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.

Hits: 372

153 Thoughts on “Sea level lunacy slammed by Sir Tipene

  1. Andy on 03/09/2015 at 6:51 am said:

    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.

  2. Alexander K on 03/09/2015 at 8:56 am said:

    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’.

  3. Andy on 03/09/2015 at 9:06 am said:

    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?

  4. Richard C (NZ) on 03/09/2015 at 9:43 am said:

    >”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] to a hot object [sfc]”

    To do so requires some added work such as the electric motor powering the pump of a refrigerator.

    Secondly, the assumption that LWIR is a surface heating agent is wrong. LWIR only penetrates the ocean surface by the thickness of a human hair, about 100 microns, in ideal conditions. In the tropics the heating effect of solar SWIR is measurable down to 19m (Fairall et al 1996) in ideal conditions. The actual surface effect of LWIR is the net of outgoing and downwelling which works out to be -52.4 W/m2 (398 – 345.6) as shown in the latest earth’s energy balance as cited by the IPCC in AR5 Chapter 2:

    Stephens et al Figure 1
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg

    That is a cooling effect, not a heating effect. Also clear from the energy budget that the theoretical GHG “forcing” of 1.9 W/m2 does not fit between the surface (0.6 W/m2) and TOA (0.6 W/m2).

    All up, man-made climate change theory is little more than chicanery:

    chicanery
    the use of deception or subterfuge to achieve one’s purpose.
    “storylines packed with political chicanery”

  5. Andy on 03/09/2015 at 9:45 am said:

    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.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on 03/09/2015 at 10:06 am said:

    >”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

  7. Andy on 03/09/2015 at 10:12 am said:

    ”So we have to offer up scary scenarios”

    Exactly,

    but not confuse them as facts

  8. Richard C (NZ) on 03/09/2015 at 12:41 pm said:

    >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.

    The second law also asserts that energy has a quality. Preserving the quality of energy is a
    major concern of engineers. In the above example, the energy stored in a hot container
    (higher temperature) has higher quality (ability to work) in comparison with the energy
    contained (at lower temperature) in the surroundings.

    The second law is also used in determining the theoretical limits for the performance of
    commonly used engineering systems, such as heat engines and refrigerators etc.

    Thermal Energy Reservoirs

    Thermal energy reservoirs are hypothetical bodies with a relatively large thermal energy
    capacity (mass x specific heat) that can supply or absorb finite amounts of heat without
    undergoing any change in temperature. Lakes, rivers, atmosphere, oceans are example of
    thermal reservoirs.

    A two‐phase system can be modeled as a reservoir since it can absorb and release large
    quantities of heat while remaining at constant temperature.

    A reservoir that supplies energy in the form of heat is called a source and one that absorbs
    energy in the form of heat is called a sink.

    The Second Law: Kelvin‐Planck Statement

    “It is impossible for any device that operates on a cycle to receive heat from a single
    reservoir and produce a net amount of work. In other words, no heat engine can have a
    thermal efficiency of 100%.”

    [see diagram]
    Fig.3: A heat engine that violates the Kelvin‐Planck statement of the second law cannot be
    built.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Clausius Statement

    “It is impossible to construct a device that operates in a cycle and produces no effect other
    than the transfer of heat from a lower‐temperature body to higher‐temperature body. In
    other words, a refrigerator will not operate unless its compressor is driven by an external
    power source.”

    Kelvin‐Planck and Clausius statements of the second law are negative statements, and a
    negative statement cannot be proved. So, the second law, like the first law, is based on
    experimental observations.

    The two statements of the second law are equivalent. In other words, any device violates
    the Kelvin‐Planck statement also violates the Clausius statement and vice versa.

    [see diagram]
    Fig. 5: The violation of the Kelvin‐Planck statement leads to violation of Clausius.

    Any device that violates the first law of thermodynamics (by creating energy) is called a
    perpetual‐motion machine of the first kind (PMM1), and the device that violates the
    second law is called a perpetual‐motion machine of the second kind (PMM2).

    More>>>>>>
    http://www.sfu.ca/~mbahrami/ENSC%20388/Notes/Second%20Law%20of%20Thermodynamics.pdf

    # # #

    Kelvin‐Planck alternative statement :

    “No heat engine can continuously convert all the heat it receives into work. That is, the work output will always be less than than the heat input due to the rejection of heat to a low-temperature sink.”

    In the case of planetary climate, the ultimate low-temperature sink is space. The atmosphere is between a high heat sink, the ocean, and a zero heat sink, space. CO2-forced Global Climate Models have heat output in the atmospheric heat sink increasing when the solar heat input is held constant i.e. heat is not rejected to the low(zero)-temperature heat sink – space. Even when solar heat input is decreased a little the atmospheric heat continues to increase.

    CO2-forced Global Climate Models then, are perpetual‐motion machines of the second kind (PMM2).

  9. Richard C (NZ) on 03/09/2015 at 12:56 pm said:

    >”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

  10. Andy on 03/09/2015 at 1:15 pm said:

    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.

  11. Jim McKinlay on 03/09/2015 at 4:50 pm said:

    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.

  12. Andy on 03/09/2015 at 7:10 pm said:

    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.

  13. Richard C (NZ) on 04/09/2015 at 10:42 am said:

    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 planning decisions for sea front developments in the Outer Banks.

    The new rules restrict planning applications to the use of 30 year sea level rise predictions – and forbid the use of predictions for longer timeframes.

    The controversy started 5 years ago, when North Carolina State Scientists predicted that in 100 years, sea levels would rise by more than a metre. This caused uproar from owners of billions of dollars worth of valuable sea front properties, the value of which would be adversely affected by a 1m SLR.

    Willo Kelly, of the N20 [sic – NC-20] Consortium, accuses the North Carolina State Scientists who produced the 100 year prediction, of not conducting scientific research, and suggests they instead conducted a biased literary review of cherry picked information, to produce an unbalanced report.

    Climate Scientist Orrin Pilke, interviewed at the end of the video, accuses North Carolina residents and politicians opposed to the use of 100 year predictions of “living in denial”.

    Source: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/north-carolinas-outer-banks-ban-rising-seas-042402453.html

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/12/north-carolina-outlaws-alarmist-planning-advice-restricts-slr-planning-input-to-maximum-timeframe-of-30-years/

    I think this is what is known as a precedent. CCRU could benefit from what NC-20 has already achieved.

  14. Andy on 04/09/2015 at 11:30 am said:

    CRU could benefit from what NC-20 has already achieved

    Yes, thanks very much for that Richard

  15. Andy on 04/09/2015 at 11:32 am said:

    From the Yahoo article

    Sea levels are predicted to rise exponentially

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

  16. Richard C (NZ) on 04/09/2015 at 12:07 pm said:

    >”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 economic cost to the state if it prohibits development based on sea-level regulations.

    http://www.mvalaw.com/news-publications-160.html

    What these law firm (Moore and Van Allen) writers don’t realize is that “rising water levels” are not disputed. Much of the media coverage went full stupid too (Yahoo headline upthread – “North Carolina’s Outer Banks ‘Ban’ Rising Seas’). The dispute is between the historical default rate and the “projected 20-to-55-inch rise by the end of the century”.

    At least reason prevailed for a time but NC-20 and supporters still have a long way to go. I think the review every 5 years (see Yahoo link upthread) is the most responsible approach (if only this were the norm):

    The body responsible for coastal management on the Outer Banks, the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC), has struck a compromise.

    Another panel of scientists has been instructed to work on a new prediction for sea levels in 30 years not 100.

    It will report every five years.

    ALL climate predictions should be subject to regular review in view of new observational data, whether air temperature, sea level rise, TOA energy imbalance, whatever. Real-time graphs on government websites even better. But all we see is the predictions chiseled in stone.

  17. Andy on 04/09/2015 at 12:27 pm said:

    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?

  18. Richard C (NZ) on 04/09/2015 at 12:34 pm said:

    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 Dec. 31 via email to Tancred Miller. Following an extended public comment period, the report will be finalized in early 2016 and delivered to the N.C. General Assembly by Mar. 1, 2016.

    Comments received as of July 30, 2015
    Science Panel Meetings [Schedule omitted]

    http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/cm/sea-level-rise-study-update

  19. Richard C (NZ) on 04/09/2015 at 1:09 pm said:

    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 along the northeastern N.C. coast. Oceanographic research
    reveals a strong link between speed and position of the Gulf Stream and sea level. This effect has been
    observed to increase sea level primarily north of Cape Hatteras. The differences in the rates of relative
    sea level rise (meaning, the rate of sea level rise at a specific location including local effects, and distinct
    from the global average rate of sea level rise) at different locations along the North Carolina coast are
    evident in the sea level trends reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA) at tide gauge stations along the North Carolina coast. Five tide gauges along the state’s coast
    have collected water level data for long enough to have reported sea level trends. Two are located in
    Dare County: one of those at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Field Research Facility in Duck and
    another at the Oregon Inlet Marina. A third is located in Carteret County at the Duke University Marine
    Lab dock in Beaufort. The fourth station is located in Wilmington, at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’
    maintenance yard and docks at Eagle Island. This location is in New Hanover County, immediately
    adjacent to Brunswick County. These stations still continue to record water level data. The fifth station
    was located at the Southport Fishing Pier, but is no longer active.

    NOAA makes available these data and an analysis of rate based on linear regression. Data span the time
    period from the initial installation of the gauge through December 2013 for the gauges at Duck, Oregon
    Inlet Marina, Beaufort and Wilmington and through 2008 for the gauge at Southport. NOAA reports a
    high, a low, and a mean value for the rate of relative sea level rise using a 95% confidence interval for
    each gauge. The Science Panel worked closely with Dr. Chris Zervas (e.g., Zervas 2001, Zervas 2009,
    Zervas et al. 2013) at the NOAA National Ocean Service Center for Operational Oceanographic Products
    and Services, who provided additional analyses of tide gauge data for this report. The existing published
    rate of sea level rise is converted to a future elevation by multiplying the rate plus or minus the 95%
    confidence interval (for the high/low estimates respectively) by 30 years – the time frame specified by
    the CRC for the projections in this update.

    Since tide gauges only measure past sea levels, the Science Panel used the most recent report of the
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR5) to provide scenario-based global sea level rise
    projections. The scenarios chosen to model sea level rise over the next 30 years are the IPCC’s low
    greenhouse gas emissions scenario (RCP 2.6) and the high greenhouse gas emissions scenario (RCP 8.5),
    as all other scenario projections fall within the range of these two. These values were combined with
    rates of vertical land movement (subsidence) determined by the analysis of tide gauge records and
    provided by NOAA (Zervas et al. 2013; Zervas, pers. comm. 2014) to develop a range of values across the
    North Carolina coast.

    Table ES1 summarizes the results. Using existing gauge rates, sea level rise across North Carolina by
    2045 would vary from a low estimate of 2.4 inches (with a range between 1.9 and 2.8 inches) at
    Southport to a high estimate of 5.4 inches (with a range between 4.4 and 6.4 inches) at Duck.
    Considering the IPCC scenario RCP 2.6 combined with vertical land movement, sea level rise would vary
    from a low estimate of 5.8 inches (with a range between 3.5 and 8.0 inches) at Wilmington to a high
    estimate at Duck of 7.1 inches (with a range between 4.8 and 9.4 inches). Considering IPCC scenario RCP
    8.5 with vertical land movement, sea level rise would vary from a low estimate of 6.8 inches (with a
    range between 4.3 and 9.3 inches) at Wilmington to a high estimate at Duck of 8.1 inches (with a range
    between 5.5 and 10.6 inches).

    Table ES1. Three relative sea level rise (RSLR) scenarios by 2045 using published tide gauge rates (NOAA
    2014a), and IPCC scenario projections RCP 2.6 and RCP 8.5 (Church et al. 2013) representing the lowest and highest greenhouse gas emission scenarios, combined with local vertical land movement (VLM) at each tide gauge.*

    Station, Tide Gauge Projections. IPCC RCP 2.6 + VLM, IPCC RCP 8.5 + VLM
    RSLR in 30 years (inches), RSLR in 30 years (inches), RSLR in 30 years (inches)
    Mean Range, Mean Range, Mean Range
    Duck 5.4 4.4-6.4, 7.1 4.8-9.4, 8.1 5.5-10.6
    Oregon Inlet 4.3 2.7-5.9, 6.3 3.9-8.7, 7.3 4.7-9.9
    Beaufort 3.2 2.8-3.6, 6.5 4.2-8.7, 7.5 5.0-10.0
    Wilmington 2.4 2.0-2.8, 5.8 3.5-8.0, 6.8 4.3-9.3
    Southport 2.4 1.9-2.8, 5.9 3.7-8.2, 6.9 4.4-9.4

    # # #

    This is how responsible planning SHOULD be done. Already apparent that in only 30 years there is wide disparity of outlook and that RCP 2.6 will be first to face the acid test in 5 years time.

    RCP 8.5 I think, will probably be dropped from seriously deliberation around that time.

  20. Richard C (NZ) on 04/09/2015 at 2:36 pm said:

    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.

  21. Richard C (NZ) on 04/09/2015 at 2:56 pm said:

    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.

  22. Richard C (NZ) on 04/09/2015 at 3:10 pm said:

    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:

    Ҥ 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 and Division may collaborate with other State agencies, boards,
    and commissions; other public entities; and other institutions when defining rates of sea-level
    change.”

    SECTION 2.(b) The Coastal Resources Commission and the Division of Coastal Management of
    the Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall not define rates of sea-level
    change for regulatory purposes prior to July 1, 2016.

    SECTION 2.(c) The Coastal Resources Commission shall direct its Science Panel to deliver its
    five-year updated assessment to its March 2010 report entitled “North Carolina Sea Level Rise
    Assessment Report” to the Commission no later than March 31, 2015. The Commission shall
    direct the Science Panel to include in its five-year updated assessment a comprehensive review
    and summary of peer-reviewed scientific literature that address the full range of global,
    regional, and North Carolina-specific sea-level change data and hypotheses, including sea-level
    fall, no movement in sea level, deceleration of sea-level rise, and acceleration of sea-level rise.
    When summarizing research dealing with sea level, the Commission and the Science Panel shall
    define the assumptions and limitations of predictive modeling used to predict future sea-level
    scenarios. The Commission shall make this report available to the general public and allow for
    submittal of public comments including a public hearing at the first regularly scheduled meeting
    after March 31, 2015. Prior to and upon receipt of this report, the Commission shall study the
    economic and environmental costs and benefits to the North Carolina coastal region of
    developing, or not developing, sea-level regulations and policies. The Commission shall also
    compare the determination of sea level based on historical calculations versus predictive
    models. The Commission shall also address the consideration of oceanfront and estuarine
    shorelines for dealing with sea-level assessment and not use one single sea-level rate for the
    entire coast. For oceanfront shorelines, the Commission shall use no fewer than the four
    regions defined in the April 2011 report entitled “North Carolina Beach and Inlet Management
    Plan” published by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. In regions that may
    lack statistically significant data, rates from adjacent regions may be considered and modified
    using generally accepted scientific and statistical techniques to account for relevant geologic
    and hydrologic processes. The Commission shall present a draft of this report, which shall also
    include the Commission’s Science Panel five-year assessment update, to the general public and
    receive comments from interested parties no later than December 31, 2015, and present these
    reports, including public comments and any policies the Commission has adopted or may be
    considering that address sea-level policies, to the General Assembly Environmental Review
    Commission no later than March 1, 2016.

    # # #

    >”including sea-level fall”

    This was not addressed in 2015. (2) sea level rise will decelerate, was discounted in 2015. But sea-level fall may have to become scenario (4) for the 2025 assessment – who knows?

  23. Richard C (NZ) on 04/09/2015 at 3:26 pm said:

    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.

  24. Andy on 04/09/2015 at 3:57 pm said:

    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/

  25. Mike Jowsey on 04/09/2015 at 4:30 pm said:

    +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

  26. Richard C (NZ) on 04/09/2015 at 5:05 pm said:

    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?

  27. Richard C (NZ) on 04/09/2015 at 8:03 pm said:

    >”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.

  28. Andy on 05/09/2015 at 1:13 pm said:

    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

  29. Andy on 05/09/2015 at 5:32 pm said:

    CCRU on TVOne News tonight Sat 5th Sept 6pm

  30. Richard C (NZ) on 06/09/2015 at 8:47 am said:

    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 is not easy to explain.

    http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/rss-data-shows-temperature-anomaly-grew-in-august.html

    Not easy to explain? After having just explained it:

    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 was thanks to Karl et al (2015) – politically driven pseudo-science in the model of Lysenko.

    I think Reporting Climate Science: probably mean “accept”. They are an impartial outlet and don’t shy away from highlighting results that don’t reconcile. The situation above being the standout.

  31. Richard C (NZ) on 06/09/2015 at 12:24 pm said:

    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……

  32. Richard C (NZ) on 06/09/2015 at 12:47 pm said:

    >”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 ‘negative convection’ to offset 140% increase in input energy over reality, swapped apparently by the Met. Office to manipulating cloud physics and Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation to make more plausible, but still wrong physics. They then bleed off a bit of the imaginary energy as the non-existent EGHE. I don’t know when this bad science will be dumped, but dumped it must be because you cannot teach false physics.

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

    >”This leads to IPCC researchers being convinced they are right in creating a Perpetual Motion Machine of the 2nd kind in the modelling”

    Or in other words, climate scientists are convinced they are right to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as detailed upthtread.

  33. Andy on 06/09/2015 at 1:20 pm said:

    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

  34. Richard C (NZ) on 06/09/2015 at 2:02 pm said:

    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 linked to many times. It illustrates clearly that SLR is not a global phenomenon and implies that anyone who applies global criteria to a local situation is plain wrong.

    The CCC and NZ MfE being cases in point.

  35. Richard C (NZ) on 06/09/2015 at 2:24 pm said:

    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.

  36. Richard C (NZ) on 06/09/2015 at 2:39 pm said:

    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.

  37. Richard C (NZ) on 06/09/2015 at 3:09 pm said:

    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.

  38. Richard C (NZ) on 06/09/2015 at 3:16 pm said:

    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.”

  39. Richard C (NZ) on 06/09/2015 at 3:32 pm said:

    >”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.

  40. Richard C (NZ) on 06/09/2015 at 3:43 pm said:

    >”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 Beenstock said: “I predict that ­climatologists will look equally foolish in the years to come. Indeed, it may be already happening.”

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/156811/Global-warming-to-become-global-cooling-claims-expert

  41. Andy on 06/09/2015 at 5:32 pm said:

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

  42. Andy on 06/09/2015 at 5:54 pm said:

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

    Takes “trolling” to a new level…

  43. Richard C (NZ) on 06/09/2015 at 6:29 pm said:

    >”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 physics, two statements of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in particular (Clausius and Kelvin-Planck). The council make themselves legally liable (i.e. legally unlawful) by adopting physically unlawful conjecture. The historical rate of rise is the current valid default.

    The predictions of climate science and SLR were clearly spelled out for all for more than a decade.

    And for going on 2.5 decades from the 1990 baseline, the predictions are being proven false.

    …drop your nonsensical denial of the science and work towards limiting the effects of AGW.

    The “science of AGW” is anything but denied. In fact it is a hypothesis that can be falsified and is. Inferred from the IPCC the hypothesis is:

    “The theory of AGW posits that the energy balance at TOA moves synchronous with and commensurate with CO2 forcing”

    TOA energy imbalance: 0.6 W.m-2, trendless
    CO2 “forcing” to 2015: 1.9 W.m-2, increasing

    Hypothesis falsified.

  44. Andy on 06/09/2015 at 6:41 pm said:

    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

  45. Richard C (NZ) on 06/09/2015 at 7:11 pm said:

    >”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..

  46. Andy on 06/09/2015 at 7:17 pm said:

    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

  47. Andy on 09/09/2015 at 6:42 pm said:

    Chrstchurch City Councillor Paul Lonsdale interviewed on NewstalkZB

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

  48. Andy on 09/09/2015 at 9:17 pm said:

    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)

  49. Andy on 10/09/2015 at 7:37 am said:

    Article in NZCPR newsletter about the Christchurch situation

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

  50. Richard C (NZ) on 10/09/2015 at 3:02 pm said:

    ‘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 individual’s property;xxxvii (2) regulations that result in a physical
    invasion of the private property;xxxviii (3) regulations that destroy one or more
    fundamental attributes of property ownership;xxxix and (4) regulations aimed at enhancing
    the value of publicly owned property.xl If mere enactment of the regulation is a per se
    taking, then the courts will require the payment of just compensation.

    If a landowner fails to establish a per se taking, then the court will consider
    whether the regulation prevents a public harm or provides an affirmative public benefit.xli
    If the regulation prevents harm and safeguards the public interest in health, safety, the
    environment or the fiscal integrity of an area, then it is likely not an unconstitutional
    taking of private property. If, however, the regulation “seeks less to prevent a harm than
    to impose on those regulated the requirement of providing an affirmative public benefit”
    then the courts will engage in a fact-specific takings analysis.xlii

    Under the fact-specific analysis, courts first examine whether the regulation
    substantially advances a legitimate state interest. If it does not, the regulation is a taking.
    If, however, the regulation does substantially advance a legitimate state interest, courts
    perform a balancing test. Courts will ask whether the state interest in the regulation is
    outweighed by its adverse economic impact to the landowner. In particular, Washington
    courts consider: (1) the regulation’s economic impact on the property; (2) the extent of
    the regulation’s interference with investment-backed expectations; and (3) the character
    of the government action. If the court determines that the adverse economic effect on the
    landowner outweighs the state’s interest in the regulation then a taking has occurred and
    just compensation is mandated.xliii

    Although takings challenges are often asserted in response to land-use
    regulations, Washington courts rarely find that the regulation amounts to the taking of
    private property.xliv More often courts find that the regulation violates the landowners’
    substantive due process rights. Washington courts prefer the remedy available for a
    substantive due process violation over the remedy available for an unconstitutional
    taking. If a land-use regulation violates a landowner’s substantive due process rights,
    then the remedy is invalidation of the regulation. For unconstitutional takings, the
    remedy is an award of monetary damages. Courts prefer the remedy available for
    substantive due process violations because, “the specter of strict financial liability” in
    takings cases results in a “chilling effect” on land-use regulation, which may deter
    legislative bodies from making difficult, but necessary, land-use decisions.xlv

    2.4. Substantive Due Process
    Alleging a deprivation of substantive due process rights is another way for
    property owners to challenge and potentially invalidate land-use regulations in
    Washington. It is possible for a regulatory action to survive a takings challenge, but
    nevertheless to violate substantive due process. The remedy in such a case is invalidation
    of the offending regulation; not payment of just compensation.

    The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits governments from
    using the police power in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner.xlvi To determine whether
    a regulation violates due process, the Washington Supreme Court employs a three-prong
    test.xlvii First, courts consider whether the regulation is aimed at a legitimate public
    interest. Then, courts determine whether the means used are reasonably necessary to
    achieve that purpose. Finally, courts assess whether the regulation is unduly oppressive
    on the landowner. Consideration of the unduly oppressive part of the test involves ad hoc
    balancing that is highly subjective. The Supreme Court has identified a set of nonexclusive
    factors to guide this analysis. These factors include: the seriousness of the
    public problem, the feasibility of less oppressive measures, the amount and percentage of
    lost property values, and the extent of investment-backed expectations.xlviii Whether a
    party could have anticipated the liability imposed by a regulation and whether they could
    have altered their behavior to avoid such liability is one of the more important factors to
    consider, especially when considering a statute that applies retroactively.xlix

    # # #

    Key terms:
    Police power
    Takings
    Substantive due process

  51. Richard C (NZ) on 10/09/2015 at 4:41 pm said:

    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

  52. Richard C (NZ) on 10/09/2015 at 5:00 pm said:

    >”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.

  53. Andy on 10/09/2015 at 5:47 pm said:

    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.

  54. Richard C (NZ) on 10/09/2015 at 6:35 pm said:

    >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 to appeal the widely publicised “Urgenda” ruling from the district court in The Hague, ordering the Netherlands to step up its climate change actions. There are good reasons why we should hope that the court of appeals will overturn the ruling — it sets a dangerous precedent for judicial activism, is inconsistent with European law and will even undermine international climate negotiations.

    “Let’s lock-in this victory and change our world for good,” was Urgenda’s message on Twitter on June 24. On that day, a court in The Netherlands made headlines across the world by ordering the Dutch government to beef up the fight against climate change.

    At the request of an environmental organisation by the name of Urgenda, a contraction of “urgent” and “agenda”, the court instructed the State to revise its current policies to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by at least 25% by 2020, not the 17% it currently aims at.

    To produce this result, the court extended an existing tort law doctrine of “social responsibility” for avoiding “unacceptable danger creation.” The court found climate change to be an unacceptable, and, thus, unlawful danger and, ordered the government, based on its duty of care, to take action to protect against it.

    The Urgenda doctrine might be the beginning a new era of climate change litigation with the Dutch courts ordering the rest of the world to step up their climate change efforts

    In turning to a court to advance climate policy, Urgenda took an innovative approach. Urgenda had concluded that governments are unable to solve the climate crisis, because they are driven by short-term economic interest and locked into a “prisoners’ dilemma.” Therefore, it decided that the judiciary should act as the planet’s saviour of last resort. The courtroom, as Urgenda put it, is “the only place left where one can debate on the basis of facts.” Of course, “the facts” are those that Urgenda approves.

    In bringing the law suit against the State, Urgenda was inspired by a book, written by its lawyer, Roger Cox, entitled “Revolution Through Litigation”. As Arthur Petersen notes, it seems that this revolution is now beginning. Urgenda is assisting climate action groups in other countries in Europe and elsewhere to launch similar lawsuits against their governments. Their objective is to push society away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy so as to achieve a circular, zero-carbon sustainable society.

    Enormous implications

    If this judgment survives appeal and becomes part of Dutch tort law, the implications for climate change litigation would be enormous. Companies emitting greenhouse gases as well as States from which emissions occur, would be exposed.

    This would not be limited to Dutch companies or the Dutch State. In principle, Dutch courts have jurisdiction to hear cases against foreign companies that through their conduct create unacceptable danger in The Netherlands. If any emission of greenhouse gases creates an unacceptable danger, any company can be the target of a lawsuit in The Netherlands.

    Under the doctrine of restricted sovereign immunity, the Dutch courts can also hear cases against other States for allowing their residents to create danger in The Netherlands. Climate change, the Dutch court rules, creates unacceptable danger, and any contribution to climate change, no matter how small, is enough to be on the hook.

    Thus, the Urgenda doctrine might be the beginning a new era of climate change litigation with the Dutch courts ordering the rest of the world to step up their climate change efforts. In addition, the example of Urgenda will no doubt be followed by NGOs in other countries. It could have far-reaching effects.

    Judicial activism

    The court justified its ruling on two grounds. First, on the basis of the reports of the IPCC, the UN climate body, the court found that climate change poses a serious danger, and that from a scientific viewpoint, this danger must be averted.

    Second, the court referred to the grand European principles of environmental law, such as the obligation to provide for a high level of environmental and health protection, the precautionary principle, the human rights to life and to “respect for private and family life,” and the international “no harm” principle. It used these concepts to construe the State’s duty of care with respect to the unlawful danger of climate change.

    On the day the court read its judgment, it also published an English translation of the entire ruling on its website. Apparently, the court in The Hague felt that the world should know about its ruling

    According to the court, society can no longer hide behind the uncertainty of the science and the cost of prevention, but must comply urgently with the average emission reduction targets agreed at the international level. Thus, a national court may enforce the IPCC reports and international commitments made by States.

    Interestingly, on the day the court read its judgment, it also published an English translation of the entire ruling on its website! Surely, it is not common practice for courts in The Netherlands to translate their judgments. Apparently, the court in The Hague felt that the world should know about its ruling. Indeed, Urgenda offered the three judges an opportunity to gain both fame and respect for their courage to stand up against the body politic squandering the planet. This extreme form of judicial activism is unprecedented in the Netherlands.

    Separation of powers

    Let’s look at some of the problems with the court ruling and the consequences it may have.

    First, there is the principle of the separation of powers and the rule of law. It is highly questionable that the judiciary would get involved in the tremendously complicated area of science-based government policy-making. It is doubtful whether such judgments are legitimate and the rulings will be sound. A courtroom is not the right place to debate climate science and the public interest in more protective policies.

    Thus, while this court judgment is celebrated as a victory for the climate, it is also a threat to the rule of law and constitutional democracy. At the request of all sorts of action groups, civil law courts could make policies with respect to any risk, from immigration to genetically modified foods, and from chemicals to healthcare. This could lead to policies that are supported only by small minorities and involve high costs of compliance; consequently, it might well spark a political backlash.

    Danger creation

    Secondly, the legal basis for State liability in this case is questionable. The novel, expanded doctrine of “danger creation” constructed by The Hague court differs in key respects from the doctrine as it has been interpreted thus far.

    Before the Urgenda judgment, the “danger creation” doctrine dealt with situations where a defendant negligently created a serious risk of certain and immediate personal injury or property damage. The landmark case is the 1965 “Cellar Hatch” (“kelderluik”) opinion of the Dutch Supreme Court, in which a Coca-Cola employee created a dangerous situation by leaving a café’s cellar hatch open as a result of which a visitor fell and injured himself. The doctrine covers acts as well as omissions for which the defendant is responsible.

    The Urgenda court, however, expands this doctrine in three ways. First, it rules that the doctrine applies to States, not only to private parties. Second, it holds that the doctrine applies to omissions to address dangers created by all activities that are being conducted within Dutch territory; thus, a person (in this case, the State) may be liable for unlawful acts of other persons (in this case, any resident), based on the rationale that the liable person has control over such persons. Third, it finds that the doctrine applies not only to certain, immediate, individualised danger arising from a single cause, but, in light of the precautionary principle and the importance of environmental protection, also to uncertain, long-term, generalised, multi-causal hazards, such as climate change.

    The court ignores a critical part of tort law. Causation is the link between a defendant’s act and the damage suffered. In this case, there is no direct causal link, as the court acknowledges by labeling climate change a global problem and Dutch emissions minor, but the State is found liable nevertheless

    In addition, the court sets aside conventional causation requirements. It holds that it does not matter that the emissions controlled by The Netherlands are minor compared to total emissions. So, the court seems to reason, it does not matter that the additional reduction sought by Urgenda would hardly affect global emissions, because every nation has its own independent obligation to cut emissions.

    According to the court, the fact that “the amount of the Dutch emissions is small compared to other countries does not affect the obligation to take precautionary measures in view of the State’s obligation to exercise care”. “After all,” the court continues, “it has been established that any anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission, no matter how minor, contributes to an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere and therefore to hazardous climate change.” Its reasoning not only confuses duty and causality, but is also scientifically doubtful, since there is no evidence that minor increases in CO2 levels contribute to hazardous climate change.

    To complete its reasoning, the court on weak grounds rejects the Dutch government’s arguments that more stringent emission reductions would cause “carbon leakage” and adversely affect the international competitiveness of carbon-intensive companies based in The Netherlands.

    By setting aside conventional causation requirements, the court ignores a critical part of tort law. Causation is the link between a defendant’s act and the damage suffered. In this case, there is no direct causal link, as the court acknowledges by labelling climate change a global problem and Dutch emissions minor, but the State is found liable nevertheless.

    Special regime

    As noted above, this sets a worrisome precedent. The novel theory of danger creation endorsed by the The Hague court opens the door for all sorts of activists to launch lawsuits against the State in an attempt to get courts to change government policies. A plaintiff has to show only that current government policy does not adequately address a danger created either by the State or by private parties.

    Interestingly, Urgenda seems to realise the problem. Urgenda’s concern, of course, is that the court of appeals will overrule the lower court and decide that the theory of “unacceptable danger creation” does not apply to government policy, or cannot be applied in the court’s manner.

    By emphasising the uniqueness of climate change and climate change policy, Urgenda demonstrates why it should argue its case before the legislature, not a court of law

    Thus, Urgenda had to come up with an argument as to why the judgment should stand. Marjan Minnesma, its Director, has now advanced such an argument: “The whole issue of climate change is unique and this uniqueness does not apply to [other] problems.” This would be so because there is broad consensus among 195 countries and scientists, and the court would merely be holding the State to its own prior commitments. Can this argument save the judgment? No, it cannot, as there are serious problems with the argument, which completely undermine Urgenda’s case.

    The first problem is that it is simply incorrect as a matter of law. The court rejected the theory that the State had a direct legal obligation to do more. It held that the relevant obligations of the State under international law are not directly enforceable by Urgenda. This implies that Urgenda’s argument that the court merely held the State to its pre-existing commitments is bogus; the court merely referenced such commitments in construing the state’s duty of care with respect to “dangerous climate change”.

    In fact, the court endorses Urgenda’s own theory of “unacceptable danger creation,” which it deems to apply generally to any government policy that fails to adequately address an unacceptable danger produced by society, whether pollution, terrorism, or immigration. Urgenda had to propose a general theory, because tort law does not provide specific regimes for specific issues, but works with generally applicable doctrines.

    So, after Urgenda lured the court into endorsing its novel theory, it now attempts to mitigate the damage the theory will cause by suggesting, rather disingenuously, it is a unique special regime for climate change after all. By emphasising the uniqueness of climate change and climate change policy, Urgenda demonstrates why it should argue its case before the legislature, not a court of law.

    Further, scientific or political consensus is not a sufficient basis for a court of law to impose policy. Urgenda’s argument confuses politics and law. The law also serves to protect citizens and society against the dictates of scientific or political consensus to prevent totalitarian regimes.

    European law

    Another concern with the ruling of the The Hague court is that it appears to be incompatible with EU law.

    In the Urgenda case, Dutch policy was found to be insufficient to avert dangerous climate change, even though its policy is entirely consistent with the EU’s Effort Sharing Decision (this establishes binding annual greenhouse gas emission targets for Member States for 2013-20) . So, by finding the Dutch policy insufficient and thus unlawful, the Dutch court implicitly finds the EU Effort Sharing Decision unlawful. National courts, however, do not have authority to rule on the lawfulness of EU legislation; instead, they must seek a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice.

    The supremacy of EU law is at stake. The rule of law and the separation of powers are threatened by court-made climate policies, which cannot be coordinated, nor adapted to changing circumstances

    True, the European Court of Justice has created a doctrine of Member State liability, also known as “Francovich liability.” Under this doctrine, a Member State can be held liable for damages caused by a failure to implement EU legislation, if that legislation confers a right on the claimant and there is a causal link between the State’s breach and the loss suffered by the claimant. In the Dutch case, however, there was no breach of EU law, nor did the EU law concerned grant any individual right. To the contrary, the State of The Netherlands complied perfectly with the EU Effort Sharing Decision! But even if there had been a breach, the EU climate change laws do not grant any individual rights.

    Then there is the EU Environmental Liability Directive (ELD), aimed at the prevention and restoration of environmental damage. The ELD, however, does not apply to diffuse, widespread damage, where it is impossible to link the damage with individual actors. In these cases, as the ELD explicitly recognises, “liability is not a suitable instrument.” Accordingly, under the ELD, Member States are not required to prevent or restore diffuse damage, or take any other measures with respect to it. There is no doubt that climate change causes widespread (in casu, global), diffuse damage, and, as a result, Member States are not required to address it. Exactly with respect to such diffuse climate-related damage, however, the court imposes liability.

    Thus, there is more than one reason for the EU to be worried about climate change litigation against Member States. The supremacy of EU law is at stake. The rule of law and the separation of powers are threatened by court-made climate policies, which cannot be coordinated, nor adapted to changing circumstances. On appeal, the Dutch court will therefore likely refer the case to the European Court of Justice.

    Unintended effects

    The Urgenda ruling, if it is upheld, may have several other negative unintended effects.

    If the Dutch government were to comply with the court order, there is a significant risk that the State will be held liable for the cost that such a sudden change in policy would impose on industry. After all, companies made investment decisions based on the current policy and have legitimate expectations that the policy will not suddenly change to their detriment. The law protects these expectations.

    In addition, 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. In the Urgenda case, the court violated the fundamental principles of the trias politica, the separation of powers. It also neglected to independently examine the relevant science, and relied entirely on what the parties agreed, while its judgment has serious implications for all citizens that amounts to serious neglect of its task.

    Paris summit

    Another question is what the effects of the ruling may be on the COP-21 climate summit in Paris later this year. Although Urgenda and other NGO’s have hailed the ruling as a victory for the climate, it may well impede rather than help the international climate negotiations.

    For one, court judgments may influence the strategy of States at the conference. States may be reluctant to agree to legally binding commitments so as to avoid possible court judgments holding them to their commitments. Vague, aspirational statements might then be preferred.

    Further, those States that have been ordered by courts to revise their climate policies, may be reluctant to do more than what their courts have ordered. This could limit their ambitions.

    States that are not exposed to possible lawsuits may try to exploit the vulnerability of States that are so exposed and saddle them with disproportionate obligations. Of course, State legislatures might also proceed to adopt legislation to shield themselves against climate activists’ lawsuits.

    Scientific necessity

    The “single issue” activist mind typically does not appreciate the vagaries of “multi-task” government and politics. It also has a hard time dealing with the discipline imposed by law, which accommodates a wide range of concerns and interests. Under the law, the ends do not necessarily justify the means. Law is not politics.

    Urgenda is right when it says that “one should be concerned, instead of angry, about this judgment”. But citizens should not be concerned about “the seriousness of the problem and the lack of action,” as Urgenda suggests, because these issues are political concerns and are addressed by the body politic. Rather, they should be concerned about the judicial activism inherent in the judgment, the court usurping the legislature’s powers, and the ruling’s many adverse effects.

    There is precedent that does not bode well for Urgenda’s prospects in an appeal

    The Urgenda ruling conflicts with the laws of The Netherlands, as well as European law. As demonstrated, the ruling’s consequences would be draconian for climate change litigation, other public interest litigation, and international climate negotiations. The Urgenda court’s ruling is so at odds with the existing tort law doctrines of “unacceptable danger creation,” the government’s duty of care, and causation theory, that it sets aside the rule of law.

    It is very fortunate, then, that the Dutch government, on the 1st of September, announced that it has decided to appeal the ruling.

    There is precedent that does not bode well for Urgenda’s prospects in an appeal. In a case brought by environmental groups, including Waterpakt, against the State of The Netherlands over its failure to implement the Nitrates Directive, the Dutch Supreme Court opined that the judiciary is not empowered to order the legislature to enact legislation.

    Another case from the 1970s centered on the fluoridation of drinking water, which was deemed “scientifically necessary” by the water company to combat caries. This practice was challenged by a group of citizens before the courts on principle. The Supreme Court found that scientific necessity was an insufficient basis, and required specific legislation. Not science, but the legislature had the final word on the policy. This would appear to be logical, because science cannot prescribe laws.

    Biosketch. Lucas Bergkamp, who is both a lawyer and a medical doctor, is a partner in the international law firm of Hunton & Williams. He was a professor of international environmental liability law at Erasmus University Rotterdam, and currently teaches in the Master of Laws program in Energy, Environmental and Climate Change Law offered by the Faculty of Laws of the University of Malta and the Institute for Environmental and Energy Law (IEEL) of the University of Leuven.

    # # #

    Clearly, the invocation of imagined State or regional authority level “liability” in respect to SLR or climate change as an argument for regulations being beyond question is completely ignorant of the legal issues involved.

  55. Richard C (NZ) on 10/09/2015 at 7:13 pm said:

    [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.

