Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger
The first visible sign of the arc was the involvement of Fred Singer, but one knows from experience that he only arrives when the vested interests have satisfied themselves that the problem is real. They hire scientists to find that out for them. They hire Fred Singer when those scientists confirm the problem. I think of him as a stormcrow.

Singer was in on the very first of these arcs, namely, the formulation and implementation of the Tobacco Strategy. Very loosely it goes: deny the problem, deny the implications, deny the solution. Used on tobacco->lung cancer. Second hand smoke->lung cancer. CFCs->acid rain damage. And several others. Not surprisingly, Singer shows up often. He is a vile person

.

and they indeed knew in the mid 90s


and the fossil fuel companies knew this in the mid 90s..

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

By ANDREW C. REVKINPublished: April 23, 2009

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=2

 

[aleCcowaN]

Wow you can understand all that and totally dismiss a peer reviewed paper in 3-5 mins, your genius talents are really wasted here you should be at least editor in chief of a top science journal or maybe run the IPCC, in fact I'm surprised you haven't come up with a solution to all the worlds problems with your vastly superior intelect.

When you try to be ironic, cheeky is the most you achieve. The simple questions is, are you trying to mock me for my less than average English? or are you trying to mock me because you need me to be wrong in order you have the chance to be right?

Summing up: You provided that paper as part of the effort you and other/s are making to depict a bleaker future. You didn't provide the paper for peer review. One of the reasons of me being -wrongly- labelled as a "climate scientist" is I've been a "peer" doing peer reviewing in climate related papers. There's no problem with the paper, I reasonably can assume it followed all the needed steps. As an individual it looks to me like a paper I would have wanted to point a dozen things about, but I wouldn't because that things are away from what I do know and manage, so it'd have certainly had my OK. Many have become aware of the peer reviewing process just by participating in web chats like these fora, and wrongly think that peer reviewing falls in some place between "I have nothing to object" and "full endorsement".

But what is to be dismissed is the paper having to play a role in the bleak future you wanted to point. You presented it as "hear what the professor have to say or read what the professor had peer reviewed" in support of your objection to my words, all seasoned up with "magic technology" and "wishful thinking" what placed you comfortably in the category of snot.

To put it in small words: I said A. You said no-A but B. You provide a paper in support of B. I took a look to the paper and quickly dismissed it as really supporting B against A. The rest are your emotions taking the place of your intellect, and your "magic technology" and "wishful thinking" are you ways to reason that B should replace A.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Is that not enough? Ocean albedo is higher than land average as well, which means the surface mixed layer gets more solar input to start with.

higher lower (the rest is OK)

What would we do without clouds?

The role of the oceans in moving heat to places from which it is lost to space is a tad more esoteric. The comparable role of land is clearly zero, though.

This "role" of the oceans is not related with the question I asked and related answer I provided. If it had been about a competition of roles, I would point first to oceans as providers and repositories of humidity in the climate aspect. Life givers in the general ranking.

 

[Dancing David]

Who are these nearly 50 NASA astronauts & scientists? I ask because your link fails to name them.

Here is what I found,
http://washingtonexaminer.com/astro...rming-endorsement/article/469366#.UMCWSYPBEfU

 

[aleCcowaN]

sorry if my elision confuses you - my uni prof complained as well -
sw from solar captured in the ocean and turned to lw and the ocean re-radiates to the atmosphere which has been somewhat dented in it's role as conduit back out into space..... a given situation since there is no ocean space interface. But you knew that.

Again, put it in the words you like, but the oceans are not an outstanding source of long wave radiation by the square metre. You -and other- forgot the role of evaporation and this being related with the final albedo and long wave radiation into space.

Finally, this all has little to do with my question about what causes the core ocean waters to be so cold, what I've already answer.

In fact I will continue with my questions and answers because I'm realizing there are a lot of assertions going on without the needed background knowledge. If the current readers are not interested, others in the future may be.

