Let’s ask for it again
Today I wrote to John Morgan, CEO of NIWA, along this wise:
Dear John,
Regarding your reply of 21 November, 2013, I believe you have not answered my question, but instead of appealing immediately to the Ombudsman it seems fair to ask you once more.
Mr Justice Venning expressed satisfaction that NIWA had testified to the existence of international scientific approval of its methodology, but he himself expressed no approval of that methodology. Yet, in its submissions to the Court, NIWA failed to provide a reference to or copy of such scientific approval. My readers and I are keen to see it.
So would you please provide a copy of the scientific literature that approves of the measurement technique used by NIWA in the Review. This request is reiterated under the Official Information Act.
Thank you.
Regards,
Richard Treadgold
Convenor
Climate Conversation Group
Member of NZ Climate Science Coalition
We recently exchanged correspondence in which Mr Morgan treated our request with, it must be said, more than a little disdain.
I sincerely hope that this time he handles the matter more faithfully.
Views: 126
Top marks for being dogged, Richard. Your tenacity and patience are admirable!.
🙂
What is way out with the radiative greenhouse calculations is well explained in a comment on WUWT which points out that a blackbody by definition absorbs all radiation and does not transmit any.
But the surface of the oceans (say 1mm deep) obviously does transmit most of the radiation which then warms layers below. So the surface of the ocean is not a blackbody and it would require far more radiation than the SBL calculations indicate to raise its temperature to the observed level.
As I have been saying, there is obviously nowhere near enough direct solar radiation reaching the Venus surface either. So obviously there is a non-radiative supply of energy as well as the direct radiation and these work together to raise the surface temperatures to what is observed. Remember, back radiation can only slow radiative cooling: it cannot actually add thermal energy (like the Sun does) or raise the surface temperature.
The non-radiative supply of energy is actually energy that has been trapped over the life of the planet by the gravitationally induced temperature gradient, and more can always be added to the troposphere by the Sun.
The key to understanding how this energy actually transfers from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface lies in understanding thermodynamic equilibrium and the isentropic state, all of which is explained in my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” available through Amazon late April.
Reference, please?
DJC – your post is silly. It is way off-topic and contains no links to back up your notions. It seems to simply be a cut-and-paste attempt to promote a silly book. Do you troll all the climate-related blogs with the same comment regardless of the topic of the article?
D J C doesn’t help himself with his blogging tactics I agree Mike.
His problem is that it’s hard getting traction with anything contra-GHG effect but D J C is certainly not alone. Check out the Twitter exchange at the bottom of this post at The Hockeyschtick:
‘Three new papers challenge understanding of the physics of the atmosphere, AGW’
The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere I. Phase change associated with the tropopause – Michael Connolly & Ronan Connolly, 2014a
The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere II. Multimerization of atmospheric gases above the troposphere – Michael Connolly & Ronan Connolly, 2014b
The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere III. Pervective power – Michael Connolly & Ronan Connolly, 2014c
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/02/three-new-papers-challenge.html
This is cat-among-the-pigeons stuff but I’ve brought it up as news rather than further D J C’s off-topic thread i.e. it’s an undercurrent running in the climate change issue but nothing to do with trying to extract NIWA’s method source from them.
Get’s Bob D going though.
Michael & Ronan Connolly appear to have set up their own journal in order to get their papers in the public domain:
http://variable-variability.blogspot.co.nz/2014/02/global-warming-solved-in-open-peer.html
RC:
I’ve given up, I actually wanted to engage in some rational debate around the issue, but I never had any of my questions addressed at all.
My feeling is that if these arguments are based on physical principles, it shouldn’t be difficult to articulate them.
This is quite a liberal site. Most blogs are fed up with DJC aka D o u g C o t t o n aka Visiting Physicist spamming them with comments unrelated to the post to promote his book. That is why he does not use his real name any more, Doug Cotton is a spam trigger.
Hi Victor,
Yes I saw that also, and this as well:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/10/critical-mass-of-cotton/
>”Dear John,…..it seems fair to ask you once more”
Join Skeeter Davis & Bobby Bare, and Taylor Swift.
Who are they?
Skeeter Davis & Bobby Bare
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Dear-John-Letter-lyrics-Skeeter-Davis-Bobby-Bare/91BFDEE2ACA32A3048256E1E00153D59
Taylor Swift
http://www.metrolyrics.com/dear-john-lyrics-taylor-swift.html
I make no bones about the fact that I am determined to stamp out the travesty of physics which is promulgated on warmist and luke warm climate blogs. This comment appears on several of them.
Roy Spencer still cannot prove with any valid physics his crazy postulate that there would be isothermal conditions in Earth’s troposphere in the absence of water vapour and radiating gases. The greenhouse conjecture depends totally upon this garbage “fissics” that would violate the entropy conditions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. All the models depend totally on this weird idea which is never observed anywhere on any planet or moon, not even on Uranus where the base of the nominal troposphere is hotter than Earth.
Roy only needs to look at the data for the Uranus troposphere to realise that thermal gradients (aka “lapse rates”) evolve spontaneously at the molecular level. Radiating gases reduce the gradient (and thus cool the surface) due to inter-molecular radiation. They help energy escape faster up the troposphere and eventually to space. Radiation that strikes any warmer surface is just pseudo scattered.
There is no need for advection (upward rising gases) or any direct solar radiation or a surface: the lapse rate just forms autonomously as gravity acts on molecules in free flight between collisions.
That is why the (badly named) “lapse rate” on Earth, Venus, Uranus, the outer crust of Earth, the core of the Moon – everywhere – evolves spontaneously in solids, liquids and gases. That is why radiative forcing is not what is the primary determinant of any planet’s atmospheric or surface temperature – gravity is – gravity traps energy.
Water vapour reduces the insulation effect – just consider the problem with moist air in double glazed windows. Moist regions are cooler than dry regions – I have proved that with real world temperature records.
You’ll find the study in my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” available late April from Amazon etc. and from which I quote …
“The world will one day look back upon a small slice of history that began in the 1980’s and sadly have to conclude that never in the name of science have so many people been so seriously misled by so few for so long. Never have so many careers, so much time and so much money been spent in the pursuit of such a misguided and ineffective goal to reduce human emissions of carbon dioxide, a harmless gas which comprises about one molecule in every two and a half thousand other molecules in the atmosphere of our planet, Earth.”
.
D J C,
Can you provide me with the link please to Roy Spencer’s statement regarding an isothermal atmosphere?
Never mind, I found it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/01/misunderstood-basic-concepts-and-the-greenhouse-effect/
I’m not sure I agree with Roy on this, as my understanding is that any gas will radiate due to the Planck law (All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation).
So his statement should read “The tropospheric temperature lapse rate would not exist without IR emission.” But that’s another story.
[Roy S] A >”convective overturning of the atmosphere leads to the observed lapse rate”
But the lapse rate (say DALR) is derived accounting for gravity and after accounting for pressure difference (unless I’m mistaken):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
[Roy S] B >”The atmosphere would eventually become isothermal, as the full depth of the atmosphere would achieve the same temperature as the surface through thermal conduction”
Not possible I would have thought, as long as there’s matter and gravity and pressure difference.
Loschmidt was the brilliant 19th century physicist who was the first in the world to successfully estimate the size of air molecules – within a factor of 2 or so anyway. We can assume Loschmidt thought about what those molecules did, and, with the knowledge of the fact that gas molecules were far smaller than the space between them, the world saw the beginning of Kinetic Theory being applied to “ideal” gases with documented assumptions that I encourage you all to read, because Kinetic Theory was successfully used by Einstein and others, and from it we can derive the well known ideal gas laws. We can also derive (in just two lines) the magnitude of the so-called dry adiabatic lapse rate without using those gas laws or any pressure data.
