Commissioner warns property owners that banks and insurers are focusing more on risks of rising sea levels; LIM warnings possible; Maps being drawn up

Commissioner warns property owners that banks and insurers are focusing more on risks of rising sea levels; LIM warnings possible; Maps being drawn up
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Jan Wright (centre) appearing before the Local Government select committee on February 18. By Lynn Grieveson/Hive News.

By Lynn Grieveson

As both insurance companies and banks turn their attention to the potential for coastal flooding and erosion to carve chunks off property values, a report coming out later this year will for the first time detail the projected effect of rising sea levels along specific areas of the entire New Zealand coastline, revealed the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

Commissioner Jan Wright appeared before the Local Government and Environment select committee to discuss her recent report Changing climate and rising seas: Understanding the science”, which spelt out that a 30cm rise in sea levels by 2050 was already ‘baked in’.

Pointing to a photograph of a flooded Tamaki Drive in 2011, Wright said “in the past that kind of storm you would expect to see every century or so, by 2050 that sort of storm will be happening every decade and, if we carry on emitting carbon dioxide as we are now in the world, then by 2070 you will be getting that kind of storm every year in Auckland.”

Wright revealed that a second report, due “by the middle of the year,” would include modelling commissioned from NIWA to draw up coastal hazard lines, and would look “particularly at the risk to property and infrastructure and how councils will be trying to deal with this” as they “run headlong into ratepayers.”

It raises the prospect of Land Information Memorandum (LIM) reports that come with coastal erosion and sea level warnings.

And Wright told owners of coastal property to look to the experience of Christchurch property owners who found their land had become flood prone following the earthquakes.

Christchurch a 'glimpse into the future'

“One of the most interesting interactions in this report has been with the insurance industry,” she said. “The chief executive of the insurance council is particularly interested in this, as the industry is in general, and described the situation in part of Christchurch as ‘a glimpse into the future’.”

“The response from the insurance industry to sea level rise will be the same as what we are seeing in Christchurch. With increased frequency of flooding you get premiums being raised as a first step, then you get higher excesses in policies and then you get 'no, we are not going to insure you at all because this flooding is just happening too often'. So there are very real economic impacts associated with this.”

The chair of the committee, Coromandel MP Scott Simpson, expressed concern that the upcoming report could have “significant potential to have detrimental financial impact on property owners”, pointing out that setback lines on existing properties promulgated by the Thames-Coromandel District Council had caused “considerable angst amongst property owners.”

'Just deal with it'

Wright was unapologetic, warning that coastal property owners needed to face up to the situation.

“There will be detrimental financial impacts, regardless,” she said.  “People will find themselves unable to insure their properties and so, really, I think the idea is to protect as many people from that situation as possible.”

“This is not easy for anyone but sometimes we have to have these hard conversations and the insurance industry is right onto this. They really are right onto this and they are not going to be soft about it.”

The banking industry is also starting to take an interest in the issue, with Wright saying she was “asked by the chief executive of the Bank of New Zealand to go and talk with him and I spent an hour with him. He was very interested in both the water quality work and the sea level rise work.”

Warnings on Kapiti Coast LIMs

The upcoming report may also include recommendations on increased central government involvement as the issue becomes too challenging for councils to manage on their own, as shown by the experience of the Kapiti Council, which had to back down on plans to include coastal erosion warnings on Land Information Memorandum (LIM) reports.

“Local Government NZ is wanting more central government involvement here and I think it is along the lines of 'we are trying to do things here but we need more legal heft', if you like,” said Wright.

“I may well make recommendations that relate to that, in one way or another, but I don't know until we have done the work.”

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

162 Comments

Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).

... the issue becomes too challenging for councils to manage on their own, as shown by the experience of the Kapiti Council, which had to back down on plans to include coastal erosion warnings on Land Information Memorandum (LIM) reports.
“Local Government NZ is wanting more central government involvement here and I think it is along the lines of 'we are trying to do things here but we need more legal heft', if you like,” said Wright.
 
All extremely misleading. The issue wasn't "too challenging" - the problem was the science behind the development of the coastal hazard lines was deemed to be so poor ("not robust enough") on review by a panel of independent experts that they had to scrap the lot.
 
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/local-papers/kapiti-observer/9...
 
In other words, they over-cooked the extent of the potential problem by an amount that simply did not hold up to proper scientific and statistical scrutiny - including some very simple mathematical errors, such as double-counting of potential effects.  They adopted a worse-case scenario and labelled these calculations as 50 and 100 year "predictions" - whereas they were "projections" based on a worst-case scenario.  No statistical liklihoods were even considered as part of the science which derived the hazard lines.
 
It was just really poor science. I fear the PCE with her comments like "locked in" and "baked in" has fallen into the same sort of sloppy, emotive claptrap.
 
 

Kate
Sloppy, emotive claptrap?
Have you read this report?
http://www.pce.parliament.nz/assets/Uploads/Changing-Climate-and-Rising-...
Would you ever accept a LIM note that might affect your property value?
Do you think your bank or insurer will think the climate science it is based on is 'sloppy, emotive claptrap'?
cheers
Bernard

Chuckle. Perhaps Kate will enlighten us as to how much skin she has in the game - ie is she a Kapiti coast property owner etc. It is astonishing how people lose their analytical skills and sense of judgement once they have an investment 'at risk'......
If you have a property at risk on the coast and you are not drawing the appropriate conclusions then quite frankly you deserve what is coming.

No skin in the game (asset wise), I live in Palmerston North.   

The IPCC's climate science isn't the problem, Bernard. It is the failure of many using it/referencing it - to fully comprehend or explain (I am never sure which) the assumptions contained in the various IPCC scenarios they are using.  And then to attach very unscientific language, such as "baked in" or "locked in" to imply certainty when indeed there is none. Very often no work has been done on determining liklihoods in order to move the science from a projection (which is what the IPCC scenarios are) to a prediction .. such as we do when modelling flood hazards.
 
You tell me what you think the scientific meaning of "baked in" is - and I'd be happy to respond with a proper interpretation of the IPCC data used.
 
Yes, I have read the report and yes, I would accept any note on my LIM that was derived from good science and a proper application of the law.  In the Kapiti case neither were the case. That is why they (the LIM notations) were pulled.

To be fair to Kate, LIM's aren't some nice to have document - they are a statutory document whose contents are spelt out in the Local Government Ofiicial Information and Meetings Act 1987 s44A. What they are is a highly specialised form of official information request.
 
Cutting to the chase on subsection (2)(a)(i) warnings about potential erosion do have to be included in a LIM if they are known to the territorial authority. Kate is absolutely right that the range of possibilities presented by the IPCC hardly constitutes knowledge about a specific parcel of land in New Zealand.
 
Interestingly the easiest way to get such information onto LIM's would be for the government to take a position and to classify what it considers to be vulnerable land at a national level. Subsection (2)(g) would then kick in and councils would automatically be required to include the info on all relevant LIM's.
 
Of course the kicker would be getting central government to have the courage to act. Good luck with that one.

Agree Kumbel - and would add that councils also have a requirement under the Building Act that is used to caveat land titles at the time of grant of a building consent, s73 - see ss71-74 inclusive - for structures on land subject to natural hazards.
 
So again, it is important to understand that the definition of these hazards has to be robust/accurate with respect to a specific parcel of land.

The kapiti fiasco was it seems inadequate.  So the Q is now will kapiti bow out and effectively can kick the costs to future ratepayers or get the report done properly, or get someone else to.
What will happen i suspect is the banks following the insurers will decline to lend or place hefty fees/premiums, cant challenge that one in court.
 

Bernard, natural hazards and coastal inundation are already demonstrated on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) map overlays.
 
So the info is already there for anyone who takes the time to inquire. The PAUP map overlays will eventually replace the existing map overlays (under the Operative Plan) which are what we see when we currently order a LIM. 

Kudos to Jan Wright. Huge numbers of coastal properties are going to become uninsurable and eventually worthless.
It is happening elsewhere and it will happen here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/us-usa-florida-sealevel-miami-...
Re;Christchurch - why the choice was made to rebuild the city post quake in its existing low lying position will be one of the great conundrums of the second half of this century.

too many experts with theories, they're all guessing.

Well said. My thoughts exactly.
When people start talking about "the new normal", as though that's a fact, my eyes start glazing over....

What happens to the reserve strips? The coastal margin is almost entirely covered by reserves - esplanade, coastal or road reserves - the "Queens chain". Will these just be allowed to diminish or cease to exist entirely in the event of a large sea level rise? Even a 30 cm rise could entirely eliminate the reserve on near level land; effectively  giving the adjacent owner riparian rights and the public no access rights and removing them from local or central government ownership. Anyone know? 

Good Q.  Will the properties that will be that close to tthe tide line be viable? At some stage once the high tide mark rises and I assume you cannot own that you land its value starts to diminish?  Plus with the more frequent storms etc I assume we'll see these properties un-inhabitable and/or worth little.  
The worry for me is that councils are not putting such stuff on the LIMS now signalling this loss and when it happens ppl will sue the councils.  Though I think some are trying and are getting sued to get them removed?  In which case councils (ie ratepayers) cant win really.  maybe the general populace of ratepayers should start kicking up a fuss about this.
 
 

Steeper land (and the reserve strip) would be barely affected but, once the trend started, good luck trying to sell it or build on it.
There is already plenty of experiance of this on land that has a river boundary. Rivers are changing course all the time and it creates all sorts of problems. One property effectively ends up with less usable and the guy accross the river has a strip with no access. Major and expensive business to get the boundaries redone - survey costs, revised or new titles and compensation. Hopefully a strategy can be agreed on but it looks like a hell of a mess to resolve with the whole coast involved.

Here-in lies the problem - Council's must not be put in the position of being able to be sued by people developing/buying coastal property at some point in the future when the inevitable happens and said property is rendered worthless. Ultimately it is other 'non-coastal' ratepayers who would pick up the bill for such legal process so most everyone has an interest in making sure the LIM warnings go on now. It was pleasing to see Tasman council refuse a coastal application for development on these grounds a while ago.

Agree.

As pointed out above, ss71-74 of the Building Act caveat land titles where buildings are consented on land subject to natural hazards (natual hazards including

  • erosion (including coastal erosion, bank erosion, and sheet erosion):
  • falling debris (including soil, rock, snow, and ice):
  • subsidence:
  • inundation (including flooding, overland flow, storm surge, tidal effects, and ponding):
  • slippage.

 
You'll find many coastal properties already have titles caveated.  I don't see how with such caveats an owner could claim not to have been fully knowledgeable when taking on said risk.
 

If the caveats are on the title and date, ie like all caveat instruments have to be,  then it falls to the purchasers due diligence, as the title is a public reason for that very reason.

Although the council or government would have to do the work.
A private individual could pay to have the research done then declare it commercial and private matter and have it NOT registered on the title,   and even those doing the work can't mention a problem or that even such research was done, without incurring a legimate civil damages case.
 So the work would have to be done by a public third party for neutrality.

The councils normally do the work - that is why they obtain scientific data/reports in order to map natural hazards in their areas of jurisdiction. These maps are an integral part of the District/City/Regional/Unitary Plan document - and as such are subject to the public submissions process under the RMA.  If there are differing technical viewpoints associated with hazard identification, these (if they remain in dispute following the plan change process) are often resolved via the Environment Court. 
 
Many proposed developments not in an identified hazard area, but for which a consenting officer might decide to seek more information, will require the developer (at the developer's cost) to produce geotechnical and/or other such report(s) by a certified engineer - and if a previously unknown/unidentified hazard is found, then again, the title would be caveated under s73, if a building permit is granted.  One cannot however be granted a building permit where the structure might exacerbate or cause a natural hazard (for example, a building that might cause soil erosion or slippage).
 
The law is very clear, but I don't know whether all LAs take a common approach to applying ss71-74. I would hope they do.

you are incorrect.  the councils don't do the work

Sorry, are you saying councils don't map the natural hazards in their area? Granted they often contract-out the technical/scientific work to obtain the data in order to create the maps - but by 'doing the work' I mean they commission it (or do it in-house as the case may be).

Councils ARE already putting "such stuff" on LIMs. This is another area where the message the Commissioner is getting out there is causing confusion.  Kapiti does map natural hazards, including coastal erosion in its operative District Plan - and so if you order a LIM for a Kapiti property and said property is mapped as being in a hazard zone, it will tell you so.  The process to make a Plan (and its maps) operative requires public consultation - including the presentation of technical evidence, in support of and opposed to - what the council notifies in its Proposed Plan. Hence, there is an element of public and expert scrutiny of the council's technical work via the submissions process. In Kapiti, the council decided to annotate LIMs with the newly derived coastal hazard zones without any public consultation (or scrutiny by outside experts) and in advance of going through the Plan Change process, where such consulation is mandated.
 
So the community asked to see the full technical reports - and then it also asked for the raw data associated with those reports - and it found lots of things that didn't look right. So, the community asked the council to have the technical report peer reviewed by a panel of experts - and those experts heard submissions from the public and other experts.  And the panel determined that the technical work from which the new coastal hazard maps were derived was not sufficiently robust for use in the Proposed District Plan. Hence, the maps were withdrawn and subsequently, what is reported in LIMs went back to the coastal hazard zone determinations as exist in the operative District Plan.
 
The key lesson I think is that all such important district/region-wide scientific findings and determinations should be subject to public consultation processes. Indeed, the PCE also has the ability to release documents (i.e., his/her preliminary findings) on any matter of his/her choosing for public consultation. I am surprised that this route was not taken for this work.  
 

much of that LIM data comes from insurance companies.  The insurance company can't hold higher premiums or randomly refuse payouts without information of normal legally accessable income, so when they access (or they require a private owner to access WITH provisio of sharing the information) they lodge it against the title.

 It generally only comes from councils when they have to do consent/RMA or plan projects for remedial work in that area.  Recently the councils have been (for RMA purposes) putting the information as instruments on the Title - RMA because then they have legal care to see such things are paid attention to - otherwise they'd have to fight every RMA with a full consultancy report for the purpose.  where this is being done, at least the councils doing some things right...

Not sure what you are getting at - are you confusing a LIM with a Certificate of Title?  A LIM has nothing to do with a Certificate of Title.  To obtain the latter, you have to do a title search - that's what conveyancing lawyers do for you, or you can do that yourself online with LINZ. 
 
The information on a LIM, which is produced by a council, does not, to my knowledge, access and report on what is contained on the LINZ database - hence doesn't report what is on a Certificate of Title.
 
So, for properties where the LIM discloses that a property is located in a particular hazard area - that property may or may not have a s73 notation on it - and the LIM won't tell you that piece of information either way. A LIM is not a substitute for a Certificate of Title search. At least that is my understanding.
 
As far as insurance companies go, I don't think they have anything to do with LIM or Certificate of Title data. As EQC point out on their website - they have nothing to do with issuing a s72/73 notice under the Building Act and cannot request that an existing notification be removed either. 

The Land Information Report is generally just a collection of the documents that the council has on hand.   The council notices and undertakings have weight, the rest is just information.

the main use for LIM is land type and where services are located but has no legal bearing (apart for list of council active notices).

If you want to build a house in a flood zone it probably won't show up on the LIM report unless the council has had to issue notices in the area.

It won't show up _attached_ to the certificate of title (as a caveat usually) unless someone deliberately put it there.

The council doesn't have a mandate to do either - especially as it would affect the owners property value for the worse !

However, as mentioned insurance companies often have to get (or cause their clients to get) risk analysis data.  If it's done privately they don't have to tell anyone, but it isn't uncommon, in order to stop future claims to put that information on the title as a caveat as that removes the insurance companys' liability.
  Developers are another group who tend to do such things to avoid false representation cases but often just part of the RMA fight.  Where they want to develop, council or neighbours refuse consent based on "X", courts comprise by putting caveat on land use - which goes as caveat not LIM.  Although it might depending on the council, end up in a LIM.

But if the council or RMA isn't being examined then councils have better things to do than pay for surveyors and caveats on random private/public property.

I think get what you're saying - but would I be right in saying that the insurance company cannot/does not have the right to caveat or notate a Certfificate of Title - the title holder (owner) has that right and the insurance company might require such a caveat as a condition of granting the insurance policy.  And then what you are saying is that the private landowner might choose not to caveat the property and therefore not to take up the insurance - but knowledge of the existence of the hazard remains a private matter (i.e., it is not publicly disclosed) in that case.
 
This is also my understanding but recent changes to rules governing realestate sales require the owner of the property to warrant that they have disclosed all knowledge they have about the property - so if a new owner finds that the property is subject to some hazard and such a hazard prevents building or the ability to obtain insurance - then the new owner has a comeback on the previous owner who withheld such knowledge they had.
 
And I also get your point about not all natural hazard zoned properties having caveats - quite right - the title is only notated under the Building Act, if in a hazard area/zone and where an owner applies (and accepts the grant of) a  Building Permit  (say, for renovations or to build a new dwelling).  And yes, I have known beachfront homeowners who for that reason have not gone ahead with planned renovations - as they did not want their Certificate of Title caveated, given they thought they would then have insurance issues.

