Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ken G
Your literal definition of equilibrium equates it with a completely null set. The working definition is one of comparing driving timescales to response timescales. But it's a semantic point that is not relevant, I tried to explain what I meant by the term and I regret having used it at all.
|
The problem here is that there is no compelling evidence that CO2 is capable of driving climate change on any timescales.
Quote:
|
Thanks for the link, interesting stuff, but of course AGW has nothing to do with 100,000 year timescales, it's three orders of magnitude shorter.
|
The point is that the solar influence on climate is observed from the smaller decade length time scales on up through the 10^5 year timescales.
The whole AAGW claim hinges on the assumption that CO2 is capable of forcing climate change. The ice cores contradict this notion as does the 20th century temperature records in ways that I've discussed on the other thread I pointed you to.
Quote:
|
Let me ask you this: what do you think is the current probability that human intervention is causing the CO2 rise,
|
Pretty good.
Quote:
|
and that this could lead to climate change?
|
The evidence contradicts the notion that CO2 is a climate forcer. I've discussed that in the other thread ("Animosity" thread).
Quote:
|
Also, what type of new evidence would you need to hear to raise your estimate to 50/50?
|
In the next 30 years if the solar cycle weakened but the climate warmed by a few tenths of a degree, then I would take that as evidence that other influences are overwhelming the solar influence. At that point CO2 increases would become a strong candidate.
As it is right now I've cited the Shaviv paper that finds 2/3 of the observed warming can be accounted for by direct and indirect solar influences.
If you read that thread I linked you'll see that all these questions are answered there.