It’s not hard to visualise what Loschmidt did, namely molecules moving around at random and colliding with others rather like billiard balls. When they collide they share their kinetic energy, and as a result, we see diffusion of kinetic energy which results in a tendency towards equal temperatures in a horizontal plane. We have all observed such diffusion in our homes when warmth from a heater spreads across the room.
But, when those molecules move in free frictionless flight between collisions the assumptions of kinetic theory include the “classical treatment” of their dynamics, noting that “because they have mass the gas molecules will be affected by gravity.” And so Newtonian mechanics tell us that the sum of kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy remains constant.
But, as a gas spontaneously approaches thermodynamic equilibrium it is approaching a state in which there are no unbalanced energy potentials. That state is isentropic, having (PE+KE)=constant at all heights, and this means that KE varies and, as Kinetic Theory tells us, temperature also varies in proportion to the mean kinetic energy of the molecules.
It does not matter that the final state is never completely materialised, and so entropy will still be increasing. We are considering what happens as we approach a limit, just as in calculus. Entropy will keep increasing until that limit is achieved, but it never is because, with a new day dawning more solar energy is added causing a significant disturbance to the process and moving it further away from equilibrium. Never-the-less, by the following night if there are calm conditions, the state of thermodynamic equilibrium will again be approached.
Over the life of the planet the temperature gradient has obviously evolved on all planets with significant atmospheres, and it also occurs in sub-surface regions such as Earth’s outer crust and inside the Moon.
The empirical evidence is that Loschmidt was right and that Maxwell erred on just this particular issue wherein molecular studies were perhaps not his specialty. The huge significance of this is that there is no need for any greenhouse radiative forcing to explain planetary atmospheric and surface temperatures. These cannot be explained at all by radiation calculations – only by the gravity gradient. The trillion dollar question is thus, was Loschmidt right? The answer has to be yes.
The greenhouse conjecture is demolished by the fact that a thermal gradient (“lapse rate”) evolves autonomously without any need for a surface or upward convection.
It is wrong to assume Loschmidt’s gravitationally induced thermal gradient does not evolve spontaneously in a gravitational field. It is the isentropic state of maximum entropy with no further unbalanced energy potentials. You cannot explain why the Venus surface temperature rises by 5 degrees spread over the course of its 4-month-long day with any radiative forcing conjecture or greenhouse philosophy. The Venus surface receives barely 10% of the direct Solar radiation that Earth’s surface receives. It would need over 16200 W/m^2 if radiation were heating the surface. Then, during sunlit hours it would need an extra 450W/m^2 to raise the temperature from about 732K to 737K. On Earth, if isothermal conditions were supposedly existing without water vapor and other greenhouse gases, then the sensitivity to water vapor would be about 10 degrees per 1% atmospheric content. But there is no evidence that a region with 1% above it is 30 degrees colder than another region at similar altitude and latitude with 4% above it. The effective surface layer of Earth’s oceans may be considered to be only 1cm thick, or even if 10cm thick it is still very transparent to insolation. But a black or grey body does not transmit radiation, and the surface layer absorbs less than 1% of that incident solar radiation. So the S-B calculations are totally incorrect and planetary surface temperatures cannot be calculated using such.
This is where the error crept in in 1985 …
“Coombes and Laue concluded that answer (1) is the correct one and answer (2) is wrong. They reached this conclusion after finding that statement (2a) is wrong, i.e., the average kinetic energy of all molecules does not decrease with the height even though the kinetic energy of each individual molecule does decrease with height.
These authors give at first a qualitative explanation of this fact by noting that since both the kinetic energy of the molecules and the number density of molecules decrease with height, the average molecular kinetic energy does not necessarily decrease with height.”
This is absurd. They had the mean kinetic energy decreasing in each molecule, but then they divided again by the number. Try calculating a mean by dividing twice by the number of elements. A glaring error. The Loschmidt effect has NOT been debunked by this nonsense.
Velasco, S., Román, F.L., White, J.A. (1996). On a paradox concerning the temperature distribution of an ideal gas in a gravitational field, Eur. J. Phys., 17: 43–44.
