Sea level lunacy slammed by Sir Tipene

Sir Tipene O'Regan

Sir Tipene O’Regan.

from a National Business Review article of 1 September posted on Facebook:
“Sir Tipene rails against madness of Christchurch sea rise plan” by Chris Hutching

Resentment is growing among property owners in Christchurch and residents are organising themselves since the council announced it would tag 18,000 coastal properties with warnings of inundation from rising sea levels, severely depressing land values without good cause.

You might wonder why predicting rising sea levels might have been unexpected. After all, the whole world expects the sea to rise because we refuse to stop burning hydrocarbons.

Well, when you examine the actual evidence for rising seas, you find anomalies. The IPCC concluded in its latest report, AR5 (2013), that anthropogenic warming of the atmosphere (and thus the sea) would probably cause the sea to rise (by thermal expansion) about 450 mm by the year 2100. This is in the medium range of ‘scenarios’ offered by the IPCC, neither low nor high. The AR5 concluded the “likely” range for sea level rise by 2100 would be between 450 mm and 600 mm. So that is a reasonable amount to be expected, but the IPCC went a little further:

The basis for higher projections of global mean sea level rise in the 21st century has been considered and it has been concluded that there is currently insufficient evidence to evaluate the probability of specific levels above the assessed likely range. Many semi-empirical model projections of global mean sea level rise are higher than process-based model projections (up to about twice as large), but there is no consensus in the scientific community about their reliability and there is thus low confidence in their projections.

So whence comes this projection of one metre of sea-level rise? From the most extreme of the imagined scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions, called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). The highest is called RCP8.5, which stands for a global level of radiative forcing of 8.5 W/m2 by 2100.

IPCC flunkeys usurp good guidance for Christchurch

The mean sea level rise under RCP8.5 is about 740 mm by 2100. But, you say, the Christchurch council has picked a figure 50% higher even than that! Why? Because that 1000 mm is the very highest guesswork that could possibly occur under RCP8.5.

None of these “calculations” are based on observations, but only on unverified computer models. Nobody knows, and cannot know until the time comes, whether these models are accurate, yet we are expected to believe them and sacrifice, in the case of Christchurch coastal properties, our personal fortunes on the expectation that the models are correct.

This is not science, this is scaremongering. On what basis has the council chosen the most extreme end of the most extreme emission scenario?

Lianne Dalziel, Mayor of Christchurch, claims the Christchurch earthquake gave us “50 years of climate change in a few minutes” to reinforce the one metre sea level narrative. The use of the earthquake tragedy as a climate change propaganda tool is despicable.

Here’s how the NBR described Sir Tipene O’Regan’s attack on the council’s reasoning.

Sir Tipene O’Regan is adding his voice to the chorus of protest against Christchurch City Council’s proposed restrictions on properties now deemed at risk of flooding from climate change.

Worst-case UN fantasy dooms foreshore properties

Sir Tipene lives at South Shore, one of the areas where council staff have tagged land titles, restricting existing rights to develop properties and laying them open to increased insurance and potential devaluation.

“What I find most offensive is their intellectual dishonesty. If they really believe in these projections, then they should be prohibiting all building in Christchurch and moving the whole place to West Melton (a small town to the west of Christchurch), or the Canterbury foothills.

“But they’re not. They’re building stuff all over the place that would be compromised if you accepted their theory. Why rebuild Christchurch at all if you believe this plan is valid?”

Abuse of power

Sir Tipene also says it is an abuse of power to speed up the passage of the district plan under the provisions of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act, forbidding appeals except on points of law.

“This whole thing should be done on a national basis, not left to individual councils to decide.”
It was ironic that the earthquakes actually raised the level of the land where the O’Regan’s live by about one third of a metre (other areas at the neck of the South Shore spit fell).

“In that respect we now find ourselves on a little island surrounded by a sea of doom. That gives us another 130 years rather than the 100 years estimated by the council’s Tonkin & Taylor engineering report. All of the assumptions in the report fail to consider what might happen to the level of the land.”

Better a doormat than test the evidence?

“Pegasus Bay is built up from the sediment coming from the mountains down the Waimakariri, Ashley, Waiau, Hurunui and Clarence rivers,” said Sir Tipene. “It’s extraordinary they can talk about erosion without talking about that build-up. Wellington wouldn’t exist if it hadn’t been for the 1855 earthquake, which raised the place up.

“Nor have they considered mitigation, although they seem to accept it for the suburb of Sumner across from the South Shore spit where there is a man-made sea wall. It’s another indicator of the Christchurch class war.

“It’s a real indictment of the level of intelligence we’ve come to expect. These people are interviewing their keyboards. And you’d have to ask if the decision makers around the council table have even read these reports. [Cabinet minister Gerry] Brownlee and his minders have to say ‘slow down’ and look at this again.”

It’s hard not to agree.

153
Leave a Reply

avatar
153 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
SimonRichard TreadgoldAndyRichard C (NZ)Mike Jowsey Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Andy
Guest
Andy

Thanks for writing this Richard. Every story helps.

Sir Tipene stood up and gave a passionate speech at our last public meeting in Sumner. He is a smart man and doesn’t suffer fools lightly

We are extremely privileged to have him on our side.

Alexander K
Guest
Alexander K

I met Sir Tipene many years ago. He impressed me then as an astute and sensible bloke with more than his share of smarts. His guidance of his iwi’s business affairs has proved this beyond doubt.
I would listen to sir Tipene and people of his ilk rather than the lunatic ‘progressives’.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Stop the press. It’s worse than we thought.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630253-300-latest-numbers-show-at-least-5-metres-sea-level-rise-locked-in/

Does anyone take these people seriously anymore?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”RCP8.5, which stands for a global level of radiative forcing of 8.5 W/m2 by 2100″ This is how it works in “warmer world”. You fantasize about something you can never justify – and it is regulated immediately. Meanwhile the current theoretical (yes, theory only) 1.9 W/m2 radiative “forcing” from GHGs is having no effect whatsoever on the IPCC’s primary climate change indicator, top of atmosphere (TOA) energy balance, neither any effect on sea levels. Certainly not around Christchurch, or Wellington, or Auckland. This theoretical radiative forcing of 8.5 W/m2 measured at TOA “imputes” heat to the ocean in global climate models because that is the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) rationale. It has nothing to do with the physics of the atmosphere-ocean interface which are bypassed in the process. The AGW rationale turns a small potion of the flow of surface heat to space back on itself down to the surface where the downwelling LWIR is assumed to be a heating agent. Firstly, this theoretical heat flow reversal is a violation of the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynaics which states: “Heat will not of itself flow from a cold object [atm]… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

Just a few numbers as to how this is going:

The CCRU Facebook page now has over 800 members, all from the last two weeks.
We’ve had 2 public meetings, each attended by at least 250 people.

There is a webpage http://www.ccru.co.nz where you can download sample submission forms and there is also an online tool developed by one of the main people behind this who has made it super-easy to send in a submission

We have been granted an extension on parts of the submission process but the original deadline is tomorrow, Friday 4th Sept

4th Sept is also the 5th anniversary of the first earthquake. Mayor Lianne Dalziel is conducting a dawn ceremony at the South Brighton pier. Some have suggested a protest but I have said this is inadvisable.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”storylines packed with political chicanery”

Stephen Schneider, climatologist (now deceased) in 1989:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

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

>”So we have to offer up scary scenarios”

Like RCP8.5

Andy
Guest
Andy

”So we have to offer up scary scenarios”

Exactly,

but not confuse them as facts

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>Firstly, this theoretical heat flow reversal is a violation of the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states: “Heat will not of itself flow from a cold object [atm] to a hot object [sfc]” And the climate model’s atmospheric accumulation of heat is a violation of the Kelvin-Planck statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics too. These are natural laws. ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics’ M. Bahrami ENSC 388 (F09) Engineering Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer Course, San Francisco University. The second law of thermodynamics asserts that processes occur in a certain direction and that the energy has quality as well as quantity. The first law places no restriction on the direction of a process, and satisfying the first law does not guarantee that the process will occur. Thus, we need another general principle (second law) to identify whether a process can occur or not. [see diagram] Fig. 1: Heat transfer from a hot container to the cold surroundings is possible; however, the reverse process (although satisfying the first law) is impossible. A process can occur when and only when it satisfies both the first and the second laws of thermodynamics.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”This is how it works in “warmer world”. You fantasize about something you can never justify – and it is regulated immediately.”

