Global Warming And Beachfront Property ?

[alfa156]

i have heard some clever head from thailand say that thailand is to far away from the melting ice so the sea level will not raise in thailand but im not quite sure i buy that

im thinking about buying some land for me and my wife for building on on a later point and ofcoarse beachfront land or land close to the sea sounds nice but is it a good investment given that global warming some people are talking about, when looking at the prices it seems that nobody is believing the water will rise but could one expect the land prices to start decrease in 5 or 10 years

when listening to al gore i dont understand why anybody can sell beachfront property now with that picture he is painting in he´s doomsday movie

what do you think ?

have a nice day all

[funfun]

well the guy who warned about the tsunami in Thailand about 3 years ago, has said bangkok will be under water soon!

keep ya money in a bank!

chris

[ZZZ]

Some states in Australia are now taking global warming and the increased sea level into account when giving construction permits. They have disallowed several construction projects as they may be to close to the beach in 10-20 years.

[Jangot]

i have heard some clever head from thailand say that thailand is to far away from the melting ice so the sea level will not raise in thailand but im not quite sure i buy that

im thinking about buying some land for me and my wife for building on on a later point and ofcoarse beachfront land or land close to the sea sounds nice but is it a good investment given that global warming some people are talking about, when looking at the prices it seems that nobody is believing the water will rise but could one expect the land prices to start decrease in 5 or 10 years

when listening to al gore i dont understand why anybody can sell beachfront property now with that picture he is painting in he´s doomsday movie

what do you think ?

have a nice day all

Well now, if you add water to a bath tub, it doesn't all pile up at the tap end - it evens out.

Same with the oceans.

J

[alfa156]

Well now, if you add water to a bath tub, it doesn't all pile up at the tap end - it evens out.

Same with the oceans.

J

exactly, thats why i dont buy it

but doesent anyone have any input on whether buying beachfront property is a good idea or not ? will it be worthless in 10 years ? or is the rising sealevel to far into the future to predict anything now

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

Depends on the timeframe you are looking at. Global warming is not going to happen overnight. It seems like you might be looking at 40 to 50 years before it is a problem. But then I don't thin k anyone really knows. I live on the beachfront and don't lose any sleep over global warming. Some day I may be fishing off of my balcony but since I'm on the 14th floor that is not to likely.

[steelepulse]

Depends on the timeframe you are looking at. Global warming is not going to happen overnight. It seems like you might be looking at 40 to 50 years before it is a problem. But then I don't thin k anyone really knows. I live on the beachfront and don't lose any sleep over global warming. Some day I may be fishing off of my balcony but since I'm on the 14th floor that is not to likely.

Also depends on how high the land is above sea level.  If it's just one meter above high tide line now, then yes you could be in trouble in a few years, but if the land is on a small bluff or is a few meters above current highest tide, then you've got time and if it's in a desirable area, land value won't go down.

Still the OP's argument might be able to scare someone who has beachfront land and enable the buyer to get it cheaper than market value.  

Anyone got good beachfront land in a nice area they want to sell cheap . I'll roll the dice and risk it.

[John 1]

I'm all for global warming my property on Samui is 2 km from the beach and 3 meters above sea level so in 20 years I should have beach front property that is if I'm still alive.

[quiksilva]

Haha I like this thread.

No I don't think it will be worthless in 10 years. Is global warming a problem, probably, but even if it was worthless in 10 years you can only value something at what it is worth today.

If a rise in sea levels could be predicted accurately and with 100% certainty then it would affect valuations of some real estate as it is, it can't so it doesn't.

It's like saying that properties in Los Angeles will be worthless because sooner or later the BIG ONE is going to hit and the city will be rubble, sure it could but when will it hit and how hard?

A meteor strike could also hit planet earth but where, when and how hard?

Can you use it as an argument in negotiations, sure but I doubt it will help. At the end of the day if you think it will happen and can't afford beach front land buy inland where its cheaper and cash in later when the sea comes to meet you!

[Gary A]

We definitely will NOT have to worry about in our lifetime if ever. Icebergs are mostly under water anyways and the rising of the seas will be affected VERY little if any when or if they do melt. The sea level may even drop because of increased evaporation. Global warming may even be a natural cycle of our mother earth.

[haybilly]

We definitely will NOT have to worry about in our lifetime if ever. Icebergs are mostly under water anyways and the rising of the seas will be affected VERY little if any when or if they do melt. The sea level may even drop because of increased evaporation. Global warming may even be a natural cycle of our mother earth.

There is a very interesting documentary doing the rounds, of the torrent sites, that was made for Channel 4 Television U.K.--it's called 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' and it points out, in very clear terms that even a layman [ idiot] like myself can understand that global warming IS a natural climactic occurrence and, most importantly of all--is NOT fuelled by CO2 emmisions but that these CO2 emmisions naturally follow a warmed up climate--I don't think I'm explaining this very well but the program does an excellent job--I used to be a 'Global Warming' believer now I know better--try to find this documentary if you are interested.

[VegasVic]

i have heard some clever head from thailand say that thailand is to far away from the melting ice so the sea level will not raise in thailand but im not quite sure i buy that

im thinking about buying some land for me and my wife for building on on a later point and ofcoarse beachfront land or land close to the sea sounds nice but is it a good investment given that global warming some people are talking about, when looking at the prices it seems that nobody is believing the water will rise but could one expect the land prices to start decrease in 5 or 10 years

when listening to al gore i dont understand why anybody can sell beachfront property now with that picture he is painting in he´s doomsday movie

what do you think ?

have a nice day all

Well now, if you add water to a bath tub, it doesn't all pile up at the tap end - it evens out.

Same with the oceans.

J

There you go bringing common sense into equation I thought the article refered to by the OP was really entertaining (just like the article recently in the nation touting that Pattaya condos are selling like hotcakes ) when I first read it. Imagine the world oceans rising 2 meters and yet the gulf of Thailand will not be affected sounds like the guy who penned that pipe dream must have been the same one who wrote the rosy scenario article about the Pattaya condo market a few days ago.

[VegasVic]

We definitely will NOT have to worry about in our lifetime if ever. Icebergs are mostly under water anyways and the rising of the seas will be affected VERY little if any when or if they do melt. The sea level may even drop because of increased evaporation. Global warming may even be a natural cycle of our mother earth.

There is a very interesting documentary doing the rounds, of the torrent sites, that was made for Channel 4 Television U.K.--it's called 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' and it points out, in very clear terms that even a layman [ idiot] like myself can understand that global warming IS a natural climactic occurrence and, most importantly of all--is NOT fuelled by CO2 emmisions but that these CO2 emmisions naturally follow a warmed up climate--I don't think I'm explaining this very well but the program does an excellent job--I used to be a 'Global Warming' believer now I know better--try to find this documentary if you are interested.

I haven't seen that particular documentary, but I am in full agreement with what you are saying. There is global warming, and it will continue to get worse, but for the most part (80-90%) it is a cyclical phenomena and only slightly exacerbated by the human element. Now before all the greenies on the board try and tar and feather me let me say that I am all for cleaning up the environment, I like breathing cleaner air and drinking cleaner water as much as the next guy, but reducing human influenced CO2 will not stop mother nature or the universal forces at work. As for the poster who said it won't be for 40 years down the road, you might want to rethink that timeframe. Should the Greenland ice sheet continue its present structural weakening and retreat, a large portion of it could very well slide off within the next 10-15 years, and if that occurs it would likely shutdown the Atlantic ocean conveyer, thereby not only raising the world ocean levels but sending most of the N.E. U.S. and central and northern Europe back into a mini iceage just like the one during the "Maunder minimum" 450 years ago, but for diametrically opposite reasons. There are real scientific events that will be occuring in the next 4-5 years like one of the strongest solar maximums(heightened solar flares-sunspot activity) since 1859, and the culmination of "precession" of the planets(an event that occurs every 25,800 years) and the earths "wobble" (polar shift) which will occur on Decenber 21st 2012. I am not a believer in all the Mayan doomsday prophecies, but it is interesting that in their final "Katum" the Mayan calendar ends on December 21st 2012 and they predicted in the dresden codex that when the world ends it will be by flood! Just some food for thought

[quiksilva]

Do you sell boats Vic?

[lopburi3]

I wonder if the non problem posters have bothered to view the (Gore) movie? I was a skeptic but am very much a convert. There are huge changes likely is a very short period of time. Although we can not really know this or that will happen it is quite clear we should be paying a lot more attention to it in the mainstream media. But, like most governments, special interests predominate.

1. The problem is not the icebergs directly. That water will become part of the ocean without much change in sea level. But the change from reflective ice to dark absorptive water will make a huge imprint in speeding up warming of the planet is what I gathered. And that has already started.

2. The ice above sea level held in glaciers and (on Greenland and Antarctic) is the extra depth of the sea - and it is melting much faster than anyone anticipated due to water sinking into the ice cracks and letting them slip away into the warmer waters.

3. Records have been established going back beyond ice age and the current meltdown is much greater than anything recorded and is increasing at this unprecedented rate year to year.

[Smithson]

Over the last few months I've noticed a lot more awareness of global warming over here, with a lot more ppl concerned that Bkk will be underwater.

[quiksilva]

Yes I saw it too, but still there are respected scientists disputing his claims.

I still don't know what the truth really is and whether it is actually that inconvenient.

I normally consider myself to be quite liberal in my thinking but in this case, I still think we need more proof. The statistics in his film are certainly startling, but even so, I still find it very difficult to believe that Bangkok (and many other cities throughout the world) will be underwater within 10 years.

[Smithson]

Yes I saw it too, but still there are respected scientists disputing his claims.

I still don't know what the truth really is and whether it is actually that inconvenient.

I normally consider myself to be quite liberal in my thinking but in this case, I still think we need more proof. The statistics in his film are certainly startling, but even so, I still find it very difficult to believe that Bangkok (and many other cities throughout the world) will be underwater within 10 years.

What sort of proof would you need?

A UK teacher took the education dept to court for allowing the film to be shown, he said there wasn't enough evidence to prove global warming.

The judge disagreed, saying the evidence is there, although he found 9 points in the film that lacked evidence. So it may not be as bad as the film suggests, but it doesn't look good.

[GuestHouse]

The issue is not 'Global Warming' but 'Global Climate Change', which is not quite the same thing.

'Global Climage Change' has far wider impact, not just temperatures, but rain fall.

I personally think the biggest single issue will not be an abundance of sea water (flooding coast lines and low lying land) but a shortage of fresh water.

If so cheap water is going to become a thing of the past, and condo dwellers are going to be paying Water Charge + (as with every other charge).

Buy in land and make sure you've got a well.

[quiksilva]

Yes I saw it too, but still there are respected scientists disputing his claims.

I still don't know what the truth really is and whether it is actually that inconvenient.

I normally consider myself to be quite liberal in my thinking but in this case, I still think we need more proof. The statistics in his film are certainly startling, but even so, I still find it very difficult to believe that Bangkok (and many other cities throughout the world) will be underwater within 10 years.

What sort of proof would you need?

A UK teacher took the education dept to court for allowing the film to be shown, he said there wasn't enough evidence to prove global warming.

The judge disagreed, saying the evidence is there, although he found 9 points in the film that lacked evidence. So it may not be as bad as the film suggests, but it doesn't look good.

That's just it, Im no expert in this matter so I can't speak in specific terms, but what I can say is if we are talking about an event that will submerge several capital cities and displace millions within the foreseeable future, then the evidence should be specific, irrefutable and like all good scientific theories we should be able to use it (repeatedly) to make accurate predictions.

I'm not talking about the earth shattering events, but even if we could just show the changes that would happen within this year, or next year, that would show the world something.

But right now it seems as though we cant do that, or if we can, I haven't heard about it. Until that happens it remains just a hypothesis.

Edited March 24, 2008 by quiksilva

[GuestHouse]

What you mean you want to hang around for the world to witness climate change, the climate to cool settle down and then to change again before you accept the causal links that the vast majority of the scientific community say exist between human activity and climate change?

[VegasVic]

Do you sell boats Vic?

No Naam I don't sell boats! I just play golf, enjoy sunsets, travel a bit, and occasionally pop in here to ... <edit>

Edited March 31, 2008 by Totster
Removed baiting

[VegasVic]

I wonder if the non problem posters have bothered to view the (Gore) movie? I was a skeptic but am very much a convert. There are huge changes likely is a very short period of time. Although we can not really know this or that will happen it is quite clear we should be paying a lot more attention to it in the mainstream media. But, like most governments, special interests predominate.

1. The problem is not the icebergs directly. That water will become part of the ocean without much change in sea level. But the change from reflective ice to dark absorptive water will make a huge imprint in speeding up warming of the planet is what I gathered. And that has already started.

2. The ice above sea level held in glaciers and (on Greenland and Antarctic) is the extra depth of the sea - and it is melting much faster than anyone anticipated due to water sinking into the ice cracks and letting them slip away into the warmer waters.

3. Records have been established going back beyond ice age and the current meltdown is much greater than anything recorded and is increasing at this unprecedented rate year to year.

lopburi, all your points are valid (especially the fact about reflected heat vs. absorbed heat) with the exception of the first seven words in point #1. The problem (is with icebergs directly) in the north Atlantic with the Greenland ice sheet melting is not with the rising ocean levels, but with the very possible shut down of the Atlantic ocean conveyer. As the ice sheet melts more and more rapidly it releases vast ammounts of fresh water and fresh water being lighter than saltwater forces that warm saltwater down to much lower depths and could potentially shut down the Atlantic conveyer in relatively short time frame, and this in turn would have an enormous efect on weather patterns in that part of the world. In fact it is very likely that the N.E.part of the U.S., eastern Canada and central and northern Europe would enter an ice age! Check it out sometime, the Atlantic conveyer shutting down would have vastly more far reaching consequences than a few feet of oceanic rise

[Smithson]

That's just it, Im no expert in this matter so I can't speak in specific terms, but what I can say is if we are talking about an event that will submerge several capital cities and displace millions within the foreseeable future, then the evidence should be specific, irrefutable and like all good scientific theories we should be able to use it (repeatedly) to make accurate predictions.

I'm not talking about the earth shattering events, but even if we could just show the changes that would happen within this year, or next year, that would show the world something.

But right now it seems as though we cant do that, or if we can, I haven't heard about it. Until that happens it remains just a hypothesis.

Scientists can't make accurate predictions about tomorrow's weather in a specific location. So there is no way they will ever be able to predict what will happen globally in the next 10 - 30 years.

A wait and see approach is extremely dangerous.

How far above sea level are Bangkok and Samut Prakarn?

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

But looking at the bright side. I much prefer global warming to a new ice age. Hate the cold and enjoy fishing.

[Khun Jean]

That's just it, Im no expert in this matter so I can't speak in specific terms, but what I can say is if we are talking about an event that will submerge several capital cities and displace millions within the foreseeable future, then the evidence should be specific, irrefutable and like all good scientific theories we should be able to use it (repeatedly) to make accurate predictions.

I'm not talking about the earth shattering events, but even if we could just show the changes that would happen within this year, or next year, that would show the world something.

But right now it seems as though we cant do that, or if we can, I haven't heard about it. Until that happens it remains just a hypothesis.

A hypothesis that resulted in a 80.000 euro lower estimate of the price of my appartment in the Netherlands.

It is beachfront and what is special it is about 12 meters above sea level. Compared to the rest of the Netherlands that is almost completely below sea level.

If politics believe it, it will result is measures (necessary or not, money can be made!). And those measures will affect people more than global warming itself.

[quiksilva]

So according to this line of thinking property values must decrease every year in California, because the probability of the next BIG ONE striking the San Andreas fault increases as time goes by, or the Earth will get hit by an asteroid sooner or later so should we apply that too? So values throughout the Netherlands will decline every year from now on? Of course not, its absurd! (edit* values may decline in the US and Europe but that has nothing to do with global warming)

Its not a question of waiting for climate change to happen but for it to reach a level of acceptance by the public.

See, the thing is open market values are based on what a prudent buyer and seller are willing to transact at on a given date. This is a fixed definition.

If you will not buy at a certain price because you believe it will be under water in 5 years, then fine, but you are most likely not to buy anyway, and thus not a good gauge of what the property is actually worth on the open market, so as long as other people are willing to buy.

BUT when the vast majority of people think along the same lines as the OP then it may very well effect property values, but has it happened yet? No.

So what will it take for that to happen? I submit that it will take more than a mere hypothesis, no matter how well reasoned. It will take provable facts. If someone can show you that yes, this property will certainly be under water within x years, it will effect people's decision making processes and their own appraisals of worth.

But if they cant see this happening, with certainty, then that vast majority of buyers will continue to see and appraise property on what it is worth at its highest and best use today.

Liken it to the effect of new mega project announcement that will result in compulsory purchase orders. Say, the government plan to build a great big power station on your doorstep. In a case like this there's very little Joe Public can do about it, but it being a government project nobody knows exactly when it will be built, but they know for a fact that it will happen.

This will put off buyers, sales will slow and values will decline until they hit a new equilibrium.

Like it or not the global warming hypothesis has not reached that level of acceptance yet. I suspect that the reason for this is because most people are still unsure about the certainty of its effect and will continue to be as the debate rages on.

The only to win them over, will be to end the debate with a provable theory that stands up to scientific testing.

When people can see, with certainty, that sea levels will rise and that a subject property will be under water in the not too distant future, perceptions of its value will change.

But regardless of what you or I think about the reality of global warming, I believe that we are still not reached that level of acceptance, so it can not affect values, yet.

Edited for clarity.

Edited March 25, 2008 by quiksilva

[Smithson]

When people can see, with certainty, that sea levels will rise and that a subject property will be under water in the not too distant future, perceptions of its value will change.

But regardless of what you or I think about the reality of global warming, I believe that we are still not reached that level of acceptance, so it can not affect values, yet.

Edited for clarity.

Good post. When talking about buying land in Bangkok I've noticed Thais have started mentioning global warming. I think parts of Samut Prakarn are below sea level. If in coming years Bangkok had serious flooding, then ppl may start taking it more seriously and it could affect land prices in some areas.

[lopburi3]

lopburi, all your points are valid (especially the fact about reflected heat vs. absorbed heat) with the exception of the first seven words in point #1. The problem (is with icebergs directly)

I agree it could have enormous effect on the weather - and that effect is almost impossible to calculate. But this thread is about sea level rise and many people think those talking about water increase are talking about the icebergs and when they think about it and realize most ice is under the water level already they scoff at the whole idea of a large increase in water level. Was trying to point out that this is not the water the scientists are talking about.

[Khun Jean]

So according to this line of thinking property values must decrease every year in California, because the probability of the next BIG ONE striking the San Andreas fault increases as time goes by, or the Earth will get hit by an asteroid sooner or later so should we apply that too? So values throughout the Netherlands will decline every year from now on? Of course not, its absurd! (edit* values may decline in the US and Europe but that has nothing to do with global warming)

Exactly my line of thinking. Unfortunately not that of the 'professional' people who valuated my appartments. Sale contract was already signed. (So it was a market price). After the valuation the buyer could not get financing (bank needed this valuation) and me and the buyer were shocked by this big difference between market price and the valuation. The bank even send 2 more companies to valuate, but these also came to the same conclusion. which was:

There MIGHT be a decision to reinforce the coastline, which will PROBABLY consist of raising the dunes. This PROBABLY will result in loss of seaview and it MIGHT even be demolished because the land is needed for coast protection.

So according to that my apartments are worth less because MAYBE something wil be done to defend against a higher sealevel caused by global warming.

But regardless of what you or I think about the reality of global warming, I believe that we are still not reached that level of acceptance, so it can not affect values, yet.

Maybe in other areas but they sure affect values as shown in my case.

Although i not accept the outcome of the valuation it is a sign that it is affecting house prices along the coast.

I mentioned that the rest of the Netherlands is below sealevel, but that has little consequences because the protection against higher sealevels is along the coast not land inward.

So in effect i am paying the price for the safety of the rest of the netherlands.