How common was the Christchurch ‘Once-in-a-century’ storm yesterday?
Are any Kiwis looking into this?
I think the last one this big was in the 70s. The problems have been compounded by the land damage in the affected areas. My parents in law have a rental property in the worst hit area (Flockton basin) which has slumped 40 cm after the earthquake and has been flooded several times in the last 3 years (requiring 3 separate full insurance carpet replacements)
It is a fairly major disaster at every level.
OK I read where the earthquake altered the landscape – so it might be hard to compare a flood now with past data.
They are saying the storm was a
‘Once-in-a-century’ storm finally eases
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/weather/news/article.cfm?c_id=10&objectid=11214174
quoting 160mm of rain fell in Lyttelton – is that an all time daily record for the Christchurch district ?
I’m not sure about the historical data on the rainfall. The storm was very localised to the coast around ChCh. I’m inland 2 hours south and we had just a little rain and no flooding.
In 1986 there was large flooding
http://ecan.govt.nz/advice/emergencies-and-hazard/flooding/Pages/flood-south-canterbury.aspx
with extensive damage
I also recall several large floods in the Queenstown area. When the rain gets big there, the Shotover floods and causes the Kawarau river to flow backwards into Queenstown, so all the water is go into into the lake, and none out.
In general, these weather events are quite localised, given NZ’s mountain topography.
Looks like access to raw data and analysis is about to get harder:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1403/S00033/environmental-reporting-bill-advances-despite-opposition.htm
It could be a good thing to prevent greenies & the UN pressuring people into toeing their line, but to me it just looks like an attempt to silence those who would point out the flaws in AGW – i.e. ‘the debate is over, time to move on’.
I certainly wouldn’t trust a politician to be honest, let alone Labour/Green govt to use this responsibly – can you imagine Russel Norman using this law in practice?
To state the obvious – rain at Lyttelton does not cause the Avon to flood.
I searched for Christchurch Gardens rainfall and found this www site which says
http://www.metservice.com/towns-cities/christchurch/christchurch
– the site had 31.4mm on the 4th then 42.2mm on 5th – Surely this can not be anything exceptional. Finding a range of Australian data presentations online is about 100 times easier than this.
What I would like to know is whether the rivers had been dredged recently or whether this was another repeat of the Somerset Levels fiasco
It might seem logical for authorities to reason post the earthquakes – that if earth movements worsened drainage – so the flood risk was increased – propose some engineering works such as dredging or new drains to ameliorate the extra flooding risk.
Google finds many reports into Christchurch flooding – avon heathcote flooding etc –
A stack of reports here
http://waterways.ac.nz/Research_database/Database_operation/index.html
click on Floods
http://waterways.ac.nz/Research_database/Database_operation/search.php?sub=41
The little 2 page pdf report “Christchurch City Council. (2012) Updated residential floor levels for areas throughout Christchurch.”
– shows clearly flood risk increased in the east just back from the coast.
Thanks for that. In fact we have a (written off) property right on the beach in Southshore that has (touch wood) experienced no floods in the 15 years we have owned the property.
The land there is compacted sand so the irony here s that land closest to the beach is at least risk (in my anecdotal view)to flooding and land damage from liquefaction.
Further into town in ChCh there is significant land damage and a lowering of land level by up to half a metre that is partially a result of the extensive flooding we have witnessed over the last few days.
Many insurers are refusing to cover for further flood damage which renders large parts of ChCh uninsurable. My in-laws are in this position.
This is a major problem in ChCh right now.
TV 1 % 3 News brought in the experts, ONE had NIWA’s Rob Bell telling us Christchurch SLR will be 1m by 2100 thanks to “climate change”. 3 had Lynette somebody from somewhere saying basically the same.
Can’t be too much of a problem, last Lyttleton II tide guage data was 2003 and sparse data even then:
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/259.php
No SLR since mid 80s, just over 0.1m since 1923.
