Senator KYL. I appreciate the difficulty of the job that you have. And I also strongly believe that the United States needs to take a leading role, as you have attempted to do here, in dealing with these problems. I am not as persuaded as you are that there is no scientific doubt about the nature of the problem here or the magnitude or the timing.

Mr. WIRTH. I am not saying there is no scientific doubt. I am saying that, is there a problem? Yes. Where, how much, how fast, we have a lot of work to do.

Senator KYL. Yes. And that will have a great deal of bearing on what kind of financial commitment we in the United States should make.

Mr. WIRTH. Absolutely. Absolutely.

Senator KYL. And also, whether or not we would be willing to do things that would put us at a disadvantage. I will simply tell you this. I think you are attempting to evade a couple of things here. It may be that you have no choice.

Mr. WIRTH. Or maybe we do not know, too. One can always be even here. One can say I do not know.

Senator KYL. I am talking more about the enforcement mechanism here. It is very difficult for you to talk about a binding treaty and yet, come up with any way to actually enforce it. I appreciate that fact. But I think we ought to be honest about it. There is not any legally binding way to enforce this. And if there were, then, obviously, we would want to take a very, very careful look at that. But to the extent that there is not, it is almost impossible to get into position to comply with the statement that you have made. And I would just suggest that you might want to be very careful about how you say this-when you say that you would not agree to anything that would put us at a disadvantage. The fact of the matter is we already have done that. We have already imposed significant burdens on American businesses and American families as a result of our desire to engage in strong environmental protection. Developing nations have not done that. One of the reasons you noted is it is very hard for them to afford to be able to do it. And in the future, it is going to be very difficult.

So what I am concerned about here is that while it may not be your intention to put us at a competitive disadvantage, the net result of this is going to be that we will be put at a competitive disadvantage, because we will comply, we will impose that burden on Americans, and other countries will not do it. And because it is a virtual impossibility to make a treaty binding without some kind of sanctions, that will simply be the burden that we bear. And, in effect, life is not going to be a great deal different. We will continue to do our job while others do not do theirs.

And, comparatively speaking, as you yourself noted, in the future, it is the developing countries, not the developed countries, that are going to continue to put more of this stuff into the atmosphere.

Mr. WIRTH. Let me, if I might, Senator Kyl, say the same thing to you that I said to API 3 or 4 weeks ago. I would hope that in the process, as we are all working together on this enormously important issue, that I would ask of you and your colleagues what we asked of API and have asked of very other group, that first, you

not prejudge, fill-in-the blanks before they are filled in, and second that you continue to work with us as we intend to continue to work with you.

We will be working very closely with you on this whole issue, for example, of a binding treaty and what the options are and how they do that, but let us not prejudge at this point to say that we are somehow putting ourselves at a disadvantage for proposing a framework. We have proposed a framework. We have not put numbers on the framework. We have not filled in the framework. We have said that we think this is an important and the right thing to do, and that it gets the discussion off the table.

By the way, Senator Kyl, there were a whole series of options being proposed elsewhere that we think are wrong and unworkable and would put us at a disadvantage, and we have taken those off the table, a lot of proposals made by the groups around the world, a lot of the proposals for common measures, we have taken those off the table by proposing the framework that we have, which I think was a very significant step forward as well.

Senator KYL. And I certainly will commit to do that. I think it is also important, though, that you get the message here that there will be a great deal of concern if what is brought back imposes burdens on American industry to the competitive disadvantage of the United States.

Mr. WIRTH. And the other side of that is the opportunities, as discussed in the colloquy with Senator Johnston.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just conclude, because we have two other panels. I think it is important, Mr. Secretary, relative to this committee having as much information as possible concerning the scientific assessment report, and we understand there was a letter from the State Department dated November 15, 1995 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Policy that complained about discrepancies between the summary for policymakers and the scientific assessment report.

We have also been told that the letter instructs the IPCC cochairman to prevail upon the lead authors to make changes in the chapters to conform those chapters to the summary for the policymakers, and obviously this raises a flag relative to the detail that may have been either omitted or expanded, and I wonder if you have knowledge of that letter and if the committee could have a copy of that letter.

Mr. WIRTH. Of course. I would be happy to make it available.* The CHAIRMAN. We have not been able to get one for now.

Mr. WIRTH. Mr. Chairman, if you asked for it, you have got it, and we would also be happy to get for you the submission that we made to the IPCC.

The CHAIRMAN. It would be helpful if in the letter you provide us you give us the circumstances on why there was a mandate, or a suggestion to instruct the authors to make changes to conform with the summary for policymakers. Can you do that for us in your response?

Mr. WIRTH. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think it is important for the record now to say that we have done a tremendous amount of work * Can be found in the appendix.

which we wanted to include in that. That is all we ask, that it be done.

The suggestion made by the Rockefeller University group that somehow there was pressure put on has been totally, totally refuted by the scientists involved, totally refuted, Mr. Chairman. We would be happy to respond for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. If you would respond, that would clarify that.

