[tt] S. Fred Singer: Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?

[Premise Checker]

S. Fred Singer: Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp
7.8

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at
the University of Virginia, 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.
__________________________________________________________________

Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?

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 thatshould it occura modest warming would be on
the whole beneficial.

This is not to say that we dont 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 misdirection 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,
however, 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 climate. After all, the burning of
fossil fuels to generate energy releases large quantities of
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The CO[2] 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 CO[2] 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
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion:
Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many
of the others object to some part of the IPCCs report. The
Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists
contributed to the reports 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 viewor 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 arent glaciers melting? Isnt sea ice shrinking? Yes, but thats
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 temperatures are rising? Thats an interesting
correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not
causation. During much of the last century the climate was cooling
while CO[2] 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 factas cited by, among others, those who produced
the IPCC reportthat every major greenhouse computer model (there
are two dozen or so) shows a large temperature 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 fingerprints matchfingerprints meaning the rates of warming at
different latitudes and altitudes.

For instance, theoretically, greenhouse warming in the tropics
should register at increasingly high rates as one moves from the
surface of the earth up into the atmosphere, peaking at about six
miles above the earths 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
balloon-borne radiosondes show the very opposite: a slight
decrease in warming over the equator.

The fact that the observed and predicted patterns of warming dont
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 Report 1.1, published by the federal government in April
2006 (see
http://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
contains water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas. Every one
of the climate models calculates a significant positive feedback
from water vapori.e., a feedback that amplifies the warming effect
of the CO[2] 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 reduces the effect of increased CO[2].

There are several ways this might occur. For example, when
increased CO[2] produces a warming of the ocean, a higher rate of
evaporation might lead to more humidity and cloudiness (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 evaluating which
ones enhance and which diminish the effect of increasing CO[2].

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 Earths
orbit, volcanic eruptions, and solar variability. Different
factors operate on different time scales. But on a time scale
important for human experiencea scale of decades, lets saysolar
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 earths atmosphere, produce cloud
condensation nuclei, affecting 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 earths atmosphere. One sees there a
remarkably detailed correlation, almost on a year-by-year basis.
While such research cannot establish the detailed mechanism of
climate 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 CO[2 ]level are quite insignificant 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 CO[2] 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 pricesirrespective 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 indicates there is not,
thereby suggesting that attempts by governments to control
greenhouse-gas emissions are pointless and unwise. Nevertheless,
we have state governors calling for CO[2] emissions limits on
cars; we have city mayors calling for mandatory CO[2] controls; we
have the Supreme Court declaring CO[2] a pollutant that may have
to be regulated; 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. Whats going on
here?

To begin, perhaps even some of the advocates of these anti-warming
policies are not so serious about them, as seen in a feature of
the Kyoto Protocol called the Clean Development Mechanism, which
allows a CO[2] emitteri.e., an energy userto support a fanciful
CO[2] reduction scheme in developing nations in exchange for the
right to keep on emitting CO[2] unabated. 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 UNs Oil for Food scandal in Iraq seem minor
by comparison. Even more fraudulent, these schemes do not reduce
total CO[2] emissionsnot even in theory.

It is also worth noting that tens of thousands of interested
persons benefit directly from the global warming scareat the
expense of the ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations
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 beneficial rather than damaging. Economic
studies have demonstrated that a modest warming and higher CO[2]
levels will increase GNP and raise standards of living, primarily
by improving agriculture and forestry. Its a well-known fact that
CO[2] is plant food and essential to the growth of crops and
treesand ultimately to the well-being of animals and humans.

You wouldnt know it from Algore's An Inconvenient Truth, but there
are many upsides to global warming: Northern homes could save on
heating fuel. Canadian farmers could harvest 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 facetious. But still, might there be a
silver lining for the frigid regions of Canada and Russia? Its not
that there wont 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 because 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 poverty, disease, lack of sanitation, and
shortage of clean water. There are grave security problems 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 warming. 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, particularly 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 Algore's movie and despite the
incessant misinformation generated by the media. Today, 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.