Flooding

[Midlands Yellow 4,081]

Keith Weller in tights 79, I was at that match when he destroyed us. You certainly don’t get weather like that these days. 

[Old Shuck 188]

On 21/10/2023 at 21:11, Hairy Canary said:

Yes you need thousands of years to spot natural variations in climate but this is happening far more quickly than that.
 

I remember harsh years too but now we hardly have winters at all let alone anything like 1963. 
 

My grandchildren have never seen laying snow - snow that hangs around for a several days without melting. That happened every year pretty much without fail when I was a lad. Just one generation. It’s changing far more rapidly than the time scales that could be accounted for by natural variation.

I’m afraid there are too many people who don’t want to face up to the changes needed to slow this down because it will make their lives less comfortable and will cling to any argument that means they don’t have to. 

Agree-I would still be like a small child if it snowed and, please-please-please, looked as if it would settle.

Would just disregard work and look out of the window!

Can't even remember any 'proper' frosts last winter-the bright white wash on the lawn, pond frozen solid. that sort of thing. Remember slides in the playground, have some of the present young 'uns never had that pleasure?

Winters will be mild temperatures, strong winds and heavy rain from now on. 

Plus, in Brancaster, the type of storms coming off the sea that push the tides ever higher with the potential to do a lot of damage, certainly in Brancaster Sraithe.

 

[ron obvious 1,514]

https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=7603

[Hairy Canary 707]

9 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=7603

1659!

you do know greenhouse emissions are the result of industrialisation?
 

Smoothing out averages over 350 years in order to hide a raise in temperature over the last 50. Honestly the gullibility is breathtaking 

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Hairy Canary

[ron obvious 1,514]

Why pick 1880?

46 minutes ago, Hairy Canary said:

1659!

you do know greenhouse emissions are the result of industrialisation?
 

Smoothing out averages over 350 years in order to hide a raise in temperature over the last 50. Honestly the gullibility is breathtaking 

 

Why pick 1880? Could it be because it suits your case better than 1649, long before the industrial revolution  but had similar decade averages to  the1970s.

The longer the time period the more representative the results. There certainly seems to be an increase since the 70s as shown on the graph which has some lagging correlation to CO2.  What's interesting is the individual 'noise' spikes from year to year, - 1740 was as hot as 1990 for example. Weather as against climate. The wettest & worst weather I've seen was in the 1960s. But that's irrelevant.

I'm pretty sure there is some anthropogenic effect on global temperature, I'm just not sure it's catastrophic - certainly not sure enough to believe in the impoverishment of much of the world to prevent any increase in global average temperatures.

Edited November 1, 2023 by ron obvious

[Hairy Canary 707]

7 hours ago, ron obvious said:

Why pick 1880?

Why pick 1880? Could it be because it suits your case better than 1649, long before the industrial revolution  but had similar decade averages to  the1970s.

The longer the time period the more representative the results. There certainly seems to be an increase since the 70s as shown on the graph which has some lagging correlation to CO2.  What's interesting is the individual 'noise' spikes from year to year, - 1740 was as hot as 1990 for example. Weather as against climate. The wettest & worst weather I've seen was in the 1960s. But that's irrelevant.

I'm pretty sure there is some anthropogenic effect on global temperature, I'm just not sure it's catastrophic - certainly not sure enough to believe in the impoverishment of much of the world to prevent any increase in global average temperatures.

1880 is when there was a significant increase in carbon emissions. Any changes prior to that couldn’t be due to man made global warming.

The temperature measure on the graph above is a global one. In 1659 large swathes of the world were still uncolonised let alone had detailed weather measurements taken.

The arctic and Antarctic hadn’t even been visited.

The mercury thermometer wasn’t even invented until 1714, let alone uniformly used.

The whole point is the correlation between global temperature rises and increased emissions, as per on my graph since 1880. How do you think people in 1659 were measuring carbon emissions?

 

[essex canary 506]

On 21/10/2023 at 10:10, Chief stoker said:

After missing about 4 games this season already, for strikes, engineering works and now weather, I feel it maybe time to give up my season ticket!

That could have more to do with the strikes that keep hitting the back of our net.

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

That could have more to do with the strikes that keep hitting the back of our net.

The other threads have established that you are not clever, this one has revealed that you are not funny either. Is there no beginning to  your talents?

Edited November 2, 2023 by wcorkcanary

[Yobocop 1,105]

11 hours ago, Hairy Canary said:

1659!

you do know greenhouse emissions are the result of industrialisation?
 

Smoothing out averages over 350 years in order to hide a raise in temperature over the last 50. Honestly the gullibility is breathtaking 

 

Alright Greta thunberg 

[CANARYKING 644]

Back to the title of this thread, Halesworth about to be cut off again

[Capt. Pants 4,277]

5 minutes ago, CANARYKING said:

Back to the title of this thread, Halesworth about to be cut off again

Every cloud...