Coach, the Bee population is way down, never see any here,when I go into the garden its eerie as there is vitually no insert noise at all

just popped out to see if there was a break in the clouds...there isnt

but found my first garden frog of summer..enjoying the rain and slugs....

hedgehogs still coming round for water these last few nights  and  frogs too donny around ...

we stopped burning all them fuels that pumped out smoke

the smoke would have helped keep temps down

wheras co2 helps increase temps

and is still being produced..but more often via smokeless fuel



memory from school was that it was hard to test for co2

co2 turns lime water milky?


best wat to take co2 from atmosphere is to grow more plants


one day co2 capture may be possible on large scale ...but without
being able to make monets from the process its not top of the list.

It might be wise to stock up on veg , cereals and sugar as crops are failing .

Just another way to tax people that's all.

Polar bear numbers on the increase

Go and spend some time on Venus if you think it's a theory

Not that one again.

You can't use Venus as a comparison with Earth. The temperature on Venus is down to its atmospheric pressure being 92 times that of our planet. It's the density of its atmosphere which reduces the lapse rate (the rate of decline of temperature with altitude) to a fraction of that on Earth. The actual composition of the atmosphere makes virtually no difference. It happens to consist mostly of carbon dioxide, but the effect would be the same if it were mostly nitrogen, as on Earth.

The runaway greenhouse effect on Venus is just one of Carl Sagan's entertaining ideas which turned out not to be the case in reality (nuclear winter is another one of his). But because it suits a lot of agendas, it's been seized upon and treated as a fact to frighten the gullible.

If you're not convinced, consider the fact that the greenhouse effect consists of long-wave sunlight being reflected back from a planet's surface at a shorter wavelength and trapped by the atmosphere. But the atmosphere on Venus is so thick that only a small amount of sunlight actually reaches the surface in the first place. The evidence for that is the fact that the daytime temperature is virtually the same as the one at night. So how can there be a greenhouse effect from the sun's warmth, if so little of the sun's warmth actually reaches the surface?

Its not as hot as they tell you its the "Urban Heat Island Effect"

Mankind is destroying this wonderful Planet.

screaming from beneaththewaves • July 29, 2018 8:06 PM BST

The actual composition of the atmosphere makes virtually no difference. It happens to consist mostly of carbon dioxide, but the effect would be the same if it were mostly nitrogen, as on Earth

Just to be sure that I understand your thinking, you believe that the denseness of Venus's atmosphere has nothing to do with it's composition?

The density of carbon dioxide is 1.98 kg/cubic metre, while the density of air on Earth at sea level is about 1.2 kg/cubic metre.

You could replace earth's entire atmosphere with carbon dioxide, and atmospheric pressure would only be about 1.7 times greater. A far cry from Venus, where atmospheric pressure is 92 times greater.

In other words, the ridiculously high atmospheric pressure on Venus, which results in a surface temperature of 460 C, has nothing to do with the composition of the atmosphere, whether it's carbon dioxide or otherwise, but simply the fact that there's so much of it squeezed onto a planet the same size as ours.

@ sbtw

Fair point but it's unlikely that Venus started with that atmosphere as it is so different from earth and similar in size.  And in any case it is indisputable that an earth with a carbon dioxide atmosphere would be far hotter.

Earth's atmosphere consists of just 0.041% carbon dioxide. The scare is because it's risen from 0.028% in pre-industrial times! Never mind the chemistry, there simply isn't enough carbon on the planet for Earth to have a "carbon dioxide atmosphere".

In recent geologic time carbon dioxide levels rose to a high of 0.195% of the atmosphere in the Jurassic period (five times current levels). Temperatures are estimated to have been just 3C higher than today, with no ice at either Pole, and life naturally flourished as a consequence. Whether that higher temperature is down to CO2 is impossible to say, as the layout of landmasses, the earth's tilt, and tectonic activity, were so different then.

If there's any real danger it's that we recently flirted so close to the low level of carbon dioxide at which life becomes impossible (estimated to be 0.018% of the atmosphere). And, of course, that the current interglacial is so fragile that there's permanent ice at both poles - a very rare event.

Of course there's a greenhouse gas effect on Earth, but it's down to water vapour in the atmosphere. Not only does the proportion of water vapour in the atmosphere vastly outweigh that of carbon dioxide (it can be as much as 4% over the tropical oceans), but it also absorbs reflected sunlight at a greater range of wavelengths than carbon dioxide.

Any effect of additional carbon dioxide on temperature would be too small to notice, as nearly all the reflected sunlight which could be trapped at the wavelengths at which carbon dioxide is effective is already trapped by the water vapour and the CO2 already in the atmosphere.

How it works guys, They break the golden rule that such thermometers MUST NOT  be placed near heat-retaining strutures or surfaces such as the centre of large cities,near airport runways or on tarmac car parks.This is because their readings are then distoacted by the so called Urban etc which can exaggerate temps by up to 2 degrees celsius or more.

i didn't say you were necessarily a denier but there are and they don't debate they just deny any of the science.
the water vapour defence is straight out of their playbook.

thing is terry if we were being told the climate is stable i am pretty damn sure you
would be quoting the available data and telling us we are being lied to.
you just seem to want to believe everything is a hoax or a cover up. you don't seem
to have any filter at all.

oh stfu where did i mention the holocaust??? also they are not "my concerns" and i would say much of the world
is taking significant notice.

I haven't got the technical knowledge darren,

But let me tell you it's getting hot in here!

The climate change deniers might as well be Luddite Flat Earthers! America almost deserves its' forest fires. Have America pulled out of the Kyoto Agreement because they are paying too much, the Earth is not warming up or it is a vote winner for Chump?

They are morons. At times over two thirds of America is 100F. I mean WTF! It is HOT.

I am not saying climate change is caused by human behaviour. I don't know and even if I did I couldn't prove it but the World is getting warmer and digging for coal in vote winning areas of America is good for winning votes short term and nothing else!

The Earth gets hot, cools down, gets cold. We may be in a hot cycle but to deny the World is getting warmer is insane in the brain! insane in the membrane!

I don't think anyone disagrees there are natural climate cycles just how much the current warming one is
being exacerbate by human activity.
Even those that all agree can't agree to what extent.

I think a lot of climatologists are a bit like a doctor with an obese patient. They might tell them that
if they don't change their lifestyle they could be dead within 2 years but they don't really mean that.
It is a possibility but it is the very very worst case scenario and said in the hope the patient will take
drastic action.

Terry I think you must have been hiding under a mushroom. The World is getting hot! The Ice is melting, sea levels are rising. I don't know what will happen or if it will correct itself as such but America is burning hot.