Felly sgrifennodd Alan :
Now 4F that would be cold! its -15.56C about

You didn't mean that did you?

Adrian
--
Adrian Shaw ais@
Adran Cyfrifiadureg, Prifysgol Cymru, aber.
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Cymru ac.
http://users.aber.ac.uk/ais uk

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:17:50 +0000, John Dann wrote:

Ah but even the DT today reports (p6) that 'Temperatures across
southern Britain yesterday did not fall much below 4F...'. They're
obviously preparing us for the forthcoming global cooling but still
glad that it wasn't that cool in my neck of the woods.

Reminds me of an article in our local newsletter about Winter 130
years ago. 19 Dec 1874 newspaper reporting that the overnight low was
2F (-16.6C) a bit later 2 Jan 1875 -1F at 0900 (-18.3C), though it
does also say that the weather was a bit severe.

We are warm today almost up to 2C, gently thawing the 10mm or snow
from this mornings light shower. This is the 4th day were the temp has
struggled to get above 0C all day.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

In article ,
John Dann writes:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:52:26 +0000, Joe Egginton
wrote:

What do you expect from a comic like the Daily Mirror. It wouldn't have
appeared in a decent paper like the Daily Mail ! ;-)


Ah but even the DT today reports (p6) that 'Temperatures across
southern Britain yesterday did not fall much below 4F...'. They're
obviously preparing us for the forthcoming global cooling but still
glad that it wasn't that cool in my neck of the woods.

It was a good sensible piece apart from that, though, and I think we
could forgive them for what was clearly a typo for 4C.
--
John Hall "Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always
pays off now." Anon

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:50:32 +0000, John Hall
wrote:

It was a good sensible piece apart from that, though, and I think we
could forgive them for what was clearly a typo for 4C.

You're right - I should have clarified that I didn't intend personally
to disparage the whole piece because of one error. But I'll need more
convincing that it was simply an overlooked typo. I'm more inclined to
believe that a lazy or ignorant subeditor failed to realise that this
single letter mistake risked lowering the credibility of the article
as a whole.

JGD

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:52:26 +0000, Joe Egginton
wrote:



BlueLightning wrote:
Well Hello,

It's a Monday, and yes it's rant time
I can't hold this one back

I had a quick glance in the Mirror Paper yesterday,
page two headline, Big Freeze Set To Hit The Uk


What do you expect from a comic like the Daily Mirror. It wouldn't have
appeared in a decent paper like the Daily Mail ! ;-)

They wouldn't have found room for it amongst all the immigration stories.

Martin


Joe
Wolverhampton

On 25 Jan 2005 02:25:09 -0800, "BlueLightning"
wrote:

Well Hello,

It's a [Tuesday], and yes it's rant time
I can't hold this one back
I had a quick glance in the Mirror Paper yesterday,
page two headline, Big Freeze Set To Hit The Uk

They claimed the snowstorm that effected New York last weekend was
heading our way

Well no - but many tabloid journalists are easily confused. However,
there is a snow grain of truth in what they say; the true situation is
explained by Joe *******i in his current Europe column. Note his use
of the word "can", not "will":

" It is not a coincidence that major fuel consumption areas such as
the far east, western Europe and the northeast can get cold at the
same time, as they are all teleconnection points for a three-wave
pattern, in other words, when we have a pattern where there are three
main long waves developing and there is blocking developing, these
three areas can all get very cold at the same time."
http://wwwa.accuweather.com/adcbin/p...?type=jbeurope

That the south-east could even see a slight covering in places

And the temperatures... wait for it
Will be as low as 4 degrees C in places
That is Plus 4 degrees, not minus
I laughed out loud when i read the article

If this comes off, the main thrust of cold snowy weather seems to be
on the Continent of Europe rather than the UK. The tabloids are easily
confused by matters geographical, too.

Let's see, New York had two foot of snow over the weekend.
I checked out various New York webcams during the event and since
Roads have been cleared and are open.
People in New York will be going to work today

Children will be going to school today

Not on Monday they weren't... well not outside NYC. All schools were
closed in the worst affected areas of New York State and further North
along the coastal areas such as Boston, to allow further snow
clearance operations to take place on Monday... and for as long as it
takes. This was explained by a US (American) reporter live on Sky News
yesterday evening.

As they will be in other countries that have severe winters, parts of
Finland for example

Cost-benefit ratios!

So isn't it curious that London and the South-East area of England in
general can't seem to cope with a light snow cover

I know it's become a very rare event,

Exactly. As I hinted, it's all down to cost-benefit calculations.

but really
New York can cope with a huge snowstorm, they pick themselves up and
get on with it, so London should really be able to cope with light snow

With light snow, all we really need are well gritted roads and if
things are organised properly we can cope with light snow - but not
with heavy snow. We could cope with heavy snow too, if we wanted to
spend the money: forgive me if I've used the following example before.

Back in the days of yore, when men were men and snow was real snow, I
worked in Buxton Derbyshire and 3 or 4 times in most years, they'd get
an 8 to 12 inch snowfall in the town and/or on the surrounding roads
going upto 1400 to 1700 feet asl. I well remember one 10 inch
overnight snowfall: town centre roads were all cleared by 9 am and
pavements (using hand snowploughs, not shovels!) by 10 am;
surrounding main roads, too. This was simply because they expected an
occasional snowstorm and were prepared for it, as NYC seems to be.
They thought it was cost-effective to have a bolt-on snowplough for
each of the half dozen or so main access roads and were able to keep
them running while snow was falling, making the clearance work
afterwards much easier. Outlying areas away from main roads did,
however, take longer to clear - as in New York state.

I strongly suspect that Buxtonians would not cope as well these days
because the frequency of such heavy snowfalls has declined
dramatically (a resident of Flash - near Buxton but much higher up -
told me this a few years ago). Keeping all those ploughs available and
men on standby, for a population of 20 to 30,000, would soon have
today's bean counters waving their calculators in a frenzy.

But... it *can* be done and I suspect that in certain parts of
Scotland, it still is done.

That's the end of my rant for today

Mine, too!

--
Dave

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:54:34 +0000, Dave Ludlow
wrote:

On 25 Jan 2005 02:25:09 -0800, "BlueLightning"
wrote:


Children will be going to school today

Not on Monday they weren't... well not outside NYC. All schools were
closed in the worst affected areas of New York State and further North
along the coastal areas such as Boston, to allow further snow
clearance operations to take place on Monday


ISTR that schools in the US are bound by law to be open for a certain number of
days per year. If they lose days due to the weather, and it can happen in the
summer as well if the heat is deemed excessive, they must take days from the
school vacation period to make the time up.

Workers who fail to get into work can also lose pay if they don't make it up by
working extra hours, although I guess that would apply here in the private
sector.

Martin

From what I recall from friends in that area the Schools have a certain
number of "snow days" built into the school year in the expectation that
there will be some disruption during the winter. Not sure what happens
if they don't use them all though.


Chris


ISTR that schools in the US are bound by law to be open for a certain number of
days per year. If they lose days due to the weather, and it can happen in the
summer as well if the heat is deemed excessive, they must take days from the
school vacation period to make the time up.

Workers who fail to get into work can also lose pay if they don't make it up by
working extra hours, although I guess that would apply here in the private
sector.

Martin

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:22:57 +0000, JPG wrote:

Workers who fail to get into work can also lose pay if they don't
make it up by working extra hours,

"extra hours" so you loose half a day due to the weather and you have
to work a whole day to get the same pay? Doesn't sound very fair to
me. Loose half a day and work those hours at another time is more like
it, say an hours "overtime" for 4 days.

... although I guess that would apply here in the private sector.

I would like to think it applied to any sector private or otherwise.
Don't do your required hours, don't get the pay.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:00:24 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:22:57 +0000, JPG wrote:

Workers who fail to get into work can also lose pay if they don't
make it up by working extra hours,

"extra hours" so you loose half a day due to the weather and you have
to work a whole day to get the same pay? Doesn't sound very fair to
me. Loose half a day and work those hours at another time is more like
it, say an hours "overtime" for 4 days.

I meant "extra" in the sense of outside normal working hours.


... although I guess that would apply here in the private sector.

I would like to think it applied to any sector private or otherwise.
Don't do your required hours, don't get the pay.

Certain public sectors used to be more lax in this regard.

Martin