True. But you leave out the part Arhenius got wrong. More CO2 raises the optical depth (in layman speak, the top of the GHG radiative ‘fog’ above which IR is free to radiate to space and cool). This has two consequences. First, by Euclidean geometry, there is a greater radiating surface so more cooling. Second, by altitude lapse rate, the higher ‘fog top’ is colder, so cools less per surface time flux.
The net is a logarithmic relationship first posited by Guy Callendar in 1938. More CO2 means less warming. But not none, as M asserts.
M’s theory that GE ‘does not exist’ is nonsense. See downthread. What he presumably meant (assuming rational thought, perhaps a shakey presumption) was that it has long been saturated due to feedbacks. Unlikely.
But that does not change the basic log physics, which say more CO2 contributes less direct warming.
If you wish to be well regarded here, you really should show better mastery of simple basics, rather than post an easy Google images chart proving only that you don’t.
For the elementary school version of this (here kindergarten) basic physics lesson, see essay Sensitive Uncertainty in Blowing Smoke, a book Judith recommended that you have evidently not yet read. Cheap.
