http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html
I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.

On 18/01/2018 16:22, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html
I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.



Well this lot for starters

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...nt-happen.html

Apocalyptic predictions about the impact of climate change are
'overstated', according to a new study.

Experts have found that the UN's worst case scenario, that the world
could warm by up to 6°C (10.8°F) by 2100, is unlikely to happen.

New calculations worked out the probable impact of greenhouse gases on
global warming and found that more extreme scenarios will almost
certainly not occur.

They reduce the range of possible end-of-century outcomes by more than
half, researchers said, including the best and worst case scenarios.

Read mo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz54YW9YG9T



--
Chris B (News)

On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html
I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate change
when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 18/01/18 18:19, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate change
when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.


Unfortunately one of the problems of science is that certain classes of
equations, called chaotic, won't give meaningful predictions *even if
they are 100% accurate in representing the reality*.

For example, a pencil balanced on end is perfectly described by the law
of gravity: however that won't tell you which way that it will fall.
Brownian motion at the molecular level will determine that.

That's before we start on Schrödingers much maligned moggy...

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 18/01/2018 20:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/01/18 18:19, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate change
when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.


Unfortunately one of the problems of science is that certain classes of
equations, called chaotic, won't give meaningful predictions *even if
they are 100% accurate in representing the reality*.

For example, a pencil balanced on end is perfectly described by the law
of gravity: however that won't tell you which way that it will fall.
Brownian motion at the molecular level will determine that.

That's before we start on Schrödingers much maligned moggy...

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.


Weather is chaotic. Climate can be modelled and, within a decent margin
of error, predicted.


--
Cheers, Rob

On 18/01/2018 21:50, RJH wrote:


Weather is chaotic. Climate can be modelled and, within a decent margin
of error, predicted.

It helps if they don't discard the modelling results that don't fit the
pet theory of the day.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 19/01/18 09:33, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , alan_m
wrote:

On 18/01/2018 21:50, RJH wrote:

Weather is chaotic. Climate can be modelled and, within a decent
margin of error, predicted.

Weather can be modelled too, its what the MetOffice does for a living.
But beyond a few days, the forecasts can be less and less useful.


Indeed.

All you can say with weather AND climate is there must be a lot of
negative feedback to keep it within reasonable limits.

AGW of course says that in fact there is positive feedback to make the
effects of CO2 scary enough to justify harry's ****ing solar panels.

Mind you, they aren't justifiable, even then.

It helps if they don't discard the modelling results that don't fit
the pet theory of the day.



--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

On 18/01/18 21:50, RJH wrote:
On 18/01/2018 20:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/01/18 18:19, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate
change when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.


Unfortunately one of the problems of science is that certain classes
of equations, called chaotic, won't give meaningful predictions *even
if they are 100% accurate in representing the reality*.

For example, a pencil balanced on end is perfectly described by the
law of gravity: however that won't tell you which way that it will
fall. Brownian motion at the molecular level will determine that.

That's before we start on Schrödingers much maligned moggy...

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.


Weather is chaotic. Climate can be modelled and, within a decent margin
of error, predicted.


Not really, no it cant.

Climate is in any case the time average of weather, so if weather cant
be predicted, neither can climate




--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

ۥ Confucius

On 19/01/2018 07:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/01/18 21:50, RJH wrote:
On 18/01/2018 20:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/01/18 18:19, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate
change when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.


Unfortunately one of the problems of science is that certain classes
of equations, called chaotic, won't give meaningful predictions *even
if they are 100% accurate in representing the reality*.

For example, a pencil balanced on end is perfectly described by the
law of gravity: however that won't tell you which way that it will
fall. Brownian motion at the molecular level will determine that.

That's before we start on Schrödingers much maligned moggy...

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.


Weather is chaotic. Climate can be modelled and, within a decent
margin of error, predicted.


Not really, no it cant.

Really. In Birmingham, hot in summer, cold in winter? There you are :-)


Climate is in any case the time average of weather, so if weather cant
be predicted, neither can climate


No. It's one of those things - more data, better modelling. Time gives
you access to more data. Not, of course, necessarily better models.


--
Cheers, Rob

On Friday, 19 January 2018 07:42:01 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/01/18 21:50, RJH wrote:
On 18/01/2018 20:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/01/18 18:19, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate
change when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.


Unfortunately one of the problems of science is that certain classes
of equations, called chaotic, won't give meaningful predictions *even
if they are 100% accurate in representing the reality*.

For example, a pencil balanced on end is perfectly described by the
law of gravity: however that won't tell you which way that it will
fall. Brownian motion at the molecular level will determine that.

That's before we start on Schrödingers much maligned moggy...

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.


Weather is chaotic. Climate can be modelled and, within a decent margin
of error, predicted.


Not really, no it cant.

Climate is in any case the time average of weather, so if weather cant
be predicted, neither can climate


Trends can be predicted.

On 19/01/2018 07:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Climate is in any case the time average of weather, so if weather cant
be predicted, neither can climate

I can't predict what you'll roll on a die. Roll it enough times and the
average is pretty clear.

Andy

In article ,
RJH wrote:
Climate can be modelled and, within a decent margin
of error, predicted.

Just read The Express. Each year they predict a scorcher summer and a very
hard winter. And are wrong most of the time.

--
*I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 19/01/2018 13:22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
Climate can be modelled and, within a decent margin
of error, predicted.

Just read The Express. Each year they predict a scorcher summer and a very
hard winter. And are wrong most of the time.


Isn't the Express in some kind of time warp where they just recycle the
same predictions each year and Princess Di died last week?

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 18-Jan-18 8:05 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/01/18 18:19, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate change
when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.


Unfortunately one of the problems of science is that certain classes of
equations, called chaotic, won't give meaningful predictions *even if
they are 100% accurate in representing the reality*.

For example, a pencil balanced on end is perfectly described by the law
of gravity: however that won't tell you which way that it will fall.
Brownian motion at the molecular level will determine that.

That's before we start on Schrödingers much maligned moggy...

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.

The IPCC seems to think that they can predict what will happen to the
climate. I have yet to be convinced they can.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 19/01/18 09:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 8:05 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/01/18 18:19, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate
change when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.


Unfortunately one of the problems of science is that certain classes
of equations, called chaotic, won't give meaningful predictions *even
if they are 100% accurate in representing the reality*.

For example, a pencil balanced on end is perfectly described by the
law of gravity: however that won't tell you which way that it will
fall. Brownian motion at the molecular level will determine that.

That's before we start on Schrödingers much maligned moggy...

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.

The IPCC seems to think that they can predict what will happen to the
climate. I have yet to be convinced they can.

No one is entirely clear what 'caused' the ice ages, their ends, the
mediaeval warm period, the little ice age, the Holocene optimum etc.

There are theories, but none of them seem to work well, and none of
course involve CO2 which has been remarkable stable (unlike the climate
for the last 10,000 years...

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

Mark Twain

On 19/01/2018 09:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 8:05 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

8

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.

The IPCC seems to think that they can predict what will happen to the
climate. I have yet to be convinced they can.


The IPCC has made numerous prediction in the past, so far they have all
been wrong. Who would believe weather forecasts that were always wrong,
other than harry and brian?

On 20/01/18 07:51, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 21:16:18 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 19/01/2018 09:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 8:05 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

8

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.

The IPCC seems to think that they can predict what will happen to the
climate. I have yet to be convinced they can.


The IPCC has made numerous prediction in the past, so far they have all
been wrong. Who would believe weather forecasts that were always wrong,
other than harry and brian?

Quite. See
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/...e-predictions/

There are huge swathes of people who think they are educated and
informed who prefer to believe what they read in the guardian or hear on
the BBC over what they can see by looking out of the window.


--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people
by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason they are
poor.

Peter Thompson

On 20/01/2018 07:51, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 21:16:18 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 19/01/2018 09:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 8:05 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

8

Climate is chaotic, and that means within a very broad range of
possibilities, its totally unpredictable.

The IPCC seems to think that they can predict what will happen to the
climate. I have yet to be convinced they can.


The IPCC has made numerous prediction in the past, so far they have all
been wrong. Who would believe weather forecasts that were always wrong,
other than harry and brian?

Quite. See
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/...e-predictions/


I've just read the first three of those 'revelations'. Each one is a
childlike misrepresentation.

For example, the first (1990 IPCC report) fails to mention the margin of
error. Or the most fundamental projection (+1C by 2025). It's not as if
the report didn't contain enough errors elsewhere ;-)

I have to accept that very few 'climate deniers' on this NG will read,
much less accept, peer reviewed work by trained scientists. But
blog-watching, the Daily Mail and hunches. Really?

--
Cheers, Rob

On Thursday, 18 January 2018 18:19:35 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html
I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate change
when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.

Isn't that like asking football pundits to state who's going to win the league or world cup or whatever.



--
--

Colin Bignell

On 19-Jan-18 11:10 AM, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 18 January 2018 18:19:35 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html
I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate change
when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.

Isn't that like asking football pundits to state who's going to win the league or world cup or whatever.

Except that governments don't set their policies on the basis of
football predictions.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 19/01/18 11:49, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Jan-18 11:10 AM, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 18 January 2018 18:19:35 UTC, NightjarÂ* wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate change
when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.

Isn't that like asking football pundits to state who's going to win
the league or world cup or whatever.

Except that governments don't set their policies on the basis of
football predictions.


No, far worse. They set them on the basis of narrow self interest and
political expediency.


The New Left are fundamentally gullible idiots and actually Believe In
Socialism.

For the rest of us 'Idiocracy' is on Film 4 at 9pm tonight. Dont miss it.




--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
No, far worse. They set them on the basis of narrow self interest and
political expediency.


The New Left are fundamentally gullible idiots and actually Believe In
Socialism.

No surprise you prefer narrow self interest, then.

--
*Arkansas State Motto: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Laugh.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 18/01/2018 18:19, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate change
when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.

Or when they run models backwards and find things like the little ice
age, medieval warm period, dark ages, Roman warm period etc.

Or even manage to get "ordinary" ice ages, rather than snowball earth.

On 20/01/18 13:32, newshound wrote:
On 18/01/2018 18:19, Nightjar wrote:
On 18-Jan-18 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.


I will believe that the scientists know what is causing climate change
when they can make accurate predictions based upon their claims.

Or when they run models backwards and find things like the little ice
age, medieval warm period, dark ages, Roman warm period etc.

Or even manage to get "ordinary" ice ages, rather than snowball earth.
Or even manage *in the same paper* to clearly show that colling due to
Pinatuboo was exactly as predicted by the albedo change with *NO
AMPLIFICATION DUE TO 'POSITIVE FEEDBACK'* that subtarcted from the
effects of global warming due to CO2 as predicted by *USING
AMPLIFICATION DUE TO 'POSITIVE FEEDBACK'*

You couldn't make it up.

But they do.


--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

The problem is at least as far as I can see, that whatever the reason, can
we really be confident in fixing it? Given the number of years we have been
pumping out stuff, then I see it getting far worse before it gets better. Is
anyone out there planning long term for the resettlement of people in low
lying areas, the growing of crops in areas which will still be temperate and
protecting infrastructure against the severe weather and fires etc which are
to come?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html
I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.

On Friday, 19 January 2018 07:29:35 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
The problem is at least as far as I can see, that whatever the reason, can
we really be confident in fixing it? Given the number of years we have been
pumping out stuff, then I see it getting far worse before it gets better.



The very reason for swift action as soon as possible.

On 19/01/2018 07:29, Brian Gaff wrote:
The problem is at least as far as I can see, that whatever the
reason, can we really be confident in fixing it? Given the number of
years we have been pumping out stuff, then I see it getting far worse
before it gets better.

What new climate mechanism ae you going to use to prove that erroneous
assumption?
The energy exchange mechanisms in the climate models don't require years
to reach equilibrium.


Is anyone out there planning long term for the resettlement of
people in low lying areas, the growing of crops in areas which will
still be temperate and protecting infrastructure against the severe
weather and fires etc which are to come? Brian


What sever weather?
There hasn't been any more sever weather so far, just more reporting of it.

On 19/01/2018 20:57, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/01/2018 07:29, Brian Gaff wrote:
The problem is at least as far as I can see, that whatever the
reason, can we really be confident in fixing it? Given the number of
years we have been pumping out stuff, then I see it getting far worse
before it gets better.

What new climate mechanism ae you going to use to prove that erroneous
assumption?
The energy exchange mechanisms in the climate models don't require years
to reach equilibrium.


Is anyone out there planning long term for theÂ* resettlement of
people in low lying areas, the growing of crops in areas which will
still be temperate and protecting infrastructure against the severe
weather and fires etc which are to come? Brian


What sever weather?
There hasn't been any more sever weather so far, just more reporting of it.

Yep, flood plains tend to flood each year in spite of building housing
on them.

Many (all) of the often reported forest fires are not due to climate change.

For many hundred thousand years fire has been natures way of
regenerating itself.

More recently, in many hot dry areas the practice of grazing domestic
animals, or wild populations of native animals, in woodlands has
declined leading to a lot more dry materials to fuel a fire when it does
break out.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 18/01/2018 16:22, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html
I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.

Smart meters will be able to identify electric cars and charge the
missing fuel duty, VAT and climate change levy (from the coal-
fired powerstation) to your leccy bill. Ha Ha

On Saturday, 20 January 2018 12:44:29 UTC, Andrew wrote:
On 18/01/2018 16:22, harry wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html
I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.

Smart meters will be able to identify electric cars and charge the
missing fuel duty, VAT and climate change levy (from the coal-
fired powerstation) to your leccy bill. Ha Ha

No they won't.

In message ,
harry writes
On Saturday, 20 January 2018 12:44:29 UTC, Andrew wrote:
On 18/01/2018 16:22, harry wrote:











http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html
I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.

Smart meters will be able to identify electric cars and charge the
missing fuel duty, VAT and climate change levy (from the coal-
fired powerstation) to your leccy bill. Ha Ha

No they won't.

Hmm.. something might. Assuming full wave rectification, the battery
will only draw current when the supply voltage exceeds that of the
battery. I doubt it would take much electronics to spot that.

--
Tim Lamb

On 20/01/2018 17:45, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message ,
harry writes
On Saturday, 20 January 2018 12:44:29 UTC, AndrewÂ* wrote:
On 18/01/2018 16:22, harry wrote:










http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.

Smart meters will be able to identify electric cars and charge the
missing fuel duty, VAT and climate change levy (from the coal-
fired powerstation) to your leccy bill. Ha Ha

No they won't.

Hmm.. something might. Assuming full wave rectification, the battery
will only draw current when the supply voltage exceeds that of the
battery. I doubt it would take much electronics to spot that.

If we can send ethernet over a ring main, then all you need is
chip-enabled applicances telling the smart meter what sort of
device they are. Electronically, a piece of cake.

On 20/01/2018 17:45, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message ,
harry writes
On Saturday, 20 January 2018 12:44:29 UTC, AndrewÂ* wrote:
On 18/01/2018 16:22, harry wrote:










http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html

I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.

Smart meters will be able to identify electric cars and charge the
missing fuel duty, VAT and climate change levy (from the coal-
fired powerstation) to your leccy bill. Ha Ha

No they won't.

Hmm.. something might. Assuming full wave rectification, the battery
will only draw current when the supply voltage exceeds that of the
battery. I doubt it would take much electronics to spot that.

That could work with a very old-fashioned car battery charger, but an EV
charger will be a sophisticated switch-mode unit with power factor
correction.

Cheers
--
Clive

In message , Clive Arthur
writes
On 20/01/2018 17:45, Tim Lamb wrote:
Smart meters will be able to identify electric cars and charge the
missing fuel duty, VAT and climate change levy (from the coal-
fired powerstation) to your leccy bill. Ha Ha

No they won't.
Hmm.. something might. Assuming full wave rectification, the battery
will only draw current when the supply voltage exceeds that of the
battery. I doubt it would take much electronics to spot that.

That could work with a very old-fashioned car battery charger, but an
EV charger will be a sophisticated switch-mode unit with power factor
correction.
I'm a very long way out of touch Clive and my maths have always been
suspect. However, my assumption is, for a domestic single phase supply,
there will be a number of milliseconds where the voltage is insufficient
to provide a charge.

Now you can store energy in a capacitor or an inductor but these would
need to be high capacity in view of the charge current needed.

I doubt much of this current draw is going to be sinusoidal so probably
identifiable with respect to conventional domestic loads.

--
Tim Lamb

On Saturday, 20 January 2018 17:46:46 UTC, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message ,
harry writes
On Saturday, 20 January 2018 12:44:29 UTC, Andrew wrote:
On 18/01/2018 16:22, harry wrote:











http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...t-El-Nino.html
I 'spect there's still some nitwits here who still don't believe it.

Smart meters will be able to identify electric cars and charge the
missing fuel duty, VAT and climate change levy (from the coal-
fired powerstation) to your leccy bill. Ha Ha

No they won't.

Hmm.. something might. Assuming full wave rectification, the battery
will only draw current when the supply voltage exceeds that of the
battery. I doubt it would take much electronics to spot that.

The battery is 330 volts.