a 10,000 euro loss here, when a home gets flooded, the loss is likely six figures or more since houses aren't cheap. Most people can't afford insurance for a likely loss of $100,000.
There are many large geographically diverse insurance companies, and there is a reason all of them stay away from flood insurance. There's no buyer for the amount of premium they would have to charge.
And we're not talking about a 10,000 euro loss here, when a home gets flooded, the loss is likely six figures or more since houses aren't cheap. Most people can't afford insurance for a likely loss of $100,000.
There are many large geographically diverse insurance companies, and there is a reason all of them stay away from flood insurance. There's no buyer for the amount of premium they would have to charge.
One theory I've heard is that the prevalence of natural hazards in the US explain the comparatively lower level of development prior to arrival of Europeans - basically any time the locals were getting somewhere some kind of catastrophe would befall them, and destroy their progress. Does make one think about the long term, especially with a more extreme climate expected to be on the way.
Strict building codes increase the cost of buildings but make them safe in case of earthquakes. You can see that as a form of tax for living in an earthquake-prone area.
Private insurance works for earthquakes and tornadoes.
Until a massive quake wipes out an entire region, at which point, the insurance carriers declare bankruptcy because they won't be able to pay off all the policies. And that is already factoring in the exorbitant premiums being paid and high deductibles on the policies.
With tens of thousands of claims, home owners will get pennies on the dollar if they get anything at all.
With tens of thousands of claims, home owners will get pennies on the dollar if they get anything at all.
Typically insurance companies buy insurance against this, it's called reinsurance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance
Do you have insider knowledge or are you just expressing cynicism?
> Keep going with this and we will run out of places (in the USA) where it’s ok to live.
plenty of places that don't see earthquakes, tornados, floods, hurricanes, or much of anything else.
blizzards might sound apocalyptic to a floridian, but generally just damage above-ground electrical, and maybe knock a few trees into a few roofs.
plenty of places that don't see earthquakes, tornados, floods, hurricanes, or much of anything else.
blizzards might sound apocalyptic to a floridian, but generally just damage above-ground electrical, and maybe knock a few trees into a few roofs.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I wonder if people living in coastal flood-prone areas are expecting a bail-out when it becomes impossible or impractical to live there.
As much as it'd be great to just point a finger and say "You should of known better!", houses are the bulk of most folks assets and the last thing we need is to turn a few small cities worth of people into homeless refugees.
So realistically they'll get a bail out so they can at least recover somewhat. It will still be a loss for them, it'll be a loss to everyone who pays taxes, but it's still better then the alternatives.
So realistically they'll get a bail out so they can at least recover somewhat. It will still be a loss for them, it'll be a loss to everyone who pays taxes, but it's still better then the alternatives.
Why? With this attitude, we'll keep building more vulnerable cities at the coast, effectively subsidizing doomed construction.
We shouldn't have unemployment, since people should just be saving enough money to make it through the hard times!
People as ends, not means. It's not ok to leave people starving in the streets as an example to others. Fight for laws to restrict building in flood plains, but don't abandon the forlorn.
People as ends, not means. It's not ok to leave people starving in the streets as an example to others. Fight for laws to restrict building in flood plains, but don't abandon the forlorn.
They absolutely are. 99 Percent Invisible recently did an episode about the Outer Banks islands in North Carolina, which would be eroding naturally anyway even without sea level rise because they are barrier islands, which are always impermanent. Interviews with the residents there made it clear that they feel that a) there is no problem and b) if there is a problem, they are entitled to unlimited government funds for beach reconstruction to preserve the value of their property. Florida isn't going to be any different
Same in LA:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-del-mar-sea-leve...
Herb Montgomery and his wife, Janet, have lived in Del Mar's low-lying Beach Colony just east of Camino Del Mar for 20 years.
He knows the ocean is creeping closer to his property and he says the city has an obligation to protect his home, valued at $3.2 million, from the rising waters
Things are going to get ugly down the road.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-del-mar-sea-leve...
Herb Montgomery and his wife, Janet, have lived in Del Mar's low-lying Beach Colony just east of Camino Del Mar for 20 years.
He knows the ocean is creeping closer to his property and he says the city has an obligation to protect his home, valued at $3.2 million, from the rising waters
Things are going to get ugly down the road.
Haha, this is pretty clever. They’re going to make every other taxpayer subsidize projects for the rich. I only regret I’m not brazen enough to eat my fellow man like that.
soooo... tax? The current tax system can't handle that, if anything once the water starts creeping, the tax system would do the opposite. Property values drop, taxes drop.
I think what you might have wanted to recommend was for insurance companies to have higher premiums / rates whatever. Not everything needs to be solved at the government level.
I think what you might have wanted to recommend was for insurance companies to have higher premiums / rates whatever. Not everything needs to be solved at the government level.
I’ve never understood how the parts of the country most affected by sea level rise have been so vociferously against it being real.
When the BP spill happened and they had all the local mayors and politicians crying about the damage to their coast, I couldn’t understand why no one had the cajones to ask them why they cared so much about their coast being damaged now, when they were completely fine with it being gone and under water in a few decades.
When the BP spill happened and they had all the local mayors and politicians crying about the damage to their coast, I couldn’t understand why no one had the cajones to ask them why they cared so much about their coast being damaged now, when they were completely fine with it being gone and under water in a few decades.
Here is what creates cognitive dissonance and drives inaction. The BP spill came with apocalyptic rhetoric about the destruction of the gulf and gulf coast. Yet, within a few years, things are near normal. Please, I’m not saying it wasn’t a tragic, disruptive, damaging event. Just that the reality has diverged wildly from the story told at the time. This creates distrust and inaction for every new apocalyptic prediction. No doubt, at some point, an apocalyptic prediction will come true, and we’ll be caught with our pants down.
> No doubt, at some point, an apocalyptic prediction will come true, and we’ll be caught with our pants down.
