1
1

Pages 1 - 189

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. ALSUP, JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, acting by and through
Oakland City Attorney BARBARA J.
PARKER,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff and Real
)
Party in Interest,
)
VS.
) NO. C 17-6011 WHA
)
BP P.L.C., a public limited company)
of England and Wales, CHEVRON
)
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation) San Francisco,
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, a Delaware ) California
corporation, EXXON MOBIL
)
CORPORATION, a New Jersey
)
corporation, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL
)
PLC, a public limited company of
)
England and Wales, and Does 1
)
through 10,
)
)
Defendants.
) Wednesday
) March 21, 2018
___________________________________) 8:00 a.m.

17
18
19
20
21

Continued on next page.

22
23
24

Reported By:

Katherine Wyatt, CSR 9866, RPR, RMR,

25
-

 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, acting by and through
San Francisco City Attorney DENNIS
HERRERA,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff and Real
)
Party in Interest,
)
VS.
) NO. C 17-6012 WHA
)
BP P.L.C., a public limited company)
of England and Wales, CHEVRON
)
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation)
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, a Delaware )
corporation, EXXON MOBIL
)
CORPORATION, a New Jersey
)
corporation, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL
)
PLC, a public limited company of
)
England and Wales, and Does 1
)
through 10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)

13
14

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

15
16

APPEARANCES:

17

For Plaintiffs:

18
19
20
21
22

AND

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, Washington 98101
By: STEVE W. BERMAN, ESQUIRE
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1280 Centre Street, Suite 230
Newton Centre, Ma. 02459
By: MATTHEW F. PAWA, ESQUIRE

23
24

AND FURTHER APPEARANCES ON NEXT PAGE

25
-

 3
1

ALSO FOR PLAINTIFFS:

2

FOR THE CITY OF OAKLAND:

3

BARBARA J. PARKER, CITY ATTORNEY OAKLAND

4

1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor

5

Oakland, California 94612

6

By:

Barbara J. Parker, City Attorney

7

Erin Bernstein, Senior Deputy City Attorney

8

Maria Bee, Supervising Attorney

9

Malia McPherson, Stanford Law Public Interest Fellow

10
11
12

FOR THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO:

13

DENNIS J. HERRERA, CITY ATTORNEY

14

1390 Market Street, Seventh Floor

15

San Francisco, California 94102

16

By:

17

DENNIS J. HERRERA, CITY ATTORNEY

18

City Hall, Room 234

19

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

20

San Francisco, California 94102

21

By:

22

Matthew Goldberg, Deputy City Attorney

Robb W. Kapla, Deputy City Attorney
Ronald P. Flynn, Deputy City Attorney

23
24

FURTHER APPEARANCES ON NEXT PAGE.

25
-

 4
1

For Defendants:

2

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

3

333 South Grand Avenue

4

Los Angeles, California 90071

5

By:

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esquire

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-

 5
1
2

P R O C E E D I N G S
March 21, 2018

8:00 A.M.

3

THE COURT:

Welcome everyone.

4

THE CLERK:

Calling Civil Action 17-6011 and 17-6012,

5

People of the State of California versus BP P.L.C., et al.

6
7

Please be seated.

Counsel, please approach the podium, and state your
appearances for the record.

8

MR. BERMAN:

9

behalf of the People.

Good morning, Your Honor.

Steve Berman on

And with me here today are City Attorney

10

Barbara Parker, Erin Bernstein of the City Attorney's Office from

11

Oakland.

12
13

Also with me from the City Attorney's Office of San
Francisco is Robb Kapla, Matthew Goldberg and Ronald Flynn.

14

THE COURT:

Great.

15

And?

16

MR. BOUTROUS:

Welcome to all of you.

Good morning, Your Honor.

Theodore J.

17

Boutrous, Junior.

18

I'll be presenting the tutorial on behalf of Chevron.

19

I'm here representing Chevron here today, and

Counsel for the other defendants have submitted a sheet

20

of paper to speed things up with their appearances with the

21

Court.

22
23

THE COURT:

All right.

Are all defendants present

today?

24

MR. BOUTROUS:

25

THE COURT:

I believe so, Your Honor.

Including the ones who have objected to
-

 6
1

jurisdiction?
MR. BOUTROUS:

2
3

I believe they are here and that their

counsel made appearances.

4

THE COURT:

Is that true?

5

UNKNOWN SPEAKER:

Yes, Your Honor.

6

UNKNOWN SPEAKER:

Yes, Your Honor, on behalf of Shell.

7

UNKNOWN SPEAKER:

On behalf of Exxonmobil, Your Honor.

8

UNKNOWN SPEAKER:

On behalf of BP, Your Honor.

9

THE COURT:

Thank you.

The other counsel?

So just to be fair, all of you

10

who have objected to jurisdiction and/or service of process, this

11

will be deemed to be a special appearance.

12

to hold back on the theory that if you say something you'll have

13

waived your procedural argument.

14

So okay.

But I don't want you

Welcome to everyone, and thank you for

15

coming.

And I'm interested to see this turnout on such a wet,

16

miserable day out there.

17

science in just a moment.

We're going to have a tutorial on

18

You all are ready to start?

19

MR. BERMAN:

20

THE COURT:

We are, Your Honor.
Okay.

So let me just say to you two, as

21

well as to the public, that I read in the paper a couple of weeks

22

ago that this was going to be like the Scopes Monkey Trial.

23

I was -- I couldn't help but laugh.

24
25

And

But this is not a trial.

I want everyone out there, the newspaper people, please
don't call this a trial.

This is not a trial.
-

 7
1

In these technology cases, mainly the patent cases, but

2

not just patent, we often have these tutorials so that the poor

3

Judge can learn some science, and it helps to understand the

4

science.

5

So you will find this probably boring.

6

be withering cross-examinations and so forth.

7

and diagrams.

8
9
10
11

This will not

It will be numbers

And if you get bored you can just leave.

But I'm not promising fireworks or anything like that.
This is a serious proposition to try to educate the Judge.

Now, we're going to proceed today in two chapters.
Chapter one is the history of the development.

13

for that that I've forgotten the history of the history.

14

anyway, that's part one.

There's a name
But,

Then, part two will be the best available knowledge

16

that we have today on the issue of carbon dioxide in the

17

atmosphere and how that affects global temperature.

18

So are we ready to start?

19

MR. BOUTROUS:

20

THE COURT:

21

So

that's the purpose.

12

15

Okay?

We're ready, Your Honor.

So what I want to do is on the first part

give each side an hour.

22

Plaintiff, you can go first.

23

You can go second, Mr. Boutrous.

And if you want to

24

reserve any of your one hour, you can, but you don't have to.

25

But don't ask for more time if you use up your one hour.
-

 8
1

So you want to reserve anything or not?

2

MR. BERMAN:

3

THE COURT:

4

MR. BERMAN:

5

THE COURT:

6

MR. BERMAN:

No reserve, Your Honor.
No reserve.

All right.

One housekeeping question?
Of course.

Go ahead.

And Mr. Boutrous was kind enough to

7

accommodate this, if the Court would.

8

to go one hour and one hour on history.

9

And so if we could have just 20 minutes after the hour on part

10

THE COURT:

12

MR. BERMAN:

13

conflict.

14

our --

What do you mean "a witness issue"?
Well, he's got a conflict.

He's got a

He has to be somewhere else in the afternoon, and he's

15

THE COURT:

16

MR. BERMAN:

17

THE COURT:

18

MR. BERMAN:

Is this person going to be presenting?
Yes.
Oh, so you want to do what?
I want to have part of my part two right

after part one.

20

THE COURT:

21

MR. BOUTROUS:

22

THE COURT:

23

MR. BERMAN:

24

THE COURT:

25

We have a witness issue.

two, take them out of order a little bit.

11

19

I understand we're going

And that's okay with you?
That's okay with me, Your Honor.

Okay.

That's fine.

Thank you.
We might take a break in there somewhere,

but I want to give you great flexibility.
-

You can split this up

 9
1

any way you want.

2

not cross-examination.

3

far.

4
5

They are not going to be under oath.

That will all come later if we get that

So you can use an expert for part, all, anything you
want to do.

And the lawyers can do it.

6

Okay.

7

MR. BOUTROUS:

8

MR. BERMAN:

9

Yes.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Again, Steve

Berman.
THE COURT:

11

MR. BERMAN:

The floor is yours, Mr. Berman.
Thank you, Your Honor. I'm going to, first

of all, hand out some handouts, if I may.

13

THE COURT:

14

MR. BERMAN:

15

It's perfectly okay.

Ready?

10

12

This is

Sure.
This is a notebook for you.

I have one

for your clerks.

16

THE COURT:

17

MR. BERMAN:

Yes, please.
Also, I have a timeline, historical

18

timeline we'll hand up, as well, in horizontal format, as you

19

requested.

20

THE COURT:

21

MR. BERMAN:

Great.
I'm going to call as our first speaker,

22

Professor Myles Allen.

23

the School of Geography and Environment, in the Department of

24

Physics.

25

Professor Allen is from Oxford.

He's in

His resume is in the first tab in your notebook.
-

He

 10
1

received the Appleton Award from the Institute of Physics for his

2

contribution to the detection and attribution of human influence

3

on climate change.

4

And before he comes up, I want to say one thing in

5

response to Your Honor's comments.

6

audience understands and the Court understands where we're coming

7

from, as science.

8

perspective, our time to say when the defendants knew about

9

climate change and what statements they made.

10
11

We view this, just so the

This is not, as the papers called it from our

We're just talking

about the science of climate change today.
THE COURT:

Well, I appreciate that.

I hope we stick

12

to that and keep politics and -- you know, I know that there

13

are -- there's politics sometimes involved in this, but I --

14

let's stick to the science, if we can.

15
16

All right.
presenter.

So give me the name of that -- of your

Professor?

17

MR. BERMAN:

Myles Allen.

18

THE COURT:

Myles A-L-L --

19

MR. BERMAN:

20

THE COURT:

21

MR. BERMAN:

22

Myles, M-Y-L-E-S, Robert Allen, A-L-L-E-N.
Okay.
He's from Oxford.

He talks a little

funny, but I'm sure you'll be able to understand him.

23

THE COURT:

Very good.

24

Now, are you Dr. Allen?

25

DR. ALLEN:

I am, yes.
-

 11
1

THE COURT:

Okay. So what -- see that microphone there?

2

Try to -- it's a good microphone, but it's got to be directed

3

toward your voice so the public can hear.

4

DR. ALLEN:

Thank you.

5

THE COURT:

It's important that the public hear, too.

6

DR. ALLEN:

Yes.

7

Thank you.

Thank you, Your Honor.

And we deeply

8

appreciate the opportunity on behalf of the scientific community

9

to present the history of the science of climate change, the

10

evolution of our understanding of how carbon dioxide has affected

11

global climates.

12

And the way I will -- it's difficult to explain the

13

history without also explaining the science.

14

will combine the two, as will the others after the -- as will the

15

later presentations, as well, and explain to you how our -- both

16

what our current understanding is of the basic physics of how

17

carbon dioxide affects global climates and how it's evolved over

18

the past century.

19

So my presentation

And then, the following two experts will talk about the

20

modern understanding of what is happening in the U.S. and

21

California.

22

talk about initially just the basic physics of how rising CO2

23

causes global warming.

24

looking at the -- looking at the understanding where carbon

25

dioxide is coming from and going through the common cycle, and

The way I'm proposing to structure my talk is to

And, in particular, then I shall go on to

-

 12
1

how that understanding has evolved over the centuries.

2

I'll talk about our bottom-up approaches to quantifying

3

how much warming to expect as a result of a doubling of

4

preindustrial carbon dioxide concentrations, for example.

5

then, top-down approaches to try to quantify the scale of human

6

influence on global climate, recognizing also the role of natural

7

influences in climate change.

8
9
10

And

There will be at that point a brief digression on ice
ages.

The Court specifically asked about our understanding of

ice ages, so I will take you through that.

11

But we will then come back to our main line of

12

evidence, which is our understanding what has been happening over

13

the past century.

14

I will conclude with talking about how rising

15

temperatures are affecting sea level and the permanent cumulative

16

impact of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.

17

So we begin with the basic physics.

And going back, we

18

have to go back now to the early 19th century.

19

Tyndall understood the -- they knew about a mysterious, invisible

20

form of energy, infrared radiation, which had been discussed and

21

discovered only a few decades earlier.

22

remarkable piece of intuition, recognized that the Earth had to

23

get rid of the energy it received from the sun in this form.

24
25

Fourier and

And Fourier, with a

And that he speculated that the atmosphere played a
role in keeping the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be by
-

 13
1

interfering with this outgoing infrared radiation.

2

quantify this effect, specifically.

3

But he didn't

John Tyndall, an Irishman, then identified the specific

4

greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and methane, in particular, and

5

characterized the way they interact with infrared radiation.

6

Now, among your questions you raised specifically this

7

question of how it is that certain gases interact with radiation

8

and others don't.

9

So that's illustrated in the next slide, which shows a

10

carbon dioxide molecule.

11

black blob in the center is the atom of carbon, and two atoms of

12

oxygen.

13

It's a molecule of a carbon.

That

Normally, a carbon dioxide molecule is straight, but it

14

can move in many ways because of its temperature.

15

it can bend, vibrate up and down, and it can also -- and it can

16

also vibrate from side to side, unlike an oxygen or nitrogen

17

molecule, which consists of two identical atoms, and, therefore,

18

has many fewer ways of moving.

19

In particular,

And, importantly, two of these modes of motion of the

20

carbon dioxide molecule, the bending mode, which I've highlighted

21

at the top there, and this asymmetric stretch mode, these create

22

an asymmetric dipole, meaning there's more charge on one side

23

than the other.

24
25

And just like a little antenna, this can therefore
interact with the electromagnetic field.
-

 14
1

So we're talking about a mini antenna interacting with

2

the electromagnetic field specifically in the wavelengths

3

associated with the infrared.

4
5

The Court asked whether carbon dioxide is also
responsibile for --

6

THE COURT:

Well --

7

DR. ALLEN:

And I should have said at the beginning I'm

8

delighted for you to interrupt me and explain, if I need to

9

explain.

10
11

THE COURT:

So you have like this one on the bottom

left, you've got red, black, red.

12

DR. ALLEN:

Yes.

13

THE COURT:

And that's lined up?

14

DR. ALLEN:

Yes.

15

THE COURT:

So does it matter in the atmosphere whether

16

the red, black, red is facing the Earth broadside, or what if it

17

was the other --

18

DR. ALLEN:

No.

19

THE COURT:

Wouldn't make any difference?

20

DR. ALLEN:

It doesn't matter.

21

THE COURT:

Okay.

22

DR. ALLEN:

It doesn't matter.

23
24
25

No.

What matters, just like

the radio -THE COURT:

But with the radio it does matter if the

antenna is broadside to the signal or not.
-

 15
1

DR. ALLEN:

Your Honor's quite correct.

Thank you for

2

raising that.

3

molecules in the atmosphere, we see the combined effect of all of

4

these orientations of molecules.

5

infrared radiation.

6

But in this case, because we have a mixture of

And these interact with

And, yes, Your Honor's quite correct.

The orientation

7

of the molecule would affect the polarity of the emitted photon

8

or infrared radiation.

9

the amount of energy lost, we don't need to concern ourselves

10

But since this doesn't actually affect

with this.

11

THE COURT:
Right?

Well, this infrared is coming off the

12

Earth.

And it gets somewhere into the atmosphere.

13

it passes by one of these CO2's.

14

DR. ALLEN:

Yep.

15

THE COURT:

Here's what I don't quite get.

And

As it goes

16

by, describe the step-by-step of how that energy gets absorbed

17

into the molecule.

18

re-radiated again somewhere else?

And then, after that does it then get

19

DR. ALLEN:

Yes.

20

THE COURT:

It's unclear to me how that works.

21

So

please go ahead.

22

DR. ALLEN:

So because the molecule -- the molecule in

23

its ground state is sort of like this:

Straight (indicating).

24

Okay?

25

to it to interact with it, it sets it vibrating.

And if a photon interacts, comes, as it were, close enough

-

Yeah?

Like a

 16
1

chicken dance (indicating).

2

Yeah?

Alternatively, sets it vibrating like an asymmetric

3

stretch.

I don't know what the name of that dance is.

4

crucially, these are the modes of vibration that create an

5

asymmetric dipole mode.

6

Because it doesn't make it -- so this mode of vibration --

This one doesn't do anything.

But,

Yeah?

7

THE COURT:

What do you mean "It doesn't do anything"?

8

DR. ALLEN:

Well, because it doesn't do anything to the

9

dipole.

If you measure, my head is the positive charge on top.

10

My hands are the negatively charged oxygen.

11

moving the oxygen in and out doesn't actually create a dipole.

12

It doesn't -- it is still symmetric.

13

You can see that

The average charge of the whole molecule is still zero

14

in the center.

15

charges to and froe, I'm not moving the whole charge around.

16
17

Yes?

Because I'm moving them.

If I move these

Whereas, if I move them together, and then I've got the
positive charge in the center, negative charges on either side.

18

THE COURT:

There's some asymmetry.

19

DR. ALLEN:

It is the asymmetry which is crucial.

20

the reason this is crucial is to now imagine I'm an oxygen

21

molecule.

22
23
24
25

And

So I just have the two hands up, the oxygen.
Now, there's no way that can vibrate to create an

asymmetric charge, because the two halves of it are identical.
So that's why an oxygen molecule cannot interact with
infrared radiation, but a carbon dioxide molecule can.
-

And a

 17
1

water molecule -THE COURT:

2
3

So when it does absorb, the CO2 does

absorb, is it infrared or --

4

DR. ALLEN:

It absorbs in the infrared.

5

THE COURT:

Is that electromagnetic --

6

DR. ALLEN:

Electromagnetic radiation.

7

THE COURT:

-- that causes that movement that you

8

described, the asymmetric movement?

9
10

DR. ALLEN:

Yes.

And then, it's left in this state

(indicating).

11

THE COURT:

Yes.

12

DR. ALLEN:

And then, it releases that energy again,

13

and it goes back to its original state.

14

energy in the same wavelength that it's absorbed it.

15

THE COURT:

Now, right there.

And it releases the

Okay.

I've read some

16

literature on this trying to get ready for today.

17

energy when it's released go into space or does it -- some go to

18

space?

19

does it just get re-radiated back to the ground?

20

Some go to the ground?

DR. ALLEN:

Does the

Does it go in all directions or

It could go in any direction.

And,

21

crucially, the amount of energy that these molecules radiate is

22

proportional to their temperature.

23

THE COURT:

To what?

24

DR. ALLEN:

And that brings us --

25

THE COURT:

To what?
-

 18
1
2

DR. ALLEN:

radiate is proportional to their temperature.

3
4

The amount of energy these molecules

And that brings us to the next crucial step in the
argument.

5

THE COURT:

Go ahead.

6

DR. ALLEN:

Yes.

Which was understood for the first

7

time by a Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius.

8

first one to quantitatively understand how rising concentrations

9

of carbon dioxide affect -- could affect global temperatures or

10

And he was the

must affect global temperatures.

11

And I'm quoting here from his paper, which was

12

published around the turn of the century, around the end of the

13

19th century.

14

shows remarkable insight because he says:

15

And this particular sentence is remarkably --

"Any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide

16

in the air would raise the temperature of the Earth by four

17

degrees."

18
19
20
21
22
23

It's on the high side, but it's within the range of the
uncertainty of the modern estimates.
But then, he goes on to say:
"If the carbon dioxide were increased by fourfold,
the temperature would rise by eight degrees."
And it's interesting because, of course, the additional

24

amount of carbon required to go from a twofold increase to a

25

fourfold increase is twice as much as you need to go from a
-

 19
1

preindustrial to a twofold increase.

2

So what he's pointing out here is that every time you

3

double you get the same amount of warming, which is not the most

4

obvious.

5

every ton of carbon put into the atmosphere has the same impact

6

as the last.

7

Sort of intuitively you might think that, you know,

And what's impressive here is therefore he's making a

8

quantitative prediction, this sort of logarithmic relationship of

9

carbon dioxide concentrations with temperature, which wasn't

10

intuitively obvious.

11

And as a physicist we're always very impressed if

12

someone has a theory that makes a prediction that is not

13

completely obvious, which turns out to be true.

14

prediction does, indeed, turn out to be true.

15

THE COURT:

And this

You said it was logarithmic.

But if you

16

double it, according to this quote, it goes up by four, and

17

then --

18

DR. ALLEN:

Four degrees.

19

THE COURT:

Four degrees.

20

DR. ALLEN:

If you increase it by fourfold, it goes up

21
22

by eight degrees.
THE COURT:

Right.

So if you double it again it goes

23

up by eight.

So that seems -- that doesn't seem like

24

logarithmic.

That seems linear.

25

DR. ALLEN:

So the doubling, it's two, four, eight,
-

 20
1
2

sixteen, by giving me each one the same amount of warming.
So if I was to plot carbon dioxide concentration in the

3

horizontal and temperature in the vertical, you would see points

4

going two, four, eight, sixteen.

5
6

THE COURT:

All right.

So if he had gone on to say

eight, eightfold, then it would have been --

7

DR. ALLEN:

Only 12 degrees.

8

THE COURT:

-- twelve degrees.

9

DR. ALLEN:

Exactly.

10

THE COURT:

All right.

11

DR. ALLEN:

So how did he come to this insight?

Yes.

You got it.

Well,

12

this shows essentially Arrhenius' reasoning.

This is a view of

13

carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere.

And I've used color

14

to denote their temperature.

15

amount of infrared radiation emitted by these carbon dioxide

16

molecules is related directly to their temperature.

17

well-understood in the 19th century.

18

So colder is blue.

And you recall I stressed that the

That was

So air gets colder with height.

19

That's a well-known consequence of basic thermodynamics.

20

also gets less dense with height, which is why the little carbon

21

dioxide molecules are further apart as we go up through the

22

atmosphere.

23

And air

Now, if I try doubling the concentration of carbon

24

dioxide in my model atmosphere, I want you to focus on the -- I

25

would like the Court to focus on the lower right panel, which is
-

 21
1
2

the view of the atmosphere from above in the infrared.
So this would be analogous to thinking of the view of a

3

house you might use with one of those cameras which one can take

4

to see if you have got enough loft insulation.

5

can do a color image of your house, and they show in bright red

6

where energy is escaping from the house.

7

You know, they

Now, if I double the amount of carbon dioxide in the

8

atmosphere, it's like increasing the amount of loft insulation.

9

And so we immediately see less energy escaping into space.

10

So that view from above now looks colder when viewed

11

from space, because less energy is escaping as a result of the

12

increase in carbon dioxide concentrations.

13

What's happened is that the additional carbon dioxide

14

in the atmosphere is forcing the atmosphere to radiate heat from

15

higher altitudes in order to escape into space.

16

higher air is colder, it's radiating energy at a slower rate.

And because

17

So if you reduce --

18

THE COURT:

Say that last couple of sentences again.

19

DR. ALLEN:

Yes.

20

THE COURT:

I want to go back on your other -- okay.

21
22

Say the last two sentences again.
DR. ALLEN:

Sure.

So because we've increased the total

23

amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere -- and I should stress

24

carbon dioxide is well-mixed through the atmosphere, so when the

25

concentration increases, it increases everywhere -- photons, the
-

 22
1

little corpuscles of energy that are released by these carbon

2

dioxide molecules, they can only escape to space from a higher

3

altitude, because there's more carbon dioxide there getting in

4

the way of photons escaping to space from further down.

5

And as a result, because higher air is colder, the

6

amount of radiation escaping to space goes down.

And, I mean,

7

the diagram should make this reasonably intuitive.

8

as I -- sorry -- as I increase the amount of CO2 molecules, if I

9

go back to the original, as I increase the amount of CO2

You can see

10

molecules, you can see there's been no change in temperature, if

11

you look at the view from the side.

12
13
14

But looking down from above, we can't see as deep into
the atmosphere because of all this extra carbon dioxide.
The atmosphere has become more opaque, so we're seeing

15

higher air and less.

16

THE COURT:

All right.

17

let me quiz you about that.

18

number of blue dots.

19

blue dots.

20

Right?

I see your point there.

You have started off with a large
Looks to me like a large number of

But the things that I've been reading say that the

21

actual amount of carbon dioxide is trace elements.

22

parts per million.

23

it looks like 10,000 parts per million.

24
25

But

It's like 400

But the way you've got it diagrammed there,

So is it -- would that make it -- in other words, if
you started with just two dots there, and then you doubled it to
-

 23
1

four dots you would still see a lot of red.
DR. ALLEN:

2

Your Honor is quite correct there.

But, of

3

course, even though it's only 300 parts per million, that's still

4

an awful lot of molecules in a cubic meter of air, and crucially,

5

a lot of molecules relative to the wavelength of infrared

6

energy.

7

So infrared, infrared radiation has a wavelength much,

8

much longer than the size of these molecules.

And so the actual

9

sort of -- the actual absolute number of molecules is not

10

important.

11

which is entirely driven in this example by the amount of CO2 in

12

it.

13

It's the opacity of the atmosphere in the infrared,

Because the oxygen and nitrogen molecules, as far as

14

the infrared radiation is concerned, might as well not be there,

15

because they can't interact with it.

16

THE COURT:

What you're saying is even if there were

17

just a small number of dots, as the infrared comes off the Earth

18

the wavelength is long, so much longer than the molecule -- is

19

that right, or something that --

20

DR. ALLEN:

Yes.

21

THE COURT:

-- that even though it doesn't hit it smack

22

on, it just has to get close.

23

DR. ALLEN:

Exactly.

24

THE COURT:

Okay.

25

DR. ALLEN:

So, in fact, it's the scale of the
-

 24
1

radiation that actually sets the chance of it hitting a molecule

2

rather than the scale of the molecule itself.

3

molecules are tiny.

4

infrared radiation are of the order of, you know, 10 microns or

5

so.

6

molecule it's actually a huge number.

7

You know, the

But the wavelengths we're talking about of

So that sounds like a small number.

But compared to a

So that's why there's very little chance of a photon of

8

infrared radiation emitted from the surface actually making it

9

all the way through the atmosphere to space.

10
11

It's around less

than a sixth of a chance.
THE COURT:

The point you made, the ones that are

12

higher up are the ones that would emit radiation into space as

13

opposed -- but wouldn't the ones that are further down, once they

14

absorb, and then they re-radiate, wouldn't it progressively go up

15

and still go out into space?

16

diminishing returns problem?

17

DR. ALLEN:

Or is there some sort of

Oh, the atmosphere is being heated from

18

below, for sure.

19

rate at which the planet as a whole can radiate energy to space

20

is determined by the temperature of the molecules from which

21

photons finally escape all the way out into space.

22

But the crucial point which determines the net

It's that sort of last emission that matters, because

23

photons are bouncing around in the atmosphere all the time.

24

it's the ones that make it out into space that determine the rate

25

of energy lost to space by the planet as a whole.
-

But

 25
1

And so by adding more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,

2

we thicken this sort of foggy blanket of greenhouse gases around

3

the planet.

4

and, therefore, we reduce the rate at which the planet is

5

shedding energy to space.

6

We force the planet to emit from a higher altitude,

THE COURT:

How would that affect what you showed me

7

about what Tyndall said about what you said was the logarithmic

8

relationship?

9

How would it affect that?

DR. ALLEN:

Let me show you what happens next.

So we

10

now have an imbalance.

One of the crucial insights of Fourier

11

and Tyndall was that carbon dioxide does not interact with solar

12

radiation.

In fact, the Court asked:

13

"Does carbon dioxide reflect solar radiation?"

14

The answer is:

"It doesn't, and/or to a negligible

15

degree."

16

impact on the amount of energy received from the sun.

17

additional energy is reflected away because of the increase in

18

carbon dioxide.

