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
The debate about the cause of Global Warming has endured for decades without a clear
consensus among the scientific community. In our age and time, it is impossible to deny global
warming, yet the debate continues as no mainstream theory has been able to account for all the
data gathered. On one side, the majority, over 90% according to the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (2013), of scientists favor the conclusion reached by the IPCC that Global
Warming is entirely caused by the excessive use of fossil fuels by humans. This theory, known
as Anthropogenic Global Warming, was not questioned until in 2007, a small number of
scientists raised some important concerns. Among these scientists, Dr. Alexander, a visiting
professor at the University of Texas at El Paso challenged the idea of AGW based on chemical
impossibilities, and Dr. Abdusamatov, from the space research laboratory Pulkovo in St.
Petersburg, hypothesized that the increase in earths temperature was due to an increase in solar
activity. In this paper I will analyze the validity of these claims, as well as the data that supports
them, and argue that while neither of them is completely correct, together they account for all the
data gathered about Global Warming thus far.






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). Despite the fact that the average temperature of Earth had been steadily rising since the
1900s, the idea of GW was deemed a myth until serious scientific research on it started in 1988
with the birth of the IPCC. Now 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 the cause 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 neither anthropogenic, nor the solar cycle stances are correct as neither one of these
claims can account for all the data gathered, yet by combining the main arguments of each theory
we can answer most of the questions raised about GW. I will do so by analyzing the different
GLOBAL WARMING: SETTLING THE DEBATE 4

evidence presented by both sides, such as CO
2
concentration levels in the atmosphere, as well as
the polar ice caps, and global temperature averages for the last 400,000 years for Earth.
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 (2013) 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. Furthermore, according to the IPCCs (2013)
AR5 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 (2013), in fact, most of their evidence is
taken directly from the their 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 whereas the IPCC (2013) argues that aerosol particles have a negative effect.
The vast majority of scientists and scholars that support the idea of AGW do so based on
data gathered by the IPCC (2013). Key among said data is the reported amount of CO
2
gas in the
atmosphere, which according to the IPCC (2013) 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
undeniable that these high CO
2
concentrations have had some effect on Earths temperature, it is
GLOBAL WARMING: SETTLING THE DEBATE 5

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 (2013)
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 (2013).
Those that disagree with Anthropogenic Global Warming, claim the largest contributor to
Earths warming is the sun. In 2007, Dr. Abdusamatov (2007) 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 (2007) 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 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 (2003), 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 (2007), a visiting professor at the University of Texas, El
Paso. Dr. Alexanders (2007) studied the molecular basis for the absorption of solar radiation of
GLOBAL WARMING: SETTLING THE DEBATE 6

CO
2
. Dr. Alexander (2007) was one of the first scientists to notice the molecular inconsistencies
in the carbon dioxide spectrum. According to him (Alexander, 2007), 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 (2007) 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.
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 (Caillon, et al., 2003). 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 (2003) 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
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, thus even if more CO
2
is added, it would have no effect in
GLOBAL WARMING: SETTLING THE DEBATE 7

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.
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
GLOBAL WARMING: SETTLING THE DEBATE 8

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 counterproductive. 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. 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 debate about the cause of Global Warming.


GLOBAL WARMING: SETTLING THE DEBATE 9

References:
Abdussamatov, H. (2007). Space-based solar limbograph. Multi-Wavelength Investigations
of Solar Activity, 223, 605-609.
Alexander, M. (2007, October). The molecular basis for radiation absorption in carbon
dioxide molecules. Presentation at New Mexico State University conference on Climate
Change, Las Cruces, NM.
Black, B., & Weisel, G. J. (2010). Global warming. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Greenwood.
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.
IPCC (2013). Fifth Annual Report, Stocker T. F., Allen S. K.(eds.) Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
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.