This is going to sound harsh, but what you are doing is exactly what climate denialists do.
You question on correlation of variables has not only been asked; it has been reformulated tens of thousands of times by climate scientists and experts in all sorts of related fields.
By asking a question like this you're directly undermining the quality of reasearch that has been extremely solid on the matter. Correlation of variables would be an issue if we were just looking at data to infer an explanation. Physicists have known the effects of radiative forcing of CO2 and methane because it has been observed in laboratory settings, and that knowledge has been extrapolated to models of the entire world.
The equation of "heat in, heat out" corresponds exactly as predicted. Of course, the Earth's atmosphere and ocean are so complex that this effect is not seen uniformly. The challenge is in accounting what heats up and how quickly. We know, for example, that the oceans hold far more heat than the atmosphere. We're in the process of understanding how ocean currents affect and are affected by that. But overall there is no possibility of debate as to how CO2 affects the atmosphere and oceans. The thing is that the nuances are so significant for having a useful understanding of climate that many details are still missing. What we do know has been extremely useful and clarifying of how these events are going to play out.
Note that I am not a climate denialist, but I generally find very little critical thinking when scientists presents climate forecasts for the next 20, or 50 or 100 years.
Please see my response to drjesusphd below for a more balanced response to this particular NASA chart.
You question on correlation of variables has not only been asked; it has been reformulated tens of thousands of times by climate scientists and experts in all sorts of related fields.
By asking a question like this you're directly undermining the quality of reasearch that has been extremely solid on the matter. Correlation of variables would be an issue if we were just looking at data to infer an explanation. Physicists have known the effects of radiative forcing of CO2 and methane because it has been observed in laboratory settings, and that knowledge has been extrapolated to models of the entire world.
The equation of "heat in, heat out" corresponds exactly as predicted. Of course, the Earth's atmosphere and ocean are so complex that this effect is not seen uniformly. The challenge is in accounting what heats up and how quickly. We know, for example, that the oceans hold far more heat than the atmosphere. We're in the process of understanding how ocean currents affect and are affected by that. But overall there is no possibility of debate as to how CO2 affects the atmosphere and oceans. The thing is that the nuances are so significant for having a useful understanding of climate that many details are still missing. What we do know has been extremely useful and clarifying of how these events are going to play out.