From: "Robert Comer" 

> Well we might be talking past each other with regard to "simple"

Sounds like

> basic point remains that there are vital numbers (like albedo) which are,
> and have been, lacking.

And I don't have a problem with that with regards to 100% accurate
predictions, but that doesn't mean that I don't think that storms will get
stronger and more frequent in the future.

--
Bob Comer


"Gary Wiltshire"  wrote in message
news:op.s71yc7xmeipai0{at}dsl40.bgtnvtpl.sover.net...
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 09:49:55 -0400, Robert Comer 
> wrote:
>
>>> It's only "simple" when you are plugging in the
right values for
>>> variables
>>> as I said below.
>>
>> No, it's simple no matter the values you state, the values you state only
>> help predict current weather, and more accurately predict long term
>> trends,
>> but that doesn't mean we can't predict long term trends given what we
>> know
>> now.
>>
>> We know there is global warming, we know that more heat means more
>> energy,
>> and we know large storms feed off that.
>>
>>> Some of it though is not "simple" at all if you are 
trying to predict a
>>> particular storm for example as opposed to a large  trend.
>>
>> I'm not talking about predicting single storms here.
>>
>
> Well we might be talking past each other with regard to
"simple" but my
> basic point remains that there are vital numbers (like albedo) which are,
> and have been, lacking.
>
> --
> Gary Wiltshire

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5