As for heat transport, one simple and powerful pipeline through the troposphere is surface cooling by evaporation, followed by heating at cloudtops by condensation with resultant blackbody and convective transfers up, up, and away. “Open Sesame”, the uncovered pot.

Data cannot prove anything until you get to statistical correlation over 2 standard deviations AND show the correlation is cause effect where cause precedes effect.

If the temperature change precedes the CO2 increase, then it’s not proven.

From there it’s just conduction and convection. The effect of CO2 concentration on conduction and convection is trivial.

A large part of the problem is you are dealing with screaming girls and girlie men. They are too busy screaming to listen.

I have a Bachelor’s degree in science. Why did I not receive a ballot for this vote?

Seriously, you are making an “appeal to authority” here, not a scientific argument. Just because the Earth is getting warmer, does not mean CO2 is the cause. There’s a correlation between US National Debt and Global Temperature, as well as incidence of autism, decrease in Congressional IQ, bagginess of blue jeans, and many other extraneous phenomena.

In order to prove CO2 is a cause, one needs to provide a physical mechanism backed by mathematical proofs for the physical properties of CO2 to prevent heat from returning to space, or slowing it to the extent that less heat escapes during darkness before the next sunrise than would otherwise occur.

That’s never been done. Where’s the beef?

And don’t just say “But it absorbs IR!” It does absorb IR, and it re-emits IR (net flow warm to cold, i.e. upward) , and it conducts heat to surrounding molecules (net flow warm to cold, i.e. upward), and it convects heat (net flow toward less density, i.e. upward). So right there, it is obvious it doesn’t prevent upward flow of heat.

So your only recourse is to show that all of these atmospheric mechanisms slow the upward transfer of heat when the air consists of 99.961137% other stuff instead of 99.965% other stuff, and CO2 only absorbs about 8% of the blackbody radiation (http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html).

Oh, and it absorbs virtually all of that 8% within 10 meters of the surface. And only an insignificant amount is re-emitted, since the absorption is not by electron orbitals, but rather absorption through molecular bond. In other words, the photons are essentially converted directly to mechanical heat (i.e. temperature), which is then overwhelmingly transported by conduction and convection.

There can be no significant change to overall radiant flux in any part of the atmosphere, since the altitude difference where the (8%of) IR converts to temperature is trivial for any CO2 concentration capable of supporting photosynthesis (i.e. being able to grow food to shove into your piehole).

To sum up, scientists may agree that the planet has been warming overall for the past 100 years, and cooling before that, and warming before that, etc. (ad nauseum). A rational scientist would not just take a bunch of temperature readings over a few decades from weather stations that are inconsistently maintained, poorly operated and fraudulently analyzed, and then run around screaming like a little girl. Rather, he would hypothesize a mechanism, and propose a sound, logical analysis that shows why that mechanism is the best explanation, and what physical measurements could be made to falsify that mechanism.

There go your calculations.

http://www.harrykey.com/blogs/climategate-uturn-no-warming-since-1995/

Sum the mass of glaciers that are growing – and you have to include those in antarctica – vs. those that are receding, and we still have increasing glacial mass.

BTW the point is well made, that after the mini ice age ended, which no one in AGW circles seems to want to discuss, the earth’s temperature has been increasing – which is what you would expect.
This 10,000 year extended interglacial period that we are in
has an average temperature (mini ice age included) that is HIGHER than the current average temperature of the planet – most of that time WITHOUT man’s influence.

This higher temperature did not kill the planet did it!

So all the alarmist propaganda is just that – and intended to leverage the socialist/communist influence over society.

Clearly just looking at spectral response, water vapor is more than 3x more effective at absorbing in the part of the spectrum where earth radiates.

Overall on average the atmosphere is made up of about 1% water vapor, however that averaging it over the entire volume of the atmosphere.
In the troposphere the average is higher than 1%.
BTW your assertion that water vapor only extends up about 3 km is not true. Clearly it snows on the top of Mt. Everest – which is almost 9 km high. There has to be water vapor present in order for snow to fall. There are also high clouds made up of ice crystals – formed from condensed water vapor that froze.

CO2 makes up just 0.038% of the atmosphere by volume.
You multiply the difference in effectiveness at absorbing IR by the greater proportion in the atmosphere and you come with a factor of over 100x more pronounced greenhouse effect for water vapor than for CO2.