On Thursday, 20 July 2017 20:38:25 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 16:08:28 +0100, NY wrote:

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
What do you believe weather forecasters mean when they say "40% chance of
rain"?

1) It will rain for 40% of the day.
2) There's a 40% chance it will rain at some point.

I googled it and apparently it depends on the forecaster? 1) and 2) are
completely different meanings.

Given that it includes the word "chance" (ie probability) I'd interpret it
as the second meaning: if (hypothetically) you replayed the day many times
(Groundhog Day!) then approx 40% of the occurrences of the day would have
some rain.

Which is of no use to me whatsoever. Pouring with rain all day is nothing like spitting for half an hour. Yet they don't distinguish between the two.

How about showers or inteminant showers or heavy downfalls, storms.

There should be a measurement where 0% means no rain at all, and 100% means rain all day.

So what would 50% mean light showers for 50% of the day or heavy rain 50% of the day, and whayt would the other 50% be of the day be like ?

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 20:40:58 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 19:36:28 +0100, Gary Woods wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:46:10 GMT, lid (AnthonyL)
wrote:

Yesterday Accuweather MinuteCast was showing no rain for at least
120mins

I must confess that when I saw the OP, I had two thoughts;
"An obvious troll, considering the entity posting is new, and posted
to two unrelated groups, one of which is troll fodder."
"Typical broadcast weather type, who really wants to be....a
lumberjack!"

(now that song will be running around in my head all day).

Gardening and DIY are 100% related to weather.

How and does yuor 100% refer the a day ?


And I'm not a new entity.

I've often wondered what aort of entity you are.

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 22:24:22 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave writes
On Thursday, 20 July 2017 15:39:29 UTC+1, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
whisky-dave expressed precisely :
When they explained it on the TV durign a weather documentary they said it
wass the chance of rain andn showed how they calculated it.
In waether there';s a few things that can happen due to changign Highs and
lows and various 'gulf' type streams the forcaster can guess which will
effect which but it's a probabilty rather than a known outcome, so
they use
the % term.

I suppose they could use odds like bookies.

I was wondering about that yesterday, reading the local forecast. It
was showing various percentages for each hour, 20%, 30%, 40%, 70%. Even
threats of thunderstorms. Does the first 20% mean that there is a 20%
risk of some rain within that hour, or something else?

I guess that what it means, perhaps some may think that it means
there's a 20% chance of rain in their lifetime, how anyone would come
to that conclusion escapes me, but there's some on here that think the
new doctor who is a women ;-)


She's reproduced already?

No the way she parked the Tardis !

On Friday, 21 July 2017 12:06:21 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:58:46 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:20:55 GMT, lid (AnthonyL)
wrote:

snip

There's a 50% chance that tomorrow's weather will be the same as
today's. No need for any further weather forecasts.

;-)

A mate moved from the UK to Canada then spent some time in California.
He said one of the more striking differences between living there
(California) and the UK is that in California they planned to go
boating 'next Thursday', the chances are that the weather will be
pretty much the same as it was the day they planned the trip. ;-)

Over here, I'd say it's rarely possible to accurately predict the
weather that afternoon and you can experience the weather from at
least three seasons in the same day. ;-)

'Right kids, get your flip flops, shoes, Wellingtons, shorts, coats
and don't forget the sun cream ...' ;-)

I don't care what the weather is. A pair of shorts works for anything. Humans are waterproof and warmblooded and don't require a change of clothes for a change in the weather.


How comes then that humans get frost bite adn have died from being too cold ?

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:03:34 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 22:24:22 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave writes
On Thursday, 20 July 2017 15:39:29 UTC+1, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
whisky-dave expressed precisely :
When they explained it on the TV durign a weather documentary they said it
wass the chance of rain andn showed how they calculated it.
In waether there';s a few things that can happen due to changign Highs and
lows and various 'gulf' type streams the forcaster can guess which will
effect which but it's a probabilty rather than a known outcome, so
they use
the % term.

I suppose they could use odds like bookies.

I was wondering about that yesterday, reading the local forecast. It
was showing various percentages for each hour, 20%, 30%, 40%, 70%. Even
threats of thunderstorms. Does the first 20% mean that there is a 20%
risk of some rain within that hour, or something else?

I guess that what it means, perhaps some may think that it means
there's a 20% chance of rain in their lifetime, how anyone would come
to that conclusion escapes me, but there's some on here that think the
new doctor who is a women ;-)


She's reproduced already?

No the way she parked the Tardis !

https://youtu.be/LTKFaBvW6oc

--
Peter is listening to "DJ Markski - Ski Mix Volume 51"

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:20:59 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 21 July 2017 12:06:21 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:58:46 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:20:55 GMT, lid (AnthonyL)
wrote:

snip

There's a 50% chance that tomorrow's weather will be the same as
today's. No need for any further weather forecasts.

;-)

A mate moved from the UK to Canada then spent some time in California.
He said one of the more striking differences between living there
(California) and the UK is that in California they planned to go
boating 'next Thursday', the chances are that the weather will be
pretty much the same as it was the day they planned the trip. ;-)

Over here, I'd say it's rarely possible to accurately predict the
weather that afternoon and you can experience the weather from at
least three seasons in the same day. ;-)

'Right kids, get your flip flops, shoes, Wellingtons, shorts, coats
and don't forget the sun cream ...' ;-)

I don't care what the weather is. A pair of shorts works for anything. Humans are waterproof and warmblooded and don't require a change of clothes for a change in the weather.


How comes then that humans get frost bite

Only if you have **** circulation. I go hillwalking barefoot for hours in the snow, my feet just go red. Extra blood, they can't freeze.

adn have died from being too cold ?

The autopsies are a lie. Easier to write cold than to work out why they really died.

--
Mistress: Something between a mister and a mattress.

In article , James Wilkinson Sword
writes
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:20:59 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 21 July 2017 12:06:21 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:58:46 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:20:55 GMT, lid (AnthonyL)
wrote:

snip

There's a 50% chance that tomorrow's weather will be the same as
today's. No need for any further weather forecasts.

;-)

A mate moved from the UK to Canada then spent some time in California.
He said one of the more striking differences between living there
(California) and the UK is that in California they planned to go
boating 'next Thursday', the chances are that the weather will be
pretty much the same as it was the day they planned the trip. ;-)

Over here, I'd say it's rarely possible to accurately predict the
weather that afternoon and you can experience the weather from at
least three seasons in the same day. ;-)

'Right kids, get your flip flops, shoes, Wellingtons, shorts, coats
and don't forget the sun cream ...' ;-)

I don't care what the weather is. A pair of shorts works for
anything. Humans are waterproof and warmblooded and don't require a
change of clothes for a change in the weather.


How comes then that humans get frost bite

Only if you have **** circulation. I go hillwalking barefoot for hours
in the snow, my feet just go red. Extra blood, they can't freeze.

adn have died from being too cold ?

The autopsies are a lie. Easier to write cold than to work out why
they really died.

Get real. Hypothermia can kill.
--
bert

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:20:59 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:
On Friday, 21 July 2017 12:06:21 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:58:46 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:20:55 GMT, lid (AnthonyL)
wrote:

snip

There's a 50% chance that tomorrow's weather will be the same as
today's. No need for any further weather forecasts.

;-)

A mate moved from the UK to Canada then spent some time in
California. He said one of the more striking differences between
living there (California) and the UK is that in California they
planned to go boating 'next Thursday', the chances are that the
weather will be pretty much the same as it was the day they
planned the trip. ;-) Over here, I'd say it's rarely possible to
accurately predict the
weather that afternoon and you can experience the weather from at
least three seasons in the same day. ;-)

'Right kids, get your flip flops, shoes, Wellingtons, shorts, coats
and don't forget the sun cream ...' ;-)

I don't care what the weather is. A pair of shorts works for
anything. Humans are waterproof and warmblooded and don't require
a change of clothes for a change in the weather.

How comes then that humans get frost bite

Only if you have **** circulation. I go hillwalking barefoot for
hours in the snow, my feet just go red. Extra blood, they can't
freeze.
adn have died from being too cold ?

The autopsies are a lie. Easier to write cold than to work out why
they really died.

Pillock.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:16:11 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , James Wilkinson Sword
writes
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:20:59 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 21 July 2017 12:06:21 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:58:46 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:20:55 GMT, lid (AnthonyL)
wrote:

snip

There's a 50% chance that tomorrow's weather will be the same as
today's. No need for any further weather forecasts.

;-)

A mate moved from the UK to Canada then spent some time in California.
He said one of the more striking differences between living there
(California) and the UK is that in California they planned to go
boating 'next Thursday', the chances are that the weather will be
pretty much the same as it was the day they planned the trip. ;-)

Over here, I'd say it's rarely possible to accurately predict the
weather that afternoon and you can experience the weather from at
least three seasons in the same day. ;-)

'Right kids, get your flip flops, shoes, Wellingtons, shorts, coats
and don't forget the sun cream ...' ;-)

I don't care what the weather is. A pair of shorts works for
anything. Humans are waterproof and warmblooded and don't require a
change of clothes for a change in the weather.


How comes then that humans get frost bite

Only if you have **** circulation. I go hillwalking barefoot for hours
in the snow, my feet just go red. Extra blood, they can't freeze.

adn have died from being too cold ?

The autopsies are a lie. Easier to write cold than to work out why
they really died.

Get real. Hypothermia can kill.

You sound like a religious nut. You think it can kill you only because people have told you. Try it for yourself. The alleged timing is, fall into ice water and die of cold in 15 minutes. Do what I do, go swimming in winter in a partially frozen lake, and do so for a lot more than 15 minutes. Jesus Christ your teeth don't even start chattering until about 30 minutes.

--
Murphy says to Paddy, "What ya talkin into an envelope for?" "I'm sending a voicemail ya thick sod!"

On 25/07/17 16:34, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:20:59 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:
On Friday, 21 July 2017 12:06:21 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:58:46 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:20:55 GMT, lid (AnthonyL)
wrote:

snip

There's a 50% chance that tomorrow's weather will be the same as
today's. No need for any further weather forecasts.

;-)

A mate moved from the UK to Canada then spent some time in
California. He said one of the more striking differences between
living there (California) and the UK is that in California they
planned to go boating 'next Thursday', the chances are that the
weather will be pretty much the same as it was the day they
planned the trip. ;-) Over here, I'd say it's rarely possible to
accurately predict the
weather that afternoon and you can experience the weather from at
least three seasons in the same day. ;-)

'Right kids, get your flip flops, shoes, Wellingtons, shorts, coats
and don't forget the sun cream ...' ;-)

I don't care what the weather is. A pair of shorts works for
anything. Humans are waterproof and warmblooded and don't require
a change of clothes for a change in the weather.

How comes then that humans get frost bite

Only if you have **** circulation. I go hillwalking barefoot for
hours in the snow, my feet just go red. Extra blood, they can't
freeze.
adn have died from being too cold ?

The autopsies are a lie. Easier to write cold than to work out why
they really died.

Pillock.


I think you are disrespecting pillocks

Pork Sword is a troll.

Best left to wither and die



--
"If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:55:29 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 20:38:25 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 16:08:28 +0100, NY wrote:

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news What do you believe weather forecasters mean when they say "40% chance of
rain"?

1) It will rain for 40% of the day.
2) There's a 40% chance it will rain at some point.

I googled it and apparently it depends on the forecaster? 1) and 2) are
completely different meanings.

Given that it includes the word "chance" (ie probability) I'd interpret it
as the second meaning: if (hypothetically) you replayed the day many times
(Groundhog Day!) then approx 40% of the occurrences of the day would have
some rain.

Which is of no use to me whatsoever. Pouring with rain all day is nothing like spitting for half an hour. Yet they don't distinguish between the two.

How about showers or inteminant showers or heavy downfalls, storms.

Yes, those are more helpful. But "20% chance of rain" means nothing,

There should be a measurement where 0% means no rain at all, and 100% means rain all day.

So what would 50% mean light showers for 50% of the day or heavy rain 50% of the day, and whayt would the other 50% be of the day be like ?

If there's only a % number it should be expressed as a percentage of pouring all day.

--
All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:57:50 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 20:40:58 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 19:36:28 +0100, Gary Woods wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:46:10 GMT, lid (AnthonyL)
wrote:

Yesterday Accuweather MinuteCast was showing no rain for at least
120mins

I must confess that when I saw the OP, I had two thoughts;
"An obvious troll, considering the entity posting is new, and posted
to two unrelated groups, one of which is troll fodder."
"Typical broadcast weather type, who really wants to be....a
lumberjack!"

(now that song will be running around in my head all day).

Gardening and DIY are 100% related to weather.

How and does yuor 100% refer the a day ?

All of it.

And I'm not a new entity.

I've often wondered what aort of entity you are.

A superior one.

--
What's the best thing to get for a woman who has everything?
A man to show her how to work it.

On 25/07/2017 19:18, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:55:29 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 20:38:25 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 16:08:28 +0100, NY wrote:

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news What do you believe weather forecasters mean when they say "40%
chance of
rain"?

1) It will rain for 40% of the day.
2) There's a 40% chance it will rain at some point.

I googled it and apparently it depends on the forecaster? 1) and
2) are
completely different meanings.

Given that it includes the word "chance" (ie probability) I'd
interpret it
as the second meaning: if (hypothetically) you replayed the day
many times
(Groundhog Day!) then approx 40% of the occurrences of the day
would have
some rain.

Which is of no use to me whatsoever. Pouring with rain all day is
nothing like spitting for half an hour. Yet they don't distinguish
between the two.

How about showers or inteminant showers or heavy downfalls, storms.

Yes, those are more helpful. But "20% chance of rain" means nothing,

There should be a measurement where 0% means no rain at all, and 100%
means rain all day.

So what would 50% mean light showers for 50% of the day or heavy rain
50% of the day, and whayt would the other 50% be of the day be like ?

If there's only a % number it should be expressed as a percentage of
pouring all day.

But is 50% pouring all morning and dry all afternoon or alternating
between pouring and dry every hour?

The weather app that I use on my phone gives me a percentage chance of
rain for each hour of the day and a symbol next to it for bright
sunshine, partial sunshine, overcast, light rain, heavy rain, downpour
or thunderstorm.

SteveW

On 25/07/2017 12:22, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:03:34 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 22:24:22 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave writes
On Thursday, 20 July 2017 15:39:29 UTC+1, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
whisky-dave expressed precisely :
When they explained it on the TV durign a weather documentary
they said it
wass the chance of rain andn showed how they calculated it.
In waether there';s a few things that can happen due to changign
Highs and
lows and various 'gulf' type streams the forcaster can guess
which will
effect which but it's a probabilty rather than a known outcome, so
they use
the % term.

I suppose they could use odds like bookies.

I was wondering about that yesterday, reading the local forecast. It
was showing various percentages for each hour, 20%, 30%, 40%, 70%.
Even
threats of thunderstorms. Does the first 20% mean that there is a 20%
risk of some rain within that hour, or something else?

I guess that what it means, perhaps some may think that it means
there's a 20% chance of rain in their lifetime, how anyone would come
to that conclusion escapes me, but there's some on here that think the
new doctor who is a women ;-)


She's reproduced already?

No the way she parked the Tardis !

https://youtu.be/LTKFaBvW6oc

Years ago I was outside working on my car when a wagon pulled up to
collect a neighbour's car. The road is narrow and nothing could get
through while is was there. At that point a woman stopped her car
alongside mine, got out and asked if I'd reverse her car for her because
she couldn't do it for the distance required. She looked a bit panicky
when I reversed it at speed for the whole length of the road.

SteveW

On 25/07/17 11:55, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 20 July 2017 20:38:25 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 16:08:28 +0100, NY wrote:

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news What do you believe weather forecasters mean when they say "40% chance of
rain"?

1) It will rain for 40% of the day.
2) There's a 40% chance it will rain at some point.

I googled it and apparently it depends on the forecaster? 1) and 2) are
completely different meanings.

Given that it includes the word "chance" (ie probability) I'd interpret it
as the second meaning: if (hypothetically) you replayed the day many times
(Groundhog Day!) then approx 40% of the occurrences of the day would have
some rain.

Which is of no use to me whatsoever. Pouring with rain all day is nothing like spitting for half an hour. Yet they don't distinguish between the two.

How about showers or inteminant showers or heavy downfalls, storms.

There should be a measurement where 0% means no rain at all, and 100% means rain all day.

So what would 50% mean light showers for 50% of the day or heavy rain 50% of the day, and whayt would the other 50% be of the day be like ?

Weather forcecasts these days are the output of models. So it's the 50%
probability of the model being right. The further into the future the
forecast, the less its predictability; after the event you can assess
the accuracy and, based on that, estimate the accuracy of future
forecasts. So 50% chance of rain = don't know, maybe yes maybe no. 95%
if it doesn't it's a freak, 5% if it does it's a freak.


--
djc

(–€Ì¿Ä¹Ì¯–€Ì¿ Ì¿)
No low-hanging fruit, just a lot of small berries up a tall tree.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:01:30 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

On 25/07/2017 19:18, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:55:29 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 20:38:25 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 16:08:28 +0100, NY wrote:

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news What do you believe weather forecasters mean when they say "40%
chance of
rain"?

1) It will rain for 40% of the day.
2) There's a 40% chance it will rain at some point.

I googled it and apparently it depends on the forecaster? 1) and
2) are
completely different meanings.

