Sea rising dangerously — yeah, nah*

Rising but not dangerously

Some say our arrogant, relentless use of coal, oil and gas dangerously heats the atmosphere, which in turn heats the ocean and raises sea levels.

The worry-warts were whinging about it in the New Zealand Parliament the other day, demanding we outlaw building near the beach because coastal houses will fall into the sea in 2050.

Some of us politely question the possibility of such a sharp rise in sea level because it denies the long-term trend. For 6000 years sea level rise (SLR) has been steady at about 1.8 mm per year (180 mm per century). Tide gauge readings since 1870 show no change from this.

When will this extraordinary rise begin

But the Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, echoing the IPCC’s AR5, predicted in her 2014 report Changing climate and rising seas: Understanding the science that for the next 30 years SLR will increase to 10 mm per year. In other words, it will suddenly surge to five and a half times the long-standing rate.

I examined that report and exposed some of its errors in Commissioner Wright’s wrong, Part 1 and Part 2. Since there’s no sign of acceleration, it raises the question of when the rise will begin. It’s easy to show how extraordinary the prediction is.

Here’s a graph that compares two simple facts: the underlying trend of sea level gauges over 150 years and the wild prediction given by the Commissioner, who apparently thinks, against all reason and without evidence, that at some unstated time the red line will magically supplant reality. But if nothing intervenes to change the rate of SLR, it will generally follow the blue line.

Sea Level Prediction

An important question about this ocean warming is how the tiny amount of air heated by our carbon dioxide emissions can radiate enough thermal energy to significantly heat the water. What is the physics of that? Our accumulated emissions make up only about 11% of 400 ppmv, or 44 parts per million by volume of the atmosphere, and it’s implausible that those few millionths could trouble the climate or threaten our survival.

The problem with accepting this ostensible heating from above is that no published paper has described a possible mechanism for such heat transfer. So science has no knowledge of its magnitude, yet the UN accuses Western civilisation of raising global sea level by this means.

The IPCC must try harder than this

Nobody has observed the process. Nobody can describe the amount of warming it causes. It’s reasonable to suppose that some warming of the water occurs, but significant heating is inconceivable. If you differ, please describe for us the mechanism of heating.

The IPCC expects to persuade us to close power stations, endure blackouts, cap oil wells, destroy airlines and scrap steel mills to prevent dangerously heating the sea. But they’ll have to try harder than this.

Climate activists assert loudly that our blast furnaces and SUVs have caused extra sea level rise, yet tide gauges show no sign of it. For the last 6000 years there’s been nothing but a steady natural rise, and a study of tide gauge records from 1880 shows no acceleration.

Rough comparison with hair dryer

So, we don’t understand how a little mildly warm air could significantly heat the ocean and we can’t detect the acceleration in SLR that was predicted years ago.

Here’s a rough comparison. A hair dryer is vastly hotter than our CO2 emissions. However, you can forget about getting anything resembling a warm bath by waving it over cold water. You’d do a lot better just to toss the plugged-in dryer into the cold bath and jump in after it. The trace gas we left in the atmosphere has no chance of warming the water.

The IPCC says global warming for the last hundred years was about 1 °C, with human influence about half of that, so any effect OF OUR EMISSIONS on sea level is related to only 0.5 °C, which must be ludicrously small. The IPCC claims that 44 ppmv of the atmosphere is radiating enough thermal energy downwards to dangerously heat the ocean, though it’s coming from CO2 molecules that have warmed only 0.5 °C. The argument is less than compelling.

IPCC vague on the air warming water

Of all the elements of climate science that deserve research, examining the possibility of human-generated CO2 molecules radiating significant thermal energy into the ocean must be at the top of the list. When you look into the boundary between air and water you learn that water exerts an overpowering influence on air temperature. Air warms or cools accordingly as it passes over water or ice. The influence is not the other way around.

The IPCC AR5 report (2013) doesn’t tell us how the air warms the water, referring to it only vaguely. Like these references from WG1AR5 Chp 8, p.712 (emphasis added).

Global Temperature change Potential (GTP) accounts for the climate sensitivity and the exchange of heat between the atmosphere and the ocean.

“The GTP values can be significantly affected by assumptions about the climate sensitivity and heat uptake by the ocean.” Does that refer to heat uptake or assumptions someone has made about heat uptake? So, in the absence of scientific knowledge of the air-to-water heating process, just when the general circulation models should have solid, reliable knowledge they come up empty.

Speculate, observe – hey, they’re different

Chapter 8 also says:

The formulation of the ocean response in the GTP has a substantial effect on the values; thus its characterization also represents a trade-off between simplicity and accuracy.

In other words, according to whether they speculate or make observations, they get different results — though you don’t have to be a scientist to work that out. Let us earnestly hope that the IPCC leans more to accuracy than simplicity.

By coincidence (or was it?) I noticed that, just the day after the recent climate questions in the House, Dr Wright addressed the Zealand Planning Institute’s annual conference: “We are certain that the sea is rising and will continue to do so for centuries,” she said. “If we stop emitting greenhouse gases today, it will continue to rise for years to come.”

The sea is rising, yes, and it may well rise for centuries, but that has nothing to do with emitting or not emitting greenhouse gases. For the sea was rising long before we began burning coal and oil. Though our emissions are at historical highs there’s no change in the rate of SLR, which means there’s no connection between our emissions and SLR.

Socialists have ripped out the heart of science

Dr Wright implies that the sea is rising because its temperature is rising. But it’s quite hard to be sure that its temperature is rising, because the ocean is vast and complex. There are 3500 Argo floats collecting data including temperature. But each one is alone in hundreds of cubic kilometres of ocean and takes measurements in that space for just a few hours every couple of weeks. We just don’t know what the trend is.

Examination of a dozen or so temperature graphs in the various ocean basins eliminates suggestions of a rising trend. All are highly variable, most seem flat, some trend down in recent years and some trend upwards.

It’s reasonable to conclude that the sea will indeed continue to rise for many years, whether or not we stop emitting any kind of gas — such as the hot air that emanates from the Ministry for the Environment.

As we untangle these green socialists’ unscientific, anti-industrial, hegemonic dissembling that man-made warming is dangerous we fear that they’ve ripped the heart out of science and threaten the glorious improvements of our last 300 years.

* Kiwis are internationally renowned for saying “yes, no”.

61
Leave a Reply

avatar
60 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
IanRichard C (NZ)Richard TreadgoldMike JowseyAndy Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Andy
Guest
Andy

The key part of the parliamentary transcript starts here:

12. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does she agree with the statement made by GNS Senior Scientist Nancy Bertler that sea-level rise of 30cm in 30 years is “incredibly certain”, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s analysis that a 30cm rise would result in 1 in 100-year high water levels in Wellington happening every year?

The obvious and most succinct answer to the question is “no”

Andy
Guest
Andy

So far this year, I have spent 2 days at the Independent Hearings Panel where the Environment Judge listened to our submissions, and I also got to cross examine council witnesses. I thought the judge, John Hassan, was actually very fair and respectful of people on both the public and the council side, and chastised both where appropriate.

The IHP have asked the Christchurch City Council to do further modeling based on 0m, 0.5m and 1.0m SLR projections over 100 years. The 0m is to give a baseline to factor out the SLR component of any modelling.

Based on this work, the IHP may support, reject, or make amendments to the proposed district plan.

Also, there is a new peer review of the Tonkin and Taylor report being commissioned. GHD are assembling the peer review panel based on recommendations. Yours truly is on the community engagement group for this, and our job is to solicit input from and communicate back to the local community

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

Good article RT. The quote of the month is “The argument is less than compelling.”
Andy – keep on their case mate, in your indefatigable, astute and polite manner.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Excellent post, and that’s a handy little chart RT. Very disappointing (to me) that a GNS employee, Nancy Bertler, has gone full stupid along with Jan Wright. Apart from their bizarro predictions, both neglect the IPCC’s baseline date, 1990. The following paper should be required reading by these people BEFORE they make public utterances: TIDE GAUGE LOCATION AND THE MEASUREMENT OF GLOBAL SEA LEVEL RISE Michael Beenstock Daniel Felsenstein Eyal Frank Yaniv Reingewertz Abstract The location of tide gauges is not random. If their locations are positively (negatively) correlated with SLR, estimates of global SLR will be biased upwards (downwards). We show that the location of tide gauges in 2000 is independent of SLR as measured by satellite altimetry. Therefore PSMSL tide gauges constitute a quasi-random sample and inferences of SLR based on them are unbiased, and there is no need for data reconstructions. By contrast, tide gauges dating back to the 19th century were located where sea levels happened to be rising. Data reconstructions based on these tide gauges are therefore likely to over-estimate sea level rise. We therefore study individual tide gauge data on sea levels from the Permanent Service for… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘150 Years of Sea Level Rise in Germany’

April 24, 2016 by sunshinehours

Facts are stubborn things.

The Wismar, Germany, record is one of the longest and most complete records of sea level rise in the world. It not only shows a long-term trend of 1.4 mm/year, but it shows no change in that trend (no acceleration over the past 50 years) since carbon dioxide levels have gone from 325 to 400 parts per million.

https://sunshinehours.net/2016/04/24/150-years-of-sea-level-rise-in-germany/

Ian
Guest
Ian

Regardless of the CO2 and heating (even though NOAA recorded that 6 of the 7 hottest years on record have happened in the 21st century = https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2015/13/supplemental/page-3 and it seems pretty simple that if we put CO2 that had been sequestered for millions of years and water vapour along with it into the atmosphere we will get a change. It didn’t take a lot of CFC’s to wreck the ozone).
How about looking at it from a different angle and use some simple logic. Where is all that ice that is dissapearing from glaciers and land based ice sheets going to end up and why if the decline of glaciers and land based ice sheets is accelerating will sea level rise not accelerate with it?

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/ice_sheets.html
http://wgms.ch/ggcb/

Andy
Guest
Andy

Yes we should use some simple logic. All the ice that is melting due to the computer models will make the seas rise 5 times as fast as they are now. We just need to wait a while, I’m sure next week we will see some evidence.

The CFCs didn’t wreck the ozone layer, by the way,

There was a small change in stratospheric ozone levels that was ascribed to CFC use, again mostly models and fairly noisy data with no clear signals. Sound familiar?

Andy
Guest
Andy

According to NASA, sea levels are rising at 3.42 mm a year

They kindly provide two graphs, one showing 3.42mm a year, and the tide gauges showing 1.5mm a year (*), on the same page
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

(*) Eyeballing 1870-1970

Funny how they don’t splice the two graphs together. Isn’t this a well known technique in climate science?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Ian, >”Regardless of the CO2 and heating” No Ian, not regardless, total regard. CO2 (CH4, net anthro, etc) and heating is what the man-made climate change (MMCC/AGW) conjecture is ALL about – nothing else. Water vapour? This is the amplification requirement of the conjecture but how is that going models vs actual? Not so good. The AGW conjecture is falsified by the IPCC’s own criteria and data from AR5. Everything else, GMST, SLR, glaciers, ice sheets, polar bears, penguins, is moot consequently. Here’s how it goes: IPCC climate change criteria: radiative forcing “measured at top of atmosphere” (IPCC AR4 FAQ 2.1, Box 1 – “What is radiative forcing?” – see below). Co = 280ppm, C = 400ppm. # 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al 2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2). # 1.9 W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) and IPCC Table of Forcings, similar to net anthro). Game over. CO2 “forcing” is more than treble the TOA imbalance, CO2 is an ineffective climate forcing. # 0.6 imbalance TOA = 0.6 imbalance Sfc Sfc imbalance is global average ocean heat accumulation (around 24 W.m-2 tropics, -11 W.m-2… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Ian – >”Where is all that ice that is dissapearing from glaciers and land based ice sheets going to end up”

Where is all the ice from NZ’s glaciated valleys or the Laurentide Ice Sheet? Why did it disappear? Where did it go?

You might think about this graph for a while Ian:

Post-Glacial Sea Level Rise
comment image

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”(even though NOAA recorded that 6 of the 7 hottest years on record have happened in the 21st century)”

So what? This is only the natural cyclic component of global temperature in response to major solar change. The CO2-forced climate models are running MUCH warmer than observations in the 21st century. The IPCC tacitly admits in AR5 Chapter 9 that 111 of 114 CMIP5 simulation submissions are junk. They even offer 4 reasons why their models are wrong.

Point is, at present CO2 forcing is excessive (models “too sensitive” to CO2 – IPCC) and the acid test is on the CO2 conjecture from now until about 2020. If there’s no radical ENSO-neutral warming (see UKMO 5-yr “decadal” forecast) then man-made climate change is a dead issue.

