Pretty much. It's a matter of degree. The more CO2, the warmer. So, if we could wave a wand and get to 310 ppm, that would be great! But 280 would be even bett

Pretty much. It's a matter of degree. The more CO2, the warmer. So, if we could wave a wand and get to 310 ppm, that would be great! But 280 would be even better. Realistically we've got some warming baked in from feedback effects (less snow, etc) so lowering to industrial levels wouldn't get us back to preindustrial temperatures immediately. If we magically stopped emitting immediately, we'd still see warming because of lag in the effects, feedback, etc, and we'd find it uncomfortable. With more emissions it will be worse. So, sequestering emissions is a very worthy goal, and why stopped remains important even though we're past a point where damage begins. Damage can still get worse and we should try to avoid that. Figuring out some way to actually reverse them is the holy grail though. We would need nuclear or solar for that, most likely. A bit of nuclear waste in the ground is better than carbon waste in the air.