I'm not sure your "facts" can be validated. There is naturally produced CO2 from lungs, volcanoes and all plant life, which gives off CO2 at night.

Then there's manmade CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

If one calculates CO2 in the atmosphere and that also absorbed by the oceans. Then CO2 levels are in uncharted territory.

Burning wood is sustainable as new wood replaces what we burn. At least it did. But we are using up our forests at more than a football field a day.

We know from the fossil record that at one time due to volcanic activity, that all life on earth was nearly destroyed! And we face a similar prospect if we sit on our hands or listen to dismissive right wing conservative ideologs like the Author.

Who think the sky will fall if we stop burning fossil fuels. Wrong, wrong, wrong! And demonstrably so! We can replace fossil fuels with nuclear power as perfected MSR thorium and with power prices as low or lower than 3 cents PKWH! Transport can be electrified.

And for portable fuel, we can use carbon neutral hydrogen. Breakthroughs in production have made the latter more than competitive with petrol, diesel and jet fuel.

We need to transition to the aforementioned ASAP and in so doing, create massive job and wealth creating opportunities and an economy on steroids/unprecedented economic growth!

Nothing to fear here but fear itself plus green and ultraconservative fearmongers.

When money and its pursuit becomes the only goal and more important than our wellbeing or survival, we get the asbestos, tobacco and fossil fuel industries lying through their teeth, just to maintain a profit curve and or share returns above all else, and logics rites.
Alan B.

I'm not too worried about CO2 levels in the time of the dinosaurs. They can solve their own problems. It's not that CO2 in human breath is good while coal burning is bad so much as one dwarfs the other, roughly 40 billion tonnes to 3 bn tonnes annually.

We're paying for climate change whatever technology prevails from now on. Worse than average blizzards in the US, heatwaves in Australia. The task now is to implement the least worst low carbon technology.

So "the amount humans breathe out is dwarfed by the amount produced by burning coal "... but..but what about the huge volumes of CO2 , sulphur and steam spewed out by volcanoes above and below the sea. All good according to the Green Dream Believers... And we won't mention the amount of "carbon" emitted by the thousands of delegates to the recent COP '23 and WEF Davos conferences where some of the dreaming turned into nightmares.

Look at what happened last year: A great interaction between the Antarctic atmosphere and surrounding regions, with large amounts of moisture bearing air moving over the continent via troughs, warming the air temperature substantially, and dropping large amounts of snow.

Later we had the revolting people at the ABC drooling at the prospect of Australia getting a fire and brimstone summer via an El Nino, presumably as punishment for voting no in the referendum or some such. The other day I hear a meteorologist telling us how we are are having a wet El Nino due to Antarctic interaction, an oxymoron if ever I have heard one.

Maybe this is another example of how the real world is a little more complicated than the computer model forecasts?

Human activity (not just breathing) emits 60X as much CO2 as active volcanoes per NOAA and 135X as much per USGS. A human produces about 1 kg CO2 per day but a flight from Australia to a northern hemisphere climate conference can produce about 3,000 kg CO2. Perhaps we need a population reduction to be able to afford climate conferences.

In my opinion recent turbocharged weather is straining our ability to cope. Example two floods and road washouts in the same area within a month. Why make it worse?

There is the effect of rock weathering as an absorber of CO2 to consider as well. More CO2 might mean more rainfall and more rock weathering, so the process might be self correcting.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091026132932.htm

Rocks oxidise. The most abundant element in the earth's crust is oxygen. Any thought that rocks would absorb more CO2 is fanciful. CO2 is a heavy than air gas and therefore inhabits lower levels, gorges, valleys and such.

It has been called marsh gas because of the latter and the generation of some CO2 via vegetation rotting/composting.

Water also absorbs much and as a consequence our oceans are becoming increasingly acidic, carbonic acid.

CO2 prevents infrared from reflecting back into space and therefore retains some heat. As we pump more and more into our atmosphere, this increases both above effects.

And as CO2 is a super plant fertiliser, Plant growth becomes lusher and more verdant.

This increased plant growth is accompanied by increased plant moisture aspiration. And as a result, more heat retaining, thermal blanket humidity. The greenhouse effect.

The solution is to not put more CO2 into the system than it can absorb. And that means we must replace fossil fuels with something that is carbon free and as of now, massively cheaper, i.e., nuclear power as MSR thorium.

Which comes with PKWH prices as low or lower than 3 cents. And with this a huge economic boost and growth. Job and investment opportunities that will have to be seen to be believed! I kid you not.

All that prevents the foregoing are intransigent recalcitrant and or owned politicians.
Alan B.

Hi Alan,

It might surprise you that most of the Earth's atmospheric CO2 has been sequestered as carbonate minerals as a result of the weathering of volcanic rock. It is water based chemistry and yes it does absorb a lot of CO2.

And AlanB the oceans will never become acidic and water vapour is much more effective as a so-called greenhouse gas than CO2 will ever be:
"Re The term "ocean acidification" -
The ocean is not acidic, and model projections say the oceans won't ever become acidic. So why call it ocean acidification?
Ocean acidification refers to the process of lowering the oceans’ pH (that is, increasing the concentration of hydrogen ions) by dissolving additional carbon dioxide in seawater from the atmosphere. The word “acidification” refers to lowering pH from any starting point to any end point on the pH scale...
https://www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean/ocean-topics/how-the-ocean-works/ocean-chemistry/ocean-acidification/faqs-about-ocean-acidification

From NASA: Because warmer air holds more moisture, its concentration of water vapor increases. Specifically, this happens because water vapor does not condense and precipitate out of the atmosphere as easily at higher temperatures. The water vapor then absorbs heat radiated from Earth and prevents it from escaping out to space. This further warms the atmosphere, resulting in even more water vapor in the atmosphere. This is what scientists call a "positive feedback loop." Scientists estimate this effect more than doubles the warming that would happen due to increasing carbon dioxide alone...

Water vapour can also form clouds which reflect heat. It has been speculated that before the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus a substantial amount of heat was reflected from the Sun facing side by water vapour clouds. Its lack of a magnetic field to deflect charged particles caused the ionisation of water molecules, eventually causing the total loss of water from the surface and atmosphere. Without water, CO2 could not be sequestered as carbonates nor were there water vapour clouds to reflect heat, and those carbonates which had formed broke down with the rise in temperature, releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere, eventually resulting in what is observed currently.

I hope that the increase in temperature will be self regulating, both from an increase in cloud and from increased rainfall causing more rock weathering. There might be a prospect of sequestering more CO2 with geoengineering, but I doubt that the shouty people would let that happen given how unhinged they get at the mention of nuclear power.

Fester, Let's not forget what Nobel Prize winning scientist Dr John Clauser said last year about clouds and how they were overlooked in computer models
"....Clouds play a paramount role in regulating the Earth's temperature, serving as a "cloud-sunlight-reflectivity thermostat" that "controls the climate, controls the temperature of the earth, and stabilizes it very powerfully and very dramatically," asserts Mr. Clauser.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/nobel-winner-refutes-climate-change-narrative-points-out-ignored-factor-5486267?

Hi Mikko,

Not so much overlooked, but extremely difficult to model as they are capable of increasing and decreasing temperature. Volatile sulphur compounds can seed clouds, so a dust storm might affect the weather by fertilizing the ocean and producing a plankton bloom.

Research of the carbon cycle will achieve far more than shouty people. In fact I think that the shouty people are the problem, not the climate.

Too true, Fester.

Here's another take on CO2 from all respiration:From Prof Daniel Nebert in American Thinker -  "Each human exhales about 2.3 pounds of CO2 per day, which means Earth’s 8 billion people produce daily 18.4 billion pounds of CO2.  But humans represent only 1/40 of all CO2-excreting life on Earth.  Multiplying 18.4 billion pounds by 40 gives us 736 billion pounds of CO2 per day.  This approximates the overall CO2 excreted by the total animal and fungal biomass on the planet.Daily emissions from worldwide industry in 2020 were estimated to be 16 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents.  If one metric ton is 2,200 pounds, then “total industrial emissions” amount to 35,200,000,000 (35.2 billion) pounds of CO2 per day.  This means that the entire animal and fungal biomass (736 billion pounds) puts out more than 20 times as much CO2 as all industrial emissions (35.2 billion pounds)!Can any clear-thinking person comprehend the facts above and still create a company with idiotic plans to “sequester CO2” or “sequester carbon”?  Scientifically, “net zero” and “carbon footprint” are meaningless terms.  There is no “climate crisis.”https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/01/todays_climate_crisis_is_a_fairy_tale.html

”https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/01/todays_climate_crisis_is_a_fairy_tale.html

Written by a Professor in Gene-Environment Interactions; what the hell does he know that the world's climate scientists and peer reviewed research does not?

Nothing!

Sheer quackery as you would expect from a US site labelled American Thinker...an Oxford dictionary example of an oxymoron!

Maybe this helps explain just one natural cause:"Hunga Tonga Volcanic Eruption

In January 2022, the Hunga Tonga volcano, located close to the Solomon Islands, exploded,

The eruption of the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai volcano did more than just launch a destructive tsunami and shoot a plume of ash, gas and pulverized rock 55 kilometers (34 miles) into the sky.

It also injected 146 megatonnes (161 megatons) of water vapor into the stratosphere (the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere)

Satellite measurements showed, in July 2023, the temperature of the lower-atmosphere increased from

0.38 C to 0.64 C = 0.26 C above the 1991-2020 mean.

Additional Impetus to Hunga Tonga: The rapid build-up of a strong El Niño peaked in late 2023. The lower-atmosphere temperature spiked about 0.3 C in late-summer/early-fall of 2023.

The El Niño warming effects had been added to the remaining Hunga Tonga effects in 2023, and will be added to any remaining Hunga Tonga effects in 2024.

Higher than normal temperatures likely will continue in 2024. See Images 1A and 7

They have nothing to do with gradual changes in CO2 ppm of the atmosphere.

https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2023/8/21/record-heat-may-be-from-natural-sources-el-nino-and-water-vapor-from-2022-tonga-eruption-136

Heating and Evaporating the Water: (145 million metric ton x {(22 C seawater heated to 100 C = 78 C delta T) x (4186 J/kg.C = 326508 J/kg) + (40650 J/18 g mole x 1000 g/kg = 2258333 J/kg)} = 0.3748 exajoules; excludes the energy to heat the gases to well above 100 C.

Because the eruption occurred only about 150 meter underwater, the red hot lava immediately superheated the shallow seawater above and converted it to steam.

This is a reason why there was:

1) Increased rain and flooding in Australia in Jan/Feb of 2022, and

2) Increased lower-atmosphere warming during 2023, and may be into 2024, because water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas."

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/#:~:text=Water%20vapor%20is%20Earth%27s%20most,gases%20keep%20our%20planet%20livable.

Ahhh well the current temperature cycle will peak in a couple of
hundred years and all the predictions will be about mini ice ages.
The next mini ice age will be about 2800 +- 400 years, so do not hold
your breath !
Because they are dependant on multiple cycles of various inputs the
length of the temperature cycle varies.

If only those that have lived through the last few cycles could tell
us of their experiences.