Flood Maps

62 comments on “Flood Maps ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Adolf Fiinkensein 1

   7 September 2009 at 11:07 am

   Roll on global warming. It’s only your last remaining metropolitan electorates which will sink forever! ”Bloody good map,” I say.
2. ghostwhowalks 2

   7 September 2009 at 11:13 am

   You really should use proper contour maps.
   Try maps.auckland.govt.nz
   • all_your_base 2.1

     7 September 2009 at 11:38 am

     You might want to take it up with the app’s author: http://blog.firetree.net/ 😉
3. snoozer 3

   7 September 2009 at 11:14 am

   Of course, you don’t need a permanent increase of sea level height by 14m for it to be a problem. An increase of a few metres plus increased strom severity leading to bigger storm surges would do huge damage.
4. ieuan 4

   7 September 2009 at 11:24 am

   Honestly you guys know no shame, 14 metres?!?!

   Predictions are for a sea level rise of around 0.5m in the next 100 years.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
   • all_your_base 4.1

     7 September 2009 at 11:35 am

     Ah, did you read what I wrote ieuan? Geez. Time you turned that frown upside down.
   • r0b 4.2

     7 September 2009 at 12:08 pm

     14 Meters seems crazy, but it isn’t. When the big ice sheets go that is the outcome according to some predictions.

     Greenland:

     The complete melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet would add about 7 meters to sea levels and endanger low-lying coastal cities, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007.

     West Antarctic:

     The net effect of all of these processes is that if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapses, the rise in sea levels around many coastal regions will be as much as 25 per cent more than expected, for a total of between six and seven metres if the whole ice sheet melts

     No one knows when these collapses will finish, but we do know that they are well started…
     • Andrei 4.2.1

       7 September 2009 at 12:22 pm

       I love the way you “climate change deniers” fail to comprehend that “these processes” have been going on since the planet first formed about 4000,000,000 years ago.

       There is no “natural state” of the Planet it is a dynamic thing which is in a constant state of change and if it wasn’t we wouldn’t be here to worry about it.

       The Climate is changing – there is nothing you can do to stop it, get over it and start worrying about things that really matter, like making sure everybody in the world gets enough to eat.
       • sweetd 4.2.1.1

         7 September 2009 at 1:08 pm

         Andrei, I think everyone agrees the climate is changing; it has and always will. The fact we are not in an ice age at the moment is easy enough to understand, even though there have been ice ages in the past. I think what people are disagreeing with, ie the ‘climate change deniers’, is how much of this change is man made as opposed to natural.
         • Jeremy 4.2.1.1.1

           7 September 2009 at 5:58 pm

           scary as it is: a lot of climate change deniers are actually saying that the world is getting colder. Usually they use as “proof” the fact that 1999 was slightly colder than 1998 and pretend the cooling has continued since then.
         • burt 4.2.1.1.2

           7 September 2009 at 6:39 pm

           Jeremy

           You missed the briefing; If the world is getting colder it is because of the actions of the believers. The only certainty is that the climate will not stay the same. If it is getting colder then the believers in warming will be the new deniers…

           But on that subject – do you have any idea why the latest stats on warming only include climate data up till 2005 ? Air Con (love it or hate it) includes data thru till early 2009 – why can’t the warming believers do that as well ?
           • Armchair Critic 4.2.1.1.2.1

             7 September 2009 at 7:48 pm

             The data in the article are up to date, follow the link. I assume you read it, because you commented on it, and it is only a few days old.
             http://www.thestandard.org.nz/are-you-smarter-than-a-10th-year/
           • burt 4.2.1.1.2.2

             7 September 2009 at 8:38 pm

             Armchair Critic

             This article might be recent speculation, but what about the data being used by the IPCC and the forthcoming convention in Copenhagen or the mini summit earlier this year ?
           • Armchair Critic 4.2.1.1.2.3

             7 September 2009 at 9:34 pm

             Follow the link in the post.
             Data tend to need a bit of processing and checking after they are collected. Three years to do this seems excessive, though.
     • lukas 4.2.2

       7 September 2009 at 3:45 pm

       r0b-“14 Meters seems crazy, but it isn’t”

       and to back that up you use quotes saying that worse case scenarios are 6-7 meters?
       • Pascal's bookie 4.2.2.1

         7 September 2009 at 4:05 pm

         What’s 7 plus 7 burt?
       • burt 4.2.2.2

         7 September 2009 at 4:09 pm

         PB

         As far as I know it is 14, but given the IPCC models can’t reproduce what has actually happened with the climate over the last 40 years it could easily be 100…
         • Pascal's bookie 4.2.2.2.1

           7 September 2009 at 4:20 pm

           Not sure what the IPCC models have got to do with you not being able to read.

