Climate Change

Sea Level To Rise One Foot by 2050, Says NOAA

Another good reason to stop subsidizing people to live at the beach.

|

"Sea level along the U.S. coastline is projected to rise, on average, 10-12 inches (0.25-0.30 meters) in the next 30 years (2020 -050)," says a new report from the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The agency notes this "will be as much as the rise measured over the last 100 years (1920-2020)." While the report stops short of saying so, this projection is yet another excellent reason to stop subsidizing coastal living.

Sea level is rising faster as a result of thermal expansion and added water from melting glaciers caused by man-made increases in global average temperatures stemming from accumulating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due largely to the burning of fossil fuels. Interestingly, simply extrapolating the trajectory of current observations suggests that average sea level will rise to just under 15 inches by 2050.

Whether its 10 inches or 15, however, rising sea level means that more houses and coastal infrastructure are at greater risk of damage as tide and storm surge heights increase.

However, since 1968 the U.S. government's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has been subsidizing a significant number of its policyholders to build and live in flood-prone areas. As a result of losses outstripping its premiums, the NFIP is $20.5 billion in debt. In a recent article in Regulation, Peter Van Doren, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, points out that the often highly concentrated nature of flood disasters would require private insurers to charge premiums amounting to 5 to 9 times the average claim in order to remain solvent. Few people would buy such expensive policies.

Last fall the NFIP launched its Risk Rating 2.0 program which is raising the rates for nearly 75 percent of its policyholders. Premiums may increase by as much as 18 percent per year for owner-occupied homes and 25 percent for second homes. Over time, such increases will incentivize people to move away from areas where the sea is engulfing their homes and businesses.

A growing body of research suggests that at least some Americans are beginning to factor sea level rise into their purchases of beachfront property.

For example, a 2019 study in the Journal Financial Economics found that houses "exposed to sea level rise sell for approximately 7% less than observably equivalent unexposed properties equidistant from the beach." Another 2021 study found that residential properties on Long Island that "were exposed to future sea level rise experienced an annual price appreciation rate of roughly 1% point below unexposed properties." Researchers at Georgia Southern University calculated in 2020 that homes in Savannah "most at risk from sea level rise are associated with an approximate 3.1 percent price discount."

In a fascinating 2021 article in The Professional Geographer, researchers identify a distinction between how concerns about rising sea levels affect the prices of single family primary and vacation homes in Miami. They find that properties below 2 feet above sea level show a substantial 15 percent discount for houses in which the owners live full time versus no significant discount for vacation homes. The researchers suggest that wealthier buyers for Miami vacation homes are more financially flexible, more mobile, and less socially invested in the community and so have a higher risk tolerance when it comes to sea level rise.

A 2021 article in The Review of Financial Studies reported survey data in Rhode Island suggesting that residents significantly underestimated flood risks with result that coastal housing prices were 6 to 13 percent higher than actual flood risks warranted. Another 2021 study evaluating coastal housing trends noted that there are contradictory studies with respect to whether rising sea levels were having an effect on coastal housing prices. However, the authors suggested that rising flood insurance premiums would reduce demand for properties in locations at risk of sea level rise.

NEXT: Philadelphia's D.A. Sees Little Value and Much Injustice in Gun Possession Arrests

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Poor Obama. Terrible timing on buying that ocean front property.

    1. I've managed $19930 in no more than 30 days through working job at my apartment. Just when I've lost my office position, I was so distressed but luckily I have searched this on-line task which is why I am ready to collect thousand USD from the comfort of my home.TGb Anyone can get this career and could get more money online heading following site.

      Get more information............VISIT HERE

    2. Two words. Sea wall. And, the lightworker is nothing if not a smug hypocritical dickhead, so, he'll find a way to fuck over the little people.

      1. I make 85 dollars each hour for working an online job at home. KLA I never thought I could do it but my best friend makes 10000 bucks every month working this job and she recommended me to learn more about it. The potential with this is endless.
        For more detail …. http://guest.link/TCu

    3. Ha! My thoughts exactly (Obama buying ocean level property for millions)!!

    4. Yes and a decade or so earlier Al Gore bought himself some on the California coasts. Too bad

      1. I just remember that around the time the Inconvenient Truth movie came out, Al Gore released a press release with maps of what the coastlines of the US will look like when all the glaciers melt.

        There was no accompanying information about whether his models were showing a particular time of year, high or low tide or storm surge, considered possible flood control or marshland restoration. Just, “Here’s these scary images based on simplistic assumptions.”

    5. It's an investment relying on getting bailed out by the government. He'll probably make money on this.

    6. He will be OK; they bought on the top floor.

  2. Yeah, sure it will. As see level rise has been measured at 0.8 inches per decade, I'm highly doubting in three decades it will be 10-12 inches.

    1. For the last three decades it's been impossible to find climatologists willing to bet on a year in the next decade seeing a whole centimeter of mean sea level rise, or climate deniers prepared to put money on less than 1 centimeter in the decade following the bet.

      1. So what you are saying is everyone knows there are huge uncertainties and no one is wanting to put their money where their mouth is

    2. Right on Squirrel! Why should we ever believe these computer models when they NEVER have been even close to being accurate before. Why now Ronald Bailey?

  3. Cutting the tax on gasoline will help this problem.

    1. Tiny electric cars that are certain death in an emergency in cold weather, that's the fix, it is known.

      1. Yep.
        My fantasy was that the I95 mess had been all greenies in electric cars.
        Much harder to deliver an electric charge than a can of gasoline.

  4. They have been wrong for 50 years I think I won't hold my breath. BTW Bailey you will not find any place on earth that does not have disasters. so i don't call it subsidising its just nature

    1. Let me tell you about a place called Arizona. Where the worst disasters are these things called microbursts. It’s when the wind gets super angry in a very specific spot and usually blows down a tree or something.

    2. Oh, and haboobs, where it gets kinda windy and blows dust around. I mean, everything does get super dusty so that’s kinda disastrous I guess.

    3. Right!
      I call it tides. Having lived on or near oceans for 60+ years, looking at tropical rainfalls, Ice caps, major river flows into the ocean (a bunch and a lot of water), knowing Archimedes Principle and more I have concluded that nothing, but nothing will happen with water of significance to anyone alive today, including newborns. The same amount of water is here as there was 10,000+ years ago and will remain for another 10,000+ years. It may not be where you want it but it will be here! Earthquakes and volcanic activities will change land masses before anything else!

  5. They’ve been pedaling this shit for decades and keep getting away with it.

  6. "Sea level along the U.S. coastline is projected to rise, on average, 10-12 inches (0.25-0.30 meters) in the next 30 years (2020 -050)," says a new report from the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Where shall we put this with the other 10,000 failed predictions that were made in the 90s and early 2000s that were supposed to have happened by 2010 and 2020 respectively.

    1. How many times have we all gone extinct?

      (Somebody get Paul Ehrlich so we can punch him in the face.)

      1. The first time was before I was even born so it's been kind of a rough life, I gotta say.

    2. AOC is the one true mother Gaia and she said it'd only be 12 years until the world was destroyed. Not just the coasts, THE WHOLE WORLD!

      Prove her wrong!

      1. Actions, not words; does she have life insurance?

  7. The researchers suggest that wealthier buyers for Miami vacation homes are more financially flexible, more mobile, and less socially invested in the community and so have a higher risk tolerance when it comes to sea level rise.

    So you describe the Obamas here.

    1. Presumably they are also smarter and more financially savvy and concerned about the future resale value of their coastal property, which they (rightly) judge to be little affected by potential future sea level rise.

  8. Another good reason to stop subsidizing people to live at the beach listening to the global warmcooling alarmists.

    FTFY.

    1. Why not both?

  9. those fucking Canucks are in heap big trouble now. King Trudeau *and* "thermal expansion"

    1. I think he prefers Emperor. I have to say, from watching him speak at the HoC over the last few years, I am surprised Quebec didn't leave. And every other province, leaving TO as a standalone city with no income but a doofus progressive PM for the wine moms to swoon over.

      1. cartoon from the 60s about a kid who for his birthday gets a Maple Leafs sweater instead of a Habs #9 and is very sad. haven't seen it in maybe 30 years but we always say "WHO would want to wear a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater?" in our best french-canadian accents every time the Loafs are in town

    2. Thermal expansion would make more of Canada's land aerable

  10. Are these the same experts that said millions of people would die of the wuflu each month?

  11. I'll bet everything I own in 2050 vs 2 mil that they are wrong.

    1. 2 mil? Why would you bet to take a loss?

      1. Im giving them the odds.

  12. So the two hot takes you guys have on the climate problem is

    1) Scientists don't get predictions exactly wrong, so they're clearly in a Jew conspiracy.

    2) The Obamas bought a beach house, ergo global warming is a hoax.

    You people approach having a media diet the way a fat kid approaches having a diet diet. All cheetos all the time.

    1. You get things “exactly wrong” all the time.

    2. Listen dummy, if you thought a volcano was going to erupt, would you build a house there?

      1. What if he don't know where he gonna go when the volcano blows

        1. He certainly claims to know.

          1. That’s only because he was channeling Jimmy Buffet. But just like in so many other things, he’s full of it because Buffet himself doesn’t know.

        2. He don't want to land in New York City

        3. If he is a virgin, he could jump in.

        4. He don't want to land in Mexico

        5. He don't want to land on no 3 mile island

      2. You people spent the past two decades denying there was a problem and supporting politicians who worked for oil interests. Fuck you.

        1. And you support a guy who is lying to you.

          Instapundit put it best: I'll buy it is a crisis when the people who proclaim it is a crisis ACT like it is a crisis.

        2. You mean politicians like Obama, the Clintons and Biden? All took big oil money.

        3. You are a totalitarian and a fascist, so no, fuck you.

          1. I picture Tony dressed up as Hermann Goering. But fatter.

            1. I'm not fat. Take it back.

        4. You people spent the past two decades denying there was a problem

          Because there IS no problem, Tony.

          For most of the existence of humanity the world had much higher CO2 levels and was warmer. Ice ages have been diebacks for humanity.

          We thrive in warmer conditions.

          As does most of the life on the planet.

          1. If there's no problem, why has the Arctic ice been shrinking every year compared to the previous year? (I believe there was one exception a few years ago.)

            1. Because the Earth is naturally ice free?

              It's been ice free for most of it's existence.

              When it's not suffering an ice age there is ice and snow only at higher altitudes and some in winter.

        5. Gee, what an intelligent, well-reasoned and articulate argument you make. We all wish we could be as smart as you.

      3. Volcanoes ACTUALLY exist. Man made global warming only exist on a computer. Pretty simple dude.
        The Phucko Knows

    3. Their predictions are not only largely wrong, some are laughably wrong. Compare predictions prior to adjustments and line fitting to reality.

      1. The predictions are perfectly fine, and they've usually been underestimating the timeline and damage, if anything.

        You have to stop getting your scientific information from crackpot rightwing blogs. It won't hurt you to read Wikipedia once in a while. Maybe even a copy of Nature, if you're feeling particularly literate.

        1. "You have to stop getting your scientific information from crackpot rightwing blogs. It won't hurt you to read Wikipedia once in a while."

          Self-awareness has bottomed out here.

        2. ^^^ hasn't heard of the infamous "hockey stick" graph.

          Or read the recent articles explaining how our misjudgement of cloud cover and our vast underestimating of how much it cooled the planet in the past has lead to the increase in warming looking much larger than it actually was.

          1. Treemometers is one of the greatest scandals of the last few decades.

          2. You're still repeating bullshit talking point from crackpot blogs! You're still doing it!

            This shut was supplied to you by oil companies and their mouthpieces in Republican media. This, like climate change, is all part of the public record. Stop being a sad dupe.

            1. Yet, he's actually citing a recent published study.

              Love how you go right to the "big oil!" and crackpot blogs tropes to avoid the actual substance.

            2. U need to stop getting your info from comic books. 60-yrs of bullshit. Yet there u still stand with mouth wide open still eating horse shit. Why do u hate yourself so much?
              The Phucko Knows

        3. Tony dear. I understand the science and historical trends. I even link to them below. I reviewed the pieces of code released a few years ago and laughed. I understand modeling credibility. I have white papers published on the topic.

          1. You sound like Donald Trump talking about real estate.

        4. This comment is remarkable false. Even the IPCC in the 6th assessment explains that climate attribution to any type of change or weather event is still not noticeable beyond natural variation.

          My god. You are just a narrative vomiting fool at this point, aren't you?

        5. You just gave me a great idea for Babylon bee article
          "noaa scientist wins the lottery: I finally know what it feels like to have a prediction come true he says"

          1. *applause*

            They do take submissions...

        6. they've usually been underestimating the timeline and damage, if anything.

          This is the opposite of the truth.

          It won't hurt you to read Wikipedia once in a while. Maybe even a copy of Nature, if you're feeling particularly literate.

          lol - model of scientific literacy, you are.

    4. Your the only one that says jew

      1. It's pretty much always implied.

        1. Only to a nazi.

        2. To a nazi socialists like you, sure.

          To us, no.

        3. This is known as projection.

          1. It’s all Tony ever has.

        4. It's pretty much always implied.

          If you're the only one hearing the dog whistles . . . .

      2. Well.... Jews pretty much r at the head of every government agency and r wall street firms. Perhaps if u pull your head from your falsely indoctrinated ass... U would actually see the truths SCREAMING at u about the Jews running YOUR world.
        The Phucko Knows

    5. How long do you think it will be until your approach to climate change has gone the way of everything else?

      1. I mean, just to go on, because I want to...

        The daily inflation numbers prove that your views on Magical Monetary Theory are just that, your party has been in power for 2 years and brought misery to the people in this country, wokeness is an obvious joke and people are tired of it, as they're tired of being accused of racism at the drop of a hat. You can't actually engage threads on any of those topics credibly anymore.

        No one trusts your party with children, the economy, foreign policy, and now, thanks to COVID, health policy.

        The Canadian truckers are proving that your democrat-dense urban centers are incredibly easy to disrupt, while they undermine your fantasies of drones shooting your political undesirables with Hellfire missiles.

        Your hand-wringing about "misinformation" and your quest for censorship can't stand up against a comedian who talks about aliens smoking pot. The media you would prop up as the authorities on facts has burned through all credibility in the last 5 years, as well as your party leaders. No one trusts the media or the government, much less do they want to assign them gatekeepers of good think.

        What do you have left? Impotently sneering at people for your last refuge? Your stance on climate change will fail, too, when it's obvious that renewables won't provide the power society needs, and pushing poor people into cold winters goes over about just as well as pushing children into facemasks for three years followed by forced experimental injections.

        Do you have anything left? I can't think of it.

        1. You've just said "you're wrong" about 30 times and never said anything of any substance. Yeah, you're a FOX News junkie. Of course you believe all that. I know what you will believe before you know it yourself, because I pay attention to the propaganda you consume.

          I can't really debate a person who has no remote connection to the facts on the ground.

          1. I'm happy to hear your show me where I'm wrong, but I highly suspect you really don't have any facts to bring to bear.

            You don't really expect democrats to retain power in November, do you? And how long will it be until the figurehead is put out to pasture out of mercy?

            If you want to show me how the democrats have just given us a rocking economy, stellar foreign relations, wonderful foreign policy (I'm glad they've managed to avoid starting WW3 so far. Remember back when democrats hated the Iraq War?), a stellar job of shepherding the nation's children through their education, while making fact-based, coherent public policy statements about the most important health story in the last 100 years, then I'm for it.

            But you can't. Because none of that is true. Those are the facts.

            1. I have receipts for all my statements, if you'd like to see them. I suspect you don't believe in receipts, however.

              1. A+ would watch this ass kicking again.

                1. Seconded. 😀

            2. Your party has literally taken to committing mass suicide in political protest.

              1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/388781/political-party-preferences-shifted-greatly-during-2021.aspx

                More Americans are republican or lean republican than are democrat or lean democrat.

                Your party of democrats has literally lost at democracy.

              2. Yet, not even remotely true. Another hysteric, hyperbolic position. I remember when you used to actually have some semblance of rationale to your comments.

                1. That was like, seven Tonys ago.

          2. Tell me more about the scientific value of Wikipedia.

            1. Before or after it's edited to fit the narrative?

          3. So he cited a bunch of examples and your rebuttal is that you cannot cite any examples of him being wrong.

            Good job.

    6. That's incoherent even for you, Tony. How about
      1) The scientists making catastrophic predictions have been repeatedly and severely wrong. They've been caught red-handed attempting to suppress the publication of critical papers and studies. Not all of them but a critical few who nonetheless try to present themselves as a majority.
      2) When the people behave inconsistently with their stated beliefs, the possibility of willful hypocrisy is high.

      For someone making a food-based analogy about living in a self-selected media bubble, you're no example of a balanced diet.

      1. 1 is a lie, and the way you figure that out is to stop getting your science from crackpot rightwing blogs.

        2 is just a stupid nonsense argument. You are really going to say that after all the science denial and horseshit and delays in policy, the actual problem is that people should know better than exist on the coasts? So, like everyone you know, all those people can just up and move, right? All the people on the coasts, meaning half the country?

        Someone else's hypocrisy doesn't make you right. You should get off this annoying habit because it's annoying.

        1. They hypocrisy is from the climate catastrophe alarmunists. They have been wrong time after time, they keep bumping the catastrophe dates, keep being proved wrong, and yet keep getting more funding.

          If the science is settled, why do they need more funding?

          Or

          If it's settled, it ain't science. If it's science, it ain't settled.

