> The range is accurate enough to know the problems.
I disagree. The model predictions don't match the actual data.
> We even know that the effects will have a very long time span
No, we have models that say that, but the model predictions don't match the actual data.
> that "much higher" state was before dinosaurs went extinct and the modern mammals started to develop!
CO2 was much higher then, yes. But it was also much higher during a good part of the Cenozoic.
> The fossil fuels now burned needed exactly these hundreds of millions of years to form.
No, they didn't. They formed during the Carboniferous period, a small part of the total time period during which CO2 was much higher than it is now. Also, CO2 was much higher than it is now for a long time after the Carboniferous, when the fossil fuels had already formed.
> comparing the change of the CO2 concentrations with the known temperature variation, we can expect even much worse changes than very conservative(!) IPCC predictions
Only if you assume, incorrectly, that CO2 changes caused the temperature changes during the ice ages and interglacials. But the CO2 changes during the ice ages and interglacials happened after the temperature changes.
The claims you promote are without any scientific background, here's why:
The concentration of 500 ppm now would make all ice on Earth disappear, whereas 400 million years ago there would be needed 3000 ppm (note three thousand, ten times more than it was before we stat high-rate burning) to achieve the same, as, among other effects, the solar constant was 4% lower then:
Now consider this: during the last 800,000 years CO2 concentration oscillated between 200 and 300 ppm. The humanity pushed it to 400 ppm in around 100 years, and the 500 ppm is the point of no ice on the Earth.
> The claims you promote are without any scientific background, here's why
None of this addresses the actual issues I was raising.
> The concentration of 500 ppm now would make all ice on Earth disappear
According to the hypothesis given in the paper you link to. But it's a hypothesis, not a fact. One obvious omission in the paper is treatment of other forcings besides CO2 and solar. Also, all of the data is proxy data, and the solar forcing is not even based on data but on an assumed linear rate of increase in the solar constant.
> None of this addresses the actual issues I was raising.
Just when somebody closes the eyes and screams at the same time "I don't see anything." It was exactly on the subject: when you claim that millions of years ago the concentration was higher, we even know that the state of the Earth wasn't comparable. Not to mention that humans didn't exist.
The IPCC AR5 admits it--and then tries to argue that it doesn't matter, because their conclusions aren't based on the models, they're based on "expert judgment" or something like that.
"New Zealand politician and a lawyer." "He was also involved with the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust, a charitable organisation that, according to the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), appears to have been set up solely to take court action against them. The trust lost two court cases against NIWA and on both occasions, was ordered to pay costs. NIWA has put the trust into liquidation and as of 2014 was considering to pursue Brill and another trustee for the owed money.[7]"
His claims are, of course, a distortion of what really happened, and are based on what he and those like him call the "hiatus." Which is also misinterpretation of the curve of the temperature change, and which those especially liked before the last two years that broke most of the records.
I see only the agenda there, and again, scientific illiteracy.
The quotes presented on that page mean really nothing, which is somehow expected when written by the guy who doesn't understand the subject, being scientifically illiterate.
> the only thing that you have to back your claims is a post from WUWT
A post which gives specific quotes and references from the IPCC AR5. Whatever you might think of WUWT in general, this particular post is talking about what the IPCC itself is saying.
I could just as well say that a site like RealClimate is "a known alarmist site that has lied a lot of times". At that point we're just pointing fingers and arguing from authority, not substance. That's why I picked an article that specifically quotes and references the IPCC AR5 itself, rather than one of the hundreds of critical papers and articles that have been published by skeptics on the mismatch between the models and the data.
> I could just as well say that a site like RealClimate is "a known alarmist site that has lied a lot of times"
No, you can´t if you don´t lie
> At that point we're just pointing fingers and arguing from authority,
No, WUWT has no authority because nobody on this site is a climate scientist
> That's why I picked an article that specifically quotes and references the IPCC AR5 itself
No, you quoted an article where someone interpreted what the IPCC said. You didn't quoted anything from the IPCC. And that was your claim
> rather than one of the hundreds of critical papers and articles that have been published by skeptics on the mismatch between the models and the data.
Still waiting one of those articles from climate scientists
But I will wait a lot, you're just another denier that has nothing to back what you write
> WUWT has no authority because nobody on this site is a climate scientist
In other words, you would rather argue from authority than look at the actual substance. Thank you for making your position clear.
> You didn't quoted anything from the IPCC
The article I linked to had direct quotes from the IPCC AR5.
> Still waiting one of those articles from climate scientists
Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer, to name just two, are climate scientists and have written skeptical papers. But there's nothing magical about the label "climate scientist" that makes what they say correct. You have to look at the actual substance. But you've already indicated you don't want to do that, so I guess we'll just have to disagree.
You can have any religion you want but don't expect to be considered of any scientific significance (except as the example of a deluded mind) if your claims don't match the reality.
As you've said: "You have to look at the actual substance."
I know one older guy who I really respect, and with nice scientific background, whose political beliefs would make him agreeing with the "deniers." He started to blog how global warming is a lie etc. I've just sent him the links to really look at the data, the scientific work and to check himself. He never wrote or said anything against global warming again. You seem to have more scientific background than a lawyer, maybe you should honestly check the figures, facts and formulas just once...
> Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen claims are provably scientifically wrong
I can't find any source for the data underlying the graph in your first link comparing Hansen to Lindzen regarding temperature predictions. The skeptical science article it is attributed to has a link to a 1988 Hansen paper that is broken ("not found"), and a link to a 1989 MIT Tech Talk article quoting Lindzen that has no graph at all and does not make any temperature prediction. So as far as I can tell, the supposed comparison in that graph has no factual basis.
Your second link shows multiple comparisons between statements Spencer has made and the "mainstream" IPCC position on climate science; the differences between them would be more accurately described as differences in opinion on how to interpret the data and how to make predictions, not as showing that Spencer is "provably scientifically wrong".
> As you've said: "You have to look at the actual substance."
Yes, I did. See above.
> maybe you should honestly check the figures, facts and formulas just once...
I have been, for quite some time now. As I said, we're just going to have to disagree.
> looking at the people that really knows what they talk is not arguing from authority.
Why do you think they really know what they are talking about? Because they say so? Because they are "climate scientists" and have the "proper" credentials? That is arguing from authority.
I disagree. The model predictions don't match the actual data.
> We even know that the effects will have a very long time span
No, we have models that say that, but the model predictions don't match the actual data.
> that "much higher" state was before dinosaurs went extinct and the modern mammals started to develop!
CO2 was much higher then, yes. But it was also much higher during a good part of the Cenozoic.
> The fossil fuels now burned needed exactly these hundreds of millions of years to form.
No, they didn't. They formed during the Carboniferous period, a small part of the total time period during which CO2 was much higher than it is now. Also, CO2 was much higher than it is now for a long time after the Carboniferous, when the fossil fuels had already formed.
> comparing the change of the CO2 concentrations with the known temperature variation, we can expect even much worse changes than very conservative(!) IPCC predictions
Only if you assume, incorrectly, that CO2 changes caused the temperature changes during the ice ages and interglacials. But the CO2 changes during the ice ages and interglacials happened after the temperature changes.