Slashdot Mirror
Snow Falls On the Most Arid Desert On Earth
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."
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?
No, the change in terminology is to ensure that all possible data confirm the theory.
Yes, and for most of its history, uninhabited by humans; perhaps due to the climate.
> 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.