right now the ranges don't show us being cancelled out anytime soon. You can construct your own model and find a better method, but if you want to base the future on wishful thinking with no evidence behind it, be my guest, but I'd rather be on the safe side with future generations at risk. Right now, real-world observations and not wishful thinking generally show that most scenarios have been underestimated, with much less overestimated- the arctic as one example of something declining much quicker than anticipted (e.g.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/31...ourcetype=HWCIT)--
We know we're in store for at least 0.6 C more as the oceans are taking up heat (e.g Hansen et al 2005) and we 're pretty much consistent with the 3 C per doubling. And remember glaciers or oceans and other things have not equilibriated to current conditions, so for many thing we're still in a 330 ppm like atmosphere. I wouldn't have such confidence it will all go away or some huge negative forcing which we don't expect to come, will suddenly save us --Chris
I think this quote from Ray Pierrehumbert sums it up
//"We know enough to essentially rule out a very small climate sensitivity, but there’s still a lot to learn about how bad things could get on the high end. Changes in the ocean, ocean chemistry and biology on land and ocean need a lot of study. There’s all that ice dynamics stuff that had to be left out of the IPCC because it couldn’t be properly modelled yet. There’s a lot to learn about regional climate change. A lot to be learned about the carbon cycle on both ocean and land. Basically, there’s a lot to be learned about just how bad things could get. Also, of course, a lot to be learned about how to emit less CO2."//
