You can’t fool Mother Nature
Back when we lived in Chapel Hill NC, we made a few trips to the Outer Banks where my wife had an uncle who built fishing boats in Buxton NC. Back then, nobody was talking about sea levels rising because of global warming and yet it was obvious back then (early 1980s) that these sandy beaches were ephemeral and the buildings that overlooked them were at risk. The iconic Hatteras Lighthouse had to be moved away from the encroaching ocean back in 1999.
Now, the Boston Globe has a piece about the slow-moving spectacle of real estate price collapse on Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard as the totally predictable beach erosion claws away those scenic beaches between the water and the houses overlooking them. As the article notes, sea levels rose eight inches between 1965 and 2019:
“Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard have among the highest rates of beach erosion statewide . . . parts of the south coast of Nantucket have receded as much as 1,800 feet since the 1800s. Combined, the islands have lost more than 5 square miles of coastal areas from erosion since 1887.”
People are still willing to buy at fire sale prices, perhaps planning to use the savings to move the houses inland. But houses on these islands, like coastal houses in parts of California, Florida and Louisiana will be uninsurable.
Nature doesn’t care if you believe in climate change. And the people who make money by anticipating risk don’t care either.
Slow collapse of the Nantucket real estate market
Now, the Boston Globe has a piece about the slow-moving spectacle of real estate price collapse on Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard as the totally predictable beach erosion claws away those scenic beaches between the water and the houses overlooking them. As the article notes, sea levels rose eight inches between 1965 and 2019:
“Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard have among the highest rates of beach erosion statewide . . . parts of the south coast of Nantucket have receded as much as 1,800 feet since the 1800s. Combined, the islands have lost more than 5 square miles of coastal areas from erosion since 1887.”
People are still willing to buy at fire sale prices, perhaps planning to use the savings to move the houses inland. But houses on these islands, like coastal houses in parts of California, Florida and Louisiana will be uninsurable.
Nature doesn’t care if you believe in climate change. And the people who make money by anticipating risk don’t care either.
Slow collapse of the Nantucket real estate market
Since the 1800s —there were no ICE cars how can this happen ?—Mother Nature runs the climate and cycles of weather–not the propaganda of government agencies
What happens when you stuff more people in a car, Jack?
That’s right ~ it gets hot and humid, warmer and wetter
And yes, dipstick, ICEs have been around since the 1800s
You think the car was invented yesterday?
@Jackson,
LOL! Industrialization began in the mid-1800s. Coal-fired manufacturing flourished in the 19th century. Trains, riverboats and ships in the 19th century used wood or coal. Home heating was done with wood and coal in the 19th century. Coal was burned in the manufacture of steel in the 19th century. Nobody claims that ICE cars cause *all* of anthropogenic climate change.
You should read the actual literature on climate change science instead of being fooled by the propaganda of climate change denialists.
The .04% of CO2 in the Atmosphere is the big bad boogie man
@ Jackson, Those who actually understand climate change (as opposed to trolls who just repeat propaganda) know that the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t what’s important, it’s the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere. The atmosphere extends over 6000 miles above the surface. That’s a huge amount of CO2. Of course, there’s also methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas that is increasing due to fracking, oil drilling, pipeline leaks, permafrost melting and the melting of methane clathrates in the oceans caused by anthropogenic global warming.
Have you considered the fact that so called scientist depend on Government GRANTS for survival—So go tell the CCP to stop building coal plants and bribing the Administrative State in DC —
If you don’t self censor yourself consider these 1601 real scientist that say Co2 emergency is a myth.
https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/claim-of-climate-emergency-debunked-by-1600-scientists/
@Jackson,
LOL! Fooled by propaganda again! If you don’t self-censor yourself, consider that most of those so-called “real scientists” in your link aren’t experts, and hundreds are not scientists at all!
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/10/31/most-climate-change-hoax-signatories-not-climate-experts-fact-check/71249813007/
Have you considered the fact that thousands of climate scientists all over the world agree about global warming and climate change, regardless of their funding sources? Have you considered the fact that many climate change denialists are funded by the fossil fuel industry?
Heh.
1600 is about one ten-thousandth of one percent, (0.00001), of the “real scientists” out there. Not counting the Mad
Astrology is not a science …
Before there were automobiles, there were trains. And steam power, burning wood or coal. Before that there was agriculture, changing the way the soil responds to wet and dry, and even before that there were wild plants with water canals dug to provide additional water for them. Over and above what nature might have been doing. One good volcanic eruption can change the weather, we have seen that over centuries of happenings.
Only human beings have added extra pressure, often before what they knew what the consequences would or could be. Mother nature cycles say we should be moving to a cooler phase. Not happening here.
In a million years this won’t even matter. Maybe not even in 5 or 1 thousand years. But in between, drought, flood, relocation, and probably wars over land will be happening, because if you can’t survive where you are, you have to move. It has already started in the movement of people who were barely subsisting before, and when the temps hit the denature point of chlorophyll (assuming no genetic engineering fixes before then) crop failures will be a problem. Chocolate and coffee are already under stress. Maple sugar production is moving north of this country by necessity. What next?
Jane:
Nice recital of current events as related to an outcome.
The rear-guard is laughable.
What is really strange regarding the Angry Bear is the fact that all the contributors comment to each other in the posts—talk about an echo chamber–
@Jackson,
What is really strange regarding your post is the fact that this is my 4th comment on this thread and all four are comments explicitly directed at you.
Talk about a lack of reading comprehension.
Heh.
The only echo I hear is everyone having a good laugh
When I visited the area back in the early 1980s, there was a stretch of the old paved road that was visible on the beach at low tide. I also vaguely remember some explainer signs saying that the lighthouse being relocated at least once before then. The east coast barrier islands have never been a permanent thing. They’ve wandered this way and that way over the millennia.
“Erosion along the Nauset-Monomoy barrier system can move the beach anywhere from 1 to 6 meters a year (3 to 20 feet). Sea level rise — a least one foot in the past century — is also slowly taking away the beachfront. Between the two, the sea could reclaim Cape Cod in five or six thousand years.”
the sea could reclaim Cape Cod in a few thousand years
NASA Earth Observatory
No disagreement from scientists on the chemistry and physics of carbon.
Complete combustion of carbon results in carbon dioxide and water and incomplete combustion results in carbon dioxide and water and carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide oxidizes to carbon dioxide within a matter of weeks.
Carbon dioxide is a very stable and long lived compound and one of those materials that absorbs and emits radiation in the infrared range. Infrared is heat.
People can argue and speculate all they want about the specifics but considering how much carbon mankind has burned all I need to know about climate change is the chemistry and physics of carbon.
the physics is clear, but the biology is not…or was not until fairly recently. it was the election of 1980 where we lost out excuses and embarked on planetary suicide.
i wonder why the rest if the world does not boycot out products until we get serious about cutting greenouse gas emissions. [oh, I know, it’s the economy. stupid.]
The article talks about how much has been lost over the years and about how much can be lost to a single storm. That indicates that both the average rate of loss and the variance in the loss are already very high. Even without global warming only rich people can afford houses on the coast of Nantucket because they are the ones who can afford to lose it all.
I would not use this situation to try to generate numbers to try to convince the William Jackson’s of the world of global warming. Numbers from a single area that already has a huge variance will not develop statistical significance until the houses would have been gone anyway.
Besides, Mary is right. The physics is clear.
@Arne,
The Jacksons of the world cannot be convinced by reason and data for the simple reason that they didn’t arrive at their conclusions through reason and data. It’s like trying to convince an alcoholic to stop drinking. The first step is that they have to admit they are addicted.
Perhaps I should have been clearer. I would not try to convince anyone that the loss of land on Nantucket proves anything about global warming.
@Aren,
Perhaps I should have been clearer. There’s no such thing as “proof” in science. But the accelerated rate at which land is being lost on Nantucket (and Martha’s Vineyard, and the Louisiana and Florida coasts) are all completely consistent with global warming. And taken together with higher sea levels, Arctic ice melt, Antarctic glacier collapse, loss of Greenland ice, appearance of animals and plants at increasingly higher latitudes in the Northern hemisphere, and record global temperature levels and rates of change, the simplest explanation about recent loss of land on Nantucket is global warming.
@Arne,
Perhaps I should have been clearer. There’s no such thing as “proof” in science. But the accelerated rate at which land is being lost on Nantucket (and Martha’s Vineyard, and the Louisiana and Florida coasts) are all completely consistent with global warming. And taken together with higher sea levels, Arctic ice melt, Antarctic glacier collapse, loss of Greenland ice, appearance of animals and plants at increasingly higher latitudes in the Northern hemisphere, and record global atmospheric and ocean temperature levels and rates of change, the simplest and currently best explanation for recent loss of land on Nantucket is global warming.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global/202313#:~:text=The%20year%202023%20was%20the,decade%20(2014%E2%80%932023).”
Global Temperatures
@Bill,
The laws of physics are just government propaganda, paid for by government GRANTS, donchano.
Joel:
I was trying to fix your earlier comment with tradition coding. For some reason, it would not take. This was a separate trial to see if I was doing it correctly. 🙂 I just forgot to delete it.
maybe worth saying: Arne did not claim that the erosion etc was not consistent with global warming, he said it was not good evidence. A little shocked to hear that there was no such thing as proof in science. I thought that was my line and the source of much aggravation to people who thought there was.
Newton did not get any government grants that i know of. on the other hand Michael Faraday did, but he never went to college and when he was a kid his family got government welfare.
you never can tell,