Millions of US homes could be destroyed with rising sea levels

[LadyStanley]

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/08/02/rising-sea-levels-california-homes-zillow/

According to Zillow, nearly two million homes across the U.S. could be lost. The researchers cited a study published in the journal Nature that found sea levels could rise six feet in the next 84 years, mainly due to melting Antarctic ice sheets.

Using data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Zillow found 42,353 homes in California, or 0.4 percent, are at risk of being underwater. The median value of an at-risk home is $891,269 and the total value is $49.2 billion.
...
Nationally, rising sea levels could claim more than 1.86 million homes by the end of the 21st century, Zillow said.
...
Housing markets in Florida and Hawaii would be the hardest hit with a six-foot rise in sea levels, with one in eight homes in Florida at risk of being lost. In Hawaii, nine percent of homes would be lost if sea levels rose as much as scientists predict.

Ocean front property just ain't worth what it used to be.

Click to read more...

 

[LT]

If I'm not mistaken, that's one of the higher estimates for immediate sea level rise. It is going to increase, but no one is completely certain of how much yet.

And its not just the US that needs to be looked at. We can at least relocate, and won't really lose too terribly much. Countries like Bangladesh and the Phillippines could be completely ruined by even just a couple of meters, though. Those should be much more pressing concerns moving forward, IMO.

 

[chicagoskycam]

I've been saying this for some time. I would have no interest living near the coast right now.

I think something significant and sudden will happen in our lifetimes.

 

[BernieParent]

Posting my appreciation of the typo in this thread's title. The question is: which story?

 

[Leafsdude7]

Posting my appreciation of the typo in this thread's title. The question is: which story?

 

[BernieParent]

Original title was "Millions of US homes could be destoryed with rising sea levels".

 

[Leafsdude7]

Original title was "Millions of US homes could be destoryed with rising sea levels".

Ah.

Guess either it was edited when I saw it or I just missed it.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Not that I dont believe in global warming or the polar ice caps melting but wasn't this predicted to happen by now, in fact i'm pretty sure we're way past due on a lot of those rising sea level predictions.

I'm no statistician, but I think these scientists are not really nailing these predictions.

 

[njdevsfn95]

I live in a flood zone (closer to a bay than the ocean in NJ) and know my second home sure as hell won't be anywhere near water. Has less to do with my fear of flooding than it does to do with either a) selling my home for retirement or b) leaving my kids a nice home when I kick the bucket.

 

[Leafsdude7]

Not that I dont believe in global warming or the polar ice caps melting but wasn't this predicted to happen by now, in fact i'm pretty sure we're way past due on a lot of those rising sea level predictions.

I'm no statistician, but I think these scientists are not really nailing these predictions.

Nope.

Predictions have been right in the ballpark of what's been observed so far. For that matter, most predictions have been for the very end of the 21st century. The closest to a sea-level rise prediction for around the present is the first IPCC report that estimated 6 mm +/- 3.5 increase per year over 40 years. 3.3 is the estimated increase in the last 25.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Not that I dont believe in global warming or the polar ice caps melting but wasn't this predicted to happen by now, in fact i'm pretty sure we're way past due on a lot of those rising sea level predictions.

I'm no statistician, but I think these scientists are not really nailing these predictions.

Scientists just develop theories without definitive evidence. It would be shocking if any of their predictions actually played out as they said.

It's hard enough for them to predict the weekend weather.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Nope.

Predictions have been right in the ballpark of what's been observed so far. For that matter, most predictions have been for the very end of the 21st century. The closest to a sea-level rise prediction for around the present is the first IPCC report that estimated 6 mm +/- 3.5 increase per year over 40 years. 3.3 is the estimated increase in the last 25.

sure but wasn't florida supposed to be mostly underwater, some insane predictions like that. I mean doing a quick google a ton of links say 2025 is the date now.

 

[LT]

Scientists just develop theories without definitive evidence. It would be shocking if any of their predictions actually played out as they said.

