What I find very entertaining is when trained scientists reach a conclusion based on what they know, only to have their lifework pulled apart by non-scientists using scientific information/studies.
Or when non-scientists explain in great detail how things work based on their “research”, untrained research I can add.
But dang man, just don’t believe a scientist. They are all “wrong”.
Cancel culture much? 
Also there is an amount of the spectrum, visible and others, that gets reflected back out to space. Consider the Earth, 70% of surface area is water, 30% land. Water is reflective to a degree, so is sand and snow, even the leaves of plants reflect visible light, hence the green colour. This is frequently not discussed and sometimes not even accounted for.
Groetnis
Therefore, I cannot see this diode analogy in the CO2 molecules. It cannot, to my estimation, and I am no chemist, have any preferential (diode) radiation or absorption ability, never mind retention. I have been wrong in the past, but there is nothing I could find that substantiate this notion.
Groetnis
Because I was already half asleep when I posted, I thought to expand upon my point:
In my line of work, (traditionally) what we make our living with is to predict probability weighted future events, discount these (to account for time value of money), and determine a pot of money we have to set aside today to know that we’ll be fine.
Three things generally complicate our models:
Three things generally come to our rescue:
As I understand, neither of the above three points exist to help the climate models. Firstly, they do not have the mechanics fully understood, secondly, they do not discount the future, or have “early” probability weighted outcome points in their projection, so they amplify any error spectacularly over the projection term.
And now for my little emotional part:
The points I made above I do not believe to be trivial to argue away. An argument is often made that we cannot discount the future, because it is the only future we have, any risk we take with it is too great. I do not agree with this for the simple fact that it is quite possible that in trying to save the unknown future, you destroy the known present (and much less distant and less unknown future). That is not to say that we should only live in the here and now. But a balance absolutely has to be struck. We cannot simply stop having children, stop industrial farming, stop distribution networks, kill all the domesticed animals.
What I don’t like is the anti-human sentiment to many of these climate talks where we as humans are always seen as the problem. Everything will be better without us, we destroy nature everywhere we touch it, we are the world’s only problem and we should have no impact on the planet.
My view is that we are part of nature, our actions and impacts aren’t “unnatural”, we give meaning to at least Earth and at most the entire universe. We transform the world and we preserve. We actually care for the planet and species going extinct, nothing else on Earth does. We should just remember to care for ourselves in the process as well, because a radical change will impact the poorest of us the most, and they will starve. To me, saving an future predicted by necessarily inaccurate models, populated by at best an incomplete set of assumptions, by starving billions today, is not a route I’m comfortable taking. This will be a future created by sacrificing our humanity.
Right, here is where I stand.
Something is happening all around us, all over the world, and it is affecting humans, plants, animals, the environment all over the globe.
Oceans are getting hotter, and less salty around the poles, glaciers are melting, poles are melting, bigger storms are hitting human settlements, bigger longer droughts, and floods, record cold spells, areas getting hotter, others colder affecting crops … all over the world.
We can debate the “science” we think we understand, rather, not understand, like the blind leading the blind.
Or we can acknowledge that we don’t have a clue and consider listening to more experienced people, just like we listen to experienced solar installers, electricians, mechanics … people who actually have experience on the matter, who are not armchair critics.
Ps. And humans, o man, we do mess up the nature around us, and badly so. There are millions of examples of that all over SA, and the world.
As I said before … do we acknowledge there is something going on?
OR are we going to lose this thread with theories and views and stats that we take so much time to try and explain to each other, info that has NO bearing really, on the topic?
Come on guys … that is why this topic gets so badly derailed everywhere.
Start here: Do you see things going sideways, or not, in and around your world, the world?
My view is that the feedback loop in those professions are very short. They make mistakes initially as well, realise it was a mistake because something went wrong, and they self-correct. This is crucial. Without a short feedback loop, you cannot self-correct.
The thing I see going sideways is the world’s politics. People are divided and all issues are treated as binary. People look for a scapegoat on every issue, one thing they can fix and then everything will be perfect again.
Hence my carefully worded question: Do YOU see things going sideways, or not, in and around your world, the world?
If we acknowledge that there is no problem, how come so much time and effort is made to point out that there is no problem?
Feels counter-intuitive.
I am absolutely in agreement with you there. At least from my own personal philosophical position, in many ways we are the custodians of this earth. We were actually called to look after the darn thing. That has an upside to it: We can in many ways do with it as we please, use it to our advantage. But it has a downside as well, the “use responsibly” clause. I reject both the extremes, the one that claims we (humans) are some kind of virus and we should really just kill ourselves (or stop having children, or what have you), or the other extreme, that we can do no wrong at all.
There is an anecdotal tale about Kant (the philosopher) attending a lecture by an astronomer. The astronomer concluded his lecture by saying: So you see, astronomically speaking, man is utterly insignificant. Kant replied: Professor, you forgot the most important thing. Man is the astronomer.
This is what I’m trying to get to. And to make it personal again: I absolutely cannot stand wastage. Throwing away food, running water unnecessarily, effectively I cannot stand using our limited resources in excess.
Congisant of not trying to come up with a simple solution to a complex problem, I do think we would alleviate a great deal of unnecessary impact on our environment by “living within our means”, and still eat enough, travel when needed, build houses, roads, and produce art.
Your means, and my means and others on here and still others around our World’s means differ. So according to who’s means do we need to live then?
Groetnis
Yes, this is the complexity of it. But I guess the same applies - Try not to waste resources (i.e. destroy value), even if you have the money to do so. Don’t use warm water when cold water will do. 
Ask yourself this one simple question: Is a greenhouse hotter on the inside than its surrounds?
Every single principle you have just described applies just the same to the greenhouse, except that they are atoms in the glass that are heating up and radiating IR.
The greenhouse effect is well tested and understood. There are even simple experiments you can do for yourself at home to test and verify them:
Man, indeed, everything is very much more nuanced than that. I grew up on a farm, yonks ago, it was a real farm and we depended on that to live. So the do not waste mantra are there from childhood. Also the appreciation for growing your own food, including meat, and be thankful for it’s life to sustain yours.
Groetnis
Still no answer to my question …
Like “living within our means” should be “what do you need to live”?
We need air, water, and healthy food… all of which come from nature around us.
When one reduces it back to bare-bones basics, ask the right questions, debates become so much simpler.
Again, it’s not that simple… And that is half the problem. We do not have that cover over the planet. The dynamics are vastly different. In a greenhouse, for example, we do not have weather, now ind blowing in from the arctic regions bringing in cold air. Nowhere for the hot trapped gasses to rise and adiabatically cooling, no easy and free radiation of the heat waves to space…
Way way more complicated than that. Besides, most greenhouses, commercially, inject co2 at about 1000ppm into the greenhouses, but not to heat, for plants to absorb and grow. Plants are carbon after all.
Groetnis
And heat or we freeze to death in some parts. Het may also be shelter.
Groetnis
There is a feedback loop, and we are living in it today. Every day we get more data on the climate and how it is changing.
And surprisingly those original ‘doom and gloom’ models from the 70s are still correct, even though we have not seen the ‘doom and gloom’.
There are two main reasons for this:
And we need it for everybody on the planet. Which is a large part of the global supply chain’s reason to exist. But I’m not of the view that “live” and “survive” is the same thing. To live and give meaning to what surrounds us, humans also need to be creative, i.e. produce art. I’m happy for human civilisation to “thrive”, not just “live” and not just “survive”. But to thrive you don’t need to be wasteful.
Also drilled in since childhood, both sides of the family came from farming background, so I close the tap while I brush my teeth. 
Until you start burning the plants, cutting down massive swaths of forests for building materials, shopping malls, profit … then the balance is upset … and I’m not aware of any other living organism on earth that destroys vegetation as well as humans do.
You still have not touched on why the poles are melting, if the Co2 debate is 'fake".
For I’ve read that the huge white areas on the poles/glaciers / snowy mountain caps are reflected heat back into space. With less ice and snow, it is going to get dicey, and the oceans becoming less salty.
Also, the biggest absorber of Co2 is the ocean.
And the oceans are getting saturated, therefore more acidic.
EDIT: Guess what absorbs most of the heat on earth? The oceans.
The Earth’s atmosphere is indeed far more complex than a simple greenhouse, but the basic laws of physics apply to both.
The Earth is still a closed system, exactly like a greenhouse. A greenhouse does indeed ahve adiabatic flows and adiabatic cooling (all be it on a smaller scale), and if it was long enough it would have the equivalent of polar flows. And conduction (from air cooling the outside of the greenhouse glass) is orders of magnitude more effective at cooling than radiation.
There is no climate scientist anywhere - not even the most rabid anti-anthropogenic climate change ones - that will deny the effect of greenhouse gasses. There is no climate theory that can even begin to explain the Earth’s temperature profile without some sort of greenhouse effect.