It’s just too expensive to act on climate change

Written By: - Date published: 1:30 pm, June 15th, 2015 - 187 comments
Categories: climate change, global warming - Tags: , ,

Hope folk are staying away from the Wellington coastline today:

Huge waves smash Wellington rubberneckers amid fears for coastal roads’ survival

… More than 3m swells are forecast to continue to hit the Lyall Bay after large waves washed debris and boulders onto Moa Point Rd yesterday. … The capital’s mayor, Celia Wade-Brown, told Fairfax Media this morning that Wellington’s south coast roads were under increasing threat of large swells because of global warming.

She said while the roads were not at risk of rapid erosion in the next five to 10 years, it could occur if a plan was not implemented to protect the coast.

Meanwhile internationally:

Our rivers are drying up

The Asia-Pacific Greens Federation met in New Zealand for the first time at the weekend, bringing together politicians from 16 countries to discuss the impacts of climate change. Board member Suresh Nautiyal, from India, told the conference in Wellington he came from one of the most fragile parts of the world, the Himalayas, and climate change was having a profound impact. “Our rivers are drying up, our glaciers are melting, and the indigenous mountain people have virtually stopped growing the harvest,” he said.

Read on for accounts from other countries.

National argue that it’s just too expensive to take action on our greenhouse gas emissions. Except that it isn’t:

187 comments on “It’s just too expensive to act on climate change ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. weka 1
    15 June 2015 at 2:00 pm

    And down south, the Mayor of one of NZ’s major cities says that they may have to relocate 10,000 people due to climate change. Dunedin’s been fighting a losing battle against the ocean waves and tide for a while in South Dunedin, but now they’re acknowledging the whole thing: high water table, low lying land, severe weather events that outstrip drainage infrastructure, rising sea levels etc. This will be a bit wake up call for many, and will raise multiple issues around relocation, planning and legislation, insurance, people’s loss of owned homes and how they can afford to move etc. Hopefully this will put the urgent need to address emissions right in people’s faces too.

    A watershed moment for NZ (if you will excuse the pun).

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/345701/city-face-end-game-lowlands

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1
      15 June 2015 at 2:06 pm

      No doubt democracy will have to be suspended while the market works out the best solution.

    • dukeofurl 1.2
      15 June 2015 at 2:39 pm

      Dunedin had a 1 in 100yr rainfall ( 24 hr period), of course its going to overwhelm the drainage which is normally designed for 1 in 20 year rainfall.

      “The area might be one of New Zealand’s oldest suburbs, but it can’t escape its past as a ”reclaimed swamp”, Mr Cull said”

      Says it all really. Swamp – Rain -Flood. This is a lot of places in NZ over winter. Large parts of South Auckland- Takanini- Papakura are former swamps too. They too have a water table just inches below ground level in Winter.

      My topo map gives some streets around Tainui Dunedin at about 2m above SL. The Dutch would give anything be be 2m ABOVE SL.

      • weka 1.2.1
        15 June 2015 at 3:11 pm

        🙄

      • Colonial Rawshark 1.2.2
        15 June 2015 at 5:34 pm

        Dunedin had a 1 in 100yr rainfall ( 24 hr period), of course its going to overwhelm the drainage which is normally designed for 1 in 20 year rainfall

        So genius, when is the next 1 in 200yr rainfall due?

        And why do you believe the words of people who have not even lived for a hundred years – how would they know what a “1 in 100yr rainfall” even was?

        • dukeofurl 1.2.2.1
          15 June 2015 at 7:50 pm

          Sorry if I get too sciency, as thats obvious proof according to you that Im a witch.

          The rainfall records are clear its a 1 in 100 year event. When was Dunedin founded, surely you know it was 1848. Even without 100 years of records its possible to create a reasonable rainfall probability chart. Its called maths!

          But wait its even more sciencey than that, as its not really only ‘once’ every 100 years, its instead that probability in any one year is 1% is that the rainfall will be exceeded that amount. So you could have 1 in 100 years storms 5 years apart.
          Doesnt change anything.

          • Pat 1.2.2.1.1
            15 June 2015 at 11:10 pm

            hope those analysing those statistics wernt schooled by the same statisticians in ChCh who labelled the flooding there a year or so ago a “1 in !00 year rainfall” event when the the rain gauge figures showed that to be patently false….still, there are lies,damned lies and spokespeople.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.2.1.2
            16 June 2015 at 6:02 am

            Well if you’re going to bring odds into the equation…

            This from NASA:

            Practical effects of increasingly loaded climate dice occur mainly via amplified extremes of Earth’s water cycle.

            Hansen, Sato & Ruedi 2012.

    • Rosie 1.3
      15 June 2015 at 3:02 pm

      Thats a very sobering article weka. When the local govt is seriously talking about plans to upsticks and all that that will involve it’s a sure sign of our future having arrived.

      • weka 1.3.1
        15 June 2015 at 3:32 pm

        I think we are here too.

        I was impressed by the ODT writing such a long article and laying out the issues.

  2. weka 2
    15 June 2015 at 2:05 pm

    “She said while the roads were not at risk of rapid erosion in the next five to 10 years, it could occur if a plan was not implemented to protect the coast.”

    And Dunedin,

    Excelsa raises an interesting point, how Dunedin will “communicate with the rest of New Zealand when it becomes a coastal Island. Dunedin’s only road and rail access is along a coastal corridor at Blueskin Bay and the Taieri Plains which are only a few metres above current sea level”

    Aren’t we lucky we had this flood before the Compass meal delivery service started!

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/345701/city-face-end-game-lowlands#comment-72752

  3. Poission 3
    15 June 2015 at 2:13 pm

    More than 3m swells are forecast to continue to hit the Lyall Bay after large waves washed debris and boulders onto Moa Point Rd yesterday. 
 The capital’s mayor, Celia Wade-Brown, told Fairfax Media this morning that Wellington’s south coast roads were under increasing threat of large swells because of global warming.

    The event (ie the large swells) have an inverse sign to global warming expectations.

    Southern polar synoptic events are expected to decrease.The event (a polar breakout) of large low pressure systems increased sea level heights to the east with a concomitant flow onto the east coast .

    This tends to occur with a negative excursion of the SAM.

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao.sprd2.gif

    http://pamola.um.maine.edu/fcst_frames/GFS-025deg/DailySummary/GFS-025deg_NH-SAT5_PMSL.png

    • maui 3.1
      15 June 2015 at 2:33 pm

      In layman’s terms?

      • dukeofurl 3.1.1
        15 June 2015 at 2:56 pm

        Wade- Brown is making it up. Large swells from polar low pressure systems are expected to decrease.
        Ms Wade- Brown is confused with the slow sea level rise from AGW.

        Plus with Wellington likely to rise because of tectonic movement ( created the shelfs along coast where roads were built) maybe they will balance out.

        • Colonial Rawshark 3.1.1.1
          15 June 2015 at 5:35 pm

          ah yes, the hope and pray approach to AGW

          • dukeofurl 3.1.1.1.1
            15 June 2015 at 5:59 pm

            For people on the exposed southern coast, their position has always been precarious, so they really dont have much choice.

            Better to make improvements in other places and continue to lower greenhouse gases.

            • Colonial Rawshark 3.1.1.1.1.1
              15 June 2015 at 6:01 pm

              Ah yes, we saw this attitude after the Christchurch earthquakes too: for those Kiwis in the too hard basket, let’s just abandon them and look the other way. What else have you learnt from Tony Blair.

              • dukeofurl …
                15 June 2015 at 7:40 pm

                We can see the SNP has learnt from Tony Blair as they are following his policies, and of course breaking their promises like him too

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  15 June 2015 at 7:50 pm

                  The SNP following Tony Blair’s policies? You’re dreaming mate. Tony Blair would be 100% for Trident and 100% for austerity. Is it tough in Scotland at the moment. You betcha. But that’s what Tory rule and austerity does.

                  • dukeofurl …
                    15 June 2015 at 7:52 pm

                    It is tough in Scotland as unemployment is rising while still falling in the rest of UK.

      • Poission 3.1.2
        15 June 2015 at 3:01 pm

        In layman’s terms?

        AGW =less southerlies.

  4. Clean_power 4
    15 June 2015 at 2:24 pm

    A very easy way out, but, what natural phenomena cannot be attributed to climate change? Which one?

    These days too much rain orsnow or wind or drought happen because of climate change. What is left: earthquakes?

    • weka 4.1
      15 June 2015 at 2:35 pm

      Do you think that earthquakes are weather?

    • dukeofurl 4.2
      15 June 2015 at 2:42 pm

      Too late , the extremists have said it

      ” Professor Bill McGuire of University College London introduced his new book Waking the Giant: How a changing climate triggers earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes on the Guardian’s science weekly podcast a few weeks ago, he started with a warning: “It does sound a bit mad, but it isn’t…”

      • Rosie 4.2.1
        15 June 2015 at 2:53 pm

        And from the RNZ link in Anthony’s post:

        “We’ve had droughts, increased typhon severity and frequency, and the island is very active with lots of dormant volcanoes. The effect of climate change is of course to make the ocean heavier, so that’s causing more earthquakes,” Mr Winkler said.

        -Taiwanese Green Party spokesperson.

        There you go.

        • dukeofurl 4.2.1.1
          15 June 2015 at 2:58 pm

          Thats a new one , making the ocean heavier. Thats a good laugh.

          Cold water is of course denser.

          • dv 4.2.1.1.1
            15 June 2015 at 2:59 pm

            Why?

            • dukeofurl 4.2.1.1.1.1
              15 June 2015 at 3:20 pm

              You do know that cold water is denser ? That the spokesperson for the Taiwan green party is a complete idiot ?

              But back to your question, ever noticed smoke rises up the chimney

              • weka …
                15 June 2015 at 3:31 pm

                At least they believe in the seriousness of AGW and that we should be doing something about it.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                15 June 2015 at 3:34 pm

                Everything I’ve seen so far indicates that you’re the idiot.

              • dv …
                15 June 2015 at 3:39 pm

                ‘Cold water is of course denser.

                SO thus the water is heavier.
                AND more water in the ocean – more weight.

                More weight could trigger fault line movement couldn’t it?

                • dukeofurl …
                  15 June 2015 at 4:21 pm

                  Not in the way you are saying . the temperature expands or contracts the waters volume. The weight or mass essentially stays the same.

                  There is a tiny sealevel rise from warming oceans as the seawater expands.

                  The extra water which will increase the total depth of water is too low compared to the average depth of oceans .

                  if this were so , we would see earthquakes triggered by high or low tides ( which are say 1 -3m in a very short time).

                  of course there is no theory that has weight of water affecting earthquakes anyway.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    15 June 2015 at 4:32 pm

                    Hmm, not quite – cf: the Three Gorges Dam and other examples such as Oroville.

                    It would be drawing a long bow to compare them to gradual increase in ocean mass, though.

                    • dukeofurl …
                      15 June 2015 at 5:04 pm

                      That is not the new mass of water, its the same process as fracking.

                      The water is forced into the rock through crevasses and acts as a lubricant.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      15 June 2015 at 5:14 pm

                      Reservoir-induced seismicity. Look it up.

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                15 June 2015 at 6:33 pm

                You do know that cold water is denser ? That the spokesperson for the Taiwan green party is a complete idiot ?

                As big an idiot as the head of the ruling party in Australia? It’s really hard to understand what your point is or why you think it is relevant.

          • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.1.2
            15 June 2015 at 3:29 pm

            A few years ago some postulated that Greenland losing it’s ice sheet would actually lower the ocean around Britain. The reason why was because of the decreased gravitational effect of the ice upon the water and the decreased weight upon the land would allow it to rise up compared to where it is now.

            Now, if you think that something the size of Greenland rising up a few metres isn’t going to cause earthquakes then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

            Seal levels rising due to melting ice is going to shift billions, if not trillions, of tonnes of mass around the earth and something is going to give – and it won’t be the water.

            • TheContrarian 4.2.1.1.2.1
              15 June 2015 at 3:53 pm

              I wonder about the science of that…namely…

              “because of the decreased gravitational effect of the ice upon the water”
              I’m not quite sure what this is supposed to mean but what is the gravitational force of the ice? We’d need to know the mass before speculating on what it’s gravitational effect is

              “the decreased weight upon the land would allow it to rise up compared to where it is now”
              Depends on plate tectonics, is Greenland being pushed up?

              “Now, if you think that something the size of Greenland rising up a few metres isn’t going to cause earthquakes then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.”
              It should already being subject to earthquakes – if it is on a plate boundary it would experience earthquakes with or without ice

              “Seal levels rising due to melting ice is going to shift billions, if not trillions, of tonnes of mass around the earth and something is going to give”
              Would an increase in the mass of the oceans cause increases in earthquakes? If so why?

              Curious about the science of this and if you have further reading I could look at please post em

              • Draco T Bastard …
                15 June 2015 at 4:19 pm

                I’m not quite sure what this is supposed to mean but what is the gravitational force of the ice? We’d need to know the mass before speculating on what it’s gravitational effect is

                Knock yourself out.

                Depends on plate tectonics, is Greenland being pushed up?

                According to the article I read at the time, which I can’t find now, yes. But not necessarily for the reason you think. There’s also some argument on whether Greenland is it’s own plate or just an extension of the North American plate but it does experience earthquakes.

                Would an increase in the mass of the oceans cause increases in earthquakes? If so why?

                Because of plate tectonics and shifting mass around a fluid centre. Has everyone forgotten that the Earth’s Crust is floating on a liquid? Sure, it’s liquid rock and it’s fairly dense and viscous but its still a bloody liquid.

                Curious about the science of this and if you have further reading I could look at please post em

                IIRC, it was something some scientist type had postulated and done some quick sums. He, himself, was surprised by the results but I don’t know if the research has been taken any further but it does, IMO, make some logical sense.

                • TheContrarian …
                  15 June 2015 at 4:29 pm

                  “Because of plate tectonics and shifting mass around a fluid centre.”

                  Well yeah, that’s why I asked. Why would the mass of the oceans effect plate tectonics?

                  As to the rest I guess it’ll have to go in the folder labelled “speculative” for now.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    15 June 2015 at 4:45 pm

                    It’s a little more than mere speculation, apparently.

                    These temporal patterns suggest a link to the hydrological cycle and are indicative of a dynamic glacial response to changing climate conditions.

                    • dukeofurl …
                      15 June 2015 at 5:10 pm

                      Icequakes are not earthquakes, as the ice is of course constantly moving.
                      The meltwater passes through the ice cracks and can lubricate movement as well as tunnelling through the ice.

                      Glaciers are a complete different story to plate tectonics and geologic faults

                      Glaciers have a well established connection to climate change , its all because they are just water in a different form.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    15 June 2015 at 4:57 pm

                    Oh, definitely in the speculative basket but I can’t see why you’re missing the “shifting mass around a fluid centre.” Press one end of a floating plate down and a number of things are going to happen:

                    1. That end will go down
                    2. The other end will lift up
                    3. The liquid under it is going to move shifting the other floating plates around it

                    And remember that it’s not plates in a bath but connected floating plates around sphere. Some shift is bound to happen. How much is the question.

                    • dukeofurl …
                      15 June 2015 at 6:06 pm

                      See below, Scotland is rising while England is sinking due to geostatic rebound.

                      Doesnt seem to be more earthquakes in England than in Scotland.

                      Earthquakes are very difficult to match to theory. T
                      The fracking connection came about from recording of a big jump in quakes in some areas having extensive fracking

            • dukeofurl 4.2.1.1.2.2
              15 June 2015 at 4:08 pm

              Gravitation rebound is still occuring in Northern Europe from last ice age. Same as in Canada/US where there were ice sheets a few km thick.

              Its a whole different scale to day as the sea level fell 120m, all though sea level rise when it melted was at most 1m average per century, a figure we are unlikely to reach.

              Scotland had large glaciation so had rebound up to 10cm per century, while southern England , not covered by ice, has been adjusting downwards 5cm per century.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                15 June 2015 at 4:28 pm

                Gravitation rebound is still occuring in Northern Europe from last ice age.

                And you don’t think losing some 3 million cubic kilometres would accelerate that somewhat?

                • dukeofurl …
                  15 June 2015 at 5:17 pm

                  Well 3 mill km3 is the total volume of Greenland ice. They havent lost all that yet.

                  Recent research has shown a period when temps were 8C warmer than present didnt have much impact on this ice cap. But that may need more followup.

                  • Colonial Rawshark …
                    15 June 2015 at 5:36 pm

                    Recent research has shown a period when temps were 8C warmer than present didnt have much impact on this ice cap. But that may need more followup.

                    Remind me what the human population was, when temps were 8C warmer than now.

                    • dukeofurl …
                      15 June 2015 at 7:55 pm

                      The point was the icecap didnt melt completely even in this warmer period.
                      Since we are warming the planet we can work to stop that or even reverse it.

          • Rosie 4.2.1.1.3
            15 June 2015 at 3:48 pm

            Hey well it’s news to me dukeofurl but it’s something I’d like to learn the basics of, given I’m not a climate scientist.

            • dukeofurl 4.2.1.1.3.1
              15 June 2015 at 4:27 pm

              It would help if you dont listen to a lot of the Greens, they arent even science based in many other things.
              The interesting thing about climate science is they dont take much notice of the weather either, its the longer trends. More droughts but not really this drought.
              And definitely not this ‘storm du jour’

              • Draco T Bastard …
                15 June 2015 at 5:09 pm

                It would help if you dont listen to a lot of the Greens, they arent even science based in many other things.

                And now you’re just outright fucken lying. The Green parties around the world are the most scientifically based political parties ever.

                • weka …
                  15 June 2015 at 5:20 pm

                  +1. Useful for duke to destroy any credibility he has though.

                  The faux reasonable undermining of concern about CC is tiresome.

                • dukeofurl …
                  15 June 2015 at 5:21 pm

                  Not in Taiwan.

                  Hows your science based MP Steffan Browning ?

                  • Colonial Rawshark …
                    15 June 2015 at 5:38 pm

                    LOL “science based”

                    What we need is a new ethos and a new philosophy for the coming age; and let’s get real here, there are no “science based” political parties because politics is about values and philosophy.

                  • weka …
                    15 June 2015 at 5:40 pm

                    Easy slurs duke, but just more troling. Look at NZ GP policy and tell me which bits aren’t science based?

                    • dukeofurl …
                      15 June 2015 at 8:00 pm

                      Ceclia Wade Brown has got back on the science bus, as in the TV report she says ‘only’ that the sea storm surge is what it will be like in the future.
                      No sign of her earlier report that todays storm surge was because of climate change is here now.

                  • maui …
                    15 June 2015 at 5:46 pm

                    Any sign of science based National Party policies yet?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                15 June 2015 at 5:09 pm

                No, in fact, clearly you are ignorant of Peter Trenberth’s response to questions about climate’s effect upon weather.

                Shall I Google it for you?

                • dukeofurl …
                  15 June 2015 at 5:28 pm

                  Climate is just weather over a long term. I understand he just said the climate is changing.

                  You are confusing weather with climate, a common mistake.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    15 June 2015 at 5:35 pm

                    No, I’m not, I’m trying to educate you about the reality that Climate affects all weather.

                    For extreme events, the question isn’t, ‘Is it global warming or natural variability? It is always both. The question is just how much each is contributing.

                    Kevin Trenberth.

                    How you think there is going to be some weather that isn’t affected by climate change is beyond me.

                    • weka …
                      15 June 2015 at 6:11 pm

                      “How you think there is going to be some weather that isn’t affected by climate change is beyond me.”

                      This.

                    • dukeofurl …
                      15 June 2015 at 8:07 pm

                      Not quite all weather . When are we going to have more hurricanes in the US?

                      My question about the weather was the future will show more effects from climate change, but since so far only a small amount of AGW has occurred up to 2010 or so its hard to pin down the naturally occurring events.
                      But its clear future weather is more affected

                    • dukeofurl …
                      15 June 2015 at 8:29 pm

                      Heres the technical basis for my opinion that not ALL weather is affected so far by AGW

                      “Globally, there is low confidence in attribution of changes in tropical cyclone activity to human influence. This is due to insufficient observational evidence, lack of physical understanding of the links between anthropogenic drivers of climate and tropical cyclone activity,”

                      http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf . page 73

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      15 June 2015 at 8:32 pm

                      what’s your policy point, dukeofurl – to sit back and wait for more evidence to accumulate first?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.2
        15 June 2015 at 3:44 pm

        Post glacial rebound.

        Accepted as fact since 1890, until you came along.

    • McFlock 4.3
      15 June 2015 at 2:52 pm

      Fracking causes earthquakes.

      • Bill 4.3.1
        15 June 2015 at 3:14 pm

        Heat causes expansion. Expansion (if energy is absorbed deep enough) could change the interface between different plates. That could increase earthquake frequency.

        I’m not saying that’s the case – just applying basic physics to really big scale stuff.

        Besides fracking, building really big fuck-off dams increases the incidence of tremors too.

        • dukeofurl 4.3.1.1
          15 June 2015 at 3:31 pm

          “Heat causes expansion. Expansion (if energy is absorbed deep enough) could change the interface between different plates. That could increase earthquake frequency.”

          Geothermal gradient is the rate of increasing temperature with respect to increasing depth in the Earth’s interior. Away from tectonic plate boundaries, it is about 25 °C per km of depth.

          There is no evidence that the small temperature change of oceans could effect tectonic movement, which occurs from 5 to 250km. As well the heat flow from the earth is outwards

          I think some are plucking at straws.

          • Bill 4.3.1.1.1
            15 June 2015 at 4:06 pm

            I’ll match your “I think some are plucking at straws” with the stated “I’m not saying that’s the case – ” and then raise you a “Read the fucking comment you’re offering an opinion on”

            • dukeofurl 4.3.1.1.1.1
              15 June 2015 at 4:37 pm

              Well I’m writing to the Nobel committee after this to ask they immediately give recognition to your discovery of the reversal of the heat flow of the earths crust.

              Its quite breathtaking, that you have done all this without any empirical research, but no doubt the pure theory of it will dazzle all when you reveal it at your symposium.

              Who could have thought the ‘energy is absorbed deep enough’ it triggers earthquakes too. But if heatflow is reversed ‘anything can happen’-
              I plagiarized that, though from Dancing with the Stars

              But one little thing, give us a hint of the delta you are referring to ?

