US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has signed a document presented at a meeting of Arctic nations, which affirms the need to support the Paris Agreement, and take action on Climate Change. In doing so, Tillerson may have harmed US Arctic energy exploration interests.
Tillerson, at Arctic meeting, signs document affirming need for action on climate change
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson signed his name Thursday to a document that affirms the need for international action against climate change, adding further uncertainty to the direction of climate policy under the Trump administration.
The document, signed by Tillerson and seven foreign ministers from Arctic nations meeting this week in Fairbanks, Alaska, says the participants concluded their meeting “noting the entry into force of the Paris agreement on climate change and its implementation, and reiterating the need for global action to reduce both long-lived greenhouse gases and short-lived climate pollutants.”
Called the Fairbanks Declaration, the document says the leaders signed it “recognizing that activities taking place outside the Arctic region, including activities occurring in Arctic states, are the main contributors to climate change effects and pollution in the Arctic, and underlining the need for action at all levels.”
…
After vowing that the U.S. would “continue to be vigilant in protecting the fragile environment in the Arctic,” Tillerson said this about current U.S. climate policy:
“In the United States, we are currently reviewing several important policies, including how the Trump administration will approach the issue of climate change. We’re appreciative that each of you has an important point of view and you should know that we are taking the time to understand your concerns. We’re not going to rush to make a decision. We’re going to work to make the right decision,” he added, pausing ever so briefly before ending with the phrase, “for the United States.”
A video showed at the meeting before his remarks that was produced by the State Department referred to “ecological change,” not climate change.
…
Read more: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-arctic-council-20170511-story.html
The following is the Fairbanks Declaration signed by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson;
Source: https://www.state.gov/e/oes/rls/other/2017/270802.htm
The first page of the Fairbanks Declaration affirms the need to support the Paris Agreement.
Actions have consequences.
One of the reasons given for tearing up the Paris Agreement is a centuries old precedent, which allows US courts to defer to international law, even if those laws are not on US statute books.
The Centuries-Old Legal Doctrine Looming Over Trump’s Paris Climate Decision
by Jennifer A Dlouhy
3 May 2017, 13:09 GMT+10 4 May 2017, 05:04 GMT+10
If the U.S. withdraws from the Paris climate accord — an option gaining favor among top White House advisers — Charming Betsy may be partly to blame.
Or, more specifically, the Charming Betsy doctrine. That’s a legal principle stemming from a 213-year-old case involving a schooner of the same name. It says that federal policies should be interpreted, when possible, so they don’t conflict with international laws.
The doctrine has emerged as a major point of contention in White House debates over continued membership in the international climate pact. At issue is whether staying in the accord could legally oblige President Donald Trump to preserve carbon-cutting policies that he is moving to jettison.
The White House counsel’s office warned Trump administration officials in a meeting Thursday and in a separate memo that if the U.S. stays in the global accord, it could arm environmentalists with legal ammunition for lawsuits challenging the president’s domestic regulatory rollbacks.
…
While the Paris Treaty Agreement was never formally recognised as US Law, the advice of the White House counsel is that it could still impact the decisions of US courts when considering vexatious legal challenges to oil and gas drilling activities brought by environmental activists.
In my opinion, Rex Tillerson’s actions in signing the Fairbanks Declaration, with its affirmation of the need to take action to prevent climate change, and the need to support the Paris Agreement, likely worsens the legal environment for resource companies attempting to drill in the arctic, by providing additional ammunition for activist legal challenges.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“In addition to the U.S. and Sweden, the other council nations are Russia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Iceland. The council also includes six indigenous groups and formal observers from non-Arctic countries.”
I’m wondering why the Russians signed, since they don’t acknowledge CAGW. There must be some other reason for them signing.
TA
The Russians have no intention of letting this “doctrine” interfere with their plans. However they can always use it against the gullible Americans.
Regards
+1
The Russians have no intention of letting this “doctrine” interfere with their plans.
Neither do Trump or Pruitt.
It’s in Russia’s (at least perceived) interest to latch everyone it can on to suicide pacts like the Paris Accord. Every watt-hour of energy conceded to the leave-it-in-the-grounders is a potential Russian sale at whatever jacked up price the carbon taxes will allow them to reach.
And if, just by some bizarre act of God, the bed wetters are right, maybe Russia will become almost hospitable to human existence, even in the winter.
If you’re Russian what’s not to love about global warming?
And Tillerson surely knows why the Russians signed …… and thus the reason he signed.
Tis better to be on the inside looking at what the Russians are doing …. rather than on the outside looking in and wondering what the Russians are going to do.
And don’t forget what Tillerson et el said, …..
Excerpted from 1st quote in above commentary:
Well “DUH”, …… neitherwater (H2O) vapor or CO2 are long-lived greenhouse gases …. or even “long lived” atmospheric gasses for that matter. Now Nitrogen, probably so.
“And Tillerson surely knows why the Russians signed …… and thus the reason he signed.”
What I was thinking was the Russians had a reason to sign that had nothing to do with CAGW, so possibly the U.S. is signing for the same kind of reason, not because of any worry about CAGW.
Tillerson did say this at the signing: ““In the United States, we are currently reviewing several important policies, including how the Trump administration will approach the issue of climate change.”
So maybe he has another reason to sign other than CAGW fears.
So having delayed the announcement twice in recent weeks, it now gets kicked down the road indefinately.
Another Trump campaign milestone gets swallowed by the swamp.
You’re reading too much into it. He meant CO2.
The Russian Academy of Sciences is a signatory to the Joint science academies’ statement on climate change: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Many Russian scientists also contributed to the IPCC AR5 report in 2013. When did the Russians fail to acknowledge AGW?
Well, Putin doesn’t agree with Russians who think humans are causing the climate to change. Guess who is boss in Russia?
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-putin-climate-emissions.html
Putin says climate change not caused by emissions
“Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday said climate change was unstoppable and not caused by human activity and urged countries to adapt to global warming.”
end excerpt
If Putin doesn’t agree that AGW is real and if Putin is in charge of Russia so they have to do what he says, then that returns us to the question of why the Russian government just signed an agreement calling for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in order to help reduce the rate of warming in the Arctic. Looks like the Russian (and US) governments are siding with their scientific academies on this, not their leaders.
“If Putin doesn’t agree that AGW is real and if Putin is in charge of Russia so they have to do what he says, then that returns us to the question of why the Russian government just signed an agreement calling for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions”
Yes, that is the question. Signing this document does not commit anyone to the Paris Agreement, since it is only an advisory body, but there might be some benefit from signing that has nothing to do with the climate. That is just one of the issues of concern to this group.
Russa can sign the agreement with no intention of following the Paris Agreement, and the U.S. can do the same.
but the Russians do acknowledge climate change… their whole arctic military strategy is based on continued ice retreat in the arctic.
From the article: “The White House counsel’s office warned Trump administration officials in a meeting Thursday and in a separate memo that if the U.S. stays in the global accord, it could arm environmentalists with legal ammunition for lawsuits challenging the president’s domestic regulatory rollbacks.”
This alone ought to kill the Paris Agreement. We definitely don’t want to get federal judges any more involved than they already are, especially since Obama has appointed a lot of them to Office.
Liberal Federal judges will be “involved” no matter what…Only the Supreme Court will throw their illegal rulings out !
Exactly. The Ninth Circus will be all over this, with lawsuits filed by every environmental group for every conceivable stupid reason.
reckon another one needs sacking personally.
This is serious. For me this is the first real test. If Trump goes soft on the climate scam then we are in trouble.
Serious, indeed. If this keeps up, we’ll need to get to work soon: Cruz in 2020!
NEVER LYIN’ CRUZ!
Yep. It’s one of the reasons I voted for him. The chutzpah of this entire charade is so sickening. Chutzpah on top of chutzpah!!
and i was open to the notion that trump was gonna drain the swamp.
looks like they swamped the drain already.
no promises kept; no expectations violated, right?
How can we be in trouble if we’re right?
The worst that will happen is the world will bankrupt itself, rather than going down in a fiery ball.
And if the whole world is bankrupt, the status quo is maintained.
My guess? Trump is playing games, namely, political chess. He stated his sceptical views, has started dismantling the EPA, yet employed Tillerson and Ivanka as ‘insider greens’.
Logically, it doesn’t make sense, but politically I suspect it’s called ‘throwing a dummy’ (in Rugby terminology). Pretend to throw the pass, the defence reacts, and leaves you space to score the try.
But to be honest, who knows with Trump. He’s a political novice and is making it up as he goes along. But his cabinet isn’t, however, they may be enjoying the freedom he is alleged to allow his business subordinates.
The end game is that we sceptics may be bitterly disappointed if we cling to the idea that, somehow, Trump is on our side. He’s not. I suspect he’s on the side of American’s, but early skirmishes with his opposition haven’t gone too well so far.
He has a lot to learn I suspect. And the political class have a habit of forcing leaders to toe the line.
I am still very confident that Trump will deliver but I am putting in a marker so that if I a wrong there is no dispute.
I do not agree that Trump is a political novice and I don’t know why people keep saying this. Not all politics is in government. The fact that he thrived in construction in New York tells me he knows how to do politics in the real world.
LewSkannen,
funny, it continues to surprise me that Trump has not been accused of underhand business dealings. Or at least not major ones like routinely consorting with the Mafia.
What also astonishes me is that in the ‘communication age’ a President comes along, uses Twitter to subvert a really nasty Democratic party, and he’s condemned for it. The western world has been screaming for more open door politics, it comes along and the left squeal like pigs that it’s unfair, as usual, as anything that doesn’t conform to their concept of anything is, of course, unfair/cheating/lying etc.
I suspect Brexit and Trump have the opportunity of doing considerable good for mankind. They also have the ability to do a great deal of harm, of course, but I don’t believe that’s in either Theresa May’s, nor Donald Trump’s DNA. They are both positive leaders and not fearful of challenging the establishment.
Good luck to them. My belief is there is always opportunity in change, I suspect all great leaders have embraced it.
I do, however, retain the right to be wrong.
If the Trump administration does not live up to what they told the people who voted for them…
… they will be a one term farce and you might even get a very decrepit Hillary as next POTUS.
Cruz has no hope. If its not Trump again because he failed to deliver, then it will be some far left socialist.
You Americans should have gone with Cruz, Cruz is a brilliant man Trump’s IQ can’t be above 101 and Cruz doesn’t have baby daughter pulling his strings!
Clearly, Tillerson needs to go.
I don’t think one can simply discard a person approved by Congress and run in a new replacement any time said person does something the media says goes against Trump. Trump would spend his entire tenure appointing new cabinet members. That would please the media to no end, I’m sure. I just don’t see it as practical.
I was surprised at this, but maybe the wily old fox is picking his battles. I guess from the White House, North Korea and China loom larger than climate change…
At this time we really don’t have any need to drill in the Arctic; we’re practically drowning in gas and oil right in PA and TX! Lots cheaper, lots easier to extract and ship than distant-waters exploration and development under extremely challenging weather conditions. Picking his battles, indeed!
Good point, Goldrider. Signing up WITH the Russians stymies them and all the other signers. By the time that US needs to start drilling in the Arctic the AGW scam will be fully blown and treaties like this will be easily disposed of..
So those guys are certain that the will change the climate?
Putting the Paris Agreement up for a vote in the Senate and having it voted down would negate T-Rex’s signature would it not?
The Paris Agreement isn’t law anywhere — it is certainly not an International Law. It is barely an agreement…being so vague and purposefully non-binding.
+1
The Paris Agreement is like a good pair of boxer shorts — “vague and purposefully non-binding”.
They tax you for the air you breath, how about that?
Kip,
It’s the framework of global totalitarian climate authority. You remember the benign interpretation of the UN climate protocol and IPCC formation. What did that become?
The political skeptics have always been correct and the minimalists of the climate cabal design always proven wrong. Paris is a road map, another step toward a central planning establishment.
You should research some of the minimalist expectations over the creation of the Federal Reserve or the Bretton Woods conference that both proved disastrously understated. Paris is a massive blueprint and all the authority and enforcement will be colored in over decades to come.
It needs annihilation ASAP or another dehumanizing monster will walk the Earth. The legalistic face value is trivial to its actual significance.
Throw a bone to the AGW crowd. The Declaration is just words, no actions required.
Some positive things have come from the Arctic Council’s work such as guidance for shipping in the Arctic, and the BINDING Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation.
Those familiar with Sun Tzu know that one can often win more by NOT fighting some battles. At this late date, the “climate change” battle is one of propaganda–nothing more. By throwing a nothing-burger bone at the shrilly shrieking Left, they can be placated/diverted long enough to get more important things done.
The bottom line here is this administration is pushing an “America First” energy revitalization plan, and that is going forward. Read all these “agreements” deeply–most are nothing but noise, not enforceable law.
Hope you’re right.
The shrilly shrieking left can never be placated or diverted. The only thing they will ever accept is total victory for their causes.
Ralph: They can be distracted, however, and lead around in the directions one wishes. Meanwhile, they miss all the important things going on in Washington.
Ralph:
But they don’t know what victory tastes like; only burnt earth.
I suspect there isn’t really all that much “shrilly shrieking Left” to be placated, in terms of actual people with actual demands . . rather, I suspect there is a fairly large number of people who basically go along with the mass media narrative/talking heads virtue signaling jive, with some showy stuff that is amplified by same to give the appearance of a formidable “shrilly shrieking Left”.
Then there is the globalist control freak elite, who simply want to rule the world . .
It’s that sort of pandering political calculus that main streamed climate fraud and the greater Greenshirt community for 40+ years.
Trumps plan to finesse regulations on energy and avoid total Green/climate war conflict was flawed from the start. Tillerson has been selling Pruitt down the river of contradictions since the confirmation.
There is no meaningful WH science team assembled to challenge the AGW/UN climate authority premise. It’s was a hand waving exercise to skeptics via an election promise without the logistics to do what was required.
Some Trump support will drop on the sell out but the underlying anti-climate policy reasoning just doesn’t match the fanatical pro-climate forces amassed. It’s why skeptics are losing. You can’t pander to parts of the AGW agenda and argument then expect moderate policy results longer term.
There just isn’t enough of a skeptic political base to force the President to follow through on the Paris campaign promise. Even that promise in itself isn’t enough to reverse the long term climate authority state planned. Dr. Lindzen’s UN withdrawal would be the best outcome nearterm but all the big money and forces are lined up the other way.
It was never or has ever been about actual science. That’s the delusion of mainstream skeptics to this day. If the President was serious about long term unwinding of global climate authority Tillerson wouldn’t have done this or perhaps even hold his office.
People have been fantasizing about shipping routes in the Arctic for several centuries now. Don’t think we’re any closer to that realization than in 1817 when the head of the Royal Society in London wrote to the Admiralty of the opportunities for scientific exploration and commerce that change in the climate and a decreased amount of ice offered.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/
Sir John Franklin should have known never to trust the chairborne boffins of the Admiralty.
Horribly misinformed by the actual sequence of climate policy history.
It’s this kind of talk that brought us to this point in the first place.
What does “noting” mean ?
Bonus : How many air miles does it take for how many diplomats to screw in a light bulb ?
It’s interesting to note CO2 is not mentioned , only “black carbon” and methane .
Doctrine and policy can be changed by any administration. Neither are legally binding as laws. They are more like guidelines.
Policy must not be based on pseudoscience.
I deeply regret, that the US (still) doesn’t name a fork a fork and come clear on the largest, most societal devastating and costliest scam in history. Why is that som difficult ?
Already Karl Marx noted; “If one wants action, then turn off the money knob.” Ergo, start by doing that vs IPCC and all its subs, just do it, damned !
Brgds from Sweden//TJ
Climataurus Rex needs to re-think his position on “climate change”.
Speaking of which, heard there was a short-lived breed of dinom called Oedipus Rex. Wiped out by inbreeding.
The Charming Betsy doctrine is one of statutory interpretation of federal laws. It has no applicability to the Paric Accord decision.
The Fairbanks Declaration is just feel good statecraft. Useless in fact.
The White House Counsel seemed to think otherwise. Its possible they could be wrong, but if serious lawyers think this could be an issue then at the very least it may provide means for environmental groups to force businesses to waste time and money, even if they eventually lose. Driving a business into the ground with legal costs would likely be considered a win.
“Force businesses to waste time and money”? Corporate America agrees that AGW is real and supports action, including a carbon tax. Corporate America does NOT want Trump to pull out of the Paris accord.
Tillerson was sucking up to the greens in his CEO position so I’m not surprised. The problem is that such positions lend credibility to the poor science upon which the climate change/global warming/extreme weather or whatever these idiots want to call it is based. Did not like Tillerson from the get go. Reminds me too much of some of the CEOs for whom I once worked. Snakes on planes, all. The truth is so malleable with these guys that it becomes difficult to remember the real truth. The Donald also suffers from this malady to some degree. But still soooo much better than Hillary.
A simple question. If the US government is taking its time to make decisions – why sign anything?
Perhaps instead of merely being indignant, hopefully someone here could point us to some Tillerson contacts which would enable us to help educate the poor man..
I guess it will take a bone fide ice age to finally put the religion of global warming to it’s end.
bona fide .. i absolutely had auto suggest
hate … I give up
Hah! No such luck. Instead, they’ll claim all their good works and told-you-so is what “FIXED” the climate thereby CAUSING the so-desired Ice Age. When that happens the good people of Planet Earth can get their revenge by calling the buggers’ bluff and making them live with nothing but wind and solar to keep warm . . . while eating kale and other nutrition-free virtuous “food.”
And slap them all with an “ice tax”.
believe it or not….
this is the letter that I sent to the Trump today…
Attention: Donald Trump
You continuously send me requests to support your campaigns.
Reason why I have not supported your finances is because you have not yet thrown America out of the Paris agreement, as promised.
I thought it was clear from the inquiry by Ted Cruz & associates that there is no man made global warming?
Anyway, I give you my take on it, from investigations done by myself:
“Concerned to show that man made warming (AGW ) is correct and indeed happening, I thought that here [in Pretoria, South Africa} I could easily prove that. Namely the logic following from AGW theory is that more CO2 would trap heat on earth, hence we should find minimum temperature (T) rising pushing up the mean T. Here, in the winter months, we hardly have any rain but we have many people burning fossil fuels to keep warm at night. On any particular cold winter’s day that results in the town area being covered with a greyish layer of air, viewable on a high hill outside town in the early morning.
I figured that as the population increased over the past 40 years, the results of my analysis of the data [of a Pretoria weather station] must show minimum T rising, particularly in the winter months. Much to my surprise I found that the opposite was happening: minimum T here was falling, any month….I first thought that somebody must have made a mistake: the extra CO2 was cooling the atmosphere, ‘not warming’ it. As a chemist, that made sense to me as I knew that whilst there were absorptions of CO2 in the area of the spectrum where earth emits, there are also the areas of absorption in the 1-2 um and the 4-5 um range where the sun emits. Not convinced either way by my deliberations and discussions as on a number of websites, I first looked at a number of weather stations around me, to give me an indication of what was happening:
The results puzzled me even more. Somebody [God/Nature] was throwing a ball at me…..The speed of cooling followed a certain pattern, best described by a quadratic function. But here in South Africa it was not warming up at all. I figured there is no warming, or, at least it is not ‘global’
I carefully looked at my earth globe and decided on a particular sampling procedure to find out what, if any, the global result would be. Here is my final result on that:
Hence, looking at my final Rsquare on that, I figured out that there is no AGW, at least not measurable.
Arguing with me that 99% of all scientists disagree with me is useless. You cannot have an “election” about science.
You only need one man to get it right”.
Henry Pool
http://www.breadonthewater.co.za
…Look closely at the sending address, you are receiving FAKE Trump Emails….I received the same all through the election….
You mean somebody is still collecting money on behalf of the Trump campaign?
I wondered about that. Does Trump even send out requests for contributions for his personal political benefit? I know he raises money for other Repubicans and the RNC but I don’t know that he is raising any money for himself.
Sun Tzu would say that when you are near, you must have your enemies believe you are far away.
Old Sicilian saying, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. I’m sure many cultures have similar wisdom. It is, however, difficult to determine when these people, who we really don’t know, are playing the game or just stupid.
Yes, it’s always good to deceive the enemy. Keep them guessing.
What do you all think the odds are that Trump will abandon his anti-CO2 position? Sadly I’m thinking it is a coin toss. As usual after an election the hope for serious change fades.
TRM
I tend to agree. At the end of the day, big business and big politics all follow the money. Too much money [even our pension money] has been bet on this new ‘green’ culture. All on things that we know won’t work: electric cars, wind energy, eco fuels, etc.
I am not holding my breath on actually receiving an answer from the Trump and his advisors to my letter.
It’s less than four months after the election and it’s already over according to many. That says more about this country than anything Trump or Tillerson or the media say.
What benefit would Trump gain by going back on his campaign promise and signing off on the Paris Agreement? Other than slaps on the back from all the international elites, he will get nothing?
I see no upside. I don’t know how Trump could see an upside. There’s nothing about this deal he likes, if you go by his campaign rhetoric.
Read investors’ papers, not the MSM. Right now Trump and T-Rex are fence-sitting to buy time for all the companies with deep holdings in renewables and subsidy-dependent technologies to quietly divest. They don’t want a lot of value to be lost by panic-selling when we try to reverse the last 30 years’ trends in the first semester. Even the oil companies invested heavily in this twaddle when it looked like there would be money in it down the line, as Rex very well knows. IBD, WSJ, Bloomberg are not free of bias, but are more real-world than most offerings out there.
Interesting take on the situation, Goldrider.
That seems a real possiblity. Thanks for the information.
This is a test.
The base did not freak over this.
We will stay in paris.
By the way has trump turned over Tom Karl s mails yet?
Rud istivan. Promised us those mails would end the fraud once and for all.
…that would be the first time in history.
“The base did not freak over this.”
It’s still too early.
The base that considers climate skepticism a core to their support is in itself a questionable total.
My estimate about 10% or 3-4% of the electorate. Most aren’t going to the other side but would stay home. Without this issue we would have Clinton in the WH.
The swamp is large, the need for cohesion on climate policy wasn’t on the list or Tillerson wouldn’t have made those idiotic confirmation statements about the “seat at the table”.
The President has hardline immigration supporters in much larger numbers. Shorter term the rate of employment will decide his survival. The benefits of climate fraud reductions are longer term and the pain of defunding far more immediate. That’s the advantage the swamp holds. Hence, the policy tactic of finesse on downsizing climate instead of existential elimination of climate fraud. The long game is the argument.
It’s a mistake because the underlying support against central planning remains very high. Aside from HC green authority was a signature Obamaism design. The President would have benefited from a total commitment to rolling back Greenshirt extremism.
I hope Tillerson has something up his sleeve and not his head up his *ss. May I change the subject? I have been doing some research on how co2 emissions are measured. Since compliance is of the utmost importance for any “treaty”, accuracy must be foolproof. Co2 is not measured by what comes out of the stack but what is being burned. Calculations are based on carbon content of the fuel which is then extrapolated into actual carbon emission. First of all the guidelines are from the IPCC. Strike one. Second is that each country reports what and how much is being burned. Good luck with that. Strike two. There is so much room for fudging that my mind is boggled. Strike three. Climate change, yes. Human caused? You’re out!
There is no credible statistically significant evidence that man is having any real impact upon global climate. Urban heat, too much trash and garbage and such, yes. But not the global climate. We are like ants crawling upon a very large rock which is 70% covered with water with an average depth of 6500 feet. If we were gone tomorrow it would be difficult to immediately determine that we were ever here in just a few tens of thousands of years and imperceptible from space in just a few hundreds of years.
So agree. The world’s population could fit, not live, in the state of Rhode Island.
…and that state isn’t even an island, so there’s no worry it will tip over.
At the climate and “march for science” events there are always the Exxon hate and villain signage among the base green. The irony of course is that Exxon benefits from the very climate change dogma of the sign holders.
Rationing always benefits established interests. At least short-term economically which is why Tillerson advocated for a carbon tax as CEO of Exxon. The same policy the green mob lobbies for while holding Exxon hate signs. The MSM never explores the contradictions.
This is the Orwellian new normal of public consciousness.
Meanwhile, Arctic sea ice melt proceeds at “unprecedented” slowness. Median area melted between May 1 and 12 for 1981-2010 interval is 632,000 sq km. In 2017 it was only 473,000.
Ice extent yesterday was tied with 2014 and higher than 2016, 2015, 2006 and 2004. If present rate differential continues, Arctic sea ice will be back in the 30-year normal range this month. But even if it just tracks 2014, it will bottom out in the normal range in September for minimum extent.
August cyclones, as in 2007, 2012 and 2016, could still save Griff from further embarrassment, of course, but a new record low, which he sad was a “sure” thing, doesn’t look likely at this point.
Why does any intelligent Human want the North or South Poles to stay frozen and useless ?…N.U.T.S. !
Lets hope we continue to warm until the next ice age begins.
Got me.
Sunken coasts would be more than made up for by a veritably verdant Greenland and accessible Antarctica. Not to mention more farmland in higher latitudes and forests where tundra wastes now cover the land.
Because they regulate the planet’s temperature and weather.
With seasonally ice free arctic, the planet warms faster and the jet stream does seriously weird stuff…
do look at why the current extent is high – a lot of thin broken up ice being blown out/exported into the Atlantic.
There were no cyclones in 2016 and yet that was in the top lowest… the starting point in terms of thickness and volume is much lower than 2016.
You are going to need to polish up your excuses come September…
Here you go, Griff:
“You are going to need to polish up your excuses come September…”
I strongly suspect that’ll be you actually, Skanky.
Tell us, have you apologised for lying about you-know-who’s qualifications yet in a vain effort to discredit her on behalf of the ‘unreliables’ spivs who slip you the odd drink for making a total fool of yourself?
Yep, we’re going to make it colder with your money. Effing idiots.