>> with to be sure, general agreement guarantees true, but i'm not questioning the 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, in doubling carbon dioxide alone, leads to only about a degree of warming. and of all the increase in globally averaged temperature anomaly were due to the added greenhouse gases that dr. cicerone described come it would suggest the sensitivities that's even lower than that. the case for alarm rests with 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 feedbacks. 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 arctic sea ice. the oversimplification, this is the third item, of climate to a single number globally averaged temperature anomaly, and the single forcing number, let's say radio forcing from co2, is a gross distortion of what is really going on. now, with respect to the climate sensitivity, greenhouse physics tells us that temperature changes at the surface should reduce certain change in outward flux of heat, which at the top

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

at the top of the atmosphere is radiation. at the surface it's 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 can be directly translated into sensitivity. the models behavior is consistent with one and a half, afford a half degrees of the doubling of co2. the data suggest it is closer to half the lowest limit. so there too, i mean, one has the problem that the observations would specifically turn to feedbacks rather than specific negativism's. show the opposite. this isn't surprising. one speaks of clouds as a kind of peripheral uncertainty. but they involve changes in the

radiative balance that are more than a factor of 20 larger than when you get from a doubling of co2. now, parenthetically we might wonder why models that have such high sensitivity can simulate past behavior, is the past behavior is consistent with low sensitivity. and the answer is, i think as jerry would point out, is aerosols. now, you might say to are really aerosols so they cancel some of the greenhouse, but if you check each model uses a different value. and because they want to adjust the model, so it's an adjustable parameter, and the aerosol community, schwartz, and so on, have published a paper in the last year pointing out the uncertainties that if you include arbitrary greenhouse, our which every aerosols you can

be any sensitivity you want. that's hardly reassuring -- >> i'll ask you, what about them in half over. >> let me just point out that in my full testimony there are examples, further examples of each of these things. the climate is certainly worth understanding better, but the basis for grave worries is poor. certainly for any changes of suggested policies, though perhaps not so poor as the prospects of suggested policies significantly impact climate or even co2 levels. thank you. >> dr. meehl. >> thank you, chairman bair, members of the committee for the opportunity of have process on climate change, climate models and extreme model is the first of what we do with a personal perspective that i think is

worth kind of stressing that i think one of the most interesting, exciting and challenging science problems, facing the research community today is the following. if you at greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, what does the response of the climate system? is because of this compelling science problems that i've been research in this area fascinating challenge and it's why i'm here today. the idea that additional co2 and other grasses -- gas is not a new of the so-called greenhouse effect has been studied since the late 1800s and the number of simple calculation performed indicated a doubling of co2 in the atmosphere it would likely won the planet by at least several degrees. however, a major development with the emergence of numerical models that can be run on computers. the equation simply dynamics, physics and thermodynamics can be used, this has been addressed already, a series of arduous calculations performed at that time by hand.

it was not until electronic computers came into use in the 1950s the equation could be solved in a rapid manner. this new science of american weather prediction he came usable in the 1960s and is still in use today. using the same principles and many of the same equation, early climate models in the 1960s could be forwarded in time, but for much longer into the future. it was well known that after about a week due to the nature of the atmosphere the time evolution of individual storms could not be resolved by climate models. the climate simulation attempted to capture these assisted of weather over months, seasons, years and decades. since they look at whether in this new way other factors could change slowly, had to be included. therefore, and unlike weather prediction for those only in atmospheric american model, climate models had a compilation of ocean, land and equation.

all of these components were linked together in one large computer program so that as much detail as possible could be included in the equation's. these models account for physical processes of feedback, those only to why dr. lindzen, and the seatbacks include water vapor, changes in snow and sea ice, and clout. some of the uncertainty arises from uncertainties in these feedbacks, particularly clouds. however, climate models from negative cloud feedbacks towards together on average over 20 and 21st century due to contributions of increased temperature that are from greenhouse gases but also from warming feedbacks involving increased water vapor, decreased snow and sea ice. since the end of the 19th century, temperatures have warmed to three and a half

fahrenheit. many wonder why we should worry about such a seemingly small of temperature. however even small changes in average temperature plays large in the climate extremes. it stands to reason a warmer climate will be more very hot days and you are very cold days. for precipitation there's also a temperature related connection. as more mush it evaporates from the ocean, when that moisture gets caught up in a store there's a greater moisture source or% recent addition. therefore, we see greater anticipation. that is greater daily rainfall pools, or when it rains it pours. exactly these kind of changes have been doctored in any observations, more heating streams and fewer colder streams and increases in precipitation intensity. additionally the shift of warmer temperatures has produced record high temperatures over the u.s. this ratio currently being about two to one.

since january 1, 2000, the been over 300,000 daily record high in actual temperature set and only about 150,000 daily record low temperatures set. just this year since january 1, 2010, there have been over 70,000 daily record highs and about 6000 record lows. the average temperatures warm, their probabilities have shifted towards more heat. to a first order climate models can reproduce these extremes, building credibility for the future production. those projections show ever increasing heat extremes and reduction of cold extremes, ongoing increase of precipitation intensity and a growing racial of record-setting heat as compared to record-setting cold. in one model the current ratio of two to one record highs to record lows increases to about 20 to one about mid century and the 50 to one by late century.

when warming average over the years is about four degrees see, they're still record-setting day though temperatures occurring. even a climate that has one significant in the model, which are still occurs and does occasionally extra in the cold. cold enough to set a few record low temperatures in that model. those few daily record lows occurred in the context of many more daily record high maximum temperatures. this is another aspect of a future warmer climate. thank you. >> dr. cullen. >> thank you, chairman bair, and members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to have a rational discussion on the science of climate. i have a powerpoint which we are going to bring up, and it will reinforce several other points that have already been made on the panel. this morning. my background is little bit different than my panel members in the sense i spent some years at the weather channel as their on camera climate expert. is a great experience and was

interesting to me because when i got the most people assume i was a meteorologist. i cut a lot of questions about the five day forecast would be, while another five day forecast, it was an important opportunity to just help people understand the difference between climate and weather, the difference between climatologists and meteorologists them in the difference between weather forecast and climate forecasts. you see the great quote by mark twain up there. he basically said all, basically it's a lot easier to see the weather. is a lot easier to see what we get. climate physicist is to go construct and it is tough to see it. so our job to do is help you see it and to help you understand why the forecasts that we make for the end of this entry are something we can trust. to start out with mother nature's strongest finger print on her climate system is the seasonal cycle. here's a climate forecasts we. here in d.c. will be cold in january and then it will warm up

in july. the climate forecast that my grandmother could give it to you. it shows you we have an understanding of her climate system that allows us to look further into the future. the other thing i hope our discussion this point can help you understand is why our long-term forecast for the future is something that so many of us on the stem are deeply concerned about. i worked on wall street for the while and i decide i was fascinated by crime. it's a lot like wall street in many respects. it looks kind of like stock market ups and downs on price timescales. and as a victim is very, very of the climate system is fascinating to me. this gets to ice core record that you see. focus on less 10,000 years. the top part which is pretty flat, the last 10,000 years of our climate. what's fascinating is its relatively stable. so what do the into climate science is the question of to what extent is climates ability

linked with civil passionate human civilization. right at the same time for our climate begins to become more stable. so thank you for the book collapse, you will note civilizations have failed over time due to the inability, look out on long enough time skills and be adaptive to our environment. my next slide is more like the highlights affected, gosh, for an incredibly long time. the gentleman in the oil painting got the nobel prize in 19 to three-foot in the back of the envelope guy collation that dr. meehl spoke about witches, if we doubled co2 in our atmosphere, our planet would warm roughly eight degrees fahrenheit, where he made his mistake was he was around at the turn-of-the-century in 1800 he basically assumed we would continue to emit fossil fuels at the 1895 rate.