              • weka …
                15 June 2015 at 5:26 pm

                All your sciency comments just look like anti-AGW troling now (esp after the weird comment about the GP not being science based). It’s hard to take anything you say seriously after that.

                • dukeofurl …
                  15 June 2015 at 5:37 pm

                  Whos anti AGW ? Not me.
                  People who say the oceans are heavier because the water is warming are just boofheads, and in this case a Green party member as well.

                  Why dont YOU call them out as being anti science, is it too hard when you are supposedly science friendly yourself .

                  My ‘opinion’ is that it makes it harder for AGW policies to be put in place when mostly green extremists are muddying the message.

                  You are an extreme green, so be it, but save the slut shaming of those who arent so pure as yourself

                  • Colonial Rawshark …
                    15 June 2015 at 5:39 pm

                    why don’t you tell us what Tony Blair has to say about AGW.

                  • weka …
                    15 June 2015 at 6:07 pm

                    Of course you are an AGW denialist. We know that many of the denialists have moved on from denying existence to denying what needs to be done. Everything I’ve seen you write on this lately has been attempts to undermine people’s genuine concerns about CC and how it is affecting things now and in our near futures. I’ve yet to see you write anything useful in terms of the ‘what do we do now?’ debate.

                    That you tell lies about the only party in NZ that is taking CC seriously tells me everything I need to know about your beliefs. You don’t have to like the GP politically, but what you are saying about them is demonstrably false. You’re part of the problem.

                    It probably doesn’t matter because we’re at a tipping point in terms of where the general public are at, but look how you’ve tied up this conversation today. All that wasted energy, instead of us debating what needs to be done. It’s exactly the same dynamic as the out and out denialists of the past.

                    • dukeofurl …
                      15 June 2015 at 7:31 pm

                      Thats amazing , you read your tarot cards and its come curtains for me. Youre an expert at rooting out deniers where ever they are.

                      Must be because I sound all ‘sciency’ and that makes it wrong

                      I dont give the denier views a seconds thought simply because they are wrong. It seems you have studied it , good luck with that.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      15 June 2015 at 7:38 pm

                      Mate you don’t sound “sciency” in the least. You do sound like you have an agenda though.

                • Rosie …
                  15 June 2015 at 5:48 pm

                  “All your sciency comments just look like anti-AGW troling now”

                  I reckon.

                  Not to mention the quotes without a source or link, eg, 8.1 below

                  • weka …
                    15 June 2015 at 6:08 pm

                    I noticed that too. Strange to cut and paste but not link.

                    • dukeofurl …
                      15 June 2015 at 8:10 pm

                      Was that some radical science views was it ?

                      Or a statement of the obvious.
                      Im glad you found proof cant let me get a swifty past you.

            • infused 4.3.1.1.1.2
              15 June 2015 at 4:54 pm

              best reply so far.

      • marty mars 4.3.2
        15 June 2015 at 5:00 pm

        “Fracking causes earthquakes.”

        Exactly and who’d have thunk that one.

        Anyone got any studies on how they cause earthquakes?

        • McFlock 4.3.2.1
          15 June 2015 at 5:23 pm

          Most stuff seems to be related to the whats more than the whys or hows. But this article links to a couple of reports.

          Seems that if you apply lots of pressure and add lube along a fault, you can cause fault slippage. oo-er

  5. Sable 5
    15 June 2015 at 2:32 pm

    Greed in the face of extinction. Utter morons…..

  6. Skinny 6
    15 June 2015 at 2:41 pm

    Many critics sight the reluctance of the big polluting Nations to buy in as a reason to sit on their hands. Key is already making noise around ‘the poor farmers are taking a hiding without more hoops.’

  7. esoteric pineapples 7
    15 June 2015 at 3:07 pm

    In the not too distant future, properties too close to the water line won’t be able to get insurance. This will be well before they are finally swallowed up by the sea. Once they can’t get insurance they will be virtually valueless as you need insurance to get a mortgage, and who with cash to buy them would use it on a property with no future value. Before this happens, LIM reports will have a warning on such properties which will deflate their value. Kapiti Coast residents have been fighting having this fact on their LIMs but it will only be a matter of time before councils decide the liability risk of not having them in LIMs outweighs any legal threat from residents.

    • weka 7.1
      15 June 2015 at 3:20 pm

      I’m guessing it’s already happening (from the ODT link).

      The latest flooding was also likely to have created fresh insurance headaches in parts of South Dunedin, with coverage likely to become more difficult and premiums expected to ”go through the roof”.

  8. Rosie 8
    15 June 2015 at 3:44 pm

    Those massive sea swells yesterday were bizarre. The sea was calm and the air still. We were driving between Petone and Eastbourne and were just lucky enough to miss waves coming up on to the road. We then went back into the city for a walk around the waterfront. Have never seen the tide so high in the harbour, even the steps/seating at Kumototo were submerged.
    A very strange sight, maybe there’s more of that to come.

    • dukeofurl 8.1
      15 June 2015 at 3:58 pm

      Sea level is locally affected by air pressure, winds , tides.

      ” A difference from the average of 1 hPa can cause a difference in height of 1 centimetre. A low barometer will allow the sea level to rise and a high barometer will tend to depress it”. At most it could be 30cm.

      A wind blowing into the harbour like Wellington will push seal level up along shore, same applies to lakes.

      All these put together plus a a expected high tide of 1.8m, near the max and you get the result.
      The Tides in Auckland are over 3m while around equator they are only a few cm

      • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.1
        15 June 2015 at 4:09 pm

        You forgot melting land-based ice sheets and glaciers. They affect sea level too.

      • Rosie 8.1.2
        15 June 2015 at 4:26 pm

        Metservice says the expected high tide for today is 1.8 metres at 3.40, which I agree is near it’s maximum:

        http://www.metservice.com/marine-surf/tides/wellington

        but do you know what yesterdays high tide was? I don’t.

        There wasn’t a breath of wind yesterday so that wasn’t pushing the sea level up.

        Having grown up on the Kapiti Coast ( see E.P’s post above) across from the sea, I’ve witnessed some mad high tides but nothing like yesterdays on such a calm day.

        As for Auckland, haven’t they had problem in recent years with part of the north western motorway being flooded by unusually high tides? Seem to recall something about that.

        • dukeofurl 8.1.2.1
          15 June 2015 at 5:00 pm

          Are you saying its magic or its natural processes.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.2.1.1
            15 June 2015 at 5:08 pm

            You forgot to mention the documented anthropogenic factors.

          • Colonial Rawshark 8.1.2.1.2
            15 June 2015 at 5:42 pm

            Are you saying its magic or its natural processes.

            Try and listen instead of being a know it all. Rosie is trying to communicate to you that the combination of things she perceived seemed subjectively very unusual.

            • Rosie 8.1.2.1.2.1
              15 June 2015 at 5:53 pm

              Exactly. Thank you CR.

              And as for you dukeofurl, theres no need to be a smart arse.

              You’re simply coming across as someone whose trying to explain away increasingly odd weather as natural and compleeeeetly unrelated to climate change, when that discussion was over years ago.

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                15 June 2015 at 5:57 pm

                we’re going to see more intellectual rationalising away of what we see happening around us, even as things get worse and worse over the next 10-20 years.

                Ask the old farmers and rural folk who have been around the countryside for at least forty or fifty years – if these no-nonsense folk say something is definitely screwy, that’s as good as gospel.

                Forget the clever young city slickers, too many of those people don’t know shit.

              • dukeofurl …
                15 June 2015 at 7:37 pm

                Whos the clever one now ?

