Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.

Cynic wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:05:37 +0100, Scott
wrote:

You are trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs - and not doing
a terrifically good job, I'm afraid. Energy balance depends on energy
input as well as output, but you don't appear to understand that the
average amount reaching the surface of the Earth is a *variable*.

In case you haven't heard solar variability has been ruled out as a cause of
global warming.

I have not been referring to solar variability, but to the amount of
energy that reaches the Earth's surface. Which is *not* equal to the
amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth.

And is determined by the factors I gave.


No, it is because you refuse to acknowlege that indirect effects
matter - and matter a lot.

You seen to have an unteachable resistance to facts. You could fill the worlds
oceans with plankton sucking out CO2 but what would matter to determine the
balance at any instance is the level of CO2 (ignoring any direct change in
albedo which might happen). If you know the level of CO2 the amount of plankton
is irrelevant.

And with a stroke of your keyboard you ignore the albedo - which is
the specific factor I have been discussing.

Liar! The albedo is a direct effect and you have been trying to suggest
indirect effects are important. I suggested ignoring albedo only so as to keep
the discussion centred on indirect effects.


Very well, then if you
ignore the CO2 levels, the greenhouse effect doesn't exist and your
argument collapses - two can play that silly game!

What you are failing to see is the distinction between a value and its
predicted value in the future. If you give me the temperature, pressure and
moisture content of the air I can tell you exactly if it will rain or not.

That statement proves conclusively that your grasp of the physics
involved is way too simplistic to be of any use whatsoever
You're missing the point. Temperature, pressure (static and dynamic) and
moisture content are the basic data input for the met office weather
prediction. The only limitation which prevents their model from being more
accurate is an insufficient number of data points and insufficient computing
power. Or are you saying their grasp of physics it too simplistic to be of any
use whatsoever?

I understand quite a bit more than the person who claimed to be able
to predict whether it would rain by knowing only the temperature,
pressure and humidity.


Fair enough, you claim to know more than the father of numerical weather
forecasting and who am I to argue.

charles wrote:
In article ,
JAF wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:59:01 +0100, Cynic wrote:


So your physics knowlege doesn't extend to levers and pulley systems
either. Ah well.

? ? ?

"a little effort can do a lot of work" is what that presumably means.


I think he is trying to make a small amount of energy do a lot of work.
Unfortunately energy is conserved and any reduced force has to be applied over
a greater distance.

Steve Firth wrote:
Scott wrote:

You made yourself look foolish and you're grasping at straws. You might as
well have claimed I didn't take into account the match you lit the other
day.

You made a statement that was exclusive. It was wrong, and the only one
looking foolish here is the person stupid enough to state "There is only
one input source, the Sun" without qualification. For the avoidance of
doubt, that's you.

LOL. Keep grasping for those straws - I don't think I need to say anything else.

"JAF" wrote

you said:

No, I didn't.

Is this the right room for an argument?

"Scott" wrote

Fair enough, you claim to know more than the father of numerical weather
forecasting and who am I to argue.

"The father of numerical weather forecasting"?

YODAY?

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:09:06 GMT, JAF
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:54:04 +0100, Cynic wrote:

you said:

No, I didn't.

Sorry - it was Scott who said that. You merely failed to understand
the point I made.

--
Cynic

"Scott" wrote

I don't think I need to say anything else.

Agreed.



Stick to it.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:41:36 +0100, Scott
wrote:

ROTFLMAO
Fortunately I find basic physics to be more useful than the quasi-magical
belief system required to make 0.005 significant compared to 1370.

So your physics knowlege doesn't extend to levers and pulley systems
either. Ah well.


No I think its you who doesn't understand levers and pulleys. Use of a lever or
pulley *doesn't* decrease the amount of energy expended. This is basic 'O'
level stuff.

There were no units attached to the figures. I was merely indicating
that magnitude is not always the important factor.

If you want a specific example that applies to energy - then consider
that an energy input of .005 units could move a switch that turned off
or diverted an energy source of 1370 units.

A small input can have a huge effect.

--
Cynic

"Cynic" wrote

If you want a specific example that applies to energy - then consider
that an energy input of .005 units could move a switch that turned off
or diverted an energy source of 1370 units.

hand up
Oooh, Sir! Sir!

A 'transistor', Sir!

Or a politician.

Steve Firth wrote:
Scott wrote:

Biochemistry is not a non-numerate discipline. And you're wrong.

To *you* it may seem numerate, but I can assure you it is non-numerate.

You can assure me of many things, but since you're a bull****ting
blagger those assurances would still be hollow. What your statement
shows is that you're an empty-headed know nothing.


A statement which clearly applies to you.

Or do you consider x-ray crystallography, NMR, protemics, genomics etc
to be "non numerate" applications of science?


Come back when you understand something about the numerical solution of
non-linear simultaneous PDEs and you might have some credibility.

Now I think you should get back to studying for your GCSE.