Ottawa Blizzard Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120131/OTT-freezing-rain-Ottawa-winter-snow-environment-Canada-warning-120131/20120131/?Seriously, what a ridiculous article this is. Talk about amnesia. What about the winters of 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. This is all hyped up nonsense in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smith Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I can remember similar talk about the end of winter around 1992, following a string of rather easy winters. I'm pretty sure that these were retracted some time around Feb 1993. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Organizing Low Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 what a ridiculous article. ottawa is locked into a winter pattern for the past 6 weeks, and its a mid winter scene.....i know i was just there a few days ago. sure there has been less snow than normal but lots of freezing rain to go along with it.....including some nasty days. there have been 2 snow days and a freezing rain day for the kids. overall its been nothing but winter for the past 6 weeks. the reason they have half the snow they normally do is because no snow fell in november or the first 3 weeks of december. lets see how the winter finishes up there. they got another 3 inches today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
on_wx Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Oh that Geoff Coulson and the whole of Environment Canada...where do they find these people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawa Blizzard Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 What gets me is that, in terms of temperature, this winter in Ottawa has been amazingly similar to that of 1974-75, which also happened to be a La Nina winter. Also, note how there was a devestating tornado outbreak in the midwest in April 1974, just like in April 2011. December 1974 in Ottawa was very mild, wit ha mean of -3.6C (had more snow though) December 2011 in Ottawa had a mean of -3.4C January 1975 had a mean of -8.4C with 54.5cm of snow January 2012 hada mean of -8.7C with 54.4cm of snow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MN Transplant Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 The headline makes the quote seem worse than it is. Shocking that the media would choose an inflammatory lead to a story! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smith Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I think the situation is very divisive in Canadian weather circles, more so than in the U.S. where you have a fairly balanced set of viewpoints on the real strength of global warming or climate change. Not that I claim to know the exact right answer, but surely the experience of the period 2007 to 2012 is that some projections were a little extreme and based more on trend lines that fit perhaps 1998 to 2003. The same thing happened in Europe and the climate change lobby got politically undercut and widely embarrassed in public discourse despite a very friendly (to them) mainstream media. There were people actually saying things like winter is gone and won't return, mean monthly temperatures will never fall below 3 C (considered a bit on the cold side in the UK) etc, then came three or four consecutive winters of much colder weather that blew all those statements away. The Canadian scene is similar and equally driven more by politics than science. And we have as conservative a government as modern western voters can tolerate in Canada today, it is the 2012 equivalent of the Reagan-Thatcher years. Even so, this government is nowhere near as skeptical as the blogosphere or some individual politicians, I think they just want to proceed with the minimum of fuss and expense. I've been a blacklisted outcast in Canadian weather circles since 1981 for a series of misunderstandings and perhaps understandings, I think my main sin against the establishment was that I was willing to work harder and longer than they were, but when it also became known later that I was an AGW skeptic (on scale more than science) then the deal was done. Being pro-American doesn't help me much either, plus I was not born in Canada (shock, horror). Anyway, all the research I have done in my life might have well been done on another planet for all they care about it. But I try to maintain a balanced attitude towards what they do in official circles. American readers have to understand, there is virtually no private meteorology in Canada, the TV stations mostly use either seconded civil servants or trained presenters who are brainwashed in climate change theology. I know of perhaps two or three quasi-independent minded climate or weather people out of perhaps five thousand in our country. And my standards are fairly relaxed on "independent" -- in my own case, I've been saying for years that I think the IPCC projections are too extreme and that the percentage of observed warming that is natural has never been below 50% and could be as high as 75% -- these are views that some in the blogosphere would characterize as "accommodationist" towards AGW and climate change (which is a joke, much like the imminent ice age counter-theories that have very little basis in observational data). I've also made a point of showing whenever possible the rather obvious correlations between NMP position and climate change. This will become a bigger factor than ever if the NMP keeps (a) weakening and ( moving towards eastern Siberia. But they've made it very very clear (not that I'm dense) that I will be going to my grave before anyone mentions in Canadian climate circles that I ever lived or did anything connected with climate science in forty years. So they are a very nasty bunch, and that's my objective, considered opinion, if I went off on a tangent they would actually be in some danger. Like some of the European climate extremists, they are all full of this crazy idea that we are all going to die in a vast flood or just scorched to death by a relentless sun within 20-30 years unless everyone rides a bicycle to work (I assume they all do) and stops shopping for goods produced anywhere but in their own apartment building. I really wish they would get their come-uppance which is so richly deserved, but almost half the Canadian people are totally brainwashed into believing every last detail of what they say, and eagerly await any new pronouncements that could justify even higher taxes or more ridiculous political positions. Were it not for the fortunate circumstance that we have three left-wing political parties against one so-called right-wing party (I say so-called because they are hardly right-wing by international standards, just by Canadian standards which require that democratic socialists act like Castro except for calling elections) then this maniacal climate change political agenda would be as enforced here as it is in Germany or the U.K. (countries that are about to feel the economic consequences of listening to these deluded souls). Sorry for being so vague, it's because I'm Canadian, eh? Oh, long live the polar bear. It's a legal requirement for me to say this once a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
on_wx Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Great write-up, Roger. Explains it very well. All aspects of our media, government, and weather service continually promote climate change and use normal weather events as proof. F0 tornado on some farm land? Climate change. Hot today? Climate change. Snowstorm? Climate change. And you're right about who reports our weather to the public. We don't have meteorologists on tv giving the forecast and tracking storms. We have journalists who land jobs as the weather person. They read the Environment Canada forecast and talk about current conditions. They only know a storm is coming when a watch or warning is issued...which they probably won't report unless it's the 6pm news. The Weather Network assumes this responsibility...but in large it's journalists live on TV who have no idea what they are talking about or looking at. There is a team of mets at TWN, but I never see them intervening or reporting during storm events. It's just the presenter looking at hour old radar loops and talking about photos of puddles being sent to the network. I get the impression that even The Weather Network is kept in the dark about Canadian weather except for what they can personally forecast because EC doesn't release technical discussions or weather history. You won't see them talking about historical weather or anything technical related to upcoming weather other than "rain or snow" . There just isn't any easy to find resources for those subjects. Though, there is a section of EC dedicated to maps of how many tornadoes have touched down in their forecast regions...but good luck finding it. It would probably come as news to TWN that Ontario has had 12 F4 tornadoes. On the subject of our violent tornado history -- after the Goderich tornado last year it fueled a media frenzy that climate change is causing more severe weather in Canada, and even Environment Canada at the press conference stated it was the worst tornado they have seen in 36 years of investigating. They completely overlooked dozens of much more destructive and deadly tornadoes that have struck Ontario in the last 36 years. The media and the public take a comment like take that as proof...which it isn't. You think they would take the opportunity to promote a emergency notification system in this country after such a common violent weather event...but instead they make it seem as though this is the first time it has happened. I do have a tornado bias...but it's true for just about any extreme weather event. It's always made to sound like it's the first time it's happened and it's only going to get worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smith Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Absolutely, and there are people in the system who know better and are keeping their mouths shut, partly out of fear of being dumped off to read the weather station in Resolute Bay for five years, and partly because they figure it might derail the politics linked to the process. And I think enough of the general public have caught on to this and become very cynical about the politics, especially in parts of the country that are not heavily dominated by public sector employees. A more balanced approach would be good, but we'll never see that until we have a more balanced media in Canada. Mind you, in the U.S.A., where there is a more balanced media, there still isn't really a very open and frank public discourse about climate change, it's still a bit nudge-nudge wink-wink among conservatives out of fear of setting off the firestorm (surely you aren't a denier, climate criminals?) ... and partly because I think a lot of political types are genuinely confused, they hear scientist A saying oh this is a done deal, totally proven, we're all going to die, then they hear an equally credible person saying it's total baloney and a third one saying it's overhyped but has a bit of substance to it. So they figure, where do I fit into that? In Canada, it's more like some politicians have heard vague rumours of dissent but they don't allow their conscious minds to register that thought, in case the vengeful spirit of David Suzuki comes after them in the dead of night to demand a blood sacrifice on the altar of Gaia. Well, I've probably earned my ten years in the gulag now, how about somebody else qualify for a term? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawa Blizzard Posted February 4, 2012 Author Share Posted February 4, 2012 Great write-up, Roger. Explains it very well. All aspects of our media, government, and weather service continually promote climate change and use normal weather events as proof. F0 tornado on some farm land? Climate change. Hot today? Climate change. Snowstorm? Climate change. And you're right about who reports our weather to the public. We don't have meteorologists on tv giving the forecast and tracking storms. We have journalists who land jobs as the weather person. They read the Environment Canada forecast and talk about current conditions. They only know a storm is coming when a watch or warning is issued...which they probably won't report unless it's the 6pm news. The Weather Network assumes this responsibility...but in large it's journalists live on TV who have no idea what they are talking about or looking at. There is a team of mets at TWN, but I never see them intervening or reporting during storm events. It's just the presenter looking at hour old radar loops and talking about photos of puddles being sent to the network. I get the impression that even The Weather Network is kept in the dark about Canadian weather except for what they can personally forecast because EC doesn't release technical discussions or weather history. You won't see them talking about historical weather or anything technical related to upcoming weather other than "rain or snow" . There just isn't any easy to find resources for those subjects. Though, there is a section of EC dedicated to maps of how many tornadoes have touched down in their forecast regions...but good luck finding it. It would probably come as news to TWN that Ontario has had 12 F4 tornadoes. On the subject of our violent tornado history -- after the Goderich tornado last year it fueled a media frenzy that climate change is causing more severe weather in Canada, and even Environment Canada at the press conference stated it was the worst tornado they have seen in 36 years of investigating. They completely overlooked dozens of much more destructive and deadly tornadoes that have struck Ontario in the last 36 years. The media and the public take a comment like take that as proof...which it isn't. You think they would take the opportunity to promote a emergency notification system in this country after such a common violent weather event...but instead they make it seem as though this is the first time it has happened. I do have a tornado bias...but it's true for just about any extreme weather event. It's always made to sound like it's the first time it's happened and it's only going to get worse. I completely agree with this. I'm just watching the local Toronto CTV and the lady who gives the weather forecast is implying that the above seasonal weather will be with us for awhile. Judging from what I've been reading on this board and seeing in the models, she and Torontonians may be in for a shock by this time next week. I do respect David Phillips, and often suspect that he's afriad to say what he really thinks given EC is his employer. I talked to him once and he told me that some farmers had once been shocked when he told them that all of Toronto's hottest summers were before 1980. I just don't think we Canadians are exposed to the same variety of viewpoints that people in the US are. Canada is much more of a consensus society than the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawa Blizzard Posted February 4, 2012 Author Share Posted February 4, 2012 Absolutely, and there are people in the system who know better and are keeping their mouths shut, partly out of fear of being dumped off to read the weather station in Resolute Bay for five years, and partly because they figure it might derail the politics linked to the process. And I think enough of the general public have caught on to this and become very cynical about the politics, especially in parts of the country that are not heavily dominated by public sector employees. A more balanced approach would be good, but we'll never see that until we have a more balanced media in Canada. Mind you, in the U.S.A., where there is a more balanced media, there still isn't really a very open and frank public discourse about climate change, it's still a bit nudge-nudge wink-wink among conservatives out of fear of setting off the firestorm (surely you aren't a denier, climate criminals?) ... and partly because I think a lot of political types are genuinely confused, they hear scientist A saying oh this is a done deal, totally proven, we're all going to die, then they hear an equally credible person saying it's total baloney and a third one saying it's overhyped but has a bit of substance to it. So they figure, where do I fit into that? In Canada, it's more like some politicians have heard vague rumours of dissent but they don't allow their conscious minds to register that thought, in case the vengeful spirit of David Suzuki comes after them in the dead of night to demand a blood sacrifice on the altar of Gaia. Well, I've probably earned my ten years in the gulag now, how about somebody else qualify for a term? I've never understood how Suzuki has become such a spokesman for climate. Isn't he a botanist. I guess his equivilent in the US would be Bill Ny the science guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.