Jump to content
Will it snow? 7 day forecast Weather Radar Will it be cold?
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?

Thundery wintry showers

Site forecast team
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    15,710

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

 Content Type 

Blog Entries posted by Thundery wintry showers

  1. Thundery wintry showers
    Here's an exploration of various possibilities on issues relating to religions and spirituality. I have some clear-cut beliefs on this, but as you will see, plenty of areas where I believe that the truth could be anything across a wide range of possibilities.

    First of all, I don't think there is a god of the kind that the Bible described, that created the world in six days, Adam and Eve etc. There are far too many contradictions, far too many scientific discoveries re. evolution that cannot be realistically challenged while maintaining a literal interpretation of the Bible, etc. For those who are interested in this disproof, check out this link which inspired this blog entry: [url="http://alphacoursereview.wordpress.com/"]http://alphacoursereview.wordpress.com/[/url]
    This blog entry is remarkably similar to the experiences I've had with fundamentalist Christian types in the past, which in turn caused me to reject the religion.

    But does the above prove that there is no greater power of any kind, a generic "god" of some kind? I don't think so. Yes, many people like to believe in life after death, that there is a "guardian angel" or god or something watching over them and helping them, and that supernatural things exist. It is a comforting way of thinking, and from experience, I also think this is why many children are fond of the concept of Santa Claus. But that doesn't mean that nothing of the sort exists. There might be some kind of extra spirituality that we can't see or hear. People could be using these comforting thoughts to try and assemble these percieved paranormal experiences into something comforting, and perhaps that's where a lot of the religions originally came from. But maybe, just maybe, there might be something real behind at least some of it.

    An alternative possibility, which understandably gets up many people's backsides as it attacks comfort zones (I know this, as it attacks quite a few of mine!) but shouldn't be discounted, is that there really is no life after death, no existence beyond what we know. That said, one major reason why I often get defensive when people preach this view isn't that it attacks comfort zones, but rather that many atheists tend to preach with a lot of the same narrow-mindedness and arroagance that many fundamentalist Christians do.

    And another alternative that few consider- it may be that there is indeed an afterlife, and/or extra "beings" of greater existence that we don't know about- but that the reality is a lot more mundane than the religions suggest. "God" could be to humans as humans are to ants, in terms of intellectual understanding of things that our brains are too limited to grasp. Getting confused? Well, it serves to illustrate that when you start thinking about this sort of thing with an open mind... well, the possibilities are near-endless!
  2. Thundery wintry showers
    I quite often read about how society is becoming broken due to the decline of traditional family values since the 1950s. I often read about how the 1950s were a golden era where people loved and cared for one another, families functioned as a strong unit and, since mothers generally stayed at home and raised children, children got more frequent parental care than they often do today.

    For sake of balance, I refer readers to a couple of opinion pieces on the internet which paint the 1950s in a rather less positive light:
    [url="http://ezinearticles.com/?1950s-Family-Life&id=3375411"]http://ezinearticles...Life&id=3375411[/url]
    [url="http://www.criticalenquiry.org/theory/society.shtml"]http://www.criticale...y/society.shtml[/url]

    Yes, I admit, they're probably somewhat biased towards the negative, but no more so than many "today's society is broken" type comments are biased towards the positive.

    When I look into this topic I see a lot of evidence to suggest that the 1950s "family values" were actually a relatively recent construct that evolved primarily during the Victorian era and, following the two World Wars, peaked in the 1950s. They involved a narrowing of the definition of "family", focusing mainly on parents/children/siblings/grandparents, whereas earlier cultures were often more inclusive of extended blood relatives and close friends. They were tied in with a heightened fear of sexuality (especially homosexuality) which led to a significant decline in the extent to which people made very close friendships.

    With all of this in mind, the 1950s family values really aren't what they are often made out to be. The key concepts of loving and caring for and supporting others may often be associated with "family values" but they were also around long before the 1950s- indeed they were written about extensively in the Christian Bible and other texts from the first few centuries AD.
  3. Thundery wintry showers
    I've stated recently that I'm not a big fan of the phrase, "rules are rules".

    Firstly, what does the phrase mean? It's often not entirely clear, but in general there are two main interpretations:

    Definition 1. "Rules must always be obeyed and infringements must always be punished"

    For example,
    [i]X is prohibited.[/i]
    [i]People who do X should therefore be punished for disobedience. If you allow people to get away with breaking rules you'll end up with anarchy.[/i]
    [i]If people want to have the prohibition on X removed, they should campaign to get the rules amended.[/i]

    One significant problem with the above is that when we campaign to get the rules amended, we often run up against the following "rules are rules" argument instead:

    Definition 2. "The rules should be the way they are because they're the way they are".

    For example,
    [i]X is prohibited.[/i]
    [i]People shouldn't do things that are prohibited.[/i]
    [i]Therefore, people shouldn't do X.[/i]
    [i]Therefore, X should be prohibited.[/i]
    [i]There is no good reason to relax the prohibition on X, because everyone knows what the rules say, and if everyone obeyed them, there wouldn't be a problem. If we relax the prohibition on X then we'll end up with anarchy as if you give people an inch they'll take a mile.[/i]

    Definition 2 amounts to a circular argument and is commonly used to prevent discussion on the correctness of a rule, the way it is interpreted and enforced, or whether or not it should have some discretionary flexibility.

    I am a particularly big opponent of Definition 2, but there are cases where I would support Definition 1. Rules are a [i]normative[/i] thing, where we set up codes of behaviour that are considered acceptable, but prohibit behaviour that we consider unacceptable. Up to a point, we do need such cast-iron rules to help discourage irresponsible behaviour, be it subjecting others to pain, gaining an unfair advantage in sporting competitions for example, and it is generally a bad idea in those situations to allow exceptions.

    However, because of the normative nature of rules, "rules are rules" is also a common argument for justifying ganging up against individuals or groups for being different (and is remarkably neglected in articles relating to bullying, racism and the like).

    A peer group can set up rules of conduct like, "be heterosexual or be ostracised", and then justify ostracising homosexuals on the basis, "their homosexuality violates our rules, the rules are the rules, and so homosexuals should be ostracised by us"- they see it as equivalent to, say, being fined for stealing from a shop. As far as the group is concerned, it doesn't matter what you or I think regarding homosexuality, what matters is that the group doesn't tolerate homosexuality, it sets up rules accordingly, and "rules are rules".

    Another point regards civil disobedience, in situations where people know that campaigning for the rules to be changed gets you nowhere. Was it right for the Jews to be executed by the Nazis for disobeying Nazi rules? An extreme case, but the point is clear.

    I won't deny that I am no stranger to what I consider "civil disobedience". This has often included, when being ostracised for being different to the norms of a peer group, refusing to change to fit in with their behaviour. It has also included disobeying rules that prohibit behaviour to legislate for a a minority who abuse it (as campaigning for change to such rules usually fails to get beyond the arguments "rules are rules" and "the majority have to spoil it for the majority"). The danger with attempting civil disobedience though is that you can inadvertently end up behaving irresponsibly, by recognising that a rule is over-restrictive but deviating from it too far.

    Overall, my objection to "rules are rules" is that morally speaking it only works (by definiton 1) if the rules are sound to begin with, and it is a way of preventing debate on the soundness of the rules.
  4. Thundery wintry showers
    The other two posts are a bit in-depth, so here is an overall summary of my views- extending to sustainability generally and not just sustainable transport.

    In short, I am 100% behind the concept of sustainability, but the key is that in order to be sustainable, we have to make some sacrifices and determine what is "necessary" and what isn't- and this is wherein my main objection to conventional "sustainability" policies lies.

    I think of "unnecessary waste" as primarily practices that we can easily replace at little or no cost to anybody, e.g. leaving appliances on unattended, arranging meetings that involve making 4 business journeys when we could achieve the same thing using only 2, etc. I believe that restraining energy use should target those sort of practices- the ones that have little or no irreplaceable economic or recreational value- as the ones we need to abolish.

    Conventional sustainability policies, for me, involve too much use of the viewpoint that recreational/social use of energy constitutes "selfish, unnecessary waste" and that business-related use of energy is okay because "we all need to work". I believe that this approach risks squeezing most of the "fun" aspects out of modern Western society. Recreational car use is of course the primary target, but the argument can be applied to a range of other recreational activities that consume resources, ranging from eating pies and burgers to playing computer games. I think it's imperative that we see human pleasure as something we need to help preserve within a sustainable society as far as possible, as well as economic productivity and mobility- I don't fancy living in a "functional" sustainable environment where we have limited scope to enjoy ourselves. Instead we must seize the opportunity to create a sustainable [i]and happy[/i] life for future generations- we may well only get one opportunity for it after all.

    Thus, for those of you who have seen Parts 1 and 2 that relate mostly to transport, a lot of the common themes there also extend across my general views on sustainability.
  5. Thundery wintry showers
    Here's my sustainability manifesto, continued over from Part 1.


    [b]3. Some general urban planning ideas.[/b]
    I am in favour of "filtered permeability" in city centres and around "home zones", the idea being a high density of pedestrian routes, a moderate density of cycle routes and a low density of roads. The idea is similar, to combine it with a decent network of relatively high-speed roads outside of those areas, thus helping to filter traffic outside of these areas which prioritise walking and cycling.

    I don't agree with dense residential zoning. I believe that, again, this is primarily about discouraging social-recreational car use by minimising the overall amount of road space, and not about improving the environment for residents. Not many people like living in concrete monstrosities, right next to busy roads, without much green space, and not many people like travelling on crowded buses (high population density + low car use = crowding on public transport).

    I believe that the goal of encouraging a balanced, sustainable transport system at a high level is to design environments for everyone, not design them around cars, and not go to the other extreme and design them with the aim of discouraging social-recreational car use. There should be pedestrian/cycle-friendly zones plus a good network for vehicles that is kept separate from said zones.

    [b]4. Improving road safety. [/b]

    One thing that consistently came out of the recent discussions on road safety is that getting road users to adapt to the specific circumstances is paramount, and that "speed kills" is too simplistic, with a more accurate phrase being "inappropriate speed in the wrong place at the wrong time kills". The problem with low, absolutely-enforced speed limits is that it encourages drivers to drive relative to an arbitrary number, rather than the prevailing conditions, but on the other hand we certainly do need to have speed limits and other restrictions to filter out the reckless excesses. I think we either need relatively low speed limits and generous (but consistent, and strictly enforced) tolerances, or relatively high limits, absolute enforcement, and more in the way of discretionary application of "driving too fast for the conditions". In general we should aim to define road traffic laws such that the responsible majority obey them voluntarily, and enforcement can be directed at the minority of offenders.

    I don't believe that we need a "harder" driving test, just more focus on training and hazard perception and less on rigid conformity to a set style of driving (which many people generally disregard as soon as they've passed the test anyway). A lot of accidents arise, not because drivers don't have the necessary knowledge, but they fail to apply it in a particular situation- in essence momentary lapses. While I don't agree with "full retests every 5 years", it might be reasonable for drivers to be requested or even required to take refresher courses once in a while to brush up on essentials of hazard perception and courtesy to other road users that may have been lost over time.

    We also need to be aware that ultra-slow driving is potentially as dangerous as ultra-fast driving. I know people say "those stuck behind a slow driver should just be patient and allow extra time for their journeys", just as I might be told, waiting in a queue at a restaurant, that I should be patient waiting 20 minutes for someone to finish chatting to the waitress. But people do have deadlines to meet, sometimes they genuinely are in a hurry, and it can also be frustrating to have a pleasurable trip out spoiled by someone doing 40% less than the speed limit. Frustration and road rage result. The people who wish to drive slowly should pull out of the way once in a while to let queues of cars past (my dad often does this when there are queues behind him for instance).

    Regarding the "pleasure driving" issue, bear in mind that a lot of reckless driving among 17-19 year olds arises because they feel "I know it's possible to drive in the manner I want and enjoy it in a safe and considerate manner, irrespective of what I was told when I learned to drive, but how far can I go in testing the limits of safety?". This is, of course, a dangerous situation, as inexperience inevitably results in lives being put at risk during the "testing the limits" phase. This is where my proposal on redefining road traffic laws to encourage higher compliance rates come in- then, hopefully, more in the way of young drivers may feel compelled to comply with road traffic laws, and thus make the laws more effective at guiding them away from the excesses of reckless thrill seeking. (The main alternative is to implement a thousand incremental measures to legislate for idiots by restricting everybody, which is the normal way of addressing irresponsible thrill seeking these days, but as with most subject areas it isn't guaranteed to be significantly more effective at improving safety and will hurt freedoms many times more).

    Onto pedestrians, and I think the "war against speed" encourages a mentality that pedestrians are OK running out in front of cars because if they do, the onus is on the driver to slow down in time, and if the driver doesn't, then we chop another 10mph off the speed limit. We need to go back to emphasising that pedestrians and cyclists have to be considerate of drivers as well, it shouldn't be a "one way street".

    Of course, as I've mentioned (controversially) in some threads, many of today's prevailing "road safety initiatives" are really about discouraging car use, which is addressed in sections 1-3. I would also like to mention that discouraging car use is likely to lead to increased frustration and road rage among car drivers, and that traffic calming doesn't improve safety by the amount that a simple reduction in speeds would, because you have to offset that against the increased hazards associated with the calming. Most of these car-deterrent measures probably do improve safety overall, but not by a large amount when the offsets are taken into account. And, as someone partially sighted, I can vouch for the fact that sometimes shared space and traffic calming actually makes walking more stressful (due to having to take more hazards into account and compensate more for being partially sighted), and as a pedestrian I don't want that for the sake of a 1% improvement in safety.

    So, in summary, these are my proposals on how I think we should be aiming for a more sustainable, balanced transport system with some connected ideas on urban planning.
  6. Thundery wintry showers
    Well, after plenty of heated discussions on the TV forecasts, notably recent trends at the Beeb, it's become clear to me what the main problem is: forecasters being encouraged to make people "feel good" by "emphasising positives", and to do that, naturally, they have to second-guess what the majority of the population consider to be good and bad weather.

    The easiest (though certainly not the best) source of such guesses is the general media, so my feelings that the BBC might be trying to "educate" us to see the weather in a certain way have receded- it's probably more that the media makes it look as if we all make an enemy of the weather.

    The equivalent of this, in sports coverage, is the backing of British competitors to make people "feel good" by "emphasising positives"- e.g. ITV F1's strong bias towards Lewis Hamilton in 2007/08. The equivalent of "it will be dull and drizzly but at least it will be mild", in F1 terms, could be "it will probably be a dull processional F1 race but at least Lewis Hamilton has the best chance of anyone on the grid"... so in a nutshell it is definitely a part of the dumbing down process.
  7. Thundery wintry showers
    I think even sleet is unlikely to occur in Norwich next week, because of the long airmass track over the North Sea- Norwich often seems to struggle to get much snow from northerlies early in the season (22-23 November 2008 was a notable exception, but that one really caught East Anglia full in the face, and it was still very marginal).

    But could it possibly snow in Cleadon in Tyne and Wear? That really would be a "first" because the north-east coast is particularly prone to being warmed by the North Sea and I haven't come across any recorded instances of snow in October near the Tyne and Wear coast.

    It'll be interesting to see how that one pans out.
  8. Thundery wintry showers
    I had a decent birthday yesterday, got lots of good wishes on Facebook, and got a few pressies, plus had cakes at 4pm.

    The temperature reached 27C during the afternoon at Norwich Airport- fitting since 27 is my favourite number. I like to have showers/storms with sunshine on my birthday most of all, but a warm/hot sunny dry day is my second preference so I'm not complaining about what I got.
  9. Thundery wintry showers
    So, how late does spring normally arrive in this country? And what do we mean by "spring"? Personally I am happy to accept and follow the meteorological definition (1st March to 31st May) and think in terms of spring as meaning increasing daylight and sunshine hours and plant growth. I can certainly see a case for arguing that wintry weather persisting largely without a break well into March (as per 1996, 2001 and 2006) might be realistically considered as a "late spring".

    But no, let's try the Net-Weather Definition. For it to be "spring" it must meet the following criteria:
    [list]
    [*]it must be warm and settled, with temperatures regularly in the teens,
    [*]there must be no more snow or frost for the rest of the season.
    [/list]

    By this definition, when did Spring arrive across the UK as a whole since 1990? Answers below:

    1990- 29th April
    1991- early May
    1992- mid May
    1993- we didn't have a spring that year
    1994- 28th April
    1995- 20th May (or, if the period around 20 May wasn't settled enough, perhaps we didn't have a spring that year either)
    1996- 30th May (OK, no real spring that year either!)
    1997- 24th May (yes, a 1-week spring- now what were March & April 1997 like again? Doesn't matter, it snowed in May!)
    1998- 30th April
    1999- 25th April
    2000- 30th April
    2001- 30th April
    2002- 25th March
    2003- 14th April
    2004- 30th March
    2005- we didn't have a spring that year
    2006- 15th April (or if you count late May 2006 as "wintry", maybe this year also failed to feature Spring?)
    2007- 1st April
    2008- 5th May
    2009- 12th March

    So by this measure many people are probably going to have to wait quite some time for "Spring"!
  10. Thundery wintry showers
    So, following on from my latest blog on transport, I came across an article relating to Top Gear on the internet.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2009/aug/03/clarkson-hints-top-gear-over?commentpage=1

    Some very, er, revealing comments here!

    [quote]If only it could be removed this programme has probably caused more deaths on our roads than any other with its glamourisation of fast cars and speed over everything else.Why not introduce a weekly crash analysis slot into the show if it must continue to explain how the most recent deaths and serious injuries occured with police and road safety professionals to give their comments.[/quote]

    [quote]The BBC should replace top gear with cycling gear a new show looking at all aspects of cycling club road ,commuter and touring this would be a much more sustainable and socially responsible approach to broadcasting,yes it is probably only a dream but if only it could happen...............[/quote]

    [quote]
    Beauty of the car? An ugly metal and glass box that pollutes the planet, clutters up every inch of our streets, makes us fat and lazy and gives our kids asthma? Where's the beauty? The sooner this programme finishes the better - it's a product of the past, rather like the Black & White Minstrals in the late 70s.[/quote]

    [quote]At first glance this story seems cause for celebration. Top Gear ending, some good news amidst the depressing headlines. But think about it, with the current BBC commissioning policies TG would probably be scrapped to make way for an even less intelligent, dumbed down petrol head's fantasy show. If such a thing is possible.[/quote]

    [quote]

    *Warning to simple people*
    Don't say "if you don't like it, don't watch it."
    It doesn't matter whether we watch it or not: attitudes towards speed and responsibility leak out into wider society.
    [/quote]

    [quote] [quote]Many people are into cars because of something that comes naturally to humans. its called FUN. People drive these because they are fun to drive. It is easy to get attached to something, not just it goes fast and looks cool, you have a genuinely good time in it. That is why Clarkson and many others, including myself, dread the day when we have to say goodbye to our cars, our fun.[/quote]
    And when you die horribly in a gruesome car smash, I shall dance merrily on your freshly dug grave and dance a merry jig as your no doubt tea-soaked relatives blub tunelessly into kitchen roll. And for an encore, I will squat down and parp out the brownest turds of the purest joy, splattering your newly-chiselled headstone mischievously filling the grooves of sorrow.[/quote]

    A perfect illustration of why I defend motorists so much these days. Part of it is simply a backlash against attitudes like the above, which I expect will become more prevalent as time goes by.
  11. Thundery wintry showers
    Reading through Summer Model Discussion threads... sometimes I wonder what it would take to abolish the air of negativity in there!

    Hot and sunny for at least a week won't do, people complain that it's too hot.
    Modestly warm, dry and sunny (or cloudy) for at least a week won't do, people complain that it's too boring.
    Anything less than either of those two won't do, because people complain that we aren't having a summer and pray for a prolonged settled spell (hence "at least a week" in the above).

    I find the convective discussion threads a breath of fresh air because they involve people finding positives in the weather we're having. True, some people don't see anything to like in convective weather, just as I don't see anything to like in days on end of stratus trapped on the periphery of an anticyclone. We all have different preferences after all. But it would be nice if those who despise particular types of weather would stop imposing their misery on everyone else when they occur.
  12. Thundery wintry showers
    I think there is a lot wrong with the current generation of BBC weather forecasts, but it's no good just sitting whining non-constructively. Here's a list of changes that I would like to see in the forecasts:

    [b]Presentation/Format[/b]

    I suggest less emphasis on the current day's weather. Just a brief outline perhaps, briefly mentioning any significant events, then straight into the forecast. Also, we don't need that tour of Britain for 8am, it takes up valuable forecast time covering the country in micro-detail, and mainly just the south. People switch off because it takes ages for them to get the forecast for their area for the next day. I think they should just stick with showing the whole country at once.

    Synoptic analysis should be included, but should be integrated into the main body of the forecast rather than preceding it. This is because, contrary to the BBC's assertions, people switched off at the synoptic analysis mainly because it preceded forecasts and took ages to get into the forecast itself, not because they felt "disenfranchised". So to quote a simplistic example, instead of having a series of synoptic charts and then the forecast, we could have synoptic chart, forecast for day 1, synoptic chart for day 2, forecast for day 2 etc. That way people get the information, but it is spread out over the forecast and only occurs for brief periods at a time, so people don't switch off.

    [b]Subjectivity[/b]
    I suggest going back to the old tradition of simply presenting the information without bias, rather than introducing a lot of subjectivity. There is plenty of scope for non-subjective ways to make a forecast sound jolly and interesting, like "you might need a brolly", "scorching hot", "it'll feel nippy out there" etc.

    Presenting a lot of subjectivity not only annoys people who don't share the same set of weather type preferences as the presenter is suggesting, it also misleads people- this goes for both positive and negative spin. A forecast for sunshine and showers where "rainy unsettled awful weather" is emphasised will mislead people into thinking it's going to be mainly dull and wet. A forecast for dry mild cloudy windy weather where "staying fine and dry and mild" is emphasised will mislead people into thinking there might be a fair amount of sunshine and not much wind.
    The forecasters' job is to tell us what the weather is going to be, not to educate us as to what types of weather we should and shouldn't like. The rest of the media does enough of that already. And no, there isn't a set of weather type preferences that are shared by the vast majority. That's just the media trying to marginalise any opinions that differ from the opinions it thinks we should have.

    The Met Office, Philip Eden etc. are perfectly capable of keeping subjectivity to a minimum- why did the BBC stop?

    [b]Graphics[/b]

    I think most of the problem with the "new-style" graphics is the changes to the forecast presentations that they've brought in with them. The graphics themselves can be used to good effect, as the regional and Countryfile forecasts often demonstrate. Thus I'm not one of those who campaigns for the return of the old-style look- for me they're about six and two threes.

    I note that the BBC often says the current forecasts are the best because "research" shows that most people wanted the changes and find them very helpful. My question is, is this research representative or have they just done the usual tactic of wording a survey to get the answers they want from people? Judging by their defensiveness over this "research" I guess it's more likely to be the latter.
  13. Thundery wintry showers
    Still five and a half months for things to change, but so far I have to give the Met Office a big thumbs up- seems a very good place to work, and I've been having a good time there. It isn't particularly difficult to find fellow weather enthusiasts, as might be expected. I'd been concerned that my social life might suffer, but in fact the MetO has a wide range of social outlets associated with its sports facilities, and thus so far it's been fine socially as well.

    The climate down here in Exeter is pretty poor for snow, as I gathered before I got here, but we get plenty "sunshine and showers" here which is always a bonus as far as I'm concerned. Although snow is very rare, Exeter does get a surprising amount of frost, probably mainly due to it being inland and in a valley. A couple of days ago, it was 0C at 11pm, rained at 4C at midnight (temps have a habit of shooting up just as the showers arrive) and then fell to freezing again, leading to a lot of "skitey bits".

    I've been playing quite a bit of chess recently as well, after a spell where I hardly played any (the chess society at UEA fizzled out).
  14. Thundery wintry showers
    Having scanned through various motoring threads I regularly see the term "comfortable" bandied about. Of course, while it's being used with reference to the comfort of travelling in a car, it can equally apply to a train, bus or boat journey.

    When it comes to the actual seating and space, I have no arguments with the traditional definition. The more pleasant to sit in, and the more spacious, the more comfortable.

    But it's in ride quality where my definition of "comfort" seems to be distinctly unique. "Comfortable" in that sense usually means "as smooth as possible". I agree that being jolted over potholes and the like is pretty uncomfortable, though if just on a short trip I can derive pleasure from being thrown about as I would be on a rollercoaster.
    However, I can genuinely say that I find being gently rocked about [i]more[/i] comfortable than a ride where if I closed my eyes I'd hardly know I was moving. For instance, I find the clickety-clack of the Newcastle to Carlisle trains to be more comfortable than the ultra-smooth Virgin trains. Similarly, if well built, I often find cars with fairly stiff suspensions more comfortable to travel in than travelling in cars with soft suspensions, for much the same reasons. Yes, sometimes I can get out of such a car or train feeling like I'm still rocking about on a boat, but such a sensation is rarely troublesome and doesn't last long- it's not like the sea-sickness after being on a boat in stormy seas.

    But in practice it's just taken as given that a car with a stiffer suspension is less comfortable by definition, and thus less pleasurable to travel as a passenger in. Sometimes I really wonder if there's something wrong with me, as my instincts and preferences end up totally at odds with the accepted norm!
  15. Thundery wintry showers
    There's been a lot of discussion on Net-Weather about a supposed downturn in society in the past 50 years, and it's often suggested that it stems from it being more acceptable to be 'different'. I'm afraid I can't agree. I don't have a problem with condemning 'difference' if there's an independent reason as to why it's unacceptable (e.g. it's socially unacceptable to drive on the wrong side of the road because you're likely to cause accidents). But some behaviour is condemned purely because it's different, suppressing individuality and forcing people to conform just for the sake of it, or be rejected. For instance, it's often socially unacceptable in some circles not to want to have children, or to welcome snow.
    Some such traditions are also of dubious origin, like the wife taking her husband's last name for example. It's mostly harmless as long as you're happy to follow it (though I have come across men who do associate it with its origins), but there's plenty of women who would rather keep their names, but feel forced into changing them. Similarly, it's socially unacceptable to shake with the left hand because left-handedness is evil because it is. There's a legitimate case for following both of those traditions, but I can't stand the general intolerance of those who dare to deviate, or even question them.
    Then you get norms that are harmful even just through people following them, e.g. when a few idiots in a group misbehave, you punish the whole group, or else get sued for negligence. Or, it being considered inappropriate for men to show affection towards non-'family' members, which used to severely restrict men's friendships, and nowadays severely restricts their ability to interact with young children.
    Once norms, good and bad, are ingrained in society they can be very hard to challenge or question- social inertia is strong. There's the argument that "it can't be helped because it's just the way it is", "life is unfair and that's life", rejecting proposed reforms as soon as someone can find a flaw in one of them, the argument "adults can make their own decisions, therefore it's their decision to follow the norm, and you can't force people to change, therefore that's life", and "it's meant to be that way because everything happens for a reason", for example. Ironically, the traditions people tend to get most defensive of are the ones that enforce negative behaviour and/or suppress legitimate individuality, probably because those who challenge them have a very good point, and need to be silenced through force for the 'status quo' to be effectively maintained.
    The problem in society isn't the tolerance of difference, it's the tolerance of harmful behaviour. In fact, this has always been a problem- it seems new nowadays because we get less abuse of authority, and more abuse of 'freedom of speech and expression', but it still stems from the same sort of thing. Becoming less tolerant of those who are different is not the answer- sometimes, a harmful behaviour can actually be the norm.
    Rant over.
  16. Thundery wintry showers
    Excellent news- I have just been offered a PhD position at the University of East Anglia! The project is based on analysing precipitation variability across the UK and includes 6-9 months' working with the Met Office, in conjunction with the well-known Climate Research Unit at UEA.
    I have to admit I was always against the idea of living in the south-eastern third of England, but then again I had always considered that Norwich might not be so bad, because of being in a relatively rural area, exposed to thundery wintry shower activity from the north and east, boasting a relatively high "sunshine and showers" frequency compared to the rest of the region, etc. Should get some pretty beefy thunderstorms there too.
    I applied to quite a number of places this year, the UEA one was the first one I applied for and I initially thought that if I was accepted, it would be "a good banker" for while I was hunting for other opportunities. However, on the UEA open day, the PhD topic, the University and the local area all exceeded my expectations, and the other places I applied to were less convincing, particularly in terms of the topics offered. In the end the acceptance of the offer wasn't a difficult decision to make.
    Note: this blog entry was originally posted on 3 May, and edited at 11:26am on 5 May to make it more to the point.
  17. Thundery wintry showers
    I was in the Debating Society in first year at Lancaster University. Now, I certainly wouldn't be in favour of banning phones, but could someone come up with a set of convincing arguments for banning them? Here are some obvious arguments that I think could be used:
    Telephones are abused by people who send prank calls, harrass and stalk others. We need to do something about these prank calls; thus, in order to put a stop to the problem, we should ban phones; then nobody would be able to send prank calls and abuse them to harrass others.
    “But surely such a law would punish a lot of the wrong people, criminalising the general public?”
    The law is the law. Everyone would know what the law said; if everyone obeyed it there wouldn't be a problem.
    “But there would be a problem with the law; the punishment of the many because of the few!”
    The minority spoil it, that’s life, it can’t be helped because that’s just the way it is.
    “But it can be helped; you can try to differentiate the idiots from the responsible majority!”
    HOW???????? You can’t always tell if someone has made a prank call, therefore other methods are flawed, therefore they won’t work. We have to do something about prank phone calls, therefore we have to ban phones, end of story, a minority have made it necessary.
    Now I'd hope that most people wouldn't be convinced into supporting a ban on telephones by those arguments. Yet, consider what normally happens when a few idiots abuse something. Nine times out of ten, similar blanket bans/restrictions are adopted, and the arguments that are used in support of these measures are identical to the ones I have just presented in favour of a ban on phones.
    Such token measures rarely do stop the idiots, and when they do, the idiots usually move onto abusing other things. It strikes me that with this standard method of dealing with irresponsible behaviour, the only way we will ever make significant inroads against it is to carry out measures that substantially erode human liberties. I thus propose; we need to start considering alternative methods of tackling irresponsible behaviour...
  18. Thundery wintry showers
    Going to France for two weeks tomorrow- one week in the Dordogne and another in the eastern side of the Loire region.
    I had a great birthday this year, but things seem to have gone downhill a bit since then, with many people leaving and social events becoming very few and far between. As I go through life, I'm becoming more and more convinced that the main factors influencing my state of well-being are the amount of social interaction and the scope to do things that I enjoy. Workload doesn't seem to be as large a factor, provided that there is scope to play hard as well as work hard.
    So in many ways this is great timing for a 2-week break; maybe my time in Leeds will pick up again for those last six weeks before I hand my project in. I'll have to take my thesis document with me to make sure that I don't end up overworked when I come back!
    For some reason one of my favourite French phrases is "Il y a des averses". It is French for "there are showers" (i.e. showers of precipitation. In the Dordogne region these have a reputation for producing severe electrical storms, but only time will tell.
  19. Thundery wintry showers
    Following on from the discussion with WBSH et al, I will add some of my own thoughts in here, especially since there have recently been positive developments in this area.
    In my experience, one of the main issues with these relationships are knowing where the line stands between platonic and sexual love (in theory it is easy; a platonic relationship has no sexual involvement, a sexual relationship has at least some, but in practice it is complicated). With regards sex and love being different things, I think it would help people understand if more analogies were made with "family" relationships, e.g. someone might love a platonic friend as they would love their mother, or a close sibling, neither of which are usually associated with sexual involvement.
    The bigger issue in my experience has been third parties spreading nasty rumours about the male constituent of the friendship and undermining the friendship. This kind of thing is hard to deal with due to the social norm that whenever a third party interferes with a friendship, you assume the friend 100% guilty, and the third party 100% innocent. Thus, if either of the friends go to anyone for advice on how to deal with this third party, they will be told that they are being shat on by each other. There's also the social norm that if a man is accused of abusing a woman, you believe the accusations, thus people tend to believe whatever rumours are spread.
    The issue of a "true" friend is double-edged here, as when the friendship is broken up, the male constituent usually ends up in trouble for what he is rumoured to have done. The truer the friend, the more trouble will be required to break up the friendship and thus the more likely it is to survive, but also, the more trouble the male constituent will end up in if the friendship falls apart. The concept of a friend who would stand by someone "no matter what" is unrealistic, e.g. if someone is made to choose between one person or another (which can happen in these situations) then he/she can't be a "true" friend to both of them. Again, an analogy with "family" makes this more clear; this stipulation of "stand by you no matter what" is rarely if ever applied to "family".
    I think the social segragation of the sexes also makes platonic relationships difficult, particularly for men, as male shows of care and affection are often misinterpreted as being sexual. Like-minded constituents of a platonic relationship may violate gender norms and be put under pressure to conform, which causes them to be pulled apart as they lose the things they have in common. In general platonic relationships seem to work best if they occur within a "family", mainly because society considers "family" to be trustworthy and "friends" to be unimportant, so "family" are given a lot more leeway (plus, "family" relationships are normally assumed asexual by definition) so third parties are less likely to take offensive action (and less likely to get away with it if they do).
    In the past couple of years, however, I have been able to form some platonic relationships with women without encountering the above issues, which has helped my confidence in them and shown me that it is possible to make them work. They are becoming more acceptable in society than they used to be, but as long as gender and "family vs friends" stereotypes continue to be accepted without question and enforced by society, there will always be barriers to them being accepted as they are.
  20. Thundery wintry showers
    Here is a summary of what happened in Cleadon, Tyne & Wear, during December 2005.
    Mean Max: 7.1C
    Mean Min: 1.6C
    Mean Temp: 4.3C
    Highest Max: 13.2C (11th)
    Lowest Max: 0.9C (29th)
    Highest Min: 8.3C (11th)
    Lowest Min: -6.0C (29th)
    Air frosts: 12
    Note that the lowest max was recorded using the standard Met Office 0900-0900 recording system: using an 0000-0000 system, the temperature on the 29th got no higher than -1.2C, the lowest day maximum for exactly 10 years.
    Precipitation: 35mm
    Days of falling sleet/snow: 3
    Days with hail: 2
    Days with more than half cover of snow at 0900: 4
    It was the coldest December since 2001, and after a wet start, was generally dry with generous amounts of sunshine. The 'beast from the east' may have disappointed for some, but it certainly didn't disappoint here: the 28th to 31st all had lying snow although by the 31st this had turned to a patchy covering of ice. The mean temperature was certainly below the local 1971-2000 average, and may have also been a fraction cooler than the 1961-90 average- making it two below average months in a row at this location.
    In terms of quantity it was only the snowiest December since 2001, but the persistence of snow cover was the greatest since late December 2000.
    I awarded the month 63% overall, which is pretty good for December.
  21. Thundery wintry showers

    Christmas

    By Thundery wintry showers,

    Well, it's coming up to the big day. Personally, I don't feel very "Christmassy" at the moment- it tends to be the case that I need there to be snow events shortly before Christmas in order to get me into the "Christmas spirit".
    My house is currently a construction site because of a new extension that is being built into the back garden, making things a little awkward, although it should be worth it come next summer when our garden will be more conducive to sitting outside.
    I will be meeting up with some of my old friends from junior school on Christmas Eve- most likely going to the local pub, and getting up to all kinds of daft stuff. However, as per usual, I plan to drink alcohol in moderation (if at all) and will hence not be hung over on Christmas Day- the last time I was hung over was back in October 2001! It will be interesting also to see what I get on Christmas Day.
    Christmas Day will see my grandparents come over, and then there will be a large gathering of immediate family members (uncles, siblings etc) for Boxing Day tea, which usually provides the opportunity to see various cousins, aunties and uncles that I see, on average, a few times per year. Last year's meeting went exceptionally well so I have high hopes for this year's as well.
    However, my immediate family aren't very "commitment intensive", nor do they buy into the "Christmas is family time, so you can't see your friends" malarky, and thankfully, nor do the immediate families of the friends that I currently hang out with these days. Thus, the traditional problem of my friends being unable to meet up with me because their families won't let them is unlikely to arise this year, which is another positive in my book.
    Perhaps most interesting of all, for me, is the possibility of an easterly around the 27th-29th December. It is by no means set in stone, but if it was to come off, it would represent my first experience of a "sunshine-and-snow-showers" easterly in the North East since 31 December 1996.
  22. Thundery wintry showers
    I would like to have an opportunity to take a photograph of proper snow using a digital camera. The last time I saw more than a few granules on the ground was on 26 February 2004- just before I got my first "digicam".
    For there to be an opportunity for snow photography tomorrow, those showers drifting down the North Sea need to come inland early tomorrow morning. The GFS has it progged to happen at around 9am which is pretty ideal, but things can easily change. Another issue is that my camera's lens only half-retracted when the battery ran out, so hopefully it hasn't knacked the mechanism, which would in turn trigger those dreaded E18 errors.
    Waiting with baited breath. If those showers in the North Sea were Weebl and Bob, I would be putting plenty of pie in my garden to entice them over.
  23. Thundery wintry showers
    After the thread about gay marriages (which I played a large role in) up comes another controversial and philosophical blog entry.
    I am not homosexual, but I am going to admit to something equally taboo- as things currently stand, I have no ambition to have children. If nobody believes me that it's a taboo, consider the answers I usually get when I say I don't want children:
    "Oh, it's just a phase, you'll grow out of it and you'll want kids when you're older."
    "It's unnatural not to have children."
    "Not having children is selfish because you're unprepared to make sacrifices."
    "Your life is incomplete if you don't have children. If you don't try having children, you will never experience it."
    "All women want to have children because of biology, therefore a woman who doesn't want children is a freak of nature. Men should want children because of their desire for sex, and out of respect for the wishes of the women they marry, who will want children, assuming that they are not freaks of nature."
    "You should have children, you can get your future wife to look after them"
    "You would be a really good father."
    Re the view that not having children is selfish. Surely the real selfish people are the ones who actually do have children, and then don't look after them? That way, people are harmed, whereas by not having children, while one doesn't bring a new life into the world, one doesn't harm anyone.
    As for the idea that one should try having kids otherwise one won't experience it, I think that's a very good argument for decisions where one can turn back if it doesn't turn out well. Having children is a decision where there is no turning back and it shapes the rest of one's life- if it doesn't turn out well, tough.
    I think the image that people who have children always end up better off, and those who don't sometimes regret it, is misleading Many people who have children do genuinely end up better off, but it's also something that a parent has to feel- if a parent has regrets about having kids, how is that going to reflect on the parent and pass over onto the kids? To ensure that they bring up their kids well, they will have to suppress any such regrets. People who don't have kids have no similar self-reinforcing mechanisms that prevent them from having regrets about it, so we end up with a misleading picture of how people feel about having children.
    Some people also decide to have children because it's the done thing. I understand the argument that everyone decides things because they want to do them, and if they didn't want to do them they wouldn't, but social pressure is clever in that it attaches negative 'strings' to particular decisions. If I have a choice between doing A and being rejected (a common example of a negative 'string'), or choosing B and being accepted, I may choose B. From this, it follows that I don't want to do A, but my main reason may be fear of rejection.
    I also feel, incidentally, that measures to increase birth rates in order to tackle the aging population problem are not a good long term solution. In the short term they may work, but in the long term, as the elderly population continues to grow, larger and larger birth rates will be required, presenting risk of an overpopulation spiral.
    Disclaimer: I have nothing against people having children. I also retain an open mind to the possibility that I might change my mind when I am older, and have children. I can't say that I hate children either- indeed I have a reputation for being quite good with them. However, as things currently stand, I don't want to have children of my own, and there's a possibility that my stance will not change, no matter how un-PC it is.
  24. Thundery wintry showers
    July 2005 began with me taking a fortnight's holiday in France. The first three days were sunny and quite hot with a 32C on the 3rd, the day when I went to see the French Grand Prix (and subsequently suffered heat-stroke)
    The weather turned rather cloudy during the following few days. I remember one day with a little sunshine and a few convective showers, but most of the time it was dull.
    In the second week- which I spent near Strasbourg- the weather was hot and sunny with occasional thundery showers, particularly during the first half of the week. Temperatures reached highs of 27-30C, which I would find uncomfortably hot in this country, but over there the air was much cleaner and fresher and the humidity lower, and in any case the showers and thunderstorms were spectacular.
    Meanwhile, Britain (well at least most of Britain) was very sunny and dry, and hot too with 27-30C reported also, even in the north.
    The second half was spent in Tyne & Wear- and it was excessively dull, with cool days and warm nights.
    On my rating system, the month averaged 55%, but the final third averaged only 25%, offsetting a high-scoring first half. The last July to average a sixties score was back in 1999!
  25. Thundery wintry showers
    In most summer months, the east coast of Tyne & Wear is mostly thunderstorm and "sunshine and showers"-free, relative to much of the rest of the country. Not so in August 2005- this time Tyneside had quite a convective month while many other areas had a very benign month.
    The first week of the month was dominated mostly by sunny intervals and showers, with a couple of dull days thrown in there. Some quite dramatic convective storms too.
    The second week was also predominantly showery, and two days particularly stuck out: the 10th for its warmth and high humidity together with some torrential rainstorms, and the 13th for a thunderstorm, which passed just to the north of where I lived and brought some spectacular cloud formations.
    The third week contained a mix of dry sunny days and dull dry days, then the fourth week went back to being on the showery side, with the 25th sticking out as quite a convective day.
    My main memory of the month will be the Leeds thunderstorm on the 31st. A very hot sunny day was followed by some of the darkest clouds I have ever seen, lightning flashes at a rate of about five per minute at one time, and torrential rain- there was a fair amount of flooding. Interestingly, the Tyne & Wear region was reported to have been hit by a similar-intensity storm too, but for once, the fact that I wasn't there didn't matter.
    August 2005 scored 60% on my ranking system, a fairly solid score, and left Summer 2005 at an average of 59%- not a classic summer, but certainly one of the higher scoring summers of recent years.
×
×
  • Create New...