…oooh, that doesn’t sound good. But, let’s consider James Lovelock’s prognostication: “I’m an optimist. I think that after the warming sets in and the survivors have settled in near the Arctic, they will find a way to adjust. It will be a tough life enlivened by excitement and fear.”

…sigh.

Paul — if we eliminated all human CO2 production, global warming would slow sharply, and the planet would probably reach equilibrium at another 0.6°C warming.

Darryl — I confess I don’t agree with Lovelock. And in any case, I don’t think people will settle near the Arctic — if his nightmare scenario comes true, people will have to relocate considerably inland.

Over a decade ago, my letters-to-the-editor of my local paper often got me phone calls chastising me for over-reacting.

Now…, any way I can break out of technical writing about printers and start a paid gig technical writing about climate impacts?

I’m not sure Joe fully responded to your questions, and I personally don’t have the precise answers at my fingertips.

As a start on your becoming familiar with the science, however, I’d suggest either renting the movie or reading the book, “An Inconvenient Truth.” If you have that basic familiarity with the issues, though, I’d recommend Joe Romm’s book “Hell and High Water.” Joe’s too modest to recommend his own book, but I’ve read it, and it’s the only reason I ever became aware of this website in the first place.

The science, as it were, is too extensive to outline in a single blog or two. Good luck with it.

Btw, it’s okay for you to use associations (or affliations) in your appeal to authority, but some how noting Kheshgi/Exxon in my A2A is disgarded or considered irrelevant. It seems the left seems to get annoyed to hear about the oil giant’s contribution to co2 science and attribution studies. Can’t bring themselves to credit those that oppose.

Anyway, this does not discredit the study, but Sabine notes the limitations of the data and acknowledges that much still needs to be learned:

“(T)here are no direct measurements or proxies that give us accurate oceanic carbon distributions before the industrial revolution. Therefore, we must rely on a back-calculation approach that has a number of assumptions. The limitations of the technique, including the potential impacts of global warming, have been thoroughly discussed in the literature and are an area of active research…” and so on.

Finally, I’d like to think Richard Alley would take offense to you smearing a geologist!!! haha.

this may be brief and disjointed but it’s the best i can do in a few moments.
no time to address Segalstad’s pov.