so we take 3000 years to double. so he was wrong there, but that's what burger king and. -- burt came in. charles david keeling, another giant in this field of private sites basically figured out how to measure this invisible greenhouse gas we call carbon dioxide. it's everywhere. but burning fossil fuels and deforestation, we emit. it was like an atmospheric breathalyzer. it measure co2 in the atmosphere and he showed just as it was likely that we increase our co2 in the atmosphere by about 36% now. we are at 390 parts per million. i know that does not sound like a lot, because of the special chemical structure of carbon dioxide, i like nitrogen and

oxygen which is so much more of in our atmosphere, they have just to adams that co2 has three. that allows it to absorb tremendous amounts of long wave radiation and be a great absorber of heat. that's what our planet is warming up. the other thing he was able to do was fingerprinted to do so we knew it was coming from us. carbon comes in three different flavors, called isotopes, fossil fuels, when they give a co2 from burning, they have no see 14 because their agent. so what he was able to do was to say that roughly one out of one every four car them -- carbon today was put there by us, our human finger print on the climate system. as jerry said, we're increasing the overall temperature of our climate, about 154 degrees fahrenheit over the past century how does that make it way into our weather? my expense made it very clear we

expect our weather, we know what that means. and how climate change is impacting our weather that essentially mark twain's quote cannot be rewritten which is to say the climate is what we affect and weather is what gets us. we can expect to see more extreme events. if you talk to warren buffett or anyone they want to if we don't a climate change into account we are making very, very costly mistakes. very, very high amounts of weather-related disasters here. this is an example, a picture thing i should lead to 2010. it was considered one in a thousand year event is that probability is suspected to increase more so with each passing year if we continue to emit greenhouse gases. just to summarize, i'm a scientist by training and i have to say my time at the weather channel, it just odd me the way our country could ride around the weather forecast the weather was sandbagging advance of the red river flood, or even i going

advance of hurricane gustav. we know what to do with the weather forecast. it's impressive. the thing is how do we figure out how to respond similarly to a climate forecast? weather forecast is all defense. 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 is one potential future. so essentially we would think about the future we're talking but an increasing 10 degrees fahrenheit by the end of the century. three feet of sea level rise, a different climate change. the question is if climate change is his ultimate procrastination problem, we're in a race to understand our climate forecast, and just get to the point where we can act on it that i would just say as a scientist if we don't do that, that would just simply be irrational. >> thanks to all of our witnesses. at this point i recognize myself for five minutes and we will fall in alternating order as

members. and i wish to have questions. just to start with a premise that a don't think often people appreciate, i don't think there's any disagreement on this panel, though i think i've are disagreement by some of my colleagues. sooty is essential to maintain the current temperature of the earth that if not for co2, or some other greenhouse gas, dr. lindzen -- >> certainly understand come if you doubled co2 -- >> that's not what i'm saying. let me finish my question. >> it is mostly water vapor. >> let me finish the question. it is established signs that the presence of co2 in the atmosphere has an important role in maintaining the current surface temperature of the earth in the atmosphere. if you did not have co2, let me ask it this way, if we did not have co2, with the earth be a cool place or a warmer place? >> it would be a proximate two-and-a-half degrees warmer.

>> any other comments on that? >> it would be a much bigger effect on that. >> hit the mic. >> in the mid 1980s, bob and i did some of the earlier attack elections on the radiator for things, and bob is one of the few geniuses in this field, and when he tried to do the experiment that you just referred to, to figure out what impact 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 would be far more than two-and-a-half degrees. >> that's the second question. 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 amount of co2 in the air? no doubt of that. that's a given. >> i would advise you about no

doubt, but that is the prevailing view. >> okay, fair enough. i'm a ph.d scientist that i extend the size. never whenever said, doctor. but i was a the prevailing view, and abundant evidence suggests that humans have caused a substantial increase of co2. is that there? okay. now, here's a question. is there disagreement with dr. meehl's analysis, and dr. collins analysis, and dr. cicerone, of greater proportion of record highs in recent years relative to record lows? >> i don't think that are meaningful statements. i mean, during this whole period he's referring to, if you look at, 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 almost infinitesimal compared to the ones used in the early part of the record. >> actually, i will rephrase my question because i think it was pretty clear, but your answer didn't address it. my question is, is that i doubt that in the reason yes, i will stay as close as i can, there is a greater preponderance of record highs than record lows? unless you're suggesting that in the past measurement devices work he wrote his in one direction, not another species absolutely. you have high response time. >> i'm not talking that. simply is, are we suggesting, dr. meehl, dr. cullen. if you're suggesting that the thermometers today are more sensitive to increases than to cooling? >> oh, yeah. i think that is pretty much to. but there's another issue here, which is a great -- a bit weird. namely why do we have record

highs and record cold -- >> i just want to get the fact that dr. meehl, dr. cullen, dr. cicerone, is a generally accepted, scientific fact that there are more record highs today than record lows? dr. meehl. >> yes. >> dr. cullen. >> yes. >> dr. cicerone. >> yes. >> dr. lindzen may disagree with it. it seems to me that's a fairly objective evidence we can look at, that they're a more general record highs. you may disagree, but part of what's happening here is that we have a preponderance -- if i look at a temperature thermometer, and i say, this is pretty hot. other people could say it's pretty cold. but with a measurement device and have used it for very long time and issuing a hotter temperature than what it showed a year ago, either the measurement device has changed or the temperature has changed. now, maybe the measurement device has changed but we're

talking about thousands of devices changing and only in one direction. dr. meehl? >> choose to add to that. this analysis we did we're looking at basically temperature records the second half of the 20 century from weather stations that had good data records. this is a bigger problem than just a thermometer problem. have stations reporting their daily high to mature and get no temperature, every day so you have a lot of data records. this ratio which is now to the one which we thought was kind of odd, without initially in fact this came from a guy at the weather channel because he was noticing this, keeping track of records on his own as a meteorologist. and i was down there, heidi invited me down to, and he said what's with his two to one ratio? i said i do know that he says is that some kind of a unique thing about climate change? i said i have no idea. he said let's look at it. it turns out this ratio, we just happen to be at about two to one right now, a decade ago it was a

little less than two to one. a decade before it was a little less than that. if you had a climate that was in changing, you would expect that ratio to be about one to one because you have an equal chance of getting record highs and record lows. what was interesting about the study was it showed, and i think this is the thing that we have trouble communicate in to the public, but climate change is a shift in statistics, a shift in the odds of certain things happen. so as you want the average temperature you shift the odds towards coming of a greater chance of extreme warm temperature and less chance for extreme cold temperatures. >> if i could just build on it very quickly, he carried that thought which is part of the exercise that we all need to go through. what they found, if we continue to greenhouse gases business as usual, by the middle of the century that would become 20 to one. so it gets worse as you move forward in time. >> because of the shifting of the probabilities. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

in this discrepancy in some numbers here, dr. lindzen said a doubling of co2 would cause a one degree c. increase in cancer telling us he too would cause a one degree increase -- >> i said by itself. in other words, absent of feedbacks, the ipcc says also come you expect about one degree from changing co2. you again get the same thing for a doubling from 560, 210120. it's nonlinear. it's logarithmic. so every molecule of co2 does a little less than its predecessor. but one degree is what you expect from a doubling. anything more is due to the positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds in the models. >> i want to ask the others to

say whether they agree with that. dr. cullen, i think you would say -- u.s.a. there is an eight-degree fahrenheit rise, right? >> the basic climate sensitivity telling us you to experiment suggest an eight-degree fahrenheit rise. that was the calculation. they give a range. including all of the feedbacks. >> so somebody -- can summon help explain that? maybe dr. cicerone can try that. >> what dr. lindzen is saying is if we can isolate the impacts one by one, visio two the fact itself and the way it interacts with the planetary radiation would cause about a one degree warming under these circumstances. centigrade. it's the additional forcing which i mentioned in my testimony briefly of adding more

water that causes part of the increased fact. part of it would be to the way clouds are being treated in the calculations also, but if i focus on the water, that's what i mentioned this disproportionate amount of evaporation increase as 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, people who propose to deny that enhancing a fact are fighting against a very fundamental part of physics. the fact that the rate at which a liquid evaporates is a grossly disproportionate function of the temperature. >> may i respond? >> please. >> what dr. cicerone is referring to is the relationship there is a relation that tells you what the saturation vapor pressure is, but water is a function of temperature. the atmosphere, first of all, it's almost never saturated.

so the basic physics of dr. cicerone is referring to is dating, if you have a big bottle come and summer 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 the data i refer -- >> let me separate. what does that mean? what is your response to that? >> i didn't follow him. i know the equation. i know the relation he is taking a. i know the relationship with the entropy and thermodynthermodynamic want to and i don't understand what he's saying. >> i think it's the saturation vapor question, right? is the atmosphere saturated? >> no. we have more or less relative humidity on average of 70%. >> fluctuating all over the place. it tells you nothing about that.

it gives you an approximation species both gentlemen, you sure mic. >> we can get an approximation to this. >> later mic on. spent the way the evaporation takes place, can be approximated by the thermodynamic quantities that gives the slope of the relationship that it's just a rapid increase in its very hard to hold back the vapor pressure of a liquid against this relationship. whether it's evaporating into gas or above it that saturate or not. >> dr. meehl? >> i was just going to add that this quantity we're talking about, which is an equilibrium respond to climate system to a doubling of co2 and actually has a history to if it goes back to the early days of climate modeling, that's all you can do is double the co2 and see what happens. ended up being this equilibrium

climate sensitivity and it goes better than that. we will never see the equilibrium value because it takes so long for the oceans to catch up. this is kind of a metric we use to gauge, give us a rough calibration of the climate system they respond. these are relative numbers. but i think maybe the point is that there's a range of what we think this number may be. the current range we think is anywhere between two degrees centigrade to four and a half degrees centigrade. this number was derived a lot times from models, but now we have multiple lines of evidence. people have looked at observations. and look at the response of climate system to big volcanic eruptions. look at paygo climate data. now have multiple lines of evidence it seems to suggest that that is probably about the right range and that the most likely died is around three that i think dr. alley was a lot more about this in panel two. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am at a time.

>> doctor bartlett? >> thank you very much. this hearing today i think is one of the more important things that science committee needs to do your there should be no dispute as to what the facts are relative to climate change. and there's a lot of dispute as to what the facts are. they can be a great deal of dispute as to how you interpret those facts. but we really need, before you have an honest discussion you need to a degree -- agree on the fact that we don't know agree on facts i really appreciate the chairman holy this hearing and thank the witnesses for their contribution to this. the chairman's question, if there was no co2 the earth would be colder. not it is just a little bit more water vapor because water vapor is a hugely more important greenhouse gas than co2. i know the chairman meant that all of the things remain equal

with the earth be colder if there's no co2. and, of course, it would. but co2 is a pretty small greenhouse gas compared to water-based. that doesn't mean it's not important because it can be the tipping point. there are three groups have common cause and want to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels. and regretfully, they are at each other's throats rather than joining hands and marching forward. one group is a group that represented a, does that concern about climate change and the effect that the co2 produced burning fossil fuels would have on that. a second group is a group that is really concerned that the united states is only 2% of the known reserves of oil in the world, we is 25% of the world's oil. we improve -- import about two-thirds of what we use. the solution to that honestly is to stop burning so much fossil fuel and use alternatives which is exactly the same solution that we have to the looking at

the effect of co2 on climate. we might use less of it like moving to alternatives which do not use of co2. if we have a shorter cycle rather a nearly year cycle like we have in fossil fuels. and a third group that is common cause, and i just happened have a paper this morning that just came out. the world energy outlook for 2010 now out. and al qaeda have this on the screen there today because it is really a startling picture. it shows that we have now peaked in conventional oil production at about 65 million barrels a day, the total world production is about 84. the rest of that is made up of natural gas liquids and in conventional oil. this chart has that plummeted to about 15, only about 15 million barrels a day by

2035. that is just 25 years from now. and it has a different, because they have plateaued essentially with production of oil. and the difference is made up and it is i think what, about 42 million barrels per day. they say that we're going to get from field yet to be developed or found. unit, that's the impossible dream. that's not going to happen. now, the solution to this problem, the fact that the fossil fuels are 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. that is to move away from fossil fuel use to alternative. why aren't these three 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 surface have locked arms together but there's a lot of opposition. i think it's a very difficult thing to change one's invest in infrastructure. and images a discussion about climate change and alternative energy is making that leap in moving forward and embracing new technology. so, you know, can we do a better job, actually. but i do think communities have outlined and it's clear that there's multiple reasons to shift away from fossil fuel. >> you know, even if your premise is not correct, that is, that human production of co2 is not changing the climate, what you want to do about it is exactly the right thing to do for two other very good reasons. again, i ask, why do not these three groups, in stead of

sniping at each other's premise and ready to in each other, why don't you just lock on the march forward? because the sooner these -- less fossil fuels and more alternatives. thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this. >> would you like an answer? >> yes, profoundly. and i think integrity is important. >> mr. baird emphasized that. if somebody is asking you how climate changed, and to influence your answer because you have some ideas on energy policy, you are shortchanging the interlocutor. and i don't think that is appropriate. if somebody has an interchange -- energy policy they should oppose, it is on its own ground and sold on its own ground. the notion that a climate scientist who disagrees that co2 is important better, should join the bandwagon, or even if the did a great, say, to push my

view of greenhouse gases, i will also support you in your view of energy, it's confusing the issue for the public. it's not helping it for everyone. >> sir, and a former life i was a scientific i have a ph.d. i have about 100 papers in the literature. i understand science. i'm a rare republican. i tell audiences that i am a conservative republican, but on these kinds of issues i am not an idiot. [laughter] >> i'm not accusing you of that, but i am saying that when you ask a scientist to lock arms with a politician because they both have, had the same policy, the goal you want to comment is that national security goal, and ultimately it is. and then come unit, i don't see a compromise of science.

because you happen to have a common goal with a political or a military person. >> dr. martin, if i may, i would never expect dr. bartlett to suggest that excited should modify his or her winding to the political agenda just by the way both sides. but i do believe what he said, he is suggestinsuggesting, and i don't does he suggested in him, he embodies it in his life, that our national interest that are meritorious beyond, i mean, the debate today is about findings, but i think what he is saying, he is more of a great in anyone i know, i mean that as a compliment,. [laughter] off the electricity grid because he is so on the grid of the data. he sang, i think, this is not a matter of scientific funds but let's make our policy with the common interests. >> you have three common

interest and there is no reason that we should be limiting our ability to reach those common goals because we simply disagree with each other's premise. that's all i'm saying. >> dr. cicerone, i know you want to comment that if we have done i will get back to you on this matter because i know it is important. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and again, we miss chairman bair, and i appreciated his leadership. although we have strongly disagreed on several issues, this being one of them. and i actually 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 the chairman, or as ranking member hall mentioned, we've had one witness in a whole hearing as compared to any type of balanced

presentation. this has been, this tactic, not permitting the other side to be heard, or trying to muzzle people in academe and elsewhere from expressing the opposition views to the global or man-made global warming as a travesty. and it's about time that people within the scientific world admit that that's what's been going on. because what we have is, yeah, one witness out of four. in the past we had one witness out of 16. and how many of us have heard over and over again case closed, with our presentations with nobody on the other side in able to express 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 will present the other side. because there is a fundamental disagreement on whether or not the climate cycle that we are in

today is basically being caused by mankind, or whether or not this is a natural cycle. and if it is created i some sort of human activity, it is something that we should be concerned about because it is not a major factor, but a minor factor what's going on? mr. chairman, i noted that used your case to say why co2 should be more concerned in terms of, because it does have oxygen in amateur because co2 does absorb more heat. welcome letters to just know that oxygen eyes i did toy with% of the atmosphere. cm2 -- co2 is 390 parts per million. that is one half of one-tenth, one half less than one half of

one-tenth of 1% of the atmosphere, as compared to 21%. of this, 58 million -- 58 parts per million or man-made. as compared to what's in there naturally. so this idea that co2, most of the people are discussing this issue, that the presentation to public has been so skewed and a debate has been so hampered by not presenting the other side, that most people believe that co2 represents 10%, or 20% of the atmosphere. ask the people around you and you will find even members of congress giving you that answer. well, today we're 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 you have made, i would 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 catastrophism probably would leave 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 depends on many factors and one of the things that bothers me in this discussion of extremes and storms and so on, a basic feature of meteorology is the cause of storms in mid-latitudes is the temperature difference between the pole. on a warmer climate that should be reduced.

and that should lead to fewer storms. it is the storms that bring and record highs and lows by carrying air far distant places. why suddenly and this complex thing, a particular observation that is actually contrary to the basic physics assumes importance, i don't know. >> we have many cycles of warming and cooling throughout the history of this planet. many, many cycles. and a miniscule change in the amount of co2 in the atmosphere, as compared to other time periods whenever other cycles going on when co2 by the wind was dramatically 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 the scientific him in the scientific committee, there are people trying to tell us that we've got

to accept draconian change in a way of life mandated by law in order -- because the co2 that we are emitting is going to cause drastic consequences to the planet's climate. that does not seem to hold up. even if the u.s. shut down, retired from the world, its impact on the co2 levels would be rather undramatic. and the co2 levels in the atmosphere are rather undramatic. >> know, co2 is a minor miniscule part of the atmosphe atmosphere, its increased during the time period when mankind has increased the standard of living of the people of human, 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's what this debate is all about. and, frankly, icing 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 their political and. and this is one of the worst examples of that that i've seen. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> mr. rohrabacher, you begin your statement by emphasizing the most recent questioning, you heard from one side, i will invite the witnesses, the other would is if they wish to respond to some the points you make it disappear and i am sure you would want to hear their response. >> yeah, there were a number of different points there. i don't know quite where to start that have a 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 blurred together with the political side of this issue. what we are here to talk about is the science on this issue.

when you talk about diet consequences, those are by jack has made by human societies that those aren't science issues. so, you know, there's been an effort in the european community come up with a number of two degrees c. one thing above and social as a threshold for dangerous climate change. and people are get bought out a lot. and that number is out there but i think you'll find a lot of disagreement even among the psychic community about what constitutes a dangerous climate change. certainly with climate change things will shift around. you will have drier air is probably getting drier. wider areas will get whatever you will see changes of extremes. you see things that would have impacts on human societies, but the fact that these greenhouse gases which we call trace gases because as you point out, rightly so, they constitute a really small fraction of the composition of the earth's atmosphere.

the fact that they have is interesting and unique property that they have more than two atoms promoted -- molecule, oxygen, nitrogen which is the biggest constituency to say it had two atoms, we have more than two that makes that molecule was active in really important, and it can absorb and recommit heat and traffic. >> but if it is so miniscule, how does that didn't have a greater impact? >> see, that's the interesting thing about it, because even with these really small quad these they can be really important to climate system and make a difference. and now climate of the earth is behaving. so i think it's, in terms of design, these are the things that we grapple with, too. we try to incorporate these things in the models that best we can and we try to use the tools the best we can. these are the indications we get. in terms of evidence, science is a great thing because the chasm theories about low climate sensitivity. other people have tried these

other evidence to contradict what he said. this is how science works. we have this ongoing discussion and what kind of dry at the end of day trying to come up with some idea of what we think is really going on out there in the world. i think that's what all of us probably got into sides in first place because we are really interested in how the world works. but focusing on the size makes it a very interesting problem that has all these interesting things that go on in terms of physical processes that we can try to use tools like climate models to understand. and i think that's what interest is for us. i think that's what makes this a very interesting problem. now, as far as what you decided as policymakers about this problem is something we can try to get information. i think mr. inglis example of the advice you get from doctors that maybe a certain 98 debut, say, a, and to say be and you say what you want to do. it's still a cold that you have to make as policymakers as to what you do with this

information. i think we have to 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, the public and the media there is an agitation that the climate science is a hoax, meaning something -- i don't see this as a hoax. people may disagree on the findings and implications in the models, et cetera, but the idea of conspiracy to force draconian changes, so if nothing else, let us put to rest this assertion that in some way you're motivated by some bizarre intent to change our way of life. help us understand though the fundamental question that mr. rohrabacher asked about how is a relatively small trace element

impact raise intend your? >> as compared to the natural cycles. >> fair question. >> dr. cicerone? >> i would be happy to answer that. there is no simple election between them out 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 reason why it the perfect moment it's important. they all have two atoms and they absorbing infrared. so i don't know, that makes you wonder about the testimony, but still it is possible for a trace gas to be important. it isn't strictly the amount and even though the amount is

miniscule. for instance, a very thin visibly invisible cloud will absorb more infrared than all the other infrared absorbers in the atmosphere, when it is present. >> dr. cicerone? >> the framework is the energy bouts of the planet, and so in deciding come in decided whether an entry is small or diminutive or whatever, it's when we look at those ballots as you said, mr. rohrabacher, compared with natural balance, and these only atomic blogging that have vibration and rotational modes that they can interact with infrared radiation as dr. lindzen just said, sometimes a tiny suppressants can intercept parts of the spectrum which are otherwise transparent. generally speak in, the earth's atmosphere is transparent and some of these infrared wavelengths region where the plant is emitting. it's not too much of a ministry. we have to go through the numbers.

if i may, c. men make a comment on mr. bartlit very interesting puzzle about energy policy? >> please, and then i will give one more -- >> i heard a very graphic presentation of the same three conundrums in testimony to the house from a former cia director, jim woolsey. where he gets back to your three overlapping groups and interest by having a fictional conversation between john, mahatma ghandi and general george that and. and he shows that they can agree on the kind of things that you just said. he testified in the house a year or two ago and i've heard him give his presentation. it's fast and. getting down to basics, energy efficiency is a solution that should appeal to all three of your groups, and yet it is all of this free money is lying on the floor to be safe with energy efficiency, why aren't more people taking advantage of it? we now have some analysis from

business groups to why various companies and individuals are not doing more to capture this free energy efficiency. and i'm optimistic that people will get their acts together to are concerned about those three different sides of the issue. >> any final comments from dr. meehl or dr. cullen? then we will release this excellent panel for the next one. >> i think one remark i like to make is this notion that extreme weather will increase over time i think it's important to just remove or, in our daily lives as we move forward, there's numerous things we all need to worry about, the tragic events that happened during the national flood. yes, we have dealt with extreme weather in the past, but from an infrastructure standpoint, from doing things in the short term to reduce our overall vulnerability, i think rather than think about catastrophism of its think about the fact that we have information that can reduce our overall vulnerability can make our communities stronger, and, you know, i just

come back to the fact that as meteorologist on the short term are trying to keep people out of harm's way, this is information that is ultimately to make our communities stronger and safer. it's sort of a simple as that and we move over the next decade or two. >> i want to thank this outstanding panel for the expertise and their years of work and somalia productive constructive discussion. thank you very much. we will recess for about four or five minutes until the next panel can be seated. and i want to thank this panel of what this is and how ask them to retire at this moment, and we will invite others to join. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

spent i appreciate everyone joining us again. we will now begin our second panel. and as before is my pleasure to interest our second panel of witnesses, doctor patrick michaels is a senior fellow at the environmental come in environment of studies for the catkid of institute. dr. benjamin santer is an atmosphere excited for the program for climate model diagnosis and comparison at lawrence livermore national laboratory. dr. richard alley is a professor for department geosciences and heard anybody to study system institute at pennsylvania state university. and dr. richard seed from my home state of washington is a senior scientist for the pacific marine it environment allowed to with the national what must. administration. as our witnesses after before we will do our best to try to stick

to five years that sometimes if you go over all though i will be as patient as i can. but please do your best to give it five minutes and found the presentations will have a series of questions. again, i think our witnesses. doctor michaels, you're welcome to begin. >> thank you, congress and their that israel michael -- it is a nice to be here. the first bell said the very interesting discussion but what we're really looking at here is to whether the sensitivity of temperature of carbon dioxide is a large, as some people think him or whether there are some factors that are responsible for the temperature changes that we have seen. i would 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 that has been enacted on this is is that all sides agree that human beings have an influence on climate. so what? what matters is how much we influence the climate, and we're getting some guidance from mother nature on this.

despite our best efforts, if you will. slideshows each piece of code spaghetti on this slide is a computer model from 21 different models from the united nations ipcc, center for concentrations in the atmosphere that pretty much resemble what's been going on in the atmosphere. one of the things you see, each with one of those history much a straight line, the reason for that is because we put carbon dioxide in the atmosphere exponentially by the response is logarithmic and tends to do that. ask yourself the question, as the warming than a straight line? and the answer is yes. so how do you discriminate between these straight lines with the same thing you tell students in weather forecasting, which i've taught. when different models a different things, look out the window. when you look out the window, what you see here is at the low end of the line. another way to look at this issue is to look at the

frequency distribution of temperatures produced by all these temperature trends produced by all this models for parades of five on up to 15 years. the blue line are the observed trends from the climate research center at the university, at east and clear. and what you can say, which corresponds with what we saw in the last slide is, in fact, the warming is clearly below the average rejected by these models. yes, we have a greenhouse think of it and we'll hear about that in this talk, but i submit to you it is the pinky. is not one of the dreaded other thinkers. ..

but the weather data begins in 1957 and ends in 1995. i offer the observation this paper appeared before the most important conference on climate change ever held. it was highly influential. when you add the data from 1957 through 1995 the relationship vanishes. and what period we study.

and aerosols, sensitivity, the effect of them estimated between 0 and-2 watts per meters square. then there's the problem of volcanoes. after this appeared, another effort was made to look at the effect of volcanoes. scientists actually are involved in trying to find out why it has warned so little compared to the greenhouse gas only model. a paper came out by the same group that said if we go back to crack the code in 1883, factor in the volcano's, two thirds of the warming that would have occurred has been suppressed. that is another remarkable finding that turned out to be time dependent because you see there were volcanos before 1883. in 883 the year without a

summer, 1816. we have these records and jonathan gregory got a paper published very soon which uses the volcanic record and i offer you -- this is an artifact of experimental design, to a steady state, volcanic forcing before this began. and attribution observed in simulated change in climate. i will tell you my conclusion. scientists work by tentative hypothesis. and you look at data to see if you can maintain your tentative hypothesis or you have to modify. my tentative hypothesis is that the sensitivity has been overestimated with spencer and a host of other scientists and that is the prospect we need to test. i realize some people may not

agree with day. some people say there is no such thing as climate change and some people say climate changes the end of the world. if you disagree you can join this facebook site and take care of me. thank you very much. >> thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to you about climate change and have a rational discussion. i'm not going to address some of the issues -- the hope i can do so in the question and answer session. to date is november 17th and my dad was born 91 years ago on november 17th, 1991. this figure is from the report which was published last year on the global change program,

global climate change impact on the united states and would you see on the right hand side is a skill that shows you the change in atmospheric co2 lovell says dr. sixer mentioned earlier, measure world wide. on left hand side, 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 for volume to 390. that is not a belief system. people ask do you believe in global warming? i believe in fact that evidence. this is perfect. i think we can all agree on this. so the fact is what did this change in atmosphere composition do if anything? that is a difficult question to answer. climate change is not an either/or proposition. either of human influence or all natural influences.

clearly many things are happening simultaneously. massive fall can eruptions, changes in the sun's energy output, human changes in greenhouse gases personal aerosol particles. the difficulty is separating the natural factors from non natural factors. in the world world we can't do that. we have no undisturbed earth without human intervention. with computer models, we can look purely at the natural factors and that is what you see here and that is how they may have changed over the 20th-century, changes and the sun's energy output. you use the computer model. many computer models in this case, and what you can see is with natural factors you can't explain the warming we have observed for the second half of the 20th-century. when you put in combined human and natural factors you can. this isn't convincing evidence. i agree with dr. winston on that

point. he said if you just look at global temperature alone is difficult to make reliable inferences about causation. that is why as scientists since 1979, since the first paper and fingerprinting we have looked beyond a global mean the. we look at complex patterns of climate change and what you see here, again from last year's global climate change impact on the united states report, is a model based on the fingerprints of different factors that affect climate and there are five different fingerprints but there are changes in greenhouse gases and changes in its sulphate aerosol particles. both of los are human. sulphate aerosol the produced by burning of fossil fuel. then there are changes in the ozone, changes in a volcanic aerosols and sold radiance and the final pattern is all factors considered together. i don't want to go into details

but the key point is there all different and what we're doing is looking at slices of the atmosphere from the earth's surface up to 20 miles from the north pole to the south pole and these are model based estimates of changes in temperatures over the last 50 years. there are different. we exploit those differences in fingerprinting to try to understand cause and effect relationships. some people say the sun explains everything. our best understanding is if the sun's energy output had slightly increased over the last 50 years and more solar energy arriving at the top of the atmosphere we would see heating for of the vertical extent of the atmosphere. the reality is the observations look much more similar to the top fingerprints. signature of well mixed greenhouse gases. they don't look anything like

this on explained everything. as dr. cicero mentioned earlier. for the last 30 years we have measured a number of different satellite instruments, the sun's energy output in space and we know there are these 11 year cycle but no overall increase in temperature in the last 30 years. there is an increase in temperature in the last 30 years. the son explains everything does not convincingly explain observed climate change. back at the time when this fingerprinting first came to the for professor michael mentioned in the 1990s it was criticized quite rightly. people said if there really is a cumin caused fingerprint and observations, go look in many different locations. not just the surface of the earth. not just an atmosphere

temperature but look in rainfall. look in moisture, look in pressure patterns and that is what the community has done. the community has looked in many different aspects of the climate system, used these statistical rigorous comparisons to look at patterns of change, not global mean numbers and the changes in all these things are not consistent with natural causation alone. you may not like that results but that is our best understanding that we have. the system is telling us an internally consistent story. >> it is a pleasure to be here. your body has in its wisdom established mechanisms to gain assessment of the science because lead scientists can argue about things. in fact you pay us to argue

about things. we love arguing about things. so you set up things like the national academy to give you assessments that are outside the argument saying what those the science say. if you look at the assessments the science is now very clear. and the science says that the ice is melting almost everywhere. almost all of it. terp are a few really cold places. the top of greenland and the frozen ocean water around antarctica with increasing precipitation still in control and that is consistent with our understanding of the effects of warming and that is projected to switch the shrinkage in the near future so when we look at the world what we see is ice shrinking. but it is getting warmer and you can estimate the warming by looking how much the eyes shrinks and agrees with the thermometer is. this is the plot of melting mountain glaciers contributing to global sea level rise.

you will find people to say catastrophe and you will find people who look at that blue one on top like norway before it started shrinking or the look at one wiggle in the black one which is the himalaya and say nothing is happening. if you book of those curve is the mountain glaciers are shrinking and contributing to see level rise and there is no serious question about that. if we want to know what happens in the future this is a very complicated plot and i hope you don't look in any great detail at it. this is how much warming we expect from rising carbon dioxide. if you just doubled co2 and what the climate come into equilibrium, but the blue and number up there which is a little over 5 degrees fahrenheit is the most likely. if you could bet on one or more you would bet on that.

you heard dr. michael said earlier you heard dr. lynn isn't arguing could it be lower than that? it certainly could be. that is in the realm of scientific possibility but the orange error shows it could be higher than that and the red arrow shows it could be a lot higher than that. you have now had a discussion or a debate between people who are giving you the blue one and people giving you the green one. this is there when not both sides if you want both sides. you are hearing one very optimistic side. we wish dr. michaels and dr. linden were correct against the assessed central value. when we look at the impact of warming we get the same sort of story. the looked at sea level rise and said this century is probably not going to be stooge. but that excludes anything weird that the ice sheets do and we

are nervous because they have started doing something weird and they started doing it 100 years before we expected them to from the previous assessment. when you look at sea level rise what you find it is going to rise. there is no way to avoid that but there is a big unknown. if you look at what people are planning for it is something. it might be a little better or a little worse for a lot worse but we don't find evidence for a lot better. the ice sheets are already shrinking and their shrinking way before we expected them to. we do not believe in any way that you can melt a whole ice sheet in your decades. but we're very nervous that within decades we could get warm enough to del vol ice sheet. greenland would be seven meters above sea level. and arctic is and much bigger than greenland. the last estimate us of, 10% of the world's population was within ten leaders of the level so the amount of life that is

implied is huge for people and where they live and what they do. we don't have reliable projections but we do see sea level rising and the possibility that this century we get to the point where we are committed to very large rises. the planning people, this is our best estimate. it could be better or worse or la worse. by were signed a larger impact on people. just to summarize, is getting warmer. this is all consistent with what we understand about what should happen. everything is in there. we keep hoping we have overestimated the impact and it will be better than that but if you plot all of the unknowns it could be a little better, worse or a lot worse. >> good morning. thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak about ocean

acidification and its impact on rory life and economic values. this issue is something this committee has strong interest in and want to thank your bipartisan leadership in passing the seminal legislation, the ocean a certification research and money in 2009 is now driving course behind the know interagency academic efforts drop this country to understand this new phenomenon. fundamental changes and see what a chemistry are occurring for a world's oceans. for the past two 1/2 centuries the release of carbon dioxide from the industrial agricultural activities has resulted in concentration that increase from 280 to 390 parts per million. today the oceans absorb 1-third the carbon dioxide emissions by human activities during this period. this natural process of absorption benefit humankind by reducing global warming in the atmosphere and reducing some of the impact of global warming as

well. the decade devotion observation and research from noaa, national science foundation and department of energy has shown the daily uptick of twenty-two million tons of carbon dioxide that has a significant effect on the ocean's chemistry and biology, when carbon dioxide reacts to see what a chemical changes occurred to cause a decrease in seawater ph. these chemical changes are largely referred to as ocean acidification because of the direction of change involved. scientists estimated ocean the age has fallen 0.1 ph units to the beginning of the industrial period. the first slide i show you shows the atmosphere concentration of co2 at the lowest site that dr. charles keating started in 1957 and underneath it in blue, you

find the site maintained by the university of hawaii and the direction of the national science foundation and you see the increase in surface ocean, measured in terms of the rate of change with the atmosphere concentration. about 1-1/2 parts per million. . and then there are measurements from this side. we see the change at this sleet over the last decade. you can see for measurements alone the acidification process. since the ph scale is like the richter scale is logarithmic. this change in ph represents a 20% increase in hydrogen ion concentration of seawater or the acidity of seawater. for the predictions through the end of the century suggest we could have 150% increase in a city of seawater using the ipc see business as usual scenario. it is important to note that at present we are exceeding these

emissions scenarios today. many marine organisms produced calcium carbonate shells. the next impacted by the ocean acidification and shown to reduce their ability to produce their shells and skeletons. for example, recent papers just published last week, coral reefs biologists show certification could compromise fertilization and settlement of alcohol and coral. coral is an endangered species and we are causing further harm to that. these research results suggest it could severely impact the ability of court reversed to cover many disturbances including major storms. other research indicates by the end of the century choral reefs may erode faster than they can be rebuilt. this could compromise long-term viability of those ecosystems that perhaps impact a million species that depend on gore

reefs for their survival. ongoing research, and the niggling affect commercially important fish and shellfish species is well underway. crab and see been large array biggest in the high sierras to world. calcification rates of edible muscles in pacific oysters have declined with increasing co2 levels. since 2006 some oyster hatchery's in the pacific northwest on washington, oregon and california experienced massive mortality of the association of a combination of factors including an outgoing of our icy is too rich waters. scientists are seeing reduced ability of some types of marine plankton to produce calcium carbonate shells and these are food sources for many marine species. one type of mollusk is eaten by organisms ranging in size all the way from crowd to whales.

sauropods are a major food source for pacific salmon and major food for macro herring and you see the importance of species in our ocean ecosystem in the food chain. the impact of the social justification and coral reef ecosystems could reverberate through the u.s. and global economy. the u.s. is the third largest seafood consumer in the world. the total consumer spending on fish and shellfish, $70 billion per year. commercial fisheries generate $35 billion per year and employs 70,000 people. it is caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and can have significant impact on marine ecosystem the. ocean acid is -- much research is needed before all the responses are understood. to limit of scientific understanding we have about this

issue, potential for environmental, economic and societal risks are very high. and demand serious and immediate attention. thank you for your attention and look forward to your questions. >> thanks to all the witnesses. i will recognize myself for five minutes. you focus on the evidence of ocean acid and appears pretty strong connection to -- two questions for you. both tangential. my understanding there has been an enormous coral die of particularly in the caribbean as we see coral reaching from high see temperatures. can you comment on that and secondly are other alternative explanations that seem incredible to explain the acid levels you have been measuring? >> to have to your first question because of the increasing level of temperatures in the ocean we have seen coral dive off as much as 16% globally

and the projections are up to the end of this century we may not see many coral reefs stable to survive. this is a dire situation. the concern we have in terms of acid is preliminary research has shown the combination of increased co2 and the increased temperature associated with global warming and handss the impact on those quarrels so their risk of survival is greater. >> are there other alternatives? what is an alternate explanation for the measured increase in acidity or lowered the age other than the co2? >> the suggestion this year to evolution from volcanic activity is, hydrothermal activity could be enriching the co2 levels. we have published papers on this subject to show that the amount

of co2 from volcanic activity any given year is 1/100th of what enters the atmosphere. >> two questions. tell us a little bit about from your graph you feel pretty confident the data suggests the ice sheets and glaciers around the world are melting with a few exceptions. tell us about the methodology by which that is measured first but secondly haven't there been times in the past when we have seen reseeding glaciers and ice sheets and comments about things seem to go in the opposite direction and what is the difference now? >> for measuring what greenland is doing some of that work is done by laying the eggs sheet using the gravity satellite which is truly wonderful, it is like watching cars on a roller coaster and won going down gets away from the one going up and won going down catches up and --

>> with satellites pursuing each other, and gravitational attractions close one down and made one relative to the other. by measuring the rate of that speed you tell how much mass is underneath you and as it declines there's less slowing down. >> i should retire and let you teach this. [talking over each other] >> then you measure changes of surface elevation going down or up using radar or a waiver from a plane or satellite. then you figure out how much snow is be added and how much ice is leaving and you compare all of these to see if they give the same answer and all of them indicate shrinking of greenland. you are certainly correct that the ice has grown and shrunk in the past 9 had the honor of observing the government on the science change program on a

report of the history of the arctic and what we found was very clear for greenland. when nature made it warned greenland got smaller. and when it was cold greenland got bigger and we're making it warmer and greenland is getting smaller. >> how do we know it is we, not nature. we have the increase in co2 but the skeptical argue wait a second big personnel and 1927 there are articles about glaciers' retreat in? what is the difference? if you look at football teams they bring this back then and losing now. what is the difference? >> we cannot get away from the warming effect of ceo to. it has been known over a century and was clarified by the air force who were interested in what wavelengths should i use for this answer on my feet seeking missile. but ceo to interact with radiation and there is enough to make a difference. we can't get away from that physics. the second one is looking at is

there any other possible thing to explain this? it took a few billion dollars of your money and about 30 years to say there's nothing else that we can find in nature to do this. someone says it is the son. you need a satellite to watch the sun to see if it is getting brighter but it is. someone says cosmic rays. we need cosmic ray monitors and it has taken a 30 years to get to the point of saying no, we looked hard and can't find anything else. there's a third piece which is the fingerprinting, if you were to say, we spend a lot of money on satellites and the satellites say the sun is not getting brighter but maybe the satellites are wrong and the sun is getting brighter and we can't see it. that make a prediction that it gets warmer here and at the top of the stratosphere. ceo to says warmer colder,

fingerprinting in space says we got it right on the other two pieces. >> it is not my money, is your money. it is taxpayers' money. at the same time the consequences that if we don't address our energy dependence and my judgment the impact of this, and major changes to that. the savings will expand -- change the expenditures. >> i want to comment on the fingerprinting. increases in the ceo to have this characteristic of warming worse atmosphere and troposphere and cooling the upper atmosphere. since the 1950s and 1960s when people perform the first experiments that doubled as co2

and they saw this characteristic pattern of cooling eagles stratus for warming, very robust. we see that in every model, and as mentioned we see it in observations too. we see satellite data and weather bulletin data. people often say these computer models are not falsify double. they make predictions, we can't test -- in the 1960s when colleagues at the geophysical and dynamics laboratory in princeton made these calculations and double that the streak co2 and fathers fingerprint we didn't have the observational data to see whether the stratosphere was actually cooling or the trip this year was warming. they have. the stratosphere has cooled. the trip this fear has warned. that fingerprint is robust. is not consistent with other natural causes. >> would you care to comment?

>> i have several comments i would like to make. that won't have been. it certainly won't. i will limit it to the notion of what we're talking about here. everybody says the planet has warmed and people have something to do with it. what really matters is the magnitude of it. this will just take a second. there it is. the this is a warning from the ipc see from 1950. our environmental protection agency which as you know has taken over the regulatory aspect of this. issued and endangerment finding on warming and they asserted in their endangerment finding that more than half of the warming of the 20th-century is a result

likely of human greenhouse gases. more than half, more than 50% after 1950. do you agree with that? the second half of the twentieth century. in fact there are four factors that are totally independent of the greenhouse effect. one, that we underestimated sea surface temperatures from 1944 to 1965. that was published in nature magazine. there are non climatic subtle affect on temperature history. susan solomon found water vapor in the stratosphere is responsible for a lot of changes. we don't know when water vapor is fluctuating. it is not a greenhouse effect. it is not apparently from greenhouse gas emissions. and from stanford, about 25% of warming is a result of black carbon in the atmosphere.

that is not a greenhouse gas. when you add those up, the warming drops from 0.7 to 0.3 degrees. so the assertion that over half of the warming is a function of greenhouse gases is challenged by four completely independent factors. we have a lot more work to do on this. >> quick response to that? >> my response to that, dr. michaels's analysis is wrong people completely incorrect. what he has attempted to do is explain the observed temperature change over relaxed 60 years from 1953 to 2010. and he said the estimated change in temperature is 0.7 degrees. he has identified four things, economic activity, black carbon, errors in the sea surface temperature data and stratospheric water vapor and said i think all those things

have had a warming influence. so i'm going to subtract them from this is your.7 degrees and i'm left with 0.3. zero.3 is less than half of missouri.7 and therefore the ipc see is wrong. the conclusion that more than half of the observed warming was due to likely increased gases is one of the central conclusions of the ipc see. the central conclusion is wrong, what dr. michaels did not mention either here or in his written testimony is the cooling of fact of sulfate aerosols which was discussed at this hearing. if you will indulge me for a moment i will bring up one slide here. our best estimates that cooling -- sorry -- this is a slide from

a paper published in 2006 by the hadley center. what you see on the bottom are three climate models and the estimate of their sulphate cooling caused by a scattering of effects of sulfate aerosols over the 20th-century. it is negative. if you assume conservatively that that cooling effect over 1950 to 2010 as dr. michaels looked-.4 celsius over that period and assume that he was completely correct in estimating the magnitude of the four factors he removed from the observation you would be adding-.4 and get to zero. you still need to explain 0.7. we need to get to the observed total temperature changeover this 60 year period. what could that be? could be the son? no way. if solar affect where that large

in a 60 year time scale there would be a huge 11 years cycle and the temperature data. we don't. what did the volcano's? it couldn't be volcanoes. could it be some mode of natural variability, internal observations of the climate system that generate that 0.7 degree temperature increase? not plausible. the most plausible explanation is an increase in atmospheric co2. we know co2 has changed. that is not some assertion or supposition, we know that. what the ipcc found and reported on was the change in temperature due to greenhouse gases which is what you see in red was larger than the actually observed change in temperature was the horizontal black line. the greenhouse gas signal was offset. that is our best understanding by the cooling caused by these sulfate aerosols that scatter

incoming sunlight and also change -- >> excuse me. the ipcc gives the range of perspective from sulphate aerosol at 0. a range from 0 to-2 watts for meters square. that gives you incredible wiggle room any time you want to make an argument. it is interesting to look at sulphate aerosol in terms of the history of science. the first book i ever read was the structure of scientific revolution and i recommend it to every one. it predicts that when a paradigm experiences anomalous data that increasingly strange explanation are brought forth. 1985 tom wiggly recognized in a paper the greenhouse gas model for producing too much warming and invoked sulfate and you could tune models with sulphate to get things to work perfectly well. the fact of the matter is our understanding of what the

radiative affect of these things are is so wide that i can give you virtually any answer. so i am just assuming to leave that alone. >> it is worth following up on that. this is why this hearing is so valuable because these of the kind of things that confused people and confuse the public a great deal. >> dr. michaels was wrong again. he claimed that the published estimates of the radiative effective sulphate aerosol was 0 to-2 what. that serves the incorrect effect for the effect of aerosol in clouds on a cloud cover and cloud brightness which is very uncertain. the estimate of the direct scattering of aerosols, how they scatter incoming sunlight back into space does not intersect with zero. it is negative and the best

estimate is the order of 0.5-what the square meter. the cooling effect of sulfate aerosols has been established not only observational the end in models and theoretically in dozens of studies, we can see these things from space. they're not suppositions. this is not science fiction. and leaving out this negative forcing in his testimony to you is misleading you. i am sorry. >> the problem here is the era bars around these things are very large and furthermore there is an issue with the sensitivity -- i would like to finish. this discussion is really about the sensitivity of temperature to various forces and there's quite a discussion as to the change and temperature >> reporter: in what readers

squared. in the order of that it is not all that important. >> we constantly look at the uncertainty. they are part and parcel of our lives. we look at the answer in the in fingerprints and patterns that arise from use of different models. we look at and certainty of model estimates in climate and oil is and look at uncertainty in the statistical methods we use to compare models and observations. we spend all our time looking at uncertainty. in this analysis you will see there are no arab cars. in this subtraction exercise no error bars and the temperature

changes are given to within a thousand of the degree. to me, that is just completely ignoring these significant scientific uncertainties in this partitioning of natural and human effect. you have to account for them. you have to look at all affect both positive and negative. you can forget sulfate aerosols. this analysis has not done that and anything that claims to overturn the central finding of the ipcc's assessment report should do it as the early and comprehensively as possible. this analysis fails in that regard. >> is that why one would use 1963 through 1987 when there was data through 1995? is that why one would begin a volcanic analysis in 1883 when the atmosphere was loaded with volcanic junk prior to that? >> i will intervene little bit.

for understandable reasons people have published different papers tickled two individuals in the scientific community, it is an interesting and important discussion, but i want dr. sanders to respond to that. i don't want to interrupt my colleagues but we won't go on forever with this particular debate. i will give my colleagues more time. >> i appreciate the opportunity to go on record on this issue. this is the most famous paper ever published in climate science and. he criticized this analysis back in 1996 when it was published. i would like to address three aspect of that criticism very briefly. the first aspect was the editorial process of nature had been interfered with but somehow i had imposed on major to impose

on this paper before the party. that is wrong. the second claim is there was selective data services will look at the time period from 1963 to 1988 in observational weather balloon and data, computer output and if you look at a longer record you have different results. professor michaels was right. if you look at a longer period, you get different results. had there been in tend to pull people and be late data? no. we used since we doing fingerprint analysis pattern observational data, and at that time they were only available from one source. that source extended from 1973 through 1988. when professor michaels criticized our paper we responded as scientists do. we addressed scientific

criticism. what we found was when we look at a newly available weather balloon data set through the 1995, he was right and this change in the temperature asymmetry between the northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere had this you shape. what we were able to show and what others have convincingly repeated since then is that that change is forced behavior. if you look at models with combined changes in greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosol and the paper and mentioned earlier shows that models when including greenhouse gas 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 model to reproduce this

temperature change difference. he has not reported on those responses to his scientific criticism which i do not think is correct. [talking over each other] >> ask questions after the hearing. on the written questions. >> it is very interesting going back and forth because it does show scientists are involved in criticizing each other's work and hope to reach better science which is very helpful. there are some things that are basic. i am not a scientist but i play one on the science committee but i am here. we did a science experiment i have to convince about ocean acid. it is an aide we put in vinegar. the underwater. you come back in a couple days and this is a science experiment you did in seventh grade. there is no more shell.

this is of worldly concerned because of their worldly and academic debate my brother is a shrimper if he had his choice in what he would like to do. he says you can't make a living in south carolina shrimping so he has a pickup truck that says no what land, no seafood. richard is no tree hugging environmentalists but he is a guy who loves to go shrimping and he knows if you don't have what lands you don't have any co2 and he is beginning to see that if you melt the shells of these calcium based plankton you end up with a hole in the bottom of the food chain. it is a problem to have all hole in the top of the food chain. you lose the polar bears did a bad day. but you open a hole in the

bottom of the food chain which is what you are talking about, you have really rwanda lot of people's day. there's something like a billion people who depend on the ocean for food. why don't you speak -- am i right that this is a seventh grade science explanation, how it might work, and the risk that we faced and real-world consequences, and -- >> if we start at the marine plankton level which is a marine plants, 11% of the abundance of marine plants are called cocc u coccalufid plants. this is decrease to hire field from 9% to 45%. then we go to the next level

which are generally eaten by a real plankton and some of them or the free swimming terror pods of the christian you can see them with your naked eye. some are this big. that is a primary food source for juvenile fish. they don't want to eat plankton. they are dependent on those care pods and those species. they are placed in high ceo to water the show will dissolve within 48 hours and the show will be gone within a few weeks. this is a significant problem for that ecosystem. >> is there doubt about the chemistry of the co2 levels impact on ocean have said? >> no doubt about that. let me explain why. we have worked at the international level through the 1990 program which was the

repeat of hydro graphic survey with 15 countries working together, collecting over 72,000 samples and the 1990s from surface to bottom along every portion of the ocean from antarctica to the arctic ocean, from japan to the u. s. these countries worked together. we process the entire data set and made all the corrections in the data set to determine exactly where the co2 was going. we did this by determining changes since the preindustrial accommodation of observation and models working together. we also had colleagues collecting samples for the isotopic signature of that co2 and changes in the isotopic signature were consistent with the increase in carbon dioxide which is a unique signature. the penetration of co2 goes down for the most part to the upper

1500s. most of that co2 in the upper part, most of the organisms live there. we know that extremely well. in this decade in 2000 we have been repeating those so the direct changes in the uptick of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to the present and we see the same rate of change of ph. so we know from the large extended surveys across the oceans that we're seeing the exact rate of change in ph. this is no extremely well. there's no debate about that at all. >> i am way overtime. i am not sure -- dr. bartlett the personal mr. rock --rorbach. >> can i -- can you hear me now?

i would 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 intertwine and government grants become the goal for various researchers. >> will that include the military industrial complex [talking over each other] >> i would never objected mr. eisenhower being -- >> he equated the threat of military industrial complex with similarly intertwining science and government. with all due respect, you didn't answer the question. the question was a very good question. there have been the back-and-forths on glaciers and

the melting we have seen over and over again. why did it happen then, the same factors you're blaming it on that didn't exist then? >> i can give you as much or as little answer is you would like. >> 15 seconds. >> give me 35 a. ice ages are caused by features of worse's war. the brightness of the sun, the equator, the north pole stood straight up you could never give me a sunburn on my bald spot but if it tipped over a little bit, a little more and a little less, 41,000 years. if it were more my bald spot, ice melts and the equator is shaded and the ice grows. it takes 40,000 years for this change to happen. we know what that is doing and it is not fast enough to explain

what we're seeing. >> took all those thousands of years -- there wasn't a situation where an amount kilimanjaro we had this much a case and this year you didn't. >> the records are fairly short. it is not the best one to lean on. what we do with glaciers and i hope i have made that point, one glacier can do interesting things. the world's glaciers listened to the climate. you need to take a large data sets of glaciers to know what is going on. >> we all know these things happen. the major question of this debate today, i am grateful to the chairman for bringing this and having an honest exchange of ideas, what role mankind is playing, and if mankind is playing a minor role, how does that justify some of what we

consider to be draconian solutions in controlling human behavior that has been offered to us by people who are espousing this particular theory? let me ask you this. i think it was you who said -- some people say the sun explains everything. a lot of people are trying to save the sun explains a lot. maybe you could explain to me why we have noticed there are similar trends of the smeltings of the polar ice caps that are going on on mars? if it is not the sun that is a major factor, and human activity, why is that? >> if i may, mars actually is linked a lot to the orbit as well and has dust storm issues to deal with. >> the same thing going on at the same time and you are blaming him an activity for what

is going on on earth but you see it at the same time on mars why do you assume that must be human activity? >> if i wanted to get a measure how bright the sun was and whether it was getting brighter or dimmer looking at an ice cap on mars which is changing its orbit has features which change the sunshine and has just storms which change the sunshine that is a very indirect imprecise measure when we have -- [talking over each other] >> measuring and show no increase in the sun's brightness. >> correct me if i am wrong because -- >> mars is a bad solar sensor and satellites are good solar sensors. >> if you have a situation on mars, people talk about solar activity, are we just talking about the bright ness or other types of solar activity that has an impact on the climate of this

planet and the other planets of the hemisphere? >> interesting question you asked because at some level we see the sunspot cycle and we see a very weak response in temperature. so we know that the sunspots are affecting the climate and it looks like they are affecting it a tiny bit more than you would expect. there is a little possibility of a fine-tuning of on the sun that is not just brightness' but other factors. >> we do know there have been changes because we know that there was a medieval warming period. even though we see there has been attempts over the research history of this research into global warming of trying basically to and the gate the changes that took place between the medieval period and the current period of time, but was the temperature higher on the

earth during the medieval period? any evidence that the temperature got to be as high? and can we blame them on the production of co2? >> we have fairly high confidence that the medieval climate anomaly, reflects a low in volcanoes blocking the sun and a slight high in the brightness of the sun and the best reconstruction's we have indicate it is not as warm -- as we're having now. but if you go to the far fringe it might be about where you are. this is a very interesting thing you bring up because nature -- when the snow melts and glaciers melt and reflect less sun and soak up more heat and get warmer, positive feedbacks don't care if we made it warmer or the sun made it warmer or other things made it warmer. they just care it got warmer.

we use the size of the medieval as one of many ways to find out how much warning -- [talking over each other] >> it comes down to whether or not mother nature or the universe versus human beings doing something that now needs to be controlled about. before my time is up by should give you a chance to comment. >> i would look beyond the medieval warming period and the end of what is called the beginning of the postglacial period for several millennia. we know based upon fallen trees. when the trees fall and keep tundra in the northern part of distribution, it is saved and preserved so we can date the tree with carbon data to find out when it existed.

we know the north woods extended all the way to the arctic ocean in eurasia and on to the arctic ocean island's. we know it has to be about 6 to 7 degrees celsius, 12 degrees warmer in july for that forced to exist. that is how much warmer it had to be. >> before humankind had any type of impact. let us note this. [talking over each other] >> the actual statistics when we start statistics of how much warmer it is getting now you are starting your calculations at the bottom of a 500 year decline in world temperatures. is that right? >> it is very clear. a lot of my work is reconstructing history. a share has claimed -- change

climate a lot. we understand reasonably well and we are not active in this one. if we were not here, if humans were not here and didn't care about anything that lives here, if this were a video game on would push the button and see what happens. this is really exciting. is not a video game. >> the reason i brought up the eurasian arctic is because it appears it was quite warmer for millennia up there and the only way you can get it that war is run water into the arctic ocean that is very warm and there's only one gate for the water. it is the strait between greenland and europe. that means the temperature between eastern greenland had to be quite a bit warmer for long time and the integrated warming is probably greater than what we could produce if we tried to burn as much carbon fuel as we could and deice still didn't rapidly fall off of greenland as so