Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory is Correct

I do not deny that there has been an increase of temperatures since the mid 1800’s, nor will I deny that CO2 emissions have increased over the same period. What I do take an issue with is the claim that the increase of CO2 emissions is the cause of the warming in the last 100 or so years. 1. Climate sensitivity The direct effect of CO2 on warming has been demonstrated in laboratories time and time again. The fact is, the greenhouse effect is real and that an increase in CO2 will lead to some warming, the question still remains: how much. The direct effect from CO2 is not significant. CO2, which has a logarithmic warming effect, becomes less potent per each molecule of CO2 emitted each molecule that is created. All in all, the direct effect of CO2 leads to insignificant warming amounts. AGW proponents claim that there are positive feedbacks--i.e. amplifiers. The small added warming from the CO2 causes a chain of reactions and the warming increases exponentially, causing a runaway greenhouse effect. Generally, alarmists claim that doubling CO2 with the added effects lead to about 3.3 degrees C of warming, whereas skeptics claim it will be much less: with some estimates around 1 degree C, others at 0.5-0.6 degrees C [1]. If alarmists are correct, CO2 likely caused the majority of the 20th century warming. If skeptics are correct, CO2 has played a negligible role in the recent warming and will continue to play a negligible role in the future. Now, what does the data argue on this issue? Alarmists base their predictions on climate models. Climate models model temperature based on data that climate modelers--who are not always scientists--put inside the computer. The issue is that this method of data is flawed. How do we get these alarmist predictions? A lot of climate models exist. They all meet together--all the modelers--to compare their data. Some models produce little warming, others produce a lot. They then claim the real answer is in between, they choose one of the middle answers. However, this may not be the correct answer. The fact is, the answer could be any of the models, or none of them at all, however they merely claim it must me the middle answer, which as you can see, is a flawed approach to such a complex system. The above statements can be evidenced by a simple fact: the models are wrong. The vast majority of models produce too much sensitivity, and the average ‘middle ground’ is significantly above observed temperatures [2]. There is significant scientific evidence published in the peer reviewed academic research that argues the sensitivity predicted by the alarmists is incorrect, and that we should expect minimal warming from doubling of CO2 emissions [3]. 2. Climate predictions have been wrong for the last decade A theory is as good as its predictions. You make a hypothesis, predict what you think is going to happen, and compare the actual data. If your predictions are off, you need to change the hypothesis. The fact is, AGW predictions have been off and need to be corrected to claim the effect of humans is much smaller than once thought. Warming in the last decade has been far below the expected temperature increase. There has been either no warming, or even cooling [4]. During this period, the IPCC high, low, and ‘best’ estimate all were higher than what was observed. Using AGW theory, this was not predictable. However, believing that oceanic cycles [5], or the sun [6], caused significant warming in the last 100 years, this change in temperature is wholly reasonable. Therefore, at least for the last decade, the natural causes of climate change correlate better than the anthropogenic ones. Another very important prediction is the existence of a tropospheric hotspot. Models significantly overestimate the tropospheric hotspot. When you look at the actual data, there has been minimal warming in the troposphere [8]. Further, on nearly every altitude, the actual data show the atmosphere significantly cooler than predicted [12]. 3. Possible Natural Causes The natural cause I will be supporting in this debate is the solar cause. The sun causing climate change makes sense: it is the sole source of heat on this planet, the other sources have either unknown causes or merely amplify the suns effect. The sun, however, directly and indirectly causes climate change. The length of the solar cycle has been correlated to temperature throughout the 20th century. Direct sunlight, cosmic rays, magnetic fields, short and long term solar cycles, all easily explain--and contribute--to climate change [7]. As geologist Bob Carter notes, “the argument advanced by the IPCC… [that] the sun cannot play a major role in global warming or cooling trends--is incorrect.”[8] Recent research by Willie Soon and David Legates, using new and improved TSI (total solar irradiance) measuring techniques definitively conclude that the sun causes the majority of recent climate change. Further, they correct their previous research, and answer the ‘missing link’ question which was formulated in Soon, 2009. Their conclusion states that there exists strong evidence of a solar to climate relationship, and argues that models need to include the possibility of a strong solar forcing [9]. A summary of recent research argues that “[t]he Sun may have contributed as much as 66% of the observed twentieth century warming, and perhaps more. … IPCC models do not incorporate important solar factors such as fluctuations in magnetic intensity and overestimate the role of human-related CO2 forcing.”[10] However, I have mainly been talking about TSI, which does cause a significant amount of climate change. Other, more indirect, sources of energy from the sun do cause climate change. The most well known of these is the cosmic ray hypothesis. Cosmic rays cause climate change through cloud formation. How do cosmic rays cause cloud formation? Cosmic rays come in from outer space. TSI alone cannot explain warming throughout all of history, it is commonly accepted that it needs a modifier, so, how do cosmic rays modify the sun’s rays? As these rays hit earth, they are something which molecules use to create clouds. The correlation between cloud formation and cosmic rays is clear. The more cosmic rays, the more clouds, clouds as a negative feedback cool the earth, therefore more cosmic rays = cooler earth. The fewer cosmic rays, the fewer clouds, and a warmer earth. So, lets examine this theory. As the sun is more active, a stronger solar wind exists and pushes the rays away, reducing the amount of cosmic rays--a warmer earth. As the sun cools down, the less wind, a cooler earth. Let’s examine this theory [11]: 1) Cosmic rays cause cloud formation: Significant evidence exists of the cosmic ray-cloud formation link. According to research in the early 21st century, there exists a close correlation between cosmic rays and cloud formation. The more rays, the more clouds. Cosmic rays, therefore, are related to cloud formation. 2) Cosmic ray-temperature correlation: On a geologic timescale, there is a very strong correlation between cosmic rays and temperature. During the phanerozoic, there exists a near perfect correlation between cosmic rays and temperature. 3) Clouds serve as a negative feedback: Clouds need to be a negative feedback in order for this theory to be strong. The data on sensitivity above already agree with this assertion. Clouds, which is one of the largest feedbacks, is primarily negative. So, to summarize, cosmic rays cause cloud formation, cosmic rays correlate to temperature, clouds have decreased, clouds are a negative feedback which means more cosmic rays cool the earth, and fewer warm it. Cosmic rays are a viable candidate in the search for a cause for climate change. Conclusion: Based on the failure to predict phenomena, low climate sensitivity making it nearly impossible for CO2 to have a significant warming effect, and strong evidence for a solar link contributing to the majority of recent warming, I see it unlikely that AGW theory is correct. Climate change happens, whether we want it to or not. The climate is changing, and humans are affecting it, but our influence is negligible when compared to strong natural factors. 1. http://tinyurl.com...; 2. http://tinyurl.com...; 3. http://www-eaps.mit.edu... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://www.drroyspencer.com... 6. http://blogs.wsj.com... 7. http://www.friendsofscience.org... 8. Robert M. Carter. “Climate: The Counter Consensus”, Stacey International, 2011. 9. http://people.duke.edu... 10. http://heartland.org... 11. http://www.sciencebits.com... 12. http://wattsupwiththat.com...;