Skip to content Skip to main navigation

‘Snow big deal until I actually see it!

Marcus Paul 10 July 2015 43

stock-snow-traffic-cars

It’s been more than a decade since Canberra’s last decent snowfall. But while experts say there’s a good chance of snow this weekend, Marcus Paul isn’t holding his breath.

May 28 back in the year 2000. This, apparently, was the last time Canberrans got a little snow crazy.

Yeah, we’ve been excited by the prospect of some local natural snowfalls most winters… and I swear I’ve been sleeted on more than once in Civic, but they tell me this time, it’s the real deal. Perhaps not the 10cm real deal of powdery white snow our suburbs saw back in 2000 – but it could go close.

My mates at Weatherzone tell me it will feel something like minus five on Sunday – all courtesy of this so called Antarctic ‘vortex’ they’re talking about. Some forecasters have even said our weather might be ‘feral’ in the latter part of the weekend. Feral? What is this meant to mean? Is this some new meteorological term for maybe it might snow, but then again it may not?

I am a little tired of being teased. Each winter I make the trip into the Brindy’s to see how Corin Forest is shaping up. Most often it resembles a winter wonderland of both natural and man-made snow, with kids and oldies alike squealing with delight.

However, it seems someone at Perisher Resort discovered this secret, decided to form a partnership and whack us all with a charge to pay. Bad form in my view, but it probably has something to do with grand plans to build this once free winter tourist spot into something much more, with new snow machines and possibly even some ski areas. I guess they need to pay for it all somehow – and selling hot soup and coffees in the cafe on site just wasn’t cutting it. I do love the open fire place though.

So. Whoever you weather gods might be, please don’t let me down (again). Pay attention … they are now even putting up lots of colourful pictures and graphs of exactly how much snow is expected to fall from this so called Arctic gift!

5cm would be more than adequate. I just don’t want to freeze my butt off without some kind of pay off! As the song says … let it snow.

Marcus Paul is the host of Canberra Live 3pm weekdays on 2CC.

 


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
43 Responses to
‘Snow big deal until I actually see it!
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
rubaiyat 7:33 am 16 Jul 15

The fossil fuel companies that are behind the massive misinformation campaign that seems to work very effectively on the elderly and impressionable, are doing more than just damaging the environment and insulting our intelligence:

According to an article in today’s Canberra Times:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/energy-giants-called-to-explain-billions-in-tax-havens-20150715-gid1wj.html

Chevron which is exploiting the North West Shelf gas deposits reportedly had operating income of $3.2 billion last year, paid no tax and instead claimed a $5.7 million refund from the ATO.

The company is also in a long running court battle with the Australian Taxation Office over $322 million in unpaid taxes in Australia between 2004 and 2008.

Interesting that the Abbott government has savaged the Tax Department with the worst cuts in 100 years.

The claims by the Liberals of a massive deficit that must be fixed at all costs and the crippling of the very agency that could most do that are a fascinating revelation of their real agenda and who they are really working for. Hint: It is not us ordinary Australian taxpayers.

Maya123 9:36 am 15 Jul 15

dungfungus said :

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

“The absolute arrogance and hubris of those who continue to deny climate change amaze me.”
And what qualifies you to pass judgement on those who don’t agree with you?

It’s not that they don’t agree with me. I really don’t care if people don’t agree with me as I am not an expert in this area so really I am not qualified to make a judgement. All I can do is look at what the experts know. I am humble enough to accept that.

Anyone who thinks they know better than the worlds experts in the field because they read a couple of internet pages is displaying pure arrogance. That is not a judgement, it is a fact.

Well, it’s usually the impressionable and gullible warmists who get all their encouragement from reading a few internet pages so they are the arrogant ones.
It’s easier to agree with a climate industry spokesperson than seek out and read some reports that were compiled by independent researchers who were the “experts” in their day many years ago.
The other point I should make is that I believe what I see with my own eyes and so far, I have not seen any evidence of the dire predictions being made by the climate change alarmists.
One does not need to be an “expert” to back their own judgement you know.

If I was using my own unscientific evidence, and to use your words, “to back their own judgement you know”, I would give the evidence of that for the first few winters in my previous house, many mornings I would have to scrape ice off the inside of the window to look out. In later years this stopped happening, indicating that conditions had warmed up. But I would rather leave it to peer reviewed research, than this though, although perhaps I could call in some past tenants to back this ice inside windows happening up.

dungfungus 9:50 pm 14 Jul 15

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

“The absolute arrogance and hubris of those who continue to deny climate change amaze me.”
And what qualifies you to pass judgement on those who don’t agree with you?

It’s not that they don’t agree with me. I really don’t care if people don’t agree with me as I am not an expert in this area so really I am not qualified to make a judgement. All I can do is look at what the experts know. I am humble enough to accept that.

Anyone who thinks they know better than the worlds experts in the field because they read a couple of internet pages is displaying pure arrogance. That is not a judgement, it is a fact.

Well, it’s usually the impressionable and gullible warmists who get all their encouragement from reading a few internet pages so they are the arrogant ones.
It’s easier to agree with a climate industry spokesperson than seek out and read some reports that were compiled by independent researchers who were the “experts” in their day many years ago.
The other point I should make is that I believe what I see with my own eyes and so far, I have not seen any evidence of the dire predictions being made by the climate change alarmists.
One does not need to be an “expert” to back their own judgement you know.

chewy14 7:55 pm 14 Jul 15

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

“The absolute arrogance and hubris of those who continue to deny climate change amaze me.”
And what qualifies you to pass judgement on those who don’t agree with you?

It’s not that they don’t agree with me. I really don’t care if people don’t agree with me as I am not an expert in this area so really I am not qualified to make a judgement. All I can do is look at what the experts know. I am humble enough to accept that.

Anyone who thinks they know better than the worlds experts in the field because they read a couple of internet pages is displaying pure arrogance. That is not a judgement, it is a fact.

I’ve found that the experts in this field are much more realistic about the limitations of their work than a lot of people who do have an almost religious belief in climate change and the damage it will do.
The scientists explain their observations through hypothesis and theory and then test them against predictions. They give ranges for effects, probabilities about those effects and actions we could take to ameliorate those effects.

It should be a simple risk management exercise based on costs and benefits from potential actions.Unfortunately we have too many people on both sides who either want to deny the effects or want to exaggerate them. Support or denial on climate change has become a political article of faith for far too many people.

No_Nose 4:41 pm 14 Jul 15

dungfungus said :

“The absolute arrogance and hubris of those who continue to deny climate change amaze me.”
And what qualifies you to pass judgement on those who don’t agree with you?

It’s not that they don’t agree with me. I really don’t care if people don’t agree with me as I am not an expert in this area so really I am not qualified to make a judgement. All I can do is look at what the experts know. I am humble enough to accept that.

Anyone who thinks they know better than the worlds experts in the field because they read a couple of internet pages is displaying pure arrogance. That is not a judgement, it is a fact.

dungfungus 3:46 pm 14 Jul 15

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

When the leader of the Catholic Church (aka The Pope) believes in climate change you know it is a crock.

The absolute arrogance and hubris of those who continue to deny climate change amaze me.

The vast majority of the worlds climate experts have shown it to be true time and time again, there is mountains of verifiable statistical evidence proving it is occurring and yet they sit there and go ‘I needed a jumper today so therefore all the experts are wrong and I am right.’

It annoys me when it is called a ‘debate’. The word debate implies two arguements of roughly equal validity. That is not even close to the case here. The two sides are nowhere near equal. One is based on science, observation, measurement and fact and comprises of around 95% of the worlds experts the field. The other side is based on anecdotes and faulty and discredited science.

It like saying that there is a debate that smoking increase the risk of lung cancer. There might be two sides, but it is not a ‘debate’. One side is clearly wrong.

“The absolute arrogance and hubris of those who continue to deny climate change amaze me.”
And what qualifies you to pass judgement on those who don’t agree with you?

dungfungus 3:42 pm 14 Jul 15

rosscoact said :

Acton said :

OMG.
Once when the high priests and clergy had their faith challenged they accused the heretics of being in league with the Devil. Woe betide any who questioned their beliefs or offered an alternative prophecy.
The sinners and unbelievers were responsible for all natural disasters and would suffer eternal damnation unless they bowed down and obeyed the edicts of the priests, being the sole guardians of the truth. Over time the church and its priests got richer.
Today the high priests and their followers zealously protect their lucrative new creed of human global warming and accuse the (‘senior’) heretics of being in league with worst devils of the 21st century they can imagine or invoke – Alan Jones and Rupert Murdoch!
Awesome.
Verily I say brethren, hell hath no fury like a climate scientist scorned.
ROFLMseniorAO.

Yes, you are talking about beliefs. Beliefs are what should be questioned. The people who have beliefs cannot be dissuaded from those beliefs no matter how much evidence is produced.

Science is not about beliefs. Science is about thinking of why things are as they are, postulating theories about this, and then set about to learn whether that the theory is correct or incorrect.

This is why churches have beliefs, haters have beliefs, deniers have beliefs but scientists don’t. But you won’t believe this as it goes against your beliefs.

The “science” about climate change is all theory. It is fraudulent to call it science. It also falls into the “belief” category.
Science is where a physical demonstration can be performed like in the science laboratory in our school days.
Projecting an outcome by computer modelling is like predicting the winner of next year’s Melbourne Cup.

dungfungus 3:37 pm 14 Jul 15

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

When the leader of the Catholic Church (aka The Pope) believes in climate change you know it is a crock.

The absolute arrogance and hubris of those who continue to deny climate change amaze me.

The vast majority of the worlds climate experts have shown it to be true time and time again, there is mountains of verifiable statistical evidence proving it is occurring and yet they sit there and go ‘I needed a jumper today so therefore all the experts are wrong and I am right.’

It annoys me when it is called a ‘debate’. The word debate implies two arguements of roughly equal validity. That is not even close to the case here. The two sides are nowhere near equal. One is based on science, observation, measurement and fact and comprises of around 95% of the worlds experts the field. The other side is based on anecdotes and faulty and discredited science.

It like saying that there is a debate that smoking increase the risk of lung cancer. There might be two sides, but it is not a ‘debate’. One side is clearly wrong.

” One is based on science, observation, measurement and fact and comprises of around 95% of the worlds experts the field.”
My take that there is no danger from the contemporary version of climate change comes from reference books written by physical geographers (no “climate scientists” then) some 105 years ago. These people conducted field surveys over 50 year time spans and their findings explained normal variances in most of the areas that the current scientists are panicking about.
I repeat, field surveys – no computer modelling.
I suggest you read Physical Geography by William Morris Davis, Professor of Physical Geography in Harvard University.

rubaiyat 12:26 pm 14 Jul 15

rosscoact said :

Acton said :

OMG.
Once when the high priests and clergy had their faith challenged they accused the heretics of being in league with the Devil. Woe betide any who questioned their beliefs or offered an alternative prophecy.
The sinners and unbelievers were responsible for all natural disasters and would suffer eternal damnation unless they bowed down and obeyed the edicts of the priests, being the sole guardians of the truth. Over time the church and its priests got richer.
Today the high priests and their followers zealously protect their lucrative new creed of human global warming and accuse the (‘senior’) heretics of being in league with worst devils of the 21st century they can imagine or invoke – Alan Jones and Rupert Murdoch!
Awesome.
Verily I say brethren, hell hath no fury like a climate scientist scorned.
ROFLMseniorAO.

Yes, you are talking about beliefs. Beliefs are what should be questioned. The people who have beliefs cannot be dissuaded from those beliefs no matter how much evidence is produced.

Science is not about beliefs. Science is about thinking of why things are as they are, postulating theories about this, and then set about to learn whether that the theory is correct or incorrect.

This is why churches have beliefs, haters have beliefs, deniers have beliefs but scientists don’t. But you won’t believe this as it goes against your beliefs.

Scientists do have beliefs, but they check and question them.

And if they don’t someone else will, who in turn will have their statements checked and verified.

We are currently in the hands of fools who simply drive or cycle past something and say “I don’t like these! Silence everyone involved and send them to internment camps, then silence anyone who tries and talks about what we are doing”.

No_Nose 12:04 pm 14 Jul 15

dungfungus said :

When the leader of the Catholic Church (aka The Pope) believes in climate change you know it is a crock.

The absolute arrogance and hubris of those who continue to deny climate change amaze me.

The vast majority of the worlds climate experts have shown it to be true time and time again, there is mountains of verifiable statistical evidence proving it is occurring and yet they sit there and go ‘I needed a jumper today so therefore all the experts are wrong and I am right.’

It annoys me when it is called a ‘debate’. The word debate implies two arguements of roughly equal validity. That is not even close to the case here. The two sides are nowhere near equal. One is based on science, observation, measurement and fact and comprises of around 95% of the worlds experts the field. The other side is based on anecdotes and faulty and discredited science.

It like saying that there is a debate that smoking increase the risk of lung cancer. There might be two sides, but it is not a ‘debate’. One side is clearly wrong.

rosscoact 11:40 am 14 Jul 15

Acton said :

OMG.
Once when the high priests and clergy had their faith challenged they accused the heretics of being in league with the Devil. Woe betide any who questioned their beliefs or offered an alternative prophecy.
The sinners and unbelievers were responsible for all natural disasters and would suffer eternal damnation unless they bowed down and obeyed the edicts of the priests, being the sole guardians of the truth. Over time the church and its priests got richer.
Today the high priests and their followers zealously protect their lucrative new creed of human global warming and accuse the (‘senior’) heretics of being in league with worst devils of the 21st century they can imagine or invoke – Alan Jones and Rupert Murdoch!
Awesome.
Verily I say brethren, hell hath no fury like a climate scientist scorned.
ROFLMseniorAO.

Yes, you are talking about beliefs. Beliefs are what should be questioned. The people who have beliefs cannot be dissuaded from those beliefs no matter how much evidence is produced.

Science is not about beliefs. Science is about thinking of why things are as they are, postulating theories about this, and then set about to learn whether that the theory is correct or incorrect.

This is why churches have beliefs, haters have beliefs, deniers have beliefs but scientists don’t. But you won’t believe this as it goes against your beliefs.

dungfungus 11:05 am 14 Jul 15

Acton said :

OMG.
Once when the high priests and clergy had their faith challenged they accused the heretics of being in league with the Devil. Woe betide any who questioned their beliefs or offered an alternative prophecy.
The sinners and unbelievers were responsible for all natural disasters and would suffer eternal damnation unless they bowed down and obeyed the edicts of the priests, being the sole guardians of the truth. Over time the church and its priests got richer.
Today the high priests and their followers zealously protect their lucrative new creed of human global warming and accuse the (‘senior’) heretics of being in league with worst devils of the 21st century they can imagine or invoke – Alan Jones and Rupert Murdoch!
Awesome.
Verily I say brethren, hell hath no fury like a climate scientist scorned.
ROFLMseniorAO.

When the leader of the Catholic Church (aka The Pope) believes in climate change you know it is a crock.

Acton 10:30 am 14 Jul 15

OMG.
Once when the high priests and clergy had their faith challenged they accused the heretics of being in league with the Devil. Woe betide any who questioned their beliefs or offered an alternative prophecy.
The sinners and unbelievers were responsible for all natural disasters and would suffer eternal damnation unless they bowed down and obeyed the edicts of the priests, being the sole guardians of the truth. Over time the church and its priests got richer.
Today the high priests and their followers zealously protect their lucrative new creed of human global warming and accuse the (‘senior’) heretics of being in league with worst devils of the 21st century they can imagine or invoke – Alan Jones and Rupert Murdoch!
Awesome.
Verily I say brethren, hell hath no fury like a climate scientist scorned.
ROFLMseniorAO.

rubaiyat 8:37 pm 13 Jul 15

chewy14 said :

Are you really trying to compare climate science with casino odds, tide charts or actuarial studies?

I personally believe that we should act on climate change from a risk management perspective, but the idea that the science behind it is anywhere near as firm as those other examples is completely wrong.

Yes, they are all based on long term study and statistics. In the case of Climate Studies, almost 160 years of direct measurement combined with thousands, even millions of years of indirect measurements.

It is exasperating beyond belief to have to argue what it all means with people who have so little clue they are even holding the document upside down (weather v climate). Or believe any charlatan who tells them what they like to hear.

This is the child’s view of the world where you are the absolute centre of the universe. What you ‘feel’ is all that counts. You feel hot everyone is hot, you feel cold everyone is cold. You don’t like what the thermometer says, smash it!

We live in a country where our leaders are a standing joke, on both sides of the fence. One more so than the other, more concerned with their crazy prejudices and vengeance than managing for the future.

Heaven help us if this is the best we can do.

chewy14 4:13 pm 13 Jul 15

rubaiyat said :

Acton said :

With all their ready and factual data, if meterorologists can’t get their weather forecast right for the weekend, how can we trust climate scientists to get their predictions of future global warming right?

It is the same deal as casinos can’t pick individual winners or losers, but given enough time and samples they can build their business on they win and the thousands who pass through their doors collectively lose.

Or despite the constant ups and downs of waves, ships captains bring their ships safely into port based on tide tables.

Or Insurance companies don’t know when you will die but when the population as a whole will meet their maker.

Despite these principals are easy enough, you don’t seem unable to work out the differences, and jump at the only (usually misquoted or misinterpreted) example that agrees with your prejudices and therefore is “true” whilst the thousands upon thousands of double and triple checked research results are all “faked”.

btw You do know that that article, from the usual ignorant reporters, talks about a supposed 60% reduction in solar flares which has little to no relationship to Solar radiation on the Earth. If it did all life on Earth would be totally doomed, not start an Ice Age.

Are you really trying to compare climate science with casino odds, tide charts or actuarial studies?

I personally believe that we should act on climate change from a risk management perspective, but the idea that the science behind it is anywhere near as firm as those other examples is completely wrong.

John Moulis 3:43 pm 13 Jul 15

I walked up Mt Taylor yesterday (Sunday) and there was quite a bit of snow on the Brindabellas. I went up again this morning with the GoPro on headstrap so I could film it, expecting more snow and it was nearly all gone. It must have melted overnight. Very disappointing indeed.

dungfungus 2:31 pm 13 Jul 15

dungfungus said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Well, that was a big disappointment. Temperatures didn’t even get below 0 for the weekend, no white stuff on the Brindabellas and what happened to the expected 90km/h winds? All the hype about a “winter vortex” fizzled into a spring thunderstorm for Canberra and actually warmed up the place in comparison to the last few weeks.
I agree, if they can’t even go close to predicting an event like this, how can they see hundreds of years into the future and say with any certainty what the air temperature is going to be?

You must be looking at a different range of mountains as Mt Franklin had the most extensive covering of snow I have seen for many years when I checked it yesterday.
I am going to walk up Mt Wanniassa this morning and I’ll take a photo and if I can work out how to post it, I will.
There was more snow last night and it can still be seen on the hills near Burra.

The snow on Mt Franklin was gone by the time I got to take the photo – should have done it yesterday.

Jardeath 1:44 pm 13 Jul 15

rosscoact said :

It snowed on Saturday night in Gungahlin. There was a not thick but certainly a white fluffy covering on my roof.

Didn’t get any of that here, just plenty of hail that night.

Holden Caulfield 12:35 pm 13 Jul 15

I could see snow on what I guess would be the Cuumbuen Nature Reserve, behind Queanbeyan, on my to work this morning.

https://goo.gl/maps/tYAyr

dungfungus 12:03 pm 13 Jul 15

rubaiyat said :

Alan Jones, that noblest of all men, the man who has never taken “Cash for Comments”!

He sincerely believes everything he says on behalf of his clients, no matter how much they pay him.

But he has to submit an income tax return.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site