Expert opinion against exponential sea level rise

UPDATE below

Letter to Chch Press 4 Aug 2015

Letter to Christchurch Press from David Beach, 4 Aug 2015. Click to enlarge.

Letter to Christchurch Press from David Beach, 4 Aug 2015. Click to enlarge.

David Beach sent a letter to the Christchurch Press published 4 August, 2015, which contains grievous errors. Whatever he intends by the use of the term ‘exponential’, we can only take it in its usual sense of increasing at a more and more rapid rate, or a rate expressed by a mathematical exponent. His salient point is this:

First, the 1m figure is absolutely the best case for sea level rise. The worst case (expressed by an expert team led by Dr Hansen) is 5m. Second, it does not stop at whatever figure turns out to be true, as it increases exponentially.

This is very wrong. It contradicts not only the latest report, AR5 (2013), from the IPCC, the world’s foremost climate authority, but also the extensive local knowledge and expertise of New Zealand marine scientist Professor Willem de Lange.

Five years ago, Professor de Lange sent me this graph showing the probabilities of various marine events occurring in New Zealand by 2100.

probabilities

Probabilities of various marine events in NZ before 2100.

There’s little chance that in only five years since then these probabilities have altered to any meaningful degree. Prof de Lange is among the foremost ocean scientists in New Zealand. Solid evidence is required to contradict his opinion. I’ll look up the IPCC projections for sea level rise in AR5, but I seem to recall it sits at about 450mm by 2100—less than half of Beach’s “best case”.

Notwithstanding the firm belief David Beach holds in the matter of sea level rise in the distant future, in the absence of evidence it’s hard to think that he could be more wrong.

UPDATE 6 Aug 2015 1225 NZST

We need to know more about the IPCC’s calculation of sea level rise, but however they deal with it, it must begin with our emissions increasing the heat energy in the climate system. So before I leave this post let me raise for your consideration this interesting description from AR5 of gaseous temperature influences. It seems to see differences between the radiative forcings from GHG and water vapour, but it is unpersuasive. Temperature has no “structure” I’ve heard of; if water vapour is the strongest GHG by far, why is it not a significant initial forcing? What’s the difference between a “significant initial forcing” and a “fundamental agent” of climate change? The GHG don’t change climate, but temperature. Richard Cumming is adamant that CO2 has no effect on the TOA energy balance yet could CO2 still be necessary to protect atmospheric water vapour? Perhaps someone will untangle this.

Currently, water vapour has the largest greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere. However, other greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, are necessary to sustain the presence of water vapour in the atmosphere. Indeed, if these other gases were removed from the atmosphere, its temperature would drop sufficiently to induce a decrease of water vapour, leading to a runaway drop of the greenhouse effect that would plunge the Earth into a frozen state. So greenhouse gases other than water vapour provide the temperature structure that sustains current levels of atmospheric water vapour. Therefore, although CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate, water vapour is a strong and fast feedback that amplifies any initial forcing by a typical factor between two and three. Water vapour is not a significant initial forcing, but is nevertheless a fundamental agent of climate change.

AR5, Chp 8 Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing, p.667

101 Thoughts on “Expert opinion against exponential sea level rise

  1. The worst case sea level projection for 2100 in AR5 is 0.82 metres. This is the upper bound for the RCP 8.5 projection.

    They don’t assign a probability distribution function to any of these numbers as far as I know.

  2. I’m interested to know whether the relationship between global mean temperature and sea level anomaly is linear, or if there are more complex processes involved. (Assuming most of the rise is due to thermal expansion)

  3. Richard Treadgold on August 5, 2015 at 10:16 pm said:

    AR5 says it’s complex and sea level responds more to ocean heat content than surface air temperature.

    Global mean sea level (GMSL) rise due to thermal expansion is approximately proportional to the increase in ocean heat content. The constant of proportionality is 0.11 ± 0.01 m per 1024 J for the ensemble of CMIP5 models (Kuhlbrodt and Gregory, 2012); it depends on the vertical and latitudinal distribution of warming in the ocean, because the expansion of sea water per degree Celsius of warming is greater at higher temperature and higher pressure (Russell et al., 2000; Hallberg et al., 2012; Körper et al., 2013; Perrette et al., 2013). – AR5 Chp 13 Sea Level Change

    That’s all I can offer for now.

  4. Ok, thanks,
    So the relationship between “global surface warming” and SLR seems to be weak. This makes me wonder how they modeled the SLR. More reading required for me.

  5. If you did assume a relationship between SLR and surface warming, for sake of argument, then a one metre rise in sea level would equate to approx four degrees of warming over the course of this century based on previous trends.

    If these were both “exponential” then the oceans really would boil.

  6. Good grief, we can’t escape!

    Mackenzie council reviews tsunami risk

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/70843947/mackenzie-council-reviews-tsunami-risk

  7. Richard Treadgold on August 6, 2015 at 11:14 am said:

    Exactly. If the gods want to hit you with a tsunami, they will. They could even get you from behind, up in those hills.

  8. Richard C (NZ) on August 6, 2015 at 12:32 pm said:

    >”Global mean sea level (GMSL) rise due to thermal expansion is approximately proportional to the increase in ocean heat content” [IPCC AR5]

    And ocean heat has risen due to the globally averaged surface energy imbalance of 0.6 W.m-2. In the tropics in the order of 24 W.m-2 i.e. sun-ocean interaction and the theoretical 1.9 W.m-2 CO2 “forcing” has no effect on this whatsoever, either at surface or top of atmosphere. The CO2 conjecture is falsified.

    The theoretical man-made boost to SLR is classic miss-attribution and should be scrubbed from policy.

  9. The IPCC chapter on SLR uses several graphs where they splice paleo, instrumental and model outputs to give the impression of an acceleration, when the instrumental data shows no acceleration at all.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on August 6, 2015 at 1:37 pm said:

    >”Perhaps someone will untangle this.”– AR5, Chp 8 Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing, p.667

    OK lets go through it:

    “Currently, water vapour has the largest greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere.”

    This spuriously presupposes the “greenhouse” effect is radiative. Prior to the global warming scare the earth’s temperature profile from surface to TOA was determined without recourse to a radiative greenhouse effect i.e. temperature was derived from mass/gravity/pressure and solar input (see below). The contributing atmospheric constituents were included and water vapour is one of those albeit minor.

    The radiative greenhouse effect falls over in tropical humid and dry zones in terms of enhanced heating. Humid temperatures do not attain the extreme levels of dry zones, hot or cold, as on the moon. Water vapour acts to modulate temperature on earth so is the major “greenhouse” gas. The misnomer being greenhouses inhibit convection whereas convection is the primary atmospheric energy dissipation mechanism in the atmosphere.

    >”However, other greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, are necessary to sustain the presence of water vapour in the atmosphere. Indeed, if these other gases were removed from the atmosphere, its temperature would drop sufficiently to induce a decrease of water vapour, leading to a runaway drop of the greenhouse effect that would plunge the Earth into a frozen state.”

    I don’t think so. The temperature model of the atmosphere neglected CO2 and other minor GHGs i.e. removed them to determine verified temperature. The IPCC get it wrong because they don’t know what determines temperature. CO2 is a radiative energy transfer medium i.e. a passive coolant in the atmosphere. The sun provides the energy (S = the solar constant = 1367 W/m2) and temperature is derived from the physical properties:

    The Greenhouse Equation
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xXJOurldG_E/VHjjbD6XinI/AAAAAAAAGx8/8yXlYh8Lcr4/s1600/The%2BGreenhouse%2BEquation%2B-%2BSymbolic%2Bsolution%2BP.png

    Where:
    T = temperature at height (s) meters above the surface, thus at the surface s = 0
    s = height in meters above the surface to calculate the temperature T, thus at the surface s=0
    S = the solar constant = 1367 W/m2, derivation here
    ε = emissivity = 1 assuming Sun and Earth are blackbodies
    σ = the Stefan-Boltzmann constant = 5.6704 x 10-8 W m-2 K-4
    g = gravitational acceleration = 9.8 m/s^2
    m = average molar mass of the atmosphere = 29g/mole = 0.029kg/mole
    α = albedo = 0.3 for earth
    C = Cp = the heat capacity of the atmosphere at constant pressure, ~ 1.5077 average for Earth
    P = surface pressure in the unit atmospheres, defined as = 1 atmosphere for latitude of Paris
    R = universal gas constant = 8.3145 J/mol K
    e = the base of the natural logarithm, approximately equal to 2.71828
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/the-greenhouse-equation.html

    >”So greenhouse gases other than water vapour provide the temperature structure that sustains current levels of atmospheric water vapour. Therefore, although CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate, water vapour is a strong and fast feedback that amplifies any initial forcing by a typical factor between two and three. Water vapour is not a significant initial forcing, but is nevertheless a fundamental agent of climate change.”

    Again as in the first sentence, this just continues to spuriously assume a radiative greenhouse effect. But let’s follow the logic – the current theoretical CO2 forcing is 1.9 W.m-2. 1.9 x 2 = 3.8 and x 3 = 5.7 W.m-2.

    The earth’s energy imbalance at TOA where climate change “forcing” is measured is 0.6 W.m-2. 3.8 is 6.3 times actual and 5.7 is 9.5 times actual. In other words, not only is the initial theoretical CO2 forcing an ineffective “agent of climate change” but the theoretical water vapour amplification feedback is a ludicrous blowout rather than a “a fundamental agent of climate change”.

    The IPCC’s entire rationale is bogus.

  11. Just listened to a presentation by Niels Axel Morner who claims that the SLR after the last ice age ended was one metre.

    So the aptly named Mr Beach would have to exceed the SLR of the ice age ending for his “base case scenario”

  12. Richard C (NZ) on August 6, 2015 at 1:52 pm said:

    >”C = Cp = the heat capacity of the atmosphere at constant pressure, ~ 1.5077 average for Earth”

    Hence pressure isobars on weather maps. Pressure is constant in a standard atmosphere but not constant in the real thing.

  13. Richard C (NZ) on August 6, 2015 at 3:51 pm said:

    The above greenhouse equation is from “first principles”:

    First principle

    “In physics, a calculation is said to be from first principles, or ab initio, if it starts directly at the level of established laws of physics and does not make assumptions such as empirical model and fitting parameters.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle

    Weather forecast models are initialized with observations but the forecast process is founded on the “primitive equations” which are in turn founded on “first principles”. From Wiki:

    Primitive equations

    The primitive equations are a set of nonlinear differential equations that are used to approximate global atmospheric flow and are used in most atmospheric models. They consist of three main sets of balance equations:

    1. A continuity equation: Representing the conservation of mass.
    2. Conservation of momentum: Consisting of a form of the Navier–Stokes equations that describe hydrodynamical flow on the surface of a sphere under the assumption that vertical motion is much smaller than horizontal motion (hydrostasis) and that the fluid layer depth is small compared to the radius of the sphere
    3. A thermal energy equation: Relating the overall temperature of the system to heat sources and sinks

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_equations

    [In respect to temperature T] – “The first term is equal to the change in temperature due to incoming solar radiation and outgoing longwave radiation, which changes with time throughout the day. The second, third, and fourth terms are due to advection. Additionally, the variable T with subscript is the change in temperature on that plane. Each T is actually different and related to its respective plane. This is divided by the distance between grid points to get the change in temperature with the change in distance. When multiplied by the wind velocity on that plane, the units kelvins per meter and meters per second give kelvins per second. The sum of all the changes in temperature due to motions in the x, y, and z directions give the total change in temperature with time.”

    “In general, nearly all forms of the primitive equations relate the five variables u, v, ω, T, W, and their evolution over space and time.”

    Definitions:

    u is the zonal velocity,
    v is the meridional velocity,
    ω is the vertical velocity in isobaric coordinates,
    T is the temperature,
    W is the precipitable water

    The “first principle” of temperature T is the greenhouse equation but the initialization of T in a weather forecast model is by actual observed temperature.

  14. We don’t need to get bogged down in Greenhouse physics when there is no empirical evidence that anything unusual is happening to sea level at all.

    I have written a response to the Beach letter, which might get published – I’ll let you know

  15. Richard C (NZ) on August 6, 2015 at 5:12 pm said:

    At no point in the above weather forecast process is the concept of radiative forcing invoked except for the primary solar radiative forcing of T:

    “The first term is equal to the change in temperature due to incoming solar radiation and outgoing longwave radiation [OLR], which changes with time throughout the day”

    This is instantaneous diurnal radiative change and that, S = the solar “constant” = 1367 W/m2, is where speed-of-light radiative forcing begins and ends. The miss-attribution by climate science is to attribute a theoretical speed-of-light CO2 forcing to OLR as in the weather example when the OLR delay (and therefore TOA imbalance) has actually occurred over decades by sun-ocean-atmosphere energy flow lag.

    The solar “constant” was termed originally because it was an incorrect assumption. From NASA:

    The Inconstant Sun

    “The solar constant also drifts by 0.2% to 0.6% over many centuries, according to scientists who study tree rings.”

    http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2003/01/15/17jan_solcon_resources/eddy_strip.gif

    Above: Inferred variations in solar intensity (red and green lines) over the last 900 years appear to be related to the severity of winters in London and Paris. The red line is deduced from the abundance of a heavy form of carbon (carbon-14) in tree rings. This “isotope” of carbon is formed in the upper atmosphere when incoming cosmic rays smash into carbon dioxide molecules. When the Sun’s activity is low, its weakened magnetic field lets more cosmic rays into the solar system, so carbon-14 abundances go up. (Notice on the graph that the scale for carbon-14 is upside down.) This image by scientist John Eddy is based on an earlier one that appeared in Science, 192, 1189 (1976).

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/17jan_solcon/

    1367 W/m2 x 0.2% and 0.6% = 2.7 and 8.2 W.m-2 respectively. The PMOD series has the solar “constant” dropping about 0.3 W.m-2 just over the 4 years 2005 – 2009: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod

    0.3 W.m-2 is exactly half of the IPCC’s criteria for climate change – TOA energy imbalance (0.6 W.m-2 currently). 0.6 W.m-2 is a minor change in the context of NASA’s solar constant drift above.

    Solar change is the “fundamental agent of climate change”, as the IPCC puts it but in respect to CO2. The current solar change will show up in cooler temperature T once sun-ocean-atmosphere energy flow lag is allowed for. But the current solar “constant” of 1367 W/m2 will no longer be valid so a new TOA energy balance (or imbalance) will be established.

  16. Richard C (NZ) on August 6, 2015 at 5:33 pm said:

    >”We don’t need to get bogged down in Greenhouse physics when there is no empirical evidence that anything unusual is happening to sea level at all.”

    Well yes but it does explain why the “exponential” SLR idea is not working out as predicted. And once the CO2 conjecture is falsified the whole man-made climate change edifice collapses.

  17. Yes I concur with the “edifice” but I am thinking how to frame the issue when presenting a counter argument to CCC in the submission process

    (Some talk of legal action too)

    So I need to tread carefully so as not to lose too many when presenting arguments. So many people are convinced of dangerous AGW, and that anyone who disagrees is a “denier”. Sad, but true

  18. Mike Jowsey on August 6, 2015 at 6:53 pm said:

    When I bought our family home in Rodney Street, South Brighton over 30 years ago, my father was concerned about sea level rise impacting on my unwise purchase. I noted his concern and looked into it as far as I could. (No internet, no Wiki, no search engines – it was off to the library for me). I found that there was indeed popular alarm in some magazines, National Geographic among them. But I could find no evidence in statistics that sea level was rising much above the standard 200 to 300mm per century. 30 years later, the house is still dry, the sand dunes still stand and the cold easterly still blows. What is all this fuss?

  19. Richard C (NZ) on August 6, 2015 at 6:57 pm said:

    >”We need to know more about the IPCC’s calculation of sea level rise, but however they deal with it, it must begin with our emissions increasing the heat energy in the climate system”

    Which don’t i.e. that notion is wrong by miss-attribution. And from there on we get the silly extrapolations. Case in point:

    ‘Here’s where over 90% of the extra heat from global warming is going and the billions of dollars it’s costing us’

    Jessica Orwig, Business Insider

    It’s no surprise that climate change is raising summer temperatures in many parts of the globe, but what you might not know is where most of that extra heat is going.

    Scientists estimate that as much as 90% of it is heading straight into our oceans, and that has major consequences not only for marine wildlife but for the world’s economy.

    The average surface temperature around the world has increased by roughly 1.08 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 40 years, but that number would be a lot larger if it weren’t for the oceans.

    “To date, the oceans have essentially been the planet’s refrigerator and carbon dioxide storage locker,” Hans-Otto Pörtner, who is a researcher at the Alref Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centra for Polar and Marine Research, told ScienceDaily. “For instance, since the 1970s they’ve absorbed roughly 93% of the additional heat produced by the greenhouse effect, greatly helping to slow the warming of our planet.”

    http://www.businessinsider.com/ocean-is-absorbing-heat-from-climate-change-2015-8

    # # #

    “Increasing oceanic temperatures and acidity will either reduce mussel production by 50% (scenario 1) or 70% (scenario 2) by the year 2100, which could cost the world over $100 billion by the end of the century.”

    See? Wrong first, then silly.

    More on the erroneous attribution:

    ‘The Discovery of Global Warming’

    The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

    A final nail in the coffin of scientific skepticism came in 2005, when a team compiled accurate long-term measurements of temperatures in all the world’s ocean basins. It was not in the air but the massive oceans, after all, that most of any heat added would soon wind up. Indeed natural fluctuations had kept air temperatures roughly the same since the late 1990s; the significant question was whether the oceans were continuing to warm. The team found that over many decades the planet’s content of heat-energy had been rising, and was rising still (this continued steadily after 2005 as well). There was only one remotely plausible source of the colossal addition of energy: the Earth must be taking in more energy from sunlight than it was radiating back into space. Simple physics calculated that to heat all that sea water required nearly an extra watt per square meter, averaged over the planet’s entire surface, year after year. The number was just what the elaborate greenhouse effect computations had been predicting for decades. James Hansen, leader of one of the studies, called the visible increase of the planet’s heat content a “smoking gun” proof of greenhouse effect warming (see graph below). Moreover, in each separate ocean basin there was a close match between the pattern of rising temperatures measured at each location and depth and detailed model calculations of where the greenhouse effect warming should appear. Warming from other sources, for example a change in the Sun’s output, could not produce these patterns. Evidently the modelers were on the right track.(56)

    https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    >”It was not in the air but the massive oceans, after all, that most of any heat added would soon wind up”

    CO2 does not “add” heat.

    >”There was only one remotely plausible source of the colossal addition of energy: the Earth must be taking in more energy from sunlight than it was radiating back into space”

    Well duh! There is no need to go beyond this. But they do.

    >”Simple physics calculated that to heat all that sea water required nearly an extra watt per square meter, averaged over the planet’s entire surface, year after year. The number was just what the elaborate greenhouse effect computations had been predicting for decades.”

    Except the “simple physics” requires energy that does work. The radiative greenhouse effect does no work heating the ocean (or anywhere else) i.e. the assumption is spurious.

    >”Warming from other sources, for example a change in the Sun’s output, could not produce these patterns.”

    The dipsticks start with an unrealistic solar change scenario, then they neglect planetary thermal lag. Is it any wonder why they “could not produce these patterns”?

  20. Richard C (NZ) on August 6, 2015 at 7:04 pm said:

    >”I am thinking how to frame the issue when presenting a counter argument to CCC in the submission process”

    I understand this. “Crank” submissions go straight through the shredder.

  21. Mike writes:

    30 years later, the house is still dry, the sand dunes still stand and the cold easterly still blows. What is all this fuss?

    That is what people in Brighton and Southshore are asking right now. If any good comes out of this council proposal, many more “sceptics” will emerge from the cracks

  22. Richard C (NZ) on August 6, 2015 at 7:28 pm said:

    A good time to bring up this file again:

    ‘Commentary and Analysis on the Whitehead & Associates 2014 NSW Sea-Level Report’

    by Carter R.M., de Lange W., Hansen, J.M., Humlum O., Idso C., Kear, D., Legates, D., Mörner, N.A., Ollier C., Singer F. & Soon W.

    NIPCC September 24, 2014

    http://climatechangereconsidered.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/NIPCC-Report-on-NSW-Coastal-SL-9z-corrected.pdf

    1. Introduction
    The issue of sea-level change, and in particular the identification of a speculative human contribution to
    that change, is a complex topic.

    Given the scientific and political controversy that surrounds the matter, the Eurobodalla and Shoalhaven Councils are to be congratulated for seeking fresh advice on the topic.

    The new report by Whitehead & Associates (2014; hereafter, W&A) aims to be comprehensive and contains important new information and conclusions. It nonetheless has three systemic defects.

    First, the analysis provided of the science relevant to coastal management is biased towards computer modelling of the speculative effects of sea-level rise, and largely ignores other important factors such as oceanographic and meteorological variability, and sediment supply, sources and sinks.

    Second, not all the scientific manipulations that were undertaken have been reported transparently, i.e. in such a way that other scientists can check and replicate the calculations.

    And, third, the authors of the report appear to have taken the opinions of global warming lobby groups at face value. No attempt has been made to undertake the type of critical due diligence analysis of global warming, and its putative links to sea-level change, that is required.

    2. Over-reliance on a single authority: Inadequacies of the IPCC

    3. Deficiency of adopting IPCC emissions scenario RCP 8.5 as a basis for planning

    4. “Climate Change Science 101” (W&A, section 3.2.2)

    5. Global sea-level change

    6. Local relative seal-level change

    7. Inadequacy of computer sea-level simulations using homogenized data

    8. What is the measured rate of sea-level rise along the central NSW coast?

    9. Inadequacy of using an 18 year (1996-2013) baseline as a planning template

    10. What rate of sea-level rise should be used to inform Councils’ coastal planning?

    11. Good coastal management is not only about sea-level change

    12. Conclusions and recommendations

  23. Richard C (NZ) on August 6, 2015 at 9:15 pm said:

    >”(Some talk of legal action too)”

    Getting interesting in the US:

    ‘WSJ: States Should Refuse to Comply with Obama’s ‘Lawless’ Climate Change Ruse’

    Written by Gene J. Koprowski, Somewhat Reasonable on 04 August 2015.

    An opinion piece in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal online suggests that states refuse to comply with President Obama’s regulatory regime on climate change – and embrace a strategy known as “nullification” in Constitutional law parlance.

    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/wsj-states-should-refuse-to-comply-with-obama-s-lawless-climate-change-ruse.html

    ‘Nullification (U.S. Constitution)’

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts.[1]

    The theory of nullification is based on a view that the States formed the Union by an agreement (or “compact”) among the States, and that as creators of the federal government, the States have the final authority to determine the limits of the power of that government. Under this, the compact theory, the States and not the federal courts are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government’s power. Under this theory, the States therefore may reject, or nullify, federal laws that the States believe are beyond the federal government’s constitutional powers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)

    ‘Obama’s power plant climate plan shifts to courts, states’

    By JOSH LEDERMAN Associated Press

    LAWSUITS ABOUND

    Threats of legal action started arrived within minutes of Obama unveiling his plan. In Texas, Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana and Wisconsin, to name a few, top officials said they would vigorously fight the rule, as did energy producers like Murray Energy Corp., a coal mining company.

