AMDG John Brodeur Hot Talk Cold Science Book Report For Professor Matthew McCann Survey of Physical

Science PHY 105 7 October 2008

In the foreword to Hot Talk Cold Science, Frederick Seitz says that it will be difficult for the reader to simply dismiss Singers work. This, he points out, is due in part to the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence backing it, but also due to Dr. Fred Singers own credentials, which, as Seitz points out, are not only extensive but impressive. Seitz describes Dr. Singer as a pioneer. Dr. Singer, he continues, aided the verification of Einsteins general theory by satellites and was the first to serve as director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. Interestingly enough, Dr. Singer was also responsible for calculating the atmospheric effects of population growth as early as 1970 in which he predicted a substantial upward trend of methane a greenhouse gas believed to contribute to global warming. His further studies about the transformation of methane gas into water vapor were successfully demonstrated in 1995. Seitzs cause for these observations is to prove to the reader Dr. Singers own objectivity in these matters of global warming; an objectivity that defies bureaucracy and irrational environmentalism. Dr. Singers conclusions are not based, like most others in this field of research, by hypothetical and unsubstantiated observations. Finally, Seitz alerts the reader to the economical benefit of taking Dr. Singers work seriously, a sentiment that the author expresses over and over throughout his book. In his own preface, Dr. Singer elaborates on the economic insanity of governmental legislation which seeks to eliminate global warming. He puts forth the purpose of his book in very clear terms: to demonstrate that the evidence [for global warming] is neither settled, nor compelling, nor even convincing (ix) and to show how undue governmental legislation would prove not only ineffective but ultimately damaging. He also emphasizes the disparity between atmospheric computer simulations and their actual observations, another concept which seems to be an especially important part of Dr. Singers suspicions and consequential arguments. Chapter 1 begins with an exploration into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a series of reports which have been crucial in the attempt to form a global climate treaty. Dr. Singer puts a major emphasis on the panels primary conclusion: that the balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate. This, Dr. Singer asserts, cannot and should not be used to legitimize Global Circulation Models (GCMs for short). The discrepancy between these computer-generated models and real-life observations is too great. According to Dr. Singer, although the cause or causes of this discrepancy are still being debated, the increasing level of interest toward the discrepancy is telling. Any number of causes could account for the discrepancy; solar variability, clouds, and water vapor distribution are all inadequately handled by the current computer models. Dr. Singer is convinced that even if some sort of moderate warming were to materialize, its consequences would be relatively small. Even so, he points out that there is no true definition of what a dangerous level of greenhouse gases would constitute. This is because there is no scientific understanding of what a dangerous level of greenhouse gases is. That is why Dr. Singer makes such a case against establishing a global climate treaty; such a treaty would be based on a catastrophically vague

assumption that the increase in greenhouse gases is in fact dangerous, a discussion which Dr. Singer elaborates upon further in his book. According to Dr. Singer, there is nothing truly unusual in the global temperature record of this century. He explains how natural climate fluctuations are caused by complex interactions between solar radiation, the atmosphere, and oceans. These are healthy cycles and do involve observable differences in climate. For instance, historical records show sure evidence of a Little Ice Age between about 1450 and 1850 and a Medieval Climate Optimum around 1000 A.D. Although many causes of climate variation exist, those causes which hold the most prime position are still largely unknown. Many scientists are said to believe the variations are actually irregular, quasi-periodic oscillations caused by internal reactions between the atmosphere and the ocean. Others, Dr. Singer says, hold that the primary cause for solar variation could be solar variability, especially those who have observed the close correlation between climate and sunspots:

In either of these cases, Dr. Singer makes clear that the GCM computer models prove ineffective they cannot and do not take either of these influences into account; they cannot effectively represent these natural variations in climate. Even satellite observations of climate change have yielded discrepancy with ground-based temperature readings, and these discrepancies even appear to be increasing proportionately. The first figure below shows differences between both ground-based temperatures and satellite-based temperatures, while the second figure shows a trend line for the actual discrepancy:

Scientists Hurrell and Trenberth have attempted to explain this phenomenon by the notion that each measures different quantities. Another cause for the discrepancy, as Dr. Singer points out, could very well be a phenomenon known as the UHI or urban heat island effect. He points out that as population grows, an artificial warming trend tends to be introduced among surface level observations, a trend not manifested in satellite observations. Another potential candidate for climate variation is solar variability in the ultraviolet region and through solar wind. Dr. Singer proposes two relevant theories: 1) that the climate is somehow influenced by an 11-year old cycle of stratospheric ozone thickness or 2) that climate influence could be found in the solar-modulated 11-year cycle of cosmic-ray intensity. Despite all these hypotheses, Dr. Singer believes that the discrepancies in climate are most likely due not so much to external factors, but rather the internal effects inside of the models themselves.

Just like climate variation, the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has also varied historically as well; it was about twenty times the preindustrial value 500 million years ago, hitting its lowest level 300 million years ago:

Despite fluctuations in the graph, it appears that the trend, if anything, shows a downward trend in carbon dioxide concentration. This trend is one of the reasons why Dr. Singer is not satisfied with the widely-held view that climate variability depends on carbon dioxide concentration. In the earlier-referenced Little Ice Age, it is estimated that the carbon dioxide concentration was approximately 200 parts per million versus the 280 ppm of the preindustrial value, a value which is much more historically stable. Dr. Singer concludes that if these concepts were supported by further data, we may well end up trying to increase, not decrease, the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere. Further cause for such a statement lies in Dr. Singers conclusion that the aerosol effect, an attempt to cool and counteract the positive radiative forcing of greenhouse gases (12) is actually a very minute ordeal. In fact, Dr. Singer dismisses it in such a radical way that he is actually able to use its lack of impact as a proof that the stratosphere is cooling. Building upon an extensive analysis performed by Hanson in 1997, Dr. Singer observes that man-induced sulfate aerosols are restricted by almost 90 percent to the Northern Hemisphere, and thus should have worked against or at least slowed warming there. The problem is, of course, that this is simply not the case. In fact, the warming of the Northern Hemisphere is twice that of the Southern Hemisphere. This observation further supports the notion of a strong zonal warming trend present in northern midlatitudes. All levels of observation (ground, satellite, and balloon) take notice of this trend, as the figure below illustrates:

The cause is hypothesized to be from a positive radiative force produced in cirrus clouds. Another interesting concept Dr. Singer raises is that of the many potential benefits of global warming if it were to actually occur. It would effectively reduce severe storms, lower sea levels (contrary to popular belief), increase precipitation, and consequentially thicken the icecaps of Greenland and Antarctica. Dr. Singer is quick to point out that from an historical viewpoint, warmer periods have only ever been beneficial for humanity as a species and that the colder historical periods have been marked by disastrous obstacles to human expansion such as crop failure and disease. Fewer frosts only merit longer agricultural seasons. If the reports concerning the greening of Northern latitudes or of an earlier spring growing season are true, then global warming has not yet threatened the agricultural industry, but rather enhanced it. Dr. Singer also reminds the reader that weather is significantly bettered by a warm climate. He then follows up that statement with a statistic that shows how over the past 50 years, hurricanes have diminished in both frequency and severity. As for the sea-level rising which so many seem certain of, Dr. Singer is equally unconvinced. Although he admits it is impossible to theoretically predict whether the sea would rise or fall as a result of global warming, he believes that there might be a significant chance that it would fall instead of rise. Warmer temperatures, he asserts, would naturally lead to increased evaporation from the ocean and would consequently lead to increased precipitation and the accumulation of ice around the earths Polar Regions. This pattern, along with the thermal expansion of ocean water would at least

preserve if not diminish the oceans level. To make his argument even stronger, Dr. Singer shows that the global average temperature and the tropical sea-surface temperature are actually anti-correlated with the fluctuations of sea-level rise. Given the evidence, Dr. Singer concludes, it is more probable that sea levels would fall in the event of future global warming. Thus, Dr. Singer also proposes that if global warming were to become or is in fact becoming a real-life issue, it should be dealt with under a policy of adaptation rather than energy rationing. He proposes it would be vastly more cost effective to speed up carbon dioxide absorption into the ocean rather than to try and limit emissions. This, he says, could even conceivably derive commercial benefits from the abundant carbon dioxide found in the atmosphere. To effectively reduce carbon emissions on the scope of what the IPCC has put forth would require a worldwide reduction of over 60 percent of the emissions and energy use which was recorded in 1990. Sixty percent! As Dr. Singer so rightly points out, that is an unfeasible amount. It would throw the economy into ruin and effectively put human technology at a stand-still, and even if this reduction could somehow be achieved, Dr. Singer rightly observes that it would merely slow down the upward trend of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is because, as has been pointed out earlier, stabilizing emissions does not keep natural fluctuation of carbon dioxide concentration under control. The alternative method to reduction then would be to sequester the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Historically, this sequestering has been attempted by planting trees, but on the scale of current production, Dr. Singer calculates that it would take roughly 50 million km2 worth of trees to break even, a severely unrealistic amount. The alternative method of sequestering would be to speed up natural absorption of carbon dioxide into the ocean. Dr. Singer describes the current state of the ocean as a biological desert (20). If carbon dioxide were to be sequestered into the ocean at a faster rate, it would logically spawn much more oceanic life. The growth of phytoplankton, the base of the food chain, would provide a growth throughout the entire oceans biological ecosystem and could thereby aid in the development of commercial fisheries, thus aiding in the economic and practical needs of the human community. Based on all the preceding assessments, Dr. Singer concludes that change in climate even over the next century would be much less important of an issue than what he describes as the agents of global change (22): population growth, economic growth, and technological changes. Dr. Singer also says it is hard to justify government expenditure toward the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions when more pressing unmet social needs are on the line, and just as there is a normal response to seasonal variations in climate, so too is there a natural response of adaptation in the occasion of more extreme climate changes. This has been proven throughout all of human history. Climate on a global scale has never been more important than the ever-pressing social needs of the human community, and if it is true that the biggest climate threat is the return to a little ice age in the near future, humanity is only sparing itself from an otherwise inevitable nightmare.

Despite all these theoretical (and scientifically based) conclusions which Dr. Singer presents, he is the first to maintain that there is much unfinished business about global warming; there is still much open for dispute. The first problem is, of course, the poor quality of climate data generated by computer models. Here again, Dr. Singer pauses to illustrate the frustration and wild controversy which such disparity has introduced into the climate debate. The urban heat island effect generated by local perturbations among ground-level observations requires constant reconfiguration of the observational data, thus muddying the only seemingly faultless method of collecting climate data. An interesting analysis performed by John Goodridge further illustrates this. See figure below:

Goodridge plotted temperature trends for the last 90 years at over 100 California stations. When grouping the temperature trends according to population density, he found that the readings from counties who had over 1 million people had an increase in temperature commonly attributed to greenhouse warming (as) 3.14 degrees Fahrenheit per century. Dr. Singer also points out that ocean data is hard to come by, despite the fact that the ocean covers more than 70 percent of the earths surface. Although there is apparently no question as to the increase of global temperatures (a fact which can be tangibly proven by all of nature), there is still much debate about how much climate warming is in fact due to the appreciated increase of greenhouse

gases. Observations seem to place the start of such unusual warming in last century and continuing up until about 1940. Since 1940, different conclusions have been drawn about the trend of the climate. While many conclude it is still on the rise, others have evidence that it is not, a concept backed largely by the observation of tree ring data. The figure below illustrates the confusing trend-line analysis with the correlation coefficient between calculated and observed temperature patterns:

Regardless of the trend, it appears that a miniature cooling did in fact take place from about 1940 to 1975. Since then, the climate has undergone abrupt warming, thus resulting in no real temperature net gain since 1940. The reason for the abrupt warming we have been experiencing is still open for dispute. While it may be very true that human influence is involved, it is yet uncertain how much that influence could displace the natural climate fluctuations, or even to what extent natural fluctuations are involved. However tempting it is attribute the sudden warming to the greenhouse effect, the time history of temperature does not support the resulting expectant rise in atmospheric CO2. Dr. Singers words and ideas are very repetitive throughout his tightly compacted book. I believe this same repetition might have even filtered through into the natural flow of this book report. However, there is good reason for his repetition and subsequent elaboration. It is because elsewhere, and especially in the political arena, these ideas are not even discussed. Perhaps the greatest irony of our time is that even though spending money for climate control looks good on a politicians resume, it not only proves ineffective in the grand scheme of things but is also widely ineffective when it comes to collecting tax dollars. Dr. Singers advice is not advice which he expects or desires to be overlooked; he gives it so that our politicians might better understand what more appropriate steps could be taken toward solving an actual problem, not simply launching a completely fantastic ideological crusade. Perhaps if all authors had such intentions, wed already have solved the complex issue of global warming in the modern age.

Bibliography Singer, Dr. S. Fred. Hot Talk Cold Science: Global Warmings Unfinished Debate. Oakland, California: The Independent Institute, 1997.