INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.

For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

We are not accepting any new registrations.

Weather - or not!

General socialising and light-hearted discussions take place in here.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Weather - or not!

#1061 Post by Alan H » February 9th, 2014, 5:08 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Tetenterre wrote:Well done, Alan. Our shed started leaking as well. Turns out the wind was driving the rain up under overlap in the felt. Similar thing happening under the chimney flashing.
I have a tin of bituminous adhesive for that!
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Weather - or not!

#1062 Post by Tetenterre » February 9th, 2014, 5:13 pm

When I replace the felt (not yet needed) I'll use that - this is the original, as factory supplied. Chimneys will be lead-flashed this spring when we have the pointing done.

On the batphone, so expect weird autocorrect
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Weather - or not!

#1063 Post by Alan C. » February 12th, 2014, 3:25 pm

Just got back online after a lightening strike on Monday the 3rd got a new BT hub but my computer is still out (waiting for a new power board) So using an old laptop.
We had no phone either from Monday till Friday (I don't have a mobile) but I suppose I shouldn't complain, we've got a lovely sunny and wind free day today, my sympathies to you folk in the South.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Weather - or not!

#1064 Post by Dave B » February 14th, 2014, 11:32 am

UK weather pictures and interactive map of global storms (rotate globe, zoom in/out, see wind speed at locations).
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Weather - or not!

#1065 Post by Alan H » February 14th, 2014, 6:21 pm

It was all predicted, of course...
o-BIBLE-FLOODS-SPOOF-570.jpg
o-BIBLE-FLOODS-SPOOF-570.jpg (175.5 KiB) Viewed 5904 times
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: Weather - or not!

#1066 Post by Fia » February 14th, 2014, 9:23 pm

:pointlaugh:

According to Greenpeace,
Very few people are making the link between climate change and the floods. Carbon Brief analysed newspaper stories on the floods and found that in over 3000 published since the beginning of December, only 206 mentioned climate change.
They have a petition to remove Environment secretary Owen Paterson. It's a far bigger problem than a Tory minister who. like many, clearly hasn't listened to the - now decades old - warnings that our winters will be wetter and windier. But I still thought it worth signing to make the point.

And I offer this for light relief:
10764_10202314770422155_1034139677_n.jpg
10764_10202314770422155_1034139677_n.jpg (20.79 KiB) Viewed 5902 times

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Weather - or not!

#1067 Post by Nick » February 15th, 2014, 11:37 am

OK, I've had enough of the wind and rain. So d'ya think you poofs out there could go straight for a while? It's really pissing god off.... :wink:

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Weather - or not!

#1068 Post by Nick » February 15th, 2014, 12:03 pm

Fia wrote:According to Greenpeace,
Very few people are making the link between climate change and the floods. Carbon Brief analysed newspaper stories on the floods and found that in over 3000 published since the beginning of December, only 206 mentioned climate change.
They have a petition to remove Environment secretary Owen Paterson. It's a far bigger problem than a Tory minister who. like many, clearly hasn't listened to the - now decades old - warnings that our winters will be wetter and windier. But I still thought it worth signing to make the point.
Support for Natalie Bennett of the Greens comes from a new source, Mr Tim Worstall.....
I should, I suppose, support Natalie Bennett of the Green Party of England and Wales, given that I publicly supported her at the time of her election. But I do have a feeling that this support she's about to get from me will not be quite so welcome.

She's come out in an official party document demanding that everyone who rejects the science of climate change be fired from government: apparently elected or unelected.

Ms Bennett said: "We need the whole government behind this. This is an emergency situation we're facing now. We need to take action. We need everyone signed up behind that." Pressed on the issue, she agreed that even the chief veterinary officer should be removed if he didn't sign up to the view on climate change also taken by the Green Party. A policy document released by the party said: "Get rid of any cabinet ministers or senior governmental advisors who refuse to accept the scientific consensus on climate change or who won't take the risks to the UK seriously." Ms Bennett added: "It's an insult to flood victims that we have an Environment Secretary (Owen Paterson) who is a denier of the reality of climate change and we also can't have anyone in the cabinet who is denying the realities that we're facing with climate change." She said her party took the consensus view shared by many other organisation including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

This is, of course, a betrayal of all that is holy about democracy and so we'll not be having with that. However, let us just put that to one side for a moment and think through, properly, what is the accepted science of climate change.

