If we go back millions of years CO2 has ostensibly been way higher though and at that scale there is no discernable correlation between temp and CO2 and they both varied by vast amounts that dwarf the little spike-let of today. quick reference
There is a strong correlation between temp and CO2 levels on the scale of ice ages (which is much larger than the time of Moses et al but not of the many millions of years type scale where there is no correlation at all).
The correlation of the ice age is the temp driving the level of CO2. This happens because warm ocean water does not like to absorb CO2 as much as cold ocean water does.
Even though industrial activity has caused the spike since the 50s or so in CO2 from about 300ppm to 400ppm, the amount of CO2 being absorbed and released from the ocean and from plant life is much greater than what people release. What has happened is that we have adjusted the equilibrium by adding to one side of the equilibrium and not the other. However this certainly will not go on forever. Like many many things in nature the equilibrium will catch up with it. For example the CO2 in the air causes more plant mass to grow which eventually causes more Carbon from plant mass to end up absorbed into the plants and then later the soil. When the plants dies some of the carbon gets lost too deep in the Earth to be used by other plant life.
Like has happened in the Ice Ages, the equilibrium will drift one way and then the other. The carbon cycle of plants and ocean water being much larger in scale than industrial additions of carbon to the atmosphere...we have enough power to push it to another equilibrium provided we keep churning our bit of extra carbon into the atmosphere...but we just don't have the power to break out of the opposing forces of the carbon cycle itself.
Bottom line, we can expect as long as we keep churning up the CO2 by our industry that more plants will grow, but we can only increase the CO2 so far. And CO2 even if it is way way higher than now only has a tiny negligible effect on temp. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is in a very narrow frequency band of radiation and that radiation is already well covered by the water vapor which is a significant part of the atmosphere and the only significant player in the greenhouse effect.
Thanks for the info. And what you typed at the end about water vapor mirrors what I’ve read a lot over the years from Dr. Roy Spencer in Huntsville, AL (whom Rush used to affectionately refer to as “the official climatologist of the EIB Network”).