From: "Robert Comer" 

> 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.

--
Bob Comer


"Gary Wiltshire"  wrote in message
news:op.s71xr9boeipai0{at}dsl40.bgtnvtpl.sover.net...
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 09:15:14 -0400, Robert Comer 
> wrote:
>
>>> No it's not "simple physics" ...
>>
>> I'm afraid you're wrong on this, it's VERY simple physics.  More heat,
>> more
>> energy, more violent weather.
>
> It's only "simple" when you are plugging in the right values
for variables
> as I said below.  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.
>>
>>> and the computer models in use have had  spectacular failures where even
>>> such simple variables as the earth's  actual albedo are unknown.
>>
>> No argument with me on that, we still don't know enough to accurately
>> predict things.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Gary Wiltshire

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