So, where are the "sound, repeatable, demonstrable, falsifiable, testable" *experiments* to check that yes, our theory about how CO2 behaves in the atmosphere (or rather "toy atmosphere", for testing), is brilliantly confirmed by observations?

Computer models and physics equations does not science make, experiments are vital.

I'd be quite interested if you'd actually be able to find flaws in this, since the only responses seem to be ad homiem and such, with no concern for theory backed by observations. (Hopefully thanks in advance)

Venus' temperature is caused *only* by ~92 atmosphere of pressure.

Derivation:

The adiabatic lapse rate = dT/dz = -Mg/R*(y-1)/y = ~7.82K/km (I was lazy and used 100% CO2 for this, also y = gamma) which isn't too far off from the ALR calculated from measurements using least squares = ~7.74K/km.

Furthermore:
T(z) = Tsurface - ALR*z, by definition (~= 735 - 7.82z).
The barometric equation is P = Psurface*e^(-Mgz/RT).
Solving for z = -RT/Mg*ln(P/Psurface),
        and plugging into T(z), we get T(P) = Tsurface - (y-1)/y*Mg/R*RT/Mg*ln(Psurface/P)
        = T = Tsurface - (y-1)/y*T*ln(Psurface/P),
        rearranging, T(P)*(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P))) = Tsurface
        Thereforce T(P) = Tsurface/(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P)))

Have you actually read any papers in climatology? The field is rife with "we used a computer model and some plausible physical laws, came up with some hypotheses, and used the model to experimentally verify".

As for even being reproducible:
We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider. - Phil Jones

That's not science, and in that environment peer review is just groupthink.

You can't seriously be talking about climate models with hand waving arguments about averaging so that they can only be tested in 2100, but horrible things will happen if we don't assume them correct and act accordingly. Has the IPCC even put out the calculated standard deviation of global temperature yearly, 10 years, etc, based on the observed global temps? Are these questions about basic facts and circular reasoning so unreasonable to expect from science?

Something you may be interested in, though water vapor makes the calculation much more complex so this is for Venus.

Derivation:
The adiabatic lapse rate = dT/dz = -Mg/R*(y-1)/y = ~7.82K/km (I was lazy and used 100% CO2 for this, also y = gamma) which isn't too far off from the ALR calculated from measurements using least squares = ~7.74K/km.

T(z) = Tsurface - ALR*z, by definition (~= 735 - 7.82z).
The barometric equation is P = Psurface*e^(-Mgz/RT).
Solving for z = -RT/Mg*ln(P/Psurface),
    and plugging into T(z), we get T(P) = Tsurface - (y-1)/y*Mg/R*RT/Mg*ln(Psurface/P)
    = T = Tsurface - (y-1)/y*T*ln(Psurface/P),
    rearranging, T(P)*(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P))) = Tsurface
    Thereforce T(P) = Tsurface/(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P)))

That's a nice experiment that I assume proves that CO2 absorbs IR better than air (and, like a greenhouse, heats up because of stopping convection, unlike the atmosphere).

It also completely ignores the dynamics of a CO2 based atmosphere like, say, Venus. From just the adiabatic lapse rate and barometric equation, you can easily see that Venus is hot because of 92 atmospheres of pressure, and a pure CO2 atmosphere would be slightly cooler than N2/O2 because of its lower specific heat capacity.

T(P) = Tsurface/(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P))) Derivation here

Unfortunately, The Union Of Concerned Scientists article is too busy with political arguments like consensus and conspiracy theories about Exxon's lobbying power to provide much info on how to get paid for regurgitating my undergrad thermodynamics text.

Do you have any ideas who I should contact to get funding to expand Venus' temperature caused by ~92 atmosphere of pressure into a more detailed paper?

Except that Venus' temperature is caused by ~92 atmosphere of pressure.

Derivation:
The adiabatic lapse rate = dT/dz = -Mg/R*(y-1)/y = ~7.82K/km (I was lazy and used 100% CO2 for this, also y = gamma) which isn't too far off from the ALR calculated from measurements using least squares = ~7.74K/km.

T(z) = Tsurface - ALR*z, by definition (~= 735 - 7.82z).
The barometric equation is P = Psurface*e^(-Mgz/RT).
Solving for z = -RT/Mg*ln(P/Psurface),
  and plugging into T(z), we get T(P) = Tsurface - (y-1)/y*Mg/R*RT/Mg*ln(Psurface/P)
  = T = Tsurface - (y-1)/y*T*ln(Psurface/P),
  rearranging, T(P)*(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P))) = Tsurface
  Thereforce T(P) = Tsurface/(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P)))

So the only things that cause the Greenhouse Effect (on Venus, water makes the calculation more complex for Earth) are specific heat capacity, and pressure. By the time CO2 reaches levels enough to affect the climate, we'd be dead from poisoning.

Yeah, I searched a bit more, and The Algonquin Wits would be from the Algonquin round table, which was from 1919-1929, so the Mussolini book is probably correct. This is going to bug me enough that since there's no clear answer on the internet I'll head to the library.

TO ANYONE COMING FROM A SEARCH ENGINE: my quote is probably incorrect, and I don't have a copy of The Algonquin Wits to look up the correct answer. Also, why are you looking up information on the internet, which was clearly created to spread vicious rumors and slander, half-truths, parroting stuff someone else said as verbatim, misattributes, and all other manner of general dishonesty.

There, I've served my penance.