e wanted to include in that. That is all we ask, that it be uggestion made by the Rockefeller University group that w there was pressure put on has been totally, totally rethe scientists involved, totally refuted, Mr. Chairman. We e happy to respond for the record.

HAIRMAN. If you would respond, that would clarify that.

st issue, and I would ask you, will you commit not to sign eement at the conference of parties, the third conference of until or unless you have had an opportunity to discuss its and the economic results with this committee?

IRTH. Absolutely. We will not sign anything, Mr. Chairhout extensive consultations with you.

HAIRMAN. I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary.

IRTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been a pleasure to

HAIRMAN. Thank you for your efforts to proceed with this I think we are all ready to acknowledge that we need to ery best we can relative to the international competitiveI the advanced technology. There is always a concern that s has about binding agreements. You have been around g enough to know that, and the Foreign Relations Commitso a little sensitive to this particular area of treaties. nportant that everybody understands the implications, and eciate your efforts to provide that to the Congress, so this going process, as we know, and we will have you back here ndoubtedly, in the near future.

IRTH. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

or JOHNSTON. Mr. Chairman, if I may make one observathe Secretary leaves, I am advised that the finalized sum- policymakers was actually not complete at the time the questing changes in the draft went out, and so it was really quest for changes in a final document, but a request for tions in a draft.

IRTH. We will make that very clear what transpired, Mr. n, as well as including in the record the items which I to Senator Thomas related to responses to the various acs made by a few.

you, Mr. Chairman.

HAIRMAN. Well, when the scientists disagree, that is part cess, but in reality we have to hold those people accountause the accumulation of knowledge and expertise that e, certainly that is not available to us as members of Con

haps we can have an opportunity, and will in the balance earing, to hear from scientists who do have a difference of with regard to certain aspects of the economic fallout or aspects of the true science itself, because I think one of the es that we all see as we address our responsibilities is, the community is not used to being held accountable.

nd I know that we vote yes or no around here more often . The scientific community suggests that with a further appropriation they can do a better job, but when we say, have to have your best estimate in order to make our rec

either comfortable or uncomfortable.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

We will call on Dr. Sallie Baliunas from the Harvard nian Center for Astrophysics, and we will also have Ramanathan from the Scripps Institute of Oceanograph would call those witnesses before us at this time, and I to try and limit your presentations to about 5 to 7 min would ask that you summarize your comments, and then panel will be the economic panel, Dr. David Montgomery John Weyant.

Who wants to go first?

STATEMENT OF DR. SALLIE BALIUNAS, RESEARCH PH HARVARD-SMITHSONIAN CENTER FOR ASTROPHY

Dr. BALIUNAS. Mr. Chairman, members of the comm name is Sallie Baliunas. I am a research physicist at the Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. I am a senior scien George C. Marshall Institute, and I am deputy director Wilson Observatory. This statement is my personal view resents no institutional position.

The possibility of dangerous human-induced climate c serves and is getting serious thought. What are the scier in support of the claim that human-made global warmi significant, that is, larger than the natural fluctuations i and even, possible, catastrophic? That is, how is it known puter simulations of the climate forecast 100 years into are accurate?

In the last 100 years, the concentration of human-ma house gases has increased in the atmosphere. The incre centration is roughly equal to a 50-percent buildup in ca ide alone. That substantial buildup gives a way to test puter simulations of climate warming due to greenho from human actions. That is, by studying the temperature to the 50-percent increase over the last 100 years, the simulations can be tested against the actual response

mate.

In the last 100 years, the average temperature of the risen about 2-degree centigrade, and that is chart 1 in mony that you have. The computer simulations say that temperature should have warmed in the last 100 years b 1/2 to 12 degrees centigrade, and I should note that the t effect of aerosols is included in that range.

Now, while the magnitude of that 12-degree rise and limit of that post predicted by the computer simulation agree, it is inconsistent with the timing of the warming 100 years.

The record of the global temperature shows that m warming of the last 100 years occurred before 1940, but m human-made greenhouse gases entered the atmosphere a

Now, the human-made greenhouse gases cannot cause ing that took place before they existed in the atmosphe

t of the 2-degree centigrade rise must be natural, and on PCC agrees.

small part of the 2-degree rise, no more than a few a degree, could have been caused by the human-made se gases.

he computer simulations can be further tested by comparto the actual temperatures in the Arctic, and the Arctic ensitive to greenhouse warming. The computer simulations be tested against the temperatures measured very prem satellites over the last 17 years.

ttom line is that the computer predictions exaggerate the that should have occurred by the equivalent 50-percent of carbon dioxide. Even using the improved simulations d the aerosol effect does not alter the conclusion that the projections are greatly overestimating the size of future se warming.

the human-made greenhouse gases did not cause most of ing early in this century, then what did? This question is t, because it seeks to find the causes of natural variability, drop against which the human-made climate changes must 1. ssible natural variation is that the total energy output of changes, thereby causing warming and cooling. The evithis is in two parts. First, the Sun has been observed to otal energy output, in step with its 11-year cycle of magand the association of those brightness changes with_surnetism allows us to obtain information on the Sun's Es changes going back several centuries, because we have f the Sun's magnetism going back that far, but certainly ghtness change.

he length of the Sun spot cycle is a particularly interesting changes in the Sun's brightness, and I have enclosed that 2 that compares the change in the Sun's magnetism with emperatures of the Earth going back to the year 1750. The n is nearly perfect.

he second part of the evidence for solar influence on clias follows. The Sun's magnetic record can be converted to Es changes using data from the Sun and other stars, and ut to a climate simulation, and some of those results for changes are shown in that enclosed chart 3 for the years 993.

Sun has changed brightness in the way the magnetic ave suggested, then changes in the Sun can explain more f the variance of the temperature record from 1880 to ese results for the Sun suggests that the brightness have had a significant impact on climate change. A brightay be the explanation for a substantial part of and post of the 2-degree warming observed early this century. ork is relatively new, but it points out that there are many s in the climate simulations, and apart from these posnowns, what are some of the other uncertainties in the simulations?

the computer simulations rely on a feedback from water ater vapor is responsible for most of the natural green

but this assumption has been challenged.

After considering the water vapor feedback issue, Dick gives a preliminary estimate of 3/10 of a degree centigrad global temperature response of an effective doubling of car ide.

Chart 6 in the presentation shows graphically some of uncertainties in comparison to the 4 watts per meter squa diative output of doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphe are uncertainties of humidity, and there are flux adjust the model of 25 times higher than the radiative effect of carbon dioxide, and I will defer discussion of clouds to th sitting to my left.

In summary, no evidence can be found in the observati of global and regional temperatures for a dangerous wa warming above natural variability, derived from human The computer simulations of climate which predict a wa about 1 degree C. over the past 100 years have overestim warming that has actually occurred by three or more.

If one considers the Arctic results, the same computer tions projected forward into the next 100 years also mus rected for these overestimates of past warming. When the forecasted warming for the next 100 years is a few a degree centigrade. That warming spread over a centur negligible compared to the natural fluctuations in climate.

Now, what if this information is wrong? Then, consider what is the delay of the onset of large emission reductio much as 25 years? That penalty that we pay of an increa perature is only 2/10 of a degree centigrade by the year 2 that penalty, again, 2/10 of a degree centigrade for the that we think are exaggerating the warming spread out century will also be negligible.

The delay would allow an investment in better climate which would be appropriate considering that the IPCC f warming has dropped by nearly a factor of 2 just in the las as knowledge of climate physics has improved.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Baliunas follows:]

PREPARED STAtement of Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Research PHYSICIST, I SMITHSONIAN CENTER FOR ASTROPHYSICS

The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge truth-Prof. Richard Feynman, 1963, The Feynman Lectures on Physics

The possible outcomes resulting from the predicted rapid and dram global temperature deserve serious thought. What are the scientific facts of the claim that human-made global warming will be significant (i.e., the natural fluctuations of climate) and even possibly catastrophic? How that computer simulations of the climate, forecast 100 years into the fut curate?

