Our first official +1.5C year. Well done everyone! It's amazing how good we are at f@$king everything up., page-302

I think I get what you're saying. you think it's overkill? and not founded on the science you accept?

as I wrote above the log function is developed in the lab (in vitro) and fits nicely in a controlled environment. yet "in the wild" (in vivo) the log function doesn't work in the same manner as in glass.

modelling has only been around for a relatively short time and although they've added in many of the missing variables they still haven't developed a fully inclusive model that takes in all possible variables. this is why they run as many modelling samples as 50 at a time to get the average. but it only takes a butterfly to turn a pleasant summers day into a hurricane. so modelling is only a rough guide as to expectations. science understands this but those who want to disprove the problem of global warming treat modelling as literal truth. no such thing.

the best way to understand it is to look clearly at the historical observations of weather phenomena and how it correlates with GHG emissions. this is the one thing that is proven to the satisfaction of scientific standards of significance.

an objective view of GHG emissions https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions. and a scientific view of temperature change https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2023-smashes-records-for-surface-temperature-and-ocean-heat/