University of Notre Dame
Perhaps “researchers” are only measuring virtue signaling~ctm
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.
This is admittedly a nit, but the NC community was not nearly “missed” by Dorian. It was nearly hit.
I believe they meant to say it was narrowly missed. Over time the phrase has been corrupted.
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.)
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…
Very important information, very effectively presented. Thank you!
The curse of being addicted to Excel and PowerPoint… 😉
David, that needs to be one of your posts for WUWT…..not just a reply
…very very good!
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.
So, after years of research, those climate clowns discovered the meaning of “hypocrisy”.
WOW !
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.
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.”)
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.
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.
I wonder which of these strategies Barack and Michelle have in mind for the Marthas Vineyard property. Its <10' above MSL.
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.
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.
As they say, actions speak louder than words.
They may SAY that they believe in climate change, but their actions indicate otherwise.
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.
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.
Rising sea has very little to do with climate change, so they act wise by not doing so much.
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.
Perhaps?
“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”?)
After all, most Banda Aceh buildings were rebuilt 1-4 years after the tsunami 2004.
Move along, no new incidents since.
https://www.futurity.org/banda-aceh-tsunami-reconstruction-1653312-2/
https://www.google.com/search?q=banda+aceh+rebuild+after+tsunami&oq=banda+aceh+rebuild+after&aqs=chrome.