Ice covers the Sahara Desert for just 4th time in 50 years

[EMH]

Tuesday's dusting marks the fourth time in 42 years that Ain Sefra has seen snow, with previous occurrences in 1979, 2016 and 2018.

So, it is the 4th time in 44 years (not 50, as the OP claims), third time in seven years, second time in 5 years. Not quite as rare, recently, as the thread title might make you think.

If the Co2 fraud was Global COOLING, crick would've started a topic on this as proof of global cooling...

 

[Crick]

There is no Man-Made global warming. If the earth is warming there is nothing man can do about it. Back when Al Gore and others were making all these dire predictions about man made global warming when they never happened they just moved the goal posts.

If the earth starts cooling what are these people going to say? Tell everyone to go outside and build fires in their back yards. LOL.

Read this: AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023

 

[Sandman]

Read this: AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023

Read this:

https://www.bundestag.de/resource/b...27ef2981acd52c254/19-16-292-C-Corbyn-data.pdf

 

[Crick]

Read this:

https://www.bundestag.de/resource/b...27ef2981acd52c254/19-16-292-C-Corbyn-data.pdf

Okay. It's crap. Every one of his claims has been aired and debunked/refuted here on this forum years past. Pick any of his claims and we can go through the science.

Did you note that not a single one of his references was a journal published paper?

Did you have a look at the AR6 Synthesis Report?

 

[jillian]

Everything is man made global warming climate.

And?

 

[abu afak]

Scientists are in agreement that AGW is happening to some extent. That is the consensus. There's not a consensus on just how much it's happening or how much of a threat it is.Views are more varied there. What the left doesn't understand is that not all scientists are running around with their hair on fire thinking we're all going to die in 50 years. I think technology will more than save us from whatever damage we cause through AGW.

What numbers from the credible left "consensus" have you heard are "we are al going to die in 50 years.
Because you got likes from some assholes who do NOT agree there is a consensus NOR that man is causing any significant amount of warming
Ask ie, WUWT-mod SunsetTommy if he agrees.
He posts it's cooling/not warming at all all over the board.

I have about about the Most Viewed and DISagreed with thread in the Climate section. Objected to by Dozens of Posters who not NOT agree it's even warming much less Huam caused.

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural "it goes up, it goes down" but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others. About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds) Search Results Web results How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural...

www.usmessageboard.com

The longest running thread in the section WAS SkoookerAssTroll's "The Skeptics are winning" running 10 YEARS and including all the clowns in the section (incl Sunset Tommy) saying """It's cold/snowing in Portland today so it can't be warming
Thousands of them.'

You want to play Mr Reasonable/Triangulate?
Tell us what Amount of warming/CO2/Sea level height is 'reasonable' and what is crazy/"Catastrophism."

`

 

[abu afak]

I can find some that say different.
So which ones are you going to believe? The ones you want to?
Thats why i ask for actual evidence. Which doesnt exist. Many people, like the chick that wrote your link, ignores thousands, possibly millions of other variables and times of earths history. That doesnt cut it for me.

Anyone can find (BS) "some" but the VAST Consensus is for significant AGW.

Opposing (the AGW Consensus)​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] No longer does Any National or International Scientific body Reject the findings of Human-induced effects on Climate Change.[31][33]

Wiki continues

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[138][139][140][141]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries.[142] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[143]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. 75 of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[144]

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[145]

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming

A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only One of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia​

`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Ocean’s Carbon Balance

The amount of carbon dioxide that the ocean can take from the atmosphere is controlled by both natural cycles and human activity.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

And the atmospheric CO2 heats the ocean 700m deep....how? Magikal beans?

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[abu afak]

And the atmospheric CO2 heats the ocean 700m deep....how? Magikal beans?

The Carbon Cycle daily runs Huge amounts of water over Land and into the rivers/Oceans.
Then there is direct contact of air and water which takes more time. Thus the lag between CO2 and temp/sea level as well.
`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Anyone can find (BS) "some" but the VAST Consensus is for significant AGW.

Opposing (the AGW Consensus)​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] No longer does Any National or International Scientific body Reject the findings of Human-induced effects on Climate Change.[31][33]

Wiki continues

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[138][139][140][141]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries.[142] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[143]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. 75 of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[144]


A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[145]


A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming

A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only One of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia​

`

Consensus is NOT scientific, it's cult

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Carbon Cycle daily runs Huge amounts of water over Land and into the rivers/Oceans, and into the water.
Then there is direct contact of air and water which takes more time. Thus the lag between CO2 and temp/sea level as well.
`

Oh, did you not know that 700m means 700 meters?

 

[abu afak]

Oh, did you not know that 700m means 700 meters?

Congrats Low IQ Dipshit, your second post got up to 10 words.
But no answer to I Anything Posted.

`

 

[Anomalism]

You want to play Mr Reasonable/Triangulate?
Tell us what Amount of warming/CO2/Sea level height is 'reasonable' and what is crazy/"Catastrophism."

I think when the only habitat we have is changing it's obviously something that should be taken seriously, but I tend to not think we're in danger of going extinct or anything to that effect. Some people could struggle and die due to climate change. I believe in people overall though; I think we'll overcome this problem.

I also think some on the left don't really understand the scale when they talk about us shifting away from fossil fuels. They seem to underestimate the feat. I'm rooting for solar as much as anybody, but we've got a long path ahead of us.

 

[abu afak]

I think when the only habitat we have is changing it's obviously something that should be taken seriously, but I tend to not think we're in danger of going extinct or anything to that effect. Some people could struggle and die due to climate change. I believe in people overall though; I think we'll overcome this problem.

I also think some on the left don't really understand the scale when they talk about us shifting away from fossil fuels. They seem to underestimate the feat. I'm rooting for solar as much as anybody, but we've got a long path ahead of us.

The last time CO2 reached 400PPM (pliocene, 3 Mil yrs ago) sea level was app 60' (±20') higher.
The only thing preventing that IMO is lag time until the air and oceans catching up.
We reached 400 PPM Hundreds of times faster than natural.

So IMO merely freezing at 420 PPM where it is now is probably disastrous to our coastal cities/lives and maybe 2 Billion people being displaced over the next 100-200 yrs.
Miami is predicting 1.7" by 2050.
Consensus is 3+' by 2000, but as high as 7' or more by 2100. And they could be low (I think they are), as both temp and sea level are accelerating.
One glacial break/slide off on the South Pole (Thwaites) could raise sea level 1' Over Night.

You didn't/couldn't put any meat on the bone, so I had to.
That's what's so BS about claiming "THEY" are saying "the world is coming to an end, Chicken little" etc.
Everyone is Full of Shit until, they put some meat on the bone.
We are at CO2 levels that will be catastrophic if maintained, or even down 10%. Only the time is a question.

This country is already at 25% renewable and doing very well. 85% of new power generation is renewable.(and has been for 6 years)
Unfortunately the world (Chindia) is still rising and that is very bad news. Because 500 PPM is closer than 400 at the moment IMO. It is a very bad situation.

`

 

[Anomalism]

The last time CO2 reached 400PPM (pliocene, 3 Mil yrs ago) sea level was app 60' (±20') higher.
The only thing preventing that IMO is lag time until the air and oceans catching up.
We reached 400 PPM Hundreds of times faster than natural.

So IMO merely freezing at 420 PPM where it is now is probably disastrous to our coastal cities/lives and maybe 2 Billion people being displaced over the next 100-200 yrs.
Miami is predicting 1.7" by 2050.
Consensus is 3+' by 2000, but as high as 7' or more by 2100. And they could be low (I think they are), as both temp and seal level are accelerating.
One glacial break/slide off on the South Pole (Thwaites) could raise seal level 1' Over Night.

You didn't/couldn't put any meat on the bone, so I had to.
That's what's so BS about claiming "THEY" are saying "the world is coming to an end, Chicken little" etc.
Everyone is Full of Shit until, they put some meat on the bone.
We are at CO2 levels that will be catastrophic if maintained, or even down 10%. Only the time is a question.

This country is already at 25% renewable and doing very well. 85% of new power generation is renewable.
Unfortunately the world (Chindia) is still rising and that is very bad news. Because 500 PPM is closer than 400 at the moment IMO. It is a very cad situation.

`

It's awesome that renewables are doing so well. Stuff like that is why I believe we'll be alright. Technology will continue to advance as well, making it easier. We got this.

Also to be honest with you I am just not willing to put as much effort into my posts as you do. I respect you for it though.

 

[abu afak]

It's awesome that renewables are doing so well. Stuff like that is why I believe we'll be alright. Technology will continue to advance as well, making it easier. We got this.

Also to be honest with you I am just not willing to put as much effort into my posts as you do. I respect you for it though.

IOWA is 63% Renewable right now. Mostly wind.
One other state over 50% with many very close. (Oklahoma 45%!)
Probably have 10 states over half in 3 years.
Wind Turbines are the new Cash crop in the Midwest. (5-10K each)
Texas was by far the biggest renewable adder last year: 3x California's.
`

 

[Anomalism]

IOWA is 63% Renewable right now. Mostly wind.
One other state over 50% with many very close. (Oklahoma 45%!)
Probably have 10 states over half in 3 years.
Texas was by far the biggest renewable adder last year: 3x California's.
`

That's just the U.S though.

 

[Crick]

This is the third time in 7 years that it has snowed in the Sahara.

 

[jc456]

Oh, did you not know that 700m means 700 meters?

you didn't hear about those 700m river? me either.