           Glad you agree that 7 plus 7 is 14 though. How many 7 meter rises did r0b’s quotes point to?
         • burt 4.2.2.2.2

           7 September 2009 at 4:25 pm

           PB

           You might want to check who was questioning rOb before you carry on too far. I humored you with one reply – two is pushing it.

           Hint: Try asking lukas
           • Pascal's bookie 4.2.2.2.2.1

             7 September 2009 at 4:29 pm

             Ah, quite right. Sorry burt. [/sheepish]
         • burt 4.2.2.2.3

           7 September 2009 at 4:27 pm

           Bloody funny really PB considering you did the ‘glad you agree’ thing.
           • Pascal's bookie 4.2.2.2.3.1

             7 September 2009 at 4:35 pm

             Yeah, but the real own foot shot was the “you not being able to read.”

             Anyway, I’m going to put this unpleasantness behind us and move on.
5. Edosan 5

   7 September 2009 at 11:51 am

   Never mind Auckland, Greymouth is completely submerged. And half the Grey valley. Disaster!
   • Pascal's bookie 5.1

     7 September 2009 at 12:16 pm

     Check out chch though, it’s an ill wind…
     • NickS 5.1.1

       7 September 2009 at 2:34 pm

       Most of the city’s gone, and the peninsula is only connected by a small isthmus if I remember from stuffing around with this in the past.
   • Draco T Bastard 5.2

     7 September 2009 at 2:40 pm

     http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=-42.4428,171.1733&z=4&m=2&t=3

     Just two meters sees the end of Greymouth and a 2m rise is very possible by the end of the century.
6. tsmithfield 6

   7 September 2009 at 12:25 pm

   r0b: “14 Meters seems crazy, but it isn’t. When the big ice sheets go that is the outcome according to some predictions.”

   As I mentioned on the earlier thread, but more relevant to this thread, the ice caps won’t melt.

   This is because they are mainly in large basins and are unable to collapse anywhere. The mechanisms of glacial flow make this impossible.

   Here is a very good article that explains it:

   http://icecap.us/images/uploads/OllierPaine-NoIceSheetCollapse-AIGNewsAug.2009.pdf
   • r0b 6.1

     7 September 2009 at 12:42 pm

     That article makes a good case ts. I don’t have time to dig into the issue myself right now, but I’ll keep an eye out for it in the debate. I would have expected the IPCC to have taken account of those factors in making their predictions, so I doubt that the case is as simple as that article paints it.
   • NickS 6.2

     7 September 2009 at 2:39 pm

     Except of course, the paper is merely a news piece, that isn’t peer reviewed, and googling turns up the lead author’s direct links to a known Australian climate denial group;
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavoisier_Group

     And the use of “alarmists” is akin to the use of “Darwinists” to label evolutionary biology researchers by publications of creationist and intelligent design groups.
     • NickS 6.2.1

       7 September 2009 at 2:53 pm

       Also;
       http://www.springerlink.com/content/6800156543x9126j/

       West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse the fall and rise of a paradigm

