Guest post by Cliff Ollier
The Australian (March 24) reports that Port Macquarie Hastings Council is recommending the enforcement of a “planned retreat” because of an alleged danger from sea level rise in the distant future. The controversy about moving people from near-shore sites raises two questions: is the alarming rise in sea level projected by CSIRO reliable, and is moving people the correct response?
The CSIRO projection is in fact extreme. Before explaining why, I should like to note that the world’s main source of alarmism is the IPCC. This is not really a scientific body, but one that adjusts data and subjects it to mathematical modelling before passing its ‘projections’ on to politicians. The IPCC is followed by the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, who further adjust data and produce more models with even more extreme scenarios.
In the Weekend Australian (7 November 2009), Bill Mitchell, Director of the National Tide Centre of the BoM, reported Australian average sea level rise of 1.7 mm/yr. This is a reasonable level accepted by most sea-level watchers outside IPCC and CSIRO. It gives a sea level rise of about 15 cm by 2100. Mr. Mitchell said the “upper end was 3 mm/yr” – a 27 cm rise by 2100.
At 8.30 am on 18 November 2009, ABC Radio National had a program on sea level changes. Alan Stokes, Director of the Sea Level Task Force, said: “The IPCC estimate of rise to 2100 was up to 80 cm.” No new data were provided to explain the leap. In fact, the worst estimate of IPCC in its last report was 59 cm.
Note that the IPCC estimates have been falling with each report. In the Second Assessment Report, the high-end projection of sea-level rise to 2100 was 92 cm, in the Third Assessment Report 88 cm, and in the Fourth Assessment Report 59 cm.
It is good for the reader to look at sea level measurements personally. You can see for yourself the sea level data for the United States and a few other countries at http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml. Most stations show a rise of sea level of about 2 mm per year, but note the considerable variation even within a single state, though these are no cause for alarm.
The CSIRO uses figures far in excess of even the IPCC, who until now were the greatest alarmists. In their 2012 report, State of the Climate, they say that since 1993 sea level has risen up to 10 mm per year in the north and west. That means that some place has had a 19 cm rise in sea level since 1993. Where is this place? Meanwhile, the European Envisat satellite shows that sea level has scarcely risen for the last eight years.
How do the CSIRO arrive at their figures? Not from any new data, but by modelling. Models depend on what is put into them. For example, a 2009 report by the CSIRO for the Victorian Government’s Future Coasts Program on The Effect of Climate Change on Extreme Sea Levels in Port Phillip Bay based its model on temperature projections to 2100 of up to 6.4 degrees. That is the most extreme, fuel-intensive, scenario of the IPCC and implies unbelievable CO2 concentration levels in 2100 of approximately 1550 parts per million. Usage of all known fossil fuel reserves would only achieve half of this. Continuation of the current rate of increase in CO2 concentration levels would result in only 550 ppm by 2100.
The result is a CSIRO prediction of sea level rise for Port Phillip Bay by 2100 of 82 cm and, with the help of the Bureau of Meteorology, a further increase to 98 cm attributable to the wind. That is well above even the highest level projected by the latest IPCC report.
This example is from Victoria, not New South Wales, but sea level must have roughly the same rises and falls all over the world. So the whole world should be alarmed, not just New South Wales. Indeed the IPCC and CSIRO try to alarm the world with stories of drowning of low islands, like Tuvalu. But detailed mapping has shown that Tuvalu, and many other coral islands, have actually grown over the past 20 years.
Holland is very low and is particularly vulnerable to any large rise of sea level. It is also a world leader in coastal science and engineering, and the Dutch are not alarmed. In the December 11, 2008, issue of NRC/Handelsblad (Rotterdam’s counterpart to the Australian), Wilco Hazeleger, a senior scientist in the global climate research group at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, wrote:
“In the past century the sea level has risen 20 cm. There is no evidence for accelerated sea-level rise. In my opinion there is no need for drastic measures. Fortunately, the rate of climate change is slow compared to the life-span of the defense structures along our coast. There is plenty of time for adaptation.”