The building consent authority (i.e. Council) is responsible for registering notices against properties, which are subject to one or more natural hazards. This power is contained under: • s.73 of the Building Act 2004, or under previous legislation s.36 of the Building Act 1991; and • s.641A of the Local Government Act 1974 Such notices can be removed by Council, if a specialist report is accepted by Council, which demonstrates that the natural hazard is no longer present. When a property owner exercises his or her rights to build on land subject to a natural hazard, Council is protected against civil liability under section 392 of the Building Act 2004, when it grants a building consent pursuant to section 72. In order to ensure that Council’s civil liability is protected, Council officers need to follow the requirements of the Building Act 2004 and make sure that the effects of a section 73 notice on the title of a property
Googlefu : http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/buildingprope...

Are you confusing your LIMs and PIMs?

"What are the implications of having a s72 on the Certificate of Title?
If there is a s72 endorsement on the Certificate of Title  and the building is subsequently damaged by a hazard event then the owner and subsequent owners, cannot claim against the Council for issuing the consent.
“The existence of notification under S73 of the Building Act2004maylimitstatutorynaturaldisaster insurance.Refer Clause3(d)of Third Schedule totheEarthquakeCommission Act1993”"
Googlefu: http://www.wairoadc.govt.nz/docs/council_services/building_planning/fina...

the council ends up registering them as part of the Consent process (via RMA). 
They will do so if there is a haazard which is significant Abortsford Slip type material, because they have to do project work which affects the properties which brings them into having to survey and plan project on that area.   But they don't have the resources to look for problems.

 

Great warning bells being rung, now listen to the well heeled whine, led by their MP.

"When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified."
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516...
 

Bang on cue, the deny-o-bots appear........
But sea level just keeps on rising, and global temperatures just keep on increasing......

But there is a big ice storm in the US at the moment.  Coldest temperatures ever recorded!  That dosn't sound like global warming more like global cooling!  The scientist are just saying whatever it takes to keep their low paying jobs. The fossil fuel companies don't need the money so whatever they say must be true.

 
It happens constantly on the internet: Despite mountains of scientifically rigorous concrete evidence, there are certain falsehoods that people simply insist on believing.
see link
http://jezebel.com/its-almost-impossible-to-convince-people-theyre-wrong-a-1580716333
Once you have read it, perhaps try the next link.  If you came overcome your 'condition' while you watch, you may just understand that the cold weather is indeed a symptom (I'm not hopeful though, you condition is perhaps too advanced)..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkvQYcPJGD8#t=245
If all else fails, maybe a Doctor might be worth a visit?  Get well soon.

If you understood the science of course.  The extra heat in the ocean gives the storms more energy and the extra evapouration more water in the air, when that meets the cold, guess what heaps of snow.
 

by the time "warming" or "cooling" is truly evident we'll all be running artound in Dune Style stillsuits.

What you'll see is chaotic weather patterns.  the climate is a bunch of big data, with lots of small things relying on other small things.  how much heat can the north going streams of water lose to the deep sea area next to it.  How long does that water spend in shallows picking up heat.  How much evaporation occurs.  How does the water temperature affect the air temperature - and the water content of that air.  Too cold it won't build up rain, too hot it won't release it in the normal areas.  That will means the not rained on spots won't get cooling, and the cold spots will get more, creating a greater differential.  the bigger the differentials the faster the wind and ocean currents, rain gets flung futher, pushed higher (where it chills greatly).  the higher speed jet streams suck on each other and against the lower heavier air - but lose their lamination due to the energy in the lower turbalance.
Low pressure rain bringing systems will be kicked sideways by the higher pressure hot systems, causing more drought in some places, more rain in others..... which changes the playing field again.... a whole new set of links.  Chaos because most of the connections aren't really possible to identify until something changes, and then knowing why is hard to test as it's an isolated incident.

As for the argument of believers vs non-believers, there's too much BS on both sides, and a few good points on both sides too.  eg the believers say "science" is on their side, yet have not got a single predict right yet.  However the non-believers can't account for the evidence let alone come up with practical steps.
 Same as any volatile market.  Play what you know, keep your bets close to your chest, and control what you can, reduce exposure when possible, only the risks that you can afford and do know.

No, sea level does not "just keep on rising".  The rises referred to are all projections.
 
Observational data of sea level rise using tide gauges, satellite altimeters, and satellite gravitational sensors and additionally the calculated sea level rise from measures of ocean temperature (heat) and salinity - all indicate the global rate of sea level rise has decreased this century.
 
However there are regional variations. Some regions do currently have rates of sea level rise up to 4.7 mm/y.
 
See for example, Purkey et al., (2014). Relative contributions of ocean mass and deep steric changes to sea level rise between 1993 and 2013, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans,Volume 119, Issue 11, pages 7509–7522, November 2014.
 
For the NZ region the rate of sea level rise this century has decreased from the long term rate of 1.6 mm.y, to 1.0 mm/y from satellite altimetry, and 0.1 mm/y from ocean mass balances (gravity measurements).
 
 

So you are saying a slower rate of increase isn't an increase?  I'm guessing calculus was not your forte.  I'm on your side Kate I also refuse to believe things that are not pleasant (you should see how many parking tickets I havn't paid as I simply denied I had them). 

Fair point.
 
But - borrowing a totally unscientific analogy - the observational record need not inspire a Chicken Little response :-). 

For the NZ region the rate of sea level rise this century has decreased from the long term rate of 1.6 mm.y, to 1.0 mm/y from satellite altimetry, and 0.1 mm/y from ocean mass balances (gravity measurements).
Hmmm so from .1 - 1.6mm/y Rate increase. 
So the rate increase  changes form year to year. What would you estimate the absolute increase is say over 10 years.

The PCE report states that a 30cm rise by 2050 is "locked in".  The 30cm rise number is derived from IPCC data that is one of many scenarios from the IPCC 2013 report,  It is a worst case scenario. 
 
Therefore 30cm over 35 years - or an average of roughly 8.5mm/y.  Compared to actuals - that's an average more than 5 times that currently being measured.  

No the IPCC isnt a worse case scenario.
Its actually a politicaly derived "worst case" on out of data science that was put out not to offend people....
Acceleration of sea level rise is a historical fact
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Sea-Level-1.gif
 
 

Not quite sure what you mean. But here's the point made from the IPCC's 2013 report (use of bold is mine):
 
"The sum of the projected contributions gives the likely range for future
GMSL rise. The median projections for GMSL in all scenarios lie within a
range of 0.05 m until the middle of the century (Figure 13.11), because
the divergence of the climate projections has a delayed effect owing to
the time-integrating characteristic of sea level. By the late 21st century
(over an interval of 95 years, between the 20-year mean of 2081–2100
and the 20-year mean of 1986–2005), they have a spread of about
0.25 m, with RCP2.6 giving the least amount of rise (0.40 [0.26 to
0.55] m) (likely range) and RCP8.5 giving the most (0.63 [0.45 to 0.82]
m)." 
 
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf
 
Noting, in particular, the words "least" and "most" wrt rise. This is taken from page 1180 - although note the above refers to "late 21st century" projections.
 
The point I'm making is, the RCP8.5 scenario (which, I assume is the one the PCE is using for her 30cm "locked in" statement - see Table 13.5, page 1182) is the IPCC scenario that gives the highest out of their series of projections for global mean sea level rise.
 
For each of these different scenarios - the ranges stated are described as likely - and the IPCC points out that the use of likely means medium confidence. 

The IPCC is likely to be under reporting the sea level rise. So if you want tthe most accurate projections from the sea rise people you have to look at their recent work.
Personally I seem to be looking at the IPCC reports and then looking at the latest science and seeing that the IPCC is understating many of the issues.  So some of it is understandable, they simply have to have a cutoff point on the research in oder to make an assessment of the research or they will never make a report. the rest, not so sure what is going on.
The point is at the end of the day, the rises are sure, in fact they are looking worse as the months pass and combined with more frequent and extreme weather events likely to see larger losses both in life as well as property.
 
 
 
 

What authors' recent work are your referring to in terms of the "sea rise people"? I have access to databases that will also give me papers that awaiting publication (i.e., 'in press').

are you saying then that these recent but un-published peer reviewed papers then substantially concur with the IPCCs work?
--edit--
here is an example of what I am coming across,
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/sea-level-rise-wha...
 