19

And, therefore, this increase in carbon dioxide has no
So no

And, therefore, as a result, there's an imbalance now

20

between the incoming energy from the sun and the outgoing energy

21

to space, because the outgoing energy to space has been reduced

22

as a result of the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations.

23

Because of that imbalance, the Earth has to warm up

24

because it's accumulating energy at the surface and in the lower

25

atmosphere.
-

 26
1

And that's shown here by the warming, more red colors

2

appearing.

3

lower left -- in the lower right is the same color as it was

4

before, until it's releasing energy to space at the same rate

5

that it was before.

6

And it has to keep warming until the color in the

Again, thinking back to the home insulation example, if

7

you put more loft insulation -- if you put more insulation in

8

your loft, then if you look at the house with the camera from

9

outside it looks -- you see a bluer color because it's losing

10

energy at a slower rate.

11

If you leave the heating on at the same rate, the house

12

gets warmer, and the house will keep getting warmer until it's

13

losing energy at the same rate.

14

hot.

15
16
17

You might wind up uncomfortably

So that's how the analogy -- it's not a bad one.
not a great analogy, but it makes the point.
So this is why we get to this point about the

18

logarithmic relationship.

19

carbon dioxide concentrations again.

20

the same impact as the first doubling on the reduction in

21

radiation into space.

22

It's

Suppose now after the warming I double
You'll notice that it has

Because of the way temperatures fall off with height

23

and the density of carbon dioxide molecules falls off with

24

height, every doubling of carbon dioxide has the same impact as

25

the last on outgoing energy into space.
-

 27
1

So that's, in essence --

2

THE COURT:

3

Okay.

Say that last sentence again.

"Every" --

4

DR. ALLEN:

Every doubling of carbon dioxide has

5

roughly the same impact on the reduction of energy released to

6

space as the last.

7
8

THE COURT:

Well, give me a numerical example so that I

can see that.

9

DR. ALLEN:

So the first doubling might reduce outgoing

10

radiation to space by 3.7 watts per square -- let's say 4 watts

11

per square meter, for sake of the small number.

12

The second doubling, even though it requires twice as

13

much additional carbon in the atmosphere to do it, would reduce

14

outgoing radiation into space by an additional 4 watts per square

15

meter.

16

And third doubling, which would require even more

17

carbon, would also reduce radiation to space by 4 watts per

18

square meter.

19

So the reduction in energy to space goes up four,

20

eight, twelve, while the amount of carbon in the atmosphere goes

21

up two, four, eight, sixteen.

22

THE COURT:

23
24
25

Okay.

see what you're saying.
DR. ALLEN:

I see what you're saying. I think I

All right.

Crucially -- so this is the point here

about if we compare that reduction with the impact of the first
-

 28
1

doubling, we see the same reduction in energy.

2

Crucially, you don't need to take my word for it. I do

3

appreciate you're taking the time to understand this, this

4

element of the basic physics.

5

happening in observations made of the planet from space.

6

But we have seen this effect

In a truly impressive sequence, series of observations,

7

NASA flew an interferometer on the Nimbus 4 spacecraft in 1970.

8

And a very similar instrument was flown by a Japanese satellite

9

in 1997.

10

And by comparing these two spectra, by comparing the

11

outgoing infrared radiation measured by these two satellites 27

12

years apart, John Harries, and his co-workers, in 2001 was able

13

to identify the reduction in outgoing energy resulting from the

14

increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases over the

15

intervening 27 years.

16

So we've observed this effect that was predicted by

17

Svante Arrhenius almost a hundred years earlier, we've observed

18

it directly in satellite observations made of the planet as a

19

whole.

20

THE COURT:

Could you explain that graph?

21

DR. ALLEN:

The graph at the bottom shows the spectrum

22

of outgoing radiation.

23

there are two.

24
25

If you look very closely you can see

The difference between the two spectra's very small.
This is a very fine and precise observation.
-

It was only

 29
1

possible because of the extraordinary precision of those NASA

2

engineers building that interferometer back in the late 1960's.

3

But we can actually see the reduction in outgoing

4

energy to space, the change in the spectrum in outgoing energy to

5

space that we would expect because of the increase in greenhouse

6

gas concentrations.

7
8

THE COURT:

DR. ALLEN:
is 1970.

11
12
13

There's two lines there.

One of the lines

The other line is 1997.
THE COURT:

Are you sure?

DR. ALLEN:

Sorry.

On mine it says "IMG" and

"IRIS."

14

was flown in 1970.

15

they are 27 years apart.

16

Is one of these --

is there a 1997 line?

9
10

I still don't get it.

Yes.

Yes.

So the IRIS instrument

The IMG instrument was flown in 1997.

THE COURT:

But I don't see any -- they are so close

17

together some people would say there's no difference.

18

the difference that you're pointing out?

19

DR. ALLEN:

So

Where is

Well, the difference -- so I could -- I

20

could give the Court a more detailed zoom-in on the figure from

21

the Harries, et al paper.

22

showing this spectrum as an illustration.

23

And I'd be happy to do so.

I was just

But there if you -- if you look carefully, as John

24

Harries and co-workers did, at these two spectra, and also

25

account for the various changes that have happened over the
-

 30
1

intervening 27 year periods, you can see directly the reduction

2

in outgoing energy due to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse

3

gases and in precisely the wavelengths you would expect to.

4

would expect to find that.

You

5

THE COURT:

Which part of the wavelength is infrared?

6

DR. ALLEN:

The infrared spectrum is -- this is -- by

7

the way, this is the near infrared.

8

infrared spectrum because it wasn't possible to measure the full

9

infrared spectrum with the interferometers they were able to fly

10

This is only part of the

in 1970.

11

But it shows for the wavelengths that they could

12

observe the reduction expected due to the increase in greenhouse

13

gases.

14

So the crucial point here is that we don't just have a

15

theory that rising CO2 opaques the outgoing spectrum of

16

radiation, but we have direct observations from space of that

17

theory.

18

THE COURT:

I have to take your word for it because

19

this diagram, to me it looks like it was very -- the only place I

20

see a reduction is on 1300.

21

reduction but --

It looks to me like there there is a

22

DR. ALLEN:

Okay.

23

THE COURT:

My eyesight gone bad or what?

24

DR. ALLEN:

Okay.

25

I would --

I would happily -- there is a -- I

would happily furnish the breakdown which they give in their
-

 31
1
2

paper.

I just put the spectrum in because
THE COURT:

--

You are the one that came up with the

3

chart, and I just don't think your chart demonstrates what you're

4

telling me.

5

concluded.

6

doesn't convincingly show it.

7

DR. ALLEN:

And I take your word for it that that's what they
Okay. Good.

I accept that point.

But this chart

I'm sorry. I'm having to sort of take

8

figures from scientific papers and sort of show illustrations of

9

what we've done.

And you are absolutely right.

10

itself, demonstrate the answer.

11

in the paper which I could --

12

THE COURT:

This doesn't, in

And there are further diagrams

Forget the chart for a minute.

When they

13

did these satellite comparisons over the 27-year difference, what

14

did they measure was the infrared reduction being emitted off the

15

Earth in that twenty -- what was the reduction?

16

10 percent, a hundred percent?

17

DR. ALLEN:

Was it

What order of magnitude?

In the wavelengths -- in the wavelengths

18

that were being affected, I mean I'd have to get the numbers.

19

But they were seeing over that period -- a useful way of thinking

20

of it is in terms of the equivalent temperature of those

21

molecules.

22

That's a useful unit to use.

They were seeing a reduction of several degrees in the

23

equivalent temperature of the molecules they were observing at

24

those particular wavelengths.

25

So it was a substantial change relative to the sort of
-

 32
1

warming we talk about in terms of -- so they were seeing a

2

substantial reduction in the wavelengths that are affected by

3

these particular gases.

4

THE COURT:

Okay.

5

DR. ALLEN:

And, crucially, it was the reduction of the

6

size and in the frequencies that we would have expected to see

7

that reduction as a result of the increase in greenhouse gases.

8

So we've observed this effect directly from space monitorings.

9

THE COURT:

All right.

So you jumped from Tyndall to

10

the space satellite, but there must be something in-between.

11

interested in the history, too.
Yes.

I'm

12

DR. ALLEN:

I'm just coming back to the history.

13

So I was also going to stress that the models we use

14

for weather forecasting incorporate this basic physics of how

15

carbon dioxide and other constituents of the atmosphere interact

16

with infrared radiation.

17

per day in performing the weather forecasts.

18

And these are tested millions of times

But to get back to the physics, Gilbert Plass, in 1955,

19

during the sort of early part of the 20th century, he noted that

20

there had been some criticism of this CO2 theory, because people

21

had observed -- other scientists had observed that water vapor

22

also absorbed strongly in the infrared wavelengths that were

23

absorbed by carbon dioxide.

24

So in his paper in 1955, Gilbert Plass noted correctly

25

that at the altitudes in the regions and also in the wavelengths
-

 33
1

that matter for carbon dioxide, the air was relatively dry

2

because they were above the moist lower atmosphere, and therefore

3

carbon dioxide was the dominant greenhouse gas.

4

So even though people had noticed the water vapor

5

absorbed strongly at the surface, as those diagrams illustrating

6

the outgoing radiation to space actually emanates from further up

7

in the atmosphere above the moist lower troposphere above the

8

moist region near the surface where water vapor is less

9

important.

10

It's still an important greenhouse gas, but carbon

11

dioxide plays a big role because the radiation is emerging from

12

these dry regions of the atmosphere where water vapor doesn't get

13

in the way.

14

THE COURT:

15

Go ahead.

16

DR. ALLEN:

So okay.

I'll save my questions.

Near the surface -- I mean, near the

17

surface, so in the conditions in this room the main absorber will

18

be water vapor because, you know, the surface, you know, is warm.

19

It can hold a lot of water.

20

And so because of the enormous amount of water vapor in

21

the atmosphere, the actual amount of attenuation by CO2 between

22

one side of this room and the other would be less than the

23

attenuation by water vapor.

24
25

However, Gilbert Plass' crucial insight was it doesn't
matter what is happening in this room.
-

What matters is what is

 34
1

happening at the emission level, at the level at which the planet

2

is actually radiating energy to space.

3

And at those altitudes, because we're higher up in the

4

atmosphere and the air is colder, it can now hold less water.

5

The air is dryer and CO2 plays a dominant role.

6
7

THE COURT:

does that even matter, the relative weights?
DR. ALLEN:

8
9

Is CO2 lighter than oxygen and nitrogen, or

A CO2 molecule is heavier than nitrogen and

oxygen, but it is -- that doesn't affect the fact that it is

10

well-mixed through the atmosphere.

11

weights only matter when you get right up into the fringes of

12

the --

13
14

THE COURT:

The individual molecular

So the concentrations 10 feet above the

Earth are about the same as at 10 miles above the Earth?

15

DR. ALLEN:

In CO2, yes.

17

THE COURT:

Right.

18

DR. ALLEN:

Because water vapor, as we know, as soon as

16

But in water vapor absolutely

not.
Okay.

19

the air cools, condenses and so on.

So there's much less water

20

vapor around as you go up through the atmosphere.

21

THE COURT:

So Gilbert Plass, his point again was what?

22

DR. ALLEN:

Oh, his point was he picked up Arrhenius'

23

work.

He noted that over the intervening decades Arrhenius' work

24

had been criticized by people observing strong absorption by

25

water vapor.
-

 35
1

And he then made the point, yes, there is strong

2

absorption by water vapor at the surface, but at the altitudes

3

that matter for the planet's energy budget, CO2 is still the

4

dominant greenhouse gas.

5

So he -- I mean, it's interesting.

It's been very

6

interesting for me as going back over these papers, one tends to

7

find the papers which are right, because they survive.

8
9
10

And so it's only in the sort of asides in these papers
that you learn about the papers that were wrong.
And so evidently there were a bunch of papers published

11

in the 1930S's, or so, sort of poo-pooing the carbon dioxide

12

theory, because there were a lot of them that were talking about

13

water vapor.

14

And so Gilbert Plass was pointing out yes, that

15

absorption happens at the surface, but it doesn't -- it's not

16

happening at the rate to interfere with CO2 at the altitudes that

17

matter for the energy lost to space.

18

THE COURT:

Okay.

19

DR. ALLEN:

So coming home from this, Plass also

20

emphasized the need -- having sort of reidentifying carbon

21

dioxide as a very important greenhouse gas.

22
23
24
25

I sense you checking the time, but don't worry.

That

was the longest component of my talk.
THE COURT:

I'm absorbed by this, but I want you to

know that I am going to keep a clock on both sides.
-

 36
1
2

DR. ALLEN:

I do appreciate the constraint, and I will

do my best.

3

So -- and so but the next -- but the question was still

4

open in the 1950's, up to the 1950's:

5

emissions were likely to affect the global atmosphere?

6

How much fossil fuel

One thing which people had noticed was that there was

7

40 times more carbon in the oceans than in our total fossil fuel

8

reserves, even if you burnt the lot.

9

And so that might have made you think, well, you know,

10

if we release all this carbon, it would just get diluted by the

11

oceans, and it wouldn't really make very much difference in the

12

long run.

13

Roger Revelle, in 1957, made the crucial observation

14

that some simple high school chemistry, sort of buffer chemistry,

15

limits the amount of carbon dioxide that the ocean can take up.

16

Carbon dioxide -- well, carbon exists in the ocean in

17

three forms.

18

biology for the time being.

19
20

If we -- if you'll bear with me and we ignore

The three forms are dissolved carbon dioxide, the
hydrogen

carbonate ion, HCO3- and the carbonate ion.

21

THE COURT:

Say the last one again?

22

DR. ALLEN:

The hydrogen carbonate ion, HCO3-, single

23
24
25

minus, and the carbonate ion, C032 ions.
Every molecule of carbon dioxide that dissolves into
the ocean, requires the conversion of a carbonate ion to a
-

 37
1

hydrogen carbonate ion in order to preserve charge.

2
3

It's a simple -- the operation of a buffer, the kind of
things that one uses at school to maintain a constant pH.

4

It's a good thing this is happening, because otherwise

5

the oceans would have acidified much more than they have done as

6

a result of the solution of carbon dioxide into the oceans.

7

But what it does mean is it's that store of carbonates

8

in the oceans that actually determines the capacity of the oceans

9

to take up CO2 from the atmosphere.

10

And only 10 percent of the

carbon in the oceans is in the form of carbonate.

11

So Revelle's insight was that actually the oceans were

12

ten times smaller than you might think as a carbon pool.

13

that, therefore, we couldn't count on the oceans to simply dilute

14

away all the carbon we have been releasing from fossil fuels.

15

THE COURT:

And

Is it true that Revelle initially thought

16

that the oceans would absorb all of the excess, and that he came

17

to this buffer theory a little later around 1957?

18

DR. ALLEN:

You may know more of the history of this

19

than I do in that case. I'm aware, as I say -- I read the right

20

papers.

21

paper.

22
23

I read the final papers, so to speak.

So this is the

Actually, I suspect it probably was the case in the
sense that he was thinking about the problem.

24

THE COURT:

He was an oceanographer.

Right?

25

DR. ALLEN:

He was an oceanographer.

He was thinking

-

 38
1

about the problem.

2

THE COURT:

Scripps.

3

DR. ALLEN:

Exactly.

He was at Scripps.

And in the

4

process of thinking about the problem he came to this crucial

5

insight.

6

And it was a good insight at the time.
Up until that time, you know, the community, they

7

weren't sure how long it would take for the carbon to be taken up

8

by the oceans.

9

vast carbon store in the oceans.

But the community were just aware there was this
And, therefore, there was some

10

doubt in the community as to whether fossil fuel emissions would

11

actually make any difference.

12
13
14

So having made this observation, Roger Revelle, he
emphasized -- and I think he used the phrase:
"We're conducting geophysical experiments."

And

15

he emphasized the importance of measuring CO2 in the atmosphere

16

to see if it was actually going up.

17

Which brings us to the next crucial step in our story.

18

Charles David Keeling, also at Scripps, measured --

19

started measuring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Mauna Loa in

20

Hawaii, very precisely in the late 1950'S.

21

And he saw the famous Keeling Curve, this annual cycle

22

of carbon dioxide resulting from the, in effect, the respiration

23

of the northern hemisphere.

24

increase which could you not account for by respiration.

25

And -- but on top of that, a steady

The Court asked essentially about what happens to
-

 39
1

carbon dioxide breathed in by humans and, indeed, by animal life

2

and so forth.

3

That does play a role in determining this annual cycle.

4

So the annual cycle shows the sort of annual growth and the

5

annual growth and decay of forests in the northern hemisphere

6

taking up and releasing carbon.

7

upward trend.

8
9

But it cannot account for the

And, in fact, we're seeing carbon dioxide levels rising
to levels that have not been seen for over 20 million years.

10

They are now past -- well past 400 parts per million,

11

around 410 parts per million.

12

THE COURT:

Keep that chart there.

13

DR. ALLEN:

This --

14

THE COURT:

Explain the ones you have on the screen,

DR. ALLEN:

Yes.

15
16

please.
So this chart shows the combination

17

of David Keeling's observations in blue on the right, and ice

18

core measurements of carbon dioxide going back over much longer

19

period, back to zero on the left.

20

So those two different time scales here, the left-hand

21

panel has almost ten times longer time scale.

22

course, we can measure carbon dioxide contained in bubbles in ice

23

very precisely back over many thousands of years, and we see that

24

carbon dioxide concentrations have been relatively constant

25

throughout the Holocene period.
-

And because, of

 40
1

THE COURT:

This is -- that's like a 2000 year?

2

DR. ALLEN:

Two thousand year record.

3

change.

4

beyond that, it would also be flat.

5
6
7
8

Almost no

In fact, I could take that record a few thousand years

THE COURT:
really only 2000.

You said 20 million at the top, but it's

Is that right or am I --

DR. ALLEN:

Yes.

I've got another figure addressing

that in a minute.

9

THE COURT:

But let's pause on this one.

10

Let's see.

It starts down at 280.

11

DR. ALLEN:

The preindustrial concentration's around

12
13
14
15

I can't read that.

280 parts per million, and we are now at 400, 410.
THE COURT:

All right.

So that is -- that's not a

doubling, but what is that?
DR. ALLEN:

Well, we're about in the units we need to

16

use, which are, of course, logarithmic, we are just over halfway

17

to doubling.

18

THE COURT:

Say that again about logarithmic?

19

DR. ALLEN:

Sorry.

20

earlier about the fact that --

21

THE COURT:

I do, but --

22

DR. ALLEN:

So because there's a curve -- in fact,

But you remember our discussion

23

there was a paper my colleague just pointed this out.

24

the halfway mark to doubling last year.

25

THE COURT:

We crossed

But when Arrhenius said "doubling," he
-

 41
1

wasn't talking logarithmic, was he?

2

added to it?

3
4

DR. ALLEN:

Or is that something you've

No, he was -- I mean, the point about the

logarithmic relationship is the fact that every doubling --

5

THE COURT:

6

No.

7

DR. ALLEN:

Yes.

8

THE COURT:

No.

9

DR. ALLEN:

Logarithmic?

10

THE COURT:

Did he use -- in his paper did he use the

11

Did he use the word "logarithmic"?

Well, he was writing --

word "logarithmic"?

12

DR. ALLEN:

I'm not sure.

13

THE COURT:

Arrhenius, I'm talking about.

14

DR. ALLEN:

Yes.

15

carbon dioxide.

No.

He was writing --

He talked about the logarithm of

He talked about the fact that --

16

THE COURT:

No.

17

DR. ALLEN:

Yes.

18

THE COURT:

Did he say that would be a logarithmic

DR. ALLEN:

Well, it is a logarithmic function.

19
20
21

No.

That doubling thing.

function?
If we

go back to that quote --

22

THE COURT:

No.

23

DR. ALLEN:

Whether he used the word "logarithmic" in

24
25

I'm asking:

Did he say that?

his paper, I mean, I don't know.
THE COURT:

Okay.

Don't answer.
-

It's okay.

But I

 42
1

don't want you reading modern day politics into this. I'd just

2

like to know did he say it was a logarithmic relationship?

3

DR. ALLEN:

So whether said -- whether he used the word

4

"logarithmic," mathematically, if he said something equivalent,

5

mathematician wouldn't care what word he used.

6
7

THE COURT:

Yes, but the two examples he gave are not

necessarily -- it could also be linear.

8

DR. ALLEN:

Yes.

9

THE COURT:

The doubling and quadruple thing.

10

DR. ALLEN:

Yes.

11

THE COURT:

If you look at those, that part if it's

12
13

Yes.

both linear and logarithmic.
DR. ALLEN:

If a double -- if a doubling has the same

14

impact as the last doubling, then it's logarithmic.

If a

15

doubling -- if the second doubling has twice as much impact as

16

the first doubling, then it's linear.

17

THE COURT:

Okay.

18

I'm not sure I agree with that.

19

DR. ALLEN:

Can I use the board?

20

THE COURT:

Well, first go back to -- if we are going

21

to argue about this, go back to the very first chart where you

22

quoted him.

23

DR. ALLEN:

Arrhenius.

24

THE COURT:

I want to see the Arrhenius chart.

25

Here we go.

Right there.
-

So he says any -- so 2X

 43
1

equals 4C.

Right?

2

DR. ALLEN:

Yes.

3

THE COURT:

And 4X equals 8C.

4

All right?

So I readily agree that that would fit a

5

logarithmic, but for just two data points which is all we got

6

here.

7

Doesn't it also fit a linear function?
DR. ALLEN:

You also have the third data point, which

8

is preindustrial equals 0C.

9

data points, because if you have no increase in carbon dioxide,

10

So 1X equals 0C.

So there are three

then you have no warming.

11

So that's why there are three points.

12

THE COURT:

13
14
15
16

Wait.

DR. ALLEN:

1X.

1X.

THE COURT:

All right.

18

that is a logarithmic.

21

1X equals 0C, meaning same as

preindustrial.

whether or not that's right.

20

All right.

Let's say 0X would equal --

17

19

So you're saying 0X.

Okay.
questions.

So I have to think about

But I'll that your word for it that

All right. I'm using up your time with my dumb

Okay.

Go ahead.

DR. ALLEN:

Okay.

So where do we go to.

Keeling and

22

what's happened to carbon dioxide.

23

carbon dioxide was being created by combustion and not, for

24

example, just being released by the oceans because of the warming

25

was provided by some observations by Ralph Keeling, also Scripps,
-

So confirmation that this

 44
1

Charles Keeling's son, who showed that oxygen concentration in

2

the atmosphere was falling at the same rate that CO2

3

concentration was rising, because, of course, to create a

4

molecule of CO2, you need a molecule of oxygen, if you are

5

creating that CO2 by burning carbon.

6

So that confirmed that this increase in CO2 in the

7

atmosphere was being -- was caused by burning something, if there

8

was any remaining doubt about that question.

9

We could also see from the lower panel here the

10

isotopic signature.

That's the ratio of carbon 13.

Carbon 13

11

means it's a form of carbon which has 13 nucleons rather than the

12

normal 12.

13

That isotope of carbon was declining again at precisely

14

the rate we would expect if this additional CO2 in the atmosphere

15

was appearing there because of combustion.

16
17

THE COURT:

I haven't -- explain this upward chart here

that has the green line going --

18

DR. ALLEN:

The green line going up is this CO2.

19

THE COURT:

I got that.

20

DR. ALLEN:

The blue line are observations of the

21

What is the blue line then?

concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere.

22

Now, oxygen is almost 29 percent of the atmosphere is

23

oxygen.

So there's a lot more oxygen around.

24

concentrations are falling ever so slightly because we're using

25

up the oxygen to burn the carbon to make the CO2.
-

But oxygen

 45
1

THE COURT:

Okay.

2

DR. ALLEN:

So in --

3

THE COURT:

And where did that data come from?

4

DR. ALLEN:

The oxygen data?

5

THE COURT:

Yes. I was wondering about that very point.

6

If the amount of oxygen -- I know it's many times greater, but I

7

had wondered, well, is it actually falling off ever so slightly?

8
9
10

And one of the books I looked at said that they
couldn't measure it.

But you're telling me they have measured

it.

11

DR. ALLEN:

It's been measured.

It's very delicate

12

measurements, because obviously there's a lot of oxygen there, so

13

it's actually quite hard to measure a very tiny percentage-wise

14

reduction.

15

reduction in the ozone.

But he did measure it and he saw this very clear

16

THE COURT:

Who measured that?

17

DR. ALLEN:

Ralph Keeling, Charles Keeling's son,

18

actually did the oxygen measurement.

19

1990's.

20
21
22

And that was done in the

So -THE COURT:

What was the -- did the parts per million

of oxygen decline somehow correspond to the increase in CO2?
DR. ALLEN:

The reduction in oxygen was exactly the

23

rate that was expected if all of the CO2, all of the additional

24

CO2 in the atmosphere was appearing there because of combustion.

25

So this --

 46
1
2

THE COURT:

I'd be very interested in reading that.

Is

that in a paper someplace?

3

DR. ALLEN:

Absolutely.

4

THE COURT:

Okay.

5

DR. ALLEN:

Yes, I can provide that to the Court.

6

THE COURT:

All right. Thank you.

7

DR. ALLEN:

So now we get to the breakdown of where

Can you tell me --

8

this carbon dioxide is coming from.

These are the key sources of

9

emissions per year over the past century.

And as you can see up

10

until the middle of the century the beige band, which is the

11

emissions from land use change actually were more than half the

12

total that the contributions from fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas

13

have taken off in the second half of the 20th century.

14
15

If we add up these emissions over time, so this is
taking those -- this --

16

THE COURT:

Wait.

17

very interesting chart.

18

chart?

19

DR. ALLEN:

Wait.

Wait.

Keep that.

That's a

Who is the -- who constructed that

This is data from the Global Carbon

20

Project, led by Corinne Le Quere, at the University -- now at the

21

University of East Anglia.

22

where carbon is coming from and where it's going to in the global

23

carbon cycle.

24
25

THE COURT:
Yes, that one.

Okay.

And they compile information on both

So go back to the one you had up.

Just a minute.

Let me -- "Land-use changes."
-

Is

 47
1

that deforestation?
DR. ALLEN:

2

What's included?
Deforestation would be a big part of that.

3

Also, conversion of land for agriculture.

4

changes is meant to be a value system.

5

I mean, land-use

It's a formatted work.

And the key message of this is that land-use change

6

emissions were really important up until mid-century.

They have

7

actually been declining in absolute terms since over the past few

8

decades.

9

they are now a relatively small fraction of the total.

And in relative to fossil fuels emissions, of course,

10

THE COURT:

And what's in the category of "Others"?

11

DR. ALLEN:

That would be mostly cement manufacturing.

12

THE COURT:

Gas is natural gas?

14

DR. ALLEN:

Yes, natural gas.

15

THE COURT:

Hard to tell the difference between oil and

13

Is that what that

means?

16

the coal.

17

screen it's impossible to tell, but roughly present day what

18

would be the difference.

19
20

I can't quite see it.

DR. ALLEN:

Is there a difference?

On my

Present day emissions would be roughly --

of that lower band it would be roughly fifty/fifty oil, coal.

21

THE COURT:

Okay.

22

DR. ALLEN:

So if we go to -- so this shows exactly the

23

same data, but just added up over time.

24

emissions over time, and we can see from this that half of total

25

emissions from fossil fuels into the atmosphere have occurred
-

So accumulating these

 48
1
2

since 1980.
And we can also see the contribution from products sold

3

by individual companies has also increased rapidly since the

4

1960's So it's possible to trace these emissions directly to

5

products sold by individual companies.

6

Thanks to the work of the Global Carbon Project we

7

understand where this carbon is going.

8

accumulating in the atmosphere.

9

(indicating).

10
11

About half of it is

That's the pale blue band here

And other half is being taken up by the land and

the oceans.
So the Court asked specifically about whether plants

12

take up this additional carbon dioxide.

13

do through something called a "CO2 fertilization effect."

14

grow faster in a higher CO2 world, and so they are taking up some

15

of the excess carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere.

16

And the answer is they
Plants

Unfortunately, because of the warming that is going on,

17

an even more important store of carbon on land, which is the

18

carbon in soils, may actually start to release carbon because

19

soil bacteria respire, and then release that carbon dioxide back

20

into the atmosphere.

21

So the general consensus is that the ability of the

22

land to take up excess carbon will weaken through the century,

23

and it may even turn into a source.

24
25

Two:

The crucial point here, and the main point of

this is if you look at the thin, dotted line at the top here
-

 49
1

which is the total input from the sources, you can see that we

2

can understand where that carbon has gone.

3

carbon is coming from, and we know where it's going.

4

half of it is remaining in the atmosphere.
THE COURT:

5

Wait.

6

"Atmosphere" I understand.

7

"land sink" mean?
DR. ALLEN:

8
9

So we know where the
And about

Let's try to digest this.
"Ocean sink" I understand.

What does

That is the additional carbon which is

being taken up by plants and soils in the land biosphere as a

10

result of the plants growing faster, for example, due to the CO2

11

fertilization effect.

12

THE COURT:

So let's say that we have the world pumping

13

exhaust out of our collective tailpipes and the smokestacks and

14

lots of CO2 that is definitely going into the atmosphere.

15

does this imply that some of that that goes into the atmosphere

16

is then getting absorbed by plants for the green part, but it's

17

from the atmosphere?

18

DR. ALLEN:

So

So individual molecules are being cycled

19

around all the time between these three different pools of

20

carbon.

21

carbon dumped into the atmosphere on the carbon stored in both

22

land and ocean.

23

on land than was before.

What we're seeing here is the impact of the additional

And you can see the more carbon is being stored

24

But, as I say, because of the impact of rising

25

temperatures on soil bacteria, the concern is that the ability of
-

 50
1

the land to take up extra carbon may be becoming exhausted

2

sooner, for example, than the ocean sink is likely to get

3

exhausted.

4

I mentioned earlier Revelle's work showing that the

5

ocean sink was smaller than expected.

6

sink here, which is more complicated, involves more biology.

7

the result, there is evidence it's running out and its ability to

8

take up half, to take up a quarter of the carbon we are putting

9

into the atmosphere is running out.

10
11

THE COURT:

Well, we also have a land
But

In just a couple of sentences, what is that

evidence that the land sink is running out of space?

12

DR. ALLEN:

We know that as we warm soils, the bacteria

13

in the soils -- there's more biomass in the world in the form of

14

bacteria than just about anything else.

15

the behavior of bacteria has a really big impact on global carbon

16

cycle.

17

and then they convert carbon in the soil to CO2 just through

18

respiration.

19

So anything that changes

And as we warm back the soil, bacteria respire faster,

So that is a well-documented effect.

But the magnitude

20

of this effect is quite uncertain.

21

whether -- we know that it will reduce the effectiveness of the

22

carbon sink.

23
24
25

So we don't know

We don't know whether it will be strong enough to turn
it into a net source.
THE COURT:

Okay.
-

 51
1

DR. ALLEN:

I now go to understanding the earlier, to

2

understand the impact of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations

3

on temperature.

4

we've got to, the increase in CO2 and other forms of pollution in

5

the atmosphere to date is a perturbation on the global energy

6

budget of two-and-a-half watts per square meter.

7

watts per square meter is the power consumption of a not very

8

efficient cell phone.

9

Just to come back to where -- you know, where

Two-and-a-half

So it doesn't sound like a very large amount of energy,

10

but, of course, because the Earth surface area is so large it

11

adds up to twelve-and-a-half million Terawatt hours per year, or

12

6O times global primary energy consumption.

13

So one of the questions the Court asked is:

What

14

happens to the energy that is actually generated by combustion of

15

fossil fuels?

16

And the answer is:

That energy, it might have a local

17

impact in the vicinity of a power station or something.

18

globally, it's completely dwarfed by the impact of the emissions

19

from those fossil fuels on the global climate through their

20

interaction with infrared radiation.

21

THE COURT:

Help me understand that part.

But

So heat, the

22

heat that is created by combustion, does that somehow -- I know

23

your point about -- I understand you're making the point about

24

the CO2 is much more important to look at than the heat itself.

25

But I do want to understand the heat part.
-

 52
1

So we have heat -- technical name.

2

DR. ALLEN:

Yep.

3

THE COURT:

That is burning up and very hot, if you

4

touch it.

So that heat, does that at some point get converted to

5

infrared energy?

6

DR. ALLEN:

Yes.

7

THE COURT:

Which then tries to get out in space?

8

DR. ALLEN:

Yes.

9
10
11

atmosphere.

It becomes -- it warms the

It eventually will be emitted in space as infrared

energy.
THE COURT:

How does it get converted?

Does all

12

heat -- does all just normal, thermal heat immediately start

13

radiating infrared?

14

DR. ALLEN:

Yep.

Yep.

It would potentially warm the

15

air around it, for example, just directly warm the air.

16

was water vapor being released from a cooling tower, then it

17

would be released in the form of latent heat of water vapor in

18

that steam.

19

heat would escape into the atmosphere.

20

And then, that would condense.

Or if it

Many ways that that

But its ultimate fate is same as all other heat, which

21

is it radiates on in space as infrared radiation.

22

crucial point here is that heat source is tiny compared to the

23

impact of the emissions of CO2 on outgoing radiation through that

24

impact on the greenhouse effect.

25

THE COURT:

But the

Is there any other planets in the solar
-

 53
1

system like Venus, maybe, that has an atmosphere that's more

2

concentrated in CO2?

3

DR. ALLEN:

Venus absolutely has a lot of CO2 in the

4

atmosphere.

5

understanding of the behavior of atmosphere is to look at other

6

planets and understand.

7

model CO2 on our planet.

8

behavior of other planets' atmosphere.

9

test of the physics which we incorporate into those models.

10

We use the same models that we use the
We use those models to model the
And it's an excellent
And

one --

11
12

And, in fact, one of the best tests of our

THE COURT:

What happens on Venus?

How hot is it

DR. ALLEN:

Well, the surface of Venus is extremely hot

there?

13
14

because it has what some call a sort of "super greenhouse

15

effect."

16

The Venusian atmosphere is very different from the

17

Earth.

18

cover, so the radiating temperature from Venus is determined by

19

the temperature of very high clouds.

20

have just like on Earth, you have this increase of energy with

21

depth which just results from the fact that the atmosphere is

22

getting more dense as it goes down.

23
24
25

I'm also not a -- I mean, it has a very dense cloud

Underneath the clouds, you

And as a result, the surface of Venus is at many
hundreds of degrees -THE COURT:

How about Mars?
-

Doesn't it have CO2?

 54
1

DR. ALLEN:

Mars has only a very thin atmosphere, and

2

it doesn't have enough CO2.

3

atmosphere to keep the surface warm, so Mars is relatively cold.

4

THE COURT:

It doesn't have enough of an

All right.

So I'm using up -- your hour is

5

up, but why don't you take five more minutes to wind up your

6

first part of your presentation?

7
8

DR. ALLEN:

Right. Okay.

So there's sort of a natural

break coming up pretty soon.

9

So we're in this situation.

We've disturbed the global

10

energy balance.

And you can think of the global energy budget as

11

like a bathtub.

We've got an additional two-and-a-half watts per

12

square meter going in because of this increase in greenhouse gas

13

concentration.

14

This is the situation I'm describing today.

We've got an additional 1.75, one-and-three-quarter

15

watts per square meter going out because of the warming that's

16

already happened.

17

numbers.

18

square meter accumulating in the climate system.

19
20
21
22
23

And there's a difference between those two

So we have an additional three-quarters of a watt per

THE COURT:

The one where it says "1.75," does that

mean it's going into space?
DR. ALLEN:

It's going back out into space because the

planet is already warmed as a result of past emissions.
And we can see this energy imbalance accumulating

24

crucially in the world ocean.

This is another very important

25

milestone was that we were able to see the energy imbalance
-

 55
1

thanks to observations from Sydney Levitus.

2

And in 2000, he was able to show that the global oceans

3

were warming again at the rate we would expect as a result of the

4

energy imbalance due to the increase in greenhouse gas

5

concentrations.

6

Which brings us to the way which we've framed our

7

understanding of the climate system in terms of the global energy

8

budget.

9

more minutes --

And if I can have about -- as you say, I have about five

10

THE COURT:

Please go ahead.

11

DR. ALLEN:

-- I can finish at a natural break.

12

is the way -- this is the only equation in my talk.

13

situation now.

14

This

It shows the

By the way, our understanding of the global energy

15

budget was a lot of it down to the work of Stephen Schneider in

16

the 1970's.

17

if Stephen Schneider was alive today he would certainly be in

18

this courtroom and probably giving this tutorial.

19

my best.

20

Stephen Schneider, from Stanford.

In fact, I'm sure

So I'm doing

We've already said the net energy imbalance due to

21

external drivers about two-and-a-half watts per square meter.

22

We have the warming due to preindustrial of about 1

23

degree.

24

the oceans.

25

And we also have this additional .75 degrees going into

In equilibrium, we know what the forcing would be due
-

 56
1

to CO2.

2

equilibrium warming, the thing which people have often been

3

trying to work out, is what is the equilibrium warming due to

4

doubling CO2.

5

That's 3.7 watts per square meter.

And we know that the

And the crucial part about this equation, this is an

6

equation to represent the behavior of the climate system.

But it

7

contains two unknown quantities, these lambda and muse terms,

8

which represent the additional radiation to space per degree of

9

warming that results from the warming.

And this is something

10

which is -- which we can't derive.

We can't observe it directly.

11

It's not something we can observe.

It's something we have to

12

infer from other things.

13

And also an extra term, which is the additional energy

14

released into space due to the fact that the system is now in

15

disequilibrium.

16

And so we can work out the response to doubling CO2 by

17

putting all the mechanisms that we think affect these lambda and

18

mu terms into a computer simulation.

19

bottom-up estimate of how we estimate the warming due to doubling

20

CO2 that is done with global climate models.

21

And this is the sort of

And the first of these modeling experiments were done

22

by -- first of all, by Manabe and Wetherald in 1967, using a

23

single-column model, which modeled the entire Earth as a spatial

24

average.

25

general circulation models.

And then, later on in 1975, was using three-dimensional

-

 57
1

It's important to stress these complex climate models

2

get a lot of attention in the discussion of climate change, but

3

they have appeared relatively late in my talk.

4
5

They weren't essential to our understanding of the
impact of enhanced greenhouse warming.

6

Drawing all this together, drawing both our

7

understanding of basic physics and understanding of the -- both

8

understanding of the basic physics and the early simulations from

9

global climate models, the 1979 National Academy of Sciences was

10

able to draw the conclusions that they were expecting a warming

11

of between one-and-a-half and four-and-a-half degrees for the

12

equilibrium warming on doubling CO2.

13

They also stressed -- and I suspect we can detect the

14

hand of Carl Wunsch in these sentences -- that the oceans could

15

delay the estimated warming for several decades.

16

they made the statements:

17

And, crucially,

"We may not be given a warming until the CO2

18

loading is such that an appreciable climate change is

19

inevitable."

20

So they not only identified the possibility of a

21

serious warming, but they also recognized that it was going to be

22

potentially awhile before we could see what was happening

23

directly in the observations.

24
25

Reading these papers, it seems to me the situation in
the late 1970's was somewhat analogous to a doctor who detects a
-

 58
1

virus count going up in a patient, but the patient has not yet

2

developed a fever.

3

And the doctor might know that there's a one in three

4

chance that the patient is resistant in which case the virus

5

might continue up, but there would be no further symptoms.

6

there's a two in three chance that the patient could actually end

7

up getting very sick.

8

were in.

9

But

And so that's really the situation they

They knew that if they waited until the patient

10

developed a fever so that they knew whether or not it was a

11

resistent patient or not, it would be too late to do anything

12

about it.

13

of the virus as analogous to the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere.

14
15
16

But they could see the virus is going up if you think

So that seems to me to be a way of assessing their
state of mind at the time.
And just to finish up, I want to sort of show you that

17

it wasn't necessary for scientists in the late 19th century --

18

the late 1970's to detect the warming, in order for them to

19

predict what was likely to happen next because of the fossil fuel

20

emissions.

21

This is a figure from a paper by William Nordhaus, an

22

economist from Yale.

He was drawing from the climate science

23

that was available at the time.

24

figure shows his projection of the impact of rising CO2 on future

25

temperature that results under a business-as-usual scenario of
-

And the dashed line on this

 59
1

continued emissions.

2

And on the right here I'm showing you what has

3

happened.

4

pre-1977 observations in blue, red -- and the post-1977

5

observations in red.

6

And that's observed temperatures.

I'm showing the

And if I slide those over each other we realize that it

7

was possible for scientists in the 1970's to make a remarkably

8

accurate prediction of what has actually happened since 1980 to

9

global temperatures.

10

And speaking as a climate scientist, I find it slightly

11

sobering that such an accurate prediction was made when I was

12

barely out of primary school.

13

THE COURT:

Did he do this without the aid of computer

DR. ALLEN:

He was using the results from the computer

14
15

So --

models?

16

models that Syukuro Manabe and Richard Wetherald had run, but he

17

was incorporating those results into a simple computer model of

18

the climate system, and he was coupling that to make a computer

19

model of the global economy, as well.

20
21
22

So this was the early efforts of the so-called
"integrated

assessment model exercise."

I think that's actually a good point to sort of

23

illustrate to you the state of thinking at the end -- at the end

24

of the 1970's.

25

The rest of my talk was about understanding how we
-

 60
1

detected human influence on the global climate over the more

2

recent decades and the discussion of the role of natural and

3

human influences.

4
5

THE COURT:

somewhere or is that somebody else?

6

MR. BERMAN:

7

THE COURT:

8
9

Well, are you the witness who needs to go

Somebody else.
Well, we're well past the one hour, so I

think we have to move on.
And so, Dr. Allen, you are a genius.

10

helping me to understand this.

11

while in case some other question comes up.

And thank you for

I hope you stay with us for a

12

DR. ALLEN:

I'm very happy to stay around.

13

THE COURT:

Thank you.

14

Let's see.

Is it 20 minutes that you wanted?

15

what your druthers are on time.

16

MR. BERMAN:

17

THE COURT:

18

Thank you.

Tell me

We need 20 minutes.
Let's do the 20 minutes now, and then we'll

take a break.

19

MR. BERMAN:

Yes.

20

THE COURT:

21

MR. BOUTROUS:

Can we do that?
Yes, Your Honor.

In part two of your

22

topics you asked for a tutorial on the best science on CUIs and

23

coastal flooding.

24

to explain that topic to you.

25

THE COURT:

So we're going to call Professor Gary Griggs

Very good.
-

 61
1

MR. BERMAN:

Professor Griggs has a Ph.D. in

2

oceanography.

He's at the University of California at Santa

3

Cruz.

4

notebook, Your Honor, we did a Q and A of the questions you

5

asked, the eight questions.

6

notebook.

His resume is in your notebook.

And also in your

There's a Q and A to those in your

7

THE COURT:

Thank you.

8

All right.

So you're Professor Griggs?

9

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

10

THE COURT:

11

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

12

THE COURT:

13

The Cruz.

14

Correct, Your Honor.

From The Cruz.
The Cruz.

The Cruz.

I'm a banana slug.

That's where my daughter went,

Okay. So please go right ahead.
PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

Thank you for the opportunity to

15

speak today.

16

level rise and how that relates to the climate change and also

17

San Francisco Bay.

18

And I'm going to be talking primarily about sea

So the initial slide is just showing high tide today on

19

the Embarcadero.

20

that.

21
22
23

Doesn't take physics or math to understand

This is just sea level for last 18,000 years.

And sea

level responds, very closely corresponds to climate change.
If we heat up the climate, heat up the Earth, ocean

24

water expands and ice melts, which both raise sea level.

25

that's been happening -- we've had climate change happening ever
-

And

 62
1

since we've had an Earth and a Sun going back four-and-a-half

2

billion years, plus or minus a few million.

3

THE COURT:

4

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

5

So as the --

What do you think caused the ice age?
We know the Milankovitch cycles,

which you probably read about, where --

6

THE COURT:

7

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

8

and the Sun.

9

26,000 years.

Yes, I did read about that.
Three orbital cycles with the Earth

One of these is a wobble.

It has a cycle of about

One is a tilt on the axis which gives us the

10

seasons which has a cycle of about 42,000 years, and that tilt

11

actually increases and decreases which takes us a little further

12

away from the sun.

13

And then, the earth's orbit around the sun is an oval,

14

or an ellipse rather than a circle.

15

little further away from the sun.

So that takes the Earth a

16

When you put all those three together, we start to see

17

warmer and cooler periods that can begin to bring on an ice age.

18

but there's also some feedbacks working.

19

Earth starts to heat up from those orbital cycles, the ocean gets

20

warmer.

21

warming.

22

So, for example, as the

It's releases carbon dioxide, which then adds to the

We start to melt the Artic ice back.

And instead of

23

ice, which reflects sunlight, we have ocean left which absorbs

24

heat.

25

starts to thaw and it gets warmer and more CO2 and methane are

So that also adds to the heating effect.

-

And permafrost

 63
1

released.

2

So those we call "positive feedback loops."

3

those -- it's unclear if the Milankovitch cycles, those orbital

4

cycles can completely bring on an ice age by themselves.

5

timing fit's perfectly with those hundred thousand year, 42,000

6

year.

7

THE COURT:

So

But the

Does the oval elliptical -- I think you

8

called it "elliptical orbit" -- does that change or around the

9

sun or is that fixed, but the other two wobble?

10

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

So all three are changing on those

11

cycles so that oval that takes us a little further away, and then

12

comes back again, has a cycle of about a hundred thousand years

13

until it returns to where it was before.

14

That wobble, roughly 26,000 years till it's back where

15

it was.

So each of those takes us a little further from the sun

16

and brings us a little closer over time to bring on glacial and

17

interglacial --

18

THE COURT:

One last question on this.

If the northern

19

hemisphere and the north pole gets frozen over, does that then

20

mean that the southern is exposed more to the sun and is

21

tropical?

22

What is the answer there?
PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

Certainly during -- I mean, we're in

23

northern hemisphere winter now.

24

rotation, it's tilted, so we're further away and the southern

25

hemisphere is having their summer.
-

So this is the sun.

The axis

 64
1
2

When we get on the opposite side, we're now facing the
sun.

3

THE COURT:

Right.

4

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

If we go back in geologic time, we

5

have had extremes.

6

planet, we've had a period we call "hot house Earth" when all the

7

ice melted.

8

Artic.

9

Again, before there were humans on the

We had fossils of palm trees and alligators in the

And we've had a period called "snow ballers" when we

10

think the entire Earth was frozen due to changes in things like

11

methane released from the ocean.

12

starting to understand.

13

Pole, but it would be different temperature depending on

14

whether --

15

THE COURT:

Some other things we're still

So it may not be tropical in the South

It would not be frozen over like the

16

north -- in other words, if the North Pole was completely Artic

17

and frozen, then the South Pole would be warmer than normal; is

18

that right?

19
20
21

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

Depending on where we are in our

climate cycle.
The other difference is the South Pole Antarctica is a

22

continent with ice on it, which we'll talk about in a second,

23

whereas the North Pole is a sea covered with floating ice.

24

So the point here is at the end of the last ice age,

25

about 18,000 years ago, things started to warm up quickly, and
-

 65
1

sea level rose quite rapidly, maybe a half an inch a year until

2

about 8,000 years ago.

3

Again, this is in the absence of any real human

4

activity on the Earth that was affecting that.

5

however, within that rise there was some periods when sea level

6

rose maybe an inch a year, which we can almost stand out there

7

and watch.

8

Antarctica, which is a concern.

9

Within that,

We think now those were due to ice sheet collapse in

About 8,000 years ago, sea level leveled off, and for

10

the next 8,000 years, which corresponds to essentially the entire

11

period of human civilization, sea level was constant.

12

So civilization has never before had to deal with a

13

rapid change in sea level.

14

That red dashed line is the present average rate of sea level

15

rise from satellite measurements, a little over a foot per

16

hundred years.

17

Very slow rise over that period.

And in all likelihood, with the increasing greenhouse

18

gas emissions and increased warming that rate is going to

19

increase, and that's the thing that many of us are concerned

20

about.

21

THE COURT:

Can I ask a question?

Way back there where

22

the big arrow is, does that mean that the -- what would be the

23

difference in height change?

24
25

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:
difference.

I'm not following that very well.
So on the right side is an elevation

At the end of the last ice age about 20,000 years
-

 66
1

ago, sea level was about 400 feet lower.

2

THE COURT:

3

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

4
5
6

I got it.

Farallons for lunch if you walked really fast.
THE COURT:

Really?

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

8

THE COURT:

9

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

11
12
13

How about would the Bering Straits

have been --

7

10

So you could have walked out to the

Yes.

You can walk across there?
And early humans did.

We're quite

certain of that.
THE COURT:

So maybe in that period when it was low

tide, so to speak, that's when they came across?
PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

It didn't have to be low tide.

The

14

whole Bering Strait was exposed.

15

archeological evidence now of early humans making it into North

16

America probably 25,000 years ago.

17

And we've got lots of

But the main point of that white arrow is that that

18

rate of increase was very steep there, perhaps an inch a year,

19

which looks like something happened fairly quickly, which we

20

think was probably ice.

21
22
23

THE COURT:

What do you think did happen that caused

that ice age to melt away.
PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

At that point we think a collapse of

24

one of these big ice shelves, in other words, one of these

25

glaciers moving rapidly into the ocean.
-

And that's what I'm

 67
1

going to talk about in just a second.

2

THE COURT:

3

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

Sure.

Go ahead.
So this is -- I'm trying to think

4

which one we're on.

Yes, this is just a quick animation of sea

5

level rising corresponding to that 20,000 year period.

6

is the San Francisco Bay Area.

7

Sometimes this works.

8

Let's see here.

9

THE COURT:

10

12

Yes.

Okay.

We'll do it another way

Is this up on the screen?

13
14

Is that it?

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:
here.

And you can see, if this runs.

This is going to be an animation that shows

the coastline shrinking.

11

So this

THE COURT:

What I see is it's not that map anymore.

It's a pretty picture of a sunset.

15

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

16

THE COURT:

17

If it would help, we can take a break and let you fix

18

Here comings a helper.

it during the break.

19

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

20

THE COURT:

21
22
23

It's showing up on my screen.

worked.

All right.

Can you see that on the screen?

I can now.

Okay.

There.

It worked.

It

Please go ahead.

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

We got to go back and do it again.

So this is 18,000 years ago in --

24

THE COURT:

25

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

Okay.
This is about the most embarrassing
-

 68
1

thing.
THE COURT:

2

I think about 30 seconds you'll get it.

3

Try that little YouTube thing that you had out there and click on

4

that.
PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

5
6

the water isn't moving.

7

What's wrong?
THE COURT:

8
9
10

few minutes.

But it's moving on my screen here.

Okay.

Here's what we'll do.

We're going to take a break.

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

12

THE COURT:

It's time for a

Okay.

And when we come back maybe you'll have it

fixed and ready to go.

14

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

15

THE COURT:

16

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

17

(Thereupon, a recess was taken.)

18

THE COURT:

19

You take a

break, anyway.

11

13

Well, the years are going by, but

Well fix it.

All right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Welcome back.

Let's go back to

work.

20

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

Okay.

All right.

21

You're just going to have to take my word that the sea

22

level rose from the Farallons, up to the Golden Gate, into the

23

Golden Gate, up to Sacramento and back out again.

24

THE COURT:

25

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

I'll take your word for it.
Okay. So this is just looking at sea
-

 69
1

level rise past, present and future back from the 1800's to the

2

early 19 -- or the late 1800's we're using geological evidence.

3

Beginning in the late 1800's to the present we used

4

tide gauges to measure sea level.

5

global average of about five-and-a-half inches per --

6
7

THE COURT:

Wait.

And that black line shows the

I made a mistake. I left my watch

somewhere.

8

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

That's okay.

9

THE COURT:

Let me see it.

10

Wait.

I found it.

my pocket.

11

Okay.

12

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

Go ahead.

You got some free time here.
So up until 1993 we used tide

13

gauges, which was just water level recorders.

14

Golden Gate.

15

We have one up at

Tide gauges actually give you a local measurement.

16

it shows what the ocean is doing, it's rising.

17

is rising or the land sinking, tide gauges will show you

18

something different around the world.

19

and in Alaska the land is rising.

20

But if the land

In 1993, we lost a couple of satellites that measure
global sea level from space.

22

13 inches per hundred years on average.

23

times faster than those tide gauges.

25

So

In Venice, it's sinking

21

24

It's in

And those numbers are around
So maybe two-and-a-half

And in this report, which I was involved with for the
National Academy of Science and National Research Council, we
-

 70
1

were asked to project into the future.

2

2030, 2050, 2100.

So those are some of the ranges we got -- I won't go

3

into detail -- based on different greenhouse gas emissions, and

4

I'll come back to that in a second.

5

So if we look at cities around the world today, most of

6

the; world's big cities are on the coastlines, because a lot of

7

reasons.

8

and San Francisco here (indicating).

9

That was a good place to build.

There's now Oakland

But maybe 200 million people around the world living

10

within 3 feet of high tide.

11

of places.

12

So sea level is an issue for a lot

This is the tide gauge for San Francisco, which is out

13

at the Golden Gate, the oldest in the country.

14

about 7.7 inches per century.

15

level rise.

16

could come in and out without grounding on the bottom.

17
18

And it averages

They weren't put in to measure sea

They were put in to measure water depth so ships

But what it's shown over time is the sea level is
rising there.

19

This is now the satellite record since 1993.

20

average rate, which I mentioned earlier, is about 13 inches per

21

century.

22

at maybe one-and-a-half millimeters per year, or six inches per

23

hundred years.

24
25

And the

But if you look at the first several years, it's rising

The middle stretch from, say, 1997 up to 2009, or so,
is equivalent to the long-term average of a little over 12 inches
-

 71
1

per hundred years.

2

even faster rate.

3

But if you look at the most recent it's at an

So it looks like from satellite measurements sea level

4

rises are accelerating or increasing.

5

is the ice on the planet.

6

One are the mountain glaciers.

7

If we melt it all maybe we would raise sea level a foot and a

8

half.

9
10
11

The thing that concerns us

And there's three big chunks of ice.
Actually, not all that much ice.

It's okay unless you live a foot and a half within sea
level.
Greenland, if we melted it all would be about 24 feet.

12

And Antarctica contains about 190 feet of sea level rise

13

equivalent.

14

scientist thinks that's going to happen this year or next or this

15

century or next century.

16

create problems for coastal cities around the world or San

17

Francisco Bay.

18

So 216 feet total if we melt all that ice.

No

But we don't need to melt all of it to

Just two years ago a couple of scientists, DeConto and

19

Pollard, tried to figure out what was really happening in

20

Antarctica.

21

past, one about 130 million years ago, one about 3 million years

22

ago, where sea level was 20 to 30 feet higher than today, but the

23

temperatures were only slightly warmer.

24
25

And they realized that there are times in the recent

And they feel the Antarctica ice sheet breakdown
collapse was the reason for that.
-

So what they did was put

 72
1

together the physics to try to understand what is happening and

2

what could happen next.

3

State of California --

4

THE COURT:

5

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

One more time.

130 million years ago what?

I'm sorry.

130,000 (sic) years ago

6

and 3 million years ago were both warm periods when we know sea

7

level was 20 to 30 feet higher than today, but the temperatures

8

were only slightly warmer, which suggested something could happen

9

fairly quickly and get us to those levels.

And they wanted to

10

understand what it would take for that to happen.

11

something that could happen, you know.

