Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Coldest morning of the year

By Jivrashia 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.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
36 Responses to
Coldest morning of the year
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Maya123 1:52 pm 06 Aug 14

dungfungus said :

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.

I am analysing your claim about a reduction in ice on the inside of your windows.
I remember this phenomenon when I lived in older homes with very thin window glass (like guvy duplexes in Canberra).
The glass, being so thin, would always be the same temperature ar outside air and humid air inside the house would condense and run down the inside of the glass. If it was below cold enough for frost outside the water on the glass inside would indeed turn to ice. If it was raining outside the air temperature would not be cold enough to form ice.
I recall we fixed this inconvenience by replacing the sheets we were using for privacy with medium density curtains and at the same time we fitted exhaust fans in the kitchen, laundry and bathroom.
While you say you were in the same house when ice stopped forming there must have been something else that changed to reduce the humidity or prevent it from condensing on the inside of the windows.
There are plenty of “protected” areas of frost that are permanent in the current cold weather conditions where I live.
I can understand that it may be easier to accept the climate change theory but you are wrong this time.

No, it was the same glass the whole time, the same curtains. The ceiling had a thin layer of insulation that was there when I bought the house, and no more was added. A cold Narrabundah fibro house. Fortunately I have a warm house now, and I haven’t needed a heater for about a fortnight now, and rarely before that. At present it’s 22C inside.
My claim was anecdotal evidence, which is untested and unscientific. Anecdotal evidence can’t be relied upon.

rosscoact 1:48 pm 06 Aug 14

Canberroid said :

It’s interesting how people discuss anthropogenic climate change as if it is something to be debated rather than an ongoing phenomenon with strong scientific consensus globally. We can’t vote ACC out of office, or hope it goes away by ignoring it or complaining about our electricity bills. I just can’t understand why laypeople think they’re qualified to overrule scientific evidence simply because it inconveniences them or conflicts with their beliefs. The whole vaccines causing autism thing was another great (and horribly depressing) example.

It’s proof that beliefs are nothing to be proud of.

bronal 1:17 pm 06 Aug 14

My recollection is that when I came to Canberra in the mid 1970s, mid-winter lows of between -5 and
-8 were not uncommon. I thought the microclimate created by the lakes and the expansion of Canberra had led to ‘milder’ overnight lows. So this week’s lows have been somewhat of a shock.

Canberroid 1:09 pm 06 Aug 14

dungfungus said :

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.

It’s interesting how people discuss anthropogenic climate change as if it is something to be debated rather than an ongoing phenomenon with strong scientific consensus globally. We can’t vote ACC out of office, or hope it goes away by ignoring it or complaining about our electricity bills. I just can’t understand why laypeople think they’re qualified to overrule scientific evidence simply because it inconveniences them or conflicts with their beliefs. The whole vaccines causing autism thing was another great (and horribly depressing) example.

Proboscus 1:04 pm 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.

Sounds like you finally bought a heater? Welcome to the 21st century

dungfungus 1:02 pm 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.

I am analysing your claim about a reduction in ice on the inside of your windows.
I remember this phenomenon when I lived in older homes with very thin window glass (like guvy duplexes in Canberra).
The glass, being so thin, would always be the same temperature ar outside air and humid air inside the house would condense and run down the inside of the glass. If it was below cold enough for frost outside the water on the glass inside would indeed turn to ice. If it was raining outside the air temperature would not be cold enough to form ice.
I recall we fixed this inconvenience by replacing the sheets we were using for privacy with medium density curtains and at the same time we fitted exhaust fans in the kitchen, laundry and bathroom.
While you say you were in the same house when ice stopped forming there must have been something else that changed to reduce the humidity or prevent it from condensing on the inside of the windows.
There are plenty of “protected” areas of frost that are permanent in the current cold weather conditions where I live.
I can understand that it may be easier to accept the climate change theory but you are wrong this time.

dungfungus 11:47 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.

Maya123 11:14 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.

dungfungus 9:39 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.

bigfeet 9:03 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?

dungfungus 7:19 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?

bundah 9:25 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…

Elf 8:00 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.

dungfungus 7:19 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?

bundah 11:22 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 🙂

dungfungus 10:29 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).

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site