I wonder if this unseasonable cold weather will wipe out the met. office 0.6 farenheit warmest year?
I doubt the met. office will point that out even if it does eh!
they were just blowing the alarm saying warmest year on record by 0.6 farenheit (about 0.35 centigrade)
The December forecast is that the forecast temperature maximums are lower than the seasonal average minimums… so ‘kin chilly!
One thing is for sure the energy companies are ‘king raking it in and rubbing their hands with glee!
This whole fuel crisis is because a bunch of utter C@nts shut down coal mines and blew up (with explosives) coal fired power stations, coal power stations that were some of the cleanest coal power stations in the world!
And… furthermore, at the same time, the british management encouraged export of manufacturing to China and India who just burn coal and do not worry about emission pollution… And this had the effect of negating several times over any effect shutting down British coal power stations had!
Seems to me the explanation of this whole problem is that the state religion of this cuntery has become witchcraft! The C of E now stands for the coven of england!
(and the united states (and maybe the hidden hand of the muppet in israel) eliminating europe as a potential global competitor…)
met office switch to farenheit to make “warming” amount appear twice as large?
The Standard International (SI) unit for temperature is Kelvin, but one Kelvin Unit is equal to one Centigrade unit, however 1 farenheit is approximately 0.5 centigrade.
So the met office claim warmest year since records began by 0.6 farenheit which is about 0.3 centigrade. Where digital thermometers are not even accurate to that level of reading, even though they might kick out a value of .2dp for a temperature such as 21.35, any two units of the same chip could be out of calibration by 0.5-2 centigrade either way, and the same sort of tolerance level is given for any two readings on the same device, which may vary in tolerance as it goes up and down the temperature range. And sure the readings in 1880 did not attempt to go beyond 0.5c or 0.5f, so I reckon 0.6f is statistically insignificant. And the whole thing is very dubious as the number of sites feeding into these readings must be 1000 times the number of sites there were in say 1880. And the amount of city/urban area and population and road tarmac is several orders of magnitude more than in 1880. All these things affect local temperature, and I bet most of the current temp reading sites are in urban areas, or taxi/warmup areas for fucking jumbo jets at airports eh!