Review of 1995 Synthesis Report

COMMENTS ON THE POLICYMAKERS SUMMARY

Draft team: The drafting team represents, in large part, only one part of the political spectrum on this issue. I see not one of the well-known "skeptics" or technological optimists.

Section 2.2. Last sentence is misleading and meaningless. Of course there are secular changes in regional climate variables. If there weren't there would be no need for weather forecasters. Strike the sentence; leave the previous one in.

Section 3.2. The given range is not right. According to figure 7, the range with aerosols is 0.8 to 2.4° In reality, it should be somewhat less than 0.8 because the lower limit in the aerosol and non aerosol models cannot logically be the same. Therefore the sentence should read"...global mean temperature of somewhat less than 0.8°C to 2.4°C by 2100." A further misread occurs in the non sulfate models, where the top should be 3.2°C and the lower limit 0.8. See figure 7.

The aerosol scenario gives a mean warming of 1.6°C, which represents the lowest mean ever projected by IPCC, and IPCC should emphasize this. An acknowledgement of the "cynics" that IPCC marginalized in 1990 (i.e. the folks who turned out to be right) wouldn't hurt here either.

At any rate, with the 1.6°C, you have to lower the sea level to a median of 0.35 m, or a range of 0.1 to 0.6.

How can you project increased floods and droughts-they're regional events?

4.3.a This is obviously an attempt to inject some ecological relevance into this disappearing problem. at 0.1°C/decade the microclimatic diversity is surely enough to create ersatz migration corridors. We don't live in a static society anymore, either.

4.3.c Note to Larry Kalkstein. If climate only determined disease, Northern Australia would be a Malarial miasma. Sanitation, not an impoverishing carbon tax on producer nations, prevents malaria. Carbon taxes help it by destroying the benificent economies.

4.7 Sounds like an assertion at an undergraduate bull session. Prove it or remove it.

5.5 and its ilk neglect the finding that the temperature forests of the midlatitudes can store 360 tg of carbon per year (if proper management continues). All statements on drawdown times have to be radically changed to reflect this finding. Keep them in like this at IPCCs peril. Wait till Sherwood Idso and Sylvan Wittwer get a hold of them.

6a Natural gas used to produce 70% of the carbon/btu of coal. Now its 58%. What changed? Better gas? Dirtier coal? New coal combustion (ceramic) technology will surely change this. Making this report a mandate to kill coal is not, repeat, not a very good idea.

6.9 What is a market pull? If you mean market distortion say it, 1984 has passed.

REVIEW OF OVERALL TEXT

2.6 This is a meaningless paragraph, attempting to inflame those who don't know better (i.e. "policymakers"). Discard.

2.7 Try adding this at the end. "However, any anthropogenerated signal is very small and so subtle that it would not have been noticed by anyone but extremely quantitatively oriented scientists."

3.4 The assumptions about CFCs are guaranteed to inflate forcing. Note that concentrations are already levelling off.

3.15 This is inconsistent with the policymakers summary. It should say (see my earlier text) less than .08°C/decade to .24°/decade with sulfates and....analogous figures without.

3.16 Adjust sea level re my earlier criticism of spm

3.19, 3.20. IPCC now acknowledges that GHG only models overpredict warming (and therefore everything else). Why are these sections here? Delete them or be careful of the upcoming criticism.

4.3. You've got to be kidding! Take North America: Annual temperature range of 90°C, highly mobile population. Does life expectancy decrease as one moves south? The problem here is not climate change, it's governments that place their people at risk through incompetent management.

4.4 The same argument as in 4.3 applies here, Mr. Kalkstein.

Box, page 12. Natural ecosystems are not necessarily more vulnerable. Diverse systems are more stable and create their own microclimates more effectively. A planted stand of Loblolly Pine doesn't have the either the genetic or the microclimatic diversity of the mixed. mesophytic forest.

4.5 See 4.3c from the Policymakers Summary. Try sanitation rather than carbon taxes. Which is more effective?

4.9 David Legates (J Climatology) demonstrated that the model forecasts of precipitation are childishly bad and vary dramatically between models. Leave statements like this in and

watch what will happen in congressional testimony.

4.13 Someone here doesn't understand that trees naturally grow very well out of their competitive range. This is being written from Atlanta, where I'm surrounded by huge Red Spruce (Picea rubens) trees that are found "naturally" only above 5,500 feet here. Remarkably, they can also reproduce in Atlanta, because trees produce microclimates that are suitable for their propagation. Why does Abies balsamea (Balsam fir) grow naturally in Iowa? The distribution of microclimatic relicts is likely to greately attenuate the argument made in 4.13. The warming of 1-4° has to be reduced to be consistent with the SPM--see my arguments above. It should be change to "less than 0.8 to 2.4°C"

4.14 Suffers from the same problem as the previous section.

4.17. After setting up the straw arguments in the previous 4 sections, this one is used to claim that "dangerous" has been reached so that U.N. can mandate a carbon tax or something like that. Take this out, or else the whole straw man is going to be exposed.

4.21 One view is obviously correct--the first one; The second one has no basis in data except in the imagination of Paul Ehrlich, Donella Meadows, and Lester Brown, three folks who have yet to make an accurate prediction about the world food system. That's not a good record for 60 person-years of trying.

4.24 Wittwer (1995) argues in his new book for major beneficial effects to agriculture, even on C4 plants.

4.25 IPCC 1990 didn't talk much about CO2 fertilization, which resulted in a showtrial of Sherwood Idso for scientific heresy. Now its important. How about a letter of apology to Sherwood?

4.29 It is clear from the new Science paper by Ciaia, Tans et al that the vegetation responds rapidly and dramatically to even the small increases that we have made in CO2. Couple this to technological advancement (like genetic engineering) and many of the ecological problems minimize.

4.30 Change the temperature rate changes to reflect the SPM, also as I have modified it.

5.22 Much of this table is wrong because of the rapid uptake of CO2 now being observed.

6.25 Speaks of perfecting markets, and 6.28 speaks of distorting them. Which do you want? There a few unemployed central economic planners available should you need the expertise for the new five year plan.

6.29 Just try this one in the U.S. and watch the treaty evaporate.

7.3, pp35-36. Its also a question of forsaking capital for our children to use. I'm glad my parents didn't spend all their money fighting global cooling. Now I can buy an efficient car instead of that old polluting beater.

7.8 Lets hear it for free trade. Or for that matter, for the freedom of thought and faith in innovation that it generates. Maybe if we're all free enough we won't need the IPCC to help us live better lives through documents such as the 1995 Synthesis Report.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I believe that is a fairly substantial charge, Dr. Michaels. And we will now move forward with some questioning.

First of all, before we go into questioning, let me give you the opportunity to ask a question or two of each other, and if I could just ask this: that we make this as direct as possible-answers and questions.

Do either of you have I mean, these are pretty substantial charges that Dr. Michaels is saying-do you have any questions, or vice versa?

Dr. MAHLMAN. If I may, Mr. Chairman

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, sir.

Dr. MAHLMAN. Yes, thank you.

I agree with Dr. Michaels that the observed record does indicate a climate sensitivity lesser than that implied by the models in the past.

I do not agree that his analysis is logical or straightforward in that he is appealing to a comparison of a realistic case, namely the last 15 years, to an idealized increasing CO2 case, and that leaves out the effect of sulfate aerosols, as he properly points out. It also leaves out the fact that the satellites are now known to be seeing the strong ozone losses that have happened in the upper troposphere and the lower stratosphere.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Do you have a specific question for him that might

Dr. MAHLMAN. My specific question is to speak to an assertion that he made. Okay?

And therefore I would submit that indeed it is true that it is most likely that aerosols are producing a temporary offset to the global warming problem, but I do not accept that this argument is as clear as he is arguing it is, merely because the comparison is not fully straightforward.

Dr. MICHAELS. Excuse me.

The ozone or the aerosols tend to lie in the bottom 5,000 to 7,000 feet of the atmosphere. That is the satellite's best temperature sense is from 5,000 feet to 30,000 feet in channel 2R. It is above the aerosol layer.

So you cannot say that the aerosols are what is preventing the warming in the satellite.

And you also cannot say that it is the ozone depletion that is preventing the warming in that record because most of the ozone depletion takes place above the 300 millibar layer, in fact, above the troposphere.

We had this discussion, I should say, Mr. Chairman, at our meeting on October 13th, 1994, and that discussion, which I have recorded, states the following:

The argument was made that, "Oh, you just have to dismiss the satellite data because ozone is what is compromising it." And a response was made.

Ozone is a direct radiative effect and it changes much from year to year. In the years in which the ozone shows a low spike, is that reflected in the satellite temperature?

Answer. "Oh, no, no, no. It is just a trend, you know."