- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 3902 Hour
- Reading permission
obviously you are a thinking man|
this is to be commended
I only have few things to say at this stage, need to look into it more, as I am too ignorant to say much more
Firstly, is flux the right tool for the job? It looks a lot like the body mass index. BMI is weight/height squared. Basically a calculation of surface area.
Flux looks like a measure of energy on the surface area.
With the BMI, we have a large number of humans, so we can create a statistical bell curve and a normal distribution. Normal is 18-25 or some say 20-25. More than 25 is overweight, more than 30 is obese
But a really muscular man with low body fat can still have a large surface area. His BMI may be in the obese range but there is no fat, just muscle.
Also an asian in the normal range (21-25) may actually be fat, due to the slighter frame.
You see? Is flux a good way of measuring warming, that is the first question. It might be, I just don't have an opinion yet.
Next, we see the Royal Society report assert that the Earth balances its energy. What goes in from the sun, must go out. This was not explained.
It says 30% of the sun's energy that comes in is reflected off clouds, water vapour and gases normally. But it does not define normal in historical terms, and that I suspect is because there is no data.
In the history of the earth versus the last 150 or so years of measurement, that is a really risky assertion.
Again it was a summary and there is likely to be a lot of science, but the summary was unreferenced.
Here is a really big question for me - how much of this flux from the sun is reflected by water vapour and trapped by water vapour?
Did you see that warming was recorded from 1910-40 and again from 1975 to the present? Is there a chance that increased detection due to better technology is a significant factor.
That is, we are not seeing higher temps, but the effect of satellite and high altitude aircraft measurement, coupled to better sensors?
The summary tells us that the concentration of CO2 in the air is presently 388 ppm. It also tells us this is the highest level ever, when compared to the last 800,000 years, during which the measured [CO2] (presumably from ice cores) was180-300 ppm.
What the article does not show is the graph over that 800,000 years. If it is a linear graph going up, with a little spurt now, there may be another factor to consider, extraneous to human activity.
After all, it went up to 300 ppm, using present technology to measure it, without ANY effect of industrialisation. Who knows, it could just be the effect of farts.
I appreciate their use of terms such as "much evidence consistent with" ...this is good scientific thought.
[ Last edited by lebeast at 2010-10-9 08:04 PM ]