[seanccox]

In my work with climate data, scientists in my cohort are instructing caution that many (linear) models are incorrect, and those are the figures you quote (1cm/year sea-level rise). However, not only have past sea-level rise projections been incorrectly low(1), but tropical storms/hurricanes have become measurably more frequent, more powerful, and slower(2), which also causes increased flooding. So, even if your beachfront property is not at increased risk from sea level rise, there is an increased risk of flooding and storm-surge exposure (in some places).

When I was attempting to establish historical storm trends for the Florida Keys in the early 18th century (for an archaeological study), one colleague suggested I not use post-2004 data, because the warming of the oceans was skewing everything from mean wind directions to the number of hurricanes to the current patterns. The costs associated with beachfront property are also rising, due to the insurance industry's discomfort with the risks and the additional maintenance costs(3). Even the US's National Flood Insurance Program is increasing the charges of its subsidized coastal insurance products(4), because private industry deems many coastal properties uninsurable.

So, I gotta ask: On what data are you basing your opinions?

1) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z 2) https://www.theguardian.com/weather/ng-interactive/2018/sep/... 3) https://www.allpropertymanagement.com/blog/post/what-climate... 4) https://www.gulfshoreinsurance.com/summary-of-nfip-program-c...

[eloff]

I'm looking at the same data as you, and agree with your points. It's possible sea level could rise faster, but even at worst case protections climate change probably doesn't make the top ten factors when considering a specific property.

If the property is so vulnerable to rising sea levels or storm surge, it is going to be vulnerable with and without climate change. Climate change itself doesn't seem to change the calculus much.