Carbon dioxide has nothing to do with climate change. Its overall effect is less than 0.1 degree and is actually a net cooling effect, just as the main so-called "greenhouse gas" water vapor also cools us according to what we can deduce from established laws of physics, as explained in my website http://whyitsnotco2.com and my linked papers, videos, blog and book. All climate change is natural and follows various superimposed cycles that appear to have a strong correlation with solar activity and planetary orbits. Why is this so?
There is now compelling evidence that cosmic rays assist in the formation of clouds. Clouds affect temperatures because they reflect some solar radiation back to Space and shade parts of the surface. There are reasons why cosmic ray intensity varies, one such reason being that an increase in solar activity expands the heliosphere and this reduces the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the inner Solar System, this leading to there being less cloud cover on Earth and thus warmer temperatures.
Perhaps the most notable natural cycle is one of approximately 1,000 years that had peaks in the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), the Roman Warming Period (RWP) and also about 3,200 years ago. The peaks have actually been getting cooler as shown in the first graphic below that should be read right to left. Between the MWP and the present we had the "Little Ice Age" when sunspots were at a minimum. We can expect another such minimum somewhere between the years 2400 and 2600. The current warming period should peak later this century with temperatures only about half a degree warmer than the present.
Superimposed on the 1,000-year cycle is another cycle of about 60 years. Prior to about 1998 than cycle was warming for 30 years causing alarm among climatologists who blamed it all on carbon dioxide. However, since 1998 the 60-year cycle has been declining whilst the 1,000 year one is still rising. The net effect has been a mere 0.05 degree between the moving-average peaks in 1998 and 2017 as seen in the monthly data published on Dr Roy Spencer's website, the February data being reproduced in the second graphic below with my comments added.
But what is fascinating is the fact that the graphic at the top of my website shows these two superimposed cycles even though it is entirely derived from data relating to planetary orbits. The source of this graph is here and I postulate that the magnetic fields from planets somehow affect the intensity of cosmic rays reaching Earth.
As explained in my first article "Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Effect" the reason why the Earth's surface is hotter than the upper troposphere has to do with the fact that gravity acting on air molecules forms a non-zero temperature gradient (aka lapse rate) and it has nothing to do with radiation from the cold atmosphere supposedly adding thermal energy to the already-warmer surface as is clearly implied in NASA energy diagrams. The first of these diagrams showed no "back radiation" but contained a glaring error, namely that the solar radiation shown was nowhere near enough to explain the observed surface temperatures. So climatologists guessed that the extra energy must be coming via radiation from the cold atmosphere, and hence their assumption that radiation from carbon dioxide contributed to warming. But in fact the radiating properties of so-called greenhouse gases like water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane reduce the magnitude of the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient and thus cool the surface.
All climate change is natural and completely beyond the control of mankind.