  56. Richard C (NZ) on 10/09/2015 at 7:23 pm said:

    [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”

  57. Andy on 10/09/2015 at 8:07 pm said:

    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

  58. Richard Treadgold on 10/09/2015 at 8:37 pm said:

    About 90 minutes ago I left a comment at Hot Topic under “The Age Of Resilience starts tonight”. Since the first comment did not appear, I immediately left a second comment along the lines of: “I just left a comment; where did it go?” Neither has yet appeared. It’s possible they have been held in moderation. But to preserve my remarks in case they’ve been accidentally swept under the carpet, er, I mean lost, here they are again. I quote nigwil and pose him two questions.

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

    Really? Let me address the minimum SLR of 2 m you say we should expect by 2100 and let us say there are 84 years in which to achieve it (and that’s generous, as it’s only September—you get an extra 16 weeks). The little-varying annual rise for the last 100 years has been about 1.8 mm. There has been no acceleration this century, in fact it’s possible the rate has slowed a little. I have two questions for you:

    1. When will the acceleration begin?
    2. When will it reach the 23.8 mm pa required to achieve 2000 mm by 2100?

    If the rate is not 23.8 mm/yr by 2017, the rate of acceleration must increase to reach 2000 mm by 2100. Not to mention, in case you’ve missed it, that there must be some extraordinary event to trigger a rise for next year in the region of 24 mm. That’s 1300 per cent more than last year. Still, if that’s not achieved, your prediction will be even less likely to come true than it already is.

  59. Richard C (NZ) on 10/09/2015 at 9:04 pm said:

    >”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 statute and state constitution. Ordinances constitute the subject matter of the enacted law. In some cases, these laws can also take precedence over the state and federal laws depending on the law. However, if the law is contradictory to the federal and state law, the law can be challenged in court and can be null and void. These laws only apply to areas that are under the jurisdiction of the municipal government. Most of these ordinances deal with public safety, health and moral codes and general welfare. The ordinances can include fire and safety regulations, noise levels, littering, etc.

    http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-law-and-ordinance

    The first consideration is the legality of RCP “scenarios” being the basis of a public safety ordinance in respect to duty of care. Urgenda elevates duty of care to their own theory of “unacceptable danger creation” in order to overcome the problem that the State (read CCC in this case) does not have a “direct legal obligation to do more”. RCP “scenarios” are obviously “more” than what duty of care requires.

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

    This just supports the “unlawful adjudication” case in the first instance. That the CCC opted for the worst case RCP 8.5 “scenario” is reprehensible but it is first of all unlawful for the municipality to enact any “scenario” by adjudication, let alone worst-case, and let alone it being against the originators recommendation.

  60. Andy on 10/09/2015 at 9:17 pm said:

    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.

  61. Richard C (NZ) on 10/09/2015 at 9:28 pm said:

    >”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.

  62. Richard C (NZ) on 11/09/2015 at 12:19 am said:

    >”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 have done is spliced satellite data to tide guage which produces an inflexion but not strictly an acceleration (assuming this is a valid approach of course – it in’t).

    And I don’t know what “Section 3.7” refers to because, oddly, there is no Section 13.3.7.

  63. Andy on 11/09/2015 at 9:21 am said:

    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?

  64. Richard C (NZ) on 11/09/2015 at 9:52 am said:

    >”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?

  65. Andy on 11/09/2015 at 10:08 am said:

    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?

  66. Richard C (NZ) on 11/09/2015 at 11:47 am said:

    >”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.

  67. Richard C (NZ) on 11/09/2015 at 12:22 pm said:

    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.”

  68. Andy on 11/09/2015 at 1:30 pm said:

    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

  69. Richard C (NZ) on 11/09/2015 at 5:05 pm said:

    >”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.

  70. Andy on 06/11/2015 at 2:03 pm said:

    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)

  71. Richard C (NZ) on 06/11/2015 at 7:47 pm said:

    “[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.

  72. Richard C (NZ) on 14/11/2015 at 10:05 am said:

    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, 13 November 2015

    So far as I am aware, this is the first time that a serving Western cabinet minister has ever publicly rejected the advice of the IPCC in such an abrupt fashion as this. The new and sensible policy of treating the coastal zone as a geomorphically active one and in insisting on the application of empirical data at specific locations (rather than generalized computer model projections) for planning and management purposes, the NSW government is following almost to the letter the advice contained in two [of our] reports. In the Australian context, this is also a major defeat for the CSIRO, whose consistently alarmist advice on sea-level change has entirely depended upon semi-empirical, homogenized-data-input computer projections that have now been flatly rejected. As this sea-level example shows, ultimately empiricism (and adaptation rather than “stop global warming”) is going to win through. –Bob Carter, Bishop Hill, 13 November 2015

    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/an-outbreak-of-sanity-down-under.html

    ‘An outbreak of sanity’ – Bishop Hill

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/11/13/an-outbreak-of-sanity.html/

  73. Richard C (NZ) on 19/11/2015 at 5:09 pm said:

    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 Environment:

    In revising central government direction and guidance on sea level rise, set
    standards for the use of IPCC projections of sea level rise to ensure they are
    used clearly and consistently across the country./blockquote>

    But are those projections valid when compared to ongoing tide guage measurement of SLR?

  74. Richard C (NZ) on 19/11/2015 at 5:17 pm said:

    >”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?

  75. Richard C (NZ) on 19/11/2015 at 6:51 pm said:

    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”.

  76. Andy on 20/11/2015 at 12:45 am said:

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

  77. Richard C (NZ) on 20/11/2015 at 10:30 am said:

    “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.

  78. Richard C (NZ) on 20/11/2015 at 10:43 am said:

    >”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.

  79. Andy on 17/12/2015 at 11:05 am said:

    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.

  80. Richard C (NZ) on 13/02/2016 at 9:00 am said:

    ‘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/

  81. Andy on 21/02/2016 at 6:26 pm said:

    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

  82. Richard Treadgold on 21/02/2016 at 7:33 pm said:

    Good luck; sounds intense. If I can do anything to help, please let me know. I could look over your written submissions for errors or look up data for you.

  83. Andy on 21/02/2016 at 8:58 pm said:

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

  84. Andy on 22/02/2016 at 3:38 pm said:

    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.

  85. Simon on 23/02/2016 at 11:34 am said:

    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?

  86. Andy on 23/02/2016 at 12:39 pm said:

    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.

  87. Richard C (NZ) on 23/02/2016 at 1:06 pm said:

    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. https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/pics/pce-wgtn-sl-1945-2014-wright-projection-1505.png

    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.

  88. Richard C (NZ) on 23/02/2016 at 2:11 pm said:

    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.

  89. Andy on 23/02/2016 at 2:18 pm said:

    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.

  90. Richard C (NZ) on 23/02/2016 at 2:36 pm said:

    >”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.

  91. Richard C (NZ) on 23/02/2016 at 3:07 pm said:

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

  92. Richard C (NZ) on 23/02/2016 at 3:16 pm said:

    >”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?

  93. Simon on 23/02/2016 at 5:06 pm said:

    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.

