After all the media time dedicated to Global Warming and the new proposals to stop such apparent threat, little is often heard about voices that have tried to explain logical inconsistencies inside the IPCC Man-made Global Warming theory. This is why Eco Wanderer wishes to present its readers with the other side of the argument, and ultimately let the readers make their own logical conclusions from analysis of the information.
The article will now present 4 pertinent arguments that point out inconsistencies in the current widely accepted theory that Man is responsible for the increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-twentieth century and its projected continuation.
The notion that “debate time is over” and that we should base our opinions on the opinions of scientists without readers looking at the data themselves is not only unscientific but misleading.
This is why, when it comes to science, the debate is never over, especially because in this particular case, there is no actual unanimous consensus over the theory.
A parallel between climate science and meteorology can also be drawn. Consider that for meteorologists to predict the weather (which they cannot predict with over 99% certainty) they only take into account 5 factors: temperature, air, pressure, water vapor and the gradients and interactions of each variable, and how they change in time. Climate science has to take into account a lot more variables, such as: atmospheric boundary layer, circulation patterns, heat transfer (radiative, convective and latent), interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans and land surface (particularly vegetation, land use and topography), and the chemical and physical composition of the atmosphere. This is why many scientists are skeptic when stating that they are 100% sure their predictions are accurate or even mildly accurate.
2.Relation Between CO2 and Climate Change
Information of ice core is often cited as the main proof that CO2 is the gas that drives earth’s climate in the greenhouse effect.
However, the ice core information doesn’t show that CO2 changes climate. Instead it shows, very clearly, that variations in temperature precede rises in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 – and not otherwise. Sometimes the two phenomena are set appart by several thousands of years of difference.
It is observable that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased due to the increase in industry
In the above graphic, which is the same graphic presented by Al Gore in his Inconvenient Truth, and by turning our attention to a specific date, such as 130 000 years-100 000 years, we see temperature droping while the concentration of CO2 remains the approximately constant, instead of leading the way.
Such modest difference could seem trivial at first glace, but it needs to be remembered that the scale of the graphic is very large, which means any trivial difference such as this occurred over tenths of thousands of years.
The well known “Hockey Stick” theory graphic has also been dismissed due to incorrect data. It is common knowledge for geologists that the earth has gone through many wide temperature differences throughout its history. This graphic helps understand that the earth itself undergoes natural ciclical temperature differences and that it does not tend to stability at any point.
However, we can see another inconsistency closest to our current days:
From these 3 graphs it is worth noticing the time frame between 1940 and 1970, where the use of fossil fuels continued to increase exponentially (and consequently, the increase in concentration of CO2), yet where there was a consecutive period of 30 years where the temperature declined, giving rise to Ice age scares.
3. CO2 Greenhouse Effect
This is why it is important to factor water vapor when doing calculations on the greenhouse effect.
Role of atmospheric greenhouse gases (both natural and anthropogenic) as a relative percentage of their contribution to the “greenhouse effect”
Water Vapor, the most relevant greenhouse gas, is accountable for approximately 95% of the greenhouse effect. Among climatologists this is common knowledge, but among certain interest groups, governmental groups or news reporters such fact is not mentioned and ends up ignored.
Even by comparing the other 5% of greenhouse gases, we can see that the percentage of human contribution is very small compared to other sources, in the case of CO2, such as naturally degrading organic materials, volcano eruptions, etc
To finish up the math, by calculating the adjusted contribution product of CO2 to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and the percentage of concentration derived from anthropogenic activities (3.225%) we see that (0.03618×0.03225) or 0.117% of greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 derived from human activity. Other greenhouse gases contribution is displayed below.
For those interested, the formula that was used was:
(concentration) X (the appropriate GWP multiplier of each gas relative to CO2) = greenhouse contribution.
4.Live Climate Change
Global warming is expected to cause changes in the overall distribution and intensity of specific weather events. Some people, like Al Gore, state that those changes are already visible, in cases of occurrence of snow storms and hurricanes.
Such trend is not visible for now.
So there you have it, a different look at Global warming.
For those interested at the source of many arguments against the theory of man-made global warming, please visit the following websites: