[palmer]

Temperature changes are a different question. The CO2 that we were talking about does not translate directly into all the warming you are talking about now. That require the introduction of a multiplier from water vapor. That multiplier is very poorly understood for two reasons. First it depends on terrestrial weather which is not in the climate models (the ones that produce the temperature estimates you quoted). Second, the weather is affected by solar and celestial factors that almost completely unpredictable. With a deep solar minimum for example, all bets are off. Those do not necessarily "cause" cooling, but they do cause weather pattern changes (e.g. blocking) which will lower that multiplier.

If the multiplier is lower for any reason, then the IPCC predictions will be too high. Even considering terrestrial factors along (e.g. tropical weather), it is likely that the multiplier is too high.

[dila813]

Global Temperature Increase is naturally occurring due to the fact that we are still coming out of the last ice age.

As the temperature increases, the tree line on mountains will get higher, decomposition rates of dead plant and animals will change. Shift in the earth’s crust will cause land masses to rise in response to melting glaciers.

All of these are going on now and will be for the next 800 years regardless. These create an increased CO2 output by nature.

Surely all the models don’t assume that Nature’s CO2 output is static.

In other words, the argument currently is if there wasn’t any man on planet earth that the earth wouldn’t be seeing any increase and CO2 and it wouldn’t experience any warming. It would be completely stable. Does that sound right? I don’t think so.

I have to find that video for you guys. Once you look at the entire train of co-efficients you see how little we really contribute to the problem and therefore have almost no influence over fixing it. Nature is just so powerful.