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

Mr. WIRTH. Absolutely. We will not sign anything, Mr. Chairman, without extensive consultations with you.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. WIRTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been a pleasure to be here.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your efforts to proceed with this process. I think we are all ready to acknowledge that we need to do the very best we can relative to the international competitiveness and the advanced technology. There is always a concern that Congress has about binding agreements. You have been around here long enough to know that, and the Foreign Relations Committee is also a little sensitive to this particular area of treaties.

It is important that everybody understands the implications, and we appreciate your efforts to provide that to the Congress, so this is an ongoing process, as we know, and we will have you back here again, undoubtedly, in the near future.

Mr. WIRTH. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Senator JOHNSTON. Mr. Chairman, if I may make one observation as the Secretary leaves, I am advised that the finalized summary for policymakers was actually not complete at the time the letter requesting changes in the draft went out, and so it was really not a request for changes in a final document, but a request for modifications in a draft.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, when the scientists disagree, that is part of a process, but in reality we have to hold those people accountable because the accumulation of knowledge and expertise that they have, certainly that is not available to us as members of Congress.

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

You and I know that we vote yes or no around here more often than not. The scientific community suggests that with a further study or appropriation they can do a better job, but when we say, well, we have to have your best estimate in order to make our rec

ommendations, why, they feel a little uncomfortable, so with that, let us move to the scientific panel and see if we can get some folks either comfortable or uncomfortable.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

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

Who wants to go first?

STATEMENT OF DR. SALLIE BALIUNAS, RESEARCH PHYSICIST, HARVARD-SMITHSONIAN CENTER FOR ASTROPHYSICS

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

The possibility of dangerous human-induced climate change deserves and is getting serious thought. What are the scientific facts in support of the claim that human-made global warming will be significant, that is, larger than the natural fluctuations in climate, and even, possible, catastrophic? That is, how is it known that computer simulations of the climate forecast 100 years into the future are accurate?

In the last 100 years, the concentration of human-made greenhouse gases has increased in the atmosphere. The increasing concentration is roughly equal to a 50-percent buildup in carbon dioxide alone. That substantial buildup gives a way to test the computer simulations of climate warming due to greenhouse gases from human actions. That is, by studying the temperature response to the 50-percent increase over the last 100 years, the computer simulations can be tested against the actual response of the cli

mate.

In the last 100 years, the average temperature of the Earth has risen about 2-degree centigrade, and that is chart 1 in my testimony that you have. The computer simulations say that the global temperature should have warmed in the last 100 years by roughly 1/2 to 12 degrees centigrade, and I should note that the theoretical effect of aerosols is included in that range.

Now, while the magnitude of that V2-degree rise and the lower limit of that post predicted by the computer simulation seems to agree, it is inconsistent with the timing of the warming of the last 100 years.

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

Now, the human-made greenhouse gases cannot cause a warming that took place before they existed in the atmosphere. There

fore, most of the 12-degree centigrade rise must be natural, and on this the IPCC agrees.

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

Now, the computer simulations can be further tested by comparing them to the actual temperatures in the Arctic, and the Arctic is very sensitive to greenhouse warming. The computer simulations can also be tested against the temperatures measured very precisely from satellites over the last 17 years.

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

Now, if the human-made greenhouse gases did not cause most of the warming early in this century, then what did? This question is important, because it seeks to find the causes of natural variability, the backdrop against which the human-made climate changes must be judged.

One possible natural variation is that the total energy output of the Sun changes, thereby causing warming and cooling. The evidence for this is in two parts. First, the Sun has been observed to vary in total energy output, in step with its 11-year cycle of magnetism, and the association of those brightness changes with surface magnetism allows us to obtain information on the Sun's brightness changes going back several centuries, because we have records of the Sun's magnetism going back that far, but certainly not of brightness change.

Now, the length of the Sun spot cycle is a particularly interesting proxy for changes in the Sun's brightness, and I have enclosed that as chart 2 that compares the change in the Sun's magnetism with surface temperatures of the Earth going back to the year 1750. The correlation is nearly perfect.

Now, the second part of the evidence for solar influence on climate is as follows. The Sun's magnetic record can be converted to brightness changes using data from the Sun and other stars, and then input to a climate simulation, and some of those results for the Sun's changes are shown in that enclosed chart 3 for the years 1880 to 1993.

If the Sun has changed brightness in the way the magnetic records have suggested, then changes in the Sun can explain more than half the variance of the_temperature record from 1880 to 1993. These results for the Sun suggests that the brightness changes have had a significant impact on climate change. A brighter Sun may be the explanation for a substantial part of and possibly most of the 2-degree warming observed early this century.

This work is relatively new, but it points out that there are many unknowns in the climate simulations, and apart from these possible unknowns, what are some of the other uncertainties in the computer simulations?

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