>”3 had [Deirdre] somebody from somewhere”
University of Canterbury coastal studies lecturer Deirdre Hart
‘Global warming warning after ChCh floods’
3 News
The Christchurch flood is being called a one in 100 year event but scientists are warning rising sea levels will make coastal flooding much more common.
Climate change is expected to raise the seas by up to a metre in the next century potentially putting tens of thousands of coastal homeowners at risk.
It took just hours for the water levels to rise but there’s another water level rise happening – more slowly – but with long term effects and it’s caused by global warming.
The flooding was primarily caused by torrential rain, but University of Canterbury coastal studies lecturer Deirdre Hart says sea levels also played a part.
Rob Bell of NIWA says seas around New Zealand are expected to rise between 70cm and a metre in the next century.
[…]
“Half a metre of sea level rise, instead of that sort of event happening every 100 or 200 years, you’ll get them every big tide which will be several times a year,” says coastal scientist Jim Dahm.
[…]
It’s a grim outlook and Mr Dahm says there are only two options – stop climate change or adapt.
Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/Global-warming-warning-after-ChCh-floods/tabid/423/articleID/334865/Default.aspx#ixzz2vAdLOvQh
Approximating the IPCC AR5 SLR growth curve projection here:
http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/article_image_big/public/meansealevelrisegraph_0.png
RCP 8.5: increasing greenhouse gas emissions over time
Year, Rise (mm)
2000, 0
2010, 35
2020, 80
2030, 140
2040, 200
SLR Projection RCP 8.5
2rd order polynomial (quadratic)
y = 4.6429x^2 + 22.643x – 28
3rd order polynomial (cubic)
y = -0.8333x^3 + 12.143x^2 + 2.9762x – 14
Actual SLR from observations 1993 – 2013
y = 3.2x
“It’s a grim outlook and ………. there are only two options – stop climate change or adapt.”
Yes, It’s a 1st order problem, apparently
Richard C
My barbed response on the TV3 link you provide remains unchallenged
>”SLR Projection RCP 8.5
2rd order polynomial (quadratic)
y = 4.6429x^2 + 22.643x – 28
Actual SLR from observations 1993 – 2013
[1st order polynomial (linear]
y = 3.2x”
Cumulative SLR @ 2010 and @ 2040, both from 2000.
y = 4.6429x^2 + 22.643x – 28
2010, x = 2 [2000, 2010]
y = 4.6429 x 4 + 22 x 2 – 28 = 34.6mm IPCC projection
y = 3.2x
2010, x = 10 [2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, ………….2010]
y = 3.2 x 10 = 32mm satellite actual
y = 1.7x
2010, x = 10 [2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, ………….2010]
y = 1.7 x 10 = 17mm tide guage actual
y = 4.6429x^2 + 22.643x – 28
2040, x = 4 [2000, 2010. 2030, 2040]
y = 4.6429 x 4 + 22 x 2 – 28 = 136.9mm IPCC projection
y = 3.2x
2040, x = 10 [2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, ………….2040]
y = 3.2 x 40 = 128 mm satellite projection
y = 1.7x
2010, x = 40 [2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, ………….2040]
y = 1.7 x 40 = 68mm tide guage projection
Cumulative SLR 2000 – 2010.
y = 3.2x
2010, x = 10 [2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, ………….2010]
y = 3.2 x 10 = 32mm satellite actual
y = 1.7x
2010, x = 10 [2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, ………….2010]
y = 1.7 x 10 = 17mm tide guage actual
If SLR was accelerating @ 0.01 mm/yr/yr (it isn’t) then cumulative SLR @ 2010 from 2000 would be:
y = mx, where m = 3.2 + (0.01 x 10) = 3.3 mm
2010, x = 10 [2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, ………….2010]
y = 3.3 x 10 = 33mm cumulative SLR by actual satellite plus linear acceleration 0.01 mm/yr/yr
y = mx, where m = 1.7 + (0.01 x 10) = 1.8 mm
2010, x = 10 [2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, ………….2010]
y = 1.8 x 10 = 17mm cumulative SLR by actual tide guage plus linear acceleration 0.01 mm/yr/yr
Comparison of cumulative SLR 2000 – 2010
32mm satellite actual @ 3.2 mm/yr
33mm cumulative SLR by actual satellite plus linear acceleration 0.01 mm/yr/yr
34.6mm IPCC projection y = 4.6429x^2 + 22.643x – 28 by approximation
17mm tide guage actual @ 1.7 mm/yr
18mm cumulative SLR by actual tide guage plus linear acceleration 0.01 mm/yr/yr
34.6mm IPCC projection y = 4.6429x^2 + 22.643x – 28 by approximation.