    In the coal-heavy state of West Virginia, state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey predicted that 20 to 25 states would join his suit against the government.

    “Their legal foundation is very, very shaky,” Morrisey said of the Obama administration.

    Morrisey echoed other critics in arguing Obama has exceeded his authority by requiring statewide steps like renewable energy use and reduced energy demand. He said under the Clean Air Act, the government can only require steps within a power plant.

    In another hint of the likely legal strategy, Morrisey cited the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which protects the states against undue intrusion by Washington.

    http://raycomgroup.worldnow.com/story/29692441/obamas-power-plant-climate-plan-shifts-to-courts-states

    # # #

    But as NZCSC has found, legal action can be fraught.

  24. Mike Jowsey on August 6, 2015 at 10:57 pm said:

    “But as NZCSC has found, legal action can be fraught.” Apples and oranges RC. NZCSC was questioning the scientific methodology and asking the court to rule on it. The states are questioning the rule of Obama-law under a constitutional premise – nullification – and so are exploring their right to refuse that authority. Rightly so, in my opinion. Obama is a bully in terms of both constitutional convention and spirit.

  25. The potential legal action would be based around what goes on the LIM and what restrictions on building are applied to coastal properties. There are several thousand properties in the greater Christchurch area that come under the proposed coastal hazard area of the district plan. It doesn’t necessarily have to challenge the science head on.

    Also, there is a legal precedent in the Kapiti Coast, who won their case and have stated they will support any ChCh action.

  26. Richard C (NZ) on August 7, 2015 at 10:59 am said:

    >”The above greenhouse equation is from “first principles” ”

    ‘Pocket-calculator climate model outperforms billion-dollar brains’

    Anthony Watts / 9 hours ago August 6, 2015 From Press Release

    Now Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Dr Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Dr David Legates, geography professor at the University of Delaware, and Dr Matt Briggs, Statistician to the Stars, are back with a fresh Science Bulletin paper, Keeping it simple: the value of an irreducibly simple climate model, which explains that the simple model had not been tested against past temperature change because it was designed from scratch using basic physical principles.

    Unlike the complex climate models, each of which uses as much power as a small town when it is running, the new, “green” model – which its inventor runs on a solar-powered scientific calculator – had not been repeatedly regressed (i.e., tweaked after the event) till it fitted past data.

    Lord Monckton, the inventor of the new model and lead author of the paper, said: “Every time a model is tweaked to force it to fit past data, one departs from true physics. The complex models are fudged till they fit the past – but then they cannot predict the future. They exaggerate.

    “We took the more scientific approach of using physics, not curve-fitting. But when the climate campaigners demanded that we should verify our model’s skill by ‘hindcasts’, we ran four tests of our model – one against predictions by the UN’s climate panel in 1990 and three against recent data. All four times, our model accurately hindcast real-world warming.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/06/pocket-calculator-climate-model-outperforms-billion-dollar-brains/

    # # #

    >”designed from scratch using basic physical principles”

    But not FIRST principles.

    It is still a warming-by-CO2 assumption model and will be undone by the solar recession.

  27. Richard C (NZ) on August 7, 2015 at 11:32 am said:

    Dr Matt Briggs said: “The climate campaigners’ attempted rebuttal of our original paper was littered with commonplace scientific errors. Here are just a few:

    Ø “They said temperature buoys had found a ‘net heating’ of half a Watt per square meter in the oceans: but Watts per square meter do not measure ‘heating’: they measure heat flow.

    # # #

    Yes Watts is Joules per second of radiative energy flow (in this case) but when laid down in sea water translates to heat energy i.e. ‘heating’. Matt Briggs should stick to statistics.

    ‘net heating’ refers to the energy flow in being greater than flow energy out i.e. energy accumulation in the heat sink, which again is ‘heating’.

    One day the light bulbs above both of these factions will on when they realize that ‘net heating’ of the oceans is simply sun-ocean energy accumulation (24 W.m-2 in the tropics) and thermal lag of decades i.e. the climate forcing has occurred at the surface without CO2 involvement.

  28. Richard C (NZ) on August 7, 2015 at 2:24 pm said:

    >” ‘net heating’ of the oceans is simply sun-ocean energy accumulation (24 W.m-2 in the tropics) and thermal lag of decades”

    The global average accumulation (net flux INTO ocean) is 0.6 W.m-2 (net surplus). But what about the Southern Ocean?

    ‘Seasonal Change of the Atmospheric Heat Budget over the Southern Ocean from ECMWF and ERBE Data’
    ITARU OKADA and TAKASHI YAMANOUCHI (2002)
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015%3C2527%3ASCOTAH%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    d. Energy flux at the surface [page 5/6]

    It is shown in Fig. 2 that FSFC has a maximum of 116
    W m2 in May and a minimum of -108 W m2 in
    December, and FSFC increases rapidly until May and
    decreases gradually from then until December. Most of
    the variation is dominated by the variation of FTOA. From
    May to July the surface fluxes decrease by about 44 W
    m2, although the shortwave radiation flux is almost
    stable and is near zero in this period, as shown in Fig.
    3. Variations in most years are similar to the average
    seasonal change. The maximum value in each year, except
    1988, appears in May.

    In the annual cycle, the surface is cooled from March
    to September, and warmed from October to February.
    The annual mean energy flux is 11.1 W m2, which
    cools the surface and heats the atmosphere.

    # # #

    >”The annual mean [Southern Ocean] energy flux is [negative] 11.1 W m22″

    Net flux OUT of ocean. In other words, there is a net DEFICIT in the Southern Ocean energy budget. This is dissipation of the surplus energy gained in the tropics.

    24 W.m-2 accumulation, tropics (net heating)
    0.6 W.m-2 accumulation, global average (net heating)
    -11 W.m-2 dissipation, Southern Ocean (net cooling)

    CO2 has nothing whatsoever to do with ocean heating and cooling and certainly does NOT explain the net flux INTO the tropical ocean and OUT of the Southern Ocean. Neither does it explain the Southern Ocean maximum of 116 W m2 in May and a minimum of -108 W m2 in December.

    From ‘The Discovery of Global Warming’ linked upthread:

    “Simple physics calculated that to heat all that sea water required nearly an extra watt per square meter, averaged over the planet’s entire surface, year after year. The number was just what the elaborate greenhouse effect computations had been predicting for decades. James Hansen, leader of one of the studies, called the visible increase of the planet’s heat content a “smoking gun” proof of greenhouse effect warming”

    This “simple physics” only works with the global average. It does not work in the tropics or the Southern Ocean. What Hansen et al would have to prove is that without theoretical CO2 ocean heating the budgets would be:

    23.5 W.m-2 accumulation, tropics (net heating)
    0 W.m-2 global average (balance)
    -10.5 W.m-2 dissipation, Southern Ocean (net cooling)

    To do this they have to account for tropics-to-Southern Ocean heat transport lag which is in the order of decades i.e. the beginning of the lag (for 2002 data above) roughly coincides with the CO2 uptick. And a third of all human CO2 emissions have occurred since 1997. This makes their task highly problematic.

    The “simple physics” explanation is solar change and oceanic thermal lag. Period.

  29. Richard C (NZ) on August 7, 2015 at 2:48 pm said:

    >”What Hansen et al would have to prove is that without theoretical CO2 ocean heating the budgets would be……”

    I’ve got the adjusted budget wrong above because the criteria was ““Simple physics calculated that to heat all that sea water required nearly an extra watt per square meter, averaged over the planet’s entire surface, year after year”, not 0.5 W.m-2.

    By this “nearly” 1 W.m-2 we get the adjustment to 2002 data from:

    24 W.m-2 accumulation, tropics (net heating)
    0.6 W.m-2 accumulation, global average (net heating)
    -11 W.m-2 dissipation, Southern Ocean (net cooling)

    To,

    23 W.m-2 accumulation, tropics (net heating)
    -0.4 W.m-2 dissipation, global average (net cooling)
    -10 W.m-2 dissipation, Southern Ocean (net cooling)

    The “smoking gun” proof of greenhouse effect warming does not balance the global average budget. “Nearly” 1 W.m-2 might be 0.9 W.m-2 in which case the global average is -0.3 W.m-2 but still no balance.

  30. Richard C (NZ) on August 7, 2015 at 2:58 pm said:

    >”nearly an extra watt per square meter”

    CO2 forcing is now “nearly” 2 W.m-2 which renders Hansen et al’s “smoking gun” proof of greenhouse effect warming completely false in respect to both Sfc and TOA.

  31. Richard C (NZ) on August 7, 2015 at 3:07 pm said:

    Using “nearly” 2 W.m-2 (1.9 W.m-2 actual) current theoretical CO2 forcing the adjustment becomes:

    22 W.m-2 accumulation, tropics (net heating)
    -1.4 W.m-2 dissipation, global average (net cooling)
    -9 W.m-2 dissipation, Southern Ocean (net cooling)

    So much for the “smoking gun”.

  32. Richard C (NZ) on August 7, 2015 at 4:52 pm said:

    I’ve STILL got the adjusted budget wrong for Southern Ocean. If 2 W.m-2 CO2 forcing is assumed valid and removed to see what the budget “should” be there would be more dissipation near the poles, not less. So the hypothetical budget is a change from:

    24 W.m-2 accumulation, tropics (net heating)
    0.6 W.m-2 accumulation, global average (net heating)
    -11 W.m-2 dissipation, Southern Ocean (net cooling)

    To,

    22 W.m-2 accumulation, tropics (net heating)
    -1.4 W.m-2 dissipation, global average (net cooling)
    -13 W.m-2 dissipation, Southern Ocean (net cooling)

    Obviously this is an unrealistic scenario. The ocean would be losing heat at an alarming rate and even more alarming because the theoretical RF for a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 W.m-2. The global average surface budget is currently trendless so removing 3.7 W.m-2 gives:

    -3.1 W.m-2 dissipation, global average (net cooling)

    Theoretically, without CO2 forcing the Southern Ocean would start freezing near Antarctica (as it already is now) and the frozen surface extend northwards over time. I don’t think the proponents of the CO2 global warming theory have thought this through.

  33. Richard C (NZ) on August 8, 2015 at 6:54 pm said:
  34. Mike Jowsey on August 8, 2015 at 11:15 pm said:

    RC – Pretty sure that is a faked photo comparison…. Nice thought, but nah. A few clues – same high tide watermark on rocks; same background foliage (to the twig); different second toe lengths on females; similar photo resolution and quality (even after apparently 50 years). Call me skeptical 😉

  35. Richard C (NZ) on August 9, 2015 at 9:01 am said:

    Probably a lake Mike, but good for a laugh.

  36. Richard C (NZ) on August 9, 2015 at 3:30 pm said:

    [Andy] – “I’m interested to know whether the relationship between global mean temperature and sea level anomaly is linear, or if there are more complex processes involved. (Assuming most of the rise is due to thermal expansion)”

    The IPCC assumes SLR is GHG forced, which is a fallacy. The sun heats the ocean. Nevertheless, the relationship is actually between ocean heat and SLR – not global mean temperature and SLR.

    IPCC TAR says this:

    11.2.1.1 Observational estimates of ocean warming and ocean thermal expansion

    “In the only global analysis to date, Levitus et al. (2000) finds the ocean has stored 20×1022 J of heat between 1955 and 1995 (an average of 0.5 Wm-2), with over half of this occurring in the upper 300 m for a rate of warming of 0.7°C/century. The steric sea level rise equivalent is 0.55 mm/yr, with maxima in the sub-tropical gyre of the North Atlantic and the tropical eastern Pacific.”

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/411.htm

    Apart from the miss-attribution, that is the relationship. AR4 and 5 probably have updates to this.

    The latest estimate of ocean heat accumulation (“storage”) was 0.6 W.m-2 from Stephens et al (2012) cited by AR5 Chapter 2 Observations: Atmosphere. Obviously this cannot be GHG forcing because the theoretical CO2 forcing is now 1.9 W.m-2, a factor of 3 times too much.

  37. Richard C (NZ) on August 9, 2015 at 4:02 pm said:

    Andy, just to be clear, the above relationship means that the steric component of SLR does not increase unless the rate of ocean heat accumulation increases.

    There was no trend whatsoever in the rate of ocean heat accumulation (IPCC concedes this in Chapter 2 in respect to Loeb et al, 2012) which fluctuated about 0.6 W.m-2 2000 – 2010. Therefore, no increase in the rate of SLR either.

  38. In putting in a submission to the CCC, it might be prudent to highlight the deficiencies in the assumptions around SLR within the context of “IPCC science”.

    To me, this appears to be around the large uncertainties in the GCM modelling of the climate that lead to the assumptions on SLR, the uncertainties on climate sensitivity to CO2, the large uncertainties on aerosol forcing (see http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/8/7/thoughts-on-aerosols.html for example)

    So, the question is, how can you form a public policy on coastal management when so many variables in the assumptions are poorly understood, and may be completely wrong?

  39. Richard C (NZ) on August 10, 2015 at 12:06 pm said:

    Not for your submission Andy but for background:

    ‘Planck’s Quantum Theory Explains Why Low-Energy Photons Cannot Warm a Warmer Blackbody’
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/plancks-quantum-theory-explains-why-low.html

    Climate scientists and Lukewarmers, like Willis Eschenbach, see a measured downwelling flux e.g. from the full DLR spectrum (say 400 W.m-2 tropics) or from CO2 at ~15um wavelength (6 – 7 W.m-2), and say “where does the energy go?”, as if it must have some heating effect as they see it. Well, here’s the answer:

    “First up, a common misconception in the climate debate is that radiation from a cold body (e.g. the -18C atmosphere) can warm a hot body (e.g. the +15C Earth surface) just because the cold body does indeed send very-low-energy photons to the hot body. Heat transfer (not radiation) from cold to hot is forbidden by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics on a macro basis, and by the Pauli Exclusion Principle of fundamental quantum theory on an atomic and molecular basis.

    If a lower-quantum-energy photon is “absorbed” by the completely saturated low-energy microstates (eg vibrational, translational, rotational, chemical bonds) & molecular or atomic orbitals of a higher-energy body, the hot body must simultaneously eject a photon of the exact same wavelength/frequency/energy as that absorbed, due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle of fundamental quantum theory. Thus there is no change whatsoever in the energy content/temperature of the hotter body due to “absorbing” a low-energy photon from the colder source with simultaneous emission of an identical photon of the exact same wavelength/frequency/energy (some instead refer to this as “reflection” of the lower-energy photon). This explains the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics on a quantum basis, thus why low frequency/energy photons from a cold emitter cannot warm a warmer blackbody at a higher frequency/temperature/energy.

    Since the emitting temperature of ~15um photons from atmospheric CO2 is -80C by Wein’s & Planck’s Laws (also explained in the reference below), these photons cannot possibly be thermalized/increase the energy or temperature of the much warmer Earth surface at +15C.

    Many have asked why a photon with insufficient quantum energy cannot be thermalized or increase the heat energy of a warmer blackbody. This is the basis of blackbody radiation absorption and emission and Planck’s Quantum Hypothesis, as is very well described beginning on page 146 of “Principles of Modern Chemistry, 7th Edition” excerpted below.” [see link above]

    >”Thus there is no change whatsoever in the energy content/temperature of the hotter body due to “absorbing” a low-energy photon from the colder source with simultaneous emission of an identical photon of the exact same wavelength/frequency/energy”

    And thus CO2 does not heat the surface and therefore the ocean. Climate science cannot seem to grasp this and apply thermodynamic principles, Dr Roy Spencer included.

  40. Richard C (NZ) on August 10, 2015 at 4:00 pm said:

    >”Climate science cannot seem to grasp this and apply thermodynamic principles”

    PSI are all over it:

    ‘Is no “Greenhouse Effect” possible from the way that IPCC define it? ‘

    Written by John Elliston AM, FAusIMM(CP) on 24 Jul 2015

    This article makes two significant points: – 1) The IPCC definition of “Greenhouse Effect” on page 946 of their Report No. 4, 2007, is wrong and no “Greenhouse Effect” is possible from the way IPCC define it. 2) Radiant energy reaching the Earth from the Sun is the only source of heat to maintain or vary global climate. Total radiant heat gained must establish equilibrium with total radiant heat lost.

    http://www.principia-scientific.org/is-no-greenhouse-effect-possible-from-the-way-that-ipcc-define-it.html

    ‘Thermodynamics is Essential for Understanding Effect of CO2 on Temperature’

    Written by Dr Pierre R Latour, Chemical Engineer on 07 Aug 2015

    Laws of Thermodynamics, There are four, with nicknames ZLoT, FLoT, SLoT and TLoT. SLoT is the most interesting.

    1. If two systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.

    2. The increase in internal energy of a closed system is equal to the difference of the heat supplied to the system and the work done by the system. Or system energy accumulation rate plus energy output rate equals energy input rate. More generally, energy can be neither created not destroyed, only conserved and managed.

    3. Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a colder location to a hotter location. Differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world. Entropy is a measure of how much this process has progressed. The entropy of an isolated system that is not in equilibrium tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. There are many versions of the second law, but they all have the same effect, which is to explain the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature. Derived from statistical mechanics.

    4. As a system approaches absolute zero the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value. It is impossible to reach the absolute zero of temperature by any finite number of processes.

    Do not dismiss SLoT so quickly. Those who dismiss SLoT in GHGT make a fatal error. Many famous luke-warmer skeptics merely claim it doesn‘t apply, undoubtedly because they don’t know how to apply it. So I will try to clear up the misunderstandings, knowing full well most climate scientists won’t understand or won’t like it. My audience is UN IPCC.

    http://www.principia-scientific.org/thermodynamics-is-essential-for-understanding-effect-of-co2-on-temperature.html

  41. O/T
    US climate deniers call Paris summit ‘a threat’ to the world
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/26/us-climate-deniers-call-paris-summit-a-threat-to-the-world
    ###
    Within the small fringe of climate denial, Singer, who is 90, enjoys special cachet for possessing genuine scientific credentials as a trained atmospheric scientist.

    The Vienna-born Singer, who was forced to flee the Nazis in 1938,

    ###

    (my emphasis)

    Not big on irony at the Guardian…

  42. Mike Jowsey on August 10, 2015 at 11:56 pm said:

    The extreme bias is displayed in the first sentence: “Fred Singer rejects the science underlining climate change.”

  43. Mike Jowsey on August 11, 2015 at 12:51 am said:

    In other news, the Daily Media Review has not been updated for a week now. Is it about to change its name? Or is it about to wither? I liked it, but imagine that there is no money in it and unless the author has unlimited funds and energy it is not sustainable. RT – any inside information?

  44. Reading a bit more on Singer via Wikipedia, I see he was part of a Jewish family from Austria who fled when the Nazis invaded. Singer went to England, and later to the U.S. Where he did a PhD in Cosmic rays.

    His PhD committee included Niels Bohr and Robert Oppenheimer.

    Richard Lindzen is another Jewish atmospheric physicist, whose family also fled Hitler, although Lindzen himself was born in the USA.

    This may be of interest when considering the term “denier” that gets used to describe these two men.

  45. Back on SLR

    MfE Adapting to sea level rise
    http://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/adapting-climate-change/adapting-sea-level-rise

    Between 1901 and 2010 global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.7 mm per year. It is likely that the rate of sea level rise has continued to increase since the early 20th century. Over the period from 1993 to 2010 the rate of global average sea level rise increased to approximately 3.2 mm per year.

    Is there any truth in this statement, or are we comparing satellite data with tidal gauge?

  46. Richard Treadgold on August 11, 2015 at 6:01 pm said:

    Mike,

    RT – any inside information?

    Not so far. I have inquired and I’ll pass on any answer.

  47. Richard Treadgold on August 11, 2015 at 6:06 pm said:

    Andy,

    Is there any truth in this statement, or are we comparing satellite data with tidal gauge?

    Well, the statement is true, but involves comparing satellites with gauges. Willem de Lange told me the tidal gauge data show no such acceleration. The conclusion is unscientific and scientists who utter it ought to be ashamed. The believers are desperate.

  48. The believers are desperate.

    This is from a government document that advises local councils.
    Either they are deliberately trying to mislead people or it is an error. A previous MfE report I have read acknowledges no SLR acceleration

  49. Even Gareth, in his latest charm offensive (a bunch of Cnuts – geddit??) admits that there might be a “hint” of acceleration in the satellite record

  50. Richard C (NZ) on August 13, 2015 at 1:46 pm said:

    [Gareth] – “I am not alone in thinking that there are tantalising hints of an acceleration in the last few years of satellite data”

    “Last few years”? Gareth is clueless. He doesn’t realize that satellites are detecting localized phenomena which distorts the global average. The West Pacific contributes most but look at the East Pacific in AVISO:

    http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/images/data/Products/indic/msl/MSL_Map_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.gif

    Flat for the last 20 years or so.

    And about those “tantalising hints of an acceleration”…………

    ‘New paper shows global sea level rise has greatly decelerated since ~2002, opposite of predictions’

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/10/new-paper-shows-global-sea-level-rise.html

  51. Richard C (NZ) on August 13, 2015 at 2:00 pm said:
  52. RC- this SLR info is really useful since I am trying to put together a submission to CCC before the Sept cutoff date

  53. Herr Thomas of Hot Topic seems amused by our “nonsense”

    Hello!!

  54. For the record, here is my reply to Herr Thomas of Hot Topic, currently in the mod queue

    ——
    No I don’t cringe because there is no empirical evidence that SLR is accelerating and some that suggests the converse

    Nevertheless, whatever “the science” tells us, there are several thousand property owners who are affected by the proposed district plan. This will, for example, potentially prevent people building a conservatory on their coastal property based on a projection of what might happen in 100 years.

    As far as I’m concerned, the councils and government can make their own decisions on infrastructure, but people need to be able to manage their own risks, as indeed the thousands of people in Christchurch did when they built properties that were marked as liquefaction prone prior to the earthquakes

    I can assure you that there is plenty happening behind the scenes in Christchurch – mainly without my assistance – that will give you plenty to blog about in the months ahead

  55. Thomas writes (HT)

    As to the empirical evidence of SLR acceleration:
    https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/faq-5-1-figure-1-l.png
    Obviously the rate of SLR has increased over the last century.

    The IPCC graph does suggest acceleration but it isn’t backed up elsewhere.

    Here is my response:

    Your SkS doesn’t provide any link between global surface warming” and SLR. In fact, most of the SLR is due to ocean heat accumulation.

