[Senate Hearing 107-228]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-228
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
MAY 29, 2001--FAIRBANKS, AK
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-969 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
______
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
Terry Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening statement of Chairman Ted Stevens........................ 1
Statement of Syun Akasofu, Director, International Arctic
Research Center, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK........... 3
Statement of Orson P. Smith, PE, Ph.D., Associate Professor,
School of Engineering, University of Alaska, Anchorage, AK..... 4
Statement of Caleb Pungowiyi, President, Robert Aqqaluk Newlin
Sr. Memorial Trust............................................. 7
Statement of Norbert Untersteiner, University of Washington and
University of Alaska........................................... 10
Statement of John E. Walsh, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL... 13
Statement of Glen M. MacDonald, Professor and Vice Chair of
Geography, University of California, Los Angeles............... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
The importance of paleoclimatic research for understanding future
Arctic climate change.......................................... 18
Natural variability in climate and evidence of recent Arctic
warming........................................................ 19
Research priorities on Arctic paleoclimate....................... 21
Statement of Dr. Douglas G. Martinson, Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, NY.............. 22
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Polar climate primer............................................. 30
Arctic change.................................................... 31
Arctic change research........................................... 31
Observational needs.............................................. 32
Future projections of climate change in the Arctic (the ``dec-
cen'' problem)................................................. 33
Statement of Hon. George B. Newton, Jr., Chair, U.S. Arctic
Research Commission............................................ 34
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Climate change impacts in the Arctic............................. 38
Recommended research programs.................................... 39
Research facility requirements................................... 42
Statement of Dr. Margaret Leinen, Chair, Subcommittee on Global
Change, Assistant Director for Geosciences, National Science
Foundation..................................................... 47
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Global change and the context for Alaska......................... 51
Climate change vulnerabilities and potential impacts in Alaska... 53
The budget for fiscal year 2002.................................. 55
Organization of the U.S. Global Change Research Program.......... 55
New directions for the USGCRP.................................... 57
Climate modeling................................................. 58
Long-term climate observations................................... 59
Statement of Daniel S. Goldin, Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration........................... 60
Prepared statement........................................... 64
Science and signs of climate change.............................. 65
What we know and need to know about climate change............... 66
Climate assessments and alternate scenarios for action........... 68
How we are moving to answer the essential questions.............. 69
Statement of Dr. Rita Colwell, Director, National Science
Foundation..................................................... 73
Arctic Conservation Erosion of Barrow, Alaska.................... 73
Prepared statement of Dr. Rita Colwell........................... 76
Statement of Scott B. Gudes, Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans
and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Department of Commerce......................... 80
Prepared statement........................................... 85
Observed Arctic changes and their relationship to NOAA'S mission
and expertise.................................................. 85
NOAA activities in the Arctic.................................... 86
Remaining knowledge, information and data gaps................... 89
Temperature and precipitation.................................... 90
Atmospheric constituents......................................... 90
Cryospheric indicators, e.g., snow cover and sea-ice extent and
thickness, permafrost, lake- and river-ice..................... 91
Ocean temperature, salinity, and circulation..................... 91
Clouds and water vapor........................................... 92
Sea level........................................................ 92
Paleoclimatic data............................................... 92
Weather and climate extreme events............................... 93
Climate normals.................................................. 93
Data and information access...................................... 94
Future NOAA activities in the Arctic............................. 94
Statement of Charles C. Groat, Director, U.S. Geological Survey,
Department of the Interior..................................... 95
Prepared statement........................................... 99
Impacts of climate change on Alaska.............................. 100
Natural resources at risk and research priorities for USGS....... 101
Prepared statement of Dr. Elizabeth C. Weatherhead, University of
Colorado at Boulder............................................ 110
Ultraviolet radiation in the Arctic.............................. 110
Ozone in the Arctic.............................................. 111
UV levels in the Arctic.......................................... 111
UV effects--overview............................................. 111
UV effects--humans............................................... 111
UV effects--species.............................................. 112
UV effects--ecosystems........................................... 112
UV effects--combined effects..................................... 112
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Appropriations,
Fairbanks, AK.
The committee met at 9:30 a.m., in Fairbanks, AK, Hon. Ted
Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN TED STEVENS
Chairman Stevens. Let me thank you all for being here and I
don't apologize because change in Washington is welcome in many
ways. This one may not be so welcome. But we have lost the
other members of the Senate who would have been with me today
because of the delay and the cancellation of portions of our
trip. So I do appreciate the fact that the rest of you have
agreed to appear here today for this hearing which I consider
to be very important for the future of our country and,
particularly, for Alaska. We're meeting to review the
scientific research on global climate change issues related to
the Arctic Region. I'm pleased to be able to hold this hearing
here in Fairbanks on the campus of our University to discuss
this important subject and I thank our hosts for helping us put
the hearing together. As a matter of fact this will be the last
hearing I conduct as Chairman of the Appropriations Committee
as, when we return to Washington, the control of the Senate
will change, as you all know. Before all of this change came
about I chose the University as the site for this hearing
because of the important scientific research that's being
conducted here on climate change. And I want to point out the
work being conducted under the leadership of Dr. Syun Akasofu
at the International Arctic Research Center. IARC has become
one of the leading institutes of research on Arctic climate
change issues and currently performs a number of important
scientific studies for our Federal Government.
Today, we have assembled a very distinguished group of
scientists and government officials to present to us facts and
predictions on the Arctic climate change issue and the impact
it is having on the Arctic Region. I'm really sad my colleagues
are not here to be able to hear what climate change
observations the scientists are seeing in the Arctic Region,
particularly here in our State, and what the potential causes
of these changes may be and how it is affecting the lives of
people in our region and the environment of our State and
Nation. Further, we need to learn about the future projections
of climate change in the Arctic Region.
The first two panels, which comprise the morning session,
will be distinguished scientists who are on the cutting edge of
climate change research. After we hear from these scientists,
we will hear in the afternoon from the main Federal research
agencies involved in climate change research. The Federal
Government plays a vital role in supporting climate change
research. The U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program,
which is made up of several Federal agencies, is coordinating
the Federal Government's efforts to improve our scientific
understanding of changes in climate and how it affects our
economy and our lives. We'll hear from representatives of this
interagency group this afternoon.
I recognize that there's been a lot of attention recently
to the President's approach on climate change policy but I want
to emphasize that we're here today to gather facts related to
climate change and to discuss the underlying scientific
research being conducted. It's important for us to understand
what we know, what we do not know and what we need to know in
order for us to have a reasonable level of confidence in what
will really occur in our environment.
I'm especially interested in establishing a record of what
is happening in the arctic region of our State. Much of what is
happening here will have a significant impact on the Nation, in
my opinion, as well as the world, perhaps. In particular, we
need to develop practical responses to address the impact of
climate change. For example, some parts of Alaska, Native
villages along the coastline are losing land because of the
increased inundation of the sea, the encroachment of the ocean
on the small villages. This is a slow-moving disaster that may
require more than a slow-moving response as far as the Federal
and State governments are concerned.
Our first panel includes Dr. Akasofu and Orson Smith of the
University of Alaska; Caleb Pungowiyi, an Alaskan Native who
has observed the impact of climate change along the coastline
of Alaska; Norbert Untersteiner of the University of
Washington; and John Walsh of the University of Illinois. We'll
then have a second panel of scientists and climate change
experts. The second panel includes Glen MacDonald from UCLA,
Douglas Martinson representing the National Academy of
Scientists and a professor at Columbia University, and George
Newton of the Arctic Research Commission who is accompanied by
Gary Brass.
In the afternoon, we'll hear from the key agency
representatives involved in climate change research. We have
Margaret Leinen of the U.S. Global Climate Research Program;
Dan Goldin, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration; Rita Colwell, the Director of the
National Science Foundation; Scott Gudes, the Acting
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration who is joined by Tom Karl, Director of the NOAA
National Climate Data Center, and John Calder, Director of the
Arctic Research Office of NOAA. We also have Charles Groat,
Director of the U.S. Geological Survey.
And I'm really pleased to have all of you here and I thank
you very much for your courtesy in coming and we'll proceed
with the first witness. The first panel is Dr. Akasofu, Orson
Smith, Caleb, Norbert Untersteiner and John Walsh. If you
gentlemen would come forward, please.
I want to say, for the audience, that we will terminate
just before noon and Dan Goldin is the speaker at the Chamber
of Commerce this noon and we'll resume at 2 o'clock for the
afternoon session.
Dr. Akasofu, we'll call on you first, please.
STATEMENT OF SYUN AKASOFU, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL
ARCTIC RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF
ALASKA, FAIRBANKS, AK
Dr. Akasofu. My name is Syun Akasofu. I'm the Director of
the International Arctic Research Center, IARC, of the
University of Alaska. I'd like to make an introductory remark
on Panel I of the morning session. I would like to thank
Chairman Stevens for having this particular hearing on global
climate change in the Arctic.
Now, there is no longer any doubt that climate has changed
substantially in the Arctic over the last few decades. The
effects of the climate change can be clearly recognized: (a)
Warming of the atmosphere, particularly in the continental
area, is several times faster than the global average. (b) The
second is the receding glaciers. Practically all the glaciers--
most of the glaciers in Alaska, Canada, Greenland are receding
with 30, 40 meters per year. (c) Next one we see is the warming
of permafrost down to 100 feet, 30 meters; and (d) Shrinking of
Arctic Ocean sea ice coverage and the thickness, too.
Further, without exception, all computer simulations
indicate that the Arctic is a region most sensitive to climate
change on Earth. There is no exception. All the computer models
show that, when you double the CO2 amount, the
Arctic will be most warmed by this effect.
Next slide, please. There are many simulation results. So
at this point, our understanding of climate change is well-
represented in a recent paper entitled ``Observational Evidence
of Recent Change in the Northern High-Latitude Environment'' by
distinguished Arctic researchers.
Next. From the other (indiscernible) in part, state.
Taken together, these results paint a reasonable picture of
change . . .``--and so on--''. . . but their interpretation as
a signal of enhanced greenhouse warming is open to debate.
Nevertheless, the general pattern of change broadly agree with
the model predictions.
And Dr. Norbert Untersteiner will discuss this issue in
more detail in the morning session.
Therefore, in this particular situation, we have four
fundamental climate change questions: (1) Are we seeing climate
changes due to greenhouse effect as predicted by global climate
models? (2) Are the changes in climate due to natural or
manmade causes? And so on.
A large number of individual research projects on these
issues have been conducted by researchers all over the world.
However, it is quite obvious, first of all, that it is not
possible to work on these four questions without a close
international cooperation/ coordination. Second, what we need
now is an integration/ synthesis effort based on results from
the individual research projects. This is because the immediate
causes of the permafrost warming, receding glaciers and
shrinking of sea ice coverage could be quite different.
Okay. Go back.
In this situation the IARC has considered carefully the
roles it can play by considering ``What are the most crucial
integration/synthesis projects the IARC can coordinate and
facilitate on an international scale?'' Under this
consideration, the first project we have taken up is the Arctic
Climate Impact Assessment. It is an Arctic version of the IPCC
report.
The second project is a cross-calibration of computer
models that were used for the IPCC report. This is the only
quantitative tool we can use to predict the future changes so
it's very important to make this tool better. Dr. John Walsh
will describe this project in the morning session.
In Alaska, we are experiencing several significant changes
in both marine and terrestrial ecosystems and an increase in
coastline erosion during the last few decades, although the
direct relation of these changes to global warming is not
certain. Dr. Orson Smith and Mr. Caleb Pungowiyi will report on
those changes.
Thank you.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much. For the information
of all the witnesses, this is being immediately put on to the
web. It goes out to the internet live. Our next witness is
Orson Smith.
STATEMENT OF ORSON P. SMITH, PE, PH. D., ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING,
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, ANCHORAGE, AK
Dr. Smith. Senator Stevens
Chairman Stevens. Could you pull that mike in towards you a
little bit, please?
Dr. Smith. Sure. Thank you. Senator, fellow panelists and
guests. My name is Orson Smith. I'm Chair of the Arctic
Engineering Program for the School of Engineering at the
University of Alaska Anchorage.
Chairman Stevens. And I left out, Mr. Smith, we will put
into the record the complete statements that each of you have
filed and, also, your presentation you've made as to your
biography so those who read the record will understand it. But
we'll also go out on the web.
Dr. Smith. My testimony today follows a series of workshops
and meetings in the last year-and-a-half on the subject of
climate change impacts. These productive meetings involved
discussions between research scientists and practicing
engineers about the tangible impacts of global warming on
Alaska's people and its economy. I will first mention consensus
views related to coastal resources and finish with remarks
about infrastructure across the State.
Conditions of Alaska's coastal oceans are changing with
global warming. Thinner, less extensive sea ice will generally
improve navigation conditions along most northern shipping
routes, such as the Northwest Passage offshore of Canada's
Arctic coast and the Northern Sea Route offshore of Russia. The
GIS-based Alaska Sea Ice Atlas, now in preparation by the
University of Alaska and the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research
and Engineering Laboratory, reveals these trends.
More open water allows wave generation by winds over longer
fetches and durations. Wave energy is constrained by wind
speed, duration of winds, fetch, or the distance over water
which the wind blows, and water depth. Wave-induced coastal
erosion is expected to increase with global warming.
One measured effect of global warming is sea level rise,
due to melting glaciers and thermodynamic expansion of ocean
water. Rising sea level inundates marshes and coastal plains,
accelerates beach erosion, exacerbates coastal flooding and
forces salinity into bays, rivers and groundwater.
Some northern regions, including areas of Southeast and
Southcentral Alaska, have sea level trends complicated by
tectonic rebound of landforms from the retreat of continental
glaciers. At Sitka, in Southeast Alaska, the net effect is
falling sea level.
Coastal areas of Alaska have a wide variation of tectonic
trends, however. The Aleutian Chain has volcanic geology not
subject to glacial rebound. The net trend at Adak is for sea
level rise, as it also appears along Alaska's western and
northern coasts.
Global sea level rise will allow more wave energy to reach
the coast and induce erosion as waves break at the shore.
Higher sea levels at the mouths of rivers and estuaries will
allow salt to travel further inland, changing water quality and
habitats. Global warming is predicted to involve more frequent
and more intense atmospheric storms with stronger winds. These
winds will induce even higher water levels at the coasts,
accompanied by higher waves.
Permafrost coasts are especially vulnerable to erosive
processes as ice beneath the seabed and shoreline melts from
contact with warmer air and water. Thaw subsidence at the shore
allows even more wave energy to reach these unconsolidated,
erodible materials. Alaska's permafrost coasts along the
Beaufort and Chukchi Seas are most vulnerable to thaw
subsidence and subsequent wave-induced erosion.
Coastal erosion problems around the State are an
extraordinary challenge to communities such as Barrow,
Wainwright, Kivalina and Shishmaref. More communities on coasts
and riverbanks will be in jeopardy from higher water levels.
Changing depths offshore will also change coastal vulnerability
to tsunamis.
Contingency planning should begin now. Coastal survey data
is often inadequate to reliably judge changes. A baseline
survey of coastal characteristics and associated coastal
processes would help assessment of erosion rates and for
planning future responses.
The Arctic Coastal Dynamics Program is a recent
international initiative to address coastal change in the
Arctic. The program plan, developed by specialists of the
International Arctic Science Commission and the International
Permafrost Association, involves systematic cataloging of
coastal characteristics and establishment of a cooperative
network of coastal monitoring stations. Uniform coastal
classification and improved predictive models are also
proposed. The program includes many opportunities for
participation by coastal residents. The Arctic Coastal Dynamics
Program needs government sponsorship and funding for
implementation.
Lesser ice extent and thickness will provide an opportunity
for export of natural resources and other waterborne commerce
over new northern shipping routes. Marine transportation
remains critical to Alaska's economy so early attention to
these opportunities will save time and money getting valuable
products to market. Ice-capable commercial cargo vessels suited
for Alaska service have not yet been developed, though ice-
class commercial ships of all types are in service elsewhere
around the Arctic.
Global warming is also changing Alaska's rivers as
transportation routes, water sources and habitants. Predicted
increased precipitation will induce higher stream flows and
more flooding. Erosion of thawing permafrost banks will
accelerate, threatening hard-won infrastructure of rural Alaska
river communities such as Bethel and Noatak. River ice breakup
will occur earlier and be more difficult to predict in terms of
ice jam flooding. Prediction and prevention of ice jam flooding
in Alaska warrants further study.
Conditions for commercial river navigation may improve for
transport of minerals and bulk exports to tidewater. Since no
State or Federal agency is presently responsible for either
charting or marking river channels, this prospect will be
difficult to measure. A program to survey river navigation
routes would provide a baseline from which to monitor change
and evaluate improvements for waterborne commerce.
A warming climate inland will affect infrastructure of all
types as ground and hydrological conditions are changed.
Engineers have a toolkit of proven means to deal with these
changes but often lack adequate site information for optimum
site or transportation route selection.
Global warming will bring more erratic winter weather,
increasing the frequency of freeze/thaw cycles across the
State. Roads and railways will suffer attendant problems and
maintenance costs are likely to increase as a result.
Improvement of bridges and culverts may prove to be a
particularly expensive impact of global warming on northern
transportation infrastructure.
Thawing permafrost and freeze/thaw cycle changes in the
active layer of soils across Alaska will bring potential
adverse impacts to existing foundations of all types. New
foundations may be designed accordingly if site conditions are
known and predictions are accurate. Hydrological changes in
streams and ground water will bring both problems and
opportunities for water supply. Safe waste disposal in low-
lying tundra areas will generally become more difficult and
expensive.
Climate change began some time ago and problems of warming
permafrost and other environmental changes have occurred
throughout the careers of cold regions engineers in practice
today. The fears for northern infrastructure relate to lack of
site information and reliable prediction of future change.
Storage and accessibility of engineering site data is
improving but more old data can be saved and new data must be
measured. The World Wide Web provides means for quick access to
21st century GIS-based atlases of linked environmental
databases, complete with common engineering applications. One
such effort is the Engineering Atlas of Alaska, in its first
stage of development at the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory in cooperation with the University of
Alaska.
Monitoring is difficult to fund and instituting a ``1
percent for monitoring'' public works policy can follow the
lead of arts advocates.
This concludes my testimony. I appreciate this opportunity
to speak today.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much, Dr. Smith. Our next
witness is Caleb Pungowiyi. He is a member of the Robert Newlin
Senior Memorial Trust. Caleb, nice to see you here.
STATEMENT OF CALEB PUNGOWIYI, PRESIDENT, ROBERT AQQALUK
NEWLIN SR. MEMORIAL TRUST
Mr. Pungowiyi. Thank you, Senator. Honorable Chairman,
Members of the Committee and distinguished visitors and guests,
I am honored and humbled to be included among the distinguished
scientists and learned men that were invited to testify on the
effects of the current warming trend. In my testimony I will
not present any scientific proofs or any silver bullets that
puts the finger on the cause of the warming. I will tell you
that there are effects and changes that are occurring that are
undeniable and, rather than some vague possibility, is already
affecting and changing people's lives.
My name's Caleb Pungowiyi. I am currently the President of
Robert Aqqaluk Newlin Senior Memorial Trust, the non-profit
foundation established by NANA Regional Corporation. My
testimony today does not represent nor speak on their behalf or
that of the NANA Regional Corporation.
First of all, I must say, Senator, that I am extremely
delighted that the U.S. Congress is concerned enough to hold
hearings such as this. While there are uncertainties and no
clear solutions to the risks and threats that face our
communities, the need to assess and perhaps identify the
actions that can be taken to minimize the impacts are necessary
and I appreciate your concern and your presence at these
hearings.
A year and a half ago, we held a workshop in Girdwood on
``Impacts of Changes in the Sea Ice and Other Environmental
Factors in the Arctic,'' convened by the Marine Mammal
Commission. This workshop was not only to look at the impacts
but also to highlight the research on the impacts on the Native
people from climate change is scarce and virtually nonexistent.
And Senator, I purposefully elected not to present any
overheads or show data on the slide presentation because I
wanted to highlight the lack of information that exists
currently or is nonexistent because there is no research
currently being done on the effects in the coastal communities
or the people. This workshop--or, I had hoped to bring a copy
of that report but, unfortunately, I forgot to bring a copy
with me but I will make sure that a copy is available to you
and the members of your committee. We, including the U.S.
Government, must understand that the social and economic impact
on the local economies and subsistence practices, however
minimal they may seem, causes enormous hardship, social chaos
and, as you well know, will cause population disbursement. And
it is currently causing population disbursement. I mean by
people relocating or moving to other places that have more
opportunities for easier living.
It is very evident now that the sea ice in the Bering Sea
and the Arctic Ocean is thinning. To us living on the Arctic
coastline, sea ice is our lifeline. It supports the majority of
the resources from which we depend upon. In fact, in 1972 the
U.S. Congress, recognizing the dependence of Alaska Native
people on marine mammals, exempted the Alaska Natives from the
Marine Mammal Protection Act. Today that dependence continues
but, if the warming trends continue, many of those resources
are at risk. The ice-dependent marine mammals such as polar
bear, walrus, bowhead whale, beluga and ice breeding seals that
are--that's like the (indiscernible) seal, the ring seal, the
spotted seal and the ribbon seal--are all dependent on the sea
ice for their survival. We see the ice forming later and
disappearing earlier. If it were not for the cold springs that
we've had in the last few years, our spring marine mammal
hunting would be a disaster. These are all long-lived species
and [it's] hard to judge the current impact on them but we do
know that there are impacts on the productivity of the species.
And Senator, at this time I would like to say that, while
the impact from the lack of sea ice is perhaps because of the
gradual change, the impact has been fairly minimal. The long-
term trend is very scary, especially when we think about the
immediate impact, if there are changes in their food resources,
especially the fish and the shrimp and the other
(indiscernible) that depend on production in the sea ice, that
this problem from starvation and lack of a stable platform for
them to reproduce on will have a tremendous and immediate
impact on these species.
I was talking to Dr. Roswell Schaeffer, the Mayor of
Northwest Arctic Borough, the other day. Ross is an experienced
and respected hunter and he also is a very astute observer. We
both mentioned, as we were talking, that we had caught seals
but that the female seals that we had caught had shown signs of
giving birth but were not nursing. There's no milk in the
mammary glands which means that the seal gave birth and for
some reason the fetus must have died or aborted so that the
seal is not nursing at the time. We both feel that this is
because of the very late freeze up this year--Kotzebue Sound
did not freeze until February--and they didn't have the
opportunity to make dens and therefore aborted their fetuses.
We also know that impacts are not just on the marine animals
but other species such as fish and sea birds.
Is it just the warming of the ocean temperatures that are
causing the thinning of the ice? I don't think so. We are
seeing some real changes in the atmosphere as well. The sky is
not blue anymore. It is more hazy and whiter and we see lot
more wind, winds that are strong enough to affect hunting and
fishing in the marine waters. We see our hunters taking greater
chances by going out in weather conditions that put their lives
at risk. There are also economic costs as the hunters travel
greater distances to harvest game, expending more fuel and
time. The success rate is also being affected. There are times
when hunters will go out and return empty handed because the
game was not there or out of reach. These are the effects that
have gone unnoticed by the policy makers and scientists. If we
didn't have public assistance, Native stores and food stamps,
many village people would be in extreme hardship, if not
starving. We are resilient people and we adjust readily to
change but if that change is too rapid, too disruptive, it
causes social chaos, hardship and suffering.
I want to also State at this point, Senator, that there is
currently no research on the effects on the people. We are not
doing any data gathering on what the people are expending to
try to hunt, on harvesting game, and also the success rate or
lack of success on how they are being impacted at this stage. I
would like to ask that the Arctic Research Commission or others
who are involved in Arctic research will recommend more social
studies to study the impacts from the climate change.
More wind causes wave action and wave action along the
rising waters causes erosion. In the past 20 years we have lost
much land to beach and soil erosion. Many subsistence camps
have lost land to erosion, especially in areas like Cape
Espenberg and Cape Krusenstern. In the decades before where the
beaches built up--we've had scientific evidence of beach
buildup over the years, thousand of years on some of these
capes. We're now seeing loss of land and fairly rapidly.
The other day you mentioned, Senator, that some of the
communities like Shishmaref and Kivalina will have no choice
but to relocate. While the economic costs of such relocation
will be expensive, there are also social costs that will be
born by the people for years to come. It is a cost that we
cannot measure in dollars and cents. Most people take change
too lightly and do not think that people are being affected
directly. It is not the severe events such as the hurricane,
the floods, the droughts and the unseasonal snowfall that are
the major effects of climate change but small changes that will
and are having dramatic effects. It seems that we must
experience wholesale disaster or economic chaos before the
policymakers will take notice. Alexander Akeya, an elderly man
from Savoonga said to me in 1996.
``That is my garden out there. My life depends upon it. If
something bad happens to it, we will suffer greatly but the
Government will not help us because we are not farmers or
fishermen.''
And I think that really speaks, Senator, of how the people
will be affected if the changes continue the way they are,
especially in the last few years where we've seen the rate of
ice conditions declining--or receding more rapidly.
What would I recommend? The air that is around us and above
us and the waters of the sea are two things that give life to
this Earth but yet we abuse them mercilessly. I don't think we
really, really understand how thin that life support is. One,
we as human beings need to have greater willingness to examine
how we are affecting the climate change and minimize the
actions that are leading to greater climate change. Second, we
need to document and record the economic and other effects of
warming on the coastal residents of Western and Northern
Alaska. Three, little is being done to observe the effects of
the retreating sea ice on the ice-dependent marine mammals and
the sea birds. Four, there is little known about the ice-
dependent species such as Arctic Cod, Saffron Cod and krill.
These are the species that are major food sources for the
millions of marine mammals and birds and yet we virtually know
nothing about their bio-mass and their status. And, Senator,
starvation is a much greater threat to these species than the
thinning of the ice because it's quicker and it's more massive
and we need to know what potential effects that--the food
source may have on these marine mammals. Five, there are
changes occurring on the land as well. Beavers are moving in.
Large herds of caribou that have been increasing, like the
Western Arctic caribou. And it's probably only a matter of time
before we see some of these herds crashing. The treeline is
moving west and northward. We see more insects, wetter summers
and late, late freeze-up.
We must take steps to truly understand the impacts that are
occurring and will occur. As leaders, you must give us hope and
opportunity to address the problems that will have profound and
adverse effects on the lives of individuals and families in the
small communities that are so dependent on the natural
resources.
I thank you for this opportunity. May God bless you and
give you wisdom as you ponder what must be done to address
these extremely difficult problems. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you, Caleb. Dr. Untersteiner. Thank
you.
STATEMENT OF NORBERT UNTERSTEINER, UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON AND UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
Dr. Untersteiner. Senator Stevens, ladies and gentlemen,
thank you for the opportunity to present my testimony here. As
we hope to confirm here there is no longer any doubt that
significant changes are occurring in the Arctic environment
and, especially since the last testimony, there is no need to
enumerate the many events.
Without suggesting that greenhouse gases alone are the only
cause of all these changes, it still seems appropriate to note
the extreme anomaly of our present situation. The first picture
shows carbon dioxide, methane and air temperature during the
past four major glacial cycles. These four peaks represent
100,000 year cycle of the global atmosphere. These numbers were
derived from a many-thousand-meter-deep ice core on the
Antarctic Continent. As you can see from the top curve--that
shows carbon dioxide loading in the atmosphere--that dot on the
upper left is where we are now. It is about 50 percent more
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than there has been in the
last 400,000 years. Well, we're clearly in an anomalous
situation and there is no indication that this sharp increase
is going to stop anytime soon.
There was a time not long ago when we had to argue that the
Arctic is important because most of the North Atlantic deep
water is formed east of Greenland and because the boreal
forests are a huge carbon reserve and because some of the
richest fisheries and marine ecosystems live in the cold
nutrient-rich waters of the North. This is all true but, as in
so many other fields of human endeavor, we have learned to view
the world as one large, complex, interdependent system in which
all regions and components are important in their mutual
interactions and dependence. The effects of El Nino travel over
the whole hemisphere, the dust of volcanic eruptions
circumnavigates the Earth, and pollutants and dangerous wastes
from human activities travel from the middle of continents to
the middle of ocean basins. The Arctic is simply important as
an integral part of the Earth that sustains us. It is important
because we live here, we need its resources and we are
responsible for its well-being. The impressive development of
the research done here at the University of Alaska is tangible
proof.
The fact that our global environment, especially climate,
are changing has created a multi-faceted controversy in which,
according to latest polls, about half of the Nation thinks that
the environment poses problems that are commensurate with
health care and education. Some questions of particular
sensitivity are these:
--How much of the observed changes are due to the intrinsic
evolution of the climate system and how much is caused
by human activities?
--What is the value of international treaties that try to
curb the emission of climatically-active agents and
pollutants?
--And, third, what are proven countermeasures to climate
change and, if they can be identified, what do they
cost?
A natural consequence of all this is an increased demand
for predictions. The only devices we have to make predictions
are mathematical models of the Earth system including the
atmosphere, the ocean, the ice and, if at all possible, the
vegetation in the biosphere. Before we can trust such models to
yield meaningful predictions, we demand that they are able to
reproduce with some degree of accuracy the state that we are in
today. For the purpose of illustration, we choose one part of
that complex entity called climate that is of particular
interest to us, that is, the extent of the Arctic sea ice.
Now, climate models have been developed in several
countries and the results have been compared to a myriad of
direct observations taken during the past two centuries or so
and derived from measurements that allow us to deduce past
climates. Hundreds of scientists, called the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change or IPCC, have issued two comprehensive
reports at 5-year intervals, and the third one is about to be
issued. For the time being, only a ``Summary for Policymakers''
is publicly available on the web. We cannot hope to delve into
the content of this very extensive report but we would like to
illustrate the use of climate models by means of one specific
example taken from that IPCC draft.
This figure shows the actually observed maximum and minimum
extent of Arctic sea ice on the two bars on the left, for
different time periods. The top of the blue bar is the maximum
ice extent; the bottom is the minimum ice extent. Across the
bottom are acronyms; they represent different institutions at
which these models have been developed. And you can see that
these predictions are pretty much all wrong and they are all
wrong in different ways. You might say that, if we cannot
compute current conditions correctly, how can we expect to
model meaningful results for future scenarios in which, for
instance, the atmosphere contains twice as much greenhouse gas
as it does today?
There's a curious aspect to this ensemble of results shown
in this figure. The truth reproduced by any individual model is
pretty bad but the average result comes much closer to the
observed truth than any of the individual models. We know that
simple averages are not always meaningful and it remains to be
seen if they are in this case.
What the experts do with this kind of information is called
``ensemble forecasting.'' The argument goes as follows: the
ensemble forecast is better than each individual because all
the models employ the same fundamental physics but they all
must take different shortcuts and simplifications and no one
models can compute everything to unlimited resolution in space
and time. So the differences are, to some degree, comparable to
random errors, which implies that their average is some
improved approximation to the truth. In other words, there is
reason to expect that predictions generated by future climate
models will gradually gain in content and reliability, and they
will provide an increasingly firm basis for policy decisions.
The basic dilemma of trying to make perfectly correct
policy decisions on the basis of imperfect information is, of
course, not unique to matters of the environment. Consider, for
instance, the stock market: There are many economic models and
formulas to predict business and the stock market. To apply the
notion of an ``ensemble forecast'' one could be assured that
the individual forecasts are made by comparably rational basis,
which seems hardly to be possible when the human psyche is
involved.
Yet, despite our minimal ability to predict the economy,
government and society as a whole are not afraid to take
measures: The Federal Reserve manipulates the cost of credit,
large investors have hedge funds and they shift their money
from one field to the other in accordance with some
probabilistic considerations designed to strike a balance
between purpose and risk, and we are all saving money in the
assumption that at some distant future the imaginary value
printed on it will still be convertible to bread and gasoline.
If we are not afraid of attempting to manipulate our gigantic,
multi-trillion-dollar economy on the basis of very tenuous
principles, why are we so timid about taking measures with
regard to our environment?
One can, of course, take the view that we need not worry
about the environment. Throughout Earth's history, adaptation
has been the operative concept: Organisms that were able to
adapt survived and the others became extinct. It was recently
pointed out by Richard Lindzen in testimony to the Senate's
Environmental and Public Works Committee on the 2nd of May of
this year--I quote--``. . . a large part of the response to a
climate change, natural or anthropogenic, will be adaptation,
and adaptation is best served by wealth . . .'' This is another
way of saying that, if you are an affluent urban-dweller, you
don't have much need to worry about it. This is true, but the
same message may not play so well in the ears of my esteemed
colleague here or a subsistence fisherman in Nome or, for that
matter, a rice farmer in Cambodia.
Until we get better understanding of why these changes are
occurring and what will happen in the future, there are a
number of things we can do and that are, in fact, a win/win
approach:
We can turn down our thermostats, down in winter and up in
summer and we can build houses with thicker walls and we can
install heat pumps, solar panels and wind generators and, most
of all, we can drive smaller cars. These changes require no
profound political, economic or philosophical reasoning. They
are at the expense of no one and benefit everyone.
Thank you.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much, Dr. Untersteiner.
Our next witness is John Walsh. Mr. Walsh. I noted your name at
the top of that one statement. You were one of the authors of
the statement that Dr. Akasofu referred to?
Dr. Walsh. Yes.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JOHN E. WALSH, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS,
URBANA, IL
Dr. Walsh. I'm presently visiting at IARC. Senator Stevens,
ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate the chance to speak to you
today. With an eye towards the changes that we have already
heard about, I will summarize the projections for coming
decades from state-of-the-art global climate models.
First figure. I will show a consensus or an ensemble
projection based on eight models from around the world and I
will highlight the geographical pattern of the projected
changes, the seasonality, and perhaps most importantly the
consistency among the models.
Next figure shows the changes in the annual mean
temperature projected for the late 21st century by this
ensemble of models. The yellow color represents a warming of
two or three degrees celsius; the orange, five or six degrees
celsius, or nine to ten degrees fahrenheit. This warming is
strongest over the Arctic Ocean and the northern land areas and
it's stronger there than anywhere else in the Northern
Hemisphere. And the warming is generally consistent with the
observed trends that Dr. Akasofu showed earlier.
The next figure shows that this warming is not distributed
evenly throughout the year. In fact, it's considerable stronger
in the autumn and winter. It's smallest in the summer.
The next figure shows an example of the seasonal cycle of
the warming projected for the late 21st century. It's for the
North Slope of Alaska. January's on the left, December is on
the right. The vertical bars represent the ranges among these
eight models. The general pattern of a weaker warming in summer
and a stronger warming in winter is apparent. But perhaps most
importantly all models project the warming. So even though
there are large ranges in the rates, all models are consistent
in the warming.
The next figure shows the pattern of precipitation changes
that are projected by these same models for the late 21st
century. The map on the left is for winter; the map on the
right is for summer. The green and blue represent increases of
precipitation. The amounts in the blue areas are five to six
centimeters water equivalent, per season. The largest increases
in the winter are projected to occur in Southeastern Alaska. In
the summer the largest increases are projected for the northern
land areas, especially Central Alaska. This figure,
incidentally, on the right shows that the contiguous United
States is projected to experience drying. The yellow and the
red represent drying. The same is true for Western Europe. So
these models in general are projecting a northward shift of the
major precipitation belts.
The next figure shows one scenario of precipitation through
the 21st century. This is from one of the models. It's fairly
typical of the set of eight. The general increase is apparent
although there is quite a bit of interannual variability but
the interesting feature of this figure is the tendency towards
greater positive extremes as one goes through the next century.
So the implication is that there will be occasional severe
periods with more extensive rains than have occurred in the
earlier periods, not only in this model but in the
observational data. And these changes in the extreme events are
a potentially serious part of climate change and my impression
is that they are generally under-researched and especially in
the Arctic.
The next figure shows projected changes in the coverage of
sea ice from two models. The left panel is for the Arctic; the
right panel is for the Antarctic. These are simulations that
span two centuries, the past century and the coming century.
They were (indiscernible) by observed carbon dioxide
concentrations in the past century, projected changes in the
future. Both models show a substantial decline of sea ice
through the next century in both hemispheres. The decline in
the Arctic begins in the last third of the 20th century. By the
end of the 21st century the projected changes range from 30 to
70 percent of the current sea ice coverage in the Arctic. The
losses in the Antarctic are comparable. These two models
generally correspond to the other six that are not shown in the
figure.
In connection with the simulation on the left which shows
the decline beginning in the late 20th century, it may be
worthwhile to look at the observed record in the next figure.
This figure shows the yearly sea ice coverage in the Arctic for
each season. Each season is in a different color. Summer is
green, winter is blue. The annual average is black. There are
indications in the observational record that this decrease of
sea ice coverage began in the 1950's or 1960's. The decrease is
largest in summer. This is consistent with the experience of
Arctic residents and it's a message that comes through in every
sea ice data set that's been looked at for the last 20 to 30
years, a decrease of sea ice coverage that's larger in the
summer and smaller in the winter.
In summary--next--All the models in this ensemble agree
that the Arctic will warm. They agree that the strongest
warming will occur over the Central Arctic. The warming will be
strongest in winter. They agree that Arctic precipitation will
increase and that sea ice coverage will decrease substantially
during the next century. And, in general, the changes that are
projected are consistent with recent observational data. There
have been circulation changes that have contributed, at least a
portion of the changes, in some variables like air temperature.
Next figure. Finally, the models show less agreement but
still some agreement on the rates of change, on details of the
changes in precipitation and on the responses of the land
surface and the ocean.
Thank you.
Chairman Stevens. Very interesting, gentlemen. I do thank
you all. This is a very provocative panel, as a matter of fact.
The Canadians have been collaborative in some of these
efforts of research. Have any of you been working with the
Canadians on this subject, the changes in the Arctic brought
about by global climate change? Any of you involved with--the
Canadians at all?
Dr. Walsh. The Canadian model is one of the most prominent
ones and, in fact, some of those sea ice results were directly
from the Canadian group in Victoria.
Chairman Stevens. In terms of our portion of the Arctic,
Alaska, in particular, do you feel we have the data and tools
available now to reliably predict what's going to happen in the
future? You have several different models and have presented a
synthesis of those, as I understand it. Tell me, do you think
we have the tools available and, if we don't, what could we do
to improve them? Yes, Mr. Smith.
Dr. Smith. Senator, I feel there's room for improvement,
particularly in monitoring in support of the predictive models.
The difficulties of ground (indiscernible) in Alaska are widely
spaced data points, measurements, to confirm the predictions.
And monitoring is so tough to fund. The constructing agencies
are project-oriented and they're reluctant to invest for the
long-term when they build. But I think that you can, perhaps,
encourage them to invest in monitoring and expand a network of
monitoring stations.
Chairman Stevens. Any other comments? Mr. Untersteiner.
Dr. Untersteiner. Well, let me choose the example of the
ice. It's not a single or two or three kinds of observations
that will give us the clue for predicting the ice. This is an
extremely complicated question that is all focused on the heat
balance of the surface of the ocean and involved in that is the
transmisivity (ph) of the atmosphere to infrared radiation, the
cloudiness, what types of clouds, at what elevation do most of
the clouds occur. These are all things that act together in a
very complicated way in order to control what the heat balance
is of the surface which then controls whether that ocean is
going to freeze a little sooner or a little later so the
physics of the entire atmosphere and ocean collaborate to
produce this one phenomenon. So this is obviously a thing that
requires much more study.
And I couldn't agree more with the point of Dr. Smith, that
monitoring is not glamorous and it's extremely valuable and
will be needed to a much greater extent than we do now.
And I should say, perhaps especially in the ocean, the
technology to make long-term observations have improved--has
improved dramatically in the past decade and monitoring the
ocean that was once an issue of making many trips with the
research vessels is now a matter of buoys that have an enormous
capacity to store and transmit data and I think that is a very
hopeful direction for future application of technology.
Chairman Stevens. Dr. Akasofu.
Dr. Akasofu. You asked us about the computer modeling
because IPCC uses many computer models and the computer models
is the only way we can predict quantitatively the future and so
this is the most important tool and we're trying to improve the
computer models by putting the people working on this together.
This is the only way we can improve that, working together. So
we have been proceeding on this project.
Chairman Stevens. Well, thank you very much. And I
particularly thank Dr. Untersteiner and Dr. Walsh for coming so
far to be part of the panel. I look forward to working with you
hopefully in Washington some time in the future. I think we're
going to continue to pursue this subject and find out how we
can start relying on some of these projections and get some
basic understanding in Washington of the problem and some of
the issues that--some of the solutions we might try to test as
to deal with them. Caleb, thank you for coming. Those are
tremendous personal observations and we're indebted to you for
coming and presenting them. Very clear and very understandable.
So we thank you very much.
Dr. Smith. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you all, gentlemen. We'll take a 5
minute recess and have a change. The next panel is Dr. Glen
MacDonald, Dr. Douglas Martinson and George Newton from the
Arctic Research Commission.
Dan Goldin has told me that one of these cameras is a NASA
camera and this will be given to the cable industry at a later
date, this hearing. We now have a panel composed of Dr. Glen
MacDonald from UCLA; Dr. Douglas Martinson from Columbia
University who's also the National Academy of Sciences; and
George Newton, of the Arctic Research Commission, accompanied
by Dr. Gary Brass. Gentlemen, start with Dr. MacDonald, please.
Good morning.
STATEMENT OF GLEN M. MacDONALD, PROFESSOR AND VICE
CHAIR OF GEOGRAPHY, UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
Dr. MacDonald. Thank you. Good morning, Senator, and thank
you for inviting me to speak here today.
Today I'd like to address two issues. I would like to
explain to you the importance, I think, crucial role of
paleoclimatic research in understanding natural variability in
the Arctic climate system and environment and detecting the
impact of climactic warming and, finally, hoping in helping in
mitigating the impacts of climactic warming. The second item
which I'd like to address today is to share with you some of
the results of our research.
I come here today not only representing UCLA but I'm also a
Co-chair of the Paleoenvironment of the Arctic Sciences
Program. This is part--supported by NSF through the Arctic
Systems Science and Earth Systems History Programs. And I will
be presenting research, then, by my fellow scientists within
the PARCS (ph) Program, some working in Alaska and some
elsewhere.
We all know that, if we've lived in the Arctic, that the
climate here is variable. From one year to the next we may see
relatively large differences in summer temperature, winter
temperature, precipitation. If you've been in the Arctic a long
time or worked in the Arctic a long time you also know that
there are differences from decade to decade. For example, in
many parts of the North American Arctic the 1960's was
relatively cold. The 1980's and 1990's have been extremely
warm. So with that background of natural variability we then
must ask how can we detect the beginnings of climactic warming
caused by greenhouse gasses, increasing methane,
CO2, et cetera. How can we know if that warming will
exceed the natural variability? And, finally, we might ask, if
the Arctic system is prone to natural variability and we must
manage, then, an environment and human infrastructure in the
Arctic in the face of climate warming, we really have two
concerns. One is the warming caused by increasing greenhouse
gasses but, second, the natural variability of the Arctic
climate which may affect our efforts both on annual, decadal
and even century time scales.
So I'd like to illustrate then some of the findings that we
have obtained using paleoclimatological approaches. These are
approaches in which we reconstruct climate and environment over
the past few hundred years back to about 150,000 years for the
PARCS community which I represent. We use things like tree-ring
records, ice cores, lake sediments, marine sediments, bore-hole
temperatures. All of these techniques have been worked on,
carefully calibrated, verified, cross-verified by scientists in
the United States and elsewhere. We feel that they have
reasonably high precision and a reason to be reliable.
Why are they so crucial in the Arctic? Most Arctic climate
stations extend back only maybe 50 to 100 years. Their records
are short. In addition, their geographic distribution is very
sparse. We simply don't have a data base of observational
records in which we can look at climactic change over periods
of decades or centuries to tell what the natural variability is
or to see if we have indeed warmed beyond the natural
variability.
Can I have the first overhead, please.
This is a record taken from tree-rings from far-eastern
Siberia, just across the pond from us here. What the record
shows you at the top is the reconstruction of June temperatures
extending back to 1450 AD. What's notable about the
reconstruction, of course, is the high amount of variability,
both on a decadal and an annual time scale. In addition, what
we can see is the 20th century may not have experienced all the
warmest years but it is the longest period of prolonged warming
when years are above the mean temperature since 1450. It is the
longest sustained warm period in our record. This very typical
of Arctic tree-ring records. They mainly show us summer warmth
and they mainly show us that the 20th century is warmer than
the last 400 to 1,000 years.
Below we see that this warming is reflected in the pulse of
establishment of trees starting at about 1900. Most of the
northern tree-line forests in large portions of Siberia, parts
of Alaska and northern Canada established in the 20th century
as temperatures began to warm. We can also see that between
about 1800 and 1850 there was a period of pronounced cooling.
We see that this caused the mortality and death of a lot of
trees. This is also seen in most tree-ring records that we have
from the circum-Arctic region. It shows us that there's natural
variability which produced cooling, not on the order or 1 year
or 2 years, but on the order of decades.
May I have the next overhead, please.
When we take records like this and we put them together--
and this is a paper which I was a coauthor on with a number of
other scientists led by Jonathan Overpeck (ph) of NOAA--we can
reconstruct, then, a kind of circum-Arctic temperature index.
This reconstruction required the use of tree-rings, lake
sediments, ice cores, marine sediments and other forms of
paleoclimatological data, all carefully cross-checked,
verified. The paper was published in Science Magazine. You can
see the geographic distribution of the sites below and they
include sites from Alaska.
What you see at the top is the record of Arctic climate
warming. The black line is temperature and you can see--and the
units it gives are sigma units--but it basically shows the 20th
century had a 1 to 1.5 degree warming compared to earlier
centuries. You can see the record is then compared to
CO2, methane, natural variability and solar output
and, finally, volcanic eruptions.
And what we see from this record are two very important
factors. First of all, long-term variability and evidence that
the 20th century has been warmer than any of the preceding four
centuries. Second, we see the impact not only of CO2
and methane but in the natural variability. The decrease in
temperatures, for example, following the 1950's was
coincidental with the decrease in the output from the sun. So
there is natural variability on top of this record as well as
the greenhouse warming. In the future we will have to be able
to anticipate both that natural variability and the increased
warming due to greenhouse gasses.
How does that compare, then, with other studies? Is this
just a one-off? May I have the next overhead, please.
PREPARED STATEMENT
This is a comparison published this year by Keith Briffin
(ph) and a number of scientists from throughout the world. It
compares the record I just showed you, which is the Overpeck,
et al., record, with a number of similar records taken from
Arctic regions and from areas of the Northern Hemisphere north
of 20 degrees North. And it provides a broad overview of
Northern Hemisphere temperatures over about the last 1,000
years, including the Arctic. And there are two salient features
that I want to draw your attention to. First of all, the 20th
century is warmer, particularly the last two decades of the
20th century, than any of the preceding 1,000 years. This is an
exceptional event. Second, we can see that there's considerable
long-term variability in the climate as well as short-term
variability, a period of cold, for instance in the 1600's, the
period of cold in the early 1800's that I told you about, as
well as warm periods around 1200 years ago. The causes of these
natural long-term climactic variations are still poorly
understood. Their geographic expression is still poorly
understood. But what we do understand is they are there in the
past; they will be there in the future. And paleoclimatology,
particularly in the Arctic, provides us, really, the only tool
that we have to find these long-term changes in climate and
address them.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you.
Dr. MacDonald. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Glen M. MacDonald
I thank Senator Stevens and the members of the Committee for this
opportunity to testify today. My name is Glen MacDonald and I am a
Professor and Vice Chair of the Geography Department at UCLA. I am also
a Professor of Organismic Biology, Ecology and Evolution at UCLA and a
member of the UCLA Institute of the Environment. I have recently been
named as a co-chair of the Paleoenvironmental Arctic Sciences Program
(PARCS) sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF). PARCS is
supported by both the Arctic Systems Science (ARCSS) and Earth Systems
History (ESH) Programs of the NSF. I am here today to present testimony
regarding my own research on past, present and future patterns of
climate change in the Arctic and the findings of allied research by
members of the PARCS community and others. I will also present a
synopsis of research imperatives for Arctic climatic change that have
been identified by the PARCS scientific community.
THE IMPORTANCE OF PALEOCLIMATIC RESEARCH FOR UNDERSTANDING FUTURE
ARCTIC CLIMATE CHANGE
I do not need to inform the Committee about the importance of
understanding if Alaska and the Arctic are warming due to increased
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide
and methane. That atmospheric concentrations of such gasses have
increased significantly over the past 150 years because of human
activity is indisputable. Analyses of climate model experiments
indicates that the Arctic is particularly prone to warming related to
increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses. Warming by a
few degrees in temperature in Alaska could lead to changes in plant and
animal distributions, vegetation structure, permafrost conditions and
sea-ice conditions. Such changes would require significant adjustments
in subsistence practices of native peoples, engineering for large scale
resource development and conservation planning. In addition, computer
models of global climate indicate that changes in the Arctic, such as
northward shifts in the geographic position of treeline, degradation of
organic soils, and decreases in sea-ice cover, have the potential to
enhance global climatic changes. How can paleoclimatolgy (the study of
past climates) help us to detect it the Arctic has begun to warm due to
increased greenhouse gasses, and help us to anticipate and mitigate the
impacts of global climate warming in Alaska and other areas of the
Arctic?
Paleoclimatic studies provide records of past climatic changes and
the impact of those changes on the environment. The Arctic
paleoclimatic research I am speaking of today examines climatic changes
over the last several hundred years and as far back as about 150,000
years ago. We all know that weather varies from year to year. Some
years are typified by very cold conditions, other years may be
unusually warm. We also know from our own experiences, and from
instrumental meteorological records, that climate can vary from decade
to decade. For example the 1960's were a period of relatively cold
temperatures in the North American Arctic. Finally, we can observe that
a year of warm or cold temperatures in the Alaskan Arctic may
correspond to a period of average or even warmer temperatures in some
other regions. The inherent variability that we can observe in the
climate system raises two important questions. First, what are the
causes of such inherent variability in climate and how might they
influence future climatic conditions in the Arctic? Second, if the
Arctic climate is prone to significant natural variability from year to
year or decade to decade how can we determine if there is a pattern of
Arctic warming that can be attributed to increases in greenhouse
gasses?
In order to detect the influence of increased greenhouse gasses on
climate today and in the future we require very long records of
temperature so that we can perceive general trends of warming despite
the natural variability in climate. Long records of climate also allow
us to determine if the rates and magnitudes of current or future
warming exceed the natural variability that existed prior to the
increase in greenhouse gasses. Unfortunately, there are few weather
stations in the Arctic that have been in existence for more than fifty
years and a relative handful that have existed for even 100 years. The
geographic network of weather stations in the arctic is sparse and the
records that are available are relatively short. Thus, we cannot
determine from weather stations records the full range of natural
variability in Arctic climate or assess if the climate has become
unnaturally warmer due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses
in the atmosphere.
Given the short duration and geographically sparse nature of
weather stations in the Arctic, how can we reliably detect if the
region is warming? A number of paleoclimatic techniques can provide
detailed records of past Arctic temperatures that extend back hundreds
to thousands of years. Sources of such records include tree-rings,
fossils and geochemical evidence from lake, ocean and peatland
sediments, and evidence from cores of glacial ice from places such as
Greenland. The paleontological and geochemical techniques used to
analyze these records and obtain estimates of past climatic conditions
have been carefully developed over decades, continuously cross-checked,
and then verified against reliable meteorological records. I take
pleasure in saying that scientists from Alaska and throughout the
United States have been at the forefront of this work. The paleoclimate
records we have obtained allow us to place recent climate changes into
the context of natural variations in climate that have occurred for
hundreds to thousands of years.
There now exists a number of individual studies and syntheses of
Arctic paleoclimate research that bear directly upon the questions of
natural variability in Arctic climate and the detection of present and
future warming due to increased greenhouse gasses. My own paleoclimatic
work has focused upon analysis of tree-rings and the analysis of
fossils and geochemical evidence from lake and peatland sediments. Our
sampling network extends from western and central Canada to northern
Eurasia where we have sites from the Finnish-Russian border to far
eastern Siberia. I have also been involved in syntheses that
incorporate data from other researchers working across the Arctic, and
include sites from Alaska. I will review the findings from my own work
and relevant work of others below.
NATURAL VARIABILITY IN CLIMATE AND EVIDENCE OF RECENT ARCTIC WARMING
From my own work in Canada and Russia we have developed a
circumpolar geographic network of climatic records that extend back in
time from 200 years in some cases to over 13,000 years in other cases.
Many of these records provide information on past summer temperatures.
Summer temperatures are particularly crucial for plant and animal life
in the Arctic, permafrost development and the state of organic soils.
Here I will concentrate on the evidence from our tree-ring studies.
Our analyses of tree-ring records, some of which extend back
approximately 1,000 years, shows that the Arctic climate of the past
few centuries has been typified by a high range of natural variability
in summer temperatures on annual, decadal and centennial bases. In many
cases, annual variability is relatively localized. A cold summer in
Alaska does not always correspond to a cold summer in northeastern
Canada or Northern Finland for example. In addition, the tree-ring
records show that decadal variability in temperatures has been a
persistent feature of the Arctic climate. The tree-ring records, and
evidence from analysis of lake and peatland sediments, also show that
there have been long-term fluctuations in Arctic climate. Some of these
periods of warmer or cooler conditions persisted for several decades,
some for several centuries. Some of these long-term fluctuations are
apparent for much of the Arctic, others are apparent only in some
regions and not in others. In some cases the onset of long-term changes
in climate have been very rapid, occurring over a period of years to
decades. These long-term variations in temperature have had a
significant impact on the Arctic environment. For example, most of the
North American and Eurasian Arctic experienced colder summer
temperatures during the period AD 1800 to about 1850 than the preceding
several centuries or during the subsequent 20th Century. In general,
average summer temperatures during this period were 1 deg. to 2 deg. C
cooler than the long term average over the past 500 years. This long,
multi-decadal, period of cooling resulted in increased mortality and
decreased regeneration of treeline spruce and larch populations at high
latitude and high elevations sites in both North America and Eurasia.
Determining the cause of such long-term fluctuations in climate
requires further evidence of their timing and geographic occurrence.
The tree-ring records provide clear evidence of the natural
variability of Arctic climate at a number of time scales. What do they
tell us about warming during the period of dramatic increases in
atmospheric greenhouse gasses in the 20th Century? Our tree-ring
records, from sites located in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories,
northern Russian and northern Siberia, all indicate that the 20th
Century has experienced the highest sustained high summer temperatures
and/or the longest period of sustained high summer temperatures for the
last 200 to 1,000 years (some sites have records that only extend back
200 years while others extend back about 1,000 years). In general, the
average summer temperature of the 20th Century has been 0.5 deg. C to
1.5 deg. C higher than the long-term mean temperatures recorded by our
Arctic tree-ring records. More significantly perhaps, we often find
that the high summer temperatures measured at many Arctic weather
stations for the 1980's and 1990's are unprecedented. In summary, our
tree-ring records indicate that the 20th Century, and particularly the
last two decades of the 20th Century, have experienced summer
temperatures that are anomalously warm. Our records also show that the
warming over the 20th Century has resulted in increased tree
regeneration at treeline sites.
How do the results and conclusions reached by my research group
compare with other independent studies? There are now a number of
synthetic studies that combine tree-ring data, and in many cases data
from lake sediments, marine sediments and glacial ice cores, in order
to produce long and robust records of Arctic temperature changes over
the past 400 to 1,000 years. These records are drawn from many regions
of the Arctic, including Alaska, and furnished by many independent
scientists from the United States, Canada, Great Britain, the
Fennoscandian countries and Russia. These studies may use different
combinations of data and different analytic techniques, but they have
arrived at a common conclusion--large scale syntheses of Arctic
paleoclimatic data indicate that for the Arctic as a whole the 20th
Century was the warmest period in the past 400 to 1,000 years. The
various estimates provided by these studies suggest that during the
20th Century the Arctic has experienced average summer temperatures
that are about 0.5 deg. to 1.0 deg. C higher than the long term mean
for the past 400 to 1,000 years. Similar synthetic studies have been
produced for northern hemisphere temperatures and global temperatures
and produce roughly similar results.
Although the evidence of Arctic warming over the 20th Century is
pervasive and to my mind convincing, we must ask if this recent warming
can be attributed to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses? A
number of studies, using paleoclimatic data and coupling such data with
computer models of climate have tackled this question. Some of these
studies, including one I have been involved in, have focused on the
Arctic, others have been more global in extent. The consensus from such
studies appears to be that the high temperatures of the 20th Century
represent a combination of natural and human caused factors. Part of
the warming can be attributed to natural increases in solar radiation.
Part of the warming can be attributed to decreased volcanic activity
and subsequent decreased concentrations of volcanic aerosols in the
atmosphere. However, a significant proportion of the warming over the
20th Century (perhaps 20 percent to 40 percent) appears to be
attributable to human caused increases in greenhouse gasses. The impact
of these gasses on warming appears to have increased as the 20th
Century progressed and concentrations of such gasses has increased.
It is my conclusion that the evidence for greenhouse warming in the
Arctic is substantial and convincing. The questions that now arise are:
(1) how will natural short-term and long-term variability of climate
interact with this warming to affect the Arctic environment over the
next century, (2) will this warming exceed the natural maximum rates
and magnitudes of warming that are apparent in the geologic record
covering the last 150,000 years (the last time the earth was as warm as
today was about 125,000 years ago), and (3) how will the warming of the
Arctic in turn influence global climate in the future?
RESEARCH PRIORITIES ON ARCTIC PALEOCLIMATE
The research reported above, and most of the associated work done
by other U.S. scientists, has been supported by the NSF. In particular,
the Arctic Systems Science Program (ARCSS) of the Office of Polar
Programs and the multidisciplinary Earth System History Program (ESH)
have been crucial in promoting American research and scientific
leadership on issues of Arctic climate change and its impact on Alaska
and beyond. Despite relatively modest budgets these programs have led
to the generation of scientific information that has had profound
national and international impact. The Paleoenvironmental Arctic
Sciences Program (PARCS) that is sponsored jointly by ARCSS and ESH has
identified a set of research imperatives aimed at applying paleoclimate
research to answering some of the most significant and difficult to
address questions confronting us regarding global warming and the
Arctic. These questions revolve around the timing, rate, geographic
extent, impact and causes of past climate changes. The research
imperatives we have identified reflect the fact that future climatic
changes in Alaska and the Arctic will combine both natural variations
in climate with changes caused by humans such as increased
concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses. By understanding these
past changes and their causes we can better anticipate and manage the
impact of future natural and human caused climate change in Alaska and
the Arctic in general.
Imperative 1.--We need to further document the temporal and
geographic patterns of multi-decadal to centennial fluctuations in the
Arctic climate. Such long term fluctuations can have a profound impact
on the physical, biological and human systems of the Arctic. Without
knowing their periodicity and geographic extent we cannot know their
causes or anticipate their future occurrence.
Imperative 2.--We need to determine how fast climatic changes can
occur in the Arctic. We also need to evaluate what natural climatic
forces cause rapid changes in Arctic climate so that we can anticipate
such `climatic surprises' and their impact on nature and people.
Imperative 3.--We need to evaluate how sensitive the biological and
physical environment of the Arctic has been to past long-term climatic
fluctuations and to rapid changes in past climate. By knowing this we
can anticipate and mitigate the impact of future climatic variations.
Imperative 4.--We need to understand how those elements of the
Arctic environment that are important to global climate, such as the
location of treeline, the rate and amount of carbon storage or methane
release for Arctic soils, and the extent of sea-ice, have responded to
past climatic change, particularly earlier warm episodes, and those
elements have influenced climatic change at a global scale.
The research imperatives listed above can all be addressed using
carefully analyzed networks of tree-rings, lake and peatland sediments,
marine cores and ice cores from Alaska and the rest of the Arctic. The
United States possesses unique expertise in Arctic paleoclimatic
research that has been developed over several generations. We have led
the way in collaborative research with other Arctic nations,
particularly Russia. However, we face significant challenges in our
attempts to meet these imperatives and maintain our leadership in
Arctic paleoclimatological research. The costs of logistics for work in
Alaska and the Arctic have increased, the costs of supporting graduate
students, post-doctoral students and research assistants have
increased, and as research techniques have become more refined the
costs of equipment and analyses have increased. The research funding
for Arctic paleoclimatology has not kept pace with these increases and
our level of research activity in Alaska and throughout the Arctic has
suffered. Our relative leadership in international paleoclimate
research in the Arctic has also suffered. As I hope I have
demonstrated, U.S. Arctic paleoclimatology researchers have developed
sophisticated techniques and made crucial contributions to detecting
and anticipating the impact of climate warming that could not be made
by any other scientific approach. They have identified crucial areas of
research that need to be undertaken to understand future climate change
and manage and conserve the resources of Alaska and the Arctic. I hope
that these important efforts can be maintained though increased support
to the NSF and to the ARCSS, ESH and PARCS programs in particular. I
thank you for your consideration.
STATEMENT OF DR. DOUGLAS G. MARTINSON, LAMONT-DOHERTY
EARTH OBSERVATORY OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY,
PALISADES, NY
Chairman Stevens. Dr. Martinson.
Dr. Martinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me
this opportunity to speak to you about this very important and
often overlooked topic.
What I'd like to do is describe characteristics of the
Arctic that make it so important in--actually, in global
climate. You've heard a lot of the change that's going on in
the Arctic and we know it's important but I'd like to put it in
to some of the broader context, though I think the comments by
Caleb, Mr. Pungowiyi, were probably the comments that put it in
the most relevant context.
Before I go into those details, I'd like to make a comment
that--this business about getting an observing system. We are
in desperate need of a climate-observing system, of which the
Arctic needs to be at the very heart of this observing system
for reasons I hope to explain in a moment. But we are desperate
for such an observing system. We need good solid records. This
is an entire game of detecting signal from noise, ultimately
finding subtleties in climate variations that might lead to
fingerprints that help us identify natural from anthropogenic
warming. This is certainly one of the goals of all these
studies. And there are a number of national and international
efforts underway to outline what are the issues we need to
study, what are the observations we need to make on a regular,
coherent, consistent basis and what sort of field programs do
we need to conduct in order to understand the processes to
represent them in the models better. And I would hope an
outcome of some of this would be a very strong U.S. leadership
in these efforts. We have an excellent polar program in the
United States here and we work well with the other countries
and these various international efforts are putting a lot of
effort to try to establish what needs to be done. Scientists
from around the world--and we're all speaking with one voice.
It's actually very rewarding to attend these meetings and hear
around the table, around the various Nations, ``Yes, this needs
to be done.'' It's not in that Nation's backyard but everyone
recognizes this as an important characteristic. And so anyway,
with that.
Let me talk a little bit about the Arctic and why is the
Arctic so important to studies of global climate. If I can have
that next.
Well, one obvious thing--you may be aware that the Arctic
sea ice cover has long been identified as a potential early
warning indicator of greenhouse warming. All right. And the
reason for that is three-fold. One reason is because the sea
ice is so highly visible and easy to observe from space and, as
a consequence, presumably--and this has been borne out, shown
to be true--we can monitor it from space and see how it varies
and use that as an indication of whether or not we have
warming.
But there's a couple of other reasons. This--next slide,
please. This highly visible ice cover, which is typically three
to four meters thick--or used to be--and is very extensive--an
area on the right panel, the winter sea ice coverage, that's an
area about the size of the United States, maybe just a tad
bigger--and in the summer it melts back to just over half that
size--that this highly visible sea ice cover is also very, very
sensitive to warming. One thing we have in the Arctic that is
quite different from the Antarctic--the Antarctic has the ice
gross and the case cycle is strongly modulated by its
interaction with the ocean. And the Arctic, because we have so
much fresh water entering from the Siberian side and the
various rivers that flow into this enclosed basin, the ocean
stratification is such so that the interaction with the ice is
minimal. And as a consequence one might presume that changes in
the ice cover are more or less a direct consequence of changes
in the atmospheric forcing, the air temperature, the winds--
winds play a tremendous in the ice distribution.
If I can have the next. But in addition to the fact that we
expect the sea ice to be sort of a sensitive indicator of
atmospheric warming, there's another reason why we point to the
Arctic for an early warning indicator and that's something we
call polar amplification. Now, you saw this earlier in the
morning's panel, the very strong amplification or projected
amplification of atmospheric temperatures in the polar regions
of the models. These models show over and over and over again a
tremendous amplification in the polar regions. However, it's
not just a model effect. This also shows up in the
observations. And, here, I've taken the global data set, put
together from Jones, et al., that shows the distribution of air
temperature, surface air temperature around the globe. And if
you separate out the air temperature south of 65 degrees North,
which is plotted in the blue line--so that represents sort of
the non-polar regions of the world. And you look at the change
in annual average air temperature around the world outside the
Arctic region and, then, you do the same thing with the
temperatures from 65 degrees North and higher--and that's the
red curve. And what you see is these two curves show more or
less the same pattern. But the polar region tends to exacerbate
anything that's going on elsewhere in the world. It's just done
stronger in the Arctic. So when we have warming up here, as you
can see in the last century, we have even more warming in the
Arctic. And when we have cooling, we have even more cooling in
the Arctic.
Now the interesting thing about this is that, as Dr.
MacDonald said, one of the things we're trying to do is an
issue of detecting signal from noise. We have a tremendous
amount of natural variability and we're trying to find a very
small signal of climate change emerge from that. And one of the
reasons for targeting the Arctic is with polar amplification
hopefully we'd start to see a warming signal emerge in the
Arctic regions before we see them elsewhere. That's another
reason why we've targeted the Arctic as an early warning
indicator. Of course, what I'm saying--nothing I'm saying leads
to distinguishing early warming in the Arctic as being
differentiated from natural from anthropogenic. And, in fact,
the results, the Overpeck, et al., results that Dr. MacDonald
showed up there, show that this polar amplification clearly
goes back in time during natural variability as well. So it's
not just an artifact of anthropogenic warming, though people
are certainly putting a lot of effort into determining ``Is
there a unique Arctic signature to anthropogenic warming that
doesn't show up in natural warming?'' And there had been some
tantalizing finds that that was the case but further studies
suggested that they weren't the most robust indicators of
diagnosing this problem.
So for those reasons there's been a certain amount of--a
lot of attention and excitement over changes in the Arctic by
the global climate community, not just the polar scientists,
though it's always encouraging to us that there's so much
change going on in the Arctic. It certainly makes it
interesting, though, of course, people's lives are disrupted.
``Interesting'' might not be the appropriate euphemism.
Now, with that polar amplification and sort of the role of
the Arctic, let me give a little background information, if you
don't mind, as to why we might even expect the Arctic to play a
role in global climate.
May I have the next. First of all, I'm going to grossly
oversimplify the Earth's climate system with just this visual
and the next one. And, essentially, what it shows is in the
Equatorial regions, as people that live up here in Alaska are
aware, at least as we go farther north, you have the incoming
solar radiation from the sun, the primary source of heating to
this Earth, certainly for our climate. That's just directed
dead on to the Equator, a very intense beam, just like taking a
flashlight and aiming it straight down at a table. You get a
very concentrated beam of solar radiation and it's very
effective at heating the planet down there. As you go farther
up on the spherical Earth those same incoming beams of solar
radiation get spread out. They're hitting the Earth at an
oblique angle and they get spread over broader area and, as a
consequence, the heating is less efficient. And, of course,
when you finally get to the polar latitudes, it's spread very
thin and, in the wintertime, of course there's no solar
radiation at all except at the fringe of the Arctic region.
Now, what the consequence of this is, as you all learned in
high school we get an excess amount of heat at the Equator and
a deficit of heat at the Poles. This leads to a very strong
temperature contrast between the Equator and the Pole and, in
the most simplistic--I apologize to my distinguished colleagues
here--in the most simplistic presentation of what climate is:
Climate is nothing more than the Earth's attempt at
distributing the excess of heat at the Equator to the heat-
starved polar regions. That's it. And the broader this great
(indiscernible) qualifiers at the mid-latitudes, of course,
play a role in this, too. The stronger the gradient the more
energetic the system can become and excess transfer of heat
from the Equator towards the Poles and the rotation of the
Earth, that's what drives the climate system and the
circulation and all the interesting varieties of climate that
we have. So for this reason one might expect that changes in
the polar regions which change the Equator to Pole temperature
gradient may, in fact, lead to changes in global climate.
Taking into account this oversimplification but people are
aware of the impact of that.
Now, if I can have the next one. Another thing. What about
the sea ice? What role does this sea ice play in this
regulation of the polar temperatures? Well, the sea ice plays a
very important and interesting role in the physics of the
system. One, as any of you know that have spent any time
walking outside on a bright sunny day in the snow, the sea ice
and the snow cover is highly reflective surface, very
reflective. Therefore, what little sunlight is getting in, a
huge fraction of it, 80 to 90 percent of it, is reflected back
into space because of this highly reflective surface. And, as a
consequence, the solar radiation is less effective in warming
the polar regions because of this albedo effect. That's the
reflectivity of the ice, known as the albedo. Twenty to 80
percent--I'm sorry--80 to 90 percent of it's reflected back but
the ice actually very often has cracks in between the flows, as
you can see in the photograph there which was from an Arctic
experiment we had called SHEBA. A couple of years ago we
occupied a site for a year up in the Central Arctic near the
North Pole. And these cracks, which are known as leads where
the open ocean appears--and the open ocean is a dark surface.
It is as effective in absorbing solar radiation as the ice is
in reflecting it. So wherever there's water suddenly about 80
percent of that incoming solar radiation is absorbed. So we get
tremendous amount of change in the ability to heat the surface
when there's water instead of ice. And you can imagine, because
of this extreme contrast in the reflectivity between those two
surfaces, if you displace a little bit of ice with water,
you'll have a tremendous difference in the amount of absorbed
solar radiation, therefore, the warming.
Another important aspect of the ice is it serves to
insulate the relatively warm ocean water from the frigidly cold
atmosphere. It's like having a well triple-glazed glass windows
to your house. The ocean water, of course, cannot be colder
than the freezing point which is a couple of degrees, minus two
degrees centigrade, say, on average. And the atmosphere can be
minus 30, minus 40, up there, degrees centigrade. And
effectively this ice prevents a direct contact of that warm
water from the atmosphere and, if you remove the ice, like
opening the windows to your house in the wintertime, the heat
would leave the water, go into the atmosphere, immediately warm
the atmosphere, and you're talking something like a 40 to 70
degree temperature warming. Because thermal capacity to water
is so much, it would overwhelm the atmosphere and it would
dominate the temperatures. And as long as we have that ice
there that's what permits the temperatures to be so frigid in
the Arctic. As far as the atmosphere is concerned, the Arctic
looks like an ice-covered continent, except for these small
amount of leads which maybe occupy a half to 1 percent of the
entire Arctic ice cover. So the distribution between ice and
water plays a tremendous role in the atmospheric temperature
over the Arctic and, of course, the circum-Arctic region
surrounded by this ice cover.
Can I have the next. Now, I'm not going to go through this
in detail because Professor Walsh already showed the composite
curves that go into this but, of course, you have seen that the
sea ice extent is undergoing fairly dramatic changes. I'd say
in the last two decades on average the NASA scientists have
shown that on the last two decades it's disappearing at a rate
of about 3 percent per decade relative to the 1970 values. And
Professor Walsh and his team have reconstructed or attempted to
reconstruct ice extent all the way back to the beginning of the
last century and you can see, as he said, that since the middle
of the last century this decrease in the ice cover seems to
have been taking place.
Next one, please. So, of course, we're dramatically
changing the balance between water and ice and that's one of
the reasons why we expect to see a polar amplification in this
region and enhanced warming, particularly in winter. In the
winter the only source of heat to the polar atmosphere is from
the ocean. In the summer it's the sunlight. In the winter it's
the ocean. And that insulating cover of the ice serves very
well to keep the heat in the ocean.
Now, in addition to a retreat of the ice cover, we also
have indications from a lot of good studies that have recently
been done that the ice is also being reduced in its thickness.
And their best estimates, which are a little tenuous, but the
best estimates show that it's being decreased on the average of
maybe 40 percent over the last several decades. So it's getting
thinner and it's getting less extensive. Some of the modeling
results, and as is pointed out--Dr. Untersteiner pointed out
that the models have a lot of problems, which is true and
that's why we're trying to understand the system better to
improve the models among other things--but one of the things is
the good modelers know how to take advantage of the model
strengths while circumventing their weaknesses. And when they
do that and do a comparison between some of the better model
results and the observations, it looks like the ice that is
disappearing is the thicker, multier (ph) ice. And the
interesting thing there is there's been a number of studies,
theoretical studies on energetics of the system and modeling
studies. And these both agree, these different approaches
agree, that there's an interesting phenomenon here in the
Arctic. And that is the system seems to be able to exist in one
of two stable States. One stable State is the current one where
we have a perennial year-round thick ice cover. The other
stable State is where the winter ice cover is gone and we
essentially only have ice in the summer. That's a seasonal sea
ice cover which is typical of the Antarctic region. And
according to these studies what happens is, because of the
energetics of the system, as you start to melt the perennial
ice cover and make it thinner and less extensive because of
these feedback mechanisms I just mentioned about the--you start
to absorb more heat in the ocean and that starts to warm up the
regional atmosphere which melts more ice, absorbs more heat,
melts more ice, et cetera--Well, because of that what happens
is, once the perennial ice starts to retreat, these studies
suggest that you'll hit a threshold and that will--retreat will
continue on much faster and the system will tend to transition
to the other State which, in this case, would be transition
from the perennial ice cover to a seasonal ice cover.
Obviously, the implications of that to the native people and
the wildlife is fairly severe but I don't want to just sit here
and do as it's often tempting to do and yell that the sky is
falling. But presumably, as Dr. Smith said, that, ``Yes,
accompanying climate change, as well as there being negative
effects, there is a very strong potential of having benefits.''
But in order to reap those benefits, we need to anticipate the
changes and, if we have to make infrastructure changes, put
those in place in order to take advantage of the beneficial
changes that accompany this change.
So--if I can have the next slide--in addition to the
changes in the sea ice cover, which are most obvious and
they're the easiest to document and observe, there have also
been a great number of other changes going on in the Arctic
Region. And these have been documented by a number of
scientists who have been studying Arctic change. There's a new
program called SEARCH, the search for Environmental.
Mr. Newton. Environmental Arctic Change.
Dr. Martinson [continuing]. Thank you. Yeah. It's called
``SEARCH.'' Anyway, this program has gotten a collection of
people together in an effort to identify the various changes
that have been documented so far, with this sort of poor
sporadic data set, and to work out what are the remaining
issues that we have to resolve in order to improve our
understanding of this system and where it might go in the
future. And these changes are very tantalizing. Some of them
are listed there on the right. The expansion of what we call
the ``Atlantic layer,'' warm salty water from the Atlantic, the
subtropical Atlantic, works its way up into the Norwegian Sea
and eventually works its way into the Arctic. And as it cools,
it sinks down and makes a layer that is below the surface layer
of the Arctic Ocean and that helps set the stratification of
the ocean and it's the stratification that allows it to form an
ice cover. Absolutely--the ice cover is absolutely intimately
coupled to the stratification of the ocean. You change the
stratification of the ocean and you change the ability of the
Arctic to support an ice cover. And we've seen that this
Atlantic layer has gotten warmer. It's gotten saltier. Loss of
cold halocline layer, I'm sorry I didn't decode that one. That
is a special insulating layer that lays above the Atlantic
layer and below the surface layer, that layer that's in direct
communication with the atmosphere. And that cold halocline
layer is a very effective insulator that keeps the warmth of
the Atlantic layer away from the sea ice that sits on the very
top of the ocean. That cold halocline layer, that insulating
layer, has disappeared in the 1990's in the vicinity of the
North Pole. And our estimates are that, with the loss of that
layer, we would expect the ocean to contribute a considerable
amount of ocean heat to the ice such that the ice growth will
be reduced by something like 80 percent in the wintertime. I'm
not saying the entire net thickness will change but the ice
that normally would grow in that region near the North Pole, 80
percent of that will not grow because of this ocean heat flux.
All right. And we also, of course, I've already mentioned the
decrease of the sea ice cover of 3 percent per decade. Another
interesting observation is that the snow cover in the circum-
Arctic, the continental region surrounding the Arctic--the snow
cover's also disappearing at a rate comparable to the sea ice.
It's going at about 4 percent per decade. That number's not as
well known because the snow is a little harder to interpret.
There's been a tremendous difference in the storm tracks. The
storms are now originating in different locations. They're
becoming more intense and they're more frequent. And the ocean
circulation is changing with the overlying atmosphere and it's
doing it in such a way that the fresh water input from the
rivers, particularly the Siberian rivers, is being rerouted to
different parts of the Arctic and this is having a very
important influence on the stratification of the ocean, again.
And as I said, that'll impact the sea ice and the circulation
of the system.
So the interesting thing about having an ensemble of
observations like this, even if they're a little tenuous
because we don't have the most solid long-term coherent data
base, is these observations add all sorts of texture to the
problem. It's like diagnosing an illness. It's one thing to say
you have a rash. It's another thing to say you have a rash,
your white blood cell count's through the roof, et cetera. The
same thing with this. When we get all these things, they
seriously constrain the hypotheses we can advance to explain
what's going on in the Arctic and how it's responding to this
global warming. And these things are invaluable in adding these
different insights. They give us all sorts of different--well,
they keep us honest because, if we understand it--well, we hope
we're honest anyway but we--if we understand the system
properly, we should be able to predict or at least anticipate
all of these changes with our interpretations that we put
forth.
If I can have the next one. Now, Dr. Untersteiner mentioned
the shutdown in the North Atlantic deep water. The North
Atlantic deep water originates where that big green X is. And,
essentially, what happens is water from the North Atlantic that
drifts up there and cools, as it cools, it becomes denser and
it sinks. And from there, it starts to follow that blue path.
It travels around the world and, when it sinks, it takes up
CO2. It takes up nutrients, all sorts of various
quantities. And it more or less stores those in the deep ocean
reservoir where that reservoir is not exposed to the atmosphere
for sometimes thousands of years. The water makes its way into
the Pacific where eventually it's up-welled to the surface and
it slowly makes its way back to that starting point following
the red arrows. Now, my fellow oceanographers are fairly loathe
to sometimes show this figure because it's felt that it grossly
oversimplifies a very complex system but it certainly conveys
the essence of the system. And one of the--well, as Dr. Broker
has called it the Achilles Heels of climate, is the thought
that, if we change the sea ice that's exported from the Arctic
into the North Atlantic, that sea ice, when it enters the North
Atlantic or the regions where North Atlantic deep water is
produced, it tends to melt. That freshens the surface and the
fresher the surface is the less likely it is to sink. And
there's the possibility that if we altar the Arctic climate
system that ice will change, the fresh water at the surface
will change and we have the possibility of shutting down what
this conveyor belt, which is called the thermal hyaline
circulation. Now, the implication there is that it's--warm
water's the Gulf Stream which you all know of or have heard of.
The Gulf Stream is subtropical waters that flow along the
eastern seaboard of the United States, break away and, then,
continues across the ocean up into the Norwegian Seas there and
it's relatively warm subtropical waters and it's been long
assumed that it's that heat from the subtropics that's what
keeps the United Kingdom and Northwestern Europe so anomalously
warm during the wintertimes. And if we shut down the North
Atlantic circulation, the North Atlantic deep water
circulation, we're not going to be pulling that warm water up
there. And as a consequence, there's the potential of abruptly
sending some of those regions into colder climates because you
won't be having this warm water bringing the heat up. That
theory, actually, is being called into question just recently
by a number of scientists that are saying actually the United
Kingdom and Northwestern Europe are not anomalously warm; in
fact, it's the Northeastern United States that are anomalously
cold. So they're saying that what keeps the United Kingdom and
Europe warm is the presence of ocean water. And whether it's a
couple of degrees warmer because it comes from the south, from
the subtropics, or whether it's just sort of resident
temperatures up there, it still contributes a lot of heat to
those regions and would not necessarily have a big impact. Of
course, this hypothesis stems from some of the paleoclimate
records Dr. MacDonald referred to. Those records, indeed, show
dramatic what we call abrupt warming events through time and
people have ultimately tracked it back and assumed or have
worked out that the cause of those abrupt warming events were
due to the shut down of the thermal hyaline circulation that
I've just referred to. And that's why this has often been
targeted as something that we're sort of nervous about.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So that, with that--if I can have the next one--getting on
to projections for the Arctic as you were interested in--and
Dr. Walsh covered this, I thought, very nicely. In fact, we're
more or less dependent upon the models. And the models have a
lot of flaws but the models also have a lot of strengths. There
you can see some of the model trends. This is actually from a
paper that Dr. Walsh was one of the coauthors on. And you can
see some of the observations and dots and certain trends that
Dr. Walsh and others have computed are straight lines on there,
like that straight blue line. And effectively what all of the
models show more or less across the board is that, if we
continue to have global warming, the ice will continue to melt.
And most of them, as I said, because of this polar
amplification, the ice will start to melt even at a faster
rate. And in order to, I would say, flesh that out with more
detail and better estimates, we need to be able to represent
the detailed processes, these feedbacks between the ocean and
the ice better. The clouds, they're a constant source of
trouble. And we need to understand the feedbacks. If you remove
ice, you expose the ocean and the water of the ocean to the
atmosphere and you can evaporate it up and make more clouds.
And the clouds, they come in and they serve as an umbrella;
they shade the surface and they make it cooler but, at the same
time, they absorb heat and they tend to radiate this heat
downward like a warm thermal blanket. And the polar regions,
which are rather unique, seem to have a different response to
the clouds than some of the other areas on the Earth. The
results of our SHEBA study a couple of years ago seem to
suggest at this early stage that the insulating blanket wins.
It seems to have more of an effect than the umbrella effect of
the clouds.
So, with that, I will close.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Mr. Newton.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Douglas G. Martinson
Mr. Chairman, Thank you for giving me this opportunity to present
my impressions on Climate Change in the Arctic at this hearing. My name
is Doug Martinson. I received a Ph.D. in 1981 from Columbia University
on paleoclimate (studying the Ice Age cycles, and considering the role
of the Arctic and Antarctic polar oceans in these cycles). I am an
Adjunct Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences
at Columbia University and a Senior Research Scientist at Columbia's
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. I am a physical oceanographer,
specializing in air-sea-ice interaction in high latitude oceans, and
the role of this interaction, as well as the role of the sea ice fields
in global climate. I do both modeling studies and fieldwork, and have
been to the Arctic and Antarctic polar oceans numerous times. I am a
member of a number of national and international committees dealing
with global climate change, and the role of Polar Regions in climate. I
am not a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) though I was
asked to be their representative for this hearing. I was chairman of
the National Academy of Sciences Panel on Climate Variability over
Decade to Century Time Scales, and have been a member of the NAS Global
Change Research Committee and am currently (since 1990) a member of the
NAS Climate Research Committee. I have just completed a 5-year term as
the on the Science Steering Group for the WCRP (World Climate Research
Programme, a program of the UN's WMO) CLIVAR project (Climate
Variability and Prediction), am a member of the Science Steering Group
for the WCRP ACSYS (Arctic Climate System) project and was a member of
the WCRP Task Force defining the new CLIC (Climate and Cryosphere)
project, among others. I have also served as chairman or member of a
number of advisory committees to NSF and NASA, as well as to the
American Meteorological Society. I teach a graduate level course on
statistical methods for data analysis (focusing on the mathematical
techniques, their proper use and interpretation) and have taught this
course since 1985 in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences
at Columbia University.
POLAR CLIMATE PRIMER
I intend to explicitly address each of the points articulated in
the invitation letter for the hearing, but would like to start by
presenting a few fundamental facts regarding the Arctic and its role in
the Earth's climate system to put some of my comments into a broader
(global) perspective.
Sea ice has covered the majority of the Arctic Ocean, year-round,
with a 9-foot thick blanket of ice as expansive as the United States,
for as long as civilization has been aware of it. In sunlight, this
vast area is blindingly radiant; a reflective surface remarkably
efficient in reflecting sunlight back into space, before its warming
rays can heat the region. Likewise, the presence of sea ice serves to
insulate the frigid atmosphere from the relatively warm ocean water
(which cannot be colder than the freezing point). This prevents the
ocean from warming the atmosphere to more moderate levels.
Sea ice is such an efficient insulator, that the exposed ocean
water in its absence would warm the overlying air by some 20 to 40
degrees in winter. Moreover, the exposed ocean is nearly as impressive
in its ability to absorb the warming sunlight as the ice is in
reflecting it. Consequently, the presence or absence of ice leads to
considerable differences in the temperature (and with that,
circulation) of the overlying atmosphere. This dramatic contrast makes
polar climate highly sensitive to changes in sea ice--even small
changes in the sea ice can result in large changes in the polar
climate. On a grander scale, these same characteristics that constrain
the polar temperatures help define the temperature contrast between the
tropics and the poles. Since climate is nothing more than the Earth's
attempt to eliminate this contrast, that is, redistribute excess heat
received in the tropics to the heat-starved Polar Regions, anything
that influences polar temperatures can influence global climate.
Though we have been aware of the potential sensitivity of the
climate system to changes in sea ice cover for many years, only since
the early 1970s have we finally been able to obtain regular
observations of the sea ice fields through constant monitoring via
satellites. Since then, we have observed a clear and steady decline in
the extent of the Arctic sea ice cover, showing it to be disappearing
at a rate of approximately 3 percent of the early 1970 coverage each
decade. There have also been a number of recent exceptional years, even
in light of the steady decline: in the 1990s we experienced the four
smallest summer ice extents ever observed. Furthermore, other, less
complete records of the sea ice suggest that the decline has been
continuous over this entire century. While the reduction in ice extent
is unequivocal, changes in thickness are also apparent. Recently,
during a year long experiment in the Arctic, the thickest ice floe we
could find to establish our SHEBA (Surface Heat Balance of the Arctic)
ice station on was only 60 percent of the mean thickness we expected to
find. Conditions in the upper ocean showed an excess of freshwater
consistent with the interpretation that the thin ice was a result of
excess melting the previous year. Likewise, we have recently documented
changes in other parts of the Arctic Ocean that are strongly suggestive
of additional ice thinning. Results from submarine surveys under the
ice suggest considerable thinning (of the order of 40 percent) in
recent decades.
The causes for these changes are still uncertain, though we have
some candidates, such as global warming that has been documented over
the majority of the last century. Relative to mean global temperatures,
temperatures in the Polar Regions show the same general trends, but are
amplified relative to the changes observed in lower latitudes.
Therefore, warming of a degree or two averaged around the globe is
equivalent to a warming of approximately twice that much in the polar
regions as seen in the figure. The changes in the sea ice do indeed
correspond to changes in polar temperature though whether this is a
cause or effect is unclear. Furthermore, changes in the polar upper
ocean observed in some regions strongly suggest that the winter ice
growth will be reduced by 70-80 percent in those regions, since the
changes serve to introduce considerable heat from the ocean to the ice,
preventing strong ice formation in winter. Because the observations of
change are so new, we have not yet had time to test, or formulate the
potential mechanisms and impacts associated with such changes (our
current research is focused on determining the spatial and temporal
characteristics of this upper ocean change). While we have an idea of
what might be driving the immediate changes observed, the bigger,
unanswered question at this time is whether the changes are part of a
long-term trend, or part of a cycle, in which case the trends can be
expected to reverse themselves in the future. At present there is
evidence that may support both viewpoints, in which case the most
likely future projection would involve a long term decline, tempered in
some years by an expanding phase of the cycle, and enhanced in other
years by coinciding with the retreating phase of the cycle.
ARCTIC CHANGE
In addition to the changes in the Arctic upper ocean, it is
interesting to note all of the other recently documented changes taking
place in the Arctic and surrounding regions. These include changes in
ocean characteristics that reflect differences in the nature of the
circulation and the nature of the ocean-ice interaction (i.e., an
insulating layer that separates the warm deep Atlantic water from the
frigid surface layer disappeared in the vicinity of the North Pole);
differences in sea ice and snow extent and thickness (i.e., the sea ice
coverage has been decreasing by nearly 3 percent/decade over the last
couple of decades, and has shown considerable thinning, by 40 percent
on average; the circumArctic snow fields appear to be decreasing at a
comparable, or slightly faster rate, nearly 4 percent/decade);
differences in surface air temperature and permafrost distribution show
dramatic trends in air temperature (most of which show warming, though
some isolated cooling regions are also apparent). The details of these
changes are still being evaluated, since our documentation of the
region over the last 50 years has been rather sporadic in both time and
space. Fortunately, serious international efforts to combine all
existing data working toward a coherent picture of the change has
afforded us significant new insights. These changes seem to be
accompanying changes in the nature of the overlying atmosphere that
appears to reflect a change in its fundamental mode of circulation. The
Arctic changes appear to track those in global climate (particularly
global warming), and the circulation changes are such that we expect
the river runoff from the Siberian rivers to be distributed differently
in the Arctic Ocean. This has major implications for the sea ice
distribution, since the freshwater from rivers plays an important role
in establishing ocean conditions favorable for sea ice formation.
Recent modeling work and observational analysis suggests that the river
water is now injected farther eastward in the Arctic relative to the
Siberian shelves, and this can explain much of the changes in sea ice
distribution, though we are not positive that this is the explanation.
ARCTIC CHANGE RESEARCH
In an effort to better document and understand the extent of the
changes, and deduce their implications and broader scale impacts a
major interagency (NSF/ONR/NOAA/NASA/DOE) study has recently been
initiated (championed by scientists at the University of Washington's
Polar Science Center, with contributors from Alaska's IARC and other
universities as well), called the Search for Environmental Arctic
Change (SEARCH). The program has focused, to date on articulating the
key outstanding questions that must be answered in order to most
efficiently advance our understanding of Arctic change, and in
identifying those issues that must be resolved in order to answer the
questions. Key findings are that we need more comprehensive and
systematic Arctic observations, focused modeling efforts, as well as a
number of specific process studies needed to help improve the manner in
which key polar processes are represented in the climate models. These
will complement the findings from the recently completed NSF/ONR SHEBA
field program, which provided the most comprehensive documentation of
the various processes involved in regulating the surface energy balance
of the Arctic. Results from this field program should greatly improve
our ability to represent the Arctic region in global climate models,
though even as thorough as this program was, the complexity of the
polar climate system demands further such studies, as each one will
incrementally advance our understanding and allow model improvements
and diagnosis that will ultimately allow us to make reasonable
projections of Arctic response to changes in the atmospheric forcing
(e.g., greenhouse warming or the injection of sulfate aerosols
associated with volcanic eruptions, which have been shown to lead to
significant warming events in the Arctic region).
Our analyses suggest that changes in sea ice just north of Alaska
covary with changes in the surface air temperature in the western
tropical Pacific Ocean, perhaps reflecting a connection between the El
Nino phenomenon and northern Alaska. In particular, anomalous air
temperatures in the western tropical Pacific appear to portend to some
extent the upcoming winter ice conditions north of Alaska in the
upcoming winter. We also find that southwestern Alaska covaries with
the sea ice concentration near the northeastern tip of Greenland, and
oppositely with the ice concentration in the Labrador Sea (of the
northwest Atlantic Ocean) as seen in the figure.
Because of the complexity of the climate problem, it requires
coordinated international efforts. In this respect, the WCRP has formed
a project that focuses international attention on the cryosphere (cold
regions) and climate. Part of our needs outlined in the initial CLIC
science plan suggest that a coherent observational network be
established to better document changes taking place in the highest
latitudes. Canada is contributing significantly to this effort with
their extensive network, though the network is threatened by recent
budget cuts to the Meteorological Services of Canada (MSC). This has
led to the closing of some stations, including some that have already
been shown to be critical to recent analyses of Arctic change. Further
cuts may lead to additional closings by the Canadians have requested
additional funds to keep the stations operating. At present, U.S.
contributions to the MSC have proven critical in helping to maintain
the observational network (continuing talks between MSC and U.S. NOAA
would probably prove useful in helping the Canadians optimize their
resources). The Canadians are also formulating a plan to contribute to
the international (WMP) Global Climate Observing System (GCOS), which
is designed to provide a global observing network that will address a
large fraction of our climate observational needs. The Canadians are
also in the process of switching over, like many countries, to
automated weather observing instruments, though this leads to problems
of data quality continuity, while helping open new frontiers to
observation.
OBSERVATIONAL NEEDS
At present, our best estimates of what mechanisms are responsible
for these changes, and how sensitive the mechanisms are to future
change, what their net influence is, and how a change in the earth's
climate may influence the ice cover and thus the climate itself, is
gauged through model studies. This reflects the fact that it is
extremely difficult to collect data in the hostile Polar Regions so we
are hindered in our ability to fully address these issues through
observations themselves (as is sometimes possible, and most desirable,
in other regions). Regardless, consistent observations over periods of
time long enough to document the climate variations of interest are
essential for initializing, diagnosing and improving the models.
Unfortunately, such observations, and their regular maintenance is
expensive and labor intensive, and existing subArctic observational
networks are in danger of being undermined because of budgetary and
sometimes safety issues. This is currently the problem faced by the
Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC) which maintains an extensive
subArctic observing network, though a number of stations, including
ones that have been shown to play an important role in recent
assessments of past circumArctic change, have been eliminated (some of
the network is being preserved by critical U.S. agency contributions;
and talks between MSC and U.S. NOAA have proven very helpful). The
models, while still crude in a number of respects, help us determine
which observations are most critically needed, and which processes
should be targeted for more detailed study. Even at their present level
though, models provide strong support to the notion that changes in the
Polar Regions may significantly influence global climate. For example,
a recent study using NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
global climate model suggests that reasonably sized changes in the ice
albedo, or other surface polar conditions have consequences that are
ultimately felt globally. Most dramatically, greenhouse warming
scenarios with that model given a doubling of the atmospheric
CO2 content, suggests that 38 percent of the greenhouse
warming that results from this doubling is due to the melting of sea
ice in the polar regions.
FUTURE PROJECTIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE ARCTIC (THE ``DEC-CEN''
PROBLEM)
Climate prediction is a difficult proposition, but climate research
and dedicated observational networks have led to tremendous advances
over the last couple of decades, most notably seen in the successful
prediction of the largest climate phenomenon existing (El Nino) and its
various regional impacts around the globe. Unfortunately, the fact that
the background climate state appears to be changing continuously
implies that we will have to keep studying even this well known
phenomenon in order to preserve our excellent predictive capabilities
that we have already achieved. Furthermore, we need to identify and
evaluate more climate patterns (undoubtedly of smaller significance in
the overall scheme of climate), in an attempt to eventually achieve
predictive capabilities for other regions of the Earth. While El Nino
does indeed drive considerable variability in the Antarctic, its
influence on the Arctic region is much less clear. The Arctic is
subjected to another large scale climate pattern whose state also has
considerable implications to regional climate in the North Atlantic and
surrounding environs; this pattern is known as the Arctic Oscillation
(AO), or alternatively, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). While we
can make some climate predictions for the Arctic according to the
diagnosed state of the AO (e.g., a high state is often accompanied by
an increase in the number and strength of Arctic storms; cyclones), we
are not clear what drives the state of the AO, though the state of the
sea ice fields is likely to play a role, and models suggest that the AO
tends towards a high state with global warming (though there is
considerable uncertainty in this).
For Arctic climate predictions on long time scales, we currently
rely on climate models; most of which seem to agree that continued
global warming (whether natural or anthropogenic) will lead to further
retreat of the Arctic winter sea ice cover. Numerical models as well as
theoretical studies suggest that the Arctic sea ice fields can exist in
only one of two stable configurations: (1) perennial sea ice cover, as
we currently have; or (2) seasonal sea ice cover with little to no
summer sea ice as is typical of the Antarctic polar oceans. These
studies also suggest that once the perennial ice fields start to thin
and the winter cover decreases (as is currently happening), eventually,
the sea ice field will reach an unstable state and make the transition
rather rapidly to the other stable state (i.e., the perennial ice pack
will begin to disappear at an accelerated rate and quickly transition
to a seasonal sea ice cover). Recent predictions, though highly
uncertain, suggest that the transition to seasonal sea ice state could
occur in as little as 50 years given the current melting rate. Much of
this acceleration reflects the fact that we appear to be melting away
the thickest ice first, so the surviving ice is thinner, and easier to
eliminate with a comparable amount of melting. Once the winter ice
cover is eliminated or significantly reduced, presumably the winter
conditions would be considerably moderated, as the winter air would now
be warmed by direct contact with the relatively warm ocean waters (this
positive feedback mechanism is part of what is known as the ice-albedo
feedback mechanism--it suggests that once ice begins to melt, the melt
itself will contribute to additional changes that will lead to more
warming, and thus more melting). The impact to polar wildlife and
native people relying on regular natural seasonal cycles of climate and
ice conditions presumably would also be considerable, as seasonal
cycles would be greatly altered.
While this is a worse case scenario, some of the future change, if
properly anticipated could prove beneficial. The anticipation of change
occurring over relatively long time scales, as we are dealing with in
the Arctic (and much of the rest of the globe) has associated with it
particular problems that are not apparent in the study of more rapid
and short time scale change (this is best summarized from one of our
recent National Academy Reports dealing with climate variability,
excerpted here from my contribution to the report).
Climate research on decade to century (``dec-cen'') time scales is
relatively new. We have only recently obtained sufficient high-
resolution paleoclimate records allowing examination of past change on
these long time scales, and acquired faster computers and improved
models allowing long simulations for studying such change. From this it
has become clear that the heretofore-implicit assumption of a
relatively stable mean climate state over dec-cen time scales since the
last deglaciation, about which considerable seasonal and interannual
variations occur, is no longer a viable tenet. The paleo records reveal
considerable variability occurring over all time scales, while model
and theoretical studies indicate modes of internal and coupled
variability driving variations over dec-cen time scales as well.
A significant fraction of these insights have only become apparent
in the last decade. Consequently we are on the steep end of the
learning curve with new results and dramatic insights arising at an
impressive rate. The fundamental scientific issues requiring our
primary attention are thus evolving rapidly. Flexibility and
adaptability to new directions and opportunities is thus imperative to
optimally advance our understanding of climate variability and change
on these time scales.
Furthermore, the paradigm developed to successfully study climate
change on seasonal to interannual time scales cannot be applied to the
study of dec-cen climate problems. That is, we have realized
considerable success studying short time-scale climate problems by
generating hypotheses and models that are quickly diagnosed and
improved based on analysis of the amply long historical records or
quickly realized future records. For dec-cen problems, the paleoclimate
records are still too sparse and the historical records too short.
Future records will require multiple decades before even a nominal
comparison to model predictions is possible. Compounding the problem,
the change in atmospheric composition as a consequence of anthropogenic
emissions represents a forcing whose future trends can only be
estimated with considerable uncertainty. As a result, progress requires
considerable dependence on improved and faster models, an expanded
paleoclimate data base, and imposed anthropogenic emission scenarios.
Heavy reliance on these methods and assumed forcing curves, without the
benefit of real-time observations for constant model validation and
improvement, implies a considerable effort toward model validation
through alternate means, improved understanding of the limits and
implications of proxy indicators constituting the paleoclimate records,
and detailed monitoring of emissions to help track actual rates. As for
future observations, we can only now begin collection of these data
that will ultimately aid future generations of scientists in their
understanding of dec-cen climate variability and change.
Thus it is fundamental that we have support to gather the necessary
observations, build, test and improve climate models including detailed
representation of the Polar Regions, and continue field programs to
improve our understanding of the processes underlying the interactions
and changes taking place.
I would welcome any questions that you might have.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE B. NEWTON, JR., CHAIR, U.S.
ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION
ACCOMPANIED BY DR. GARY BRASS
Mr. Newton. Thank you, Senator Stevens. I appreciate this
opportunity to discuss the needs for climate change research in
the Arctic.
As you know, the Arctic Research Commission was established
in 1984 by the Arctic Research and Policy Act. Under the Act we
have a number of responsibilities but our chief product is our
biennial Report on Goals and Objectives for Arctic Research. We
call it the Goals Report. I have included several copies of it
in my testimony.
One of the principal purposes of the Goals Report is to
provide guidance to the Federal agencies with research programs
in whole or in part in the Arctic.
I might insert at this point, Senator, as you prepare for
testimony--you probably are familiar with this--when you
prepare, you write in a vacuum and when you're late in the
agenda, many of your pearls have been put on the table. But I
think, if you hear them again, I think it will serve as added
emphasis for the importance that we collectively feel for this
particular problem.
It is appropriate I believe that I precede your agenda for
the afternoon for it is the Commission's responsibility to
recommend research, policies and priorities to both the
President and Congress and to oversee the coordination of the
Arctic research activities of the Federal agencies.
Climate change in the Arctic is already upon us. Warm and
salty Atlantic water has increased its penetration into the
Arctic Ocean. There is enough heat in this Atlantic water to
melt at this time all the ice in the Arctic Ocean. The surface
layer of colder fresher water which insulates the ice is being
eroded by this warming from below. Additionally, Arctic sea ice
is thinned by about 40 percent and the extent of the summer sea
ice has decreased by 5 to 10 percent over the last 30 years or
so. These changes will have major impacts on fisheries and
transportation through the Northern Sea Route and Northwest
Passage. Deep ocean convection in the Greenland Sea drives the
ocean's conveyor belt and draws warm, Gulf Stream water north
to maintain the reasonably comfortable climate of Scandinavia,
Great Britain and the rest of Northern Europe. Changes in the
Arctic may cause a slowing of this conveyor belt with major
climactic consequences and reduce the climate of Northern
Europe and Great Britain to somewhat akin to Northern Quebec
and Southern Nunavuk.
Fisheries have already changed in the Bering Sea. The
species of crab caught today are different from those caught in
abundance a decade or two ago. Herring are scarcer and salmon
are found in places where they had not been found before while
other salmon fisheries such as in Bristol Bay have suffered
serious declines. Marine mammals and sea birds have undergone
substantial change in recent years as well, a regime shift
occurring in the Bering Sea in the 1970's causing major changes
in fish populations. Recently, a new phenomena has occurred.
Sea ice is melting earlier in the Bering Sea changing the
composition of spring plankton bloom which is causing changes
in fish-feeding success.
Long-term observations in permafrost also show the
temperatures are increasing. The date of snow-melt in Barrow
now comes 40 days earlier than it did 30 years ago. Plants and
animals are shifting their distribution pattern, routes of
travel, nesting and birthing sites and other aspects of their
ecology and behavior. And changes in temperature are causing
changes in plant growth. This warming will have serious effects
on roads, forests, bridges, ports, buildings, pipelines and
airports. I note that Caleb mentioned the change in the
treeline in the Nome vicinity. A friend of Caleb's recently
shared with me that the treeline has grown from 6 miles east of
Nome to 40 miles west of Nome in his life time. That's probably
around 40 years, a significant change.
In 1947 a Navy evaluation board reviewed the 1931
expedition to the Arctic by the submarine Nautilus under the
direction of Sir Hubert Wilkens. The review states that.
Very little is known about the real Arctic and, in view of
its strategic military importance, it is necessary that basic
information and scientific data be collected upon which to
formulate future plans in all phases of global warfare.
True then and just as true today but its impact has
expanded for all aspects of the Arctic, including climate
change.
In the Commission's Goals Report we have made four
principal recommendations for research initiatives. These are
studies of the Arctic region and global change, studies of the
Bering Sea region, health of the Arctic residents and applied
research. Each of these recommendations address climate change
issues. Now let me discuss these recommended research programs
contained therein.
The Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, called
IARPC, has constructed a new program for the Study of
Environmental Arctic Change called SEARCH. SEARCH is an
interdisciplinary, interagency program for the study of rapid
environmental change ongoing in the Arctic. The Commission
recommends support of the SEARCH Program when it comes before
Congress in fiscal year 2003. Dr. Colwell, who is Chair of the
IARPC, and other agency heads in your afternoon panel will no
doubt have more to say about the SEARCH Program.
The SEARCH Program currently contains a section on rapid
change in the Bering Sea. The Commission recommends that this
section of the SEARCH Program be developed into a new
interagency program for an intensive study of the Bering Sea
with a comprehensive research approach aimed at continuous
improvements in our ability to predict the behavior of the
Bering Sea system and, thus, enable management of the ecosystem
through foresight and understanding.
The North Pacific Research Board will conduct an organizing
meeting in Anchorage tomorrow and Thursday of this month. The
Commission is a member of the NPRB and we expect that it will
play a vital role in the study of the Bering Sea.
The BERPAC Program is a collaborative U.S.-Russian program
for the study of the Bering Sea and its surroundings supported
through the Department of the Interior. The Commission strongly
recommends that the tempo of this program be increased to
annual cruises and that funds be appropriated to allow this
increase in program activity.
Climate change is also affecting the healths of Arctic
residents in subtle ways. We have recommended a third
interagency program in Arctic health. We recommend to the
Committee the section on Arctic health in the Goals Report. The
Commission also recommends support of the Alaska Traditional
Food Safety Program proposed by the State of Alaska as an
important first initiative in that area.
The Commission has supported two workshops on Arctic ports
done by Dr. Smith who spoke earlier. We are aware of the
proposals by the National Ocean Service of NOAA for a program
of improvements and upgrades in the maritime transport system.
Climate change will play a major role in changing maritime
transportation. We support this program with a special emphasis
on Alaskan ports and transportation facilities.
The Commission also has an interest in research into the
problems of the oil on ice-covered seas. Clearly it would be
better for us all if research into these questions were
conducted before a serious spill in the Arctic occurs rather
than after the fact and in the face of legal difficulties which
might arise. The Commission supports the proposal for the
Center for Advancing Marine Spill Response from NOAA-NOS as an
excellent venue for such studies.
The U.S. Navy is considering their response to climate
change in the Arctic as well. The Commission hopes that
opportunities to improve these capabilities will receive your
support, particularly through increased research by the High-
Latitude Program of the Office of Naval Research which, for
your information, has--the budget for which has declined 87
percent in the last decade.
Because of the unique nature of the Arctic, research
facility requirements are every bit as important as the
research itself. NSF has made great progress in recent years in
the support of Arctic research logistics. The Commission
supports their planning efforts for new facilities at Toolik
Lake and at Barrow.
The University of Alaska Institute for Marine Science and
the Woodshole Oceanographic Institution are engaged in design
studies for new research vessels capable of operating in high
latitudes and in the marginal sea ice zone. The Commission
supports these efforts of these two outstanding institutions to
design and build new marginal ice zone ships.
The SCICEX Program has ended and the Commission is
searching for new opportunities to gather data on climate
change in the Arctic Ocean. The Commission remains in contact
with the Navy Submarine Force to find creative ways to continue
the SCICEX Program in some form.
Autonomous Underwater Vehicles capable of taking over where
the SCICEX submarine cruises ended are not currently available.
A substantial design and development effort is called for which
the Commission supports and recommends to you as well.
For the long future, the Navy is considering the potential
needs for a replacement of submarine NR-1, the Nation's only
nuclear-powered research submarine. The SEARCH committee, in a
separate workshop, has indicated an overwhelming importance of
Arctic capability in the design of such a replacement. The
Commission supports these efforts.
I wish to leave you with some important points. I call them
my Arctic one-liners in that they describe what I believe is
the urgency of this problem. The Arctic drives the world's
weather engine. The Greenland Sea drive-wheel of the conveyor
belt is of critical importance. And it's the most poorly
understood area of the planet, that being the Arctic. And 9 out
of 10 people in this world live on continents that border the
Arctic Ocean. Additionally, 80 percent of this State of Alaska
is underlain in permafrost. The infrastructure impacts are
considerable should that permafrost erode. We talked earlier
about ice albedo and, certainly, as this ice pact disappears,
it sets up positive feedback for further and accelerated
dissipation of Arctic Sea ice on an annual long-term basis.
Climate change most likely is a combination of a long
natural cycle and man-induced change will affect each and
everyone of us in this room. In this century the world will see
great changes in the land and its freeze/thaw cycle and the
resulting impact on our infrastructure. There will be changes,
as well, in terrestrial vegetation and marine life and there
will be changes in our presence in the Arctic Seas, commercial
use of the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage as
short routes between markets, a quicker way to get a car made
in Japan to a market in Hamburg, Germany. And it's not just a
little change. That's a 40 percent difference in distance if
that route is viable for commercial interests. There will be
easier transportation of Arctic-based resources out of Alaska,
out of Russia, out of Europe. And concurrently another ocean
for our military to protect, a thought that has not really sunk
in yet in what the Navy is doing in their long-term planning.
PREPARED STATEMENT
To counter and properly exploit these changes we, as a
Nation, must be ready. We must correctly identify and
anticipate the magnitude of environmental changes. We can't
tell where we're going until the models tell us where we are
now and where we will go in the future. That means continued
support for basic and applied research, support for all means
of data collection, land, sea, air and space, and support for
the logistics necessary to perform that research properly. To
understand the Arctic we must go and work there.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of George B. Newton, Jr.
Thank you Senator Stevens for this opportunity to discuss Arctic
research needs with the Committee. As you know, the Arctic Research
Commission was established in 1984 by the Arctic Research and Policy
Act (ARPA). Under the ARPA we have a number of responsibilities but our
chief product is our biennial Report on Goals and Objectives for Arctic
Research (the Goals Report). I have included several copies with my
testimony and the Commission office can supply more if you need them.
One of the principal purposes of the Goals Report is to provide
guidance to the Federal Agencies with research programs in whole or in
part in the Arctic. These agencies make up the Interagency Arctic
Research Policy Committee (IARPC). IARPC uses the guidance in the Goals
Report to conduct the biennial revision of the National Arctic Research
Plan, a five year plan for Arctic research. This plan is submitted to
the President for approval and to the Congress as the nation's
established plan for research activities in the Arctic. In what follows
I will describe the major recommendations of the Goals Report and their
implementation in the National Arctic Research Plan.
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE ARCTIC
Climate change in the Arctic is already upon us. For example, in
the last decade scientists have observed substantial changes in the
Arctic Ocean. Oceanographic studies have shown that warm and salty
water from the Atlantic Ocean enters the Arctic Ocean through the Fram
Strait between Svalbard and Greenland. This water mass has increased in
volume and penetration into the Arctic Ocean and the temperature at its
core has increased by as much as 2 degrees Celsius. There is enough
heat in the Atlantic water to melt all of the ice in the Arctic Ocean
but it is trapped below a surface layer of colder fresher water above
the ``cold halocline.'' This cold halocline is being eroded by warming
from below and may, in fact, be gone for parts of the Arctic Ocean near
Svalbard.
At the same time, measurements made from US and British nuclear
submarines have shown that Arctic sea ice is thinning and that the
reduction has been about 40 percent over the last thirty years or so.
During the same time the extent of sea ice in the Arctic summer has
decrease by 5-10 percent. These changes in sea ice cover, if they
continue at their current pace, will have major impacts on the Arctic
Ocean. Transportation through the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest
Passage along the northern coasts of Russia and Canada may be
substantially increased. Fisheries may expand into regions no longer
covered by ice while marine mammals and sea birds dependent on the ice
edge environment may find their lives more difficult.
The world ocean circulation is fed from the Arctic. Deep convection
in the Greenland Sea north of Iceland produces cold, dense water which
sinks into the abyss to circulate around the globe in what has become
known as the ``Conveyor Belt.'' Changes in temperature and salinity of
Arctic waters are occurring which may have major effects on the
``Conveyor Belt.'' The deep convection in the Greenland Sea draws new,
warm, Gulf Stream water into the region which maintains the anomalously
warm climate of Scandinavia, Great Britain and the rest of Northern
Europe. A decrease in deep Arctic convection due to climate induced
freshening of surface seawater in the region would threaten the
economies of this important part of the developed world.
In a similar way, climate change is affecting the Bering Sea. Study
of climatological and oceanographic records indicate that a ``regime
shift'' occurred in the Bering Sea sometime in the 1970s. Major changes
in fish populations occurred during this regime shift including a
notable expansion of walleyed pollock populations along with declines
in some other fish stocks.
More recently, a new phenomenon has occurred in the Bering Sea.
Changes in the time when sea ice recedes in the Bering Sea change the
composition of the spring plankton bloom. Massive blooms of
coccolithophorid algae occur when sea ice leaves the Bering Sea early,
replacing the diatoms which prevail in more normal years. The small
animals which feed on these single celled plants do poorly when
attempting to feed on coccolithophorids and the pollock which eat these
small animals suffer as a consequence. As climate change continues we
may see further changes in Bering Sea ice cover.
Fisheries are changing in the Bering Sea. The species of crab which
constitute the majority of the catch today are different from those
caught in abundance a decade or two ago. Herring are scarcer and salmon
are found in abundance in places where they had not been found before
while other salmon fisheries such as in Bristol Bay have suffered
serious declines. Some marine mammals and sea birds have undergone
substantial changes in recent years. The relationships of these
phenomena to climate change are only poorly understood but they are so
important to the State and the Nation that they deserve intensive
study.
Similar changes are observed on land. Long term observations of the
temperature in wells drilled to study permafrost show that subsurface
temperatures are increasing. Native communities have remarked on
permafrost destabilization in their villages. Evidence has accumulated
showing a change in the date of snowmelt at Barrow which is now 40 days
earlier than it was 30 years ago. When the snow melts, the ability of
the ground surface to absorb solar radiation increases eight fold with
the consequence that the ground warms more as well as earlier. to As
climate change continues changes in permafrost distribution and
stability will affect much of the Arctic.
Plants and animals are shifting their distribution patterns, routes
of travel, nesting and birthing sites and other aspects of their
ecology and behavior in the Arctic. Satellite studies at the University
of Alaska have shown that the date of ``greenup,'' when the tundra
plants begin to grow in the spring, has profound effects on the success
of caribou calving and calf survival. Experiments at the University's
research site at Toolik Lake in the Brooks Range show that even minor
changes is thermal regime cause substantial changes in plant growth and
nutrient cycling.
In the Goals Report we have made four principal recommendations for
research initiatives. These are:
--Studies of the Arctic Region and Global Change,
--Studies of the Bering Sea Region,
--Health of Arctic Residents and
--Applied Research.
I will discuss briefly each of these recommendations and how we see
them carried out.
RECOMMENDED RESEARCH PROGRAMS
The Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) has
constructed a new program for the Study of Environmental Arctic Change
(SEARCH). The SEARCH Program is an interdisciplinary, interagency
program for the study of rapid environmental change which is already
occurring in the Arctic region. This program is composed of elements
from many Federal Agencies. Current activities are based upon current
(FY 2001) and planned (FY 2002) budgets and are aimed at a combined,
interagency budget proposal in fiscal year 2003. The purpose of the
program is to bring the powers of those agencies conducting research in
the Arctic to bear on the problems and promises of change in the
region. The Arctic Research Commission is charged with the
responsibility to work towards integration and the reduction of
redundancy and overlap in Federal Arctic research programs. For this
and many other reasons the Commission recommends the support of the
SEARCH program when it comes before the Congress in fiscal year 2003.
Dr. Colwell, Chair of IARPC, will, no doubt have more to say about
SEARCH in her testimony.
The SEARCH Program currently contains a section on rapid change in
the Bering Sea. The Commission has recommended in the Goals Report that
this section of the SEARCH Program be developed into a new program for
an intensive study of the Bering Sea to be organized on the same
interdisciplinary, interagency lines as the SEARCH Program. Because
changes in the Bering Sea include changes in exploitation, technology
and population which are independent of environmental change, this
program will be broader in research scope but narrower in regional
focus than SEARCH. The goals of this program are to develop an
integrated program which brings together all of the disciplinary
studies on individual aspects of the Bering Sea into a coordinated
whole which emphasizes the connections between such diverse studies as
the physical circulation of Bering Sea water masses and the changes in
the populations of such top predator species as the Steller Sea Lion.
In addition, the Commission recommends that this program focus on
continuous improvements in our predictive capacity through model
development and data assimilation programs. Every improvement in our
ability to predict the behavior of the Bering Sea system takes us
farther away from management by crisis and closer to management of the
ecosystem through foresight and understanding with the concomitant
reduction in stresses not only on the environment but also on the
people who take their livelihood from the Bering Sea. In many ways this
approach mimics the successful ``Nowcast/Forecast'' model followed by
the Oil Spill Research Institute and the Prince William Sound Research
Center--a project which the Commission has followed for some time and
which has had great success in the study of Prince William Sound.
In this regard we place high hopes on two other research programs
for the region: the North Pacific Research Board (NPRB) and BERPAC. The
NPRB is beginning to organize its research activities. It will, in
fact, conduct an organizing meeting in Anchorage on the 30th and 31st
of this month. The resources established for the NPRB place it in a
strong position to guide and focus the formation of the comprehensive
Bering Sea research program which the Commission has recommended. We
are hopeful that the NPRB can play this important role.
The second program which the Commission has recommended is the
BERPAC Program, a collaborative U.S.-Russian program for the study of
the Bering Sea and its surroundings. This study is supported through
the Department of the Interior and has conducted field studies in the
Bering Sea on a schedule of roughly one research cruise every three or
so years. The Commission strongly recommends that the tempo of this
program be increased to annual cruises and that funds be appropriated
to allow this increase in program activity. Occasional cruises make for
difficulties in planning for the home agency. Funds for these exercises
must be found in the face of the demands of ongoing, base programs. The
incorporation into the Department's budget of annual field and research
activities for the BERPAC program will assure that this vitally needed
information on the Russian side of the Bering Sea will continue to flow
into the U.S. research and management community.
Past BERPAC cruises have employed Russian research vessels and
have, as a consequence, been able to operate in the Russian Exclusive
Economic Zone without the bureaucratic difficulties which have made
expeditions on U.S. vessels rare and difficult. In addition,
participation by Russian scientists in the BERPAC Program has forged
ties between U.S. and Russian colleagues which, in turn, lead to
fruitful exchanges of data and information, especially about the
western part of the Bering Sea where there is little U.S. presence.
The Arctic Research Commission has recommended a third interagency
program on Arctic Health. While some of the concerns of this program
are affected by climate change, the program is largely devoted to
understanding current and potential causes of ill health in Arctic
populations and finding ways to prevent or ameliorate them. I recommend
to the Committee the section on Arctic Health in the Commission's
Report on Goals and Objectives.
One of the aspects of climate change which the Commission has
focussed on for some time is the effect of climate change on civil
infrastructure. Changes in climate will result in major effects on
roads, bridges, buildings, airports and other structures. The
degradation of permafrost in the extensive areas of discontinuous
permafrost and the increase in the thickness of the seasonally thawed
active layer in regions of deep, continuous permafrost will result in
destabilization of structures. In other regions, the final loss of
permafrost will simplify civil engineering practice and increase the
durability of structures. Similar benefits and problems will affect
basic infrastructure requirements for water, waste water and housing.
While these appear as practical problems, there is much that research
can do to assist Arctic residents. Research into climate change and
permafrost changes are part of the basic research activities already
mentioned but research into appropriate materials, building
technologies, coatings, corrosion and thousands of other applied topics
are similarly required.
Coastal erosion is another facet of climate change needing applied
research. Much has been spent on projects to moderate or prevent
coastal erosion but the research base necessary to understand such
climate change effects as sea level rises and changes in the frequency
and severity of storms along with the deterioration of coastal
permafrost which underlies and supports much of the Alaskan coast line
is clearly insufficient to meet Alaska's needs.
The Commission recognizes these research needs but finding the
appropriate Federal Agencies to take on these research tasks is
difficult and progress is piecemeal with small programs here and there
throughout the government. The foundation of the Denali Commission is a
giant step forward in addressing these questions. In addition, the
Commission has recommended and supported the conclusion of a new
arrangement for cooperation between the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research
and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) and the University of Alaska. CRREL
is a world class center of excellence in civil engineering in cold
climates. Their agreement with the University of Alaska assures the
U.S. Arctic of the resources and expertise necessary to deal with
infrastructure problems associated with climate change.
In a similar vein, the Commission has supported two workshops on
Arctic Ports as a result of our field studies of maritime facilities in
Alaska. Climate change may bring major changes to the activities of the
maritime transport system in the Alaska region. These workshops have
outlined the scope of the problem. The potential for climate change to
open the Northern Sea Route along Russia's northern coast and the
historic Northwest Passage in the Canadian North hold the potential for
major increases in maritime traffic through the Bering Sea. The
Commission is aware of proposals by the National Ocean Service of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA-NOS) for a
program of improvements and upgrades in the maritime transport system
and supports this program with a special emphasis on Alaska ports and
transportation facilities.
Climate change will also affect fisheries. While the Commission
hopes to address basic research questions in the region through the
SEARCH and Bering Sea Programs which we have already recommended, a
vast array of applied fishery research needs continue to be unmet. The
Commission recommends that Federal Agencies work aggressively to
address such problems which may result from climate change in the
Arctic region.
Climate change will play an important role in the development of
petroleum resources in the Arctic. Some effects such as earlier
snowmelt and later onset of winter will hinder exploration and
construction. Others such as an improved sea transportation season will
help. In the somewhat longer run, the Commission is aware that climate
change on the North Slope will change the requirements for restoration
of abandoned sites and that climate change may be as important an
influence on Arctic flora and fauna as petroleum exploitation
activities. Since much of the research in this area is conducted by the
petroleum producers, the academic research community needs to become
familiar with their activities and vice versa. Federal Agencies need to
make themselves aware of all of these results and to take climate
change into account in their regulatory and environmental impact
assessment processes.
At present there is little use of marine transportation for the
shipment of petroleum in the Arctic but changes in the sea ice cover of
the Arctic Ocean can be expected to increase interest in this
inexpensive and efficient means of transportation. The Commission has a
long history of interest in research into the problems of oil in ice
covered seas. Many important questions remain to be addressed. Clearly,
it would be better for all concerned if research into these questions
were conducted before a serious spill in Arctic waters occurs rather
than after the fact and in the face of the legal difficulties which
might arise. The Commission notes the proposal for the Center for
Advancing Marine Spill Response from NOAA-NOS. Such a center operating
in concert with other activities established as a result of the spill
in Prince William Sound could address these problems directly and
effectively. The Commission supports and recommends to you the
formation of this center.
The Arctic Research Commission in cooperation with the Navy/
National Ice Center, the Oceanographer of the Navy and the Office of
Naval Research recently sponsored a two day workshop on the roles and
missions of the Navy in an Arctic Ocean in which climate change had
caused serious regressions in ice cover including becoming ice-free in
the summer. This workshop, based on the estimates of the future for the
Arctic marine environment in a warming climate, concluded, among other
things, that a an expanded program of Arctic Measurement, Modeling and
Prediction (AMMP) would become essential for evaluation of Navy
operations in the Arctic Ocean. The workshop participants concluded
that the Arctic Ocean contains three significant features which require
an AMMP program: the Arctic is very poorly known or understood, our
observing network in the Arctic is virtually non-existent, and climate
change will probably have greater effects in the Arctic than in any
other potential operating area for the Navy. The Navy's response to
these conclusions will require some time to formulate and become part
of their planning. In the mean time, the Commission hopes that
opportunities to improve these capabilities will receive your support,
particularly through increased research by the High Latitude Research
Program at the Office of Naval Research which, for your information,
has declined by 87 percent over the last decade.
RESEARCH FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
The University of Alaska Institute for Marine Science and the Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution are engaged in design studies for new
research vessels capable of operating in high latitudes and in the ice
margin zone. While not icebreakers, these ships will be able to study
this biologically active region without fear of accident due to an
encounter with sea ice. These ships are being designed to be the most
advanced fisheries research vessels in the academic fleet. The marginal
ice zone is one of the most productive regions in the world and
facilities to work in that environment are crucial for our
understanding of climate change and its effects on fisheries. The
Commission supports the efforts of these two outstanding institutions
to design and build new, marginal ice zone ships.
From 1993 to 1999 the U.S. Navy carried civilian scientists on
dedicated science cruises aboard U.S. nuclear fast attack submarines.
This program, known as SCICEX (for Science Ice Exercises) brought a new
dimension to Arctic oceanography. SCICEX gave researchers the
opportunity to visit the Arctic in any season, to travel in straight
lines for many miles at relatively high speeds, to stop and survey
novel oceanographic features such as eddies and fronts and to gather
extensive geophysical survey data of a quality and quantity not
previously available in the Arctic. SCICEX data illuminated the changes
noted above in the position of the Atlantic water front. SCICEX
observations of the thickness of sea ice, when compared with earlier
submarine observations, demonstrated the surprising reduction in ice
pack thickness. In 2000 the L. MENDEL RIVERS, the last operational
submarine of the Arctic capable SSN 637 Class conducted a brief
``opportunity cruise'' during its trip from the Atlantic to the Pacific
Northwest where it was decommissioned and will soon be scrapped. This
ended the era of annual, dedicated science cruises in the Arctic,
cruises which conservatively doubled our data on environmental
conditions in the region.
