• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Alternatives to the Standard Climate Theory

LowDown

Curmudgeon
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,177
Reaction score
8,766
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Several scientists have published work that provides an alternative to the idea that man made CO2 is the cause of global warming.

Prof. Ole Humlum:

1. [Observations show] The temperature rise begins at sea level and spreads gradually to the land and atmosphere several months later. This is contrary to the IPCC CO2 hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 controls land and ocean temperature.

2. The geographical distribution of a CO2 increase doesn't start at 30-50 degrees North latitude, which one would expect if the source were mainly created by the fossil fuel industry and transport in the Northern Hemisphere. Instead, the increase of CO2 starts just south of the equator. This is contrary to the IPCC hypothesis that use of fossil fuels is the primary cause of increased CO2 levels.

Dr. Humlum notes that existing climate models are based on the improper assumption that CO2 controls temperature and have not provided skillful predictions so far. He concludes,

"One should therefore consider moving the focus of climate research from CO2 to the nature and significance of natural variation, both related to the sun and other [natural causes]. It is most likely where we will find the main reason for the present (and future) climate change."

Froelicher et al.

"In contrast to recent claims, trends in the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon [dioxide] cannot be detected when accounting for the decadal-scale influence of explosive volcanism and related uncertainties." In other words, after accounting for the large effect of volcanic eruptions, ENSO, and other uncertainties upon natural CO2 sinks, trends in the man-made fraction of atmospheric CO2 "cannot be detected." Thus, despite an exponential increase in man-made CO2 emissions, there is no statistically significant trend in the man-made fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere. This further suggests that man is not the primary cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, that temperature is responsible for the increase in CO2 levels due to out-gassing. According to the authors, "Our results highlight the importance of considering the role of natural variability in the carbon cycle for interpretation of observations and for data-model intercomparison."

Kuo et al.

The hypothesis that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is related to observable changes in the climate is tested using modern methods of time-series analysis. The results confirm that average global temperature is increasing, and that temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide are significantly correlated over the past thirty years. Changes in carbon dioxide content lag those in temperature by five months.

Francy et al

International efforts to limit global warming and ocean acidification aim to slow the growth of atmospheric CO2, guided primarily by national and industry estimates of production and consumption of fossil fuels. Atmospheric verification of emissions is vital but present global inversion methods are inadequate for this purpose. We demonstrate a clear response in atmospheric CO2 coinciding with a sharp 2010 increase in Asian emissions but show persisting slowing mean CO2 growth from 2002/03. Growth and inter-hemispheric concentration difference during the onset and recovery of the Global Financial Crisis support a previous speculation that the reported 2000–2008 emissions surge is an artefact, most simply explained by a cumulative underestimation (~ 9 Pg C) of 1994–2007 emissions; in this case, post-2000 emissions would track mid-range of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emission scenarios. An alternative explanation requires changes in the northern terrestrial land sink that offset anthropogenic emission changes. We suggest atmospheric methods to help resolve this ambiguity.

My comment: It can be shown with readily available data that
  • Changes in CO2 atmospheric concentrations follow changes in temperature by a few months.
  • The rate of atmospheric CO2 increase follows the surface temperature.
  • Global CO2 sources can be mapped by satellite and are not in industrialized countries but in uninhabited regions near the equator.
  • Net CO2 emission into the atmosphere varies by a factor of 5 from year to year, is several times greater than human CO2 emissions some years, and is close to zero in other years.
  • [13]C is low in CO2 coming from many natural sources.
  • Several lines of evidence indicate that CO2 is absorbed in a much shorter time that has been assumed by IPCC scientists.

Any theory of CO2 and global warming must comport with these facts.
 

uncleray

Active member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
290
Reaction score
133
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
2. The geographical distribution of a CO2 increase doesn't start at 30-50 degrees North latitude, which one would expect if the source were mainly created by the fossil fuel industry and transport in the Northern Hemisphere. Instead, the increase of CO2 starts just south of the equator. This is contrary to the IPCC hypothesis that use of fossil fuels is the primary cause of increased CO2 levels.

Just for this statement alone, Prof. Ole Humlum does not seem to be a serious scientist.
He does not take into account the THE TROPICAL HADLEY CIRCULATION to explain the phenomenon.
Air Circulation

By the way, anyone can google-together a list of the couple of percent of scientists
who are contrary to the overwhelming evidence that global warming is real.
That's the down side of the internet. Comments by a few non-peer-reviewed
scientists carry the same weight on opinion and policy as the overwhelming majority.
Sell that beach front property in Florida and buy something in the Arctic. It's gonna be valuable someday! :D
 
Last edited:

DSA

New member
Joined
Nov 7, 2013
Messages
48
Reaction score
11
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I don't take global warming seriously. We know there is a natural cycle that exists if we weren't here. Global Warming is likely a political scam.
 

CletusWilbury

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
932
Reaction score
290
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Kuo et al.

The hypothesis that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is related to observable changes in the climate is tested using modern methods of time-series analysis. The results confirm that average global temperature is increasing, and that temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide are significantly correlated over the past thirty years. Changes in carbon dioxide content lag those in temperature by five months.
That supports the hypothesis
 
Top Bottom