It’s Cold Outside

The ol’ digital thermometer is saying it’s about -35 in Regina this morning, before the windchill value is calculated. I still saw ESL students walking to school without toques or hoods on this morning.


9 responses to “It’s Cold Outside

    • Extremely unlikely. Very few fertilizers are flammable. They are strong oxidizing agents so will add to the intensity of a fire but they don’t explode. In simple terms an oxidizing agent (in this case dealing with ‘dangerous’ materials) means that oxygen atoms are given up so as to contribute to the flammability of a mixture. In the case of the tractor trailer, there was no ‘mixture’ to begin with.

  1. And just think! If everything keeps going ‘as is’ it’ll be a balmy -33C in just 90 short years!

    I’d also like to thank globull warming for the new US record of 219 days WITHOUT a tornado death!!! Also that there hasn’t been a major US hurricane landfall since 2005, some 2600 days or so! dubya dubya dubya dot

    Here’s a heads up for you regarding the future… just returning to the ‘norm’ is going to mean a lot more hurricanes, a lot more damage and a lot more cost. It will, however, simply be a returning to the ‘norm’. The fact of the matter is that a lot of you youngsters out there have yet to meet the challenges of your previous generations. Time will tell.

    PS… just cuz’ I know ya luv it… I see Al Gorzeera made a nice lil’ mint! All that filthy oil lucre! My, my, my.

    Ignoring all of the ‘sciency’ stuff and talking of big Al starts in 3… 2… 1…

    • Can’t talk about the weather without a climate change denier coming along to confuse climate with weather, mistake a 2 degree average global temperature trend with a momentary 2 degree local difference, and reference Al Gore. Were you going to slander Suzuki for an encore? #SunWorshiper, get lost. #DontLookAtTheSun and you may be able to grow a brain.

      • Har har har!!!! So let me get this straight, rain in Saskatchewan in December is ‘climate change’ but cold in Saskatchewan in February is ‘weather’. Ha ha ha, priceless!!! Typical, but still priceless!!!

        I put in the Goracle as a joke, also there is no need to slander the $30,000 man as an encore… he does that well enough on his own!!! Jeez even Mickey Mann only charges $10,000 for a talk. Seems a lot of alarmists are making a good buck off of globull warming. I guess that’s why they like to deflect the money issue onto us ‘deniers’. Can’t find any of that oil lucre outside of Gores pocket mind you, but since when does reality matter to alarmists!!!!!!!!!

        Back to the ‘sciency’ stuff… here is the current view of James Annan, an alarmist if ever there is one!!!! (caveat: I rarely agree with Annan, defender of Mann’s Hockey Stick)…

        “the additional decade of temperature data from 2000 onwards (even the AR4 estimates typically ignored the post-2000 years) can only work to reduce estimates of sensitivity, and that’s before we even consider the reduction in estimates of negative aerosol forcing, and (black carbon)
        “It’s increasingly difficult to reconcile a high climate sensitivity (say over 4C) with the observational evidence.
        “(from his IPCC5 comment) there is no clear explanation for your sudden dismissal of them (low climate sensetivity studies) in favour of what seems to be a small private opinion poll (Zickfeld et al PNAS)
        “The list of pollees in the Zickfeld paper are largely the self-same people responsible for the largely bogus analyses that I’ve criticised over recent years, and which even if they were valid then, are certainly outdated now.
        “Since the IPCC can no longer defend their old analyses in any meaningful manner, it seems they have to resort to an unsupported “this is what we think, because we asked our pals”. It’s essentially the Lindzen strategy in reverse: having firmly wedded themselves to their politically convenient long tail of high values, their response to new evidence is little more than sticking their fingers in their ears and singing “la la la I can’t hear you”.

        As a bit of foreboding here is what Annan observes… “By failing to meet this problem head-on, the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle. I expect them to brazen it out, on the grounds that they are the experts and are quite capable of squaring the circle before breakfast if need be. But in doing so, they risk being seen as not so much summarising scientific progress, but obstructing it.”

        Yup… typical.

      • My mistake… I’ve misrepresented Annan with Ammann above. Annan is the actual reviewer while Ammann is the Mannsian defender.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s