By Katharine Moody*
Not good enough, Simon Court. In a recent article, the Undersecretary for Resource Management Act (RMA) reform warned Councils that picking extreme climate scenarios in the conduct of regulatory decision-making “risks lawsuits by requiring developers to design and build to overly stringent climate warming models”.
By pulling out a yellow card, Simon Court assumes it will prevent further ‘screwing the scrum’ by over-zealous local experts and those local authorities who follow their guidance. In my experience as a consultant planner, it won’t be enough.
For years, I have observed a small group of local experts pushing the worst-case emission scenario, Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on businesses and home owners across New Zealand.
And yes, councils have already been taken to court on this matter; and yes, the use of these extreme scenarios have already been found to lack scientific rigour on merit review.
For example, in the case of the Kāpiti Coast District Council, the High Court (Weir v Kapiti Coast District Council [2013] NZHC 3522) found there was “a good argument” for describing the result of the coastal assessment as the “very worst case scenario”.
Following that interim judgment, an independent merit review of that scientific assessment by a panel of international and local coastal experts found the science was unfit for the purpose of coastal hazard planning under the RMA.
The Council subsequently withdrew the associated coastal hazard lines from 1800 property’s Land Information Memoradum (LIM reports) in the district, along with withdrawing all of the proposed district planning provisions for the management of those erroneously defined coastal hazards.
Following that failed regulatory process (described by a former Principal Judge of the Environment Court as a ‘fiasco’), Dr Jan Wright, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, investigated the Kāpiti case and the wider use of science in coastal hazard assessment, finding that,
“Because current government policy on sea level rise emphasises the need to take a ‘precautionary approach’, technical analysts have been embedding ‘precaution’ into coastal risk assessments to varying degrees. This takes various forms such as assuming ‘high end’ amounts of sea level rise...
“The standard results of running a coastal hazard model should instead be probability distributions with most likely values and ranges of potential values expressed with a level of confidence.”
Yet, her recommendations were largely ignored by the Ministry for the Environment (MFE) two years later in publishing its update to the Coastal hazards and climate change guidance for local government. This updated guidance recommended not only the use of the ‘high end’ RCP8.5 scenario, but additionally a ‘high end’ extreme of that extreme scenario, which they refer to as RCP8.5H+. The Ministry has further updated that guidance this year, still persisting with the recommended use of the ‘high end’ RCP8.5 scenario in coastal hazard planning.
RCP8.5 is the climate scenario that Professor Dave Frame, an IPCC lead author, describes in the article as “a scenario that nobody really believes in” ̶ except for, it seems, a small cohort of experts who appear to have secured undue influence on MFE.
To my mind, there is no remedy aside from expunging all reference to RCP8.5 from local government guidance and hence, from current planning practice. The cost to individuals, business entities and communities of ratepayers has been more than enormous already.
Returning to the Kāpiti Coast District Council example, this relatively small local authority with approximately 26,000 ratepayers and net debt of 224% of annual rates income, still has not implemented coastal hazard provisions in its district plan following the 2013 High Court ruling.
Instead, it has embarked on a new multimillion-dollar adaptation project which follows the MFE guidance manual. It is important to note that adaptation plans are not required by statute, whereas district plans are. The Council paid over $200,000 to a private sector firm to produce an equally (if not more) flawed scientific report to the one found unfit for the purpose of regulatory planning under the RMA years earlier.
Based on a recent Official Information Request, additional on-going services provided by that same firm to the project have further cost ratepayers in excess of $780,000. And they are by no means the only external expert advice contracted by the Council in the conduct of this non-statutory adaptation project. The project team and its technical advisors hold regular sessions behind closed doors and then come out ‘swinging’ at local ratepayers who try to challenge the science in public meetings.
As part of that project, the Council has posted a coastal hazard map tool (not yet subject to merit review under the RMA) which depicts the inland boundary of potential effects of climate change on erosion and inundation in the district extending more than 2 kilometres inland along most of the coast, impacting 2,000 properties with a possible value of a billion dollars.
These are wildly exaggerated projections because they rely upon the extreme RCP8.5 scenario, and as Professor Dave Frame points out “nobody believes in” these extreme scenarios.
The insurance industry is having a field day increasing risk premiums for homeowners.
It is time that Simon Court and other members of the government Executive put a stop to the misrepresentation of IPCC findings and the misapplication of New Zealand statute/law.
Our national statute, the RMA and its secondary legislation, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) require that regulators assess “the likely effects of climate change on the region or district” (NZCPS, Policy 24), not the unlikely ones.
The IPCC’s most recent report, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis finds RCP8.5 (and its more recent generation, SSP5-8.5) to be unlikely and “implausible to unfold” (Hausfather & Peters, 2020).
In managing hazards in developed areas under the statute, regulators are required to take account of “the expected effects of climate change” (NZCPS, Policy 27), not the worst-case, “implausible” ones.
This gravy train of over-zealousness, fuelled by the Ministry of the Environment, needs to be red-carded by decisive Executive action now. All that takes is a direction to officials to withdraw all guidance from government departments and Crown entities that recommend the use of the RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5 scenarios in regulatory decision-making.
We desperately need to return to policy science that is, as recommended by Dr Morgan Williams when Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment;
1. Credible. The information is perceived by relevant stakeholders to be scientifically accurate and technically believable.
2. Salient. The assessment is relevant to the needs of policy and decision makers.
3. Legitimate. The information is the outcome of a process that is seen as procedurally unbiased and fair.
The most recent IPCC report concludes: “High-end scenarios (like RCP-8.5) can be very useful to explore high-end risks of climate change but are not typical ‘business-as-usual’ projections and should therefore not be presented as such” (Riahi et al., 2022, p. 386). In other words, in the real world of ‘business as usual’ these projections have a very high level of uncertainty and a very low probability of occurrence over the next 100 years (which is the maximum planning time frame required by NZCPS law).
I would add, these ‘high end’ scenarios that “no one believes in” should have no place in legally-binding, regulatory decision-making, such as district planning, or in the assessment of building and/or resource consents. The use of the IPCC’s mid-range emission scenario, RCP4.5/SSP2-4.5, with a greater than 66% probability of occurrence, should become the regulatory standard upon which all regulatory rules are written and decisions made.
What Simon Court is commenting on in the article is an example of chronic regulatory overreach at a significant deadweight cost to the economy, and to New Zealand’s productivity. Dealing with it via a ‘yellow card’, simply won’t do the trick.
