I swear, I had nothing to do with this. Speaking tonight in Canberra, details here. Weather records for Sydney here.
From the “weather is not climate department”:
Sydney recorded its coldest June morning today since 1949, with temperatures diving to 4.3 degrees just before 6:00am (AEST).
Cold snap set to stay By Amy Simmons
Experts say it is unusual to see such widespread cold weather in June. (User submitted photo: Rick Box)
//
People across south-east Australia are complaining about unusually chilly temperatures and experts say there will be no relief from the cold until Sunday at the earliest.
From Brisbane this morning, Miss7t7 wrote on Twitter “Still in bed, so dam cold.. What’s going on Brisbane !!!!”. While in Melbourne, lexandraKR tweeted “Waiting for frostbite to set in… Sooo cold in Melbourne! Too scared to get out of bed incase I get hypothermia”.
Others are embracing the weather and urging those who are complaining to toughen up.
“I am in love with this cold weather. Melbourne reminds me of Paris at the moment. How can that be a bad thing?” wrote hannahjtoy. “Is it seriuosly newsworthy that sydney temps are in the low single digits? seriuosly? it not cold! suck it up!” FilthiAssistant tweeted.
But ABC weather specialist Graham Creed says people’s complaints are justified.
“It’s definitely quite unusual to see such widespread cold weather in June, it would be more typical in July and August,” he said.
“So people are complaining about the cold for a good reason.”
Mr Creed says most areas across the south-east are experiencing temperatures well below average.
“Last weekend a cool change moved through and that introduced some significantly colder air across most of south-east Australia,” he said.
“Quickly in behind that we had a high pressure ridge move through, producing clear skies during both the day and the night, but it’s also helping to trap that cold air in.
“The clear skies mean we are losing what little daytime heating there is and overnight temperatures are dropping into the minuses through many of those states, producing widespread frosts.
“On top of that we’ve got quite a breeze in certain areas and the air is very dry so that’s producing very low wind chill, so not only is the sun not providing much warmth, you’ve also got the assistance of the wind making it feel colder than it actually is.”
He says Queensland is in for a particularly rough few days, as widespread rainfall will see the conditions change from cold and sunny to cold, cloudy and wet.
Yesterday, an icy blast through Adelaide brought enough rain to supply the city for a month, with a hail storm capping off the exceptionally wintry day.
Yesterday was also the coldest day in Melbourne in nearly two years, with the city not reaching its maximum temperature of 10.8 degrees Celsius until 7:55pm (AEST).
If the temperature in Melbourne fails to hit its forecast maximum today, it will be the first time in 14 years the city has recorded three consecutive days of temperatures below 12 degrees.
Last night Brisbane was coldest at 9:00pm (AEST), when the mercury dropped to below 8 degrees, but experts say it will be even cooler tonight.
Sydney recorded its coldest June morning today since 1949, with temperatures diving to 4.3 degrees just before 6:00am (AEST).
more at ABC Radio
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
JP says:
July 1, 2010 at 12:02 am
Villabolo,
So, you never did respond. In fact, you are making my point. Keep chasing weather trends, and when you are finished we’ll talk climate. You won’t havde to wait 20 years to see an offset in the warming. It’s coming in the next 2-4 years.
VILLABOLO SAYS:
Since I’ve been responding to a lot of posts I lost track of what it was that you were bringing up. Please remind me.
As far as “chasing weather trends” is concerned I always try to preface statements I make with a Global tour. Then I highlight regional conditions. That way I cannot be accused of cherry picking. Cherry picking is when you fail to mention the whole Global situation.
The Northern Hemisphere Winter of 2009/2010 is a perfect example. Over and over again I keep hearing people mention that situation to the exclusion of what was happening to the other 85% of the Earth. I start by saying that only 15% of the Earth was colder than usual and then I begin to describe the other 85% that was much warmer beginning with the Arctic area and working my way southward. This way I am covering the entire Globe, or if you wish, the Climate for that one season.
I usually throw in an explanation of the Negative Arctic Oscillation situation that was responsible for that limited cold area and emphasize how that cannot be used as disproof of Global Warming.
As far as your statement “You won’t havde to wait 20 years to see an offset in the warming. It’s coming in the next 2-4 years.” is concerned, that is a big gaffe.
When it comes to basic science, trend analysis and ordinary applied intelligence you just never, ever, base a trend on two or three units of time. Whether it’s years with Climatology or days with the Stock Market it is a mistake to “jump the gun” and make predictions which are more a reflection of your desires than they are of reality.
villabolo says:
July 1, 2010 at 4:44 pm
[–snip–]As far as “chasing weather trends” is concerned I always try to preface statements I make with a Global tour. Then I highlight regional conditions. That way I cannot be accused of cherry picking. Cherry picking is when you fail to mention the whole Global situation.[–snip rest–]
You know? You’d be okay if you weren’t so ‘self-convinced’ of how right you think you are.
Allow me to ask you a question: WHY is it, do you suppose, that certain land areas —continents even— regardless of what century you’d like to discuss, are ~always~ dry, and others are less so?
@kadaka
This is another example of only one location. The reference I cited is of ~1600 towns and cities, with records collated for each year (365 days). With such a large sample pool, the chances of what you are describing are so vanishingly small as to be virtually zero. And indeed, the record bears testimony, at least for the last 8.5 years.
http://www.mherrera.org/records.htm
I was careful to point out that this would apply to large data set in previous posts. A handful of selected locales may result in the scenario you describe.
Me:
I see now that this assumption isn’t valid – your point is rather vague on parameters, kadaka. My argument still applies, though.
899 says:
July 1, 2010 at 5:27 pm
You know? You’d be okay if you weren’t so ‘self-convinced’ of how right you think you are.
Allow me to ask you a question: WHY is it, do you suppose, that certain land areas —continents even— regardless of what century you’d like to discuss, are ~always~ dry, and others are less so?
************************************************************************
VILLABOLO SAYS:
You mean YOU are not convinced of how right you are? I am 99% convinced. The other 1% is convinced that I am a butterfly dreaming that it is a human.
Also, please tell me what”self convinced” means? I assumed that no matter how much external information and human mediated objective explanations (that turn out to be right) you listen to that it is inevitably YOUR SELF that does the job of collating information, deducing its meaning and ultimately-ahhh . . .errr, I got it!-CONVINCING ONE’S SELF as to the validity of a situation.
As to your question, other than the fact that it is way off topic (and that this thread seems to be getting tired), it is IN GENERAL a valid question. Nevertheless, it is so basic to Climatology and so involved in explanation, that is not worth posting 3 pages worth of explanation.
villabolo says:
July 1, 2010 at 8:38 pm
VILLABOLO SAYS:
You mean YOU are not convinced of how right you are? I am 99% convinced. The other 1% is convinced that I am a butterfly dreaming that it is a human.
Also, please tell me what”self convinced” means? I assumed that no matter how much external information and human mediated objective explanations (that turn out to be right) you listen to that it is inevitably YOUR SELF that does the job of collating information, deducing its meaning and ultimately-ahhh . . .errr, I got it!-CONVINCING ONE’S SELF as to the validity of a situation.
As to your question, other than the fact that it is way off topic (and that this thread seems to be getting tired), it is IN GENERAL a valid question. Nevertheless, it is so basic to Climatology and so involved in explanation, that is not worth posting 3 pages worth of explanation.
[1] Self-convinced: That aspect of human minds which allows the beholder to believe anything the mind desires, even when it isn’t true.
There’s an old saying: You can’t talk someone out of what they weren’t talked into to begin with.
[2] So in other words, rather than facing the truth, you’d rather keep swallowing the patent CAGW lie. Some continents will –as a result of their locations and character– always be what they are.
Pity you can’t comprehend that.
Enneagram says:
June 30, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Try that with 212°F. Even with proper grouping, it won’t work.
The easiest form to remember (there’s an infinite number) is:
Take the temperature (°F or °C). Add 40. If going to °F, multiply by 9/5, if going to °C, multiply by 5/9. Subtract 40.
I was in country Victoria in January and early February. Only once did the temp. exceed 40C during that time (unlike last year) and I had to wrap up in a warm top on quite a few mornings and use a blanket at night. There were only a few nights when I needed a fan to keep cool; it wasn’t on for long. I am a person who feels the heat too. I wasn’t up in the mountains either.
Henry@Stephen Fisher (repeat)
We must come up with a reasonable explanation (mechanism) for global warming and global cooling. We already know the simple equation of the sun’s energy coming to earth. I am sure that one day when we look back at this we will laugh at the simple truth that is staring us in the face.
Just to come back on this: If you consider the magnetic field of the sun – which seems to be fluctuating (depending on an active or inactive sun) – how does this affect the magnetic field of earth? Is there not some inference? (is that the right word for the cancelation of magnetism, like in waves?) ) There are indeed some metal and other ions in rainwater (clouds), I remember measuring this a long time ago. Your explanation does not work because I think the observation was that during global cooling the clouds (from both SH and NH) seem to be moving more towards the equator as opposed to moving to the poles, thereby covering more square area of earth with clouds then if they were moving more towards the poles. This (i.e. the clouds’ moving more prominently to the equator) would undoubtedly lead to a higher albedo (of earth) because of the fact that a higher square area of earth is covered by those clouds (deflecting light).