[Steve_American]

[snark on]
I have noticed a correlation between the sun coming up and the night ending. I wonder if the sun coming up causes the end in night. [/snark]

I claim that a good correlation PLUS a convincing mechanism is enough to constitute 'proof' with the level of 'proof' increasing as the mechanism becomes more convincing.

There is a strong correlation between higher CO2 in the air and higher temps.
This is true for the time we have directly measured temps.
This is also true in the air bubbles trapped in icecap ice going back 800K years.

We are very sure that we know why the ice age has had 90K years of a lot of ice and 10K years of much less ice in cycles of about 100K years for all of the last 800K years. The reason is the way the Earth's orbit around the sun works to change the angle of the sunlight hitting the surface at different times during the year.
If this theory is correct, then we should be seeing the Earth cooling. We don't, why? Some say it is because for the last 8K to 10K humans have been adding CO2 and methane to the air. That is, instead of humans having zero ability to change the climate, humans have been changing the climate ever since it began farming and herding. That farming and herding was adding just the right amount of CO2 and methane to keep the temps very steady. Scientists can even explain the slight increases and decreases in the temps, like the "little ice age".

The 1st scientist to see that CO2 is a greenhouse gas did so in the mid 1800's. I have seen claims that one later scientist 'proved' that this is not so.
. . I claim that this theory is very easy to do an experiment on in a lab. I therefore conclude, that modern scientists have repeated the experiment and have found that CO2 does act as a greenhouse gas. I have never seen any climate science denier claim that an experiment has been done recently that proved that CO2 doesn't act as a greenhouse gas. I claim that because the experiment is easy and cheap to do, that *IF* some modern 'scientist' had done the experiment and show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, that you and I would have heard about this 'proof' that ACC, aka AGW, is not true. The deniers would be using this very strong evidence in every post or article they write.

Therefore, we do have a convincing mechanism to explain the correlation between high CO2 levels in the air and rising temps.

Now, are the computer models of climate change as CO2 levels are increased as data, accurate?
All the claims that they are *not*, are deeply flawed. Anyone can prove anything by distorting the data or lying about what others have said. This is how the deniers are able to show 'evidence' that the models are not accurate.

Recently a group of scientists did a study of the climate models that have been used sines the 1970s or 80s to see if they can accurately predict the relation between CO2 and temps. They found that yes, all the models used do accurately show that as CO2 increases so do temps at the right level of increase.
Before you reply you need to understand one key fact. It is that making predictions is always about the future. That therefore, if the author gets the increase in CO2 level in the future wrong, his prediction of the temps that are the result will also be wrong to/in a corresponding amount.
So, the new study fed the correct measured CO2 data into all the computer models, instead of the wrong data that the original authors used. When this is done, the accuracy of the resulting predicted temps improves a lot. That is, at each time interval the predicted temp is close to the actual measured temp.

In fact all the models had a predicted error bar and all the resulting new predictions with the now known CO2 levels fell within those error bars. I have even seen that you can run the models backwards by reversing the flow of time in the computer, and they still stay close to the new curve of decreasing temps. that results when CO2 levels fall.

Therefore, the correlation has been paired with a convincing mechanism to prove that the computer models are accurately predicting what will happen in the future at all levels of increasing CO2. That is, in the future (if no tipping point that are not in the models are tipped) as CO2's measured level changes the new temps the models predict will be close the the measured temp levels.

[Truth To Power]

There is a strong correlation between higher CO2 in the air and higher temps.
This is true for the time we have directly measured temps.
This is also true in the air bubbles trapped in icecap ice going back 800K years.

Except that in the paleoclimate record the higher temps precede the higher CO2 by hundreds of years.

If this theory is correct, then we should be seeing the Earth cooling.

No, that's false. There are many factors involved, and many cycles with different periods and amplitudes, as well as non-cyclical factors.

We don't, why?

Sure we do:

https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content ... 021_v6.jpg

Clear cooling over the last five years.

Some say it is because for the last 8K to 10K humans have been adding CO2 and methane to the air.

But they are wrong.

That is, instead of humans having zero ability to change the climate, humans have been changing the climate ever since it began farming and herding. That farming and herding was adding just the right amount of CO2 and methane to keep the temps very steady. Scientists can even explain the slight increases and decreases in the temps, like the "little ice age".

The LIA was not a "slight" decrease, and the explanation is the same as for the increase in temperature since: the sun.

The 1st scientist to see that CO2 is a greenhouse gas did so in the mid 1800's. I have seen claims that one later scientist 'proved' that this is not so.

The latter, Angstrom, demonstrated experimentally that adding CO2 to standard atmospheric air did not significantly alter its infrared transmissivity.

. . I claim that this theory is very easy to do an experiment on in a lab. I therefore conclude, that modern scientists have repeated the experiment and have found that CO2 does act as a greenhouse gas.

But has very little effect when added to standard atmospheric air.

I have never seen any climate science denier claim that an experiment has been done recently that proved that CO2 doesn't act as a greenhouse gas.

See above. CO2 is a highly potent greenhouse gas when added to air that has little or no CO2 or water vapor, but that does not describe standard sea-level atmospheric air.

I claim that because the experiment is easy and cheap to do, that *IF* some modern 'scientist' had done the experiment and show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, that you and I would have heard about this 'proof' that ACC, aka AGW, is not true. The deniers would be using this very strong evidence in every post or article they write.

It is mentioned quite frequently. The anti-CO2 hysteria mongers just dismiss or ignore it.

Therefore, we do have a convincing mechanism to explain the correlation between high CO2 levels in the air and rising temps.

Right: the temperature sensitivity of CO2's solubility in sea water implies that CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere when temperatures fall, and released into the atmosphere when they rise.

Now, are the computer models of climate change as CO2 levels are increased as data, accurate?

No; we already know that.

All the claims that they are *not*, are deeply flawed.

No they aren't. They are correct.

Anyone can prove anything by distorting the data or lying about what others have said. This is how the deniers are able to show 'evidence' that the models are not accurate.

Nonsense.

Recently a group of scientists did a study of the climate models that have been used sines the 1970s or 80s to see if they can accurately predict the relation between CO2 and temps. They found that yes, all the models used do accurately show that as CO2 increases so do temps at the right level of increase.

No, they found no such thing. What they found was that if temperature data are altered retroactively to conform to the CO2-controls-temperature hypothesis, then the altered data conform to the hypothesis.

Before you reply you need to understand one key fact. It is that making predictions is always about the future. That therefore, if the author gets the increase in CO2 level in the future wrong, his prediction of the temps that are the result will also be wrong to/in a corresponding amount.
So, the new study fed the correct measured CO2 data into all the computer models, instead of the wrong data that the original authors used. When this is done, the accuracy of the resulting predicted temps improves a lot. That is, at each time interval the predicted temp is close to the actual measured temp.

Because the models are tuned to hindcast, no matter how tortured the assumptions.

In fact all the models had a predicted error bar and all the resulting new predictions with the now known CO2 levels fell within those error bars. I have even seen that you can run the models backwards by reversing the flow of time in the computer, and they still stay close to the new curve of decreasing temps. that results when CO2 levels fall.

Because they have been tuned to do so. Duh.

Therefore, the correlation has been paired with a convincing mechanism to prove that the computer models are accurately predicting what will happen in the future at all levels of increasing CO2. That is, in the future (if no tipping point that are not in the models are tipped) as CO2's measured level changes the new temps the models predict will be close the the measured temp levels.

Except that they won't. The models that predict increased warming based on increased CO2 will continue to be proved wrong by actual physical events.

[Steve_American]

Except that in the paleoclimate record the higher temps precede the higher CO2 by hundreds of years.

No, that's false. There are many factors involved, and many cycles with different periods and amplitudes, as well as non-cyclical factors.

Sure we do:

https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content ... 021_v6.jpg

Clear cooling over the last five years.

But they are wrong.

The LIA was not a "slight" decrease, and the explanation is the same as for the increase in temperature since: the sun.

