The World?s Leading Automakerso Chairman SOHWAB Porsche 1st Vice Chairman D. MAZZA Hyundai 2nd Vice Chairman D. SMITH Toyota Secretary D. HELFMAN BMW Treasurer J. AM ESTOY Mazda BMW Daewoo Flat Honda Hyundai Isuzu Kla Land Rover Mazda Mercedes-Benz Mitsubishi Nissan Peugeot Porsche Renault Rolls-Royce Saab Subaru Suzuki Toyota Volkswagen Volvo President P. HUTCHINSON TO: AIAM Technical Committee FROM: Gregory J. Dana Vice President and Technical Director RE: GLOBAL CLIMATE COALITION (GCC) - Science and Technology Assessment Committee (STAC) Meeting - February 15, 1996 - Summary On February 15, 1996, the Science and Technology Assessment TECH-964 38 2/27/96 Committee (STAC) of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) met. Enclosed is an agenda, minutes of the last meeting of January 18, 1996, a draft primer on predicting climate change, a draft GCC statement in support of research, an order form for publications, and a copy of a presentation on climate change by EEI. Also enclosed is a brief summary of the meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for April 1996. ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS, INC. 1001 19TH ST. NORTH I SUITE 1200 I ARLINGTON, VA 22209 I TELEPHONE 703.525.7788 I FAX 703.525.8817 AIAM-050835 AIAM-050836 February 15, 1996 GCC STAC Meeting Summary It was noted that a response to the Jessica Matthews article in the Post was being drafted (contained in the minutes of the January meeting). A State Department brie?ng was held just prior to the STAC meeting. A summary of the government position was given: 1. Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases is increasing due to human activity 2. There is a distinct human impact on climate -- estimated range in 0.8 - 3.5 degrees by 2100. . 3. Cost?effective policies and measures exist in both developing and undeveloped countries to reduce greenhouse gases. - 4. There is justi?cation for going beyond a no regrets policy -- now doing insurance. It was noted that this was a signi?cant shift in the Administration?s view, that it was being taken from the back of?ce and probably would become an election issue. Some additional comments from the State brie?ng: Wirth said that the recent extreme weather has boosted interest in this issue and Eileen Claussen said she didn?t see anything coming out of the process that the U.8. couldn?t sign up to. There was also a report on some discussions with Steve Seidel at CEQ. He is in charge of the update to the Climate Action Plan. He said that there is a lot of analytical work going on, but not all efforts would be released and he wouldn't say who was doing the studies. There is apparently great unhappiness at the White House with studies that have been done -- they have not been favorable on costs orjobs. Expectations are the voluntary efforts have not been working -- oil prices are low, growth is high meaning more emissions. A draft of the plan is expected in about six weeks and then allow six weeks for internal review. The chances for any external review are slim. There is some indication that the government may come out with a call for non?voluntary actions. . Much of the rest of the meeting was taken up discussing the upcoming Intergovemment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meeting in Geneva during the last week of February and the ?rst week of March. From the last meeting of the in October, a list of 13 items was developed for additional work. One of those present suggested that some modeling of gases other than Cog, for their impact on climate change, be done. The next meeting of the STAC is tentatively scheduled for April 18, 1996. AIAM-050837 AIAM-050838 GLOBAL CLIMATE COALITION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE DRAFT AGENDA for the MEETING OF FEBRUARY 15, 1996 The February 15, 1996 meeting of GCC-STAC will be held at the of?ces of Edison Electric Institute, 701 Avenue, NW, starting at Noon. The draft agenda is as follows: 1. Minutes from January, circulated by Southern Company 2. GCC Report - Holdsworth/Shlaes 3. State Dept. Brie?ng on Upcoming SBSTA, SBI, and AGBM Meetings .- Bernstein, et al. 4. Workshop on NGO inputs at SB STA Meeting - Bernstein, et al. 5. Follow-up on Science Primer - Bernstein 6. GCC Position Paper on Funding of Climate Research - Gerhi, et a1. 7. GCC Follow-up to IPCC Report - Womeldorff 8. Health Issues - Bernstein, et al. 9. Plans for Future Meetings - 3/14 at NRECA, 4/18 at 10. Other Business 11. Adjourn (no later than 4:00 pm.) AIAM-050839 AIAM-050840 GLOBAL CLIMATE COALITION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 18,1996 The Global Climate Coalition Science and Technology Assessment Committee met in their regularly scheduled meeting on January 18, 1996 in the of?ces of Southern Company Services, Inc. An agenda for the meeting was sent to all committee members and is attached to these minutes along with a list of the meeting attendees. l. The minutes from the November STAC meeting at CMA were approved without comment. The was no December meeting of the committee due to the Christmas holidays. Ned Leonard of Western Fuels Association was introduced to the STAC as one of the newest members. Western Fuels will be joining at the Board Level. GCC Report - No one from the GCC staff was present at the meeting to provide an update on coalition activities. Connie Holmes, who is the new chairman of the Operating Committee was present as an observer. It was requested that the GCC prepare a generic policy statement on Research. Porter and Lenny will work with representatives from the Economics Committee to develop a draft. The ?rst draft of the document will be developed by the end of the month (January). STAC and Economics Committee members will get a draft prior to their next meeting. Bob Gehri from Southern Company, John Holt from NRECA, and Ned Leonard from Western Fuels Association volunteered to assist in reviewing and ?nalizing a draft policy statement. Draft Paper on State Of Science The STAC next took up the draft paper on the State Of The Science paper that has been developed by Lenny Bernstein. Lenny indicated that so far general comments had been constructive on the first portion of the paper. Most suggestions had been to drop the ?contrarian? part. This idea was accepted and that portion of the paper will be dropped. The ideas brought out in the ?contrarian? section may be dealt with in a future paper. Most of the remainder of the meeting was spent conducting a paragraph by paragraph review and of the document by STAC members. Communication Committee Reguest - David Banks requested help in identifying a medical person or persons that could assist the GCC with the health effects issue. So far, the candidates offered by member companies did not have appropriate credentials to be a spokesman for the issue. It was felt that someone with a medical degree and some reputation C. Everett Koop). All materials currently being used by the Communications Committee need to be updated in light of the IPCC SAR and the developments in the AGBM process. Articles recently published in the Washington Post, The New York Times, and Newsweek concerning recent weather events and global warming wereldistributed to those attending. Charles Krauthammer is preparing a response article to the Jessica Matthew?s article. AIAM-050841 6. Porter Womeldorf and Lenny Bernstein gave a report on the recent IPCC WGI Plenary Session in Madrid, Spain and the IPCC Report Meeting held in Rome, Italy. E. Bruce Harrison, the consultant to the GCC Communications Committee, requested that the STAC approve a paper by Hugh Ellsaesser et. a1. discussing detection and attribution issue. The paper is entitled Comment on Santer et al., ?Towards the Detection and Attribution of an Anthropogenic Effect on Climate,? PCMDI Report No. 21, January 1995. Comments were requested to be sent to Lenny Bernstein by February 1. Chuck Hakkarinen cautioned that use of the article may be premature since neither the article by Ellsaesser or the article that it is responding to have been published in peer~ reviewed literature at this time. The next meeting of the GCC STAC will be held at EEI on February 15th from 11am to 4pm. The address is 701 Penn. Ave. NW. and the meeting will be held in the Ben Franklin Room on the 4th floor. AIAM-050842 Rama? Lu): ma. Rahadc?Qem A P: give ?aw/d 5/ Fae/4 AZ/?g/gs/? yaw N/chc? 703 907 5%fAf/7 CHUCK HR 1M 29* 262. EPRI H15 855 2592 /106< Evre,? 3m Dim .c-n?pr?v -6312" 2" 163 Co/ 21350 Em, 3M ?12 772-507/r/gy 7/4 a NRA 020mm J- {DomapboRFF IL Powell 50 Vlad? 3m expuu gem's Jew ?f?bf Dulce pouer" ?705/ 879513.! (/5473 631365 We? m; wee-m; ms [Liv ?15752: ,mnv Earn? aim} ?i A IA All?05.0841 Jessica Mathews Is 0101331 Warming the PrOblem? Don?t laugh. Strange things happen I?ve taken a lot of ribbing from friends and neighbors this blizzard week. ?Global warming, huh?? has been the general jest. An af?rmative answer tends to bring derisive laughter or at best a I lifted eyebrow. Nevertheless, it?s true. Hard as it may be to believe, blizzards like this one are part of what the experts tell us to expect of a warming climate. 7 0n the supposition that this is one of those rare moments when people are actually interested in the weather, here?s why. A warming climate doesn't mean there won?t be winters. It does mean more heat and therefore more energy in the atmosphere. Warmer air can hold more mois- ture. (Most skiers can remember being told that ?it?s too cold to snow.") Warmer temperatures also mean that moisture on the ground evaporates more rapidly. Togeth? er, these phenomena mean that more water cycles between earth and sky, evaporating more quickly and coming back down as rain or snowin greater volume. This more vigorous global hydrological cycle is one of the most certain charac- teristics of a greenhouse-altered climate. . . More energy and moisture in the atmosphere also raises the proba- bility of . more intense weather events, particularly of more ex- treme precipitation. This is one of the predicted characteristics of greenhouse warming that has al- ready been documented for the United States. Based on a century- long record, our weather has be- come more extreme in the past 15 years, with an index 40 percent higher than natural fluctuation should produce. The greatest sin? gle change has been in the propor? tion of extremely heavy precipita? tion?two inches of rain or more in 24 hours. in the past year Mid- westerners coped with the second ?100-year flood? in two years, and Texans had ?ooding with hail- stones the size of baseballs. Capping a two-year review by several thousand scientists, 120 governments agreed last month that ?the balance of evidence . . . suggests a discernible human in?u- ence on global climate.? In other words, greenhouse warming is underway. There re- mains considerable uncertainty about how much and how fast cli- mate will change, but even in the lowest case the average rate of warming is expected to be ?greater than any seen in the last 10,000 years,?a major change in climato- logical terms. 0 single weather event tells - you .anything about climate, and no single one can be linked to green- house warming?. Natural variability can produce a blizzard or freak ?ood at any time. The key point is that events like these are what we should expect?not in the future but right now. We are already liv- ing a changing climate that holds more potential for events like White Monday. . 7 The old saw, ?Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it,? no longer holds. We are all doing something about it with carbon dioxide, meth- ane and other greenhouse gas emissions every day. That means keep the shovels handy, but don?t expect predictabil- ity. Greenhouse effects can be gauged most con?dently as global averages. A few changes seem pretty certain on the continental scale, but very little can be said when, we alter the climate. about local climate. Also?this only sounds like an oxymoron?expect surprises. Climate is what is known as a non-linear system. Even rela- tively simple non-linear systems are unpredictable. In?nitesimal change in one factor can produce enormous changes in outcomes. When subjected to large nudges, such as those caused by green- house gas emissions, such systems are, in the words of the'interna- tional review panel, ?especially subject to unexpected behavior.? In other words, we can eXpect a class of predictable surprises? more weather extremes like this blizzard-5am unpredictable sur- prise as well. - - As the debate begins in earnes over what to do about greenhouse warming, the storm is a useful re- minder of how vulnerable we still are to the weather. With air- conditioned cars, irrigated agricul- ture and arti?cial snow on the ski slopes, it?s easy to think that we?ve left behind the era of dependence on Mother Nature. It ain?t so. From losses in air and ground transportation, food and retail sales, chaos in school schedules 0., .1, minimum-ms inmates Poet and lost worker productivity?not to mention cleanup costs?