Exhibit A from CCRU:

How is my property affected?
You can find out here whether your property is within one of the four proposed coastal hazard zones:

Coastal Erosion Hazard Zone 1
Coastal Erosion Hazard Zone 2
Coastal Inundation Hazard Zone 1
Coastal Inundation Hazard Zone 2

As of Friday 3 July 2015 your LIM will show whether your property is within one of the four identified coastal hazard assessment zones as per the report. The coastal hazard zones will form the basis of the hazard management areas in the proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan which will implement planning regulations for these areas.

Yes that’s right – it is already on your LIM.

Your property has already been affected by the proposed change.

http://www.ccru.co.nz/how-is-my-property-affected-1

Andy
Guest
Andy

There was a rather tearful woman at the Sumner meeting who stood up and said how she had been “LIM tagged” (this is the term apparently)

She is in the stages of an earthquake repair/rebuild and was told by the council that she would get her consent as long as she didn’t take any legal action against them.

There was a collective gasp from the audience

Obviously, we’d have to check the details before this becomes a fact, but if this is true then it would appear to be very serious indeed.

Jim McKinlay
Guest
Jim McKinlay

Congratulations to Sir Tipene for adding his voice to the issue. The MSM have trouble discounting such a voice. As to his view that it should be a national rather than a regional directive, a don’t know which is more scary.

I don’t have much faith for instance in Sir Peter Gluckman standing up and saying “For the time being we will adopt the IPCC medium projection of 225mm per 50 years for New Zealand. In all regions Councils should use this as a base adjusted by whether that side of the island is rising or falling.”

Imagine how much a pronouncement like that would save in fees, blood pressure and general well being.

Andy
Guest
Andy

I’d love it if these policies were proposed at a national level

They wouldn’t stand a chance and their “science” would be shredded.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Burton: “It is not possible to torture the tide-gauge data into yielding a globally averaged rate of relative sea-level rise anywhere near 3.3 mm/yr” Relating globally averaged SLR, satellite or tide guage, to local rates is absurd. The global metric is skewed by the western Pacific. Then the tide guages at the coasts don’t corroborate the satellite average as Burton shows. [Footer Bio] – “He [David A. Burton] is a Board Member of NC-20, and one of the organization’s Science Advisors. In 2011 he wrote a comprehensive critique of the Coastal Resource Commission’s 2010 North Carolina Sea-Level Rise Assessment Report, identifying numerous serious errors in that document. He was also a member of the NC Sea Level Rise Impact Study Advisory Committee, a member of the NC Portal Project Review Committee, a U.N. IPCC AR5 WG1 Expert Reviewer, and is webmaster of the sealevel.info website.” North Carolina dumped IPCC SLR scenarios for planning: ‘North Carolina Outlaws Alarmist Planning Advice -Restricts SLR planning input to maximum timeframe of 30 years’ Story submitted by Eric Worrall / July 12, 2014 North Carolina has just outlawed the use of long term sea level predictions, when making… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

CRU could benefit from what NC-20 has already achieved

Yes, thanks very much for that Richard

Andy
Guest
Andy

From the Yahoo article

Sea levels are predicted to rise exponentially

Here we go again, that old “exponential” thing.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”what NC-20 has already achieved” Only really a temporary stay but a major retraction nonetheless. The NC fight will be all on again in 2016 going by what is in place in the interim: North Carolina Legislative Report – July 6, 2012 Climate Change After a wide-ranging debate on the validity of climate-change science Tuesday, state lawmakers agreed to ban any state agencies from making policies on sea level change until 2016. The House approved the bill in a 68-46 partisan vote. With the Senate’s approval Monday, it now moves to Gov. Bev Perdue. The measure is a watered-down version of the original legislation to put strict limits on the state’s use of climate change data, which drew international attention and made the state a punch line on a late-night comedy show. Republican lawmakers had sought to quash a March 2010 report from scientists with the Coastal Resources Commission that projected a 20-to-55-inch rise by the end of the century, disputing the science because it would hurt coastal development. Under the new language in House bill 819, the commission must re-evaluate its study and consider scientific literature debunking rising water levels and the… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

By the way, hi to all the lurkers from Hot Topic. Rather than sniping from behind your sandbags, why don’t you come out into the open?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) Sea-Level Rise page: Station Number, Station Name, Mean Sea-Level Trend mm/yr, Period of Data 8651370, Duck, 4.64, 1978-2010 8652587, Oregon Inlet Marina, 3.31, 1977-1980, 1994-2010 8656483, Beaufort, 2.61, 1973-2010 8658120, Wilmington, 2.01, 1935-2010 http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/cm/sea-level-rise Sea-Level Rise Study Update The Coastal Resources Commission’s Science Panel is working to update its 2010 report on sea-level rise in North Carolina, as required by Session Law 2012-202. The CRC’s charge to the panel is to conduct “a comprehensive review of scientific literature and available North Carolina data that addresses the full range of global, regional and North Carolina specific sea-level change.” The CRC further directed the panel to limit the scope of the study to a 30-year rolling time table, to be updated every five years. The panel’s initial draft report was completed in December 2014, and forwarded to a technical peer review group for comment. The draft report and all comments were submitted to the CRC and released for public comment on Mar. 31: Final Draft Report – Mar. 31, 2015 Peer Review Comments and Science Panel Responses Initial Draft Report – Dec. 31, 2014 Comments may be submitted through… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Sea Level Rise Assessment Report 2015 Update to the 2010 Report and 2012 Addendum MARCH 31, 2015 | DRAFT Prepared by the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission Science Panel http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=dd00328d-67d4-4f39-9e8c-6585cae50577&groupId=38319 What’s New: This document expands on the 2010 report and 2012 addendum in a number of important ways, including the following: # Development of a range of predictions at each of the long-term tide gauges along the North Carolina coast based on a combination of local vertical land motion information and the IPCC scenarios. Summary: Sea level is rising across the coast of North Carolina. The rate of local sea level rise varies, depending on location (spatially) and the time frame for analysis (temporally). Two main factors affect the spatial variation of rates of sea level rise along the North Carolina coast: (1) vertical movement of the Earth’s surface, and (2) effects of water movement in the oceans (including the shifting position and changing speed of the Gulf Stream). There is evidence from both geological data and tide gauges that there is more land subsidence north of Cape Lookout than south of Cape Lookout. This contributes to higher measured rates of sea level rise… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

North Carolina Sea Level Rise Assessment Report 2015

5. Future Sea Level in North Carolina [page 25 pdf]

“The Science Panel considered three scenarios for future sea level in North Carolina: (1) sea level
rise will continue at existing rates as measured at tide gauges, (2) sea level rise will decelerate,
and (3) sea level rise will increase in response to changes in the climate. These scenarios are
discussed in this section for the 2015-2045 timeframe (30 years, specified by the N.C. Coastal
Resources Commission’s charge for this report).”

The acid test – (1) vs (2) and (1) vs (3). This is the only responsible approach.

IPCC conjecture enters at (3) only with RCPs 2.6 and 8.5 representing the range including 4.5 and 6.0.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

6. Making Sense of the Predictions

“As research evolves with more data and our understanding of these phenomena improves, forecasts will be updated. This is one of the many reasons that the panel recommends updating this report every five years.”

As any responsible assessment should be. Only then can one of the three scenarios for future sea level in North Carolina be isolated as the best indicator:

(1) sea level rise will continue at existing rates as measured at tide gauges,
(2) sea level rise will decelerate,and
(3) sea level rise will increase in response to changes in the climate.

They have discounted (2) this time but that does not mean it is out of contention in 5 or 10 years time.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Appendix B. General Assembly of North Carolina: Session 2011, Session Law 2012-202, House Bill 819 SECTION 2.(a) Article 7 of Chapter 113A of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read: “§ 113A-107.1. Sea-level policy. The General Assembly does not intend to mandate the development of sea-level policy or the definition of rates of sea-level change for regulatory purposes. No rule, policy, or planning guideline that defines a rate of sea-level change for regulatory purposes shall be adopted except as provided by this section. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a county, municipality, or other local government entity from defining rates of sea-level change for regulatory purposes. All policies, rules, regulations, or any other product of the Commission or the Division related to rates of sea-level change shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes. The Commission shall be the only State agency authorized to define rates of sea-level change for regulatory purposes. If the Commission defines rates of sea-level change for regulatory purposes, it shall do so in conjunction with the Division of Coastal Management of the Department. The Commission… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I see in the Live Traffic Feed someone from Durham, North Carolina – Hi there.

Your Sea-level policy in NC stands head and shoulders above anywhere else in the world except perhaps Eurobodella and Shoalhaven Shire Councils on the East coast of Australia.

Hopefully Christchurch City Council (and New Zealand) can learn from it.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Inconvenient Stanford study: ‘Sea levels may not rise as high as assumed.’

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/03/inconvenient-stanford-study-sea-levels-may-not-rise-as-high-as-assumed/

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

+Andy – or not as fast according to an analysis of NOAA data:
“Not Possible To Torture Coastal Tide-Gauge Data Into Yielding A Sea-Level Rise Anywhere Near 3.3 mm/yr”
http://notrickszone.com/2015/09/03/sea-level-analyst-not-possible-to-torture-coastal-tide-gauge-data-into-yielding-a-sea-level-rise-anywhere-near-3-3-mmyr/#sthash.iDtnnTM5.dpuf

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The effects of Climate Change in the Netherlands: 2012
PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/PBL_2013_The%20effects%20of%20climate%20change%20in%20the%20Netherlands_957.pdf

Page 40 pdf

Figure 3.2 Sea level at the Dutch coast
Annual average from 6 coastal stations
Trend [2.0 mm/year]

Figure 3.3 Sea level rise
Rise compared with that of 1990 (metres)
Multiannual trend [2.0 mm/year as Fig 3.2]
Projection at no accelerated rise (18 cm by 2100)
Worst-case scenario according to PBL/MNP, 2007 (150 cm by 2100)
Range Delta Commission (65 – 130 cm by 2100)
Range KNMI’06 scenarios (35 – 85 cm by 2100)

# # #

As for North Carolina, or anywhere, the “Multiannual trend” “Projection at no accelerated rise” is the default by which all other scenarios are assessed. Easy to check if new data in Figure 3.2 is departing from the default.

If this is good enough for the Netherlands why isn’t it good enough for Christchurch City Council and the New Zealand Ministry for the Environment?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Easy to check if new data in Figure 3.2 is departing from the default.”

There are basically only 2 Netherlands prediction scenarios (no acceleration and IPCC accelerations). After 20+ years (from 1990) only one scenario corresponds to actual (no acceleration).

First, this tells us that the IPCC scenarios are inadequate for risk assessment.
Second, North Carolina have added 2 more scenarios for their 30 year horizon so the equivalent for Netherlands is:

(1) Projection at no accelerated rise (18 cm by 2100)
(2) sea level rise will decelerate <<<<< [North Carolina addition]
(3a) Range KNMI’06 scenarios (35 – 85 cm by 2100)
(3b) Range Delta Commission (65 – 130 cm by 2100)
(3c) Worst-case scenario according to PBL/MNP, 2007 (150 cm by 2100)
(4) sea-level will fall <<<<< [North Carolina addition]

Scenario (1) corresponds to actual (Multiannual trend 2.0 mm/year) to date without having to even look at (2) – (4) which contain the IPCC scenarios.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Mike – thanks, I saw the NoTricksZone link earlier

Satellite data seems to measure open ocean levels which are not the same as coastal levels anyway, despite the adjustments

Richard Tol commenting at Bishop Hill says the SLR models are calibrated against tide gauges (not sure how a model calibrated against a linear trend gets a parabolic output though, some kind of special climate magic perhaps)

What we need to keep an eye on is those that say SLR is accelerating because they compare tide gauge data with one period with satellite data from another

The Ministry for Environment have done this in one report, but in another they claim no acceleration

Andy
Guest
Andy

CCRU on TVOne News tonight Sat 5th Sept 6pm

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

And on air temperature level lunacy…….. Reporting Climate Science: RSS Data, August 2015 The August atmospheric temperature data, showing yet again that atmospheric temperatures in 2015 set no records and are below those reported in 1998 and other years, is likely to contrast with the surface temperature data for August 2015 that will be reported by US space agency NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NASA and NOAA both reported that July 2015 was the warmest July on record – making it the warmest month ever reported. Gap Recently, NASA and NOAA have jointly adopted a new way of analysing surface temperatures at sea which has had the result of increasing the apparent warming seen in recent years. This has widened the gap between the global average surface temperature measurements reported by NASA and NOAA and the global average atmospheric temperature measurements reported separately by RSS and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). Differences between the two methods of measuring global temperature are to be expected but the size of the gap that has opened up between the surface temperature measurement history and the atmospheric temperature measurement history… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Bishop Hill on the NASA/NOAA – RSS/UAH discrepancy:

Temperature questions

The current El Nino is rousing our green friends into a frenzy as they anticipate all the lurid headlines they will be able to generate at Paris (this is, admittedly, before the year is actually finished, but that has never been much of a concern to the tree hugger).

But questions keep naggging away. If surface temperatures are blipping upwards, why does the pause continue in the satellite record? That’s what happened in the 1998 super El Nino.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/9/5/temperature-questions.html

Not forgetting that according to Foster and Rahmstorf (2011), as cited by IPCC AR5 Chapter 10, the 2015 El Nino variability should be removed from the GMST series.

Oh what a tangled web……

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”CO2-forced Global Climate Models then, are perpetual‐motion machines of the second kind (PMM2).” Been noted at Bishop Hill too: Sep 5, 2015 at 8:50 AM | Unregistered Commenter NCC 1701E The world is cooling as we enter the new little Ice Age, and is accelerating. It’s to do with the end of SC 24: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/09/04/re-evaluating-the-role-of-solar-variability-on-the-norhern-hemisphere-temperature-trends-since-the-19th-century/ CO2-AGW is very near zero; you can easily show why. The problem with IPCC pseudoscience is that researchers have, apparently for over 50 years, been taught subtly incorrect physics, including claiming the S-B equation predicts a real energy flux, when it is the exitance of the emitter, potential EM energy flux in a vacuum to a radiation sink at absolute zero. In reality, the atmosphere radiates back, offsetting all self-absorbed GHG band surface IR emission.They also transpose emittance, an old term for the SI unit exitance, for emissivity. See units 19.1 and 19.2 in this MIT Thermodynamics course: http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/notes.html They cannot communicate with standard physics’-based disciplines in this key area. This leads to IPCC researchers being convinced they are right in creating a Perpetual Motion Machine of the 2nd kind in the modelling, originally GISS claiming non existent… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

Paper on SLR
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10651-014-0293-4

Using recently developed methods for nonstationary time series, we find that sea levels rose in 7 % of tide gauge locations and fell in 4 %. The global mean increase is 0.39–1.03 mm/year. However, the mean increase for locations where sea levels are rising is 3.55–4.42 mm/year. These findings are much lower than estimates of global sea level (2.2 mm/year) reported in the literature and adopted by IPCC

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

That one slipped under the radar Andy. Beenstock rings bell though. The full paper is here: TIDE GAUGE LOCATION AND THE MEASUREMENT OF GLOBAL SEA LEVEL RISE Michael Beenstock, Daniel Felsenstein, Eyal Frank, Yaniv Reingewertz (2015) http://pluto.huji.ac.il/~msdfels/pdf/Tide%20gauge%20%20location.pdf 5. Discussion Finally, sea level rise (or fall) is local rather than global and is concentrated in the southern Baltic, the Ring of Fire, and the Atlantic coast of the US. By contrast the north-west Pacific coast and north-east coast of India are characterized by sea level fall. In the minority of locations where sea levels are rising the mean increase is 3.55 – 4.24 mm/year, and in some locations it is as large as 9 mm/year. The fact that sea level rise is not global should not detract from its importance in those parts of the world where it is a serious problem. Appendix 1: Data Data for Map2 The data on satellite altimetry reported in Map 2 is obtained using the gridded, multi-mission Ssalto/Duacs data since 1993 available on the AVISO website. Map 2: Global SLR using satellite altimetry data for 1993 – 2010 # # # The AVISO map is the one I’ve… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Beenstock et al intro page 5 pdf:

“Three important conclusions follow from these results. First, the tide gauge data in PSMSL may be used to obtain unbiased estimates of global sea level rise without the need for data reconstruction or imputation. Second, there is no evidence from PSMSL of global sea level rise. In most locations sea levels are stable. In a minority of locations sea levels are rising, and in a smaller minority sea levels are falling. Third, the claim that sea levels are rising globally (IPCC 2013) is an artifact induced by the use of imputed data.”