 

Current rise is about 3mm per year.  There is no suggestion that this rate will decrease, indications are that the rate is increasing.  By 'worst case' you mean if the rate of CO2 pollution continues on trend.  Which is what I would call 'base case.'  All the other scenarios involve significant reductions in pollution, which is actually 'best case', have you evidence to prove we are emmiting less?  I would argue the RCP's don't even contemplate a 'worst case' scenario.  If you look at the assumptions for each RCP you will see that 2.6 is just wishful thinking, not just for emmisions but pretty much everything, population, GDP even reforestation.  If we took it seriously two years ago, and were making changes today, very serious cahnges, we may call 2.6 possible.  We are following 8.5, that is all.

um no it has not decreased.
"So to summarize the main points:

  •  Cliff Ollier has simply repeated a number of myths about sea level, that could have been easily corrected if he had to bothered to consult the peer-reviewed scientific literature.    
  • Sea level rise has been observed to accelerate over the last few centuries, and throughout the 20th century. This has been primarily due to thermal expansion of the oceans as they warm, and the melting of mountain glaciers. Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet melt has barely contributed until the last two decades or so.
  •  Melting of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice sheets is expected to be the main contributor to sea level rise this century, and recent observations, revealing that melt of land-based ice is now the dominant component of sea level rise, support this.   
  •  The last (almost) two decades have seen a more linear (straightline) rise of global sea level. This is in keeping with the forcings (climatic warming/cooling agents) over the period, and natural variability, but this is not expected to last. See Hansen (2011).
  • The last interglacial saw sea level rises of around a metre per century at a time when ice cover on the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets were similar to the present. This suggests that high rates of sea level rise, in excess of IPCC projections, are indeed possible this century with further global warming.

how does the melting raise sea levels?  ice is has higher volume that water, which is why it floats, and it floats in relation to it's displacement.  floating polar regions, if they melt all the floating ice won't change sea levels.   thermal expansion is a very real issue, interestingly enough high temperatures creates more rain (higher evaporation and vapour pressure, better atmospheric capacity for vapour).

The real danger (apart from extra methane, algae and organic changes, and atmospheric absorbance) is change in location, strength and size of thermal shears within the ocan currents.  Ocean currents are like weather patterns, hot areas meeting cold areas, creating rushing gusts and convections.  It's all very Chaotic with many unobservable connections affecting the outcome.  The currents will also create different fish patterns and migration paths will become unsafe, also the silt and wear on land will change as the current change in strength and direction.

we are seeing increased land slippage into the sea though, faster than localised uplift, and I wouldn't be suprise if normal uplift areas like Wellington have dropped lower after undiscovered fault activity showed up in Christchurch.

Obviously we have some catching up to do, wouldn't you say?

This is outrageous! Everyone knows that the climate change agenda of the left is not about facts and scientific data, it's about feelings! Oh... and money, lots and lots of money.
 
Also CO2 is plant food...  When ice melts in a glass of water the glass dosn't over fill.... 

...............ummm...most of the ice is not floating in water....it is on rock, ice sheets etc.  Take a panadol and go back to bed man.

I'm pretty sure panadol causes autism. 

the stuff thats melting isnt (eg artic)

Brooker a total denier writing utter rubbish, as per normal.
 

"The public think political decisions concerning climate are based on scientific predictions. This is untrue: what the politicians get from IPCC and CSIRO are projections based on models. Models depend on assumptions, what you put in (data), the program, and conclusions drawn from the output."
 
http://www.principia-scientific.org/rising-sea-level-forecasts-fact-or-f...

.....watch the self main stream try and keep the lid on this (as they are know). Watch the small print creep into insurance policies as the exemptions are written in. Watch the sale stampede on low lying bach properties commence. Watch the the denyers crawl away as they begin to look sillier and sillier.....
Science ain't perfect, but it's the best option we have...

Me and my denier mates will be getting beach side property for a steal.  

Excellent and at 110% LVRs as well?
;]
cant lose can they.

go for leasehold

This is absurd. Models depend on assumptions, what next!. I had a revealation that scientist,s went forward 100 years gathered the sea level and temperature data and came back, thus shall models be eliminated..I have spoken!

What a load of rubbish.  Actually most political decisions are ignoring the science and going with right wing la la make believe not real science.
A scientific prediction is based on constructing a scientific / mathematical model.  The model takes verified data as its core and if there are any assumptions they are stated.
They then verify that model and any of its "assumptions" based on past data to prove it is a valid model of the real thing. 
As a rule however they leave such assumptions out,
"And most importantly, the 2007 reports excludes dynamical changes in ice sheet melt in their projections, because modeling of this component of sea level rise is not sufficiently advanced enough to make accurate projections."
and state why.
Please note in this case the models on sea rise seem to be understating the actual and indeed accelerating rise. So at the moment there is indeed a fudge factor/assumption that needs to be applied, but has not been.  What the scientsist will do next is determine what factor is missing to build ino the model to imprive its accuracy.
and no actually I think the public is beginning to undersatnd just how they have been lied to by the climate deniers/ pollies.
In terms of the author, Ollie whoisnt even a climate scientist btw,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Cliff-Ollier-Swimming-In-A-Sea-of-Misinf...
"One of the benefits, it seems, of being a 'skeptic' scientist is never having to bother with the time-consuming chore of actually researching the subject you're writing about. One might also expect some degree of reason, logic, and coherency from someone with a background in science, but all too often these rather fundamental requirements are sadly lacking when these 'skeptic' scientists comment publicly.
A recent example of this is an op-ed written in The Australian by Cliff Ollier, a retired Australian geology professor, where he makes numerous erroneous claims about sea level rise."
"
So to summarize the main points:

  •  Cliff Ollier has simply repeated a number of myths about sea level, that could have been easily corrected if he had to bothered to consult the peer-reviewed scientific literature.    
  • Sea level rise has been observed to accelerate over the last few centuries, and throughout the 20th century. This has been primarily due to thermal expansion of the oceans as they warm, and the melting of mountain glaciers. Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet melt has barely contributed until the last two decades or so.
  •  Melting of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice sheets is expected to be the main contributor to sea level rise this century, and recent observations, revealing that melt of land-based ice is now the dominant component of sea level rise, support this.   
  •  The last (almost) two decades have seen a more linear (straightline) rise of global sea level. This is in keeping with the forcings (climatic warming/cooling agents) over the period, and natural variability, but this is not expected to last. See Hansen (2011).
  • The last interglacial saw sea level rises of around a metre per century at a time when ice cover on the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets were similar to the present. This suggests that high rates of sea level rise, in excess of IPCC projections, are indeed possible this century with further global warming."

not a very reliable source is Ollie.

No use. The global warming believers have their fingers firmly in their ears.

however it isnt science.
The great thing is of course if you dont believe climate change is real there will be some bargins in coastal property for you.

Not this one boyo....however you would have to produce something that is not utterly ridiculous in the way of evidence.

Check the facts again PE...enjoy your beachside bach (just get storm shutters for the next cyclone and idel surge)
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2014-hottest-year-on-record/

I agree with you I am simply saying the stupid things that some of our fellow interest.co.nz users will say.

Fair enough PE, we should all buy one of these floating houses and go fishing 
http://paperhouses.co/

I consider the issues of climate change and its incidentals such as rising sea levels as requiring somewhat of a business decision.  After reading much of the science, I most certainly would not purchase coastal property near current sea level.  Furthemore, I most defintely would not want my taxpayer money to be used for future bail outs of those that continue to do so.
 
 
 

Exactly.
 

We had not long ago a ex Auckland mayao bitching about his expensive house falling off a cliff in a very expensive area.
A area that has had a indidence off and on of the land falling into the sea for some 50 yrs that I know of....
What is it? are the rich ppl realy that thick?
Hell yeah...we have know of erosion, sea level increases, even unstable weather for some 30 to 40 yrs....YET in that time we have some of the most expenive homes and multi million dollar baches being built on sand bars up and down the country...
Do these people who not only run our country but our industries have no clues... well yes they do, they dont build their factories in these areas..
And these same people are now going to run to their local councils  crying  "OH whoa is me" BS.. will want compesnsation because councils didnt warn them of basic common sence knowledge stuff... at the rate payers and tax payers expence
We had/ have the leaky building fiasco...simply because of basic commonsence was not followed in many areas
Now we are going to have the Sinking Building  fiasco.
 
Stupid people with more money than bloody sence

No not necessarily stupid, more arogant. Its a case of they feel they are privileged and deserving and above such mundane things as laws, morals etc.
So they expect to enjoy the full benefits of their position and if it goes wrong they expect that their "position" will entitle them to get it fixed free of cost to them except a whine in the right ear.
 
 

Funny how people think about sea level as a fixed thing. In the past 20,000 years sea level rose 120m, at one point surging 20m in less than 200 years (see meltwater pulse 1A). UK only became an island some 6,500 years ago. As a species we have very short memory.

Tries to have informed debate on the internet about climate change....

……………………………………..________
………………………………,.-’”……………….“~.,
………………………..,.-”……………………………..”-.,
…………………….,/………………………………………..”:,
…………………,?………………………………………………\,
………………./…………………………………………………..,}
……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..}
……………/……………………………………………,:”………/
…………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../
…………./__.(…..”~-,_…………………………,:`………./
………../(_….”~,_……..”~,_………………..,:`…….._/
……….{.._$;_……”=,_…….”-,_…….,.-~-,},.~”;/….}
………..((…..*~_…….”=-._……”;,,./`…./”…………../
………….\`~,……”~.,………………..`…..}…………../
…………(….`=-,,…….`……………………(……;_,,-”
…………/.`~,……`-………………………….\……/\
………….\`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..\,_
,,_……….}.>-._\……………………………..|………..`=~-,
…..`=~-,_\_……`\,……………………………\……………….-,
……………….`=~-,,.\,………………………….\……………….-,
…………………………..`:,,………………………`\…………._-,
……………………………….`=-,……………….,%`>–==“
…………………………………._\……….._,-%…….`\
……………………………..,<`.._|_,-&“…………….`

Bear in mind however that we really are past the "informed debate" stage, ie there are not 2 logical, scientific based sides to the debate. 
There is the for, the science community v against, the politcally driven deniers with no science behind them.

Bear in mind however that we really are past the "informed debate" stage, ie there are not 2 logical, scientific based sides to the debate
There are three ie Transitive,intransitive and almost intransitive eg Lorenz 1968.
 
 
 

Within the context of is there climate change (yes) is it significant, (yes) and is it man made (yes) the scientific debate is over.  What is left to debate is the political debate, will we do enough about it to mitigate the worst effects or not. Right now it looks like not, so as humans in a modern society that is dependant on "modern" agriculture we are extinct.  Maybe 150years from now with 4~6deg C warming we will literally be extinct as our food chain wont survive adapting to another super warming period we created, just deserts I suppose.
Interesting paper that, I'd like to see a modernised version after almost 50 years.
 
 
 

As the seas rise, will this alter the stresses on the earths crust? I expect so.  Seems to me that we can expect a large increase in siesmic activity. 
 
I still cannot see the sense in rebuilding any of the destroyed parts of Christchurch that are within about 20 meters above sea level.  The Square is about 7 meters from memory.  They should have just fixed up the houses that were reasonably fixable and shifted all new development inland to higher ground, ie no new building permits below 20 meters

The first land that was opened up was another swamp.

Thumbs up Chris m. As the mass of the earth moves towards the equator the stresses on the crust will manifest at the surface. Also let's not forget the physics of thermodynamics where melting ice and latent energy will keep temperatures below freezing until the melt is done. Happy happy joy joy.

Ps. Mass at the equator equals centripetal force so after the burn will be the freeze. More joy.

Ps. It's not the change but the rate of change that matters. Evolve or die. Doomier and gloomier. :-&

Ps. It's not the change but the rate of change that matters. Evolve or die. Doomier and gloomier. :-&

Looked at a few properties at sea level lately. One rogue wave away from being underwater. Welcome bay ftw.

Looked at a few properties at sea level lately. One rogue wave away from being underwater. Welcome bay ftw.

I love the feed back on articles like this, both side thoroughly disect the issue. The amazing thing that you all seem to be ignoring is the probability of the Insurance Companies profiteering from it all.
Some years ago, at the early stages of the global warming debate, I strolled along Ocean Beach Drive in Mount Maunganui and admired the multimillion $ properties there, but also commented on their proximity to the high water line and the effect of more extreme storms and a higher sea level.
Just a couple of points to consider ....

No Im sure Profile will be along to remind us, its all a huge conspiracy by the left/right/business/central govn/UN to con the sheepies, and all you sheepise are too stupid to see what the tin foil brigade nut jobs see.
Yeah right.
Well the idea is they will profit, that is a business thing and since there is competiton world wide for [re-]insurance I somehow doubt its one huge conspiracy.   
The thing is I am pretty sure if you said you wanted your policy not to cover such events the insurance companies will be happy to oblige and not charge a premium.
how lucky do you feel?
 

How lucky do you feel is right, but I now own my house several hundred feet above sea level and about three miles inland, and I will object to the insurance companies loading my premiums up against this risk to spread the cost further. I have a similar arguement with insurance companies over the cost of insuring my aircraft where they are telling me my risk is higher than I rate it. I can substantiate my position while the insurance companies are simply using statistics, but they are still a little miffed because I have saved well over $10K over the last 5 years by refusing to accept their risk profile. More aircraft owners are doing the same.
However to try this on a low level coastal property means taking on a virtual certainty of large waves coming over the fence during a decent winter blow. Storm surge will add to the factor too as much more intense storms become the norm. Actually on that matter buoilding standards may need to be reviewed to account for the more extreme storms as well as the proximity of trees to buildings etc.  

So you are flying your aircraft with no insurance?
I suppose that is a new take on the no car insurance "youth"
 

If he crashes his plane, insurance may not be top of his worry list.

Very true, however if he hits anyone, they have no claim, unless its off his estate which I assume can be done.
 

generally very hard to do.  I there is a criminal aspect to the crash then it falls to criminal courts not civil and with the person dead there's little they can do (cant defend himself at court).

if not criminal, then a case of negligence or similar would be needed, as breakages and acts of god dont count for personal liability.  Also courts tend to consider "paid with his life" or serious injury to be significant amount of paying te public debt - again with issue of suing someone who cant give their side.  Also court tends to lean to favouring the descendants when significant loss is involved.  And when there is a case its usually IRD and government "public good" that stand dirst in line for reimbursement, leaving little behind for most of us mere individuals.

Is there scipe for a civil action? if you had to claim off your insurance would the insurance company seek redress? I thought they did.

You'd have to prove neglience and duty of care or violation of aviation law.

If it goes to a criminal case, then the criminal court prosecutes but if he's found to have committed a crime then he gets sentenced there.  But the Law regards such criminal sentencing to fit the crime so it's considered that the persons "debt to the community" has been repaid.  Thus civil action would be additional (and thus unwarranted) on top of what the Law has written down as the recognised debt the criminal owes.   this means the civil case would have to prove how the damages to the claimant go beyond what the legal decription of the crime is - this is exceedingly difficult because you're effectively trying to tell ajudge, whose job and entire power come from the written Law, that his Law is incompetent and doesn't cover the aspects of the crime properly.

In the case where someone has "paid the ultimate price" it becomes very hard to prosecute, and even harder to bring a civil case as the person can't defend themselves in court and thus both sides of the story can't be helped - plus the stigma of attacking a dead person (ie it's irregular, which is something courts don't like).  In many cases the opinion of consulting people would be that if there exists a reasonably predictable chance of this occuring then you should seek out insurance to protect yourself, and it if it's predictable then it may be seen as negligent on your part for not protecting yourself..... and if it's not predictable, and not negligence or recklessness then it is likely to be considered accidental/act-of-god, and if they're dead or critically injured you would not be likely to get damages.

usual caveats apply: not a lawyer, not trained to give legal advice, dont believe anything you read on the internet, yadda yadda yadda...

There are many ways to have insurance without paying some other coompany to carry the risk. As an airforce trained aircraft engineer I carry out my own maintenance, do jot take short cuts and ensure the aircraft is servicable and safe for flight. when flying I focus on flight safety, using situational awareness and practice to maintain my skills. I practice away from built up areas so that if some thing did go wrong, the risk of harm to others is minimised as much as possible. I tske my responsibilities seriously here. Are you worried that I might have an accident or will be unable to pay you if I did? I would prefer to take the steps necessary to avoid the accident rather than have to deal with the result of one. Thus this cannot be compared to uninsured youth driving cars, as they appear to set out to do stupid things without consideration of their abilities, the car's capability of doing what they want or the ennvironment of where they are doing it and the impact on others. The same goes for building houses on coastal strips. You only have to visit one during a storm to get the idea of what can happen. Addiionally there is ample video from around the world to show the effect of storm surge. Thus those who lose value in their properties as they are uninsurable due to their location have only themselves to blame!  

While there is a wind force allowance the EQ allowance is pretty massive, Id have to go read that bit.  Big bay windows could be interesting.....

It is the financialisation of these considerations that most concerns me.  And in many cases, the PCE points to the potential for escalating insurance premiums and suggests that these costs will predominently fall on private homes/private homeowners. Then people think these landowners will eventually seek redress from regulators - and subsequently, the general taxation (be it from either central of local government) will be expected to bear the cost if abandonment of an asset, or defences to protect that asset become necessary.
 
But I suspect the assets most likely to cost the taxpayer/ratepayers won't be homes falling into the sea but roadways being affected (that is the case presently, as many councils maintain roadway defences routinely in the here and now). For example, the PCE points to the most recent storm surge/flooding of Tamaki Drive in her report.  It has an existing sea defence. The question is, at what point should government income/taxes be used to build bigger defences along Tamaki Drive - or (at the toher end of the scale) should we do no maintenance in the present in the event of damage to the roadway?
 
There are already a number of taxpayer/ratepayer funded projects in and around Auckland where beaches are being built;
 
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/65298859/Auckland-builds-new-beaches
 
Should insurers start upping private homeowner premiums based on the PCE's use of a 50 year worse-case scenario projection with a medium confidence of liklihood of occurance? This would lowers disposable incomes well in advance of the event occuring. Is this seen as a good outcome? 
 
In addition to these higher insurance premiums, perhaps the private assets on the other side of and/or in near proximity to coastal roadways should be levied a higher local tax (this is presently done for the land adjacent to rivers where flood defences need to be strengthened) or perhaps tolls could be collected from users of those roadways that run along coastlines.  Perhaps local councils should charge an entrance fee to users of those beaches that have to be renourished/reclaimed?
 
But, we need to bear in mind that land reclaimatiuon has been done for years.  Wellington's shoreline ended at Lambton Quay before reclaimation. Oriental Bay beach is renourished (sand is trucked in). Is it a waste of taxpayers money to be maintaining these assets, constructing new assets and reclaiming further land in the present?
 

So if we have say 50 houses and they are threatened by sealevel rise and the cost of a sea wall to keep the sea out is 20million?  At what point does the council walk away saying cost to high?  then the 50 houses have to come up with that cost themselves, or abandon. 
"higher local tax" my worry with that would be how do you quantifiy how much higher? is it 10%? 50%? v the liability and insistance of "we paid extra, fix it"   Maybe it will be a case of a bylaw saying we will increase the rates on a property to recover the ever increasing costs of defences and repairs in the time period of it frequency.  So if there is a 50million dollar repaid bill and its once every ten years the rates of theose 50 houses go up 5million per year for a decade, I bet thet will raise some squeals....
PS I'd suggest these beaches are a complete waste of rate payer money, energy and CO2 emissions.

That later model is the one under which the seawall protecting private properties at Raumati South was built - a differential rate was levied on those properties protected by it over a period of time ( I can't recall how long it was - 30 years, or the estimated life of the structure, seems to be a number that sits somewhere in my memory .. but I wouldn't want to be quoted on that).
 
I've not come across any discussion about a seawall built directly adjacent to private property that was anything other than privately funded - have you? 

nope, but I was not looking.
I tend to look at sea level rises in fits and starts, usually when something new just pops out, or it gets discussed.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/01/a-new-sea-level-cu...
"In all curves, the current rates of rise are the highest since records began." this is 2015 so bang up to date from a public point of view which is all i can see.

how high was it built?
Houses last 100 year really so the house owners are goign to be coughing up again and again.
 
 

It's a timber wall - so I think its 'life' was more a calcualtion at the time of deterioration of the materials used, as opposed to a time in the future when it might be over-topped by rising sea levels.  And, yes, I imagine that if/when it needs replacement, it will similarly be a differential rate calculation levied against the owners of the assets being protected - as that's the model used by many LAs with respect to distributing the cost of river/flood protection. 
 

I doubt a private owner or group would be able to get it past council.   areas ajacent to water areas have public/crown interest complications.

I'm at 500ft above sea level...I'll wait...

Very good points Kate as people can in the most part only live where the law and infrastructure allows them.
If councils are already denying consents for developments based on sea level rises, then we should also ask them when they are going to deny the support of infrastructure replacement and repair as well. This withdrawl of council support would happen far sooner than a catostrophic event.

Interesting paper that, I'd like to see a modernised version after almost 50 years.
The same constraints that exist a half century ago with the primitve equations,are still an open problem today, the equations have infinite solutions.

It's interesting that there's an almost evangelical belief in a theory that is far from conclusive which involves contentious data and modelling assumptions, let alone vested interests in perpetuating a narrative bias.....
 
"The European satellite, Evisat, provided possibly the best available data. It showed falling sea level since its launch in 2002, and for the last two years the decline was 5mm/yr. Unfortunately. Evisat broke down on April 8th 2012.

TOPEX/POSEIDON sea-level satellites, which operated from 1993-2000, show a slight uptrend in sea level, but if the distorting effects of the Great El Niño Southern Oscillation of 1997/1998 are excluded the sea-level trend is zero. 

The GRACE gravitational-anomaly satellite data shows that sea level fell slightly from 2002-2007"
 
http://www.principia-scientific.org/rising-sea-level-forecasts-fact-or-f...

The link has already been debunked as rubbish, but here it is again,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Cliff-Ollier-Swimming-In-A-Sea-of-Misinf...

"It's interesting that there's an almost evangelical belief in a theory that is far from conclusive which involves contentious data and modelling assumptions, let alone vested interests in perpetuating a narrative bias..."
 
I thought this was a discussion about rising sea levels not Economics.  Please stick to the topic.

As a coastal dweller in (drum roll) earthquake-ravaged eastern Christchurch, I look outwards to the sea level most morning as I walks the dogs.
 
As a Great Barrier Reef guide cheerfully informed me, sea level has caused the GBR, as the consistent rise over the last 8K years keeps them corals reaching up and out towards the light.
 
As I live in an area where the LIDAR shows around a 30cm fall in land levels, equivalent by primary school mathematics to 30cm of sea level rise, I can inform y'all that the practical effect of all of this (on my patch) is precisely zilch.   Everything works as per normal:  stormwater flows out to sea, the tides reconfigure the beach twice a day, treated sewage wafts gently into Pegasus Bay, and life carries on.
I do expect that given a decent storm from the right quarter, a big swell, a big atmospheric low, and a prolonged duration, the sand barriers in between my patch and the Pacific Ocean may get chewed away to the tune of a few more metres - the last time such a storm occurred was 1992.  
As there are 50+ metres of barrier, and a cross-sectional area of around 200 sq metres for said ocean to work through, and a consistent 100,000 cubic metres of new material washed down out tof the Waimakariri River each year to replenish things (it's an accreting coastline), my attitude to the coming SeaPocalypse is - que sera, sera.  With elevated insurance rates.
 
Sea-level rise is yet another State of Fear issue.  It can be adapted to quite readily (Holland??), is predictable (earthquakes aside), and the 220mm ish rise over the entire course of the twentieth century, on drainage infrastructure laid down in the late 1800's, has been minimal as well.  Land rise and fall (lower UK's isostatic rebound, part of Sweden's very rapid land rise) as well as tide-gauge historical irregularities (see here for a surveyor's POV on the whole of NZ in this context) imply that 'sea level' is a complex beast.  Mean Sea Level is frequently not Level, nor deriving much from the Sea.
 
And the comments up-thread about 'Christchurch being re-built where it was' are way wide of the mark.  Red-zoned land is the don't-touch area.  The rise and rise of Waimak and Selwyn districts (north and west, respectively) are well-documented in terms of the consenting rate per 000 of population.  The continued death of the Old CBD (a New one has moved west as well:  New CBD - the Sydenham/Addington/Middleton/Riccarton/Hornby/Airport arc, plus the block bounded roughly by Victoria St/Cambridge Tce/Avon River/Bealey Ave.) is a staple of The Press.  IZone and Rolleston are the new inland port and industrial area (Selwyn again).
 
Facts trump blather any time......
 

I have a solution..to the rise. Here is another.
We spend billions on getting into space,millions on Americas Cup, all the wasted time effort and money on on Governments splurges and urges....not building houses, but million dollar canoes and the like.
But a simple solution would be to import Dutch Dyke Builders and finish off the Foreshore and Seabed claims, ..once and for all.
We could extend and pretend into infinity. It worked for the Dutch. They were on more solid ground afterwards.
And extend our little Nation to take in more boarders...sorry borders...ala Mr Putin.
(Cease fire...what Moi?..Break a deal.....I signed on the same deal twice...don't blame me..I can be trusted.. just like a Waitangi Treaty...someone always keeps paying, not worth the paper it was written on...history repeats the precedent..your mate...Vladimer)
They could bank with the ANZ....the dyke builders. (Keep up)...the Government could use their surplus. ( A rise by any other name)
( Not PC..but via ATM...sorry if a tad obscure, we have to build their clientel base, I was just helping)
And that was the Friday ironic Humour, something lacking of late.
But you can take a rise out of just anything...these days.
 
 
 
 

"The link has already been debunked as rubbish, but here it is again"
 
No it hasn't Steven....you believe it's been debunked but dismissively announce it as fact.
 
Here's an example of "Skeptical Science" attack approach which seems surprisingly vitriolic and combative for a genuine scientific community discussion. Again, I think people should be cautious of it's validity and agenda.
 
The Astrophysicist Joseph E. Postma replies to a "Skeptical Science" attack.
 
"I have been asked to write a brief overview on the errors and misconceptions as presented on the so-called “Skeptical Science” blog."
"The rebuttal clearly illustrates how Skeptical Science relies on sophistry and misdirection to obfuscate reality."
"I’d first like to point out that the term “skeptical science” is an oxymoron and so it immediately calls into question what kind of person might use such a term."
 
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2012/06/astrophysicist-debunks-disin...
 
New paper finds sea levels rising at less than 4 inches per century, with no acceleration
 
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/09/new-paper-finds-sea-levels-r...

an astrophysicist knows a lot about climate? while 10,000s of thousands of climate scientists do not?
yeah right.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/postma-disproved-the-greenhouse-effect.htm
"He made several very simple errors along the way, none of which are very technical in nature."
shows he is an idiot.
in fact if you read it the technicalities are quite in-depth, so no it isnt dismissed out of hand, its shown to be pure crap.
further,
"This work makes extraordinary claims and yet no effort was made to put it in a real climate science journal, since it was never intended to educate climate scientists or improve the field; it is a sham, intended only to confuse casual readers and provide a citation on blogs.  The author should be ashamed."
Sea level rise is actually accelerating as per this jan 2015 article.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/01/a-new-sea-level-cu...
While your paper isnt new its 2013.
Oh and 4inches is quite a bit btw.
 
 

if the climate scientists are making the same mistake then possibly could be the case...

thousands of bankers and financial experts charged right over the GFC cliff,  swearing that they were the true experts and the numbers proved it....

You raise an intersting comparison.
There is a difference between climate science which is a science and economics which is more of an art with lots of obvious guess work.  Look at the real practionioers of the climate science, virtually all, and over-welming amount agree V well few credible, any?
However the similarities of the right's pseudo-economics matches their pseudo-science, its a crock. 
--edit--
Look at how Paul krugman for one has been able to forecast no inflation and a poor recovery V the right who invariably? expected significant inflation.  As he said if you had followed the WSJ's advice V his you would have lost a packet.  look at gold, it was going to $3000, $5000 an ounce, instead it went from $1800 to $1200 A 30% LOSS.
Go back to climate, he climate scientists models are turning out acceptably accurate V well mumbo jumbo.
---edit2---
oh and bit coin? and how secure it is? great palce to risk your money.
The Q is where is the real value add, ie making a good as opposed to tulip mania?
So just who is running the better models here?
Evidence points one way, to the real science and math.
place your bets its your money after all.
 
 
 

If climate science is such a science, then how come people haven't been able to get an accurate prediction yet?

Whereas the GFC was foretold by many people but were just labelled gloomsters.

If you look at the models their predictons match closely enough to each other and actual data for a sane [business] person to do a risk, impact analysis and act.
 
 

an astrophysicist knows a lot about climate? while 10,000s of thousands of climate scientists do not?
 
Astrophysicists look for mechanical causes of changes in earths rotational forcing due to external peturbations such as nutation and its causal effects in angular momentum.
Here there is a recognized cyclical changes in sealevel growth rates across time (and a constraint on using short times series such as satellite alimentery).
 
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7535/images/nature14093-f4.jpg
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2002/11/aah2799/img158.gif
 
 
 
 

In context of the model he 'wrote" and then used to claim climate change wasnt an issue, yes, he proved himself in-competant.
On top of that if he wrote in his sphere of expertese (if he actually is a real astroP that is)  he would publish it as peer reviewed paper open to inspection, and critique. He did not he posted an un-substantiated opinion piece as a blog that got di-sected and shown to be a mistruth.  
 
 
 
 

Oh your  argument  is not against  say astrophysicists, rather an ad hominem against an individual and your reasoning is it is not a peer reviwed published paper.
Your evidence seems to come from a blog which seems to be neither a scientific journal,and includes a number of authors who have had recent difficulty getting published in reputable scientific journals due to an absence of science and inflammetery rhectoric.
 
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/C400/2013/esdd-4-C400-2013.pdf
 
Stick to the science,there are legitimate constraints in the literature as it is.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

LOL, rubbish the science  is legit unlike the deniers side.
No the skeptical science blog shows via the math that the writer simply did not construct an accurate model and indeed on to of that  made some bad mistakes and used it to claim there is no climate change.  On top of that he didnt get his work peer reviewed which any scientist would normally do.   So it seems its OK for ppl you want to believe in to blog rubbish, but when a science and fact based blog does the same, its not OK.
Kind of two faced, but Im not surprised.
 

Im not sure what you man by this paper. That actual paper appears tobe a paper trying to set out how to improve things, it is a discusion on science and the peer review process from what I can see.
"Abstract. Replication is an important part of science, and by repeating past analyses, we show that a number of papers in the scientific literature contain severe methodological flaws which can easily be identified through simple tests and demonstrations. In many cases, shortcomings are related to a lack of robustness, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather an artifact of a particular experimental set-up."
So actually,
a) it isnt a paper on climate science but a paper on how to improve them, or chop them if they dont stack up.
b) it points out possible weaknsses, but it seems your writer doesnt like that, kind of wierd.
c) either that or its being rejected as using it is an "easy way" to chop out the rubbish coming from the deniers.
Interesting, sort of.
 

When the Nobel Laurates tried to warn us in 1992, I realised the pollies encouraged by their well-funded mates like the Koch brothers would deny and do nothing, so I moved aboard.  Now, my only concern is tsunamis.  Do it before all the berths are gone folks.
 
Interesting how the deniers have vested interests yet the independent, peer-reviewed scientists are shamefully and insultingly accused of bias.

"abroad" if you only see climate change as the risk yes.  If you see peak oil / financial crisis as far bigger and immediate ie in your / my lifetime then NZ is one of the places to be.  Its fairly isolated to keep the locusts away and has a small enough population to feed itself. 
 

the locust swarms hunt the food.   It is for the bigger community's good ... interesting to know you think that it's ok that you and yours will willingly starve for that policy

Um no.  My point is NZ is self-sufficient and a big bit of rough water to get here as yes the locusts swarm.
If you look to cuba they have already survived their peak oil event and they are totalitarian, they didnt do it as a "free" market, dog eat dog, more community, if forced.
 

That too., Steven.  BTW, it was "aboard" not "abroad," i.e., aboard my boat.

haha, waterworld springs to mind, hope you like tomatoes.

Waterworld, one of my favorites.

I enjoyed it though it was a flop apparantly.
 

...and meanwhile in the real world those poor reinsurers are really suffering.

"Blue skies create a reinsurance tradegy."

"
Nine huricane seasons without a cat 3 hitting the US coastline.The giddily low odds that are implicitly being placed, for example, on the risk of Florida hurricanes are leading to primary (consumer facing) insurers gradually returning to the coastal property and casualty market, which they had abandoned years ago due to an apparently low risk/reward ratio."

Http://m.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/66808b76-a315-11e4-9c06-00144feab7de.html

a) Oh dear cherry picking your data points again.   If you look at the comments from [re-]insurers they see more weather incients, I think from memory 2.5 times.
yes, here it is,
http://climatecrocks.com/2015/02/02/insurance-companies-coming-to-terms-with-climate-risks/
b) Low reward, yes indeed, there are comments I read that say investors chasing any yield are flooding  (oopsie) the insurance market hence forcing premiums down.   This while suggeting an artificially low premium also suggests a working, competitive market, hardly supporting a conspiracy claim its stiched up.
If you think its a con, simple really there are 2  opportunities for you,
a) Invest in cheap beach properties, should be big paying rentals and when ppl realise "its a con", big capital gains for you.
b) re-insurance to give good yeilds, I dont think its hard to get into Lloyds of London as a "name" and make an easy killing.
good luck with that.
 
 

What prattle this is. Your first point b) contradicts your second point b). Did you bother to read the article before spamming? I'll take the FT over your alarmist websites any day.

No a) doe not  contradict b) when the investors who seem to invariably a) desperate for a 'decent" yeild will buy anything even shale junk bonds despite the risk and b) such as yourself deny climate science.
Sure take the FT, as Paul Krugman said if you listened to the WSJ and not him you would have lost a lot of money.
Personally I think its great you are investing on the denial side, that means others can exit, leaving you with the "profits"
 
 
 

What prattle this still is. Your first point b) still contradicts your second point b). Did you bother to read the article before spamming? What does krugman and the wsj have to do with anything?

No it is  perfectly logical.
The point of mentioning WSJ v PK is the financial papers are proving to be grossly inaccurate on predictioning the economics unlike some real economists who seem to be spot on the money.
Choose your model, invest away, if you think its a crook bet on the other side side of the play, if you are right you should make a lot of money, simple.
So you should really be rejoicing that all these climate believers are betting the worng way and you will be able to make heaps off them.
 
 

But the FT article, which you clearly haven't read, isn't about predictions is it. Real world outcomes yet again not matching climate alarmism predictions. Throw me some more straw men if that turns your dial.

The insurance industry costs, claims and increase in weather costing events climing by 2.5 times is a pretty clear indication of what is real and what isnt.

Try reading the article before commenting. Clearing the global reinsurance data is not matching your climate alarmist website.

LOL too funny, questioning the science.  Where is the confusion?  CO2 causes air to hold more heat, burning fossil fuels produces CO2, as the air gets hotter ice will melt.  The last time CO2 levels were this high we had sea levels at least 10 meters higher, 30cm is just the beginning. 
 
At least we have someone not scared to tell the truth, even if it may effect home values.

Well the interesting thing is in a free and open market there is a 'deal" between 2 parties reached on price.
So if you dont believe in climate change there should be a big opportunity for you to make your fortune.
Funny thing how the deniers dont want comments they "dont believe in" put on LIMS, thus trying to obfuscate the "free" market.  If its a crock other deniers should happily buy, why worry. Thing is buyers are now becoming aware of the issues even if it isnt "official" and insurance premiums will increase and mortgages maybe declined thus sending a market signal, even if legal action prevents LIMs being "doctored".
 
 

I'm sure many will snap up some bargains, in the hopes that their beachfront property will become part of the foreshore and seabed.

where did the extra water go?

It takes time for ice to melt.  When I was sceptical, and decided to investigate my brother and I calculated how much sea level could rise if all the ice on Antarctica melted, I think it was about 70meters.  The ice is about 2km thick, so it will take a while, and it may not all melt, you could do the same for greenland, it's not simple maths, scientists have done it, and calculated some melt rates which is where we are today.

Onto the land, Greenland and Antartica, and the rate of it coming off is increasing.
2 things,
a) the artic is going dark, that means more absorption of heat which melts more ice.
b) As the permafrost melts it releases methane, bad news methane. Of course if you dont believe in climate change, whats another contributing gas, no biggee, eh?
Given the 2 positive feedbacks alone, its quite possible at about 4.5Deg C (if not earleir) the planet's ice will continue to melt into the 3rd? super warm period and there will be nothing we can do to stop it.
If you have no children/grandchildren, and are a self-centred libertatian well who cares eh?   you and yours wont be around anyway.
 

Permafrost methane, the biggie.  No children here but not self-centered and bored by real estate and housing value discussions, but would like to have humanity continue despite its continuing endless capacity for stupidity.  Although I'm coming to Kurt Vonnegut's conclusion that humanity is the earth's cancer.

As I've previously mentioned, the almost religious fervor for the highly contentious climate science and group think is interesting but perhaps not surprising. The evidence is certainly not 'incontrovertible'.

Can 'independent' peer reviewed scientists be wrong? Of course they can, especially if their funding depends on them having the 'right kind' of answers.

"Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet."

"the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366

In the Soviet era Lysenko-Michurinism was the centralized political control exercised over genetics and agriculture by Trofim Lysenko....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
 

Milgram's experiment: Milgram concluded people obey either out of fear or out of a desire to appear cooperative--even when acting against their own better judgment and desires.
 
http://nature.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7article/article35.htm

Lysenko is an example of what happens when you don't peer-review science. Your analogy is absurd.

Thats  a great straw-man by the WSJ.  The vast majority of scientists who have an understanding of these things agree that climate change is real, and caused by man. It's not surprising that they differ on what actions are required.  Even the IPCC report claimed that climate change would cost bugger all over the course of the century.  So the cost to Coromandle landowners is part of those costs, and just like the Chch quakes the destructive destruction will provide a boost to GDP.  Which is great for the 'pro-growth' majority. 
 
People have a choice, it's not illegal to burn FF, or to build on low lying land, though if you make those choices it is important to understand the costs of those descisions.  Though I think most people are getting past the denial stage, what comes after denial should be interesting.

NYTimes today:

Ties to Corporate Cash for Climate- Change Researcher
By JUSTIN GILLIS and JOHN SCHWARTZ 
Newly released documents show the extent of the links between corporate interests and the published work of Wei-Hock Soon, a Smithsonian-affiliated scientist who has tried to debunk the consensus about global warming.
Dr. Soon also received at least $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. (Mr. Koch’s fortune derives partly from oilrefining.) However, other companies and industry groups that once supported Dr. Soon, including Exxon Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute, appear to have eliminated their grants to him in recent years.
As the oil-industry contributions fell, Dr. Soon started receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars through DonorsTrust, an organization based in Alexandria, Va., that accepts money from donors who wish to remain anonymous, then funnels it to various conservative causes.

"Lysenko is an example of what happens when you don't peer-review science. Your analogy is absurd."
 
It's not an absurd analogy at all, he had peers, they had a chance to review his work and then they got shipped of to 'Sibera' for disagreeing.
 
My point was that given a sufficient control mechanism (social, political, commercial) then science (peer-reviewed or not) can be used to fit an agenda and this needs to be taken in account on both sides of the debate.
 
Also peer-reviewing in itself doesn't guarantee scientific truth if either the process becomes compromised or the broader context that it operates within is corrupted. -By the aforementioned example.
 
Groupthink is an example of how peer-review can become compromised.
 
"The principal of science is built on the trial and error of certain ideas. Peer review is an integral part of the process of determining if a scientific theory is valid. All new discoveries are supposed to be sent through a panel of experts in the field and reviewed to catch any possible errors. But when beliefs about a certain theory are so strongly held the peer review process may become inherently flawed."
 
"Either kind of groupthink, conscious or unconscious, can enter into the peer review process. When it is more unconscious, scholars are often unable to understand or accurately review arguments or evidence that they’ve never imagined to be part of a discipline or specialization up to that point.
 
When it is conscious, peer review can be one of the most insidious ways that a particular interpretation or viewpoint enshrines itself in the discipline, by deliberately squashing any rivalrous or opposing approach in a very safely confidential and invisible manner."
 
https://peerreviewwatch.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/is-groupthink-ruining-p...
 

as opposed to raving right wing nutters making nonsense up on the fly?
I'll take the peer review every time thanks.
 

The "debate" has long been over.  Dead horse beating.  End of story.

Duplicate

The ad hominem and closed mindedness does not make your diatribes more compelling Steven and OMG.

You seem to be saying that sea levels are falling, or that you can't tell if they are rising or falling(?)  Does this mean that glaciers an ice sheets are not melting?  Or that melting land ice has no effect on sea levels?  Does this mean that CO2 does not cause radiative forcing?  Pretty well established facts you are calling into question there.  A bit like calling our understanding of gravity groupthink, which it is, but it is based on some pretty compelling evidence, evidence which can be validated by the scientific method.  I don't understand how you think you can add one body of ice or water to another body of water without the level rising?  We are not dealing with very complex subjects here.

Pot calling kettle...
 
BTW again:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier...
 
''A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.''
 
The fossil fuel companies are following the play book of the tobacco industry from 30 years ago. Meanwhile the financial costs of trying to deal with the consequences of climate change will continue to soar as inaction predominates......
 
"The real goal is to stoke the angry fires of talk radio, cable news, the blogosphere and the like, all of which feed off of contrarian story lines and seldom make the time to assess facts and weigh evidence. Civility, honesty, fact and perspective are irrelevant."
 

oh dear dear.
closed minded? no.
Simple if I have a pain in my chest I go see a motor mechanic?
No not really I go see my GP, who, if he/she thinks its a real issue sends me to the correct specialist. maybe if Im a bit concerned I go see another specialist of the same disapline for a second opinion.
So, I take action based on the best advice of the specialist(s) in the field, as statistically/logically that offers the best chance of being correct and my well being.
From a different perspective, a business/manager should be doing a risk and impact analysis in order to protect their business.  So you have thousands of climate scientists on the one had saying climate change is real and is serious V well not much in the way of experts in climate, except non-experts and worse ppl with politcial bias and/or hat appear to be taking back handers.
ad hominem, no. When you see the extremely poor quality of the deniers claims or papers and see that on top of this some of them are taking money from the fossil fuel industry or right wing sources, well its perectly reasonable to be allowed to see such information in order to judge the credibility of the claimer.
Especially as of course the right has claimed for many years that the liberal/left wing academics are just doing this to get funding. Well gee so having weathered this storm of personal attacks and claims of dis-honesty the right are complaining in a simialr vain?
gimme a break.
 
 
 
 
 
 

I went to see my GP for health problems... got perscribed meds that gave me fits and caused lasting damage.  my great grandmother died in 86' because the GP prescribed anti-coagulants for her, thinking that at 88 yrs old she had high blood pressure (authority figures make her very nervous) she went in for a cold.

Went to GP for Xrays on broken bone in hand.  Radiologist said it'll need some attention (the Doctors cartel won't let them talked to the patients.)  GP said soft tissue injury. I queried twice. he insisted.  turns out it was broken.

Went to GP over stomach cramps and swelling, many jabs later still got cramps and swelling in stomach, but have been issued Gout medicines and told to go on anti-collestrol diet.  I indicated collestrol was possibly due to 2 days roughing it on takeaways including pizza the night before test and 2 eggs for breakfast 30 mins before test  (I didn't know they were testing for collestrol, and they never said anything).  Gout meds don't seem to be doing anything.

so yeah, you might be better off going to a mechanic.

There is an increase in sea levels and storm surge - statistical fact. Why.. – another debate. But based on the stats, low lying costal land looks like it might have its value and insurability destroyed before it actually physically is. What’s the problem here?