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.
Alistair, if you keep on with this apologising for honest errors thing, you will never be admitted to the Team!
Great that you have started a discussion about sea levels in Vietnam – since it is such a poster child for the alarmists. Maybe some of the vet’s sites would yield further info?
“Truthiness: the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true.” (HT to Steven Colbert)
LazyTeenager says:
1. The IPCC… simply assembles what others have concluded.
The only thing the IPCC and the CSIRO assemble is “Truthiness”. They would like us to believe they evaluate good science and then base decisions on it. They don’t! They decide what social engineering objectives they want to accomplish and then arrange funding for studies that support them. That’s why they persist in using models and statistical smoke and mirrors rather than replicable, empirical data.
2. The point of the rules in Australia is to avoid the need for draconian rules in future.
The point of the rules is pointless. Once again, if their decisions were based on replicable, empirical data (which in this case conclusively demonstrates average sea level rise is ~1.6 to 1.8 mm/yr) there would be no need for these ‘draconian’ rules.
3. No one is getting evicted from their property. They are being prevented from developing property near the shoreline.
You are either grossly naïve, or intentionally trying to mislead. In 1988, South Carolina enacted a ‘Beachfront Management Act’ that was supposed to prevent further development of barrier islands, and provide a “planned retreat” from sea level rise. Sound familiar? It contained a clause that forced homeowners to remove sea walls constructed to protect their beachfront homes, allow the ocean to eat their property, and then pay to clean up the debris afterwards. They would then be left with a worthless lot that the state claimed ownership of. (In SC, all land located between mean high and mean low water is state property.) The SC Supreme Court ruled this was an unlawful, uncompensated taking of private property by the state; and so it is. Let’s hope courts in Australia rule the same way.
Lazy Teenager, take your head out of the sand before the tide comes in.
“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.”
Even this is over the top. We shoukd adapt like the dutch IF in MAYBE three hundred years, a problem appears that is related to rising oceans, or sinking lands, the ladder being more likely.
Just more scare tactics to a non-problem,
Unfortunately the human race has an obsession with the sea .We look towards the coast and speculate and wonder . Not one person seems to be worried about the very real rise in the level of a major body of water in Australia that continues to rise. I for one am extremely worried for the safety of the residents who have built large communities , numbering in the tens of thousands . This rise in salt water level has threatened these communities .I propose a committee of scientific experts (drawn at random from the electrol role) and government subsidies (love them ) and rules(gotta love em) to prevent communities being inundated .If this level of water rise continues ,Australia itself will have to be abandoned ! Big claims but figures gathered over the last four years show if this body of water keeps growing we are in big trouble with, half of Queensland and South Australia being inundated .Using IPCC computer analysis I can prove if Lake Eyre keeps filling were all doomed I say .
What puzzles me is that I worked for the RAN Hydrographer in the early nineties. He is responsible for all maritime charts around Australia. I was told as a fact that Australia did not have tidal datum within half a meter for the majority of the coast but now we are told we can measure sea levels within millilmetres. So how come?
Johanna,
Well, if the truth is to win the we must remove errors when found. Tried to post the photos here, but they won’t ‘paste’.
Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
The truth seeps out about the AGW warmist exagerations and worse. Even though the CSIRO have been shown up as “agents” for the IPCC eta al, the Australian government still persist in using their data to support the government drive for the carbon tax.
It is hard to believe that the government personnel can be so ignorant of the truth. It is easy to believe that they are in fact well aware, and that they are fully engaged with the UN attempts to control individual governments and countries. There are too many factors supporting the world government scheme, some of them openly admitted, for it to be anything other than a reality.