Slashdot Mirror
Heat Waves In Australia Are Getting More Frequent, and Hotter
vikingpower writes "In a landmark report on bushfires and climate change (PDF), the Australian Climate Council concludes that heat waves in Australia, as driven by climate change, are becoming more frequent — and that they get hotter. 'It is crucial that communities, emergency services, health services and other authorities prepare for the increasing severity and frequency of extreme fire conditions,' says the Council in the report. Sarah Perkins, one of the report's co-authors,
was interviewed by The Guardian Australia. '"While we can't blame climate change for any one event, we can certainly see its fingerprint. This is another link in the chain." Perkins said her latest work had analyzed heatwave trends up to 2013. She said the trend "just gets worse – it's a bit scary really."' In 2009, the United Nations World Meteorological Organization signaled that a Southeast Australian heatwave was the hottest in 100 years."
Well, hottest in 100 years, means that 100 years ago, it was hotter...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Once again, you'll make him unleash his dogs of war as you send your weaklings into the field to to find a rig big enough to haul that fat tank of gas...
No more Men at Work... No Midnight Oil...No wonder Australia is going to hell in a hand basket.
50 C temps in Australia this decade (40 C temps now).
Halfway up the Rockies in Canada (Kootenays) they are having very very low snowfall - only one meter instead of three meters.
Massive 1000 year floods in Calgary are the new normal.
Get ready for climate change, boys and girls, cause it's coming and China's pushing it as hard as possible by increasing coal plants 6x this next year.
Period.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
given their natural habitat and evolutionary traits, this means its only a matter of time until those ferocious Drop Bears go extinct. the bad news of course is that we can no longer use the drop bear as an excuse for americans to choose New Zealand as their holiday destination.
Granted its also important to note that should americans agree to reduce their carbon footprint and sign the damn kyoto treaty, we wont have to resort to shipping drop bears to safer climates in the states.
Good people go to bed earlier.
"The report, which will be released in full in February, finds that climate change is having a key influence on a trend that has seen the number of hot days in Australia double and the duration and frequency of heatwaves increase in the period between 1971 and 2008."
So, yes, it's global warming.
I can see the fingerprint of global warming in the sky every day.
I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror -
The wide brown land for me!
Dorothea Mackellar, 1904
Yup; Australia has never been hotter / dryer / ...
It's possible that both the AGW deniers and AGW alarmists are wrong. Climate change could be real, but caused by natural factors that are out of our control, the same ones that have caused ice ages and warm periods in the past when carbon outputs were nowhere near as high as they are now. But that theory would cause people to stop paying their taxes and mortgages and move to the tropics, so we can't have that.
get the tinfoil hats on, here come the climate changers!!
I think you'll find the tinfoil hat wearers are those who think that the scientific community are all conspiring to earn big bucks from climate change, although quite how they earn this money is never spelled out. Odd, that. Then the climate-change deniers have no trouble believing the industry-sponsored pseudo-science of the global warming denial industry that actually does have big money behind it from the likes of Exxon of Exxon Valdez fame. Yeah, you have no trouble believing the polluters, do you?
Get a fucking grip. The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is a fact. Out of thousands of peer-reviewed papers you'd be doing well if you can find one single paper that says otherwise.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
stop living in the desert.
What if the desert comes to you?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
The report recommends cutting emissions to control the weather. As if their lower carbon air will somehow hover only over Australia to keep temperatures down, while China and the other high polluters in Southeast Asia will hold in the heat. If only Australia can experience man-made global warming despite no global temperature increase in the past 10 years, surely they can cool off via the same mechanism as well!
I'll buy one, but only if I can act all smug to my friends who still drive gasoline-powered cars, especially hybrids. I'm already practicing saying "Well, I guess driving a hybrid is okayyyy....I mean if you're not ready to go all the way and REALLY help."
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
to earn big bucks from climate change, although quite how they earn this money is never spelled out
Climate Change Is the Next $10 Trillion Opportunity
While I'm not debating that the climate is changing, let's also not pretend that this is not all about $$$.
.
"So, yes, it's global warming."
You are giving us a prime example of exactly what GP wrote.
Sure, AUS is having a heatwave. Even while much of the United States was having a record cold temperatures, and much of Europe has been experiencing its coldest weather in more than 10 years... Arctic ice extent is expanding again and the Antarctic summer is colder than usual, with even more sea ice.
You can't cherry-pick your heatwaves. This is GLOBAL climate we're talking about.
Agreed, and we're not alone: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/01/14/mit-professor-urging-climate-change-activists-to-slow-down/
And, I should add: all the while, we've been experiencing a weak "El Nino" event. So even with ENSO on the warming side, it has been very cold in much of the world.
Look, the west is working on lowering their emissions.
However, China alone emits over 1/3 of all CO2 emissions. Worse, by 2020, they will account for over 1/2 assuming that no other nation lowers theirs (and if other nations lower theirs, then it will probably be around 2017). In addition, the rest of BRICS are busy increasing their emissions.
And with kyoto and other nations trying to tie emissions to individuals, rather than to GDP, this will continue to happen. The only way to stop this is to have ALL NATIONS lower their emissions at the same time. In addition, it needs to be tied to GDP, rather than per capitia. Finally, it needs to be based on empirical data, not SWAGs.
And the only way to make sure that ALL nations work on bringing emissions down is for nations to tax all consumed goods, local and imported, with a tax based on where the good and its parts come from. In addition, ideally, it would include something for the transportation of the item.
Until that point, emissions WILL rise faster.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
to earn big bucks from climate change, although quite how they earn this money is never spelled out
Climate Change Is the Next $10 Trillion Opportunity
While I'm not debating that the climate is changing, let's also not pretend that this is not all about $$$. .
The article you have linked shows that there are business opportunities created as a result of dealing with climate change. It does not show how climate scientists benefit from the results of their studies going one way or the other, as is often alleged by climate change deniers.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Hiding behind trend vs. weather is statistically significant> .
Fixed that there.
I'm sorry, but, if you don't understand basic mechanics of science, you can't be outraged when you don't understand the conclusions of science.
Please supply your (statistically significant) data.
Misdirection. Scientists are not the ones looking to cash in -- they are being used by those who are looking to cash in, which is big business.
Easy. Just look at where Al Gore invests his money. Hopefully I don't have to spell out how to find that information.
Things, whether they are in fact true or false, do not become true just because sufficient percentages of people believe them.
The consensus in Wisconsin might be that the Packers are the best football team, but that doesn't make it fact. It would simply mean that the majority prefer to remain delusional, rather than change their long-held beliefs.
That is not to suggest that ManBearPig is not real, but it takes more "6 out of 10 scientists believe ManBearPig is real and will kill everyone" to convince the rational mind.
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
But it's cold in North America during the winter! That means that climate change isn't happening!
WHAT DO YOU MEAN OTHER PLACES HAVE DIFFERENT WEATHER??
Has anyone told Rush Limbaugh that places other than the USA exist yet? Maybe the shock will kill him and he'll stop promulgating all his climate lies.
Arctic Ice extent expanding this year is no surprise--most climate scientists predicted that would happen this year. Why? Because it was SO LOW last year, it basically had no direction to go but up.
If you roll snake eyes on your first roll, don't be surprised if your next roll is better.
Great! Maybe we can get the crazy deniers to realise that the economy won't implode if we spend money on something other than oil subsidies.
$10 trillion worth of jobs? Why isn't everyone piling into that bandwagon?
If you were trying to make money from climate research and looked around to see which side would bring the most bucks, you would come to the conclusion that the global warmist side has the most to offer.
The grants from government and government-like bodies are in the billions. Oil companies don't spend billions trying to disprove global warming despite what you may think. They can't, it would raise too many alarm bells and draw shareholder ire besides. Last figure I saw was $23 million... a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the money spent trying to prove global warming.
China alone emits over 1/3 of all CO2 emissions.
Agreed, the concept of a nation is irrelevant when it comes to global issues. However, I would be the first to defend the Chinese and the rest who are simply being outsourced by the West to create all our junk. Its still OUR pollution, just because they are the ones getting paid to do it doesn't make it their fault. This is CONSUMER pollution, mostly driven by CAPITALISM. Fix the two problems in caps and our problem will be resolved, in a few thousand years (when the climate goes back to normal).
Yeah, let's measure "global warming" in the Antarctic. Wait? What's that? The ships got frozen?
Well, we need to prove that the earth is warming up so let's get a rescue ship down there so that the researchers can start proving global warming. What's that? The rescue ship got stuck in the ice?
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
The consensus in Wisconsin might be that the Packers are the best football team, but that doesn't make it fact. It would simply mean that the majority prefer to remain delusional, rather than change their long-held beliefs.
Your ability to compare peer reviewed scientific papers to loyalty to sports teams is noted.
That is not to suggest that ManBearPig is not real, but it takes more "6 out of 10 scientists believe ManBearPig is real and will kill everyone" to convince the rational mind.
It's a bit more than 6 out of 10. It's more like 13,926 out of 13,950. And it's not about "belief." It's about reaching a conclusion after rigorous research.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Had broken it every winter since 1971? Because in australia last year they had to add 2 colors to the temperature charts because how hot things were then, and this year things aren't so far from that, and if 2 years is not enough you have the previous 40 contiguous years where the same trend was there. Thats the difference between long standing climate trends and the weather in a particular season of a limited area. Is the forest the one that matters, not the tree you just stumbled upon. And if you can see the forest because you are not high enough, maybe you should check what the people that can see the whole forest say. The cold fact is that the world as a whole is getting hotter.
God, damn, a simple "YHBT" will do.
While I don't even consider myself among the "deniers" ... I think you have to be going around with a big, thick blindfold on, if you really believe the "pro climate change" researchers aren't getting some money out of it.
The federal government wants to push climate change as its platform to encourage all sorts of initiatives, and to do so, it needs the backing of numerous scientific studies. Most researchers sustain themselves largely based on government grants. Even NASA has been a big climate change proponent in recent years, vs. focusing on the space travel projects we traditionally associate with it. Why do you think THAT is? All the funding cutbacks in space exploration mean they need to find something else to do that IS funded, or else they vanish.
Weather patterns are not random. Just as encrypted files are not random data. You may not be able to see the patterns, but they are there, and with enough knowledge and data points you can start to make predictions about it.
Silence is a state of mime.
Arctic Ice extent expanding this year is no surprise--most climate scientists predicted that would happen this year. Why?
Most climate scientists would actually predict that ice extent will go up this year because, as every year, we get this thing called Winter. (Or were you referring to the year-on-year minimum or maximum extent?)
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
They already sell plug-in diesel electric trucks in Canada.
Why are you subsidizing the Middle East?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
While I'm not debating that the climate is changing, let's also not pretend that this is not all about $$$.
When the Maldives or New Orleans is underwater, in part because of climate change, people die needlessly. When the heat makes formerly arable land into desert, people starve. When formerly great sources of water dry up, people dehydrate and die.
So it's not all about money. It's partially about money: It's expensive to actually do something significant about climate change, and easier for the people in power to simply let the people without power die than it is to pay for fixing the problem.
I am officially gone from
Snow pack in the West is less than one half of typical years.
A cold snap like the East just has used to be far more common.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
stop living in the desert.
What if the desert comes to you?
Then it's your chance to become an economic migrant. Whee!
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Yeah! And last summer they said it was going to be crazy hot but one time I had to put on a sweater! /sarcasm
Interior Australia seems to be suffering a terrible drought while Northern Australia is being inundated.
Australia: Percent of Normal Precipitation
Is not just CO2, there are more greenhouse gases and other affecting factors like i.e. deforestation. Check this map on countries contributing to climate change. The elephant in the room is US, comfortably first with 0.151C, then comes far China with 0.063 and Russia with 0.059.
God damn, who is modding this shit up? Like, really? Do you want this terrible argument to be symbolic of your position?
Is it some kind of "I don't understand the difference between measurable long-term trends, and yesterday's weather, and I moderate?"
Most of the oil used in the US comes from the US. The second largest source? Canada.
Why are you producing so much oil if it's so bad?
Ice in Antarctica! What a concept!! Who's ever heard of such a thing?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
It's their fault that they're choosing to destroy their country to enrich capitalists by selling us trinkets. We don't have guns at their backs. They choose to not have the environmental enforcement that we have here. Watch out, the current nutso crop of Republicans want to do the same here. Rand Paul loves a race to the bottom.
To melt all the damn ice?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
On behalf of Canada, the answer's simple: our government has been hijacked by Bush-era conservatives. (And I do mean "hijacked": see this and this.) A lot of people here are vehemently upset about new petroleum fuel extraction developments.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
>last couple of months
This is weather.
>in the period between 1971 and 2008
This is climate.
Now, do people suddenly get more interested in global warming when it's hot outside? Sure! Why? Because people are essentially irrational, and don't live very long relative to the planet. That includes me and people I agree with, too. But it doesn't change the facts of a 35+ year trend.
I was complaining about the dead giveaways. Like "hide behind the science"
Also, 1100 new highs.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/
Guess what climate change predicts? More variability.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Show us the 30-year trend of cooling to balance out our trend and we'll listen to you. Until then shut the fuck up.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
That's an article about Richard Lindzen, who's practically made a career of out of always being wrong. For instance, he also doesn't think there's a strong link between cigarettes and lung cancer.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Which says nothing about the *global* climate.
Here's a clue: the air mass that's breaking all the cold weather records? That air mass is actually unusually *warm* for this time of year. How can that be? Because it's not where it usually is, way up in Canada. At the same time many northern areas are getting record warm temperatures, and California is missing the rain it should be getting this time of year. The overall picture is of a *warm* winter, averaged over the northern hemisphere, but with temperature anomalies all over the place. Which is not in itself *climate*, but the kind of weather event climate models have been predicting for a decade or more now (citation: Easterling, David R., et al. "Climate extremes: observations, modeling, and impacts." Science 289.5487 (2000): 2068-2074.).
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Exactly. Tax fuels according to how much carbon they contain, and tax imports according to how much fossil fuels the nations they come from emit. Then the free market will do the rest: develop more energy sources that don't emit carbon dioxide and produce more energy efficient products.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
First halve of january was the warmest ever measured in The Netherlands. Last winter was one the longest though. Stuff gets more extreme
Repeat after me: We are all individuals
much of Europe has been experiencing its coldest weather in more than 10 years
What? In huge areas of central Europe (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Poland and large parts of Germany), there was no winter to spek of, so far. Trees are blooming, birds did not migrate south, the average temperatures are about 6 degrees C above normal.
The ship got stuck in sea ice that broke off the continent because it's melting due to the warming.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
I'm sure that not all of Canada agrees with you. It's a polarizing issue to say the least. Many Canadians also believe people on the left over estimate the environmental impact of Canadian oil production when compared to the environmental impact of oil production in the middle east. How much CO2 does a hellfire missle release wen used in the middle east to help secure stable oil supply? How much CO2 is released simply to transport tankers from the middle east, across the Atlantic to reach the refineries in Quebec? How many people died in the middle east to secure our oil supply. I for one prefer the ethics of oil from Canada. Fewer people needed to die for me to drive to get the fuel I need to drive to work in the morning.
Um, HAARP has been shut down. It may open again. Maybe. Someday.
Nearly $2 Billion conservatively speaking. $77 billion from FY2008 through FY2013.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
First, it is supposed to be based on historical data from 1906-2005. It is not based on previous data or on CURRENT data.
IT'S a chart that no one wants to top, but global warming's worst offenders, in absolute terms, are the US, China, Russia, Brazil, India, Germany and the UK. New calculations suggest that these nations are responsible for more than 60 per cent of the global warming between 1906 and 2005.
Basically, they cherry picked a small period of time. The fact that they stopped at 2005 is even more telling. Since 2005, US's emissions have dropped, while ALL of BRICS have gone way up.
Heck, here is a better map that shows more CURRENT data. It came from CO2. In this case, it shows 2008's. What is truely wicked is that China has been going up 10-15% EACH YEAR for the last 10 years.
Secondly, Europe out did America in coal emissions for centuries. In fact, they emitted more CO2 UNTIL 1998 when suddenly, they started downwards. In fact, even the UK says that they are the global historical cause of climate change.
Third, check out the following 2 reports:
Here and Here.
What do you see?
That the west, esp. USA, is dropping their emissions, but china alone, emits more each year that destroys those savings. IOW, China is increasing faster than what the entire west can cut. This does NOT include other nations.
So, if you really were the least bit honest, you will get off the high horse and realize that we are in this together. Either all nations work together on this, or we all sink. And if USA takes the same approach that EU took, it will actually RAISE emissions, not lower them. It is EU's racism against China that keeps them from moving more work to there. And sadly, American businesses have taken a non-responsibility approach to issues, so they go on over to China, while ignoring the fact that China is cheating on everything.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I agree. In fact, for the last 6 years, America has dropped our emissions to early 1990 levels. OTOH, China has DOUBLED theirs (which is why they are at 33% of all CO2 emissions).
AE can help, but it can NOT replace it all. We need nukes, esp. thorium. It is insane to not have it.
But, I will say that greenpeace and others on the far left are fucking up, by choosing to ignore BRIC and other nations, thinking that they will simply stop their emissions, or that these are cleaner. Nothing could be further from the truth. These nations will continue to increase, and these new plants will exists for more than 60 years. Even if the west stops 100% of our emissions, BRIC nation will continue to grow and this will continue.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
no, it is not. China has one of the WORST emission / $GDP. Over the last 5 years, they have improved and managed to move from the 3rd from the bottom up to 7 from the bottom. Note that America is around the middle so, around 90 from the bottom.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
not fuels. GOODS.
By taxing all goods that we consume, then it puts all nations on an equal footing. And once we start taxing our own products, local companies will push local govs/utilities to change their ways.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
When we were in grade school we were taught that we are still coming out of the last ice age and that you could see it effect in ice sheets that don't normally exist like in Greenland. Every time I hear about global warming I'm reminded of this, and I don't think I have ever heard it mentioned when people are debating.
Global warming is not a concern for me since I think we need cleaner, cheaper, more efficient forms of manufacturing and energy production, and emissions control too but for much more immediate reasons. {which if taken care of in a timely manner would mean that global warming is taken care of as well}
As the other AC rightly noted, it's a divisive issue. "A lot" doesn't mean everyone!
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
However, I would be the first to defend the Chinese and the rest who are simply being outsourced by the West to create all our junk. Its still OUR pollution, just because they are the ones getting paid to do it doesn't make it their fault.
I think we'll have to get past this bullshit guilt tripping some day. China isn't going to decrease its pollution because the West buys less of its junk. It'll do so because it is in its interests to do so. You should ask why that isn't the case now.
These are all entirely fair points. I think most of the people who stand against the tar sands tend to be focused on eliminating fossil fuel dependence as much as possible, though, so they would say it's moot. I think.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
There used to be a science based majority on /. but these days anything on climate science brings out mostly libertarian deniers-by-other-means. No there is no scientific debate.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
The parent post is correct, but Greenpeace does not dictate government policy in Australia.
Australia has 31% of the world's uranium reservers (the world's largest) and has in recent years declined production slightly (probably due to Germany's and Japan's 'efforts' that increase greenhouse gas emissions across Europe and Japan). Australia does not use nuclear power for energy generation or for military use or for icebreakers or any use other than ANSTO (small research lab that produces radioisotopes for medical use).
Australia could have gone nuclear ages ago, but didn't. Similarly to how it cut space research and plans to build rocket launch platforms, it is a country of little physics achievements that haven't been done by overseas people. The problem is that is also a county full of coal, and with other countries running out of coal, it might well be the place for coal globally over the next 50 years if policy doesn't change domestically.
Already the highest greehouse gas emitting OECD country in the world in the future if the coal extractions can be seen large from space (like tar pits in Canada) then it might become the biggest contributing country to global warming on a global scale indirectly (due to use of its coal and nonuse of uranium, not to mention thorium).
As a slightly different slant on this troll rousing topic, it is worth noting a few things.
1) Per capita, Australia is the worlds highest emitter of greenhouse gases as we use mostly coal to generate electricity. Furthermore, we are one of the worlds largest coal miners/exporters and so contribute significantly to global CO2 production elsewhere.
2) In September, Australia elected a new government that is predominantly in the hands of climate change deniers. The Prime Minister (Tony Abbott) is on the public record saying that climate change is "crap" (http://blogs.abc.net.au/victoria/2009/12/climate-change-is-crap-tony-abbot-said-to-the-pyrenees-advocate.html). Amongst the new government's first acts was to defund the Climate Commission (along with several other "green" initiatives of previous governments). They are also committed to repealing the existing Carbon Tax legislation, but cannot (yet) force this through the upper house (Senate) which they do not control.
3) In response to its defunding, the Climate Commission reformed itself as the Climate Council, raising around $1 million in under two weeks. Whilst not big bikkies in US terms, this is extremely significant in a small population country like Australia that demonstrates that many Australians feel very strongly about climate change - strongly enough to not only make a one off donation but to commit to regular, monthly donations to support the ongoing public information work of the Climate Council.
From their "about" page http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/about-us/
"The Climate Council is an independent non-profit organisation funded by donations by the public. Our mission is to provide authoritative, expert advice to the Australian public on climate change."
You are using page 1 of the global warming denier's handbook -- cherry-pick local minima to deny the trends. Yes, there is more arctic ice this year than last year, but last year was an extremely low point. The US has had one week of record cold, but not sustained record cold.
Next up you'll be saying that there hasn't been any increase in average temperatures since 1998 - ignoring the fact that 1998 was a massive outlier and that if you were to start witih 1997 or 1999 the trend of increasing temps is still, unfortunately, intact.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Nah, I remember some of the trolls in the late 1990's... some of them were so subtle, it was like a good hot sauce. You didn't feel the burn till it was coming out your ass the next day, but by then it was too late. Some of the trolls back then were just that good.
C|N>K
The USA has broken 1000 record low temps in the last couple of months ...
Those are all daily record low temperatures, IOW the record for a specific day. No monthly or all time record low temperatures were broken in the cold snap in early January.
And, I should add: all the while, we've been experiencing a weak "El Nino" event. So even with ENSO on the warming side, it has been very cold in much of the world.
I hadn't heard anything about there being a current weak 'El Nino', we have been in neutral conditions since the last La Nina event as far as I'm aware. In fact everything I've come across has been that it has been a surprise to have such record heat during neutral conditions (e.g. http://theconversation.com/2013-was-australias-hottest-year-warm-for-much-of-the-world-21670).
Everything I can find indicates the last few months have been neutral conditions and the models from all the major Met agencies are predicting further neutral conditions (with a chance of El Nino in a few months time).
You can follow links to seasonal forecasts by various agencies from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology website here: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/model-summary.shtml#tabs=Models
If you ignore the forecast plume on the linked charts, you can see the observations for the last few months (mostly for NINO3.4; a key indicator of ENSO). These observations show neutral conditions (on the La Nina side of things if anything, but neutral none the less) for the last few months.
Forecast is nicely summarised on the Australian Bureau of Meteorology website too:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/model-summary.shtml#tabs=Overview
I'm sure you could find references to neutral conditions elsewhere but I'm most familiar with the output of the Australian Bureau of Meterology.
The thing is ships get stuck in the Antarctic sea ice for short periods all the time. It's a fairly regular occurrence. This one just made the headlines because a lot of climate change contrarians thought they could make some hay with it.
Getting "trapped by ice" isn't the same as getting "frozen in". The amount of ice in Commonwealth Bay depends on wind direction, which was offshore in that photo taken 100 years ago, and onshore this year when the 2 ships got stuck.
The cold fact...
I see what you did there . . .
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Houses were not insulated, most didn't even have plaster and lathing on the interior of the wall studs, the only heating was radiant heat from the fireplace, and if you underestimated the amount of wood you needed in September you were burning your furniture to keep alive by April. Clothing was limited to wool and cotton, with no way to really dry them when you got wet. The gods help you if your boots fell apart in the middle of winter and you didn't live close enough to town to get them fixed, very few people had the tools to do that. Some winters it was a miracle ANY of them survived.
My grandfather had a photo of himself, his brother and some neighbors, young men all, standing in front of a snow drift with shovels. On the other side of the drift you can see about a foot of the smoke stack of a locomotive. When my dad was young someone he knew drove his car from Michigan to Wisconsin across Lake Michigan, and people moved HOUSES across the ice on Lake Superior. When I was little I remember snow banks were frequently taller than my dad. My mom saw her first Christmas without snow on the ground in 1984, in the last ten years they've had snow on the ground on Christmas day twice and Grand Traverse Bay on Lake Michigan (not the big lake, just the Bay) has frozen thick enough to go ice fishing once.
Australia isn't the only place that has seen a century of warming.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Where is Michael Kristopit when you need him?
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
And the temperature in the Kardashian's pool was lower than normal too. They had to go slut it up in the hot tub to get warm! TV reveals the truth, that's why they call them "reality programs", right?
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Unusually low temperatures in some places are offset by unusually high temperatures in others. Why is that so hard to grasp?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Would you fucking dickheads get it into your thick skulls that climate and weather are not the same thing? Jesus H Christ! I learned this in high school geography class when I was 11 years old! What's taking you so long, you knuckle-dragging idiot?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Now, tell me how much of that money went into climate scientists pockets rather than paying for expensive instrumentation (launching satellites anyone?), super computer time, data collection and correlation?
You are more of a century too late on that one - such stuff was studied in South Australia by the scientists researching climate there. We teach that in school history since it's something that inspired polar explorers such as Mawson and Wilkins.
Things like that are general knowledge for many people with high school levels of science and history. You are going to have to work on your silly GOTCHA points that are supposed to prove that somebody with nothing but a casual interest knows far more than an entire field of science.
Ice broke out - so yes, if you'd been following the news at all.
http://slashdot.org/~Michael+Kristopeit
Seems more like a flamer than a troll tho. I mean more like Roman_Mir or (back in the day) Trollaxor or JonKatz or LionKuntz....
C|N>K
And with kyoto and other nations trying to tie emissions to individuals, rather than to GDP, this will continue to happen. The only way to stop this is to have ALL NATIONS lower their emissions at the same time. In addition, it needs to be tied to GDP, rather than per capitia.
Great, I love it. My country only has about 5 million people so by GDP we should be about to pollute about 60 times as much as the US per capita with its 300 million. I really look forward to the US in total producing about 1/200th (approximate number of states recognized by the UN) of the world's CO2 emissions. Give me gas guzzlers, screw any restrictions on industry and taxes, levies and fees because we're home free baby. Oh wait, did you only want to apply that against bigger countries as China and India? My bad.
I've never understood the moral basis of why it should be measured by GDP and not by capita, what right does an American have to pollute more than me, or anyone else for that matter? And for that matter, I know my carbon footprint is way above the world average but I don't claim to have any moral right to it. I simply have the money to spend on a lifestyle that's more polluting than the people trying to life off a dollar or two a day, the world's not fair and I'm not claiming that it is.
If seven billion people had my lifestyle, the Earth would collapse. I know that, you seem to be in denial about that. That is not to say I try to be an environmental swine, but I like my car. I like going on long distance vacations. I like my large heated (replace with AC if you're down south) apartment, I like my appliances and gizmos and gadgets that all draw power. Trying to cement a situation where the people who polluted first and most get to keep polluting most is probably not very productive. At least I'd say fuck you, first you're the worst of the lot and then you get to reap benefits from it? No wonder China is giving you the finger.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It's not the desert you schmuck. The city I live in was the hottest city on the planet yesterday. Air-conditioning was failing under the heat - not from lack of power but from the basic heat differential between outside and in. Trains had to run on reduced schedules, transport staff were handing out free water bottles so no-one dehydrates. It's crazy. The bush fire season has started in earnest, and houses near cities have been destroyed. This affects day-to-day living of people living in large cities (millions of people).
You might want come up with a better term than "sheeple" - it makes you come across like a group-think zombie.
The question is not one of morals when it comes to GDP vs. sq acres vs capita. It is a question of what CAUSES the CO2. China has had a fairly stable population for the last 20 years. Yet, their emissions has doubled. Why? Because it is tied to their GDP. The same is true of EVERY nation.
The idea of tying CO2 emissions to per capitia explains why idiots like you are causing this nightmare. You scream that it should be per capitia without understanding that emissions are NOT tied to ppl. They are tied manufacturing. Simple as that. Yet, you idiots will block nuke power, scream that the largest emitter of greenhouse is good, and then scream that the nation that has droppped the most over the last 5 years, is total scum.
In the end, if we give over the edge, it will not be due to the idiots in the tea* or neo-cons that scream that climate change is not happening. It will be due to idiots like you that scream that you want it it your way, without any logic behind it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
exactly. Heck, they are now about to convert coal into methane. Interestingly, they have already indicated that they will simply dump the CO2 and other pollutants into the air. The reason why China is doing this is to move their pollution from being by the cities to being in the rural area to the west. So, now, they will rain a LOT more mercury, lead, uranium, etc onto their crops.
With the tax, it would be possible to get every nation to take long-term steps rather than short-term like most of BRICS is doing.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
What's with all the China-bashing? A nation with 1.35 billion people to feed and clothe has to get it's energy from somewhere. Not to mention all the products they are manufacturing for you in the West.