>”Cumulative SLR 2000 – 2010. y = 3.2x”
That’s according to UofC here: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
The 2000 – 2010 data from that page is here: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2014_rel1/sl_ns_global.txt
2000.018 17.642, slope y = 0.0848x + 17.642, 34 time steps per year (0.0848 x 34 = 2.8832)
Actual cumulative SLR 2000 – 2010, flat rate @ 2.8832x + 17.642 (3.2 – 2.8832 = 0.3168).
Over 2000 – 2010 SLR was 0.3 mm/yr LESS than the overall rate from 1993 – 2014 producing 28.8mm cumulative SLR.
Comparison of cumulative SLR 2000 – 2010 satellite only.
28.8mm satellite actual @ 2.88 mm/yr 2000 – 2010
32mm satellite actual @ 3.2 mm/yr 1993 – 2014
33mm cumulative SLR by actual satellite plus linear acceleration 0.01 mm/yr/yr
34.6mm IPCC projection y = 4.6429x^2 + 22.643x – 28 by approximation
The SLR rate has slowed this century – not accelerated.
Change of SLR rate 2000 – 2010: Actual vs IPCC-NIWA
y = -0.0001x^2 + 0.1241x + 15.116 Actual (2010, x = 358) – DEceleration
y = 4.6429x^2 + 22.643x – 28 IPCC Projection by approximation (2010, x = 1) – ACceleration
For those in NZ, my wife and mother in law will be on Campbell Live on Monday talking about their personal situation with the flood and earthquake damage in chch
Andy says >”Campbell Live on Monday” – OK.
Nick totally ignorant that AGW, e.g. model simulations under RCP 8.5, exhibit accelerating SLR (i.e.more than linear acceleration) here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-644499
SLR by satellite exhibits zero SLR acceleration (not even a little linear) @ flat rate 3.2 mm/yr. SLR by tide guage exhibits zero SLR acceleration (not even a little linear) @ flat rate 1.7 mm/yr.
Nick however thinks we should subtract the tide guage flat rate from the satellite flat rate to (erroneously) see the required AGW acceleration “fingerprint” which he states as linear growth when the models exhibit quadratic/cubic growth,
My reply to Nick here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-644531
Bottom Line
“You [meaning Nick] CANNOT subtract tide guage from satellite because there’s a 17 year overlap 1993 – 2010 when the satellite rate was constant 3.2 mm/yr and the tide guage rate was constant 1.7 mm/yr simultaneously, neither of which accelerating in that 17 years.”
>”accelerating SLR (i.e.more than linear acceleration)”
In other words, accelerating acceleration.
‘Climate science debate “futile” says Marshall Islands minister’
By Ed King, RTCC
Debates over climate science report have been branded “futile” by the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands, whose capital is recovering from being flooded by the Pacific Ocean.
Phillip Muller said climate change was the “only” explanation for an increase in the frequency and ferocity of ‘king tides’ that hit Majuro this week.
The flood waters forced 1000 to leave their homes, damaged 70 houses and briefly placed the international airport out of action.
“For those of us in the Pacific, silly discussions about the scientific truth of climate change are futile,” Muller said.