       David G. Vaughan

       British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0ET, UK

       Received: 16 November 2005 Accepted: 8 May 2008 Published online: 20 August 2008

       Abstract
       It is now almost 30 years since John Mercer (1978) first presented the idea that climate change could eventually cause a rapid deglaciation, or “collapse,’ of a large part of the West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS), raising world sea levels by 5 m and causing untold economic and social impacts. This idea, apparently simple and scientifically plausible, created a vision of the future, sufficiently alarming that it became a paradigm for a generation of researchers and provided an icon for the green movement. Through the 1990s, however, a lack of observational evidence for ongoing retreat in WAIS and improved understanding of the complex dynamics of ice streams meant that estimates of likelihood of collapse seemed to be diminishing. In the last few years, however, satellite studies over the relatively inaccessible Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica have shown clear evidence of ice sheet retreat showing all the features that might have been predicted for emergent collapse. These studies are re-invigorating the paradigm, albeit in a modified form, and debate about the future stability of WAIS. Since much of WAIS appears to be unchanging, it may, no longer be reasonable to suggest there is an imminent threat of a 5-m rise in sea level resulting from complete collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet, but there is strong evidence that the Amundsen Sea embayment is changing rapidly. This area alone, contains the potential to raise sea level by around ~1.5 m, but more importantly it seems likely that it could, alter rapidly enough, to make a significant addition to the rate of sea-level rise over coming two centuries. Furthermore, a plausible connection between contemporary climate change and the fate of the ice sheet appears to be developing. The return of the paradigm presents a dilemma for policy-makers, and establishes a renewed set of priorities for the glaciological community. In particular, we must establish whether the hypothesized instability in WAIS is real, or simply an oversimplification resulting from inadequate understanding of the feedbacks that allow ice sheets to achieve equilibrium: and whether there is any likelihood that contemporary climate change could initiate collapse.

       Might have to hunt through O&P’s reference’s further, but this google scholar search throws up a few papers of interest;
       http://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?hl=en&scoring=r&q=%22ice+sheet%22+collapse+climate&as_ylo=1900

       Also, it’s worth mention that total collapse of either the Greenland or West Antarctica Ice Sheets is a worst case scenario, while partial collapse is very much a reality. And from previous glances at the literature, we’re already seeing giga-tonne losses of ice from both ice sheets. Although there are major uncertainties to with mass balances, as increased temperature leads to increased precipitation + uncertainties to do with the rate of change and mechanisms of ice loss within both sheets.
     • NickS 6.2.2

       7 September 2009 at 2:57 pm

       …d’oh, Gareth’s already gotten into C&P’s paper;
       http://www.thestandard.org.nz/climate-change-in-action/#comment-157869
7. vidiot 7

   7 September 2009 at 12:45 pm

   This weeks big project @ home for me is to remove the remaining eco bulbs I put in the lounge & dining area last year @ a reasonable expense with good old fashioned bulbs.

   The life span of these so called eco-bulbs is a joke, 18 months on and bulbs are failing in light fittings that would @ most get 5 hours use a week. 400 hours != 3000 hours.

   It’s a con.

   Cost of 1 x R80 Eco bulb – 24w @ $8.99
   Cost of 1 x R80 100W Bulb @ $2.59

   Energy used for 400 hours use:
   24w x 400 hrs = 9600w / 9.6Kw @ 0.20 per Kw/hr = $1.92
   100w x 400 hrs =40000w / 40Kw @ 0.20 per Kw/hr = $8.00

   $8.99 + $1.92 = $10.91 vs $10.59 ($2.59 + $8.00)

   Not to mention the light quality, disposal implications, etc etc etc
   • Draco T Bastard 7.1

     7 September 2009 at 2:44 pm

     You must have something wrong in the electrics because the eco bulb above my head has been there at least three years and is on 10+ hours per day.
   • Clarke 7.2

     7 September 2009 at 2:59 pm

     Holy shit, you’re right! And you’re right to go back to those old incandescent lightbulbs, because mitigating the sea-level rise simply isn’t worth the 32 cent premium!
   • burt 7.3

     7 September 2009 at 3:02 pm

     Having changed all the bulbs that I can in my house (all excluding the ones with dimmers) some years ago I’m actually pretty impressed with how long they last.

     However until we (NZ that is) stop selling tons and tons of coal to China I don’t see much point in pretending we are making a difference.

