Why no balance in the overall assessment of global temperature fluctuation?

Question

The global warming section is simply a political confrontation between what most here like to call realists and denialists. This degrades to ludicrous spin so typical of the overall environmental industry in general. Rather than science being provided an opportunity to convey meaningful truth/knowledge the science gets dumbed down by 'communications people' and 'money chasers' and 'political spokespeople' to support and convey political arguments/agenda. What you get is politically doctored pseudoscience designed to spin politics and anything but scientific truth. This approach is false - pure and simple.

This question is the beginning of an an attempt to get at the meaningful truth associated with fluctuations in global temperature. Rather than have people comment unscientifically for a totally political purpose just both sides put up or shut up on the balanced, unbias scientific truths for anthropogenic and natural causes for global temperature fluctuation.

Natural causes for global temperature fluctuation include ocean currents, sun spots, solar flares. Anthropogenic causes include burning fossil fuels, forest biomass reduction. These are incomplete lists so first objective is to establish and confirm complete and thorough lists of causes for both natural and anthropogenic impacts to temperature. So lets start there.

First objective is to establish and confirm complete and thorough lists of causes for both natural and anthropogenic impacts to temperature.

Second objective is to gather all scientific information/knowledge for each cause and have it thoroughly evaluated by competent, experienced, unbias scientists alone.

Third objective is to undertake qualitative assessment of each cause to determine what is known truth and what is unknown about ALL factors associated with global temperature fluctuation.

Fourth objective is to close knowledge gaps and investigate the unknowns through further studies that provide the overall big picture truth of the overall balance of ALL factors for global temperature fluctuation. Have these studies peer reviewed by competent, experienced, unbias scientists alone.

Fifth objective is to have a like for like quantitative assessment of ALL overall causes to scientifically validate the known knowledge at this point in time relevant to global temperature fluctuation.

So it seems there are five major objectives that all need to be peer reviewed by scientists alone in a competent, experienced, unbias manner. This process will enable a scientifically robust method for assessment of global temperature fluctuation. Until these objectives are satisfied in full nobody really knows whether temperature fluctuation is definitively caused by natural or anthropogenic factors. Has this been done - no I definitely do not think so. Consequently, any definitive statements are not getting at the truth of global temperature fluctuation.

The vast majority of comments in this global warming section make definitive statements. So following the logic outlined above, these are meaningless comments. First step toward meaningful commentary is to remain uncertain and begin completion of the first objective. Following this, work down each objective. Following this process will enable an objective debate about global temperature fluctuation to come about.

So for this question just determine the following: -

Are the five objectives outlined above an agreeable scientific method to evaluate global temperature fluctuation? How could it be improved?

Following agreement of the scientific method, a series of questions could be initiated to evaluate how far down this method the science has progressed. This will provide the most realistic answer associated with global temperature fluctuation.

Answer 1

What you are asking is what the IPCC does. People who are truly interesting in understanding climate change can read the most recent assessment, and in a year read the next one. The work you has for has been done, and continues to be done. You have simply been unaware.



You can say "nobody knows", but all of the major national science academies and formally stated that man's influence on a dangerously changing climate is "indisputable". You can say the you don't know, but if you actually look at the literature you will find that we do in fact know.



Go read the last IPCC Assessment (#4). Go read the BEST analysis.

Answer 2

This objective has a flaw. A key prinicple in science is that there is always an unfalsifiable alternative hypothesis. Nevertheless, the effects of bot natural and anthropogenic forcings have been studied extensively.

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm







It is difficult to determine whether or not scientists are biased without knowing their background. And scientist who studies a controversial subject manner will always be called biased by those who do not like his/her conclusions.







That is why scientists study the effects of the Sun, volcanic aerosols, greenhouse gases, the urban heat island effect and other miscillaneous forcings on climate.







That is called the peer reviewed process







In other words, scientist need to verify each others work, like in this graph.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Answer 3

here is what I would do. I would get the list of all factories that produce coal or produce energy using coal. and then I would go after them like natzis went after jews in natzi germany. Ohh before that I would get the best scientists (if there is such a thing) and figure out what are the top 5 causes of the global warming. Is this cars? Airplanes? Factories that burn coal? Once I know what is contributing to the global warming I would shut them down even if this means living in the darkness and going back to the stone age. I would rather live with a candle then be gone period. Also instead of using airplanes to bomb military targets I would use them to bomb those cole burning factories that are refusing to shut it down. Like lets say, everyone in the western world decided to shut their cole burning factories but China and India (lets just say) are saying well we are not going to close our cole burning factories because you guys had all this time to build your economy and now we want to catch up and that is why we need these factories and we wount shut them down. To which I would respond that they too had all this time yet they failed to be on the same level as the west and if they are not going to continue to kill our planet well the choice is very clear isn't it. Its either they are going to kill this planet including us and their own selfe or we are going to have to stop them PERIOD! It is as simple as this.

Answer 4

Sounds like you have a lot of googling to do to locate the info laid out in your objectives.



This is a forum where more opinion is presented than actual fact so we don't really need particular process to follow.



Frankly temperature fluctuates at it's will based on many different variables, which can change at the at the drop of a hat.



Your question is more of a blog post/lecture rather than a simple question.

Answer 5

If you're asking this as a thermodynamic question, you should be aware that the Earth's system is out of balance as the Earth is now absorbing more energy than it is emitting, causing the temperature of the Earth to rise.



If you're asking this about balance in reporting both sides, you should be aware that the only side that has merit is the scientific side, and there is no need to balance that with gobbledygook.



If you would like scientific information written for a mostly nonscientific audience, the reference below has over 50 articles related to your topic and you can find them simply by using the search function.

Answer 6

There already is a scientific method. It is the only epistemology for objective knowledge that we have and, as far as we can tell, it has always worked correctly.



AGW theory was accepted only after intense efforts to define the natural variability of the climate system and only after every known natural variable that drives global temperature - and every possible combination of known variables - had been tested thousands of times. Consequently, there are thousands of peer reviewed scientific publications on every facet of the global climate system, including global temperature..



There is no known explanation for the historic increasing trend in global temperature that does not include anthropogenic atmospheric CO2. This conclusion has been reached through thousands of independent scientific studies conducted by thousands of scientists from every region of the world. It is supported by empirical evidence, and its major components are described by established scientific laws and explained by widely accepted scientific theories.



It is true that we cannot account for 100% of the system variance, however that does not mean that we are completely ignorant of how the global climate system works or unable to to reach sound scientific explanations for the observed upward trend in global temperature.



AGW theory is supported by a consensus of the scientific data and scientific principles, and it is accepted by every major scientific organization in the world.



In keeping with the scientific method, AGW theory now stands as the scientifically accepted explanation - unless and until a superior alternative explanatory model (scientific theory) emerges.



The science of global warming is rather straightforward. The issue is complicated only by opposition from the energy industry which sees it as a threat to short-term profits, by that industry's political allies in Washington, and by the conservative anti-science political agenda that advocates religious rather than empirically-based explanations of the physical universe.



=====



Cyclops --



Thanks; we needed a really stupid answer - for balance, you know.



=======



edit --



There is nothing unbiased in your understanding of the scientific method. It is just wrong - completely, thoroughly, and absolutely wrong,

Answer 7

Natural impacts of temperature often are the same as human induced causes for temperature change.



The natural greenhouse effect exists, as does a man-made portion of it due to the burning of fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions.



Natural aerosol activity exists but then again so does a man-made portion of it.



Loss or gain of albedo is directly related to temperature, which can either be man-made or natural, but is also related to increasing size of cities and the increase in 'concrete jungle'.



Global temperature fluctuation are only measured at the surface with regards to global warming. There is also a vast amount of area that is still unmeasured. Instead of measuring temperatures at one specific location we should be measuring temperatures at all locations. As we can't currently do that, however, our best bet for knowing how much extra energy is being retained by the system is by looking at the energy balance of the planet as measured by satellites. Things like ocean currents do not change the energy balance of the system but merely redistribute that energy. Chances in solar input and output, aerosols level, albedo, and so on do have an effect on the energy balance of the system.



Sunspot activity: http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-index-graphics/sidc_graphics.php

Changing solar constant: http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

Aerosol data: http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/Aura/data-holdings/OMI

Albedo as it relates to glaciers: http://www.ibcperu.org/doc/isis/7076.pdf



I am aware that there are spaces in the data I have provided but you can go to http://scholar.google.ca and find what you are looking for. There are many dealing with all the aspects you state. I wonder why then you states that you do not believe this has been done.

Answer 8

(a) You are obviously very new here, and using words that surely go over the heads of most posters here.



(b) Your words sound grand, but your ideas are very stale mush. "Nobody really knows whether temperature fluctuation is definitively caused by natural or anthropogenic factors." What? Because you are ignorant of a century of massive scientific advancement? Or want to use pompous language to cloak the same ludicrous prefab anti-science nonsense seen 20 thousand times already in this category of this website?



(c) Reality: Check it out instead showing your foolishness by trying to recycle very old Exxon-Marshall-Koch-Heartland hogwash.



U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=1

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

http://nationalacademies.org/morenews/20100716.html

“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”

http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/

“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

http://www.newsweek.com/2007/08/13/the-truth-about-denial.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/inhofe-and-crichton-together-at-last/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

Answer 9

I think you're stretching the bounds of reality if you refer to believers of Mann made warming as realists, that is unless you think that believing we will all drown in rising seas of acid and that the end is nigh because the temperature may raise 0.2 degrees over the next 10 years is realistic.



Why should they get all the good names?, can't we think of a good holocaust related name for them like we've got? Maybe something like 'Auschwitz against co2' ?

Answer 10

Al Gore ..... oh, damn , I' ve blown it already :)



I agree with Jeff " I wonder why then you states that you do not believe this has been done."