Running head: GLOBAL WARMING: SETTLING THE DEBATE 1

Global Warming: Settling the debate

Between Anthropogenic and Natural
Miguel A. Algara
University of Texas at El Paso















GLOBAL WARMING: SETTLING THE DEBATE 2

Abstract
[Abstract goes here]
















GLOBAL WARMING: SETTLING THE DEBATE 3

Global Warming: Settling the debate
Between Anthropogenic and Natural
Over the course of time, scientific communities have had numerous debates. In medieval
times, the so called scientific area alchemy started numerous debates. In 1859, Charles Darwin
started a great controversy with his book On the Origin of Species. Then almost 100 years later,
in the 1950s, the debate surrounding the molecular structure of DNA started. On recent times,
perhaps the greatest debate within the scientific community has been that of Global Warming
(GW). At first it seemed the idea of GW was simply a myth, yet in the first decade of the 21
st

century, it received great scientific support. At this point, the idea of GW is undeniable given the
exorbitant amount of scientific data supporting it. Yet the debate surrounding Global Warming
continues, because so far no scientific hypothesis accounts for all the different aspects of GW. In
the 90s there were numerous scientists that claimed GW was the direct result of humanitys
unending need for fossil fuels. The number of scientist supporting this has grown considerably,
but in 2007, a few scientists published papers countering the idea of man-made, or
anthropogenic, GW. This growing group of scientists contends that GW is largely due to changes
in the solar cycle. Thus the last five years have seen a great number of papers in favor of the
anthropogenic stance, though the solar cycle stance has seen some papers as well. This heated
debate does not appear to be resolved any time soon, as evidence for both stances continues to
grow. In this paper I will argue that both anthropogenic, and the solar cycle stances are partially
correct by analyzing the different evidence presented by both sides, such as CO
2
concentration
levels in the atmosphere, as well as the polar ice caps, global temperature averages for the last
400,000 years for Earth.

GLOBAL WARMING: SETTLING THE DEBATE 4

Literature Review
Out of the supporters for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), perhaps the most
prominent are the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They argue that Global
Warming is a consequence of the increased concentration of CO
2
in the atmosphere due to
anthropogenic emissions. In their Annual Report 5 (AR5), the IPCC claims that the
concentration of CO
2
in the atmosphere has risen to almost 400 parts per million (ppm). Central
to the anthropogenic Global Warming argument is carbon dioxides function as a greenhouse
gas. A greenhouse gas is a gas particle capable of absorbing large amounts of heat from the sun,
and then releasing that heat in Earths atmosphere. According to the IPCCs Annual Report 4
(AR4) without greenhouse gases, the average temperature on Earth would be -19 C (-2.2 F),
this is because without greenhouse gasses the majority of the suns heat that reaches the Earth
would bounce back into space. In their book Global Warming, the authors Brian Black and Gary
Weisel (2010) echo similar claims as those made by the IPCC, in fact, most of their evidence is
taken directly from the IPCCs Annual Reports. One major difference is that Black and Weisel
(2010) claim that aerosol particle concentrations have no measurable effect in the temperature of
Earth.
Those that disagree with anthropogenic Global warming, claim the largest contributor to
Earths warming is the sun. In 2007, Dr. Abdusamatov was one of the first scientist to claim the
new spikes in solar activity were the main cause of GW. Solar variability has long been
particularly hard to study, so Dr. Abdusamatovs claims couldnt be substantiated, but a recent
study by scientists at the Swedish Solar Telescope (SST) have finally demonstrated a series of
spikes in solar activity in last 60 years (I. Usoskin, G. Hulot, Y. Gallet, R. Roth, A. Licht, F.
Joos, A. Khokhlov et al., 2014). Furthermore, Dr. Caillon, of the Laboratoire des Sciences du
GLOBAL WARMING: SETTLING THE DEBATE 5

Climat et de l'Environnement, in France, claims there is a very distinct pattern in each of the last
three glaciation periods in Earth. According to him, each major temperature increase would be
followed, 800 years later, by an increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO
2
. (N. Caillon, J.
Severinghaus, J. Jouzel, J. Barnola, J. Kang, V. Lipenkov, 2003). Thus, according to Dr. Caillon,
it was the increase of temperature that caused the increase in concentration of CO
2
, and not the
other way around. The final major argument against AGW is made by chemist Dr. Martin
Alexander, a visiting professor at the University of Texas, El Paso. Dr. Alexanders studied the
molecular basis for the absorption of solar radiation of CO
2
. According to him, carbon dioxide
can only absorb radiation in a very specific frequency of Infrared radiation. Once the
concentration of CO
2
reached 350 ppm, that specific frequency was saturated. Dr. Alexander
claims that because carbon dioxide is incapable of absorbing heat from any other frequencies, the
change from 350 ppm to 400 ppm would have made no difference, as the CO
2
cannot possibly
absorb more heat and thus warm up the Earth further.
Now that the main arguments for each side have been introduced, I will analyze them.
First I will analyze Black and Weisels, and the IPCCs claims that CO
2
is the main cause for
AGW. Then I will contrast those ideas to those presented by Dr. Caillon (2003). Next I will
analyze Dr. Alexanders claims in the context of the IPCCs data about CO
2
concentration.
Finally, I will analyze Dr. Abdusamatovs (2007) claims in the context of Dr. Usoskins (2014)
data about solar activity.
The vast majority of scientists and scholars that support the idea of AGW do so based on
data gathered by the IPCC. Key among said data is the reported amount of CO
2
gas in the
atmosphere, which according to the IPCC reached 391 ppm in 2011. It is due to these large
concentration of carbon dioxide gas that Earth has gotten progressively warmer. While it is
GLOBAL WARMING: SETTLING THE DEBATE 6

undeniable that these high CO
2
concentrations have had some effect on Earths temperature, it is
impossible to accurately measure the impact that the concentration of CO
2
has had on the
climate. Furthermore, how much of the increase of carbon dioxide gas concentration is due to
humans? That is more data that might be impossible to measure, as there are extremely high
amount of CO
2
frozen in the polar caps, as well as deep in the ocean floor. The IPCC argues that
anthropogenic emissions caused the melting of the ice caps, and thus it is also responsible for the
subsequent release of more CO
2
. Although neither of these questions can be answered
completely accurately, the level of certainty of humanitys involvement is, in the words of the
IPCC of medium confidence (AR5, 2013).
However, Dr. Caillon (2003) offers data that, according to him, exonerates humans. His
data shows a relationship between temperature and concentration of carbon dioxide

which he
calls CO
2
lagging (N. Caillon, J. Severinghaus, J. Jouzel, J. Barnola, J. Kang, V. Lipenkov,
2013). CO
2
lagging can be seen in data going back as far as the early Cenozoic era (before the
evolution of humans). Yet there is one major disagreement between Dr. Caillons data and
todays climate change. CO
2
lagging takes about ~800 years to occur. Yet, todays drastic
climate change has happened in less than 100 years. This major inconsistency points to the fact
that nature alone cannot be held responsible for GW.
As a chemistry professor, Dr. Alexander has focused on the issue of GW from the
chemical side. While the IPCC has tried to quantify the biological impact of humanity, Dr.
Alexander has tried to quantify the chemical absorption spectrum of CO
2
. According to chemical
quantum theory of molecular bonding, all molecules, including carbon dioxide, have specific
wavelengths of energy their bonds can absorb. If absorption of heat occurs, the molecules will
vibrate in very characteristic ways. For example, according to Dr. Alexander, carbon dioxide
GLOBAL WARMING: SETTLING THE DEBATE 7

molecules can only vibrate in three ways, and thus, they can only absorb a wavelength between
690 and 850 cm. Furthermore, Dr. Alexander contends that at a concentration of 350 ppm, the
CO
2
reached maximum absorption. All of these sounds awfully complex, so I will try to explain
it with an analogy. Imagine that the sun sends 100 dollars to Earth. This money is specifically
divided into a certain amount of 1, 5, and 20 dollar bills. All of the gases in the atmosphere take
some of the money, but they can only take certain bills. In this case lets say CO
2
can only take
the 5 dollar bills. Once the carbon dioxide has taken all the possible 5 dollar bills, it cannot start
taking other bills, thus even if more CO
2
is added, it would have no effect in Earths temperature
since it can no longer absorb any heat. Carbon dioxide reached the saturation concentration, as
Dr. Alexander calls it, back in the late 90s, thus global warming should have stopped since more
addition of heat from CO
2
was impossible. Yet, global warming did not slow down at all during
the first decade of the 21
st
century, which points to the fact that CO
2
gas alone cannot be
responsible for GW.
To explain the fact that CO
2
gas alone could not possibly be responsible for GW, Dr.
Abdusamatov theorized that increased solar activity must be responsible for GW. At the time of
Dr. Abdusamatovs paper, in 2007, there was no concrete evidence to support him, other than a
NASA report that proved the Martian ice caps had been melting for six years in a row. Dr.
Abdusamatov was mocked for his theory, and it was not until this year that he received some
endorsement in the form of Dr. Usoskins (2014) paper on solar activity. This paper had concrete
evidence that the suns activity had increase significantly in the last 100 years, thus finally
validating Dr. Abdusamatovs theory. However, Dr. Usoskins (2014) data shows that the
increased solar activity is not enough to account for all of Earths warming. Therefore, increased
solar activity alone cannot be responsible for GW.
GLOBAL WARMING: SETTLING THE DEBATE 8

One of the major problems with most of the current theories regarding GW, is that they
all seek to discredit each other. Dr. Abdusamatov is extremely adamant of the inexistence of
AGW, going as far as calling himself a climate skeptic. On the other hand, the IPCC is so
focused on blaming everything on carbon emissions that they fail to recognize the increase in
solar activity. Because of this, none of these mainstream theories accounts for all the available
data, which suggests that all of these theories are partly right. The IPCC is correct in claiming
that CO
2
is responsible for a great part of GW, but increased solar activity is also very important
because it increases the amount of energy available for CO
2
to absorb. Because fossil fuel
consumption keeps increasing the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, it perpetuates a
cycle that slowly keeps raising the temperature. That means that Dr. Alexanders quantum
bonding approach incorrect because it did not account for the increased solar activity. Finally,
Dr. Caillons CO
2
lagging theory didnt match current data because fossil fuels had increased
carbon dioxide concentration too fast, and because solar activity had furthered increased the
warming effect, consequently CO
2
lagging did not occur.
Collaboration in science cannot be possibly overvalued. The debate surrounding the
structure of DNA could not have been solved without the contribution of several scientists in
different branches of science, such as chemist Linus Pauling, X-Ray specialist Rosalind Franklin,
and molecular biologists James Watson, and Francis Crick. It is this type of collaboration that is
required to solve the debate of Global Warming. To place blame on a single factor, whether
anthropogenic or natural, is completely unrealistic, and to ignore the evidence gathered by other
fellow scientists is useless. Throughout this paper I have attempted to show both the strengths
and weaknesses of each of the main arguments for both sides. The IPCCs model for CO
2
concentration is useful, but it is incorrect unless the increased solar activity is taken into account.
GLOBAL WARMING: SETTLING THE DEBATE 9

The same applies to Dr. Caillons CO
2
lagging theory. In contrast, Dr. Abdusamatovs theory
was proven correct in many aspects by recent findings about solar activity, but because it does
not take into account the high concentrations of carbon dioxide it is also incorrect. Consequently,
by taking the middle ground and accepting that both solar activity and human increase of fossil
fuel burning are responsible for global warming we may finally take the first step towards
solving the Global Warming debate.













GLOBAL WARMING: SETTLING THE DEBATE 10

References:
I. Usoskin, G. Hulot, Y. Gallet, R. Roth, A. Licht, F. Joos, A. Khokhlov et al. (2014) Evidence
for distinct modes of solar activity. Journal of Astronomy & Astrophysics, 5, 4-10.

N. Caillon, J. Severinghaus, J. Jouzel, J. Barnola, J. Kang, V. Lipenkov, (2003). Timing
of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination
III. Science, 299, 1728-1731.
[Rest of sources go here.]