[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 4, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18-S24]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as I said on the Senate floor on July 28,
2003, much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear
rather than science. I am the chairman of the Environment and Public
Works Committee. In addition to its normal expected jurisdictions, the
committee also has a lot to do with the Energy bill. We have probably
as many provisions in the Energy bill as the Energy Committee does. It
is one with which we have great concern.
We recognize we have an energy crisis in America. The House passed a
very good Energy bill last year. We should have passed it in the
Senate. We did not. I hope we will pass it this time. In the meantime,
we need to do what I committed to do when I became chairman of the
Environment and Public Works Committee 2 years ago. We are going to
encourage decisions that are made in Government to be made on sound
science.
Many times that is not the case, and such a case is the hoax referred
to as ``global warming.'' I called the threat of catastrophic global
warming the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people in a
statement, to put it mildly, that was not viewed very kindly by the
environmental extremists and their elitist organizations.
I also pointed out in a lengthy committee report that those same
environmental extremists exploit the issue for fundraising purposes,
raking in millions of dollars, even using Federal taxpayers' dollars to
finance the campaigns.
For these groups, the issue of catastrophic global warming is not
just a favored fundraising tool. In truth, it is more fundamental than
that. Put simply, man-induced global warming is an article of religious
faith to the radical far left alarmists. Therefore, contending that its
central tenets are flawed to them is heresy and of the most despicable
kind. Furthermore, scientists who challenge its tenets are attacked
sometimes personally for blindly ignoring the so-called scientific
consensus. That is not all. Because of their skeptical views, they are
contemptuous, dismissed for being ``out of the mainstream.''
This seems to me highly ironic. Aren't scientists to be nonconforming
and question consensus? Nevertheless, it is not hard to read between
the lines. ``Skeptic'' and ``out of mainstream'' are their thinly
veiled code phrases meaning anyone who doubts the alarmists' orthodoxy
is, in short, a quack.
I have insisted all along that the climate change debate should be
based on fundamental principles and science, not religion. Ultimately,
I hope it will be decided by hard facts and data and by serious
scientists committed to the principles of sound science instead of
censoring skeptical viewpoints, as my alarmist friends favor.
These scientists must be heard, and I will do my part to make sure
they are
[[Page S19]]
heard. I am sure the Presiding Officer from Rhode Island is very much
concerned with the sound science with which we address this subject.
Since my detailed climate change speech in 2003, so-called skeptics
continue to speak out. What they are saying is devastating to the
alarmists. They amassed additional scientific evidence convincingly
refuting the alarmists' most cherished assumptions and beliefs. New
evidence has emerged that further undermines their conclusions, most
notably those of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, IPCC, one of the major pillars of the authorities cited by the
extremists and climate alarmists.
I guess what I am saying is we are going to be looking at this new
evidence. Just since we have adjourned and have come back in today to
swear in our new Members, the scientists are almost entirely on the
side that there is no sound science behind the idea that, No. 1, the
climate is changing and, No. 2, if it is that it is the result of
manmade gases. Evidence has come to light in very interesting times.
Just last month, the 10th Conference of the Parties--that is called
the COP-10--to the Framework Convention on Climate Change met in Buenos
Aires to discuss Kyoto's implementation and measures to pursue beyond
Kyoto.
As most of my colleagues know, Kyoto goes into effect on February 16.
I think, with the exception of Russia, an exception I will explain
later, the nations that ratified Kyoto and agreed to submit to its
mandates are making a very serious mistake.
I went to this meeting, the conference, COP-9, last year in Milan,
Italy. It was shocking to see what was actually going on there. I was
involved in a mission in west Africa. I saw a person I deal with on a
regular basis from a little country in west Africa who was there. It
happens that his title in his country's government is Minister of the
Environment. I said: What are you doing here? Do you really believe in
this Kyoto stuff?
He said: Oh, no, this is the biggest party of the year.
These people are paid for by the United Nations and paid for by this
country, in an inordinate amount, percentage, to come up with and have
big parties for 3, 4, 5 days in some of the most exotic places in the
world just to show support for Kyoto. It is outrageous.
In addition, last month, a popular author, Dr. Michael Crichton, who
has questioned the wisdom of those who trumpet a scientific consensus,
released a new book called ``State of Fear.'' You all know who Dr.
Michael Crichton is. He is a medical doctor as well as a scientist and
best-selling author. This is all premised on the global warming debate.
I am happy to report Dr. Crichton's new book reached No. 3 on the New
York Times bestseller list. I highly recommend this book to the
Presiding Officer. I will supply him with this book because I think it
is imperative people see some of what is going on right now and how
public opinion is catching on to this hoax that has permeated our
country for so long.
Dr. Crichton, as I said, is a medical doctor and scientist. He very
cleverly weaved a very compelling presentation of the scientific facts
of climate change--with ample footnotes and documentation throughout, I
might add--into a gripping plot. From what I can gather Dr. Crichton's
book is designed to bring some sanity to the global warming debate. In
the author's message at the end of his book, he refreshingly states
what scientists have suspected for years. He says:
We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that
began about 1850--
I do not know who will argue with that.
--as we emerged from a 400 year cold spell known as the
Little Ice Age.
