New Zealand

This thread is for discussion of New Zealand aspects of global warming.

232 Thoughts on “New Zealand

  1. Andy on July 8, 2013 at 11:30 am said:

    $10m freeze on global warming

    The Government has proposed cutting $10 million in funding for climate change research in a move described as disheartening for New Zealand’s highly capable climate scientists.

    Treasury documents showed that Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy has recommended scaling back funding for Climate Change Research Grants by $2 million in the next financial year, $3.75 million in 2014/15 and $4.25 million in 2015/16.

    This would reduce the pool of funding from nearly $10 million a year to $4.5 million a year by 2016.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10895428

  2. Richard C (NZ) on July 30, 2013 at 8:03 pm said:

    ‘Hamilton engineer helps design frost stopper’

    GERALD PIDDOCK

    A new machine developed in part by a Hamilton engineer could solve a multimillion-dollar problem for New Zealand’s horticulture and viticulture industry.

    Called the Heat Ranger, it pushes warm air onto crops to prevent frost damage.

    Hamilton engineer Fred Phillips helped design the machine after the concept was developed by Canterbury farmer Bruce Koller.

    The blackcurrant grower had suffered three seasons of crippling, out-of-season frosts and was desperate for a solution.

    >>>>>>>

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/business/8980495/Hamilton-engineer-helps-design-frost-stopper

    “He was unsure what the Heat Ranger would retail for, but it would be at least six figures.”

    • Mike Jowsey on July 31, 2013 at 6:29 pm said:

      With cooler climate predictions becoming more frequent, and with the late frosts last year (7-Nov), this sort of machinery is much needed. Would be ideal for my cherries, but alas, six figures counts me out. Unless I get that cheque from big oil…..

    • Richard C (NZ) on July 31, 2013 at 7:15 pm said:

      >”Would be ideal for my cherries”

      At a wind speed of 150kmh, 120m range, and discharge height about 4m (going by photo), I got the impression that the unit would be used across (over) several rows at a time in both directions for blueberries say. But I didn’t think that setup would be ideal for cherries, aren’t they about that height? If so the unit would just be blasting the nearest trees rather than flowing past.

      Wouldn’t the discharge height need to be near ground level for the air to be pushed through (under) several cherry tree rows (imagine the unit upside down for that)?

      I’m ignoring cost of course.

    • Mike Jowsey on July 31, 2013 at 7:53 pm said:

      You might be right. Tree canopy is 5 metres. Would like to see it in action.

      (Gotta love that LPG releasing its CO2 and causing global warming all at once!)

    • That will require a detailed read over the next few days

      It’s not all bad though.
      e.g Page 14

      Increased yield from rising CO2 fertilisation is likely
      to benefit the forestry industry by 2040 and beyond,
      by increasing growth rates of radiata pine.

      Gosh, that old “denier canard” CO2 = plant food getting trotted out again

    • The summary suggests we need “further research”, several times, in fact

      Sort of a sales pitch, I would say

    • The part on climate sensitivity seems very suspect – ‘The weight of the evidence, however, continues to support the range of estimates provided by the IPCC in its first to fourth assessments. Recent estimates do not significantly affect conclusions on the likely future trajectory for the planet and the likely broad time scale of expected changes, given the magnitude of the challenge of emissions reduction.’

    • This deserves a thorough fisking.

      I think Bishop Hill have run a number of posts on this topic recently. Recent estimates of climate sensitivity are lower than the IPCC ones. Recent studies use empirical data to estimate TCS at around 1.3 degrees C and ECS at or below 2 degrees C.

      However, the “bigger picture” is that we have models and paleoclimatic studies.

      The latter have a lot of uncertainty, and are thus poorly constrained. The former are, well, models

    • The section on Climate Sensitivity is just waffle.
      This is the central question to the whole issue, and they wave it away and refer to “discussions in the lay press”

    • Richard C (NZ) on August 1, 2013 at 3:44 pm said:

      The section on Climate Sensitivity is pathetic.

      CS feeds into the economic models (IAMs) as an input parameter so it is hugely influential (let alone purely climatic projections and the contention arising). Thorough fisking certainly reqd.

