Yes, I can’t imagine what it must be like.

You ask about a scientist challenging the report. This very post was written by a scientist. Willem is a senior lecturer in earth sciences at Waikato University and he’s published extensively on this subject from his research in New Zealand. He trains doctoral candidates, is called to give expert testimony in court cases and is well respected around the country.

He has quite definitely “challenged” the hazard report. There’s no other way of putting it! Having said “the authors are correct to state that the Bruun Rule is inappropriate” and then explained that they used the Bruun Rule anyway, he’s delivered about the sternest rebuke I’ve ever read from one scientist to another.

Short of him breaking out some swear words or speaking in derogatory terms about somebody’s parentage he can hardly put the matter more strongly. So you already have your scientific challenge. What will you do with it?

Will the Kapiti residents insist on a response from the council? I suggest you use all the means you have to put pressure on the council. I’m in Auckland, so I can’t do anything locally, but the more people who come here to the CCG to comment, complain and support each other, the more effect it will have when you all point to this blog and say to the council: “get another report!” I think some lawyer residents are getting some action under way – that should help.

Write letters to your local papers, the Dom Post, attend the meetings, run your own meetings. And keep us in touch. Let us know what happened at the council meeting last weekend.

I own one of the affected properties – stressful times. And Council meeting last weekend didn’t help much. Do you think any scientists are likely to challenge the KCDC findings?
Cheers,
Louise

State Government ditches UN’s climate science

The NSW Government has introduced new laws that ignore United Nations predictions about sea level-rise

The New South Wales Government is abandoning seal (sic) level-rise predictions from the United Nations as the basis for coastal management policy.

Under laws introduced by the Labor Government, local councils had to take account of UN projections when deciding whether a seaside property was ‘at risk’ of erosion.

>>>>>>>
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/09/12/3588760.htm

How many times have we seen “seal” level-rise?

Cooper, J. Andrew G., and Orrin H. Pilkey. 2004. “Sea-level Rise and Shoreline Retreat: Time to Abandon the Bruun Rule.” Global and Planetary Change 43 (3–4): 157–171. doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2004.07.001.

The abstract of this article reads …
“In the face of a global rise in sea level, understanding the response of the shoreline to changes in sea level is a critical scientific goal to inform policy makers and managers. A body of scientific information exists that illustrates both the complexity of the linkages between sea-level rise and shoreline response, and the comparative lack of understanding of these linkages. In spite of the lack of understanding, many appraisals have been undertaken that employ a concept known as the Bruun Rule. This is a simple two-dimensional model of shoreline response to rising sea level. The model has seen near global application since its original formulation in 1954. The concept provided an advance in understanding of the coastal system at the time of its first publication. It has, however, been superseded by numerous subsequent findings and is now invalid.
Several assumptions behind the Bruun Rule are known to be false and nowhere has the Bruun Rule been adequately proven; on the contrary several studies disprove it in the field. No universally applicable model of shoreline retreat under sea-level rise has yet been developed. Despite this, the Bruun Rule is in widespread contemporary use at a global scale both as a management tool and as a scientific concept. The persistence of this concept beyond its original assumption base is attributed to the following factors:
1. Appeal of a simple, easy to use analytical model that is in widespread use.
2. Difficulty of determining the relative validity of proofs and disproofs.
3. Ease of application.
4. Positive advocacy by some scientists.
5. Application by other scientists without critical appraisal.
6. The simple numerical expression of the model.
7. Lack of easy alternatives.
The Bruun Rule has no power for predicting shoreline behaviour under rising sea level and should be abandoned. It is a concept whose time has passed. The belief by policy makers that it offers a prediction of future shoreline position may well have stifled much-needed research into the coastal response to sea-level rise.”

This article provides a useful review of the history of the Bruun Rule, although it does divert into the side issue of equilibrium beach theory. As noted by Bob, it contains some critical comments about the use of the Bruun Rule, including by consultants and Regional Councils in New Zealand.

I agree with Dr Shand, who quotes this article, that the Bruun Rule is not an appropriate methodology.

When time permits I will write a comment on the use of the Local Government Guidance Note recommendations for the magnitude of sea level rise, which combine with the Bruun Rule to produce the reported coastal hazard zones.

Special Minister of State, Chris Hartcher said the changes mean councils will have the freedom to consider local conditions when determining future hazards.

The first stage of the NSW Government’s comprehensive coastal reforms will:

• Make it easier for coastal landholders to install temporary works to reduce the impacts of erosion on their properties;
• Remove the compulsory application of sea level rise benchmarks;
• Deliver clarity to councils on the preparation of section 149 notices by focusing on current known hazards; and
• Support local councils by providing information and expert advice on sea level rise relevant to their local area.

Mr Hartcher said the changes strike the right balance between protecting property and managing the State’s vast coastline.

“The NSW Government has listened to the concerns of communities and councils about previous coastal erosion reforms and the uncertainties they caused for landholders,” Mr Hartcher said.

“The Ministerial Coastal Taskforce has carefully considered the best ways to empower coastal communities to take preventative measures before erosion occurs.

“Our changes will mean landowners can more easily place sandbags on their properties to reduce impacts of erosion from smaller storm events.

“Landowners in erosion prone areas need to be allowed to take sensible measures to protect their land from coastal erosion and not be tied up in red tape.

“We will also halve the maximum penalties for offences relating the inappropriate use of these works, which were excessive.”

Mr Hartcher said the heavy-handed application of Labor’s sea level rise planning benchmarks for 2050 and 2100 would go.

“There has been concern about the negative impacts on property values from these unclear section 149 certificate notations,” Mr Hartcher said.

“The NSW Government will remove the need for councils to use state-wide sea level rise projections.

“We will be assisting councils by providing information on future sea level rise relevant to their local area and by giving councils access to expert advice.

“It is critical that the information contained in the section 149 certificates and the underlying mapping is clear and accurate.”

The NSW Government will issue advice to all councils to guide the preparation and use of section 149 certificates. This will provide much needed certainty for local communities on how these certificates refer to future coastal erosion hazard.

“This will give councils more certainty as the Government continues its reform of coastal management in NSW,” Mr Hartcher said.

The NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer has identified uncertainty in the projected rate of future sea level rise given that the scientific knowledge in the field was continually evolving.

Mr Hartcher said as an interim measure, all councils preparing coastal zone management plans will be given an extra 12 months to complete them and have suspended certification of any further plans.

The Coastal Ministerial Taskforce will continue to work with councils and communities on the second stage of reforms.

For Assessment of the science behind the NSW Government’s sea level rise planning benchmarks – see http://www.chiefscientist.nsw.gov.au/Home/Reports.aspx

World Climate Report, September 10, 2012

Chief Editor: Patrick J. Michaels

“The bottom line is this: the more people look for the anticipated acceleration in the rate of sea level rise, the less evidence they seem to find in support of it. All the while, we eat into the 21st century with a rate of sea level rise not much different from that experienced during the 20th century—and one which was hardly catastrophic, readily proven by a simple look around.”

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/09/10/sea-level-acceleration-not-so-fast/

WCR could also have referenced:-

Boretti, A.A. 2012. Short term comparison of climate model predictions and satellite altimeter measurements of sea levels. Coastal Engineering 60: 319-322.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/new-paper-finds-sea-level-rise-has.html

The Australian scientist reports that the average rate of SLR over the almost 20-year period of satellite radar altimeter observations is 3.1640 mm/year, which if held steady over a century would yield a mean global SLR of 31.64 cm, which is just a little above the low-end projection of the IPCC for the year 2100. However, he also finds that the rate of SLR is reducing over the measurement period at a rate of -0.11637 mm/year2, and that this deceleration is also “reducing” at a rate of -0.078792 mm/year3.

Boretti writes that the huge deceleration of SLR over the last 10 years “is clearly the opposite of what is being predicted by the models,” and that “the SLR’s reduction is even more pronounced during the last 5 years.”

See your ad here

The 40-year cap was the unprecedented condition imposed by Wyong Shire Council.

Sydney retirees John and Carol Hannaford have spent $500,000 building a home at Budgewoi which they intended “to leave to the kids”.

But because of state and federal government climate change requirements – and the way those requirements have been interpreted by council staff – the well-intended legacy will likely be one of encumbrance.

“Unless the Hannafords can get this condition of approval removed, in 40 years’ time a bulldozer will be out in the road ready to legally reduce this home to rubble, with the bill going to the owners,” Cr Greg Best told the Lakes Mail on Tuesday.

“I am ashamed to say we as a council blackmailed the Hannafords into building this house with a maximum 40-year life because our legal advice was we had no choice. It was either that, or nothing.”

Cr Best said the “bizarre and ridiculous” situation was created by the “knee-jerk flood plan and sea-level rise requirements” being placed on maps, with councils being told to adopt a plan of action.

“This couple bought the block of land in 2009 on a suburban street several streets back from the lake, a street that in recorded memory has never been flooded.

“Our planners gave them approval to knock the existing old home down and then later told them that the new mapping meant they couldn’t build anything on it,” Cr Best said.

“Council hadn’t and still hasn’t as yet adopted a formal flood plan policy but the planners used their option to take the draft into consideration.

“And this sea-level flood plan scenario is going to affect some 20,000 homes in our shire, plus thousands in Lake Macquarie which has already adopted the mapping in its flood plan.”

Mr Hannaford said moving to the Central Coast and building a new home to live out his retirement started as a dream but has turned into a nightmare.

“Having spent $220,000 on the block we had no choice but to build the house with the 40-year approval in the hope that common sense would eventually prevail and the condition would be removed,” he said.

Mr Hannaford said the flood and sea-level rise mapping had already seriously affected his insurance.

See your ad here

“Last year our insurance bill was $660. This year it is $4119 if we include $2281 for the flood cover,” he said.

Cr Best warned that the flood plan link to sea-level rises and climate change was “out of control”.

“This is just the tip of an iceberg about to surface.”