And if after 2020 the solar conjecture kicks in i.e. ENSO-neutral cooling, CO2 forcing will be proved to be superfluous – not just excessive.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Ian

>”(even though NOAA recorded that 6 of the 7 hottest years on record have happened in the 21st century)”

According to NASA GISS (GISTEMP), the 2015 record was Northern Hemisphere only. The Southern Hemisphere Extratropics (think Auckland, Sydney, Johannesburg, Buenos Aires) saw nothing of it:

Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands [GISTEMP]
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.B.gif

NZ in 2015 was 27th warmest according to NIWA, AU 5th according to BOM.

So much for “global” warming.

Ian
Guest
Ian

Wow really, c’mon guys pull your heads out of the sand. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201313 The anomalous warmth was also present during austral winter in New Zealand, which experienced its fourth warmest July and record warmest August. These warm months contributed to the country’s warmest winter on record. And the link below is the past 100 years from Niwa so you don’t just have to choose 2015 to bias your arguement. https://www.niwa.co.nz/climate/information-and-resources/nz-temperature-record Accelerating ice loss according to NASA. http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2328/ Several studies have shown that different remote sensing methods for studying ice sheet mass balance agree well. GRACE’s record, spanning over a decade, shows that the ice loss is accelerating in Greenland and West Antarctica. Greenland has shed, on average, 303 gigatons of ice every year since 2004, while Antarctica has lost, on average, 118 gigatons of ice per year, with most of the loss coming from West Antarctica. Greenland’s ice loss has accelerated by 31 gigatons of ice per year every year since 2004, while West Antarctica has experienced an ice mass loss acceleration of 28 gigatons per year. Ozone and CFC reaction was confirmed. http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/history.html I agree the Sun can change our climate and has… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

Buy an electric car

Yes great idea. That will stop the catastrophic sea level rise of 1.7mm a year, that isn’t accelerating despite your claims that human activity has accelerated the change,

Maybe when you have some actual evidence that human activity has even influenced sea levels you can come back with something more interesting than a used car sales pitch

Andy
Guest
Andy

Sorry I am running on a short fuse. I need to calm down. Sorry Ian, it’s not personal

We’ve got our first meeting with GHD with regard to the Tonkin and Taylor peer review this arvo..

Breathe……

Andy
Guest
Andy

and it’s not all for the sake of self-interest

No of course I need to do my bit for Big Oil and the Koch Brothers too. /sarc

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Ian 1) You neglect to address the issue that the man-made climate change conjecture (MMCC) is falsified by the IPCC’s own data as laid out upthread (plus the other issues raised in same comment). FAIL 2) You link to a NOAA 2013 summary? Huh? Why back in 2013, it is now 2016 for which there is monthly data Ian (see upthread). FAIL 3) You link to the NZ temperature record but that does NOT include 2013 or any data past 2009. FAIL Here’s the NIWA 7SS data that the NIWA page has NOT updated: 2010 13.10 2011 12.80 2012 12.50 2013 13.40 2014 12.80 2015 12.70 2013 was exceptional, the rest not so much. NIWA states that 2015 was “27th warmest since 1909″ in an El Nino yeqr. Not very alarming is it? And the NZ temperature data (NIWA or BEST) is NOT conforming to the CO2-forced predictions from the 1990 baseline as per IPCC that can be found on NIWA’s prediction page. FAIL 4) Whatever happens to ice (in your VERY short cherry-picked term – since 2004? get real on 30 yr on 30 yr climate regimes Ian) is moot if the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Ian, a challenge for you:

How much of the heat released by the 2015/16 El Nino spike will be “trapped” in the troposphere by “heat trapping greenhouse gasses”:

A) Most of it according to climate scientists Schmidt, Rahmstorf, Sherwood, Foster, Mann, in particular, who have claimed the bulk of the El Nino spike for AGW/MMCC (yes we have that on record) ?, or

B) None of it according to the Kelvin-Planck statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (in respect to heat sinks – space in this case).

This is an acid test Ian, be careful how you vote. The results either way will be in by the end of this year.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Ian, re the challenge to you above.

It’s not just the climate scientists mentioned, it’s also the UKMO. See their annual 5-yr “decadal” forecast here:

UKMO: Decadal forecast
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

Their blue prediction trajectory is off the TOP of the 2015 El Nino spike i.e. they predict that temperature will remain elevated at El Nino levels and ABOVE.

Given the UKMO’s record of annual forecast failure, do you think this will happen Ian?

Again, careful how you answer. A good indication of ENSO-neutral data will be in by the end of the year.

Ian
Guest
Ian

LOL, Used electric car salesperson, thats great. Well then since I am doing the sales pitch do you know that they are cheaper to run than a petrol or diesel vehicle even at 1.00 per L for petrol? No… never mind then. As for Fail’s the only FAIL around here is your ability to think outside your narrow view Richard C. You linked to a picture of the post glacial period for sea level. In it are periods of accelerated sea level rise. How about looking at the other post glacial periods further back when sea level was higher than it is today? There is still plenty of ice to melt. Your calculations on ice sheets in the new thread are erroneous by the way. It is a mass ballance, that includes precipitation and loss. Do you understand what a mass balance is? I am not a Climate Scientist and neither are any of you as you are not using scientific method. What measurements or observations have you personally been involved with? Thats why we should leave it to real Scientists. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/ Richard T You can use the handy search function in… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

I’m glad that Ian is off to buy an electric car to save money. I’m just wondering why the rest of the country isn’t following suit.

Is it possible that the rest of the country can see the “bigger picture” that electric cars are expensive to buy and difficult to quickly recharge, which is the reason most people don’t have them.

This also possibly explains the “siloed” thinking where we see a small benefit or signal in one area without looking around us.

I can’t help thinking that a lot of academic research is like this too. Researchers into West Antarctic ice melt conditions may be alarmed and may wish us to be alarmed too, but to date this alarm hasn’t presented itself in local sea level data

Having said that, if anyone wants to shout me a test drive in a Tesla, I’m on for it

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Ian will have to pay a premium in order to “save” but what’s depreciation cost for EVs? If motorists had to write out an annual cheque for depreciation they might have a better grasp of what their vehicle is costing them (unless they are wealthy enough not to care).

And he wont be using air conditioning or heating much if he doesn’t want to drain the battery. Air con’s a hog. Try turning your air con on and off while running a petrol engine and listen to the engine note and watch the tacho. There’s an instant load that needs a lot of power and the smaller the motor the greater the effect. In an EV that depletes the battery quick-time.

But yes, I\d like to punt a Tesla too.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Re challenge to Ian upthread, which he appears to have sidestepped (as did Hot Topic), viz:

How much of the heat released by the 2015/16 El Nino spike will be “trapped” in the troposphere by “heat trapping greenhouse gasses”:

A) Most of it according to climate scientists Schmidt, Rahmstorf, Sherwood, Foster, Mann, in particular [also UKMO], who have claimed the bulk of the El Nino spike for AGW/MMCC (yes we have that on record) ?, or

B) None of it according to the Kelvin-Planck statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (in respect to heat sinks – space in this case).

Joe Bastardi, Weatherbell, Tweets (see NCEP graph):

“Some sharp temp drops showing up in temps now as el nino rapidly backs off. Well forecasted spike, cooling starting”

https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/725874820332830720

Not looking good for the climate scientists – all that AGW/MMCC attributed “warming” is now “cooling”.

Andy
Guest
Andy

I’ve shared the slide decks that someone gave me from the recent conference on sea level rise in Auckland
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1rLpjlKgqyiLWZxQTNSeDlRNk0&usp=sharing

There are 11 slide decks
Let me know if you can’t access the folder.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Let me know if you can’t access the folder.”

I can access the folder and slides OK but it’s clunky viewing over the internet on my connection.

Can we have Download Permission Andy?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I got as far as Rob Bell’s Temp vs CO2 graph on slide 2 including 2015 El Nino spike and called it quits for a while.

Thinking – “Right, I think I know where this is going”.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Can we have Download Permission [please] Andy?”