Dr. Crichton states that ``nobody knows how much of the present
warming trend might be a natural phenomenon,'' and ``Nobody knows how
much of the present trend might be man-made.''
For those who see impending disaster in the coming century, Dr.
Crichton writes:
I suspect that people of 2100 will be much richer than we
are, consume much more energy, have a smaller global
population, and enjoy more wilderness than we have today. I
don't think we have to worry about them.
For those who do worry or induce such worries in others, ``State of
Fear'' has a very simple message: Stop worrying and stop spreading
fear. Throughout the book, fictional environmental organizations are
more focused on raising money, principally by scaring potential
contributors with bogus scientific claims and predictions of the global
apocalypse, than they are with saving the environment.
As the saying goes, here we have art imitating life. As my colleagues
will remember from a floor speech I gave last year, this is part and
parcel of what these organizations peddle to the general public. Their
fearmongering knows no bounds. Just consider the debate over mercury
emissions. President Bush proposed the first ever cap to reduce mercury
emissions from powerplants by 70 percent. True to form, these groups
said he was allowing more mercury into the air. Now stop and think
about it. Right now there is no cap on mercury. It is proposed by this
President for the first time.
As I mentioned earlier, several nations, including the United States,
met in Buenos Aires in December for the 10th round of the international
climate change negotiations. I am happy to report that the U.S.
delegation held firm both in its categorical rejection of Kyoto and the
questionable science behind it.
Paula Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs and the
leader of the U.S. delegation, put it very well when she told the
conference:
Science tells us that we cannot say with any certainty what
constitutes a dangerous level of warming, and therefore what
level must be avoided.
Ms. Dobriansky and her team also rebuffed attempts by the European
Union to drag the United States into discussions concerning post-Kyoto
climate change commitments. With the ink barely dry on Kyoto
ratification, not to mention what the science of climate change is
telling us, Ms. Dobriansky was right in dubbing post-2012 talks
premature.
It was clear from discussions in Buenos Aires that Kyoto supporters
desperately want the United States to impose on itself mandatory
greenhouse emissions controls. Moreover, there was considerable
discussion but no apparent resolution over how to address emissions
from developing countries such as India and especially China, which
over the coming decades will be the world's leading emitter of
greenhouse gases.
Developing nations, most notably China, remained adamant in Buenos
Aires in opposing any mandatory greenhouse gas reductions now or any
time in the future. Securing this commitment was a necessary component
for the U.S. ratification of Kyoto.
Now, some may not have been here at the time, but 2 years ago we
passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution that said that if Kyoto treats
developing nations any different than developed nations, we will not
ratify it. That passed 95 to 0. Every Senator voted that way, and it
was very clear. So I think one can say with that commitment at least in
the United States that Kyoto is dead.
Kyoto goes into force on February 16. According to the European Union
Environmental Ministry, most EU member states will not meet their Kyoto
targets. That is kind of interesting because the very people who are
behind it and are so adamant that, yes, we must do this, are the ones
who have not met their voluntary targets and have no real intention of
doing so. They may do so only on paper due to Russia's ratification of
the treaty.
Russia, of course, ratified Kyoto not because its government believes
in catastrophic global warming--it does not--but because ratification
was Russia's key to joining the World Trade Organization. Also, under
Kyoto, Russia can profit from selling emission credits to the European
Union and continue business as usual without undertaking economically
harmful emissions reductions.
Just stop and think about this now. We are talking about the huge,
massive country of Russia. I have been active in aviation for 48 years
now, and I had occasion a few years ago to fly an airplane around the
world, replicating the flight of Wiley Post. In doing so, I went all
the way across Siberia. I can remember going not just hour after hour
but time zone after time zone, seeing no signs of civilization, just
great forests. Well, they ended up getting credits for all of that.
When I talked to the
[[Page S20]]
Russian people last year in Milan, Italy, they were very
straightforward, saying: No, there is no science to it, but we stand to
make millions of dollars if we sign on to this thing.
That was my first indication that they were going to do so.
So as the talks in Buenos Aires revealed, if alarmists cannot get
what they want at the negotiating table, they will try other means. I
was told by reliable sources that some delegation members of the
European Union suddenly hinted that America's rejection of Kyoto could
be grounds for a challenge under WTO. I surely hope this was just a
hypothetical suggestion and not something our European friends are
actively and seriously considering. I predict such a move would be
devastating to the United States and the United States-European Union
relations, not to mention the WTO itself.
I suspect it is not just hypothetical. The lawsuit is the stock and
trade of environmental activists. We are witnessing a new crop of
global warming lawsuits now being leveled at individual U.S. companies
and at the United States itself.
In Buenos Aires, Earth Justice, a San Francisco-based environmental
group, and the Center for International Law announced plans to seek a
ruling from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that the
U.S., because of its supposed contribution to global warming, is
causing environmental degradation in the Arctic and therefore violating
the human rights of Alaska's Inuits, or Eskimos. As the New York Times
wrote:
The commission, an investigative arm of the Organization of
American States, has no enforcement powers. But a declaration
that the United States has violated the Inuits' rights could
create the foundation for an eventual lawsuit, either against
the United States in an international court or against
American companies in a U.S. court, said a number of legal
experts, including some aligned with industry.
