Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Erratic weather, shifted seasons - is this all down to global warming?

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shezshez)
    Correct - that one cricket match that was snowed off was in my hometown.
    Bloody hell, seriously? I didn't think anybody had heard of Buxton, much less lived there. Hope it's still as pretty as it used to be. I'm assuming you're not old enough to have been living there in the '70s but, global warming or not, the climate does seem to have changed. 1975 was an exceptional year because, less than a week after the cricket match was snowed off (the last county match they ever tried playing there, if memory serves), it was absolutely baking hot, something that didn't happen often in Buxton. My point is that, back in the 70's we could expect snow any time between October and April every year with snow lying for weeks on end and with drifts 10 or 15 feet deep. That simply doesn't happen any more and even though I don't believe that the last year or two are indicative of anything significant, longer-term there are changes.



    (Original post by marcusfox)
    You go on to state that you are somehow more qualified to comment on global warming because you study this day in-day out.

    Hallelujah. The answer to the question that scientists have been arguing for years - is global warming real? Well, thanks to one no-name nobody Scottish student on TSR, have the definitive answer. And how do we know? "Because I study this day in, day out.

    Isn't it amazing how the watermelons ridicule anything they disagree with?
    Considering he gave his opinion and you arrogantly patronised him, he gave you facts (assuming you bothered to read them) and you've insulted him, you're in no position to criticise. He's given you proof; where's your proof, where are your sources?
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingsholmmad)
    Considering he gave his opinion and you arrogantly patronised him, he gave you facts (assuming you bothered to read them) and you've insulted him, you're in no position to criticise. He's given you proof; where's your proof, where are your sources?
    That's really cute. Considering his first reply to me was.

    You only need to understand what global warming actually is to realise that you are talking a load of nonsense. The total heat content of the earth is still increasing which is deliberately ignored (or just not known) by people like yourself. If you look at surface temperature you only get half the picture, you need to look at the ocean as well. I suspect you don't mention that because it proves you wrong but then again maybe you just didn't know any of that.
    Of course, it can't be 'arrogant' or 'patronising' when his point of view fits yours.

    After I asked him to post the figures showing warming right up to the present day, the only "proof" and "facts" he provided amounted to nothing more than "I'm right and you're wrong, I'm a climate scientist and you're not."

    You can only suggest global warming has stopped when the atmosphere and oceans have stopped warming. This hasn't happened so how can you suggest it has stopped?

    You really do not have a clue what global warming is quite clearly. I study this day in, day out. You won't put your money where your mouth is and provide any evidenec to back up your claim that the oceans and atmosphere have both stopped warming which is very telling I think.
    When all I asked him for:

    ...address my point that there has been "no warming for quite a few years". This is in fact, 2012...
    Still waiting.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingsholmmad)
    Bloody hell, seriously? I didn't think anybody had heard of Buxton, much less lived there. Hope it's still as pretty as it used to be. I'm assuming you're not old enough to have been living there in the '70s but, global warming or not, the climate does seem to have changed. 1975 was an exceptional year because, less than a week after the cricket match was snowed off (the last county match they ever tried playing there, if memory serves), it was absolutely baking hot, something that didn't happen often in Buxton. My point is that, back in the 70's we could expect snow any time between October and April every year with snow lying for weeks on end and with drifts 10 or 15 feet deep. That simply doesn't happen any more and even though I don't believe that the last year or two are indicative of anything significant, longer-term there are changes.
    The fact that we no longer get the snow that we did in the 70's is no evidence to support the theory of man-made global warming over any other theory that explains periods of warming [and cooling].

    There are Vikings that were buried (interred) in the permafrost in Greenland.

    The permafrost was not disturbed since it froze. It was not frozen when they were buried.

    I would call that warmer then today, a lot warmer.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SeismicHazard)
    I disagree somewhat on that point and I think your argument would carry a lot more weight if you were able to get some rather basic points right. A lot of people fall back on the "it has changed before" argument without really thinking about what it tells us.

    Known natural forcings alone cannot account for what we have observed since the industrial revolution. That isn't to say natural forcings don't have a significant impact because they do (they can cancel out or exacerbate anthropogenic forcings) but there has to be something else to account for what we see and anthropogenic forcings fit the puzzle very well as it were.

    What past changes in climate can tell us is that what we are doing now is very likely to have an impact on the system rather than the other way around. Events that have resulted in increased amounts of carbon dioxide (and/or other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere have lead to significant shifts in the climate before and there isn't really anything to suggest that it doesn't play a significant role today. It is a little ironic that the evidence you use to support your point of veiw actually supports quite the opposite but this seems to be pretty common unfortunately.
    How does the evidence I used support my argument support the opposite when my argument was that the climate has changed regularly throughout history, which is what the diagram showed, seeing as it showed a regular pattern of peaks in temperature after a certain number of years?
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Movember)
    i dont know about you but i dont think we have had a proper summer in the UK since 2006, when it was sunny and hot weather from around may through to september (how it should be). since then the seasons have shifted and weather is so erratic and volatile its unbelievable! currently we have snow, snowy showers and winter temperatures whereas less than a week ago, it was nice summer weather. this is all when it should be spring weather. since 2006, we seem to get hot weather between march and june (everyone is revising for exams or doing exams). then by july it turns to autumn weather just in time for the summer holiday. we seem to get a brief hot spell (lasting about a week or two) in early october then in recent years, we get heavy snow as early as november or as late as march.

    is it all due to global warming? i heard before that the winds bringing hot air from the caribbean had shifted upwards in recent years but it would go back to normality soon and we would have summers as we used to. but that hasnt happened. are we destined for erratic weather and shifted seasons forever more?

    I agree! Spring is now really nice sunny weather, and summer is more 'tropical' rainy, stormy, humid etc. Plus more insects . Yet the Winter is getting colder.

    Personally I'd happily just alternate between Spring and Autumn all the time, I don't like the snow and I don't like the extreme heat, but hey British people are never happy with the weather :P

    xxx
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    The fact that we no longer get the snow that we did in the 70's is no evidence to support the theory of man-made global warming over any other theory that explains periods of warming [and cooling].

    There are Vikings that were buried (interred) in the permafrost in Greenland.

    The permafrost was not disturbed since it froze. It was not frozen when they were buried.

    I would call that warmer then today, a lot warmer.
    I rather fear that I was reminiscing on a micro timescale while you were postulating on a macro one. My point was no more deep or meaningful than that I remember the ducks in the Pavilion Gardens looking particularly miffed when the pond froze over in June.

    I am not questioning the fact that climate change cannot accurately be measured over a period of 30 or 40 years, just saying that winters in Buxton seemed a lot colder then than they do now. That's not a scientific observation, just a recollection of endless weeks of trudging to school through grey, frozen slush in bitter, icy winds under miserable, leaden skies.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Man)
    How does the evidence I used support my argument support the opposite when my argument was that the climate has changed regularly throughout history, which is what the diagram showed, seeing as it showed a regular pattern of peaks in temperature after a certain number of years?
    It doesn't. The climate has changed throughout history with no help from man.

    Man made CO2 induced climate change cannot explain periods of warming and cooling before the industrial revolution.

    I agree that there has been warming, the earth has been warming since it came out of the Little Ice Age, otherwise we would still be stuck in there.

    The only reason the models gave answers that appeared "correct" is because those were the answers that the modelers expected. It is easy to deceive yourself when you have a billion dollar computer model to manufacture lies you already believe in. The data have been "adjusted" and the models tweaked and tuned until they predicted the future their creators desired, not the future that nature would produce.

    The debate must now be based on historical / empirical evidence rather than hysterical "arguments from authority" based on questionable data.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingsholmmad)
    I rather fear that I was reminiscing on a micro timescale while you were postulating on a macro one. My point was no more deep or meaningful than that I remember the ducks in the Pavilion Gardens looking particularly miffed when the pond froze over in June.

    I am not questioning the fact that climate change cannot accurately be measured over a period of 30 or 40 years, just saying that winters in Buxton seemed a lot colder then than they do now. That's not a scientific observation, just a recollection of endless weeks of trudging to school through grey, frozen slush in bitter, icy winds under miserable, leaden skies.
    I would say that it's highly likely.

    There was actually a period of 'global cooling' around that time that is overlooked as an 'anomaly'

    You may or may not remember the doomsayers back then saying that we were in for another ice age, until the last period of warming that started off the current crop of global warmists.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Climate Research is done by people who regard themselves as mighty intellects who do research that no mortal can understand. This effort is led by hugely distinguished members of the scientific establishment. Groupthink prevails. The internal perception is that the practioners of this particular art are so brilliant that they can do anything in any subject better than anyone else.

    They are of course true scientists and avoid being scrutinised at all costs. Anyone who is critical is immediately dismissed as not being a climate scientist.
    I think climate scientists are better placed to study climate than anybody else but maybe that idea is a bit too radical.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    And every time the model fails to predict reality, they come up with a new one that fails to predict reality.
    And every time the models are right once more, there is a strange silence from certain camps. Temperatures are well within what most models have predicted. Ocean heat content is too (above what a number of models predict though). Sea ice changes (which are actually going quicker than most models predict). A lot of the models out there are too conservative which is the big problem.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    All I'm asking you to do is post the evidence of recent warming in the past few years...
    I think this paper is free for all to view but if it isn't drop me a PM and I will happily email it to you. They detail their method pretty well so although you'll no doubt crow at the use of the word estimate (anybody with a scientific background should understand why they are being so conservative) there is easily enough information in that for you to provide a more substancial rebuttal if you are able to do so. You could also take a look at the paper published by Foster and Rahmstorf last year which looks at the temperature anomaly.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    "Forcing" is a false parameter used in climate models to produce the required results.

    As science is well aware that CO2 alone cannot cause dangerous warming, a forcing parameter had to be introduced.

    Why? because if CO2 continues to rise at it's current rate of 2 parts per million each year, in fifty years it may cause a temperature increase of 0.6C, in 100 years it may reach 588ppmv and temperature may increase by 1.2C according to the Arrhenius supposition relating 0.6C of observed warming directly to a 100ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, (No it won't as the logarithmic properties of CO2 prohibit any such rise), but even if it did, still not a lot to worry about. So at this point reality goes out the window and a hypothesis is established.
    I don't think you really know what a forcing is. 0.6K of warming can have far more of an effect than I think you realise as well.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    (Remember also that there are only 388 molecules of CO2 for every million parts of atmosphere, so nomatter how one looks at the data, the outgoing long wave radiated photon has only a 388 in one million chance of being absorbed by a CO2 molecule).
    You estimate of the probability is pretty much wrong (I don't have the exact figures involved to hand but you've worked it out in completely the wrong way). The mathematics involved is pretty complex. You need to know the absorption cross section and do some pretty nasty mathematics to be able to calculate the probability, not just take an overly simplistic approach as you have done. I can't really blame you for making this mistake though, it looks like it would be correct but sadly things aren't always as simple as they seem.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    The hypothesis says that CO2 is warmed by Long Wave radiation leaving the earth's surface and in turn returns some of this energy (heat) back to the surface causing yet more warming (the Greenhouse Effect). However as CO2 has to all intents and purposes reached it's maximum in it's ability to absorb radiation, any further increase in CO2 levels could only cause temperatures to increase by a few 10ths of 1C over the long term.
    As I mentioned before, that is a lot more important than you make it out to be. I'll deal with climate sensitivity below.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    The forcing parameter is used in the models to show an interaction with other GHG's mainly water vapour, to give a doubling of the Greenhouse Effect. Without this "forcing" CO2 could have no effect whatsoever on temperatures.

    Many reports show that these forcing "feedbacks" used in the models are complete nonsense, fine if you want to show warming, but bear no resemblance to reality.
    The low estimates of climate sensitivity don't agree with paleoclimatic data or empirical observations sadly. The transition to an interglacial would never happen if the climate sensitivity is as low as some people suggest, something which is often overlooked. Conversely, it can't be too high otherwise past changes would have been far greater than they actually were. Somewhere around 2-3K is consistent with both empirical data and paleoclimatic data.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Lindzen & Choi (2009) proves the effect of CO2 on temperature is trivial, the radiation escaping from the Earth to space as measured by the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) Satellite, is NOT being trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere to cause warming to anything like the extent that the models predict.

    How's that for real science?
    Their paper wasn't exactly foolproof, various people demonstrated a number of significant failings of the paper (see the rebuttal by Trenberth et al., 2010 for instance). The result obtained by their analysis varies quite dramatically dependent on the end point you chose. In the paper by Trenberth et al., they shift the endpoint by one month and found the relationship to be zero! That isn't indicative of a robust analysis I would suggest.

    You might also want to consider this paper on the change in the Earth's energy balance when discussing the ERBE experiment.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    You have yet to contradict the bit that you objected to in my post, the bit about recent warming. You could so easily do so by posting the figures.
    See above. You've also yet to prove that no energy imbalance exists but I don't think you will regardless of how much cajoling you recieve because unfortunately for you that evidence doesn't exist.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    I do not agree with the claimed 'consensus' - that being that climate change is driven by anthropogenic CO2, but for the purposes of this thread, my argument is simply thus - there has been no recent warming in recent years, and that it stopped some time ago. If you disagree, post the figures.

    In fact, the whole reason why you cannot (or will not) do so is it will destroy a central tenet of the man made climate change theory. That being - an increase in CO2 results in warming, and since we have had an increase in CO2, there must have been warming.

    Saying that CO2 causes global warming is akin to saying that lung cancer causes smoking.
    Various paleoclimatic events tell us that an increase in carbon dioxide leads to warming, you'd have to deny the existence of the greenhouse effect to suggest otherwise. You also acknowledge there has been warming in various posts but obviously cause and effect need to be separated. This is where we obviously won't agree and as such I'm not going to labour the point. I would be interested to know what academic qualifications and/or relevant experience you have in climatology, if any.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    It doesn't. The climate has changed throughout history with no help from man.
    But that in itself doesn't imply anything about the causes of climate change today.

    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Man made CO2 induced climate change cannot explain periods of warming and cooling before the industrial revolution.
    I dread to think how long it took you to work that out.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SeismicHazard)
    I think climate scientists are better placed to study climate than anybody else but maybe that idea is a bit too radical.
    Just like the ones who deleted all those Climategate emails and data?

    (Original post by SeismicHazard)
    And every time the models are right once more, there is a strange silence from certain camps. Temperatures are well within what most models have predicted. Ocean heat content is too (above what a number of models predict though). Sea ice changes (which are actually going quicker than most models predict). A lot of the models out there are too conservative which is the big problem.
    Except the models are programmed to predict what the programmers want them to predict. It is impossible to model the climate of the earth accurately.

    (Original post by SeismicHazard)
    I think this paper is free for all to view but if it isn't drop me a PM and I will happily email it to you. They detail their method pretty well so although you'll no doubt crow at the use of the word estimate (anybody with a scientific background should understand why they are being so conservative) there is easily enough information in that for you to provide a more substancial rebuttal if you are able to do so. You could also take a look at the paper published by Foster and Rahmstorf last year which looks at the temperature anomaly.
    The NOAA? To enable them to make the case the oceans are warming, NOAA chose to remove satellite input into their global ocean estimation and not make any attempt to operationally use Argo data in the process. This resulted in a jump of 0.2C or more and ‘a new ocean warmth record’ in July 2009. ARGO tells us this is another example of NOAA’s inexplicable decision to corrupt data to suport political agendas.

    (Original post by SeismicHazard)
    I don't think you really know what a forcing is. 0.6K of warming can have far more of an effect than I think you realise as well.
    I pretty well quoted what a forcing was. Since the CO2 hypothesis alone doesn't fit with the climate change hypothesis, artificial 'forcings' had to be introduced. If that's not it, why don't you tell me what a forcing is?

    (Original post by SeismicHazard)
    You estimate of the probability is pretty much wrong (I don't have the exact figures involved to hand but you've worked it out in completely the wrong way). The mathematics involved is pretty complex. You need to know the absorption cross section and do some pretty nasty mathematics to be able to calculate the probability, not just take an overly simplistic approach as you have done. I can't really blame you for making this mistake though, it looks like it would be correct but sadly things aren't always as simple as they seem.
    I see, so because it's complex mathematics, I won't understand it.

    (Original post by SeismicHazard)
    As I mentioned before, that is a lot more important than you make it out to be. I'll deal with climate sensitivity below.

    The low estimates of climate sensitivity don't agree with paleoclimatic data or empirical observations sadly. The transition to an interglacial would never happen if the climate sensitivity is as low as some people suggest, something which is often overlooked. Conversely, it can't be too high otherwise past changes would have been far greater than they actually were. Somewhere around 2-3K is consistent with both empirical data and paleoclimatic data.
    As long as the CO2 driving climate change hypothesis is correct.

    (Original post by SeismicHazard)
    Their paper wasn't exactly foolproof, various people demonstrated a number of significant failings of the paper (see the rebuttal by Trenberth et al., 2010 for instance). The result obtained by their analysis varies quite dramatically dependent on the end point you chose. In the paper by Trenberth et al., they shift the endpoint by one month and found the relationship to be zero! That isn't indicative of a robust analysis I would suggest.

    You might also want to consider this paper on the change in the Earth's energy balance when discussing the ERBE experiment.
    It was peer reviewed, no? That's what you asked for after all. Just because the conclusions don't agree with what some other climate scientists believe.

    Research by G. V. CHILINGAR, L. F. KHILYUK and O. G. SOROKHTIN, into Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emissions Based on the Adiabatic Theory of Greenhouse Effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming the Earth's atmosphere. (so the AGW theory is upside down)

    (Original post by SeismicHazard)
    See above. You've also yet to prove that no energy imbalance exists but I don't think you will regardless of how much cajoling you recieve because unfortunately for you that evidence doesn't exist.
    Figures man, figures! Just post the annual temperature variations that I have been asking for for the past few posts to support your statement that we are still in a period of warming.

    I never mentioned an 'energy imbalance'. If the evidence of an energy imbalance doesn't exist, then why would I need to prove that it did? All I was asking, is that since you (as a climate scientist) say that there has been warming right up to present day, to show the figures that indicate that this is the case.

    (Original post by SeismicHazard)
    Various paleoclimatic events tell us that an increase in carbon dioxide leads to warming, you'd have to deny the existence of the greenhouse effect to suggest otherwise. You also acknowledge there has been warming in various posts but obviously cause and effect need to be separated. This is where we obviously won't agree and as such I'm not going to labour the point. I would be interested to know what academic qualifications and/or relevant experience you have in climatology, if any.
    All you need to understand this stuff really is a basic grasp of science.

    Atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen and fallen in the past with no help from mankind. The present rise began about 1750, long before humans could have made any meaningful contribution. Supporters of man-made warming have failed to ask, let alone answer, what the CO2 level would be today if we had never burned any fuels. They simply "ASSUME" wrongly, that it would be the 'pre-industrial' value. RUBBISH.

    The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and increases as water cools. The warming of the earth since the Little Ice Age has thus caused the oceans to emit CO2 into the atmosphere, and that's before consideration of rotting vegetation, volcanic eruptions and all other NATURAL occurrences.

    We are told that temperatures today are the highest in the last 1000 years.

    Brown says temperatures must not rise by more than 2.0C

    Others tout rises of 4.0-6.0C as dangerous warming by 2100, causing "unprecedented" sea level rise, drowning polar bears and making bunny rabbits cry.

    You cannot deny the suspicion that data may have been deleted when asked for under the FOIA (a criminal offence) and that other data may have been subjected to manipulation with intent to deceive. Although as yet unproven in the law courts, the evidence is there for all to see and can only mean that ALL data from the IPCC, NASA's GISS, the UK Met office, Hadley, HadCRUT data, or the UK CRU can not be guaranteed to be uncompromised, therefore has no scientific credibility whatsoever.

    So what does the empirical evidence tell us?

    A) Most of the warming in the 20th Century was before 1940, a time when human contributions to atmospheric CO2 were trivial.

    and B) post 1940 heavy industry got going and more "anthropogenic" CO2 was delivered into the atmosphere than ever before, while temperatures COOLED, enough to trigger the scaremongering nonsense of the impending ice age touted in the early 1970's.

    GOT THAT? Temperatures INCREASED with no help from CO2, and as CO2 increased, temperatures REDUCED.

    A new study (Richter et al 2009) reveals that the Atlantic Ocean Was 2.7C warmer during the Roman Warm Period, and 2.2C Warmer During the MWP. Analyzing sediment cores from the northeast Atlantic Ocean, researchers looked back some 2,400 years. Roman and Medieval Warming peak temperatures were significantly warmer than current period, while atmospheric CO2 was substantially lower.

    Let's ignore the RWP and concentrate on the MWP, the history of ice melt in Greenland, and has melting Greenland ice sheets caused rising sea levels in the last 1000 years?

    "The ice sheets around Greenland were largely absent as little as 950 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period. Interestingly there is no evidence of a rise in sea level during this period. In fact there is plenty of evidence that the sea levels were the same as they are today. Science and culture flourished during this period. Many great works of literature by authors like Chaucer and Thomas Aquinas were penned and preserved. I think someone, somewhere would have noticed and recorded [an "unprecedented"] sea level rise!

    Also many sea-ports, complete with docks and mooring rings, were constructed during this period, if the sea level was higher when they were constructed then surely they should now be stranded high and dry. But the remnants of medieval seaports at Acre, Bristol, Genoa, Tripoli, Istanbul etc can be found sitting quietly at today’s sea level.

    Take a closer look at one of these structures built at sea level during the height of the Medieval Warm Period. Remember, the lack of ice around Greenland at this time has been well documented by many sources. William the Conqueror began building what is now known as the Tower of London, in 1078. The Tower is situated on the north bank of the river Thames, within the tidal section at the eastern extremity of London. There were no flood-control locks at this time, the first being built in 1633. The Tower was constructed a few feet above the high tide mark and still sits a few feet above the high tide mark. Many tapestries and paintings of the Tower shortly after its completion show that the sea level has not changed."

    Who tried to remove the Medieval Warm period from history, and who still maintains the MWP was only a local anomaly, with no measurable consequences anywhere north of Watford Gap?

    At this time I will resist repeating the logarithmic properties of CO2 as by now this empirical fact should be well understood by all who believe in AGW, that it is repeatedly ignored is noted and the implications well understood by those who have even a basic grasp of the science.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Is it balls down to global warming. On the news they frequently make reference to the hottest March SINCE 19xx, which means it must have been that hot in March before.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Movember)
    i dont know about you but i dont think we have had a proper summer in the UK since 2006, when it was sunny and hot weather from around may through to september (how it should be). since then the seasons have shifted and weather is so erratic and volatile its unbelievable! currently we have snow, snowy showers and winter temperatures whereas less than a week ago, it was nice summer weather. this is all when it should be spring weather. since 2006, we seem to get hot weather between march and june (everyone is revising for exams or doing exams). then by july it turns to autumn weather just in time for the summer holiday. we seem to get a brief hot spell (lasting about a week or two) in early october then in recent years, we get heavy snow as early as november or as late as march.

    is it all due to global warming? i heard before that the winds bringing hot air from the caribbean had shifted upwards in recent years but it would go back to normality soon and we would have summers as we used to. but that hasnt happened. are we destined for erratic weather and shifted seasons forever more?
    I agree with you, I think the last real summer we had was in 2006
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I must say that I've noticed that long summer days have not been here since I was a teenager. Perhaps there might have been a lengthy summer period a couple of years back which I fail to remember, but my preoccupation with bad weather (usually cold and rain) has increased over the years. Looking out of my window, you'd think it was a dreary autumn just as if we had skipped Spring and Summer.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Besakt)
    I travelled 10 miles across fields of nettles on my knees for every shift.
    I crawled 20 miles across the North Korea border under sniper fire for every shift.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 29, 2012
New on TSR

A-level results day

Is it about making your parents proud?

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.