     Sure it’s the right thing to do and every bit counts – but we are chipping away at the 2% while the 98% goes mad beyond our control.
   • felix 7.4

     7 September 2009 at 4:33 pm

     That’s your big weekend project? Fuck, don’t overdo it mate – at least try to get some rest in between bulbs if you can.
8. uroskin 8

   7 September 2009 at 12:49 pm

   So if you don’t rebuild the bridges and motorways there will be a new North Island and no South Auckland crims will be able to drive up to rob Melissa Lee’s desirable suburbs.
9. Rakaia George 9

   7 September 2009 at 1:57 pm

   I get a sea-front section, and the Mother-in-law is underwater…and the downside is?
   • Draco T Bastard 9.1

     7 September 2009 at 2:45 pm

     Unless you import the sand your seaside home will be mostly mud?
10. burt 10

    7 September 2009 at 2:58 pm

    Hands up who thought the waterfront stadium was a good idea because it was Labour’s idea?
    • burt 10.1

      7 September 2009 at 4:11 pm

      No takers on that one then ?
    • felix 10.2

      7 September 2009 at 4:36 pm

      It was a stupid idea for many reasons burt.

      I don’t care who’s idea it was, I don’t need any more fuckwits in that part of town thank you.
    • burt 10.3

      7 September 2009 at 4:46 pm

      And it’s about what you do and don’t need in the area because ??????
      • felix 10.3.1

        7 September 2009 at 5:05 pm

        It’s about what I want as much as it’s about what anyone else wants, burt – even you.

        Citizens of a democracy and all that. Public spaces and such.
11. burt 11

    7 September 2009 at 2:58 pm

    Oh, might be time to read Ben Alton’s ‘Stark’ again.
    • r0b 11.1

      7 September 2009 at 4:08 pm

      Ben Elton. Go Zim!
12. burt 12

    7 September 2009 at 3:09 pm

    I watched ‘Inconvenient Truth’ again over the weekend. First question….

    How will the polar regions stay warmed by the sun and become hot spots when there is no sun there for half the year? Al Gore standing there showing the poles being heated by the sun completely ignored that – wonder why that was?

    captcha: ignores
    • NickS 12.1

      7 September 2009 at 3:17 pm

      Well, you see there’s these two different means of moving heat across the planet’s surface, air currents and sea currents, which helps to prevent the poles becoming seriously cold without direct solar inputs.
    • burt 12.2

      7 September 2009 at 3:21 pm

      NickS

      Yes I know that, but muppet Gore showed how it worked. See Ice reflects the sun and water absorbs it. So Muppet gore is telling us that without ice the water will be heated by the sun and become a hot spot. Watch it again and you will see just how little he appears to understand it and how frail his sell job is.
      • NickS 12.2.1

        7 September 2009 at 10:24 pm

        The Stupid, It Burns

        You do release that what Gore is discussing is an utterly simple feed-back mechanism that if you can’t grasp it, is a possible indicator of such apparent humongous burning stupid that it boggles the mind?

        So putting this really f*cking simply so you might understand it, when the sun is a shining;

        1) Ice has a higher reflectivity of sun-light than open water, which means it doesn’t heat up as much as the same area of water would at the same intensity of sunlight.

        2) Which means that loss of sea ice, which has been thoroughly observed, means that the Arctic sea ends up absorbing more heat, which in turn leads to more sea ice melting.

        3) This means also that there’s more heat that has to be removed from the Arctic Ocean system for ice to form, which leads to reduced winter sea thickness and extent over time. Leading to increases in the average local temperature over time.

        4) Which gives us a simple positive feed-back loop in which increasing air and ocean temperatures leads to a greater rate of increase in Arctic temperatures, and decreases in sea ice thickness and extent.

        It’s not rocket science, let alone the wondrous complexity of biology.

        Heck, simply putting into google; “sea ice loss” feedback turns up plenty of readings from scientific sources on this feedback loop, how it works, and why we’re seeing a greater loss of sea ice due to the feedback that expected under the climate change models.

        Which makes your claim about Gore lying about this a result of your own seeming inability to grasp this simple matter. Or more simply, you’re utterly wrong.
13. scotty 13

    7 September 2009 at 3:12 pm

    vidiot,you forgot to factor in your labour costs,for your big project,will that be one or two bulbs a day.
14. burt 14

    7 September 2009 at 3:37 pm

    scotty

    vidiot didn’t say anything about unions being involved so I suspect he can install as many as he likes in a single day. Hell he can probably stand on a chair without a person holding, a person watching and a person reporting on progress as well.
    • vidiot 14.1

      7 September 2009 at 3:54 pm

      burt – I shall be wearing my high-vis jacket, have a registered 1st aider on stand by, have the wife at ready with a cup of tea, have the kids manning the signs, all whilst being perched upon a wobbly 3 legged stool.

