Fact of the matter is, each doubling of CO2 concentrations yields 4 Wm2. 250 to 500 gives us an additional 4 Wm2. 500 to 1000 gives us the same 4 Wm2. 1000 to 2000 gives us yet another 4 Wm2. In my book, that's a logarithmic relationship.
I'd be looking at your own posts, before accusing others of spreading junk science, samwise.
I'm no math whiz, and I may have some things wrong; but not the stuff I cite....
Isn't there a big difference between geometric progressions and logarithmic progressions?
===
Real quickly ("Lunchtime Little Theatre")... Those look like good links, but I haven't looked yet.
I don't think anything I've said will conflict with those sources you've cited.
My objection is to that bar graph (yellow w/ blue bars, wasn't it?), and the conclusions made about CO2 having no effect on warming, based on that graph. Has anyone, even climatAudit, found the source of that graph?
Any citation for it?
Sorry to eat and run; I'll look at this more tonight....
~Thanks.
