Historical weather - Timeanddate.com

13
Posted 25th FebEdited by:"OllieSt"
This might be of use for anyone trying to gauge expected weather from around the world.

Of course the past is no guarantee of the future, but it should be a pretty good guide.

Info on weather in London this day 10 years ago
Community Updates
Misc

Groups

13 Comments
Or listen to Bratta Thunberg and just add 5 degrees on to whatever last years temperature was.... how daaaaaare yooooou
The DarkSky app has this feature called 'time machine'. You can select any date and it tells you the weather on that day.
Edited by: "ncd" 25th Feb
Timschoice25/02/2020 13:51

Or listen to Bratta Thunberg and just add 5 degrees on to whatever last …Or listen to Bratta Thunberg and just add 5 degrees on to whatever last years temperature was.... how daaaaaare yooooou


However there is a flaw in this. What OllieSt has posted is about the weather. Weather isn't climate, and a few temperature records do NOT a complete global climate history make!
LemonHead25/02/2020 17:37

However there is a flaw in this. What OllieSt has posted is about the …However there is a flaw in this. What OllieSt has posted is about the weather. Weather isn't climate, and a few temperature records do NOT a complete global climate history make!


Firstly, I don’t really care as climate change is disputed and I there’s too many people benefitting from the constant scaremongering. Secondly, doesn’t ‘weather’ refer to short-term changes in the atmosphere, whereas climate describes what the weather is like over a long period of time in a specific area? If so, this would surely fit that description??
Edited by: "Timschoice" 25th Feb
Timschoice25/02/2020 18:50

Firstly, I don’t really care as climate change is disputed and I there’s to …Firstly, I don’t really care as climate change is disputed and I there’s too many people benefitting from the constant scaremongering. Secondly, doesn’t ‘weather’ refer to short-term changes in the atmosphere, whereas climate describes what the weather is like over a long period of time in a specific area? If so, this would surely fit that description??


Yes, weather refers to the short-term conditions of the lower atmosphere, such as precipitation, temperature, humidity, wind direction, wind speed, and atmospheric pressure.

Whereas climate refers to atmospheric changes over longer periods of time.

While weather refers to short-term changes in the atmosphere, climate refers to atmospheric changes over longer periods of time, usually defined as 30 years or more. This is why it is possible to have an especially cold spell even though, on average, global temperatures are rising. The former is a weather event that takes place over the course of days, while the latter indicates an overall change in climate, which occurs over decades. In other words, the cold winter is a relatively small atmospheric perturbation (a small change in the movement, quality, or behaviour of something, especially an unusual change) within a much larger, long-term trend of warming.

Too many people benefiting from constant scaremongering?

The blame really lies with the people recklessly profiteering from climate chaos, and those unwilling to challenge the system which allows them to wreak havoc. Around 100 companies are responsible for roughly 71% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. They know exactly what they’re doing. Exxon and BP and all of them have produced pioneering research into prospective impacts of climate change. They factor them into their business models. All whilst lobbying governments to continue supporting the fossil fuel industry.

A minuscule minority of people have made themselves incredibly wealthy by committing what amounts to calculated global arson. And some people are still blaming the residents of the burning building. If we're to avert catastrophe, we need to start calling the real criminals to account.
LemonHead25/02/2020 20:37

Yes, weather refers to the short-term conditions of the lower atmosphere, …Yes, weather refers to the short-term conditions of the lower atmosphere, such as precipitation, temperature, humidity, wind direction, wind speed, and atmospheric pressure.Whereas climate refers to atmospheric changes over longer periods of time.While weather refers to short-term changes in the atmosphere, climate refers to atmospheric changes over longer periods of time, usually defined as 30 years or more. This is why it is possible to have an especially cold spell even though, on average, global temperatures are rising. The former is a weather event that takes place over the course of days, while the latter indicates an overall change in climate, which occurs over decades. In other words, the cold winter is a relatively small atmospheric perturbation (a small change in the movement, quality, or behaviour of something, especially an unusual change) within a much larger, long-term trend of warming.Too many people benefiting from constant scaremongering?The blame really lies with the people recklessly profiteering from climate chaos, and those unwilling to challenge the system which allows them to wreak havoc. Around 100 companies are responsible for roughly 71% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. They know exactly what they’re doing. Exxon and BP and all of them have produced pioneering research into prospective impacts of climate change. They factor them into their business models. All whilst lobbying governments to continue supporting the fossil fuel industry.A minuscule minority of people have made themselves incredibly wealthy by committing what amounts to calculated global arson. And some people are still blaming the residents of the burning building. If we're to avert catastrophe, we need to start calling the real criminals to account.


As a species we’re doomed anyway so does it matter who did what to who? Life is for living, not worrying yourself to dead over stuff that MAY or MAY NOT be within our control or actually even be an issue....
Timschoice25/02/2020 21:03

As a species we’re doomed anyway so does it matter who did what to who? L …As a species we’re doomed anyway so does it matter who did what to who? Life is for living, not worrying yourself to dead over stuff that MAY or MAY NOT be within our control or actually even be an issue....


Yes, that's right. Though it does no harm to think of others who are affected by this issue now and again. The reality is that millions of people are already suffering from the catastrophic effects of extreme disasters exacerbated by climate change.

There is no point in being selfish as it's not rewarding. Not in a selfish way mind though in a way how you feel about yourself. We have all experienced how it feels when we've made people feel secure and happy. It's part of being human. I don't think this needs any further explanation.
Edited by: "LemonHead" 25th Feb
LemonHead25/02/2020 22:00

Yes, that's right. Though it does no harm to think of others who are …Yes, that's right. Though it does no harm to think of others who are affected by this issue now and again. The reality is that millions of people are already suffering from the catastrophic effects of extreme disasters exacerbated by climate change.There is no point in being selfish as it's not rewarding. Not in a selfish way mind though in a way how you feel about yourself. We have all experienced how it feels when we've made people feel secure and happy. It's part of being human. I don't think this needs any further explanation.


Our ancestors didn’t think of our generation when they burned anything in sight? I’m still to be convinced that climate change is anything other than the natural way of this planet. I think that we have a very over opinionated view of our impact. Also, why are the government attacking cars but don’t do the same with aeroplanes that are huge polluters and mainly ferry people on holiday which is hardly important?

Too many double standards and false information on the subject, you can’t trust any “expert” as they often get outed as false prophets.
LemonHead25/02/2020 22:00

Yes, that's right. Though it does no harm to think of others who are …Yes, that's right. Though it does no harm to think of others who are affected by this issue now and again. The reality is that millions of people are already suffering from the catastrophic effects of extreme disasters exacerbated by climate change.There is no point in being selfish as it's not rewarding. Not in a selfish way mind though in a way how you feel about yourself. We have all experienced how it feels when we've made people feel secure and happy. It's part of being human. I don't think this needs any further explanation.



Is that the reality? Are deaths from extreme weather increasing?
Rubisco25/02/2020 23:26

Is that the reality? Are deaths from extreme weather increasing?


Globally, the number of reported weather-related natural disasters has more than tripled since the 1960s. Every year, these disasters result in over 60,000 deaths, mainly in developing countries.

What has been observed is the significant decline in deaths from almost all types of disaster with the exception of earthquakes and extreme weather.
Edited by: "LemonHead" 26th Feb
LemonHead26/02/2020 16:40

Globally, the number of reported weather-related natural disasters has …Globally, the number of reported weather-related natural disasters has more than tripled since the 1960s. Every year, these disasters result in over 60,000 deaths, mainly in developing countries.


The number of reported anything has increased since the 1960s.

If you're asking people to think of the human cost of climate change, what exactly is the human cost of climate change?

If extreme weather is on the rise, then is there a corresponding increase in fatalities, and if there is not then why is there not? If there isn't an increase in fatalities because the weather is getting worse but we are getting better at disaster relief then does risking the global economy with extreme anti-CO2 policies risk our ability to provide that disaster relief?
Rubisco26/02/2020 17:24

The number of reported anything has increased since the 1960s.If you're …The number of reported anything has increased since the 1960s.If you're asking people to think of the human cost of climate change, what exactly is the human cost of climate change?If extreme weather is on the rise, then is there a corresponding increase in fatalities, and if there is not then why is there not? If there isn't an increase in fatalities because the weather is getting worse but we are getting better at disaster relief then does risking the global economy with extreme anti-CO2 policies risk our ability to provide that disaster relief?


I'm guessing what you are talking about is how climate change impacts people in economic terms. Well it all depends on how we go about it.

What we need is a program to try and decarbonise the economy at pace. But to try and do it in a way that raises living standards, creating jobs, and try to change the economy.

And what people like myself think what's really powerful about it is the environmental crisis and the economic crisis that we are facing are often seen as two separate things. But they are fundamentally related because they come back to an economy that isn't working for people, that isn't working for the environment.

In fact governments all over the world are failing on the climate crisis. For example, the UK government has been giving subsidies to fossil fuel companies for years.

Meanwhile, income inequality is at its worst for decades.

This money could also be put towards the things you are concerned about, providing disaster relief for example.

And on top of this, how the economy currently works is bad for our environment.

We're consuming more, we are producing more - one-and-a-half times - our ability to regenerate; the earth can only sustain so much.

We need to transform the economy in a way that would deal with climate breakdown. A mix of policies across sectors, some transformative and others, though needed, might seem a little less exciting.

And of course one of the major ideas is massive investment in renewables, so we stop using fossil fuels in our day-to-day lives, including in how we generate our electricity.

This could even mean thousands or even millions of decent, rewarding jobs being created, offsetting the ones lost to declining fossil fuel industries.

This transition should also be about how to make these changes in the best and fairest way possible. A 'just transition'.

People's jobs will have to change of course and the way they work will have to change too, and this should also include them in the conversation and also, recognising that they are the best people to listen to and who will have a better understanding of how we can make that change, because they're the ones impacted by it.

This transition should also give us the opportunity to have a conversation with people who are often left behind and are usually the victims of policy change.

And crucially, a 'just transition' should also mean listening to people globally, including some of those least responsible for the climate crisis but who are being impacted the most.

For example, this transition shouldn't continue the destructive extraction of minerals abroad.

We in the UK have a historic responsibility for decarbonising really quickly because this is the nation that birthed the industrial revolution and colonised large parts of the world and used its resources to build the modern society that we live in right now.

Can we afford it?

We can afford to do it, it's a question of political choices and political will.

There's money out there that we're already using and we're just using it poorly as mentioned above.

Some economists say it could be financed through shifting where subsidies currently go, borrowing to invest, a windfall tax on oil and gas companies and new jobs, which should create more income, and tax revenues.

But there's an even bigger question here; can we afford not to do it?

If you think about the logical conclusion of climate change, you think about the chaos in the system, extreme weather conditions, hurricanes, floods, and the human, but also the financial costs of responding to that. So, it's not can we afford it? It's a choice.

We either are sensible now and we make decisions now and say 'this is the cost of trying to manage this thing', or we sleepwalk into the crisis that the science tells us is coming.

This of course would mean major change, on a scale that can be hard to imagine.

But climate breakdown is already happening, and the scale of the problem is huge.

And we also have a real chance to do something about it, and do something about it in a fair and just way.

We also know some of the solutions as some of the thinking around this transition has been around for quite a while. It just takes the political will to implement some of them.

And climate change is "absolutely" already causing deaths, according to a new report on the health impacts of the climate crisis, which also predicts climate-related stunting, malnutrition and lower IQ in children within the coming decades.

The report, from Townsville to Tuvalu, produced by Monash University in Melbourne, pulled together scientific research from roughly 120 peer-reviewed journal articles to paint a picture of the health-related impacts of the climate emergency in Australia and the Pacific region.

"There are absolutely people dying of climate-related deaths, [especially due to] heat stress right now," - Misha Coleman, one of the report's authors.

glham.org/wp-content/uploads/GLHAA_TownsvilleTuvalu-08.pdf
Edited by: "LemonHead" 26th Feb
LemonHead26/02/2020 21:49

What we need is a program to try and decarbonise the economy at pace. But …What we need is a program to try and decarbonise the economy at pace. But to try and do it in a way that raises living standards, creating jobs, and try to change the economy.


Sounds great.

LemonHead26/02/2020 21:49

And what people like myself think what's really powerful about it is the …And what people like myself think what's really powerful about it is the environmental crisis and the economic crisis that we are facing are often seen as two separate things. But they are fundamentally related because they come back to an economy that isn't working for people, that isn't working for the environment.


What economic crisis? The one that ended a decade ago? The global economy is doing well, particularly for developing nations.

LemonHead26/02/2020 21:49

Meanwhile, income inequality is at its worst for decades.


Yes communism took a massive hit in the early 90s. Which is what this is really all about isn't it?

LemonHead26/02/2020 21:49

For example, this transition shouldn't continue the destructive extraction …For example, this transition shouldn't continue the destructive extraction of minerals abroad.


Do you realise the advances in energy efficiency made due to rare-earth mineral technologies? If we're in such a crisis, surely the risk of small localised environmental damage is worth it?

LemonHead26/02/2020 21:49

We in the UK have a historic responsibility for decarbonising really …We in the UK have a historic responsibility for decarbonising really quickly because this is the nation that birthed the industrial revolution and colonised large parts of the world and used its resources to build the modern society that we live in right now.


Again, surely if this is an absolute crisis then our approach should be a strictly pragmatic one to save the earth whatever the cost, not one that prioritises your feelings of white guilt over our colonial history? Anyone would think that you don't genuinely believe we're on the brink if you're entertaining such luxuries as fantasies of 'fairness'.

Are you actually serious or do you simply want to use climate change to scare the public into accepting a planned economy?
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text

    Discussions

    Discussions

    Top Merchants