On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 10:06 -0800, Michael A. Lewis wrote: > On Wed, 27 January, 2010 9:40 am, Phil Hays wrote: > > >> > So then a small input like a little change in CO2 level or in the > >> > distribution of sunlight due to orbit change would not correlate with > >> > the climate over a long time interval. Is this a fair statement of > >> > your position? If not, please restate it. > > >> > >> ... a small input like a little change in CO2 level or in the > >> distribution of sunlight due to orbit change may or may not correlate > >> with the climate over a long time interval. > > > In other words, you refuse to answer the question. > > The paragraph above was my answer.
A refusal to answer is an answer. Fair enough. > > If past forcing (CO2 and orbital changes) is correlated with climate, > > why will future climate not be correlated with forcing (human release of > > CO2)? > > Correlation does not explain process or direction. Of course. Do show an alternative process where by climate causes orbital variations. This would require you to show how Newton's laws of motion, corrected by Einstein for relativistic effects, are wrong. Or perhaps you have some different alternative explanation. -- Phil Hays <[email protected]> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
