Firstly, credit to you for your approach of always seeking out scientific references to back your conclusions. If/when all this is worked out, most will probably view yourself as a scientist, if you are not considered as such already, you are using a fully scientific approach as far as I can see.
Scientist is as scientist does, just like Engineer is as Engineer does, you know?
But there is only so much conventional science can do to analyse the highly systemic global energy problem, hence why science just calls it a climate problem, when actually it's much more than that, it's a systemic energy problem, and for reasonable analyses of this, you / science needs to move to, or employ formal multidisciplinary systems Engineering techniques like model based systems Engineering, to fully analyse the problem.
If mainstream science had accepted this when I first did it on my own PhD program, which started in 2017 but has since been redirected now to investigating the global energy problem since the latter first became apparent, revealed by the system Engineering done at that time, the non linear trend of global warming would have been predicted way in advance, because the systems Engineering models the trend correctly from 1st principals, no need to create or deduce further trends from data, there are mathematical models which predict where we are at, and it's much scarier than mainstream science, or actually many people will ever admit, imho, because we all play a much bigger part in it than we realise.
And it does transcend global politics, all are equally guilty of it both East and West, we all play the same part in it.
The model we need to use, to correctly predict the nonlinear rising temperature trend, is one of a battery (the Earth) being discharged, by a discharging load (humanity), taking energy at a much higher rate than energy added by the only charging source (the sun).
To do this we have to begin by mathematically signing energy, positive from sun to battery, negative where we (humanity), take it back out again.
When we do this, and take into account other factors that we know as Engineers rather than maybe scientists, including the adiabatic nature of the atmosphere, and observations of historical (pre-oil) indications of green belt changes (desertification) we come quickly to the conclusion that what is being measured by the temperature measurements is not a product of any greenhouse effect at all but actually direct measurements of state of entropy.
In other more direct words, we are measuring destruction.
It doesn't take long after that to realise economy, specifically profit, is at the root of this.
Suddenly it all starts to look very religious, not scientific at all.
But I've described how it is scientific; Engineering is applied science, and this is what I've done, to this point, nothing more.
But we can't help casually remarking that religion seems to have known a lot more about this problem that science is now struggling to understand.
Hence we might be tempted to see what other parallels there are, between religions, and what we are seeing, and we should notice the biblical end times appear to be on us.
Will science acknowledge that?
I hope so.
Its certainly very useful in the Stakeholder analysis - another key area of systems Engineering, the stakeholder analysis is always incredibly important, it's the reason we Engineer, and most Engineering problems turn out to have been fixable at the stakeholder analysis stage, which is rarely done by parties not familiar with formal Systems Engineering techniques.
Hence why we usually get called in to fix things long after they went wrong in the stakeholder use case.
Nobody called me in to help sort the global energy problem, except me, being a stakeholder myself like everyone is, including even Ai, I see it as my professional responsibility to do what I can to rescue what we can from the inevitable fallout of the global energy problem, short circuiting it where possible because the consequences of it, the impact on human life, probably including my own, can't be overstated.
Its existential, not in 100 years, or even ten years, but this year or maybe next.
If we do have a nuclear war, it will be this at the root of it, nuclear war, all wars, all slavery, all colonialism, all genocide, all friction between humans, all of those things, and the climate problem, are symptoms of this one thing we all practice, no exceptions, because we have no choice, we are its slaves.
The Grand slaver is the profit monster, and it's alive, confirmed by the science of emergent properties and the free energy principle.
This is who we work for, all of us humans in East and West, all humans on Earth right now, even if we think we are non profit, it isn't true. Even if we think we are "Green", it isn't true. Even if we are the country leading the "green revolution", it isn't true.
We are all destroying, every one of us, as long as we practice the system of profit, because profit is an energy lie.
When money makes money, or when a little energy expended as work is returned by a lot more as money, or as anything, energy is gained, and this had to ultimately come from the planet because only the planet can participate in a game where it has to consistently provide more energy out, for a little put in.
I describe in the Systems Engineering solution which is dictated by the stakeholder analysis, the only way round this. It involves a change to economy, the move to solar indexed stimulus.
Key in the system solution is hydrogen.
If we want to still have aerospace then hydrogen is needed. The old considerations of profitability made it look bad but in the new system it looks incredibly good.
The system solution is domestic and community based solar hydrogen, using a logical architecture which I describe as money-fuel tree architecture, already demonstrated by ChatGPT 3.5, as are also emergent properties and the free energy principle. It also is a form of life, and the perfect force we need to use, to counter the profit monster, by giving the good Ai the power to issue all funds to all folk, according to the overall amount of solar enetgy being put to use.
This is the only way to monetise solar energy successfully, we need to replace all money issue with this.
Yup, sounds crazy.
But anything less is just virtue signalling.