How much did acadmics get right about the climate?

I thought I would set myself a challenge: how much did academics get right about the climate. I probably missed a few things, but the answer is “not much”.
I’m going to ignore the stupid academic argument that climate is any period longer than their retirement date (so no chance of being proved wrong) and instead use the pragmatic definition that “climatology” is the subject of understanding the behaviour of the atmosphere over periods significantly greater than the yearly seasonal cycle.
So what did those studying this area actually get right? When I checked what was predicted against what actually happened, the only claims with any credibility were:

• A rise in CO2
• Some melting of Greenland (but I’ve since seen evidence to doubt that one)
• A rise in rainfall (again I’m not certain about this as I recall that when I last checked there was no trend)
• Sea level rise (not as a result of late-twentieth century warming, but because there has been a steady underlying rise)

But what about the theoretical basis? Can any theories about the climate be said to have been proven largely correct or even generally accepted?

• Natural variation – correct! (but as most academics publicly strenuously deny natural climate change, it’s hardly a point in their favour).
• CO2 warming – I am convinced that theoretically rising CO2 should lead to higher temperatures, but I have yet to see ANY evidence proving this theoretical connection (but see below).
• Greenhouse warming – I have yet to see any description of greenhouse warming from academics that fits the actual physics. That is not to say that the academics don’t understand the greenhouse effect, just that I’ve yet to see proof they do understand how the greenhouse effect really works (and usually when I start thinking this way I find they don’t know!). As such, given the clear lack of understanding of academia and the clear complexity of the climate, I would need to see firm evidence of the effect of CO2 before I could say for certain that it actually causes any warming let alone significant warming.
• Ice-ages … there is no real understanding of the ice-age cycle.
• Changes of CO2 & temperature over 100s of millions of years. A few: oxygen from photo-synthesis & “rusting of the planet”. Perhaps the link between CO2 levels and plant evolution (probably disputed).
• Geological Carbon cycle – disputed
• Geological nitrogen cycle – I’ve never heard any suggestions
• Thermal expansion of the crust (Caterpillar theory) – denied and/or ignored.
• PDO, Atlantic Multi-decadel, El Nino … some understanding of what symptoms appear, but I’ve yet to see any understanding of why they occur or their role in the climate.
• Solar activity – probably one of the biggest breakthroughs in our understanding of the climate and in science in general is the understanding of how solar activity could affect the climate. Those involved deserve noble prizes – denied because it did not fit the eco-politics of academia.
• Greening of the sahara – not understood
• Urban heating from cutting down plant growth (either not understood or intentionally hidden)
• The role of particulates and e.g. how reducing atmospheric pollution could have been partly responsible for the increase in temperatures after the 1970s clean air acts (either not understood or intentionally hidden)
• The role of volcanoes in cooling the climate (accepted, but lacking credibility when human emissions are then denied as a reason the climate was cooler in the 1970s)
• That the sun keeps us warm (I was getting desperate) and that our temperature is affected by our distance to the sun.
• Moon? (Again I’m tugging at straws – as I’ve nothing much to say about the moon and climate.)

Any others?