Believing in climate change doesn’t mean you are preparing for climate change, study finds

University of Notre Dame

Perhaps “researchers” are only measuring virtue signaling~ctm

Notre Dame researchers found that although coastal homeowners may perceive a worsening of climate change-related hazards, these attitudes are largely unrelated to a homeowner's expectations of actual home damage Credit: University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame researchers found that although coastal homeowners may perceive a worsening of climate change-related hazards, these attitudes are largely unrelated to a homeowner’s expectations of actual home damage Credit: University of Notre Dame

Believing in climate change has no effect on whether or not coastal homeowners are protecting their homes from climate change-related hazards, according to a new study from the University of Notre Dame.

Funded by Notre Dame’s Global Adaptation Initiative (ND-GAIN), the study analyzed data from a 2017 Coastal Homeowner Survey of 662 respondents in one of the most frequently exposed U.S. coastal communities, New Hanover County, North Carolina. Just one year after the survey, the county was affected by Hurricane Florence and was nearly missed by Hurricane Dorian in September.

The survey asked homeowners whether they believed in climate change, in human causation of climate change, or in God having a role in controlling the weather or climate. Coastal homeowners were also questioned about their knowledge of climate-related hazards, their knowledge of warming oceans and their perception of the seriousness of the impact of climate change.

“We found that climate change attitudes have little to no statistically significant effect on coastal homeowners’ actions towards home protection, homeowner action or homeowner intentions to act in the future,” said Tracy Kijewski-Correa, the Leo E. and Patti Ruth Linbeck Collegiate Chair and associate professor of civil and environmental engineering and earth sciences, associate professor of global affairs and co-author of the study. “This is despite the fact that with climate change, U.S. coastlines have experienced increased frequency and intensity of tropical storms and sea level rise, which has further heightened their vulnerability to waves, storm surge and high-tide flooding.”

According to the study published in Climatic Change, 81.5 percent of survey respondents believed climate change is “probably happening,” with varying degrees of confidence. The Notre Dame research team also measured for partisanship and ideology with the intention to control for questions about climate change that can tap into identity and prior political beliefs. However, after controlling for partisanship, the findings were unaffected.

“Despite persistent differences between Democrat and Republican ideologies in regards to climate change, the behavior of people from either party appears relatively similar. Neither has or intends to take action to improve the structural vulnerabilities of their homes,” said Debra Javeline, associate professor of political science at Notre Dame and lead author of the study. “Homeowners’ knowledge about climate change also held no significance, showing that providing more information and understanding may not be the main driver of convincing homeowners to reduce the vulnerabilities of their coastal homes.”

The research team found that although coastal homeowners may perceive a worsening of climate change-related hazards, these attitudes are largely unrelated to a homeowner’s expectations of actual home damage. Javeline says this may be a reflection of the limited communication about home vulnerabilities from other key stakeholders, like insurance companies, government agencies or sellers of home improvement products.

“Although increasing education and awareness of climate change is important, our findings suggest that encouraging homeowners to reduce the vulnerability of their coastal home may be more effective if expressed in regards to structural mitigation and its economic benefits, rather than in context of climate change,” said Javeline.


The study was co-authored by Angela Chesler, doctoral student in political science and the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at Notre Dame, and was developed in partnership with the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety and implemented by the survey research firm SSRS. The study also received the 2019 Paul A. Sabatier Best Conference Paper Award from the Science, Technology & Environmental Politics Section of the American Political Science Association.

Kijewski-Correa and Javeline are affiliated with Notre Dame’s Environmental Change Initiative and the Kellogg Institute for International Studies. Kijewski-Correa is also affiliated with Notre Dame’s Fitzgerald Institute for Real Estate and the Notre Dame Initiative for Global Development, while Javeline is a fellow in the Kroc Institute at Notre Dame.

From EurekAlert!

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 9, 2019 2:26 am

So while the so called believers in CC will make the expected virtue signals , they don’t really believe, or possibly think that its so far ahead that it will not affect them in their lifetimes.

Of more importance is what do the Insurance businesses think. Has the cost of coverage for buildings on the foreshore risen over say the last 20 years, in line with the level of alarm from the Warming lobby ?

Other than in line with inflation of course. But if not, why not ?


Reply to  Michael
October 9, 2019 2:56 am

Several years ago, insurance premiums went up all along the Eastern Seaboard of the US, allegedly in response to a greater chance of loss due to Global Warming. The rate hikes were supported in part by messaging from the US government which supported the notion of increasing future losses.
So what happened?
Premiums went up, losses and insurance payouts did not. The insurance industry made record profits. For quite a while after that, the financial and investment industry viewed the insurance industry as “the next big thing” for investment and profit. The situation generated countless news stories in investment circles.
As I recall, one of the enabling factors was the US Govt. which recalculated “flood risk” for homes across the board, around ~2012-2013, or so. The risk factors went up, and people had to by more insurance, or pay more for the insurance they had.

Reply to  TonyL
October 9, 2019 6:30 am

Insurance rates are mostly set by actual payouts. When a hurricane landfalls, the payouts increase, so the reinsurance rates climb until sufficient reserves are established, and so the retail insurance rates also increase.

Rates aren’t set by climate change fears.

Reply to  Duane
October 9, 2019 6:52 am

Even if there was a spike due to political pressure, competition would quickly force rates back down.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  MarkW
October 9, 2019 1:10 pm

Quickly is a relative term.
The fact is, here in Florida (and many other locales I would well suspect), after 2005 homeowners insurance rates spiked gigantically.
We then or course went into the long period of very low impacts from storms anywhere in the US, compared to historical averages, including the well known droughts in major hurricanes hitting the US or existing anywhere in the Gulf of Mexico.
This was a very long period of drastically reduced payouts for tropical cyclone related claims.
Also flood insurance rates spiked and the maps for them were redrawn to include many large regions that have never flooded in modern times.
On top of that, some insurers stopped writing policies in the state, including some that were huge prior to 2005, such as State Farm.
State farm has since returned, and rates have moderated, but I do not know if they ever went back to the trajectory and range they hade been in/on before all of this.
And I can tell you not a single dollar was ever refunded for many many years of jacked up rates, which are attributable at least in part to climate alarmist notions of new normal and assurances of ever worsening frequency and magnitude of tropical cyclone activity.

Reply to  MarkW
October 9, 2019 3:18 pm

It takes a long time to replenish reserves after a big payout.

Bryan A
Reply to  Duane
October 10, 2019 9:45 am

“Belief” in Climate Change is similar to “Belief” in UFO’s.
The true believer can get belligerent if you try to debunk (“step on”) their beliefs with any kind of scientific facts or evidence simply because they “Want” to believe that they have the power to alter the climate. They want to believe the boogeyman (CO2) is a real monster that needs to be controlled. And they require affirmation of their beliefs from other like minded “True Believers”

Doug Huffman(@doughuffman)
Reply to  Michael
October 9, 2019 3:33 am

We left South Carolina coast east of US-17 in part due to insurance costs.

Our home was designed and carefully sited to survive near the worst of H. Hugo. At high tide the red fish swam under the house for thirty years.

But too many Yankees spoil the broth.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Doug Huffman
October 9, 2019 1:19 pm

What kind of a redneck whines about Yankees?

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Michael
October 9, 2019 6:21 am

Patient Zero: Barack Obama

Joel Snider
Reply to  Michael
October 9, 2019 9:22 am

‘the so called believers in CC will make the expected virtue signals’

I’m sure they gave at the office.

John Culhane
October 9, 2019 2:35 am

I was watching a presentation on why people adopt political correct views and it seems that they do so because those opinions are seen as high status markers in social situations where you don’t know the participants.

That would possibly explain why we observe societies high status individuals (Leo DiCaprio and the UK Royal family) preaching about climate change and then hopping on private planes to fly someplace warm for their vacations and not seeing the cognitive dissonance in their behaviour or maybe they absolve themselves of sins through their tax efficient foundations. It is having the right politically correct opinion that matters to them. I expect that this was much the same during the era when Eugenics was de rigueur, they were all for sterilising others but not themselves. You see this as well in the Malthusian part of the green spectrum where they claim there are too many people however they seem to be a ripe old age with grandchildren of their own.

Reply to  John Culhane
October 9, 2019 3:39 am

Isn’t the basic mantra of Malthusian ” there are too many other people in the world” ?

Reply to  Sparko
October 9, 2019 6:54 am

From most of the Malthusians that I have met, I would say the basic mantra is a little more like this:
“There are too many people who don’t look like me, in the world.”

Mike Bryant
Reply to  MarkW
October 9, 2019 7:11 am

Believing in climate change means you go along to get along… which means you are condemning the next generation to a communist paradise.

October 9, 2019 2:42 am

I live within 150 yards of the coast, approx. 70 feet above HW. Insurance here has only gone up by building inflation costs.

Doug Huffman(@doughuffman)
Reply to  Beaufort
October 9, 2019 3:44 am

You have lived in Beaufort how long, long enough to remember a selection of home insurance companies?

Our home and auto insurance combined is much less now than home insurance when we lived east of US-17.

Reply to  Doug Huffman
October 9, 2019 4:02 am

I’ve lived here 9 years. A very small island called Alderney on the edge of the English Channel. There is only one local insurance company, but I feel it’s better to use them as they understand local conditions better than a UK based outfit online. We get thumped quite hard by storms coming in off the North Atlantic, the first bit of real estate to the West is the US, 3,000 miles away.

We are very small, 3 square miles, population a shade under 2,000.

Reply to  Beaufort
October 9, 2019 2:04 pm

I presume you are on the south side. Do people in the lee of the breakwater pay more?

Reply to  Susan
October 9, 2019 11:45 pm

No, I live on the North side, up by the hospital overlooking Crabby Bay and the Swinge. Spray from the breakwater regularly hits the house leaving the windows on the seaward side looking like frosted glass. Need regular cleaning from now until next Spring.
I wouldn’t say insurance costs are any more than on the bigger sister island of Guernsey, although labour costs are slightly less here.

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  Beaufort
October 9, 2019 3:16 pm

Say “hi” to Dame Julie Andrews for me next time you see her.

Reply to  Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
October 9, 2019 11:47 pm

Will do, although I’m not sure she still lives here. Her house is at the other end of the island from me.

John in Oz
October 9, 2019 2:49 am

I am in deep trouble – I don’t believe in either god- or CO2-related climate change.

I would also like an explanation of what “U.S. coastlines have experienced increased frequency and intensity of tropical storms and sea level rise” means.

How does sea level rise have a frequency and intensity? Perhaps she meant ‘as well as’ sea level rise rather than include it with the storms.

From all of the virtually multi-century/decadal straight-line tide gauge graphs shown on WUWT, she should explain where natural sea level rise ended and man-made rise started.

Reply to  John in Oz
October 9, 2019 5:57 am

The researchers probably should have begun their article with proof of the existence of God, and or climate change.

Reply to  John in Oz
October 9, 2019 7:50 am

“said Tracy Kijewski-Correa, the Leo E. and Patti Ruth Linbeck Collegiate Chair and associate professor of civil and environmental engineering and earth sciences, associate professor of global affairs and co-author of the study. “This is despite the fact that with climate change, U.S. coastlines have experienced increased frequency and intensity of tropical storms and sea level rise”

Ignorant twaffle from climate change trough chasing pseudo scientists.
Nice that they ignore not only coastal storms of the Twentieth Century, but also the 16th through 19th Century storm wracked histories.


“The study was co-authored by Angela Chesler, doctoral student in political science and the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at Notre Dame, and was developed in partnership with the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety and implemented by the survey research firm SSRS.”

No actual meteorological, physics or statistician experts were involved. Just those eager to grab a piece of the lucrative climate change cow by swindling coastal land owners.

Ron Long
October 9, 2019 3:07 am

Good catch, CTM. Another clear example that people virtue-signal with their mouth and reality-signal with their wallets. That having been demonstrated, remember the east coast of north-central-south Americas is a floundering coast (sea in transgression) and sea level continues to rise, so some local beach house lost should be anticipated.

Reply to  Ron Long
October 9, 2019 3:32 am

Nicely put!

Reply to  Ron Long
October 9, 2019 4:59 am

I think that’s exactly Nicholas Nassim Taleb’s message. link

Don’t ask someone what they think about the economy. Ask them what they have in their portfolio. What comes out of peoples’ mouths is highly unreliable. What they really believe is demonstrated by their actions.

Steven Fraser
October 9, 2019 3:09 am

Political scientists doing a Sociology study. How quaint.

October 9, 2019 3:10 am

Charles Mackay-born 1814- wrote the book ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds,” commenting: “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one,” which chimes with todays mass climate hysteria.

Climatically there is nothing new under the sun. The last ‘Climate Emergency’ was declared in Parliament by King Charles in January 1661 due to the ‘unseasonableness’ of the weather, following a series of very warm winters and very hot summers. This ended abruptly in the bitter cold of the 1690’s . Equally the ‘emergency’ may have reflected the extreme hot weather of the 1540’s or extreme cold weather of the 1560’s or two years of incessant rain from 1315, providing five times annual average rainfall with devastating floods and famine. Older readers will remember the 1970’s alarm over an imminent ice age.

Despite many scientists confirming the IPCC never said we had ‘only 12 years to save the planet’, anarchist groups such as Extinction Rebellion have persuaded many people to carry out their anti democratic and anti capitalist agenda, under the guise of a ‘Climate Emergency.’ Definition of emergency; ‘ a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action’.

Let’s assume that striking students and adults determined to achieve ‘no emissions’ by 2025 are prepared to immediately upend their modern day lifestyles and make sacrifices, as with energy consumption set to soar by 50% by 2050, renewables can not take up the fossil fuel energy gap for decades.

Examples of likely sacrifices: Assuming journeys are necessary in the first place, travel only by bus, cycling, walking or train. For students, no parents taxi service. No flying except in an emergency. No spring water in plastic bottles, No imported food or food out of season when there is a local alternative. Little meat, dairy or fish, no hot daily showers, an embargo on throw away fashion clothes and shoes, no cotton. Infrequent washing of clothes in tepid water and no artificial drying. Drastic reductions of energy guzzling internet and social media, with environmentally damaging smart phones and computers rationed to one a household and kept for years, and curtailment of consumer good purchases. Accept carbon rationing.

Curtail consumption of habitat destroying coffee and forego endless home deliveries, whether fast food or shoes. Cease attendance at festivals or sporting events, especially overseas or with floodlights. Minimal home heating. Expect regular power cuts. Curtail vegan foods which have achieved mythical planet saving status, despite many vegan ingredients being imported –often by air-bearing huge carbon footprints.

So, presumably local activists believing in this climate emergency have taken their own drastic steps to try to prevent it? May we know which of the above list they are personally immediately implementing?

Perhaps they ought to leave climate change to nature which has provided extremes of one sort or another throughout the 12000 year long Holocene and instead concentrate on the environment? This is undoubtedly facing a ‘crisis’


October 9, 2019 3:18 am

“This is despite the fact that with climate change, U.S. coastlines have experienced increased frequency and intensity of tropical storms…”

And where do the researchers get the data to support this conclusion?

Reply to  DHR
October 9, 2019 3:41 am

And where do the researchers get the data to support this conclusion?
From the local book store, in the Science Fiction section.
I thought everybody knew this.

Reply to  DHR
October 9, 2019 6:57 am

They saw it in the newspapers.

October 9, 2019 3:28 am

”This is despite the fact that with climate change, U.S. coastlines have experienced increased frequency and intensity of tropical storms and sea level rise, which has further heightened their vulnerability to waves, storm surge and high-tide flooding.”

The problem starts with the researchers making that supposition a priori! Since there is precious little evidence of increased frequency or intensity of storms or sea-level rise, even though I “believe in” climate change I see no reason to take any particular steps to “climate proof” my property!

Somebody needs to sit these people down with graphs (Paul Homewood at ’Notalotofpeopleknowthat’ is very good with graphs on climate matters) and set them right!

Garland Lowe
Reply to  Newminster
October 9, 2019 4:59 am

They won’t see something they don’t want to see.
That’s the beauty of global warming, climate change, climate emergency etc. what ever the religious movement is called today.

Reply to  Newminster
October 9, 2019 8:13 am

“The problem starts with the researchers making that supposition a priori!”

The problem is that they are not “researchers”, as easily available reference materials show fairly conclusively that their opinion of what climate change has done to US coastlines has little factual basis.

October 9, 2019 3:37 am

I did not realize science required belief. Reality only “is”; no matter your wants, desires, or beliefs.

Really the “Kroc” Institute as in: What a load of “crock”.

CAGW — here’s my personal break down.

C —> Personally, I am very skeptical about this supposed problem.

A —> We are a biological entity; all biological entities have an effect on their environment so I am at a “meh”

GW or CC —> Again, so what? Climate has always changed happened. Sometimes cools; sometimes warms. I prefer a bit warmer.

And I gotta tell everybody between the 1917 and 2005 of the Pendersen Glacier I prefer the 2005. Where the glacier was is now biologically productive land. Glaciers are biologically destructive weather/climate machines.

They only are using 40 of the nearly 100,000 glaciers:

“Scientists have described more than one hundred thousand glaciers in the World Glacier Inventory….”

The aren’t even honest enough with grammatical convention to use 100,000 but one hundred thousand glaciers. You gotta love the intellectual dishonest.

Bob Tisdale(@bobtisdale)
October 9, 2019 3:39 am

The article includes quotes from Tracy Kijewski-Correa

One quote includes. “…U.S. coastlines have experienced increased frequency and intensity of tropical storms…”

Ms. Kijewski-Correa’s statement is contradicted by NOAA data. Maybe she should research the topics she’s supposedly studying.


Bob Tisdale(@bobtisdale)
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
October 9, 2019 3:48 am

PS to Tracy Kijewski-Correa:

See my ebook “Dad, Is Climate Getting Worse in the United States?”:

Tracy, you will soon discover that data indicate that climate is not getting worse in the United States. Those of us who understand reality laugh at people like you who state the opposite. So thanks for the laugh, Tracy. BTW, we’re not laughing with you. We’re laughing at you.


William Haas
October 9, 2019 3:42 am

Hurricanes have nothing to do with climate change but rather are extreme weather events that are part of the current climate. Most recently hurricanes have been decreasing in both frequency and intensity. South East coastlines have always been subject to hurricanes. coastlines are always changing whether the climate is actually changing or not.

Geoff Sherrington(@sherro1)
October 9, 2019 3:53 am

Individuals, irrespective of learning or propaganda, are not acting to counter threats like sea level rise, for one overwhelming reason – they do not see the threat happening, they do not feel it, they do not believe there is a threat to them.
Simples. Now analyse that in academia.
Geoff S

October 9, 2019 3:56 am


I see your “Perhaps “researchers” are only measuring virtue signaling~ctm” and raise you what UND’s headline should have been:

Saying you believe in [dangerous] climate change doesn’t mean you believe in [dangerous] climate change, study finds.

They’re using reported belief as the proxy for belief, whereas the right proxy to use is acting-as-if. (There are other ways of knowing what people really think, but they involve MRI, polygraphy, etc.)

Bryan A
Reply to  Brad Keyes
October 9, 2019 10:06 am

That is very true…
Many groups, like ER, indicate through activism that they “Believe” in ACC and yet do very little to act like they believe (Personal divestiture from Fossil Fuels and Fossil derived goods and services) Like their stage that was powered by Diesel Generators.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
October 9, 2019 10:08 am

should be very little to show through personal sacrifice.

October 9, 2019 4:00 am

Meanwhile over in California a far more urgent problem is how people will cope with days of no electricity because power cables have been switched off owing to risk of forest fires, which in turn would ignite lawsuits. I presume that the risk of fire is the combination of inevitable faults igniting highly combustible undergrowth, which I gather is the result of legislation banning its removal, especially within firebreaks. Five days without being able to charge a phone or access the internet will result in riots.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  SuffolkBoy
October 9, 2019 4:28 pm

We can only hope.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  SuffolkBoy
October 9, 2019 9:42 pm

How about no traffic signals, no street lights, food spoiling in the refrigerator, people with life sustaining medical devices left without them, hospitals which run out of fuel for generators…
This is a recipe for disaster, an will not, as noted, prevent any but a small subset of potential fires.
Which, when they do occur, will happen to people with no power and presumably limited means of communication.
Businesses will be forced to shut, food on stores shelves will rot, and traffic accidents may claim more lives than any fire has done.
And this is no one off event…it is the plan for the future wherever and whenever fire weather occurs…which is a regular condition in much of the state.
This is a big story which is so far getting little attention.
Wait until millions of people have been without power for days and the blackouts widen to more populous areas.
Just wait…
Anybody want to lay odds on emergency legislation to exempt the power companies from lawsuits from fires?

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 10, 2019 1:07 am

The BBC have reported it. To be fair, the immediate article[1] reports the PG&E woes and doesn’t mention the C word. However, true to from, one of the linked articles[2] the BBC cannot resist the temptation to link to the Paradise disaster:

California Governor Jerry Brown has acknowledged the role man-made climate change has played in making those conditions worse.

[2]. The BBC has a policy of never reporting or linking to any article doubting that the “man-made climate change” hypothesis is “established science”.

[1] BBC: Northern California hit by mega power cuts over wildfire fears
[2] BBC: Climate change: California wildfires ‘can now happen in any year’

Ed Zuiderwijk
October 9, 2019 4:00 am

This is kind of good news. It shows that empirical evidence still trumps the beliefs and the pseudo-claptrap coming out of the IPCC. It’s a bit like the republic of Kiribati building a massive new airport to attract those ‘climate-damaging’ aircrafts with tourists.

M__ S__
October 9, 2019 4:04 am

Eliminate federal flood insurance. The federal government should not be in the insurance business.

Flight Level
October 9, 2019 4:05 am

“Funded by Notre Dame’s Global Adaptation Initiative”

Says it all. Garden party in an unicorn preservation natural reserve ensued.

October 9, 2019 4:12 am

“Believing in climate change has no effect on whether or not coastal homeowners are protecting their homes from climate change-related hazards”

Yeah, thats called denial.

Reply to  Loydo
October 9, 2019 4:56 am


Science requires belief?
Are you living a low carbon footprint? If you are using modern technology than you aren’t living as low carbon footprint as you could be. Remember, you are carbon based lifeform that requires carbon based molecules to live.

The only part of CAGW I am personally skeptical of is the “C”. Everything else about it is seems to be normal SOP of planet Earth.

Wait for one of the Super Volcanoes to explode then we can talk about “CCC” – oh wait we will probably be dead.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Loydo
October 9, 2019 5:09 am

Wrong as usual. It’s called cognitive dissonance. Their belief system (“climate change”) is at odds with their behavior.

Reply to  Loydo
October 9, 2019 6:59 am

No, that’s called virtue signaling.
It’s also called pandering. Something you are quite familiar with.

Reply to  Loydo
October 9, 2019 8:18 am

“Loydo October 9, 2019 at 4:12 am
“Believing in climate change has no effect on whether or not coastal homeowners are protecting their homes from climate change-related hazards”
Yeah, thats called denial.”

Typical of the alarmist assumptions and their absurd versions of “climate change”.

“According to the study published in Climatic Change, 81.5 percent of survey respondents believed climate change is “probably happening,” with varying degrees of confidence.”

The political scientists involved assumed any acceptance of any form of climate changes is their “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming climate change” tallied under alarmist’s belief in the anthropogenic caused “climate change”.
Whereupon lolly can jump in and generally denigrate people whose acceptance of natural climate change is misrepresented.

Especially, as those who live their lives along any coastline generally ignore the alarmist claims of imminent doom. Besides the snow birds who own a 2nd or 3rd tax haven home along the carolina coast, are a significant population of people whose work and incomes are salt water dependent.

These residents understand why the Outer Banks and the Carolina coasts are called “Graveyard of the Atlantic”. Even short term and transient residents should be aware of that name; moreso since so many of them beachcomb hoping to find a ‘piece of eight’.

