Arctic Sea Ice Minimum 2023

With Arctic ice having reached its Minimum for 2023, it is time for the annual update. My figures come from NSIDC https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/.

2023 is the fifth lowest on record. That is to say that four years had LOWER winter sea ice minima than this year.

The last seventeen (17) years show the lowest annual arctic sea ice minimum in the satellite record (ie since 1979). However, the trend over the last sixteen years 2007 – 2023 is -0.9% per annum. That seems to me to be as close to flat as makes no difference.

With the correct use of the english language present tense, the world IS NOT warming.

Figures for annual minima are:

Arctic Ice Sheet Minima

 Year m Km2
20074.16
20084.59
20095.12
20104.62
20114.34
20123.39
20135.05
20145.03
20154.43
20164.17
20174.67
20184.66
20194.19
20203.82
20214.72
20224.67
20234.23

Here is a graph of these figures:

NZ Budget 2023

When I looked at last year’s budget figures, from the 2022 BEFU (Budget Economic and Fiscal Update) , I found that the extra government expenditure during Covid has been baked into every year into the future. This year’s budget, from the 2023 BEFU (Budget Economic and Fiscal Update) , continues that trend, only worse.

The graph below shows actual expenditure compared to what it would have been with a 4.5%pa growth rate from the pre-Covid trend. The government is making no attempt to return to the pre-Covid trend line.

The government chooses to represent numbers either as a percentage of GDP or in terms of net debt. Both these approaches have wriggle room for the government as the first allows them to use heroic GDP forecasts (over 5% every year), and the later allows them the change the way net debt is calculated.

The bottom line here is that we deserve to be told what we are getting for all this extra expenditure. That is not happening. New Zealander’s deserve so much better!

Arctic Sea Ice 2023 Maximum

With Arctic ice having reached its Maximum for 2023, it is time for the annual update. My figures come from NSIDC https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index.

2023 is the fifth lowest on record. That is to say that four years had LOWER winter sea ice maxima that this year.

The last eighteen (18) years show the lowest annual arctic sea ice maximum in the satellite record (ie since 1979). However, the trend over the last sixteen years 2006 – 2023 is -0.15% per annum. That seems to me to be as close to flat as makes no difference.

With the correct use of the english language present tense, the world IS not warming.

Figures for annual annual arctic ice sheet minima are:

 Year m Km2
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2109
2020
2021
2022
2023
14.78
14.85
15.35
15.20
15.35
14.70
15.31
15.20
15.01
14.55
14.57
14.45
14.50
14.90
15.07
14.87
14.93
14.62

Here is a graph of these figures:

NZ Budget 2022

When I looked at figures from the 2022 BEFU (Budget Economic and Fiscal Update) and the Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2021 I found that the extra government expenditure during Covid has been baked into every year into the future. This amounts to an extra $25bn per year of total Crown Expenditure, which compares with the actual figure for 2021 of $133bn – a 19% increase. This take government expenditure from 35.5% to 42.1% as a percentage of GDP.

NZD bnChange
2015 Actual93,064
2016 Actual95,1372.2%
2017 Actual99,0074.1%
2018 Actual104,0145.1%
2019 Actual111,3767.1%
2020 Actual138,91624.7%
2021 Actual133,722-3.7%
2022 Budget154,88715.8%
2023 Budget158,5282.4%
2024 Budget163,5083.1%
2025 Budget167,8722.7%
2026 Budget177,2545.6%

One might have expected total Crown Expenditure to fall after Covid. After all the costs of the vaccination program and furlough do not continue. However, in New Zealand government expenditure continues as if these costs are to be incurred every year into the future. Below I graph what Total Crown Expenditure would have been with annual growth of 4.5%pa from 2019.

The government is making no attempt to return to the pre-Covid trend line. And there has been no attempt to explain what we are getting for this [massive] extra expenditure.

Arctic Sea Ice Minumum 2022

With Arctic ice having reached its Minimum for 2022, it is time for the annual update. My figures come from NSIDC https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/.

2022 tied with 2010 as the eleventh lowest on record. That is to say that ten years had LOWER winter sea ice maxima that this year.

The last sixteen (16) years show the lowest annual arctic sea ice minimum in the satellite record (ie since 1979). However, the trend over the last sixteen years 2006 – 2022 is -0.05% per annum. That seems to me to be as close to flat as makes no difference.

With the correct use of the english language present tense, the world IS not warming.

Figures for annual minima are:

Arctic Ice Sheet Minima

 Year m Km2
20074.16
20084.59
20095.12
20104.62
20114.34
20123.39
20135.05
20145.03
20154.43
20164.17
20174.67
20184.66
20194.19
20203.82
20214.72
20224.67

Here is a graph of these figures:

Arctic Sea Ice 2022 Maximum

With Arctic ice having reached its Maximum for 2022, it is time for the annual update. My figures come from NSIDC https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/.

2022 is the tenth lowest on record. That is to say that nine years had LOWER winter sea ice maxima that this year.

The last sixteen (16) years show the lowest annual arctic sea ice maximum in the satellite record (ie since 1979). However, the trend over the last sixteen years 2006 – 2022 is -0.13% per annum. That seems to me to be as close to flat as makes no difference.

With the correct use of the english language present tense, the world IS not warming.

Figures for annual minima are:

Arctic Ice Sheet Minima

 Year  m Km2
2006 14.78
2007 14.85
2008 15.35
2009 15.20
2010 15.35
2011 14.70
2012 15.31
2013 15.20
2014 15.01
2015 14.55
2016 14.57
2017 14.45
2018 14.50
2019 14.90
2020 15.07
2021 14.87
2022 14.93

Here is a graph of these figures:

Actic Sea Ice 2021 Update

With Arctic ice having reached its September minimum, it is time for the annual update. My figures come from NSIDC https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The last fifteen (15) years show the lowest annual arctic sea ice minima in the satellite record (ie since 1979). However,the trend over these years 2007 – 2021 is -0.26% per annum. That seems to me to be as close to flat as makes no difference. The only years, in the last 15 years, with higher sea ice minima were 2009, 2013 and 2014.

With the correct use of the english language present tense, the world IS not warming.

Figures for annual minima are:

Arctic Ice Sheet Minima

 Year  m Km2
2007 4.16
2008 4.59
2009 5.12
2010 4.62
2011 4.34
2012 3.39
2013 5.05
2014 5.03
2015 4.43
2016 4.17
2017 4.67
2018 4.66
2019 4.19
2020 3.82
2021 4.72

Here is a graph of these figures alongside graphs for the previous two 14 year periods, back to 1979.

Arctic Sea Ice 2020

With Arctic ice having reached its September minimum, it is time for the annual update. My figures come from NSIDC https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The last fourteen (14) years show the lowest annual arctic sea ice minima in the satellite record (ie since 1979). The trend over these years 2007 – 2020 is -0.4% per annum. That seems to me to be as close to flat as makes no difference, but you may differ.

Figures for annual minima are:

Arctic Ice Sheet Minima

 Year  m Km2
2007 4.16
2008 4.59
2009 5.12
2010 4.62
2011 4.34
2012 3.39
2013 5.05
2014 5.03
2015 4.43
2016 4.17
2017 4.67
2018 4.66
2019 4.19
2020 3.74

Here is a graph of these figures alongside graphs for the previous two 14 year periods, back to 1979.

Sadly we do not have comparable data on Arctic Sea Ice minima around 1945, 1930, 1910, the Medieval Warm Period, or the Roman Warm Period.

Nelson Future Access Project

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/nelson-future-access-project

This is a vision thing! At this point the government has not made funds available to actually build any of these options, or indeed any other roading project in the South Island. The expectation is that the chosen project might be built in some 15 years time.

A Rocks Road walking and cycling facility, including a new seawall, is included in each of the three packages. The Coastal Corridor Widening Package would involve building the seawall two lanes further out.

The success criteria for this project do NOT include “reduced” travel times. Though not specifically excluded by legislation, guidance from this government has ruled that NZTA cannot take this objective into account. What NZTA can take into account is the achievement of more “predictable” travel times.

The number of journeys within the project area are forecast to increase from 100,000 to 140,000 per day by 2048. This is in line with the “High Growth” scenario used in the Nelson-Tasman Future Development Strategy, which has population of Nelson/Tasman growing from 104,000 in 2018 to 145,000 in 2048. This compares to 2048 population figures of 105,000 in the low growth strategy and 120,000 in the mid-point/most likely scenario. It is not clear why NZTA have used the high growth forecasts. However, this is a “differential” exercise (a choice between options) on a common basis, so in many ways it does not matter. And, when it comes to a final choice we will doubtless have updated forecasts anyway.

 

Spoiler alert!

I am going to choose the widening of Rocks Road to two lanes each way.

 

Priority Lanes:

When it comes to safe, efficient, resilient movement of people and goods in an improved urban environment, there really is nothing to beat “priority lanes”. These are lanes reserved during peak traffic hours for certain vehicles, usually including some or all of the following; buses, taxis, goods vehicles, multi-occupancy vehicles. The priority lanes have to be rigorously enforced – just one parked car and the whole thing snarls up. So in Leeds in the UK they have used forklifts to unceremoniously remove offending vehicles!

Enforcement of priority lanes will be done primarily by cameras. Apart from buses, each of the priority categories above have their own enforcement issues:

  • Taxis would presumably include Uber and/or Ola which are indistinguishable in appearance from a private car. Will the camera system have to be linked to a taxi number plate registration system? Would any private hire cars have to use the non-priority lanes unless pre-registered?
  • Would a goods vehicle be allowed in the priority lane only when it is being used for work purposes, which is hard to enforce? Otherwise this seems to encourage a person popping into town on a private journey to take the, presumably larger, work vehicle.
  • Multi-occupancy vehicles would either be minimum three people (T3) or two people (T2). Clearly T3 is more efficient but a camera can really only identify if there is a person in each of the front seats. So, do we have to accept T2 for enforcement practicality?

Whilst the consultation document mentions priority lanes it remains coy about just what they would entail. What is clear is that the Inland Route Package using the old railway alignment, essentially a new road, is not compatible with the priority lanes concept, because this new road is only one lane in each direction. For this reason alone I rule this option out. The lady from Wellington NZTA who was manning the information centre at the Nelson market on Sunday 11th July (Carol Aldridge) did suggest that this road could be single use for busses during peak times, but that really doesn’t work. It is one thing to slide over and use the priority lane when other cars doing so reminds you that this is acceptable at the time you are travelling; and quite another to chose an entirely different route because you know that this option is available. Also, local residents will presumably have to be allowed to use the road at all times, and administering a scheme to correctly identify cars properly owned by residents within a fairly designated area is not a trivial challenge.

 

Parking:

Turning a road that is one lane each way into a road that is two lanes each way and rigorously enforcing priority lanes involves the loss of considerable amounts of existing on-road parking. It is conceivable that you could allow parking at non-peak times during the day, but in reality this is inconsistent with effective priority lanes. So you would end up with parking overnight only (maybe 7:00pm until 6:00am), which is of limited use to most people.

The loss of parking is far greater for the Waimea Road alignment (Priority Lanes Package) than the Rocks Road alignment (Coastal Corridor Widening Package), simply because there is so little parking currently along the Rocks Road section of the latter. The loss of parking per kilometre along the section of SH6 from Tahunanui to the Annesbrook Drive Roundabout (near Mitre 10 Mega) has to be about the same as along the entire Waimea Road alignment.

For this reason alone the Coastal Corridor Widening Package is preferred over the Priority Lanes Package.

 

Another reason to choose the Coastal Corridor Widening Package?

When visitors to Nelson arrive by air, the Coastal Route into the CBD along Rocks road is a stunning introduction to the area; with views across the Tasman bay to Kahurangi and Abel Tasman National Parks. We’ve got it so let’s flaunt it!

In due course it seems inevitable that the runway at Nelson airport will be extended to accommodate larger aircraft, which would seem to signal the end for the golf course. I believe the airport already owns the land that the golf course is on. That in turn might allow for an even more spectacular route to the CDB along the alignment of Golf Road and Beach Road, which is not compatible with a choice of Waimea road in this consultation.

 

What about sea level rise?

I am a sceptic about sea level rise. Measuring it is fraught with difficulty, not least that the land keeps moving, especially in New Zealand. In this instance we are really only concerned about sea level rise/fall relative to the land. And we have Tide Gauges for that. These give a Vertical Land Motion (VLM) of up to 1mm/year. I am unable to get definitive data on Nelson and can only offer this https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019JB018055 to show that the land in New Zealand is rising at a rate that is at least a fast as any of the doomsday seal level rise predictions. The only part of New Zealand that is falling on a geological timescale is Thames. And you may remember that in the Kaikoura earthquake the land rose some two metres! We should definitely ask the Geology Department of the University of Otago for figures on land rise in Nelson over the last century.

 

Intersections:

Choosing the Coastal Corridor Widening Package does raise the issue of the traffic lights in Tahunanui! If a widened SH6 is going to go through this junction then some kind of over/under-pass is going to be necessary at some point. The same would be true of the; multiple traffic lights on Rutherford Street, the lights near Nelson Hospital, and the Whakatu Drive roundabout, if the Waimea Road alignment was chosen.

NZTA (Carol at the information tent) says that the choice in front of us does not make any calls on future intersection improvements. Indeed, all of these may seem rather minor compared to the decisions that will have to be made about the traffic lights at the Lower Queen Street intersection in Richmond. Apparently NZTA have a different project looking at all these intersection challenges.

 

Metrics:

Please can we have some greater clarity over how the various options are being judged. How on earth did someone decide that the “Priority Lanes” option is only “Slightly positive compared to the status quo”? Apparently the Coastal Corridor Widening Package would “would reduce the traffic pressure along Waimea Road and there would be more reliable journey times into the city” but is rated as “No Benefit” on the “Nelson is more accessible” metric. And the Coastal Corridor Widening Package “would reduce the traffic pressure along Waimea Road” but is rated as “No Benefit” on “Quality urban environments” whatever that is. NZTA really can do so much better than this.

 

Other thoughts:

The consultation document makes no mention of taxi services such as Uber and Ola, which we would presumably with to encourage. Where should they wait when not on a call?

The consultation makes no mention of eScooter hire services such as Lime, Flamingo, and Jump. Will these be using car lanes, cycle lanes, or footpaths? And are these sized accordingly?

What about minibus on demand schemes such as this one in Germany https://www.kvgof.de/fahrplaene-und-linien/weitere-infos/hopper/. They might need to stop in priority lanes to pick up customers, which would be a complete no-no. So, do we create pick up / let down bays on the priority routes?

 

And finally:

Are we giving too much weight to the value of the “heritage chain fence” on Rocks Road? No doubt it is a wonderful thing, but does it really warrant the three references it gets in the consultation document. And if it really is of such value, presumably it could be moved?

Covid 19 and QuALYs

At its core the problem with the NZ government’s Covid-19 strategy is that they addressed themselves to a task that they were confident of addressing successfully, rather than the task that actually needed to be addressed. They are following a course of action that minimises deaths from Covid-19 in the short term, rather than maximising the health of all New Zealanders in the long run.

There are two particular consequences from this government’s chosen course of action. In both cases you need to understand the stupidity of focussing on “deaths” as your metric. Everybody dies! It is not whether a person dies that matters; but when they die, and the quality of life they have until they die.

Around the world public health bodies use the concept of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QuALYs) to decide whether to fund a particular treatment. [Please note this concept is not used subsequently when assessing whether to treat a specific patient.] When thinking about hip replacements, the logic would be something like this. The average person who might receive a hip replacement would have 20 years of life after the operation and their quality of life might be increased from 75% to 100% of a reasonable expectation of a full and healthy life at that age. So each operation would generate 5 QuALYs. In the UK some years ago the threshold was around £30,000 per QuALY (my memory may be faulty and these numbers are indicative only). So provided the hip replacement operation could be provided for less than £150,000 then UK NHS would fund hip replacements. Once a treatment has been accepted it remains on the list of NHS provided treatments, unless new clinical evidence calls this into question. How do Qualys relate to Covid?

First, by cancelling elective surgeries and out-patient appointments and laying off large numbers of General Practitioners NZ PHS prepared for an avalanche of Covid cases. However, this was at the expense of the service that NHS NZ normally provides. Given the pressure that NZ PHS is normally under, it is inconceivable that this “missed” care can be caught up. Patients not treated will find that their quality of life will be lower than it otherwise would be, and some of them will die earlier than they otherwise would have done. We will not know the names of these deaths, and they will not be reported at a daily press conference, but we can be sure that they do exist. And, of course, all the non-fatal outcomes will have adverse effects on the QuALYs experienced by those patients.

Second, economic activity is being severely restricted. This will affect health outcomes in two ways. First, it will lower money available to NZ PHS. So they will not be able to fund the cost per QuALY they might otherwise have been able to fund. If NZ PHS funds treatments costing less than $50,000 per QuALY today, then after the economic devastation being wrought by the government’s current actions NZ PHS might only be able to fund treatments costing less than $30,000 per QuALY. Second prosperity is directly linked to health outcomes. You only need to compare life expectancy in Fiji (70 years) with that in New Zealand (82 years). And, of course, during those years of life a person living in Fiji does not receive the same level of health care that is delivered in New Zealand. This results in lost QuALYs, particularly later in life (for instance not receiving a hip replacement in Fiji which does happen in New Zealand). Such economic differences are further exaggerated in the event of natural disasters. Fiji is struggling to cope with the effects of Cyclone Harold last week in a way the New Zealand did not struggle with the after-effects of cyclone Gita – Fijians would willingly accept a one way system on one hill in two year’s time as the only lasting consequence!

In handling Covid-19 New Zealand needed a government that levelled with us. This is a crisis, and flattening the curve is essential. However, it is a balance and this government has not even attempted to find that balance. The government should have told us that deaths from Covid were going to be part of the optimal solution. The government should have told us keeping the economy going as much as possible was part of the optimal solution. To ask whether a business was “essential”, in deciding whether to allow a business to operate, was to ask the wrong question. We should not be asking; Is a business essential? We should be asking; Can a business be carried on safely? Since Wuhan came out of lockdown New Zealand has been the country with the harshest economic shut down in the world. This is a difficult balance to strike – certainly challenging the experts to understand whether their forecasts were “worst” case or “central” case requires an intelligence and determination that would be uncomfortable for all involved. A government that is strong on pathos is poorly placed to do carry out this task. To deliver the best possible outcome from the Covid pandemic, New Zealand needed a government with intelligence, determination and courage. New Zealand will be suffering the consequences of this governments Covid-19 decisions for lifetimes to come.