GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1992

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES,

Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in room SD366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. J. Bennett Johnston, chairman, presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order.

This is part of a continuing series of hearings by this committee on the issue of global climate change. I will note that the last time we had a hearing on this, it was about 102 degrees outside. This just goes to show you what passage in the Senate of our national energy policy can do.

[Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. The issue of global climate change has become one of the most contentious scientific and political debates of the century. On one side are those who forecast a scenario of rising seas, recurrent drought, and blistering heat. On the other side are those who claim that policies to control emissions of greenhouse gases are premature given both the uncertainty of the science and the economic cost. Most likely the truth lies somewhere in between.

With this in mind, I welcome you to this morning's hearing on the science of global climate change. We are fortunate to have with us today leading scientists in the fields of climatology and meteorology. I hope that our witnesses will provide the committee with a better understanding of the state of knowledge surrounding the global climate change issue.

Over the past 100 years, the average global climate temperature has risen one-half of a degree centigrade. Although this warming trend may be a signal of global climate change, as predicted in previous testimony before this committee, such shifts may also be the result of natural climatic variation. Recent released reports lend evidence to both scenarios.

On the one hand, we have the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC report, which cites compelling -evidence that a doubling of carbon dioxide will lead to a temperature increase in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Centigrade. The IPCC recommends a program for the development and implementation of global comprehensive and phased action under a "flexible

(1)

and progressive approach". This report is the result of a 2-year effort by 170 of the world's leading scientists and was endorsed last week by the Bush administration.

On the other side of the spectrum is the recent George C. Marshall Institute report which indicates that theoretical estimates of the greenhouse effect seriously exaggerate the threat of global climatic change. The Marshall Institute report observes that although the earth's temperature has risen somewhat, increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases may not have been the cause.

I hope this hearing will help explain such discrepancies in the science of global climatic change. As members of the scientific community, your task is to provide the best possible assessment of the expected rate and severity of global climate change. It is crucial that we be in a position fully to understand both the scientific theory underlying the greenhouse effect, as well as the uncertainties that remain in order to make an informed decision regarding domestic and international policy responses.

[The prepared statement of Senator Johnston follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, U.S. SENATOR FROM
LOUISIANA

The issue of global climate change has become one of the most contentious scientific and political debates of the century. On one side are those who forecast a scenario of rising seas, recurring drought, and blistering heat. On the other side, are those who claim that policies to control emissions of greenhouse gases are premature given both the uncertainty of the science, and the economic costs. Most likely, the truth lies somewhere in between.

With this in mind, I welcome you to this morning's hearing on the science of global climate change. We are fortunate to have with us today a panel of some of the world's leading scientists in the fields of climatology and meteorology. I hope that our witnesses will help provide the Committee with a better understanding of the state of knowledge surrounding the global climate change issue.

Over the past one hundred years, the average global temperature has risen onehalf a degree centigrade. Although this warming trend may be a signal of global climate change, as predicted in previous testimony before this Committee, such shifts may also be the result of natural climatic variation. Recently released reports lend evidence to both scenarios.

On the one hand, we have the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which cites compelling evidence that a doubling of carbon dioxide will lead to a temperature increase in the area of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees centigrade. The IPCC recommends a program for the development and implementation of global, comprehensive and phased action under a "flexible and progressive approach". This report is the result of a two year effort by 170 of the world's leading scientists and was endorsed last week by the Bush Administration.

On the other side of the spectrum, is the recent George C. Marshall Institute report which indicates that theoretical estimates of the greenhouse effect seriously exaggerate the threat of global climatic change. The Marshall report observes that although the Earth's temperature has risen somewhat, increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases may not have been the cause.

I hope this hearing will help explain such discrepancies in the science of global climate change. As members of the scientific community, your task is to provide the best possible assessment of the expected rate and severity of global climate change. It is crucial that we be in a position to fully understand both the scientific theory underlying the greenhouse effect, as well as the uncertainties that remain, in order to make informed decisions regarding domestic and international policy responses. Before I begin these hearings, I would like to ask both Members and witnesses to keep their remarks brief in order that we might have time for discussion and clarification of the issues raised by the testimony. I would especially like to have a debate among panel members each helping us to understand the weaknesses of the various scientific perspectives.

Copies of today's written statements and testimony will be placed in the hearing record. The hearing will remain open for two weeks in order to accommodate those who wish to provide additional materials for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. We look forward to hearing from our witnesses this morning, but before we do, I would like to call on the distinguished ranking minority member, Senator Wallop, for comment. STATEMENT OF HON. MALCOLM WALLOP, U.S. SENATOR FROM

WYOMING

Senator WALLOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. I will put the bulk of my statement into the record. The reason we gather here is not to hear ourselves, but to hear our witnesses.

I think it is true and I think you would agree, Mr. Chairman, that mankind has a special fascination with global catastrophes. In recent times, the global environment has taken center stage and has engaged scientists and politicians and environmental activists and the media. In June the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development will convene an earth summit in Brazil. The UNCED is an international political conference aimed at formulating a set of nonbinding principles on sustainable economic development within the context of acceptable environmental goals. However, Mr. Chairman, so much attention is being focused on parallel negotiations on the Framework Convention on Climate Change that we have lost sight of the fact that what is being negotiated is a treaty. The climate change negotiations taking place in New York this week are part of a process that is going to continue well after the earth summit is over, eventually perhaps leading to a legally binding treaty.

Perhaps the most distressing aspect of the negotiations on global climate change is that the process is being driven by politics rather than science. The assumption is being made that the so-called greenhouse effect is not only a scientifically verified phenomenon, but it will devastate the earth over the next 100 years.

By comparison, the scientific community has yet to establish that man has already precipitated global climate changes. In fact, a November 1991 article in Science magazine suggests a direct influence of solar activity on global climate during the past 130 years.

The latest International Panel on Climate Change publication, the IPCC publication, states that satellite-derived atmospheric temperatures are "particularly important," to use their phrase, in monitoring global trends because they provide true "global coverage" and "high accuracy". Yet, these satellite measurements of atmospheric temperatures show hardly any change in temperature in the last 12 years despite large increases of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

By comparison, computer models based on surface temperature have exaggerated the greenhouse effect by roughly a factor of a 5, according to the Marshall Institute report. For example, surface temperature measurements indicated that 1990 was by far the warmest year on record. However, the satellite data shows that it was only the fourth warmest in 13 years. According to the IPCC, the warming trend revealed by satellite data is only one-third that seen by surface balloon measurements.

It is often stated that IPCC publications support the premise that there is a consensus among scientists that human-induced climate change will occur and that there will be catastrophic consequences. However, a recent Gallup Poll of 400 experts drawn from the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society shows no such consensus. Whom are we to believe?

Those who foreordain a global catastrophe as a result of climate change fail to note that many scientific observations contradict their predictions of doom.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the remainder of this statement and the articles referred to be placed into the record.

But I would also ask that this panel and the Congress pay heed to the fact that we have a study by the Marshall Institute, the results of which are some 5 years out, and the reactions that we take here may preclude competent reactions in 5 years' time. There is no endless, boundless supply of money. Had we listened to and reacted to the threats of a couple of years ago, we would now have, as the Marshall Institute report suggests, built a 3-foot seawall along the coast of the Nation only to find that the sea is likely to recede rather than to increase in the process if the climate change is as predicted. So, I am hoping that we do not do, as we did with the Clean Air Act when we ran in front of the National Acid Precipitation Assessment project, but wait for the information from a competent scientific study before we overwhelmingly commit this country or the world to directions that may not be of use or consequence to us.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Senator Wallop follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MALCOLM Wallop, U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

THE LIMITATIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

Mankind has a special fascination with global catastrophes. In recent times, the global environment has taken center stage and has engaged scientists, politicians, environmental activists and the media. In June the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) will convene an Earth Summit in Brazil. The UNCED is an international political conference aimed at formulating a set of non-binding principles on sustainable economic development within the context of acceptable environmental goals.

However, so much attention is being focused on parallel negotiations on a Framework Convention on Climate Change that we have lost sight of the fact that what is being negotiated is a treaty. The climate change negotiations taking place in New York this week are part of a process that is going to continue well after the Earth Summit is over-eventually leading to a legally binding treaty.

Perhaps the most distressing aspect of the negotiations on global climate change is that the process is being driven by politics rather than science. The assumption is being made that the so-called greenhouse effect is not only a scientifically verified phenomenon but it will devastate the earth over the next hundred years.

By comparison, the scientific community cannot yet establish that man has already precipitated global climate changes. In fact, a November 1991 article in Science suggests a direct influence of solar activity on global climate during the past 130 years.

The latest International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publication states that satellite-derived atmospheric temperatures are "particularly important" in monitoring global trends because they provide true "global coverage" and "high accuracy". Yet satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature show hardly any change in temperature in the last 12 years despite large increases in greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

By comparison, computer models based on surface temperature have exaggerated the greenhouse effect by roughly a factor of five, according to the latest Marshall

Institute report. For example, surface temperature measurements indicated that 1990 was by far the warmest year on record; however, the satellite data show that it was only the fourth warmest in thirteen years. According to the IPCC, the warming trend revealed by satellite data is only one third that seen by surface and balloon measurement.

It is often stated that IPCC publications support the premise that there is a consensus among scientists that human-induced climate change will occur and that there will be catastrophic consequences. However, a recent Gallup Poll of 400 experts drawn from the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society does not show any such consensus. Who are we to believe?

Those who foreordain a global catastrophe as a result of climate change fail to note that many scientific observations contradict their predictions of doom. Predictions of substantial warming in the United States over the last 50 years, when carbon dioxide concentrations increased, did not prove true. Substantially greater warming in the Northern compared to the Southern hemisphere has not occurred. Substantially greater warming at higher latitudes has not appeared. None of the changes predicted by the models actually occurred.

Even if increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are likely to cause changes in atmospheric and oceanic temperatures and weather patterns, there is no valid basis for the hysteria that is being generated by some organizations about global warming. Sound science, not science driven by a political agenda, must provide the cornerstone for a sound response to the potential for climate change. We cannot allow ourselves to be pressured to act on inaccurate data which grabs headlines.

We made that mistake with acid rain. Numerous scientists gained national attention by asserting that lakes in the Adirondacks were dying from acid rain. The warning was echoed by so called "public interest" groups. The National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) launched a 10-year program that won praises for its scientific research; however little effort was made to define policyrelated research priorities. By the time the NAPAP results were in, the Congress had completed action of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Little attention was given to NAPAP's observation that many of the early scientific claims about aquatic damage were exaggerated. If we are not careful we are going to make that mistake again. We are going to produce a lot of good climate change science, but it is not going to be timely or relevant to the policy decisions that the United States and other nations face over the next decade.

The prime source of irrationality in environmental regulation is not the lack of strategic planning but the politically induced errors and distortions. In addition to acid rain, this was the problem with the alar crisis, or asbestos, or dioxins, or even the Love Canal. Centralized strategic planning by national governments, never mind under an international climate change treaty, does nothing to address this problem, and may in fact exacerbate it. Examples of piecemeal environmental engineering, such as a climate change treaty based on the control of only one greenhouse gas carbon dioxide-by only the developed nations, provide not firm defense against regulatory overreaction.

The Federal government is undertaking a multi-year, multibillion-dollar research program. However, the bulk of research efforts on reducing greenhouse gases is focused only on carbon dioxide. Other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrogen oxides, and the effects of water vapor and sulfur oxides, have received comparatively little attention. Greater attention should be focused on integrated research that is responsive to the needs of policy-makers.

There are actions that can be taken by the United States and other nations that are good from the standpoint of energy policy and preventative from the standpoint of climate change. Such actions should be taken and many of them are already being taken by the United States. Others are contained in S. 2166 as passed by the Senate. As advances are made in the science of climate change an appropriate strategy can be formulated that takes into consideration the economic, social and energy consequences of action.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record several statements and articles, and the recent Marshall Institute update on global warming.