[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 19-25]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 20]]

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 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

[[Page 21]]

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. 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

[[Page 22]]

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 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

[[Page 23]]

     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 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

[[Page 24]]

     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.


                         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

[[Page 25]]

     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.

                          ____________________