Senate Hearing, 108TH Congress - Climate History and The Science Underlying Fate, Transport, and Health Effects of Mercury Emissions

S. HRG.
108359
CLIMATE HISTORY AND THE SCIENCE UNDER-

LYING FATE, TRANSPORT, AND HEALTH EF-
FECTS OF MERCURY EMISSIONS
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JULY 29, 2003
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

92381 PDF WASHINGTON : 2004
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 204020001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio HARRY REID, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
JOHN CORNYN, Texas BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
ANDREW WHEELER, Majority Staff Director

KEN CONNOLLY, Minority Staff Director
(II)
C O N T E N T S
Page
JULY 29, 2003
OPENING STATEMENTS
Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado, prepared state-
ment ...................................................................................................................... 11
Cornyn, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from the State of Texas, prepared statement . 58
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 1
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared
statement .............................................................................................................. 7
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ........................ 3
WITNESSES
Legates, David R., director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Dela-
ware ....................................................................................................................... 12
Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 209
Levin, Leonard, program manager, Electric Power Research Institute .............. 40
Mann, Michael E., assistant professor, University of Virginia, Department
of Environmental Sciences .................................................................................. 9
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 178
Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 194
Myers, Gary, professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, Department of Neurology,
University of Rochester Medical Center ............................................................ 44
Rice, Deborah C., toxicologist, Bureau of Remediation and Waste Manage-
ment, Maine Department of Environmental Protection ................................... 42
Responses to additional questions from Senator Jeffords ............................. 284
Soon, Willie, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics ..... 6
Responses to additional questions from Senator Jeffords ............................. 155
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Articles:
Climate Research, Vol. 23:89110, 2003, Proxy Climatic and Environ-
mental Changes of the Past 1000 years ...................................................... 127148
Energy & Environment Vol. 14, Nos. 2 and 3, 2003, Reconstructing
Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years: A Re-
appraisal....................................................................................................... 60126
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, Estimation and Representation
of Long-term (>40 year) Trends of Northern-Hemisphere-gridded Sur-
face Temperature: A Note of Caution ...................................................... 149154
Original Contributions, Effects of Prenatal and Postnatal Methylmercury
Exposure From Fish Consumption on Neurodevelopment..................... 302308
Personal Health, Tip the Scale in Favor of Fish: The Healthful Benefits
Await .............................................................................................................. 321
Risk Analysis, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2003, Methods and Rationale for Derivation
of a Reference Dose for Methylmercury by the U.S. EPA ......................... 290298
(III)
IV
Page
Continued
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 6, 2003, Clear Skies Mercury
Curb Put in Doubt ........................................................................................ 317
The Lancet, Prenatal Methylmercury Exposure from Ocean Fish Con-
sumption in the Seychelles Child Development Study........................... 309316
The New York Times, July 29, 2003, Does Mercury Matter? Experts
Debate the Big Fish Question ...................................................................... 319
The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 7, 2003, Mercury Rising ......................... 318
Chart, National Mean Mercury Concentration in Tissues of Selected Fish
Species (all sample types) .................................................................................... 289
Letter, to Senator Inhofe, from John Christy ........................................................ 323
Report, EPRI, May 2003, A Framework for Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness
of Electric Power Sector Mercury Control Policies ........................................ 217282
CLIMATE HISTORY AND THE SCIENCE UN-
DERLYING FATE, TRANSPORT, AND HEALTH
EFFECTS OF MERCURY EMISSIONS
TUESDAY, JULY 29, 2003
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT PUBLIC WORKS,
AND
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 oclock a.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe (chairman of
the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Inhofe, Allard, Carper, Clinton, Cornyn, Jef-
fords, Thomas and Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator INHOFE. The meeting will come to order.
We have a policy that we announced when I became chairman
of the committee that we will start on time, whether anyone is here
or not here, members, witnesses or others. So I appreciate all of
you being punctual in spite of the fact that the Senators are not.
One of my primary objectives as chairman of the committee is to
improve the way in which science is used. I think that when I be-
came chairman of this committee, I announced three very out-
rageous things that we were going to do in this committee that
have not been done before. No. 1, we are going to try to base our
decisions, things that we do, on sound science. No. 2, we are going
to be looking at the costs of some of these regulations, some of
these policies that we have, and determine what they are going to
be. And No. 3, we are going to try to reprogram the attitudes of
the bureaucracy so that they are here not to rule, but to serve.
Good public policy decisions depend on what is real or probable,
not simply on what serves our respective political agendas. When
science is debated openly and honestly, public policy can be debated
on firmer grounds. Scientific inquiry cannot be censored. Scientific
debate must be open. It must be unbiased. It must stress facts
rather than political agendas.
Before us today, we have two researchers who have published
what I consider to be a credible, well-documented, and scientifically
defensible study examining the history of climate change. Further-
more, these are top fields of inquiry in the Nations energy environ-
ment debate and really the entire worlds energy environment de-
bate. We can all agree that the implications of this science are
global, not only in terms of the environmental impacts, but also en-
(1)
2
ergy impacts, global trade impacts, and quite frankly, no less than
global governance impacts.
We could also all agree that as a result of the import and impact
of these issues, it is absolutely crucial that we get this science
right. False or incomplete or misconstrued data are simply not an
acceptable basis for policymaking decisions in which the Congress
of the United States is involved. Such data would violate the Data
Quality Act, which we passed on a bipartisan basis here in the
Senate and which we have bipartisanly embraced. If we need more
data to satisfy our standards, then so be it.
This Administration is prepared to do so in an aggressive strat-
egy that the climate change strategic plan outlines. The 1000-year
climate study that the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astro-
physics has compiled is a powerful new work of science. It has re-
ceived much attention, and rightfully so. I would add at this time,
it did not receive much attention from some of the liberal media
who just did not want to believe that any of the facts that were
disclosed were accurate.
I think the same can be said in terms of work that has recently
received attention of the hockey stick study. In many important
ways, the Harvard-Smithsonian Centers work shifts the paradigm
away from the previous hockey stick study. The powerful new find-
ings of this most comprehensive study shiver the timbers of the
adrift Chicken Little crowd.
I look forward to determining whose data is most comprehensive,
uses the most proxies, maintains the regional effects, avoids losing
specificity through averaging statistics, considers more studies, and
most accurately reflects the realities of the Little Ice Age, reflects
the realities of the Medieval Warming Period, and more.
Mercury presents a different set of issues. That would be our sec-
ond panel. It is well-established that high levels of exposure to
methyl-mercury before birth can lead to neuro-development prob-
lems. But what about mercury consumed through fish, the most
common form of prenatal exposure? Mercury makes its way into
fish through various ways, but primarily though deposition from
air emissions, with 80 percent of emissions deposited either region-
ally or globally, not locally. Global mercury emissions are about
5,000 tons a year. About half of those are man-made emissions.
In the United States, a little more than 100 tons are emitted
from non-power plant sources. Industry is making great strides in
reducing these emissions. I would like to submit for the record this
EPA document available on their Web site which indicates that
when rules now on the books are fully implemented at non-power
plant, nationwide emissions will be cut by nearly 50 percent. Power
plants emit about 50 tons of mercury annually, about 1 percent of
the worldwide emissions.
In setting policy, key questions need to be answered, such as how
would controls change this deposition; what portion of mercury ex-
posure can not be controlled; and what are the health impacts of
prenatal exposure. We will hear testimony today that indicates any
changes to mercury exposure in fish would be minimal under even
the most stringent proposal to regulate mercury. Today, we will
also hear testimony that the most recent and comprehensive study
3
to date found no evidence that prenatal mercury exposure from

ocean fish presents a neurological risk.
So we have diverse opinions that will be discussed today, and
that is the reason for this hearing, to wade through that so that
those on the panel that will be making policy decisions will under-
stand. I think it is no secret that we are not scientists up here, so
we look at things logically.
With that, I would recognize one of my colleagues here that I
have a great deal of respect for. Senator Voinovich and I started
out together as we were mayors of cities almost 25 years ago. I con-
sider him to be one of the real experts in the area of air. In fact,
I can remember calling him in as an expert when he was Governor
of Ohio and we were holding these hearings and I was chairman
at that time of the Clean Air Subcommittee. I would recognize Sen-
ator Voinovich for any comments he would like to make or opening
statements.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to congratulate you for the very comprehensive floor
speech that you gave yesterday on the issue of climate change.
Senator INHOFE. I guess I should apologize. It was 12,000 words
and I know you were anxious to get some floor time, so I appreciate
your patience.
Senator VOINOVICH. Your words were much more scientifically
based than mine.
[Laughter.]
Senator VOINOVICH. The two issues that we are going to explore
at the hearing today, the science of mercury and the science of cli-
mate change, are both important and timely. I commend you for
holding this hearing.
I think I do not have to remind you that we have had hearings
on climate change now during the last 4 or 5 years. I think I had
a couple when I was chairman of even the Transportation Infra-
structure Committee. Senator Lieberman had hearings over in
Governmental Affairs when he was chairman of the committee a
year or so ago. So it is not a subject that is brand new to this com-
mittee.
I have stated time and time again here in the committee and on
the floor that we must recognize that energy policy and environ-
mental policy are two sides of the same coin, and the Senate has
responsibility to harmonize these policies. We have an obligation
here in the committee to ensure that legislation that we consider
will protect our environment. We also have an obligation to ensure
that any legislation we consider takes into account its potential im-
pact on our economy and we have a moral obligation to ensure that
we consider a bills particular impact on the poor and the elderly
who must survive on fixed incomes.
When the Senate takes up consideration of climate change and
multi-pollutant legislation, we must keep that moral obligation in
mind. We must ensure that we do not pass legislation that will sig-
nificantly drive up the cost of electricity and home heating for
those who can least afford them.
4
Several members of this committee have introduced pieces of leg-

islation this year to reduce power plant emissions, including mer-
cury, and address the issue of carbon emissions and climate change
by capping carbon. Examples include Jeffords-Lieberman four-P
bill, the Carper four-P bill, and the McCain-Lieberman climate
change bill, which I understand will likely be offered as an amend-
ment to the energy bill, just this week we are going to be consid-
ering it.
These bills will establish a nationwide cap on carbon emissions
and their passage would force the utility sector, that is now using
coal to generate over half of our Nations electricity. To rely solely
on natural gas for generation, we will have fuel switchingcapping
carbon equals fuel switching equals no-coalto rely on natural gas
regeneration despite the fact we have over a 250-year supply of do-
mestic coal and are currently in the grips of a natural gas crisis
in this country.
This crisis is a result of environmental policies that have driven
up the use of natural gas in electricity generation significantly,
while domestic supplies of natural gas have fallen, partly because
we cannot do the exploration that we need to do for natural gas.
The result is predictable: tightening supplies of natural gas,
higher natural gas prices, and higher electricity prices. Home heat-
ing prices are up dramatically, forcing folks on low and fixed in-
comes to choose between heating their homes and paying for other
necessities such as food or medicine. The language that has been
offered by Senators Jeffords, McCain, Lieberman and Carper if en-
acted will force our utilities to fuel switch to natural gas; will sig-
nificantly raise energy prices; and will cause thousands of jobs to
be lost, particularly in manufacturing States like my State of Ohio,
which is already under duress in terms of manufacturing.
During the debate last year on the Jeffords-Lieberman four-P
bill, I put together a white paper that discussed the impact that
the bill would have if it were enacted. The numbers are staggering:
an overall reduction in GDP of $150 billion by 2020, the loss of over
900,000 jobs by 2020, and a decline in national household earnings
of $550 annually.
The cost of climate-change language such as the McCain-
Lieberman bill could come without any benefits to our air quality
or public health. Not even the most ardent supporter, and I hope
this comes up, of carbon regulation will claim that there are de-
monstrable health benefits from carbon regulation. Yet the Energy
Information Administration estimates that the passage of the
McCain-Lieberman bill, if enacted, will raise petroleum product
prices by 31 percent, raise natural gas prices by 79 percent, raise
electricity prices by 46 percent, and reduce GDP by up to $93 bil-
lion by 2025.
Carbon caps and unrealistic mercury caps means fuel switching,
again. The fuel switching means the end of manufacturing in my
State, enormous burdens on the least of our brethren. It means
moving jobs and production overseas, where there are less strin-
gent environmental programs. And will actually, if you really think
about it, increase global levels of pollution.
The question we face in this committee is whether we should do
something reasonable to improve our understanding of the issues
5
surrounding carbon emissions and climate change, and attempt to

reduce atmospheric concentration of carbon and mercury emissions
without harming our economy, or rush into short-sighted policy
that will cap carbon and mercury at unreasonable levels, shut
down our economy, cut thousands of jobs, and move manufacturing
overseas.
In a recent column, former Secretary of Energy James Schles-
inger commented that:
In climate change, we have only a limited grasp of the overall forces at work.
Uncertainties have continued to abound and must be reduced. In any approach
to policy formation, this is very important, under conditions of such uncertainty
should be taken only on an exploratory or a sequential basis. A premature com-
mitment to a fixed policy could only proceed with fear and trembling.
I would like to have that column inserted in the record, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator INHOFE. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator VOINOVICH. As I mentioned previously once or twice, I
am working with Chairman Inhofe and the Administration on mov-
ing Clear Skies forward, which I intend to mark up in my sub-
committee this fall. I am currently working with business and envi-
ronmental groups to find a bipartisan compromise on dealing with
carbon and global warming, with an emphasis on sound science,
carbon sequestration, development of clean coal technologies, and
a responsible approach that focuses more on consensus rather than
politics.
We need more Senators to focus on moving forward in a respon-
sible way and move away from harshly ideological positions that
advance nothing other than the agenda of some environmental
groups that have made carbon cap a political litmus test.
I thank the chairman for holding this important hearing and I
look forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses.
Senator INHOFE. That is an excellent opening statement, Senator
Voinovich. I go back to one of your first sentences when you talked
about the number of hearings we have had. We have to keep in
mind that each new hearing has new data. For example, the 1,000-
year Harvard-Smithsonian was not even out until March of this
year. So there are new things that are coming along and I see a
new trend-line which I discussed on the House of the Senate yes-
terday. So this will be a very valuable hearing.
Senator Cornyn, would you have any opening statement to
make?
Senator CORNYN. I would like to reserve any statement until
later, Mr. Chairman.
Senator INHOFE. Yes, that is fine. First, I would like to ask the
first panel to come up. Dr. Legates, Dr. Willie Soon and Dr. Mann,
would you three come up? First of all, we are honored to have who
I consider three very excellent and professional scientific witnesses
here today. Normally, we restrict the opening statements to 5 min-
utes, but it would be fine if you want to go about 7 minutes be-
cause I know you have come a long way and what we are dealing
with here is probably one of the most significant things facing
America, facing our economy, facing our environment today.
So I would introduce all three. Dr. David Legates is the director
of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware.
6
Dr. Willie Soon is the astrophysicist at Harvard-Smithsonian Cen-

ter for Astrophysics, and Dr. Michael Mann is assistant professor
at the University of Virginia Department of Environmental
Sciences. I will first ask Dr. Willie Soon to give his opening state-
ment.
STATEMENT OF WILLIE SOON, ASTROPHYSICIST, HARVARD-
SMITHSONIAN CENTER FOR ASTROPHYSICS
Dr. SOON. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Senators, my fellow pan-
elists, Dr. Mann and Dr. Legates, and members of the audience,
my name is Willie Soon. About a month or two ago, I became a
very proud and grateful U.S. citizen. I just cannot believe where I
am sitting today.
I am an astrophysicist with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts. My training is in at-
mospherics and space physics. My research interests for the past
10 years include changes in the sun and their possible impact on
climate.
I am here today to testify that the climate of the 20th century
is neither unusual nor the most extreme. Around 1,000 years ago,
the temperature over many parts of the world was warm. A wide-
spread cooling then set in for several centuries, followed by a recov-
ery to 20th century warming.
My colleague and I collected the information on climate by proxy.
We studied environmental indicators of local climate change going
back some 1,000 years from many locations around the world.
Based on work of approximately 1,000 researchers and hundreds of
peer-reviewed papers, we conclude the following three points about
climate history of the last 1,000 years.
On a location-by-location basis, point No. 1, there was warming
from 800 to 1300 A.D., all about 1,000 years ago, over many parts
of the world. This period is called the Medieval Warm Period. Fol-
lowing the warming of 1,000 years ago was a general cooling from
about 1300 to 1900 A.D. This period is called the Little Ice Age.
Point No. 2, there is no convincing evidence from local proxy to
suggest that the 20th century had higher temperatures or more ex-
treme climate than the warm period 1,000 years ago.
Point No. 3, local and regional, rather than global average
changes are the most relevant and practical measure of climate
changes and its impact. Much of the climate proxy results using
our work are new. Most papers were published in the scientific lit-
erature in the recent 5 to 10 years. There are two points to note
about our methods. First, we keep the local or regional information
contained in each climate proxy. This is important for studying geo-
graphical patterns of climate, which does not change everywhere at
the same time.
Second, climate is more than just temperature, so we keep the
climate information like rainfall, expansion or contraction of for-
ests, all advances or retreats of glaciers, et cetera. Our approach
makes use of the richness of information in climate proxies, which
map out local environmental and climate properties, rather than
just temperature alone.
The entirety of climate proxies over the last 1,000 years shows
that over many areas of the world, there has been and continues
7
to be large local climatic changes. Those changes provide important

changes for the computer simulations of climate. The full models
which explore the Earth region by region can be tested against the
natural patterns of change over the last 1,000 years that are de-
tailed by the climate proxies.
Having computer simulation, we produced past patterns of cli-
mate which has been influenced predominantly by natural factors
and is key to making an accurate forecast that includes all poten-
tial human-made warming and cooling effects.
In summary, based on expert conclusions from climate proxies in
several hundred peer-reviewed papers by over 1,000 researchers
from around the world, we find the following. No. 1, from one loca-
tion to another, large natural swings in climate have occurred over
the last 1,000 years. Those patterns have not always been syn-
chronous.
No. 2, there was widespread warmth about 1,000 years ago, fol-
lowed by widespread cooling ending by the beginning of the 20th
century.
No. 3, the local and regional climate proxies cannot confirm that
the 20th century is the warmest or most extreme over much of the
world, compared especially to the Medieval Warm Period approxi-
mately 1,000 years ago.
This is all for my oral remarks and I thank you for the oppor-
tunity to be here.
Senator INHOFE. Dr. Soon, we appreciate that excellent opening
statement. You did not even take all of your time. That is very un-
usual.
At this time, Dr. Mann if you dont mind, I would like to inter-
rupt your testimony. We have been joined by the Ranking Minority
Member, Senator Jeffords. Senator Jeffords, do you have an open-
ing statement you would like to make at this time?
Senator JEFFORDS. I would ask unanimous consent that it be
made as part of the record and would prefer listening to the wit-
nesses.
[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT
Were here today to discuss two very important topicsclimate change and mer-
cury pollution. As most of you know, I am the author of ambitious legislationthe
Clean Power Act of 2003which addresses these environmental problems, as well
as ozone, acid rain, and human health damage from fine particulate matter.
Unfortunately, we arent here today to talk about moving forward to find innova-
tive solutions to these real world problems. Instead, todays hearing will largely be
a mirror or the reverse of the robust and growing consensus in the mainstream sci-
entific community on climate and mercury pollution.
The disappointing result will be more delay. Delay on the part of Congress, and
even worse, the ongoing backsliding on the part of the Administration, means that
we fail to act responsibly as a society to protect future generations. That means in-
creasingly greater risks of global warming and mercury poisoning.
There is no doubt that the scientific process must inform policymakers as new in-
formation comes in. Unfortunately, there is no new information to be found here
today that would dissuade us from acting quickly and responsibly to reduce green-
house gas and mercury emissions. In todays discussion of a literature survey of cli-
mate research, the skeptics are trotting out an argument that is several years old
and already discarded by their peers.
It is abundantly clear that now is the time to act.
8
The National Academy of Sciences has said, Despite the uncertainties, there
is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong
within the past 20 years.
NOAA currently says that,
The climatic record over the last thousand years clearly shows that global
temperatures increased significantly in the 20th Century, and that this warm-
ing was likely to have been unprecedented in the last 1200 years.
EPAs website says that, There is new and stronger evidence that most of the
warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
One would have to be madder than a March hare to fail to see the need to act.
Yet, the Administrations new research plan falls squarely into hare territorydeny-
ing the reality staring them in the face.
I want to show you the latest odds on warming. MIT says that there is a one in
five chance that the temperature of the earth will warm by approximately 4 or 5
degrees over the course of this century, assuming there is no action to reduce emis-
sions.
As my dear departed friend, Senator John Chafee, said in 1989:
It is clear that we are facing a serious threat. The scientists are telling us
that if we continue to stroll along as if everything is fine, we will transform
Earth into a planet that will not be able to support life as we now know it.
While mercury contamination does not have the same dramatic effect on earths
systems, it is still a dangerous global and local pollutant because it is bio-accumula-
tive and toxic to human health.
Long ago, Congress decided that toxic air emissions should be reduced and took
very aggressive steps in 1990 to make that happen, especially if they fall into the
Great Lakes and other great waters like Lake Champlain. Unfortunately, the Agen-
cy has fallen significantly behind in complying with the Clean Air Acts schedule.
A settlement agreement mandates controlling toxic air pollutants from utilities by
2008.
In 1998, related to the controversy around EPAs late reports to Congress on util-
ity air toxics, Congress directed the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to rec-
ommend an appropriate reference dose for mercury exposure. In 2000, the NAS re-
ported that EPAs reference dose was scientifically sound and adequate to protect
most Americans. That NAS review considered all health effects studies, including
the Seychelles study that well discuss today.
We know that mercury is a potent toxic. It affects the human brain, spinal cord,
kidneys, liver and the heart. It affects the ability to feel, see, taste and move. We
know that mercury can affect fetal development, preventing the brain and nervous
system from developing normally. Long term exposure to mercury can result in stu-
por, coma and personality changes.
Mad as a Hatter is the phrase that was used in the 1800s to describe the em-
ployees of the felt hat industry whose constant exposure to mercury changed their
behavior. Fortunately, Americans exposure from commercial and recreational fish
consumption is substantially less than that, though dozens of health warnings are
posted nationwide.
But, its crazy for anyone to suggest that we should not reduce mercury emissions
significantly, since we know its health effects and we have the technologies to con-
trol it.
We should have a hearing on how to export those control technologies and Con-
gress should urge the Administration to negotiate binding global reductions in mer-
cury, as the Senate did last year in the Energy bill for greenhouse gas emissions.
At a minimum, we should pass four-pollutant legislation now that gets reductions
faster and deeper than required by the current Clean Air Act. Im sad to say that
there have been no negotiations on that front since I initiated some in early 2002.
And the Administration has done nothing to reduce these emissions with its abun-
dant authority in the Act.
We cant afford to leave these problems to future generations to solve. We cant
let our children and grandchildren wake up to find that our delays have cost them
dearly in terms of health and the global and local environment. Its time to act re-
sponsibly.
Finally, I ask that material from the journal EOS, the NOAA website, the Atlanta
Journal Constitution, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the Amer-
ican Geophysical Union be included in the hearing record.
9
Senator JEFFORDS. I might point out, we have got to do some-

thing about this traffic out there.
[Laughter.]
Senator INHOFE. Well, the name of our subcommittee is Trans-
portation and Infrastructure, so maybe we can do something about
the traffic out there.
Senator JEFFORDS. I hope so.
Senator INHOFE. Dr. Mann, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL E. MANN, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRON-
MENTAL SCIENCES
Dr. MANN. Senators, my name is Michael Mann. I am a professor
in the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of
Virginia. My research involves the study of climate variability and
its causes. I was a lead author of the IPCC Third Scientific Assess-
ment report. I am current organizing committee chair for the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences Frontiers of Science, and have served
as a committee member or adviser for other National Academy of
Sciences panels.
I have served as editor for the Journal of Climate of the Amer-
ican Meteorological Society for 3 years and I am a member of the
advisory panel for the NOAA Climate Change Data and Detection
Program. I am a member of numerous other international and U.S.
scientific working groups, panels and steering committees. I have
coauthored more than 60 peer-reviewed publications on diverse top-
ics within the fields of climatology and paleoclimatology.
Honors I have received include selection in 2002 as one of the 50
leading visionaries in science and technology by Scientific Amer-
ican magazine, and the outstanding scientific publication award of
NOAA for 2000.
In my testimony here today, I will explain, No. 1, how main-
stream climate researchers have come to the conclusion that late
20th century warmth is unprecedented in a very long-term context
and that this warmth is likely related to the activity of human
beings; and No. 2, why a pair of recent articles challenging these
conclusions by astronomer Willie Soon and his coauthors are fun-
damentally unsound.
It is the consensus of the climate research community that the
anomalous warmth of the late 20th century cannot be explained by
natural factors, but instead indicates significant anthropogenic,
that is human influences. This conclusion is embraced by the posi-
tion statement on climate change and greenhouse gases of the
American Geophysical Union, by the 2001 report of the IPCC, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and by a National
Academy of Sciences report that was solicited by the Bush Admin-
istration in 2001.
More than a dozen independent research groups have now recon-
structed the average temperature of the northern hemisphere in
past centuries, both by employing natural archives of past climate
information or proxy indicators such as tree rings, corals, ice cores,
lake sediments and historical documents, and through the use of
climate model simulations. If I can have the first exhibit here, as
shown in this exhibit, the various proxy reconstructions agree with
10
each other, as well as with the model simulations, all of which are
shown, within the estimated uncertainties. That is the gray-shaded
region.
The proxy reconstructions, taking into account these uncertain-
ties, indicate that the warming of the northern hemisphere during
the late 20th century, that is the northern hemisphere, not the
globe, as I have sometimes heard my study incorrectly referred to,
the northern hemisphere during the late 20th century, that is the
end of the red curve, is unprecedented over at least the past mil-
lennium and it now appears based on peer-reviewed research, prob-
ably the past two millennia.
The model simulations demonstrate that it is not possible to ex-
plain the anomalous late-20th century warmth without the con-
tribution from anthropogenic influences. These are the consensus
conclusions of the legitimate community of climate and paleo-
climate researchers investigating such issues.
Astronomers Soon and Baliunas have attempted to challenge the
scientific consensus based on two recent papers, henceforth collec-
tively referred to as SB, that completely misrepresent the past
work of other legitimate climate researchers and are deeply flawed
for the following reasons. No. 1, SB make the fundamental error
of citing evidence of either wet or dry conditions as being in sup-
port of an exceptional Medieval Warm Period. Such an ill-defined
criterion could be used to define any period of climate as either
warm or cold. It is pure nonsense.
Experienced paleoclimate researchers know that they must first
establish the existence of a temperature signal in a proxy record
before using it to try to reconstruct past temperature patterns. If
I can have exhibit two, this exhibit shows a map of the locations
of a set of records over the globe that have been rigorously ana-
lyzed by my colleagues and I for their reliability as long-term tem-
perature indicators. I will refer back to that graphic shortly.
No. 2, it is essential to distinguish between regional temperature
changes and truly hemispheric or global changes. Average global or
hemispheric temperature variations tend to be far smaller in their
magnitude than those for particular regions. This is due to a tend-
ency for the cancellation of simultaneous warm and cold conditions
in different regions, something that anybody who follows the
weather is familiar with, in fact.
As shown by exhibit three, if I can have that up here as well
now, thank you, this exhibit plots the estimated temperature for
various locations shown in the previously displayed map. As you
can see, the specific periods of relative cold and warm, blue and
red, differ greatly from region to region. Climatologists, of course,
know this. What makes the late 20th century unique is the simul-
taneous warmth indicated by nearly all the long-term records. It is
this simultaneous warmth that leads to the anomalous late-20th
century warmth evident for northern hemisphere average tempera-
tures.
The approach taken by SB does not take into account whether
warming or cooling in different regions is actually coincident, de-
spite what they might try to tell you here today.
No. 3, as it is only the past few decades during which northern
hemisphere temperatures have exceeded the bounds of natural var-
11
iability, any analysis such as SB that compares past temperatures

only to early or mid-20th century conditions; you repeatedly hear
Dr. Soon refer to the 20th century; climatologists do not consider
that a meaningful baseline because there has been a dramatic
warming during the 20th century and the early 20th century and
the late 20th century are almost as different as the late 20th cen-
tury and any other period during the past 1,000 years at least. So
a study that refers only to early or mid-20th century conditions or
generic 20th century conditions and does not specifically address
the late 20th century, cannot address the issue of whether or not
late-20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term context.
To summarize, late-20th century warming is unprecedented in
modern climate history at hemispheric scales. A flawed recent
claim to the contrary by scientists lacking expertise in paleoclim-
atology is not taken seriously by the scientific community.
The anomalous recent warmth is almost certainly associated
with human activity and this is the robust consensus view of the
legitimate climate research community.
Thank you.
Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Dr. Mann.
Dr. Legates.
First, I would ask Senator Allard, did you want to make an open-
ing statement?
Senator ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I do have an opening statement
and in deference to the panel and you I would just like to have it
put in the record. If you would do that, then I would be happy.
Senator INHOFE. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Allard follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this important hearing today.
As a veterinarian, I have some scientific training in my background. I strongly
believe that we should use scientific principals as a guidepost when formulating any
regulation. This scientific guidepost approach is particularly important when looking
at regulations with the implications and magnitude of regulations on climate change
and mercury control.
Climate change has been an ongoing discussion for many years. However, during
the 1970s the concerns were exactly opposite of what they are now. Then we were
told that there was a threat of massive global cooling. Headlines screamed that we
were in danger of entering another ice age. Now we are told that massive warming
trends are going to cause overheating across the globe. We need answers, not rhet-
oric.
All of the witnesses here today have a great deal of experience. All of the wit-
nesses here have spent many years analyzing data related to the areas of their ex-
pertise. But, I am concerned that, at times, data may be reviewed selectively and
in isolation. I am also concerned that emphasis may fall on a limited number of
studies. In science we have all learned that the only way to solidly prove a theory
is by conducting tests, studies or experiments that repeatedly arrive at the same
result. We cannot simply ignore the studies that do not have the outcome we are
looking for. This applies whether we are looking at climate change, mercury or any
other issue.
I want to spend most of my time and attention today on potential mercury regula-
tions. While todays hearing is intended to focus on science, I would also like to
touch on the impact that potential regulations will have on the economy of my state
and the west. As many of you know, western coal differs from other types of coal
in several ways. The higher chlorine content in western coal makes it more difficult
to remove mercury when burning it. And, while western coal does contain mercury,
when it is burned it gives off mercury in the elemental form. It is my understanding
that this is not the type of mercury that deposits in the ecosystem to potentially
be absorbed by the environment.
12
The economies of Colorado, and the entire west, will be impacted by harsh regula-
tions placed on their coal. Economies undoubtedly will be damaged by the decrease
in use of coal mined in the West. In addition, while jobs are being lost due to the
subsequent inability to fully utilize western coal supplies, if power can no longer be
generated by using coal mined in the west, other less efficient coal types will have
to be transported across long distances. This additional expenditure will add to the
price of electricity generation, driving up electricity costs and further damaging an
economy that will already be struggling.
This is why it is so important to me that we be cautious when dealing with situa-
tions such as these and why we should place strong emphasis on the use of sound
science. Our regulations must be thoughtful reflections of what we knowthey
should not be reflexive or reactive attempts to legislate a cure before we know what
the disease is.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. I look forward to hear-
ing the witness testimony and discussions to come.
Senator INHOFE. That being the case, lets dispense with any fur-
ther opening statements.
Dr. Legates, thank you very much for being here. You are recog-
nized.
STATEMENT OF DAVID R. LEGATES, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
CLIMATIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE
Dr. LEGATES. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Senators,
Doctors Mann and Soon, and members of the audience, I would like
to thank the committee for inviting my commentary on this impor-
tant topic of climate history and its implications. My research in-
terests have focused on hydroclimatology. That is the study of
water in the atmosphere and on the land, and as well as on the
application of statistical methodology in climatological research.
I am familiar with the testimony presented here by Dr. Soon. My
contributions to Dr. Soons research stem from my grappling with
the striking disagreement between the longstanding historical
record and the time series recently presented by Dr. Mann and his
colleagues. It also stems from my own experiences in compiling and
merging global estimates of air temperature and precipitation from
a variety of disparate sources.
My Ph.D. dissertation resulted in the compilation of high-resolu-
tion climatologies of global air temperature and precipitation. From
that experience, I have become acutely aware of the issues associ-
ated with merging data from a variety of sources and containing
various biases and uncertainties. By its very nature, climatological
data exhibit a number of spatial and temporal biases that must be
taken into account. Instrumental records exist only for the last cen-
tury or so, and thus proxy records can only be used to glean infor-
mation about the climate for earlier time periods. But it must be
noted that proxy records are not observations and strong caveats
must be considered when they are used. It, too, must be noted that
observational data are not without bias either.
Much research has described both the written and oral histories
of the climate, as well as the proxy climate records. It is recognized
that such records are not without their biases. For example, trees
respond not to just air temperature fluctuations, but to the entire
hydrologic cycle, including water supply, precipitation, and de-
mand, which is only in part driven by air temperature.
Nevertheless, such accounts indicate that the climate of the last
millennium has been characterized by considerable variability and
that extended periods of cold and warmth existed. It has been gen-
13
erally agreed that during the early periods of the last millennium,
air temperatures were warmer and that temperatures became cool-
er toward the middle of the millennium. This gave rise to the terms
the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, respectively.
However, as these periods were not always consistently warm or
cold, nor were the extremes geographically commensurate in time,
such terms must be used with care.
In a change from its earlier reports, however, the Third Assess-
ment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
and now the U.S. National Assessment of Climate Change, both in-
dicate that hemispheric and global air temperatures followed a
curve developed by Dr. Mann and his colleagues in 1999. This
curve exhibits two notable features, and I will point back to Dr.
Manns exhibit one that he showed a moment ago. First is a rel-
atively flat and somewhat decreasing trend in air temperature that
extends from 1000 A.D. to about 1900 A.D. This feature is an
outlier that is in contravention to thousands of authors in the peer-
reviewed literature.
This is followed by an abrupt rise in the air temperature during
the 1900s that culminates in 1998 with the highest temperature
on the graph. Virtually no uncertainty is assigned to the instru-
mental record of the last century. This conclusion reached by the
IPCC and the National Assessment is that the 1990s was the
warmest decade, with 1998 being the warmest year of the last mil-
lennium.
Despite the large uncertainty, the surprising lack of significant
temperature variations in the record gives the impression that cli-
mate remained relatively unchanged throughout most of the last
millennium, at least until human influences began to cause an ab-
rupt increase in temperatures during the last century. Such char-
acterization is a scientific outlier. Interestingly, Mann et al replace
the proxy data for the 1900s by the instrumental record and
present it with no uncertainty characterization. This, too, yields the
false impression that the instrumental record is consistent with the
proxy data and that it is error-free. It is neither.
The instrumental record contains numerous uncertainties, result-
ing from measurement errors, a lack of coverage over the worlds
oceans, and underrepresentation of mountainous and polar regions,
as well as undeveloped nations and the presence of urbanization ef-
fects resulting from the growth of cities. As I stated before, the
proxy records only in part reflect temperature. Therefore, a simul-
taneous presentation of the proxy and instrumental record is the
scientific equivalent to calling apples and oranges the same fruit.
Even if a modest uncertainty of plus or minus one-tenth of a de-
gree Celsius were imposed on the instrumental record, the claim of
the 1990s being the warmest decade would immediately become
questionable, as the uncertainty window would overlap with the
uncertainty associated with earlier time periods. Note, too, that if
the satellite temperature record, where little warming has been ob-
served over the last 20 years, had been inserted instead of the in-
strumental record, it would be impossible to argue that the 1990s
was the warmest decade. Such a cavalier treatment of scientific
data can create scientific outliers, such as the Mann et al curve.
14
So we are left to question why the Mann et all curve seems to

be at variance with the previous historical characterization of cli-
matic variability. Investigating more than several hundred studies
that have developed proxy records, we came to the conclusion that
nearly all of these records show considerable fluctuations in air
temperature over the last millennium. Please note that we did not
reanalyze the proxy data. The original analysis from the various
experts was left intact, as it formed a voluminous refereed sci-
entific literature. Most records show the coldest period is commen-
surate with at least a portion of what is termed the Little Ice Age,
and the warmest conditions at concomitant with at least a portion
of what is termed the Medieval Warm Period.
Our conclusion is entirely consistent with conclusions reached by
Drs. Bradley and Jones and not all locations on the globe experi-
ence cold or warm conditions. Moreover, we chose not to append
the instrumental record, but to compare apples with apples and de-
termine if the proxy records themselves indeed confirm the claim
of the 1990s being the warmest decade of the last millennium.
That claim is not borne out by the individual proxy records.
However, the IPCC report in the chapter with Dr. Mann as the
lead author and his colleagues as contributing authors, also con-
cludes that the research support the idea that the 15th to 19th
centuries were the coldest of the millennium over the northern
hemisphere overall. Moreover, the IPCC report also concludes that
the Mann and Jones research shows temperatures from the 11th
to 14th centuries to be warmer than those from the 15th to 19th
centuries. This again is entirely consistent with our findings and
in contravention of their own error assessment.
Where we differ with Dr. Mann and his colleagues is in the con-
struction of the hemisphere average time series and their assertion
that the 1990s was the warmest decade of the last millennium.
Reasons why the Mann et al curve fails to retain the fidelity of the
individual proxy records are detailed statistical issues into which
I will not delve. But a real difference of opinion focuses solely on
the Mann et al curve, and how it is an outlier compared to the bal-
ance of evidence on millennial climate change. In a very real sense,
this is a fundamental issue that scientists must address before the
Mann et al curve can be taken as fact.
In closing, let me state that climate is simply more than annu-
ally averaged global air temperature. Too much focus, I believe, has
been placed on defining air temperature time series and such em-
phasis obscures the true issue in understanding climate change
and variability. If we are truly to understand climate and its im-
pacts and driving forces, we must push beyond the tendency to dis-
till climate to a single annual number. Proxy records which provide
our only possible link to the past are incomplete at best. But when
these voluminous records are carefully and individually examined,
one reaches the inescapable conclusion that climate variability has
been a natural occurrence and especially so over the last millen-
nium.
Given the uncertainties and biases associated with the proxy and
instrumental records
Senator INHOFE. Dr. Legates, we are going to have to cut it off.
You have exceeded your time and I am sure you will have an op-
15
portunity to finish your thoughts during the question and answer

period.
Dr. LEGATES. Thank you for the privilege.
Senator INHOFE. We are going to, if it is all right, use 5 minutes
and maybe try to get a few rounds here. Is that acceptable? These
will be 5 minute rounds for questioning. I will start.
First of all, Senator Thomas joined us. Thank you for coming,
Senator Thomas.
I will address my first question to Dr. Legates. In my speech on
the Senate floor yesterday, I noted your comments regardingcan
you find that chart of those comments?the comments regarding
Dr. Manns work as shown on the chart. I have a small copy of this.
No, that is not it. It is this chart right here. OK.
First of all, this is a comparison. As I mentioned in my opening
statement, we sit up here as non-scientists so we try to look at
these things and see what is logical, how we should weigh and
compare diverse opinions. Now, the first thing I noticed was that
Dr. Mann, yours I believe was in the area of the timeframe of
1999
Dr. MANN. Excuse me. That is incorrect.
Senator INHOFE [continuing]. And Dr. Soon, you are 2003. So I
think that the timing would mean something because I know that
this is not a static target. This is a moving target.
May I first ask Dr. Legates, do you stand by the statements that
are made on this chart up here, on the contrasting methods that
were used?
Dr. LEGATES. I have not had a chance to actually look at the
chart before now.
Senator INHOFE. Is this the one that he had here? OK, lets put
that up. All right, then, this statement here,
Although Manns work is now widely used as proof of anthropogenic global
warming. We have become concerned that such analysis is in direct contradic-
tion to most of the research and written histories available. My paper shows
this contradiction and argues that the results of Mann are out of step with the
preponderance of the evidence.
I am not Tim Russert, but do you stand by these statements?
Dr. LEGATES. I do stand by them, sir.
Senator INHOFE. All right. I note that you are an expert in statis-
tical techniques. In my speech on the Senate floor yesterday, I
noted that even assuming all of the science used by the political
left, come the end of 50 years hence, the Kyoto Protocol would have
no measurable affect on temperature. Do you agree with that?
Dr. LEGATES. Yes, generally.
Senator INHOFE. And if the Kyoto Protocol forces harsher man-
dates, does it follow that the weaker legislative proposals that are
out there right now before us in the Senate would have likewise
no measurable effect?
Dr. LEGATES. That is likely true.
Senator INHOFE. All right. Lets see. Dr. Mann, since you have
characterized your colleagues there in several different ways as
nonsense, illegitimate, and inexperienced, let me ask you if you
would use the same characterization of another person that I
quoted on the floor yesterday. I would like to call your attention
to the recent op/ed in the Washington Post by Dr. James Schles-
16
inger, who was Energy Secretary under President Carter. In it, he

wrote, There is an idea among the public that the science is set-
tled. That remains far from the truth. He has also acknowledged
the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. Do you ques-
tion the scientific integrity of Dr. Schlesinger?
Dr. MANN. I do not think I have questioned scientific integrity.
I have questioned scientific expertise in the case of Drs. Willie Soon
and David Legates with regard to issues of paleoclimate. As far as
Schlesinger is concerned, I am not familiar with any peer-reviewed
work that he has submitted to the scientific literature, so I would
not be able to evaluate his comments in a similar way. If I could
clarify one
Senator INHOFE. OK. Well, you cant because there isnt time. I
am going to stay within my timeframe and I want to get to ques-
tions so others will have plenty of opportunity to respond to ques-
tions I am sure.
Dr. Soon, how many studies did you examine in total and how
many were appropriate for the criteria you established?
Dr. SOON. Senator, the number is roughly in the order of, if you
speak in terms of the peer-reviewed literature, I would say several
hundred. And the number of people involved in these paleoclimatic
research would be at least 1,000. Of course, I have to emphasize
I am not a paleoclimate scientist, but all of us are ruled by one
simple goal, to understand the nature of how climate works. The
basis to get to the goal is to figure out the exact expressions of the
physical laws.
The short answer is there is a huge number of literature that we
consulted that feed the criteria. This is why we wrote it as a sci-
entific paper.
Senator INHOFE. I was trying to get to the 240 proxies that were
used and the number used.
Dr. SOON. Yes, we listed about 240 proxy studies in our papers.
Senator INHOFE. Last, I would say, do you have more data in
your study than Dr. Mann did in his 1999 work? And is your data
newer?
Dr. SOON. Yes. I would emphasize that most of the proxy records
come from the most recent 5 years.
Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Dr. Soon.
Senator Jeffords.
Senator JEFFORDS. Dr. Mann, would you care to respond?
Dr. MANN. Yes, first of all I wanted to clarify a misstatement
earlier on the part of Senator Inhofe. The results that I showed in
my first graphic which demonstrate that it is a clear consensus of
the climate research community that a number of different esti-
mates, not just ours, but at least 12 different estimates of the his-
tory of the northern hemisphere average temperature for the past
1,000 years give essentially the same result, within the uncertain-
ties. We published a paper just a month ago demonstrating that
that is a robust result of a large number of mainstream researchers
in the climate research community.
Phil Jones and I also have a paper in press in the Journal of
Geophysical Research letters, which demonstrates those results fur-
ther. So in fact, the latest word and the word of the mainstream
17
climate research community is the one that I have given you ear-
lier.
Now, as far as the issue of data, how much data was used, there
are a number of misstatements that have been made about our
study. One of them is with regard to how much data we used. We
used literally hundreds of proxy records. We often represented
those proxy records, as statistical climatologists often do, in what
we call a state space. We represented them in terms of a smaller
number of variables to capture the leading patterns of variability
in the data. But we used hundreds of proxy indicators, more in fact
than Dr. Soon referred to. In fact, we actually analyzed climate
proxy records. Dr. Soon did not.
Senator JEFFORDS. Dr. Soon, in a 2001 article in Capitalism mag-
azine, you said that because of the pattern of frequent and rapid
changes in climate throughout the holocene period, we should not
view the warming of the last 100 years as a unique event or as an
indication of manmade emissions effect on the climate.
But according to NOAAs Web site upon close examination of
these warm periods, including all the ones that you cited in your
past and most recent article,
It became apparent that these periods are not similar to the 20th century
warming for two specific reasons. One, the periods of hypothesized past warm-
ing do not appear to be global in extent or, two, the period of warmth can be
explained by known natural climate forcing conditions that are uniquely dif-
ferent than those of the past 100 years.
Why didnt either of your articles make an impact on the state
of the science or NOAAs position?
Dr. SOON. Thank you for your question, Senator. As you may be
aware, my paper just got published this year, January 2003 and
April 2003, so it is all fairly recent. I have just written up this
paper very recently, so I do not know what impact it will have on
any general community, but I do know all my works are done con-
sulting works from all major paleoclimatologists in the field, includ-
ing Dr. Mann and his esteemed colleagues.
As to the comments about the Capitalism magazine, I am not
aware of that particular magazine. I do not know whether I sub-
mitted anything to this journal or this magazine. I do stand by the
statement that it is important to look at the local and regional
change before one takes global averages because climate tends to
vary in very large swings in different parts of the world. That real-
ly is the essence of climate change and one ought to be really look-
ing very carefully at the local and regional change first, and also
one should not look strictly at only the temperature parameter, as
Dr. Mann has claimed to have done. That I think is very important
to take into account.
Senator JEFFORDS. Dr. Mann, could you comment?
Dr. MANN. Yes. Both of those statements are completely incor-
rect. If Dr. Soon had actually read any of the papers that we have
published over the past 5 years or so, he would be aware of the fact
that we use statistical techniques to reconstruct global patterns of
surface temperature. We average those spatial patterns to estimate
a northern hemisphere mean temperature, just as scientists today
seek to estimate the northern hemisphere average temperature
from a global network of thermometer measurements. We use pre-
18
cisely the same approach based on proxy reconstructions of spatial

patterns of surface temperature.
So what Dr. Soon has said is completely inaccurate. The first line
on that contrasting methods table up there is also completely inac-
curate.
In terms of variables other than temperature, my colleagues and
I have published several papers reconstructing continental drought
over North America and reconstructed sea-level pressure patterns.
We have looked at just about every variable that climatologists are
interested in from the point of view of paleoclimate indicators. I
think Dr. Soon needs to review my work more carefully.
Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
Senator Allard.
Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In my mind, I do not think there is any question that the climate
has shown a period of warming here. The question that I bring up
and where I see the debate is, what is causing it and whether it
is the changes that are happening and whether they are significant
or not.
I also wonder what your thinking this world might look like
1,000 years from now, looking at the data that we have now. I won-
dered if maybe each one of you would just give me a brief response
as to what you think of what we are seeing today may look like
projected out over 1,000 years from now. I will start with Dr. Soon.
Dr. SOON. The factors causing climate change are extremely com-
plicated. As I emphasized already, I am very much interested to
learn how the climate changes on a local or regional scale first be-
fore I can speak in terms of global climate. After all, local and re-
gional climate are indeed the most relevant climatic factors that
human activities are being influenced by or the reverse way.
As to the factors of climate change, I believe that it is extremely
difficult yet still to confirm the facts of being, lets say, even the
late 20th century has anything to do with CO2. We do know that
the CO2 is rising, but at the same time we know that climate de-
pends on many other factors. It could be doing it internally all by
itself because of ocean current movements. It could be done, for ex-
ample, by variability imposed externally from the sun, variable out-
puts. Our sun is a variable star. That is a very well known fact.
These are the kinds of factors one has to look very comprehen-
sively at. Additional important factors of human activity would in-
clude land use changes. Those are very well known factors that one
has to keep a good record, or time history, to really understand
what are the causes of the change.
I dont think I should speculate anything about futures. It is al-
ways very dangerous to talk about the future of any climate.
Senator ALLARD. Dr. Mann.
Dr. MANN. Yes. Well, I certainly agree with your statement that
one of the key issues is what we call the detection or the attribu-
tion of human influence on climate, not just how has climate
changed over the past 100 years or past 1,000 years, but can we
actually determine the causal agents of change.
There has been a solid decade of research into precisely that
question by, again, the mainstream climate research community in
addressing the issue of the relative role of natural factors, as well
19
as anthropogenic factors. That includes the role of the sun, the role
of human land use changes, and the role of human greenhouse gas
increases. The model estimates are typically consistent with what
we have seen in the observations earlier.
As far as the next 1,000 years, that is not a particular area of
expertise of mine, but I am familiar with what the mainstream cli-
mate research community has to say about that. The latest model-
based projections indicate a mean global temperature increase of
anywhere between .6 and 2.2 degrees Centigrade. That is one de-
gree to four degrees Fahrenheit relative to 1990 levels by the mid-
21st century under most scenarios of future anthropogenic changes.
While these estimates are uncertain, even the lower value would
take us well beyond any previous levels of warmth seen over at
least the past couple of millennia. The magnitude of warmth, but
perhaps more importantly the unprecedented rate of warming, is
cause for concern.
Senator ALLARD. Dr. Legates.
Dr. LEGATES. Yes. I agree, too, that attribution is one of our im-
portant concerns. As a climatologist, I am very much interested in
trying to figure out what drives climate. We know that a variety
of factors exist. These include solar forcing functions; these include
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; these include biases associated
with observational methods; these also include such things as land
use changes. For example, if we change the albedo or reflected
amount solar radiation, that too will change the surface tempera-
ture.
So it is really a difficult condition to try to balance all of these
possible combinations and to try to take a very short instrumental
record and discern to what extent that record is being driven by a
variety of different combinations.
My conclusion probably in this case to directly answer your ques-
tion is that the temperature likely would rise slightly, again due
to carbon dioxide, but it would be much more responsive to solar
output. If the sun should quiet down, for example, I would expect
we would go into a cooling period.
Senator ALLARD. I guess the question that I would have, now,
you know you have increased CO2. So how is the environment in
the Earth going to respond to increased CO2? Have any of you
talked to a botanist or anything to give you some idea of what hap-
pens when CO2 increases in the atmosphere? Plants utilize CO2,
extract oxygen. We inhale oxygen and extract CO2. Will plants be
more prosperous with more CO2? How does that impact the plant
life? Can that then come back on the cycle and some century later
mean more O2 and less CO2?
So I am wondering if any of you have reviewed some of these cy-
cles with botanists and see if they have any scientific data on how
plants respond to CO2 when that is the sole factor. I am not sure
I have ever seen a study. There is moisture and other things that
affect plant growth, but just CO2 by itself. Have any of you seen
any scientific studies in that regard?
Dr. SOON. I have seen that. In fact, I have written a small paper
that has a small section regarding that.
Senator ALLARD. And what was their conclusion?
20
Dr. SOON. The conclusion is that in general, of course, under en-

richment of the CO2 in the free air, that yes, plant growth will be
enhanced. For example, as indicated by your chart, the crop yield
can increase by 30 percent or higher for a doubling of CO2, depend-
ing on the actual constraints in the field, like types of crops, how
wet or how dry, etc. All of these examples are very well known and
well verified in the field of botany.
Senator ALLARD. My time has run out. Would the other two
agree with what he said?
Dr. MANN. Not quite.
Senator ALLARD. What is your modification?
Dr. MANN. In fact, a number of studies have been done, what are
called FACE experiments. They are open canopy experiments in
which CO2 is elevated in the forest and scientists examine the
changes in the behavior of that forest. What scientists at Duke
University are finding is that while there is a tendency for an up-
take of CO2 by the plants in the near term, what happens is even-
tually those plants will die. They will rot. When that happens, this
happens on generational time scales.
Senator ALLARD. Just CO2 being the variable and not moisture
and anything else?
Dr. MANN. Just CO2. The CO2 will go back into the atmosphere
because the plants that take it up
Senator ALLARD. Do they have an explanation of why the rot oc-
curred?
Dr. MANN. Well, just when things die, they will rot and they will
give up their CO2 back to the atmosphere eventually.
Senator ALLARD. Well, that really does not get to the point I was
trying to make.
Doctor.
Dr. LEGATES. To follow on that, enhanced CO2 and dying plants
would also provide the ability for more plants to therefore grow in
its place. In particular, one of the people on our study, Dr. Sher-
wood Idso, has done a lot of this study with carbon dioxide and en-
hanced where you can control the amount of water and energy
available to plants associated with lowered CO2 and higher CO2.
Senator ALLARD. So your conclusion is that CO2 increases plant
growth?
Dr. LEGATES. Yes.
Senator ALLARD. OK.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Allard.
Senator Carper, we were going to go by the early bird rule. Is
it all right if Senator Thomas goes ahead of you here?
Senator CARPER. Sure.
Senator INHOFE. Senator Thomas.
Senator THOMAS. Thank you. I am a little confused about where
we even ask the questions. Obviously, there is a difference of view.
We are expected to make some policy decisions based on what we
ought to be doing with regard to these kinds of things, but yet
there does not seem to be a basis for that kind of a decision. Where
would you suggest we get the information that is the best informa-
tion we could get to make policy decisions for the future? Would
each of you like to comment shortly on that?
21
Dr. MANN. Sure. I guess I would reiterate the comments that I

made earlier, that in a National Academy of Sciences study that
was commissioned by the Bush Administration in 2001, the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences in essence stated their agreement with
the major scientific findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-
mate Change, the IPCC, which is the United Nations panel of sci-
entists, thousands of scientists from around the world who put to-
gether a report on the state of our knowledge about all of these
thingsclimate change scenarios, our uncertainty about various at-
tributes of the climate system. The conclusions that I stated earlier
are the consensus conclusions of the IPCC.
Senator THOMAS. That is where you would go.
Dr. MANN. That is where they have gone, yes.
Dr. LEGATES. I would generally argue the IPCC is a bit of a polit-
ical document to the extent to which it does present some biased
science. There is a lot of good science in there, but a lot of the con-
clusions are sort of not borne out by the facts. Having been presi-
dent of the Climate Specialty Group of the Association of American
Geographers, which is probably the largest group of climatologists
available, I know from talking to rank-and-file members that they
generallymy impression is that most climatologists agree it takes
a rather strong viewpoint.
So I have real serious concerns that it really represents a con-
sensus, and in particular when, for example, in this discussion
when we change dramatically what a lot of people have held true,
that is the Little Ice Age, Medieval Warming and so forth, and re-
place it with a flat curve very quickly, I do not think we have given
it enough time to really decide if in fact that is an appropriate
change in paradigm.
Dr. SOON. Although I am not able to comment on anything on
public policies, I am certainly able to testify that the science is
completely unsettled. There are just so many things that we do not
know about how the climate really works and what are the factors
that cause it to change, to really jump to the conclusion that it will
all be CO2.
Senator THOMAS. Thank you. That helps a lot.
[Laughter.]
Senator INHOFE. You still have some time remaining. Did you
have an opportunity to see the chart up here that Dr. John Reilly,
MIT Joint Program on Science Policy and Global Change? On the
floor yesterday, I talked at some length on this. There seems to be
a lot of consensus that there are some very positive benefits.
Senator THOMAS. It is really interesting, you know, in Schles-
ingers thing it indicates that the temperature after 1940 dropped
until 1977. So that makes you wonder what we ought to do. The
rise in temperature during the 20th century occurred between 1900
and 1940. So now we are faced with making policy decisions where
there is no real evidence that the things that the greenhouse gases
measurable by the U.N. is the basis for doing these things.
I know in science everyone has little different ideas, but I do
think we are going to have to, Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out
yesterday, either take it a little more slowly in terms of policy, or
we are not going to have something more basic to base it on than
we have now in order to make significant policy changes.
22
Thank you.
Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Thomas.
Senator Carper.
Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome
our witnesses this morning. Dr. Legates, it is great to have a fight-
ing Blue Hen here from the University of Delaware. We are de-
lighted that you are here. Dr. Mann, thanks for coming up, and Dr.
Soon, welcome. We thank you for your time and your interest and
your expertise on these issues, and your willingness to help us on
some tough public policy issues that we face.
Dr. Mann, I would start off if I could and direct a question to
you. I understand we have had thermometers for less than 200
years, and yet we are trying to evaluate changes in temperature
today in this century and the last century with those that occurred
500 or 1,000 or 2,000 years ago. I understand that we use proxies
for thermometers, if you will, and for those kinds of changes in
temperature.
I wonder if you could help me and maybe the committee better
understand how we compare todays temperature measurements to
the proxies of the past. Are there potential risks with relying on
some of those proxies?
Dr. MANN. Absolutely. We have to use them carefully when we
try to reconstruct the past temperature history. So when I say we
have to use them carefully, it means some of the things that I dis-
cussed in my testimony earlier, that we need to actually verify that
if we are using a proxy record to reconstruct past temperature pat-
terns, that proxy record is indeed reflective of temperature
changes. That is something that typically paleoclimate scientists
first check to make sure that the data they are using are appro-
priate for the task at hand. Of course, we have done that in our
work. I did not see evidence that Soon and colleagues have done
that.
First of all, we next have to synthesize the information. There
have been some misleading statements made here earlier on the
part of the other testifiers with regard to local versus regional or
global climate changes. Of course, we have to assimilate the infor-
mation from the local scale to the larger scales, just as we do with
any global estimate of quantity. So we take the regional informa-
tion; we piece together what the regional patterns of change have
been, which may amount to warming in certain areas and cooling
in other areas. Only when we have reconstructed the true global
or hemispheric regional patterns of change can we actually esti-
mate the northern hemisphere average, for example.
A number of techniques have been developed in the climate re-
search community for performing this kind of estimate. My col-
leagues and I have described various statistical approaches in the
detailed climate literature. Some of the estimates are based on fair-
ly sophisticated techniques. Some of them are based on fairly ele-
mentary techniques. Yet all of the results that have been published
in the mainstream climate research community using different
techniques and different assortments of proxy data have given, as
I showed earlier in my graph, the same basic result within the un-
certainties. That has not changed. An article that appeared last
month in the American Geophysical Union, which is actually the
23
largest professional association of climatologists, showed that in-

deed that is the consensus viewpoint of the climate research com-
munity.
Senator CARPER. Thank you.
Dr. Legates, if I could ask a question of you, please. Have you
or anyone of your colleagues, at the University of Delaware, to your
knowledge studied the historical climate and temperature records
in our part of the country, in Delaware, the Delmarva Peninsula,
or the mid-Atlantic region?
Dr. LEGATES. We do not have anybody on staff presently that
does paleoclimatology. One of the basic understandings that you
must come up with when you study climate is that you must un-
derstand various things of hydroclimatology, physic climatology,
and that includes paleoclimate study. So you must be at least
versed in these things if you are not necessarily a paleoclima-
tologist.
We do have Dr. Brian Hanson at the University of Delaware who
has looked at glacier movements over long time periods, as well as
Dr. Fritz Nelson who has looked at changes associated with perma-
frost locations.
Senator CARPER. If someone were to do a study for our part of
the country, what do you think they might find?
Dr. LEGATES. A study regarding?
Senator CARPER. Historical climate and temperature changes.
Dr. LEGATES. Over the East Coast of the United States? Most of
the assessments indicated that generally the East Coast has gone
through a variety of changes over long time periods. Historically,
we have had a condition where in the 1960s, for example, we had
conditions where there was much more snowfall. We have had a lot
of variability associated with air temperature rising and falling
over the local conditions. Variability is usually the characteristic of
climate over the near-term as well.
Senator CARPER. OK. Dr. Soon, if I could ask you and maybe Dr.
Legates the same question, the following question. That question
is, do you believe that it is possible to emit unlimited amounts of
CO2 into our atmosphere without having any impact on climate or
temperature?
Dr. SOON. I do not know how to precisely answer the question.
If you fill up every single molecule of the air with CO2, that would
be poisonous, of course. I do not know the answer to the question,
but I do like to add about the evidence available on climate change.
Senator CARPER. Before you do that, let me direct, if I could, the
same question to Dr. Legates. I do appreciate your candor. It is not
everyday that we find that here in this hall.
Dr. LEGATES. Generally, what we have found is that as carbon
dioxide has increased, the temperature has followed, where in some
cases historically the temperature has gone up and the carbon diox-
ide has fallen. So generally from a purely physical point of view,
if you do increase the carbon dioxide, you should wind up with
some trapping of gases, and hence wind up with a slightly in-
creased temperature.
The question is, there is a lot of additional feedbacks associated
with it. For example, warmer surface temperature leads to more in-
stability or rising air which leads to more cloudiness. Clouds can
24
warm at night, but also reflect energy in the daylight. So you have
these odd playbacks into the climate system which make it very
difficult to say that if I hold everything else constant and change
one variable, what will happen. Well, in reality, it is impossible to
hold everything constant because it is a very intricate and inter-
woven system that one change does have feedbacks across the en-
tire spectrum.
Senator CARPER. Thanks. I think my time has expired, Mr.
Chairman. Is that correct?
Senator INHOFE. Yes. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Senator INHOFE. We will have another round here. In fact, I will
start off with another round. Lets start with Dr. Legates. Dr.
Legates, was the temperature warmer 4,000 to 7,000 years ago
than it is today?
Dr. LEGATES. My understand was during about 4,000 to 7,000
years ago, in a period referred to as the climatic optimum, which
sort of led to enhanced agriculture and led to development of civili-
zation, generally the idea is that warmer temperatures lead to
more enhanced human activity; colder temperatures tend to in-
hibit. Again, as we get back 4,000 to 7,000 years ago, it becomes,
the error bars are getting wide as well. But the general consensus
is that temperatures were a bit warmer during that time period.
Senator INHOFE. OK. Senator Thomas had something about, he
had alluded to 1940. Yesterday when I was giving my talk and
doing the research for that, it was my understanding that the
amount of CO2 emitted since the 1940s increased by about 80 per-
cent. Yet that precipitated a period of time from about 1940 to 1975
of a cooling-off period. Is that correct?
Dr. LEGATES. That is correct. It is sort of a perplexing issue in
the time series record that from 1940 to 1970 approximately, while
carbon dioxide was in fact increasing, global temperatures appear
to be decreasing.
Senator INHOFE. Dr. Mann, you have I might say impugned the
integrity of your colleagues and a few other people during your
presentation today. The Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associ-
ates did a study as to the effect of regulating CO2 and what would
happen. American consumers would face higher food, medical and
housing costs; for food, an increase of 11 percent; medicine, an in-
crease of 14 percent; and housing, an increase of 7 percent. At the
same time, the average household of four would see its real income
drop by $2,700 in 2010.
Under Kyoto, the energy and electricity prices would nearly dou-
ble and gasoline prices would go up an additional 65 cents a gallon.
I guess I would ask at this point, what is your opinion of the Whar-
ton study?
Dr. MANN. OK. First, I would respectfully take issue with your
statement that I have impugned the integrity of the other two tes-
tifiers here. I have questioned their, and I think rightfully, their
qualifications to state the conclusions that they have stated. I pro-
vided some evidence of that.
Senator INHOFE. Well, illegitimate, inexperienced, nonsense
Dr. MANN. Those are words that I used. Correct.
Senator INHOFE [continuing]. That is a matter of interpretation.
25
Go ahead.
Dr. MANN. I would furthermore point out that the very models
that I have referred to track the actual instrumental warming and
the slight cooling in the northern hemisphere. There was no cooling
of the globe from 1940 to 1970, the northern hemisphere
Senator INHOFE. OK. The question I am asking you is about
WEFA.
Dr. MANN. I am not a specialist in public policy and I do not be-
lieve it would be useful for me to testify on that.
Senator INHOFE. Dr. Legates, have you looked at the report that
Wharton came out with concerning the possible effects, economic
results of this?
Dr. LEGATES. Again, I am not a public policy expert either, and
so the economic impacts are not something which I would be quali-
fied to testify on.
Senator INHOFE. OK, Dr. Legates, do you think you have more
data than Dr. Mann?
Dr. LEGATES. I think we have looked at a large variety of time
series. We have looked at essentially a large body of literature that
existed both prior to Dr. Manns analysis and since Dr. Manns
analysis, in attempting to figure out why his curve does not reflect
the individual observations. It is one issue associated with when
you put together data sets, to make sure that the composite sort
of resembles the individual components.
Senator INHOFE. OK. The timeline, Dr. Mann, is something I
have been concerned with, and those of us up here are listening to
you and listening to all three of you and trying to analyze perhaps
some of the data that you use and the conclusions you came to,
having been 4 or 5 years back, compared to a study that was done
referring to Smithsonian-Harvard, the 1,000-year study that was
just completed, or at least given to us in March of this year. I
would like to have each of you look at the chart up here and just
give us a response as to what you feel in terms of the data that
both sides are using today.
Dr. MANN. I guess you referred to me first?
Senator INHOFE. That is fine. Yes.
Dr. MANN. OK. Well, I think we have pretty much demonstrated
that just about everything there is incorrect. In a peer-reviewed
publication that was again published in the Journal Eos of the
American Geophysical Union about a month ago, that article was
cosigned by 12 of the leading United States and British climatolo-
gists and paleoclimatologists. We are already on record as pretty
much pointing out that there is very little that is valid in any of
the statements in that table. So I think I will just leave it at that.
Senator INHOFE. Do the other two of you agree with that?
Dr. LEGATES. If I may add, the Eos piece was actually not a ref-
ereed article. It is an Eos Forum piece, which by definition is an
opinion piece by scientists for publication in Eos. That is what is
contained on the AGU Web site for Eos Forum.
Senator INHOFE. All right. Let me ask one last question here. Dr.
James Hansen of NASA, considered the father of global warming
theory, said that the Kyoto Protocol will have little affect on global
temperatures in the 21st century. In a rather stunning followup,
Hansen said it would take 30 Kyotos, let me repeat that, 30 Kyotos
26
to reduce warming to an acceptable level. If one Kyoto devastates

the American economy, very much by the findings of Wharton,
what would 30 Kyotos do? Is Dr. Hansen one of the most respected
scientists in your field or is he way off base?
Dr. MANN. Dr. Hansen is certainly one of the most respected sci-
entists in my field and I personally have great scientific respect for
him. I think that his conclusions have been grossly taken out of
context. His point is simply that Kyoto would, and this is his point,
these are not my opinions, would do very little to ameliorate the
warming over the next century for two reasons.
No. 1, there is something that scientists call the commitment to
warming. Once we put CO2 into the atmosphere, it takes many dec-
ades, on orders of decades to maybe centuries for it fully to equili-
brate with the ocean and the atmosphere. So some of that CO2 is
taken up by the ocean. So the effect of it is delayed. So cutting back
on CO2 now may not affect global temperatures for 50 years, but
50 years later it is going to come back to roost.
Senator INHOFE. All right, that was a rather long answer, so let
me just, with the indulgence of my fellow Senators here, I just
want to ask one last question. I quoted Dr. Frederick Seitz, the
past president of the National Academy of Sciences yesterday, and
professor emeritus at Rockefeller University, who compiled an Or-
egon petition which says there is no convincing scientific evidence
that human release of carbon dioxide, methane and other green-
house gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause cata-
strophic heating of the Earths atmosphere and disruption of the
Earths climate.
Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases
in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon
the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. Do each
of the three of you agree or disagree with his statement?
Dr. SOON. I agree.
Dr. MANN. I find little in there to agree with.
Dr. LEGATES. I would tend to agree.
Senator INHOFE. All right.
Senator Jeffords.
Senator JEFFORDS. As you may know, this is to all of you, the
editor-in-chief of the magazine Climate Research resigned the posi-
tion yesterday over problems with Dr. Soons paper. In an e-mail
sent to my staff, he said,
My view, which is shared by many, but not all editors and review editors
of Climate Research, is that the review of the Soon et al paper failed to detect
significant methodological flaws in the paper. The critique published in the Eos
journal by Mann et al is valid. The paper should not have been published in
this forum, not because of the eventual conclusion, but because of the insuffi-
cient evidence to draw this conclusion.
What methodological flaws does he mean?
Dr. Mann.
Dr. MANN. Well, I have tried to outline the most severe of those
methodological flaws. I believe it is the mainstream view of just
about every scientist in my field that I have talked to that there
is little that is valid in that paper. They got just about everything
wrong. They did not select the proxies properly. They did not actu-
ally analyze any data. They did not produce a reconstruction. They
27
did not produce uncertainties in a reconstruction. They did not

compare to the proper baseline of the late-20th century in trying
to make conclusions about modern warmth.
So I think it is the collective view of our entire research commu-
nity that that is one of the most flawed papers that has appeared
in the putative peer-reviewed research in recent years.
Senator JEFFORDS. Dr. Soon, do any scientists besides your co-
authors support using wetness or dryness as indicators of past tem-
peratures, instead of actual temperatures or proxy data that re-
flects temperatures?
Dr. SOON. As we explain clearly in our paper, and as it has been
highly mischaracterized by my fellow colleague here, Dr. Mann, we
certainly agree when we speak in term of the Medieval Warm Pe-
riod, temperature is one of the important parameters. As we em-
phasize and specify in our papers that climate is not temperature
alone. One has to look in terms of the water cycle, in terms of even
the air cycles, in terms of the vegetation changes. These are the
kind of details that we did not make any presumptions, but simply
want to look at the patterns of change geographically all over the
world, and see how complete the datas are, and then begin to start
to see how do we assemble all such information.
Senator JEFFORDS. This is for the whole panel. I would like to
know whether the unusual melting of Greenland ice sheets shown
in this picture over the years 2001, 2002 and 2003, has been
matched in the long-term climate history any other time? And ac-
cording to NASA, by the end of the year 2002 season, the total area
of surface melt in the Greenland ice sheet had broken all known
records. By the end of that summer Sea ice levels in the Arctic
were the lowest in decades and possibly the lowest in several cen-
turies.
NASA says this warming is happening faster and earlier than in
previous periods. What is happening now and what is going to hap-
pen if this continues?
Dr. Mann.
Dr. MANN. Well, this is, of course, one particular region, one po-
tentially isolated region, Greenland, in which there is evidence of
mass oblation of ice. But if we look at what is going on the world
over, mountain glaciers in the tropics throughout the world, gla-
ciers in both the northern hemisphere and the southern hemi-
sphere, what is seen is that glacial retreat during the late 20th
century is unprecedented on similar time scales to the time scales
I have spoken of before, the past 1,000 to 2,000 years.
I believe Professor Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University
has testified in this Senate before with regard to the dramatic evi-
dence of worldwide glacier retreat. So that is a cause for concern.
It is a harbinger of the warming because in fact the warming that
is shown in those glacier retreats is actually warming that we are
already committed to for decades to come.
Dr. LEGATES. Historically, it has been demonstrated in the ref-
ereed literature that much of this glacial retreat actually began in
the late 1800s, before much of the carbon dioxide came into the at-
mosphere. This is very much consistent with the demise of the Lit-
tle Ice Age and longer time-scale variations. Therefore, it is very
difficult to say that these kind of events are directly attributable
28
to human impacts on the climate, when they in fact pre-date

human impacts on the climate.
Senator JEFFORDS. Dr. Soon.
Dr. SOON. My only comment regarding that kind of chart or the
claim that it has never happened before is that to think about the
available, detailed observation that we have. We do not really have
any satellite record longer than 20 to 30 years, so the statement
that it has never happened before I think is dangerously inac-
curate.
Senator JEFFORDS. Dr. Mann.
Dr. MANN. Yes. It is unfortunate to hear comments about the
supposed inconsistencies of the satellite record voiced here, years
after that has pretty much been debunked in the peer-reviewed lit-
erature, in Nature and Science. Both journals have in recent years
published several rigorously peer-reviewed articles indicating that
in fact the original statement that the satellite record showed cool-
ing was flawed because the original author, John Christy, did not
take into account a drift in the orbit of that satellite, which actu-
ally leads to a bias in the temperatures from the satellite.
Christy and colleagues have claimed to have gone back and fixed
that problem, but just about every scientist who has looked at it
says that their fix is not correct. If you fix it correctly, then the sat-
ellite record actually agrees with the surface record, indicating fair-
ly dramatic rates of warming in the past two decades.
Senator JEFFORDS. I have one last question, Dr. Mann. What are
the implications of your peer-reviewed work for future manmade
warming?
Dr. MANN. As I said before, there have been a number of mod-
eling simulations that have shown a fairly good match to our recon-
struction and that of several independent research groups who
have also produced these reconstructions of northern hemisphere
temperature. So to the extent that the models match that record
of the past 1,000 years when they are forced with various estimates
of natural changes in the system, it gives us reason to trust what
the models say about the future. As I testified before, the models
tell us that we are likely to see a one degree to four degree Fahr-
enheit warming by the mid-20th century, given most predicted sce-
narios of continued anthropogenic influence on the climate.
Dr. LEGATES. If I may add something, one of the things I have
heard is that science has been debunked and, for example, we
pointed to Dr. Christys curve up here and said that because one
paper has been written, that curve is now called into question. We
have talked aboutyou mentioned von Storchs resignation from
Climate Research because apparently he has admitted that this
paper never should have been published.
I want to point out that science debate goes on and on. In par-
ticular, Dr. Christy has had some very important contributions to
indicate that his curve is not incorrect. That is part of scientific de-
bate. Furthermore, I will say with respect to Climate Research,
Otto Kinne, who is director of Inter-Research, the parent organiza-
tion of Climate Research, asked Chris de Freitas who was the edi-
tor who served on the Soon and Baliunus papers, and I can relay
this because I am a review editor of Climate Research so I am fa-
miliar with what has been taking place.
29
There were several people complaining that Chris de Freitas

should be removed simply because he published the Soon and
Baliunus paper. That question was brought to Otto Kinne. He
asked for Chris de Freitas to provide him with the reviews, the
changed manuscripts and so forth. He provided a letter in late
June to all of us in which he said,
I have reviewed the evidence and I have indicated that the reviews, four for
each manuscript, in fact there was a second or an earlier Soon and Baliunus
article on another topic that was also called into question by these people lev-
eling charges.
Essentially what he concluded was that the reviewers provided
good and appropriate comments; that Doctors Soon and Baliunus
provided an appropriate dressing or incorporation of these con-
cerns; and that Chris de Freitas had in fact provided analysis ap-
propriately.
Toward that end, Dr. von Storch was approached. Climate Re-
search was putting in an editorial stating essentially this article
should never have been published. Otto Kinne was informed and
he has asked him not to submit that because it is not founded, and
as a result Dr. von Storch, I now understand, has said he would
resign.
Senator JEFFORDS. Dr. Mann.
Dr. MANN. Yes, just a very short comment. It is unprecedented
in my career as a scientist to hear of a publisher of a journal going
in and telling the editor-in-chief that he cannot publish an edi-
torial. I find that shocking and a bit distressing. I do not know
what the circumstances are behind it, but it is disturbing.
Dr. LEGATES. It is also unprecedented to find an editor being at-
tacked, and this has also happened with the editorial staff of En-
ergy and Environment, which is the other paper, to find an editor
attacked for simply publishing an article that has been peer-re-
viewed and approved by reviewers.
Senator INHOFE. All right. The time has expired. We are 4 min-
utes over.
Senator JEFFORDS. I think that my witness should have the last
word on my question, if I could. Dr. Mann, do you have any re-
sponse to that?
Dr. MANN. Actually, my understanding is that Chris de Freitas,
the individual in question, frequently publishes op/ed pieces in
newspapers in New Zealand attacking IPCC and attacking Kyoto
and attacking the work of mainstream climatologists in this area.
So this is a fairly unusual editor that we are talking about.
Senator INHOFE. All right, thank you.
Senator Clinton has joined us. Senator Clinton would you like to
have your round now?
Senator CLINTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank
you for this hearing. I understand that the questioning and the tes-
timony has been somewhat lively, if not controversial and con-
tested. The bottom line for me is whether we are doing what we
need to do to ensure the best possible climatology outcome for fu-
ture generations. I would stipulate that the Earths climate has
changed through the millennia. There is no doubt about that. I
have read enough to know that we have had ice ages and we have
had floods and we have had volcanoes. We have had lots of natu-
30
rally occurring events which have affected our climate. We have El

Nino and his spouse, El Nina. We have all of that. That is not de-
batable.
The issue is whether the introduction and acceleration of anthro-
pogenic activity primarily related to the burning of fossil fuels is
putting into place conditions that will make it difficult, if not im-
possible for the Earth to regain its balance, that will support the
conditions of life that we have inherited and are blessed with.
I know these debates have political implications because heaven
forbid that we would tell somebody in the private sector not to do
something, or that we might have to make sacrifices in the quality
of our life for future generations. I think that it is not useful to
carry out this kind of argumentation when it is clear that by the
very nature of human development and industrialization, we have
changed what is in the atmosphere, what is in the earth, what is
in the waters.
That does not mean there was no change before we came along,
and certainly in the last century that change has accelerated be-
cause the quality of life has improved, we have created chemicals
that were never known in nature before. We have done a lot of
things.
But I think that our goal should be to try to figure out how to
do no harm or do the least amount of harm, and to ask ourselves,
what are we willing to perhaps sacrifice to make sure that we are
not contributing to irreversible changes. I know that academia is
probably the most political environment in America. I was once on
a staff of a law school. It was more difficult than any politics I had
ever been involved in beforehand. I know that people have very
strong opinions and hold on to them.
From my perspective, I just want to believe that I am making a
contribution to ensuring that the quality of life for future genera-
tions is not demonstrably diminished. I would feel terrible if I par-
ticipated, either as a willing actor or a bystander, in this potential
undermining of our Earths sustainability.
So Dr. Mann let me ask you, what was the Earths climate like
the last time that there was atmospheric concentration of carbon
dioxide at todays levels of 370 parts per million?
Dr. MANN. Thank you, Senator, that is an excellent question. We
have to go back fairly far into the past to find CO2 levels approach-
ing the CO2 levels today. Ice core studies that have been done over
the past decade or so have told us that todays CO2 level is unprec-
edented now in at least four glacial or inter-glacial cycles. That is
more than 400,000 years.
In fact, now as we look back from other evidence that is a bit
more tentative, it appears that modern CO2 levels probably have
not been observed in 10 million to 20 million years. So we have to
go back to the time of the dinosaurs, probably, to find CO2 levels
that we know were significantly higher than CO2 levels today.
Some people will say, Well look that was a great time. The di-
nosaurs were roaming near the poles. It was warm near the north
pole. There were palm trees in the poles. Isnt that what we want?
Well, that was a change that occurred on time-scales of tens of mil-
lions of years. What we are observing right now is a similar change
that is occurring on time-scales of decades.
31
Senator CLINTON. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Mann.

Senator INHOFE. Senator Clinton, if you would like to have some
more time, since we are on the second round now, feel free to take
another couple of minutes.
Senator CLINTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I guess that is, for me, the dilemma, because I certainly under-
stand the testimony of the other two witnesses, and I read with
great interest former Secretary Schlesingers op/ed. I know that
there are those, who are in a minority, lets at least admit that,
who are in a minority, but who certainly have a very strongly held
set of beliefs, and I respect that.
But I do believe that the compression of time in which these
changes are occurring is extraordinarily significant. We can go back
and look at the Earths natural 125,000-year cycle, but I do not
think we want to risk the enormous changes that could occur. I do
not think we have a million or 10 million years or even 100,000 to
experiment.
I think that the challenge confronting us is not to put our heads
in the sand and let the academic argument take place, but figure
out how in a sensible, prudent manner we could ameliorate these
changes significantly enough so that if Dr. Soon and Dr. Legates
are right, no harm done. If Dr. Mann is right, we will have saved
ourselves a lot of potential damage and difficulty.
So I hope that we could put our heads together. I commend my
two colleagues, both Senator Jeffords and Senator Carper, who
have very sensible legislative answers to trying to get a handle on
this. As I have said in this committee before, I stand ready to fig-
ure out ways to hold harmless our industrial base and others. I
think it is a significant enough political, economic and moral chal-
lenge that if there are ways to make it financially possible for com-
panies to do what needs to be done with respect to carbon dioxide
and other atmospheric pollutants that have accelerated their pres-
ence in our atmosphere so dramatically in the last 100 years, I
think we should do that.
This is not just a private sector problem. We all have benefited
from the increasing use of fossil fuels, for example. Our standard
of living is dramatically better. One of our problems is what is
going to happen if China and India get a standard of living any-
where comparable to ours, and then begin to reallyand I see Dr.
Soon noddingI mean really dump into the atmosphere untold
amounts of new pollutants of whatever kind, leading certainly with
carbon dioxide.
So this is a problem we need to get ahead of, and it is not a prob-
lem that the United States alone should be responsible for. It is not
a problem that the private sector alone should be responsible for.
But I believe, just as a prior generation of decisionmakers really
put a lot of work into the law of the oceans and trying to figure
out how we could protect our oceans, we need to do the same on
the atmospheric level. There has got to be a way that we can come
together on this big challenge.
So Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your continuing attention to this.
I, for one, stand ready to work with you and our other colleagues
because I just think this is too risky a proposition not to act on,
given the weight of opinion, even with the dissenters, who I think
32
do rightly point out the incredible natural cycle, but we are now
so influencing that natural cycle, I do not know if we have the time
to contemplate the balance once again regaining itself in our won-
derfully regenerating Earth.
Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Clinton.
Senator Carper.
Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I just want to followup.
Senator Clinton was kind in her comments on the legislation, the
one that Senator Jeffords has introduced and second on legislation
I have introduced along with Senators Judd Gregg, Lincoln Chafee
and Lamar Alexander.
Are any of you familiar with that legislation? Would you like to
become familiar over the next 5 minutes?
[Laughter.]
Dr. SOON. No, we will stick to science. Politics is too complicated.
Senator CARPER. All right. That may be the best approach.
We are trying to figure out if there is a reasonable middle ground
on this issue. I am part of a group that Buddy MacKay, a former
colleague of mine from Florida, calls the flaming moderates or
flaming centrists. We can spend a whole lot of time discussing the
impact of Kyoto caps, or we can focus on what steps we actually
need to take.
The approach that Senators Gregg and Chafee and Alexander
and myself have taken, at least with respect to four pollutants, we
say unlike the Presidents proposal where he only addresses sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxide and mercury, and does not address CO2,
as you know, because he thinks we need to study it a bit more. Our
approach says that there ought to be caps on CO2; that they should
be phased in; that we should use a cap and trade system; we
should give utilities the opportunity to buy credit for levels of CO2
emissions that they maintain at high levels; and they should be
able to contract with, among others, farmers and those who would
be forced out of lands to change their planning patterns or change
their animal feedlot operations in order to be able to sequester
some of the CO2 that occurs in our planet.
We have something called new source review. The President
would eliminate it entirely. I think in Senator Jeffords approach,
it is pretty much left alone. There is a good argument that says
that utilities under current law, if they make some kind of minor
adjustment and minor investment in their plant, that they have to
make a huge investment with respect to the environmental con-
trols. As a result, it keeps them from making even common sense
kinds of investments in their plantssort of the laws of unin-
tended consequences. That is sort of the approach that we have
taken.
Now that you know all about it, if you were in our shoes, what
kind of an approach would you take? Let me just start with our
University of Delaware colleague here, Dr. Legates.
Dr. LEGATES. Generally, I favor no regrets policies, where they
have other applications as well. But again, getting into the politics
and the non-science aspects of what to do is out of my area of ex-
pertise. I may have my own beliefs, but they are no more important
or less important than the average person. I would rather not tes-
tify to those here.
33
Senator CARPER. If you were convinced, and some of my col-

leagues have heard me talk about Dr. Thompson before, I dont
know that they testified before this committee, but Doctors Knoll
and Thompson spend their lives going around the world and they
chart the disappearance of snow caps in some of the tallest moun-
tains. I first met them here in Delaware about 5 or 6 years ago to
receive an award for their research.
But they tell us that the snow caps around some of the tallest
mountains in the world, the Himalayas and others, are not just dis-
appearing, they will be gone, and they will be gone in our lifetime.
When I heard them speak and talk about their work and what they
were charting and finding, it got my attention. When you hear
that, Dr. Legates and Dr. Soon, how does it affect you?
Dr. SOON. As a scientist, I am still questioning the actual evi-
dence. The fact is that meltings may be recorded for certain gla-
ciers. But among the things that we know is that there are about
160,000 glaciers around the Earth, but only 40 to 50 glaciers have
been measured for 10 years or longer to tell us how much the ice
has accumulated or has ablated.
Some of the specific melting examples, like Kilimanjaro, that Dr.
Lonnie Thompson has looked at, or some places in Peru may be
true. But the quality of the data records is really telling us that
we do not have enough strong evidence to suggest that all the ice
will disappear quickly and completely, or that all of it is unprece-
dented. Climate change is part of nature. As I tried to emphasize
in my research by looking carefully into all the climate proxies,
there are large local swings in the climatic changes.
Senator CARPER. Dr. Soon, what would it take to convince you
that this is a problem we need to deal with?
Dr. SOON. As to some of the glaciers disappearing now in some
parts of the mountains, I do not consider that to be either a prob-
lem or strong evidence
Senator CARPER. No, no, the big issue. What would it take with
respect to the concerns about global warming fed by CO2 accumula-
tion, what would it take to convince you that this is a problem we
need to do something about?
Dr. SOON. OK. Scientifically, I would go by this very simple test.
The simple test should be that the warming should be occurring
first at the troposphere, the layer of air about four kilometers
above us. That is a key part of the atmosphere that one should ex-
pect the CO2 greenhouse effect to work its way downward toward
the surface. I would urge, of course, very seriously that we do not
lose sight in all these debates about science, we must sustain a cer-
tain kind of level of observational effort to keep track of data so
that while we are arguing around what to do, that one has some
records about any level of change that may occur.
So what it would take is that the CO2 warming should happen
at the layer of air four kilometers first. I would require it be
strongly sustained for maybe 20 years or so. Then I would really
believe that we have clear CO2 fingerprints somewhere.
Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired.
Could I just ask that same question of Dr. Legates? What would
it take to convince you?
34
Dr. LEGATES. Proof. Generally the problem we have seen in the

record is that there is an awful lot of variability and there are
things where changes occur, for example, between 1940 and 1970
where the temperature decreased, even though carbon dioxide was
increasing. That sort of indicates to me that carbon dioxide may
not be the biggest player in the game. Solar variability is likely to
be the bigger player, changes in solar output. After all, if the sun
goes out, our temperature drops considerably. We know historically
that as the sun fluctuates in terms of its output, the climate does
respond.
So there are a lot of other factors involved and I am not entirely
convinced, based upon the proof, that carbon dioxide is a driving
force. It is a contributory force in a small case, but not driving
enough, because we wind up making policies potentially that can
lead us to try to keep back the ocean, if you will. You cannot stop
the waves from coming in.
Senator CARPER. Dr. Mann.
Dr. MANN. Two quick points. First of all, it grates on me to hear
this argument about cooling from 1940 to 1970 continually cited
here as evidence against anthropogenic climate change. That cool-
ing was almost certainly anthropogenic and there has been a dec-
ade of research demonstrating that, anthropogenic sulphate
aerosols, which have a cooling effect on the climate. What is hap-
pening now is that the much greater effect of increasing green-
house gas concentrations is overtaking that small cooling effect of
sulphate aerosols, also an anthropogenic influence, but not the one
that is going to take us to doubled levels of CO2 in the next cen-
tury.
One quick other comment, if I could. Lonnie Thompsons work,
which is some of the best work in our field, it is not like he has
been looking for ice cores that are melting. He is actually looking
for ice cores that are not melting because he wants to get long
records. So if there is any belief that there might be some bias in
the glaciers that he has gone to, if anything it is the opposite. He
is looking for long records, so that makes it that much more im-
pressive that they are all melting.
Senator INHOFE. Senator Allard.
Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What agency do you think we probably have the most expertise
in as far as climatology change and what is happening with global
climate? Would that be the agency on the National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric Science, would that probably be where we would
have most of our experts? If not, which agency do you think we
would have most of our experts as far as the government is con-
cerned? To any member of the panel, I would like to know whether
any of you concur or not.
Dr. MANN. Well, I think that the different agencies specialize in
different areas of the climate change research question, if you will.
NOAAs specialty is in looking at climate variability, particularly
with regard to oceanic variability. So they emphasize that area of
the research. A lot of the peer-reviewed research, for example Lon-
nie Thompsons work that we just spoke of, is funded by the Na-
35
tional Science Foundation in large part. There are other organiza-

tions.
Senator ALLARD. The Foundation, is that an agency of the Fed-
eral Government?
Dr. MANN. Well, not directly.
Senator ALLARD. The question is, what is an agency of the Fed-
eral Government? The only one that I could think of was NOAA,
but are there other agencies?
Dr. LEGATES. NASA does a lot of research, satellite-related ef-
forts trying to estimate climate trends, incorporating satellite
measurements as well.
Dr. MANN. As well as the Department of Energy and EPA.
Senator ALLARD. Yes, the Department of Energy.
Dr. LEGATES. The Department of Interior as well.
Senator ALLARD. OK. But we do not have any, say, each agency
would have their own area of interest, but it seems to me that we
need to look at global warming from a total perspective and I am
trying to figure out if there is an agency that does that. I have
talked to people within NOAA. There are arguments going on with-
in that agency on the very topic that we are talking about here.
There is absolutely no consensus within the agency, and I am try-
ing to figure out if there is an agency out here that is taking on
an overall view. I guess really there is not. We are just going to
have to rely on the science community somehow or the other pull-
ing all these views out from these various agencies. They look at
the atmosphere, like you say, NASA looks at the stratosphere and
higher up where your satellites are.
Dr. LEGATES. On the surface, too.
Senator ALLARD. We need somebody that looks at the effect on
plant life, animal life, the total cycle; oxygen, CO2 and all that be-
fore you reach conclusions. I am just wondering who pulls all this
together so that we can come up with a total picture of what is
happening as far as changes to this Earth is concerned, because it
is more than just one science.
Dr. Mann.
Dr. MANN. There is a program, the U.S. Global Change Research
Program, which seeks to coordinate the various agencies on issues
of fundamental importance in the research of climate variability
and climate change. So I think that is their role.
Senator ALLARD. OK. I want to get back a little bit to the absorp-
tion of sunlight, for example, on the Earths surface. It seems to
me, and I dont know how accurate this is. I want to check this out
because it has been suggested to me by a number of people, that
our absorptive surface on the Earth has increased. We still have
the same amount of surface, but for example you have pavement
in urban areas. We know that pavement is absorptive. Has that
had an impact on global warming?
Dr. MANN. Most definitely.
Senator ALLARD. In your view?
Dr. MANN. Yes, your statement is correct. The main increase in
the absorption by the Earths surface is due to the melting of snow
and ice. That has certainly had a very large influence on the warm-
ing, but it is part of the warming.
36
Senator ALLARD. So you do not think the construction ofwe

have more pavement than we did two centuries ago or a century
ago.
Dr. MANN. Most models suggest that that is a cooling.
Senator ALLARD. Is there enough of that that we have more
fields probably because of agriculture throughout the world, just
not the United States. This is all over the world.
Dr. MANN. Yes. Most estimates suggest that there is a small cool-
ing of the Earths surface due to those changes.
Senator ALLARD. Would you all agree to that?
Dr. LEGATES. The pavements are associated with the urbaniza-
tion effect, which is part of the problem associated with where we
have observational measurements. Generally where you have a de-
crease in the light and heat exchange that is evaporation of water
taking place because we have removed trees; the fact that you have
darker surfaces; you have canyon-like effects. All of these lead to
warmer temperatures in the city. The urban heat ion effect is well-
documented and that is where virtually all of our observations are
located.
But there are also changes in land surface effects by the fact that
we are removing vegetation and replacing it with grasslands, for
example, deforestation, de-vegetation. A lot of these are on very
large-scales too, and they do change the color and character of the
Earths surface and hence the absorptive characteristic.
A lot of the cryosphere, a lot of the ice and snow is temporally
variable. We have a growing area and decreasing area, so that does
integrate itself out over time to some extent.
Senator ALLARD. Does the absorptive surface of the Earths sur-
face have an impact on whether we have a warmer temperature or
not today?
Dr. LEGATES. Yes, absolutely.
Dr. SOON. Oh certainly, yes.
Senator ALLARD. I am a little bit confused of what the final view
is. Do we increase temperature or do we cool the temperature?
Dr. MANN. Can I comment?
Senator ALLARD. Yes. You said that it cooled.
Dr. MANN. Yes, the effects that
Senator ALLARD. OK, now, I would like to hear from
Dr. Mann [continuing]. That is not the whole story. What he said
is correct, but the effect that is dominant in models in about three
or four different studies published in the past 2 years on precisely
this question is actually the change in absorption by the land sur-
face due to deforestation and other agricultural changes. That leads
to an overall cooling of the globe, even in the face of other possible
effects of warming.
Senator ALLARD. Would you agree with that?
Dr. LEGATES. Not necessarily. In particular, you are changing a
characteristic, but you are also changing the other interactions.
You are changing the vegetation and you are changing the evapo-
rative characteristics.
Senator ALLARD. But your bottom line is that you think that,
with increased absorptive rate on the Earths surface, it has a cool-
ing or a warming effect?
37
Dr. LEGATES. If you increase the absorption rate on the Earths

surface, you will have to have a net warming effect.
Dr. SOON. You have to have a warming.
Senator ALLARD. You have a warming.
I mean, to me this is a fairly fundamental concept, and here we
are, we have disagreement at this table about that.
Dr. SOON. I dont think Dr. Mann is listening to your question.
Senator ALLARD. To me, from my practical experience, it seems
to me that there is a warming effect. When I walk out on a pave-
ment with my bare feet, they get burnt. If I walk on grass, my feet
feel a lot cooler. I just look at it from a practical aspect. So Dr.
Mann, would you explain to me why there is a difference in what
you say and what I am feeling physically when I walk on the sur-
face of the Earth?
Dr. MANN. Sure. When you are walking, you are only covering
a pretty small fraction of the surface area of the Earth. The effect
that you are talking about, for example, the urban heat island ef-
fect of blacktop and its tendency to absorb heat, that is over-
whelmed by larger-scale changes that we do not necessarily see be-
cause they are not where we are walking around. Large areas of
the surface area of the Earth are being changed in terms of their
vegetation characteristics. That has a net cooling. The answer on
that is clear in the peer-reviewed research.
Senator ALLARD. The reason I bring this up is that in the State
of Colorado we have a lot of variation. We go from 3,000 to over
14,000 feet and we have a lot of different ecological systems in Col-
orado, depending on altitude and moisture and everything.
We have a weather reporting station in a rural area, in the
plains of Colorado, and the data that I am getting from them, there
is no indication of change as far as temperature is concerned. Yet
as we move into the more urban areas, then we get weather sta-
tions that are indicating a higher temperature. So I am wondering
worldwide, with the urbanization of the world, is there a possibility
that we could be dealing with some temperature changes that are
a result of the absorptive surface on the Earth like urbanization,
you mentioned urbanization, we have a lot more than we used to
have. Doesnt this have an impact on temperature?
Dr. LEGATES. Yes, definitely. Essentially, I do not think Dr.
Mann answered the question appropriately in that your basic ques-
tion was, if we absorb more radiation at the surface, will the tem-
perature not go up? That is correct. The temperature will go up.
In a sense, that is physics.
Senator ALLARD. Would you agree with that, Dr. Mann?
Dr. MANN. No. He has gotten about three different things wrong
here.
Senator ALLARD. No, listen.
Dr. MANN. His first statement is wrong.
Senator ALLARD. I understand your statement. You are taking a
broader atmospheric picture. You are taking a total picture. But
the statement he made at this point, would you agree with that?
Dr. MANN. No. It is not correct.
Senator ALLARD. You would not agree?
38
Dr. MANN. The statement that he made was that there is an

urban heat bias in the estimate of the surface temperature changes
of the Earth.
Senator ALLARD. I did not hear him say that.
Dr. MANN. He said that earlier when he talked about urban heat
bias.
Senator ALLARD. I am talking about the comment that he just
made. Would you repeat the comment, Dr. Legates?
Dr. LEGATES. I essentially said the basic physics is that if you
make the Earths surface darker, you will absorb more energy, you
will reflect less energy, as a result the surface temperature should
increase.
Senator ALLARD. Would you agree with that scientific fact?
Dr. MANN. That statement would be in the first chapter of most
textbooks. Yes.
Senator ALLARD. Dr. Soon, I did not mean to ignore you. You
wanted to say something?
Dr. SOON. I tried to just emphasize that that is all you are ask-
ing.
Senator ALLARD. Yes.
Dr. SOON. If you increase absorptivity of the surfaces by chang-
ing it through any means, then more heat will be retained.
Senator ALLARD. I think part of the problem that we are running
into here on the testimony is that we are not talking on the same
terms. I think that we have to be very careful when we review the
record and when we are listening to the witnesses here, Mr. Chair-
man, that we understand that we are all talking on the same terms
in making the same point. I think the committee gets confused
when we start talking from different terms and different perspec-
tives.
I am just trying to simplify this argument down. I guess what
I am coming to is that, as I have stated earlier, it is easy for me
to believe that there is a trend in warming. The bottom line is
what is causing it and what is going to be the long-term effects
with this.
To me, the science is not entirely clear on that, and I do not see
that that is being entirely clear on this panel because when I asked
that question earlier, nobody gave me a specific on what they saw
the effects were going to be. Maybe Dr. Mann did, and said that
there was going to be warming. But most scientists when I talk to
them just wont give me what they think the Earth is going to look
like 1,000 years from now, or they will not necessarily step right
out and say what are the causes of it because there are an awful
lot of variables. I am not sure that scientists understand all those
variables.
Dr. LEGATES. I think that is the issue. It is so uncertain and
there are so many things that go into the mix, that to say fairly
definitively it will be such in the future is very difficult to say.
Dr. SOON. We have to keep emphasizing that CO2 is not the only
player, the only factor. It is just highly short-sighted to just look
at CO2 as just one sole cause of change for every other change that
we see or any variations that we manage to record.
Senator ALLARD. Yes. And when we talk about greenhouse gases,
I think there is a tendency for us to think just in terms of CO2.
39
Dr. SOON. Right.

Senator ALLARD. But isnt water vapor? Water vapor is a big part
of greenhouse gases.
Dr. SOON. That would be the area of expertise by Professor David
Legates. He studied that for almost 20 years.
Senator ALLARD. I do not know as we understand all of the as-
pects of each one of those fractionated, if we were to pull out each
CO2 or put out water vapor. What other gases do we have out
there? Those are the main ones.
Dr. MANN. The other two have commented. May I comment as
well?
Senator ALLARD. Let me finish my point. What are the green-
house gases that we have?
Dr. MANN. I will speak to that.
Dr. SOON. Methane.
Senator ALLARD. Oh, methane. OK. We have methane. But the
main ones are water vapor and CO2. Water vapor being the largest,
right?
Dr. SOON. Yes.
Dr. MANN. Can I comment on that?
Senator ALLARD. Dr. Mann.
Dr. MANN. Yes. There are trace gases like methane, carbon diox-
ide, chlorofluorocarbons, which we can actually control.
Senator ALLARD. Well, carbon dioxide is a very small part of
greenhouse gases? Is that what you are saying?
Dr. MANN. No. There are several different greenhouse gases that
we have to keep in mind, and it would be short-sighted to only talk
about carbon dioxide. That is absolutely true.
Senator ALLARD. Right.
Dr. MANN. It is extremely misleading, however, when scientists
cite the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas. The concentration
of water vapor in the atmosphere cannot be controlled by us di-
rectly, unlike the other trace gases. It is fixed by the surface tem-
perature of the Earth itself. This is actually another chapter one
textbook-type of result that we know to be true in the scientific
community.
So we cannot change that freely. We can only change the other
trace gases. When we do change those, we warm the Earth. We
evaporate more water vapor and that gives us what we call a posi-
tive feedback that actually exaggerates the problem. But the water
vapor itself cannot be the source of the problem.
Dr. SOON. It is really also scientifically inaccurate to say that we
can really control CO2. The global carbon cyclewe do not under-
stand it well enough to really match or account for the CO2 that
we emitted. How much of it is really going into the ocean? How
much of it has really gone into the forest? We do not have actually
a full control of those parameters, as Dr. Mann would like to state
on the record.
Senator ALLARD. Dr. Legates, do you have any comment?
Dr. LEGATES. Generally, the idea is that water vapor is the most
important greenhouse gas. Period. That is Chapter One of any in-
troductory text. The issue is, then, if we are associating with the
effects of carbon dioxide and methane, which by the way has actu-
ally started to decrease over time, what we have found out is that
40
in particular we are dealing with with small matters where the

bigger issues are not controllable.
Again, the sun is the biggest game in town and it is not control-
lable. At least I do not know that we can turn off the sun or control
its output.
Senator ALLARD. OK. Senator Carper I think has a few ques-
tions.
Senator INHOFE. We have a serious problem here now, I am sorry
to say, and that is that we are 30 minutes past our first panel and
we are going to have to cut it off right now.
Senator ALLARD. OK, Mr. Chairman.
Senator INHOFE. I am very, very sorry. Thank you very much. I
appreciate the fact that you are here.
We would call our next panel up. I apologize to the next panel
because of the length of the first panel, we will have to cut this one
short.
Dr. Leonard Levin is the program manager, Electric Power Re-
search Institute; Dr. Gary Myers, professor of neurology and pedi-
atrics, University of Rochester Medical Center; and Dr. Deborah
Rice, the toxicologist, Maine Department of Environmental Protec-
tion, Bureau of Remediation and Waste Management.
I would like to ask each of you to confine your opening comments
to 5 minutes, if you would. Your entire statement will be made a
part of the record. We would start, Dr. Levin, with you.
STATEMENT OF LEONARD LEVIN, PROGRAM MANAGER,
ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Dr. LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the com-
mittee.
I am Dr. Leonard Levin. I have come to discuss recent findings
on mercury in the human environment. I serve as technical leader
at EPRI, which is a nonprofit collaborative research organization.
My remarks today represent my synthesis of research findings and
are not an official statement of EPRI position.
It is a privilege to provide the committee this testimony on the
science of mercury. I would like to address three key questions:
sources of mercury; its deposition from the atmosphere to the
Earths surface; its potential accumulation in fish.
Where does mercury in the U.S. environment originate? Mercury
is clearly a global issue. Recent estimates are that 2,340 tons of in-
dustry-related mercury are emitted globally. Over half of these
originated from Asian sources. Of the global total, the United
States is estimated to emit roughly 166 tons in total; U.S. utilities
about 46 tons. In addition, it is estimated that another 1,300 tons
of mercury emanates from land-based natural sources around the
globe, and another 1,100 or so tons comes from the worlds oceans.
Recent findings from the joint United States and Canadian
METAALICUS field experiment show that a fairly small amount of
deposited mercury, no more than 20 percent or so, re-admits to the
atmosphere, even over a 2-year period. The implications are that
mercury may be less mobile in the environment than we previously
thought.
Studies by EPRI have shown that much of the mercury depos-
iting in the United States may originate on other continents. Model
41
results show that for three-quarters of the continental U.S. land

area, more than 60 percent of the mercury received comes from
outside the country. Only 8 percent of U.S. territory receives two-
thirds or more of its mercury from U.S. sources.
To check this with data, aircraft measurements were carried out
by EPRI and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in
Boulder, Colorado. Mercury and winds from the Shanghai, China
region were tracked over the Pacific for 400 miles toward the
United States. A second set of flights from Monterey, CA found
that same plume from China crossing the California coast and en-
tering U.S. territory. One implication is that there may be a man-
agement floor for U.S. mercury, a level below which the amount of
mercury depositing to the surface cannot be reduced by domestic
action alone.
Second, what are the primary sources of mercury in fish in the
environment? Global mercury emissions appear to have peaked in
the 1980s and declined or held steady since then. Professor Fran-
cois Morel of Princeton University, and colleagues, recently ana-
lyzed specific tuna for mercury, comparing recent catches with
those from the 1970s. Despite changes in mercury emissions over
those 30 years, mercury levels in tuna did not change between the
samples. One conclusion they reached is that the mercury in such
marine fish is not coming from emission sources on land, but from
natural submarine sources of mercury. Again, this implies there
may be a management floor for mercury in marine fish, which
make up most of the U.S. fish diet.
Third, how can potential mercury reductions change mercury
deposition? EPRI recently completed work to assess what might
ensue in the atmosphere and in U.S. fish if further mercury emis-
sion reductions are carried out in the United States. The approach
linked models of atmospheric mercury chemistry and physics with
Federal data on mercury in fish in the U.S. diet, along with a
model of costs that would be needed to attain a given reduction
level. There are currently about 179 tons of mercury depositing
each year in the United States from all sources, global and domes-
tic. Current U.S. utility emissions of mercury are about 46 tons per
year.
EPRI examined one proposed management scenario that cut
these utility emissions from 46 tons to 25 tons per year. The anal-
ysis showed that this emissions cut of 47 percent resulted in an av-
erage 3 percent decline in mercury deposition in the United States.
Some isolated locations making up less than one one-hundredth of
the U.S. land area experienced drops of up to 30 percent. The eco-
nomic model showed that costs to attain these lower levels would
be between $2 billion and $5 billion per year for 12 years. This
demonstrated U.S. mercury patterns may be relatively insensitive
to the effects of this single category of sources.
In addition, most of the fish consumed in the United States are
ocean fish which would be only slightly impacted by a reduction of
24 tons of mercury per year solely in the United States, out of
2,300 tons globally. Wild freshwater fish within the United States
might show a greater reduction in mercury content, but they make
up a very small part of the U.S. diet, compared to ocean or farm-
raised fish.
42
These deposition changes were translated into how much less

mercury might enter the U.S. diet via these three categories of fish.
We found that less than one-tenth of 1 percent fewer children
would be born at-risk due to their mothers taking in mercury at
lower levels from fish consumed in the diet.
So to summarize, a drop of nearly half in utility mercury emis-
sions resulted in an average drop of 3 percent in mercury depos-
iting to the ground, and a drop of less than one-tenth of a percent
in the number of children at risk. These recent findings are a small
part of the massive international research effort to understand
mercury and its impacts. EPRI and others, including U.S. EPA and
the Department of Energy, are jointly racing to clarify the complex
interactions of mercury with natural systems, an important part of
its cycling, and its impacts on human health. With improved un-
derstanding, informed decisions can be made on the best ways to
manage mercury.
Thank you for this opportunity to deliver these comments to the
committee.
Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Dr. Levin.
Dr. Rice.
STATEMENT OF DEBORAH C. RICE, TOXICOLOGIST, BUREAU
OF REMEDIATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT, MAINE DE-
PARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Dr. RICE. I would like to thank the committee for this oppor-
tunity to present information on the adverse health consequences
of exposure to methyl-mercury in the United States.
I am a neurotoxicologist who has worked on the neurotoxicity of
methyl-mercury for over two decades and have published over 100
papers on the neurotoxicity of environmental chemicals. Until 3
months ago, I was a senior toxicologist at the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. I am a coauthor of the document that reviewed the
scientific evidence on the health effects of methyl-mercury for EPA.
This document included the derivation of the acceptable daily in-
take level for methyl-mercury.
I would like to focus on four points. No. 1, there is unequivocal
evidence that methyl-mercury harms the developing human brain.
No. 2, EPA used analyses of three large studies in its derivation
of an acceptable daily intake, including the studies in the
Seychelles Islands which found no adverse effects. No. 3, 8 percent
of women of childbearing age have levels of methyl-mercury in
their bodies above this acceptable level, and studies have docu-
mented cardiovascular disease in men at low levels of methyl-mer-
cury, suggesting that an additional potentially large segment of the
population is at risk.
Studies performed around the world have documented harmful
effects of environmental methyl-mercury exposure on childrens
mental development. Three major studies were analyzed by the Na-
tional Research Council panel in their expert review: In the Faroe
Islands in the North Atlantic, and the Seychelles Islands in the In-
dian Ocean, and in New Zealand. Two of these major studies, as
well as six smaller studies, identified impairment associated with
methyl-mercury exposure. The Seychelles Island study is anoma-
lous in finding no effects. Adverse effects include decreased IQ and
43
deficits in memory, language processing, attention and fine motor

coordination.
The NRC modeled the relationship between the amount of meth-
yl-mercury in the mothers body and the performance of the child,
and calculated the level associated with the doubling of the number
of children that would perform in the abnormally low range. The
NRC panel did this for each study separately and for all of the
three studies combined, including the negative Seychelles study.
EPA used the NRC analyses in deriving its acceptable daily in-
take level of methyl-mercury. EPA performed the relevant calcula-
tions based on each of the two positive studies, as well as the inte-
grative analysis of all three studies. The acceptable level is the
same whether it is based on the integrative analysis of all three
studies, or on the Faroe Islands study alone.
The acceptable level would be lower if only the New Zealand
study were considered. Only if the negative Seychelles study alone
were used, while ignoring the values calculated for the Faroe Is-
lands and New Zealand studies, would the acceptable intake level
be higher than the current value. EPA believed that to do so would
be scientifically unsound and would provide insufficient protection
to Americans.
Data from a survey representing the U.S. population collected
over the last 2 years revealed that about 8 percent of women of
childbearing age had blood concentration of methyl-mercury above
the level that EPA believes is safe. This translates into over
300,000 newborns at risk for adverse effects on intelligence and
memory, ability to pay attention, language skills and other abilities
that are required to be successful in our highly technological soci-
ety.
There is an additional concern regarding the potential for harm
as a result of environmental methyl-mercury exposure. Three stud-
ies found a relationship between increased methyl-mercury levels
and atherosclerosis, heart attacks and death, and it is unknown
whether there is a level of mercury that will not produce harm. It
is important to understand that the cardiovascular effects associ-
ated with methyl-mercury may put an additional very large portion
of the population at risk.
In summary, there are four points that I would like the com-
mittee to keep in mind. First, at least eight studies based on popu-
lations around the globe found an association between methyl-mer-
cury levels and impaired neuropsychological function in children.
The Seychelles Islands study is anomalous in finding no effects.
Second, both the NRC and the EPA included the Seychelles Islands
study in their analysis. The only way that the acceptable intake of
methyl-mercury could be higher would be to ignore the two major
positive studies, as well as six smaller studies and rely solely on
the one study that showed no effects.
Third, there is a substantial percentage of women of reproductive
age in the United States with levels of methyl-mercury in their
bodies above what EPA considers safe. As a result, over 300,000
newborns each year are exposed to potentially harmful levels of
methyl-mercury. Fourth, increased exposure to methyl-mercury
may result in cardiovascular disease and even death in men from
44
heart attack, suggesting an additional large segment of the popu-

lation is at risk.
Additional information has been provided to the committee.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Dr. Rice.
Dr. Myers.
STATEMENT OF GARY MYERS, PROFESSOR OF NEUROLOGY
AND PEDIATRICS, DEPARTMENT OF NEUROLOGY, UNIVER-
SITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER
Dr. MYERS. Thank you for the opportunity to present the views
of our research group on the health effects of methyl-mercury expo-
sure. My name is Gary Myers. I am a pediatric neurologist and a
professor at the University of Rochester in New York, and just one
member of a large international team that has been studying the
human health effects of methyl-mercury for nearly 30 years. For 20
of those years, our group has specifically studied the effects of pre-
natal methyl-mercury exposure.
In 1971 and 1972, there was an epidemic of methyl-mercury poi-
soning in Iraq. The source of exposure, unlike in Japan, was mater-
nal consumption of sea grain coated with a methyl-mercury fun-
gicide. We looked at a number of children in that study and meas-
ured the exposure of the fetus using the maternal hair as the bio-
marker. It is the only biomarker that has been correlated with
brain levels. We concluded that there was a possibility that expo-
sure as low as 10 parts per million in maternal hair might be asso-
ciated with adverse effects on the fetus. This value is over 10 times
the average in the United States and five times the average in
Japan, but individuals consuming large quantities of fish can easily
achieve this level.
The hypothesis of our study in the Seychelles was that methyl-
mercury from fish consumption might affect child development. In
fact, we all thought it would. Since millions of people around the
world consume fish as their primary source of protein, we thought
it was only reasonable to investigate the question directly. We se-
lected the Seychelles because of two reasons. First, they eat large
amounts of fish. The average mother eats 10 times as much as
women here in the United States.
Second, the fish in Seychelles has an average mercury content of
about 0.3 parts per million, which is approximately the same as
commercial fish here in the United States. The Seychelles study is
a collaborative study which was begun under the auspices of the
WHO and has been carried out by a U.S.-led team of international
researchers from the University of Rochester, Cornell University
and the Ministries of Health and Education in Seychelles. The
funding has come from the National Institutes of Environmental
Health Sciences, with some minor funding from the Food and Drug
Administration and the governments of Seychelles and Sweden.
The Seychelles was chosen for a number of reasons, primarily be-
cause there was no overt mercury pollution and many of the factors
that complicate epidemiological studies of low-level exposures were
simply not present. There was universal free and readily available
health care in Seychelles. Prenatal care is nearly 100 percent. The
birthrate is high and the general health of the mothers and chil-
45
dren is very good. In addition, education is free, universal, and it

starts at age 312.
Before starting the study, we carefully controlled for a number
of things. To minimize the possibility of bias, a number of decisions
were made. First, no one in Seychelles, including any of the re-
searchers who visit the island, would know the level of exposure of
any child or mother unless our results indicated that children were
indeed at risk. Second, because of the known problems with devel-
opmental delay in certain disorders, those children would be ex-
cluded from the study. Third, the tests administered would include
all of the tests that have been used in other studies, plus other
things that we thought might detect subtle changes.
Fourth, we would do this testing at specific age windows. Fifth,
we would adjust for multiple confounding factors, things that are
actually known to affect child development such as socioeconomic
status, the mothers intelligence, and birth weight. And sixth, we
established a data analysis plan before the data were collected to
minimize the possibility that the data would just be repeatedly
analyzed until the anticipated effect was in fact determined.
We have now carried out five evaluations of the children over 9
years. The study has focused on prenatal exposure. The exposure
of both mothers and children has been in the range of concern,
from 1 to 27 parts per million. We have done extensive testing with
over 57 primary endpoints determined so far. The study has found
three statistical associations with prenatal methyl-mercury expo-
sure. One was adverse; one was beneficial; and one was indetermi-
nate. These results might be expected to occur by chance and do
not support the hypothesis that adverse developmental effects re-
sult from prenatal methyl-mercury exposure in the range com-
monly achieved by consuming large amounts of fish.
The findings from our research have been published in the
worlds leading medical journals, including the Journal of the
American Medical Association, the Lancet, and a soon-to-be-pub-
lished review in the New England Journal of Medicine. We do not
believe that there is presently good scientific evidence that mod-
erate fish consumption is harmful to the fetus. In the words of Dr.
Lyketsos, a distinguished researcher from Johns Hopkins, who
wrote the editorial with our Lancet articles:
On balance, the evidence suggests that methyl-mercury exposure from fish
consumption during pregnancy of the levels seen in most parts of the world does
not have measurable cognitive or behavioral effects in later childhood. However,
fish is an important source of protein in many countries and large numbers of
mothers around the world rely on fish for proper nutrition. Good maternal nu-
trition is essential to the babys health.
Thank you.
Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Dr. Myers.
We are going to try to adhere to a 5-minute round of questioning.
Let me just share with you, which I think you already know, you
folks are looking at the medical effects of mercury. We also up here
have to consider the economic effectsthe problems that are out
there. Right now on the Senate floor, they are debating the energy
bill. We have an energy crisis in this country, and if cofire should
go out, and that could happen from either CO2 or mercury, it would
be a very serious crisis. I think anticipating that this will happen,
46
several people have moved off-shore, moved to other places. So that

is something that is really, I guess you would say our major, at
least one of my major concerns.
Now, just for all of the witnesses, you stated that the U.S. utility
mercury emissions are 46 tons a year. Tell us what happens to this
mercury. Help us visualize where does it come from; where does it
go; how much is deposited in the United States; how does this com-
pare with the amount that is deposited in the United States from
global sources.
Would you like to start, Dr. Rice?
Dr. RICE. That is really not my area of expertise, so I cannot
speak to it.
Senator INHOFE. All right.
Dr. Myers.
Dr. MYERS. It is not my area of expertise.
Senator INHOFE. Come on, Dr. Levin.
Dr. LEVIN. All right.
[Laughter.]
Dr. LEVIN. Utility mercury of the various sources of mercury is
probably the best-studied category, partially because there are
more individual sources than there are of many of the other cat-
egories. We believe that roughly half on average coming out from
utilities is made up of the divalent form of mercury, which is about
a million times or so more soluble in water than the elemental
form, which is the silvery liquid that you probably remember from
high school chemistry. So of this mercury emitting from all utilities
in the United States, roughly half of it is more highly water soluble
and the other half will tend to go into regional and global circula-
tion.
We calculate that about 70 percent or so of the mercury emitted
from utilities leaves the United States, and the other 30 percent or
so deposits within the United States across the country. These are
somewhat similar to the numbers that EPA is deriving as well.
Some of this mercury that deposits to the surface will wind up in
receiving waters, and a very small fraction of it, probably less than
1 percent, will eventually be turned into the organic form by bac-
terial action. It is that organic form that has the potential to reach
humans through accumulation in some fish.
Again this does not happen in all waterways and with all fish
species. It tends to happen in waterways that have full food webs
that go to high-level fish that grow quite large, and it is larger,
older fish that tend to accumulate more mercury.
Of the exposure in the community in the United States, almost
all of it is through intake from fish and the mercury in those fish,
although the levels taken in can vary from very little or almost
none, to amounts of concern. There is almost no exposure by inha-
lation. That is a very small part of the exposure.
So our concern is to follow this mercury from its sources through
to where it winds up in fish and eventually may be consumed by
humans. That is the trick, scientifically.
Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Dr. Levin.
Dr. Rice, the American Heart Association and the World Health
Organization recommend that fish should be a part of everyones
diet, concluding that the benefits of eating fish outweigh the risks
47
of adverse effects, which as you state in your testimony are poten-

tial risks. Since eating fish offers substantial health benefits,
shouldnt the EPAs referenced dose be revised to take this into ac-
count, or does it?
Dr. RICE. Well, I agree totally, and I have to say that I am no
longer with EPA so I am not speaking as a representative of the
agency. I need to make that clear. So some of these opinions will
be those of the agency when I left, and some will be mine.
But the scientific community at large and the EPA and me per-
sonally recognize that fish is a good source of protein. It also con-
fers cardio-protective effects. There are also omega-three fatty acids
in fish that are essential when the fetus is building its brain. There
is new evidence that eating fish also may be beneficial to the men-
tal development or the mental function of the elderly. I suspect
that it is probably important for all of us.
So the dichotomy is not eat fish/dont eat fish. The important
thing to be able to do is to come out with some recommendations
to the community that allow people to eat fish, but not to eat fish
that has increased levels of methyl-mercury. So EPA thinks that,
I was part of that EPA panel, so when I was part of that EPA
panel we firmly believe that the RFD should not be any higher,
and in the light of some evidence that we were not able to analyze
at the time, might even should be lower than it is presently.
So it is not a question of increasing the reference dose. It is a
question of making sure that the American public can eat fish that
does not have undue levels of methyl-mercury in them.
Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much.
Dr. Myers, in selecting the Seychelles as a location for your re-
search, what other locations did you consider other than the
Seychelles Islands?
Dr. MYERS. We started studies on the coast of South America
and looked also at the Maldive Islands as another possibility.
Senator INHOFE. Yes. I kind of wanted to get to the Faroe Is-
lands. Did you consider them for your research?
Dr. MYERS. We did not consider the Faroes in our research.
Senator INHOFE. It is my understanding that, and for those of us
who are not scientists here, that some of the problems, lets take
the Faroe Islands and see if I have this right, that there is an inor-
dinate amount of whale meat that is consumed there and there are
PCBs in there. I do not know whether you can distinguish between
the harm of one or the other, but is this a factor that should be
considered?
It is my understanding, and I wont say this right, but there are
different levels of mercury that are found. One is from the primary
fish, and the other is from whales that eat other fish, so it has a
multiplying effect. Is this taken into consideration?
Dr. RICE. The Faroe Islands study and the Seychelles Islands to-
gether have been reviewed by at least two very distinguished peer-
review panels. That issue, the issue of the pattern of intake of
methyl-mercury and potential co-exposure for PCBs has been dis-
cussed extensively by the scientific community.
The Faroe Islands population does eat whale meat. They may
eat a large whale dinner occasionally. They also tend to dry the
whale meat, and so they snack on it in addition to eating a so-
48
called bolus dose, what we call a bolus dose. So they have a low
level of methyl-mercury intake which may be occasionally punc-
tuated with a higher intake level. The source of methyl-mercury
does not matter, whether it is through fish or through whale. So
the fact that it is whale meat per se is not really relevant.
None of the panels, including the National Research Council
panel, could come to any kind of conclusion about the importance
of the pattern of intake, because the data just are not available.
There just are not scientific data that speak directly to that. But
what the Faroe Islands investigators have done because this was
raised as a concern and because they have hair, and they had hair
from their population that was stored, they were able to go back
and do segmental analysis, so that you cut the hair up into tiny
little pieces and look at mercury levels across the length of the
hair.
What they did was they eliminated the mothers that had the
most variable hair levels that might suggest that there was this
bolus exposure of these particular women and these particular
fetuses. What they found was that the effect was actually stronger
when they eliminated these women, which makes a certain amount
of sense because you are decreasing variability when you do that.
Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Dr. Rice.
Senator Jeffords.
Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you all for your testimony on this very
important and timely topic.
Some of you have seen this mornings New York Times full-page
article on mercury and its health effects. This helps to set a context
for our discussion.
Dr. Rice, what exactly is a reference dose level and what does it
mean in terms of the so-called safe levels of fish consumption? Does
EPA reference dose level include a built-in tenfold safety threshold?
Dr. RICE. The reference dose is designed to be a daily intake
level that a person could consume over the course of their lifetime
without deleterious effects. So it is designed to be the amount of
mercury you could eat every day in your life and not harm yourself.
Now, when EPA did its calculation, it is important to understand
that when the National Academy of Sciences modeled a number of
endpoints for each of the studies, and those were the Faroe Islands
study, the New Zealand Study, both of which found effects, as well
as the Seychelles study which did not, they identified not a no-ef-
fect level. They identified a very specific effect level. That effect
level is associated with a doubling of the number of children that
would perform in the abnormal range, in other words, the lowest
5 percent of the population. So this is in no way a no-effect level.
To that, the EPA applied a tenfold so-called uncertainty factor.
The point of that was to take into account things that we did not
know, data that we did not have, as well as the pharmacodynamic
and the pharmacokinetic variability. Now, there were actually data
that was again modeled by the NAS and reviewed by the NAS, that
says that the pharmacokinetic variability, in other words the wom-
ans ability to get rid of methyl-mercury from her body, differs by
a factor of three. So that already takes up half of the uncertainty
factor.
49
But in addition to that, it is important to understand that when

the Faroe Islands folks analyzed their data, they eliminated moth-
ers with mercury levels above 10 ppm in their hair, which was
really right about at the effect level that the NAS identified. The
effects were just about as strong even below 10 ppms. So again,
that is very strong evidence that there is not a factor of 10 safety.
In addition to that, when the NAS modeled their data, it turned
out that both of the New Zealand study and the Faroe Islands
study not only was there no evidence that there was a threshold,
in other words a level below which there were no effects, but in fact
the curve was actually steeper at the lower levels. The NAS used
a straight line when they modeled the data because they were un-
comfortable about using curves that were steeper at the lower end
than they were at the higher end, but subsequent to that there
have been studies come out with regard to lead exposure, for exam-
ple. There are now several studies where that has also been found
for lead exposure.
So this may in fact be a very real effect. So not only is there not
a safety factor of 10. There might be virtually no safety factor at
all.
In addition to that, something that EPA recognized at the time,
but we were not able to quantitate because we did not have the
data, but it has now been quantitated, we assumed that the rela-
tionship between the mothers blood level of methyl-mercury and
the fetus blood level of methyl-mercury were the same, because of
course we have the body burden; we have cord blood in the fetus,
we have to get back to intake by the mother. We know now that
in fact the ratio is more like 1.7, and for some mothers it is as
much as over 3.
So if we were to recalculate the reference dose just based on this
new information, it would decrease from 0.1 to 0.06.
Senator JEFFORDS. Dr. Rice and Dr. Myers, would you rec-
ommend that Members of Congress and regulatory agencies base
their decisions on whether and how much to reduce human-made
mercury emissions on the findings from any one study?
Dr. MYERS. Our group has been involved in the science of study-
ing whether you could find effects at low levels, and we have not
been involved in policy. There is a general scientific principle, I
think it is important to look at multiple different studies. However,
these studies are complicated and one has to look at what kind of
studies you are dealing with. Some are simply descriptive. They
take a group of people and describe something. It is a basic epide-
miological principle that you cannot assign causation from a de-
scriptive study.
So one has to look at the studies that are larger and follow chil-
dren over time, and control for a lot of confounding factors which
complicate these type of studies very much actually. The Seychelles
study in fact is not a negative study, as has been stated. We did,
in fact, find associations with things that are known to affect child
development, such as socioeconomic status, maternal intelligence,
the home environment and other things. What we did not find was
an adverse association with prenatal methyl-mercury exposure in
the Seychelles.
Senator JEFFORDS. Dr. Rice.
50
Dr. RICE. I agree with Dr. Myers. These studies are very com-
plex. I think that that is even more reason not to rely on one study
while eliminating other studies for consideration.
Again, these studies have been peer-reviewed numerous times.
The Seychelles Islands study and the Faroe Islands study have
been reviewed now by several panels. They are both thought to be
very high quality, very well-designed and well-executed studies.
The NAS, as well as the previous panel, talked at great length
about what might account for the differences between these stud-
ies. We really do not know what accounts for the differences be-
tween these studies. The NAS modeled three studies. The New
Zealand study was also a positive study.
The National Academy of Sciences and the EPA agreed with
them that it was not scientifically justifiable for protection of the
health of the American public to rely on the negative study and ex-
clude the two positive studies. I said at least a couple of times in
my testimony that what the NAS did to try to address that was
to do an integrative analysis that included all three studies, includ-
ing the Seychelles Islands study, and modeled it statistically.
When EPA then took those analyses and derived, what we did
was we derived a series of reference doses, kind of sample reference
doses, that were based on a number of endpoints from both the
New Zealand study and the Faroe study, as well as the integrative
analysis of all three studies. The integrative analysis of all three
studies also yields a reference dose of 0.1. So that made me person-
ally very comfortable that we were doing the right thing scientif-
ically in our derivation of the reference dose.
Senator INHOFE. These are supposed to be 5-minute rounds and
it has been 8 minutes, so we will recognize Senator Allard.
Senator ALLARD. Dr. Rice and Dr. Myers, you have in your com-
ments talked about methyl-mercury as being the toxic compound as
far as human health is concerned. Are there other mercurial com-
pounds that are toxic to humans?
Dr. RICE. Yes. All forms of mercury are toxic to humans.
Senator ALLARD. Including the elemental form?
Dr. RICE. Yes.
Senator ALLARD. OK.
Dr. RICE. But in terms of environmental exposure, it is really the
methyl-mercury form that we are worried about because that is the
form that gets into the food chain and is concentrated and accumu-
lated up the food chain. That is what people actually end up being
exposed to.
Senator ALLARD. OK. Thanks for clarifying that. I appreciate
that. So this gets into the environment and consequently in the fish
or food chain or whatever. Is the starting point always bacteria op-
erating on the elemental form of mercury? Or is it these various
compounds that bacteria operate on and then end up being assimi-
lated into the food chain? How does that happen?
Dr. RICE. In most circumstances, it is the inorganic form, not the
elemental mercury, but the inorganic form that is available to be
taken up by various microorganisms.
Senator ALLARD. How do we get to that organic form, the methyl-
mercury? How do we get there?
51
Dr. RICE. The microorganisms actually put a methyl group on as

part of their metabolic processes.
Senator ALLARD. Do they get that from elementary mercury? Is
that the origin, or is it various compounds of mercury?
Dr. RICE. Yes, it is just straight mercury. Now, in the Japanese
outbreak, it was actually methyl-mercury that was put into the
water, but that is a relatively unusual situation.
Senator ALLARD. I see. OK, so my understanding, Dr. Levin, is
that a lot of the mercury that is introduced into the environment
of this country does not originate within the borders of this coun-
try. Is that correct? The suggestion is that a lot of the sources of
mercury that come across that we may pick up in the soil is actu-
ally carried over by wind and what not from the Asian countries.
Is that correct?
Dr. LEVIN. That is correct, Senator, as far as the modeling shows,
and that is consistent with work that EPRI has done, EPA and oth-
ers have also done in the modeling.
Senator ALLARD. Is this the elemental mercury that is being
brought over?
Dr. LEVIN. It is elemental, or the elemental form. It is also the
inorganic form or the form that can be combined into salts.
Senator ALLARD. Now, the inorganic form is not processed into
the food chain? Did I understand that correctly?
Dr. LEVIN. It is the inorganic form that is processed into the food
chain.
Senator ALLARD. Yes, it is the organic form.
Dr. LEVIN. The two forms that are emitted from combustion
sources are the elemental form, the chemicals found on the periodic
chart.
Dr. LEVIN. And the inorganic form, which combines with, for ex-
ample, chlorine, to form the pure chloride, or is the form also found
in minerals. Those two forms that wind up in the proper aquatic
environments, it is the inorganic form that may be methylated and
turned into the organic form.
Dr. LEVIN. But it has to go from elemental to inorganic before
the methylation can occur.
Senator ALLARD. But my question is, is that the type of mercury
that is being brought in from Asia, what form of mercury is that?
Dr. LEVIN. Because of its long-range transport, it is primarily the
elemental form, but the atmospheric chemistry of mercury changes
that progressively into the inorganic form, which is the form that
readily deploys.
Senator ALLARD. Now, can the inorganic form be transferred into
methyl-mercury?
Dr. LEVIN. Yes, sir. That is the form.
Senator ALLARD. So all those type of compounds get acted on by
bacteria and then that is how that gets into the food chain.
Dr. RICE. The elemental form and the inorganic form are con-
verted back and forth.
Senator ALLARD. I see.
Dr. RICE. So it does not make any difference whether it reaches
the North American shores as elemental mercury or inorganic mer-
52
cury. Once it is deposited into the soil or the river, it is going to

become inorganic mercury that then becomes available to be able
to be turned into methyl-mercury.
Senator ALLARD. OK, thank you.
Now, here is the question, and I would like to have all of you re-
spond to this. In your opinion, would a decrease in U.S. anthropo-
genic mercury emissions have an effect on global mercury levels?
And part of the rest of the question is, apparently there is a high
percentage of mercury present in the United States from outside
our borders, so what effects can we expect from a decrease in our
emissions? We have a couple of questions there and I would like
to have all of you respond to those if you would.
Dr. RICE. There is no question that there is a global cycling of
mercury. A lot of the mercury in the United States comes in from
someplace else, comes in from the West, but some of it may have
in fact originated in the United States originally. This stuff really
does circle the globe. So just because it is coming in from the West
does not mean it wasnt ours to start with.
Senator ALLARD. We do not know how much starts here.
Dr. RICE. No, we do not, and I am not a modeler so I really can-
not speak to that. But what I do know is that there is local deposi-
tion. In other words, the mercury that is released from power
plants in the Midwest ends up downwind. I just moved to Maine,
and Maine is the so-called tailpipe for that local deposition, for that
local emission. There is a percentage of it, and Dr. Levin can tell
you what the percentage is better than I can, that is locally depos-
ited. I think it is something like 30 percent.
Getting rid of those local sources would certainly at least help
the Northeastern United States. Originally, the modeling, it was
thought that this would take a long, long time. There are newer
data now where small studies have actually been done that suggest
that it might not be as grim as we originally thought; that these
local changes can take place in a relatively shorter time, over the
course of several years, rather than decades and decades as we
originally may have feared.
Senator ALLARD. Dr. Myers, do you have a comment on that?
Dr. MYERS. It is outside of my area of expertise.
Senator ALLARD. Dr. Levin.
Dr. LEVIN. Dr. Rice is primarily correct on that. The deposition
within the United States makes up about 30 percent of U.S. emis-
sions. The rest of the emission go globally. Our modeling consid-
ered the fate of U.S. emissions and accounted for the amount that
basically circles the globe and comes down after one trip around
the world.
It is also correct that there is local deposition that in some cases
may be significant near particular groupings of sources. I indicated
that in my testimony, that although the average change in deposi-
tion for the scenario was 3 percent, there were some small areas
where it was as much as 10 times that on a percentage basis.
So it calls for more detailed studies and particularly more look-
ing at the science of tracking mercury found in fish back to its
sources scientifically, that is, figuring out where it came from.
Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe my time
has expired.
53
Senator INHOFE. Yes, thank you.

Senator Carper.
Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To our witnesses, again thank you for joining us. Thank you for
your patience in bearing with us.
Dr. Rice, did I understand you to say you have concluded two
decades of work at EPA?
Dr. RICE. Well actually most of it was not at EPA. I was at
Health Canada for 22 years. I am American, but I graduated from
the University of Rochester, got my Ph.D. from the University of
Rochester so I have known Dr. Myers for many years. Then I went
up there to work at Health Canada.
Senator CARPER. I see. Thank you for your service at EPA, and
thank you all for real interesting testimony today.
Sometimes these are fairly technical issues. What is helpful for
me as I listen to the comments of each of your testimonies and your
responses to our questions is to look for threads of consensus; not
to focus so much on where you disagree, but to find some areas
where you agree. I would just ask each of you to take a minute or
two and just to talk about some of the areas where you think you
agree, and which might be helpful to us as we wrestle with wheth-
er to craft legislation, enact legislation along the lines that Senator
Jeffords has introduced, I have introduced, or the President has
proposed.
Can you help me with that? Dr. Levin, why dont you go first.
Dr. LEVIN. Thank you, Senator. We agree that mercury is a high-
ly toxic compound. Its presence in the U.S. diet may in some in-
stances cause concerns for development of children neurologically.
We agree that there may be other effects that have to be looked
for in terms of the health effects.
We also agree that the science of mercury is still emerging; that
the linkage between health effects in particular areas, or for that
matter in entire regions of the United States, and the sources of
mercury is a critical question that would shape a wise course to-
ward management decisionmaking. The work that I have been de-
scribing today is a step in doing that. The work that has been de-
scribed by the other two witnesses today on health effects is a crit-
ical part of that linkage.
Bringing this source-receptor issue together with the health ef-
fects on a specific geographic basis and among specific populations
within the United States is a key part in answering the manage-
ment questions.
Dr. Myers, would you take a shot at my question please?
Dr. MYERS. I think we all agree that mercury is poisonous, every
form. In high enough amounts, it is not only damaging to human
health, but fatal generally. We all agree that it is worthwhile
cleaning up the environment, I think. The question resolves at
what level and at what cost. I think we all agree that these studies
are extremely difficult to carry out and they are equally difficult to
interpret because there are so many details to them. So it is so
easy to end up with a bias either knowingly or unknowingly, gen-
erally I think unknowingly, that the interpretation of the details
becomes incredibly important in these studies.
54

Dr. Rice.
Dr. RICE. I agree that we all know that methyl-mercury is toxic
at high levels. There is absolutely no question about that. I agree
with Dr. Myers that it is incredibly difficult to interpret these stud-
ies very often. They are very complex studies. There are a lot of
variables, many of which we do not know. Epidemiology is an ex-
tremely blunt instrument. So that is why I think that it is impor-
tant to look at the weight of evidence. There are a number of stud-
ies in humans that have documented effects of methyl-mercury at
relatively low body burdens. In addition to that, there is a huge
animal literature documenting effects and looking at the mecha-
nisms of effects.
We do not know why one study may be positive, whereas another
may be negative. So we really have to go with the evidence as a
whole.
Senator CARPER. And maybe cite your most serious area of dis-
agreement among you as panelists.
Dr. LEVIN. I would say disagreement probably rests in the ques-
tion of the direction of research overall on the mercury issue, and
how far that should continue.
Senator CARPER. Dr. Myers.
Dr. MYERS. I think the most serious area of disagreement is in
the interpretation of the studies. We think that the Faroe Islands
research is outstanding research. They have done a wonderful job.
They have a great design. We are just not sure that they have been
able to tease out from the mixture of chemicals present in whales
a methyl-mercury component to it. That requires a lot of faith in
their statistics and the details of the studies.
In the case of the New Zealand study, most people discounted the
New Zealand study for many years. It was only when it was reana-
lyzed in the late 1990s that people began to start thinking of it in
other terms. So I think our biggest disagreement is in the interpre-
tation of it.
In addition, I think the weight of hundreds of small poorly done
studies in difficult places such as the Amazon would never out-
weigh a really good study done looking at fish consumption.
Senator CARPER. Dr. Rice.
Dr. RICE. I guess everything that Gary Myers just said is my big-
gest point of disagreement. All of the smaller studies are not poorly
done. Some of them are well done. The Faroe Islands study and the
Seychelles study have been extensively reviewed. They are both
considered to be very, very good studies.
The National Academy of Sciences looked at the issue of PCB co-
exposure very, very carefully and asked the investigators to go
back and do a number of additional analyses. Their conclusion was
that the effects seem to be independent of each other. These are
both neurotoxicants. Although they both had effects in the study,
the NAS conclusion was that they were independent.
Again, I think that we have go with a preponderance of evidence
and not on just one study, no matter how well it has been done.
Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, I think this panel has been es-
pecially helpful to me. We thank you very, very much for your con-
tributions today. Thank you.
55
Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Carper.

Senator Clinton.
Senator CLINTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to
thank the panel and welcome Dr. Myers from the University of
Rochester, and Dr. Rice, your connection with Rochester, we will
claim that as well.
I want to pick up where Dr. Rice just concluded. We have set up
a system of evidence in our legal system that looks at the prepon-
derance of evidence; that looks at a reasonable person standard. I
share Dr. Rices concern that we are not adequately responding to
the evidence we already have, which I think the preponderance of
it, certainly based on the review by the National Academy of
Sciences, suggests that we have a problem with the transmission
mostly in utero by mother to child that leads to neurological prob-
lems that in turn lead to poor school performance.
The 2000 report of the National Academy of Sciences found, I be-
lieve, that about 60,000 children might be born in the United
States each year with this level of exposure that could affect school
performance, but in your testimony you claim that more recent re-
sults from the CDCs National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey translate into over 300,000 newborns per year. Is that cor-
rect?
Dr. RICE. Yes. When the NAS did their analysis, the NHANES
data was not available. The NHANES just started taking mercury
blood and hair levels a couple of years ago, so those data have real-
ly become available since the NAS. They state that their 60,000
children was an estimate. It is actually about 320,000 children.
Based on actual data that is representative of the U.S. population,
it is above the EPAs reference dose.
Senator CLINTON. To me, this is truly alarming, that we have ac-
tual blood, hair sample, other kinds of physical examination which
demonstrates that hundreds of thousands of our children are born
each year potentially at risk for adverse affects on intelligence,
memory, ability to pay attention, ability to use language and other
skills.
Mr. Chairman, we are facing an increasing number of children
in our school systems with learning disabilities. There are not any
easy answers as to why the numbers of children with such learning
disabilities has increased. Senator Jeffords has been a champion of
making sure that all children are given an adequate education. In
New York alone, we have 260,000 learning-disabled children. That
is 50 percent of our special ed population. We spend $43 billion
each year$43 billionon special ed programs for individuals with
developmental disabilities between three and twenty-one.
Of course, not all special ed needs are the direct result of methyl-
mercury exposure, but if it is demonstrably shown as we now have
with evidence from the CDCs annual survey that we have levels
of methyl-mercury in our childrens bodies that is above what the
EPA has determined to be healthy, and in fact some of us think
the EPA standard is too low, but nevertheless if it meets that
standard, then I would argue we have got to figure out how to ad-
dress this environmental health challenge in a very short order.
I have been working with a number of colleagues to try to ad-
dress the better data collection and environmental health tracking
56
that they need in the Individuals With Disabilities Act, and I think
similarly on the scientific side with respect to better research and
better analysis. But it is troubling to me that we are looking at a
problem where the preponderance of the evidence I think is clear,
where we know that there is a transmission, whether it is 60,000,
150,000, 300,000-plus children, and it needs some more effective re-
sponse.
I wanted to ask you, Dr. Rice, now that you are in Maine, from
the State perspective, how closely do you work with the State
health department on environmental health issues? Do you ex-
change information with the State health department and even
with the State education department about some of the work that
you are doing?
Dr. RICE. I actually knew the State toxicologist for Maine quite
well before I went up there, so I do interact with the health depart-
ment. The methyl-mercury issue is very important to Maine. Maine
has a very good program for trying to get rid of methyl-mercury
from dental amalgams, from thermometers, from the kinds of
things that can be controlled; to not put mercury in landfills be-
cause Maine understands that we are at the end of the pipeline for
methyl-mercury deposition. Maine has a terrible problem with fish
advisories. There are a lot of places where fish cannot be eaten in
Maine because of the deposition of methyl-mercury.
So I do work closely with the folks over there, and in fact my way
here was paid by the air office, the Maine air office because the
State of Maine is so very concerned about this issue. Maine is rural
and it is poor, and it cannot really absorb the consequences of these
kinds of additional exposures on the health of the people of Maine.
Senator CLINTON. Similarly, new science is demonstrating that
we need lower standards for lead, based on what we are now deter-
mining. A lot of that groundbreaking work was done at the Univer-
sity of Rochester about lead exposures and the impacts of lead ex-
posure. We can take each of these chemicals or compounds piece
by piece, but I think that certainly when it comes to mercury and
lead and their impacts on childrens development, it is not some-
thing I feel comfortable studying and waiting too much longer on,
particularly because there are so many indirect costs. I know that
Dr. Levins work looked at some of the risks and cost-benefits, but
people do not seem to factor in this special education population
that has been growing.
Dr. RICE. If I may make a comment, I think your analogy is an
apt one, and I think it is a very informative one. In 1985, there was
a report to Congress on the cost-benefits of lead, of keeping lead
out of gasoline, in fact. The benefits based on not only special edu-
cation and things like lower birth weight with respect to lead, but
also just the economic consequences of lowering the IQ of workers
amounted to billions and billions of dollars a year in 1985 dollars
or 1994 dollars. So as this effort goes forward in terms of figuring
out how much it is going to cost to reduce mercury emissions, this
other side of the equation, how much it is going to cost not to,
needs to be kept very, very well in mind.
Senator CLINTON. Thank you, Dr. Rice.
Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Clinton.
I thank the panel very much for their testimony.
57
Senator JEFFORDS. I had a couple more questions.

Senator INHOFE. Well, all right. It has to end at 12 oclock. Go
ahead.
Senator JEFFORDS. Dr. Levin, before setting a mercury max
standard, would you agree that it makes sense for EPA to conduct
a full modeling analysis of all available technology options and
their emissions reduction potential, including the most stringent
options?
Dr. LEVIN. Yes, Senator. I think it is important for EPA to carry
out a parallel study as EPRI has done, and to make that study
public, as we have as well. I am not aware yet that they have actu-
ally done any modeling of a max standard since there has been no
official proposal of one yet.
Senator JEFFORDS. Dr. Myers, I believe your testimony is that
the fish consumed with an average mercury content of 0.3 parts
per million has about the same mercury concentration as commer-
cial fish in the United States. What are the concentration in non-
commercial fish?
Dr. MYERS. Are you talking about the United States or the
Seychelles?
Senator JEFFORDS. In the United States.
Dr. MYERS. Well, all fish has some mercury in it. Most of the
commercial fish in the United States, I understand, has less than
12 part per million, but some of the fish, I am not sure what the
non-commercial ones are, but it can go up to over two or three

parts per million in some freshwater fish.
Senator JEFFORDS. Dr. Rice and Dr. Myers, can you characterize
the body burden of the pollutants like mercury in American chil-
dren compared to the levels found in the Seychelles children?
Dr. MYERS. The average hair level in the mothers in Seychelles
is 6.9 in the group we were studying. The average in the United
States is less than one part per million. The average in Japan is
somewhere around two parts per million.
Senator JEFFORDS. Dr. Rice, any comment?
Dr. RICE. No. That is correct, but I think it is important to un-
derstand that the NHANES data did identify some women, a very
small percentage of women with higher hair mercury levels. I think
it is important also to understand that the NHANES data are de-
signed to be representative of the U.S. population as a whole, so
that women who may eat more fish and may be at more risk for
increased body burdens of methyl-mercury, such as immigrant pop-
ulations or populations of people who are subsistence anglers and
who eat inland fish. This is not captured. These populations are not
captured by the NHANES data and I think that this needs to be
kept in mind.
Senator JEFFORDS. I have some further questions I would like to
submit.
Senator INHOFE. That would be perfectly appropriate. I appre-
ciate it very much, and I appreciate the panel coming and also your
patience from the long first session.
We are now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12 oclock p.m. the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
58
STATEMENT OF HON. JON CORNYN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this important hearing examining what
is known about the science of climate change, mercury and the potential health ef-
fects of mercury emissions from power plants.
Given the timing of the energy debate on the Floor and this Committees ongoing
consideration of the Clear Skies Act, this is a very timely and important topic and
I commend the Chairman for setting time aside to focus on the issue. I realize our
focus today in regards to climate change is on the science, principally on tempera-
ture change. Two very different trains of thought are about to be presented to us
today and I think this is positive and encourages a good, healthy debate. The ques-
tion that this panel has to wrestle with is moving ahead with a greenhouse gas pol-
icy that may or may not be based on sound science. I am concerned about the costs
in moving forward when there is a large body of science out there that says there
isnt a problem.
To shift our focus just a bit, an issue of particular concern to me is the available
technology to control greenhouse gas emissions, specifically CO2. I am fairly certain
that some of my colleagues agree with the line of thought about to be outlined by
Dr. Mann, and this could very well lead this committee to a debate imposing man-
datory controls on CO2. If this turns out to be the case it is imperative that this
Committee determine whether or not the technology is currently available to accom-
plish CO2 reductions that are effective enough to solve the problems thought to
be faced. I realize this is a topic for another hearing, but one that causes me con-
cern.
In regards to mercury, in the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress
specifically requested that EPA conduct an analysis of the health effects of mercury
emissions from power plants and report back. EPA did conduct that study in 1997
and concluded that there was a plausible link between mercury emission and po-
tential health effects, but was unable to quantify the link.
Six years have passed since EPAs 1997 study. Unfortunately, we still have not
received any clarification from the EPA as to the magnitude of the health risks
posed by power plant emissions, even though we are currently on the verge of
spending billions of dollars to reduce those emissions.
I suspect that one of the reasons for this lack of information is that we are dealing
with a global problem. Many people today may find it surprising to learn that most
of the mercury that is deposited in the United States originates from outside our
borders. In fact, for most of the country, over 6080 percent of the mercury depos-
ited in the United States comes from emission sources located in another country.
Additionally, natural sources of mercury, such as forest fires and vegetation burn-
ing, account for over half of the worlds mercury emissions.
What this means is that we have control over only a very small portion of total
mercury emissions. Of the 5500 tons of mercury emitted globally, the U.S. accounts
for only about 155 tons, or 3 percent of global emissions. U.S. power plant emissions
which are estimated to be 48 tons per year, represent less than 1 percent of total
global emissions. Given how small this fraction is, it is both reasonable and prudent
to ask what impact controls on power plants will have on actual public health.
While EPA has unfortunately not provided us with any data on that question as
of yet, Leonard Levin from the Electric Power Industry has. According to his very
detailed analysis, control programs to reduce mercury emissions from power plants
are likely to have less than a 1-percent impact on public exposure in this country.
In fact, he estimates an impact of less than 0.3 percent. I do not know if this num-
ber is correct, but I think his very detailed analysis deserves comment from EPA,
especially given that this was exactly the kind of information Congress sought in
1990 when it amended the Act.
I look forward to hearing Dr. Levins testimony, as well as Dr. Rices and Dr.
Myers. Your collective input is critical to this committee as we continue to debate
the Clear Skies initiative.
I yield back the balance of my time.
STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIE SOON, HARVARD-SMITHSONIAN CENTER

FOR ASTROPHYSICS
Distinguished Senators, panelists, and audience: My name is Willie Soon. I am

an astrophysicist with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts. My training is in atmospheric and space physics and my sus-
tained research interests for the past 10 years include changes in the Sun and their
possible impact on climate.
59
This very rich area of scientific research, though still far from having definitive
answers, has seen exciting and important progress from our increasing technical
ability to measure, quantify, and interpret the changes in the Sun which could be
linked to changes of the Earths climate.
Today I focus on my latest research conclusions regarding climate change over
roughly the last 1000 years, especially the geographical pattern of those changes.
My scientific study is only possible because of the careful research produced by
nearly one thousand scientists around the world. Their expertise covers a very wide
range, including physical, chemical, biological, and geological sciences.
Together with several colleagues whose names are listed in the two scientific pa-
pers that I am submitting today for the record of this testimony, we have syn-
thesized the results from several hundred studies of proxy records of climate, includ-
ing much new work that has appeared in the scientific literature in the last 5 to
10 years.
Climate proxies are indirect climate sensors based on information from tree rings,
ice and seafloor sediment cores, corals, glaciers and other natural evidence. They
also include important cultural and documentary records.
It is important to recognize that these climate proxies are not temperature read-
ings, but some proxies may be calibrated to give temperature changes. One example
is the measurement of the flow of heat in boreholes drilled through rocks or ice,
yielding century-scale temperature changes over several millennia. On the other
hand, some proxies are sensitive to local rainfall as well as temperature, as in the
case of annual tree growth in the southwest United States. Any given proxy may
respond to temperature differently from other proxies, depending on, for instance,
the type of proxy, location, or season.
For all those reasons, it remains a big challenge to produce an accurate global
temperature record over the past 1000 years from the diverse set of climate proxies.
But within the limits and lessons learned from our research papers, we can offer
three conclusions:
First, local and regional, rather than global, changes are the most relevant and
practical measure of climate change and impact. This is because truly global aver-
ages rarely are available from the distant past, before modern satellite measure-
ments, and because such averages can hide the significant changes that can occur
over large parts of the Earth.
Second, on a location by location basis, there was a widespread Medieval Warm
Period between approximately 800 and 1300 A.D. This Medieval Warm Period was
followed by a widespread colder period, called the Little Ice Age, that lasted from
approximately 1300 to 1900 A.D.
Third, there is no convincing evidence from each of the individual climate proxies
to suggest that higher temperatures occurred in the 20th century than in the Medie-
val Warm Period. Nor is there any convincing evidence to suggest that either the
rate of increase or the duration of warming during the 20th century were greater
than in the Medieval Warm Period.
The fact that local and regional climate has been varying with significant swings
in amplitude over many locations provides important challenges for computer sim-
ulation of climate. The full models that explore the Earth region by region can test
for the natural patterns of change over the last 1,000 years through the use of the
climate proxies we just discussed. In that way, the effects of human-caused climate
change can be weighed against observed natural variability in the climate system.
Having computer simulations reproduce past climate, which has been influenced
predominantly by natural factors, is key to making an accurate forecast that in-
cludes all potential human-made warming and cooling effects.
Further research could yield a deeper, quantitative improvement to our knowl-
edge of local and regional climate variability during the past 1000 years. As we
could be inspired by Mr. Thomas Jefferson who remarked:
It is a common opinion that the climates of the several states of our union
have undergone a sensible change since the dates of their first settlements; that
the degrees of both cold & heat are moderated. The same opinion prevails as
to Europe; if facts gleaned from history give reasons to believe that, since the
times of Augustus Caesar, the climate of Italy, for example, has changed regu-
larly at the rate of 1 [degree] of Fahrenheits thermometer for every century.
May we not hope that the methods invented in latter times for measuring with
accuracy the degrees of heat and cold, and the observations which have been
& will be made and preserved, will at length ascertain this curious fact in phys-
ical history?Marginal notes from Thomas Jeffersons Monticello Weather
Diary (January 1, 1810 to December 31, 1816).
I strongly believe that the time for research in paleoclimatology to fulfill this im-
portant role is now.
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
RESPONSE BY DR. WILLIE SOON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS
Question 1. In testimony, you said that you did not know whether you submitted
something for publication to Capitalism magazine. Here is the title and web ad-
dress: Global Warming Speculation vs. Science: Just Ask the Experts by Sallie
Baliunas & Willie Soon (Capitalism MagazineAugust 22, 2002) http://
capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1816. Did you submit or approve submission of this ar-
ticle for publication?
Response. With the benefit of your reminder, I hereby confirm that the above
mentioned article in Capitalism Magazine was taken from the original article Just
Ask the Experts by Baliunas and Soon originally published by the
TechCentralStation.com at the link: http://www.techcentralstation.com/
072302B.html. I did not submit the article to Capitalism Magazine.
Question 2. In your testimony you indicated that your training is in atmos-
pherics. Could you please explain this term more fully, and indicate your formal
training in paleoclimatic studies and analysis?
Response. My PhD thesis1 was on collisional-radiative properties of high-tempera-
ture, partially ionized nitrogen, oxygen, helium and hydrogen plasmas at conditions
relevant to the Earths atmosphere. This is why I mentioned that I had formal
training in atmospheric and space physics in my oral remarks. If necessary, please
consult my thesis advisor, Professor Joseph Kunc at [email protected] for further de-
tails about my educational background.
I would add that the quality of knowledge about climate science or any other sub-
ject of interest must be judged on its own merits, and does not and must not be
determined by invoking the amount of formal schooling or consensus viewpoints
adopted by particular interest groups.
My research interests and learning about paleoclimatology has been obtained
mainly through the following individuals and sources:
(1) Professor Eric Posmentier ([email protected]), who is also
my colleague.
(2) Professor David Legates ([email protected]), who is also my colleague.
(3) Participation, both as a student and as lecturer, in numerous national and
international workshops, conferences and summer schools including (a) the 1993s
NATO Advanced Research workshop on Solar engine and its influence on terres-
trial atmosphere and climate, (b) the 1994s NASA-NOAA Summer School on Proc-
esses of Global Change, (c) the 1996s (French) CNRS Chaos et Fractales dans
lactivite Solaire, (d) the 2000s 1st Solar and Space Weather Euroconference: The
Solar Cycle and Terrestrial Climate, and other specialized meetings.
(4) Many other scientists also have been helpful in my eager learning of the sub-
ject: the late Professor Jean Grove (Girton College, Cambridge University), Professor
Jim Kennett (University of California Santa Barbara), Professor David J. A. Evans
(University of Glasgow), Professor Lowell Stott (University of Southern California),
Professor Hong-Chun Li (University of Southern California), Professor Reid Bryson
(University of Wisconsin), Professor Henri Grissino-Mayer (University of Kentucky),
Professor Emi Ito (University of Minnesota), Dr. ShaoPeng Huang (University of
Michigan), Dr. Zhonghui Liu (Brown University), Dr. Ming Tang (Institute of Geol-
ogy and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences), Dr. Yang Bao (Cold and Arid
Regions Environmental and Engineering Research Institute, Chinese Academy of
Sciences), and Professor Bin Wang (University of Hawaii).
Question 3. Do you maintain that the proxy-based temperature reconstructions of
the Mann and colleagues do not extend into the latter half of the 20th century?
Response. The proxy-based temperature reconstructions for the Northern Hemi-
sphere by Mann et al. (1998, Nature, vol. 392, 779782) and Mann et al. (1999, Geo-
physical Research Letters, vol. 26, 759762) extend from 14001980 and 10001980,
respectively. So it is true that those proxy-based temperature series did not cover
the 19812000 interval of the late 20th century.
Here is what close colleagues and co-authors (Bradley and Hughes) of Professor
Mann admitted in their independent (i.e., without Prof. Mann as co-author) and up-
dated publication, A caveat to [our] conclusion [about northern hemisphere tem-
perature change over the last 1000 years] is that the current proxy-based reconstruc-
tions do not extend to the end of the 20th century, but are patched on to the instru-
mental record of the last 23 decades [emphasis added]. This is necessary because
many paleo data sets were collected in the 1960s and 1970s, and have not been
1 Which was awarded the 1989 nation-wide IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society Grad-
uate Scholastic Award and the 1991s Rockwell Dennis Hunt Scholastic Award for the most rep-
resentative PhD thesis work at the University of Southern California.
156
up-dated [NOTE: this statement by Bradley et al. (2003) referred primarily to the
tree-ring data base from the International Tree-Ring Data base.], so a direct proxy-
based comparison of the 1990s with earlier periods is not yet possible. [p. 116 of
Bradley et al., 2003, In: Alverson, K., R.S. Bradley and T.F. Pedersen (eds.)
Paleoclimate, Global Change and the Future. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 105149]
Agreeing with discussion on p. 260261 of Soon et al. (2003), Bradley et al. (2003)
cautioned that in the case of tree rings from some areas in high latitudes, the
decadal time-scale climatic relationships prevalent for most of this century appear
to have changed in recent decades, possibly because increasing aridity &/or
snowcover changes at high latitudes may have already transferred the ecological re-
sponses of trees to climate (cf. Jacoby and DArrigo 1995; Briffa et al. 1998). For
example, near the northern tree limit in Siberia, this changing relationship can be
accounted for by a century-long trend to greater winter snowfall. This has led to de-
layed snowmelt and thawing of the active layer in this region of extensive perma-
frost, resulting in later onset of the growing season (Vaganov et al. 1999). It is not
yet known how widely this explanation might apply to the other regions where par-
tial decoupling has been observed, but regardless of the cause, it raises the question
as to whether there might have been periods in the past when the tree ring-climate
response changes, and what impact such changes might have on paleotemperature
reconstructions based largely on tree ring data. (p. 116117).
Bradley et al. (2003) also worried that Paleoclimate research has had a strong
northern hemisphere, extra-tropical focus (but even there the record is poorly known
in many areas before the 17th century). There are very few high resolution
paleoclimatic records from the tropics, or from the extra-tropical southern hemi-
sphere, which leaves many questions (such as the nature of climate in Medieval
times) unanswered. (p. 141). Bradley et al. continued All large-scale paleotemp-
erature reconstructions suffer from a lack of data at low latitudes. In fact, most
northern hemisphere reconstructions do not include data from the southern half
of the region (i.e. [missing comma] areas south of 30N). Furthermore, there are so
few data sets from southern hemisphere that it is not yet possible to reconstruct
a meaningful global record of temperature variability beyond the period of instru-
mental records. For the northern hemisphere records, it must be recognized that the
errors estimated for the reconstructions of Mann et al. (1999) and Briffa et al. (2001)
are minimum estimates, based on the statistical uncertainties inherent in the meth-
ods used. These can be reduced by the use of additional data (with better spatial
representation) that incorporate stronger temperature signals. However, there will
always be additional uncertainties that relate to issues such as the constancy of the
proxy-climate function over time, and the extent to which modern climate modes
(i.e., those that occurred during the calibration interval) represent the full range of
climate variability in the past [i.e., similar unresolved research questions had been
raised in p. 239242 and p. 258264 of Soon et al. 2003]. There is evidence that in
recent decades some high latitude trees no longer capture low frequency variability
as well as in earlier decades of the 20th century (as discussed below in Section 6.8)
which leads to concerns over the extent to which this may have also been true in
the more distant past. If this was a problem (and currently we are not certain of
that) it could result in an inaccurate representation of low frequency temperature
changes in the past. Similarly, if former climates were characterized by modes of
variability not seen in the calibration period, it is unlikely that the methods now
in use would reconstruct those intervals accurately. It may be possible to constrain
these uncertainties through a range of regional studies (for example, to examine
modes of past variability) and by calibration over different time intervals, but not
all uncertainty can be eliminated and so current margins of error must be consid-
ered as minimum estimates [meaning the actual range of error is larger than shown
in Mann et al. 1999 or the IPCC TARs charts]. (p. 114115).
It is also very important to heed warnings and cautions from other serious re-
searchers about not over stating the true confidence of a reconstructed climatic re-
sult based on indirect proxies. Esper et al. (2003, Climate Dynamics, vol. 21, 699
706) modestly apprised of the current situation in reconstructing long-term climatic
information from tree rings: Although these long-term trends agree well with ECS
[i.e., Esper, Cook, Schweingruber in 2002, Science, vol. 295, 22502253], the ampli-
tude of the multi-centennial scale variations is, however, not understood. This is be-
cause (1) no single multi-centennial scale chronology could be built that is not sys-
tematically biased in the low frequency domain, and (2) no evidence exists that
would support an estimation of the biases either in the LTM [Long-term mean
standardization] nor in the RCS [Regional curve standardization] multi-centennial
chronologies. Consequently, we also avoided providing formal climate calibration
and verification statistics of the chronologies. Note also that the climate signal of
the chronologies low frequency component could not be statistically verified anyway.
157
This is because the high autocorrelations, when comparing lower frequency trends,
significantly reduce the degrees of freedom valid for correlation analyses. We believe
that a formal calibration/verification/transfer function approach would leave the im-
pression that the long-term climate history for the Tien Shan [i.e., the location of
Esper and five colleagues study] is entirely understood, which is not the case. Fur-
ther research is needed to estimate the amplitude of temperature variation in the
Alai Range [south of Kirghizia] over the last millennium. (p. 705)
Question 4. Do you claim that the Mann study does not reconstruct regional pat-
terns of temperature change in past centuries?
Response. In Soon et al. (2003, Energy & Environment, vol. 14, 233296), I and
my colleagues cautioned that the regional temperature patterns resulted from Mann
and colleagues methodology are too severely restricted by the calibration particular,
we are concerned that the regional (and hence larger spatial-scale averages) varia-
bility of temperature on multidecadal and centennial time scales deduced from such
a method will be underestimated.
Recently, the methodology of Mann et al. (1998) has been seriously challenged by
McIntyre and McKitrick (2003, Energy & Environment, vol. 14, 751771) in that
poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal compo-
nents were shown as the errors and defects of Mann et als. paper. The exchange
between Mann and colleagues and McIntyre and McKitrick is ongoing, but the use
of obsolete data is a clear case of misrepresentation of regional basis of change in
Mann et als work. Further problems in Mann et al. (1998) are outlined under Ques-
tion No. 13 below. Additional documentation (including responses by Prof. Mann
and his colleagues) and updates can be found in http://www.uoguelph.ca/rmckitri/
research/trc.html.
Question 5. Do you maintain that the Mann study extrapolated global tempera-
ture estimates from the northern hemisphere?
Response. I have not seen any global temperature curves presented in the two
earlier studies by Mann et al. (1998 and 1999). But please consider the deep con-
cerns about the lack of proxy data especially over the tropics (30N to 30S) and the
southern hemisphere raised by Soon et al. (2003) and even in the independent paper
by Professor Manns close colleagues and co-authors (Bradley and Hughes), i.e., in
Bradley et al. (2003), discussed under Question No. 3 above.
Global temperature estimates, based on indirect climate proxies, from 2001980
were shown in Mann and Jones (2003, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 30 (15),
1820) as Figure 2c. But I am unsure if the temperature series presented by Mann
and Jones (2003) could adequately represents the variability over the whole globe
since it was openly admitted that the proxies used covered only 8 distinct regions
in the Northern Hemisphere and 5 for the Southern Hemisphere (see the coverage
of proxies shown in Figure 1 of Mann and Jones, 2003).
More importantly, Soon et al. (2004, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 31,
L03209) showed that the 40-year smoothed instrumental temperature trend for the
Northern Hemisphere shown as Figure 2a of Mann and Jones (2003) has a phys-
ically implausible high value at year 2000 (see more discussion in Question No. 6
below). We caution that the extremely rapid rate of warming trend of 1 to 2.5 C
per decade implied by the published results by Mann and his colleagues over the
last one to 2 years [comparing Mann and Jones (2003) with both Mann (2002,
Science, vol. 297, 14811482) and Mann et al. (2003, Eos, 84(27), 256257)], is most
likely due to the artifacts of methodology and their procedure of trend smoothing.
I am submitting the pdf file (SLB-GRL04-NHtempTrend.pdf) of Soon et al. (2004)
for the record of the committee.
Question 6. Do you maintain that historical and instrumental temperature records
that are available indicate colder northern hemisphere temperature conditions than
the Mann et al northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction in the past cen-
turies?
Response. I am not sure about the meaning of this question. But when contrasted
with borehole-based reconstruction, the Northern Hemisphere terrestrial tempera-
tures produced by Mann et al. (1998, 1999) over the last 500 years may have been
too warm by about 0.4 C during the 17th18th century (see Huang et al. 2000, Na-
ture, vol. 403, 756758). Recent attempts by Mann et al. (2003, Journal of Geo-
physical Research, vol. 108. (D7), 4203) and Mann and Schmidt (2003, Geophysical
Research Letters, vol. 30 (12), 1607) to rejustify and defend the Mann et al. (1998,
1999) results have been shown to be either flawed or invalid by Chapman et al.
(2004, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 31, L07205) and by Pollack and Smerdon
(2003, Geophysical Research Abstract of EGS, vol. 6, 06345). The eventual fact will
no doubt emerge with increased understanding, but Chapman et al. (2004) warned
158
that A second misleading analysis made by Mann and Schmidt [2003] concerns use
of end-points in reaching a numerical conclusion. . . . It is based on using end
points in computing changes in an oscillating time series, and is just bad science.
With regard to instrumental thermometer data of the past 100150 years, it is
important to note that Soon et al. (2004) has recently shown that the 40-year
smoothed Northern Hemisphere temperature trend shown in Mann and Jones
(2003) has a physically implausible high value at the year 2000 endpoint especially
when studied in context with previous published results by Mann et al. (2003, Eos,
vol. 84 (27), 256257) and Mann (2002, Science, vol. 297, 14811482). This impor-
tant updated information, admittedly with the benefit of hindsight, together with
the works by Chapman et al. (2004) and McIntyre and McKitrick (2003), showed
clearly that the Northern Hemisphere temperature trends, either proxy-based or in-
strumental, derived by Mann et al. (1998, 1999) and Mann and Jones (2003) are not
reliable.
Question 7. Is it your understanding that during the mid-Holocene optimum pe-
riod (the period from 40007000 B.C.) that annual mean global temperatures were
more than a degree C warmer than the present day?
Response. Again, I am not sure if there are sufficient proxy data that would allow
a meaningful quantitative estimate of annual mean global temperatures back six to
nine thousand years. But in a new paper for the Quaternary Science Reviews, Dar-
rell Kaufman and 29 co-authors (2004, Quaternary Science Reviews, vol. 23, 529
560) found that indeed there are clear evidence for warmer than present conditions
during the Holocene at 120 out of 140 sites they compiled across the Western Hemi-
sphere of the Arctic. Kaufman et al. (2004) estimated that, at the 16 terrestrial sites
where quantitative data are available, the local Holocene Thermal Maximum sum-
mer temperatures were about 1.60.8 C higher than the average of the 20th cen-
tury. The coarse temperature map sketched on the NOAAs Paleoclimatology web
site: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/polarbigb.gif sug-
gests that the summer temperatures 6000 years ago may have been 2 to 4 C warm-
er than present in the other sector (Eastern Hemisphere) of the Arctic.
Question 8. As a climatologist, can you explain what kind of quantitative analysis
it takes to determine whether or not the last 50 years has been unusually warm
compared to the last 1000 years?
Response. The theoretical requirement is fairly simple: (a) find local and regional
proxies that are sensitive to variations of temperature on timescales of decade, sev-
eral decades and century; (b) have sufficient spatial coverage of these local and re-
gional proxies. Then one would be able to compare the last 50 years of the 1000-
year record with the previous 950 years.
Soon et al. (2003) had indeed initiated an independent effort in this direction and
concluded that a truly global or hemispheric averaged temperature record for the
past 1000 years is not yet forthcoming because of the large and disparate range of
the indirect local and regional proxies to temperature such that a robust ability of
different proxies in capturing all the necessary scales of variability cannot yet be
confirmed. The main problem I foresee in having any definitive answers for now is
related to the fact that the statistical association of each proxy to climatic variables
like temperature can itself be variable and changing depending on the location and
time interval. But I am not sure if the sole focus on temperature as the measure
of climate is sensible if not unnecessarily narrow.
In Soon et al. (2003), we consider climate to be more than just temperature so
we did not narrowly restrict ourselves to only temperature-sensitive proxies. For ex-
ample, in addition to temperature, we are equally concerned about expansion and
reduction of forested and desert-prone areas, tree-line growth limit, sea ice changes,
balances of ice accumulation and ablation in mountain glaciers and so on. When
studying the ice balance for a glacier, it is important to insist that although glaciers
are very important indicators of climate change over a rather long time-scale, they
are not simply thermometers as often confused by heated discussion pointing to evi-
dence for global warming by carbon dioxide (see additional discussion on factors, es-
pecially atmospheric carbon dioxide, in determining Earths climate and its change
under Questions No. 19, 20, 25, 30 and 35 below). Examples include statements by
Will Stefen, director of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program, Tropical
glaciers are a bellweather of human influence on the Earth system (quoted in the
article The melting snows of Kilimanjaro by Irion, 2001, Science, vol. 291, 1690
1691) or by Professor Lonnie Thompson, Ohio State University,
We have long predicted that the first signs of changes caused by global
warming would appear at the few fragile, high-altitude ice caps and glaciers
within the tropics . . . [t]hese findings confirm those predictions. We need to
take the first steps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. We are currently doing
159
nothing. In fact, as a result of energy crisis in Californiaand probably in the
rest of the country by this summerwe will be investing even more in fuel-
burning power plants. That will put more power in the grid but, at the same
times it will add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, amplifying the problem
(quoted in Ohio State Universitys press release, http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/
units/research/archive/glacgone.htm).
A clarification about the physical understanding of modern glacier retreats and
climate change, especially those on Kilimanjaro, is necessary and has been forth-
coming with important research progress. First, Molg et al. (2003, Journal of Geo-
physical Research, vol. 108 (D23), 4731) recently concluded that their study:
highlights that modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro is much more complex
than simply attributable to global warming only, a finding that conforms with
the general character of glacier retreat in the global tropic [Kaser, 1999]: a proc-
ess driven by a complex combination of changes in several different climatic pa-
rameters . . . with humidity-related variables dominating this combination.
In another new paper for the International Journal of Climatology, Kaser et al.
(2004, International Journal of Climatology, Modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro
as evidence of climate change: Observations and facts, vol. 24, 329339; available
from http://geowww.uibk.ac.at/glacio/LITERATUR/index.html) provided clear an-
swers that neither added longwave radiation from a direct addition of atmospheric
CO2 nor atmospheric temperature were the key variables for the observed changes,
as revealed in this long but highly informative passage:
Since the scientific exploration of Kilimanjaro began in 1887, when Hans
Meyer first ascended the mountain (not to the top at this time, but to the crater
rim), a central theme of published research has been the drastic recession of
Kilimanjaros glaciers (e.g., Meyer, 1891, 1900; Klute, 1920; Gilman, 1923;
Jager, 1931; Geilinger, 1936; Hunt, 1947; Spink, 1949; Humphries, 1959;
Downie and Wilkinson, 1972; Hastenrath, 1984; Osmastion, 1989; Hastenrath
and Greischar, 1997). Early reports describe the formation of notches, splitting
up and disconnection of ice bodies, and measurements of glacier snout retreat
on single glaciers, while later books and papers advance to reconstructing gla-
cier surface areas. . . . Today, as in the past, Kilimanjaros glaciers are mark-
edly characterized by features such as penitentes, cliffs (Figure 3a/b) [not repro-
duced here], and sharp edges, all resulting from strong differential ablation.
These features illustrate the absolute predominance [emphasis added] of incom-
ing shortwave radiation and latent heat flux in providing the energy for abla-
tion (Kraus, 1972). A positive heat flux from either longwave radiation or sen-
sible heat flux, if available, would round-off and destroy the observed features
within a very short time ranging from hours to days. On the other hand, if de-
stroyed, the features could only be sculptured again under very particular cir-
cumstances and over a long time. Thus, the existence of these features indicates
that the present summit glaciers are not experiencing ablation due to sensible
heat (i.e., from positive air temperature). Additional support for this is provided
by the Northern Icefield air temperature recorded from February 2000 to July
2002, which never exceeded 1.6 C, and by the presence of permafrost at 4,700
m below Arrow Glacier on the western slope . . .
Kaser et al. (2004) continue with this synopsis of interpretations and facts:
A synopsis of (i) proxy data indicating changes in East African climate since
ca. 1850, (ii) 20th century instrumental data (temperature and precipitation),
and (iii) the observations and interpretations made during two periods of
fieldwork (June 2001 and July 2002) strongly support the following scenario.
Retreat from a maximum extent of Kilimanjaros glaciers started shortly before
Hans Meyer and Ludwig Purtscheller visited the summit for the first time in
1889, caused by an abrupt climate change to markedly drier conditions around
1880. Intensified dry seasons accelerated ablation on the respectively illumi-
nated vertical walls left in the hole on top by Reusch Crater as a result of vol-
canic activity [emphasis added]. The development of vertical features may also
have started on the outer margins of the plateau glaciers before 1900, primarily
as the formation of notches, as explicitly reported following field research in
1898 and 1912 (Meyer, 1900; Klute, 1920). A current example of such a notch
development is the hole in the Northern Icefield (see Figure 2). Once started,
the lateral retreat was unstoppable, maintained by solar radiation despite less
negative mass balance conditions on horizontal glacier surfaces, and will come
to an end only when the glaciers on the summit plateau have disappeared. This
is most probable within next decades, if the trend revealed in Figure 1 con-
tinues. Positive air temperatures have not contributed to the recession process
160
on the summit so far. The rather independent slope glaciers have retreated far
above the elevation of their thermal readiness, responding to dry conditions. If
present precipitation regime persists, these glaciers will most probably survive
in positions and extents not much different from today. This is supported by the
area determinations in Thompsons et al. (2002) map, which indicate that slope
glaciers retreated more from 1912 to 1952 than since then. From a hydrological
point of view, melt water from Kibos glaciers has been of little importance to
the lowland in modern times. Most glacier ablation is due to sublimation, and
where ice does melt it immediately evaporates into the atmosphere. Absolutely
no signs of runoff can be found on the summit plateau, and only very small riv-
ers discharge from the slope glaciers. Rainfall reaches a maximum amount at
about 2,500 m a.s.l. [above sea level] (Coutts, 1969), which primarily feeds the
springs at low elevation on the mountain; one estimate attributes 95 percent
of such water to a forest origin (Lambrechts et al., 2002). The scenario pre-
sented offers a concept that implies climatological processes other than in-
creased air temperature [emphasis added] govern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro
in a direct manner. However, it does not rule out that these processes may be
linked to temperature variations in other tropical regions, e.g., in the Indian
Ocean (Latif et al., 1999; Black et al., 2003).
Lindzen (2002, Geophysical Research Letter, vol. 29, paper 2001GL014360) fur-
ther added that Recent papers show that deep ocean temperatures have increased
somewhat since 1950, and that the increase is compatible with predictions from cou-
pled GCMs [General Circulation Models]. The inference presented is that this de-
gree of compatibility constitutes a significant test of the models. . . . [But] it would
appear from the present simple model (which is similar to what the IPCC uses to
evaluate scenarios) that the ocean temperature change largely reflects only the fact
that surface temperature change is made to correspond to observations, and says
almost nothing about model climate sensitivity. . . . It must be added that we are
dealing with observed surface warming that has been going on for over a century.
The oceanic temperature change [at depth of 475 m or so] over the period reflects
earlier temperature change at the surface. How early depends on the rate at which
surface signals penetrate the ocean. In other words, the recently noted warming
of the deeper ocean is not a proof of global surface and atmospheric warming by
increasing CO2 in the air because the parameters of climate sensitivity and rate of
ocean heat uptake are not sufficiently well quantified. In addition, if the earlier oce-
anic surface temperature warming mentioned by Lindzen were indeed initiated and
occurred substantially long ago, then there would be no association of that change
to man-made CO2 forcing.
Question 9. The IPCC has found that the late 20th century is the warmest period
in the last 1000 years, for average temperature in the northern hemisphere. Does
your paper provide a quantitative analysis of average temperatures for the northern
hemisphere for this specific time periodthat is, for the later half of the 20th cen-
tury?
Response. It should be understood that (1) the conclusion of the IPCC Working
Group Is Third Assessment Report (2001; TAR), (2) the evidence shown in Figure
1b of the Summary for Policymaker, (3) Figure 5 of the Technical Summary, and
(4) Figure 2.20 in Chapter 2 of TAR were all derived directly from the conclusion
in Mann et al. (1999) and Figure 3a of Mann et al. (1999). Therefore all comments
and criticisms presented in this Q&A about Mann et al. (1999) apply to the IPCC
TARs conclusion. In addition, Soon et al. (2004) recently cautioned that the 40-year
smoothed northern hemisphere temperature trend shown in Figure 2.21 of TAR
(2001) cannot be replicated according to the methodology described in the caption
of Figure 2.21. The failure in replication introduces a significant worry about the
actual quality of scientific efforts behind the production of Figure 2.21 in TAR
(2001).
The answer to the second part of your direct question is no. Here are the related
reasons why a confident estimate of the averaged northern hemisphere temperature
for the full 1000 years (including the full 20th century) is not yet possible, despite
what had been claimed by Mann et al. (1999). First, several authors, including those
detailed in section 5.1 of Soon et al. (2003) and those pointed out in Question No.
6, had shown that the 1000-year series of mathematical temperature derived by
Mann et al. (1999) has significantly underestimated the multidecadal and centennial
scale changes. Second, the focus of Soon et al. (2003) is to derive understanding of
climatic change on local and regional spatial scales, instead of over the whole north-
ern hemisphere per se, because those are the most relevant measures, in practical
sense, of change. In addition, we provided the first-order attempt to collect all avail-
able climate proxies relevant for local and regional climatic changes, but not re-
161
stricted to temperature alone. But more pertinent to your question is the fact dis-
cussed in Soon et al. (2003) that different proxies respond with differing sensitivities
to different climatic variables, seasons, plus spatial and temporal scales, so that a
convenient derivation of a self-consistent northern hemisphere averaged annual
mean temperature for the full 1000 years, desirable as the result may be, is not yet
possible.
Question 10. Does your paper provide any quantitative analysis of temperature
records specifically for the last 50 years of the 20th century?
Response. Soon et al. (2003) considered all available proxy records with no par-
ticular prejudice. If the individual proxy record covers up to the last 50 years of the
20th century, then quantitative comparisons are performed, mostly according to the
statements from the original authors. Please consider some of the detailed quan-
titative discussion in section 4 of Soon et al. (2003) and the qualitative results com-
piled in Table 1 of that paper.
Question 11. In an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution (June 1, 2003), you
were quoted as acknowledging during a question period at a previous Senate lunch-
eon that your research does not provide a comprehensive picture of the Earths tem-
perature record and that you questioned whether that is even possible, and that you
did not, . . . see how Mann and the others could calibrate the various proxy
records for comparison. How then does your analysis provide a comprehensive pic-
ture of Earths temperature record or have any bearing on the finding by the IPCC,
that the late 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years?
Response. Thank you for referencing the article. I must first state on the record
that contrary to the claim in this Atlanta Journal Constitution (June 1, 2003) article
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/0603/01warming.html, the writer,
never, as claimed, conducted a telephone interview with me. No such conversation
took place and I am rather shocked by this false claim. This fact has gone uncor-
rected until now.
The strengths and weaknesses of my research works are fully discussed in Soon
et al. (2003). The paper documented detailed local and regional changes in several
climatic variables to try to obtain a broader understanding of climate variability. We
concluded that:
Because the nature of the various proxy climate indicators are so different,
the results cannot be combined into a simple hemispheric or global quantitative
composite. However, considered as an ensemble of individual observations, an
assemblage of the local representations of climate establishes the reality of both
the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period as climatic anomalies with
worldwide imprints, extending earlier results by Bryson et al. (1963), Lamb
(1965), and numerous other research efforts. Furthermore, these individual
proxies are used to determine whether the 20th century is the warmest century
of the 2nd Millennium at a variety of globally dispersed locations. Many records
reveal that the 20th century is likely not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme
climatic period of the last millennium, although it is clear that human activity
has significantly impacted some local environments.
The question on the difficult problem of calibrating proxies of differing types and
sensitivities to climatic variables is discussed in Soon et al. (2003) and some criti-
cisms on the weaknesses of the reconstruction by Mann et al. (1999) or the related
IPCC TARs conclusion are listed especially under Questions No. 6 and 9.
Question 12. Do you believe that appropriate statistical methods do not exist for
calibrating statistical predictors, including climate proxy records, against a target
variable, such as the modern instrumental temperature record?
Response. True progress in the field of paleoclimatology will certainly involve a
better and more robust means of interpreting and quantifying the variations and
changes seen in each high-resolution proxy record. The issue is not merely a prob-
lem awaiting solution through appropriate statistical methods like the EOF method-
ology adopted by Mann et al. (1998, 1999). On pp. 241242 of Soon et al. (2003),
we briefly outlined our straight-forward approach and contrasted it to the one used
by Mann and colleagues that does not necessarily lead to results with physical
meaning and reality.
Question 13. In determining whether the temperature of the Medieval Warm Pe-
riod was warmer than the 20th century, does your study analyze whether a 50-
year period is either warmer or wetter or drier than the 20th century? If so, why
is it appropriate to use indicators of drought and precipitation directly to draw infer-
ences of past temperatures? Please list peer-reviewed works that specifically support
the use of these indicators for inferring past temperature.
162
Response. The detailed discussion behind our usage of the term Medieval Warm
Period or Little Ice Age was described in Soon et al. (2003). We are mindful that
the two terms should definitely include physical criteria and evidence from the ther-
mal field. But we emphasize that great bias would result if those thermal anomalies
were dissociated from hydrological, cryospheric, chemical, and biological factors of
change. So indeed our description of a Medieval Climatic Anomaly (see a similar
sentiment later reported by Bradley et al. 2003, Science, vol. 302, 404405) in Soon
et al. (2003) includes a warmer time that contains both drought or flooding condi-
tions depending on the locations.
With regard to the last part of your question, I would answer by detailing only
one exampleMann et al (1998). This influential study used both direct precipita-
tion measurements and precipitation proxies as temperature indicators. This study
was indeed applied by the IPCC TAR (2001). These include historical precipitation
measurements in 11 grid cells, two coral proxies (reported in Mann et al. [1998] as
precipitation proxies; see http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/datasupp.html for
this and following references), two ice core proxies, 3 reconstructions of spring pre-
cipitation in southeast United States by Stahle and Cleaveland from tree ring data,
12 principal component series for tree rings in southwestern United States and
Mexico reported as precipitation proxies by Stahle and Cleaveland (and Mann et al.
1998) and one tree ring series in Javamaking a total of 31 precipitation series
used as proxies in temperature reconstruction by Mann et al. (1998). In this peer-
reviewed article, for the precipitation data in a grid cell in New England, the re-
searchers apparently used historical data from Paris, France (please see Figure 2
of McIntyre and McKitrick, 2003 and their discussion on pp. 758759). For a grid
cell near Washington DC, the researchers used historical data from Toulouse,
France. For a grid cell in Spain, the researchers used precipitation data from Mar-
seilles, France. Of the 11 precipitation series used in Mann et al. (1998), only one
series (Madras, India) is correctly located. The precipitation data used by these au-
thors cannot be identified in the source cited in paper Mann et al. (1998). While pre-
cipitation data and precipitation-related proxies can be instructive in providing in-
formation on past distribution of moisture and circulation patterns (and thus tem-
perature), it is important to correctly identify the series used and important not to
use data from the wrong continent for historical reconstructions.
Question 14. Do you maintain that any two 50-year periods that occur within a
multi-century interval can be considered coincident from a climatic point of view?
Response. The question raised here about the connection of any two 50-year peri-
ods in any two regions to be related from climatic point of view is both important
and interesting. But the answer will be strongly dependent on the nature of forcings
and feedbacks involved. If longer-term cryospheric or oceanic processes are involved
then the answer would be yes.
Question 15. Do your two recent studies employ an analysis (that is, a statistical
or analytical operation performed upon numerical data) of a single proxy climate
record?
Response. The meaning of this question is not entirely clear to me. But I would
say yes under the context of what is being said.
Question 16. Has your study produced a quantitative reconstruction of past tem-
perature patterns? Do you have a measure of uncertainty or verification in your de-
scription of past temperatures?
Response. The results and conclusion of Soon et al. (2003) are best judged by the
paper itself. Quantitative assessments of local and regional changes through the cli-
matic proxies are discussed in section 4 of that paper as well as some qualitative
picture described in Figures 1, 2 and 3 of that paper. Again, Soon et al. (2003) did
not tried to distill all the collected proxies down to produce a strict temperature-
only result since we are interested in a broader understanding of climate variability.
Part of the answers given under Questions No. 9 and 11 can help elaborate what
was done by Soon et al. (2003). I would also like to direct your attention to the two
warnings listed under Question No. 3 by Bradley et al. (2003) and Esper et al.
(2003) concerning any undue, over confidence in promoting quantitative certainties
in the reconstruction of past temperatures through highly imprecise black boxes of
indirect proxies.
Question 17. Your study indicates that you have compiled the results of hundreds
of previous paleo-climate studies. Have you verified your interpretation of the hun-
dreds of studies with any of the authors/scientists involved in those studies? If so,
how many?
Response. Specific authors and scientists that provided help in our work were list-
ed in the acknowledgement section (p. 272) of Soon et al. (2003). We have also re-
163
ceived generous help and comments from several scientists who are certainly highly
qualified in terms of paleoclimatic studies. But the ultimate quality and soundness
of our research shall always be our own responsibility.
In the September 5, 2003 Chronicle for Higher Education article (by Richard
Monastersky), there were indeed two very serious accusations that suggested that
Soon et al. (2003) had misrepresented or abused the conclusions by two original au-
thors whose work we had cited. Our corrections and explanations to these unfortu-
nately false claims can be studied from the documentation listed in the URL http:/
/cfa-www.harvard.edu/wsoon/ChronicleHigherEducation03-d (read especially
Sep12-lettoCHE3.doc and Sep12-lettoCHE4.doc).
Question 18. What was earths climate like the last time that atmospheric con-
centrations of carbon dioxide were at todays levels or about 370 parts per million
(ppm) and what were conditions like when concentration were at 500 ppm, which
will occur around 2060 or so?
Response. Co-answer to this question is listed under Question No. 19 below.
Question 19. Please describe any known geologic precedent for large increases of
atmospheric CO2 without simultaneous changes in other components of the carbon
cycle and the climate system.
Response. My July 29, 2003 testimony was about the climate history of the past
1000 years detailed in Soon et al. (2003) rather than any potential (causal or other-
wise) relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and climate. The fact re-
mains that the inner working of the global carbon cycle and the course of future
energy use are not sufficiently understood or known to warrant any confident pre-
diction of atmospheric CO2 concentration at year 2060. Please consider co-answer
to this question under Question No. 25 below.
However, it is abundantly obvious that atmospheric CO2 is not necessarily an im-
portant driver of climate change. It is indeed a puzzle that despite the relative low
level of atmospheric CO2 of no more than 300 ppm in the past 320420 thousand
years (Kawamura et al., 2003, Tellus, vol. 55B, 126137) compared to the high levels
of 330370 ppm since the 1960s there is the clear suggestion of significantly warm-
er temperatures at both Vostok and Dome Fuji, East Antarctica, during the
interglacials at stage 9.3 (about 330 thousand years before present; warmer by
about 6 C) and stage 5.5 (about 135 thousand years before present; warmer by
about 4.5 C) than the most recent 1000 years (see Watanabe et al., 2003, Nature,
vol. 422, 509512; further detailed discussion on environmental changes in
Antartica over the past 1000 years or so, including the most recent 50 years can
be found in section 4.3.4 or pp. 256257 of Soon et al. 2003).
But there are important concerns about the retrieval of information on atmos-
pheric CO2 levels from ice cores. Jaworowski and colleagues (1992, The Science of
the Total Environment, vol. 114, 227284) explained that:
Ice is not a rigid material suitable for preserving the original chemical and
isotopic composition of atmospheric gas inclusion. Carbon dioxide in ice is
trapped mechanically and by dissolution in liquid water. A host of physico-
chemical processes redistribute CO2 and other air gases between gaseous, liquid
and solid phases, in the ice sheets in situ, and during drilling, transport and
storage of the ice cores. This leads to changes in the isotopic and molecular com-
position of trapped air. The presence of liquid water in ice at low temperatures
[even below70 C] is probably the most important factor in the physico-chem-
ical changes. The permeable ice sheet with its capillary liquid network acts as
a giant sieve which redistributes elements, isotopes and micro-particles. Carbon
dioxide in glaciers is contained: (1) in interstitial air in firn; (2) in air bubbles
in ice; (3) in clathrates; (4) as a solid solution in ice crystals; (5) dissolved in
intercrystalline veins and films of liquid brine; and (6) in dissolved and particu-
late carbonates. Most of the CO2 is contained in ice crystals and liquids, and
less in air bubbles. In the ice cores it is also present in the secondary gas cav-
ities, cracks, and in the traces of drilling fluids.
The concentration of CO2 in air recovered from the whole ice is usually much
higher than that in atmospheric air. This is due to the higher solubility of this
gas in cold water, which is 73.5- and 35-times higher than that of nitrogen and
oxygen, respectively. The composition of other atmospheric gases (N2, O2, Ar)
is also different in ice and in air inclusions than in the atmosphere. Argon39
and 85Kr data indicate that 36100 percent of air recovered from deep Ant-
arctic ice cores is contaminated by recent atmospheric air during field and lab-
oratory processing. Until about 1985, CO2 concentrations in gas recovered from
primary air bubbles and from secondary gas cavities in pre-industrial and an-
cient ice were often reported to be much higher than in the present atmosphere.
After 1985, only concentrations below the current atmospheric level were pub-
164
lished. Our conclusion is that both these high and low CO2 values do not rep-
resent real atmospheric content of CO2.
Recently reported concentrations of CO2 in primary and secondary gas inclu-
sions from deep cores, covering about the last 160,000 years, are much below
the current atmospheric level, although several times during this period the
surface temperature was 24.5 C higher than now. If these low concentrations
of CO2 represented real atmospheric levels, this would mean (1) that CO2 had
not influenced past climatic changes, and (2) that climatic changes did not influ-
ence atmospheric CO2 levels. (p. 272273)
Additional historical evidence reveals natural occurrences of large, abrupt climatic
changes that are not uncommon and they occurred without any known causal ties
to large radiative forcing change. Phase differences between atmospheric CO2 and
proxy temperature in historical records are often not fully resolved; but atmospheric
CO2 has shown the tendency to follow rather than lead temperature and biosphere
changes (see e.g., Dettinger and Ghil, 1998, Tellus, vol. 50B, 124; Fischer et al.,
1999, Science, vol. 283, 17121714; Indermuhle et al., 1999, Nature, vol. 398, 121
126).
In addition, there have been geological times of global cooling with rising CO2
(during the middle Miocene about 12.514 million years before present [Myr BP],
for example, with a rapid expansion of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet and with a re-
duction in chemical weathering rates), while there have been times of global warm-
ing with low levels of atmospheric CO2 (such as during the Miocene Climate Opti-
mum about 14.517 Myr BP as noted by Panagi et al., 1999, Paleocenoragphy, vol.
14, 273292). A new study of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 500 million
years (Rothman, 2002, Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences, vol.
99, 41674171) concluded that, CO2 levels have mostly decreased for the last 175
Myr. Prior to that point [CO2 levels] appear to have fluctuated from about two to
four times modern levels with a dominant period of about 100 Myr. . . . The result-
ing signal exhibits no systematic correspondence with geologic record of climatic
variations at tectonic time scales.
Question 20. According to a study published in Science magazine, [B. D. Santer,
M. F. Wehner, T. M. L. Wigley, R. Sausen, G. A. Meehl, K. E. Taylor, C. Amman,
W. M. Washington, J. S. Boyle, and W. Bruggemann Science 2003 July 25; 301:
479483], manmade emissions are partly to blame for pushing outward the bound-
ary between the lower atmosphere and the upper atmosphere. How does that fit
with the long-term climate history and what are the implications?
Response. It should first be noted that Pielke and Chase (2004, Science, vol. 303,
1771b; and see p. 1771c by Santer et al. and additional counter-reply by Pielke and
Chase, with input from John Christy and Anthony Reale, available as paper 278b
at http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/reviewedpublications.shtml) had
criticized and challenged Santer et al.s claim and conclusion that,
[o]ur results are relevant to the issue of whether the real-world troposphere
has warmed during the satellite era. . . . The direct evidence is that in the ALL
experiment [i.e., climate model results that included changes in well-mixed
greenhouse gases, direct scattering effects of sulfate aerosols, tropospheric and
stratospheric ozone, solar total irradiance and volcanic aerosols; see more dis-
cussion below], the troposphere warms by 0.07 C/decade over 19791999. This
warming is predominantly due to increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases.
. . . Over 19791999, roughly 30 percent of the increase in tropopause height
in ALL is explained by greenhouse gas-induced warming of the troposphere.
Anthropogenically driven tropospheric warming is therefore an important factor
in explaining modeled changes in tropopause height.
In contrast, Pielke and Chase (2004) offered the observed evidence and concluded
that
[g]lobally averaged tropospheric temperature trends are statistically indistin-
guishable from zero. Thus, the elevation of the globally averaged tropopause re-
port in [Santer et al., 2003] cannot be attributed to any detectable tropospheric
warming over this period. In addition, the climate system is much more com-
plex than defined by tropospheric temperature and tropopause changes. Linear
trend analysis [in Santer et al., 2003] is of limited significance. Changes in glob-
al heat storage provide a more appropriate metric to monitor global warming
than temperature alone.
Soon and Baliunas (2003, Progress in Physical Geography, vol. 27, 448455) had
also previously outlined the incorrect fingerprint of CO2 forcing observed in even the
best and sophisticated version of climate models thus far. A more general and com-
prehensive discussion about the fundamental difficulties on modeling the effects of
165
carbon dioxide using current generation of climate models is given in Soon et al.
(2001, Climate Research, vol. 18, 259271). Thus, the new paper by Santer et al.
(2003) does not supercede or overcome the difficulties with respect to General Cir-
culation Climate Models raised in Soon and Baliunas (2003).
Both the meaning and strength of the model-dependent results shown in Santer
et al. (2003) remain doubtful and weak for several additional reasons.
First, Figure 2 of Santer et al. (2003) itself confirmed that the modeled changes
in tropopause height are caused mainly by large stratospheric cooling related to
changes in stratospheric ozone (they admitted so even though their note No. 35 indi-
cates that their numerical experiments did not separate tropospheric and strato-
spheric ozone changes) rather than by the well-mixed greenhouse gases that are
supposed to be the subject of concern. Second, the model experiments of Santer et
al. (2003) did not include changes in stratospheric water vapor which is known to
be a significant factor for the observed stratospheric cooling (see e.g., Forster and
Shine, 1999, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 26, 33093312). Third, the failure to
account for stratospheric water vapor contradicted the documented significant in-
creases of stratospheric water vapor in the past half-century from a variety of in-
strumentations (e.g., Smith et al, 2000, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 27, 1687
1690; Rosenlof et al., 2001, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 28, 11951198; though
Randel et al. [2004, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, submitted] recently noted
that unusually low water vapor has been observed in the lower stratosphere for
20012003). Fourth, the model experiments by Santer et al. (2003) had clearly ne-
glected (see note No. 18 of that paper) the role of the Suns ultraviolet radiation that
is not only known to be variable (e.g., Fontenla et al. 1999, The Astrophysical Jour-
nal, vol. 518, 480499; White et al., 2000, Space Science Reviews, vol. 94, 6774)
but also known to exert important influence on both the chemistry and thermal
properties in the stratosphere and troposphere (e.g., Larkin et al., 2000, Space
Science Reviews, vol. 94, 199214).
Finally, the physical representation of aerosol forcing (which should not be re-
stricted to sulfate alone) in Santer et al. (2003) is clearly not comprehensive and
at best highly selective. Early on, Russell et al. (2000, Journal of Geophysical Re-
search, vol. 105, 1489114898) cautioned that
[o]ne danger of adding aerosols of unknown strength and location is that they
can be tuned to give more accurate comparisons with current observations but
cover up model deficiencies.
Anderson et al. (2003, Science, vol. 300, 11031104 and see also exchanges in
Crutzen et al., 2003, vol. 303, 16791681) recently cautioned that:
we argue that the magnitude and uncertainty of aerosol forcing may affect the
magnitude and uncertainty of total forcing [i.e., the global mean sum of all in-
dustrial-era forcings] to a degree that has not been adequately considered in
climate studies to date. Inferences about the causes of surface warming over the
industrial period and about climate sensitivity may therefore be in error. . . .
Unfortunately, virtually all climate model studies that have included anthropo-
genic aerosol forcing as a driver of climate change (diagnosis, attribution, and
projection studies; denoted applications in the figure) have used only aerosol
forcing values that are consistent with the inverse approach. If such studies
were conducted with the larger range of aerosol forcings determined from the
forward calculations, the results would differ greatly. The forward calculations
raise the possibility that total forcing from preindustrial times to the present
. . . has been small or even negative. If this is correct, it would imply that cli-
mate sensitivity and/or natural variability (that is, variability not forced by an-
thropogenic emissions) is much larger than climate models currently indicate.
. . . In addressing the critical question of how the climate system will respond
to this [anthropogenic greenhouse gases] positive forcing, researchers must seek
to resolve the present disparity between forward and inverse calculations. Until
this is achieved, the possibility that most of the warming to date is due to nat-
ural variability, as well as the possibility of high climate sensitivity, must be
kept open. [emphasis added]
To further understand the complexity of calculating aerosol forcing, Jacobson
(2001, Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 106, 15511568) has to account for a
total of 47 species containing natural and/or anthropogenic sulfate, nitrate, chlo-
ride, carbonate, ammonium, sodium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, black carbon,
organic matter, silica, ferrous oxide, and aluminium oxide in his recent estimate
of only the global direct radiative forcing by aerosols. (Jacobson [2001] found that
the global direct radiative forcing by anthropogenic aerosols is only 0.12 W/m2
while the forcing by combined natural and anthropogenic sources is 1.4 W/m2.)
There are also the indirect aerosol effects. Temperature or temperature change is
166
clearly not the only practical measure of effects by aerosols. Haywood and Boucher
(2000, Reviews of Geophysics, vol. 38, 513543) stressed the fact that the indirect
radiative forcing effect of the modification of cloud albedo by aerosols could range
from 0.3 to 1.8 W/m2, while the additional aerosol influences on cloud liquid
water content (hence, precipitation efficiency), cloud thickness and cloud lifetime are
still highly uncertain and difficult to quantify (see e.g., Rotstayn and Liu, 2003,
Journal of Climate, vol. 16, 34763481). This is why one can easily appreciate the
difficulties faced by Santer et al. (2003) because climate forcing by aerosols is not
only known within a wide range of uncertainties but also to a large degree of un-
known.
Therefore, I conclude that in addition to the fundamental issues related to climate
model representation of physical processes, papers like Santer et al. (2003) have also
failed the basic requirement for internal consistencies in the accounting for poten-
tially relevant climatic forcing factors and feedbacks. This is why I cannot comment
on the implication of this particular study and the meaning of the study for long-
term climate history.
Question 21. In your testimony, you discussed there being warming and cool-
ing for different periods. If you did not construct an integral across the hemisphere
or a real timeline, dont your findings really just say there were some warm periods
and cool periods, and therefore cannot speak to the issue of the rate of warming
or cooling?
Response. I am not sure about the meaning of this question and the quotes. My
oral remark was merely referring to making an accurate forecast that includes all
potential human-made warming and cooling effects. The detailed discussion about
the climatic and environmental changes for the past 1000 years as deduced from
the collection of proxies I had studied was given in Soon et al. (2003). I can certainly
speak to the rate of warming or cooling at any given location or region when the
available proxy, with sufficient temporal resolution, is known or proven to be tem-
perature sensitive.
Question 22. Is there any indication that regional climate variations are any larg-
er or smaller at present than over the last 1000 years (with 2003, for example, per-
haps being a case with large regional variations from the normal)?
Response. I would not recommend considering the pattern of change from a single
year, i.e., 2003, and called it a climate change. But the fact is that in Soon et al.
(2003) we had carefully studied individual proxy records from various locations and
regions. As an example, the 2000-year bottom-sediment record from Moon Lake,
North Dakota, shows there is perhaps a distinct shift in the mode of hydrologic vari-
ability in the Northern Great Plain region starting around 1200 AD with the more
recent period being more variable from the past. But, as indicated in the chart
below, the author of this paper also noted that the severe droughts of the 1890s
and 1930s around this area are eclipsed by more extensive droughts before the be-
ginning of the instrumental period.
Question 23. In your oral presentation, you talked about [h]aving computer sim-
ulation. Could you please explain what you [as in your original] computer simula-
tion or modeling to which you are referring, and, (a) Has this model gone through
the appropriate set of model intercomparison studies like the various othe global
models? (b) What forcings have been used to drive it? (c) How does it develop re-
gional climate variations, and are these comparable to observations? and, (d) How
does it perform over the 20th century, for example?
167
Response. I apologize for any potential confusions.
In my oral remark, I said,
The entirety of climate proxies over the last 1,000 years shows that over
many areas of the world there has been, and continues to be, large climate
changes. Those changes provide challenges for the computer simulations of cli-
mate. The full models, which explore the Earth region by region, can be tested
against the natural patterns of change over the last 1,000 years that are de-
tailed by the climate proxies. Having computer simulations reproduce past pat-
terns of climate, which has been influenced predominantly by natural factors,
is key to making an accurate forecast that includes all potential human-made
warming and cooling factors.
So in the context of what I said, this question is clearly misdirected by someone
who did not understand my remark. I was speaking on the potential application of
works like Soon et al. (2003) for improving our ability to calculate with confidence
the potential effects from man-made factors by first and foremost having a climate
model that can at least reproduce some of the observed local and regional changes
of the past.
Personally, I am also conducting my research through the help of several climate
models (both simple and complex types) appropriate for my interests and I would
certainly apply what I found in Soon et al. (2003) to my own future studies using
climate models. Any additional comments will be beyond the simple context of my
oral testimony. But, it may be useful to take note of the comments by Green (2002,
Weather, vol. 57, 431439):
It has always worried me that simple models of climate do not seem to work
very well. Experts on numerical models say that this is because the atmosphere
is very complicated, and that large numerical models and computers are needed
to understand it. I worry because I do not know what they have hidden in those
models and the programs they use. I wonder what I can compare their models
with. Not with each other because they belong to a sort of club, where to have
a model that disagrees with everyone elses puts you outside. That is not a bad
system, unless of course they are all wrong. Another curiosity of complicated
models is that their findings are rarely used to improve the model that preceded
them. I would have expected that the more complex model would show where
the simpler one had got it wrong, and allow it to be corrected for that misrepre-
sentation.
Question 24. Based on the various comments of your scientific colleagues regard-
ing your paper, including the methodological flaws pointed out in that paper by the
former editor-in-chief of Climate Research, are you planning any reworking of your
study or any further studies in the paleoclimatic area?
Response. The use of a phrase like methodological flaws is a very convenient at-
tempt to dismiss the weight of scientific evidence presented in Soon et al. (2003) but
unfortunately without any clear nor confirmable basis. Thus far, the only formal
criticism of Soon et al. (2003) was by Mann et al. (2003, Eos, vol. 84(27), 256257)
and we had provided our response to that criticism in Soon et al. (2003b, Eos, vol.
84(44), 473476). My research interest and work to fully discern and quantitatively
describe the local and regional patterns of climate variability over the past 1000
years or so will certainly continue despite this mis-characterization.
It should however not be left unnoticed that several very serious problems in
Mann et al. (1998, 1999), Mann and Schmidt (2003) and Mann and Jones (2003) had
been found recently. Those unresolved anomalies are outlined in my answers to your
Questions No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 13. A careful reworking with a fully open access to
all data as well as a fully disclosed transparency of the actual methodologies and
detailed applications will be the next important step for paleoclimate reconstruction
research.
Question 25. You indicated that there would likely be relatively small climatic re-
sponse to even substantial increases in the CO2 concentration. Do you disagree with
the radiation calculations that have been done and the trapped energy that they cal-
culate, as per the peer-reviewed literature? If so, please explain.
Response. First, please consider the above discussion on climate forcing factors
and climate response sensitivities under Question No. 20 as part of the answers to
this question.
Second, I do not believe that I had made any strong claim, one way or another,
about the CO2 forcing and potential response in any specific quantitative term dur-
ing my testimony (since factually no one can). I do want to comment, as in my re-
sponse under Question No. 19, that CO2, as a minor greenhouse gas, is not a deter-
minant of Earths climate and therefore not entirely obvious a driver of its change.
168
Most calculations in peer-reviewed literature (or not) that focus on the CO2 factor
indeed would only like us to believe that CO2, especially under the realm of radi-
ative forcing, is the predominant factor for driving anomalous climate responses,
while the unavoidable and very difficult core subject about the actual dynamical
state of Earths mean climate is ignored.
Third, some 10 years ago, Lindzen (1994, Annual Review in Fluid Mechanics, vol.
26, 353378) pointed out a rather serious internal inconsistency regarding the role
of water vapor and clouds when the physics of greenhouse effect is normally evalu-
ated even among expert scientists or expert sources of information. (See e.g., the
comment without [the greenhouse effect], the planet would be 65 degrees colder
by Jerry Mahlman in the February 2004 issue of Crisis Magazine, http://
www.crisismagazine.com/february2004/feature1.htm) and the description of Green-
house Effect in the EPAs global warming for kids webpage: http://www.epa.gov/
globalwarming/kids/greenhouse.html.) Lindzen notes the artificial inevitability for
the predominance of CO2 radiative forcing as a climatic factor in the following pas-
sage.
In most popular depictions of the greenhouse effect, it is noted that in the
absence of greenhouse gases, the Earths mean temperature would be 255 K
[about 0 F], and that the presence of infrared absorbing gases elevates this to
288 K [59 F]. In order to illustrate this, only radiative heat transfer is included
in the schematic illustrations of the effect (Houghton et al. 1990, 1992) [IPCC
reports]; this lends an artificial inevitability to the picture. Several points
should be made concerning this picture: 1. The most important greenhouse gas
is water vapor, and the next most important greenhouse substance consists in
clouds; CO2 is a distant third (Goody & Yung 1989). 2. In considering an atmos-
phere without greenhouse substances (in order to get 255 K), clouds are re-
tained for their visible reflectivity while ignored for their infrared properties.
More logically, one might assume that the elimination of water would also lead
to the absence of clouds, leading to a temperature of about 274 K [or 278 K de-
pending on what value of the solar irradiation factor is used] rather than 255
K. 3. Pure radiative heat transfer leads to a surface temperature of about 350
K rather than 288 K. The latter temperature is only achieved by including a
convective adjustment that consists simply in adjusting vertical temperature
gradient so as to avoid convective instability while maintaining a consistent ra-
diative heat flux. . . . (p. 359361)2
Hu et al. (2000, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 27, 35133516) added that as
the sophistication of parameterization of atmospheric convection increases, there is
a tendency for climate model sensitivity to variation in atmospheric CO2 concentra-
tion to decrease considerably. In Hu et al. (2000)s study, the change is from a de-
crease in the averaged tropical warming of 3.3 to 1.6 C for a doubling of CO2 that
is primarily associated the corresponding decrease in the calculated total atmos-
pheric column increase in water vapor from 29 percent to 14 percent.
Question 26. If you accept those radiation calculations as valid, please explain
why you seem to believe that the energy trapped by the greenhouse gases will have
a small effect whereas you seem to believe that small changes in solar energy will
have very large climatic effects?
Response. In addition to my answers under Questions No. 19, 20 and 25 above,
I would like to point out that the Suns radiation is not only variable but it varies
in the ultraviolet part of the electromagnetic spectrum often by factors of 10 or
more. The question about the relative effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and
the Suns radiation in terms of radiative forcing is certainly of interest but it does
not add much to my current research quest to understand the Earths mean climatic
state and its nonlinear manifestations.
Question 27. Please explain why you think the physically based climate models
seem to quite satisfactorily represent the seasonal cycles of the climate at various
latitudes based on the varying distributions of solar and infrared energy, but then
would be so far off in calculating the climatic response for much smaller perturba-
tions to solar radiation and greenhouse gases?
Response. As indicated below, the first part of this sentence about a satisfactory
representation of seasonal cycles of climate by computer climate models is not any
assured statement of fact. This is why the followup question cannot be logically an-
swered.
2 A more pedagogical discussion of the greenhouse effect is given by Lindzen and Emanuel
(2002) in Encyclopedia of Global Change, Environmental Change and Human Society, Volume
1, Andrew S. Goudie, editor in chief, p. 562566, Oxford University Press, New York, 710 pp.
169
For example, E. K. Schneider (2002, Journal of Climate, vol. 15, 449469) noted
that:
[a]t this writing, physically consistent and even flux-corrected coupled atmos-
phere-ocean general circulation models (CGCMs) have difficulty in producing a
realistic simulation of the equatorial Pacific SST [sea surface temperature], in-
cluding annual mean, annual cycle, and interannual variability. Not only do the
CGCM simulations have significant errors, but also there is little agreement
among models.
In a systematic comparison of the performance of 23 dynamical ocean-atmosphere
models, Davey et al. (2002, Climate Dynamics, vol. 18, 403420) found that no sin-
gle model is consistent with the observed behavior in the tropical ocean regions . . .
as the model biases are large and gross errors are readily apparent. Without flux
adjustment, most models produced annual mean equatorial sea surface temperature
in the central Pacific that are too cold by 23 C. All GCMs except one simulated
the wrong sign of the east-west SST gradient in the equatorial Atlantic. The GCMs
also incorrectly simulated the seasonal climatology in all ocean sections and its
interannual variability in the Pacific ocean.
Question 28. In regard to your answers to the previous questions, to what extent
is your indication of a larger climate sensitivity for solar than greenhouse gases due
to quantitative analysis of the physics and to what extent due to your analysis of
statistical correlations? Is this greater responsiveness for solar evident in the base-
line climate system, or just for perturbations, and could you please explain?
Response. Please see my answers to Questions No. 26 above and 30 below.
Question 29. Please explain why you seem to accept that solar variations, volcanic
eruptions, land cover change, and perhaps other forcings can have a significant cli-
matic influence, but changes in CO2 do not or cannot have a comparable influence?
Response. Please see my answers to Question No. 30.
Question 30. Could you please clarify why it is that you think the best way to
get an indication of how much the climate will change due to global-scale changes
in greenhouse gases or in solar radiation is to look at the regional level rather than
the global scale? How would you propose to distinguish a natural variation from a
climate change at the local to regional level?
Response. Questions No. 28, 29 and 30 seem to be based on the unreasonable pre-
sumptions that some special insights about the effects of solar irradiation or land
cover changes or even volcanic eruptions must be invoked or answered in order to
challenge the role of carbon dioxide forcing in the climate system. That presumption
is illogical. My basic view and research interest about carbon dioxide and the ongo-
ing search for the right tool for modeling aspects of the Earths climate system can
be briefly summarized by my answers to Questions No. 19, 25, 26, 27 and perhaps
20.
As to your specific question on distinguishing a natural variation (either inter-
nally generated or externally introduced by solar variation or volcanic eruption)
from a climate change by anthropogenic factors like land cover changes or carbon
dioxide at the local to regional level, there is possibly a somewhat surprising an-
swer. If one wish to single out the potential effects of man-made carbon dioxide
against other natural and anthropogenic factors as hinted by your question, then
the answer is clearthe CO2 effect is expected to be small in the sense that its po-
tential signals will be likely be overwhelmed when compared with expected effects
by other factors. It is a scientific fact that the signal of CO2 on the climate may
be expected only over a very long time baseline and over a rather large areal extent.
For example, Zhao and Dirmeyer (2003, COLA Technical Report No. 150; available
at http://grads.iges.org/pubs/tech.html), in their modeling experiments that at-
tempt to account for the realistic effects of land cover changes, sea surface tempera-
ture changes and for the role of added atmospheric CO2, found that
[w]hen observed CO2 concentrations are specified in the model across the 18-
year period, . . . we do not find a substantially larger warming trend than in
CTL [with no change in CO2 concentration], although some small increase is
found. The weak impact of atmospheric CO2 changes may be due to the small
changes in specified CO2 during the model simulation compared to the doubling
CO2 simulation, or the short length of the integrations. It is clear that the rel-
atively strong SST [sea surface temperature] influence in this climate model is
the driver of the [observed] warming.
Please also consider the point made by Lindzen (2002) under Question No. 8 above
concerning the difficulties in linking the observed warming trend of the deep ocean
(without challenging the quality and error of those deep ocean temperature data)
170
to anthropogenic CO2 forcing. Finally, I wish to note that Mickley et al. (2004, Jour-
nal of Geophysical Research, vol. 109, D05106) managed to use climate model sim-
ulations results to demonstrate the limitations in the use of radiative forcing as
a measure of relative importance of greenhouse gases to climate change. . . . While
on a global scale CO2 appears to be a more effective global warmer than tropo-
spheric ozone per unit forcing, regional sensitivities to increase ozone may lead to
strong climate responses on a regional scale.
Question 31. How does your recent article relate to your assignments at the Har-
vard Smithsonian Observatory? Is paleoclimate part of the task of this observatory?
Response. The publications of Soon et al. (2003) or Soon et al. (2004) are possible
because of research grants that I and my collaborators obtained through competitive
proposals to several research funding sources. I am a trust-fund employee at the
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the support of my position and
research work here is mainly through my own research initiative and proposal ap-
plication. The scientific learning about paleoclimatic reconstruction presented in
Soon et al. (2003) is related to my research interest in the mechanisms of sun-cli-
mate relation, especially for relevant physical pathways and processes on
multidecadal and centennial time scales. Additional fruit of my independent re-
search and labor in the area of sun-climate physics, funded or unfunded, is exempli-
fied by the March 2004 book The Maunder Minimum and The Variable Sun-Earth
Connection (see http://www.wspc.com/books/physics/5199.html) by W. Soon and
S. Yaskell (published by World Scientific Publishing Company). It might also be in-
structive to note that paleoclimate researchers have been speculating about long-
term variability of the sun as the cause of centennial- to millennial-scale variability
seen in their proxy records.
Question 32. In your testimony, you said that climate change is part of nature.
Please describe what you meant, since obviously, climate change have occurred due,
in part, to changes in various forcings, such as solar, continental drift, atmospheric
composition, asteroid impacts, etc. rather than being just completely random events.
Could you provide estimates of how large you consider future forcings might be and
how big the climate change they might cause could be?
Response. In this occasion, I am referring to the fact that any change or varia-
bility in climate is most likely a rule, rather than the exception, of the climate sys-
tem. But I was not speaking about or trying to imply the factors of change, either
naturally produced or man-made. I apologize for any potential confusion. It is cer-
tainly reasonable to suggest that those climatic changes may arise from forcings
but it would be unwise to rule out internally generated manifestations of climatic
variables that could be purely stochastic in origin. I would strongly recommend the
pedagogical discussion by Professor Carl Wunsch of MIT in Wunsch (1992, Oceanog-
raphy, vol. 5, 99106) and Wunsch (2004, Quantitative estimate of the
Milankovitch-forced contribution to observed Quaternary climate change, working
manuscript downloadable from http://puddle.mit.edu/cwunsch/).
I cannot speculate on future climate forcings and resultant climatic changes be-
cause I found no basis for doing so.
Question 33. Please provide a comparable estimate, with some supporting exam-
ples from the past, of how big you think the decadal (or 50-year if you prefer)
change in the hemispheric/global climate could be due to natural variability? If you
prefer to focus on the regional scale change, could you provide an indication of any
expected change in the degree of regional variability about the hemispheric and
global values, and what the mechanism for this might be?
Response. This question seems a related question trying to get at a quantitative
comparison of how large natural climate variability on regional or hemispheric scale
can be under the shadow of expected future changes. Again, with no intention to
devalue this interesting question, I do not have sufficient knowledge nor ability to
venture such an estimate. In fact, I would go so far to say that if the estimates of
variability for both the past and future are known within a reasonable range of un-
certainties, then the actual scientific research program to address questions about
the role of added carbon dioxide no longer require further funding or execution since
we have obtained all the relevant answers. But you may have judged from my an-
swers given throughout this Q&A that much remains to be quantified and under-
stood and the hard scientific research must continue.
Question 34. Please explain the scientific basis for your testimony that one
should expect the CO2 greenhouse effect to work its way downward toward the sur-
face.
Response. Co-answer to this question is given under Question No. 35.
171
Question 35. Do you believe that there is greater greenhouse trapping of energy
in the troposphere than at the surface and that the atmosphere has a low heat ca-
pacity? If so, how big is this temperature difference?
Response. It is broadly agreed and assumed that carbon dioxide, when released
into the air, has a tendency to get mixed up quickly and so is distributed widely
through out the whole column of the atmosphere. The air near the surface is already
dense and moist, so addition of more carbon dioxide will introduce very little imbal-
ance of radiation energy budget there. In contrast adding more carbon dioxide to
the thinner and drier air of the troposphere will cause a chain of noticeable effects.
First, the presence of more carbon dioxide in the uppermost part of the atmosphere
will cause more infrared radiation to escape into space because there are more car-
bon dioxide molecules to channel this infrared radiation upward and outward
unhindered. Part of that infrared radiation is also being emitted downward to the
lower parts of the atmosphere and the surface where it is reabsorbed by carbon di-
oxide and the thicker air there. The layer of air at the lower and middle tropo-
sphere, being more in direct contact with this down-welling radiation, is expected
to heat more than air near the surface. Thus, adding more carbon dioxide to the
atmosphere should cause more warming of the air around the height of two to seven
kilometers. (Please consider for example the discussion by Kaser et al. (2004) under
Question No. 8 about the ineffectiveness of an added longwave radiation from a di-
rect addition of atmospheric CO2 or atmospheric temperature change in explaining
the modern retreat of glaciers at Kilimanjaro.) In other words, the clearest impact
of the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect should manifest itself in the lower- and mid-
troposphere rather than near the earths surface. Here, I am mostly speaking on the
basis of expectation from pure radiative forcing considerations.
Such a qualitative description is not complete, even though that is roughly what
was modeled in the most sophisticated general circulation models (see e.g., Chase
et al., 2004, Climate Research, vol. 25, 185190), because it misses the key roles of
atmospheric convection and waves as well as all the important hydrologic processes
(please see e.g., Neelin et al., 2003, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 30 (no. 24),
2275 and consider additional remarks about water vapor and atmospheric convec-
tion under Question No. 25 as well as discussion on climate forcing factors and cli-
mate response sensitivities under Question No. 20). Some theoretical proposals ex-
pect a warming of the surface relative to the low- and mid-troposphere because of
nonlinear climate dynamics (Corti et al., 1999, Nature, 398, 799802). That expecta-
tion is because of the differential surface response with the pattern of Cold Ocean
and Warm Land (COWL) that becomes increasingly unimportant with distance
away from the surface (rather than just the difference in heat capacity mentioned
in your question) [see Soon et al., 2001 for additional discussion]. Nevertheless, no
GCM has yet incorporated such an idea into an operationally robust simulation of
the climate system response to greenhouse effects from added CO2. In the latest
global warming work, Neelin et al. (2003), for example, still distinctly differentiate
between mechanisms for tropical precipitation that are initiated through CO2 warm-
ing of the troposphere and through El Nino warming rooted in oceanic surface tem-
perature and subsurface thermocline dynamics. (Further note that their model ex-
periments [see Figure 2b+2c and 10b+10c of Chou and Neelin, 2004, Mechanisms
of global warming impacts on regional tropical precipitation in preparation for
Journal of Climate; available at http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/?csi/REF/] also clearly
shown that the troposphere warmed significantly more than surface with the dou-
bling of atmospheric CO2 as discussed by Chase et al. 2004 below.)
But it is worth noticing that the current global observation shows that, at least
over the 19792003 interval, the lower tropospheric temperatures are not warming
as fast as the surface temperatures (see Christy et al. 2003, Journal of Atmospheric
and Oceanic Technology, vol. 20, 613629; for additional confidence on the results
derived by the University of Alabama-Huntsville group, please see Christy and Nor-
ris, 2004, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 31, L06211). This observed fact is in
contradiction to the accelerated warming of the mid and upper troposphere relative
to surface simulated in current models (Chase et al. 2004). Chase et al. (2004) ar-
rives at the following conclusions, upon examining results from 4 climate models in
both unforced scenarios and scenarios forced with increased atmospheric greenhouse
gases and the direct aerosol effect3:
3 Such a study should also be consistently challenged by the discussion under question No.
20 about the adequacy of studying responses from a combination of incomp;ete forcings
through my primary purpose here is to illustrate the theoretical expectation of CO2 forcing de-
riving from state-of-the-art climate models.
172
Model simulations of the period representative of the greenhouse-gas and
aerosol forcing for 19792000 generally show a greatly accelerated and detect-
able warming at 500 mb relative to the surface (a 0.06 C decade1increase).
Considering all possible simulated 22 yr trends under anthropogenic forc-
ing, a strong surface warming was highly likely to be accompanied by acceler-
ated warming at 500 mb [i.e., 987 out of 1018 periods or 97 percent of the cases
had a larger warming at 500 mb than at the surface] with no change in likeli-
hood as forcings increased over time.
In simulated periods where the surface warmed more quickly than 500 mb,
there was never a case [emphasis added] in which the 500 mb temperature did
not also warm at a large fraction of the surface warming. A 30 percent accelera-
tion at the surface was the maximum simulated as compared with an observed
acceleration factor of at least 400 percent the mid-troposphere trend.
In cases where there was a strong surface warming and the surface
warmed more quickly than at 500 mb in the forced experiments, there was
never a case in which the 500 mb-level temperatures did not register a statis-
tically significant (p< 0.1) trend (i.e., a trend detectable with a simple linear re-
gression model). The minimum p value of approximately 0.08 occurred in the
single case in which the significance was not greater than 99 percent.
It was more likely that surface warmed relative to the mid-troposphere
under control simulations than under forced simulations.
At no time, in any model realization, forced or unforced, did any model sim-
ulate the presently observed situation of a large and highly significant surface
warming accompanied with no warming whatsoever aloft. (p. 189)
Question 36. The grants that are described as supporting your analysis seem to
have much more to do with the sun or unrelated pattern recognition that with cli-
mate history (Air Force Office of Scientific Research-Grant AF496200210194;
American Petroleum Institute-Grants 0100004579 and 2002100413; NASA-Grant
NAG7635; and NOAA-Grant NA96GP0448). Could you please describe how much
funding you received and used in support of this study, all of the sources and the
duration of that funding, and the relevance of those grant topics to the article?
Response. All sources of funding for my and my colleagues research efforts that
resulted in the publication of Soon and Baliunas (2003) and Soon et al. (2003) were
openly acknowledged. In other words, all sources of funding were disclosed in the
manuscripts when they were submitted for publication; all sources of funding were
also disclosed to readers in the printed journal articles. I am not the principal inves-
tigator for some of the grants we received (e.g., the NOAA grant was awarded to
Professor David Legates), so I am not in the privilege position to provide exact
quantitative numbers. But throughout the 20012003 research interval in which our
work was carried out, the funding we received from the American Petroleum Insti-
tute was a small fraction of the funding we received from governmental research
grants.
The primary theme of my research interest is on physical mechanisms of the sun-
climate relationship. This is why researching into the detailed patterns of local and
regional climate variability as published in Soon et al. (2003) is directly relevant to
that goal. Please also consider my research position listed under Question No. 31
above.
Question 37. Have you been hired by or employed by or received grants from orga-
nizations that have taken advocacy positions with respect to the Kyoto Protocol, the
U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, or legislation before the U.S. Con-
gress that would affect greenhouse gas emissions? If so, please identify those organi-
zations.
Response. I have not knowingly been hired by, nor employed by, nor received
grants from any such organizations described in this question.
Question 38. Please describe the peer review process that took place with respect
to your nearly identical articles published both in Climate Research and in Energy
and Environment, including the number of reviewers and the general content of the
reviewers suggested edits, criticisms or improvements.
Response. The Climate Research paper (Soon and Baliunas, 2003, Climate Re-
search, vol. 23, 89110) was submitted for publication and went through a routine
peer-review process and was eventually approved for publication. The main content
of the review was to propose: (a) reorganizing of materials including elimination of
discussions on ENSO and GCMs; (b) removing tone problems by eliminating criti-
cisms of previous EOF and superposition analyses; (c) reducing quotes especially
those by Hubert Horace Lamb to improve readability; and (d) reviewing changes in
each region with same thoroughness. The July 3, 2003s email (as Attachment I
173
below) from the director of Inter-Research, Otto Kinne, who publishes Climate Re-
search is enclosed below to confirm that the review process was fairly rigorous and
all parties involved had carried out their roles and duties in this time-honored sys-
tem properly.
The extended and more complete paper by Soon et al. (2003, Energy & Environ-
ment, vol. 14, 233296) was submitted to Energy & Environment for consideration
together with the accepted Climate Research manuscript. Energy & Environments
editorial decision was to send our manuscript for review, and after acceptance, in-
clude in its editorial in Energy & Environment, volume 14, issues 2&3, a footnote
referring to the Climate Research paper.
Finally, we wish to correct that the false impression introduced by Professor
Mann both during the testimony and in public media that his attack on the papers
by Soon and Baliunas (2003) and Soon et al. (2003), in a FORUM article in the
American Geophysical Union Eos newspaper (Mann et al., 2003, Eos, vol. 84, 256
258), were either rigorously peer-reviewed or represented widespread view of the
community. Contrary to Professor Manns public statements, a FORUM article in
Eos is said to be only stating a personal point of view (http://www.agu.org/pubs/
eosguidelines.html#authors). Whatever peer-reviewing that was done did not in-
clude soliciting comments from the authors of the papers being criticized. We first
learned of this FORUM article from the AGUs press release No. 0319 Leading
Climate Scientists Reaffirm View that Late 20th Century Warming Was Unusual
and Resulted From Human Activity (http://www.agu.org/scisoc/prrl/
prrl0319.html). See Soon et al. (2003b, Eos, vol. 84 (44), 473476) for our own re-
sponse to the Mann et al. FORUM article.
STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR MICHAEL E. MANN, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

