> Secondly, think about this thought experiment: a layer of pure CO2 gas covers the lowest layer of air near the surface. By how much would that get warmer compared to air? The answer is there won't be any difference. That's because the surface and the air near it are at the same temperature, so they emit exactly the same amount of energy.

You've added an assumption in your question that the entire atmosphere is at the same temperature. This is trivially false; the atmosphere varies greatly in temperature. Some levels of the atmosphere can heat others, and indeed would do so more if those levels are composed of gasses which absorb more energy in the frequencies emitted, like CO2 does in practice.

> the absorption is possible only because the molecules have more degrees of freedom to vibrate.

The gases in the atmosphere are not blackbodies. They absorb different amounts of radiation at different frequencies because of those vibrational modes. If you substitute a gas in the atmosphere that absorbs no infrared with one that absorbs a lot of infrared, the atmosphere overall absorbs more energy and therefore warms.

> Except these models are dumpster fire. You can download some of them from NASA's website and judge the quality of code for yourself. Old fortran code, all the models copy code from each other,

The code quality has absolutely nothing to do with the predictive power of those models. Unless you have found bugs in the code, this is irrelevant.

> many things which aren't constant physically are constant in the code, functions full of tens of "if else" statements whose physical validity is highly in question.

Of course simplifying assumptions have been made. Can you point to an example of a variable made constant that you think is an oversimplification that would change the predictions so drastically as to remove warming from added CO2?

> There are also other glaring counter intuitive things about the narrative. Somehow CO2 effects continue to work slowly over decades, and the system doesn't reach an equilibrium with the current levels of CO2 until decades ahead.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. It seems like you're implying that all thermodynamic changes to a system have to occur instantaneously. We may also not reach equilibrium for a very long time, if (as is very possible!) the warming of the Earth decreases its albedo.

> This is completely against normal thermodynamic intuition. Meta stable states exist, yes, and there are out of equilibrium systems. But usually the reason for systems not reaching the more stable state, is that their fluctuations are too small. In this case, the fluctuations are much much bigger than the supposed stable state change. We're talking about barely a degree change over decades in systems that fluctuate by several degrees daily. It makes no sense to claim their equilibrium will only be reached in decades while their fluctuation exceeds the difference to equilibrium daily.

I'm sorry, but your understanding of thermodynamics is extremely flawed. Metastable states have nothing to do with this. You are also making the basic error of confusing weather with climate here. The temperature increase that is discussed in climate science is an increase in the total energy of the atmosphere. By increasing the ability of the atmosphere to absorb energy, you increase its energy.

You are also arguing against models but have completely failed to address the fact that the atmosphere _is warming_. This is being measured and is no longer a hypothetical.