The latter, Angstrom, demonstrated experimentally that adding CO2 to standard atmospheric air did not significantly alter its infrared transmissivity.

But has very little effect when added to standard atmospheric air.

See above. CO2 is a highly potent greenhouse gas when added to air that has little or no CO2 or water vapor, but that does not describe standard sea-level atmospheric air.

It is mentioned quite frequently. The anti-CO2 hysteria mongers just dismiss or ignore it.

Right: the temperature sensitivity of CO2's solubility in sea water implies that CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere when temperatures fall, and released into the atmosphere when they rise.

No; we already know that.

No they aren't. They are correct.

Nonsense.

No, they found no such thing. What they found was that if temperature data are altered retroactively to conform to the CO2-controls-temperature hypothesis, then the altered data conform to the hypothesis.

Because the models are tuned to hindcast, no matter how tortured the assumptions.

Because they have been tuned to do so. Duh.

Except that they won't. The models that predict increased warming based on increased CO2 will continue to be proved wrong by actual physical events.

Well, ToP, I can't really fault you for posting a series of assertions without any evidence to back them up, because that is what my OP was also.

Your point about adding CO2 to sea level air misses all the needed points. In this case it misses the point that we are not just adding CO2 to sea level air. We are adding it to all the air above that also. The increased absorption is happening at higher levels than at sea level.

Your point about the Earth's orbit and the expected temps shows an incomplete understanding of the theory. Over a year ago I posted here a link to the scientist who made the claim that the cycles should have been causing cooling for all of the last 10K years. We have NOT seen that. Instead we have seen an about flat line of fairly constant temps. And, so what if the last few years have seen some cooling. Not that they do, and all of them were the hottest 5 years in the last 200 years or is it the last 10K years.
. . . However, the most important point is that the cycles predict a lot of cooling over the last 10K years and 5 years of some cooling at the very end is meaningless compared to the missing cumulative effect we should have seen but don't.

As for your point that the computer models have been 'tuned' to match the data, I ask the lurkers how can they have been tuned (in the 1st place) to fit the data that would happen after the papers were published? So, ToP, this claim is accusing the group of scientists of changing the models to 'tune' them to match the data that was recorded after the models were published. Lurkers, ToP is claiming a conspiracy of literally thousands of scientists from every nation on Earth that has had no leaks and for which there is as much evidence as the big lie that there was massive voting fraud in the 2020 election. That is, the claim is that it must exist to explain the difference between what is happening to temps and what a group of lay people want the temps to be doing.

Yes, it is true that for the last 800K years the forcing cause of the warming has been the cycles of the Earth's orbit and not the increase in CO2. However, now for the last over 200 years humans have been dumping CO2 into the air at an exponentially increasing rate, and this *is* the forcing cause for the last 200+ years.
. . . However, in the past the greenhouse effect of the CO2 being added naturally as the temps increased began to be and it was necessary that the greenhouse effect kept the heating going. This is, the greenhouse effect is necessary to explain the large shifts of several deg. C that each cycle has consisted of. The heating of just the cycles in the orbit is nowhere near enough to have caused the heating that we see.
. . . BTW, the deniers must use the greenhouse effect to fit the data and then they turn around and claim that adding CO2 to sea level air would not cause any heating, as if this showed the the green house effect can't ever happen.

This entire argument is a classic example of the effects of using "debate club rules" when trying to find the "truth". Debate club rules allow you to use any published 'fact' (including those that have already been proved to have been wrong) and distort it in any way. The other side is required to be ready to poke holes in your argument. This is fine in the game of HS debates. In reality it requires the masses to carefully study both sets of facts being presented with an open mind, like the judges do after each debate to see who won.
. . . However, in reality many of the mass of people are just exposed to one side of the argument and are locked into a tribal position by the opinions of their friends.
. . . Scientists have a different set of rules. One of them is that you must not use a published result or claim that has been well refuted later. If you do use such things, you must explain clearly why you think the refutation was in error. Another is that you must not lie about your data, or what others published.

Got to go, can't proof read. Now, I've edited it at 11:30 pm in Chicago, 10\11\21.