What's scary is that every time I bring actual evidence into a discussion someone changes the subject. Can we agree that volcanoes don't seem to have much effect on CO2 in the short term, and move on?
So, yes, we are burning (exponentially, a meaningless term, an exponent of -0.1 means a gradual decrease) more coal. There are 6 billion third worlders who want a first world way of life, and the cheapest way to do that is to burn coal. I can't see any moral reason to stop them. Indeed since CO2 really doesn't matter very much in my opinion there is no particular reason to stop them either.
As to the more tedious thrust regarding CO2
Here's what I'd put together. It is not a scientific theory. It is a collection of theories and hypotheses.
The climate of the Earth is difficult to characterise and measure. One subset of climate is the average global temperature over a suitable time period, measured near the Earth's surface. This temperature has varied historically over a wide range. It is affected by many factors, both known and unknown. The main factor is the albedo of the Earth and the incoming energy from the Sun. These two directly interact and the combined effect raises the temperature of the Earth by about 250 deg C . (Incidentally while I'm talking about the Sun -Charged particles from the Sun may modify the Earth's albedo by altering cloud patterns. https://phys.org/new... ... cloud.html) The next most significant effect is the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, which raises the temperature by about 33 deg C. This is due to several mechanisms associated with turning incoming EM waves into heat (badly phrased) , and also complex interactions with the heat radiated by the Earth's surface, and probably some other knowns and unknowns. The greenhouse effect is affected by the gaseous composition of the atmosphere, and clouds. The most important gas for greenhouse is water vapour, approximately 80% of the non-cloud greenhouse effect is due to that. Water also directly affects the albedo of the Earth by forming clouds and snow and ice. Of the remainder the majority is due to CO2. In the absence of any other effects a further doubling of the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere would be expected to raise the temperature by rather less than, but approximately, 1 deg C. However, this is a very weak effect and is easily dominated over any timescale from hours to hundreds of millions of years by the many known and unknown factors. There may be positive or negative feedbacks associated with temperature changes, which may modify this 1 deg figure. There are certainly simple feedback effects associated with CO2 levels, eg the greening of the Earth (https://www.nasa.gov... ... ning-earth) which will affect both the Earth's albedo and weather patterns. One other overwhelmingly strong effect on an hourly to century timescale (at least) is the interaction between the oceans and the atmosphere. The thermal capacity of the oceans is about 1000 times that of the atmosphere. That is, cooling the ocean by 0.01 deg C (that's the limit of resolution of a thermometer typically, accuracy is perhaps 0.1 deg C) would provide enough heat to heat the atmosphere by 10 deg C. The interaction between oceans and atmosphere is hugely complex and data is lacking.
Prediction (1) : The above will have absolutely no effect on anyone.
Prediction (2) : No atmosphere based theory of global warming will have any true predictive power over the long term (say 20 years or more) until it takes albedo, the Sun, water vapour and clouds and interactions with the oceans into consideration.
Prediction (3) Partial bits of The Grand Unified Scientific Theory of AGW will be used politically, even though they are meaningless in isolation. Not really a prediction, that's been happening for 30 years