Andy
Guest
Andy
Andy
Guest
Andy

The draft of the Tonkin and Taylor peer review is up at the following link under “what’s new”
http://www.christchurchsealevelrise.co.nz/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Disappointing at first look Andy but one redeeming feature – 10 year review “at least”. I would have thought “at most” though. North Carolina adopted 5 year reviews. Still no default scenario using historical rates of rise that I can see (exceptions [60] and [77] below). That would be the first priority for “good science” surely? All they have done is used RCP8.5 “adjusted” for historical rate i.e. adding RCP8.5 prediction to historical rate. But they do recommend recourse to historical tide guages for maximum storm surges in [60] and [77]. That’s good. Executive Summary [5] We also note that the IPCC RCP8.5 sea level rise projections for 2065 do not vary greatly (0.27 to 0.47 m). There is greater variability in the 2115 projections (0.62 to 1.27 m). Future changes in sea level rise projections for 2115 may be incorporated into an at least 10 year review process of the Coastal Hazard Assessment. Great. But “at most” 10 year review surely? And a review of IPCC changes but why not a review of changes, if any, to the historical rate of rise? You have to insist on this Andy. [25] The Report’s… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Areas of scientific uncertainty [98] Ramsay et al (2012) recommends that a range of sea-level rise scenarios be assessed for the future timeframe(s) under consideration and the sensitivity of the resulting coastal change/ inundation ascertained (Box 3 – Key checklist for coastal hazard assessments). Such scenarios can incorporate possible regional variations from global sea level projections. Based on discussions with CCC, the hazard assessment has been restricted to considerations of climate change SLR projections based on RCP 8.5. With more time it would be useful to have the assessments for CEHZ and CIHZ also undertaken for other RCPs. It is recommended this be done in the first reassessment/review when the likely RCP pathways may be clearer. [99] It is noted that few scientists believe the RCP2.6 pathway is now possible, so this emission scenario could reasonably be excluded from any future scenario sensitivity assessments. [100] It is also noted that RCP8.5 is a very high scenario, also referred to as a ‘business as usual’ scenario, with atmospheric concentrations based on the continuation of current emission levels. It is commonly adopted as an upper level scenario in hazard assessments. [101] Although it is likely… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Distributions and the probabilistic approach

[106] An issue has been raised by the community in the form a statement that ‘the best international guidance is that 1 m sea level rise in 100 years is very unlikely’.

Their dismissal of this in [107], [108], [109] and [110] and their reasoning is astounding. They set up a strawman and then say in [110] that the strawman “has no validity”.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Are the Report’s findings relevant in terms of new research?

[114] Therefore, while there is no specific new research that necessitates a modification of the Report, it is recommended that a review of published research be incorporated into each reassessment/review of coastal hazards.

Research, but not simply observational data?

They said in [77] there are “monitoring stations within the harbour and surrounding areas (Kaikoura, Timaru, Sumner, Port Lyttelton, Akaroa, Canterbury Bight)”.

Hello.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Their dismissal of this in [107], [108], [109] and [110] and their reasoning is astounding. They set up a strawman and then say in [110] that the strawman “has no validity”.

I was most disappointed in the lack of robust statistical reasoning in the report.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Policy 3 The Precautionary approach [150] Policy 3 Precautionary approach is required to apply towards ‘proposed activities’ whose effects on the coastal environment are uncertain, unknown or little understood, and to apply to the ‘use and management of those activities’ in the coastal environment. But the Report has applied it to determining sea level rise projections in the following manner: Adopted sea level values 4.1.4.5 Effects of sea level rise (‘SL’) Utilising the most recent projections (IPCC, 2014) and adopting a precautionary approach required by NZCPS (2010) and in keeping with recommendations in MfE (2008), this assessment has adopted sea level rise values projected for the RCP8.5 scenario – emissions continue to rise in the 21st century (‘business as usual’). This is considered prudent until evidence of emission stabilising justify use of a lower projection scenario. These sea levels range from 0.27 to 0.47 metres by 2065 and 0.62 to 1.27 metres by 2115 (refer to Section 2.2.1.5).31 [161] We concluded the reference to the Policy 3 precautionary approach should be removed from the Report for it does not add anything and does not apply to the relevant issues to which it applies.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Policy 24(1)(h) The likely effects of climate change on the district on all of the above (a) to (h) of the policy [184] The definition of climate change in s 2 RMA identifies that the concept means ‘a change of climate that is attributed directly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability over a considerable time period’.52 [185] The constant in both definitions appears to be: # a statistical variation in either the mean state of the climate or its variability … # a change of climate that allows for the changes in the composition of the global atmosphere due to human activities and that is in addition to natural climate variability … [186] Thus what NZCPS Policy 24(1) requires is an examination of the mean state of the current climate and its variable adjustments, a statistical characterisation of that data, or an assessment of potential climate change in addition to natural climate variability in order to provide (with medium confidence) the likely effects on the Christchurch district. [187] IPCC AR5 Table 25-1 provides a chart of climate variables including… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

RT

>”…..with review periods, higher frequency means “more”. So “at most” expresses the intention to review less frequently rather than more frequently. If you want more frequent reviews you should suggest 10 years “at least” to mark 10 years as the maximum period. That’s the way I see it. Others may interpret it differently.”

Yes, that does make sense but I was wondering it that was actually what they meant. The other interpretation is that the first review would be in “at least” ten years time i.e. maybe 10, 12, 15 etc.

Seems ambiguous to me although yes, we would have to favour your interpretation RT. Needs clarification I think.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Andy

>”I was most disappointed in the lack of robust statistical reasoning in the report.”

I haven’t checked the scope on this so I’m not sure to what extent they would have been expected to go statistically.

However, nothing lost because in [188] they call for “An assessment incorporating those [climate] factors would assist the community in identifying statistical shifts in the statistics.”

This is a huge win, especially if the historical rates of SLR are either included in the “factors” assessed or addressed specifically in respect to [188] i.e. neglect all the other factors, just assess SLR statistically.

Basically, the statistical analysis would have to provide validity to the use of IPCC RCP scenarios i.e. identify a human-caused signal that is “in addition to natural climate [or SLR] variability”.

I can only repeat my previous comment – “[188] is THE BEST RECOMMENDATION in the review”.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Yes “[188] is THE BEST RECOMMENDATION in the review”. thanks and noted

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Andy >”Yes “[188] is…..” It’s really that sequence of [184], [185], [186], [187], and [188]. [188] doesn’t take on much significance without knowing the context of the preceding [184 – 187] sequence. I don’t think I’ve seen that statistical criteria and those definitions combined in such a way anywhere else. And then statistical analysis requested to be done and applied to the defined criteria. I don’t recall the IPCC defining, requiring, or citing such a statistical exercise anywhere in Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution. Surely they do – I’ll look, but meantime see below. A quick web search turns up this: ‘Statistical analysis rules out natural-warming hypothesis with more than 99 percent certainty’ [Shaun Lovejoy] http://phys.org/news/2014-04-statistical-analysis-natural-warming-hypothesis-percent.html But Lovejoy’s approach is not what the review is calling for (I think Lovejoy was debunked by McIntyre anyway, maybe wrong). Also, Google search – “I{CC statistical isolation of human caused climate change from natural variation” http://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?start=10&q=statistical+isolation+of+human+caused+climate+change+from+natural+variation&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1 Turns up this, How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006 JL Lean, DH Rind – Geophysical Research Letters, 2008 – Wiley Online Library http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL034864/full Full paper. OK, this is closer but again, not… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Should be,

Google search – “ipcc statistical isolation of human caused climate change from natural variation”
http://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?q=ipcc+statistical+isolation+of+human+caused+climate+change+from+natural+variation&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I have to reiterate (sorry).

An analysis such is being called for by the review in recommendation [188] has already been carried out specifically in respect to satellite sea level data for the Pacific Ocean (i.e. not NZ tide guage data specifically). That was the paper I referenced above:

Is anthropogenic sea level fingerprint already detectable in the Pacific Ocean?
H Palanisamy, B Meyssignac , A Cazenave and T Delcroix (2015)
http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/divers15-09/010065224.pdf

No anthropogenic sea level fingerprint was detected; no statistical signal “in addition to natural climate variability” as per [185].

This is the state-of-play in the Pacific from satellite data. The review panel needs to know about this. Palanisamy et al (2016) is not referenced in their review Bibliography.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I don’t recall the IPCC defining, requiring, or citing such a statistical exercise anywhere in Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution. Surely they do – I’ll look” OK I’ve looked. Relevant sections are these, my comment thus [2) Yada yada…..]: 10.2.1 The Context of Detection and Attribution……………… 872 10.2.2 Time Series Methods, Causality and Separating Signal from Noise…………….. 874 10.2.1 The Context of Detection and Attribution The definition of detection and attribution used here follows the terminology in the IPCC guidance paper (Hegerl et al., 2010). ‘Detection of change is defined as the process of demonstrating that climate or a system affected by climate has changed in some defined statistical sense without providing a reason for that change. An identified change is detected in observations if its likelihood of occurrence by chance due to internal variability alone is determined to be small’ (Hegerl et al., 2010). [1) This is not a statistical signal “in addition to natural climate variability” as per [185]. See below after “# # #” for more on this and a comparison of criteria] Attribution is defined as ‘the process of evaluating the relative contributions of multiple causal factors to a… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>[Review 184] – “‘a change of climate that is attributed directly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability over a considerable time period”. When that criteria is applied to long-running historical tide guage SLR/MSL data for Auckland, Wellington, and Sydney, the long-term monotonic linear rate is effectively “natural climate variability over a considerable time period” if the data is essentially linear and monotonic. It certainly is in the case of Wellington at least. In other words, there has been no change from “natural climate variability over a considerable time period” that can be “attributed directly to human activity”. Upthread can be found plenty of reference to NOAA’s moving 5 yr 50 year trend analyses of Auckland and Sydney at their Tides and Currents website. Mid 20th century rates were higher than the latest 50 year trends. Again, there has been no change from “natural climate variability over a considerable time period” that can be “attributed directly to human activity”. So in respect to tide guage data in those locations, recommendation [188] has already effectively been satisfied. And in respect to… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”But Lovejoy’s approach is not what the review is calling for (I think Lovejoy was debunked by McIntyre anyway, maybe wrong).”

No, it was William Briggs:

‘Lovejoy’s New Attempt To Show We Are Doomed Does Not Convince’
And,
‘Yet Another Author Claims Statistically Significant Temperature Change. 99.999%!’
http://wmbriggs.com/?s=lovejoy

Also,

‘Abusing statistics in the name of global warming’ – JoNova
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/04/ask-stephan-lewandowsky-anything-except-please-can-i-have-that-data/

And,

‘Lovejoy says 99.9% certainty of AGW could be only 5% by 2019 if ‘pause’ continues’
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/09/lovejoy-says-999-certainty-of-agw-could.html

Andy
Guest
Andy

This is on the front page of today’s Christchurch Press today

Andy
Guest
Andy
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Link here at Stuff:

Parts of coastal hazards report deemed ‘misleading’ – TINA LAW, July 26 2016

A controversial coastal flooding and erosion report took only 20 days and aspects were “misleading” and “not fit for purpose”, a panel of scientific experts has found.

The panel identified a series of shortcomings after it was set up to provide the Christchurch City Council with an impartial view on a report that identified thousands of properties could be susceptible to erosion and coastal inundation.

But, the overall Tonkin and Taylor Coastal Hazard Assessment Report was deemed fit for purpose by the panel – only once certain changes and calculations were made.

More>>>>>
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/82460594/parts-of-coastal-hazards-report-deemed-misleading

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

From Stuff:

“Christchurch Coastal Residents United (CCRU) member Warwick Schaffer​, who was a member of the community reference group which determined the panel’s makeup and terms of reference, said the group had several questions regarding the panel’s findings, including its apparent acceptance of a 1 metre sea level rise over 100 years.”

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘4 New Papers: Anthropogenic Signal Not Detectable in Sea Level Rise’

By Kenneth Richard, 1. August 2016

1. Hansen et al., 2016
2. Palanisamy, 2016
3. Hadi Bordbar et al., 2016
4. Dangendorf et al., 2016

http://notrickszone.com/2016/08/01/all-natural-four-new-scientific-publications-show-no-detectable-sea-level-rise-signal/#sthash.WhSmMlEk.dpbs

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>2. Palanisamy, 2016 Document type : Theses Present day sea level: global and regional variations Hindumathi K. Palanisamy (2016) Abstract : […] In the second part of the thesis, by making use of past sea level reconstruction, we study the patterns of the regional sea level variability and estimate climate related (global mean plus regional component) sea level change over 1950-2009 at three vulnerable regions: Indian Ocean, South China and Caribbean Sea. For the sites where vertical crustal motion monitoring is available, we compute the total relative sea level (i.e. total sea level rise plus the local vertical crustal motion) since 1950. On comparing the results from these three regions with already existing results in tropical Pacific [Palanisamy et al (2015) – see below), we find that tropical Pacific displays the highest magnitude of sea level variations. In the last part of the thesis, we therefore focus on the tropical Pacific and analyze the respective roles of ocean dynamic processes, internal climate modes and external anthropogenic forcing on tropical Pacific sea level spatial trend patterns since 1993. Building up on the relationship between thermocline and sea level in the tropical region, we show… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

4′ New Papers: Anthropogenic Signal Not Detectable in Sea Level Rise’

By Kenneth Richard

Below are highlighted summaries from 4 peer-reviewed scientific papers published within the last few months.

1. Hansen et al., 2016
2. Palanisamy, 2016
3. Hadi Bordbar et al., 2016
4. Dangendorf et al., 2016

http://notrickszone.com/2016/08/01/all-natural-four-new-scientific-publications-show-no-detectable-sea-level-rise-signal/#sthash.xlBjTcEr.RSr8VYff.dpbs

Post Navigation