This is a tenuous correlation between human activity and CO2 emissions (which imo are questionable due to sampling errors). The variance in CO2 measurements ar

This is a tenuous correlation between human activity and CO2 emissions (which imo are questionable due to sampling errors). The variance in CO2 measurements are within the range of random noise. https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/1018 https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/1018 That said, clearly nature overtakes the regions no-longer inhabited. That said it doesn’t seem to have impacted global temperatures in any meaningful ways based on the papers own questionable arguments. Look at the first paragraph: > decline in global atmospheric CO2 concentration by 7–10 ppm in the late 1500s and early 1600s which globally lowered surface air temperatures by 0.15∘C For reference, the CO2 concentration was between 280-290 ppm at that time (from ice core samples, which arguably are somewhat regionally specific). It’s around 400ppm today. A 7ppm drop is within the expected range, likely even something you may see within one years standard fluctuations (today, anyway). https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/weekly.html https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/weekly.html This paper is effectively not stating anything meaningful.