SERVICES, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
My name is Michael Mann. I am a professor in the Department of Environmental
Sciences at the University of Virginia. My research involves the use of climate mod-
els, the analysis of empirical climate data, and statistical methods for comparing ob-
servations and model predictions. One area of active current research of mine in-
volves the analysis of climate proxy records (that is, natural archives of informa-
tion which record past climate conditions by their biological, physical, or chemical
nature). These data are used to reconstruct patterns of climate variability prior to
the period of the past century or so during which widespread instrumental climate
records are available. A primary focus of this research is deducing the long-term be-
havior of the climate system and the roles of various potential agents of climate
change, both natural and human.
I was a Lead Author of the Observed Climate Variability and Change chapter
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assess-
ment Report and a scientific contributor for several other chapters of the report. I
am the current organizing committee chair for the National Academy of Sciences
Frontiers of Science and have served as a committee member or advisor for other
National Academy of Sciences panels related to climate change. I have served as
editor for the Journal of Climate of the American Meteorological Society. Im a
member of the advisory panel for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministrations Climate Change Data and Detection Program, and a member of nu-
merous other international and U.S. scientific working groups, panels and steering
committees. I have co-authored more than 60 peer-reviewed articles and book chap-
ters on diverse topics within the fields of climatology and paleoclimatology. Honors
I have received include selection in 2002 as one of the 50 leading visionaries in
Science and Technology by Scientific American magazine, the outstanding scientific
publication award for 2000 from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration, and citation by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) for notable
recognition of my peer-reviewed research by fellow scientists.
In my testimony here today, I will explain: (1) How mainstream climate research-
ers have come to the conclusion that late-20th century warmth is unprecedented in
a very long-term context, and that this warmth is likely related to the activity of
human beings. (2) Why a pair of recent articles challenging these conclusions by as-
tronomer Willie Soon and his co-authors are fundamentally unsound.
CLIMATE HISTORY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
Evidence from paleoclimatic sources overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that

late-20th century hemispheric-scale warmth was unprecedented over at least the
past millennium and probably the past two millennia or longer.
174
Modeling and statistical studies indicate that such anomalous warmth cannot be
explained by natural factors but, instead, requires significant anthropogenic (that is,
human) influences during the 20th century. Such a conclusion is the indisputable
consensus of the community of scientists actively involved in the research of climate
variability and its causes. This conclusion is embraced by the position statement on
Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases of the American Geophysical Union (AGU)
which states that there is a compelling basis for concern over future climate
changes, including increases in global-mean surface temperatures, due to increased
concentrations of greenhouse gases, primarily from fossil-fuel burning. This is also
the conclusions of the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), affirmed by a National Academy of Sciences report solicited by the
Bush administration in 2001 which stated, The IPCCs conclusion that most of the
observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in
greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific
community on this issue.
THE MAINSTREAM SCIENTIFIC VIEWPOINT
Human beings have influenced modern climate through changes in greenhouse

gas concentrations, the production of industrial aerosols, and altered patterns of
land-use. By studying both the record of ancient climate variability and the factors
that may have influenced it, we can establish how and why the climate system var-
ied naturally, prior to any large-scale anthropogenic impacts. Large changes in cli-
mate certainly occurred in the distant past. If we look 60 million years back in time,
Dinosaurs were roaming the polar regions of the earth, and the globe was almost
certainly warmer than today. Carbon dioxide levels were probably about double
their current level, and had slowly attained such high levels due to changes in the
arrangements of the continents (plate tectonics) which influence the outgassing of
carbon dioxide from the solid earth and thus, atmospheric greenhouse gas con-
centrations. These changes occur on timescales of tens of millions of years. 10,000
years ago, large ice sheets existed over North America due to natural changes that
occur in the earths orbit on timescales of tens of thousands of years. Trying to study
distant past climates for insights into modern natural climate variability is ham-
pered by the fact that the basic external constraints on the system (the continental
arrangement, the geometry of the earths astronomical orbit, the presence of conti-
nental ice sheetswhat we call the boundary conditions) were significantly dif-
ferent from today. Focusing on the evolution of climate in the centuries leading up
to the 20th century provides a perspective on the natural variability of the climate
prior to the period during which large-scale human influence is likely to have oc-
curred, yet modern enough that the basic boundary conditions on the climate system
were otherwise the same. This provides us, in essence, a control for diagnosing
whether or not recent climate changes are indeed unusual.
Instrumental data for use in computing global mean surface temperatures are
only available for about the past 150 years. Estimates of surface temperature
changes prior to the 20th century must make use of historical documents and nat-
ural archives or proxy indicators, such as tree rings, corals, ice cores and lake
sediments, to reconstruct the patterns of past climate change. Due to the paucity
of data in the Southern Hemisphere, recent studies have emphasized the reconstruc-
tion of Northern Hemisphere rather than global mean temperatures. A number of
independent reconstructions of the average temperature of the Northern Hemi-
sphere support the conclusion that the hemispheric warmth of the late 20th century
(i.e., the past few decades) is likely unprecedented over at least the past millen-
nium. Preliminary evidence suggests that such a conclusion may well hold for at
least the past two millennia, though more work, requiring the development of a
more complete set of reliable proxy records spanning the past few millennia, are
necessary to further decrease the uncertainties. Climate model simulations employ-
ing estimates of natural and anthropogenic radiative forcing changes agree well
with the proxy-based reconstructions (Figure 1). The simulations, moreover, show
that it is not possible to explain the anomalous late 20th century warmth without
the contribution from anthropogenic influences. Such consensus findings are ex-
pressed in the recently published article co-authored by myself and 12 other leading
climate scientists from the United States and Britain that appeared recently in the
journal Eos, the official transactions of the American Geophysical Union, the larg-
est professional society in the field.
FLAWS IN A RECENT STUDY DISPUTING THE SCIENTIFIC CONCENSUS
Two deeply flawed (and nearly identical) recent papers by astronomers Soon and
Baliunas (one of them with some additional co-authorsboth henceforth referred to
175
as SB) have been used to challenge the scientific consensus. I outline the 3 most
basic problems with their papers here:
(1) In drawing conclusions regarding past regional temperature changes from

proxy records, it is essential to assess to make sure that the proxy data are indica-
tors of temperature and not precipitation or drought. SB make this fundamental
error when they cite evidence of either warm, wet, or dry regional conditions as
being in support of an exceptional Medieval Warm Period or MWP. Their criterion,
ad absurdum, could be used to define any period of climate as warm or cold. Expe-
rienced paleoclimate researchers know that they must first establish the existence
of a temperature signal in a proxy record before using it to evaluate past tempera-
ture changes (Figure A1).
(2) It is essential to distinguish between regional temperature changes and truly
hemispheric or global changes. SB do not make this essential distinction. The
wavelike character of weather (i.e., the day-to-day wiggles of the Jet Stream) en-
sures that certain regions tend to warm when other regions cool. This past winter
is a case in point. January was about 2 C below normal on the east coast of the
U.S., but about 4 C above normal over much of the west. Utah, Nevada and parts
of California and Alaska had the warmest January on record (the change in location
of the Iditarod dog sled race was a casualty of the Alaskan winter warmth!). The
average temperature over the entire U.S. was about 1 C above normal, much less
warm than for the western U.S., and of the opposite sign of the eastern U.S.
In a similar manner, average global or hemispheric temperature variations on
longer timescales tend to be much smaller in magnitude than those for particular
regions, due to the tendency for a cancellation of warm and cold conditions in dif-
ferent regions. While relative warmth during the 10th12th centuries, and cool con-
ditions during the 15th-early 20th centuries are evident from reconstructions and
model simulations of the average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere (Figure
1), the specific periods of cold and warmth naturally differ from region to region
(Figure A2). The notion of an unusually cold 17th century Little Ice Age, for exam-
ple, arose in a European historical context. What makes the late 20th century
unique is the simultaneous warmth indicated by nearly all long-term records (Fig-
ure A2), leading to the anomalous warmth evident during this period in Northern
Hemisphere average temperatures (Figure 1).
(3) It is essential, in forming a climate reconstruction, to carefully define a base
period for modern conditions against which past conditions may be quantitatively
compared. The concensus conclusion that late20th century mean warmth likely ex-
ceeds that of any time during the past millennium for the Northern Hemisphere,
176
is based on a careful comparison of temperatures during the most recent decades
with reconstructions of past temperatures, taking into account the uncertainties in
those reconstructions. As it is only the past few decades during which Northern
Hemisphere temperatures have exceeded the bounds of natural variability, any
analysis such as SB that compares past temperatures only to early or mid-20th cen-
tury conditions, or interprets past temperatures using proxy information not capable
of resolving decadal trends cannot address the issue of whether or not late-20th cen-
tury warmth is anomalous in a long-term context.
CONCLUSIONS
The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is higher than at any

time in at least the last 400,000 years, and, it increasingly now appears, probably
many millions of years. This increase is undeniably due to the activity of human
beings through fossil fuel burning. Late 20th century warming is unprecedented in
modern climate history at hemispheric scales. This is almost certainly a result of
the dramatic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations due human activity. The lat-
est model-based projections indicate a global mean temperature increase of 0.6 to
2.2 C (1 C to 4 F) relative to 1990 levels by the mid-20th century. While these esti-
mates are uncertain, even the lower value would take us well beyond any previous
levels of warmth seen over at least the past couple millennia. The magnitude of
warmth, but perhaps more importantly, the unprecedented rate of this warming, is
cause for concern.
177
178
RESPONSE BY MICHAEL MANN TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BY SENATOR INHOFE
Question 1. You have used the term climate scientist to distinguish certain indi-
viduals. What, in your view, does it take for one to earn the title climate scientist?
What specific credentials, or the lack thereof, would lead you to refuse to recognize
someone as a climates scientist?
Response. The term climate scientist is used, in my experience, to describe an
individual with specific training in oceanographic, atmospheric, and coupled ocean-
atmosphere processes relevant to understanding climate variability and the behav-
ior of the climate system. An individual might obtain this training through either
an advanced degree in those areas of study, or through years of research in those
areas associated with numerous publications in the peer-reviewed climate literature
such as Journal of Geophysical ResearchAtmospheres, Journal of Geophysical
Research-Oceans, Climate Dynamics, The Holocene, Geophysical Research Let-
ters, Paleoceanography (or publication of climate papers in leading international
science journals such as Nature and Science). I would not, for example, consider
scientists with advanced degrees in Astronomy, Astrophysics, or Physics who have
published primarily in those areas, as climate scientistsnor do I believe would
most of my colleagues in the climate research community. In addition to training
and publishing in a field, leading scientists would normally be expected to be ac-
tively interacting and collaborating in studies with colleagues and ensuring their
understanding of cutting edge science through attendance and active participation
in meetings convened by the leading professional societies and organizations.
Question 2. Your work and testimony contends that the Little Ice Age was not
global, but restricted to only portions of Europe. A forthcoming article by Shindell
et al. (Shindell, D.T. et al., 2003: Volcanic and solar forcing of climate change during
the pre-industrial era. Journal of Climate, in press), however, indicates the Little
Ice Age could have resulted from a combination of solar and volcanic forcing. Do you
agree with these conclusions from Shindell et al.? If so, how can solar and volcanic
forcings generate climatic effects that are not observed across the entire hemi-
sphere?
Response. The statement is incorrect. I never testified that the Little Ice Age was
. . . restricted to only portions of Europe.
It should first be noted that many paleoclimatologists have questioned the utility
of terms such as Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period which provide mis-
leading descriptions of past climate changes in many regions. There is a complex
pattern of climate variability in past centuries, and the lack of evidence for syn-
chronous temperature variations worldwide in past centuries [e.g. Bradley, R.S., and
P.D. Jones, Little Ice Age summer temperature variations: their nature and rel-
evance to recent global warming trends, The Holocene, 3, 367376, 1993; Hughes,
M.K., and H.F. Diaz, Was there a medieval warm period, and if so, where and
when, Climatic Change, 26, 109142, 1994]. The cited paper by Shindell et al (2003),
of which I am a co-author, is fully consistent with such findings. The paper, rather
than demonstrating globally uniform patterns of warming or cooling in past cen-
turies, shows that surface temperature changes were dominated by regional over-
prints associated with the response of the North Atlantic Oscillation atmospheric
circulation pattern to radiative forcing. This response leads to a pattern of cooling
during the 17th/18th centuries in certain regions (not just Europe, but many regions
throughout the Northern Hemisphere extratropics) and warming in other regions.
The paper shows that this pattern of warming and cooling closely resembles the pat-
tern of surface temperature change during that interval reconstructed by Mann and
colleagues (MBH98). It is worth noting, moreover, that the tropical Pacific seems to
have been in a warmer, rather than a colder state, during the conventionally de-
fined Little Ice Age [Cobb, K.M., Charles, C.D., Edwards, R.L., Cheng, H., &
Kastner, M. El Nino-Southern Oscillation and tropical Pacific climate during the
last millennium, Nature 424, 271276 (2003). Climate dynamists understand the
importance of such phenomena in understanding the highly variable pattern of sur-
face temperature changes in past centuries, and rarely, if ever, argue for the exist-
ence of globally uniform or synchronous temperature change in past centuries. The
response of the climate to solar and volcanic radiative forcing is known to involves
dynamical responses associated with regionally differentiated temperature trends
that overprint far smaller global mean responses. This contrasts strongly with the
response of the climate to anthropogenic climate forcing, for which the integrated
global mean radiative forcing is considerably greater, and the associated large-scale
warming typically rises above the regional variability.
Question 3. That same paper finds long-term regional response to solar forcing
[that] greatly exceeds unforced variability . . . and produces climateanomalies simi-
179
lar to those seen during the Little Ice Age. Thus, longterm regional changes during
the pre-industrial [era] appear to havebeen dominated by solar forcing. You further
state that For the few centuries prior to the industrial era, however, externally
driven climate change is thought to have been forced primarily by only two factors:
variation in solar output and volcanic eruptions . . . These forcings likely played
a large role in the so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA)
epochs of the last millennium, which saw significant climate changes on at least re-
gional scales . . . You then define regional to mean continental in scale . . .
Do you claim that total solar irradiance change is the only solar forcing mechanism
that has any significant climate effect? List your formal training in, plus courses
you have taught, in solar physics. Do you agree with the papers claim that the
MWP and LIA exist on regional scales, in accordance with climate experts like R.
Bryson and H.H. Lamb, starting with their work in the 1960s, and recently updated
in summary in Soon et al. (2003)?
Response. Expertise in solar physics is not the expertise required to evaluate
what is happening to the Earths climatewhat matters are the changes in solar
radiation at the top of the atmosphere and then down through it. As is made clear
in our paper, we are considering not only total solar irradiance but also its spec-
tral distribution. Indeed, because much of the change in solar radiation occurs in
UV wavelengths, induced changes in stratospheric ozone can be lead to significant
changes in atmospheric circulation in the troposphere. The model simulations indi-
cate that such atmospheric circulation changes can, acting with other factors, lead
to regional variations in the climate such as were observed over the last millen-
nium. As a co-author of this paper, I of course, agree with its findings. However,
the inference that this paper confirms the work of Soon et al. (2003) is very mis-
taken.
With respect to my training, teaching, I would encourage that my Curriculum
Vitae, which I have provided separately, be included in the record to be compared
to those of the other witnesses with respect to relevant expertise and standing in
the climate research community.
Question 4. In your testimony, you stated that you hold the mainstream view
with respect to climate theory of air temperature trends over the past two millennia.
Provide supporting citations in the refereed scientific literature that are not au-
thored or co-authored by you or your colleagues, collaborators, students or former
students, or associates (i.e., Phil Jones, Ray Bradley, Malcolm Hughes), where oth-
ers hold this Emainstream1 view.
Response. The statement once again mischaracterizes my comments. As there is
only one reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere annual mean temperature over the
past two millennia, published only recently by Phil Jones and myself, it is hardly
meaningful to discuss whether other studies support this finding. The peer-review
and publication process typically unfolds on timescales of a year or longer, not
months. Any careful reading of my comments would reveal that I was not referring
to this one specific reconstruction in the comments I made characterizing what I be-
lieve to be the mainstream viewpoint of the climate research community. This re-
view, as discussed in my testimony, refers rather to the widespread evidence that
late 20th century warmth is unprecedented in a long-term context, anywhere from
the past several centuries to nearly the past two millennia, depending on the time-
frame of the particular study.
Second, the description of collaborators, associates, former students, depending
on how interpreted, is so broad a category as to include just about every leading
scientist in the field. The following publications all come to the same conclusion that
late 20th century Northern Hemisphere warmth is anomalous in a long-term con-
text:
Bauer, E., Claussen, M., Brovkin, V., Assessing climate forcings of the earth
system for the past millennium, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30 (6), 1276, doi: 10.1029/
2002GL016639, 2003.
Bertrand C., Loutre M.F., Crucifix M., Berger A., Climate of the Last millen-
nium: a sensitivity study. Tellus, 54(A), 221244, 2002.
Bradley, R.S., and P.D. Jones, Little Ice Age summer temperature variations:
their nature and relevance to recent global warming trends, The Holocene, 3 (4),
367376, 1993.
Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Crowley, T.J., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D, Mann,
M.E., Scope of Medieval Warming, Science, 292, 20112012, 2001.
Bradley, R.S., M.K.Hughes and H.F. Diaz., Climate in Medieval Time. Science,
302, 404405, 2003.
Pollack, H.N., S. Huang, and P.-Y. Shen, Climate Change Record in Subsurface
Temperatures: A Global Perspective, Science, 282, 279281, 1998.
180
Briffa, K.R., T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G.
Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov, Low-frequency temperature variations from a
northern tree-ring density network. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 29292941, 2001.
Crowley, T.J., Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years, Science,
289, 270277, 2000.
Crowley, T.J., and T. Lowery, How Warm Was the Medieval Warm Period,
Ambio, 29, 5154, 2000.
Gerber, S., F. Joos, P. Brugger, T. F. Stocker, M. E. Mann, S. Sitch, and M.
Scholze, Constraining temperature variations over the last millennium by com-
paring simulated and observed atmospheric CO2, Climate Dynamics, 20, 281299,
2003.
Hegerl, G.C., T.J. Crowley, S.K. Baum, K-Y. Kim, and W. T. Hyde, Detection
of volcanic, solar and greenhouse gas signals in paleo-reconstructions of Northern
Hemispheric temperature. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30 (5), doi: 10.1029/2002GL016635,
2003.
Huang, S., H. N.Pollack and P.-Y. Shen, Temperature Trends Over the Past
Five Centuries Reconstructed from Borehole Temperature, Nature 403, 756758,
2000.
Jones, P.D., M. New, D.E. Parker, S. Martin, and I.G. Rigor, 1999: Surface air
temperature and its changes over the past 150 years. Reviews of Geophysics 37,
173199.
Jones, P.D., T.J. Osborn, and K.B. Briffa, The Evolution of Climate Over the
Last Millennium, Science, 292, 662667, 2001.
Overpeck, J., K. Hughen, D. Hardy, R. Bradley, R. Case, M. Douglas, B. Finney,
K. Gajewski, G. Jacoby, A. Jennings, S. Lamoureux, A. Lasca, G.M.J. Moore, M.
Retelle, S. Smith, A. Wolfe, and G. Zielinski, Arctic Environmental Change of the
Last Four Centuries, Science, 278, 12511256, 1997.
Pollack, H.N., S. Huang, and P.-Y. Shen, Climate Change Record in Subsurface
Temperatures: A Global Perspective, Science, 282, 279281, 1998.
Question 5. Your work has been characterized as global in several venues, in-
cluding the National Assessment. Is that a fair characterization, or are those
sources confused by your use of Northern and Southern Hemisphere proxies in your
Northern Hemisphere reconstruction? Can you explain why the National Assess-
ment did not include error bars on your temperature reconstruction?
Response. The proxy records on which our work is based represent conditions over
much of the Northern Hemisphere and a small fraction of the Southern Hemisphere.
While in any given year there can be some difference in the anomalies in the two
hemispheres, the instrumental record indicates that over periods of a few decades
or more, the anomalies in the two hemispheres are quite similar because of the ther-
modynamic and dynamic coupling between them. Thus, the major features of the
temperature record, and in particular the unusual 20th century warming, are simi-
lar in the two hemispheres and thus global features. It was this aspect of the record
to which the text of the National Assessment report refers in presenting the overall
significance of our study, and the report is correct in suggesting that the 20th cen-
tury warming is global in nature. The caption for Figure 2 of Chapter 1 in the Foun-
dation report (page 22 and page 544) states that Although this record comes mostly
from the Northern Hemisphere, it is likely to be a good approximation to the global
anomaly based on comparisons of recent patterns of temperature fluctuations. This
accurately reflects the situation. In the Overview report (page 13), although the fig-
ure title says Global CO2 and Temperature Change, the caption next to the figure
says Records of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures, CO2 concentrations,
and carbon emissions show a close correlation. Temperature change: reconstruction
of annual-average Northern Hemisphere surface air temperatures derived from his-
torical records, tree rings, and corals (blue), and air temperatures directly measured
(purple). This quite clearly makes the point this is mainly a Northern Hemisphere
temperature record.
With respect to the question about the presentation of the figure, it is misleading
to imply that the term error bars indicates that the central line is off by this
amountrather the limits mean that there is only 1 chance in 20 that the actual
value is outside this range. That is, what we are showing is the likely range within
which the anomaly lies, with there being a 95 percent chance the value is within
this range. The line that we present in many of our figures, and that was presented
in the National Assessment report, is the most likely value within this range (rather
a natural choice to display in explaining a complex issue to the public). In looking
at the National Assessment report, the caption for Figure 2 of Chapter 1 in the
Foundation report (page 22 and page 544) states that The error bars for the esti-
mate of the annual-average anomaly increase somewhat going back in time, with
181
one standard deviation being about 0.25 F (0.15 C). Quite clearly, the reader inter-
ested in investigating the accuracy of the records would followup by reading the
original reference, which is cited in the text.
In that I was not involved in the National Assessment report, the questioner
should consult the authors of that report for any further information or questions.
Question 6. You testified that the late 20th century warming is likely caused
byman-made CO2 forcing on climate; what is your scientific proof for thatclaim
Please detail how you removed the potential effects from other factors including
those of sulfate aerosols, tropospheric and stratospheric ozone, volcanic dust veiling,
black soot, solar particleand wave length-dependent variability, sea ice, land use,
vegetation andother greenhouse gases?
Response. The question inconsistently equates my statement of a likely causal
relationship with the standard of scientific proof. Scientists do not speak in terms
of proof. We speak in terms of likelihoods and the strength of evidence in support
of a particular hypothesis.
A large number of peer-reviewed scientific studies have been published in the
leading scientific journals such as Nature and Science in the past two decades eluci-
dating the role of natural and anthropogenic factors in observed climate changes.
Physically based models have been developed and validated against observations,
and these models reproduce complex climate phenomena such as El Nino. These
same models have been driven with the primary external factors that are believed
to govern climate variations on timescales of decades and centuries. These external
factors include natural factors, such as the modest estimated variations in radiative
output of the Sun, which varies by a fraction of a percent over time, variations in
the frequency and intensity of explosive volcanic eruptions, which have a several-
year cooling effect on the climate through the injection of reflective volcanic aerosols
into the stratosphere, and very small changes in the Earths orbit relative to the
Sun that occur on multi-century timescales. These external factors also include the
anthropogenic influences of increased greenhouse gas concentrations due to fossil
fuel burning, changes in the reflective properties of the land surface due to human
land use alterations, and the regional cooling effect of anthropogenic sulphate
aerosols in certain industrial regions. When driven with these factors, these climate
models have demonstrated a striking ability to reproduce observed global and hemi-
spheric temperature trends during the 20th century, as well as longer-term trends
in past centuries as reconstructed from proxy data. Such results have been dem-
onstrated in the following peer-reviewed scientific articles:
Wigley, T.M.L., R.L. Smith, and B.D. Santer, Anthropogenic Influence on the
Autocorrelation Structure of Hemisoheric-Mean Temperatures, Science, 282, 1676
1680, 1998.
Tett, S.F.B., P.A. Scott, M.R. Allen, W.J. Ingram, and J.F.B. Mitchell, Causes
of Twentieth-Century Temperature Change Near the Earths Surface, Nature, 399,
569572, 1999.
Hegerl, G.C., P.A. Scott, M.R. Allen, J.F.B. Mitchell, S.F.B. Tett, and U.
Cubasch, Optimal detection and aftribution of climate change: sensitivity of results
to climate model differences, Climate Dynamics, 16, 737754, 2000.
Crowley, T.J., Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years, Science,
289, 270277, 2000.
Stott, P.A., S.F.B. Tett, G.S. Jones, M.R. Allen, J.F.B. Mitchell, and G.J. Jen-
kins, External Control of 20th Century Temperature by Natural and Anthropogenic
Forcings, Science, 290, 21332137, 2001.
Stott, P.A., S.F.B. Tett, G.S. Jones, M.R. Allen, W.J. Ingram, and J.F.B. Mitch-
ell, Attribution of twentieth century temperature change to natural and anthropo-
genic causes, Climate Dynamics, 17, 1121, 2001.
These conclusions, furthermore, were endorsed by the 2001 IPCC scientific work-
ing group report (Chapter 12), and the followup National Academy of Sciences re-
port that endorsed most of the key IPCC conclusions.
Question 7. A number of expert studies have produced individual proxy records
that show the existence of a local Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age. Such
studies cover a large portion of the globe. How do you reconcile your hemispheric
reconstruction with these individual proxy records?
Response. It is unclear to me what precisely the questioner means by a number
of expert studies or how he defines the existence of a Medieval Warm Period
or Little Ice Age. As discussed in my response to question 2, the regionally and
temporally variable nature of climate changes in past centuries makes such
descriptors of past climate change naive and often useless as a characterization of
past changes. A sampling of some of the longest, high-quality best term proxy tem-
perature estimates over the globe was provided in Figure 2 of the article: Mann,
182
M.E., Ammann, C.M., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Crowley, T.J., Hughes, M.K.,
Jones, P.D., Oppenheimer, M., Osborn, T.J., Overpeck, J. T., Rutherford, S.,
Trenberth, K.E., Wigley, T.M.L., On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late 20th
Century Warmth, Eos, 84, 256258, 2003. This figure demonstrates the lack of evi-
dence for any periods in earlier centuries that are comparable in terms of evidence
for sychronous warmth to the late 20th century. This same conclusion was also dem-
onstrated by the recent article in Science: Bradley, R.S., M.K. Hughes and H.F.
Diaz., Climate in Medieval Time. Science, 302, 404405, 2003.
Question 8. Do you claim 22 proxies to be a sufficient sample of observations for
reconstructing a Northern Hemisphere temperature? If not, why did you consider
it sufficient for the 14001450 interval in your 1998 Nature paper? If you do, there
are 29 proxies that continue to 1984 in the data base you used for your 1998 paper.
Why then did you terminate your temperature reconstruction at 1980? What efforts
have you made to extend the proxy re-constructions up to the present?
Response. The question is wrongly premised. The Mann et al (1998) study made
use of almost 100 proxy series over the interval AD 14001450. The question ap-
pears to confuse the number of proxy series that was used, with the number of sta-
tistical indicators that were used to represent these proxy data. For example, the
70 series that make up the North American International Tree Ring Data Base date
back to 1400, were represented in terms of their leading patterns of variance
through a procedure known as Principal Component Analysis. These patterns rep-
resented, however, a much larger number of underlying data. Most of the proxy
records used in that analysis ended by 1980, limiting the useful upper limit to the
calibration period used. A more recent paper (in press) extends proxy-based hemi-
spheric temperature reconstructions through the mid-1990s, demonstrating the abil-
ity of the reconstruction to capture the accelerated warming evident in the instru-
mental record since 1980.
Question 9. What are the patterns of temperature change in all proxies after
1980?
Response. It is unclear what is meant by the question. Every proxy series which
extends past 1980 exhibits its own particular pattern. A recent paper (in press), as
referred to in Question No. 8, demonstrates that a composite of proxy temperature
indicators with reliable low-frequency variability that are available through the
mid-1990s capture the accelerated warming after 1980.
All of the data used in our study have been available since July 2002 on the pub-
lic ftp site: ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/.
Question 10. Do you have any external (not derived by you) method or data to
provide verification of your temperature reconstruction Please explain.
Response. We used the method of cross-validation to independently demonstrate
the statistical reliability of our reconstructions. This is detailed in MBH98 and
MBH99. We did not derive the method of cross-validationit is a well established
statistical procedure, detailed in many introductory level statistics textbooks.
Question 11. Are you aware of any errors in your data compilation for MBH98
or MBH99? If so, what are they?
Response. We are not aware of any errors. We are, however, aware of recent spu-
rious claims of such errors by the authors of an article published in the social
science journal Energy and Environment. These claims have already been widely
discredited by a cursory analysis of the paper, and a manuscript detailing the nu-
merous fundamental errors made in the Energy and Environment paper has been
submitted to the peer-reviewed literature. We would be happy to provide a copy of
the paper to be made part of the official Senate record once it is published.
Question 12. Are you aware of any errors in any calculations that you made in
MBH98 or MBH99? If so, what are the errors?
Response. See response to question 11.
Question 13. Vegetation grows as a result of a number of factors, including energy
input, moisture supply, fire frequencies, and species competition. Do you claim it is
possible to accurately remove the effects of these factors from your tree ring proxy
datasets to produce a resulting time-series represents fluctuations in only air tem-
perature? What is the magnitude of the error introduced in developing a procedure
to remove these other effects? Please detail the analyses and list peer-reviewed
works that specifically outline techniques to remove the effect of these other indica-
tors for inferring past temperatures.
Response. One of the co-authors of MBH98 (Malcolm Hughes) is among the
worlds foremost experts in dendroclimatology, so the team of MBH98 hardly needs
to be informed of the processes that influence tree growth. The method of MBH98
183
does not remove various factors from tree ring proxy information (which would be
a most unwise approach!) but, rather, uses multivariate statistical methods similar
to those commonly used in climate and paleoclimate field reconstruction [see e.g.
Cook, E.R., K.R. Briffa, and P.D. Jones, Spatial Regression Methods in
Dendroclimatology: A Review and Comparison of Two Techniques, International
Journal of Climatology, 14, 379402, 1994; Smith, T.M., R.W. Reynolds, R.E.
Livezey, and D.C. Stokes, Reconstruction of Historical Sea Surface Temperatures
Using Empirical Orthogonal Functions, Journal of Climate, 9, 14031420, 1996;
Kaplan, A., Y. Kushnir, M.A. Cane, and M.B. Blumenthal, Reduced space optimal
analysis for historical data sets: 136 years of Atlantic sea surface temperatures,
Journal of Geophysical Research, 102, 2783527860, 1997] to separate the informa-
tion in the data that can meaningfully be related to surface temperature variations
from that related to other influences.
Question 14. Define the difference between variability and error in a statistical
analysis. In EOF analyses, is the variation of the first principal component indic-
ative of the uncertainty associated with the data? Why or why not?
Response. Variability in an estimated quantity can be thought of as representing
both signal (the physical quantity one is interested in and noise (everything else).
The definition of noise and signal depends on a number of assumptions regarding
the nature of the process that generated the times series of interest and the speci-
fication of the statistical model for the data in question. Uncertainty, which is asso-
ciated with the partitioning of data variance into noise and signal, as defined
above, depends on such detailed considerations. There are no general statistical
principles that I am familiar with that relate uncertainty, thusly defined, to the
first, or any other, principal component of a dataset containing both signal and noise
contributions. Uncertainty is typically diagnosed by the analysis of residual variance
from a statistical model based on a combined calibration/cross-validation procedure.
Introductory text books such as Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences
(D. Wilks, Academic Press) deal with this topic in detail.
Question 15. Specifically, how do you construct regional patterns of temperature
changes in past centuries when data are limited, either spatially, temporally, or
both?
Response. Our methods are described in detail in the following peer-reviewed sci-
entific publications, which I would like to have made part of the official Senate
record:
Mann, M.E., Jones, P.D., Global Surface Temperatures over the Past two Mil-
lennia, Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (15), 1820, 10.1029/2003GL017814, 2003.
DArrigo, R.D., Cook, E.R., Mann, M.E., Jacoby, G.C., Tree-ring reconstructions
of temperature and sea level pressure variability associated with the warm-season
Arctic Oscillation since AD 1650, Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (11), 1549, doi:
10.1029/2003GL017250, 2003.
Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Keimig, F.T., Optimal
Surface Temperature Reconstructions Using Terrestrial Borehole Data, Journal of
Geophysical Research, 108 (D7), 4203, doi: 10.1029/2002JD002532, 2003.
Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Delworth, T.L., Stouffer, R., Climate Field Recon-
struction Under Stationary and Nonstationary Forcing, Journal of Climate, 16, 462
479, 2003.
Mann, M.E., Large-scale climate variability and connections with the Middle
East in past centuries, Climatic Change, 55, 287314, 2002.
Cook, E.R., DArrigo, R.D., Mann, M.E., A Well-Verified, Multi-Proxy Recon-
struction of the Winter North Atlantic Oscillation Since AD 1400, Journal of Cli-
mate, 15, 17541764, 2002.
Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Climate Reconstruction Using Pseudoproxies, Geo-
physical Research Letters, 29 (10), 1501, doi: 10.1029/2001GL014554, 2002.
Mann, M.E., Large-scale Temperature Patterns in Past Centuries: Implications
for North American Climate Change, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 7
12471254, 2001.
Mann, M.E., Climate During the Past Millennium, Weather (invited contribu-
tion), 56, 91101, 2001.
Cullen, H., DArrigo, R., Cook, E., Mann, M.E., Multiproxy-based reconstruc-
tions of the North Atlantic Oscillation over the past three centuries, Paleocean-
ography, 15, 2739, 2001.
Mann, M.E., Gille, E., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Overpeck, J.T., Keimig,
F.T., Gross, W., Global Temperature Patterns in Past Centuries: An interactive
presentation, Earth Interactions, 44, 129, 2000.
Delworth, T.L., Mann, M.E., Observed and Simulated Multidecadal Variability
in the Northern Hemisphere, Climate Dynamics 16, 661676, 2000.
184
Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K., Northern Hemisphere Tempera-
tures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations, Geo-
physical Research Letters, 26, 759762, 1999.
Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., and Hughes, M.K., Global-Scale Temperature Pat-
terns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries, Nature, 392, 779787, 1998.
Question 16. Do you claim that the instrumental temperature record is known
without error? If not, what error and uncertainty would you associate with the an-
nual Northern Hemisphere averaged air temperature for 1900? For 1950? For 2000?
How were these estimates incorporated into your analysis?
Response. The claim made by Dr. Legates in his testimony that we present the
instrumental record without uncertainty is incorrect. If Legates, for example, were
familiar with studies of the instrumental surface temperature record, he would un-
derstand that the uncertainties in this record during the 20th century are small
compared to the uncertainties shown for our reconstruction [see e.g. Figure 2.1b in
Folland, C.K., Karl, T.R., Christy, J.R., Clarke, R. A., Gruza, G.V., Jouzel, J., Mann,
M.E., Oerlemans, J., Salinger, M.J., Wang, S.-W., Observed Climate Variability and
Change, in Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.),
Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 99181, 2001.]. Furthermore, all scientists with
a proper training in statistics know that uncertainties add in quadrature. In other
words, you have to square them before adding them. This means that the relatively
small uncertainty in the instrumental record makes a relatively small contribution
to the total uncertainty. Legates claimed in his testimony that including the uncer-
tainty in the instrumental record, which he estimates as 0.1oC would change the
conclusions expressed by us and other mainstream climate scientists that the 1990s
are the warmest decade in at least the past 1000 years within estimated uncertain-
ties. This claim is very misleading for several reasons, First, the standard error in
Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperatures during the 1990s is far smaller
than the amount cited by Legates [see again Folland et al, 2001 cited above]. Even
more problematic, however, Legates claim indicates a fundamental misunder-
standing of the statistical concepts of standard error and uncertainty. The shaded
region shown along with the Mann et al reconstruction (and other similar plots
shown in recent articles such as the aforementioned Eos article, and the IPCC re-
port) indicates two standard error intervals. The decade of the 1990s is roughly two
standard errors warmer (i.e., about 0.4oC)] than any decade prior to the 20th cen-
tury in the reconstruction. Based on a one-sided test for anomalous warmth, this
translates to a roughly 97.5 percent level of significance. Modifying the uncertainties
to include the small additional contribution due to uncertainties in the instrumental
record itself would modify this only slightly, and would not lower the significance
level below the 95 percent level. Though there is no such thing as an absolute esti-
mate of uncertainty, despite Legates implications to the contrary, a 95 percent con-
fidence is often adopted as an appropriate criterion for significance. Legates state-
ment that including instrumental contributions to the uncertainty would change the
conclusions is thus clearly false.
Question 17. Assuming a proxy record extended back to 1000 A.D., what specifi-
cally would be required to disqualify this proxy record from your analyses? Provide
supporting evidence where others have disqualified such records from temperature
analyses on these criteria.
Response. It is unclear what type of analyses are being referred to here. I have
used a variety of different statistical methods and data in various published studies
describing paleoclimate reconstruction, so the question as worded is implicitly
vague. In any case, our approaches do not disqualify proxy data. They use objec-
tive statistical criteria to evaluate the strength of the signal available for recon-
struction of the particular climate field or index (be it related to surface tempera-
ture, atmospheric circulation, drought, or other variables) to be reconstructed. Such
statistical approaches, and the related approaches used by other climate research-
ers, are described in the various publications listed above in the response to Ques-
tions No. 13 and 15.
Question 18. Have you made available via FTP the coefficients developed to relate
proxies to principal components? If not, would you make those coefficients available
at NGDC/paleo?
Response. The question is based on two false premises. The first involves a naive
view of what is required and expected of scientific researchers. It is unprecedented
in my experience for any scientist to post in the public domain every single com-
putational aspect of a complicated analysis. The methods of our study were ade-
quately described in our paper and supplementary information, and the data used
were made available in the public domain. Indeed, we made far more of our results,
185
data, and methodological details available in the public domain than is provided in
most similar scientific studies. The scientific funding agencies (DOE, NSF, and
NOAA) would have informed us if we had not followed the appropriate protocols in
the provision of data and results.
The second false premise is a technical one. A proper understanding of the meth-
odology employed by MBH98 would reveal that there is no one fixed set of coeffi-
cients that relate a particular proxy record to a particular principal components.
The relationship is determined based on time-dependent inverse problem for which
the weights on different records are not fixed over time, as described in our pub-
lished articles.
Question 19. Have you made available via FTP any specialized computer studies,
such as Matlab scripts, in connection with your temperature reconstruction? If not,
would you make any such scripts used in developing the temperature reconstruc-
tions in MBH98 and MBH99 available through NGDC/paleo?
Response. The methodologies have been described, and other climate researchers
have independently, successfully implemented the methodology, e.g.: Zorita, E., F.
Gonzalez-Rouco, and S. Legutke, Testing the Mann et al. (1998) Approach to
Paleoclimate Reconstructions in the Context in a 1000-Yr Control Simulation with
the ECHO-G Coupled Climate Model, Journal of Climate, 16, 13781390, 2003.
Question 20. Do you claim your method of reconstructing past temperature from
proxies is the only correct one? If not, please submit some published papers that
use methods you consider to be correct as well. If you do consider yours the only
correct method, can you provide a list of names of scientists whom you have con-
tacted to tell them they are using the wrong methods in their work?
Response. The question is based on the false premise that my colleagues and I
use any one particular method of reconstructing past temperatures from proxy
data. In fact, I have published on the application of at least five fundamentally inde-
pendent methods for using proxy data to reconstruct past climate patterns in the
peer-reviewed literature. Examples of the applications of different methods can be
found in the following peer-reviewed scientific publications:
Zhang, Z., Mann, M.E., Cook, E.R., Alternative Methods of Proxy-Based Climate
Field Reconstruction: Application to the Reconstruction of Summer Drought Over
the Conterminous United States back to 1700 From Drought-Sensitive Tree Ring
Data, Holocene, in press, 2003.
Mann, M.E., Jones, P.D., Global Surface Temperatures over the Past two Mil-
lennia, Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (15), 1820, 10.1029/2003GL017814, 2003.
Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Keimig, F.T., Optimal
Surface Temperature Reconstructions Using Terrestrial Borehole Data, Journal of
Geophysical Research, 108 (D7), 4203, doi: 10.1029/2002JD002532, 2003.
DArrigo, R.D., Cook, E.R., Mann, M.E., Jacoby, G.C., Tree-ring reconstructions
of temperature and sea level pressure variability associated with the warm-season
Arctic Oscillation since AD 1650, Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (11), 1549, doi:
10.1029/2003GL017250, 2003.
Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., and Hughes, M.K., Global-Scale Temperature Pat-
terns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries, Nature, 392, 779787, 1998
On occasion, there are approaches used that are not adequate. For example, the
approach of simply counting papers and not properly defining what constitutes an
anomaly, as was the case for the paper by Soon et al. (2003), is most decidedly not
adequate. Also, the analysis approach used by McIntyre and McItrick (2003) in
which the authors attempted to reproduce the results of the previous study of
MBH98 based on an analysis which used neither the same data (the authors elimi-
nated the majority of data used by MBH98 for the first two centuries of the recon-
struction) , or method as the original authors, was woefully inadequate. In fact, this
latter study was described as seriously flawed and silly in a recent article in
USA Today (Global Warming Debate Heats Up Capitol Hill, 11/19/03). When deep-
ly flawed studies such as this are published, I am interested in determining what
errors have been made and, if necessary as in this latter case, promptly submitting
a rebuttal to the peer-reviewed scientific literature to ensure that the scientific com-
munity is not misled by the use of inadequate approaches. To my knowledge, I am
not considered to be shy in offering criticism where criticism is due.
Question 21. If there are other acceptable methods, did you try any of them on
your data set prior to its publication to see what the results would be? If so would
you please submit the results. If not, have you done so since? Why do you claim
your multi-proxy results represent a robust consensus, as you said in your Eos
publication, if you have not verified that its results would also be obtained using
other acceptable methods?
186
Response. As demonstrated both in the Eos article, and the various references
provided in my response to Question 4, about a dozen different recent estimates
based on a variety of data and approaches, published by different groups, yield sta-
tistically indistinguishable histories of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature
changes in past centuries. I define such a result as characterizing a consensus.
Question 22. Did you at any time prior to publication compute the analysis up to
1984 or later? What were the results? If you did not, even though you had sufficient
data, why not? If you did but you did not use those results, explain why. If the re-
sults were different, where did you publish a discussion of those differences? If they
were the same, why did you delete them? Why, in other words, did you throw out
data for the period of maximum interest?
Response. Most of the proxy records used in MBH98 and MBH99 ended by 1980,
limiting the useful upper limit to the calibration period used. A more recent paper
(in press) extends proxy-based hemispheric temperature reconstructions through the
mid-1990s, demonstrating the ability of the reconstruction to capture the acceler-
ated warming evident in the instrumental record since 1980. We would be happy
to provide a copy of this paper to be made part of the official Senate record when
it is formally published.
Question 23. On your web site http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/data
supp.html where you explain the assembling of the data base for your 1980 paper
you say: Small gaps have been interpolated. If records terminates lightly before the
end of the 19021980 training interval, they are extended by persistence to 1980.
Does this mean you made up some observations to fill in blank spots in the data
records? Have you ever provided a complete public listing of all the data you made
up? Please provide such a listing now. Of the 112 proxies, in how many of them
did you fill gaps? Why in some of them but not others? What is the longest interval
of time over which you filled in missing observations?
Response. Extension of missing values by persistence of the final available value
is a typical statistical approach to estimating small amounts of unavailable data at
the end of a time series (see e.g. the textbook by Wilks, referred to in the response
to Question No. 14). The fact that this approach was used to infill a modest number
of missing observations between 1972 and 1980 was described in the Nature supple-
mentary information. All of the data used in our study have been available since
July 2002 on the public ftp site: ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/.
Question 24. What was the effect on your results of filling in the missing data?
Did you run your analysis without it? Please submit the results when the filled-in
data are dropped from the analysis. If it changes your results, where is that dis-
cussed If it makes no difference, why did you do it?
Response. The use of infilled data has essentially no effect on the reconstruction,
as demonstrated by the fact that the same result is achieved if a 19021971 calibra-
tion period (which predates the use of any infilled proxy data) is used instead of
a 19021980 calibration period. It is advisable to use the full 19021980 calibration
interval, however, because the increased statistical constraint provided by the
lengthening of the calibration period more than offsets the impact of the use of a
modest amount of in-filled data in a small number of series.
Question 25. Do you agree that statistical methods based on linear extrapolation
from data representing the far extreme of the line are associated with an added
error/uncertainty? If so, how was this incorporated into the assessment of the error/
uncertainty in your temperature reconstructions? Please provide citations from your
publications. If not, please explain why the uncertainty envelope of a linear regres-
sion grows larger as a function of the distance from the mean of the data used to
fit the parameters and why this was not included in your research.
Response. The so-called leverage effect which the question appears to refer to,
is taken into account through consideration of the spectrum of the calibration re-
siduals, allowing for resolution of any enhancement of uncertainty as a function of
frequency (see MBH99). Alternatively, the uncertainties can be evaluated from an
independent sample (i.e., cross-validation, rather than calibration, residuals) that
eliminates any influence of calibration period leverage in the estimation of uncer-
tainties. Both approaches give similar results [e.g. Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E.,
Osborn, T.J., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Proxy-based
Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Method-
ology, Predictor Network, Target Season and Target Domain, Journal of Climate,
submitted, 2003].
to your Forum article that appeared in EOS on July 8, 2003. If, according to the
187
AGU, the EOS Forum contains articles stating a personal point of view on a topic
related to geophysical research or the relationship of the geophysical sciences to so-
ciety, how can you claim that your article is peer reviewed?
Response. The article was independently reviewed and evaluated for suitability
for publication by an editor who has expertise in the particular subject area. The
associated process is correctly described as peer review. Appropriate to the rel-
atively short and non-technical nature of Eos Forum pieces, the associated peer
review process is not as extensive as that employed for articles in the more technical
literature such as Geophysical Research Letters, or Journal of Geophysical Research.
I would suggest that the questioner contact representatives at AGU for more details
on the peer-review process employed for their different journals and paper cat-
egories.
Question 27. Do you claim that producing estimates of past climate states is an
exact science If so, explain why different authors can get such significantly different
results when investigating and reconstructing past temperature, and detail the er-
rors that other authors must have made. If not, explain how there can be, as you
put it in your EOS article, a robust consensus regarding the correct estimate of
the climate state of the past millennium.
Response. The term exact science is generally not used, or considered meaning-
ful or appropriate by scientists, as science almost always involves the testing of
hypotheses based on the use of intrinsically uncertain data or observations. Con-
sistent with this fundamental aspect of nearly all scientific endeavors, my colleagues
and I, and other researchers in the paleoclimate community, typically interpret the
results of paleoclimate reconstructions within the context of sometimes substantial
associated uncertainties. When a large number of estimates agree with each other
within estimated uncertainties, and those uncertainties are modest enough to still
allow for non-trivial conclusions (for example, that late 20th century warmth is
anomalous in a long-term context), those conclusions can be considered as both ro-
bust and a consensus.
to your 1999 Geophysical Research Letters paper. What were the criticisms or im-
provements suggested by the referees? Why was no reference made to the anoma-
lous global warming caused by the very strong El Nino event of 199798 in your
paper? Is this 1999 paper continuation of your 1998 paper in Nature where you
stopped your reconstruction at AD 1400?
Response. The comments of reviewers on a manuscript are considered a confiden-
tial matter, involving the editor, reviewers, and authors. Providing these comments
for public record would be ethically questionable, and probably violates the confiden-
tiality policies of the associated journals. Minor suggestions were made by the re-
viewers and editor, and addressed to their satisfaction prior to the acceptance and
publication of the paper.
Question 29. In Mann and Jones 2003 Geophysical Research Letters, did you
change your methodology in the reconstruction of the hemispheric or global scale
temperature from your prior publications? If so, why did you, and what is the ra-
tionale for the change of approach?
Response. The question is wrongly premised, as it presumes, through the use of
the language change your methodology that scientists only have one particular
methodological approach that can be applied to a problem at hand. As discussed in
my answer to question 20, my research has involved the use of a variety of different
methods for reconstructing past climate patterns from proxy data. The paper by
Mann and Jones (2003), for example, uses a coarser resolution proxy dataset than
MBH98/MBH99 and a compositing methodology that allows for the reconstruction
of decadal, but not annual, changes, and the reconstruction of hemispheric mean,
but not spatially resolved, patterns of temperature in past centuries. In doing so,
the study was able to make use of a more restricted set of temperature records
available over a longer timeframe than those used in previous high-resolution proxy
reconstructions of hemispheric temperature change.
Question 30. Did IPCC carry out any independent programs to verify the calcula-
tions that you made in MBH98 or MBH99? If so, please provide copies of the reports
resulting from such studies.
Response. It is distinctly against the mission of the IPCC to carry out inde-
pendent programs, so the premise of the question is false. However, the IPCCs au-
thor team did engage in a lively interchanges about the quality and overall consist-
ency of all of the papers as the chapter was drafted and revised in the course of
review.
188
Question 31. Did IPCC carry out any independent quality control on the data that
you used in MBH98 and MBH99? If so, please provide copies of the reports resulting
from such studies.
Response. The IPCC doesnt carry out studies, so the premise of the question
is false. The IPCC instead depends that the normal scientific peer-review process,
especially when done in a leading journal, has ensured an acceptable level of qual-
ity. In addition, the IPCC does check to see if any criticisms have been raised
postreview in comments and response to the journal articles.
Question 32. Did IPCC carry out any studies to validate the statistical procedures
and methodologies used in MBH98 and MBH99? If so, please provide copies of the
reports resulting from such studies.
is false. Instead, as indicated above, the IPCC relies on earlier stages of review to
cover such matters.
Question 33. Has any organization other than IPCC or your associates carried out
any independent programs to verify the calculations that you made in MBH98 or
MBH99? If so, please provide copies of the reports resulting from such studies.
Response. I know of no organizations that carry out independent programs to
verify calculations of individual co-authors. If the question is, have other scientists
reproduced the basic results of MBH98 and MBH99, the answer is yes. Numerous
other groups (see the dozen or so independent estimates of various groups shown
in Figure 1 of: Mann, M.E., Ammann, C.M., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Crowley,
T.J., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Oppenheimer, M., Osborn, T.J., Overpeck, J.T.,
Rutherford, S., Trenberth, K.E., Wigley, T.M.L., On Past Temperatures and Anoma-
lous Late 20th Century Warmth, Eos, 84, 256258, 2003) have produced reconstruc-
tions that are remarkably similar to those of MBH98 based on a variety of data and
methods. Refer back to my answer to question 4 for further details. I would like to
see each of these papers made an official part of the Senate record.
Question 34. Has any organization other than IPCC conducted independent qual-
ity control on the data that you used in MBH98 and MBH99? If so, please provide
copies of the reports resulting from such studies.
is false. The data used by MBH98 (and MBH99) were produced by other research-
ers, not Mann and colleagues. It is thus not clear what kind of independent quality
control is being referred to here. However, it is fair to say that each of these papers
has been subject to rigorous peer review in a leading scientific journal, which is con-
sidered by scientists to be an independent quality control process. We are aware of
no criticisms of the datasets in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Question 35. Has any organization other than IPCC carried out any studies to
validate the statistical procedures and methodologies used in MBH98 and MBH99?
If so, please provide copies of the reports resulting from such studies.
is false. If the question were asked: Have other independent groups tested the meth-
odology of Mann et al (1998) in a publication in the peer-reviewed climate literature,
the answer would be yes. I would refer the questioner to the following paper:
Zorita, E., F. Gonzalez-Rouco, and S. Legutke, Testing the Mann et al. (1998) Ap-
proach to Paleoclimate Reconstructions in the Context in a 1000-Yr Control Simula-
tion with the ECHO-G Coupled Climate Model, Journal of Climate, 16, 13781390,
2003.
The paper arrives at the conclusion that the methodology of MBH98 performs well
with networks of data comparable to those used by MBH98.
Question 36. Have you ever received any communications that suggested that
there might be computational errors in MBH98 or MBH99? Please provide such
communications together with any responses.
Response. I receive many emails, often from list-serves of self-professed climate
skeptics making numerous spurious claims against my work and that of many of
my colleagues. I have received no correspondence providing credible evidence of any
errors in our work. Nor has any such credible evidence been published in the peer-
reviewed scientific literature.
Question 37. Did the peer reviewers for Nature in MBH98 carry out any inde-
pendent quality control or validation studies? If so, please provide copies of such re-
ports.
Response. Neither I, nor authors of peer-reviewed journal articles in general, are
made privy to the detailed analyses that peer reviewers may or may not have per-
formed in the process of reviewing a manuscript. Authors only receive the comments
189
that were selected to be made available to them by the reviewer and editor. This
question is thus impossible to answer. Numerous other groups (see the dozen or so
independent estimates of various groups shown in Figure 1 of: Mann, M.E.,
Ammann, C.M., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Crowley, T.J., Hughes, M.K., Jones,
P.D., Oppenheimer, M., Osborn, T.J., Overpeck, J.T., Rutherford, S., Trenberth,
K.E., Wigley, T.M.L., On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late 20th Century
Warmth, Eos, 84, 256258, 2003) have produced reconstructions that are remark-
ably similar to those of MBH98 based on a variety of data and methods. See my
answer to Question No. 4.
Question 38. 38. Did the peer reviewers for Geophysical Research Letters in
MBH99 carry out any independent quality control or validation studies? If so, please
provide copies of such reports.
Response. See response to Question No. 37.
Question 39. How many people have requested the underlying digital information
in MBH98? Please provide dates of such requests and dates of your reply.
Response. My collaborators and I have not kept a specific record. The data has
been provided to any scientific groups that have requested it, and has been made
available on an open access basis through a public ftp site: ftp://holo-
cene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/, since July 2002.
Question 40. Were you one of the primary or lead authors of IPCC/TAR chapter
2?
Response. The convening lead authors of chapter 2 of the IPCC TAR were Dr.
Chris Folland and Thomas Karl. I was one of eight additional co-authors contrib-
uting to chapter 2.
Question 41. In your capacity as IPCC/TAR author, did you prepare any drafts
that referred to your own papers? Please provide all drafts that you prepared for
IPCC.
Response. I contributed to numerous sections of the chapter and provided con-
tributions that referenced the work of the leading paleoclimatologists, which in-
cludes me and many of my colleagues. Those interested in drafts of IPCC chapters
should inquire of the appropriate IPCC working group. I am not in possession of
such drafts, and even if I were, I would not be at liberty to distribute the various
drafts of the chapters of the report.
Question 42. Was any language from your drafts referring to your own reports ul-
timately used by IPCC/TAR? Please provide highlighted versions from IPCC.
Response. The wording of the question is unclear. If the question is, did I, in my
contributions to the chapter, provide summaries that included references to my own
work as well as that of other scientists, the answer is of course yes. Since each of
the authors was asked to contribute sections related to their particular areas of ex-
pertise, and since the IPCC authors were chosen from among the leading scientists
in the world, it would be distinctly odd if it were not the case that most authors
referred to their work, as well as that of others, in their contributions.
Question 43. Did IPCC/TAR have any policies governing how lead authors used
their own work? Did IPCC/TAR have any quality control procedures in the event
that a lead author used his own work? Please provide a short summary of your un-
derstanding of such procedures.
Response. I am not a spokesperson for the IPCC. However, it is my understanding
that the IPCC carries out a process for developing its summarization of the under-
standing of science that leads to one of the most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific
documents in existence. Individual technical chapters are prepared by expert sci-
entific teams that consider the full range of published papers in a subject area. This
expert author team then solicits an initial peer review from a large number of other
scientists in the field, drawing on those representing the full range of expert science.
The reports next go through a much wider review that is open to literally thousands
of scientists around the world. Finally countries, NGOs, and professional groups
(such as business groups) are provided the opportunity to send in review comments.
(and in the case of the U.S. government review, an invitation to submit comments
to be considered to be forwarded to the IPCC is published in the Federal Register,
enabling all to participate in this review). With the comments available at each
stage of the review process, the authors consider each comment and document their
response. The meticulousness and fairness of the revision process by the authors in
response to reviewer comments is evaluated by an independent pair of review edi-
tors who are themselves top international climate scientists who are not authors
of the report itself. The National Academy of Sciences, at President George W.
Bushs request, and other national academies around the world have independently
190
reviewed the process and the validity of the scientific findings of the IPCC and en-
dorsed them.
Question 44. Did MBH98 and MBH99 use any proxy series, which were either un-
published or which resulted from unpublished calculations, which you carried out?
If so, please identify, and detail how you verified those unpublished results.
Response. MBH98 and MBH99, as many studies, made use of newly available
data that had not yet been published by the original authors providing those data,
and thus was provided to Mann and colleagues on a provisional basis that they not
release the data until the authors had a chance to publish the records themselves.
After all of the data used had been published, the full dataset used by MBH98 and
MBH99 was made available in the public domain on the public website: ftp://holo-
cene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/
Question 45. Despite solar variability over the last two millennia, your analysis
concludes the Northern Hemisphere average temperature has remained virtually
constant. What mechanism or mechanisms are responsible for negating the influ-
ence of the sun? Do climate models (GCMs) exhibit the same lack of response to
solar forcing that your analysis implies? If not, why are model simulations at vari-
ance with your conclusions and how does that limit their applicability for future cli-
mate scenario assessments?
Response. The question is falsely premised on several levels. No reasonable de-
scription of the reconstructions that we or others have produced of temperature
variations in past centuries would characterize them as virtually constant. The re-
constructions performed by my group and others indicate an amplitude of variability
that consistent with expectations from models driven with estimates of past radi-
ative forcing including solar and radiative forcing, and allowing for the added role
of internal unforced variability [see e.g. Crowley, T.J., Causes of Climate Change
Over the Past 1000 Years, Science, 289, 270277, 2000]. Indeed, it has been shown
that the model-predicted pattern of surface temperature response to solar forcing in
past centuries closely resembles that estimated from the temperature reconstruc-
tions that my colleagues and I have performed [Shindell, D.T., Schmidt, G.A., Mann,
M.E., Rind, D., Waple, A., Solar forcing of regional climate change during the Maun-
der Minimum, Science, 294, 21492152, 2001; Waple, A., Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S.,
Long-term Patterns of Solar Irradiance Forcing in Model Experiments and Proxy-
based Surface Temperature Reconstructions, Climate Dynamics, 18, 563578, 2002;
Shindell, D.T., Schmidt, G.A., Miller, R., Mann, M.E., Volcanic and Solar forcing of
Climate Change During the Pre-Industrial era, Journal of Climate, in press, 2003].
Question 46. How did the temperatures of the mid-Holocene Optimum Period
(6000 to 9000 BP) compare with those observed today? Was it a global or a local
phenomenon? What was or were the cause or causes of any temperature anomalies
in that period? What is the cause of the 104 to 105 year timescale changes in deute-
rium, oxygen isotope, etc., concentrations in ice core records? Are such changes glob-
al or local?
Response. Paleoclimate experts have established that mid-Holocene warmth cen-
tered roughly 5000 years ago was restricted to high latitudes and certain seasons
(summer in the Northern Hemisphere and winter in the southern hemisphere). Be-
cause much of the early paleoclimate evidence that was available (for example, fossil
pollen assemblages) came from the Northern Hemisphere extratropics, and is large-
ly reflective of summer conditions, decades ago some scientists believed that this
was a time of globally warmer conditions. It is now well known that this is not the
case. More abundant evidence now demonstrates, for example, that the tropical re-
gions were cooler over much of the year. All of these changes are consistent with
the expected response of surface temperatures to the known changes in the Earths
orbital geometry relative to the Sun during that time period and associated climate
feedbacks, as detailed in peer-reviewed scientific publications [e.g., Hewitt, C.D., A
Fully Coupled GCM Simulation of the Climate of the Mid-Holocene, Geophysical Re-
search Letters, 25 (3), 361364, 1998; Ganopolski, A., C. Kubatzki, M. Claussen, V.
Brovkin, and V. Petoukhov, The Influence of Vegetation-Atmosphere-Ocean Inter-
action on Climate During the Mid-Holocene, Science, 280, 19161919, 1998].
Climate model simulations indicate quite good agreement with paleoclimate evi-
dence now available. These models calculate that global annual average tempera-
tures were probably about the same or a few tenths of a degree C cooler than today
(the late 20th century) during this time period [Ganopolski, A., C. Kubatzki, M.
Claussen, V. Brovkin, and V. Petoukhov, The Influence of Vegetation-Atmosphere-
Ocean Interaction on Climate During the Mid-Holocene, Science, 280, 19161919,
1998; Kitoh, A., and S. Murakami, Tropical Pacific Climate at the mid-Holocene and
the Last Glacial Maximum simulated by a coupled oceanatmosphere general circula-
191
tion model, Paleooceanography, 17 (3), (19)113, 2002.]. Thats a far cry from the
very out-of-date claim made by Dr. Legates in his testimony. Dr. Legates comments
regarding climate changes over the past 1000 years reflect a similar lack of famili-
arity with a whole body of paleoclimate research, especially with the new insights
gained through the augmented research program, during the past decade.
Question 47. It has been observed that in the past, carbon dioxide concentrations
have sometimes lagged air temperature trends; that is, changes in air temperature
have subsequently sometimes resulted in changes in carbon dioxide concentrations.
Do you agree with those results from expert researchers? Why or why not?
Response. The question mis-characterizes the evidence that has been provided by
paleoclimate researchers. The studies that the questioner appears to be alluding to,
demonstrate a phase relationship between ice core CO2 estimates and *local* tem-
perature variations at the site of the ice core. Furthermore these local temperature
estimates are indirectly inferred from oxygen isotopes, based on quite uncertain as-
sumptions regarding oxygen isotope paleothermometary and neglecting possible bi-
ases due to the variable seasonality of local accumulation. As local temperature
variations at the site of the ice core have an unknown relationship with global mean
temperature variations (which are far more dominated by lower latitudes which oc-
cupy the majority of the Earths surface area), the phase relationships between past
CO2 and global mean temperature variations are not known. In spite of these quali-
fications, it is not at all implausible that the geologic record indicates that at some
times the CO2 increase may lag the initial temperature increase; such a situation
would be expected, for example, if the change in climate was initiated by a change
in the orbital geometry that affected the distribution of solar radiation, and then
the slow warming drove CO2 from the warming ocean into the atmosphere. It is be-
cause of the many possibilities for how different processes can interact that it is es-
sential to not simply base a conclusion on an apparent correlation without evalu-
ating the underlying physical mechanisms for that particular period.
Question 48. Are there any time periods for which atmospheric CO2 content has
changed without a concomitant change in global air temperature? Are there periods
when the atmospheric CO2 content was relatively high butglobal air temperatures
relatively low?
Response. In his testimony, Dr. Legates indicated that there were historical cases
where the temperature has gone up, but that CO2 has fallen. It may well be the
case that this has happened in the past. However, it is hardly surprising, and cer-
tainly not inconsistent with our established understanding of the various factors
that influence surface temperatures. The warming response to increased greenhouse
gas concentrations lags the actual increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere potentially by several decades, due to the sluggish response of the
oceans, which have an enormous thermal capacity compared to the atmosphere, to
increased surface radiative forcing. So warming is not expected to be contempora-
neous with changes in CO2, but instead, to lag it by several decades. However,
greenhouse gases are certainly not the only factor affecting the average surface tem-
perature of the Earth. There are other anthropogenic factors, such as increased
sulphate aerosols, which can have a cooling effect on the climate, and natural fac-
tors, such as volcanic activity, modest natural variations in solar output, and inter-
nal dynamics associated with climate events such as El Nino, which also influence
the average surface temperature of the globe. At any particular time, these other
factors may outweigh the warming effect due to increased greenhouse gases. For ex-
ample, the relative lack of warming during the period 19401970 appears to be re-
lated to a combination of such factors, as discussed in my response to an earlier
question. But while these other factors tend to cancel over time, the increased
greenhouse gases lead to a systematic warming that will not cancel out over a very
long time period. It is for precisely this reason that late 20th century warming now
appears to have risen above the range of the natural variability of past centuries.
Question 49. Two independent and nearly direct measures of surface temperature
(deep borehole reconstructions) over the past several millennia have been published
for Greenland (Dahl-Jensen et al 1998) and the Middle Urals (Demeshko and
Shchapov 2001). The local surface temperature at these locations is highly cor-
related with global temperature on 10-year time scales and longer (r2 > 50 percent
10 yr with agreement increasing for longer averaging periods). Both reconstructions
independently show their local surface temperatures were at least a1 C warmer
for century-scale mean temperatures around A.D. 900 than the latter half of the
20th century, translating into a global anomaly of at least +0.2 C relative to today.
This further implies that even higher global temperature anomalies for shorter
periods, such as half-century or decadal periods, were observed about 1000 years
192
ago. Why do these two robust measures of local and global approximations differ
greatly from Mann et al. 1999?
Response. The question is wrongly premised on multiple levels. First, the correla-
tions cited are completely wrong. No citation to the peer-reviewed literature is pro-
vided, so it is difficult to determinate how these numbers were arrived at. I there-
fore proceeded to analyzed the appropriate surface air temperature gridpoint data
from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia myself. I found
that only after 1922 is there adequate coverage (>50 percent areal coverage) to esti-
mate a meaningful Greenland areal-mean temperature. For the period back to 1922,
the linear correlation between the Greenland and Northern Hemisphere mean tem-
perature is r= 0.06 (negative!), nor is there a significant correlation at decadal or
longer timescales. In fact, the trends in the two series during the latter 20th century
are of opposite sign. So the numbers cited are completely spurious.
It is in fact well known by the climate community that there are fundamental
physical reasons why temperatures in Greenland are, in general, poorly correlated
with Northern Hemisphere mean temperature. Owing to the strong overprint of
processes, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation, and changes in coupled ocean-at-
mosphere processes in the North Atlantic that impart a large regional overprint of
temperature variation in this region, both negative and positive correlations with
Northern Hemisphere mean temperature can be found, depending on the time pe-
riod and region of Greenland analyzed.
The Dahl Jensen et al Greenland borehole data may indeed be useful temperature
proxy data for the regions they represent, and they have been used in reconstruc-
tions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature, with caveats due to their ex-
tremely low temporal resolution (see Mann and Jones, 2003). While the two Green-
land borehole records show significantly different histories over the past 1000 years
(which is expected since temperature trends vary markedly depending on the region
of Greenland in question), one of the two records does correlate well with the instru-
mental Greenland record over the period of mutual overlap. Its shows the mid-20th
century warm peak, followed by the latter 20th century cooling peak, just as the
instrumental Greenland annual mean temperature record does. However, instru-
mental Northern Hemisphere mean temperature has, in contrast, warmed markedly
during the latter 20th century.
The Greenland borehole temperature reconstruction may tell us something about
temperatures in Greenland over the past few millennia even though the two dif-
ferent Greenland borehole records show some differences between them. But these
results are unlikely to tell us much, if anything, about Northern Hemisphere mean
temperature trends. Indeed, Dahl-Jensen et al have never, to my knowledge,
claimed in their studies that that temperature variations in the two regions of
Greenland reconstructed (which themselves show significantly different histories
over the past 1000 years) are representative of Northern Hemisphere mean tem-
peratures, and I would be surprised if the authors were comfortable in having their
data represented as such.
Question 50. In your view what should the Federal Government do in response
of rising concentrations of CO2? What would be the climate impact of this effort?
Response. In my view, the Congress and the Federal Government should be tak-
ing the scientific findings of the mainstream research community very seriously and
should stop focusing so much attention on the poorly conducted and distracting
nitpicking of the various contrarian scientists. The IPCC assessments represent the
most authoritative reviews of the science and have been unanimously endorsed by
all of the participating nations of the worldit is time to pay attention to their find-
ings. Exactly what steps should be taken and how fast this should be done are pol-
icy questions that members of this body should be responsibly and thoughtfully ad-
dressing. The long residence timescales of anthropogenic greenhouses gases, and the
lags in the response of the climate system (e.g. sea level rise) to already realized
increases in greenhouse gas concentrations dictate, however, that there are poten-
tially significant costs to delayed action.
Question 51. Approximately what percentage of the temperature increase in the
observational record over the last 100 years would you attribute to anthropogenic
causes? What percentage would you attribute to increased urbanization? What per-
centage would you attribute to non-urbanized land use changes? What percentage
would you attribute to natural (solar, volcanic, etc.) variability? What percentage
would you attribute to internal climate variability? What percentage would you
say results from other or unexplained sources? Give estimates for the years
1900,1940, 1980 and 2000.
Response. A cursory review of the available evidence (see e.g. Figure 2.1 of chap-
ter 2 of the 2001 IPCC Scientific Working Group report) indicates the following ap-
193
proximate attributes in the observed record of global mean temperature changes
over the past 100 years: a warming of approximately 0.3 C to 1940, a statistically
insignificant change (given the uncertainties) from 1940 to the mid-1970s, and then
an additional warming of approximately 0.5 C from 1970 to 2000. This pattern of
behavior is reproduced closely by models driven with estimates of both natural and
anthropogenic forcing of the climate during the 20th century. The period of relative
stasis in global mean temperatures from 1940 to 1970, in these model simulations,
appears to result from the cooling impact of anthropogenic aerosols (for which there
was a large increase during that time period) as well as a potential cooling contribu-
tion from explosive volcanic eruptions that occurred during that period, which tend-
ed to offset the warming influence of increased greenhouse gas concentrations dur-
ing that time period (e.g. the 1957 eruption). However, much of the overall warming
of the globe during the 20th century (which is between 0.6 C and 1.0 C depending
on the precise instrumental data set used, and the precise endpoints of the interval
examined) is clearly a result of increased greenhouse gas concentrations, as estab-
lished in these simulations, consistent with the conclusions of the IPCC Third As-
sessment Report that most of the warming of the past 50 years is attributable to
human influences.
Question 52. What was the earths climate like the last time the atmospheric con-
centration of carbon dioxide was near todays level of about 370 parts per million
(ppm) and what were past conditions like when concentrations were at 550 ppm?
Detail the factors that cause the global carbon cycle to produce these high levels
of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Response. It is not precisely known what the earths climate was like the last
time carbon dioxide levels were near 370 ppm (let alone 550 ppm) because the avail-
able paleoclimate evidence available this long ago are quite uncertain and incom-
plete. That having been said, it is believed, based on the available proxy information
and faunal/floral evidence, that global temperatures were probably several degrees
higher than they are today when CO2 concentrations neared 550 pm, roughly con-
sistent with model simulation results. One probably has to go back roughly 4050
million years ago (see chapter 3 of the 2001 IPCC working group 1 report) to find
a time when CO2 concentrations were in the range of 550 ppm (i.e., roughly double
their pre-industrial concentration) and approximately 80 million years ago (i.e., the
mid-Cretaceous period when Dinosaurs roamed the polar regions) to find a time
when CO2 levels were in excess of 1200 ppm (a level that will be reached, at current
rates of CO2 increase, within 1 to 112 centuries). Proxy evidence available for this
period, tenuous though it is, suggests deep ocean temperatures 812 C warmer
than present. State of the art climate model simulations performed by Bette Otto-
Bleisner and colleagues using the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR) global climate model, which incorporate such CO2 levels (and the conti-
nental configuration corresponding to the mid-Cretaceous period), indicate signifi-
cantly warmer sea surface temperatures, with tropical sea surface temperatures ap-
proximately 4 C warmer and polar sea surface temperatures approximately 614 C
warmer than present. The simulations indicate an absence of perennial sea ice at
even the most polar latitudes.
Question 53. In your vitae, you indicate that you serve on the panel for NOAAs
Climate Change Data and Detection (CCDD) program, while at the same time, you
also have received large grants from this program. Please explain your role on the
panel, how grant submissions are evaluated, and why there is no conflict of interest
or impropriety associated with members of a panel receiving large grants from the
program for which they serve.
Response. I am not a spokesperson for NOAA, and would suggest that the ques-
tioner contact the appropriate NOAA agency officials for further information on
their conflict of interest and disclosure policies. That notwithstanding, however, I
would note the following points. Government funding agencies seek to draw upon
the leading experts of the field in their panels. Inevitably, this means that specific
science programs within NSF and NOAA invite to their review panels scientists who
typically submit proposals themselves to those panels. Scientists are also asked to
disclose any conflicts of interest they might have in reviewing a proposal, and are
asked to recuse themselves from any participation in discussions related to pro-
posals that they might have even peripheral involvement with. In my involvement
in both NSF and NOAA panel reviews, I have on many occasions recused myself
from reviewing or discussing a proposal based on such considerations.
Question 54. Do you receive any income or reimbursement (travel, speaking fees,
etc.) from any sources, which have taken advocacy positions with respect to the
Kyoto Protocol, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, or legislation
194
before the U.S. Congress that would affect greenhouse gas emissions? If so, please
identify those sources and the approximate amount of money that they represent.
Response. All income or travel expense reimbursement funds that I have received
to my recollection have come from academic institutions, government funding agen-
cies such as NSF, NOAA, NASA, DOE, and scientific organizations such as the
American Geophysical Union and University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR). I am not familiar with any advocacy positions that have been taken by any
of these institutions or organizations regarding the U.N. Framework Convention on
Climate change, or legislation before the U.S. Congress that would affect greenhouse
gas emissions.
RESPONSES BY MICHAEL MANN TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. Is it your understanding that during the mid-Holocene optimum pe-
riod (the period from 40007000 B.C.) that annual mean global temperatures were
more than a degree C warmer than the present day?
Response. This is an oft-repeated but patently false claim. Dr. Legates, who has
no established expertise in the relevant field of paleoclimatology, indeed asserts that
temperatures were warmer at this time. In fact, not only is that not the consensus
of the paleoclimate research community, but just the opposite is believed to be true
of global annual mean temperatures at this time. Paleoclimate experts know that
the mid-Holocene warmth centered roughly 5000 years ago was restricted to high
latitudes and certain seasons (summer in the Northern Hemisphere and winter in
the southern hemisphere). Because much of the early paleoclimate evidence that
was available (for example, fossil pollen assemblages) came from the Northern
Hemisphere extratropics, and is largely reflective of summer conditions, decades ago
some scientists believed that this was a time of globally warmer conditions. It is
now well known that this is not the case. More abundant evidence now dem-
onstrates, for example, that the tropical regions were cooler over much of the year.
All of these changes are consistent with the expected response of surface tempera-
tures to the known changes in the Earths orbital geometry relative to the Sun dur-
ing that time period and associated climate feedbacks, as detailed in peer-reviewed
scientific publications [e.g., Hewitt, C.D., A Fully Coupled GCM Simulation of the
Climate of the Mid-Holocene, Geophysical Research Letters, 25 (3), 361364, 1998;
Ganopolski, A., C. Kubatzki, M. Claussen, V. Brovkin, and V. Petoukhov, The Influ-
ence of Vegetation-Atmosphere-Ocean Interaction on Climate During the Mid-Holo-
cene, Science, 280, 19161919, 1998].
Climate model simulations indicate quite good agreement with paleoclimate evi-
dence now available. These models calculate that global annual average tempera-
tures were probably a few tenths of a degree C cooler than today during this time
period [Kitoh, A., and S. Murakami, Tropical Pacific Climate at the mid-Holocene
and the Last Glacial Maximum simulated by a coupled ocean-atmosphere general
circulation model, Paleooceanography, 17 (3), (19)113, 2002.]. Thats a far cry from
the very out-of-date claim made by Legates. Legates comments regarding climate
changes over the past 1000 years reflect a similar lack of familiarity with a whole
body of paleoclimate research, especially with the new insights gained through the
augmented research program, during the past decade.
Question 2. Why only focus on the past 1000 or 2000 years and not further back?
Response. Large changes in climate certainly occurred in the distant past. If we
look million years back in time, dinosaurs were roaming the polar regions of the
Earth, and the globe was several degrees wanner than today. Carbon dioxide levels
were probably several times their current level, slowly having attained such high
levels due to changes in the arrangements of the continents (plate tectonics) which
influence the volcanic outgassing of carbon dioxide from the solid Earth. These
changes occurred on timescales of tens of millions of years. Going back 10,000 years
ago, large ice sheets existed over North America due to natural changes that occur
in the Earths orbit around the Sun on timescales of tens of thousands of years. Try-
ing to study distant past climates for insights into modern natural climate varia-
bility is hampered by the fact that the basic external constraints on the system (the
continental arrangement, the geometry of the Earths astronomical orbit, the pres-
ence of continental ice sheetswhat we call the boundary conditions) were signifi-
cantly, different from today. Focusing on the evolution of climate in the centuries
leading up to the 20th century (i.e., the past 1000 to 2000 years) provides a perspec-
tive on the natural variability of the climate prior to the period during which large-
scale human influence is likely to have occurred, yet modern enough that the basic
boundary conditions on the climate system were otherwise the same. This provides
us, in essence, control for diagnosing whether or not recent changes in climate are
195
indeed unusual. Moreover, only during the past 10002000 years do we have ade-
quate networks of proxy climate data with the required (annual) resolution in time
to compare and validate against modern instrumental records; Reliable quantitative
reconstructions of large-scale surface temperature patterns further back in time are
thus not, at present, possible.
Question 3. One of the Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions in your
Figure 1 (the green curve from a paper by Esper and colleagues from Science in
2001) shows larger swings in past centuries, marginally outside the uncertainty
bounds of the other reconstructions and model simulations. Does this indicate inter-
nal inconsistency in our knowledge?
Response. There is no inconsistency. Esper et al noted, in their paper, that their
estimate, unlike that of my colleagues and mine (the Mann/Bradley/Hughes or
MBH reconstruction), was not representative of the entire Northern Hemisphere.
They explicitly noted this in their paper, where they pointed out the likely reason
for differences is that the MBH reconstruction represents the full Northern Hemi-
sphere (tropics, subtropics, and extratropics) while the Esper et al reconstruction
only represents the restricted extratropical continents. In fact, in a Science article
that appeared in the same issue as the Esper et al paper [Briffa, K.R. and T.J.
Osborn, Science, Blowing Hot and Cold, 295, 22272228, 2002] Briffa and Osborn
noted that much of the difference was due to an arguably inappropriate scaling that
Esper et al used, and an inappropriate comparison of summer vs. annual tempera-
tures; when we regressed the record of Esper et al. against non-smoothed data (see
the figure), this difference (with MBHJ was reduced to about 0.4 C. Recalibrating
both curves against year-by-year warm season temperatures reduces this difference
further to about 0.35 C.
As shown in the Eosarticle discussed in my testimony, which represents a con-
sensus of the leading researchers in the field [Mann, ME, Ammann, C.M., Bradley,
R.S., Briffa; K.R., Crowley, T.J., Hughes, M.K.; Jones, P.D., Oppenheimer, M.,
Osbom, T.J., Overpeck, J.T., Rutherford, S., Trenberth, K.E., Wigley, T.M.L., On
Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late 20th Century Warmth, Eos, 84, 256258,
2003], a proper scaling of Esper et al record prior to comparison with other esti-
mates, shows it only marginally outside the error estimates of the MBH reconstruc-
tion and the many other estimates that are in agreement with it. As noted in two
articles in Science that shortly followed the Esper et al paper [Mann, M.E., Hughes,
M.K., Tree-Ring Chronologies and Climate Variability, Science, 296, 848, 2002;
Mann, ME, The Value of Multiple Proxies, Science, 297, 14811482, 2002], it is like-
ly that the emphasis of the Esper et al reconstruction on only the summer season
and the extratropical continental regions, provides a biased estimate of the true pat-
tern of annual, hemisphere-wide temperatures in past centuries, explaining the
small differences between this estimate and other estimates. This conclusion has
been verified in recent modeling studies [Shindell, D.T., Schmidt, G.A., Miller, R.,
Mann, M.E., Volcanic and Solar forcing of Climate Change During the Pre-Indus-
trial era, Journal of Climate, in press, 2003 ]. It is thus clearly disingenuous when
contrarians make the argument that the Esper et al result is in conflict with the
mainstream conclusions of the climate research community with regard to the his-
tory of Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperature variations over the past
millennium as embodied, for example, in the Eos article.
Question 4. As climatologist, can you explain what kind of quantitative analysis
it takes to determine whether or not the last 50 years has been unusually warm
compared to the last 1000 years?
Response. Well, such an analysis requires the careful use of proxy data, because
we dont have widespread instrumental temperature records prior to the mid-19th
century. By careful use: I mean that one must first establish that the records actu-
ally resolve the changes of the past 50 years. This typically requires annually re-
solved proxy records or the very circumspect use of records with decadal resolution.
One must not, as in the Soon and Baliunas studies, use records that do not resolve
the trends of the past few decades. One must also establish the existence of an ac-
tual temperature signal in the available proxy data before using them to reconstruct
past temperature patterns, and one must properly synthesize regional data, which
typically all show different tendencies at any given time, into an estimate of the av-
erage temperature over the entire hemisphere or globe. There area number of ways
of performing such a synthesis, from the sophisticated pattern reconstruction ap-
proaches my colleagues and I have described in the technical literature, to the rel-
atively straightforward compositing approach that many other paleoclimatologists,
(including myself) have also used. In all cases, the estimates based on the proxy
data must be calibrated against modern instrumental temperature measurements,
to allow, for a quantitative estimate of past temperatures. The estimate must then
196
be independently verified or, what we call, cross-validated, by showing that it inde-
pendently reproduces earlier instrumental data that were not used to calibrate the
estimates. Finally, uncertainties must be diagnosed based on how well the recon-
struction describes actual available instrumental measurements. Once such steps
have been taken, it is possible to compare the recent instrumental record to the re-
construction within the context of the uncertainties of the reconstruction. This latter
comparison allows us to gauge whether or not late 20th century temperatures are
anomalous or not in a long-term context. The conclusion from legitimate such stud-
ies that late 20th century warmth is indeed anomalous in a millennial or longer-
term context has been shown to be quite robust with respect to the details of the
data set used, or the methodology used (as shown in exhibit 1 in my testimony, the
first figure of the Eos piece). It is noteworthy that the Soon and Baliunas paper
satisfies none of the required standards for a careful use of proxy data specified
above.
Question 5. Do you claim that appropriate statistical methods do not exist for cali-
brating statistical predictors, including climate proxy records, against a target vari-
able, such as the modern instrumental temperature record?
Response. No. The statement belies a centuries-old field of statistics known as
multivariate linear regression in which a set of candidate predictors (such as
proxy data) are statistically related to a target variable or predictand (such as the
instrumental temperature record) during a common interval of overlap (e.g., the
20th century). If done properly, this statistical method isolates the temperature in-
formation that is contained within the proxy data, and uses that information to re-
construct past temperature patterns from the proxy data. It is also well known to
those properly trained in statistics that the regression model must be independ-
ently validated by showing that it successfully reproduces independent data (e.g.
longer-term instrumental temperature records) that were not used in constructing
the statistical model itself. The estimates by Mann and colleagues embrace each of
these fundamental statistical principles.
Legates in his testimony seemed to claim that a composite estimate (e.g. of North-
ern Hemisphere mean temperature) should somehow resemble each of the indi-
vidual predictors (e.g. the various regional temperature estimates). Such a result is,
in general, a statistical impossibility. There is a basic theorem in statistics known
as the central limit theorem which indicates a general tendency for a composite
(i.e. average) of a large number of different individual estimates to cancel out in
terms of the pattern variation and amplitude of variability evident in the individual
estimates. If Legates were indeed (as he claims to be) familiar with the instru-
mental surface temperature record, he would know, for example, that individual in-
strumental thermometer records available for particular locations over the globe
during the 20th century show very little in common with the composite series con-
structed by averaging all of the individual records into a hemispheric or global esti-
mates. Because season-to-season and year-to year fluctuations in the climate at re-
gional scales often result from shifts in the atmospheric circulation, not every loca-
tion experiences the same variation in any given year; for example, this summer,
the western United States and Europe are anomalously warm, while the East Coast
is anomalously cool. The average series reflects a tendency for a cancellation of the
various ups and downs in the different individual series that often occur at dif-
ferent times. This is simply a statement about the instrumental record itself, and
requires no use of proxy data at all. It is discouraging that Legates and colleagues
havent performed even such simple analyses with available instrumental data that
would expose the fundamental flaws in their supposed statistical reasoning.
In this context, it should be noted that Legates testimony seriously misrepresents
the statistical analyses used by Mann and co-workers. In his testimony, Legates
claimed that my collaborators and I replaced the proxy data for the 1900s by the
instrumental. The assertion is simply factually incorrect. Any reader of our pub-
lished work knows full well that our proxy-based temperature reconstruction ex-
tends well into the late 20th century, through 1980 (the vast majority of published
high-resolution climate proxy data are not available at later times than this). It is
shown in our work that the reconstruction independently reproduces estimates from
the instrumental surface temperature data record back through the mid-19th cen-
tury and, in certain regions, back through the mid-18th century (i.e., our regression
model is validated in the manner discussed above). Our Northern Hemisphere av-
erage temperature series reconstructed from proxy data is shown to agree with the
instrumental Northern Hemisphere average record over the entire interval available
for comparison (18561980). This successful validation of the reconstruction, fur-
thermore, allows us to compare the proxy-based reconstruction to the entire instru-
197
mental record (available through 1999 at the time of our publication), taking into
account the uncertainties in the reconstruction.
Legates further claim that we present the instrumental record without uncer-
tainty is disingenuous. If Legates, for example, were familiar with studies of the in-
strumental surface temperature record, he would understand that the uncertainties
in this record using the 20th century are minimal compared to the uncertainties
shown for our reconstruction [see e.g. Figure 2.1b in Folland, C.K., Karl, T.R.,
Christy, J.R., Clarke, R. A.,Gruza, G.V., Jouzel, J., Mann, M.E., Oerlemans, J., Sal-
inger, M.J.;, Wang, S.-W., Observed Climate Variability arid: Change, in Climate
Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Houghton, J.T., et al. (eds.), Cambridge Univ.
Press, Cambridge, 99181, 2001.]. Furthermore, all scientists with a proper training
in statistics know that uncertainties add in quadrature, In other words, you have
to square them before adding them. This means that the relatively small uncer-
tainty in the instrumental record makes a relatively small contribution to the total
uncertainty. Legates claimed in his testimony that including the uncertainty in the
instrumental record, which he estimates as 0.1 C would change the conclusions ex-
pressed by us and other mainstream climate scientists that the 1990s are the
warmest decade in at least the past 1000 years within estimated uncertainties. This
claim is very misleading for several reasons, First, the standard error in Northern
Hemisphere mean annual temperatures during the 1990s is far smaller than the
amount cited, by Legates [see again Folland et al, 2001 cited above]. Even more
problematic, however, Legates claim indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of
the statistical concepts of standard error and uncertainty,. The shaded region shown
along with the Mann et al reconstruction (and other similar plots shown in recent
articles such as the aforementioned Eos article, and the IPCC report) indicate two
standard error intervals. The decade of the 1990s is roughly two standard errors
warmer (i.e., about 0.4 C) than any decade prior to the 20th century in the recon-
struction. Based on a one-sided test for anomalous warmth, this translates to a
roughly 97.5 percent level of significance. Modifying the uncertainties to include the
small additional contribution due to uncertainties in the instrumental record itself
would modify this only slightly, and would not lower the significance level below the
95 percent level. Though there is no such thing as an absolute estimate of uncer-
tainty, despite Legates implications to the contrary, a 95 percent confidence is often
adopted as an appropriate criterion for significance. Legates statement that includ-
ing instrumental contributions to the uncertainty would change the conclusions is
thus clearly false.
Question 6. In determining whether the temperature of the Medieval Warm Pe-
riod was warmer than the 20th century, does your work analyze whether a 50-year
period is either warmer or wetter or drier than the 20th century? Is it appropriate
to use indicators of drought and precipitation directly to draw inferences of past
temperatures?
Response. No, the work of me and my colleagues does not follow the flawed ap-
proach used by Soon and Baliunas. It is fundamentally unsound to infer past tem-
perature changes directly from records of drought or precipitation. The analysis
methods used by my various collaborators and I (e.g. the 13 authors of the recent
article in Eos) employ standard statistical methods for identifying the surface tem-
perature signal contained in proxy climate records, and using only that temperature
signal in reconstructing past temperature patterns. By contrast, Soon and Baliunas
simply infer evidence for warm Medieval Warm Period or cold Little Ice Age con-
ditions from the relative changes in proxy records often reflective of changes in pre-
cipitation or drought, rather than temperature. It is difficult to imagine amore basic
mistake than misinterpreting hydrological evidence in terms of temperature evi-
dence. This fundamental shortcoming in their approach is identified in the Eos arti-
cle referred to in my testimony that was written by 13 leading climate and
paleoclimate scientists. Incidentally, the Eos piece was peer-reviewed, despite the
claim by Legates otherwise in his testimonyan associate editor with training in
the particular field corresponding to the submitted piece (Atmospheric Science in
this case); reviews the content of Eos forum pieces prior to acceptance.
Question 7. Can you compare the quantitative analysis that supports your conclu-
sion that the climate is warming faster in recent years than at any time in the re-
cent past with the analysis done in the Soon literature review?
Response. Technically speaking, there is no actual analysis in the Soon and
Baliunas review, in that they dont appear to have performed a single numerical or
statistical operation upon a single time series at all. They do not provide any quan-
titative estimates of temperature changes, let alone any estimate of uncertainties,
Instead, they claim to interpret the results of past studies mainly by counting the
number of studies coming to some conclusion; no matter how they got there and
198
whether there have been later interpretations. Science requires analysisnot just
counting studies. Climate scientists whose records they analyzed have gone on
record as indicating that Soon and Baliunas misinterpreted their studies (e.g., the
article by David Appell in the August 2003 issue of Scientific American) and numer-
ous climate scientists have indicated (see same article) that Soon and Baliunas mis-
interpreted evidence of drought or precipitation as evidence of temperature changes,
did not use records that resolve the climate changes of the late 20th century, and
did not take into account whether or not variations in different regions were coinci-
dent or not. Soon and Baliunas also neglect undeniable evidence of substantial
warming of hemispheric and global surface temperatures during the past few dec-
ades. So the Soon and Baliunas analysis fails just about every meaningful criterion
that might be applied to determining the validity of an analysis that purports to
evaluate current warming in the context of past temperature trends. This deeply
flawed study thus contrasts sharply with other rigorous quantitative studies (as dis-
cussed in the Eos article) performed by numerous other scientists with appropriate
training in the fields of climatology and paleoclimatology, which use proper statis-
tical methods for inferring past temperature changes from proxy data, provide un-
certainty estimates, and employ appropriate comparisons of current and past trends.
Question 8. What was the earths climate like the last time that atmospheric con-
centrations of carbon dioxide were at todays levels or about 370 parts per million
(ppm) and what were conditions like when concentrations were at 550 ppm, which
will occur around 2060 or so?
Response. We have to go back far into the past to find carbon dioxide levels ap-
proaching todays levels. Ice core studies indicate that modern carbon dioxide levels
are unprecedented for at least four glacial/inter-glacial cycles: in other words, for
more than 400,000 years. Other evidence suggests that carbon dioxide levels are
now higher than they have been for at least 10 million years. One probably has to
go back roughly 4050 million years ago (see chapter 3 of the 2001 IPCC working
group 1 report) to find CO2 concentrations were in the range of 550 ppm (i.e., rough-
ly double their preindustrial concentration) and approximately 80 million years ago
(i.e., the mid-Cretaceous period when Dinosaurs roamed the polar regions) to find
CO2 levels in excess of 1200 ppm (a level that will be reached, at current rates of
CO2 increase, within one to one-and-a-half centuries). Proxy evidence available for
this period, tenuous though it is, suggests deep ocean temperatures 812 C warmer
than present. State of the art climate model simulations performed by Bette Otto-
Bleisner and colleagues using the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR) global climate model, which incorporate such CO2 levels (and the conti-
nental configuration corresponding to the mid-Cretaceous period), indicate signifi-
cantly warmer sea surface temperatures, with tropical sea surface temperatures ap-
proximately 4 C warmer and polar sea surface temperatures approximately 614 C
warmer than present. The simulations indicate an absence of perennial sea ice at
even the most polar latitudes.
Question 9. Are you aware of any scientists beside the authors of the Soon et al
article who support using wetness or dryness as indicators of past temperatures,
instead of actual temperatures or proxy data that reflects temperatures?
Response. I am not aware of any other scientist who has made the mistake of in-
terpreting paleoclimatic information in this way. As discussed above, trained
paleoclimatologists typically use statistical methods to identify the strength of the
temperature signal in a proxy record prior to using it in reconstructing past tem-
perature patterns.
Question 10. Is there any known geologic precedent for large increases of atmos-
pheric CO2 without simultaneous changes in other components of the carbon cycle
and the climate system?
Response. There is not, to my knowledge, such an example. As discussed above,
the geological record shows a clear relationship between periods of high CO2 and
relatively high global mean temperatures. The study of the relationship between
changes in CO2 and climate in the paleoclimate record is sometimes complicated by
the fact that these relationships can be relatively complex during rapid transitions
between glacial and interglacial climates such as those that occurred with the com-
ing and going of ice ages that occurs on a roughly 100 thousand year timescale over
the past nearly one million years. However, one can turn to periods of time when
the climate and CO2 were not varying rapidly, and thus the climate was approxi-
mately in an equilibrium state, for insights into the relationship between CO2 and
climate, A perfect such example is the height of the last ice age, the so-called Last
Glacial Maximum or LGM centered roughly 25 thousand years ago. At this time,
CO2 was substantially lower than today (just below 200 ppm) and global mean sur-
199
face temperatures were several degrees (about 4C or so) cooler than today. Such re-
lationships between past CO2 changes and global temperature changes typically,
suggest a sensitivity of the climate system to enhanced CO2 of 1, 5 to 4.5 C warm-
ing for each doubling of CO2 concentrations from their pre-industrial levels, similar
to the range of sensitivities found in various climate models.
Question 11. According to a study published in Science magazine recently [B. D.
Santer; M. F. Wehner, T. M. L. Wigley, R. Sausen; G. A. Meehl, K. E. Taylor, C.
Ammann, J. Arblaster, W. M. Washington, J. S. Boyle, and W. Bruggemann Science
2003 July 25; 301; 479483], manmade emissions are partly to blame for pushing
outward the boundary between the lower atmosphere and the upper atmosphere.
How does that fit with the long-term climate history and what are the implications?
Response. This is yet another independent piece of evidence confirming a detect-
able anthropogenic influence on climate during the late 20th century. This evidence
is consistent with evidence for unprecedented surface warming during the past few
decadeswarming that indeed appears unprecedented for as long as we have
records (i.e., for at least a thousand, and probably two thousand years). These
changes, moreover, are consistent with predictions from climate models driven by
known anthropogenic (human) forcing of the climate.
Question 12. At this hearing, there were a number of calls for sound science.
Could you please explain what it is about the IPCC process that justifies respecting
the IPCC results as the very soundest representation of the science of climate
change?
Response. The IPCC carries out a process for developing its summarization of the
understanding of science that leads to one of the most rigorously peer-reviewed sci-
entific documents in existence, Individual technical chapters are prepared by expert
scientific teams that consider the full range of published papers in a subject area.
This expert author team then solicits an initial peer review from a large number
of other scientists in the field, drawing on those with the full range of views. The
reports next go through a much wider review that is open to literally thousands of
scientists around the world. Finally countries, NGOs, and professional groups (such
as business groups) are provided the opportunity to send in review comments. At
each stage, authors consider each comment and document their response. The me-
ticulousness and fairness of the revision process by the authors in response to re-
viewer comments is evaluated by an independent pair of review editors who are
themselves top international climate scientists who are not authors of the report
itself. The National Academy of Sciences, at President George W. Bushs request,
and other national academies around the world have independently reviewed the
process and the validity of the scientific findings of the IPCC and endorsed them.
To question the IPCC and the IPCC process, as does Dr. Legates thus not only does
a disservice to thousands of the worlds top scientists; but to the exceptional care
and rigor of the process that has led to the unanimous adoption of all of the IPCCs
assessments by representatives of the over 150 nations that participate in the IPCC
process. The documents are very finely honed and carefully phrased. The scientific
studies of those such as or, Legates are considered, as are their review comments,
and it is terribly disingenuous, not to mention totally unacceptable to the inter-
national community, after all of the care and consideration put into these efforts to
try to so cavalierly dismiss them.
In his testimony Legates alleges that the IPCC report misrepresents what is
known about climate change in past centuries and that it somehow replaces conven-
tional wisdom with dramatically new conclusions. One must conclude that Legates
either did not read the report, or if he did, he did not understand what he read;
for if he had he would certainly have to recognize factually incorrect nature of his
comments. The IPCC chapter dealing with paleoclimatic evidence discussed the full
range of regional evidence described in the peer-reviewed as well as evidence from
hemispheric composites that average the information from different regions. The
paper by Soon and Baliunas is a dramatic throwback to the State of our knowledge
many decades ago, while the IPCC report provides a far more upto-date assessment
of all of the available knowledge regarding past climate change. The Soon and
Baliunas papers provide a glaring example of the very unsound science that Sen-
ator Inhofe claims to be concerned about, as numerous mainstream climate re-
searchers have now opined in the media, and in the peer-reviewed scientific lit-
erature.
Question 13. In your opinion, how do the processes used by the IPCC and the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences compare to the process used in the publication of the
Soon and Baliunas paper and other papers by so-called contrarians? In the next
IPCC assessment, would you expect that the Soon and Baliunas paper will be con-
200
sidered and cited, putting it into the context of other papers and findings and ex-
plaining why it has differences or similarities?
Response. As discussed above, the IPCC is one of most rigorously peer-reviewed
scientific documents in existence. By contrast, the contrarians rarely publish in the
peer-reviewed literature and when they do, it is not uncommon to discover, as in
the case of the Soon and Baliunas paper, irregularities in the peer-review process.
Publisher Otto Kinne indeed indicated that the review process at Climate Research
failed to detect methodological flaws in the Soon and Baliunas paper. I would in-
deed expect that in the next IPCC assessment, the Soon and Baliunas paper will
be discussed and evaluated in the context of other available evidence and in the con-
text of how it is faring in the literature when the IPCC review takes place (e.g.,
if there are as many criticisms about their work as at present, and they have not
been seriously addressed by more careful followup studies by the authors. I would
think their conclusions will be rejected as scientifically unsound. I would not pre-
sume to know in detail what the result of the assessment will be, but I believe it
fair to assume that the rigorous review provided by the IPCC assessment process
will not fail to identify the methodological flaws that appear to have slipped through
the cracks in their publication in the journal Climate Research.
Question 14. Could you explain the IPCCs lexicon for indicating relative levels of
confidence and how you would suggest this relates to the information being real
and probable? When IPCC says something is very likely, just what do they
mean?
Response. To avoid the type of misunderstanding that often results from when sci-
entists seek to convey scientific results to a non-technical audience, the IPCC spe-
cifically sought to employ a lexicon in which terms such as likely or probable
or very likely had specific statistical meanings attached to them. A fairly conserv-
ative standard was typically employed in this process. Consider the conclusion in
the IPCC report that the 1990s are the warmest decade in at least the past 1000
years for the Northern hemisphere average temperature. This conclusion is based
on the fact that the average warmth of the 1990s exceeds that for any reconstructed
decade in the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere series. To be more specific, the
1990s warmth exceeds any past decade by two standard errors. This corresponds
to a roughly 97.5 percent probability based on standard statistical assumptions.
Probabilities of 90 percent99 percent are termed very likely in lexicon typically
adopted by the IPCC report. However, this conclusion was offered as only likely
(corresponding to a 66 percent90 percent level of probability) rather than the more
stringent very likely because it was based on only a small number of independent
studies at the time. Since that time, of course, several more studies have affirmed
this conclusion, and one might imagine that a more stringent conclusion will be of-
fered in the future. This example nonetheless illustrates the manner by which IPCC
adopted conservative standards in their use of terms such as likely or very like-
ly. It is instructive to contrast that standard with the one taken in the Soon and
Baliunas paper. The Soon and Baliunas paper does not provide a quantitative esti-
mate of any quantity (such as average Northern Hemisphere temperature), or any
assessment of uncertainty. It is thus not possible for the authors to attach any
meaningful statement of likelihood or probability to any of their conclusions. They
thus provide no basis for judging the validity of any of the claims made in their
paper, in striking contrast to the rigorous standards adopted by IPCC, and by the
work of my collaborators and me.
Question 15. In his questioning, Senator Inhofe cited results regarding the poten-
tial costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol from the Wharton Econometric Fore-
casting Association (WEFA). I realize that you are not an economist, but would you
please comment as a scientist on the following two points:
(a) Senator Inhofe cited economic projections (e.g., 14 percent increase in medical
costs; real income drop of $2,700 per household) going out a decade or so into the
future and without any indication of uncertainty on these estimates implying an ac-
curacy of two-significant figures. Senator Voinovich cited numbers to similar
claimed accuracy going out 2025 years; again without any indication of uncer-
tainty. Could you please comment on what you think are the relative strengths and
weaknesses of making climate projections based on use of physical laws versus eco-
nomic extrapolations and what sorts of relative uncertainty should likely be associ-
ated with each type of estimate so that they can be interpreted in a comparative
way by decisionmakers?
Response. Indeed, it is somewhat remarkable that politicians who reject the valid-
ity, for example, of climate model simulations, which are based on solution of the
laws of physics, can so uncritically accept precise economic projections based on eco-
nomic forecasts based on untestable and unverifiable assumptions governing human
201
decisionmaking, and speculative future scenarios that depend on the unfolding of
the political process. Specific numbers of 14 percent or $2,700 are of course en-
tirely dependent on the assumptions that go into such forecasts. Because assump-
tions about future economic growth and about future government policies are nec-
essarily uncertain, estimates of changes in costs or income from such models must
also be quite uncertain, and so should have large uncertainties (or ranges) associ-
ated with them. The faith expressed in such poorly constrained economics estimates
by the same individuals who express strong skepticism of results from far more
physically based and testable climate simulation models, strikes me as a remarkable
inconsistency.
(b) Because you may be familiar with the 1997 study by the World Resources In-
stitute entitled The costs of climate protection: A guide for the perplexed, which
explains the important role of assumptions in leading to very different cost esti-
mates from even one economic model, much less among different models, could you
explain in a comparative fashion how robust the findings regarding the hockey
stick behavior of the climate in the various studies carried out: by you and fellow
investigators may be to variations in the assumptions made. Its clear that varying
the assumptions among reasonable possibilities in the economic models can change
what is calculated to be a few percent impact on the economy to a small gain; would
changes in the assumptions you are making change the indication of strong anthro-
pogenic warming to an indication of human-induced cooling?
Response. The millennial temperature reconstruction (or hockey stick as it was
termed by former GFDL head Dr. Jerry Mahlman) is based on a rigorously vali-
dated statistical model with demonstrated predictive skill based on comparisons
with independent data. The primary conclusions drawn from the reconstruction (e.g.
the anomalous nature of late 20th century warmth) are based on a conservative ap-
praisal of the uncertainties in the reconstruction, and are not strongly dependent
on the assumptions made. The sameconclusions have been affirmed now by sev-
eral other independent empirical and-model-based estimates. As discussed above,
this contrasts with economic predictions which are necessarily far more sensitive to
the assumptions that go into them.
Question 16. In his opening statement, Senator Inhofe concluded that the Soon
and Baliunas paper is credible; well-documented; and scientifically defensible. By
contrast, your testimony indicated that the experts in the field do not consider this
to be the case. Does one have to be an expert in the field to understand the appar-
ent problems with this paper? If not, could you summarize in terms for non-sci-
entists what the key problems with the paper are?
Response. The mainstream scientific research community has indeed rejected the
approach, interpretation, and conclusions advanced by Soon and Baliunas as fun-
damentally unsound. The major flaws in the analysis, as described in earlier com-
ments in more detail, are basic enough that they can be understood by a non-spe-
cialist. In short, the analysis by Soon and Baliunas is unsound because (a) they in-
appropriately interpreted indicators of past precipitation as evidence of past tem-
perature changes, (b) they did not use an approach which takes into account the
simultaneity and lack of simultaneity of variations in different regions, and (c) they
did not employ a proper standard for evaluating recent changes (i.e., changes during
the past few decades) in the context of past variations. Indeed, they also misinter-
preted past published work, and did not provide any quantitative estimates, let
alone estimates of uncertainty. It is difficult to find anything of scientific merit at
all in their published work.
Question 17. As I understand it, the data that both you and Soon and Baliunas
draw from is the same, and it is not a question of the data being the problem. In-
stead, it is apparently the processing of the data that you are indicating has been
done in a substandard way by Soon and Baliunas. Is this correct?
Response. Keep in mind that Soon and Baliunas, unlike my collaborators and I,
dont actually analyze any data at all. They simply claim to have interpreted past
studies (often incorrectly). Soon and Baliunas refer to a number of proxy data stud-
ies that describe data which we employed in our analysis. There are also many
proxy data that we used in our study that the Soon and Baliunas do not discuss.
However, as alluded to in the question, the real issue isnt what data were used.
Numerous independent now-published studies employing widely different assem-
blages of proxy climate data sets have demonstrated (e.g, as in the Eos article dis-
cussed earlier) a similar pattern of past variations in hemispheric mean tempera-
ture. The real issue with Soon and Baliunas is indeed not the set of studies that
they claim to have interpreted, but rather the approach that they took to inter-
preting those studies. As indicated in previous comments, Soon and Baliunas, unlike
mainstream climate researchers, did not employ a method for isolating the actual
202
temperature signal in the proxy records before using the records to draw conclusions
regarding past temperature changes. Unlike mainstream researchers, they did not
aggregate information in a way that addresses whether or not variations in different
regions are simultaneous. Unlike mainstream researchers, they did not analyze the
actual modern (late 20th century) warmth in the context of past variations. And fi-
nally, they did not even produce a quantitative estimate of past temperature vari-
ations, let alone an estimate of uncertainty.
Question 18. The Soon et al literature review has been described as shifting the
paradigm away from the hockey stick description of global warming. It seems that
that review simply attempted to revive an older theory of climate change that has
been discarded by NOAA, the USGCRP, the NAS, the IPCC, etc. Please comment.
Response. The mainstream scientific community has clearly and decisively re-
jected the Soon and Baliunas papers as scientifically unsound which undermines
any claims made by industry-funded special interest groups or politicians, that the
papers provide any valid scientific conclusions, let alone the basis for a shift of the
paradigm. Indeed, the Soon and Baliunas papers simply promote a number of
long-discredited myths which have been replaced, in recent decades by far more rig-
orous and quantitative analyses as described by the IPCC, USGCRP, NAS, and
other mainstream scientific organizations and funding agencies. In short, the Soon
& Baliunas papers simply repackage myths that were discredited more than a dec-
ade ago.
Question 19. In an opinion-editorial by former Secretary of Energy James Schles-
inger, he suggested that we have only a limited grasp of the overall forces at work,
. . . in terms of global climate change. Could you please summarize for us what
the scientific community considers the key forces at work over the past 1000 years,
how well these estimates are understood, and whether there is a general consistency
or inconsistency between the various forcings and the climate estimates that you
and colleagues have developed for the last 1000 years?
Response. Mr. Schlesingers assertions entirely mischaracterize the nature of our
scientific knowledge, which has advanced tremendously during the past several dec-
ades. In fact, a very large number of peer-reviewed scientific studies have been pub-
lished in the leading scientific, journals such as Nature and Science in the past two
decades elucidating the role of natural and anthropogenic factors in observed cli-
mate changes. Physically based models have been developed and validated against
observations, and these models reproduce complex climate phenomena such as El
Nino. These same models have been driven with the primary external factors that
are believed to govern climate variations on timescales of decades and centuries.
These external factors include natural factors, such as the modest estimated vari-
ations in radiative output of the Sun, which varies by a fraction of a percent over
time, variations in the frequency and intensity of explosive volcanic eruptions, which
have a several-year cooling effect on the climate through the injection of reflective
volcanic aerosols into the stratosphere, and very small changes in the Earths orbit
relative to the Sun that occur on multi-century timescales. These external factors
also include the anthropogenic influences of increased greenhouse gas concentra-
tions due to fossil fuel burning, changes in the reflective properties of the land sur-
face due to human land use alterations, and the regional cooling effect of anthropo-
genic sulphate aerosols in certain industrial regions. When driven with these fac-
tors, these climate models have demonstrated a striking ability to reproduce ob-
served global and hemispheric temperature trends during the 20th century, as well
as longer-term trends in past centuries as reconstructed from proxy data. Such re-
sults are nicely summarized in the 2001 IPCC scientific working group report. Mr.
Schlesinger would have benefited from a reading of this report, or the follow-up Na-
tional Academy of Sciences report that endorsed the key IPCC conclusions, prior to
writing his oped piece, which reflects a decades-old understanding of the State of
the science.
Question 20. In Dr. Soons testimony, he speaks about there being warming and
cooling for different periods. If he did not construct an integral across the hemi-
sphere or a real timeline; can he say anything other than that there were some
warm periods and cool periods?
Response. Aside from not adequately distinguishing temperature changes from
hydrological changes, Dr. Soon and his collaborators indeed did not even attempt
to estimate contemporaneous patterns of past temperature change, let alone an inte-
gral across the hemispheric domain to assess hemispheric mean temperature
changes. It is unclear what, if any, meaningful conclusions can be drawn from the
Soon and Baliunas study.
203
Question 21. Dr. Soon indicates that local and regional, rather than global aver-
age changes are the most relevant and practical measure of climate change and its
impact. Could you please comment on this, including the relative likelihood of iden-
tifying a signal of climate change amidst the local fluctuations? In what sense might
local changes be the most practical measure? In that the primary forcings of the cli-
mate are global in scale, does it not make most sense to first determine how the
large-scale rather than the regional climate might be affected?
Response. Dr. Soons comments are truly misguided. Firstly, the surface tempera-
ture reconstructions published by my colleagues and I explicitly resolve regional pat-
terns of surface temperature, so it is entirely unclear why Dr. Soon believes that
we dont address regional climate changes. Had Dr. Soon understood our papers, he
would be aware that we do. However, unlike the study that Dr. Soon published, our
reconstructions explicitly take into account the issue of the relative timing and si-
multaneity of surface temperature changes in different regions. Only through doing
this it possible to form an integrated measure of temperature changes such as hemi-
spheric mean temperature. Scientists with training in climatology, statistics; and
other areas of research required in the study of paleoclimate reconstruction know
that the signal-to-noise ratio of any surface response to global radiative climate forc-
ing increases as the scale of spatial averaging increases, In discussions of climate
change it is thus the integral of the surface temperature field over an entire hemi-
sphere or globe, which constitutes the most useful single variable for detecting, and
attributing causal factors to observed changes. The spatial signature of the surface
temperature signal (both with respect to position on the surface of the Earth, and
altitude in the atmosphere) can nonetheless help to distinguish one source of cli-
mate forcing (e.g. solar) from another (e.g. enhanced greenhouse gases). My col-
leagues and I have indeed used the spatial patterns of surface temperature changes
in past centuries to identify the role of natural external forcing of climate [Shindell,
D.T., Schmidt, G.A., Mann, M.E, Rind, D., Waple, A., Solar forcing of regional cli-
mate change during the Maunder Minimum, Science, 294, 21492152, 2001; Waple,
A., Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., Long-term Patterns of Solar Irradiance Forcing in
Model Experiments and Proxy-based Surface Temperature Reconstructions, Climate
Dynamics, 18, 563578, 2002; Shindell, D.T., Schmidt, G.A., Miller, R., Mann, M.E.,
Volcanic and Solar forcing of Climate Change During the Pre-Industrial era, Jour-
nal of Climate, in press, 2003]. Both Dr. Soon and Dr. Legates advocate in their tes-
timony a primary role of solar forcing in recent climate change, though they provide
no quantitative justification for this assertion at all. In fact, nearly a dozen detailed
detection and attribution studies published during the past decade by leading
climate researchers in the premier international scientific peer-reviewed journals
such as Science and Nature, have shown that the vertical and horizontal pattern
of observed warming is inconsistent with the response of the climate to solar forcing,
but is consistent, with the response of the climate to anthropogenic forcing. Thus
a prudent use of spatial information, as described in various studies by leading cli-
matologists, including my collaborators and I, can potentially help elucidate the
roles of natural and anthropogenic factors. However, Dr. Soons studies are deficient
in their use of any such information, and provide no insights into the factors gov-
erning past climate change.
Question 22. This year, the western United States is anomalously hot and dry.
The eastern United States is wetter than it has been since approximately 1891 and
cool. Europe is hotter and drier than it has been in about 150 years. If we assume
for the moment that these types of anomalies would persist for 50 years, are these
the types of anomalies that Soon and Baliunas would consider as being indicative
of there being an equivalent to the Medieval Warming in the western United States
and Europe while at the same time there is the equivalent of the Little Ice Age in
eastern North America? How would your type of approach vary in its analysis of
the year 2003 compared to the apparently contradictory results that Soon and
Baliunas would have?
Response. Indeed, as my colleagues and I discussed in our peer-reviewed articles
in Eos and more recently Geophysical Research Letters [Mann, M.E., Jones, P.D.,
Global Surface Temperatures over the Past two Millennia, Geophysical Research
Letters, 30 (15), 1820, doi: 10.1029/2003GL017814, 2003] the Soon and Baliunas ap-
proach is indeed internally contradictory in that it would separately identify anoma-
lies for even a given year, such as 2003, as simultaneously supportive of conditions
they would classify as associated with a Little Ice Age and a Medieval Warm Pe-
riod anomaly. As outlined in the question, this years pattern of climate anomalies
is a perfect example. Trained climatologists and paleoclimatologists know that one
must independently evaluate precipitation or drought information from temperature
information in reconstructing past climate patterns. For example, colleagues of mine
204
and I have developed reconstructions of patterns of drought over the continental
U.S. in past centuries from droughtsensitive tree-ring data [Cook, E.R., D.M. Meko,
D.W. Stahle, and M.K. Cleaveland, Drought Reconstructions for the Continental
United States, Journal of Climate, 12, 11451162, 1999; Zhang, Z., Mann, M.E.,
Cook, E.R., Alternative Methods of Proxy-Based Climate Field Reconstruction: Ap-
plication to the Reconstruction of Summer Drought Over the Conterminous United
States back to 1700 From Drought-Sensitive Tree Ring Data, Holocene, in press,
2003]. The drought reconstructions display a quite different pattern of behavior over
time from reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures, just as pat-
terns of drought over the continental U.S. during the 20th century as recorded from
instrumental data show relatively little in common with instrumental Northern
Hemisphere mean temperature estimates (for example, the most prominent drought
episode was the dust bowl of the 1930s, while the most prominent anomaly in the
Northern Hemisphere temperature record is the late 20th century warming).
Drought and temperature are essentially independent climate variables. The papers
by Soon and Baliunas seem not to recognize this fundamental fact. Finally, there
is an irony in the testimonies of Soon and Legates in that they seem to be criticizing
my colleagues and me for supposedly only focusing on the reconstruction of tempera-
ture patterns, when in fact we, and not they, have published work reconstructing
past patterns of drought, precipitation, and atmospheric circulation from proxy cli-
mate data. However, we have made careful use of the information contained in
proxy data in independently reconstructing patterns of temperature and patterns of
drought. By contrast, Soon and colleagues hopelessly convolute such information in
their interpretations of past climate trends.
Question 23. Could you provide a more detailed explanation for the apparent
Northern Hemisphere, cooling from the 1940s to 1970s? What is the general expec-
tation of what would have happened to the climate in the absence of any human
influences, so just continuing on from the trend for the last 1000 years prior to
human intervention?
Response. In fact, this issue has been studied by quite a number of climate sci-
entists for well over a decade. As I mentioned in my testimony, a statistically sig-
nificant cooling trend from 1940s to the 1970s is not evident for the globe, but only,
for the Northern Hemisphere. Dr Legates testimony on this matter is incorrect in
that regard. The observed record of global-mean temperature changes over the past
100 years indicates a warming to about 1940; little change from 1940 to the mid-
1970s, and then further warming, Legates implies in his comments that these
changes are inconsistent with our current understanding of the factors governing
climate change. This is also incorrect. In order to understand these observed
changes it is necessary to consider all likely causal factors, both anthropogenic and
natural, Anthropogenic factors include the warming effects of greenhouse gases and
the cooling effects of sulfate aerosols. Natural factors include changes. in the output
of the Sun and the effects of explosive volcanic eruptions (such as the El Chichon
eruption in 1982 and the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991). and internal variability
associated with natural climate oscillations in the ocean circulation and various
modes of coupled ocean-atmosphere variability (such as El Nino). When all of these
factors are considered, models give an expected pattern of 20th century temperature
changes that is in remarkable agreement with the observationsand the models
clearly show the three phases noted above. In particular, the leveling off of the
warming trend over 19401975 turns out to be explained largely by the relatively
rapid increase in cooling effects of sulfate aerosols as the world emerged from the
Depression and WWII (and perhaps a small contribution from natural, internal vari-
ations in ocean currents). This cooling temporarily offset the warming due to in-
creasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. This was first pointed out in a paper
by Dr. Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Na-
ture in 1989 and has been verified by numerous additional studies since. This agree-
ment between models and observations shows quite clearly that human factors have
been the dominant cause of global-scale climate change over the past 50 years, con-
trary to the repeated assertions by Soon and Legates that they are a manifestation
of natural climate variability. In the absence of anthropogenic factors, model simula-
tions indicate that natural factors alone would have lead to a slight cooling trend
of global temperatures over the 20th century [Crowley, T.J., Causes of Climate
Change Over the Past 1000 Years, Science, 289, 270277, 2000], in stark contrast
to the dramatic warming that has been observed.
Question 24. It was suggested at the hearing that increased CO2 could enhance
plant life, and that since plants produce oxygen, this could lead to more O2 and less
CO2. Could you please comment on the likelihood of this and how large the percent-
205
age changes could possibly be, recognizing that as the CO2 decreased, this would
presumably mean the plants would do less well and conditions would cool?
Response. Those suggestions (for example, Legates testimony with regard to the
role of the CO2 fertilization effect) represent a misunderstanding of the factors gov-
erning carbon cycle dynamics and their interaction with climate. In fact, careful
studies that have been performed with coupled climate/terrestrial carbon cycle mod-
els that take into account the internal coupled interactions between climate and car-
bon dioxide, accounting for multiple potential factors such as (a) the potential CO2
fertilization effect in which productivity of plants increases in a higher CO2 environ-
ment, (b) the impact of climate on productivity in which higher surface tempera-
tures favor enhanced plant growth, and (c) the feedback of CO2 back on surface tem-
perature alluded to in the question [see chapter 3 of the 2001 IPCC working group
1 report]. Such studies show that changes in surface temperature, through their im-
pact on biological productivity, have led to, at most, changes of 5 to 10 ppm in
CO2levels over the past 1000 years [see Gerber, S, Joos, F., Bruegger, P.P., Stock-
er, T.F., Mann, M.E.; Sitch, S., Constraining Temperature Variations over the last
Millennium by Comparing Simulated and Observed Atmospheric CO2; Climate Dy-
namics, 20, 281299,2003]. Such changes are minimal in comparison with the dra-
matic increases in CO2 concentrations of more than 80 ppm associated with human
activity, suggesting that the CO2 fertilization effect advanced by Legates in his tes-
timony in reality has a minimal role, at best, in the modern changes taking place
in CO2 concentrations and climate.
Question 25. Could you please clarify your remarks regarding the FACE experi-
ments? When you say that increased CO2 leads to more uptake and that they will
rot, do you mean that all plants will grow and eventually die and decay, and that
increased CO2 really only ties up a bit more carbon in the process?
Response. The sequence of questions and time allotted did not allow me to ade-
quately explain this basic, but important point. The point I was making in my testi-
mony is that the supposed increase in the terrestrial carbon reservoir due to en-
hanced plant growth that is argued to occur in a higher CO2 concentration atmos-
phere (the so-called CO2 fertilization effect) is not a long-term, sustained effect, It
is only a short-term effect that lasts only over the generational timescales of forest
stands. Any depletion of the atmospheric carbon reservoir due to enhanced growth
or productivity of plants argued to arise from higher CO2 concentrations is short
lived, because the plant or tree eventually dies and gives its carbon back to the at-
mosphere either through microbial activity (rotting) or burning. In other words,
when plants, with any potential additional organic carbon storage that might arise
from enhanced biological activity eventually die, they dont simply pile up in place
with their carbon reservoir intact (which is what is implicitly assumed by those who
argue that CO2 fertilization represents a potential long-term offset to anthropogenic
CO2 increases).
Instead, this carbon is acted upon by biological, chemical, or physical processes
which serve to add the carbon back to the atmosphere. Thus, the so-called CO2 fer-
tilization effect, cannot serve as a permanent offset to anthropogenic increases in
the atmospheric carbon budget (i.e., atmospheric CO2 concentrations), as implied by
Legates in his testimony. It may simply act to slow, slightly, the rate of CO2 in-
crease in the atmosphere by slightly increasing the storage rate (but not the resi-
dence time) of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere.
Another way to estimate the potential influence is by considering the total
amounts of carbon presently stored in vegetation. Present, about 600 billion tons of
carbon are tied up in the aboveground vegetation. About 23 times this much is tied
up in roots and below ground carbon, which is a more difficult carbon pool to aug-
ment. By comparison, scenarios for fossil fuel emissions for the 21st century range
from about 600 billion tons (if we can keep total global emissions at current levels,
which implies controls well beyond the Kyoto Protocol calls for) to over 2500 billion
tons if the world increases its reliance on combustion of coal as economic growth
and population increase dramatically. These numbers clearly indicate that seques-
tering a significant fraction of projected emissions in vegetation is likely to be very
difficult, especially as forests are cleared to make way for agriculture and commu-
nities. While there are possibilities of storage in wells and deep in the ocean, stabi-
lizing the atmospheric CO2 concentration would require gathering up the equivalent
of 1 to 2 times the worlds existing above ground vegetation and putting it down
abandoned oil wells or deep in the ocean. While CO2 fertilization will help to in-
crease above ground vegetation a bit, storing more than a few tens of percent of the
existing carbon would be quite surprising, and this is likely to be more like a few
percent of global carbon emissions projected for the 21st century.
206
Question 26. Senator Thomas stated that [t}he rise in temperature during the
20th century occurred between 1900 and 1940. Could you please provide an indica-
tion of how much change occurred during this period based on internationally ac-
cepted observations, and compare this to the total change during the 20th century?
Also please comment on whether it is scientifically representative to calculate a
change starting with a cold period due to volcanic eruptions and end it during a pe-
riod devoid of volcanic eruptions and then compare it to the century long period,
which had major volcanic eruptions in both the first and last decades of the century.
Response. A cursory review of the actual evidence (see e.g. Figure 2.1 of chapter
2 of the 2001 IPCC Scientific Working Group report) indicates the following approxi-
mate attributes in the observed record of global-mean temperature changes over the
past 100 years: a warming of approximately 0.3 C to 1940, a statistically insignifi-
cant change (given the uncertainties) from 1940 to the mid-1970s, and then an ad-
ditional warming of approximately 0.5 C from 1970 to 2000. Senator Thomas claim
is thus clearly mistaken. As discussed in my answer to an earlier question, this pat-
tern of behavior is reproduced closely by models driven with estimates of both nat-
ural and anthropogenic forcing of the climate during the 20th century. The period
of relative stasis in global mean temperatures from 1940 to 1970, in these model
simulations, appears to result from the cooling impact of anthropogenic aerosols (for
which there was a large increase during that time period) as well as a cooling con-
tribution from explosive volcanic eruptions that occurred during that period, which
tended to offset the warming influence of increased greenhouse gas concentrations
during that time period. However, much of the overall warming of the globe during
the 20th century (which is between 0.6 C and 1.0 C depending on the precise in-
strumental data set used, and the precise endpoints of the interval examined) is
clearly a result of increased greenhouse gas concentrations, as established in these
simulations.
Question 27. Senator Thomas stated that there is no real evidence that the
greenhouse gases are affecting the climate. Could you please summarize the avail-
able evidence explaining their probable effect? Please include in your answer a spe-
cific example of a proxy indicator such as tree rings and explain the various subtle-
ties in deriving a temperature.
Response. As discussed in my answers to previous questions, the fact that in-
creased greenhouse gas concentrations have a role in 20th century warming is no
longer considered as being in doubt by mainstream researchers. Even noted
contrarians such as Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute now agree with this con-
clusion. The only room for legitimate scientific debate concerns the relative role of
greenhouse gas concentrations vs. other factors, and the rate of future warming that
may occur. Evidence establishing the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases
in 20th, century warming includes the agreement with the full spatial (horizontal
and vertical) pattern of warming with predictions from model simulations, and the
fact that only model simulations which include anthropogenic forcing can match the
observations, as discussed earlier. Evidence for an anthropogenic influence on cli-
mate also comes from evidence of the anomalous nature of late 20th century warmth
in a very long-term context (i.e., in at least the past millennium, and potentially
the past several millennia or longer). One such source of evidence for this conclusion
comes from proxy climate records (such as tree rings, corals, and ice cores) that can
be used to reconstruct long-term temperature patterns based on a careful consider-
ation of the temperature signal in those data, as discussed in my response to earlier
questions. But other evidence of anomalous late 20th century warmth comes from
indications of unprecedented melting of mountain glaciers the world over (including
meltback in the Alps so dramatic that it recently revealed the now-famous Ice
Man who had been trapped in ice for more than 5000 years), and evidence of un-
usual phenological changes (e.g. the timing of flowering of plants) during the late
20th century.
Question 28. Senator Carper asked the other two witnesses if they thought it pos-
sible to emit unlimited amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere without having any im-
pact on climate or temperature? What is your expectation of what would occur?
That is, how much change in the CO2 concentration would cause how much of a re-
sponse?
Response. The response of global mean surface temperature to increased CO2 var-
ies roughly as the logarithm of the CO2 concentration (meaning that increments in
temperature scale with the percentage change in CO2 rather than the change in
amount itself). This is a very well known, and long established result that follows
both from basic theoretical considerations of radiative transfer theory, and is em-
bodied in experiments using global climate models with varying levels of CO2 con-
centrations. The statistical relationship between estimated concentrations of CO2
207
and the admittedly crude estimates of global mean temperatures at various periods
in the geological past or during past glacial intervals, conform relatively well to this
theoretical relationship within estimated uncertainties [see e.g. the textbook,
Earths Climate Past and Future, by W.F. Ruddiman (WR Freeman and Co),
2001]. I was extremely surprised when Dr. Soon indicated that he did not know how
to answer Senator Carpers question, suggesting that he is not familiar with this
fairly basic scientific knowledge.
This result implies, in the absence of any other factors, a linear increase in tem-
perature over time in response to an exponential increase in CO2 (which is not a
bad description of the character of the CO2 trend associated with exponentially in-
creasing anthropogenic activity over the past two centuries). Climate models tell us
that the slope of that linear increase is between 1.5 C to 4.5 C for each doubling
of the CO2 concentration. In this context, the testimony Dr. Legates that an arbi-
trary increase in greenhouse gases would lead only to a slight increase in
termperature, seems especially disingenuous. Dr. Legates seems to be suggesting
that the warming would be small despite the magnitude of the CO2 increase. Yet,
both model-based studies and analyses of how climates changes in the past may
have been influenced by changes in atmospheric composition suggest that a 1.5 C
to 4.5 C increase in temperature is likely for each doubling of the CO2 concentra-
tion. Thus, a quadrupling of the CO2 concentration, which is plausible if the world
chooses to derive most of its future energy from coal, would be expected to be associ-
ated with a roughly 3 C to 9 C increase in global mean temperature. Does Dr,
Legates consider this a slightly increased temperature?
Question 29. In his testimony, Dr. Legates indicated that there were historical
cases where the temperature has gone up; but the CO2 has fallen. Do you agree
there were such periods and how would you explain this?
Response. It is certainly the case that this has happened in the past. However,
it is hardly surprising, and certainly not inconsistent with our established under-
standing of the various factors that influence surface temperatures. The warming
response to increased greenhouse gas concentrations lags the actual increase in
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere potentially by several decades, due
to the sluggish response of the oceans, which have an enormous thermal capacity
compared to the atmosphere, to increased surface radiative forcing. So warming is
not expected to be contemporaneous with changes in CO2, but instead, to lag it by
several decades. In addition, greenhouse gases are certainly not the only factor af-
fecting the average surface temperature of the Earth. There are other anthropogenic
factors, such as increased sulphate aerosols, which can have a cooling effect on the
climate, and natural factors, such as volcanic activity, modest natural variations in
solar output, and internal dynamics associated with climate events such as El Nino,
which also influence the average surface temperature of the globe. At any particular
time, these other factors may outweigh the warming effect due to increased green-
house gases. For example, the relative lack of warming during the period 19401970
appears to be related to a combination of such factors, as discussed in my response
to an earlier question. But while these other factors tend to cancel over time, the
increased greenhouse gases lead to a systematic warming that will not cancel out
over time. It is for precisely this reason that late 20th century warming now ap-
pears to have risen above the range of the natural variability of past centuries.
There are two myths commonly perpetuated by climate change contrarians with
regard to the relationship between historical CO2 and temperature variations that
are worth addressing in particular:
(1) Contrarians sometimes argue that the fact that the seasonal cycle in atmos-
pheric CO2, which is opposite of the seasonal cycle in temperature in the Northern
Hemisphere (maximum atmospheric CO2 levels over the course of the year occur
during the Northern Hemisphere winter) implies a negative feedback of tempera-
ture on CO2 concentration. Such an argument is based on a most profound mis-
understanding of the basic principles governing atmospheric chemistry. Properly
trained atmospheric chemists know that the seasonal cycle in global atmospheric
CO2 concentration is governed by the breathing of the terrestrial biosphere, which
exhibits a hemispheric (and thus seasonal) asymmetry: there is a net uptake of at-
mospheric CO2 (and thus a drawdown of atmospheric CO2 concentrations) by terres-
trial plants during the Northern Hemisphere summer growing season, owing to the
vastly greater proportion of land in the Northern Hemisphere. This simple fact, and
nothing else, dictates the relationship between Northern Hemisphere surface tem-
peratures and CO2 concentrations on seasonal timescales.
(2) Contrarians sometimes argue that the relationship between atmospheric CO2
concentrations and temperature variations associated with glacial/interglacial vari-
ations over the past several hundred thousand years, as deduced from ice core
208
measurements shows that CO2 is an effect, rather than cause, of climate variability.
This reasoning is unsound for at least two fundamental reasons:
(a) Detailed measurements show that global atmospheric CO2 concentrations lead
estimated polar temperature variations (as deduced from ice core oxygen isotope ra-
tios) during the long phase of increased glaciation, consistent with greenhouse gas
forcing of the atmosphere. There is some evidence that CO2 concentrations, however,
lag estimated polar temperature variations during the rapid phase of deglaciation
(melting of the terrestrial ice sheets at the termination of an ice age). This observa-
tion is the basis of the flawed argument summarized below. During this more rapid
deglacial phase, the climate system if far from being in an equilibrium state, and
the dynamics of the climate system must be considered as representative of the a
coupled interaction between surface temperature, atmospheric CO2, ocean circula-
tion, and glacial mass. It is well known by glaciologists who study this problem that
the relationship between CO2 and temperatures in such a scenario cannot be inter-
preted in terms of a simple causeeffect relationship.
(b) Even during the rapid deglaciation, the oxygen isotopes from the ice cores only
provide an estimate of surface temperature variations in the proximity of the ice
core (and a very imperfect one, owing to possible seasonal deposition biases and
non-temperature influences on isotope fractionation). They certainly do not provide
an estimate of hemispheric, let alone global, temperature variations. Thus, a com-
parison of ice core estimates of CO2 and oxygen o18 ratios cannot be used to con-
fidently infer the relationship between CO2 concentrations and global mean tem-
peratures
Question 30. During the hearing, there was some contention over the issue of the
effect of surface cover changes and urban influences on the climate? Could you
please restate your position on the likely sign and magnitude of the influence of
both factors?
Response. Unfortunately misleading comments by Soon and Legates, and the com-
plexity of the issues involved, made it difficult for me to convey, in the brief time
allotted, the established science dealing with the various influences on Earths sur-
face radiation balance and changes therein in recent decades. Legates in his testi-
mony confused and misstated the nature of both natural and anthropogenic influ-
ences on the Earths surface energy budget and on the measurement of surface tem-
peratures from surface-based stations. There are several different issues involved
here, which I will attempt to clarify one at a time below:
(1) The claim made by Legates that the location of thermometer measurements
in urban centers biases estimates of global mean temperature from the available
meteorological observations would be correct were this effect not already carefully
accounted for. In particular, possible urban heat island effects on global temperature
estimates have been studiously accounted for in estimates that have been produced
for more than a decade, See e.g. the 2001 IPCC report. This is unrelated to the issue
of the influence of land-use changes on the surface radiation budget, though Legates
testimony blurs the distinction between the two issues:
(2) The implication by Legates that land-use changes (such as urbanization) are
the dominant influence on changes in the absorptive properties of the Earth as a
whole in recent decades is completely wrong for at least two reasons:
(a) The primary factor impacting changes in the absorption of solar insolation by
the Earths surface in modern decades is the decrease in reflective snow and ice
cover due to the warming of the Earths surface. This represents a well-known posi-
tive feedback (the ice-albedo feedback) associated with global warming in which
warming leads to melting of snow and ice, which decreases the reflective properties
of the surface, increasing surface absorption of radiation, and: thus increased the
surface temperatures themselves. This crucial positive feedback, which enhances the
impact of greenhouse gas concentrations on the warming of the surface, is fully ac-
counted for in the climate model simulations that I have referred to above and in
my testimony.
(b) While urbanization, as suggested by Legates, may lead to increased absorption
of solar insolation in some urban areas, this is the more minor of the human land
use changes impacting climate. There are far more extensive regions of the Earth
where other changes in land use, such as conversion of forested land to agricultural
land, have, instead, increased the reflective properties of the Earths surface
[Ramankutty, N., and J. A. Foley Estimating historical changes in global land cover:
croplands from 1700 to 992, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 13, 9971027, 1999.],
tending to cool the surface, as I explained in my testimony. Scientists who have
studied the influences of these effects have found that the latter cooling effect is the
dominant of these two anthropogenic land-use influences on the Earths surface
properties. Thus, climate model simulations investigating the influence of land-use
209
changes on hemispheric or global mean temperatures indicate that they have im-
posed a modest cooling influence [Govindasamy, B., P.B. Duffy, and K. Caldeira,
Land use changes and Northern Hemisphere cooling, Geophysical Research Letters,
28, 291294, 2001; Bauer, E, M. Claussen, and V. Brovkin, Assessing climate
forcings of the Earth system for the past millennium, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, doi:
10.1029/2002GL016639, 2003] that partially offsets even greater warming that
would have been realized during the 20th century due to anthropogenic greenhouse
gas influences, Evidence, therefore, does not support the case, as argued by Legates,
that the full range of human land use changes have had a net warming effect on
the climate. They have had a modest cooling influence on the climate.
Question 31. Do you receive any income from any sources which have taken advo-
cacy positions with respect to the Kyoto Protocol, the U.N. Framework Convention
on Climate Change, or legislation before the U.S. Congress that would affect green-
house gas emissions? If so, please identify those sources and the relevant advocacy
position taken.
Response. I do not, nor have I ever, received any such income.
STATEMENT OF DAVID R. LEGATES, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR CLIMATIC RESEARCH,

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE
Distinguished Senators, panelists, and members of the audience: I would like to
thank the Committee for inviting my commentary on this important topic of climate
history and its implications. My name is David R. Legates and I am an Associate
Professor and Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of
Delaware in Newark, Delaware. My research interests have focused on
hydroclimatologythe study of water in the atmosphere and on the landand on
the application of statistical methods in climatological research.
I am familiar with the testimony presented here by Dr. Soon. I agree with his
statements and I will not reiterate his arguments. My contributions to Dr. Soons
research stemmed from my grappling with the apparent technology between the
long-standing historical record and the time-series recently presented by Dr. Mann
and his colleagues. It also stems from my own experiences in compiling and merging
global estimates of air temperature and precipitation from a variety of disparate
sources.
My Ph.D. dissertation resulted in the compilation of high-resolution climatologies
of global air temperature and precipitation. From that experience, I have become
acutely aware of the issues associated with merging data from a variety of sources
and containing various biases and uncertainties. By its very nature, climatological
data exhibit a number of spatial and temporal biases that must be taken into ac-
count. Instrumental records exist only for the last century or so and thus proxy
records can only be used to glean information about the climate for earlier time pe-
riods. But it must be noted that proxy records are not observations and strong cave-
ats must be considered when they are used. It too must be noted that observational
data are not without bias either.
THE HISTORICAL RECORD OF THE LAST MILLENNIUM
Much research has described both the written and oral histories of the climate
as well as the proxy climate records (e.g., ice cores, tree rings, and sedimentations)
that have been derived for the last millennium. It is recognized that such records
are not without their biasesfor example, historical accounts often are tainted with
the preconceived beliefs and limited experiences of explorers and historians while
trees and vegetation respond not just to air temperature fluctuations, but to the en-
tire hydrologic cycle of water supply (precipitation) and demand (which is, in part,
driven by air temperature). Nevertheless, such accounts indicate that the climate
of the last millennium has been characterized by considerable variability and that
extended periods of cold and warmth existed. It has been generally agreed that dur-
ing the early periods of the last millennium, air temperatures were warmer and
that temperatures became cooler toward the middle of the millennium. This gave
rise to the terms the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, respectively.
However, as these periods were not always consistently warm or cold nor were the
extremes geographically commensurate in time, such terms must be used with care.
A BIASED RECORD PRESENTED BY THE IPCC AND NATIONAL ASSESSMENT
In a change from its earlier report, however, the Third Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and now the U.S. National As-
sessment of Climate Change, both indicate that hemispheric or global air tempera-
210
tures followed a curve developed by Dr. Mann and his colleagues in 1999. This curve
exhibits two notable features. First is a relatively flat and somewhat decreasing
trend in air temperature that extends from 1000AD to about 1900AD and is associ-
ated with a relatively high degree of uncertainty. This is followed by an abrupt rise
in air temperature during the 1900s that culminates in 1998 with the highest tem-
perature on the graph. Virtually no uncertainty is shown for the data of the last
century. The conclusion reached by the IPCC and the National Assessment is that
the 1990s are the warmest decade with 1998 being the warmest year of the last
millennium.
Despite the large uncertainty, the surprising lack of variability in the record gives
the impression that climate remained relatively unchanged through most of the last
millenniumat least until human influences began to cause an abrupt increase in
temperatures during the last century. Interestingly, Mann et al. replace the proxy
data for the 1900s by the instrumental record and no uncertainty characterization
is provided. This too yields a false impression that the instrumental record is con-
sistent with the proxy data and that it is error free. It is neither. The instrumental
record contains numerous uncertainties, resulting from a lack of coverage over the
worlds oceans, an under-representation of mountainous and polar regions as well
as under-developed nations, and the presence of urbanization effects resulting from
the growth of cities. Even if a modest uncertainty of a 0.1 C were imposed on the
instrumental record, the claim of the 1990s being the warmest decade would imme-
diately become questionable, as the uncertainty window would overlap with the un-
certainty associated with earlier time periods. Note that if the satellite temperature
recordwhere little warming has been observed over the last 20 yearshad been
inserted instead of the instrumental record, it would be impossible to argue that the
1990s are the warmest decade.
RATIONALE FOR THE SOON et al. investigation
So we were left to question why the Mann et al. curve seems to be at variance
with the previous historical characterization of climatic variability. Investigating
more than several hundred studies that have developed proxy records, we came to
the conclusion that nearly all of these records show considerable fluctuations in air
temperature over the last millennium. Please note that we did not reanalyze the
proxy datathe original analysis from the various researchers was left intact. Most
records show the coldest period is commensurate with at least a portion of what is
termed the Little Ice Age and the warmest conditions are concomitant with at
least a portion of what is termed the Medieval Warm Period.
But our conclusion is entirely consistent with conclusions reached by Drs. Bradley
and Jones that not all locations on the globe experienced cold or warm conditions
simultaneously. Moreover, we chose not to append the instrumental record, but to
compare apples-with-apples and determine if the proxy records themselves indeed
confirm the claim of the 1990s being the warmest decade of the last millennium.
That claim is not borne out by the individual proxy records.
However, the IPCC report, in the chapter with Dr. Mann as a lead author and
his colleagues as contributing authors, also concludes that research by Drs. Mann,
Jones, and their colleagues support the idea that the 15th to 19th centuries were
the coldest of the millennium over the Northern Hemisphere overall. Moreover, the
IPCC report also concludes that the Mann and Jones research show[s] tempera-
tures from the 11th to 14th centuries to be about 0.2 C warmer than those from
the 15th to 19th centuries. This again is entirely consistent with our findings.
Where we differ with Dr. Mann and his colleagues is in their construction of the
hemispheric averaged time-series, their assertion that the 1990s are the warmest
decade of the last millennium, and that human influences appear to be the only sig-
nificant factor on globally averaged air temperature. Reasons why the Mann et al.
curve fails to retain the fidelity of the individual proxy records are detailed statis-
tical issues into which I will not delve. But our real difference of opinion focuses
solely on the Mann et al. curve and how we have concluded it misrepresents the
individual proxy records. In a very real sense, this is an important issue that sci-
entists must address before the Mann et al. curve is taken as fact.
Our work has been met with much consternation from a variety of sources and
we welcome healthy scientific debate. After all, it is disagreements among scientists
that often lead to new theories and discoveries. However, I am aware that the edi-
tors of the two journals that published the Soon et al. articles have been vilified and
the discussion has even gone so far as to suggest that Drs. Soon and Baliunas be
barred from publishing in the journal Climate Research. Such tactics have no place
in scientific debate and they inhibit the free exchange of ideas that is the hallmark
of scientific inquiry.
211
CLIMATE IS MORE THAN MEAN GLOBAL AIR TEMPERATURE
In closing, let me state that climate is more than simply annually-averaged global
air temperature. Too much focus has been placed on divining air temperature time-
series and such emphasis obscures the true issue in understanding climate change
and variability. If we are truly to understand climate and its impacts and driving
forces, we must push beyond the tendency to distill it to a single annual number.
Proxy records, which provide our only possible link to the past, are incomplete at
best. But when these records are carefully and individually examined, one reaches
the conclusion that climate variability has been a natural occurrence, and especially
so over the last millennium. And given the uncertainties in the proxy and instru-
mental records, an assertion of any decade as being the warmest in the last millen-
nium is premature.
Im sorry that a discussion that is best conducted among scientists has made its
way to a U.S. Senate committee. But hopefully a healthy scientific debate will not
be compromised and we can push on toward a better understanding of climate
change.
I again thank you for the privilege of speaking before you today.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEONARD LEVIN, PH.D., TECHNICAL LEADER, EPRI,

PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
I am Leonard Levin, technical leader at EPRI, which is a non-profit, collaborative
organization conducting energy-related R&D in the public interest. Our members
are public and private organizations in the electricity and energy fields, and we now
serve more than 1000 energy and governmental organizations in more than 40 coun-
tries. These remarks constitute a synthesis of current research on environmental
mercury, and are not a representation of official EPRI position.
INTRODUCTION
As a global pollutant, the impact of mercury on the human environment is a crit-

ical issue that EPRI and the scientific community have been examining for many
years. As the scientific understanding of where mercury originates nationally and
globally, combined with the new health data, continues to be refined, it can help
inform decisions regarding its management. I would like to address three key ques-
tions where new findings have emerged. First, where does mercury found in the
U.S. environment originate? Second, how much has mercury in fish changed in the
last few decades? And third, how do potential mercury management steps change
the amount of mercury depositing to the earths surface in the U.S.?
WHERE DOES MERCURY IN THE U.S. ENVIRONMENT ORIGINATE?
Mercury is clearly a global issue. Recent estimates are that, in 1998, some 2340
tons of mercury were emitted globally through industrial activity; of these, more
than half, or 1230 tons, came from Asian countries, primarily China1. These find-
ings are similar to those of other global inventories2. In addition, it is estimated
that another 1300 tons of mercury emanates from land-based natural sources glob-
ally, including abandoned mining sites and exposed geological formations. Another
1100 tons or so issues from the worlds oceans, representing both new mercury emit-
ted by undersea vents and volcanoes, and mercury cycled through the ocean from
the atmosphere previously. Recent findings from the large United States-Canadian
METAALICUS field study in Ontario, Canada showed that a fairly small amount
of deposited mercury, no more than 20 percent or so, re-emits to the atmosphere,
even over a 2-year period. The implications of this are profound: mercury may be
less mobile in the environment than we previously thought; once it is removed from
the atmosphere, it may play less of a role in the so-called grasshopper effect3
where persistent global pollutants are believed to successively deposit and re-emit
for many years and over thousands of miles.
1 Christian Seigneur, C., K. Vijayaraghavan, K. Lohman, Pr. Karamchandani, C. Scott, Global

Source Attribution for Mercury Deposition in the United States, submitted to Environ. Sci.
Technol., 2003.
2 Jozef M. Pacyna, Elisabeth G. Pacyna, Frits Steenhuisen and Simon Wilson, Mapping 1995
global anthropogenic emissions of mercury, Atmospheric Environment 37 (S1) (2003) pp. 109
117.
3 Environment Canada, The Grasshopper Effect and Tracking Hazardous Air Pollutants, The
Science and the Environment Bulletin, May/June 1998.
212
Recent studies by EPRI have shown that the mercury depositing into the U.S.
from the atmosphere may originate at very distant points. Model assessments show
that, for 34 of the area of the continental United States, more than 60 percent of
the mercury received originates outside U.S. borders, from other countries or even
other continents. Only 8 percent of U.S. territory receives 23 or more of its mercury
from U.S. domestic sources, and less than 1 percent of U.S. territory gets 80 percent
or more of its mercury from sources within the U.S. One implication of this dichot-
omy between mercury sources and the U.S. areas impacted is that there may be a
management floor for U.S. mercury, a level below which the amount of mercury
depositing to the surface cannot be reduced.
Additional evidence for the external origins of much of the mercury in the U.S.
environment was gathered over the last 2 years by aircraft experiments carried out
by EPRI, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and a number of U.S.,
Asian, and Australian investigators. One set of flights measured significant mercury
in winds entering the Pacific Ocean from Shanghai; China; researchers tracked the
Chinese mercury plume over the Pacific for 400 miles toward America. A second set
of flights from Monterey, California, found that same plume from China crossing the
California coast, and a second, higher plume of enriched mercury originating in Cen-
tral Asia also moving into the U.S. The global nature of mercury in the U.S. has
been clearly demonstrated.
WHAT ARE THE PRIMARY SOURCES OF MERCURY IN FISH AND THE ENVIRONMENT?
For much of the twentieth century, mercury was an essential part of industrial
products, such as batteries and switches, or a key ingredient in such other products
as house paints. These industrial uses of the element declined significantly in the
latter half of the century, and are now less than 10 percent of their use of fifty years
ago.4 Professor Francois Morel of Princeton University and colleagues recently ana-
lyzed newly caught Pacific tuna for mercury5, and compared those results to the
mercury content of similar tuna caught in the 1970s. Despite changes in mercury
emissions to the atmosphere in those thirty years6, and a matching increase in the
mercury depositing; from the atmosphere to rivers and oceans below, Prof Morel
found that mercury levels in tuna have not changed over that time. One conclusion
is that the mercury taken up by such marine fish as tuna is not coming from
sources on land, such as utility power plants, but from natural submarine sources
of mercury, including deep sea volcanoes and ocean floor vents. The implications are
that changes in mercury sources on the continents will not affect the mercury levels
found in open ocean foodfish like tuna.
An estimate in 2001 by scientists of the Geological Survey of Canada and others7
estimated that geological emissions of mercury, as well as emissions from inactive
industrial sites on land, are five to seven times as large as had been estimated ear-
lier. Recent measurements in the stratosphere by EPRI researchers show a rapid
removal of mercury in the upper atmosphere, allowing for additional sources at the
surface while still maintaining the measured rates of deposition and removal needed
for a global balance of sources and sinks. As a result, it is now possible to attribute
a greater fraction of the mercury entering U.S. waters to background natural
sources rather than industrial emissions from the U.S. or elsewhere globally.
HOW COULD POTENTIAL MERCURY REDUCTIONS CHANGE MERCURY DEPOSITION?
EPRI recently completed work to assess the consequences, of further mercury

emissions reductions for mercury in the atmosphere, U.S. waterways, and fish8. The
approach used linked models of atmospheric mercury chemistry and physics with
analyses of Federal data on mercury in fish in the U.S. diet, along with a model
of costs needed to attain a given reduction level.
4 Engstrom, D.R., E.B. Swain, Recent Declines in Atmospheric Mercury Deposition in the
Upper Midwest, Environ. Sci. Technol. 1997, 31, 960967.
5 Kraepiel, A.M.L., K. Keller, H.B. Chin, E.G. Malcolm, F.M.M. Morel, Sources and Variations
of Mercury in Tuna, Meeting of American Society for Limnology and Oceanography, Salt Lake
City, Utah: January 2003.
6 Slemr, F., E-G. Brunke, R. Ebinghaus, C. Temme, J. Munthe, I. Wangberg, W. Schroeder,
A. Stgeffen, T. Berg, Worldwide trend of atmospheric mercury since 1977, Geophys. Res. Ltrs.,
30 (10), 231 to 234
7 Richardson G. M., R. Garrett, I. Mitchell, M. Mah-Paulson, T. Hackbarth, Critical Review
On Natural Global And Regional Emissions Of Six Trace Metals To The Atmosphere, Inter-
national Lead Zinc Research Organization, International Copper Association, Nickel Producers
Environmental Research Association.
8 EPRI Technical Report 1005224, A Framework for Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Elec-
tric Power Sector Mercury Control Policies, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, May 2003.
213
Current U.S. utility emissions of mercury are about 46 tons per year. At the same
time, a total of about 179 tons of mercury deposit each year in the U.S., from all
sources global and domestic. One proposed management scenario examined cutting
these utility emissions by 47 percent, to 24 tons per year. The analysis showed that
this cut results in an average 3 percent drop in mercury deposition into the U.S.
Some isolated areas totaling about 1 percent of U.S. land area experience drops of
up to 30 percent in mercury deposited. The cost model used in association with
these calculations showed utility costs to reach these emission control levels would
amount to between $2 billion and $5 billion per year over 12 years. This dem-
onstrated that U.S. mercury patterns are relatively insensitive to the effects of this
single category of sources.
In addition, most of the fish consumed in the U.S. comes from ocean sources,
which would be only marginally affected by a global reduction of 24 tons of mercury
per year due solely to U.S. controls. Wild fresh water fish in the U.S. would be ex-
pected to show a greater reduction in mercury content, but are a relatively small
part of the U.S. diet compared to ocean or farmed fish. When these changes were
translated into how much less mercury enters the U.S. diet, we found that 0.064
percent fewer children would be born at risk due to their mothers taking in less
mercury from consumed fish. These results were based on the Federal dietary fish
consumption data. So, a drop of nearly half in utility mercury emissions results in
a drop of 3 percent (on average) in mercury depositing to the ground, and a drop
of less than one-tenth of a percent in the number of children at risk.
DECISIONMAKING UNDER UNCERTAINTY
These recent findings on mercury sources, dynamics, and management are a small
part of the massive international research effort to understand mercury and its im-
pacts on the human environment. EPRI and others, including the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy, are racing to clarify
the complex interactions of mercury with geochemical and biological systems, vital
to understanding mercurys route to human exposure and potential health effects.
With this improved understanding, informed decisions can be made on the best
ways to manage mercury.
Thank you for the opportunity to deliver these remarks to the Committee.
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
STATEMENT OF DEBORAH C. RICE, PH.D., MAINE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, AUGUSTA, MAINE
I would like to thank the Committee for this opportunity to present information
on the adverse health consequences of exposure to methylmercury in the United
States. Until 3 months ago, I was a senior toxicologist in the National Center for
Environmental Assessment in the Office of Research and Development at the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency. I am a co-author of the document that reviewed the
scientific evidence on the health effects of methylmercury for EPA, and which in-
cluded the derivation of the acceptable daily intake level for methylmercury.
I would like to focus my presentation on four points that are key to understanding
the health-related consequences of environmental mercury exposure. One: there is
unequivocal evidence that methylmercury harms the developing human brain. Two:
the Environmental Protection Agency used analyses of three large studies in its der-
ivation of an acceptable daily intake level, including the study in the Seychelles Is-
lands which found no adverse effects. Three: 8 percent of women of child-bearing
age in the United States have levels of methylmercury in their bodies above this
acceptable level. And four: cardiovascular disease in men related to low levels of
methylmercury has been documented, suggesting that a potentially large segment
of the population may be at risk for adverse health effects.
The adverse health consequences to the nervous system of methylmercury expo-
sure in humans were recognized in the 1950s with the tragic episode of poisoning
in Minamata Bay in Japan, in which it also became clear that the fetus was more
sensitive to the neurotoxic effects of methylmercury than was the adult. A similar
pattern of damage was apparent in subsequent episodes of poisoning in Japan and
Iraq. These observations focused the research community on the question of whether
exposure to concentrations of methylmercury present in the environment might be
producing neurotoxic effects that were not clinically apparent.
As a result, over half a dozen studies have been performed around the world to
explore the effects of environmental methylmercury intake on the development of
the child. Studies in the Philippines (Ramirez et al., 2003), the Canadian Arctic
(McKeown-Eyssen et al., 1983), Ecuador (Counter et al., 1998), Brazil (Grandjean et
al., 1999), French Guiana (Cordier et al., 1999) and Madeira (Murata et al., 1999)
all found adverse effects related to the methylmercury levels in the childrens bod-
ies. These included auditory and visual effects, memory deficits, deficits in
visuospatial ability, and changes in motor function.
In addition to the above studies, there have been three major longitudinal studies
on the effects of exposure to the mother on the neuropsychological function of the
child: in the Faroe Islands in the North Atlantic (Grandjean et al., 1997), in the
Seychelles Islands in the Indian Ocean (Myers et al., 1995), and in New Zealand
(Kjellstrom et al., 1989). Two of these studies identified adverse effects associated
with methylmercury exposure, whereas the Seychelles Islands study did not. Im-
pairment included decreased IQ and deficits in memory, language processing, atten-
tion, and fine motor coordination. A National Research Council (NRC) National
Academy of Sciences panel evaluated all three studies in their expert review, con-
cluding that all three studies were well designed and executed (NRC, 2000). They
modeled the relationship between the amount of methylmercury in the mothers
body and the performance of the child on a number of neuropsychological tests.
From this analysis, they calculated a defined adverse effect level from several types
of behavior in each of the three studies. These adverse effect levels represent a dou-
bling of the number of children that would perform in the abnormally low range of
function. The National Academy of Sciences panel also calculated an overall adverse
effect level of methylmercury in the mothers body for all three of the studies com-
bined, including the negative Seychelles study. Thus the results of all three studies
were included in a quantitative manner by the NRC.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used the analyses of the NRC in the
derivation of the reference dose, or RfD, for methylmercury. The RfD is a daily in-
take level designed to be without deleterious effects over a lifetime. The EPA di-
vided the defined deleterious effect levels calculated by the NRC by a factor of 10
in its RfD derivation. There are two points that need to be made in this regard.
First, the factor of 10 does not represent a safety factor of 10, since the starting
point was a level that doubled the number of low-performing children. Second, the
EPA performed the relevant calculations for a number of measurements for each of
the two studies that found deleterious effects as well as the integrative analysis that
included all three studies modeled by the NRC, including the negative Seychelles
study. The RfD is 0.10 g/kg/day based on the Faroe Islands study alone or the inte-
grative analysis of all three studies. The RfD would be lower than 0.10 g/kg/day
if only the New Zealand study had been considered. Only if the negative Seychelles
284
Islands study were used exclusively for the derivation of the RfD, while ignoring the
values calculated for the Faroe Islands and New Zealand studies, would the RfD be
higher than the current value of 0.10 g/kg/day. EPA believes that to do so would
be scientifically unsound, and would provide insufficient protection to the U.S. popu-
lation.
A substantial portion of U.S. women of reproductive age have methylmercury in
their bodies that is above the level that corresponds to the EPAs RfD. Data col-
lected over the last 2 years as part of the National Health and Nutritional Examina-
tion Survey (NHANES 99+) designed to represent the U.S. population (CDC, Web)
revealed that about 8 percent of women of child-bearing age had blood levels of
methylmercury above the level that the U.S. EPA believes is safe (Schober et al.,
2003). This translates into over 300,000 newborns per year potentially at risk for
adverse effects on intelligence and memory, ability to pay attention, ability to use
language, and other skills that are important for success in our highly technological
society.
I would like to further comment here on the use of a factor of 10 by EPA to derive
the allowable daily intake level (RfD) for methylmercury from the defined effect lev-
els calculated by the National Research Council. The RfD corresponds to roughly 1
part per million (ppm) of methylmercury in maternal hair, from the defined effect
level of about 11 ppm calculated by the NRC. But we know that there is no evidence
of a threshold below which there are no adverse effects down to about 23 ppm in
hair, the lowest levels in the Faroe Islands study. In fact, there is evidence from
both the Faroe Islands (Budtz-Jorgensen et al., 2000) and New Zealand (Louise
Ryan, Harvard University, personal communication) studies that the change in ad-
verse effect in the child as a function of maternal methylmercury level may be
greater at lower maternal methylmercury levels than at higher ones. Therefore, the
so-called safety factor almost certainly is less than 10, and may be closer to non-
existent. Babies born to women above the RfD may be at actual risk, and not ex-
posed to a level 10 times below a risk level.
There is an additional concern regarding the potential for adverse health con-
sequences as a result of environmental exposure to methylmercury. Several years
ago, a study in Finnish men who ate fish found an association between increased
methylmercury levels in hair and atherosclerosis, heart attacks, and death (Salonen
et al., 1995, 2000). Two new studies in the U.S. and Europe found similar associa-
tions between increased methylmercury levels in the bodies of men and cardio-
vascular disease (Guallar et al., 2002; Yoshizawa et al., 2002). Effects have been
identified at hair mercury levels below 3 ppm. It is not known whether there is a
level of methylmercury exposure that will not cause adverse effects. It is important
to understand that the cardiovascular effects associated with methylmercury may
put an additional, very large proportion of the population at risk for adverse health
consequences as a result of exposure to methylmercury from environmental sources.
In summary, there are four points that I would like the Committee to keep in
mind. First, at least eight studies have found an association between methylmercury
levels and impaired neuropsychological performance in the child. The Seychelles Is-
lands study is anomalous in not finding associations between methylmercury expo-
sure and adverse effects. Second, both the National Research Council and the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency included the Seychelles Islands study in their anal-
yses. The only way the acceptable level of methylmercury could be higher would be
to ignore the two major positive studies that were modeled by the NRC, as well as
six smaller studies, and rely solely on the single study showing no negative effects
of methylmercury. Third, there is a substantial percentage of women of reproductive
age in the United States with levels of methylmercury in their bodies above what
EPA considers a safe level. As a result of this, over 300,000 newborns each year
are exposed to methylmercury above levels U.S. EPA believes to be safe. Fourth,
increased exposure to methylmercury may result in atherosclerosis, heart attack,
and even death from heart attack in men, suggesting that an additional large seg-
ment of the population may be at risk as a result of environmental methylmercury
exposure.
Thank you for your time and attention.
RESPONSES BY DEBORAH RICE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. In testimony, you indicated that there might be virtually no safety
factor at all with respect to the effect level for mercury exposure. Does that mean
that the reference dose should be lowered further? If so, what would be a safer and
more protective reference dose?
285
Response. The current reference dose (RfD) is based on a cord blood mercury con-
centration associated with a defined risk: a doubling of the number of children per-
forming in the abnormally low range. A total uncertainty factor of 10 was applied
to account for inter-individual variability. There are several decisions made by EPA
that, if different, would have resulted in a lower RfD.
(a) It was assumed that the ratio of cord-to-maternal blood mercury was one. Sub-
sequent analyses of 10 studies revealed that cord blood has more mercury compared
to maternal blood. The average ratio is 1.7:1.0, with the upper 5 percent of women
having a ratio of 3.3:1.0. Based on just the average ratio, if no other decisions were
changed, the RfD would be reduced from 1.0 g/kg/day to 0.6 g/kg/day.
(b) As was recommended by the NAS expert committee, EPA assumed that there
was a linear relationship between adverse effects on a number of neuropsychological
endpoints and the level of mercury in cord blood or maternal hair. In fact, the data
from the Faroe Island study best fit a supra-linear model: i.e., the slope was actually
greater at lower body burdens (see figure below). It turns out that this was also true
for the New Zealand study. Recently, a study was published reporting a supra-linear
shape to the relationship between adverse behavioral performance and blood lead
levels in children. So this phenomenon, while somewhat counter-intuitive, may be
real. Using the best fit model rather than forcing a linear relationship would re-
sult in a lower estimate of the defined adverse starting point (a doubling of the
number of children performing in the abnormally low range), and thereby a lower
RfD.
(c) EPA used a total uncertainty factor (UF) of 10 to derive the RfD, which is de-
signed to provide a margin of safety against adverse effects. EPA typically applies
an UF of 10 for inter-individual variability if the starting point is a no-observable-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL). If the starting point is the lowest level that has been
demonstrated to produce an effect, with a NOAEL not identified, the EPA applies
an additional UF, usually 10. In the case of methylmercury, even though the start-
ing point was a level associated with an effect, only a total factor of 10 was applied,
rather than the more typical 100. In addition, the UF of 10 for inter-individual vari-
ability is presumed to account for differences in both metabolism and response of
the target organ (sensitivity) between individuals. The variability in metabolism of
methylmercury between women has been demonstrated to be about 3. The variation
in cord-maternal blood levels between women may be also about 3. These would be
multiplied together to equal about 10. That allows no room for any variation in re-
sponse of the fetal brain to methylmercury, which is undoubtedly not the case.
Therefore a total UF of 10 is almost certainly inadequate to protect the most sen-
sitive portion of the population.
The issue of whether the reference dose should be lowered, and if so, the appro-
priate value, requires thorough evaluation by a group of expert risk assessors and
other scientists. Any new evaluation of the RfD should also include evaluation of
the levels of methylmercury that produce adverse cardiovascular effects documented
in several studies of adult males. It is currently unknown whether these effects
occur at lower or higher levels than those that produce developmental neurotoxicity.
Question 2. What is a reasonable estimate of the approximate average mercury
concentrations in non-commercial fish in the U.S.?
286
Response. EPA keeps an extensive data base of fish tissue contaminant levels
from inland water bodies compiled by individual states (http://www.epa.gov/ost/fish/
mercurydata.html). Data for average levels of mercury for 19872000 are in the at-
tached figure. Average tissue levels vary significantly depending on species, such
that deriving an average for all species is not particularly informative. Averages
for different species range from 0.1 ppm for herring and whitefish to 0.9 ppm for
bowfin. As can be seen from the figure, the average level for many species is below
the 0.3 ppm level recommended by EPA (Water Quality Criterion for the Protection
of Human Health: Methylmercury, OST, Office of Water, 2001, EPA823-R01001).
Approximately one third of species have average concentrations above this. Even for
species with averages below 0.3 ppm, some samples will exceed this level. For spe-
cies with averages about 0.5 ppm, more than half the samples will exceed the EPA
recommended limit, whereas half the samples will exceed the 0.5 ppm action limit
set by many European countries and Canada. Ocean fish and sharks can have levels
that are considerably higher. For example, blue marlin average 3.08 ppm, with the
highest level for an individual at 6.8 ppm (Florida Marine Research Institute Tech-
nical Reports Mercury Levels in Marine and Estuarine Fishes of Florida. 1989
2001: FMRI Technical Report TR9, Second Edition, Revised, 2003). Sharks such as
white shark averaged over 5 ppm, with the highest value for a shark at 10 ppm
(ibid.) These are non-commercial sport-caught species.
Question 3. You indicated that the NHANES data does not adequately capture the
individuals or subpopulations that are likely to be the most exposed to non-commer-
cial fish mercury concentrations above the reference dose. Are you aware of any
work underway to collect this kind of data and hopefully protect these people from
overexposure?
Response. There have been a number of relatively small studies focusing on fish
intake by groups that consume large amounts of fish, specifically sports fishers and
subsistence fishing communities. Most of these efforts have been by individual
states or tribes. EPA is developing a data base of these studies, most of which are
unpublished and not in the public domain, a project which I managed before leaving
the agency. The data base currently includes about 70 studies (contact project officer
Cheryl Itkin, EPA/ORD/National Center for Environmental Assessment, Wash-
ington, D.C. at [email protected]).
There are also several published studies: Bellanger, T.M., Caesar, E.M.,
Trachtman, L. 2000. Blood mercury levels and fish consumption. J. La. Med. Soc,
152:6473; Burge, P., Evans, S. 1994. Mercury contamination in Arkansas gamefish.
A public health perspective. J. Ark. Med. Soc. 90:542544; Hightower, J.M., Moore,
D. 2003. Mercury levels in high-end consumers offish. Environ. Health Perspect.
111:604608; and Knobeloch, L.M., Ziamik, M., Anderson, H.A., Dodson, V.N. 1995.
Imported seabass as a source of mercury exposure: A Wisconsin case study. Environ.
Health Perspect. 103:604606.
Protecting individuals who may be at greater risk from over-exposure to
methylmercury presents significant challenges. Forty states have fish advisories for
inland waters, based largely on levels of mercury in fish. Some states have levels
that are specific to particular water bodies, others have statewide advisories for all
water bodies. Advisories typically are set with regard to species of fish, designating
them as e.g. no restriction, eat no more than once a week, or eat no more than
once a month. If a person eats a fish from one restricted category they are meant
not to eat fish from another restricted category in that month. Signs are posted by
some states at specific water bodies, and most if not all states distribute literature
related to fish advisories with fishing licenses. Some tribes have also performed sig-
nificant outreach related to issues of contaminants in wild foods. Immigrant commu-
nities are often the most difficult to inform, as a result of language and cultural
barriers. Minnesota, for example, has made a substantial effort to work with immi-
grant communities, publishing appropriate information in relevant languages, as
well as performing extensive outreach activities. A few other states have made ef-
forts in this regard as well. Some communities rely on fish as a significant protein
source for both cultural and economic reasons. It is unfortunate indeed that these
communities are risking adverse health outcomes by consuming what should be a
very healthful food.
Question 4. Please describe the purposes and intended uses of the various Federal
agencies exposure limits for methyl mercury.
Response. EPA, FDA, and ATSDR have set exposure limits for methylmercury.
The reference dose (RfD) set by EPA is designed to represent an estimate of a daily
exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to
be without appreciable risk of deleterious [non-cancer] effects during a lifetime
(http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html).
287
The minimal risk level (MRL) of ATSDR is an estimate of the daily human expo-
sure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be without appreciable risk of ad-
verse noncancer health effects over a specified duration of exposure. MRLs may be
derived for acute (114 days), intermediate (15364 days) or chronic durations (over
364 days). ATSDR states that [t]hese substance-specific estimates, which are in-
tended to serve as screening levels, are used by ATSDR health assessors and other
responders to identify health effects that may be of concern at hazardous waste
sites. It is important to note that MRLs are not intended to define clean-up or action
levels for ATSDR or other Agencies. [bold original] (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/
mrls.html) It is critical to understand that ATSDR is involved in clean-up activities.
The MRLs are designed to identify chemicals that are important for clean-up deci-
sions. They are not intended as health-protective levels for the general population,
or for a lifetime.
The FDA acceptable daily intakes (ADI) is the amount of a substance that can
be consumed daily over a long period of time without appreciable risk (http://
www.fda.gov; http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/-acrobat/hgstud16.pdf). For contaminants in
food, FDA uses the ADI to derive an Action Level, which defines the maximum al-
lowable concentration of the contaminant in commercial food. In other words, the
Action Level is supposed to be health-based.
The RfD and the ADI are designed to protect the general population from adverse
effects from contaminants in food over a lifetime of exposure, including protection
of sensitive populations. In contrast, the MRL is designed for a different purpose:
identifying contaminants that may be important in making decisions regarding
clean-up of contaminated sites.
The exposure limits from U.S. agencies are as follows:
EPA RfD: 0.1 g/kg/day
ATSDR MRL: 0.3 g/kg/day
FDA ADI: 0.4 g/kg/day
Question 5. What is the preferred measurement methodology for most reliably de-
termining and predicting the effect on childrens developmental health of methyl
mercury exposure?
Response. There has been considerable discussion within the academic and regu-
latory communities regarding what might be a best test or test battery for deter-
mining adverse neuropsychological function in children exposed to methylmercury.
There are two basic strategies that have been used to assess methylmercury
neurotoxicity. The first is the use of standard clinical instruments such as measures
of IQ. These have the advantage of being standardized for the population, as well
as assessing a wide range of functional domains. However, because they may be
measuring a number of functions that are not affected in addition to those that are,
the results can be diluted, and therefore these tests may be less sensitive than
a more focused approach. The second approach is to choose domain-specific tests
based on the known effects of higher levels of the toxic chemical, if such effects are
known. This strategy has the advantage of being potentially more sensitive than
using broad-based clinical instruments. On the other hand, using domainspecific
tasks runs the risk of looking at the wrong functions.
The investigators of the Faroe Islands study used a number of domain-specific
tasks, based on the effects of high-level methylmercury exposure as well as the
pathological changes in specific brain areas produced by methylmercury. The Faroe
Island study found deficits in these tasks. The investigators of the Seychelles study
used standard clinical instruments that assessed a little bit of a lot of functions,
which were standardized for a U.S. population rather than the Seychellois popu-
lation. They found no effect of methylmercury. In contrast, the investigators of the
New Zealand study, also using standard clinical instruments, did identify mercury-
related deficits.
The consensus of the research community seems to be that a combination of both
approaches should be used, The standard clinical instruments (e.g. full-scale IQ) are
comprised of subscales (e.g. verbal, visuospatial) that can be used to explore more
specific functional domains. Researchers should also use what is known about the
behavioral and neuropathological effects of methylmercury to design domainspecific
tests, with the hope that these will be maximally sensitive. To date, deficits in mem-
ory, language processing, visuospatial ability, motor function, and attention have
been identified to be adversely affected by in utero methylmercury exposure. Hear-
ing may also be adversely affected. New studies, or continued testing of current co-
horts, should build on this knowledge to hone in even further on specific behavioral
functions.
288
Question 6. In 1974, the FDA established a mercury action limit of .5 parts per
million in fish. This was changed in 1979 to 1 part per million. What was the basis
for this change?
Response. FDA set an action level of 0.5 ppm for mercury in fish in 1969, in re-
sponse to the recognition. of the devastating consequences of fetal exposure to
methylmercury in the poisoning episodes in Minamata and Niigata, Japan. This
level was reaffirmed in 1974, citing concerns about damage to the fetus at lower ex-
posures than are harmful to the adult. The level was changed in 1979 as a result
of a lawsuit by the fishing industry that resulted in a court ruling based on socio-
economic impacts presented by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). They
argued that raising the action level would expand the number of fisheries available
for exploitation and expand the profits of the fishing industry (Fed. Reg. 3990, 3992,
1979). The notice was a withdrawal of the proposed rulemaking and terminated a
rulemaking procedure to codify the (then) existing action level limiting the amount
of unavoidable mercury residues permitted in fish and shellfish of 0.5 ppm. The FR
notice also indicates that [t]he Food and Drug Administration will continue to mon-
itor mercury levels in fish so that if there is any change in mercury residue levels
as a result of raising the action level, or if there is any other change in the informa-
tion regarding mercury in fish, the action level can be revised accordingly. Thus,
the action limit is not health-based, but was established for economic considerations.
Question 7. What, if anything, should consumers of fish in the Great Lakes region
and other areas that are downwind of major mercury emission sources such as coal-
fired power plants, chlor-alkali manufacturing facilities and; waste incinerators, be
advised to do with respect to limiting their methyl mercury exposure?
Response. Unfortunately, the majority of inland lakes and rivers are contaminated
with mercury. Methylmercury is created from mercury by microorganisms in the
water. Methylmercury is bioconcentrated as it is passed up the food chain, with
older and larger fish at the top of the food chain containing more methylmercury
than smaller fish or fish that are lower on the food chain. Methylmercury exposure
in humans is exclusively from eating contaminated fish. Forty states have explicit
fish advisories as a result of mercury contamination for consumption of fish based
on species, size, and in some states specific water bodies. There were 2,242
advisories in 2000, up 8 percent o from 1999 and up 149 percent from 1993. By far
the greatest number of fish advisories for mercury are around the Great Lakes and
in the Northeastern states. Consumers are advised to carefully follow State fishing
advisories for inland fish. There is an increasing recognition that commercial and/
or ocean fish may represent a significant source of methylmercury exposure. Cur-
rently, FDA advises pregnant women, nursing mothers and young children against
eating any shark, swordfish, tilefish, or king mackerel. Recent data indicate that
canned white (albacore) tuna may have substantial levels of methylmercury, and so
should be consumed seldom, especially by children. Other species such as fresh tuna
and halibut may also have significant levels of methylmercury. Intake of purchased
fish that are potentially high in methylmercury should be included by individuals
in determining safe fish intake over a specific time period. In other words, con-
sumers need to have detailed information on fish species from both commercial and
non-commercial sources to keep track of their potential methylmercury intake.
This is an unsatisfactory solution, since fish should be a very healthful food.
Moreover, sport fishing is an important economic resource in many areas, and some
individuals rely on fishing for a substantial portion of their protein, particularly in
certain immigrant communities. The ultimate solution is of course to decrease envi-
ronmental deposition of mercury.
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
STATEMENT OF DR. GARY MYERS, PEDIATRIC NEUROLOGIST
AND PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of our research group on the
health effects of methylmercury (MeHg) exposure. My name is Gary Myers. I am
a pediatric neurologist and professor at the University of Rochester in Rochester,
New York and one member of a large team that has been studying the human
health effects of MeHg for nearly 30 years. For nearly 20 years our group has spe-
cifically studied the effects of prenatal MeHg exposure from fish consumption on
child development.
MERCURY POISONINGS
In the 1950s, massive industrial pollution for over two decades in Japan resulted
in high levels of MeHg in ocean fish. Several thousand cases of human poisoning
from consuming the contaminated fish were reported. The precise level of human
exposure causing these health problems was never determined, but was thought to
be high. During that epidemic pregnant women who themselves had minimal or no
clinical symptoms of MeHg poisoning delivered babies with severe brain damage
manifested by cerebral palsy, seizures and severe mental retardation. This sug-
gested that MeHg crosses the placenta from the mother to the fetus and that the
developing nervous system is especially sensitive to its toxic effects.
In 19711972 there was an epidemic of MeHg poisoning in Iraq. Unlike the Japa-
nese poisonings, the source of exposure in Iraq was maternal consumption of seed
grain coated with a MeHg fungicide. Our research team studied the children of
about 80 women who were pregnant during this outbreak. We measured mercury
exposure to the fetus using maternal hair, the biomarker that best corresponds to
MeHg brain level, and examined the children. We concluded that there was a possi-
bility that exposure as low as 10 ppm in maternal hair might be associated with
adverse effects on the fetus, although there was considerable uncertainty in this es-
timate. This value is over 10 times the average in the United States, but individuals
consuming large quantities of fish can achieve this level.
MERCURY FOUND NATURALLY IN THE ENVIRONMENT
Mercury is a natural element in the earths crust. In aquatic environments, bac-

teria can convert inorganic mercury to MeHg. Once MeHg enters the food chain, it
is bioaccummulated and bioconcentrated. All fish contain small amounts, and preda-
tory fish or mammals such as whales have larger amounts. Most commercial oceanic
fish in the United States has < 0.5 ppm MeHg in the muscle, but some freshwater
fish have > 1 ppm. In comparison, contaminated fish in Japan that caused poisoning
had up to 40 ppm.
Everyone who consumes fish is exposed to MeHg, and regular fish consumption
can lead to hair mercury levels as high as 10 ppm or more. The average hair mer-
cury level in the United States is < 1 ppm. If MeHg does affect the developing brain
at such low levels, mothers who consume large amounts of fish would be exposing
their babies to this risk.
The hypothesis of our study in the Seychelles was that prenatal MeHg from fish
consumption might affect child development. Since millions of people around the
world consume fish as their primary source of protein, we decided to investigate the
question directly. We initiated the Seychelles Child Development Study in 1983 and
began enrolling subjects in a pilot study in 1987. We selected the Seychelles as a
sentinel population for the United States for two reasons. First, they consume large
amounts of fish. The average mother in our main cohort ate fish with 12 meals per
week or over 10 times that of U.S. women. Second, the fish consumed in Seychelles
(average mercury content 0.3 ppm) has approximately the same mercury concentra-
tion as commercial fish in the United States.
THE SEYCHELLES CHILD DEVELOPMENT STUDY (SCDS)
The SCDS is a collaborative study carried on by researchers at the University of

Rochester Medical Center in Rochester, NY and the Ministries of Health and Edu-
cation in the Republic of the Seychelles. Funding has come from the National Insti-
tute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Food and Drug Administration, and the
governments of Seychelles and Sweden. The Republic of the Seychelles is an island
Nation in the Indian Ocean off the East Coast of Africa.
Our original hypothesis was that prenatal MeHg exposure at levels achieved by
regular maternal consumption of fish would be associated with adverse effects on
child development that could be detected by clinical examination, or by the use of
300
developmental tests that have previously been used to study the effects of environ-
mental exposures on child development.
The Seychelles was chosen partly because there is no mercury pollution and many
factors that complicate epidemiological studies of low-level exposure are not present.
Health care is free, universal and readily available. Prenatal care is nearly 100 per-
cent, the birth rate is high, and the general health of mothers and children is good.
Education is free, universal, and starts at age 3.5 years. There is limited emigration
and both the people and the government were cooperative and supportive.
Before starting a carefully controlled main study, we carried out a pilot study. We
expected to find only subtle effects on children at these levels of exposure. Con-
sequently, it was important to minimize any possibility of bias, so a number of deci-
sions were made before the study began. First, no one in Seychelles including re-
searchers visiting the island would know the exposure level of any child or mother,
unless our results indicated that children were at risk from prenatal mercury expo-
sure. Second, children with a known cause of developmental delay (meningitis, very
low birth weight, or brain trauma) would not be studied. Third, the tests adminis-
tered would include tests previously reported to show associations with MeHg expo-
sure, tests used with other toxic exposures, and other tests that might detect subtle
changes. Fourth, all testing would be performed within specific age windows to min-
imize the effect of age on test interpretation. Fifth, results would be adjusted for
multiple confounding factors (covariates), including things like socioeconomic status,
maternal intelligence and birth weight, which are known to have independent ef-
fects on child development and if not accounted for, could bias the results. Sixth,
the data analysis plan would be determined before the data were collected to mini-
mize the possibility that the data would be repeatedly analyzed until the anticipated
effect was eventually found.
In 198990, we enrolled over 700 mothers and children in the SCDS main study.
These children were evaluated on five occasions (6, 19, 29, 66 and 107 months of
age) during the past 9 years. When the children were about 4 years old their homes
were visited and evaluated. The study focused on prenatal exposure. This was meas-
ured in the mothers hair growing during pregnancy. Postnatal exposure was also
periodically measured in the childrens hair. The exposure of both mothers and chil-
dren ranged from 1 to 27 ppm, the range of concern. The testing was extensive with
over 57 endpoints being evaluated to date.
Through 107 months (9 years) and over 57 primary endpoints, the study has
found only three statistical associations with prenatal MeHg exposure. One of these
associations was adverse, one was beneficial and one was indeterminate. These re-
sults might be expected to occur by chance and do not support the hypothesis that
adverse developmental effects result from prenatal MeHg exposure in the range
commonly achieved by consuming large amounts of fish. The test results do show
associations with factors known to affect child development such as maternal IQ
and home environment so there is evidence that the tests are functioning well.
OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDINGS
We do not believe that there is presently good scientific evidence that moderate
fish consumption is harmful to the fetus. However, fish is an important source of
protein in many countries and large numbers of mothers around the world rely on
fish for proper nutrition. Good maternal nutrition is essential to the babys health.
Additionally, there is increasing evidence that the nutrients in fish are important
for brain development and perhaps for cardiac and brain function in older individ-
uals.
The SCDS is ongoing and we will continue to report our results. Presently we are
examining a new cohort to determine specific nutrients that might influence the ef-
fects of MeHg.
AppendixNot read before the committee, but included in the handout.
Because of the public health importance of the question being studied by the
SCDS, the potential exists for differing opinions of scientific findings to become
highly politicized. The SCDS has received only one published criticism (JAMA,
280:737, 1998), but other points have been raised at conferences. These questions
are addressed here individually.
Why did the SCDS measure mercury in the hair rather than in the cord blood?
Hair mercury was used because it is the standard measure used in nearly all other
studies of this question. Mercury is thought to enter the hair and brain in a similar
fashion. Hair was also chosen because hair has been shown to follow blood con-
centrations longitudinally, and samples of hair can recapitulate the entire period of
exposure, in this case the period of gestation. As part of our research we have shown
that hair levels reflect levels in the target tissue, brain. Measuring mercury in blood
301
requires correction for the red blood cell volume (hematocrit) since the mercury is
primarily in red blood cells and reflects only very recent exposure. It can also vary
if recent meals with high mercury content are consumed.
Did the SCDS use subjects whose mercury values were too low to detect an as-
sociation? No, the studys goal was to see if the children of women who consume
fish regularly were at risk for adverse developmental effects from MeHg. Women in
Seychelles eat fish daily and represent a sentinel population with MeHg levels 10
times higher than U.S. women. Because of higher levels of exposure, their children
should be more likely to show adverse effects if they are present. These children
show no adverse effects through 9 years of age suggesting that eating ocean fish,
when there is no local pollution, is safe. However, we cannot rule out an adverse
effect above 1215 ppm since we had too few cases to substantiate a statistical asso-
ciation if one really existed.
Did the SCDS use the best tests available to detect developmental problems?
Yes, the SCDS used many of the same neurodevelopmental and neuropsychological
tests used in other developmental studies. These tests are deemed to be excellent
measures for determining development at the ages studied. The tests examined spe-
cific domains of childrens learning and were increasingly sophisticated as the chil-
dren become older.
Did the SCDS find expected associations between development and birth
weight, socioeconomic factors, and other covariates? Yes, expected relationships with
many covariates such as maternal IQ, family socioeconomic status and the home en-
vironment were found, indicating that our tests were sensitive to developmental dif-
ferences.
Did the removal of statistical outliers in the analysis bias the study? No. It is
standard practice among statisticians to remove statistical outliers. Outliers are val-
ues that are inconsistent with the statistical model employed to analyze the data.
Every statistical analysis depends on a model, and every statistical model makes as-
sumptions about the statistical (distributional) properties of the data that must be
satisfied if the results of the analysis are to be interpreted correctly. Sound statis-
tical practice requires that the necessary assumptions be checked as part of the sta-
tistical analysis. Examination of outliers constitutes one of these checks. Statistical
outliers are defined by the difference between the actual test score for a child and
the value predicted by the statistical model. Small numbers of such outliers oc-
curred in test scores for children with widely varying MeHg exposures. The results
of all analysis were examined both before as well as after the removal of outliers.
For analyses in the main study the removal of statistical outliers did not change
the conclusions.
What about the Faroe Islands study where prenatal MeHg exposure was re-
ported to adversely affect developmental outcomes? There are substantial dif-
ferences between the Faroe Islands and Seychelles studies. The exposure in the
Faroe Islands is from consuming whale meat and there is also concomitant exposure
to PCBs and other neurotoxins. There are also differences in the measurement of
exposure and the approach to statistical analysis. The Faroe Islands study reported
associations between cord blood mercury levels and several tests. After statistical
analysis they attributed the associations to prenatal MeHg exposure. Scientific stud-
ies are frequently open to different interpretations and some scientists do not agree
with the researchers interpretation. We believe the Seychelles study of individuals
consuming fish more closely approximates the U.S. situation.
Are the children in Seychelles too developmentally robust to find the effects of
MeHg if they are present? No, the children in Seychelles tested similar to U.S. chil-
dren on nearly all measures apart from motor skills where they were more ad-
vanced. There is no reason to think that they are too robust to show the effects of
prenatal MeHg exposure if any are present.
Are children in Seychelles exposed to PCBs or other food-born toxins that might
have confounded the results? No, sea mammals are not consumed in Seychelles and
measured PCBs in the childrens blood were low.
Should data from the Seychelles be considered interim? Maybe. Among develop-
mental studies, a 9-year followup is considered very long and should be adequate
to identify associations with most toxic exposures. However, very subtle effects can
be more readily tested in older individuals and there is evidence from experimental
animals that some effects of early mercury exposure may not appear until the ani-
mal ages.
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
August 18, 2003.
Hon. JAMES M. INHOFE, Chairman,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for offering me the opportunity to respond to
certain comments that were made in the EPW committee hearing on Tuesday, July
29, of this year. I hope I can clear up any confusion that might have been caused
by incomplete, misleading or erroneous testimony that day.
The testimony in question by Dr. Michael Mann stated:
Its unfortunate to hear comments about the supposed inconsistencies of the
satellite record voiced here years after that has been pretty much debunked in
the peer-reviewed literature in Nature and Science. Both journals have, in re-
cent years, published . . . articles indicating that in fact, the original statement
that the satellite record showed cooling was flawed because . . . the original au-
thor, John Christy, did not take into account a drift in the orbit of that satellite,
which actually leads to a bias in the temperatures . . . Christy and colleagues
have claimed to have gone back and fixed that problem. But just about every
scientist who has looked at it says that this fix isnt correct and that if you fix
it correctly then the satellite record actually agrees with the surface record, in-
dicating fairly dramatic rates of warming in the past two decades.
Virtually all of this testimony is misleading or incorrect. I will touch on the major
problems, point-by-point, and I will try to be brief.
1. Certainly no one has debunked the accuracy of the global climate dataset that
we built at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) using readings taken
by microwave sensors aboard NOAA satellites. This dataset has been thoroughly
and rigorously evaluated, and has been published in a series of peer-reviewed pa-
pers beginning in Science (March 1990). The most recent version of the dataset was
published in May 2003 in the Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology after
undergoing a strenuous peer review process.
2. We, and others, are constantly scrutinizing our techniques to find ways to bet-
ter analyze the data. In every case except one we discovered needed improvements
ourselves, developed a method for correcting the error, and published both the error
and the correction in peer-reviewed journals. When Wentz, et al. (1998) published
their research on the effects of orbital decay (the one exception) they explained an
effect we immediately recognized, but which was partially counterbalanced by other
factors we ourselves discovered. Since that time we have applied the corrections for
both orbital decay and other factors, and have published the corrected data in peer-
reviewed journals.
3. The UAH satellite record does not show cooling in the lower troposphere and
hasnt shown a long-term cooling trend since the period ending in January 1998. I
cannot say where this chronic cooling misconception originated. Our long-term data
show a relatively modest warming in the troposphere at the rate of 0.133 Fahr-
enheit per decade (or 1.33 Fahrenheit per century) for the period of November 1978
to July 2003.
4. There is no credible version of the satellite dataset that actually agrees with
the surface temperature record for the past 25 years, nor one that shows fairly dra-
matic rates of warming. The as-yet-unexplained differences between the surface
and satellite data are at the heart of the controversy over the accuracy of the sat-
ellite data.
While much of the surface data remains uncalibrated and uncorroborated, we
have evaluated our UAH satellite data against independent, globally-distributed at-
mospheric data from the U.S. and the U.K. (Hadley Centre) as shown in the figure
(enclosure 1). We published the results of those comparisons in numerous peer-re-
viewed studies (enclosure 2). In each case we found excellent consistency between
the satellite data and the atmospheric data. One should note that such independent
corroboration has not been performed on the other satellite temperature datasets al-
luded to in the quoted testimony.
This consistency between two independent datasets gathered using very different
techniques gives us a high level of confidence that the UAH satellite dataset pro-
vides a reliable measure of global atmospheric temperatures over more than 90 per-
cent of the globe. (By comparison, one of the most often quoted surface temperature
datasets achieves partial-global coverage only by claiming that certain isolated ther-
mometer sites provide representative temperatures for an area roughly equaling
two-thirds of the contiguous 48 states, an area that would reach from about Browns-
ville, Texas, to Grand Forks, North Dakota.)
324
5. A final point relates to numerous comments elsewhere in the testimony in
which an appeal to a nebulous mainstream climate community was made to sup-
port what was stated. First, the notion that thousands of climate scientists agreed
on the IPCC 2001 text is an illusion. I was a lead author of IPCC 2001, as was Dr.
Mann. There were 841 lead authors and contributors, the majority of whom were
not climatologists and who provided input in the area in which they have expertise
only to their tiny portion of the 800+ page document. These 841 were not asked to
approve nor where they given the opportunity to give a stamp of approval on what
was finally published.
Although I might be outside the mainstream, according to Dr. Manns perspec-
tive, I have never thought a scientists goal was to achieve membership in the
mainstream. My goal is to produce the most reliable climate datasets for use in
scientific research. Whether they show warming or cooling is less important to me
than their reliability and accuracy. That these datasets have been published in nu-
merous peer-reviewed venues is testimony to accomplishing this goal and, by infer-
ence, would place me inside the mainstream climate community. In addition to
being an IPCC lead author, significant achievement awards from NASA and the
American Meteorological Society along with my recent election as a Fellow of the
AMS are evidence of my impact on the community of scientists.
I hope this clears up any confusion you or your committee members might have
had about the UAH global temperature data. If you or any of your committee mem-
bers have any questions, I will be delighted to answer them to the best of my abil-
ity.
Thank you again for offering me this opportunity. I remain,
Sincerely,
JOHN CHRISTY, PH.D.

Senate Hearing, 108TH Congress - Climate History and The Science Underlying Fate, Transport, and Health Effects of Mercury Emissions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Senate Hearing, 108TH Congress - Climate History and The Science Underlying Fate, Transport, and Health Effects of Mercury Emissions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Senate Hearing, 108TH Congress - Climate History and The Science Underlying Fate, Transport, and Health Effects of Mercury Emissions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

S. HRG.

CLIMATE HISTORY AND THE SCIENCE UNDER-

JULY 29, 2003

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman

ANDREW WHEELER, Majority Staff Director

JULY 29, 2003

TUESDAY, JULY 29, 2003

to date found no evidence that prenatal mercury exposure from

Several members of this committee have introduced pieces of leg-

surrounding carbon emissions and climate change, and attempt to

Dr. Willie Soon is the astrophysicist at Harvard-Smithsonian Cen-

to be large local climatic changes. Those changes provide important

Senator JEFFORDS. I might point out, we have got to do some-

iability, any analysis such as SB that compares past temperatures

So we are left to question why the Mann et all curve seems to

portunity to finish your thoughts during the question and answer

inger, who was Energy Secretary under President Carter. In it, he

cisely the same approach based on proxy reconstructions of spatial

Dr. SOON. The conclusion is that in general, of course, under en-

Dr. MANN. Sure. I guess I would reiterate the comments that I

largest professional association of climatologists, showed that in-

to reduce warming to an acceptable level. If one Kyoto devastates

did not produce uncertainties in a reconstruction. They did not

to human impacts on the climate, when they in fact pre-date

There were several people complaining that Chris de Freitas

rally occurring events which have affected our climate. We have El

Senator CLINTON. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Mann.

Senator CARPER. If you were convinced, and some of my col-

Dr. LEGATES. Proof. Generally the problem we have seen in the

tional Science Foundation in large part. There are other organiza-

Senator ALLARD. So you do not think the construction ofwe

Dr. LEGATES. If you increase the absorption rate on the Earths

Dr. MANN. The statement that he made was that there is an

Dr. SOON. Right.

in particular we are dealing with with small matters where the

results show that for three-quarters of the continental U.S. land

These deposition changes were translated into how much less

deficits in memory, language processing, attention and fine motor

heart attack, suggesting an additional large segment of the popu-

dren is very good. In addition, education is free, universal, and it

several people have moved off-shore, moved to other places. So that

of adverse effects, which as you state in your testimony are poten-

But in addition to that, it is important to understand that when

Dr. RICE. The microorganisms actually put a methyl group on as

cury. Once it is deposited into the soil or the river, it is going to

Senator INHOFE. Yes, thank you.

Senator CARPER. Thank you.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Carper.

Senator JEFFORDS. I had a couple more questions.

non-commercial ones are, but it can go up to over two or three

STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIE SOON, HARVARD-SMITHSONIAN CENTER

Distinguished Senators, panelists, and audience: My name is Willie Soon. I am

STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR MICHAEL E. MANN, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

Evidence from paleoclimatic sources overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that

Human beings have influenced modern climate through changes in greenhouse

(1) In drawing conclusions regarding past regional temperature changes from