  94. Andy on 23/02/2016 at 5:21 pm said:

    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

  95. Richard C (NZ) on 23/02/2016 at 5:59 pm said:

    >”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.

  96. Richard C (NZ) on 23/02/2016 at 6:09 pm said:

    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.

  97. Richard C (NZ) on 23/02/2016 at 7:01 pm said:

    >”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.

  98. Andy on 23/02/2016 at 7:42 pm said:

    “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.

  99. Richard C (NZ) on 23/02/2016 at 7:45 pm said:

    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 CO2-forced modeling (AR5 Chapter 9 Box 9.2 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years)

    In short, another desperate attempt to find the elusive human SKR “acceleration”.

  100. Andy on 23/02/2016 at 8:38 pm said:

    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.

  101. Richard C (NZ) on 24/02/2016 at 9:22 am said:

    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.

  102. Richard C (NZ) on 24/02/2016 at 9:47 am said:

    ‘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 more. That means anthropogenic CO2 emissions do not measurably affect sea-level rise, and predictions of wildly accelerated sea-level rise are based on superstition, not science.

    Here are two very high quality sea-level measurement records, one from the Pacific and one from the Atlantic:

    Fort Denison Australia
    https://i2.wp.com/sealevel.info/680-140_Sydney_2015-10.png

    Wismar Germany
    https://i0.wp.com/sealevel.info/120-022_Wismar_2015-5.png

    With atmospheric CO2 at 0.040% by volume, globally averaged sea-level rise at the coasts is just under +1.5 mm/year.

    When atmospheric CO2 was at 0.031% by volume, globally averaged sea-level rise at the coasts was just under +1.5 mm/year.

    The difference is that climate alarmists think the current +1.5 mm/year is catastrophic and caused by human release of CO2, and the +1.5 mm/year 85 years ago was natural and inconsequential.

    However, the similarity between the two numbers — the catastrophic 1.5 mm/yr and the inconsequential 1.5 mm/yr — has confused even some liberals into backing away from the One True Climate Faith. Even President Obama’s former Undersecretary for Science, Steven Koonin, has written that:

    “Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today.”

    Sea-level didn’t actually rise 3.39 mm last year, at the coasts.

    That 3.39 mm number is from satellite altimetry measurements of the open ocean, inflated by the addition of model-derived GIA estimates. It has little relation to anything that matters.

    Most fundamentally, satellite altimeters measure the wrong thing. Their measurements are distorted by “sea-level rise” caused by thermal expansion when the upper layer of the ocean warms. But that is a strictly local effect, which doesn’t affect the quantity of water in the oceans, and doesn’t affect sea-level elsewhere (e.g., at the coasts).

    Sea-level rise only matters at the coasts, but satellite altimeters are incapable of measuring sea-level at the coasts. Tide gauges measure sea-level at the coasts, where it matters, and their data is of much higher quality.
    The best tide-gauge records of sea-level measurements are nearly ten times as long as the combined satellite measurement record, and twenty times as long as any single satellite measurement record, and the tide-gauge records are trustworthy.

    The satellite measurements of sea-level are not. They are subject to a long list of potential distortions, and vary considerably from one satellite to another.

    Steve Case has documented how U.Col. has revised their satellite “measurements” of sea-level over the years:

    U.Col. satellite SLR revisions
    https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/331k5ya.gif?w=1000

    More>>>>>
    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/02/22/sea-level-rise-just-the-facts/

    Dave Burton’s Sea Level Info http://www.sealevel.info/

  103. Richard C (NZ) on 24/02/2016 at 11:00 am said:

    For the record.

    Fort Denison Australia
    https://i2.wp.com/sealevel.info/680-140_Sydney_2015-10.png

    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
    https://i0.wp.com/sealevel.info/120-022_Wismar_2015-5.png

    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.

  104. Richard C (NZ) on 24/02/2016 at 12:12 pm said:

    ‘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 beach mansion at Shark Alley MtM. It is the only open-ocean TG in NZ.

    Sorry Simon (and Gareth Morgan). Obvious (e.g. Figure 4) that there has been no human emissions driven SLR this century. All the TG data is either flat or falling. Land motion is by far the factor of significance.

  105. Andy on 24/02/2016 at 5:17 pm said:

    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.

  106. Richard Treadgold on 24/02/2016 at 8:43 pm said:

    If it’s public, it’s public. There are not normally restrictions on reporting what is said in public hearings. But well done for persevering.

  107. Andy on 24/02/2016 at 9:09 pm said:

    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.

  108. Richard Treadgold on 24/02/2016 at 9:49 pm said:

    Happy birthday!

  109. Richard C (NZ) on 24/02/2016 at 9:52 pm said:

    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 been faster & steeper that in the last century

    “The paper is full of very bad violations of observational facts.”

    Just one first example:

    This is their graph of sea level change at Christmas Island , Kiribati
    This is the tide gauge record from Christmas Island

    “How can anyone find a rapidly rising trend in this tide gauge record? It is flat or rather slowly falling – but in no way rising.”

    “So they work – with no respect to observational facts. A true case for Fraud Investigation,”

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/02/23/sea-level-expert-rips-study-claiming-fastest-rise-in-2800-years-study-full-of-very-bad-violations-of-observational-facts/

    The dead giveaway is the first sentence of the abstract:

    “Sea level has been steadily rising over the past century, predominantly due to anthropogenic climate change.”

    ‘Nuff said.

  110. Richard C (NZ) on 24/02/2016 at 10:04 pm said:

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

    Heh, and Hooray.

  111. Andy on 25/02/2016 at 5:08 pm said:

    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.

  112. Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2016 at 6:31 pm said:

    ‘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 coastal planning, I absolutely agree with the paper linked to above [Parker and Ollier]. Locations where sea level rise is a problem invariably have rates of sea level rise that are much greater than even the altimeter values of 3.2 mm/yr are caused by local geologic processes, land use, and or coastal/river engineering. Global values of sea level rise have essentially no use in coastal planning; rather they seem mainly relevant in terms of motivating ‘action’ on carbon mitigation policy.

    Sea level will continue to rise, no matter what we do about CO2 emissions. We need creative solutions – one of my favorites remains the garbage solution.

    https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/23/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/#more-19769

  113. Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2016 at 6:41 pm said:

    >” 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.

  114. Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2016 at 7:16 pm said:

    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 the process model-based projections summarized in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/02/17/1517056113

    # # #

    Huh? “Temperature-driven”?

    And there’s that sloppy “acceleration” again. An inflexion is not an acceleration according to definition.

  115. Andy on 25/02/2016 at 8:23 pm said:

    ” 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

  116. Andy on 26/02/2016 at 3:25 pm said:

    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

  117. Richard C (NZ) on 26/02/2016 at 4:10 pm said:

    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.

Comment navigation

 

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation