From: >https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/Until you posted your summary the science was indeed being followed, Then, however, it went to shit with a totally unscientific political diatribe based on nothing of value.
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels,
with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers
below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This >significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady
increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the
abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They
analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the
probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its
connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low sea
ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered
very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models has
been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. We
only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, which
makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent.
This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent
would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This tells
us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is >considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate
change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those >expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes
it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice
extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by
climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is
likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the
authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the sea
ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds
model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few
years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the Southern >Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New Zealand,
sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of
climate change on New Zealand directly, but also our commitments to
reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try
to reduce the impact of climate change. They don't look further than
the interests of political donors . . .
From: >https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels,
with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers
below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This >significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady
increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the
abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They
analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the
probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its
connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low sea
ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered
very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models has
been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. We
only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, which
makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent.
This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent
would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This tells
us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is >considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate
change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those >expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes
it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice
extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by
climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is
likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the
authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the sea
ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds
model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few
years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the Southern >Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New Zealand,
sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of
climate change on New Zealand directly,
but also our commitments to
reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try
to reduce the impact of climate change.
They don't look further than
the interests of political donors . . .
From: >https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels,
with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers
below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This >significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady
increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the
abrupt drop even more unexpected.
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels,
researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss.
This is where climate models come into their own.
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>if it is roughly the same proportion of the world population as NZ is,
wrote:
From: >>https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels,
with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers >>below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This >>significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady
increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the
abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >>researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They
analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the >>probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its
connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low sea
ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered
very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models has
been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. We
only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, which >>makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent.
This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent
would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This tells
us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is >>considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate
change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those >>expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes
it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice
extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by >>climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is
likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the
authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the sea
ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds
model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few
years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the Southern >>Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New Zealand,
Yes that seems inevitable.
sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of
climate change on New Zealand directly,
Probably because there is nothing NZ ( and every other Southern
Hemisphere country combined) can do about it. Our contribution to
this problem is nearly zero. Climate change in Antarctica and
everywhere else in the word is affected by Northern Hemisphere
countries almost entirely.
but also our commitments to
reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try
to reduce the impact of climate change.
We should not have agreed to anything. Our contribution is so
miniscule it is hardly measurable.
They don't look further than
the interests of political donors . . .
More worthless political rhetoric Rich. Repetition simply exposes how >shallow your arguments are. Better for you to get Russia, China and
India on board.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:New Zealand could at least try to meet the emission reduction targets
From: >>https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/Until you posted your summary the science was indeed being followed, Then, >however, it went to shit with a totally unscientific political diatribe based >on nothing of value.
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels,
with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers >>below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This >>significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady
increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the
abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >>researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They
analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the >>probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its
connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low sea
ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered
very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models has
been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. We
only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, which >>makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent.
This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent
would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This tells
us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is >>considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate
change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those >>expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes
it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice
extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by >>climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is
likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the
authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the sea
ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds
model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few
years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the Southern >>Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New Zealand, >>sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of
climate change on New Zealand directly, but also our commitments to
reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try
to reduce the impact of climate change. They don't look further than
the interests of political donors . . .
There is nothing to be done by New Zealand and this government is no more to >blame than the last 10 governments (or more). Sheesh what a waste of bandwidth >Rich.
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 02:52:53 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbsolute nonsense. There is nothing to do because we don't need to. There is no issue with the so called donors.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:New Zealand could at least try to meet the emission reduction targets
From: >>>https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/Until you posted your summary the science was indeed being followed, Then, >>however, it went to shit with a totally unscientific political diatribe based >>on nothing of value.
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels,
with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers >>>below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This >>>significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady
increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the >>>abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >>>researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They
analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the >>>probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its
connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low sea >>>ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered
very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models has >>>been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. We >>>only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, which >>>makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent.
This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent
would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This tells
us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is >>>considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate
change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those >>>expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes
it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice >>>extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by >>>climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is >>>likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the >>>authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the sea >>>ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds
model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few >>>years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the Southern >>>Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New Zealand, >>>sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of >>>climate change on New Zealand directly, but also our commitments to >>>reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try
to reduce the impact of climate change. They don't look further than
the interests of political donors . . .
There is nothing to be done by New Zealand and this government is no more to >>blame than the last 10 governments (or more). Sheesh what a waste of >>bandwidth
Rich.
that we agreed to, so of course there is something we could do - the
money to donors is just making that even harder.
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:42:54 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>That is so lame.
wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:if it is roughly the same proportion of the world population as NZ is,
From: >>>https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels,
with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers >>>below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This >>>significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady
increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the >>>abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >>>researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They
analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the >>>probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its
connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low sea >>>ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered
very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models has >>>been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. We >>>only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, which >>>makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent.
This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent
would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This tells
us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is >>>considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate
change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those >>>expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes
it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice >>>extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by >>>climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is >>>likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the >>>authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the sea >>>ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds
model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few >>>years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the Southern >>>Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New Zealand,
Yes that seems inevitable.
sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of >>>climate change on New Zealand directly,
Probably because there is nothing NZ ( and every other Southern
Hemisphere country combined) can do about it. Our contribution to
this problem is nearly zero. Climate change in Antarctica and
everywhere else in the word is affected by Northern Hemisphere
countries almost entirely.
but also our commitments to
reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try
to reduce the impact of climate change.
We should not have agreed to anything. Our contribution is so
miniscule it is hardly measurable.
that may still be quite a bit of money . . .
They don't look further than
the interests of political donors . . .
More worthless political rhetoric Rich. Repetition simply exposes how >>shallow your arguments are. Better for you to get Russia, China and
India on board.
China is probably a lot closer than Russia or India, but giving so
much to political donors is meaning that the cost of not reducing our >emissions is more expensive that it needs to be.
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 02:52:53 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhat's the point?? Half of one percent contribution to global
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:New Zealand could at least try to meet the emission reduction targets
From: >>>https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/Until you posted your summary the science was indeed being followed, Then, >>however, it went to shit with a totally unscientific political diatribe based >>on nothing of value.
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels,
with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers >>>below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This >>>significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady
increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the >>>abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >>>researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They
analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the >>>probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its
connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low sea >>>ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered
very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models has >>>been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. We >>>only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, which >>>makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent.
This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent
would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This tells
us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is >>>considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate
change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those >>>expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes
it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice >>>extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by >>>climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is >>>likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the >>>authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the sea >>>ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds
model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few >>>years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the Southern >>>Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New Zealand, >>>sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of >>>climate change on New Zealand directly, but also our commitments to >>>reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try
to reduce the impact of climate change. They don't look further than
the interests of political donors . . .
There is nothing to be done by New Zealand and this government is no more to >>blame than the last 10 governments (or more). Sheesh what a waste of bandwidth
Rich.
that we agreed to, so of course there is something we could do - the
money to donors is just making that even harder.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is called meeting obligations under international agreements - or
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 02:52:53 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhat's the point?? Half of one percent contribution to global
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:New Zealand could at least try to meet the emission reduction targets
From: >>>>https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/Until you posted your summary the science was indeed being followed, Then, >>>however, it went to shit with a totally unscientific political diatribe based
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels,
with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers >>>>below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This >>>>significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady >>>>increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the >>>>abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >>>>researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They
analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the >>>>probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its >>>>connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low sea >>>>ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered >>>>very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models has >>>>been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. We >>>>only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, which >>>>makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent. >>>>This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent >>>>would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This tells >>>>us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is >>>>considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate
change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those >>>>expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes
it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice >>>>extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by >>>>climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is >>>>likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the >>>>authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the sea >>>>ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds >>>>model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few >>>>years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the Southern >>>>Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New Zealand, >>>>sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of >>>>climate change on New Zealand directly, but also our commitments to >>>>reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try
to reduce the impact of climate change. They don't look further than >>>>the interests of political donors . . .
on nothing of value.
There is nothing to be done by New Zealand and this government is no more to >>>blame than the last 10 governments (or more). Sheesh what a waste of bandwidth
Rich.
that we agreed to, so of course there is something we could do - the
money to donors is just making that even harder.
pollution. Just a big left tax grab which your lot is great at
.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 08:59:48 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>They are non-binding which means they are in fact optional. Simple really, just
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is called meeting obligations under international agreements - or
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 02:52:53 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhat's the point?? Half of one percent contribution to global >>>pollution. Just a big left tax grab which your lot is great at
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:New Zealand could at least try to meet the emission reduction targets >>>>that we agreed to, so of course there is something we could do - the >>>>money to donors is just making that even harder.
From: >>>>>>https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/Until you posted your summary the science was indeed being followed, Then, >>>>>however, it went to shit with a totally unscientific political diatribe >>>>>based
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels, >>>>>>with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers >>>>>>below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This >>>>>>significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady >>>>>>increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the >>>>>>abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >>>>>>researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They >>>>>>analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the >>>>>>probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its >>>>>>connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low sea >>>>>>ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered >>>>>>very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models has >>>>>>been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. We >>>>>>only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, which >>>>>>makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent. >>>>>>This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent >>>>>>would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This tells >>>>>>us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is >>>>>>considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate >>>>>>change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those >>>>>>expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes >>>>>>it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice >>>>>>extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by >>>>>>climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is >>>>>>likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the >>>>>>authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the sea >>>>>>ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds >>>>>>model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few >>>>>>years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the Southern >>>>>>Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New Zealand, >>>>>>sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of >>>>>>climate change on New Zealand directly, but also our commitments to >>>>>>reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try >>>>>>to reduce the impact of climate change. They don't look further than >>>>>>the interests of political donors . . .
on nothing of value.
There is nothing to be done by New Zealand and this government is no more >>>>>to
blame than the last 10 governments (or more). Sheesh what a waste of >>>>>bandwidth
Rich.
.
if you prefer, 'sanctity of contract'. Commitments have been made
under an international agreement - should we meet those obligations?
like you.
One previous Prime Minister thought it a good idea to push the slogan >>"Clean, Green, 100% Pure" - for which he copped some flack on UKNon-binding means no penalties of any sort.
Television for the obvious hypocrisy, but we have made some progress
since. The penalties for breaking an international agreement are
unclear
, but potentially much more serious than just financialYou keep saying that but without any explanation.
penalties
, and with Trump about to start a second term as President ofWhat silly rhetoric.
the USA, meeting international commitments may be even more important
to retain friends . . .
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 08:59:48 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com>They are non-binding which means they are in fact optional. Simple really, just like you.
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is called meeting obligations under international agreements - or
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 02:52:53 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhat's the point?? Half of one percent contribution to global >>pollution. Just a big left tax grab which your lot is great at
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:New Zealand could at least try to meet the emission reduction targets >>>that we agreed to, so of course there is something we could do - the >>>money to donors is just making that even harder.
From: >>>>>https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/Until you posted your summary the science was indeed being followed, Then, >>>>however, it went to shit with a totally unscientific political diatribe >>>>based
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels, >>>>>with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers >>>>>below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This >>>>>significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady >>>>>increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the >>>>>abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >>>>>researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They >>>>>analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the >>>>>probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its >>>>>connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low sea >>>>>ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered >>>>>very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models has >>>>>been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. We >>>>>only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, which >>>>>makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent. >>>>>This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent >>>>>would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This tells >>>>>us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is >>>>>considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate >>>>>change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those >>>>>expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes >>>>>it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice >>>>>extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by >>>>>climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is >>>>>likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the >>>>>authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the sea >>>>>ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds >>>>>model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few >>>>>years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the Southern >>>>>Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New Zealand, >>>>>sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of >>>>>climate change on New Zealand directly, but also our commitments to >>>>>reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try >>>>>to reduce the impact of climate change. They don't look further than >>>>>the interests of political donors . . .
on nothing of value.
There is nothing to be done by New Zealand and this government is no more >>>>to
blame than the last 10 governments (or more). Sheesh what a waste of >>>>bandwidth
Rich.
.
if you prefer, 'sanctity of contract'. Commitments have been made
under an international agreement - should we meet those obligations?
One previous Prime Minister thought it a good idea to push the sloganNon-binding means no penalties of any sort.
"Clean, Green, 100% Pure" - for which he copped some flack on UK
Television for the obvious hypocrisy, but we have made some progress
since. The penalties for breaking an international agreement are
unclear
, but potentially much more serious than just financialYou keep saying that but without any explanation.
penalties
, and with Trump about to start a second term as President ofWhat silly rhetoric.
the USA, meeting international commitments may be even more important
to retain friends . . .
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:42:54 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:if it is roughly the same proportion of the world population as NZ is,
From: >>>https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels,
with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers >>>below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This >>>significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady
increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the >>>abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >>>researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They
analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the >>>probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its
connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low sea >>>ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered
very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models has >>>been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. We >>>only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, which >>>makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent.
This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent
would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This tells
us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is >>>considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate
change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those >>>expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes
it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice >>>extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by >>>climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is >>>likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the >>>authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the sea >>>ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds
model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few >>>years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the Southern >>>Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New Zealand,
Yes that seems inevitable.
sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of >>>climate change on New Zealand directly,
Probably because there is nothing NZ ( and every other Southern
Hemisphere country combined) can do about it. Our contribution to
this problem is nearly zero. Climate change in Antarctica and
everywhere else in the word is affected by Northern Hemisphere
countries almost entirely.
but also our commitments to
reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try
to reduce the impact of climate change.
We should not have agreed to anything. Our contribution is so
miniscule it is hardly measurable.
that may still be quite a bit of money . . .
They don't look further than
the interests of political donors . . .
More worthless political rhetoric Rich. Repetition simply exposes how >>shallow your arguments are. Better for you to get Russia, China and
India on board.
China is probably a lot closer than Russia or India, but giving so
much to political donors is meaning that the cost of not reducing our >emissions is more expensive that it needs to be.
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:58:15 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 08:59:48 +1300, Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:They are non-binding which means they are in fact optional. Simple really, >>just
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It is called meeting obligations under international agreements - or
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 02:52:53 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:What's the point?? Half of one percent contribution to global >>>>pollution. Just a big left tax grab which your lot is great at
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:New Zealand could at least try to meet the emission reduction targets >>>>>that we agreed to, so of course there is something we could do - the >>>>>money to donors is just making that even harder.
From: >>>>>>>https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/Until you posted your summary the science was indeed being followed, >>>>>>Then,
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels, >>>>>>>with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers >>>>>>>below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This >>>>>>>significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady >>>>>>>increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the >>>>>>>abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >>>>>>>researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They >>>>>>>analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the >>>>>>>probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its >>>>>>>connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low sea >>>>>>>ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered >>>>>>>very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models has >>>>>>>been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. We >>>>>>>only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, which >>>>>>>makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent. >>>>>>>This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent >>>>>>>would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This tells >>>>>>>us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is >>>>>>>considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate >>>>>>>change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those >>>>>>>expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes >>>>>>>it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice >>>>>>>extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by >>>>>>>climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is >>>>>>>likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the >>>>>>>authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the sea >>>>>>>ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds >>>>>>>model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few >>>>>>>years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the Southern >>>>>>>Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New Zealand, >>>>>>>sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of >>>>>>>climate change on New Zealand directly, but also our commitments to >>>>>>>reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try >>>>>>>to reduce the impact of climate change. They don't look further than >>>>>>>the interests of political donors . . .
however, it went to shit with a totally unscientific political diatribe >>>>>>based
on nothing of value.
There is nothing to be done by New Zealand and this government is no more >>>>>>to
blame than the last 10 governments (or more). Sheesh what a waste of >>>>>>bandwidth
Rich.
.
if you prefer, 'sanctity of contract'. Commitments have been made
under an international agreement - should we meet those obligations?
like you.
One previous Prime Minister thought it a good idea to push the slogan >>>"Clean, Green, 100% Pure" - for which he copped some flack on UK >>>Television for the obvious hypocrisy, but we have made some progress >>>since. The penalties for breaking an international agreement areNon-binding means no penalties of any sort.
unclear
, but potentially much more serious than just financialYou keep saying that but without any explanation.
penalties
, and with Trump about to start a second term as President ofWhat silly rhetoric.
the USA, meeting international commitments may be even more important
to retain friends . . .
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 22:53:27 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:42:54 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:if it is roughly the same proportion of the world population as NZ is,
From: >>>>https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels,
with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers >>>>below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This >>>>significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady >>>>increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the >>>>abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >>>>researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They
analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the >>>>probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its >>>>connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low sea >>>>ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered >>>>very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models has >>>>been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. We >>>>only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, which >>>>makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent. >>>>This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent >>>>would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This tells >>>>us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is >>>>considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate
change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those >>>>expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes
it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice >>>>extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by >>>>climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is >>>>likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the >>>>authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the sea >>>>ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds >>>>model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few >>>>years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the Southern >>>>Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New Zealand,
Yes that seems inevitable.
sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of >>>>climate change on New Zealand directly,
Probably because there is nothing NZ ( and every other Southern >>>Hemisphere country combined) can do about it. Our contribution to
this problem is nearly zero. Climate change in Antarctica and
everywhere else in the word is affected by Northern Hemisphere
countries almost entirely.
but also our commitments to
reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try
to reduce the impact of climate change.
We should not have agreed to anything. Our contribution is so
miniscule it is hardly measurable.
that may still be quite a bit of money . . .
They don't look further than
the interests of political donors . . .
More worthless political rhetoric Rich. Repetition simply exposes how >>>shallow your arguments are. Better for you to get Russia, China and >>>India on board.
China is probably a lot closer than Russia or India, but giving so
much to political donors is meaning that the cost of not reducing our >>emissions is more expensive that it needs to be.
So you only response is worthless and baseless rhetoric?
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 12:11:57 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>I am well aware of that. My purpose is entirely different when I delete your nonsense. A purpose you have never devined and never will, because such insight is well beyond your meagre intellect.
wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 22:53:27 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:42:54 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:if it is roughly the same proportion of the world population as NZ is, >>>that may still be quite a bit of money . . .
From: >>>>>https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/Yes that seems inevitable.
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels, >>>>>with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers >>>>>below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This >>>>>significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady >>>>>increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the >>>>>abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >>>>>researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They >>>>>analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the >>>>>probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its >>>>>connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low sea >>>>>ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered >>>>>very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models has >>>>>been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. We >>>>>only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, which >>>>>makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent. >>>>>This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent >>>>>would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This tells >>>>>us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is >>>>>considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate >>>>>change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those >>>>>expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes >>>>>it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice >>>>>extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by >>>>>climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is >>>>>likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the >>>>>authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the sea >>>>>ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds >>>>>model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few >>>>>years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the Southern >>>>>Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New Zealand, >>>>
sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of >>>>>climate change on New Zealand directly,
Probably because there is nothing NZ ( and every other Southern >>>>Hemisphere country combined) can do about it. Our contribution to
this problem is nearly zero. Climate change in Antarctica and >>>>everywhere else in the word is affected by Northern Hemisphere >>>>countries almost entirely.
but also our commitments to
reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try >>>>>to reduce the impact of climate change.
We should not have agreed to anything. Our contribution is so >>>>miniscule it is hardly measurable.
They don't look further than
the interests of political donors . . .
More worthless political rhetoric Rich. Repetition simply exposes how >>>>shallow your arguments are. Better for you to get Russia, China and >>>>India on board.
China is probably a lot closer than Russia or India, but giving so
much to political donors is meaning that the cost of not reducing our >>>emissions is more expensive that it needs to be.
So you only response is worthless and baseless rhetoric?
Perhaps you missed this response which Tony deleted - apparently he
does not realise that most people save previous posts in a thread for
some time:
__________What nonsense you drivel.
I agree, Tony, that seems at times to be all this government has. See:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/12/subsidising-ecocide.html
Would we be affected if some countries declined to allow our goods to
enter their country, Tony? Is that what you are looking for?
Naturally under this government we are already missing targets: >https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
Are Shane Jones and Winston Peters not talking to each other? >"AsIwouldsaytoyouthatdoesappeartobethecase"
___________
The link of particular interest from that initial reference is: >https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
- it does appear that in looking into government assistance to those
looking for fossil fuels Shane Jones had not spoken to Winston Peters
who would probably have been aware of the commendable stance taken
against subsidies for fossil fuels . . . If NZ is really phasing out
fossil fuel subsidies it would be very strange to introduce a new
subsidy, don't you think?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 12:11:57 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:I am well aware of that. My purpose is entirely different when I delete your >nonsense. A purpose you have never devined and never will, because such insight
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 22:53:27 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:42:54 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:if it is roughly the same proportion of the world population as NZ is, >>>>that may still be quite a bit of money . . .
From: >>>>>>https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/Yes that seems inevitable.
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels, >>>>>>with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers >>>>>>below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This >>>>>>significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady >>>>>>increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the >>>>>>abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >>>>>>researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They >>>>>>analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the >>>>>>probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its >>>>>>connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low sea >>>>>>ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered >>>>>>very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models has >>>>>>been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. We >>>>>>only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, which >>>>>>makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent. >>>>>>This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent >>>>>>would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This tells >>>>>>us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is >>>>>>considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate >>>>>>change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those >>>>>>expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes >>>>>>it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice >>>>>>extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by >>>>>>climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is >>>>>>likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the >>>>>>authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the sea >>>>>>ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds >>>>>>model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few >>>>>>years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the Southern >>>>>>Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New Zealand, >>>>>
sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of >>>>>>climate change on New Zealand directly,
Probably because there is nothing NZ ( and every other Southern >>>>>Hemisphere country combined) can do about it. Our contribution to >>>>>this problem is nearly zero. Climate change in Antarctica and >>>>>everywhere else in the word is affected by Northern Hemisphere >>>>>countries almost entirely.
but also our commitments to
reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try >>>>>>to reduce the impact of climate change.
We should not have agreed to anything. Our contribution is so >>>>>miniscule it is hardly measurable.
They don't look further than
the interests of political donors . . .
More worthless political rhetoric Rich. Repetition simply exposes how >>>>>shallow your arguments are. Better for you to get Russia, China and >>>>>India on board.
China is probably a lot closer than Russia or India, but giving so
much to political donors is meaning that the cost of not reducing our >>>>emissions is more expensive that it needs to be.
So you only response is worthless and baseless rhetoric?
Perhaps you missed this response which Tony deleted - apparently he
does not realise that most people save previous posts in a thread for
some time:
is well beyond your meagre intellect.
A quick google search would solve a lot of your problems, Tony. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/535373/oil-and-gas-lobby-asks-government-to-underwrite-fossil-fuel-exploration-minister-considering-options__________What nonsense you drivel.
I agree, Tony, that seems at times to be all this government has. See:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/12/subsidising-ecocide.html
Would we be affected if some countries declined to allow our goods to
enter their country, Tony? Is that what you are looking for?
Naturally under this government we are already missing targets: >>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
Are Shane Jones and Winston Peters not talking to each other? >>"AsIwouldsaytoyouthatdoesappeartobethecase"
___________
The link of particular interest from that initial reference is: >>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
- it does appear that in looking into government assistance to those >>looking for fossil fuels Shane Jones had not spoken to Winston Peters
who would probably have been aware of the commendable stance taken
against subsidies for fossil fuels . . . If NZ is really phasing out
fossil fuel subsidies it would be very strange to introduce a new
subsidy, don't you think?
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:29:58 -0000 (UTC), TonyQ.E.D.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 12:11:57 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:I am well aware of that. My purpose is entirely different when I delete your >>nonsense. A purpose you have never devined and never will, because such >>insight
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 22:53:27 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:42:54 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:if it is roughly the same proportion of the world population as NZ is, >>>>>that may still be quite a bit of money . . .
From: >>>>>>>https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/Yes that seems inevitable.
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels, >>>>>>>with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers >>>>>>>below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This >>>>>>>significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady >>>>>>>increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the >>>>>>>abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >>>>>>>researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They >>>>>>>analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the >>>>>>>probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its >>>>>>>connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low sea >>>>>>>ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered >>>>>>>very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models has >>>>>>>been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. We >>>>>>>only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, which >>>>>>>makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent. >>>>>>>This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent >>>>>>>would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This tells >>>>>>>us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is >>>>>>>considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate >>>>>>>change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those >>>>>>>expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes >>>>>>>it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice >>>>>>>extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by >>>>>>>climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is >>>>>>>likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the >>>>>>>authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the sea >>>>>>>ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds >>>>>>>model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few >>>>>>>years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the Southern >>>>>>>Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New Zealand, >>>>>>
sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of >>>>>>>climate change on New Zealand directly,
Probably because there is nothing NZ ( and every other Southern >>>>>>Hemisphere country combined) can do about it. Our contribution to >>>>>>this problem is nearly zero. Climate change in Antarctica and >>>>>>everywhere else in the word is affected by Northern Hemisphere >>>>>>countries almost entirely.
but also our commitments to
reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try >>>>>>>to reduce the impact of climate change.
We should not have agreed to anything. Our contribution is so >>>>>>miniscule it is hardly measurable.
They don't look further than
the interests of political donors . . .
More worthless political rhetoric Rich. Repetition simply exposes how >>>>>>shallow your arguments are. Better for you to get Russia, China and >>>>>>India on board.
China is probably a lot closer than Russia or India, but giving so >>>>>much to political donors is meaning that the cost of not reducing our >>>>>emissions is more expensive that it needs to be.
So you only response is worthless and baseless rhetoric?
Perhaps you missed this response which Tony deleted - apparently he
does not realise that most people save previous posts in a thread for >>>some time:
is well beyond your meagre intellect.
I understand that it is your coping mechanism for questions you cannot
answer or that you do not understand and feel embarrassed.
There is no binding agreement and all your childish lies will not change that. End of story little boy.A quick google search would solve a lot of your problems, Tony. >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/535373/oil-and-gas-lobby-asks-government-to-underwrite-fossil-fuel-exploration-minister-considering-options__________What nonsense you drivel.
I agree, Tony, that seems at times to be all this government has. See:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/12/subsidising-ecocide.html
Would we be affected if some countries declined to allow our goods to >>>enter their country, Tony? Is that what you are looking for?
Naturally under this government we are already missing targets: >>>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
Are Shane Jones and Winston Peters not talking to each other? >>>"AsIwouldsaytoyouthatdoesappeartobethecase"
___________
The link of particular interest from that initial reference is: >>>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
- it does appear that in looking into government assistance to those >>>looking for fossil fuels Shane Jones had not spoken to Winston Peters
who would probably have been aware of the commendable stance taken >>>against subsidies for fossil fuels . . . If NZ is really phasing out >>>fossil fuel subsidies it would be very strange to introduce a new >>>subsidy, don't you think?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:29:58 -0000 (UTC), TonyQ.E.D.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 12:11:57 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:I am well aware of that. My purpose is entirely different when I delete your >>>nonsense. A purpose you have never devined and never will, because such >>>insight
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 22:53:27 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:42:54 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:if it is roughly the same proportion of the world population as NZ is, >>>>>>that may still be quite a bit of money . . .
From: >>>>>>>>https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/Yes that seems inevitable.
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels, >>>>>>>>with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers >>>>>>>>below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This >>>>>>>>significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady >>>>>>>>increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the >>>>>>>>abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >>>>>>>>researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They >>>>>>>>analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the >>>>>>>>probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its >>>>>>>>connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low sea >>>>>>>>ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered >>>>>>>>very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models has >>>>>>>>been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. We >>>>>>>>only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, which >>>>>>>>makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent. >>>>>>>>This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent >>>>>>>>would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This tells >>>>>>>>us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is >>>>>>>>considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate >>>>>>>>change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those >>>>>>>>expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes >>>>>>>>it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice >>>>>>>>extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by >>>>>>>>climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is >>>>>>>>likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the >>>>>>>>authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the sea >>>>>>>>ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds >>>>>>>>model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few >>>>>>>>years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the Southern >>>>>>>>Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New Zealand, >>>>>>>
sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of >>>>>>>>climate change on New Zealand directly,
Probably because there is nothing NZ ( and every other Southern >>>>>>>Hemisphere country combined) can do about it. Our contribution to >>>>>>>this problem is nearly zero. Climate change in Antarctica and >>>>>>>everywhere else in the word is affected by Northern Hemisphere >>>>>>>countries almost entirely.
but also our commitments to
reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try >>>>>>>>to reduce the impact of climate change.
We should not have agreed to anything. Our contribution is so >>>>>>>miniscule it is hardly measurable.
They don't look further than
the interests of political donors . . .
More worthless political rhetoric Rich. Repetition simply exposes how >>>>>>>shallow your arguments are. Better for you to get Russia, China and >>>>>>>India on board.
China is probably a lot closer than Russia or India, but giving so >>>>>>much to political donors is meaning that the cost of not reducing our >>>>>>emissions is more expensive that it needs to be.
So you only response is worthless and baseless rhetoric?
Perhaps you missed this response which Tony deleted - apparently he >>>>does not realise that most people save previous posts in a thread for >>>>some time:
is well beyond your meagre intellect.
I understand that it is your coping mechanism for questions you cannot >>answer or that you do not understand and feel embarrassed.
As I said, you do not even begin to understand anything more subtle than a jack
hammer.
What a shame you have wasted your life and brought so much misery to the world.
There is no binding agreement and all your childish lies will not change that. >End of story little boy.
A quick google search would solve a lot of your problems, Tony. >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/535373/oil-and-gas-lobby-asks-government-to-underwrite-fossil-fuel-exploration-minister-considering-options__________What nonsense you drivel.
I agree, Tony, that seems at times to be all this government has. See:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/12/subsidising-ecocide.html
Would we be affected if some countries declined to allow our goods to >>>>enter their country, Tony? Is that what you are looking for?
Naturally under this government we are already missing targets: >>>>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
Are Shane Jones and Winston Peters not talking to each other? >>>>"AsIwouldsaytoyouthatdoesappeartobethecase"
___________
The link of particular interest from that initial reference is: >>>>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
- it does appear that in looking into government assistance to those >>>>looking for fossil fuels Shane Jones had not spoken to Winston Peters >>>>who would probably have been aware of the commendable stance taken >>>>against subsidies for fossil fuels . . . If NZ is really phasing out >>>>fossil fuel subsidies it would be very strange to introduce a new >>>>subsidy, don't you think?
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 06:37:28 -0000 (UTC), TonyThere is little surprise that the gas lobby is asking for subsidies -
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:29:58 -0000 (UTC), TonyQ.E.D.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 12:11:57 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:I am well aware of that. My purpose is entirely different when I delete your
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 22:53:27 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:42:54 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:if it is roughly the same proportion of the world population as NZ is, >>>>>>>that may still be quite a bit of money . . .
From: >>>>>>>>>https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/Yes that seems inevitable.
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels, >>>>>>>>>with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers >>>>>>>>>below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This >>>>>>>>>significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady >>>>>>>>>increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the >>>>>>>>>abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >>>>>>>>>researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They >>>>>>>>>analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the >>>>>>>>>probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its >>>>>>>>>connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low sea >>>>>>>>>ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered >>>>>>>>>very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models has >>>>>>>>>been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. We >>>>>>>>>only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, which >>>>>>>>>makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent. >>>>>>>>>This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent >>>>>>>>>would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This tells >>>>>>>>>us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is >>>>>>>>>considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate >>>>>>>>>change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those >>>>>>>>>expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes >>>>>>>>>it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice >>>>>>>>>extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by >>>>>>>>>climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is >>>>>>>>>likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the >>>>>>>>>authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the sea >>>>>>>>>ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds >>>>>>>>>model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few >>>>>>>>>years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the Southern >>>>>>>>>Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New Zealand, >>>>>>>>
sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of >>>>>>>>>climate change on New Zealand directly,
Probably because there is nothing NZ ( and every other Southern >>>>>>>>Hemisphere country combined) can do about it. Our contribution to >>>>>>>>this problem is nearly zero. Climate change in Antarctica and >>>>>>>>everywhere else in the word is affected by Northern Hemisphere >>>>>>>>countries almost entirely.
but also our commitments to
reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try >>>>>>>>>to reduce the impact of climate change.
We should not have agreed to anything. Our contribution is so >>>>>>>>miniscule it is hardly measurable.
They don't look further than
the interests of political donors . . .
More worthless political rhetoric Rich. Repetition simply exposes how >>>>>>>>shallow your arguments are. Better for you to get Russia, China and >>>>>>>>India on board.
China is probably a lot closer than Russia or India, but giving so >>>>>>>much to political donors is meaning that the cost of not reducing our >>>>>>>emissions is more expensive that it needs to be.
So you only response is worthless and baseless rhetoric?
Perhaps you missed this response which Tony deleted - apparently he >>>>>does not realise that most people save previous posts in a thread for >>>>>some time:
nonsense. A purpose you have never devined and never will, because such >>>>insight
is well beyond your meagre intellect.
I understand that it is your coping mechanism for questions you cannot >>>answer or that you do not understand and feel embarrassed.
As I said, you do not even begin to understand anything more subtle than a jack
hammer.
What a shame you have wasted your life and brought so much misery to the world.
There is no binding agreement and all your childish lies will not change that.
A quick google search would solve a lot of your problems, Tony. >>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/535373/oil-and-gas-lobby-asks-government-to-underwrite-fossil-fuel-exploration-minister-considering-options__________What nonsense you drivel.
I agree, Tony, that seems at times to be all this government has. See: >>>>>
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/12/subsidising-ecocide.html
Would we be affected if some countries declined to allow our goods to >>>>>enter their country, Tony? Is that what you are looking for?
Naturally under this government we are already missing targets: >>>>>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
Are Shane Jones and Winston Peters not talking to each other? >>>>>"AsIwouldsaytoyouthatdoesappeartobethecase"
___________
The link of particular interest from that initial reference is: >>>>>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
- it does appear that in looking into government assistance to those >>>>>looking for fossil fuels Shane Jones had not spoken to Winston Peters >>>>>who would probably have been aware of the commendable stance taken >>>>>against subsidies for fossil fuels . . . If NZ is really phasing out >>>>>fossil fuel subsidies it would be very strange to introduce a new >>>>>subsidy, don't you think?
End of story little boy.
That's about it Tony. When Rich latches on to anti-government
rhetoric, there is no logic or evidence that will dislodge it.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:29:58 -0000 (UTC), TonyQ.E.D.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 12:11:57 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:I am well aware of that. My purpose is entirely different when I delete your >>>nonsense. A purpose you have never devined and never will, because such >>>insight
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 22:53:27 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:42:54 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:if it is roughly the same proportion of the world population as NZ is, >>>>>>that may still be quite a bit of money . . .
From: >>>>>>>>https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/Yes that seems inevitable.
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels, >>>>>>>>with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers >>>>>>>>below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This >>>>>>>>significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady >>>>>>>>increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the >>>>>>>>abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >>>>>>>>researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They >>>>>>>>analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the >>>>>>>>probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its >>>>>>>>connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low sea >>>>>>>>ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered >>>>>>>>very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models has >>>>>>>>been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. We >>>>>>>>only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, which >>>>>>>>makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent. >>>>>>>>This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent >>>>>>>>would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This tells >>>>>>>>us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is >>>>>>>>considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate >>>>>>>>change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those >>>>>>>>expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes >>>>>>>>it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice >>>>>>>>extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by >>>>>>>>climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is >>>>>>>>likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the >>>>>>>>authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the sea >>>>>>>>ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds >>>>>>>>model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few >>>>>>>>years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the Southern >>>>>>>>Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New Zealand, >>>>>>>
sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of >>>>>>>>climate change on New Zealand directly,
Probably because there is nothing NZ ( and every other Southern >>>>>>>Hemisphere country combined) can do about it. Our contribution to >>>>>>>this problem is nearly zero. Climate change in Antarctica and >>>>>>>everywhere else in the word is affected by Northern Hemisphere >>>>>>>countries almost entirely.
but also our commitments to
reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try >>>>>>>>to reduce the impact of climate change.
We should not have agreed to anything. Our contribution is so >>>>>>>miniscule it is hardly measurable.
They don't look further than
the interests of political donors . . .
More worthless political rhetoric Rich. Repetition simply exposes how >>>>>>>shallow your arguments are. Better for you to get Russia, China and >>>>>>>India on board.
China is probably a lot closer than Russia or India, but giving so >>>>>>much to political donors is meaning that the cost of not reducing our >>>>>>emissions is more expensive that it needs to be.
So you only response is worthless and baseless rhetoric?
Perhaps you missed this response which Tony deleted - apparently he >>>>does not realise that most people save previous posts in a thread for >>>>some time:
is well beyond your meagre intellect.
I understand that it is your coping mechanism for questions you cannot >>answer or that you do not understand and feel embarrassed.
As I said, you do not even begin to understand anything more subtle than a jack
hammer.
What a shame you have wasted your life and brought so much misery to the world.
There is no binding agreement and all your childish lies will not change that. >End of story little boy.
A quick google search would solve a lot of your problems, Tony. >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/535373/oil-and-gas-lobby-asks-government-to-underwrite-fossil-fuel-exploration-minister-considering-options__________What nonsense you drivel.
I agree, Tony, that seems at times to be all this government has. See:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/12/subsidising-ecocide.html
Would we be affected if some countries declined to allow our goods to >>>>enter their country, Tony? Is that what you are looking for?
Naturally under this government we are already missing targets: >>>>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
Are Shane Jones and Winston Peters not talking to each other? >>>>"AsIwouldsaytoyouthatdoesappeartobethecase"
___________
The link of particular interest from that initial reference is: >>>>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
- it does appear that in looking into government assistance to those >>>>looking for fossil fuels Shane Jones had not spoken to Winston Peters >>>>who would probably have been aware of the commendable stance taken >>>>against subsidies for fossil fuels . . . If NZ is really phasing out >>>>fossil fuel subsidies it would be very strange to introduce a new >>>>subsidy, don't you think?
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 06:37:28 -0000 (UTC), TonyThere is no binding agreement and all your childish lies will not change that. I have not lied here, you have lied multiple times. If an agreement is not binding it can be modified, I have said nothing more than that, You are a disgusting little boy. Too late for you to grow up.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:29:58 -0000 (UTC), TonyQ.E.D.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 12:11:57 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:I am well aware of that. My purpose is entirely different when I delete >>>>your
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 22:53:27 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:42:54 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:if it is roughly the same proportion of the world population as NZ is, >>>>>>>that may still be quite a bit of money . . .
From: >>>>>>>>>https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/Yes that seems inevitable.
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels, >>>>>>>>>with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers >>>>>>>>>below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This >>>>>>>>>significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady >>>>>>>>>increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the >>>>>>>>>abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >>>>>>>>>researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They >>>>>>>>>analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the >>>>>>>>>probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its >>>>>>>>>connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low sea >>>>>>>>>ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered >>>>>>>>>very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models has >>>>>>>>>been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. We >>>>>>>>>only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, which >>>>>>>>>makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent. >>>>>>>>>This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent >>>>>>>>>would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This tells >>>>>>>>>us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is >>>>>>>>>considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate >>>>>>>>>change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those >>>>>>>>>expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes >>>>>>>>>it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice >>>>>>>>>extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by >>>>>>>>>climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is >>>>>>>>>likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the >>>>>>>>>authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the sea >>>>>>>>>ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds >>>>>>>>>model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few >>>>>>>>>years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the Southern >>>>>>>>>Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New Zealand, >>>>>>>>
sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of >>>>>>>>>climate change on New Zealand directly,
Probably because there is nothing NZ ( and every other Southern >>>>>>>>Hemisphere country combined) can do about it. Our contribution to >>>>>>>>this problem is nearly zero. Climate change in Antarctica and >>>>>>>>everywhere else in the word is affected by Northern Hemisphere >>>>>>>>countries almost entirely.
but also our commitments to
reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try >>>>>>>>>to reduce the impact of climate change.
We should not have agreed to anything. Our contribution is so >>>>>>>>miniscule it is hardly measurable.
They don't look further than
the interests of political donors . . .
More worthless political rhetoric Rich. Repetition simply exposes how >>>>>>>>shallow your arguments are. Better for you to get Russia, China and >>>>>>>>India on board.
China is probably a lot closer than Russia or India, but giving so >>>>>>>much to political donors is meaning that the cost of not reducing our >>>>>>>emissions is more expensive that it needs to be.
So you only response is worthless and baseless rhetoric?
Perhaps you missed this response which Tony deleted - apparently he >>>>>does not realise that most people save previous posts in a thread for >>>>>some time:
nonsense. A purpose you have never devined and never will, because such >>>>insight
is well beyond your meagre intellect.
I understand that it is your coping mechanism for questions you cannot >>>answer or that you do not understand and feel embarrassed.
As I said, you do not even begin to understand anything more subtle than a >>jack
hammer.
What a shame you have wasted your life and brought so much misery to the >>world.
There is no binding agreement and all your childish lies will not change >>that.
A quick google search would solve a lot of your problems, Tony. >>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/535373/oil-and-gas-lobby-asks-government-to-underwrite-fossil-fuel-exploration-minister-considering-options__________What nonsense you drivel.
I agree, Tony, that seems at times to be all this government has. See: >>>>>
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/12/subsidising-ecocide.html
Would we be affected if some countries declined to allow our goods to >>>>>enter their country, Tony? Is that what you are looking for?
Naturally under this government we are already missing targets: >>>>>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
Are Shane Jones and Winston Peters not talking to each other? >>>>>"AsIwouldsaytoyouthatdoesappeartobethecase"
___________
The link of particular interest from that initial reference is: >>>>>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
- it does appear that in looking into government assistance to those >>>>>looking for fossil fuels Shane Jones had not spoken to Winston Peters >>>>>who would probably have been aware of the commendable stance taken >>>>>against subsidies for fossil fuels . . . If NZ is really phasing out >>>>>fossil fuel subsidies it would be very strange to introduce a new >>>>>subsidy, don't you think?
End of story little boy.
Trade agreements can be like that too, Tony - your childish lies
cannot change the reality that reneging on agreements can be similar
to breaking a contract - it may be detrimental to the interests of New >Zealand. Sad that New Zealand has come to almost expect such sophistry
under the current government - they put themselves and their political >backers before the sanctity of contract . . .
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 20:18:06 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>There are no binding international agreements that anybody is ignoring. Stop your lies.
