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

[ORH_wxman]

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.

 

 

 

The thread isn't designed to be scientific, so if you are looking for that in here, you probably shouldn't have clicked on it. It was merely a poll of sorts on how people view the science currently and some other personal traits about them.

 

Given there is a fairly large uncertainty in climate science, there are going to be a wide range of opinions that could be close to the truth.

 

 

Perhaps this thread is more suited for off topic, though it is still obviously related to climate change.

[A-L-E-K]

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: MCS trains and blizzards on the reg

 

political leanings: liberal

[LakeEffectKing]

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.

He's been that way for quite some time.....put him on ignore...I did over a year ago, and glad I did....only have to read the occasional elitist spew when someone responds. 

[SVT450R]

the thread is very useful for figuring out whose posts have worth in this forum and whose don't.

Didn't see that coming from a mile away this thread is a joke.

[tacoman25]

the thread is very useful for figuring out whose posts have worth in this forum and whose don't.

 

So is this based on viewpoint regarding AGW, or political leanings? Or both? Can someone have a different viewpoint or political leaning than yourself and still have posts of worth?

 

Or is this just a "let me see how many people I have on MY side" thread? Seems pretty simplistic and useless, if that is the case (especially given the mix of viewpoints/political leanings on here).

[LakeEffectKing]

AGW is a hypothesis that has, IMO, NOT been tested in the manner which the tried and true scientific method was developed, so long ago. We are searching for a single, human signal amongst a plethora of natural signals....tough to do, even when the sci. method is incorporated correctly.

I like snow....any variety, but 7"/hr. is my favorite.

politically, somewhere between Limbaugh and Olberman.

[ORH_wxman]

what, exactly and with examples, are the "two sides" of the discussion?

 

 

Probably those that support higher sensitivity and TCR to a doubling of CO2 and others that support a lower TCR/sensitivity. Both are supported by peer reviewed papers and it is probably the most important aspect of the climate science debate.

 

There's plenty of side show and intentional diversion, but this is one aspect of climate science that is debated seriously in journals. There's been several papers that support both lower and higher numbers posted on here:

 

first in this thread:

 

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/37053-climate-sensitivity-and-timing/

 

 

and more recently in this thread:

 

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/39853-the-pdo-and-decadal-global-temperatures-in-climate-change/

 

 

 

There's other serious climate debates such as attribution.

[tacoman25]

For those wanting to "keep score"...everyone who has posted agrees the earth has been warming the past 100+ years.

 

 

VIEWPOINT: Humans are to blame for warming (no mention of any other possible factors).

 

8 posters

 

Political leaning: 6 liberal, 1 independent/moderate, 1 conservative

 

 

VIEWPOINT: Humans are mostly/partly to blame.

 

9 posters

 

Political leanings: 4 conservative, 4 independent/moderate, 1 liberal

 

 

VIEWPOINT: Humans are not the main warming factor, if a factor at all.

 

6 posters

 

Political leanings: 3 independent, 1 libertarian, 1 conservative, 1 undefined

[tacoman25]

nope. it's a scientific issue and people who don't understand the science aren't reliable sources in discussions here.

only those who deny AGW is real drag in the "it's political" canard.

 

Then why did the OP bring in the political leanings part?

[bluewave]

Probably those that support higher sensitivity and TCR to a doubling of CO2 and others that support a lower TCR/sensitivity. Both are supported by peer reviewed papers and it is probably the most important aspect of the climate science debate.

 

There's plenty of side show and intentional diversion, but this is one aspect of climate science that is debated seriously in journals. There's been several papers that support both lower and higher numbers posted on here:

 

first in this thread:

 

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/37053-climate-sensitivity-and-timing/

 

 

and more recently in this thread:

 

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/39853-the-pdo-and-decadal-global-temperatures-in-climate-change/

 

 

 

There's other serious climate debates such as attribution.

 

Do you think that we'll have to wait for another few PDO phases in lets say 2060-2100  to pin

down the sensitivity to the higher or lower end of the range? I am thinking that we'll have enough

observational data between 4 full PDO changes beginning in the late 1970's while emissions have been

steadily increasing.

[ORH_wxman]

Do you think that we'll have to wait for the end of this current -+PDO cycle in lets say the late 2050's 

to pin down the sensitivity to the higher or lower end of the range? I am thinking that we'll have enough

observational data between 2 full PDO cycles beginning in the late 1970's while emissions have been

steadily increasing.

