Q31. Please provide a list of all staff and members of the White House Task Force on Climate Change-including detailees from other Executive agencies, consultants, etc.-from its date of establishment to the present. A31. Past and present staff representing executive agencies include: Dirk Forrister, Steve Seidel, Tom Peterson, Judi Greenwald, Paul Risley, Mary Washington, Lisa McNeilly, Andrew Kauders, Natalie Wymer, Bill Antholis, and Nicholas Lapham. No detailees from Executive Agencies were employed by the Task Force. No consultants were employed by the Task Force although two conference organizers/coordinators had contracts with the Task Force relating to the logistics for the White House Climate Change Conference and the Kyoto conference. Post-Hearing Questions Submitted by Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-MD) Role of Nuclear Power in Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions Q1. Al. It the Administration feels that carbon dioxide (CO2) production is such a menace to our society, why is it not more vigorously proposing an increase in the use of nuclear power production, since that produces no CO2? The Administration included additional resources related to nuclear power as part of its Global Warming Q2. A2. Why does the Administration believe that the modest increase in mean global temperatures over the past century (about 1 degree) is not due to normal fluctuations in the Earth's climate, rather than signaling a permanent "global warming"? A wide array of evidence indicates that the climate is starting to change outside the range of natural variability as a result of human activities. First and foremost, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) prior to industrialization to over 360 ppmv at the present time. Human activities have also increased the concentrations of other greenhouse gases, including methane (by 145%), nitrous oxide (by 15%), and chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, which were once not present in the atmosphere. If emissions continue to grow at current rates, the level of carbon dioxide will exceed 710 ppmv by 2100. This would be the highest level since 50 million years ago. Observations also indicate that the decade of the 1980s was the warmest on record, and 1997 has been the hottest single year. The nine warmest years of this century have occurred in the past 11 years, and the mean global temperature for the 20th century is at least as warm as for any other century since at least 1400 AD (which is as far back as global temperatures can be estimated with reasonable accuracy). In addition, the observed rate of global warming is more rapid than any seen since 1400. There are also many additional pieces of evidence that are consistent with an enhanced greenhouse effect: the rise in sea level, the melting back of mountain glaciers, the retreat of Arctic sea ice, the deterioration of ice shelves in the Antarctic, lengthening of growing seasons, and widespread coral bleaching throughout the world. Careful studies are underway to determine to what degree these events can be associated with the changes in primary variables attributable to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Furthermore, it is clear that humans are causing the change in climate. In late 1995, the a discernible human influence on global climate." The IPCC is a large international group of many of the very best scientists from around the world. Their conclusion is based on evidence that the human-induced climate change is becoming identifiable and distinguishable from the natural fluctuations. Further information: The IPCC relied on a five-point approach before drawing its carefully and conservatively stated conclusion: The world is warming at an unusually rapid rate and has been warming over a long period; The world is warmer this century (particularly over the past few decades) than it has been since at least 1400 AD, and perhaps since many millennia before that when longterm changes in the Earth's orbit had caused quite different global climates; The geographic pattern of the temperature changes, with cooling over and downwind of industrialized regions and strong warming over much of the rest of the world, is statistically similar to changes that models project would result from simultaneously increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols. Additionally, the observe patterns of change are statistically different from changes that would be expected from natural fluctuations such as solar variations, volcanic eruptions, and atmosphere-ocean interactions; The global patterns of atmospheric temperature changes are statistically similar to model predictions for a world with increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols along with the depletion of the protective stratospheric ozone layer. Namely, the Southern Hemisphere has initially warmed more than the Northern Hemisphere, although this process has moderated as CO2 emissions have continued to rise. Additionally, the high-altitude atmospheric layer called the stratosphere has cooled somewhat while the lower atmosphere has warmed; and The magnitude and timing of the observed long-term changes in temperature over the past 140 years are similar to those that are expected from the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and are unlike changes that either have been seen in the natural record or are simulated by models trying to represent the natural climate. However, the year to year and decadal fluctuations in the temperature record do show evidence of influences due to solar variability, volcanic eruptions, and atmosphere-ocean variations such as intermittent El Niño warming events. The first two points are strong indications that climate change is occurring; the next three points strongly suggest that the changes can be attributed to human factors. Together, these findings led the IPCC to conclude that humans are indeed inducing a discernible Q3. A3. Q4. A4. If we're moving to global warming, so what? In the past, the Earth has been much warmer than today, and Russia and Canada may not be all adverse to a bit of global warming. There will be winners and losers, but in terms of a global perspective, so what if we're having a bit of global warming? Yes, we should be concerned about global warming. Societies around the world have developed in ways such that they are dependent on the climates that they have experienced for centuries. For example, US agriculture relies on the timely occurrence, extent, and amount of winter snows and summer rains. Communities are dependent on recurring rains to fill their reservoirs and rivers, and recharge the groundwater. Changes in the patterns and frequency of extreme weather events could cause societal disruption, threatening human lives and infrastructure. Changes in seasonal and nighttime minimum temperatures can increase the range of pests and disease-bearing pests that affect crops and human health. European agriculture is dependent on a relatively mild winter climate even though it is located at a moderately high latitude. African, Indian, and Chinese agriculture is dependent on the monsoons coming at particular times. While technology, bioengineering, and other measures can provide some buffer against climate fluctuations and change, many societal activities are highly dependent on the longterm climate that currently exists in each region. Changes in climate will necessarily alter those relationships in ways that may significantly disrupt current activities. Furthermore, changes in the patterns and frequency of extreme events could cause severe disrupting effects on societies around the world, directly affecting human lives and infrastructure. The oceans are enormous sinks for CO2. What can be done to enhance the effectiveness of oceans as carbon sinks? While the oceans are an enormous sink for CO2, at present nothing can be done safely to enhance their effectiveness as carbon sinks. There have been a series of large-scale experiments during which iron has been added to the oceans, which in turn has stimulated a sizeable but brief phytoplankton bloom (the primary producers of the oceans). In many cases, iron is a limiting resource for phytoplankton productivity. While this technique may appear to hold promise for increasing the carbon sink capacity of the oceans, there are two main reasons why this will not work on a large enough scale to significantly increase the oceans carbon sink capacity: • The effects described in the experiments were short lived, lasting less than a week after the fertilization. While there may be techniques to extend this effect to some degree, it would still require a massive area to make a dent in the global carbon budget. • There are many likely catastrophic and potentially irreversible side effects of such a large-scale manipulation. Fertilizing the oceans' phytoplankton would significantly disrupt the ecological balance of the oceans. For example, the fertilization may enhance the productivity of some toxic phytoplankton causing a toxic bloom, or alternatively the food web may become thoroughly perturbed such that reefs may be 50-343 99-27 |