Summary: It is not disputed that mean temperature of Earth has increased by 0.8° C since the early 20th century. Various factors affecting Earth’s surface temperature have been examined and it is found that no mathematical correlation exists between those factors and Global Warming. It is suggested that Earth dynamically keeps its surface temperature.

1. Whether or not Global Warming is Real – A View Point
Summary: It is not disputed that mean temperature of Earth has increased by 0.8°
C since the early 20th century. Various factors affecting Earth’s surface
temperature have been examined and it is found that no mathematical correlation
exists between those factors and Global Warming. It is suggested that Earth
dynamically keeps its surface temperature.
The purpose of this article is not to dispute generally accepted facts or to deny
projected effects of Global Warming. The purpose of this article is to examine
whether or not evidence that has accumulated is being correctly interpreted.
Therefore cumulative evidence is generally presumed to be correct. I have
principally relied upon Wikipedia to build up this article.
According to Wikipedia:-
“Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere
and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation. Since the
early 20th century, Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 0.8
°C (1.4 °F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980. Warming of
the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it
is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by
human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. These
findings are recognized by the national science academies of all major
industrialized nations.
Climate model projections were summarized in the 2007 Fourth Assessment
Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They
indicated that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to
rise a further 1.1 to 2.9 °C (2 to 5.2 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario and 2.4
to 6.4 °C (4.3 to 11.5 °F) for their highest. The ranges of these estimates arise from
the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Wikipedia further states:-
“Global warming controversy

2. The global warming controversy refers to a variety of disputes, significantly more
pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature, regarding the
nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. The disputed issues include
the causes of increased global average air temperature, especially since the mid-
20th century, whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal
climatic variations, whether humankind has contributed significantly to it, and
whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements.
Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of
additional warming, and what the consequences of global warming will be.
In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface
temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused
mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of
national or international standing disagrees with this view, though a few
organizations hold non-committal position.
From 1990–1997 in the United States, conservative think tanks mobilized to
undermine the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem. They challenged
the scientific evidence.”
The difficulty with Global Warming is that cause-effect relationship between
increased temperature and the alleged causes has never been scientifically
established. Only certain associated changes have been alleged to be the cause.
We are not certain if these associated changes are indeed the culprit. Moreover
even these projections are based on empirically generated climate models. This is
presumably because we do not yet understand how Earth keeps its
climate/temperature. So literature has plenty of mutually contradictory
observations, claims and counterclaims. Plenty of positive feedback and negative
feedback cycles are known but all put together do not explain as to how Earth
keeps its climate/temperature within a range. Attempts to link Earth’s
temperature with solar constant and its variations just don’t meet the eye. Solar
constant is highest during winters and lowest during summers. Variations in solar
constant do not exceed 0.1%. Wikipedia states about Solar Constant as under:-
“Solar output is nearly, but not quite, constant. Variations in total solar irradiance
were too small to detect with technology available before the satellite era. Total
solar output is now measured to vary (over the last three 11-year sunspot cycles)
by approximately 0.1%; see solar variation for details.
The solar constant includes all types of solar radiation, not just the visible light. It
is measured by satellite to be roughly 1.361 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m²)

3. at solar minimum and approximately 0.1% greater (roughly 1.362 kW/m²) at solar
maximum. The actual direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere
fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1.412 kW/m² in early January to
1.321 kW/m² in early July) due to the Earth's varying distance from the Sun, and
typically by much less than 0.1% from day to day. Thus, for the whole Earth (which
has a cross section of 127,400,000 km²), the power is 1.740×1017 W, plus or minus
3.5%. The solar constant does not remain constant over long periods of time
(see Solar variation), but over a year varies much less than the variation of direct
solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere arising from the ellipticity of the
Earth's orbit. The approximate average value cited,1.361 kW/m², is equivalent to
1.952 calories per minute per square centimeter, or 1.952 langleys (Ly)—or, in SI
units— about 81.672 kJ/m² per minute.
The Earth receives a total amount of radiation determined by its cross section
(π·RE²), but as it rotates this energy is distributed across the entire surface
area (4·π·RE²). Hence the average incoming solar radiation, taking into account
the angle at which the rays strike and that at any one moment half the planet
does not receive any solar radiation, is one-fourth the solar constant
(approximately 340 W/m²). At any given moment, the amount of solar radiation
received at a location on the Earth's surface depends on the state of the
atmosphere, the location's latitude, and the time of day.”
The amount of solar energy Earth receives for sun is sufficient to increase surface
temperature beyond 100° C in less than one hour. Moreover amount of energy
can’t be correlated with observed weather conditions, being the highest in
winters and lowest in summers. Even the extent of variation in solar constant
can’t be correlated with rise of Earth’s temperature by 0.8° C during the last
century. Moreover it is self-evident that Earth was unable to dissipate energy it
receives from Sun; it would have been hot enough that no known life forms
except (probably) some kind of Extremophiles could have survived. Even
depletion of Ozone layer does not correlate with Global Warming.
In 2008, total worldwide energy consumption was
474 exajoules (474×1018 J=132,000 TWh). This is equivalent to an average power
use of 15 terawatts (1.504×1013 W). This is 0.009% of the amount of energy
Earth receives from Sun during any year. Therefore increased energy
consumption due to increased human activity can’t account for increase in
mean temperature of Earth from 13.9° C to 14.6° C (approximate increase of
5.4%) during past 100 years.

4. From the above discussion, it is evident that Earth rigorously keeps its
temperature and Earth’s temperature bears no direct correlation to amount of
energy it receives from sun or released by burning of fuels to meet demands
created by increased human activity. Further no cause-effect relationship with
accumulation of so called green house gases and Earth’s temperature has been
established. Increased concentration (16% to 167% since 1750) of naturally
occurring greenhouse gases does not linearly correlate with extent of reported
mean temperature change. Same is the case with increased positive radiative
forcing. Increased positive radiative forcing for different naturally occurring
greenhouse gases has increased from 0.18 W/square meter to 1.79 W/square
meter but bears no correlation with reported temperature increase.
Therefore all that can be said at the moment is that Earth’s surface temperature
is the result of dynamic equilibrium which is attained and maintained by a variety
of mechanisms having positive and negative feedback loops. So the reported
increase in mean temperature of Earth may not be due to alleged accumulation of
green house gases or increased human activity but may be the result of shift in
dynamic equilibrium. How this dynamic equilibrium is determined, attained and
maintained is the key issue to be resolved if we want to understand the reason
underlying reported increase in mean temperature of Earth. Empirically worked
out climate models are really not of much help because they indicate only
association of facts and not the rationale behind those facts. Scientific resolution
of problem of Global warming is not possible in the absence of proper
understanding of the phenomenon. Last but not the least, nature is self-
perpetuating and this invariably is the result of dynamic conservation of status-
quo.
Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written the
book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins
with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains
cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life
and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary
concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only
book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null or Zero or nothing.
http://www.sciencengod.com
http://curatio.in