*Katharine Moody was a senior tutor at Massey University's College of Humanities and Social Sciences in Palmerston North, who comments on interest.co.nz as "Kate". She is now retired from Massey and doing advocacy and consultancy planning.
94 Comments
The objective is to limit building work and to limit new homes as Greens councillors are anti development. As well as sea level rise and coastal inundation forecasts, I'm talking about the RUB rural urban boundary thats almost glacial, and the population growth projections where the most conservative growth numbers are adopted. I know someone who wanted to build a small group of homes near the coast but couldn't. If I was a consulting planner like you Kate or hydraulic engineer writing reports on sea level rise i would take an optimistic angle.
The unintended consequences of the current parameters is lower and lower house affordability. The young kiwis are the ones most affected by this. Good on Shane Jones for his war-dance against bureaucracy
Great comment. One doesn't need to be optimistic per se - as the law (RMA/NZCPS) already requires that coastal assessments be made based on "likely" scenarios. The problem I see playing out, is the MFEs recommended use of unlikely scenarios. This matter was brought up with James Shaw (previous Minister for Climate Change) and in his letter of response (printed in full in the article linked below), he ran with the MFE line;
https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/117081/katharine-moody-says-we…
This new government needs to pull in those reigns on all its departments of government (and their guidance in this regard) and then all planners can get back to what is appropriate and in accordance with the existing legislation.
Sorry Kate, but you are 100% wrong here. (the fact that Flying High backs your posit, ought to be a red flag).
The fact is that science is science - not optimism, or dodging of 'worst case scenarios'..
And science includes Systems, which is a collection of nodes and feed-back-loops. Melt-vs-albedo, tundra-driving-methane - glacier retreat/failure driving drought driving fires..... There are a when, not an if.
Please do the research - I expect such anthropocentric a slant from those who are serial deniers, but you need to be a little better than that,
Sorry, but there it is.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/03/240313135328.htm
Just one example of a feed-back loop happening (accelerating).
Ironically, it won't matter; the lead time left to build anything, anywhere, is truncating exponentially too.
It's called a 'paradigm shift' in scientific lexicon - see PhD thesis (and book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) from Thomas Kuhn.
Our knowledge evolves - that was his thesis - causing much consternation in traditional circles.
LOL, spin at its finest. I don't imagine those individuals concerned about high end climate stability destruction scenarios, are motivated by your team capitalist cash. Moreso preventing collapse.
The quote is usually applied to the industrialists and their team of brainwashed hangers on and wannabes, willing to sacrifice complex life on Earth for their self destructive growth cult.
Sorry but even a cursory search reveals that there is substantial evidence over many years that IPCC predictions are too conservative and underestimate the pace of warming and its effects (how could it be otherwise? The IPCC relies on forging a compromise and desperately tries to keep fossil fuel producers on board (Saudi, Russia etc) who try and pull in the opposite direction). A few examples from over the years......
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-…
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190320102010.htm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/07/19/you-should-not-be-su…
I could go on (there are literally dozens of similar articles)............but they do rather shoot your entire thesis down (the fact that you have never even mentioned that such criticism exists makes me wonder what skin you have this game).
No skin in the game aside from not wanting to see New Zealand and New Zealanders cover the cost of the use of RCP8.5 in regulatory decision-making. I own a risk-free (aside from EQ which is more-or-less an everywhere risk in NZ) property - just negotiated a much lower insurance premium as a result.
Additionally, the IPCC does not make "predictions" - it makes projections and assigns probability language (likely, unlikely, very unlikely, mid-range, high end, high confidence, low confidence etc.) to them.
We got the notice of a rise in premium - and rang them. Asked if they were employing risk-based premiums yet - they said yes, I got transfered to someone high up the chain and explained on that basis I thought I should have a reduction in premium, given we have no hazards recorded against our property in the council's most recent re-assessment. Our council had a great service when they introduced their proposed plan amendments (with updated hazard designations) - you could email a specific address at council and they would return email to you what hazard overlays were on your property in the newly assessed plan (along with the aerial photo from the plan map). We had none and so I've kept that email as our current/updated record.
Short answer - we just asked :-).
LOL. Hard to say actually.
Until we moved up the chain of command, the initial reason for our increase was that all premiums had increased based on recent events (I assume, East Coast and Auckland weather events).
But my point was that, if they were indeed applying risk-based pricing - I should have had a redistributive decrease (for being hazard risk-free) and then an increase (for changing market conditions, such as reinsurance costs). And I asked, what then was that actuarial calculation?
I got a "one moment please" and then a decrease yoy.
We are on track for 3degrees warming, which is RCP 8.5. Unfortunately a lot of this information is hidden from public. For the first 3months of 2024, the planet’s daily average temp was 1.62 degree above preindustrial times. It’s safe to say the 1.5 degree scenario can be retired. Humanity struggles in a capitalist society which promotes service to self to limit climate change. How could we ever hope to reverse it? Council planning for 8.5 is prudent to limit rework.
Exactly right. Councils are entirely correct to choose worst case scenarios as that is where we are heading. The graphs do not lie...........
We are on track for 3degrees warming... The empirical tropospheric satellite monitoring data shows that the earth is warming at a linear rate of 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade since the 70s. I totally agree with you. We are on track for 3 degrees of warming! (over the next 230 years). As for the RCP number what does that mean again - some theoretical watts per square meter attributable to CO2... pfft .. please.
I don't follow the climate arguments Kate, there are too many conflicting views to make sense of. For me anyway.
But I do observe organisation behaviours with some good education background on their quirks. They do follow fashion, or group think.
Most relevant debacle was the Y2K cult. A friend of mine, a City councilor, spent that New Year eve in a sewage pumping plant, poised to push the restart button.
We don't hear Y2K referred to often. Suppressed.
South Dunedin was widely flooded in 2015. At a meeting the Council CEO said one big problem was the big intercept drain that diverted all the rain off the hill suburbs was shown inadequate. Would need to be doubled, or have a parallel drain constructed. Never happened.
Since 2015 the council has developed ideas based on sea level rise. I don't say that's wrong.
But I do say there is a Y2K fashion / think occuring. They love the idea of sea level rise. Less interested in sorting an inadequate drain.
South Dunedin was widely flooded in 2015. At a meeting the Council CEO said one big problem was the big intercept drain that diverted all the rain off the hill suburbs was shown inadequate. Would need to be doubled, or have a parallel drain constructed. Never happened.
Since 2015 the council has developed ideas based on sea level rise. I don't say that's wrong.
I've had so many property owners who live adjacent to a man made storm water drain or a small stream watercourse, that get in touch following multiple flood event claims on their properties in the last 3-5 years. Three claims inside 5 years and it seems you're out with many insurance companies now. These are inland properties that never flooded in the decades past that they have owned the property.
The excuse from councils is that it's not their problem - it's climate change.
So, the first thing I ask them and then check out, is what new development has occurred in the past five years in previously vacant land upstream. Well, the answer is always, "heaps of new subdivisions".
I get that CC likely produces more frequent heavier rainfall in shorter time periods, but one must also factor in the amount of previously pervious surfaces that are now impervious due to development in the catchment/vicinity.
It is interesting to hear that not that long ago (2015) solving the South Dunedin problem looked to address inadequate stormwater drainage in an area long known to have a high water table. And yes, SLR effects on an existing, adjacent high water table are far less able to be engineered away. But that's no reason to take the focus right off stormwater runoff, to my mind.
Yes, they have been required in some districts and not in others - and in some subdivisions and not in others. And I don't know about in-fill.
No, I'm definitely pro new housing development. But the infrastructure has to keep pace/preferably precede such developments.
Irrelevant in terms of tech.
Completely relevant of you want to understand how organisations lose the plot. Get into group weirdness and massive mission creep.
And the other interesting thing is how they don't want to know about it now. No learning. A study in denial itself.
Irrelevant in terms of tech.
Completely relevant of you want to understand how organisations lose the plot. Get into group weirdness and massive mission creep.
And the other interesting thing is how they don't want to know about it now. No learning. A study in denial itself.
Wasn't quite irrelevant. We had a couple of banking systems which lost their s#%t when we pushed dates on their test systems past the date for a test. Left to run it would have given all account something like 99 years of negative interest and done some weird things to loans and credit cards. The whole bank I was working for (one of the big 4 in NZ) had a project to look through all the systems and check what was going to happen. The above was probably the worst of them which we patched, there was a bunch of others with patches that weren't quite as bad. But I remember running around the next day and finding a few unexpected glitches which we sorted out pretty quickly. These were mainly old MS VB Access and ancient software still running stuff which we found out wasn't ready for Y2k.
Y2k wasn't nothing, but it was one of those things that the media picked up on worst case scenarios and ran with, despite all the fixes going on to prevent all the worse case problems. But if we had done nothing at the time, it would have been a lot worse. If the same issue happened now, due to our heavier reliance on tech, it would also be a lot worse. Don't mistake diligence of software developers and their bosses with inaction. Bad stuff didn't happen because critical systems were mostly patched. Suggest reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2000_problem#Documented_errors
All models are wrong, but some are useful. Until we have 100 years of rain data, we won’t really know what a 1-in-100 rain event looks like, so it pays to be conservative.
I use RCP 8.5 in all the work I do, and the models don’t look that far-fetched. Until climate change is treated as an existential crisis to life on earth, sea levels will continue to rise and outlier storms will happen more frequently. Places like Westport and Motueka are especially at risk.
And developers don’t take on any of that risk, it gets passed to councils, insurers, homeowners, and ratepayers (ie rates were increased after the Nelson 2022 rain events).
What do you mean by existing burden?
Yes, we have an existing burden in terms of 3 Waters infrastructure deficit/catch up - but I'd have thought that has little to do with increased atmospheric CO2 - rather more to do with the existing infrastructure/pipes being in excess of 50+ years old.
It’s partly about the age of the infrastructure, but more importantly about the capacity of the infrastructure and consequence of failure. Most councils only require the piped network to carry primary flows (up to the 1-in-10 year rain event + climate change) with the secondary flows (up to the 1-in-100 year rain event + climate change) being conveyed via overland flow paths (streams, roadways, channels).
The problem is, lots of homes were constructed at low points, flood plains, in the secondary flow path, in areas of no secondary flow path, or in locations where sea levels are expected to rise, which sometimes requires infrastructure to be designed to manage the 1-in-100 year rain event (cost incurred by council/ratepayers). Also, pipes were often constructed too small or with poor material or poor construction methods. This is the present day burden of existing infrastructure and developments that were designed with a lesser sense of risk or climate trends. The water has to go somewhere, and there’ll continue to be more of it to manage.
And homes that are built by the sea risk becoming uninsurable and losing value over time. So building them now for the sake of productivity may not be a worthwhile investment over time. So it’s a good time for cities to consider developing away from the coast line (ie managed retreat) so they don’t end up like Westport. And the Nelson CBD already experiences flooding during king tides, so it won’t take much sea level rise to make things worse.
Like lots of folks who are unable to buy a home these days, modern contractors were born too late to build in flood plains, near cliffs, or in areas at risk of sea level rise. Using RCP 8.5 is about setting the future generations up for success and resiliency.
To help conceptualise the effects of sea level rise, have a play with this mapping from Tasman District Council. Then consider whether constructing homes east of State Hwy 60 would be a good investment or too high of a risk (think over 50-100 years):
I agree with everything, except;
Using RCP 8.5 is about setting the future generations up for success and resiliency.
There are social/societal costs associated with being both under-cautious and over-cautious - and context is key.
Being under-cautious with respect to the design and placement of a wastewater treatment plant is a major concern, as overflow during extreme climatic events risks significant harm to natural ecosystems.
Being over-cautious with respect to the beachfront homeowner who wishes to add a fourth bedroom to an existing property is also a major concern, as it denies that homeowner the immediate/near term enjoyment and utility of his/her property.
I agree with you, in the case of the latter "homes that are built by the sea risk becoming uninsurable and losing value over time" and that is the risk such a property owner chooses to take on him or herself. Which is one reason why I am so concerned about the proposed 'next step' with respect to public/taxpayer compensation for managed retreat based on an implausible scenario.
SLR is not a 'one-off' catastrophic event (such as the boulder field destruction that occurred in Matata, or the dam flooding event in Edgecombe, or the EQ in Chch) - SLR it is a slow creeping hazard. There is no place for regulatory over-reach in that regard - it only serves to inflate costs for homeowners today on a 'high end' forcing scenario that is never likely/not plausible.
Makes sense to build in safety factors in that regulatory context, as Dr Jan Wright points out;
"... undertaking a coastal risk assessment is very different from designing a building or a bridge where redundancy and safety factors are intrinsic to the design. Technical assessments of coastal risk should be based on best estimates of all the parameters and assumptions that are fed into the modelling. Decision-makers should then take the modelling outputs including estimates of uncertainty, and then openly and transparently decide how cautious to be in delineating hazard zones."
