Seems to me that citing authorities in an extremely complex scientific area is...entirely appropriate.
You, however, have convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt that you don’t care what the science says.
Much like a creationist, you’ll devise all sorts of scientific sounding arguments to pose as a rational thinker.
I care what the data says, I only care what individual scientist say when they can support their statements with data.
While the quantum energy states of CO2 are complex, the actual results are not.
Earlier in this thread I posted this graph, related to the know amounts of forcing warming compared
to the observed warming.
Let's take them one at a time base on the currently accepted science.
The observed temperature according to the HadCrut4 set has increased by .9 C since 1850
on a 10 year average.
CO2 has increased from 285 ppm to 406 ppm,
To keep from hitting a moving target I used Baede, 2001's 2XCO2 number of 4 W·m–2,
so 4/ln(2)=5.77, 5.77 X ln(406/285)=2.04 W·m–2
The conversion used by Baede and the American Chemical society is that .3C per W·m–2.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html
so 2.04 W·m–2 X .3 =
.612 C from the added CO2 forcing
CH4 levels have increased from 792 ppb to 1822 ppb, resulting in an energy imbalance of,
.51 X ln(1822/792)=.42 W·m–2 or .42 X .3=
.126 C forcing warming.
The .51 multiplier, is from the ACS page above
The radiative forcing for CH4 is determined in a way analogous to that for CO2.
For the increase of CH4 from about 375 to about 675 ppb, ΔFCH4 ≈ 0.3 W·m–2.
Please stop me if you spot any errors, or cannot follow along.
lastly, since 1850 the total solar iridescence, on a 10 year average, has increased by .308 W·m–2,
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.txt
The external imbalance would also cause forcing of .308 W·m–2 X .3 =
.092 C
These know factors add up to .83 C of the observed .90 C of warming,
leaving only .07 C for all possible other factors, including positive feedbacks, aerosol reductions, ect.
Much of the alarmist concerns are based on the idea of the results of doubling the CO2 level.
It looks like the ECS if we could actually double the CO2 level would be about 1.8 C.
I think we will be off of fossil fuels long before we get close to doubling the CO2 level.