Yes, I have to agree with that. My Victorian style terrace is lovely and cool in the summer, and keeps the heat in winter, which is ideal. There's no need for AC there, and I would quite like to get it double glazed too. My Girlfriend's apartment, on the other hand, is exactly the opposite.

Just mentioning double glazing there, I was under the impression that as part of our being a signatory to the Kyoto protocol, that all new builds/developments from that date had to have double glazing - however, I don't think that I have seen any that have. Have I missed something, or have I just mis-interpreted the agreement?


S

I understand the term causality what I was particularly questioning was the definitive part of his statement. Definitive seems a bit subjective to me.

Easy.
Step 1: Make one replica of planet earth
Step 2: Manoevre replica planet earth into the same orbit around the sun as planet earth (Starship Entreprise with a very long and sturdy tow rope will be required).
Step 3: Adjust atmospheric CO2 levels to pre-industrialised levels on the replica planet earth.
Step 4: Compare average global atmospheric and ocean temperatures on planet earth with replica planet earth.
Step 5: Publish results in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (and wait for a Nobel prize).

If temperatures on replica planet earth are significantly lower, then we have proved a causal relationship and we can say that there is a 99% probability that Burbage will believe in AGW.

Indeed. And, of course, when the temperatures aren't different in any significant way... Until we do this experiment AGW remains a hypothesis. And you don't wreck your economy over a hypothesis.

Scientifically it means proving that there is less than a 5% chance of there being any other interpretation of the experimental results. ie: p<0.05

Action on climate change should be viewed as an insurance policy. If there is a 10% chance of wrecking the planet though inaction, maybe it's not such a bad idea to shave 1% off what our GDP would otherwise be in 2020 through investing in renewable energy etc, etc.

See my post about looking at it "bottom up". I suspect the change in our standard of living would be one hell of a lot more than "1% of GDP" implies, and far more than most developed populations will countenance - green or not!

Burbage:
>>Accurate language is vital in a scientific debate. It would be rather nice if someone who supports the IPCC's view would actually come up with some scientific arguments to refute perfectly good questions. Instead of haranguing anyone who is critical and branding them with names designed only to attempt to discredit them. Discredit us with scientific arguments, not name calling.<<

Oh, come on! In case you hadn't noticed, the vast majority of what can loosely be called "debate" on this subject, both here and in innumerable blogs etc, is nothing *like* scientific. My comments were intended to try to bring it back to the issue, instead of bogus arguments about whether "denier" or "believer" are appropriate labels.

Of course, precise definitions are absolutely required for proper science.

Perhaps you'd like a header in every thread listing the definitions of all likely words, with references?

agreed - the debate tends to be "religious" for want of a better term - not much science has been discussed on this forum!


Especially when research quoted in debates tends to be (rightly or wrongly) dismissed by people for who the research doesn't suit. Half the people I have talked to on AGW or Climate Change seem to want to talk about reinforcing their own position rather than actually engaging in a truly (sceptical) and inquisitive discussion. Where are all the people who just want to know more, who are withholding their verdicts until further evidence is uncovered. And I don't mean refusing to believe in something until proof - I mean honestly saying they don't know and they are interested in exploring the subject some more.

Okay, rant over.

Call that a rant?

Can you prove it was a rant?

I dont care what the Intergovernmental Panel on Ranting says, I want proof or its a mild objection

Opinion polls are not research, or were you talking about something else? Everyone in the world could believe something, but that wouldn't make it right. Whereas I provide the solar activity data which seems to neatly explain the recent warming we've experienced and the Nature Sceptics, or Deniers of Natural Global Warming, if you prefer (I shall refer to them simply as "sceptics" and "deniers" in the future to save space, since Wol says it's ok), all go quiet or change the subject. I expected a little better

I would say Burbage, given that the thermal change we are all talking about is the sun anyway, that you have a prima facia case there.

How does the AGW lobby counter this evidence?

Burbage is talking about the solar cycle which lead to small changes in solar output over an 11 or so year period. Solar cycles in the late 20th century were characterised by relatively high solar activity which, some argue, may have been the main cause of global temperature increases. However, the amount of energy variation from the sun during these cycles is actually very small and cannot, on its own, explain any significant warming - I think a variation of 0.2 deg C is the most that can be accounted for. There are some other theories which are a bit complicated. One of them involves an increase in gamma radiation from outside our solar system due to a drop in solar wind intensity which could essentially lead to greater cloud seeding and, hence, greater cloud cover and lower global temperatures during periods of low solar activity. The reverse applies during periods of high solar activity. However, these theories are far fetched and would never meet Burbage's rigorous standards for scientific proof.

but isn't it only a theory and until we have definitive proof we should dismiss it?

Okay - I admit it, I'm taking the piss a bit, but that kind of position seems to be a way of excluding information in this debate.

Opinion polls aren't research? But the opinion poll taken of the scientists was an attempt to discover the consensus that all sides in this debate are insisting is in their favour. If you want to say things like "most scientists agree/disagree that there is a strong likelihood that AGW is occuring" then how do you measure this if you don't ask them?

And the solar activity data fits neatly in your view, but then the debate over global warming fits neatly onto the existing socio-political landscape (in my view) hence the raging political debate on this issue. If you take the solar argument, there are plenty who would argue that one set of events in a complex system is too simplistic to provide an answer, even if it is part of the answer.