ples from the northern hemisphere. Do the examples from the southern hemisphere have the same result? Dr. ALBRITTON. They do have a similar shape. They are sparser in number because of the lack of observing systems in the southern hemisphere. Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So you are saying that the southern hemisphere that the tree rings and the things that you have shown and studied in the southern hemisphere, shows the same as the northern hemisphere. Dr. ALBRITTON. It isn't identical because of the difference between land masses and water— Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. Dr. ALBRITTON. -but the idea of a variation that is on the order of maybe a plus or minus of degree Celsius Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. Dr. ALBRITTON. —looks typical in the southern hemisphere. Dr. ALBRITTON. But the uncertainty bars, which is the gray area Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Now, I have heard different than that. Let me just say, for the record, that there are some scientists that have suggested that there is a difference in the northern and southern hemisphere in terms of this-these observations. The and I have noticed even in your own observations here that in 1175 you have almost the same amount of, I guess it is, the global temperature as you have at a year ago. Is there some reason for that? I mean, is this a global warming trend when it is a—your tree rings seem to indicate in 1175 it is the same temperature? Dr. ALBRITTON. Yeah. The message I take away from the blue curves in those figures is that over the 850 years of this millennium at the beginning, temperature varied on the order of a of a degree Celsius. Mr. ROHRABACHER. Uh-huh. Dr. ALBRITTON. The first 400 years were relatively warm compared to the second 400 years, but the last 150 years have been warmer than all of the preceding 850 Mr. ROHRABACHER. But there were spikes here, you know, and that brings me to one thing. There are natural-of course, we just talked about 80 to 90 percent of all of this is natural. For example, volcanoes certainly it would cause a spike. Would they not? Dr. ALBRITTON. Volcanoes certainly do alter temperature— Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. But I had one Dr. ALBRITTON. -but they cause a cooling— Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. Dr. ALBRITTON. —and it only lasts for a year or two because the particles Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. But they also-it also adds a lot of CO2 in the environment. Doesn't it? Dr. ALBRITTON. The amount of CO2 from volcanoes is very small compared to the Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Okay. Dr. ALBRITTON. -burning of fossil fuels. Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is good. I just learned something. What about tree rot? Dr. ALBRITTON. The input of CO2 to the atmosphere Mr. ROHRABACHER. From tree rot. Dr. ALBRITTON. Yes. Comes from either burning biomass or the decay of biomass. Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. So Dr. ALBRITTON. It is the way it is Mr. ROHRABACHER. -rotting trees in the forest, in our-whatthe rain forests throughout the world, what percentage-how would you relate that to, for example, automobiles? Dr. ÅLBRITTON. I don't know that comparison quantitatively, but I could say that the uptake by the biosphere and then the release when it dies is observed in the annual record of CO2. Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. Dr. ALBRITTON. The steady of change of the amount of trees growing in the world also has been observed to Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, sure. But trees-new trees growing, obviously, help in this problem. Dr. ALBRITTON. They do. Mr. ROHRABACHER. But old trees rotting in the— Dr. ALBRITTON. They do. Mr. ROHRABACHER. So according to what you-some people in your position are some people who are global warming advocates-let us put it that way-would be the best thing would be to clear away all the rain forests and then plant new trees rather than having all those rotten trees out there. Isn't that right? Dr. ALBRITTON. I can't comment that Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, that is what seems consistent with me. And then one last thing-one last question, if you will indulge me, Mr. Chairman. We have here some observed changes consistent with warming theory. It says glaciers are retreating, the amount of snow is decreasing, and sea level is going up. Now, and thishave we ever had that in the history of this planet before? I mean, I seem to remember when I was taking my very first class in geology, that they talked about the retreating glaciers and the expanding glaciers that happened over millions of years, even before we got on this planet. Aren't all of those things-weren't those observable even before mankind lit the first fire? Dr. ALBRITTON. Yes. Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Dr. ALBRITTON. All of these changes are natural changes that have been observed to be faster or larger in the last 50 to 100 years Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Well, I— Dr. ALBRITTON. -than the preceding 1,000 years. Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I thank you for saying they were all observable before research Chairman BOEHLERT. The Chair will indulge the gentleman and extend the time so the witnesses would have an opportunity to answer the question. Mr. ROHRABACHER. I know. But I have got a few questions and one question could be answering the whole thing. I appreciate— Chairman BOEHLERT. No. I understand. Mr. ROHRABACHER. I appreciate your answers. And let me just say your answers have convinced me more research is necessary, which was the position of the Chair. Thank you very much. Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman is on record supporting more research. The Chair recognizes Mr. Etheridge. Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding. Let me also thank you for having this hearing on what I consider a very important issue and trust that we can have some bipartisan work together to deal with this very difficult issue. I think it affects us all. But let me bring you to an issue, back to the original issue, you talked about-I think that is how people understand it, how it impacts them and how it hits home. I have the privilege of representing North Carolina and we have seen the deadly forces of hurricanes and tropical storms in recent years. And Hurricane Floyd hit a little over almost 2 years ago now. It was the most costly natural event in the history of our state and one of the largest in this country. We lost 50 lives and, in the process, people in North Carolina have a much better appreciation of El Niño and La Niña phenomena. They don't understand what it is, but when you start talking about weather, they pay attention. And you mention The Weather Channel, and it is probably more commonly watched now, for those who have cable, than ever before in history. I don't remember who it was who mentioned the educational aspect of it. But I would say that we-I was a state superintendent of schools, incidentally, for 8 years, and we do hurricane drills, we do tornado drills. I think we need to expand that and do a much better job of helping children understand the need. Because what we are dealing with here is the effect and not the cause, and we need to get beyond that. There seems to be a considerable consensus that there is an issue we need to deal with, and let me get to my question very quickly. What does science tell us about the effects of climate change on tropical storms, their strength and intensity, and where they may have landfall? And I know we are working on that. But, you know, so long we think about hurricanes and-hitting the coastal counties. Well, Hurricane Floyd was 150 miles inland and we have had others who do that. So it is a broader issue now and we need to pay attention to it and I would appreciate having each one of you comment on that, if you would, please. Dr. ALBRITTON. Yes. A very good point. It is in that class of extreme climate variations which, indeed, have been occurring throughout our history and past records. But we question naturally whether this is to be different in the future or has it already changed. And to go straight to the point, science cannot yet state, with certainty, what will happen to hurricanes and their strength and their infrequency in a warmer world. One may hear from other source's comments, but the scientific community says that this is too difficult a problem to make a statement on at present, and, therefore, comments about increased cost of hurricane disasters is not part of any trend that scientists can point to at the present. Mr. ETHERIDGE. Dr. Moore. Dr. MOORE. Let me just elaborate on that. And using the language that I requested my colleagues and myself use, we think we know that the hydrologic cycle will be intensified. That is, there will be more evaporation, more precipitation. What we don't know is will there be a change in severe storms associated with the intensification of the hydrologic cycle. Dr. KENNEL. The there is evidence, which is not conclusive, that wave action from storms in the Pacific and Atlantic, have increased over the last few tens of years. So there is some evidence, but I don't think there is a conclusive story. The most recent snowstorm that occurred around here, sort of a case in point-do you know one of the triumphs was that we knew it was coming 5 to 7 days in advance. The problem was, we didn't predict exactly where it was going to come and when it was going to come. And part of the problem had been that there was a weather system out there in the Pacific that went underobserved until it hit landfall in-on the west coast, and, at that point, it started getting ingested into the models. But until that time, you couldn't you know, the prediction that people had, based on the information they had, was not accurate enough. And the final comment I would make is, is it is my understanding that the Weather Service was extremely careful in predicting showing its uncertainty about this storm, but, nonetheless, people got attracted to the extreme characterization of it. Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you. I am going to try to get one more in before my time runs out because— Chairman BOEHLERT. It had better be a quickie, because you have got 15 seconds. Mr. ETHERIDGE. Well, I will just make a statement in that regard. Because each one has talked about research. It is important to have it. Sometimes we forget the fact of what it costs us not to do it. And in North Carolina, we the Federal Government invested billions. The state has invested hundreds of millions. That is true all across America. If we look at the cost after, we would probably be a little more prudent and put it into dollars up front for prevention. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. And I appreciate the Committee's indulgence of the Chair, but we are trying to give everyone an opportunity to get their questions. Mr. Calvert. Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing and to update what we know about the state of global climate. I would like to say, first off, that I still remain skeptical that climate change is being driven by manmade pollutants-that what is occurring isn't simply natural variability. I will become convinced when someone answers the following persistent questions about climate change science and can persuade me that our understanding is being driven by good consensus science, not just consensus politics. First, I am concerned about the quality of the climate models. While they are improving, they do not even begin to capture the complexity of our atmosphere. Last time I was briefed on this subject and I know I have been briefed on this subject by Dr. Albritton several times-last time I was briefed on this subject, I was informed that there is no way to adequately assess the effect of clouds in the models. I hope we will continue to improve our models and that we will be gaining-gain an accurate idea of what is actually happening, not a bunch of guesstimates based on these incomplete models and data. That leads me to my second point-the data. We have several sets of data, land-based measurements, balloon measurements, and satellite measurements. The satellite data gives us the most complete coverage of the planet's temperatures yet, while the satellite data shows minuscule warming over the last 20 years or so. The surface temperature record shows rapid warming in the late 1990's. The balloon data tend to agree with the satellites. Surface-temperature data is where the warming is showing up. There have also been some questions about the calibration and location of some of the older land-based weather-data collection stations. Are they giving us data that is accurate as newer systems, and is adequate adjustment being made for the urban-heat island effect? Also, most of earth's surface is water, and, yet, I see very few data entries from ocean locations. How many climate data points do we have in the ocean to monitor the surface temperature? These issues must be thoroughly addressed. Third, I haven't seen data to indicate to me that CO2 is that great a threat, and so I would have to differ with our Chairman and be grateful to the Administration for their statement yesterday. At 360 PPM, I am told, we are at the low end of the historic CO2 concentrations for Planet Earth. We are up from the incredibly low levels we saw over the past several hundred years. Also, there is a curious observation made by some scientists that temperature increases often precede increases in atmospheric CO2. This maybe simply mean that the planet warms more sequestered carbon is released. Science also carried a study that suggested that United States might be a net carbon sink, which I think is interesting, meaning that we emit less than our land mass takes up. All of these questions are of a serious concern to me and I would like to hear them addressed in this and future hearings before we set a policy that may have unintended consequences. And with that, gentlemen, convince me. Dr. MOORE. Let me address two of your points, the first and the third. The first, on the role of clouds, in my testimony, I tried to highlight that. That is one of the great challenges. Clouds are on a scale of tens of miles, but cloud systems are on a planetary scale. How to handle that in the computing calculations is a real serious challenge. However, in the last 5 years, we have made progress. It is not an area where we can point to no progress, but it is still inadequate progress. So that is why I felt that it was important to highlight the role of clouds and the necessary computing resources to, essentially, have the types of models that could address that problem. Secondly, on your third point, on carbon-two points. One, the CO2 concentration levels of 360 parts per million are higher than anything we have seen in the last 400,000 years. So if we look back through the last four glacial periods and interglacial periods, we have never seen anything like the concentrations we have today. Secondly, the study that you spoke about that perhaps the United States or North America is a net carbon sink, is in the published literature and was taken into consideration in the IPCC. What we realize is that while we can talk about the average in |