PCE, 2015, ‘Overview’, p. 6
Thanks for the response! Good quote. Models will continue to be refined over time, so time will tell if RCP 8.5 is as outlandish as some think. As someone who grew up watching Waterworld with Kevin Costner, my perception of RCP 8.5 is that it isn’t so bad in comparison. :)
Thanks for the interesting article!
And in that, whether wittingly or unwittingly, they are 100% correct.
Sorry all - and sorry Kate - but that, on behalf of EVERY following generation, is the ONLY valid leadership approach.
All else is kowtowance to the little folk who need to feel instantly bigger (Freud was onto something) - the rest of us have lives to lead with values and moral codes and suchlike.
And the joke is, that the current collection of infrastructure is ALREADY unmaintainable - let alone adding to it. This is why advocates of same have to deny science, and avoid learning.
(Hausfather & Peters, 2020). Hausfather is a technoutopian ecomodernist. He wants his capitalist pie and to eat it too. A scarier climate scenario kind of trashes his ideological preferences.
https://thebreakthrough.org/people/zeke-hausfather
"The United Nations and COP28 are lying. They know the 1.5C and 2C global warming targets are dead."
https://twitter.com/DrJamesEHansen/status/1732780395211657481
The link to Hansen is a good one. He's saying we have already reached the 1.5degC Paris objective and will reach the 2degC Paris maximum. I don't doubt that. As I pointed out above - you don't need to use RCP8.5 to come to those projections being reached. My point is that for the purposes of planning (and remember the RMA requires that District Plans are reviewed every 10 years) - it makes no sense to restrict land use now; force high and higher cost on construction; or give insurance companies (who write one year policies) a reason to increase premiums relating to 100-year out projections based on a worst-case emissions scenario. That's just madness.
What I find of interest in that Hansen et al paper linked to is his section headed "2.1 A Personal Education in Policy" and I totally agree with his comments/opinion on what policy is needed there. I've said as much for years - the Kyoto model cap/trade, NZ ETS-type solution is the wrong one for NZ;
https://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/99722/katharine-moody-mad-doctrine-p…
and from https://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/102433/katharine-moody-government-op…
For the simplest form of climate policy, we would count only carbon dioxide emissions; put a tax on carbon emitters (with no concessions for the Emissions Intensive, Trade Exposed (EITE) industries) and scrap the ETS. Additionally, we would cost-recover public transport based on its emissions profile only.
Provided we kept increasing capacity on PT to meet increased demand, with the above framework AND a ban on synthetic nitrogen, we’d likely meet our Paris commitments without the need for any other policy initiatives.
I'll go further with Hansens climate analysis then.
15/ "Equilibrium global warming including slow feedbacks for today’s human-made greenhouse gas (GHG) climate forcing (4.1 W/m2) is 10°C, reduced to 8°C by today’s aerosols. Decline of aerosol emissions since 2010 should increase the 1970-2010 global warming rate of 0.18°C per decade to a post-2010 rate of at least 0.27°C per decade."
855/ "Equilibrium response to today’s human-made climate forcing would include deglaciation of Antarctica and Greenland, sea level rise of 60 m (about 200 feet), and surface albedo forcing of 2 W/m2."
1331/ "Discussions between the first author (JEH) and field glaciologists 20 years ago revealed a frustration of the glaciologists with the conservative tone of IPCC’s assessment of ice sheets and sea level rise."
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/Documents/PipelinePaper.2023.07.05.pdf
Nigeh - try thinking.
Stop Oil, by default, are suggesting that BAU can be continued, just without fossil fuels. That is nonsense, by several orders of magnitude.
ER have a much more valid posit - we're fu---ing the planet; one species is doing the damage, in little more than a human lifetime.
Your problem is a lack of logic - if I were a group-joiner (I'm not) I'd likely be part of ER. You are confusing driven with driver, cause with caused. ER exist BECAUSE we're in trouble - they aren't the trouble.
Logic and science are the only way to think - although pragmatism should also outweigh optimism (a mere emotion).
I would hazard a guess that none of the contributors to this thread have done the climate change science themselves – to the extent allowing them to know first-hand whether the science is so correct that RCP8.5 is an appropriate risk or an unnecessary overstatement.
In other words, mostly, we are all in the same boat of simply believing what we are told.
Even the great Greta, when I saw her questioned in what I understood to be a congressional inquiry asking why she advocated for climate change response as an emergency, her answer was along the lines… for rhetorical effect, to get people moving quicker, while indicating it was not based on any science report.
Indeed, who can attest that the pre-industrial starting point temperatures were not homogenised to remove inconvenient high-temperature peaks at the time recorded (such action to conveniently create a lower temperature starting point to exaggerate warming since)?
And who can say what sea level rise in any location really is, or means, unless ongoing vertical land movements are factored in, including any unknown tectonic shifts. All projections need to be qualified in a localised sense.
And who can say whether forward projections of dune toe erosion is free from “he who pays the piper” bias or straight-out error.
For the contributor who mentioned the 1 in 100-year deluges, I hope your science is allowing for the extraordinary resulting increase in sediment supply to the beach system as a positive offset to any beach erosion projections. Think Napier, if you don’t see a connection between deluges and sediment supply.
It all comes back to true all-inclusive science, as opposed to quasi-science designed to appease the zeitgeist of the day and keep the money-train rolling.
As an example, there was a so-called coastal export report done for KCDC about 10 years ago (I used to live beachfront in those days) and had that report been simply believed, the hazard lines so produced on LIMs would have had unreasonable ramifications for property owners.
Not passing the sniff test a group of residents started to examine the science only to find that the science which everyone was expected to just believe, was discovered as (politely put) not robust.
Such report was benchmarked to climate change yet did not include all (maybe any) of the positive offsetting aspects of climate change – for example not allowing for increased sediment supply to the beach as a result of increased deluges and river erosion through climate change.
When the expert faced scrutiny, he simply shrugged his shoulders, indicating the very council that had commissioned the report offered no funding to include a sediment supply study.
Delving further, we discovered the “relatively short-term erosion rate history” that was being projected to provide 50 and 100-year eroded dune-toe line positions, was inclusive of erosion caused by KCDC through their own consented inter-tidal beach-sand excavation! And, further inclusive of their own regular trucking away of sand built up around their stormwater beach outlets. Talk about multiplying an error or two.
The moral of the story is; beware any science that presents the worse-case scenario because it could, if simply believed, be that and a hell of a lot more to suit the agenda.
Thanks for the insights. I lived there before and after the sand extractions :-).
Despite only 6,000m3 taken in that first (and only) beach-scraping exercise (not continued due to the adverse effects following that initial trial) the council's consultant engineer measured and documented the trend of erosion and accretion each 'side' of the extraction zone over a number of years - he estimated the sand transfer volume equated to 65,000m3 over the five year period (1994-1999).
That doesn't include the sand trucked off the eroding beach from stormwater outlet clearance. After a number of OI requests, I estimated that to be around 5,000m3 per annum over a period of 8 years.
Hello Kate.
By pure co-incidence I found myself visiting Peka Peka Beach today. And, upon a quick look, I noticed the sand-dunes and dry beach looked pretty much as I last saw it about 36 years ago.
Now that's not scientific I know.
And of course, the dune line may have retreated a little in that time, even though they still looked about the same relative to the beach-front houses (plus or minus a little).
But my point is with the supposed rampant SLR and increasing storm activity, not to forget land subduction, I would have expected the houses after 36 years to have been washed away by now.
The 50-year coastal LIM lines first placed on such Beachfront properties perhaps a decade or more later were widely projecting an exaggerated dune erosion rate - so much so, you could forgive everyone if they immediately moved.
So here it seems we have a mismatch between "scientific projected theory" and reality.
But if that's not enough to at least question the science; this is another anecdotal observance that might be, as I can be more certain of what I see.
A friend of mine lived close to the Paraparaumu Boat Club and some 20 or so years ago he asked me to look at the sea lapping at his front lawn boundary. Not knowing much about beach dynamics then, I couldn't help agree that perhaps it was time he moved.
What I didn't know then was that beach erosion in the area corresponded to many overlapping cycles, some of which were long-term relating to Pacific Oscillation, average wind and current directions plus, proximity to periods of large or unusual repeat storm activity when taking a mere snap-shot of the erosion (as newspapers often do for rhetorical effect after a storm, ignoring natural beach regeneration).
The upshot was he moved and just recently, I paced out the accretion and dune regeneration in front of his house, which today shows the dune as having since moved about 70-80 metres seaward away from his lawn.
So what I learned from that is; that irrespective of any macro NZ-wide or even area-wide trend-theories (whether erroneously based or partly correct) and despite climate change effects and tectonic plate-caused subduction, some areas always have been eroding and will continue to do so, and some areas always have been accreting and will continue to do so - notwithstanding there can be a cyclical overlap.
And, I also learned that some beaches that always erode are being used as rhetorical evidence of the effects of Climate change, which is nonsense.
A bit like a Pacific Island beach eroding at a great rate when I was told that widely used example of climate change was more to do with local fishermen stunning fish with dynamite charges that blew a whole in the coral atoll that previously absorbed wave energy.
But, in any event, there is an obvious problem looming for Councils and Government if policies and guidelines are benchmarked to a macro ideological solution too far into the future.
Currently projecting to 100 years out is to me so plainly silly as to seem more like guesswork than reality that can be evidenced. Indeed weather forecasters already have a problem forecasting 1 week out - which is why they have a rolling 3-day forecast allowing revision daily.
And the reason is, weather is complex. And 100 years out it is impossibly complex.
I believe taking a 100-year view risks errors becoming manifestly beyond reasonable - and bringing about unnecessary financial consequences in the "now sense" rather than closer to the point where property owner losses can be more believable and palpable.
If projections were benchmarked against a sliding 10 years revision process, this would allow "experts" to stop guessing the rhetorical way they are, while allowing future human ingenuity and mitigation to be factored in as it will undoubtedly unfold over the next century.
And I refer to mitigation because, when things start to loom in a more certain way, the economics have the potential to unlock all sorts of ideas funded by all sorts of groups. We don't yet know what we don't know and for much of the world, reducing wave energy may become a far more pressing issue ahead of variable RSL per se (location by location).
We might even produce electricity from wave energy or have roll-out technology ahead of each devastating 1 in 10 years storms (to be rolled up afterwards and reused when the next big one is forecast to strike).
Even non-permanent wave energy reduction of this sort would dramatically alter average erosion and allow beaches and people another 100 years in which to adapt (all before the next ice age of course, where unfortunately SLR reverses in a very dramatic way).
Wow - really great thoughts/content. This is a very pragmatic approach;
If projections were benchmarked against a sliding 10 years revision process, this would allow "experts" to stop guessing the rhetorical way they are, while allowing future human ingenuity and mitigation to be factored in as it will undoubtedly unfold over the next century.
A general direction I am working on translating into district plan objectives, policies and rules - as is the structure under which we do planning under the RMA. So, instead of the typical type of regulation which specifies an expected shoreline in say, 50 and 100 years, we instead recognise that our plans by law must be reviewed every 10 years. So, instead of 'expected shoreline' positions (i.e., hazard lines) - we look at defining monitoring zones (based on a 20 year horizon, and reviewed every 10 years) with certain rules and actions (including as you say, mitigation actions) built into the regulation and management of those zones. We can still investigate projections out to 100 years (and the historical record is also relevant), but where predictions are concerned my understanding is that in general beyond 20 years is, as you say more guesswork than science.
That is great news indeed Kate.
Let's hope there is some political buy-in to an approach like this.
In terms of coming up with practical solutions, it appears we can't rely upon ego-driven Councils and their patsie bodies or even MfE - given they seem more into climate ideology and ticking boxes rather than using common sense and reasoned thinking by properly listening to and working with those most affected - the ratepayers.
Then there is the additional potential liabilities Councils may end up facing by exaggerating the effects of climate change, at even more cost to ratepayers.
Given most Councils already seem incompetent when it comes to managing funding, expenditure, risk and rate-rises greater than inflation, they are probably the last bodies we should trust to understand the nuances of flawed expert coastal hazard reports - upon which adaption planning is based, to the detriment of many ratepayers.
"Indeed, who can attest that the pre-industrial starting point temperatures were not homogenised to remove inconvenient high-temperature peaks at the time recorded (such action to conveniently create a lower temperature starting point to exaggerate warming since)?"
We have our own temperature data riggers.
WARNING Climate alarmists will have an apoplectic fit when they see this website as a reference
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/01/new-zealnds-temperature-record-c…
the Michael Mann of NZ
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/13/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-r…
..........
New Zealand Station Showed No Warming In 130 Years, Before Alterations To Show Warming
By Kirye and Pierre Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, July 8, 2020
......
I mostly don't read that site because of the horrendous innaccuracies I found on it on a couple of articles. I wrote to the site moderator and was basically told to f off. It seems to be run by an angry old man yelling at the wind. Who cherry picks "evidence" that validates his own hypothesis. A bigger case of confirmation bias I have never seen.
