this unique might like they are doing something the industry is asking for something that is outside the practices of the business. we are looking for a fair rate like the channels to compete with. we think they are benefits for us and the consumer and the distributors for us to continue to develop programming that is of interest to them, and we do take a responsibility to look to put prices that are fair that we think are reasonable and when we look at fox we think we are asking for a more than fair price for fox. >> much did you ask for and receive for cable at time warner? >> again i think specifics -- i think putting -- i don't think it's constructive. i think it's a fraction of what

channels like espn or nsg which cable loans is a small fraction of what other channels like that but a much smaller than us receive. before cable vision we dealt with them fairly and consistently. >> well we have to figure out whether we need to get at those numbers in order to sort of thing through what's the reality of this location in the marketplace or not. maybe it isn't and they conceive those numbers would help you, not hurt you but we don't know the answer to that right now. so let me fall that one over and see how we proceed. senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much mr. chairman for holding this and for your thought-provoking questions and i know a lot of

questions have been asked but i will add a few of my own. i think you said 86% of all americans pay for their television and that's why retransmission consent is an issue that affects americans whether they've heard of it before and know it or not and my primary focus is to make sure the consumer is protected with their cable bills go up or they are subject to a blackout consumers end up being the innocent victim and that just shouldn't happen. so since you were fielding a lot of the questions, mr. kerry, i will start with you. i've heard from executives from the broadcast network that he should be compensated on par with cable networks especially given the fact the audience share is haulier for broadcast and cable. do you agree with that statement? >> yes i think we should have fair compensation and i guess i would say we are asking for a small fractions of what that

mass would calculate and would lead to as a great. >> mr. britt, you want to comment on that how you think the compensation what would be fair? >> yes i think we're talking about apples and oranges and peaches. they were created an uncertain environment which was around free over the air broadcast. they are for each station and we don't really talk about a station as we talk about networks. they are exclusive so there's only one fox station on each market, completely different market cable networks were invented in the world they had to sell to the different distributors the british and no

privileges, they conveyed copyright with the network. we support lippitt for copyright's for the broadcast networks so it's a very complicated question. one thing left out of all of this is we are talking as though the broadcast industry is a monolithic thing. most that own networks and the relationship between the stations and the networks have changed dramatically since 1992 and i'm not in this business but my understanding is at that point the networks used to pay the stations and now they don't and in fact the networks are asking the stations to be paid. so you don't have anybody here that's just a station owner but they ought to be here, too, because that relationship is an important part of this whole thing. >> anyone want to respond to

that? >> i have one question to -- >> mr. rutledge had one. >> i think would come out of a long history in broadcasting and broadcasters have a public obligation in my view and they get public benefits including very valuable spectrum to provide that public obligation. over the last 18 years since the retransmission consent has been forced, we've gone from eight channels owned by broadcasters that are cable channels to 90 calls a substantial part of america is feeling now is controlled by large network broadcast of winners and cable owners, the ellen both come and the value being extracted in various places, so it's hard to pinpoint what things cost the the fact is to raise the historic public obligation broadcasters have. and the other thing i want to say is in the new york area where we primarily operate cable

systems there's over 25 tv stations. only five look for retransmission consent. all the rest do what is called must carry which is another opportunity for broadcasters to be carried on a cable system and enjoy the benefits of the channel placement and so forth that is included in bill wally so the majority of broadcasters aren't even in this regime it's only the powerful network owned broadcasters and affiliates that are trying to extract these payments from customers. most broadcast stations aren't doing this. >> mr. carey i thought you might want to respond very powerful. [laughter] >> i'm at their mercy [inaudible] [laughter] we have a public service obligations and to get jerry seriously and is embodied in the local news and is in many ways a

foundation of what we do. i don't think the public service obligation means we are on loss-making businesses. i don't know you were here i said before the last year we have lost between 2 million to $3 million, so, yes, we do have a public service obligations. we take it seriously. we treasure the ability to bring television to every household in america. we don't have the right to get compensated in some deals retransmits and builds business based on our product, but we think to remain viable and continue to brank programming to america will need to have the ability to have a viable business model in the world today is different than it was in the past and clearly in today's world with hundreds of channels that have tool revenue streams you just can't expect a broadcaster to compete as an advertiser supporter network and it will end up losing money. it will end up having content migrate to cable channels and it

will end up with us becoming second-class citizens in the business environment. yes broadcasters pursue different paths. we invested three expensive the 25 stations to york we pursue the region's missions and we invest billions of dollars in creating the great content in order to make that business makes sense to bring the nfl, to bring the world series, to bring american vital to the american public we need to have a business model that lets us sustain that. the channels pursuing are a different role in a different strategy that pursues the different business model but the stations like ours that are pursuing a type of television that i think is the american

public cherishes requires our ability to be competitive in the marketplace. >> mr. segars, how does the retransmission consent impact specialized programming geared to the minority community? >> i can say that when broadcast treated on the retransmission to launch a networks i will say that some of those networks to they have brought great value and no one wants to vilify the networks by the imagination the the small broadcaster does have a public -- really a public responsibility but cable also does, and i've said this again and again that cable is reaching down to support independent networks. a diversity of voices, the arts be in one of them, an independent family channel called hallmark and outdoor channel, gospel music channel, all independent networks but we are a dying breed and free transmission because the bandwidth of all these channels that has been leverage by the retransmission and placed on to

the cable operator and the rates and cost provide a small independent from getting to a critical mass. we cannot find the space or the money to move our business forward. we can certainly tell you the art would be and 90 million homes but we don't have that regulation. we don't have the ability to trade on the transmission so it does affect us. many distributors have told us our growth is in jeopardy because of free transmission. >> i just have one last question and you want to just respond 30 seconds? >> i would say, you know, they are clearly the larger programming groups to distribute in number of channels but it's not unique to broadcasters and i've made the point before that when charles talks about if he were owned by turner i think this thing would be true -- the same would be true.

he was owned by discovery the same would be true. it's not a unique -- said that obligation unique in broadcasters i think is not fair in the context of large groups broadcasting and not another words when you're a mother channel on the dial. >> one last question and a word to senator kerry. julius genachowski, the chairman, wrote that the sec, quote, has very few tools with which to protect consumer interest when it comes to these issues. what you think? you think this is true, do they need more tools? >> i think if the fcc is there to help protect diversity and media than they do have a tool because the diversity and the independents are being squashed in the current system. >> mr. kerry? >> i honestly believe as this process has worked for decades we are negotiating a rate for the channel and i do think it is

the specter of government involvement that is sort of distorted the process, and i think if people accept the have to go along with business and largely with pretty constructive relationships here. yes, broadcasting went from zero and i understand we've gone from zero to say we need to get paid and that's a change but i think the facts of what broadcasting is facing proved it is a reasonable request. but i think we will get on to business. as we have gone on to business and in many ways i think we can get back to focusing on how we use the digital age and other things to bring excitement to the consumer but this is not some unique complicated process. i think there's been an attempt, a segment of the business to make it sound much more unique, much more complicated. i think this is a rate negotiation like all of them that have happened if one should have been in the private marketplace it will go forward.

>> mr. rutledge? >> we think the fcc does have the authority to help -- >> is your light on? there you go. >> we do think the fcc has the authority. we know the letter sent to the chairman, but they've exercised broad authority in other ways. they do have the obligation to watch out for consumer prices and to protect the consumer and fairly broad authority which we pointed out in our written testimony, and so we believe they do have the authority to help the consumer in these kind of disputes. >> okay. thank you, mr. uva. >> i do agree that the fcc has the of 40 in its rules and the communications give the right to monitor and determine whether the negotiations were taken place in good faith or bad faith and the ability to enforce. >> mr. britt? >> yes, we think they both have the authority and the obligation to oversee and be involved as

appropriate but they have chosen not to exercise that. >> thank you very much. i appreciate all your time. >> thank you, senator klobuchar. let's try to sort of wrap up here a little bit on these thoughts. mr. speaker, let me ask a couple more questions if i can before we wrap up. broadcasters argued in the amount of profit margin that you guys make, you are more than able to deal to pay them the cost of the retransmission consent fee without passing them on to consumers, and they've argued further that it's fair sharing if you will of the profits that you make off of their content so you ought to be able to pass that on. what do you say to that?

>> i would say that the company is in front of you are all very profitable including news corporation and disney who's not here, so the issue we are raising is not about the relative profitability of different companies. we are really raising an issue that in the context of this narrow thing called the transmission consent which was set up by the government do we have the right process for deciding the amount of that subsidy of the viewers. we are not questioning whether there should be a subsidy or whether there should be a payment, but the mechanism for determining the amount seems broken and there's a lot of transparency, so that's our focus. we have plenty of competition so what we end up charging consumers is pretty much determined by a competitive marketplace. >> i won't disagree the market

has provided increased competition. a lot of people surprised but it is very broad with a digital download and so forth et cetera, it is a new world out there and there is no question about that. well, here's sort of what the congressional research service, which is non-partisan as you know, has concluded that the negotiations between programmers and distributors although private are strongly affected by statutory and regulatory requirements and cannot be properly characterized as just free-market so there's sort of a beginning principle here which we need to think about. second, although the ncta of

which i think all of you are a member including news corporation, is divided on the solution to the president has said that he wants to debunk the notion that free transmission consent is purely and simply a free market negotiation as many tv station and cable company. that, he said, is complete nonsense. third, the disputes that started putting consumers in the middle and about 2007 is when it started and they seem to be escalating since then. and i think we need to take note of that that we went a long time without it and started and now it's going to escalate and the prospect of this being the tool in the absence of some sort of a other mechanism seems to loom fairly large, the government staying out of that certainly

hasn't resolved the disputes, nor relieve the consumers of the problem that is, more and more to our attention. and, you know, it's interesting the most recent dispute kind of hit a significant level of discussion when fox made the decision to pull the signal off the air. i understand or desire to hold on to that right. and i think, you know, what we've put on the table respect that, but it requires a simple level of both the transparency and a sort of judgment, are they working in good faith if we have a good faith argument based on the marketplace, based on competitors, based on the various offerings that are available to people at city, people step back and say that's not our dealer and you can still pull your signal. so you're not without a very

significant lever it's just that it try is somehow to create a level of accountability to the public if you will in light of all the other benefits on the table. so, i just ask you to think about that, and we are going to think about it in light of the sort of discussion we've had today and maybe we can continue to have a private dialogue on this and see if we can't find some way to do something that relieves us of the burden because if we go forward in this atmosphere i suspect given the nature of competition and the nature of the hour marketplace building on this diversity people may feel more compelled to press for an advantage and pull the signal and as we go forward here, and no one here i think is going to react very positively to that. so to the degree that you want this to remain a source hands of

an arm's-length transaction where the market place has a maximum amount of ability to play itself out and that would be our preference, too i think you have to think about what is the compromise mechanism, what is the way to try to say we are doing something, let's give it a try and see if it creates better balance and a better outcome, and i suspect that in the end and somebody said a moment ago you were all very profitable companies. i don't think a lot of people are going to, you know, be thrilled with the idea that, you know, they are becoming a pawn in sort of for that extra percentage of profitability is going to be measured against the high levels of profitability you've already experienced measured against the government's, you know, gift if you will on behalf of the american people and you're right to take part in that

marketplace. so what's all think about it. i think it's been a healthy and a good hearing our point of view we aired some of these issues and get a sense of it. leave the record open until the end of the week for any submissions by additional colleagues and and again, we appreciate everybody and mr. uva, thanks for not feeling well hanging in with us. we appreciate it. we stand adjourned. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]

now in nearly four hour hearing on global climate change. witnesses before the house subcommittee on energy and environment looked at how the public and private sectors are approaching climate issues. >> i appreciate the patience of those who are standing. the hearing will now come to order. our hearing today is entirely rational discussion of climate change the science, evidence and response. the purpose of the giving is to conduct an objective review behind the greenhouse effect and ocean acidification. my impression has been for some time that many members of public and perhaps in congress have never had the opportunity to consider the basic science and

for that matter the long history of investigation and data that underlines the understanding of the greenhouse and more recently ocean acidification therefore today we have three panels of experts with us. the first will discuss -- began by setting the foundation of the basic science. they will explain the fundamental physics and chemistry underlying the role of co2 and other atmospheric gases and regulating or altering the plan the temperature and acidity of the ocean. a bit of scientific history lesson will be included as we learn the science behind this issue goes back more than 100 years. the panel will address questions how much the co2 is entering the atmosphere, from what sources and with what predicted effects. from basic scientific signings and methodologies described by the first panel will then consider whether or not the predicted impact of co 21 temperature and a version of city are in fact occurring and others we will ask a question of basic science makes certain predictions about what should happen if co2 levels increase in the air and the ocean what is actually happening in the real

world how do we know it's happening or not and what can we predict for the future. third and final panel will discuss the impact being observed and can be anticipated for ocean change acidification. witnesses will discuss how we are responding today and actions to take to prepare for the future. the analysis includes matters as national security, social compact, economic and health concerns among others. i've had the opportunity and preparation to read all the written testimony. i want to thank the witnesses for taking time from their busy schedule to prepare the material and submit to the committee analysis. we are going to post that on the science committee web site for those of you interested and i hope he will be. it's wonderful testimony and a treaty eliminating. before we hear from the witnesses are to make a few key points. having taught scientific methodology and basic statistics and published myself in the peer reviewed journals i personally place a paramount importance on scientific integrity. that is why in the american

competes act i offered my a provision that consists institutions seeking to receive nsf funding have specific training and scientific ethics. my understanding is from academia this is having a salutary impact and i am proud of that impact. i mentioned it today because after all this is the science and technology committee. we must if we are to have credibility at all insist our witnesses at here to the highest standards of integrity and simultaneously members of congress must pull ourselves in this committee institution to that standard and studies of issues and conduct today and in the future. in the context of climate change and ocean acidification i also believe our nation -- because our nation is the biggest historical producer and the largest producer of greenhouse gases we have a profound moral responsibility to be sure we get this right. scripture teaches to love thy neighbor as thyself. if our disproportionate impact of the rest of the world are, in

billions of other people, and countless species we are not living up to the scriptural guidance. finally even if one completely rejects evidence that will be presented in reports of the national academy of science and other respected bodies i believe it still makes good sense to strive for the nation to be leader and clean energy technology for economic self-interest alone. it is not really of sending hundreds of billions of dollars abroad off in the countries with values and ethical to our own at least a bit troubling for all of us. it's not the national security risk this creates disconcerting are the known impacts such as exxon valdez, the gulf oil spill and other defense not of sufficient concern to argue of change and are not the fact of the red alert base in the cities in which it is unsafe for children to brief sufficient cause for some degree of consternation and change. i personally believe the evidence of climate change and ocean acidification is compelling and troubling but even without that conclusion unconvinced we must change energy policies for reasons of

economics nationally and security and environmental health. the nation has long been a leader of renewable energy technology and i believe we must remain a leader. this committee under the leadership of chairman gorman and before him have taken positive steps to insure that continues, so too we've been up the floor for the clinic research and should remain a leader as well. we must continue this endeavor if we intend to leave our children and grandchildren a strong economy and truly independent secure nation in an environment they will live, work and play. finally, as the parent of a five and a half-year-old twin boys, the whole effort as my service in congress and on the committee has been to ensure they have a brighter and better future. if we don't address this issue will it responsibly i fear we will feel that mission and leave them a much less pleasant future than we've been able to enjoy. i'm excited about today's hearing and these panels of witnesses who really thank them for their time they will help us understand the context and concept of importance of climate change and i personally thank

each of you for being here and our outstanding committee staff for their work in bringing such superb witnesses and with that i recognize my friend and colleague for opening remarks. are you ready mr. hall? i'm told to have to leave at some point. >> statistical rent we will recognize you out of respect for the likely soon to be chairman of this committee and dear friend and respected member recognize mr. hall. >> thank you mr. chairman. i do thank do for holding this hearing and i welcome all the witnesses testifying on today's panels. i think we have one witness for each panel which is kind of an improvement. usually we have one witness for each hearing. but one out of three is a fair match i think, depends on the quality, but we are going to have a lot of different approaches to this and disagreements and i appreciate

everybody being here. today our country finds itself in a crossroads and we face a staggering national debt of more than 13 trillion almost one of ten people are out of work in a bloated federal government. .. for every american. the energy information administration conducted an analysis of the quote cap-and-trade" mac that passed in june and it was projected

that this legislation would increase energy process for consumers anywhere between 20% and 77%. the administration claims that we must cut our emissions of carbon dioxide despite the cost, so that we stays -- stave off global climate disruption. weird thing calling it global climate warming. first of all this new terminology pronounced by the white house science technology policy is another example of this administration attempting to rebrand events to -- there is no more war. we don't have war according to them. now what they call overseas contingency operations. there are no more terrorist acts by the guy that murdered those people at fort hood. their moral -- and that no more tears expert we now have man cause disasters according to the administration. changing the name doesn't change what it is. secondly, this administration

argues that cutting greenhouse gas emissions is a policy direction that is justified by the science. i think this hearing today will demonstrate and could demonstrate that reasonable people have serious questions about our knowledge of the state of science, the evidence and what constitutes a proportional response. furthermore there has been an escalating since the public betrayal by those who would claim the science justifies these policy choices. the e-mails posted last november from the climate research unit at the university of east anglia in england exposed the dishonest undercurrent within the scientific community. this incident ignited a renewed public interest in the level of uncertainty of the scientific pronouncements and an increased increase concerned that the policy cap-and-trade may not achieve its objective of reducing the impacts of climate change. while there are only a few scientists involved in in this unethical behavior it only takes a few bad apple to spoil the whole bunch. it is created a general atmosphere with regards to all scientific endeavors involving the government.

we need only to look at how the administration responded to deepwater horizon oil spill to see how scientific information was distorted to promote a specific policy agenda or to change people's perception of the government's competence. that ends up to entering -- to follow through on promises to issue basic guidelines for scientific integrity, failure that is only serve to further a road that public trust. given these persistent problems mr. chairman, the public is even more questions and concerns about how federal officials use science and foreign-policy debates. starting scientific facts from rhetoric is essential and we have a long way to go on this topic. we must insist on information derived from objective and transparent scientific practices and we must hold this administration accountable for meeting the level of scientific integrity that the public expects from their government. above all, we cannot afford to enact policies that destroy jobs, hinder economic growth and whittle away our

competitiveness. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and i yield back my time. >> thank a gentleman and i'm pleased to recognize my friend and colleague the ranking member of the subcommittee mr. inglis. >> thank you mr. chairman and this is the last time that he will be chairing a subcommittee, so i want to thank you or your service and i hope everybody will join me in recognizing mr. baird for his excellent service here on this committee. [applause] if i may i'm going to interrupt my friend because it is the last time he will be chairing in the ranking chair and he's been an outstanding partner to work with any real model of a distinguished member of congress. please join me in thanking him. [applause] there is a cautionary tale about what happens when you get friendly with the democrat. [laughter] but actually he is a dear friend and a great guy.

so, anyhow, so i am very excited to be here mr. chairman because this is on the record. and you know it is the wonderful thing about congressional hearings, they are on the record. kim beazley who is australia's ambassador to the united states tells me that when he runs into the climate skeptics, he says to them, make sure to say that very publicly. because, i want our grandchildren to read what you said and what i said. and so, we are on the record, and our grandchildren and our great grandchildren are going to read. so some are here suggesting to those children that here's here is the deal, your child, tom friedman gave me this great analogy yesterday -- your child is sick. 98 doctors say treat them this way. two say no, this is other is the way to go.

i will go with the two. you are taking a big risk for those kids. 98 doctors say do this thing, two say do the other. so, on the record, and we are here with important decisions to be made, and i would also suggest to my free enterprise colleagues, especially conservatives here, whether you think it is all a bunch of hooey that we talked about on this committee, the chinese don't, and they plan on eating our lunch in this next century. they plan on innovating around these problems and selling to us and the rest of the world the technology to lead the 21st century. so we may just press the pause button here for several years. china is pressing the fast-forward button, and as a result we wake up several years and we say gee this didn't work

very well for us. to doctors turned out not to be so right. 98 i'd have been the ones to listen to. then what we will find is we are way behind those chinese folks. you know if you have got a certain number of geniuses in the population if you are one one in a million and there are 1300 of you. and do you know what? they plan on leaving the future for cosell, if you are free enterprise conservative here, just think, it is a bunch of hooey, the science is a bunch of hooey. but if you missed the commercial opportunity you have really missed something. and so i think it is great to be here on the record. i think it is great to see the opportunity we have got ahead of us, and i also, since this is sort of a swan song for me and mr. baird, ie would encourage scientists that are listening out there to get ready for this hearing coming up in the next congress.

there are going to be difficult hearings for climate scientists. but, i would encourage you to welcome those, the fabulous opportunity to teach. don't come here to sensibly. don't come to this committee defensively. say i am glad you called me here today. i am glad you are going to give me an opportunity to explain the science of climate change. i am here to show you what what you have to spend $340 million a year on the u.s. programs. so you spend the money and now i'm here to tell you what you got out of it. i'm happy to educate you on what the data is and hopefully we will have experts like some of you here today, but also on a trip from this committee to antarctica to visit with a $340 million a year we spend on the programs, i met donald manahan, who is a professor at usc, the other one.

reclaim the real one is in columbia south carolina but the one out on the west coast. that one, dr. manahan is a master teacher. i hope he is one of the witnesses here. because he is the kind of guy that would welcome the inquiry and would lead a tutorial for folks who are skeptics so they could see the science. meanwhile we have people that make a living and a lot of money on talk radio and talk tv pronouncing all kinds of things. they slept at holiday inn express last night and they are now experts on climate. and those folks substitute their judgment for the people who have ph.d.s in their working tirelessly to discover the data. so, we have some real choices ahead of us, but i hope in the future as we have these hearings, that we realize it is all on the record, and our

grandchildren and great-grandchildren are going to get to see it. it could turn out that science is all wrong. we have had that before. east of blood let people and i think john quincy adams, the speaker made a helpful suggestion that removed him to the window in the poor guy froze to death. the guy had a stroke in the lindsay boggs room. so sometimes science turns out to be wrong but other times it turns out to be very right and the key to scientific endeavor is what we are here to discuss today, is openness, access to the data and full challenging of the data. that is how we advance science and i look forward to the hearing. mr. chairman thank you for the opportunity. >> thank you mr. inglis for your opening remarks and your many years of service in the congress and on this committee. with that is my pleasure to introduce or distinguish first panel of witnesses and i think it is mr. inglis' desire to have people.

the panel includes dr. ralph cicerone the president of the national academy of sciences, dr. richard lindzen professor of meteorology for the department of institute of technology. dr. gerald meehl senior scientist for the global dynamic division of the national center for atmospheric research and dr. heidi cullen cullen the chief executive officer and director of the medications for climate central. those introductions took me about five seconds to read each. the rather distinguished biographies of these extraordinary individuals that would take you five years almost to read so forgive me for not going into such detail but i hope you will check them out on their web site. you will see this is indeed a confident and capable group of individuals. as are with witnesses know we are asking you to summarize an entire career of research and fries brief minutes after which we will ask a series of questions and this is the first panel. we have two other panels after this and we will do our level

best to make sure each panel gives a proportionate amount of time at a hearing today and with that doctor cicerone please begin. >> thank you chairman bair to members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to participate in your hearing today. with your permission i will present only a summary of my written testimony. scientists have records from geological history of many past climate changes. for example there are physical evidence of past ice ages with former intervals in between and 100,000 year cycle of ice ages in the past. volcanoes have also caused climate changes. for example a worldwide cooling followed the june 1991 explosive eruption of mount pinatubo in the philippines. our ability to calculate the amount of that cooling is very high if the volcanic cloud material amounts and types are measured well. natural climate changes are likely to occur in the future, however the main reason that we are here today in this hearing

is that humans are also capable of causing earth climate change. the underlying mechanism is the greenhouse effect, where in certain gases and clouds in the atmosphere surrounding the planet can absorb outgoing planetary infrared radiation. each greenhouse gas selectively absorbs infrared radiation at specific wavelengths and this signature can be seen by earth orbiting satellites and was indeed seen as long ago as 1972. the natural greenhouse effect has been enhanced by the increased amounts of greenhouse gases in the air due to human activities. these increases have occurred in a period of only a few decades, and very rapid change. the climatic impact of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is influenced also by changes in atmospheric water vapor and clouds that are initiated in turn by the warming.

as water warms, it evaporates faster. infected disproportionately faster than the warming. the evaporation checks water vapor into the air. while some scientists propose that water vapor increases due to greenhouse warming might not amplified the original warming, they are fighting against a fundamental fact of physics, a steep dependent of vapor pressure on water which is the clapper on equation. the human caused greenhouse effect exerts additional leverage on earth surface energy budget. the changes that have been observed in the last three decades greenhouse gas concentration increases, temperature rises on the surface of the earth, decreased ice amounts can all be seen from space are going fact that is how many of the data have been obtained by looking at the earth from space. the specific molecular properties of greenhouse gases have been measured for laboratory experiments so that the calculations of the enhanced

greenhouse effect due to these increases and concentration are very quantitative today. the equations are the same that were we used in designing nuclear weapons and neutron transports. the impacts of materials which are less uniformly distributed of various kinds is more difficult to estimate. a change in the amount of sunlight reaching the earth would also be very important for the planetary energy balance and scientists have proposed that changes from the sun are causing contemporary climate change, are causing it. but recent evidence for monitoring the sun itself shows that the amount of solar energy reaching the earth has not increased during the last 30 years this time of clearly observed climate changes. increase concentrations of rain house gases have been observed worldwide for carbon dioxide the data are of extremely high-quality. measurements are taken frequently for many locations on the surface from aircraft,

satellite and from data -- data dice course that extend back hundreds of thousands of years. carbon dioxide amounts have increased from approximately 280 parts per million in the late 19th century to around 390 parts per million now and the increases are due to human activities is clear from several lines of evidence. fossil fuel burning is causing approximately 85% of the rise while the release of carbon dioxide from deforestation, perhaps 15% in the total. methane has also risen rapidly in the last century as evidence from surface measurements of all kinds and from david ice cores. methane sources for the atmosphere include rice agricultural emissions from cattle, the use and transmission of natural gas, the decay of organic matter placed in landfills, many human activities. nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gas also has an array of processes that injected into the air, mostly traceable to the

increased human usage of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer for agriculture. several classes of chemicals containing fluorine are also contributing to the enhanced greenhouse -- enhanced greenhouse effect in these observed in the concentration of all of these gases are clearly attributed to human activities. now some observed changes. surface temperatures both of their end of water, show a warming of the earth and on regions. the globally averaged warming since 1980 is approximately 1 degree fahrenheit. stronger warnings have been measured in the arctic reason -- region along with differences season by season and locality by locality. just as one example, the calendar year 2009 was significantly warmer than the long-term average in the northern hemisphere but it was cooler than several of the

previous years while the temperatures in the southern hemisphere in 2009 were at a 130 year record high. further temperature rises are usually larger over land areas than erosion. >> dr. says ron i will ask you to summarize briefly if you can. is our to keep it at five minutes. >> the heat content of the oceans have increased roughly in accord with the calculated greenhouse effects and sea level rise has been increasing more rapidly since the early '90s than had been observed earlier, and now we are in a position for major ice losses over greenland and antarctica to sum up what is causing a sea level rise and we got an answer which is in accord with the measures sea level rise. this is enormous progress over the last few years. lot of continued research is underway. it is needed. for example for quantitative calculations of where we go in the future. i will just close by saying that

the national academy of science has been active in our national efforts to understand these issues for over 30 years and in all of our reports, we have always said that there are a lot more to learn about future climate change but the potential for future changes, including sudden abrupt and large changes is large. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. dr. lindzen. >> thank you mr. baird and thank you committee for the opportunity to speak here. as a student, i was told something rather important, that the primary thing and solving the problem is to have the right question, and here i am a little bit concerned about the guidelines for this meeting. i think, if we are to properly consider our concerns over greenhouse gases, we must

separate the basic science upon which there is great agreement from the specific bases for our concern. for instance, the general agreement that climate is always changing. there is agreement that over the last two centuries, there has been on the order of three-quarters of a degree centigrade increase and something called globally averaged temperature anomaly. there is no such thing as average temperature for the earth. there is a greenhouse effect. nobody is arguing that. co2 is a greenhouse gas is not argued by anyone i know and that co2 is increasing due to man's activities is also widely accepted. to be sure, general agreement hardly guarantees truth, but i am not questioning this stage.

but what is commonly forgotten, and that is crucial to this hearing, is that these facts do not lead to major climate concern per se. so, for example doubling carbon dioxide alone leads to only about a degree of warming. and of all the increase in globally averaged temperature anomalies were due to the added greenhouse gases that dr. cicerone described it would suggest the sensitivity that is even lower than that. the case for a bar rests on three rather doubtful propositions. one is that climate sensitivity to increasing greenhouse gases is much greater than the above, due to the alleged dominance of positive feedback. the second is the association of

phenomena such as sea level rise, arctic sea ice and so on, which depend on many many factors of which globally averaged temperature anomaly is not even the most important factor and to use these changes as evidence for dangerous warming is illogical. this is especially true with our dixie ice. the oversimplification, this is the third item, of climate to a single number globally averaged temperature anomaly and a single number, let's say radiator forcing from co2, is a gross distortion of what is really going on here. now, with respect to climate sensitivity, greenhouse physics tells us that temperature changes at the surface should produce certain change in outward flux of heat, which at

the top of the atmosphere is in the form of radiation. it will come in the absence of feedback, correspond to a sensitivity of about 1 degree for a doubling of co2. now, if you have positive feedback and you go to space and measure the outgoing flux associated with the temperature motivation, you should see less than you would expect without this and if you have negative feedback, you should see more. now, it turns out that the models, when you ask what they calculate, calculate what is consistent with positive feedback. if you go to the data, you find the opposite. most recently, there has been an attempt to measure these fluxes from the surface. now you have to understand the flux might be reasonably constant through the atmosphere but its process is different so

at the top of the atmosphere it is radiation. at the surface it is mostly evaporation. and there is a problem that has been noted for some years. models predict very little change in evaporation as you warm compared to observations. and this could be directly translated into sensitivity. the models behavior is consistent with 1.5 to 4.5 degrees per doubling of co2. the data suggests it is closer to half the lowest limit. so, they are too, i mean one has the problem that the observations when specifically turned to feedback rather than specific mechanisms, showed the opposite. this isn't surprising. one speaks of clouds is the kind of the liberal uncertainty but they are capable, they involve

changes in their radiative balance that argue no more than a factor of 20 larger than what you get from a doubling of co2. now, parenthetically, and we might wonder why models that have such high sensitivity can simulate past behavior if the past behavior is consistent with low sensitivity. and the answer is i think jerry would point out, is aerosols. now, you might say there are allard are solved but cancel some of the greenhouse, but if you check each model uses a different value and because they want to adjust their model, so it is an adjustable parameter and the aerosol community, and so on have published a paper in the last year pointing out the uncertainties mean that if you include arbitrary aerosols, you

can get any sensitivity you want. that is hardly reassuring. >> dr. lindzen we are about a minute and a half over. >> let me just point out that in my full testimony, there are examples, further examples of each of these things are go the climate is certainly worth understanding better but the basis for grave for esis for. certainly, poorer than the changes of suggested policies though perhaps not so poor as the prospects suggested policies to significantly impact climate oregon co2 levels. thank you. >> thank you dr. lindzen. doctors meehl. >> thank you chairman baird and members of the committee for the opportunity to communicate information regarding process and and and the waltz with climate change climate models and extreme weather and climate events. verse i want to begin with a personal perspective that i

think is worth kind of stressing. i think one of the most interesting and exciting and challenging science problems facing the research committee today is the following. if you add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, what is the response of the climate system? it is because of this compelling science problems that i find research in this area fascinating and tremendous intellectual challenge and why i'm here today. so anyway the idea that additional co2 and other greenhouse gases would cause warming of the climate is not a new one. so-called greenhouse effect has been studied since the late 1800's and a number of simple calculations performed over their early 20s entry indicating a doubling of co2 would likely warmed the planet by at least several degrees per garber major development in the field of study with the emergence of numerical models that could be run on computers. equations from fluid dynamics and thermodynamics can simulate weather and mrs. been addressed early in the 20th century through arduous calculations

performed at that time by hand or good was not until electronic computers came into use in the 1950s that the equations could be solved in a rapid enough manner to be used for actual weather forecast. this new science became feasible for operational forecast in the 1960s and is still in use today. using the same principles and many the same equations climate models in the 1960s were devised that could be mathematically integrated forward in time much like the american weather forecast but for much longer to the future. kozol mound that after about a week due to the chaotic nature of the atmosphere at the time evolution of individual storms could not be resolved by climate models. said the climate simulations attempted to capture the statistics of whether over month season years in deck aids or cosenza climate models look at weather and climate in this they weigh other factors that could change slowly and affect the statistics of whether had to be included. therefore unlike weather predictions were there was only an atmospheric america model climate models have an atmosphere of complements of

ocean land surface sea ice and equations that account for heating and greenhouse gases are cooling from visible air pollution. all of these were linked together in one large computer program run on the fastest supercomputers available so there are much detail could be included in the equation. these models account for physical processes and feedback such as those alluded to by dr. lindzen and these feedbacks involve water vapor changes in snow and sea ice in clouds and of course all these affect how the climate response changes in greenhouse gases. some of the uncertainty in increasing co2 arises from uncertainties in these feedbacks particularly clouds. ever climate waddles with good cooling contribution from negative cloud feedback still warm significant an average of the 20th and 21st century due to the contribution to increased temperature not only from increased greenhouse gases but also from warming feedback involving increased water vapor decreased snow in sea ice. since the end of 19th century

global average temperatures have warmed a degree in a have fahrenheit. many wonder why we should worry about such seemingly small increases in temperature. however even small changes in average temperature produce large and more noticeable changes in weather and climate extremes. it stands to reason that is a warmer climate there will be more hot days and fewer cold days. for precipitation there is also temperature related connection. as more moisture evaporates from the warming ocean a warmer atmosphere can hold the bush and when the moisture gets caught up in the strongest of raider source for precipitation. therefore we typically see a greater intensity of precipitation a warmer climate. that is greater daily rainfall totals or when it rains it doors. exactly these chains have been documented in the observations family more heat extremes and increases in precipitation intensity. additionally the shift to warmer temperatures this producing high temperatures and record low temperatures over the u.s. but this ratio currently being

two-to-one. for example since january 1, 2000 there've been over 3000 daily record high maximum temperatures set in only 150,000 daily record low minimum temperatures that. .. >> the current ratio of two to one record highs and lows decrease z to 21 and 50 to 1 by

late century. even in the late 21st century when it's 7 degrees fahrenheit in that model, there's still low temperatures occurring, thus in a climate that's warmed in the model, winter still occurs and gets cold enough to set low temperatures every year in that model. however, those few record lows occur in the context of high maximum temperatures, another warmer climate aspect. thank you. >> thank you. dr. cullen. >> thank you, chairman baird and members of the subcommittee to have a rational discussion on the subject the climate change. i have a powerpoint to bring up reenforcing the points made on the panel this morning. i'll say my background is different than the panel members in the sen i spent several years at the weather channel as the on camera climate expert and it was

really interesting to me because most assumed i was a meet roalings and i got questions about the forecast, and i loved that, but it was really important opportunity to just help people understand the difference between climate and weather, the difference between climbtologist and meteorologists and if you see the great quote by mark twain up there and he said it all. climate is what whether when on what we expect to get. it's a lot easier to see the weather and what we get. climate is a construct that's tough to see. our job is to help you see it and help you understand why the forecast we make for the end of the century is something we can trust. to start out with mother nature's strongest fringier print is the seasonal cycle. here in dc is colder in january, but then it's going to warm up

in july. that's a climate foreclosure. my grandmother could give it to you. we have an understanding of our climate system that allows us to look forward into the future. the other thing i hope our discussion this morning can help you understand is why oh long term forecast for the future is something that so many of us p on the panel are deeply concerned about so, i'm an engineer by training and worked on wall street for awhile, and decided i was fascinated by climate. it's like wall street in many respects and looks like the stock market with ups and downs on various time scales and the viability of the climate change is fascinating to me. this record here focuses on the last 10,000 year. the top part is flat. that's the last 10,000 years # 6 our climate. it's relatively stable, and what drew me into science is what

extent does climate stability link with human civilizations that started about 10,000 years ago where our climate became more stable. if you road the book "collapse" civilizations have failed over time due to the ability to look on long time scales and be adaptive to our environment. now, my next slide is more or less to highlight the fact that, gosh, we've been studying this problem for an incredibly long time. the guy in the oil painting got the nobel prize for doing the back of the envelope calculation that dr. meehl spoke about. our planet would warm at 8 degrees fahrenheit. he basically assumed that we would continue to emit fossil fuels at the 1895 rate and would

take 3,000 years to double. but bert burrlean did his own back of the envelope calculation saying co2 would be increased by 30% by 2000 which was true. he figured out how tore this invisible greenhouse gas called carbon dioxide. we wouldn't need the panel if we could see carbon dioxide because it's everywhere. he figured out a way to create and build a machine like a breathizer and he showed just as burt calculated that we increased our co2 in the at atmosphere by 36% now. i know that that does not sound a lot, but because of the special chemical structure of carbon dioxide unlike nitrogen

and oxygen which there is so much more of, they have just two at toms. co2 has three that allows it to absorb radiation and absorb heat why is why the planet is warming up. the other thing they did was chemically fingerprint the co0 to know it was us. they come in isotopes and fossil fuels. they have no c14 because they are ancient, and what they were table -- able to do is say one out of every four molecules in our atmosphere today was put there by us. it's our human fingerprint on the climate system. as jerry said, we are increasing the temperature to 1.4 degrees fahrenheit. we can see our weather.

we experience our weather. we know that what means, but how is climate change impacting our weather? essentially, twain's quote should be climb is what we affect and whether is what gets us. we can see more extreme events and if you talk to warn bust or anyone in -- warren buffet, he'll say if we don't take weather into account, we're making costly mistakes. this is a picture from the national floods of 2010, a one in a thousand year event. that is expected to increase more so with each passing year if we continue to emit greenhouse gases, business as usual. my i'm at the weather channel really -- it just awed me the way our country could rally around a weather forecast whether it's sandbagging in advance of the red river floods or e quack

waiting, we know what to do with a weather forecast. it's impressive 689 the thing is how do we respond similarly to a climate forecast? whether forecast is all defense. i mean, we just, we get the information, we got to figure out what to do. with a climate forecast, the one difference is that we have the opportunity to change it because it's just one potential future, so essentially, when we think about the future, it's an increase of 10 degrees fairn high by the end of the century and three feet of sea level rise. that's a different climate. if climate change is an ultimate procrastination problem, we're in a race essentially to understand our climate forecast and just get to the point to act on them, and i say as a scientist, if we don't do that, that would be irrational. >> thank you, and thank you to our witnesses. i'll recognize myself for 5 minutes and follow in the

alternating order. just to start with a premise that i don't think often people appreciate, i don't think there's any disagreement on this panel, though i've heard disagreement by my colleagues occasionally, co2 is essential to maintain the current temperature of the earth. if it was not for some greenhouse gas, dr. lindzen -- >> understand if you double co2. current climate is water vapor. >> let me finish the question. it is established science that the presence has an important role in maintaining the current temperature. if you didn't have co2, -- let me ask it this way. if we don't have co2, would the earth be a cooler place or a warmer place? >> it would be 2.5 degrees cooler. >> others wish to comment on

that? >> i think it would be a bigger effect than that. >> hit the mic. in the mid 1908s bob and i did some of the earliest call claigs of these and bob is one of the few geniuses in this field, and when he tried to do the experiment you just referred to to figure out what the current amount of co2 is having, the calculations broke apart because the disruptions in the atmosphere were so large, that he had to go back and start over. i think it'd be more than 2.5 degrees. >> is there any doubt that co2 absorbs more heat than oxygen? no doubt about that. is there any doubt that human activity has increased the co2 in the air. no doubt of that. that's a given. >> how should i put it?

i advise you to stop with the no doubt, but, you know, that is the prevailing view. >> okay. fair enough. i'm a ph.d. scientist and it's never 100%, doctor, but the prevailing view and abundance evidence suggests humans caused a substantial increase of co2. is that fair? okay. here's the question. is there disagreement with dr. meehl's analysis and dr. cullen's analysis of greater recent highs relative to recent lows? each person needs to use a mic when they speak. >> yeah, i don't think they are meaningful statements. i mean, during this whole period he's referring to, if you look at it, it still looks like a random process one, and two, the

instrumentation has changed dramatically during that period so the response time of modern thermometers is a test mode for the earlier record. >> i'll rephrase my question because i think it was clear, but your answer didn't address it. is there a doubt that in the recent years, and i'll state it as clearly as i can, there is a greater per upon drains of record highs unless it was erroneous in one direction -- >> absolutely. you have high response time. they pick up -- >> simply, are we suggesting, if you're suggesting that the thermometers today are more sensitive to increases -- >> yeah, oh yeah. >> than to cooling -- >> i think that's pretty much true, but there's another issue here that's a bit weird.

mainly, why do you have record highs and record cold. >> i don't want why first, i justmented the facts. is it generally accepted, scientific fact that there are more record highs today than record lows? dr. me, hl? >> yes. >> dr. cullen >> yes. >> it seems that's a fairly objective piece of evidence we can look at. you may disagree, but part of what's happening here there's a -- if i look at a temperature thermometer and say this is pretty hot, other people can say it's pretty cool, but if we got to measurement device we've been using for a long time and it's showing a hotter temperature than a year ago either the temperature changed or the measuring device changed. now maybe the device changed,

but we're talking thousands of changing and only in one direction. >> just to add a little bit to that. this analysis we did looking at basically temperature and records in the second half of the 20th century whether stations had good daily records. i think this is a bigger problem than the thermometer problem. you 1r to have -- you have to have stations reporting every day to have a lot of daily records, and this ratio that is now two to one that we thought was odd, and initially this was from a guy at the weather channel who was keeping track of records on his own, and i was down there, heidi invited me down there and he asked what's with the two to one rash know. i said, i don't know. is that a ewe theek thing with -- unique thick? we loorked at it and the ratio we were at two to one right now. a decade ago it was two to one,

and a decade before that it was a little less than that. if you had a climate that wasn't changing, you'd expect that ratio to be about one to one because there's an equal chance of getting record highs and lows. what was interesting about that study, and i think this is a thing we can't communicate to the public, but climate change is a shift in statistics. it's a shift in the odds of certain things happening, so as you warm the average temperature, you shift the odds towards a greater chance of extreme warm temperatures and less chance of ceo treem -- extreme cold temperatures. >> if i could build on that quickly. he carried that experiment forward which is what we need to go through. if we continue to emit greenhouse gases as usual, that gets 20 do -- to one. >> because of the shifting in the probabilities?

>> i noticed the disscreen sigh in numbers here. it was said that a doubling of co2 causes a 1 degree c increase. >> i said by itself. >> by itself. so it's -- >> it's absence of feedbacks. you expect about 1 degree from changing co2 from 280 to 560. you again get the same thing for a doubling from 560 to 2120. it's nonlinier. every molecule of co2 does a little less than its preed se sore, but one degree is what you expect and anything more is from feedback of water vapor and clouds primarily in the models. >> i want to ask the others to

see whether they agree with that. dr. cullen, you said there's an 8 degree fahrenheit rise; right? >> the basic climate sensitivity doubling suggests that rise. that was the calculation and they give a range including all of the feedback. >> so somebody -- >> [inaudible] >> can somebody explain that? >> what he is saying if we could isolate the impacts one by one, the co2 in fact itself and the way it interacts would cause a 1 degree warming under the circumstances. it's the additional forcing which i mentioned in my testimony briefly of adding more

water that causes part of the increased effect, part of it would be due to the way clouds are being treated in the calculations also, but if i focus on the water, that's when i mentioned the disproportion gnat amount of e evaporation increase as we warm a body of water. this is just a fact of physics so that people who propose that this enhancing effect which dr. lindzen denies are fighting against a fundmental parts of physics, the rate at which a liquid evaporates is a grossly disproportion to the temperature. >> may i respond? >> please. >> what he's referring to is the relation that tells you what the saturation vapor pressure for water as a function of temperature. the atmosphere first of all is

almost never safe rated, so the basic physics referred to is stating that if you have a big bottle and somebody has this cup, no matter what i've done to pour water into each, this will always have more. that doesn't make much sense, but the other thing is that the data i refer to -- >> what does that mean? what is your response to that? >> i didn't follow him. i know the equation and i know -- >> turn your mic on. >> i know the relation he's speaking of and the relationship with the qawnltties, and i don't unwhat he's saying. >> i'm saying it's for saturation vapor pressure; right? >> yeah, sure. >> is the atmosphere saturated? >> we have a relative humidity of 70%. >> going all over the place. >> yeah. >> this tells you nothing both that.

>> it gives you an proximation. >> both gentlemen, use your mic. >> yeah, okay. >> go ahead and leave it own. >> okay. the way the e vain ration can be proximated by the quantities that give the slope of the relationship, and it's just a rapid increase. it's very hard to hold back the vapor pressure of a liquid against this relationship whether it's e vapor evaporating into the gas above it that's saturated or not. >> i was just going to add that this quantity we're talking about which is an e e quill lib yum response actually there's a history to it and that's about all you do is double the co2 and see what happens.

it's climate sensitivity. we will never actually see the value because it takes so long for the oceans to catch up. this is kind of a metric we use to gauge and give us a rough calibration of how the climate system may respond. i think maybe the point is that there's a range of what we think this number may be. the current range is anywhere between 2.5-4 degrees centigrade. this was derived from models, but now there's multiple lines of evidence and people have looked at observations and the response of a climate system to big volcanic eruptions, and now we have multiple lines of evidence that seem to suggest that's probably about the right range, and that the most likely value is actually around 3, and i think dr. alley will say more about this in panel two.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. this hearing today, i think is one of the more important things of the sign committee needs to do. there should be no dispute to what the facts are relative to climate change, and there's a lot of dispute to what the facts are. there's a great deal of dispute on how you interpt those facts, but if you have an honest discussion, we need to agree on the facts, and we don't agree on the facts, so i appreciate this hearing and thank the witnesses to their contribution to this. the chairman's question to if there was no co2, the earth would be colder, not if there was just a little bit more water vapor because water vapor is an important gas. i know he mained if everything

remained equal and of course, it would. co2 is a small greenhouse gas it doesn't mean that's it's not important because it can be the tipping point. there are three groups with common cause in wanting to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, and regretfully they are at each other's throat rather than marching together forward. there's two groups one concerned about climate change and the burning of fossil fuels. a second group is the group that is really concerned that the united states has only 2% of the known reserves of oil in the world. we use 25% of the world's oil and import about two-thirds of what we use, and the sliewx to that obviously -- the solution to that obviously is to stop burning so much fuel and use alternatives which is the exactly same solution that we have today in looking at the

effective co2 on climate. we'd like to bringless of it by moving to alternatives that don't produce co2 if you have a short cycle rather than a million year cycle like we have in fossil fuels, and the third group that has common cause in this, and i just happen to have a paper this morning that just came out, the world's energy outlook for 2010 now out, and i will try to have this thrown on the screen later today. it shows we have now peaked in conventional oil production at about 65 million barrels a day. the total world's is 84 and the rest is unconventional oil. this charge has that plummeting to about 15 only about 15 million barrels a day by 2035,

that's just 25 years from now, and there's a difference made up because they have plateaued essentially with production of oil, and the difference is made up, and i think it's about 42 million of barrels per day. they say we're going to get from fields yet to be developed or found, you know, that's the impossible dream. that's not going to happen. now, the solution to this problem, the fact that the fossil fuels just aren't going to be there to burn is to move to alternatives, and so whether or not you are right that the increase in co2 is producing climate change, there are two other very good reasons for doing exactly what you want to do, and that is to move away from fossil fuel use to alternatives. why aren't these two groups locking arms and marching together because they have exactly the same solution to very different problems?

what keeps you from doing that? >> i think the three groups have locked arms and moved together, but i think there is, you know, there's a lot of opposition. i think it's a very difficult to thing to change one's invested infrastructure, and i think much of the discussion about climate change and alternative energy is making that leap and moving forward and emit greenhouse brarsing new technology, so, you know, can we do a better job? absolutely, but i think the communities have aligned, and it's clear there's multiple reasons to shift away from fossil fuel. >> you know, even if your premise is not correct, that is that human production the co2 is not changing the climate, what you want to do about it is exactly the right thing to do and two other good reasons. again, i ask why don't the three groups instead of ridiculing

each other, why don't you lock arms and march forward into the three different publics with the same solution, less fossil fuels and more alternatives. thank you, mr. chairman, for holding the hearings. >> would you like an answer? >> i think integrity is important. i think mr. baird emphasized that. if somebody was asking you how climate changed and you influence your answer because you have ideas on energy policy, you are shortchanging your -- i don't think that's appropriate . if somebody has an energy proposal, it should be sold on its own grounds, but a climate scientist who doesn't think co2 is important should join the band wagon and even if they did

say to push my view of greenhouse gases, i'll support your view of energy, it's confusing the issue for the public. it's not helping it for everyone to march and lock step. >> sir, in a former life i was a scientist. i have a ph.d. and 100 papers in the literaturement i understand science, and, you know, i'm a rare republican. i tell audiences that i'm a conservative republican, but on these kind of issues, i'm not an idiot. [laughter] >> i'm not accusing you of that, but i am saying when you ask a scientist to lock arms with a politician because they both have aims that have the same policy, that's probably dangerous. >> if the goal you want to accomplish is a national security goal, then ultimately it is, but then, you know, i don't see a compromise of science because you happen to

have a common goal with a political or a military person. >> if i may, as well as i know you, i would never guess him to suggest his or her findings to fit a political agenda. this goes both sides, and i do believe what he's suggesting and he embodies this in his life that there are national interests that are meritorious beyond the debate today in the scientific findings, but he's more off the grid than anybody i know, and that's a compliment. [laughter] off the electricity grid because he's so on the grid of the data. he's saying, i think, that this is not a matter of dissorting the policy findings, but make it in common interest. >> we have three common

interests, and there's no wherein we should be limit -- we should be limiting our ability to reach the common goals because we disagree with each other's premise. >> that's all i'm saying. >> i know you want to comment. if we have time, i'll get back to you on this matter because i know it's important. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and again, we will miss chairman baird, and i appreciated his leadership, although we have strongly disagreed on several issues, this being one of them, and i actually would thank him very much for including one witness out of four to present the other point of view. the fact is in the past as a chairman or has ranks member mentioned, we've had one witness in a whole hearing as compared to any type of balanced

presentation. this has been, this tactic of not permitting the other side to be heard or trying to muzzle people in academia and elsewhere from expressing the opposition views to the manmade global warming theory is a travesty, and it's time people admit that's what's going on. what we have is one witness out of four, and in the past it's been one out of 16, and we heard over and over again case closed where there are presentations with nobody on the other side expressing their opinion. they made a mockery out of science, and i'm very happy that at least today we have one witness out of four in the panels presenting the other side because there is a fundamental disagreement on whether or not

the climate cycle we are in today is caused by mankind or whether or not this is a natural cycle and if it is created by human activity, is it something we should be concerned about because it is not a major factor, but a minor factor in what's going on. mr. chairman, i noted that you used your case to say why co2 should be more concern because oxygen in the atmosphere because co2 does observe more heat. oxygen is i believe 21% of the atmosphere. co2 is 390 parts per million. that's one-half of one tenth, less than one-half of one tenth

of 1% in the atmosphere as compared to 21%,58 parts per million are manmade compared to what's in there naturally, so this idea that co2 -- most the people disposing this issue, the -- discussing the issue the presentations are so skewed and hampered by no presenting the other side that most people believe that co2 represents 10-20%. ask the people around you and members of congress gives you that answer. well, today, we are trying to get to the bottom of this, and i appreciate the fact that, again, we have a debate where at least one out of four witnesses is going to be able to address some issues. let me ask dr. lindzen, we have some of the points that you've made, but i'd like to specifically ask you whether or not you believe that there will

be dire consequences due to our lifestyle on the climate of this planet? >> no, i don't think so. i think we're talking about finite issues. the elevation of finite issues to catastrophes leaves behind a large portion of the scientific community. i think there's been a problem that the agreement is on the trivial, the controversy is on really obscure things that depend on many factors. one of the things that bothers me in this discussion of extremes and storms and so on are basic features of meteorology is the cause of storms in mid latitudes is the temperature difference between the equator and pole. under a warmer climate that should be reduced, and that

should lead to fewer storms. it is the storms that bring in record highs and lows by carrying air from distant places. why suddenly in this complex thing, a particular observation that is actually contrary to the basic physics that assumes importance, i don't know. >> well, we've had many cycles of warming and cooling throughout the history of this planet. many, many cycles, and a minuscule change, and the amount of co2 in the atmosphere compared to other time periods with other cycles going on when co2 by the way, was higher than what it is today. we have seen that this is the relationship between co2 -- this is what it comes down to. people are trying to tell us in the scientific community that we have to accept draconian changes

in our way of life mandated by life because the co2 we emit is causing drastic consequences to the plant's climate. that doesn't seem to hold up. >> so, sir, even if the u.s. shut down, period, retired from the world, it's impact on the co2 levels would be rather undramatic. >> and the co2 levels in the atmosphere are undraydramatic. the fact it's a minuscule part of the atmosphere, it's increase during the time period where mankind increased the standard of living of the human race has been used as a scare tactic to frighten people into accepting controls over their lives that they otherwise would not accept. that is what this debate is about. frankly, i've seen in the past,

i'm a former journalist, i've seen example after example where people in the political world will try to frighten the public on an issue in order to achieve a political end, and this is one of the worst examples of that i've seen. thank you, mr. chairman. >> you began by emphasizing the importance of hearing from all sides, and during the most recent questioning you heard from one side, and if the other witnesses wish to respond to the points you made to do so. i'm sure you want to hear their response. >> go ahead. >> no, you go ahead. >> you know, there was a number of different points made there. i don't know where to start. maybe i just take a couple of them. i think this is one of the things that i personally find difficult is a lot of times the science gets kind of beliered together with the -- blurred together with the political side of the issue. what we are here to talk about is the science of this issue. when you talk about dire

consequences rs those are value judgments made by human societies. those are not science issues, so, you know, there's been an effort in the european community to come up with a number of two degree warming preindustrial as a threshold for dangerous climate change, and people argue about that a lot, and that number is out there, but i think you'd find a lot of disagreement even among the scientific community what constitutes climate change. certainly, with climate change, things will shift around. you'll have dry areas getting drier, wet areas getting wetter, and changes in extremes and things impacting human societies r # -- societies, but the fact these greenhouse gases called trace gases as you pointed out they constitute a really small fraction of the composition of the earth's atmosphere, but the

fat they have a -- fact they have a unique property with two atoms per molecule, that makes that molecule really active and important, and it can absorb heat and trap it. >> if it's so minuscule, how does that have a greater impact? >> that's the interesting thing about it. with the small quantities it's really important. the climate systems makes a difference on how the climate of the earth is behaving. in terms of the science, these are the things that we grapple with too. we try to incorporate them as best we can and use the tools and these are the indications we get. in terms of evidence, science is a great thing because, you know, dick has theories about low climate sensitivity and other people tried to use other

evidence to contradict what he said. this is how science works and we try at the end of the day to come up with an idea of what is really going on in the world. i think that's why all of us probably got into science in the first place because we are interested in how the world works, but, you know, focusing on the science makes it a very interesting problem that has all of these interesting things that go on in terms ever physical processes that we can try to use tools like climate models to understand, and i think that's where the interest is for us, and i think that's what makes this an interesting problem. now, as far as what you decide to do as policymakers about the problem is something we can trief to give you information. i think the example of the advice you get from doctors that, you know, maybe a certain 98 give you an a and 2 say become, okay, what do you want to do? it's a call you have to make,

but we do the best we can to give you the best possible information from our community. >> so, help us understand, first of all, i very much appreciate what you said because on this committee and elsewhere in the public and in the media there's an as -- as serration and they may find this in the models, but the idea it's a conspiracy or a hoax to force draconian changes, if it's nothing else let us put to rest this assertion that in some way you are motivated by some -- [no audio] there's --

>> as compared to the natural cycle -- >> i'll be happy to answer that. there is no simple relation between the amount of a constituent and its ability to absorb radiation. if you have a very strong absorbing molecule, then you need less of it to do something. co2 is a significant absorber. i differ with my colleagues about the reasons why. it's the permanent moment that's important. you know, oh, no, all have two atoms and absorb well in the infrared. i don't know, that makes me wonder about the testimony, but still, it is possible for a trace gas to be important. it isn't straictly the amount even though the amount is

minuscule. for instance, a very thin visibly invisible cloud absorbs more infrared than anything else when it's present. >> yeah. >> the framework is the energy balance of the planet, and so in deciding whether an entry is small or diminutive or whatever, it's when we look at the balancing as you said compared to a natural balances, and these polyatomic nodes interacting with the radiation as was just said, sometimes the tiniest presence can intercept part of the spectrum that are otherwise transparent. the earth's atmosphere is transparent in some regions where it is emitting.

may i make a comment on the interesting puzzle about energy policy? >> please, and then another opportunity -- we have two more pams. >> i heard a graphic presentation of the same three problems. he gets back to your three overlapping groups and interests by having a fictional conversation between john, gandhi, and general george patton saying they can agree on the things they said. i heard him give this prosecution, and it's -- presentation, and it's fascinating. energy efficiency is a solution that should appeal to all three groups, and yet if the money is lying on the floor to be saved with energy efficiency, why aren't people taking advantage of it? we have analysis why various

companies and individuals are not doing more to capture this free energy through efficiency, and i'm on the mystic that people will get their acts together who are concerned about those three different sides of the issue. >> any final comments, and then we'll release this excellent panel for the next one. >> i think one remark i'd like to simply make is that with this notion that extreme weather events increase over time, i think it's important to remember in our daily lives moving forward, there's numerous things we all need to worry about and looking at the events that happened during the national floods, yes, we had extreme weather events in the past, but from an infrastructure standpoint and doing things in the short term to reduce our overall vulnerable, i think it's thinking about the fact that we have information that can reduce our overall as a vulnerability and make our communities

stronger, and i come back to the fact as on the short term keeping people out of harm's way, this is information that is ultimately meant to make our communities stronger and safer, and it's sort of simple as that moving forwards over the next decade or two. >> any final comment? i want to thank this outstanding panel for your years of work and expertise and modeling a constructive discussion. thank you very much. we'll recess for 5 minutes until the next panel is seated, and have my colleagues in thanking this panel and they can retire for this moment and invite our others to join. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> i thank everybody for joining us again, and it's my pleasure to introduce our panel of witnesses and he's a senior fellow and benjamin santer who is an engineer for climate model diagnosis and intercomparison, and dr. richard alley is in the environmental systems institute of pennsylvania state university, and dr. richard feely from my home state of washington, a senior scientist with the national oceanianic and

atmospheric administration. we have to do our best to stick to 5 minutes, if you go a little over, i'll be as patient as i can, but do you best to be in 5 minutes and after the presentation, we'll have a series of questions, and dr. michaels, you're welcome to begin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think the first panel set an interesting discuss. what we are looking at here is to whether the sensitivity of temperatures and carbon dioxide is as large as people think or if there are other factors responsible for the temperature changes we have seen. i'd like to show the first slide if i could. the important thing about climate change to remember is that it doesn't matter whether people change the climate. one of the rhetorical devices inaccurate on this is to say all scientists agree that all human beings have an up fliewns on climate. so what.

what matters is how much we influence the climate, and we are getting guidance from mother nature on this despite our best efforts if you will. this slide shows each color is a computer model, 21 models from the united ippc scenario for con concentrations in the atmosphere that pretty much resemble what's going on. you see each is a straight line, and the reason for that is because we put carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but the response is log ma rhythmic. as it starts the warming, is it a straight line, and the answer is yes. how do you discriminate? the same thing you tell students in weather forecasts that i taught. when different models show different things, look out the window and you see it's at the low end of this line.

i hope it went to the next image. there it goes. another way to look at the issue is look at the frequency distribution of temperatures produced by all of these models for periods of five up to 15 years, and the blue line are the observed trends from the climate research center at the climate research unit, and what you can see which corresponds to the last slide, is, in fact, the warming is clearly below the average predicted by these models. yes, we have a greenhouse fingerprint, but i summit to you it's a pinky, it's not a dreaded other finger. if we take a look at the temperatures like this, they are sensitive to the years chosen. this particular paper is one of the most famous papers published. it appeared in scene of this accident, and it shows that the temperature between 1963 and

1987 corresponded remarkably to what was modeled. it was a wonderful result, and here's the left hand side, the computer, you can see in the southern hemisphere and there's a massive warming and you see 1963 to 1987 a massive warming. what a wonderful finding, but the whether data actually begins in 1957, and it ends in 1995 for the purpose of a paper published in scene of this 1996. i offer you this observation by the way and the paper appeared four days before the most important conference. at any rate, when you add in all the data from 1957 to 1995, the relationship vanishes. these studies are sensitive to what goes on with the temperature and what period we

study rather. the search goes on. sulfates, aerosols, the sensitivity and the affect of them is estimated between 0 and 250 watts meters squared. then, there's a problem of volcanos. after this appeared, another research effort was made to look at the effect of volcanos. you see, scientists are involved mainly in finding out why it has warmed so little compared to the greenhouse gas only models, so a paper came out by the same group that says going back to 1883 and we factor in the volcanos, my god two third of the warming that would have occurred have been suppressed. wow, another remarkable finding that's time dependent because you see, volcanos before 1883,

mount tamboro went out and created a year without a summer. we have these records, and recently jonathan gregory got a paper published soon, and i offer you the volcanic record, and this is an art fact of ex-- arty fact design before the simulations began, and this could be misleading in comparison. i'll tell you what my conclusion is. first of all, scientists work by tentive hypothesis and you look at data to see whether you can maintain that or whether you have to modify it. my hypothesis would be that the sensitivity is overestimated and in coordination with other scientists, and that is the prospect that we need to test.

now, i realize some people don't agree with me on this because some people say there's no such thing as climate change, and some people, say, well, yes, climate change is the end of the world. if you disagree, join this facebook site that appeared, and you can take care of me. thank you very much. >> dr. santer. >> thank you very much, chairman baird for the opportunity to talk to you here about climate change and have a discussion. i'm not going to address the discussions that michaels raised, but i hope i can in the answer and question session. today is november the 17th, and my dad was born 91 years ago. this figure is from the report which was published last year of

the u.s. global change program, global change impacts in the united states, and what you see on the right hand side is a scale that shows you the change in atmospheric co2 levels measured world wild. on the left hand side, the temperature change, this difficult estimate of the average temperature of the planet. the point i want to illustrate is over a human lifetime, there has been a change from roughly 300 parts per million per volume to 390. that's not a belief system. people ask me, do you believe in global warming? i believe in facts and evidence. this is a fact i think we with all agree on this. the fact is what did this change in at atmospheric composition do if any? well, that's a difficult question to answer. climate change is not an either-or proposition.

clearly, many things are happening simultaneously, volcanic eruptions, changes in the sun's output, human changes in greenhouse gases and aerosol particles. in the real world, of course, we can't do that. we have no undisturbed earth without any human intervention, but computer models of the climate system, we look at the natural factors of what you see here and how they may have changed over the 20th century changes in the sun's energy output and volcanic aerosols and you use a computer model in this case, and what you can see is that just with natural factors, you can't explain the warmer we observed over the second half of the 20th century. when you put in combined human and natural factors, you can.

i agree with dr. lindzen on that point. if you just look at global temperature alone, it's difficult to make reliable influences about causation, and that's why as scientists since 1979, since the first fingerprinting run, we looked beyond the global mean and complex patterns of climate change, and what you see here again from last year's global climate change impacts on the united states report is a model-based estimate of the fingerprints that affect climate, and there's five different fingerprints up there. there's changes in well gases and aerosol particles, both human, sulfate aerosols come from burning ever fossil fuels. there's changes in oh zone, changes in volcanic aerosols,

solar radiants, and then all factors considered together. i don't want to go into the details. the poimentd is they are -- the point is they are all different and looking from the earth's surface from the north pole to the south pole, model-based estimates of changes in temperature over the last 50 years of the 20th century. they are different, and we exploit those differences in fingerprinting to try to understand cause and effect relationships. as you have heard some people say today that the sun explaning everything. that is a testable hypothesis. we routinely look at that. the best understanding is if the sun's energy output had slightly increased over the last 50 years, there would be more solar energy arriving at the top of the atmosphere, we would see heating throughout the vertical extent of the atmosphere. we don't see that. the reality is the obvious vaixes are more vertical to the

top fingerprint and mix of greenhouse gases don't look like anything like the sun explains everything. as mentioned earlier, for the last 30 years we've measured in a number of different satellite instruments, the sun's energy output in space, and we know that there are these 11 year cycles, but there's no overall increase in temperature in the last 30 years. there is, however, an increase in temperature over the last 30 years, so the sun explains everything does not convincingly explain observed climate change. it doesn't fit the bill. ..

used these statistical, rigorous comparisons to look at patterns of change, not global mean members and has been able to show the changes in all of these things are not consistent with natural causation alone. you may not like every soul, but that their best understanding that we have the climate system is telling us internally and physically consistent story. >> thank you, dr. santer. >> thank you for the honor, chairman beard. it's a pleasure to be here. you have -- your body has in its wisdom establish mechanisms to

gain assessments for the science. because you know, lead scientist defendants argue things. in fact, you pay to argue about things. you set up things such as the national academy to give you assessments that are outside the argument i'm insane what does the sign say? if you look at the assessments, the science is now very clear, the science says that it is melting almost everywhere, almost all of it, consistent with warming. there's a few really cool places. the top of greenland and the frozen usher wander around antarctica and increasing precipitation has still been controlling and that's also consistent with their understanding of the effects of warming. and that is project you to switch the shrinkage in the fairly new feature. when you look at the world, what did we see as ice shrinking, but it's getting warmer. in fact come you can estimate the warming from looking at how

much they pay shrinks and that agrees with the thermometers. this is the plot is melting of mountain glaciers contribute to global sealevel rise. rise. he will find people that put one on their end catastrophe and find people that look at the one on top. that's norway, liquor little bit before it started shaking. or they look at one window and the black room. if you look at those curves command of mountain glaciers assess taken together are shrinking and are contributing to see the ice. there's really no serious question about that. now, if we want to know what happens in the future, this is a very complicated plot and i hope that you don't look in any great detail at it. this is how much warming we expect from rising co2. in this particular if you just doubled co2 and let the climate come into equilibrium, we may go way past doubled co2. but the blue number up there, which is a little over

five degrees there tonight is sort of the most likely. if you could bet on one horse, you bet on that horse. gifford dr. michaels and earlier you heard doctoral lindzen arguing, couldn't be lower than the green arrow? and it certainly could be. but the orange arrow shows that it could be higher than that. and the red arrow shows that could be a lot higher than that. you have no sort of had a discussion or debate here between people who are giving you the blue one and people giving you the green one. this is certainly not both sides if you want both sides of it. that somebody in here who is having conniption fit on the red and because you're hearing one very optimistic side. we wish that dr. michaels and dr. lindzen recur against the central valley view. when we look at the impacts of mourning, we get the same sort of story. the ip cc folks at sea level rise and says this century is probably not going to be huge.

that excludes anything weird that the ice sheets do. and we're nervous because the jesus i started doing something weird and they started doing it 100 years before they were expected from the previous assessment. when you look at sea level rise, which is fine if it's going to rise. there's virtually no way to avoid that. but there's a big unknown. if you look at what people have been planning for, it's something. it might be a little better come a little worse are the worse, but we don't find any evidence for lot better. ice sheets are in the shrinking in their shrinking way before we expected them to. now we do not believe in any way that you could melt a whole ice sheet in mere decades. but we are very nervous that within decades we could get warm enough to melt a whole ice sheet. no greenland would be seven meters below sea level. antarctica is very much bigger than greenland. the last estimate i saw come in

10% of the world population lives within 10 meters of sea level. the amount of ice which is in play is huge for people and where they live and what they do. we don't have really reliable projections, but we do see sea level rising and the possibility to where we get to a point where are committed to very commit very large raises. to the planning people to encompasses best that's available. or worse and enlarger impacts on people. just to to summarize this. it's getting warmer, this is melting ice. it's all consistent with what we bring him everything is in there. we keep hoping that we've overestimated the impact be a a few plot all the unknowns, it could be a little better, a little worse or a lot worse. thank you. >> good morning, chairman beard, ranking member england, thank

you for giving me the opportunities to speak today about ocean city vacation come impacts on marine life and our economic value. all these issues up on the subcommittee a strong interest in it like to recognize and thank your bipartisan leadership in passing the seminal legislation the federal ocean acidification research and monitoring act of 2009 is now driving force behind a noaa to understand this phenomenon. fundamental changes are occurring for two oceans for the past two and half centuries the release of carbon dioxide from industrial agricultural duties has resulted in the carbon dioxide concentrations from 280 to about 390 parts per million. today the oceans absorb about one third of the carbon dioxide emissions by human activities during this period. this natural process of absorption has renovated

humankind by significantly reducing global warming in the atmosphere reducing some impacts of global warming as well. however, decades of ocean observation and research from noaa, the national science foundation and department of energy has shown the daily uptake of 22 million tons of carbon dioxide is having a significant effect on the oceans chemistry and biology. when carbon dioxide reacts, chemical changes occur that cause a decrease in ch and carbonate ions. these chemical changes are largely referred to as ocean acidification because of the direction of change involved. scientists have estimated that ocean ph has fallen about .1 ph units since the beginning of the industrial. his first fight i show you shows the atmospheric concentration of co2 at the lower site that dr. charles cumin started in 1957 in red.

and underneath and blue, you'll find the hawaiian ocean maintained by the university of hawaii under the direction of the national science foundation. you can see the increase in surface ocean piece is commensurate in terms of the rate of change with the atmospheric concentration, about 1.5 parts per million per year. underneath that is the corresponding ph measurements. the problem is site. we see .0 to ph change at this site over the last decade. so you can see from measurements alone we can see the acidification process. since the ph scale is like the richter scale, it is logarithmic. this change in ph represents a 20% increase in hydrogen ion concentration of seawater or the acidity of seawater. further predictions throughout the end of the century suggest we could have 150% increase in acidity of seawater, using the ip ipcc as the scenario.

it's important to know we are exceeding the co2 ocean scenarios today. many marine organisms are producing carbonate calcium and are negatively impacted by increasing ocean acidification and is shown to reduce their -- producer shells and skeletons. for example, in a recent paper just published last week on a coral reef biologists have shown the acidification could compromise fertilization and settlement of outcome coro. outcome coro is an endangered species and we are causing further harm to that. these research results suggest that ocean acidification could severely impact the coral reef to cover from any kind of disturbances, including major storms. other research indicates that the end of the century, coral reefs may erode faster than they can be rebuilt. this could compromise the long-term viability of those particular ecosystems that

perhaps impact over a million species that depend on coral reefs for their survival. ongoing research, the decrease in ph may also negative immediately affect commercially important fish and sheltered species is well underway. both crabbe and cb marberry exhibit high mortality rates and high crt world. the calcification of edible mussels declined with co2 levels. since 2006, some oyster hatcheries in the pacific northwest on washington, oregon and california have experienced massive mortality is the worst or larvae dissociation of common factors including the upwelling of coal, hot crt which waters. it is also seen the reduced ability of marine plankton that produce calcium carbonate shells. and these organs are good sources for many marine species. one type of species called the

terrified by it organizations from crows to wells. terra pods are the major food source for north pacific salmon and a major food for macro, hearing and cod. you can see the importance of the species to her ocean ecosystem as they write are the food chain. the impact of ocean acidification incorporates ecosystems can reverberate through the u.s. and global economy. the u.s. is the third-largest seafood consumer in the world and the total consumer spending on fish and shellfish about $7 billion per year posted the marine personal issues generate up to $35 billion for your and employs 70,000 people. conclusion ocean acidification is caused by the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and can have significant impacts on marine ecosystems. ocean acidification is emerging scientific issue of much research is needed before the all ecosystems are sponsors are

understood. however, delivered the scientific understanding about this issue right now, the potential for a mental economic and societal risks are very high hands, demanding serious and immediate attention. thank you for attention and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, dr. feely. at this point i recognize myself for five minutes and follow-up questions from my colleagues. dr. feely, he focused on ocean acidification and it appears a pretty sound connection. two questions for you, when trends and chill. it's my understanding they spent an enormous coro that i have the worldwide particularly in the caribbean as we see them having high sea temperatures. secondly, other alternative situations to explain the acidification levels you been measuring? >> to answer your first question, because of the increasing level of temperatures in the ocean, we have seen coral

die off as much a 16% globally and the projections are that out to the end of the century we may not see very many of the coral reefs he able to survive. that's the dire situation where faced with. the concern that we have in terms of acidification in some of the preliminary researchers say that the combination of increased co2 and the increased temperature of socio- global warming enhances the bleaching impact on those corals. so the risk of survival is even greater. >> do you want to -- are there other alternatives? what is another alternative explanation for the measured increase in acidity for lower ph other than the co2 hypotheses? >> a major suggestion is perhaps co2 evolution from volcanic dvd, hydrothermal activity in the deep sea could be enriching co2

levels in the surface oceans. we publish papers on the subject to show that the amount of co2 from volcanic activity in any given year is 1102 minus co2 that enters the atmosphere through the activities. >> dr. alley, two questions. one, tells little bit how, from your breath and says that ice sheets and glaciers are melting with a few exceptions. tell us a little bit about the methodology by which that is measured first. secondly, haven't there been times in the past when we've seen receding glaciers and receiving a sheet and comments about my goodness, things seemed to be going in the opposite direction. and what's the difference now? >> for measuring, say what greenland is doing. some of that work is done by way of the ice sheet, using the great gravity satellites, which is truly wonderful. it's like watching cars on a

roller coaster and the one going down gets away from the one that's going up. and the one going down catches up. >> as i understand it, it's fascinating. we have satellites pursuing each other and gravitational attractions close one down and makes relative to the other by measuring the rate of the different speed you can so much mass is underneath you. as the mass declines, this was going down. >> perfect. i should return that you teach this. >> i just think it's beautiful. >> you measure changes in surface elevation. is it going down or up using radar or laser from a planar satellite? and although said than done. and then you figure out how much snow has been added and how much not water is leaving and how much ice is leaving. and then you compare all of these to see if they get the same answer and all of them indicate shrinking of girly men. you are certainly correct that ice is grown and shrunk in the past. i had the honor of serving for the u.s. government on the

climate change science program on the report of the history of the arctic. what we found it very clear for greenland, when nature made it wormer, green and got smaller. and when nature made it colder, greenman got bigger. and we are now making it wormer and greenland is getting mueller. >> how do we know it's weak, not nature? and income was that the increase in co2, but they would argue it go back to 1927 to find articles about glaciers retreating. what's the difference? you can look at a football team and say they're losing that then and they're losing now, what's the difference? >> the first one is we cannot get away from the warming effect of co2. it was really clear for a big year for us who are actually interested in what wavelength should i use for the sensor on the heat seeking missile? but interacts with radiation andersen of co2 to make a difference. the mechanic it away from that physics.

the second one is looking outcome is there any other possible thing to explain this? and it really to -- i'm sorry, sir come it took a few billion dollars of your money and 30 years to say that there's nothing else we can find in nature to do this. this has been the satellites are expensive. then you need a satellite to watch the sun to see if the sun is getting brighter, but it isn't. if someone says it's volcanoes, delete the history volcanoes and to know what they're doing. if someone says it's cosmic rays, we need cosmic ray monitors. it's taken 30 years to get to the point to say no, we've looked really hard. we can't find anything else. there's a third piece, which is the fingerprinting, which is what dr. santer was discussing. if you were to say, ok, we spend a lot of money on satellites in the satellites that the sun is not getting brighter, but baby the satellites around in the sun is getting brighter and we can't and we can't see it. that makes a prediction.

it gets warmer down here and warmer and the top. what's going on, warm or cold or? of the fingerprinting in time and space says that we got it right on the other two pieces that's mostly us now. >> i want to be clear, it's not by money. it's your money. >> thank you commissary. i think the consequences of diversely if we don't address our energy independence and apparently would've been my judgment, the real impacts that will vastly exceed a million dollars. epidemics major changes to reduce an impact come the savings will exceed expenditures. dr. santer, you might want to comment. >> i just wanted to comment briefly on what dr. alley said about the fingerprinting. we've known that increases in co2 have this characteristic fingerprint of forming the lower atmosphere, troposphere and cooling the upper atmosphere since about the late 1950s,

early 1960s when people perform the first numerical model experience and double co2. and they saw this characteristic pattern of cooling stratosphere worming of the troposphere. very robust. we see this in every model experience has been formed. we also see an observation, too. receiving satellite data and weather balloon data. a people often see these computer models are not falsifiable. and make addictions that we can't test. that's not true. back in the 1960s, with suki menotti and his colleagues at the geophysical and princeton made these calculations and double that for co2 and this fingerprint, we didn't really have the observational data to see whether the stratosphere was actually cooling, whether the troposphere was. that fingerprint is robust and it's just not consistent with

other natural causes. >> dr. michaels, do you care to comment? >> i have several comments i'd like to make, but it will take up the rest of the day. no, it certainly won't. i will limit it to the notion of what we're talking about here. you'll notice everybody says the plane it is warmed up and people have something to do with it. so what really matters is the magnitude of it. if i have the clicker -- this is just going to take effective. there it is, right there. this is the warming from the ipcc from the theory record from 1950. our environmental protection agency, which as you know, has taken over the regulatory aspect of this because of what happened in the congress, issued an endangerment warning and

inserted in their endangerment finding that more than half of the warming of the late 20th century as a result very likely a result of human greenhouse gases. more than half means more than 50% late 20th century means after 1950. you agree with all that? the second half of the 20th century. in fact, therefore different factors that are totally independent of the greenhouse effect. one, that we underestimated the service temperatures from 1944 to 1965 is published by thomson in nature magazine. number two, they are not climatic subtle effects could do was published by the coach rick and atmospheres. susan solomon found water vapor in the stratosphere is responsible for a lot of the secular changes. we don't know why water vapor is fluctuating. it's not a greenhouse. it's not apparently from greenhouse gas emissions. number four, a man at stanford

to 25% is not carbon in the atmosphere. when you add all of those up, the warming drops from .7 to .3 degrees. so the assertion that over half the warming is a function of greenhouse gases is challenged by four completely independent factors. i think we've got a lot for work to do on this frankly. >> and a very quick response to that? >> yes, might i respond to that? dr. michaels analysis is wrong. i'm sorry, it's just completely incorrect. what is attempted to do here is to explain the observed temperature change over the last 60 years from 1950 through 2010. and he said the estimated total change in temperature is .7 degrees. now he's identified for things.

economic activity, black carbon, airs in the sea surface temperature data and stratospheric water vapor. instead, i think all of those things about a warming influence weren't going to subtract them from this .7 degrees and i'm left with .3. .3 is less than half of .7, therefore the ipcc is wrong. the conclusion that more than half of the observed warming over the center was very likely due to increases in gas house is one of the conclusions of the ipcc. so dr. michaels is right, the central conclusion is wrong. what dr. michaels did not mention here or in his written testimony is the cooling effect of sulfate aerosols, which is already then discussed at this hearing. if you indulge me for a moment, i'll bring up on site here. now our best estimate of the

cooling is, sorry -- this is a slide from a paper published in 2006 by peter stock at the hadley center. what you see in the bottom or three different climate models. and if the estimates of their sulfate clearing caused by the scattering effects of sulfate aerosols over the 20th century is negative. now, if you assume conservatively that that cooling effect over 1950s to 2010, dr. michaels looked at was minus .4 degrees celsius over the 60 year period. you assume that dr. michaels was completely correct in estimating the magnitude of the poor factors that he removed from the observations. you'd be adding minus .4 and plus .4 and get to zero. so you still need to explain .7. you need to get to the observed total temperature change over the six-year period.

what could that be? could it be the son? no way, could be the same. if silver facts are that large and the fixer timescale we see huge 11 year cycle in the temperature data. we don't. could it be volcanoes? no, it could be volcanoes. could it be some mode of natural variability? on internal oscillation of the credit system that could generate that .7 degrees to butcher increase? not possible. the most plausible explanation is an increase in atmospheric co2. we know co2 has changed. again, that's not some assertion. that's not some position. we know that. what the ip cc found here and what they recorded on was that actually they change in temperature due to greenhouse gases which you see in red was larger than they actually observed change in temperature, which is the horizontal black line. said the greenhouse gas signal was offside. that's our best understanding by

the cooling caused by the sulfate aerosols. they scatter incoming sunlight and also change cloud properties. >> excuse me, very important for a second. the ipcc gives the range for a aerosol from zero to minus 25 per meter squared. that gives you incredible wiggle room every time you want to make an argument, doesn't it now? is very interesting to look at sulfate aerosol in terms of the history of science. the first book i ever read at the university of chicago is a structured scientific revolution by thomas kunz that i recommend to everyone. he predicts that within a paradigm experiences anomalous dataapartment increasingly strange strange explanations are brought forth. 1985, tom wigley who is the advisor recognized the paper the greenhouse cost models for producing too much warming and of all sulfate. and then you could do to model

the sulfate is to work perfectly well. well, the fact of the matter is that our understanding of what the effect on trade weight of the are so wide that give you virtually any answer. i'm just assuming to leave that alone. >> recognize that, mr. england. >> i think it's worth following up on that and this is why this hearing is so valuable because we get to -- these are the kind of things that confuse people and confuse the public a great deal. what's your retort? >> if i could, that are michaels was wrong again. he claimed that the ipcc we be published estimates of the radius effect of sulfate aerosols was 02 minus two watts per square meter. but as for the indirect effect. that is the effect of aerosol on-call cover and crowd brightness which is very uncertain. the ip cc testament of the aerosols and how they scatter

incoming sunlight into space does not intersect with zero. it is negative and the best estimate of order is the point i've watts for square meter. the cooling effect of sulfate aerosols has been established not only observationally and in models and theoretically in dozens of studies we can see these things from space. this is not science fiction. and leaving out this negative forcing in his testimony to you is misleading you. i'm sorry. >> the problem here is that the aero bars around these things are very, very large. and furthermore there is an issue with the sensitivity. excuse me, i'd like to finish. this discussion is really about the sensitivity of temperature to various century for saenz.

and there is quite discussion as to in fact what the change in temperature is per change in watts per meter squared down while influx. if it's on the order of, i think, what lindzen thinks it is, the sulfates will not be all that important. so this is an open matter for discussion. i'm sorry, we just don't know everything. >> i want to respond very quickly. i'm glad that dr. michaels raised the issue of uncertainty. the fingerprinting work that we do, we constantly look at uncertainties. they are part and parcel of our lives. we look at uncertainties in the fingerprints, those patterns they show you that arise are abusive different models. we look at uncertainty and model estimates of natural climate toys and related uncertainties in the statistical methods that we use to compare models and observations. we spend all our their time looking at uncertainties. in this analysis here, don't see

there are no error bars. and subtraction exercise, no error bars and the temperature changes are given to within 1000th of a degree. now to me, that is just completely ignoring the significant scientific uncertainties in this partitioning of national and human effects. you have to look at all effects, both positive and negative. you can't forget sulfate aerosols. the analysis has not done that and anything that claims to overturn the central finding of the ipcc's assessment of the report should do it thoroughly and comprehensible as possible. this analysis fails in this regard. >> is that 1963 through 1987 through 1985? is that why one would in fact begin of volcanic analysis in 1883 when the atmosphere was loaded with volcanic chunk prior to that?

>> i'm going to intervene just a little bit. i think for understandable reasons, people have published different papers and the challenges are certain the scientific community with each other. it's an interesting and important discussion. for one i want dr. sanders because i don't want to dominate. i want to just sit a little bit and we will go on forever with this particular debate. it's all right right with you? i'll give them a colleague more time. >> thank you, chairman baird. they appreciate the opportunity to go on the record for this. i appreciate pat michaels and he criticized this analysis back in 1996 when it was published. i'd like to ask -- to address three aspects of the criticism very briefly. the first aspect was that the

editorial process of nature had been interfered with, but somehow i imposed a nature to publish this paper shortly before the conference of the parties. that's wrong. that's incorrect. the second claim is that there was selective data analysis that we looked at a time. from 1963 to roughly 1988 in observation weather balloon data, compared computer model output with that. and if you look at a longer period of record, you've got different results. first of all, professor michaels was right. if you look at a longer period of record, you did get different results. had there been intent to fool people, to manipulate data? no, we used -- sensory doing a fingerprint analysis, pattern observational data, grated data. at that time there were only available from one source. that source extended from 1973 through 1988.

when professor michaels criticized her paper, we responded as scientists do. we address the scientific criticism. what we found was for me but that a newly available weather balloon data set that went through to 1995, he was right. and this change in the temperature asymmetry between the northern hemisphere southern hemisphere have distorted view shape. what we were able to show and what others have convincingly repeated since then is that changed his first behavior. if you look at models with combined changes in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols, indeed the stock paper we mentioned earlier showed that models, when including greenhouse gases and aerosol changes replicate that behavior. it was not, as professor michaels mentioned, some representation of natural causes alone actually doing the additional science strengthened

our confidence in the ability of the models to reproduce this subtle interhemispheric temperature change difference. he has not reported, unfortunately, on those responses to a scientific criticism, which i do not think is correct. >> it obligates the data. >> asking questions after the hearing. on those written questions. >> i think it's very interesting kind of back-and-forth. it does show that scientists are involved in trying to criticize each other's work and i hope to reach better science, which is very helpful. and there are some things that are sort of a sick. and i'm not science, but i play one on the finance committee when i'm here. we did this little science experiment that i hope to convince the folks about ocean acidification. you know what it is this an egg that we vinegar, vinegar water.

and you come back in a couple days and this is a science experiment to did in seventh grade. there is no more shallow. and this gets rather otherworldly concern because rather than otherworldly and perhaps academic debate and that my brother is a shrimper if he had his choice in what he to do. he's got to do other things because he really can't make a living in south carolina shrimping. and so, he's got a pickup truck in the back of it that says no wet pants, no seafood. richard is no tree hugging environmentalist, but he is a guide who love to go shrimping. and he knows if you don't have what nancy don't have any seafood. and he's i think beginning to see that if you melt the shells of these calcium-based plankton, you end up with a whole in the bottom of the food chain. it is a bit of a problem to have

it in the food chain. he was a polar bear. you open a hole in the bottom of the food chain,.her feely, which is what i think you're talking about. you have really what a lot of people's day. as i understand there's a billion people around the world who depend on the ocean for food or something like that. >> is about 20% of the protein resources we as humans require company oceans. >> wenatchee speetwo -- am i right to that this is sort of a seventh grade science explanation of how it might work and the risk that we face in the real world consequences of richard inglis as a shrimper. >> if we start at the marine plankton level, which is the marine plants, about 11% of the marine about its plans cells these are called carb luba fours. they show the formation of the show is decreased and higher co2

come anywhere from 9% to 45%. in a make over the next level, coppola supports are eaten by the zooplankton. as you plankton such as protozoans, for example, or they care across that i talked about comedy theropods come you can see them at your eye. usually there this day, but some of this big. that's a primary food source for juvenile fish. that's what they want to be because they don't want you plankton per se. and so they are dependent on the theropods and no species. while living theropods are placed, the show will begin to dissolve within 48 hours in the shuffle beat gone within a few weeks. this is a significant problem for that. >> is there doubt about the chemistry of our co2 levels and impact on ocean acidification? >> no, there is no doubt about that and let me explain why. we have worked at the international level with --

through the 1990 world's program, which is the repeat hydrographic survey with 15 countries working together, collecting over 72,000 samples in the 1990s from surface to bottom, along every portion of the ocean from antarctica to the arctic ocean, from japan to the u.s. all these countries were together. the data sets were brought to my laboratory. we process the entire data set and made all the corrections in the data set and allow them to determine exactly where all the co2 is going. we do this by determining changes to upset at preindustrial using a combination working together. we also had colleagues on the same clues collect dean for the isotopic signature of the co2. the changes they isotopic signature increase with the carbonate genic backside.

that penetration of anthropogenic co2 goes back down to the most part the other 1500 water column. so most the anthropogenic steal the upper part of the water column, we'll muster organisms live. and we know that extremely well. now in this decade, and in 2000, we've been repeating those cruises. so we can see the direct changes to the uptake of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere from the 1990s to the present. and on those cruises, we see the same rate of change of ph that we do as the times three sites at hudson bats. we now know from the large extended surveys across her oceans, that we are seeing exact rate of ph in co2 increases in the water column. this is not extremely well. there's no debate about this as well. >> i think i'm way over time, mr. chairman. i'm not sure if it would be dr. barnett burdock rohrbacher.

>> thank you very much. for the record, i'd like to place in the record -- can you hear me now? okay, i'd like to place in the record a portion of president eisenhower's farewell remarks to the country in which he warned about what happens when science and politics gets too intertwined in government grants become the goal for various researchers. will that include the military complex? >> that is exactly right. >> i never objected to mr. eisenhower being into the record. >> eisenhower took the threat of the complex similarly with intertwining science and the government. all right, dr. alley, with all due respect, he didn't answer the chairman's question.

you know, the question was a very good question. there is bennies back and forth between on glaciers in the melting that we've seen over and over again. why did it happen then is the same factors that you're blaming it on didn't exist then? >> i can give you as much or as little answer is to look like. >> give me 15 seconds. >> the ice ages are caused by features that are disordered. the brightness of the sun. this is the earth. this is the equally dirty or as the north pole. if the north pole stood straight up you could never give me a sunburn on my boss. the fact is he notes tipped over a little bit and it's not a little more and a little less, over 41,000 years. no one at not more, a bald spot a smell in the greater is a little more shaded and now the ice growth and melts. it takes 41,000 years for this change to have been.

we know what the street right now and it's not fast enough to explain what we're seeing. >> some of the other notes back and forth to call those thousands of years. there wasn't a situation where mount kilimanjaro you had it. ten years you had this much ice and make sure you didn't and vice versa. >> kilimanjaro, the records are fairly sure. it would be not the best one to lean on unfortunately. you know, what you do with glaciers, and i hope i had made that point, is one glacier can do interesting things. the world's glaciers tend to listen to the climate. and so, you need to take a large data set of glaciers to know what's going on. were you then find -- >> we all know these things happen. the major question in this debate today and i'm very again very grateful to the chairman for bringing this in having an honest exchange of ideas is what brought mankind is plain and benefit mankind is plain a minor

role, how does that then justified what we consider to be draconian solutions and controlling human behavior that has been offered to us by people who are espousing this particular theory? >> mr. santer, let me ask you this. i think it was you who said the sun or some people trying to say the sun explains everything. no, a lot of people are trying to say the sun explains a lot. maybe you could explain to me why. we've noticed there are similar trends of the small teams of the polar ice cap that are going on on mars. if it is not the sun that is the major factor in human activity, why is that? >> if i may, mars actually is going to lie to the orbit as well. it also has some dust storm issues to deal with.

>> we've got the same thing going on at the same time. in your blaming human at dimity for what's going on in theirs. you see that the same time that mars. why do you automatically assume that must be human at dvd? >> gets there, i went to get a measure of how bright the sun was and if it was getting brighter or dinner, looking in ice cap on mars, which is changing its orbit has features which change the sunshine, that's a very, very indirect imprecise measure what we very precise satellite you paid for it. the people paid for with their tax payer money which are measuring at a measurable increase in the sun site. >> you have to correct me if i'm wrong. >> mars is a bad solar sensor. >> but if you have a situation on mars that you have -- is it just -- people talk about solar activity, are we just talking about the brightness?

are we talking about other solar activity that has impact on human climate -- the climate of this planet and other planets of the hemisphere? >> the very interesting question you ask, sir. because at some level we know that we see the sunspot cycle and we see a very weak response in the temperature. so we know that the sunspots are effect teamed the climate and it actually looks like their effect in a just a tiny bit bored and you'd expect with the change in the brightness. so there is a little possibility of a fine tuning knob on the sun, which is not just the brightness, it's other fact yours. >> we do know there's been these changes because we do know there's a medieval warming period, even though we can see that there spends attempts over the research history of this research in the global warming of trying to basically negate the changes that took place between the medieval period in

the current period of time. that was the temperature higher on the earth during the medieval period? is there any evidence that the temperature got to be a tide? and if it did, how could we blame than on the production of co2? >> yeah, we are fairly high confidence, what we call the medieval climate anomaly. and reflects a low-end volcano locking the sun and a slight high in the brightness of the sun. and the best reconstructions that we have indicate that it is not as warm as -- not what we're having now. but with uncertainties if you sort of go to the far fringe, it just might be about where you were. now, this is a very interesting thing you bring up because nature, when the snow melts and the glaciers melt and they reflect less find and more heat and it is warmer. those positive feedbacks don't

care whether we made it warmer or whether the sun made it warmer. they just care that it got warmer. so we actually use the size of the medieval has won as many ways to find out how much warming we might get in the co2. >> it comes down to whether or not this has its mother nature or the nature of the universe versus human beings doing something that they now need to be controlled about. dr. michaels, before my time is that i should give you a chance to comment on that one. >> well, i would that be on the medieval warm period and look at the end of what is called the beginning of the post glacial. for several millennia, where we know based upon fallen trees, when a tree falls in the tundra or the northern part of the distribution falls into acid -- a nasa environment and his aides, is preserved so we can date the tree with carbon

dating, find out when it existed. we know that the boreal forest, the northwoods extended all the way to the arctic ocean in eurasia and in fact under the arctic ocean islands. we know that it has to be about six to seven degrees celsius. that's like 12 degrees warmer in july for that forest to exist. that's how much warmer it had to be. >> that's before humankind had any type of impact on this. a modest note this -- [laughter] but let us note this, the actual statistics when we start your statistics of how much warmer it's getting now, you're starting your calculations at the bottom of a 500 year decline in world temperature, which is the mini ice age. is that right, dr. michaels? >> yeah, it is very, very clear.

a lot of my work is reconstructing history. nature has changed the climate a lot by itself for reasons we understand reasonably well but we know are not active in this one. if we were not here -- if humans weren't here and we didn't care about anything that lived here, if this were a video game, i'd push the button and see what happens because it would be really exciting. but it's not a video game. >> the reason i brought up the eurasian arctic is because, again, it appears it was quite warmer for a millennia of thayer. i'm the only way you can get it that warm is to run water into the arctic ocean is very warm. and there is only one gate for the water. it's the strait between greenland and europe. that means the temperature of the least eastern greenland had to be quite a bit warmer for a very long time. and the integrated warming is probably greater than what we could produce if we try to burn

as much carbon fuel as we could. and i still didn't rapidly fall off a great man to some people are saying it's going to fall off in 100 years. well, it didn't fall off a couple thousand years are at >> essential greenland was about one degree warmer, 1.5-degree warmer about fighting for them it is i could summarize for you. it was smaller by something like half a meter of sea level. >> began, the scenario of the back of bus if i simply didn't occur and that's what's really driving policy on this. it's not the gradual warming that's driving it. >> for the record, the stenographer can't record the three of you. last night factious subsidies because his argument was illustrated by the angle of the work ends change over time with a bit of a wobble in the axis of the earth and the top of dr. alley's had represents the north pole.

i will speculate whether southpaw lives. [laughter] the similar is that it is that tips towards the sun and that may be accounted for some of these prior periods in the absence of panther janet. >> which is fine. >> in the polar bear survived. >> i want to recognize dr. bartlett. >> thank you very much. i apologize for my absence. i'd been scheduled for quite some time to speak briefly for the group at the introduction to capitol hill. so i'm very sorry that i missed your testimony. you know, in the past, the earth has been very much warmer. with subtropical seas at the north slope of alaska or you wouldn't have oil there. and there weren't any humans there, so clearly something else caused it. that doesn't mean that our activities today are not

enormously important and climate change because if you're at the tipping point, if a car is halfway over a cliff and if that's the tipping point and a little baby comes up and pushes on the rear end of it, it's going over, isn't it quick before the tipping point, it's irrelevant whether her our contribution is small or great. for the tipping point and we tip it over, we've done it. i deter that i'd hope the staff to get up on the screen. could we put that up on the screen? i want to apologize for my question to the first panel because i know to find two should with policy. the only reason you're here is because we are concerned with policy and we would like to try and illuminate our policy. so, my question is better directed to other people, you know, regardless of what science is, what do you or disagree. what do people want to do you want to move to less fossil

fuels is the right thing to do for two other very good reasons. this is a chart and this is quite a startling chart because just a few years ago nobody would have predict good that we be saying this today. because usgs was predicting oil of the ever more abundant, that the consumption of oil is going up and up forever. that's in spite of the fact in 1956 it predicted the united states would peak in 1900 we did right on schedule. there's a chart up on the little screen over there. the dark blue area, here it is on the screen behind you. the darker area as conventional oil that we now know about that pete and six. for three or four years before the recession, the production of oil worldwide was static. and demand was going up a static supply is the pricing of 50, $150 a barrel. then we have the recession which

we should've capitalized on because it gave us a breather. of course we did none of that. suvs have picked tracks up on the road in our grantsdale in our country. you look at the chart. what they're predicting, you see the light blue area? that is the dream. that is the dream that says we're going to find that more oil or produce enough oil from the sites we found. many of these sites are deepwater site, enormously difficult to get out. enormously expensive to get us. i don't think there's even a prayer that we're going to come close to producing as much oil as they say were going to produce by developing the fields we now know and signing new deals. if you look at the oil chart and the discoveries of oil, most were in the past. by the way, a large discovery of oil is 10 billion barrels of oil. every 12 days the world uses a billion barrels of oil. it's pretty simple arithmetic. 84 million barrels a day goes into a thousand of the 12 times, doesn't it?

so you have a 10 billion-barrel discovery of oil. you breathe a sigh of relief. it's all over, guys, we've got oil. 120 days the last the world. big deal. so what were trying to do, i know the scientists are concerned about science and a mad scientist. the only reason you are here is because we want you to illuminate our policy. and whether you agree with my colleague there were a major factor in this or not is totally irrelevant because the right policy is to do exactly what people want to do if you believe that human act to be as increasing co2 and changing the climate, you want to move to fossil fuels. that's exactly the same thing that those are concerned to. we have only 2% of the oil. we use 25% come import two thirds of overuse. exactly the same thing that people want to do. by the way, the first person to recognize this was heyman rickover in 1957. you can find the link on our website or do we google search

for rick speech. how long the reservoir lasted was how we had to put in an orderly transition to other sources of energy. a close, mr. chairman, by noting that in this country have blown 30 years. we knew was announced with certainty in 1980 when we look back tonight deveney, which said oil would peak in this country. we know he was right about the estate and we try to make him a liar between one of things. we build more oil wells than all the rest of you will put together. we found a lot of it in alaska in the gulf of mexico. in spite of those things, do they reproduce at the oil, less than half the oil we did in 1970. he predicted the world to be peaking about now and we are. and so, you know, if the policy we are looking for is whether or not we ought to move away from fossil fuels to do alternative. absolutely, one more word.

there's two kinds of inertia reuse. electricity liquid fuels. the future will have all the electricity we need, with more nuclear produce 80% with nuclear. with more wind and solar and micro, hydro and riccio thermal feedback center heat pump looking at 36 degrees rather than 90 degrees and 10 in summertime. the real crunch is going to be liquid fuels. if you're wildly optimistic about every one of the possibilities for liquid fuels, they don't even come close to 84 million barrels a day. two bubbles have already been broken. one of hydrogen bubble? they finally figured out it's not an energy source. it's just the equivalent of battery that carries energy from one place to another. you get water when you burn appear the second second bubble that road was the corn ethanol. they said we turn all of our corn into ethanol. it's silly to pretend you're

replacing fossil fuels if you're simply using it in another form. we were displaced 2.4% of our gasoline. this is that roscoe barton, it's a natural academy. they said we would save more gas by turning all of our corn into ethanol if we turned up our car and put air in the tires. now, the next bubble that is going to break is going to be the cellulosic ethanol bubble. we would get something from biomass. it will not even come close to what they hope to get. life on this earth is dependent largely accept what comes eight or 10 inches of topsoil. it has a granite material in it. this year as weeds grow larger because last week a hundred years we've died. we can rate the topsoil and get away with it. what is the sustainability of cellulosic ethanol? at the next bubble that will pray. we have to come to the realization that fossil fuels or liquid energy and the amounts would like to use just aren't going to be there. we're going to go largely to an