> I'm on the side of "Question authority" and you seem to be on the side of "Accept authority". That's fine, but I'm not interested in taking conclusions as gospel simply because NASA says so, no matter how many models nor lines of code were used.

I never said that. What I've said was:

> Everybody who has enough knowledge to be able to check the formulas and who has enough integrity to admit what he didn't know, and who doesn't have some hidden agenda would have to come to the same conclusion. Read the pages on his site.

So no, it's not easy. If you are able to check the formulas, you can see they are right. If you aren't, you can claim that "it's not enough" and it will of course never be enough because it demands certain capabilities of the reader. You have to go slowly, formula after formula, and do simplified calculations, for which you don't need a supercomputer.

Once you understand formulas, and you understand that they are right, you could say "OK but I'd like to know what the more precise calculations would bring, if I'd apply these formulas separately on every small point of the earth, and then see how the parameters dynamically change through the time." Note: You don't need that to verify the validity of the warming physics, you need that "only" to know how your part of the Earth would typically behave through the time, including all the oscillations, ups and downs.

Then you would have either to write one another model, just like 63 models written by the scientists worldwide. Or you'd simply understand "from the inside" how the existing models work, and be able to accept that what is presented on the Bloomberg page I've linked is real (because once you have enough knowledge of what is in the program you don't have to repeat every step to see that the results do follow from the calculations).

The scientific paper about the computing model used on the Bloomberg page was also linked on that same page:

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/mi08910y.html

as well as the measurements:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

So you surely had enough references even before.

Like I've said, the physics is real and there are no errors. If you can't understand the physics, then you are unable to be able to "check" anybody. And the physics is not simple as pre-school math:

If you can't understand this:

http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page20.htm
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page21.htm

and this:

http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page8.htm

just don't ask me anymore for the proofs, because you are either incapable or unwilling to work it through. You have to do a lot of work, if you haven't before, and based on what you answered up to now, it's effectively sure you haven't, otherwise you'd ask about some detail in some formula, if you missed only that.

That is if you want to work through the formulas. If you don't but you want to see everything worked through, the shortest version is the Bloomberg article I've given you, and the longest the IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FI...

https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR...

https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR...

https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_w...

https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR...

(all from: https://archive.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ )

In the IPCC is effectively the summary of everything all the world scientists know about the topics, together, the result of the consensus of all the world scientists qualified enough to be able to work on the topics. It's long and complex, and long exactly because it addresses many different details.

And all that is full of references (which aren't lacking on the pages of the former skeptic too). So you can work through it as much as you want. Don't trust, check the formulas, really go through them yourself. The former skeptic did it too (he had the background in spectroscopy, luckily for him) . I've done it, I've did go through the points for which I didn't accept "it is said it's so" (and I, luckily for me, have enough background in physics). Every student of these sciences does it, every year the new ones. It is doable.