The Times did not mention that such lawsuits already have been filed
with the U.S.
Eliot Spitzer, New York's State attorney general, along with eight
other State attorneys general, mainly from the Northeast, last year
sued five coal burning electric utilities in the Midwest. The reason:
``Given that these are among the largest carbon dioxide polluters in
the world,'' Mr. Spitzer wrote, ``it is essential that the court direct
them to reduce their emissions.''
To me, this is a clear-cut sign of desperation by the alarmists, but
I am not surprised. President Bush has rejected Kyoto. The Senate has
rejected Kyoto 95 to 0. The Senate rejected the McCain-Lieberman bill
by 55 to 43, and there is little hope that Congress will pass
mandatory greenhouse gas reduction, at least not in the near future. So
resorting to the courts is their last hope. I hope the courts have
enough sense in moderation to reject these lawsuits out of hand.
I am interested, for one, to see how Mr. Spitzer quantifies with
scientific precision just how these particular companies have
contributed to climate change. How is it, one might ask, that
emissions, specifically from American Electric Power, are causing
rising sea levels, droughts, or hurricanes? Such efforts fly in the
face of compelling new scientific evidence that makes a mockery of
these lawsuits.
By now most everyone familiar with the climate change debate knows
about the hockey stick graph constructed by Dr. Michael Mann and his
colleagues which shows that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere
remained relatively stable over 900 years and then spiked upward in the
20th century. The hockey stick graph was featured prominently in IPCC's
third assessment report published in 2001. The conclusion inferred from
the hockey stick is that industrialization, which spawned widespread
use of fossil fuels, is causing the planet to warm.
I spent considerable time examining this work in my 2003 speech
because Dr. Michael Mann effectively erased the well-known phenomena of
the medieval warming period. In other words, he never even recognized--
I wish we had the chart because I have a chart that shows this, and one
can see the shaft of the hockey stick over 900 years go like this, but
all of a sudden in the 20th century it starts up like this, and they
failed to realize that there was another blade in the hockey stick that
was the medieval warming period where the temperatures were warmer than
they are today. This has been going on since creation. I think the fact
that he did it--I was challenged in a speech that I made in Italy on
this subject. I said I believe Michael Mann must have intentionally
left that off because that completely destroys the credibility of his
findings.
But don't take my word for it. Just ask Dr. Hans Von Storch, a noted
German climate researcher, who, along with colleagues, published a
devastating finding in the Sept. 30, 2004 issue of Science magazine. As
the authors wrote: ``We were able to show in a publication in Science
that this [hockey stick] graph contains assumptions that are not
permissible. Methodologically it is wrong: Rubbish.''
Dr. Von Storch and colleagues discovered that the Mann hockey stick
had severely underestimated past climate variability. In a commentary
on Dr. von Storch's paper, T.J. Osborn and K.R. Briffa, prominent
paleoclimatologists from the University of East Anglia, stressed the
importance of the findings. As they wrote, ``The message of the study
by von Storch et al. is that existing reconstructions of the NH
[northern hemisphere] temperature of recent centuries may
systematically underestimate the true centennial variability of
climate'' . . . and, ``If the true natural variability of NH [northern
hemisphere] temperature is indeed greater than is currently accepted,
the extent to which recent warming can be viewed as `unusual' would
need to be reassessed.'' In other words, in obliterating the Medieval
Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, Mann's hockey stick just doesn't
pass muster.
Dr. Von Storch is one of many critics of Michael Mann's hockey stick.
To recount just one example, three geophysicists from the University of
Utah, in the April 7, 2004 issue of Geophysical Research Letters,
concluded that Mann's methods used to create his temperature
reconstruction were deeply flawed. In fact, their judgment is harsher
than that. As they wrote, Mann's results are ``based on using end
points in computing changes in an oscillating series'' and are ``just
bad science.'' I repeat: ``just bad science.''
As to the arctic climate assessment, these findings, alongside a
spate of new reports, at least in the eyes of the media supposedly
confirm the ``consensus'' on global warming. ``The Arctic Climate
Impact Assessment,'' released last fall, perfectly fits that mold.
``Arctic Perils Seen in Warming,'' blared a headline by the New York
Times. As the Times wrote: ``The findings support the broad but
politically controversial scientific consensus that global warming is
caused mainly by rising atmosphere concentrations of heat-trapping
greenhouse gases, and that the Arctic is the first region to feel its
effects.''
What do we really know about temperatures in the Arctic? Let's take a
closer look. As Oregon State University climatologist George Taylor has
shown, Arctic temperatures are actually slightly cooler today than they
were in the 1930s. As Dr. Taylor has explained, it's all relative--in
other words, it depends on the specific time period chosen in making
temperature comparisons. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Dr.
Taylor wrote: ``appears to be guilty of selective use of data. Many of
the trends described in the document begin in the 1960s or 1970s--cool
decades in much of the world--and end in the warmer 1990s or early
2000s. So, for example, temperatures have warmed in the last 40 years,
and the implication, `if present trends continue,' is that massive
warming will occur in the next century.''
Dr. Taylor concluded this way: ``Yet data are readily available for
the 1930s and early 1940s, when temperatures were comparable to (and
probably higher than) those observed today. Why not start the
trend there? Because there is no net warming over the last 65 years?