“We see with our own eyes that the oceans are rising, and our tide gauges confirm it. We know there is only one explanation for this unprecedented phenomenon – climate change has arrived.”
http://www.rtcc.org/2014/03/07/climate-science-debate-futile-says-marshall-islands-minister/
Sorry Phillip, SLR has arrived. Started long long ago and man had nothing to do with it (no “fingerprint”)
The Tonkin and Taylor sea level study for Christchurch is here
http://www.rebuildchristchurch.co.nz/i/46e42c98aae3647b.pdf
This is what the media and others have been basing their “likely” projections on one metre sea level rise by 2100
Page 7 of this report has a graph that shows scenarios that range from 0.2 to 0.8 metres by 2100
Then, they present a table with some other studies and conclude that 1 metre is likely and 2 metre cannot be ruled out
It is, in effect, a hockey stick built on models only.
Andy says >”It [1m SLR by 2115] is, in effect, a hockey stick built on models only
Tonkin & Taylor page 4 (pdf):
>”Global sea levels have risen over the twentieth century with a global average rise of 1.8 ±0.3 mm/year estimated between 1950 and 2000 (IPCC, 2007).
Yes fine , flat rate no acceleration so 1.8 mm/yr x 100 = 180 mm by 2115 from now (2013/14), or 12.6 mm by 2020 from now (7 yrs), or 72 mm by 2040 from now (27 yrs).
>”Sea level recorded at Lyttelton Port increased at a rate of 1.9 ±0.1 mm/year between 1925 and
2010 (Hannah & Bell, 2012). Therefore, we consider it is reasonable to infer that global projections of sea level rise can be applied to obtain future projections of sea level rise in New Zealand.”
OK fine, as above then.
>”For the purposes of this report, a future sea level projection of 1.0 m by 2115 (100 year planning time frame) is used, which is generally in line with the current state of knowledge presented in the MfE guidelines (2008) and the Royal Society of NZ Emerging Issues paper (RSNZ, 2010).”
Huh? Suddenly, the 2115 projection jumps from 180 mm to 1000 mm – a factor of 5.56. Why?
Reason (page 14 pdf): Table 2-2 Summary of international sea level rise values for planning purposes (source: RSNZ, 2010).
As proven upthread, as of now in 2014 and from the beginning of the satellite era 1993, none of the SLR projections (apart from historical rate projection) are valid. None of them are tracking observations. In fact, even by 2010 the non-historical projections were invalid. The IPCC and RSNZ are dead wrong in other words.
Tonkin & Taylor are peddling an international falsehood . Or as most of us would put it –
a lie.
>”Huh? Suddenly, the 2115 projection jumps from 180 mm to 1000 mm – a factor of 5.56. Why?”
2013/14 – 2115 Projection Comparison:
0 – 180 mm.
1.8 mm/yr – historical tide guage flat rate 1950 – 2000 projected to 2014 and to 2115.
0 – 833.6 mm
8.334 mm/yr – IPCC RCP 8.5 average rate 2013/14 – 2015 by linear approximation
0 – 1000 mm.
10 mm/yr – Tonkin & Taylor average rate 2013/14 – 2015 by linear approximation
IPCC projection curve 2000 – 2040 by quadratic approximation under RCP 8.5: increasing greenhouse gas emissions over time: y = 4.6429x^2 + 22.643x – 28 (2000 – 2040)
For 2115 x = 11.5, for 2014 x = 1.4 (2000 – 2040, time step 10 yrs i.e. for 2010 x = 1, 2014 x = 1.4, 2110 x = 11, 2115 x = 11.5). 846.4 – 12.8 = 833.6 mm
These people at Tonkin & Taylor (page 82 pdf):
Mark Ivamy – Senior Coastal Scientist
Tom Shand – Senior Coastal Engineer
Are either:
a) incredibly ignorant and inexpert, given how SLR is tracking historically as at 2014 right now, and/or
b) charletans, if they don’t present the respective projections honestly as above.
Tonkin and Taylor are an engineering consulting company who probably didn’t look much at the underlying science behind SLR, but took the global guidelines as gospel
The problem is that if everyone does this, you get the ultimate in groupthink. No one dares to question “the science”, everyone want to follow everyone else,
I know that this is the thinking in Christchurch City Council.
A family friend was criticised by a councillor at CCC for building a new golf course close (but not that close) to the coast.
The reason, of course, was the “threat” of sea level rise.
Do they imagine some “day after tomorrow” scenarios where golfers are running away from incoming tidal waves?
>”No one dares to question “the science””
Not any more Andy:
‘IPCC “science” on sea-levels dumped by an Australian State Government’
JoNova, December 30th, 2013
It’s just another day on the road back to reality.
The New South Wales state government in Australia has announced it will tell its local councils that not only are they not bound by the IPCC sea-level predictions, they must do their own research on their own beaches. It’s the polite way of saying that no one believes the IPCC predictions anymore, worse, that they are so sure the IPCC is wrong that councils have to get different advice. For the IPCC it’s just one more signpost on the path to oblivion.
More>>>>>>
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/ipcc-science-on-sea-levels-dumped-by-an-australian-state-government/
# # #
>”It’s the polite way of saying that no one believes the IPCC predictions anymore”
No one that is, except Ivamy and Shand at Tonkin & Taylor.
>”worse, that they are so sure the IPCC is wrong that councils have to get different advice”
In New South Wales. But not in Christchurch.
>”Tonkin and Taylor are an engineering consulting company who probably didn’t look much at the underlying science behind SLR, but took the global guidelines as gospel”
Surely, a scientist and an engineer (Ivamy and Shand), could work it out between them (in paid employment as professionals), as I did above, in two short tranches, on a Sunday afternoon, 1:13 pm and 3:12 pm?
RC – yes agreed, but they probably saw SLR as outside of their area of expertise, so just took that part as read
They might have been guided in part by the RSNZ paper from 2010 here:
http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/media/SLR-v4.9-for-web.pdf
This paper seems to rely very heavily on paleoclimate and models, not so much on observational data
I found this statement in the report rather telling
Sounds like a bit of armwaving going on there. Not so good if you are trying to plan for the future of your city.
Again, all this is contingent on the climate being sensitive to small changes in forcing.
Andy >”This paper [RSNZ 2010] seems to rely very heavily on paleoclimate and models, not so much on observational data.”
No, not so much on observational data. Page 2:
“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”.
The models are junk because observed SLR hasn’t been tracking model projections, even by 2010 from 2000. That basis can be eliminated already.
As for geology, David Middleton flamed those ideas last year:
“Oh Say Can You See… Modern Sea Level Fluctuations From a Geological Perspective?”
“The short answer is no.”
Posted on December 21, 2013 by David Middleton
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/21/oh-say-can-you-see-modern-sea-level-rise-from-a-geological-perspective/
Figure 3. Projected sea level rise through 2100 AD, is exactly what I’ve been banging on about (apart from the current obs-proj discrepancy):
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/SL4_zps22bee1aa.png
1m SLR by 2100 requires 400 mm 2081 – 2100 @ 20 mm/yr – “This is impossible” (Middleton).
Science and engineering professionals taking an RSNZ report as read without at least a bit of rational thought is plainly negligent in my books.
RC – “Science and engineering professionals taking an RSNZ report as read without at least a bit of rational thought is plainly negligent in my books.”
yes, but we know that “peer-reviewed science” isn’t always what it is cracked up to be. Not everyone has got the memo yet
>”Figure 3. Projected sea level rise through 2100 AD, is exactly what I’ve been banging on about (apart from the current obs-proj discrepancy): http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/SL4_zps22bee1aa.png”
Not exactly now i think about it.
The Figure 3 exponential expression doesn’t approximate RCP 8.5 SLR well i.e the exponential SLR in Figure 3 is slow at the start and turns up fast at the end (a hockey stick) and at 1m rise it overtakes quadratic/cubic as exponential always ultimately does eventually. David Middleton must be approximating posited (and impossible) geologic processes unrelated to the RCP 8.5 curve – or something.
RCP 8.5 SLR model simulations turn up fast at the start then straighten out. Therefore quadratic/cubic approximation is more appropriate i think.
Real-world SLR not turning up at all of course.