Snow Falls On the Most Arid Desert On Earth

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Snow Falls On the Most Arid Desert On Earth

Posted by Soulskill on Friday July 8, 2011 @09:10AM from the it's-not-the-heat,-it's-the-humidity dept.

crackspackle writes "The Atacama desert region, a vast expanse of land stretching 600 miles along the Pacific coast of South America from Peru to Chile, is known as the driest region on earth, receiving only .04 inches (1mm) of rain per year. Many weather stations located in the region have no recorded precipitation during their existence. Sterile from the lack of rainfall, sparsely inhabited, and virtually free from electromagnetic interference, the desert hosts several major astronomical observatories. This other-worldly location is also popular among sci-fi film makers, and is a prominent test site for NASA's planned Mars mission. This week, the Atacama received 32 inches of snow, stranding motorists along the Pan-American highway and other roads, prompting numerous rescues. Footage of the snow is available on the BBC."

195 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Worst Snowfall in 20 years by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 09:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

So, there was a worse snowfall recorded there 20 years ago? And the story here is that snowfalls happen every 20 years there?
Did I miss something in the story?
1. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by conares · 2011-07-08 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  It's in the beginning of the video
  
  --
  That, that really grinds my gears!
2. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  Good grief man! You didn't listen to the sound on the link, then you turn around and say you suspect he's a troll!?
  The BBC link MOST CERTAINLY had that in the first 20 seconds of audio. Frankly, I'd trust the BBC before I'd trust Wikipedia -- especially since the Wikipedia relies on sources such as BBC to validate statements in its articles!
3. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 09:41 · Score: 0
  
  It means:
  Take that, you green treehuggers, who claim there's something like Global Warming.
4. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by afidel · 2011-07-08 09:42 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, but their average number doesn't make any sense if there was a worse storm 20 years ago. 32" of snow is equivalent to ~3.2" of rain, that's 800x the quoted .04" which would throw off that number by 100% alone.
  
  Oh, and I wonder if there's going to be a spectacular dessert bloom like there was in Death Valley in 2005 or if so long without rain means that there are no viable seeds or spores to take advantage of the moisture.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
5. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by c_jonescc · 2011-07-08 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  My bad then. I apologize to AC.
  
  However, the claim that 2 storms 20 years apart indicates a 20 year cycle is a bit outlandish, considering the 4 centuries without, eh?
  
  --
  Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
6. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by newcastlejon · 2011-07-08 09:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "I love humans. Always seeing patterns in things that aren't there."
  McGann made a good Doctor.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
7. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by interkin3tic · 2011-07-08 09:50 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Did I miss something in the story?
  Not in the story, but I think you missed the part where geography, geology, and climatology are interesting to some nerds.
8. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by superwiz · 2011-07-08 09:53 · Score: 0
  
  Improbable events are not impossible events.
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
9. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by treeves · 2011-07-08 09:56 · Score: 0
  
  No it doesn't.
  Snow is precipitation, i.e. some form of water falling from clouds.
  How did the water get into the clouds?
  It evaporated from the ocean, lakes, etc.
  Why did it evaporate?
  Heat.
  You get the picture?
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
10. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 10:05 · Score: 0
  
  Yep. What does it do every 200 years? Every 2000? Being able to characterize past climates over periods of 10s of thousands of years seems reasonable. Weather? Not so much.
11. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Or to put it another way:
  
  I mean, if you eat roast beef eleven times in your life, one would hardly say that person constantly eats roast beef.
12. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by Scrameustache · 2011-07-08 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  the story here is that snowfalls happen every 20 years there?
  Evidence suggests that the Atacama may not have had any significant rainfall from 1570 to 1971.
  
  --
  You can't take the sky from me...
13. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by riverat1 · 2011-07-08 14:43 · Score: 0
  
  Your comment means:
  You are an idiot who is clueless about what global warming really is.
14. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by riverat1 · 2011-07-08 14:47 · Score: 2
  
  The Atacama Desert is 600 miles (1,000 km) long and covers over 40,000 square miles in area. I think it's entirely possible that some parts of it got snowed on and other parts have received no precipitation in at least 400 years.
15. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by Wesser · 2011-07-08 16:11 · Score: 0
  
  Apparently it NEVER rains but it snows every 20 years. Yeah, makes a lot of sense.
16. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by Chas · 2011-07-08 16:30 · Score: 1
  
  "Global Warming" or "Global Climate Change", nowadays, means whatever the fuck the person who's talking about it wants it to mean. If they're a researcher in the AGW field, it's whatever will net them the biggest cash influx.
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
17. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by riverat1 · 2011-07-08 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  "Global Warming" or "Global Climate Change", nowadays, means whatever the fuck the person who's talking about it wants it to mean. If they're a researcher in the AGW field, it's whatever will net them the biggest cash influx.
  "Anthropogenic Climate Change" if you please. I hope you include yourself when you say it "means whatever the fuck the person who's talking about it wants it to mean."
18. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by maxwell+demon · 2011-07-08 22:09 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  It never rains in Atacama,
  but girl, don't they warn ya,
  it snows,
  man it snows
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
19. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by Mindcontrolled · 2011-07-08 23:01 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, them there scientist are positively rolling in cash. Impoverished bankers queue up at the lab doors, groveling to have the occasional nickel thrown at them, so they can buy their starving families another credit default swap paper fir the evening soup.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
20. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by Migraineman · 2011-07-09 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  "Anthropomorphic Climate Change" ... Mother Nature is not amused.
21. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by gstrickler · 2011-07-09 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  Snow density varies greatly. Typical snows in the CO Rocky Mountains have a density of 0.04 (0.04" precipitation per inch of snow). You're 10:1 ratio is completely unlikely for a high desert.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
22. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by RockDoctor · 2011-07-09 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Same could be said of Dome C, which is also an extremely dry desert being evaluated for IR telescopes.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
23. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by CptNerd · 2011-07-09 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, she hates being anthropomorphized...
  
  --
  By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
24. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by Chas · 2011-07-12 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  "Anthropogenic Climate Change" if you please. I hope you include yourself when you say it "means whatever the fuck the person who's talking about it wants it to mean."
  Of course!
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
25. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by Chas · 2011-07-12 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, them there scientist are positively rolling in cash. Impoverished bankers queue up at the lab doors, groveling to have the occasional nickel thrown at them, so they can buy their starving families another credit default swap paper fir the evening soup.
  No. This is not the case. Which is why some of these researchers are willing to jack their data around and ignore confidence levels just to get even a tiny research grant.
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
26. Re:Worst Snowfall in 20 years by Mindcontrolled · 2011-07-13 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  I wish one of you spineless honourless fucks capable only of slandering a whole profession because you don't have the tiniest real argument would say something like that to my face in real life. Just once. I'd show you what I'd be willing to jack around and what to ignore.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
*Hint* by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 09:16 · Score: 2, Informative

When you add more energy to a large system, you don't just get even warming. Things get mixed. It's like heating up an ice-cream cake. Some parts that were warm will get colder than they were, as other parts melt into them.
It's why the term has changed to climate change instead of just global warming.
1. Re:*Hint* by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 09:18 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  No, the change in terminology is to ensure that all possible data confirm the theory.
2. Re:*Hint* by Nethemas+the+Great · 2011-07-08 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  That would only make sense if you dropped the "change" part. The original marketing campaign was just myopic. Displacement of climates is far more probable given the varied geography of the earth.
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
3. Re:*Hint* by rubycodez · 2011-07-08 09:31 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  but they still looked silly, so now they have to change the theory too. "We'd be getting warming, but we're not because of the chinese sulfur. Nevermind we already had sulfur in our models you paid us billions of dollars and euros to make, to prop up the trillions of dollars/euros cap and trade profit markets, the only thing that's changed is we're getting the warming you can't see because of the cooling our models had formerly said was insignificant but now is significant." Please pay us to make more models to justify more policies.
4. Re:*Hint* by Toonol · 2011-07-08 09:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  But:
  
  The Atacama Desert region in Chile was coated with its heaviest snow cover in nearly two decades, the BBC reported. An estimated 31.5 inches (80 centimeters) piled up in the normally arid region.
  
  If this snowfall was due to 'more energy' being added to the system, what caused the prior snowfalls? You have to include all data. Everytime you hear some claim about 'worst hurricane season in fifty years', or anything similar, you need to realize that means there was a worse event fifty years ago. By itself, that establishes no trend.
5. Re:*Hint* by superwiz · 2011-07-08 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Another hint: low probability events happen. According the report itself they had worse or similar snow 20 years ago. This isn't "climate change(tm)." At least not anymore than normal climate change that always happens is "climate change(tm)."
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
6. Re:*Hint* by superwiz · 2011-07-08 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Calling the same event as the one which occurred 20 years ago a symptom of some sort of "change" is a bit puzzling to me.
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
7. Re:*Hint* by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 10:01 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is that too many weird climate events have been happening in quick succession. Yes, each one individually may have happened before, but not all one after each other like is happening now.
8. Re:*Hint* by CPE1704TKS · 2011-07-08 10:09 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  *Hint* When someone changes their initial theory from something that can be quantified (ie. "global temperature will increase because of man-made greenhouse gases") to something that can't be quantified ("ie. global temperature will get both hotter and colder in different parts of the world") it means they have realized their initial theory was incorrect and they are scrambling to find another theory.
  Basically, if you're telling me that the theory of climate change is now "Some places will get hotter and some places will get colder", then there is nothing that can disprove the theory, since, yes, there will be parts of the world that will get hotter and parts that will get colder. It's a meaningless, nonsensical theory at that point.
  That's like saying "Greenhouse gasses will cause more humans to die in some locations, and more humans to be born in other locations." I will always be able to point to some areas of the world where the birth rate has increased, and others where the death rate has increased.
9. Re:*Hint* by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 10:24 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  yeah rudy, you crazy old man, climate scientists are all about the bling. this is the most preposterous, disingenuous argument that has ever been made by the deniers. You do realize, that fossil fuels, specifically oil, is the largest most profitable enterprise on the face of the earth? And that in terms of financial stake/impact/bias it is probably on the order of a million to ten million times stronger than the grant-seeking motive of academics? And that academics, more than any other field have an inherent self interest to publish contrary results and show their peers wrong? Seriously, the world is going to be an amazingly beautiful place when your generation ceases to exist. We should cut medicare and social security in order to facilitate this end.
10. Re:*Hint* by artor3 · 2011-07-08 10:30 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Right, cause if any scientist, ever, anywhere is wrong, then every scientist is wrong forever . Fuck your anti-intellectual bullshit. It's not even worthwhile to debunk your lies because they're so goddamn baseless. Do you even know how much a climatologist makes? Do you know how much Rush Limbaugh makes while filling your head with lies about the aforementioned scientists? Do you know how many orders of magnitude the two salaries are apart?
  Stop filling your head with poison, and learn something.
11. Re:*Hint* by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 10:37 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, it changed to 'climate change' because no scientist was buying 'global warming'.
  Climate ALWAYS changes. That way AGW backers could point to anything at all to "prove" their case.
12. Re:*Hint* by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is morons interpreting "the AVERAGE global temperature will show an upward trend over decades" as "every point of the globe will register a temperature higher than they did the previous year on the same day".
13. Re:*Hint* by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, dude, but that's exactly what will happen. The Earth's atmosphere is a chaotic place and temperature is not defined by a simple gradient from the equator to the pole. The various ocean and air currents have a huge effect, for example letting the south of France have palm trees despite being at the same latitude as Montreal which gets to -40 in the winter.
  The problem with global warming is that it will shift some of these currents which can have quite a big swing for places that used to depend on them. If you lose a source of warmth then yes global warming can cause a place to cool.
  Though the biggest problem for humans is likely to be the shift in precipitation. Nevermind this single snowfall, entire civilizations (eg. Troy) have been abandoned from a change of precipitation. The total volume of precipitation is likely to rise, but some of it will shift from currently wet places to currently dry ones. Expect wars as people move to adapt.
14. Re:*Hint* by gum2me · 2011-07-08 10:50 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Wait, so what if someone says in THESE SPECIFIC REGIONS temperatures will go up, while in THESE SPECIFIC REGIONS temperatures will go down. That seems like a disprovable theory, And it seems like an eminently reasonable claim. Now whether that claim can be borne out by the data is a different question.
15. Re:*Hint* by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 10:56 · Score: 0
  
  It must really suck to be so proud of how wrong and ignorant you are. I can't relate.
16. Re:*Hint* by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 10:56 · Score: 0
  
  You also have to remember that median != mean != absolutely every bloody possibility going.
  In other words, if you have a probability of 1 in a million, 1 in a trillion, etc, then it WILL happen eventually by chance alone.
  If 1 in a million events start happening rather more often than once in a million, on an ongoing basis, you know that the dynamics of the system have changed. It takes a moron (Tea Partier, whatever they are called in these politically correct times) to believe that when probabilities skew that it "doesn't matter" because the event happened sometime in the past.
  It's like tossing a coin and only getting tails, but believing that normal because a coin, somewhere in the world, landed on tails at some time in the past. For chrissakes, if it lands tails all the freakin' time, the coin is no longer balanced! It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that! (Ok, in America it apparently DOES take an Einstein.)
17. Re:*Hint* by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  I dunno how to quote stuff on slashdot so I won't but it occurs to me that you have a lot of hate in your heart. You don't have to agree with the guy, you don't have to hate him either. I hope you don't let it bring you down man.
18. Re:*Hint* by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck your anti-intellectual bullshit.
  Translation: "You've made a valid point that contradicts what I believe, so I'm just going to marginalize you and call you a name."
19. Re:*Hint* by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I am always wary of someone who says that it's not worthwhile to debunk lies. Also of people who use strawmen, ad hominem, etc. But hey, I'm just anti-intellectual.
20. Re:*Hint* by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 11:22 · Score: 0
  
  That's the spirit! I admire how you manage to keep emotion out of this. Keep up the healthy scepticism.
21. Re:*Hint* by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 11:31 · Score: 0
  
  you have a lot of hate in your heart
  What should he have there? Jesus? Things would be oh so much better if we just prayed for a solution, right? It's not like we can change the world. Only God can do that! That's what you really wanted to say, wasn't it?
  Besides, he never said he hated the guy. He just told him to fuck off.
22. Re:*Hint* by dave420 · 2011-07-08 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  But since it didn't happen for 400 years before the one 20 years ago, it does seem rather indicative of "change".
23. Re:*Hint* by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 12:25 · Score: 0
  
  What? Less energy means all snow falling was impossible? What led you to that conclusion?
  " 'worst hurricane season in fifty years' ... you need to realize that means there was a worse event fifty years ago"
  No, actually it does not mean that. To illustrate, let me express the statement using mathematical concepts:
  "worst hurricane season in fifty years' = There does not exist a hurricane season such that it was in the last 50 years and it was worse than this one. No mention of what happened prior to 'the last 50 years' is necessary to accurately describe the statement.
24. Re:*Hint* by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 12:45 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, you obviously are. Now GTFO please. =3
25. Re:*Hint* by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 12:53 · Score: 0
  
  Translation: "You've made a valid point...
  You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
26. Re:*Hint* by TapeCutter · 2011-07-08 12:55 · Score: 2
  
  When you add more energy to a large system, you don't just get even warming. Things get mixed. It's like heating up an ice-cream cake. Some parts that were warm will get colder than they were, as other parts melt into them.
  Yep, increased heat means more turbulence, turbulance in the climate is weather.
  
  It's why the term has changed to climate change instead of just global warming.
  No, scientists are well aware the two terms have a different meaning, GW is CC in the positive temp direction. It's why the IPCC has had a CC on the end for over 20yrs. CC is actully the older of the two terms (at least back to the 50's), GW was first coined in a scientific paper in the 70's.
  
  As far as changing the terminology for political purposes goes, the only concrete evidence I have of that is when Frank Luntz while working for the Bush administration tried to get people to use the term "Climate Change" exclusively. When it didn't work their plan B was to blame the "terminology change" on "tree-hugging scientists", from what I can tell plan B has worked quite well for them in the US.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
27. Re:*Hint* by TapeCutter · 2011-07-08 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  so now they have to change the theory too
  No, rather you just learnt something about climte science, "they" have known about the effects of sulphur for more than half a century.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
28. Re:*Hint* by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 13:25 · Score: 0
  
  True. Ever since there was a climate it has been in flux.
  Like anything, our knowledge now about the topic will be vastly superseded in years to come.
  People are an arrogant lot. Me included. We all push our own agenda.
  I'm happy for adverse climate change proponents to be correct and for us to do something about it.
  But it they are wrong - they had better admit it (which I sincerely doubt would happen - they'd probably say "the available data and knowledge at the time pointed us to that conclusion" - hand balling blame to a non-entity).
29. Re:*Hint* by riverat1 · 2011-07-08 14:49 · Score: 2
  
  Both Global Warming and Climate Change were terms that were first used in the 1950's or earlier. The Bush II administration preferred Climate Change because it didn't sound as scarey.
30. Re:*Hint* by riverat1 · 2011-07-08 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  Repeating a previous reply, the Atacama Desert is 600 miles long and covers over 40,000 square miles. It's entirely possible that it got snowed on part of it and other places have not recorded precipitation for over 400 years.
31. Re:*Hint* by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 15:00 · Score: 0
  
  But he did post as AC to defend himself.
32. Re:*Hint* by riverat1 · 2011-07-08 15:01 · Score: 1
  
  Just because it's all to complex for you to wrap you mind around doesn't mean it's not real. The Chinese sulfur and it's effects are just more data that is added to the mountain of data that already exists.
33. Re:*Hint* by eleuthero · 2011-07-08 15:05 · Score: 2
  
  I think that stating that humans are unequivocally responsible for current climate change is a bit far reaching. We should be promoting healthy stewardship of resources (including the air we breath) for everyone. At the same time, we should be walking around with our eyes open to the presence of significant environmental change over time (from the warm spell under the Romans to the little Ice Age to today, we have significant change going on).
  
  It might be related to human activity and it might not be related to human activity (maybe it's smokestacks and smelting but it might be equally caused by solar activity and methane depletion in the oceans)--but we should be responsible with our resources regardless. I for one am glad to have grey whales make a come back in the Atlantic. At the same time, I think we need to be careful where we put our people if we are going to continue to have severe weather, excessive flooding, etc.
34. Re:*Hint* by superwiz · 2011-07-08 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  No, in fact, if it happened 400 years ago, then it is even less indicative of some unprecedented change. It is only indicative of repetition of conditions of 400 years ago. The claim which this puts into question is that the new conditions are somehow unprecedented.
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
35. Re:*Hint* by riverat1 · 2011-07-08 16:05 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  *Hint* When someone changes their initial theory from something that can be quantified (ie. "global temperature will increase because of man-made greenhouse gases") to something that can't be quantified ("ie. global temperature will get both hotter and colder in different parts of the world") it means they have realized their initial theory was incorrect and they are scrambling to find another theory.
  No, it means the theory is improving and the tools are getting better. They don't throw out one theory and substitute another. They fix the current theory by incorporating the new insights gained. Did Einstein completely replace Newton or just show it was a subset of the overall reality? The increase in computer horsepower over the years means they can do more detailed simulations that may uncover regional differences. A typical GCM simulation runs for about a month and as the computers get faster they just add more detail. So those regional differences can be quantified somewhat and it's getting better all the time.
  I think your "Some places will get hotter and some places will get colder" would be better stated as "Most places will get hotter and a few places may get colder". That's closer to what actual climate scientists are saying.
36. Re:*Hint* by riverat1 · 2011-07-08 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  That's science for you, willing to change when the empirical evidence changes, never an absolute final conclusion for anything.
37. Re:*Hint* by maxwell+demon · 2011-07-08 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  you have a lot of hate in your heart
  What should he have there?
  
  No hate, maybe?
  
  Jesus? Things would be oh so much better if we just prayed for a solution, right? It's not like we can change the world. Only God can do that! That's what you really wanted to say, wasn't it?
  Did you see any hint at religion on that post? Or do you just take any opportunity to take on a crusade against religion?
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
38. Re:*Hint* by Gordonjcp · 2011-07-08 22:20 · Score: 0
  
  What should he have there? Jesus? Things would be oh so much better if we just prayed for a solution, right?
  No, just the Magic Carbon Sky Pixie. You just have to let yourself believe, like all the rest of the AGW faithful.
39. Re:*Hint* by Mindcontrolled · 2011-07-08 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  Well, hate toward people actively and knowingly twisting facts, poisoning wells and spreading lies is too strong, I agree. I reserve contempt for those without honor.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
40. Re:*Hint* by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-07-09 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  But: The Atacama Desert region in Chile was coated with its heaviest snow cover in nearly two decades, the BBC reported. An estimated 31.5 inches (80 centimeters) piled up in the normally arid region. If this snowfall was due to 'more energy' being added to the system, what caused the prior snowfalls? You have to include all data.
  
  Fine: "Evidence suggests that the Atacama may not have had any significant rainfall from 1570 to 1971." Is that enough data that something probably happened before 1971 - like "more energy in the system"?
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
41. Re:*Hint* by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-07-09 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  No, in fact, if it happened 400 years ago, then it is even less indicative of some unprecedented change. It is only indicative of repetition of conditions of 400 years ago. The claim which this puts into question is that the new conditions are somehow unprecedented.
  In other news: you just ate your cake and kept it. How can anyone argue with somebody who has such extraordinary debating skills.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
42. Re:*Hint* by superwiz · 2011-07-09 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  How can anyone argue with somebody who has such extraordinary debating skills.
  How? By having facts on their side? I simply don't see any away to concede the debate when the opposing side's argument amounts to saying "this is totally new -- it hasn't happened for 20 years and the last time it happened before then was 400 years ago."
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
43. Re:*Hint* by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 19:01 · Score: 0
  
  Your argument is not valid because it does not address the following:
  "[...]to something that can't be quantified"
  That isn't to say he is right, but you overlook this important part and just treat his argument as if he were claiming that the climate predictions have just changed to a different but still similar in kind prediction. That is not the point, thus comparisons to newtonian and einsteinian theories is not addressing this claim. Whether or not it is true that current popular theories are falsifiable/quantifiable, that is the part that is required to be addressed in order to refute the argument. Otherwise, you are arguing that correction and edge case amendment of previous theories is good when that is not what he denies.
44. Re:*Hint* by riverat1 · 2011-07-11 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  He said:
  
  ... they have realized their initial theory was incorrect and they are scrambling to find another theory.
  I said they are not looking for another theory but merely improving the current theory as new information comes to light. The current theory is no less falsifiable/quantifiable now than it was before it was improved.
bigger *hint* by rubycodez · 2011-07-08 09:20 · Score: 0, Redundant

It has snowed there before, and with even more inches. But the climate alarmists like to take advantage of people's limited memory and lack of knowledge of history.

the climate has been changing since the earth had an atmosphere. It has been hotter and colder and wetter and drier.
1. Re:bigger *hint* by mevets · 2011-07-08 09:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yes, and for most of its history, uninhabited by humans; perhaps due to the climate.
2. Re:bigger *hint* by rubycodez · 2011-07-08 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  hominids have been around for 7 million years, the average global temperature has been much higher than now even as recent as 100,000 years ago. also, the primates seem to like the hot zones, hotter than global average
3. Re:bigger *hint* by geekoid · 2011-07-08 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  nice you you to overlook the fact that when natural trends happen that cause drops in temperature 1000 years ago are happening again, and yet the temperature hasn't dropped to those levels. at BEST it level out .
  We har high peaks during the pleistoicene, but not a higher trend.
  Yuo would need to go bak millions of years to see a trend of higher temperatures.
  Now you go into the Holocene, there is what maybe be the climate optimum for humans. And we are temperatures are stating to arise beyond that, even though non man made forces would dictate a cooling trend.
  Man made Climate Change is real, and it's a fact.
  You do bring up a good point in that article summaries like these can not be used in and of themselves as proof for or against Climate Change.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
4. Re:bigger *hint* by interkin3tic · 2011-07-08 10:03 · Score: 2
  
  But the climate alarmists like to take advantage of people's limited memory and lack of knowledge of history.
  
  Nice! My turn:
  Whereas those who want so badly to believe climate change isn't happening prefer to take advantage of people's inability to understand complicated things.
  
  "You mean all those coal power plants and gas guzzlers might be having unintended consequences? Oh no, I'm starting to feel guilty! Wait wait wait... no, it has to be natural because it's happened like this before. If it were unnatural, this thing would have NEVER happened before. Alright, time to start bugging my congressman to spend taxes to make gas cheaper through subsidies."
  
  Isn't it so much fun to paint those on the other side of a disagreement as being stupid and/or evil!?! Ad homenim attacks are -so- much simpler than trying to grapple with tough issues like "is climate change actually occurring." [/sarcasm]
5. Re:bigger *hint* by CohibaVancouver · 2011-07-08 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  the climate has been changing since the earth had an atmosphere. It has been hotter and colder and wetter and drier
  The 'climate alarmists' (your term) aren't concerned with the climate changing. As you rightly point out, that has been happening for millennia. The concern is with the *rate* of change, and the ability of the ecosystems to adapt to the change at the pace at which it is happening. The concerns are also around the impacts to human society as economic structures change and break down due to climate change - For example, more frequent hurricanes and tornadoes, impacts to food supply etc. These impacts may happen more rapidly than the systems can manage.
6. Re:bigger *hint* by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 10:44 · Score: 0
  
  So you're saying global warming is real, you just don't care?
  Also, what about the animals that don't like the "hot zones" as much as us primates do?
7. Re:bigger *hint* by Sperbels · 2011-07-08 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  Man made Climate Change is real, and it's a fact.
  Even if it is, so what? It's not the end of the world. Some cities get flooded...people relocate...farmlands dry up...others are created....political/economic power changes. Change is constantly happening. It's not new.
8. Re:bigger *hint* by Lunoria · 2011-07-08 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  Also, what about the animals that don't like the "hot zones" as much as us primates do?
  It's called extinction.
9. Re:bigger *hint* by riverat1 · 2011-07-08 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  If I had points I'd mod you up but I would change "more frequent" to "more powerful" hurricanes and tornadoes.
10. Re:bigger *hint* by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-07-08 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  Even if it is, so what? It's not the end of the world.
  Precisely. The world will still be here no matter how drastically the climate changes.
  The only question is how badly are we gonna fuck ourselves in the process.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
11. Re:bigger *hint* by TheTurtlesMoves · 2011-07-09 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Habitat removal is a *far* bigger problem for most species. If you want to care for the environment, you would do less AGW debating and more conservation. Its like worrying about ocean acidification, there aren't going to be any fish left by then.
  
  Believe it or not, we have bigger fish to fry that CO2 and some snow in a desert.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Snow Elsewhere Can Be Amusing... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 09:21 · Score: 0

As a Canadian, I find it rather amusing watching other locales scramble desperately to deal with with, what for us, would be a rather mundane experience.
1. Re:Snow Elsewhere Can Be Amusing... by cruff · 2011-07-08 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Since you find snow mundane, I'll send you all of our snow fall in exchange for consistent, non-flood inducing, rain fall during the year. The only problem is that the insect population would probably explode.
2. Re:Snow Elsewhere Can Be Amusing... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 09:41 · Score: 0
  
  Since you find snow mundane, I'll send you all of our snow fall in exchange for consistent, non-flood inducing, rain fall during the year. The only problem is that the insect population would probably explode.
  What is even better is the 6' drifts that can appear overnight, or even while one is at work.
3. Re:Snow Elsewhere Can Be Amusing... by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-07-08 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  If it dumps 80 cm of snow overnight, even locales prepared for snow and snow removal shut down all but basic services.
  I don't care if it's Fort Nelson, Whitehorse, Toronto, Ottawa, or Edmonton.
  Only places that always get that much snow year round, like Valdez Alaska, are prepared for giant dumping snow falls.
  Valdez averages 10 meters a year, so even .8m is a large one time snow fall for them.
4. Re:Snow Elsewhere Can Be Amusing... by Mashiki · 2011-07-08 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  What the hell are you talking about? We have lake effect snow here in Ontario in excess of 150cm in a day. There's places where 300cm for a weekend snow fall can happen. You know what happens? Life goes on, basic services continue, and people get around doing stuff they still have to do.
  In my home town, if we see 100cm overnight, major core streets will be cleared by the following afternoon, and side streets will be clear by the following day, if not sooner. The only time I've things come to a complete standstill here is when the snow is falling so heavily that clearing equipment can't remove it safely. Or someone in Toronto thinks that 25cm of snow is a reason to call out the army. Actually I laughed pretty hard when europeans were whining over 10 or 20cm of snow. That's like a light dusting where I live.
  Maybe Canadians are just hardier people. Or maybe it's that we've always lived with this "extreme" weather.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
5. Re:Snow Elsewhere Can Be Amusing... by mikkelm · 2011-07-08 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  Why the long and predictable diatribe if you're going to arrive at the obvious conclusion in the end anyway?
6. Re:Snow Elsewhere Can Be Amusing... by Mashiki · 2011-07-08 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Why the arrogant belief that all things are the same, and the obvious conclusion wasn't at the end. I'll wait for you to figure it out.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
7. Re:Snow Elsewhere Can Be Amusing... by Penguinisto · 2011-07-08 11:48 · Score: 2
  
  I can vouch for your statement from down here in the US...
  Salt Lake City (at least when I lived there) often got 'ordinary' 26-40cm deep storms that rumbled through during the winter. Sometimes, it combined with lake-effect snow (yes it's a desert... now look for that ginormous patch of blue on the map, immediately to the North and West of town) to give you 60-70cm snow with drifts that got damned impressive, especially on the 'benches'. All that said, the main roads were usually cleared by 7am, and the side streets were mostly clear by 8am. The morning routine always included driveway+snow blower, and afternoons meant the occasional tromp up to the roof to dump off any excess snow, so your roof didn't over-stress from the weight.
  Contrast that with Portland, OR. The town gets a mere 20cm of snow in late 2008, and suddenly the entire Universe is paralyzed for a week.
  (To be fair, up here in PDX it's all about rainfall and the occasional ice storm, so snowplows are a rare item... and not a single human being up here knows how to drive in it. Kinda fun to watch, but lousy to drive amongst).
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
8. Re:Snow Elsewhere Can Be Amusing... by mikkelm · 2011-07-08 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  At least you're consistent.
9. Re:Snow Elsewhere Can Be Amusing... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 14:36 · Score: 0
  
  What a fuckwad. Why is it amusing? Why would you even think some place should be accustomed to dealing with something that's a rarity to them? How does that even make sense? And why do you get your jollies from watching other people go through hard times? As a Canadian you have to fucking know how dangerous a snow storm can be if someone is unprepared for it - life threatening, in fact.
  I think I'm going to choose to find it funny watching Canadians scrambling to deal with forest fires which are pretty common place in Australia, New Zealand, parts of the States, etc. Or with typhoons. Or dozens of earthquakes every day. Or 125 degree heat on a regular basis.
  You're such a dick. How old are you, 13?
10. Re:Snow Elsewhere Can Be Amusing... by CptNerd · 2011-07-09 18:26 · Score: 1
  
  It was obviously a schadenfreudian slip...
  
  --
  By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
Let me be the first to say... by Quila · 2011-07-08 09:22 · Score: 2, Funny

It's global warming's fault!
1. Re:Let me be the first to say... by ZaphDingbat · 2011-07-08 09:26 · Score: 2
  
  Quite likely, in a region subject to permafrost.
2. Re:Let me be the first to say... by FatAlb3rt · 2011-07-08 09:28 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  Try keep up - it's called climate change now. As if our climate hasn't been doing goofy things ever since anyone can remember.
3. Re:Let me be the first to say... by RichMan · 2011-07-08 09:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  > It's global warming's fault!
  Quite probably. In most really cold places, it is usally to cold to snow as cold air can carry less moisture than warm air.
  Back where I grew up we had lots of -20C clear cold days. It was the "warm" days near 0C when it snowed.
  Global warming is expected to create much more evaporation from the oceans and lead to more rain. (cf the flooded central US).
4. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  (cf the flooded central US)
  A single event does make a progression. It may be a symptom of warmer things on the earth.
  Also they were prepared for flooding (go buy a house and ask about 10/20/100 year flooding in the areas). Why were they ready for it? Oh gee it had happened before (see 1920/1930's flooding)...
  When I grew up it was 100F in the summer in july. They havent hit yet this year. Does that mean its getting colder? No, its a cool year...
  Everyone pretends to be climatologists on this freeking board. From where I sit it looks like a bunch of BS not real science. Why do I say that (even though it may really be happening)? Three words, carbon tax credits. There be MONEY to be made everyone be damned who thinks opposite.
5. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Toonol · 2011-07-08 09:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Quite probably. In most really cold places, it is usally to cold to snow as cold air can carry less moisture than warm air. Back where I grew up we had lots of -20C clear cold days. It was the "warm" days near 0C when it snowed.
  
  While that phenomenon certainly exists, it can't be used as a justification for this snowfall. There was a heavier snowfall decades ago, so this snowfall does nothing to establish warming, cooling, change, or static climate. You would have to do an analysis of frequency of snowfalls, etc., before drawing any conclusions about it.
  
  You can draw the conclusion that anybody using this as evidence (a) for, or (b) against, climate change is not going to be somebody you want to take too seriously.
6. Re:Let me be the first to say... by camperdave · 2011-07-08 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  If someone can remember it, it isn't climate. It's weather.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
7. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 10:41 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe the flooding is happening becuase they design the river water flow so there will be large amounts of water coming down the river in the spring time. This is to make the river have a more natural ecosystem to offsite the dams. What has happened becuase of this is the reservoirs upstream are full so when there is more rainfall than normal there is also bigger floods than normal. It didn't use to be this way becuase they simply didn't care about the ecosystem of the river and they kept the reservoirs much lower and there was very little flooding in the past.
  But you know the same "ecofriendly" people that are claiming global warming is causing so many 100 year floods are really the people causing the flooding since they want that big water flow in spring time.
8. Re:Let me be the first to say... by 0123456 · 2011-07-08 10:47 · Score: 0
  
  Global warming is expected to create much more evaporation from the oceans and lead to more rain. (cf the flooded central US).
  Except when it's expected to create droughts.
  That's the great thing about 'Global Warming', with a few tweaks your model can produce any result you want. Hence the predictions from a few years ago about winters with no snow magically became predictions of increased snow when reality refused to obey the model last year.
9. Re:Let me be the first to say... by trout007 · 2011-07-08 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't been able to find information yet but this is a very mountainous area. The mountains force the wet air up and that cools it off producing rain.. The deserts are there not because of cold but because there are big mountains in the way of the prevailing wind. This snow fall is most likely due to a temporary change in the prevailing wind which brought moist air into the region.
  I live in Florida and hurricane landfalls depend on jet streams. We had a few years when those winds seemed to steer every other hurricane our way. Now those winds are back to normal and the storms go either out into the Atlantic or into the Gulf of Mexico.
  
  --
  I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
10. Re:Let me be the first to say... by geekoid · 2011-07-08 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  Which part of the word 'trend' do you not understand?
  Which part of all the natural forces the are currently happening that historically lowered the temperature, but the global temperature not returning to those levels do you not understand?
  Climate is rising even through the historic patterns would dictate a lowering. This is not opinion, it's a fact. Solid fact. It's one of the reasons their is a consensus that it is happening.
  If you don't think climate change is happening, then you might as well believe the universe rotates around the earth.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
11. Re:Let me be the first to say... by geekoid · 2011-07-08 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  To conclude the media going off about a particular years weather as 'proof' about climate change. They report sensation. there reporting is not scientific forecast, it's random predicting. You need to look at long term models and data.
  The extra energy will create dramatic and more dynamic weather patterns of all kinds.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
12. Re:Let me be the first to say... by rahvin112 · 2011-07-08 11:45 · Score: 2
  
  You do realize there are probably as many models as there are scientists right? And that your "example" is probably at best two separate and completely independent models?
  And you do realize that the point of science is to actually make predictions then improve your prediction ability by monitoring those predictions and adjusting your theory to match physical results?
  This isn't religion, they don't know the answer, they can only make predictions then adjust their predictions as more information comes in. This doesn't make it guessing, and it doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it science. That you don't understand how that work doesn't mean anything at all. Maybe you should leave the field to the experts, instead of inserting your baseless opinion into a discussion you can't even comprehend (as it's apparent you don't even know how the scientific method works or what the purpose of science is).
13. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 11:46 · Score: 0
  
  And it did it 20 years ago also...multiple sources could be wrong....
14. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-07-08 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  (cf the flooded central US).
  The flooding in the central US is a result of the Army Corps of Engineers failing to release sufficient water before the snow melt. The last time there was a winter with a similar amount of snow, they released enough water from the dams in the early spring before the snow melt started and then held most of the snow melt in the reservoirs.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
15. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 11:50 · Score: 0
  
  It's one of the reasons their is a consensus that it is happening.
  I've heard that something like 97% of climatologists support at least some form of man-made climate change. As that is less than 100%, I'd hardly call it a "consensus".
  In fact, if you were to extrapolate this over the entire 7 billion person population of the Earth, you'd find 210 million people were opposed to it! That's over half of the population of the United States, which... explains everything, come to think of it.
16. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Solandri · 2011-07-08 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  Global warming is expected to create much more evaporation from the oceans and lead to more rain. (cf the flooded central US).
  The problem I've always had with this theory is that increased evaporation leads to greater cloud cover, which leads to a higher albedo, which leads to cooler temperatures.
17. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 15:32 · Score: 0
  
  Yes - instead of Global Warming, it should have been called 'Screwing with the climate and weather patterns on a global scale'. Doesn't sound as concise, but covers the topic better. It would also help prevent idiots from crowing 'told you so!' whenever there happened to be something 'colder than usual' happening somewhere in the world.
18. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 15:54 · Score: 0
  
  Saying that patterns would "dictate a lowering" has no merit. I agree that the scientific consensus is that there is a climate change occurring. However, there is no solid proof that humans are causing it even though one can use logic to assume that. Still, you really shouldn't sit here and try to insinuate that humans are destroying the world and totally neglect the FACT that there is just as much of a possibility that either A) this is a naturally occurring blip in the history of weather. B) Caused by humans (at least partially) but will not be catastrophic. If you want to talk about science, you need to talk about ALL sides of it. Otherwise all you're doing is spreading your own viewpoint.
19. Re:Let me be the first to say... by riverat1 · 2011-07-08 17:02 · Score: 2
  
  If you think they predicted no snow in the 2000's you aren't paying attention. The earliest date I've seen for that in the Mid-Atlantic region is maybe in the 2030's and I have my doubts about that. Somewhere between 2050 and 2100 seems likely to me unless we do something about GHG emissions.
  Global Warming is apparently expanding the sub-tropical zones, where most of the worlds great desert's (including the Atacama) are located likely due to Hadley cell expansion. That means the southern US, particularly west of the Gulf of Mexico will experience more drought. Water evaporating off a warmer Gulf into a warmer atmosphere will likely keep the precipitation level up in the Gulf States although they may see bigger storms interspersed with longer dry spells. Other areas will get more rainfall.
20. Re:Let me be the first to say... by riverat1 · 2011-07-08 17:09 · Score: 2
  
  But clouds both reflect sunlight and absorb infrared energy. Have you ever noticed how much warmer it is on a cloudy night than it is on a clear night? That's clouds holding heat in. Near the terminator clouds can even reflect more sunlight down to the Earth. The net effect of clouds appears to be slightly positive for global warming but the error bars stretch from slightly negative to moderately positive.
21. Re:Let me be the first to say... by arse+maker · 2011-07-08 17:15 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  This is a complete straw man. Few credible climatologists would say something like this. You can't point to events like this as evidence of climate change. There is not enough data. Even if no snow fell there for all recorded human history, it's not proof or really evidence of anything.
  You need far more common events to tease out a change from the background. Once off events are the worst possible examples to use for climate change.
22. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 22:19 · Score: 0
  
  Global warming is expected to create much more evaporation from the oceans and lead to more rain. (cf the flooded central US).
  Except when it's expected to create droughts.
  Hurr durr, them dumb scientists. Mind you, economists are as bad. Saying that offshoring causes unemployment and creates jobs.
23. Re:Let me be the first to say... by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-07-09 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Global warming is expected to create much more evaporation from the oceans and lead to more rain. (cf the flooded central US).
  The problem I've always had with this theory is that increased evaporation leads to greater cloud cover, which leads to a higher albedo, which leads to cooler temperatures.
  Err, no. Next.
  Gee, for the last couple of years you have been telling us with "the warming is all due to the water vapour" (well, not those times you say there is no warming), now all of a sudden, there is no such thing? And no, clouds are not water vapour.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
24. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-09 11:18 · Score: 0
  
  LMAO
  Yes, this is global warming's fault, because we all know that temperatures are consistent and predictable everywhere in the world, so if there is ANY kind of temperature change or weird stuff happening then we can blame global warming.
  What has really happened over the last 20 years is global stupidding. The internet has created a cult of ignorant eco-hippies lead by Al Gore that avoid scientific fact because it is easier to sell trendy green products or books and movies of doom and gloom then it is to sell the truth. Hell, it is easier these days to make money by promising to lower your carbon emissions by buying carbon offsets (yes, I promise to invest your $1000 into carbon lowering energy projects so you end your SUV driving guilt, snicker, nudge, wink).
  20 years ago snowfall in the desert would be ignored by 99% of the world, maybe a blip on page 15 of "Weird and Wonderful News" in the local newspaper. Now its prominently displayed on Slashdot and a slew of other ignorance spreading (ahem, social networking) websites as living proof that we have f*cked up our planet.
  Flooding in Central US, yes, that has NEVER happened before, especially around the Mississippi river that has been reliably at the same water levels for 100s of years before global warming threw everything off. It never flooded during the spring months, never.
  Whenever I hear some stupid eco-hippie siting some recent weather event as proof of global warming, I just want to beat the non-dairy vegan granola out of them with their very own Prius.
25. Re:Let me be the first to say... by DarthVain · 2011-07-11 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  Well the snow had to come from somewhere right?
  Someplace there are some pissed off penguins!
What about antarctica... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 09:22 · Score: 0

I thought Antarctica was the driest place on earth. No percipitation in the last 2,000,000 years.
1. Re:What about antarctica... by swanzilla · 2011-07-08 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Even the driest of the dry spots in Antarctica average a few inches of precipitation yearly. Not sure about the percipitation, however...you might be correct on that one.
  
  --
  0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
2. Re:What about antarctica... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 12:31 · Score: 0
  
  Atlhough Antarctica is a dessert, it still gets some precipitation (in the form of snow) regularly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Antarctica
  Not having any precipitation for 20 years seems quite a bit drier than that...
3. Re:What about antarctica... by MichaelSmith · 2011-07-08 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  Antarctica gets heaps of solid precipitation, to the point where any structure built on the ice will be buried in a few decades. But very little liquid rain.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
4. Re:What about antarctica... by fbjon · 2011-07-10 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, in the McMurdo Dry Valleys in Antarctica it never rains, only snows..
  
  --
  True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Rain is a big emergency in North Chile! by TheNarrator · 2011-07-08 09:25 · Score: 1

They had rain a few years ago in Iquique, another town in North Chile that hardly ever gets rain. It caused quite a disruption because many poorer people have cardboard roofs on their houses, which ,obviously, do not work particularly well when it rains.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/21/tiny-drizzle-wreaks-havoc_n_242057.html
1. Re:Rain is a big emergency in North Chile! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck, imagine having to replace all that cardboard.
  The losses must have been huge!
Oblig. Drudge-dot by damn_registrars · 2011-07-08 09:34 · Score: 1

This clearly means global warming is a fraud, and it's over!

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
It's all relative by Quila · 2011-07-08 09:39 · Score: 1

I'd love to see Canadians deal with 20 years of almost no rainfall.
Isn't by geekoid · 2011-07-08 09:47 · Score: 1

the Antarctica the driest place on earth?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
1. Re:Isn't by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 09:52 · Score: 0
  
  Dryest continent on avg, but there are places in AQ that are quite wet, and places off AQ that are much dryer than the dryest place in AQ.
2. Re:Isn't by Threni · 2011-07-08 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  No, it turns out it's covered in Ice, a popular form of water.
3. Re:Isn't by geekoid · 2011-07-08 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  ha. ha.
  It has the lowest humidity, and the lowest moisture falling from the sky. It fact inland from the cost it gets almost not rainfall... or snowfall.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
4. Re:Isn't by jo_ham · 2011-07-08 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  There are areas of Antarctica where it hasn't rained for 40,000 years. It is one of the driest places on earth because very cold air can't hold much humidity at all.
5. Re:Isn't by MichaelSmith · 2011-07-08 12:59 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah in fact I wonder about carbon dioxide in the coldest parts of Antarctica too. Wiki says it melts at -78 degrees C. I recall a weather station I was involved with managing reported -75 one day. I wonder if you get CO2 frost in conditions like that?
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
6. Re:Isn't by riverat1 · 2011-07-08 17:16 · Score: 1
  
  I've thought about that too. But if it happens at all it doesn't last for long. I've never heard a report of finding a layer of CO2 ice in the ice cores.
7. Re:Isn't by jpapon · 2011-07-08 21:59 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how such a layer could ever be produced unless the temperature never goes back above -78. Even if it is there temporarily as the temp. drops below -78, once the temp rises again that layer will disappear.
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
8. Re:Isn't by dargaud · 2011-07-09 21:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah in fact I wonder about carbon dioxide in the coldest parts of Antarctica too. Wiki says it melts at -78 degrees C. I recall a weather station I was involved with managing reported -75 one day. I wonder if you get CO2 frost in conditions like that?
  Disclaimer: I've worked in Antarctica at -78C !
  You won't get to see CO2 snow for the simple reason that it forms a perfect mix with air. For the same reason that if you mix water and pure alcohol you won't end up with cubes of water-ice floating (or rather, sinking) in alcohol if you put i in a mild freezer.
  
  --
  Non-Linux Penguins ?
9. Re:Isn't by MichaelSmith · 2011-07-09 22:29 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm interesting. Is this similar to the way a mixture of water and ammonia can remain liquid well below 0 degrees C? Kind of like the ammonia keeps the water molecules moving around and prevents them from freezing.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
10. Re:Isn't by fbjon · 2011-07-10 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  It also turns out that ice and snow are solids, while aridity refers to a liquid...
  
  --
  True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Sorry, I keep forgetting by Quila · 2011-07-08 09:58 · Score: 1

I'll try to keep up with the spinmeisters from now on.
1. Re:Sorry, I keep forgetting by TapeCutter · 2011-07-08 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  Here's the 2003 memo, the new spin is that the tree-huggers tried to change the terminology.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
2. Re:Sorry, I keep forgetting by Mindcontrolled · 2011-07-08 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  The most telling fact here is that no single commenter has ever said "This is due to global warming.", but droves of deniers immediately crawled out of their caves to burn "LOL! CLIMATE CHANGE BULLSHIT! HERP DERP!"-strawmen en masse.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
This must mean... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 09:59 · Score: 0

Winter is coming.
1. Re:This must mean... by Ohrion · 2011-07-08 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  Nice
From The Video by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 10:01 · Score: 0

"the area hasn't seen this much snow in almost 20 years"
So, it's not unheard of. In fact it has snowed many times just not typically this much. From time to time it snows heavily in certain areas of the Atacam, it just doesn't happen very frequently.
Everybody can now just chill the fuck out!
1. Re:From The Video by jo_ham · 2011-07-08 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it happened now, and 20 years ago... and then 400 years back in time before anything even resembling water (frozen or otherwise) falling from the sky.
  It's a pretty dry place.
2. Re:From The Video by riverat1 · 2011-07-08 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  I think you will find the snowfall didn't cover all 40,000+ square miles of the Atacama Desert and many places there may still hold their records of no recorded precipitation.
Another hint by Sycraft-fu · 2011-07-08 10:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

People like you do nothing to help bolster the argument of man made climate change.
See any time something happens on a weather level that would seem to be against global warming, like an extra cold winter, if they were related shouts of "Climate is not weather! You can't take something that happened with the weather and apply it to climate!" come up in a hurry.
However when something perceived to be out of the ordinary (or something bad) happens then people like you come and say "See! Look! Strange weather, climate change must be real and it must be people causing it!"
This trying to have it both ways is something that makes the argument look flimsy because it is precisely what people like religious zealots do. When something supports their views, they point to it as evidence. When something doesn't, they claim that sort of thing doesn't matter, even if it is the same sort of thing as they were talking about earlier.
So you can't go and shout down weather as not being climate only to then point at weather when it suits your needs.
Also it shows rather profound ignorance of the Earth's climate and weather systems to think that a rare event must somehow be an indication of something wrong.
Please note, none of this is aimed at trying to disprove or prove man made climate change. It is simply pointing out that this is a stupid argument and doesn't help your position at all.
1. Re:Another hint by WamBamBoozle · 2011-07-08 11:02 · Score: 0
  
  > Also it shows rather profound ignorance of the Earth's climate and weather systems to think that a rare event must somehow be an indication of something wrong.
  Outliers are early indicators in any process of discovery.
  > Please note, none of this is aimed at trying to disprove or prove man made climate change. It is simply pointing out that this is a stupid argument and doesn't help your position at all.
  Stating the obvious is hardly an argument. Saying the there is more energy in the system is only self-evident. More CO2 -> more heat = more energy. How is that spin? You wrongfully represent the AC as "arguing a position" -- anyone who thinks climate change is not man made is nuts. If there is more precipitation (energy), more winds (energy), than yeah, some places might be colder or wetter than before. This is not self-serving rationalization, it is stating obvious physics.
  Just look at the melted polar ice cap.
  But of course you're right. There's nothing wrong. Fossil fuels are our friend. Exxon is looking out for you!
2. Re:Another hint by Vancorps · 2011-07-08 11:09 · Score: 2
  
  You are correct about bad arguments but the specifics are wrong. People who say humans are impacting climate change actually predicted that some areas would be colder and some areas would get more snow, the problem is when you look at global temperatures you realize that Europe and Asia were warmer while people were claiming a cold winter in Maryland as proof that there is no climate change.
  Additionally, crazy weather is also predicted in the same models so in reality, all of these events are lining up with predictions made about climate change. As others have pointed out, the question isn't whether climate is changing but whether humans can do anything to slow it down or if they should which to me makes a lot of sense. Encouraging people to use resources more efficiently doesn't sound like a bad idea anyway, so the interests of human driven climate change advocates generally line up with good policy anyways.
  Additionally when it comes to this specific case, prior to 1970, the region had almost 400 years without precipitation, the climate change models show tremendous change in the makeup of our atmosphere starting in the 50s and peaking in the late 70s as the clean air act and other international efforts started to take effect reversing the trends for a while until the new millenium when Bush's administration repealed many of the environmental regulations that Clinton's administration put in place.
  I find it difficult to believe anyone thinks that humans don't impact our environment tremendously. I come from Vermont with family in upstate New York which was plagued with acid rain because of polluted Ohio. At the same time, about 20 years ago you also had huge problems with smog in California among many other places. Lots of small impacts add up, there are even more egregious environment threatening events happening internationally all at the same time and somehow we're not changing any of the Earth's natural cycles?
  I think we should change the focus of the conversation to using our resources more efficiently which makes us less dependent on third parties and reduces our impact on the world around us. There's no reason we need to kill an economy, but there's also no reason we have to lay waste to every place we live.
3. Re:Another hint by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 11:38 · Score: 0
  
  Anybody who references land temperatures when talking about global warming is misinformed, at best.
  The science is about heat capacity of oceans.
  On land we expect to see catastrophic climate change. Snow is precipitation, and that water vapor came from somewhere.
  $20 says it didn't not evaporate from the driest land on the planet, but came from a body of water that has absorbed some energy.
4. Re:Another hint by ralphbecket · 2011-07-08 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Er, the models even *hindcast* wilder weather: their variance seems to be substantially greater than what is observed (not to mention they're mostly way off base when it comes to getting absolute temperatures right). See this ensemble graph: http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/temperatures_absolute.jpg
  The thing is, we've "observed" about 0.7'C of warming over a century and most of that seems to have happened in Siberia and the Arctic. Given the huge usual temperature variations over any sub-decadal time scale, there is just no way you would be able to notice that change without a lot of time and careful measurement.
5. Re:Another hint by R3d+M3rcury · 2011-07-08 12:27 · Score: 2
  
  Outliers are early indicators in any process of discovery.
  Agreed. But they, in of themselves, do not create a discovery.
  For example, the 9 hottest years on record have occurred in the last ten years. That's a pretty encouraging sign that something is off a bit with the climate. The fact that it snowed someplace for the first time in 20 years is not evidence of climate change. It is a funny weather story. If it snows again next year and the year after, then we're seeing a trend. Until then, equating it with climate change is a bit premature.
  The GP is right to a certain degree. All of these occurrences may or may not be evidence of climate change. The problem is that every odd weather thing that happens becomes evidence that something is "wrong." Strong hurricanes? Climate change. Weak hurricanes? Climate change. More hurricanes? Climate change. Less hurricanes? Climate change. More rain? Climate change. Less rain? Climate change. Heavier snow pack? Climate change. Lighter snow pack? Climate change. Hotter than normal? Climate change. Colder than normal? Climate change.
  See, for the last millennia, we've had years where it's been hotter than average. We've had years where it's colder than average. We've had years with more hurricanes than average. We've had years with fewer hurricanes than average. We've had years with more snowfall/rainfall than average. We've had years with less snowfall/rainfall than average. That's why it's called an "average." With climate change, what we're seeing is that those years that are hotter than average are more prevalent than years that are colder than average. These are scary statistics.
  The problem is, statistics don't work well to convince people. So we try to grab something dramatic--the first snow in some place in 20 years, flooding in the midwest, tornadoes, etc. and equate it to climate change. It's more dramatic that way--video of people digging out under 20 foot snow drifts is far more compelling than a graph showing a radical increase in global temperatures. The problem is, it's not evidence. It's an anecdote. Just like the anecdotes that have existed for millennia. Hell, I've seen pictures from the 1930s of people digging out from under snow drifts. Is that climate change?
  
  Just look at the melted polar ice cap.
  Yes, but the polar ice cap didn't melt in a day. It took years. This is a one-time event. Heck, it's not even all that strange--it happened 20 years ago.
6. Re:Another hint by phantomfive · 2011-07-08 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  People like you do nothing to help bolster the argument of man made climate change.
  If the data is clear enough, it won't need any bolstering by people: the argument will stand on its own (as it should).
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
7. Re:Another hint by arse+maker · 2011-07-08 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  A more important point is ... slashdot comments arent the scientific consensus on climate change.
8. Re:Another hint by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 21:44 · Score: 0
  
  Why do you expect scientists to communicate with the public the same way they communicate among themselves?
  No doubt it proves some sort of conspiracy. Look, in private them there eggheads say this, but they tell us that. They wants to take mai Hummar!
9. Re:Another hint by Hognoxious · 2011-07-08 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  If the data is clear enough, it won't need any bolstering by people: the argument will stand on its own (as it should).
  Just like it did with smoking.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
10. Re:Another hint by phantomfive · 2011-07-09 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Is there anyone who believes that smoking is good for you? Seems like the data is speaking pretty well, even convinced skeptics, and outright non-believers.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
11. Re:Another hint by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2011-07-09 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  People like you do nothing to help bolster the argument of man made climate change.
  See any time something happens on a weather level that would seem to be against global warming, like an extra cold winter, if they were related shouts of "Climate is not weather! You can't take something that happened with the weather and apply it to climate!" come up in a hurry.
  So because he preempts the "snowing means its cooling!!!" cries, his argument isn't good, because you can now pretend he said "it's snowing because its getting warmer". Nice try. You will certainly convince the usual bunch of fools - but they are only looking for confirmation anyway, and will take much weaker straws.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
12. Re:Another hint by DarthVain · 2011-07-11 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  Worst snowfall in 20 years! There were humans on the planet 20 years ago. Therefore this is all to do with climate change, its scientifically proven!
13. Re:Another hint by benhattman · 2011-07-11 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Insightful? Yes, a single event does not verify climate change. But the GP is right to point out that climate change theory makes a verifiable hypothesis, which is that warmer temperatures will cause more extreme weather. This could mean either more frequency of events (we had 15 hurricanes on average per year from 1900-1970 and 18 per year from 1970-2000 to make a hypothetical "fact" up) or that the events themselves become more extreme (15 hurricanes a year, but frequency of category 5 storms has increased 3 fold to make up another "fact").
  I agree that climate change realists look foolish when they prance around after every exceptional weather event, but it's not unreasonable for them to say "these events seem to be more extreme or frequent and we think that's evidence that regular people can look at to understand how our world is changing.
  FWIW, the denialist side often takes events that might actually be proof of climate change and uses them as disproof. See, major snowstorms through the NE US last year. The most snow fall will occur at a temperature closer to 0C than at a colder temperature (you need freezing for snow but colder air holds less moisture). So at least on a cursory glance, global warming suggests that areas where temperatures are regularly well below freezing should see more snow (though perhaps a few less days of snow a year) while areas like the pacific northwest, which are rarely cold enough for snow, would see even less. Of course, the variables are more complicated than this one # (local temperature) so I can't make specific predictions.
  My point is that often when the realists frolic they look foolish for being overeager whereas when the denialists do the same they look foolish for being ignorant. To pretend there is no difference is the same nonsensical political correctness that the conservative block usually rails against.
14. Re:Another hint by Hognoxious · 2011-07-12 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt there's many, but how many years did it take?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
15. Re:Another hint by phantomfive · 2011-07-12 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Don't know, but already everyone who cares or matters already knows that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have some kind of warming effect. Unfortunately there is no consensus on how much or even that there is any risk of catastrophe from it, as the clip at the beginning of this movie implies there might.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Communication by SuperKendall · 2011-07-08 10:22 · Score: 1

The problem is that too many weird climate events have been happening in quick succession.
Are you sure? Or in fact is that it's much easier to find out about them now?

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Communication by SnarfQuest · 2011-07-08 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  You need to understand how Climate Change works. If there is a hypothetical town in Iowa that had recorded tornadoes for every day in March, although not in the same year, except march 7th. For example, they had tornadoes on March 1st 1942, March 2nd 1979, March 3rd 1983. If they get a tornado on March 7th of this year, then that proves that Global Warming exists and is caused by man. No other possible explanation will fit their models.
  
  --
  Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
2. Re:Communication by dr2chase · 2011-07-08 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  I do worry about our better ability to observe and how that might skew data (e.g., recorded hurricane intensities). But, it would require exceptional stupidity on the part of people who were selected for the intelligence, and then spent years in graduate school, to be unaware of this issue, and to not take the trouble to correct for it. Do you really expect them to be THAT stupid, that nobody would point it out, and that they would not take steps to account for it, once it was? (Problems with improved detection are not new -- breast cancer screening had this problem decades ago, we're having that argument about PSA testing now.)
  There's plenty of evidence that we're warming, and there's no dispute that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, and almost no dispute that we are the cause of it. Given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the warming is in the same ballpark as predicted by models, it would be really stupid to bet that the two are unconnected.
3. Re:Communication by riverat1 · 2011-07-08 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  The corollary to your snark is that if Washington DC gets an extra heavy snowfall that proves Global Warming doesn't exist.
4. Re:Communication by Mindcontrolled · 2011-07-08 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  The Strawmen! The Strawmen! They came from the fields! Oh god! They are everywhere! Have mercy!! NOOOOOO......
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Whoa by SuperKendall · 2011-07-08 10:25 · Score: 0

We har high peaks during the pleistoicene, but not a higher trend.
Yuo would need to go bak millions of years
Wow, you can just feel the spittle hitting you from that crazed lecture.
Man made Climate Change is real, and it's a fact.
I'd rather work with scientific fact than zealot proclaimed fact, thanks.
The climate is changing, that's for sure - but how much is from human input is still in open debate, and anyone that tries to slam the door on said debate is very suspect.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Easy recovery by SuperKendall · 2011-07-08 10:28 · Score: 1

Fuck, imagine having to replace all that cardboard.
The losses must have been huge!
No worry, each of them ordered a $0.79 pen from Amazon, who shipped it loose in a refrigerator box.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The Big Picture by SuperKendall · 2011-07-08 10:32 · Score: 0

Why did it evaporate?
Heat.
You get the picture?
Yes, you are claiming that since there was more snow 20 years ago, that it was hotter then than now.
Denier! Denier! Pants on DeFire!

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re: *Hint* -DUH, WARMING!! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 11:11 · Score: 1

*Hint* When someone changes their initial theory from something that can be quantified (ie. "global temperature will increase because of man-made greenhouse gases") to something that can't be quantified ("ie. global temperature will get both hotter and colder in different parts of the world") it means they have realized their initial theory was incorrect and they are scrambling to find another theory.
no one has revoked or re-written the initial theory.
The average global temperature will increase.
Part of this theory includes the idea that local weather will be more extreme. But that is ancillary and not exclusive of the main theory.
climate change vs global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 11:18 · Score: 0

Only the politicians call it climate change. They prefer a less alarming term.
I misread your comment and thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-08 12:06 · Score: 0

I am altering the model. Pray I don't alter it any further.
Not the driest part of the Atacama by spike+hay · 2011-07-08 12:45 · Score: 4, Informative

The parts of the Atacama that get less than a millimeter are by the ocean. Counterintuitively, the closer you get to the sea, the drier it is. This snowfall happened in the Dry Andes of Bolivia and Chile, which are very dry, but do receive more regular precip. For example, there are glaciers above 6000m (it basically never gets above freezing there, so it's sublimation balancing precip).
This is a big snowfall, but it's not that bizarre of an event. AGW is happening, but it would be disingenuous to attribute this to climate change.

--
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
1. Re:Not the driest part of the Atacama by overnight_failure · 2011-07-08 21:40 · Score: 1
  
  Although the title is correct the body of the story is not, as it's not the driest region on earth, areas of the Antartic have that distinction.
2. Re:Not the driest part of the Atacama by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-09 03:54 · Score: 0
  
  Well, to complement the information contained on the site, the Very Large Telescope, which is only 12 kms from the sea, and some 300-500 kms from the sites mentioned, was constructed there because of the dry climate. Right now it is raining, as I write this...
And, in the middle of the *SUMMER* too! by mangu · 2011-07-08 12:49 · Score: 1

You should add, all that snow fell during June and early July!
So, where's that global "warming" when we have snow falling in summer!
Not only that, both Australia and New Zealand have had temperatures below freezing, with heavy snow in some areas these days.
1. Re:And, in the middle of the *SUMMER* too! by riverat1 · 2011-07-08 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot the /sarcasm tag.
2. Re:And, in the middle of the *SUMMER* too! by toriver · 2011-07-08 20:36 · Score: 1
  
  Slept through geography much? When we have summer no the NORTHERN hemisphere, they have winter on the SOUTHERN hemisphere. Where Peru and Chile are located.
  So: Snowfall during WINTER. Because they have WINTER.
anti-intellectual bullshit by TapeCutter · 2011-07-08 13:16 · Score: 1

You've made a valid point that contradicts what I believe
Out of curiosity, what vaild point do you see in the aforementioned "anti-intellectual bullshit"?

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Why do you think it is easy? by dbIII · 2011-07-08 13:21 · Score: 1

So tell me then, how do you find out how much sulphur is in the coal that has never been examined for sulphur and is being burned in and mined in quantities that not even the Chinese government knows about? Were you asleep when those reports about Chinese miners being trapped underground in "unlicenced coal mines" came out? Did you wonder what "unlicenced" meant? It means the government doesn't know anything about it - really because they don't care. By now you should have understood that some things just have to be guessed at.
epic fali by Hognoxious · 2011-07-08 15:54 · Score: 1

Out of curiosity, what vaild point do you see in the aforementioned "anti-intellectual bullshit"?
Is this a trick question? Obviously none, because it was hidden.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Will anything grow ? by Alain+Williams · 2011-07-08 19:37 · Score: 2

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, will spring up when the snow thaws ? -- given that it is considered sterile.
1. Re:Will anything grow ? by benhattman · 2011-07-11 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  This is by far the best comment on this topic. It's far more interesting than the AGW name calling that usually occurs. What if there is plantlife there that only sprouts every hundred years or so (on average). That could be something useful for terraforming Mars...
Inches or centimeters? by bsquizzato · 2011-07-09 01:53 · Score: 1

TFA said 30+ inches. BBC video said 30+ cm
So, which was it? That video didn't look like 2 1/2 feet of snow to me ...
1. Re:Inches or centimeters? by walter_f · 2011-07-11 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  One tends to believe the BBC here.
  Unlike U.S. Americans, the Brits have had at least _some_ experience with the metric system now.
  And this would include a modest capability to convert metric to imperial units and vice versa as well. ;-)
Yes 2012 is close ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-09 05:08 · Score: 0

Weeeee gonna dieeeeeeee .... !
The BBC iPlayer volume goes to 11 by bkk_diesel · 2011-07-11 00:35 · Score: 1

Best part of reading this story was watching the video and discovering that the iPlayer volume goes to 11.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=bbc+iplayer+volume+goes+to+11
Many have said that by Quila · 2011-07-11 01:48 · Score: 1

It's all over the place.
For "climate change" the standard answer is DUH! of course the climate changes. It's been changing for as long as Earth had a climate.
Like the big hurricane season a few years back? by Quila · 2011-07-21 04:56 · Score: 1

We were told that was because of global warming, and that it would get worse.
Then next hurricane season, quite mild.