Evidence doesn't support rapid future sea level rise

University of Waikato senior lecturer Willem de Lange

The Royal Society of New Zealand's recent study on sea level rise claims that, in the next 100 years, sea levels will surely rise by 0.3m and 1m is possible. It strongly recommends action should be taken now to deal with this.

The claim does not stand up to close examination.

First, the rise in sea level and New Zealand coast has been about 0.14m over the past 100 years, with no sign of a recent increase in the rate.

There is no solid evidence to indicate this steady rate will increase rapidly in the future. The Royal Society's claims are based on flawed climate models that predicted, by now, temperatures would be 0.5° higher than they really are and increasing faster and faster.

When this dubious data were fed into sea level models, they predicted rapidly increasing sea level rise. How surprising!

The predictions of a Russian climate model that assumes CO2 makes only a small contribution to global warming is the only one that matches recent temperatures. Perhaps it is right.

The Royal Society’s conclusions are a serious matter because many councils are now restricting building close to the sea and putting restrictions on existing houses that have substantially reduced their value.

It is strange the Royal Society has ignored the fact that, all around New Zealand, the land is rising or falling at different rates. So it is quite wrong to assign a single value of sea level rise to the whole country.

What is known about sea level rise?
The long-term record is from tide gauges spread around the world. The oldest records date back to the 1890s and the average rise for 225 tide gauges spread around the world is 1.48 mm per year. (Source: Sea Level Info.)

This is close to the generally accepted 1.72 mm per year for tide gauges.

In the 1990s, Australia set up a series of very accurate tide gauges all around Australia and on many Pacific Islands (BoM reports). These show that, for the majority of sites, the sea level rise since the mid-1990s was less than 2mm per year.

The Pacific Islands record shows, for instance, that the sea level in Tuvalu has hardly changed since 1992. As a result of the now-ending El Niño effect, the Tuvalu sea level is about 100 mm below the level in 1994-1997.

Research by Paul Kench, of the University of Auckland, has established that the area of most atolls is increasing because natural processes build up the islands. Without this, all the atolls would have drowned as the sea level rose at 30mm a year at the end of the last Ice Age.

According to Sea level rise – history and consequences, by Bruce Douglas, Mark T Kearney and Stephen P Leatherman, there has been no acceleration of the rate of rise during the 20th century.

Data are available from satellite observations since 1993. These show a rise of about 3.2mm per year with indications of a recent decline in the rate. Nobody seems to be able to explain why it is about twice the tide gauge rate.

Satellites v tide gauges
Many “climate scientists” have adopted the dubious practice of substituting satellite for tide gauge readings post-1993 so they can claim that the rate of rise is increasing.

Predictions of sea level rise from the more realistic of the IPCC computer models range from about 150mm to 600mm by 2100.

In 2011, NASA’s predictions range from 200mm to 700mm. The Ministry for the Environment and NIWA seem to have used an Australian prediction that cobbled the satellite record on to the tide gauge record and predicts a sea level rise of something like 0.5m to 0.8m by 2100.

The Royal Society of New Zealand leads the pack with a projected rise of 0.3m to 1m. This is more than anybody else and much more than the 0.125 m we would expect if sea level rise continued  at its present rate.

So, there we have it. All the observational evidence indicates that the sea level is likely to rise 0.1 to 0.2 m by 2100. But the Royal Society, the government and other public bodies ignore this evidence and, instead, choose to believe the predictions of the computer models of climate and sea level that have never made an accurate prediction.

On the basis of this dubious evidence, they are devaluing coastal properties, preventing development in places where, in all probability, there would be negligible risk for hundreds of years and, on Auckland's northwestern motorway at least, spending millions of dollars on extra raising of the existing road to a level far above the likely sea level rise within its lifetime.

So, blind belief in flawed computer models overrules the evidence. Taxpayers and coastal communities bear the cost.

Solomon Islands report
On May 9, RNZ broadcast several news items about a professor in Queensland who claimed the sea level was rising rapidly in several of the Solomon Islands and that it was caused by man-made global warming – which he called “climate change.”

RNZ interviewed James Renwick (ex NIWA) and the Green Party, both of whom claimed it was evidence of climate change and criticised the government for not taking urgent action.

Remarkably, it seems that nobody in RNZ nor the people interviewed stopped to think: If they had done so, they would have realised that an apparent rise in sea level around a few islands is not evidence of a sea level rise worldwide.

The obvious explanation – which was not mentioned – was that these particular islands were slowly sinking beneath the sea. A few minutes with Google confirms this is the case and it has been going on for many years.

Sadly, this is typical of the reaction of the mainstream media to any story that can be construed to support the unproven and dubious hypothesis that man-made carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming and that, in turn, this  causes rapid sea level rise.

What we need is an independent examination of the evidence by people with open minds and practical experience of the New Zealand coastline and sea level rise, rather than a group of academics relying on computer models. 

Willem de Lange, MSc DPhil, is a senior lecturer at the University of Waikato. His expertise includes tsunami and storm surge prediction and mitigation, wave-induced sediment transport, dispersal studies, climate change and oceanography.

Bryan Leyland MSc, FIEE(retired), FIMechE, FIPENZ. is an electric power engineer with experience in computer modelling and data analysis. He has had a long-term interest in climate change.

Tune into NBR Radio’s Sunday Business with Andrew Patterson on Sunday morning, for analysis and feature-length interviews.


152 · Got a question about this story? Leave it in Comments & Questions below.


This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about MyNBR Tags

Post Comment

152 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

I think we might be deafened by the silence of critical response to this article

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Agreed. No one seems to have ever looked at the big yellow in the sky, it's variable distance from earth and how this affects the heat on the planet. Most AGW whackos live in a world (and parallel universe) that suggests this doesn't matter and or that the earth some how magic' d itself into a set position in the solar system (for ever).

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

Thousands of scientists are looking at every aspect of climate. Due to less sunlight Earth was cooling at 0.2C per thousand years. Only an increased greenhouse effect explains the recent and rapid warming. More greenhouse effect from more greenhouse gases trapping the heat.

Thousands of papers in reputable scientific journals present the evidence and help us understand global warming and climate change.

Carry on.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 2

"ONLY (my emphasis) an increased greenhouse effect explains the recent and rapid warming. "

And you know this how?

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

Because all other causes have been eliminated and the increase properly explained by the increase in CO2. The evidence is so strong and the science so robust that august bodies like the Royal Society, US National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, American Meteorological Society have made public statements. So unless it's a conspiracy greater than any rational person can imagine it's a fact.

But feel free to have a paper that refutes it published in Nature or Science; a Nobel prize awaits you.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 3

"Because all other (known) causes have been eliminated ".

Fixed it for you.
And even if your statement were true, it would require that we know exactly how climate is regulated. i.e. there are no unknown factors at work.
To say that the basic physics has been known for a hundred years , is not to say that those physics have been correctly applied to climate.
There is evidence that they have not.

You say " The evidence is so strong and the science so robust ".

You must know that an argument ad populum is a logical fallacy

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

Scientists publish their methods, evidence, results and conclusions. If sufficient work is done by sufficient scientists and a strong consensus emerges the explanation in time becomes a fact.

All you have is your opinion. Fortunately for our societies and habitat the governments of the world have preferred the scientists' understanding of science.

Your views on what constitutes science are irrelevant.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 4

>>>"Scientists publish their methods, evidence, results and conclusions."

The RSNZ scientists didn't publish how they arrived at the total annual net ice loss of 1200 Billions tons of ice, which would require a sea level rise globally of 3.3mm per year (3.3mm x 361,167,000 sq km) when the tide based measurements around the world only show 1.7mm.

The graphs were based on assumptions, not measurements. That is not scientific, although it was prepared by scientists.

RSNZ showed lots of references on the report, and the first NZ one I checked, showed the current annual sea rise as 1.6mm, not 3.3mm. It is also stated in that reference and the RSNZ report that NZ has not seen the 3.3mm supposed increase. Without a 3.3mm annual sea level rise, there cannot be a net loss of 1200 Billion tons of ice annually.

The basic principles of gravity, water flow and equilibrium of displacement means that an average of 3.3mmm will be shown all around the world. But it doesn’t.

When lofty science contradicts basic physics principles that even a ten year old can demonstrate in their kitchen sink, the lofty science has to be seen as sloppy, inaccurate and lacking in basic understanding.

Either that or their funding tells them what to think.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

The sea level rise is not the same all around the planet.

Ask the people in Florida.

The tides are no where near as simple as your 10 year old schoolboy thinks.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

What sea rises? Not same all around planet....are you saying world is flat, but a bit bumpy, but not round.....

....falling off chair in hysterics......priceless....

....

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Is that your only way to win an argument?: Tell your opponent they wouldn't understand the complexity of the argument.

>>>"The sea level rise is not the same all around the planet."

That's obvious but the trillion of tons of seawater from the land based ice melt will always flow to the lowest point. Ask anyone that has been in a tidal wave or tsunami. The underwater earthquake creates water displacement, resulting in a wall of water, gravity does the rest as it rushes to find equilibrium.

This is something you find difficult to understand, (probably because you can't visualise it) but something a ten year old at the beach making moats around castles knows all too well. "Look mummy, the sea water is running uphill" Yeah right.

The ONLY way it won't is if the moon interferes. But since the moon is continually orbiting the earth water tends to get dispersed reasonably well, with each pass of the moon. Just like the sultanas in cake mix in your mothers cake mixer when you were 10 years old. Throw the sultanas into the mix on one side of the bowl and watch them disperse evenly throughout the mix.

If this equilibrium didn't happen, all the water from the Greenland melt would stay around Greenland, and the rest of the world would be OK.

The reason it is called "sea level" because it is the "sea" and it is "level" save for the daily variations caused by the moon tide.

>>>"Ask the people in Florida."
Nothing to do with rising sea. It's called sinking land. Caused by excess draining of the aquifers.

It's funny but the water rises faster in heavily populated coastal areas.

Land subsidence is most often caused by human activities, mainly from the removal of subsurface water.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

"That's obvious but the trillion of tons of seawater from the land based ice melt will always flow to the lowest point. "

Would the lowest point be at the bottom of the globe? Only joking...

Better stick to your glass of water, I think. Leave the climate science to the scientists.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

"Leave the climate science to the scientists."
Now wouldn't that be tremendous if we could. Sadly, it is left to eco-global UNEP, UNFCCC bureaucrats and the IPCC political cabal, a cabal of post-modern climate "eco-scientists" that lie as far from science as the precautionary principle lies from reality.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

The Florida land in sinking. In this instance the problem is man made. Land subsidence is most often caused by human activities, mainly from the removal of subsurface water.

If is not as cool to say we are collapsing our own land as saying it is global warming. Collapsing land caused by removal of subsurface water does not get as much sympathy or insurance payouts.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Florida land sinking explains it? Citation required.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

One unknown factor to the IPCC appears to be the sun. Minor detail.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

So when you state an average of 0.2 degrees of cooling WAS occurring per thousand years, how far back are you going, and when did this trend reverse? Also I'm interested in your explanations of fluctuations within and outside of the 1000 year periods you refer to.
When you say (below) that all other causes of the increase in temperature (recent) have been eliminated, and the increase explained, how is it that the climate models so often help up as evidence of our impending doom (and I'm not suggesting they are wrong in perpetuity - only time will tell) don't seem to reflect what has actually transpired in terms of temperature in recent times - it seems the vast majority drastically overstate the reality (I was going to say 'catastrophise' but didn't want to resort to melodramatics).
Don't be too quick to praise the literature simply because it turns up in a journal - I'm sure even you will recognise some of the corruption that goes on in that context.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Models. This is worth reaading:
taminoDOTwordpressDOTcom/2016/05/17/models/

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Co2 is heavier than air Mr Crazy. Falls to ground.

Even if we pretend warming was occurring, earths variable distance to the bid yellow thing called the sun is the likely cause.

All sheeple can all relax a bit by stopping reading propoganda n occasionally looking up instead.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Dear Dennis Sheeple,

If there was such a fantastical thing as greenhouse-gas warming or trapping from vapour and or CO2, you'd not be able to see the stars at night and the planet would exist in a constant haze.

Poke your head out of the window tonight and have a look. No haze. Plenty of stars.

Hilarious the amount of people hooked by this one!

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

CO2 and water vapour are transparent to light. That is, invisible.

Without the greenhouse effect the mean surface temperature would be -18C, not +14C.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Water vapour transparent to light? Oh dear......oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.....

Shine a light from one ear to the other Dennis. Then you'll notice what is transparent!!!!

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Yes, I have a clear head and you are thick.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Indeed: ipse facto -
PJ Lloyd Energy and Environment (2015)
Centennial variation over the last 8000 years of the Holocene - 0.98C±0.27C - shows that the variation of centennial temperature lies within the bounds of natural variation. Anthropogenic warming remains dwindling politically correct construct.
Characterised by a trendless and UNPREDICTED interval of 19 years - McKitrick, R.R. (2014) HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a
Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2014.47050
the UN were forced to adopt 'climate change' as their political clarion call, aiming to install UN eco-global administration by 2030. There are four separate UN definitions for 'climate change', including ANY anthropogenic influence on atmospheric composition.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

King Canute demonstrated that even the royal decrees of Kings cannot hold back the tides. Maybe it will take the Royal Society of scientists to demonstrate that even the politics of global climate change treaties cannot summon the tides.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

My immediate thought was - "My mind is made up, DON'T confuse me with facts"

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

The NBR still giving climate change denial the oxygen of publicity as large sections of the Great Barrier reef die, as global temperatures records are broken not just annually now, but monthly, and as Arctic ice hits an all time low in May.

Seriously? This stuff really undermines the credibility of NBR as an organization. What next, a piece on how cigarette smoking doesn't cause lung cancer?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 6

Not sure if many sheeple or you've ever melted an ice cube in a glass of water.

Try it and see what happens. Nought.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

So Archimedes what causes ice to melt then?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

The sun (the big yellow thing in the sky) is one example. Certainly not your car (or Co2).

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Do you know what the temperature of Earth would be without the greenhouse effect? Minus 18C. Heat retained by the greenhouses gases raise it to +14C. CO2 is the forcing driving this with a very strong amplification feedback by water vapour.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Dennis

I hate to seem like a skeptic, as I believe that we have effected the global climate with emissions, but honestly at one stage we knew the world was flat, along with many other scientific facts that have since been disproven

I am not saying that we are not effecting climate change, just that it is not a fact - it is something we believe and fits within our current understanding - this may evolve over time to represent a non linear model as science is currently suggesting, a linear model or there may be some other factor that limits climate change - we really do not know

That is the point we do not know the future and these are all estimates - it could be sea levels rise faster or slower, or they even decrease do not ask me as different models give different answers for each theory on what will change and its effect

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

What is a fact? More CO2 causes more heat retention - that's as much a fact as putting the kettle on will boil the water.

Global warming and climate change due to man's emissions of CO2 is as much a fact as evolution.

There is no evidence that there is a negative feedback such as cloud cover sufficient to ameliorate the rising level of CO2, and in the past Earth has been much warmer with higher levels of CO2.

The scientific institutions and societies state publicly the evidence is clear and the science incontrovertible. Some refer to it as a fact.

Do you seriously think they would do this unless they were very certain of the facts?

Your point is a matter for philosophy, not science.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

>>>"What is a fact? More CO2 causes more heat retention - that's as much a fact as putting the kettle on will boil the water.

Global warming and climate change due to man's emissions of CO2 is as much a fact as evolution."

CO2 comprises only .039% of the atmosphere while nitrogen comprises 78%. CO2 is not the real greenhouse gas. Nitrous Oxide is. Which is a by-product of human activities.

Even though Nitrous Oxide is only 6-7% of greenhouse gas, it has 300 times the impact of CO2 for global warming, making it the big one to deal with.

Luckily some real scientists working in the real world, have developed a way to remove the oxygen from Nitrous Oxide with Oxygen-conducting capillary membrane. They are also working on the direct removal of CO2 creating carbon dioxide-free power plants.

Real scientists create real solutions to real problems.

The rest just globally soak up taxpayer funds pontificating about doomsday and lobbing governments for funding.

The sky will not fall on Chicken Little, the ice will not melt, and the oceans will not rise, the earth will not drown.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Well the great contrarians Lindzen and Curry don't deny it's CO2, so that puts you in a class of your own.

And no, earth won't drown. There's not enough water.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Dennis, not sure if you are up with the play, but Co2 is heavier than air mate.

To help you along, in case it's all news, its all a bit of swindle.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

You are attacking the person rather than then science in an attempt to shut down debate. You use denier in an attempt to associate this person with holocaust deniers. I find this very offensive.

Tell us what he has got wrong and what exactly is he 'denying' how do you deny something that may or may not happen in the future?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Beware the clarion call and arm waving of the eco-shill who so readily confabulates tobacco consumption, climate denial, The Holocaust and coal trains in place of sound science. The GBR is doing just fine https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/20/modern-scientific-controversies-p... as indeed are the Arctic and Antarctic. As for "global temperatures" (whatever that means - range: -89C to +53C) lie well within centennial natural variation (0.98C±0.27C) of the last 8000 yrs of the Holocene. (Lloyd, 2015. Energy & Environment).

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

The satellites and the tide gauges measure two completely different things - the former estimates the altitude of mid-ocean sea level relative to a notional fixed point - usually the centre of the earth.

This data is obviously useful for some scientific work but tells us NOTHING about the present or future tide levels around the New Zealand coast

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

The NBR still giving climate change denial the oxygen of publicity as large sections of the Great Barrier reef die, as global temperatures records are broken not just annually now, but monthly, and as Arctic ice hits an all time low in May.

Seriously? This stuff really undermines the credibility of NBR as an organization. What next, a piece on how cigarette smoking doesn't cause lung cancer?

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 2

As long as they continue to publish the lunatic ravings of the Green Party they may as well given oxygen to other illogical utterings.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 1

The NBR is doing exactly what it should do: Providing for open debate on contentious subject. When the chairman of the IPCC was interviewed in Australia a few years ago he said that open debate was needed. And it is.

What you are doing is trying to shut down debate and restrict free speech. Just like the mediaeval church, the North Koreans and Isis.

What happened to "I disagree with what you say and I will defend to the death your right to say it"? The hallmark of an open society.

BTW The Great Barrier Reef is in good health with some quite natural bleaching caused by the warm El Niño – not by non-existent global warming.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Hmmmm, whom to believe as regards what is happening to the Great Barrier Reef??
OPTION A: The former trustee of a group of climate-change doubters who left the taxpayer at a substantial six-figure loss after its trust was liquidated following a failed High Court battle with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA)
OR OPTION B: The most reputable Scientific journal in the world (Nature): ''Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is undergoing the most severe bleaching event in its history, '' - from June article: Coral crisis: Great Barrier Reef bleaching is “the worst we’ve ever seen” -Marine ecologist Terry Hughes talks about the ongoing bleaching of the world’s most famous coral reef.

As the article explains, there ain't nothing 'natural' about it.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 3

Coral bleaching may be caused by an increase in water temperature, but is usually a localised or rapid water temperature rise. Rapid can still be measured in years.

But this ignores all scientific and engineering principles to do with thermal convection, thermal mass, thermal insulation, thermal resistance, thermal lag, thermal capacitance, heat sinking effects etc.

Given the strong thermal mass of the earth, the strong thermal ocean conductivity, the strong thermal sinking of the ocean/earth crust, and the very high comparative thermal resistivity of air compared to water, and the very low surface to water mass ratio, it would be almost impossible to see even small continual persistent upward changes in water temperature without a corresponding multi-fold increase in average atmospheric temperature.

Put simply: an increase of the average water temperature of 1 degree will require average air temperature increases in tens of degrees. Even with a hypothetical supposed increase in temperature caused by an insulating layer of CO2, we could expect to see a whole raft of temperature changes directly affecting human life before sea temperature is affected.

It is far more likely that localised changes in water temperature are caused by radiant heat, sun spot activity and the solar seasonal cycle. Earth's seasonal cycle is 365 days. It would appear that the seasonal cycle of the sun or the solar cycle that affects earth is 100,000 years in length.

>>>"Marine ecologist Terry Hughes talks about the ongoing bleaching of the world’s most famous coral reef.... ...'Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is undergoing the most severe bleaching event in its history...

It should read "the most severe bleaching event in its RECORDED history."

It is more truthful to say that little is known of the history of the Great Barrier Reef except for the last century or two. I suspect that if the recorded history of the reef was 20 million years, not 200 years, the bleaching would be a cyclical event. In the last 20 million years since the reef existed, it has survived glacial ages and heating periods, which occur on an approximately 100,000 year cycle.

The bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef has no significance in determining or proving global climate change, man made or otherwise. It is a localised event.

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

I don't know much but you seem to know less. First, the reef has existed only a few thousand years, maybe 6-8000. Second, the present organisms are a different population to the earlier reef. Third, it's acidification that's killing it, half our CO2 dissolves in the oceans. Fourth, much of it is 'cemented' by single cell organisms that need carbonate at a pH they are accustomed to. Fifth, coral lives 'on the edge' as regards temperature and a slight increase rapidly enough doesn't allow time for them to adapt. That's just off the top of my head...

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 2

The present day reef may only be 6-800 years old, but that is not the full life of the reef. Think of this latest form as one year in the life of a rose. 6-8000 years may be one year in the life of the reef. The actual age of the reef is actually unknown with estimates of 500,000 to millions of years.

Of course different organisms will be present at different stages of development or evolution, that is a very observable pattern of nature.

Since it has been through so many adaptations and glacial cycles it is presumptive to say that this current bleaching is a sign of global warming. The reef is continually evolving so without referencing the long term, this current bleaching may not be an unnatural part of its cycle or adaptation to what is happening around it.

Anyway this is about the principle of not jumping to conclusions and using the bleaching as an indication of global warming and rising sea levels. We know the reef is affected by acidity and CO2 but that does not prove global warming.

There are other things that could affect it such as:

Acidic lava leeching up into the water from the Puysegur Trenchas a prelude to a major earthquake or tsunami, or leeching post NZ or Japan earthquakes.

Or radiation from Fukushima which is still leaking massive amounts of radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean.

http://www.greatbarrierreef.org.au/fukushima/

The coral bleaching does not prove global warming.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

"The coral bleaching does not prove global warming."

True. Nothing proves global warming.

As I said you don't know much. The reef wasn't there 20,000 years ago. The area was high and dry.

All the coral reefs are dying everywhere.

That doesn't prove global warming either. What makes the global community of scientists so sure there is global warming is the consilience of evidence from many sources.

Plus of course the physics has been known for a hundred years or more.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 1

but, you said Co2 was trapping warming in the atmosphere...now dissolves into oceans.....but how can it if its in the atmosphere?

..what about volcanoes how do they get involved?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

This is a very pertinent issue for the residents of Christchurch, who are facing severe building restrictions based on assumptions of rapidly accelerating sea levels that are clearly not happening at present

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

If there is a silence rather than any response, it is simply because most have tired of responding to these "flat earthers" who will not take account of the evidence - now overwhelming - of climate change. Note that the issue is change in climate, not the misleadingly named "global warming". Whether the consequence of continuing climate change is warming, or increased rain, clouds, polar ice melt, and storms does not matter - it is change which is having serious impacts. The extent to which it is a natural cycle and the extent to which it is caused by humans also does not matter, as it is the consequences which must be faced.
Repeated expression of the Leyland/de Lange themes in places (such as RMA hearings) where they can be challenged has been disproved again and again. We simply have to recognise that they will continue to hold sincere but erroneous views and move on to what matters, which is the response to reality. A week ago I was in Port Arthur, Tasmania. In 1843 a tidal mark was placed on the Island there, which is reported to be one of the oldest if not the oldest tidal mark in the southern hemisphere and one which has been studied from time to time. Allowing for some imprecision in the nature of the marking (since its maker will not have had today's precision in mind) it shows a sea rise of around 13cm since it was made. This is just one tiny piece of the information assessed by the Royal Society, which is responsibly identifying and leading the debate. Why and how that happened is history - the real issue is how to respond. NBR is entitled to publish whatever it wants - but at the real risk of boring us!

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 2

So 13cm in 173 years is approx. 1.33mm per year, near the lower end of current estimates and significantly below any of the IPCC crazy projections. You seem to be arguing against your own lying eyes here Mr. QC.

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 1

I find Hugh Rennie's post hilarious. He calls those who are challenging the more conservative sea level rise predictions as "flat earthers", talks about the need to follow evidence and the reality before our eyes, then goes onto quote a figure that supports exactly what they are saying!

This post (if it is genuine) clearly shows the other side isn't even listening to what their opponents say, instead reacting in a knee jerk manner to anything that doesn't assume the worst. For someone who talks about 'facts' and 'reality' so much, it also suggests someone who is disconnected from reality, and instead sees the issue as political rather than scientific.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

" it also suggests someone who is disconnected from reality, "
Or a legal eagle playing Devil's Advocate in order to elicit the arguments needed to demolish the whole CACC/CAGW/CC case where it is being used as a pretext to destroy property rights.
I foresee some farmer, located in a ponding area for city runoff, having to fight against a proposal to raise stop banks (to protect houses built in the flood plain) which will submerge his farm, all on the basis of purported " climate change" and presumed "unprecedented" "wild weather".

If he (the farmer) is practicing sustainable agriculture , then that would be extra curly : protecting the unsustainable low-lying city by inflicting a major, possibly fatal nuisance on the sustainable food-producing farm.

RMA anyone?
Whaddya reckon Hugh? Worth a go?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Hugh, do you realise that the Tasmanian tidal marker supports our arguments? 13 cm in nearly 200 years is even slower than indicated by the tide gauges we quoted. And ~10 times slower than the rate predicted by the RSNZ. Which is the point of the article. Do we believe in the predictions of failed climate models or the evidence? It needs open debate.

In case you haven't realised all climate sceptics believe the climate is changing - quite naturally. Recent climatic changes are consistent with past natural climate changes. The evidence indicates a real risk of imminent and dangerous natural cooling.

BTW the Flat Earth Society believe in dangerous manmade global warming! We don't.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

The biggest sea tidal wave has been created by the NZ Herald to destroy the NZ economy.
Herald reporters have been relentless on housing when there is no real problem, just a mathmatical interest decrease creating an illusion.
2008 interest rate 11% 》400k house =43k pa
2016 interest rate 4% 》 800k house =32k pa
It is way cheaper to buy a house today than it was in 2008 when Labour was in power.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 1

Looking forward to the Leyland , de Lange defence of cigarette smoking, using x-rays to determine foot size and bloodletting.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 4

So resorting to denigration and ridicule ... not willing to confront the facts as usual Lance?

Reply
Share
  • 4
  • 0

These folks are taking an ice ax to a mountain of evidence, and they are wasting the time of people who have much better things to do than to refute their nonsense.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 4

Looking forward to seeing realised returns, not manufactured ones .........
Of course the re-phrasing from "dangerous run away man made global warming terminology" is SO smashed that to keep a semblance of virtue they now call it climate change! What a joke.
Everyone knows climate has changed, with and without man. It is just foolishness to think that man can have any significant influence when all the sheep le scientists best efforts at climate models have been so devastating smashed and ridiculed for the last 20 years, but the funding is so addictive!,

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

Nobody has yet challenged anything we said in the article with hard evidence. The only attempt finished up as an own goal.

Instead, they choose to attack the authors, rather than the evidence. One can only conclude that they find it difficult to refute what we have said.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

You have measurements and rational thought on your side. Don't flinch. It wasn't easy for Galileo either.

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

Yes, but in the end the deniers were forced to accept the science. Some people didn't.

Same now. Some people deny the science.

Some people deny death, preferring to believe they will live on in heaven.

Do you see a pattern here?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 2

What science? Uncertainty is rife..

Some quotes from the IPCC:
1.       "... the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) ... is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)." [SPM, page 3, section B.1, bullet point 3, and in full Synthesis Report on page SYR-6]
>>The world has not warmed as fast as we predicted and we don't know why.

2.       "... an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (...) reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble ...." [WGI contribution, chapter 9, text box 9.2, page 769, and in full Synthesis Report on page SYR-8]
>> 97% of the model runs over estimated the actual temperature rise.

3.       "There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols)." [SPM, section D.1, page 13, bullet point 2, and full Synthesis Report on page SYR-8]
>> It is possible that we have overestimated the climate forcing factor and other key factors – the numbers that drive our predictions of dangerous global warming.

4.       "This difference between simulated [i.e. model output] and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing and (c) model response error". [WGI contribution, chapter 9, text box 9.2, page 769]
>> We really don't know why the climate models got it so wrong.

>> Comments added by Bryan Leyland

I am reminded  of this quote by Galileo: “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”  

And Einstein "One experiment could prove me wrong."

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

So, certainty. Do you demand certainty when you seek medical help? Are you sure you understand quantum mechanics completely when you use a transistor?

The fact is, it was predicted by scientists, including those working for Exxon, that more CO2 would result in Earth retaining more energy, and it has.

Measurements, not models, have shown a rise in temperatures. Global mean up 1C, most in the last 50 years. The ice is melting.

And we ain't seen nothing yet. Even with the best will in the world we're going to be discharging a lot more CO2. And there is a lag time.

The science is settled. That doesn't mean everything is known and understood. It's science, not religion.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 3

Do you also accept the science that tells us that shining a torch at a bathtub will heat the bath? It is well established physics

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

The satellites and the tide gauges measure two completely different things - the former estimates the altitude of mid-ocean sea level relative to a notional fixed point - usually the centre of the earth.

This data is obviously useful for some scientific work but tells us NOTHING about the present or future tide levels around the New Zealand coast

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

Very true. The satellite measurements, from an analytical viewpoint do not measure net sea level heights.

They are more indicative of overall planet diameter (core + crust + water ). Changes in the absolute height are caused by out of roundness of the earth and or minor expansion or contraction as it is influenced by the gravitational fields of the sun and other planets, as well as celestial seasonal heating and cooling cycles.

The rise in sea levels relative to the land is what we are interested in and the tide gauges tell it all - little change.

The term 'climate changer denier' is an emotive term and only used to label those who disagree as having a psychological impediment of denial. Similar tactics were employed by the Nazis to label anyone who helped a Jew escape an unjust death or custody as a "Jewish sympathizer" who was then shot or sent to a concentration camp for their lack of hatred of Jews.

If nothing else, it proves that a whole nation can be conned into believing a whole load of codswallop.

70 years and there is nothing to indicate the bulk of mankind are any less gullible or less prone to fits of emotional outbursts and obsessional dictates. We only have to witness the number of wars and religious rebellions currently in action to prove that, where being right is more important than the lives of countless victims.

Anyone using the emotive term "climate change denier" is obsessional and won't talk specifics for fear of encountering the truth instead of their mantras of out of context drivel and lack of specifics.

Anyone using the phrase 'climate change denier' should immediately be replied to as a 'Climate Change Nazi'.

The only real danger regarding climate change debate, Is not rising water levels but drowning in stupidity and lack of specifics.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

So summarising we have de Lange and Leyland explaining the data on sea level rise showing nothing out of the ordinary and how the scary scenarios require reliance on computer models that we now know to be wrong.

“Crowd Pleaser” chimes attacking the NBR for publishing the article, Hugh Rennie QC declares de Lange and Leyland “flat-earthers” citing his one desultory piece of evidence that ironically shows a sea level rise of 0.75mm a year when de Lange and Leyland are saying the historical rise is more than twice that, and Lance Wiggs pithily cuts in to declare he’s looking forward to the authors supporting bloodletting, etcetera.

Not one of the critics refers to the data, the temperature record, the models or the science.

They instead mock, engage ad homimen, and seek to shut down debate.

They claim the science belongs to them, that the science is settled, and that government must assert enormous social and economic control to rejig radically our economy dictating how we live and work on a scale never before contemplated.

For such a massive policy prescription it would be nice to see the argument concisely put with the data to back it up and not the endless repetition of the results of computer models programmed to give scary scenarios.

But no doubt I ask too much. I should just give away the car and retreat inland to live subsistence because, what, they, and the "experts" say so.

Regards

Rodney Hide

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

The Royal Society report is what you might expect from a poor little rich kid at University who drinks and parties all year long and crams the final week paying someone to create impressive looking but inconclusive data. If I was marking this report for an end of year exam the student would have failed miserably. There are two many holes.

Page 1:
>> The rise around New Zealand has been close to the global trend. However, evidence of an accelerating rate has not yet been seen in the New Zealand tidal record.

Is it the global trend of 1.7 mm/yr or the accelerated rise over the past fifteen years of 3.3 mm/yr? According to the report it is the 1.7mm per year, so unless Archimedes had someone else in the bath, the world wide trend is still 1.7mm and NOT accelerating. The earlier records were tidal, the latter from satellites? I would suspect that 1.7mm per year is more accurate is in line with “evidence of an accelerating rate has not [yet] been seen in the New Zealand tidal record”. The Archimedes law does not lie, water does not run uphill.

Page 3: Figure 2: Recent polar ice loss.

1. If one is to interpret the graph, then in 2003, supposedly the Antarctic Ice was gaining at 400 Gt per year? And in 2009 losing at 600 Gt per year? And 2006 the pivot year? Claims have been made decades ago that Antarctica was shrinking, but RSNZ say only in the last 10 years?

2. X Axis: Too short a time period. Six years is too short a time to see the whole picture, and the whole picture must be seen. 200 years with another graph zoomed into 20 years and perhaps 10 would give the full picture to see whether we are dealing with a trend or an anomaly.
Note: Enron was highly profitable in selected graphs unless you looked at the full picture.

3. Y Axis: Absolute figures of change mean nothing unless also shown as a percentage, and compared to the whole. One graph should show percentage shift and one should show total ice volume. Both should carry stated ±percentage accuracy. If the percentage change is 0.01% but the accuracy is ±30% not a lot of conclusions could be drawn.

4. Basis of the graph: It is stated that these are estimates. But the obvious has not been stated: Is this a net loss? It talks about losses from the ice sheets but does not state if there are gains. Losses from the ice sheets are always happening, so the net figure is important.

As it happens, NASA has weighed in on this one:
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-i...

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008. ( NB: This is the same year that RSNZ stated a loss of 400 Billion tons = 400Gt)

“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

Just run an experiment in your kitchen or your basement (with or without wearing your undies).

You need a glass, with water and an ice cube. Mark water line with a pen (permanent if you are worried about the IPCC turning up to do the experiment).

Put ice cub in glass.

Note where said water and waterline are at after Ice cub melt.

Take a nap.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 1

Did all that in primary school science and passed with top marks. What's your point?

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

The article aggressively takes issue with 'many' scientists (dozens, hundreds?) who apparently rely on satellite data alone to assess sea level rise. It even suggests that they are not really climate scientists at all:
"Many “climate scientists” have adopted the dubious practice of substituting satellite for tide gauge readings post-1993 so they can claim that the rate of rise is increasing."
But if in fact there are 'many' scientists who have been foolish enough to rely on one set of data, the authors appear to be equally wrong in relying on tide gauges, which are themselves imperfect, and can be affected by local ground movements. The article itself says "all around New Zealand, the land is rising or falling at different rates." Subsidence in the Wellington region has been a feature of discussions over the Kapiti coast hazard lines and Mr De Lange would be familiar with that discussion since he was involved in it.
So we have satellite data suggesting a rising sea level, climate models suggesting we should expect a rise, and an argument that tide gauges are not reflecting that. I would be interested in more analysis as to what might be occurring with the science, particularly given that climate modelling is so far proving generally correct on some big issues - ie ocean acidification, global temperature rise and the Arctic melting.
To dismiss alternative viewpoints as "a group of academics relying on computer models" is simply pejorative and unhelpful. For those wanting to read a more thoughtful local discussion involving a number of experts including Mr De Lange see: http://www.kapiticoast.govt.nz/contentassets/3e0b8f7d675143e1be7ffc4bb7d...

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 1

One of the sources quoted by the RSNZ report itself: An updated analysis of long-term sea level change in New Zealand. J. Hannah covers that.

Adjustments have been made for land movement when using tidal data.
Report [31] [32]

This is the same source material used by RSNZ that states that NZ has not seen any accelerated water level rises beyond the 1.7mm per year.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Tom

The criticism is directed to those who use tide gauge measures up to 1993, and then graft satellite results on to the same record – without explaining that apples are being compared with oranges.

A very small handful of NASA scientists measure the earth's diameter and apply computer models to ascertain its relativity to a (much-criticised) geoid. The "eustatic sea level" is measured by a mathematical artifact rather than being a real observable phenomenon.

If the eustatic measure cannot be reconciled with the real-world observations provided by tide gauges, then it obviously requires more work. But those reconciliation attempts are a work in progress. The science is in its infancy.

Although history offers no guarantee regarding the future, long-term historical tide gauges remain the best available predictor of future tide levels at any given geographical point.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Three points. First, I think that your sharp distinction between 'mathematical artifacts' and 'real observable phenomenon' is wrong. The two things are never so easily distinguished. Tide gauges need mathematical interpretation and adjustment like everything else. For example, if Wellington suffers a large subsidence earthquake tomorrow that affects places where tide gauges are located, I would hope to see someone employing those 'mathematical artifacts'. NIWA do it with temperature gauges - and I note that your arguments in the High Court about those gauges were about the extent of mathematical adjustment - not that no adjustments should be made.
Second, I entirely disagree with the comment that 'the science is in its infancy.' Computer power and problem solving capacity has improved phenomenally in recent years. We could not drive cars autonomously or land used first stage rockets on barges at sea in the 1980s, or 1990s for that matter. Sediment computer modelling, which Mr De Lange understands, has also changed enormously since the 1980s.
In the NIWA litigation, one of your arguments was that NIWA should have relied on a paper published in 1980 on the location of weather gauges, and you took issue with the NIWA argument that knowledge and technology had made big advances since that time. But you also argued that NIWA departed from “best recognised scientific opinion”. And you defined “recognised scientific opinion” as "relevant established scientific opinions and methods described in internationally recognised research journals." That seems contradictory to me. The best science panels which I have seen and read about look at all the evidence and are not fixed on just one past method or totally reliant on even the best of recent computer models. Multiple lines of evidence is surely the best approach.
Thirdly, you say that historic tide gauges are the best available predictor at given points of future sea level rise. But they are not much good for predicting expected future discontinuities. If we agree that even a small amount of sea level rise is probable in the next 100 years due to GHG emissions, that is a discontinuity that gauges in operation over the past 100 or so years logically cant help us with. They provide a background baseline against which we have to consider the probable added sea level rise. For the rest, paleodata related to GHG levels and sea levels in the past will help, and computer modelling.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 2

"So we have satellite data suggesting a rising sea level, " but for too short a period to be able to draw any inference.

"climate models suggesting we should expect a rise, " while other models suggest no such thing.

"and an argument that tide gauges are not reflecting that. " while some tide gauges appear to be the best information that we have.

A tide gauge reflects an observable reality, an empirical fact.
A model reflects its design, and inevitable limitations i.e. it is not reality.

Your move.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

I expected responses to demonstrate entrenched judgments from those who reject confront climate change or believe humans make no contribution to it. I expected my reference to Port Arthur to be “read” to fit those fixed views.
Readers will have their own opinion as to whether I have proved these.

Bryan Leyland writes of “a real risk of imminent and dangerous natural cooling”. Cooling in an environment of extensive human activity will only be “natural” if you take the current situation as being the “natural” state. Likewise warming.
Whether the “imminent” event is cooling or heating, sea rise or sea stability – the urgency is that serious effects are “imminent”. Denial of any human role ensures an inadequate response.
My reference to Port Arthur, reported only as evidence, was immediately derided (“one desultory piece of evidence”, “lying eyes” – whatever that means?), rejected (“own goal”) and averaged into an annual rate (good trick – round the period up to 200 years, assume an even increase in every year, make the change look small) to fit a predetermined conclusion. I cited it but did not claim what it proves. As I said “This is just one tiny piece of the information assessed by the Royal Society, which is responsibly identifying and leading the debate. Why and how that happened is history - the real issue is how to respond.”
Interpreting historic data is enormously difficult – for the Port Arthur tidal mark, start with the paper by Pugh, Coleman & Hunter in 2002 to see the many factors evaluated and the range of values of what it shows. (They give the date as 1841 not 1843, with rises only starting about 1890).
Finally, “QC” is embedded in NBR’s system - I can comment as that or not at all. What I know from 47 years in law is that a judge of their own case will always find they are right…

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

But Hugh this should be science not law or politics where the judge is not you or I but the facts which is the very point Leyland and de Lange were making which you strenuously denigrate.

Facts are tricky things but nonetheless decisive.

The one fact you provided -- as presented by you -- contradicted what you assert. You can hardly criticise commenters for pointing that out or for demanding a little bit more that the outpourings of computer models for a policy prescription to up-end industrial society as we know it.

Us sceptics aren't "entrenched" in my experience but sceptical which is the essence of science with our views of how the world works tested against the evidence not computer models. Of course, climate changes. Of course, increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases -- all things being equal -- produces a warming. The question is how much.

The evidence thus far is that all variation is nothing out of the ordinary since industrialisation and that temperature isn't as sensitive to greenhouse gas as the models assume with the precise and unresolved issue being not the effect of CO2 as such but the relative strength and indeed direction of the various positive and negative feedbacks.

best

Rodney Hide

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

"The evidence thus far is that all variation is nothing out of the ordinary since industrialisation..."

Yeah, nah. A 40% increase in CO2 since industrialisation has raised the global mean temperature 1C; most of that's been in the last 50 years. To many it's looking more like 3C for a doubling of CO2. In any case, it's the energy retained that matters; most has gone into the oceans. That heat's got to be shifted around - that's why we'll see more extreme weather events more often.

Don't kid yourself you or you're Republican mates are sceptics. Just common or garden-variety science deniers.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 3

What extreme weather events? Eh.

3C? eh!??

Have you measured the earths distance from the sun to check if we have swung a bit closer?

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Do you seriously think scientists haven't checked the amount of energy from the Sun? With satellites, perhaps?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

In all your rantings, you've not mentioned the big yellow thing, it's heat and or its distance to earth once.

Where is the big haze and our inability to see the stars at night if said Co2 had a trapping gaseous effect?

Dennis, its all a total swindle and it sounds like you have been swindled.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

The problem for warmists is this : the evidence glove doesn't fit

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

I think you are missing my larger point. We have had a strong hypothesis since the 1970s that rising GHG emissions would melt the Arctic. Modelling has consistently suggested it, but also other lines of evidence after 1970 eg ice cores. Now it appears to be happening. We have had similar strong hypotheses and modelling for ocean acidification and global temperature rise. Those things appear to be happening, and there is argument that some of the modelling may have been too cautious.
We are still puzzling over some things - the Antarctic ice, and the extent of sea level rise.
The idea that there will be no sea level rise at all caused by human GHG emissions is now I think accepted as vanishingly small. The IPCC has taken an approach of looking at mutliple lines of evidence, and giving a spread of possibilities for the anticipated rise, and suggesting policy makers take a middle course.
By contrast this article invites us to 1) focus on one set of data (tide gauges) and 2) ignore essentially all modelling on climate change (the article argues that the work of thousands of scientists synthesised in the IPCC report has climate sensivity all wrong), and 3) doesnt mention other very significant lines of sea level rise evidence eg paleostudies. It then seems to suggest that this all adds up to considerable confidence that sea level rise from GHG emissions will be minimal at a doubling of CO2.
But then I read the last sentence again. It says:
"What we need is an independent examination of the evidence by people with open minds and practical experience of the New Zealand coastline and sea level rise, rather than a group of academics relying on computer models."
I entirely agree with the independent examination. But why the aggressive and dismissive tone of other scientists and climate modelling? It seems like an attempt to exclude unwelcome evidence. And, to reiterate, if we stand back on the whole debate, oceans are acidifying, global temperature is on the rise, and the Arctic seems to be melting (along with Greenland) - all things that have been predicted for decades. And I am sure I read somewhere that Greenland melting might be a bad thing for SLR? So forgive me for being more cautious and 'buying' the IPCC middle projections for SLR, and lying awake at night worrying about that their higher ones.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 2

>> "We are still puzzling over some things - the Antarctic ice, and the extent of sea level rise."

One of the problems with Climate Change Theorists is the sloppy science.

The quoted 3.3mm per year is bogus, because ocean currents and the circulating effect of the gravity bump from the moon that creates tides, means that increased sea levels in one part of the world very quickly impact on sea levels elsewhere. The moon gravity bump travels at twice the speed of a sizeable tsunami, so variations in water levels tend to get stirred up and moved around quite quickly - which after all is the concern when large chucks of ice fall off an ice shelf - the water displacement is measured quite quickly elsewhere although no increase in average sea level will result.

So if NZ is still at 1.7mm per year, then unless the principles of Issac Newton and Archimedes and many others have shown to be false, the world average cannot be 3.3mm. It never pays to discredit the scientific principles that are a foundation to the science we all know, to prove an isolated point. All arguments must embrace foundation science. So let’s agree it is 1.7mm per year, other first prove Newton and Archimedes were telling porkies.

There are exceptions to the rule, such as when floods in Australia a few years back significantly dropped the mean sea level around the world for several months. By all accounts that drop in mean sea level is still not understood, as the drop was any times in excess of the flood water volumes and should have restored quite quickly, and not persisted for months.

The Antarctica ice shelves could melt in full, but would not change the sea level because that ice is already displacing water. The ice on Antarctica land is in no danger of melting as temperatures are not increasing. The Arctic Circle could melt and will not affect the sea level because the ice is already displacing water. There will be a very minor increase due to differences in salinity levels but nothing to be concerned about.

Greenland is another story and linked to the increased temperatures in the Arctic Circle, which NASA and others have identified as being caused increased cloud cover causing higher temperatures at night than when there is no cloud cover and frosts are lower in temperature. But even the Greenland melting stats are in question.

Cloud cover is not Co2 but water vapour. The increase in ice in Antarctica is due to some of this excess water vapour flowing to Antarctica and depositing as snow, which it has been for 10,000 years.

Granted, some of the man-made heat in the Northern hemisphere may be causing water vapour through evaporation. Solve that problem and you stop the Arctic Circle melting and Greenland with it. If the problem actually exists. As per an earlier post, NASA has challenged the thinking that Antarctica is losing ice, when Climate Change experts have been saying for decades that that the ice is reducing.

If you want to solve the water vapour problem, the biggest direct energy inputs to the upper atmosphere are:

1) The cloud seeding / chem trails that the US government has been carrying out for decades. For a long time they anyone who mentioned it as conspiracy theorists, but now they admit it, saying that the cloud creation/seeding/chem trails is to stop global warming. Go figure!

2) The use of HAARP to heat and fry the upper atmosphere and above, using Gigawatts of directed microwave energy. Chem trails that contain metallic particles form high frequency antennas and when HAARP is used creates a giant atmospheric microwave oven, vaporising water into clouds.

HAARP has also been used in war to create monsoon conditions to slow enemy troops on the ground. While most countries have signed non weather modification pacts, it is not worth the paper it is written on. HAARP is only one of multiple installations in the US and around the world, as countries try to keep up with the weather control arms race.

3) The 2000 odd Atomic / Nuclear blasts since the 1960's, only 2 of which were used in war - i.e. against Japan. Dozens of these blasts have been carried out at altitudes of tens or hundreds of miles, creating EMP pulses and microwave energy, literally frying the upper atmosphere.

4) The prohibited testing and use for experimental purposes of DEW (directed energy weapons) over the last few decades by military.

All of the above heat, fry and rip the natures ecosystem to shreds. It also plays havoc with the delicate magnetic fields of our earth, influencing and possibly accelerating the polar tilt, with the northern hemisphere closer to the sun and the southern hemisphere further away.

Instead of the establishment jumping to conclusions and using scare tactics, blaming industry and farting cows, and creating panels such as the IPCC they first need only look to themselves as the cause.

Governments and entities unknown are blaming the public and industry for the very problem that they themselves have contributed to. That is why the IPCC is a farce, and many good scientists have unwittingly helped that farce to gain momentum and credibility. No-one wants to talk about the 'Elephant in the Room'.

There is no Global Warming conundrum save for the self entitled arrogant world leaders and their irresponsible use of technology under the guise of 'helping the planet'.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

Tom, you have brought up some interesting points. I will respond as best I can.

"We have had a strong hypothesis since the 1970s that rising GHG emissions would melt the Arctic. Modelling has consistently suggested it, but also other lines of evidence after 1970 eg ice cores. Now it appears to be happening. We have had similar strong hypotheses and modelling for ocean acidification and global temperature rise."
According to climate4you.com total sea ice has hardly changed in the last 16 years. Arctic has gone down ~10% and Antarctic up by the same amount. But what happened before 2000? Was it much less in the 1930s? Or in 1904 when a Canadian vessel first traversed the NW passage? Or during the mediaeval warm period? We don't know.

Greenland ice loss has recently reduced to almost nothing. Previous to that, it was losing ice at a rate that would melt all the ice in Greenland in more than 10,000 years. But it didn't stop an eminent climate scientist from saying that this represented a rapid rate of loss.

Ocean acidification is nonsense. The ocean is basic and to claim that a small amount of dissolved carbon dioxide is turning it acid is ridiculous. Not all that long ago, carbon dioxide levels were much higher and there is no indication of massive damage to marine organisms during this period.

Global temperature have not risen as predicted for the last 18 years. The IPCC admits that 97% of their climate models failed to predict temperatures accurately over this period. Given this record of failure, I think we are entitled to seriously doubt them. In engineering at least, where people's lives depend on the outputs models, a model is only accepted for use if it is an accurate representation of the system and has been shown to produce accurate predictions. Climate models fail both of these tests.

Similarly for sea level rise. For years, the computer models have been predicting that the sea level would soon start to rise more and more rapidly. It has not happened. Why should we believe that, after years of being wrong, they will suddenly turn out to be right?

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

Bryan, I assume that NBR decided that this article on SLR was worth publishing in part because of your credentials. The article says: "Bryan Leyland MSc, FIEE(retired), FIMechE, FIPENZ. is an electric power engineer with experience in computer modelling and data analysis".
People respect engineers. They have a professional code.
But some of your comments are statements that no thoughtful engineer would ever make. In particular:
"Ocean acidification is nonsense. The ocean is basic and to claim that a small amount of dissolved carbon dioxide is turning it acid is ridiculous."
How can you be so entirely dismissive, when your own article states:
"What we need is an independent examination of the evidence by people with open minds."?
I agree with you that there is a real scientific issue about the extent of SLR from GHG emissions. I thought that your article was making the point that SLR from climate change would be less than people were predicting. But your latest response suggests you utterly discount the idea that climate change due to GHG emissions is even happening and/or having any effects on the natural world at all.
Is that really your stance? Because if it is, you would have to regard most scientists working today (ie tens of thousands of people working to a professional code like yourself) as either appallingly incompetent or outright dishonest. And if that is your view, then it isnt logically possible for a reader to distinguish your contribution from Samuel Foster's claims about chemtrails.
So what exactly is the common starting point for a rational discussion? Can we agree that most scientists working in the climate change field are professional in their approach and work, that they are competent, and honest?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

"So what exactly is the common starting point for a rational discussion? "
Perhaps the suggestion above , that it does not matter what causes the climate to change.
Also that the climate has been changing since time immemorial.
All here seem to agree with that.

A question then might be "is it now a problem that the climate changes?" If so , why now , and not previously?
And then ," is a response to the change needed?"

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

"Can we agree that most scientists working in the climate change field are professional in their approach and work, that they are competent, and honest?"

Of course could agree on that.

Can we agree that every person working in the "climate change field", as you put it , is in fact a scientist employing best practice scientific methods?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Eh? Leaving aside the nonsense of demanding everyone else meets your requirements for your imaginary standard, it's scientists who decide what good science is. I think we can trust them to do that. If for no other reason that they're all competing for acclaim and fame.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 1

"Ocean acidification is nonsense. The ocean is basic and to claim that a small amount of dissolved carbon dioxide is turning it acid is ridiculous."

As a statement of fact, it is correct. The ocean is nowhere near acidic. What we could debate is whether the small change in pH towards acidic that has been measured in a few places in the ocean is significant.

"But your latest response suggests you utterly discount the idea that climate change due to GHG emissions is even happening and/or having any effects on the natural world at all."

Not at all. All the sceptics that I know agree that mankind has some effect on the climate. The urban heat island is a perfect example. The big question is "How much?" Even the IPCC admits that they don't know.

We can agree that many climate scientists have pinned their whole careers to the notion of dangerous man-made global warming and, quite understandably, are reluctant to admit that there is serious doubt. They are behaving like the majority of human beings.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

I think this is where we part ways. You say:
"We can agree that many climate scientists have pinned their whole careers to the notion of dangerous man-made global warming and, quite understandably, are reluctant to admit that there is serious doubt. They are behaving like the majority of human beings."
Presumably you see the problem with your approach? Your article in essence says 'listen to me and trust me, I am a professional engineer, who puts aside emotion and tries to consider evidence logically and carefully, including evidence that might contradict hypotheses that I put forward. At the same time, I believe that thousands of scientists around the globe have abandoned this approach. My evidence for this? They disagree with my hypothesis."
So I think that you have abandoned the ground from which we might have a rational discussion.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

My guiding principle came from my father: "Believe nothing of what you hear and half of what you see."

When I give public lectures I tell my audience that they should not automatically believe what I say – or what anyone else says. They should do their own research and satisfy themselves that what I say is credible – or not.

The evidence backing up my belief that many scientists are reluctant to resile from firmly held beliefs relies on the fact that much of what they say is based on computer models – or their own opinion – that conflicts with the evidence. If you listen carefully to James Renwick on TV, you'll find that much of what he says about future climate is based on his opinion or on the output of unproven computer models. He hardly ever mentions past records or natural climate cycles such as the sunspot cycle. Yet sunspots are at a record low. The last time this happened was at the beginning of the Little ice age.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

"They should do their own research and satisfy themselves that what I say is credible"

So how long will it take you to learn all that is known by thousands of climate scientists publishing in reputable journals?

What an sensible person would say is, "I'm not a conspiracy nut so what scientists have described as reality is good enough for me ."

You're like the proverbial frog in cold water brought to the boil. You just don't know what's going on.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 1

"Ocean acidification is nonsense."

Acidification means to lower the pH. It's accepted usage by all scientists. Google it.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 1

Definition of acidification
1) This process happens when compounds like ammonia, nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxides are converted in a chemical reaction into acidic substances. Most of the compounds are a direct result of air pollution.

http://www.chemistry-dictionary.com/definition/acidification.php

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

I think I prefer the usage by every informed scientist, scientific institution and society on the planet to an engineer with no expertise quoting a dictionary for school children.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 1

So I googled it and got an answer you didn't like.

So you mount a personal attack on me.

I've come to the reluctant conclusion that nothing will convince you that the science is not settled and open debate is needed.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Of course you won't convince me. Thousands of scientists publishing tens of thousands of papers in reputable journals versus scientists demonstrably wrong like Lindzen and Curry, and a few wanabees who don't understand simple concepts like "acidification".

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 2

The RSNZ report is an example of a publication. Most of it is filler. They could have saved everyone the drivel and got straight to the point with, displaying the tide gauge summaries from the NZ tide gauges, which is in the references:

"The rise in sea level is 1.6mm per year. Nothing to see here. You can all go home."

As I understand it, Bryan and William source actual data so speak from that data, not from someone's scientific opinion.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Global mean sea level rise data are not to be used for local planning.

The argument in this article seems to be the immediate past increase wasn't too much so the future won't be either. Handwaving.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

"if you take the current situation as being the “natural” state."

The "current state " of the climate being cyclical . . . when it is not warming or cooling, then it is at an inflexion point. The cycle drivers are poorly understood.
Similarly with wet/dry ; glacial /interglacial etc.

Evidence that the current situation is not a natural state seems to be completely lacking. i.e the footprint of anthropogenic warming continues to elude us, because there is no Unified General Theory of Climate Regulation which could lead us to conclude that something unusual, that is not able to be explained by such a Unified General Theory, is happening.
Everything we can see is within the normal range of variation.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

What a brilliant debate! We had a QC defending the indefensible - a rare treat and Rodney in fine form. As is right and proper the nazis got their inevitable mention too!

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

Agreed. After all that, I have to say I'm far happier about our global climate situation than I am about the quality and depth of our legal system.

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

The past shows that with CO2 at the level we're heading to the temperatures were much higher and so were the sea levels. The Arctic is now hot. Greenland is losing ice ~300 Giga Tonne per year. That's 300 CUBIC kilometres. West Antarctic is fragile and could collapse. It doesn't need to melt to raise the sea level, just slide into the ocean. East Antarctic ice sheet is being undermined by warm water. We ain't seen nothing yet.

Ignorance, incredulity and the predisposition to prefer listening to vested interests and billionaires rather than the scientific community doesn't surprise me.

As a child I used to wonder how adults allowed WWII to start. Now I know. Adults are mostly mad.

As Max Planck said: Science advances one funeral at a time.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 2

Before Bryan Leyland "signs off" I hope he will repay the taxpayers the tens of thousands of dollars that his ridiculous law case against NIAW cost us. Leyland and De Lange are completely out of their depth and have been for a long time.
We are witnessing the expected confluence of El Nino and the acceleration of the Global warming trend at present with three years of consecutive record temperatures now, a full blown destruction of the Great Barrier Reef and new evidence that our estimations of sea level rise were understated.
But these two - De Lange and Leyland - march on as if they were entirely ignorant of the world around them.
Time to stop giving them the stage please. We need to move on from their nonsense.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/26/sea-level-rise-from-o...

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

I don't recall either of the authors being involved in a court case against NIWA.

However, if you are so concerned about the unpaid bills to NIWA, maybe you'd like to consider the millions of dollars being spent on unnecessary building codes and regulation that comes as a result of alarmist sea level projections.

This is money paid for by residents, many of them elderly and/or not that well off.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Let summaries the arguments here - there is none that the sea level is increasing in places, but that could be due to multitude of factors, from sea level rise globally to land subsidence (and just general issues with measurements)

it is possible that the sea will rise in a linear or non linear fashion, it is even possible for it to decrease under some climate change theories (complicated and also relative as it related to the height of the land, not always the water)

this is complcated further by the fact we do not actually understand the drivers fully, we can model and estimate and none seem to be accurate - making predictions harder

So why do we not just accept that our knowledge of the science is improving - and that the issues around emissions may prove to be much more complicated - as what is the effect of the sun's own cycle and the gravitational pull, will the change to the polar caps affect the sea level proportionately or will this become complicated as tectonic plates move

All of which we can only estimate - at one stage we though the earth was the center of the universe and we have thought the earth was flat - our understanding of the climate may change just as radically one day

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

The best way to do that, and put the debate on an equal footing, would by for Bryan and his mate to be mentioned above the salt in the New Year Honours.
Then we might know it wasn't the rigged game it looks to be currently.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Equally, why don't we heed the warnings of all the thousands of scientists who actually know what they're talking about and not some bloggers with "arguments" based on ignorance and wishful thinking?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 1

Are you able to name any of the "thousands" of scientists who think a large and rapid acceleration of sea levels is likely? Anyone will do

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Slight change of subject...

So according to some 'climate change' is the biggest issue of our time, and if we don't make major changes we will all be doomed, let alone future generations.

I would honestly have thought the bigger issue is world population growth and the ability to maintain some form of healthy environment for ourselves and future generations. Now maybe ensuring we don't have too large an influence on climate is part of this broader picture, but how many of us believe that the current rate of population growth, particularly with the Chinese having moved on from their 1 child policy, just is not sustainable? Is an exponentially increasing population not perhaps the biggest driver of all environmental evils from deforestation and habitat destruction, to pollution of water sources, to (dare I mention it) potential human effects on climate?? Yet when do we ever hear of a government or a 'world' organisation such as the UN advocate for getting serious about population control, or at least disposing of the myth that it is simply our right to breed, and breed, and breed.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Agreed. We stuffing the planet and breeding ourselves to extinction. When we had a small population we could do pretty much what we liked.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

I'm wondering why this article refers to a "recent study" from RSNZ that is dated 2010.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

We've seen the result of councils more or less telling people to build what they like -- leaky homes the more prudent now must pay billions to fix.

People building houses should be required to sign a waiver. If they listen to then buzzing of bees in bonnets instead of the balance of informed opinion, and build where it does flood, tough.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Dennis - I have no problem with that. However, much of the "high flood hazard management zone" of the coastal area of Christchurch isn't particularly prone to flooding

The "high hazard" part is based on the 100 year projections that the article critiques

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

'much of the "high flood hazard management zone" of the coastal area of Christchurch isn't particularly prone to flooding'

So? You want to bet your house the future will be the same as the past?

Which seems to be the thrust of this newspaper article.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

"So? You want to bet your house the future will be the same as the past?"

Yes, that would appear to be the most rational solution, based on empirical evidence

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Do you think this report is science?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

If by "this report", you are referring to this piece that is labelled "opinion" by the NBR, then it is not science in the sense that it is peer reviewed work, but it does cite several sources that can be relied on.

I certainly don't trust the RSNZ, the government, the IPCC or my local council, when it comes to making decisions about the viability of my coastal property.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Even if we took the Church and White 2011 paper (which reports a small but statistically significant) acceleration in "global" mean sea levels as an indicator that local sea levels will accelerate, then, according to my calculations, this would add around 4.5cm of sea level rise about the 17cm secular trend by the end of the century. This is way less than the one metre posited by RSNZ

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Embarrassing. Just look at this paragraph:

"Data are available from satellite observations since 1993. These show a rise of about 3.2mm per year with indications of a recent decline in the rate. Nobody seems to be able to explain why it is about twice the tide gauge rate."

Compare it to the satellite data, which show no "evidence of a recent decline":
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

As far as tide gauges over that time period: did the author confuse the satellite rate since 1993 with the tide gauge rate over the entire 20th century? Because since 1993, tide gauges and satellites agree. See:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-011-9119-1
"For 1993–2009 and after correcting for glacial isostatic adjustment, the estimated rate of rise is 3.2 ± 0.4 mm year−1 from the satellite data and 2.8 ± 0.8 mm year−1 from the in situ data. "
(also, Kopp et al., http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7535/abs/nature14093.html)

And unlike the Douglas book (published in the year 2000!!!) , Kopp et al. find clear evidence of acceleration over the 20th century to today.

I think I'll stop there, though I could probably write 20 pages on mistakes in this article.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

I contacted Otago University on this issue and they claim that you need about 50 years of tide gauge data to get a clean signal, by the time you have filtered out ENSO, lunar effects etc.

Their research shows no acceleration of sea level rise in NZ for the last 100 years

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

The Church and White 2011 paper that you cites, claims a statistically significant acceleration of sea levels of
0.009 ± 0.003 mm year−2

According to my calculations, this would add less than 5cm over and above the secular trend of 17cm per century for NZ, so there is still no sign of an immediate crisis even at 100 year timeframes. (I have the remodelled maps from Christchurch City Council that show no threat to most of my suburb of Southshore even at 0.5m SLR)

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

"the unproven and dubious hypothesis that man-made carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming"

Man has raised the level of CO2 from 280 to 400ppm since industrialisation: 40%.

From known physics, one would expect Earth to retain more energy. And it has: temperatures have gone up measurably and ice is melting and destabilising ice sheets.

"and that, in turn, this causes rapid sea level rise."

True.

See, we got there in the end.

It's happened before, when CO2 has gone up. Hasn't it.

So it would be surprising if it doesn't again. I mean, what has changed? The laws of physics?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

‘Is anthropogenic sea level fingerprint already detectable in the Pacific Ocean?’
Palanisamy et al (2015)
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084024/pdf

According to this peer reviewed paper, there is no anthropogenic fingerprint detected in Pacific sea levels. i.e none of the 17cm per century sea level rise we have seen in NZ can be attributable to human caused CO2 emissions, to date

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

>>>"temperatures have gone up measurably"

Very vague. How many degrees?

>>>"Man has raised the level of CO2 from 280 to 400ppm"
This is .039% of the content of air. Get over it.

The only way CO2 levels won't rise is if all humans leave the planet.
Humans breathe in O2 and CO2, create somewhere between 4 and 8 million tons of C02 per day.

Also, once trees reach maturity, they begin to decay, consume oxygen and produce CO2.

If left to die, they will produce as much CO2 and consume as much O2 in dying as they did when they were growing. And nature will step in at this point. As the trees past maturity and start drying out, they become highly susceptible to ignition during the hot seasons and lightening storms.

All trees, including those in so called protected rain forests should be cut down at maturity and used for timber, and new seedlings planted and continuing the cycle. That way we get maximum O2, maximum CO2 absorption, and lots of timber, and a renewing planet.

Unfortunately there are many green lobby groups out there, that don't understand nature's cycles, and convinced we must preserve the planet by not cutting down trees at all, thereby contributing to CO2 increase.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

>>>"From known physics, one would expect Earth to retain more energy."

What specific physics principles are you quoting here ?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

The difference between the sea level when Earth has no ice and when covered in ice is perhaps 140 metres.

Right now ice is melting and the oceans are warming. This means the sea level will rise.

Always has, always will.

Whether you can measure it accurately in the short term or not, you will notice it.

You can argue until you're blue in the face but it will make not one iota of difference to the reality or the science, which is, expect the sea level to rise enough to be inconvenient.

Especially if you own coastal land you want to sell to some sucker.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

So you think that all NZ coastal cities like Christchurch need to be abandoned in their entirety?

After all, this is "basic physics". We don't need to argue about the amount of SLR, whether it is mm or metres, eventually, the entire low lying areas will be flooded.

You "accept the science", so this would appear to be your conclusion

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

False dichotomy.

Retreat may become necessary. In the meantime don't tell people it's okay to build in areas likely to flood as the sea rises.

Because you prefer your fyziks from cranks.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

I have a beachside property that has never flooded in the 16 years I have lived there (unlike many areas of Christchurch)

The re-modelled maps show no threat to my house even at +0.5m of SLR. Yet I face severe building restrictions based on a ludicrous 1.0 metre projection, that is based on fanciful speculation about climate sensitivity and future economic pathways.

The academics that dream up these scary stories need to get out of their ivory towers and meet the people who are having to spend thousands of dollars as a direct result of this academic "research"

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Naturally this is my personal view. If the council has decided, on the best evidence available, your land is likely to flood by the end of the century, a covenant could be placed on the title that gives you some freedom but relieves the council of all responsibility.

Trying this approach seems better than trying to refute the science. This article is, as Pauli once said, not even wrong.

Don't waste your time arguing more CO2 won't cause more warming. More warming means more land ice going into the sea.

What happens is largely beyond our control. China is aiming to hit peak coal-burning in the next decade or so, and making a move to renewables now. Despite the rhetoric from politicians, thinking Americans know what has to be done.

The UK is already generating more electricity from wind and solar than coal.

But you need to understand there is good evidence we have already committed ourselves to a sea level rise, it's just going to take some time to reach a metre. But even a half metre rise is going to make the sea look menacing.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

"But even a half metre rise is going to make the sea look menacing"

A half metre won't affect our area according to the remodelled maps.

The warming effect of CO2 is theoretically logarithmic, i.e it decreases as you add more. Basic physics (Look up Radiative Forcing in Wikipedia)

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

It's more than CO2 from burning fossil carbon, which will peak, because governments around the world are ignoring the deniers' pleading.

Do the IPCC projections include collapse of ice sheets, greenhouse gas from permafrost ... ?

So you don't think 0.5m sea level rise at Christchurch would look menacing.

What are you building? An Ark?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

I'm basing my decisions on the flooding maps issued by the Christchurch City Council that showed little risk to my property at 0.5m SLR

I don't think there is any need to build Arks or any other Biblical artifacts

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

So you're putting your faith in the Christchurch City Council except when you're not putting your faith in the Christchurch City Council.

