Doesn't the ocean generally already absorb more energy than the air during the day because 'the sun'?
That's called solar forcing (not Greenhouse effect).
And yes, if the surface temps are going up, that's an indication of solar forcing and variations in solar output or Milankovitch cycles -- but not of CO2 forcing.
And CO2 would just make the air warmer so something that already doesn't 'work well' (water - air heat transfer) would now 'work even less well'? So CO2 is going to reduce the rate at which the oceans can release heat. Which would make them _______ over time....
Again, you have that backwards.
Transfer from gas -> liquid is low because you're going from less mass to more mass. (It takes a lot of gas to heat a little water). But it doesn't mean that liquid/solid to gas is poor. Quite the opposite. You're going from more mass to less, so it has far more effect.
CO2 does not reduce the rate at which oceans release heat directly.
In an indirect way -- if CO2 theoretically heated up the air a lot, it could reduce the differential between ocean and air and reduce the radiative cooling of the ocean->air -- but that means that Ocean temps would be going up far slower than upper atmosphere temps. And thus you wouldn't see people showing how surface temps are higher (they'd only be a little higher) they'd be showing the MUCH much larger upper atmosphere temp rises that are driving it.
But they aren't showing upper atmosphere or air temps, because they are not going up as much as Ocean/Land temps have. Which shows things like urban heat island effect, or solar forcing or something other than CO2. But most climate advocates don't understand enough basic physics to understand what they're saying is hurting their cause to anyone with a clue.
What else could be the cause of the warming of the oceans?
- Solar output
- variations in the Earths Orbit (Milankovitch cycles)
- Volcanism
- Meteorological events
- Plate Tectonics
- Ocean Variability
- Flora and Fauna
All but the last one, more impactful than the greenhouse effect. And CO2 is the weakest of the greenhouse gasses.
That's the point. When you hear hooves think horses not Zebras. (Unless you're on the Serengeti).
You're conflating adding heat with losing less heat. CO2 doesn't increase the heating of the oceans... it reduces the rate of heat loss. Which since the input of thermal energy from the sun hasn't decreased means the oceans get warmer because that's how numbers work.
I'm not. I'm understanding the basics.
The upper atmosphere is not in contact with the ocean. It's not the insulator -- the lower atmosphere is. The only thing the upper atmosphere (where the CO2 is) can do is heat the lower atmosphere, which could have a minor impact on the effect you're talking about. But that still means we would observe massive heating in the upper and lower atmosphere before we would perceive any changes in ocean or surface temps. And we haven't seen them, or you can damn well be sure they would be reporting on it, and screaming about the doom and gloom of it.
The point is that a suns output increases and decreases, as does our distance, tilt and wobble. These are all massive inputs on climate/weather. (CO2 is very minor).
You're seeing ocean/land warming leading upper and lower atmosphere. That shows warming -- but not CO2 as the driver of it. (In fact, it shows the opposite). Many climate folks have said that models are broken because they underweight solar forcing -- and this more likely shows they are correct, or we'd be seeing the opposite warming. (The poles going up more thna urban centers, and the upper atmosphere more than the ocean/land). But most online parents home dwelling Greta wannabe's don't know the basics of the science they've bought into completely.