 

 

We should certainly have enough for the TCR by then. Probably even before that if we're willing to deal with a couple tenths error.

 

For the ECS (Equilibrium Sensitivity), we may not know even by then if our understanding of the oceans and their ability to accumulate/circulate/radiate heat is still fairly primitive.

[weatherwiz]

When it comes to the topic of global warming/climate change I just think there is so much confusion about the two.  I don't think (and I hope not) anyone can argue that the Earth has warmed and that the Earth goes through cycles where it warms and cools.  Given how the last warming period saw such incredible warmth and the warmth really accelerated during the Industrial Revolution I don't think anyone can argue that we humans played a role in it and probably even a major role.

 

Obviously, the biggest question/concern is and should be how has this warming shaped our global climate and how will this continue over the next several decades and beyond?  Has this warmth really lead to more in the way of natural disasters, stronger hurricanes, more tornadoes, etc.  I just don't think there is anyone out there who can really answer this question and it's simply b/c we don't know and there is no way to know.  

 

I just don't understand how so many out there, in the media, etc can correlate current weather events to global warming or say xxx is going to increase when the data we have on tornadoes/hurricanes/etc is so incredibly small and the data that we have which is accurate is even smaller.  it just doesn't make sense.  

[bluewave]

We should certainly have enough for the TCR by then. Probably even before that if we're willing to deal with a couple tenths error.

 

For the ECS (Equilibrium Sensitivity), we may not know even by then if our understanding of the oceans and their ability to accumulate/circulate/radiate heat is still fairly primitive.

 

I suppose uncertainty about how much warming remains in the pipeline may also add the delay in calculating the actual ECS. And then there is ESS which includes the slow feedbacks which work over a much longer timeline.

[blizzard1024]

nope. it's a scientific issue and people who don't understand the science aren't reliable sources in discussions here.

only those who deny AGW is real drag in the "it's political" canard.

Who are you to judge who is "reliable"?  If people don't believe,what your viewpoint is they are

unreliable?  The climate system is so incredibly complex and to think climate scientists have

this figured out is very naiive in my opinion. I am an atmospheric scientist and I take offense

to any climate or atmospheric scientist who claims the "science is settled". I take even more

offense to people like you who don't even have a degree in atmospheric science saying people

on this forum who have FAR more knowledge than you are "unreliable".  Its people like

you who ruin forums like this and are trying to set back real science discussion where findings are

always challenged. That is the scientific method. what arrogance! 

[SVT450R]

Who are you to judge who is "reliable"?  If people don't believe,what your viewpoint is they are

unreliable?  The climate system is so incredibly complex and to think climate scientists have

this figured out is very naiive in my opinion. I am an atmospheric scientist and I take offense

to any climate or atmospheric scientist who claims the "science is settled". I take even more

offense to people like you who don't even have a degree in atmospheric science saying people

on this forum who have FAR more knowledge than you are "unreliable".  Its people like

you who ruin forums like this and are trying to set back real science discussion where findings are

always challenged. That is the scientific method. what arrogance! 

You must have missed the memo Trixie is the climate change code enforcer here.

[csnavywx]

Stance: Climate change is largely influenced by human action with a smaller amplitude/mode of natural variability imposed upon it. Anthropogenic aerosol forcing is a big source of uncertainty in the science as we still do not have a satellite in orbit that can help measure it accurately. Losing the $424m Glory satellite in launch was a big setback. The large thermal inertia of the oceans, the magnitude of heat sequestration into the deep ocean by the IPO/PDO, AMOC, etc, and magnitude of greenhouse forcing have and will continue to produce non-linear, stepwise-style changes in surface temperatures, but little impact on the overall gain in Earth's heat content. Initial regional responses can and sometimes will run contrary to the global signal in the decadal time scale (this is typical in non-linear systems with multiple opposing forces in play). The Arctic will continue to warm at a rate of near 1C/decade per robust paleoclimate data, at least until emissions peak. Ocean acidification is a bigger threat than is commonly touted as the entire food web is rooted to tiny pH-sensitive critters. Impacts from rainfall pattern changes will largely trump temperature changes initially. I'm a strong proponent of the idea of "climate flickering". A destabilizing system (like the climate) will exhibit significant increases in variability before switching to a new equilibrium. Greenland will become the "new North Pole" as Arctic ice is lost in the summer and autumn months. This flickering Greenland pattern in the past 6 years may be the start of such a change.

 

I think that using surface temperature alone is a rather poor short-to-medium term indicator (analogous to relative humidity being poor indicator of actual moisture content of the atmosphere) and that the excessive focus by media and even (some of) the scientific community on it is detrimental. It's a case of missing the forest for the trees. I also think that the excessive focus on individual event attribution is detrimental. I don't think political will is forthcoming for any sort of serious emissions reduction plan in the short term and I fear that any reason to delay will be used and abused. I also think that if we wait another 20 years to start on the problem, it will be taken out of our hands by then by carbon-cycle feed backs.

 

Wx: Cool, crisp days of October and April, severe thunderstorms, any kind of winter precip. I despise extreme heat. My bloodline is heavily Scandinavian, Scottish and Native American in descent, hence my natural affinity for cool climes.

 

Political Leanings: Center-Libertarian

[tacoman25]

Who are you to judge who is "reliable"?  If people don't believe,what your viewpoint is they are

unreliable?  The climate system is so incredibly complex and to think climate scientists have

this figured out is very naiive in my opinion. I am an atmospheric scientist and I take offense

to any climate or atmospheric scientist who claims the "science is settled". I take even more

offense to people like you who don't even have a degree in atmospheric science saying people

on this forum who have FAR more knowledge than you are "unreliable".  Its people like

you who ruin forums like this and are trying to set back real science discussion where findings are

always challenged. That is the scientific method. what arrogance! 

 

I agree that those who express the most conviction on this issue are often the most arrogant and naive.

 

However, I also understand the frustration some feels towards those that don't educate themselves yet still form strong opinions.

 

At the same time, I wholeheartedly agree with you that there are many who place far too much faith in "the science", without properly acknowledging its limits or uncertainty.

[Wow]

nope. it's a scientific issue and people who don't understand the science aren't reliable sources in discussions here.

only those who deny AGW is real drag in the "it's political" canard.

 

It's very much political now. Your presence in this thread proves as much.  

[Jonger]

So what's the latest DBM laugher on this thread, who is schooling who behind the scenes?

[tacoman25]

I am curious as to why the OP asked for political leanings. Since, you know, it's only "deniers" who make this political.

[forkyfork]

politics are naturally going to be involved in any major societal issue. duh.

[skierinvermont]

I agree that those who express the most conviction on this issue are often the most arrogant and naive.

 

However, I also understand the frustration some feels towards those that don't educate themselves yet still form strong opinions.

 

At the same time, I wholeheartedly agree with you that there are many who place far too much faith in "the science", without properly acknowledging its limits or uncertainty.

 

Agree with the bolded.

 

However, to the last comment: Science quantifies the bounds of its own knowledge and uncertainty, we don't need internet posters for that.

[skierinvermont]

Do you think that we'll have to wait for another few PDO phases in lets say 2060-2100  to pin

down the sensitivity to the higher or lower end of the range? I am thinking that we'll have enough

observational data between 4 full PDO changes beginning in the late 1970's while emissions have been

steadily increasing.

 

 

We should certainly have enough for the TCR by then. Probably even before that if we're willing to deal with a couple tenths error.

 

For the ECS (Equilibrium Sensitivity), we may not know even by then if our understanding of the oceans and their ability to accumulate/circulate/radiate heat is still fairly primitive.

 

I doubt that by 2050 we will cut the uncertainty by more than half using observational data. Perhaps by 2/3s by 2100, but even then it will likely be at least +/-.5C. 

 

If we had accurate understanding of aerosol concentrations and how they behave the uncertainty would probably already be half of what it is. The problem is we don't, and it doesn't seem like we will any time soon either. So another 40 years of data does very little for us. Until we get accurate measurements of all forcing agents and an understanding of the forcing strength they provide, the limited observational data we have will be slow to narrow the uncertainty range. The uncertainty range has stood at roughly 1.5-4.5C for the last 30 years. Another 40 years will probably be only enough to lower the spread from 3C to maybe 2C. So it might look like 1.5-3.5, or 2-4, or 2.5-4.5.

[Wow]

politics are naturally going to be involved in any major societal issue. duh.

 

ding. a civil agreement.