There is no agreement. Dr. John Christy, and Lindzen and related are both scientists and climatologist. I showed that even Trenberth has low confidence in the final results in his emails. And he wrote the energy budget.
______________________
Let's bet.
There are two main paths, the IPCC predictions, and the Skeptic positions. The RPC predictions make a great baseline for the established AGW position, and I am fine with using them as a baseline.
We can follow the 4 routes planned.
If for some reason we stop our CO2 emissions, and follow RCP2.6, then we can use that as the baseline.
If is is below the expected 'Business as Usual' then we can use RCP4.5.
If it is business as usual, then we can use RCP6.
If we hit RCP8.5, I will double the pot. Shit, if we hit RCP8.5, I will pay for your heating bill for a month and protest the oil company of your choice for an hour.
Setting a bet for 20 years out, how about 10 years out? Or 2030? There are predictions to 2030. It can be within, say, 10% of that? 5%?
http://www.climateprediction.eu/cc/M...till_2030.html
So, if we hit 445ppm in 2030, that should be RCP6?
If we play with the calculator:
http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/shiny/emissions/ then we see that cutting everything hits about 415 in 2030? So, RCP2.6 is PPM is 415?
RCP4.5 - wanna do a middle of the road for that one? 430ppm? I think the real RCP4.5 in 2030 was a bit higher, but that will take a bit of research to confirm.
Okay, what empirical dataset do you want to use?