@bbugmenott indeed he does and his science has been shown to be flawed and in error. Like all good science, ideas are tested and some are refuted. The right thing then is to move on and not cling to them because they suit you pre-determined view.
Post WWII the atmosphere over all the cities and industrial areas in the Northenr Hemisphere was almost black with particulates. Smogs were killed thousands. In the last fifty years - the period in which temperatures have risen at unprecedented rates, millions of pounds have been spent 'cleaning' the air with dramatic effects on the biosphere. This change seems to have been ignored by climate change science. It has no significant mention in the IPCC reports or in these discussions. Why not?
In the 70's we were told that aerosols were the gasses that created the preasure to make stuff like paint and deoderant spray from a can, and that it was responsible for the depleation of the ozone layer... When did the definition of aerosol change? Now the definition seems to focus on solid airborn particles and noone says squatdiddley about the ozone layer these days.
I think Global warmins a load of crap. We are all jumping to asumptions based on very little. The earth has cool and warm periods and the sun is the biggest factor in that. It is foolish to assume earth can't much get cooler or warmer than the current tempreture, the earth has seen extremes in tempretures just humans haven't been around for the warm extreme. If anything I belive the planet is in a natrual cycle, as the last ice age was from 1300 to 1850 approx.
Danish Scientist Henrik Svensmark has a different theory on Global Warming. He does not think that CO2 is the main cause of Global Warming. He think it is all due to the sun.
@bbugmenott indeed he does and his science has been shown to be flawed and in error. Like all good science, ideas are tested and some are refuted. The right thing then is to move on and not cling to them because they suit you pre-determined view.
DaveG37 1 year ago
@SuperLuigirules1 Thats just superficial complacent nonsense- see the science and read the facs...
DaveG37 1 year ago
Post WWII the atmosphere over all the cities and industrial areas in the Northenr Hemisphere was almost black with particulates. Smogs were killed thousands. In the last fifty years - the period in which temperatures have risen at unprecedented rates, millions of pounds have been spent 'cleaning' the air with dramatic effects on the biosphere. This change seems to have been ignored by climate change science. It has no significant mention in the IPCC reports or in these discussions. Why not?
MrFarmer3002 1 year ago
In the 70's we were told that aerosols were the gasses that created the preasure to make stuff like paint and deoderant spray from a can, and that it was responsible for the depleation of the ozone layer... When did the definition of aerosol change? Now the definition seems to focus on solid airborn particles and noone says squatdiddley about the ozone layer these days.
ZinnerNC 1 year ago
Danish Scientist Henrik Svensmark is wrong and has been proved to be so with overwhelming evidence.
dph3ams1 1 year ago 2
I think Global warmins a load of crap. We are all jumping to asumptions based on very little. The earth has cool and warm periods and the sun is the biggest factor in that. It is foolish to assume earth can't much get cooler or warmer than the current tempreture, the earth has seen extremes in tempretures just humans haven't been around for the warm extreme. If anything I belive the planet is in a natrual cycle, as the last ice age was from 1300 to 1850 approx.
SuperLuigirules1 2 years ago
Danish Scientist Henrik Svensmark has a different theory on Global Warming. He does not think that CO2 is the main cause of Global Warming. He think it is all due to the sun.
bbugmenott 3 years ago
The met. office KNOWS the world climate has a 28 year cycle, like solar cycles! CO2 tracks 4 years behind!
JonThm 3 years ago
In the 70s, aerosols were blamed for causing global cooling.
JonThm 3 years ago