|
Post by Ratty on May 30, 2017 22:41:19 GMT
cost nearly june and the other half put the heating on ?? ffs I said just put a jumper on 13-15deg c all day ? That's our normal April daytime high. We are 30 C today ... 15-20 sounds good. Unprecedented? PS: A town near us got down to 2.7C this morning. Brrrr .......
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 30, 2017 23:08:16 GMT
That's our normal April daytime high. We are 30 C today ... 15-20 sounds good. Unprecedented? PS: A town near us got down to 2.7C this morning. Brrrr ....... Not really. These things come and go around here. But -2.7C in Queensland? Perfect one day and ... what was the rest of that? It is still fall right??? Looks like Antarctica is out to get ya! earth.nullschool.net/#2017/05/30/1500Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-249.00,-56.76,353/loc=-49.147,-25.551
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 31, 2017 0:27:00 GMT
2.7C, not -2.7C Missouri, but our national capital Canberra was -3C yesterday morning. With all the pollies and bureaucrats down there, it soon warms up .....
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 31, 2017 2:11:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 31, 2017 8:12:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 31, 2017 16:40:10 GMT
Is Oz going to become a ski destination in the new climate?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 31, 2017 23:56:23 GMT
[Snip ] Is Oz going to become a ski destination in the new climate? We already are. Thredbo, Perisher, Mt Bulla, Hotham ....
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 1, 2017 3:53:24 GMT
[Snip ] Is Oz going to become a ski destination in the new climate? We already are. Thredbo, Perisher, Mt Bulla, Hotham .... Hotham? ?? Squealing pigs on a slope??? But Perisher sounds challenging.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jun 1, 2017 4:10:49 GMT
Its flat everyone knows its flat in Aust.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Jun 1, 2017 4:59:40 GMT
Actually Nonentropic, the South-Eastern corner of Oz, particularly Victoria and Tasmania, is quite mountainous.
The mountains are pretty thoroughly ground down apart from The Grampians, but that makes them quite dangerous despite not being that high [max about 2000 metres]. Storms have a habit of producing high winds, wet snow and thick mist. Easy to get really wet, cold and lost. Moreover, the slopes get much steeper for a while on descending and tend to end in nearly impenetrable scrub and forest.
For safety, you have to walk up-hill.
Anyhow, it looks like there is going to be a pretty impressive cold snap next week. Methinks the ski season will be off to a good start!
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jun 1, 2017 5:12:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jun 1, 2017 23:25:27 GMT
Someone should start comparing the costs of these 'fits' of global cooling with the costs of warming. I was down in Mississippi and western Tennessee for 3 days. Beat the remnants of Valerie on my way down ... but the energy released by that cold front darn near blew Memphis away. The locals were tagging it as the 3rd worst storm in terms of power outages. Sustained winds of 65 mph and gusts over 80. They were counting lighting strikes and had reached 1500 in one cell I was watching. That line of storms was moving through at 60 mph and the rain was blowing sideways. Same thing in Columbia I was told. And again, we are well above normal on precip for the month. Interestingly, the NWS shows Memphis as 1.4 F BELOW the May normal this year. These transitions seem to be characterized by large variances in the day-to-day weather. The costs of global cooling compared to global warming is no comparison really. It is far more cost-effective to have prepared for the weather of global cooling than the weather of global warming, which is good for the Earth. What every nation will discover in the near future, as the first phase of global cooling is underway (2017-2029) is that preparation will be made more expensive for global cooling simply because of the 25-year waste of time and resources on the propaganda of man-made global warming.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jun 2, 2017 5:01:44 GMT
What you need to know about the science of climate changewww.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-science-what-you-need-to-know/THE CONSENSUS IS CLEAR
Human activities are influencing and changing the climate in ways that humanity has never experienced before, and these changes pose clear risks to humans and nature. Choose your source — the U.S. Department of Defense; the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report, and its more than 400 contributing authors; the World Meteorological Organization; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); the American Geophysical Union (AGU); the 97% of climate scientists who agree; or the thousands of scientists who have published their findings in peer-reviewed scholarly journals. .... and all basing their utterings on the same flawed science?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 2, 2017 6:35:45 GMT
What you need to know about the science of climate changewww.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-science-what-you-need-to-know/THE CONSENSUS IS CLEAR
Human activities are influencing and changing the climate in ways that humanity has never experienced before, and these changes pose clear risks to humans and nature. Choose your source — the U.S. Department of Defense; the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report, and its more than 400 contributing authors; the World Meteorological Organization; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); the American Geophysical Union (AGU); the 97% of climate scientists who agree; or the thousands of scientists who have published their findings in peer-reviewed scholarly journals. They may (or not) get a hitch in their gittyup here shortly. And if they do, I'm sure they'll all saunter up to the microphone and apologize right? Refund checks might be appropriate as well in some cases. Not for being wrong, but for being arrogantly political a-holes.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 2, 2017 14:41:41 GMT
They may (or not) get a hitch in their gittyup here shortly. And if they do, I'm sure they'll all saunter up to the microphone and apologize right? Refund checks might be appropriate as well in some cases. Not for being wrong, but for being arrogantly political a-holes. I do have issues with the 97% as I think that claim is bunk, references are fairly easy to find refuting, but some of the others I'm not so sure. Every single one of them boils down to one assumption ... that human generated CO2 output will cause catastrophic (significant, detrimental) temperature changes (termed climate change for maximum effect). Without that assumption, none of those dogs will hunt. Before expending huge quantities of society's scarce resources, I think that we should demand that the underlying assumption should be fully scientifically vetted (beyond a reasonable doubt). The CAGWers claim that the science is settled ... but, what odds would you give on that one given what you've read? How is this different than investing with Bernie Madoff?
|
|