    Secondly, you claim that “Obviously the rate of SLR has increased over the last century”

    According to the Ministry for Environment http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/coastal-hazards-climate-change-guidance-manual.pdf

    There is less certainty yet whether an acceleration in global mean sea-level rise has begun.
    Using reconstructed global mean sea levels from 1870 to 2004, a small acceleration of sealevel
    rise of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm per year over the 20th century has been observed.

    (Page 11)

    Also, from the V1 Tonkin and Taylor report

    Historic sea level recorded at the Lyttelton Port has risen at a rate of 1.9 ± 0.1 mm/year between 1925 and 2010 (Hannah & Bell, 2012), which is in line with the global record.
    Therefore, we consider it is reasonable to imply that global projections of sea level rise can be applied to obtain future projections of sea level rise for Christchurch. Note, there is variance within the long term trend of sea level rise and the latest data from New Zealand port tide gauges shows the mean sea level has remained relatively constant for the last
    decade (Hannah & Bell, 2012).

    As for “whinging”, no one is doing any whinging. There is a democratic submission process which is being adhered to

  56. I’m advised that a posse from Kapiti is coming to Christchurch tomorrow (Friday) with meetings planned with the mayor, the press, radio etc, with a view to fighting the proposed district plan

  57. In general, our preferred response to uncertain outcomes rests on: (1) the probability of each and every outcome; (2) the scale of the consequences (benefits or costs) in each case given our options; and (3) our personal attitude to risk.

    The statistician can help us with (1) but not with (2) or (3).

    The issue of how to respond to uncertainty about the future coastal shoreline is much the same.

    Where a concern arises, the first logical step is to consult coastal science experts with the requisite statistical expertise. Property owners want a robust assessment of the probability distribution for future shoreline outcomes. The natural starting point is the probability distribution that best fits the historical record.

    If the said coastal scientists provided the required probabilities, property owners, including the Kapiti council, might next consult valuers, engineers, insurers and contractors to help assess the costs and benefits of the options that present themselves. Risk preferences only enter at step (3). Some property owners may decide to sell their properties to others for whom the risks are acceptable.

    Scientists with expertise?

    We would not expect coastal scientists, NIWA or the Parliamentary Commissioner to help us with steps (2) or (3) for obvious reasons. So why does the Parliamentary Commissioner think NIWA is competent to produce meaningful coastal hazard lines?

    In my view the answer is in good part because NIWA and the Ministry for the Environment are not explaining these matters adequately, perhaps even to themselves.

    Far from telling readers that knowledge of the full probability distribution for natural hazard events is required for risk analysis, the ministry’s July 2008 guidance manual recommends (at P20) the use of specific values of unspecified statistical likelihood for future sea-level rise. Its guidance concerning risk preferences is non-existent. Confusion at the centre spreads from the centre. Kapiti council is, in part, a victim.

    Decision-makers need coastal scientists with the request statistical expertise to focus on assessing the full probability distribution for future shoreline locations, taking into account consistency with the observational record, and ignoring risk. (Of course, the effort they put into assessing that probability distribution should be influenced by their client’s assessment of the value of that effort.)

    Communities will continue to pay for formally useless reports from coastal hazard experts for as long as the farce continues of asking such experts to produce hazard lines that are statistically and economically meaningless.

    http://nzinitiative.org.nz/Media/Opinion_and_commentary/Opinion_and_commentary.html?uid=833

  58. Richard C (NZ) on August 20, 2015 at 12:27 pm said:

    Dr Bryce Wilkinson:

    >”It is also bizarre to use the word “conservative” to describe speculative projections that postulate a radical change from the observed statistical trend.”

    Agreed. Opinion and commentary published 27/02/2015. This is an excellent commentary that I had not seen before Andy, good to see it now.

  59. New Study On 20th Century Sea Level Rise Signals That IPCC 21st Century Projections May Be Grotesquely Overblown

    http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/19/new-study-on-20th-century-sea-level-rise-signals-that-ipcc-21st-century-projections-may-be-grotesquely-overblown/#sthash.t3S6CzLW.dpuf

  60. This issue has escalated somewhat. We had a visit on Friday from the group from Kapiti who took the local council to court, and won.

    Local developers have employed them plus a PR guy.
    So far we have a piece in the paper and Stuff:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/71294513/christchurch-coastal-property-owners-demand-more-time-on-hazard-zoning

    Over the weekend, the new Facebook page (referenced in link) has got about 250 members. Not bad for 2 days

    We have less than 2 weeks to make submissions on a proposal that has affects 10,000 properties or so.

    I spoke to a developer who may personally lose millions in equity over this, and this is just the top of the iceberg. Unless this gets challenged, it will become national policy

  61. The Canterbury Coastal Residents United website is now up and running

    http://www.ccru.co.nz

    This has a number of example submissions that people can use as a basis for objecting to the proposed district plan.

    There is a public meeting at 7.30pm 27th Aug in the working man’s club in Brighton on Thursday

    The proposed plan affects thousands of properties, and in a very unfair way too. People who demolished coastal property over 12 months ago, with a view to rebuilding, now have no rights to rebuild under the proposed plan, even though their neighbour who did rebuild within 12 months is OK

    Added to the earthquakes, and years of battling EQC and insurance, this is the end of the road for many people

  62. Man of Thessaly writes:

    link to other thread

    “I don’t think there is an agenda to depopulate the east side of Christchurch”

    Yes there is. They call it “managed retreat”.

    A large part of the East is already depopulated thanks to the red zone process. Those people were lucky that they got compensation. No such luck for the hapless ones left.

  63. The CCRU group have now done TV interviews and there’s a piece in the NBR.
    My own property looks like a writeoff because there is a small slither of land at the bottom of the garden that is projected to be inundated in 2115 according to IPCC GCM models

    Apparently the one metre policy was voted in some time ago and seems unchallengeable

    They are taking RCP8.5 as “business as usual”, which is a joke since it entails burning twice the worlds coal by 2100

    We are ruled by madmen

  64. We had about 250-300 people turn up to a public meeting last night to discuss the ChCh coastal plan. I did a bit of a spiel about IPCC assumptions on SLR and RCPs etc, which seemed to go down OK

    Things are getting interesting. Expect some media releases later today

  65. The sea level stories are running hot today in the NZ media

    Must be a conspiracy to silence the Christchurch residents. No other explanation is possible

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/71527626/sea-levels-will-rise-nasa-experts-warn-and-its-very-likely-to-get-worse

  66. Just a quick update on the Christchurch situation.

    Many people are now aware of the policy regarding sea level rise that is seriously affecting their property rights.

    The newly formed Christchurch Coastal Residents United group have had two public meetings in the last week at which around 250 people turned to up each.

    We are trying to escalate this to government level.

    Sir Tipene O’Regan was at last night’s meeting in Sumner.

    He described global warming as “bureaucratic nonsense that seems to defy all reason” (or words to that effect)

    The crowd applauded at these and other comments.

    There might be something on TVOne news tonight.

  67. One point I tried to make (not easy to a lay audience) is that the one metre projection is based on RCP 8.5

    This is in itself just a modelled reality of economic and emissions pathways. It is just a model and bears no resemblance to any actual physical reality, although it might be plausible

    The 8.5 stands for 8.5 W/m2 i.e the radiative forcing of CO2 by 2100

    I was wondering whether this was physically possible or plausible
    I’m also wondering how much variability in assumed warming (based on “IPCC science” – note RC) one could get from 8.5W/m2 based on various estimates of climate sensitivity.

  68. Richard C (NZ) on August 31, 2015 at 12:29 pm said:

    >”I’m also wondering how much variability in assumed warming (based on “IPCC science” – note RC) one could get from 8.5W/m2 based on various estimates of climate sensitivity.”

    The RCP 8.5 model simulations should provide this Andy. Climate sensitivity in models is an “emergent property” in each model (as I understand – could be wrong). So each model will have a different CS which will be reflected in the variability of warming across the runs.

    The IPCC probably has screeds on this but a quick look turned up this blog article just for starters:

    According to the 2013 Northwest Climate Assessment, the range of warming projected for RCP 8.5 is 7 – 14 degrees F by the end of century, and 3 – 9 degrees F of warming by mid-century! For those who prefer a graphic representation, look at the dark red line and red shaded cloud for the RCP 8.5 projections in the figure below [see graph].

    https://www.agclimate.net/on-why-i-might-be-wrong/

    There will be an equivalent IPCC graph somewhere but I didn’t spot it first up in Google Images.

    Your mission then is to try to find a list of the respective climate sensitivities for each model for RCP8.5. Good luck with that Andy. Although I don’t think the RCP makes any difference so maybe not that difficult.

    I had a quick look and found this:

    ‘Future climate change under RCP emission scenarios with GISS ModelE2’
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014MS000403/full

    I don’t see climate sensitivity stated in respect to RCP8.5 specifically but I see this in respect to the control run:

    2.3 Model Biases, Drifts, and Sensitivity

    The coupled model equilibrium climate sensitivities for doubled CO2 are 2.7, 2.7, and 2.9°C for the three atmospheric models NINT, TCAD, and TCADI [Schmidt et al., 2014a], which is on the lower end of climate sensitivity of the CMIP5 models between 2.1 and 4.7 K [Andrews et al., 2012]. The transient climate response (TCR) is the 20 year mean surface air temperature resulting from a 1% per year increase of CO2, centered on the time of doubling, and relative to the corresponding 20 year mean temperature of the control simulation. The TCR depends upon the equilibrium climate sensitivity, but also the rate of heat uptake by the deep ocean. The transient climate responses are 1.4, 1.4, and 1.6°C for the NINT, TCAD, and TCADI E2-R climate models, respectively, and 1.7, 1.7, and 1.8°C for the NINT, TCAD, and TCADI E2-H coupled models. These values are within the range of 1.1–2.3°C obtained from the constrained estimates of transient climate response based on observed global temperature and ocean heat uptake [Lewis and Curry, 2014; Otto et al., 2013; Knutti and Tomassini, 2008; Stott and Forest, 2007].

    Andrews et al., 2012 is this paper:

    Andrews, T., J. M. Gregory, M. J. Webb, and K. E. Taylor (2012), Forcing, feed-backs and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L09712, doi:10.1029/2012GL051607.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051607/pdf

    Table 1. Forcing, Feedback and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity Values [page 3]

    AOGCM, 2xCO2 Eqm Climate Sensitivity (K)
    CanESM 3.69
    CNRM-CM5 3.25
    CSIRO-Mk3-6- 4.08
    GFDL-CM3 3.97
    GFDL-ESM2G 2.39
    GFDL-ESM2M 2.44
    HadGEM2-ES 4.59
    INM-CM4 2.08
    IPSL-CM5A-LR 4.13
    MIROC-ESM 4.67
    MIROC5 2.72
    MPI-ESM-LR 3.63
    MPI-ESM-P 3.45
    MRI-CGCM3 2.60
    NorESM1-M 2.80
    Model mean 3.37
    Standard Dev. 0.83

    # # #

    Gives you the ball-park near enough. Note INM-CM4 ECS 2.08 is one of the models tracking GMST right now. I’m not as enthusiastic about that as I was because now I realize the models are MDV-neutral i.e. an MDV signal has to be added in to compare to GMST observations apples-to-apples. Past 2015 is rubbish of course.

  69. Richard C (NZ) on August 31, 2015 at 1:00 pm said:

    Andy, For AR5 graphs of RCP8.5 projections go to this page:

    Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
    http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

    Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability – 14.1MB
    Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility – 36.6MB

    Click on 36.6MB say, gives you this:

    Chapter 12 – Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility
    Chapter – Contributors – Citation – Graphics

    Click on Graphics gives you this page:

    IPCC Report Graphics – Chapter 12
    http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/index.php?t=Assessment%20Reports&r=AR5%20-%20WG1&f=Chapter%2012

    Take your pick. Figure 12-05 is a doozy:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2012/Fig12-05.jpg

  70. Richard C (NZ) on August 31, 2015 at 1:37 pm said:

    Andy.