~this will be a multibillion?dollar storm. The New York area alone is already es; timating costs in excess of $1 bil- lion. Federal disaster funds have been necessary to keep road and ambulance crews working. This comes on top of last year?s killing heat waves, .the $12 billion ?ood of ?93, and the $17 billion cost of Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki in i ?92, to mention just a few among recent (perhaps not wholly) natural disasters. . Adaptation to changing climate is perfectly possible, but it?s a tricky business. Cities could begin to budget for more snowplows', but with no certainty that they?ll be needed. With plenty of certain needs,-that becomes a very tough call. Other adjustments will involve juggling much larger costs with the unknowns. Many could prove to be agonizineg dif?cult public choices. As you shovel, think of the bliz- zard of ?96 as a glimpse of a part of the likely greenhouse future. The writer is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations: AIAM-050844 THE NEW YORK TIMES, SUNDAY, IANUARY I4, 1996 Ideas 8: Trends Blame Global Warming for the Blizzard K. STEVENS seems a paradox at first glance: How could a record snowstorm have covered much of the north- eastern United States last week when the climate of the earth is warming? Just four days after scientists announced on Jan. 3 that the average surface temperature of the globe had crept to a recorded high of nearly 60 degrees in 1995, the Blizzard of 1996 dropped more than 20 inches of snow on Central Park, the third deepest snowfall ever measured there. More than two feet fell on other parts of the Northeast corridor. But not only are blizzards and global warming compatible, some experts cite evidence suggesting that climatic changes associated with global warming are actually creating more severe snowstorms. The apparent planetary warming is unlikely to nullify the seasons, including winter, although some climatologists say severe cold spells should eventually become less frequent if the warming continues as predicted. . Frigid masses of Arctic air still rule the polar winter, and a southward bulge of this polar chill was a crucial element in producing the blizzard. Another such bulge has been responsible for the bitter weather frustrating American troops in Bosnia. Seasonal move- ments of air like these easily overwhelm the relatively small amount of global warming observed so far. Current Events Moreover, other parts of the globe have been unusually warm despite the cold start to winter here and in Central Europe. While the blizzard paralyzed New York, Southern California enjoyed record warmth. The summertime temperature in Argentina at a latitude roughly compa- rable to that of Washington, DC, soared to 110 degrees a few days ago. And even where it has been cold, global warming may be contributing to heavier snowialls and greater extremes of precipitation generally. A warming atmosphere causes more evaporation of water from the ocean, which means more rain, snow or sleet. The conversion of more water from vapor to precipitation also releases more energy into the atmos? phere, making storms more powerful. In cases where atmospheric circulation conspires to keep rain, away from a given area, as happens from time to time, a warming climate is expected to produce hotter heat waves and more severe droughts. Extremes of this kind are becoming more frequent, say researchers at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Last year, the researchers analyzed temperature and precipitation records for the 20th century and found that from 1980 through 1994, the incidence of extreme one-day precipitation, over-all precipitation, above-nor- mal temperatures and drought had risen in many areas of the country. - By comparing this pattern with the pattern of climate change that computer simulations indicate should result from an increase in heat-trapping ?green- house? gases like carbon dioxide, the conclud- ed that there is a 90 to 95 percent chance that the increase in extremes was caused by the increase in greenhouse gases. An authoritative group of scientists advising the United Nations recently concluded for the first time that the greenhouse gases - produced by the burning of coal, petroleum and wood -- are probably responsible for at least part of the observed warming. The average surface temperature of the earth has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last century. The scientists forecast a rise of another 3.6 degrees over the next century it emissions of the gases are not reduced, the most rapid global temperature change in the last 10,000 years, with further warming after 2100. That may not sound like a lot of warming, but the average global temperature is only 5 to 9 degrees higher now, depending on varying calculations, than it was in the depths of the last ice age. AIAM-050845 If the scientists are right, extreme weather will be a hallmark of the changing climate, and in fact may be the most common way in which people experience global warming. - One particularly revealing index of extremity is the amount of precipitation in a 24-hour period. Ex? treme rainstorms, snowstorms, ice and sleet storms, have become more frequent in the United States, and several locations reported record 24vhour snowfalls last week. The Blizzard of 1996 does indeed qualify as one type of extreme weather to be expected in a warmer cli- mate. "It?s another statistic that adds to the record? of extreme precipitation, said Thomas R. Karl, the leader of the Asheville research team that is studying the ?r Paradoxically, an increase in the temperature of the Earth may mean more severe snowstorms and droughts as well as hotter heat waves. phenomenon. ?It?s rather interesting. We seem to be getting these storms of the century every couple of years.? Mr. Karl has not been known as a doom-sayer on the question of global warming. As Northeastemers showed last week, peeple can adapt to extreme weather, but at costs both monetary and human. - The blizzard may have cost the New York region a billion dollars and it caused many deaths. Floods result- ing from extreme rains, like the historic ones in the Mississippi basin in 1993, take a toll both in dollars and disaster. Extreme heat waves like last summer?s in Chicago, which Mr. Karl says may have been worsened by global warming, impose extreme and often lethal hardships on the old and weak. Developing countries, many of which have fewer resources to cope with a changing climate, are generally regarded as most vulnerable. For all the tantalizing signs and signals, it remains uncertain as to whether human activity is changing the climate a little or a lot, and if a lot, how drastic the change will ultimately be. Long?range climate forecasting is no more precise than short-range weather forecasting, both based on an imperfect understanding of the turbulent atmosphere and an equally imperfect analytical tools like computer simulations of the atmosphere's workings. Sometimes, the task of predicting the weather a season ahead is made easier. For instance, forecasters know that the quasi- periodic appearance of El Ni?o, the vast pool of warm water in the equatorial Pacific, increases the probabili- ty of certain atmospheric events. They can predict that when El Nino appears, the northern jet stream, the high~altitude river of air that girdles the northern hemisphere, will shift to a course that blocks any invasions of polar air in the northeastern United States. That was the case a year ago. Forecasters at the Climate Analysis Center of the National Weather Serv?_ ice at Camp Springs, Md, predicted a mild winter for the Northeast last year. They were right; on Jan. 13, 1995, for instance, the temperature reached 61 degrees in Central Park. This year, El Ni?o has disappeared. The Weather Service nonetheless predicted a warm winter again based on previous weather patterns, but that forecast has turned out to be wrong so far. The winter is young enough that the forecast could still be right in the end. If not, it will be testimony to the hazards of trying to gauge the behavior of the atmosphere far in advance. ?It comes with the territory, and we accept that,? said Ed O?Lenic, who heads the Climate Analysis Center?s forecast operation. AIAM-050846 NTIONAL AFFAIRS What you see as storms, the world?s weatherman sees as evidence of global warming, further proof Not Full of Hot Air BY SHARON BEGLEY EVEN FLOORS BELOW, THE streets of Manhattan?s Mom- ingside Heights have taken on the look of a maze, with walls of white channeling the scurrying pedestrians into pre- cise paths. It snowed last night, and for a while it showed no inclina- tion to stop. Ever. Rulers bucked the scienti?c Consensus that the planet was getting cooler. He argued that, to the contrary, the globe had warmed 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last century?be- cause industrial gases were trapping heat in the atmosphere. He was right, it turns'out, and ?that was the ?rst thing that got us in trouble,? he says with a faint smile. In the spring of 1990 he bet a col- league that at least one year won?t do; to measure the ac? Warmer from 1990 to 1992 would cumulation, yardsticks are Th urf the warmest on rec- in order. 80 if this seems Pefagfngi?e 6:311:35 0rd. When 1990 topped the like an odd moment to turn one?s thoughts to the warm? ing of the world?s climate, well, James E. Hansen begs to differ. ?No, this is the 590? 58.5? perfect time!? the director of a Goddard Institute 58'0 for Space Studies in New 575? I York says in his crammed 570? of?ce. ?As you get more ?1860 1900 global warmmg, you should See an increase the 8X. UNIVERSITY OF EASTANGLIA tremes of the hydrologic cy- - cle?droughts and ?oods and heavy precipitation.? Hansen, 54, is back where he?s most comfortable: out on a climatological limb. It hasn?t been sawed off from under him yet. In 1981 this weatherman to the world 24 NEWSWEEK JANUARY 22,1996 risen more than 1.5 de- grees in the last 135 years. DEGREES FAHRENHEIT SOURCE: CLIMATIC RESEARCH UNIT, charts, Hansen pocketed $100. Then he nailed his pre- diction that the 1991 erup- tion of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines would put a lid on the warming trend un- til the 20 megatons of heat- re?ecting volcanic dust had settled. And four days after 1995 was history, Hansen announced that it had been the hottest year ever, an av- erage 59.7 degrees. It wasn?t a quirk: Pinatubo had lowered the average global temperature so signi?cantly that ?it would be very unlikely? for chance alone to push the mercury to a new record. It?s even less likely that chance alone could explain weather that, in 1995, gave 1950 1995 new meaning to ?capricious.? In Antarctica, a ?berg the size of Rhode Island broke off, and ?owers bloomed on the ice shelves (map, page 26). Seas warmed off southern 7 California, decirnating populations of zoo- plankton that sustain ?sh; Northern Europe bailed out from under spring ?oods. Eleven hurricanes?the most since 1933?pum? meled the Caribbean. More than 800 people died in the Midwest?s summer heat wave, and London had its hottest, driest summer in 200 years. Northeast Brazil su?ered its worst drought of the century and now its south is underwater: Bio has already had three times as much rain in eight days this month as it usually gets in all of January. Siberia was a full 5 degrees hotter than nor- mal last year. Alaska has had almost no snow AIAM-050847 this season?but Memphis, Tenn., would love to ship it some. ?The more rapidly we force changes in the [climate] system,? says Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, ?the more likely it is to exhibit inscrutable behavior.? ?Inscrutability? to a scientist is like a vac- uum to nature: theories rush in at the speed of sound. The theory in this case is that the world is caught in the grip of a ?greenhouse effect.? Gases such as carbon dioxide, re- leased when fossil fuels like coal and oil burn, trap infrared (heat) radiation in the atmosphere much as panes of greenhouse glass do. Since the atmosphere?s load of these gases keeps rising, the world will al- most certainly get warmer. The Intergov? ernmental Panel on Climate Change, spon- Hansen: A smile and an umbrella sored by the United Nations, last month forecast a rise of 1.8 to 6.3 degrees by 2100. Since the IPCC can hardly agree on what to order for lunch, that unanimous prediction was a milestone. Even representatives from Kuwait and China were on board: the two countries resist the idea that the world is warming because greenhouse panic could bring restrictions on oil and coal. But consensus ends right about there. Not even researchers who agree that the world is warming, and will keep warming, agree on what happens next. On the one hand, Pan- glossians foresee milder winters and bump- er crops from Kansas to Siberia. Despite the recent weather, they expect fewer severe storms in the future: temperature differ- ences between the poles and the equator will even out, and the fury of storms will therefore diminish. Cassan? dras, on the other hand, warn that in a warmer world agricul- tural zones will shift, causing a mismatch between climate, soil and rainfall that could empty many of the world?s bread- baskets. Sea levels will rise be- tween 6 and 38 inches, obliterat- ing islands, robbing coastal New Jersey and Louisiana of congres- sional districts and forcing Kevin Costner to rebuild his ark. Up to two thirds of the world?s forests could turn to grasslands. The Mideast and northern Africa can expect widespread droughts. A balmi- er North Pole could alter ocean currents that now warm West- ern Europe; there will always be an England, but it might not be able to cultivate buttercups. Meaner storms: It?s too soon to tell which side knows what it?s talking about. But one alarming prediction seems to be coming true: the expectation that, in a warmer world, extremes of wet and dry will intensify. As Earth?s surface warms, more moisture evaporates. Over arid regions, where there?s little to evaporate, turning up the thermostat would exacerbate droughts. Rainfall would thus increase over moist areas, like the coasts, and be rarer in the interiors of continents. ?The odds of getting drought years will increase markedly,? says Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad- ministration (NOAA). Hurri- canes, too, should get more in- tense. ?The warmer the ocean gets, the meaner the tropical storm,? says A. E. (Sandy) MacDonald of lab in Boulder, Colo. Last week?s blizzard can?t be blamed on the warming world. 0 storm or drought or heat wave ever can be so neatly diag- nosed. ?You can?t connect a given weather event on a particular day in a particular place with long-term climate change,? says physicist Michael Oppenheimer of the En- vironmental Defense Fund. The snows of yesteryear prove that. The record North- east blizzards of 1888 and 1947, after all, hit when the only greenhouse effect anyone cared about was the one that forces lilies to bloom for Easter. Extreme weather is con- nected to global warming more subtly. ?All that long-term climate change can do is JANUARY22. NEWSWEEK 1996 AIAM-050848 NATIONAL AFFAIRS .: Going to Extremes The weather is always capricious, but last year gave new meaning to the term. Floods, hurricanes, droughts?~the only plague missing was frogs. The pattern of extremes ?t scien- tists? forecasts of what a warmer world would be like. British Isles: Severe summer heat wave and drought. London had its hottest summer since 1659. California: Heavy 5 "j dry summer; then the 3?"th?VESt - i - blizzard of ?96 buries Northwest Africa- 4 I I I: the Northeast. PTOtraCtEd ting-m the state, causing 15 deaths and $2 billion Garlbbean: Eight in damage. tropical storms and Mm 11 hurricanes made gigs-s. this the worst season North . since 1933. parts of the country are experiencing the coldest weather in 25 years. On New Year?s Day, Mexico City saw its first real snowfall Northeast Brazil: in two decades. Su?'ered its worst .i I I. .. I 4? ?gJ?-1, Argentina: The plains - . 'r region experienced its . 1- worst drought in ?x.an I 1 - I history. The Patagonia . forest is having one 1 . . of its most active ?re 3' h? 4" seasons in memory. I ?is .-.- - -. v. my . A. Hurricane Luzs hits the Caribbean Antarctica: A 48_by_ 22-mile piece of the Larsen Ice Shelf fell off. 7 Hurricanetornado/ - Vy am Heat wave typhoon swam. smear-:JUN sum AIAM-050849 affect the probabilities,? Hansen explains. Instead of equal chances that any one storm will be heavier or lighter than nor? mal, or any one day hotter or colder than normal, the climate dice are now loaded. The greenhouse effect, says Hansen, ?has changed the odds? on extreme weather. Whatever its proximate cause, the bliz- zard of ?96 is just what a greenhouse world would whip up. The storm was born when cold air blew down from Canada. The arctic air happened to smack into a warm, moist air mass hovering over the Atlantic Ocean. In a warmer world, those chance circumstances could be more common. ?Global warming has made the Atlantic an even greater source of moisture? from evaporation, Hansen says. And when water vapor condenses, becom- Siberia: A ?ve? degree increase in average temperature for '95 was the larges in the world, - .r ing liquid again, the process releases heat. So assay-Moscow?s . warm moist air that feeds blizzards is more I - ,1 likely to be parked over the Atlantic, just waiting for the delivery of a cold mass. ?The greenhouse effect alters the probabil- 7 4393'? With ities [of having the ingredients of a massive unprecedented snowstorm],? says Hansen. ?In that sense Wfall' th rth, . . . 01333132230 the greenhouse effect is changmg our ch- last week asked for mate n0W~ military assistance in Hot Venus: Hansen was not always a removing snow. greenhouse cultivator. In 1965, he was casting about for a dissertation for his . I in physics at the University of Iowa. His mentor, James Van Allen (discoverer Angela? wig?? of the radiation belts that girdle Earth), 33:; 1:53;? hit Storm suggested that Hansen tackle the question November: killing of why the surface of Venus is hot enough more than 600 people. to melt lead. The catch was that the expla- nation had to be wholly original. The best theory for Venus?s heat?that it was the victim of a runaway greenhouse effect? had already been claimed by some young Harvard professor named Carl Sagan. Hansen wasn?t deterred. decided to say that Venus was so hot because a dusty atmosphere was trapping internal heat,? he recalls. That was good enough for the doc- toral committee (even though it turns out that Sagan was right about Venus). Hansen received his degree and landed a fellow? ship at Goddard, which has lately become as well known for its location as for its 7 -- 7 science: Tom?s Restaurant, where the Fires in drought-ridden outh Wales semfeld Charade? Chow on the .. ground ?oor. Now Hansen cant escape climate change even on his birthday. For his 50th, he got a clear plastic bank ?lled with coins from around the world?and labeled GLOBAL CHANGE. Some researchers resent Hansen?s bra- vado. One June day in 1988, as drought and record heat fried the Midwest, Hansen tes- ti?ed before. a Senate committee that he was ,?99 percent? certain that greenhouse warming had gone from theory to reality. The senators paid attention?it was 100 de- grees in Washington that day?and Hansen became famous overnight as the govern- ment scientist who said the world was weather has wet in the west, - NEWSWEEK GRAPHIC BY DIXON ROHR RESEARCH 31' BRAD STONE AND BRUCE SOURCE: CLIMATE PREDICHON JANUARY 22.1996 NEWSWEEK 27 NATIONAL AFFAIRS Weathering Heights The Weather Channel?s forecast: higher ratings HEN IT BECAME CLEAR THE STORM WAS GOING TO BE A WHOPPER, THE Weather Channel went on a war footing. The executive producer dispatched reporters to Washington, DC, and New York for live reports. As the storm blew furiously up the East Coast, the network stayed with it, logging news, it seemed, of almost every ?ake. The energy 0n the screen was as palpable as the blizzard outside. Wait a minute. Isn?t this the 24-hour channel of weather wonks standing in front of exotic-looking maps? It is, but just as was no ordinary murder trial, this was no ordinary storm?and the ratings showed it. As the blizzard developed last Sunday, more viewers tuned in to the Atlanta-based cable channel than ever house- holds watched, a fourfold jump over its normal audience. That was also twice as large as the ratings for CNN, its cross-town rival in big weather stories. These ratings won?t knock off its perch. But if Desert Storm ?xed CN N?s reputation, and did the same for Court TV, then the blizzard of ?96 has put The Weather Channel solidly on the map. ?We kicked butt,? gushed executive pro- ducer Jim Sutherland. ?We want to own the weather.? Well, not literally, but Suth- erland has a right to gush. From its start in 1982, The Weather Channel has been pelted with snickers. WHEN IT RAIN 5 IT BO RES, read one head? line. The male meteorologists looked like they were wearing outlet-mall suits and the wom- en wore dresses a size too large, critics wrote. All that may have been true, but the viewing public came to want weather on demand. Buoyed by big weather stories, like Hurricane Erin last year, the channel has grown into one of the nation?s ?must have? cable channels. Available in over 90 percent of all cable homes, its revenues last year climbed to more than $80 million. Many viewers have turned into fanatics, some undoubtedly out of an obsession with nature and some undoubtedly because they don?t have jobs. About 20 percent have reported watching for an eye-glazing 30 minutes at a time. After 14 years, TWC is a brand name, selling tornado videos and online services. All this is pretty heady for a channel that annoyingly starts commercials while the anchorperson is still speaking. But a highly sophisticated operation churns out the forecasts. All of the channel?s 27 anchors are meteorologists and, it should be said, are as well dressed and personable as any local weather broadcaster. Remarkably, they do their shtik without a script, and their passion is evident. Stu Ostro recalled that ?to see hail bigger than a baseball was a very spiritual experience.? At their disposal is a multimillion- dollar state-of-the-air computer system that lays out varying forecasts; the 65 meteorolo- gists on staff make the ?nal call. Every 10 minutes, 4,000 separate local forecasts ?drawn from the National Weather Service?are beamed via satellite to local cable operators. . The channel?s biggest challenge is to get people to watch longer. The fanatics aside, the average length of time a viewer watches The Weather Channel is only 14 minutes. That means the channel must move quickly to cover local, regional and national forecasts. To try to stretch that time, the channel offers features to appeal to speci?c audience groups, like weather for skiers. And by rapidly dissolving one map or graphic into another, the anchors keep things moving, even if the information being imparted is often the same as 15 minutes earlier. The downside is that all this can induce a trancelike state similar to watching a stock ticker tape. The antidote: the mother of all snowstorms. Lanar with VERN E. SMITH in Atlanta From Iaughingstock to must-watch: Weathercaster NEWSWEEK JANUABY22.1996 warming. Looking back on Hansen?s testi- mony, says Kerry Emanuel of MIT, don?t think it was good for scienti?c research. It was such an outlandish View that it sparked a counterrevolutiori. We found ourselves in the middle of the Chicken Littles on the one hand, and the reactionaries on the other.? But there is little debate that, as Van Allen puts it, ?Hansen?s work is really the stand- ard of reference in the ?eld.? And lately the weather has been on his side. Downpours are one of those ?extreme hydrologic events? that Hansen expects from the greenhouse. Higher temperatures mean more evaporation, which means more water vapor in the air. That does not portend more frequent rainfalls?whether or not a storm forms depends on circulation patterns - that are not expected to shift much. But storms that do form will have more mois- ture?laden air to wring out. Since 1970, re- ports Thomas Karl of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC, more rain in the United States has been falling in big sloppy storms, with less arriving in showers. In other words, when it rains it pours. ?We were ?ab- bergasted, to be honest with you,? Karl says. ?Our best infor- mation is that global warming is having an impact [on rainfall] now.? It also seems to be a?ect? ing the infamous Paci?c Ocean warming known as E1 Ni?o. El Ni?obrings torrential rain to the Southeastern United States and unusual heat to the Paci?c Northwest. And global warm- ing, says Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospher- ic Research, makes E1 Ni?o effects stronger and more frequent. To scientists who remain skeptical about greenhouse warming, wacky weather and a balmier world re?ect no more than normal variability. Weather is so sensitive to tiny changes, after all, that a butter?y ?apping its wings in Beijing can make it rain in Pittsburgh (and if we ever find that butter- fly we?re going to make it stop). Need evi- dence that the science underlying climate models is unsettled? The IPCC now pre- dicts that the world will warm only half as much as it forecast in 1990. The 1990 report neglected the cooling effect of sulfates, which are released into the air when dirty, high-sulfur coal and other fuels are burned; 1995?s took account of sulfates. The Global Climate Coalition, an group ?ghting efforts to require cuts in the of?carbion dioxide. argues that this ?trend [toward lower warming esti- mates] could continue . . . and is a vervggod reason why continued research is a wise strate The coalition suggests that the worl as 40 to 240 years to stabilize green- AIAM-OSOSSI house gases before the heat gets turned up uncomfortably high. Several reputable scientists agree. There are huge uncertainties in the computerized climate models. For one, the increased evaporation in a warmer world might pro- duce more clouds, which have a cooling effect. For another, oceans might absorb most of the increased heat, leaving little to change the climate. don?t believe the cli- mate system is messed up,? says climatolo- gist Robert Balling of Arizona State Univer- sity. ?[Neither] circulation patterns [nor] precipitation records are showing any cata- problem.? The Global Climate Coalition describes its mews as ?business and industg?s,? but one player has broken ranks. Insurers have concluded that a greenhouse world could "bankrupt the industry,? as the president of the Reinsurance Association of America said last year. Hurricane Andrew, the kind of storm a warmer world could see more of, produced $16.5 bil? lion in damage claims. In Eu- rope, reinsurers Swiss Re and Munich Re have lobbied gov- ernments to regulate green- house gases, and Swiss Re sug- gested that global warming might force people to abandon major cities. ?This hazard has to be contained,? says a Swiss Re statement. ?We have to re- think, correct our mistakes and win time.? InSurers are also meeting with Greenpeace, which is exhorting them to take on energy companies in a battle that would be straight out of a Japanese monster movie. At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janei~ ro, developed nations pledged to cut their releases of greenhouse gases so that emis- sions in the year 2000 would not exceed 1990?s. About the only country that has a chance of living up to its promise is Sweden. The United States is relying on industry to voluntarily reduce emissions?w by using less energy and making more fuel- ef?cient cars, for instance. Rather than adopting tough measures like an energy tax, which would cut energy use but also end political careers, the United States and other countries are hoping that technology will ride to the rescue. Maybe solar power and hydrogen will replace coal and oil before greenhouse warming gets bothersome. But Hansen thinks there?s less time than govern- ments are counting on. ?The climate system is being pushed hard enough that change will become obvious to the man in the street in the next decade,? he says. To many people trudging along streets lined with urban Hi- malayas last week, it already was. With DANIEL CLICK in Boulder, Cola, and ADAM ROGERS Two Feet Under Another crisis Washington can?t handle on THE BUNDLED masses IN CHICAGO AND BUFFALO, IT WAS AN IN- comprehensible sight: Washington, DC. ?seat of the free world, capital of the most powerful nation on earth?trounced by one powerful dose of snow. Other cities on the East Coast got walloped, too, but they managed to clear the roads and open the stores in a few days. The capital was so poorly prepared that a week after the storm hit, nearly everyone but the president was still stuck at home. No chance of moving the car, no place open to drive to anyway. Did we in Washington think winter would just sort of skip us this year? Actually, yes. And we thought it would last year, too. Every year Washingtonians brace themselves for the cold months with this neat bit of logic: Southern cities have mild winters. Washington is a Southern city. Therefore, Washington will have a mild winter. Trouble is, like so many other examples of capital reasoning, this one de?es the truth: it snows here. At ?rst there was something pleasantly anachronistic about the ability of mere weather to mock the determination of a city so concerned with getting to the of?ce. The feeling didn?t last long. Four days after the storm, 80 percent of the city?s 1,100 miles of roads hadn?t been plowed. A week after, you could still ski nia Avenue. Residential streets were arctic preserves. Mayor Marion Barry went 0n television to assure every- one that the District had plen- ty of equipment to get the job done. He tooled around in a plow, mugging for the cam- eras. (Barry could afford to be jolly; his street was cleared as soon as the snow stopped.) In fact, there wasn?t nearly enough equipment. Four years ago, the District owned 100 plows and had contracts with private companies for an additional 240. By this winter, with the District broke and in federal receivership, the fleet had atrophied to a mere 50 street scrapers. Eight others stood in a downtown garage, waiting for minor parts the city hadn?t ordered. To make up the shortfall, the city signed contracts with 50 private plow drivers. Barry wanted to hire more, but couldn?t ?nd any takers. No one else believed the District government would ever get around to paying them. No fools, they. In a few days the city?s $2.1 million snow- removal budget was sapped. At the weekend, the mayor was begging for help. The police, at least, could get around. The National Guard provided them with Humvees to cruise in, and at least a few cops didn?t want to give them back. Not so ambulance drivers, who had to tromp for blocks through two-foot snow to retrieve the sick and injured. Firefighters had their own troubles. The hydrants were buried. Until a few years ago, a rookie ?re-snuffer was required to memorize the location of every hydrant in his district. That requirement was waived; now only the old-timers know where to drag the hose. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that in the capital of the United States of America last week, it was not possible to buy a loaf of bread. Local news stations were reduced to reading off the names of the few markets that still had milk. Surly shoppers suspiciously eyed the contents of their neighbors? carts, and made grisly jokes about getting invited to a Donner party in Georgetown. From the darkness and chaos, however, there emerged two gratifying truths to which Washingtonians could cling. First, that violent crime in the city dropped off in the week after the storm; and second. that next year, like this one, will be a winter without snow. WESTON Kosova with LUCY SHACKELFOKD and PAT WINGERT in Washington Vigllant: Tourists kept coming to the Vietnam wall JANUARY 22, 1996 NEWSWEEK 29 AIAM-050852 010? P. 02/ 09 FAX N0. 2174229174 HOHELDORFF 1'0 91217422917445 P001 ?me iilt E. Bruce Harrison Company Suite 300 1440 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 638-1200 Fax: (202) 639?8685 Eacsimile Transmission Cover Sheet DATE: December 22, 1995 NANIE: Dave Banks 682- 8096 John Grasser 857-0135 . Porter Womeldorff 217/422-91 74 FROM: Don Rheem TOTAL PAGES TRANSMITTED INCLUDING COVER: 8 If there is a problem with this fax transmission. please call (202) 638-1200 /I've just received a paper from Hugh Ellsaesser responding to what he sees as an attempt that [scientists] have detected an identi?able anthropo genie signal in the observed temperature data v'n I'm forWarding the article to you FYI. I would like to ask Porter to check with communication efforts. Should we distribute his paper to key climate change reporters? How important is the original Santer article? [13520] AIAM-050853 mn- ng SUN 20 22 NONELDORFF . Fax N0. 2174229174 P. 03/09 um: 11 a a 111 31211422911445 P002 I 15:24 LLNL ?mos SCI Fax I ?l ?0 . 51042-25844 P. 01 ?7 a 3 3 Comment I. . ?nlSanuu I I Towards Anthropogenic E?'ecr on cumJEPeptgc?on and Attribution of an i. Jamary 1 MOI 21, by Ehu?lvV-E?kmg . user g. fl ?193% GueSt Scientist's Whospheric Samoa Division I I .1 0' 30x 308. L-262 ?mm. CA94550 . member 1995 . Th1 - ?We Dynamics r? I Laborzogdg; Guest 888%? are prowdcd 1 Wi?lout ?ml?lmes ofthe mess 89m in the I my time of the author. Any ?pmi?ns expressed herein 1 in-E} 1 nR-ocnu hnaa AIAM-050854 . uwwm mun '1'09121?422917445 P003 - THU 15?24 LLHL ATHOS 501 571.3 FAX NO. 5104258444 02- 7-98 SUN 20123 HOMELDORFF FAX N0. 2174229174 P. 04/09 nature da 11mm . i i even Tings to have done so. Note :31 acfually hava done so and without i i 9 will sis ppm-ts .. doubt, an (1068 {lot prove that we have detected be i: temperature yond '2?21-95 anon IDEc-zl-as mu 15:In.? nun?- .. u-u .. qn-vl-I-vh - no. FAX N0. 2174229174 HOMELDORFF ?w TU 91217422917445 EHRHH LUle RTHOS SCI P004 Fax NO. 5104225344 P. 03: CO: (270 . emission:me ?menm nominal prem?fzmdumm a m? am 3' C02 (345 ppmv) :1 ?ions an a comb and C02- The integrations 10 years by Santa:- et a1. (1995). present?! an additional is subtracted In which global ?m5 Sinf?arily With obsewcd 12?21-95 06 25PM P. 05/09 KHR AIAM-050856 #15 -- .. ?Hr- . -.-- .- . .. . i .- I . . JAN- 7135 .511339333 FAX N0. 2174229174 P. 06/09 TU 91211422917445 . P005 FAX HO. 510425844 NOMELDORFF awn (1 if DEG-21435 THU 15326 LLHL HMS SCI P. 04 [eruphasjs added] As is . . apparent from th almost; elm-c157 by the 1950-70 period. As this trend Ra) steadily This belmdor is even mom decrease in R0) from 1910 to about 1950 is completely . 10a for this decrease, how can the possibil- Ra) resulted merely mm: a reversal in this iv: The annual me never exceeds 0.3. T11 1985; the fall Rm ,the model-predicted 68 re?ect 10 to 15% of When at al. (199 . more sophiSticated 5) mm a nearly Idem? 13?? ad! Weaker (0.6 vs 0.95 ?may ran three em 311d box contain. Changes in ?118- The 61-16 experiment decades were nem- zero through the lz-zl'-93 05:28?: MM. an: AIAM-050857 Fax N0. 2174229174 IMWQNELBOEFF 1'091217422917445 P006 . I I DEC-2145 THU 15:23? um arms SCI Fax no. 5104225344 P. 05 ?ii. . feted as 0 an emerging steenh ouse gas/sulphate aerosol signal 111 the observations No claim wee made that an ogeeic climate change. 913m] had been idenn?ed the observational data. I I still. (1995) found the strongest trend. 5'5: -: 1113838 appears to have eliminated the negative contentions of 1945-55 and the rapid drop :11 correlations of 1985-90. .i the do meadmum 1n warmth over the NH. This difference It creases. teams to about the same value circa 1985 and then deem id! the end of therecordAn?nopogenic slum: emissions are concentrated in the NH. thus their primary . I effect: as shown by the two ems cited above, is to cool the NH relative to the 53- Slime ?33 analyses of both experiments is based primarily on centered correlatiom I removed) of model-predicted and observed ?elds, it 18 mprise that the correlation statistics for both the [sulfate-only combmed expmm' ems show marked positive trends From 1950 to 1970 -- over thepenod in whiCh the 118111151) heric tee: ature difference reverses and the NH I becomes colder than the SH. per 'spheric temperature due to men's emissions ofsul?xr 990 (Mitchell et a1. 1995)? If so. why did the relative coolin or the NH Stop in 1970 andrapit?y reverse itself after 1985? The 3 192040, due premnneblytea tom 12*21 '85 05:28?" Inn?- In. FAX N0. 2174229174 l-qngf?E? 111211422917445 111111 . LLNI. am so: Fax No. 51114225844 as Thanks ?nalpoint?latisworth . noting, Au combined ham? 81:31:.) 8t al. (1995) weaken: wisgimfuumozeggzmodcl largest ainph?cahon of the temperature change response. The areas of of mm ?mm 11.0: 8561:: the computed melanoma due to the paucit mmObmmpemm eh ha regzons. sum the satellite data show that these la: - sages ve far-UM appear, areas would seriously AIAM-050859 JHN :2 HELD I 9121'r422917445 P008 . I . I . 95041-95 mu15:3o LLNL mos $01 I No, 5104225844 M7: Mm Houghton. 1. T., G. J. Jenkins and J. Ephrauma (edsJ, Clinmte Change, The IPCC 1 Sciem?c Assessment, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambzidge. 1990. inger. M. B. Greenhouse- Gm?Ina'uced Climatic Chan ge.? A Critical Appraisal of Sim . . Marine and land temperature data sets: A Oomparison andalookatrecenthends, In Schles I Mariam and Observatiom. Elsevier. Ams?Brdam, 153-172, 1991. Mitchell, F. B.. T. C. 1:1th I. M. Gregory and S. F. B. Tctt, Climate response to .i increasing levels of greenhouse gases and muphate ant-03018, Nature 376, SDI-501.1995. . T. M. L. ngley, J. B. Penna. P. D. hues and U. Cubasch. Towards the detection and nth-{button of an anthropogenic effect on climate. PC MDI on No. 21. Lawmnce Idveamm National Laboratory, Livermoro, CA. January 1995. Taylor. R. E. and I. E. Fem. RGSpome ofthe climate system to Atmospheric aerosols I I and gluonhOuse gases, Nature 369, 734-737. 1994. ?3 ?n-se nl.Ann-- In.- A1AM-050860 (Mat InfectiOus Disease May As the World Gets Warmer} i New Populations Will Be at Risk, Researchers Say, By David Brown Washington Post Scan Writer Global climate change over the next century may markedly increase the range of many infec- tious diseases, especially those spread by in- sects and water, according to a new report. Malaria, with a current worldwide mortality of about 2 million people a year, may kill an ad- ditional million people annually as temperatures rise and the microbe-carrying mosquito spreads. Dengue, a painful virus infection cur- rently in epidemic resurgence in Latin America, may move north into the United States. Warm? er ocean temperatures may aid the spread of cholera in shell?sh, according to the report. ?Global climate change can alter the distribu? tion of infectious diseases, placing new and po- . tentially large human populations at risk,? wrote Jonathan A. Patz, an epidemiologist, in today?s Journal of the American Medical Association. The predictions made by Patz, of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, and his oo-authors at Harvard University and George Washington University, are based on es- timates that average globaltemperatm?e will rise about 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) by the year 2100. Global sea-level rise over the the prevalence of infectious diseases. A hotter environment may reduce some tem? perate-zone infections, such as Rocky Mountain spotted fever, but will tend. to favor a larger number of tropical diseases, according to the re- transmit- tedtohumanbeings byinsectsandanimalsthat w? become more likely to carry infectious or- ganisms or will spread over larger geographic areas. Malaria, transmitted by certain species of mosquito, is the world's most prevalent ?vector- borne? disease. Its spread is highly dependent on temperature and humidity, factors that af- fect mosquitoes? breeding. The researchers pointed to a 1987 epidemic of malaria in Rwanda as a case study of what may occurlin many areas. A high-altimde, ma- laria-free region experienced a large number of cases following a period of record-setting high temperatures and rainfall. In particular, small changes in minimum temperature ?exponential- ly affected? rates of the infection, the research- ers reported. Currently, about 2 billion people in the world are at risk of contracting malaria. Should the global warming predictions prove true, an addi- tional 620 million will be at risk by the year 2050, Patz said yesterday at a news conference here. The latter group will have none of the partial immunity conferred by repeated infec- tion, and may tend to get more severe cases. Dengue, a disease also known as ?break-bone fever? because of the pain it causes, is also transmitted by mosquitoes and is expected to spread with higher temperatures. The effect of. temperature goes beyond merely enlargingthe- insects? native range. . Female mosquitoes (the only sex that bites). are smaller in warmer temperatures, so they must take more blood meals in order to acquire the protein necessary to make eggs. Heat also shortens the period between the time a mosqui: to acquires the dengue virus and the time the virus has reproduced suf?ciently for the insect?s bite to transmit the disease. ?At higher temperature, the mosquito bites, more often, and the bite is more likely to be in-~ fectious,? Patz said. Dengue is occasionally fatal if a person is re-Z peatedly infected. A recent epidemic in Latin- - America has numbered about 140,000 cases,? but has caused fewer than 100 reported deaths; An American case was diagnosed in Hidalgo- County, Tex, in October. The mosquito capable . of dengue exists as far north as; Memphis, Patz said. . Other diseases that may become more preva~. lent with global warming include river blindness: whose black-?y vectors may increase in number? by 25 percent in West Africa; sleeping stainless; whose tsetse-?y vectors may spread as vegeta-I Louis? encephalitis, a mosquito-borne disease fomid the United States and "elsewhere that favors; .. A rise in ocean temperatures may favor the: growth and spread of algae blooms, which in turn; may increase the population of certain types of, plankton that can carry the cholera bacterium; Warmerwateralsomayextend the range ofvar-- ious ?red tides? of microorganisms that can poi- son shell?sh and people who eat them. At the news conference, however, Patz noted. that ?climate is not the only factor driving these diseases.? Interventions such as putting screens; on windows and limiting the amount of standing; water in populated areas can markedly affect: disease rates, eSpecially in developed countries such as the United States. 3 Among the suggestions o?ered by Patz and his colleagues was the establishment of ?send-g nel diagnostic centers? at the borders of areas? where there are diseases likely to spread with: global warming. . Patz?s report was. one of several articles on' ?emerging diseases? in this week?s issue of the journal. One of the others described a rise of 22 percent in the number of deaths caused by in- fectious diseases between 1980 and 1992,.ex- eluding deaths from AIDS. I At the urging of the joumal?s editor, George D. Lundberg, about 35 other. medical journals around the world will publish articles on emerg-' ing infections this month to heighten public and professional awareness of the problem. - . AIAM-050861 Quit/Mai DRAFT - APPROVED BY STAC Predicting Climate Change: A Primer Since its completion in December, 1995, the media have focused on two of the conclusions in the science portion of the Report,. (The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN body charged with assessing the state of knowledge on the science, impacts and economics of potential climate change.) The ?rst conclusion is contained in the statement: The balance of evidence, from changes in global mean surface air temperature and from changes in geographical, seasonal, and vertical patterns of atmospheric temperature, suggest a discernable human in?uence on global climate. Many media stories interpret this statement as meaning that signi?cant human-induced climate change has already occurred, going beyond what can be justi?ed by current scienti?c knowledge. The IPCC used the term human more narrowly to indicate that some of the observed changes in temperature patterns could not be explained by normal statistical variability. Later in this paper the studies used by the IPCC to support this claim will be examined. The IPCC recognized the limitations on our ability to attribute part or all of the climate change that has occurred over the last 120 years to human activities. The IPCC statement on the human in?uence on climate, contained in the Summary for Policymakers of underlying IPCC report on science, reads: Our ability to quantify the human in?uence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors. These include the magnitude and pattern of long term natural variability and the time-evolving patterns of forcing by, and response to, changes in the concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and land surface changes. Nevertheless, the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernable human in?uence on global climate. (emphasis added) The second conclusion which has drawn media attention is the projection that by 2100 global average temperature will have risen by 1 - with a best estimate of While this statement fairly re?ects the output of the best available climate models, it must be interpreted in light of the known problems with and limitations of climate models. It also should be noted that this IPCC estimate is lower by one-third than the projection the IPCC made ?ve years ago. This paper presents an assessment by the Global Climate Coalition?s Science and Technology ?Ad-visory Committee of the issues in the science of climate change which relate to the ability to determine whether human emissions of greenhouse gases have had an effect on current climate or to predict whether they will have a signi?cant impact on future climate. It is a primer on these issues, not an exhaustive analysis. Complex issues have been simpli?ed, hepefully without any AIAM-050862 DRAFT - APPROVED BY STAC loss of accuracy. Also, since it is a primer, it uses the terminology which has become popular in the climate change debate, even in those cases where the popular terminology is not technically accurate. Introduction and Before discussing the climate system further, it is important to draw a distinction between climate and weather. The two are often confused. Weather is what we experience on a day-to- day or season-to-season basis. Climate is the long term average of weather. The fact that a given day sets a record for high or low temperature, or that there are a larger than usual number of named storms in the Atlantic, as occurred in 1995, is weather, and is not as indicative of a climate shift. Only a long term pattern of higher (or lower) temperatures or increased number of storms would indicate a climate shift. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, human activities have increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by more than 25%. Atmospheric concentrations of other greenhouse gases have also risen. Over the past 120 years, global average temperature has risen by 0.3 - Since the greenhouse effect can be used to relate atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases to global average temperature, many have claimed that at least part of the temperature rise experienced to date is due to human activities, and that the projected future increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (as the result of human activities) will lead to even larger increases in future temperature. Additionally, it is claimed that these increases in temperature will lead to an array of climate changes (rainfall patterns, storm frequency and intensity, etc.) that could have severe environmental and economic impacts. While the greenhouse effect is one of the factors affecting climate, it is not the only one. The intensity of solar radiation, ocean circulation patterns, volcanic eruptions, etc. also impact climate on a global scale. While we know that each of these other factors changes over time, we have little or no ability to predict their future levels. This primer addresses the following questions concerning climate change: 1) Can human activities affect climate? The scientific basis for the existence of the greenhouse effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as C02, CH4, N20, etc. on climate is well established. 2) Can future climate be predicted accurately enough for use in policy decisions? The climate models which are being used to estimate the increases in temperature which 2 AIAM-050863 DRAFT - APPROVED BY STAC might occur with increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are limited at present both by incomplete scienti?c understanding of the factors which affect climate and by inadequate computational power. Improvements in both are likely, and in the next decade it may be possible to make fairly accurate statements about the impact that increased greenhouse gas concentrations could have on climate. However, these improvements may still not translate into an ability to predict future climate with a suf?cient degree of accuracy for policy purposes for at least two reasons: - limited understanding of the natural variability of climate, and - inability to estimate future greenhouse gas emissions which will control their atmospheric concentrations. The smaller the geographic area considered, the poorer the quality of climate projection. This is a critical limitation in our ability to project the impacts of climate change, most of which would result from changes in a local or regional area. 3) Have human activities over the last 120 years affected climate, i.e. have we been able to detect a human impact on climate? The IPCC Report concluded that the available evidence suggests a "discernable human in?uence on global climate." As indicated above, this conclusion is subject to considerable uncertainty, and. in fact, is at odds with statements contained in the report of IPCC Working Group I on Science and accepted by governments at the December, 1995 IPCC Plenary Meeting, for example: Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: "When will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?" In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed on this Chapter, it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is ?We do not know." Some would and have claimed, on the basis of the results on Section 8.4 that detection of a signi?cant climate change has already occurred. Few if any would be willing to argue the unambiguous attribution of this change to anthropogenic effects has already occurred, or was likely to happen in the next several years. Wm. The Sun warms the Earth and is the source of energy for the climate system. However, as shown in Figure 1, the process by which this occurs is complicated. Only about half of the incoming radiation from the Sun is absorbed by the Earth's surface. About a quarter is absorbed by the atmosphere, and the remainder is re?ected back into space either by the Earth?s surface, or by clouds, dust and other particulates, without being absorbed. 3 AIAM-050864 DRAFT - APPROVED BY STAC The energy absorbed by the Earth?s surface is reradiated to space as longwave radiation. A fraction of this reradiated energy is absorbed by greenhouse gases, a phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases are gases - such as water vapor, C02, methane, etc. - which have the ability to absorb longwave radiation. When a greenhouse gas molecule absorbs longwave energy, it increases in temperature, then radiates energy in all directions, including back down to the Earth?s surface. The energy radiated back to theEarth?s surface by greenhouse gas molecules is the greenhouse effect that further warms the surface. The warmer the surface of the Earth, the more energy it reradiates. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gases, the more energy they will absorb, and the more they will warm the Earth. The average temperature of the Earth depends on the balance between these two phenomena. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases, predominantly water vapor, account for 95-97% of the natural greenhouse effect. They raise the average temperature of Earth?s surface by about Without this natural greenhouse effect, the Earth would be uninhabitable. The science of the greenhouse effect is well established and can be demonstrated in the laboratory. Natural Climate Variabilig The climate system has natural variability, on both long and short time scales. The existence of Ice Ages and the warm periods between them is proof of climate?s natural variability on very long time scales. But climate is also naturally variable on shorter time scales. For example, the relatively mild temperatures in the North Atlantic at about 1000 AD were followed by the colder temperatures of the Little Ice Age after 1400. This was climate variability on a time scale of several centuries. To determine whether future climate changes are the result of human activities or attributable to natural variability, we need a good estimate of the natural variability of climate on still shorter periods, decades to a century, which is currently unavailable. Understanding the natural variability of climate on a' decadal time scale and its causes would greatly improve our understanding of current climate data. Reasonable temperature records exist for only the last 120 years. Data on factors which could be causes for the variability of climate, such as changes in ocean circulation, are either non-existent or available for much shorter time periods. It is possible that the natural variability of the climate system is so large that we may never be able to predict its behavior a century in the future with suf?cient accuracy to be useful for policy purposes. Even though global climate has been fairly stable for much of the last 10,000 years, studies of ice cores from Greenland indicate that before then there were large climate shifts in periods as short as a few decades. The IPCC Report discusses the possibility that it may be impossible to make long 4 AIAM-050865 DRAFT - APPROVED BY STAC term predictions about climate as follows: There are many uncertainties and many factors currently limit our ability to project and select future climate change. Future unexpected, large and rapid climate system changes (as have occurred in the past) are, by their nature, difficult to predict. This implies that future climate changes may also involve ?surprises.? Can Human Activities Affect Climate? Human activities can affect the energy balance at the Earth?s surface in three ways: - combustion, agriculture and other human activities emit greenhouse gases and can raise their concentration in the atmosphere, which would directionally lead to warming; - combustion emits particulates, and gases such as sulfur dioxide which form particulate matter in the atmosphere, which would directionally lead to cooling; and - changes in land-use, such as removing forests, can change the amount of energy absorbed by the Earth?s surface, the rate of water evaporation, and other parameters involved in the climate system, which could result in either warming or cooling. These three factors create the potential for a human impact on climate. While, in theory, human activities could result in net cooling, driving the climate towards concern about 25 years ago- - the current balance between greenhouse gas emissions and the emissions of particulates and particulate?formers is such that essentially all of today?s concern is about net warming. However, as will be discussed below, it is still not possible to accurately estimate the magnitude (if any), timing or impact of climate change as a result of the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. Also, because of'the complex, possibly unpredictable, nature of the climate system, it may never be possible to project future climate or the impact of increased greenhouse gas concentrations with suf?cient accuracy to be useful for policy purposes. The usual approach to discussing the impact of the increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases on climate is to convert them to an equivalent amount of C02, then discuss the effect of some ?xed increase in equivalent C02. Most of the discussion is about doubled equivalent C02. The conversion to equivalent CO2 introduces a number of errors,because the effects of some greenhouse gases depend on their location in the atmosphere, but since the convention is well established, it will be used in this discussion. A more accurate approach is to refer to increased radiative forcing, which is the increase in energy radiated to the Earth?s surface, taking into account all of the complexities in the physics of greenhouse gases. AIAM-050866 DRAFT - APPROVED BY STAC Do We Have the Tools to Accurately Project Future Climate? Climate models are used to estimate the change in temperature, rainfall, cloud cover and other climate parameters that would result from a change in equivalent CO2 and sometimes aerosols. The estimates of climate parameters are then used to estimate impacts of climate change, such as frequency and severity of tropical storms, effects on agriculture and biodiversity, etc. While most discussions of models focus on their estimations of changes in average temperature, factors such as changes in maximum and minimum temperature, soil moisture content, and prevalence of conditions which in?uence the formation of tropical storms are far more important in determining potential climate change impacts. The most sophisticated climate models are coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models (coupled GCMs). These are three-dimensional grid models which cover the whole Earth, the atmosphere to a sufficient height to include all climate processes, and the oceans in multiple depth layers. Most of the debate about the estimation of climate change centers around the quality of both the models and the input data they use, and the degree to which both can be improved. The concerns about these models can be grouped into four categories: (1) limits in scienti?c understanding of climate processes, (2) how they model "feedbacks, (3) how they describe the initial conditions, the current state of the climate, and (4) the computational power required to accurately model climate. A ?fth concern, not directly related to coupled GCMs, but important to the question of whether future climate can be accurately estimated, is whether future atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases can be accurately estimated. The problem has two components, economic and scienti?c. The economic question is whether we can accurately estimate both the future level of global economic activity and the technology which will be employed. Past estimates in both areas have been highly inaccurate. The scienti?c question is whether we understand the fate of greenhouse gases well enough to accurately project the effect their emissions will have on atmospheric concentrations. For example, only about half of the CO2 emitted from human activities ends up in the atmosphere. The remainder is believed to be absorbed by increased plant growth or in the oceans. Estimates of the amount of CO2 absorbed by these two sinks are highly uncertain. There is also a great deal of scienti?c debate on what, if any, impact higher temperatures and related climate change will have on the rate of CO2 absorption by plants and the ocean. AIAM-050867 DRAFT - APPROVED BY STAC Limited Scienti?c Understanding of Climate Processes Quantifying what we don?t know about climate processes is an impossible task. However, the huge volume of important new ?ndings about the processes that are critical to climate generated over the past few years make it obvious that there is a great deal more to be learned about the basic science of climate. For example, in 1995, Prof. Robert Cess and his co- workers at the State University of New York published a paper on the energy balance around clouds which indicated that the values being used in climate models were incorrect by 25%. Cess et at. were unable to identify the physical processes which led to this different estimate of energy absorption. Since clouds are a critical part of the climate system, a correct characterization of their properties is essential. Other recent studies indicate that vegetation may be absorbing much more CO2 than previously believed, allowing less of it to accumulate in the atmosphere. Climate model?s estimate that the direct effect of doubling equivalent CO2 from pre-industrial levels is relatively small. Global average temperature would rise by 0.5 - an amount which is not generally considered to represent a problem. However, even that rise in temperature would cause a variety of changes, some of which would act to further increase temperature, others of which would act to decrease temperature. These secondary changes are called "feedbacks. The popular usage is that a positive feedback is one which acts to further increase temperature, and a negative feedback is one which acts to decrease temperature. The technical de?nition is that a positive feedback is one which exaggerates the initial perturbation, which could either increase or decrease temperature, and a negative feedback is one which decreases the initial perturbation. Since the popular usage is so common, it will be used in this paper. The most important positive feedback is the impact which rising temperatures will have on the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor is the most important natural greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for the majority of the natural greenhouse effect. As temperature increases, more water evaporates, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere rises, the greenhouse effect is enhanced, and temperatures rises further. An example of a negative feedback is that more evaporation of water results in the formation of more clouds. Low level clouds re?ect sunlight, preventing its energy from reaching the Earth's surface, thus providing a cooling effect. As noted below, high level clouds provide a positive feedback. Modeling feedbacks is one the major challenges in developing accurate climate models. The role of clouds is a particularly difficult modeling task. Low level clouds reflect sunlight and therefore are a negative feedback. However, clouds are made up of water vapor and therefore 7 AIAM-050868 DRAFT - APPROVED BY STAC also absorb radiation. For high level clouds the absorption of radiation is more important than the re?ection of radiation; they provide a positive feedback. Better estimates of the energy balance around clouds are becoming available, and preliminary modeling results indicate that the use of these better estimates improves the ability of coupled to match current conditions. 8' tC nditi An ideal coupled GCM would be theory?based and able to match current climate conditions using only the independent variables that determine climate (solar radiation, greenhouse gas and aerosol concentrations, the current temperature of the oceans, etc.) as inputs. Current coupled GCMs do not meet this goal because they do not accurately calculate the transfer of energy between the oceans and the atmosphere, a critical climate parameter. To correct this error, most coupled GCMs are adjusted with "?ux corrections," that on a point-by-point basis adjust the amount of heat being transferred from the oceans to the atmosphere to match actual conditions. The "?ux corrections" can be quite large, as much as 10 20 times the effect of doubling equivalent C02. Having to make this large a correction to obtain model results which provide a reasonable description of the baseline is a cause for serious concern. The IPCC shares this concern about ?ux corrections, and in its underlying report on science makes the following statement: Flux adjustment is strictly justi?ed only when the corrections are relatively small and in fact the ?ux adjustments in some coupled models are comparatively large. The alternative is to avoid ?ux adjustment and accept the resulting climate drift, a choice that is made in several of the models listed in Table 5.1. However, the con?dence in a coupled model's simulation of transient climate change is not improved if the climate drift is large and/or the feedbacks are seriously distorted by ?ux adjustment. Flux corrections are correcting for one of two possible errors: missing climate processes, or errors in the description of the climate processes used in the model. New data, such as a better description of the energy balance around clouds, should lead to improvements in models and a reduction in the ?ux corrections. Whether modeling capability will improve to the point where the ?ux corrections can be eliminated or reduced to a more reasonable level is an open question. To eliminate the ?ux corrections it is necessary to accurately model all climate processes and have an accurate description of initial conditions. Distribution of heat in the oceans is poorly understood, and the cost of collecting the necessary data makes it unlikely that a better understanding will be developed anytime soon. AIAM-050869 DRAFT - APPROVED BY STAC Coupled GCMs are such complex models that it requires several months of supercomputer time to provide a full projection of 100 years of global climate. Computational limitations require that they use large grid sizes, typically 500 km. on a side. These cells are larger than many of the important physical features in the system they are trying to model, for example, the width of the Gulf Stream. Computational limits also mean that some critical factors, such as the atmospheric interactions between greenhouse gases and the chemistry of aerosol formation, are not included in the model. The rapid increase in computational power may make it possible to overcome these limitations in the future, but at present they severely limit the quality of coupled GCM projections. Capabilities of GCMs Even with ?ux corrections, coupled GCMs still cannot accurately describe climate features on a 1000 mile scale which are critical to any discussion of the impacts of climate change. Also, there is considerable concern about the ability of coupled GCMs to estimate future climate because the ?ux correction is constant with changing equivalent C02. There is no reason to assume that the ?ux correction should remain the same if climate changes in response to increased atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. The IPCC estimates that doubling equivalent C02 would increase global average temperature by 1.5 - More speci?c estimates do not seem justi?ed. Improvements in climate model capability are possible. Better understanding of climate processes, such as the role of clouds, could signi?cantly improve the models as could the ever increasing power of computers. Whether we can ever accurately estimate future climate is still uncertain because of two problems. First, as mentioned above, climate may be unpredictable. Second, even if climate is predictable, a model?s estimations are only as good as the input data used. Our ability to estimate future greenhouse gas emission rates depends on being able to project the future level of global economic activity and the technology which will be used to generate that activity. Past projections in both areas have been highly inaccurate. IPCC recognized the difficulty in projecting future greenhouse gas emission rates, and has not done so. Instead they have constructed six scenarios, which differ in rate of population growth, economic activity and dependence on fossil fuels. These scenarios give widely differing projections of future greenhouse gas emissions and the time to reach given atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Most of the discussion of the IPCC's work has focussed on the "business-as-usual" scenario, which assumes that the trends which have occurred in the recent past, including a moderate rate of energy ef?ciency improvement, will continue to 2100. The focus on this one scenario has obscured the fact that it is not a prediction, but simply one of six cases the IPCC chose to study. Even naming the scenario as 9 AIAM-050870 DRAFT - APPROVED BY STAC "business-as-usual" can lead to confusion. Nothing in economic history indicates that recent trends can be expected to continue for the next 100 years. Another critical problem in climate modeling is the prediction of regional climate change. Most of the impacts of climate change will be felt on the regional or local level. The change in global average temperature and rainfall will not help estimate the effect of climate change on farmers in the mid-West. The ability to project regional climate change is poorer than the ability to project global climate change. The IPCC sums up the situation as follows: Con?dence is higher in hemispheric-to-continental scale projections of coupled atmospheric?ocean models than in the regional projections, where con?dence remains low. ver he st 12 Year Aff ed ?7 The IPCC Report contains the following conclusion: The balance of evidence, from changes in global mean surface air temperature and from changes in geographical, seasonal, and vertical patterns of atmospheric temperature, suggest a discemable human in?uence on global climate. As an intergovernmental organization, ?nal IPCC decisions are made by government representatives. This can result in summary statements that are stronger than the statements in the underlying report, which are written and edited by working group members, most of whom are academics. The statement in the underlying report addressing the detection of a human impact on climate reads: Any claims of positive detection and attribution of signi?cant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of (the) total climate system are reduced. (1) As used by the IPCC, ?Detection of change? is the process of demonstrating that an observed change in climate is highly unusual in a statistical sense, but does not provide a reason for the change. ?Attribution? is the process of establishing cause and effect relations, including the testing of competing hypotheses. - 10 AIAM-050871 DRAFT APPROVED BY STAC IPCC Working Group I (W I) considered four types of information in evaluating whether the observed change in climate was in fact ?highly unusual in a statistical sense,? and whether it could be attributed to human in?uences. A discussion of each type of information follows. Speci?c scienti?c studies are mention in three cases; they are the studies which have received the most publicity, but are not the only studies in the category. 1) Model-based estimates of natural variability The Max Planck Institute (MPI), a German government laboratory and developer of one of the GCMs, ran their model for 1000 years into the future with only random perturbations to assess "natural" variability of temperature. They then determined, with 95% con?dence, that the changes in temperature observed over the last 100 years could not be explained by their measure of "natural" variability. German politicians and press have reported this result as meaning that there is 95 confidence that the temperature changes of the last 100 years have been caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, a signi?cant overstatement of the scientific ?nding. The MP1 ?nding does not prove that the temperature changes of the last 100 years are due to human greenhouse gas emissions for two reasons: 0 Models are simpli?cations and therefore less variable than the real world. Actual "natural" variability of temperature is almost certain to be larger than the estimate from the MPI computer study. 0 The temperature change of the past 100 years may be due to natural changes in climate. Changes of this magnitude have occurred naturally in the past without any human in?uence. Section 3.6.3 of IPCC WG I?s contribution to the Second Assessment Report states: The warming of the late 20th century appears to be rapid, when viewed in the context of the last millennium. But have similar, rapid changes occurred in the past? That is, are such changes a part of the natural climate variability? Large and rapid changes did occur during the last ice age and in the transition toward the present Holocene period which started about 10,000 years ago. Those changes may have occurred on the time scale of a human life or less, at least in the North Atlantic, where they are best documented. Many climate variables were affected: atmospheric temperature and circulation, precipitation patterns and hydrological cycle, temperature and circulation of the ocean. 2) Pattern-based studies - The Hadley Centre, a UK. government laboratory and the developer of another GCM, has added sulfate aerosol effects to its model and estimated 11 AIAM-050872 3) DRAFT - APPROVED BY STAC temperature from 1860 to 2050. The addition of aerosol effects provides an improved, but still relatively poor, match for observed temperature from 1860 to the present, and addresses one of the key concerns about climate models, their inability to "backcast" the temperature record. The study ties the increase in temperature over the past 100 years to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. There are two concerns about the Hadley Centre's work: 0 They considered only the direct effect of sulfate aerosols, their scattering of incoming sunlight. They did not consider the indirect effects of the aerosols - their impact on cloud formation - which could have an equally large impact on temperature. 0 Adding historical sulfate aerosol effects to the model requires a large number of assumptions about fuel usage rates and emission factors which cannot be tested. This approach adds to the uncertainty in the model projections. IPCC WG I's report discussed the Hadley Centre study and similar work and concluded: While some of the pattern-based studies discussed here have claimed detection of a signi?cant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of that change to anthropogenic causes. Nor has any study quanti?ed the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data Studies of the vertical temperature pro?le of the atmosphere - Climate models project that an increase in greenhouse gases should lead to a warmer troposphere but a cooler lower stratosphere. The fact that this pattern has been observed is being used to argue for the fundamental correctness of climate models and for the validity of their projections that human emissions of greenhouse gases will cause changes in climate. IPCC WG I?s part of the Second Assessment Report (Section 8.4.2.1) cites two studies which could be interpreted as supporting this conclusion. However the observed vertical temperature pro?le may be due to stratospheric ozone depletion rather than to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the troposphere. If stratospheric ozone depletion is a factor, it is ?a human forcing of climate? but a different one from the buildup of greenhouse gases in the troposphere. Model agreement with the stratospheric ozone effect does not ?prove? that the model is correct in projecting the effects of greenhouse gases in the troposphere. 12 AIAM-050873 DRAFT - APPROVED BY STAC 4) Statistical models ?tted to observations - T. R. Karl and three other researchers at National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) evaluated U.S. climate data since 1910 using an index of speci?c weather events, designated USGCRI, which included: above normal minimum temperatures, above normal precipitation from October to April, below normal precipitation from May to September, and a greater than normal proportion of precipitation coming from heavy rainfalls. These are the types of climate "signature" that many scientists believe will be the ?rst indication of climate change. Karl et al. concluded: The tendency towards increased values of the USGCRI over the past two decades is suggestive of a climate driven by greenhouse warming. At the same time, however, statistical analysis indicates that because the change is neither large enough nor consistent enough through time, one cannot unequivocally reject the possibility (about a 5 -10% chance) that the increase is still a feature of a stable climate. Karl et at. 's choice of factors for the CDC index may be questioned, since the index is strictly empirical and has not been developed from basic principles. However, the parameters in the index are variables which other researchers have claimed could change as the result of climate change. As in the case of the other studies claiming to show that there has already been a human impact on climate, one can question whether the observed changes are the result of greenhouse gases or other climate in?uences. To summarize, claims that human activities have already created a signi?cant impact on climate, seem unsubstantiated given the many limitations and uncertainties in the studies used to support those claims. primer2.wp6 13 AIAM-050874 333-254 . "(Hunk are, a I, ?4 (4Eve?? .5 @9329 FROM . RPI-PULICY TD PORTER NULMELDD DRAFT 2115/96 DRAFT FOR GCC REVIEW AND DISCUSSION ONLY Draft GCC Statement In Support of Global Climate Scienti?c and Economic Research The Global Climate Coalition strongly urges that the administration and Congress place 3 highest priority on scientific research to advance the understanding of earth systems, introduction of new knowledge into climate models, and re?nement of the tools necessary for decision-making with respect to the long-term economic strategies necessary to address potential climate change. The understanding of global climate has evolved signi?cantly over the past decade. Over just the last ?ve years. as evidenced by a comparison of the ?ndings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?s First and Second Assessment Reports, the net effect of greater knowledge has been to lower climate impact projections of a "business-as-usual" scenario about a one-third lower impact for temperature change and about a one-fourth lower impact for son level change. Despite significant research, the range of uncertainty in key aspects of climate change assessment remains high. A careful reading of the Second Assessment Report indicates the many signi?cant uncertainties that remain in the basic science, climate modeling, and economic assessments of climate change. As noted in the IPCC Working Group I report (page 8.18), "no study to date has pesitively attributed all or part of the [historic temperature] change to causes. Nor has any study quanti?ed the magnitude of a greenhouse-gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data-- an iSSuc that is of primary relevance to policymakers." At the same time, a growing body of analysis indicates that information that reduces uncertainty may provide signi?cant bene?ts. With inadequate understanding and knowledge, society may attempt to protect itself against apparently low probability but theoretically possible events that might have large future impacts. Resolving uncertainty about the true nature of the climate change threat allows for more efficient timing of any necessary mitigation and adaptation policies, and avoids unfounded and expensive reactions that may ultimately prove unnecessary. Some studies estimate that improved information about climate change issues is worth perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars (in present value terms) to society. Working Group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came to a similar conclusion when it stated in its Sui-minty for Policymakers that "The value of better information about the processes. impacts of and responses to climate change is likely to be great." In short, improved information about basic science, modeling. and potential climate change policies is vital. Critical issues include, but are not limited to: how earth?s systems work; how new and better knowledge about earth?s systems can be incorporated into climate models; how changes in climate may impact society and ecosystems; how social, technological and environmental change as Well as adaptation can be integrated into appropriate baseline scenarios; and how the potential bene?ts and costs of govemment policies over an extended time-frame can be adequate assessed. Improved information about the functioning of climate and the policies that might address mitigation or adaptation strategies over the long-term has many of the characteristics of what economists call ?public goods," and this places a large burden on the ?nancing of climate change research on governments. Page 1 of TUTRL P.82 AIAM-050876 '55 w=55m m1 icon mgr/a Forthcoming in May 1996 .. . wire-tux .. 13-150". - JPNThe Panel on Climate Change UPOC) was set up faintly by the World Meteorolop Organization and the United - Nation, En?romm; hog-amine to provide an authoritative intemational comment of adenan opinion on climate change. The ma in am can, My: m: rcponi31990. with aihwqoent supplanmtatyreporn in 1992mm! 1994. Chin-m Change 1995 - a, the ?rst full seq :0 the original assessment. The periodic menu of the causes. consequences and pocsihle responses ob climate change are the most comprehensive and up-to-date available. These atonement: loan the sandal-d scienti?c refetenoe for all I conurncd with cum.? Wyn! its consequences. in academia. government and Many worldwide; Several hundred scientists and contributes, racing-nixed internationally.? in their ?elds. was brought myth? in dam wridns mm? was dim? ?has! (gummy,de ?vim, Three volume; from the ECG are produced under the umbrella title 66mg: 1995. For. Climate Change 1995 -The Science of Climate Change -. .411.- a - - Contribution of Working Group'l to the Second Assessment Report 0 the Intergovernmental Panel on -. r- Clirnate Change - -- - - . -- Editors Houghton, LG. Melt-q Filho! BA. Callander. N. Harris. A. Kamean and K. Masde . . . 1996 . 564336 Hardcover I . ApproxUmSBO?O? Discount . 564360 Paperback .. -- Dhconm: $23.96* Climate Change 1995 A Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: . Scienti?c-Technical Analyses Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Editors RT. Watson, M.C. Zinyowera, and RH. Moss. 1996 880pp. 56431X Hardcover Approx List: $94.95* Dinounn $75-99 . 564379 Paperback Approx List: $37.95' Discount: 33039 Climate Change 1995 Economic and Social Dirnensions of Climate Change Contribution of Working Group to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Editors]. Bruce, Hoesnng Lee and E. Haites. I 1996 603199, 560519 Hardcover Approx Lisa $94.9? . Diloounn $7536" . 5685? Paperback Approx 135:: 3373? Discount: $30.39 SPECIAL 20% DISCOUNT ORDER FORM 7- . O?'er valid through March 31, 1996 ?Pn'm ped?r 3M: ?in?56860 Paperback 5545M Hardcover Discounc$7536? GimmChange 1995-TheSdenceoi'aimateChenge amt-mama: ofClimmChange: Sdaad?chochniml Andy's 564379 7? Paperback Durham: $30.56? 560519 Hardcover Diacwnc?586? JofClimate Change W5 OF THE OFFER. All individual order: Inns: be prepaid by diode or Wattle: ox at ?ihnxies excepted); The Cutadhn Shippingandhandlingcharget in A- North Ansel-it: are $3.50 for the ?rst book; $0.75.for each additional hook. . 568m Paperback 131.com $30.36* Naine Total discount price: ?an: above - 3 Address Add tale: a: 3 City Canadian: add 7% GST 3 Suthrov. JIP Add lhipping charge 3 InstitudonMBiliatioi-a Nee total 3 [1 Payment Enclosed - MasterCard Chnge Card Number - - - Expiration Date Sipature Return to: De P11. 5: (212) 691-3139 CAMBRID WPRESS AIAM-050877 01.9me m0_m20m 52m3>z . mgmoz mrmod?o mm. m. . . Aw 30m INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC) PERCEIVED TO PRODUCE THE STATE-OF-THE-ART ASSESSMENTS FIRST ASSESSMENT REPORT IN 1990 THREE WORKING GROUPS: - WG -- SCIENCE - WG II -- IMPACTS, ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION OPTIONS - WG -- SOCIO- ECONOMICS I DECEMBER 1995 -- SECOND ASSESSMENT REPORT APPROVED INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC) PERCEIVED TO PRODUCE THE STATE-OF-THE-ART ASSESSMENTS FIRST ASSESSMENT REPORT IN 1990 THREE WORKING GROUPS: - WG -- SCIENCE - WG II -- IMPACTS, ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION OPTIONS - WG -- SOCIO- ECONOMICS I DECEMBER 1995 -- SECOND ASSESSMENT REPORT APPROVED IPCC SECOND ASSESSMENT 50 CHAPTERS (1900+ PAGES) WRITTEN AND REVIEWED BY 2000 EXPERTS SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS (SPM) -- WRITTEN BY MIX OF SCIENTISTS AND BY GOVERNMENTS REPORT 7 - WRITTEN BY 25 MOSTLY POLICYMAKERS, BY GOVERNMENTS - DRAWS TOGETHER SPM RESULTS PLUS ADDRESSES ARTICLE 2 OF THE WHICH CALLS FOR: OF GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATIONS IN THE ATMOSPHERE AT A LEVEL THAT WOULD PREVENT DANGEROUS ANTHROPOGENIC INTERFERENCE WITH THE CLIMATE SCIENCE -- BASICS GREENHOUSE EFFECT IS NATURAL AND BENEFICIAL REAL CONCERN IS MAN-INDUCED ENHANCED GREENHOUSE EFFECT GHG EMISSIONS ANO CONCENTRATIONS ON THE RISE GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE UP 0.3-0.6 DEGREES OVER PAST CENTURY, BUT WITHIN BOUNDS OF NATURAL CLIMATIC VARIABILITY GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE INCREASE 1.5-4.5 DEGREES WITH 2XCO2 AEROSOLS, EL NINO AND VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS IMPORTANT MODELS TO PREDICT FUTURE QUITE LIMITED -- HOW MUCH, WHERE AND WHEN KNOWN WITH LITTLE CONFIDENCE NO CONFIDENCE PREDICTING REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT STUDIES SCATTERED AND HIGHLY UNCERTAIN IPCC SECOND ASSESSMENT REPORT KEY NEW TEMPERATURE AND SEA LEVEL RISE PREDICTIONS ADJUSTED DOWNWARD INFLUENCE ON GLOBAL CLIMATE IMPACTS - THREATENINGPREDICTIONS, ESPECIALLY REGARDING HUMAN HEALTH NO PROOF OF WIDESPREAD INCREASINGLY VARIABLE CLIMATE, BUT SOME PLAUSIBLE GREATER EXTREMES IN FUTURE TEMPERATURE AND SEA LEVEL I OBSERVED DURING LAST 100 YEARS TEMPERATURE -- 0.3-0.6 DEGREES INCREASE (GLOBAL MEAN) SEA LEVEL -- 10-25 CM RISE, WITH OF THE RISE INCREASE IN GLOBAL MEAN MAY BE RELATED TO THE TEMPERATURE AND SEA LEVEL ?7 PREDICTED CHANGE BY 2100 (FROM 1990) TEMPERATURE - - 1.0-3.5 DEGREES INCREASE (GLOBAL MEAN) - BEST ESTIMATE OF 2. 0 DEGREES INCREASE IS 33% LOWER THAN IN 1990 IPCC - REPORT - . IN ALL CASES, THE AVERAGE RATE OF WARMING WOULD PROBABLY BE GREATER THAN ANY SEEN IN PAST 10, 000 YEARS SEA LEVEL - 15-95 CM (AT TIME OF CO2 CONTINUED INCREASE AFTERWARDS) - BEST GUESS OF 50 CM IS 25% LOWERTHAN IN 1990 IPCC REPORT MAJOR UNCERTAINTIES WITH IPCC PREDICTIONS OF THE FUTURE ESTIMATION OF FUTURE EMISSIONS -- REQUIRES KNOWLEDGE OF ECONOMICS, POPULATION, TECHNOLOGIES, AS WELL AS THE UPTAKE BY LAND PLANTS AND OF co2 REPRESENTATION OF CLIMATE PROCESSES IN MODELS, ESPECIALLY FEEDBACKS UNDERSTANDING OF NATURAL VARIABILITY ANTHROPOGENIC INFLUENCE '2 I IPCC REPORT: 0 0.3-0.6 DEGREES GLOBAL INCREASE IS CHANGE UNLIKELY TO BE ENTIRELY NATURAL IN 0 BALANCE OF SUGGESTS A DISCERNABLE HUMAN INFLUENCE ON GLOBALCLIMATE. THERE ARE IN KEY FACTORS, INCLUDING THE MAGNITUDE AND PATTERNS OF LONG-TERM NATURAL 0 U.S. -- NOAA RESEARCH FINDS THE CHANCE OF CHANGES SINCE 1976 BEING PURELY NATURAL IS 1-20% ANTHROPOGENIC I IPCC WG I -- CHAPTER 8: 0 UNCERTAINTIES STILL APPLY TO CURRENT ESTIMATES OF THE MAGNITUDE AND PATTERNS OF NATURAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY, PARTICULARLY ON THE DECADAL- TO CENTURY-TIME SCALES THAT ARE CRUCIAL TO THE DETECTION 0 WILL AN ANTHROPOGENIC EFFECT ON CLIMATE BE - WE DO NOT KNOW - FEW IF ANY WOULD BE WILLING TO ARGUE THAT UNAMBIGUOUS ATTRIBUTION OF THIS CHANGE TO ANTHROPOGENIC EFFECTS HAS ALREADY OCCURRED, OR IS - LIKELY TO HAPPEN IN THE NEXT SEVERAL OTHER POINTS. 0 A SMALL CHANGE THAT IS ALMOST MEANINGLESS IN THE REAL WORLD CAN BE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT MANY WILL CLAIM THIS OF A DISCERNIBLE AS A WATERSHED EVENT AND USE THIS AS REASON TO ARGUE FOR A PROTOCOL BEFORE THE AGBM PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS -- GENERAL MIX OF ADVERSE IMPACTS, SOME POTENTIALLY IRREVERSIBLE, AND SOME BENEFICIAL IMPACTS COMPOSITION AND GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTIONS OF MANY ECOSYSTEMS WILL SHIFT CLIMATE CHANGE IS AN ADDITIONAL STRESS ON TOP OF POLLUTION, INCREASED RESOURCE DEMANDS AND NONSUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS -- GENERAL UNCERTAINTIES QUANTITATIVE PREDICTIONS OF IMPACTS FOR ANY PARTICULAR SYSTEM AT ANY PARTICULAR LOCATION ARE DIFFICULT BECAUSE: REGIONAL-SCALE CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS ARE UNCERTAIN UNDERSTANDING OF. MANY CRITICAL PROCESSES IS LIMITED . SYSTEMS ARE SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE CLIMATIC AND NON-CLIMATIC STRESSES FEW STUDIES HAVE CONSIDERED DYNAMIC RESPONSES UNAMBIGUOUS DETECTION OF CLIMATE-INDUCED CHANGES IN MOSTIECOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL SYSTEMS WILL PROVE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT IN THE COMING DECADES PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS -- FORESTS AND AGRICULTURE I FORESTS WARMING OF 1-3.5 DEGREE OVER 100 YEARS WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO A POLEWARD SHIFT OF PRESENT ISOTHERMS BY APPROXIMATELY 150-550 KM (TREE MIGRATION RATES 4-200 KM PER CENTURY) 0 NEW ASSEMBLAGES OF SPECIES AND NEW ECOSYSTEMS MAYBE ESTABLISHED 1/7 TO 1/3 OF EXISTING FORESTED AREA WILL UNDERGO MAJOR CHANGES IN BROAD VEGETATION TYPES 0 FOREST DIEBACK COULD LEAD TO LARGE RELEASE AGRICULTURE IMPACTS VARY CONSIDERABLY ACROSS REGIONS 0 GLOBAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY COULD BE MAINTAINED RELATIVE TO CURRENT LEVELS UNDER 2XCO, - . PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSI - COASTAL SYSTEMS RISE IN SEA LEVEL OR CHANGES IN STORMSISTORM SURGES COULD RESULT IN: EROSION OF SHORES INCREASED SALINITY OF ESTUARIES AND FRESHWATER INCREASED COASTAL FLOODING ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS 50 CM SEA LEVEL RISE WOULD INCREASE FROM 46 TO 92 MILLION THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE PER YEAR AT RISK OF FLOODING DUE TO STORM SURGES ESTIMATED AS HIGH AS 80% PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - HYDROLOGICAL SYSTEMS . MORE SEVERE FLOODS AND DROUGHTS IN SOME PLACES AND LESS SEVERE IN OTHERS CHANGES IN RUNOFF, QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF WATER SUPPLIES- PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - HEALTH MOSTLY ADVERSE IMPACTS, WITH SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF LIFE DUE TO: - HEAT WAVES - VECTOR-BORNE INFECTIOUS DISEASE SUCH AS MALARIA, DENGUE, YELLOW FEVER - RESPIRATORY AND ALLERGIC DISORDERS - DECLINE IN NUTRITIONAL STATUS 7 - LIMITATIONS ON FRESHWATER SUPPLIES 3-5 DEGREE LEAD TO 10% INCREASE MALARIA (50-80 MILLION NEW CASES) QUANTIFYING THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS IS DIFFICULT DUE TO VARYING CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS NUTRITION, WEALTH, ACCESS TO QUALITY HEALTH SERVICES IMPACTS - WELFARE I IMPACTS EXPECTED FOR: - . ENERGY . - INDUSTRY - TOURISM . - TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE - HUMAN SETTLEMENTS - INSURANCE -, - AND VALUES AMONG SECTORS AND ACTIVITIES STATED TO BE MOST SENSITIVE ARE: - ENERGY OEMAND - PRODUCTION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SUCH AS HYDROELECTRICITY AND BIOMASS VULNERABILITY I SOME COMMUNITIES MORE VULNERABLE BECAUSE OF INCREASING POPULATION DENSITY IN SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, WHERE ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE LESS FAVORABLE, TYPICALLY MORE VULNERABLE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF WATER SUPPLIES IS ALREADY A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN MANY REGIONS MANY OF THE POOREST PEOPLE POTENTIALLY MOST AT RISK OF WORSENING AGRICULTURAL SITUATIONS - FRAGMENTED LANDSCAPES CAN INCREASE THE VULNERABILITY OF MANAGED AND UNMANAGED ECOSYSTEMS ADAPTATION OPTIONS FOR MANAGED SYSTEMS AVAILABLE BUT LESS SO FOR MANY REGIONS DUE TO HIGH COST OR LIMITED ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGIES AND INFORMATION CLIMATE EXTREMES RECORD TEMPERATURES IN .TI-IE 1990's BRITISH -- GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE IN 1995 HIGHEST SINCE RECORDS KEPT IN 1856 . 0 NASA -- 1995 TIED WITH 1990 AS HOTTEST YEAR SINCE 1866 BRITISH-1991-1995 VIIARMEST 5-YEAR PERIOD, EVEN WITH MT COOLING INFLUENCE FROM 1991-94 . SATELLITES - 1995 AVERAGE COMPARED TO 1982-1991 -- MEASURE ENTIRE LOWER ATMOSPHERE, WHEREAS BRITISH AND NASA RESULTS ARE FOR SURFACE ONLY -- Zowm 4.1m .chgzom .m :20mm mmamm Om 0.5.52 220m Aom? 41m _m 0>Cdocmn =mogm .2 4mm .2081?? nmmomzm 3<<>mu _zomm>mm0 >20 Om mxammgm 0:25.20 Om m>=um .ummomvdoz On r020.._.mw_s 01>20m. 2.410ch .. 4.1m 53.40.. 01 I>20 m00202=0 .2 >mm>m OZ dim?Mm _m 0.1m?? m<_0mzom OI>20mm mOEm qummEmm >20 mogm I>4mm~ mogm I>m vomm?rm Imgr< Orm>m ?mm?022. OI>mem >20 CLIMATE EXTREMES -- MORE REGARDING THE FUTURE: I - PROSPECTS FOR MORE SEVERE FLOODS AND DROUGHTS IN SOME PLACES AND LESS SEVERE IN OTHERS . - THE RELIABILITY OF REGIONAL-SCALE PREDICTION IS LOW AND THE DEGREE TO . WHICH CLIMATE VARIABILITY MAY CHANGE IS UNCERTAIN OTHER SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS I SULFATE AEROSOLS FROM SO2 EMISSIONS DUE TO MAN AND VOLCANOS WORK COUNTER TO GHG TROPOSPHERIC OZONE IS IMPORTANT GREENHOUSE GAS BUT CONTRIBUTION TO IT UNCERTAINNARIABLE SO GWP REMAINS UNDEFINED SOME LONG-LIVED GHG 4- AND -- CONTRIBUTE LITTLE TO RADIATIVE FORCING NOW BUT PROJECTED GROWTH COULD LEAD TO SEVERAL PERCENT TO RADIATIVE FORCING GROWTH IN CONCENTRATION OF SLOWED TO ABOUT ZERO. Global-mean radlallve lorcin 9 (w m-2) . u-O Global-mean radiative forcing low low 1856?1990 Halocarbons N20 Tropospheric . CH4 . - aerosols drrecl eflecl 00,2 - Fossil . Fuel Sola 1 . 8001 - .. 'Sulphale I Biomass Tropospheric Stratosphenc ozone ozone .. ,1 ropospheric aerosols rindirecl effect Con?dence level High Low, Low Low Very Very Very Very low low Vf,? OTHER WORKING GROUP I ISSUES -- STABILIZATION ANALYSES IF-COZ MAINTAINED AT 1994 LEVELS, REACH ABOUT 500 PPM BY 2100 (VERSUS 280 PPM IN 1750 AND 360 PPM NOW) 0 TO STABILIZE-AT 450 PPM, NEED TO DROP TO 1990 LEVELS IN 40 YEARS AND SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER AFTER THAT 0 IPCC NOTES THAT THE INTEGRAL OF EMISSIONS IS KEY - THE EVENTUAL CONCENTRATION IS GOVERNED MORE BY THE ACCUMULATED C02 THAN BY THE WAY THOSE EMISSIONS CHANGE OVER THE PERIOD STABILIZATION ANALYSES I \f TOM WIGLEY (NCAR), RICH RICHELS (EPRI) AND JAE EDMONDS (BATTELLE) ARTICLE IN NATURE ENTITLED AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHOICES IN THE STABILIZATION OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 . MANY DIFFERENT PATHWAYS FOR REDUCING EMISSIONS . IF ALLOWED TO EMIT TONS, BEST ECONOMICALLY TO EMIT AT A HIGHER LEVEL EARLIER FOR SEVERAL REASONS, INCLUDING: - I STOCK FOR ENERGY PRODUCTION AND USE IS TYPICALLY LONG-LIVED AND MAKING UNANTICIPATED CHANGES IS VERY COSTLY - IMPROVEMENTS IN THE EFFICIENCY OF ENERGY SUPPLY, TRANSFORMATION AND END-USE WILL RESULT IN LESS COSTLY REDUCTIONS NOT OR AND -- REQUIRES SUBSTANTIAL Roan MINOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT -- 0.2 DEGREE GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE INCREASE AND 4 CM SEA LEVEL RISE WORK INDICATES UP TO 80% COST REDUCTION BY THE COMBINATION OF ALLOWING EMISSION REDUCTIONS ON A PACE WITH NORMAL INVESTMENTS TO REPLACE INFRASTRUCTURE AND EQUIPMENT, PLUS JOINT IMPLEMENTATION OTHER WORKING GROUP II ISSUES MITIGATION OPTIONS ADAPTATION OPTIONS WORKING GROUP REPORT If, EQUITY AND DISCOUNTING COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS SOCIAL COSTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ASSESSMENT OF RESPONSE OPTIONS COSTS OF MITIGATING GREENHOUSE GASES INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT HOW TO OBTAIN THE IPCC TARGET PUBLICATION DATE -- LATE MAY 1996 0 COST -- ABOUT $90 IF PURCHASE 3 VOLUMES IN PAPERBACK BY MARCH 31, 1996