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs-dangerous

      http://www.nbc12.com/Global/story.asp?S=11029488

      Mmmmm Mercury is good ! Even the Greens love it:
      http://www.greenfacts.org/en/mercury/mercury-1.htm#5

      Do we really want those risks all around the house ? nope.
    • burt 14.2

      7 September 2009 at 4:03 pm

      vidiot

      Say what you like about the bulbs, just don’t question which politicians have a vested interest in people buying them. 😉

      I put them in to cut the power bill, sick of state owned generators acting like corrupt corporates gouging profits because they have a virtual monopoly on supply. Oh, but of course taking advantage of a monopoly is good when it’s the state…. cough couch – swallow the brain-dead Green supporter pill and don’t question the motives of taxing you to “save the environment”.
15. RedLogix 15

    7 September 2009 at 10:33 pm

    I put them in to cut the power bill, sick of state owned generators acting like corrupt corporates gouging profits because they have a virtual monopoly on supply.

    So how to explain that when the entire industry was an actual state run, single entity called ECNZ, prices were never lower?
16. burt 16

    7 September 2009 at 10:44 pm

    A lot of things were different then RedLogix. Govt in general had little or no profit incentive at that time. Wages were low and life was simple.

    It would be interesting to see how household power consumption (actual price of production per unit in real inflation adjusted terms) actually compared to today as well. I’m not saying you are wrong – just it is hard to compare an industry that was propped up from the consolidated fund vs one that makes profits from govt.
17. RedLogix 17

    7 September 2009 at 10:57 pm

    just it is hard to compare an industry that was propped up from the consolidated fund vs one that makes profits from govt.

    Or given the multi-billion dollar size of the divedend paid to govt, one that makes profits for the govt.

    Once upon a time the industry was designed, built and operated by engineers… for the public good. It was only when the neo-liberal mantras like ‘competitive markets’, ‘corporatisation’, and ‘shareholder return on investment’ overcame good sense, did electricity prices begin their inexorable rise.
    • burt 17.1

      7 September 2009 at 11:08 pm

      No argument it was designed and run by engineers. I actually shared an office with a marketing company who was involved in the transition. (Some years ago now)

      The “designed and run by engineers” was one of the levers in the marketing campaign. I recall at the time thinking that shit like electricity supply should be designed and run by engineers and we (the marketing chaps and I) had some interesting conversations about it over office drinks around that time.

      However, it wasn’t delivering a dividend (as you point out) and govt wanted to stop it from being a money pit like Railways, NZ-Post etc had all been.

      The restructuring that occured did not mandate that it should deliver a massive dividend to govt, successive govt’s found it to be a great cash cow – this is the issue I have, not the model that could be run at much closer to cost if the govt so desired.

      EDIT: In the quote you use the “makes profit from” should have been “makes profit for”. Oops – typo.
      • Draco T Bastard 17.1.1

        8 September 2009 at 9:54 pm

        However, it wasn’t delivering a dividend (as you point out) and govt wanted to stop it from being a money pit like Railways, NZ-Post etc had all been.

        Some of those were money pits (NZ Post, Post Bank) – some could be considered investments with a non-monetary return (Railways, ENCZ) and at least one (Telecom) made profits which were then put back into maintain, expanding and improving the network. All they really needed was a managerial overhaul and they all would have been fine. Trying to bring competition into the scene was, and is, a waste of resources that costs the nation far more.
18. Rachel 18

    8 September 2009 at 9:06 pm

    i think the projection of what it will do to christchurch & the surrounding canterbury coastline is more concerning….
    • Draco T Bastard 18.1

      8 September 2009 at 9:59 pm

      The coast land of the South Island is basically screwed. Even by the end of this century there’s a high probability that large amounts of it will be under water. In another few centuries? Well, it just ain’t gonna be there.

      I’m one of the people who, although I think we should do something, also thinks we’re too late.
19. Cal 19

    13 September 2009 at 1:40 pm

    Of all the houses I’ve ever lived in, both North and South, how fitting that the one that survives is the one in Mighty Wakefield

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS