"Lol," said the confident fool.

You have extremely poor reading comprehension. The articles you linked do not back up what you claim in the slightest. You don't seem to understand the difference between total change and rate of change. The relevant paragraph from the first article:

Still, even the highest estimated Chicxulub-related CO2 emissions are less than the cumulative, ongoing emissions associated with man-made climate change. Those emissions, the researchers wrote, amount to about 2,000 gigatons of CO2 pumped into the sky since the year 1750. It almost goes without saying at this point that, due to a failure to take meaningful global climate action, man-made emissions are still increasing every year.

So yes, the cumulative effect of centuries worth of CO2 emissions may be greater than the total CO2 released by the asteroid. But we're talking about rate of change, not total change. You're comparing centuries of cumulative CO2 emissions to emissions that were generated over a few hours.

I believe you didn't even read the second article, as it is merely discussing how CO2 rates were higher during the time of the dinosaurs.

Sorry, but you need to learn to read more carefully. Or at least gain an understanding of the difference between change and rate of change. For discussions of adaptation, rate of change is what matters.

You're not just a fool, but a one with hubris.