Snowstorm dumps 16"/406mm in Sahara Desert

[cmangle]

Global Warming, again?





3 times in 40 years doesn't fit the global warming narrative either. No way for Al to spin it!


Yesterday, Algerians living in the Sahara Desert found themselves in a winter wonderland as up to 16 inches of snow covered the desert dunes. This rare event has occurred only three times in the past 37 years nearby the town of Ain Sefra in Algeria.



In the Sahara desert, known for its suffocating heat, a freak snow shower coated the dusty dunes near the Algerian town of Ain Sefra.



Despite the altitude, it is extremely rare to see snow there. Temperatures range from around 43 to 54 degrees in the winter, the outlet reported.

[Onefella]

The difference between weather and climate.

A side effect to global warming is increased humidity in areas that are traditionally very dry. See the Andean deserts in South America, the Antarctic continent, and now, no surprise, high-altitude temperate Africa where it regularly gets well below 0°C every winter. Anyway, it seems it wasn't unprecedented, the place does get snow occasionally.

I really fail to see how anyone can still believe there's any doubt about global warming. The science is in. We are experiencing the effects right now. 2016-2017 broke more temperature records worldwide than in any other time in recorded history. What is it about climate-change deniers? It reminds me a lot like religion, "Stuff the science, I want to believe what I want to believe."

[ol' boy]

Thats awesome!

Snow is hard to drive, Sand is hard to drive it, no idea what Sand/Snow is like to drive in!

[Jma]

Anyone that may be sceptical, that questions or has the slightest doubts about the science is immediately labelled 'denier', and by who?
The 'alarmists' of course

[mi_tasol]

The difference between weather and climate.

A side effect to global warming is increased humidity in areas that are traditionally very dry. See the Andean deserts in South America, the Antarctic continent, and now, no surprise, high-altitude temperate Africa where it regularly gets well below 0°C every winter. Anyway, it seems it wasn't unprecedented, the place does get snow occasionally.

I really fail to see how anyone can still believe there's any doubt about global warming. The science is in. We are experiencing the effects right now. 2016-2017 broke more temperature records worldwide than in any other time in recorded history. What is it about climate-change deniers? It reminds me a lot like religion, "Stuff the science, I want to believe what I want to believe."

There's no doubt that climate is changing, the same way that climate has been changing for millenia, but for man to believe for even a minute that he/she/it can stop it is somewhat arrogant, but that is common in the "green fraternity".

To suggest that "the science is in" is also rather arrogant, science is a process of testing hypotheses and theories to ensure that actual results and observations equals the expected results and observations - to date they haven't otherwise there would be certain Himalayan glaciers that would have collapsed by now along with a bunch of other chicken little style warning episodes of the past decade or so. A lot of climate change science consists of writing papers to be "peer" reviewed by similarly thinking climate change scientists, rather incestuous really; oh and grants in the scientific world are justified by the number of papers published, its a key performance metric in many institutions.

Insisting that the science is in and that one particular theory is correct sounds a lot like a religion to me and its a parallel that I have drawn before.

Yes climate is changing but is it entirely due to anthropogenic influences, I'm yet to be convinced - Kardovar Island volcano just threw a crapload of ash and gases into the atmosphere as have other volcanoes over the yeas. Will they impact on the changing of climate, of course they will, just as they have had for thousands of years.

Beware the Climate Change fraternity, they are very much like a religion, however they seek to redistribute wealth, for us all to be "Earthians". The only way that mankind can survive climate change, where the dinosaurs and others didn't, is to adapt because we sure as hell won't change it.

[cmangle]

Anyway, it seems it wasn't unprecedented, the place does get snow occasionally.

Occasionally and wasn't unprecedented, Onefella . . . ??

"This rare event has occurred only three times in the past 37 years "

"3 times in 40 years doesn't fit the global warming narrative"

[Onefella]

There's no doubt that climate is changing, the same way that climate has been changing for millenia, but for man to believe for even a minute that he/she/it can stop it is somewhat arrogant, but that is common in the "green fraternity".

We have caused an unprecedented amount of C0₂ in the atmosphere, the likes of which haven't been seen since the Pliocene era 3 million years ago. In the past, climate change has always been gradual, spanning thousands of years. The current rate of change is shockingly fast, spanning a mere 100 years.

To suggest that "the science is in" is also rather arrogant, science is a process of testing hypotheses and theories to ensure that actual results and observations equals the expected results and observations - to date they haven't otherwise there would be certain Himalayan glaciers that would have collapsed by now along with a bunch of other chicken little style warning episodes of the past decade or so.

Yes, I know about the scientific method, and there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that global warming is a 'robust' scientific theory. Links below. I won't even bother responding to the obvious straw-man of melting Himalayan glaciers.

A lot of climate change science consists of writing papers to be "peer" reviewed by similarly thinking climate change scientists, rather incestuous really; oh and grants in the scientific world are justified by the number of papers published, its a key performance metric in many institutions.

Sorry, this is the real world. Scientists don't work that way. There is too much evidence from all sorts of different scientific disciplines for that argument to stand up.

Insisting that the science is in and that one particular theory is correct sounds a lot like a religion to me and its a parallel that I have drawn before.

Well your "parallel" is deeply flawed. Religion is believing something with no evidence, science is making conclusions on evidence. Big difference.

Yes climate is changing but is it entirely due to anthropogenic influences, I'm yet to be convinced - Kardovar Island volcano just threw a crapload of ash and gases into the atmosphere as have other volcanoes over the yeas. Will they impact on the changing of climate, of course they will, just as they have had for thousands of years.

Another straw-man, volcanos have no effect on global warming. The last time volcanoes affected our climate, the dinosaurs were roaming around.

Beware the Climate Change fraternity, they are very much like a religion, however they seek to redistribute wealth, for us all to be "Earthians". The only way that mankind can survive climate change, where the dinosaurs and others didn't, is to adapt because we sure as hell won't change it.

Global conspiracy theories now is it? Oh brother!

For anyone who can be bothered, here are a few links to mainline scientific pages about global warming. I suppose it could all be a conspiracy of the illuminati to feed us dis-information... or it could be the truth.

- be sure to click the 800,000 year time-scale button. It's a shocker.

.

.

[allover]

I guess to say that whilst you sit around waiting if the facts are true or false then find out it is too late to do or try to remediate the situation, then you may have ruined your grand children's world!
Its true the world is a warmer place and possibly occurring for a long time, but i think it is academic it is occurring at a faster rate than any time in history and nature will/ cannot keep up

[mi_tasol]

The current rate of change is shockingly fast, spanning a mere 100 years.

It appears that this is a common misconconception -

Sorry, this is the real world. Scientists don't work that way. There is too much evidence from all sorts of different scientific disciplines for that argument to stand up.

Having worked with scientists (mainly in biodiversity) for over a decade I can assure you that the metrics used to measure performance are indeed the number of papers published and the number of citations from these papers, and that these metrics are a large part of the process of gaining grants to continue work. Don't get me wrong, these scientists are incredibly passionate about their own discipline and regularly fly off to their conferences and meetings, emitting so much CO2 in the process - smacks of hypocrisy.

Well your "parallel" is deeply flawed. Religion is believing something with no evidence, science is making conclusions on evidence. Big difference.

However it is not making the evidence fit a predetermined outcome.

Another straw-man, volcanos have no effect on global warming. The last time volcanoes affected our climate, the dinosaurs were roaming around.

Straw-man claims, a common factor in the green church when the plebs dare to question the mantra. Check the impact on global temperatures of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in June 1991 - over the next 2 years global temperatures dropped by 0.5 degrees C -

[Onefella]

It appears that this is a common misconconception -

Did you even read the article you linked to? Allow me to quote;

Recent high precision U–Pb dating suggests that ∼10 °C of surface ocean warming occurred over a timespan of ∼60 kyr (ref. ), that is, a rate of ∼1.7 × 10⁻⁴ °C per year. In a modern day context, this local rate is ∼42 times lower than the global surface ocean warming of 0.35 °C over the past 50 years. Similarly, through the PETM, a global surface ocean warming of ∼6 °C over 5–20 kyr (refs , , , , ) has been linked to a pronounced perturbation of the global carbon cycle, and suggests a warming rate at least six times slower than modern.

Sorry, but your article reinforces my original statement.

Having worked with scientists (mainly in biodiversity) for over a decade I can assure you that the metrics used to measure performance are indeed the number of papers published and the number of citations from these papers, and that these metrics are a large part of the process of gaining grants to continue work. Don't get me wrong, these scientists are incredibly passionate about their own discipline and regularly fly off to their conferences and meetings, emitting so much CO2 in the process - smacks of hypocrisy.

Yeah, so scientists publish papers. This is part of the "scientific method". Your assertions on the integrity of this process is baseless. I am married to a scientist, I go to science functions and talk to scientists from all sorts of different disciplines. Claims like yours make their blood boil.

However it is not making the evidence fit a predetermined outcome.

Scientists don't do that. Creationists, flat-earthers and climate-change deniers do.

Straw-man claims, a common factor in the green church when the plebs dare to question the mantra. Check the impact on global temperatures of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in June 1991 - over the next 2 years global temperatures dropped by 0.5 degrees C -

Once again, the difference between climate and weather. The volcanic effects on weather are very complicated. Some areas cool down at certain levels of the atmosphere, some areas warm up. But it is always short-lived, ie, weather. You'll notice I said volcanoes don't affect climate.
.

[mi_tasol]

Did you even read the article you linked to? Allow me to quote;



Sorry, but your article reinforces my original statement.

Ahhh cherry picking one part of the paper to reinforce your argument, another well utilised ploy of the green mantra. One wonders then why the abstract of the paper states, in part,

Our findings indicate that the true attainable pace of climate change on timescales of greatest societal relevance is underestimated in geological archives.

And just to show that I can also cherry pick, from the same paper (my bolding)

Our work indicates instead that geological episodes of climatic or evolutionary change likely fail to capture the true pace of changes on timescales of most relevance for understanding the impact of similar changes today. Implicitly, our findings also mean that caution must be exercised when describing recent temperature changes as unprecedented in the context of geological rates. If rates of change are to be meaningfully interpreted, then the measurement timespan must be explicitly specified.

Yeah, so scientists publish papers. This is part of the "scientific method". Your assertions on the integrity of this process is baseless. I am married to a scientist, I go to science functions and talk to scientists from all sorts of different disciplines. Claims like yours make their blood boil.

not surprising, they've been caught "adjusting the numbers" more than once. I note you decided not to address the CO2 emissions from all the travel to these conferences, plus the power required for conference centres etc., etc.

Scientists don't do that. Creationists, flat-earthers and climate-change deniers do.

see above

Once again, the difference between climate and weather. The volcanic effects on weather are very complicated. Some areas cool down at certain levels of the atmosphere, some areas warm up. But it is always short-lived, ie, weather. You'll notice I said volcanoes don't affect climate.
.

Who mentioned weather? The paper that I referenced clearly refers to climate impacts, if I may cherry pick

Effects on climate were an observed surface cooling in the Northern Hemisphere of up to 0.5 to 0.6°C, equivalent to a hemispheric reduction in net radiation of 4 W/m2, and an overall cooling of perhaps as large as -0.4°C over large parts of the Earth in 1992-93. Climate models appear to have predicted the cooling currently occurring with a reasonable degree of accuracy. The Pinatubo climate forcing was stronger than the opposite, warming effects of either the El Niño event or anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the period 1991-93.


Note the last sentence.

[gordon_s1942]

Everything in Nature from what I can see can revert back to nature after a given time,
Even lava that comes as molten rock that destroys everything living in its path will eventually be itself returned to a natural state by wind and rain and time.
When the rain falls it collects in any irregular spots and the wind blows seeds and dust and other solids to be caught in a rain filled irregularity to form a base for the seed to grow and create a mix that will work on the lava until it dissolves away.
The plant that has grown in that mix also has the ability to absorb some of the chemicals created by the lava, sulpher etc and converts them to mostly harmless gases.
The trouble with Man is we have created materials that wont revert back to its original state and remains as it is indefinitely.
While I believe Nature could in time absorb some of the man made materials, it will take millennia to do so and we are producing it in such volume to make this nigh impossible.

***********************************************

Everyone thinks that because it is the 'Sahara Desert' , this in NOT possible but in winter the temperature can drop below freezing but nothing does because there is almost no moisture.
It does RAIN in the Sahara but again because of the heat from the surface, it evaporates before it can touch the ground.

[cmangle]

I guess if PRESIDENT Trump had kept the United States (and an ANNUAL $100 Billion) part of Bahamas decision to be involved in the Paris Accord for Global Warming, these Zermatt Skiers would not be stranded?

[Onefella]

I guess if PRESIDENT Trump had kept the United States (and an ANNUAL $100 Billion) part of Bahamas decision to be involved in the Paris Accord for Global Warming, these Zermatt Skiers would not be stranded?

What the ??

Are you really this dim?

[enf]

What the ??

Are you really this dim?

Shhhhhhhhhh......Seems so.

[cmangle]

Shhhhhhh . . . it was sarcastic?

[bob_m_54]

Ahhh cherry picking one part of the paper to reinforce your argument, another well utilised ploy of the green mantra. One wonders then why the abstract of the paper states, in part,

Our findings indicate that the true attainable pace of climate change on timescales of greatest societal relevance is underestimated in geological archives.

And just to show that I can also cherry pick, from the same paper (my bolding)

Our work indicates instead that geological episodes of climatic or evolutionary change likely fail to capture the true pace of changes on timescales of most relevance for understanding the impact of similar changes today. Implicitly, our findings also mean that caution must be exercised when describing recent temperature changes as unprecedented in the context of geological rates. If rates of change are to be meaningfully interpreted, then the measurement timespan must be explicitly specified.



not surprising, they've been caught "adjusting the numbers" more than once. I note you decided not to address the CO2 emissions from all the travel to these conferences, plus the power required for conference centres etc., etc.



see above




Who mentioned weather? The paper that I referenced clearly refers to climate impacts, if I may cherry pick

Effects on climate were an observed surface cooling in the Northern Hemisphere of up to 0.5 to 0.6°C, equivalent to a hemispheric reduction in net radiation of 4 W/m2, and an overall cooling of perhaps as large as -0.4°C over large parts of the Earth in 1992-93. Climate models appear to have predicted the cooling currently occurring with a reasonable degree of accuracy. The Pinatubo climate forcing was stronger than the opposite, warming effects of either the El Niño event or anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the period 1991-93.


Note the last sentence.

Good example of cherry picking. What about the effects over the last 100 years?