More from the article ...

... The concentration, measured in parts per million, has been increasing rapidly since human civilizations started burning coal and oil in the mid-1800s from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm.

In recent decades, the increase has often been in annual increments of 1 to 2 ppm. But last year, the increase measured by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Global Monitoring Laboratory was 3.75 ppm, according to the lab's early April update of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

That brings the annual mean global concentration close to 430 ppm, about 40 percent more than the pre-industrial level, and enough to heat the planet by about 2.7 Fahrenheit (1.5 Celsius). Climate researchers have noted that the continuing increase of global CO2 emissions means the world will probably not be able to reach the Paris Agreement target of limiting warming to 2.7 Fahrenheit above the pre-industrial level.

"It's definitely worrying to see such a large jump in 2024," said Berkeley Earth climate researcher Zeke Hausfather. "While it's not surprising to set new records given global emissions have yet to peak, and there are generally higher ppm increases in El Nio years, 2024 was still anomalous for just how large it was." ...

@#2 ... Good thing President Trump is genius enough to renew our Coal Industries! ...

I appreciate the apparent sarcasm, but, then I look at his problem ...

The models used for climate change somehow missed this surge in CO2 levels.

Why?

Did the models not properly forecast the generation of CO2 from human and/or natural sources?

Or ...

Did the models miss the absorption of CO2 by natural sources?

@#3

OK, I don't usually post a comment to correct a minor, one character, typo. But in this instance, i think I should.

then I look at his problem

--- should be ---

then I look at this problem

Major difference in meaning in the context of my comment.

Apologies for that typo.