OK - there is two sides to every argument but this one is getting very old!
The Earth’s temperature may stay roughly the same for a decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, scientists have predicted.
A new computer model developed by German researchers, reported in the journal Nature, suggests the cooling will counter greenhouse warming.
In this study - the Earth is going to stay roughly the same as it has for a long while and then the heat is going to be on after 2020? I’m not convinced! If a computer can generate that kind of data “Modelling of climatic events in the oceans is difficult, simply because there is relatively little data on some of the key processes”, it can or it can’t or we just don’t have enough scientific records to prove either way?
What my question is - who is making the big bucks out of all this?
All Images designed by Alison Rhodes (LastingExpressions)
12 responses so far ↓
thebeadden // May 1, 2008 at 3:26 pm
I read an article about 3 weeks ago that said the sun was at it’s closest to earth right now and would start pulling away over the next several years. If I come across it again, I’ll let you know. I forgot to look up who wrote it.
I don’t know what to believe anymore when it comes to climate change. All we can say is one sure thing: that someone will scraping at our pockets to pay for it. Whatever IT is.
B0bbyG // May 1, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Having watched Al Gore’s video (he has his own agenda, of course, but I’m told the statistics are pretty accurate) I am sceptical of this kind of claim. The current rate of rising temperatures is not typical of the Earth’s natural climate change.
I don’t know whether global warming is real or not, but I can’t help thinking that businesses and governments who fund this type of research have a lot more to gain from declaring that it’s not real.
Will Rhodes // May 2, 2008 at 9:58 am
As the Al Gore film used fictional scenes - do we take it as fact, Bobby?
One of many blog posts
B0bbyG // May 2, 2008 at 10:45 am
Yes, it was biased, and it was very clearly an attempt to ride on the wave of global warming paranoia into the White House, but nevertheless, the statistics he presents are pretty convincing, and mainly accurate.
Will Rhodes // May 2, 2008 at 11:48 am
I agree, but what doesn’t convince me is the lack of time that the records have been kept.
The last ice-age only finished about 10,000 years ago - we have only been keeping records for about 200 years max, if you get what I mean.
garymurning // May 2, 2008 at 12:46 pm
I’m reminded of our very own “climate sceptic”, David Bellamy — who calls for a less one-sided public debate here. People have practically wanted to burn this guy at the stake simply for not agreeing, when, as you point out, Will, we simply don’t have enough long-term data.
Will Rhodes // May 2, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I remember David Bellamy way back when saying that the biggest problem was pollution more than anything else - I tend to agree with him.
garymurning // May 2, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Problem in itself, or as a contributing factor to global warming, mate? I’m assuming the former, but I’m feeling a bit dim today, so…
Will Rhodes // May 2, 2008 at 3:20 pm
The former, Gary.
Mike // May 5, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Erm. I hate to say this, but that opinion is more than a little reminiscent of the “We didn’t see it, so it didn’t happen” thinking used by Creationists. We can take historical temperature measurements according to various metrics.
garymurning // May 5, 2008 at 1:47 pm
You looking for a smack, Mike? Using the C-word in polite company?
For me, it just seems that we’ve had a relatively short period of industrialisation and to attribute any changes to that, given that massive timescale we’re dealing with, is a little premature.
Will Rhodes // May 5, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Mike - you can go to the Antarctic and find fossilised forests - does that mean that the world was once on its side?
There is no documented proof about global warming, speculative proof based on what the scientists have found over some years.
I do agree that the world is changing - but the cause of that change is pure speculation at this time because we don’t have documented evidence over a set period of time.
Creationists are just nuts BTW.
Leave a Comment