October 9, 2019 4:17 am

Im stunned that any council allows building ON a beach! regardless of any CC , it strikes me as outright stupid .
if I was an insurer that would be the places I refused outright to insure .
about as daft as the idiots that build cantilevered homes on the riverbanks etc

Steven Fraser
Reply to  ozspeaksup
October 9, 2019 8:07 am

You’ll be equally amazed that some properties similarly situated can be rented, for a week, a month, or a summer. After about 3 days and nights of continuous surf sound, interspersed with barefoot walks on the wet sand, and sunrise or sunset vistas with continuously-changing colors, intensity and far-off cloud formations, the ebb and flow of the tides… you either love it, or don’t. People that live there year-round accept the storm risk as just part of the equation.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
October 9, 2019 8:33 am

I’ve fished along several coasts.
It is not hard on any coast to find a bath house, bait house, boat rental, beach rental, etc. etc. along any area of the coast where civilization meets the sea.

At other areas where people actually work the water, it is not uncommon to see homes lining any area of the water to which they have access.
Barataria outside of New Orleans is home to shrimpers, commercial fishermen and crabbers. It is not unusual as one takes their boat into the Gulf, they pass homes along the water’s edge where docks are easy places to clean catch for dinner.

To live along a coast is not a crime and has been done since before man left Africa. Many of whom are aware that the time of dangerous sea level rise are centuries past.

What is absurd, besides alarmist spreading false claims, is the Federal Government providing flood insurance for any building in a flood plain.

HD Hoese
Reply to  ATheoK
October 9, 2019 10:39 am

People will understandably live along the coast, moderating temperatures overcoming humidity problems. There is an interesting experiment going on in Texas, which has established its own state insurance therefore spreading the cost risk across the state. There is still private insurance, and based on inadequate information it seems cheaper but more rigorous in application. In the Harvey strike area the last storm of consequence was Celia in 1970, but there were two others in the 1960s. The significant storm was 1919 where flood waters were above levels where they are still building floors. Other storms with less damage were also high, at least in places. I suspect that it will take an increase in frequency to force Florida standards, but it is nice to be in a relatively low strike area. A real analysis comparing government versus private, especially churches, post storm impact is necessary.

Not sure of all the complications, but my guess is that it would help to fix the Texas constitution if you can call it that.

Mark Broderick
October 9, 2019 4:43 am

“The survey asked homeowners whether they believed in climate change”…

The climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years……
When the climate STOPS changing, then I’ll start worrying !

October 9, 2019 5:00 am

Perhaps all those who accept the science sold up to people who don’t?

Reply to  griff
October 9, 2019 8:50 am

As usual your comment has no connection to the facts “We found that climate change attitudes have little to no statistically significant effect on coastal homeowners’ actions towards home protection, homeowner action or homeowner intentions to act in the future,”

Reply to  BillP
October 9, 2019 9:20 am

Perhaps someone who read the post just detonated the fantasies of someone who didn’t.

Perhaps griff thinks “losing sleep about global warming” is interchangeable with “accepting the science” because he reads “the science” about as deeply as he read “the post.”

Reply to  griff
October 9, 2019 3:21 pm

Once again, it’s only science when the trolls agree with it.

October 9, 2019 5:13 am

Oddly it seems that beach front housing is still worth more than other types of housing despite the ‘rising seas ‘

Reply to  knr
October 9, 2019 10:13 am

As exemplified by Barack and Michelle Obama buying a mansion in Martha’s Vineyard. Despite all of the “imminent danger” of climate change that he and his administration espoused through his terms as President, it seems as if he isn’t that worried about sea-level rise or catastrophic flooding from the huge increase in massive storms hitting the US.

James Snook
October 9, 2019 5:16 am

I wonder if they included the UN, which has spent $2bn refurbishing their waterfront home.

Stephen Skinner
October 9, 2019 5:18 am

The questions to ask anyone living on the coast or river valley is:
[1] Do they expect the beach, cliff, river bank to remain exactly where they are in perpetuity?
[2.1] Did they study geography (physical)
[2.2] Did they study geography (political)
[3] When the Japanese Tsunami struct was the immediate problem: (a) physical or (b) political?

GREG in Houston
October 9, 2019 5:24 am

This is admittedly a nit, but the NC community was not nearly “missed” by Dorian. It was nearly hit.

Reply to  GREG in Houston
October 9, 2019 7:01 am

I believe they meant to say it was narrowly missed. Over time the phrase has been corrupted.

George Daddis
October 9, 2019 5:26 am

People have already taken hurricanes into account in their decision to locate a home on coastal Carolina.
If that is not a risk you are willing to take, you don’t live there.

But it is ignorant to bunch SLR with hurricane damage;
Inches per decade are inconsequential in comparison to the height of waves at high tide during a hurricane.

And of course severe hurricanes have always been noted in that area since the first explorers landed on those shores. (Unless you count the recent hiatus of 12 years when they didn’t – smile.)

David Middleton(@debunkhouse)
October 9, 2019 5:34 am

Believing in climate change doesn’t mean you are preparing for climate change…

No schist Sherlock.

I not only believe, but I’m fairly certain that Yellowstone will eventually cook-off another Huckleberry Ridge-sized VEI-8 super-eruption and it will be really bad… I’m absolutely not preparing for it.

I not only believe, but I’m fairly certain that a Chicxulub-sized chunk of rock will eventually hit the Earth again and it will be really bad… I’m absolutely not preparing for it.

That said, people with beach houses are already prepared for the sort of “climate change” that is likely to affect houses already built to survive high tide. To illustrate the irrelevance of sea level rise, I devised a little topographic exercise using NOAA tides & sea level trends and a USGS topographic map of the Jacksonville FL quadrangle.  There are two NOAA sea level stations in this quadrangle: Fernandina Beach and Mayport.  I chose Fernandina Beach because the record goes back to 1897, Mayport only goes back to 1930.

Here is the sea level trend and the height of a 10′ (3m) storm surge projected to 2140…

Here’s the same plot with the tidal range overlaid…

From: A geological perspective on sea level and storm surges.

Less than 1′ of sea level rise over the next 80 years requires very little in the way of preparation, unless your house is already flooding at high tide and there isn’t enough melt-able ice on Earth to support much more than 1′ of sea level rise over the next 80 years.

This sort of sea level rise…

Requires this sort of ice melt…

RCP8.5 doesn’t even deliver that much ice melt… And RCP8.5 is bad science fiction.

Whether measuring the temperature in the atmosphere…

Or at airports…

The worst case scenario is between RCP2.6 and RCP4.5…

Reply to  David Middleton
October 9, 2019 6:19 am

Very important information, very effectively presented. Thank you!

David Middleton(@debunkhouse)
Reply to  RACookPE1978
October 9, 2019 6:28 am

The curse of being addicted to Excel and PowerPoint… 😉

Reply to  David Middleton
October 9, 2019 9:31 am

David, that needs to be one of your posts for WUWT…..not just a reply
…very very good!

October 9, 2019 5:39 am

It is amazing that the people who did this study are too stupid to understand human nature. It is always, ALWAYS, someone else who has to pay, sacrifice, etc. And what the people promoting the “green new deal” type nonsense don’t realize is that they will be the ones to sacrifice, not the politicians. Remember, people are selfish and so it is always the other people who must sacrifice. The masses think they won’t be affected. Since the politicians make the rules, they will not include themselves because others have to sacrifice, not them.

People may believe in CAGW, but they don’t believe enough to change. Honestly, it is the same thing in religion. Just, for instance, take Christianity. I see many people who claim to believe in God, claim to read the Bible daily, and go to church weekly but I know do things the Bible condemns. (Truth be told, though they claim to read the Bible, I bet I have read it more than they have.) They wear a cross around their neck daily, but it does not motivate them to obey God. People want God on their terms, not his. They believe, but not enough to be motivated to change. It doesn’t help when the leaders of many Christian churches are hypocrites. Of course, you have some who do work hard to follow the Bible; but they are the minority of Christians. It is the same thing with CAGW. Most people who believe in it want life on their terms. You do have ardent supports, but they are the minority. It doesn’t help that the leaders promoting CAGW are hypocrites.

October 9, 2019 5:58 am

So, after years of research, those climate clowns discovered the meaning of “hypocrisy”.


October 9, 2019 6:07 am

To be fair, it is difficult to do much to make an existing house more weather resistant.

It is only if you are selecting a new house, or building one yourself that you can really do anything.

Personally I have never lived on the coast, but I have lived close to rivers that flood. So I always look at the contours when selecting a house.

George Daddis
Reply to  BillP
October 9, 2019 7:03 am

Actually along the Atlantic coast, that’s not true. The price of beachfront property has sky-rocketed since I was a youth. On the Jersey shore it more than pays to demolish or rehabilitate a structure that will better withstand a hurricane. That usually takes the form of elevating the living quarters above what was the first floor and making the ground floor walls collapsible (or just posts as in the picture). (See homes on Hatteras, NC for extreme examples)

People know that is not a guarantee but still pay an ever increasing price to live there.
(That contradiction somehow reminds me of Yogi Berra’s “The restaurant is so crowded no one goes there any more.”)

October 9, 2019 6:07 am

Once again there seems to be no interest in going beyond the easy bit – saying they believe in global warming – and progressing to the hard part – spending money.

October 9, 2019 6:42 am

About the only thing an individual property owner can do about “climate change” is to spend tremendous amounts of money today to raise their home and other property improvements by 9 inches to accommodate the next century’s sea level rise … or adding reinforcements like impact resistant glass, hurricane shutters, or other items that were not code required when their home was built, at a cost of many tens of thousands of dollars, or more.’

Or at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps millions of dollars, one can knock down their existing home and build a brand new home to code.

Here in Florida, all of that is already accounted for in the building codes that have been in effect for the last two decades. So any homes built since then are fully covered for today’s perceived risks.

Or, if one doesn’t want to bankrupt oneself, just stay in your existing property, pay your insurance bills (be sure to buy flood insurance) and then when the Really Big One comes along, then you get to rebuild, minus your deductible.

Or, if the Really Big One doesn’t come along, it is quite likely that long before sea level rises enough to make any practical difference whatsoever, you will be dead, and your heirs and their heirs and somebody else’s heirs will come along, buy your old property, knock down the aging house, and build a new one to whatever code exists then.

The latter is more or less what’s been going on for thousands of years.

Go to any modern city in Europe that goes back thousands of years – like Rome, London, Paris, etc. – and what you see today is merely what is built on the rubble many feet below existing grade thousands of years ago, after various fires, floods, wars, etc. created a rubble pile that was subsequently built upon.

Nothing built by man lasts forever, and anything but a solid stone pyramid or castle is unlikely to last more than a couple hundred years at most – with most dwellings and places of business unlikely to survive even 100 years before being torn down and replaced by something else.

Steven Fraser
Reply to  Duane
October 9, 2019 8:12 am

I wonder which of these strategies Barack and Michelle have in mind for the Marthas Vineyard property. Its <10' above MSL.

Reply to  Steven Fraser
October 9, 2019 1:17 pm

It’ll be 60 to 70 generations of the Obama’s heirs and/ or buyers who’ll have to worry about that at the current SLR rate of 9 inches per century.

The street the Obama’s house is built on is roughly 13 feet above MSL.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Duane
October 9, 2019 1:31 pm

As usual, Duane is wrong.
The most important thing one can do is to vote against every politician who is an alarmist or alarmist sympathizer.
Fake climate change will be a serious problem if Trump is not reelected next November.
I personally would not take any opinion about anything from someone with such degraded reasoning abilities that, although they know climate change hysteria is malarkey, they see no need to support the one person who is almost single handedly keeping those hysterical maniacs from stealing every last bit of economic prosperity and constitutional freedom away from us.
It is important to support any like minded conservatives, but it is notable that few Rs were standing frim against the BS during the 2016 primary season. Most would have wound up caving. Many still mouth support for at least part of the alarmist agenda.
Anything except steadfast refusal to give one inch of ground to these power mad nutbags is economic suicide and a tacit decision to relinquish or freedoms for what amounts to a pack of breathless lies and the fever dreams of doomsday panic mongers.

October 9, 2019 6:49 am

As they say, actions speak louder than words.
They may SAY that they believe in climate change, but their actions indicate otherwise.

October 9, 2019 7:48 am

While not hurricane or sea level related, the warmists also bleat on about increased wildland fires. I happen to live, my retirement home in fact, in the middle of an area prone to wildland fire.

1. I would not have chosen this area if I weren’t prepared to make my house and property as firewise as possible. And, I’ve done this without other people’s money.
2. Should a catastrophic wildland fire blow through and damage or destroy my house, you won’t see me with outstretched hand begging to be bailed out. It was my choice to live here, so my responsibility.

The foregoing notwithstanding, the failure of the USDA Forest Service to properly manage the forests surrounding my house puts me at higher risk. I will use my last breath to continue advocating for a return to sound forest management on the National Forests.

Paul Penrose
October 9, 2019 10:17 am

Maybe they feel they have already done enough (since they have to take into account the tides and the occasional hurricane)? Ask the wrong questions, get the wrong answers.

Svend Ferdinandsen
October 9, 2019 11:13 am

Rising sea has very little to do with climate change, so they act wise by not doing so much.

Lloyd W. Robertson(@lloydr56)
October 9, 2019 1:23 pm

Insurers can insure for risk, as long as they can identify it and (within limits) quantify it. They might get info from Judith Curry’s company. It is weird that in the U.S. the federal government will pay to re-build in the path of storms. Homeowners may be thinking that if it gets unpleasant on the beach, they’ll get on a plane and fly away somewhere. Tuvalu and the Maldives both have some beautiful resorts.

Gunga Din
October 9, 2019 3:32 pm

Believing in climate change doesn’t mean you are preparing for climate change, study finds

“Promoting climate change doesn’t mean the Promoters are preparing for what they claim ‘climate change’ will do, study finds”
Other than reaping political and financial (and sometimes just egotistical) gains, the promoters don’t seem to have changed their lifestyles at all.

(OK. Sometimes they have. But only paper like AlGore’s energy use for his mansions is OK because he bought “carbon credits”. Just who in the US sells them and what is their profit from the sale of ” hot air”?)

Johann Wundersamer
October 17, 2019 3:51 am

After all, most Banda Aceh buildings were rebuilt 1-4 years after the tsunami 2004.

Move along, no new incidents since.

%d bloggers like this: