On 1/24/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There's a classic statical analysis concept that basically says things > that are up will go down and things that are down will go up - within > a certain band. Variation in this band is called "common cause" and > can't be managed. Variation outside of this band is called "special > cause". > > If we're talking global warming we need to understand if it's within > common cause variation (it up because it was down) or if it's special > cause (humans are causing it). > > This is important because common cause says that it will go back down > once it's been up with no actions from humans. Special cause says > that we are causing the rise and therefore the limit might be infinite > or at least too hot for us to live.
I like that, but isn't it more a question of degree, as opposed to cause? If the increase is a result of common cause, but is AUGMENTED due to additional human factors (special-causes), then even if the statistical credo holds true, and it comes back down, it won't return to normal....but instead to some artificially inflated new baseline, caused by our activities. If that's the case, two things are true: 1) This spike was measurably "worse" than it would have been otherwise and 2) The next spike will be that much worse still....perhaps lethal. -- She's a PhD in "I told you so" You've a knighthood in "I'm not listening" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http:http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:225570 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