          1. Again with the exact same lie. We're experiencing climate-related catastrophes as we speak. Record numbers of wildfires, ice shelfs collapsing, human migration patterns changing, and countless other disruptions. What are you looking for? We're already in it.

            1. Your hysteria is embarrassing.

            2. Stop reading the political and policy poetion of IPCC and read the actual science. They don't agree.

            3. Yet, the IPCC even says you can't make the statements that you are making.

              The irony is you are parroting non-science narratives rather than the actual science.

            4. We're experiencing climate-related catastrophes because every weather event is labeled a climate-related event instead of, you know, the weather. Every time a hurricane, storm, tornado, earthquake is reported the reporter never fails to mention how climate-change is a bit player in this great production and 'these events' will only get 'more intense' in the years to come.

              When you've lived on the planet for a few more years you will understand the ebb and flow of natural occurrences, from blizzards to washed out mountains to the creeping erosion that has always pulled the sand from beaches back into the ocean. Humans tend to build their houses in vulnerable places then try to blame mother nature for doing her thing.

              Keep being a true believer, calling others names who don't believe and changing the name of the crisis every few years to muddy the waters further. Next up is probably Human planetary assault manifestation or some other catchy name the marketing gurus will cram down everyone's throat.

              1. Isn't amazing that the "weather isn't climate" crowd has so thoroughly adopted the idea that "weather is climate" to push their religion?

                1. It galls me.
                  Hurricane? Global climate change
                  Hot summer? Earth is heating due to climate change
                  Big snow storm? Climate change will add to more and more severe weather events.
                  Fire in the hills? Climate change
                  Polar Bears? Dying from climate change
                  Glaciers calving? Never happened before climate change
                  Penguins unhappy? Climate change
                  Sharks in the water? Seas are warming due to climate change
                  Arctic Front from Canada? Climate change
                  Warm belt from the equator? Also Climate change
                  Floods? Climate change
                  No rain? Also climate change
                  El nino? Climate change
                  No El Nino? Also climate change
                  Climate change? Climate change

                  The zealots embrace everything related to any kind of weather as driven by climate change as opposed to, you know, an ever changing weather cycle.

            5. End your suffering and kill yourself.

        2. "1 is a lie, and the way you figure that out is to stop getting your science from crackpot rightwing blogs."

          Saying "LIAR!" and "YOU READ RIGHT WING BLOGS" is not actually an argument.

          "2 is just a stupid nonsense argument."

          It is thoroughly logical.

        3. Wow, I didn't think you could get even less coherent than your first post. That's impressive.

          I have to admit that I'm starting to wonder if "Tony" is a parody account intended to discredit the people who really do believe in catastrophic global warming.

      2. There's a page listing all known predictions of climate catastrophe. Not well organized, but it is absoluetly amazing how many famous people, both scientists and politicians, have predicted huge sea level rises, the end of snow in winter, the ice-free arctic, and so on, over and over again, all predicted to have occurred sometime in the past, and none have.

        I used to have some respect fro Ronald Bailey in the science department. But to mindlessly spout this nonsense of a one foot rise in 28 years, well, I'm done.

        1. I used to have some respect fro Ronald Bailey in the science department.

          lol wut?

          1. All science reporters are failed scientists. Bailey doesn't even have a science degree.

    7. As long as the Cheetohs are crunchy.

    8. Y’all should be nicer to poor old Tony here. His entire covid narrative and chicken little worldview is falling apart.

      1. Isn't that sad. All hope is placed in fear, panic, and anger. And then when that fear, panic, and anger don't materialize you become angry and depressed because of it.

        Talk about a no-win approach to life.

  13. If I'd had to bet, I'd have put my money on Bailey's next post covering the woman who was apparently cured of AIDS with a stem cell implant.

    https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/first-woman-reported-cured-hiv-after-bone-marrow-transplant-2022-02-15/

    1. Nah it's got to be something about the wuflu

      1. MOAR TESTING!

      2. The WuFlu cured her of AIDS? Didn't see *that* one coming...

  14. "Sea level is rising faster as a result of thermal expansion and added water from melting glaciers caused by man-made increases in global average temperatures stemming from accumulating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due largely to the burning of fossil fuels."
    He declared. The dogma lives deeply within this one.

    1. Please tell me that train wreck of a sentence was an editing error.

      1. I can picture a Stepford Wife mindlessly droning something she was programmed to say.

      2. I write sentences like that but I'm usually high. Tell reason to pay me. I'll even take cash like a whore if it makes ENB happy.

    2. "As a result," "caused by," "stemming from," and "due...to," all in one sentence. That's pretty impressive.

  15. We need more testing to stop sea level rise.

    1. And of course a snuggly fitting N-95 mask has been shown to be effective at reducing the inhalation of sea spray. The Biden administration should be shipping these free of charge to all coastal dwellers earning under 400k per year.

    2. The oceans need to be vaccinated. And masked.

      1. Triple Vaxxed, Double Masked, and the living daylights tested out of them.

  16. Rate of rise is already decreasing from the high if 5mm measured a few years ago. Following a cycle that has existed for a century of measurement. Likely rise will go down to about 3mm a year.

    How do they reach a foot?

    In 2020, global sea level set a new record high—91.3 mm (3.6 inches) above 1993 levels.
    The rate of sea level rise is accelerating: it has more than doubled from 0.06 inches (1.4 millimeters) per year throughout most of the twentieth century to 0.14 inches (3.6 millimeters) per year from 2006–2015.

    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

    This report makes no sense and has a huge assumption for acceleration.

    1. OK, I gotta check your math: 3.6/30 = .12

      OK. That tracks with .14

      Now, 2023 to 2053 = 30 years, right?

      .14 * 30 = 4.2

      So, yeah. Where in the everlasting fuck is the other 8 inches? (I know. That's what she said. But I mean in terms of sea level rise)

      Looking at the chart in your link, even if it is accelerating, there's gotta be a hell of a hockeystick turn, soon, of we expect to triple the current annual rate of sea level rise.

      1. The number is just insane.

    2. They keep praying to their Gaia god to finally make the earth's systems comply with their desired climate change narrative.

    3. It was 14 degrees F at my house at 7am today.
      At 4pm, it was 33 degrees.

      a 19 degree increase in 9 hours. At that rate, it will be over 150 degrees in just a few days.

      That is exactly the logic being used here. Actually measuring sea level, it can be confidently stated that the sea level has increased a net of 13cm in 2000 years. It has been up and down many times during that interval.

  17. Hey baily before you quote these idiots show me their historic modeled v's measured data. Their predictions have literally never been correct.
    It a scam and you can tell by all of the climat activists buying ocean front property

    1. In one model the scientist went back and added more events under the assumption that the reporting during that time had been lax and the weather events were under-reported as a result.

      Whatever fits the model I guess.

  18. They are literally planning on re-locating the parking lot at a local beach due to sea level rise. 1 ft projected. Even assuming that's true it's basically a small fraction of the difference between low and high tide. What makes more sense - adapting to small variations (some man-made perhaps, some not) or going ape-s over worst-case projections before they happen?

    1. Obviously, going apeshit. Local NBC weatherbabe was discussing rising oceans tonight, "according to the model" Jersey shore will be inundated within decades. Right now, some multi-millionaire lawyer with a multi-million $ house in Margate is going over his political connections to figure out which one can best make the rubes in Nebraska pay for a higher seawall.

    2. Mostly people are just asking that we stop getting our energy from the fossil fuels that are destroying the planet's ecosystem. Is that really so much to ask?

      1. Find something that is remotely as efficient.

        And if you oppose nuclear, you are not close to being serious or sincere.

        1. Find something that is remotely as efficient.

          Or what? You say this as if we have a choice in the matter.

          But it's true, it's hard to think of anything more efficient than drilling underneath the North Pole.

          And if you oppose nuclear, you are not close to being serious or sincere.

          I do not. I'm for giving the CEO of ExxonMobil a golden parachute of daily blowjobs for life if that's what it takes and that's what he wants.

          1. Google "Utica and marcellus shale deposits".

            Derp derp. I didn't know the north pole was in western Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio.

            1. We're going to have to stop drilling up methane that we have access to. We're going to have to voluntarily turn down that profit if we want to survive as a species.

              1. Interesting that all of your proposals end with socialism.

              2. Survive as a species?!

                What the fuck is this doomsday, religious garbage?

                First question that needs to be asked: where would humanity be today without the abundant, affordable, reliable, and energy rich fossil fuels? Seriously. The problem is you demand change to save humans, but you also toss humans aside to achieve your desired change. You can't have it both ways.

                1. He wants to put y’all back in caves.

                2. Fossil fuels don't have feelings. They'll be fine.

                  1. I see you avoided the question.

                  2. And yet those who work with them do. Come up with a real argument next time, Tony.

                3. Be nice, he's lost the plot of the Covid doomsday narrative, and needs another doomsday scenario to make his life worth living.

          2. It would be much easier to transition to nuclear if your party wasn’t making malinvestments into wind and solar, perpetuating the myth that intermittent and unpredictable energy sources will power the future. And the more they delay while mandating co2 reductions, the more expensive reliable energy gets, and that impacts poor people the most.

            This is why, in the end, democrats will have only succeeded in wasting money and hurting people in the end, like the economy. And COVID.

            1. It’s what they’re best at.

          3. "Or what? You say this as if we have a choice in the matter."

            Asking people to make their lives measurably worse for no real reason is a bit of a long ask there.

            "But it's true, it's hard to think of anything more efficient than drilling underneath the North Pole."

            I should care if we do that...why?

            "I do not. I'm for giving the CEO of ExxonMobil a golden parachute of daily blowjobs for life if that's what it takes and that's what he wants."

            You realize the only group opposing nuclear power are environmentalists, right?

      2. The fact that you even ask this question shows such a tremendous lack of understanding of the alternatives.

      3. Fossil fuels are cheap and convenient.

        1. And more efficient than all others, excluding nuclear

          1. Heck, on a portable basis, fossil fuels even beat out nuclear.

            1. There is no way we could ever stop using fossil fuels for air travel unless there is a massive and unforeseen technological shift.

              1. Or industrial use. Good luck using a wind turbine to operate a steel mill. How about all the non-fuel uses of petroleum? I haven't asked yet, but I don't foresee my optometrist hooking me up with hemp contacts.

              2. While we cannot stop using hydrocarbons, we could theoretically stop using fossil fuels. We do know how to form hydrocarbons from anything that can burn by reforming. It requires a huge investment and consumes tremendous amounts of energy, but it can be done.

      4. How many people are going to die from what you are "just asking"?

        Energy for a modern, highly urbanized civilization is not optional, and without a viable alternative to fossil fuels, this type of civilization is not sustainable. This is not a question of "profits", it is downgrading our ability to sustain the world's population and large parts back into poverty.

      5. "Mostly people are just asking that we stop getting our energy from the fossil fuels that are destroying the planet's ecosystem. Is that really so much to ask?"

        And replace them with windmills that only work when the wind is blowing or solar panels that only work in the daytime (and inefficiently on cloudy days). There is never anything about nuclear energy apart from the hysterical fear-mongering about nuclear plants being "unsafe", which in turn shows they aren't really serious about global warming.

  19. Whether its 10 inches or 15, however,

    What if it's 0.1?
    How about twenty feet?!?
    What if it recedes???? OMG!!!!!

    Jesus fucking Christ. Just stop.

    1. Nope. It will be 10-15. They have looked into their crystal science ball and it is known.

  20. Is thermal expansion the opposite of cold water shrinkage? Asking for a friend.

  21. You better watch out
    You better not cry
    You better not pout
    I'm telling you why,
    Santa Claus sea level rise is coming to town.

  22. Fuck you, Bailey. They are claiming levels have risen 1 foot when they have actually risen 7 inches. Sounds small, but that alone is an exaggeration of 71%. And they continually ignore subsidation and natural beach erosion. My father is convinced sea levels have risen 7 feet because of assholes like you who just keep on with the narrative no matter how wrong the environmental scientists have been for over 40 years now. That piece of shit Ehrlich is still teaching at Stanford despite 8 billion and rising.

    They changed the signs at Glacier National Park that said the glaciers would be gone by 2020 without even an apology for being so very, very wrong. So fuck you and anybody that looks like you.

  23. Still my favorite climate change article, courtesy of the Washington Post a few years ago (and not in the April 1st edition), and probably memory holed by now:

    They did a whole article on how to fight climate change by pumping seawater from melting Antarctic glaciers back to the South Pole for refreezing, using a series of nuclear power plants for power.

    I left a comment on why, if you had 100 years and the ocean was going to rise by 1 foot in that time, you couldn't just build sea walls one foot higher in coastal cities, and save some of that money.

    1. I searched for it today but it seems to have morphed into a fleet of ice-making mini-submarines refreezing the Arctic instead.

      1. My next favorite was the idea to clone woolly mammoths out of extinction, to uproot trees in the Arctic and stamp around and thereby create more grasslands which would somehow reflect more sunlight back into space when covered with snow, keeping the Earth cooler.

        I think it was in the same Scientific American with a story warning about the dangers of deforestation.

  24. The Chron this morning had the W Coast increase at 8", the E Coast at 12"; should make for interesting transits of the Cape and the Straights of Magellan

    1. My favorite sea level rise article had a bunch of east coast locations and their projected rise, and locations only a hundred miles apart were considerably different. On the same coast. Facing the same ocean.

      How the hell does an ocean rise differently just 100 miles apart?

      The obvious answer is land sinking, that sea level rise is relative to variable land levels, not absolute. But there was nary a mention of that.

      1. Likely now 30 years back (and we should all be dead by now!), read a book on the issues surrounding 'global warming' (at the time), written to clarify some claims; came across as mildly skeptical.
        Anyhow, measuring sea level is not at all easy and is subject to all sorts of distortions, depending (it seems) on the sympathies of those doing the measuring.
        Across the bay are the Berkeley mud flats; (an area where amateur sculpture was tolerated for a long time - no longer) and an area where sea level change should be visually extremely obvious.
        It's hiding.
        I'd love to hear reports from areas where even mild tides cause huge acreages of flats to be exposed or inundated; St. Malo, for example. Seems even a 3-4" sea level variation would be immediately obvious to a casual observer.

  25. Here's something to think about:

    We are depleting the gettable oil in the world. If civilization were to collapse to a premodern state and build itself back up again, it would not be able to have a second petroleum age because there are zero shallow reserves and they wouldn't find any.

    If you think petroleum is essential to technological advancement, then they're shit out of luck. Otherwise, it's interesting to speculate about which alternative they would use.

    1. That's a lie. Google "abiotic oil".

      Also Google "Utica and marcellus shale deposits".

      Then be smart enough to realize many machines can run on both natural gas, or liquified natural gas, or various refinements of gasoline. As well as many home furnaces that can burn nat gas, propane, or heating oil.

      My mothers family is in the oil business. They own wells that have continuously pumped oil here in western Pennsylvania for over 100 years with no measurable decrease in output. If were running out of oil, you'd think some of the first wells ever drilled would be the first to run out. But there's no sign of that.

      1. But you agree that it would be a good idea if we could figure out how to not need dirty fuels like that, right?

        The point is general: there's a finite amount and it can't last forever. I don't know about you, but I'm a bit of a prepper.

        1. If you want people to remain poor. Sure.

          1. It is a barely disguised attempt to keep the darker skinned folks in the developing world nice and poor as he likes them.

        2. if true, as oil production falls, prices increase and alternatives become viable. Getting ahead of that curve is speculation and you're welcome to invest as you see fit. Leave my $$ out of your plans

    2. Your preferred policies would end up with most people being subsistence farmers, like most of humanity pre-industrial revolution, so spare us your concern trolling about running out of fossil fuels.

  26. Wasn't the sea level supposed to rise one foot by 2020? I remember that claim from when I was in school. But see, kids in schools are often very credulous so they'll believe this shit, and then you end up with Greta Thunbergs who scream about how bad things are because they've fed these lies. And for some reason people want to make this girl a celebrity when she brings zero to the table in terms of solutions.

    1. The solutions have been worked out already. The barriers are political, not technical.

      1. Fuck socialism and fuck you.

      2. Exactly. That's why we haven't had a new nuke plant built since the 80s even though they're simultaneously safe as fuck and green as fuck.

        1. You're preaching to the choir. Nuclear is good.

          Also good, solar and wind, and I'm sure you'll get behind those as soon as someone figures out how to charge money for sunlight and wind.

          1. Isn't that what the owners of windmill and solar panel farms do?

          2. Wind power, if it was efficient, would be the same as any coal-fired or hydro-powered plant. They charge for the cost of maintaining it and the infrastructure required to get it from the wind farm to the customer. The problem is that it's inefficient and inconsistent so it's not a feasible long-term solution.

            Solar has different barriers because you need energy not just when the sun is shining, which means batteries. Batteries are not permanent, they require periodic replacements, and it's not cheap to make something to store sufficient energy. Plus you're still struck by the issue of inconsistent sunlight where, if you're in a blizzard or other period of extended inclement weather, you need back-up sources of energy production anyway.

            The barriers to production aren't about monetization at all; you could monetize those other technologies if they worked. The problem is they don't work; at least, not for the purposes of actually meeting the energy needs of the modern human.

            1. I will say you don’t have to store The energy in batteries.
              Energy produced by solar panels could run pumps to raise water to an elevated reservoir.
              During the night, the water could be allowed to run downhill and produce power.
              Next sunny day you pump it up again.

              1. Doc, there isn't enough elevated storage on the planet. You couldn't make elevated storage big enough.

                Plus, then you need at least 3 times the solar panels as you need to account for the energy to pump the extra water and the energy losses involved. Costs quickly go from "marginally affordable" it "insane and absurd"

          3. Making money is not the issue, you dumbass.

          4. This is, quite possibly, the dumbest thing you’ve ever posted here. Take a minute, take some deep breaths, and then think about what you did.

          5. "Also good, solar and wind, and I'm sure you'll get behind those as soon as someone figures out how to charge money for sunlight and wind."

            I'd support them if they were REMOTELY reliable.

            But, of course. they are not.

            1. I'm getting some portion of my electricity from wind farms as we speak, and I live in a midwest red state.

              1. Hahahahahaha imagine being this naive.

              2. "I'm getting SOME PORTION of my electricity from wind farms..."

                Okay, it seems like you might be on the brink of getting it. Probably not though.

                1. Oh I get it. You libertarians think entrepreneurship can innovate out of any problem except fossil fuels.

                  It's all perfectly logical from a certain standpoint (of knowing who underwrites libertarianism).

      3. This is a remarkably ignorant statement.

        If there were solutions, the issue of climate change wouldn't exist. The reason the issue exists is there are not sufficient solutions.

      4. Which political barriers would they ne?

        1. Resisting socialist dictators.

  27. More food for thought:

    Fred Koch was not only the founder of Koch industries, but helped found the John Birch Society too!

    It makes you wonder. He invented like one new process for refining oil and turned it into a global behemoth that affects and sometimes dictates politics to this day.

    What would the world be like if that guy happened to not be a white supremacist reactionary? What if he was liberal? Would we have fixed climate change already?

    At least we can be clear from this story that laissez-faire capitalism is a big fat joke.

    1. People as a species have only realized their impact on the planet in the last 50-75 years or so.

      We’ll never know what it would have been like if progressives had invented a new process for energy, because that’s not what progressives do. That’s what capitalism does. Otherwise, it would have been progressives that did it.

      The story only proves that we have the modern standard of living we have because of capitalism, and your sneering condescension reflects your own ignorance of the situation.

      Progressives live in a fantasy alternative reality utopia, where they’re convinced they would have done everything so much better, while they’ve never done much of anything.

      You people should really stick to traffic lights and filling potholes.

      1. I mean, really, at the time people were building our society largely on fossil fuels, the progressives didn’t even understand climate change. To pretend they would have magically seen it all coming and made different decisions is fantasy.

        1. "To pretend they would have magically seen it all coming and made different decisions is fantasy."

          NPR claims to have claimed "global warming" in '89, so that's 32 years, and, AFAIK, not a single one of the catastrophist's predictions has been borne out by events.
          Not! A! Single! One! ZERO!
          And yet, we still have shit-for-brains like Tony waving the PANIC flag, as if a word that pile of lefty shit posts is worthy of anything other than distain.
          Get one of you BFs to jam a rusty pitchfork up your ass, shitbag; your family will thank your and (assuming you die), the world will be a better place.

          1. 1989 was way too late for progressives to pretend they would have designed society better. What are they going to do? Turn off everyone’s power while they launch a moonshot to build alternative energy? Meanwhile, people are waiting and either freezing to death, dying of heat exhaustion, rising horses around in shit, etc?

            They have no basis for their moral grandstanding about alternative fantasy universes where they actually solved problems.

      2. Progressives can’t even fix potholes or traffic lights-try driving in any major Democrat-controlled city and you might think your in a war zone (for more reasons than the conditions of the streets). Progressives don’t actually want things to get better, hence why they all still wear masks and cheer for more COVID cases. They don’t really want to fix global warning either, or they would embrace nukes. All progressives want to do is complain and control everyone because they believe they are the smartest and most important people in the universe.

      3. So in order to be a good capitalist, you have to be a racist fuckface against blacks? What a pickle.

        It does seem to be the case when it comes to fossil fuel industries. Even their scientists skew heavily conservative. But we are not so much a reasoning species as a rationalizing species, so there you go.

        Otherwise I can name dozens of industries that make plenty of money and that are dominated by liberals.

        1. The amount of straw manning and false narratives that you have to generate to justify your position is astounding.

        2. Go ahead and name them. Don't be shy.

          1. Most of them that aren't oil companies, actually.

    2. At least we can be clear from this story that laissez-faire capitalism is a big fat joke.

      Capitalism is nothing more than a system to understand the aggregate decisions of a free people. Any other economic "system" is an imposition on that freedom by man at the point of a gun. Imagine supporting that simply because you don't like the decisions of your fellow man.

    3. “What would the world be like if that guy happened to not be a white supremacist reactionary”

      Fred Koch was a Democrat?

    4. Yeah, the system that produced affordable, cheap, and reliable energy and energy systems throughout the world that has brought billions of people out of poverty and massively increased life expectancy across the globe is a big fat joke.

      Are you even trying with your trolling anymore?

      1. Why do you simp for an inanimate chemical? Oil doesn't have feelings. It won't mind if we stop burning it.

        1. If you think I am simping for an inanimate chemical, you are either being purposefully ignorant in order to avoid taking responsibility for your position, or you are not smart enough to engage in this conversation.

          I simply explained that capitalism and fossil fuels have done wonders for humans on this planet. Something people like you ignore in order to push for replacing fossil fuels with magic energy.

          You argue to protect people from climate change, but then you throw people to the side by eliminating cheap and reliable energy. Again, you can't have it both ways.

          1. Many people seem to forget that the United States is not the world. There are billions of people in Asia, Africa, etc., who are not privileged to have ready and affordable heat or air conditioning and I guarantee you they will not be so receptive to lowering already low living standards. I very much doubt the government of China, for one, would be so keen on forcing lower standards of living if that meant increasing the threat to their own political power.

            1. I don't think leftists understand that energy poverty is a thing, and a bad one at that.

          2. I don't disagree that fossil fuels were sufficient to fuel modern industrial civilization, and I think it's an interesting question whether they were necessary.

            Another interesting question is whether it was a good idea to become a modern industrial civilization at all. Modern medicine and stuff are good, but not if the cost is the survival of the species.

