Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Doctor Gollum]

Anyone else enjoy the irony of all the people getting off the roof in order to stand in the flood water whilst awaiting rescue from that stranded train... Surely the roof was the safest place

[ronnyd]

Always thought that the roof was the default position for most Indian travellers. If that,s the one you,re alluding to DG.

[Doctor Gollum]

Always thought that the roof was the default position for most Indian travellers. If that,s the one you,re alluding to DG.

So did I, which is why seeing them all in the water stuck out

[Viral_Jim]

The world has been cooling down for the last 3 years, so there has been no overall global temperature increase since 1998. Those at the back therefore need to keep up & not rely on the BBC fake news propaganda. In the 20th century there were two warming periods in the 1920-30's and the 1980-90's. Many of the hottest temperature were set in the 1920-30's, which is one of several reasons why all Met records are post-1980 or just over one climate cycle long, so they can keep claiming 'ever-hotter' new records. This website displays a graph of 21st century global temperatures in their header if you want a quick reference, so it is useful to bookmark.

https://www.thegwpf.com/urban-heat-island-effect-caused-50-of-warming-in-china/

Expect the trend to be for continued cooling as current solar cycle 24 ends & a weak solar cycle 25 starts. The shortest duration solar cycles are 11 years long. In 2008, which was the end of solar cycle 23 we had a very cold spell with snow in October & a cold winter, so it is going to interesting to see if 2019-20 winter is colder than average.

I do love it when you cry fake news on climate change, then cite some biased think tank that won't even disclose its sources of funding as some sort of data-led truth.

The gwpf couldn't scream "shill organisation" any more loudly if it tried. 

I assume think NASA are in on it with the BBC too, 

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/nope-earth-isnt-cooling/

[Lizzie Zoom]

The world has been cooling down for the last 3 years, so there has been no overall global temperature increase since 1998. Those at the back therefore need to keep up & not rely on the BBC fake news propaganda. In the 20th century there were two warming periods in the 1920-30's and the 1980-90's. Many of the hottest temperature were set in the 1920-30's, which is one of several reasons why all Met records are post-1980 or just over one climate cycle long, so they can keep claiming 'ever-hotter' new records. This website displays a graph of 21st century global temperatures in their header if you want a quick reference, so it is useful to bookmark.

https://www.thegwpf.com/urban-heat-island-effect-caused-50-of-warming-in-china/

Expect the trend to be for continued cooling as current solar cycle 24 ends & a weak solar cycle 25 starts. The shortest duration solar cycles are 11 years long. In 2008, which was the end of solar cycle 23 we had a very cold spell with snow in October & a cold winter, so it is going to interesting to see if 2019-20 winter is colder than average.

I do love it when you cry fake news on climate change, then cite some biased think tank that won't even disclose its sources of funding as some sort of data-led truth.

The gwpf couldn't scream "shill organisation" any more loudly if it tried. 

I assume think NASA are in on it with the BBC too, 

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/nope-earth-isnt-cooling/

Indeed!!

People like Rod will write reams on false information and assumptions, whilst condemning all who oppose his viewpoint.

The FACT that all reputable sources on what IS happening now someone escapes them, and even with the antarctic and arctic ice receding  fast, and especially in the case of the former with 3 trillion tons of ice lost in the last 25 years, and that loss tripling in the last decade, somehow eludes them. The fact that the worst forest fires ever have raged in Siberia, Greenland and Alaska is not on their radar.  Nor is the fact that record temperatures have just occurred throughout Europe.

No, they will blind themselves to reality by taking notice of the few 'reports' that support their argument, which is completely nonsensical.

[Lizzie Zoom]

The railways in this country, AND in Northern Europe, have been affected by this record breaking period of extreme heat which is not generally allowed for in the usual calculations of laying the tracks. Trains in the UK AND in Europe have been running at reduced speeds and frequency as a safety measure so as to not put their passengers at risk from buckled track.  The overhead wires have also been affected, particularly at Kings Cross where a cable short circuited and caused a track side fire.

Its utter, sheer incompetence. There are lost of places in the world with less moderate climates than ours, and cope well.

Like the NHS, this ex civil service institution cannot be fixed, and is gobbling money for no gain. Our money.

AS for 'modern' air travel verses "Victorian" transport, well over 100 flights have been canceled in and out of Heathrow due to the heat here in the UK and elsewhere in Europe.  So extreme heat affects everything no matter what "age" the method of transport is from!

Were any of the major roads closed due to it? Nope.  A bit of weather, of any kind, and the Victorian shit falls apart.

The planes were cancelled due to storms, not heat.  But are working today. Unlike the 3 month repairs when a storm gets near a railway.

As I stated, our railways are built for our traditional climate, not extreme heat and it would cost four times - billions- as much to make them able to cope with the record temperatures seen. But, at least they still ran in part, unlike dozens of flights due to a air traffic control centre failure, storms, all brought about by the heat. So hi tech became low tech and unlike the "Victorian" technology, with trains still running in the main, but more slowly and of lesser desity, but aircraft not taking off or landing. Indeed in the USA temperatures in Arizona went to 49 degrees C, and flights were cancelled due to heat - so we are not alone. As for working today, well no, the media is still reporting cancellations and general disruption.

As for the roads, yes, they were very hot and not pleasant to travel on, but they, dating from Roman times, were still operating. But I wonder how many "modern" vehicles broke down due to the extreme heat?!

In all, no matter what mankind does, we will always be at the mercy of our weather extremes, but unless you want to pay a lot more in taxes, they will not be made weatherproof in the near future, but no doubt with climate change, that still people deny is happening, it will have to happen

Lizzie How come Spanish railways work in a range of temps? I have seen minus 14 deg C and plus 44 degC  in my time here.  Not all the lines are new or real high speed but the still work.

As I stated before, it is due to those countries who have an average temperature range higher, like Spain, than the northern countries of Europe building their railways to meet those needs. The construction allows for extreme temperatures, but they can cost up to 4 times that of UK lines to lay.  Concrete slabs, rather than sleepers, and continuous rail stressed to higher temperatures, makes a huge difference. "Critical Rail Temperature" which means in the UK rail is pre-stressed to 27 degrees C (the average British Summer temperature high), whilst in the USA it is a pre-stressed temperature of 35-43 degrees C to allow for their higher Summer average temperatures.

With the recent trend for UK Summers to become much hotter, it would appear the rail industry here, and in Northern Europe, will have to review their track laying techniques, and pre-stressed rail to higher temperatures.  But the difficulty will be that they will still, at the moment, have to allow for our average Winter temperatures to avoid rails being brittle and cracking.

Note these comments online about French and German railways who have had the same difficulties as the UK: 

http://en.rfi.fr/environment/20190726-french-railroad-tracks-can-t-keep-extreme-heat

https://www.dw.com/en/how-is-the-heat-wave-in-europe-affecting-travel/a-49741200

 

[TheBoy]

Climate change should be easily proved - although its seemingly not as easy as one would expect, as the scientific facts can show warming and cooling.  Hence, they have had to call it climate change, rather than last decade's global warming.

What can't be proved is that its manmade.  We've had major climate shifts before, and the ancients didn't drive 5l V8 Range Rovers.  Personally, I think its likely it is, but it cannot be proven.  Its well known that the BBC have had this agenda for decades, and they were caught out.

Remember, it has not been proven yet that smoking causes cancer.  Personally I think its likely it can, but it cannot be proven.  And some of the most healthy people I know have smoked.  And many people I know who are cancer survivors have never really smoked.  But the NHS and BBC will categorically say it does.


Still, if the climate is manmade, and nature is unable to recover, I have the ideal cure when I'm in power.

[Rods2]

The world has been cooling down for the last 3 years, so there has been no overall global temperature increase since 1998. Those at the back therefore need to keep up & not rely on the BBC fake news propaganda. In the 20th century there were two warming periods in the 1920-30's and the 1980-90's. Many of the hottest temperature were set in the 1920-30's, which is one of several reasons why all Met records are post-1980 or just over one climate cycle long, so they can keep claiming 'ever-hotter' new records. This website displays a graph of 21st century global temperatures in their header if you want a quick reference, so it is useful to bookmark.

https://www.thegwpf.com/urban-heat-island-effect-caused-50-of-warming-in-china/

Expect the trend to be for continued cooling as current solar cycle 24 ends & a weak solar cycle 25 starts. The shortest duration solar cycles are 11 years long. In 2008, which was the end of solar cycle 23 we had a very cold spell with snow in October & a cold winter, so it is going to interesting to see if 2019-20 winter is colder than average.

I do love it when you cry fake news on climate change, then cite some biased think tank that won't even disclose its sources of funding as some sort of data-led truth.

The gwpf couldn't scream "shill organisation" any more loudly if it tried. 

I assume think NASA are in on it with the BBC too, 

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/nope-earth-isnt-cooling/

The chart in the header is based on the UHT satellite lower atmosphere data version 6 & in the header if you had bothered to read it is correctly attributed to the Met Office. Google it & Google with provide you with a page of the various series of the charts & here is another link below to the data in detail, the red line shows the annual averages & as I stated there has been 3 years of cooling & there might or might not be some slight warming in 2019, too early to say yet. But don't let something awkward like the facts get in the way of your left-wing warming fantasies.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/

Where land based temperature measurements are patchy at best with the exception of the US & most of the southern hemisphere is covered sparsely, but many of the sites are also in urban areas with their local heating effects which is why satellite data not only has the greatest global coverage, but is also considered the most accurate & it can also be taken for different atmosphere layers.

[Viral_Jim]

The chart in the header is based on the UHT satellite lower atmosphere data version 6 & in the header if you had bothered to read it is correctly attributed to the Met Office. Google it & Google with provide you with a page of the various series of the charts & here is another link below to the data in detail, the red line shows the annual averages & as I stated there has been 3 years of cooling & there might or might not be some slight warming in 2019, too early to say yet. But don't let something awkward like the facts get in the way of your left-wing warming fantasies.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/

So, in simple terms, the chart you have linked to takes the most recent 40yrs of the NASA '1880 to present' chart and re-bases that as the average. Thereby wiping out the relative increase that is shown over the longer term average - seems a bit like cherry picking your evidence to me, but never mind. Yet, even ignoring this sleight of hand, the chart you link still shows an increasing trend i.e. the majority of the years in the first half of the graph show the rolling average to be below the average for the entire time period, and the majority of the later years are above the average for the entire time period.

I simply don't understand why you think this is fantasy, both charts show an increase over the time periods considered, all the chart you linked to does is make the increase look less dramatic by re-basing it to the most recent 40yrs rather than including the older records.

But don't let something awkward like the facts get in the way of your left-wing warming fantasies.

Attaboy Rods, for a minute I thought you were going to be able to get through an entire post interacting with someone who disagrees with you without referring to them in pejorative terms. Thankfully the crisis was averted and you didn't disappoint... 

[Viral_Jim]

Climate change should be easily proved - although its seemingly not as easy as one would expect, as the scientific facts can show warming and cooling.  Hence, they have had to call it climate change, rather than last decade's global warming.

What can't be proved is that its manmade.  We've had major climate shifts before, and the ancients didn't drive 5l V8 Range Rovers.  Personally, I think its likely it is, but it cannot be proven.  Its well known that the BBC have had this agenda for decades, and they were caught out.

While I agree that certain standards of 'proof' cannot be met, on a whole host of things, that doesn't mean that we should not act on the balance of probabilities. For example, we (as in collective humanity) have basically no idea how anaesthesia works, but that shouldn't preclude its use. Likewise, we cannot prove that human activity causes climate change, but we can conclusively show/demonstrate that the way we use the planet is having a devastating effect on it. By that I mean things like deforestation, loss of other habitats, filling the oceans with plastic, the effect of Nitrogen Dioxide on people who live in urban areas etc etc.

Those reasons alone should be enough for us to change the way we live and consume resources. An added bonus that we on the balance of probabilities could/might/will (depending on your viewpoint) reduce the effects of climate change is all the more reason to do those things, no?

Turning the question on its head, what is wrong with digging up and burning less stuff in order to fuel our civilisation?

[STEMO]

It really is all academic. With the world population growing at the rate it is, there is no way we can cut back on anything. In fact, stripping the planet of it's resources is likely to increase, Brazil being a good example.
We, in the so-called first world, have had it good for quite a while now. We cannot expect the third world to hold back when their existence is mostly just surviving on a day-to-day basis.
Until someone invents a completely new source of power, the decline will continue.

[Varche]

It really is all academic. With the world population growing at the rate it is, there is no way we can cut back on anything. In fact, stripping the planet of it's resources is likely to increase, Brazil being a good example.
We, in the so-called first world, have had it good for quite a while now. We cannot expect the third world to hold back when their existence is mostly just surviving on a day-to-day basis.
Until someone invents a completely new source of power, the decline will continue.

And that is why 1st world countries will have to pay poor third world people to not rip out acres of for st to grow useless palm oil etc. Ripping the world off is so yesterday.

[STEMO]

It really is all academic. With the world population growing at the rate it is, there is no way we can cut back on anything. In fact, stripping the planet of it's resources is likely to increase, Brazil being a good example.
We, in the so-called first world, have had it good for quite a while now. We cannot expect the third world to hold back when their existence is mostly just surviving on a day-to-day basis.
Until someone invents a completely new source of power, the decline will continue.

And that is why 1st world countries will have to pay poor third world people to not rip out acres of for st to grow useless palm oil etc. Ripping the world off is so yesterday.

Can't see it happening. By 'pay third world people' you mean pay third world governments, and we all know how that ends up.

[TheBoy]

Turning the question on its head, what is wrong with digging up and burning less stuff in order to fuel our civilisation?

Isn't it something like 85% of the bad emissions are caused during manufacture, with the other 15% being running it for the next 20yrs.

So ban sales of new cars. Problem solved.


Although my cull would solve it all as well.

[Raeturbo]

It’s 'dangle berries', I’ve said before, there’s more happening under the oceans, more than two thirds of earths area that are polluting the air than what our miserly contribution is. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there, and of course keeping emissions down is great,  but I doubt it will make a lot of difference in the long run. It’s a cycle that’s going to keep repeating and we are not going to change anything. Trouble is, man (humans) always know best, but as history has proven we don’t.