ruveyn wrote:
CO2 content of the atmosphere is -correlated- to global average temperate.
Question: Does CO2 increase follow temperature increase or does it cause temperature increase. Or are both the effect of an underlying common cause?
That is the weakness of statistical models. They do not always distinguish between cause and effect or two effects of a common cause. Mills method of identifying causes suffers from the same weakness.
ruveyn
True, it is just a correlation, but I think the cause for a rise in CO2 is clear (we're emitting more of it and reducing natural reducers such as trees). How would a temperature increase cause a rise in CO2 by itself? That's a rather strange hypothesis.
The cause for the temperature rise is not 100% clear, but I think enough signals are pointing to CO2 to make that the focus. That's not to say other possibilities shouldn't be examined - they should be and they currently are, but nothing has been shown to be as likely as CO2, so far.
Nothing ever will be 100% proven here. The system is chaotic and there are too many variables, but at some point it becomes prudent and wise to say "I've seen enough." To endure a never ending research endeavor while observations continue to reflect a very widely held hypothesis is just foolish. We could go on for centuries saying "but there's doubt," and get nowhere.
This is bit different from other scientific theories because it directly impacts so many lives. I can't find the statistics, but I think something like half of the world's population lives within 50 miles of the coast. That's a significant change from past habitation patterns. When you consider the number of lives and the real estate at risk here, it becomes clear that sitting on our butts and nitpicking over insignificant discrepancies is dumb. Then, when you take a step back and look at the larger picture of our goals, primarily energy independence and a reduction of pollution, it becomes even more clear that cleaning up our act is the smart way to go.
The reasonable thing to do is try to eliminate natural drivers as the major cause of the current warming trend. If this is done, that leaves human activity as the likely driver. If so, then that would be the basis of policies that direct us toward energy production less likely to put CO2 in the atmosphere. I have been pushing for years to greatly increase the use of nuclear fission generated electricity and start working on geothermal heat sources. Even if the case for anthropogenic warming falters, getting way from the Filthy Oil Habit will make us less connected to what is happening in the Middle East. We can let the Arabs drown in their oil, if we start getting our energy from other sources. One less pain in the butt cannot hurt us a bit.
The case for human driven climate warming cannot be dismissed out of hand. But before we bind ourselves to an Oath of Poverty let us make sure that it is the necessary thing to.
03 Nov 2011, 12:18 pm
