Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Sign in to follow this  
1949threepence

Temperatures somewhat above the seasonal norm......

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

No - Labour's position is very clear: all existing exploration (plus any licences issued before Labour come to power, if such comes about) will continue / be honoured. What they've said is that there will be no new licences issued which - even if there was no climate change prevailing - makes perfect sense given the sharp decline in North Sea oil and gas stocks.

However, there will plenty of jobs created by a switch to alternatives, of which offshore wind looks the best bet. There was a news item in the past month that shows our reliance on non fossil sources of energy went over 50% for the first time, from a base line of about 10% earlier this century.

Everyone is AIMING for 2030 which is laudable, but let's not get our knicks.i.a.t. if the target is missed. The important thing is that an effort is being made.

I did say they would not be granting any new licences. I know that existing ones will be honoured.

It's great that renewables are now reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, but by deliberately cutting back on fossil fuels at this stage, we risk a Winter crisis at some point, especially if the wind stops, as it very well might depending on the weather conditions. Moreover, some time will be needed for any (new) nuclear power stations to come on line.

I'll let you argue with the unions over new job opportunities. It's them that's raised it, and they bankroll the Labour Party to a greater or lesser extent. So Starmer really doesn't want to get on their wrong side before he's even in power.

As far as 2030, the target will be missed whether or not the eco zealots get their knickers in a twist over it.  

*************************************************************************************************************************

By the way here's a question for you from @oldcopper whose posts I know you once said were invisible to you. If you want to reply through me, I'll make sure he sees it.

Quote

"I would like the climate alarmists (eg Peckris, I know he can read my comments) to explain why the West signed up to these climate treaties that gave "industrialising" nations such as China and India a free pass to emit as much CO2 as they wanted. They are primarily responsible for the world now emitting more man-made CO2 than at any time before. I like the analogy of us trying to empty a bath with a teaspoon while China fills it up with a bucket. That sums this lunacy up, whether or not you believe in the man-made CO2 driving climate change theory."

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am writing this at 20 past 7 in the evening, in the first week of June, and in my lounge it's 12˚C 

12.

 

Bloody freezing.

Got a scarf on.

Indoors.

In June.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blakeyboy said:

I am writing this at 20 past 7 in the evening, in the first week of June, and in my lounge it's 12˚C 

12.

 

Bloody freezing.

Got a scarf on.

Indoors.

In June.

Don't worry, it won't be like this for much longer. Heat & humidity wii be heading our way towards the end of the week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

It's great that renewables are now reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, but by deliberately cutting back on fossil fuels at this stage, we risk a Winter crisis at some point, especially if the wind stops, as it very well might depending on the weather conditions. Moreover, some time will be needed for any (new) nuclear power stations to come on line.

I'll let you argue with the unions over new job opportunities. It's them that's raised it, and they bankroll the Labour Party to a greater or lesser extent. So Starmer really doesn't want to get on their wrong side before he's even in power.

*************************************************************************************************************************

By the way here's a question for you from @oldcopper whose posts I know you once said were invisible to you. If you want to reply through me, I'll make sure he sees it.

I doubt we will face a winter crisis, at least not compared to the miners' strike that brought down the Heath government in '73, with a 3-day week,  no TV after 10:30 pm - which was at a time when we were nearly fully dependant on coal. Now, 50 years later, the wind will keep blowing, and the turbines will turn.

The unions can be very stroppy when it comes to jobs. If they can't see the winds of change (pun intended), then more fool them. Anyway, Labour isn't as reliant on the unions as they once were, a legacy of Blair and New Labour.

I can see quoted posts of course, but quoting your post doesn't include the post you quoted! However, as far as emitters like India and China are concerned, I wouldn't say "free pass"; when it came to trying to get agreement, the West had three choices:

1. Get everyone to agree to a minimum level of reduction (which would not happen)

2. Abandon the whole business through lack of agreement by certain countries

3. Reluctantly accept a certain level of compromise as being 'better than nothing', which is what we had to settle for in the end.

We don't know what China is up to, they are an industrialised authoritarian Communist economy who keep their cards close to their chest. Maybe they will come to see the danger posed by climate change. Let's hope so. What's more important is that America under a Democrat president and Congress are making great progress and reduction of CO2 - that really does make a difference. As far as Britain is concerned, we do still have some influence in the world. If - I should say 'when' - we achieve carbon neutrality there are nations that will take notice even if our contribution amounts to the proverbial teaspoon (actually it is more that that, though not a huge difference on its own).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

I doubt we will face a winter crisis, at least not compared to the miners' strike that brought down the Heath government in '73, with a 3-day week,  no TV after 10:30 pm - which was at a time when we were nearly fully dependant on coal. Now, 50 years later, the wind will keep blowing, and the turbines will turn.

The unions can be very stroppy when it comes to jobs. If they can't see the winds of change (pun intended), then more fool them. Anyway, Labour isn't as reliant on the unions as they once were, a legacy of Blair and New Labour.

I can see quoted posts of course, but quoting your post doesn't include the post you quoted! However, as far as emitters like India and China are concerned, I wouldn't say "free pass"; when it came to trying to get agreement, the West had three choices:

1. Get everyone to agree to a minimum level of reduction (which would not happen)

2. Abandon the whole business through lack of agreement by certain countries

3. Reluctantly accept a certain level of compromise as being 'better than nothing', which is what we had to settle for in the end.

We don't know what China is up to, they are an industrialised authoritarian Communist economy who keep their cards close to their chest. Maybe they will come to see the danger posed by climate change. Let's hope so. What's more important is that America under a Democrat president and Congress are making great progress and reduction of CO2 - that really does make a difference. As far as Britain is concerned, we do still have some influence in the world. If - I should say 'when' - we achieve carbon neutrality there are nations that will take notice even if our contribution amounts to the proverbial teaspoon (actually it is more that that, though not a huge difference on its own).

 

Not necessarily - if we get a severe Winter with a persistent Scandinavian anticyclone, we could experience a flat calm over many weeks just in the areas where most turbines are placed.

As far as what you say about China is concerned, I'm way more cynical than you on this issue. I certainly would regard it as moronic beyond all belief if we continued to tighten towards net zero before are ready - and we are very far from ready yet. The "setting an example" you hint it is just arrogance. Especially as no-one will take a blind bit of notice, until such time as we truly are at net zero. Then they might. 

Any rate, I notice that Starmer was back peddling slightly today when he admitted it would be a very long time before we could do completely without fossil fuels. Actually the idea of a "GB Energy" isn't a bad one.   

I'll let @oldcopper reply if he wishes to do so, and quote to you what he says. Although I must admit, I find it quite extraordinary from a technical point of view, that one member's posts really are invisible to you.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Not necessarily - if we get a severe Winter with a persistent Scandinavian anticyclone, we could experience a flat calm over many weeks just in the areas where most turbines are placed.

As far as what you say about China is concerned, I'm way more cynical than you on this issue. I certainly would regard it as moronic beyond all belief if we continued to tighten towards net zero before are ready - and we are very far from ready yet. The "setting an example" you hint it is just arrogance. Especially as no-one will take a blind bit of notice, until such time as we truly are at net zero. Then they might. 

Any rate, I notice that Starmer was back peddling slightly today when he admitted it would be a very long time before we could do completely without fossil fuels. Actually the idea of a "GB Energy" isn't a bad one.   

I'll let @oldcopper reply if he wishes to do so, and quote to you what he says. Although I must admit, I find it quite extraordinary from a technical point of view, that one member's posts really are invisible to you.

 

 

I expect he sees the ones he wants to see! He can probably see all of them - it's just a convenient excuse for getting out of answering any of my questions after he comes out with his usual nonsense.

It's the same old story - there is no real perspective or realism in Peckris's blithe platitudes. It's all taken at face value from the media or politicians. He hasn't thought about it. He "hopes" China will come round - Xi has said that China will only change over to renewable energy when "others have shown it to be a success". If China can gain vast economic power from being the only country in the world that can do energy-intensive manufacturing, Xi isn't going to kill his golden goose - virtually limitless cheap energy, and the unfortunate result of net zero will be the complete economic ascendancy of China. So we're basically enabling a slave state to become the economic powerhouse of the world because they can, and do, burn as much coal as they want. To make all our renewables like solar panels for instance!

Xi is safe enough in his stance - no one will ever make a success of it of course, as the renewables shebang has two huge flaws: its energy is not storable on any scale thus has to be used when made, and the supply is variable and uncontrollable. It's weather dependant, and cannot be magicked up when needed. You can't have bigger elephants in the room than that.

"The wind will keep on blowing" - as you say, not if we have an anti-cyclone above us which happened for a prolonged period this Winter. And in Winter solar is basically useless with long nights and weak light, not forgetting it produces nothing for 50% of the year, ie night. So solar is only really significant on high Summer days when we least need the energy.

So on not very windy days in Winter, how many nuclear power stations, small modular or otherwise, would we need to effectively produce 100% backup for ALL our energy needs? That would entail charging all vehicles, warming all buildings, hot water, all industry and all current electrical stuff?

And how is our nuclear building programme going at the moment?

We're tricked on every level - we're told renewables produce up to 50% of our electricity, often craftily called "energy" instead as if it's our total energy requirement. And yes it does produce up to 50%, but only now and again. But it also produces less than 5% of our electricity at other times. They don't tell us that, but just employ the phrase "up to". They don't mention that much of the rest of the electricity is generated by gas. And that's to order, unlike renewables. But electricity is only currently about 20% of our total energy consumption, the remainder being mainly fossil fuels with a bit of nuclear, that means our billions of pounds investment in renewables provides 20% of between 5% and 50% - so less than 1% to maximum 10% of our total energy requirement, produced randomly of course. 

Where does one start on this? - there are so many holes in it. Like some elderly acquaintances of ours who have just bought a mid-range EV, so as to tell everyone they're "saving the planet"!

Help, help, help.....!!!

 

Edited by oldcopper
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

I doubt we will face a winter crisis, at least not compared to the miners' strike that brought down the Heath government in '73, with a 3-day week,  no TV after 10:30 pm - which was at a time when we were nearly fully dependant on coal. Now, 50 years later, the wind will keep blowing, and the turbines will turn.

The unions can be very stroppy when it comes to jobs. If they can't see the winds of change (pun intended), then more fool them. Anyway, Labour isn't as reliant on the unions as they once were, a legacy of Blair and New Labour.

I can see quoted posts of course, but quoting your post doesn't include the post you quoted! However, as far as emitters like India and China are concerned, I wouldn't say "free pass"; when it came to trying to get agreement, the West had three choices:

1. Get everyone to agree to a minimum level of reduction (which would not happen)

2. Abandon the whole business through lack of agreement by certain countries

3. Reluctantly accept a certain level of compromise as being 'better than nothing', which is what we had to settle for in the end.

We don't know what China is up to, they are an industrialised authoritarian Communist economy who keep their cards close to their chest. Maybe they will come to see the danger posed by climate change. Let's hope so. What's more important is that America under a Democrat president and Congress are making great progress and reduction of CO2 - that really does make a difference. As far as Britain is concerned, we do still have some influence in the world. If - I should say 'when' - we achieve carbon neutrality there are nations that will take notice even if our contribution amounts to the proverbial teaspoon (actually it is more that that, though not a huge difference on its own).

 

As being defined as "industrialising" nations, yes China and India for example have got a free pass, this is enshrined in previous treaties - they can use as much fossil fuel, mainly coal, as they want. So China using a further 300 million tons last year to bring its annual consumption of coal to over 3 billion tons. And remember, coal is the worst CO2 emitter per energy produced, of any fossil fuel. I presume that's giving you sleepless nights - if not, why not? CO2 levels are at record highs mainly due to massive coal burning, but not in the West.

And if Biden is doing so great on the renewables front, how come he's just given permission to open up the huge Willow Field, set in pristine wilderness in Alaska. Any thoughts on that, and does it mean that unlike Starmer, the US still has some grasp of reality? 

So are they going to transport Willow's fossil fuel to the remainder of the US by tanker, or use an existing pipeline or build one? They cancelled one pipeline a couple of years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oldcopper said:

I expect he sees the ones he wants to see! He can probably see all of them - it's just a convenient excuse for getting out of answering any of my questions after he comes out with his usual nonsense.

It's the same old story - there is no real perspective or realism in Peckris's blithe platitudes. It's all taken at face value from the media or politicians. He hasn't thought about it. He "hopes" China will come round - Xi has said that China will only change over to renewable energy when "others have shown it to be a success". If China can gain vast economic power from being the only country in the world that can do energy-intensive manufacturing, Xi isn't going to kill his golden goose - virtually limitless cheap energy, and the unfortunate result of net zero will be the complete economic ascendancy of China. So we're basically enabling a slave state to become the economic powerhouse of the world because they can, and do, burn as much coal as they want. To make all our renewables like solar panels for instance!

Xi is safe enough in his stance - no one will ever make a success of it of course, as the renewables shebang has two huge flaws: its energy is not storable on any scale thus has to be used when made, and the supply is variable and uncontrollable. It's weather dependant, and cannot be magicked up when needed. You can't have bigger elephants in the room than that.

"The wind will keep on blowing" - as you say, not if we have an anti-cyclone above us which happened for a prolonged period this Winter. And in Winter solar is basically useless with long nights and weak light, not forgetting it produces nothing for 50% of the year, ie night. So solar is only really significant on high Summer days when we least need the energy.

So on not very windy days in Winter, how many nuclear power stations, small modular or otherwise, would we need to effectively produce 100% backup for ALL our energy needs? That would entail charging all vehicles, warming all buildings, hot water, all industry and all current electrical stuff?

And how is our nuclear building programme going at the moment?

We're tricked on every level - we're told renewables produce up to 50% of our electricity, often craftily called "energy" instead as if it's our total energy requirement. And yes it does produce up to 50%, but only now and again. But it also produces less than 5% of our electricity at other times. They don't tell us that, but just employ the phrase "up to". They don't mention that much of the rest of the electricity is generated by gas. And that's to order, unlike renewables. But electricity is only currently about 20% of our total energy consumption, the remainder being mainly fossil fuels with a bit of nuclear, that means our billions of pounds investment in renewables provides 20% of between 5% and 50% - so less than 1% to maximum 10% of our total energy requirement, produced randomly of course. 

Where does one start on this? - there are so many holes in it. Like some elderly acquaintances of ours who have just bought a mid-range EV, so as to tell everyone they're "saving the planet"!

Help, help, help.....!!!

 

Excellent post, and one I can't really add to.

@Peckris 2 over to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2023 at 7:21 PM, blakeyboy said:

I am writing this at 20 past 7 in the evening, in the first week of June, and in my lounge it's 12˚C 

12.

 

Bloody freezing.

Got a scarf on.

Indoors.

In June.

 

On 6/6/2023 at 9:01 PM, 1949threepence said:

Don't worry, it won't be like this for much longer. Heat & humidity wii be heading our way towards the end of the week.

Should have added that the very dry air and low humidity has added to the cold feel once the Sun goes down. Some of the time humidity has been <40%, which is quite unusual for a British Summer.

Interestingly the Summer of 1976, whilst very hot by day, was often quite chilly at nights (by normal Summer standards), especially later into July and in August. Intense dryness, low humidity and clear skies meant considerable overnight relief from the heat for many - not dissimilar to desert conditions. Typically a max of between 30 and 32 degrees by day, could be preceded and followed by 8 to 10 degrees overnight. Same recently, but obviously not very hot by day.

As the heat and humidity rise from tomorrow onwards, it will all feel very different. You won't need a scarf, that's for sure. Nor will your living room be just 12 degrees.       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very interesting situation is developing - one which I thought I would type a few words of advance notification on.

Currently very warm and increasingly humid air is coming up from the South. In such a situation, one would in any case expect heat thunderstorms to develop in the normal course of events - which they will, especially later today over France. What marks the current situation out as noteworthy and to be watched, are two things, a) the upper air is unusually cold, which will enable prodigious and extremely powerful thunderstorms to form, and secondly a trough of low pressure is approaching from the West. This will enhance any thundery activity as it passes. 

What may happen is that the trough or front, is held up by friction at the surface, and becomes slow moving. This will intensify the thundery activity still further, and prolong it.

However, the nature of thunderstorms is one of great unpredictability in extent, severity and positioning. So what I've said above is a potentiality, not a certainty. 

Just be aware that if you do get a storm, it could be unusually severe. As ever, no idea at this stage whether lightning will be predominantly intercloud (sheet), or cloud to Earth (forked), or a mixture. This will vary from storm cell to storm cell.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember that years ago some weather forecaster said that there was an over 80% probability that tomorrow's weather in the UK would be the same as today's.

How things change !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having just got back from London, I can safely say that I think there is a belting storm due. It was very, very close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kipster said:

Having just got back from London, I can safely say that I think there is a belting storm due. It was very, very close.

Indeed so - and it will get more uncomfortable before temperatures start to fall back to nearer normal on Sunday. The humidity which precedes big storms, some find unbearable.

Over much of England it won't get below 18 degrees tonight. In the big cities it's unlikely to get below 19 to 20 degrees - London possibly 21 degrees. Not a record, but still very "phew what a scorcher!" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2023 at 1:27 PM, 1949threepence said:

A very interesting situation is developing - one which I thought I would type a few words of advance notification on.

Currently very warm and increasingly humid air is coming up from the South. In such a situation, one would in any case expect heat thunderstorms to develop in the normal course of events - which they will, especially later today over France. What marks the current situation out as noteworthy and to be watched, are two things, a) the upper air is unusually cold, which will enable prodigious and extremely powerful thunderstorms to form, and secondly a trough of low pressure is approaching from the West. This will enhance any thundery activity as it passes. 

What may happen is that the trough or front, is held up by friction at the surface, and becomes slow moving. This will intensify the thundery activity still further, and prolong it.

However, the nature of thunderstorms is one of great unpredictability in extent, severity and positioning. So what I've said above is a potentiality, not a certainty. 

Just be aware that if you do get a storm, it could be unusually severe. As ever, no idea at this stage whether lightning will be predominantly intercloud (sheet), or cloud to Earth (forked), or a mixture. This will vary from storm cell to storm cell.     

Ultimately a damp squib !!! Such is the problem in forecasting thunderstorms. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2023 at 2:55 PM, 1949threepence said:

Ultimately a damp squib !!! Such is the problem in forecasting thunderstorms. 

 

No transport available to or from my therapy session tomorrow. The bus is a 5 minute scoot away so praying no heavy rain or thunder...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

No transport available to or from my therapy session tomorrow. The bus is a 5 minute scoot away so praying no heavy rain or thunder...

You might get away with it depending on the time of your session. I think there will be some rain in your part of the world early on, but will clear by late morning (11ish). Probably much heavier over the Bristol Channel in South Wales. 

Thunder unlikely as this is just ordinary, common or garden, frontal rain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.netweather.tv/weather-forecasts/uk/convective

This is always worth a read- often very complicated!!

British weather, eh?

I was a member of TORRO yeas ago.

No-one would believe me when I said that only the US has more tornados than us....

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2023 at 10:06 PM, 1949threepence said:

You might get away with it depending on the time of your session. I think there will be some rain in your part of the world early on, but will clear by late morning (11ish). Probably much heavier over the Bristol Channel in South Wales. 

Thunder unlikely as this is just ordinary, common or garden, frontal rain.

Sadly, during a 5 minute scoot to the bus, it decided to absolutely pour down (12:45) and I got soaked. :( The only consolation is that in the other 3 segments of the journey, it didn't rain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2023 at 5:44 AM, blakeyboy said:

https://www.netweather.tv/weather-forecasts/uk/convective

This is always worth a read- often very complicated!!

British weather, eh?

I was a member of TORRO yeas ago.

No-one would believe me when I said that only the US has more tornados than us....

 

 

But of course ours are much weaker than theirs. Some barely register at all. I doubt if we've ever had an F3 - probably F2 maximum. 

Possibly the strongest tornado to ever hit the UK, was the one which started in Buckinghamshire and travelled about 60 miles to somewhere in Cambridgeshire, on 21st May 1950. That caused a lot of damage with uprooted trees, sheds and greenhouses ruined, and cars overturned. Luckily it was a Sunday morning and there was nobody about when some scaffolding collapsed into the street. 

22 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

Sadly, during a 5 minute scoot to the bus, it decided to absolutely pour down (12:45) and I got soaked. :( The only consolation is that in the other 3 segments of the journey, it didn't rain.

You were just unlucky to cop for a shower at that specific time..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

But of course ours are much weaker than theirs. Some barely register at all. I doubt if we've ever had an F3 - probably F2 maximum. 

Possibly the strongest tornado to ever hit the UK, was the one which started in Buckinghamshire and travelled about 60 miles to somewhere in Cambridgeshire, on 21st May 1950. That caused a lot of damage with uprooted trees, sheds and greenhouses ruined, and cars overturned. Luckily it was a Sunday morning and there was nobody about when some scaffolding collapsed into the street. 

You were just unlucky to cop for a shower at that specific time..

Just like dorothy and Toto

Edited by copper123
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should really be grateful at present that currently, our Summer weather resembles an old school wet, cool and unsettled British Summer. There is an extreme heatwave over Southern Europe with temperatures above 40 degrees. Not pleasant.

On 6th July, the town of Adrar, Algeria recorded a minimum overnight temperature of 39.6 °C. The highest minimum temperature ever recorded in African climatic history. That's incredible. 

We're not out of the woods yet. The very hottest (peak of the heat) of our hot spells tend to occur late July/early August. Hopefully we will avoid those extremes. Of course, being a relatively small  island surrounded by sea helps. For the same reason, many Portuguese travel to Madeira for respite from the heat - of course it's hot there as well, but not nearly as hot as the mainlad, despite being further South, as it is a very small island surrounded by sea, with the concomitant cooling effect. High lying suburban estates also help.  

link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are of course very lucky to have the gulf stream - without it these isles would be more like Canada in the winter - please god , no , I just hate my winter bills as they are nevermind a -30 ,in that temperature I am pretty sure I would be stuck at home in the winter for four months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, copper123 said:

We are of course very lucky to have the gulf stream - without it these isles would be more like Canada in the winter - please god , no , I just hate my winter bills as they are nevermind a -30 ,in that temperature I am pretty sure I would be stuck at home in the winter for four months.

Yep, cut off the gulf stream and we will immediately become dominated by a European or Scandinavian anticyclone in Winter, and Winters such as 1947 or 1963, will rapidly become the norm. Probably worse. Western Europe already colder than us in Winter, will become even colder.  

Given how quickly the European continent cools down in Autumn, it's likely we would see a rapid temperature plunge from about mid November onwards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.stratusdeck.co.uk/tornado-scales

Britain's strongest is a T8-9, so around 240 mph, so around F4.

The T scale is way more scientifically based than the F scale.

 

I'm in Figueres, NE Spain, on a job, and the locals have been complaining about the heat....

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Yep, cut off the gulf stream and we will immediately become dominated by a European or Scandinavian anticyclone in Winter, and Winters such as 1947 or 1963, will rapidly become the norm. Probably worse. Western Europe already colder than us in Winter, will become even colder.  

Given how quickly the European continent cools down in Autumn, it's likely we would see a rapid temperature plunge from about mid November onwards. 

We'd have a climate not dissimilar to Quebec in Winter - link 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×