Nippy
You are correct that CO2’s greenhouse effect follows a logarithmic curve. Each doubling of CO2 adds less incremental warming. No one sane from the warmist side can deny that. Worse for the alarmists, absorption in the 15um range (and its wings from pressure broadening) is already largely saturated at the surface. So adding more CO2 will have a minute effect, if any.
Let’s be precise, CO2 doesn’t "trap heat" in the troposphere. It absorbs IR photons in the 15um band and its wings, but under high-pressure, high-collision conditions near the surface, this energy is transferred via collisions. There may be a minute amount that manages to radiatively de-excite (RDE), but overall, this energy is not stored as "heat." The dominant energy pathways at the surface are conduction, convection, and latent heat—not radiative trapping.
Correlation in the NOAA graphs doesn’t imply causation. CO2 is a minor player compared to water vapor and solar-driven dynamics. Reducing CO2 will not reduce absorbed 15um + wings energy; water vapor will continue to absorb in those bands as it already does.
H2O outnumbers CO2 by tens of thousands to one. CO2 is a minor bit player in the energy balance. What H2O misses, CO2 may pick up, but since the 15um band is already saturated, it’s really a moot point.