Glad we managed to clarify your position in the end.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Unless you are from Christchurch, perhaps you'd like to stay away from this debate. We have had 18,000 properties tagged as under threat from SLR, equity lost and empty sections rendered worthless. Furthermore, this was rushed through under CERA legislation so the public had little opportunity to put in submissions

Last year the government intervened and stopped part of the process, but we still have several thousand affected properties.

Funnily enough, Council assets seem exempt from this, so it leads most of us to conclude this is a stitch up between the council, government and the insurance companies. A large number of people here think this is true, and we have emails that suggest this.

So maybe you'd like to ponder on that whilst reading about Moses and other Biblical indicators that we are destroying the planet through our greed

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

"Unless you are from Christchurch, perhaps you'd like to stay away from this debate."

Every time you answer we get closer to the truth.

This article is about sea level rise, which affects the whole world. But you're only interested in Christchurch. By the sound of it your coastal land is only a metre or so above the present sea level.

Can you and others in the same boat make disinterested decisions about sea level rise?

Look, make whatever arrangements you can with the council. Good luck to you. But for goodness sake, stop pushing fake science. Earth is retaining more energy, more ice is melting, and the sea level will rise.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

"But for goodness sake, stop pushing fake science."

Can you provide me a reference to a comment I have made that pushes "fake science" as you put it?
I accept the basic physics of the greenhouse effect, which all others things being equal should cause some warming. I have provided a peer review reference that shows NO anthropogenic signal in Pacific Ocean sea level rise to date.

There are a number of scenarios offered by the IPCC. The city council have decided to use the worse case scenario of the IPCC (RCP8.5) that makes various assumptions about the carbon cycle, climate sensitivity and also assumes the following:

- zero technological progress over the next 100 years
- coal will expand in use and become a major part of the energy mix in 2100
- population of Nigeria reaches 1.5 billion

This is what these models are based on. So why is this more plausible than the observational evidence?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

>>>"coal will expand in use and become a major part of the energy mix in 2100"

Buildings are currently being designed and built, including in NZ, with provisioning that within the next 5 - 10 years, these buildings will be entirely powered from the sun.

Solar cell efficiency is rising rapidly and thanks to people like Elon Musk, the cost of storing electricity on site is dropping.

The IPCC assumptions are exactly that, assumptions, based on fear and a lack of understanding of entrepreneurial creativity and invention required to solve problems.

It reminds me of the electricity problem in New York in the late 1800's. Edison was supplying DC electricity to homes and businesses. Low voltage DC has a short range due to cable losses, it necessitated coal fired generators every block or two. Cable ran hot so were buried in the ground.
The currents would cause horse shoes would become electrified, and sending the horses and carriages hurtling through the streets. The smoke and dust from the coal was covering the neighbourhoods in soot, and creating intense pollution.

Despite the new technology, the future health and well being of these cities looked bleak and grimy. That is until someone called Tesla invented AC which with voltage changes could be transmitted long distances over cable. Problem solved.

Once again, Tesla, Elon Musk's business may come to the 'rescue' allowing home owners and businesses to move away from the grid, reducing the need for Coal fired generating stations, and replacing fire breathers with non polluting electric cars.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

"Can you provide me a reference to a comment I have made that pushes "fake science" as you put it? I accept the basic physics of the greenhouse effect, which all others things being equal should cause some warming. I have provided a peer review reference that shows NO anthropogenic signal in Pacific Ocean sea level rise to date."

Yes, you say there will be some warming but clearly you don't believe it. You think one study not detecting an "anthrogenic signal" shows there's nothing to worry about. It defies logic with the amount of heat entering the system, temperatures are going up, Arctic ice is disappearing, loss of land ice and possible collapse of West Antarctica.

We can't continue "business as usual". Don't you think politicians are more likely to do what needs to be done if people like Leyland and de Lange seem to think global warming is a hoax?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

You still haven't answered by what principle is it retaining more energy and why?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

>>>"expect the sea level to rise enough to be inconvenient."

How many metres and over what time period?

And what are your supporting measurements that support this idea?

After all, the whole point of the article is that the evidence DOESN'T support rapid sea level rise, and the science behind the idea is sloppy with most spin doctor scientists quoting everyone else, rather then supplying references to actual verified measurements.

Since you believe it IS happening, what are your source measurements?
What measurements are you referring to?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

What is the NET rate of melting of land based ice? Water borne ice does not count as it has already displaced water.

>>>"Whether you can measure it accurately in the short term or not, you will notice it."

If you can't measure it, how will you notice it?.

I bought a new gadget to improve my car's horse power. The salesman told me my car is much faster and getting faster all the time. But on the 0-100km/hr test, but it is still showing the same 7.2secs figure it has been over the last 30 tests, and top speed hasn't improved either. Yeah right.

Any cause for concern will be based on measurements that indicate there is a change happening.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Tell this to Boston, where a landmark stone wharf built just in the 1980s is now awash approximately twice a month due to "sunny day flooding", a byproduct of climate disruption, including thermosteric sea level rise, relaxation of the oceans due to gravity loss from the Greenland ice sheet depleting, and a resulting slowing down of the nearby Gulf Stream, because it's running into cold light fresh water from that melt, and, so, piling up against the shore of the Northeast USA.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

There is no doubt that anthropomorphic contribution to climate change is significant, and avoidable. A 30cm sea level rise is manageable. The collapse of antarctic and arctic ice shelves is not. These are within sight based on credible climate models.

Renwick is right in his responding NBR article "Climate scepticism distracts us from making the right choices" In other words this article provides excuses for not changing our cosy little lives.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

The only credible climate model I know of is the Russian one that attributes only a small amount of warming to carbon dioxide.

If you look at climate4you.com you will see no sign of a rapid loss of ice worldwide. There has been a small decrease in arctic ice the corresponding increase in Antarctic ice.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Arch denialist and lost cause Richard Lindzen regards those who deny the role of CO2 as cranks.

Thank the gods nobody who matters is going to listen to your rubbish.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

I don't think the writers of this article are insisting that no change is occurring. What they are saying is that the rate of sea level rise is heavily overstated and that the rate of sea level rise has not changed.

The climate is constantly changing in both long term and short term cycles, created by mother nature. Acknowledging that is important. Understanding those cycles is important.

In my opinion, acknowledging we are at the mercy of universal cycles is 180° away from current climate change spin doctors and theorists, most of whom solicit funds for "research" and then publish everyone else's ideas which are out of sync with actual measurements. The RSNZ report is a prime example.

There is no question that as humans we need to use more efficient methods of energy production and stop interfering with the weather and atmosphere, but does not imply that this situation be a bureaucratic free for all for taxes, property controls, industry controls, and an international richie rich loot trading in carbon taxes. Especially when the powers that be who advocate those controls and taxes are meddling in the atmosphere e.g. HAARP, and hampering moves to less polluting forms of energy. e.g. banning direct sales of Tesla electric cars in most states, (which are rolling out solar chargers) thereby favouring the petrol motor car makers and their vehicles which create more heating of the atmosphere than electric cars.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

The data set is summarized. You cannot evaluate the differences in the currently measure rate of increase in sea level rise using a data set that does not include annual observations. It cannot be evaluated by groups of years so you can't see the differences between decades like 1900 - 1930, 1930 through 1960, 1960 through 1990 1990 to present. You cannot do a runnin mean (mean change in sea level change over a five year or ten year period for example). Of course any number you get her will be less than the 3.2 mm per year currently observed. It is mathematically impossible to get otherwise using these data!

To help you understand the problem consider the following: the height of a person through their life. If you keep careful records on a person's height (length) a baby may be 20 inches when born , at 4 years old 48 inches, and at 25 years old 74 inches. The mean growth rate is a little more than 2 inches per year, but that is OVERALL - over the entire 25 year period evaluated. That does not mean the person did not grow faster or slower at times.

The person grew 7 inches per year between birth (20 inches at birth), and 4 years old (when they reach 48 inches tall. If you omit the length at birth and the height at 4 years old, you just cannot determine the growth rate during for the first 4 years and the average growth rate is underestimated and unrepresentative of the period you are birth to 4 years old. The 7 inches per year is accurate for the first 4 years of growth but is completely missed because these data are not adequate to capture changes on the during the first 4 years.

This is also true of what is presented using the data above. By DESIGN, the overall average will not capture periods of rapid increase in sea level rise during the last decade. You cannot compare sea level rise in the last 10 years to the 100 year median. The 100 year median will always be lower.

The overall median is not representative of what the current rate of change is, so this data presented do nothing to debunk that seal level rise is CURRENTLY at 3.2. It just shows the author has a very limited understanding of statistics or is PURPOSELY being deceitful.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

What role does human involvement in land displacement for example building new islands and ocean land masses to dredging shipping channels and dumping treated sewage play in oceans rising?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

NZ Market Snapshot

Forex

Sym Price Change
USD 0.7274 0.0000 0.00%
AUD 0.9621 0.0000 0.00%
EUR 0.6505 0.0000 0.00%
GBP 0.5725 0.0000 0.00%
HKD 5.6796 0.0000 0.00%
JPY 81.0120 0.0000 0.00%

Commods

Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1256.4 6.570 2017-06-23T00:
Oil Brent 45.8 0.340 2017-06-23T00:
Oil Nymex 43.0 0.270 2017-06-23T00:
Silver Index 16.6 0.140 2017-06-23T00:

Indices

Symbol Open High Last %
NZX 50 7563.7 7568.8 7563.7 -0.13%
NASDAQ 6234.4 6269.4 6236.7 0.46%
DAX 12758.0 12787.2 12794.0 -0.47%
DJI 21380.9 21421.8 21397.3 -0.01%
FTSE 7439.3 7441.8 7439.3 -0.20%
HKSE 25724.3 25770.4 25674.5 -0.02%
NI225 20152.6 20152.6 20110.5 0.11%
ASX 5706.0 5723.3 5706.0 0.17%