Given that it includes the word "chance" (ie probability) I'd
interpret it
as the second meaning: if (hypothetically) you replayed the day
many times
(Groundhog Day!) then approx 40% of the occurrences of the day
would have
some rain.

Which is of no use to me whatsoever. Pouring with rain all day is
nothing like spitting for half an hour. Yet they don't distinguish
between the two.

How about showers or inteminant showers or heavy downfalls, storms.

Yes, those are more helpful. But "20% chance of rain" means nothing,

There should be a measurement where 0% means no rain at all, and 100%
means rain all day.

So what would 50% mean light showers for 50% of the day or heavy rain
50% of the day, and whayt would the other 50% be of the day be like ?

If there's only a % number it should be expressed as a percentage of
pouring all day.

But is 50% pouring all morning and dry all afternoon or alternating
between pouring and dry every hour?

Could be either, but those two are more similar than a 50% chance that it might give light showers for 10 minutes at some point during the day, which is what the current system allows for.

The weather app that I use on my phone

Ooooh! Snob! An app on one's phone eh? I run applications on my computer. I use my telephone for making telephone calls.

gives me a percentage chance of
rain for each hour of the day and a symbol next to it for bright
sunshine, partial sunshine, overcast, light rain, heavy rain, downpour
or thunderstorm.

Yeah right, we haven't invented forecasting that accurate. I'll stick to my barometer watch. It draws a graph of the next 12 hours, simply stating it'll get worse, a lot worse, better, a lot better, etc. Stick my head out the window, cloudy, graph says better later, I know the sun will come out. Graph says worse later, I know it'll rain.

--
Women are like a pack of cards... you need a heart to love them, diamonds to marry them, a club to kill them and a spade to bury them.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:05:43 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

On 25/07/2017 12:22, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:03:34 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 22:24:22 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave writes
On Thursday, 20 July 2017 15:39:29 UTC+1, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
whisky-dave expressed precisely :
When they explained it on the TV durign a weather documentary
they said it
wass the chance of rain andn showed how they calculated it.
In waether there';s a few things that can happen due to changign
Highs and
lows and various 'gulf' type streams the forcaster can guess
which will
effect which but it's a probabilty rather than a known outcome, so
they use
the % term.

I suppose they could use odds like bookies.

I was wondering about that yesterday, reading the local forecast. It
was showing various percentages for each hour, 20%, 30%, 40%, 70%.
Even
threats of thunderstorms. Does the first 20% mean that there is a 20%
risk of some rain within that hour, or something else?

I guess that what it means, perhaps some may think that it means
there's a 20% chance of rain in their lifetime, how anyone would come
to that conclusion escapes me, but there's some on here that think the
new doctor who is a women ;-)


She's reproduced already?

No the way she parked the Tardis !

https://youtu.be/LTKFaBvW6oc

Years ago I was outside working on my car when a wagon pulled up to
collect a neighbour's car. The road is narrow and nothing could get
through while is was there. At that point a woman stopped her car
alongside mine, got out and asked if I'd reverse her car for her because
she couldn't do it for the distance required. She looked a bit panicky
when I reversed it at speed for the whole length of the road.

I like reversing fast too. I was once told off by someone for reversing a Vauxhall Corsa at full revs along his street instead of driving to the end to do a 3 point turn after the huge line of parked cars. I pointed out that my vehicle was unable to break the speed limit in reverse, so he had **** all chance of getting me into **** by the police. The police never contacted me.

You should go to the highlands of Scotland. Single track roads with passing places. Encounter another car, flash your lights to say you're letting them go first, then reverse as fast as possible to the last passing place. Except if it's a bus then you make them reverse.

--
How do you make a hormone?
Kick her in the box.

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news
On 25/07/2017 19:18, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:55:29 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 20:38:25 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 16:08:28 +0100, NY wrote:

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news What do you believe weather forecasters mean when they say "40%
chance of
rain"?

1) It will rain for 40% of the day.
2) There's a 40% chance it will rain at some point.

I googled it and apparently it depends on the forecaster? 1) and
2) are
completely different meanings.

Given that it includes the word "chance" (ie probability) I'd
interpret it
as the second meaning: if (hypothetically) you replayed the day
many times
(Groundhog Day!) then approx 40% of the occurrences of the day
would have
some rain.

Which is of no use to me whatsoever. Pouring with rain all day is
nothing like spitting for half an hour. Yet they don't distinguish
between the two.

How about showers or inteminant showers or heavy downfalls, storms.

Yes, those are more helpful. But "20% chance of rain" means nothing,

There should be a measurement where 0% means no rain at all, and 100%
means rain all day.

So what would 50% mean light showers for 50% of the day or heavy rain
50% of the day, and whayt would the other 50% be of the day be like ?

If there's only a % number it should be expressed as a percentage of
pouring all day.

But is 50% pouring all morning and dry all afternoon or alternating
between pouring and dry every hour?

The weather app that I use on my phone gives me a percentage chance of
rain for each hour of the day and a symbol next to it for bright sunshine,
partial sunshine, overcast, light rain, heavy rain, downpour or
thunderstorm.

Mine gives much more than that.
http://www.bom.gov.au/places/nsw/syd...cast/detailed/

On 25/07/17 22:06, DJC wrote:
Weather forcecasts these days are the output of models. So it's the 50%
probability of the model being right.

Er no. The outoput of the model shows a 50% chance of...

The model is always rght.


--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 26/07/17 10:57, Huge wrote:
since they change all the time up to the moment you realise they are, in fact, wrong.


Well huge, you finally have made an intelligent succint and extremely
witty statement.



--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 16:47:49 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:16:11 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , James Wilkinson Sword
writes
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:20:59 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 21 July 2017 12:06:21 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:58:46 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:20:55 GMT, lid (AnthonyL)
wrote:

snip

There's a 50% chance that tomorrow's weather will be the same as
today's. No need for any further weather forecasts.

;-)

A mate moved from the UK to Canada then spent some time in California.
He said one of the more striking differences between living there
(California) and the UK is that in California they planned to go
boating 'next Thursday', the chances are that the weather will be
pretty much the same as it was the day they planned the trip. ;-)

Over here, I'd say it's rarely possible to accurately predict the
weather that afternoon and you can experience the weather from at
least three seasons in the same day. ;-)

'Right kids, get your flip flops, shoes, Wellingtons, shorts, coats
and don't forget the sun cream ...' ;-)

I don't care what the weather is. A pair of shorts works for
anything. Humans are waterproof and warmblooded and don't require a
change of clothes for a change in the weather.


How comes then that humans get frost bite

Only if you have **** circulation. I go hillwalking barefoot for hours
in the snow, my feet just go red. Extra blood, they can't freeze.

adn have died from being too cold ?

The autopsies are a lie. Easier to write cold than to work out why
they really died.

Get real. Hypothermia can kill.

You sound like a religious nut. You think it can kill you only because people have told you. Try it for yourself. The alleged timing is, fall into ice water and die of cold in 15 minutes. Do what I do, go swimming in winter in a partially frozen lake, and do so for a lot more than 15 minutes. Jesus Christ your teeth don't even start chattering until about 30 minutes..

You still haven't proved it though.
But why do you're teeth start chattering is it becuase yuotr brain isn't functioning, is it another way you talk crap ?

On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 19:18:26 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:55:29 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 20:38:25 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

How about showers or inteminant showers or heavy downfalls, storms.

Yes, those are more helpful. But "20% chance of rain" means nothing,

It means there's a 20% chance of it raining. Which means that if there were 5 days like that then on one day yuo'd be pretty certain of it raining but not on other days. But you do need a functioning brain for such informatiuon to mean anything.


There should be a measurement where 0% means no rain at all, and 100% means rain all day.

So what would 50% mean light showers for 50% of the day or heavy rain 50% of the day, and what would the other 50% be of the day be like ?

If there's only a % number it should be expressed as a percentage of pouring all day.

Why it's useless, they chance of it raining the whole day i.e 24 hours is not very likely. And if it's 10% it'll mean it'll rain for 2.4 hours. But that doesn't tell you when either.

On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 19:18:26 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

How about showers or inteminant showers or heavy downfalls, storms.

Yes, those are more helpful. But "20% chance of rain" means nothing,


Well my BBC weather app tells me that in east London in the next hour theres will be heavy rain 18C 12 mph wind.
Symbols for UV pollen and polution .
sunrise 5:15 sunset 20:58
Far more useful than your pathetic % idea.



There should be a measurement where 0% means no rain at all, and 100% means rain all day.

So what would 50% mean light showers for 50% of the day or heavy rain 50% of the day, and whayt would the other 50% be of the day be like ?

If there's only a % number it should be expressed as a percentage of pouring all day.

--
All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:22:02 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 19:18:26 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

How about showers or inteminant showers or heavy downfalls, storms.

Yes, those are more helpful. But "20% chance of rain" means nothing,


Well my BBC weather app tells me that in east London in the next hour theres will be heavy rain 18C 12 mph wind.
Symbols for UV pollen and polution .
sunrise 5:15 sunset 20:58
Far more useful than your pathetic % idea.

I've looked at hourly forecasts before, they're terribly inaccurate.

--
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:15:11 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 19:18:26 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:55:29 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 20:38:25 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

How about showers or inteminant showers or heavy downfalls, storms.

Yes, those are more helpful. But "20% chance of rain" means nothing,

It means there's a 20% chance of it raining. Which means that if there were 5 days like that then on one day yuo'd be pretty certain of it raining but not on other days. But you do need a functioning brain for such informatiuon to mean anything.

It's useless information. A light shower for 5 minutes or a heavy downpour for an entire day both come under that prediction.

There should be a measurement where 0% means no rain at all, and 100% means rain all day.

So what would 50% mean light showers for 50% of the day or heavy rain 50% of the day, and what would the other 50% be of the day be like ?

If there's only a % number it should be expressed as a percentage of pouring all day.

Why it's useless, they chance of it raining the whole day i.e 24 hours is not very likely.

I can think of many days where it's just kept on raining. Clouds hunt in packs.

And if it's 10% it'll mean it'll rain for 2.4 hours. But that doesn't tell you when either.

2.4 hours would be useful. I'd know how much water is going to fall. For example, I would still water my dried out garden if it was going to rain for 1% of the day.

--
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:07:33 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 16:47:49 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:16:11 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , James Wilkinson Sword
writes
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:20:59 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 21 July 2017 12:06:21 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:58:46 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:20:55 GMT, lid (AnthonyL)
wrote:

snip

There's a 50% chance that tomorrow's weather will be the same as
today's. No need for any further weather forecasts.

;-)

A mate moved from the UK to Canada then spent some time in California.
He said one of the more striking differences between living there
(California) and the UK is that in California they planned to go
boating 'next Thursday', the chances are that the weather will be
pretty much the same as it was the day they planned the trip. ;-)

Over here, I'd say it's rarely possible to accurately predict the
weather that afternoon and you can experience the weather from at
least three seasons in the same day. ;-)

'Right kids, get your flip flops, shoes, Wellingtons, shorts, coats
and don't forget the sun cream ...' ;-)

I don't care what the weather is. A pair of shorts works for
anything. Humans are waterproof and warmblooded and don't require a
change of clothes for a change in the weather.


How comes then that humans get frost bite

Only if you have **** circulation. I go hillwalking barefoot for hours
in the snow, my feet just go red. Extra blood, they can't freeze.

adn have died from being too cold ?

The autopsies are a lie. Easier to write cold than to work out why
they really died.

Get real. Hypothermia can kill.

You sound like a religious nut. You think it can kill you only because people have told you. Try it for yourself. The alleged timing is, fall into ice water and die of cold in 15 minutes. Do what I do, go swimming in winter in a partially frozen lake, and do so for a lot more than 15 minutes. Jesus Christ your teeth don't even start chattering until about 30 minutes.

You still haven't proved it though.

I have, as I explained above. Once it's winter i'll try to make a video. My digital camera will record for 1 hour 10 minutes at a time.

But why do you're teeth start chattering is it becuase yuotr brain isn't functioning, is it another way you talk crap ?

It's shivering. The jaw is a powerful muscle, also used for tearing up meat.

--
We always hold hands. If I let go, she shops.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 08:41:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 25/07/17 22:06, DJC wrote:
Weather forcecasts these days are the output of models. So it's the 50%
probability of the model being right.

Er no. The outoput of the model shows a 50% chance of...

The model is always rght.

But equally always wrong. Which adds up to 50% right.

--
Paddy calls Easyjet to book a flight.
The operator asks "How many people are flying with you?"
Paddy replies "I don't know! Its your flipping plane!"

On Wednesday, 26 July 2017 20:17:05 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:22:02 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 19:18:26 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

How about showers or inteminant showers or heavy downfalls, storms.

Yes, those are more helpful. But "20% chance of rain" means nothing,


Well my BBC weather app tells me that in east London in the next hour theres will be heavy rain 18C 12 mph wind.
Symbols for UV pollen and polution .
sunrise 5:15 sunset 20:58
Far more useful than your pathetic % idea.

I've looked at hourly forecasts before, they're terribly inaccurate.

Because of the small time scale yuo've not meant to look at them a week in advance, they are usualy OK for that day buit for teh next day 2 or 3 hour is the best yuo can hopem for and even that depends on previous conditions.

This is were proability comes in.
The storm off the south coast in 1987 had a probability of about 20%.
Not sure what the probabiolity of it being teh worst storm in 300 years was, but that doesn;t mean it could never had happened.

On Wednesday, 26 July 2017 20:19:09 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:15:11 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 19:18:26 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:55:29 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 20:38:25 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

How about showers or inteminant showers or heavy downfalls, storms.

Yes, those are more helpful. But "20% chance of rain" means nothing,

It means there's a 20% chance of it raining. Which means that if there were 5 days like that then on one day yuo'd be pretty certain of it raining but not on other days. But you do need a functioning brain for such informatiuon to mean anything.

It's useless information. A light shower for 5 minutes or a heavy downpour for an entire day both come under that prediction.

Only as a percentage, you shouldn't just rely on a percentage.



There should be a measurement where 0% means no rain at all, and 100% means rain all day.

So what would 50% mean light showers for 50% of the day or heavy rain 50% of the day, and what would the other 50% be of the day be like ?

If there's only a % number it should be expressed as a percentage of pouring all day.

Why it's useless, they chance of it raining the whole day i.e 24 hours is not very likely.

I can think of many days where it's just kept on raining. Clouds hunt in packs.

Which makes 100% a useless figure because it will never occur.


And if it's 10% it'll mean it'll rain for 2.4 hours. But that doesn't tell you when either.

2.4 hours would be useful. I'd know how much water is going to fall.

No yuo wouldn;t not without some description such as light showers or heavy downpours, theres a differnce yuo seem to be sujeustimng that rainfall ios a at a constant speed it isn't

For example, I would still water my dried out garden if it was going to rain for 1% of the day.

Even if it caused flooding ?
You can;lt use percentages for such predictions.

On Wednesday, 26 July 2017 20:58:40 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:07:33 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 16:47:49 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:16:11 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , James Wilkinson Sword
writes
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:20:59 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 21 July 2017 12:06:21 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:58:46 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:20:55 GMT, lid (AnthonyL)
wrote:

snip

There's a 50% chance that tomorrow's weather will be the same as
today's. No need for any further weather forecasts.

;-)

A mate moved from the UK to Canada then spent some time in California.
He said one of the more striking differences between living there
(California) and the UK is that in California they planned to go
boating 'next Thursday', the chances are that the weather will be
pretty much the same as it was the day they planned the trip. ;-)

Over here, I'd say it's rarely possible to accurately predict the
weather that afternoon and you can experience the weather from at
least three seasons in the same day. ;-)

'Right kids, get your flip flops, shoes, Wellingtons, shorts, coats
and don't forget the sun cream ...' ;-)

I don't care what the weather is. A pair of shorts works for
anything. Humans are waterproof and warmblooded and don't require a
change of clothes for a change in the weather.


How comes then that humans get frost bite

Only if you have **** circulation. I go hillwalking barefoot for hours
in the snow, my feet just go red. Extra blood, they can't freeze.

adn have died from being too cold ?

The autopsies are a lie. Easier to write cold than to work out why
they really died.

Get real. Hypothermia can kill.

You sound like a religious nut. You think it can kill you only because people have told you. Try it for yourself. The alleged timing is, fall into ice water and die of cold in 15 minutes. Do what I do, go swimming in winter in a partially frozen lake, and do so for a lot more than 15 minutes. Jesus Christ your teeth don't even start chattering until about 30 minutes.

You still haven't proved it though.

I have, as I explained above.

That is NOT proof.

Once it's winter i'll try to make a video. My digital camera will record for 1 hour 10 minutes at a time.

Might be long enough although why not stay longer try some Tummo

Do you think you could sit on block of ice for nearly two hours.


But why do you're teeth start chattering is it becuase yuotr brain isn't functioning, is it another way you talk crap ?

It's shivering.

Why bother.

The jaw is a powerful muscle, also used for tearing up meat.

--
We always hold hands. If I let go, she shops.

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:00:49 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 26 July 2017 20:17:05 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:22:02 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 19:18:26 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

How about showers or inteminant showers or heavy downfalls, storms.

Yes, those are more helpful. But "20% chance of rain" means nothing,


Well my BBC weather app tells me that in east London in the next hour theres will be heavy rain 18C 12 mph wind.
Symbols for UV pollen and polution .
sunrise 5:15 sunset 20:58
Far more useful than your pathetic % idea.

I've looked at hourly forecasts before, they're terribly inaccurate.

Because of the small time scale yuo've not meant to look at them a week in advance, they are usualy OK for that day buit for teh next day 2 or 3 hour is the best yuo can hopem for and even that depends on previous conditions.

I was looking at the current day. If they can't work that out they need to stop bothering.

This is were proability comes in.
The storm off the south coast in 1987 had a probability of about 20%.
Not sure what the probabiolity of it being teh worst storm in 300 years was, but that doesn;t mean it could never had happened.

If a forecaster uses probabilities, he's guessing. Wait until we can actually predict it properly, then make forecasts.

--
Why don't Siamese cats come in pairs?

On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 16:22:05 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

FLUSH drivel

If a forecaster uses probabilities, he's guessing.

No, he isn't, oh birdbrained one!

Wait until we can actually predict it properly, then make forecasts.

"We", already AGAIN? Who's that "we" you are constantly hallucinating about,
sociopath? NOBODY identifies with you. EVERY intelligent person considers
you a sick idiot!

--
More details from Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) strange
sociopathic world:
"I don't give a **** about the law".
"**** the law".
"It's only illegal is you get caught".
"Something being illegal does not matter".
"The law is irrelevant".
(Courtesy of Mr Pounder)

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:07:09 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 26 July 2017 20:19:09 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:15:11 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 19:18:26 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:55:29 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 20:38:25 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

How about showers or inteminant showers or heavy downfalls, storms.

Yes, those are more helpful. But "20% chance of rain" means nothing,

It means there's a 20% chance of it raining. Which means that if there were 5 days like that then on one day yuo'd be pretty certain of it raining but not on other days. But you do need a functioning brain for such informatiuon to mean anything.

It's useless information. A light shower for 5 minutes or a heavy downpour for an entire day both come under that prediction.

Only as a percentage, you shouldn't just rely on a percentage.

That's all some sites give.

There should be a measurement where 0% means no rain at all, and 100% means rain all day.

So what would 50% mean light showers for 50% of the day or heavy rain 50% of the day, and what would the other 50% be of the day be like ?

If there's only a % number it should be expressed as a percentage of pouring all day.

Why it's useless, they chance of it raining the whole day i.e 24 hours is not very likely.

I can think of many days where it's just kept on raining. Clouds hunt in packs.

Which makes 100% a useless figure because it will never occur.

I just told you I can think of many days where it did just that.

And if it's 10% it'll mean it'll rain for 2.4 hours. But that doesn't tell you when either.

2.4 hours would be useful. I'd know how much water is going to fall.

No yuo wouldn;t not without some description such as light showers or heavy downpours, theres a differnce yuo seem to be sujeustimng that rainfall ios a at a constant speed it isn't

But I'd know that I only had to cover my car boot stall for 2.4 hours.

For example, I would still water my dried out garden if it was going to rain for 1% of the day.

Even if it caused flooding ?
You can;lt use percentages for such predictions.

1% of the day won't cause flooding.

Ok, why not say "today will have between 3 and 5mm of rain".

--
What's red and sits in the corner?
A baby chewing on razor blades.

What's blue and sits in the corner?
A baby in a plastic bag.

What's green and sits in the corner?
The same baby a month later.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:07:09 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 26 July 2017 20:19:09 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:15:11 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 19:18:26 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:55:29 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 20:38:25 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:

How about showers or inteminant showers or heavy downfalls, storms.

Yes, those are more helpful. But "20% chance of rain" means nothing,

It means there's a 20% chance of it raining. Which means that if there
were 5 days like that then on one day yuo'd be pretty certain of it
raining but not on other days. But you do need a functioning brain for
such informatiuon to mean anything.

It's useless information. A light shower for 5 minutes or a heavy
downpour for an entire day both come under that prediction.

Only as a percentage, you shouldn't just rely on a percentage.

That's all some sites give.

There should be a measurement where 0% means no rain at all, and
100% means rain all day.

So what would 50% mean light showers for 50% of the day or heavy
rain 50% of the day, and what would the other 50% be of the day be
like ?

If there's only a % number it should be expressed as a percentage of
pouring all day.

Why it's useless, they chance of it raining the whole day i.e 24 hours
is not very likely.

I can think of many days where it's just kept on raining. Clouds hunt
in packs.

Which makes 100% a useless figure because it will never occur.

I just told you I can think of many days where it did just that.

And if it's 10% it'll mean it'll rain for 2.4 hours. But that doesn't
tell you when either.

2.4 hours would be useful. I'd know how much water is going to fall.

No yuo wouldn;t not without some description such as light showers or
heavy downpours, theres a differnce yuo seem to be sujeustimng that
rainfall ios a at a constant speed it isn't

But I'd know that I only had to cover my car boot stall for 2.4 hours.

For example, I would still water my dried out garden if it was going to
rain for 1% of the day.

Even if it caused flooding ?
You can;lt use percentages for such predictions.

1% of the day won't cause flooding.

Can do with a deluge.

Ok, why not say "today will have between 3 and 5mm of rain".

That's what ours do, and a percentage chance of that too.

On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 19:16:33 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

FLUSH the sick idiot's sick drivel

--
Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson" LOL):
"Cycle lanes are a stupid (and in this case dangerous) idea, and many
cyclists think so."
MID:

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:16:51 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 26 July 2017 20:58:40 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:07:33 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 16:47:49 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:16:11 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , James Wilkinson Sword
writes
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:20:59 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 21 July 2017 12:06:21 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 09:58:46 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:20:55 GMT, lid (AnthonyL)
wrote:

snip

There's a 50% chance that tomorrow's weather will be the same as
today's. No need for any further weather forecasts.

;-)

A mate moved from the UK to Canada then spent some time in California.
He said one of the more striking differences between living there
(California) and the UK is that in California they planned to go
boating 'next Thursday', the chances are that the weather will be
pretty much the same as it was the day they planned the trip. ;-)

Over here, I'd say it's rarely possible to accurately predict the
weather that afternoon and you can experience the weather from at
least three seasons in the same day. ;-)

'Right kids, get your flip flops, shoes, Wellingtons, shorts, coats
and don't forget the sun cream ...' ;-)

I don't care what the weather is. A pair of shorts works for
anything. Humans are waterproof and warmblooded and don't require a
change of clothes for a change in the weather.


How comes then that humans get frost bite

Only if you have **** circulation. I go hillwalking barefoot for hours
in the snow, my feet just go red. Extra blood, they can't freeze.

adn have died from being too cold ?

The autopsies are a lie. Easier to write cold than to work out why
they really died.

Get real. Hypothermia can kill.

You sound like a religious nut. You think it can kill you only because people have told you. Try it for yourself. The alleged timing is, fall into ice water and die of cold in 15 minutes. Do what I do, go swimming in winter in a partially frozen lake, and do so for a lot more than 15 minutes. Jesus Christ your teeth don't even start chattering until about 30 minutes.

You still haven't proved it though.

I have, as I explained above.

That is NOT proof.

Of course it is. If I postulate that mixing red ink and blue ink makes white ink, then you mix them and don't get white, you've proved I was wrong.

Once it's winter i'll try to make a video. My digital camera will record for 1 hour 10 minutes at a time.

Might be long enough although why not stay longer try some Tummo

That won't help my camera run for longer.

Do you think you could sit on block of ice for nearly two hours.

Easily. It only cools a part of your body.

But why do you're teeth start chattering is it becuase yuotr brain isn't functioning, is it another way you talk crap ?

It's shivering.

Why bother.

There's no bother, it's automatic.

The jaw is a powerful muscle, also used for tearing up meat.

--
The Official MBA Handbook on business cards: Avoid overly pretentious job titles such as "Lord of the Realm, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India" or "Director of Corporate Planning."

On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 22:17:28 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

FLUSH sociopathic drivel

--
More details from Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) sociopathic
"mind":
"If I wanted you to stab me with a knife and kill me, you should not
get into trouble for it".
"I would kill my sister if I thought I'd get away with it".
"I'm not what most people think of as human".
(Courtesy of Mr Pounder)

On Wednesday, 2 August 2017 16:22:07 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:00:49 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 26 July 2017 20:17:05 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:22:02 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 19:18:26 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

How about showers or inteminant showers or heavy downfalls, storms.

Yes, those are more helpful. But "20% chance of rain" means nothing,


Well my BBC weather app tells me that in east London in the next hour theres will be heavy rain 18C 12 mph wind.
Symbols for UV pollen and polution .
sunrise 5:15 sunset 20:58
Far more useful than your pathetic % idea.

I've looked at hourly forecasts before, they're terribly inaccurate.

Because of the small time scale yuo've not meant to look at them a week in advance, they are usualy OK for that day buit for teh next day 2 or 3 hour is the best yuo can hopem for and even that depends on previous conditions.

I was looking at the current day. If they can't work that out they need to stop bothering.

This is were proability comes in.
The storm off the south coast in 1987 had a probability of about 20%.
Not sure what the probabiolity of it being teh worst storm in 300 years was, but that doesn;t mean it could never had happened.

If a forecaster uses probabilities, he's guessing.

That's what forcasting is just working out probabilities of what is most likely to happen.

The famous storm of 1987 in the UK had a probability of 20% that hurricane force winds would hit the south coast.


Wait until we can actually predict it properly, then make forecasts.

That will never happen as it's all down to proabilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction

On Wednesday, 2 August 2017 19:16:38 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:07:09 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 26 July 2017 20:19:09 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:15:11 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 19:18:26 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:55:29 +0100, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 20 July 2017 20:38:25 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

How about showers or inteminant showers or heavy downfalls, storms.

Yes, those are more helpful. But "20% chance of rain" means nothing,

It means there's a 20% chance of it raining. Which means that if there were 5 days like that then on one day yuo'd be pretty certain of it raining but not on other days. But you do need a functioning brain for such informatiuon to mean anything.

It's useless information. A light shower for 5 minutes or a heavy downpour for an entire day both come under that prediction.

Only as a percentage, you shouldn't just rely on a percentage.

That's all some sites give.

Then use a better site.




I can think of many days where it's just kept on raining. Clouds hunt in packs.

Which makes 100% a useless figure because it will never occur.

I just told you I can think of many days where it did just that.

But what does that 100% represent depends on the tim e you loko at it.
If you look at 100% at midday does that mean it will rain for 100% of time from the previous 12 hours and 12 hours in the future ?



And if it's 10% it'll mean it'll rain for 2.4 hours. But that doesn't tell you when either.

2.4 hours would be useful. I'd know how much water is going to fall.

No yuo wouldn;t not without some description such as light showers or heavy downpours, theres a differnce yuo seem to be sujeustimng that rainfall is a at a constant speed it isn't

But I'd know that I only had to cover my car boot stall for 2.4 hours.

But you might not know when the 2.4 hours will start or finish.
If you start at 7am when will you cover your car boot.

At 7am at 9am at 11am at 1pm at 3pm.....

What happens if it starts raining at 10am and stops at 10:10 it could start again at 11:10 for another 10 mins.




For example, I would still water my dried out garden if it was going to rain for 1% of the day.

Even if it caused flooding ?
You can;lt use percentages for such predictions.

1% of the day won't cause flooding.

Ok, why not say "today will have between 3 and 5mm of rain".

Because it doesn't mean much to most people.

On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 15:08:45 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

FLUSH all the sick idiotic BULL**** unread

--
Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson" LOL):
"Cycle lanes are a stupid (and in this case dangerous) idea, and many
cyclists think so."
MID: