Advertisement

Coldest morning of the year

By 5 May 2014 36

From ABC news on today’s freezing morning:

Temperatures dropped below freezing this morning for the first time since November, reaching minus 1.7 degrees at Canberra Airport and minus 2.6 degrees at Tuggeranong.

Forecaster Sean Carson says the last time it was this cold so early in Autumn was in 1983. He says Canberra was the colder than anywhere else in the country this morning.

Mr Carson says more freezing temperatures are expected this week.

“The cold front that swept across on the weekend did bring a dusting of snow across the Snowy Mountains,” he said.

“Looks like we will have some light frost almost every morning for the next seven days, it’s that time of year.”

Well, I’m a dedicated bicycle commuter and I almost suffered frostbite in my toes this morning.

Please login to post your comments
36 Responses to Coldest morning of the year
#1
dungfungus8:22 am, 06 May 14

Well, the coldest Autumn morning for 31 years – and it’s official – BOM on ABC no less!
I am not holding my breath waiting to hear explanations from the few climate warming alarmists left out there.

#2
Maya1238:42 am, 06 May 14

dungfungus said :

Well, the coldest Autumn morning for 31 years – and it’s official – BOM on ABC no less!
I am not holding my breath waiting to hear explanations from the few climate warming alarmists left out there.

I don’t know why anyone would bother. If you don’t understand by now, you’re unlikely to accept the science with another explanation. Some people died believing the earth was flat and circled the sun. All the evidence otherwise they refused to accept. Climate change deniers are the latest to display their ignorance of science.

#3
bundah8:59 am, 06 May 14

dungfungus said :

Well, the coldest Autumn morning for 31 years – and it’s official – BOM on ABC no less!
I am not holding my breath waiting to hear explanations from the few climate warming alarmists left out there.

If nothing else Dungers is predictable…

#4
bigfeet9:02 am, 06 May 14

dungfungus said :

Well, the coldest Autumn morning for 31 years – and it’s official – BOM on ABC no less!
I am not holding my breath waiting to hear explanations from the few climate warming alarmists left out there.

Why bother explaining? The science is there and it is unequivocal.

Science is neither ‘right-wing’ nor ‘left-wing’. It just is. And whether you choose to believe in it or not makes not one bit of difference to the data.

#5
m_ratt9:21 am, 06 May 14

Maya123 said :

Some people died believing the earth was flat and circled the sun. All the evidence otherwise they refused to accept.

Ahhhh… The earth does circle the sun…..

#6
arescarti429:25 am, 06 May 14

dungfungus said :

Well, the coldest Autumn morning for 31 years – and it’s official – BOM on ABC no less!
I am not holding my breath waiting to hear explanations from the few climate warming alarmists left out there.

FFS, learn the difference between weather and climate…

Unbelievable.

#7
dungfungus9:30 am, 06 May 14

bigfeet said :

dungfungus said :

Well, the coldest Autumn morning for 31 years – and it’s official – BOM on ABC no less!
I am not holding my breath waiting to hear explanations from the few climate warming alarmists left out there.

Why bother explaining? The science is there and it is unequivocal.

Science is neither ‘right-wing’ nor ‘left-wing’. It just is. And whether you choose to believe in it or not makes not one bit of difference to the data.

Data used in climate change alarmist theory is input only. The outcomes are totally different as evidenced by our coldest Autumn day in 31 years and no warming for the past 17 years.
I don’t know why you try and marry science to politics either – please explain this.

#8
dungfungus9:33 am, 06 May 14

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Well, the coldest Autumn morning for 31 years – and it’s official – BOM on ABC no less!
I am not holding my breath waiting to hear explanations from the few climate warming alarmists left out there.

I don’t know why anyone would bother. If you don’t understand by now, you’re unlikely to accept the science with another explanation. Some people died believing the earth was flat and circled the sun. All the evidence otherwise they refused to accept. Climate change deniers are the latest to display their ignorance of science.

Who were the people who died circling the sun while believing the earth was flat?
The “science” of climate change has yet to present any evidence of sea levels rising at catastrophic rates etc.

#9
dungfungus9:34 am, 06 May 14

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

Well, the coldest Autumn morning for 31 years – and it’s official – BOM on ABC no less!
I am not holding my breath waiting to hear explanations from the few climate warming alarmists left out there.

If nothing else Dungers is predictable…

Thanks for the compliment. Someone has to challenge the alarmists.

#10
p111:41 am, 06 May 14

dungfungus said :

…..and no warming for the past 17 years……

dungfungus said :

Someone has to challenge the alarmists.

Challenged is one word.

#11
Maya12311:46 am, 06 May 14

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Well, the coldest Autumn morning for 31 years – and it’s official – BOM on ABC no less!
I am not holding my breath waiting to hear explanations from the few climate warming alarmists left out there.

I don’t know why anyone would bother. If you don’t understand by now, you’re unlikely to accept the science with another explanation. Some people died believing the earth was flat and circled the sun. All the evidence otherwise they refused to accept. Climate change deniers are the latest to display their ignorance of science.

Who were the people who died circling the sun while believing the earth was flat?
The “science” of climate change has yet to present any evidence of sea levels rising at catastrophic rates etc.

Okay, I shouldn’t write before I have eaten breakfast. Let me reword that. ‘Some people went to their graves still believing the earth was flat and the sun circled the earth.’

#12
Jivrashia12:00 pm, 06 May 14

I thought climate change was given?

Aren’t we coming out of the last ice-age, so the globe will generally be warming, polar ice will be melting, and sea will be rising in the foreseeable future?

The debate is whether the effect of global warming is ‘normal’ or accelerated/aggravated by humans, and whether carbon tax is just a money-grabbing exercise.

Did I get that right?

—–
That frosty morning seems to have been a one-off thing.
Hopefully the worst will hold off until Queens B’day.

#13
dungfungus1:53 pm, 06 May 14

dungfungus said :

I don’t know why you try and marry science to politics either – please explain this.

Because the vast majority of idiots who deny the climate change science also tend to link it to some sort of left wing plot.

And yes I deliberately used the term idiot. Anyone who tries to deny the absolute masses of evidence is an idiot.

That is not to say that they are not entitled to their opinion. People are entitled to any opinion they like…but when that opinion flies in the face of all evidence then they are an idiot.

It would be like someone saying ” Well I’ve never been to Beijing so therefore I don’t believe it exists”. They are entitled to hold the opinion, but they are definitely an idiot for having it.

Where is the evidence that sea levels are rising?
I see you respect my opinion but you don’t respect my person.

#14
dungfungus1:55 pm, 06 May 14

p1 said :

dungfungus said :

…..and no warming for the past 17 years……

dungfungus said :

Someone has to challenge the alarmists.

Challenged is one word.

I know that; your point is?

#15
dungfungus1:58 pm, 06 May 14

Jivrashia said :

I thought climate change was given?

Aren’t we coming out of the last ice-age, so the globe will generally be warming, polar ice will be melting, and sea will be rising in the foreseeable future?

The debate is whether the effect of global warming is ‘normal’ or accelerated/aggravated by humans, and whether carbon tax is just a money-grabbing exercise.

Did I get that right?

—–
That frosty morning seems to have been a one-off thing.
Hopefully the worst will hold off until Queens B’day.

Your proposal is more plausable that the of the alarmists.
The science peddled by the climate scientists may be settled but the evidence is yet to appear.

#16
davo1019:09 am, 09 May 14

Jivrashia said :

I thought climate change was given?

Don’t recall anyone saying otherwise.

Jivrashia said :

Aren’t we coming out of the last ice-age

No. We’re currently 10~15 thousand years into the current interglacial which is part of the Quaternary glaciation Earth has experienced for the last 2.6 million years. I the natural course of things the Earth would enter another glacial period in the (geologically) near future. But, as James Hansen has pointed out, so long as there is some form of industrial society the Earth won’t go back into a glacial period; as the output of one CFC factory is enough to create enough radiative forcing to stop this from happening.

Jivrashia said :

so the globe will generally be warming, polar ice will be melting, and sea will be rising in the foreseeable future?

Correct.

#17
bigfeet5:40 pm, 09 May 14

dungfungus said :

I see you respect my opinion but you don’t respect my person.

I don’t want you to get the wrong idea here. I don’t respect your opinion in this matter at all. Not one little bit.

What I respect is your right to have that opinion.

There is a big difference.

#18
rosscoact6:18 am, 10 May 14

dungfungus said :

Jivrashia said :

I thought climate change was given?

Aren’t we coming out of the last ice-age, so the globe will generally be warming, polar ice will be melting, and sea will be rising in the foreseeable future?

The debate is whether the effect of global warming is ‘normal’ or accelerated/aggravated by humans, and whether carbon tax is just a money-grabbing exercise.

Did I get that right?

—–
That frosty morning seems to have been a one-off thing.
Hopefully the worst will hold off until Queens B’day.

Your proposal is more plausable that the of the alarmists.
The science peddled by the climate scientists may be settled but the evidence is yet to appear.

To quote Neil Degrasse Tyson “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe it”

#19
dungfungus9:20 am, 10 May 14

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

Jivrashia said :

I thought climate change was given?

Aren’t we coming out of the last ice-age, so the globe will generally be warming, polar ice will be melting, and sea will be rising in the foreseeable future?

The debate is whether the effect of global warming is ‘normal’ or accelerated/aggravated by humans, and whether carbon tax is just a money-grabbing exercise.

Did I get that right?

—–
That frosty morning seems to have been a one-off thing.
Hopefully the worst will hold off until Queens B’day.

Your proposal is more plausable that the of the alarmists.
The science peddled by the climate scientists may be settled but the evidence is yet to appear.

To quote Neil Degrasse Tyson “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe it”

To quote Dungfungus “the science on climate change may be settled but where is the evidence of the consequences claimed?”

#20
bundah4:37 pm, 10 May 14

dungfungus said :

To quote Dungfungus “the science on climate change may be settled but where is the evidence of the consequences claimed?”

This is compelling

http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/05/third-national-climate-assessment-evidence-impacts-warming-abound/

#21
dungfungus10:29 pm, 10 May 14

I have read the report on the link provided and I don’t find it compelling at all. It is just a summary of data to matched to selected projections to date (computer models of 300 “experts”) to confirm that if the projections of the same computer models actually come to fruition in the future then we are all doomed.
One point was made that global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880.
Where is the physical evidence? Photographs for example? Where are the details of the “reliable” records?
The report says further that the global sea level is projected to rise another 1 to 4 feet by 2100 (this is not consistent with the average stated rise of 15.44mm per year since 1880.
Any report that relies on predictions with such wild outcome variations should be consigned to the round file immediately.
Alternatively, the report would make a great combinations and permutations excerise for students of mathematics (without computers).

#22
bundah11:22 am, 11 May 14

dungfungus said :

I have read the report on the link provided and I don’t find it compelling at all. It is just a summary of data to matched to selected projections to date (computer models of 300 “experts”) to confirm that if the projections of the same computer models actually come to fruition in the future then we are all doomed.
One point was made that global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880.
Where is the physical evidence? Photographs for example? Where are the details of the “reliable” records?
The report says further that the global sea level is projected to rise another 1 to 4 feet by 2100 (this is not consistent with the average stated rise of 15.44mm per year since 1880.
Any report that relies on predictions with such wild outcome variations should be consigned to the round file immediately.
Alternatively, the report would make a great combinations and permutations excerise for students of mathematics (without computers).

So the non believers do not accept the evidence presented by 97% of climate scientists who say that there’s a 95% probability that humans are causing most of the global warming through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels which has and will continue to cause environmental damage.

Well they’re entitled to believe whatever they like but until they have scientifically researched the consequences and proven that 97% of scientists are barking up the wrong tree then their opinion is of no consequence :)

#23
dungfungus7:19 pm, 11 May 14

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

I have read the report on the link provided and I don’t find it compelling at all. It is just a summary of data to matched to selected projections to date (computer models of 300 “experts”) to confirm that if the projections of the same computer models actually come to fruition in the future then we are all doomed.
One point was made that global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880.
Where is the physical evidence? Photographs for example? Where are the details of the “reliable” records?
The report says further that the global sea level is projected to rise another 1 to 4 feet by 2100 (this is not consistent with the average stated rise of 15.44mm per year since 1880.
Any report that relies on predictions with such wild outcome variations should be consigned to the round file immediately.
Alternatively, the report would make a great combinations and permutations excerise for students of mathematics (without computers).

So the non believers do not accept the evidence presented by 97% of climate scientists who say that there’s a 95% probability that humans are causing most of the global warming through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels which has and will continue to cause environmental damage.

Well they’re entitled to believe whatever they like but until they have scientifically researched the consequences and proven that 97% of scientists are barking up the wrong tree then their opinion is of no consequence :)

I concede that you cannot offer any proof of global sea level rises then, so here’s a real easy question for you.
Why does the world need thousands of taxpayer funded expert “climate scientists” if they (almost) all agree with each other?

#24
Elf8:00 pm, 11 May 14

I love the climate change debate, it’s the only debate where if you want to ask questions, your told the scientists said. If a scientist themself disagree, then their labeled a maverick. I’m always worried when I’m encouraged to just believe and don’t ask questions.

#25
bundah9:25 pm, 11 May 14

dungfungus said :

I concede that you cannot offer any proof of global sea level rises then, so here’s a real easy question for you.
Why does the world need thousands of taxpayer funded expert “climate scientists” if they (almost) all agree with each other?

I’m in no position to prove anything in relation to the effects of climate change. I accept that the IPCC is the internationally accepted authority on CC and am happy to be guided by their analysis of all the scientific research.

I have nothing further to add and will accept the umpire’s decision…

#26
dungfungus7:19 am, 12 May 14

bundah said :

dungfungus said :

I concede that you cannot offer any proof of global sea level rises then, so here’s a real easy question for you.
Why does the world need thousands of taxpayer funded expert “climate scientists” if they (almost) all agree with each other?

I’m in no position to prove anything in relation to the effects of climate change. I accept that the IPCC is the internationally accepted authority on CC and am happy to be guided by their analysis of all the scientific research.

I have nothing further to add and will accept the umpire’s decision…

Well, if you are happy to be subservient to a unelected / self appointed commitee then that is your right.
I suppose if the IPCC decreed that we should all go and live in caves on mountain tops you would happily oblige?
Anyone else out there have any photographic evidence that global sea levels have risen in the past 50 years?

#27
bigfeet9:03 am, 12 May 14

dungfungus said :

bundah said :

Anyone else out there have any photographic evidence that global sea levels have risen in the past 50 years?

Well I guess someone could take a photograph of the reams of tidal stations and satellite data and send it to you. You could just look it up yourself though.

That is what you want isn’t it? Real scientific measurements, not just a few dodgy seaside holiday snaps? Because they certainly wouldn’t constitute proof (or lack of) to an educated or intelligent person. Collected data on the other hand is quite compelling evidence.

Anyway, I’ve got some photos that prove Bigfoot exists if you are interested?

#28
dungfungus9:39 am, 06 Aug 14

According to an article in today’s CT (Brrr! City’s coldest August night (Monday) in 20 years”), Canberra has endured the coldest run on nights since 1994.
Sean Carson, celebrity meteorologist from BOM said if the temperature goes below -6 on Tuesday night (last night) then this would break a 44 year record.
Well, it got to -5.7 at 5.00am this morning so that is pretty close.
How does this fit with renewed claims of global warming?
I concede that the if -8.5 was recorded on August 9, 1994 and the the mercury was -7.6 on Monday night then that indicates a rise of 0.9 over 20 years. Does that make sense?
The climate still seems the same to me today as it did 60 years ago.

#29
Maya12311:14 am, 06 Aug 14

dungfungus said :

The climate still seems the same to me today as it did 60 years ago.

Anecdotal evidence. Here’s some more; equally unscientific. Years ago I would wake up morning after morning and need to scrape the ice off the inside of the window to see out (unless it rained, and then there was no ice). The last few years of living in that same house not once did I have ice on the inside of my window, unlike years before, when the windows often had ice. I also remember frosts that remained in protected areas all day. It’s been years since I’ve seen that. On that anecdotal evidence, there’s definite proof of global warming. But personally I prefer science to anecdotal evidence. It’s more reliable.

#30
dungfungus11:47 am, 06 Aug 14

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

The climate still seems the same to me today as it did 60 years ago.

Anecdotal evidence. Here’s some more; equally unscientific. Years ago I would wake up morning after morning and need to scrape the ice off the inside of the window to see out (unless it rained, and then there was no ice). The last few years of living in that same house not once did I have ice on the inside of my window, unlike years before, when the windows often had ice. I also remember frosts that remained in protected areas all day. It’s been years since I’ve seen that. On that anecdotal evidence, there’s definite proof of global warming. But personally I prefer science to anecdotal evidence. It’s more reliable.

It seems your anecdotal evidence is more powerful than mine.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement
The-RiotACT.com Newsletter Sign Up

Images of Canberra

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.