London

1161 readers

65 users here now

"who’d a thunk it"

For discussion about London including the surrounding Greater London area. Discuss all things from news, travel, culture, and general life around the capital and largest city of England!

Rules and other welcoming info can be found here.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

By 2070, London house prices will fall - like the houses (programming.dev)

submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

With the country getting hotter, the ground underneath most houses in London will be drying out and becoming softer due to clay soil shrink-swell, leading to a massive increase in insurance claims for subsidence.

No one will want to buy a house with known subsidence because insurance normally only covers repairs for subsidence if it wasn't mentioned in the original survey report.

This is going to mean a huge reduction in houses prices all around London as they try to offload their houses that will need remedial action undertaking to prevent damage to the house.

This page shows a map of how London is going to be affected.

Most susceptible are properties in the highly-populated London areas, particularly in northern and central London boroughs, and Kent in the South East. Projections suggest that the number of properties in London likely to be affected by climate will rise from 20 per cent in 1990, to 43 per cent by 2030, and almost 3 times 1990 values (57 per cent) by 2070.

https://www.bgs.ac.uk/news/maps-show-the-real-threat-of-climate-related-subsidence-to-british-homes-and-properties/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Ok so your prediction won't be perfect, it'll be a fraction of a percent off one way or another. It will be a figure that's statistically irrelevant. Flip a coin a ten thousand you're not likely to get exactly 5000 heads and 5000 tails. You'll get a bit over five thousand of one and a bit under five thousand of the other.

And here’s the kicker: the way climate models work is by predicting the next timeframe based on the previous one. Because of this, your “statistically irrelevant” error becomes larger and larger with each prediction, as the next prediction will be based on these small errors. And the next one will be based on those plus the further “irrelevant” errors. And so on… after a few iterations some values in these climate predictions get so out of line that there are actual routines in the models that force these values back into realistic ranges. And then, the next prediction gets calculated based on this out-of-realistic-but-forced-to-reasonable-range value. And the outcome of this kind of calculation is what all these climate researchers want to sell to us as the bitter truth.

The rapidity is the issue as much or more than the change itself. The speed means plants and animals can't migrate to areas that are better suited to them climatically, let alone give time for evolutionary based adaptations.

There were similar rapid temperature rises in the past, the latest one around 800-1000AD (if you want to trust the GISP2 data) or around 7970BC (if you want to go with the multi-core reconstruction method). Plants and animals are still here, aren’t they? Also, these graphs show that temperatures were way over +2.0 in the past.

We have tens of thousands of years of ice core data and hundreds to thousands of years of tree ring data.

Ice core data is just calculated based on the oxygen isotope solved in that ice. However, you can’t properly make deductions from a single ice core, so later models use the data from multiple cores. And even there, they had to “tune” the data to make it fit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

And here’s the kicker: the way climate models work is by predicting the next timeframe based on the previous one. Because of this, your “statistically irrelevant” error becomes larger and larger with each prediction, as the next prediction will be based on these small errors.

Which would be an issue if new models weren't being made and refined

if you want to trust the GISP2 data)

The poor interpretation of that data you mean?

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change/

or around 7970BC (if you want to go with the multi-core reconstruction method). Plants and animals are still here, aren’t they?

So around the time of the Quaternary extinction event.

Again you seem to be arguing that just because not everything died it's ok that a lot of stuff died.