% of electricity generated from renewable sources
China 17.88% USA 10 .05%
The Chinese government is promoting huge projects for investment in solar, wind and hydro.
I'm not saying they are innocent, but at least they seem to be trying to do something.
No left turn unstoned.
BTW, you really need to google for 'wiki GDP'. You obviously have no clue of what you are talking about.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I ride a bicycle and I was once quite smug too until one day I rode up to an intersection and found a carriage drawn by a team of six somber cyclists. They were being scoffed at by a man on a horse that promptly fertilized the earth then rode off into the sunset leaving myself and the PETA cyclist gang in cloud of efficiency.
lets try again on this.
China is NOT building much in way of renewable. In fact, coal has been 78-80% of their electricity for over 20 years.
In fact, China's plan is to have 80% of their NEW power plants for the next 10 years will run coal. They are stepping up the nat. gas plants, but almost all of that will come from coal=>methane via a very inefficient process.
Now, China is talking about more AE and nukes, but only if they produce them. They do not want them, unless they own the technology.
This is a dangerous approach.
But, it all gets worse. They have scrubbers on these plants, but they do NOT run them. Why? Because it increases the costs of the electricity. So, they will not do so.
One last thing. I have an ex-gf that does air monitoring. Her group went to China and was allowed to monitor anywhere around the nation, except that they could NOT write up about it. Basically, the data was to be turned over to Chinese gov. This was done without any gov. interference. Normally, when environmental scientists come in, Chinese gov. will play with output to control the results. Turns out that things are MUCH worse than is generally known. All of those SWAGS that everybody is doing is based on honesty by govs. China is apparently NOT being honest.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
BTW, the manufacturing of products for the west is a joke. The fact is, that China is doing this not to feed their nation, but as part of a cold war. But the real issue is that China is doing it as cheaply as possible, as quickly as possible, and without a care in the world about the true costs. That is why their nation is only partially capitalist.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The USA has broken 1000 record low temps in the last couple of months, but that was just weather when it happened.
You are just confirming that the ridicule the original poster had towards people like you is correct.
If you actually knew anything about whether you'd understand than adding more energy to the atmosphere creates more extremes... but you don't. Temperature is not climate, fool.
Not if it isn't true.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
To be fair to China they are working on dealing with the problem too. They lead the world in some forms of renewable energy and are building new nuclear plants. Their country is growing rapidly and they see how the west polluted as it did so, and so are unwilling to give up the same opportunity.
It's not as simple as China not caring or not making any effort, it's just that they are only now getting the skills and technology needed to be cleaner. Pollution is a big deal in China and they are making efforts to sort it out, but obviously it is going to take time and economic growth is running at 10% a year.
What we need to do is encourage them as much as possible, and develop new technologies with them in order to help. None of this treating China like the enemy that automatically steals all our tech. Aside from anything else we need to have clean tech become extremely cheap and widely available before Africa really starts to boom.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
when you return desperate immigrants back to their pathetic lives and refuse to take them in or even sink their boats at see or register them at a wild outpost with no food or shelter THEN you deserve this revenge by Nature
The fact that China has had 80% of their electricty come from coal for the last 20 years AND that they plan to continue that trend, says that they are doing little to NOTHING.
In fact, the majority of money that has been spent on solar and wind has been about stealing the manufacturing from the west and gutting them.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I hadn't heard anything about there being a current weak 'El Nino', we have been in neutral conditions since the last La Nina event as far as I'm aware.
This was from my friendly neighborhood meteorologist, last Monday. It is possible he is wrong, but he is a recognized expert in his field, not a "meteorologist" on TV. I suppose we shall see.
Here we go again. Jane's comments on sea level, UAH and surface temperatures follow a pattern. First, Jane plucks a short term trend from the noise and waves it around. Scientists then point out that Jane's trend is so short that it just represents weather noise, not climate signal. Jane then insists that waving around short term trends isn't meant to imply anything about the long term trend. Rinse, repeat.
So, consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: "... sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."
The last point on NOAA's MEI index is -0.312, which is on the La Nina side but effectively neutral.
No link and no name = argument from inscrutable authority. In reality, we might have an El Nino by July which will serve as the basis for the talking point I mentioned at WUWT.
Yes, many contrarians operate under the premise that climate change is natural and not driven by human CO2 emissions. In contrast, scientists measure contributions from many natural factors, and many human factors. Scientists don't start from either biased premise, but obviously contrarians do. Thanks for finally being honest, Jane.
"Here we go again. Jane's comments on sea level [dumbscientist.com], UAH [dumbscientist.com] and surface [dumbscientist.com] temperatures [dumbscientist.com] follow a pattern. First, Jane plucks a short term trend from the noise and waves it around. Scientists then point out that Jane's trend is so short that it just represents weather noise, not climate signal. Jane then insists that waving around short term trends isn't meant to imply anything about the long term trend. Rinse, repeat."
And I have to ask again: What is the basis of your personal vendetta against me?
I made a comment. While I didn't offer a citation (because it implies location information, which I don't do here). I did admit that it could be wrong, but I did have reason for making it. Further, I was referring to very recent developments. (As the so-called "polar vortex" has invaded middle and eastern America, the West coast has been seeing unusually warm weather.) Whether this is caused by the "vortex" itself or the start of a mile El-Nino event is currently unclear. Yet again, you are moving the goalposts, referring to past months while I'm talking about last week.
Your response: "Look! She's being wishy-washy again!"
Get off your holier-than-thou high horse, and leave me alone. It is very clear by now that you have some kind of ulterior motive for your incessant badgering. In fact, I suspect you yet again of playing Anonymous Coward Sock-Puppet in order to bait me, as I have documented quite a bit of very strong evidence you have done in the past.
As I told you before: I believe in giving people plenty of rope. But I won't pretend your behavior is pleasant to deal with. Go try to smear someone else.
s/mile/mild
You hear this argument every friggin' time there's a "hottest since..." record set. The best variation is, "Records are always being set. One record doesn't mean a thing." My response? When was the last time you heard of a record being set, anywhere in the world, for the coldest year of average temperatures on record. Another way to say the same thing: record highs and record lows, sure, still occur all the time. But consider the first derivative -- how has the ratio between the two changed? There's your trend.
I will add:
(1) The comment about probably weak ENSO was from a professional meteorologist who I did not cite for reasons I gave earlier.
(2) That may not stand up to your standards of scientific evidence, but this is Slashdot, not a science journal. I am not attempting to have a formal scientific debate. If I were, I would state things differently. And your attempt to hold me to those standards, on Slashdot, are completely ridiculous.
When I am trying to make a rigorous argument, I generally make that very clear. But I repeat: this is Slashdot, and I am not bound by those standards here. Your oft-repeated attempts to show how I'm "not being scientific" (to your arbitrary standards) are inappropriate. Not to mention the unethical methods you employ.
It's not global warming, at least not caused by our burning BILLIONS of tones of fossil fuels.
Simply, it's all God's fault for being such a homophobic sociopathetic but supreme being
A UKIP councillor has blamed the recent storms and heavy floods across Britain on the Government's decision to legalise gay marriage.
David Silvester said the Prime Minister had acted "arrogantly against the Gospel".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-25793358
Cryonics - Keep cool and carry on.
Exactly what who's been saying all along? Aside from all your short term "cooling/recovery" trends, you've smeared paleoclimate studies while making these uncited claims about the paleoclimate:
NOBODY in their right minds has -- and I certainly have not -- been arguing that the globe has not been getting warmer! That is not the issue and never was. The globe has been trending warmer for the last 6,000 years! The data are clear. Someone would have to be an idiot or totally uninformed to make such a claim. [Jane Q. Public, 2007-10-24]
Not quite 0.74 degrees, but yes it has warmed. So what? The earth has been trending steadily warmer for the last 6,000 years!!! [Jane Q. Public, 2008-06-22]
The trend over 5 or 6 THOUSAND years has been warmer. [Jane Q. Public, 2008-06-22]
I do not disagree that the globe is warming. That would be denying facts... the earth has been trending warmer for over 6,000 years! [Jane Q. Public, 2008-06-22]
Trying to prove to me that the globe is warming was a pretty silly thing to do. I do not dispute that the earth has been getting warmer, and never did! It has been trending warmer for the last 6,000 years! [Jane Q. Public, 2009-04-18]
We know the earth has been warming. It has been doing so for approximately 6,000 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2009-07-02]
Certainly the globe has been warming... it has been trending warmer for thousands of years. [Jane Q. Public, 2010-02-03]
First, people with at least half a brain -- including in the U.S. -- know the climate is getting warmer. It has been trending warmer for roughly 6,000 years, industry or not. [Jane Q. Public, 2011-07-17]
Jane and Lonny Eachus are wrong. According to Marcott et al. 2013 (PDF), the world has actually been cooling for most of the last 6,000 years.
Yes, with a few $trillion more research dollars we can develop a perfect battery, cold fusion, cure AIDS and the common cold. Dream on. Even a WW2 total war, everyone sacrifices, kill everyone who opposes approach will not work. But you're itching to try, right? The only thing that will come close to working is the kill (almost) everyone part.
Exactly what who's been saying all along? Aside from all your short term "cooling/recovery" trends, you've smeared paleoclimate studies while making these uncited claims about the paleoclimate:
I think your idea of "smear" is a little bit out of whack. Let me summarize the comments I made that you call "smears" in those three links above:
"I don't think those other forcings are affecting this data as much as you would have us believe."
"No, by 'bias' I mean that since the people behind this site (seriously, have you done ANY homework on this?) are some of the very people who were being criticized by Wegman, then they can hardly be called objective on the matter! That seems like a pretty good description of 'bias' to me."
(From 2012): "Critics please take note: the ONLY references Wikipedia lists for saying that the MWP was not warmer than today are papers by -- who else? -- Jones, Mann, Bradley, and Hughes, of course.
Wow, imagine that. And all of them relying on... guess what? The very same questionable data set. So they can't be called 'independent' verifications of one another."
You call these "smears". Pardon the sarcasm, but you deserve it: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
A "smear" is a personal attack. The first two of those comments were personal opinions, and the third was a verifiable statement of fact. (At the time... I don't know what it Wikipedia says about it today, and I don't care, because I wrote it then.)
THEN... hahaha... you bring up things I stated over 6 years ago (!!!) which have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, and try to use them against me personally! And YOU are trying to say that I am "smearing" people? Get a clue, man. Every time you do this, you just make yourself look more like an ass.
So you demostrated that one thing I said repeatedly was wrong. Wow! I am impressed! (Not.)
You have demonstrated yet again that you have been obsessively following and recording my comments for close to 7 years!!!
Now, that may not seem strange to YOU, but I assure you, it seems very strange, and obsessive, and creepy to everybody else I have shown this stuff to.
More rope. Have fun with it.
It's a bit more than 6 out of 10. It's more like 13,926 out of 13,950
This reminds me of Dumb and Dumber.
"So you're saying there's a chance!"
Pretty pathetic if all you can muster is what you were told in grade school. We are not "still coming out of the last ice age." If not for the greenhouse effect, right now we would be inching towards the next one. In fact, before the onset of the industrial revolution, we were indeed inching towards it.
Misdirection. Scientists are not the ones looking to cash in -- they are being used by those who are looking to cash in, which is big business.
So the scientists aren't pulling a con on us.
So they're right to tell us that CO2 warms the earth, and that warming makes the earth less hospitable to humanity.
Even if they are being used by malign interests, so fucking what?
If you were trying to make money from climate research and looked around to see which side would bring the most bucks, you would come to the conclusion that the global warmist side has the most to offer.
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.
First off, grant money from mainstream science organizations isn't handed with no questions asked. It's spent on gear (climate scientists neeed computers), and on tuition for the grad students.
But, if you're willing to lie about climate change, the deniers will pay you literally $5K an hour to go to a podium and deny. (Heartland Institute;s going rate)
I ALSO just found out (because, unlike what looks from here to be some kind of unhealthy obsession about me on your part, I have had little to no interest in YOU...) that you have written extensively about me -- or things you seem to think are about me -- to other people, without my knowledge and outside of any exchange that actually involved me at all.
Because what has been increasingly appearing to me to be weird, obsessive behavior on your part has finally started to really strike me as abnormal, obsessive, and "creepy", I started reading some of your comments that were either replies that were too late in my timeline for me to have normally seen them, or were to other people altogether.
Some of them, at first glance, appear to me to have crossed well beyond reasonable, civil, public discourse. I can see after only a brief look that in fact you have made quite a number of false public statements about me personally.
You have been treading a very fine line, and I see now that your behavior may in fact have been crossing it for some time. We shall see. I am going to get opinions from people who know a bit more about this kind of thing than I.
What I have learned today has been appalling. I must say that I expected far more professional behavior from someone who claims to be be a scientist. But then, I've told you that before.
... And I just ALSO found out that you have made a practice of quoting me -- sometimes out of context -- on your website, THEN posting your own replies to my comments THERE (or at least making counter-arguments to my comments), without my knowledge. Apparently (at the moment I see no other reason) in order to "have the last word" without having to deal with any actual response from me. I consider that behavior to be reprehensible. This follows the other pattern of "late" replies that I do not see in my Slashdot timeline... more evidence of an emotional "need" to have the last word without the inconvenience of allowing someone to actually reply.
I am not a regular reader of your website and I have no wish to be. In fact, you do not have my permission to use my words there. If there was any permission given before, explicit or implicit, consider it retracted.
Regardless of whether you feel it to be so, in my opinion moving my words somewhere else, then arguing with them there, is unethical. I have no desire to participate in "discussions" on your website, nor do I give my permission for my words to be reproduced there. I come here to Slashdot mainly for entertainment, and I have no desire to be a whipping-post on your personal blog.
First off, grant money from mainstream science organizations isn't handed with no questions asked. It's spent on gear (climate scientists neeed computers), and on tuition for the grad students.
Yes of course that's true. But wait, what do you think the research funded by industry is like? The scientists buy diamond rings and go cruising on a private luxury yacht? No, researchers funded by industry spend their money on exactly the same things that researchers funded by government do.
I wasn't saying the climate change researchers are out to make obscene millions of dollars for themselves. However the fact is that they need grant money flowing in or they do not exist as researchers. It's either get grants and have a nice position at the university and pay your interns and staff and buy nice equipment, or... go teach high school. And the biggest source of grant money is gov't by far, not oil industry.
Yep. Sure enough. The more I have looked into this, the more appalling I have found it to be.
It appears to me that there are not just multiple but MANY instances of my comments taken out of context, with your own disparaging comments associated to quotes in your blog or links to my comments elsewhere. Multiple instances of aspersions cast and other personal remarks that I will say -- politely for now -- are likely to be shown to be incorrect and are pretty certainly inappropriate. Other instances of claims and other statements about me that are easily proven false.
From here it looks like you've really put your foot in it. In fact, it looks like you've been "digging" your own holes, continually and diligently... and neatly documenting them for everyone to see, even... for quite a long time. I am almost -- but not quite -- sorry I missed seeing all this earlier.
From what I read this evening, it also appears that other people have called you out for doing similar things to them.
It is very likely that this is going to get pretty interesting.
Well you can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink. The growth in China is fed by Western manufacturing demands. They're not innovators, theyre a lowest bidder manufacturer. Take away their economy by onshoring or giving the work to other nations who will do it while adhering to environmental standards. Whenwe buy from WalMart we are only adding to the problem. Not enough value placed on the environment thats translates into costs of goods, i.e. something manufactured in China should be double the cost due to their poor environmental practices.
That is why I suggest that we tax ALL GOODS that we consume.
First off, it forces all nations to participate. This is key. The idea of treating all nations differently, is allowing businesses to control the situation.
Secondly, it needs to be based on REAL data, not fake data. As such, it should be done by sats looking downward and tracking CO2 (and any other GHG possible) that flows into a nation, as well as out.
Third, it should be based on emissions / $ of GDP. Note that it must be real $ of GDP, not $ of GDP (PPP). The later is a calculation that will allow a nation like CHina or India to devalue their money, and make things appear better. So, by making it real $ of GDP, then if they increase the value of their money, it will allow more pollution, but hurt them on the costs of the good.
Fourth, the tax needs to start low and continue upwards over a period of time. Most importantly, it must be known that it will increase.
Fifth, there should be a costs for distance. After all, there is a real pollution costs on this.
Finally, it needs to be not just to the good, but to the parts as well (which makes this harder).
We need to give societies time to do the right things, but to make sure that ALL of their long range planning is the right way. The issue is not who did the pollution over time. The issue is who is doing the pollution NOW. In the past, nobody knew. Now, we all know. Heck, one of the issue with Kyoto was that we wanted the west to be back to mid 90's level. America did not join kyoto, yet, we are now at early 90's levels and dropping. BUT, this will not matter while nations like CHina double. And obviously, watching Germany and Japan walk away from nuke power plants is going to make things harder. And the logic that other nations should be allowed to pollute when they KNOW the situation is the wrong answer.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
" But wait, what do you think the research funded by industry is like? The scientists buy diamond rings and go cruising on a private luxury yacht? "
Research grants from the private sector do tend to be looser, but in the context of climate change, deniers are not getting grants to do research.
They're getting paid to write propaganda. And that comes with no strings attached, at all.
China's emissions growth is slowing, as it has implemented its own carbon trading scheme and started cleaning up the worst-polluting of its power plants.
Additionally, China has planted over 500,000 square km of trees in the north, as a desertification barrier and carbon sink. This is the largest artificial forest in the world (twice the size of Britain), and they plan to continue increasing this through to 2050.
Little known fact: It is a legal requirement for all Chinese over the age of eleven to plant at least three trees a year.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
No, the weather (yearly) has definitely changed over the last 100 years (climate).
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin