/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16132099
NTA, the downside is that it might have a temporary destabilising effect on weather patterns, but no-one can prove if the apparent increased variability/extremes of weather are down to CO2 changes, land use changes, natural cycles, or, if its a combination of these factors, which ones have the strongest weighting.
When it comes to modelling traditional linear physical systems like rocket launches or the forces acting upon a bridge or a skyscraper, we can simulate and model those things precisely enough to know with 5 or 6 sigma certainty what will happen under X or Y conditions, and direct comparisons and tweaks off factors can be performed.
The global climate is too chaotic and complex for us to be able to simulate a counterfactual reality to ask the question: but how would things look if A had never happened or if we had done B instead. We only have hypotheses which are impossible to test about how responsible CO2 is for apparent variability instead of say land use changes.
It's naive to pretend that the continent-spanning ways in which humans have energy and matter modifying effects on the environment don't have a massive, fixed impact on the climate. Just consider albedo, water runoff, verticality.