of economic assumptions and sociological assumptions which we can only guess at. But that the models themselves and the estimates that are produced, the range does reflect the uncertainty in both of those areas. And that when the modelers try to estimate impacts on future climates, they take that uncertainty into effect. And when you have a temperature range expressed, it involves some sensitivity of what if those assumptions come in at this end and what if they come in at that end, and that range does embody that. Now hopefully over time, we will see is that range becoming more narrow as we gain further knowledge and information, but there is still a large degree of uncertainty that will always be there, and that you gentlemen will always have to face regarding the socioeconomic assumptions that inevitably have to be made. Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Bartlett, you get to have one more question. Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. It is not really a question, more a comment. If you disagree with me, disagree. I think you probably will not. I think that we are faced with exciting challenges and questions, because I think at this time our ignorance far exceeds our knowledge and understanding. And that is an exciting place to be in science because there is a whole, long journey that you can take. Dr. MICHAELS. If I would respond to that, I always tell students in my classes that whatever you think of this issue, it will allow you to see fascinating visions, not only of science but about the way that science works in society. And that is one positive benefit that is going to come out of this thing over the next decades. Mr. BARTLETT. I remember when I was working on my doctorate, I came in one morning and my major professor asked me, well Roscoe, what do you know today? I said, well, I do not know very much. He said, well we can probably give you a PhD then. [Laughter.] Mr. GUERRERO. Well, I have to say that I got a PhD today and I do not have one, so I must know absolutely nothing. [Laughter.] Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Guerrero. We will be calling on people to question in relationship to when they actually came in, rather than going back and forth, because some of our Members came in early, and I think so we are going to go in that way if that is all right. Mr. Baker? Mr. BAKER. Mr. Ehlers was here first. Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Ehlers? Mr. BAKER. I will be very brief. In California, where the climate is always beautiful, we found that after seven years of drought, we not only have to learn more about climate and how it changes, but also how to make better use of our resources, and that includes water resources. So the reform we are going to have in Congress here is how we allow humanoids to live on the earth without destroying its environment. And the word environment to me means balance. And so we have to find that balance between what we need to do, including building a dam if that is necessary to save water, or taking down a dead tree. But we are not going to do it capriciously, and we are not going to do what my fellows on the other side of the aisle did, and ladies, and that is make determinations before we study. At least I would hope we would not. We put out the Clean Water Act and we just put a statement in there. We are going to abolish chlorine. Well, the bubonic plague took a great jump and everybody else was happy, but without studying it, do we really want to do that? And so of course we pulled that out of the bill, after much wrangling, unnecessary wrangling, and now we will study what are the effects and the cumulative effects of chlorine, where should it be used, where can it be used safely, all for the questions that science would have asked before something stupid like that was placed in a major piece of legislation. So I really appreciate your being here regardless of what your position is, and I am happy that you are going to work with us to help us understand better how we achieve the balance and how we base it not on politics or the next cheap shot mailer or who is going to gut the clean water act. But how can we allow humans to live better on this earth and actually improve our environment. So I am thrilled to be here to listen to you, and I apologize for being in Transportation Committee markup. We had four bills go out of there in the middle of your testimony. And I apologize, I will be here from now on, Mr. Chairman, because I would not miss an exciting, thrilling second of this. But I appreciate your listening through our wrangling and you are here at one of the most partisan times you could be here. But it is important we listen to you, regardless of whether you are the most green person in the world, or whether you have got a chain. saw in your hand, we want to hear your viewpoints, and what we can do to better make this world a place for not only us, but for the future generations that are going to enjoy the environment that we have left. Mr. ROHRABACHER. We are also lucky to have, and I am sorry, Mr. Ehlers, if you had actually arrived here before Mr. Baker. My staff did not note that. We have our second, one of the other few scientists in this body with us today, and I deeply appreciate his contributions to this subcommittee and to our overall effort. Mr. Ehlers? Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, a quick question for Dr. Michaels, which I hope will get a quick answer because I have a much broader question to ask of ev eryone. In your testimony is the statement that critical scientists are still being denied data, what data are you being denied and by whom are you being denied? Dr. MICHAELS. It was the transient grid cell output of the UKMO coupled sulfate greenhouse model. I was of the opinion, when I was reviewing the draft of the 1995 intergovernmental panel on climate change, that that model was making an error in the high latitudes that was similar to other climate models that did not have the cool ing effect of sulfates. This is a generic error that has plagued this problem for a very long, long, long time. And the only way that I could ascertain whether that was true was to have the actual output of the model sent to me by the intergovernmental panel on climate change. I requested it and was denied, and I requested it repeatedly and they said, no, we think it is inappropriate. That is fine. That is their opinion. But how can one conduct a review process of a document so important to global policy if one cannot see the laboratory book? The main rule of science is, "I trust you." "I trust you, but can I see your laboratory notes." And in this case, that was not forthcoming. Mr. EHLERS. You mentioned you were interested in getting the model output, but that is not really data. You know, that is already been massaged. Dr. MICHAELS. No. Mr. EHLERS. Was that sufficient for your needs, or? Dr. MICHAELS. The model output would have been fine, it would have been fine. Mr. EHLERS. And the panel is the one who denied that? Dr. MICHAELS. I requested Dr. Mitchell from the UKMO. He denied it. He was one of the senior authors on the chapter that I was reviewing. Mr. EHLERS. This was not published material then? Dr. MICHAELS. It was, the initial denial said, "Well, we are going to be publishing this," and I knew they were and that it would be published long before the IPCC report would be out. So that was not a germane reason for refusal. And in fact it was published on August 10th. Mr. ROEMER. Would the gentleman from Michigan yield? Mr. ROEMER. Well, we had a number of colloquys within members' Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will be very happy to grant you an extra minute if Mr. EHLERS. All right, fine. Mr. ROEMER. I would just say that I find it difficult to understand why the United States Congress and this Committee would have jurisdiction over your request to get information from the United Kingdom. Dr. MICHAELS. The IPCC is funded by the taxpayers of the United States. Mr. ROEMER. Well, I would still say that that is not a problem that we have to deal with-your quarrel with the United Kingdom and their particular findings. Dr. MICHAELS. The charge that I was given by this Committee was to look at the science and the science basis for policy. One of the bases of science is open, open peer review, particularly of a document that is this important. So therefore you need to know this. Mr. ROEMER. I would say again Mr. EHLERS. All right, if I may reclaim my time. Mr. EHLERS. Reclaiming my time. Dr. MICHAELS. And obviously the American taxpayers' dollars are involved. It does concern all of us. If it is financed by America tax dollars, it certainly does. Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Ehlers? Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. The much broader question is addressed to all three of you, and that is, first of all, just a comment. Historically there have been substantial fluctuations in climate. I come from the State of Michigan, which was under more than a thousand feet of ice, a mere ten thousand years ago. And that occurred without global warming or global cooling of the sort we are talking about here. It seems to me that your entire emphasis has been in talking about temperature change, and I am interested in what other climate changes are being looked at or that you have looked at. For example, the real issue is, if the greenhouse gases are there, and I think there is substantial evidence that they are there, we are dumping a lot of energy into the atmosphere, actually into the earth's atmosphere system. What other effects are rising from that, other than temperature effects? You may well have very dramatic climatic changes without much. of a temperature change, largely because there is so much energy stored in phase changes between the solid and liquid, and liquid and vapor phases. Are you looking at, or are others looking at issues relating to that, such as the increased amount of water vapor in the air? Which can have a dramatic impact without a great deal of temperature change. How is that factored into the models? What validity does that have? How does that affect the temperature changes you are referring to? How does it affect the weather intensity, particularly bad weather intensity across the globe, and so forth? Dr. MAHLMAN. I will try to speak to that from the perspective of what the models are attempting to achieve. A mathematical model of the atmosphere is a self-consistent solution of the equations that you know; force equals mass times acceleration, the first law of thermodynamics and conservation of matter are basically the equations that we know, and solve for the case of earth. And so we do not predict just temperature, we predict wind, we predict precipitation, we predict clouds, we predict circulation of the ocean, we predict the state of sea ice. All of these things are output variables of the model. And so there are various aspects of model predictions that are related to the other variables that have their own degrees of uncertainty associated with them. For example, the prediction that water vapor amounts will increase in a way that is self-consistent with the temperature increase amounts is a very strong prediction. The prediction of whether or not we will get more rain in Washington, D.C. area is a very shaky prediction because it demands a lot of local physics, if you will. The prediction of changed circulation of the ocean is one that is a robust result of the prediction of greater rainfall in higher latitudes some hundred years from now. The question is, does mother nature know about this or not? That is the thing we grapple about. Where are the models wrong? Where are our physics wrong? Where are our theories wrong? And we use data to try to make that keep us honest, if you will. There are lots of statements being made about increasing numbers and intensities of storms, for example. Insurance companies are very concerned. My own opinion is that the scientific jury is still out on that. That there are a number of complexities and confounding factors that make it difficult to state there will be more intense storms or there will not be more intense storms. And that, your question helps me define for you the struggle we have to try to define what we know and what we do not know, and how to communicate that to you in a way that is comprehensible. Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Ehlers, you have time for one more question. Actually, you have gone over the time, but any last question you would like to ask. Mr. EHLERS. I wanted to ask a question. Let me just make a statement, and you can respond to that. It seems to me that some of these other effects are going to be much more worrisome to us than the temperature change; now I recognize they are interrelated. But the water vapor change, for example, can have a dramatic effect on rainfall patterns. The beautiful weather in California might in fact become midwestern type weather, and you might actually have a green state, whereas other areas that are currently fertile might turn into deserts, as North Africa has done. And I think it is, my comment is I think it is a mistake for everyone to talk simply about global warming, and discuss it in terms of that being the problem. I am much more concerned about the climate change that can occur and the effect that has on people and their ability to have enough food to eat and so forth. Dr. MAHLMAN. Could I very quickly respond? This is what the IPCC process attempts to do. That it is well more than global warming, that global warming is the paradigm by which we address the problem because that is what is being forced. And much of the impact side will be discussed in panel number two today, I believe. But there is a fundamental truth that I believe you need to understand: is that the things we are very highly confident about are not as useful for impact assessment as those things that we are less confident about. That is a truth that is going to remain with us for awhile. Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. Dr. Guerrero, did you have Mr. GUERRERO. I would completely concur with that remark. |