AgentR11 wrote:I'm going to try this, one more time. This is not denial of SLR, its a statement that yall don't seem to understand much about construction, fixed assets, and building depreciation.
IPCC numbers are currently stated to be +0.11 in/yr. On the other hand, I don't think Hanson is being overly ridiculous about "several meters within the century"; though his position is still OUTSIDE of the consensus view.
So how do we get from +0.11 in/yr (equivalent to 0.28m /century) ( current, factual, observed rate); to a 2100 date with say +3 meters. Obviously its not linear. This is a *GOOD* thing for building depreciation and industrial/commercial business decisions.
The IPCC has always been conservative in its estimation. That's what James Hansens's paper was standing to correct.
Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response.
In many similar cases, the evidence suggests that changes in climate are occurring faster, and with more intensity, than the IPCC have predicted. It is not credible to suggest the reports were biased in favour of the theory of anthropogenic global warming when the evidence demonstrates the IPCC were, in fact, so cautious.
In fact, there is evidence however to suggest that the exact opposite is actually the case, both in terms of the scientific evidence itself (see below) and the way the work of the IPCC is reported. A recent study (Freudenburg 2010) investigated what it calls 'the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge', the phenomenon in which reports on science fail to evaluate all outcomes, favoring certain probabilities while ignoring others. They found that "...new scientific findings were more than twenty times as likely to support the ASC perspective [that disruption through AGW may be far worse than the IPCC has suggested] than the usual framing of the issue in the U.S. mass media".
Claims that the IPCC is alarmist are not supported by evidence, and there are clear indications that the opposite may be the case.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-s ... sensus.htm
AgentR11 wrote:So... why?
Lets look at your building lifecycle.
Site selection
construction
occupancy
remodel
occupancy
abandonment / replacement / demolition
This generally happens over a cycle of 30-50 yrs depending on the durability/use of the building, but 30yrs is a perfectly reasonable, and economically justifiable lifespan.
30 Years is not reasonable. Right now commercial buildings are depreciated over 39 years. It doesn't pencil out when depreciated assets become worthless once sold. Not in a slow growth economy and a especially in a no growth economy where the books won't matter.
And it's not just the buildings and the property, but the infrastructure that surrounds them. Access to major seaports will eventually become a lost effort. The Port of Houston alone contributes about 1,800,000 jobs throughout TX. Let's also not forget the transport and the refineries of oil here as well.
AgentR11 wrote:Why?
net PV. the decision about the buildings, cost, earnings, etc; are analyzed in terms of net present value. Present value basically acknowledges that the $100 you make or spend 30 yrs from now is worth no where near as much to you, right now, as the $100 you spend or make today.
So while the ice melt and SLR accelerate; the value of the building decelerates almost in lock step. To put perfectly bluntly; it flat does not matter that a thirty year old building is inundated; it would only matter if you did some really high dollar remodel just before inundation; but you can no longer insure nor get financing for properties/remodel which have a realistic likelihood of being inundated soon.
Thus, once a building is within the flood plain, which is periodically, (and in Texas harshly), redrawn to account for climate/subsidence/water drainage changes; its cycle is over; and its lifespan will come to an end very shortly, whether it gets flooded or not.
So by the time SLR actually EATS the building?
no one will be there.
no industrial capacity will be dependent on it.
the activity will have moved years before.
You're making an assumption that everything else in the government, financial, insurance and real estate markets is working just fine when all that happens. Guess what, it won't be. Any endangered property, flooded or not will become worthless as it cannot be insured, financed, let alone find a client to buy it. You also won't be able to pick up sticks and move since the infrastructure, for one thing won't be there, either will the resources both materially and financially to rebuild.
AgentR11 wrote:Hansen's paper(1) is compatible with, and supportive of this process. At each point in time going forward, the change in the rate (ie, acceleration) is smooth and known, and produces a knowable level for MSL, and thus, a knowable flood plain map. At no point, even with Hansen's numbers, will a new, high value, 0-50 yr building be constructed in a location which will be inundated by SLR and storm surge; during its 30 yr economic life.
See above. I'm sure the oil industry will be happy to move all their refineries from the coast to say places like OK. No problem.
AgentR11 wrote:SLR is not a step function. It is a smooth curve. And that makes all the difference in the world as far as buildings, siting, life cycle... As long as the rate is knowable over the course of the very near term (5-10yrs) at each stage in the time line, the decisions made with regard to facility construction and flood plain maps will be appropriate. (eg, known fast rate is better than unknown modest rate)
SLR is an accelerating curve. The rate is not knowable. That's the problem. If it were Hansen wouldn't have a paper worth reading. Therefore you cannot plan other then to get as far away from the worse case scenario as possible.
AgentR11 wrote:BTW, this does not imply a lack of wailing and nashing of teeth on TV when a building does get eaten, it only means that the accountants, bankers, and insurers; real estate moguls and company CEOs won't really care. Unless one of them was dumb enough to self-fund a reconstruction project in the flood plain. For them... their professional life expectancy likely just went to zero.
Yes they care, because its still a financial loss to the bottom line. You're confused about depreciation. Depreciated assets carry a book value of zero, but it's just an accounting measure. It is not a process for valuing assets