"Col" wrote in message
...

"Alastair McDonald" k wrote
in message ...

But will you accept that the reason that your readings are exceptions is
due to the chaotic nature of weather and climate, and not just random
chance :-?


But that's the same thing isn't it, or is that your point?



My point is that chance and chaos are not the same, but I must admit I
have not explained it well, if at all :-( Briefly what I am suggesting is
that chaotic is more random than random!

This is an idea I have been developing over the last year, but not having
fully explained it to anyone it is not surprising you do not get it. In fact
many may not acept it even after I have explained it!

One analogue for chaos is turbulent flow as opposed to laminar flow. I
like to think that mountain streams (Scottisn burns) are a good example
of chaos whereas the slow moving English River Stour is a good example
of laminar flow.

When I was in Scotland at Christmas I examined a burn formed by the
heavy rain. As I had expected, while the general flow was down hill, but
when it hit a rock the water rose up in a stationery wave. Eddies resulted
in some water travelling in the opposite direction to the general flow. Just
as it is with water in a burn, so it is with temperature during the the global
warming of the planet. Most areas slowly warm, but some nearby cool.
Others leap about, being warmer than average one year and cooler the
next.

It is this leaping about which distinguishes chaos from random. If the
climate was to warm randomly, one might expect a 0.1C increase in
one year and 0.2C the following year, and 0.15 in the next year. What
we are getting is the 0.2C in the first year and 0.15C in the following
year, but -0.2 C in the year that followed that one. (1997 - 1999). It is
the chaotic nature of weather and climate, which seems random, that
makes it so much more difficult to spot the trends.

Does this make any sense?

Cheers , Alastair