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

charles wrote:
In article ,
Scott wrote:

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

so, doses of medicine can be any size? 1 teaspoon or 1 gallon, it's all
the same, then?


If that seems to you to be a definition of numerate, (in the context of this
discussion), then I think it is safe to classify you as innumerate (for the
purposes of this discussion).

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:10:34 +0100, Scott
wrote:

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.

Partially. It is also determined by the factors *I* gave.

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.

Albedo is quite obviously an indirect effect - it can be altered by a
number of things. Maybe you are confusing cloud volume with cloud
cover, or even water content with cloud cover?

And of course, if we were really desperate, we could cover vast areas
of land with light or dark dyestuffs sufficiently to have a
significant effect on the average albedo of the Earth. Something that
I believe has been suggested, together with releasing dust into the
stratosphere periodically.

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.

Then prove it. You claimed to be able to predict rain if given those
three factors. I gave you a real, live example taken from historical
records. So if your claim is correct, you should be able to tell me
whether it rained that day (or was raining at the time of the
measurements). So far you have failed to do so. Until you do, I will
assume that you cannot do what you claim to be able to do. (In fact I
know sufficient about weather to know that it is not possible without
knowing several other factors).

Come on - you have a 50/50 chance of being right by pure guessworlk!
(Though in that case I may ask you to show your workings).

If what you say were true, you could make a fortune! Small
semiconductors capable of measuring temperature, pressure and humidity
are available cheaply. Add a PIC processor programmed with your magic
formula, and you'll have a device that can instantly predict the
weather anywhere it is at any time.

--
Cynic

"JAF" wrote

A small input can have a huge effect.

That would make a lot of sense to a ****wit with no understanding
whatsoever.

"Size doesn't matter. It's what you do with it."

Rubbish. There's nothing can compare to the look on a maiden's face when she
spies that snake and all you can say is 'Wider, dear'.

Cynic wrote:
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.

Oh yes there were. It was W/M^2 when you introduced the analogy of levers and
pulleys somehow implying that it might get round the conservation of energy.


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.

If you think you can violate the conservation of energy with that example, I
suggest you think again, in more concrete terms at *exactly* what happens.


A small input can have a huge effect.


Yes, and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing - and what you know is very
dangerous.

"August West" wrote

"Wood Pigeon" writes:

Rubbish. There's nothing can compare to the look on a maiden's face
when she spies thatlimp noodle and all you can say is 'it's never
happened before, dear'.

Still, you can always get them to change your colostomy bag for you.

'Kin Roared

Aye. I'll nowt argue.

Scott wrote:
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.

I think I know why Filth keeps grasping at straws - he needs them to make
those strawmen he's so fond of...

Scott wrote:

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.

Have you always had a problem admitting that you made a (childish)
mistake?

Scott wrote:

Liar!

Hello Duhg.

Scott wrote:

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.

Zzzzzzz... come back when you have advanced beyond elementary
mathematics.

In article ,
Scott wrote:
charles wrote:
In article ,
Scott wrote:

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

so, doses of medicine can be any size? 1 teaspoon or 1 gallon, it's all
the same, then?


If that seems to you to be a definition of numerate, (in the context of
this discussion), then I think it is safe to classify you as innumerate
(for the purposes of this discussion).

"Numerate" = "to read off as numbers". How does any science not involve
numbers?

Biochemistry is the science of living things.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11