When will home prices start droping in coastal areas?

Page 1 of 2  

With the hoopla over global warming rising sea levels When will home prices start droping in coastal areas?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
With the hoopla over global warming rising sea levels When will home prices start droping in coastal areas?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The day after you buy yours....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Funny but imagine owning beachfront property today. A couple good storms and seeing in some years your home will be IN THE OCEAN:( The pricest homes are beachfront........
I have some realtives who live within a 2 minute walk, not beachfront TODAY but how soon?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Water front estates in the 8 to 25 million dollar range in BC Canada that have never been on the market have been sold at 'bargain' prices recently. One estate on a point of land was recently sold by it's original owners for 8 million, well under it's market value. It's so low that a rise of a foot in sea level along with bigger storms will see waves washing right over it. Rumor has it that it was sold to an American who doesn't believe in global warming. :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 4, 2:58 pm, Paul snipped-for-privacy@econonet.org wrote:

Greetings,
Any time we want to end global warming we can cheaply and easily by simply blocking out a tiny portion of the sun's light. There are many strategies for doing this such as blasting dust into the air with a nuclear weapon creating a small "nuclear winter" designed to counterbalance global warming. Others want to use a sun shield in space or to selectively block out rays which are harmful instead of sunlight across the spectrum. Whatever the end strategy global warming will be stopped, possibly even reversed, whenever people decide to. Environmentalists will probably protest the end and reversal of global warming as much or more than anyone. GLOBAL WARMING WILL NOT END THROUGH REDUCTION IN CARBON EMMISIONS. Even if the USA and Europe cut down, the rest of the world will continue to emit. As long as the USA won't build nuclear power plants to replace other carbon emitting forms of power generation it will be almost impossible for us to make the drastic cuts.
This sounds like it is off the topic of home repair but hopefully it helps in answering your question.
--William Deans
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL! Plonking a nut.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 12:15:27 -0800, Paul snipped-for-privacy@econonet.org wrote:

I owe the nut Deans ONE response. Ever try to put plants that require FULL sun in the shade you dumbass. Reducing sunlight even by a small amount would result in plants and sea algae dying making the problem many times worse.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 12:15:27 -0800, Paul snipped-for-privacy@econonet.org wrote:

How so? It would obviously work. We even have empirical evidence of that. Although personally, I'd recommend launching the dust in cannisters off a railgun. You want your reflectors in the stratosphere, not scattered in a column throughout the whole atmostphere.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Goedjn wrote:

Whether or not it would "work", let alone "obviously work", has not been determined.
However, there are serious folks who advocate research along those lines. Check out the news coverage:
"Can Dr. Evil Save The World?"
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/12343892/can_dr_evil_save_the_world/print
Excerpt:
[Protege of Edward Teller and weapons researcher at Lawrence Livermore Lab, Lowell] Wood's proposal was not technologically complex. It's based on the idea, well-proven by atmospheric scientists, that volcano eruptions alter the climate for months by loading the skies with tiny particles that act as mini-reflectors, shading out sunlight and cooling the Earth. Why not apply the same principles to saving the Arctic? Getting the particles into the stratosphere wouldn't be a problem -- you could generate them easily enough by burning sulfur, then dumping the particles out of high-flying 747s, spraying them into the sky with long hoses or even shooting them up there with naval artillery. They'd be invisible to the naked eye, Wood argued, and harmless to the environment. Depending on the number of particles you injected, you could not only stabilize Greenland's polar ice -- you could actually grow it. Results would be quick: If you started spraying particles into the stratosphere tomorrow, you'd see changes in the ice within a few months. And if it worked over the Arctic, it would be simple enough to expand the program to encompass the rest of the planet. In effect, you could create a global thermostat, one that people could dial up or down to suit their needs (or the needs of polar bears).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Algae in the ocean produce 3/4 of our oxygen. Reducing the amount of sunlight to them would be completely counter productive and possibly even suicidal..
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:09:06 -0800, Paul snipped-for-privacy@econonet.org wrote:

Interesting theory. Why do you think that the amount of sunlight is currently a limiting factor?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com wrote:

Sure thing. However if you check you will find that we have already done that. The average sun radiation (light) striking the earth is down about 3% in the last ~20 years as I recall. All that stuff however seems better at blocking what is bounced back. According to the theories I have read, it would take so much crap in the air to deduce the warming that it would be killing off much of our farm production and we would start starving.
--
Joseph Meehan

Dia \'s Muire duit
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4 Feb 2007 12:10:37 -0800, " snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com"

I imagine our middle east policy will pretty much guarantee that. I think we should just count on somebody over there popping a nuke or three. Iran will probably nuke Israel and Isreal will respond with several before it stops. On the other hand all it would take is a good sized volcano or a small meteor strike to do it. There are so many things we could worry about if we wanted to, that this global warming thing is just the cause of the week.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Based on the predictions of the rate of sea level rise, about 2150 or so. I doubt an extra foot or so of water is going to deter someone who is built 11-15 feet above (2007) sea level. I could use an extra foot of water in my canal.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 4, 3:06�pm, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

some are talking 20 feet, will your feet be wet if it rises that much
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Not to mention storm surge. Someone was quoting that the average at the Goldengate bridge is up about 7 inches in the last 15? years.
--
Joseph Meehan

Dia \'s Muire duit
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:33:22 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"

This is a global warming alarmist site and their predictions range from 200mm to a bit over 800 MM in the next 93 years. When the water goes over my dock in the worst case scenario I will be over 150 years old. I will take my chances. Storm surge itself is such a crap shoot I am not losing any sleep over an extra couple feet of sea level. If it is coming it will come today. That is why I have flood insurance and an evacuation plan. Folks who live in the tropics live with bad weather.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 22:59:10 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Several large insurance companies are considering not offering flood insurance to NEW owners. If that happens your property value will plummet when banks refuse to give them a mortgage.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Paul snipped-for-privacy@econonet.org says...

No, it's wind coverage that's being dropped, not flood.
Flood insurance is a federally-run program, part of FEMA. Private insurers don't generally offer their own flood insurance, they sell NFIP flood insurance, at least up to the limits of the FEMA program. There are private excess flood policies available for people whose homes or businesses exceed NFIP limits.
--
snipped-for-privacy@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.