This brings us to the second part of the debate. We should adapt to changes in the shoreline, like the Dutch. We should reject draconian rules to save folk from a remote and dubious peril. If Tim Flannery, Australia’s chief climate commissioner, is allowed to take his chance living on his Hawkesbury property near sea level, Port Macquarie’s retirees should be permitted to do so too. They should not be evicted to “save” them from a dire fate in a future they will never see.
“This example is from Victoria, not New South Wales, but sea level must have roughly the same rises and falls all over the world. ”
Wrong.
The BOM and CSIRO can frighten people with images of tsunamis surging up the Hastings River and tidal waves flooding the promenades of the Sydney Opera House for all their worth but it seems to be rebounding off deaf ears.
In an AC Neilson Poll (conducted for a Labor orienated newspaper) released this morning 60% of pollsters still oppose the Government’s carbon tax as opposed to 36% who approve making the observation that the carbon tax will require the “sale of the century” to change voter’s views.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/poll-shows-carbon-tax-needs-sale-of-the-century-to-change-voters-views-20120401-1w6le.html
Meanwhile Greg Combet is over in Germany waving a piece of white paper saying “carbon tax in our time” in what must be the biggest piece of self delusional international diplomacy I have ever witnessed since Neville Chamberlain returned from the same country in 1938.
Why in heavens name Combet is in Berlin negotiating some sort of agreement with the EU when Australia’s main trading partners are in SE Asia I have no idea. And his waffling justification on ABC radio with Fran Kelly this morning that Europe’s low carbon price is only transitory and will soon catch up Australia’s $23/tonne when credible observers say it could slump to $5 per tonne by 2020, shows why the ALP primary support in Australia is now only 27% compared to the Coalition’s 47%. I don’t know about a minivan, Labor’s numbers could be reduced to a VW Beetle if an election was held tomorrow.
I have never seen a government in such total disarray knowing that they are stuck with a lemon and somehow they have got to make it taste sweet. But the most appalling part of this soap opera is that the electorate is powerless to do anything about it for 18 months whilst the rules of democracy are played out when in any commercial enterprise such a management would have been booted out of office long ago. If it wasn’t so tragic for our economy, it would be farcical.
interesting that, while reading through this blog, the Federal Science Minister is lauding the CSIRO on ABC24.
Apparently, the CSIRO are earning Australia large amounts of revenue so they are deemed to be ‘good for Australia’. No mention of their accuracy or advocacy of the Government meme.
It is actually even sadder these comments suggest.
See http://phenell.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/laughing-through-our-tears/. Sea levels on the NSW coast have been rising even more slowly than elsewhere. The goverment man who reported this has had his papers quashed and lost his job.
I think that the retirees in question (say retired at 65) should place a few dollars into a compounding interest account. It will help them towards a nice big house in the country when they are 153 years old in 2100 and the sea has engulfed their present properties. Has someone in the local council found the elixer of youth and this is why they are concerned for these old folk?
Steven Mosher says:
April 1, 2012 at 2:37 pm
You’ll have to defend this, Steven. Do you have some new theory that gravity isn’t pervasive and equivalent? Is it because you believe the oceans aren’t interconnected? Or is it because you think contintental and ocean basin isostacy or water replenishment acts faster than ocean current velocities, or that there’s a significant imbalance in evaporation?
(Note the use of the word “roughly” in the original statement.)
Please edify us.
Here in Auckland our Council is playing the same silly games. The recently published Draft Auckland Plan projects a sea level rise of 800mm over the next 100 years but gives no source for the guesstimate.
If it were to be 800mm, then parts of the waterfront road and Northern and North-Western motorways would be regularly flooded at high tide. If on the other hand it turns out to be only 236mm as per the current NOAA trend, then there is no problem at all. Scheduled resurfacing of the roads over the next 100 years will easily lift them by this amount.