One starts by testing the computer simulations against the record of t change of the last 100 years. In the last 100 years, the global average s perature of the earth has risen about 0.5 C. Also during that interval the tion of anthropogenic greenhouse gases has increased in the atmosphe crease in concentration is roughly equivalent to a 50% buildup in car alone. That substantial buildup gives a way to test the computer simula mate change due to greenhouse gases from human actions. That is, by st

response to the 50% increase over the last 100 years, the computer can be tested against the actual response of the climate.

iter simulations say that the global temperature should have risen in years by roughly 0.5-1.5 C (aerosols, whose theoretical effect is inat range, will be discussed below). While the magnitude of the rise, as d by the computer simulations, seems to agree with the observed temof 0.5 C, it is inconsistent with the timing of the warming.

1 of global temperature (Chart 1) shows that most of the warming of years occurred before 1940. But most of the anthropogenic greenhouse d the atmosphere after 1940. Human-made greenhouse gases cannot ming that took place before they existed in the atmosphere. Therefore, 0.5 Crise must be natural. Only a small part of the 0.5C rise-no more tenths degree could have been caused by human-made greenhouse er words, the 0.5-1.5 C warming predicted by the computer simulations the greenhouse effect produced by the equivalent 50% buildup of carbon

THE SOLAR INFLUENCE

hropogenic greenhouse gases did not cause most of the warming early ry, then what did? One possibility is that the total energy output of the thereby causing some warming and cooling. The evidence for this is : first, the sun has been observed by NASA satellites to vary in total ut in step with the 11-year sunspot cycle of magnetic changes in the h the satellite records only began in the late 1970s, which is too short tain information on century-long climate variations, the association of hanges with surface magnetic changes allows us to obtain information brightness changes going back several centuries, because records of the tism are available over that long period.

1 of the sunspot cycle is a particularly interesting proxy for changes in ightness. Chart 2 compares the sunspot cycle length with surface teming back to 1750.1 The correlation is nearly perfect.

d part of the evidence for a solar influence on the climate is as follows. agnetic record can be converted to estimated brightness changes, using he sun and other sun-like stars, and input to a climate simulation. The he sun's changes are shown in Chart 3 for the years 1880-1993.2 If the nged brightness in the way the magnetic records have indicated, then sun explain more than half of the variance of the temperature record 993. The results for the sun suggest that its brightness changes have icant impact on climate change. A brighter sun may be the explanation ntial part of, and possibly most of, the 0.5 C global warming observed 00 years.

AEROSOLS

such as sulfur dioxide complicate predictions of global climate change. m a haze that absorbs or reflects sunlight causing a cooling that offsets predicted greenhouse warming. Aerosols may also alter cloud properties. of the response of climate change to aerosols are based on computer The theoretical effect of aerosols has been to cool the climate forecasts both for the present and the future, and bring the computer forecasts e with the recent global temperatures. (However, allowing for the theong effect of aerosols cannot explain the observed warming prior to 1940.) d effect of aerosols does not change the conclusion that the computer of climate are greatly exaggerating the size of the greenhouse warming. results and the "fingerprint" studies-"Pattern" studies 3.4 of anthropohouse gases with the added effect of aerosols are considered in ensemble, gion, and with height. They form the basis for the claim that the anthroet on climate has been detected. But checking the forecasts in specific vs instead that the simulations fail to agree with observations. For exregions where the aerosol effect should be verified are heavily-industri

s and W. Soon, 1995, Astrophysical J., 450, 896.

. Posmentier and S. Baliunas, 1996, Astrophysical J., in press, December 1. chell et al. 1995, Nature, 376, 50.

r et al. 1995, Climate Dyn., 12, 79, 1996, Nature, 382, 39.

g confidence in the identification of a human-induced effect on climate comes priuch pattern-based work." (IPCC, 1996, p. 37, Sec. E.4).