Much waterfront property is _already_ vulnerable (and expensive to insure) today, regardless of whether you believe in consensus climate science, due to storms and flooding in current climatic conditions. That house by the ocean is going to destroyed at some point, the only question is when and how.
I have not yet, however, seen any such research on consensus for the effects of climate change. Is there a large, documented consensus on any estimate of sea level raise?
My point was that real estate market prices are much more heavily influenced by current conditions, and current demand, rather than hypothetical future conditions. The price elasticity of demand has little to do with whether the buyer believes that the property will flood in future decades due to climate change. Someone who wants a beachfront mansion is probably going to buy it for close to the same price whether or not s/he believe it will still be there in 50 years, just as s/he might buy an expensive car that will similarly degrade and need expensive maintenance exceeding the original purchase price over time.
If we are talking about the US then there's government flood insurance.
If you still believed what was once the consensus, you would believe in some crazy stuff. Science is skeptism of the consensus, not the other way around.
As long as the skepticism is evidence based, of course.
Real estate is about the closest thing to putting your money where your mouth is as far as climate change goes and the people have spoken - the coasts are still the most valuable and desirable places to live.
I would definitely buy coast property today because this won't be a significant problem in my lifetime. I'd buy from coast again when it becomes a significant problem, just that the coast location would be different of course.
What do you think happens in that 100 years? I assume this would be a near linear progression. That means current waterfront has about 10-20 years, not 100.
The note under map says: Blue indicates counties where flooding will displace residents if sea levels rise by six feet by 2100. Counties in shades of pink and red will see higher-than-average migration, with the darker shades representing larger population increases.
So it only means people will likely migrate to other areas, not that the blue places will be totally underwater by 2100.
Got me wondering though, are you really a climate change skeptic? I mean climate change is something as obvious as gravity, we have all the data to support it, we can directly observe it etc. I find it hard for a sane people to question it, really. I mean I understand how someone can be skeptical about "man made climate change" which is something open to debate, but climate change itself isn't really open to debate.
I have a background in financial modeling, using exponentially more observations, in a less chaotic system, with participants betting on the models with real dollars. It makes climate change models look like simplistic toys, which most are.
There is NO consequence of being wrong with a climate model, no shame, and there's a high degree of survivorship bias. Climate models that have been right, have been right for the wrong reasons. Climate models that have been wrong (most) are long forgotten and never discussed. New models come out all the time to hype fears for events that prior models predicted would be happening now (and aren't).
The question isn't does the climate change, the question is do we understand it at all.
Just look at coastal real estate. Buyers and lenders would have to be colossal fools to pay such premiums to be waterfront. Even Obama just plunked down 12M on a waterfront mansion on the low lying island of MV.