From the published sea levels report that can be viewed on Jonova’s site, the sea level at Newcastle harbour not far from Port Macquarie can be seen to be decelerating, ie. slowing up. It is now about 1mm. a year. The road in question is about 7 metres above the sea at high tide. It looks like in another 7000 years there could be a possible problem, maybe.
Port Macquarie Hastings Council had a track record of mal-administration. The last State government stepped in and sacked the council for this and appointed an administrator for a four year term to try and straighten out the mess. So far he has done a good job. The report in question, was prepared by a ‘green’ consultant, and recommended buying the houses and abandoning the beach and road. The administrator has seen that there is no immediate threat and doesn’t want to force people from their homes. Confronted with likely compensation costs, everyone has slowed up and the stupidity of the idea is now becoming more clear.
Alistair Pope says:
April 1, 2012 at 7:03 am
[snip]
Clive, next time you extensively quote a sizeable portion of your post word-for-word from Andrew Bolt please acknowledge the source
——————————————————————-
Alistair, I assume you mean “Cliff”, ie the author of this post. You owe him an apology. In fact, Andrew Bolt quoted extensively (with acknowledgements) from him, not the other way around:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_alarmism_is_bad_the_compulsion_is_worse/
The whole coastal habitation issue in New South Wales (and probably elsewhere) is complicated by the fact that parties on both sides equate normal erosion with climate change for their own ends. People who own property which is being eroded away by storms and normal ocean activity are trying to make other ratepayers either fund expensive coastal barrier infrastructure or buy out their prime properties on the grounds that it is due to ‘climate change’. Many of these property owners are very wealthy people and their properties are worth millions.
OTOH, Green council members are trying to force people out of their homes and prevent further building because of spurious research like that of CSIRO.
Either way, taxpayers are expected to foot the bill. All of them should be told to go to blazes, IMO. .
u.k.(us) says
As a land surveyor, I have heard of 2 centimeter accuracy (in Z), but not reliably.
Yes, you are correct, but….there are two points to consider about GPS measurements: 1.You are correct that GPS measurements are least accurate in the vertical (Z) direction. This paper:
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/CORS/Articles/OPUSGPSSol.pdf
shows that based on 4 hour observation sessions, GPS measurements are accurate to about 2 cm in the X (east) direction, to about 1 cm in the Y (north) direction, and to 3 to 4 cm in the Z (vertical) direction.
2. The longer the observing session (the longer your station receives GPS satellite signals), the more accurately you can calculate your location. CORS stations receive GPS satellite signals constantly (24/7/365 for years). If I read the following articles correctly, Woppelmann et al. used long term CORS data (and other supplemental data) that allowed them to measure sea level rise at several locations in Europe with sub-millimeter accuracy:
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20070809/20070809_06.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011JC007469.shtml
So I reiterate: With the advent of GPS technology and CORS networks, there is absolutely no need to use a model to determine actual sea level rise / fall. Wherever there is a CORS network, sea levels can be accurately measured empirically using reproducible methods and data.
The only reason anyone would prefer a model output is because models can be easily manipulated to produce desired results.
Steven Mosher says:
“This example is from Victoria, not New South Wales, but sea level must have roughly the same rises and falls all over the world. ”
Wrong.
Moshpit is correct on this (although he missed an opportunity to educate). You would logically think that water seeks its own level, but it’s called ‘relative sea level’ for good reason. Coastlines are incredibly dynamic. Some are experiencing isostatic rebound (formerly glaciated coastlines) while deltaic coastlines are sinking at amazing rates (Louisana). Shores along plate boundaries can bounce up or down with earthquakes produced by tectonic activity (Japan, Alaska, etc). Prior to satellite technology, it was notoriously difficult to accurately determine real sea level rise / fall.
RockyRoad says:
April 1, 2012 at 3:20 pm
“You’ll have to defend this, Steven. Do you have some new theory that gravity isn’t pervasive and equivalent?”
