We also have changes in thermometers over time. We don't necessarily use the same type of thermometer in 1930 that we do now, so there is a discontinuity in instrumentation.

Most importantly, we only put thermometers over land surfaces. We have most of our observations associated with locations that are over land, that are at lower altitudes, that are generally in wetter conditions and in more economically developed countries.

So thermometer-based measurements are good only for a single point, but they don't give you a good indication as to what the actual background change has been, because there is a lot of variability and bias associated with taking a thermometer measurement. Ms. BALIUNAS. I want to add that the lower troposphere measurements by satellite have been independently validated by balloons that are launched daily and make measurements in situ, and there are at least four sets of balloon measurements that are made independently across the world, groups that analyze it, and they agree with a high degree of correlation with the tropospheric data from satellites.

So the argument is that the lower troposphere data are probably on a very good footing. They cover almost essentially all the globe, as opposed to between 10 and 20 percent for the ground-based thermometer measurement data that have, as Dr. Legates has pointed out, have changed substantially over time and have many corrections made to their algorithms, as well.

Mr. PIELKE. Yes. I'd like to suggest that there's really no solution to the problem of climate change, but we can do better. I'd like to go on record as saying I'm a big supporter of using less energy, being cleaner in our energy use, and so on, but we don't need better thermometers, better satellites, or any of that to start making progress. There's a lot of so-called "low-hanging fruit." National security, alone, provides a compelling reason to be more efficient in our energy use.

It seems to me that in tackling the greenhouse gas emissions of 6 billion people focused on understanding the science 100 years in the future, we couldn't have created a problem that could be more easily gridlocked.

There's a lot of relatively easy, by comparison, steps-no regrets adaptation and no regrets mitigation-for which the debate over the science, while important, shouldn't stand in our way. We ought to be being better with our energy use and reduce our vulnerability to climate in any case, and we should start taking those steps. We should have taken them before, but we should start now instead of trying to wait for science to resolve itself.

Senator JEFFORDS. I'll give you all a last shot here. Dr. Rowland. Mr. ROWLAND. I have no more.

Senator JEFFORDS. Mr. Legates.

Mr. LEGATES. [Shaking head negatively.]

Senator JEFFORDS. Mr. Markham.

Mr. MARKHAM. Just to say that I think the risks from greenhouse gas emissions are very great. The science-we have good, sound science. It's getting stronger every day. We know a lot more than we did 5, 10, or 15 years ago. As. Dr. Pielke says, there are many low-cost actions we can take now, which include both voluntary and hopefully regulatory actions like your bill.

Ms. BALIUNAS. The science has gotten extraordinarily better. The models still cannot be used to make reliable, credible predictions in the future. They fail validation by scientific testing. We should not hold this to energy policy.

Mr. WHITTAKER. Only to say that this is very definitely a business issue. It is a business risk and it is a business opportunity, and it will intensify in the coming years.

Mr. COGEN. Yes. I'll agree with that. From the business point of view, people are looking to the Senate for leadership. Businesses are taking actions and they want to see some regulatory framework for it.

Senator JEFFORDS. Let me ask this last question. Do any of you believe that it is safe to continue increasing manmade greenhouse gas emissions without any limit?

[All witnesses indicate in the negative.]

Senator JEFFORDS. No one says yes, and so that must be no, and we'll see you later. Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the chair.]

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF CONNECTICUT

I thank Chairman Jeffords for calling this important hearing on the economic and environmental risks associated with increasing greenhouse gas emissions, and thank him for his leadership on this issue. The issues are timely, they are important, and the witnesses are impressive. I am sorry that I could not personally attend; I had a conflicting duty to chair a hearing of the Governmental Affairs Committee. I want to leave no doubt about the importance of this hearing.

The causes and potential effects of global warming have been well documented through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international process that is engaged in by over 2,000 scientists from around the world. The potential effects are serious and far-reaching.

Global warming is a global problem that requires a global solution. The international community has come together under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to address the problem. The original 1992 agreement, signed by then-President Bush and unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate, contained no mandatory targets or timetables for greenhouse gas emissions. It was important, however, for recognizing the problem and committing the countries of the world to an ongoing multilateral process to seek ways to reduce the threat of global warming. In 1997, the international community negotiated the Kyoto Protocol, which included binding targets and timetables for industrialized countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a little over 5 percent by 20082012, as a first step in reducing global emissions of greenhouse gases. The United States committed to a 7 percent reduction. Other countries, including the European Union and Japan, are moving toward ratification of this agreement. The current administration has rejected the Kyoto Protocol and offered us what can best be described as a tepid response to what even the President describes is a very serious issue.

The United States has a large stake in the climate change debate; among other things, we have a very large land mass, with thousands of miles of coastline, and a very large population, magnifying the health threats associated with climate change. We also emit about 25 percent of the entire world's emissions of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas, even though we have less than 5 percent of the world's population. We have a responsibility to ourselves as well as the world community to take action to reduce greenhouse gases. We led the international effort to protect the stratospheric ozone layer, and found a way to bridge differences between developed and developing countries. That system is working and we should be proud of the leadership the United States exhibited.

I fear we have now abdicated our leadership role. In 1989, then-President Bush, talking to Congress about the issue of acid rain declared that the "time for study alone is over . the time for action is now." The President then went on to work

with the Congress to establish a market-based cap and trade program that significantly reduced emissions of sulfur dioxide, the main ingredient of acid rain. I would suggest that the current administration follow this example for carbon dioxide. I have been working with Chairman Jeffords and other progressive-minded Senators to move toward passage of S. 556, the Clean Power Act of 2001, which would set limits on carbon dioxide emissions from electric power plants, which are responsible for about 40 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. We have been working with colleagues from the other side of the aisle on this important first step on greenhouse gas emissions, and hope that we can reach an agreement to move forward. I am also working with Senator McCain to develop an economy wide cap and trade proposal for greenhouse gas emissions as one more step in re-establishing U.S. leadership in this critical area. As our distinguished witness Dr. Rowland, a Nobel laureate wrote in his testimony: "The increasing global temperatures will have many consequences, often adverse in the long run. Because of the many causes of this temperature increase have their origins in the activities of mankind, actions can and should now be taken which will slow this rate of increase."

Thank you Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome all of the witnesses, especially Professor Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado.

I look forward to the witnesses' testimony and hope that we can use your collective knowledge to reach a better understanding of the economic and environmental impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on global climate change.

Climate change or global warming has become one of the most talked about environmental issues for the last several years. The United States and other nations have spent millions of dollars to study climate change. It seems that the more we spend and study, the more we realize that we don't know.

Our studying climate change for the last 10 years has led us to two conclusions: First, human activity has had an impact on the global climate. In announcing his global climate change strategy, President Bush acknowledged this fact.

However, our years of careful study have made, for policymakers, an even more important conclusion: that we have inadequate evidence to demonstrate humanity's affect on climate change. Since our science is unable to tell us the level of causation, science can't tell us what mitigation strategies we, in Congress, should pursue.

Throughout my career of public service I have tried to base my decisions on the best available information, particularly when those decisions have dramatic consequences on the lives of Coloradans. Unfortunately, in the case of global climate change, we are seeking to craft a policy with profound implications on completely inadequate and speculative information.

In his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg (Bee-Yorn Lom-Borg) simply asked, "Do we want to handle global warming in the most efficient way or do we use global warming as a stepping stone to other political projects."

Even Mr. Lomborg, a Danish statistician, noted the political salience of the climate change debate. Unfortunately, this important issue has become so politicized that many people look past the facts and, instead, focus on doomsday scenarios.

In noting our lack of understanding of the Earth's climate system, one of our very own witnesses made an equally important point. In her testimony today, Doctor Sallies Baliunas stated, “A value judgment is prerequisite to evaluating the need for human mitigation of adverse consequences of climate change."

Again, “a value judgment is prerequisite.” In short, since we don't have enough information, some suggest that we just assume that humans can mitigate adverse consequences of climate change.

Well, this Senator is not ready to make that assumption when making that leap of faith could result in the loss of countless U.S. jobs.

I am happy that the President has chosen to look at the facts in rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. He properly noted that greenhouse gas emissions is directly attributable to U.S. production and economic growth. In my state of Colorado, implementing Kyoto would have translated in the loss of 47,400 jobs and $2 billion in tax revenue by 2010.

I am not ready to make decisions with such consequences without adequate information.

We all make "value judgments" in policymaking. I would ask my friends to ask themselves what it is they value.

In making that "value judgment" I would ask them to consider the words of John Adams when he said: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

I look forward to the distinguished panel's testimony, and ask that my testimony be reported in the Record.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF DR. F. SHERWOOD ROWLAND, BREN PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE, IRVINE, CA

A natural greenhouse effect has existed in Earth's atmosphere for thousands of years, warming the Earth's surface for a global average of 57 °F. During the 20th Century, the atmospheric concentrations of a number of "greenhouse gases” have increased, mostly because of the actions of mankind. Our current concern is not whether there is a greenhouse effect, because there is one, but rather how large will be the enhanced greenhouse effect from the additional accumulation in the atmosphere of these greenhouse gases.

The Earth intercepts daily energy from the sun, much of it in the visible wavelengths corresponding to the spectrum of colors from red to violet, and the rest in ultraviolet and nearby infrared wavelengths. An equal amount of energy must escape from the Earth daily to maintain a balance, but this energy emission is controlled by the much cooler average surface temperature of the Earth, and occurs in wavelengths in the Afar infrared". If all of this terrestrially emitted infrared radiation were able to escape directly to space, then the required average temperature of Earth would be 0 °F. However, the greenhouse gases-carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and others-selectively intercept some of this far infrared radiation; preventing its escape. A warmer Earth emits more infrared radiation, and Earth with an average surface temperature of 57 °F was able to make up the shortfall from greenhouse gas absorption. However, at Exist slowly during the 19th century and then more rapidly throughout the 20th century, the atmospheric concentrations of these greenhouse gases increased, often because of the activities of mankind. Other greenhouse gases have also been added, such as the chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs, (CC12F2, CC13F, etc.) and tropospheric ozone (O3). With more of these gases present in the atmosphere, more infrared will be intercepted, and a further temperature increase will be required to maintain the energy balance. Carbon dioxide is released by the combustion of fossil fuels-coal, oil and natural gas-and its atmospheric concentration has increased from about 280 ppm as the 19th century began to 315 ppm in 1958 and 370 ppm now. Water (H2O) is actually the most significant greenhouse gas in absorbing infrared radiation, but the amount of gaseous water is controlled by the temperature of the world's oceans and lakes. Methane has a natural source from swamps, but is also released during agricultural activities-for example, from rice paddies while flooded, and from cows and other ruminant animals—and by other processes, increasing from about 0.70 ppm in the early 1800's to 1.52 ppm around 1978 and 1.77 ppm currently. Nitrous oxide concentrations grew from 0.27 to 0.31 ppm during the 20th century, formed by microbial action in soils and waters on nitrogen-containing compounds including fertilizers. The chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were not a natural part of the atmosphere, but were first synthesized in 1928, and were then, applied to a variety of usespropellant gases for aerosol sprays, refrigerants in home refrigerators and automobile air conditioners, industrial solvents, manufacture of plastic foams, etc. The CFC concentrations started from zero concentration in the 1920's, and rose rapidly during the latter part of the 20th century until the early 1990's. They are no longer increasing because of the Montreal Protocol, an international ban on their further manufacture. Tropospheric ozone is a globally important compound formed by photochemical reactions as a part of urban smog in hundreds of cities. Other potential influences on temperature changes for which the globally averaged data are still very sparse include the concentrations of particulate matter such as sulfate and black carbon aerosols.

Measurements of surface temperatures only became sufficiently broad in geographical coverage about 1860 to permit global averaging with improved coverage as the years passed. The globally averaged surface temperature increased about 1.1°F during the 20th century, with about half of this change occurring during the past 25 years. 1998 was the warmest year globally in the entire 140-year record, and the 1990's were the warmest decade. Fluctuations in solar activity have been directly observed wince the invention of the telescope 400 years ago, but accurate, direct measurements of total solar energy output have only been possible with the

advent of satellite measurements in the late 1970's. These satellite data exhibit a small but definite cyclic variation over the last two decades, paralleling the 11-year solar sunspot cycle, but with little long term difference in solar energy output contemporary with the rising global temperatures of the past two decades.

Predictions of future temperature responses require atmospheric model calculations that effectively simulate the past, and then are extrapolated into the future with appropriate estimates of the future changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. These models calculate the direct temperature increases that additional greenhouse gases will cause, and the further feedbacks induced by these temperature changes. One of the most prominent of these is the change in albedo (surface reflectivity) in the polar north-when melting ice is replaced by open water (or melting snow replaced by bare ground), less solar radiation is reflected back to space, and more remains at the surface causing a further temperature increase. The models also assume that more water will remain in the atmosphere inn response to the temperature increases, providing another positive feedback. There is an additional possible feedback from the changes in clouds-amount, composition, and altitude. In present models, the cloud feedback is assumed to be small, but data for better evaluation are very difficult to obtain.

Extrapolations for 50 or 100 years in the future necessarily include hypotheses about future societal developments, including population growth, economic activity, etc. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed a large set of scenarios about the possible course of these events over the next century, with resulting model calculations of globally averaged temperature increases for the year 2100 relative to 1990 ranging from 2.5° to 10.4 °F (1.4-5.8 °C). These results were only a small part of the three IPCC reports issued during 2001 about Climate change. Volume I of the IPCC reports treated the "Scientific Basis", Volume II covered "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability", and Volume III “Mitigation”.

The National Academy of Sciences, in response to a May 2001 request from the White douse, and following discussions between the administration and the Academy over some questions raised by the former, convened an 11-member scientific panel, which issued in June a 24-page report "Climate Change Science. An Analysis of Some Key Questions" from a select committee of atmospheric scientists. I quote the first few sentences of this report, and have appended the entire report to this testimony: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability."

The increasing global temperatures will have many consequences, often adverse in the long run. Because many of the causes of this temperature increase have their origin in the activities of mankind, actions can and should now be taken which will slow this rate of increase.