                “Partially or wholly due to poor roading engineering possibly?

                Why didnt you tell us you were a roading expert and could peer review these things.

                • Rosie …
                  15 June 2015 at 9:13 pm

                  Whose the twat now?

                  Just like I’m not a climate scientist I’m also not a roading engineer (or Inghinair as Nick Smith says) but have spent my life surrounded by engineer types who say engineery things.

                  No it doesn’t qualify me to comment on what issues the NW motorway in Akld is facing but equally you don’t seem to be able to hold up your climate change denying argument. Furthermore, the more you talk about it the more defensive you seem to get.

                  I’m outta here.

                  • dukeofurl …
                    15 June 2015 at 10:34 pm

                    Why say its poor engineering with your value judgement.

                    Its been 60 years or so. Settlement will occur that long a period , theres a formula that will predict that. The deeper the mud the more settlement will happen as the decades stretch out.

                    The Osaka airport, even with best engineering predictions will have 17m to 24m by end of century. Even their best estimates at design stage are bit low so far.
                    I could write pages on this, but its not really poor engineering

        • Draco T Bastard 8.1.2.2
          15 June 2015 at 5:19 pm

          As for Auckland, haven’t they had problem in recent years with part of the north western motorway being flooded by unusually high tides?

          I remember that happening when I was a child 40 years ago. The big problem with that part of the North Western is that it’s on a cause way that’s sinking and so it’s getting worse. It’s now to the point that they’ve decided that they need to do something about it – urgently.

          • dukeofurl 8.1.2.2.1
            15 June 2015 at 5:51 pm

            The purely tidal effects are fairly normal. Tides can be increased by up to 30 cm by low pressure, wind in a certain direction can push the surface layer, increasing the water level inside an enclosed harbour like Auckland. Tides of course vary with King Tides occurring when Earth and Moon line up.

            Thames in the other direction is prone to sea flooding when the wind is in the other direction.

            Sea level rise so far has been quite small in Auckland area. The significant effect is natural causes and possibly more storms, but I havent seen the longer term climate records.

          • Rosie 8.1.2.2.2
            15 June 2015 at 5:56 pm

            “The big problem with that part of the North Western is that it’s on a cause way that’s sinking and so it’s getting worse”

            Partially or wholly due to poor roading engineering possibly?

            • Draco T Bastard 8.1.2.2.2.1
              15 June 2015 at 7:12 pm

              It’s an artificial causeway so wholly due to poor engineering and the fact that it just wasn’t a good place to put a causeway.

              Here’s some pics of its beginnings.

              It’s the Rosebank Road side that’s sinking. The other side is fine (I think).

              • Rosie …
                15 June 2015 at 9:01 pm

                Fascinating to see the evolution of that segment of the NW motorway. (I remember driving that road from my time living in Akld).

                Surely that stretch must have massive remedial works to be undertaken as our environment changes. Wonder who carries the cost for that…

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  15 June 2015 at 9:16 pm

                  Need to go to rail and trains; putting money in roads now is a waste

    • Clean_power 8.2
      15 June 2015 at 4:19 pm

      Climate change is now the cause of earthquakes and volcanoes (formally geological phenomena). Wellington’s Celia Wade-Brown’s big waves were directly caused by climate change too.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 8.2.1
        15 June 2015 at 5:06 pm

        🙄

        Look everyone, here’s a Petty George clone.

      • Colonial Rawshark 8.2.2
        15 June 2015 at 5:44 pm

        It is important to observe the likes of clean power and dukeofurl.

        Even as AGW effects clearly worsen over the next 10 years people like them will deny harder than ever that there is any real problem that society needs to sort out ASAP.

        The age of denial continues.

        • dukeofurl 8.2.2.1
          15 June 2015 at 10:59 pm

          We have a problem and we need to makes changes.

          You are the one who couldn’t pass a high school climate change course, yet thinks he knows better than the considered opinions of the scientists at IPCC.

          There is too much hot air allready

    • vto 8.3
      15 June 2015 at 7:53 pm

      Rosie, there was nothing bizarre about the high water and waves in Wellington yesterday and today…..

      it is quite simply the result of an intense giant low deep down south which pushed a very powerful long period swell up the coast. It also had a bit of west in it, just enough to fire on into the harbour, combined with some tidal highs, that is all.

      These swells come and go occasionally. Just now, from the south and the west, NZ is getting a hammering of swells larger than usual. It started about two months ago and I suspect you will see more of the same over the next few more weeks. It is a strong el nino event right now.

      Happens every few years. Was an even bigger one about ten years ago which threw seals and rocks and debris all up and over the road and rail at Kaikoura. People thought it bizarre then too as there was no wind – just big powerful swell generated in far off seas.

      Sea is colder than usual now too in our parts. Intense storms for the winter – make sure the sumps are clear ….

      • Rosie 8.3.1
        15 June 2015 at 9:25 pm

        Well thank you vto for your rational approach, unlike our friend dukeofurl who seems to be getting increasingly hysterical.

        I had forgotten we were having another el nino, but I don’t know for sure what affect it has on the tides.

        I have to repeat, that was some freaky swell. I’d never seen the likes of it and it’s not like I’m a youg un with nothing to compare it to, or haven’t been around surfies going on about epic swells, or being carried half way out to Kapiti island on giant waves as a kiddie.

        Sorry to hear about the seals.

        • vto 8.3.1.1
          15 June 2015 at 9:33 pm

          Those occasional giant swells are pretty cool. And if you live Petone Eastbourne area then next time shoot out to the south coast via Wainui, especially if a norwester is blowing too. Spectacular scenes. Deep Cook Strait waters immediately offshore suck it all in and explode it on the shore…. so fine for the soul…

  9. Tracey 9
    15 June 2015 at 4:19 pm

    In the meantime we are investing $125m in an Asian Bank. Seems there ARE times Key doesn’t mind us being trailblazers… and surprise surprise it involves a bank

    “New Zealand has agreed to become a founding member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the Government has announced.

    “Increased infrastructure investment will enhance the Asian region’s growth and that will be good for New Zealand,” Finance Minister Bill English said.

    “New Zealand was the first western developed nation to join negotiations to set up the Bank and our membership will enhance our already strong economic, trade and investment links with the Asian region.”

    New Zealand’s paid in capital will be around NZ$125 million, paid over five years, the statement said.

    The Bank of China led initiative has promoted itself as a means of making up the infrastructure gap between Asia and other parts of the world, however it has led to a diplomatic struggle.

    The United States has reportedly lobbied countries not to join, raising concerns about its governance.

    Privately diplomats have claimed that the bank could be used to expand China’s influence.

    Foreign Minister Murray McCully said Asia was “important to New Zealand’s future” meaning it made sense to invest in the region.

    “Asia is driving global growth and it is full of opportunities for New Zealand. This new Bank will be a welcome addition to existing institutions and it stands to make a significant contribution to infrastructure in the region.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/69407785/nz-agrees-to-join-divisive-asian-infrastructure-investment-bank

    more about who has joined
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Infrastructure_Investment_Bank

    • Tracey 9.1
      15 June 2015 at 4:40 pm

      “The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) has the mandate to foster economic growth in Asia by investing in infrastructure and other productive areas and promoting regional cooperation and partnership. As a new multilateral development bank (MDB) in the 21st century, AIIB’s approach will be “lean, clean and green”, with a focus on efficiency, sustainability and transparency. The Bank will also work closely with the existing MDBs — complementing, supplementing and enhancing their development efforts.
      “

      • Kiwiri 9.1.1
        15 June 2015 at 4:51 pm

        Which former National MPs, if any, have been involved in the AIIB or related bodies?

      • Draco T Bastard 9.1.2
        15 June 2015 at 5:26 pm

        And still not actually needed. Each country has enough resources to develop itself without outside help and, most especially, without outside money.

      • Colonial Rawshark 9.1.3
        15 June 2015 at 5:45 pm

        The AIIB is a Chinese initiative designed to reduce dependence on US sponsored, western oriented multilateral organisations like the IMF and the World Bank.

  10. Robert Atack 10
    15 June 2015 at 4:36 pm

    ‘We’ face a minim of a 6 meter sea level rise in the foreseeable future, that is the fact when the environment has 400 ppm CO2 in it, well it was last time the planet hit 400 ppm, back in 250 million BC, —– going on past examples, not fuckwit ‘opinions’.
    The rules of nature haven’t changed in the past 250,002,015 years have they? water is still wet, fire still burns, sea levels go UP with higher CO2 levels.
    Or maybe you all are happy listening to the utter bullshit from the wankers? like Cur P Gluckman etal.
    Now some dummy is going to say, we are at 400ppm now, so were is the sea level rise?
    Luckily for us there is still ICE, last time the planet got to 400ppm it did so SLOOOOWLY ie over something like 10,000 years, we have done it in less than 135 years. So BACK THEN there was no ice by the time the planet hit 400ppm
    Last time, over that 10,000 year period there was also about 833 methane lifetimes, ie the methane was ‘born’ lived in the atmosphere for approximately 12 years, then converted to CO2 —- 833 times or there abouts ??? THIS time ‘we’ have done it in maybe 11 methane life times.
    We face the continued rapid melting of the ice, until the planet reaches the enviable ice free status that is 400ppm.
    The ‘rub’ is that there is mega tons of carbon and CH4 stored under the melting ice, be it the tundra, Antarctica or the deep sea clathrates. Don’t take my word for us being utterly fucked, listen to maybe James Hanson “Once the clathrate gun goes off earth will be on a non stop journey to Venus” .. or some such 😉
    FFS what part of this do idiots not understand?
    It will only take something like 5% of what is ‘stored’ under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) to DOUBLE the CO2 levels in the environment.
    Currently where the methane ‘volcanoes’ were erupting last summer it is up to 16C, good luck stopping the tundra melting at those temperatures.
    Arctic Methane Emergency: Methane released by the Gigaton! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F9ed5E54s4
    Arctic methane skyrocketing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2ckkxEnWpA
    Is the Methane monster about to roar? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz_XfjvMpmA
    Arctic Emergency: Scientists Speak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3XpF1MvC8s
    Natalia Shakhova, PhD. Marine Geology “2 million square Kilometers of 20k deep sediment loaded with CH4” The is the ESAS
    50 GT of CH4 ‘any day’? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx1Jxk6kjbQ
    Permafrost Methane Time Bomb NBC News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w4UQfJHD-A
    Mystery of the Siberian crater deepens: Now two NEW large holes appear in Siberia -Yamal Peninsula – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm5vn6iE1SI – YAMAL means THE EARTH’S END
    Sea wall? yeah right 😉

  11. infused 11
    15 June 2015 at 4:49 pm

    NZ’s impact on clime change won’t affect anything that’ you’ve said.

    • Colonial Rawshark 11.1
      15 June 2015 at 5:48 pm

      It is still right to take the moral stance, to acknowledge and act on the unfolding reality so if nothing else we can look our children and our grandchildren in the eye and say that we did our very best to redeem ourselves.

      • Robert Atack 11.1.1
        15 June 2015 at 6:00 pm

        CR
        One good thing, if your children aren’t at the age of breeding, you will never have to look their children in the eyes ) … they will not exist.

    • maui 11.2
      15 June 2015 at 5:53 pm

      We’re one of the highest emitters in the world (per person) and we’re one of the rich countries that has caused the problem. So what we do will have a big impact around the world I would have to say.

      • Robert Atack 11.2.1
        15 June 2015 at 6:07 pm

        If every Kiwi left the planet tonight, it would make zero impact on Climate Change, in fact if every human left the planet tonight, the planet would still go Venus.
        Not forgetting the 440 Nuke power plants that need up to 60? years to dismantle and make safe, and for most of that time they will need a constant power supply to keep the cooling systems working, no cooling = Fukushima.

        • maui 11.2.1.1
          15 June 2015 at 6:23 pm

          Since we don’t have an accurate timeline on if or even when the earth will “go venus” I’m still willing to put my faith in humans. That humans are in control of their fate and humans will decide what our future world looks like.

          • Colonial Rawshark 11.2.1.1.1
            15 June 2015 at 6:30 pm

            They may be healthy conceits, but that is all they are, unfortunately. Even a cursory review of the rise and fall of empires/civilisations over the last 2500 years will tell you that none of those things are true.

            • dukeofurl 11.2.1.1.1.1
              16 June 2015 at 2:49 pm

              Its fairly clear too, climate change played a role in some of those.

          • Robert Atack 11.2.1.1.2
            15 June 2015 at 7:13 pm

            “decide what our future world looks like.”
            We have kind of done that Maui,
            It will look devoid of humans )
            The scale of the problem is massive, humans don’t do anything on the scale of what would be needed to reverse what is in motion, the area needed to drag the gigatons of carbon out of the atmosphere would have to be bigger than the tar sands foot print, bigger than all the concrete we have used in the past 100 years, and bigger than all the coal we have mined and burned.
            There are a billion combustion engines currently turning 3 cubic kilometers of oil into CO2 each year, and have been for what the last 30? Well maybe 30 years ago there were only 500 million?
            These are the numbers from 2005 ish?
            Automobiles, globally: 722 million
            Automobiles, USA: 132 million
            Trucks (all types, in USA): 1.5 million
            Buses: (all types, in USA): more than 654,000
            Locomotives: (USA) 26,000
            World aircraft fleet: 11,000 aircraft more than 100 passengers. All 11,000 designed for oil-based fuel.
            World shipping: 85,000 ships in the world.
            Decked fishing boats in the world: 1.2 million
            I can’t remember the #s but coal is worse.?
            We can’t even imagine about how we could reverse the affect this has had on the planet.

        • johnm 11.2.1.2
          15 June 2015 at 7:01 pm

          Yeh it’s like we’ve provoked the gentle monster relentlessly and the coward’s done nothing, but now aroused he will finish arrogant human scum off. No! they’ll scream it can’t happen to us! We’re the children of Father God! aren’t we! We’re special we’re not like those animals we slaughter in the billions are we? Are we?!

          • Draco T Bastard 11.2.1.2.1
            15 June 2015 at 7:24 pm

            It’s almost like we’re out to prove the answer to the Fermi Paradox.

            • TheContrarian 11.2.1.2.1.1
              15 June 2015 at 8:43 pm

              That Fermi Paradox article is awesome. One of the best explanations I have seen yet. Shared around many times in the last few months

        • Bill 11.2.1.3
          15 June 2015 at 7:04 pm

          Not sure that’s quite right. Fukushima could have been ‘shut down’ fairly fast. Sure, loads of radioactive decay in rods to deal with, and a hot, though ‘shut down’ reactor core, but no need for constant cooling.

          I’m partly basing that on the fact that most (all?) of Japans reactors were shut down (‘hot’ fuel rods removed from the core?) after Fukushima and communities railed against them being brought back on line.

