• Heatwave hits Britain at 19c
    179 replies, posted
Mind sending some of that heat wave my way? It's only 7c here, granted it's better than the below 0 temperatures we've been getting until now. Still, does 19C really count as a heatwave in Britain? In Winnipeg it's usually in the mid to high 30s for a few days before they use that particular term.
fuck the sun
I bought an ice cream today that said, "Go team GB! Official sponsors of London 2012", that's how long it's been since we've had sun (and how long it's been in the shop probably too)
I live in Melbourne, Australia so its always either too fucking cold or too fucking hot.
Oh my god walking outside with a T-shirt on after 6 months of coldness is awesome. AND I bought some foookin ice cream
[QUOTE=matt.ant;40547121]Doesn't stop the British: [img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/06/article-2320103-19A4FD9E000005DC-761_964x638.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] we live to queue! [editline]6th May 2013[/editline] and complain about weather of course
[QUOTE=cathal6606;40539689]I was able to go out in a t shirt today, it was amazing.[/QUOTE] Yeah, so was I. But I had to walk back in after 20 seconds.
i really like seeing peopels reactions to us british folk making a fuss over something as chilly as 19c
[QUOTE=Jocke;40547228]fuck the sun[/QUOTE] no thanks
high of 84f ~29c here in VERMONT time to swim in lakes and get those brain parasites or whatever
[QUOTE=Agent Cobra;40547751]we live to queue! [editline]6th May 2013[/editline] and complain about weather of course[/QUOTE] Everyone is complaining, but its amazing. I can actually visit the outside world, I know its just my garden but its a start!
Every weather thread is like this. Sorry to break it to you but you aren't responsible for how hot or cold your weather is, nor are you manly for going out in it.
[QUOTE=alien_guy;40547203]Being scottish I can say with 100% certainty that if I were to go to a country with 30C+ temperatures I would turn into liquid then evaporate instantly. Those kind of temps sound like the most unconfortable thing ever.[/QUOTE] I experienced 42 C with absolutely no wind Don't do it, It's not worth it outside a sauna
Come to Singapore. our temperature is always near 29 to 33 degrees Celsius.
Another thread about heat in Britain, another thread where people don't know what acclimation is.
Where I am in Canada, we get super cold winters, but then only about 20C (sometimes a max of 30C) in summers and I find it pretty hot at those temperatures. It's just due to us here being use to the temperature differences.
Here in Sweden so did we get around 20c during the day and its 16c at 9 pm right now! Its awesome if you think of the fact that we had winter for [I]six months[/I]
Oh, I'm sorry, my computer was busy dying due to 30 degrees in spring, you were saying , OP?
Aww, so this is a heatwave for you guys? I'm over for a weeks holiday in derby, and I was saying to myself "Actualy, this isn't that bad", seeing as I'm gonna study uni here. Welp, back to sunny 45 degree spain I go on wednesday.
[QUOTE=plants;40539529]how is 19c a heatwave, even in britain?[/QUOTE] It's freaking hot and it's not wet for once.
To all those people dismissing this as not that hot: remember that due to acclimatisation, your average Briton starts melting at around 30°. That and the fact that it does tend to get overcast and hot in the summer, leading to the air being uncomfortably thick (especially in built up areas, it's completely unbearable.) In other words: Yeah, it's not that big a difference to you guys, but here it's huge. Also, it being pretty chilly up until some point last week does put things in perspective somewhat.
The weather is ace, except now after 20 minutes of walking I am a sweaty piece of shit. Hate my life.
The trees are actually starting to get leaves now, and it's only May. I really hope we get a decent summer this year, the last few have been terrible.
[QUOTE=alien_guy;40547203]Being scottish I can say with 100% certainty that if I were to go to a country with 30C+ temperatures I would turn into liquid then evaporate instantly. Those kind of temps sound like the most unconfortable thing ever.[/QUOTE] I love it when I get to go back home (Scotland), I'm so used to the 40C+ temps that when I go back the weather is just fucking perfect.
19 cents?
[QUOTE=alien_guy;40547203]Being scottish I can say with 100% certainty that if I were to go to a country with 30C+ temperatures I would turn into liquid then evaporate instantly. Those kind of temps sound like the most unconfortable thing ever.[/QUOTE] As a fellow Scotsman who has been to some warmer countries: Did you know that some countries get WARM rain? Like what the fuck man?
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;40554893]As a fellow Scotsman who has been to some warmer countries: Did you know that some countries get WARM rain? Like what the fuck man?[/QUOTE] Warm rain, is the most ungodly thing ever.
[QUOTE=Jsm;40546652]No its awkward because it has no basis in anything logical (much like the imperial system).[/QUOTE] How exactly is basing a temperature system off water any more logical or less arbitrary than any other reference points. I can see 0 as water's freezing point being useful, but how often do you need to know water's boiling point? (I can't think of any times in most people's lives. Also is 32/212 really that difficult to remember?) The only reason C is used over F is because enough people decided to use it over the alternatives. Things like mm/cm/m/km make sense because they're easy to convert, but temperature isn't something that gets converted like that. The only temperature systems that are objectively better would be ones starting at absolute zero (i.e. Kelvin or Rankine), but past the zero point the size of each degree is more or less completely arbitrary. The only thing that makes C better than F is its degree(no pun intended) of use in the world--its place as the global standard for most temperature measurements. Personally, I find Fahrenheit to be better than Celsius for daily use. The most common use of temperature among the vast majority of the planet is for weather. It's clear that humanity likes decimal based systems and using the 0-100 range, so let's compare C and F in this respect. C: 0 = cold, but temperatures easily drop below this in many parts of the world 100 = far past even the hottest recorded temperature on Earth (~56 C) F: 0 = very cold. Temperatures drop below this sometimes, but it's well below freezing temperatures and a nice point of reference for very cold weather 100 = quite hot/very hot. Many people experience these temperatures, and even higher ones, on a regular basis (not all year round of course, but it's not one day a year either). Close to body temperature. (which was actually intended to be the 100 point on the Fahrenheit scale) Temperatures go beyond the 0-100 F range, but they are good points of reference that cover "very cold" and "very hot" temperatures worldwide. In C these are about -18 and 37 respectively. Now, as with most any units, anyone growing up using one system will be able to easily use it and probably will prefer it, so for most Celsius users out there my arguments probably seem odd. (I'd imagine you all see 40 as very hot and some point at or below 0 as very cold, and temperatures in F are as weird and hard to relate to as I see C) I find that the love of 0-100 ranges and the way Fahrenheit fits into that when looking at weather temperatures, most everyone's primary use of temperature, along with the greater integer granularity that the scale provides, makes Fahrenheit a viable and even a better system. In a global context C is superior if only because of how widespread and entrenched it is, so I don't see F overtaking it any time soon. I just wanted to break down the common argument that C is somehow inherently more logical than F, when both are based on arbitrarily chosen reference points, none of which correspond to anything universally better than the other*. *The (intended) 100 point for Fahrenheit, body temperature, does affect how we perceive temperature. However the 0 point in Celsius is equally as useful, so the score of useful reference points is still 1-1. 100C is rather less arbitrary than Fahrenheit's "how cold can I make" 0 point, but while that makes it less arbitrary I don't find it to be any more useful (and that 0 F, as outlined above, does manage to work out in practice).
[QUOTE=BMCHa;40556399]How exactly is basing a temperature system off water any more logical or less arbitrary than any other reference points. I can see 0 as water's freezing point being useful, but how often do you need to know water's boiling point? (I can't think of any times in most people's lives. Also is 32/212 really that difficult to remember?) The only reason C is used over F is because enough people decided to use it over the alternatives. Things like mm/cm/m/km make sense because they're easy to convert, but temperature isn't something that gets converted like that. The only temperature systems that are objectively better would be ones starting at absolute zero (i.e. Kelvin or Rankine), but past the zero point the size of each degree is more or less completely arbitrary. The only thing that makes C better than F is its degree(no pun intended) of use in the world--its place as the global standard for most temperature measurements. Personally, I find Fahrenheit to be better than Celsius for daily use. The most common use of temperature among the vast majority of the planet is for weather. It's clear that humanity likes decimal based systems and using the 0-100 range, so let's compare C and F in this respect. C: 0 = cold, but temperatures easily drop below this in many parts of the world 100 = far past even the hottest recorded temperature on Earth (~56 C) F: 0 = very cold. Temperatures drop below this sometimes, but it's well below freezing temperatures and a nice point of reference for very cold weather 100 = quite hot/very hot. Many people experience these temperatures, and even higher ones, on a regular basis (not all year round of course, but it's not one day a year either). Close to body temperature. (which was actually intended to be the 100 point on the Fahrenheit scale) Temperatures go beyond the 0-100 F range, but they are good points of reference that cover "very cold" and "very hot" temperatures worldwide. In C these are about -18 and 37 respectively. Now, as with most any units, anyone growing up using one system will be able to easily use it and probably will prefer it, so for most Celsius users out there my arguments probably seem odd. (I'd imagine you all see 40 as very hot and some point at or below 0 as very cold, and temperatures in F are as weird and hard to relate to as I see C) I find that the love of 0-100 ranges and the way Fahrenheit fits into that when looking at weather temperatures, most everyone's primary use of temperature, along with the greater integer granularity that the scale provides, makes Fahrenheit a viable and even a better system. In a global context C is superior if only because of how widespread and entrenched it is, so I don't see F overtaking it any time soon. I just wanted to break down the common argument that C is somehow inherently more logical than F, when both are based on arbitrarily chosen reference points, none of which correspond to anything universally better than the other*. *The (intended) 100 point for Fahrenheit, body temperature, does affect how we perceive temperature. However the 0 point in Celsius is equally as useful, so the score of useful reference points is still 1-1. 100C is rather less arbitrary than Fahrenheit's "how cold can I make" 0 point, but while that makes it less arbitrary I don't find it to be any more useful (and that 0 F, as outlined above, does manage to work out in practice).[/QUOTE] why does it matter if somewhere goes below 0? that doesnt make the scale bad
Like I said about or homes being too well insulated: [IMG]http://i43.tinypic.com/a0klkz.jpg[/IMG] My 'air con' can't cope [IMG]http://i39.tinypic.com/9lk8w5.jpg[/IMG]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.