Author Topic: Climate Change Catchment Thread  (Read 2335 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Soldier of FORTRAN

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5582
  • Cache rules everything around me.
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #45 on: April 20, 2017, 07:08:31 PM »
Good article on Florida real estate.  I could quote and bold almost the entire thing so it's worth a read. 

Article: The Nightmare Scenario for Florida’s Coastal Homeowners
From: Bloomberg
Date: April 19, 2017

Fun Excerpts:
Quote
On a predictably gorgeous South Florida afternoon, Coral Gables Mayor Jim Cason sat in his office overlooking the white-linen restaurants of this affluent seaside community and wondered when climate change would bring it all to an end. He figured it would involve a boat.

When Cason first started worrying about sea-level rise, he asked his staff to count not just how much coastline the city had (47 miles) or value of the property along that coast ($3.5 billion). He also told them to find out how many boats dock inland from the bridges that span the city’s canals (302). What matters, he guessed, will be the first time a mast fails to clear the bottom of one of those bridges because the water level had risen too far.

“These boats are going to be the canary in the mine,” said Cason, who became mayor in 2011 after retiring from the U.S. foreign service. “When the boats can’t go out, the property values go down.”


Jim Cason, mayor of Coral Gables, in his office. He worries that rising insurance costs, reluctant lenders or skittish foreign buyers could hurt home prices well before sea-level rise gets worse.
 
If property values start to fall, Cason said, banks could stop writing 30-year mortgages for coastal homes, shrinking the pool of able buyers and sending prices lower still. Those properties make up a quarter of the city’s tax base; if that revenue fell, the city would struggle to provide the services that make it such a desirable place to live, causing more sales and another drop in revenue.

And all of that could happen before the rising sea consumes a single home.


As President Donald Trump proposes dismantling federal programs aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions, officials and residents in South Florida are grappling with the risk that climate change could drag down housing markets. Relative sea levels in South Florida are roughly four inches higher now than in 1992. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts sea levels will rise as much as three feet in Miami by 2060. By the end of the century, according to projections by Zillow, some 934,000 existing Florida properties, worth more than $400 billion, are at risk of being submerged.

The impact is already being felt in South Florida. Tidal flooding now predictably drenches inland streets, even when the sun is out, thanks to the region’s porous limestone bedrock. Saltwater is creeping into the drinking water supply. The area’s drainage canals rely on gravity; as oceans rise, the water utility has had to install giant pumps to push water out to the ocean.

The effects of climate-driven price drops could ripple across the economy, and eventually force the federal government to decide what is owed to people whose home values are ruined by climate change.

Sean Becketti, the chief economist at Freddie Mac, warned in a report last year of a housing crisis for coastal areas more severe than the Great Recession, one that could spread through banks, insurers and other industries. And, unlike the recession, there’s no hope of a bounce back in property values.

...

“Nobody thinks it’s coming as fast as it is,” said Dan Kipnis, the chairman of Miami Beach’s Marine and Waterfront Protection Authority, who has been trying to find a buyer for his home in Miami Beach for almost a year, and has already lowered his asking price twice.

Some South Florida homeowners, stuck in a twist on the prisoner’s dilemma, are deciding to sell now—not necessarily because they want to move, but because they’re worried their neighbors will sell first.


...

Marla Martin, a spokeswoman for Florida’s association of realtors, said that while “of course climate change is on the radar for our members,” she hadn’t heard of clients selling homes because of sea-level rise.

“I think the scientists are still trying to get a handle on it,” she wrote in an email.

...

Russo says if she knew in 2015 what she knows now, she wouldn’t have purchased the house. People buying in her neighborhood today are probably just as clueless as she once was, she guesses. “I would bet money that the realtors are not telling them.”

Realtors in Florida face no legal requirement to warn potential buyers about those flood risks. Albert Slap, president of Coastal Risk Consulting, which helps homeowners and governments measure their exposure to flooding, said he thinks that will soon change: Just as the public demanded mandatory disclosure of asbestos and lead paint, people will insist on the same disclosure if a house suffers regular floods.

And when that happens, Slap said, many Florida home prices will tumble.

“Anybody in these floody areas, if they disclose to a buyer, the buyer probably won’t buy that property,” said Slap, whose company is doing work for the city of Miami Beach. “That’s going to drive the value down to zero, well before water is up to their front door.”

Slap said the answer isn’t a mass retreat from the coast, at least not yet, but rather a version of battlefield triage: figuring out which homes are worth saving, through elevation or other means, and which can’t be helped.

Stephanie Russo at her home in Key Largo. She said that if she knew how badly the area would flood when she was looking at the house, she wouldn't have bought it.
 
“The next black swan is the failure of housing finance to take climate change into account,” he said. “There will be a large number of homes that will lose substantial value, and will default on mortgages, if nothing is done to help them.”

...
Every soup ladled to the hungry, every blanket draped over the cold signifies, in the final sense, a theft from my gigantic paycheck.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3112
  • mooh
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #46 on: April 20, 2017, 08:22:28 PM »
That might be worth posting on the Lukewarmers thread, seeing as Pdb88 was asking about economic impacts of climate change there.
Mooohn!

Offline HanEyeAm

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 225
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #47 on: April 24, 2017, 11:31:13 PM »
Not sure this is the right place for this question, but it is related to global warming. EPA posted some NPS data regarding Yoshino cherry tree peak bloom dates in Washington DC from 1921-2016. Of course, cherry tree peak bloom reflects climate and, in particular, temperature. EPA reported that the peak bloom date has shifted 5 days earlier over that period (https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/cherry-blossoms).

I graphed the data showing the linear, quadratic, and loess fit lines (see below). The number on the Y-axis refers to Julian dates (e.g., Jan 1 = 1).

I calculated "change" in peak bloom date using several simple methods:
•   Linear trend: Since 1921, the peak bloom date has shifted 4.91 days earlier.
•   Quadratic trend: since 1921, the peak bloom date has shifted 4.94 days earlier.
•   Loess fit line suggests a non-linear trend, with a slight shift to a later date until the mid-1970s then a sharp change in the trend to earlier days from there. Visual inspection suggests maybe 4 days earlier.
•   Per 5-year average (1921-1925 vs. 2012-2016) = 0.02 days earlier
•   Per 10-year average (1921-1930 vs. 2007-2016) = 1.2 days earlier

I’m curious how you all think the trend in peak bloom dates should be interpreted. In my opinion, analyzing the data as linear, as the EPA did, is convenient, but does not seem to fit the data and certainly maximizes the change in days.

So, in your opinion, has the peak bloom date changed or not? If so, by how much? And what peak bloom date should we expect in 2050?



Online gmalivuk

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1354
    • http://gmalivuk.livejournal.com
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #48 on: April 25, 2017, 12:12:58 AM »
Linear not only doesn't maximize the change, as you yourself just stated a larger number for quadratic, but it also fits the trend seen in cherry blossoms in Japan, which was posted a couple pages ago.
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better...is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

Offline HanEyeAm

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 225
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #49 on: April 25, 2017, 07:09:59 AM »
Linear not only doesn't maximize the change, as you yourself just stated a larger number for quadratic, but it also fits the trend seen in cherry blossoms in Japan, which was posted a couple pages ago.
To clarify, the linear and quadratic trends were no mt significantly different and both would have been rounded to 5 days.

Also, it is highly unlikely that a quadratic trend would fit prior data if available or predict future dates. But then again how well does the linear? Most graphs shown earlier showed lowess or other non-linear fit lines.

Yes, IIRC, there was a striking shift in the 1970s.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2017, 07:14:45 AM by HanEyeAm »

Offline gebobs

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 188
  • Me like hockey!
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #50 on: April 25, 2017, 01:51:56 PM »

So, it took me the entire day, and this may the last time I ever do this, but I went over this denialist wordvomit line by line:

Wow. Just wow. Well done!

Quote
Survey here.

For some reason, the link does not work for me.

Regarding that leveling of temperature from 1940 to 1970, might it be due, at least in part, to WWII?

I love that argument that we don't need to worry because temperatures were as high or even higher at [insert some point far back in the Earth's prehistory]. So true, right. And who needs molecular oxygen? Heck, it would probably have been poisonous to the earliest life on the planet, amirite?


Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3112
  • mooh
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #51 on: April 25, 2017, 03:32:15 PM »

So, it took me the entire day, and this may the last time I ever do this, but I went over this denialist wordvomit line by line:

Wow. Just wow. Well done!

Thanks! }|:o)

Quote
Survey here.

For some reason, the link does not work for me.

Hmm, I guess they must've taken it down. Unfortunately I couldn't find a copy, but here's a skepticalscience article that deals with this and various other such issues. You can find most of those stats there. They use the 2% response figure from a denialist article that explicitly stated that 1,077 of the 51,000 surveyed responded.
I should point out that these kinds of badly controlled surveys have done the rounds before... I did once do my own random sample of about 100 signatures from the infamous Oregon Petition (which had only 31,000 signatures!), and found that most of the signatories were bachelors degrees, many of them in fields completely unrelated to climate science (and several having obvious prank names). IIRC I found exactly zero publishing climate scientists (though there were a couple of economist PhDs in there). So it is totally unsurprising to me that the APPEGA one is of similar quality.

Regarding that leveling of temperature from 1940 to 1970, might it be due, at least in part, to WWII?

That's thought to be mainly due to sulfate aerosol forcing from post-WWII rapid industrialization and a number of large volcanic eruptions. Sulfate aerosols increase the earth's albedo, thereby reflecting more sunlight back into space, but they are relatively short lived, so once measures were taken to reduce sulfate aerosols in the troposphere (to combat acid rain), the aerosols were reduced and CO2 took over as the dominant anthropogenic forcing. Here's what sulfate emissions looked like over time:



Keep in mind that CO2 concentration keeps increasing throughout this period.

Another reason why they suspect that aerosols are the main culprit is that, while daytime temperatures dropped, nighttime temperatures actually rose during this time (which is what you would expect, since there is no sunlight to reflect at night, but there is plenty of heat radiation that can be absorbed by CO2).

Oh, and the article also mentions an issue with a change in the measurement of sea surface temperatures that may have lead to this hiatus being more pronounced, but I haven't really seen much about that since. But if this graph shows the correction they're referring to (which, in fairness, I'm not 100% sure of), it obviously didn't have a giant impact:

Mooohn!

Offline Soldier of FORTRAN

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5582
  • Cache rules everything around me.
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #52 on: May 03, 2017, 06:21:01 PM »
Update on Larsen C: Huge Antarctic ice shelf crack now has second branch



This is the same ice shelf discussed earlier in the thread.  Only 12 miles remain before an 1,100' thick chunk of ice the area of Rhode Island calves and floats off. 
Every soup ladled to the hungry, every blanket draped over the cold signifies, in the final sense, a theft from my gigantic paycheck.

Offline Billzbub

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2644
  • I know you know I know
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #53 on: May 04, 2017, 10:56:40 AM »
Isn't winter approaching down there?  Do they think winter will put the calving off for a while?

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3112
  • mooh
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #54 on: May 04, 2017, 11:11:13 AM »
Isn't winter approaching down there?

You actively tried to avoid the word "coming" to escape Game of Thrones memes, didn't you? Well, you're not going to get away that easy!





Mooohn!

Offline Billzbub

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2644
  • I know you know I know
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #55 on: May 04, 2017, 01:55:51 PM »
Goddamit!

Offline Soldier of FORTRAN

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5582
  • Cache rules everything around me.
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #56 on: May 15, 2017, 03:55:54 AM »
I love the x-axis. 

Every soup ladled to the hungry, every blanket draped over the cold signifies, in the final sense, a theft from my gigantic paycheck.

Online Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13923
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #57 on: May 15, 2017, 04:39:34 AM »
That is pretty hinky
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3112
  • mooh
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #58 on: May 15, 2017, 07:03:20 AM »
I love the x-axis. 



Who in the world would think to make a graph that way?
Mooohn!

Offline HanEyeAm

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 225
Re: Climate Change Catchment Thread
« Reply #59 on: May 16, 2017, 06:45:33 AM »
I love the x-axis. 



Who in the world would think to make a graph that way?
I like the info it gives... that emissions have stabilized and we aren't seeing a continued exponential growth trend. It just needs a better indicator of the change in scale (and 2010).

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


 

personate-rain