No evidence from PSMSL of global sea level rise?

I don’t recall reading that headline anywhere.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Beenstock et al page 8 pdf:

2. Methodology
2.1 Testing Nonstationarity

“In principle, we think that the burden of proof falls upon those claiming that sea levels are rising, in which case the appropriate test is KPSS. On the other hand, the belief that sea levels are rising has become so widespread (IPCC 2013), that the burden of proof may have shifted onto those claiming that sea levels are not rising, in which case the appropriate test would be ADF. We use both tests. In any case, if ADF tests reject the hypothesis that sea levels are rising, and KPSS tests cannot reject the hypothesis that sea levels are not rising, this naturally increases confidence in the claim that sea levels are not rising.”

In other words, the IPCC have usurped principle.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Beenstock et al page 18 pdf

4. Results
4.1 Classification of Tide Gauges

Table 1: KPSS Classification of Tide Gauges and Segments by SLR
Tide Gauges
SLR = 0, SLR > 0, SLR < 0
610, 349, 41

# # #

651 out of 1000 tide guages had SLR equal to or less than 0 i.e. 349 tide guages skew the global metric.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Beenstock et al page 19/20

“If SLR is accelerating, sea levels should be nonstationary in first differences, but stationary
in second differences. In none of the tide gauges and segments do the Dickey-Fuller and KPSS statistics support the accelerationist hypothesis.”

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”The AVISO map [Beenstock et al Appendix] is the one I’ve linked to many times. It illustrates clearly that SLR is not a global phenomenon and implies that anyone who applies global criteria [read – IPCC RCP scenarios] to a local situation is plain wrong.”

Beenstock et al 5. Discussion, page 31:

“While we find that sea levels are rising in 8 – 30 percent of tide gauge locations, SLR is not a global phenomenon.”

QED.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Beenstock rings bell though” I remember why now: ‘Global warming to become global cooling, claims expert’ GLOBAL warming is set to become global cooling this century, a leading analyst claimed yesterday. By John Ingham Professor Michael Beenstock said theories of climate change are wrong. He warned climatologists have misused statistics, leading them to the mistaken conclusion global warming is ­evidence of the greenhouse effect. He told London’s Cass Business School that the link between rising greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures is “spurious”, adding: “The greenhouse effect is an illusion.” The economics professor from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that just because greenhouse gases and temperatures have risen together does not mean they are linked. He claims that the real cause of ­rising temperatures is the sun, which he says is at its hottest for over 1,000 years but is “beginning to stabilise”. Professor Beenstock said: “If the sun’s heat continues to remain stable, and if carbon emissions continue to grow with the rate of growth of the world economy, global temperatures will fall by about 0.5C by 2050.” Citing predictions by climatologists in the 1970s of a new Ice Age, Professor… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

The Beenstock numbers seem to tally with what Niels Axel Morner has been saying all these years

Andy
Guest
Andy

Thomas at Hot Topic is fuming that our CCRU group got a prime time news slot last night

Takes “trolling” to a new level…

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Thomas at Hot Topic is fuming that our CCRU group got a prime time news slot last night” Thomas September 6, 2015 at 5:33 pm http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-age-of-resilience-starts-tonight/#comment-46742 OK, let’s ladle off the dross: Yes. Puke! A bunch of whingers moaning the fact that somebody has the audacity to actually spell out what the future holds for their coastal settlements. It is a travesty that grown up people believe they can hold back the inevitable with legal wrangling. Dead wrong. RCP8.5 is a GLOBAL scenario. As Beenstock et al (2015) and AVISO above demonstrate (and Beenstock et al state explicitly), SLR rise is NOT a global phenomenon therefore the IPCC scenarios should NOT be applied at a local level. They have been by CCC so legal wrangling is inevitable. …the physics of climate change clearly spells out that their land is doomed, some sooner, some later. The council does not have the liberty to deny climate science, they would be held liable if they did. Dead wrong, again. The “physics” of man-made climate change is merely THEORETICAL certainly unproven. Worse, as demonstrated upthread and noted elsewhere (see quote upthread) the theory violates the laws of… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

Actually the TVOne piece has got nothing to do with me and nothing to do with anyone “denying” science.
It is all about property rights and democratic process that hasn’t been fully worked out.

Of course, if you are a person that spent $700k on an insurance rebuild and were then told your property is not insurable and you can’t get a mortgage, and you have spent 5 years battling insurance and EQC to the point of almost mental breakdown (of which I know examples), then you are just a “whinger”.

It’s really great to see such compassion

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”It’s really great to see such compassion”

Recite Thomas’ “Puke! A bunch of whingers moaning” hate speech to a CCRU meeting and I think Thomas would learn something of his ancestry that he was unaware of..

Andy
Guest
Andy

The CCRU meeting this time last week had a woman burst into tears describing her story in front of 250 people

I am glad I was away from ChCh for 3 years and recharged my batteries so I at least have a bit of fight in me. Many are just over it and want to leave

Andy
Guest
Andy

Chrstchurch City Councillor Paul Lonsdale interviewed on NewstalkZB

(audio)
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings/audio/paul-lonsdale-9-september/

Andy
Guest
Andy

By the way, I sat next to Paul Lonsdale (audio above) during the Anthropocene Challenge lecture I attended last week (featuring Dave Frame and some french communist women – to be broadcast on Radio NZ later this year)

Andy
Guest
Andy

Article in NZCPR newsletter about the Christchurch situation

http://www.nzcpr.com/newsletter/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘The Legal Implications of Sea Level Rise in Washington’ Erin Crisman-Glass, Attorney at Law http://cses.washington.edu/cig/files/waccia/chrismanglassfinaldraft.pdf 2. Governing Legal Principles…………………………………………………………..18 2.1 The Public Trust Doctrine……………………………………………………18 2.2 The Law of Accretion and Erosion………………………………………… 20 2.3 Unconstitutional Takings……………………………………………………20 2.4 Substantive Due Process…………………………………………………….22 2.3. Unconstitutional Takings All state governments have the authority and responsibility to protect the public health, safety, and welfare under what is known as the state’s “police power.” Government regulation of property is a recognized and accepted exercise of the police power. But sometimes the government regulation goes too far and in so doing, unconstitutionally limits the use of private property. Both the United States Constitution and the Washington Constitution prohibit the taking of private property without the payment of just compensation.xxxiv Just compensation is the fair market value of the property when the taking occurs. The Washington Supreme Court’s takings analysis is set forth in the 1993 case of Guimont v. Clarke.xxxv Courts first consider whether mere enactment of the regulation constitutes a per se taking. Four types of government regulation can constitute a per se, categorical, takings:xxxvi (1) regulations that result in a total taking of all economically viable use of an… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Too funny. [moved to this thread from ‘If even one climate model was accurate’]

andyS September 5, 2015 at 11:34 am
http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-age-of-resilience-starts-tonight/#comment-46737

Thomas might like to elucidate as to why a linear trend of 1.7mm per year at Lyttelton for the entire 20th C has anything to do with CO2 emissions.

Thomas September 5, 2015 at 6:56 pm

I don’t need to Andy, the literature on SLR is speaking for itself.
For a comprehensive analysis of SLR data for NZ, as posted before, this is a good link:
Linz SLR review..

andyS September 5, 2015 at 6:58 pm

Your link merely supports what I said.

Not very helpful really

# # #

Page 2 of the “Linz SLR review”:

•Globally distributed tide gauge data
•Average since 1880 : +1.7 ± 0.3mm/yr

Although on page 7

Relative Sea Level trends – New Zealand
Average: +1.7 mm/yr
Lyttelton Vel: +1.9 +-0.1mm/yr

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Too funny.”

Now Thomas is elucidating the case against IPCC SLR scenarios:

andyS September 9, 2015 at 9:54 am
http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-age-of-resilience-starts-tonight/#comment-46761

[Quoting nigwil] “Regardless of what the report says, the sea is going to rise, probably by as much as 2 to 5 metres by 2100”

Meanwhile, the Lyttelton tide gauge chugs along at 1.7 mm per year.

Thomas September 9, 2015 at 7:42 pm

… in line with expectations for the local area for the average over a long time period.

# # #

Thomas’ odd propensity, already proven here at CCG (search “outed himself”), is to inadvertently end up agreeing with an argument he opposes.

It’s as if he’s in an internal struggle, rational science vs ideological science, where rational wins out eventually because he can only suppress it for so long. He then has to internally deny or ignore the loss in order to continue his external ideological science argument.

Fascinating case for a psychoanalyst I would have thought.

Andy
Guest
Andy

yes he seems upset that the taxpayer (i.e him) might have to bail people out if the seas wash them away

Actually the Christchurch issue is all about due process and appropriate consultation with the public., not about science.

There was only one councillor (David East) who voted against the proposed plan, but we have a new convert, Paul Lonsdale, who is on our side

Everyone is pushing for this to become a national issue, which makes some sense, but it will put a very large spotlight on the government and the science, and some might find this uncomfortable.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>All state governments have the authority and responsibility to protect the public health, safety, and welfare under what is known as the state’s “police power.” [‘The Legal Implications of Sea Level Rise in Washington’] Man of Thessaly on August 24, 2015 at 10:10 pm said: https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2015/08/fatal-deficiencies-destroy-scientific-case-for-climate-catastrophe/comment-page-2/#comment-1356129 Their [CCC] motives, like yours, are reasonable – to do due diligence in planning with the best information available; to manage future liability; to obey the law Thomas September 6, 2015 at 5:33 pm said http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-age-of-resilience-starts-tonight/#comment-46742 The [CCC] council does not have the liberty to deny climate science, they would be held liable if they did. These are two highly simplistic, ignorant, and demonstrably wrong perspectives just in respect to SLR (the man-made acceleration conjecture in particular) as can be seen from the Washington legal implications essay above. But the legal issues take a quantum leap in respect to the wider climate change scope (again, the man-made conjecture in particular) as can be seen in the following essay (unabridged due to its import in entirety): ‘The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands’ Posted on September 9, 2015 | by Lukas Bergkamp http://judithcurry.com/2015/09/09/the-urgenda-ruling-in-the-netherlands/#more-19887 Introduction The Dutch government has decided… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

[Man of Thessaly] – “Their [CCC] motives, like yours, are reasonable – to do due diligence in planning with the best information available; to manage future liability; to obey the law”

[Thomas] – “The [CCC] council does not have the liberty to deny climate science, they would be held liable if they did.”

[Bergkamp] – “….the State may be liable based on the doctrine of “unlawful adjudication.” This doctrine provides a cause of action against judgments that violate fundamental principles of law or reflect a serious neglect of the judiciary’s task.”

The CCC, in effect, are undertaking an “adjudication”. The obvious legal challenge irrespective of science is: is it lawful?

I doubt Thomas could ever grasp the nuance but Man of Thessaly might.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

[Thomas] – “The [CCC] council does not have the liberty to deny climate science, they would be held liable if they did.”

[Bergkamp] – “science cannot prescribe laws”

Andy
Guest
Andy

Applying “climate science” apparently means taking the worst case scenario in RCP 8.5 and applying that as public policy for local planning regulations with regard to coastal inundation

This is especially worrisome as the RCP models were never designed as public policy instruments, as explicitly stated on the RCP website

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Applying “climate science” apparently means taking the worst case scenario in RCP 8.5 and applying that as public policy for local planning regulations with regard to coastal inundation” Exactly Andy. Except as Bergkamp puts it, “science cannot prescribe laws”, Not that RCP8.5 is “science” – it’s not, it’s a “scenario” which just makes it all worse (see below)). This was what I was getting at with the CCC, in effect, undertaking an “adjudication” i.e. firstly, they are making an adjudication that RCP8.5 defines the future which in the first instance is unlawful on the face of it in any event, irrespective of the scenario (see below). Secondly, it follows that they have enacted their adjudication in the form of ordinance regulations unlawfully too. At State level (e.g. NZ), Acts are Laws and Regulations are the practical implementation of Acts. The municipal government equivalent is Ordinances and Regulations. See: Difference between Law and Ordinance Ordinances are laws that are passed by lower-level jurisdictions in a country such as municipal government. The municipal governments include city, town, village, borough and county governments. Municipal governments have been provided with the power to enact laws through a… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

My entire submission to CCC was short but based on the inappropriateness of using RCP scenarios for public policy, simply because the RCP website has a big fat disclaimer on it to this purpose

I could create a scenario where I drink a bottle of scotch everyday.
It is tempting sometimes, given the world we live in, but I don’t

I certainly wouldn’t base my healthcare projections based on the assumption that everyone is going to guzzle a bottle of Johnny Walker every day.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”1. When will the acceleration begin?”

It was supposed to have begun in 1990 according to the IPCC’s baseline of the average of 1980 – 1999 centred on 1990. Note that an acceleration would track a little lower than the rough approximation of a 50 yr linear trend out to the 2040 target but MUCH lower than a 100 yr linear approximation to the 2090 target i.e. the linear approximation and the acceleration converge at the 2090 target but the acceleration turns up to it from below.

The speculated acceleration should be discernible above the historical rate by now though, 25 years later.

The 1990 IPCC baseline was the stipulation that Dr Jan Wright neglected in her SLR report. At least Tonkin & Taylor stipulate the baseline in their WCC report (can’t remember their CCC report exactly but I think in that too).

Be interesting to see nigwil’s when, and why.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Note that an acceleration would track a little lower than the rough approximation of a 50 yr linear trend out to the 2040 target but MUCH lower than a 100 yr linear approximation to the 2090 target” In respect to RCP8.5 (basically an acceleration) but not RCP2.6 (basically linear). See both IPCC figures in this SkS post: http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-to-make-sense-of-alarming-sea-level-rise-forecasts.html Fig 13.27 shows the difference in RCP curves. Also shows how absurd is nigwil’s “sea is going to rise, probably by as much as 2 to 5 metres by 2100”. SkS state in respect to Fig 13.3e, “Sea level has accelerated”. Actually the IPCC state in AR5 Chapter 13:: 13.2.2.1 The Tide Gauge Record (~1700–2012) Page 1150 Section 3.7 also concludes that it is likely that the rate of sea level rise increased from the 19th century to the 20th century. Taking this evidence in conjunction with the proxy evidence for a change of rate (Sections 5.6.3 and 13.2.1; Figure 13.3b), there is high confidence that the rate of sea level rise has increased during the last two centuries, and it is likely that GMSL has accelerated since the early 1900’s. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf All the IPCC… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

From SkS link

What we’re pretty sure about
According the to the IPCC sea level rise has accelerated from 0.05 cm each year during 1700-1900 to 0.32 cm each year during 1993-2010. Over the next century the IPCC expects an average rise of 0.2 to 0.8 cm each

.

Pretty sure they are comparing satellite data to tide gauge data there.

Secondly, if SLR accelerated mid 19th Century as the IPCC claim, why does Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution only state that warming post 1950 is likely due to anthropogenic forcing?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Secondly, if SLR accelerated mid 19th Century as the IPCC claim, why does Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution only state that warming post 1950 is likely due to anthropogenic forcing?”

Because………SLR causes anthropogenic forcing?

Andy
Guest
Andy

The IPCC link from SkS is here
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/cop19/3_gregory13sbsta.pdf

Looks like a complete crock to me. Where to begin?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Where to begin?”