12

THE COURT:

I thought you meant -- but did that mean

13

Antarctica was underwater?

14

you said something about Antarctica in that.

15

Is that

I just didn't understand.

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

I thought

Antarctica is where the biggest

16

amount of ice is that looks like there's the greatest potential

17

for --

18
19
20

THE COURT:

Was it always ice?

it wasn't ice?
PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

There's a period where Antarctica

21

wasn't where it is today.

22

climates, about 30 million years ago.

23
24
25

Was there ever a period

THE COURT:

It was further away in warmer

Since it got to the pole it's been covered

with ice; is that it?
PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

Right.
-

Roughly the last 30 million

 73
1

years or so.

2

sort of like way back there, but it's been there for awhile.

3

I realize those are really big numbers and it's

So the State of California asked the Ocean Protection

4

Council Science Advisory Team to look at the present status. I

5

was asked to chair that committee.

6

year.

7

We finished that April last

And what comes out of that was first Antarctica holds

8

about 61 percent of the earth's fresh water, about 190 feet of

9

potential sea level rise.

And the understanding that DeConto and

10

Pollard came up with is this image that these huge ice sheets are

11

being held in by these floating ice shelves.

12

And two things they began to understand are happening,

13

and I kind of liken it to taking the cork out of a champagne

14

bottle, if these ice shelves start to break up and move out, then

15

these glaciers can advance.

16

surface as the air gets warmer, and they are melting from

17

underneath as the water gets warmer.

18
19

THE COURT:

And they are now melting at the

They are melting, are they the ones on land

or sea?

20

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

The ones on the sea, these corks.

21

So they understood that you can't keep that thing

22

melting and still keep it in place.

23

when it breaks off can only get so high.

So when that happens

24

those glaciers can advance more rapidly.

And we do see ice

25

shelves breaking off now, one in north part of Antarctica that is
-

And that these ice cliffs

 74
1

equivalent to the size of Delaware, which is fairly sizable.

2

So that the process is being witnessed and these are

3

the findings from that report that we did just a year a little

4

over a year ago.

5

see the rate of loss from Greenland and Antarctica are

6

increasing.

7

We know the direction of sea level rise.

We

This work highlights the potential for an extreme sea

8

level rise.

9

begin to shape our decisions on how we begin to deal with coastal

10

And those should

infrastructure, coastal facilities, coastal instruction.

11
12

And we worked out probabilities.

And waiting for absolute scientific uncertainty is not
a prudent option because of what is at stake.

13

This was a projection of what we saw potentially

14

happening in the future.

15

The left side are the tide gauge and the satellite records.

16

then, we were tasked with looking out again to 2050, 2100.

17

And on the left side, so there's today.
And

And, basically, we used two of these RCP scenarios,

18

which are these representative concentration pathways for

19

greenhouse gases.

20

that's meaning that scenario means we get control of greenhouse

21

gases very quickly.

22

everything we can to stop that, those emissions.

23

A low one, 2.6, which is in the blue.

Huge reduction in carbon emissions.

And

Do

The red is RCP 8.5, which means we just keep going as

24

we are.

Our use of fossil fuels continues.

25

see after 2050, after that second dashed line, those projections
-

So you can start to

 75
1

begin to diverge.

2

And we show both a midpoint, which is the solid line.

3

And then those dashed lines, we are looking out at the ends of

4

the distribution, the 5th and the 95th percentiles.

5

So by 2100, we could be 2 feet, 3 feet, 4 feet, over

6

4 feet.

7

those earlier slides of a major collapse.

8
9
10
11

But then, there's also the potential like we saw on

In the work that's been done in these models with
greenhouse gas show it could be 8 feet or 10 feet.

We don't know

what the probability is, but we can't discount that.
So just to give you a little sense, this is the Oakland

12

International Airport, which is all built on fill.

And this is

13

from a site that we can actually project future sea level at the

14

Oakland Airport in Oakland, as a whole.

15

So this is today's high tide.

This is if we add 1 foot

16

of sea level rise.

17

add 3 feet, and you can look around and see more of the airport

18

in some areas of Oakland.

19

So the blue is now going to be wet.

And I'm just going to use these, for example.

We can

We could

20

add five feet and we could see a lot more of Oakland.

21

around the Bay Bridge goes underwater.

22

but 8 feet gets pretty grim.

23

and see what those elevations mean for coastal areas and Oakland

24

and San Francisco.

25

The area

I didn't go to 10 feet,

So we can look out in the future

In addition to the sea level rise, which is this
-

 76
1

gradual sort of incline that's looking like it's going to get

2

steeper, we also have these short-term events which become more

3

important.

4

And El Niños are one of those short-term events.

5

those red arrows point to the major El Niños in 1941, 1983,

6

1997-'98.

7
8

And

So the tide gauge in San Francisco shows water level
was a foot higher for several months.

9

This is just showing that event, and San Francisco, in

10

particular, where the highest recorded level was 1.77 feet above

11

what the tide table would have predicted -- projected from that

12

El Niño, which is this warm bulge of water that moves up from the

13

equator along the coast of western North America every 3, 4, 5

14

years.

15

So these short-term events are going to be problematic

16

in the short-term, but as sea level continues to rise they are

17

going to be on top of that.

18
19
20

THE COURT:

In brief, why is it that an El Niño would

have that surge effect?
PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

So an El Niño occurs when the

21

circulation of the equatorial Pacific reverses.

22

water moves from -- I'll do it facing you -- from the Trade Winds

23

blow the water from the South America side over to the Western

24

Pacific off the Philippines and Japan.

25

years, that system breaks down, the Trade Wind breaks down, and
-

Normally, the

Every three or four, five

 77
1

the water, this warm bulge of water in the Western Pacific flows

2

back across to Ecuador and Peru.

3

fisheries, and then moves north and south.

4

It shuts down upwelling the

Brings a lot of warm water organisms, fish and so

5

forth.

6

Oregon, Washington, and moves down the coast of South America.

7

So that bulge actually moves up the coast:

California,

We still don't know exactly what drives an El Niño, but

8

we've seen them happening and seen them in the geologic records

9

for hundreds of years.

10

THE COURT:

It's just the force of all that massive

11

water that causes -- forces itself on the way to the land up by

12

1.77 feet?

13

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

14

THE COURT:

15

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

Right.

Okay.
It's been called a "Kelvin wave," so

16

it's like a wave of water sort of slowly moving up the coast over

17

weeks or months.

18

again, that's on top of sea level.

19

But it stays for a couple of months.

So,

The next several slides are the other short-term event,

20

which we've now called a King Tide.

21

attraction of the moon on the earth's water, and also the Sun,

22

and those two working together.

23

So the tide is driven by

Couple of times a year the moon is a little closer to

24

the Earth, and the Earth-Moon system is a little closer to the

25

Sun, so the gravitational pull is greater, and we get these
-

 78
1

extreme tides.

2

with today's high tide.

3

through a couple other ones in here.

4

ground zero for King Tides.

5

So this is the Embarcadero at an extreme tide
I mean, today's sea level.

And I just

This has become sort of

So these are now coming on top of any slowly rising sea

6

level around the Bay margin.

7

out that's looking at changing flood frequencies.

8

not river flood, but a coastal flood.

9

storm waves wash water up into the public streets or the coastal

10

Just recently another study came
And this is

So when high tides and

area --

11

(Thereupon, an alarm sounded.)

12

THE COURT:

13

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

14

THE COURT:

Coastal flood alert.
From the 19th floor.

Once a month at 10:00 o'clock this thing

15

goes off.

And sometimes there's an announcement.

Usually not.

16

But about one out of three times they come on and tell us not to

17

worry.

18

I suggest you go ahead, but they may interrupt.

19

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

20

THE COURT:

21

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

I just got two more slides.

Go ahead.
So basically what this is showing,

22

the bottom two panels, are the top is under intermediate

23

emissions scenario, RCP 4.5.

24

San Francisco because we're here -- that the 10-year flood, which

25

means it would have happened on average about every 10 years,

This is telling us -- and I'll pick

-

 79
1

will now happen 6.8 times a year by 2050.

2

By 2100, the 10-year flood in San Francisco will occur

3

every third day because the water's now higher than it was

4

before.

5

higher.

So these extreme events are going to push the water even

6
7

If we go to the bottom panel -- and I'm not going to go
over to the 500-year flood.

8
9

That's way beyond our lifetime.

The bottom is RCP 8.5, which is really our today.
That's the direction we're heading.

10

THE COURT:

11

PROFESSOR GRIGGS:

And what that shows by --

"RCP" means what?
Representative concentration

12

pathways.

13

is sort of gaining heat.

14

used to talk about how much more warming.

15

And that's how many watts per square meter the Earth
It's just a measurement that has been

So if you look at 8.5, you know, we can look at 2050

16

again in San Francisco, the 10-year flood, which would have

17

occurred once every ten years is now coming 10 times a year,

18

because the water level's higher, and these other -- these King

19

tides, these El Niños, these storms events are going to simply be

20

further inland and higher in elevation.

21

So based on all the work we did on the rising seas

22

report the state put together a sea level rise guidance for all

23

the state agencies.

24
25

This was just accepted by the Ocean Protection Council
last week.

And, essentially, it's giving direction as the sea
-

 80
1

level continues to rise, how each individual facility or future

2

construction needs to take into account the future projections

3

based on the tolerance that that particular facility can manage.

4
5
6

Is it an airport?

Is it a bike path?

And so the state is now invested in these, and we're looking to
how we're planning for the future.

7

Thank you very much.

8

THE COURT:

9

Is it a walkway?

Thank you.

your turn, Mr. Butrous.

All right.

So just to -- it's

And here's what I suggest we do.

The

10

Plaintiffs' side has about 30 minutes left total, because of

11

your -- that took actually more than 30 minutes but -- and so I

12

think we ought to do the defendants' side on both presentations,

13

and then the Plaintiffs' side will have 30 minutes at the end.

14

All right?

Your turn.

15

MR. BOUTROUS:

Thank you very much, Your Honor.

Really

16

appreciate the opportunity to be here to address the questions

17

and issues the Court identified in its request for tutorial

18

regarding climate science.

19

I'm here today representing Chevron Corporation.

20

Chevron does not do original climate science research.

21

accepts the consensus of the scientific community on climate

22

change.

23

Chevron

That scientific consensus is embodied in the results of

24

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.

25

that has been Chevron's position for over a decade.
-

And

 81
1

And before we leave today we're going to leave behind a

2

couple of pieces of the lengthy reports from the IPCC and also

3

give you guidance on easy ways to get to those reports and also

4

provide our timeline.

5

for the Court.

6

the Court can use that.

7

And we also have a hyperlinked timeline

We'll figure out the best way to transmit it so

The IPCC's latest report issued in 2013 is known as the

8

Fifth Assessment Report, or AR5.

And you are going to here quite

9

a bit from me about that because it's an amazing resource, Your

10

Honor, in terms of collecting and assessing the work of

11

scientists and work that goes back to 1988.

12

And that report is literally the collective work of

13

thousands of scientists and experts, including, I believe,

14

Dr. Allen, who started off today.

15

listening to Dr. Allen.

16

who participate and have participated in this IPCC process to

17

reach a global scientific consensus.

18

He's one of the thousands of scientists

And as I mentioned, the most recent IPCC report, was

19

issued in 2013, is called "AR5."

20

just read it, and quote it.

21

Quote:

22

And it was very interesting

And it concluded -- and I'll

"It is extremely likely that human influence has

23

been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the

24

mid-20th century," close quote.

25

And I'm glad the Court mentioned the Scopes Trial talk
-

 82
1

out there because from Chevron's perspective there's no debate

2

about climate science.

3

scientific body and includes scientists and others, but what the

4

IPCC has reached consensus on in terms of science on climate

5

change.

6

First, because Chevron accepts what this

But also because it won't surprise the Court we believe

7

the resolution of climate science issues aren't going to be

8

determinative here for all the reasons in our motion to dismiss.

9

That's for another day.

10

From Chevron's perspective there's also no debate about

11

another of the IPCC's conclusions.

And that's climate change is

12

a global issue that requires global engagement and global action.

13

And that global action requires a balancing of these

14

environmental issues, the climate issues with issues of energy

15

security and socioeconomic issues.

16

In other words, global warming presents complex

17

international policy issues based on this scientific consensus

18

that has been reached up till the 2013 report.

19

continuing to evolve.

20

The AR6 is coming out in 2021.

And it's

So scientists are, you

21

know, looking forward to that 2021, there's going to be a new

22

IPCC

23

report then with new conclusions and evolving science.
Chevron does not agree with all the policy proposals

24

analyzed by the IPCC.

25

Working Group 1.

It includes not just the science in

And I'm going to come back to this.
-

But it

 83
1

also includes sections that have -- they don't recommend certain

2

policies, but it's meant to give policymakers a predicate for

3

debating and making these decisions.

4

AR5 itself notes these are complicated policy issues

5

about the future currently being debated by individuals,

6

communities, countries, NGOs, international organizations.

7

So as a preclude to launching into my detailed

8

discussion, I want to make clear that this is not a case about a

9

dispute concerning the consensus of climate scientists.

10

It is about the policy choices that have been made,

11

including by Oakland and San Francisco, and the policy choices to

12

be made in the future.

13

this one is the right way to debate and decide those policy

14

choices.

15

And it's about whether a tort suit like

Here's my plan, and for part one of the tutorial, Your

16

Honor.

17

think Dr. Allen covered much of the areas.

18

couple of areas I'm going to try to fill in a few blanks here.

19

And I think the Court was asking some questions that got to that.

20

First, I will explain how climate science developed. I
But there are a

Then, I'll describe the evolution of the science on

21

greenhouse gases and the growth of scientists' understanding of

22

their impact on climate change.

23

And throughout the day I'm going to be referring to

24

most often AR5, the IPCC report.

25

report, which includes the summary for policymakers.
-

There's also a synthesis
And then,

 84
1

it really captures this thousand-plus page report.

2

leave a copy with the Court of that, as well.

3

And we'll

Before I jump into the history, I want to talk a little

4

bit more about the IPCC, because I really did appreciate the

5

Court's tutorial saying:

6
7

"Let's take a look at what's out there in terms of
science.

8
9

What's the history?"
And as I said, the IPCC materials are really an

extraordinary body of literature.

IPCC was formed in 1988.

It's

10

an international body established by the World Meteorological

11

Organization, WMO, and the United Nations Environmental Program.

12

And I think 195 countries participate.

13

And as I suggested, the purpose is to assess the

14

scientific, technical and socioeconomic information necessary to

15

understand climate change and assist policymakers in addressing

16

it.

17

The IPCC also evaluates potential impacts from climate

18

change as well as adaptation and mitigation issues and measures.

19

The IPCC is divided into three working groups.

And

20

I've just displayed a chart from the IPCC itself that explains

21

what they are.

22

The first working group is the one I'll be really

23

focusing principally on today.

It's the group that addresses the

24

science of climate change, the physical science bases.

25

Working Group II is the group that addresses
-

 85
1

socioeconomic impacts and policy options for adapting to climate

2

change.

3

And then, Working Group III is the group that addresses

4

options for mitigating for climate change.

5

restrain it, if we can stop it or slow it from occurring.

6

Seeing if we can

And the Working Group III discusses policy options for

7

limiting greenhouse gases and enhancing activities that remove

8

them from the atmosphere, as well as the costs and benefits of

9

different approaches to mitigation.

10
11

So that structure really reflects the over-arcing
purpose

12

of the IPCC.
Now, I mentioned the assessment reports.

13

it's -- they are very illuminating.

14

and most recent one was published in 2013.

15

And I think

The first one was in 1990

To give you an idea of the work that goes into these

16

reports for AR5 alone, there were more than 830 authors and

17

review editors from more than 80 countries.

18

They drew on the work of over a thousand contributing

19

authors and about 2000 expert reviewers who provided over 140,000

20

review comments.

21

When I saw that I thought of the person who had to

22

incorporate all the comments into the final draft.

23

task.

24
25

Quite the

But the reports describe the current understanding of
climate science at the time they were issued, including areas of
-

 86
1

uncertainty and areas where additional research was needed.

2

And, in fact, the reports talk about the uncertainty

3

and probabilities and likelihoods in very specific ways, so some

4

of the quotes that I'll direct the Court to include "very likely,

5

likely."

6

The one I showed "extremely likely."
Here's the chart from AR5 that -- we're going to leave

7

behind our slides, as well, for the Court.

8

expresses how likely something is.

9

confidence in terms of how much agreement there is among

10

But this, the chart

And so the top chart measures

scientists and the quality of evidence supporting the finding.

11

The IPCC also has terms to express the probability of a

12

specific outcome, ranking from "exceptionally unlikely" to the

13

"virtually certain."

14

And that's at the bottom of the screen.

15

"Extremely likely" is not on this chart, but the IPCC

16

notes in its report that they view that as a 95-100 percent

17

likelihood.

18
19

So we've got a note on that there.

The IPCC report, it addresses key uncertainties in its
own words.

20

So if we look at AR5 Technical Summary, the IPCC

21

summarizes the key uncertainties that still exist in climate

22

science.

23
24
25

And I'll just read the first sentence there:
"This final section of the Technical Summary
provides readers with a short overview of key uncertainties in
-

 87
1

the understanding of the climate system and the ability to

2

project changes in response to anthropogenic influences," close

3

quote.

4
5

And the IPCC alternately refers to human factors and
human influences and anthropogenic influences.

6

So as we dig into the history of climate science -- and

7

I'm going to take a slightly different approach than Dr. Allen,

8

but I think it will compliment the approach he took.

9

I think the IPCC report are both a tremendous resource

10

and a great way to just watch how things have evolved and changed

11

over the past 30 years, and how scientific uncertainty and

12

confidence has changed, and how the scientific process functions.

13
14

So first let me talk about the IPCC conclusions
concerning human influence on climate in the various reports.

15

In the IPCC AR5 actually tracks through how their

16

findings have evolved each year.

17

IPCC issued its first assessment.

18

formed.

19

refer to this 1990 report as FAR.

20
21

So 1990 was the year when the
So it's two years after it was

And it's typically abbreviated FAR, so I'll sometimes

And it conclude based on the best science available at
the time, quote:

22

"The size of this warming is broadly consistent

23

with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same

24

magnitude as natural climate variability.

25

increase could be largely due to this natural variability;
-

Thus the observed

 88
1

alternatively this variability and other human factors could have

2

offset a still larger human-induced greenhouse warming.

3

unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from

4

observations is not likely for a decade or more," close quote.

5

So, they believed there was a warming trend.

The

They were

6

able to conclude that.

7

including the burning of coal, oil and natural gas increased the

8

concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

9

They understood that human activity,

But at that point, they concluded it was not possible

10

to link the two.

11

it would take about a decade before this group of thousands of

12

scientists from around the world could make that sort of finding.

13
14
15
16

And as you'll see they correctly predict that

1995 came the second assessment report known as the
SAR.
It concluded, quote:
"Our ability to quantify the human influence on

17

global climate is currently limited because the expected signal

18

is" -- and we heard Dr. Allen talk about signal -- the expected

19

signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability,

20

and because there are uncertainties in key factors.

21

the balance of the evidence suggests -- suggest that there's a

22

discernable human influence on global climate.

23

coupled atmosphere, ocean models have provided important

24

information about the decade to century time scale, natural

25

internal climate variability," close quote.
-

Nonetheless,

Simulations with

 89
1

So the message from the IPCC is we've made

2

advancements.

We've learned more since 1990.

And that

3

human -- or it's the data suggesting a discernible influence of

4

human activity.

5

of natural variability in light of some of the uncertainties in

6

key factors.

But it's only starting to emerge from the noise

7

So that's in 1995.

8

The next report is the Third Assessment Report, and

9

that rolled in in 2001.

And, again, we've seen advancements in

10

the degree of certainty or confidence that the IPCC has.

11

here's what they say in 1991.

12

And

"There is new and stronger evidence that most of

13

the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to

14

human activities.

15

temperature record and new model estimates of variability.

16

Reconstructions of climate data for the past 1,000 years indicate

17

this warming was unusual and is unlikely to be entirely natural

18

in origin.

19

unlikely to be due to internal variability alone," close quote.

20

And the IPCC alternately talks about natural

There is a longer and more scrutinized

The warming over the past 100 years is very likely

21

variability and internal variability.

22

same thing.

23

talking about natural, natural factors other than human

24

activities.

25

Basically, they mean the

When they say "internal variability," they are

So in 2007, AR4 issued the fourth report.
-

And this one

 90
1

is known as AR4.

2

connection with its work on this.

3
4
5
6

And the IPCC won a Nobel Prize for this in

And the AR4 is more definitive, and it's I think viewed
as a more definitive assessment by the scientific community.
The AR4 finds that:
"Most of the observed increase in global average

7

temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the

8

observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

9

"Discernible human influences now extend to other

10

aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average

11

temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns."

12
13
14
15

Then, as I mentioned earlier, we have AR5, the most
recent report from the IPCC.
And it concluded, among other things, that, quote:
"It is extremely likely that human influence has

16

been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the

17

mid-20th century."

18

So we see how the arc, the conclusions have evolved

19

through the years, beginning in 1990 through 2013.

20

mentioned, AR6 will be coming in 2021.

And as I

21

And I have another quote displayed for the Court that

22

the AR5 concludes that these emissions are driven and increases

23

are driven largely by economic and population growth resulting in

24

increased burning of fossil fuel, like coal, oil and natural gas.

25

And quoting, quote:
-

 91
1

"Globally, economic and population growth

2

continued to be the most important drivers of increases in CO2

3

emission from

4

fossil fuel combustion," close quote.

And you'll see, Your Honor, I'll come back to this.

5

But in the AR5 report they don't say that it's the production and

6

extraction that is driving increases.

7

living their lives, the way society it's developing economic and

8

population growth.

9

It's the way people are

I'll come back to that.

I alluded to this in my opening.

The IPCC and AR5 really

10

articulates a view in its evaluation of potential policy options

11

for addressing climate change in a very consistent way.

12

It says -- and here's the quote in AR5.

13
14
15
16

Says:

"Climate change has the characteristics of a collective
action problem at the global scale."
And the Court in its remand ruling gave a nod to this
concept:

17

"Because most greenhouse gases accumulate over time and

18

mix globally, and emissions by any agent, e.g. individual,

19

community, company, country, affect other agents.

20

cooperation is therefore required to effectively mitigate

21

greenhouse gas emissions and address other climate issues," close

22

quote.

23
24
25

International

So with that as a predicate, now I would like to go back in
time with a little more history.
The notion that we know of today, that we have today of a
-

 92
1

dynamic changing climate that can shift is relatively new in

2

terms of human understanding.

3

For more than a thousand years dating back to Aristotle,

4

philosophers and scientists viewed the climate as a static thing

5

that really just depended on where you were on the globe.

6

So I have up on the screen a map from -- I think from it's

7

from Spain -- from 1575 that reflects Aristotle's concept of the

8

climates.

9

we have five different climates.

10
11

And he kind of came pretty close.

He has at the top

The top and bottom are cold and

zones became warmer towards the equator.
And because people believed that climate didn't change and

12

it was just based on where on the Earth you lived, early climate

13

study focused on local efforts to understand the weather and to

14

assist in decisions about where to live, what to plant, just how

15

to live everyday life.

16

There are also early cloud records.

And these are from the

17

Ming Dynasty.

18

there were early records of temperatures.

19

started being recorded when the model thermometer was invented in

20

the 1600's.

21

1700's.

22

Just records of what the cloud patterns were.

And

The temperatures

And the Fahrenheit scale was developed in the

And I particularly like this.

Thomas Jefferson has to be

23

one of the most amazing multi-taskers in the world history,

24

because these are temperature records that he recorded during the

25

second constitutional convention, including on July 4, 1776, what
-

 93
1
2

the temperature was then.
And so temperature records were being kept by people, and

3

then thermometers were developing.

4

the way I read this it was 68 degrees Fahrenheit.

5
6
7

So on July 4, at 6:00 A.M.

And this was still during the little ice age.

So Jefferson

was doing many things at this time.
So climate science during this period was really about

8

observing temperatures and trying to predict the weather and

9

those sorts of things.

10

But that said, there are some early records of efforts to

11

understand global climate.

12

Halley, of Halley's Comet fame in 1686.

13

Winds were generated when sun heated the air near the equator,

14

and then the air rose, and then that forced denser air from

15

higher altitudes to rush in.

16

And one of the first was from Edmond
He theorized that Trade

This map on the slide shows the directions of Trade Winds

17

across the oceans.

18

concept of atmospheric circulation in the climate system and the

19

energy transfer system is still a fundamental feature of climate

20

science.

21

This explanation proved to be wrong.

In fact, it's really at the core of it.

But the

The Court asked

22

about the ice ages.

23

in part, because the focus of climatology really began to change

24

when scientists and geologists start to look at the ice ages.

25

And I think it was a great way to focus us,

When they found that ice had once covered large portions of
-

 94
1

the Earth that upended the notion that climate was static.

2

there was a different climate at some point earlier.

3
4
5
6
7

So

So much of the basic science about climate came out of the
efforts to understand the ice ages.
I'm going to show you a couple of charts here.

And they

really show the patterns of heating and cooling over time.
These are from the first assessment report from the IPCC.

8

The top graph shows the cyclical patterns of temperature change

9

over hundreds of thousands of years, including patterns of

10

periodic heating and cooling, some of which were cold enough to

11

be ice ages.

12

And then, the bottom graph shows the history of temperature

13

over the last 1,000 years showing the temperature drop that

14

created the most recent cooling period which the Court also asked

15

about, the little ice age.

16

And then, you also see the medieval warming period that

17

preceded the little ice age.

18

in 1850.

19

And then, the little ice age ended

And I'm going to come back to that.

Dr. Allen talked about this a bit, but just as a prelude the

20

causes of the ice ages, there's still some uncertainty, some

21

disagreement.

22

the cyclical changes in the earth's orbit around the sun

23

Milankovitch cycles.

24
25

But scientists believe that they are triggered by

In addition, I think Dr. Allen touched on the various
feedback loops, the Albedo Feedback Loop where as more as ice and
-

 95
1

snow build up, Earth reflects more sunlight.

2

melt.

3

It grows.

The ice doesn't

Makes the Earth even cooler.

John Croll described that in 1875.

4

THE COURT:

Maybe you know the answer.

So because it

5

gets worse and worse, right, it feeds on itself.

6

was it that busted us out of that cold spell and allowed the ice

7

to melt away and to -- what happened that reversed that terrible

8

trend?

9

MR. BOUTROUS:

Whatever, what

As I understand it from the IPCC reports

10

and some of the history, the process started to reverse.

11

Milankovitch cycle, the orbit returns, so the Earth was getting

12

more sun.

13

feedback loop reversed itself.

14

reflected back, more being absorbed.

15

Then that started to melt the ice and snow.

So the

The

So now you had less sun being
The Earth started to heat.

And the last component of it was the IPCC noted that

16

their research shows that during the ice ages the CO2 levels had

17

dropped as things got colder, once the first, the other two

18

features, the orbit and the Albedo, which is the reflective

19

capacity of the snow on the Earth and ice.

20
21

Then, the C02 started to rise back up.

That created

warming and that's how we --

22

THE COURT:

What caused the CO2 to go up?

23

MR. BOUTROUS:

I think just the fact that as the

24

warming that occurred because of the change in the orbit, that

25

gradually caused CO2 to increase.
-

And I think it's AR4 that

 96
1

talks about this.

2

That they just detected that during the ice ages there

3

was this drop, and then when things started to warm up CO2, there

4

was more of it just coming into the air because of the natural

5

functioning of the atmosphere.

6

THE COURT:

Let me ask you a question.

The other side,

7

too. I went to -- just letting you know I got interested in this,

8

so I went back to look at Al Gore's movie called "An Inconvenient

9

Truth."

10

MR. BOUTROUS:

11

THE COURT:

12

it?

