Well there's this meta study of about 12000 papers on the subject http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/0240... which finds that roughly 97% of the published literature support that conclusion.

I am more interested in a single paper which really proves either point, or at least presents compelling evidence. Im sure there are a bunch out there, so id like to read some of them.

Note that the natural science doesn't work as "proving the theorems" (mathematics even isn't natural science) but as "establishing the facts." It's like a doing the detective work, collecting "exhibits" and then bringing it to the jury, the jury then can decide which exhibits are valid etc.

The jury is the total community of the scientists who devoted their lives to learn as much as possible about the topics they judge.

If you ask "as a beginner" you should first learn about the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

If it's too hard for you to grasp how it functions, imagine that you cover yourself with the invisible plastic bag. The bag won't produce any heat but it would prevent the heat from your body to dissipate as it would otherwise, effectively warming you up. The same way function the greenhauses. CO2 has that effect for Earth, known since 1824 and elaborated since.

Im fine with compelling evidence, but I just want to read something that demonstrates a high likylihood that there is in fact global warming and that it is caused by humans.

I figure that there have to be 2-3 solid research papers on the subject.

It's simple: CO2 greenhouse effect is proven, the concentration of CO2 is measured and is increasing, the temperature is measured and is increasing. Clever science can figure out even CO2 concentrations and temperatures of the times when nobody measured.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

The expected rise of CO2 closely matches our fosil fuels consumption.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natu...

Perhaps The summaries from IPCC ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Summary_for_Policymaker... ) is more your thing?

Not a paper, but this NASA site is pretty good:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

(Better hurry before it gets taken down…)

Or look at the IPCC's Synthesis Report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FI...

If it's about the sites, I like this short and animated:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo...

(Always press down arrow to get the next page)

To understand why people are obsessed with "just around a degree" of observed change, see this xkcd comics to get an idea how fast the change is compared to what we know (and we, be sure, do!) about the past:

https://xkcd.com/1732/

All the scientists of the world organized the production of the reports together since 1990, supported by almost all governments of the world, including those who would otherwise benefit from bigger fossil fuel use. The conclusion is: human-made climate change, and if nothing is done, the effects are dire.

Note: there was no scientific valid input that would disprove the human-caused climate change, and believe me, different countries would push hard had they been.

The first report was produced 1990, the fifth, updated 2014, here it is the full "synthesis" part of the report, PDF, 14 MB:

http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_f...

A little longer explanation then mine in Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Cli...

Additionally, it is proved, by looking at the yearly reports, year after year, that Exxon finances the "deniers." Just to give you the idea how you can possibly doubt: when there's a TV show to be made, there's one real scientist, to represent all the scientists of the world, and on another side a paid pre-selected person to pose as the "alternative view."

So the public sees "oh, it's 50:50." It's not, it's rather more like 99.9:0.1. You can always find some extremists, even among the scientists. But even those found "denying" are typically from some other branch of science, effectively out of their range of expertise.

The another reason for what appears to be 50:50 is that the politicians of a whole big US party, almost without the exception, identify themselves with the financiers and "dance the denial."

The big interested financiers can't disprove it, but they can produce enough confusion to prevent some political decisions to occur, and that is good enough for them. Relatively little money (for them) gives them a lot. That the whole planet is affected, they don't care.

---

Edit: answer to your "ocean temperatures":

Now, it's really measured. For the past, a lot of work:

http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/proxies/paleocli...

I skimmed the first report, but it left me curious about how scientists measure ocean temp (today, 50 years ago, way before)

Wikipedia's stuff is excellent.