Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Where America's climate migrants will go as sea level rises

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 91 posts

Re: Where America's climate migrants will go as sea level rises

#61

Post by dkarras »

IanDrake wrote: post #41
hfdh434535 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buyers and Lenders are in fact, colossal fools. People build in floodplains all the time.

Obama only ran the country for 8 years, but hfdh434535 knows better. Real estate is about the closest thing to putting your money where your mouth is as far as climate change goes and the people have spoken - the coasts are still the most valuable and desirable places to live.

>Real estate is about the closest thing to putting your money where your mouth is as far as climate change goes and the people have spoken

I would definitely buy coast property today because this won't be a significant problem in my lifetime. I'd buy from coast again when it becomes a significant problem, just that the coast location would be different of course.

Re: Where America's climate migrants will go as sea level rises

#62

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

vannevar wrote: post #5

"Dilkina and her team used migration data from the Internal Revenue Service to analyze how people moved across the U.S. between 2004 and 2014." It looks like their analysis may have been skewed somewhat by the fracking boom in America's oil shale country. That may explain the otherwise odd migration pattern into sparsely populated areas running up from Texas through the center of the country.

>skewed somewhat by the fracking boom in America's oil shale country.

Isn't it extremely ironic, given the topic hand?

Re: Where America's climate migrants will go as sea level rises

#63

Post by yongjik »

IanDrake wrote: post #15

In the free market of ideas, no one actually believes this will happen. Just look at coastal real estate. Buyers and lenders would have to be colossal fools to pay such premiums to be waterfront. Even Obama just plunked down 12M on a waterfront mansion on the low lying island of MV.

Next you will tell me it's impossible for a major earthquake to strike San Francisco (or Tokyo), because then nobody would want to live there.

Re: Where America's climate migrants will go as sea level rises

#64

Post by AnimalMuppet »

slg wrote: post #38

This seems to only be factoring in oceans. Won't the sea level rising have a huge impact on the rivers and floodplains in the middle of the country that this predicts will see a big influx of people? There is plenty of high elevation coastal land that I would expect to be safer than land on the banks of the Mississippi River.

No. Why should it? If the sea level rises two feet, how does it affect rivers that are, say, 100 feet above sea level? Or 500 feet? What's the cause and effect here?

The sea level rise is due to more water in the ocean. That doesn't translate into more water in a river, because water doesn't flow uphill.

Re: Where America's climate migrants will go as sea level rises

#65

Post by elmo2you »

smooth_remmy wrote: post #48
HarryHirsch wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of the Antarctic landmass is below sea level, if the Antarctic ice shield melted the continent would look like an archipelago. There is much water tied up in the Antarctic ice shield(well, it took 40 myr to accumulate, you get this much even in a cold desert), on average it's 2 km thick. The IPCC estimates that if it melts fully it would result in 50 m of sea level rise.

Any ice below sea-level will melt into water that will take up exactly the same amount of space. So any ice below sea-level that melts will not cause sea levels to rise.

Could you please elaborate on your claim? I feel confused.

I learned that ice has a (slightly) lower density than water, hence it usually floats. I was convinced that submerged ice is doing so because of an additional weight on top of it (above-water ice pack).

Maybe there is also ice that is submerged without this extra weight, but then its density should be lower than water.

Either way, I don't see how submerged ice could take up exactly the same space when melted. If it has a different density, it should change in volume (elementary physics).

Re: Where America's climate migrants will go as sea level rises

#66

Post by [deleted] »

smooth_remmy wrote: post #48
HarryHirsch wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of the Antarctic landmass is below sea level, if the Antarctic ice shield melted the continent would look like an archipelago. There is much water tied up in the Antarctic ice shield(well, it took 40 myr to accumulate, you get this much even in a cold desert), on average it's 2 km thick. The IPCC estimates that if it melts fully it would result in 50 m of sea level rise.

Any ice below sea-level will melt into water that will take up exactly the same amount of space. So any ice below sea-level that melts will not cause sea levels to rise.

[deleted]

Re: Where America's climate migrants will go as sea level rises

#67

Post by vonmoltke »

keanzu wrote: post #57

In 1903 humans first achieved heavier than air powered flight. Less than 60 years later, in 1959, man landed on the moon. I feel confident that in the next 80 years we'll manage to figure out how to build some 6ft tall levees. There will be little climate migration. People like living near the coast.

> Less than 60 years later, in 1959, man landed on the moon.

That was 1969, or less than 70 years.

Re: Where America's climate migrants will go as sea level rises

#68

Post by keanzu »

vonmoltke wrote: post #67
keanzu wrote: post #57

In 1903 humans first achieved heavier than air powered flight. Less than 60 years later, in 1959, man landed on the moon. I feel confident that in the next 80 years we'll manage to figure out how to build some 6ft tall levees. There will be little climate migration. People like living near the coast.

> Less than 60 years later, in 1959, man landed on the moon. That was 1969, or less than 70 years.

"The first human-made object to touch the Moon was the Soviet Union's Luna 2, on 13 September 1959. The United States' Apollo 11 was the first crewed mission to land on the Moon, on 20 July 1969."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing

Poor reading comprehension on my part. You are, of course, correct.

Re: Where America's climate migrants will go as sea level rises

#69

Post by kelnos »

IanDrake wrote: post #15

In the free market of ideas, no one actually believes this will happen. Just look at coastal real estate. Buyers and lenders would have to be colossal fools to pay such premiums to be waterfront. Even Obama just plunked down 12M on a waterfront mansion on the low lying island of MV.

Most people don't buy real estate considering an 80-year time horizon. Even 40 years is often a bit of a stretch. I would guess that a lot of people only look 15-20 years into the future. Perhaps not a majority, but enough to keep waterfront property attractive and expensive.

Re: Where America's climate migrants will go as sea level rises

#70

Post by lxcfan »

josinalvo wrote: post #36
lxcfan wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real estate prices are priced by mostly by current demand, not future oncoming disasters. Much waterfront property is _already_ vulnerable (and expensive to insure) today, regardless of whether you believe in consensus climate science, due to storms and flooding in current climatic conditions. That house by the ocean is going to destroyed at some point, the only question is when and how.

I have seen ample consensus amonsgt reputable scientists that the earth is getting warmer, and this fact is due to human activity (e.g https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-clima... ) I have not yet, however, seen any such research on consensus for the effects of climate change. Is there a large, documented consensus on any estimate of sea level raise?

Sorry, perhaps the emphasis in the way I wrote that comment made it unclear what I was saying.

My point was that real estate market prices are much more heavily influenced by current conditions, and current demand, rather than hypothetical future conditions. The price elasticity of demand has little to do with whether the buyer believes that the property will flood in future decades due to climate change. Someone who wants a beachfront mansion is probably going to buy it for close to the same price whether or not s/he believe it will still be there in 50 years, just as s/he might buy an expensive car that will similarly degrade and need expensive maintenance exceeding the original purchase price over time.

Post reply on HN