I did, too.

How about that?

You did?

You looked at

Okay. All right.

13

So at one point he has this -- kind of that chart of

14

when the ice ages were, and then he superimposed onto that

15

samples of the carbon dioxide levels that they had been able to

16

reconstruct over the eons of time from, I think he said, ice core

17

samples.

18

And it seemed to be a pretty good match.

In other

19

words, when the CO2 levels were extremely low, then we were in an

20

ice age.

21

not be remembering it right.

22

that, that exercise was.

23

And then, when the CO2 levels -- so do you know?

MR. BOUTROUS:

Yes.

I may

But I wondered what your view of

I mean, I can't specifically

24

comment on that, but I do remember that.

25

go back to the IPCC report, and I'll just read you a quote from
-

And I think what I can

 97
1

the AR4.

2

Here's what it says:

3

"Although it is not their primary cause,

4

atmospheric carbon dioxide also plays an important role in the

5

ice ages.

6

what the doctor was referring to -- "show that CO2 concentration

7

is low in the cold glacial times, and high in the warm

8

interglacials."

9

Antarctic ice core data" --

I think maybe this is

So I think just as part of the natural process CO2 is

10

very low.

And this is what they get from the these core samples.

11

And then, has things come back to life, so to speak, it just

12

naturally starts to increase.

13

And as the Court knows, a certain level of greenhouse

14

gas effect is required for us to survive and to have it be warm

15

enough so we can live.

16

THE COURT:

I read somewhere that if we had no carbon

17

dioxide it would be too cold.

18

MR. BOUTROUS:

19

THE COURT:

20

MR. BOUTROUS:

21

THE COURT:

22

MR. BOUTROUS:

Exactly.

And we would all die -Exactly.

-- a thermostat function.
Yes.

And, in fact, that's what I

23

believe Fourier, who Mr. Allen mentioned -- and I'm going to talk

24

about him briefly, too -- that he did the calculation.

25

based on the math he said something, the atmosphere must be
-

And just

 98
1

having some sort of warming effect, otherwise we wouldn't be

2

here.

3

So these are -- Arrhenius, who you'll hear from me

4

about it again and who Dr. Allen -- really was an early -- he

5

really was focused on CO2.

6

greenhouse gases.

7
8

And I'll talk about him more on

So the little ice age, Your Honor -- Your Honor, again,
I was glad you asked the question about it.

9

If we go to slide 21, it's very interesting.

It went

10

from 1450 to 1850.

Scientists do not fully understand or

11

entirely agree on the exact causes, but the leading theories are

12

that it resulted from low solar activity, so the sun's intensity

13

was reduced during this period, and high volcanic eruptions, plus

14

a small drop in the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

15

Volcanic eruptions, Your Honor, have a cooling effect

16

because they inject particles into the atmosphere that then block

17

the sunlight from reaching Earth.

18

effect.

19

space by the atmosphere.

And so they have a cooling

They increase the amount of sunlight reflected back into

20

THE COURT:

Can I quiz you on that now?

21

MR. BOUTROUS:

22

THE COURT:

Yes.

I understand the volcano part.

I can see

23

that. I can see a small drop in greenhouse gases would have that

24

effect.

25

But the solar thing, I want to question you on that.
-

 99
1

My understanding for a long time has been there's this 11-year

2

sunspot cycle that goes on 11 years.

3

clockwork with small variability.

4

And it's just like

But that has been uniform since they started making

5

records more than 150 years ago about the sunspots.

6

you're talking about a 400-year period here.

7

the

8

less energy for 400 years?

sun do?

9
10

Right?

So what -So what did

What happened to the sun that caused it to emit

MR. BOUTROUS:

The IPCC, which I'll go back to, talks

about what they say are natural forcings. I don't think --

11

THE COURT:

Natural what?

12

MR. BOUTROUS:

Natural forcings.

So things like this

13

where that the sun will sometimes reduce or intensify its output

14

of radiation.

15

They don't really explain or have a particular, you

16

know, explanation for when and why it's going to do that.

17

am standing here right now I can't recall.

18

take a look, Your Honor.

19
20

THE COURT:

As I

But I'll go back and

It just happens.

Does it happen every 400 -- how often does

it happen?

21

MR. BOUTROUS:

I don't think there were cycles that

22

they have identified.

But let me go back and take a look because

23

I think it's a very good point, and it's important, you know, in

24

some of the analysis that he -- looking forward, when I come back

25

to that.

The IPCC, the scientific consensus is, you know,
-

 100
1

assuming that doesn't happen in the future, i.e., that there's an

2

intensifying or reduction in solar energy.

3
4

So I'll put a marker on that and may come back with a
supplement, probably highly-technical, response on that point.
THE COURT:

5
6

ice age?

7

Okay.

How cold did it get in the little

Do we have any information about that?
MR. BOUTROUS:

8

you know, people.

9

survive.

Well, it's cold enough.

The Thames froze.

And it was cold enough to

But in terms of -- and it was the northern hemisphere,

10

but much colder in terms of actual temperature.

11

you the actual data on that, as well.

12

Here we have,

And I can get

The focus on -- the Court also asked after the little

13

ice age ended, the sea level rose about a foot since 1850 when it

14

ended.

15

This was a large like academic study, the Ice Age

16

Inquiry.

I think led to important advancements in climate

17

science.

But a big breakthrough, I think, came as a result of

18

World War II in military research.

19

World War II prompted, I think, some significant

20

breakthroughs, and it was a turning point for climatology.

21

Both sides during the war recognized that the weather

22

and climate were important for military operations.

And so the

23

U.S. Government funded the training of thousands of military

24

meteorologists.

25

research.

Basically, an army to conduct basic climate

And the effort ultimately paid off.
-

 101
1

I'm sure as the Court knows on D-Day a German

2

meteorologist got it wrong.

They thought that storms would

3

prevent an invasion of Normandy.

4

the allied scientists correctly predicted a short break that

5

allowed the invasion to happen.

Normandy in June of 1944, while

6

That, in turn, immediately after World War II resulted

7

in an expansion of climate science funded in significant part of

8

the U.S. Office of Naval Research and other military branches.

9

I thought the Court would find this interesting, that

10

that military research, if you look at it, led to the development

11

of several aspects of climate science that really go directly to

12

the issues we're talking about today.

13

For example, discovery and development of radiocarbon

14

dating as an offshoot of the Manhattan Project, which allowed

15

scientists to estimate how much CO2 has recently been added to

16

the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels.

17

Another one:

Understanding how infrared waves move

18

through the atmosphere as part of research into heat-seeking

19

missiles.

20

the infrared waves are captured by CO2 molecules, and, in turn,

21

heat the Earth.

22

And, obviously, that science goes to, you know, why

And then, deep ocean circulation, that was part of

23

research into the disposal into the ocean of radioactive bomb

24

debris.

25

carbon and why the oceans have not absorbed all the excess CO2,

And that helped them determine how the ocean absorbs

-

 102
1
2

which, as Dr. Allen has noted has been an issue.
Throughout the Cold War the U.S. Government has funded

3

a number of nonmilitary research organizations, like NOAA, the

4

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

5
6

NCAR, the National Center for Atmospheric Research,
which continues to operate today.

7

And then, in 1965 President Johnson made a statement

8

sort of in the middle of this about in his message to Congress

9

based on the Presidential Science Advisory Committee Report of

10
11

the same year.
And he said, quote:

12

"This generation has altered the composition of

13

the atmosphere on a global scale through radioactive materials

14

and a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of

15

fossil fuels."

16

So these building blocks of climate knowledge were

17

being assembled.

18

this period that scientific knowledge about climate change began

19

to grow exponentially.

20

And as I'll discuss in a moment, it was during

There was literally an explosion, Your Honor.

If we

21

look at the publications that were put out, this is a graph I'm

22

about to put up from a 2001 study by Gerald Stanhill.

23

shows how the volume of scientific literature on climate grew

24

from the 1800's to 2000.

25

And it

And note, Your Honor, this is on a logarithmic scale,
-

 103
1

so it shows -- truly, I knew I was going to get to use that.

2

And so it looks like it's kind of, you know, linear,

3

but it's actually --

4

THE COURT:

5

is base-10 logarithmic scale.

6

I understand.

MR. BOUTROUS:

Exactly.

The one on the left going up

And it's really -- the

7

explosion has continued.

8

lines shows the increase in published climate change articles

9

between 1991 and 2010.

10

Another study from 2011, the solid

The authors of this study found that more than 110,000

11

scientific articles about climate change published between 1991

12

and 2010.

And more than half of those articles were between 2006

13

and 2009.

So 55,000 articles in that period.

14

That's why I thought, you know, the IPCC reports and

15

the scientific consensus embodied in those were really a great

16

place to focus principally today.

17

that, the work is continuing.

18

out there.

19

mentioned.

20

And but notwithstanding all

More discovery and theories are

And then, we have the AR6 coming in 2021, as I

The IPCC isn't the only organization that collects and

21

reviews climate research.

22

issuance of the report from the United States Global Change

23

Research Program.

24
25

The Court may have heard about the

It has issued four national climate assessments
starting in 2000.

They involve a number of different U.S.
-

 104
1

Government agencies, some 13 agencies contributed to the most

2

recent report which came out in 2017.

3

And they focus on the state of climate science with

4

respect to the United States.

5

States.

6
7

So they are focused on the United

They, in turn, rely substantially on the IPCC reports
that I'm principally relying on, that I'm relying on today.

8

So, with that, I'd like to get into -- just go back in

9

time a little bit more to fill in a couple of the other areas of

10

history that Dr. Allen alluded to, but didn't discuss in detail.

11

The climate scientists have identified three

12

fundamental processes that can change global temperature.

13

Changing them out of incoming solar radiation.

14

happen based on variations in the Earth orbit or variances in the

15

sun's output, changing the fraction of sunlight that is reflected

16

back into space when the Earth is brighter or when there are

17

particles from volcanos injected into the atmosphere.

18

And that can

And then, changing the fraction of infrared radiation

19

from the Earth that is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the

20

atmosphere.

21
22
23

For obvious reasons I'm going to focus principally on
the historical development of the science there.
As Dr. Allen mentioned, Joseph Fourier in 1824 first

24

determined that the amount of energy reaching the Earth from the

25

sun was not enough to explain the earth's warm temperatures.
-

 105
1

He concluded that the atmosphere had to be keeping the

2

Earth warm.

3

through a series of lab experiments, determined that water vapor

4

and CO2 in the atmosphere can cause the greenhouse effect.

5

Then, 35 years later, Irish scientist, John Tyndall,

And then, it was in 1896 that Svante Arrhenius used

6

calculations of CO2 emissions from factories burning coal to

7

conclude that, like volcanos, but on a tiny scale, these

8

factories could increase the Earth temperature by increasing the

9

concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

10
11

THE COURT:
predictions.

What did he do?

He made some specific

Right?

12

MR. BOUTROUS:

13

THE COURT:

14

MR. BOUTROUS:

Yes.

What were those predictions?
Well, he predicted that, as you know,

15

the more coal -- and this is one of the charts we had earlier --

16

the more coal that was burned and the more CO2 that was injected

17

into the atmosphere based on human activity, that could have a

18

warming effect.

19

And so you would think with those three the building

20

blocks would have been laid for this entire world climate

21

scientist.

22

He referred to it, but there was another scientist that rolled

23

around four years later, Knut Angstrom.

24

Swedish scientist.

25

But there's a missing chapter from Dr. Allen's story.

And he was another

In 1900, he purported to disprove Arrhenius' theory and
-

 106
1

his prediction that changes in CO2 could impact global

2

temperature.

3

He used lab experiments, spectrographs, and concluded

4

that any infrared radiation that would be absorbed by CO2 was

5

already being absorbed by the much larger concentration of water

6

vapor.

7
8

In other words, the CO2 was duplicative and irrelevant.
Water vapor was already absorbing all infrared radiation.

9

And you'll see from this quote from the Monthly Weather

10

Review put out by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1901,

11

they were pretty much giving their battle, the wind to Angstrom.

12

They said, quote:

13

"The remainder of Angstrom's paper is devoted to a

14

destructive criticism of the theories put forth by the Swedish

15

chemist, S. Arrhenius, in which the total absorption of CO2 is

16

quite inadmissibly inferred from the data which include the

17

combined absorption of CO2 and the vapor water," close quote.

18
19

And I think Dr. Allen mentioned the papers in the
1930's, I think, sort of touching on this issue.

20

It appears that Angstrom's conclusion rejecting

21

Arrhenius' theory remained the accepted view for more than 50

22

years.

23
24
25

And in 1951, Your Honor, the American Metrological
Societies Compendium of Meteorology noted, quote:
"Arrhenius saw in this cause of climatic changes,
-

 107
1

but the theory was never wildly accepted and was abandoned when

2

it was found that all the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is

3

also absorbed by water vapor," close quote.

4

THE COURT:

5

MR. BOUTROUS:

6

Meteorological Society.

7

significant advancement where Arrhenius comes back, back into

8

favor.

9
10

THE COURT:
over 1938.

Right?

What year was that statement?
That was 1951 from the American
But the '50's turn out to be a period of

Wait a minute.

Before you -- you jumped

Who was in 1938?

11

MR. BOUTROUS:

12

THE COURT:

1938?

Now, you are going to stump me.

Maybe I'm not remembering right, but wasn't

13

a guy named "Callendar," and they even called it the "Callendar

14

Effect," not like the calendar, but C-A-L-L-E-N-D-A-R.

15

And he did the little line, the same line about CO2

16

going up, and also said that it was causing the Earth to get

17

warmer.

18

so that seems like there was somebody who was continuing to keep

19

the story alive that CO2 was a bad thing.

And this was a formal scientific paper.

20

MR. BOUTROUS:

21

THE COURT:

Right.

Right?

I mean,

Yes.

Well, maybe not a bad thing.

Just going to

22

get warmer.

I think he said it was actually a beneficial thing.

23

It was going to make everything warmer and we wouldn't have to

24

worry about the ice age again.

25

warmer.

But, nevertheless, it was getting

-

 108
1
2

MR. BOUTROUS:

You are right, Your Honor.

I didn't

mean to suggest that there were no other papers out there.

3

THE COURT:

But you said that by 1950 that this guy

4

Angstrom, his theory held sway, and that even in 1950 it was

5

still holding sway, so wouldn't it be more accurate to say there

6

were two views?

7

MR. BOUTROUS:

Perhaps, Your Honor, because I'm going

8

to get to the point at the end of the day it really is going to

9

prove a point about science.

10

But Callendar agreed with Arrhenius, but it wasn't

11

viewed, as far as we can tell, as the accepted view.

12

accepted view was that Arrhenius was wrong.

13

But here's where the stories turn.

14

THE COURT:

15

MR. BOUTROUS:

The

Okay.
And, you know, science is about

16

debating things because I think Dr. Allen referred to Gilbert

17

Plass.

18

came in to say that they discovered that CO2 can absorb different

19

wavelengths of radiation on CO2.

20

And I think, for example, in 1950 Benedict and Plyler

Angstrom thought that they were be absorbing the same

21

type of infrared radiation, therefore CO2 is duplicative.

Among

22

other Benedict and Plyler opinions said, no, they have more

23

powerful spectrographs.

24

and determined that, no, CO2 was having its own effect as a

25

greenhouse gas.

They could see the different wavelengths

-

 109
1

THE COURT:

2

MR. BOUTROUS:

3

THE COURT:

4

MR. BOUTROUS:

5

THE COURT:

6

MR. BOUTROUS:

7

THE COURT:

8

MR. BOUTROUS:

9

theory.

I'm sorry.
Yes.

Say this Benedict, what year was that?
Plyler?

That was in 195 --

One.
Fifty-one.

What's the conclusion that they reached?
They reached -- they refuted Angstrom's

They determined CO2 is absorbing a different radiation

10

length than water, therefore it was a greenhouse gas that was

11

having an effect.

12
13

THE COURT:

All right.

So we're back.

At least in '51

we're back to Arrhenius is correct.

14

MR. BOUTROUS:

He's back.

15

picked up on that theory.

16

today.

17

how science works.

18

Scientists debating each other.

19

He's back.

And others then

And that's the theory that has held

But I think the point I really wanted to make is that's
It's trial and error.

It's cumulative.

It's experimentation.

It is self-correcting.

And I like

20

the book Brilliant Blunders by Mario Livio that sometimes a big

21

mistake can lead to a big discovery.

22

He says:

23

"The road to discovery and innovation can be

24

constructed even through the unlikely path of blunders," close

25

quote.
-

 110
1

And so sometimes discoveries are unintentional.

2

Sometimes they come from questioning other scientists' views.

3

And it's really part of the scientific process.

4

Another significant development in the '50's came from

5

Revelle and Suess.

Dr. Allen talked about Revelle.

6

give Suess his day in the sun here.

I want to

7

In a related finding, they determined that -- they

8

looked at whether the ocean could absorb all the excess CO2.

9

this was in 1956.

And

They determined that while the CO2 mixes

10

rapidly in the upper layers of the ocean, it can take centuries

11

to mix with the deeper parts of the ocean.

12

And at that point scientists began to really question

13

the notion that the oceans could eliminate all the excess CO2.

14

So it was going somewhere else.

15

ocean.

16

It wasn't being absorbed in the

And then, Keeling came along, ended his study, his

17

family's

18

determined that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was

19

increasing and that the excess was not being absorbed in the

20

atmosphere.

21

study with the Keeling Curve in Mauna Loa, and

Picking up on sort of how things developed, not

22

necessarily when there's a focus on the particular subject

23

matter, greenhouse gases.

24

Court's orders asked about the ozone.

25

that I found interesting.

In the early '60's, I think one of the

-

So here's a connection

 111
1

Congress instructed NASA to study the impact of the

2

ozone layer of proposed supersonic airplanes and the space

3

shuttle.

4

exhaust could destroy the ozone.

5

And there was concern, the Court will recall, that the

And that led to an examination of CFCs,

6

chlorofluorocarbons, and their impact on the ozone layer.

7

ultimately those synthetic chemicals were determined to be

8

greenhouse gases, the chlorofluorocarbons.

9

showing they could have a significant greenhouse gas effect,

10

greenhouse effect.

11

significant effect on the ozone layer.

12

And

And there was a

It also shows that they did have a

And they were then banned in 1987 by the -- they

13

actually -- the Montreal Protocol, they were limited, and then

14

banned in 1996.

15

But the examination as greenhouse gases led to other

16

discoveries of synthetic chemicals that could have a greenhouse

17

effect.

18

And I just put up on the screen a number of examples.
The one that I wanted to just point out is the HFC,

19

hydrofluorocarbons.

20

1980's to replace CFCs, and they turned out to be greenhouse

21

gases, as well.

22

out there.

23

Those were the chemicals developed in the

So there are other synthetic greenhouse gases

THE COURT:

Help me understand the ozone part.

24

CF -- give me the code word again.

25

MR. BOUTROUS:

CFC's.
-

Is it

 112
1

THE COURT:

CFC's.

All right.

So I definitely

2

remember that period when we were alarmed over that.

3

of the reading I did it seemed to me that there was a suggestion

4

that the ozone layer in its natural state reflects back some of

5

the sunlight from the sun so that it tends to cool the Earth.

6

I right about that?

7
8

And in some

Am

I know the ozone layer also has other -- it keeps
ultraviolet radiation from coming through. I believe that's true.

9

But what does it -- does it also have an effect of

10

reflecting back sunlight that would otherwise hit the Earth and

11

therefore make it even warmer?

12

MR. BOUTROUS:

What's the answer to that?

I don't know the answer to that, Your

13

Honor. I know that it does have an effect in terms of a warming

14

effect and the other effects.

15

asked about carbon dioxide and whether it's reflecting sunlight

16

back.

17

with respect to the ozone layer's cooling effect in that regard.

But I don't know.

It's transparent to the visible light.

18

And, again, I can follow up.

19

THE COURT:

20

23
24
25

But I'm not sure

So but CFC's also act as a --

like carbon dioxide as something that traps heat on the Earth?

21
22

All right.

You know, you

MR. BOUTROUS:

Yes.

They have a powerful greenhouse

effect.
THE COURT:

Now, in terms of which one is more

problematic right now, is it carbon dioxide or is it CFC?
MR. BOUTROUS:

Carbon dioxide.
-

Now, synthetic with

 113
1

CFC's having been banned, they are not having as much of an

2

effect now.

3

But there are other synthetic greenhouse gases, but

4

they are not having the effect, the degree to which carbon

5

dioxide and other greenhouse gases are.

6

THE COURT:

Thank you.

7

MR. BOUTROUS:

8

So with that, Your Honor, I think I'm going to maybe

Thank you.

9

end this portion of my discussion really about in terms of where

10

science is now with the concept of modeling and projecting into

11

the future.

12

And the IPCC AR5, and other reports, talk about

13

modeling and so at the same time scientists were making these

14

discoveries, the modeling tools became more powerful and more

15

complicated.

16

interactions between components of the climate system over time.

17

The models began to allow scientists to simulate

And computers in the 1970's were becoming more

18

powerful.

They used algorithms to represent the interaction of

19

different elements of the climate system, like the atmosphere,

20

land surface and ocean and sea ice.

21

And you see this chart from AR5 shows that with each

22

iteration of the IPCC Assessment Reports, climate models added

23

more components over time.

24

complex.

25

And those have become increasingly

That can make the modeling more powerful.
-

You can try

 114
1

to -- you kind see more.

2

because it's an attempt to represent things happening in the real

3

world, the complexity can also bring --

4

THE COURT:

5

reasonably accurate?

6

You can try to understand more.

But

Was there a model that you think is

MR. BOUTROUS:

Well, I think that, you know, we,

7

Chevron, accepts the approach that the IPCC uses, which involves

8

a bunch of different models.

9

I segue into part two.

10

And I'm going to talk about that if

And, in fact, I'll show you and give you

an example.

11

They say there's no one best model; that different

12

models can do different things better, and they haven't found one

13

that does it all.

14
15

So they run many, many models on different emission
scenarios, and I'm going to turn to that.

16
17

THE COURT:

Kind of like the hurricane models that each

one predicts a slightly different path?

18

MR. BOUTROUS:

19

THE COURT:

20

MR. BOUTROUS:

Right.

Exactly.

Okay.
And so, and then the IPCC looks, and the

21

scientists get together, you know, and try to come to a consensus

22

and make determinations about the likely range, for example, of

23

temperature increase or sea level increase based on this table of

24

models.

25

And I'll show you that in a minute.
-

The point I want

 115
1

to make here is that the IPCC itself says:

2

"Climate models of today are, in principle, better

3

than their predecessors.

4

while intended to improve some aspect of simulated climate, also

5

introduces new sources of possible error," close quote.

6

However, every bit of added complexity,

So, you know, you can do certain things.

But then

7

you're -- you know, you're limiting other features.

And so the

8

IPCC points to that and grapples with that as it makes its

9

assessments.

10

Let me go to the next slide before we go --

11

THE COURT:

12

Don't you think it's amazing that that guy

Arrhenius --

13

MR. BOUTROUS:

14

THE COURT:

15

MR. BOUTROUS:

16

THE COURT:

Yes.

-- with no models, no computers -Yes.

Just the back of an envelope and pencil and

17

paper could have made that prediction which even today sounds

18

pretty reasonable, doesn't it?

19

carbon dioxide from those levels that -- what was it -- 4 degrees

20

Centigrade I think the Earth would go up?

21
22
23

That if you doubled the amount of

That's in the ballpark of what I think these models are
saying. Right?
MR. BOUTROUS:

These scientists are brilliant.

I mean,

24

again, when you look back what they were doing, they were just

25

coming up with this themselves and making a hypothesis and
-

 116
1

testing it.

So I --

2

THE COURT:

3

MR. BOUTROUS:

4

THE COURT:

But he was just one guy.
He was just one guy.

One guy in an early age and using his brain

5

and some data, but not -- but just thinking it through.

6

to admire that.

7

Okay. I'm sorry.

8

MR. BOUTROUS:

9

Go ahead.

Yes.

No.

And now this is a good time.

One guy back in 1896, and now we have these models that can do a

10

lot.

11

more in the next segment.

And this is just for illustration, and I'll talk about it

12

But this graph from AR5 shows model projections for the

13

Earth temperature through 2050.

14

feel for it, the solid black line shows the observed

15

temperatures, so that's what actually happened.

16

And just to give the Court a

The colored lines show the modeling estimates based on

17

various emissions inputs.

18

the RCPs.

19

are looking at, they are assuming.

20
21
22

You have

And so you'll see it says those are

So the RCP 2.6 is the lowest emissions scenario they

And then, RCP 8.5 is the highest emission scenario.
They are assuming the highest level emissions going forward.
And then, this goes to the Court's earlier question.

23

They ran multiple different models that had different factors

24

included in them at each scenario.

25

So 42 models for 4.5, 39 models for RCP 8.5.
-

And

 117
1

that's -- then you see this tangle of projections going into the

2

future.

3

Based on the models and the mission scenarios the range

4

gets wider as it gets farther out in the future, reflecting, I

5

think, just the common sense notion that it's harder to predict

6

things as they go into the future.

7

THE COURT:

Just so we can -- so the model that would

8

be the most conservative in year 2050, if it's correct, what does

9

that mean?

10

Centigrade?

11

The temperature would go up by about 1 degree in

MR. BOUTROUS:

Well, you know, it depends, Your Honor.

12

In fact, I'm going to show you how the IPCC put that.

13

if you just looked, if you picked one of those lines, and then

14

you picked the year, you'll see some of the RCP 2.6 models, they

15

are at different places because the model is different in terms

16

of the factors they were using.

17

THE COURT:

18

MR. BOUTROUS:

19

THE COURT:

20

MR. BOUTROUS:

21

THE COURT:

22

MR. BOUTROUS:

23
24
25

Honor?

Anomaly:" means difference.

But, yes,

Right?

Yes.

That is what that means?
Exactly.

Compared to what year?

What year are we --

So what year did you mention, Your

You said -THE COURT:

2050 at the very far right.

the base year that we're comparing it against?
-

But what is

 118
1
2

MR. BOUTROUS:

The base year here -- and, Your Honor, I

think you're right.

3

THE COURT:

Must be 1986.

4

MR. BOUTROUS:

5

THE COURT:

6

MR. BOUTROUS:

Yes.

I'm not sure.
I've got that here for you, Your Honor

7

but I think it would be -- as you pointed out, the lowest one

8

would be about a .5 degree increase as I look at it.

9

THE COURT:

10

would be almost 2.5.

I see. I see.

11

MR. BOUTROUS:

12

THE COURT:

13

MR. BOUTROUS:

Okay.

And then, the highest

Right.

Centigrade.
Yes.

And then, I'll return to this in

14

the next segment to give you an example of what the IPCC does to

15

try to make an estimated range of temperature increases based on

16

these models.

17

THE COURT:

Okay.

You want to stop there?

18

an hour.

19

for the Plaintiff side left.

20

public can use the facilities.

You've used

So you have an hour left, and then we have 30 minutes
And we'll take a break now so the

21

Where is Dr. Allen?

22

I want you to know that I think you are right about the

23

logarithm thing.

24

be a logarithmic scale.

25

And I want -- on base two that would definitely

All right.

We'll see you in about 15 minutes.
-

Thank

 119
1

you.

2

MR. BOUTROUS:

3

THE CLERK:

4

(Thereupon, a recess was taken.)

5

THE CLERK:

Please remain seated.

6

THE COURT:

All right.

7

seated.

8
9
10

Excellent.

Thank you.

Court is recess.

Back to work.

Please remain

Okay.
So let's finish your half.

So you have another hour to

go, and then we will return to the Plaintiffs' side for the
finale.

11

MR. BOUTROUS:

12

THE COURT:

Okay.

But before I go, while I have you here, Mr.

13

Boutrous, is your side going to consent or object or have any

14

problem with those amicus submissions?

15

in, and I received a paper from Plaintiffs that they have no

16

objection.

17

just approve it.

So if you don't have any objection, then I'm going to

18

So do you have any objection?

19

MR. BOUTROUS:

20

THE COURT:

21

There were two that came

We have no objection, Your Honor.

All right.

Then, I will eventually get an

order out approving the amicus submissions.

22

Okay.

Please go ahead.

23

MR. BOUTROUS:

Thank you, Your Honor.

I'm now going to

24

move to part two of the tutorial, which the Court asked us to

25

address the best science now available on global warning, glacier
-

 120
1

melt, sea rise and coastal flooding.

2
3

I'm going to walk through those topics basically in
order.

4

Just as in part one, I'm going to be relying on the AR5

5

from the IPCC, and, in particular, I will be citing a Working

6

Group I report on the physical science basis of climate change.

7

THE COURT:

8

MR. BOUTROUS:

9
10

global warming.

Okay.
The first topic I'm going to discuss is

And the Court's already on top of this.

tell from the questions.

11

I can

But just a couple of terms.

So global, when we talk about global warming and

12

temperature, there's no one global temperature.

And scientists

13

have developed "global" means "surface temperature," which in

14

laymen's terms an average of the temperatures around the world.

15

And it's not measured directly.

16

estimating and using measurements at various places.

17
18

It's done by

So we will all be using that term a lot during this
segment.

19

As the Court also already noted, the IPCC -- maybe

20

we'll go to slide three -- does use a baseline.

21

slide here are the baselines.

22

here.

23

against which the change is measured, as the IPCC points out.

24

So on this chart which I'm going to talk about in a

25

And that means I have them in

I have them for our convenience.

second, it's from AR5.

So in every

And it's the state

Anomalies are being plotted on the graph
-

 121
1

with respect to the baseline of 1881 to 1980.
THE COURT:

2
3

MR. BOUTROUS:

Yes.

This is the temperature variations

during the last 2000 years.

6

THE COURT:

7

MR. BOUTROUS:

8

Group I.

9

title from the IPCC.

10

Am I

looking at the wrong chart?

4
5

No, this goes back 2000 years.

All right.
Sure.

Explain that one to me.

So this figure is from Working

It's in the -- it is, as it is titled.

That's the

The dotted line represents the baseline,

which is the average global temperature from 1881 too 1980.

11

So they are comparing those other temperatures to that

12

baseline global average, global mean temperature from 1881 to

13

1980.

14

THE COURT:

15

MR. BOUTROUS:

16

THE COURT:

17

The dotted line?
Yes.

On mine it looks like this a bunch of red

dots that go back to 1600.

18

MR. BOUTROUS:

So, Your Honor, if we're looking at the

19

same chart, so it's the chart titled:

20

during the last 2000 years."

21

THE COURT:

22

MR. BOUTROUS:

23

THE COURT:

24

MR. BOUTROUS:

25

baseline.

"Temperature variations

Right.
And I think he has got the --

Curser.

Go ahead.

So if you look at the 0.0?

That is the

So then the temperatures are being compared against
-

 122
1

that baseline, 1881 to 1980, throughout that period.

2

starts at, you know, 500.

3
4

THE COURT:

It looks like way back in the medieval era.

Right?

5

MR. BOUTROUS:

6

THE COURT:

7

Yes.

The temperature was higher than the

baseline; is that right?

8

MR. BOUTROUS:

9

THE COURT:

10

It really

Correct, the medieval warming period.

Then, starting around 1300, 1400 it

dropped.

11

MR. BOUTROUS:

12

THE COURT:

Correct, the little ice age.

Little ice age.

And then, it stayed --

13

looks like, according to your chart, it stayed below the mean

14

until about 1900?

15
16
17

And then, it is skyrocketing up.

MR. BOUTROUS:

It stayed below the mean.

Right?
And then,

around 1900 in 1901, I think temperatures start to rise again.
THE COURT:

But it's pretty fast, it's rising, not just

18

a big rise.

19

line that went back on my -- the one I'm looking at, the red dots

20

go back to 1600.

21
22

But okay.

MR. BOUTROUS:

Right.

You are right.

My fault.

I was

just referring to the dotted lines that reflected the base line.

23

THE COURT:

24

MR. BOUTROUS:

25

But you said something about a dotted

The dashed line.
Yes, exactly.

Just to pick up, the

colored lines and the black lines indicate baseline using
-

 123
1

different data sets.

2

instrument data.

3
4

So the black lines on the figure are

So that's measured.

And then, the colored lines and dots represent various
reconstructions of the past.

5

THE COURT:

6

MR. BOUTROUS:

Okay.
So that's that figure.

And let me go

7

into a little bit more recent period, 1850 to 2012.

8

1850 was the end of the little ice age.

9

point the Court was just making.

10

And, again,

And this is really the

The IPCC AR5 concludes that:

"Since 1901 almost the whole world has experienced

11

surface warming.

12

occurred in two periods:

13

1970 onwards."

14

Warming has not been linear; most warming
Around 1900 to around 1940 and around

And so, again, this -- each of the colored lines shows

15

the average global temperature anomaly based on a different

16

dataset from 1850 to 2012.

17

surface temperature from 1961 to 1990.

18

against that.

19

And the baseline is the global means
So they are comparing

The next slide is basically the same slide, I believe.

20

But

21

Your Honor, from 1901 to 1950, here's the conclusion of the IPCC.

22
23

if we look at the 20th century warming, the early period,

Quote:
"The early 20th century warming is very unlikely

24

to be due to internal variability alone.

25

quantify the contribution to this warming from internal
-

It remains difficult to

 124
1

variability, natural forcing and anthropogenic forcing, due to

2

forcing and response uncertainties and incomplete observation,"

3

close quote.

4

And since I knew you would ask me what caused that

5

warming I thought I would just go with that quote because I think

6

what they are basically saying is that in the early 20th century,

7

while it's unlikely that the climate was functioning -- the

8

warming was caused by the climate functioning in its natural

9

course, internal variability, the IPCC couldn't quantify any

10

contributions to the warming from potential other causes, like

11

changes in the sun or volcanos.

12

THE COURT:

13

MR. BOUTROUS:

That's the natural forcing.

What does "internal variability" mean?
That is their phrase for just describing

14

the natural, natural variability in the climate without some

15

event like a volcanic eruption, which is what they call a natural

16

forcing sort of an event.

17
18

And then, anthropogenic forcing is human activity like
the kind of things we're talking about here.

19
20

THE COURT:

When was that Krakatoa volcano?

that about 1880 something?

21

MR. BOUTROUS:

22

THE COURT:

23

effect.

That sounds about right, Your Honor.

So that was supposed to have had a cooling

Right?
MR. BOUTROUS:

24
25

Wasn't

Volcanos generally have a cooling

effect.
-

 125
1

THE COURT:

So part of that downward curve might be --

2

anyway, but around 1901 it starts to go up.

3

statement is saying to us, if I got it right, is that it's very

4

unlikely to be due to internal.

5

saying it is due to CO2?

6

MR. BOUTROUS:

And what this

Is that a roundabout way of

They are saying they think something

7

other than just internal variability, natural climate

8

fluctuations.

9
10

THE COURT:

Well, that would be human.

MR. BOUTROUS:

They are saying, you know, they can't

12

tell.

13

natural causes.

14

the sun's solar power, something.

In addition to internal variability there are other

15

17

So sort of, as I said, an event, an increase in

But, and then, but anthropogenic forcing is human
activity.
So they are saying they think something other than

18

natural activities is causing the warming.

19

enough data.

20

They

are saying it must be human, but they are not saying it directly.

11

16

Right?

But they don't have

They are not able to pin that down for that period.

Now, things get different.

I'm going to move to the

21

next slide, Your Honor, because here when we get into the more

22

recent period, the period 1951 to 2010, they are able to draw

23

conclusions.

24
25

And this is a variant of what I displayed at the
beginning.

In the second half of the 20th century they analyzed
-

 126
1

that data and concluded that it, quote:

2

"It is extremely likely that more than half of the

3

observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951

4

to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increases in greenhouse

5

gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."

6

THE COURT:

7

MR. BOUTROUS:

8

THE COURT:

9

MR. BOUTROUS:

10

"Anthropogenic" means "human"?
Yes.

Right.

Okay.

So that's this most, you know -- that

period there they are able to make that conclusion.

11

So since they talked about the anthropogenic increase

12

in greenhouse gas concentrations, Your Honor, I thought I would

13

briefly touch on historic CO2 emissions, just to make a couple of

14

things clear.

15
16

So this chart has the historic human CO2 emissions for
the United States, China and India from about 1970 to 2010.

17

They are on different scales, Your Honor.

The top

18

chart has China, United States and India.

19

China is increasing.

20

the emissions went -- leveled off and then dropped down as of

21

2005.

22
23
24
25

India is increasing.

And you'll see that
The United States,

And the quote I have up there is one I mentioned
earlier.
Quote:
"Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are mainly
-

 127
1

driven by population size, economic activity, lifestyle, energy

2

use, land use patterns, technology and climate policy," period,

3

question mark.

4

Excuse me, quote mark.

And I think it's important when you think about it, as

5

the Court probably is aware, that China is burning more coal than

6

the United States.

7

called "fracking," that has caused reduced coal burning in the

8

United States and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

9
10

With the hydraulic fracturing or sometimes

So you see how different energy uses can change and
affect the greenhouse gas emissions.

11

And I said this earlier, I think the IPCC does not say

12

it's the extraction and production of oil that is driving these

13

emissions.

14

creates demand for energy.

15

especially due to the importance of having affordable energy

16

sources.

17
18

It's the energy use.

THE COURT:
measures CO2.

It's economic activity that

And that leads to emissions,

What is the -- the vertical column, I know,

Right?

19

MR. BOUTROUS:

Yes.

20

THE COURT:

21

MR. BOUTROUS:

22

THE COURT:

23

MR. BOUTROUS:

24

And then, the bottom scale for the world is doing the

25

same thing, but it's on a different scale because the world has

Is that tons or -Megatons.

Megaton.
Megatons per year.

-

 128
1

more megatons.

THE COURT:

2
3

But it, again, shows the increase.
On the top, this chart comes from the IPCC.

Right?

4

MR. BOUTROUS:

Yes.

Well, both charts are from IPCC

5

AR5.

6

and India and put them all on the same chart, same scale, just so

7

the Court could see it altogether.

8
9

We took, just so the Court knows, we took the China, U.S.

THE COURT:

One thing that surprises me about this is

the U.S. line, while it has gone up, has not gone up that much.

10

But the China one has gone up dramatically --

11

MR. BOUTROUS:

12

Correct.

And that is because, you know,

their economy --

13

THE COURT:

-- and surpassed the USA.

14

MR. BOUTROUS:

Yes.

And it really goes to the global

15

nature of this.

16

more activities.

17

are burning coal, more coal than the U.S.

18

Their economy has been expanding.

That leads to

That creates a demand for more energy.

The U.S. has been using other sources of energy:

19

Natural gas.

20

the levels you see comparing the United States and China.

21

That has been one of the contributing factors to

THE COURT:

On the India graph, there seem to be two

22

lines, an orange one and a green one or something.

23

the point of the two lines?

24
25

They

MR. BOUTROUS:
Your Honor.

So what is

I think those are different datasets,

We had all three.

So you'll see there are different
-

 129
1

colors for each.

2

datasets, and they are pretty comparable.

3
4

And so they did these analyses using different

THE COURT:

All right.

That's worldwide.

5

MR. BOUTROUS:

6

THE COURT:

7

data -- it's hard to read.
MR. BOUTROUS:

9

THE COURT:
33?

Let's say 30,000.
MR. BOUTROUS:

12

THE COURT:

14
15

Yes.

All right.

So 30,000.

So the USA would be

what portion of the 30,000?
MR. BOUTROUS:

So if we go back up to the top chart, on

this graphic from the IPCC it looks like about, you know --

16

THE COURT:

17

MR. BOUTROUS:

18

THE COURT:

19

I can enlarge.

What is the total, 30,000 31 something?

11

13

Yes.

And as of right now, the most recent

8

10

So go to the one on the bottom?

6,000.
Six thousand, 5900.

So that would put us at -- here's where I

need Dr. Allen.

20

Well, what is the percentage of that?

21

MR. BOUTROUS:

22

THE COURT:

23

MR. BOUTROUS:

24

THE COURT:

25

20 percent.

6,000 into --

30,000.

-- 30,000.

20 percent?

Yes.

Okay.

So the USA is responsible for

Is that right, about roughly?
-

 130
1

MR. BOUTROUS:

2

THE COURT:

Based on your calculations, Your Honor.

Well, I'm asking you.

3

still, USA is pretty big.

4

here.

5

USA?

Okay. so

I wonder where Europe would fit in

Have you done -- where would Europe be?

Comparable to the

What would it be?

6

MR. BOUTROUS:

7

THE COURT:

8

MR. BOUTROUS:

9

So that's historic CO2 emissions.

10

All right.

We can get you that data.

No, that's okay.

All right.

Go ahead.

Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.

Let's turn to future temperature projections.

And this

11

is sort of where I left off with the modeling discussion. And I

12

think Dr. Griggs mentioned the emission scenarios.

13

them earlier.

14

I referred to

Just to illustrate what they are, this chart from the

15

AR5, is kind of laying out what they are.

16

concentration pathways are also called, just in shorthand, "The

17

Emission Scenarios."

18

So the representative

They reflect less potential future mitigation efforts,

19

such as carbon capture the higher up we go.

20

chart, the black line represents the historic CO2 emissions

21

through 2011.

22

So if we look at the

And then, they start looking out to the future.

23

2.6, the dark blue line is considered the lower, the low

24

emissions scenario.

25

The

RCP 8.5, the red line, is the high emission scenario.
-

 131
1

And then, 4.5 and 6.0 are the two intermediate scenarios.

2

So as I mentioned, the IPCC runs different models based

3

on different scenarios in terms of the quantity of emissions from

4

human activities.

5

THE COURT:

6

MR. BOUTROUS:

7

THE COURT:

8

downward.

9

Yes.

How can this be?

I got some that are going

Some of these projections go down.
MR. BOUTROUS:

10
11

Here's something.

THE COURT:

Right?

Correct, yes.

So what assumptions are made that would

cause the amount of CO2 to go down?

12

MR. BOUTROUS:

For example, that one, the lowest one,

13

which is RCP 2.6, they are modeling and calculating in different

14

mitigation efforts, such as carbon capture and storage, and

15

other -- that other mitigation efforts will be made as a policy

16

matter.

17

And so they factor that into that.
And then, on the red line they are assuming that those

18

sorts of things won't have been done.

19

forward.

20

And that emissions will go

So then the next chart, you will recall, the next

21

graph, this is, again, from the AR5.

22

displayed earlier.

23

what they actually do with it, with the Court's permission.

24
25

And it's the one that I

This is -- I kind of want to walk through

The various models that are in the parentheses on the
left-hand side of the screen and the top, next to the RCP
-

 132
1

emission scenarios have different factors and different

2

considerations built into them.

3

these models.

4

And there are many, many of

This is the Working Group I from its chapter on near

5

term climate change.

6

through the process of projecting future temperature change.

7

And this is just to illustrate how they go

As I mentioned earlier, the colored lines on the figure

8

are the various model runs, with the solid black line is the

9

historical actual observed temperatures.

10

And if you -- you'll see that the black line here when

11

it crosses the dotted line it is at the lower end of the bottom

12

end of the projections.

13

lines.

14
15
16
17
18

So to the bottom end of the tan-colored

And that, the IPCC observed -- and this is the quote up
on the side, quote:
"Some models may be too sensitive to anthropogenic
forcing," close quote.
So they are saying that the models were assuming a

19

greater effect from human activity on the temperature than turned

20

out to be the case in actual observed temperatures.

21

THE COURT:

All right.

Let's -- okay.

22

understand your point.

23

line, black line on the left that says "historical."

24

there's a dashed vertical, but that is hard to see.

25

But all right.

I think I

There's the obvious dark
And then,

But the black solid line continues on a few years
-

 133
1

thereafter.

Right?

2

MR. BOUTROUS:

3

THE COURT:

Yes.

So the squiggly colored lines, are those

4

what the models that existed back at the time of the dashed line,

5

vertical line, what they would have projected?

6

MR. BOUTROUS:

7

THE COURT:

8
9

That's what they were projecting, so --

By what point?

At the point of the dashed

lines?
MR. BOUTROUS:

Yes.

So as I understand it from the

10

IPCC report, that's what they were projecting from that period,

11

from the dotted line forward.

12

And then, as it turned out, you see the observed

13

temperatures, what actually happened at least with respect to

14

some of them, the observed temperatures were lower than those

15

models were predicting.

16
17

THE COURT:

And that was true for how many years?

Looks like five years maybe?

18

MR. BOUTROUS:

19

THE COURT:

20

MR. BOUTROUS:

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, really --

Six.
-- pretty much going from 2000 to about

21

2012, really.

22

think that's when they are -- this is from -- yeah, really almost

23

the entire time.

24

were predicting less.

25

Almost to the end when you look at that, because I

Some are below.

Some of the models do run --

But it's really from, let's see, 2000.
-

I think it's

 134
1

about 2005 to 2012.
THE COURT:

2
3

MR. BOUTROUS:

5

that period of time.

6

THE COURT:

8
9

So your point is the models

overstate the problem.

4

7

All right.

gloom.

At least -- at least with respect to

And instead of doom and gloom, it's just

But it's still going up.
MR. BOUTROUS:

You know, Your Honor -- and, again, I'm

just really reporting the way the IPCC has looked at this.

And

10

you'll see that the going farther into the future you have the

11

various different models based on different RCP scenarios, kind

12

of going out in the future.

13
14
15

And the other quote I have displayed is again from the
IPCC, quote:
"By mid-21st century, the magnitude of the projected

16

climate change is substantially affected by the choice of

17

emissions scenario," close quote.

18

So, in other words, as a policy matter, but also just

19

as a modeling matter, the more emissions you anticipate, the

20

magnitude of projected climate change is going to be a function,

21

but a function substantially affected by that choice.

22
23

So then, the question is:

How do they make a

prediction?

24

THE COURT:

25

MR. BOUTROUS:

Is this in the IPCC report?
Yes, it is.
-

And we'll give you copies

 135
1

of all this.

2

THE COURT:

3

MR. BOUTROUS:

4

THE COURT:

5

MR. BOUTROUS:

6

Plaintiffs a copy, too.

7
8
9

All right.
It's right out of AR5.

Can you give me color copies?
You bet.

Absolutely.

And we'll give

So now, just to give you a sense of how -- what they do
once they have this data, we'll go to the next slide.
And here this is the chart, the graph that represents

10

the IPCC Working Group I, making a determination based on all

11

that data, all the models, the various scenarios, what's the

12

likely range of temperature from 2016 to 2035?

13

And so they -- what they do, they added the -- that's

14

the IPCC red box to represent their determination of likely -- to

15

them that's greater than 66 percent -- future increases in global

16

mean temperature.

17
18
19
20

And I'll just read the conclusion, and then I have a
feeling you might have a couple of questions.
So, quote:
"Overall, in the absence of major volcanic

21

eruptions -- which would cause significant but temporary

22

cooling -- and, assuming no significant future long term changes

23

in solar irradiance, it is likely, 60 percent (sic) probability

24

that the Global Mean Surface Temperature anomaly for the period

25

2016 to 2035, relative to the reference period of 1986 to 2005
-

 136
1

will be in the range of .3 centimeters -- Celsius -- excuse me

2

.3-degree Celsius to .7-degree Celsius."

3

And then, they say:

4
5

"(Expert assessment, to one significant figure:
Medium confidence)," close paren, close quote.

6

And that would translate to about .5 degrees Fahrenheit

7

to 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit.

8

range for that period and potential increase.

9

THE COURT:

Ending in the year 2035.

10

MR. BOUTROUS:

11

THE COURT:

12

So that's their like predicted likely

Yes.

Okay.

Well, okay.

Just a minute.

This

IPCC, Intergovernmental -- what does the P stand for?

13

MR. BOUTROUS:

14

THE COURT:

15

MR. BOUTROUS:

16

THE COURT:

17

MR. BOUTROUS:

18

THE COURT:

Panel on Climate Change.

Climate change.
Yes.

And the U.S. is part of that.

Correct?

Yes.

So that is saying that "likely," meaning

19

more than 66 percent probability that between 2016 and 2035,

20

there will be an increase and it will be in the range of .3 to .7

21

C.

22

MR. BOUTROUS:

23

THE COURT:

Yes.

Okay.

And .7 C is, did you say,

24

one-and-a-half degrees Fahrenheit.

25

MR. BOUTROUS:

1.3 degrees Fahrenheit.
-

 137
1

THE COURT:

1.3. All right.

2

MR. BOUTROUS:

So that's their process.

And they have

3

a process for, you know, reaching consensus for analyzing issues.

4

And that's how they -- how they do that and project into the

5

future.

6

THE COURT:

I'm sure you are going to get to it, but

7

let's say that that prediction is correct.

8

translate to in terms of sea level increases?

9

MR. BOUTROUS:

So what would that

I'm about to turn to glacier melt and

10

sea level, because you'll see it's a somewhat complex analysis in

11

terms of translating actual contributions of human activity to

12

warming, and then translating that to sea level rise.

13

about to -- perfect -- it's a perfect segue, Your Honor.

14

start with the glacial melt.

15

So the Court asked about glaciers.

But I'm
Let me

And in addition to

16

glaciers, which are a form of land ice, there are ice sheets.

17

And ice sheets are another type of land ice, obviously, but much

18

larger.

19

In IPCC's words they are of continental size and the

20

only two are Greenland and Iceland.

And this is another graphic

21

from IPCC AR5, to orienting us all.

It's shows the glaciers in

22

yellow.

23
24
25

You can see on the graphic the ice sheets are in white.
And then, you've got sea ice as the light blue around

it.
And Your Court will recognize Greenland in the
-

 138
1

northern, the top view, and Antarctica in the southern bottom

2

view.

3
4

And Your Honor, again, for reference Chapter Four of
the AR5 Working Group I goes into great detail on the ice masses.

5

And so, again, so we've got Greenland at the top,

6

Antarctica on the bottom.

7

give the Court a few of the key findings from the IPCC on

8

glaciers.

9

Let me start with glaciers, and just

First quote:

10

"The arithmetic-mean estimate of Leclercq, et al,

11

2011, indicates continuous makes loss from glaciers after about

12

1850," close quote.

13

Again, was the end of the little ice age.

Another finding:

14

"Overall, there is very high confidence that

15

globally, the mass loss from glaciers has increased since the

16

1960's," close quote.

17

And then, another finding is, quote:

18
19

"Anthropogenic influences likely contributed to
the retreat of glaciers since the 1960's," close quote.

20

So that is what they have found in terms of glaciers.

21

And there's a likely effect from human activities since the

22

1960's.

23

That's glaciers.
And then, if we go to ice sheets of Greenland and

24

Antarctica.

25

quote:

Starting with Greenland, the IPCC has found that,

-

 139
1

"Over Greenland, temperature has risen

2

significantly since the early 1990's, reaching values similar to

3

those in the 1930's," close quote.

4

Then, they find, quote:

5

"There's a very high confidence that the Greenland

6

ice sheet has lost ice during the last two decades," close quote.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Third, they find, quote:
"It is likely that anthropogenic forcing has
contributed to surface melting of the Greenland ice sheets since
1993," close quote.
And they also find that, quote:
"Since 2007, internal variability is likely to
have further enhanced the melt over Greenland," close quote.

14

THE COURT:

What does "internal variability" mean?

15

MR. BOUTROUS:

Just natural changes in the atmosphere

16

and the temperature aside from human activities, including

17

emissions of greenhouse gases.

18

Now, let's turn to Antarctica.

It's a very different

19

story in terms of the conclusions and the ability of scientists

20

to understand what is happening in Antarctica.

21
22
23
24
25

First on Antarctica, and it's the biggest sheet, the
IPCC says, quote:
"Overall, there is high confidence that the
Antarctic ice sheet is currently losing mass," close quote.
Second, they say, quote:
-

 140
1

"There is low confidence that the rate of

2

Antarctic ice loss has increased over the last two decades,"

3

close quote.

4

Third:

5

"Anthropogenic forcings" -- human activities --

6

"have likely made a substantial contribution to surface

7

temperature increases since the mid-20th century over every

8

continental region except Antarctica," close quote.

9

So they are not able to make that determination that

10

there's been a likely contribution to increased surface

11

temperatures caused by human activity in Antarctica.

12

And --

13

THE COURT:

14

Why would that be?

Why would it be

different for Antarctica?

15

MR. BOUTROUS:

In fact, let me go to the next slide.

16

I think I mentioned that a key uncertainties summary --

17

and it's very helpful.

18

But they have one -- they have three key uncertainties about

19

Antarctica.

20
21
22

The reports are pretty easy to navigate.

And this is kind of one that captures it.

So key uncertainties captures the key uncertainties in
understanding the climate system and its recent changes.
"In some aspects of the climate system, including

23

Antarctic warming, Antarctic sea ice extent, and Antarctic mass

24

balance, confidence in attribution to human influence remains;

25

low due to modeling uncertainties and low agreement between
-

 141
1

scientific studies," close quote.

2
3

They also, I think, in another spot say that the,
quote:

4

"The observational record of Antarctic mass loss

5

is short and the internal variability to ice sheet is poorly

6

understood.

7

there's low confidence in attributing the causes of the observed

8

loss of mass from the Antarctic ice sheet since 1993."

9

Due to a low level of scientific understanding,

So they just -- their record of observation is short.

10

Their understanding of the natural causes is poorly -- they have

11

a poor understanding of that.

12

studying these things and different scientists are disagreeing.

13

And that's just because science is

And that goes back to my point.

Chevron looks to the

14

IPCC because you have all these scientists coming together trying

15

to reach scientific --

16

THE COURT:

When you say "Chevron," I thought you were

17

talking for all the defendants.

18

defendants agree with that?

19

MR. BOUTROUS:

20

THE COURT:

21

But are you just -- do all

I'm just talking for Chevron today.

All right.

Okay.

I'm going to ask them at

some point whether they agree with everything you've said.

22

MR. BOUTROUS:

Okay, Your Honor. I don't think anyone

23

has ever agreed with everything I've said.

24

happen.

25

THE COURT:

Okay.
-

But maybe it will

 142
1

MR. BOUTROUS:

And so that's Antarctica.

And maybe

2

this is a good place to pause.

The Plaintiffs have taken a

3

different approach today, I think, and citing studies sort of

4

different studies from different folks.

5

beyond IPCC AR5.

And some those go

6

But Chevron -- and we focus on what is the scientific

7

consensus as the best available science pursuant to the Court's

8

request.

9

look at these issues again, and we'll see what it says.

10

And then, we have AR6.

THE COURT:

We will no doubt, you know,

I got a question for you that relates to

11

this Antarctica part.

12

a few weeks ago on television I saw a geology show.

13

about volcanos, but it described an under see thing called:

14

Ring of Fire."

15

It may be since you know the IPCC report,
And it was
"The

Doesn't that sound like something from Johnny Cash?

16

But, honestly, I'm not making that up.

17

Fire."

18

something, that's under the Pacific Ocean.

19

there at the bottom of South America, runs along the coast all

20

the way up to Alaska, curves over to Japan, then goes down into

21

Indonesia.

22

ocean which sometimes forms islands and is one possible result.

23

It's called "The Ring of

And it's a undersea system of volcanic accretions, or
And it starts down

And the idea is that it is pumping out lava under the

And it also affects the undersea life and other things.

24

It had nothing to do with this, but I got to wondering:

25

models -- and maybe you may know -- does the IPCC, that seems
-

Do these

 143
1

like heat from inside the Earth that's normally insulated, you

2

know, molten lava way down there, but it's coming out.

3

warm up the ocean and have anything to do with Antarctica melting

4

away?

Or has that obviously been debunked by somebody?
MR. BOUTROUS:

5
6

know.

THE COURT:

8

MR. BOUTROUS:

10

The IPCC, any of that.
Not that I remember specifically.

You

know, they talk about different features that can heat the ocean
and natural formations and the like.

11
12

Your Honor, I'm going to say I don't

We'll take a look.

7

9

Does that

But we'll go back and take a look.

And I'm going to

leave behind for you the big Working Group I.

13

THE COURT:

14

term.

15

it in other places.

I promise you that is a real scientific

I did not make that up.

It really exists.

And I've seen

Okay.

16

A note has come from the rear.

17

MR. BOUTROUS:

A note has come, Your Honor.

It just

18

came back to me that it's a very recent discovery, and so it was

19

too recent for the IPCC.

20
21

THE COURT:

since at least 20 years.

22
23

No, this Ring of Fire thing has been around

MR. BOUTROUS:

This is not recent.
Well, I'm going to look into this

further.

24

THE COURT:

25

MR. BOUTROUS:

Look into it.
I like the name of it and it sounds
-

 144
1

interesting, so I'm going to look into that further.

2

So and I think Dr. Griggs had talked about -- and I

3

just to tie it a little bit to what he's talking about -- he was

4

talking about the contribution of Antarctica and the melting, but

5

just to finish up on Antarctica, the IPCC in its latest report

6

says, you know, there are uncertainties about the degree to which

7

human activities are contributing to the ice melt there.
THE COURT:

8
9
10

isn't it?

Okay.

So how much is -- what is the level of sea?

Let's go

to that question.

11

MR. BOUTROUS:

12

THE COURT:

13

MR. BOUTROUS:

14

But, nevertheless, it is melting,

I was just going to sea level.

Your view of how much this ocean is rising.
I'm going to give the Court the IPCC

conclusions that cuts right into this.

15

THE COURT:

All right.

16

MR. BOUTROUS:

So Chapter 13 of the Working Group I has

17

an entire discussion.

It's all about sea level change.

This

18

figure is from the IPCC, and it simply just depicts the

19

components of sea level.

20

sheets on the right, ocean properties, which refers to ocean

21

warming which would tie into the Ring -- was it "Reign of Fire"?

You see the glaciers on the left, ice

22

THE COURT:

23

MR. BOUTROUS:

24

And the ocean, because when the ocean warms it expands

25

Ring, Ring of Fire.
Which we're going to check into.

which can cause sea level to rise.
-

And then, you have geocentric

 145
1

sea level, which refers to a method for measuring sea level from

2

the center of Earth that I'll touch on more in a minute.

3
4
5

And in looking at the many components of the sea level
and the sea level rise the IPCC states, quote:
"The primary contributors to contemporary sea

6

level change are the expansion of the ocean as it warms and the

7

transfer of water currently stored on land to the ocean,

8

particularly from land ice glaciers and ice sheets," close quote.

9

So we go to the next slide.

And this is heading

10

towards your the question you just asked me.

11

global sea level since 1700.

12

This chart reflects

You see that the IPCC says, quote:

13

"Evidence indicates that the global mean sea level

14

is rising, and it is likely resulting from global climate change,

15

ocean warming includes land ice."

16

If we go to the next slide --

17

THE COURT:

18

MR. BOUTROUS:

19

THE COURT:

20
21

Wait.

Wait.

Wait.

Stick there.

Yes.

It says:

"Corrected for isostatic and tectonic
contributions."

22

What does that mean?

23

MR. BOUTROUS:

24

reaction of land.

25

the land will rise.

Isostatic, Your Honor, refers to the

Once the ice melts, it releases pressure, so
And so they are correcting for that feature.
-

 146
1
2

So if the glacier starts to melt land has -- the
pressure on it releases so it rises, so they are corrected.

3

Tectonic contributions just refer, I believe, to

4

natural shifting, tectonic shifting.

5

those features to try to factor them out of the analysis.

6
7

THE COURT:

Well, all right.

But does that mean that

the sea level actually has not risen or has risen even more?

8
9

So they have corrected for

Okay.
can see that.

According to this, the sea level is going up.

But it's corrected for two things.

I

So is the

10

actual sea level going up, as measured, say, at Santa Cruz or at

11

San Francisco?

12

MR. BOUTROUS:

I can't go beyond really what the IPCC

13

has said here with respect to their view, taking those factors

14

out.

15

global assessments to localities.

16

I'm going to get to, because it's a very good -- what does it

17

actually mean for a particular place?

18

move to -- kind of move to that.

But the Court's question goes to how do you translate these

19

THE COURT:

All right.

20

MR. BOUTROUS:

And that's another topic that

And so maybe I'll just

Go ahead.

So the Court can see that.

So just to

21

kind of finish off the sea level change and the rate, this chart

22

has the sea level rise, the rate in terms of sea level rise over

23

decades.

24
25

And the IPCC concludes that, quote:
"Variability is marked by an increasing trend
-

 147
1

starting in 1910 to 1920, and a downward trend starting around

2

1950, and then an increasing trend in terms of the rate of sea

3

level around 1980."

4

So it starts increasing.

Then --

5

THE COURT:

Wait.

6

MR. BOUTROUS:

7

THE COURT:

8

Wait.

Wait.

Yes.

So this is saying that even as far back

as -- that as far back as 1900 the sea level has been going up.

9

MR. BOUTROUS:

And that the rate of increase at least

10

in 1910 to 1920 was increasing.

11

trend.

Then, there was a downward

And then, starting around 1950 an increasing trend.

12

But you are right.

I think if we go back to one of my

13

earlier slides, that is the sea levels have been rising for

14

thousands of years.

15

THE COURT:

All right.

But the rate of change of the

16

increase or rate of the increase, it looks like from 1950 to --

17

1940 something to 1960, it went down.

18

But the rate of change was smaller, but then it started coming

19

back up again.

The rate started creeping back up again.

20

MR. BOUTROUS:

21

THE COURT:

22

MR. BOUTROUS:

23

chart.

24

compare.

25

But it was still going up.

Your Honor, you'll see --

Is that about right?

Okay.

I think that's correct looking at the

And if you go to the next slide, it's interesting to
And the IPCC does this.

So the IPCC concludes that:

"It is likely that the global mean sea level rose
-

 148
1

between 1920 and 1950 at a rate comparable to that observed

2

between 1993 and 2010," close quote.

3
4
5
6
7

So back in that 1920-1950 period the rate was
comparable to the rate that the IPCC detects from 1993 to 2010.
THE COURT:

So what happened?

What was going on in

1920 to 1950 that might have influenced that?
MR. BOUTROUS:

Well, there was the warming that was

8

going on then, if we go back.

It was, I think, the period when

9

they were having difficulty discerning precisely what the cause

10

of it was.

That's, I think, Your Honor, where they say "natural

11

forcings."

Probably -- excuse me -- internal variability.

12

not sure that -- well, in fact, I don't think the IPCC does

13

actually explain in terms of causation what was causing that

14

warming compared to more recent times, and then make the

15

connection.

16

So if we go to the next slide, this is -- I'm going to

17

kind of get local.

18

conclusions to globally.

19

Talk a little bit about taking these

This is, again, right out of the IPCC AR5.

20

mentioned geocentric sea level earlier.

21

describes it, quote:

22

I'm

And I

And here's how the IPCC

"Since the late 20th century, satellite

23

measurements of the height of the ocean surface relative to the

24

center of the Earth, known as geocentric sea level, show

25

differing rates of geocentric sea level change around the world,"
-

 149
1

close quote.

2

And just to orient all of us, you have the bar, the

3

colored bar on the right, the sea level.

4

decreasing, sea level rates decreasing.

5

The blues are sea level

And then, you have, as we go up we get into yellow,

6

towards the red.

7

San Francisco and the West Coast of California, the measurements,

8

they have measurements for that.

9

That's the increase.

And if we go to the next slide --

10

THE COURT:

11

MR. BOUTROUS:

12

THE COURT:

13

And so with respect to

Well, wait.
Yes.

If this is accurate, San Francisco has gone

down.

14

MR. BOUTROUS:

That's what the IPCC report says using

15

the geocentric sea level change measurement.

16

the very next quote I was going to put up there.

17

quote:

18

So you anticipated
That the,

"Those in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, those sea

19

level increases are lower than the global mean value with much of

20

the West Coast of the Americas experiencing a fall in sea surface

21

height over the same period," close quote.

22

THE COURT:

You know, it's funny.

It's odd to me.

You

23

would think like a pond, the pond is the same height all the way

24

across.

25

sea level in Indonesia than it could at, say, Easter Island.

Right?

But you're saying the ocean can have a higher

-

 150
1

Seems to me like it ought to all be the same.

2

MR. BOUTROUS:

Right?

There are a lot of different factors in

3

play.

And I mean, I think this just shows using this geocentric

4

sea level measurement -- and, again, talking about the rates of

5

increase here they show the blue.

6

that the sea level rate has gone down.

7

globe.

That red up there by Greenland is where the

9

Greenland is melting away.

10

what's going on up there?

11
12

And it differs around the

So that is kind of what has happened -THE COURT:

8

And the light blue would mean

MR. BOUTROUS:

And so it's deeper there, that is --

You can definitely see the differences

on this chart in terms of how the IPCC is depicting it.

13

THE COURT:

Okay.

You can see it very clearcut over

14

there by Indonesia, New Guinea, Philippines.

15

difference there.

16
17

It's a big

What accounts for that?

Or does the report say why it would be so much higher
there?

18

MR. BOUTROUS:

Your Honor, I have to go dig into that

19

particular locale.

But it's really -- what I'm sort of about to

20

get to is the complications of, you know, translating the

21

projections and the global rates around to different places.

22

THE COURT:

Okay.

23

MR. BOUTROUS:

Go ahead.

Okay.

So just to kind of put this in

24

perspective, these are looking to the future, and projecting sea

25

levels.

The IPCC has made some projections.
-

And I will just

 151
1

walk the Court through this.

2

Another one from AR5.

And you'll see that on the left we have the scenarios

3

which we've talked about before, the different emission scenarios

4

ranging from the lowest scenario of 2.6, and the highest of 8.5.

5

And then, if we go -- let's start with 8.5.

If we go

6

all the way over to the right to likely range, the IPCC is saying

7

that -- it's saying that the likely range of sea level rise

8

during the period that they are depicting here is -- this goes

9

all the way to 2100.

10

So I think Dr. Griggs and Plaintiffs has talked about

11

2100.

12

extreme emission scenario is .45 to .82 meters.

13

translates to about 1.5 to 2.7 feet.

14

emissions scenario, the likely range is .26 to .55 meters, or

15

about .9 to 1.8 feet.

16
17
18
19

They say the likely range in sea level rise at the most
And that

They say that the lower

So that's what that is depicting, that chart is
depicting.
Then they say -- this is the quote at the bottom from
the IPCC, quote:

20

"The basis for higher projections of global mean

21

sea level rise in the 21st century has been considered and it has

22

been concluded that there is currently insufficient evidence to

23

evaluate the probability of specific levels above the assessed

24

likely range."

25

So they are saying that they -- I'm sure you
-

 152
1

understand.

They are saying they can't predict a higher range

2

above the likely range that is assessed here.

3

And that really --

4

THE COURT:

5

MR. BOUTROUS:

6

THE COURT:

7

MR. BOUTROUS:

8

THE COURT:

Well, okay.
Go ahead.

Wait.

Wait.

Says it's 2046 to 2065.

Um-hum.

That's an odd -- why are they trying

9

to -- what is that calculation?

10

would cause them to select 2046?

11

MR. BOUTROUS:

What is happening in 2046 that

Your Honor, I'm not sure what the

12

predicate was for picking these two time frames.

13

can go back and nail that down.

14
15

THE COURT:

No.

No.

No.

But, again, I

Well, all right.

Let me

just make sure I understand.

16

MR. BOUTROUS:

17

THE COURT:

Yes.

In the time period of 2046 to 2065, is this

18

chart saying that at the most favorable, the mean rise will be

19

.24 meters?

20

MR. BOUTROUS:

21

THE COURT:

Yes, Your Honor.

All right.

So that's a -- what is that?

22

About 10 inches?

What does that turn out to be?

23

that's meters or is it -- it's meters.

24

MR. BOUTROUS:

25

THE COURT:

Yes, that's meters.

.24 meters here?
-

I think so, but

 153
1

MR. BOUTROUS:

2

THE COURT:

3

Yes.

So that would be a quarter of a meter,

which is about nine and a little over nine inches.

4

MR. BOUTROUS:

5

THE COURT:

Right.

So that is saying at the most conservative

6

level, the sea level around the world will go up 9 inches by the

7

time period indicated, 2046 to 2065.

8

MR. BOUTROUS:

9

THE COURT:

10

which would be more like 12 inches.
MR. BOUTROUS:

12

THE COURT:

13

MR. BOUTROUS:

14

THE COURT:

16

That's how I read it, Your Honor.

And then, the other end it goes up to .3,

11

15

Is that what that means?

understand.

Um-hum.

All right.

So okay.

Yes.

All right.

Okay.

Thank you. I think I

This is from the IPCC, as well.

MR. BOUTROUS:

Yes, correct. And that really ties or

17

brings me to just briefly to address several of what Dr. Griggs

18

was discussing.

19

time to address it.

And now that he's left, I can really -- perfect

20

THE COURT:

You can go to town.

21

MR. BOUTROUS:

Yes.

But I won't because I'm going to

22

go right to what they say.

23

the next slide, this is a chart from Rising Seas in California,

24

the study that you'll see he's one of the authors.

25

So he talked about the -- if we go to

And he talked about the 10-foot scenario.
-

And he said

 154
1

it could happen.

2

we can't predict higher ranges than we do on this chart.

3

just not evidence.

4

And as I said, the IPCC in that last chart said

But even Dr. Griggs' study, if you look at the 2100

5

line, and this is at the 8.5 scenario.

6

extreme emissions scenario.

7
8

percent chance of a 10-foot sea rise.
THE COURT:

Over what period?

MR. BOUTROUS:

12

their projection.

13

2100.

Up till 2100.

It's a 2017 study.

So this goes -- this is
So it's projecting forward

So .1 percent.

14

THE COURT:

15

MR. BOUTROUS:

16

THE COURT:

17

MR. BOUTROUS:

18

THE COURT:
looking -- oh, I see.

So between now and the end of this century.
Yes.

There's a 1 percent chance.
.1 percent.

I think it says 1 percent.

Maybe I'm

It's way out there.

20

MR. BOUTROUS:

21

THE COURT:

22

Over what period of

time?

11

19

So this is the most

If you go to 2100, Dr. Griggs' study says there's a .1

9
10

There's

Way out there, yes.

A .1 percent chance.

I can't read the top

of that.

23

MR. BOUTROUS:

24

THE COURT:

25

MR. BOUTROUS:

10-foot.

10-foot what?
10-foot rise in the sea level in San
-

 155
1

Francisco.

2

10-foot number in their complaint.

3

today.

4

And that you'll recall the Plaintiffs do mention that
Dr. Griggs mentioned it

But even his own study is saying that is, you know --

5

there's a .1 percent chance.

6

they say a .2 or 28 percent chance of a 3-foot rise.

7
8

THE COURT:

All right.

MR. BOUTROUS:

10

THE COURT:

11

MR. BOUTROUS:

12

THE COURT:

Yes.

And 3 feet is 28 percent.
Yes.

So somewhere in-between is 50 percent.

.4?

So in other words, fifty/fifty chance of something

in the range of 2 to 3 feet --

16

MR. BOUTROUS:

17

THE COURT:

18

Let me go to two.

What would you think that is, two-and-a-half?

14
15

So 2 feet is 70 percent.

Right?

9

13

Even if you look at a 3-foot rise

Yes, in fact --

-- by 2100.

That's still a lot of water,

isn't it?

19

MR. BOUTROUS:

Well, really, it's -- if you look

20

back -- and this is the most extreme emissions scenario and it's

21

sort of more in the ballpark, if you look their actual where

22

something is more likely than not to happen, it's in the one

23

to --

24
25

THE COURT:
extreme scenario.

How do you know?

You said it was the most

How do you know it's the most extreme?
-

 156
1

MR. BOUTROUS:

It's the most extreme scenario that the

2

IPCC used.

You see up in the corner "RCP 8.5"?

3

highest emissions scenario that the IPCC uses.

That's the

4

THE COURT:

"RCP" again stands for?

5

MR. BOUTROUS:

6

RPC -- probably have it on another note.

7

And, by the way, Your Honor, I should say we don't

Reconcentration of -- testing my memory.

8

necessarily agree with Dr. Griggs' numbers.

9

you sort of what they reported, which is just as a matter of fact

10

But I'm just giving

the likelihoods they have used.

11

THE COURT:

All right.

It would be interesting to know

12

if it really is the most aggressive scenario.

13

me it is, but how do you know that?

14

MR. BOUTROUS:

So you're telling

And when I say that, Your Honor, I'm not

15

saying that it's the most aggressive scenario anyone has come up

16

with.

17
18
19
20
21

It's the representative concentration pathways, what
"RCP" stands for.
It's the most -- the highest emission scenario that the
IPCC used in AR5.
THE COURT:

Okay.

So -- so the underlying, or the

22

beginning assumption it's the highest emissions projections.

23

in terms of just the modeling of what would happen is it

24

conservative, medium, aggressive?

25

MR. BOUTROUS:

Do we know?

It's aggressive.
-

It's the one that

But

 157
1

assumes that -- and I'm using laymen's terms -- but that nothing

2

will change in terms of any mitigation or to slow down or alter

3

greenhouse gas emissions.

4

So, again, I really just wanted to make the simple

5

point that Dr. Griggs mentioned 10 feet.

6

10 feet.

7

.1 percent possibility.

The complaint mentions

And then, back when you go

8

into again, not even forcing their data, but the sea level rises

9

are closer to and slightly higher than the IPCC assessments for

10
11

through 2100.
So with that, I'd like to just now move a little bit

12

into the coastal flooding questions the Court asked about and

13

just really quickly zip through the sort of the principal

14

findings from the IPCC.

15
16

They said that:
"Due to sea level rise projected throughout the

17

21st century and beyond, coastal systems and low-lying areas

18

will increasingly experience adverse impacts such has

19

submergence, coastal flooding, and coastal erosion, open paren,

20

(very high confidence)," close person, period, close quote.

21
22
23

They also make a finding that predicting local effects
and local trends -- well, let me just read it.
This is the point.

It goes back to one of your earlier

24

questions that I said I was going to address.

25

that broad finding that I just read, but then they say:
-

They say they make

 158
1

"While it is likely that extreme sea levels have

2

increased globally since the 1970's comma, mainly as a result of

3

mean sea level rise due in part to anthropogenic warming, comma,

4

local sea level trends are also influenced by factors such as

5

regional variability in ocean and atmospheric circulation,

6

subsidence, isostatic adjustment, coastal erosion, and coastal

7

modification.

8
9
10
11
12

As a consequence, the detection of the impact of
climate change in observed changes in relative sea level remains
challenging."
And I think if I am remembering right Dr. Griggs' slide
12 said something along the following lines:

13
14
15

"Probabilities of specific sea level increases can
inform decisions."
And what the IPCC is saying there are all these other

16

factors when you're looking at what is the impact going to be on

17

a local locality.

18

And in terms of informing decisions I thought I would

19

just end with given the state of science and looking forward, in

20

language really consistent with what I just read, San Francisco

21

said it's to bond 20-year bond investors.

22

That's, quote:

23

This was 2017.

"The City is unable to predict whether sea level

24

rise or other impacts of climate change or flooding from a major

25

storm will occur, when they may occur and if any such events
-

 159
1

occur, whether they will have a material adverse effect on the

2

business operations or financial condition of the city and the

3

local economy," close quote.

4

And then Oakland in August, 2017, made a very similar

5

disclosure to its investors.

6

is going to happen in a local city is, I think, reflected in the

7

terms of the somewhat unpredictable nature of that by the very

8

recent bond disclosure of two cities.

9

So translating all of this to what

And with that, I have concluded my part two.

10

THE COURT:

Thank you, Mr. Boutrous.

11

MR. BOUTROUS:

12

THE COURT:

Thank you.

Great.

I'd like to see if my court

13

reporter is able to continue on?

14

and go back to the Plaintiff.

15

MR. BOUTROUS:

Let's see if we can finish up

Your Honor, just one more.

You had

16

asked in your order about two documents and asked the Plaintiffs

17

to produce them.

18

THE COURT:

Yes.

19

MR. BOUTROUS:

20

to address them.

21

have just two minutes.

22
23

I don't know if the Court -- I'm happy

I can very briefly address them because I do

THE COURT:

No, let's do it -- I want to give the

Plaintiff an opportunity.

24

MR. BOUTROUS:

25

THE COURT:

If we have time you can address it.

Okay.

I want to go back to the Plaintiffs' side
-

 160
1

first on the tutorial.

2

MR. BOUTROUS:

3

THE COURT:

4

MR. BERMAN:

5

We are going to -- with respect to the state of the

Thank you.

All right.

About half an hour, please.

Thank you, Your Honor.

6

science, I thought you would like to hear from a scientist who

7

has worked on the U.S. Climate Assessment.

8

Assessment is the government's state of the art announcement as

9

to climate change.

The U.S. Climate

10

So rather than refer to the IPCC, as Mr. Boutrous has

11

done, Dr. Wuebbles -- that's W-U-E-B-B-L-E-S, who is one of the

12

coauthors of the report and also has been an author of many of

13

IPCC's studies, is going to present what we think the state of

14

the science is.

15
16

And I thought it would be helpful to hand up to the
Court the summary of the U.S. Government's special assessment.

17

THE COURT:

Sure.

Make sure you show Mr. Boutrous --

18

MR. BERMAN:

19

THE COURT:

20

Angie, could you hand that up to me?

21

All right.

Yes, I will.
-- what you're giving me.

This is called:

Thank you.

"U.S. Global Change

22

Research Program entitled Climate Science, Special Report,

23

Executive Summary, Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I."

24

All right.

And you are Doctor?

25

MR. WUEBBLES:

I'm Don Wuebbles.
-

 161
1

THE COURT:

2

MR. WUEBBLES:

3

THE COURT:

4

MR. WUEBBLES:

5

It's a pleasure to try to talk about the outcome from

6

Wuebbles.
Wuebbles.

Got it.
Yes.

Go ahead.
Thank you, Your Honor.

that assessment.

7

Before we get into that, though, I think it's also

8

important to recognize that -- well first of all, I led chapter

9

one of IPCC AR5.

10

THE COURT:

11

MR. WUEBBLES:

12

THE COURT:

13

MR. WUEBBLES:

14

THE COURT:

15

MR. WUEBBLES:

16

THE COURT:

17

MR. WUEBBLES:

18

I wrote.

You wrote.
I led, so I led chapter one.

You're the one who wrote it?
I wrote a chapter along with colleagues.

All right.
We had colleagues on the team.

And we

had to stop referencing any papers after 2012 in that document.

19

And I think it's important to recognize that science

20

did not stop.

21

years.

22

You read or wrote?

There's a lot we have learned over the last five

And the National Climate Assessment does reflect that.
So but what you have is the Executive Summary of, is

23

part of a 475-page report that's available on the web through

24

"science2017.globalchange.gov."

25

And I'm going to talk to that today. That assessment is
-

 162
1

the most comprehensive assessment of climate science ever done

2

for the American people.

3

general.

4

often there be an assessment of the state of the understanding of

5

climate change and what it means to the American people.

6

this is the fourth such assessment.

7
8

It was required by Congress, in

The Global Change Act of 1990 requires that every so

And

And this was the most comprehensive look at the science
that we've done in those assessments.

9

It involved over 50 scientists from throughout the

10

country representing all sectors:

11

industry. and it went through a very extensive review process.

12

Government, academia and

The six different levels of review:

A public review,

13

reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and four different

14

reviews by the U.S. agencies, ending up being finally released

15

through the White House after the final signoff by the U.S.

16

agencies.

17
18

And we released it in November of 2017.
The second volume will look at the impacts of climate

change, and that will be published later this year.

19

So what does that assessment tell us?

This is more

20

like many of the things we've been hearing today.

21

changing.

22

but it's changing so fast that it's about ten times more faster

23

than we've seen in any other changes since the end of the last

24

ice age.

25

It's changing very, very rapidly.

Our climate is

It's happening now,

So it's very unusual, certainly in human experience.
-

 163
1

It's not just the temperature that is changing.

2

severe weather becoming more intense in many cases.

3

We're seeing

We've had a lot of discussion today about sea level

4

rise and certainly sea level is rising.

5

strongly indicates it's largely happening because of human

6

activities.

7

And the evidence

And that the climate will continue to change over the

8

coming decades, no matter what we do.

9

for the future could make a strong impact on just how large those

10
11

But certainly our choices

changes are.
In fact, that's probably the single largest factor, as

12

we look at those scenarios once again that you've already seen

13

several times today.

14

So we have many different types of indicators of the

15

fact that the climate is changing.

16

So it's not just temperatures, not just looking at the land air

17

temperature or sea surface temperatures, or even atmospheric

18

temperatures in the middle of the troposphere, but also the fact

19

that the heat content of the oceans is increasing dramatically.

20

These are just some of them.

About 90 percent -- over 90 percent of that heat is

21

produced by the increasing amount of greenhouse gases and carbon

22

dioxide and other gases is ending up in the oceans.

23
24
25

And that is increasing the heat content and we have
that well measured now.
On top of that, a warmer atmosphere should hold more
-

 164
1

water vapor.

2

of specific humidity, you find specific humidity is being

3

observed increased.

4

And if you look at the second from the bottom graph

And then, we've already talked a lot already today

5

about how glaciers and land ice are decreasing.

6

sea ice is increasing extensively.

7
8
9

Also the Artic

In addition to that, the Northern Hemisphere's snow
cover has decreased dramatically.
Going back to the temperature record you have seen

10

several times now, we've seen about a 1.8-degree Fahrenheit

11

increase in temperature from 1901 to 2016.

12

And if you looked at that temperature record over the

13

last five decades, you'd see that the temperature on a decadal

14

scale has increased dramatically over that time period.

15

that's likely to continue to happen over the coming decades.

16

And that

Now, if we take that temperature record, that observed

17

temperature record, and go back to some of the proxies that

18

analyze what the climate looked like, say, over the last 2000

19

years, we find that those proxies show the medieval warm period.

20

They show the period that was the period when the Vikings were in

21

Southern Greenland.

22
23
24
25

They also show the little ice age when it was extremely
cold in North America and Europe.
And then, if you look at the current temperatures you
see that those current temperatures are well above anytime in
-

 165
1

those past 2000 years.

2

So the kind of temperatures we're already seeing are

3

well beyond the past human experience and having a significant

4

impact on us in many different ways.

5

If we look globally at those changes in temperature we

6

don't have observations in the Artic or the Antarctic region,

7

going all the way back to 19O1.

8

Artic region around 1940's.

9

They basically started in the

But -- and so I can't show the change for those.

But

10

mostly the area of the globe is increasing dramatically in terms

11

of its climate.

12

I'll show you them a little bit more later.

The largest charges are happening in the Artic.

13

But we've also seen the most significant changes over

14

land masses because the oceans have a very large heat capacity.

15

And so the oceans respond at a much slower rate.

16

There's two areas on here that are not showing an

17

increase.

18

of the Greenland in the Atlantic Ocean where all that fresh water

19

we're getting into the Atlantic from Greenland and from melting

20

the sea ice is causing a change in the circulation pattern in the

21

Atlantic Ocean, and actually causing a slight cooling effect in

22

that region.

23

One is -- the biggest area is the area off the coast

The other area is actually in the Southeast United

24

States.

Before going on to that, though, I wanted to mention

25

that if we look at that period since the end of the last IPCC
-

 166
1

report, 2014 was then the warmest year on record. 2015 was even

2

warmer.

3

2017 which ended up being either second or third in that list.

4

2016 was warmer yet.

And now we have the records for

In total, 17 of the last 18 years on record are the

5

warmest years over that entire -- over that entire period since

6

1881, when we have global representations of the temperature

7

record.

8
9

So we're in a very unusual time period.
Looking at the United States, most areas of the United

States have also seen extensive warming.

The one exception is

10

some parts of the Southeast.

11

Southeast is different. There's some suggestion it could be due

12

to some changes in weather circulation patterns.

13

We don't fully understand why the

But on top of that, there was a deforestation in the

14

19th century in that part of the country and a reforestation in

15

the 20th century that could also be a major contributor to what

16

is occurring there.

17

But, nonetheless, most of the United States has seen a

18

warming.

19

States is 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1890's.

20

And the overall temperature change for the United

Looking at precipitation we've seen about a 4 percent

21

increase in precipitation over the United States as a whole.

But

22

the changes aren't happening even, nor do we expect them to.

In

23

fact, generally globally what is happening is the weather is

24

getting wetter and the dryer is getting dryer.

25

And so in the United States we're seeing particularly
-

 167
1

an increase in precipitation in the Midwest and Northeast, while

2

the Southeast and Southwest -- most of the West, actually -- has

3

seen a decrease in overall precipitation.

4

Changing to the Artic, just to mention this one more

5

time, that it's increasing at twice the rate -- this temperature

6

is increasing at twice the rate of the rest of the world.

7

of the canary in the coalmine, to some extent.

8
9
10

Kind

And then, we're seeing much larger changes there, and
it's causing issues as a result.
We're seeing very significant decreases in sea ice

11

cover and in glaciers in Alaska, for example, but also major mass

12

losses in the Greenland ice sheet and reduced snow cover.

13

And, perhaps most importantly, a melting of the

14

permafrost.

15

Alaska and other parts of the Artic.

16

And that's causing infrastructure damage already in

But on top of that, the big fear with those melting

17

permafrosts is that before the end of the century we could see an

18

emission of carbon dioxide and methane that is trapped in that

19

permafrost actually being released back into the atmosphere and

20

causing additional warming.

21
22
23

It's one of those surprise factors that I'll talk about
a little later.
So I mentioned that it's not just temperature and

24

precipitation.

It's really having many effects on us because of

25

effects on extreme weather and weather and climate events, many
-

 168
1

different types.

2

forward.

3

colder waves, wildfires, major storms, et cetera.

4

And we'll talk about some of these as I go

But, you know, they include things like heatwaves,

One of the ways we know that climate change is already

5

having an effect on the American people -- and actually there are

6

similar analyses being done for the entire world -- is to look at

7

what NOAA has been tracking for the last 37 years -- almost 38

8

years now -- in terms of looking at what are called the "Billion

9

dollar events."

10

These are events that cause at least $1 billion in

11

infrastructure damage, for a particular event.

12

back to the early 1980's you see that we used to have a couple

13

such events, and now we're tending to get well over ten such

14

events.

15

factors.

16
17
18

And if you go

And these do account for economic changes and other
And they affect all parts of the country.
So the net effects on the American economy has been now

about $1.5 trillion, including 2017.
If you looked at 2016, there were 15 such events.

19

had 16 such events.

20

record beating out the year of Katrina.

2017

And, in fact, was the costliest yet on

21

If we look at extreme events, and what's happening to

22

these extreme events -- and we discuss this in much more detail

23

in the assessment -- heatwaves, generally, are increasing in the

24

United States, particularly since 1960, globally, since the turn

25

of the century.
-

 169
1

In the U.S. we also had some special events happening

2

in the 1930's with the Dust Bowl that caused that to also be a

3

period of high heat in the United States.

4

But since 1960, we nonetheless have been seeing

5

increase in the number of the heatwaves.

These are multi-day

6

events where the temperatures are above normal where you tend to

7

get the most damage.

8

Cold waves, generally, are decreasing.

9

More precipitation is coming as larger events.

I

10

mentioned that warmer atmosphere holding more water vapor.

11

that leads to extra precipitation.

12

country have been seeing an increase in the amount of

13

precipitation when it does happen.

14

Well,

Almost all parts of the

So when you get a rainfall or snowfall you're more

15

likely to get larger events than you had in the past.

16

that in some areas you're getting the largest effect of those

17

increases in precipitation.

18

particularly in the Northeast and Midwest.

19

it tends to be dry, we're getting less precipitation and dryer

20

spots and warmer temperatures.

21

We're seeing more risk of floods,
And other areas where

We're tending to get more droughts, particularly in the

22

Southwest and Southeast.

23

of larger wildfires.

24

warming and how that's impacting upon the biosphere.

25

That means

We're also seeing significant incidents

More areas being burned as a result of the

And the result is that we're seeing significant
-

 170
1

increases in such wildfires in the West and Alaska.

2

that a little more in detail in a second.

3

Talk about

And, overall, we're seeing an increase in intensity of

4

hurricanes, particularly Atlantic hurricanes.

5

the projections for the future very careful analyses are now

6

suggesting through several different approaches that hurricanes

7

are likely to become more intense in the future.

8
9

And if we look at

Tornado activity and hail are something we know less
about because we just don't have sufficient data.

But,

10

nonetheless, we are generally finding that tornadoes are

11

increasing in number of outbreaks.

12

you're more likely to have multiple tornadoes.

13

So when you get one tornado,

And also that hail appears to be becoming more intense.

14

All of these trends are likely to continue over the coming

15

decades.

16
17

So if we look at the -- just one way of looking at
heat, how many records are being set each year?

18

We're generally finding that many more heat records are

19

being set than cold records.

20

at that.

21

And that's just one way of looking

If you look at extreme precipitation we're seeing

22

strong trends.

The one -- the graph on the left is for the

23

United States, Continental United States as a whole.

24

the one-in-five-year events and showing a general increase over

25

the last five decades; that in such events the amount of -- the
-

Looking at

 171
1

amount of precipitation from such events.

2

And the right-hand side looks at the 1 percent, top

3

1 percent of precipitation and showing an increase throughout the

4

entire Continental United States, but particularly in the Midwest

5

and Northeast.

6

less overall precipitation in general.

7

A little bit less over the West where we have

Looking at wildfires this last year we had more than

8

9.2 million U.S. acres burned, one of the largest years on

9

record.

10

The U.S. fire season now is about three months longer

11

than it was 40 years ago because of the warmer temperatures that

12

are affecting our climate.

13

The average fire is much bigger and hotter than before.

14

They are burning as hot as 2000 degrees Fahrenheit compared to

15

1300 for a small --

16

THE COURT:

Can I ask you a question about the fires?

17

MR. WUEBBLES:

18

THE COURT:

Sure.

I totally agree that the fires have gotten

19

worse and worse. I think it's 1.3 percent of California alone

20

burned up last year just in one year.

21

though, doesn't that put a lot of carbon dioxide in the air?

22

MR. WUEBBLES:

It does.

Now, when that happens,

You do readmit carbon that had

23

been trapped in the soil and in trees into the air.

24

contribute.

25

THE COURT:

Yes, it does

Well, that could be -- is that a tiny
-

 172
1
2

factor -MR. WUEBBLES:

In terms of the overall change that's

3

still a small factor because there's also -- you tend to not too

4

long after such an event, you then start having trees growing

5

again, and you start pulling carbon back out.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

So the overall factor is small, but you do see
fluctuations in the amount of CO2 growth per year.
THE COURT:

You know, those trees -- listen.

how fast those trees grow.

They don't grow fast.

I know

It takes 40

years to replace a tree.
MR. WUEBBLES:

Yes, to replace a tree the same size.

Yes, definitely.
THE COURT:

So in the meantime you're putting all that

carbon dioxide in the air.

15

MR. WUEBBLES:

16

THE COURT:

Yes.

And I'd be interested to know how -- is

17

that a small factor compared to fossil fuel?

18

fossil, so it's not a fossil fuel, but it is a fuel.

19

interested to know how the wildfires factor in to the overall CO2

20

contribution.

21

MR. WUEBBLES:

Wood is not a
So I'd be

I think in terms of the over -- I don't

22

have the statistics on that. I think because of the total areas

23

being burned each year it is still relatively small compared to

24

the planet.

25

That is still a rather minor contributor.

THE COURT:

I saw a satellite picture.
-

They can see

 173
1

the fires from the satellites.

2

MR. WUEBBLES:

3

THE COURT:

Oh, definitely.

So I don't know how small. I think

4

it's -- okay. I just wondered if somebody could do the math to

5

figure out how much CO2 is coming out of the wildfires.

6
7

And by the way, you know you got them in Australia,
too.

They have them in many places in the world.

8

MR. WUEBBLES:

9

THE COURT:

10

you.

Let's see.

In Canada.

MR. WUEBBLES:

12

THE COURT:

13

MR. WUEBBLES:

15

So all right.

I interrupted

I think we got about ten more minutes to go.

11

14

No, that's true.

Uh-ho.

And we got to bring it to a close.
Okay. So in the Alaska, even the tundra

is experiencing wildfires.
So as we heard today -- and I just want to emphasize

16

this one more time -- that there are many lines of evidence

17

demonstrating that human activities are primarily responsible for

18

the observed climate change.

19

It is not the sun.

The sun has decreased slightly, if

20

anything, over recent decades based on very accurate satellites

21

observations.

22
23

It's not natural variability.

There are no natural

cycles that can explain the long-term record.

24

THE COURT:

25

the other side said.

In your last ten minutes, you heard what
Right?

Right?
-

You were here.

 174
1

MR. WUEBBLES:

2

THE COURT:

Yes.

So they seem to be agreeing that -- not

3

"seem to be" -- they do agree that humans are putting CO2 into

4

the air.

5

fact, cause sea level rise.

6

That that does, in fact, cause warming.

That does, in

Now, there may be a disagreement over which model you

7

use and how fast, how much damage that is going to do and how

8

soon.

9
10

What critique would you make of what I just heard from
the other side?

11

They seem to be largely agreeing --

MR. WUEBBLES:

No, that's exactly right.

But that's

12

not what you see overall in the media, and so that's why these

13

points are emphasized.

14

The evidence does clearly point to the increase in

15

greenhouse gases being primarily responsible for the observed

16

change.

17

And if we look at the next slide, if we looked at the

18

forcing on the climate, this is the -- climate doesn't just

19

change beyond a small amount due to natural variability in the

20

climate system, without some major forcing externally.

21

And that, such a change is that, for example, from

22

greenhouse gases.

So if you look at the human cause forcings

23

over the last 250 years, relative to what's happened with the

24

sun, sun has changed very, very little, and in terms of its

25

output.

In fact, we were looking at the period of the little ice
-

 175
1

age earlier.

2

The best analyses we have indicate that the minimum

3

period where we had very little sunspots was, in fact, a small

4

change in the amount of solar radiations.

5
6

The big factor there was because of very large volcanic
eruptions and the effects that those actually had on the oceans.

7

So --

8

THE COURT:

So your point there is for the little ice

9

age you're saying the major cause was more than normal amount of

10

volcanic eruptions, which puts stuff in the air which cooled off

11

the air.

12

MR. WUEBBLES:

13

THE COURT:

14

MR. WUEBBLES:

Yes, that's the best analysis we have.

Okay.

Good to know.

So human activities really have

15

dominated the changes we've seen since the industrial ages

16

started.

17

why IPCC came to the conclusion that the previous speaker showed

18

that extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions

19

of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed

20

warming seen in the mid-20th century.

21

And they'll really -- the bottom line here, and that's

Now, I want to get into looking -- you know, all the

22

analyses of the past is really based on observations.

23

look at the future we have to use numerical models of the Earth

24

system, as others have talked about.

25

Now, we

You've heard of these four different scenarios we tend
-

 176
1

to use to look at that.

2

the business-as-usual case, what we're already doing.

3

emissions are higher, at or higher than any of these cases, but

4

certainly most similarly to the RCP 8.5 scenario.

5

Those are scenarios that try to look at
Current

The other scenarios are basically choices we can make,

6

whether they are due to policy or not policy, is that humans

7

decide for one reason or another, for example to move to

8

alternative fuels and other ways of dealing with transportation

9

or energy.

10

And that's why we looked at four different scenarios.

11

THE COURT:

12

MR. WUEBBLES:

THE COURT:

16

MR. WUEBBLES:

17

THE COURT:

18

MR. WUEBBLES:
ocean waves.

What other are there?
There are certainly a number of others.

Like what?
They are starting to extract power from

You can use thermal radiation or thermal --

20

THE COURT:

21

MR. WUEBBLES:

22

THE COURT:

23

MR. WUEBBLES:

24

THE COURT:

25

So using solar or wind power, for

example.

15

19

What are the

alternative fuels you just mentioned?

13
14

Well, what are those fuels?

Geothermal.
Geothermal, yes.

Okay.
Or nuclear.

If we had, you know, back in the '50's we

had nuclear power.
-

 177
1

MR. WUEBBLES:

2

THE COURT:

Right.

So if we had stuck with nuclear power --

3

I'm just being a devil for a minute.

4

nuclear power, we would not have needed to use so much fossil

5

fuels.

6

Right?

If we had stuck with

Because we would have had nuclear power.

MR. WUEBBLES:

If we had recognized in 1990 all the

7

science we recognized and had started to do something, yes, we

8

would have probably used largely nuclear as the primary --

9

THE COURT:

10

You think nuclear is safe?

MR. WUEBBLES:

We have -- in my state of Illinois, we

11

have seven or eight -- I don't remember how many it is exactly --

12

nuclear plants.

13

You know, obviously there are things to be concerned about that.

14
15

And they have been fine.

I spent 20 years at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, which is, of course, a nuclear --

16

THE COURT:

17

MR. WUEBBLES:

18

THE COURT:

19

MR. WUEBBLES:

20

THE COURT:

21

CO2.

I'm sorry.

Lawrence Livermore.

Thirty miles from here, yes.

Well, but a nuclear would not put out any

Right?
MR. WUEBBLES:

23

THE COURT:

25

Which lab?

Oh, Lawrence Livermore.

22

24

Nuclear can be safe.

That is correct.

And that would be -- we might get some

radiation as we drive by, but we don't get any CO2.
MR. WUEBBLES:

Right.
-

 178
1

THE COURT:

So that would have been -- in retrospect,

2

maybe we should have taken a harder look at nuclear to reduce

3

some of this CO2.

4

MR. WUEBBLES:

5

THE COURT:

6

things.

7

you can use it.

8
9

Solar.

As you already heard --

Just a thought.

Okay.

There's no doubt that solar is good where

But do you really think that could have ever really
been a substitute for supplying the kind of power that America

10

has used up in the last 30 years?

11

MR. WUEBBLES:

12

But let's go to the other

I think it could be -- this is all

getting beyond my scientific expertise, but --

13

THE COURT:

Yes, okay.

14

MR. WUEBBLES:

--

I think solar could certainly be a

15

significant factor of our energy future. I don't think there is

16

any one silver bullet.

17
18
19
20
21

It's a whole combination of things that are likely
going to be the way we look at energy in the future.
THE COURT:

Okay.

I need to ask you -- I'll give you

five more minutes, and then we got to bring it to a close.
MR. WUEBBLES:

So if you go to the right-hand side, the

22

left-hand side was looking at emissions.

23

looks at the change in temperature for those different scenarios

24

or three other of the four scenarios.

25

The right-hand side

It's really the difference in the emissions that make
-

 179
1

the biggest effect.

2

emissions is really is what matters.

3

not the uncertainty of the models that matter as much there.

4

So our choices for the future in the way of
So if we want to -- it's

There are uncertainties in the models.

5

acknowledge that, and we can discuss more.

6

for it.

7

impact.

8

We would

But I don't have time

But, nonetheless, we're talking about a very significant

If we continue to follow that highest pathway, that

9

business-as-usual pathway, we're talking about changes of eight,

10

nine, ten degrees globally Fahrenheit by the end of this century.

11

And much tending to be even more so on land masses.

12

if we look at -- this is from IPCC, actually -- look over the

13

next few decades we get about a 1 degree further change.

14

Doesn't seem to matter which scenario you followed,

15

because emissions we've already made are going to cause that 1

16

degree.

17

Even that's a very significant effect on us, because

18

we've already seen a significant effect from the 1 degree we

19

already have.

20

So

But by the end of the century we can separate out these

21

different scenarios and really see it really matters in terms of

22

how big an effect on Earth climate we get depends on which of

23

those pathways we follow.

24

Now, we can also talk more about extremes.

25

to kind of skip over that in terms of like the number of days
-

I'm going

 180
1

above 9O degrees, numbers of days below 32 degrees, and get a

2

little bit of looking at the oceans.

3

Now, we've already seen 7 to 8 inches since 1900 of sea

4

level rise.

5

increase happening really since the end of the last IPCC report

6

is that rate of increase is higher than any time we have seen

7

over the last 2800 years as of result that came out of a NOAA

8

report, but appears to hold well.

9

Dr. Griggs showed you that the most recent rate of

We're also seeing acidification of the oceans, because

10

about 25 percent of that CO2 ends up in the oceans and converts

11

it to carbonic acid and contributes to the acidification of the

12

ocean.

13

mentioned earlier.

And we're seeing a change in ocean circulation, as I

14

THE COURT:

15

acidification thing.

Wait.

16

MR. WUEBBLES:

17

THE COURT:

I want to go back to the

Yes.

You know, we've had a -- I've seen programs

18

on how the coral reefs are dying off.

19

picture of there?

Is that what that is a

I can't tell.

20

MR. WUEBBLES:

21

THE COURT:

Looks like a reef.

But are you suggesting that the reason the

22

coral reefs are dying is because there's more CO2 being absorbed

23

into the ocean?

24
25

MR. WUEBBLES:

That's one of the contributors.

warming ocean is also a very strong contributor.
-

The

The fact that

 181
1
2

the oceans themselves are warming is affecting it.
And also in certain areas, the reefs are also being

3

affected by global pollution.

4

general, are being affected by both of those other factors.

5

THE COURT:

6

MR. WUEBBLES:

7
8
9
10

But, overall, the oceans, in

All right.
So I'm going to skip over the nuisance

flooding, which you've already heard more about.
If you look at the top graph here it shows that greatly
increasing rate of sea level rise compared to the past.
From our assessment we came to the conclusion that

11

there's been the projections for the future should be a

12

one-to-four plus increase over this century in sea level rise.

13

But we could not say for sure.

14

It could be as high as 8 feet.

And that eight feet reflects this uncertainty about

15

what is happening on western ice sheet.

16

work since IPCC 2013 has really demonstrated that area is much

17

more vulnerable than we thought before m.

18

And that the very recent

And so that -- so these -- this risk level of something

19

that could be much higher is really resulting from new knowledge

20

that has really changed the picture.

21

Now, I think one last thing is that the previous

22

speaker talked about sea level rise on the Pacific Coast and that

23

there was this period, which is actually 1993 to 2012, that

24

showed a slight decrease over that time period.

25

If you looked at the long-term time change, which Dr.
-

 182
1

Griggs did show, then you see that overall there's been a trend,

2

and of increasing sea level rise over that, and he came up to

3

about, I

4

think, 7.7 inches over the last century.
If you look at the time period since 2012, you actually

5

go back to seeing an increase in this region.

6

little different than the picture he was trying to paint in his

7

presentation.

9
10

Again, the science does not stop at 2012.

THE COURT:

8

So that is a

If you had no ice whatever, no ice sheets,

no, you know, Greenland melted and Antarctica melted, how -- so
what would be the maximum possible water level on the Earth?

11

MR. WUEBBLES:

If everything melted?

So Dr. Griggs

12

showed you that there was -- in Antarctica there was an

13

equivalent to 190 feet of sea level to, in Greenland, an extra

14

24 feet and about an extra one-and-a-half feet in all the other

15

glaciers.

16

THE COURT:

17

MR. WUEBBLES:

18

THE COURT:
200 feet.

21
22

25

If we add all of those, that would be over

Right?
MR. WUEBBLES:

Yes.

My house in the Midwest could be

coastal property.

23
24

190 feet from Antarctica, 24 feet from

Greenland, and about one-and-a-half feet from other glaciers.

19
20

Give me those three numbers again.

THE COURT:

That could be not quite to the top of Mount

Diablo.
MR. WUEBBLES:

Oh, yes.
-

 183
1
2

THE COURT:

That's 3,000 feet, but most of it would be

submerged.

3

I guess San Francisco would become --

4

MR. WUEBBLES:

5

THE COURT:

6

But you don't expect that?

7

MR. WUEBBLES:

8

next few centuries, by any means.

9

number of centuries before that could possibly happen.

10
11
12

We don't expect that to happen, so --

-- Atlantis.

Right?

We don't expect that to happen in the
It would probably take a

One of our concerns, one of the things I wasn't able to
get to here was the question of potential surprises.
I've already mentioned the permafrost melting, but you

13

know how much the glaciers do change, how much sea level rise

14

does change could have a --

15
16

THE COURT:

Give us an example.

a theoretical or plausible surprise out of the blue.

17

MR. WUEBBLES:

18

THE COURT:

19
20

Give us an example of

Besides the permafrost melting?

Yes.

Yes, that's a good example, but give

us another one.
MR. WUEBBLES:

So another one would be the melting of

21

Artic sea ice.

We're already having questions of whether the

22

large deviations we're seeing in the jetstream across,

23

particularly affecting various parts of North America, is related

24

to the decrease in sea ice.

25

have an even larger effect on our weather patterns.

And whether that in the future would

-

 184
1

So that's another aspect.

The hydrates, the methane

2

hydrate, the coastal areas of most of the oceans have a lot of

3

methane trapped belowground in the ocean.

4

released, it's going to add to the further warming.

5

think it's going to happen.

6
7
8
9

THE COURT:

If that methane gets
We don't

Why is methane -- what causes that methane

that's underground?
MR. WUEBBLES:

It was due to bios, biospheric

production.

10

THE COURT:

What kind?

11

MR. WUEBBLES:

12

THE COURT:

13

MR. WUEBBLES:

Biospheric production.

Oh, biosphere.
Yes.

Okay.

So the changes in El Niño events.

14

You know, if we were to have a lot more El Niño events that would

15

add to the overall warming.

16

There's a lot of other aspects that are surprises,

17

things we don't really expect but they are things we just don't

18

know about.

19

THE COURT:

When the amount of CO2 goes up, do the

20

plants get more active and flourish more and take more of the CO2

21

out of the air?

22

MR. WUEBBLES:

Yes, I saw that in one of the graphs

23

earlier today, yes.

It does happen. I'm a son of a farmer so one

24

of the things we've been concerned about, well, could the

25

increase in CO2 really help farming for the future?
-

 185
1

But ends up it doesn't help seed production that much.

2

So farming is more like agricultural production, crop production

3

is likely to be affected more by the temperature increases than

4

by that factor.

5
6
7

THE COURT:

Is there any type of plant like a forest or

a rain forest that would benefit from more CO2 in the air?
MR. WUEBBLES:

I think they all benefit to some degree,

8

but you have to put that alongside what changes are happening in

9

the rest of the climate system in terms of the change in

10
11
12
13
14

temperature and changes in precipitation patterns.
And when you do that, then it's hard to -- it's much
more difficult to find benefits in any part of that system.
THE COURT:
it to a close.

I wish we had all day, but I got to bring

So thank you very much.

15

MR. WUEBBLES:

16

THE COURT:

17
18

things here.

You're welcome.

All right.

So I got a couple of follow-up

Take your time there, by the way.

You can -- I want to give an order to all the other

19

defendants that if you agree (sic) with anything that Mr.

20

Boutrous said you have one week from today to file a statement

21

explaining each and every statement that you disagree with.

22

Otherwise, I'm going to deem it that you agree.

23

Any questions on that?

24

You want two weeks?

25

I'll give it to you.

But you

can't get away with sitting there in silence, and then later
-

 186
1

saying:

2

"Oh, he wasn't speaking for us."

3

I'll give you two weeks from today at noon.

4

All right.

So that's number one.

5

Number two.

What was number two?

6

Oh, yes.

7

on the jurisdictional issue?

Are you going to take an interlocutory appeal

8

MR. BERMAN:

9

THE COURT:

You're not.

10

MR. BERMAN:

We're not.

11

THE COURT:

We are not, Your Honor.

All right.

Then, are you in the other case

12

going to take any kind -- I don't think you have a 1292 B, but

13

are you going to try to make some appeal?

14

MR. BOUTROUS:

We are, Your Honor.

15

appeal that order, Your Honor.

16

THE COURT:

All right.

We are going to

Now, you wanted to -- I'll give

17

you -- I don't have much more time, but I'll give you two minutes

18

if you wanted to say something about the documents.

19

read the documents carefully.

20
21
22

And I did

So I am up to speed on what those two documents said.
But I want to give you a chance to make your point on it.
MR. BOUTROUS:

I'll be really brief, Your Honor.

The

23

timeline that I walked through paragraph 67, for example, the

24

Oakland complaint, when I read it it read to me like they were

25

talking about a document that was secret inside knowledge by this
-

 187
1

organization they were pointing to.

2

Well, it turned out it was a summary of the IPCC report

3

from 1995.

4

deck.

5
6
7

It was -- those were quotes from the Power Point

So I found it to be a bit misleading, very misleading.
And, secondly, that report as I mentioned today talked

about the uncertainties and the limits on knowledge.
The next paragraph that the Court asked about the

8

document was a public relations document that talked about making

9

sure the public had more information; that there were

10
11
12
13

uncertainties.
So I thought that the -- I was glad the Court had been
produced those documents.
THE COURT:

We hadn't seen them.

How could you have not seen them?

They

14

were from maybe not Chevron files, but from the files of those

15

organizations that Chevron has something to do with.

16

MR. BOUTROUS:

One person attended a meeting or

17

participated in something.

18

So it was helpful that the Court had them because I think they

19

tell a different story than the Plaintiffs do.

20

THE COURT:

We just had not seen those documents.

Well, if there's another document in there,

21

too, that you think should be for assessing the complaint I'll

22

make the other side do that.

23

I found it useful, and I think Mr. Boutrous is correct.

24

I read that paragraph 67 the same way; that there was a

25

conspiratorial document within the defendants about how they knew
-

 188
1

good and well that global warming was right around the corner.

2

And I said:

3
4

"Okay.

That's going to be a big thing. I want to

see it."

5

Well, it turned out it wasn't quite that.

What it was

6

was a slide show that somebody had gone to the IPCC and was

7

reporting on what the IPCC had reported, and that was it.

8

Nothing more.

9
10

So they were on notice of what in IPCC said from that
document, but it's hard to say that they were secretly aware.

11

By that point they knew.

12

the IPCC.

13

point.

Everybody knew everything in

So I don't know. I think Mr. Boutrous makes a fair

14

If you want to respond, I'll let you respond.

15

don't know if that had as much to do with today, but if he wanted

16

to respond okay.

17

Anything you want to say?

18

MR. BERMAN:

19

MR. BOUTROUS:

20

THE COURT:

But I

No.
Thank you very much, Your Honor.

All right.

So I want to thank all members

21

of the public.

22

got with my son at the Lawrence, some lab over in Berkeley.

23

a solar system.

24

notice of it.

25

I wore my science tie today.

Earth is on here, Mars.

All right, my friends.
-

This is something I
It's

So I hope somebody took

Thank you very much.

 189
1

We're in adjournment.

2

MR. BOUTROUS:

3

THE COURT:

Thank you.

Oh, please remember all those things you

4

promised me you would get me you have a few days to do it, but I

5

would like color copies, please.

6

All right.

7

MR. BOUTROUS:

8
9
10
11
12

Thank you.
Thank you, Your Honor.

(Thereupon, this hearing was concluded.)
Stenography certification
"I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript
from the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter."
March 25, 2018
/s/Katherine Wyatt
________________________________

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-