>> The report says the average temperature has increased by NINE degrees in sixty years? That
>> sounds like some alarmist green testicals to me.
Yes, probably. But if you think that sixty years ago Hamburg was probably a green field. (OK, a brown field.) And now it's a modern city. I should think central London is probably five degrees warmer than it was in Roman times/five degrees warmer than a field in Kent.
But we do have a point about the point I was making. A city is degrees warmer than the equivalent land without a city on it. When did you last see snow drifts in central London?
...although in the case of Hamburg it's only made a difference of 1.2C, assuming it was a 'green/brown field' 60 years ago as you suggest. Of course that may be sufficient to prevent snow settling.
Last edited by: Focusless on Tue 21 Jan 14 at 13:08
I was just trying to suggest that if it wasn't a field of whatever colour it might explain why the rise in temperature was so small, contrary to what you appeared to be suggesting.
Anyway, what state was it in 60 years ago - partially rebuilt?
I know that. I was, as I thought was pretty obvious, pointing out the fallacy of saying it's 5 degrees warmer now than Roman times, when the opposite is, broadly speaking, the case.