    >”The 8.5 stands for 8.5 W/m2 i.e the radiative forcing of CO2 by 2100.
    I was wondering whether this was physically possible or plausible”

    This comes back to the IPCC’s TOA energy balance criteria that I’ve been going on about here at CCG, and have now managed to rattle cages at Climate Etc. My last comment there ended with this:

    Fact remains, inescapably, undeniably, unequivocally, the IPCC’s criteria for climate change is the TOA energy imbalance. Therefore, a valid agent of climate change is one which moves the balance to its observed imbalance:

    0.6 W.m-2 – TOA imbalance 2000 – 2010, trendless
    1.0 W.m-2 – Shapiro et al solar forcing TOA, trendless
    1.9 W,m-2 – Theoretical CO2 forcing TOA, increasing.

    You be the judge.

    http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/28/week-in-review-science-edition-19/#comment-728444

    In other words, the theoretical 1.9 W.m-2 CO2 “forcing” as of right now in 2015 is neither physically possible nor plausible, let alone 8.5 W/m2 of theory in 2100.

    That’s the thing Andy. 1.9 (and 8.5) is THEORY. 0.6 is fact. Has not gone down well at Climate Etc.

    Note above that the Shapiro et al estimate is only 0.4 out. That paper was discarded in AR5 Chapter 8 in favour of least of least case scenarios adopted by Jones, Lockwood, and Stott (2012) who “didn’t understand the methodology” of Shapiro et al. I brought this up in that thread at Climate Etc and the fact that Judith Curry has noted this in previous posts. These guys, Stott Jones and Lockwood, are also the gatekeepers in Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution, Lead and Contributing authors.

    They (Chap 10) fail completely, for whatever reason, to address the IPCC’s TOA energy balance criteria. At least Chapter 2 provides the TOA balance citations (Loeb and Stephens) but they make no attribution statement because that is Chapter 10’s job. Which Chapter 10 did not do.

  71. This is getting fun. 8.5 W/m2 is not physically plausible, furthermore RCPs are not designed as policy instruments, as stated here:
    http://sedac.ipcc-data.org/ddc/ar5_scenario_process/RCPs.html

    In the case of Christchurch City Council, I think the latter is enough for a conviction, your honour.

  72. Take your pick. Figure 12-05 is a doozy:

    You are not kidding!

  73. Richard C (NZ) on August 31, 2015 at 4:46 pm said:

    >”8.5 W/m2 is not physically plausible,”

    We need to make an important distinction Andy. 8.5 W/m2 of radiative increase is possibly physically plausible at a very long stretch (see below), but 8.5 W/m2 of real “forcing” at TOA is not given the current situation.

    The distinction is “real” vs “apparent” power using the electrical analogy. For example, Berkeley Labs observed the increase of downwelling IR in the CO2 spectrum at Oklahoma and Alaska 2000 – 2010 which when converted to a theoretical “forcing” came to 0.2 W.m-2/decade, a little less than calculated by dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co). This SHOULD be the trend in the TOA energy balance this century if CO2 is an effective forcing but the IPCC concedes in AR5 Chapter 2 that it is “highly unlikely” that a “significant trend” exists this century – it SHOULD exist if CO2 is an effective climate forcing.

    Roughly, if the theoretical “forcing” is increasing empirically at 0.2 W.m-2 and it is now 1.9 W.m-2 in 2015 by calculation, then by 2100: 8.5 decades x 0.2 = 1.7 + 1.9 = 3.6 W.m-2. So even assuming any radiative increase from CO2 is an effective forcing, 8.5 W.m-2 looks like a massive stretch, but not impossible.

    But that is “apparent” power. It is the amount of OLR power that is theoretically restrained from leaving TOA (actually at top of troposphere). LWIR is distinct from solar SWIR in that SWIR does work as a heating agent but LWIR doesn’t i.e. the LWIR power is “apparent”, you can measure it but it does no surface heating (contrary to AGW theory).

    The theory is that the LWIR power restrained at top of troposphere then transfers heat back down to the surface. This is a violation of the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states:

    “Heat will not of itself move from a cold object [atm] to a hot object [sfc]”

    Note that this violation of a physical law is now enshrined in US federal law by the Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCOTUS) as the “endangerment finding”. It is also becoming a religious doctrine (think Laudato Si). Apparently, according to many Leftist voices, if you do not subscribe to this doctrine you are an enemy of the earth and mankind and should be tried, hanged, etc.

    I find this development fascinating because I’ve been following religious commentators’ interpretations of the biblical Rev 13 prophecy, the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) Dr Gerhard Padderatz (Mega Trends) in particular. He is also a business consultant, the guy’s insight into world events is mind boggling. He doesn’t touch on the law violation above but I’m coming to that myself (see below).

    This is Padderatz’ interpretation of some of Rev 13 (remember that USA is founded on separation of powers – church and state):

    13 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

    [Papacy arising from the Roman Empire in a populated area (the “sea” of people) – The Reformation and Martin Luther, among many others, espoused this. OT book of Daniel prophecy points to Rome too]

    11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

    [USA, originally unpopulated (the “earth”), two horns = separation of powers, like a lamb = looks like it’s Christian, dragon = Globocop]

    I’ve never placed USA in biblical prophecy before but I’m changing my ideas radically now in view of this.

    14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

    [“Image” is a future duplicate of the European Papacy in USA]

    I’ve thought about the word “image” for decades but Padderatz struck a chord. I had been thinking of a monument or hologram or suchlike but it probably means a theocracy.

    Question 1: who wants a theocracy in the US with Sunday sacred or low carbon emission day?

    Ans: Obama’s Communitarians (already bypassing Congress), the Christian Right, the Roman Catholic Church, the Evangelicals, the Moonies, Greens, Environmentalists, the Left, and so on.

    Question 2: who does NOT want a theocracy in the US?

    Ans: The Patriots, upholders of the constitution, the SDAs, and so on.

    Obama is meeting with Pope Francis this month. A lot of people, including myself, will be very interested in what comes out of that. There has already been much preparation work going by media reports.

    Now back to the violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics:

    13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

    [He = federal USA (SCOTUS), “he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth” = SCOTUS federal law whereby heat comes down from the atmosphere to the earth’s surface in violation of the SLoT]

    Now, is that so far-fetched?

    We are reading an English translation from Greek so it is worthwhile looking at the Greek:

    Mouse over to get Strong’s Number then right click for Greek
    http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/revelation/13.html#

    Rev 13:13 “fire”, Strong’s Number: 4442, Greek pu’r, only one definition – fire, not heat.
    http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/pur.html

    Conceptually, and in catastrophic climate change use, fire is not that far removed from heat in my opinion.

  74. I need to swat up on this urgently. I am going to the Anthropocene challenge lecture tomorrow, and I need to ask some probing questions

  75. Under RCP 8.5, CO2 goes to 900ppm by 2100
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/rcp.php

    (Fig 9)

    How do we get 4 degrees of warming (see IPCC “doozy” graph) from just over a doubling of CO2 from current levels?

    Wouldn’t that imply TCR ~ 4 degrees C?

    Surely that is not right?

  76. Richard C (NZ) on August 31, 2015 at 6:30 pm said:

    >”That’s the thing Andy. 1.9 (and 8.5) is THEORY. 0.6 is fact”

    The 0.6 imbalance is Stephens et and Loeb et al fact but probably fiction as Tisdale points out quoting Hansen et al. (2011) The Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications:

    ‘No Consensus: Earth’s Top of Atmosphere Energy Imbalance in CMIP5-Archived (IPCC AR5) Climate Models’
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/11/no-consensus-earths-top-of-atmosphere-energy-imbalance-in-cmip5-archived-ipcc-ar5-climate-models/

    Scroll down to:

    EARTH’S ENERGY IMBALANCE (ABSOLUTE) IN CMIP5 MODELS [includes RCP8.5 scenario]

    Figure 13 presents the simulated energy imbalance in absolute form. There is a 5 watts/m^2 span between models for the base period energy imbalances. Four of the models’ energy imbalances for the base period are negative.

    Now the quote from Hansen et al. (2011) The Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications:

    “The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-yr-mean imbalance of 6.5Wm−2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85Wm−2 (Loeb et al., 2009).”

    >”a measured 5-yr-mean imbalance of 6.5 Wm−2″ adjusted to “0.85 Wm−2” – Makes the whole paradigm senseless. Since changed to 0.6 Wm−2 in Stephens et al and Loeb et al.

    Tisdale – “Phrased differently, because the satellites were inaccurate, climate scientists had to rely on the outputs of climate models and assume they were correct.”

    Still, I’ll go with Stephens et al and Loeb et al until there’s a complete turnaround by climate science.

    Bob Tisdale continues on the highly problematic model disparities in respect to the hypothesis of human-induced global warming (leaves the entire paradigm in tatters).

  77. Richard C (NZ) on August 31, 2015 at 6:47 pm said:

    >”Wouldn’t that imply TCR ~ 4 degrees C? Surely that is not right?”

    I don’t know what is going on there Andy. TCR 4 C is not right but that is what the graph implies (I think). The GISS ModelE-2 article states in respect to the control run:

    The transient climate responses are 1.4, 1.4, and 1.6°C for the NINT, TCAD, and TCADI E2-R climate models, respectively, and 1.7, 1.7, and 1.8°C for the NINT, TCAD, and TCADI E2-H coupled models. These values are within the range of 1.1–2.3°C obtained from the constrained estimates of transient climate response based on observed global temperature and ocean heat uptake [Lewis and Curry, 2014; Otto et al., 2013; Knutti and Tomassini, 2008; Stott and Forest, 2007].

    Nowhere near 4.

    Sorry, no ideas, except perhaps the RCP8.5 TCR is 2.4 times greater than the ModelE-2 control run. I just don’t know how this works.

  78. Richard C (NZ) on August 31, 2015 at 6:53 pm said:

    >”Bob Tisdale continues on the highly problematic model disparities in respect to the hypothesis of human-induced global warming (leaves the entire paradigm in tatters).”

    Tisdale:

    “Climate models have also been programmed to create number-crunched changes in numerous other metrics so that they show rising sea levels, decreasing sea ice, ice sheet and glacier mass, increasing precipitation, and so on as the energy imbalance increases. As a result, there is a general agreement among the models that, as the energy imbalance increases in value, the Earth will gain heat and extra energy…and that the heat and extra energy will be “manifested in many ways”.

    -However-

    As we’ve illustrated and discussed in this post, looking at the three factors that make up the TOA energy imbalance, there is no agreement among the climate models on the values of past, present and future outgoing shortwave and longwave radiation. As a result, there is no agreement about:

    what enhanced the warming we’ve experienced to date,
    what will enhance any future warming, and
    what the absolute values of the energy imbalance were in the past, are presently and will be in the future.”

    As I said – tatters.

  79. I think I misread the CO2 message in RCP8.5 by only reading CO2 and not other GHGs

    The CO2e by 2100 is assumed at 1370ppm (includes methane and other GHGs) and a temperature anomaly of 4.9 degrees C
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/rcp.php?t=3

    (Table 4)

    From Climate Etc.

    These are two reasons why the Lewis & Crok estimates of future warming may be biased low. Nevertheless, their methods indicate that we can expect a further 2.1°C of warming by 2081-2100 using the business-as-usual RCP 8.5 emissions scenario, much greater than the 0.8°C warming already witnessed.

