Raincoats

As is my wont, I went up to the pub tonight. ‘Up’ is right because the walk there is slightly uphill. But that is OK because the walk back home is all downhill. Nice. The walk is about a quarter of a mile – no big deal.

When I turned out, it was raining slightly, so I put on a coat. I have had that coat for 30 years or more. The beauty of it is that it is slightly insulated by padding. The important word there is ‘slightly’, thus it is perfect for those evenings which are neither warm nor cold. We get a lot of those evenings in the UK. It has a hood, which is not quite useless. It is just a piece of nylon, I suppose, but it does somewhat deflect rain but still does not completely stop some rain gaining access. I suppose that the hood was designed with micro holes which were small enough, generally, not to permit rain drops to penetrate.

Well, fine in light rain, but the rain got heavier on the way back home. Not very heavy, but a bit heavier. My coat started to absorb the rain and my trousers started to get wet. My journey was only a quarter of a mile, and the rain was light. Even so, I was not ‘comfortable’.

On the way home, I began to reflect.

My reflection began with why I no longer own a ‘proper’ raincoat. I have lots of coats of one sort or another, and I generally do not use some of them at all. They are nice coats, and some of them are very new (prezies), but I never wear them.

I think that it is a case of ‘need’. We might consider several weather conditions without going to excess.

Very cold = heavy, padded coat. Very cold and wet = heavy, padded, and waterproof coat. Both conditions can be combated by a heavy, padded and waterproof coat. There is no need to differentiate between the two conditions.

I do not need to describe other conditions – readers get the idea.

===

As I walked home from the pub in the slight rain, I thought back. It was normal in the 1960s and beyond for men and women to wear long raincoats. Those coats reached beyond knee length and they were waterproof for all intents. They did not have hoods. Males and females wore hats of one sort or another when it rained. Caps and trilbies were most common for men. Women wore – damn it! I know not what. The carrying of rolled up umbrellas was ubiquitous.

On my way home from the pub tonight, I regretted that I no longer own a ‘proper’ raincoat.

Why do I no longer own a ‘proper’ raincoat?

In the 1950s, 60s, everyone owned a ‘proper’ raincoat.

Why?

The obvious answer is that we experienced lots and lots of rain. People were prepared for lots and lots of rain, which reflects the prominence of long raincoats, furled umbrellas and trilbies. From around 1970, the expectation of rain got less, and so ‘proper’ raincoats, furled umbrellas and trilbies were no longer needed. During that long period of time, the rains ceased. That is not to say that rains were insufficient for agriculture. In fact, during the 1950s/60s, harvests were often ruined by incessant rain.

Incessant rainy conditions are not unknown. I forget the name, but there was a diarist in the 1700s who complained that the incessant rains meant that she could not ride out on her horse for days on end.

In the last couple of decades, we in England have not been troubled by the sort of weather which requires ‘proper’ raincoats and head-gear.

And so I thought about the fraud of ‘Global Warming’. For a while, a decade or so, we did not need ‘proper’ raincoats because there was little rain. Now we do.

I need to buy a ‘proper’raincoat which reaches below the knees and has a water-proof hood.

Advertisements

9 Responses to “Raincoats”

  1. castello2 Says:

    Fraud of Global Warming? Have you been tricked by the oil corps?

    • Junican Says:

      Tut! Tut! Castello. Supply requires a demand. Cars, trains, aircraft are the demand. Those means of transport cannot use solar power or windmills.

  2. Samuel Says:

    Or get some paraffin wax, rub it all over your existing, and perfectly usable coat, hit it with a hair dryer and make it waterproof once again.

  3. Rose Says:

    Earth heading for ‘mini ice age’ within 15 years
    11 Jul 2015

    Research has predicted a new solar ‘Maunder minimum’ in the 2030s

    ” The earth is 15 years from a period of low solar activity similar to that last seen during the “mini ice-age” of the 17th century, when the Thames froze.

    Solar researchers at the University of Northumbria have created a new model of the sun’s activity which they claim produces “unprecedentedly accurate predictions”.

    They said fluid movements within the sun, which are thought to create 11-year cycles in the weather, will converge in the 2030s.

    Solar activity will fall by 60 per cent as two waves of fluid “effectively cancel each other out”, Prof Valentina Zharkova said in a presentation to the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.”

    “We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum'”.

    Maunder minimum, indicating low sunspot activity, was the name given to the period between 1645 and 1715, when Europe and North America experienced very cold winters.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html

    Now that I’m more inclined to believe, the sun governs our weather and the warmists edited the Little Ice Age out because it didn’t fit the Global Warming model.

    Last time there was plenty of coal to burn, this time we have windmills.

    • Junican Says:

      It all seems to depend upon which bunch of interconnected academics is in the ascendancy at a point in time. What annoys me is that politicians give the time of day to these people. ‘Climate Change’ (aka Global Warming) is a means to and end – sustainability. ‘Sustainability’ is a UN Millennium goal. It is an aim of the Elite.
      They are not deterred by ‘Maunder minimums’ and such.

      The big problem is that the Elite can offer no alternative to Oil, Coal and Gas. They seem to detests Nuclear for some reason. I do not understand why.

      • Rose Says:

        The government seems very keen on fracking, which would get us off the hook.

        The government can never admit to being wrong on anything no matter what their private views and will undoubtedly pay lip service to Global Warming/Climate Change for a good few years yet.

        But like passive smoking and green taxes these were New Labour enthusiasms.

  4. TheBlockedDwarf Says:

    The obvious answer is that we experienced lots and lots of rain

    Maybe…but I’d think the rise in car ownership and people walking less along with central heating when they got wherever their parents would have walked to (or waited in the rain at the bus stop for) played a greater role.

    Even Aged Mother no longer dons a head scarf, that badge of proud Housewifery , before going out. Does Queenie Poohs still wear one except when she’s out in the wilds of Norfolk?

    • junican Says:

      Of course you are right to an extent, BD. But even if people use cars rather than catch the bus, they still have to get from the bus stop to wherever they are going. The need for a raincoat still exists.
      It is the nature of the raincoat which has changed. Expect a re-emergence of the long raincoat as global cooling continues.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: