LONDON,
England (AP) -- Science academies of the G-8 countries joined Tuesday in a call
for prompt action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and warning that delays
will be costly.
Lord May,
president of Britain's Royal Society, said in releasing the statement that U.S.
President George W. Bush's policy on climate change was "misguided"
and ignored scientific evidence.
The
statement published by the science academies of Britain, France, Russia,
Germany, the U.S., Japan, Italy and Canada, along with those of Brazil, China
and India, called on G-8 countries to "identify cost-effective steps that
can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reductions in net
global greenhouse gas emissions."
The
statement called on the G-8 nations to "recognize that delayed action will
increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a
greater cost."
The
statement was released as British Prime Minister Tony Blair was meeting with
Bush in Washington. Blair has made action on climate change, along with aid to
Africa, his priorities for the July G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland.
"It
is clear that world leaders, including the G-8, can no longer use uncertainty
about aspects of climate change as an excuse for not taking urgent action to
cut greenhouse gas emissions," Lord May said.
He noted
that the statement was endorsed by science academies of Brazil, China and India
-- nations "who are among the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the
developing world."
"The
current U.S. policy on climate change is misguided," May added.
"The
Bush administration has consistently refused to accept the advice of the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences. The NAS concluded in 1992 that, 'Despite the
great uncertainties, greenhouse warming is a potential threat sufficient to
justify action now,' by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
"Getting
the U.S. onboard is critical because of the sheer amount of greenhouse gas
emissions they are responsible for. For example, the Royal Society calculated
that the 13 percent rise in greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. between 1990
and 2002 is already bigger than the overall cut achieved if all the other parties
to the Kyoto Protocol reach their targets."
The
statement signed by the academies said evidence of global warming included
"direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface
ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea
levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological
systems."
The
statement called on G-8 leaders and others to:
"Acknowledge
that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing."
Launch an
international study to help set emission targets to avoid unacceptable impacts.
"Identify
cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and
long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."
Work with
developing nations to build their scientific and technological capacity.
Take a
lead in developing and deploying clean energy technologies.
Mobilize
the science and technology community to enhance research and development.
***********************************************************
S Fred
Singer, University of Virginia
The
Statement released by several national academies of sciences on June 7, 2005 is
a politically motivated document and scientifically flawed.
The
politics is blatantly obvious: the release date coincides with Prime Minister
BlairÕs visit to Washington and his meeting with President Bush.
As the
convenor of the G8 meeting in July in Scotland, Blair has already announced his
two priorities: Global Warming and Africa. The Times (May 20, 2005) reports: "On climate change,
Mr Blair has set three targets for Britain's [G8] presidency: to secure an
agreement on the basic science; provide the foundation for further action;
and to speed up measures needed to meet the threat of climate change. Other key topics will include
counter-terrorism, non-proliferation and the Middle East." [Emphasis added].
We will
make no further comments on the politics and strange choice of priorities
except to note the memorable claim by Mr BlairÕs science adviser Sir David King
that Global Warming presents a greater threat than terrorism.
But is
there really a Global Warming? The
Statement simply regurgitates the contentious conclusions of the IPCC report of
2001, which have been disputed by credible scientists. The so-called Òscientific consensusÓ is
pure fiction.
The
claimed warming for the 20th century occurred mainly before 1940
when greenhouse-gas levels had not increased much. Since 1940, there has been a 35-year-long cooling trend --
and not much warming in the past quarter-century, according to global data from
weather satellites.
To
estimate temperatures for the year 2100, the Statement relies on conflicting
answers -- 1.4 to 5.8 degC -- from several climate models. These differ by 400 percent; yet none
of them have been validated against observations. Meanwhile, an extrapolation of the satellite data gives at most
a fraction of a degree rise for the 21st century.
The IPCC
claims to be able to reproduce the temperature history of the 20th
century; but with the use of a number of adjustable parameters this becomes
simply a curve-fitting exercise.
The IPCC further claims that the 20th century was the warmest
in the past 1000 years; but this myth is based on a seriously flawed
publication. The IPCC also claims
that sea levels will rise by up to nearly a meter by 2100; but every indication
is that they will continue to rise inexorably – and much less -- as they
have for nearly 20,000 years -- since the peak of the last ice age.
There is
little left then of the ÒthreatÓ of Global Warming. So what do the academies want? WhatÕs all the hue and cry about? While their Statement calls for G8 statesmen to Òacknowledge
the threat of climate change,Ó many of their recommendations are quite
innocuous and recognize the need for adaptation to inevitable future climate
changes from all sources, including natural causes. After clearing away a lot of verbiage about Òleadership,Ó
Òmobilizing the scientific community,Ó Òassisting developing nations,Ó etc.
etc., the action recommendation boils down to Òidentify cost-effective stepsÓ
for energy conservation. Who can
disagree with that? For once, a
real consensus.
SEPP
Comment: The writer here uses the
reported surface-warming rate.
Atmospheric temperature trends, which should be greater, acc to GH
theory and GH models, are actually much smaller. This disparity in the data has not yet been resolved; the
science is still disputed.
****************
=====================================================
S Fred
Singer
6/7/2005
Atmospheric
physicist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of
Virginia, and former director of the National Weather Satellite Service.
***************************
4. Response to: Joint science academiesÕ
statement on climate change
Paul
ÒChipÓ Knappenberger, University
of Virginia
On June
7, 2005, a joint statement on climate change was issued by the national science
academies of the G8 countries (the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Canada,
Japan, and the United States) along with China, India and Brazil. The statement
pushed two primary points, 1) that climate change (as defined as human-induced
alterations to the composition of the atmosphere) is real, and 2) something
needs to be done about it.
The first
point is not sufficient to justify the second.
The
science academies proclaim ÒThe scientific understanding of climate change is
now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.Ó This is akin
to saying, Òafter years of careful study we have compiled enough scientific
evidence to conclude that the sky is blue. Now we must do something about it.Ó
Obviously the call for action does not follow from the conclusion.
What is
missing is the scientific assessment of the potential threat. Without the
threat assessment, a simple scientific finding on its own doesnÕt warrant any
change of action, no matter how scientifically groundbreaking it might be. For instance, how are our daily lives
changed because of EinsteinÕs Theory of General Relativity—arguably one
of the greatest scientific breakthroughs in our history? Virtually not at
all. So unless the finding has an implication
that impacts us in some way, we are not likely to change our actions.
This is
the shortcoming of the joint science academiesÕ statement. There is no threat assessment. The reason that there is no threat
assessment is that there is no scientific consensus on what the threat level
is—or at least one that could be agreed upon by the 11 signatories. The best that they could come up with
was a smattering of climate changes that even they admit could be either
beneficial or detrimental depending on their degree, timing, or location. ÒThe projected changes in climate will
have both beneficial and adverse effects at the regional level, for example on
water resources, agriculture, natural ecosystems and human health. The larger
and faster the changes in climate, the more likely it is that adverse effects
will dominate.Ó
As to
what the likely changes in climate are going to be, the joint academies defer
to the IPCC 2001 report and parrot Òthe average global surface temperatures
will continue to increase to between 1.4 centigrade degrees and 5.8 centigrade
degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100.Ó This is of no use to anybody. The low end of this range represents a
change that may be more beneficial than adverse, while the upper end of this
range represents a situation that may prove to be more adverse than beneficial.
Without some sort of scientific guidance—guidance that is absent from the
statement of the joint academies—the finding alone, that Òclimate change
is realÓ does not justify Òtaking prompt action.Ó
The fact
of the matter is that there does exist a growing body of scientific evidence
that the climate changes in the coming decades will be modest and proceed at a
rate that will lie somewhere near the low end of the IPCC projected temperature
range. For instance, NASAÕs James Hansen—a leading climate change
scientist—has analyzed trends in the emissions of greenhouse gases and
concluded, in an article published in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences,
that the IPCC warming scenarios Òincludes CO2 growth rates that we contend are
unrealistically large.Ó Based upon current trends in greenhouse gas emissions
and the rate of atmospheric composition changes, Hansen argues that the future
rate of global warming Òcan be predicted much more accurately than generally
realized.Ó Hansen predicts that for the next 50 years, the earth will
experience a warming rate of 0.15 ± 0.05¼C per decade leading to a warming of
0.75 ± 0.25¼C. This is near the low end of the IPCCÕs range of warming rates. A similar conclusion is reached by
studying the behavior of climate models. In aggregate, climate models project
that the earth warms at a linear (constant) rate when greenhouse gases are
increasingly added to the atmosphere. However, the models differ on what the
actual warming rate is, but here, observations can help out. Observations of
the earthÕs temperature show that during the past 30 years or so, a constant
warming rate has been established having a value about 0.17¼C per decade. If the collection of the worldÕs
climate models is correct in form, then this established warming rate should be
our best guidance as to what to expect in the future. A warming rate of 0.17¼C per decade corroborates HansenÕs
findings and further supports the low end of the IPCC projected warming range
as the most likely course into the future.
Having
established a future temperature rise near the low end of the IPCC projected
range, then, according to the joint statement, there is less likelihood that
the impacts will be adverse and in many regions they may prove beneficial. If this is the case, should the joint
academies still push corrective actions?
What if these actions reverse some the benefits? In the United States for example, the
20th century has seen an increase in precipitation of about 10
percent. In todayÕs world where
water resources are becoming more and more precious, are we willing to give
back this extra water if it turns out to be related to global warming?
Obviously,
the justification for action is far from clear.
That the
national academies are pressing for action when the consequences of such
actions are far from being well understood is a clear indication (along with
the timing of the release of the statement—a month before the next
meeting of the G8) that the national academies have stepped beyond the
boundaries of science and into the arena of politics. This is a slippery slope, because once the national science
academies have taken a policy position, they can no longer be considered an
honest broker of scientific fact, but instead, simply another advocacy
group. And thatÕs exactly what
this joint statement represents—an advocacy piece which selectively
ignores large portions of the overall scientific understanding of climate
change and its impacts in an effort to push for legislative action to limit
greenhouse gas emissions. In
actuality, when all the evidence is accounted for, such actions are far from
justified.
-------------------------------