1) Obvious from Fig 13.27 and 13.3e that the SLR uptick was mid-1800s, well before the 1950 anthro attribution date i.e. SLR is unconnected with CO2 emissions.

2) The RCP CO2 scenario-based predictions were based on a 1990 base (20 year 1980 – 1999 average) i.e. these statements can be tested but the baseline has moved:

“A likely range of GMSLR for 2081–2100 compared with 1986–2005, depending on emissions (0.40 [0.26–0.55] m for RCP2.6, 0.63 [0.45–0.82] m for RCP8.5), can be projected with medium confidence”

“It is virtually certain that global mean sea level rise will continue for many centuries beyond 2100, with the amount of rise dependent on future emissions.”

Note the baseline has changed here. 1986–2005 is average of 20 years centred on 1996 i.e they’ve moved the start 6 years on from 1990. 1996 – 2090 (2081 – 2100) is 94 years – not 100 years.

The sea level “rise dependent on future emissions” is not evident at 2015, let alone 2040, 2090, 2100, and beyond 2100.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Gregory, AR5 Chapter 13:

“It is very likely that sea level will rise in more than about 95% of the ocean area. About 70% of the coastlines worldwide are projected to experience sea level change within 20% of the global mean sea level change.”

Beenstock et al 5. Discussion, page 31:

“While we find that sea levels are rising in 8 – 30 percent of tide gauge locations, SLR is not a global phenomenon.”

Andy
Guest
Andy

We have Matthew Hughes from Canterbury University doing a talk on SLR in a couple of weeks time, in Sumner

I expect I’ll have a few questions

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”But to preserve my remarks [at Hot Topic] in case they’ve been accidentally swept under the carpet, er, I mean lost, ….”

Or, as it turns out, deleted entirely.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Christchurch Council’s flawed data for sea level rise
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2015/11/christchurch_councils_flawed_data_for_sea_level_rise.html

(Links to Press article about Simon Arnold report)

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“[Arnold] also pointed the city council towards a report written this year by retired principal Environment Court judge Joan Allin, which criticised how coastal risks were increasingly over-estimated.”

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/73727512/expert-calls-on-council-to-abandon-climate-hazard-searise-report

CCC and T&T in face-saving mode of course.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Good news on sea level lunacy: ‘An Outbreak Of Sanity Down Under’ Written by Dr. Benny Peiser, GWPF, guest post on 13 November 2015. The Australian is reporting that the New South Wales government has suddenly come over all sensible on the subject of sea-level rise. This is of course precisely the approach recommended by Carter and de Lange in their GWPF report on the subject. –Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, 13 November 2015 The NSW government will today unveil sweeping changes to how the state’s coastline is managed, building on its insistence that local councils look at the science and evidence of individual beaches rather than blindly adopting UN predictions of climate change. Planning Minister Rob Stokes will announce what he says are world-first strategies that treat the 2007km NSW coast not as static fixed geography but as a constantly changing and evolving phenomenon. The initiatives mark the second phase of the Coalition government’s demolition of the previous Labor government’s policy, which among other things directed local councils on the coast to enforce the climate change and sea level rise predictions of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. –Ean Higgins, The Australian,… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Just read Dr Jan Wright’s latest SLR report: ‘Preparing New Zealand for rising seas: Certainty and Uncertainty’ http://www.pce.parliament.nz/media/1380/preparing-nz-for-rising-seas-web-small.pdf Seems to be tempered by experience with the Kapiti and Christchurch CRU’s. Still in respect to IPCC projections i.e. no mention of local historical rates of rise as base metrics and the need to regularly monitor projections vs observations. And the baseline has changed apparently (was 1990, ave 1980 – 1999): 8.3 Projections of sea level rise In its latest report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presented projections of sea level rise under four different scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions. Each projection is presented as a trajectory with a best estimate, a lower and an upper limit out to 2100. The projections are relatively consistent for several decades, but then increasingly diverge. How should such projections of sea level rise be incorporated into direction and guidance for councils? There are a number of aspects to this, including the following. First, the base year must be clear. In its 2013 report, the IPCC averaged mean global sea levels between 1986 and 2005 for use as a baseline. […] Recommendation to the Minister for the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”First, the base year must be clear”

So why didn’t Wright stipulate one in her last report?

Or has she leaned from reading CCG criticisms?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Interesting how Wright spins up her report in the press conference. She has to, it is rather mundane.

Bill English unperturbed:

‘Bill English rejects call to budget for the costs of sea level rises’

“pretty speculative”

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/74206646/bil-english-rejects-call-to-budget-for-the-costs-of-sea-level-rises

In other words, no traction despite spin:

‘Sea level planning not up to scratch in New Zealand – environment watchdog’

Thousands of homes and billions of dollars worth of coastal infrastructure may need to be abandoned and the country needs to overhaul the way it prepares for sea level rise, Parliament’s environmental watchdog says.

Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Jan Wright has released a major new report on the effect of sea level rise, saying government needs to do more, and in an unusual move for her office, warned the minister of finance about what it might cost.

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/sport/rugby/hes-not-retiring-is-he-steve-hansen-asks-andrew-saville-if-calling-it-quits-too.html

Yes, “pretty speculative”.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Note that the Wright report now drops the “locked in” claims about future SLR.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“Continuing sea level rise is not something that might happen – it is already happening, will accelerate, and will continue for the indefinite future,” Dr Wright said.

English says threat ‘speculative’ and impact uncertain.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11548147

We know it is already happening at natural rates. It’s the “speculative” (Bill English) “will accelerate” (Wright) that’s problematic.

It should already be accelerating Dr Wright – it isn’t around NZ.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Note that the Wright report now drops the “locked in” claims about future SLR.”

In the report SLR is still RCP-induced by whatever option which implies locked-in. And in the press conference she is adamant, see “will accelerate” in comment above. Wright still couches SLR in terms of one of the RCP scenarios in the report. She is asking govt to decide which one.

The default SLR scenario is historical rate of rise. Only when it is determined that there is actually an acceleration in any NZ tide guage data does the question of which RCP scenario arise. No acceleration – no RCP question.

Wright is getting ahead of herself.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Christchurch City Council are still pushing ahead with their agenda of no development on the East despite the coastal hazards being dropped from the district plan.

There is some talk of Tonkin and Taylor being “peer reviewed’ again.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Welsh village to sue government over ‘alarmist’ rising sea level claim’

February 12, 2016 By Paul Homewood

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/02/12/welsh-village-to-sue-government-over-alarmist-rising-sea-level-claim/

Andy
Guest
Andy

We (CCRU) have got a busy week ahead with the hearings panel on the coastal hazards on three days.
Several of us are working to present and cross examine witnesses during the hearings, which are from 24-26th Feb.

Our main line of argument will be around the one metre sea level rise assumptions and how they fit with MfE policy guidance

Andy
Guest
Andy

Richard, thanks for your interest. I might circulate some stuff via email tomorrow

Andy
Guest
Andy

It does seem rather unjust that we are having to defend ourselves against the onslaught of junk science and junk policy in this way on the 5th anniversary of the Feb 2011 earthquake.

They really don’t care about the citizens, that is clear.

Simon
Guest
Simon

Some new papers on sea level rise came out this week. The results seem consistent with previous work. The uncertainty is in what emissions scenario we end up on.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/02/millennia-of-sea-level-change/
Maybe you should be concentrating your efforts into lobbying the Government to reduce greenhouse emissions and encouraging other Governments to do the same?

Andy
Guest
Andy

I am concentrating my efforts on getting a fair outcome for Christchurch residents who are set to lose equity over unfair and inconsistent policy

I have little time for people telling me what to do, right now, having spent quite a bit of time on this.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Simon.

>”The uncertainty is in what emissions scenario we end up on.”

The primary uncertainty is of ANY greenhouse gas scenario actually being realistic, let alone which one. NONE are evident since the IPCC’s 1990 baseline. Andy is grappling with the CCC’s application of worst-case RCP8.5. Crazy if least-case is not happening.

Environment Commissioner Jan Wright’s inept prediction scenario applied to Wellington Harbour historical data appears in the following link:

Commissioner Wright’s wrong – Part 1
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/12/commissioner-wrights-wrong-part-1/

Historical record of sea level at Wellington. Red line shows projection issued by IPCC and echoed uncritically by Commissioner Wright. Shows the outlandish acceleration needed to meet the IPCC’s guess.comment image

Richard T has the caption wrong. The Red line is as per Wright’s report. But Wright was wrong. The IPCC’s baseline is the 1980-1999 average nominally centred on 1990 – NOT the date of Wright’s report at end of 2014. Wright failed to stipulate the correct baseline.

In any event, it is obvious that no greenhouse gas scenario is realistic. Even a middle estimate of 300mm rise 1990 to 2050 (“20 – 30cms” as per Wright) is not playing out. A natural 150mm rise by 2050 is realistic however.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Variation of 50-Year Mean Sea Level Trends

Linear mean sea level trends were calculated in overlapping 50-year increments for stations with sufficient historical data. The variability of each 50-year trend, with 95% confidence interval, is plotted against the mid-year of each 50-year period. The solid horizontal line represents the linear mean sea level trend using the entire period of record.

690-022 Lyttelton II, New Zealand
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/global_50yr.htm?stnid=690-022

# # #

Goodbye greenhouse gas scenarios.

Andy
Guest
Andy

One of the key issues is the guidance from MfE to plan for 0.5m of SLR over a 100 year timeframe, and the adoption of a one metre policy by CCC and most other local bodies.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Goodbye greenhouse gas scenarios.”

Auckland is more telling:

Variation of 50-Year Mean Sea Level Trends 690-002 Auckland II, New Zealand
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/global_50yr.htm?stnid=690-002

Sydney even better:

Variation of 50-Year Mean Sea Level Trends 680-140 Sydney, Fort Denison 1 & 2, Australia
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/global_50yr.htm?stnid=680-140

At 1950 the 1925-1975 50 yr trend for Sydney was 1.60 mm/yr.
At 1985 the 1960-2010 50 yr trend for Sydney was 0.78 mm/yr

In the “greenhouse gas” era, the rate fell by half.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”One of the key issues is the guidance from MfE to plan for 0.5m of SLR over a 100 year timeframe, and the adoption of a one metre policy by CCC and most other local bodies.” It will be interesting to know how the worst-case one metre policy is justified by CCC (or not). Re MfE’s 0.5m but in respect to Lyttelton II data upthread. The 1940 – 1990 50 yr trend centred on 1965 got up to 3 mm/yr (0.3 m/century). It fell back subsequently but shows that natural SLR of 0.3 m/century cannot be excluded from consideration. An extra 0.2m to allow for a GHG scenario seems unrealistic at this juncture (but see below) but it’s not onerous. An extra 0.7m is onerous and unjustified. Point is, SLR needs 5 year reviews which North Carolina have adopted. This is effectively what NOAA have done for the ‘Variation of 50-Year Mean Sea Level Trends’ posted upthread. Those are 50 yr trends for every 5 yr increment in time. Unfortunately Lyttelton II does not have good quality data, but Sydney (Fort Denison) does ans so does Auckland (according to NOAA). So to my… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”So to my mind, ongoing 5 yr reviews, data vs prediction, are the first priority for policy guidance.”

Given 1990 is the IPCC’s base year, a review process starts 1995, then 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020 etc.

Obviously not being carried out but easy to do in retrospect to catch up. I’m talking both absolute rise and trends. What would CCC say about that I wonder?

Andy
Guest
Simon
Guest
Simon

A 50cm rise this century is probably good guidance. 0.5m SLR is a mean and there is a probability of higher sea level rise than that, especially if CO2 emissions continue to rise. There will be storm surges and occasions where the water will be considerably higher again.
I would hope that the Christchurch council plan for a city that is going to last longer than 100 years.
Any coastal building less than 1m above sea level is probably uninsurable already.
I hope the hearing goes well for you, it would be a shame to see you becoming an early refugee of climate change.

Andy
Guest
Andy

I am leaving ChCh anyway, so I am just working for the community

I can’t see any future for Christchurch. The council seem determined to drive us out. I was leaving anyway, but others are following

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”0.5m SLR is a mean”

A mid range of guesses. Doesn’t make it real. Least-case is not exhibiting after 25 years of prediction

>”and there is a probability of higher sea level rise than that, especially if CO2 emissions continue to rise”

Not if CO2 least-case isn’t happening it isn’t. And it isn’t happening around NZ at least, look at the NZ tide-guage data Simon. But then, you warmies aren’t interested in reality are you?

As above, In the “CO2 emissions” era, the long-running Sydney 50 yr rate has fallen by half i.e. there is no relationship between CO2 emissions and SLR. The Lyttelton II rate has fallen too.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Andy appears to be a refugee from bureaucratic nightmares. I don’t see how that makes him a climate change refugee.

If anything, where he is moving to has a more extreme climate than what he is leaving. In other words, his refuge IS climate change.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Here is some alarmist claptrap from the NYT”

Sheer drivel. Rahmstorf a go-to co-author. Just highlights the fallacy of applying a meaningless, and obviously misleading, “global” average to local situations:

“In the second study, scientists reconstructed the level of the sea over time and confirmed that it is most likely rising faster than at any point in 28 centuries, with the rate of increase growing sharply over the past century — largely, they found, because of the warming that scientists have said is almost certainly caused by human emissions.

Completely untrue in respect to Sydney, Auckland, and Lyttelton data from NOAA upthread, just in the past century of data.

Andy
Guest
Andy

“If anything, where he is moving to has a more extreme climate than what he is leaving. In other words, his refuge IS climate change”

That is true. Our new house build has additional costs due to compliance with wind and snow loading.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

NYT on the Rahmstorf paper: “scientists ….[found]…the rate of [sea level] increase growing sharply over the past century — largely, they found, because of the warming that scientists have said is almost certainly caused by human emissions.” But the rate of increase is NOT “growing sharply” in local tide guage records. For example, Sydney from upthread: Variation of 50-Year Mean Sea Level Trends 680-140 Sydney, Fort Denison 1 & 2, Australia http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/global_50yr.htm?stnid=680-140 At 1950 the 1925-1975 50 yr trend for Sydney was 1.60 mm/yr. At 1985 the 1960-2010 50 yr trend for Sydney was 0.78 mm/yr In the “human emissions” era, the rate FELL by half. There is no human emissions/SLR cause/effect contrary to the “scientists” tortured conclusions e.g. Rahmstorf: “I think we can definitely be confident that sea-level rise is going to continue to accelerate if there’s further warming, which inevitably there will be,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, Big stretch Stefan. First there’s no “acceleration” in the tide guage data at local level. A deceleration is more characteristic. Second, “warming” has yet to be proven to be CO2-forced, let alone by human emissions. The IPCC concedes 21st century temperature is not conforming to… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

Reading some of the evidence in the hearings, I see that 3400 vacant lots are in the “high hazard” zones.

Since these are being rendered effectively worthless, under the plan, that gives, as a back of the envelope calculation, (at $200K per section) approx $680 million of private equity the council are writing off.

With no compensation, at all.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

What happens to the land Andy? Does the council take possession of it as a matter of course?

So they can turn it into a water theme park with water slides. Paid for by the ratepayers and an admission charge to cover costs. Perhaps a wetlands eco-park tourist attraction. With a re-claimed area set aside for on-site hotel accommodation (sea views too). Special platform to watch the sea level rising.

So much potential for free land.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Sea Level Rise: Just The Facts’ By Ron Clutz The three most mentioned evils of rising CO2 are Rising Temperatures, Declining Sea Ice and Rising Sea Levels. Plateaus presently appearing in the first two have been discussed a lot here and elsewhere. This post gives what you need to know about Sea Level alarms. Sea level rise (according to NASA) Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century. Dave Burton takes us underneath the hype and exposes the facts. Below is his post originally at Tom Fuller’s website. David Burton puts it all in perspective from his location on the coast of North Carolina. Much more info on sea levels is available at Dave’s own website linked below. [see link following] Sea-level rise is not accelerating, and has not accelerated since the 1920s. There are about sixty good-quality, 100+ year records of sea-level around the world, and they all show the same thing: there has been no statistically significant acceleration (increase) in the rate of sea-level rise in the last 85 years or… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

For the record.

Fort Denison Australia
comment image

Variation of 50-Year Mean Sea Level Trends 680-140 Sydney, Fort Denison 1 & 2, Australia
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/global_50yr.htm?stnid=680-140

Wismar Germany
comment image

Variation of 50-Year Mean Sea Level Trends 120-022 Wismar, Germany
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/global_50yr.htm?stnid=120-022

# # #

What Stefan Rahmstorf would rather nobody knew, and probably doesn’t know himself. And he’s at PIK, in Germany.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘New Zealand 20th century sea level rise: Resolving the vertical land motion using space geodetic and geological data’ Abdelali Fadil, Paul Denys, Robert Tenzer, Hugh R. Grenfel, and Pascal Willis Published 15 November 2013. Table 1. New Zealand Relative Sea Level (RSL) Estimates From Tide Gauge (TG) and Salt-Marsh (SM) Records Table 3. Rates of Relative Sea Level Change at Tide Gauges and Salt-Marsh Sites Derived From (i) Geological, GPS, and Advanced Altimeter-Gauge (ALT-TGADV) Vertical Land Motion Estimates at Tide Gauges Sites and From (ii) Geological and GPS Vertical Land Motion Estimates at Salt-Marsh Sites Figure 4. Monthly mean relative sea level (in black) used in this study at Whangarei (UHSLC), Auckland (LINZ), Moturiki (NIWA), New Plymouth (UHSLC), Wellington (LINZ), Nelson (UHSLC), Lyttelton (LINZ), Timaru (UHSLC), Dunedin (LINZ), and Bluff (UHSLC). Annual mean relative sea level (in gray) as retrieved from PSMSL archive and used by Ostanciaux et al. [2012] to estimate vertical land motion rates at New Zealand tide gauges using the classical altimeter-gauge approach. Arbitrary offsets have been applied for clarity. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JC008867/pdf # # # Includes Moturiki (1949–2011) and Lyttelton (1901–2011). Moturiki is line-of-sight from the lounge window of Gareth Morgan’s… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

It has been an interesting and educational day at the hearings panel. I probably shouldn’t report on it as the session has 2 days to run.

Andy
Guest
Andy

I’ll report back asap. It’s been a long day bowing to judges, plus it’s my birthday.

Please feel free to “hip hip horaay” in the meantime ..

PS think the judge “gets it”, but we’ll see.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Been looking through the Mengel et al paper that has Simon and Stefan Rahmstorf all fizzed up. That’s this: Future sea level rise constrained by observations and long-term commitment’ Matthias Mengel, Anders Levermann, Katja Frieler, Alexander Robinson, Ben Marzeion, and Ricarda Winkelmann http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/02/17/1500515113.full More sea level lunacy. They might have looked around for some actual observations (long-running tide guages around the planet) with which to constrain their model but no. And they don’t seem to be able to appreciate that oceans are not a globally averaged homogeneous mass; that there are major basins with differing temperature and heat characteristics. And that each basin differs by latitude, grid cell, etc. Professor Dr. Nils-Axel Morner describes the paper thus: “The PNAS paper is another sad contribution to the demagogic anti-science campaign for AGW. It is at odds with observational facts and ethical principles,” Morner noted: – global tide gauges show moderate mean rates – many key sites and test sites show little or no rise at all – nowhere do we find records of true “acceleration” – satellite altimetry show a mean rise of 0.5 ±0.1 mm/yr after back-callibration – past sea level oscillations have… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”It’s been a long day bowing to judges, plus it’s my birthday.”

Heh, and Hooray.

Andy
Guest
Andy

End of another long day at the hearings. I did a brain dump on RCP8.5 which forced a recession and reconvene after lunch. They appreciated and thanked me for my considered views. I think overall the hearings are going well and that the panel might intervene on the sea level issue.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Is sea level rise accelerating?’ February 23, 2016 | by Judith Curry […] Other recent papers that I’ve collected on the topic: Coastal planning should be based on proven sea level data, by Parker and Ollier http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569116300205 Highlights: The network of tide gauges provides the only information of value for costal planning. The worldwide naïve average of sea level is +0.24 mm/year with no acceleration. The climate models have crucial flaws making them useless. Planning schemes must only reflect the proven local and global historical data. […] JC reflections So, what to make of all this? Sea level rise is the main ‘danger’ from human caused climate change (any increase in extreme weather events is hypothesized rather demonstrated using historical data, with possible exception of heat waves in a few regions). At a presentation that I made earlier this year to CEOs of small electric cooperatives, one participant was surprised by what I had to say about sea level rise – he hadn’t realized that there had been sea level rise prior to 1950. I.e., like ‘climate change’, all sea level rise has been sold as caused by humans. […] With regards to… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>” I did a brain dump on RCP8.5 which forced a recession and reconvene after lunch.”

A revelation for most I suspect, maybe a lie down too for a while. Judith Curry reports (from post linked above):

“At a presentation that I made earlier this year to CEOs of small electric cooperatives, one participant was surprised by what I had to say about sea level rise – he hadn’t realized that there had been sea level rise prior to 1950. I.e., like ‘climate change’, all sea level rise has been sold as caused by humans.”

Both past and future has been warped by all the climate change propaganda.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Even more sea level lunacy (in addition to Mengel et al upthread): ‘Temperature-driven global sea-level variability in the Common Era’ Robert E. Koppa, Andrew C. Kemp, Klaus Bittermanne, Benjamin P. Horton, Jeffrey P. Donnelly, W. Roland Gehrelj, Carling C. Haya, Jerry X. Mitrovica, Eric D. Morrow, and Stefan Rahmstorf Abstract We assess the relationship between temperature and global sea-level (GSL) variability over the Common Era through a statistical metaanalysis of proxy relative sea-level reconstructions and tide-gauge data. GSL rose at 0.1 ± 0.1 mm/y (2σ) over 0–700 CE. A GSL fall of 0.2 ± 0.2 mm/y over 1000–1400 CE is associated with ∼0.2 °C global mean cooling. A significant GSL acceleration began in the 19th century and yielded a 20th century rise that is extremely likely (probability P≥0.95 P≥0.95) faster than during any of the previous 27 centuries. A semiempirical model calibrated against the GSL reconstruction indicates that, in the absence of anthropogenic climate change, it is extremely likely (P=0.95 P=0.95) that 20th century GSL would have risen by less than 51% of the observed 13.8±1.5 13.8±1.5 cm. The new semiempirical model largely reconciles previous differences between semiempirical 21st century GSL projections and… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

” I did a brain dump on RCP8.5 which forced a recession and reconvene after lunch.”

A revelation for most I suspect, maybe a lie down too for a while. Judith Curry reports (from post linked above):

the judge thanked me for my considered opinion and also for the input of CCRU

I do feel better, today, about our democratic process and judicial system. It definitely helps to step away from the computer and engage in these processes, form time to time

Andy
Guest
Andy

As a result, the study authors found that due to the carbon pollution humans have emitted so far, we’ve committed the planet to an eventual sea level rise of 1.7 meters (5.5 feet). If we manage to stay within the 1 trillion ton carbon budget, which we hope will keep the planet below 2°C warming above pre-industrial levels, sea levels will nevertheless rise a total of about 9 meters (30 feet). If we continue on a fossil fuel-heavy path, we could trigger a staggering eventual 50 meters (165 feet) of sea level rise

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/24/earth-is-warming-is-50x-faster-than-when-it-comes-out-of-an-ice-age

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Andy re Guardian article, that’s Kopp et al linked three comments above with abstract. The title is:

‘Temperature-driven global sea-level variability in the Common Era’

Apparently SLR is “temperature-driven” from way back at the LIA. That component seems reasonable but they attribute all of it to humans and all SLR to that one component. Then they construct a “temperature-driven” SLR model and let it loose with predictable results – and media hype from Nuccitelli at the Guardian.

Nothing about thermosteric SLR as a result of solar change and ocean heat accumulation. And nothing in respect to all the individual long-running tide guages (see upthread) that don’t exhibit an “acceleration” contrary to Kopp et al’s gormless blather.

Post Navigation