          • Robert Atack 11.2.1.3.1
            15 June 2015 at 7:21 pm

            All the fuel rods need to be kept cool, that is what they are doing @ Fukushima, they have lost 3 of the cores, and are mainly focused on the old fuel rods., which are stored in 4 above ground tanks and one massive below ground one.
            They need electricity to keep the pumps running.
            They maybe off line, but they still have to keep them cool, that is my point.

            • Colonial Rawshark 11.2.1.3.1.1
              15 June 2015 at 7:31 pm

              Yep basically; at Fukushima like at many other reactor sites around the world, they found it cheaper to store used fuel rods in the temporary storage pools which were onsite, rather than have them properly casked up and shipped to permanent storage facilities (which more often than not don’t actually exist). They ended up storing more used fuel rods in those cooling pools than they were ever originally designed for.

              Net result, Fukushima’s temporary used fuel storage pools were stacked up to the max with old fuel rods still giving off a massive amount of heat and therefore requiring active cooling. When the water pumps turned off, the coolant pools simply boiled away and the fuel rods melted down/exploded.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                16 June 2015 at 7:59 am

                the coolant pools simply boiled away and the fuel rods melted down/exploded.

                I have not seen anything to suggest this happened: certainly three reactor cores melted down, and spent fuel storage pools were severely compromised.

      • tangled_up 11.2.2
        15 June 2015 at 6:16 pm

        I agree. It is true that our emissions don’t count for much and what is needed is China and the US to come to the party. Though the movement is about momentum and global pressure also so it is important we play our part.

        • Bill 11.2.2.1
          15 June 2015 at 7:12 pm

          The science says that zero by 50 is essential to have any chance of avoiding really, really bad shit. NZ can claim that only 20% of NZ emissions are from energy. It doesn’t matter though. That 20% must become 0% by mid century. There ain’t no getting off the hook in a world that requires zero fossil related emissions.

          Might want to posit that against the political call for 50% below 1990 levels by 2050…

          • Draco T Bastard 11.2.2.1.1
            15 June 2015 at 7:31 pm

            +1

          • Colonial Rawshark 11.2.2.1.2
            15 June 2015 at 7:34 pm

            I rather suspect that 2050 will be far too late to avoid 4-5 deg C warming.

            • dukeofurl 11.2.2.1.2.1
              15 June 2015 at 8:27 pm

              Does the IPCC agree with you on that in AR5 , that will have 4-5 C increase in 35 years time ?

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                15 June 2015 at 8:31 pm

                Not now, but they will in a couple of years time.

                • dukeofurl …
                  15 June 2015 at 8:43 pm

                  Those tarot cards must be awesome, in that they allow you to predict the future.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    15 June 2015 at 8:59 pm

                    No tarot cards, just the knowledge that the IPCC has been far too conservative in their estimations and that seems to be due to political interference from climate change deniers in the US administration over the years.

                    • dukeofurl …
                      15 June 2015 at 9:28 pm

                      There is some suggestion that the SPM is watered down by politicians when they get together for a talk fest.

                      But the main review of the science. Its quite breathtaking if you say they are wrong because it doesnt suit you.
                      in the IPCC report:
                      Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments
                      and Irreversibility

                      They have a range of of RCP values which is connected to forcings

                      The highest is RCP 8.5 which gives 3.7C +- 0.7 by the end of the century.
                      (plus 0.11 for temperatures measured around 1990)
                      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways

                      http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf pg 1054

                      These are the best minds and experts in this area but it doesnt surprise me that somehow people with a poor level of science knowledge, as shown in todays discussions, havent the faintest idea and are just making it up.

                      Volcanoes and earthquakes and heavy water, we are dealing with a ship of fools

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      15 June 2015 at 9:33 pm

                      what’s your point dukeofurl? So you’re a champion of the IPCC reports. Good on you. What are you actually suggesting that we do as a society? Anything? More talking?

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      15 June 2015 at 10:33 pm

                      @dukeofurl

                      Its quite breathtaking if you say they are wrong because it doesnt suit you.

                      I didn’t say that did I? I said that it seems to have been too conservative in its estimations due to political interference and lo and behold:
                      IPCC reports ‘diluted’ under ‘political pressure’ to protect fossil fuel interests

                      Increasing evidence is emerging that the policy summaries on climate impacts and mitigation by the UN Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were significantly ‘diluted’ under political pressure from some of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters, including Saudi Arabia, China, Brazil and the United States.

                      Several experts familiar with the IPCC government approval process for the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ (SPM) reports – documents summarising the thousands of pages of technical and scientific reports for government officials – have spoken out about their distortion due to political interests.

                      And that’s not the first article I’ve read showing evidence that governments have been putting pressure on the IPCC to water down their conclusions.

                      And even if you don’t accept the possibility of political interference in the IPCC we can have a look at what’s actually happened:

                      In many similar cases, the evidence suggests that changes in climate are occurring faster, and with more intensity, than the IPCC have predicted.

                      You seem to be the one grasping at straws.

                    • dukeofurl …
                      15 June 2015 at 11:16 pm

                      I said the SPM is written by politicians , mostly not scientists, thats why I stuck to the core science which is still written by scientists.

                      But no , you have some guy on a blog. Plus something called WS12.
                      It seems they are talking about past temperatures only, and they give a weighting of 5% more in their analysis. Not exactly earth shattering stuff. We see how it goes in next AR WG1 when it comes out.

                      Is there better justification about future temperature increases ?

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      16 June 2015 at 8:22 am

                      The SPM is still written by the scientists but they’re put under pressure to paint things as being better than they are by the politicians.

                      There’s also the fact that evidence has, so far, shown that the IPCC projections are below what’s actually happening in the real world as I linked to. Hopefully the next AR will correct that but scientists do have a tendency to be conservative in their estimations.

                    • dukeofurl …
                      16 June 2015 at 2:48 pm

                      Yes you are right , the SPM for WG1 is written by scientists.

                      I was thinking of the WG I – AR5 Government Review of Final Draft SPM.

                      Its truly byzantine. I dont think its worth even bothering with as we both agree its not ‘improved by the politicians’

              • Bill …
                15 June 2015 at 8:52 pm

                World Bank, Price Waterhouse Cooper, International Energy Agency…and any other report that doesn’t imbed carbon capture and storage or use non – empirical emission rates etc.

                All say 4 by 50 or thereabouts.

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  15 June 2015 at 9:19 pm

                  if dukeofurl is under 35, he’s very likely to live to see the full extent of the disruption we face come 2050-2060.

                  • dukeofurl …
                    15 June 2015 at 9:33 pm

                    Ill trust the experts on this one.

                    Im sure the ship of fools has plenty of room for you.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      16 June 2015 at 6:06 pm

                      You’ll trust the “experts”! LOL You might as well trust the officers on the Titanic.

                      Explain to me, mate, the cause for your certainty and faith. For starters, how many cases of real life global AGW have your vaunted “experts” actually seen, recorded, lived through and analysed? And I don’t mean simulated on a computer screen, I mean actual.

                      But I already know the answer to that. It rhymes with “hero.”

                      That’s why I carefully limit my trust in the “experts” and keep my brain engaged and ready for dissensus.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  15 June 2015 at 10:46 pm

                  The World Bank cites the Postdam Institute for Climate Impact Research as predicting 2° by 2050 and 4° by 2100.

                  PwC say 4-6° by 2100.

                  • dukeofurl …
                    15 June 2015 at 11:24 pm

                    PwC is just using IPCC which is good.

                    Thanks for that, its good to have science based numbers back.

                    • Bill …
                      16 June 2015 at 4:45 pm

                      …its good to have science based numbers back

                      You’re aware that the IPCC bases its numbers on the unscientific assumption that carbon capture and storage will actually work, be developed and then rolled out on a massive scale in a very short time scale?

                      That one assumption bumps their predictions on temperature rises downwards but still doesn’t avoid rises in excess of 2 degrees C while their big Dr Seuss machines get up to speed on sucking carbon out of the air.

                      All very scientific.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      16 June 2015 at 6:13 pm

                      Hi dukeofurl, does the IPCC numbers really consider carbon capture and storage as a given in its scenarios?

                      Is that really a “scientific” assumption to make?

          • maui 11.2.2.1.3
            15 June 2015 at 8:32 pm

            Surely by the time 2030 rolls around we would have increased our targets though, we wouldn’t be that stupid to just continue in the same vein as we are now…

    • Tracey 11.3
      16 June 2015 at 8:41 am

      our less than 1% contribution to the new Asian Bank won’t make much of a difference either but your pals in Government still did it.

  12. Robert Atack 12
    15 June 2015 at 7:56 pm

    Sorry me again
    Bill and Tu
    Reducing emissions now to ‘save humanity’ is pointless, like I’ve tried to explain above.
    The environment is @ 400 ppm for the next 1,000 years at the least.
    Once the true affects of 400 ppm are in place, trees will stop growing, the oceans will be toxic emitters of GHGs. I would guess the amount of carbon and methane that is going to come out of the fast thawing tundra, the earth might not see sub 400 for millions of years.
    The planet has NEVER been @ 400 ppm with another god knows??? 6 – 20 times more carbon about to come out of the worlds methane stores?
    Its a bit like an ant and an elephant.
    Watch the links I posted above, surly some free information is worth watching, or as like most humans (and politicians X 10 ) you have a built in ‘flight’ mechanism, that keeps you away, or unable to absorb facts that run contra to your ‘beliefs’ ?
    800 methane life times in the next 10? EXCEPT IT WILL NOT DIE
    ho hum

    • Bill 12.1
      15 June 2015 at 8:35 pm

      Robert, I know it’s a punt, but since there are poorly understood dynamics in such a complex system or set of systems, it’s just possible that…

      yeah. a punt.

    • dukeofurl 12.2
      15 June 2015 at 8:55 pm

      When did trees stop being able to grow by CO2 above 400 ppm ?

      Is that with less rainfall the forests thin and replaced by grassland, or is that global rainforest will expand with more rain ?

      • Robert Atack 12.2.1
        15 June 2015 at 9:19 pm

        Part One: Large Igneous Provinces and their global effects
        Introduction http://www.skepticalscience.com/pollution-part-1.html
        http://www.skepticalscience.com/pollution-part-2.html
        Well first they went extinct, which kind of stunts any species growth 😉
        Somewhere in the above article he mentions the coal cycle being interrupted for 10 million years, I’m guessing that is because there were no trees, this is based on rocks 250 million years old.?

        • dukeofurl 12.2.1.1
          15 June 2015 at 9:51 pm

          Complete rubbish.

          Concentrations to produce suffocation for people / animals( as mentioned in your link) are 7-10%, that is 70,000-100,000 ppm

          meanwhile plants can 50% faster growth in steady state conditions, with concentrations of 1000ppm.

          Then there is SO2, human emissions peaked at 130 mill tons and are declining, Siberian traps were possibly over 6300 billion tons of SO2. thats right it was 50 million times more than human emissions

          As I thought its all complete rubbish.

          Has nothing absolutely nothing to do with steady CO2 increases that we are facing.

          If you guys were sitting level 6 Science at high school it would be FAIL.

          http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum/Learning-areas/Science/Achievement-objectives

          • Robert Atack 12.2.1.1.1
            15 June 2015 at 11:15 pm

            Fine, so what was the CO2 reading at the end of the Permian?
            The time some say 96% of life went extinct?
            Or as this says ?
            With more than 90% of all marine species and 75% of land species wiped out, the end Permian mass extinction was the worst biosphere crisis in the last 600 million years. The extinction was global in reach: almost all animals and plants in almost all environmental settings were affected. An idea of the severity can be visualized by considering that the time afterwards was marked by the beginning of a coal gap lasting for ten million years: coal-forming ecosystems – i.e. forests – simply did not exist for that time.
            400 ppm is just the beginning, the planet could see 500ppm? 1,000 + ?
            The Amazon forest (not the book shop) has emitted more CO2 than the US in one year, 2005 – 10 ish??) not sure how it is going at the moment?

            I’ve been reading for a while how we have pushed the environment further and faster, by up to 10,000 times ??? But to air on the side of caution, and ‘believability’ lets say we have done it 100 times as fast? we are still facing a massive amount of methane and carbon, from the Siberian traps……… coincidentally !!
            Alaska is +10C above monthly average at the moment? ‘The traps’ have been up to something like 25C currently 12 – 20 C
            How much longer can the ice cork hold?
            But why would you listen to me? The links above are maybe more qualified?
            Though some slip into happy chapter mode.

            • dukeofurl 12.2.1.1.1.1
              15 June 2015 at 11:29 pm

              Interesting stuff, nothing wrong with going off tangent but we talking about AGW levels of CO2.
              800ppm is a whole different scenario than 70,000 ppm

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                16 June 2015 at 6:15 pm

                It amazes me that you continue to calmly talk as if our world is in charted territory. As Atack points out: we very clearly are not. Wake up.

      • Robert Atack 12.2.2
        16 June 2015 at 7:43 am

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12938/abstract
        Think Progress,
        14 June, 2015

        In contrast to a popular conservative argument, a new study has found that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide isn’t necessarily a boon to plant growth — instead, it causes plants to have a more difficult time absorbing nitrogen, a nutrient critical to plant growth and health.

        And another one for ya
        http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

        A major new study from NOAA finds more evidence that we may be witnessing the start of the long-awaited jump in global temperatures. As I reported in April, many recent studies have found that we are about to enter an era of even more rapid global warming.

        Indeed, one March study, “Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change,” warns the speed-up is imminent — with Arctic warming rising a stunning 1°F per decade by the 2020s.

        The new study in Science from a team of NOAA scientists, “finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century,” as NOAA explains.

        • dukeofurl 12.2.2.1
          16 June 2015 at 2:39 pm

          Thats fine but your claim rising CO2 will kill the trees is unsupported. Lets not go there then.

          Regarding the eCO2 atmosphere-
          “experiments in grassland, cropland and forest ecosystems and found that: (i) in all three ecosystem types, this relationship was positive, linear and strong”

          The “ecosystems they studied were N limited”. Its very new research and could show that without access to N some plant growth wont roar away.

          The full article is behind a wall, but would be interesting to read it entirely

  13. Molly 13
    15 June 2015 at 7:59 pm

    A consideration for the MetService perhaps:
    Cyclone Simon Bridges.

  14. ian 14
    15 June 2015 at 9:50 pm

    I was driving through breaker bay yesterday enjoying the breeze through the open window in the rental car and got a wave over me and the little corolla. 5 meter swells with the big ones 50 % bigger are pretty awesome. Has happened regularly over recorded history.

  15. Robert Atack 15
    16 June 2015 at 7:59 am

    Climate scientists raise alarm on melting of carbon-bearing permafrost
    http://www.interaksyon.com/article/112188/climate-scientists-raise-alarm-on-melting-of-carbon-bearing-permafrost

    There may be 1,500 billion tonnes of carbon locked away in permafrost — perennially frozen ground covering about a quarter of exposed land in the Northern Hemisphere,

    “While there is some uncertainty, we know that permafrost carbon losses will be substantial, they will be irreversible,”