IMPACTS OF GLOBAL WARMING?
Excerpt from Scientific Alliance conference APOCALYPSE NO!
S. Fred Singer

Excerpt from Scientific Alliance conference APOCALYPSE NO!
held at the Royal Institution, London, Jan 27, 2005

Professor Singer continued Professor Lindzen's theme of misunderstanding of global warming by the public. First, he highlighted recent absurd claims from the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR), who stated that there is a scientific consensus on catastrophic global warming, and that dealing with this catastrophe can be done in a painless and inexpensive way. This statement was made by a group of politicians with no expertise in climate science. Their scientific consultant, the chair of the U.N.-IPCC, has no perceptible qualifications in climate science either. This illustrates another aspect of Professor Lindzen's arguments on confusion and misrepresentation, which policymakers and the general public tend to accept statements when they come from "scientists" or "experts," even when these have no expertise in the area.

Professor Singer commented briefly on the just published report in Nature magazine [of 27 January] that suggested the possibility of a global temperature rise of more than 11 C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels. This entirely unrealistic result was obtained when one "tweaks" several of the many adjustable parameters that enter into the model calculations. Rather than raising concerns or fears, it simply demonstrates the extreme sensitivity of model results to arbitrary assumptions by the modellers. He pointed out that an extrapolation of observational results would lead to a fairly insignificant warming of only 0.5 to 1.0 C. It transforms the "global warming threat" into a non-problem - a fact that should become rather obvious within a few years.

He then continued by examining the questions put forth in Professor Sir Colin Berry's opening remarks. First, as to the question of whether global warming will cause weather extremes: There is no evidence - either observational or theoretical - to support such a claim. Even the 2001 IPCC report says as much [see p.104 and 160].
**Secondly, there is often reporting that the melting of glaciers has increased significantly over the past 30 years. However, observational evidence indicates that one-half of glaciers have stopped shrinking, and many are now growing, whilst the other one-half are melting. [See 2001 IPCC report, p.128] This illustrates either that there is no global warming, or that one cannot use glaciers as reliable indicators of temperature change - or both.

**Thirdly, with regards to the notion that Europe may face a new Ice Age due to global warming: To the contrary, there is credible scientific support for the hypothesis that global warming could delay the onset of the next Ice Age.
**Fourthly, as to the question of rising sea levels and how they might affect the coasts of Britain, there is no evidence of accelerated sea-level rise in the recent past. In fact, global sea levels have been rising consistently for the past 18,000 years, since the last glacial maximum, by about 120 meters. Initially, sea levels rose more rapidly as the continental ice sheets covering Europe and North America melted, but during the last 5000 years they have risen at a roughly constant rate of 18 cm per century. All evidence indicates - and here Professor Singer departs from the IPCC -- that they will continue to rise at that rate - no matter what we do.
**Finally, there is often a question of whether global agriculture will suffer due to global warming. Much evidence indicates that an increase in CO2 will make plants grow faster and, coupled with a longer growing season, this will lead to increased yields overall. In addition, an increase in temperature would lead to more evaporation from oceans, hence more precipitation on average and more fresh water, which is often a limiting factor in agriculture.

In addition, Professor Singer discussed in more detail the Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol calls for industrialised nations to reduce average greenhouse gas emissions by 5% relative to 1990 levels. The UK is aiming for 12.5%. However, this Protocol is flawed for many reasons. Firstly, countries can buy unused emission rights from other countries, like Russia. This results in an income transfer but no overall reduction in emissions. In addition, there is no enforcement or inspection mechanism to combat the possibility of cheating. Finally, even if one assumes that the Protocol is obeyed completely, the reduction in temperature by 2050 would only be an undetectable 1/50thºC, and is therefore completely ineffective. In order to stabilise the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the IPCC calls for a 60-80% reduction in emissions by all nations, which is unrealistic.

Finally, it appears that the Kyoto Protocol is not worth the huge cost imposed on citizens and governments of participating countries. Indeed, respected economists argue that higher CO2 levels and a moderate global warming increase the GNP and are on average economically beneficial. Hence, it is regrettable - and somewhat puzzling - that the media have ignored these well-published conclusions.