      >”The weight of the evidence, however, continues to support the range of estimates provided by the IPCC in its first to fourth assessments”.

      I think that should read “the weight of opinion of our climate scientist advisers” because the evidence offers no such support that I can see.

    • “”The weight of the evidence, however, continues to support the range of estimates provided by the IPCC in its first to fourth assessments”

      What they seem to imply is that measurements of climate sensitivity, the central part of the whole climate change issue, hasn’t progressed since the FAR was published in 1990.

      So in 23 years of research, millions of dollars of funding, we have no more to say about this topic than a paragraph of weasel words.

      Oh really!

    • Richard C (NZ) on August 1, 2013 at 4:31 pm said:

      >”CS feeds into the economic models (IAMs) as an input parameter so it is hugely influential”

      This is a major issue in the US in respect to the Social Costs of Carbon (SCC) e.g (my bolding).

      ‘A Closer Look at the Government’s Determination of the Social Costs of Carbon’

      By Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger

      [...]

      Recently, the Interagency Working Group reconvened and made good on its promise to update their 2010 findings. In doing so, they increased their estimate of the SCC by about 40 percent.

      Increased!? How on earth, you may wonder, could they have increased their SCC estimates since 2010 when paper after scientific paper shows that the equilibrium climate sensitivity—that is, how much global warming will result from a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration—is much lower than most pre-2010 determinations? The Interagency Working Group even recognizes that the climate sensitivity “is a key input parameter” to their SCC models.

      Simple: The updated SCC calculations are made without “revisit[ing] other assumptions with regard to the discount rate, reference case socioeconomic and emission scenarios, or equilibrium climate sensitivity [emphasis added].

      How convenient is that? The updated SCC, which the White House requires to be used in the cost/benefit analyses of new regulations, completely ignores progress made in the basic science of climate change—progress which suggests that the future impacts from climate change are overestimated by some 50 percent.

      And if failing to keep up with the science of a “key input parameter” to their calculation isn’t enough, the Interagency Working Groups makes several other egregious decisions in arriving at their SCC determination.

      >>>>>>

      http://www.cato.org/blog/closer-look-epas-determination-social-costs-carbon

      Also see the ‘Economics’ Open Thread on SCC here:

      http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/open-threads/climate/economics/#comment-214789

      New Zealand has not yet seen what a radical difference this “key input parameter” (CS) makes to public policy as it is having in the US, But we are seeing the failure to keep up with the science of it so heaven help us if/when the economists start using it here in NZ as handed down by Gluckman to come up with the NZ equivalent of SCC (perish the thought).

    • Richard C (NZ) on August 1, 2013 at 3:22 pm said:

      Cheers Magoo.

      >[Foreword, page 1] “It will be necessary for New Zealand to address a number of challenges that have both a scientific and value component. These include:…………• What are the costs and benefits of adaptation or mitigation compared with other priorities?”

      The “other” Andy asked about this wrt a NZ equivalent of Monckton’s cost/benefit in that thread. Gluckman has neglected to point out that cost/benefit analysis is not just adaption/mitigation compared to other priorities but that it should also be compared to do-nothing-until-needed which Monckton calculates as around 50x less expensive than adaption/mitigation.

      21st century models vs observations failure doesn’t get a mention on page 7, “reasonable agreement” apparently:

      >”The best available comparisons between climate models suggest that models respond to the historical combination of natural and anthropogenic forcings in reasonable agreement with observations….”

      I wonder if Gluckman knows this evidence (model obs/hotspot failure) is being contested in the US Supreme Court (SLF EPA Endangerment Finding petition)?

      “Pause/hiatus” on page 5:

      >”The reported recent ‘hiatus’ in the rate of rise of temperature does not signal that climate
      change has ‘stopped’ or is no longer a concern.”

      But the fact is that atmospheric warming has stopped Sir Peter (and what reason is there for it to resume exactly?) and because it’s the major component of what people perceive as “climate” i.e. no climate change for some time now, that has to be a signal that warming is not the concern it was made out to be. And if the hiatus continues or – shock – turns to cooling, climate change (the warming type) will definitely not be a concern.

