🚀 go-pugleaf

Greig Ebeling wrote:

> Jay, you are missing the point.  That ozone depletion results in
> increased UV is irrelevant.  It is the AMOUNT of increase which
> matters, and IMO this is insignificant against the effects of human
> behavioural patterns, and natural variations.

pardon me for butting in but:

Epidemiological studies suggest that incidence of skin cancer
has been rising in australia over the past 40 years.

Surface measurements of UV also show upward trends over later
decades.

Given that early exposure to UV has been linked to increased
incidence of skin cancer in later life - it is reasonable to
guess that these trends may be correlated.

Here at the Meteorology CRC we are undertaking research to
statistically compare UV trends with incidence of skin cancer.
I do not know the details (not my area) but I believe the work
will address the opinions you are disputing. 

Are there spatial/temporal correlation between the observed
UV surface flux and the observed skin cancer incidence?

If so how much of the increasing skin cancer incidence is due 
to environmental rather than behavioural factors?

This work is just starting so you might have to wait for a year
or two before results get published.

At the moment the circumstantial evidence favours a cuasative link
between increasing UV and increasing skin cancer but it is
inclonclusive, that is why arguments can reduce to the expression
of an opinion and why this work is needed.

for some information that may be of interest check out:

http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/medr/uvi.html

fred

http://www.shm.monash.edu.au