Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Tropical Cyclone Yasi

This is a monster. I just hope for the best for people in North Queensland. WUWT's latest post gives thorough coverage, although I wish they would let alone the premature whinging about people talking about AGW.



For dramatic and informative pictures of its development, the BoM satellite images are here.



Posted by Nick Stokes at 11:18 AM

5 comments:

  1. EliRabettFebruary 4, 2011 at 2:36 PM

    And more water in the wrong place.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nick StokesFebruary 4, 2011 at 10:32 PM

    Eli,
    Yes, and there's more. We've had less dramatic but widespread flooding in Victoria, from different weather systems. And now more deluges are starting. Unusually, these rain patterns are coming from the North.

    Yasi was a big hurricane as expected - it was lucky that it missed the major towns, though Tully, which was hit by Larry in 2006, was damaged again. But now the storm effects have reached as far as Alice Springs. That's like hurricanes reaching Minneapolis. Normally dry Alice could use the rain, but they had about 800 mm last year.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousFebruary 6, 2011 at 9:40 PM

    Bush fires in Western Australia and New South Wales. At the same time there are floods in Victoria, Queensland and recently northern New South Wales. Cyclones in Queensland. Record heat wave in NSW.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousFebruary 13, 2011 at 2:37 AM

    I am always flummoxed by people descending from variable climate to chaotic weather, to score debating points. IMO one side is not genetically prone to it than the other. Unfortunately a cost of doing business in the blogosphere.

    DEEBEE

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nick StokesFebruary 13, 2011 at 8:06 AM

    DB,
    Yes, though it seems to me there's a problem. True, any one incident could be just weather. But if there ever really is damage due to AGW, it will come about through an increasing succession of extreme events. So if you aren't allowed to talk about any connection, then there will be a problem.

    It's a bit like tobacco. Because you can't say that any one cancer was caused by smoking, some argue that therefore you can't say that smoking causes cancer. But that's wrong.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)