            No serious participant in the politics who is advocating for clean energy advocates returning humans to a less comfortable situation. All they're trying to do is maintain the status quo. It's fossil fuel luddites who want to gamble with a major experiment in restructuring our environment.

            1. The problem is you say things like "cost is the survival of the species." This is just an asinine, hysterical position. Climate change isn't going wipe out humans. Not even remotely. Why do you buy into such hyperbolic extremism on this subject?

              And again, you are playing the cake and eat it too game. You want fossil fuels gone, yet you want to maintain living conditions and the status quo. Those two positions are completely at odds with each other.

              In the end, you claim doom, which isn't true. You demand action, but can't name it. You want "clean" energy to replace fossil fuels, but we don't have that. You want to maintain the status quo, but we can't without fossil fuels.

              You yell into the void that something is wrong, but you have no actual solution to that wrong. So instead you do the normal progressive thing and act smug and elitist in your constant bitching while calling everyone names because they don't buy into your religion of hate and anger.

          3. > or you are not smart enough to engage in this conversation.

            Spoiler: It's that one. Tony's biggest contribution to the world will be as fertilizer.

  28. Also, I've given up on recycling. My city virtue signals by putting out little placards showing what they'll pick up in your recycling bin. But since I often am at home working, I can now watch how they pick up recycling.

    What they do is, after they dump the non-recyclable trash, they pick up the recycling bin, and dump it into the same load, so they can take it to the same landfill. So people can continue filling up their blue recycling bins and feeling like they're being responsible but none of that stuff is actually being reused ever.

    1. I’ve seen this happen too. China stopped buying our recyclables about 10 years ago, so there hasn’t been a market for them, so they just go to the landfill/incinerator. But doesn’t it still make you feel good to think you’re doing something good for the planet?

      1. Plastic rots. There's no two ways about it. It degrades over time. You also severely shorten its lifetime every time you melt and reform it.

        To compare, this is like taking hardwoods, then recycling them into plywood. Then recycling it into particle board. Everyone knows that.

    2. It's the big irony that the majority of plastics in the ocean are the result of failed recycling practices.

  29. Thank goodness for all the climate change researches who live in their big houses, drive their SUV's, and fly their big private jets to the conferences in Hawaii, Sweden, etc to let me know my carbon footprint is harming this planet. When they move to a stick-built hut in the woods and stop using electricity/gas/oil products, I may start getting concerned.

    Until then, f'k off!

    1. Fun point on this is the only congress critter that lives in a zero carbon footprint life is massi. He built his own self powered house. I wonder if he ever visits one of AL gore's 4 mansions that are all constantly powered

    2. One spaceX launch for a billionaires shits and giggles is equivalent to the CO2 from:

      395 transatlantic flights or
      73 cars driving for a year

      The increased cost of living from carbon shaming will NEVER decrease the quality of life of the elite.

  30. There are a lot of times when you want to reduce the size of the images and you want the end product to look good. You can do this easily by using a tool called jpgimagecompresss.com. You just need to input the URL of the image and it will compress it. You can also reduce the size of the image by 30, 60 or 90%.

  31. Sea level rise is not accelerating, and this "crisis" has been a media darling for a hundred years. https://realclimatescience.com/2021/12/pbs-ten-feet-of-sea-level-rise-in-the-next-ten-years/

  32. Liberty (libertarian) means being free to make your own choices about your own life, that what you do with your body and your property ought to be up to you. Other people must not forcibly interfere with your liberty, and you must not forcibly interfere with theirs.

    Now if you kindly open your libertarian book to page 156 and the Chapter from NOAA.gov you see all the government restrictions of your liberty, that we support here at reason.com

    1. "Liberty (libertarian) means being free to make your own choices about your own life,"

      Unfortunately the sea also makes her own choices without regard to your precious liberties.

  33. "Whether its 10 inches or 15, however, rising sea level means that more houses and coastal infrastructure are at greater risk"

    More than sea side houses are at risk. There would be enormous disruption with the millions on the planet who live near the sea moving inland to escape the rising waters.

    1. This was supposed to happen years ago. Still waiting...

      1. Mother nature, the bitch, is not to be dictated to. Meanwhile keep your powder dry.

    2. So what you’re saying is that modern man is too fucking stupid to move back 1000 feet over 30 years?

      1. Stupid, lazy and obstinate. But don't worry, everything will be fine.

  34. Even if the worst global warming predictions came true, people would not go extinct.
    There would be a migration to the northern and southern latitudes as millions of acres of land in cold regions becomes suitable for agriculture.
    Siberia and Canada would become a tropical paradise.
    The small towns at the tip of South America become giant metropolises.
    As New York City sinks, people build on the slopes overlooking Ushuaia.
    Population movements like these have been happening all through human history.

  35. Rubbish. Climate scenarios from models are notoriously wrong. Sea level rise has been and will continue to be slow and consistent. Melting ice is another favorite hobgoblin of the catastrophe mongers.

  36. Only 30 more feet of rise, until it reaches the sea level of the prior interglacial period.

  37. Warm water expands. Heat trapping gases rap heat. This ain't rocket science.

  38. Ronald Bailey again plays at science writing. No one has a climate crystal ball and the science is too complex for anyone to predict the future. Why does "Reason" continue to pay for such rubbish?

  39. Complete bullshit.

  40. MMGW is still a hoax

  41. NOAA also said we would get 3 inches of snow last night.

    We got about 1/2 of one.

  42. More government fear porn from the people who brought you those safe and effective spike proteins.

  43. Isn't this why everyone at "reason" is so pro-illegal alien -- so your lawn and cabana boys can form a bucket chain and bail away the water, or failing that, form a human sea wall?

  44. U need to stop getting your info from comic books. 60-yrs of bullshit. Yet there u still stand with mouth wide open still eating horse shit. Why do u hate yourself so much?
    The Phucko Knows

  45. Bailey got his science cred from a cracker jack box.
    The Phucko Knows

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.