Like any website there are bound to be the odd article that is questionable. Their writers are generally opposite to what you maintain in that they pick holes in articles where data has been selectively used or omitted to come to a conclusion it is all or predominantly man made climate change. Michael Mann's famous hockey stick a case where data has either been omitted or substitute data selected to prove a point.
It is probably one of the few websites that don't accept the main stream media or articles from notable journals at face value.
If they aren't open to criticism or admit any errors, that's a real problem. Ignoring everything that doesn't agree with you is not a recipe for understanding the world. They basically ignore everything that doesn't agree with them, which is 95% of all literature.
Engineers report on a subdivided section in NP. Used RCP 6.0 and inundation based on a NIWA study for the area. Time frame was just past 2080 for the flooding. For this to occur the nearest road will have water running about 100-125mm above its level. Madness. Council have accepted the report but I don't know if RCP6.0 is in the District Plan.
All these pie in the sky flood estimates based on RCP6 and 8.5.
I grudgingly would accept 4.5 and put a big question on whatever NIWA flood predictions are irrespective of the RCP level. Preference for 2.6
NIWA is loaded with man made climate alarmists.
Yes, to my mind both 2.6 and 4.5 should both be used. Point is, if it is only a single section being subdivided, and if the life of the asset being built is 50 years (the current Building Act requirement), then 2.6 is a logical choice.
If a greenfield subdivision of a sizeable nature - then perhaps greater caution is needed - and 4.5 would suffice.
Interesting article on the NIWA site recently, where Rob Bell of NIWA explains;
At the moment he is involved with three business cases going to Cabinet for funding, although he did say he turned down a fourth.
https://niwa.co.nz/news/the-man-of-many-pathways
Property rights, eh?
Yes, of course they should overrule science.
Silly me for thinking otherwise.
Now how about we drop the spin, and point out that the 1.5 and 2 degree 'thresholds'are behind our ability to attain, and that beyond such we're into feed-back-loops where all bets are off.
Why the F don't they teach physics as a prerequisite for economics?
Professor Dave Frame - quoted in the article linked to - is a physicist.
Actually, Kate, I thought the comments to that article were more interesting.
'Believe' is not an appropriate word, right now.
One of the problems with the majority way of thinking (linear, not exponential, self-centred rather than holistic) is that it grabs numbers, as if they were 'fixed'. End=points. On a continuum, particularly one peppered with feed-back potentials, there are no 'fixed' points. Thus 1.5, 2, and 3-point-whatever, are just bus-stops on the way.
You are advocating infrastructure with a 100-year presumed (and a 50 year stipulated) design life, yes? If we burn the remaining half of the fossil stock, you are looking a 12 degrees by then. Meaning nobody left to house... More practically, ocean temperatures high enough to have tropical cyclones coming ashore in Dunedin. Have a look at the puny foredune opposite the old Forbury racecourse. Extrapolate - and remember that this will be a society, in 100 year's time WITHOUT fossil energy to address storm-protection.
We can already know that south Dunedin is a 'goner', before 100 years are up. And if a physics Prof opines differently, well, ask why? Often personal life/mana/peer/fear can override - I regard Prof Bronwyn Hayward in such a light...
We can already know that south Dunedin is a 'goner', before 100 years are up. And if a physics Prof opines differently, well, ask why?
Sure, South Dunedin might have had to relocate before 100 years are up. But that is a likely event under the mid-range IPCC scenario.
You seem to equate a 'disbelief' in the characteristics of the RCP8.5 worst-case scenario with a total disbelief or denial about all aspects of man made climate change. And in doing so, you yourself are a science denier. The science tells us that RCP8.5 is implausible - the IPCC itself agrees.
I would instead ask - why your resistance to that statement? Do you know better than the international scientific consensus - or are you saying the international scientific consensus is a hoax/cover up? Some do believe that - so happy for you to put your hand up to that.
We do have to deal with climate change. I'm not denying that - and as I've written here on more than one occasion - I don't see NZs current method (i.e., the ETS offsets regime) as adequate. So why put me (and Dave Frame for that matter) in the denier category? For goodness sake, he's a lead author for the IPCC. I respect his opinion way, way more than my own - in fact comparatively, there is no comparison - as I'm not a physicist, or even an accomplished natural scientist.
I think it's really important not to attack individuals who have put the years and years of work on expanding their knowledge in this critically important area. Hence, the reason I read all credible scientists (e.g., James Hansen linked above) in this area of study. Every one of them has furthered our understanding. Science is not infallible - that's the whole point of the pursuit of science - to move between worldviews and welcome the paradigm shifts in understanding when they happen.
Everything - repeat everything - you plan for now, in infrastructure terms, will have to live past fossil energy.
And past feed-back-loops caused by the remaining burn - because we aren't able to stop until we are stopped (renewables don't maintain even the current collection of infrastructure, let alone more).
The more I study, the less I respect siloed 'experts', and the more I disrespect those who live at the expense of the future (Professorial salaries were fully funded when energy was plentiful - increasingly they're being offloaded onto 'student debt' - actually, these folk are consuming NOW, what they're stealing from those they 'teach'. Thus when someone like him opines that we can build in places because the worst-case-scenario is unlikely in a very narrow silo-window (CC) but totally ignores the other Limits to Growth - sometimes seen as planetary boundaries) - I ask whether self-interest is involved. When Bronwyn Hayward avoids discussing population - but assumes the right to speak of children and environment - I am skeptical. And when Sir Peter Gluckman agrees to be 'paid' to advocate 'economic growth', this late in the global trajectory, I roll my eyes; that is not my idea of science.
We weren't sapient enough, and we were already on a hiding to nothing when Catton - ironically the gestation of Overshoot happened at Canty Uni, and I was lucky enough to catch him at Otago many years ago - wrote Overshoot. Pity our Universities chose to keep on milking the system...
Indeed he did but I don't think that makes him a crackpot - more an over-zealous scientist with a profound sense of urgency; operating in the context of US politics at the time. It isn't until more recently with the Biden administration that the executive has joined the international consensus and begun taking measures to reduce emissions.
US CO2 emissions peaked in 2000. You are giving Biden way too much credit here. Flooding the US with millions of illegal democrat postal voters isn't going to do much for their CO2 emissions either!
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/united-states/…
OMG. You cannot vote in the US unless a citizen;
https://www.usa.gov/who-can-vote
If you believe that illegal migrants are voting - you're very mistaken;
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hr1-democrats-immigrants-vote/
So you agree that US CO2 emissions peaked in 2000 and Biden had beggar all to do with it?- other than getting his son on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company!
Illegal immigrants can have a large effect on the electoral college. New York senator Yvette Clarke stated "I need more people in my district just for redistricting purposes,". Very cunning play by Biden also knowing full well many states don't require voter ID to vote..
https://www.cramer.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-cramer-cospon…
Over-zealous?
That misunderstanding is the core failure of your article.
Read Catton's 'Overshoot'. Written BEFORE that warning. This is a multi-faceted problem; energy-reduction, exponential trends (both up and down) and a collection of folk - including you, re insurance - arguing for themselves. Extrapolated, a collection of people arguing for themselves is an argument for the status-quo. Status-quo expectations of suburbia, living-styles, university incomes, the list goes on.
Try turning your thinking upside-down. Ask what human life will be like beyond fossil energy? A society which ALREADY CANNOT MAINTAIN ITS INFRASTRUCTURE, operating on 15% of the energy it had when it already couldn't maintain. Yet in your silo, you still think in terms of young folk going into debt - to increasingly 'pay' you - and therefore having a future way of repaying it. Extrapolated, there must be demands for planners. Which in turn, expects abilities to pay for planners.
None of that will be happening on 15% of the energy-availability (and Biden has not yet displaced fossil energy; merely added to it
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ notice the primary energy graphic
Some people seem to be able to see the big picture, some - either cranially-wired thus, or status-driven - don't. Lovelock and Hansen and Goodall, like Tom Murphy and Nate Hagens, are big-picture seers. They are NOT OVER-ZEALOUS - they see things in correct proportion, extrapolate, and wonder why Breakfast-Flock (Bach/JLS) are still f-assing round squawking?
Not over-zealous, then - but clear-seeing, clear thinking. Try it yourself - ask whether society pays planners, or even supports LG at present scale (note they are starting to cost more per average income; a trend which will accelerate)? Or the current university format (in similar trouble)? Infrastructure servicing? Then overlay if/will logic to weather events (linear thinking gave us 1:100-year event ratings; exponential change makes those 30-year, then 5 year, the 5-per-year; same even severity). Ocean heating says Gabrielle-events hitting Dunedin - if it still exists, ex fossil energy. Yet the DCC is building a brand-new civic building, in South Dunedin. It has zero chance of not being storm-impacted.
When you understand that the Hansen-types are not over-zealous, you'll be getting there. Others here have much more status-driven need to 'not understand' (they usually avoid learning anything potentially-inconvenient to their narrative) but you should be able to get there from here.
I'm not sure why you want to shoot down everyone who refuses to 'surrender' to your over-zealous position. And yes, I see you as over-zealous even though - as you'll be well aware - I totally respect your opinion (otherwise I wouldn't have brought you in to speak to my students!) and I believe we/society need every type of emotion (anger, hope, doom, calm, unconcerned, etc.) involved in this extremely important conversation. But respecting your opinion does not mean I have to follow you, Catton or whomever with some kind of blind fervor.
None of us, indeed no one, can say what the future will look with any high degree of certainty. We can say that fossil fuels will likely run out/become prohibitively costly based on EROEI measurements. But even you admit, there will be life post-fossil energy. And I'd say, even you admit that a comet might take out the planet prior to that, or a supervolcano might alter life on earth as we know it at any time - be it before fossil fuels run out or not.
Maybe the difference between our worldviews is that I will always be optimistic for those who survive me/my time of this planet. I do not see it as my job to sew hopelessness or fear. I take what knowledge I have and what voice I have and try to contribute practical, well-defined and easily implemented solutions to current issues facing ourselves, our children and our grandchildren, e.g.,
https://www.interest.co.nz/property/119377/katharine-moody-takes-look-r…
https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/119757/katharine-moody-probes-…
https://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/102433/katharine-moody-government-op…
We're in the same camp, pdk in that we both care deeply about our grandchildren's future. Flinging insults at others doesn't get us anywhere - practical suggestions are the way to go. If the DCC is building a civic building in the wrong place, give them a better alternative as opposed to slam them for being a bunch of idiots.
We are a dissipative force - as individuals and collectively.
We are in overshoot, having recently irrupted.
My beef, is with those take advantage of the present, to sc-ew our grandchildren's chances. It is worse when those folk are university-domiciled, and avoid addressing their own dissipative contribution.
As for Local Government - I got involved a lifetime ago. The problem is a Systems one; Economic Growth overrules). I've made presentations to the DCC every year since I don't know when. Totally ignored. So I regard them - as I do many - as not just ignorant, but CHOSENLY ignorant. That is a condition I have zero respect for.
I think you miss the difference between forceful, and zealous. The former may be fact-based warning - the latter is more likely to be associated with belief.
Thanks Kate - great article and bang on the money
despite PDK and others here letting their emotions get in the way of the science.
Have you sent this to Simon or do we need to "gang up" on him to get action
Disclosure of interest - we have a beach front property at Otaki and the chance of it being flooded by sea level rise within 100 years is ,in our assessment of the science, remote/negligible. However we accept that it is a possibility just like an earthquake, tsunami, flood or fire and stay as prepared as possible.
Not yet sent to Simon Court. But I understand there is definitely action in the planning in that regard. This community organisation in Kapiti has commissioned a coastal hazard assessment from Waikato University based on the RMA/NZCPS Policy 24 requirements and will be publicly launching those findings/that report in the coming months. I'd imagine that will be the time to invite ministers, etc. You should join them if you have not already!
Good on you for acknowledging your vested interest.
Not so good on you for the other comment (see my post just above).
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2024-03-29/climate-change-has-topple…
Bang on Kate. The RCP8.5 scenario requires a 6 fold per capita coal consumption increase! Never going to happen. People who cite it are ignorant or frauds.
""...Accounting for this bias indicates RCP8.5 and other ‘business-as-usual scenarios’ consistent with high CO2 forcing from vast future coal combustion are exceptionally unlikely. Therefore, SSP5-RCP8.5 should not be a priority for future scientific research or a benchmark for policy studies."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544217314597
Yes, and as the AR6 WGI report also notes, RCP8.5 is included in AR6 “for comparison between emission-driven (SSPs) and concentration-driven (RCPs) simulations” - it's a tool for specialist atmospheric/climate modelers to stress test their further research.
I suspect it will fall off with AR7 and this argument will be moot. All the more reason not to encumber development/people's lives and livelihoods on this projection.