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/06/climate-sensitivity-technical-discussion-thread/

    So Pier Foster gives us half the warming for RCP8.5 than presented in the SkS article

    So I’m assuming that the “official” RCP8.5 projections use a high value of CS

    Work in progress…

  80. Richard C (NZ) on August 31, 2015 at 7:30 pm said:

    >”So I’m assuming that the “official” RCP8.5 projections use a high value of CS. Work in progress…”

    Use or produce? I thought TCR/CS was an “emergent property” in climate models. I am inclined to think RCP8.5 produces high values of TCR/CS but I really don’t know. As I said above in respect to GISS ModelE-2:

    “Sorry, no ideas, except perhaps the RCP8.5 TCR is 2.4 times greater than the ModelE-2 control run. I just don’t know how this works.”

    That’s about all I can offer tonight.

    URGENT UPDATE before signing off, from Wiki:

    “For coupled atmosphere-ocean global climate models (e.g. CMIP5) the climate sensitivity is an emergent property: it is not a model parameter, but rather a result of a combination of model physics and parameters. By contrast, simpler energy-balance models may have climate sensitivity as an explicit parameter.”

    And,

    “The climate sensitivity specifically due to CO2 is often expressed as the temperature change in °C associated with a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere.”

    Climate sensitivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

    CO2e by 2100 at 1370ppm (or even 900ppm) is much more then 2xCO2. I’m not sure what the conventional base for 2xCO2 is. Is it 280ppm at 1750? In which case 2x = 560ppm.

    TCR would then be whatever the model temperature is when the RCP reaches 560ppm irrespective of the RCP scenario (I think) – not what the temperature is at 2100.

    At what date does RCP8.5 reach 560ppm?

  81. Richard C (NZ) on August 31, 2015 at 7:56 pm said:

    >”At what date does RCP8.5 reach 560ppm?”

    At about 2052:

    http://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/RcpDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=compare

    http://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/RcpDb/dsd?Action=linechart&regions=World&scenarios=mes,mes|h01&variable=CON|CO2&width=421&height=243

    Reading off the “doozy” graph, RCP8.5 is just over 2°C at 2052 indicating TCR of 2.1°C for 2xCO2 from a base of 280ppm.

    This makes sense in respect to the GISS ModelE-2 quote:

    “The transient climate responses are 1.4, 1.4, and 1.6°C for the NINT, TCAD, and TCADI E2-R climate models, respectively, and 1.7, 1.7, and 1.8°C for the NINT, TCAD, and TCADI E2-H coupled models. These values are within the range of 1.1–2.3°C obtained from the constrained estimates of transient climate response based on observed global temperature and ocean heat uptake [Lewis and Curry, 2014; Otto et al., 2013; Knutti and Tomassini, 2008; Stott and Forest, 2007].”

    A TCR of 2.1°C is within “the range of 1.1–2.3°C”, just.

  82. That RCP database is a good find, thanks …

  83. Richard C (NZ) on August 31, 2015 at 8:54 pm said:

    From a base of 400ppm at 2015, 2x 400 = 800 at about 2085. This gives RCP8.5 TCR of about 2.8 C very roughly by eye.

    Seems to indicate the 2xCO2 base is 1750 by convention. But don’t really know.

  84. I’m looking forward to showing the RCP database to some politicians, so they know they are ####ing over Christchurch residents based on a research tool that was never intended for public policy decisions.

    Mind you, I might meet an unfortunate end before then, nothing would surprise me in these parts these days.

  85. Richard Treadgold on August 31, 2015 at 9:16 pm said:

    “Mind you, I might meet an unfortunate end before then, nothing would surprise me in these parts these days.

    Good luck.

  86. Richard C (NZ) on August 31, 2015 at 10:15 pm said:

    >”Seems to indicate the 2xCO2 base is 1750 by convention”

    Maybe, but not by AR4 definition:

    8.6.2.1 Definition of Climate Sensitivity

    As defined in previous assessments (Cubasch et al., 2001) and in the Glossary, the global annual mean surface air temperature change experienced by the climate system after it has attained a new equilibrium in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration is referred to as the ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ (unit is °C), and is often simply termed the ‘climate sensitivity’. It has long been estimated from numerical experiments in which an AGCM is coupled to a simple non-dynamic model of the upper ocean with prescribed ocean heat transports (usually referred to as ‘mixed-layer’ or ‘slab’ ocean models) and the atmospheric CO2 concentration is doubled. In AOGCMs and non-steady-state (or transient) simulations, the ‘transient climate response’ (TCR; Cubasch et al., 2001) is defined as the global annual mean surface air temperature change (with respect to a ‘control’ run) averaged over a 20-year period centred at the time of CO2 doubling in a 1% yr–1 compound CO2 increase scenario. That response depends both on the sensitivity and on the ocean heat uptake. An estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity in transient climate change integrations is obtained from the ‘effective climate sensitivity’ (Murphy, 1995). It corresponds to the global temperature response that would occur if the AOGCM was run to equilibrium with feedback strengths held fixed at the values diagnosed at some point of the transient climate evolution. It is computed from the oceanic heat storage, the radiative forcing and the surface temperature change (Cubasch et al., 2001; Gregory et al., 2002).

    The climate sensitivity depends on the type of forcing agents applied to the climate system and on their geographical and vertical distributions (Allen and Ingram, 2002; Sausen et al., 2002; Joshi et al., 2003). As it is influenced by the nature and the magnitude of the feedbacks at work in the climate response, it also depends on the mean climate state (Boer and Yu, 2003). Some differences in climate sensitivity will also result simply from differences in the particular radiative forcing calculated by different radiation codes (see Sections 10.2.1 and 8.6.2.3). The global annual mean surface temperature change thus presents limitations regarding the description and the understanding of the climate response to an external forcing. Indeed, the regional temperature response to a uniform forcing (and even more to a vertically or geographically distributed forcing) is highly inhomogeneous. In addition, climate sensitivity only considers the surface mean temperature and gives no indication of the occurrence of abrupt changes or extreme events. Despite its limitations, however, the climate sensitivity remains a useful concept because many aspects of a climate model scale well with global average temperature (although not necessarily across models), because the global mean temperature of the Earth is fairly well measured, and because it provides a simple way to quantify and compare the climate response simulated by different models to a specified perturbation. By focusing on the global scale, climate sensitivity can also help separate the climate response from regional variability.

    https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2.html

    Table 8.2. Climate sensitivity estimates from the AOGCMs assessed in this report (see Table 8.1 for model details). Transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) were calculated by the modelling groups (using atmosphere models coupled to slab ocean for equilibrium climate sensitivity), except those in italics, which were calculated from simulations in the MMD at PCMDI. The ocean heat uptake efficiency (W m–2 °C–1), discussed in Chapter 10, may be roughly estimated as F2x x (TCR–1 – ECS–1), where F2x is the radiative forcing for doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration (see Supplementary Material, Table 8.SM.1)

    AOGCM Equilibrium climate sensitivity (°C) Transient climate response (°C)

    [see data table]

    https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html

    # # #

    Might look for Supplementary Material, Table 8.SM.1 tomorrow.

  87. Richard C (NZ) on August 31, 2015 at 11:11 pm said:

    >”8.6.2.1 Definition of Climate Sensitivity As defined in previous assessments (Cubasch et al., 2001) and in the Glossary”

    Glossary A-D

    Climate sensitivity In IPCC reports, equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the equilibrium change in the annual mean global surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric equivalent carbon dioxide concentration. Due to computational constraints, the equilibrium climate sensitivity in a climate model is usually estimated by running an atmospheric general circulation model coupled to a mixed-layer ocean model, because equilibrium climate sensitivity is largely determined by atmospheric processes. Efficient models can be run to equilibrium with a dynamic ocean.

    The effective climate sensitivity is a related measure that circumvents the requirement of equilibrium. It is evaluated from model output for evolving non-equilibrium conditions. It is a measure of the strengths of the climate feedbacks at a particular time and may vary with forcing history and climate state. The climate sensitivity parameter (units: °C (W m–2)–1) refers to the equilibrium change in the annual mean global surface temperature following a unit change in radiative forcing.

    The transient climate response is the change in the global surface temperature, averaged over a 20-year period, centred at the time of atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling, that is, at year 70 in a 1% yr–1 compound carbon dioxide increase experiment with a global coupled climate model. It is a measure of the strength and rapidity of the surface temperature response to greenhouse gas forcing.

    https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/annex1sglossary-a-d.html

    # # #

    That’s it. I give up. I can’t make head or tail of that TCR gobbledegook other than a vague notion..

  88. TCR is the theoretical warming at the point in time that the doubling of CO2 occurs.
    ECS is the theoretical warming when the climate reaches theoretical equilibrium after the doubling, which may be hundreds of years in the future

    TCR is considered the more policy relevant measure.
    Lewis and Curry give TCR at 1.33 c

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/24/lewis-and-curry-climate-sensitivity-uncertainty/

  89. Richard C (NZ) on September 1, 2015 at 9:59 am said:

    >”TCR is the theoretical warming at the point in time that the doubling of CO2 occurs.”

    Yes Andy, I’ve even got past that, painfully.

    I get “averaged over a 20-year period”
    I get “centred at the time of atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling”
    I get “in a 1% yr–1 compound carbon dioxide increase experiment”
    I get “at year 70” (but when? see below)

    But an IPCC step-through example would be VERY helpful because there’s a lot I don’t get.

    I don’t get when “at year 70” actually is. It could be any year.
    I don’t get what this is in respect to. GISS says “relative to the corresponding 20 year mean temperature of the control simulation” which indicates NOT in respect to RCP scenarios but to “control”.
    I don’t get how TCR relates to RCP scenarios, if at all, because each RCP must return a different TCR surely?
    I don’t get when the “1% yr–1 compound carbon dioxide increase” time step starts. Is it arbitrary?

    In RCP8.5 It takes about 300 years for CO2 to double from 280ppm to 560ppm but it takes only about 70 years to double from 400ppm to 800ppm. The respective temperature changes are very different. “At year 70” in the latter case is at about 2085.

    I’m missing too much here to really get a handle on this in a short time (and not sure I need or want to know given the models are wrong at 2015 anyway).

  90. I agree about the relative time frames, which suggests to me the whole idea is nonsense

    On a separate topic, TVOne news are doing a piece tonight with interviews including Sir Tipene O’Regan, who is a Southshore resident and supportive of the coastal group CCRU

    Sir Tipene stood up and made a speech on Sunday in which he described global warming as “bureaucratic nonsense that seems to defy all logic or reason” (or similar, just in case I have misquoted him)

    There was a round of applause at this.

    Big ups to the Man with Mana.

  91. Richard C (NZ) on September 1, 2015 at 2:17 pm said:

    >”I don’t get when the “1% yr–1 compound carbon dioxide increase” time step starts. Is it arbitrary?”

    Yes, apparently. The exercise is disconnected from year dates e.g. 1750. The model run just starts from arbitrary “equilibrium” which has no relation to any year as Isaac Held explains:

    “The transient climate response, or TCR, is traditionally defined in terms of a particular calculation with a climate model: starting in equilibrium, increase CO_2 at a rate of 1% per year until the concentration has doubled (about 70 years). The amount of warming around the time of doubling is referred to as the TCR. If the CO_2 is then held fixed at this value, the climate will continue to warm slowly until it reaches T_{EQ}. To the extent that this 70 year ramp-up qualifies as being in the intermediate regime, the ratio of TCR to T_{EQ} would be \beta/(\beta + \gamma) in the two-box model.”

    http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2011/03/11/3-transient-vs-equilibrium-climate-responses/

    Obviously the 1% per year increase is also arbitrary, a convenient step, it has no real-world basis. Neither is this increase anything to do with RCPs. Although the increase is a prescribed RCP in effect, just that it only runs for about 70 years.