We can start with the SRES: these are the economic assumptions that go in at the beginning of the process. How many people will there be, at what level of wealth, using what technologies: these estimates produce the emissions numbers that then do into the climate models from which everything else is derived. We have four families of such scenarios and they run A1, A2, B1, B2. A largely stands for a capitalist economy red in tooth and claw, B for something more akin to a caring sharing social democracy. 1 means a more globalised economy than the one we have now, 2 means a more balkanised one, one more autarkic than at present.

In terms of human flourishing, the wealth of people in the future (and do recall that wealth is not simply more things or more consumerism, it is an expansion of the possibilities available to people), then as we would expect the capitalist bit produces better results. But what's even more interesting is that a more globalised result produces better results than a more autarkic one. In fact, even in terms of emissions the globalised (whether capitalist or social democratic) families produce fewer emissions than the autarkic ones. Thus we can see that the science of climate change insists that we must increase, not decrease, globalisation.

This is not, to put it mildly, something that Ms. Bennett believes nor the Green Party of England and Wales. But under this stricture proposed by those very people we will simply have to fire from government everyone who opposes greater globalisation. Sad but there it is, we do have a planet to save after all.

We can go further as well. As My Lord Stern has pointed out (and as have eminences like Richard Tol, William Nordhaus, Greg Mankiw and, in fact, just about every economist who has bothered to look at the issue) the correct solution to the results that come from the IPCC is a carbon tax. Of some $80 per tonne CO2-e in fact according to Stern. And it's well known that UK emissions are around 500 million tonnes. And also that we already pay some swingeing amount of such Pigou Taxes: the fuel duty escalator alone now makes petrol a good 15p per litre more expensive than it should be under such a tax regime. And there are other such taxes that we pay, so much so that we are already, we lucky people here in the UK, paying a carbon tax sufficient to meet Lord Stern's target (which is, it should be noted, rather higher than what all the other economists recommend: we're not stinting ourselves in our approach to climate change).

We don't quite pay it on all the right things as yet, this is true, but the total amount being paid is about right. We just need to shift some of the taxation off some products and on to others. Less on petrol and more on cowshit for example.

That is, according to the standard and accepted science of climate change we here in the UK have already done damn near everything we need to do to beat it.

This, in turn, means that we now have to fire everyone who disagrees with this application of that accepted science. Which means we get to fire Ed Davey for suggesting more windmills for example. We don't need any other schemes, plans, subsidies, technological boosts nor regulations. As Stern and all the others state once we've got that appropriate carbon tax in place then we're done, problem solved. We just then sit back and allow the market to churn through the various options now that we've corrected the price system for externalities.

All of which I think is rather wonderful. Given that the Green Party is very much against globalisation then their demand is that no member of the party can ever be employed in a senior political or civil service role. For globalisation is a cure as the settled science of climate change insists. Indeed, it's one of the basic assumptions that go into the original models. And we also get to fire everyone who comes up with any scheme for regulation or subsidy, given that these are all contra-indicated by the accepted solution of the carbon tax. And finally, do note that we're already paying enough in green taxes, we've only got to tweak, in a minor manner, what we're paying them on in order to have completely solved the problem. And, as Ms. Bennett states, we now have to go and fire absolutely everyone who disagrees.

Which, given that I seem to be the only person who has actually read all of this guff, understood the implications of it and managed to piece it together makes me Prime Minister, doesn't it? Or Grand High Panjandrum or something? I seem to have convinced Matt Ridley of this over the years so perhaps he could handle the Lords for my new government.

So when do I get to meet the Queen?
:wink:

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Weather - or not!

#1069 Post by Dave B » February 15th, 2014, 12:20 pm

I took the petition as a way of registering a complaint against the policies rather than any real attempt to oust Paterson. Since the government seems to be deaf to public opinion (due to having their heads stuck up their own, or one another's, arses?) I suspect it will take many such petitions to get over the idea that we are pissed off with them.

Of course, this will change when the election draws near but go back to normal after it.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Weather - or not!

#1070 Post by Alan H » February 15th, 2014, 8:56 pm

It's getting worse in London...
Screenshot from 2014-02-15.png
Screenshot from 2014-02-15.png (339.93 KiB) Viewed 5866 times
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: Weather - or not!

#1071 Post by Fia » February 15th, 2014, 10:12 pm

:pointlaugh:
Dave B wrote:I took the petition as a way of registering a complaint against the policies rather than any real attempt to oust Paterson.
Me too Dave. One Tory bastard honourable member is usually as way off beam in 'I'm alright Jack' land as the rest... until the floods were on the Thames, when suddenly 'no expense will be spared' apparently. I wouldn't expect any of this government to actually do anything about global warming as it's too expensive and not enough votes. Yet, as Dave says, it makes the point.
I signed this one today, which is perhaps nearer my position:
As concerned citizens, we urge you to live up to your claim to lead the "greenest government ever" by supporting a 50% target to reduce carbon pollution by 2030. Scientists say the extreme floods happening now are being fueled by climate change. We must move beyond quick fixes and get to the root cause of the problem with deep cuts to our pollution. Europe will set its targets in the next month, your leadership now can bring hope from the floods and set the pace for others to put us on course for a clean, dry and safe climate future.
Interesting article Nick: Firstly, I'm not an apologist for the Greens. In an sensible society the Environment Minister would be fully conversant with the link between global warming and the recent weather. Sadly, our society is not that sensible. From the article
In fact, even in terms of emissions the globalised (whether capitalist or social democratic) families produce fewer emissions than the autarkic ones
This is surely easily explained by autarkic families generally being in the developing world where burning fossil fuels is one of the cheapest ways of producing power.

I think we have to take a closer look at expectations, starting at the household level:
Firstly, we need to recognise that our consumption is not sustainable; Huge food miles for out of season fruit and veg is pointless - apart from the growers who aren't feeding their communities but our landfill because it's not 'economically viable' to grow crops for local consumption; Using cars to drive children to school as there are feet, bicycles and buses; Heating our homes so we dress in summer clothes indoors in the winter; seeing clothing as fashion rather than practicality, adding more to landfill; buying into the consumption model through clever marketing telling us we 'need' a new sofa, huge TV, i-everything; losing our sense of community in a personal family bubble that never interacts; moaning about old lightbulbs not being sold as we can't wait a wee while whilst our mostly constant power warms a more efficient one up; despite the interweb folk not looking beyond their acquisitive bubble... I could go on, but guess my drift is followed :)

Many good folk I know have been addressing these personal issues for years: for instance I was considered a nutter 20 odd years ago when I campaigned for local recycling facilities and encouragement to reduce, re-use and recycle. Now it's mostly the norm. Westminster for sure hasn't caught up with this. A few areas such as London transport provision, the foundations of which were built by Ken Livingston, were not followed UK wide as the politicians don't have the balls to make hard long term decisions. Which, impo, has let all of us down negating our strive to be more sustainable on a personal level and wish to see it countrywide and globally.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Weather - or not!

#1072 Post by Dave B » February 15th, 2014, 11:21 pm

Yes, Fia, but for as long as someone thinks they can stuff their bank accounts NOW by moving out of season food thousands of miles why should they worry about the future? Just so long as their kids have enough to survive possibly, are they worried about the single parent family in Liverpool or the near starving family in Somalia?

Yes, a those who can afford strawberries all year round may moan about only having them when they are in season in Europe, but such will have to learn eventually because I don't think this situation is tenable forever either.

That is assuming fusion energy is not cracked when ships can use sea water to make energy and planes can fly round the world on a few gallons of water, all with no pollutant emissions.

Dream on.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Sel
Posts: 811
Joined: January 3rd, 2011, 3:53 pm

Re: Weather - or not!

#1073 Post by Sel » March 5th, 2014, 10:47 pm

It has been brutally cold here for about 10 days. -33°C last week-end.
Yesterday my daughter and I were sitting and chatting before supper when a noise, that sounded like a gigantic crate being dragged on gravel, shook the house. The two of us ran around checking everywhere outdoors and down in the basement. Nothing.

Then today I learned that the same explosive sound was heard throughout the Northwest part of the city and appears to have been a "frost quake" or "cryoseism".

I thought you might be interested in learning about this rare phenomena - I know I was! It scared the bejesus out of us. Notice that yesterday's event is mentioned at the end of the article with a link to, I think, The Calgary Sun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryoseism
"The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge." Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Weather - or not!

#1074 Post by Alan H » March 6th, 2014, 10:02 am

Wow! Hadn't heard of that before - all we get is the cold cracking road surfaces a bit!
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Weather - or not!

#1075 Post by Dave B » March 6th, 2014, 10:11 am

Wow, here's a hug to help you keep warm {{Sel}}!

When I read what you said I wondered if it was the catastrophe collapse of an ice sheet, as I experienced when in the RAF.

I was doing daily inspections on the airfield perimeter after we had had several days of snow and refreezing (this was 1962-3). We had had to dig into the snow to get to the building door, about 6ft down. I was taking a short cut back across the ice when it collapsed due to the snow under it partially melting. With a lot of loud cracking etc. I, being only 5'3", simply disappeared!

When I got back to the control towers the staff there were still laughing . . . But, thinking back on it, that ice was a couple of inches thick and could have done me serious damage had I got between two colliding sheets!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Sel
Posts: 811
Joined: January 3rd, 2011, 3:53 pm

Re: Weather - or not!

#1076 Post by Sel » March 6th, 2014, 3:07 pm

Wow Dave. What an experience! Funny but dangerous.
We do not get that much snow here on the prairies. But, this Winter has been dreadful. By mid-December we had had more storms with more snow than in 112 years. Then came the bitter cold. The local little ski hill usually needs to close about 7 days a winter due to extreme temps (they get a lot of little kids) but has had to shut done about 14 days this year to date.
Hopefully this is the end of the severe cold - it IS March after all.
"The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge." Bertrand Russell

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Weather - or not!

#1077 Post by Nick » March 25th, 2014, 3:16 pm

Not strictly a post about weather, but today, walking through the fields, I heard skylarks singing above me. Wonderful!

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Weather - or not!

#1078 Post by Nick » April 1st, 2014, 2:14 pm

April 1st, and you think of lambs frolicking in the fields. But for me it was the thud of the rat-trap at dawn this morning. Sorry, fella, but I can't share my home with you....

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Weather - or not!

#1079 Post by Alan C. » April 1st, 2014, 10:14 pm

Nick wrote:April 1st, and you think of lambs frolicking in the fields. But for me it was the thud of the rat-trap at dawn this morning. Sorry, fella, but I can't share my home with you....
You're not sinking then Nick :smile: (Rats still on board :) )
We had a mouse problem a couple of months ago, I bought two different "humane" live traps but couldn't trap the buggers, had to resort to the tried and tested 'little nipper' solution.

Back on topic, the weather here is not normal, march has been (for the 14 years I've been here) our worst month for snow, but this winter we have only had one day of snow, (December 6th)
It's so mild, I have all my tatties planted and this coming weekend I will be sowing lettuce, carrots, turnip, and broccoli, about a month earlier than previous years.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
getreal
Posts: 4354
Joined: November 20th, 2008, 5:40 pm

Re: Weather - or not!

#1080 Post by getreal » April 2nd, 2014, 12:17 am

You're not sowing them outdoors are you, Alan?
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Weather - or not!

#1081 Post by Tetenterre » April 2nd, 2014, 9:31 am

Alan C. wrote:We had a mouse problem a couple of months ago, I bought two different "humane" live traps but couldn't trap the buggers, had to resort to the tried and tested 'little nipper' solution.
We've had the same experience here. SWMBO is a much nicer person than I, so she got a "humane" one. I got a little Nipper. She baited hers with chocolate; I baited mine with peanut butter. Mine works.
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

Post Reply