Gravity is indeed pervasive over the planet, but it is far from equivalent. The strength of gravity varies across the Earth over a range of +/- 50-60 milliGals or 1/1000ths of the standard Gravity strength. The undulations of the Geoid, the equipotential surface of the oceans of the world with all variations except gravity removed, vary by approx. 200 METERS based on those differences, which means every milliGal is equivalent to almost 2 meters of sea surface height variation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geoid_height_red_blue_averagebw.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geoids_sm.jpg
The world’s ocean’s are not level, they never have been and never will be. Any variation or trend in GMSL will be reflected or correlated with the sea level at any particular piece of coast only as a matter of happy coincidence. Personally I find most of the data produced about GMSL to be statistical nonsense, although I admit to being almost quixotically alone in that assessment. If you are still convinced that the oceans are level I would recommend spending some time with this site
http://bulletin.aviso.oceanobs.com/html/produits/aviso/welcome_uk.php3
they have daily to weekly maps of Sea Level Anomalies, Absolute Dynamic Topography, Significant Wave Height, and Wind Speed going back up to a decade. They also have a dozen selectable sub-regions available which are quite informative. Pay particular attention to the max- min range data in the lower right corner and keep in mind that the anomalies are from the geoid which is varying itself as I mentioned above.
Dave Wendt says:
April 1, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Well, since I’m a geologist I’m well aware of all this, Dave, but thanks anyway. Besides, the whole earth is more inclined to be an oblate spheroid because of it’s roation (and hence “out of spherical”) than to slight vagaries in gravity.
But I want Mosher’s response to my question.
Great essay!
Louis Hooffstetter says:
April 1, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Steven Mosher says:
So which is the static and which is the dynamic component: The land or the sea?
To believe that the rate of isostatic rebound or sinking coastlines exceeds that of water’s rate of flow and finding a level is ludicrous. (I’ll admit the rate of movement due to seismic activity exceeds that of water flow, but that’s a very fleeting phenomena and doesn’t impact the overall scheme of things.)
What should be realized here is that “sealevel” has a self-defining component in the term itself: “level”–when compared to the earth, it seeks a level orders of magnitude quicker than solid rock (or hasn’t anybody noticed how irregular the earth’s non-aquatic surface is compared to the aquatic surface?) I’ve never seen the term “earthlevel” applied anywhere, but I see “sealevel” everywhere.
Oh, and I’ll argue just to “bring in the crowd”. It’s a lot of fun.
This has been an interesting, for me at least, thread because of it’s local focus. We in Australia are being subjected to many reports about the effects of global warming and climate change in recent months. Now it could be co-incidental with the July 1 start of the carbon tax that 60% and maybe many more don’t want. The drum bangers are all in the government employ or rely on it for sustainance viz a viz the CSIRO and Bom. The last thing these folk want is a repeat of the Queensland election for the gravy train will simply stop and they will be found without a shred of creditability and therefore no job. Be prepared for an influx of “climate Scientists” onto the labor market toward the end of 2013. Warning. They are all easily distracted by funding.
This is not really a scientific body, but one that adjusts data and subjects it to mathematical modelling before passing its ‘projections’ on to politicians.
———-
So Cliff goes for wrong early. The IPCC does no modelling whatsoever. It’s simply assembles what others have concluded. Computer modelling needs supercomputers and is an extremely expensive business well outside the IPCC budget capacity.
–We should reject draconian rules to save folk from a remote and dubious peril.
——-
Cliff gets confused. The Dutch already have draconian measures in place. It’s called dike building. The point of the rules in Australia is to avoid the need for draconian rules in future.
If Tim Flannery, Australia’s chief climate commissioner, is allowed to take his chance living on his Hawkesbury property near sea level, Port Macquarie’s retirees should be permitted to do so too.
———
Tim Flannery is not getting special treatment. It’s an established property. It is subject to the rules set by the local council just like everyone else.
No one is getting evicted from their property either. That’s just an outright lie.
They are being prevented from developing property near the shoreline. No doubt that hurts if you planned the property as an investment. No doubt it also hurts if you are a property developer.
Next question. Is Cliff a property developer? If so is Cliff going to pay compensation if someone’s property is inundated?
The CSIRO has prostituted its honourable record to Australian Government policy (my apologies to the decent men and women for the language)
When I see the letters CSIRO, it no longer commands respect from me, I see it as an organisation with a vested interest that will mislead the Public to do the Government’s bidding.
Anything they publish isn’t worth reading, they are censored statements. How sad.
At the risk of being called a pedant (which I am) US posters should realise that in OZ a Liberal (big L) is a conservative. The other side (Labor) backed by the unions and supported by the Greens forms our carbon taxing government in Canberra i.e. the Federal Government. Cheers from at last Sunny Sydney but still very wet inland NSW.
There is a letter in today’s Australian (April2) which makes a very powerful point, quoted verbatim:
“ONE of the things not mentioned in Cliff Ollier’s article (“CSIRO’s alarmism more dangerous than CO2″, 29/3) was the nature of the CSIRO reports themselves.
Although authoritatively promoting dire scenarios of exaggerated sea-level rise, each report contains exhaustive disclaimers indemnifying CSIRO against the consequences of any actions taken to ameliorate its predictions.
Surely coastal dwellers should have some legal recourse for the economic and psychological damage they suffer from implementation of these reports if they are shown to be of dubious veracity.
Art Raiche, Killara, NSW”.
LazyTeenager says:
April 1, 2012 at 11:20 pm
If Tim Flannery, Australia’s chief climate commissioner, is allowed to take his chance living on his Hawkesbury property near sea level, Port Macquarie’s retirees should be permitted to do so too.
———
Tim Flannery is not getting special treatment. It’s an established property. It is subject to the rules set by the local council just like everyone else.
No one is getting evicted from their property either. That’s just an outright lie.
They are being prevented from developing property near the shoreline. No doubt that hurts if you planned the property as an investment. No doubt it also hurts if you are a property developer.
Next question. Is Cliff a property developer? If so is Cliff going to pay compensation if someone’s property is inundated?
——————————————————————————-
Um, ever heard of ‘planned retreat’ policies, which have been adopted by many coastal councils? Here’s one from the loony Byron Bay Council fyi:
http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/files/…/Planned_Retreat_fact_sheet.pdf
You will note that what it means is that no development consent whatsoever will be allowed for any property within 20m of the coast. That includes if your house burns down, or you want to renovate or extend. They are destroying people’s property values, and basically saying that you just have to live in your house till it falls down around you, because we won’t let you do structural renovations, add a garage, or anything else that requires council approval. That includes structural works you might want to do at your own expense on your own land to offset erosion.
Oh, and Professor Cliff Ollier “is a geologist, geomorphologist, soil scientist, emeritus professor and honorary research fellow, at the School of Earth and Geographical Sciences University of Western Australia. He was formerly at Australian National University, University of New England, Australia, Canberra University, University of Papua New Guinea, and University of Melbourne.[1]
Throughout his career he was a prolific author (as C.D Ollier), and he has contributed to reference works such as The Oxford Companion to the Earth.[2] (Wikipedia)
So no, he’s not a property developer, but a distinguished academic who has made more of a contribution to learning than you could even dream of, let alone comprehend.
Johanna,
My apologies to Cliff. I did not check, but knew I had read the story on the Andrew Bolt blog.
Jonathan,
Not sure how to upload photos on this site, so if anyone wants the two shots send me your email address and I will forward them directly to you. I suggest checking Google Earth of Vung Tau Back Beach as there is a new 16-storey beachfront condo being built at ‘Vampire Pad’ (where casualties were received at the 1st Field Army Hospital). I would generously guess it is about 3m above highwater mark and about 50m back from the beach