Guest essay by Craig Rucker, CFACT.org
The UN is celebrating at COP 21, but what did they really achieve?
President Obama called the Paris climate agreement the best chance we’ve had to “save” the planet.
Not even close, Mr. President. We’ll put that bit of hyperbole right up there with your election being “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
The good news is that the final agreement is substantially weaker than the drafts that led up to it. French Soclialist Laurent Fabius, who presided over COP 21, must have spent all of Friday night yanking the teeth out of it to come up with a document everyone would sign.
China and India will be pleased that this agreement permits them to go on burning coal and expanding their economies all they want. The President will be pleased that the agreement is weak enough that he can attempt to bypass Senate ratification.
You can read the whole thing at CFACT.org.
Marc Morano asked, “Does this mean we never have to hear about ‘solving’ global warming again!?” Marc’s full commentary was posted to the top of the Drudge Report.
CFACT senior policy advisor Paul Driessen warns that although he believes the final agreement is no more than “mush,” attempting to voluntarily abide by it will cause terrible economic harm and human suffering. You can read his full analysis at CFACT.org.
This agreement will not meaningfully alter the temperature of the Earth, even under the UN’s own computer models.
The bad news is that it plants the seeds of a new UN climate regime that left unchecked will swell into a bureaucratic behemoth.
The good news is that the agreement’s soft commitments, lack of penalties for noncompliance, and long dates buy time for more scientific data to come in.
The more scientific evidence we examine, the weaker the case for economy-wrecking global warming policies becomes.
Science may provide the way out.
If we can keep the data honest.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
” a new UN climate regime that left unchecked will swell into a bureaucratic behemoth.” Note well. And understand that, if checked, it will transform into something else environmental / of some global reach.
If we can keep the Data HONEST!
We can only hope!
Here is some “honest data” showing that arctic sea ice is declining faster than predicted. The time for dithering is over.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2015/12/figure5.png
Luke,
You wrote: “Honest data”. heh, Luke, “data” isn’t [shown] in a [single] fabricated chart, invented so they can pretend to know the future to fool the dimwits here.
For folks who want to know REALITY, here is a real-time chart showing global ice cover:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Notice something? There is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening.
The debate is over global warming. So why would you post a fake chart, showing only one hemisphere?
Answer: because fake charts are all you’ve got. The alarmist cult has been wrong in every scary prediction they ever made. Now the planet is proving them wrong about Arctic ice, so they invent fake charts to try and convince the credulous and naive that there’s a problem.
There isn’t a problem, so quit worrying.
“Now the planet is proving them wrong about Arctic ice, so they invent fake charts”. Please give me a source supporting your claim that the chart I provided is fake. The bottom line is that the minimum arctic ice extent has been declining for the last 50 years.
Luke
Well, that’s interesting … The first comparable measurements were from satellites that first measured Arctic and Antarctic sea in 1979. Not fifty years. Not yet 40 years actually. But that’s actually trivial.
Now, to the real issue though. What difference does a loss of Arctic sea ice make right now? Seven months of the year -including that dreaded two weeks of minimum Arctic sea ice extent in mid-September you like to cite as evidence of “global warming”, every square kilometer of “missing” arctic sea ice cools the planet.
5 months of the year, losing arctic sea ice warms the arctic ocean .. a little bit. So, should you not be worried about greater cooling in September?
11 months of the year, excess Antarctic sea ice cools the planet. A lot.
Luke,
Notice anything unusual about your chart?
Yep. It shows a drastic decline in Arctic ice — all the way out to year 2100!
How do they know?? Answer: They don’t know!
That chart is intended to scare the public. It’s a fake, pretending that they know what will happen over the next 85 years. As. If.
There isn’t any problem with “ice”, so quit worrying. Nothing unusual or unprecedented is happening.
Luke, can you explain what a sea ice model intercomparison actually is?
dbstealey states “It’s a fake, pretending that they know what will happen over the next 85 years.” I was focusing on what has happened over the past 50 years- that is empirical data, not projections. Aren’t you concerned about the 40% decline in ice extent over that period?
Luke says:
Aren’t you concerned about the 40% decline in ice extent over that period?
Not in the least. And I notice you omitted the word “Arctic”. Because global ice remains on its long term trend line. There’s no way to spin that, so the ‘40%’ scare is used. Did you really think you would get away with that here?
And your explanation for the 40% decline in arctic ice extent is?
Luke
What 40% decline?
Arctic sea ice has been only 5-7% below some assumed “daily average” part of the year, 10 to 15% below that assumed daily average part of the year, and 25% to 30% below that assumed daily average only in the few weeks of minimum extent. IF – big assumption there! – that assumed daily average is even correct over the long term.
YOUR claimed 40% decline is only based on less than one-half of one (theoretical) measured cycle: From a possible maximum point to a probable minimum poiint – extrapolated with a line.
Further, that published anomaly at sea ice minimum COOLS (not heats!) the exposed Arctic waters – thus, the Arctic sea ice extents appears to be self-regulating such that it is PERMANENTLY oscillating about NO AVERAGE sea ice extents at all, but about a continuously changing non-equilibrium state of “too hot, too much sea ice” and “too cold, too little sea ice” ….
“I” do not have an explanation for the cyclical behavior of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, nor of the 1000 year long-term interglacial global average temperature changes, nor of the 66-year short term global average temperature cycles. We may determine that explanation in the future. “I” do not need to provide one now.
RACook states “YOUR claimed 40% decline is only based on less than one-half of one (theoretical) measured cycle: From a possible maximum point to a probable minimum poiint – extrapolated with a line.”
We are witnessing the greatest decline in arctic sea ice in 1450 years.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/carousel/nature10581-f2.2.jpg
Luke,
Why are you cherry-picking only the Arctic? The debate has always been about global warming. And the Antarctic, which contains 10X the volume of ice that the Arctic has, is increasing in ice cover.
I’ll tell you why you cherry-pick only the Arctic: the alarmist crowd has been totally wrong about every scary prediction they’ve made. The natural dip in Arctic ice is the only thing they can find to support their belief that CO2 emissions cause global warming.
But if that was true, then the Antarctic would not be increasing its ice cover. It isn’t even remaining flat; the Antarctic is making up for the temporary, natural Arctic ice decline. It’s called the Polar See-Saw.
So let’s just discuss global ice area, volume, etc. No more cherry-picking only one limited region, just because you hope you can score some points.
The fact is that global warming stopped many years ago, and there’s no indication that it will resume. It may. Or not. Or it may stay in stasis for a long time. No one knows, especially not the climate alarmist crowd. Because they have been completely wrong up to now, and ther’s no reason why they should suddenly start being right.
dbstealey
You are right that the ice cover in the antarctic is increasing although the rate of increase has been much smaller than the rate of decline in the arctic. Overall the change in solar energy incident on sea ice has been greater in the Arctic than the Antarctic. It is clear that the increased absorption of solar energy in the north due to ice loss is greater than the decline in absorption in the south.