Following up on my post from January 18 is this latest discussion on a hypothesis from Roy Spencer that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are a function of oceanic variations, not human influence. In very short order, this is the second major suggestion that the water cycle is driving the carbon cycle and not vice versa as assumed by AGW advocates.
The most immediate implication is that far more attention needs to be paid to understanding atmospheric/ocean interplay before we rush blindly into policy options that will exact a severe cost for no measurable gain.
The suggestions also highlight how little we really do know about the most fundamental of relationships regarding global climate patterns: clarifying cause and effect accurately is both a fairly basic and critical step that the complexity of climate dynamics makes very challenging. It also is a step outside the present mandate of the IPCC process which is tasked only to consider the effects of anthropogenic impacts on climate. A step professional climatologists take with a fair degree of caution and consideration of career and personal integrity.
Everyone keeps saying how fundamental climate is to the future of the planet. If we accept this premise, is it not also too important to constrain within a self-fulfilling prophecy and dogma that is ideologically driven rather than reflective of scientific conjecture and refutation?
