> What would be ideal situation according to your subjective opinion? More cold areas? More ice? More humidity? Do you actually belive that we should and can change weather? Isn't that against nature?
Ideal situation is to stop artificially increasing the concentration of CO2 to allow nature to vary this concentration on much longer natural cycles as it's been, which allow not only humans but other lifeforms to adapt to it without causing mass death.
What do you mean "actually believe that we should and can change weather"? Do you understand what climate is, and its relationship to weather patterns? Do you understand how humans have changed the climate through burning fossil fuels? Do you understand the magnitude of increased energy being trapped in the atmosphere from those human actions?
Or wait, are you one of those who do not believe the evidence of climate science at all?
The major issues about climate change are not about the comfort of ambient temperature to humans, far from it.
(And yes, I did take a cursory look at all the links)
Funny thing about the atmosphere though is that it requires ~1300x less energy to heat up by 1 degree, so if you dump all that energy into the atmosphere, the temperature would go up by ~2 degrees per year.
The reality is that global warming warms up both the oceans and the atmosphere to varying degrees (and the earth's crust, to much lesser degree), with the ocean absorbing most of that. The atmosphere only absorbs about 23% of that, and a significant amount of the of the excesses radiate back into space.
But even with a conservative estimate that only 1% of this heat is being stored in the atmosphere, that would still lead to a global atmospheric temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius every 50 years. The worst-case scenarios estimate 2% of this heat is retained, dropping that down to 25 years.
I'm going to go ahead and guess that waiting 2.5M years isn't the answer. That's geological time scales anyway, Humans could have gone extinct and been replaced with new intelligent life in that kind of time. Whatever math you did to reach that figure, it's completely wrong.
Air has a specific heat (~1) less than a quarter per unit mass than water (~4.1). The atmosphere has a mass of ~5 billion kgs and the ocean has a mass of ~1.4*10^21 kgs.
It requires a lot less trapped energy to warm the atmosphere by 1 C than the ocean. We're well on track for 2.5 C increase since preindustrial levels.
As long as we are doing absolutely useless comparisons of enormous numbers that could potentially be used as disinformation to vastly understate the impact of global warming: To heat the entire planet Earth down to the core by 1 degree Celsius would require the energy equivalent of (~order of magnitude) 1 quadrillion Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs.