what's your general stance on climate change and what wx do you prefer IYBY?

[forkyfork]

stance:  the world is warming and humans are to blame. the PDO is causing variations in the warming trend but it's still there.

 

wx: hot/humid summers, stormy cold seasons.  i generally like everything except prolonged cold

 

political leanings: liberal

[RedSky]

stance: the world is warming and most likely humans are to blame, though it could partially be cyclical climate variation like that of the medieval warm peridod. I plan on moving north as hot and humid is not for me

 

politics: conservative

[Snow_Miser]

Stance: The world is warming and the degree to which natural factors versus human factors are responsible are uncertain. I like wintry weather, but I can also settle for warm and dry conditions as well.

 

I generally lean more left than right on the political spectrum.

[Snow_Miser]

though it could partially be cyclical climate variation like that of the medieval warm peridod. I plan on moving north as hot and humid is not for me

 

Of course it's partially cyclical. Solar Activity rose dramatically during the 20th Century. Even big time AGW blogs like Skeptical Science attribute 10-40% of the warming to Solar Forcing over the last 100 years.

[Wow]

The climate is changing, obviously, but our knowledge on the what, when, and how is still just a tip of the iceburg.  The political class has found a way to take advantage of the science.

 

Looking forward to the fall every time the humidity creeps up.  

 

Political leanings - actual libertarianism

[Baroclinic Zone]

Global temps have warmed. Some of that is cyclical and some of that is due to human means (AGW)

Living where I do I like winter storms and TCs. Severe is virtually non-existent where I live.

Registered R, but the party on the National stage does not interest me. I'd like a true fiscal conservative and social liberal.

[Jonger]

I believe in low end observational climate change, the earth has warmed as much as 0.40 to 0.70C in 100 years, UHI and land-form changes are the only known proof positive causes, CO2 is a possible contributor. The glaciers have been melting steadily since the early 1800's.

 

I prefer temps in the mid 20's in winter and low 70's in the summer.

 

Socially moderate, fiscally conservative

[tacoman25]

Climate change is nothing new, but most of the recent warming is probably due to humans. The amount/rate of future warming is uncertain. Catastrophic AGW is most likely exagerrated. There are benefits to a warmer world that are often overlooked by alarmists, just as negative feedbacks are often overlooked in favor of possible positive feedbacks.

 

I enjoy storms and variety in weather.

 

Politics: Independent - do not vote along a party line

[TerryM]

Climate change at the speeds at which it is occurring is something new in the experience of modern humans with complex social structures. Arguably more rapid transformations may have taken place in the Northern Hemisphere in the periods bracketing the Younger Dryas. The relatively slow changes experienced through the Holocene have come to an end and the future will determine whether civilization is resilient enough to survive. The Anthropomorphic Era is and will be far more chaotic.

AGW is the most important crisis that humanity has faced since history was first recorded near Ur in Southern Mesopotamia. While sudden annihilation due to nuclear holocaust is possible, from here forward the possibility exists more as the consequence of squabbles over decreasing resources due to AGW than from ideological differences.

 

The climates I most prefer are found in Hawaii, San Diego and Havana. In none of these locations is heating or air conditioning a requirement & clothing is only required as a nod to modesty.

 

Politically I vote NDP and support liberal causes.

Terry

[Bannor]

Stance: the planet is warming and this is predominantly being driven by anthropogenic factors. However I'm cautious on the current estimation of climate sensitivity (I believe it may be overstated).

 

Wx: I live in the UK and I'm happy with the changeable weather with its lack of extremes, but many locals (and visitors) here find the frequent overcast conditions and rain pretty depressing. I dislike high humidity – I was very uncomfortable in New Orleans when I went there, but Colorado in high heat was great.

 

Politics: conservative, but I'm increasingly dismayed by the drawn battle lines between left and right on climate change in the UK. The fact that you can likely deduce someone's views on this complex issue just by knowing who they voted for at the last election is troubling and tells me that most individuals only have a superficial understanding of the subject. I would still expect opinions to be polarized if this were not the case, but not with such an obvious political divide.

 

 

 

Edit: changed 'over here' to 'in the UK' in case you thought I was talking about this forum rather than where I live.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Climate change at the speeds at which it is occurring is something new in the experience of modern humans with complex social structures. Arguably more rapid transformations may have taken place in the Northern Hemisphere in the periods bracketing the Younger Dryas. The relatively slow changes experienced through the Holocene have come to an end and the future will determine whether civilization is resilient enough to survive. The Anthropomorphic Era is and will be far more chaotic.

AGW is the most important crisis that humanity has faced since history was first recorded near Ur in Southern Mesopotamia. While sudden annihilation due to nuclear holocaust is possible, from here forward the possibility exists more as the consequence of squabbles over decreasing resources due to AGW than from ideological differences.

 

The climates I most prefer are found in Hawaii, San Diego and Havana. In none of these locations is heating or air conditioning a requirement & clothing is only required as a nod to modesty.

 

Politically I vote NDP and support liberal causes.

Terry

 

 

Unfortunately we didn't make it to 7 billion based on modesty. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Stance:  Humans are risking way to much over nothing.  Whether you think catastrophe will happen or not.  Going to clean and free energy for all mankind is a must.  It will end a lot of suffering and save millions of lives and less importantly the AGW issue die with it.  It's time we make good on the All men(humans) are created equal thing.  No better place to start than with cleansing and spreading our energy use to all humans who want to get in on it. 

 

I am sure all the totally screwed impoverished who are my age and have never seen a page on the internet would love  to read Wikipedia or watch porn like anyone else.  Clean energy can make those dreams come true.

 

 

Weather; Anomalous, dangerous thrilling weather..(Severe, Hurricanes, Blizzards.)

 

 

 

Politics :  Not political.  But I would say I am idealistic.  I don't care about the next step but whats the best step.  How humans currently live is so fu**** up and unacceptable I would guess I would have to call myself very liberal, socialistic.

[LocoAko]

stance:  the world is warming and humans are to blame. the PDO is causing variations in the warming trend but it's still there.

 

wx: hot/humid summers, stormy cold seasons.  i generally like everything except prolonged cold

 

political leanings: liberal

[WinterWxLuvr]

I think the evidence is clear that we are warming, but I think the time period of our observation is awfully small to make absolute conclusions. I'm not sure we understand enough to make predictions of the kind I've seen. I'm also not sure of the role humans are playing. Is the CO2 rise enough to be the cause all we are seeing or is it coincidental with larger factors that we don't have a handle on?

All I have are questions as I don't have the knowledge needed to have an actual opinion.

Politics - socially moderate or even liberal, conservative in fiscal, moral, scope of govt., crime aspects.

Almost forgot - I prefer cold snowy winters and mild summer

[bluewave]

The long term warming pattern is caused by man with short term variations governed primarily 

by the PDO.The total amount of future warming will be determined by observations and the

amount of additional emissions. The models need to be tested over time to see which ones are

more accurate before we believe any long range forecast. The poorer regions of the globe will     

bear the greatest  impacts initially as the wealthier nations will have better means to adapt. I

currently lean toward the slower projections of sea level rise, but believe it will catch up

over the very long run.

 

I enjoy all types of weather, but I am not a big fan of extreme heat.

 

I would call my self independent and am more interested in issues of human rights and justice

rather than party affiliation.

[CAD_Wedge_NC]

The climate is changing, obviously, but our knowledge on the what, when, and how is still just a tip of the iceberg.  The political class has found a way to take advantage of the science.

 

Looking forward to the fall every time the humidity creeps up.  

 

Political leanings - actual libertarianism

 

I support the bolded post.....

I am registered Republican but have considered Libertarianism

I am a fan of the cold and snowy winters.

[ORH_wxman]

Climate Change is real...it has always changed. Often quite a lot more rapidly than we've observed.

 

Humans have augmented the natural change. My stance is that we have caused roughly half of the 0.8C warming since the late 1800s. For future projections, I am generally supporting that the lower bound of the IPCC projections are more realistic at this point than the higher numbers for the TCR. The peer reviewed science has trended more that direction in recent years. Attribution studies also still have a long way to go in the science and most extreme weather events cannot be attributed to AGW.

 

Politically I am independent but lean fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Huge snow events are my favorite weather but I do love high end severe weather too...just don't live in a good spot for it.

[weatherwiz]

Stance:  There is absolutely no doubt the Earth has warmed and the climate is changing.  Regardless of human input, the Earth goes through cycles of warming/cooling and climate changes and has since the Earth has been created. However, humans have helped to enhance the warming cycle and it's strength.  

 

I, however, don't think we are anywhere close to having enough evidence to prove that these changes have lead to increased stronger weather systems or event as our data with hurricanes/tornadoes/etc is very, very limited.  

 

Political stance:  Independent.  I don't like the idea of having "stances" or having all these different "parties".  I believe in doing what's right for everyone and not making decisions based on a "belief"

[blizzard1024]

Stance: the climate is always changing and the changes we have seen in the last 150 years or so are primarily the Earth

rebounding from the Little Ice Age(which there is plenty of evidence that this DID occur). The rate change of climate presently,

based on ice cores, is much less than it was during the glacial periods and hence the Holocene is and continues to be a stable

period of climate. The additional of 1 molecule per 10,000 of CO2 (which already is a minor GHG) in the last 150 years has a small influence

on the climate system. CO2 levels based on ice core data LAG the temperature trends in a nearly linear fashion by up to

800 years or so. This is from colder (warmer) oceans taking up (outgassing) CO2 which explains the strong correlation. The

Earth's climate system is so complex that there is virtually no way that CO2 is a simple thermostat as some state and it is

incredibly naiive of people to think the atmosphere is so simple. It shows a lack of understanding of the real atmosphere IMO.  

There is little if any observational evidence that water vapor is enhancing any small radiative forcing from CO2 increases too.

Very little is also known about how changes in cloud cover affect the Earth's radiation balance or better yet how changes in

tropical convection regulate the Earth's temperatures. Variations in ocean currents also can explain a lot of the changes

we have seen in the past 100 years or so.  The present warming based on satellite data has been very small if any since

1997 and minor since 1979. At best we will see around 1C of warming from a doubled CO2 assuming we don't cool again

naturally. We may already have seen a few tenths or so already so we may have another .5 to .7C more to go in the next

100 to 200 years (oceans damp all climate changes). This is hardly anything to be concerned about and should NOT

restrict energy development. Energy = high standard of living for all.

 

Politics: moderate.

 

Weather: like stormy weather...snowstorms, thunderstorms, hurricanes, floods (but I don't believe a warming Earth

means more storms!!!)  

[Snow_Miser]

Also, I would like to add that a sensitivity higher than 1.9 Degrees C is tenuous at best. In the models, with just the Lapse Rate, Water Vapor, and Surface Albedo feedbacks, we get 1.9 Degrees C as the Equilibrium response to a doubling of CO2. However, including the Cloud feedback, this value goes up to 3.2 Degrees C in the models. Given that the Cloud Feedback is not well understood, Climate Sensitivity is an open question, and with warming being substantially overestimated over the last 20 years, it suggests a lower sensitivity to CO2.

 

The rate of warming in the early-20th Century being substantially underestimated in the GCMs also suggests a lower sensitivity, since it means that the TSI forcing is not sufficient to explain the early-20th Century warming, and a solar amplification mechanism may be sufficient to explain the warming then. This would mean a larger forcing, and a less sensitive system, since we now have a larger forcing. Of course, the +PDO enhanced some of the warming as well in the early-20th Century, but that doesn't explain why the rate of warming was nearly identical in the late-20th Century as it was in the early-20th Century, since the late-20th Century had a substantially larger change in the net forcing in the models than in the early-20th Century.

 

[Geos]

The climate is always changing on a natural level, whether we're here or not. I am skeptical when it comes to anthropogenic warming - the total picture on how humans have affected the atmosphere and climate is unclear due to the short amount of time we have been industrialized. I do not deny we have altered the climate in and around cities; UHI. We also have altered the climate in areas where we've extensively farmed and cut down the rainforest (i.e. desertification).

Edit: I totally support the curbing the usage of fossil fuels based on the fact they pollute our atmosphere, not on the basis they warm it.

 

I believe the main driver of the climate is solar activity. 

 

I like a cool, continental climate. All four seasons, and a mix of different wx systems throughout the year.

[f2tornado]

Climate Change is real...it has always changed. Often quite a lot more rapidly than we've observed.

 

Humans have augmented the natural change. My stance is that we have caused roughly half of the 0.8C warming since the late 1800s. For future projections, I am generally supporting that the lower bound of the IPCC projections are more realistic at this point than the higher numbers for the TCR. The peer reviewed science has trended more that direction in recent years. Attribution studies also still have a long way to go in the science and most extreme weather events cannot be attributed to AGW.

 

This largely sums up my thoughts but will add I believe the huge emphasis on CO2, while likely extremely important, leads to other important factors like land-use change getting overlooked or not getting the research attention perhaps deserved. I'll also posit most folks on the globe, locally, wouldn't even notice a 1C rise in average temp.

 

I tend to vote GOP at the national level and a mix at state and local level where politicians are more free to vote with their conscience versus the the party line.

[chubbs]

Humans are warming the earth.The science is straightforward and there is plenty of supporting evidence. The magnitude and the overall impact of greenhouse warming is uncertain however and will probably remain so in the near term.. Resource depletion is a much more certain consequence of fossil fuel use..Cheap oil is already significantly depleted. .Conservation of non-renewable natural resources is common sense. 

A carbon or fossil energy tax is an obvious policy choice and could be designed with minimal short-term economic impact.  I am encouraged by the progress solar and other energy technologies are making and bet we could start reducing fossil fuel use at relatively low cost. We could also make our economy more resilient to global oil shocks and improve our fiscal position.

 

Weather likes - cold, storms of any kind. .unless it interferes with outdoor activities or the power goes off   

 

Politics - Conservative republican for many years but have voted democratic since 2006.. 

[nflwxman]

Stance:  There is clear evidence that the majority of the warming of the last 100 years is caused by human factors.  I truly believe this to be an issue not for what we know, but rather for what we DON'T know. I believe the IPCC climate sensitivity projections are likely to be accurate on the lower end with what is modeled (2-3 degrees), However, with permafrost/large methane releases and other positive feedbacks documented in paleo climatology (which the IPCC models don't attempt to predict), I think it's silly to believe we are not in for surprises.  In addition, sea level rise seems to be oddly glossed over in the media even though it might be one of the more destructive parts of AGW. It's just a risky gamble for a short term return on investment.

 

Weather- Snowstorms all day, everyday.

 

Politics- Moderately Conservative?  More cynical by day though. 

[tamarack]

Climate Change is real...it has always changed. Often quite a lot more rapidly than we've observed.

 

Humans have augmented the natural change. My stance is that we have caused roughly half of the 0.8C warming since the late 1800s. For future projections, I am generally supporting that the lower bound of the IPCC projections are more realistic at this point than the higher numbers for the TCR. The peer reviewed science has trended more that direction in recent years. Attribution studies also still have a long way to go in the science and most extreme weather events cannot be attributed to AGW.

 

Pretty much where I land, though I'm far behind Will in understanding the science.  I especially like the last sentence, above.  Also, IMO, there are many good reasons in addition to AGW for moving away from fossil fuels as our main energy source.  They will still be important as a bridge to sources which are more renewable and long-term sustainable.

 

My preferred wx in summer is cool and dry, aft about 70 with dews under 50.  That rules out most severe, but since MBY has had about 30 seconds of svr (winds in June of 2006) in over 15 yr, there's no net loss. Also desired are bright crisp autumns, and long cold snowy winters with tall snowpack for many weeks.  Days with maxima well below zero aren't all that enjoyable to me, but I do like bragging them up afterward. 

 

I've been a social and fiscal conservative for over 50 years, but I'm saddened by the ceaselessly confrontational approach so common in today's politics.

[skierinvermont]

Sad to see the arrogance and ignorance on display here.

[tacoman25]

Sad to see the arrogance and ignorance on display here.

 

I find it interesting how some members view this as a fairly complex issue, while others apparently see it as straightforward/cut-and-dried.

 

Some might find it kind of arrogant for someone to pop in here just to level vague criticism, while not even responding themselves to the questions posed by the OP.

[Snow_Miser]

Sad to see the arrogance and ignorance on display here.

That's pretty sad that you view other opinions on an incredibly complex issue as ignorant. Ironically, you're taking an extremely arrogant position when you degrade other people's viewpoints as being ignorant.

[skierinvermont]

Anti-intellectualism at its finest. Our culture neither values nor understands science. People treat science the way they decide what their favorite food is. Whatever works on a personal level and helps to create a personal identity. Self-absorbed flatulence.

[Jonger]

Anti-intellectualism at its finest. Our culture neither values nor understands science. People treat science the way they decide what their favorite food is. Whatever works on a personal level and helps to create a personal identity. Self-absorbed flatulence.

 

You sure have been getting quite hostile lately.

 

IPCC predictions proved not even close to correct so far, it requires adjustments in data to even reach close to the least aggressive scenarios. Yes... science is constantly changing, but don't expect everyone to swallow everything we are told... Its proven to be wrong enough to warrant unwavering commitment to the "consensus".

 

I don't know why Forky dropped this post in Climate change... He's a known troll and this was bound to bring a ton of bad blood.

 

There is a movement to shut down this forum and this might just be bait.

 

This is one of the rare sites that allows both sides of the discussion. Watts site will ban "alarmists" and Nevens will ban "deniers". I don't know about the rest of you, but I hate echo chambers.