We consistently have this problem with preventative measures. Someone accurately predicts that something terrible will happen unless we do something about it, we spend a large amount of time and money preventing or mitigating it, then people ask why we spent all that time and money when the thing turned out not to be that bad.
It turned out not to be that bad because we spend all that time and money.
The problem is it's also easy to spend time and money on wasteful pork barrel projects to prevent threats that don't actually exist but line the pockets of government contractors, and then they make the same argument for not cutting them.
What we need is a better way to separate the legitimate problems (e.g. climate change) from the hype (e.g. terrorism). Because if you're going to pay a bunch of money for something that also serves as a jobs program, it might as well be addressing the real problem instead of the fake one.
We consistently have this problem with preventative measures. Someone accurately predicts that something terrible will happen unless we do something about it, we spend a large amount of time and money preventing or mitigating it, then people ask why we spent all that time and money when the thing turned out not to be that bad.
It turned out not to be that bad because we spend all that time and money.
The problem is it's also easy to spend time and money on wasteful pork barrel projects to prevent threats that don't actually exist but line the pockets of government contractors, and then they make the same argument for not cutting them.
What we need is a better way to separate the legitimate problems (e.g. climate change) from the hype (e.g. terrorism). Because if you're going to pay a bunch of money for something that also serves as a jobs program, it might as well be addressing the real problem instead of the fake one.
Hyperbolic discounting is a very common way to be irrational. Humans are not very good at thinking long-term. Bezos became the world's richest person in part by extending his time horizon by a few years longer than most CEOs.
Really?
It's because wealthy people tend to have physical assets and political power there. They don't want to pay more for insurance for their assets in the short term (property/catastrophe coverage) and in many cases they would be difficult or impossible to liquidate and transfer to somewhere not effected.
This has been the case in coastal areas, with property developers at least. They have it very badly, where they typically are small-ish family operations at the core and they operate with high leverage as land banks.
It's because wealthy people tend to have physical assets and political power there. They don't want to pay more for insurance for their assets in the short term (property/catastrophe coverage) and in many cases they would be difficult or impossible to liquidate and transfer to somewhere not effected.
This has been the case in coastal areas, with property developers at least. They have it very badly, where they typically are small-ish family operations at the core and they operate with high leverage as land banks.
Simple answer with horrible consequences, discontinue all FEMA insurance. This of course will never happen because many elected representatives from both parties have coastal properties that require it in order to get a mortgage.
But if you did the above, it really doesn't matter whether climate change is real or not, all the risk will be on the homeowner going forward. That ought to be enough to change behavior in the long run.
But if you did the above, it really doesn't matter whether climate change is real or not, all the risk will be on the homeowner going forward. That ought to be enough to change behavior in the long run.
Simple. Lousiana has a big oil and gas industry:
https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=LA
I call it the truth distortion field when any large industry impacts what politicians say. Here’s some background:
https://www.nemil.com/tdf/introduction.html
https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=LA
I call it the truth distortion field when any large industry impacts what politicians say. Here’s some background:
https://www.nemil.com/tdf/introduction.html
I think there's been a brain drain happening in a lot of red states in recent decades. The educated people who have the ability and will to leave often do, leaving behind an increasingly ignorant population. It's coincidental that this same geographic region will be most affected by sea level rise, although nowhere on earth will be immune to the effects of climate change.
It's mostly a flight to jobs in cities. A counterpoint is blue metro areas in red states (e.g. Texas, Kansas City, North Carolina)
Do you have any evidence for this claim?
Here are a couple articles I've found about MS and NE:
1. https://mississippitoday.org/2016/07/13/mississippi-brain-dr...
2. https://www.omaha.com/news/education/higher-education/nebras...
College-educated workers want and need to live in more urban areas that have employers in future-forward industries. From a cultural aspect, I think these people also want to live in municipalities (up to state government) that are run by people that share their values. Among the educated, these values are increasingly progressive.
1. https://mississippitoday.org/2016/07/13/mississippi-brain-dr...
2. https://www.omaha.com/news/education/higher-education/nebras...
College-educated workers want and need to live in more urban areas that have employers in future-forward industries. From a cultural aspect, I think these people also want to live in municipalities (up to state government) that are run by people that share their values. Among the educated, these values are increasingly progressive.
I can't speak for the rest of the state, but I can tell you for certain that northern Mississippi (and at least some parts just south of it) has generally been booming. In fact, the "Gold Rush" may have slowed down quite a bit by now, but for a while there it was hard to keep people from surrounding states from pulling up stakes and moving there, for various reasons. Wages are somewhat lower, true, but then so is the cost of living. And if you pick the right location, you can be within easy driving distance of a "more urban area" while still living "out in the country", if you want to.
His own smug sense of superiority should suffice.
I guess if you insult one commenter you get downvotes, but if you insult half of the population no one bats an eye?
HN is a special place
Funny, Florida is getting an influx of people exiting the Northeast due to the local tax cap changes of the current administration and our high prop and local taxes here. It's all over the press.
Thus I'm skeptical. And "brain drains" refer to skilled employees leaving, not some intelligence or education level which you're implying.
Thus I'm skeptical. And "brain drains" refer to skilled employees leaving, not some intelligence or education level which you're implying.
I've always seen brain drain used to reference the educated leaving an area. Frequently calling out professors and other educators leaving as part of the brain drain
"Skilled" work is increasingly correlated with educational attainment.
Skilled employees have intelligence and education level.
That has nothing do with why people want payouts from obviously disatrous externalities from pollutors.
For Republicans, there's a correlation between level of education and climate change denialism:
Climate change divides Americans, but in an unlikely way: The more education that Democrats and Republicans have, the more their beliefs in climate change diverge.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/14/upshot/climat...
Climate change divides Americans, but in an unlikely way: The more education that Democrats and Republicans have, the more their beliefs in climate change diverge.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/14/upshot/climat...
Because there’s been a huge and dedicated propaganda machine to saying the opposite. And it’s worked.
Many people don't vote their interests. They vote their identity and values.
Rational self-interest is an assumption that enlightenment liberals and market fundamentalists alike have overplayed. It has its applications, and it may even be a somewhat valid assumption for individuals carefully looking at the terms of an economic deal they have make-or-break decision making power over. For collective civil action, my guess is its influence is somewhere between minimal and a wash.
Rational self-interest is an assumption that enlightenment liberals and market fundamentalists alike have overplayed. It has its applications, and it may even be a somewhat valid assumption for individuals carefully looking at the terms of an economic deal they have make-or-break decision making power over. For collective civil action, my guess is its influence is somewhere between minimal and a wash.
Your premise is incorrect. The parts of the country most affected are the coasts--and they are blue.
If we exclude Alaska then about half the coast encompasses Texas through North Carolina. This is also the part of the US coast that is most low lying and will see the greatest encroachment from rising sea levels.
Half of your “red” coastline consists of Florida—the vast majority of the coastal population of which is blue (see any 2016 electoral map).
Your point about red vs blue isn’t at issue here. These are all still the coastal states that are the most vociferously denying climate change. You’ll find it pretty hard to argue that any of them are more in favor of climate change action that the other coastal states regardless of whether they show up blue or red on an election map.
Of course. But we didn't really start off by arguing about state-level beliefs. You claimed the people most affected by sea level rise least believe in it--presumably as a dig at republicans (haha they're so blinkered by ideology they can't even see their own self interest!) And I claim that, no, republicans mostly do not live on the coasts, are not the most affected, and thus there is no tension between their ideology and their self-interest.
The northeast and west, perhaps, but not the south and southeast.
It's "cojones" :-)
:-) I blame a former manager. His automatically generated username (first two letters of first name + surname) was cajones, so that’s what he got called. And now I’ve automatically spelt it wrong ever since.
Start worrying when the banks stop offering mortgages to people trying to buy property in south beach.
I remember when Katrina flooded New Orleans, lots of people were asking why rebuild the city when it almost certainly will flood like that again. And the answer was a simple, do you know how much it would cost to relocate everyone?
What does it do to the economy when almost everyones largest asset(their house) is worth effectively zero and people still have 20 years on their mortgage.
In my old city (Calgary, Canada) we had a pretty bad flood in 2013. The government made, what I thought was a smart, deal with the home owners.
They would get some government assistence with the condition that this was the first and only time that the governmnet would help.
Some owners rebuilt, others just bulldozed their homes. Now everyone knows where they stand, the government helped shoulder the initial burden and the people who moved helped lower the number of people living in a flood plain.
I remember when Katrina flooded New Orleans, lots of people were asking why rebuild the city when it almost certainly will flood like that again. And the answer was a simple, do you know how much it would cost to relocate everyone?
What does it do to the economy when almost everyones largest asset(their house) is worth effectively zero and people still have 20 years on their mortgage.
In my old city (Calgary, Canada) we had a pretty bad flood in 2013. The government made, what I thought was a smart, deal with the home owners.
They would get some government assistence with the condition that this was the first and only time that the governmnet would help.
Some owners rebuilt, others just bulldozed their homes. Now everyone knows where they stand, the government helped shoulder the initial burden and the people who moved helped lower the number of people living in a flood plain.
> Start worrying when the banks stop offering mortgages to people trying to buy property in south beach.
If the 2007 financial crisis taught me anything, it's that we can't rely on the banks to make sound financial decisions, particularly regarding mortgages. Even more so now that the government bailed them out at taxpayer expense. They know that will happen again when needed. They have a safety net so they can gamble as much as they want—they can win but not lose. They will continue to believe this until/unless the government breaks them into pieces that aren't "too big to fail".
Perhaps they already should have stopped offering those mortgages.
If the 2007 financial crisis taught me anything, it's that we can't rely on the banks to make sound financial decisions, particularly regarding mortgages. Even more so now that the government bailed them out at taxpayer expense. They know that will happen again when needed. They have a safety net so they can gamble as much as they want—they can win but not lose. They will continue to believe this until/unless the government breaks them into pieces that aren't "too big to fail".
Perhaps they already should have stopped offering those mortgages.
The 2007/8 bailout of banks is far from the first time the US government has socialized losses in the sector.
The modern era of Wall Street bailouts started in the '80s after the Mexican Peso crisis.
Bank bailouts have been happening since Colonial times, through emergency suspensions of specie payment, par laws, legal tender laws, etc.
> we can't rely on the banks to make sound financial decisions
Banks that have an implicit (or explicit) guarantee of bailout are making rational decisions about risk, since they can offload it on the taxpayer.
The modern era of Wall Street bailouts started in the '80s after the Mexican Peso crisis.
Bank bailouts have been happening since Colonial times, through emergency suspensions of specie payment, par laws, legal tender laws, etc.
> we can't rely on the banks to make sound financial decisions
Banks that have an implicit (or explicit) guarantee of bailout are making rational decisions about risk, since they can offload it on the taxpayer.
> Banks that have an implicit (or explicit) guarantee of bailout are making rational decisions about risk, since they can offload it on the taxpayer.
Agreed. From their perspective it's a sound and rational play - a better term would be to say we can't rely on banks to make moral or ethical decisions from a society perspective
Agreed. From their perspective it's a sound and rational play - a better term would be to say we can't rely on banks to make moral or ethical decisions from a society perspective
The shoe was on the other foot once: "Morgan helps end the Panic of 1893
Gold certificateOn February 20, 1895, J.P. Morgan & Co. led a bond offering that helped rescue the United States from a severe two-year economic depression."
https://www.jpmorgan.com/country/US/en/jpmorgan/about/histor...
The people who took out most of the mortgages, were good sound borrowers with good credit scores and were often buying a second or more house to flip. Not just the banks, the borrowers are made of humans that make bad choices and liked to gamble. https://qz.com/1064061/house-flippers-triggered-the-us-housi...
What does that tell us about banks loans as a signal of investment security?
> Not just the banks, the borrowers
I don't think the banks need defending, and I don't think we can compare the financial decisions made by professionals who are legal and moral custodians of the financial system with ordinary people. It would be like comparing the medical decisions of hospitals and ordinary people - 'it's not just the hospitals that offered this treatment as a cure, it's the patients who participated in it.' or 'It's not just the developers who made this highly insecure, malware-ridden software, it's the users who downloaded it.'
> Not just the banks, the borrowers
I don't think the banks need defending, and I don't think we can compare the financial decisions made by professionals who are legal and moral custodians of the financial system with ordinary people. It would be like comparing the medical decisions of hospitals and ordinary people - 'it's not just the hospitals that offered this treatment as a cure, it's the patients who participated in it.' or 'It's not just the developers who made this highly insecure, malware-ridden software, it's the users who downloaded it.'
'it's not just the hospitals that offered this treatment as a cure, it's the patients who participated in it.' We'll see what happens with the FDA bypass for experimental treatments that went through this summer.
-
Do you not work in IT? 'it's the users who downloaded it.' The correct answer is both, because if a user wants to do something, they'll find a way, even though the admins do all they can to stop it. A lot of the business practices are nuanced and have a risk associated with them. The risk of the bail out not happening was the global economy failing, everyone playing the game was highly leveraged and everyone else paid for it.
> They would get some government assistence with the condition that this was the first and only time that the governmnet would help.
We'll see how well that holds up next time those people need assistance. Somehow I don't see any elected politician telling his voters "sorry, we already helped you".
We'll see how well that holds up next time those people need assistance. Somehow I don't see any elected politician telling his voters "sorry, we already helped you".
I know people who deliberately don’t save for retirement because they are betting that few people in their generation will have enough to retire on, and the government politically can’t let elderly people mass-die on the street.
Curious - what age group?
In my experience, anyone under age 40, for sure.
I'm 34, and that's not my experience.
>According to a new survey from Discover, millennials are outperforming older generations when it comes to saving for their future. In a national study of 2,205 people, Discover finds that 81 percent of millennials are currently saving in some capacity, compared to 74 percent of Generation Xers and 77 percent of baby boomers.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180110005313/en/Dis...
>According to a new survey from Discover, millennials are outperforming older generations when it comes to saving for their future. In a national study of 2,205 people, Discover finds that 81 percent of millennials are currently saving in some capacity, compared to 74 percent of Generation Xers and 77 percent of baby boomers.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180110005313/en/Dis...
How many boomers are actually pulling in wages? Aren't most of them spending their savings precisely on what they saved it for? i.e., retirement?
>Where did baby boomers go wrong? This generation isn’t financially prepared for retirement
I couldn't find the percentage of Baby Boomers that are retired, but they certainly (as a generation) are not prepared for retirement. The Baby Boomers are (again, as a generation) incredibly reckless in all facets.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/where-did-baby-boomers-go-...
I couldn't find the percentage of Baby Boomers that are retired, but they certainly (as a generation) are not prepared for retirement. The Baby Boomers are (again, as a generation) incredibly reckless in all facets.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/where-did-baby-boomers-go-...
That's a common problem with any elected government. Tough decisions like "we need everyone here to move away right now" never get made because doing so would result in some elected politician not winning re-election.
Not necessarily. My mother lived briefly in Shawneetown, IL, on the Ohio River (before I was born). After a particularly bad flood, the locals just packed the whole town up and moved a couple of miles inland to higher ground. I took her down to visit once, and she was totally weirded out. The house she lived in still stood there, abandoned.
People move away when a location is no longer economically viable, period. They won't move away until then, despite the risks. If they did, no one would live in volcano or earthquake zones. Think San Francisco Bay is going to be depopulated just because it's a dangerous place to live?
People move away when a location is no longer economically viable, period. They won't move away until then, despite the risks. If they did, no one would live in volcano or earthquake zones. Think San Francisco Bay is going to be depopulated just because it's a dangerous place to live?
That's not my point. Obviously people will move away on their own accord if living in a location is no longer safe/viable.
My point is, until a location is no longer safe, they will generally stay put and resist any pressure to leave, even if all evidence points to it becoming unsafe in the not so distant future. Elected officials live in the moment, and will not make decisions that impact constituents today in preparation for a future disaster.
My point is, until a location is no longer safe, they will generally stay put and resist any pressure to leave, even if all evidence points to it becoming unsafe in the not so distant future. Elected officials live in the moment, and will not make decisions that impact constituents today in preparation for a future disaster.
Remember, in Jaws 2, the people had re-elected the mayor.
Elected officials force people to move in Rapid City, South Dakota after the 1972 flood. Today, the flood plain is a very nice bike path with no houses. This probably happened due to the high deal toll (238 fatalities).
"Many businesses were permitted to stay in the flood plain, but houses and motels were either raised or moved due to the likelihood that a flood would occur while a person may be sleeping. The majority of the flood plain was made into large parks, which have increased in number and have been improved and updated on a continuing basis."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Black_Hills_flood
"Many businesses were permitted to stay in the flood plain, but houses and motels were either raised or moved due to the likelihood that a flood would occur while a person may be sleeping. The majority of the flood plain was made into large parks, which have increased in number and have been improved and updated on a continuing basis."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Black_Hills_flood
> after the 1972 flood.
Again, that was a reaction to something that already happened. Are there any examples of elected officials forcing folks to leave an area well before something bad happens?
Again, that was a reaction to something that already happened. Are there any examples of elected officials forcing folks to leave an area well before something bad happens?
When did we switch to talking about that (the 'before' part)? This thread is debating the OP's comment about how flooding in Calgary either gave people the choice in moving or never receiving assistance in the future.