This is pretty convincing stuff. But, one might say, this is only one
scientist, while nearly 300 scientists in several countries, including
the United States, signed onto the Arctic report. I want to submit for
the record a list of scientists, compiled by the Center For Science and
Public Policy, from several countries, including the United States,
whose published work shows current Arctic temperature is no higher than
temperatures in 1930s and 1940s.
[[Page S21]]
For example, according to a group of 7 scientists in a 2003 issue of
the Journal of Climate: ``In contrast to the global and hemispheric
temperature, the maritime Arctic temperature was higher in the late
1930s through the early 1940s than in the 1990s.'' Or how about this
excerpt from the 2000 International Journal of Climatology, by Dr.
Rajmund Przybylak, of Nicholas Copernicus University, in Torun, Poland:
``The highest temperatures since the beginning of instrumental
observation occcured clearly in the 1930s and can be attributed to
changes in atmospheric circulation.''
I ask unanimous consent the list of scientists be printed in the
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[See exhibit 1.]
Mr. INHOFE. Despite this evidence, alarmism is live and well. As you
can see behind me, the Washington Post today ran an editorial cartoon
that, yes, actually blames the Sumatra tsunami on global warming. Are
we to believe now that global warming is causing earthquakes? The
tsunami, of course, was caused by an earthquake off Sumatra's coast
deep beneath the sea floor, completely disconnected from whatever the
climate was doing at the surface. Regrettably, the tsunami-warming
connection merely confirms the state of fear extremists are so eager to
create. As Terence Corcoran of Canada's Financial Post wrote: ``The
urge to capitalize on the horror in Asia is just too great for some to
resist if it might help their cause . . . Green Web sites are already
filling up with references to tsunami risks associated with global
warming.''
There is something inhumane about that, that they would capitalize on
the tragedy of a hundred thousand people to push a hoax like global
warming.
To address this, let's ask some simple questions: Is global warming
causing more extreme weather events of greater intensity, and is it
causing sea levels to rise? The answer to all of these is emphatically
no. Just look at this chart behind me. It's titled ``Climate Related
Disasters in Asia: 1900 to 1990s.'' What does it show? It shows the
number of such disasters in Asia, and the deaths attributed to them,
declining fairly sharply over the last 30 years.
Let's take hurricanes. Alarmists linked last year's hurricanes that
devastated parts of Florida to global warming. But this is patently
false. Credible meteorologists were quick to dismiss such claims. Hugh
Willoughby, senior scientist at the International Hurricane Research
Center of Florida International University stated Plainly: ``This isn't
a global-warming sort of thing. . . It's a natural cycle,'' A team led
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Dr.
Christopher Landsea concluded that the relationship of global
temperatures to the number of intense land-falling hurricanes is either
non-existent or very weak. In this chart you can see that the overall
number of hurricanes and the number of the strongest hurricanes
fluctuated greatly during the last century, with a great number in the
1940s. In fact, through the last decade, the intensity of these storms
has declined somewhat.
What about sea level rise? Alarmists have claimed for years that sea
level, because of anthropogenic warming, is rising rapidly. Based on
modeling, the IPCC estimated that sea level will rise 1.8 millimeters
annually, or about one-fourteenth of an inch.
But in a study published this year in Global and Planetary Change,
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Sweden found that sea level rise hysteria was
overblown. In his study, which relied not only on observational
records, but also on satellites he concluded that: ``there is a total
absence of any recent `acceleration in sea level rise' as often claimed
by IPCC and related groups.'' Yet we still hear of a future world
overwhelmed by floods due to global warming. Such claims are completely
out of touch with science. As Sweden's Morner puts it, ``there is no
fear of massive future flooding as claimed in most global warming
scenarios.''
What I have outlined today will not appear in the New York Times.
Instead you will read much about ``consensus'' and Kyoto and hand
wringing by its editorial writers that unrestricted carbon dioxide
emissions from the United States are harming the planet. You will read
nothing, of course, about how Kyoto-like policies harm Americans,
especially the poor and minorities, causing higher energy prices,
reduced economic growth, and fewer jobs. After all, that is the real
purpose behind Kyoto, as Morgot Wallstrom, the EU's environment
minister, said in a moment of candor. To her, Kyoto is about ``leveling
the playing field'' for businesses worldwide--in other words, we can't
compete, so let's use a feel-good treaty, based on shoddy science,
fear, and alarmism, which will have no perceptible impact on the
environment, to restrict America's economic growth and prosperity.
Unfortunately for Ms. Wallstrom and Kyoto's staunchest advocates,
America was wise to the scheme, and it has rejected Kyoto and similar
policies convincingly. Whatever Kyoto is about--to some, such as French
President Jacques Chirac, it's about forming ``an authentic global
governance''--it's the wrong policy and it won't work, as many
participants in Buenos Aires conceded.
I recommend--and I will include at the end of my remarks--the
economic study which was done by the Wharton School of Economics
talking about what would happen to America and the cost of global
warming. If we should sign on to Kyoto, what would it cost? They go
into detail. They talk about doubling the price of energy. They talk
about the price of fuel more than doubling.
Keep in mind this is the economic survey. They talk about the cost to
the average family of four in America being $2,715 a year by 2010.
People have to understand that the economic destruction of our
country is something that would inure to the benefit of the European
Union and many others who are in competition with us. We have to
understand that there is an economic motive behind it which one would
have to seriously consider.
Despite the bias, omissions, and distortions by the media and
extremist groups, the real story about global warming is being told
and, judging by the success of Michael Crichton's ``State of Fear,''
much to the dismay of certain groups, it is now being told to the
American public.
I think one thing which we all have to understand in this body is we
have to recognize the fact that we have an energy crisis in America
today. Right now, there are a few people around the country who are now
catching on that it is true. We need all forms of energy to run this
great machine called America. Our forms of energy can be nuclear, they
can be renewable, they can be fossil fuel, coal, oil, gas, all of the
above. It is what we will have to have in order to be competitive.
Chairing the committee and being active in the upcoming energy bill,
we anticipate being realistic in thinking about not just ourselves
today--not just my four kids or my 12 grandchildren and future
generations--but you are going to have to run this most successful,
highly industrialized machine ever conceived in the history of the
world. And you can't do it sitting around closing the door on all
opportunities that we have for energy. Certainly one is coal.
Certainly we need to look at this whole issue of global warming and
what the real motives are of these people who are behind this.
I gave a speech on this floor the last session and talked about the
amount of money--I am also going to insert that for the Record--being
paid to elect people, money that is being filtered through a lot of
these organizations. There is a lot of money made out there by causing
people to be fearful, by making people afraid, by making people feel
that the world is coming to an end. It is not.
Exhibit I
Scientist
Rajmund Przybylak, Department of Climatology, Nicholas
Copernicus University, Torun, Poland
Paper
Temporal and spatial variance of surface air temperature
over the period of instrumental observations in the Arctic,
International Journal of Climatology, 20, 587-614, 2000.
Key Quote or Synopsis
``A detailed analysis of the spatial and temporal changes
in mean seasonal and annual surface air temperatures over the
period of instrumental observations in the Arctic is
presented . . . The presented analysis
[[Page S22]]
shows that the observed variations in air temperature in the
real Arctic (defined on the basis of climate as opposed to
other criteria, e.g. astronomical or botanical) are in many
aspects not consistent with the projected climatic changes
computed by climatic models for the enhanced greenhouse
effect. The highest temperatures since the beginning of
instrumental observation occurred clearly in the 1930s and
can be attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation. The
second phase of contemporary global warming (after 1975) is,
at most, weakly marked in the Arctic. For example, the mean
rate of warming for the period 1991-1995 was 2-3 times lower
in the Arctic than the global average. Temperature levels
observed in Greenland in the last 10-20 years are similar to
those observed in the 19th century.''
____
Scientists
Igor V. Polyakov, Roman V. Bekryaev, Uma S. Bhatt, Roger L.
Colony, Alexander P. Maskshtas, David Walsh,
International Arctic Research Center, University of
Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska
Genrikh V. Alekseev, Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute,
St. Petersburg, Russia
Mark A. Johnson, Institute of Marine Science, University of
Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska
Paper
Variability and trends of air temperature and pressure in
the Maritime Arctic, 1875-2000, Journal of Climate, 16, 2086-
2092, 2003.
Key Quote or Synopsis
``Arctic atmospheric variability during the industrial era
(1875-2000) is assessed using spatially averaged surface air
temperature (SAT) and sea level pressure (SLP) records. Air
temperature and pressure display strong multidecadal
variability on timescales of 50-80 yr. Associated with this
variability, the Arctic SAT record shows two maxima: in the
1930s-40s and in recent decades, with two colder periods in
between. In contrast to the global and hemispheric
temperature, the maritime Arctic temperature was higher in
the late 1930s through the early 1940s than in the 1990s.''
____
Scientists
James. E. Overland, Harold O. Mofjeld, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Pacific Marine Laboratory,
Seattle, Washington
Michael C. Spillane, Donald B. Percival, Muyin Wang,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Paper
Seasonal and regional variation of pan-arctic surface air
temperature over the instrumental record. Journal of Climate,
17, 3263-3282, 2003.
Key Quote or Synopsis
This paper presents results that show that there are
seasonal and regional differences in the patterns of
historical temperature in the Arctic. With the exception of
spring, the authors report that the current climate in the
Arctic is not unique in the instrumental record (which begins
in the late 1800s).
____
Scientists
Vladimir A. Semenov, Lennart Bengstsson, Max Plank Institute
for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany
Paper
Modes of the wintertime Arctic air temperature variability.
Geophysical Research Letters, 30, 1781-1784, 2003.
Key Quote or Synopsis
The researchers present results which show that average
Arctic temperature undergoes large variations, driven by the
dominance of different internal modes. The most recent
temperature rise is shown to be related to atmospheric
circulation factors in the North Atlantic Ocean while an
early 20th century warming of nearly equal magnitude was
possibly related to long-term sea ice variations.
____
Topic: Recent climate change in Alaska
As a U.S. Senator, you were rightly concerned about the
state of the conditions in Alaska, and on repeated instances
you asked for specifics about observed climate changes there.
On each and every occasion, you only received a partial
collection of facts about historical temperature and
temperature trends that would lead an interested listener to
believe that anthropogenic global warming was responsible for
the large change in Alaskan temperatures observed over the
past 30 to 40 years. In fact, a natural climate shift in the
Pacific Ocean that occurred in 1976 is responsible for the
observed climate changes in Alaska. Below is a list of
researchers, many from the Alaska Climate Research Center at
the University of Alaska, who could have supplied you with
these facts that were missing from your hearing:
Scientists
Gerd Wendler, Director and Professor Emeritus, Martin
Stuefer, Research Associate, Martha Shulski,
Climatologist, Brian Hartmann, Assistant Climatologist,
Alaska Climate Research Center, University of Alaska
Fairbanks, 903 Koyukuk Drive, P.O. Box 757320, Fairbanks,
AK 99775-7320
Web Site
Temperature Change in Alaska, 1949-2003, http://
climate.gi.Aaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/4903Change.html
Key Quote or Synopsis
``The topic of climate change has attracted widespread
attention in recent years and is an issue that numerous
scientists study on various time and space scales. One thing
for sure is that the earth's climate has and will continue to
change as a result of various natural and anthropogenic
forcing mechanisms.
``This page features the trends in mean annual and seasonal
temperatures for Alaska's first-order observing stations
since 1949 (Fig. 1), the time period for which reliable
meteorological data are available. The temperature change
varies from one climatic zone to another as well as for
different seasons. If a linear trend is taken through mean
annual temperatures, the average change over the last 5
decades is about 3.0 deg.F. However, when analyzing the
trends for the four seasons, it can be seen that most of the
change has occurred in winter and spring, with less of a
change in summer and even slight cooling in autumn (see Table
below).
``Considering just a linear trend can mask some important
variability characteristics in the time series. Figure 2
shows clearly that this trend is non-linear: a linear trend
might have been expected from the fairly steady observed
increase of CO2 during this time period. The
figure shows the temperature departure from the long-term
mean (1949-2003) for the average of all stations. It can be
seen that there are large variations from year to year and
the 5-year moving average demonstrates cyclical behavior. The
period 1949 to 1975 was substantially colder than the period
from 1977 to 2003, however since 1977 no additional warming
has occurred in Alaska with the exception of Barrow and a few
other locations. In 1976, a stepwise shift appears in the
temperature data, which corresponds to a phase shift of the
Pacific Decadal Oscillation from a negative phase to a
positive phase. Synoptic conditions with the positive phase
tend to consist of increased southerly flow and warm air
advection into Alaska during the winter, resulting in
positive temperature anomalies. Click on the table above to
see temperature change after the 1976 shift, and for other
time periods.''
____
Scientists
Brian Hartmann, Gerd Wendler, Alaska Climate Research Center,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska
Paper
Manifestations of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation shift of
1976 within Alaskan climatology. Seventh Conference on Polar
Meteorology and Oceanography and Joint Symposium on High-
Latitude Climate Variations. May 12-16, 2003.
Key Quote or Synopsis
``During the year of 1976, the index of the PDO [Pacific
Decadal Oscillation] underwent a shift from one of strongly
negative phase to one of strongly positive phase. The general
circulation and temperature differences witnessed during each
of the phases is generally well known, but a fine scale study
to understand specific climatological effects within Alaska,
including the differing regional effects and responses to the
abrupt change, has not been conducted. The present study is
an effort to clearly discern the specific manner in which the
regime shift was experienced throughout Alaska.''
``The magnitude and sudden nature of the shift in the PDO
Index is paralleled by strong local temperature increases in
Alaska, suggesting that significant local changes in other
meteorological variables should be seen as well . . .
``[Atmospheric circulation patterns associated with the
1976 PDO regime shift] explain the immense warming of 10
deg.C observed in January from one decade to the next in the
Interior, a value far beyond that which can be explained by
increased CO2 and other green house gases.''
____
Scientists
Brian Hartmann, Gerd Wendler, Alaska Climate Research Center,
Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks,
Alaska
Paper
On the significance of the 1976 Pacific climate shift in
the climatology of Alaska, Journal of Climate, under review.
Key Quote or Synopsis
``The 1976 Pacific climate shift is examined and its
manifestations and significance in Alaskan climatology during
the last half-century are demonstrated. The regime shift is
quantified by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation Index shift in
1976 from dominantly negative values for the 25-year time
period 1951-1975 to dominantly positive values for the period
1977-2001.
``Mean annual and seasonal temperatures for the positive
phase were up to 3.1 deg.C higher than for the negative
phase. Likewise, mean cloudiness, wind speeds, and
precipitation amounts increased while mean sea level pressure
and geopotential heights decreased. The pressure decrease
resulted in a deepening of the Aleutian Low in winter and
spring. The intensification of the Aleutian Low increased the
advection of relatively warm and moist air to Alaska and
storminess over the state.
``The regime shift is also examined for its effect on the
long-term temperature trends throughout the state. The trends
that have shown climatic warming are strongly biased by the
sudden shift from the cooler regime to a warmer regime in
1976. When analyzing the
[[Page S23]]
total time period from 1951 to 2001, warming is observed,
however the 25-year period trend analyses before 1976 (1951-
1975) and thereafter (1977-2001) both display cooling. In
this paper we emphasize the importance of taking into account
the sudden changes that result from abrupt climatic shifts,
persistent regimes and the possibility of cyclic
oscillations, such as the PDO, in the analysis of long-term
climate change in Alaska.''
____
Scientists
Feng Sheng Hu, University of Illinois, Urbana Illinois
Emi Ito, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Thomas A. Brown, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
Livermore, California
B. Brandon Curry, Illinois State Geological Survey,
Champaign, Illinois
Daniel R. Engstrom, Science Museum of Minnesota, St. Croix,
Minnesota
Paper
Pronounced climatic variations in Alaska during the last
two millennia, Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 98, 10552-10556, 2001.
Key Quote or Synopsis
``We conducted multiproxy geochemical analysis of a
sediment core from Farewell Lake (62 deg. 33' N, 153 deg. 38'
W, 320m altitude) in the northwestern foothills of the Alaska
Range. These analysis provide the first high-resolution
(multidecadal) quantitative record of Alaskan climate
variations that spans the last two millennia. . . . Our SWT
[surface water temperature] reconstruction at Farewell Lake
indicates that although the 20th century, represented by the
uppermost three samples, was among the warmest periods of the
past two millennia, two earlier intervals may have been
comparably warm (A.D. 0-300 and A.D. 850-1200). These data
agree with tree-ring evidence from Fennoscandia, indicating
that the recent warmth is not atypical of the past 1000
years.''
____
Topic: Sea Ice Declines
During your Senate Committee hearing, you also heard
testimony about the observed declines in Arctic sea ice
during the past several decades and how that in some climate
model prognostications, summer sea ice totally disappears
from the northern oceans by the end of the 21st century.
However, no one told you that a large portion of the observed
sea ice declines is related to natural variability, or that
in some regions it does not appear that current conditions
are any more or less unusual than sea ice condition during
the 19th century. Had you invited the scientists below to
testify, you would have been made aware of these opinions.
Scientists:
James E. Overland, Pacific Marine Laboratory, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle,
Washington
Kevin Wood, Arctic Research Office, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland
Paper
Accounts from 19th-century Canadian Arctic Explorers' Logs
Reflect Present Climate Conditions, EOS Transactions of the
American Geophysical Union, 84, October 7, 2003.
Key Quote or Synopsis
``The widely perceived failure of 19th-century expeditions
to find and transit the Northwest Passage in the Canadian
Arctic is often attributed to extraordinary cold climate
conditions associated wit the ``Little Ice Age'' evident in
proxy records. However, examination of 44 explorers' logs for
the western Arctic from 1818 to 1910 reveals that climate
indicators such as navigability, the distribution and
thickness of annual sea ice, monthly surface air
temperatures, and the onset of melt and freeze were within
the present range of variability.''
____
Scientists
Ignatius G. Rigor, John M. Wallace, University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington
Roger L. Colony, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska
Paper
Response of Sea Ice to the Arctic Oscillation, Journal of
Climate, 15, 2648-2663, 2002.
Key Quote or Synopsis
``Increased advection of the ice away from the coast during
winter during high-index conditions of the AO [Arctic
Oscillation] enhanced the production of thin ice in the flaw
leads of the East Siberian and Laptev Seas. The cyclonic SIM
[sea ice motion] anomaly also enhances the production of thin
ice during winter because of the increase in divergence
over the eastern Arctic. Both of these processes
contribute to thinning of sea ice. These changes in SIM
have contributed to the observed trends in sea ice, such
as the decreases in ice area and extent, and the thinning
of sea ice.
``The changes in SIM also appear to be at least partially
responsible for the trends in SAT [surface air temperature]
reported by Rigor et al. (2000); that is, the increased
latent heat released during the formation of new ice in the
diverging leads, and the increased heat flux through thinner
ice have contributed to the pronounced warming that has been
observed in the East Siberian and Laptev portions of the warm
anomaly. Intuitively, one might have expected the warming
trends in SAT to cause the thinning of sea ice, but the
results presented in this study imply the inverse causality;
that is, the thinning ice has warmed SAT by increasing the
heat flux from the ocean.''
____
Scientists
Greg Holloway, Tessa Sou, Institute of Ocean Sciences,
Sidney, British Columbia
Paper
Has Arctic Sea Ice Rapidly Thinned? Journal of Climate, 15,
1691-1701, 2002.
Key Quote or Synopsis
``Reports based on submarine sonar data have suggested
Arctic sea ice has thinned nearly by half in recent decades.
Such rapid thinning is a concern for detection of global
change and for Arctic regional impacts. Including atmospheric
time series, ocean currents and river runoff into an ocean-
ice-snow model show that the inferred rapid thinning was
unlikely. The problem stems from undersampling. Varying winds
that readily redistribute Arctic ice create a recurring
pattern whereby ice shifts between the central Arctic and
peripheral regions, especially in the Canadian sector. Timing
and tracks of the submarine surveys missed this dominant mode
of variability.''
____
Scientist
P. Windsor, Department of Oceanography, Earth Sciences
Centre, Goteborg University, Goteborg, Sweden
Paper
Arctic Sea Ice Thickness Remained Constant during the
1990s. Geophysical Research Letters, 28, 1039-1041, 2001.
Key Quote or Synopsis
``The ice cover of the Arctic Ocean is considered to be a
sensitive indicator of global climate change. Recent
research, using submarine-based observations, suggests that
the Arctic ice cover was thinner in the 1990s compared to an
earlier period (1958-1979), and that it continued to decrease
in thickness in the 1990s. Here I analyze subsurface ice
thickness (draft) of Arctic sea ice from six submarine
cruises from 1991 to 1997. This extensive data set shows that
there was no trend towards a thinning ice cover during the
1990s. Data from the North Pole shows a slight increase in
mean ice thickness, whereas the Beaufort Sea shows a small
decrease, none of which are significant. Transects between
the two areas from 76 N to 90 N also show near constant ice
thicknesses, with a general spatial decrease from the Pole
towards the Beaufort Sea. Combining the present results with
those of an earlier study, I conclude that the mean ice
thickness has remained on a near-constant level around the
North Pole from 1986 to 1997.''
Scientist
Torgny Vijne, Norwegian Polar Institute, Oslo, Norway
Paper
Anomalies and Trends of Sea-Ice Extent and Atmospheric
Circulation in the Nordic Seas during the Period 1864-1998.
Journal of Climate, 14, 255-254, 2001.
Key Quote or Synopsis
Vinje constructed a 135-yr time series of sea ice extent in
the Nordic Seas and found that while April sea ice extend has
declined by about 33 percent during this period, more than
half of the decline occurred before 1900. Vinje concluded
that ``the time series indicates that we are in a state of
continued recovery from the cooling effects of the Little Ice
Age, during which a maximum sea-ice expansion was observed
around 1800, both in the Iceland Sea and the Barents Sea.''
____
Scientists
Igor V. Polyakov, Mark A. Johnson, University of Alaska,
Fairbanks, Alaska
Paper
Arctic decadal and interdecadal variability, Geophysical
Research Letters, 27, 4097-4100,2000.
Key Quote or Synopsis:
``The rapid reduction of arctic ice thickness in the 1990s
may be one manifestation of the intense atmosphere and ice
cyclonic circulation regime due to the synchronous actions of
the AO [Arctic Oscillation] and LFO [low-frequency
oscillation]. Our results suggest that the decadal AO and
multi-decadal LFO drive large amplitude natural variability
in the Arctic making a detection of possible long-term trends
induced by greenhouse gas warming most difficult.''
____
Topic: Greenland Melting
Another topic one which you heard testimony was the rapid
melting of Greenland ice sheets and their potential
contribution to rapid global sea level rise. However, none of
the panelists told you that there has been an overall decline
in Greenland temperatures during the past 60s years, and that
despite the warming trend in Greenland during the last decade
or so, temperatures still have not reached levels as high
there as they were during the 1930s and 1940s.
Scientists
Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico
Jason E. Box, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New
Mexico
Glen Lesins, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia
Paper
Global Warming and the Greenland Ice Sheet, Climatic
Change, 63, 201-221, 2004.
[[Page S24]]
Key Quote or Synopsis
``The Greenland surface air temperature trends over the
past 50 years do not show persistent warming, in contrast to
global average surface air temperatures. The Greenland
coastal stations temperature trends over the second half of
the past century generally exhibit a cooling tendency with
superimposed decadal scale oscillations related to the NAO.
At the Greenland ice sheet summit, the temperature record
shows a decrease in the summer average temperature at the
rate of about 2.2 deg. C/decade, suggesting that the
Greenland ice sheet at high elevations does not follow the
global warming trend either.
``A significant and rapid temperature increase was observed
at all Greenland stations between 1920 and 1930. The average
annual temperature rose between 2 and 4 deg.C in less than
ten years. Since the change in anthropogenic production of
greenhouses gases at that time was considerably lower than
today, this rapid temperature increase suggests a large
natural variability of the regional climate.
``High anticorrelations (r = -0.84 to -0.93) between the
NAO index and the Greenland temperature records suggest a
physical link between these processes. The recent negative
shift of the NAO correlates with 1990s warming in Greenland.
The NAO may play a crucial role in determining local
Greenland climate during the 21st century; resulting in a
local climate that may defy the global climate change. This
possibility should be considered in models of ice sheet melt
and future sea level rise. Forecasting changes in the NAO may
be a primary factor in predicting the future Greenland ice
sheet mass balance.''
____
Scientists
Edward Hanna, Institute of Marine Studies, University of
Plymouth
John Cappelen, Danish Meteorological Institute, Copenhagen,
Denmark
Paper
Recent cooling in coastal southern Greenland and relation
with the North Atlantic Oscillation, Geophysical Research
Letters, 30, doi:10.1029/2002GLO15797, 2003.
Key Quote or Synopsis
``Analysis of new data for eight stations in coastal
southern Greenland, 1958-2001, shows a significant cooling
(trend-line change -1.29 deg.C for the 44 years), as do sea-
surface temperatures in the adjacent part of the Labrador
Sea, in contrast to global warming (+0.53 deg.C over the
same period). The land and sea temperature series follow
similar patterns and are strongly correlated but with no
obvious lead/lag either way. This cooling is significantly
inversely correlated with an increased phase of the North
Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) over the past few decades (r = -
0.76), and will probably have significantly affected the mass
balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet.''
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________