Cont: Global warming discussion V

[Cosmic Yak]

I repeat, floods aren't new to NZ. None of these were down to climate change: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/keyword/floods

Pro tip - it rains a lot in NZ and we get frequent floods.

Not true.

In January 2023, Auckland and the upper North Island experienced relentless maritime heatwave conditions caused by the annual La Niña cycle and exacerbated by climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Auckland_Anniversary_Weekend_floods#Responses

A study has found that the rainfall from ex-tropical cyclone Gabrielle in New Zealand was about 30% heavier— most likely because of climate change.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/243...s found that,likely because of climate change.

Pathetic attempt at poisoning the well. Poor people don't choose to live in at-risk areas, rich people do.

Poor people are disproportionately affected by climate change, much more so than the rich. That you don't care about them says a lot about you.

Yeah, it's great. Nothing pleases me more than first-world people crying over a few dollars as whole countries are under threat.

But you've just criticised people for living in at risk areas. Some of the low-lying Pacific states are in danger of becoming unlivable. Sub-Saharan Africa is another region severely affected. These poor people have no choice but to live in the countries of their birth. These are the people, remember, that you don't give a rat's arse about, so spare us the crocodile tears about whole countries being under threat, because you obviously don't care.

 

[The Atheist]

Floodplains, in my understanding, are low-lying areas next to rivers, which are prone to flooding. I don't see the connection between that, and the Auckland Anniversary floods referenced earlier. These floods were caused by excesive rainfall over a wide area, not flooding from rivers bursting their banks. Again, this is my understanding, and I am ready, as always, to be corrected on this.

Too easy.

The reason the Auckwere formerly able to carry large amounts of water have been filled in and diverted to stormwater drains. As always, the people who built them chose the cheapest method, which was to ignore the threat of 100-year flooding, which remarkably, happens every century or so.

When it did, the drains couldn't cope and the water built up very, very quickly as the former flood plains returned to that state and flooded. It was 100% predictable and had long been predicted. This is entirely proven by the fact that in all of the areas flooded the lowest-lying houses had all been flooded in the past. Many on multiple occasions.

Also, it wasn't a wide area, it was very localised rain in several different parts of Auckland. We got 25 mm in 24 hours, some places got 250 mm less than 10 km away from here.

Are earthquakes and volcanoes exacerbated by climate change?

No, it's about risk, which relates to RR's worry about insurance.

You also appear to be unaware of NZ's policy of managed retreat. Areas most likely to flood are being abandoned, and those people relocated.

I'm extremely well aware of the plans and have a good laugh every time I go to Thames. (a town 100 km from Auckland, not the English one)

While southern coastal communities are retreating, Thames had the luxury of a climate-denying mayor and council, who allowed developers to build a whole load of new homes on the shore, which sits a whole metre above high tide level and which was under water in the 1981 floods and tidal surge.

Those people will get relocated all at once next time it happens, as it surely will. The Hauraki Gulf, which Thames sits at the bottom of, is a natural funnel for weather systems and sooner or later a degraded cyclone will come down it was wash the houses away.

Poor people are disproportionately affected by climate change, much more so than the rich. That you don't care about them says a lot about you.

No, I was being a smart-arse and probably missed the point.

Rich people choose to live in at-risk areas. In NZ, that means prime shore-front properties in Auckland and elsewhere.

Poor people don't choose to live in at-risk areas, they're forced to, but a change to that would require a change of political system throughout the world and that's not going to happen, so I smile and wave to save myself rending my clothes and gnashing my teeth.

 

[novaphile]

...

Are earthquakes and volcanoes exacerbated by climate change?

I have heard a theory, that the distribution of water is changing around the world, because ice is melting in many places, and this redistribution is liable to change stresses on the tectonic plates...

So, yes, earthquakes and volcanoes are exacerbated by climate change.

(See the 'Fire and Ice: Glaciers and Tectonic Processes' section in this article for example.)

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/clim...ect-earthquakes-or-are-the-connections-shaky/

(The whole article is an interesting read.)

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Too easy.

The reason the Auckwere formerly able to carry large amounts of water have been filled in and diverted to stormwater drains. As always, the people who built them chose the cheapest method, which was to ignore the threat of 100-year flooding, which remarkably, happens every century or so.

When it did, the drains couldn't cope and the water built up very, very quickly as the former flood plains returned to that state and flooded. It was 100% predictable and had long been predicted. This is entirely proven by the fact that in all of the areas flooded the lowest-lying houses had all been flooded in the past. Many on multiple occasions.

Well, I don't know enough about these specific areas to be able to comment. I'll leave that to your compatriots.

Also, it wasn't a wide area, it was very localised rain in several different parts of Auckland. We got 25 mm in 24 hours, some places got 250 mm less than 10 km away from here.

The images in the wiki link show heavy rainfall across the whole of North Island, and into South Island as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Auckland_Anniversary_Weekend_floods

No, it's about risk, which relates to RR's worry about insurance.



I'm extremely well aware of the plans and have a good laugh every time I go to Thames. (a town 100 km from Auckland, not the English one)

While southern coastal communities are retreating, Thames had the luxury of a climate-denying mayor and council, who allowed developers to build a whole load of new homes on the shore, which sits a whole metre above high tide level and which was under water in the 1981 floods and tidal surge.

Those people will get relocated all at once next time it happens, as it surely will. The Hauraki Gulf, which Thames sits at the bottom of, is a natural funnel for weather systems and sooner or later a degraded cyclone will come down it was wash the houses away.

This may be true, but doesn't this conflict with your earlier claim that the floods had nothing to do with climate change?

No, I was being a smart-arse and probably missed the point.

Rich people choose to live in at-risk areas. In NZ, that means prime shore-front properties in Auckland and elsewhere.

Poor people don't choose to live in at-risk areas, they're forced to, but a change to that would require a change of political system throughout the world and that's not going to happen, so I smile and wave to save myself rending my clothes and gnashing my teeth.

Fair enough.

 

[Stout]

Everything I've read about insurance premium increases has cited climate change as being the main driver. I recently renewed mine and when I informed the company I was a straight white cis-het male and according to the identity politics of climate change I was in the demographic least likely to be affected by climate change and requested a straight white cis-het male discount, they politely declined.

 

[newyorkguy]

South Florida is currently getting drenching rain storms, apparently of historic proportions.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis declared an emergency for Broward, Collier, Lee, Miami-Dade, and Sarasota counties, writing the heavy rain and floods has affected the “operational capability of critical infrastructure,” including major interstates, roadways, schools and airports....By early Wednesday night, Fort Lauderdale had received between 7 and 8.5 inches of rainfall since midnight, Fort Lauderdale officials said on X. It was expecting up to another 5 inches overnight, officials added. Yahoo News news link

Ft. Lauderdale has normally averaged about 60 inches of rain per year. This storm is expected to produce upwards of 12-13 inches in 30 hours.

 

[dann]

Another excellent video from Climate Town.
This one is about how oil companies control American politics:

0:00 Funding Disinformation Campaigns
1:54 Confession 1: Shadow Groups
3:58 Confession 2:Lying about the Carbon Tax
6:36 Confession 3: Sabotaging the Infrastructure Bill

7:11--> Their strategy is to go after the more vulnerable senators, both Democratic and Republican. A vulnerable senator is someone who's up for re-election and would maybe lose that race if Exxon decided to fund their competi...
You know what? Keith McCoy actually describes this a lot better.
Do we have footage of that?

"On the Democrat side we look for the moderates on this issue. So it's the Manchins, it's the Sinemas, it's the Testers. Joe Manchin, I talk to his office every week. He is the kingmaker on this because he's a Democrat from West Virginia, which is a very conservative state.
Well, who's up for reelection in 2022? It's Hassan, it's Kelly. I can't worry about the 2027 class because they're not focussed on reelection. The 2022 class is focussed on reelection so I know I have them.
Those are Marco Rubio, those are John Kennedy, those are Sen. Daines.
So you can have those conversations with them because they're a captive audience. They know they need you, and I need them."

They're also going after Democratic senator Chris Coons from Delaware. Now why would they be going after ...
"... Senator Coons from Delaware, who has a very close relationship with Biden. So we have been working with his office. As a matter of fact our CEO is talking with him next Tuesday."
Exxon Lobbyist Caught on Camera Going Full Cartoon Villain (Climate Town on YouTube, Aug 10, 2021 - 14:28 min.)

 

[The Atheist]

Well, I don't know enough about these specific areas to be able to comment. I'll leave that to your compatriots.

Could have just looked at the Wiki page:

Auckland, along with many other areas in the country, experiences ageing stormwater infrastructure systems which are unable to cope with population growth and the impact of climate change. Tar seals and concrete surfaces on roads, carparks, and buildings also prevent rainwater from dispersing into the ground, causing water to pool up and surfaces to flood during heavy rain events. Significant flooding events had previously occurred in Auckland in August 2021 and March 2022.

This may be true, but doesn't this conflict with your earlier claim that the floods had nothing to do with climate change?

I'd agree the rainfall was probably heavier than past events due to climate change, but climate change didn't cause them.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Could have just looked at the Wiki page:

Auckland, along with many other areas in the country, experiences ageing stormwater infrastructure systems which are unable to cope with population growth and the impact of climate change. Tar seals and concrete surfaces on roads, carparks, and buildings also prevent rainwater from dispersing into the ground, causing water to pool up and surfaces to flood during heavy rain events. Significant flooding events had previously occurred in Auckland in August 2021 and March 2022.

I'd agree the rainfall was probably heavier than past events due to climate change, but climate change didn't cause them.

There have always been floods, nobody is denying that. 'Aging' infrastructure and population growth doesn't help either. But global warming is making them worse. Your assertion that climate change didn't 'cause' the flooding - as if there wouldn't be any if the council didn't have 'aging' infrastructure - is obnoxious. You also conveniently ignore that the damage wasn't restricted to just flooding.

Cyclone Gabrielle causes national state of emergency in New Zealand

16 February 2023

New Zealand declared its third ever national state of emergency in February 2023, following the passage of Cyclone Gabrielle, with the government attributing the scale of the disaster to climate change.

For those living in Auckland, the country’s largest city, the extreme weather was particularly unwelcome as they were still recovering from their wettest day on record just a fortnight earlier...

- Auckland had its wettest day with 280mm at Albert Park (211mm of that fell in under 6 hours)

- In less than an hour, a month's worth of rain fell at Auckland airport (equivalent to January's rainfall)

- Unsurprisingly, January 2023 was the wettest month since records began, with 539mm of rain at Albert Park

The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, the country's climate science body, said 27 January was the wettest day on record for a number of locations, describing it as a 1-in-200 year event...

As the residents of Auckland recovered, attention shifted to a new threat. Long-range forecasts indicated a tropical cyclone could bring severe weather mid February, so New Zealand's MetService provided early insights and important communications...

Multiple heavy rain and wind warnings were issued across the North Island as Gabrielle approached. States of emergency that were already in place in Auckland and the Coromandel as a result of January's floods were extended...

Gabrielle affected the North Island and the top of the South Island from 12 to 16 February, with a national state of emergency declared on 14 February. About half of the country’s population was affected, with around 10,000 forced from their homes, and at least six people lost their lives.
Strong winds led to widespread power outages and property damage, while heavy rainfall caused severe flooding and landslides. The military helped with evacuations and delivered supplies to the worst-affected parts of the North Island.

While New Zealand has been affected by ex-tropical cyclones before, climate change is more than likely to blame for the intensity of Gabrielle, which brought more destruction to the country than any weather event in decades. And it doesn't bode well for the future, as a warming atmosphere will increase the intensity and frequency of extreme rainfall events.

A study published at the end of March 2023 by the World Weather Attribution found that the rainfall from Gabrielle was about 30% heavier, and that climate change undoubtedly played a role.

So the extreme weather in Auckland on 27 January 2023 was a '1-in-200 year' event, then a mere two weeks later Cyclone Gabrielle hit. So much for '200 years'...

Increased intensity and frequency - this is what scientists predicted would happen due to global warming - and now it's happening. 30 years from now people will pine for the 'good old days' when they could dismiss weather like this as an outlier.

 

[The Atheist]

But global warming is making them worse. Your assertion that climate change didn't 'cause' the flooding - as if there wouldn't be any if the council didn't have 'aging' infrastructure - is obnoxious.

No, it's factual.

You also conveniently ignore that the damage wasn't restricted to just flooding.

The slips are caused by the rain the same way as flooding, and it's blindingly obvious where the land is susceptible to sudden erosion.

Cyclone Gabrielle causes national state of emergency in New Zealand

Yes, and a huge amount of damage was caused by the idiotic relaxation of the forests, allowing them to let slash build up.

The highest rainfall of Gabrielle was around 450 mm. Bola brought up to 900 mm.

As to how much attribution climate change gets, the answer is bugger all: https://www.worldweatherattribution...rielle-over-aotearoa-new-zealands-east-coast/

This means we cannot quantify the overall role of human-induced climate change.

Looking at the future, for a climate 2°C warmer than in preindustrial times, models suggest that rainfall intensity will slightly increase, although the uncertainty remains large.

The disagreement between model results and observations prevents us from concluding with certainty that human-induced climate change is the main driver making this event more likely.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

As to how much attribution climate change gets, the answer is bugger all: https://www.worldweatherattribution...rielle-over-aotearoa-new-zealands-east-coast/

You might want to read that article a little more carefully- or perhaps not cherrypick its findings so obviously.

First, using the relationship between historical weather station data (1979-2023) and global mean temperature to extrapolate back to colder climates, we found that the 2-day maximum rainfall over Te Matau-a-Māui/Te Tairāwhiti region is now about 30% more intense than it might have been had human greenhouse gas emissions not warmed the climate by 1.2°C. This also means a rainfall event of this magnitude is now about four times more likely to happen than it was when the world was 1.2°C cooler than it is today.

Especially this part- the highlighted section is the one you so conveniently omitted to quote.

The disagreement between model results and observations prevents us from concluding with certainty that human-induced climate change is the main driver making this event more likely. However, while multiple reasons could explain the absence of a trend in our model results, we have no alternative explanation for a trend in observations other than the expectation of heavy rainfall increasing in a warmer climate.

Their conclusion contrasts rather markedly with your own 'don't give a rat's arse' attitude:

It is therefore important to urgently reduce the exposure and vulnerability of communities to future flooding, particularly ensuring that lifeline infrastructure remains intact so communities can receive flood warnings and respond accordingly.

I should add, too, that your claim that these weather events only occur once every hundred years was contradicted by the Wiki article you quoted above.
Not terribly impressive, TA.

 

[The Atheist]

You might want to read that article a little more carefully- or perhaps not cherrypick its findings so obviously.

I didn't cherry-pick anything - it says what it says and the jury is clearly out to a large degree. We know that warmer air can carry more moisture and therefore rain more.

I should add, too, that your claim that these weather events only occur once every hundred years was contradicted by the Wiki article you quoted above.
Not terribly impressive, TA.

Pretty sure I mentioned 100-year floods in the context of the statistical likelihood. As a statistician, I can tell you 100-year floods can happen in consecutive weeks.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

As a statistician, I can tell you 100-year floods can happen in consecutive weeks.

We don't need you to tell us that.

I am keenly aware of the increased flooding risk here because I am a member of the local radio control model aircraft club, which has a flying site in Awatoto on the river side of the stop bank. We have free use of this area because it floods when the river gets high. This wasn't a problem until about 15 years ago because it didn't happen very often and the water level soon went down. Then one year we had a big flood that dumped a lot of silt onto the field, taking 3 months to clean up. I was told don't worry, this is a 50 year flood. The next year it happened again, and the next, and...

A few years later we started getting two large floods each year, and then in 2022 three of them, reaching into summertime (which had never happened before). Most people weren't aware of this escalation because the stop banks and large flood protection drains with powerful pumps in the Napier area were keeping them dry.

Finally, in February 2023, Cyclone Gabrielle hit - just a week after we had our annual 'Warbirds Over Awatoto' public flying event. Our infrastructure was designed to handle water up to the top of the stop bank, but it wasn't designed to handle the amount of debris the water brought with it.

We fully accepted this as part of the deal. However, as you know, that was nothing compared to the carnage elsewhere. The enormous amount of water and debris took out many of the bridges in the area, including the railway bridge at Awatoto that connected to the port of Napier. Finally the river breached its banks at Redclyffe (after the storm had subsided), destroying the substation that fed electricity to the Napier/Hastings area. Rivers also burst their banks in other places causing unprecedented flooding all over Hawke's Bay and Gisborne.

Most people think of this as a 'once in a lifetime' event, but I had seen it coming for years. Weather patterns are changing. Cyclone Lola, which hit Vanuatu in October 2023, generated wind gusts of up to 295 kph. This out of season event became the earliest category 5 system on record for the Southern Hemisphere.

Trend of earlier, intense cyclones

[T]he early arrival of an intense cyclone is a part of a broader trend being observed around the globe.

A recent paper published in Nature found intense Southern Hemisphere cyclones are forming about two weeks earlier now than they did in the 1980s.

This was also evident in the Northern Hemisphere.

The research attributed the earlier shift in intense cyclones to human-caused climate change which was allowing ocean waters to warm and become more favourable for supporting cyclones earlier in the season.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I didn't cherry-pick anything - it says what it says and the jury is clearly out to a large degree.

You omitted the part that spoke of the effect of climate change, as part of your reframing of the conclusions of that article to fit your argument that said there was no effect from climate change. That's a textbook example of cherrypicking.
Furthermore, I suggest you read that article again, a little more carefully, because the jury is clearly not out on this issue at all.

We know that warmer air can carry more moisture and therefore rain more.

And so, do you think it possible that global warming might lead to warmer air?

Pretty sure I mentioned 100-year floods in the context of the statistical likelihood. As a statistician, I can tell you 100-year floods can happen in consecutive weeks.

As RR has pointed out, these '100 year floods' are happening ever more frequently. Do you think your description is still valid?

 

[The Atheist]

...but it wasn't designed to handle the amount of debris the water brought with it.

The enormous amount of water and debris took out ...

Without the forestry waste, almost none of it would have happened. The reasons for that go back to selling off the forests. When NZFS ran them, nothing was left on the ground after felling.

 

[The Atheist]

As RR has pointed out, these '100 year floods' are happening ever more frequently. Do you think your description is still valid?

They wouldn't be happening at all if we didn't allow the water to bring down millions of tonnes of logs to dam the rivers allowing stop banks to be breached.

 

[Myriad]

Without the forestry waste, almost none of it would have happened. The reasons for that go back to selling off the forests. When NZFS ran them, nothing was left on the ground after felling.

They wouldn't be happening at all if we didn't allow the water to bring down millions of tonnes of logs to dam the rivers allowing stop banks to be breached.

Have there or have there not been increased instances of sustained heavy rainfall? Failure to practice the most optimal flood damage mitigation strategies is not mutually exclusive with there also being more water arriving on the landscape in short-term surges.

 

[The Atheist]

Have there or have there not been increased instances of sustained heavy rainfall?

Not so far as I can tell.

The rainfall in NZ varies a lot with El Nino/La Nina and the heaviest rain recorded was Bola in the 1980s, so there's been nothing truly exceptional.

Failure to practice the most optimal flood damage mitigation strategies is not mutually exclusive with there also being more water arriving on the landscape in short-term surges.

I think you're missing the point due to unfamiliarity with the country.

The logs and forestry waste isn't a flood mitigation issue and never has been. It's an economic issue that has become a flood issue due to build-up of waste over decades. It was a disaster waiting to happen and whether the planet is 1, 2 or 5 degrees warmer it was going to happen one day. It just happened to be in the tail of Cyclone Gabrielle.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Without the forestry waste, almost none of it would have happened. The reasons for that go back to selling off the forests. When NZFS ran them, nothing was left on the ground after felling.

You're wrong.

Cyclone Gabrielle: Most pine wood debris was from erosion, not slash, Hawke's Bay council says

Pine made up the majority of wood debris left behind after Cyclone Gabrielle in Hawke's Bay, but very little of it was "slash", a council survey has found...

The survey of 15 sites found a mixture of pine, willow, poplar, native timber, and other debris that could not be identified.

The mix of material differed from each catchment, with the majority of pine coming from the erosion of hillsides and stream banks...

Lower Tutaekuri, Puketapu, and Awatoto were predominantly willow and poplar with the remaining pine...

The report described the cyclone as a "catastrophic weatherbomb" and one of the most significant weather events in the region on record, with a number of places getting half a metre of rain.

Eighteen bridges were damaged in the region because of it.

Because of the cyclone, not forestry waste.

BTW my brother was a deer culler for the New Zealand Forest Service back in the 1980's. He stayed on when it became the Department of Conservation, working with endangered species including blue ducks and kiwis for many years (he left DOC in 2020). He's old enough to retire now but he keeps working because he's so concerned about how costs are going up due to global warming.

 

[a_unique_person]

Nice little strawman there, mate. Is there a special on them this week?



I was talking about flood plains, and I've always chosen not to live on one. I don't live in an earthquake-prone area, or on top of a magma field either. That I couldn't give a rat's arse about fools who do is fine by me. I'm very happy that my insurance premiums aren't impacted by morons who can't see where floods happen, and they happen a lot in NZ. We get a lot of rain.



Speaking of which, I hope their insurance is well and truly up to date, because there's going to be an awful lot of water arriving over the country in 7-10 days' time.







Your callous lack of concern for those who are already being affected is noted with disapproval.

[/QUOTE]The whole of NZ is at risk of a major earthquake.