I wonder how many become convinced of an AGW process going on and I'm afraid the answer might be in some cases for no better means denialists are so convinced of their stuff.

 

[aleCcowaN]

But the geothermal energy is an energy flow (the energy from that component is essentially in equilibrium - what transfers into the ocean also leaves it), the input from geothermal energy has essentially been constant for longer than we care to think about. We are more concerned with the the energy components that are changing, such as the arctic summer melt adding more cold brine to the circulatory flows that you mention

Sorry Mike but, on the contrary, summer melt adds no brine but lowers the salinity of sea water so the process I described has moved to the opposite pole. If the system was a heart, winter would be systole and summer would be diastole.

What I was describing in the answer to my own questions is why analysis from 1990 or 2000 don't care about deep ocean having a role in the warming process -and models reflect this defect-.

 

[aleCcowaN]

The deep ocean is indeed a long term buffer and I do suspect from a variety of sources that there is more rapid turn over.

As to the pause......you are correct in the polar importance but what about the impact of the 3x release of freshwater on the poles.

Nice the primer on heat . Next lesson Clapeyron-Clausius (in Spanish style), please.

Speaking of fresh water, you have in the Arctic about 1,000 km3 of multi-year ice melted each year, some 200 km3 from Greenland and the remaining glaciers in the Canadian Archipelago and some 150 km3 coming from above average water flowing into the basin thorough Siberian rivers. This ads about 8-9% over the yearly cycle of freezing-melting. And that's it. A medium size it.
.
As we discussed earlier, the main source of heat in the Arctic originates in lower latitudes.

The melting is pulling a lot of energy and the lighter fresh water is staying on the surface rather than being pulled deep into the circulation.
This is seemingly a negative feedback which will last as long as the ice supply and buffers rapid change.

The level of energies to increase that melt three x is rather astounding.

Some evidence of this may be the increasing ocean surface ice in Antarctica as fresh water freezes more easily so even tho the internal glaciers are losing mass overall and thinning this cap of fresh water spreads from the melt to the surrounding ocean.

I know changing circulation patterns of winds in the Souther Ocean have a play in the ice formation as well but don't enough to connect those dots.

Good article on the thermohaline and the impact of AGW

http://worldoceanreview.com/en/climate-system/great-ocean-currents/

This is the blind dudes and the elephant, or better, the identikit reconstruction of the elephant departing of what the blind dudes told. The thermohaline circulation can be viewed either like an escalator that you couldn't stop by just riding on it and scratching the walls. It also can be viewed as an escalator with a variable width, and the width is changing nowadays: wider in some zones, narrower in other zones. People tend to think that the conveyor is a pipe with some flow of, say, 1, 3, 10 sv or so and that a humongous bucket of fresh water could stun it, but the fact is that it is much of a representation of various entwined processes that a real stream.

I am coming to realize that nobody makes the slightest a x b calculation to make a reality check of what they speculate or read about. A tremendous melting of 900km3 that peaks 10km3 a day adds an average of 1mm a day to an area of 10 million square kilometres which reduces salinity 1/1000 in the upper metre but cools the water -and the cooling is going to prevail on such meaningless dilution- If you are thinking "how does that fresh water to spread in 10 million square kilometres?", I say "what does that fresh water to stay without spreading and without mixing 90-120 days later when it has to freeze again?" The volume of the freezing depends on the air temperature an the thickness of the ice already formed. And all of it depends of the heat reaching the polar regions in their dark season. These figures tell quite a story.

Finally, it remains the problem of visibility. Almost all what is being discussed here is "visible", not necessarily important. If we took all the links and papers about a subject it'd make the worse bibliography possible. If we took all the subjects, the worst syllabus.

I'm fed up of ultimately being the denialists who dictate what we have to talk about.

We started to passionately debate among us . Wasn't that a much needed improvement?

