The curious effects global warming has on SA,

Normally parts of the country could be effected by snow in the period June to August in normal years - but the following indicates a different tendency in the era when global warming is the talk of the day:-

"Some parts of South Africa could receive up to 6cm of snow next week, according to the latest forecast from Ventusky. The weather experts have predicted a ‘decent amount’ of the white stuff will land towards the end of April, marking the first notable snowfall of 2021 within our borders.

Snow forecast for South Africa – April 2021

Earlier today, residents near the Drakensberg Mountain Range on the Lesotho border witnessed a very, very faint dusting on extreme high peaks. And our enclaved neighbour nation has seen a sprinkling of snow in the past 24 hours.

However, it seems that the ‘real deal’ will arrive next week. Not only is Lesotho on course to be blanketed by the festive flakes, but several areas in South Africa are also expecting a covering.

Where will it snow in SA next week?

Based on current models, the snow is going to make landfall overnight, in the early hours of Friday 30 April. From there, patches of snowfall will occur in northern parts of the Eastern Cape, as well as southern parts of Lesotho. Local landmarks Sani Pass and AfriSki are also bracing a wintery transformation. between 7:00 to 10:00 next Friday, the snow is set to intensify, falling a little heavier as the sun rises. Residents of Barkly East, Jamestown, and Dordrecht will likely wake up to settled snow.

MAPPED: Flakes to fall in rural Eastern Cape

Meanwhile, the corridor between Craddock and Queenstown is also set to receive a flurry. This slightly less rural region may get up to 3cm of snow, and although it’s not a huge amount, put it this way: It’ll be enough to take a pretty picture!"

If that is what is expected in APRIL the country will  be unbelievably cold during this coming winter.    

Apart from that  even Obama's weather expert said the data used by China Joe to justify the Green resolutions are not supported by scientific fact and would lead to  economic chaos .    So we have the dummy scientists on site who claimed opposition to crazy green polies are anti-science,    How weird the world has become when psychopaths take the initiatives on important issues.       

Some parts of South Africa does not equal the globe.

I'll try making this as clear as possible.

Global warming refers to the rise of temperatures across the entire globe. Temperature readings are taken from thousands of temperature monitoring stations around the world.

There is not one official temperature data source, but he most commonly cited ones are GISTEMP, GlobalTemp, HadCRUT4 and JMA. While there is some minor variance in the figures they publish due to differences in the locations they take the temperature reading from and methods of interpolation they all show the same thing, global temperatures are rising.

Global warming does not mean everywhere is warmer all the time, or that certain regions will not exhibit usually cold or warm temperatures at a specific point in time.

Which on average equated to 1,8 degrees c in near to two centuries when applied worldwide.

None of the horrible  predictions of the pseudo-scientists  have ever materialized.    Miami being under water by 2000 never happened and twenty years later did not happen.    

Global warming and cooling has been experienced for millions of years  and the last mini-ice age was about 700 years ago  and the main ice age ended about 12000 years ago - so what prevents a future change on the proven basis applicable for millions of years?

Are we to believe that humans cause climate change for millions of years?     Sure there are pollution  problems worldwide that are caused by humans and should be  fought  vigorously, but to divert money that could be used in fighting pollution to spend on an imaginary projects is crazy and dilutional.    

The real issue that is being advertised in the world is not fighting environmental  pollution and denigration of  the environment and spend money on a make-believe   crisis swallowed by the sheeple worldwide.   

"Which on average equated to 1,8 degrees c in near to two centuries when applied worldwide."

So you acknowledge the planet is getting warmer and the whole premise of your original post was wrong?

Also just because temperature rise is small doesn't mean it can't have a significant effect. By historical standards that temperature rise is extremely sudden.

"None of the horrible  predictions of the pseudo-scientists  have ever materialized.    Miami being under water by 2000 never happened and twenty years later did not happen"

No scientific organization ever claimed that.

"Global warming and cooling has been experienced for millions of years  and the last mini-ice age was about 700 years ago  and the main ice age ended about 12000 years ago - so what prevents a future change on the proven basis applicable for millions of years?

No one claim temperature does rise and fall naturally. The problem is the current temperature rise is not being driven by natural causes and is occurring too fast to be caused by natural causes.

"Are we to believe that humans cause climate change for millions of years?     Sure there are pollution  problems worldwide that are caused by humans and should be  fought  vigorously, but to divert money that could be used in fighting pollution to spend on an imaginary projects is crazy and dilutional. "

No one said humans have been causing climate change for millions of years or that climate change can not occur naturally.

The problem is not imaginary, its supported by an overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence.

"The real issue that is being advertised in the world is not fighting environmental  pollution and denigration of  the environment and spend money on a make-believe   crisis swallowed by the sheeple worldwide.   "

Judging from your posts on this forum you are in no position to call people sheeple.

How just out of curiosity are you going to acknowledge that cherry picking temperature or unusual weather events in a limited time frame in a specific region in no way refutes climate change. Its the equivalent of one looking out the window, seeing its raining and concluding everywhere else on the planet must be raining as well.

Stav

I have not  ever denied that  the cycle we are living in would show upwards heating as was the case for millions of years.   What I do not believe that humans play a role in that upward trend.    That has never been proved and has been grabbed by scrupulous politicians to use in fearmongering and used to scare people in supporting measures that has zero to do with global warming.   

Even the ex-advisor of Obama said that the data used by the  Chinese present subject President of the USA are not reliable and has never been proved as correct.   The moment politicians start to use scare tactics and the media  use it for that purpose - that moment the wholescenario becomes a tactic that has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do wioth politics  of a dubious kind. 

What ahs been proved scientifically"   The scare tactics based on scientific evidence has all been BS and the scientists  are making deductions that never materialized ever.    They do not know what is going to happen and is guessing and their guessing of results have always been wrong.    But the scientists  are always looking for funding for the institutions they work for and the bigger the scare tactics are - the more money flow into their institutions.

By the way - there is no real evidence that the present warming period is worse than it has ever been before - but the propaganda is silent on natural issues causing the cycles the world has experienced for millions of years.   I have never read any papers where the global warming "scientists" and their fellow-travelling politicians ever mentioned natural cycles in climate change - so where did you get that one from?

I have nothing against constructive expenditure on  reduction of  pollution - but to destroy the economy and allow for dubious state expenditure that is often corrupt and benefited  only the politicos and their crooked friends and colleagues  is criminal.         

"I have not  ever denied that  the cycle we are living in would show upwards heating as was the case for millions of years."

If your admitting temperatures are currently rising regardless of what the cause is, then why did you bring up weather conditions in part of South Africa in April. I mean if your implying that localized weather disproves man made causes of temperature warming your also saying it disproves natural causes of temperature warming.

Can you at least admit bringing up localized weather conditions on their own does nothing to prove or disprove climate change.

I'm not trying to mock you here but can you not see the flaw in your logic here?

SB

Religion has fuck all to do what I wrote - can I write it more clearly?     Hell we know you are a brainwashed junk piece and what you wrote on site is totally brainwashed garbage   Why is environmental pollution not as imminent a problem  as unproven global warming is.   There is mno real proof that humans contribute to global warming, - there is indisputable evidence that humans cause massive pollution in the world. 

What science are you talking about dolt?   There is enough fearmongering about global warming to fill ten million books - but no predictions have thus far been proven to be correct.   Show m one case where there prediction that human cause global warming and  that a result has been correctly predicted, and  I will show you ten where the scientists were talking political BS,   

I pity you because you have lost your ability to think for yourself  and is nothing more than a stooge for others.   

Global warming and cooling has been going on for millions of years  and what you write above and your advert is stooge talk.   The fact is it has been accepted for at least 700 years after the last mini ice age that global heating will  happen.

So why would the end of mankind be in  the world because of global warming where the average upward trend of temperature was 1,8 degree  C  during the last 180 years.   So why should mankind be wiped out by the present cycle - changes are better that mankind will be wiped  out in the next and certainly coming   ice age or by continuous  pandemics  like the Chinese virus developed in a laboratory in Wuhan and them blaming it on bats -  that has been around  for millions of years without  transmitting the virus to humans.

There is no way that alternative and cleaner  power must be found.  Nobody argues about that  and the general feeling is that nuclear power is the answer.    You can cover the whole USA with  sun and wind instruments to produce power and there would not be sufficient power created,

However to spend money on it any Government  is stupid beyond believe.    There is not a country in the world where Governments take proper care of and maintain infrastructure, while fleecing Government at the same time.   In that regard the State Capture Commission found massive bribery and corruption in SA  - but there are many real indications that the Democrats in the USA are even more corrupt than  the ANC in SA,   

Your cartoon reminds me of a  mother telling a little boy - "If you are naughty the spooks will come and get you".     And if you believe the habitual liars - the Democrats - you will also believe the moon is made of green cheese.   In their case the real object has nothing to do with  global warming and everything to do with dictatorial control of the state over people.   Do you  support that as well?                 

Mike are you going to acknowledge that snowfall in parts of SA in April proves absolutely nothing in the climate change debate?

Where it happened on a global scale  and not in SA only it is a valid example of what is happening worldwide.    There has been numerous  examples of snowfall outside the normal season world- wide - so the  SA case is just another example of the same trend,

,   

Where it happened on a global scale  and not in SA only it is a valid example of what is happening worldwide.    There has been numerous  examples of snowfall outside the normal season world- wide - so the  SA case is just another example of the same trend,

Not the same topic at all.    Pollution does not lead to global warming - nothing like that has ever been proved.     Pollution covers the whole planet and includes land,  air and sea.   Fact is air is a rather  minor component with land pollution and usage if the oceans as a dumpsite is worse,  

I am for cleaner air  programs and realize that  there are other resources  need to be used - but I am against with destroying  state financial viability in the process.    Dishonest Governments like the  USA provide a Infrastructure  Development Law costing billions - but only 9% is for real infrastructure such as roads, electricity infrastructure, water purification and sewerage treatment.  About is aimed a their Green New  Deal   and the rest for petty political programs.    

Impact on the environment  - bugger all.       .     

You still are not answering my primary question. Why did you bring up weather phenomenon local to South Africa in relation to global warming when you freely admit global temperature's are rising?

I did answer you clearly - if that issue happened in SA and nowhere else in the world it is not worth anything but I read many articles even mentioned on this site of the whole of central USA  being covered by out-of-season snow. and there were similar incidents throughout the word.   Just a typical example of a global phenomenon.   Understand no w?   

the most qualified people use global warming for other agendas and fearmongering is a tool to get money for the institutions where they work,.    They have no proof that it is not a normal cycle in the history of the planer and they hide that fact away as inconvenient.   

I have no problem with  1 and 3 - but that is best left to the private sector and mot by Government, because Government is basically dishonest  and incapable when it comes to spending of money.   .   .    

I did answer you clearly - if that issue happened in SA and nowhere else in the world it is not worth anything but I read many articles even mentioned on this site of the whole of central USA  being covered by out-of-season snow. and there were similar incidents throughout the word.   Just a typical example of a global phenomenon.   Understand now?  

Okay so the planet is not warming then?

Do I have to tell you again Anger? Half the increase since the Industrial Revolution occurred before CO2 levels had increased significantly. Ergo something else accounts for  at least half of the warming claimed.

Do I have to tell you again Anger? Half the increase since the Industrial Revolution occurred before CO2 levels had increased significantly. Ergo something else accounts for  at least half of the warming claimed.

Ah Moz the other great proponent of climatology via looking out his bedroom window and thinking he can do science! If only those silly climate scientists realized it was so easy they could do away with all those silly measurements and research!

You also seem to acknowledge the planet is heating up but you think its natural and or too small to have a significant effect on the planet. Fine that's your view. But again how do localized cold weather events disprove man made global warming but not naturally occurring warming?

You can't have it both ways.

Either yes the planet is warming (regardless of cause) and localized weather conditions over a limited period of time are irrelevant, which basically is admission that anytime you posted about localized weather conditions in Chicago proved absolutely jack shit about global warming.

Or localized weather conditions show the planet isn't warming and your last post is completely irrelevant. If the planet isn't warming how can other causes b e a factor?

You can't have two positions of "LOL its was usually cold in South Africa/Chicago at certain times this year therefore how can the planet be warming?" and also have the view "ah yes the planet is warming but the measured increases in temperature is not cause caused by CO2 but natural causes."

If you two can't see this contradiction you are totally and utterly completely biased.

I can't wait to see the mental gymnastics you contort to explain this.

Stav are you not biased and brainwashed by the media as well?    

I have been totally clear on this Stav. Obviously CO2 is a greenhouse gas and obviously it’s been increasing exponentially. One would expect it to have an effect on climate...but how much?

This is all empirical stuff. There are no precise mathematical models that can encompass climate change like e=MCsquared. So the weathermen build big empirical models....loaded with selective data and with a big negative effect on their careers if they disprove anything about climate change.

So they don’t and it’s easy to make that happen when you have all those variables to tweak.

I don’t believe a thing they claim.

And the facts are simple 1.2 degrees since the IR. Half of which occurred naturally before CO2 levels spiked. So at best we can claim 0.6 degrees for CO2 spiking. 

But the natural factors which led us out of the little ice age didn’t stop in 1950....so CO2 spiking had less effect, quite possibly around 0.3 degrees.

Not enough  to worry about and likely a benign factor in man’s life.

Mozart

The fact is that what worries me even more than alleged climate change is the amount of money spent by Governments on issues that they allege will impact on climate change but factually  has nothing to do with climate change and often involve bribery and corruption.    

Stav are you not biased and brainwashed by the media as well?  

I am biased as is everyone on the planet to some extent or another but I don't allow my biases to dictate my world view. As for brainwashed by the media, no I don't believe I am. I'm pretty confident in my fact checking abilities and I don't believe everything at face value and if I find a claim suspicious I'll attempt to verify it.

Incidentally do you have a link to where Obama's weather expert said the data used by China Joe (rolls eyes) to justify the Green resolutions are not supported by scientific fact and would lead to economic chaos? .

Neither you or Moz can acknowledging the contradictory position you are holding. You just move to the next discussion point so you don't have to acknowledge you are wrong.

So once again I'll ask, how does unusual cold weather events at specific regions of the world over limited time frames of a few days to a few weeks disprove man made global warming, but not disprove natural occurring global warming?

The fat is that I admit that the cyclic during millions of years is a heating phase and that implies a rise in temperatures.    What I did not admit  is that  humans cause the heating  and the fruitless expenditure wasted on  infrastructure  that will not impact on the  decrease of global heating,  money that could be better used on health and education, as well as other social services,      

I never tried to explain it because it does not exist .  It just is another example  of similar circumstances that occurred in many countries throughout the world recently and every time it occurs the same excuse about the local occurrence is given without any regard to the tendency of similar conditions elsewhere in the world.     

If, Global warming was an extra 2 degrees warmer, it would not have a significant effect on an increase or decrease in temperature. 

The actual man-made warming effects are presumably much more impactful to the environment than just an increase of temperature .

I would actually prefer to the world to be warmer, but not if it had other risks that science believes would be negative. 

It may seem so to you - but knowing the routine response in other similar cases - I would not have bothered to  start the thread at all.   I started it because of the fact that there were similar cases  in other countries as well and for me represent a weird series of circumstances ignored  by global warming adherents.   The response was exactly what was said in  the recent ice storms in a vast area in the USA.     

I was watching the Barcelona  Tennis tournament and  the weather was so cold in Spain that the players came out wearing  extra warming clothes,  Barcelona is not normally that cold this time of the year.    The  average  temperature in  April is  19,1 degree C -  the average the past week  was 16 degree C  -  3  degrees colder than normal.     Another example that would support what I wrote about in the starting thread  to be ignored by the global warming adherents as a localized  issue not affecting the global picture.    There seems to be holes in the global picture ignored by the scientists so often regarded as 100% correct in their findings,  ,              .     

Mike’s  position is not contradictory it’s retaliatory. Polar Bears, reversal of the Gulf stream, the Australian Bush fires, the California drought, a toppling ice berg, any retreat in a glacier, any new record high is immediately seized on and followed by a raft of claims about global warming. 

Pointing out that we are still seeing record cold events is not suggesting anything about climate change ....but it is undermining the happy clappy single event narrative the warmers seize on to promote their thesis.

The mote Anger, is your eye.

Mozart

The summer temperature in SA was degrees  lower than the normal years and there were  remarks on that on site as well.    But that was also regarded was not of global interest as it was refined to three to five  countries in Southern Africa. 

I also checked about various cities in other countries and found that in 1997  Berlin had exceptionally high temperatures and  the crescendo about global warming peaked in Germany, and  in fact whole of Europe.   Since then  the temperature dropped to the much more average levels and is now what it has been for more than 50 years with a minimal increase. in that period.

You refer to the Australian bush fires  being  made out  as a result of global warming.    It had zero to do with  global warming  and everything to do with total neglect of undergrowth control in forested  areas as well as extensive arsonist activity,   The shame happened  in the forest areas  in California last year,    By the way I am surprised on the absence of global warming claims iro of the fires that caused panic in Cape Town last week.                

It may seem so to you - but knowing the routine response in other similar cases - I would not have bothered to  start the thread at all.   I started it because of the fact that there were similar cases  in other countries as well and for me represent a weird series of circumstances ignored  by global warming adherents.   The response was exactly what was said in  the recent ice storms in a vast area in the USA.    

Routine response?. What you posted is at extremely routine argument against man made climate change that's been around for decades, it was nonsense then and easily rebutted when it was first suggested and its still nonsense and easily rebutted now.

Absolutely I acknowledge if you go around the world you will find numerous examples of unusually cold weather events in various location at various points of a year. But on the other hand I can also find numerous examples of unusually hot weather in various locations at various points of the year. But that doesn't prove global warming is occurring. Just like that ice storm over a vast area of the USA it would only give you an indication of the temperatures over a tiny percentage over the worlds surface and for a limited time period. What does prove the plant is warming is temperature measurements taking multiple times a day every day of the year via thousands if not tens of thousands of temperature measuring devices across the globe both on sea and on land. These readings include temperature readingsfor  all the unusually cold weather events you are referring too. Therefore those unusually cold temperature events are not being ignored by climate adherents.

Neither yourself or Moz refute that the plant is warming. You just believe its naturally occurring and not significant enough to be an issue. But again if you acknowledge the planet is warming regardless of cause don't you see that position directly contradicts the position that limited regional cold weather events is evidence the planet is not warming.

Here's the unpleasant truth. You and Moz are merely parroting a long discredited climate change denial argument without thinking about. When I challenged you why global temperature reading indicated the planet is warming, you agreed the planet is warming which you didn't realize contradicted your original position that unusually cold weather events is evidence that climate change isn't occurring.  That is unless you can explain to why its evidence that man made climate warming isn't occurring but at the same times its not evidence that natural climate warming isn't occurring which so far you have avoiding doing so.

You two seem psychologically incapable of admitting a mistake here. You keep trying to flee and take refugee in another discussion point. That way you never have to apply skepticism to your own reasoning, you just reserve it for other people. Self-correction of erroneous beliefs is a hallmark of a skeptic, but you're not skeptics, your more like fully payed up  members in the cult of climate change denial. I'm not asking you guys to accept climate change. I'm asking you to acknowledge that just one of the reasons you hold the position that climate change is not occurring does not hold water. To take one step to being fair and impartial and say "you know what now that I think about it, that position I've held in the past doesn't make much sense, I'm going to stop using it in future arguments because I want to be honest and balanced."

Stav

The examples quoted by  the globalists are all local observations on issues  of man-made  global warming - eg  the  Australian fires  last year is allowable as proof of global warming - but anybody using similar examples it is not allowed to use local circumstances pointing in a different direction it is not allowed.

Sure humans were to blame for the Australian fires - lack of control over undergrowth in forests are also  a human cause and  arsonists are also human,    

The claim that global cycles in heating  and cooling  have  been in existence  for millions of years as it is  now claim by scientists in resect of the present cycle is crazy.    Humans have not created the cycles and humans cannot create those at present/    What you fail to state is that  I claim that the present cycle allows for a slow increase in global temperatures - that has nothing to do with humans creating or causing it.

Humans are crazy things - eg the development of viruses in laboratories  like happened in the Covid 19 case  that has the potential to wipe out the humans themselves - but to claim that they can change the climate of the world is a pipedream..   

Warming slightly. The planet is never at rest, it is warming or cooling. The fact is the planet has been warming 50% of the time for the last million years. This little bit of carbon in the atmosphere has changed the greenhouse effect insignificantly . Relax, enjoy the summer....let’s hope it’s a warm one!

Well it’s starts with man made CO2 being equivalent to 1/100 of the Greenhouse Effect....will this change everything? Only if your models assume that a tiny trigger sets off a chain  reaction of events. Only if the climate has hair trigger responses. Nothing in our history suggests it does....that only exists in the minds of modelers trying to get their next grant.

 I built big empirical models for my PhD they are incredibly sensitive to assumptions. So you need scrupulous honesty in the inputs. That’s not the ‘truth’ the world wants to hear right now. Anybody who varies from the doctrine is a ‘Denier’.., Spanish Inquisition language,

Moz still dodging the contradiction and moving on to another long debunked classic of the arm chair climate change skeptic, that human made CO2 is so tiny it can't have any significant effect.

Man made CO2 emissions are indeed quite small compared to natural sources of CO2 emissions. The natural carbon cycle absorbs as much CO2 as emits. In affect the natural cycle of carbon absorption and emissions balance each other out. The natural cycle  also absorbs about 40% of man made emissions but can't absorb the remaining 60%, and this man made carbon is throwing the natural cycle out of balance. While the addition of man made carbon is small it is a cumulative addition and just keeps building up year after. An CO2 increase of 100ppm  would normally take 5,000 to 20,000 years to occur, but the recent CO2 increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

" I built big empirical models for my PhD they are incredibly sensitive to assumptions. So you need scrupulous honesty in the inputs. That’s not the ‘truth’ the world wants to hear right now. Anybody who varies from the doctrine is a ‘Denier’.., Spanish Inquisition language,"

This is just rubbish. On one hand an appeal to an authority by someone who uses arguments that even a young child could pokes holes in and also an appeal to victim hood. Pathetic stuff.