It's hard enough for them to predict the weekend weather.

Please show me some of these examples, then.

And if predicting the weather is as easy as you're implying, why don't you give it a try?

 

[chicagoskycam]

sure but wasn't florida supposed to be mostly underwater, some insane predictions like that. I mean doing a quick google a ton of links say 2025 is the date now.

Everyone has their own predictions as to when and it's not an exact science. The ice caps are melting and I believe we have set a new average high temp every month of 2016. I wouldn't be surprised by 2025 if the World's maps are significantly altered.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=88607

strike that, we are running 10 months straight with record temps.

Good time lapse of the North Pole in this link.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...uilds-through-august-arctic-ice-keeps-melting

 

[Leafsdude7]

sure but wasn't florida supposed to be mostly underwater, some insane predictions like that. I mean doing a quick google a ton of links say 2025 is the date now.

That prediction was made by Al Gore (not a scientist, if you didn't know) based on faulty understanding of the scientific literature and the reasonable predictions made by actual scientists based on computer models...

Gore wrongfully predicted that sea level would rise 20 feet (600 cm) by the mid 2010s. In reality, most scientific predictions had it under 1 foot (30 cm) (usually somewhere between 5-10 inches (12-25cm)). The actual rise ended up being around 18cm.

In Gore's defense, though, he didn't actually state a year for the 20 foot rise, but the implication in his movie was that it would be within a short time, something no one in the scientific community agreed with.

 

[Leafsdude7]

It's hard enough for them to predict the weekend weather.

Predicting weather vs climate is like predicting a single dice roll vs predicting 2000 dice rolls. You'll get it right maybe 16% of the time when predicting one dice roll, but if you predict that you'll get 300-350 of each possible outcome after 2000 dice rolls, you'll almost certainly be right a large percentage (90+%? I'd imagine a statistician could give a more exact number) of the time.

 

[LadyStanley]

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Mission-Bay-may-need-tidal-barriers-huge-levees-9289734.php

San Francisco study shows need for leeves and other water control features to keep neighborhoods OK from rising ocean.

 

[Stealth JD]

My house is less than two miles from the Gulf...i've seen the projections. By the year 2100, my house will supposedly be waterfront...so my descendants stand to inherit quite a bit if we keep the house in the family.

I've often wondered...if we (being citizens of the planet) could find the time, resources and ingenuity to create CERN, why could we not dig a big enough and deep-enough hole somewhere barren and remote to capture this rising sea-level? It would no doubt be massive...but if we're talking about 6' of water globally, surely we could build a circular well or a lake one-mile deep with a 10-20-mile diameter, given the time. Stick that thing in Australia, or the Sahara, and dig a canal connecting it to the ocean...fill that ***** up.

Somebody smarter than I would have to figure out if we'd need one of these holes or five in various places in the world...but I'd have to think that's a theoretical solution at least. Maybe I'll try to do some calculus and figure out approximately how much volume would be required to do such a thing...but it's better than losing the world's coast-lines and further concentrating the growing population (that already can't get along) into smaller areas. Right?

 

[LT]

I've often wondered...if we (being citizens of the planet) could find the time, resources and ingenuity to create CERN, why could we not dig a big enough and deep-enough hole somewhere barren and remote to capture this rising sea-level? It would no doubt be massive...but if we're talking about 6' of water globally, surely we could build a circular well or a lake one-mile deep with a 10-20-mile diameter, given the time. Stick that thing in Australia, or the Sahara, and dig a canal connecting it to the ocean...fill that ***** up.

Somebody smarter than I would have to figure out if we'd need one of these holes or five in various places in the world...but I'd have to think that's a theoretical solution at least. Maybe I'll try to do some calculus and figure out approximately how much volume would be required to do such a thing...but it's better than losing the world's coast-lines and further concentrating the growing population (that already can't get along) into smaller areas. Right?

These wouldn't come close to how much water we'd need to move. Not to mention the unreal costs and environmental impacts, especially on local ecosystems.

The scale of the ocean (and the atmosphere, for that matter) is just so massive that we can't really begin to affect it without bringing in chemistry (see the ozone hole, for instance).

 

[Stealth JD]

These wouldn't come close to how much water we'd need to move. Not to mention the unreal costs and environmental impacts, especially on local ecosystems.

The scale of the ocean (and the atmosphere, for that matter) is just so massive that we can't really begin to affect it without bringing in chemistry (see the ozone hole, for instance).

Back of the napkin calculations...not calculating volume, just area:

So 197 million square miles of the earth is covered by water (roughly).
And if you need to offset 6' of global rising tides, and use 1-mile deep holes to do so...each hole is 880-times deeper than what's needed to offset the rise. (5280/6)

197-million, divided by 880 is 223,864...which is the number of square-miles needed to offset the rising tides, if each square-mile is 1-mile deep.

So if we have a round, man-made lake with a radius of 20-miles, area is 1256 square-miles...so we'd need 178 of those bad boys globally. or 356 of them if each hole is only a half-mile deep.

But i suppose you don't need to offset the full 6' of rising tides. Let's say 6' is a gross-exaggeration and tides will really only rise 4'...of which you only need to prevent 3' from happening. You'd "only" need 89 one-mile deep holes, that are 40-miles across to slap mother-nature in her *****-mouth.

Seems do-able.

 

[Satan]

Back of the napkin calculations...not calculating volume, just area:

So 197 million square miles of the earth is covered by water (roughly).
And if you need to offset 6' of global rising tides, and use 1-mile deep holes to do so...each hole is 880-times deeper than what's needed to offset the rise. (5280/6)

197-million, divided by 880 is 223,864...which is the number of square-miles needed to offset the rising tides, if each square-mile is 1-mile deep.

So if we have a round, man-made lake with a radius of 20-miles, area is 1256 square-miles...so we'd need 178 of those bad boys globally. or 356 of them if each hole is only a half-mile deep.

But i suppose you don't need to offset the full 6' of rising tides. Let's say 6' is a gross-exaggeration and tides will really only rise 4'...of which you only need to prevent 3' from happening. You'd "only" need 89 one-mile deep holes, that are 40-miles across to slap mother-nature in her *****-mouth.

Seems do-able.

I think you're on to something here

 

[Stealth JD]

I think you're on to something here

The other option is to build a tall enough water-tower and build-up enough pressure to 'geyser' all that excess water 62-miles up-and-out of the atmosphere. Or a 62-mile long hose, held in place by a satellite, to exhaust steam after we boil that water out of the ocean.

I think the holes are a better way to go.

 

[LadyStanley]

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Embarcadero-in-SF-on-list-of-nation-s-at-risk-9700397.php

San Francisco's Embarcadero on list of nation's most at risk landmarks, in part due to rising ocean level (and earthquakes).

 

[LadyStanley]

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Sea-level-rise-in-California-will-be-bad-to-11069686.php

The Bay Area will see the ocean swell as much as 3.4 feet by 2100 if significant action isn’t taken, the report says. The scientists who produced the study pegged the prospect of that outcome at 67 percent. Tougher action on greenhouse gases would mean a lesser rise of up to 2.4 feet, the study says.
The scope of the likely rise is largely in line with earlier estimates, but not completely. One worst-case scenario says ocean levels could rise 10 feet by century’s end, which would swamp countless homes, roads, harbors and even airports along the coast.
“We have learned that the potential for a higher sea level is greater than we thought,” said Gary Griggs, a professor of Earth sciences at UC Santa Cruz and one of seven climate experts who prepared the report.

10 feet is significant.

 

[Kestrel]

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Sea-level-rise-in-California-will-be-bad-to-11069686.php



10 feet is significant.

I'm glad that I'm on the right side of the Rocky Mountains. Not that that is an excuse to not address climate change of course.