 

[macdoc]

That's bull Alec - you are spreading the salinity change over the entire surface not concentrated in the area where the actual fresh water is and it does not dilute it sits on top of higher salinity and only slowly exchanges concentrations.

416-538-8712
Flanders Marine Institute (VLIZ)
Icy meltwater pooling in Arctic Ocean: A wild card in climate change scenarios

Scientists inventory, synthesize 13 years of research on climate change and Europe's marine environment

A massive, growing pool of icy meltwater in the Arctic Ocean is a wild card in future climate scenarios, European researchers said today.

Estimated in 2009 at more than 7,500 cubic km – twice the volume of Africa's Lake Victoria – and growing, the water could flush quickly into the Atlantic with unpredictable effect when prevailing atmospheric patterns shift, as occurred most recently in the 1960s and 1990s.

The situation is one of many disquieting findings captured by project CLAMER, a collaboration of 17 institutes in 10 European countries to inventory and synthesize the research of almost 300 EU-funded projects over 13 years related to climate change and Europe's oceans and near-shore waters, and the Baltic and Black Seas.

The full inventory and synthesis will be presented at an international conference at the Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium, Brussels, Sept. 14-15. This news release, highlighting research on climate-related physical ocean changes, will be followed in months to come by descriptions of impacts on marine life, and impacts on the economies and people of Europe.

Oceanographer Laura de Steur of the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research says a mostly clockwise wind pattern for the past 12 years in the Arctic has contained – largely in an area known as the Beaufort Gyre (also called the Canada Basin) – a pool of relatively fresh water from unusually high river discharge and melting sea ice.
When the general atmospheric circulation pattern does shift, the fresh, cold water is expected to enter the North Atlantic, with unpredictable impact on an ocean current system important to both European weather and marine food chain. Signs of such an atmospheric shift appeared in 2009 but the episode was too short to cause a major flush.

Says Dr. de Steur: "The volume of water discharged into the Arctic Ocean, largely from Canadian and Siberian rivers, is higher than usual due to warmer temperatures in the north causing ice to melt. Sea ice is also melting quickly – another new record low for ocean area covered was documented this past January by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews) – adding even more freshwater to the relatively calm Arctic Ocean."

"In addition, sea ice that is thinner is more mobile and could exit the Arctic faster. In the worst case, these Arctic outflow surges can significantly change the densities of marine surface waters in the extreme North Atlantic. What happens then is hard to predict."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-04/fmi-imp033111.php

You know something they don't?? and he is not even including the Greenland melt.

But please do keep your eye on the bigger picture.

 

[Mikemcc]

Sorry Mike but, on the contrary, summer melt adds no brine but lowers the salinity of sea water so the process I described has moved to the opposite pole. If the system was a heart, winter would be systole and summer would be diastole.

What I was describing in the answer to my own questions is why analysis from 1990 or 2000 don't care about deep ocean having a role in the warming process -and models reflect this defect-.

True, it does lower the salinity, but my point was that it adds to the cold water descending and flowing southward, that water was previously locked up as ice.

 

[macdoc]

Sorry Mike but, on the contrary, summer melt adds no brine but lowers the salinity of sea water so the process I described has moved to the opposite pole. If the system was a heart, winter would be systole and summer would be diastole.

partially incorrect Alec....the summer melt releases brine accumulated in pockets in the ice.

When frazil ice crystals form, salt accumulates into droplets called brine, which are typically expelled back into the ocean. This raises the salinity of the near-surface water. Some brine droplets become trapped in pockets between the ice crystals. These droplets are saline, whereas the ice around them is not. The brine remains in a liquid state because much cooler temperatures would be required for it to freeze. At this stage, the sea ice has a high salt content. Over time, the brine drains out, leaving air pockets, and the salinity of the sea ice decreases. Brine can move out of sea ice in diferent ways: Aided by gravity, the brine migrates downward through holes and channels in the ice, eventually emptying back into the ocean.
The ice surrounding the brine compresses and breaks the brine pockets, allowing the brine to escape to the ocean.

When the sea ice begins to melt during the summer, small freshwater ponds (called melt ponds) form on the top layer of the ice. This freshwater travels through the cracks and holes in the ice, washing out remaining brine.
When the sea ice surface cools, brine increases in salinity to the point at which it can melt ice at its underside. This leads to a downward migration of brine droplets, ultimately allowing the brine to escape into the ocean below the ice sheet.

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/brine_salinity.html

and

A final and most important role of the melt water is that some of it works its way down through the ice fabric through minor pores, veins and channels, and in doing so drives out much of the remaining brine. This process, called flushing, is the most efficient and rapid form of brine drainage mechanism, and it operates to remove nearly all of the remaining brine from the first-year ice

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_wadhams.html

There was a more technical explanation of how the brine forms into high concentration pockets and these pockets sink - can find it just now.

 

[bobwtfomg]

When you try to be ironic, cheeky is the most you achieve.

It was supposed to be sarcasm ,but never mind

The simple questions is, are you trying to mock me for my less than average English? or are you trying to mock me because you need me to be wrong in order you have the chance to be right?

Neither, but for your tone which comes across as arrogant (though I am perfectly willing to accept this isn't intentional) and for the fact that skim read a paper then presume to correct a statement I made about the paper.

What I said:
here's another paper showing if we don't mitigate at all and carry on increasing our CO2 emisssions we could hit 4 deg C by 2070
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.o...9/1934/67.full

What you said: Ah! And it was 2100, not 2070.

What the paper says:

Our best estimate is that a temperature rise of 4°C would be reached in the 2070s, and if carbon-cycle feedbacks are strong, then 4°C could be reached in the early 2060s

Also you might have noticed (maybe you just skimmed it and missed it or chose deliberately to ignore) that I specifically said "if we don't mitigate at all and carry on increasing our CO2 emisssions" and should have realised that I was quite aware that this was a worst case scenario but you come back with this

Also, the analysis is on A1F1 emissions, which not only reach 110 GT CO2 by 2100 but also has an (almost?) constant yearly increment of 1.2% during the period 2050-2100. So, it's all set to get a disaster, and not surprisingly a disaster is what they get .

Summing up: You provided that paper as part of the effort you and other/s are making to depict a bleaker future.

No, a potentially bleaker future if we carry on increasing our emissions

You didn't provide the paper for peer review.

Never said I did, why would anyone think I did? Are you trying to doubt the credibility of the Royal Society's peer-revewed journal again?

One of the reasons of me being -wrongly- labelled as a "climate scientist" is I've been a "peer" doing peer reviewing in climate related papers.

The skeptic in me wants to ask for evidence

There's no problem with the paper, I reasonably can assume it followed all the needed steps. As an individual it looks to me like a paper I would have wanted to point a dozen things about, but I wouldn't because that things are away from what I do know and manage, so it'd have certainly had my OK. Many have become aware of the peer reviewing process just by participating in web chats like these fora, and wrongly think that peer reviewing falls in some place between "I have nothing to object" and "full endorsement".

OK so you won't be writing to the Royal Society demanding they retract, or sending a rebuttal to a rival journal?

But what is to be dismissed is the paper having to play a role in the bleak future you wanted to point. You presented it as "hear what the professor have to say or read what the professor had peer reviewed" in support of your objection to my words, all seasoned up with "magic technology" and "wishful thinking" what placed you comfortably in the category of snot.

Yes I admit it linking to lectures by scientists and peer reviewed science to support my arguements, obviously what I should be doing to support them is telling anecdotes about my grand father.

To put it in small words: I said A. You said no-A but B. You provide a paper in support of B. I took a look to the paper and quickly dismissed it as really supporting B against A. The rest are your emotions taking the place of your intellect, and your "magic technology" and "wishful thinking" are you ways to reason that B should replace A.

You're wrong I was replying to another poster here when YOU jumped in on the conversation with

This sounds to me so like chalk screeching a blackboard.

followed by a long anecdote about your grandfather ending in this classic case of argueing from incredulity

How could I -or anyone else- dare to declare what the technology related to energy would be in 2070 or 2100 and what effects all the technological transitions would have on the GHG pool whatever the policies may become?

which is where my "magic technology and "wishful thinking" comments came from.

Please don't get me wrong I respect your knowledge and am happy to be corrected on factual matters when I've made a mistake as it means I'm learning something new, but it's nice not to be talked down to when you're being corrected. Also it'd be cool if you could provide links, some of the stuff you've been saying about thermohaline circulation is news to me, but I ain't going to accept it as fact just because you say it is, that wouldn't be very skeptical.

 

[macdoc]

Think I'm the one discussing thermohaline more than Alec who is currently playing devil's advocate rather ineffectually and getting battered by turbulence for his trouble.

 

[aleCcowaN]

That's bull Alec - you are spreading the salinity change over the entire surface not concentrated in the area where the actual fresh water is and it does not dilute it sits on top of higher salinity and only slowly exchanges concentrations.



http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-04/fmi-imp033111.php

You know something they don't?? and he is not even including the Greenland melt.

But please do keep your eye on the bigger picture.

You can't be so cheeky of saying «That's bull» about what you don't understand, Macdolm

If sea ice gets frozen into solid fresh-water ice and most of the brine gets dumped into the deep and in the long term out of the bottom of the Arctic basin, what do you think that happens with the salinity of sea water once the ice melts again? If you add the elemental fact of that region having lowest levels of evaporation you easily end up with the Arctic as it is and has always been: it has the lowest levels of salinity in the planet. Here's the map for salinity in the surface as measured by Aquarius (NASA) instrumental on Sac-D (CONEA - Argentina)

For September:

You can see salinity even a bit below 30‰ all over the Arctic basin, its communications with both Atlantic and Pacific and ice and continental fringes. You also see equally low salinities in very hot zones where great rivers discharge, like the Amazon's, Ganges-Brahmaputra in Bengal Bay and Yangtse in East China Sea. Even where there are no mayor rivers nor excessive rains, like the Pacific coast of Colombia.

The same image -no so clear- for March

Where you can see the capacity of the Antarctic Ocean to mix the melting water, exactly what I refer in my post which content you labelled as "bull".

So, the text you quoted says the same I say: melting, rivers, etcetera, adding fresh water -I told you 8 to 9% more than usual-. Your quote only adds the Hollywood scripting of "imagine what would happen if all that fresh water is thrown out of the basin!!!". The answer is: a little more of what it has been happening the last millennia. You are not taking a paper but a press realise and using it for emotional effect. Your citation in other context can produce interesting inferences, and I going to take it for that purpose once I'm done with the next 10, 20 or 30 posts answering your (plural) twists.

Who said that the problem was just the denialists?

 

[aleCcowaN]

True, it does lower the salinity, but my point was that it adds to the cold water descending and flowing southward, that water was previously locked up as ice.

Mike, it mostly stays up there contributing to the low salinity of the Arctic Basin. In the Antarctic, with its open configuration and strong winds and streams there is more mixing. See my previous post.

 

[aleCcowaN]

partially incorrect Alec....the summer melt releases brine accumulated in pockets in the ice.



http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/brine_salinity.html

and



http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_wadhams.html

There was a more technical explanation of how the brine forms into high concentration pockets and these pockets sink - can find it just now.

Where I wrote "no brine", replace it by "no brine going down to the bottom", that is, the downward flow ceases. That was what I pointing to. That hasn't to do with the fraction of brine retained that is flushed during melting that adds to the melt layer immediately below.

For you quotes: 10 points in verbal material (we're in tune now), 2 in providing figures (full meaning).

