BBC jakes GW demo?

formatting link
Australians are prime candidates for skin cancer..

They spend too much time in the sun. The Earth is closer during the Australian summer They are of European ancestry

The ozone hole adds little to it.

Reply to
dennis
Loading thread data ...

The half that supports your view.

A hint.. how big is the hole or how much less O3 is there in mass?

Reply to
dennis

Why don't you tell us then?

I posted that link so you could see for yourself how well (or not) the repair had been going. If either you or TMH have evidence to back up your claims now is the time to provide it.

Reply to
Roger Chapman

On Dec 8, 8:37=A0pm, "The Medway Handyman"

Now you are being a little stupid.

The greenhouse effect is well understood and an established fact.

That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is an established fact. It is not, however the most abundant greenhouse "gas" in the atmosphere.

Climate change (both cooling and warming) is an established fact.

What hasn't been proven to any degree if certainty is:

- The magnitude of the contribution to warming (or cooling) of any of the various atmospheric constituents that cause warming

- Is the warming/cooling caused by man or natural processes

- is there anything we can do about it

- is it even worth trying to do anything about it.

MBQ

Reply to
Man at B&Q

hole in the ozone layer. Given the significant year-on-year variation, that graph proves nothing except that there was a decrease from the

1979 level. It's also a classic example of truncating the vertical axis to make it appear to the less observant that the low point was virtually zero.

MBQ

Reply to
Man at B&Q

OK that's interesting. Can you provide a reference for this please?

It's 'well known' is it?

It is true that the term 'global warming' is misleading as it might be taken to imply that everywhere just gets a bit hotter. And those of us in the UK might be forgiven for thinking "that's all right. Wouldn't mind it being a bit sunnier". The problem is that what we are talking about is an increase of energy into weather systems. That means more extremes and less predictability. It means more floods and more hurricanes. It means the encroachment of desert areas and the loss of agricultural land.

One thing that is predictable is that higher average temperatures mean higher sea levels. That would be catastrophic for many people - there won't be many winners there. For example, even if you're not directly affected, think about how much of the global economy depends on shipping. How quickly do you think new infrastructure such as ports could be established?

Another example. Based on latitude, the UK is much warmer than it ought to be because of the Gulf Stream. I don't how the stability of the Gulf Stream is related to global climate. I don't know if anyone does but do we really want to do the experiment to find out.

So you are saying that because you don't like the consequences of the science, the science is wrong?

Please elaborate. You are implying that the good science shows that climate change isn't happening and that it might be OK even if it is. Where is this body of work?

Reply to
Bob

That isn't strictly true. Unless there is more energy arriving from the Sun there will be no more energy than there is now. If there is more energy from the sun then that would explain the increases in temperature.

Some models predict less hurricanes. The weather we have been having isn't really freak at all, we just get more damage than we used to due to our life styles.

That depends more on wind patterns than temperatures and the climate models can't predict them.

As fast as needed, they are not difficult to provide.

The gulf stream has stopped in the past, it was cold, much like Europe is. I don't see millions suffering/dying each year in Russia.#

I have no problems with climate change, just the causes and how to fix it. Climate change is a natural event and we have to live with it, there is lots of proof that it has happened before even if you deny it. We are *not* going to be able to prevent it and anyone that thinks we can needs their science examining.

See what I mean, nowhere have I said climate change doesn't happen.

In you imagination I would think.

Reply to
dennis

That's too simplistic - what matters is the %age of energy arriving from the sun which is retained in the atmosphere,

Reply to
Bob Martin

sun which is retained in the atmosphere,

Or to look at it another way, if the atmosphere is warmer there will be more energy in it. That after all is the only reason it is warmer.

Reply to
Roger Chapman

The wiki page got boring after 2 minutes, but I didn't see any explanation as to when this 'trend' began, or any possible causes

I'm not denying that climate change is occuring, I'm just saying that it's highly unlikely to have anything whatsoever to do with mankind. The earth regularly warms and cools over millions of years, or occasionally, very rapidly. This has occured hundreds, if not thousands of times according to scientists, and yet mankind has only been around for one, maybe two of these cycles.

Reply to
Phil L

Right. So if (from whatever cause) we're entering another period of rapid climate change that threatens our very existence, you're quite happy for us to sit back and let it happen?

The important questions are: does climate change pose a threat, and if it does is there anything we can do about it? The cause (natural, man- made or a bit of both) is largely immaterial.

Richard.

formatting link

Reply to
Richard Russell

snip

That is the problem with science. Far too boring to be interesting to all too many people.

But the greenhouse effect has always been with us (at least as long as there have been greenhouse gases in the atmosphere). Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius all played their part in developing the theory.

The is quite a long list of things that contribute to the variability of climate. One of these is the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This is now about 50% above the pre industrial level. You might not think that the huge amount of CO2 resulting from human activity in the recent past has anything to do with this rise or with climate change but the great majority of the scientists who investigate such matters do.

Reply to
Roger Chapman

So? Were the majority who used to believe in the miasmatic theory of disease correct?

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples where passionately and strongly held majority views were eventually shown to be wrong.

What's different about AGW?

MBQ

Reply to
Man at B&Q

Reply to
The Medway Handyman

formatting link
has a high UV level & a popluation descended from pale skinned redheads.

95% of skin cancers are benign & don't spread from the skin.
Reply to
The Medway Handyman

formatting link

I always thought that cancers are not benign. Tumours can be malignant (i.e. cancerous) or non-malignant (i.e. benign).

This mob seems to agree with me:

Reply to
Rod

If it were retained by the atmosphere the temperature would continue to increase, it hasn't.

Reply to
dennis

There is a lot of energy in the atmosphere that is does not increase its temperature. The energy does, however, drive storms.

Reply to
dennis

Methodology in science has come a long way since then.

Possibly but I can't think of anything like that in the recent past. The closest I get is the steady state universe versus the big bang which isn't exactly the recent past these days and in any case was at the leading edge of cosmology at the time. It often takes time for a new theory to have its kinks ironed out. The greenhouse effect has been established fact too long for the basics to be wrong. Where the argument needs to be is in the extent to which AGW is adding to the underlying natural variation as that influences what counter measures are needed or can be effective if taken.

The huge amount of compelling evidence.

For there to have been no AGW you would have to accept either that mankind had nothing to do with the 50% increase in CO2 concentrations or that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

Reply to
Roger Chapman

snip

formatting link

Reply to
Roger Chapman

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.