Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What specifically do you mean by "the scientific community is mixed"?
Regardless of what people think about climate change, the climate in the SW of Australia is getting drier and likely to continue in that way, the chances of any new cities in that region are slim to none.
Bill O'Reilly Studies, with a Sean Hannity minor, from Glen Beck University is my guess...
I have yet to meet someone that made a comment similar to "climate change is a crock" come back with research backing their claims. Sigh. It would be nice to be enlightened.
I guess Fox News is creating minions with lose roos in their top paddocks. to quote their heroine.. "you betcha" (winky winky). Then again anyone who thinks governments plan to build "major cities" in the west is suspect.. ask them where the US plans to build the "next major city" would have them scratching their heads, not realizing the irony.
I've not met anyone either and it would be very good to hear some well constructed scientific arguments for "climate change is crock." So far they haven't made it out of mumbo-jumbo into the level of pseudoscience which is one level up from dinosaur.
I recommend you start with the exec summary from the last link.
With regard to there being no increase in the Earth's temperature as expounded by the likes of the Daily Mail. This abstract may help you to understand where that came from. It falls within the natural variability of the climate system and may be attributed partially to the effects of aerosols.
Quote:
Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations. As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects.
Bear in mind that only relates to surface temperatures, and not oceanic and that we're talking about anthropogenic climate change here, not global warming
Incidentally, this is another reason why we need to act to reduce anthropegnically derived CO2, it's not just about climate change it's about ocean acidification and ecosystem collapse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
