Sheaf Saint

So what are you arguing against then? The Apple alerts are based solely on the Met Office alerts, so it's the Met Office that issue them and decide the severity of them. Your iphone app is simply the medium through which you get them - from the Met Office.

Apple gets its weather warning data for the UK from the met office

Pray tell - what thorough research have you conducted in this field that enabled you to arrive at your very scientific conclusion of 'pony'?

Oh yeah, I wasn't aware of that but it seems you're right. Don't anyone plan on using the trams then.

Apparently you can park in the dog track car park for a fiver, but you'll be waiting ages to get out cos it's so close to the ground. Probably the same with Hillsborough Park. And with the game being Friday night and not finishing til nearly 10pm, if you want to get away ASAP to get back to Southampton then you're better off parking a bit further away.

He played well for the whole of the run we went on til the end of the season after project restart in 2020.

Not great. There are a few little places (empty industrial sites etc..) that open up as temporary car parks on match days, but you need to get there early to get a space. There's also an Asda nearby where you can pay to park for a few hours. You can use the Nunnery Square park and ride on the Parkway (A57) and get a yellow route tram to Leppings Lane, but you'll be waiting a while to get one back after the game cos they fill up quickly and don't run as regularly after 10pm. If you're looking for free parking, most of the residential roads in Hillsborough and immediately around the ground are for permit holders only. But if you don't mind a bit of a walk you can find plenty of on-street spaces in places like Southey Green or Shirecliffe (either side of Herries Road, to the East of the ground).

Exactly. Their form dropped off significantly during the latter part of the season. They blew a sizeable lead at the top of the table and got a little lucky in the playoffs in the end, relying on penalties in both ties, after being 4-0 down against Peterborough from the first leg. I wouldn't consider them to be the momentum team at all. But I also won't rule them out either. They gave us a game at SMS in the cup last season and we were lucky to beat them on pens in the end. No room for complacency in this match.

Good luck to him. It feels like a very long time ago now that he had the entire Man City attack in his back pocket. But then he isn't the only Saint whose form/attitude dropped off a cliff last season. I'm sure there is still a very good player in there who can/will flourish under the right coaching and management. Just a shame it's not going to be with us, but at least his sale means we've finally freed up one of the CB slots and can look at signing a replacement now.

I think you might need to get your eyesight tested. It quite clearly states "Heavy showers and thunderstorms are expected to develop on Wednesday and may cause some flooding and travel disruption... Probably some damage to a few buildings and structures from lightning strikes". So no, the warning hasn't been issued just because of some potential standing water and spray, has it.

So has Iran gone 'woke' now as well? https://news.sky.com/story/iran-announces-nationwide-shutdown-due-to-soaring-heat-12931849

Thunder storms have been classed as severe weather ever since the National Severe Weather Warning Service was introduced in 1988, due to the risk of damage to property and even loss of life that lightning strikes can cause. It's got nothing to do with project fear.

This image was doctored, and the post was designed to appeal to angry idiots who wouldn't bother to check the validity of it. People like you.

Usually, the simplest explanation is the correct one. 1940 is as far back as the ERA5 hourly reanalysis data goes. https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/reanalysis-era5-single-levels?tab=overview

The best analogy I heard about this is that climate modelling and prediction is like calculating how long it will take to boil a pan of water if you understand all the parameters like volume, energy input, and evaporative loss etc. Whereas local weather forecasting is like trying to predict where any individual bubble will rise in the pan.

The milestones passed and average temperature records that have been broken this summer are alarming, because they haven't just been breached, they've been smashed. And the strongest effects of El Nino are still yet to come, meaning 2024 is only likely to continue that trend. Dismissing global issues because they aren't apparent on your own doorstep is idiotic in the extreme. July might have been mild and wet in the UK, but globally the story is very different:

I cycled to work. And you?

Which part of the word 'global' do you not understand?

This video talks a lot about how many scientists were asked their opinion on climate change, but that isn't how science works. The beauty of it is that, if done correctly, the results you get from scientific studies are true regardless of what anybody believes. So a few people may have publicly asserted a figure about which there seems to be a lot of uncertainty around how it was derived. But that doesn't change anything in terms of the actual science. If you bothered to read the link I provided in the post you quoted, you'll see that the consensus in the peer-reviewed literature - which is all that actually matters, rather than the opinions of people who have never conducted any research in the field - is greater than 99%.

There are no data that show the 1930s as the hottest. Every dataset available shows the upward trend since the start of the 21st century as hotter than the 1930s. The graph you posted only shows a heatwave 'index' in the US. It has nothing to do with the global temperature trend. You do get that, don't you?

Believe it or not, there was a time when I thought a little like you do. I wanted to believe that I was part of a tiny minority that knew 'the truth' about climate change. So I decided to properly educate myself on the subject, and in the process of so doing I came to the inescapable conclusion that my previous position was wrong. There is no point having regular debates, because there is no more debate to be had about whether or not humans are influencing climate. It is happening, and there is an overwhelming body of evidence to support it. The science is irrefutable. Anybody who still wants to push the contrarian view to that either doesn't understand the science, or is deliberately muddying the waters to push their own agenda. The only thing left to debate is what to actually do about it.

It's difficult to take this attempt at marking their own homework seriously when they still flat out refuse to disclose who funds them.

So you're citing a graph from the EPA to support your claim that heatwaves aren't getting more frequent and more intense, but when I present a graph from the same source to show a different trend, you automatically assume it must just be manipulated to push a certain narrative. Okay then.

The 97% figure was first put out by Naomi Oreskes, and was popularised further by a 2013 study by Cook et. al. that examined over 11,000 research papers. Interestingly, a 2015 study reviewed a selection of the 3% of papers which reject anthropogenic climate change, and found serious flaws in every single one of them. The actual consensus is now shown to be greater than 99% in peer-reviewed literature. So in a way, I agree with Heartland on one point. Science is about hard evidence and facts, not a 'show of hands'. And the hard evidence indicates beyond any possible doubt that global warming is due to human GHG emissions.