    We cannot then, compare GCM TCRs with by-eye estimates we have done upthread using the RCP8.5 concentration pathway and the “doozy” graph of model temperature projection. The model TCR is an “in-house” rationale and we just have take what is given in the Assessment Report tables.

    Model temperature change from the 400 – 800ppm, 2015 – 2085, 70 year doubling in RCP8.5 does seem to correspond quite well though, albeit a bit high.

  92. Richard C (NZ) on September 1, 2015 at 2:26 pm said:

    Interesting discussions in Isaac Held blog comments re the “settled science” of oceanic relaxation time constant [Tau] (thermal lag). Hansen et al (1981) had trouble with this and it is still a bone of contention. Much argument at JoNova over this in the solar N-D Model series. Electrical Engineers go for a short lag, thermal people short+long lag. Isaac Held is on the side of short+long lag:

    Isaac Held says: March 14, 2011 at 3:01 pm

    Tamino,
    I have enjoyed reading your analyses of climatic time series.

    1) the long time scale:
    Putting aside glaciers and the carbon cycle and just focusing on physical coupled atmosphere-ocean models, the TCR is always substantially smaller than the equilibrium sensitivity, as indicated in the figure for the CMIP3 models. You can’t get this without time scales much longer than 14 years. Ignoring this point results in a lot of confusion as to what the models are predicting — ie “how can equilibrium sensitivities of 3K possibly be consistent with the observed warming to date?” It’s not an easy time scale to get at with the instrumental record.

    2) the short time scale:
    I was working with annual mean forcing and model temperatures, effectively filtering out shorter time scales. There is a very fast atmospheric/land response to impulsive forcing and to the seasonal cycle. But a time scale around 4 or 5 years seems to me to be unavoidable, as this is roughly the relaxation time of the oceanic mixed layer. I think it’s hard to get this time scale up to 14 years. Time scales of 10-50 years could come from relatively shallow oceanic circlulations, but this is also where uncertainty in the forcing and the potential for internal variability on multi-decadal time scales comes into play when fitting observations.

    Emulating GCMs with simple models and then comparing these simple models with observations is a rather indirect way of comparing GCMs to observations — but I think it can be very useful in communicating and getting a feeling for what the models are saying. So it is interesting to see how much one has to tweak forcing, and/or the magnitude of unforced variability, to make a case for consistency of this GCM-motivated simple model (a 4 year time scale and a multi-century time scale) with observations.

    http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2011/03/11/3-transient-vs-equilibrium-climate-responses/#comment-37

    The lag is actually characterized by a combination of different “modes” e.g. Very Fast (less than 5 years), Fast (5 – 10 years), Slow (10 – 100 years), Very Slow (100+ years). 30 – 40 years is evident in several SH studies (e.g. Antartica, Tasmania) which makes sense because there is more ocean in the Southern Hemisphere. Tamino opts for his longer mode at 14 years which is exactly the central estimate calculated by Abdussamatov.

    I tried to get this lag time through to 2 different guys at Climate Etc in this thread (scroll down):

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2015/08/expert-opinion-against-exponential-sea-level-rise/comment-page-1/#comment-1357426

    3 modes are returned from calculations in this chapter out of a book (don’t know the book) here:

    Chapter 3 Time Dependent Response and the Ocean

    page 8
    First consider an ocean depth of 4km. The first three roots (for h=4 km) x = ah are 1.423, 4.289 and 7.206. These correspond to a set of relaxation times (1/) of 329 yr, 36.24 yr and 6.44 yr. It is notable that the decay time of the first mode is over 3 centuries.

    page 19
    Clearly the heat is being distributed throughout a larger volume in this range for the deep heat conducting model, whereas it is limited to the first 80 meters in the mixed layer model. There is a vertical penetration length scale for variance

    [see Equation (3.41)]

    which tells us that the lower the frequency [e.g. 329 yr] the deeper the penetration of the disturbance which originates at the top of the deep ocean.

    http://www.met.tamu.edu/class/atmo631/CMch3.pdf

    In other words, a short lag mode of 6.44 yr only involves the top 100m or so of ocean but the long lag mode of 329 yr is because much deeper ocean is involved, more than 1000m. The middle mode somewhere in between.

    Thing is:

    Solar forcing is via the ocean therefore the atmospheric response is lagged considerably (central characteristic mode in SH of about 30 – 40 years).

    Theoretical CO2 “forcing” is NOT via the ocean so is therefore instantaneous speed-of-light (if valid – it isn’t).

    In the Climate Etc thread linked above, Jim D made the same foolish error that IPCC solar specialists (e.g. Joanna Haigh) and bloggers (e.g. John Cook, SkS) make of directly comparing GMST to solar levels and neglecting oceanic lag. The atmospheric response to solar change is lagged considerably but many (mostly of the warm kind) neglect the lag time when attempting a contra-solar argument.

  93. Richard C (NZ) on September 1, 2015 at 3:05 pm said:

    >”Matt Ridley on RCP 8.5″

    Obviously a bogus scenario. But thankfully, for me, supplying this graphic:

    http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/102468/25642770/1415350466300/ridley1.png?token=fQcryfTdIl0B%2FgZ5zjf9mA702AQ%3D

    Which clarifies the remaining 2 items (+ 1) that were bugging me:

    #1 I don’t get what this is in respect to. GISS says “relative to the corresponding 20 year mean temperature of the control simulation” which indicates NOT in respect to RCP scenarios but to “control”.

    OK, the model TCRs we have previously come up with from GISS, IPCC, etc upthread have only been a single value that I assume must be for a “control” run as implied by GISS.

    #2 I don’t get how TCR relates to RCP scenarios, if at all, because each RCP must return a different TCR surely?

    Turns out I was right. Each RCP does return a different TCR. And within an RCP, and depending on baseline, the TCR changes as I thought it should. It is meaningless.

    Along with (I assume) the “control” TCRs we have, we now have in the Ridley table the model TCRs for each RCP. Not only that but 2 columns for 2 different baselines, 1850 – 1900 and 2012. No wonder I was confused (although turns out I was on the right track after all).

    #3 Also established is that the 20 yr average applies to 2081 – 2100 for the RCP TCRs.

    Thank you Andy for providing that link.

  94. Richard C (NZ) on September 1, 2015 at 3:16 pm said:

    >”Tamino opts for his longer mode at 14 years which is exactly the central estimate calculated by Abdussamatov.”

    This is for planetary land+ocean thermal lag. Abdussamatov puts global average oceanic lag at around 20 years.

    The faster planetary atmospheric responses are primarily due to the land, the longer due to the ocean.

  95. Richard C (NZ) on September 1, 2015 at 4:33 pm said:

    >”#2 I don’t get how TCR relates to RCP scenarios, if at all, because each RCP must return a different TCR surely? Turns out I was right. Each RCP does return a different TCR. And within an RCP, and depending on baseline, the TCR changes as I thought it should. It is meaningless.”

    No, I’m wrong. The values in the Ridley table columns are degrees C of warming, not TCRs. The right hand 2 columns are for a TCR of 1.35 °C for all 4 RCP scenarios i.e. a constant TCR irrespective of baseline.

    However, the left hand 2 model columns of warming differ from the warming with TCR of 1.35 °C. The RCP8.5 warming in the models from 1850 – 1900 is greater than TCR 1.35 °C by a factor of 1.5. The other 3 are similar. This implies greater model TCRs than 1.35 °C for all 4 RCPs.

    These were the AR4 model TCR’s:

    AOGCM Equilibrium climate sensitivity (°C) Transient climate response (°C)
    1: BCC-CM1 n.a. n.a.
    2: BCCR-BCM2.0 n.a. n.a.
    3: CCSM3 2.7 1.5
    4: CGCM3.1(T47) 3.4 1.9
    5: CGCM3.1(T63) 3.4 n.a.
    6: CNRM-CM3 n.a. 1.6
    7: CSIRO-MK3.0 3.1 1.4
    8: ECHAM5/MPI-OM 3.4 2.2
    9: ECHO-G 3.2 1.7
    10: FGOALS-g1.0 2.3 1.2
    11: GFDL-CM2.0 2.9 1.6
    12: GFDL-CM2.1 3.4 1.5
    13: GISS-AOM n.a. n.a.
    14: GISS-EH 2.7 1.6
    15: GISS-ER 2.7 1.5
    16: INM-CM3.0 2.1 1.6
    17: IPSL-CM4 4.4 2.1
    18: MIROC3.2(hires) 4.3 2.6
    19: MIROC3.2(medres) 4.0 2.1
    20: MRI-CGCM2.3.2 3.2 2.2
    21: PCM 2.1 1.3
    22: UKMO-HadCM3 3.3 2.0
    23: UKMO-HadGEM1 4.4 1.9

    https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html

    Only 2 have a TCR less than or equal to 1.35 °C. This means that along with the highly implausible RCP8.5 scenario, model TCRs must also be considerably higher than recent non-model CS studies (again, CO2 paradigm). This combo returns the wildly unrealistic warming and therefore greatly inflated SLR (in the CO2-forced paradigm). The hard-wiring to CO2 being the prime culprit in the first place.

    Compared to the default historical rates of SLR this RCP8.5 CO2-forced model scenario is crazy.

    And this century so far (1.5 decades), TCR, however it is defined, has stalled.

  96. Richard C (NZ) on September 1, 2015 at 5:02 pm said:

    In summary. the RCP8.5 model temperature profile is crazy because in order of significance:

    1) The models are hard-wired to CO2 by RCP prescription.
    2) The RCP8.5 scenario is completely implausible.
    3) The model TCRs magnify the CO2 hard-wiring in 1) and the RCP scenario in 2)..

    4) The variation in the respective model TCRs goes a long way to explaining the wild variation about the model mean as shown in this graph:

    IPCC AR5 Figure 12-05 (the “doozy”)
    http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2012/Fig12-05.jpg

    In RCP8.5 by 2100, anywhere between 2.5 and 5 °C warming in respect to 1990.

    But if item 1) is a fallacy………what then?

  97. Richard C (NZ) on September 1, 2015 at 5:17 pm said:

    >”But if item 1) is a fallacy………what then?”

    First threshold to look at for the 2030s in Figure 12-05 is 1900 – 1950. That corresponds, with appropriate lag, to the 1900 Gleissberg minimum.

    Solar activity – Cycles: Gleissberg cycle
    http://www.traced-ideas.eu/solar/solarcycles.html

    Future prediction highly uncertain unfortunately. Might be a Gleissberg maximum at 2030.

  98. I managed to get the the Anthopocene Challenge talk last night. Dave Frame was the only rational person on the panel, although Kim Hill was good as a moderator.

    There was every environmental cliche in the book. Kim made the astute observation that climate change has become a proxy for all the bad things in the world, including fat men in big cars.

    Dave Frame responded, “as a fat man with a big car…”
    Almost worth a blog post in its own right if I get time.

  99. Most of my submission to the Christchurch council is about RCP8.5, so I’d better make sure I know it inside out if and when I get to sit in front of the hearing panel

  100. Sir Tipene O’Regan on the coastal zoning issue (via CTV)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLpPs-KcdMTIaap4cwk1MmkTq9y8o1V0P2&v=rpXcwkGpzyw

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation