Map Makers Admit Mistake in Showing Ice Cap Loss in Greenland

[FirstAscent]

So I take it you are going to ignore that there appears to be no consensus regarding whether temps will rise over 2 K by 2099. If we use the 2 K rise as a proxy for "damaging", this disagrees with your statement that there is consensus that:

The economy of humanity is raising the average global temperature at a rate which will cause:

1. Serious damage to our ecosystems, and the productivity of our ecosystems.
2. A sea level rise which might cause huge economic damage.

You are back to your rigid, stereotyped arguments. Please address my posts, and adapt your argument to your audience.

I'm sorry, but I missed where anyone but you declared a 2k rise by 2099 being a proxy for damage.

[1714093033]

1714093033

[1714093033]

1714093033

[FirstAscent]

So, FirstAscent, do you recognize that there is a difference between this statement:

“The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue”

http://www.sciencemag.org.proxy.cc.uic.edu/content/306/5702/1686.full

And your statement:

The economy of humanity is raising the average global temperature at a rate which will cause:

1. Serious damage to our ecosystems, and the productivity of our ecosystems.
2. A sea level rise which might cause huge economic damage.

Sadly, (again due to your parsing), you're confusing a scientific consensus summarized by the IPCC regarding past climate trends and causes with a scientific consensus on what will potentially occur if counter measures are not taken.

[bb113]

So, FirstAscent, do you recognize that there is a difference between this statement:

“The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue”

http://www.sciencemag.org.proxy.cc.uic.edu/content/306/5702/1686.full

And your statement:

The economy of humanity is raising the average global temperature at a rate which will cause:

1. Serious damage to our ecosystems, and the productivity of our ecosystems.
2. A sea level rise which might cause huge economic damage.

Sadly, (again due to your parsing), you're confusing a scientific consensus summarized by the IPCC regarding past climate trends and causes with a scientific consensus on what will potentially occur if counter measures are not taken.

Is it due to my "parsing"? Or because such a statement from the IPCC does not exist? I got the IPCC statement from your link:

It sounds to me like you're having a very difficult time in determining the difference between the existence of a scientific consensus and your own personal opinion about climate change. The scientific consensus on the subject does not care about your own personal views. It is a large set of data and participants that operates independently of your views.

Let me help you out. Reread everything I posted in this thread and the relevant links, and then you'll understand that the information presented to you serves two purposes:

1. To demonstrate that there is a scientific consensus. Read this: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full . It is not difficult to determine this.  Keep in mind that a scientific consensus on the subject is not the same as your own interpretation of the scientific data.

2. Your own personal views are less interesting than what is said in the scientific literature.

Carry on.

Are you saying you made that post knowing it was with reference to "a scientific consensus summarized by the IPCC regarding past climate trends and causes", which is obviously different from "a scientific consensus on what will potentially occur if counter measures are not taken." YES THIS IS MY POINT!!!. You are getting it.

I am confused though, why would you post that when I have said repeatedly that I agree there is consensus that humans have warmed the earth through CO2 emissions?

[bb113]

So to recap...

According to the experts:

1) There is "incontrovertible evidence" the earth has warmed since 1900
2) There is scientific consensus that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (primarily CO2) have contributed to this warming.
3) There is level of confidence in future predictions of how much warming will occur.
4) There is level of confidence in what the various consequences of warming will be.

I can't find a straight up IPCC quote regarding the last two, but it appears that warming may plateau at around 2 K for at least some of the scenarios, with values < 2 K well within the error. I saw a table somewhere that had most negative effects predicted to occur only with >2 K rise, unfortunately, I can't find it right now.

[FirstAscent]

Frankly, I'm not getting your point at all. Why you're weaving together two separate things in this thread together is beyond me. I think your only point is that you like to parse words.

You asked me what I thought AGW is. I told you what it is by defining where it will lead. Those ecosystem changes are important, but you don't yet understand that. Later, and to the point of it being tiresome, you kept discussing the need to determine if there was a scientific consensus on climate change. Your path to ascertaining this seemed overly sprinkled with some vague agenda of yours and rather long winded to boot. I simply chose to expedite the process for you by providing a link.

Tell me, is there a scientific consensus on Evolution? Will you conclude that there is not such a scientific consensus because you don't find it explicitly published in an IPCC report?

[bb113]

My point has been that there is no consensus on future projections regarding climate change. Another way of putting this is that there is no consensus that your particular definition of AGW is true. I was not the one obsessed consensus anyway... Now that we agree, we can stop wasting time arguing about that (I agree, it is dumb).

[bb113]

The main problem with concluding we know the cause of global warming is

1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors.

I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture -> net effect on clouds

2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands.

All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other.

At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.

[FirstAscent]

Thank you for the last post. It has made clear to me by reading between the lines that you are politically motivated to doubt AGW. Unfortunately, that puts you squarely into the camp which uses political beliefs to guide how they interpret science.

[bb113]

You have no way to address what I said, so instead you create a strawman. Honestly, the answers are probably in the IPCC report somewhere, I just haven't gotten to them yet. It is disturbing how people vehemently "defend" what they don't understand. You aren't even defending anything, you are just attacking someone for asking questions.

[FirstAscent]

You have no way to address what I said, so instead you create a strawman. Honestly, the answers are probably in the IPCC report somewhere, I just haven't gotten to them yet. It is disturbing how people vehemently "defend" what they don't understand. You aren't even defending anything, you are just attacking someone for asking questions.

I'm attacking you because if you would actually spend a decent amount of time reading scientific literature instead of poking an IPCC report for some particular phrase and listening to Richard Landza, it would be powerfully clear to you what the scientific consensus is, and what the ramifications are, and as a result, you wouldn't feel compelled to approach things the way you are.

I'm calling you out as someone largely ignorant of climate change science, and more interested in cherry picking phrases. A dissection of your posts makes that clear.

[bb113]

You have no way to address what I said, so instead you create a strawman. Honestly, the answers are probably in the IPCC report somewhere, I just haven't gotten to them yet. It is disturbing how people vehemently "defend" what they don't understand. You aren't even defending anything, you are just attacking someone for asking questions.

I'm attacking you because if you would actually spend a decent amount of time reading scientific literature instead of poking an IPCC report for some particular phrase and listening to Richard Landza, it would be powerfully clear to you what the scientific consensus is, and what the ramifications are, and as a result, you wouldn't feel compelled to approach things the way you are.

I'm calling you out as someone largely ignorant of climate change science, and more interested in cherry picking phrases. A dissection of your posts makes that clear.

You have no way to address what I said, so instead you create a strawman. Honestly, the answers are probably in the IPCC report somewhere, I just haven't gotten to them yet. It is disturbing how people vehemently "defend" what they don't understand. You aren't even defending anything, you are just attacking someone for asking questions.

[FirstAscent]

You have no way to address what I said, so instead you create a strawman. Honestly, the answers are probably in the IPCC report somewhere, I just haven't gotten to them yet. It is disturbing how people vehemently "defend" what they don't understand. You aren't even defending anything, you are just attacking someone for asking questions.

You're not actually asking questions, researching, learning, or educating yourself. You're looking for phrases in one single document.

[bb113]

You have no way to address what I said, so instead you create a strawman. Honestly, the answers are probably in the IPCC report somewhere, I just haven't gotten to them yet. It is disturbing how people vehemently "defend" what they don't understand. You aren't even defending anything, you are just attacking someone for asking questions.

You're not actually asking questions, researching, learning, or educating yourself. You're looking for phrases in one single document.

This is the strawman I keep talking about...

[FirstAscent]

You have no way to address what I said, so instead you create a strawman. Honestly, the answers are probably in the IPCC report somewhere, I just haven't gotten to them yet. It is disturbing how people vehemently "defend" what they don't understand. You aren't even defending anything, you are just attacking someone for asking questions.

You're not actually asking questions, researching, learning, or educating yourself. You're looking for phrases in one single document.

This is the strawman I keep talking about...

I believe I have characterized you effectively.

[bb113]

You have no way to address what I said, so instead you create a strawman. Honestly, the answers are probably in the IPCC report somewhere, I just haven't gotten to them yet. It is disturbing how people vehemently "defend" what they don't understand. You aren't even defending anything, you are just attacking someone for asking questions.

You're not actually asking questions, researching, learning, or educating yourself. You're looking for phrases in one single document.

This is the strawman I keep talking about...

I believe I have characterized you effectively.

I believe that your goal here is to "characterize" others, rather than to inform others.

[Hawker]

Its all getting a bit personal

AGW is like religion.  You can say what you believe but no facts will change anyone's mind.  If you believe in scientific consensus, you are like someone who thought lobotomies were a great idea a few decades ago when close to 100% of scientist recommended them.  If you don't believe in scientific consensus, you are a member of the flat earth society.  There is no way of winning this argument for either of you.

[bb113]

No one ever concedes an argument on the internet, it is more for the benefit of the readers. Either way I will continue to examine the evidence with regard to clouds and short time-frame until I am informed enough to understand how the climate scientists deal with these issues. If I am not satisfied I'll find someone who knows what they are talking about to ask.

[FirstAscent]

If I am not satisfied I'll find someone who knows what they are talking about to ask.

How do you determine who knows what they're talking about?

[bb113]

I'll get back to this because I want to try semi-formalize my thought process. It has to do with being able to answer questions clearly and concisely, being able to indicate the boundaries of your own personal knowledge, indicating the boundaries of human knowledge, and being able to estimate the effects of possible sources of error throughout the workflow (e.g. temp sensors malfunctioning, publication selection bias, choice of statistical tests, etc). Someone who "knows what they are talking about" may not have all this info handy, but will know where to look to find it.

[FirstAscent]

I'll get back to this because I want to try semi-formalize my thought process. It has to do with being able to answer questions clearly and concisely, being able to indicate the boundaries of your own personal knowledge, indicating the boundaries of human knowledge, and being able to estimate the effects of possible sources of error throughout the workflow (e.g. temp sensors malfunctioning, publication selection bias, choice of statistical tests, etc). Someone who "knows what they are talking about" may not have all this info handy, but will know where to look to find it.

Wow. After all that, I still don't think that's a very effective method at all. It's too much work, which likely means you won't achieve your goal. It requires too much knowledge on the subject, which you're unlikely to ever possess. It appears to almost have an agenda (which is bias). It requires you to have a deep discussion with an expert, which you're unlikely to have, and then that calls into question who you chose to have said discussion with.

Honestly, for all your efforts, you're not going to achieve a good answer.

Here's a better way. Learn about the different ways climate change is being studied by reading mainstream articles written in science magazines. Take note of how independent methods (i.e ice cores vs. satellite studies vs. temperature measurements) corroborate each other. Learn about the motivations and credentials of those who seem to be constantly arguing against climate change and see how often you can discover any legitimacy and no connection to oil companies with said arguments.