      >”This is consistent with model simulations, in which decades of no change, or even cooling, can be expected despite the longterm trend of increasing global temperatures”

      “Cooling” expected? But only a couple of models mimiced the pause THIS last decade and ONLY at near-surface, the rest weren’t in cooee at near-surface and none at mid-trop and none exhibited cooling anywhere. And again the obs trend (one of 3 “lines of evidence”) is subject to the above US Supreme Court petition.

      >”The current ‘pause’ in the overall trend is thought to be partly a response to natural variability including a temporary decline in the amount of energy received from the sun, which has naturally cycled towards a relatively strong solar minimum in 2009.”

      “temporary decline” ??? – Wrong Sir Peter, the decline is continuing with SC24 maximum in 2013 resembling SC5 in the Dalton Minimum around 1800. Minor impacts might be a little more evident in a years time (there’s already cooling since 2002/3) but the major impact of this will not be evident until over a decade due to thermal inertial lag. This would be at least early 1900s conditions prior to 1930 if the progression continues.

      All New Zealand, page 3:

      >The midrange of projections is an average temperature increase of 0.9°C by 2040″

      27 yrs for a 0.9°C rise to occur. Doubtful given ENSO-neutral 2012 at 12.5°C is about the same as it was 50 years ago.

      As Andy observes “will require a detailed read” but just a cursory glance tells me Gluckman is out of touch. I suspect that is because he “has been assisted by some of New Zealand’s leading climate scientists in preparing this report”.

    • Richard C (NZ) on August 4, 2013 at 2:45 pm said:

      Richard C2 August 4, 2013 at 1:39 pm

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      0.9 C by 2040?

      That requires 0.33 C/decade starting right now for 13.4 C in 27 yrs time. Given ENSO-neutral NZ temperature has been stuck on the 2012 12.5 C level for about the last 50 yrs that appears highly improbable.

      Maybe the PMs Chief Scientific Adviser should get some better advice than what he was given.

      http://hot-topic.co.nz/new-zealands-changing-climate-and-oceans-new-gluckman-report-out-today/#comment-38455

    • Macros response to your comment is pretty gobsmacking. Is he serious?

    • Richard C (NZ) on August 5, 2013 at 10:29 am said:

      Might reveal something of his mindset but I certainly didn’t see that coming. My response:

      “Macro, see Table 1: Summary of projected changes (increases are relative to the 1980-2000 average)

      1980-2000 average is 12.56 C plus 0.9 is 13.46. 2001-2012 average is 12.68 but we are starting from ENSO-neutral 2012 at 12.5 so that’s 0.96 by 2040 starting this year. Actually 0.35 C/decade.

      I take it by your “0.033 degrees per decade” that you also find 0.35 C/decade highly improbable?”

  3. Mike Jowsey on September 5, 2013 at 10:36 am said:

    There was a piece on TV One news last night about rising sea levels threatening low-lying Pacific nations. John Key is at a summit in the Marshal Islands and has pledged $5m taxpayer dollars to building – wait for it – water storage systems as protection against drought. Water water everywhere, but not a drop to drink!

    Anyhow, the reporter ended the piece with the exciting news that a major declaration would be made tomorrow regarding climate change which would really bring the issue to the fore worldwide. Let’s hope the declaration would be something like “Global Warming not happening – crisis over”. Somehow, I doubt it – too many jobs on the line.

    • Mike Jowsey on September 5, 2013 at 11:15 am said:

      Here’s the link to the news program – http://tvnz.co.nz/one-news/s2013-epwednesday-video-5571729

      Article starts at 15:32. Barbara Dreaver gets pretty intense, with no data to back up her claims of more intense cyclones etc. However, it is noteworthy that her prediction of An Important Declaration at the article’s end has been cropped out. Hmmm? Intrigue!

    • Dreaver makes this claim:

      “Scientists say that global warming is causing weather patterns in the area to become more intense, leading to devastating cyclones and tsunamis”

      tsunamis??

    • Mike Jowsey on September 5, 2013 at 12:21 pm said:

      Ha! I missed that. Lmao. What an airhead.

    • Mike Jowsey on September 5, 2013 at 12:28 pm said:

      WUWT mentions the TVNZ article, noting the claim regarding An Important Declaration (which has been cropped from TVNZ-on-demand).
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/04/wuwt-hot-sheet-for-wednesday-august-4th-2013/

    • An Important Declaration

      It might be a vote of thanks for the generous sponsorship of Fijian Airways for the conference, with a nod to the matching “gay blue shirts” that John Key and the other delegates are all wearing?

    • It’s a done deal, we have signed, as Ms Drivel writes

      ” New Zealand has signed a declaration on climate change along with other Pacific leaders in a bid to gain access to international funding.”

      http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nz-signs-pacific-climate-change-declaration-5573898

    • Prime Minister John Key has welcomed the climate change focus of the Pacific Islands Forum, and restated New Zealand’s commitment to working with its Pacific neighbours to help them build more climate-resilient, sustainable economies.

      “Climate change is a concern for Pacific countries and New Zealand is firmly committed to helping its closest neighbours adapt to and mitigate its impacts,” Mr Key says.

      “Our total climate-related support will be more than $80 million over the next three years, including the $65 million for renewable energy initiatives, as announced at the Pacific Energy Summit in March.

      “On top of that, our support will focus on areas like developing water infrastructure, and investing in clean and efficient energy generation. This will have positive environmental impacts, but it will also help Pacific countries develop more robust economies by reducing their reliance on expensive imported diesel.

      “Over the past three years, we have invested $48 million in our region to address climate change through practical initiatives to help communities and infrastructure be better prepared for extreme weather-related events,” Mr Key says.

      “We’ve built cyclone shelters in the Northern Cooks, supported rainwater harvesting in Kiribati, Tokelau and Tuvalu, and funded a monthly climate forecasting bulletin for all Pacific countries.

      “We have already achieved great results working with Pacific governments on renewable energy. For example, our support has allowed Tokelau to now generate 90 per cent of its electricity from solar power, and we have also backed the Maama Mai solar facility in Tonga, one of the largest in the Pacific.”

      Mr Key says New Zealand continues to work closely with international partners to improve the Pacific’s access to climate finance, including from the private sector.
      “At home and abroad, the Government is doing its fair share to address global climate change. We have set a target to reduce our emissions to 5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. This target is ambitious and goes beyond what we committed to under the first stage of the Kyoto Protocol.

      “We have also launched the Global Research Alliance, and have committed $45 million to research ways to grow more food without growing greenhouse gas emissions.

      Mr Key is in the Marshall Islands for the 44th Pacific Islands Forum. He returns to New Zealand on Friday

      http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?articleId=41883

    • On this topic, the hand-wringers are out in force at TDB
      http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/09/04/letting-the-pacific-drown/

    • Mike Jowsey on September 5, 2013 at 2:23 pm said:

      Oh it’s our neighbourhood alarmist, Gareth, with the usual emotional tripe. E.G. “…. certain to lumber them with a climate denier as prime minister, it falls to John Key to act on our neighbour’s life and death struggle.” yawn…. It’s worse than we thought. I left him a wee missive.

    • and I see you have been duly chastised Mike, for your tasteless and demeaning comments about those poor people in the Pacific that will drown as a result of our evil consumer lifestyles that we refuse to change.
      (Sent from my iPad)

    • Mike Jowsey on September 5, 2013 at 3:13 pm said:

      Gareth accused you Andy of straying off-topic. LOL. I responded to his obvious double-standard: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/09/04/letting-the-pacific-drown/#comment-88162

    • Good to see someone is sticking up for me.
      I was responding to this statement, as you noticed.

      A move by Contact Energy to back out of a windfarm on the Waikato’s west coast has blown away hundreds of potential jobs in a move described as another disappointment to a region buffeted by lay-offs.

      Some of my “misinfomation” comes from sources such as these

      “In view of flat electricity demand, current overcapacity in electricity generation in New Zealand and regulatory uncertainty in the New Zealand electricity market, developing the Hauauru ma raki wind farm has become uneconomic in the medium term.”

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/9085501/Waikato-wind-farm-still-on-cards

      In other words, if an incoming Labour/Green government ramps up the ETS and power prices go through the roof, wind energy may become economic in NZ, although it won’t add any value as it doesn’t add any capacity to the grid; it merely displaces other energy when the wind blows.

    • Go for the wine offer Mike!

  4. Another step towards a healthier climate

    Doctors are praising the Biodiversity Defence Society’s legal steps yesterday to stop another new coal mine. The Biodiversity Defence Society filed declaration proceedings with the Environment Court on Wednesday, arguing that Solid Energy no longer holds resource consents for its Cypress Mine. The resource consents for the mine – gained in 2005 – were due to expire at the end of 2012 if mining activity had not begun. Seven years later only a road has been built.

    Dr Russell Tregonning from OraTaiao: The New Zealand Climate and Health Council, says, ‘For the sake of our health, we need to overcome our addiction to fossil fuels, and that includes not opening new coal mines. Every tonne of carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere makes our future that much harder to manage.’

    http://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/un-doctored/2013/june-2013/13/another-step-towards-a-healthier-climate.aspx

    More straightjackets please nurse

  5. Mike Jowsey on September 20, 2013 at 2:35 pm said:

    SPECIAL NOTICE

    Climate Realists- special notice, special opportunity to make your views known.

    Greetings Climate Realists,

    Thanks to the Psychology Department at Victoria University, we all have the opportunity to make our views on climate change known by participating in a survey being run by the Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural research.

    Here is the link to the survey:
    http://tinyurl.com/cfcccnwz

    Taciano L. Milfont, Ph.D. is the contact person – if you have any questions, his email address is: taciano.milfont@vuw.ac.nz

    I think this is a golden opportunity to let the researchers know just how many of us do NOT believe in devastating climate change- I encourage everyone to do this survey, it only takes about 10-15 minutes.

    DETAILS:

    Climate Change Survey:

    Dear colleagues,

    I would like to invite you to take part in an online survey titled “Climate Change and New Zealand Society”, which has been approved by the School of Psychology Human Ethics Committee

    You can participate in this study whether you believe in human-induced climate change or not.

    The purpose of this study is to examine people’s views about how acting on climate change could affect our society and our way of life.

    To participate in our survey, just click on the link below. If the link does not work, please copy the address and paste it into your web-browser.

    http://tinyurl.com/cfcccnwz

    We would also appreciate if you could send this invitation to your own network.

    Thank you very much for your time and help in making this research possible.

    Kind regards,

    Taciano

    Taciano L. Milfont, Ph.D.
    Senior Lecturer
    Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research | School of Psychology | Victoria University of Wellington | New Zealand
    Security Code: 74007

  6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Stakeholder Workshop

    The Royal Society of New Zealand together with the NZCCC therefore invites you to attend this free half-day Stakeholder Workshop at the Royal Society of New Zealand, 11 Turnbull St, Thorndon, Wellington on Friday 11 October, 9am – 1pm. (Registration and coffee from 8:30am.)

    http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/events/intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-stakeholder-workshop/

  7. Southern Alps’ ice levels show sharp decrease
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11138854


    According to Dr Anderson’s research model, the ice volume loss recorded since 1977 could be attributed either to the halving of the precipitation level on the South Island’s West Coast for the period or an increase in temperature of about 1C, Dr Salinger said.

    “Precipitation actually increased in the latter part of the 20th century, whereas temperatures warmed by a degree so its clearly temperature which has been doing it.”

    Obviously,Jim,

  8. The IPCC workshop recently held in Wellington NZ have released the streaming webcast as a playback video.

    It can be viewed using this link

    http://www.nzclimatechangecentre.org/ipcc/nzworkshops

    • The second video has the first 20 mins or so with Dave Frame talking about climate sensitivity and also the various “irreversible” scenarios that could happen, most of which now fall into the “very unlikely” basket

  9. Dave Frame –
    ” I am profoundly uninterested in climate deniers. I don’t think they matter.”

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/something-early-for-the-weekend-grim-forecast-for-oceans-and-the-roots-of-denial/#comment-39530

    What is a “climate denier”?

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 22, 2013 at 8:31 pm said:

      DF is right, climate deniers don’t matter because they don’t exist – except as DF strawmen or something similar.

      And DF might look at his own relevancy, that’s in danger of sinking out of sight too. The new HS banner line puts it succinctly:

      If you can’t explain the ‘pause’, you can’t explain the cause…

      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/

      Get to work DF.

    • DF seems to spend a lot of time justifying himself to the inmates at HT.
      Not sure why

    • DF writes again

      Denialists don’t matter for a specific reason – because time is increasingly showing that they are wrong. Time is showing that IPCC is broadly right about the relationship between GHG and climate. [Also, denialists tend to be of a certain age... I don't think there are any well-qualified denialists under age 55, are there?]

      I guess the longer the “pause” goes on, the more confident we get in the connection between CO2 and climate. Is that how it is supposed to work?

      I’m not sure how being over 55 makes you more likely to be a “denialist” (not me anyway, quite yet)

      Maybe its the years of being fed BS has made the older generation a bit more immune to this

    • Richard C (NZ) on October 23, 2013 at 12:30 pm said:

      “Time” against “denialists”? Wake up DF.

  10. Some ad homs on Vincent Gray

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/serial-disinformer-vincent-gray.html

    Anthony Watts, denialist blogger at wattsupwiththat.com has copied and pasted another disinformation article, this time by Vincent Gray from New Zealand (archived here). Vincent Gray is writing at WUWT about sea level and gets lots and lots wrong. Which is to be expected. Vincent Gray has devoted the past few years to his new career of climate science disinformer.

    Anthony Watts seems to think he should be shown respect because he’s getting very old. Vincent Gray is a climate science denier going back a few years now. He founded the science-disinformation organisation “New Zealand Climate Science Coalition” back in April 2006 back when he was a sprightly 84 year old.

    (my emphasis)

  11. Coastal Chch under water with 100 years – report

    Experts have delivered a dire warning that rising sea levels will put some suburban areas of coastal Christchurch under water within 100 years.

    The city council is now making plans for what will be a vastly different looking Canterbury coastline, caused by warming seas, melting ice in Greenland and Antarctica, and more storm surges.

    South New Brighton, South Shore, Sumner, Brooklands and even parts of Linwood will become water logged if current sea level increase predictions eventuate.

    This is will lead to planned abandonment of residential areas, not too unlike what happened to the worst affected earthquake areas, which were red zoned.

    The Insurance industry says that houses in those areas will over a long period of time become uninsurable.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11182950

    Just as well we got a cash settlement on our coastal ChCh property then.

    • Richard C (NZ) on January 8, 2014 at 1:32 pm said:

      >”….we got a cash settlement on our coastal ChCh property…”

      Great, now you can move to Holland or somewhere………oh wait……not Holland.

    • We are moving closer to the Alpine Fault.

      One way or another, we will get nailed.

    • Of course, you cannot escape. General Douglas MacArthur said: “There is no security on this earth, there is only opportunity.”

    • Unfortunately things are not so great for the large number of people who are left, still trying to sort out insurance claims, who may end up with uninsurable homes.

      The report was done by engineering consulting company Tonkin and Taylor for around $90,000 and doubles the projections from the IPCC, claiming that they are too conservative.

    • Mike Jowsey on January 8, 2014 at 8:42 pm said:

      A good time to invest in cheap oceanside homes…

    • Some key points from the article.

      Instead of sea levels rising to half a metre by 2115 as predicted by international authority Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the Tonkin & Taylor report says it will be double this.

      So T&T are now the authority on sea level rise, not the IPCC.

      The Tonkin & Taylor report for the city council says areas of the eastern suburbs may need to be abandoned in a “managed retreat”.

      Managed retreat means a strategic decision is made by authorities to abandon or relocate properties and assets in the area.

      The report warns if this cannot be done then authorities will have to undertake “forced retreat”

      Vicky Buck is deputy mayor and a committed “warmist”, having started web site celcias.co.nz and has various business interests in “green” projects.

      Good time to get the heck out of ChCh, I would say, before the “forced retreat” starts.

  12. The Tonkin and Taylor report on sea level rise with respect to Christchurch is here,

    http://static.stuff.co.nz/files/tonkin-taylor.pdf

    In this, they make the point that current sea level rise around NZ coastlines is 1.9mm per year. They also point out that there has been no sea level rise measured in the last decade in NZ (page 9)

    From here, they go on to extrapolate a possible sea level rise of up to 1 metre by 2100, although the graph on page 7 (Figure 2.1) has the linear rise of 1.9mm/y as a lower bound, and a rapidly rising sea level as the upper bound.

    I am not sure why this report was commissioned by the Christchurch City Council before AR5 was released.

    Based on this report, which is essentially a literature review based on modelled assumptions, people on the east side of Christchurch have no future to look forward to.

  13. Mike Jowsey on April 19, 2014 at 2:28 am said:

    Came across this article referenced at Climate Depot. A Timaru Herald article in 2007 which quotes that ray of sunshine Augie Auer as saying “We’re all going to survive this. It’s all going to be a joke in five years,” he said. A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it. “It is time to attack the myth of global warming,” he said.”

    RIP Augie – you are sadly missed.

  14. Mike Jowsey on May 3, 2014 at 10:58 pm said:

    David Kear, former Director-General of NZ Scientific Research, says global warming is a non-existent threat

    The widespread obsession with Global-Warming-Climate-Change, in opposition to all factual evidence, is quite incredible. It leads to unfair treatment of some citizens, and a massive bill for all, for nothing useful. When will citizens revolt effectively against such callous disregard for their observations and wishes, by those who are essentially their elected employees? When will the perpetrators examine the basis of their ideology, and realise that it’s based on unfounded unscientific beliefs, not on confirmed, widely-available investigations by real scientists who abide by the moral standards of their profession?


    http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/sites/climaterealists.org.nz/files/KearGW2.pdf

    h/t Jo Nova

  15. Mike Jowsey on June 12, 2014 at 3:44 pm said:

    “A New Zealand scientist says deteriorating soil quality is the most important issue facing the world today.” http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/deteriorating-soil-world-s-most-critical-issue-nz-scientist-5999730

    During the video he says “…with climate change there are many uncertainties, but soil we can measure”.

  16. Mike Jowsey on August 18, 2014 at 2:20 pm said:

    What can farmers do about climate change?

    Apparently the science is settled, so now its all about mitigation. According to some rent-seeking academic at Lincoln College…. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/opinion/10393251/What-can-farmers-do-about-climate-change

  17. HemiMck on August 19, 2014 at 2:50 pm said:

    Hi Mike,

    I was tempted to respond on their Blog but I think the farmers had it well covered.

    But I am curious as to the extent that “The New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre and its many partners” have their nose in the trough.

  18. Mike Jowsey on August 29, 2014 at 10:36 am said:

    Bit of a stoush brewing with MetService (NIWA) being accused of blocking basic weather data….
    http://www.weatherwatch.co.nz/content/metservice-attacks-ww-civil-defence-comes-wws-defence-dominion-post-story

    MetService made double record profits last year, which would be fine had they not also been blocking the most basic of weather data which is a public safety and general economic issue. MetService say they aren’t blocking data but this week Auckland Civil Defence came out and publicly backed WeatherWatch.co.nz in this widely supported effort to free up our nation’s most basic weather data.

    • Richard C (NZ) on August 29, 2014 at 2:51 pm said:

      >”MetService (NIWA)”

      Different entities Mike.

      See: Meteorological Service of New Zealand Ltd
      Annual Report 2013 http://about.metservice.com/assets/ar-2013-2/MetService-AR-2013.pdf

      Section 20. page 14:
      Corporate Governance Statement
      Shareholders
      As a State-owned enterprise (SOE), MetService is wholly-owned by the Crown. Two Shareholding Ministers act on behalf of the Crown – the Minister of Finance and the Minister for State
      Owned Enterprises.

      Section 41, page 24:
      16. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
      The ultimate controlling party of the Group is the Crown.

      Relationship with the Crown
      Meteorological Service of New Zealand Limited is a limited liability company incorporated in New Zealand, under the Companies Act 1993. The shares are held equally by the Minister for State Owned Enterprises and the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Crown. The Crown does not guarantee the liabilities of Meteorological Service of New Zealand Limited.

  19. Richard C (NZ) on October 7, 2014 at 8:43 pm said:

    Jim Salinger at The Conversation discussed here:

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/10/opera-house-still-above-sea-level-despite-homogenisation/#comment-

    Drought, GHGs, ozone., and natural variation (SAM).

Comment navigation

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>