It does matter though. The paper claims human CO2 is responsible for 0.01C warming. If that is the case, reducing our CO2 can make a maximum cooling impact of 0.01C which is entirely unimportant.
Of course who knows if these numbers are true or not, but the point is it could matter, and our CO2 could be unimportant in magnitude compared to other processes (which is what the paper argues).
the point is it could matter, and our CO2 could be unimportant in magnitude compared to other processes (which is what the paper argues).
Which is very unlikely as the CO2 in the atmosphere started with the industrialization and increase correlates very much with fossil energy use.
Regardless what put it there, removing some of it would save many species and many human lives. Another recent study said warming could be kept within 1.5C by planting trees.
Your replies don't really make sense here. Reread what /u/Dii_Casses and I said again. If human CO2 is e.g. 1/100th of the cause of warming, it doesn't matter how much CO2 we've put out since industrialization, and it therefore doesn't matter if we completely eliminate our CO2 production; the effect of both is insignificant compared to other causes, and any warming that happens would happen regardless because our contribution would be insignificant. Is reducing warming by 0.01C meaningful in your opinion? Or are you disagreeing about something else?
CO2 and methane are known greenhouse gases. Reducing them in the atmosphere will lower warming even if humanity not the main factor in climate change.