Feel free to check, but I think if you look for error estimates, you'll find 0.6 +/- 0.2 C.
Co2 increases may only raise the temp 1 degree total, period. The models certainly can't tell us, cuz they are all very inaccurate,
You referenced the other article on the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum: models for that are going to be different than predictive models for future climate trends. The reasonable range for global warming due to doubled CO2 is 1.5 to 4.5 C. This range is due to the existence of positive and negative feedbacks whose contribution can only be estimated.
Then you cite 'estimates' of changes 5 times that over the next 100 years. With no basis in reality.
What kind of "basis in reality" do you require? The model formulations are based on scientific evaluation of Earth's climatic processes. You would need to read a lot of papers describing the details of the models to get your head around that. Do you have the time and the inclination for that?
But... read this posted comment: #134
GISS states that the 30-year trend is 0.6 C, 0.2 C per decade. This trend is confirmed by arch-skeptic Patrick Michaels, at 0.17 C per decade. If that trend continues, the warming over the next century will be 1.7 - 2 C. That is not insignificant (though Michaels might want us to think so), 1.8 C would be 3x the 20th century rate, and it's grounded in observational reality.
This is out of order, but I wanted to address it briefly:
So there may not have been any warming at all.
Temperature is just one variable. Below is a link to one of my favorite climate studies. See what you think. The first is to a description of the study; the second is to a shorter page with an excellent image.
150-Year Global Ice Record Reveals Major Warming Trend
Historical Trends in Lake and River Ice Cover in the Northern Hemisphere
As we've proven in the other thread, those 'estimates' from modeling are wrong. Or 'not accurate', as you prefer to state.
If that trend continues, the warming over the next century will be 1.7 - 2 C.
But since in the last 100 years the temp went up for 40 years, then down for 40 years, then up for 40 years . . . assuming a constant increase seems to be pretty wrongheaded!
That basic error alone should show you how intellectually dishonest this theory is.
Altho if you aren't even willing to admit that the models are wrong, I'm not sure there's much chance you'd admit this error either, I suppose. Sorry, I don't mean to sound fussy about it. I just can't imagine being so closed.
Below is a link to one of my favorite climate studies. See what you think.
Well that seems to confirm what I'm saying. Some of those are freezing later, some earlier, some not much change at all.
On the whole, not much change.