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 06:37:28 -0000 (UTC), TonyThere is little surprise that the gas lobby is asking for subsidies -
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:29:58 -0000 (UTC), TonyQ.E.D.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 12:11:57 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:I am well aware of that. My purpose is entirely different when I delete >>>>>your
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 22:53:27 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:42:54 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:if it is roughly the same proportion of the world population as NZ is, >>>>>>>>that may still be quite a bit of money . . .
From: >>>>>>>>>>https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels, >>>>>>>>>>with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers
below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This >>>>>>>>>>significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady >>>>>>>>>>increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the >>>>>>>>>>abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >>>>>>>>>>researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They >>>>>>>>>>analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the >>>>>>>>>>probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its >>>>>>>>>>connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low sea
ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered >>>>>>>>>>very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models has
been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. We
only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, which
makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent. >>>>>>>>>>This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent >>>>>>>>>>would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This tells
us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is >>>>>>>>>>considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate >>>>>>>>>>change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those >>>>>>>>>>expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes >>>>>>>>>>it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice >>>>>>>>>>extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by >>>>>>>>>>climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is >>>>>>>>>>likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the >>>>>>>>>>authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the sea
ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds >>>>>>>>>>model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few >>>>>>>>>>years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the Southern
Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New Zealand,
Yes that seems inevitable.
sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of >>>>>>>>>>climate change on New Zealand directly,
Probably because there is nothing NZ ( and every other Southern >>>>>>>>>Hemisphere country combined) can do about it. Our contribution to >>>>>>>>>this problem is nearly zero. Climate change in Antarctica and >>>>>>>>>everywhere else in the word is affected by Northern Hemisphere >>>>>>>>>countries almost entirely.
but also our commitments to
reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try >>>>>>>>>>to reduce the impact of climate change.
We should not have agreed to anything. Our contribution is so >>>>>>>>>miniscule it is hardly measurable.
They don't look further than
the interests of political donors . . .
More worthless political rhetoric Rich. Repetition simply exposes how >>>>>>>>>shallow your arguments are. Better for you to get Russia, China and >>>>>>>>>India on board.
China is probably a lot closer than Russia or India, but giving so >>>>>>>>much to political donors is meaning that the cost of not reducing our >>>>>>>>emissions is more expensive that it needs to be.
So you only response is worthless and baseless rhetoric?
Perhaps you missed this response which Tony deleted - apparently he >>>>>>does not realise that most people save previous posts in a thread for >>>>>>some time:
nonsense. A purpose you have never devined and never will, because such >>>>>insight
is well beyond your meagre intellect.
I understand that it is your coping mechanism for questions you cannot >>>>answer or that you do not understand and feel embarrassed.
As I said, you do not even begin to understand anything more subtle than a >>>jack
hammer.
What a shame you have wasted your life and brought so much misery to the >>>world.
There is no binding agreement and all your childish lies will not change >>>that.
A quick google search would solve a lot of your problems, Tony. >>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/535373/oil-and-gas-lobby-asks-government-to-underwrite-fossil-fuel-exploration-minister-considering-options__________What nonsense you drivel.
I agree, Tony, that seems at times to be all this government has. See: >>>>>>
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/12/subsidising-ecocide.html
Would we be affected if some countries declined to allow our goods to >>>>>>enter their country, Tony? Is that what you are looking for?
Naturally under this government we are already missing targets: >>>>>>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
Are Shane Jones and Winston Peters not talking to each other? >>>>>>"AsIwouldsaytoyouthatdoesappeartobethecase"
___________
The link of particular interest from that initial reference is: >>>>>>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
- it does appear that in looking into government assistance to those >>>>>>looking for fossil fuels Shane Jones had not spoken to Winston Peters >>>>>>who would probably have been aware of the commendable stance taken >>>>>>against subsidies for fossil fuels . . . If NZ is really phasing out >>>>>>fossil fuel subsidies it would be very strange to introduce a new >>>>>>subsidy, don't you think?
End of story little boy.
That's about it Tony. When Rich latches on to anti-government
rhetoric, there is no logic or evidence that will dislodge it.
what would be surprising is if the government ignored international >agreements, and Shane Jones seems to be doing just that.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Now you are starting to understand - the current government did change
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 06:37:28 -0000 (UTC), TonyThere is no binding agreement and all your childish lies will not change that. >I have not lied here, you have lied multiple times. If an agreement is not >binding it can be modified, I have said nothing more than that, You are a >disgusting little boy. Too late for you to grow up.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:29:58 -0000 (UTC), TonyQ.E.D.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 12:11:57 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:I am well aware of that. My purpose is entirely different when I delete >>>>>your
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 22:53:27 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:42:54 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:if it is roughly the same proportion of the world population as NZ is, >>>>>>>>that may still be quite a bit of money . . .
From: >>>>>>>>>>https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels, >>>>>>>>>>with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers
below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This >>>>>>>>>>significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady >>>>>>>>>>increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the >>>>>>>>>>abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >>>>>>>>>>researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They >>>>>>>>>>analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the >>>>>>>>>>probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its >>>>>>>>>>connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low sea
ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered >>>>>>>>>>very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models has
been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. We
only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, which
makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent. >>>>>>>>>>This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent >>>>>>>>>>would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This tells
us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is >>>>>>>>>>considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate >>>>>>>>>>change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those >>>>>>>>>>expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes >>>>>>>>>>it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice >>>>>>>>>>extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by >>>>>>>>>>climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is >>>>>>>>>>likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the >>>>>>>>>>authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the sea
ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds >>>>>>>>>>model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few >>>>>>>>>>years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the Southern
Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New Zealand,
Yes that seems inevitable.
sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of >>>>>>>>>>climate change on New Zealand directly,
Probably because there is nothing NZ ( and every other Southern >>>>>>>>>Hemisphere country combined) can do about it. Our contribution to >>>>>>>>>this problem is nearly zero. Climate change in Antarctica and >>>>>>>>>everywhere else in the word is affected by Northern Hemisphere >>>>>>>>>countries almost entirely.
but also our commitments to
reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try >>>>>>>>>>to reduce the impact of climate change.
We should not have agreed to anything. Our contribution is so >>>>>>>>>miniscule it is hardly measurable.
They don't look further than
the interests of political donors . . .
More worthless political rhetoric Rich. Repetition simply exposes how >>>>>>>>>shallow your arguments are. Better for you to get Russia, China and >>>>>>>>>India on board.
China is probably a lot closer than Russia or India, but giving so >>>>>>>>much to political donors is meaning that the cost of not reducing our >>>>>>>>emissions is more expensive that it needs to be.
So you only response is worthless and baseless rhetoric?
Perhaps you missed this response which Tony deleted - apparently he >>>>>>does not realise that most people save previous posts in a thread for >>>>>>some time:
nonsense. A purpose you have never devined and never will, because such >>>>>insight
is well beyond your meagre intellect.
I understand that it is your coping mechanism for questions you cannot >>>>answer or that you do not understand and feel embarrassed.
As I said, you do not even begin to understand anything more subtle than a >>>jack
hammer.
What a shame you have wasted your life and brought so much misery to the >>>world.
There is no binding agreement and all your childish lies will not change >>>that.
A quick google search would solve a lot of your problems, Tony. >>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/535373/oil-and-gas-lobby-asks-government-to-underwrite-fossil-fuel-exploration-minister-considering-options__________What nonsense you drivel.
I agree, Tony, that seems at times to be all this government has. See: >>>>>>
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/12/subsidising-ecocide.html
Would we be affected if some countries declined to allow our goods to >>>>>>enter their country, Tony? Is that what you are looking for?
Naturally under this government we are already missing targets: >>>>>>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
Are Shane Jones and Winston Peters not talking to each other? >>>>>>"AsIwouldsaytoyouthatdoesappeartobethecase"
___________
The link of particular interest from that initial reference is: >>>>>>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
- it does appear that in looking into government assistance to those >>>>>>looking for fossil fuels Shane Jones had not spoken to Winston Peters >>>>>>who would probably have been aware of the commendable stance taken >>>>>>against subsidies for fossil fuels . . . If NZ is really phasing out >>>>>>fossil fuel subsidies it would be very strange to introduce a new >>>>>>subsidy, don't you think?
End of story little boy.
Trade agreements can be like that too, Tony - your childish lies
cannot change the reality that reneging on agreements can be similar
to breaking a contract - it may be detrimental to the interests of New >>Zealand. Sad that New Zealand has come to almost expect such sophistry >>under the current government - they put themselves and their political >>backers before the sanctity of contract . . .
End of story you grubby little boy.
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:19:28 -0000 (UTC), TonyDon't be such a baby, no such agreement is possible because I cannot agree with liars.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Now you are starting to understand - the current government did change
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 06:37:28 -0000 (UTC), TonyThere is no binding agreement and all your childish lies will not change >>that.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:29:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Q.E.D.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 12:11:57 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:I am well aware of that. My purpose is entirely different when I delete >>>>>>your
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 22:53:27 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:42:54 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:if it is roughly the same proportion of the world population as NZ is, >>>>>>>>>that may still be quite a bit of money . . .
From: >>>>>>>>>>>https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels, >>>>>>>>>>>with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square >>>>>>>>>>>kilometers
below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This
significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady >>>>>>>>>>>increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the >>>>>>>>>>>abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >>>>>>>>>>>researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They >>>>>>>>>>>analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the >>>>>>>>>>>probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its >>>>>>>>>>>connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low >>>>>>>>>>>sea
ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered >>>>>>>>>>>very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models >>>>>>>>>>>has
been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. >>>>>>>>>>>We
only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, >>>>>>>>>>>which
makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent. >>>>>>>>>>>This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent >>>>>>>>>>>would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This >>>>>>>>>>>tells
us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is
considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate >>>>>>>>>>>change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those
expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes >>>>>>>>>>>it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice >>>>>>>>>>>extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by
climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is >>>>>>>>>>>likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the >>>>>>>>>>>authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the >>>>>>>>>>>sea
ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds >>>>>>>>>>>model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few >>>>>>>>>>>years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the >>>>>>>>>>>Southern
Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New >>>>>>>>>>>Zealand,
Yes that seems inevitable.
sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of >>>>>>>>>>>climate change on New Zealand directly,
Probably because there is nothing NZ ( and every other Southern >>>>>>>>>>Hemisphere country combined) can do about it. Our contribution to >>>>>>>>>>this problem is nearly zero. Climate change in Antarctica and >>>>>>>>>>everywhere else in the word is affected by Northern Hemisphere >>>>>>>>>>countries almost entirely.
but also our commitments to
reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try >>>>>>>>>>>to reduce the impact of climate change.
We should not have agreed to anything. Our contribution is so >>>>>>>>>>miniscule it is hardly measurable.
They don't look further than
the interests of political donors . . .
More worthless political rhetoric Rich. Repetition simply exposes how
shallow your arguments are. Better for you to get Russia, China and >>>>>>>>>>India on board.
China is probably a lot closer than Russia or India, but giving so >>>>>>>>>much to political donors is meaning that the cost of not reducing our >>>>>>>>>emissions is more expensive that it needs to be.
So you only response is worthless and baseless rhetoric?
Perhaps you missed this response which Tony deleted - apparently he >>>>>>>does not realise that most people save previous posts in a thread for >>>>>>>some time:
nonsense. A purpose you have never devined and never will, because such >>>>>>insight
is well beyond your meagre intellect.
I understand that it is your coping mechanism for questions you cannot >>>>>answer or that you do not understand and feel embarrassed.
As I said, you do not even begin to understand anything more subtle than a >>>>jack
hammer.
What a shame you have wasted your life and brought so much misery to the >>>>world.
There is no binding agreement and all your childish lies will not change >>>>that.
A quick google search would solve a lot of your problems, Tony. >>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/535373/oil-and-gas-lobby-asks-government-to-underwrite-fossil-fuel-exploration-minister-considering-options__________What nonsense you drivel.
I agree, Tony, that seems at times to be all this government has. See: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/12/subsidising-ecocide.html >>>>>>>
Would we be affected if some countries declined to allow our goods to >>>>>>>enter their country, Tony? Is that what you are looking for?
Naturally under this government we are already missing targets: >>>>>>>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
Are Shane Jones and Winston Peters not talking to each other? >>>>>>>"AsIwouldsaytoyouthatdoesappeartobethecase"
___________
The link of particular interest from that initial reference is: >>>>>>>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
- it does appear that in looking into government assistance to those >>>>>>>looking for fossil fuels Shane Jones had not spoken to Winston Peters >>>>>>>who would probably have been aware of the commendable stance taken >>>>>>>against subsidies for fossil fuels . . . If NZ is really phasing out >>>>>>>fossil fuel subsidies it would be very strange to introduce a new >>>>>>>subsidy, don't you think?
End of story little boy.
Trade agreements can be like that too, Tony - your childish lies
cannot change the reality that reneging on agreements can be similar
to breaking a contract - it may be detrimental to the interests of New >>>Zealand. Sad that New Zealand has come to almost expect such sophistry >>>under the current government - they put themselves and their political >>>backers before the sanctity of contract . . .
I have not lied here, you have lied multiple times. If an agreement is not >>binding it can be modified, I have said nothing more than that, You are a >>disgusting little boy. Too late for you to grow up.
End of story you grubby little boy.
an agreement by agreeing not to subsidise fossil fuels - and that may
well change agreements relating to trade - it is good that you appear
to understand that just as the agreement about fossil fuels was
changed, so too can agreements about trade between New Zealand and
other countries. Well done in agreeing with me!
Trade agreements can be like that too, Tony - your childish lies
cannot change the reality that reneging on agreements can be similar
to breaking a contract - it may be detrimental to the interests of New >Zealand. Sad that New Zealand has come to almost expect such sophistry
under the current government - they put themselves and their political >backers before the sanctity of contract . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 20:18:06 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:There are no binding international agreements that anybody is ignoring. Stop >your lies.
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 06:37:28 -0000 (UTC), TonyThere is little surprise that the gas lobby is asking for subsidies -
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:29:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Q.E.D.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 12:11:57 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:I am well aware of that. My purpose is entirely different when I delete >>>>>>your
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 22:53:27 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:42:54 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:if it is roughly the same proportion of the world population as NZ is, >>>>>>>>>that may still be quite a bit of money . . .
From: >>>>>>>>>>>https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels, >>>>>>>>>>>with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square kilometers
below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. This
significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady >>>>>>>>>>>increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the >>>>>>>>>>>abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey >>>>>>>>>>>researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They >>>>>>>>>>>analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the >>>>>>>>>>>probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its >>>>>>>>>>>connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low sea
ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered >>>>>>>>>>>very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models has
been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. We
only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, which
makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent. >>>>>>>>>>>This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent >>>>>>>>>>>would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This tells
us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 is
considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate >>>>>>>>>>>change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and those
expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes >>>>>>>>>>>it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice >>>>>>>>>>>extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely by
climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is >>>>>>>>>>>likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the >>>>>>>>>>>authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the sea
ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds >>>>>>>>>>>model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few >>>>>>>>>>>years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the Southern
Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New Zealand,
Yes that seems inevitable.
sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of >>>>>>>>>>>climate change on New Zealand directly,
Probably because there is nothing NZ ( and every other Southern >>>>>>>>>>Hemisphere country combined) can do about it. Our contribution to >>>>>>>>>>this problem is nearly zero. Climate change in Antarctica and >>>>>>>>>>everywhere else in the word is affected by Northern Hemisphere >>>>>>>>>>countries almost entirely.
but also our commitments to
reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try >>>>>>>>>>>to reduce the impact of climate change.
We should not have agreed to anything. Our contribution is so >>>>>>>>>>miniscule it is hardly measurable.
They don't look further than
the interests of political donors . . .
More worthless political rhetoric Rich. Repetition simply exposes how
shallow your arguments are. Better for you to get Russia, China and >>>>>>>>>>India on board.
China is probably a lot closer than Russia or India, but giving so >>>>>>>>>much to political donors is meaning that the cost of not reducing our >>>>>>>>>emissions is more expensive that it needs to be.
So you only response is worthless and baseless rhetoric?
Perhaps you missed this response which Tony deleted - apparently he >>>>>>>does not realise that most people save previous posts in a thread for >>>>>>>some time:
nonsense. A purpose you have never devined and never will, because such >>>>>>insight
is well beyond your meagre intellect.
I understand that it is your coping mechanism for questions you cannot >>>>>answer or that you do not understand and feel embarrassed.
As I said, you do not even begin to understand anything more subtle than a >>>>jack
hammer.
What a shame you have wasted your life and brought so much misery to the >>>>world.
There is no binding agreement and all your childish lies will not change >>>>that.
A quick google search would solve a lot of your problems, Tony. >>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/535373/oil-and-gas-lobby-asks-government-to-underwrite-fossil-fuel-exploration-minister-considering-options__________What nonsense you drivel.
I agree, Tony, that seems at times to be all this government has. See: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/12/subsidising-ecocide.html >>>>>>>
Would we be affected if some countries declined to allow our goods to >>>>>>>enter their country, Tony? Is that what you are looking for?
Naturally under this government we are already missing targets: >>>>>>>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
Are Shane Jones and Winston Peters not talking to each other? >>>>>>>"AsIwouldsaytoyouthatdoesappeartobethecase"
___________
The link of particular interest from that initial reference is: >>>>>>>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
- it does appear that in looking into government assistance to those >>>>>>>looking for fossil fuels Shane Jones had not spoken to Winston Peters >>>>>>>who would probably have been aware of the commendable stance taken >>>>>>>against subsidies for fossil fuels . . . If NZ is really phasing out >>>>>>>fossil fuel subsidies it would be very strange to introduce a new >>>>>>>subsidy, don't you think?
End of story little boy.
That's about it Tony. When Rich latches on to anti-government
rhetoric, there is no logic or evidence that will dislodge it.
what would be surprising is if the government ignored international >>agreements, and Shane Jones seems to be doing just that.
On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 07:47:36 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Trade agreements can be like that too, Tony - your childish lies
cannot change the reality that reneging on agreements can be similar
to breaking a contract - it may be detrimental to the interests of New >>Zealand. Sad that New Zealand has come to almost expect such sophistry >>under the current government - they put themselves and their political >>backers before the sanctity of contract . . .
One thing is for certain. Sanctity of contract (assuming that such a
thing even exists in this case) is nowhere near as important as
protecting the sanctity of fuel supplies, which an issue of national >security.
In the first instance you linked to a website that promotes some
nebulous claim about melting polar ice, and now you've ended up
arguing that NZ should appease the UN climate zealots because of some >agreement that a previous government had signed.
So why didn't you continue to make your own case for why you believe
in "man made climate change" instead of getting into the weeds about
sanctity of contract?
Bill.
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:20:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou make your case and I will answer but so far you have only made vague accusations based on fairy tales or lies.. You have totally failed to show any agreements have been broken or that any are being questioned.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 20:18:06 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:There are no binding international agreements that anybody is ignoring. Stop >>your lies.
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 06:37:28 -0000 (UTC), TonyThere is little surprise that the gas lobby is asking for subsidies - >>>what would be surprising is if the government ignored international >>>agreements, and Shane Jones seems to be doing just that.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:29:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Q.E.D.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 12:11:57 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:I am well aware of that. My purpose is entirely different when I delete >>>>>>>your
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 22:53:27 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:42:54 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:19:39 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>if it is roughly the same proportion of the world population as NZ is,
wrote:
From: >>>>>>>>>>>>https://scitechdaily.com/once-in-a-2000-year-event-study-explains-unprecedented-antarctic-ice-loss-equivalent-to-10x-the-size-of-the-uk/
"In 2023, the Antarctic sea ice shrank to historically low levels, >>>>>>>>>>>>with winter ice coverage falling more than 2 million square >>>>>>>>>>>>kilometers
below normal—roughly equivalent to ten times the size of the UK. >>>>>>>>>>>>This
significant decrease was particularly striking given the steady >>>>>>>>>>>>increase in sea ice that had been observed up until 2015, making the
abrupt drop even more unexpected.
Using a large climate dataset called CMIP6, British Antarctic Survey
researchers investigated this unprecedented sea ice loss. They >>>>>>>>>>>>analyzed data from 18 different climate models to understand the >>>>>>>>>>>>probability of such a significant reduction in sea ice and its >>>>>>>>>>>>connection to climate change.
Lead author Rachel Diamond explained that while 2023’s extreme low >>>>>>>>>>>>sea
ice was made more likely by climate change, it was still considered >>>>>>>>>>>>very rare according to the models.
She says: “This is the first time this large set of climate models >>>>>>>>>>>>has
been used to find out how unlikely 2023’s low sea ice actually was. >>>>>>>>>>>>We
only have forty-five years of satellite measurements of sea ice, >>>>>>>>>>>>which
makes it extremely difficult to evaluate changes in sea ice extent. >>>>>>>>>>>>This is where climate models come into their own.
According to the models, the record-breaking minimum sea ice extent >>>>>>>>>>>>would be a one-in-a-2000-year event without climate change. This >>>>>>>>>>>>tells
us that the event was very extreme – anything less than one-in-100 >>>>>>>>>>>>is
considered exceptionally unlikely.”
Caroline Holmes, a co-author on the study, said: “Strong climate >>>>>>>>>>>>change – i.e. the temperature changes we’re already seeing, and >>>>>>>>>>>>those
expected if emissions continue to rise rapidly — in the models makes
it four times more likely that we see such a big decline in sea ice >>>>>>>>>>>>extent. This suggests that 2023’s extreme low was made more likely >>>>>>>>>>>>by
climate change.”
Long-term Consequences and Future Projections
The researchers also used the models to look at how well sea ice is >>>>>>>>>>>>likely to recover. By looking at similar events in the models, the >>>>>>>>>>>>authors found that after such extreme sea ice loss, not all of the >>>>>>>>>>>>sea
ice around Antarctica returns – even after twenty years. This adds >>>>>>>>>>>>model evidence to existing observational evidence that the last few >>>>>>>>>>>>years’ low sea ice could signal a lasting regime shift in the >>>>>>>>>>>>Southern
Ocean."
__________________________
Rising sea temperatures will have an impact on weather in New >>>>>>>>>>>>Zealand,
Yes that seems inevitable.
sadly our current government is ignoring both the likely impact of >>>>>>>>>>>>climate change on New Zealand directly,
Probably because there is nothing NZ ( and every other Southern >>>>>>>>>>>Hemisphere country combined) can do about it. Our contribution to >>>>>>>>>>>this problem is nearly zero. Climate change in Antarctica and >>>>>>>>>>>everywhere else in the word is affected by Northern Hemisphere >>>>>>>>>>>countries almost entirely.
but also our commitments to
reduce emissions under international treaties to prepare for and try
to reduce the impact of climate change.
We should not have agreed to anything. Our contribution is so >>>>>>>>>>>miniscule it is hardly measurable.
that may still be quite a bit of money . . .
They don't look further than
the interests of political donors . . .
More worthless political rhetoric Rich. Repetition simply exposes >>>>>>>>>>>how
shallow your arguments are. Better for you to get Russia, China and >>>>>>>>>>>India on board.
China is probably a lot closer than Russia or India, but giving so >>>>>>>>>>much to political donors is meaning that the cost of not reducing our >>>>>>>>>>emissions is more expensive that it needs to be.
So you only response is worthless and baseless rhetoric?
Perhaps you missed this response which Tony deleted - apparently he >>>>>>>>does not realise that most people save previous posts in a thread for >>>>>>>>some time:
nonsense. A purpose you have never devined and never will, because such >>>>>>>insight
is well beyond your meagre intellect.
I understand that it is your coping mechanism for questions you cannot >>>>>>answer or that you do not understand and feel embarrassed.
As I said, you do not even begin to understand anything more subtle than a >>>>>jack
hammer.
What a shame you have wasted your life and brought so much misery to the >>>>>world.
There is no binding agreement and all your childish lies will not change >>>>>that.
A quick google search would solve a lot of your problems, Tony. >>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/535373/oil-and-gas-lobby-asks-government-to-underwrite-fossil-fuel-exploration-minister-considering-options__________What nonsense you drivel.
I agree, Tony, that seems at times to be all this government has. See: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/12/subsidising-ecocide.html >>>>>>>>
Would we be affected if some countries declined to allow our goods to >>>>>>>>enter their country, Tony? Is that what you are looking for?
Naturally under this government we are already missing targets: >>>>>>>>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
Are Shane Jones and Winston Peters not talking to each other? >>>>>>>>"AsIwouldsaytoyouthatdoesappeartobethecase"
___________
The link of particular interest from that initial reference is: >>>>>>>>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2024/11/19/coalition-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-expands-but-misses-initial-targets/
- it does appear that in looking into government assistance to those >>>>>>>>looking for fossil fuels Shane Jones had not spoken to Winston Peters >>>>>>>>who would probably have been aware of the commendable stance taken >>>>>>>>against subsidies for fossil fuels . . . If NZ is really phasing out >>>>>>>>fossil fuel subsidies it would be very strange to introduce a new >>>>>>>>subsidy, don't you think?
End of story little boy.
That's about it Tony. When Rich latches on to anti-government >>>>rhetoric, there is no logic or evidence that will dislodge it.
Well let us hope that they are not being ignored, but it does seem
strange that the government has just signed up to an agreement not to >subsidise fossil fuels and Shane Jones is talking about doing just
that. What makes you think Shane Jones is not ignoring the agreement -
are you claiming that he is unaware of an international agreement that >presumably the Foreign Minister - Wilson Peters, would have been aware
of? Are you saying this is just an innocent case of the one hand not
knowing what the other was doing?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 07:54:26 |
| Calls: | 10,386 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,058 |
| Messages: | 6,416,648 |