Heatwave

[Droogs]

Come down south and see for yourself.
It's alright for you up in Scotland, you're just having a warm day.
I measured 40.5c in my Garden.

We had 38.4C just 30 miles away from my flat. It was 34 in the shade in my garden today 200m from the North Sea with an offshore wind in Leith.

 

[Sandyn]

Right. So your problem with global warming isn't that its happening, but in the colour schemes used in the graphics?

Have I got that right?

No, nothing to do with colours or global warming. its just about how the weather is presented these days. the same temperatures (27C) as in the 70's seem to be more hazardous now.

 

[Sandyn]

Come down south and see for yourself.
It's alright for you up in Scotland, you're just having a warm day.
I measured 40.5c in my Garden.

I wanted a bit of that 40C high, I pre-empted the temperature differential, so I spent the morning re-arranging everything in my poly tunnel where it was 41.9. I love hot weather and love exercising in really hot weather. It's such a nice change from winter exercise, down about freezing and rain.

 

[Jameshow]

I wanted a bit of that 40C high, I pre-empted the temperature differential, so I spent the morning re-arranging everything in my poly tunnel where it was 41.9. I love hot weather and love exercising in really hot weather. It's such a nice change from winter exercise, down about freezing and rain.

View attachment 139866

I hate exercising in hot weather in fact I don't run as it's too hot, bike above 20c.

Running in the snow on the moors is lush.

Riding on snow / Ice is stupid!!

 

[julianf]

No, nothing to do with colours or global warming. its just about how the weather is presented these days. the same temperatures (27C) as in the 70's seem to be more hazardous now.

I guess a bit like smoking. Was fine in the 70s, but now things have moved on a little, people, mostly, realise its a bad idea, and the packing represents that.

1970s looks kind of fun -

Current -

Which is more accurate though? I mean is a pack of lucky strike more likely to make you look cool, and get you a motorcycle, or give you mouth cancer?


And then should we be celebrating rapidly rising temperatures, or should be display them with some amount of concern?

Are you saying that dangerous things shouldn't be represented as dangerous, because that's not how we did things in the 1970s?

 

[Sandyn]

I hate exercising in hot weather in fact I don't run as it's too hot, bike above 20c.

Running in the snow on the moors is lush.

Riding on snow / Ice is stupid!!

When I used to run, I just loved extremes of weather. Florida, full mid-day sun, or winter in the hills, horizontal snow. I remember on a hill run. it was a real blizzard. I was just in shorts and a helly top. I met some hill walkers in full mountain gear, snow goggles, walking poles, backpacks, lol. When we met, we just sort of stopped and looked at each other. They were way overdressed I used to do some fairly extreme winter running in the snow and dark. I really miss running

 

[Adam W.]

When I used to run, I just loved extremes of weather. Florida, full mid-day sun, or winter in the hills, horizontal snow. I remember on a hill run. it was a real blizzard. I was just in shorts and a helly top. I met some hill walkers in full mountain gear, snow goggles, walking poles, backpacks, lol. When we met, we just sort of stopped and looked at each other. They were way overdressed I used to do some fairly extreme winter running in the snow and dark. I really miss running

Chasing sheep?

 

[Sandyn]

Are you saying that dangerous things shouldn't be represented as dangerous, because that's not how we did things in the 1970s?

I'm really sorry, I think you are missing the point of what I was saying and somehow trying to pick an argument. I won't rise to it. Life is too short to argue.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

We have reached the point where net zero (or no more than say 10%?) is largely achievable given the right levels of investment. The tools that could be used to get there rapidly (a couple of decades at most) - grants, regulation, tax policy, finance etc etc exist.

Homes can be built to the best thermal standards with water recycling and PVs, diets can change to largely exclude meat products, green energy generation and EVs can eliminate ICE, most air travel is discretionary, most packaging can be recyclable, etc etc.

The main barrier is us - the public. Business is profit motivated and in a free market will invest in that which the customer demands. They see regulation as a constraint and lobby accordingly but it is public demand (and short termism) which ultimately motivates their lobbying.

We prefer democracy to dictatorship. Governments seeking to implement regulations which deny freedom of choice, reduce the immediate standard of living, increase costs etc will rapidly find itself in opposition. This constrains the speed of change to that which is publicly acceptable.

The climate change lobby, despite being IMHO broadly correct in its projections, has failed to convince sufficient of the public that major changes are needed - their science may be excellent (9/10), their capacity to influence outcomes is poor (3/10). Must do better.

 

[Sandyn]

Chasing sheep?

shhhhhhh!! don't tell anyone!

 

[Jacob]

No, because the first infographic compares 1976 to a dataset that includes 1976. It’s literally meaningless. All you needed to show was the second infographic. That compares the present day to a set of years INCLUDING 1976. Does that make sense now? BTW I’m not saying that the GISS analysis isn’t important, it is.

Have you cracked it yet? It isn't as difficult as you think.

 

[Jameshow]

We have reached the point where net zero (or no more than say 10%?) is largely achievable given the right levels of investment. The tools that could be used to get there rapidly (a couple of decades at most) - grants, regulation, tax policy, finance etc etc exist.

Homes can be built to the best thermal standards with water recycling and PVs, diets can change to largely exclude meat products, green energy generation and EVs can eliminate ICE, most air travel is discretionary, most packaging can be recyclable, etc etc.

The main barrier is us - the public. Business is profit motivated and in a free market will invest in that which the customer demands. They see regulation as a constraint and lobby accordingly but it is public demand (and short termism) which ultimately motivates their lobbying.

We prefer democracy to dictatorship. Governments seeking to implement regulations which deny freedom of choice, reduce the immediate standard of living, increase costs etc will rapidly find itself in opposition. This constrains the speed of change to that which is publicly acceptable.

The climate change lobby, despite being IMHO broadly correct in its projections, has failed to convince sufficient of the public that major changes are needed - their science may be excellent (9/10), their capacity to influence outcomes is poor (3/10). Must do better.

I think they have moved public opinion and purchasing remarkably quickly.. not bad to a grandad and a school girl!

 

[Crazy Dave]

So we should buy an inferior product that doesn't live up to the claims of being greener to enable them to create a better product? Perhaps they should use the profits from current sources to develop a better product?
As much as I'd like to benefit from the savings of solar (although some of the reports suggest that panel degradation could mean that it costs rather than saves money) I don't have 10's of thousands to invest so the point is mute!

You'll never benefit from solar because you are clearly misinformed and your money is going to your energy provider.
I'll be going off grid completely soon and that's when the investment really pays for itself in just a few years because of the rising energy prices.
Simple really.

 

[julianf]

I'm really sorry, I think you are missing the point of what I was saying and somehow trying to pick an argument. I won't rise to it. Life is too short to argue.

You were saying that "the media" was adding hysteria by turning the colours on the map red, and using a 1970s screen shot to demonstrate the lack of hysteria around similar temperatures then.

I pointed out that plenty of dangerous things had no hysteria attached to them in the 1970s and you've told me that I don't understand and that you will no longer talk to me.


If anyone else grasps Sandy's elusive "point" and can explain it to me, I would welcome the input.

Thank you.

 

[Billy_wizz]

You'll never benefit from solar because you are clearly misinformed and your money is going to your energy provider.
I'll be going off grid completely soon and that's when the investment really pays for itself in just a few years because of the rising energy prices.
Simple really.

So you have found a way to buy it without having a big chunk of cash upfront please do share!

 

[Sandyn]

You were saying that "the media" was adding hysteria by turning the colours on the map red, and using a 1970s screen shot to demonstrate the lack of hysteria around similar temperatures then.

I pointed out that plenty of dangerous things had no hysteria attached to them in the 1970s and you've told me that I don't understand and that you will no longer talk to me.


If anyone else grasps Sandy's elusive "point" and can explain it to me, I would welcome the input.

Thank you.

I'm very sorry. Please just ignore what I said. I apologise for making the suggestion. My sense of humour is a bit odd at times.

 

[gog64]

Have you cracked it yet? It isn't as difficult as you think.

Well it’s hot and I’m tired after a long day, so it was tempting to reply to your condescending and sarcastic dig with an equally rude reply. However, I won’t. But I will have one last go at explaining what I mean. First of all, remember that I’m not disagreeing that climate change is real. I just think that using bad examples to prove a point is counterproductive. I also think that calling people who you think disagree with you stupid (as you clearly infer I am) is a bad thing to do, so I’ll treat you with respect and try to explain what I mean in a different way.

The infographic is generated from an applet on the NASA web site. Anyone can use it. It uses a set of data from 1951 to 1980. The developers have identified places on the earth with reliable temperature records for that time period, for example London. It takes an average of the temperatures over those years for that place by month. The applet then allows anyone to enter a year and month and generates an infographic that compares that month to the AVERAGE temperature for the same month, averaged between 1951 to 1980. A colour is used to show how much hotter or colder the ACTUAL temperature was compared to the average of the same month 1951 to 1980.

So the first infographic shows that in June 1976, in the UK it was hotter than the average temperature in all the Junes between 1951 and 1980. No **** Sherlock, I think we knew that. What relevance does that have to climate change? GIGO.

The SECOND infographic is relevant. It shows that in June 2022 there were widespread anomalies, i.e. based on AVERAGE temperatures in June between 1951 and 1980 the ACTUAL temperatures recorded were significantly different over a very widespread area. It could be argued that the data set that this is based on is too small to have any statistical relevance, but not by me.

 

[Crazy Dave]

So you have found a way to buy it without having a big chunk of cash upfront please do share

I buy second hand panels and new inverters from Bimble Solar

 

[Billy_wizz]

I buy second hand panels and new inverters from Bimble Solar

Cheers I'll have to look into it did it take much paperwork to hook the batteries and panels to the grid?

 

[Crazy Dave]

Cheers I'll have to look into it did it take much paperwork to hook the batteries and panels to the grid?

I can't advise you any further sorry. Do what I did and research it as your circumstances will differ from mine.