Interesting paper. Reminds me of an interview between Joe Walker and David Deutsch (against Bayesianism)
WALKER: So why is the future of civilisation unpredictable in principle?
DEUTSCH: Because it's going to be affected by future knowledge and future knowledge is unpredictable...
That's the crux isn’t it. The SSP-RCPs are essentially prophecies.
Great article Kate, and good discussion following on. RPC 8.5 flood data has been used for the inland areas of Wairarapa. So anyone downhill from elevated areas is showing flood hazard. Not all councils are looking at adopting it, but South Wairarapa have RPC 8.5 modelling in the proposed new plan and are currently placing flood hazards on properties and thus LIMs in the district. Must be very frustrating for people trying to sell and it’s an issue for getting insurance when wanting to buy as needs to be declared. The councils response to queries on this are “well we have the modelling so we really need to publish it to let everyone know - but we may not adopt it into the plan”…. so just a risk management strategy, I get the feeling they don’t think this flooding will occur but just in case they want RPC8.5 out there.
And therein lie the common problem I see emerging across NZ. People's lives and livelihoods are being affected by the use of this improbable scenario and (in the case you discuss) the maps haven't even yet been incorporated in the District Plan. Effectively, that makes them not lawful - as they have not yet been subject to the type of merit review that comes with a plan change under Schedule 1 of the RMA.
The High Court Judge recognised this in the Weir v KCDC case - and sent the parties back to sort the LIM wording out. The community pushed for that merit review of the science in advance of the formal District Plan process, and KCDC withdrew the maps and the plan provisions based on it.
Unfortunately, very few communities have the type of multi-disciplinary experts that Kāpiti has within a small community that has a great deal of social cohesion. It is a community of many ex-government servants (some retired, others not) and others from the private sector who interact with government in their work lives. For example, a former Chief Ombudsman was particularly helpful in coaching others in the community on how to write OIA and LGOIMA requests.
It is not fair that in order to bring proper implementation of the RMA/NZCPS law in NZ, that communities have to go to this type of effort. Not fair - and this new government could fix it so easily, given it is government guidance that is 'screwing the scrum'..
Nice article Kate. Dave Frame taught me climate science at Vic Uni. He was very clear that no credible scientist considered it an 'existential threat.' I'm continuing my studies at Canty Uni where my climate supervisor, also an IPCC author, confirms that SSP5-8.5 is considered implausible - the IPCC in AR6 noted that recent studies had determined that scenario is 'implausible' but they stopped short of endorsing this, instead stating it was 'very unlikely'. We can expect clarity in AR7 but there seems to be enough consensus amongst the modelling community to reject it for policy making.
Strangely, for sea level rise, the scenario used makes little difference over the next 10 to 20 years. However, if you run the MfE's suggested model, that starts in 2005, and check what it modelled for 2020, then sea level has risen by 550% more than what the tide gauge in Wellington has measured. That's partly due to modelled land subsidence that didn't happen and partly due to 2005 being quite high, and 2020 being low (affected by rising land from the Kaikoura and other earthquakes). The best sea level study is this one that shows sea level rising around 1.75 mm/yr to which land movement must be added. https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/9898/2020%20Denys…
We can expect clarity in AR7 but there seems to be enough consensus amongst the modelling community to reject it for policy making.
I certainly hope so, but then how much re-work will Local Authorities have to do to their maps, I wonder? It all seems such a waste of time and effort when this government could just fix it immediately. See the comment immediately above from South Wairarapa.
You might be able to help me there with a question - I'm aware that there is a significant difference in SLR projections between SSP5-8.5 and SSP2-4.5... but is there also a significant difference between the two projections where rainfall/precipitation intensity and volume are concerned?
Certainly, it seems far greater swathes of land/property are being mapped under the SSP5-8.5 scenario as having a flood hazard, than as having a coastal erosion hazard. Although that said, I think nearly the whole of Petone has a flood hazard projection on it - and I assume that relates principally to SLR, as opposed to inland flooding/runoff.
Connections I have in the local gov't sector confirm that anything a Council can do to limit it's exposure, they will. And every dollar a Council spends on adaptation measures is another dollar the insurance industry doesn't have to spend. On flooding - I recall climate scientist, James Renwick's, 2016 piece on natural hazards for the Royal Society where it was acknowledged that there had been no change in intensity or frequency of rainfall. For the Wellington area, NIWA's report to GW, initially reported an increasing trend in precipitation at the Kelburn weather station, but because the opposite was measured at the airport, and no trends observed anywhere else, they advised treating Kelburn with 'scepticism.'
Things may have changed with the recent bout of heavy rain (which appears to have triggered a bumper growing season - see https://www.foodstuffs.co.nz/news-room/2024/Bumper-veggie-supply-brings…) but the data set is across 60 years so one-off spikes are unlikely to affect the trend. Coincidentally, last week I was reading NZ'er of the year, Jim Salinger's 1979 piece on NZ weather trends, that found no correlation between temperature increases and rainfall which goes against what we would expect, suggesting that the climate system is more complex than we think.
Yes, Petone has had a rough time with the insurance sector suggesting it will be inundated within 20 to 30 years. That comes from the 'SeaRise' study that extrapolates out land subsidence during an inter-seismic period, amplifying the sea level rise. But NIWA found that since Kaikoura, the subsiding trend had been mostly cancelled out. I actually wrote this up for the Geoscience Society of NZ's newsletter.
Thanks, Sean.
That article - of particular interest to Wellingtonians:
Is Wellington Sinking GSNZ March 2024 Sean Rush
The discredited RCP8.5 also relies on high population growth rates.
"RP8. 5 assumes population growth at the high end of the current UN forecasts: 80% odds of between 9.6 and 12.3 billion people by 2100 (Gerland, P. et al, Science 10 Oct 2014).
This is not going to happen.The Club of Rome and bullshit artists like Population Bomb Erhlich got it 100% wrong - we are not going to run out of coal, we are going to run out of people.
"Fertility is declining globally, with rates in more than half of all countries and territories in 2021 below replacement level. Trends since 2000 show considerable heterogeneity in the steepness of declines, and only a small number of countries experienced even a slight fertility rebound after their lowest observed rate, with none reaching replacement level.
Future fertility rates will continue to decline worldwide and will remain low even under successful implementation of pro-natal policies. These changes will have far-reaching economic and societal consequences due to ageing populations and declining workforces in higher-income countries, combined with an increasing share of livebirths among the already poorest regions of the world."
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)0055…
More on the insurance industry premium price rises;
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/513358/very-significant-rise-in-hom…
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.