One point you alluded to isn't made often enough generally, I think -- the basic power of the simple *early* models to pretty accurately predict temperature response to CO2 is a robust indicator that the physics is right, later refined by more complicated calculations. I can imagine that if only recently had we been able to hone in on the temperature signal, critics could say that the temperature rise is only one of a multitude of possible consequences of so many input parameters. The simple case of energy in = energy out and an IR-absorbing layer (warming lower atmosphere, cooling upper atmosphere) is incredibly hard to argue against.
Agreed. I think it would be very hard to have spent 20+ years working on highly complex models and have to admit that they might not provide any added value to simpler models
One point you alluded to isn't made often enough generally, I think -- the basic power of the simple *early* models to pretty accurately predict temperature response to CO2 is a robust indicator that the physics is right, later refined by more complicated calculations. I can imagine that if only recently had we been able to hone in on the temperature signal, critics could say that the temperature rise is only one of a multitude of possible consequences of so many input parameters. The simple case of energy in = energy out and an IR-absorbing layer (warming lower atmosphere, cooling upper atmosphere) is incredibly hard to argue against.
Agreed. I think it would be very hard to have spent 20+ years working on highly complex models and have to admit that they might not provide any added value to simpler models