Re: Ocean Acidification is not as Arguable as "Global Warming"
"Normally, the same amount of heat comes in from the sun as goes out through the atmosphere, and the average temperature pof the planet stays the same."
Nope. The energy released by the sun fluctuates. The amount reaching the Earth varies with distance, which also fluctuates. Otherwise why has the earth enjoyed such great variation in climate (Temperate and Glacial tend to be extremes). This is the basis of why we have a variable climate.
What has been noted is that energy escaping from Earth associated with CO2 and Methane have dropped sharply in proportion to ground readings where as other frequencies have not. The ground readings fluctuate, and so should the satellite readings - and hence we have the great global warming scare. Sorry, climate change - global warming was pretty much busted when the mean temperature of the earth didn't rise as much as predicted.
Point to note, however: CO2 releases energy at two monitored frequencies. Only one of those frequencies has dropped - the other is still escaping in proportion as expected. Also, the frequency range monitored is limited: It is possible there are spikes at other frequencies that are not monitored, and these might have an impact on the climate models and predictions.
"There is no leap of faith to say that increasing atmospheric CO2 would lead to a greater absorption of infrared leading to atmospheric heating. The infrared that is absorbed may be remitted by the atmosphere, but unlike heat radiated from the Earth's surface, this happens in all directions, approximately 50% of which are not into space."
There's a saturation point in the absorption properties of CO2. Plus, CO2 does not uniformly absorb and release energy - so as one CO2 molecule releases stored energy, another might absorb it. End result is there is more *potential* energy stored in the atmosphere, but there will be an absolute limit - not a runaway cycle as proposed by some climate change models.
Yes, the energy gets release down as well as up - not 50%, mind: you're forgetting it radiates out in all directions so that means sideways, too. However... what proportion is being absorbed back into the ground and what proportion gets reflected back into the sky? And please note this is IR, and as such travels rather quickly...
"Climate 'skeptics' tend to fixate on the fact that these do not offer an accurate picture, when examining some in minute detail, whist purposefully ignoring the wider picture which deos seem to show that more CO2 = hotter planet."
No. Climate Skeptics 'fixate' on the way the hard data is manipulated to support the proposed climate change models. The models predict a hotter planet, but the skeptics are asking why the facts show rising CO2 but no change to average temperatures until those temperature readings are 'adjusted'. I.e. stop fiddling the figures to match the model and people will stop being skeptics.
"Science has no agenda, but those responsible for emitting large amounts of CO2, such as oil companies, power providers, and large manufacturers certainly do."
Science has an agenda: To expand knowledge and explain how things work. Pure science does not have a political agenda. However, others who do have political agendas, and selfish agendas, take that science and abuse it to forward their own aims. That is regardless of if they are a company, manufacturer or a lobby
"I'd advise you to ignore the propaganda and learn the science."
And that is good advice.