Well the denialists are out in full force, again. I have a theory ( that has just occurred to me, I do not spend any time thinking about a bunch idiots) that one writes an anti AGW piece and the rest all chime in because they feel that they are being supported by the others.
OK, here is the scoop. It is a forgone conclusion that AGW is real and so the average temp will keep on rising. It is basically caused by the demands of too many people trying to live on one small planet.
There will be no change to the rate of population growth ( well not soon enough to matter) and so we will see catastrophic climate change.
Yes I know it will take a bit more time to get to cataclysmic proportions but it will happen because the sheeple will not change their ways.
Eventually it could possible reduce the human ( and unfortunately other life) down to a very small group hanging on in a few spots that are still habitable.
So the more there are of you denialists and greedy BAU types there are, the quicker this will happen.
Then maybe if there are enough left to recolonise the world in perhaps a billion years, it could happen all over again. Maybe the next lot will have more sense.

Tell me Robert LePage, what cult did you belong to, before you found the global warming cult to which you obviously now belong?

Quote Antiseptic
an estimate with error bars extending 50% either side is a best guess. It is informed by data that are too fuzzy and by an incomplete understanding of the mechanisms that contribute to the dynamics, not to mention they assume a somewhat linear response, which may be unjustified.
End Quote

The estimate for global temperatures to increase by 3 deg C +or- 1.5 for a doubling of CO2 levels does not imply a that the outcome of + 4.5 deg C is just as likely as 3 deg C. The result is based on statistics and the binomial distribution curve which is bell shaped, and therefore indicates that 3 Deg C is at the top of the curve and far more likely a result than those at the extreme ends. in fact the probability of the result being at either end of the extremes is less than 6%. That implies less than 3% chance that that the outcome will be at the cool end.

It is well understood that any factor which raises global temperatures will have knock on effects, most notably increasing the level of water vapour in the atmosphere which in turn amplifies the warming, This leads to the question as to what is the direct heating effect of increased levels of CO2. There is strong agreement that the effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will directly cause a global temperature increase of 1 deg C + or- 0.2. This estimate further constrains the the possibilities as the margin of error is less. In other words if we have any faith at all in science we simply have to accept that global temperatures are going to rise unless we can curb our emission's of CO2.

On the subject of pseudo-equilibrium this is almost certainly true on the local and regional scale, but on the global scale is not likely to have much impact. On the most basic level we are dealing with an energy budget and if we reduce our energy loses and energy in remains the same temperatures will increase.

Hasbeen, if ever a nickname was appropriate it is yours.
A cult for me?
Impossible as I am a complete loner.
I just have brain and use it to think.

qanda, I haven't made a great effort to study the projections in detail, because there doesn't seem much point. The system is so complex that a truly comprehensive model would require a great deal of my time to understand (if I even could), but it's obvious the models that exist at present are extrapolating a long way from a short baseline with very incomplete data. That doesn't mean they're wrong, but it does mean they can't be relied on to be right.

I do trust that there are smart people working on it and that they will improve their understanding very rapidly so I am happy for us to do the things that are easy to flatten the curve on the factors we do understand and can influence on human time-scales.

Bad situations are rarely improved by kneejerk responses.

I think you all need to do a rethink.
I have just read this article by Gail Tvberg.

http://theenergycollective.com/gail-tverberg/229121/oil-limits-and-climate-change

It puts quite a different slant on CO2 production.
She maintains that the IPCC is not forecasting co2 properly.

Like many others I had thought peak oil would appear with queues of
cars at service stations, but instead it is appearing because we can
not afford to buy it. Hence the fall in sales of the product in the
US, Europe etc.

Anyway, read Gail's article, it cannot but force you to rethink.