Robert Grumbine wrote:

So give us something that proves CO2 IS the cause. You like to prattle on
about the 'science' all the time, so give us some science. (Remember,
correlation doesn't imply causation.)

What would you consider 'proof'?

Anti-correlation also doesn't imply anti-causation.

But...

Reversing the decline in stored heat would be a start.

Reversing the nine year cooling trend in SSTs
would be somewhat convincing.

Resumption of cooling at 100mb.

Any sign of the tropical upper tropospheric hot spot would be a plus.

Reversing the Antarctic sea ice increase.

Accurate and precise knowledge of what the planetary albedo is and
how it has varied over the last century.

Accurate knowledge of how a tropopausal energy imbalance
might work its way down to the surface. ( which evidently
is not capture by gcm parameterizations ).

Knowing that which we don't know that we don't know.

In article , Al Bedo wrote:
Robert Grumbine wrote:

So give us something that proves CO2 IS the cause. You like to prattle on
about the 'science' all the time, so give us some science. (Remember,
correlation doesn't imply causation.)

What would you consider 'proof'?

Anti-correlation also doesn't imply anti-causation.

But...

Reordered to get the most significant point first:

Knowing that which we don't know that we don't know.

Ah, you want omniscience. Not going to happen. Do you
have that standard for all other sciences, engineering,
medicine, etc. as well?

The rest, which pale in significance (though requiring
a time machine is not too far behind) trimmed.

--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Robert Grumbine wrote:

Knowing that which we don't know that we don't know.

Ah, you want omniscience. Not going to happen. Do you
have that standard for all other sciences, engineering,
medicine, etc. as well?

The rest, which pale in significance (though requiring
a time machine is not too far behind) trimmed.

Great.

But I must have missed the convincing arguments on:

* The four year decline in oceanic heat storage.

* The nine year cooling trend in SSTs.

* Fifteen year stasis in 100mb temperatures.

* Lack of observation of an upper tropospheric hot spot
over both the fifty year raob record and the thirty year
MSU record.

* Thirty year trend in increasing Antarctic sea ice.

* Precisely and accurately what the planetary albedo value
is and how it has varied over the last century when just
small variations in albedo could easily be larger than
CO2 forcing.

* The observed DRYING of the mid and upper troposphere
contradicting any 'water vapor feedback'.

Robert Grumbine wrote:
In article , Al Bedo wrote:
Robert Grumbine wrote:

Knowing that which we don't know that we don't know.
Ah, you want omniscience. Not going to happen. Do you
have that standard for all other sciences, engineering,
medicine, etc. as well?

The rest, which pale in significance (though requiring
a time machine is not too far behind) trimmed.
Great.

But I must have missed the convincing arguments on:

Why would I bother with such trivia with someone who
wants omniscience and a time machine? I'm not omniscient,
nor do I have a time machine.

Further, none of the things you name are evidence that
you say would persuade you that there is climate change, or
that part of the reason is human activity. The question
is what you would find convincing. Since you require an
omniscient source to be convinced ... of course you haven't
seen convincing arguments.

[trim]

Thanks for not playing.