Right. Intending to break a bad habit carries no weight. Actually doing it is what counts. The government's action here wasn't smart: it was in fact cowardly.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I live in South Beach.
Private flood insurance has pulled out of the market after Hurricane Andrew in 1992, and it’s not just South Beach it’s a majority of Miami-Dade County.
On the beach it has gotten to a point where some commercial properties can’t get insured...that will be an inevitable disaster.
Private flood insurance has pulled out of the market after Hurricane Andrew in 1992, and it’s not just South Beach it’s a majority of Miami-Dade County.
On the beach it has gotten to a point where some commercial properties can’t get insured...that will be an inevitable disaster.
.
Why does that matter? Look at my profile, you can figure out who I am instantly.
If you know a way to delete your profile/history on HN let me know. Afraid not much I can do
[deleted]
You can message the moderators
> Start worrying when the banks stop offering mortgages to people trying to buy property in south beach.
Florida is a recourse state, isn't it? That might make whether or not banks offer mortgages a trailing indicator rather than a leading indicator of how risky it is there.
In a non-recourse state (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington), if the borrower stops paying their mortgage the bank can foreclose and sell the property, and that ends the borrower's obligation. If the proceeds from the foreclosure were less then what was owed too bad for the bank. That's all the get.
In a recourse state, it starts out the same. The bank forecloses and sells the property. But in a recourse state, that only ends the borrower's obligation if the proceeds are enough to pay the remaining debt. If they fall short, the borrower still owes the difference. The bank can go after assets other than the property, or can go for wage garnishment, or both.
Florida is a recourse state, isn't it? That might make whether or not banks offer mortgages a trailing indicator rather than a leading indicator of how risky it is there.
In a non-recourse state (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington), if the borrower stops paying their mortgage the bank can foreclose and sell the property, and that ends the borrower's obligation. If the proceeds from the foreclosure were less then what was owed too bad for the bank. That's all the get.
In a recourse state, it starts out the same. The bank forecloses and sells the property. But in a recourse state, that only ends the borrower's obligation if the proceeds are enough to pay the remaining debt. If they fall short, the borrower still owes the difference. The bank can go after assets other than the property, or can go for wage garnishment, or both.
> Florida is a recourse state, isn't it?
It is, and the lender almost invariably chooses to first sue on the note so as to avoid taking title to the property for as long as possible.
It is, and the lender almost invariably chooses to first sue on the note so as to avoid taking title to the property for as long as possible.
>I remember when Katrina flooded New Orleans, lots of people were asking why rebuild the city when it almost certainly will flood like that again. And the answer was a simple, do you know how much it would cost to relocate everyone?
I was working briefly with Halliburton during the Rita-Katrina time period. I think it might behoove you to take a more holistic look at this issue.
I'll try to be visual in my explanation by simply asking you to Google maps of the energy pipelines in the US. Here are a couple:
https://www.oilandgas360.com/america-needs-pipelines-for-at-...
https://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/wells-to-consumer/tr...
I think you get the picture.
And that's just energy. It's not only energy that make places like New Orleans, Galveston, and Houston critical. Let's just say that if New Orleans disappeared tomorrow, not only would the US be in for a decidedly bad time, but the nutritional intake of children in Sub-Saharan Africa would be materially affected.
Some of the ports along these coastal plains are enormously important. Of course not all of them are important. I'm not here to argue that Myrtle Beach or Miami are as critical as New Orleans, New York, or the NIT. I'd just strongly urge us to look at the ports and be judicious.
If Miami disappeared tomorrow, we would be fine. So yeah, who cares?
If Houston disappeared tomorrow, that's a whole different thing. If that happened, I'm just saying that we'd better have a good plan in place for that contingency.
Those different realities should, and currently do, inform our strategic policies on these different ports. You can't simply say, "Move this enormously important, warm water port." That's not how you "engineer an empire" so to speak.
All that said, we can mitigate impact. Outside of a few Engineering history specialists, not many people realize that Chicago was built on a swamp that was prone to flooding as well. Not saying that the Chicago solution is appropriate for the situations in Miami or Houston, just saying that there are definitely ways to think long term about minimizing impact.
I was working briefly with Halliburton during the Rita-Katrina time period. I think it might behoove you to take a more holistic look at this issue.
I'll try to be visual in my explanation by simply asking you to Google maps of the energy pipelines in the US. Here are a couple:
https://www.oilandgas360.com/america-needs-pipelines-for-at-...
https://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/wells-to-consumer/tr...
I think you get the picture.
And that's just energy. It's not only energy that make places like New Orleans, Galveston, and Houston critical. Let's just say that if New Orleans disappeared tomorrow, not only would the US be in for a decidedly bad time, but the nutritional intake of children in Sub-Saharan Africa would be materially affected.
Some of the ports along these coastal plains are enormously important. Of course not all of them are important. I'm not here to argue that Myrtle Beach or Miami are as critical as New Orleans, New York, or the NIT. I'd just strongly urge us to look at the ports and be judicious.
If Miami disappeared tomorrow, we would be fine. So yeah, who cares?
If Houston disappeared tomorrow, that's a whole different thing. If that happened, I'm just saying that we'd better have a good plan in place for that contingency.
Those different realities should, and currently do, inform our strategic policies on these different ports. You can't simply say, "Move this enormously important, warm water port." That's not how you "engineer an empire" so to speak.
All that said, we can mitigate impact. Outside of a few Engineering history specialists, not many people realize that Chicago was built on a swamp that was prone to flooding as well. Not saying that the Chicago solution is appropriate for the situations in Miami or Houston, just saying that there are definitely ways to think long term about minimizing impact.
> but the nutritional intake of children in Sub-Saharan Africa would be materially affected.
Sorry for the dumb question but I don’t get the link between New Orleans and African children? I’m in the UK, so may be missing some common US knowledge?
Sorry for the dumb question but I don’t get the link between New Orleans and African children? I’m in the UK, so may be missing some common US knowledge?
Looks like New Orleans area ports export about 1/3 of the US agricultural products, which is 8 times more than any other US port[1]. Shipping down river is by far the cheapest way to move bulk products like grain and New Orleans is where the Mississippi meets the ocean.
[1]https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Port%20Pr...
[1]https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Port%20Pr...
New Orleans also serves as a very important agricultural port. A lot of the food grains we ship are being shipped from New Orleans. New Orleans is a large part of the reason that the American Midwest can feed the world.
You have just laid out the US National Flood Insurance Program, which is slightly more forgiving, I believe they will rebuild your home 1 time, then if you have a 2nd claim they pay to relocate you and the property is no longer buildable or rather no longer eligible for Flood Insurance.
One of the things I learned from Bangalore's real estate market is to stop using Banks as some kind of proxy validation for things.
Its always common to hear people say 'If banks lend a loan against X, X must be ok to buy'. In reality although banks do a bit of verification here and there. Its mostly they are looking for a way to recover their money from you.
In many cases you will see the banks will happily lend money, and then if things go south, they will go after your collaterals or destroy your credit rating etc. Very rarely can you tell them, 'You approved of it, so bear the loss'.
Its always common to hear people say 'If banks lend a loan against X, X must be ok to buy'. In reality although banks do a bit of verification here and there. Its mostly they are looking for a way to recover their money from you.
In many cases you will see the banks will happily lend money, and then if things go south, they will go after your collaterals or destroy your credit rating etc. Very rarely can you tell them, 'You approved of it, so bear the loss'.
Insurance companies aren't morons. They already know this region is doomed.
https://www.axios.com/sea-level-rise-costing-billions-in-hom...
https://www.axios.com/sea-level-rise-costing-billions-in-hom...
The banks will just ask for flood insurance.
Except flood insurance doesn't appear to be economically viable in those areas
>More than 861,000 of them do not have flood insurance. And for homes in those counties that aren't designated flood zones, the numbers are even worse.
>Those four counties have a population about 5 million people, and include the Florida Keys, Miami, Fort Lauderdale and Naples.
>And there's still cause for concern about homes and businesses covered by flood insurance.
>The National Flood Insurance Program, which is part of FEMA, is chronically underfunded.
>A series of major storms that caused floods in the last 12 years, including Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Superstorm Sandy in 2012, has left the program roughly $25 billion in debt and with limited borrowing resources.
>Its financial woes are expected to be compounded by the flooding that devastated Houston and the Texas Gulf Coast after Hurricane Harvey.
>Irma will only add to the problem. [1]
[1] https://money.cnn.com/2017/09/08/news/economy/flood-insuranc...
>More than 861,000 of them do not have flood insurance. And for homes in those counties that aren't designated flood zones, the numbers are even worse.
>Those four counties have a population about 5 million people, and include the Florida Keys, Miami, Fort Lauderdale and Naples.
>And there's still cause for concern about homes and businesses covered by flood insurance.
>The National Flood Insurance Program, which is part of FEMA, is chronically underfunded.
>A series of major storms that caused floods in the last 12 years, including Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Superstorm Sandy in 2012, has left the program roughly $25 billion in debt and with limited borrowing resources.
>Its financial woes are expected to be compounded by the flooding that devastated Houston and the Texas Gulf Coast after Hurricane Harvey.
>Irma will only add to the problem. [1]
[1] https://money.cnn.com/2017/09/08/news/economy/flood-insuranc...
>> Except flood insurance doesn't appear to be economically viable in those areas
That’s by design. They don’t want you to build there.
That’s by design. They don’t want you to build there.
And when your house floods every other year, that means flood insurance will cost you what it costs to rebuild your house.... each year.
which is to say, you won't be able to get flood insurance.
which is to say, you won't be able to get flood insurance.
Until the Federal government gets out of the guaranteed flood insurance business-- which is unlikely to happen soon, as there would be fierce political blowback-- you will always be able to get flood insurance supported by taxpayers.
Federal Flood Insurance has had zero net subsidy from 1968 to 2004. While covering up to 5.5 million homes in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Progr...
Currently it's 25 billion in debt, but that's cheap in terms of federal programs of that magnitude (~15 $ per home per year). Further, the net economic gain from allowing people to build in slightly at risk areas has easily been worth 25 billion over that time period. Consider, without some form of insurance you could not build downstream of major dam's as the low risk of them failing puts huge areas at risk.
Currently it's 25 billion in debt, but that's cheap in terms of federal programs of that magnitude (~15 $ per home per year). Further, the net economic gain from allowing people to build in slightly at risk areas has easily been worth 25 billion over that time period. Consider, without some form of insurance you could not build downstream of major dam's as the low risk of them failing puts huge areas at risk.
So the program broke even for 36 years, then started running up debt in the early 2000s...because of more severe weather.
As sea levels rise and weather gets more severe, this program will become much more expensive.
As sea levels rise and weather gets more severe, this program will become much more expensive.
It's really hard to tell how much of the last 15 years is unusual vs the new normal.
Presumably things can be adjusted for with slightly increased premiums as it's still very close to break even for now.
Presumably things can be adjusted for with slightly increased premiums as it's still very close to break even for now.
Actually start worrying when insurance companies start refusing to insure properties there against flooding. Estimating risks is their bread and butter, they will know.
I’ve actually discovered (from the Yale “Financial Markets” MOOC) that US government uses mandatory insurance to get people to move out of areas which are likely to be flooded, etc. USG makes the insurance mandatory, and insurance companies, quite predictably, price just about everyone out. People either pay through the nose or move out.
Edit: reading further into the thread, looks like they already are refusing to insure. Move TF out.
I’ve actually discovered (from the Yale “Financial Markets” MOOC) that US government uses mandatory insurance to get people to move out of areas which are likely to be flooded, etc. USG makes the insurance mandatory, and insurance companies, quite predictably, price just about everyone out. People either pay through the nose or move out.
Edit: reading further into the thread, looks like they already are refusing to insure. Move TF out.
> One morning in June, Douglas Yoder climbed into a white government SUV...
This again. I won't stop complaining about this tedious journalistic style until it finally dies.
I don't want to hear a personal story of a random person that's related to the issue in some way. I certainly don't want to read anything about how he spends his day - I value my own day too much for that. I just want to read about the issue itself.
That's why people don't read longreads anymore.
This again. I won't stop complaining about this tedious journalistic style until it finally dies.
I don't want to hear a personal story of a random person that's related to the issue in some way. I certainly don't want to read anything about how he spends his day - I value my own day too much for that. I just want to read about the issue itself.
That's why people don't read longreads anymore.
I bought this book recently called "The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs" https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Dinosaurs-History-World/dp/...
You would think it would be a bad-ass book talking about dinosaurs, but no... it's mainly tedious descriptions about the look on the face of a particular paleontologist when the author met them at the train station, and how wild a particular paleontologist party was the day before they found an important new bone.... I couldn't imagine a more boring book, had to give up half way through.
You would think it would be a bad-ass book talking about dinosaurs, but no... it's mainly tedious descriptions about the look on the face of a particular paleontologist when the author met them at the train station, and how wild a particular paleontologist party was the day before they found an important new bone.... I couldn't imagine a more boring book, had to give up half way through.
Bloomberg writers definitely overuse this hook, but long-reads are more narrative-focused, so it totally makes sense to introduce the issue this way — just not every time.
I don't mind narrative, but I want narrative about technologies and science instead of people. If you can't write a narrative without focusing on people, may be you shouldn't write about science and tech at all.
Interestingly, the Miami housing market outlook for 2019 is excellent, in spite of this news.
https://gordcollins.com/real-estate/miami-real-estate-foreca...
It would appear that people who actually have skin in the game believe otherwise.
https://gordcollins.com/real-estate/miami-real-estate-foreca...
It would appear that people who actually have skin in the game believe otherwise.
Markets are great for short term simple extrapolative prediction. At long term and/or non-continuous prediction they seem to have had significant failures.
Citation? There seem to be cases in high technology where the market is very patient for long term returns. Case in point: AMZN trades at a 320 P/E because the market (thus far correctly) can’t see a plausible scenario in which it cedes any e-commerce or AWS share.
Maybe this is optimism bias writ large? Another possibility is that even if there is robust demand despite certain destruction, these houses are really worth many millions for the short term (for cachet, status, etc.). Here we model them as really expensive vacations.
Maybe this is optimism bias writ large? Another possibility is that even if there is robust demand despite certain destruction, these houses are really worth many millions for the short term (for cachet, status, etc.). Here we model them as really expensive vacations.
> very patient for long term returns.
High P/E in the case of AMZN is not measure of long term. It's measure fo fast expected growth, low interest rates, shadow margins, and general short therm overconfidence.
It took 10 years for AMZN stock to recover from the peak of 1999 crash. There was nothing wrong with the company, markets just didn't want to wait.
High P/E in the case of AMZN is not measure of long term. It's measure fo fast expected growth, low interest rates, shadow margins, and general short therm overconfidence.
It took 10 years for AMZN stock to recover from the peak of 1999 crash. There was nothing wrong with the company, markets just didn't want to wait.
Ten years is not the long term.
It’s still the best predictive tool that we have as a species.
It's fascinating, I remember during the runnup to the housing collapse where folks kept bidding up the housing like it could go up forever.
Maybe folks think they'll be able to get out before the collapse, or some new tech will save them from being underwater?
Maybe folks think they'll be able to get out before the collapse, or some new tech will save them from being underwater?
You also can't discount the (depressingly) massive number of people who believe that climate change is a hoax/conspiracy by… someone (used to be China was the favorite boogeyman, but not sure who they're blaming now)… to do something or other that would in some fashion hurt the USA. It may very well be that people are buying out there under the assumption that nothing is going to change at all and that all the flooding is either just a fluke, or else won't ever get any worse than it currently is.
how do they say in the trading world ? don't be the last basket ?
Different timescales.
Sealevel rise projections range from 0.2 meters to 2.0 meters by 2100. Typical mean projection is less than 1.0 meters by 2100. Things get gradually worse, but it takes time before it affects the property values with full force.
Property investors and developers operate on timescales between 5-30 years, there is plenty of stuff to sell before demand starts to decrease.
Sealevel rise projections range from 0.2 meters to 2.0 meters by 2100. Typical mean projection is less than 1.0 meters by 2100. Things get gradually worse, but it takes time before it affects the property values with full force.
Property investors and developers operate on timescales between 5-30 years, there is plenty of stuff to sell before demand starts to decrease.
Exactly. I recently looked at a landlease apartment for sale in NYC. Even if the landholder doesn't renew the lease in 27 years (not typical), based on my very simple model, the ROI on the apartment is enough that you are making nearly 100%. So even if the apartment has no return after 27 years, you're still fine. Obviously, you're better off if there is some residual value in the property after but you don't necessarily need a 50-100 year time frame to realize a decent return on real estate.
And how many of them are so old that there is a good chance they will not live to see the flood? Long-term climate change looks very different when you only care about the next 10/15 years. One way or another, by the time it happens your condo wont be your problem.
Humans are notoriously bad at actually predicting the future. People can have all kinds of reasons for wanting to live there and it can be much easier to put blinders on about hard-to-understand problems than to rearrange your entire life to address some seemingly "hypothetical" problem that is supposed to occur at some undetermined future date.
Don't worry. The American tax payer will cover the banks' losses if Miami goes under. Not sure about the homeowners, but I'm sure the banks will continue to have their losses socialized.
I've mentioned this before: the market believes that, once the problems in Miami become undeniable, there will be some colossally expensive engineering megaproject to fix it on the taxpayer's dime. And depressingly, the market is probably right, because to not do this would mean having to abandon a major city-- something that has basically never happened in the modern word, apart from disasters like Chernobyl-- and admitting that climate change is real. So in a decade or two look forward to what amounts to a huge bailout and upward wealth transfer to Miami real estate barons.
It's probably a lot simpler than that. Most of the debt held by banks is probably due to be repaid in <= 30 years. If they'll still make such a loan today then it's reasonable to infer that they don't think property values are likely to go down significantly over that time period.
From their perspective, any kind of government bailout would be great, but certainly can't be counted on. This is especially true of engineering projects, where physical reality puts hard limits on what is and is not possible before even considering costs. Printing money a la quantitative easing is trivial compared to building a giant seawall or what have you.
From their perspective, any kind of government bailout would be great, but certainly can't be counted on. This is especially true of engineering projects, where physical reality puts hard limits on what is and is not possible before even considering costs. Printing money a la quantitative easing is trivial compared to building a giant seawall or what have you.
Or they think they can still sell up before it crashes.
Great point, and the dismissive responses to your comment are revealing. So many hyper-rational, super-duper forecasters on HN who think they know better than the people who, you know, have actually succeeded enough in life to be placing these expensive real estate bets.
At a rate of 0-3 mm/year or 1 foot/century its going to be hard to convince anyone to care about the sea level. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
From what I remember reading, the problem points are really the Arctic and the Antarctic. If they melt, hello Waterworld.
For example, the ice cover in Greenland is melting at a record rate. If it goes completely, this alone would raise the sea level with something like 7 m (23 ft).
If everything goes, it will be something like a 65 m (213 ft) sea level rise.
Now, given the sluggishness of action-taking in this matter, some of the ice cover will almost certainly melt before anything gets done.
The end result will probably be much more than a few feet, but less than the maximum, so let's guess 30 m (100 ft).
Now, I suppose some self-correcting actions are automatically taken when enough people get displaced and pour to dry areas: traffic ceases in the coastal cities, air traffic to these areas will cease as well, factories will stop, and so on.
But still... given +30 m, have you already checked where the current coastline would be where you live?
For example, the ice cover in Greenland is melting at a record rate. If it goes completely, this alone would raise the sea level with something like 7 m (23 ft).
If everything goes, it will be something like a 65 m (213 ft) sea level rise.
Now, given the sluggishness of action-taking in this matter, some of the ice cover will almost certainly melt before anything gets done.
The end result will probably be much more than a few feet, but less than the maximum, so let's guess 30 m (100 ft).
Now, I suppose some self-correcting actions are automatically taken when enough people get displaced and pour to dry areas: traffic ceases in the coastal cities, air traffic to these areas will cease as well, factories will stop, and so on.
But still... given +30 m, have you already checked where the current coastline would be where you live?
I live a couple hundred feet above sea level in the middle of the United States in a place where winter sucks. It is a struggle to actively care about climate change despite knowing that I should.
That's an interesting map. Any idea why there are down and up arrows intermingled the way they are?
From my understanding the down arrows indicate the coast is expanding. The key at the bottom says the down arrows are negative sea level growth
I read that tide patterns are changing so locally measuring climate sea rise makes no sense yet, as tides superimpose ±8mm
So far you need the global integrate of all changes.
So far you need the global integrate of all changes.
Likely changes to the coast itself. For example Louisiana and the gulf coast are going down faster, because of coastal erosion.
I would guess that the parts of Alaska that are seeing the sea level fall are due to the land rising from tectonic activity.
Things like changes in water temp and currents can also play a role.
I would guess that the parts of Alaska that are seeing the sea level fall are due to the land rising from tectonic activity.
Things like changes in water temp and currents can also play a role.
"by the end of this century" is quite an odd definition of "soon". By then some of us won't even be alive.
Always reminds me of Roisin Murphy "Dear Miami" (1997)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbX7ASDLwAk
"Behind these walls You can be so self-absorbed Behind those eyes, no disguise Disguise, no you can't disguise
Behind this fortress of an address Stuck in the passion void With a little style full and for a while But you can't turn back time
Dear Miami, you're the first to go Disappearing under melting snow Each and everyone turn your critical eye On the burning sun and try not to cry
..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbX7ASDLwAk
"Behind these walls You can be so self-absorbed Behind those eyes, no disguise Disguise, no you can't disguise
Behind this fortress of an address Stuck in the passion void With a little style full and for a while But you can't turn back time
Dear Miami, you're the first to go Disappearing under melting snow Each and everyone turn your critical eye On the burning sun and try not to cry
..."
For context the global rate of sea level rise currently seems to be 4cm a decade so you could come back in 10 or 20 years and probably not notice much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
I'd be surprised if the rise sticks to a linear progression. The ice caps are caught in a feedback loop.
Melt is accelerating 1cm/decade but that doen't change much near term.
Hysterical headline and article.
In grade school it was dying from the ozone hole, acid rain, and global freezing (new ice age).
Recycling, not being wasteful, and conserving water wasn't scary enough I guess.
In grade school it was dying from the ozone hole, acid rain, and global freezing (new ice age).
Recycling, not being wasteful, and conserving water wasn't scary enough I guess.
> Barring a stupendous reversal in greenhouse gas emissions, the rising Atlantic will cover much of Miami by the end of this century. The economic effects will be devastating: Zillow Inc. estimates that six feet of sea-level rise would put a quarter of Miami’s homes underwater.
However, nowhere in the article does it say a six feet rise will happen at the end of the century. So is that actually going to happen? How many models project this and how many don't? What is the "stupendous reversal" required in real terms? What are the options to combat this? Would a giant sea wall work?
If you come at this from the angle of "climate change is a myth" the entire article reads as fluff. This makes it basically impossible to convince people that this is a real issue that needs to be dealt with. The sensationalist title distances people from the issue even further (it is sensational because the article doesn't present any evidence that Miami will be underwater soon).