 

[macdoc]

Alec it does not completely freeze out - you made the flat out statement and it's wrong.

You implied a mixing that simply does not exist to minimize the existence of the fresh water pooling on the surface that an international body is rightly concerned about.

The interface right at the junction of ice, atmosphere and liquid water is very complex and energy intensive whether freezing or melting and the IPCC has provided poor information about the Arctic in the past - not through oversight but lack of solid information.
That information and the events are both unfolding and not in a manner anticipated as to pace of change.

You are trying to justify a low atmospheric number for 500 pm C02 conditions by invoking a much greater ocean heat uptake that ignores the reality of local conditions and does the denier trick of averaging it out over large numbers when for the atmosphere the dynamics occur right at the interface in the Arctic.

The problem is tree perusing instead of forest assessment. I don't think you've swayed anyone here that a low side of the range for the global average will occur for 500ppm.
Seems more diversion in play than anything.

In my view the likely player in keeping the heat average down will be aerosols but they can cut two ways when it comes to carbon black in the Arctic.
Far and away the toughest challenge for climatologists IMNSHO

and others...

Tropospheric aerosols are thought to cause a significant direct and indirect climate forcing, but the magnitude of this forcing remains highly uncertain because of poor knowledge of global aerosol characteristics and their temporal changes. The standard long-term global NOAA product, the one-channel AVHRR aerosol optical thickness over the ocean, relies on a single predefined aerosol model and can be inaccurate in many cases. TOMS data can be used to detect absorbing aerosols over land, but are insensitive to aerosols located below 1 km. It is thus clear that innovative approaches must be employed in order to extract a more quantitative and accurate aerosol climatology from available satellite and other measurements, thereby enabling more reliable estimates of the direct and indirect aerosol forcing

http://gacp.giss.nasa.gov

It's pretty clear global dimming occurred in the 70s due to S02 -
Where is it now given the surge in emissions from China and India?
Who is connecting the dots on the Asian Brown Cloud, reduced sunlight in China as high as 25% and a flattening of global atmospheric temps.

It makes a significant difference in terms of policy pace for coping if 4 degrees is likely to be past 2100 or as early as 2060-2070 as many seem to consider likely including me.

 

[Mikemcc]

Mike, it mostly stays up there contributing to the low salinity of the Arctic Basin. In the Antarctic, with its open configuration and strong winds and streams there is more mixing. See my previous post.

ok, cheers. Live and learn...

 

[aleCcowaN]

Alec it does not completely freeze out - you made the flat out statement and it's wrong.

You implied a mixing that simply does not exist to minimize the existence of the fresh water pooling on the surface that an international body is rightly concerned about.

The interface right at the junction of ice, atmosphere ....

Before you go on, let me put this clear. You are simply twisting anything I'm saying, either by replacing what I said by something that may help you, or by adding details, loops and ornaments to the processes described, just to bring the discussion away of what I was indeed saying and pointing to. You know all started with you blatantly ignoring the causes of the temperature profile and answering garbage about that. It all quickly evolved to your now detailed google-propelled quotation of proper material about what is almost irrelevant. What you are saying now not only has little to do with how the ocean are going to prevent quick warming or not, but also has little to do with what is behind the papers, "papers", and internet assorted wad you are piling behind the notion of a planet defaced by temperatures 4, 6 or 8°C higher.

I'm saying this because you are not going to stop doing what you are doing. I just need this for future reference because this is going to be long ...

 

[jimbob]

I've been totally disgusted by the magazine of my supposedly professional body, the IET. (http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2012/11/debate.cfm). They have dredged up Johnny Ball to put the case against AGW, and he has produced the usual gish-gallop of rubbish. To say that I have expressed my disappointment is putting it mildly...

Anotherv disappointing event:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20454757

A specially re-inforced LNG tanker going through the NE passage.

Grr

I tend to not read the magazine, but usually it has been fairly reasonable IIRC

From my IET email yesterdsy:

Our debate between Johnny Ball and Dr Peter Langdon on climate change has sparked our best-ever reader discussion in the forums. The online vote stands at one-third for and two-thirds against conclusive evidence that climate change is man made. Climate change and what should or could be done about it are much in the news this week, the last week of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Doha. Both our latest issue and our latest video are all about living with climate change.
Do you have a Raspberry Pi? Do you have a good project to share? We have started an area for enthusiasts, developers, teachers and students to share ways of using the computer board to get kids into coding, computing and much more. We're inviting readers to upload their projects and exchange ideas. Join the new Raspberry Pi group on the IET's My Community pages.

OK, I think I might change institutions.

The IEEE sent me an email recently (co author on a fairly obscure paper). Possibly better than the IOP.

I tend to sit in the interface between being a Physicist and Engineer.

 

[aleCcowaN]

The simple questions is, are you trying to mock me for my less than average English? or are you trying to mock me because you need me to be wrong in order you have the chance to be right?

Neither, but for your tone which comes across as arrogant (though I am perfectly willing to accept this isn't intentional) and for the fact that skim read a paper then presume to correct a statement I made about the paper.

I've said this for your "misunderstanding" of my intended use of dismissing. I am starting to realize that you are not accustomed to debate academically. Do you think that if I say "I'm dismissing Bayes in analysis by basin" that means Bayes is no longer valid ? This way surely any following explanation related to basins and not Bayes may sound wacky to you ... arrogant too.

I'm not going to stay hesitant just because one term may not be the right collocation. If you and others want to debate, you accept to read and do your effort. That's why I didn't take well you dropping an hour video and a paper like saying "get your own way to it". You had to do your job too.

What I said:
here's another paper showing if we don't mitigate at all and carry on increasing our CO2 emisssions we could hit 4 deg C by 2070
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.o...9/1934/67.full

What you said: Ah! And it was 2100, not 2070.

What the paper says:

Our best estimate is that a temperature rise of 4°C would be reached in the 2070s, and if carbon-cycle feedbacks are strong, then 4°C could be reached in the early 2060s

Also you might have noticed (maybe you just skimmed it and missed it or chose deliberately to ignore) that I specifically said "if we don't mitigate at all and carry on increasing our CO2 emisssions" and should have realised that I was quite aware that this was a worst case scenario but you come back with this

Also, the analysis is on A1F1 emissions, which not only reach 110 GT CO2 by 2100 but also has an (almost?) constant yearly increment of 1.2% during the period 2050-2100. So, it's all set to get a disaster, and not surprisingly a disaster is what they get .

Summing up: You provided that paper as part of the effort you and other/s are making to depict a bleaker future.

No, a potentially bleaker future if we carry on increasing our emissions

I'm afraid that I answered with equal laziness. I took a look to the paper and rapidly got it has no predictive value, it was a stretch of a paper in AR4, and there wasn't either a revision of the base or an effort to match in "year 0" the different runs, yet they jumped to probabilities, which is a possible way. So, I stuck to what was valuable there in my eyes: the scenarios and the AR4 part. My "2100, not 2070" was a way to say "look, I don't even find there something of enough weight to assert that".

I'm sorry for contributing to such Chinese whispers.

The last line containing a cheeky "if" along with the rest that is similar, I'll answer in a few hours. I'm only adding this

You didn't provide the paper for peer review.

Never said I did, why would anyone think I did? Are you trying to doubt the credibility of the Royal Society's peer-revewed journal again?

Again, you seem to have no experience in debating academically. You didn't provide the paper for peer review means exactly that. Hence you had no expectation of thinking that "dismissing" attacked the credibility of the paper, nor now you have any reason to say "doubt credibility or the journal" and your "again" leaves no doubt you are doing this with smearing intentions.

You seem to be 19, 20 or so, then there are some things I can overlook, but not all of them.