I really don't like the way the narrative is presented. First of all, the radiation is thermal radiation. Air with CO2 at close temperature to the surface emi

I really don't like the way the narrative is presented. First of all, the radiation is thermal radiation. Air with CO2 at close temperature to the surface emitting thermal radiation has no bad effect whatsoever on how fast the energy radiates out. Two things at the same temperature will always be at equilibrium, and the least thermal radiation you can emit is black body radiation like the surface. So the narrative of looking at it like it's radiation scattering might be true for high up in the atmosphere where the temperature difference from the surface is high - but very misleading and leads to bad intuition in low attitudes. CO2 also tends to stay in lower attitudes. There are other effects from CO2 that also go the other way. CO2 has increased heat capacity, it's heavier than air, and it might have a cooling effect because it increases the effectiveness of convection. What's the leading cause? By how much? I don't know. You need to do the calculation properly and find out. This is physics not humanistic subject. You don't judge with narratives. Narratives are misleading, calculations are what matters. If you bring your narrative to the calculation and the only effect of CO2 in your calculation is the radiation, that's even worse. Thermodynamic systems also tend to reach equilibrium, so if you have errors in any parameters in the description of the system, your errornous system with the current state of the real system will be out of equilibrium in the errornous simulation. You should always expect simulations with imprecise data to be less stable than the real system itself.