As you can see, only one individual currently works for a government agency, and he is not in an environmental policymaking position (Y. Ding is a scientist who works for the Meteorological Administration). B. Metz of the Netherlands formerly had a policymaking position in the Netherlands, but has since left that post. Most of the lead authors will likely come from universities, government laboratories and industry, almost none are likely to be government policymakers. Q2.4. Who will review this report to ensure that it accurately captures the product of the Working Groups? A2.4. The SPM and the longer report will both undergo a simultaneous open expert and government review. Therefore, all lead authors and contributing lead authors will have an opportunity to comment on the Synthesis Report prior to the final line by line approval in Plenary. Q2.5. Who will approve/edit this report and how will this be done? A2.5. The SPM will be approved line by line by the IPCC Plenary, but no decision has been taken yet as to whether the longer report will also undergo a line by line approval by the Plenary. IPCC Process Q3. A3. In the September 26, 1997 edition of Science magazine, you were quoted as saying that your goal for the IPCC assessment process was "transparency and credibility.” Could you please explain the reason you think improving transparency and credibility are necessary? While I believe the IPCC process used for the Second Assessment Report was both credible and transparent, all processes can be improved. Hence, I suggested, and the IPCC Plenary approved, a number of changes. First, there will be a system of review editors for each chapter and the technical summaries of the Third Assessment Report. The primary responsibilities of the review editors will include: (i) ensuring that all substantive expert and government review comments are afforded appropriate consideration; (ii) advising lead authors on how to handle contentious and controversial issues; and (iii) ensuring genuine scientific controversies are reflected adequately in the text. The review editors will be nominated by governments and other institutions, and be selected by the IPCC WG Bureaus. Second, the IPCC is expanding its outreach for lead and contributing authors to include a greater representation of experts from developing countries, countries with economies in transition, industry/business, and environmental and development organizations. Q4. A4. Third, the lead author and review editor selection process is being made even more open and transparent than before. Each Working Group Bureau, in conjunction with the IPCC chair and vice-chairs, will be responsible for the selection process. In the same article, Dr. Michaels was reported as saying IPCC's biggest problem was the disproportionate number of government scientists with travel funds and time away from academic responsibilities to participate in lengthy IPCC meetings. Dr. Michaels also noted that participants tended to be from organizations “whose budgets are predicated on global climate change.” Are these legitimate criticisms and how do you plan to address them? The criticisms are without foundation. The IPCC has rarely suffered from a lack of university expert participation because of conflicting academic responsibilities. One reason why there is a large number of U.S. government scientists involved in IPCC is that a significant fraction of the U.S. Global Change Research budget is spent on experts who work in government laboratories. My major concern in ensuring a balance of experts from all stakeholder groups is to increase the participation of experts from industry, business and development organizations. I disagree with Dr. Michaels analysis that the IPCC is disproportionately dominated by government scientists. However, even if this were true, is this necessarily bad? Surely, the fact that governments hire good scientists is to be applauded. Is Dr. Michaels asserting that government scientists are dishonest and taint their scientific views with the views of their government. If so, is he suggesting that U.S. government scientists have aligned their views with the Administration or with the U.S. Congress that approves their funding. Remember, the vast majority of U.S. government scientists are career scientists not political appointments, and hence see Administrations come and go. Also remember, the IPCC First Assessment Report was conducted while President Bush was in office-I have seen no evidence that the views of either President Bush's or President Clinton's Administration have influenced U.S. scientists participating in the IPCC. But to be a little more specific with regards to U.S. participation in IPCC, I have analyzed the distribution of SAR authors from three groups: National laboratories, other Federal entities, and non-Federal entities (primarily universities): Therefore, 76 out of 178 were Federal employees or employees of "Federally-funded facilities," such as NCAR, ORNL, and Battelle (where the employees are not civil servants): for WG 1 (43%); 76 out of 162 for WG 2 (47%), and 7 out of 25 for WG 3 With respect to travel funds, Dr. Michaels is again wrong. One of the biggest problems for the IPCC is the almost total lack of travel funds for U.S. government scientists. University scientists have more travel funds per capita through their research grants, and the U.S. scientific agencies can directly pay for their travel, in contrast to government scientists who cannot accept these travel funds. I am surprised that Dr. Michaels believes that IPCC participants are primarily from organizations "whose budgets are predicated on global climate change”—which ones. Certainly, in most instances, climate change budgets for government laboratories and universities are minor compared to their total grants and contracts. Again, even if this were true should we be concerned. Surely we want experts who understand the issue of climate change. I would also note that Dr. Michaels himself is well funded to study and disseminate information on climate change does this disqualify him from participating in IPCC-most certainly not. Is Climate Changing? Q5. Your statement also contends that “there is evidence of changes in sea level” and that “glaciers are retreating worldwide.” Q5.1. For how long has sea level been rising? A5.1. This is a difficult question to answer because of a dearth of long tide gauge records. Archaeological and geological data suggest that global sea levels have probably varied within a range of a few tens of cms over the past two thousand years. Therefore, the observed 10-25 cm rise over the past century implies a comparatively recent acceleration in the rate of sea level change. The exact date of the onset of this acceleration is uncertain but probably started prior to 1850; however, data from the pre-instrumental period is at best sparse. Q5.2. For how long have glaciers been retreating? A5.2. This is also a difficult question to answer because of a lack of quantitative data. Certainly there is good evidence of glacier retreat in Europe and North America from at least 1900 (see figure 7.3 of WG I of the SAR). Q5.3. Is science capable of linking either of these phenomena directly to human activity? A5.3. No. However, the observed changes in sea level and glacier mass balance are broadly consistent with the observed increases in global mean temperature over the last century, which has been linked, at least in part, to human activities. For example, glacier retreat may have contributed between 2.5 and 4.5 cms to the observed sea level increase of 10-25 cms over the last 100 years. Extreme Weather Events Q6. You testified that “... in a warmer world, where you would have more evaporation, you could conceivably expect more blizzards, more floods. It sounds inconsistent but it's not. All the theoretical models tend to show exactly the same thing (emphasis added]." However, the 1995 IPCC report, The Science of Climate Change, concludes: "Except maybe for precipitation, there is little agreement between models on changes in extreme events [emphasis added]." And even concerning precipitation, it concludes: “Several models suggest an increase in the precipitation intensity, suggesting a possibility for more extreme rainfall events [emphasis added]." Do you agree with these IPCC conclusions? A6. Q7. Yes. My statement and the IPCC conclusions you have quoted are quite consistent. Your oral testimony states that "There's serious evidence of an increase in heavy precipitation events, especially in the United States of America.” However, the 1995 IPCC report states, “Few regions have been examined for evidence of changes in interannual variability of rainfall. The areas examined have not exhibited a consistent pattern. Trends in intense rainfall are not globally consistent, although in some areas... there is some evidence of increases in the intensity or frequency of extreme events." Q7.1. Do you agree with the IPCC's conclusions? A7.1. Yes. The IPCC also states (p4 of the SPM): “On regional scales there is clear evidence of changes in some extremes and climate indicators (e.g., fewer frosts in several widespread areas; an increase in the proportion of rainfall from extreme events over the contiguous states of the USA)". Hence, there is no inconsistency between my statement and the IPCC. My testimony stated, especially in the U.S. In addition, since completion of the IPCC SAR, Tom Karl has extended his analysis of the U.S. data and concluded that there has been an increase in heavy precipitation events. Q7.2. Do these IPCC findings in you view constitute "serious evidence" of increasing heavy precipitation events? A7.2. Yes. Tom Karl's analysis of U.S. precipitation patterns, conducted as I stated above, subsequent to the IPCC SAR, is strong evidence of an increase in heavy Q8. A8. Q9. A9. Your testimony contends that “the Earth's climate is now changing,” and among the evidence for this you state that “the incidence of extreme weather events is increasing in some parts of the world." However, the 1995 IPCC report, The Science of Climate Change, concluded: “Overall, there is no evidence that extreme weather events, or climate variability has increased, in a global sense, through the 20th century, although data and analyses are poor and not comprehensive." Do you agree with the IPCC's conclusion? The IPCC Summary for Policymakers, page 4, states and I quote in full: "There are inadequate data to determine whether consistent global changes in climate variability or weather extremes have occurred over the 20th century. On regional scales there is clear evidence of changes in some extremes and climate indicators (e.g., fewer frosts in several widespread areas; an increase in the proportion of rainfall from extreme events over the contiguous states of the USA). Some of these changes have been toward greater variability, some have been toward lower variability". In addition, on page 7 of the IPCC SPM it states: "A general warming is expected to lead to an increase in the occurrence of extremely hot days and a decrease in the occurrence of extremely cold days”. Hence my testimony is completely consistent with the IPCC conclusions. The IPCC also went on to say that, on regional scales, there is some evidence that extremes and climate variability indicators have changes, noting, “Some of these changes have been toward greater variability; some have been toward lower variability." You have testified that "the incidence of extreme weather events is increasing in some parts of the world” supports the contention that “the Earth's climate is changing." Would the shift toward lower climate variability in some regions noted by the 1995 IPCC support this contention as well? Yes. In fact, observed decreases in daily temperature variability in recent decades in the Northern hemisphere mid-latitudes are consistent with theoretical models which suggest that there should be less day to day and day to night variability in temperature. It is also worth noting that we must be careful not to confuse a change in climate variability with a change in extreme events. For example, even with no change in climate variability one would expect a change in the frequency of extreme events, e.g. an increase in mean surface temperature without any change in variability would lead to more extreme heatwaves and a decrease in extreme cold events. Carbon Taxes Q10. You testified that policy instruments such as a carbon tax could be used "to facilitate the penetration of lower carbon intensive technologies and modified consumption patterns.” In your view, can the Administration's goal of a reduction in emission to 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012 be accomplished without a carbon tax? A10. IPCC has not studied the specific situation of the U.S. However, the IPCC concluded that most countries could reduce their GHG emissions using current technologies by 20-30% |