degrees of warming remaining in it for equilibrium doubling. That is somewhere around the year 2100.

Now we might make the argument that CO2 is going to continue to go up and up and up and up. But that means that you are going to forecast the energy strategy of this society 100 years from now. Imagine if you would have made the forecast 100 years ago. You would have gotten a panel of top scientists and they would have said, "All credible scientists agree Washington will be ten feet deep in horse chestnuts by the year 1995." And that would have been the proper science.

If you had a visionary that said, "No, there is going to be a personal transportation system, life span's going to double, corn yields are going to go up by a factor of five." You would have said that person was insane.

But that is the game that we are playing when we try to say what is going to happen beyond doubling CO2.

Other end of question; it is a game of numbers. In 1992, when the Rio Treaty was signed, and the climate models did not have sulfate aerosol in them, I believed that people who testified in front of this Congress knew that the error was as large as it was. If they did not, they did not know their own models.

Why was that not told to this Congress?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. One thing. Could you go through the importance of that particular thing again, because I am not sure that I fully understand the importance of leaving that element.

Dr. MICHAELS. There was a change between 1990 and 1992, and the nature of climate modeling in general.

In 1990, to save on computer time, the climate models would what we call "instantaneously" double their greenhouse effect. In other words the CO2 in the model atmosphere would be down here, and then would go like this, and the climate would respond up like this, producing an average warming in the five main models of 4.2 degrees.

That is unrealistic because CO2 goes up gradually.

And for the 1992 supplementary update, which was produced specifically to back the Rio Treaty, a series of models were developed in which the CO2 increased gradually. One percent per year was the forcing change in the model.

That model becomes very testable against reality. And when you make the assumption that that model was producing the correct temperature when the greenhouse effect started to take off-and if you do not make that assumption, you are saying it does not work anyway-if you make that assumption and track the CO2 increase in the model versus the northern hemisphere temperature, you get a difference of about 1.2 degrees between today's temperature and what was forecast.

And now, in the latest issue of Nature Magazine, J.F.B. Mitchell says the very, very same thing. He says the minimum error in his current model, which is very similar to the one that based the U.N. report, his model without sulfates, the minimum current error is 1.3 degrees, I am sorry, the minimum warming is 1.3 degrees in the model and the maximum is 2.3, and the observed value is 0.5. Mr. ROHRABACHER. Over a period of what time?

Dr. MICHAELS. Between 1900 and now.

So that he is saying that it is off by a factor of between 2 and 3. Those were the models that based the treaty.

I believe it was known in 1992 that that error was there.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We are going to give Dr. Mahlman a chance to say, he is anxious to say something, and then we will go on to Mr. Roemer's questions.

Dr. MAHLMAN. It was very clear that the first full coupled models with transient scenarios were run before you said they were. But the real point is that, yes, it was realized that the best estimates for models did disagree with the observed global surface mean temperature increase.

And the assertion now that we have found this lower sensitivity that Dr. Michaels just made is not supportable based on the evidence, because there are very key parts to the climate system that have not been quantified in that argument, including the affect of sulfate aerosols that he quotes and the affect of natural variability. So that it could be larger than that; it could be smaller than that.

I have been betting for a long time that it is more probable that the realized warming would be in the lower half of the predicted range, and have said so publicly for a long time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It could be lower than that, it could be smaller than that?

Dr. MAHLMAN. Yes.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right.

Mr. Roemer?

Mr. ROEMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you gentlemen, for your testimony.

Dr. Michaels, despite some disagreement on interpretation of models sensitivity, aerosol effect, and so forth, I would gather from your testimony that you still would be a strong supporter of continuing to study the potential effects of greenhouse?

Dr. MICHAELS. Oh, yes. And more than that, I have written very recently in a public venue, and I may get thrown out of this room for saying this, that it is very, very important that we continue our efforts to monitor the planetary temperature.

If we lose, I say that because I believe the models are being, that models in reality are converging upon a low, benign warming. Now if we do not maintain the check data, the ground-based network, those satellite MSUS, boy, those are really important.

Mr. ROEMER. So despite some disagreements that we may have in the scientific community, you feel that this Committee should continue to put the money and the research materials together to study this problem.

Right, Dr. Michaels?

Dr. MICHAELS. I believe that is the case. But that does not mean that you do everything that everybody says.

Mr. ROEMER. So let me give you some examples.

If this Committee wou'd decide to cut NASA, the PM and the AM satellites, if they would cut NOAA, the global climate program by 25 percent, if they decided to cut renewable energy resources in research by 40 to 50 percent, totaling about 50 percent cut in these programs, how does that give the scientific community, whether

you agree or disagree on the overall implications of the models, how does that give the scientific community the ability to do this? Dr. MICHAELS. You are pushing me out of my area of expertise unfortunately.

And all I know, when I do not know something, is I have to read the fine print. I have not seen the fine print. In Washington, there is a lot of fine print that spends a lot of money.

So the only answer I can give to you is, if I saw the fine print, I would give you an opinion, which would not be a professionally balanced opinion.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The fine print in the EPA, if I could add, talks about things that were under that I mean, I am taking a look at some of the things that EPA's money for global climate research, if I could, Mr. Roemer

Mr. ROEMER. As long as this is not taking up my time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. This is not taking up your time.

Just, you know, I am taking a look here out of $111 million contract for global climate research EPA, and their account was used for brochures, posters, program logos, design for product awards, promotional pens, pencils, buttons, banners, displays, billboards, bus and train placards, that is the fine print that you are talking about, Dr. Michaels.

Go right ahead, Mr. Roemer.

Mr. ROEMER. Well, Mr. Chairman, again, not coming out of my time because I am responding to your question, but

[Laughter.]

Mr. ROEMER. [continuing] -when we are looking at, you know, from the '95 levels, we are looking at a 25 percent cut in the NASA budget on these satellites, 23 percent cut in NOAA, 17 percent cut in DOE in the environmental resources, 35 percent cut on the CO2 resources, a 40 percent cut in the solar and renewable resources, and a 55 percent cut in the energy and conservation resources.

We are talking a little bit more about than just cutting posters and pens. We are talking about cutting out satellites that Dr. Michaels says are important to study this.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, having gone through the budgets and understanding where the money's coming from, I remember the debate on the floor that we had in which promotional and commercial programs in the solar energy program were labeled "energy research." And promotional activities and commercialization have nothing to do with energy research.

And this Chairman went out of his way to make sure that that research was not cut.

But go right ahead.

Mr. ROEMER. Well, let me ask Dr. Mahlman if you think this is somehow a petty program or something that does things that are not directly related to the kind of research that you need to study this problem.

Are you familiar with the computer hardware, the advanced mathematics and model physics program within DOE to upgrade climate models?

Dr. MAHLMAN. Yes, I am. I am a participant, in fact.

Mr. ROEMER. Are those the kind of programs that you know are putting out posters and promotional activities? Or are these things

that are helpful in terms of determining if and to what degree we have a problem?

Dr. MAHLMAN. By the way, I am a non-funded participant in that program, working collaboratively with them on mathematical modeling techniques.

I am an employee of NOAA. I do not speak for NOAA here today. I am Chair of the Mission to Planet Earth NASA Scientific Advisory Committee. I do not speak for NASA here today.

I do speak to your question however.

Mr. ROEMER. Who do you speak for?

Dr. MAHLMAN. I speak for Jerry Mahlman. Okay? I am nobody's witness but mine. Okay?

I strongly concur with what Patrick Michaels just said on the value of the long-term climate measuring system. It is in my testimony, both verbal and recorded.

The simple truth, that no matter what we feel about this, what our opinions are, that the check for theories or counter-theories is in the data, and as a mathematical modeler, I have been saying that for the last decade, that this is something we are doing badly.

The ability to do that has decreased in this most recent budget. Okay. Money for certain climate activities has indeed decreased, particularly in the climate & global change program in NOAA because it was labeled as long-term climate research, and therefore inappropriate.

I expect to lose money in working in my laboratory on cloud and radiation research, which is a key uncertainty, and aerosol research directly as a result of that decision.

Okay, I am not here to complain, but you have asked. I see the effect in NASA more vicious in terms of the ability to measure and understand the climate system. It is a real effect; it is not politics, it is impacting the ability to do good science.

Mr. ROEMER. And let me ask both you and Dr. Guerrero on this. On a scale of one to ten, how important is it to gather more data on cloud absorption properties and then secondly on aerosol.

Mr. GUERRERO. We have been told that one of the primary introductions of uncertainty into the current modeling is the limitations on modeling clouds, so I would rank that as very high.

And your second area was?

Mr. ROEMER. Cloud absorption properties and aerosols.

Mr. GUERRERO. And aerosols. I would pass on aerosols to Jerry. Dr. MAHLMAN. Both of the measurements are absolutely critical because they are key to our fundamental understanding of what mother nature tells us about what our theories are saying. Okay. That is the classical iteration between theory and observation; and it is theories that state how you hypothesize and address a problem, but it is the data that keeps you honest.

In both cases, the aerosol effect is expected to be a cooling offset that we do not understand quantitatively on a first-principles basis. The same with clouds. I think that both sets of measurements and the brain power to make them work is absolutely and fundamentally critical and a very high leverage opportunity.

Mr. ROEMER. Thank you.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Roemer, if you would like one more question, because I was, the Chair did intrude on your time, so if you would like one more question, please feel free.

Mr. ROEMER. I am fine, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. There is a vote on. There is unfortunately some parliamentary haggling going on on the Floor of the House of Representatives

(Laughter.]

Mr. ROHRABACHER. [continuing] -and elsewhere in Washington. So anyway, this Committee, this subcommittee will be recessed until after this vote, and the witnesses, you can be sure we have a lot more questions to ask.

[Recess.]

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Ladies and gentlemen, I call this subcommittee back into order. It seems we generated at least some heat in the initial part of the discussion. I do not know if it has anything to do with warming or not.

But we do have with us today my esteemed colleague who actually has a better understanding of almost every one of these issues than I do. And he is one of the few Members of Congress who is a scientist, and I am a journalist by profession, which puts me one step above a lawyer, being a lawyer.

But we have a scientist with us today who has, as I say, a deeper understanding. And I would like to call on my colleague, Mr. Bartlett, from Maryland, for his period of questioning.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much.

I will say, at the outset, that I come with no preconceptions. And let me tell you why. As a child I was, and am still fascinated by several observations.

One, I remember as a little boy, breaking lumps of coal in our basement and just being fascinated when it broke open and there was what looked like a large fern leaf to me. And so I knew that at one time, the chilly, western Pennsylvania had a very different climate, because that is where the coal came from.

I also remember the interesting stories of the discovery of mammoths in the tundra, frozen with subtropical vegetation in their stomachs.

I remember observing the lateral moraines produced by an Ice Age that came as far south as southeastern Ohio. I remember seeing the petrified forest in the western part of our country.

All of these, of course, are testimony to enormous climate changes in the past, climate changes which presumably were not much, if at all, affected by the activities of man.

Now more recently, I am fascinated by the discussions that we have. On the one hand, we are told that the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases are going to raise the temperature of our planet.

Then there is the somewhat complicating effect of the sulfur aerosols, and I remember the considerable discussion led by people of some renown, like Dr. Carl Sagan, who indicated that he anticipated a nuclear winter from the pollutants that were produced by nuclear exchange in a country.

So on the one hand, we have people saying that pollution is going to produce global warming. On the other hand, we have people say