As to the added effect of CO2, you'll still talking about a very thin spectrum of the EM band and I've found nothing to suggest that that band is special in anyway.
Also, I've found some indication that this notion of heat trapping assumes a vacuum between the lower atmosphere and the upper atmosphere. Because after all, heat can move freely through the atmosphere simply by one gas touching another.
Lets say I had something that was hot... and I put that hot thing in a transparent bubble of CO2... are you suggesting that the hot thing would cool off or lose its heat more slowly than if the bubble were filled with nitrogen or oxygen or helium? Because I don't think that matters.
I mean, what we're really talking about here is light captured from the sun rays reflecting off the earth and being turned into heat before they can be make it out of the atmosphere. Right?
How much of the Earth's reflectivity is even in that spectrum in the first place? Because we're not talking about sunlight at that point. We're talking about Earth light.... like moonlight... just whatever the earth emits when the sun shines on it.
So we're looking at very narrow spectrum... how much of the earth's reflected light is even in that band? how much energy are we talking about?
And if some significant amount of energy is turned into heat by CO2... it would seem that the heat could just work its way through the atmosphere to emit into space. I saw several people complaining about the way this issue is discussed talking about how the treatment of this heat trapping effect assumes a vacuum between the lower atmosphere and the upper atmosphere. I think I cited the scientific term for the effect in play before. I can do it again.
As to Ocean acidification, I'm not sure about that as well. Apparently only records since 1988 are considered valid and if you look at record that go back an additional 60 years you don't see the same trend line. The data before that is not counted apparently because it isn't considered accurate. But absent a longer trend line I don't know if you can claim what is and is not the ocean's baseline.
Would you mind citing an ocean acidification graph that goes back more than 20 years? Ideally as far back as possible.
Here is one thing I found that is sort of interesting to me anyway:
I'm actually downloading the data he's citing from the NOAA. There is a site I didn't know about where any jerk can query data from an automated system. It apparently takes hours for the data to be pulled. So I'll wait for the email and then I'll have a download link for some giant excel files.
This is a thing I see a lot... cherry picking the beginning of trend. So if you back out you'll see some graph that shoots up and down and up and down all over the place. But the graph as cited in many contexts will start at some arbitrary year that perfectly allows them to show a clean linear trend line that would be unsupportable if you showed a slightly longer time scale and noticed that before going up or down it was going down or up by some equal measure.
I feel more comfortable with longer trend lines.
As to how heat leaves our atmosphere, the CO2 isn't in the upper atmosphere pretty much at all. So... I don't know why you're saying the CO2 is relevant up there. If the heat is transferred to the upper atmosphere then its going to emit it the same way it always did. The CO2 isn't even up there. Just like the water vapor, the CO2 is mostly concentrated in the lower atmosphere.
As to this energy budget thing... this is interesting:
Examine figure 1... .6 watts per square meter is the imbalance... with a margin of error of 17 watts.
I mean... when your margin of error exceed your value... you basically have no idea.
I mean... lets say you tell me that a man is measured to be six feet tall... with a margin of error of plus or minus 30 feet... The measurement is meaningless in that case.
As to your question about whether a scientific paper has ever misrepresented itself... this is a very odd statement you're making. You're suggesting that no scientist has ever lied? I mean... do I need to cite the dozens of science fraud cases that have come up lately... mostly in medical science? I mean... okay. I'll just cite those so you appreciate that I can't just assume someone isn't lying. And I'll point out that that isn't how science works either. You don't just accept what anyone says. You test it.
So just because you publish something and it gets peer reviewed, it doesn't mean anything in the paper is valid or that the underlying conclusions of the paper are beyond criticism. Scientists are people and people lie for all the reasons that people do anything. Ego, money, power, peer pressure... name anything that can motivate a person to do anything and if that motivation becomes strong enough it can overwhelm other considerations.
As to whether my own intelligence is enough... you're missing the point. It has to be enough. If it isn't then I have no choice but to simply assume something is valid or disbelieve everything by default.
I'm not doing either.
As to my difficulty with ocean heat content, you couldn't translate that figure into temperature either so don't try to high hat or brow beat me on that one, sport. I'm doing my best to give you the benefit of the doubt and be respectful. But don't let that go to your head and assume that you can presume you've a greater command over this stuff than I do unless you can actually demonstrate that by converting that calculation into a more useful unit of measure.
I mean... if I wanted to, I could sit here and look at estimates of the mass of the ocean at the depth ranges they're citing and then divide the joules by the number of tonnes of water... and then I could figure out what that number of joules would do that that mass of water... but think we both know the temp difference that would come out of that calculation is going to be some tiny fraction of a degree at best. And from what I've seen of the historical graphs... the numbers are jumping around all over the place when you back out to merely centuries of time much less millennia. And that frankly makes it hard to claim we have a problem unless you can show a long term trend line. I keep looking at all these trend lines and they keep starting in the 80s or something. Its ridiculous.
As to the consensus argument you're now making... that is a political argument and not a scientific one. I'm not interested in it unless you want to have a political discussion about voter roles or something.