Category: Uncategorized

US Secretary of State Signs Arctic Climate “Affirmation”

US Secretary of State Signs Arctic Climate “Affirmation”

via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

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://ift.tt/2pFg8bK

The following is the Fairbanks Declaration signed by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson;

Source: http://ift.tt/2pDJmag

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.

…

Read more: http://ift.tt/2qwD5P9

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.

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

May 13, 2017 at 12:52AM

US Drought Levels Fall To Record Low

US Drought Levels Fall To Record Low

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

Persistent rainfall in April helped shrink the drought footprint for the contiguous U.S. to the lowest level since the nationwide Drought Monitor program began in 2000, NOAA reported.

The average precipitation total for April was 3.43 inches, 0.91 inch above the 20th-century average, making it the second wettest April on record in the U.S. Above-average precipitation was reported across the Northwest, Central Plains, Mid-Mississippi Valley, Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic.

The total year-to-date precipitation for the Lower 48 states was 11.46 inches, 1.99 inches above average, making it the fifth wettest YTD period on record, according to NOAA.

U.S. Drought Monitor valid May 9, 2017

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

May 13, 2017 at 12:00AM

Natascha Engel’s Views on Fracking

Natascha Engel’s Views on Fracking

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
http://ift.tt/1WIzElD

“any contamination of the water table from shale extraction in this country is almost impossible.”

Source: Natascha Engel’s Views on Fracking

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop http://ift.tt/1WIzElD

May 12, 2017 at 11:09PM

Cosmic Consensus And Controversy: ‘9000 Scientists Can’t Be Wrong’

Cosmic Consensus And Controversy: ‘9000 Scientists Can’t Be Wrong’

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

Stephen Hawking and 32 of his fellow scientists have written an angry letter responding to a recent Scientific American article about how the universe began. In it, they declare their “categorical disagreement” with several of the statements made, and explain why the theory of inflation is still one of the best models for the origin of the cosmos.

The article in question was published in February. Titled “Pop Goes the Universe,” physicists Anna Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt, Abraham Loeb examine the latest measurements from the European Space Agency relating to cosmic microwave background (CMB).

CMB is the oldest light in the universe—light emitted just after the Big Bang around 13.7 billion years ago. In 2013, a map of the CMB appeared to show how the universe inflated extremely fast, before settling down to become the universe we see today. This, many experts said, backed up models relating to inflation theories, where the universe expanded exponentially fast a fraction of a second after the Big Bang.

However, Ijjas, Steinhardt and Loeb disagreed with this interpretation. “If anything, the Planck data disfavored the simplest inflation models and exacerbated long-standing foundational problems with the theory, providing new reasons to consider competing ideas about the origin and evolution of the universe,” they write.

The three physicists argue that since the 2013 map was produced, more precise data has been gathered. And this data, they say, adds more evidence to the argument that the Big Bang and inflation do not adequately explain how the universe started. “Yet even now the cosmology community has not taken a cold, honest look at the big bang inflationary theory or paid significant attention to critics who question whether inflation happened,” they say.

Instead, they claim the idea of a “big bounce” is a more likely scenario. In this theory, the universe works on a cyclical basis of expansion and contraction. At the moment, it is expanding. However, when it runs out of energy (or whatever happens to stop its expansion), it will start contracting. Eventually, it will get to the point where it is so small it starts expanding again.

They point to several flaws in inflation theory, including that we are yet to discover primordial gravitational waves—ripples in spacetime created by the Big Bang. Another problem is that inflation requires the existence of “inflationary energy,”  for which there is no direct evidence.

“Given all these problems, the prospect that inflation did not occur deserves serious consideration,” they write. “Today we are fortunate to have sharp, fundamental questions imposed on us by observations. The fact that our leading ideas have not worked out is a historic opportunity for a theoretical breakthrough. Instead of closing the book on the early universe, we should recognize that cosmology is wide open.”

Categorical disagreement

Responding to the article, 33 scientists, including Hawking, have written a letter of response to Scientific American in which they dismantle the arguments made by Ijjas, Steinhardt and Loeb.

In the letter, they say there is “no disputing” the fact that inflation is the dominant theory when it comes to cosmology. They point out that there are over 14,000 scientific papers by over 9,000 scientists relating to inflation: “By claiming that inflationary cosmology lies outside the scientific method, IS&L [the authors of the earlier article] are dismissing the research of not only all the authors of this letter but also that of a substantial contingent of the scientific community,” they write. “Moreover, as the work of several major, international collaborations has made clear, inflation is not only testable, but it has been subjected to a significant number of tests and so far has passed every one.”

They say there are many models of inflation and no one believes they are all correct. Instead, the theory is something of a work in progress, where scientists are working to find one that fits all the experiments and observations.

The scientists refer to a multitude of reasons why inflation is, at present, the best model for the origin of the universe. This includes there being testable models—including the observations from the 2013 CMB data.

“Like any scientific theory, inflation need not address all conceivable questions. Inflationary models, like all scientific theories, rest on a set of assumptions, and to understand those assumptions we might need to appeal to some deeper theory,” they say. “This, however, does not undermine the success of inflationary models.”

“No one claims that inflation has become certain; scientific theories don’t get proved the way mathematical theorems do, but as time passes, the successful ones become better and better established by improved experimental tests and theoretical advances. This has happened with inflation. Progress continues, supported by the enthusiastic efforts of many scientists who have chosen to participate in this vibrant branch of cosmology.”

Disappointed response

Ijjas, Steinhardt and Loeb responded to the letter with disappointment. They say they have “great respect for the scientists” who signed, but say they missed the key point of the article—how inflation theory has changed over time.

“We firmly believe that in a healthy scientific community, respectful disagreement is possible and hence reject the suggestion that by pointing out problems, we are discarding the work of all of those who developed the theory of inflation and enabled precise measurements of the universe,” they write.

Their main point, they said, is that “we should be talking about the contemporary version of inflation, warts and all, not some defunct relic.” They argue that even when different parameters are taken into account, there are an infinite number of outcomes relating to any model of inflation.

Full story

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

May 12, 2017 at 10:49PM