S. Fred Singer
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
S. Fred Singer
is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of
Vir-ginia, a distinguished research professor at George Mason
University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy
Project. He performed his undergraduate studies at Ohio State
University and earned his Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University.
He was the founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary
Sciences at the University of Miami, the founding director of the U.S.
National Weather Satellite Service, and served for five years as vice
chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and
Atmosphere. Dr. Singer has written or edited over a dozen books and
mono-graphs, including, most recently, Unstoppable Global Warming:
Every 1,500 Years.
The following is adapted from a lecture delivered on the Hillsdale
College campus on June 30, 2007, during a seminar entitled “Economics
and the Environment,” sponsored by the Charles R. and Kathleen K.
Hoogland Center for Teacher Excellence.
IN THE PAST few years there has been increasing concern about global
climate change on the part of the media, politicians, and the public.
It has been stimulated by the idea that human activities may influence
global climate adversely and that therefore corrective action is
required on the part of governments. Recent evidence suggests that this
concern is misplaced. Human activities are not influencing the global
climate in a perceptible way. Climate will continue to change, as it
always has in the past, warming and cooling on different time scales
and for different reasons, regardless of human action. I would also
argue that—should it occur—a modest warming would be on the whole
beneficial.
This is not to say that we don’t face a serious problem. But the
problem is political. Because of the mistaken idea that governments can
and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have
the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely
damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase
poverty. This misdi-rection of resources will adversely affect human
health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in
developing nations. Thus it could well lead to increased social
tensions within nations and conflict between them.
If not for this economic and political damage, one might consider
the present concern about climate change nothing more than just another
environmentalist fad, like the Alar apple scare or the global cooling
fears of the 1970s. Given that so much is at stake, how-ever, it is
essential that people better understand the issue.
Man-Made Warming?
The most fundamental question is scientific: Is the observed warming
of the past 30 years due to natural causes or are human activities a
main or even a contributing factor?
At first glance, it is quite plausible that humans could be
responsible for warming the cli-mate. After all, the burning of fossil
fuels to generate energy releases large quantities of carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere. The CO2 level has been increasing steadily since
the beginning of the industrial revolution and is now 35 percent higher
than it was 200 years ago. Also, we know from direct measurements that
CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” which strongly absorbs infrared (heat)
radiation. So the idea that burning fossil fuels causes an enhanced
“greenhouse effect” needs to be taken seriously.
But in seeking to understand recent warming, we also have to
consider the natural factors that have regularly warmed the climate
prior to the industrial revolution and, indeed, prior to any human
presence on the earth. After all, the geological record shows a
persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at
least one million years.
In identifying the burning of fossil fuels as the chief cause of
warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply
appeal to a so-called “scientific consensus.” There are two things
wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing
number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the
political rush to judgment on this issue. For example, the widely
touted “consensus” of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations
Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most
of the panelists have no scien-tific qualifications, and many of the
others object to some part of the IPCC’s report. The As-sociated Press
reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the
report’s “Summary for Policymakers.”
Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board voted on
the “consensus statement” on climate change by the American
Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a
say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates
of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made global warming are well
over 50 percent.
The second reason not to rely on a “scientific consensus” in these
matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific
advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge
the majority view—or even just a single person (think of Galileo or
Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws
conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands.
But aren’t glaciers melting? Isn’t sea ice shrinking? Yes, but
that’s not proof for human-caused warming. Any kind of warming, whether
natural or human-caused, will melt ice. To assert that melting glaciers
prove human causation is just bad logic.
What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the
same time tempera-tures are rising? That’s an interesting correlation;
but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation. During much
of the last century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were
rising. And we should note that the climate has not warmed in the past
eight years, even though greenhouse gas levels have increased rapidly.
What about the fact—as cited by, among others, those who produced
the IPCC report—that every major greenhouse computer model (there are
two dozen or so) shows a large tem-perature increase due to human
burning of fossil fuels? Fortunately, there is a scientific way of
testing these models to see whether current warming is due to a
man-made greenhouse effect. It involves comparing the actual or
observed pattern of warming with the warming pattern predicted by or
calculated from the models. Essentially, we try to see if the
“finger-prints” match—“fingerprints” meaning the rates of warming at
different latitudes and alti-tudes.
For instance, theoretically, greenhouse warming in the tropics
should register at increas-ingly high rates as one moves from the
surface of the earth up into the atmosphere, peak-ing at about six
miles above the earth’s surface. At that point, the level should be
greater than at the surface by about a factor of three and quite
pronounced, according to all the computer models. In reality, however,
there is no increase at all. In fact, the data from bal-loon-borne
radiosondes show the very opposite: a slight decrease in warming over
the equator.
The fact that the observed and predicted patterns of warming don’t
match indicates that the man-made greenhouse contribution to current
temperature change is insignificant. This fact emerges from data and
graphs collected in the Climate Change Science Program Re-port 1.1,
published by the federal government in April 2006 (see www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm).
It is remarkable and puzzling that few have noticed this disparity
between observed and predicted patterns of warming and drawn the
obvious scientific conclusion.
What explains why greenhouse computer models predict temperature
trends that are so much larger than those observed? The answer lies in
the proper evaluation of feedback within the models. Remember that in
addition to carbon dioxide, the real atmosphere con-tains water vapor,
the most powerful greenhouse gas. Every one of the climate models
calculates a significant positive feedback from water vapor—i.e., a
feedback that amplifies the warming effect of the CO2 increase by an
average factor of two or three. But it is quite possible that the water
vapor feedback is negative rather than positive and thereby re-duces
the effect of increased CO2.
There are several ways this might occur. For example, when increased
CO2 produces a warming of the ocean, a higher rate of evaporation might
lead to more humidity and cloudi-ness (provided the atmosphere contains
a sufficient number of cloud condensation nuclei). These low clouds
reflect incoming solar radiation back into space and thereby cool the
earth. Climate researchers have discovered other possible feedbacks and
are busy evaluat-ing which ones enhance and which diminish the effect
of increasing CO2.
Natural Causes of Warming
A quite different question, but scientifically interesting, has to
do with the natural factors influencing climate. This is a big topic
about which much has been written. Natural factors include continental
drift and mountain-building, changes in the Earth’s orbit, volcanic
erup-tions, and solar variability. Different factors operate on
different time scales. But on a time scale important for human
experience—a scale of decades, let’s say—solar variability may be the
most important.
Solar influence can manifest itself in different ways: fluctuations
of solar irradiance (total energy), which has been measured in
satellites and related to the sunspot cycle; variability of the
ultraviolet portion of the solar spectrum, which in turn affects the
amount of ozone in the stratosphere; and variations in the solar wind
that modulate the intensity of cosmic rays (which, upon impact into the
earth’s atmosphere, produce cloud condensation nuclei, affect-ing
cloudiness and thus climate).
Scientists have been able to trace the impact of the sun on past
climate using proxy data (since thermometers are relatively modern). A
conventional proxy for temperature is the ratio of the heavy isotope of
oxygen, Oxygen-18, to the most common form, Oxygen-16.
A paper published in Nature in 2001 describes the Oxygen-18 data
(reflecting temperature) from a stalagmite in a cave in Oman, covering
a period of over 3,000 years. It also shows corresponding Carbon-14
data, which are directly related to the intensity of cosmic rays
striking the earth’s atmosphere. One sees there a remarkably detailed
correlation, almost on a year-by-year basis. While such research cannot
establish the detailed mechanism of cli-mate change, the causal
connection is quite clear: Since the stalagmite temperature cannot
affect the sun, it is the sun that affects climate.
Policy Consequences
If this line of reasoning is correct, human-caused increases in the
CO2 level are quite insignifi-cant to climate change. Natural causes of
climate change, for their part, cannot be controlled by man. They are
unstoppable. Several policy consequences would follow from this simple
fact:
> Regulation of CO2 emissions is pointless and even
counterproductive, in that no matter what kind of mitigation scheme is
used, such regulation is hugely expensive.
> The development of non-fossil fuel energy sources, like ethanol
and hydrogen, might be counterproductive, given that they have to be
manufactured, often with the investment of great amounts of ordinary
energy. Nor do they offer much reduction in oil imports.
> Wind power and solar power become less attractive, being uneconomic and requiring huge subsidies.
> Substituting natural gas for coal in electricity generation makes less sense for the same reasons.
None of this is intended to argue against energy conservation. On
the contrary, conserving energy reduces waste, saves money, and lowers
energy prices—irrespective of what one may believe about global
warming.
Science vs. Hysteria
You will note that this has been a rational discussion. We asked the
important question of whether there is appreciable man-made warming
today. We presented evidence that indi-cates there is not, thereby
suggesting that attempts by governments to control green-house-gas
emissions are pointless and unwise. Nevertheless, we have state
governors calling for CO2 emissions limits on cars; we have city mayors
calling for mandatory CO2 controls; we have the Supreme Court declaring
CO2 a pollutant that may have to be regu-lated; we have every
industrialized nation (with the exception of the U.S. and Australia)
signed on to the Kyoto Protocol; and we have ongoing international
demands for even more stringent controls when Kyoto expires in 2012.
What’s going on here?
To begin, perhaps even some of the advocates of these anti-warming
policies are not so seri-ous about them, as seen in a feature of the
Kyoto Protocol called the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows a
CO2 emitter—i.e., an energy user—to support a fanciful CO2 re-duction
scheme in developing nations in exchange for the right to keep on
emitting CO2 un-abated. “Emission trading” among those countries that
have ratified Kyoto allows for the sale of certificates of unused
emission quotas. In many cases, the initial quota was simply given away
by governments to power companies and other entities, which in turn
collect a windfall fee from consumers. All of this has become a huge
financial racket that could someday make the UN’s “Oil for Food”
scandal in Iraq seem minor by comparison. Even more fraudulent, these
schemes do not reduce total CO2 emissions—not even in theory.
It is also worth noting that tens of thousands of interested persons
benefit directly from the global warming scare—at the expense of the
ordinary consumer. Environmental or-ganizations globally, such as
Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have
raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies
for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading
programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees
paid to brokers and those who operate the scams. In other words, many
people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have
formed an entrenched interest. Of course, there are also many sincere
believers in an impending global warming catastrophe, spurred on in
their fears by the growing number of one-sided books, movies, and media
coverage.
The irony is that a slightly warmer climate with more carbon dioxide
is in many ways bene-ficial rather than damaging. Economic studies have
demonstrated that a modest warming and higher CO2 levels will increase
GNP and raise standards of living, primarily by improving agriculture
and forestry. It’s a well-known fact that CO2 is plant food and
essential to the growth of crops and trees—and ultimately to the
well-being of animals and humans.
You wouldn’t know it from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, but there
are many upsides to global warming: Northern homes could save on
heating fuel. Canadian farmers could har-vest bumper crops. Greenland
may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an
Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. Forests may expand.
Mongolia could become an economic superpower. This is all speculative,
even a little face-tious. But still, might there be a silver lining for
the frigid regions of Canada and Russia? “It’s not that there won’t be
bad things happening in those countries,” economics professor Robert O.
Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies
says. “But the idea is that they will get such large gains, especially
in agriculture, that they will be bigger than the losses.” Mendelsohn
has looked at how gross domestic product around the world would be
affected under different warming scenarios through 2100. Canada and
Russia tend to come out as clear gainers, as does much of northern
Europe and Mongolia, largely be-cause of projected increases in
agricultural production.
To repeat a point made at the beginning: Climate has been changing
cyclically for at least a million years and has shown huge variations
over geological time. Human beings have adapted well, and will continue
to do so.
* * *
The nations of the world face many difficult problems. Many have
societal problems like pov-erty, disease, lack of sanitation, and
shortage of clean water. There are grave security prob-lems arising
from global terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Any of
these problems are vastly more important than the imaginary problem of
man-made global warm-ing. It is a great shame that so many of our
resources are being diverted from real problems to this non-problem.
Perhaps in ten or 20 years this will become apparent to everyone,
par-ticularly if the climate should stop warming (as it has for eight
years now) or even begin to cool.
We can only trust that reason will prevail in the face of an
onslaught of propaganda like Al Gore’s movie and despite the incessant
misinformation generated by the media. To-day, the imposed costs are
still modest, and mostly hidden in taxes and in charges for electricity
and motor fuels. If the scaremongers have their way, these costs will
become enormous. But I believe that sound science and good sense will
prevail in the face of irrational and scientifically baseless climate
fears.
source = http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=08
