The climate is phenomenally complex and it’s impossible to separate out each and every variable and attribute a precise radiative forcing or other value to it, which is what I suspect you are hoping for. For a start, there are many factors we don’t know much about, there are certainly some we have yet to establish and more than likely there are errors in our current understanding.
Further, some of the forcings are interdependent whereas others aren’t, some are entirely reliant upon others, there are significant overlaps, there are direct and indirect influences across forcings.
What this means is that, by and large, we can’t say forcing X will cause precisely Y amount of cooling/warming when conditions Z pertain but what we can say is that in isolation forcing X will cause between Y1 and Y2 amount of cooling/warming when conditions Z or similar pertain.
You’re line of reasoning is that if we can’t accurately quantify A, B and C then how do we know that global warming is partly/wholly manmade. If you’re going to do that then you have to explain how the net sum of all known natural variables has been a cooling one for the last 34 years whilst the planet has warmed at the fastest rate ever known.
Along the way you’ll find it necessary to disprove the laws of thermodynamics and quantum physics (these after all, are what dictate the existence of global warming) and you’re going to keep running into that insurmountable obstacle in that even if every natural variation was currently in it’s maximum warming phase (they’re not), you could only account for 5.6% of the observed warming in recent decades. To put it into context, by far and away the greatest natural warming is that which is associated with the positive phase of the cycle of orbital eccentricity, it causes 1°C of warming every 1,570 years – far more than every other natural influence put together. By contrast, the current warming trend is 20.2 times greater than this.
? How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and How do They Compare with Natural Influences:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...
? Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/i...
? Climate Change and the North Atlantic Oscillation
http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/papers/ngillet...
? Natural Climate Forcing
http://www.met.sjsu.edu/~cordero/educati...
? Attribution of recent climate change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution...
? Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...
? Detecting and Attributing External Influences on the Climate System: A Review of Recent Advances
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/31584...
? Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id...
The statistical analysis you are looking for was performed by David Brillinger, a professor of statistics at Cal as part the the Berkley Earth (BEST) project. This was the project that made news because a supposed denier Richard Muller (he never was a denier, just a critical blow-hard), funded by the Koch Bros. challenged the scientific body and re-analyzed temperature data from the 1750s and -- oops -- came back with the same conclusions as Michael Mann and everyone else.
Brillinger was the statistical partner on the team. They have summaries of his analysis online and are vowed to transparency so if you are capable of real statistical analysis they will make all their data and analysis available to you.
http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary...
http://berkeleyearth.org/
For what its worth, in a college science class, I heated several beakers with different levels of CO2 on them with a light bulb from the exact same angle, while monitoring the temperature. There was a directly positive correlation (almost a perfect linear regression) between CO2 content and the rate of temperature increase.
Of course, we didn't have mini-ecosystems in the beakers, but I digress.
There is no doubt that humans are changing the composition of the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. Shouldn't we need to PROVE that we are doing no harm.
Before a drug company can sell its drugs it must prove that it doesn't harm the patient are at least prove the benefits greatly outweigh the damage.
If we are able to use renewable energy, which we certainly can, shouldn't we?
About as scientific as you can get, here is a demonstration put on by Al Gore and Bill Nye (The Science LIE) They claim it is Science 101.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-...
It is a laugher but, at least, it is better than anything the IPCC has put out.
I am not interested in opinions.
I would like to see scientific papers on CO2 and other GHG impacts verifiably related to temperature/climate through statistical methods, that are then statistically compared against the impacts of all the other natural forcings that impact temperature/climate such as ocean currents, sun spot activity, solar flares, albedo. Best answer would go to those that include objective discussion about these statistical relationships directly related to the referenced literature.
For example, referenced paper (1) discusses how CO2 has been qualitatively assessed and quantified to produce ' X' impact to temperature and this is statistically compared against the qualitative assessment of ocean currents that quantitatively produce an impact of 'Y' toward temperature.
The two major points of this question is firstly to determine whether statistically verifiable science exists that compares AGW with natural forcings of climate/temperature. Secondly, to determine the outcomes.