The Arctic Research Commission was the primary agent for the
civilian research community in enabling the SCICEX Program in the early
nineties. We are now searching for new opportunities to gather data on
climate change in the Arctic Ocean. While the end of the SSN 637 Class
has brought about a very severe reduction in the number of Arctic-
capable submarines, there are two members of the Los Angeles or SSN 688
Class which have equivalent design features necessary for safe Arctic
operations. The Commission remains in contact with the Navy submarine
force to find ways to continue the SCICEX program.
In a similar vein, the Commission has conducted discussions with
experts in the design of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs). While
these lack human presence and, as a result, lack the ability to exploit
the unexpected, they are excellent vehicles for the systematic survey
of water mass distributions, water properties, ice distributions and
geophysical studies of bathymetry, gravity, magnetics and sediment
structure. Unfortunately, AUVs capable of taking over where the SCICEX
submarine cruises ended are not currently available and a substantial
design and development effort is called for which the Commission
supports and recommends to you as well.
For the long future, the Navy is considering the construction of a
new dedicated research submarine known as NR-2 to replace the current
NR-1. Unlike NR-1 which has limited depth, range, speed and endurance,
it is expected that NR-2 will have improved capabilities in these
areas. The research community has indicated the overwhelming importance
of Arctic capability in the design of NR-2. When the opportunity arises
for the Appropriations Committee to consider support for NR-2 we will
be glad to expand on the importance of this ship for the study of the
Arctic Ocean and its role in global change.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me make it clear that global
change is already active in the Arctic and that its effects are
expected to be greatest in the far North. Nine out of ten people on
this Earth live on continents bordering the Arctic yet it remains the
most poorly understood region of the world. The U.S. Arctic Research
Commission through its Report on Goals and Objectives for Arctic
Research has recommended a comprehensive schedule of research aimed at
understanding and accommodating these changes. Thank you again for this
opportunity to appear before you.
Chairman Stevens. Well, thank you all very much. I'm glad
that you take the time to come make this record. I just sit
here and wish that my colleagues were here to hear you because
it's extremely important, the presentations that you all have
made.
Are there limiting factors now in our climate modeling? I'm
thinking about the generation of computers we're dealing with
or the sensitivity of the sensors we're dealing with. Do we
have the technological basis to precede now to another phase of
basic monitoring? Comments?
Mr. Newton. Additional data is always valuable and----
Chairman Stevens. I'm talking about the technology base to
provide it. Dr. Martinson.
Dr. Martinson. I do think we have the technology to start
to improve our data base. And as far as the modeling goes, you
are right. We have been limited for a long time by computer
power, all sorts of issues about where we acquire our
computers, et cetera. Those, I believe, have been resolved now.
And this is particularly important for representing the Arctic
region in global climate models because one of the things that
the Arctic demands is very, very high spacial resolution in the
models. We need finer resolution in the vertical and very small
resolution from one grid cell to the next. And to put it in
context, what dictates the resolution of a model is typically a
certain dynamic characteristics of the basin we're studying.
And these things all have great technical words, the Rosby
radius of deformation (ph). And when you look at these
characteristic scales, they dictate how small a grid cell has
to be in order to resolve the physics that we need to resolve.
And because of the stratification and the nature of the Arctic
Ocean, this radius is so small that it demands that we have as
many grid scales across the Arctic to resolve it properly as we
need to have across the Pacific Ocean to resolve it. So as far
as the models are concerned, we have to have as much power put
into the Arctic as the entire Pacific Ocean. And every time you
add a new grid cell or a higher resolution, you tremendously
add a lot of computing time to the models and that limits our
ability to make multiple runs or long, long runs. And we have
to make long simulations in order to evaluate these long-term
climate changes.
Chairman Stevens. Did you have something to say, Dr.
MacDonald?
Dr. MacDonald. I would just add, in terms of tools, one of
the key ways in which we can test these models in terms of
their general predictions of Earth climate systems and in terms
of their ability to get variability right is by comparing their
results to paleoclimatic records. You can run a simulation when
they had less CO2; you can run a simulation for a
climate 125,000 years ago when there was a lot of
CO2 and there's probably a little bit--less sea ice
than today. Our problem or our need in supplying the data that
they require--we're good with summer temperatures; we still
have spacial sparsity in our network of sites. We are pretty
poor with winter temperatures and we're still trying to develop
techniques in which we can reconstruct winter conditions or
reconstruct precipitation. The models are getting better at
precipitation. We need to catch up with them there. And,
finally, one key area--it's not an area I work in but--is
getting proxies for where the sea ice was in the past, how it's
changed in terms of past climate. We have a hard time
understanding where sea ice was 6,000 years ago, 125,000 years
ago. And that's a proxy record that really needs to be
developed.
Chairman Stevens. Dr. Brass.
Dr. Brass. Mr. Chairman, the Commission actually visited
the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Bolder last
summer. And the climate modelers at NCAR are concerned about
the limitations on their purchasing of supercomputers and
supercomputer power. The United States is no longer the leader
in producing super-duper high-speed, very high-speed computers
and ``Buy America'' requirements restrict NCAR in what they can
purchase. And they were quite concerned about that. I don't
know if it's changed since.
Chairman Stevens. Pardon me. It's Dr. Brass. I'm sorry.
Thank you. What about our computer here, Mr. Newton? Is it
sufficient for your needs?
Mr. Newton. It is being 100 percent utilized now, as I
understand it. And it certainly is an outstanding--I can't
speak to the sufficiency of the needs but I have not heard
people say that it is inadequate.
Chairman Stevens. Dr. Martinson, is there a limitation
because of the ``Buy America'' concept on your research?
Dr. Martinson. Well, indirectly. I myself am not running
these models on those machines but the community as a whole has
felt crushed by the, you know, our restrictions. They have to
run on the now slower machines and that issue has, apparently,
been resolved. And I understand it's one for policymakers and
we, of course, defer to your good judgment on that. But, yes,
it does. We need very, very powerful computers to do these
simulations.
And if you don't mind, I'd like to add one other comment to
your earlier question about technological--are we there
technologically to get the observations we need? Well, I can
think of two instances where we are working on it but we're not
there. One is, yes, we can see the sea ice extent. That's
pretty easy to pick up. But we can't get the thickness. And
everything we know about the thickness has come, or a huge
fraction of what we know about the thickness, has come from
this submarine, this SCICEX Program, which has been invaluable
to our community. It's such a shame to see that go away. And
some upward-looking sonar devices that have been put around
here and there throughout the Arctic, we need to have some way
to come up with an ability to remotely sense the thickness.
It's a tough challenge. The other thing we need to get is an
ability to remotely sense the salinity, the surface salinity,
of the ocean waters which are essentially crucial to this
conveyor belt and the insulating layer and everything else and
salt is the fundamental property of interest in the high-
latitude oceans. Temperature is the fundamental property in the
low latitudes. But we can't get salt from these satellites very
well right now.
Chairman Stevens. And I don't want to prolong this but that
slide you had which was entitled ``A Great Ocean Conveyor
Belt,'' can you call that back up? That's it. Let me
congratulate you on your charts that you presented to us. Our
prominent oceanographer here at the University showed me once
that there was a northern pattern of--water from Prince William
Sound that goes up through the chain and goes up into the
Arctic. Is there a similar sink in the Pacific above the Bering
Straits that has any impact on the rest of the world?
Dr. Martinson. Gee, I hate to answer to the Senator from
Alaska no on that. But to the best of our knowledge the answer
is no and that has been--a long-term fundamental oceanographic
question is why on earth does all this deep water start in the
North Atlantic? What's so special about the North Atlantic as
opposed to the Pacific? And there have been studies that have
suggested, during glacial periods, maybe we did have deep
intermediate waters formed where you ask in the Alaskan regions
and stuff radiating out of the Pacific. But it has to do with
the primary atmospheric circulation patterns and what we think
is the Pacific Ocean receives an excess of fresh water so it's
just too fresh. And because of the Rocky Mountains. The
atmospheric circulation pattern is steered so that we have a
lot of evaporative cooling or evaporation out of the Atlantic
which makes it a lot saltier. So this water's evaporated out of
the Atlantic, deposited into the Pacific. And, as I mentioned
before, it's the salinity which really sets the ability of this
water to sink and form the deep waters and, right now, the
Pacific's just not up to the task.
Chairman Stevens. What I'm looking for is to see whether
there's any moderating currents here that might offset, in our
region--Dr. Royer (ph) was the one that did this--gave us a
presentation once in Washington. I wonder are there any
moderating factors at all that we know of in Eastern Russian
and Northern Alaska that might offset some of the trend we're
talking about?
Dr. Martinson. Well, I'm not actually not an expert on the
local currents here. Dr. Royer actually is so if he says there
is I would defer to that.
Chairman Stevens. No, he told me there are but I don't know
whether they're sufficient enough to moderate what you're
predicting--what the models show us as far as our region is
concerned. Dr. Brass.
Dr. Brass. Senator, there is a connection and that is the
water from the Pacific that comes up through the Bering Sea
goes through the Bering Straits and tends to run toward the
east along the north side of the Canadian Archipelago and to
filter down through there into the Labrador Sea. The Labrador
Sea is an important site for making deep water as well. I don't
think anybody yet knows what effects changes in the Pacific are
going to have on that because, unfortunately, there have been
very few measurements that flow through the Archipelago. As
part of the International Arctic Science Committee's
activities, called ASOF which is the Arctic/Subarctic Ocean
Flux Program, the Canadians are beginning to spin up a
measurement program up there in the Canadian Arctic to see how
that saltier Pacific water filters its way down to the Labrador
Sea and what effect it may have there. It has an interesting
signature because it's much higher in nutrients than the
Atlantic water.
Chairman Stevens. Do you know if there is a current across
the top? We've got an open Northwest Passage now, an open
passage across the top of Russia, I understood, the current
flow from Russia over to the Bering Sea. Do we know which
side--what's the flow of the current across the top of our
continent?
Mr. Newton. It tends to move from the west to the east.
Chairman Stevens. West to the east.
Mr. Newton. From Alaska, the Alaska coastline, along the
Canadian Archipelago but it has changed significantly. One of
the things that I am not capable of explaining the North
Atlantic oscillation and the Arctic oscillation, if you will,
which have changed the pattern flows of sea ice and currents in
the Arctic Ocean by its movement in the central Arctic Basin. A
traditional low pressure area that exists in that area has
moved dramatically in the last few years. These are all the
reasons that additional data collection is just so vital in the
area that is so poorly understood.
If I may, Senator, to give you an example of how the
paucity of information on the Arctic and the Arctic Ocean,
which is really the driving force behind this global climate
change as we view it. In the SCICEX Program in its 6 years of
existence, 211 days under sea ice about 57,000 miles, 92,000
kilometers under sea ice collecting data on the ocean itself
and ice thickness, we've essentially doubled the store of
Arctic information available to science. I mean, that's all we
did. We just doubled it and we did it for 6 years. When you
compare that to the information and knowledge that exists about
the temperate oceans where the access is easy and the costs of
logistics are so much lower, you get an idea of how absolutely
vital it is that we point resources in the direction of the
Arctic in order to study it better.
Chairman Stevens. We get too subjective. I know you
gentlemen deal with the Arctic as a global situation. We deal
with the Arctic as our Arctic.
Mr. Newton. A State situation.
Chairman Stevens. But I remember so well coming on the
Manhattan--I don't know if you all know that in 1969 a group of
us came around on an ice-breaker tanker, trying to get through
the Northwest Passage. Finally, it beat its way through but it
was very difficult and, as it went back, it was hit by an
iceberg and it broke through its double hull. We never use
tankers to take the oil from the northern part of Alaska
eastward because of that trip. But the impression I had of
grinding, that grinding, breaking of that ice, day after day
and, now, to know that it's open. It's been open now for 3
years. We need to know more about that. Where's that water
coming from? How long is it predicted to occur? Is that going
to sell? We've had applications, I understand, for cruise ships
to come across through the Northwest Passage next year. And
should we work with Canada to permit that? Currently, they're
barred. I don't know. There's lots of questions out there for
us from a policy point of view. Again, just provincial for us
in Alaska, but I do think they're important to us to try to
find out what can we learn about this and is it going to
continue. I assume, from what your projections are, you don't
project any reversal of the current warming trend in the
Arctic, right? So we should anticipate that the Northwest
Passage and the passage across to Russia--I think they call
that the Eastward Passage.
Mr. Newton. Northern Sea Route.
Chairman Stevens. Northern Sea Route? That will remain open
also. It has tremendous military impact, tremendous.
Mr. Newton. Significant and certainly the political
aspects, Senator, of dealing with foreign countries who claim
that those particular passages are their national space as
opposed to our interpretations of their being an archipelago
and, therefore, ships are eligible for the right of innocent
passage. There are tremendous concerns as the ice decreases on
what we can do and how we can do it.
Chairman Stevens. Again, I'm indebted to all of you for
coming and I apologize for the absence of my colleagues. We
will reconvene here at 2 o'clock for the--it is 2 o'clock,
isn't it?
Unidentified. two o'clock, right.
Chairman Stevens. two o'clock for the afternoon panel. And
I call your attention to the fact that we do have very
distinguished witnesses: Dr. Margaret Leinen of the U.S. Global
Climate Research Program, Mr. Dan Goldin, the Administrator of
NASA, Dr. Rita Colwell, the Director of the National Science
Foundation, Scott Gudes, the Acting Director of NOAA, and Dr.
Charles Groat, the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey.
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Unidentified. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Stevens. I want to thank you for your willingness
to come and meet here and to contribute to our knowledge
concerning climate change and its relationship to the Arctic
Region.
This afternoon our panel is primarily of people who are
involved in the Federal side of this operation. And I apologize
to Margaret Leinen. I've been mispronouncing your name. Another
senior moment, if you'll forgive me. We'll start with Margaret.
She's involved with the U.S. Global Climate Research Program.
Thank you very much.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
STATEMENT OF DR. MARGARET LEINEN, CHAIR, SUBCOMMITTEE
ON GLOBAL CHANGE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR
GEOSCIENCES
Dr. Leinen. Thank you, Senator Stevens. I am the Assistant
Director for Geosciences at the National Science Foundation but
I'm here in my capacity as Chair of the Subcommittee on Global
Change Research which oversees the U.S. Global Change Research
Program.
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before
the committee here in Alaska and to discuss this program. The
U.S. Global Change Research Program or USGCRP was established
by Congress through the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to
coordinate all of the national research effort on global
change.
Understanding global change is probably the most extensive
and most challenging scientific endeavor ever undertaken. And I
realize that's a provocative statement but, when you think
about the global scope, the complexity of the problems and the
systems and the impact that this can have on all of our
institutions, it's easy to see what a challenge it is.
USGCRP has assembled ten agencies involved in all aspects
of global change. We are the program that coordinates all of
the agency work that's done by Federal agencies in global
change. All of the agencies that are appearing with me today
are part of the U.S. Global Change Research Program and many of
the scientists that you've heard from today have been funded by
that program.
During the last decade the USGCRP agencies have had
significant accomplishments, some of which you've seen and some
of which are in the written testimony. Since we're meeting here
in Fairbanks, many of us have highlighted those discoveries
with relevance to Alaska and the Arctic. However significant
these accomplishments have been, I must tell you that our work
has really only begun. And you've seen that highlighted by the
scientists who have talked about the uncertainties and the
lengths between processes and impact that we need to develop.
We have observed much of it on climate change here and around
the world and have identified key factors that contribute to
climate change. But for far too many aspects we're still
uncertain of how the processes are related to the impacts. It's
essential that we continue this research in order to establish
a firm understanding of the important climate processes and the
impacts that they will have on this Nation and on the world.
In bringing the agencies together, the USGCRP provides
added value to the work of individual agencies. Let me explain.
The first way that the program adds value is by insuring that
studies can be put in the proper context of scale. Changes in
Alaska take place in a tapestry of changes that are taking
place around the world. There are often complex links between
processes taking place in different parts of the world and
understanding the links requires international collaboration as
well as U.S. science. USGCRP supports this international
collaboration and has developed a number of large scale
international programs that have led to significant
discoveries.
One important example comes from paleoclimate. Next slide.
In order to understand whether the changes that we see in one
region, like Alaska and that you saw described by Dr. MacDonald
this morning, are unusual or whether they're just part of the
fabric of natural climate variability, we look to the geologic
record. Scientists in a program called PAGES made paleoclimatic
reconstructions from geologic records extending back before
instruments were available to create a temperature record for
the entire Earth for the last 1,000 years. And you saw part of
that in Dr. MacDonald's talk. The upper panel here shows the
instrumental record from thermometers over the last--since
1860. The lower records shows that paleo-record developed for
the last 1,000 years and it allows us to see how unusual the
changes from the most recent century--on the far right hand
side of the lower diagram--are in comparison with the entire
last 1,000 years of temperature records. Assembling the data
from many regions into one coherent picture requires the input
of hundreds of scientists working collaboratively on records
from all over the world. Their work demonstrated that the
global average temperature increased by amount 1 degree
fahrenheit during the last 100 years. While this is a small
number, you can see from the diagram that it is a temperature
change that is unprecedented over the last 1,000 years.
While processes are often global, the principal impacts of
climate and global change are regional. Alaska's northern
location and dependence on natural resources make it
particularly vulnerable to climate change, as Dr. Martinson
pointed out. Over the past few decades many changes have
occurred in Alaska. Average temperatures are up by about 4
degrees fahrenheit since the 1950's. The growing season is 14
days longer than during the 1950's. The permafrost is as much
as 7 degrees fahrenheit warmer than during the last century.
Conversely, many of the trends in Alaska could have far-
reaching impacts on the globe as a whole. For example, warming
permafrost could release large quantities of carbon, either as
carbon dioxide or as methane, a more potent greenhouse gas.
Local and regional changes in land use and land cover here and
elsewhere and other human activities can also contribute to the
global climate. Examples are changes in the reflectivity of
Earth's surface due to land-cover change. Another is changes in
carbon dioxide uptake as a result of changing land use.
Thus, in the U.S. Global Change Research Program we
consider both down-scaling--that is looking at the global
changes and how they impact an individual region--as well as
up-scaling, looking at what's happening in regions and the
impact that it will have globally.
A second way that USGCRP provides value is by insuring
interdisciplinary approaches to problems. Few agencies have
staff or mandates that cut across the entire scope of global
change problems. USGCRP has assisted them in enlisting a superb
cadre of scientists in academic and research institutions, as
well as in Federal Government, with the competence to address
these global change problems.
An example of why this is important comes from the carbon
cycle. Next slide. While we put CO2 into the
atmosphere, the emissions--at the top of this slide--from
energy production, deforestation and other activities, plants
take it out of the atmosphere by photosynthesis. Another U.S.
Global Change Research program, the Global Change and
Terrestrial Ecosystem Program, determined that several factors
affect the amount of carbon taken up by plants on land,
including the regrowth of forests, fire suppression and other
management practices such as reduced tillage. Also the
beneficial effects of increased CO2 in the
atmosphere on plant growth and the deposition of nitrogen on
landscapes from some forms of pollution. The comparisons
between the emissions of CO2, measured by
atmospheric scientists--the top number--as well as the uptake
of CO2, the flux to land--the bottom number--which
comes from terrestrial biologists, and the uptake of
CO2 by the ocean, measured by oceanographers, all
show that the uncertainties in the uptake numbers are very
large compared to what we know is in the atmosphere. There's
growing evidence that there's a missing sink for carbon and all
evidence points to it being in the Northern Hemisphere and
being closely related to the biological cycling of carbon on
land. Understanding this sink will require a broad range of
disciplines and it's of tremendous policy significance for the
management of carbon in the atmosphere. And so identifying,
characterizing and predicting the fate of this Northern
Hemisphere carbon sink will be an important part of the
research of USGCRP in the next few years.
Another interdisciplinary example comes from water-cycle
studies. Next slide. The National Academy of Sciences has
stated that, quote, ``Water is at the heart of both the causes
and the effects of climate change.'' It is essential to
establish the rates and possible changes in precipitation--
shown here, the trends for the last 100 years in precipitation,
with green dots showing increasing precipitation, brown dots
showing decreasing precipitation. Better time-series
measurements are needed for water runoff, river flow and, most
importantly, the quantities of water involved in various human
uses. Studies of the water cycle and its relationship to
climate change, globally and regionally, will be an important
part of our work in the next decade. This is not just an issue
of physical flows of water and energy, water and clouds and
precipitation. There's also a strong biological component
because plants transfer large amounts of water from the land to
the atmosphere, so much so that they determine the climate in
many regions such as the tropical rain forests. So
understanding changes in precipitation and water availability
will require very large interdisciplinary research effort and
will rely on several techniques that are represented by the
agencies that are with me today. For example, NASA's
satellites, the National Science Foundation's long-term
ecological research stations and so forth. Third, the USGCRP
provides an effective mechanism for participating agencies to
engage in planning coordinated future activities. These
planning efforts involve input from the scientific community to
identify important and achievable objectives and interagency
working groups make sure that the individual efforts of
agencies, when integrated, will meet the agreed scientific
objectives.
USGCRP is nearly finished drafting a new long-term strategy
for the next decade. It is involved in close collaboration
between many scientists, both in academic institutions and in
the agencies. The over-arching goal for the second decade of
the program will be to improve our capacity to project global
change, to diagnose vulnerability and evaluate opportunities
for enhancing the resilience of Earth's systems and our human
systems and, finally, to provide useful knowledge for decision-
making by governments, communities and the private sector. The
program must address issues from basic natural science to
socio-economic impacts. Only through the entire scope of these
areas can we span these difficult issues.
In Alaska--next slide--you've seen trends in polar bear
activity, animal migration, growing seasons, et cetera, that
may be related to 20th century climate change. Such studies
reveal the vulnerability of ecosystems to global change. My
written testimony cites work done under the auspices of USGCRP
in publishing a national assessment which was published this
last fall called ``Climate Change Impacts on the United
States'' and your office has copies of this. It outlines the
potential impact of climate change on the Nation as a whole, on
several important socio-economic sectors like agriculture and,
also, on specific regions. In December 1999 we published an
assessment of the potential consequences of climate variability
and change for Alaska and many of the agencies here were
involved in sponsoring and making sure this assessment took
place. The national assessment identified several key issues of
concern in Alaska, thawing of permafrost, sea ice melting--
which you've heard about today--increased risk of fire and
insect damage to forest, the sensitivity of fisheries and
marine ecosystem, and the increased stress on subsistence
livelihoods. USGCRP will continue to provide the scientific
foundation for such assessments and will continue to coordinate
undertaking such assessments.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I hope that these comments show you the way that USGCRP
serves to coordinate the activities, the broad and successful
programs of research that are undertaken by the agencies
through ensuring appropriate scale, through ensuring
interdisciplinary approaches, through planning and through
ensuring that we can assess the impacts of climate change. The
sustained bipartisan support of Congress and of the
Administration have made this possible. It's also resulted in
investments which have developed a new generation of tools that
promise more rapid progress in the years ahead. We will all
benefit from the unprecedented amounts of high-quality data
about the Earth that will be developed by the program and the
more accurate and realistic models to project the changes
ahead. Most importantly we expect to learn much more about the
potential impacts of climate change and the way that we can
manage them.
Thank you for your time.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Margaret Leinen
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to discuss with you the U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP) and its potential to help us understand global change in polar
regions. The USGCRP is the U.S. interagency program charged by Congress
to coordinate the national research effort on global change. You will
hear next from the agency heads of the National Science Foundation
(NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA), the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), three of the ten agencies that have research
activities included under the rubric of the USGCRP. The USGCRP began as
a Presidential Initiative in 1989 and was formally established by the
Global Change Research Act of 1990. Every Administration and Congress
has strongly backed the program since its inception. I know the Members
of this Committee are strong supporters of this research program, which
is one of our nations's most important scientific efforts. I want to
thank you for your support on behalf of the scientific community. We
look forward to working with the Congress to carry on this bipartisan
tradition of support for sound science on global change.
I am submitting this testimony to outline some of the significant
accomplishments of USGCRP-supported research and to cite a few key
results of the U.S. National Assessment, particularly those related to
Alaska. My statement also includes a description of key aspects of the
Administration's fiscal year 2002 budget proposal for global change
research, the current structure and research activities of the USGCRP,
and new developments in planning the future of the USGCRP.
GLOBAL CHANGE AND THE CONTEXT FOR ALASKA
Global change is an extremely complex and challenging scientific
topic. Our research of the past decade has shown us that Earth's
climate system includes intricate links between the atmosphere, the
ocean, the biosphere and our human activity. Furthermore, it is clear
that large scale phenomena in one region, like the El Nino-Southern
Oscillation in the tropical Pacific, reverberate through this climate
system to create impacts in regions far from their origin, like Alaska.
To understand which of the many changes that we are now seeing here in
Alaska are related to global phenomena, which are related to natural
climate variability, and which are due to human activity, requires that
study of polar regions be done in a global context. Likewise, many
climate-related trends in Alaska may result in complex feedbacks that
have far reaching effects on the global climate. Thus, it is necessary
for us to consider both ``downscale'' processes, i.e., the global-scale
effects on regions, and ``upscale'' processes, i.e., regional-scale
effects on the global scale. The USGCRP is a powerful means of ensuring
that we can do both. Explaining how the Earth system functions, how it
is changing, and how it is likely to change under human interventions
in the future requires a coordinated research effort that cuts across
many different scientific disciplines.
During this hearing you will hear testimony from four agencies
related to their climate change studies. Much of that work has been
done as a part of the USGCRP. In other cases the work has been
interpreted in the context of global-scale studies. The USGCRP is the
``glue'' that allows us to coordinate across agencies to integrate
across disciplines and enhance understanding of the implications of
individual studies of climate change.
I would like to highlight some program accomplishments that
exemplify links between global changes and changes in Alaska.
Scientists working under the auspices of the USGCRP have:
--Observed and understood the growth in atmospheric concentrations of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) that deplete the stratospheric ozone
layer, and increased our understanding of how this layer in the
stratosphere protects living organisms from exposure to higher
levels of ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Ongoing research and
observations have shown that CFC emission controls implemented
under the Montreal Protocol treaty on depletion have begun to
decrease the concentration of several man-made of these ozone-
depleting gases in the atmosphere. Controls on the emission of
CFC's are especially important for high-latitude regions like
Alaska because they help prevent the destruction of the ozone
layer and exposing people to potentially harmful levels of UV
radiation.
--Determined from paleoclimatic reconstructions of pre-instrumental
temperatures that the 1990s appear to have been the warmest
decade (and 1998 the warmest year) in the past 1,000 years, and
confirmed that the observed 20th Century warming far exceeds
the natural variability of the past 1,000 years. Scientists
concluded that the observed increase in global average surface
temperature during the past century is consistent with a
significant contribution from human-induced forcing. You will
hear several examples of trends in Alaska that are consistent
with warming: thinning sea-ice, permafrost thawing, etc. But it
will only be through studying these trends in the context of
the global climate that we can understand whether they are
caused by human activity. Scientists understand that there may
be far-reaching consequences of warming in high northern
latitudes. The permafrost regions include large areas where
methane, an important greenhouse gas, is trapped by freezing.
Substantial thawing of the permafrost could release large
quantities of this methane, further aggravating greenhouse
effects. Thus, it is also necessary for us to ``upscale''
impacts from the polar region to their global effect.
--Documented during the past decade that regional air pollution can
be transported over long distances and affect atmospheric
composition on a global scale. Plumes of polluted air from
industrializing areas of Asia reach Alaska, mineral dust from
the Sahara Desert and smoke and ash from Mexican forest fires
have also been shown to reach the U.S. The particles in these
plumes, called aerosols, can have important health effects. But
they also have an important role in the climate system and can
result in changes in cloud cover and affect atmospheric
temperatures.
--Detected and attributed to 20th Century climate change, alterations
in ecosystems such as shifting of animal ranges and migration
patterns, increases in the length of the growing-season,
earlier plant flowering seasons, changes in tree growth and
reproduction, and die-off of tropical corals. In Alaska you
have seen trends in polar bear activity, animal migration, and
plant growing seasons that may also be directly related to 20th
Century climate change. Such studies reveal the unique and
serious vulnerability of ecosystems to global change.
--Successfully predicted the onset of the 1997-1998 El Nino and the
subsequent La Nina, as well as some of the resulting climate
anomalies around the world. Improvements in the accuracy and
lead times of predictions of seasonal climate fluctuations are
providing important information to support decisions for
resource planning and disaster mitigation. While the major
impacts of these systems is on tropical and mid-latitude
regions, other climate components, such as the Pacific Decadal
Oscillation in the Northern Pacific Ocean, may permit extended
climate outlooks for other regions as well. These global scale
oscillations are central to understanding variability of
climate and natural resources in Alaska--whether winters are
cold or warm and whether salmon are abundant here or in the
Pacific Northwest.
--Identified decreases in the extent and thickness of Arctic sea-ice
during the past several decades, and demonstrated that the
extent of such decreases may exceed what would be expected from
natural variability alone. These changes are important for
high-latitude marine life and those who draw sustenance from
these natural resources.
--Concluded that land use change (including recovery of forest
cleared for agriculture in the 20th Century) and land
management (such as fire suppression), and reduced tillage,
along with CO2 fertilization, nitrogen deposition,
and climate change, all appear to play important roles in the
North America terrestrial carbon sink.
These examples of the way that climate change in Alaska is related
to the planet as a whole hold true for virtually every large region of
the globe and demand strong interactions between regional studies and
global studies. Thus, although global in scope, the USGCRP nonetheless
relates many of its activities and accomplishments in terms of specific
regional issues.
Let me note one additional accomplishment. In response to the
requirements of the Global Change Research Act, the USGCRP helped to
produce the first national assessment, Climate Change Impacts on the
United States, recently submitted to Congress. The purpose of the
assessment was to synthesize, evaluate, and report on what is known
about the potential consequences of climate variability and change for
the nation. It includes a detailed examination of the possible impacts
of change on various geographic regions and socio-economic sectors.
The overall USGCRP assessment process consisted of three elements:
(1) the overview cited above, (2) sectoral evaluations for agriculture,
water, human health, coastal areas, and forests, and (3) a number of
regional reports. Most of the USGCRP participating agencies have
sponsored specific sectoral or regional activities. The Alaska report,
Preparing for a Changing Climate (1999), was one of the first regional
reports published. It was sponsored by DOI/USGS, NSF, NOAA, and by the
non-governmental the International Arctic Science Committee, and
outlined a number of critical issues facing the state. A few of the key
issues include: permafrost thawing and sea-ice melting, increased risk
of fire and insect damage to forests, sensitivity of fisheries and
marine ecosystems, and increased stresses on subsistence livelihoods. I
will return to them later in the testimony.
In later testimony you will hear about changes in the fisheries in
Alaska, especially the critical salmon fishery. You will hear about
these changes in the context of the complex relationship between fish
catches and climate changes. During the past decade we have begun to
understand that tropical and mid-latitude climate events, such as El
Nino, influence and modify the climate systems of the North, such as
the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and that these northern systems
directly affect the temperature, precipitation and runoff in Alaska.
Some believe they exert a strong control on fishery success.
Improvements in the accuracy and lead times of predictions of seasonal
climate fluctuations are providing important information to support
decisions for resource planning and disaster mitigation in many parts
of the U.S. They also allow us to develop a deeper understanding of the
way that Alaska's fishery resource is affected by far-reaching global
changes.
Over the next several years, in addition to supporting research
that will continue to improve our understanding of the Earth's
environment and how it is changing, we expect the USGCRP will continue
to promote efforts to advance our knowledge about the implications of
such change for society. We intend to do this through research that
focuses on the interactions of multiple stresses with resource patterns
and demands created by populations in particular places. In addition,
the program will continue to support activities that assess the
potential consequences of global change and conduct periodic
assessments as called for under the Global Change Research Act. By
developing the capability to tie the new knowledge gained through
research to the needs of people in communities, we are striving to
assist the country to adapt to change and avoid detrimental outcomes.
CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITIES AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS IN ALASKA
Alaska's northern location and dependence on natural resources make
it particularly vulnerable to climate change. The region could
experience some benefits from climate change, including more favorable
conditions for ocean shipping and offshore drilling operations (from
reduced sea-ice) and new commercial timber development (from expansion
of some forests). However, such potential benefits must be considered
in the context of 100-200 years of potential ecological upheaval during
the transition to a fundamentally different environment.
Over the past few decades, many changes have been observed in
Alaska:
--Average temperatures have increased statewide by about 4 degrees F
since the 1950s. The largest warming, of about 7 degrees F, has
occurred in the interior regions in winter, and summers in the
interior are becoming much warmer and drier
--The growing season has lengthened by more than 14 days since the
1950s
--Precipitation increased by 30 percent over much of the state
between 1968 and 1990
--Continuous permafrost has warmed as much as 7 degrees F during the
last century, and all permafrost measurement sites in Alaska
warmed between the mid-1980s and 1996
These changes have already produced impacts. In contrast to other
regions of the U.S., most of the most severe environmental stresses in
Alaska at present appear to be climate related. Global climate models
project continued rapid Arctic warming. Climate models used in the U.S.
National Assessment project that average annual temperatures in Alaska
could increase 5-18 degrees F by 2100. Because there are many
uncertainties in model estimates, we cannot make a firm prediction at
regional scales, although temperature increases in this range are
judged a possibility.
The National Assessment addressed and documented several key issues
of concern in Alaska. I have summarized some of their results but in
the interest of brevity, have omitted detailed citations.
Permafrost Thawing.--Extensive thawing of discontinuous permafrost
has already been accompanied by increased erosion, landslides, sinking
of the ground surface, disruption of forested areas and major impacts
on human infrastructure. Present costs of thaw-related damage to
infrastructure have been estimated at about $35 million per year.
Continued warming is expected to result in the thawing of the top 30
feet of discontinuous permafrost during the next 100 years, which would
result in much greater impacts than those currently being experienced.
For example, replacing the supports for the Trans-Alaska pipeline is
estimated to cost approximately $2 million per mile. Large-scale
thawing of ground ice can result in the transformation of landscape
through mudslides, subsidence of up to 16 feet, formation of flat-
bottom valleys, and formation of melt ponds that can grow for decades
to centuries.
Sea-ice Melting.--Evidence indicates that the extent and thickness
of Arctic sea-ice has been decreasing since the 1960s, and climate
models project that losses will continue. Some models project that
year-round ice will disappear completely by 2100. Recent modeling
calculations indicate that recent sea-ice trends are consistent with
the effects of present greenhouse warming and are highly unlikely to be
the result of natural climate variability. Retreat of sea-ice increases
coastal erosion and the risk of inundation, and also causes large-scale
changes in marine ecosystems, thus threatening the population of marine
mammals and polar bears. Aerial photography has revealed erosion of up
to 1,500 feet over the past few decades along some stretches of the
Alaskan coast, threatening villages in some locations.
Increased Risk of Fire and Insect Damage to Forests.--The recently
observed warming has increased forest productivity in coastal areas,
but reduced it in some interior areas where forests are more moisture-
limited. Warming has been accompanied by large increases in forest
disturbances, including blowdown, insects, and fire. Since 1992 a
sustained outbreak of spruce bark beetles has caused more than 2.3
million acres of tree mortality on the Kenai Peninsula, the largest
loss from a single outbreak documented in the history of North America.
There are no clear trends in forest fire frequency at this time. The
overall area of Alaska, Yukon and Northwest Territories of Canada have
show almost a doubling in the average annual burn area since 1960.
Additional research is needed.
Sensitivity of Fisheries and Marine Ecosystems.--The Gulf of Alaska
and the Bering Sea support the Nation's largest commercial fishery,
employing about 20,000 people and accounting for revenues of about $1.5
billion in 1995. There is increasing evidence that yearly and decadal
climate variability, likely having its origin in the tropics and mid-
latitudes, is a factor in the fluctuating productivity of these marine
ecosystems, along with ocean circulation and human harvesting
practices. Further research is needed to explain the relative effects
of the multiple stresses on fisheries. Rapid and extreme shifts in the
organization of these ecosystems occurred in 1924 and 1946. There is
some evidence for another shift in the mid-1990s, with large declines
in the Bristol Bay Sockeye salmon run accompanied by huge runs of Pink
salmon. Projected climate change could have a large effect on these
ecosystems.
Increased Stress on Subsistence Livelihoods.--Subsistence practices
are probably more important in Alaska than any other state. The
subsistence harvest by rural residents is about 43 million pounds of
food annually, or about 375 pounds per person. The significance of such
practices in Alaska goes beyond the provision of food. Subsistence
activities are also associated with harvests making important
contributions to health, culture, and identity. Climate changes in
Alaska are already causing serious harm to subsistence livelihoods.
Many local populations of marine mammals, fish, and seabirds have been
reduced or displaced. Reduced snow cover, shorter river ice seasons,
and permafrost thawing all obstruct travel and the harvest of wild
food. Continued warming is likely to lead to further ecosystem changes.
While continued increases in CO2 concentrations and
temperatures are likely to bring significant climate change to Alaska,
there are many remaining uncertainties about the actual rate and
magnitude of change that will occur, the regional effects of
temperature change on the hydrological cycle, and, perhaps most
importantly, about the adaptive capacity of species and the most likely
effects on ecosystems and human communities. The USGCRP is working with
its international research partners in the other countries with lands
in the Arctic region to conduct a major assessment of Arctic changes
over the next several years that should help reduce these
uncertainties. The monitoring and analysis of changes in Alaska will
continue to be an important priority for the USGCRP in the years ahead.
THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
The overall fiscal year 2002 USGCRP Budget Request is approximately
$1.64 billion about 4 percent less than last year's enacted level.
About $804 million of this total is devoted to scientific research,
which is basically level with last year's budget. Within the total
request, surface-based climate observations at NOAA are increased by
$13 million (about 100 percent), continuing the vital upgrade of these
capabilities that was begun last year. The space-based observation
component of the budget is reduced by about $89 million (about 10
percent), to a total of $819 million. This decrease is mainly a
consequence of decreases in NASA development costs as the first
generation Earth Observing System (EOS) satellites (e.g., Terra, Aqua
and Aura) are completed and launched.
Some important highlights of the budget proposal include:
--Improved Climate Observations.--The fiscal year 2002 budget
provides $26 million (an increase of $13 million) to enhance
NOAA surface-based observations. Measurements of atmospheric
trace gases, aerosols, ocean temperatures, and ocean currents
will also be expanded, and implementation of the Climate
Reference Network to provide, for the first time, simultaneous,
automated, and well-located measurements of changing
temperatures, precipitation and soil moisture across the U.S.,
will be continued.
--Carbon Cycle Science.--The fiscal year 2002 budget request
continues strong support for carbon cycle science, providing
$225 million (an increase of $9 million or 4 percent) to study
how carbon cycles between the atmosphere, the oceans, and land,
and the role of farms, forests, and other natural or managed
lands in capturing carbon. Key agencies include NOAA, USDA,
DOE, NASA, NSF, DOI/USGS, and the Smithsonian Institution.
--Research on Human Dimensions of Global Change.--The fiscal year
2002 budget provides $107 million to study the impacts of
global change, including stratospheric ozone depletion and
climate variability and change, on communities and human
health, an increase of $7 million, or 7 percent. Key agencies
include NIH, EPA, NSF, DOE, and NOAA.
organization of the u.s. global change research program
The agencies that participate in the USGCRP include the USDA, DOC/
NOAA, DOD, DOE, HHS/NIEHS, DOI/USGS, EPA, NASA, NSF, and the
Smithsonian Institution. Each year these agencies join to refine
research priorities for the program. In 1998, the National Research
Council (NRC) released its report, Global Environmental Change:
Research Pathways for the Next Decade (NRC, 1998), often referred to as
the ``Pathways'' report. This report, like many others about the USGCRP
issued by the NRC, was commissioned by the program and continues to
strongly influence the definition of the nearterm research challenges
for the program.
For fiscal year 2002, the USGCRP is currently addressing a series
of closely linked program elements that are directly responsive to the
scientific challenges described in the cited NRC report:
Understanding the Earth's Climate System.--The focus is on
documenting past and current causes and rates of change and improving
our understanding of the climate system as a whole, and thus improving
our ability to predict climate change and variability. In fiscal year
2002 $487 million is proposed for USGCRP climate research efforts.
Climate is a naturally varying and dynamic system with important
implications for the social and economic well being of our societies.
Understanding and predicting climate changes across multiple time
scales (ranging from seasonal to interannual, to decadal and longer)
offers valuable information for decision making in those sectors
sensitive to rainfall and temperature fluctuations, including
agriculture, water management, energy, transportation, and human
health. Improving our understanding, of climate change, and determining
how much of the observed changes in the climate are attributable to
human activities, and how much to natural variability, requires that we
improve our understanding of both natural variability and human
effects. Such improvement depends on a balance of observations, studies
of underlying Earth system processes (such as the El Nino-Southern
Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the Arctic
Oscillation), and predictive modeling.
Composition of the Atmosphere.--The focus is on improving our
understanding of the impacts of natural and human processes on the
chemical composition of the atmosphere at global and regional scales,
and determining the effect of such changes on air quality and human
health. In fiscal year 2002 $310 million is proposed for this research
area. Changes in the global atmosphere can have important implications
for life on Earth, including such factors as the exposure to
biologically damaging ultraviolet (UV) radiation, the abundance of
greenhouse gases and aerosols (which in turn affect climate), and
regional air pollution. Human activity that can affect atmospheric
composition includes the use of chlorofluorocarbons and other
halogenated hydrocarbons, fossil fuel combustion and the associated
release of air pollutants, and changes in agricultural and forestry
practices that affect the concentration of gases such as nitrous oxide
and methane, as well as that of smoke. As a result, this research is a
central component of our effort to understand global change.
Carbon Cycle Science.--The focus is on improving our understanding
of how carbon moves through the Earth's atmosphere, land, and water,
the sources and sinks of carbon on continental and regional scales, and
how such sinks may change or be enhanced. This area continues as a very
high priority for the USGCRP, with $225 million proposed in fiscal year
2002 for the comprehensive examination of the carbon cycle as an
integrated system, with an initial emphasis on North America.
Comparison of North America to other regions will also be important for
understanding the relative importance of this region in the global
context. Data from atmospheric and oceanographic sampling field
campaigns over the continent and adjacent ocean basins will be combined
with atmospheric transport models to develop more robust estimates of
the continental and subcontinental-scale magnitude and location of the
North American terrestrial carbon sink. Local-scale experiments
conducted in various regions will continue to improve our understanding
of the mechanisms involved in the operation of carbon sinks on land,
the quantities of carbon assimilated by ecosystems, and how quantities
might change or be enhanced in the future.
The Global Water Cycle.--The focus is on improving our
understanding of how water moves through the land, atmosphere, and
ocean, and how global change may increase or decrease regional water
availability. For fiscal year 2002 $312 million is proposed. The
cycling of water through the land, atmosphere, and ocean is intimately
tied to the Earth's climate through processes including latent heat
exchange and the radiative effects of water in its vapor, liquid, and
solid phases. The global water cycle is emerging as a top research
priority in part because changes appear to be occurring already. Long-
distance atmospheric transport of water, along with evaporation and
precipitation, are the principal inputs in hydrologic process and water
resource models. The primary goal of this research is a greater
understanding of the seasonal, annual, and interannual variations of
water and energy cycles at continental-to-global scales, and thus a
greater understanding of the interactions among the terrestrial,
atmospheric, and oceanic hydrosphere in the Earth's climate system.
Biology and Biogeochemistry of Ecosystems.--The focus is on
improving understanding of the relationship between a changing
biosphere and a changing climate and the impacts of global change on
managed and natural ecosystems. The budget includes $198 million in
fiscal year 2002 for ecosystem research. The biosphere consists of
diverse ecosystems that vary widely in complexity and productivity, in
the extent to which they are managed, and in their economic value to
society. Ecosystems directly provide food, timber, fish, forage, and
fiber, as well as other services such as water cycling, climate
regulation, recreational opportunities, and wildlife habitats.
Management of ecosystems and natural resources will be an important
aspect of society's response to global change. Better scientific
understanding of the effects of multiple stresses and the processes
that regulate ecosystems, will improve our capability to predict
ecosystem changes and evaluate the potential consequences of management
strategies for sustainability.
Human Dimensions of Global Change.--The focus is on explaining how
humans affect the Earth system and are affected by it, and on
investigating the potential response strategies for global change. The
budget includes $107 million in fiscal year 2002 for the study of the
human dimensions of global change. Scientific uncertainties about the
role of human socio-economic and institutional factors in global change
are as significant as uncertainties about the physical, chemical, and
biological aspects of the Earth system. Improving our scientific
understanding of how humans cause changes in the Earth system, and how
society and human health and well-being, in turn, are affected by the
interactions between natural and social processes, is an important
priority for the USGCRP.
A much more detailed description of accomplishments and plans in
each of these research areas will be included in the fiscal year 2002
edition of Our Changing Planet, the USGCRP annual report, which we plan
to deliver to Congress in the near future.
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR THE USGCRP
The USGCRP is drafting a new long-term research strategy that will
increase the program's focus on understanding the resilience of natural
and managed ecosystems as well as the vulnerability of these systems
and human society to global change. The planning process has been
informed by a series of NRC reports, including ``Pathways'', Our Common
Journey, A Transition Toward Sustainability, (NRC, 2000), Grand
Challenges in Environmental Sciences (NRC, 2000), and a number of other
focused NRC reports, scientific assessments and internal analyses.
A particular need identified in many of these documents is to
improve understanding of the potential consequences of global change,
especially at regional scales such as those experienced in Alaska. We
know that regional impacts will vary significantly, but do not yet have
the ability to project regional variations accurately. In addition,
local and regional changes in land use/land cover and in other human
activities can also combine to affect global climate. Examples are
changes in planetary albedo due to land cover change and changes in
carbon dioxide uptake as a result of changing land use. The importance
of regional research efforts is most recently highlighted in the
January 2001 NRC report, The Science of Regional and Global Change:
Putting Knowledge to Work. It states that a high-level focus is needed
to ensure that ``regionally focused environmental research and
assessments are developed to complement global-scale research and
transform its advances into usable information for decision making at
all spatial scales''. Thus ecosystem research, land-use/land-cover
change research, and regionally focused environmental research are
critical elements of our long-range planning.
Another critical need is to improve understanding of the cycling of
carbon, nitrogen and water through the Earth's atmosphere, vegetation,
soils, oceans and hydrological systems. The interactions of climate
change with the Earth's water cycle and carbon cycle are particularly
important. The Pathways report identified improved understanding of the
changing global biogeochemical cycles of carbon and nitrogen as a
research imperative. It noted that better understanding of carbon
sources and sinks was needed to ``understand the fractional impacts of
any industrial or agricultural input to that natural system''. The
Pathways report also stated that ``. . . water is at the heart of both
the causes and the effects of climate change. It is essential to
establish the rates and possible changes in precipitation,
evapotranspiration, and cloud water content (both liquid and ice).
Additionally, better time series measurements are needed for water
runoff, river flow, and most importantly, the quantities of water
involved in various human uses.''
The complex relationships between atmospheric composition and human
activity continue to remain high priorities for our future research, as
does study of climate variability and change--whether anthropogenic or
natural.
Improving our understanding of biogeochemical cycling and regional-
scale impacts requires more sophisticated multi-scale observing
systems, more powerful computing systems and more capable models, and
the design and implementation of regional-scale process studies and
large scale ecosystem manipulation experiments. All of these points are
strongly emphasized in the Pathways report, which found that modeling
and climate prediction were key crosscutting themes, and that improving
the USGCRP observations program is essential. The NRC has emphasized
the need for improved high-end climate modeling and long-term climate
observations in three focused reports sponsored by the USGCRP, Capacity
of U.S. Climate Modeling to Support Climate Change Assessment
Activities (1998), Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems (1999), and
Improving the effectiveness of U.S.
Climate Modeling (2001).
The technical needs identified in these reports include:
--Procurement of new supercomputers to be dedicated to climate
modeling and development of improved climate models;
--Upgrade of existing ground-based measurement networks for
temperature, precipitation, vegetation, soil moisture, snow
depth and snow cover, and river flow, and installation of new
more advanced measurement stations;
--Upgrade of atmospheric chemistry measurements, including improving
the quality of existing stations, adding new stations to
measure change in chemistry and fluxes of carbon dioxide
between the atmosphere and terrestrial ecosystems.
--Procurement of new satellite systems and maintenance of selected
existing systems (especially Landsat and some parts of NASA's
Earth Observing System) over the long-term, and ensuring
research quality measurements on the NPOESS satellite system
that is now being developed by NASA, DOD, and NOAA; and
--Increasing the number and quality of measurements of sea-surface
temperatures and currents.
We believe that the distributed interagency approach to global
change research is one of the USGCRP's greatest strengths. It brings
the entire research capability of the federal government to bear on
this enormously complicated problem. In addition, it effectively
leverages intellectual and financial resources from research efforts
taking place in federal agencies and in the academic community
supported by federal funding. It also brings a high level of scientific
oversight and review. Our current program has proven very effective at
coordinating among the USGCRP agencies, each of which has a distinct
mission and budget. However, our new strategic plan emphasizes tightly
integrated scientific research and explicitly links research on global
change with the information needs of resource managers, communities,
and the economy.
Our strategy for achieving this integration involves three
elements: scientific guidance, interagency coordination, and program
integration by the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (SGCR). The
U.S. science community brings essential expertise to the USGCRP
activities and we will develop a scientific steering mechanism for each
of the elements of our program, as well as for the overall integrated
program under the guidance of the SGCR. This mechanism will be used to
develop detailed science plans for each of the elements.
Once science plans have been developed and reviewed by the
community, interagency working groups of program officers must
translate them into implementation plans that can guide budget
priorities and the planning of specific research campaigns, joint
announcements of research opportunity, and other mechanisms for
integrated research. The interagency working groups will provide annual
program level evaluation of progress toward the scientific goals;
review will also be provided by the scientific steering groups.
The USGCRP planning process has identified a number of
opportunities where the USGCRP is poised to make significant progress
on these issues. I would like to highlight two areas in my testimony
today--climate modeling and climate observations.
CLIMATE MODELING
Modeling is among the most important components of the USGCRP.
Climate change research and analysis are particularly dependent on
modeling studies, which are an essential tool for synthesizing
observations, theory, and experimental results to investigate how the
climate system works and how it is affected by human activities. Model
experiments provide the only means for predicting near-term
oscillations in climate (such as the onset of El Nino or La Nina
conditions) and projecting the longer-term response of the climate to
increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. They are thus critical for
resource and community management and planning, scientific assessment
of climate change, and evaluation of the potential effects of policy
choices.
Given the importance of these activities, the USGCRP commissioned
the NRC to prepare two reports to provide guidance on how to further
develop U.S. modeling efforts, Capacity of U.S. Climate Modeling to
Support Climate Change Assessment Activities, and Improving the
Effectiveness of U.S. Climate Modeling. These reports provide valuable
guidance to improve U.S. climate modeling efforts.
The USGCRP sees its challenge as maintaining and strengthening
research that will help to establish a common modeling framework,
developing a strategy and implementation plan for enhancing high-end
modeling, and developing criteria for determining when the high-end
modeling effort has become primarily an operational activity and hence
no longer solely the province of the research program.
A number of significant steps have already been taken towards
meeting these challenges:
--The capability and capacity of computing facilities at several
major U.S. modeling centers have been upgraded or are scheduled
for upgrading. For example, facilities at DOE's Oak Ridge
National Laboratory have recently been upgraded, and the
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) is finalizing
plans to upgrade the Climate System Laboratory (CSL) computer.
--Common modeling frameworks are being developed to improve the
compatibility and portability of model codes, thus ensuring
that software advances can be more easily shared among centers
and laboratories. DOE and NASA have requested proposals to
further develop these common frameworks.
--Investigation of the suitability of distributed memory, high-end
computers for climate modeling are underway through the DOE
Scientific Discovery to Advance Computing (SciDAC).
--NASA, NOAA, DOE, and NSF are increasing their coordination of
modeling activities. A number of bilateral interagency
activities have shown substantial progress, and current
strategies to support their evolution to a unified modeling
framework are underway. For example, the NSF and DOE Avant
Garde Software Project is developing a software engineering
framework for the Community Climate System Model. In addition,
NCAR, NASA, and DOE are committed to a jointly held software
repository to support collaboration and possible of modeling
activities. This is targeted at building a model to support
applications from data assimilation to climate assessment, and
those provide a controlled experimental environment to bring
together information obtained across the complete range of
time-scales from weather to multi-decadal.
Additional near-term steps are underway to support the objective of
adding new capacity for high-end modeling in a fashion that permits
building on the many strengths of the current U.S. modeling program.
Steps include:
--Formation of a task force to develop specific recommendations on an
approach and schedule for developing high-end modeling
capacity. The recommendations of the task force will be
reviewed and acted upon by the SGCR and will be included in the
USGCRP Strategic Plan.
--Development of a multi-agency implementation plan that identifies
current agency efforts and needed functional augmentations to
assure that a focused systematic modeling capability is
developed to meet the stated goals. This requires integration
with observing systems activities.
--Development of a multi-agency response that addresses the human
resources and performance challenges outlined in the above
mentioned reports.
LONG-TERM CLIMATE OBSERVATIONS
The NRC report, Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems (1999), which
warned of degradation of U.S. capabilities, has had a significant
effect on the USGCRP. Briefly, over the past several years, many in the
national and international climate science community have pointed out
serious and growing problems in our existing observation system, and,
in particular, a need for additional attention to preserving and
enhancing surface based observational capabilities.
The fiscal year 2002 budget augments NOAA's budget by $13 million
to enhance the long-term surface-based observations that are needed for
climate change research. This includes funding for the U.S. Climate
Reference Network which will establish an in situ network to meet long-
term climate observing requirements. Automated stations in selected
sites will make very accurate measurements of precipitation,
temperature, and soil moisture. There is also fiscal year 2002 funding
for upgrade and expansion of the long-term measurements of atmospheric
trace gases and aerosols at the Alaska, Hawaii, Samoa, and Antarctica
observatories, and also for enhanced observations of the oceans.
Finally, we have included support for improving the availability and
distribution of these climate data and forecasts to the scientific
community and general public.
These new resources will be managed within the context of the
USGCRP, and they will help us build on the progress of the last year,
which has seen a series of important enhancements to our nation's
observational programs, both inside and outside the traditional USGCRP.
We are improving our ocean observing capabilities by deploying
additional buoys in the Atlantic and northern Pacific oceans and
modernizing the cooperative observer network that supplies temperature
and precipitation data that are useful for both climate and weather
research. Most significantly, we have seen the successful deployment of
a number of new NASA satellites, including LANDSAT-7, QuikSCAT,
ACRIMSAT, and EOS Terra, and look forward to EOS Aqua and Aura in the
future. It is no exaggeration to say that we have begun a new era in
Earth observations. These new satellites will provide unprecedented
amounts of high quality data on land cover, clouds, vegetation, surface
winds, solar irradiance, ocean temperatures, and other variables to
USGCRP-supported researchers and other users. These data are critical
to understanding how the Earth system is changing, and I am confident
that we will be able to look back in ten years and see that their
availability led to major scientific advances. The successful
development and deployment of these missions is a credit to NASA and
its international and interagency partners.
An important aspect of getting the most out of these improvements
in technology over the long term will be the development of a closer
relationship between the research and operational communities in both
space-based and surface-based observing programs and scientific
research programs. We are making progress in this area as well, with
deeper involvement by the USGCRP research community in the design and
development of the next generation of operational systems, such as the
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
(NPOESS).
CONCLUSION
This description shows that the USGCRP is continuing a broad and
successful program of research on global change that is improving our
understanding of how the Earth system is changing, and of the human
role in such change. It also demonstrates the clear need to develop new
capabilities to understand the regional contributions to global change,
to develop finer scale regional projections of change, and to link
researchers and potential users more closely in assessment of impacts
and adaptation options, so that the nation can prepare for change
before it occurs. As we look ahead to the next year, and the next
decade, we can expect to develop a much fuller understanding of the
processes of change. The sustained bipartisan support for global change
research has not only enabled steady scientific progress, but has also
resulted in the development of a new generation of tools that offer the
promise of more rapid progress in the years ahead. We will benefit from
unprecedented amounts of data about the Earth, and these data will be
of higher quality than ever before. We will develop more complex and
accurate models that permit more realistic simulation of the Earth
system. Most importantly, we can expect to learn much more about the
potential consequences of change for ecosystems and for human society.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention today. I would be happy
now to answer your questions.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much, Ms. Leinen. Our next
witness is the Administrator of NASA. I apologize to him
publicly. I introduced him as the Administrator of NOAA at
noon, but Scott's got a replacement there already. I do thank
you very much, Dr. Goldin, for coming and being part of this
process and I would like to have your testimony now. Thank you.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
STATEMENT OF DANIEL S. GOLDIN, ADMINISTRATOR
Dr. Goldin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting
me to testify along with my colleagues on this very crucial
subject of climate change.
The trip I made to your beautiful State last summer was a
real eye-opener for me. This is such a diverse land and most of
us who live in the lower 48 States have little understanding of
the true challenges faced by your constituents. After talking
with the people here and seeing first-hand the environmental
conditions they face where they live and work, it became clear
to me that Alaska is being under-served by America's space
program. And I'm here to tell you that NASA can and will do
better and, in fact, tomorrow we'll be going to a workshop in
Anchorage to bring together the scientific leadership of Alaska
with our NASA people to see how we could better utilize our
space resources.
What the agency brings to this scientific discussion is the
ability to put the climate changes we see in the larger
planetary context. Our view of Earth from space allows us to
study our planet as a dynamic system of land, oceans,
atmosphere, ice and life. This view from space allows us to see
that the Earth's climate is regulated by a giant thermostat
where the continual cycling of water and carbon interact to
maintain global temperatures. The polar regions play a
significant role in this thermostatic regulating mechanism.
That is why Earth, alone among its neighbors in our solar
system, supports such abundant and diverse life. This view
allows us to see climate changes, adjustments, the setting of
this global thermostat with a magnitude and consequences we are
just beginning to understand. I might point out Venus had a
runaway greenhouse effect because it didn't have the cleansing
of the carbon dioxide out of the air by the precipitation of
rain that scrubs carbon out. Our thermostat does that for us
here on Earth. So Venus is now 700 degrees. Mars doesn't have
the tectonic activity which recycles the carbon from the
carbonates that fall on the rocks and go into the oceans and
come back up the volcanoes and, as a result, Mars is cold and
dry with a very thin atmosphere. By studying relative
planetology, we better understand our own and are very
fortunate to have this thermostat I talked about.
It is fitting we hold this hearing in Alaska because its
immense area has a great variety of physical characteristics.
Nearly one-third of the State lies within the Arctic Circle.
The southern coast and the panhandle, at sea level, are fully
temperate regions but in the adjourning Canadian areas lies the
world's greatest expanse of glacial ice outside Greenland and
Antarctica. Changes in Alaska in the polar regions are the best
early indicators of global climate change. Alaskans are already
seeing some dramatic changes in the environment and the members
of the morning panel and the distinguished members on this
panel will be talking about those issues. While it is unclear
at present how much is due to human influences, it is clear
that both human and natural factors are at work and the impacts
are real. Damage to structures and infra-structure due to just
permafrost thaw today is costing Alaska $35 million. Other
changes are apparent as well. For example, we have been
developing models of sea ice processes that control and are
influenced by climate changes. This has been greatly
facilitated by all-weather instruments such as passive
microwave sensors and, more recently, active microwave sensors
such as scatterometers and synthetic aperture radar. These
instruments are providing important new insights to sea ice
processes. Recent accomplishments in this area have included
detection of a decrease in seasonal and perennial sea ice cover
dynamics, initial estimates of ice thickness and separation of
thin ice development. We are also using advanced lasers to
measure changes in glaciers and ice caps and ice sheets for a
comprehensive analysis of changes in the Arctic land ice. These
new observational capabilities enable studies of the sensitive
marginal ice zones in ways that were not previously possible.
I'd like to show you a brief video capturing examples of
some of these global and regional scale changes and how NASA
enables the world to observe them.
Let's begin far from the marble halls of our Nation's
capital, Washington D.C. Out of space we see the Earth in a
whole new light, a shining sphere of water, air and land. Let's
for moment suspend time and speak about NASA's vision.
Have you ever wondered why the Earth alone among its
neighboring planets harbors highly-diversified life forms? The
answer is that on planet Earth the water and carbon cycles work
together to form a giant thermostat that operates to keep
global temperatures in a livable range. A combination of
natural and human-induced factors is at work to adjust this
global thermostat but even slight adjustments can have sizeable
impacts.
Now, what does all this mean to Alaska and the rest of
North America? Here we see differences in the ice pack around
the Pole. Shifting like an ethereal breath, ice flows like ease
of bell-weathers of climate change. By keeping a close eye on
their condition, we maintain an early-warning system of our
planet's health.
Research into climate change is one of NASA's most
important charges. Ours is the task of providing policy-makers
with information to make sound decisions.
Here in Alaska you know that change can be both subtle and
profound. The churning blue surrounding the North Pole in these
images highlights a gap in atmospheric ozone. NASA experts on
the international research mission called SOLVE determined that
a particular type of cloud is responsible for disintegration of
ozone. Where these clouds form ozone levels drop. This is a
process of change in the North that we at NASA are working to
understand better.
But what of life? The physical sciences of purely
intellectual exercises cannot relate to our lives. We're
looking here at the heartbeat of the planet's life cycle, the
pulse of carbon as it gets absorbed and released by all living
things over the world as the seasons endlessly turn. Here we
see plumes of light bursting from rivers and jets of plankton
powering the processes of global oxygen production and
sustainable fisheries. These moving tapestries of life are akin
to a baseline medical checkup for life on Earth.
This work requires powerful engines. For an agency that
knows something about engines, it's important to say that we're
also on the cutting edge of another time. These are the engines
of the information age. Currently NASA is working on a
computational leap so profound that it vastly surpasses current
capacities.
Here's a glimpse of the future. This is a picture of the
Earth's climate at work as seen by the virtual brain of a
present-day supercomputer. The wispy white trails indicate
water vapor. Soil moisture appears as mottled greens and
browns. Models like these are the leading edge of the
revolution in Earth Science.
We once built and flew entirely independent satellites and
asked ourselves afterwards whether their data could be combined
somehow to answer Earth System questions. Today we are flying a
fleet of four complimentary Earth-observing satellites. We are
developing new ways to field constellations of complex, semi-
autonomous instruments capable of studying the Earth as a
system, exploring how its various parts interact to produce
weather. Future missions like global precipitation measurements
call for coordinated fleets of highly-reliable advanced
satellites designed to deliver near real-time information to
climate experts and water-resource managers. But the future
urges us to monitor other events, too, including ozone layer
changes, Earth's overall energy budget, trends in ocean forcing
(ph) and trends in ocean waters to see how our giant thermostat
is being adjusted.
From space the State of Alaska shines as the Nation's North
Star. Your history, your people and your insatiable thirst for
adventure inspire all of us at NASA to reach beyond the limits
of imagination.
Today we push back the boundaries of what we know so that
we may see beyond the frontiers of tomorrow.
Dr. Goldin. I hope this video has succeeded in conveying
the scope and magnitude of the challenge of global change
research. As you could see, NASA and its sibling agencies are
rising to that challenge. Key pieces of the climate research
endeavor are being conducted right here at the University of
Alaska in Fairbanks. These include the polar dimensions of the
global water cycle where much of the world's fresh water exists
as ice. This great University also hosts the Alaska SAR
Facility that collects vast amounts of data on how land surface
change influences the climate system.
I want to make three points to you this afternoon and leave
you with one key message about how we need to move forward.
The first point is that climate change research is a
marathon, not a sprint. We have learned enough to know that
human civilization is having an impact on the climate system,
but it is difficult to accurately and quantitatively
distinguish this from natural variability. It will take decades
to completely understand the climate system. In the meantime,
the Federal science agencies must provide timely, useful
information to decision-makers who cannot wait for final
answers to take action. We at NASA are committed to providing
the best scientific understanding in the fastest possible time
to support these decision-makers in government and industry.
Which brings me to the second key point: We need to
understand all the ways that human activities affect the global
environment and document the full range of forcing factors and
responses in the climate system. The science programs that
underlie policy discussions need to be comprehensive. We need
to be sure that, as a society, we do not get locked into one
single-point solution and have no place to go if it doesn't
work out politically or economically.
Third and finally, we need to make the investments in
research that will answer the key science questions and prepare
us for the future. We need to continue on the path the
Administration has endorsed for scientific observation of the
Earth and continue the technological innovation that will
expand coverage of the polar regions. We are taking the first
step in deploying the Earth-observing system. This is now in
full swing. For example, ICEsat, which will be launched this
winter, will provide the first-time comprehensive and repeated
coverage of the Arctic Regions, enabling the detection of
changes in elevation of ice masses in order to assess their
contributions to sea level changes. The EOS terra and aqua
satellites will provide unprecedented detailed information on
the spacial extent of snow cover, surface temperature and cloud
properties over the Arctic Region. The measurements of sea
surface winds heighten dynamics by adjacent and Quick-sat
satellites will enable our understanding of ocean circulation
and energy exchanges within the Arctic and Equatorial Regions
of the globe.
I thank the President for his decision to fund the
development of the next phase of EOS in the fiscal 2002 budget.
This will assure continuity of the key measurements and enable
new ones required to further enhance our understanding of the
Arctic Regions and their critical role in the global climate
system.
We are also developing the next generation of radar
altimeters that will provide all-weather observation to the
Arctic Regions. This advanced technology will enable estimates
of the height of sea ice above the water level, free board
height, from which ice thickness can be deduced.
In addition, we are also developing techniques, initially
using aircraft and, then, hopefully later spacecraft, to
determine the surface salinity of the water which is key to
understanding the thermal conductivity and heat capacity of the
ocean and getting at the energy balance talked about this
morning.
This is the one message I'd like to leave you with today.
We have an opportunity to take another giant step towards the
goal of understanding the role of the Arctic Regions in the
global climate system. In preparing for this hearing it became
abundantly clear to me that we don't place a high enough
priority on the Arctic research in the Federal establishment.
Those of us who oversee, fund and manage climate research
agencies have the opportunity to give our Nation and its
children and grandchildren a great gift. That gift is the
capability to understand and predict changes and the
consequences of change in this cosmic thermostat that enables
planet Earth to sustain life.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, this morning I have talked with Dr. Rita
Colwell, Director of the National Science Foundation and
Chairperson of the Interagency Research Policy Committee, along
with Mr. Scott Gudes of NOAA and Dr. Chip Groat, the head of
the USGS. We all agreed to work together through the IARC under
Dr. Colwell's leadership, as a vehicle to bring together the
relevant Federal agency heads to establish how we could focus
our collective effort on the Arctic Region in response to your
challenge of making faster progress in this slowly changing
region of our Nation. We intend to work focused and hard and we
thank you for inviting us to this important hearing.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel S. Goldin
Mr. Chairman: Good afternoon. I am pleased to be here today with my
colleagues from NASA's sister agencies to testify on the very crucial
subject of climate change.
The climate change issue has been getting a lot of press attention
lately, along with considerable dialog among scientists and economic
experts. Discussions center around a few key questions: To what extent
climate change is due to natural variability and/or human-induced
factors, what are the magnitude of future changes, and what if anything
we can or should do about them. Decision-makers in both government and
industry are watching this exchange and trying to glean from it some
reliable information on which to base the multi-billion dollar policy
and investment decisions they face. They have to make those decisions
while we are in the midst of a multi-decade climate research endeavor.
It is the job of the Federal science agencies to provide them the best
available input, at each point in time, in a clear, understandable
form, with clarity on the robustness and uncertainties in our state of
knowledge.
It is fitting that we hold this hearing here in Alaska. It is the
general understanding of the science community that changes in Alaska
and the polar regions are the best early indicators of global climate
change. If substantial change occurs in the climate system, it is
expected to show up first and largest in the polar regions. This is due
to the prevalence of ice and permafrost in the polar regions, coupled
with the close proximity of average temperatures to the freezing point
during significant portions of the year. Small changes in temperature
bring large expanses closer to water's phase change from solid to
liquid over longer periods of time. And this can have major effects on
plant, animal, and human life in this broad expanse.
Today, I would like to review with you the science behind climate
change, some of the evidence of change both globally and here in
Alaska, what we know and don't know about climate change, and how we
are going about finding out.
SCIENCE AND SIGNS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
The Earth has a wonderful natural capacity to regulate surface
temperatures to make life comfortable for humans and other life forms.
The Earth's climate system, alone among other planets, constitutes a
thermostat of cosmic proportion.
We know now that the operation of this thermostatic mechanism is
based on external forces such as the solar energy we receive from the
sun and a set of complex interactions that take place among the
atmosphere, oceans, continents and life on Earth. For example, the two
physico-chemical cycles: the carbon cycle through the Earth's
atmosphere, ocean and the lithosphere on the one hand; and the water
cycle between the atmosphere, rivers and land, and the oceans on the
other play a major role in operation of Earth's climate thermostat.
Together, they serve to capture just the right amount of incoming solar
energy as heat in the atmosphere. The process by which gases such as
water vapor and carbon dioxide help to keep energy from escaping into
space is called the ``greenhouse effect,'' and it's a good thing; the
Earth would be too cold in its absence to support human life.
Both the carbon and water cycles are responsible for removing
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide dissolved in rain
water slowly, but relentlessly, attacks rocks through the process of
``weathering.'' The resulting carbonates find their way through rivers
to the oceans and the ocean floor, where they slowly accumulate and
constitute enormous limestone deposits. Except for the activity of the
Earth's interior and the constant recycling of the Earth's crust,
carbon would have long disappeared from the atmosphere and oceans, thus
making the Earth forever sterile for life as we know it. As far as we
know, this is what happened on Mars. In contrast to Mars, Earth has
active plate tectonics that constantly recycle its crust; no piece of
the ocean floor is older than 200 million years. The result of this
recycling causes constant outgassing of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere, thus replenishing the carbon supply for life to thrive on.
On geological time scales, what keeps carbon dioxide from building up
too much is the evaporation and precipitation of water through the
atmosphere, which is driven by incoming sunlight. Had the water cycle
failed to control the on-going accumulation of carbon dioxide through
precipitation, the Earth's atmosphere would have suffered a runaway
greenhouse effect and made conditions unlivable at the surface of the
planet. Such, apparently, was the fate of Venus. On either side of
Earth, Mars and Venus represent planetary systems unregulated by carbon
and water cycles. Earth, as Goldilocks might have said, ``is just
right.'' It has its own thermostat, comprised of these two cycles, to
keep temperature and precipitation in balance.
Over hundreds of thousands of years, the natural variability in
this system has produced what appear to us as extremes, such as ice
ages, where low temperatures persist for long periods. The past ten
thousand years has been marked by a very stable climate regime.
However, the last 150 years have witnessed some important changes. The
industrialization of human society and the clearing of land for
agriculture have resulted in carbon dioxide levels 30 percent higher
than in pre-industrial times, with even larger increases in other
concentrations of methane, aerosols (dust particles such as soot), and
wholly new chemicals such as chloroflorocarbons. Today, carbon dioxide
levels are higher than any time in the past few hundred thousand years.
The past 150 years have also seen an increase in global average surface
temperature of more than 1F (.75C), after being stable for the previous
thousand years. This has been accompanied by a rise in sea level of
about 1.5mm/year over the past hundred years, due in part to thermal
expansion of the oceans.
These changes are reported in global averages, but in fact they are
not evenly distributed over the globe. As I mentioned earlier, the more
dramatic changes are occurring at the poles. NASA-sponsored researchers
have determined that over the past few decades, Arctic sea ice has
decreased 4 feet (about 40 percent) in thickness and summer sea ice
extent is declining about 3 percent per decade. Our aircraft altimetry
flights over Greenland have shown that the ice sheet is thinning on the
coasts and thickening in the interior. Here in Alaska, surface
temperatures have increased 4 to 7F (2 to 4C) since the 1950's, and
precipitation increased 30 percent between 1968 and 1990. These changes
are having real impacts on Alaskans, as documented in a recent report
on the regional impacts of climate change--Climate Change Impacts on
the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability
and Change (2001), by the U.S. National Synthesis Team facilitated by
the U.S. Global Change Research Program, undertaken to fulfill the
assessment requirement of the Global Change Research Act of 1990. These
range from a two week lengthening in the growing season to a sustained
infestation of spruce bark beetles which caused widespread tree deaths
over 2.3 million acres on the Kenai Peninsula. Permafrost thaw-related
damage to structures and infrastructure is estimated to be $35 million
per year at present.
The key questions are: Are these changes due to natural variability
in the Earth system, or to human-caused changes in the composition of
the atmosphere, or both? And if so, what can or should we do about it?
It is the business of the Federal science agencies to answer the first
question, and to provide decision-makers with tools to think about the
second.
WHAT WE KNOW AND NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE
The causes of climate change have been a subject of scientific
speculation for a long time. Benjamin Franklin proposed that volcanic
eruptions could affect atmospheric temperatures, a prediction borne out
by the global impact of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. In the late 19th
century, the Swedish physicist Svante Arrhenius proposed that carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions could enhance the Earth's natural
greenhouse effect, leading to global warming. In the 1970's, cooler
than average temperatures briefly were a cause for concern. But by the
late 1980's, the century-long trend in warming had resumed, and the
very hot summer of 1988 turned national attention to the prospects of
global warming due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere. The story is not a simple one, however. A recent
National Academy of Sciences report, Reconciling Observations of Global
Temperature Change (NRC, 2000), notes that surface temperatures are
rising, but lower to mid-troposphere temperatures have risen much less.
A team of NASA-sponsored researchers has worked over the past few years
to assemble a consistent satellite data record of global atmospheric
temperatures, providing the motivation for this NRC study.
One might ask why NASA is in the climate science business. After
all, we are most closely associated in the public mind with exploration
beyond the bounds of Earth. The answer is simple. Climate change is a
global phenomena involving all major components of the Earth system--
its land, oceans, atmosphere, ice, and life. And if we want to
understand global-scale phenomena, we have to have a global view of
Earth--the view that the vantage point of space provides. It is this
global view and the resulting ability to study the Earth as a dynamic
system that NASA provides. We provide the larger context in which, for
example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) can
study ocean impacts on weather and climate. This is an active area of
collaborative research between the two agencies. NASA technology
produced the Landsat program which enables the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) and NASA to examine land cover change and its impacts on the
atmosphere. NASA is the world's premier innovator of advanced remote
sensing instruments and related research for the study of the Earth
from space, and we are the key source of improvements in our partners'
operational systems. The U.S. Global Change Research Program serves to
coordinate climate research among the participating Federal agencies.
NASA is tackling questions that are at the frontiers of our
understanding, that have substantial societal relevance, and that
cannot be addressed without the contribution of the global view from
space. We seek to understand:
--Variability in the Earth system, and to identify trends in the
midst of this variability;
--Forces acting on the Earth system due to both natural and human-
induced factors, and the proportional impact on near and long-
term climate; for example, increasing aerosol (particle)
concentrations in the atmosphere and how they either reflect or
scatter incoming solar radiation, or formulate or dissipate
rainfall and snow;
--Responses of the Earth system to change, such as changes in ocean
circulation patterns, and how some of these responses feed back
to become forcings themselves;
--Consequences of change in the Earth system in such areas as
regional weather, ecosystems productivity, and fresh water
availability; and
--Prediction of change to forecast which trends will continue into
the future, which is where the real payoff is, e.g., reliable
forecasts of climate one season in advance for agriculture,
commercial fishing, and transoceanic shipping.
An example is our work on the global water cycle. NASA seeks to
understand how global precipitation, evaporation, and the cycling of
water are changing. We want to know for two major reasons. First, the
water content of the atmosphere is a key indicator of climate change.
If the atmosphere is warming, we would expect increases in the
atmosphere's water content. Second, and more important for society,
these patterns of precipitation and evaporation are what determines
fresh water availability worldwide. If these patterns change, specific
regions could gain or lose fresh water resources, with significant
implications for agriculture, hydroelectric power generation, human
health and recreation.
This Earth-as-a-system approach to the climate change problem has
already proven extremely productive. For example, we now have a
quantitative picture of the Earth's energy budget--that is, how much of
the Sun's energy reaching the Earth is reflected, scattered in the
atmosphere, absorbed in the atmosphere, reflected off the Earth's
surface, or absorbed by the Earth's surface and re-emitted as heat.
Accounting for all this incoming energy, which is an external force
acting on the climate system, allows researchers to determine which key
changes can result in adjustments to Earth's thermostat. Most of these
measurements can only be made from above the Earth's atmosphere, though
it is crucial to combine these with ground-based and in situ data to
get the complete picture. We have also developed a long-term data set
on cloud cover and cloud type, knowing that the water vapor comprising
clouds is an important ``greenhouse gas'' itself. Using the TOPEX/
Poseidon spacecraft, we have developed a detailed picture of global
ocean circulation, and can now measure sea-level change globally from
space.
One important outcome of this approach is the identification and
estimation of the forcing factors that drive climate change.
``Forcing'' is measured in units of Watts per square meter (W/
m2), analogous to measuring the pressure applied to a
surface area. In this case, the `pressure' is the energy (in Watts)
introduced or retained (via the greenhouse effect) in the atmosphere
that eventually is manifested as heat, and the `surface area' is the
atmosphere itself, treated as a two-dimensional blanket over the Earth.
The attached graph displays a summary of these forcing factors and
their strengths. Carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, black carbon (soot)
and solar energy are shown to have a positive forcing, that is a net
warming, effect on climate, while other aerosols (dust particles),
cloud changes, and land cover alterations tend to show a negative
forcing effect, i.e., a net cooling effect. The overall net effect is a
positive forcing of 1.6 W/m2 in total over the past 150
years, which we believe translates into about a 1.2C increase in
temperature. It is this increase that many scientists connect with the
observed worldwide retreat of alpine glaciers, lengthening of the
growing season and decline in sea ice in some high northern latitude
regions, and modest increases in sea level. Because of the long
response time of the oceans to such forcing, the effect of additional
greenhouse gases on atmospheric temperatures is not immediate. We have
only experienced about 0.75C increase in global average temperatures
thus far; a further increase of about 0.5C is yet to come from
greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere today. One key feature to
note on this figure is the presence of the thin bars in each column,
representing the uncertainty in the forcing influence of each factor.
In some cases, particularly the clouds and aerosols, the uncertainty is
as great as the estimates themselves!
A principal goal of climate research is to monitor variability and
trends in the climate system, to quantify the forcing factors acting on
climate, and to incorporate this information into computer models
representing climate system interactions to attempt to assess the
responses of the Earth system to changes in these forcing factors. Such
models are run against known past and current conditions to test the
validity of the climate system relationships contained within it, and
then employed to establish climate predictions for the future. However,
even past occurrences of climate change are difficult to model even
though the inputs and outcomes are known. Success in ``predicting''
present conditions from real, past data, enables some tentative
predictions of changes 10 to a 100 years in the future. The outcome of
the model depends significantly on what assumptions about future
greenhouse gas emissions one adopts as input. In the climate change
assessment community, these assumptions are called emission scenarios.
The choices of what to put into a model are thus an essential part
of the climate research challenge. They directly effect the
consideration of the consequences of climate change and predictions
outlined for the future. These latter two steps are, for government and
private sector decision-makers, the all-important assessment processes
that provide the basis on which they will be asked to make choices.
CLIMATE ASSESSMENTS AND ALTERNATE SCENARIOS FOR ACTION
Two assessments of climate change and potential impacts have been
published in recent months. The first is Climate Change 2001: The Third
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). The 3rd assessment predicts climate-related changes under a
``business as usual scenario'', i.e., without constraints on human-
induced greenhouse gas emissions:
--Global average surface temperature rise of 1.5 to 5.8C (2.5 to 10F)
by 2100;
--Global mean sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 meters (4 to 35 inches)
by 2100;
--Global average water vapor and precipitation increases, with
unknown impacts on storm frequency/intensity.
--Continued widespread retreat of alpine glaciers, with ice sheet
mass losses in Greenland and increases in Antarctica.
The second is Climate Change Impacts on the United States, referred
to earlier, which uses two emissions scenarios in the mid-range of the
IPCC set of scenarios to estimate impacts of climate change on eight
specific regions of the country and six cross-cutting activities (e.g.,
forestry).
These assessments predict substantial changes both globally and in
the U.S., with substantial consequences for diverse populations around
the world. Of importance to Alaska, for example, the Climate Change
Impacts report predicts the complete disappearance of summer time
Arctic sea ice by 2100.
What are we to make of these things? As a science Agency, we can
only speak to the scientific issues.
I'd like to make two observations in this regard. First, over the
past ten years, the worldwide scientific consensus has been building
toward a view that climate is changing, and that human activities are
partly responsible. This is based on two broad sets of evidence. One is
the observation of increasing emissions and atmospheric concentrations
of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and the results emerging
from climate models that assimilate these data. The second is
observations of current phenomena that may be the results of warming
that has already occurred in this century, such as the increase in
surface temperature, retreat of glaciers worldwide and the lengthening
of the growing season in northern latitudes. There are some important
skeptical voices, however; some scientists point out the limitations in
climate models, such as how the role of clouds in moderating Earth
climate should be represented. NASA's Earth Science Enterprise funds
scientifically meritorious research on all sides of this question,
including two scientists who have done the most work in attempting to
construct a globally consistent atmospheric temperature record from
satellite data.
The second observation is that, while CO2 emissions
continue to increase, the average growth rate of CO2
concentrations of the atmosphere has been nearly flat for the past two
decades. This is due to the sequestration (storage) of carbon in the
oceans and in forest regrowth, as well as a ``decarbonization'' of
energy sources (e.g., increasing use of natural gas rather than coal).
The IPCC emissions scenarios may be underestimating the potential for
reduction of CO2 growth rates from these factors.
This opens the door to new possibilities for consideration by
decision-makers in government and industry. One alternative scenario
for action on the climate change issue has recently been proposed by
Dr. James Hansen, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space
Studies. Dr Hansen co-authored a paper with four other scientists on
climate change in the 21century, published in Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. In that paper, Dr. Hansen defines an
``alternative scenario'' for the forcing agents that cause climate
change, based on his fresh look at the Figure (Attachment I) describing
the forcing factors acting on climate. In considering this figure, he
notes that the combined impact to date of methane (CH4),
ozone (O3), and black carbon aerosols (soot) are about the
same as that of CO2. In contrast to the IPCC's ``business as
usual'' scenario, in which temperatures will rise from 1.5 to 5.8C over
the next 100 years in response to an increased forcing of 3 W/
m2 over the next 50 years, Dr. Hansen believes the
alternative scenario can manage this increased forcing down to 1 W/
m2 or 0.75C (plus the 0.5C already in the pipeline). And
this could occur with a constant, or slightly smaller, growth rate over
the next 20 years (consistent with the past 20 years) in CO2
concentrations. By controlling other greenhouse gas emissions in the
near term, we might essentially buy time for new technologies to enable
a more economically natural reduction of human-induced CO2
emissions in mid-century.
Dr. Hansen makes two additional observations of relevance to
decision-makers. First, he posits that emissions of these three
substances are easier (and thus less costly to the economy) to control
than CO2. Second, he predicts that reduction of emissions of
these three will have important human health benefits as well. Ozone
and soot, two of the forcing factors cited by Dr. Hansen, are major
contributors to respiratory infections and respiratory-related deaths
worldwide. He quotes a recent study showing that air pollution in
France, Austria and Switzerland alone cause 40,000 deaths and half a
million asthma attacks annually. Dr. Hansen offers an alternative that
addresses the other greenhouse gases; we need others in the science
community to propose their ideas as well and provide decision-makers
with some choices.
HOW WE ARE MOVING TO ANSWER THE ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS
It is important to keep in mind that the U.S. is doing more to
understand the science of climate change than any other nation. In
fact, the U.S. invests more in this area than the rest of the world
combined, about $1.7 billion per year compared to approximately $1
billion internationally. (These numbers are based on fiscal year 1999
data, the last year for which international data is available. The
fiscal year 2002 President's request is $1.6 billion, reflecting the
passing of the peak funding year for the Earth Observing System. The
U.S. numbers are totals are for the U.S. Global Change Research
Program). The international numbers are derived from the 2000 report of
the International Group of Funding Agencies for IPCC). These numbers do
not include any nation's meteorological satellites even thought they
are essential data sources. The U.S. is the world leader in this arena
as well. NASA's Earth Science Enterprise comprises about $1.2 billion
of the U.S. $1.7 billion investment; we are the largest provider of
research as well as the principal supplier of Earth system
observations. This is in addition to what our partner agencies are
investing, who use some of these same data.
All of this research is openly solicited and peer-reviewed, and
most is conducted by researchers at U.S. universities. And, we have
already learned a great deal. Working with NOAA, we have uncovered the
mechanics behind the El Nino/La Nina phenomena, and are well on our way
toward a true predictive capability. We now have a much better idea of
how much rainfall occurs over the global tropics, which is the key
factor in the exchange of heat energy between the tropics and the
higher latitudes. We have a 20-year or more record of global land cover
change and of incoming solar radiation to help us understand natural
variability and long-term trends. And, we have made the first
measurements of Greenland ice sheet thinning and thickening with an
advanced laser system.
Research In and For Alaska.--Much of the research and many of the
observing capabilities NASA develops are directly beneficial to Alaska.
We recently produced from Landsat data a land cover data set that can
be used as a baseline against which to compare future changes. The
Terra satellite allowed us to measure snow cover extent over all of
North America this past winter. Last year, we funded the measurement of
land surface topography around key Alaskan airports and other key
infrastructures to help improve aviation safety and inform future civil
engineering decisions. Early next year, we will launch ICEsat, the
first space-based laser altimeter, which will measure the topography of
the world's ice sheets. We have funded research in glacier volume, sea
ice extent and thickness, and earthquake and volcano vulnerabilites.
And, of course, we have invested $100M in the Alaska Synthetic Aperture
Radar (SAR) Facility since 1993. The Alaska SAR Facility is the world's
premier capability for acquiring and processing synthetic aperture
radar data, performing these services for satellites from around the
world. Together with our sister agencies, we are exploring a new
cooperative research program called SEARCH that is specifically focused
on the Arctic region to gain a long-term perspective on Arctic change
and the impacts of change on regions such as Alaska. Finally, as we
meet here, another meeting is taking place in Anchorage tomorrow.
NASA's Earth Science Enterprise is sponsoring a joint NASA/Alaska
regional workshop with state, local, and tribal officials to explore
the application of remote sensing to practical problems faced by
Alaskans.
Climate Research Tools.--The two principal tools of climate
research are observations of the climate system to characterize its
variability, trends and responses, and models to help assess the
consequences and predictability of future changes. These are closely
related; observations are employed to establish the initial conditions
to constrain model runs, and to capture properly the climate system
relationships in the models. The need for better observations is
established in part by the uncertainty bars seen in the figure
depicting forcing factors (Attachment I). It is also apparent in
thinking about the responses of the climate system to change. What is
really happening to the polar ice caps, sea ice, sea level, ecosystems,
and weather as a result of climate changes over decades and longer? The
need for better models is apparent from the sheer complexity of the
climate system compared to our current understanding, from the
diversity of results from competing modeling efforts, and from the high
stakes involved in the policy and investment decisions faced by
governments and industries both here and abroad. I will address both
observations and models below.
Observations.--As I indicated earlier, we have made enormous
progress in our early attempts to characterize the Earth system with
such pioneering satellites as TOPEX/Poseidon. Currently, we are in the
midst of deploying the Earth Observing System (EOS), the world's first
satellite observing system designed to monitor the major components of
the Earth system and probe the key interactions among land, oceans,
atmosphere, ice, and life to identify their variability and trends. For
example, the Terra satellite launched in 1999, provides our first
integrated look at land, atmosphere and oceans, and directly addresses
the impact of clouds in the climate system. The Aqua satellite, to be
launched later this year, carries instruments to make the best direct
global measurements of atmospheric temperature and humidity. These
instruments are also prototypes of the next generation weather sensors
that will improve the accuracy of 3 to 5 day forecasts to better than
90 percent and enable extension of the range of weather forecasting to
7 days. The Aura satellite, planned for launch in 2003, will attempt
the first measurements of ozone in the lower atmosphere from space and
will enable study of the chemical processes that control atmospheric
composition. The ICEsat instrument, to be launched at the end of this
year, will yield for the first time precise, global measurements of ice
sheet topography to help us understand changes in the mass balance of
ice sheets. Other EOS measurements will continue ocean surface height
and ocean surface winds measurements to probe the connection between
weather and climate, and improve the Nation's ability to forecast
hurricane landfall and occurrences of El Nino. Complementing EOS, a
series of small exploratory satellites will attempt the first 3-D
measurements of clouds and aerosols in the atmosphere, with the
specific purpose of reducing the uncertainties of their impact on
climate change.
The Administration has funded the next generation of EOS sensors in
its fiscal year 2002 budget request. This includes continued
development of a ``bridge mission'' that will transition climate-
quality measurements to the operational weather satellite system to
ensure the long-term data record that climate science requires. This is
an essential point. We need decades of data to fully distinguish
climate trends from natural variability, and natural from human-induced
influences on climate. The solar cycle, for example, is eleven years
long, and we only have two cycles' worth of data thus far to help us
understand the impact of solar variability on Earth's climate
variations. The President's fiscal year 2002 budget request also funds
a Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission. Precipitation is the
heat engine of atmospheric circulation, governing the transfer of
energy from the tropics to the higher latitudes. GPM will help us to
understand how are global precipitation, evaporation, and the cycling
of water changing. We want to know this for two reasons. First, the
water content of the atmosphere is a key indicator of global climate
change. If the atmosphere is warming, we would expect increases in the
atmosphere's water content. Second, and more important for society,
these patterns of precipitation and evaporation are what determines
fresh water availability worldwide. If these patterns change, specific
regions could gain or lose fresh water resources. GPM will help us
observe and understand patterns of rainfall over continents that will
in turn feed models of water storage and river flow. We need reliable
forecasting capabilities that will help us manage these water resources
effectively. GPM will also provide precipitation data to weather
forecasting models, dramatically improving hurricane track prediction
and forecasts of landfall. I thank the President for his support of an
aggressive climate observation and research program in the fiscal year
2002 budget request.
NASA has already begun to envision where Earth observations should
go toward the end of this decade and beyond. For example, today's
geostationary weather satellites do not permit observation over the
polar regions, yet climate and weather are strongly influenced by ocean
and atmospheric changes occurring over the poles. Polar weather is
strongly influenced by frequent sharp temperature contrasts between sea
ice, open ocean and land and the effects of local topography. Available
data sets needed for input into numerical weather models typically lack
the time and space resolution needed to provide good forecasts. This is
especially true for predicting mesoscale features such as ``polar
lows,'' which present severe hazards to shipping and the fishing
industry. While improved surface-based observation networks are needed,
the remote nature of the polar regions points to the need for
increasing reliance on satellite data. One possible future course of
evolution for Earth observation (as resources become available in the
future) might be sentinel satellites beyond geostationary orbit to give
us the polar coverage we need to spot those early warning signs.
Sentinel satellites at L1 and L2 (the neutral gravity points on either
side of the Earth on the Earth-Sun line), for example, would provide
those polar views, as well as continuous, full-disk, day and nighttime
observations of the Earth to observe diurnal change and global
temperatures. If global average temperatures rise, it would show up
clearly in global nighttime lows. Other priority observations that
could be made, as resources become available, are measurements of the
responses of the Earth system to change, and the factors such as
aerosols that influence those responses. Observing capabilities to
follow up on others beginning in the EOS-era, such as ice sheet
topography and atmospheric chemical constituents, are highly desirable
as well. However, the observations funded by the President's fiscal
year 2002 request provides a robust capability for climate research
that will get us well on our way.
While I've focused on space-based observations, it is important to
recognize the essential role of surface, balloon, and aircraft-based
observations. These make many measurements not possible from space
today, as well as provide a means to calibrate and validate satellite
data. The ability of scientists to study climate depends as much on
data from ocean buoys and air and water sampling networks as it does on
satellite data. I'm sure my colleagues from our sister agencies who
operate these observing systems will make this point better than I can.
While much work remains to be done in establishing the required
observations, we are on the right path. We know what observations are
required and what kinds of missions and networks can provide them. We
have a plan for observing missions for the next decade and an expanding
web of domestic and international partnerships to produce an integrated
observing system.
Models.--What requires greater national attention is state of
climate modeling in the U.S. Climate predictions, such as those used by
the IPCC and the U.S. National Assessment, are based on computer models
that represent the physics of the climate system in mathematical
equations. These models are initialized by real-world observations, and
those initial conditions are then allowed to evolve along pathways that
reflect our best attempts to simulate the forces acting on the climate
system and its own innate variability.
In the opinion of the National Research Council (NRC) and some
quarters of the climate modeling community in the U.S., the U.S. leads
the world in focused modeling of selected Earth system components, but
has fallen behind Europe and Japan in global Earth system modeling.
This is viewed as a strategic shortcoming, since international
discussions on climate change are thus being fed by models from other
countries, and because, given the growing economic value of climate
prediction data, some other countries are not sharing data freely and
openly, as has been the practice in the past. The fact that two foreign
models and no American ones were used as the basis for the Regional
Assessment of Climate Change on the U.S. resulted in criticism of that
assessment process and its report in both Congress and the NRC.
Two reasons are cited as to why the U.S. has fallen behind. One is
that U.S. modeling efforts are fragmented, with no overall guiding
strategy. While the existence of competing modeling centers is seen as
a strength, the fact that they have different standards and procedures
means that collaboration is difficult. The NRC [Capacity of U.S.
Climate Modeling to Support Climate Change Assessment Activities,
1998], while recommending the development of a National Climate Model
for use as a reference standard, believes this can be accomplished
through better coordination. However, the NRC states that agencies
engaged in climate research are not now performing this function, and
need to establish a coordinated national strategy, including a common
modeling and data infrastructure (software, model code, etc).
The second is that U.S. researchers do not have access to the
computers they consider best suited to run climate models, which are
made in Japan. Both European and Japanese climate modeling centers are
using these Japanese-built machines. Much is made of this point,
perhaps too much. There are four legs supporting the modeling stool--
observations, computational capability, software, and the modelers
themselves. An argument can be made that all four face current
limitations, and future investments in model improvement must be
balanced across them to achieve the most improvement for the dollar. As
important as computing power is the software engineering that enables
efficient use of that power. A Teraflop machine exists currently, but
running today's complex climate models without a wholly new, compatible
software set reduces that machine's efficiency to about 12 percent of
its theoretical maximum. Climate models require not just a computer but
a computational hosting medium, comprising both powerful computing
engines and a set of algorithms that direct that computing power to
portions of the climate modeling problem that need it. The NRC has done
a service by penetrating to the next layer in the area of computational
limitations, acknowledging that the Japanese-built ``vector parallel
processor'' machines are best for situations where a single model uses
all or a large fraction of the computing resource, while the U.S.
``massively parallel processor'' approach is better suited to run many
smaller jobs in parallel, such as comparisons of runs with minor
variations introduced, or reprocessing of data sets.
Both issues need to be addressed in a U.S. modeling strategy. While
the modeling issues seem as complex as the climate system itself, the
bottom line is fairly straightforward. Today, the best we do routinely
is about 5 gigaflops of sustained performance. This enables modeling at
resolutions of about 2 by 2.5, or about 220 km in resolution on the
surface of the Earth. Experimentally, we are approaching 30 gigaflops,
which will enable about 1 by 1, or about 100km. In five years' time, we
may get to 3 teraflops for one quarter of a degree or less, or 10 to 20
km in resolution. But these will only enable simulation of time frames
of hours to seasons. They will be great for regional weather, but not
for global climate. The decadal and longer time scales needed for
climate modeling require two to four orders of magnitude improvement
beyond what is foreseen in the next five years!
Clearly, we will not get there by brute force extraction of better
performance from present silicon-based technology and associated
software tools. And yet that is where the vast bulk of government and
industry investment is being made. To make real progress on climate
modeling, we are going to have to step out beyond the current computing
paradigm into a whole new one. Increasing the speed of today's
supercomputers alone will not achieve the two to four orders of
magnitude improvement required. That is because it is not a matter of
increasing speed in the same direction, but of identifying shorter
pathways to move from data to information to knowledge. A good analogy
to illustrate what I mean is how the brain instantaneously integrates
an enormous amount of data from our senses and rapidly forms mental
pictures and reasons to conclusions. Consider that hundreds of billions
are being invested around the world each year in infrastructure,
property development, and coastal zone management that make implicit
assumptions about climate stability. Investments in climate modeling
are well worth it to shape and thus protect those much larger
investments. We intend to partner with the computing and information
industry to address our needs while at the same time taking advantage
of the strong commercial marketplace pull for advanced computing. This
is vastly preferable to the traditional government research approach of
investing large sums in single purpose systems that have limited
utility on the outside and quickly become obsolete. We intend to
sponsor a workshop with research and industry leaders to start defining
this new approach.
Of course, we can't just stand by and wait for the next revolution
in computing technology. We need to be exploiting the data we currently
have in the best modeling and computing systems we have to serve
governments and businesses that need to make decisions today. NASA and
NOAA are taking such a step together in establishing a Joint Center for
Satellite Data Assimilation. In addition, NASA is working with USGCRP
partner agencies on a strategy for high-end modeling. We need to
continue to exercise our available computing technology, getting more
out of it by focusing on the software engineering that enables
supercomputers to run climate models efficiently.
SUMMARY
I hope I have helped you navigate your way through this complex
topic of climate change. Let me summarize what I believe are the key
points.
--The first is that climate change research is a marathon, not a
sprint. We have learned enough to know that human civilization
is having an impact on the climate system, but it is difficult
to completely distinguish this from natural variability. It
will take decades to completely understand the climate system.
In the meantime, the Federal science agencies must provide
timely, useful information to decision-makers who cannot wait
for the final answers to take action. We are committed to
providing the best scientific understanding in the fastest
possible time to support these decision-makers in government
and industry.
--Which brings me to the second key point--we need to understand all
the ways that human activities affect the global environment,
and document the full range of forcing factors and responses in
the climate system. The science programs that underlie policy
discussions need to be comprehensive. We need to be sure that
as a society we do not get locked into one single-point
solution, and have no place to go if it doesn't work out
politically or economically.
--Third and finally, we need to make the investments in research that
will answer the key science questions and prepare us for the
future. We need to continue on the path the Administration has
endorsed for scientific observation of the Earth, and continue
the technological innovation that will expand coverage of the
polar regions. But in contrast to the observing situation, we
need a whole new approach to climate modeling. The path we are
on now will result in only incremental improvement; it will not
get us where we need to go in truly understanding the responses
of the Earth system to climate forcing, nor will it result in
the reliable decadal and centennial climate prediction
capability we need. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being
invested in property and infrastructure and coastal zone
management that make implicit assumptions about climate. We
intend to form a government/industry partnership in advanced
computing and modeling to validate or adjust those assumptions
to protect that much larger investment. I suspect that the
secondary applications of such an advanced modeling capability
will themselves make such an endeavor well worth the effort.
NASA is committed to doing its part, in partnership with our sister
agencies, to produce timely, reliable scientific information for
Federal, State, Local, Tribal and industrial decision-makers. The
climate change problem is tough, but a well-thought out and funded
strategy for research can help our Nation act in the best interests of
our citizens, their children, and the generations to come.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much. That's good news,
Mr. Goldin. I appreciate it very much. Our next witness is Dr.
Rita Colwell, Director of the National Science Foundation.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
STATEMENT OF DR. RITA COLWELL, DIRECTOR
Dr. Colwell. Good afternoon and thank you, Chairman
Stevens, for the opportunity to testify. I applaud the
Committee's initiative in drawing attention to the critical
issue of climate change in the Arctic and, due to the marvels
of science and engineering and technology, my staff at NSF
watched this morning's session and they are watching it this
afternoon. So, to the folks back on the East Coast, Hi. I may
add also that transmission of the proceedings today is courtesy
of collaboration between NSF and NASA, yet another example of
cooperation between our two agencies.
I'd like to say that this is an excellent opportunity to
outline some findings from the National Science Foundation's
investment in understanding a very complex picture of
environmental change in the Arctic. And it's a very appropriate
location to address the issues right here at the University of
Alaska Fairbanks and in partnership with the International
Arctic Research Center with Dr. Akasofu and his team here at
the University.
I'd like to set the stage for my testimony with a short
video. I think it indicates very well the wide spectrum of the
NSF support for investigating the Arctic environment from just
about every vantage point, so we'll just have the video, very
briefly.
Arctic Conservation Erosion of Barrow, Alaska
(Caleb Pungowiyi talking; sounds of the ocean) I'm noticing
these mud slides, like pretty bad. But, now, it's the
permafrost that's coming down and the ground being disturbed
and more of the permafrost being exposed to the heat and the
sun and the wind, you know. Now, there's more rain and sun is
shining all the time and warmer summers. I don't know the
impact. It doesn't look good for the community, anyway. I think
we'll have to evacuate the community and move somewhere else.
[Sounds of various machines] These types of changes--I don't
know. We're usually pretty good at adapting to shorter changes
but, something like this, who knows what could go on.
(Unknown speaker) I believe that the Arctic is a very, very
important ecosystem to the health of the rest of the planet.
Dr. Colwell. The last words that you heard--I hope you
could hear them--on the video are critical. They were that
Arctic peoples have long adapted to change but they find the
recent variations in the environment very disturbing. And so
comprehending the course and the causes of this change is a key
goal for the NSF's activities in the Arctic but it's one that
we still are quite far from achieving.
We now have an extraordinary number of examples of
environmental change. In the oceans we see thinning sea ice,
unusual blooms of algae, die-offs of seabirds, plummeting fish
populations. And on the land, the permafrost is melting in some
areas and the caribou migration patterns are changing in
relation to their food supply. And so we work with the Alaskan
and the Arctic Natives as they contribute their own
observations on the transformations that they themselves see in
their way of life. And the value of a very broad historical
knowledge of the Alaskan indigenous peoples was beautifully
highlighted this morning by Caleb when he discussed the efforts
and the observations that are being made. For example,
fishermen in 1993 observed a couple of new species of salmon.
There are only eight such fish in their catches and that's
something that a scientific sampling might not have picked up.
So it's very important to work closely with the indigenous
peoples in the Arctic Region.
The evidence for climate change in the Arctic is mounting
and it's serious but the picture is not yet comprehensive. We
don't know whether this change is part of a cycle or is
following a long-term, possibly irreversible trend. We need
abundant and accurate observations over time to improve the
computer models that help predict the environmental change.
However, we know very little about the Arctic compared to the
rest of the globe. Access is limited, especially in the winter
months; and the National Science Foundation, as the major
supporter of basic research in the region, is committed to
gathering oceanic, terrestrial, atmospheric, and cultural
information that will help us refine our models and interpret
those changes appropriately.
NSF also plays a vital Federal coordinating role for Arctic
research and, as NSF Director, I chair the International Arctic
Research Policy Committee, IARPC.
So we turn now to some specific work that the NSF is
supporting on Arctic climate change in three very vital areas:
sea ice; ocean ecology; and terrestrial impacts. And several of
these efforts are part of the U.S. Global Change Research
Program.
Now, let's begin with what seems to be a moonscape but it's
actually sea ice off Barrow, Alaska, and it was photographed
very recently by a robotic aerosonde. These are small pilotless
planes. They're lightweight. They can travel long distances.
For example, they weigh 29 pounds and they can traverse 1,500
miles. And they carry a variety of instruments to monitor sea
ice and refine climate models. And if you look very closely at
the right side of the image, you can see the yellow arrow. It
points to another aresonde flying below. We know that the
Arctic climate is tremendously sensitive to changes in sea ice
and that changes in the region's climate can altar global
climate. And we also know that the sea ice cover has been
shrinking about 3 percent every 10 years since the early
1970's. We heard about this this morning.
Sea ice was also a very important focus of the recent SHEBA
Project, the Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean, SHEBA. We
heard about it this morning. The ice station SHEBA consisted of
the ice-breaker frozen in the ice and left to drift for a year.
SHEBA has been the largest single project that NSF has
undertaken in the Arctic. The Office of Naval Research and NASA
were also partners in the project. SHEBA results are already
improving simulations of Arctic climate and the regions effects
on global climate.
We have also established an environmental observatory at
the North Pole. This is a 5-year effort to take the pulse of
the Arctic Ocean and to determine its effect on climate.
Automated instruments transmit the data by satellite. And this
year we also carried out a hydrographic survey from the North
Pole toward Alaska.
Our Scientific Ice Expeditions, SCICEX, took yet another
approach. In cooperation with the Office of Naval Research and
the Navy, we used submarines to explore the Arctic Ocean ice
from below, as well as chart the sea floor of the Arctic Ocean.
This was the only way, really, to determine sea ice thickness
remotely. And these cruisers, along with the U.S. Navy
submarine data, show that the ice in the central Arctic Ocean
has thinned an average of about 43 percent over the past 20
years. These submarines are no longer available, unfortunately,
since most of the sub-class has been retired. However, we are
moving to a new way of exploring under the sea ice with
autonomous underwater vehicles and you can see it here in the
artist's rendition.
Native hunters, fishermen and scientists have all noted
many signs of change in the ocean ecology of the Arctic. In
1997, unusually calm, clear weather preceded the first-known
Bering Sea bloom of coccolithophorid algae, seen here in the
NASA images as a milky-green cloud in the water. We don't know
how it's going to affect the rest of the marine food chain and
it's something we do need to find out.
Another remarkable change is the almost exponential
increase in the bio-mass of jellyfish in the eastern Bering Sea
and this began in 1989. It's quite possible that this signals
extreme stress in an ecosystem. A seabird called the short-
tailed shearwater died off en-masse, big numbers, during the
warm year of 1997. Almost 200,000 shearwaters perished,
apparently through starvation.
Finally, the spectacled eider, a beautiful bird. This
threatened diving duck congregates in spectacular flocks south
of Saint Lawrence Island and research is helping to assess
whether a decline in food is related to the precipitous drop in
the population of this duck.
A major NSF effort, the Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics
Program, is focusing on change in marine environments and the
U.S. GLOBEC has targeted the Georges Bank in the Atlantic, the
California Current System, the West Antarctic Peninsula and the
coastal Gulf of Alaska. NSF puts about $13, almost $14 million
into this study and NOAA $3 million for GLOBEC in fiscal year
2001.
Research in the Gulf of Alaska, as you can see here, is
just beginning. The program explores how climate change affects
marine populations, including those of marine commercial fish.
The main target fish for the Alaska phase is the pink salmon
which, as you well know, had a dock value of about $34 million
in year 2000. And we're also looking at the zooplankton that it
feeds on.
Let me turn to some patterns of change we see on land.
Permafrost covers the entire Arctic, including Alaska north of
Fairbanks. If warming continues, the permafrost thaw zone could
release huge amounts of carbon dioxide or methane which are
greenhouse gasses. At the NSF's long-term ecological research
station at Toolik Lake, Alaska, over a quarter century of
observations have shown that the water has warmed by about 2
degrees centigrade and the alkalinity, the Ph, has increased.
Measurements over longer time-scales are absolutely critical to
tracking climate change.
At the same time, migration patterns of caribou have
shifted due to changes in their tundra food source. This
affects villages that subsist on reindeer herding. Reindeer are
joining up with their wild brethren, the caribou, and they're
disappearing into the wild.
We believe we're beginning to uncover the drivers of
climate change in the Arctic. Researchers have identified a
major pattern of climate fluctuation called the Arctic
Oscillation. It's a large-scale pattern similar to the southern
cousin, the El Nino Southern Oscillation, and some scientists
hypothesize that the Arctic Oscillation, along with
anthropogenic effects, control Arctic climate.
Can the pieces of the Arctic climate puzzle--the sea ice
observations, the shifts in ocean ecology, changes we're
observing on land--be linked to the Arctic Oscillation? Is the
Oscillation cyclic or is it following a long-term trend? So
nine government agencies, including NSF, through our Office of
Polar Programs at NSF, are involved in a coordinated program
that's large-scale research called SEARCH, the Study of
Environmental Arctic Change. I will insert into the record the
program. To comprehend the fragments of environmental change
that we're tracing, that we're monitoring in Alaska, we must
ultimately understand the dynamics of climate across the entire
region.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In his book about the Yup'ic people, called ``Always
Getting Ready,'' James Barker, the Alaskan photographer,
describes how the elders commonly caution the young that ``one
must be wise in knowing what to prepare for and equally wise in
being prepared for the unknowable.'' And I think this
perspective serves us equally well in our quest to understand
the mysteries of Arctic climate.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Rita Colwell
Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you, Senator Stevens, for
giving me the opportunity to testify today. I applaud the committee's
initiative in drawing attention to the critical issue of climate change
in the Arctic. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to outline
some of the findings from the National Science Foundation's investments
in understanding the complex picture of environmental change in the
Arctic.
I would like to set the stage for my testimony with a very short
video that suggests the wide spectrum of NSF's support for
investigating the Arctic environment from every vantagepoint, from work
with peoples of the region to major research platforms. Let's see the
video.
The last words in the video are important: Arctic peoples have long
adapted to change. But they find recent variations in the environment
new and disturbing. Comprehending the course and causes of this change
is a key goal of NSF's activities in the Arctic--but one that we are
still far from achieving. Absolutely critical to reaching this goal is
our joint work with the other Federal agencies involved with climate
change and the Arctic.
We are enumerating an extraordinary number of examples of
environmental change. In the oceans, researchers have found thinning
sea ice, unusual blooms of oceanic algae, die-offs of seabirds and
plummeting fish populations. On land we find permafrost melting in some
areas, and changes in caribou migration patterns related to food
supply. We work with Alaskan and Arctic Natives as they contribute
their own observations on the transformations that they see changing
their way of life.
The evidence for climate change in the Arctic is mounting and
serious, but our picture is not yet comprehensive. We do not yet know
for certain whether this change is part of a cycle, or is following a
long-term, possibly irreversible trend. Understanding the causes,
however, is critical to making good policy decisions.
We need copious and accurate observations over time to improve
computer models that help us to predict environmental change, but--
compared to much of the globe--the Arctic is data-poor. It is difficult
to reach much of the region, especially in the winter, and there are
very few research stations. The National Science Foundation is
committed to gathering the information--oceanic, terrestrial, aquatic,
atmospheric, cultural--that will help us refine our models, and help us
interpret these changes.
NSF has a unique role in that effort. We are the major supporter of
basic research in the region. We also support the entire spectrum of
science and engineering. We include the social sciences, which are so
critical to incorporating native knowledge into the climate change
picture, and to tracing the threat of contaminants to the health of the
Arctic peoples. This broad support lets us take a comprehensive
approach, which is the key to understanding the complexities of climate
change.
In addition, NSF plays a vital Federal coordinating role for Arctic
research. As NSF director I chair the International Arctic Research
Policy Committee. I'll describe one of that group's new efforts later.
Finally, along with NOAA, we are supporting the Arctic Climate
Impact Assessment, whose secretariat is based at the International
Arctic Research Center, here at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
This collective effort by the Arctic council nations will assess
climate change in the region and its expected impact on the
environment, economy, resources, and public health. NOAA will discuss
ACIA in greater detail today.
Let me turn now to some specific work NSF is supporting on Arctic
climate change. I will sketch some examples of NSF-backed research in
three vital areas: sea ice, ocean ecology, and terrestrial impacts.
Several of these efforts are part of the U.S. Global Change Research
Program. [aerosonde image of sea ice near Barrow]
We begin with what seems to be a moonscape, but is actually the sea
ice off Barrow, Alaska, photographed recently by a robotic aerosonde.
These small, pilotless planes, or drones, are being developed to
monitor sea ice and to refine climate models. If you look closely at
the right side of the image, you can see a yellow arrow. It points to
another aerosonde flying below.
We know that the Arctic climate is tremendously sensitive to
changes in sea ice, and that changes in the region's climate could
alter global climate. We also know that sea ice cover has been
shrinking about 3 percent each decade since the early 1970s, when
constant satellite monitoring began.
The aerosondes can help us to learn more. These relatively
inexpensive devices--$40,000 each--can fly in hazardous conditions and
over an extremely wide range. Such capabilities are assets for
obtaining measurements where the use of human pilots would be costly
and dangerous.
[Artist's conception: aerosonde transmitting data from Alaska by
satellite]
The aerosonde data travel by satellite to the scientists' home
computers.
[SHEBA: aerial or ice-level view]
Sea ice was also an important focus of the recent SHEBA project--
short for Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean. Ice Station SHEBA
consisted of an icebreaker frozen in to the ice and left to drift for
one year. SHEBA has been the largest single project NSF has undertaken
in the Arctic.
Data from SHEBA revealed some serious flaws in current climate
models. They do not depict surface reflectivity, or the role of clouds
in Arctic climate, with accuracy. Nor do the models properly represent
the way heat is exchanged between the ocean, atmosphere, and ice.
SHEBA's results are already improving simulations of Arctic climate and
the region's effects on global climate.
[North Pole Environmental Observatory]
We have also established an environmental observatory at the North
Pole, a five-year effort to take the pulse of the Arctic Ocean and its
effect on global climate. This year we carried out a hydrographic
survey from the North Pole toward Alaska. Meanwhile, at the station,
automated instruments transmit climate data by satellite from the ice
surface and from instruments anchored to the sea floor.
[SCICEX: sub emerging through ice]
Our Scientific Ice Expeditions--or SCICEX--took another approach.
In cooperation with the Office of Naval Research and the Navy, we used
Naval submarines as a unique research platform to explore the Arctic
Ocean ice from below, as well as to chart the seafloor. These cruises,
along with U.S. Navy submarine data, show that ice in the central
Arctic Ocean has thinned an average of 43 percent over the past 20
years.
[artist's rendering: new autonomous under-ice vehicles]
Such Naval submarines are no longer available for scientific use.
Most of this sub class, capable of surfacing through ice, has been
retired. However, we are moving to a new way of exploring under the sea
ice. The under-ice equivalent of the aerosondes are autonomous
underwater vehicles, shown here in an artist's rendering. They are
designed to make long duration (11-day) forays under ice-covered
oceans, and can transmit their position and data while underway. We are
supporting efforts to gather data this way in difficult and
inaccessible environments.
[coccolith blooms from space]
Native hunters, fishermen, and scientists all have noted many signs
of change in the ocean ecology of the Arctic. As we saw in the video,
during the winter of 2000-2001, ice was almost absent in the Bering
Sea. Striking environmental change is being documented there; I have
time to describe only a sampling of the changes being studied with NSF
support.
In 1997, unusually calm, clear weather preceded the first-known
Bering Sea bloom of coccolithophorid algae, seen here as a milky-green
cloud in the water. The carbonate plates of this phytoplankton are
reflective and show up well in satellite imagery. This organism is a
new component of the food web in this part of the ocean. We do not know
how it will affect the rest of the marine food chain.
[jellyfish]
Another remarkable change is the almost exponential increase in the
biomass of jellyfish in the eastern Bering Sea, beginning in 1989. Few
fish, birds or mammals eat jellyfish. In other oceans, a rise in
jellyfish populations has signaled extreme stress in an ecosystem.
[shearwater die-off; map and closeup picture]
A seabird called the short-tailed shearwater died off en-masse
during the warm year of 1997. Almost 200,000 shearwaters perished,
apparently through starvation. That is about 10 percent of the
population. The die-off may be related to major changes in a food
source: shifts in the mix of species of crustaceans in the Bering Sea.
[spectacled eider]
We've already seen another seabird in the video, the spectacled
eider. This threatened diving duck congregates in spectacular flocks
south of Saint Lawrence Island in March and April to feed on clams in
the bottom sediments. Benthic studies show that bivalve populations are
declining in biomass and shifting in species mix. NSF-funded work is
helping to assess whether a decline in this food is related to the
precipitous drop of this duck's population in both Russia and Alaska.
[Steller sea lion]
The population of the Steller sea lion, ranging from Northern
California to the Gulf of Alaska, the Aleutians, and Japan, has also
dropped dramatically in the Bering Sea, down to 10-20 percent of peak
levels. For example, NSF and NOAA data show severe declines in pups and
adults around the Pribilof Islands since the 1980s. Forage fish have
declined and killer whales increased near the Pribilofs; both trends
may have affected sea lion populations.
[Little Diomede]
NSF is now supporting the establishment of an environmental
observatory on Little Diomede Island in the center of the Bering
Strait. North Pacific water rich in nutrients and organic material
flows through this narrow strait into the Arctic Ocean. The observatory
will collect chemical, biological and physical data on this water.
Local teachers at the village school are participating in the study,
and collaborating with a teacher in the U.S. mainland.
[GLOBEC: 4 sites targeted by U.S.]
A major NSF effort to understand change in marine environments is
the Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics program. U.S. GLOBEC has targeted
the Georges Bank in the Atlantic, the California Current System, the
West Antarctic Peninsula, and the coastal Gulf of Alaska. NSF provides
$13.5 million and NOAA $3 million for GLOBEC in fiscal year 2001.
[GLOBEC: U.S. West Coast]
Research in the Gulf of Alaska, shown here, is just beginning. The
program explores how climate change affects marine populations,
including those of commercial fish. The main target fish for the Alaska
phase is the pink salmon (with a ``dock value'' of $34 million in
2000), and the zooplankton it eats. The overall salmon population
picture is very complex, but this study will shed new light on this
economically important fish.
[Fishing vessel Sea Eagle]
In the Gulf of Alaska, researchers will collaborate with the
fishing industry, including using the commercial fishing vessel Sea
Eagle to sample fish populations.
[Northern Hemisphere map: Distribution of permafrost]
Let me turn now to sketch a few patterns of change we see on land.
Permafrost covers the entire Arctic, including Alaska north of
Fairbanks.
If warming continues, the permafrost thaw zone could release vast
quantities of carbon dioxide or methane, which are greenhouse gasses.
Further warming of the Arctic could therefore lead to increased
greenhouse gasses--accelerating climate warming.
[Toolik Lake panoramic view and two graphs: temperature and alkalinity]
At the NSF's Long-term Ecological Research Station at Toolik Lake,
Alaska, over a quarter-century of observations have shown that the lake
has warmed by 2 degrees centigrade and that the alkalinity of the water
has increased. The change in the water chemistry may be due to thawing
permafrost. Measurements over longer time-scales are absolutely crucial
to tracking climate change.
[reindeer pictures]
Physical changes alter food supplies and change the habits of
wildlife, many species of which are economically important to Alaskans.
Some villages subsist through reindeer-herding. Migration patterns of
both the Porcupine Caribou Herd and the Western Arctic Herd have
shifted due to changes in lichen, which is their tundra foodsource.
Caribou herds have made unprecedented and massive incursions onto
reindeer ranges on Alaska's Seward Peninsula. NSF and other agencies
have supported documentation of Native knowledge and of their
observations of environmental changes such as these. As the reindeer
join up with their wild brethren, the caribou, and disappear into the
wild, the herders lose their livelihood. One study is tracing the
ecological, economic, and social effects of this change.
Another urgent concern of Arctic natives is the flow of
contaminants from elsewhere that find their way to the Arctic,
transported by the atmosphere, oceans, and rivers. Shifting climate
patterns could affect the transport of these contaminants. In one
study, elders helped scientists design research on whitefish and
contaminants in freshwater lakes.
[Arctic Oscillation]
We believe we are beginning to uncover the drivers of climate
change in the Arctic. Researchers have identified a major pattern of
climate fluctuation, called the Arctic Oscillation. It is a large-scale
pattern similar to its southern cousin, the El Nino-Southern
Oscillation. Some scientists hypothesize that the AO plus anthropogenic
effects control Arctic climate.
[SEARCH]
Can the pieces of the Arctic climate puzzle--sea ice observations,
shifts in ocean ecology, changes on the land--be linked to the Arctic
Oscillation? Is the Oscillation merely cyclic or is it following a
long-term trend? Answering these questions will require not only more
research but also greater integration of Arctic science.
Nine government agencies, including NSF--through our Office of
Polar Programs--are exploring a coordinated, large-scale effort to
study environmental change in the Arctic. I'm pleased to be the lead
Federal official in working with the Administration on these plans for
SEARCH, the Study of Environmental Arctic Change. To comprehend the
fragments of climate and environmental change we trace in Alaska, we
must ultimately understand the dynamics of climate change across the
entire region, which in turn have global connections.
NSF supports research in the Arctic at the smallest and largest
scales, and across the disciplines, and results are flowing in. But the
most powerful answers will require integrating all the data from our
numerous sources into a single coherent picture. Today, our new
technologies--such as the Internet--and our new perspectives on
collaborating across disciplines and institutional boundaries, set the
stage for understanding the complexities of climate change.
In his book about the Yup'ik people, called ``Always Getting
Ready,'' James Barker, the Alaskan photographer, describes how the
elders commonly caution the young that ``one must be wise in knowing
what to prepare for and equally wise in being prepared for the
unknowable.'' This perspective serves us equally well in our quest to
understand the mysteries of Arctic climate. Thank you.
[Clerk's Note.--The following report ``The Interagency
Program for the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH),
prepared by the Interagency Working Group for the Study of
Environmental Arctic Change, June 29, 2001, can be found in the
subcommittee files.]
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much, Dr. Colwell, and
thank you very much for coming. Our next witness is Scott
Gudes, Acting Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. He's accompanied by Thomas R. Karl, the
Director of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. Scott.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
STATEMENT OF SCOTT B. GUDES, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR
OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE
Mr. Gudes. Thank you. I also have Dr. Calder who's the head
of our Arctic Research Program.
Chairman Stevens. Pardon me. Thank you. Nice to have you
here, Doctor.
Mr. Gudes. Chairman Stevens, let me thank you on behalf of
Secretary Evans, the men and women at NOAA, for your interest
in climate, for your interest in the oceans and the atmosphere
and all of our programs. I would note that for most of the
agencies up here, you're not only the Chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, you're also on our Authorization
Committee and I don't know if all the people here in Fairbanks
and Alaska understand the significance of that. We certainly do
know your leadership over the years and what an impact you've
made in all of our programs.
Let me say, first, that climate research and climate
observations and forecasts are an important area for NOAA. They
have been since the inception of the agency back in 1970. In
fact, you may remember that Dr. Bob White, the first
Administrator of NOAA, was a big advocate of NOAA moving
forward into climate. And he points out that, when the Stratton
Commission was created, it was a theory that the Pacific
controlled a lot of the climate in the continental United
States; That El Nino had a major impact on rains, and he pushed
forward (indiscernible) effort that NSF worked on and NOAA
worked on. And, now, in 1997, when we came forward with a
prediction of heavy rains in California with an El Nino event
people saw that in fact that came to fruition, that we can
forecast climate.
Climate is seasonal for NOAA. We come forward with a
forecast every few months from the Weather Service and our
research components, and we talk about drought probability in
an area or higher than normal temperatures. It is also this
longer-term type issue that we're talking about today. And I
should note that, of our seven strategic goals at NOAA, two of
them relate to climate, seasonal to interannual and the decadal
to centennial change. In fact, we spend about, in total, about
$240 million a year on climate programs and all those sort of
categories.
Okay, next slide. Here, I'd just like to note that climate
is important to all of our programs here in Alaska, that Alaska
is important to NOAA programs. And we have some 460 plus
employees that work around the State. We have, of course, the
regional head of--our Alaska Fisheries is in Juneau where I'll
be going tomorrow. We have the Tsunami Warning Center in
Palmer. We have research and Weather Service employees in
Barrow, all over the State and, in fact, we have 50 contract
employees here in the Fairbanks area that operate and control
all of our polar satellites. Climate affects all these
activities around the State. It's important to everyone. It's
important to our Weather Service employees who are out in those
rural communities like St. Paul and Kotzebue and Nome and
Yukatat and they're there--when you were talking about coastal
erosion yesterday, they're there; they're taking part; they're
members of those communities. But it relates to probably all
the sort of services and operations that we perform. It
obviously, as Dr. Colwell just mentioned, it relates to
fisheries and marine mammals. It relates to coastal management
and our efforts to prepare communities for coastal storms. It
relates to weather and, I think Orson Smith mentioned this
morning, river forecasting. That's one of the Weather Service's
missions. In fact, our River Forecast Center is in Anchorage,
for Alaska. It relates to public safety and that goes to the
core of the mission of NOAA. So climate is a major issue and
it's a major issue for us here in Alaska.
Next slide. I think most of this was covered this morning.
I think it's important to note that you really can't focus on
the climate here in Alaska without understanding the total
global climate system that's been referred to by a few people
here. But I think there's two points on this chart I'd just
like to make that weren't covered. One is, on the lower left,
those are measurements of CO2 and other gasses in
the atmosphere. That's done at our Barrow Observatory. You
visited our South Pole Observatory back in January 1998. We
have four that are these continuous measurements. Mauna Loa
goes all the way back to 1959. And so we have these sort of
records that enable the world to know from a ground-based
source just how much CO2 or methane or other gasses
are in the atmosphere. The other measurement, where it says
``Warming of World Oceans,'' that should say 3,000 meters,
about 10,000 feet. Dr. Syd Levitus (ph) of our National Ocean
Center and Tom Delworth (ph) of our Geophysical Fluid Dynamics
Lab have come up with research that shows that the world
oceans--again, this is a global measurement--down to about
10,000 feet have warmed by a bout a tenth of a degree
fahrenheit since 1955. And they believe--again, as Mr. Goldin
pointed out, it's always an issue of how much is natural
variation--but they believe this is, again, anthropogenic,
human forcing factors. A tenth of a degree fahrenheit may not
sound like that much but, given that the world's oceans, or
this sink, that they're the energy that drives the world
climate system, I'm told that that is enough energy to fix the
United States energy crisis. In fact, it provides the United
States--so much heat and energy for the United States and
California for 15,000 years. And, as Tom Karl pointed out,
enough heat that's stored in the oceans to melt the whole Polar
Ice Cap. It's a lot of energy and it will affect the atmosphere
in future years or it could affect the atmosphere in future
years.
Next slide, please. Now, again, a few of these things were
covered by others but I'll just point out a few here. That was
the Northwest Passage you talked about. That's in 1998 which is
the warmest year on record globally and it just shows just how
open the Northwest Passage was that you talked about before,
with oil tankers.
Let me mention the precipitation anomalies. That actually
shows one of the issues about climate, that we certainly have a
lot of research still to do because I think you've heard me and
others say that Alaska's becoming warmer and wetter. But what
that chart actually shows is that Alaska became wetter quite
some time ago. And, actually, in the recent warming--yeah,
right at the end there, it's going up but that the major change
in precipitation took place in Alaska quite some time ago.
And, then, finally, let me just point out an Arctic sea
ice. A few of us have talked about that, about the Arctic sea
ice is thinning, it's receding. I'd just like to point out that
that's one of the points about what I think we do as an
operational agency. We in the Navy with Coast Guard
participation run the Joint Ice Center in Suitland and that
data base comes from the Joint Ice Center, which are continuous
measurements. It's that sort of issue about climate.
Okay, next slide. Again, most of these things were covered
but on the left we have a simulation that shows what's happened
with Alaska's temperatures since 1945. And it demonstrates a
few things, that there's a lot of variability, that it's not
linear, it's not equal, and that, within Alaska, different
regions are affected differently in a given year. And,
obviously, as you get to the--red being warmer--as you get to
the 1990's--and, of course, 1998 I think you'll see that Alaska
was much warmer. But, again, there's variability and you have
to look for those long-term signatures, that long-term
monitoring, to be able to look and see what's really changing.
Okay, next slide. Now, I think there were a few people this
morning who talked about it. One of the key things, I think,
about climate and really understanding climate is that to
really be able to do it right--it's not all that glamorous.
It's about observing systems and, in fact, we talk in NOAA
about climates reference networks and cooperative observing
systems and about the Cooperative Observer Network. Well, right
now, in the United States, we have about 11,000 people, 11,000
sites, where people take observations every day for us. You see
that sometimes on your local TV networks and people talk about
how much rain there was in a location or what the temperature
is. That's about how we are able in this country really to get
much better climate information. It's about those long-term
measurements. And it's something we really need to look at
automating and rationalizing as we move forward in the future.
And we've done some of that at NOAA. Now, let me just point out
here that, in understanding climate change in Alaska, you get a
feel for what percentage Alaska is of the land area of the
United States. It's about 14 percent. If you look on the left
there, that's the Cooperative Observer Network, the Automated
Surface Observations, those sort of sites I was talking about
within the State of Alaska. You can see how sparse the
observational network is. On the right, we're taking the land
area of Alaska and saying, ``Okay, let's take a look inside the
Lower 48. Look how many more observing stations there are.''
What that means is we have a lot better understanding, a lot
more continuous data, in the lower 48 in temperature and
precipitation, soil moisture content, of the kind of things we
need to take a look at in terms of understanding of what's
going on in climate. So in looking toward the future, the kind
of issues that we at NOAA would talk about are this sort of
long-term observing systems. Again, a climate reference
network, I think one of our premier sites is about--I think
they cost about $50,000. We just put one in or are putting one
into Barrow. But these are the type of systems that one needs
to do long-term. On the right is weather buoys. Mr. Chairman,
you came forward last year and gave us money to put in seven
additional weather buoys off the coast of Alaska. Obviously,
this is important to fishermen but it's important to everyone
to know what's going on with the waves, what's going on with
the temperature, what's going on with the surface pressure. And
we have seven additional buoys in this year's budget. So we're
following your lead in the 2002 budget.
And, then, finally, I have an animation up on the right.
We've talked a lot about the oceans and about salinity this
morning. The Argo system under the National Ocean Partnership
Program where we give the money to NOPP with the Navy. But the
Argo Program is, if you will, a radiozon, a weather balloon,
that's for the oceans. And these buoys go down to 2,000 meters,
they drift. They come up every 10 days and they give us
salinity and temperature. They come to the surface and they
transmit those to satellites. We're up in this year's budget to
about 275--a procurement of 275 of these buoys per year. We're
moving toward a worldwide system of 3,000 Argo floats and we
believe, spaced properly, this could give us the sort of
knowledge and information that we have, for example, in the
atmosphere with weather balloons and radiosondes which are
launched twice a day. So it's about those long-term observing
measurements; it's about those ground-based measurements in
conjunction with satellite measurements that we think really
unlock the secrets globally about what's going on.
Okay, next slide. Just real quickly, we have in our 2002
budget a climate initiative. This follows up to the initiative
last year. Arctic Ocean fluxes were talked about this morning.
We have about half a million dollars for that. That's looking
at the fresh water incursion that we were talking about before.
Let me just mention--we were talking about supercomputing. Our
premier modeling center is the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics
Laboratory in Princeton University. And that $3 million is to
provide the type of supercomputing capacity we believe that we
need to run those climate models that were talked about to get
the mesh smaller, to get them run longer. There was one of the
presentations this morning that used the GFDL model input is
one of those ensembles. And it is a question of having the best
people and giving them the tools to do the job, getting that
data I talked about and getting the data assimilated into the
models. We're working with NASA on a joint data assimilation
center right now, not just in climate but in weather as well.
It's a really key issue. We do not use enough of the data we
get from satellites now.
Last slide. And, then, finally, as you know, we're an
operational satellite agency. We run geostationary satellites;
that's on the upper left. Those are the ones that most people
in the United States see on television every night. But as you
can see as you go toward the Poles, because the Earth curves,
it really doesn't cover Alaska very well. Those two satellites
do not. And so it's actually our polar satellites that provide
the best coverage for Alaska. They provide the atmospheric
soundings which are put into our models. They provide the
imaging; they provide the search and rescue services, SARSAC,
where we get that information to the Coast Guard. That's saved
over 12,000 lives in the last 20 years.
And the replacement satellite for that--it's called NPOESS,
National Polar Orbiting Environment Satellite System. And if
you will, let me just make a few points. DOD and NOAA have run
two separate systems for 40 years. NPOESS is converging those
systems into one satellite system. It'll provide all those
things I mentioned for both the civil community as well as for
military commanders. It also includes altimetry. We talked
about sea surface height; we talked about sea surface
temperature. It includes altimetry and it includes
scatterometry, sea surface winds. And we're working on an
aerosol sensor to take a look at particles in the atmosphere,
dust particles, soot, which affect climate. We're very
enthusiastic about that at NOAA and Commerce. We believe the
Department of Defense is but it is a new requirement that's
coming forward for the system.
Just one final thing about NPOESS. It's critically
important; it's one of our major systems and our budget has an
$83 million increase. For NOAA, this is quite large but, in
order to get that system delivered by late 2008, we have to--we
really have to keep it on schedule. It becomes a weather system
and a climate system and for Alaska it is the environmental
satellite--operational environmental satellite system.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, that's a few of the things we're doing at
NOAA. We're major participants in USGCRP. We're participants in
SEARCH. We're honored to be here and we work very closely with
all the agencies up here today and, once again, we very much
appreciate your support.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott B. Gudes
Thank you, Chairman Stevens, for inviting me to testify about the
research that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) is doing on climate change, and how climate change is affecting
the Arctic region. It is a pleasure for me to visit Alaska once again,
and to share with you our interests in the dramatic environmental
changes occurring in the Arctic, especially in Alaska--the U.S. Arctic.
NOAA has a long history of awareness of the issue of climate change and
its impacts on society. Since the mid-1970s, NOAA has sought to
understand the mechanisms that control the Earth's climate. Our initial
focus was on the equatorial Pacific Ocean and after several decades of
observation and research, we know enough about the El Nino-Southern
Oscillation phenomena to be able to predict it and to anticipate
impacts in the U.S. and Latin America. Our more recent efforts have
contributed to discovery of other climate cycles and modes of
variability. Most recently, we have become aware of the Arctic
Oscillation and its Atlantic component, the North Atlantic Oscillation.
The Arctic Oscillation may well be the second most important mode of
climate variability, after El Nino, in shaping our country's weather
and climate.as related to the way in which nature manifests its major
climate variations and change.
Over the last few years, NOAA has increased its involvement in
Arctic science and the sponsorship of activities designed to improve
our awareness of the Arctic environment and how it is changing. I will
describe these activities, identify the key gaps in our knowledge and
capabilities, and indicate a possible future direction for NOAA's
activities to reduce uncertainties about climate change in general, and
in the Arctic.
When I refer to the Arctic, I include the entire Bering Sea and
Aleutian Island region, as well as the Arctic Ocean and its surrounding
seas, and, of course, all the land traditionally included in the
Arctic, as well as the atmosphere overlying these areas.
OBSERVED ARCTIC CHANGES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO NOAA'S MISSION AND
EXPERTISE
Other presentations at this hearing have described the dramatic
changes that have occurred in the Arctic over the past few decades. A
great many of these changes have occurred in the atmosphere, the ocean,
and cryosphere, including sea ice. Detecting and anticipating these
physical changes fall squarely within NOAA's mission to observe and
predict the evolving state of the oceanic and atmospheric environment.
NOAA now believes the Arctic Oscillation, described to you yesterday,
is nearly as important as the El Nino phenomenon in controlling
temperatures in the eastern U.S. Other factors, such as the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation and the recently described Atlantic Multidecadal
Oscillation also may be significant modes for influencing our nation's
weather and climate.a one of several major oscillations in the
atmosphere and like the El Nino phenomenon and the Pacific-Decadal
Oscillation is an important factor influencing high latitude and
northern hemisphere temperatures. These oscillations are preferred
modes of atmospheric circulation. Evidence suggests that changes in
these modes of atmospheric and oceanic circulation are the principalone
of the ways through which changes in global climate are manifested.
NOAA is responsible for weather and climate observations and forecasts
for the U.S., and for contributing to understanding climate variability
and change on global and regional scales. The linkages between the
Arctic Oscillation and other modes of variability in the atmosphere and
oceans are the subjects of current NOAA research.
The observed changes in sea ice relate strongly to several NOAA
missions. Sea ice cover in the Arctic is a key variable in controlling
the radiative balance of the Earth. Sea ice reflects much of the
incident radiation during the Arctic summer and restricts loss of heat
from the ocean in the Arctic winter. Better representing sea ice
extent, concentration, and thickness in climate models is an emerging
research priority for NOAA. Increased absence of ice is likely to
increase opportunities for marine transportation and this may increase
demands on NOAA's nautical charting program and the National Ice
Center. If this occurs, then Arctic coastlines are likely to become
more at risk from maritime accidents. If so, NOAA's hazardous materials
response activities may be called upon. Absence of shore fast ice is
one cause for the increased coastal erosion that has occurred in
several of Alaska's coastal communities. NOAA's ongoing efforts in
storm surge prediction and mitigation could contribute to this issue in
the Arctic. Changes in sea ice also affects the habitat and subsistence
use of many marine mammals in the Bering Sea and Arctic. NOAA has trust
responsibility for several of these species
We believe that ocean regime shifts observed in the Bering Sea
should also be included among the critical changes in the Arctic over
the past few decades and we have strong suspicions that these play a
critical role in stock abundances of the commercial and forage fish in
the Bering Sea.
The point of this discussion is to make it clear that NOAA's
activities are central to the need for timely and high quality science
and services related to Arctic change. NOAA's current activities are
responsive to this need, but we hope to do even better in the future.
NOAA ACTIVITIES IN THE ARCTIC
In the broadest sense, NOAA spends about $30 million per year for
on-going Arctic activities, many of which are part of, but this is
supplemented by a broader programs that, which also provide
observations, data, analyses, and forecasts. These programs are spread
among all five of our line offices and include a mix of research and
operational activities. Listed below are the highlights of these that
are relevant to the topic of this hearing.
--Atmospheric Trace Constituents (Barrow Observatory): Continuous and
discrete measurements of atmospheric trace constituents (for
example, greenhouse gases) that are important to understanding
global change.
--Marine Fisheries Assessment: Assessment by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) of U.S. living marine resources in
Arctic waters.
--Marine Fisheries Research: NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental
Laboratory (PMEL) and Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC)
conduct the Fisheries Oceanography Coordinated Investigations
(FOCI) program in the Bering Sea and North Pacific. FOCI is
concerned with understanding and predicting the impacts of
inter-annual variability and decade-scale climate change on
commercially valuable fish species.
--Marine Mammal Assessment: Long-term research by NMFS's National
Marine Mammal Laboratory on the population biology and ecology
of Arctic marine mammals. NMFS also participates in the Marine
Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program, which oversees
the Arctic Marine Mammal Tissue Archival Program (AMMTAP) in
collaboration with Department of Interior (FWS, BRD, and MMS)
and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
The AMMTAP collects, analyzes, and archives tissues for
contaminants and health indices to provide a database on
contaminants and health in marine mammal populations in the
Arctic.
--Coastal Hazards: Activities directed towards developing a better
understanding of the effects of tsunami propagation and run-up.
--Ocean Assessment: A wide range of programs and activities directed
toward NOAA's environmental stewardship responsibilities,
including environmental monitoring and assessment, technology
transfer, and education and outreach. Ocean assessment includes
the National Status and Trends Program, the Coastal Ocean
Program, and other pertinent activities of the recently formed
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), National
Ocean Service.
--Stratospheric Ozone: A program that is developing an understanding
of the dynamics and chemistry of the potential for Arctic ozone
depletion, as part of activities directed to understanding the
global depletion of stratospheric ozone.
--Data Management and Access: The process of collecting, quality
control, data access, and long-term preservation of all data
collected is one of NOAA's mandate's. We operated three
National Data Centers and over ten World Data Centers which
archive atmospheric and climatic data, ocean-related data, and
geophysical data. We also archive all of the biological data we
collect
--Remote Sensing: A substantial program (jointly with NSF and DOE)
for developing, testing, and using ground-based remote sensors
for Arctic meteorological research. The emphasis is on
prototypes for future operational systems that can operate in
the Arctic with minimal attention. The scientific issues
include boundary layer turbulence and structure, cloud macro-
and micro-physical properties, and cloud-radiative coupling
relevant to Arctic climate.
--Aircraft/Vessels: Platform support from the Office of Marine and
Aviation Operations (OMAO) to conduct the research and
observations associated with NOAA's Arctic research program.
--Climate and Global Change: Studies that are assessing changes in
the arctic and others areas affecting the arctic, including
causative factors of climate change and the environmental
response to these changes and variations. NOAA's Arctic
Research Office chairs the Interagency Working Group on the
Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH).
--Arctic Ice: The National Ice Center, jointly operated by NOAA, the
U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Coast Guard, provides analyses and
forecasts of ice conditions in all seas of the polar regions,
the Great Lakes, and Chesapeake Bay. Since 1974, the NIC has
produced weekly ice charts depicting Arctic and Antarctic sea
ice conditions, as well as tracked large Antarctic icebergs. In
October of 2000, NIC released a compilation of its ice charts
from 1972 to 1994. Scientific study of NIC's sea ice charts
will prove a valuable resource in determining how global
climate change has affected the sea ice cover over this 22-year
timeframe. The NIC is striving to add to this data set, and
plans to release the data for 1995-20001 by the end of this
year. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), affiliated
with NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC), archives
many new and rescued ice data sets.
--Arctic Weather: Research primarily addressing two forecast
problems: detection of the Arctic front and the effect of the
Arctic front on local weather.
--Boreal Forest Fires and the Arctic: Modeling, research, and
observations to understand the influence of Northern Hemisphere
boreal forest fires on atmospheric chemistry in the Arctic,
especially focusing on the production of surface-level ozone
and other pollutants and the atmospheric and climate effects of
the input of soot.
--Arctic Research Initiative: Program supporting research,
monitoring, and assessment projects to study natural
variability and anthropogenic influences on Western Arctic/
Bering Sea ecosystems. These activities are a U.S. contribution
to the Arctic Council's Arctic Monitoring and Assessment
Program. Projects supported by this program are expected to
lead to better understanding of Arctic contaminants and their
pathways, the effects of climate change including increased
ultraviolet radiation, and the combined effects of stresses
from climate change and various contaminants.
--Surface Weather and Climate Observing Networks: The National
Weather Service operates two operational observing networks in
Alaska, accounting for over 100 stations. Recently the National
Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS)
initiated the development of a Climate Reference Network which
will add to the existing weather networks.
--Space-based observations of Change: In the arctic regions,
including Alaska, much of our information is derived from
satellite measurements. For example, changes in sea-ice and
snow cover extent have been carried out for over three decades
using NOAA's operational polar orbiting satellites. NOAA's
polar orbiting satellites have been crucial in providing global
coverage of ocean surface temperatures since the early 1980's.
Perhaps of most importance has been the contribution of NOAA's
polar orbiting and geostationary satellites to provide climate
data related to the tracks and intensity of tropical and extra-
tropical cyclones. Other elements monitored by NOAA satellites
include clouds, winds, and water vapor. NOAA/NESDIS has
operated two operational polar orbiting satellites over the
past four decades, as well as two geostationary satellites,
thereby providing necessary spatial and temporal coverage of
the Earth.
--Alaska Sea Grant and the West Coast and Polar Regions Undersea
Research Center: These NOAA institutional programs conduct a
diverse set of research programs in Alaska that include
research on the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea. Among these are
environmental affects on commercial and protected resources,
and sub-sea research on high-latitude productivity, nutrient
exchange, and benthic community structure.
In 1999, NOAA organized the Arctic Research Office and received
funding for the Arctic Research Initiative into our requested budget.
With these steps, NOAA declared its awareness of the importance of the
Arctic and particularly the Alaskan Arctic in several science issues
relevant to NOAA's missions. In particular, NOAA's Arctic science
interests include weather and climate, marine ecosystem productivity,
and long-range transport of contaminants. Activities in all of these
areas were supported with Arctic Research funds. It is important to
note that NOAA's Arctic Research program is implemented in close
cooperation with the Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research (CIFAR)
at the University of Alaska. This cooperation has been fruitful in
several ways, but most importantly in ensuring that research priorities
are set based on the intersection of NOAA's mission priorities and the
knowledge of scientists with first hand experience in the Arctic. In
fiscal year 2000, NOAA, NSF, and CIFAR had the opportunity to
collaborate with a new organization, the International Arctic Research
Center (IARC), also at the University of Alaska. This NOAA/CIFAR/IARC
collaboration provided a unique opportunity for organizing a very
significant research effort focused on the Arctic. The combined
resources of the IARC and of NOAA's Arctic Research program were
brought to bear on research themes closely related to the topic of this
hearing. Specifically, several projects each were supported under the
following themes: Detection of Arctic Change; Arctic Paleoclimates;
Interactions/Feedbacks and Modeling of Arctic climate; Changes in the
Arctic Atmosphere; and Impacts to Arctic Biota and Ecosystems. Overall,
thirty-nine individual research projects and a few supportive workshops
and data management activities were funded for two years. NOAA
acknowledges the willingness of the National Science Foundation to
support the second year of many of these activities through its
cooperative agreement with the IARC.
As an outgrowth of discussions among NOAA, the IARC, and the
National Science Foundation in fiscal year 2000, we agreed that the
IARC could be the site for the Secretariat of a new international
activity, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, or ACIA. The ACIA is
being conducted by scientists from all eight Arctic countries as an
activity of the Arctic Council. During the recent period of leadership
of the Arctic Council by the United States, the U.S. offered to lead
this assessment. NOAA is the minor co-sponsor of the ACIA, while the
National Science Foundation is providing the major support to the ACIA
through the IARC. The Secretariat for the ACIA is located at the
University of Alaska and is headed by Dr. Gunter Weller, who is also
Director of NOAA's Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research. The ACIA
will result in 2004 in a summary of knowledge regarding past climate
variability and change over the entire Arctic, projections of Arctic
climate variability in the future, and an evaluation of the impacts of
climate variability and change on the biological environment, human
uses of the environment, and social structures. The Arctic Council will
use this summary of knowledge to prepare a policy report discussing
actions that governments should consider in response to anticipated
changes in Arctic climate. More information on ACIA can be found on its
website at http://www.acia.uaf.edu.
While the main product of the ACIA will not be available until
2004, its first outcome is a key report on Arctic climate modeling. The
following quote from the report's summary is quite revealing:
``The Arctic is recognized as the area of the world where climate
change is likely to be largest, and is also an area where natural
variability has always been large. Current climate models predict a
greater warming for the Arctic than for the rest of the globe. The
impacts of this warming, including the melting of sea ice and changes
to terrestrial systems, are likely to be significant. The projections
of future changes are complicated by possible interactions involving
stratospheric temperature, stratospheric ozone, and changes in other
parts of the Arctic system. For this reason, current estimates of
future changes to the Arctic vary significantly. The model results
disagree as to both the magnitude of changes and the regional aspects
of these changes.''
The report goes on to state that models indicate a warming of the
Arctic of 2 to 6 degrees Celsius by 2070, but with considerable
uncertainty. These uncertainties stem from our assumptions about the
future, from the models themselves, and from inherent limitations in
our ability to predict climate. We know that the Arctic undergoes
considerable climate variation on decadal and longer time scales (e.g.,
the warming of the 1930's and cooling over the next few decades) and
this must be considered in addition to any anthropogenic change.
In the current fiscal year, NOAA continued to emphasize Arctic
environmental change and initiated an additional ten projects that will
provide new information on Arctic Ocean circulation, atmospheric
advection of heat and moisture, and the role of sea ice and snow cover
in influencing the state of the Arctic Oscillation. These projects are
planned to continue through fiscal year 2002. The NOAA/CIFAR
collaboration was again utilized to implement these projects. Another
benefit of this collaboration that deserves mention is the ability to
provide support to the most capable scientists who are interested in
research in the Arctic. Over the years, support has been provided to
scientists from NOAA, from other federal agencies, from several of our
institutional academic partners, and from other academic and research
organizations. Many projects have involved foreign collaborators as
well.
NOAA was given an unexpected opportunity this year to evaluate how
changes in the higher latitudes impact marine ecosystem productivity.
NOAA was asked by the Congress to evaluate the possible role of climate
and ocean regime shifts on populations of Steller Sea Lions. Once
again, NOAA turned to its collaboration with CIFAR to define and
implement a research program. Twelve projects were selected for funding
utilizing the standard peer review practices that characterize all of
the NOAA/CIFAR activities. Six of these projects have the goal of
evaluating existing data to determine if there is any evidence that
climate variability or ocean regime shifts could be wholly or partly
responsible for the dramatic decline in the population of Steller Sea
Lions in the Aleutian Islands and western Gulf of Alaska. This decline
occurred over the past 30 years, a period in which at least one major
ocean regime shift has been recorded and the Arctic Oscillation shifted
to its high index state. The project reports will be available in about
2 years. NOAA is also supporting the collection of new data in key
regions in the Aleutian Islands and near Kodiak that will allow future
evaluation of the role of ocean conditions in the population dynamics
not only of Steller Sea Lions, but also the mammals, birds, and fish
that inhabit these regions.
REMAINING KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND DATA GAPS
Recent climate assessments
Over the past several months two state-of-knowledge assessments
have been completed addressing climate change and climate impacts both
globally and nationally. On a global basis, the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) has assessed the science of climate change and
the potential impacts of such changes. On a national basis the full
report of the National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts has just
been released. It focuses on the impacts of climate change within the
borders of the United States. These reports outline our present state
of knowledge about how the climate has changed in the past, whether it
is presently changing, what may be causing these changes, what is
likely in the future given various scenarios of changes in atmospheric
composition, and the potential economic and ecological impacts of these
changes. All of these reports also find that significant climate change
and impacts are emerging in Arctic areas, and particularly in Alaska.
Moreover, all projections suggest that these areas will continue to see
larger changes in climate than the rest of the planet.
The United States National Assessment outlines a national research
strategy that would help us reduce the uncertainties about climate
change impacts, and the IPCC report also identifies key uncertainties.
One of NOAA's concerns relates to potential surprises that are possible
due to incomplete understanding of the climate system. Some examples of
these have been proposed with some rationale for their occurrence such
as: a complete shutdown of the North Atlantic Circulation which
transports heat to the high latitudes, large releases of methane, a
potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere as the climate warms
(currently frozen in the arctic tundra), major changes in circulation
and precipitation due to an ice-free arctic, significant changes in the
strength of El Nino due to warming of the Pacific Ocean, and others. A
better understanding of the science will minimize the risk of such
unanticipated climate change.
Since the assessments have already been the subject of several
Congressional hearings, and are the focus of an ongoing National
Academy of Sciences analysis I will not elaborate on their findings.
Instead, I will emphasize how NOAA is helping to reduce remaining
uncertainties about climate change and climate change impacts.
Reducing uncertainties about climate change
It is important to realize that the climate change issue is being
addressed within NOAA using the well-proven scientific method of
beginning with reliable good old fashion observations, then we work to
developing theories about the nature and behavior of the observations,
and lastly we testing our theories by making predictions about the
relationships among the observations. Traditionally, in laboratory
experiments it is relatively easy to control for all relevant factors
except the one being testing. This helps scientists evaluate theories,
but in nature our ability to control relevant factors is severely
constrained. Instead, theories are tested by comparison with the
existing we rely on an extensive collection of past observations or
proxy data from tree rings or ice cores, for example. to test our
theories We cannot wait decades into the future to test our
understanding. This requires a comprehensive collection of reliable
historical data. Moreover, it becomes critical to know which variables
need to be monitored and with what frequency, spatial extent, and
accuracy. Fortunately, our work over the past Century, and the
assessments of the last decade, have provided considerably insight as
to what needs to be monitored. They have also provided insights as to
how best test and develop our theories about the operation of the
climate system and its impact on society and the environment. As an
operational agency, NOAA's ongoing programs, as described above, will
serve to advance our state of knowledge about climate and reduce
uncertainties about climate change and its impact. They will fill
important information gaps required for informed decisions by
governments, industry, and the public. NOAA's role in addressing
climate variability and change, and reducing uncertainties contributes
to the interagency U.S. Global Change Research Program.
I would be remiss however, if I did not emphasize some of the
greatest challenges NOAA faces related to increasing our understanding
of climate change and its impacts are in the Arctic including Alaska.
These challenges include cover various areas ranging from deployment of
observing systems under harsh conditions, improving global climate
modeling by adding regional (including the Arctic) and inter-decadal
skilling,to and providing access to the vast array of data and
information collected by NOAA.
Key measurements for understanding climate change
One of the most important lessons we have learned from the last
decade is that a single comprehensive observing system for global
change is not the right approach. The attempt to satisfy too many
requirements can result in an observing system that is neither
optimally useful nor sustainable. A special need in the ongoing
development and implementation of observing systems during the next
decade will be the development and implementation of hierarchical
observing strategies, methods, and tools that integrate local,
regional, and global scale data. NOAA intends to formulate an observing
strategy for the Arctic.
TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION
Our longest instrumental surface weather records are derived from
two basic NOAA weather networks, the Cooperative Weather Observing
Network (COOP) and the First-Order Automated Surface Observing System
(ASOS). Data from these networks have been painstakingly analyzed by
numerous scientists to tease out a long-term record of climate
variation and change. There are numerous difficulties in using these
data for the purpose of documenting climate variations and changes, as
apparent by the relatively large uncertainty band related to observed
global temperature changes during the past Century, e.g., 0.4 to
0.8 deg.C/100 years and mid-to-high latitude changes in precipitation,
e.g., a 5-10 percent increase in precipitation.
The uncertainty can be much greater for poorly monitored high
latitude regions such as Alaska, where the warming is estimated to be
several times larger. Large uncertainties arise because of the
additional cost of monitoring in remote and harsh environments. As a
result, Alaska has the lowest density of surface temperature and
precipitation observations of all states. The lack of an optimized
observing network for monitoring decadal climate variations and change
and the low density of stations leads to substantial uncertainties. For
example, in Alaska, all the ASOS sites are located at major airports
near urban areas, and in the Arctic, the urban warming influence can
confound our interpretation of the changes we see. The ASOS network,
together with the volunteer COOP network, helps define the climate
across the state from a total of just over 100 stations, in contrast to
areas in the lower 48 states where we have over 1,000 stations for
similar sized areas.
Up until this past year these two networks have been the basis for
virtually all our information about changes in temperature and
precipitation. NOAA has recently been provided funds to begin operation
of a surface observing network for temperature and precipitation that
meets the climate change monitoring requirements developed by the U.S.
National Research Council and the World Meteorological Organization. A
Climate Reference Network is now being developed, and one of the first
Climate Reference Stations is now being installed near Barrow, Alaska,
the location of NOAA's benchmark observatory for measuring changes in
atmospheric constituents. Completion of this network will ensure that
NOAA's ability to precisely measure temperature and precipitation
change, including changes in extremes. Changes in precipitation
extremes are expected to be quite pronounced in Alaska and other high
latitude regions as temperatures increase, but these changes can be
especially difficult to monitor.
In addition to observations in Alaska, climate-quality data is
needed for temperature and precipitation over the Arctic Ocean as well.
NOAA's Arctic observing strategy will include this requirement.
ATMOSPHERIC CONSTITUENTS
Quantifying the trends, sources and uptakes of long-lived
greenhouse gases is fundamental to our understanding of current and
future climate. The measurements taken at our Barrow site, one of our
four benchmark greenhouse gas monitoring sites, provides one of the
most important sets of measurements to monitor changes in greenhouse
gas concentrations. We have recently received much needed funding to
begin improving our greenhouse gas monitoring capability at these
sites. There are numerous questions about the trends and radiative
effects of these gases that NOAA will be addressing over the next few
years. For example, how is atmospheric carbon dioxide taken up by the
oceans and land, why has the rate of increase of the potent greenhouse
gas methane changed, what is the relationship between the ozone hole
recovery and increases of greenhouse gases? On this latter point
multiple data sets reveal that there has been a cooling trend in the
lower stratosphere over the past two decades. Model simulations point
out unequivocally that the global-mean lower-stratospheric cooling is
due to decreases in stratospheric ozone, increases in gases like carbon
dioxide, and increases in stratospheric water vapor. It now appears
possible that this cooling may delay the recovery of the ozone hole.
There are several important additional steps that we are building
into our long range plans. This includes enhancing our monitoring
capability for carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide and other
trace atmospheric constituents that are radiatively active. This will
require additional investments in our benchmark stations and the
planning and implementation necessary to begin measurements from space.
Maintenance and dissemination of gas standards must also be enhanced as
we also collect data from around the world from dozens of international
sites.
It is very important to begin a long time-series of measurements of
carbon dioxide from tall towers to determine the uptake of carbon
dioxide by forests and soils. Four new towers are planned (for various
forest-cover regions), adding to the existing two. This expansion will
provide an initial estimate of uptake by North America. We would like
to institute three new chemical monitoring sites in the Pacific to give
information about the contents of the chemical mix of the Asian plume
as it is transported eastward. This will provide greater detail than is
possible with only one existing site, in Hawaii.
One of our key uncertainties related to understanding climate
change relates to our incomplete knowledge about changes in radiatively
active anthropogenic aerosols. This is a complex issue because aerosols
like those produced by burning high sulfur fossil fuels produce micron
size particles that reflect solar energy back to space and cool the
planet, but they also interact with the formation of clouds, affecting
their lifetimes and radiative properties in ways we do not fully
understand. To make matters more complex there are other aerosols
produced by humans that tend to radiate back to earth more radiation
than they reflect back to space (soot or carbonaceous aerosols),
contributing to a warmer planet. Unfortunately, long-time series of
these measurements are difficult because they vary greatly in space,
unlike greenhouse gas measurement. NOAA has convened an interagency
workshop to evaluate ways we could begin a long-time series of these
measurements. We are exploring the feasibility of including some of
these instruments aboard our future satellite missions.
CRYOSPHERIC INDICATORS, E.G., SNOW COVER AND SEA-ICE EXTENT AND
THICKNESS, PERMAFROST, LAKE- AND RIVER-ICE
NOAA's polar orbiting satellite data and surface-based observations
have been used to show that major changes in the cryosphere are now
underway, and even larger changes are projected to occur this Century
in the high latitudes including Alaska. The lake and river ice season
(now estimated to be 12 days less compared to the 19th Century),
permafrost, sea ice, and snow cover extent are all estimated to be
decreasing. Further, the surface reflectivity of these regions is a
major climate feedback. NOAA's research has shown that the melting of
ice in high latitudes has likely contributed to about 50 percent of the
warming during spring in the mid- and high-latitudes. Reliable time
series of cryospheric variables are necessary to test the predictive
skill of our models. Massive losses of snow cover and sea ice are
likely-irreversibly large, so it is very important that we accurately
measure and model this change. This takes on added importance since the
impacts of these changes are already apparent in the Arctic, and likely
to become more significant.
NOAA's researchers, the Snow and Ice Data Center and NOAA's
Operational Satellite Processing Center are working to ensure that a
seamless record of changes in the arctic can be preserved as there are
multiple demands and uses of these data.
OCEAN TEMPERATURE, SALINITY, AND CIRCULATION
To project the pace of changes in sea-ice, sea-level, and other
aspects of climate it is critical to couple the fast-response of the
atmosphere with the sluggish response of the oceans. The measurement of
ocean temperature, salinity, and circulation are now a primary goal of
NOAA's participation in the National Ocean Partnership Program (NOPP).
To advance this goal, NOAA in partnership with other nations, is
deploying an array of oceanographic profiling floats, called Argo, that
provide information about ocean temperature, salinity, and circulation
from the ocean surface and subsurface waters.
NOAA is working to accelerate the deployment of the profiling
floats, as we now have evidence to suggest that the ocean's heat
content has increased substantially since over the last half of the
Twentieth Century. This increase in ocean heat content is consistent
with several of climate model simulations of Twentieth Century Climate
when these models are forced with increases in greenhouse gases,
estimates of changes in anthropogenic sulfate aerosols and changes in
other climate characteristics, like volcanic aerosols. It will be very
important to understand how much heat the oceans are taking on as
changes in greenhouse gas concentrations increase. NOAA is working to
define an ocean observing strategy for the Arctic that will complete
the global strategy. New technologies will be needed for observations
in ice-covered areas and international cooperation will be essential
for access to critical areas of the Arctic under national jurisdiction.
CLOUDS AND WATER VAPOR
One of the most important aspects of uncertainty continues to arise
because of inadequate information about clouds and water vapor. This
includes cloud amount, type, height, the phase state (ice or water),
and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor is the
most prevalent greenhouse gas and there are important feedbacks between
rising temperatures related to increases in carbon dioxide and
increases in atmospheric water vapor. Unfortunately, the Global Upper
Air Network just established by the Global Climate Observing System of
the World Meteorological Organization is failing due to lack of
support. At the present time only about half of the global network is
reporting data, even after the WMO had identified a set of key stations
across the world as key indicators and markers of climate change. NOAA
is exploring ways in which we can help to correct this situation since
we are very much dependent on a global network of climate-quality upper
air measurements of water vapor. We are also working to provide high-
altitude balloon-borne measurements of water vapor in the stratosphere
at our baseline observing network sites at Barrow, Hawaii, American
Samoa, and the South Pole.
Cloud-related characteristics from satellite measurements are
critical for global coverage, and these must complement surface
measurements to ensure adequate calibration. NOAA is now working to
develop automated cloud information that extend our current monitoring
capability above 12,000 feet.
SEA LEVEL
As ocean temperatures warm and glacial ice melts, global average
sea level is increasing. Sea level rise during the 20th Century is
estimated to be between 0.1 and 0.2m, and is projected to increase
between 0.1 to 0.9m by the end of the 21st Century. Generally,
increases in sea level are expected to be higher in high latitudes.
NOAA maintains a global network of tide gauges which have provided the
data to calculate global sea-level rise, but there are many local and
regional variations. High quality tide-gauges are a high priority
within NOAA to ensure adequate reference points to gauge sea level
changes.
NASA, in cooperation of our French partners, has been flying a
satellite altimeter as part of their Topex/Poseidon mission which
provides high precision global sea level data when calibrated with
tide-gauges. The instrument has proven to be very reliable and is ready
to transition from a research experiment to regular operations. NOAA is
working with NASA and international partners to begin an orderly
transition from research to operations to ensure global coverage of
changes in sea-level.
PALEOCLIMATIC DATA
One of the most important developments in the recent few years has
been the ability of researchers to assemble paleoclimatic data from
tree rings, corals, historical records, bore holes, and ice cores to
develop a 1,000 year record of northern hemisphere temperatures. These
data show that temperature increases during the 20th Century have been
larger in the Northern Hemisphere than any time during the past 1,000
years. Much work remains however. Important regional information is
sparse, there are large uncertainties between some of the data sets.
For example, temperatures inferred from the conduction of heat from the
atmospheric surface layer to deeper layers within the earth's crust
show larger increases of temperature compared to temperatures inferred
from the other proxy data. Understanding these differences will improve
our confidence regarding the causes of recent temperature increases and
the sensitivity of climate to changes in atmospheric composition and
other factors. Lastly, data from the southern hemisphere has not yet
been compiled, and some of the records from which our scientists derive
important information are disappearing. Critical glaciers in tropical
climates are melting away as temperatures increase. It is now
recognized that changes in the tropics are the key drivers of climate
change elsewhere on the planet, including the arctic NOAA is working
with other agencies, like NSF, to accelerate our efforts to collect
valuable paleoclimatic data.
WEATHER AND CLIMATE EXTREME EVENTS
At the present time, NOAA is working to adequately monitor changes
in weather and climate extremes. Billion dollar weather and climate
disasters are affecting the U.S. at increasing rates, and many of these
are related to excessive precipitation events and major storms. But at
the present time, we have conflicting analyses related to whether there
have been substantial increases in the intensity of many important
extreme weather and climate events. For example, some analyses reveal a
major increase in the intensity of severe North Pacific storms, but
other analyses do not confirm such increases. Meanwhile, we have strong
evidence to indicate that heavy and extreme precipitation events are
increasing in many areas, but as I have indicated measurements in the
high arctic, including Alaska, are confounded by an inadequate number
of observing sites, imperfect measurement systems, and measurement
biases. We know that changes in extreme weather and climate events are
often the determining factor related to the economic and ecological
impacts of climate change. For these reasons, NOAA is placing a high
priority on adequate investments to help ensure our observing systems
provide the information necessary to systematically monitor changes in
climate extremes and weather events.
Improved modeling capabilities
Testing our theories about climate change and projecting future
climate cannot proceed without climate models. Today, NOAA Research is
continuing to use climate models to simulate past climate, especially
the climate of the last Century and the past 1,000 years, where we have
sufficient observations to test our ideas about the behavior of
climate. NOAA is working to add Arctic processes to its existing global
climate models. One of the major issues we are addressing relates to
the amount of computer power necessary to provide the climate model
simulations necessary to meet the demands for multiple simulations
based on various scenarios of future emissions of anthropogenic
atmospheric constituents, and the multiple simulations required to
bound the uncertainty of climate due to its chaotic nature, and the
need to achieve greater regional and temporal resolution. More computer
hardware is only part of the answer. NOAA closely coordinates its
modeling activities with other agencies, and is stepping up its efforts
to train scientists throughout the climate community to assist us on
this national problem, through NOAA's Climate and Global Change
Program. In addition, we believe that it is also important to ensure
that an adequate supply of computer students engage in this challenging
problem of optimally configuring computer models for state-of-the-
science computation, storage, and data access. NOAA is providing
scholarships to those scientists interested in working in these fields.
Lastly, a very recent National Research Council report outlined a
strategy to improve our modeling capabilities in this nation. NOAA
believes such a strategy would go a long way to reducing uncertainties
about regional climate change in the Arctic.
Improved information about future climate
There are two areas that NOAA will be emphasizing in the immediate
future to help business, industry, state and local governments, and
individuals minimize the risk of climate change and maximize its
potential benefits. This relates to the use of Climate Normals for
planning and design, and improved access to data and information.
CLIMATE NORMALS
Climate normals have been used by millions of users over the past
few decades to assist with design and planning for a wide-variety of
applications. Traditionally, the Official U.S. Climate Normals are
calculated by the NOAA every ten years, and by international agreement
they reflect the climate over the past 30 years. Important research
questions remain as to the appropriate historical period to use for
planning over the lifetime of new structures. For example, how many
years of the climate record should be used to project the kind of
climate conditions a new structure is likely to encounter? Over the
past few years, as the climate has been significantly changing many
users are finding that the traditional climate normals are not capable
of bounding the conditions they are experiencing. This is leading to
design failures. As a result, NOAA has taken initial steps to provide
users with information more suited to a changing climate. We have
developed models and software which begin to integrate historical
climate data with various user-defined and model scenarios of future
climate. Recently the National Homebuilders Association worked with
scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center to develop a new Air
Freezing Index, which based on the Association's figures has saved over
$300 million annually in building costs, and over 300,000 MW of energy
each year since using the index to re-engineer building codes. Last
year, the National Climatic Data Center developed a prototype of the
Next-Generation Normals which was used in the National Assessment of
Climate Change. Over the next few years NOAA will be issuing updated
Climate Normals, and we are committed to making this information more
useful to our users in a changing climate.
DATA AND INFORMATION ACCESS
NOAA has responsibility for providing long-term stewardship and
access to all the nation's atmospheric and oceanic data. This is an
enormous responsibility, which is heightened by what many of our
constituents have recently emphasized. The number one priority for them
over the next several years is more effective access to more than 1
petabyte of data that NOAA has in its archives. This amount of data is
equivalent to the data stored on over 100,000 modern personal
computers. NOAA also has millions of pages of historical data not yet
computer accessible. Many of the records hold the key to documenting
past climate variability and change. Our users have also told us that
the environmental data we store has now taken on such economic
applicability that they consider our environmental data as important as
economic data to effectively manage and operate their businesses.
NOAA is committed to making the data readily available. Over the
next five years, NOAA's data volume is expected to increase five times.
The challenge for us is not only to be able to preserve the data, but
to provide effective access to these data. NOAA is committed to
addressing this challenge and we will be working very closely with
regional and local interests to ensure that our services are as
effective as possible.
FUTURE NOAA ACTIVITIES IN THE ARCTIC
NOAA expects to continue all of the operational activities
described earlier and improve and enhance the quality and utility of
our services whenever possible. As one example, the Alaska Region of
the Weather Service in cooperation with the IARC is beginning to define
activities that will become the Alaska component of NOAA's climate
services program.
For the long term, NOAA intends to continue to focus its Arctic
Research Initiative on the three major areas of weather and climate,
marine ecosystem productivity, and long-range transport of
contaminants. Using existing resources, NOAA can continue a viable
program in these areas by focusing on one at a time for two year
funding periods. Specifically during 2003, NOAA will use these existing
resources for synthesis and reporting of the outcome of the several
projects funded in fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2002 under the
Arctic Research Program, the joint CIFAR/IARC activity and the special
funding for climate impacts on Steller Sea Lions. In addition, the
first drafts of chapters in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment should
be available for review in 2003. We expect this synthesis activity to
provide significant new insight and knowledge that will provide
guidance for future Arctic research.
In particular, this synthesis effort will provide a background for
NOAA's future emphasis on the Study of Environmental Arctic Change or
SEARCH. This is a new effort being planned by nine federal agencies
under the auspices of the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee
with the active involvement of a science steering committee. The SEARCH
program will consider all portions of the Arctic environment
(atmosphere, ocean, land, ice, biosphere) and seek to understand the
longer-term changes that have occurred and to anticipate the changes
that may occur over the next several decades. It will attempt to link
these Arctic changes to the global climate system and to consider the
social and economic implications of Arctic change not only to Arctic
resources and residents, but also to the more populated mid-latitude
regions. The SEARCH program is based on the knowledge that, while the
Arctic may seem distant to most people, it is connected to the rest of
the world and that processes in the Arctic have far reaching and
significant impacts.
Because the Arctic may be affected most strongly by climate change
under the global warming scenarios of the IPCC, we must build the high
quality data base needed to describe how the environment of the Arctic
evolves over the next several decades. NOAA intends that its role in
SEARCH focus on such sustained observations of the sea ice, atmosphere,
and ocean, including its biota. As mentioned earlier, special
strategies and technologies are needed for climate observations in the
Arctic. NOAA intends to develop these as its participation in the
SEARCH program evolves. Because we suspect that changes in the Arctic
atmosphere will affect lower latitudes, we need to increase our effort
to relate Arctic change to changes throughout the northern hemisphere.
It is possible that changes in the Arctic can even influence the global
ocean circulation and the distribution of heat and moisture from the
tropics to the poles, and NOAA has to be concerned over this as well.
I have already discussed the current imperfect nature of climate
modeling, yet the use of models is essential in evaluating our possible
future. NOAA will work with its interagency partners to improve the
reliability of climate models, and to develop regionally focused models
that will allow us to see more clearly what might happen in the Arctic
and elsewhere. While models allow us to think ahead, a well founded
observational program is essential for observing climate change as it
happens and so increase our ability to adapt to near-term changes and
evaluate the performance and requirements of models of the more distant
future. NOAA's focus on sustained observations, simultaneous analysis
of the resulting data, and development of data-based climate services
is a logical evolution of NOAA's historic missions and provides a solid
core for other SEARCH and climate and global change objectives.
NOAA is particularly pleased to be working closely with the other
agencies to build a complete picture of the Arctic environment. It will
take a few years of planning and budgeting for NOAA to be able to do
all that it should under SEARCH and other programs, but the process is
well underway. In two years, NOAA will have important new information
on Arctic Ocean circulation, atmospheric transport of heat and
moisture, the role of sea ice and snow cover on the state of the Arctic
Oscillation and other important modes of climate variability, and an
analysis of the role of ocean variability in productivity of marine
mammals and other species. Appended to this testimony are brief
descriptions of each project funded in fiscal year 2001 under the
Arctic Research Program, and the special funding for Steller Sea Lions
and climate variability.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me state that NOAA is committed to
providing the required observations, data analysis, data access and
archiving, and modeling capability to minimize unacceptable risks
related to an uncertain future climate. We have outlined a significant
number of items that challenge our existing understanding and we will
be placing special emphasis on them in the future. The risk of failure
could prove enormously costly. We look forward to continuing to work
with you on these issues, as they are of one of the great challenges of
the 21st Century for this nation, as well as the residents of Alaska.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much. Again, I'm going to
put all of your full statements in the records. I do thank the
fact that some of you have summarized portions of them. Our
next witness is Dr. Charles Groat, the Director of the U.S.
Geological Survey.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S. Geological Survey
STATEMENT OF CHARLES C. GROAT, DIRECTOR
Dr. Groat. Thank you, Senator Stevens. Being in this
position at the close of a day after many people have testified
I could do as a colleague of mine once did, she said ``You've
heard everything that needs to be said but you haven't heard it
from me.'' And go through it again. I am going to take liberty
that the position does accord of emphasizing a few key points
that others have made today and that I would care to make on
behalf of the USGS and the Department of the Interior because I
think they're points that relate the science to the management
of the resources that people in Alaska and the people across
the country care about. To do that, I'll refer again to the
report that Dr. Leinen referred to and that is the assessment
report that was done in Alaska as was done in other parts of
the country. The USGS was pleased to be a major sponsor of
workshops that led to that report. Another statement that Dr.
Leinen made is that as part of the Global Climate Change
Research Program's goals is that as a scientific community, we
have to be able to link the research we do to the information
needs of resource managers. These workshops were intended to
bring the State of the science and what we know about global
change together with resource managers saying, ``How can this
information be useful to you?'' And one of the things we
learned from these workshops across the country was that there
needs to be a degree of specificity that is meaningful to
managers so that it can influence and affect their day to day
decisions is important to them and that it needs to be
communicated in a way that they can make use of it.
So a very important goal of the research program in general
is the ability to project regional variations accurately. And
as many of the scientists have affirmed here today, we aren't
quite there yet but we are getting closer. I think many of the
very impressive graphics that you saw represent real progress
from where we were 5 years ago because our models are better,
our understanding of the processes are better but we still have
a ways to go to make our information specific enough to be
useful for people on the ground who have to make decisions
about the things they either regulate, manage or, in the
private sector, do for profitable purposes. And as a part of
the Department of the Interior, the USGS is particularly aware
of the importance of that for Alaska because of the important
role that the Department of the Interior plays in managing
Alaska resources. The Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Park Service and Minerals Management
Service all have major responsibilities to apply knowledge of
the type we've talked about today to their management
responsibilities in Alaska and they take that very seriously.
But no more seriously than does the Alaska Fish and Game, the
other State agencies in this State and in other States who have
similar and in some cases closer responsibility to manage
resources important to their States and region. So I don't
think any of us in the scientific community want to play down
one bit the importance of bringing our science to bear on
regional problems by making our science relevant in scale and
scope to those problems.
As does NOAA, we have a significant--the USGS does--number
of people, 225 scientists and support staff, here in Alaska
that are working as part of the Global Change Research Program
and also as part of understanding the resources that are so
important to this State, both living and non-living.
We're involved, as are the other agencies represented at
this table, in the Global Climate Change Research Program and
we bring to it a perspective, particularly in our geological
side, that I think we can't fail to emphasize--we should not
fail to emphasize. That is the time perspective of change.
We've talked about decadal changes; we've talked about
centuries; we even talked about thousands of years. But if we
look into deep geological time, we remember that there were
tens-of-thousands-of-year cycles that brought major ice sheets
to the country, to the continent, to the globe, and that
perspective has to be there as well. So as we look at cycles of
different scopes and scales, we have to recognize that the
natural world has as much to teach us about these changes as
does the anthropogenic world about influencing those changes.
We're also involved in a significant way in the carbon
cycle research, the water cycle work, and the impacts of change
on ecosystems.
But I want to stress this afternoon, as we wrap up the
testimony in this hearing, the point that has been made by
several of the speakers today. That has to do with the
importance of observations and monitoring. It's clear that if
we are going to have better models that make scientific
information and data meaningful to regional resource managers,
we have to have the computing power that you questioned about
and that others have mentioned, to make this effective. Our
models will only be as good, in a sense, as the power we have
to create them. They'll also only be as good as the data that
we put into them. We have to have the observational data to
make these models relate to the landscape. And to do that we
have to have data gathered for long periods of time. We've been
at it for 120 years and those long-term records are of extreme
importance in putting together observational information about
the landscape and its processes over these long periods of
time. We have to have on the ground observations as back up and
as substantiation for all of those data that the wonderful
technology that's been described here today bring to us from
space and from remotely-sensing technology of different kinds.
The technology is truly amazing. We don't lack for technology.
It's developing faster than we can utilize it. But we have to
have the will and the resources to apply that technology, not
only to Alaska but to the landscape and the seascape and the
atmosphere if we're going to have the observations of the
density and intensity that we need to drive these models and
make them useful at the regional scale.
I'd like to provide a few examples of that. We've heard
much about permafrost and the severe impacts melting it can
have on the landscape, on carbon dioxide and on methane and the
atmosphere. Clear. How do we know about permafrost changes? We
know about it in part because of 21 deep bore holes that the
USGS maintains in the National Petroleum Reserve in which we
have observed permafrost temperature changes over the years.
We also know how this applies to what I think is one of the
overwhelming lessons we have to learn from climate change in
Alaska, the impact this change has on the infrastructure. This
has been mentioned by many speakers. And in this State, where
permafrost is such a serious element in the landscape, that
change can be costly to the Native populations and to their
subsistence economy.
It can also be critical to some of the great desires this
State has to expand its economy. As we look to developing oil
and gas resources on the North Slope, as we look to moving that
gas south to the 48, we have to be worried about pipeline
construction and, about production facilities construction. The
state of the permafrost, the state of the landscape and
processes such as landslides, as Dr. Colwell's slide showed,
are extremely important for us as we design that
infrastructure. A painful example of how important that is was
brought about by the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.
That pipeline would have cost about a billion dollars should it
have been buried. But the work we did and the work other
agencies did in understanding permafrost conditions resulted in
a $7 billion bill simply because it had to be elevated. Short-
term, high cost. Long-term, who knows how many billions of
dollars it would have cost to repair a pipeline that wasn't
properly designed based on the understanding of permafrost and
other environmental conditions. So from an infrastructure point
of view critical to the economy of this State, we cannot place
too little emphasis on the importance of the monitoring of
Permafrost.
We've talked about forests a little bit. Permafrost isn't a
suitable host for forests but, as we see the thawing of the
permafrost, commercial forests may expand three to four times.
That's important to the economy of Alaska. So there are some up
sides to the commercial interests that are realized as
permafrost melts and as the climate changes: perhaps an
expansion of the forest industry. The downside, of course, is
that some of the diseases and insect pests increase as well.
Another monitoring subject of importance is glaciers. Now,
we've talked about sea ice extensively and, clearly, perhaps
the most critical ice element in the economy and the ecology of
Alaska, but we have a lot of mountain glaciers in Alaska. In
fact, there are tens of thousands of mountain glaciers in
Alaska and, with exception of only a few that are close to the
coast, since the Little Ice Age in the mid-1800's, they've all
been receding over the past century and a half. And that
information, like the canary in the mine, is further evidence
that, on the landscape as well as on the sea, warming is having
a significant effect. And we, along with several other
agencies, 25 Nations, 50 institutions, are about to turn out an
atlas that will demonstrate globally the shrinkage of glaciers
and how this is an important indicator of climate change.
Again, a monitoring effort, a measurement effort, that is very
important.
The same thing can be said for land cover change. As we
look at land cover and vegetation and its importance, we have
to be able to monitor that from space, with ground truthing.
Landscape processes that are important and that affect the
infrastructure are extremely important.
So putting the emphasis where others have put it as well,
information to make our science relevant, and monitoring to
give us the long-term perspective and to feed models are
extremely important.
And let me close with something even more fundamental that
is relevant to Alaska, fundamental data needs which are not
being met in Alaska right now and they're not being met by the
USGS, to a large degree. And that is topographic mapping. It's
hard to understand the landscape if we don't have maps at
suitable scales, such as orthophoto quads and standard
topographic maps at a scale of 1 to 4,000. Alaska is only
partially covered whereas the lower 48 is totally covered. What
we do have up here is mostly 40 years old. So there's a
tremendous need, if we're concerned about change, documenting
it, and relating it to the landscape, and if we're concerned
about the infrastructure, to have maps that accurately portray
the landscape.
As fundamental as topographic maps are geologic maps. If
we're going to understand the landscape and change elements, we
have to understand the rocks and soils that underpin it.
Geologic mapping of critical areas underlain by permafrost and
underlain by resources critical to the State of Alaska,--its
minerals and its energy resources, have not been adequately
mapped. They need further attention as further buttressing of
our understanding of the landscape and the elements in it.
Water resources have been mentioned. Clearly quantity of
water is extremely important. We have over 7,000 stream gauges
across the country. Only 120 of those are in Alaska. And there
are major river systems in Alaska that are ungauged. We need to
understand the hydrologic relations as run-off changes, and as
channel characteristics change. We can do much of this from
space with the technology that NOAA and NASA bring us, but on-
the-ground observations and measurements are essential to
verifying and to documenting those changes. Water quality will
change with time as processes change. We have to be able to
monitor the changes in the composition of those streams.
The same is true of habitat change. The ecological systems
that are critical to salmon and seal and waterfowl and the
fisheries have to be monitored, using remote sensing data,
using the kind of data that Scott Gudes described for the
oceans. But we need on-the-ground as well as in-the-water
sensors to understand these habitat changes.
In conclusion I would just emphasize clearly the importance
of science in understanding global change in Alaska, the
importance that scientist must place on making that science
relevant to regional managers, which means the scale of our
models, the scale of our observational data, must be usable,
whether they're Federal landscape managers or whether they're
State landscape managers or whether they're private sector
trying to improve the economy of the State.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We've recently established an Alaska Science Center to
bring our disciplines--our biologists, geologists, hydrologists
and map people-together to do a more integrated job of
portraying the landscape and living resources. And I think that
this integrated effort that has been part and parcel of what my
colleagues here at the table have described, is going to be
what brings climate change understanding and the usefulness of
it to managers really together to do what the program needs to
do. And I think we're all committed to that, Mr. Chairman, and
we welcome the opportunity to do.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles C. Groat
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) regarding scientific research being conducted on climate
change in the Arctic region and how climate change is impacting that
region, with special emphasis on Alaska.
Within the Arctic region, Alaska hosts some of the most important
hydrologic, biologic, mineral and energy resources of the Nation and is
subject to a wide variety of natural hazards, particularly earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions, and landslides. Rich in pristine wilderness and
natural resources, Alaska has some of the largest tracts of federally
owned land in the country. Some of the ``crown jewels'' of the National
Park Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System occur in Alaska.
The Department of the Interior (DOI) is responsible for the management
of more than 218 million acres of Alaska, an area larger than the
entire State of Texas. More than 50 percent of the lands that Interior
manages are in Alaska. More than 40 percent of the Nation's freshwater
supply and more coastline than the rest of the States combined are
found in Alaska. More than 3,100 miles of designated rivers in the Wild
and Scenic River System are in Alaska. Of the national total, nearly 70
percent of designated Wilderness areas--more than 57 million acres,
roughly the size of Oregon--are in Alaska. Areas classified as wetlands
total 170 million acres, more than all other States combined.
As the principal science agency of the DOI, the USGS provides
understanding of past and contemporary Alaskan environments and is
positioning the region to better anticipate and prepare for what may
happen in the future. The stewardship mission of the Department must be
informed by an integrated scientific understanding of how climate
changes may interact with other natural and human-induced environmental
stresses. To advance that critical understanding, the USGS sponsored an
assessment of the potential consequences of climate variability and
change to Alaska with the University of Alaska, Fairbanks (UAF). The
1997 workshop, which received funding from DOI, was one of a series of
regional workshops that the U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP) sponsored as part of its national assessment of the potential
consequences of climate change. The workshops brought together
researchers, governmental agencies, industry, non-governmental
agencies, and the public to assess the potential impacts of climate
change on Alaska. The attached assessment report, ``Preparing For A
Changing Climate,'' addresses the following four questions:
--What are the current environmental stresses and issues that will
form a backdrop for potential additional impacts of climate
change?
--How might climate variability and change exacerbate or ameliorate
existing problems?
--What are the priority research and information needs that can
better inform decision making and the policy process?
--What coping options exist that can build resilience to current
environmental stresses, and also possibly lessen the impacts of
climate change?
This report is available online at http://www.besis.uaf.edu/
regional-report/regional-report.html
IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON ALASKA
Current climate studies indicate that high-latitude regions of
North America, especially Alaska and northwestern Canada, are presently
experiencing some of the most dramatic warming in the world. Alaska has
experienced the greatest warming of any State in the Nation over the
past 50 years; this trend is consistent with model predictions that
show increased temperatures at higher latitudes. USGS pioneered
scientific studies of climate that showed some of the earliest evidence
for warming in Alaska.
Alaska, like many other areas of the world, experienced a shift to
warmer temperatures in the late 1970s. The following are some of the
major climate-related trends in Alaska that scientists have observed:
--Air temperatures in Alaska have increased an average of 4 deg. F
since the 1950s, 7 deg. F in the interior in winter, with much
of the warming sparked by a large-scale arctic atmosphere and
ocean regime shift in 1977.
--The 30-year air temperature record shows that increases are
greatest in winter and spring and in the interior of Alaska and
north of the Brooks Range.
--Recent reports suggest that summer sea ice has decreased about 3
percent per decade since the 1970s, multi-year sea ice has
decreased by 14 percent since 1978, while sea ice has thinned
at a rate of 4 inches per year from 1993-1997. These decreases
in sea ice have affected subsistence hunting patterns and
increased the danger of hunting on the ice.
--Boreholes reveal that permafrost temperatures in northern Alaska
have increased 2-4 deg. C (3.5-7 deg. F) above temperatures 50-
110 years ago; permafrost has thawed in some places to a point
where it is discontinuous, resulting in increased road
maintenance costs and ruining traditional ice cellars of some
northern villages.
--Precipitation has increased about 30 percent for most of Alaska
west of the 141 degrees West Longitude between 1968 and 1990;
exceptions are the southeastern part of the State and summer
precipitation in the interior, particularly around Fairbanks.
--Warmer conditions have allowed insects to thrive when cooler
summers and colder winters would have normally destroyed or
limited their extent; the spruce bark beetle has destroyed over
3 million acres of forest.
--The growing season in Alaska has lengthened by 13 days since 1950.
The 1997 UAF/DOI-sponsored Alaska workshop that was part of the
``Preparing for a Changing Climate'' assessment attracted people from
within as well as outside of the State to discuss current and potential
issues associated with the State's forests, tundra, coastal systems,
permafrost, marine resources, wildlife, subsistence economy, and human
systems (such as transportation, energy, and land use), under changing
climate scenarios. With further warming in Alaska, a variety of
consequences are possible. The location, volume, and species mix of
fish catches could change, causing stress as the industry deals with
relocation of harvesters and processors. While the permafrost is
melting, the maintenance cost for pipelines could increase, but
construction costs could be lower in areas where it has melted. The
loss of sea ice could reduce costs for offshore oil and gas exploration
and production and improve shipping, but coastal erosion could increase
due to higher relative sea levels and increased storm intensity with
concomitant impacts on coastal communities.
A longer growing season could improve agriculture and forestry
yields, but warmer temperatures, increased summer drying, and disease-
stressed trees could increase flammable vegetation, thus increasing the
potential for forest fires.
Engineering must account for impacts of future thaw on existing
infrastructure (highways, railroads, military and commercial airfields,
buildings and the oil pipeline). For example, planning for future
energy resources extraction and construction of the proposed natural
gas pipeline will need to take into account the changing properties of
soils that are experiencing permafrost thawing.
Fisheries may be at risk from climate change. For instance, sockeye
salmon in this region support a long-established fishery, generating
millions of dollars annually and providing thousands of jobs. They also
play a critical role in Alaska's sensitive coastal ecosystems. Adult
sockeye salmon returning to Bristol Bay's tributaries provide food for
killer whales, grizzly bears, eagles, and other predators. Eggs
deposited in the streams and rivers feed many other species of fish
throughout the system. Even in death after spawning, tons of decaying
salmon flesh contributes marine-derived nutrients used by both plants
and animals along Alaska's rivers. Ongoing USGS studies are measuring
historical patterns of sockeye growth in marine and freshwater
environments and identifying linkages between growth rates and climatic
conditions. These USGS studies, which will generate preliminary results
in 2003, will provide a thorough analysis of the effects of climate
change on sockeye salmon production in Bristol Bay during the
freshwater and early marine life stages that are most likely to be
sensitive to fluctuations in climate.
Preliminary research suggests climate change may be implicated in
the annual greening of vegetation earlier in the year. Studies by USGS
scientists indicate that during the 1990s the period of time when the
active layer of permafrost begins to warm to when it refreezes again
has increased by more than 30 days at several sites on the Alaskan
North Slope. Studies of past geologic periods by USGS geologists show
that forest replaces tundra during warm climatic intervals.
New studies by USGS researchers are showing that the coastal rain
forest of the Tongass National Forest in southeastern Alaska has a
complex and dynamic history. This forest, which did not exist in Alaska
during the last ice age, is still expanding. Some of Alaska's National
Parks may see a shift in the type of vegetation that dominates their
landscapes as this forest continues to migrate northward. Policy and
land management decisions by the National Park Service and the U.S.
Forest Service depend on understanding the dynamic nature of this
ecosystem.
USGS monitoring revealed that glaciers receded in the last decade
of the 20th century at the highest rates of the 30-year monitoring
record; recently de-glaciated terrains are rebounding, sometimes rising
centimeters per year through both glacial rebound and tectonic forces;
and ranges of plants and animals are changing and expanding northward.
One of the major attractions for many of Alaska's National Parks
(Denali, Wrangell-St. Elias, Glacier Bay, and Kenai Fjords) is the
stunning array of glaciers that have shaped, and continue to shape, the
rugged Alaskan mountain landscape. USGS researchers have used satellite
imagery to make precise maps of these glaciers and to monitor their
changes over time.
NATURAL RESOURCES AT RISK AND RESEARCH PRIORITIES FOR USGS
USGS is studying the effects of climate on Alaska's resources.
These efforts are in close alignment with the USGCRP. The USGS
acquires, manages, and makes available a treasure of remotely sensed
data used by Alaskan, Federal, and State land management agencies for
mapping, monitoring, and modeling vegetation, hydrology, and geologic
processes; monitoring fires, volcanoes, and floods; and characterizing
the landscape in support of the scientific and management communities.
An example of the application of these data and tools is the
Interagency Consortium Program, which is designed to produce a
consistent, comprehensive, and flexible land cover database for the
State (the Multi-Resolution Land Characterization 2000 Program). The
membership of this Federal consortium includes DOI bureaus (National
Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and USGS), Department of Agriculture (U.S. Forest Service),
NOAA, NASA, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The
consortium's objective is to provide repetitive coverage of satellite
data that can be used to document and explain changes in land use and
land cover. The Program is new to Alaska, and state-of-the-art land
cover mapping and data analysis methodologies are being developed
through research at the USGS Alaska Science Center.
The USGS is the developer and manager of the Internet-based Alaska
Geographic Data Committee's (AGDC) Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. The
AGDC's Clearinghouse serves as the Alaska Gateway to the data holdings
of its members, over 40 Federal and State agencies, borough and
municipal governments, Tribal Organizations, universities, and private
companies within Alaska. The AGDC Gateway provides public access to
everything from legal land status to detailed historical mining
reports, USGS topographic maps, virtual visits to national parks,
archives of remotely sensed data, and real-time stream-gage
information. While its primary focus is on information that has a
geographic context, the AGDC Clearinghouse also links to a broader
range of environmental data through its Arctic Environmental Data
Directory, which provides connections to the entire circumpolar Arctic
international scientific community. Alaska agencies, native
organizations, and the private sector are involved in analyzing and
responding to critical issues that include hazard prevention, land
conveyance, resource exploration and development, legal access and
public safety, public use and resource assessment, and community and
economic development.
Other ongoing USGS studies related to climate change in the Arctic
include monitoring the Yukon River to document a 5-year baseline of
water, sediment, and chemical loading delivered to the Bering Sea. Data
will provide a baseline to compare changes that may occur in the Yukon
over the next 20 to 50 years. This effort will focus on measuring the
carbon and nitrogen in the river that are fundamental to the health of
the ecosystem. USGS will also measure contaminants in air, water,
sediment, and fish tissue that may affect people and wildlife.
USGS is measuring and modeling carbon cycling and nutrient storage
as they relate to climate, permafrost, and fire. Partnerships with
other scientific agencies allow USGS to contribute and interact with
scientific experts of all disciplines on issues of carbon and nutrient
cycling. USGS scientists play a key role in providing field-based data
on soil, peat, wetlands, and water and gas chemistry. USGS also
develops and applies mathematical modeling of the effects of climate on
vegetation, soils, water, fire, and ecosystems. USGS monitors the
permafrost temperatures in 21 deep boreholes in the National Petroleum
Reserve, Alaska. Analysis of temperature profiles in the deep boreholes
provided some of the first evidence that the Alaskan Arctic warmed 2-
4 deg. C (3.5-7 deg. F) during the 20th century. Analysis of all the
boreholes is being conducted under the Global Terrestrial Network--
Permafrost in collaboration with other agencies and other countries.
USGS is providing information and research findings to resource
managers, policymakers, and the public to support sound management of
biological resources and ecosystems in Alaska. This includes studies of
the role of Arctic and subarctic environments in maintaining wild
stocks of nationally important marine and anadromous fish species and
nationally important migratory bird populations; the ecology of marine
mammals and their role and effect as top-end consumers in Arctic and
subarctic marine environments; the role of Arctic and sub-arctic
environments in maintaining the ecology of terrestrial mammals, and the
role of top herbivores and carnivores in the dynamics of Arctic and
subarctic terrestrial systems.
USGS is providing records of past climates and vegetation groups
that existed in Alaska, which are key to understanding the likely
consequences of future climate changes in high-latitude ecosystems.
Current USGS work on the fossil record and climate history of Alaska
suggests that future periods of cooler, drier climate would result in
shrinkage of forest boundaries, lowering of the altitude-limited tree
line, and expansion of tundra vegetation into lower elevations. A
future change to warmer, moister climates would result in expansion of
Alaska's forests into areas now occupied by tundra. Measuring and
modeling climate-land interactions will provide a basis for resource
planning for Alaska lands.
Plant fossils, such as leaves, wood, cones, pollen, and seeds,
provide important evidence of how Alaska's vegetation has responded to
climate changes over time periods of centuries to millions of years.
USGS studies of the Alaskan fossil record of plants include data from
many natural exposures and sediment cores. These data provide the basis
for reconstructing the record of past vegetation changes over millions
of years of Earth history. The fossil record shows that dramatic
changes in high-latitude vegetation have occurred many times in the
past, primarily in response to global climate changes.
USGS monitoring of volcanoes is providing information on the
processes that trigger eruptions, generate volcanic ash clouds and
result in volcanic emissions. The latter can impact climate (for
example, the sulfur-rich 1991 eruption of Pinatubo volcano in the
Phillipines caused temporary global cooling.) Studies of eruption
dynamics, down-slope transport of lava and volcanic debris, and the
history of past eruptions contribute to an understanding that goes
beyond the question of ``when'' to also address the question of ``what
to expect'' when a sleeping volcano wakes up. The issue of volcanic ash
and aviation safety is another aspect of USGS volcano monitoring. The
world's busiest air traffic corridors pass over hundreds of volcanoes
capable of sudden, explosive eruptions. Airborne ash can diminish
visibility, damage flight control systems, and cause jet engines to
fail. The Alaska Volcano Observatory, a cooperative effort of USGS,
UAF, and Alaska Division of Geologic and Geophysical Surveys, plays a
major role in the effort to reduce the risk posed to aircraft by
volcanic eruptions.
The USGS has provided critical information for Alaska's development
decisions, through our scientific studies of permafrost, gas and oil
resources, mineral resources, fish and wildlife populations and their
habitats, and the impacts of petroleum exploration, development,
pollution, and climate change on terrestrial and marine mammals,
migratory birds, anadromous fishes, and marine invertebrates. USGS
leadership in technical review and advice during the planning and
permitting of the Trans-Alaska pipeline is an example. This role
included a significant contribution toward designing the pipeline to
withstand disturbance associated with permafrost.
In the past, Bristol Bay, Alaska, has produced more wild-caught
sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) than any other region in the world,
with record runs exceeding 50 million fish annually. Recently, however,
adult sockeye runs in Bristol Bay have declined 78 percent, even though
counts of both juvenile fish leaving the rivers for the ocean and
adults returning to the rivers to spawn have indicated strong sockeye
salmon production in the freshwater tributaries to the Bay.
Recent developments have demonstrated that western Alaska salmon
stocks are also in serious trouble. The returns of summer-run chum
(Oncorhynchus keta) and chinook (O. tshawytscha) salmon over much of
western Alaska during 2000 were the worst ever recorded. The weak
returns of chinook (a 75 percent decrease) and chum (62 percent
decrease) salmon into the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers have prompted
regulatory actions by both the State and Federal fisheries managers
that have resulted in the closure of subsistence harvests, and
restrictions on commercial and sport fishing. The Yukon River pink
salmon, which are not harvested, had a 90 percent decline in 2000. The
USGS is conducting research addressing critical information gaps
concerning the spawning ecology of Yukon River salmon. These studies
will allow for long-term comparisons of salmon production in relation
to significant shifts in the physical environments of the North Pacific
leading to accelerated declines in species assemblages, including a
marked decline in salmon runs returning to Alaska.
Polar bears live in the ice-covered portions of the Bering, Chukchi
and Beaufort Seas adjacent to Alaska. Their dependence upon drifting
ice makes polar bears an important indicator of global warming and its
effects in the Arctic. Ongoing USGS research is investigating
interactions between bears, their principal prey, ringed seals, and the
changing sea ice that supports both of them.
USGS coordinates Arctic research with the Arctic Research Council
and the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC). Through
this coordination, we ensure that USGS research complements, rather
than duplicates, research of other agencies. IARPC, through an
interagency working group, is coordinating a multi-agency research
program, ``Study of Environmental Arctic Change'' (SEARCH). Planning
for SEARCH involves the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture,
Defense, and Energy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and National
Science Foundation.
Geologic maps are used by land, water, and natural resource
managers at all levels of the government and by the private sector to
achieve the most efficient use of Earth resources in a way that is
sustainable and economically viable. Economic growth is driven largely
by access to the Earth's resources. Geologic maps provide the spatial
framework to locate these resources. Unlike topographic maps, which
show the elevation of the Earth's surface, geologic maps display the
array of soils, sediments, and rocks that are present at and below the
Earth's surface. These maps are essential for a complete
characterization of materials mobility in ecosystems. Detailed geologic
maps are useful for mineral and petroleum exploration, for hazard
assessment, and/or for land and natural resource planning.
USGS is well positioned to contribute to meeting the challenges
facing Alaska. USGS' long-term study of the biological, geological,
hydrologic, and energy and mineral resource systems of Alaska have
addressed not only the location and utility of the resources but also
their origin, sensitivity to climate and disturbance, and the fate of
these resources in the future.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the
invitation to present testimony on this important topic. I would be
happy to respond to any questions Members of the Committee may have.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much, Dr. Groat. I'm
delighted to see you're here. I have decried the decline of
your agency in Alaska and I hope that this issue will bring
more of your people back here because I do think we need some
monitoring on land that you are talking about.
I go back to the statement that Mr. Goldin made about
getting together to try and see if we can get better
coordination. Do you believe that coordination of the
interagency efforts, the total effort, with regard to global
climate change and its impact to the Arctic could be improved?
Any of you disagree with that?
And Mr. Goldin has suggested that, Dr. Colwell, your agency
take the lead in that effort. Are you prepared to do that?
Dr. Colwell. As Chairman of the IARPC and with the SEARCH
project, I am certainly ready to proceed.
Chairman Stevens. And is there any disagreement about the
concept of trying to validate the current predictions of the
models we heard described this morning? Do you think you have
that capability today?
Dr. Colwell. With the data gathering that we need, I
believe the most important action to take is to determine the
gaps and to begin to fill them in. And I think what we all
heard is that something is happening and we better find out
whether it's cyclical or long-term.
Chairman Stevens. This afternoon I was asked about the
threat to our villages. It's my judgment that this is a
perception of increasing rather than a current calamity of any
kind. Any of you disagree with that?
It's the kind of thing that we need better information in
order to deal with the future rather than at the present time
facing any real traumatic conditions that we have to correct,
with the exception of a couple of villages that have some real
problems with regard to inundation of their airports. That's
the current state of climate as far as I'm concerned. Any of
you have any opinions contrary? Is there more immediacy there
than I currently feel?
Dr. Colwell. Well, I think the most difficult predictions
have been for the Pacific Islands and for countries like
Bangladesh where genuine calamities could occur if the
predictions prove to be correct. I don't believe that kind of
calamity will happen very soon, but I'll leave to my colleagues
to comment.
Mr. Goldin. I think it's important that all citizens of our
country become more aware of this interaction between the
ocean, the land, the atmosphere, ice and life. It's something
that needs to be part of their lives. I pointed out two
examples of Mars and Venus.
Chairman Stevens. Yeah.
Mr. Goldin. Earth is a very unique system and it has this
thermostat. It is incredible how wonderful this thermostat
works. It takes small perturbations. I think we all need to be
aware of it. We all need to focus on it and there ought to be
more discussion on it so we don't take things for granted.
There are a lot of effects that take time and, to go fix them,
could take even more time and you could get more negative
effects. And education and focus I think is the real key issue
here, not panic.
Dr. Colwell. Taking a medical perspective one might say
that we're dealing with what might be termed a ``chronic''
effect and often this can be worse than a fulminating or a
dramatic effect because you don't see it, it creeps up on you,
and then you have to deal with it in a way that makes it much
more difficult.
Chairman Stevens. Don't misunderstand. Change is there and
it's worrisome but I think that we have time to try and prepare
if we can get additional information. Mr. Gudes.
Mr. Gudes. I was just going to say, Mr. Chairman, that we
work with communities around the country, communities in
Florida, for example, that are at threat from hurricanes all
the time and we work with vaporometric models, we work with
evacuation plans, we work with trying to help these communities
prepare for severe weather, severe storms. And I think that
that's a good thing to do in the Arctic as well, especially as
ice recedes and, given the amount of winds and weather that
could be coming in, it makes a lot of sense to do that.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you. Did you have something to say,
Dr. Leinen?
Dr. Leinen. Yes. I'd add one perspective and that is that,
as you heard from the scientists this morning, if we assume
that things will continue to change at the same pace that
they're changing now, yes, we have time to prepare and we can
understand how to project into the future. But one of the
things that the scientists, especially the geologists, have
shown us, is that there have been times in the past when
climate changed over a scale of decades and changed to
different climate States. That is one of the areas that the
scientific community is really focused on for the future,
trying to understand whether the change will be linear or
whether there are thresholds that would precipitously change
climate. I think that's one of the aspects that really
motivates the scientific community to say that this is--that
looking at the impacts and looking at the processes is
something that's very, very important for us to do. That
possibility of abrupt change.
Chairman Stevens. Yes.
Mr. Goldin. Mr. Chairman, I think the observational issues
will be resolved, both on the ground, under the ocean and from
space. But there's one issue that gives me a very great level
of concern that I think we need to move at more aggressively to
get at the problem that was just brought up. Is it a linear
change or is it going to accelerate and have feedback effects?
And that is, I do not believe we have the computational
capability to do what we need to do. And by computational
capability I don't just mean the speed of a transistor or the
speed of a computer. It is the integration of the analytical
models, the climate models, the computational engine and the
software that powers it. If we take a look at where we are
today, we are probably somewhere on the order of ten thousand
to a million times too slow if we use conventional
computational mechanisms. And there is very little research
that's going on beyond extrapolating out what we can get out of
silicone. But we are reaching the financial and, in certain
respects, the physical limitations of what we can do with
silicone and the models that go with it using hard
deterministic computing. If we take a look at feature size, we
will get a little bit more out of it but you begin to get to
the physical limits of what you could do with feature size. But
more than that, fabrication technology is going to cost more
and more. In the 1970's we could build chip factories to build
feature sizes on the order of microns for tens of millions of
dollars. To get a factor of ten improvement to go to tenths of
microns where we are today chip factories now cost billions of
dollars. So if we keep saying we're going to extend through
Moore's Law, which says every year and a half you get a
doubling of speed, without facing up to some of these physical
and financial constraints, we have problems.
Another issue that has yet to be faced. We're talking about
speeds, not a trillion operations per second, but something on
the order of a thousand trillion operations per second or, if
you will, a petaflop may be higher than that. But when you take
a look at computer speeds like that, you're now talking about
the time it takes a signal to travel at the speed of light
which is three-tenths of a micron, so communications within the
computers are going to approach some physical limits. Yet the
conventional money is going in, in a very large degree, into
this type of computing and we're not addressing the broader
revolutionary computing that we're going to need. This, by the
way, is not just important for global change which we need, but
this is also essential to the continued productivity of our
economy and to everything we do in this Nation. So I contend
that there is a hole, a vacuum, and not enough focus, and we
need to bring together the industry; we need to bring together
academia and the various government experts on this subject. If
we go and have the government sponsor custom machines, it
becomes obsolete very fast and, if we look overseas and we have
envy about these vector machines that are being developed
overseas and say we have to buy them, that won't solve the
problem. I submit this is an issue that, if we want to
accelerate the pace of our understanding that my colleague just
talked about, we have to address this issue. I am very
concerned about it and somehow we haven't broken out. And
that's one of the words of caution I say in response in
thinking about the question you just asked.
Chairman Stevens. Do you agree, Dr. Colwell?
Dr. Colwell. Yes. I feel very strongly that Mr. Goldin has
highlighted a very, very important area in which we must
continue to invest in this country. And that is information
technology research, because it drives the capacity to answer
these huge questions that are so very important. And what I
would add is that it's the ability to bring the data bases that
the different agencies are gathering into a compatible,
mergeable, analyzable set of data that allows us to determine
the accuracy, precision and the value of the models and their
ability to predict. There's no question that information
technology drives this research. It underpins all of this.
And I would take it even further. I would say that we need
to invest in mathematics research because the kind of research
that's done in fundamental mathematics leads to advances in the
information technology. So, yes, I agree.
Chairman Stevens. Who should do that, Dr. Colwell?
Dr. Colwell. This is research that we have as an
interagency effort, the Information Technology Research
Program. The NSF is the lead agency. We have been working
together and I think what Dan is saying more--faster and more
of it.
Chairman Stevens. Being still Chairman of the Committee for
another week, I'm constrained to say, ``Is the money in the
budget to do that?''
Dr. Colwell. Mr. Chairman, I would say that this is an area
in which we really have to invest and I think it's one that you
should look at very carefully. I would agree.
Chairman Stevens. Dr. Groat.
Dr. Groat. Just to bring what they've both said very
accurately and appropriately back to Alaska and your question
about imminent danger or a progressive change and Dr. Leinen's
linear versus nonlinear, we're sitting right in the laboratory
where we will see that happen if it's going to happen, in a way
other than a linear fashion. And some of the critical
thresholds that may be reached to make it be different from
that are probably going to be in the Arctic so the kinds of
observational data meshed with the kinds of computational
capability that Dr. Goldin and Colwell have described all come
together with an Alaska example to increase our understanding
of processes that are occurring. This as well as the need for
the observational data and the computing power to make that
meaningful and useful here to the people who have to make the
decisions about Alaska and its resources.
Chairman Stevens. Should the Defense Department be part of
this operation, Dr. Colwell?
Dr. Colwell. The Office of Naval Research and the NSF
collaborate very effectively and also DARPA, the Advanced
Projects Agency, is part of the IT effort. We all work together
and the answer is, yes, it should be part of the effort.
Chairman Stevens. Well, I do hope that you'll call a
meeting when we get back to Washington and see if we can't
compare notes. I would ask each one of you to review your
budget and to tell us before we get into the intensive review
of it, if there is a sufficient amount of money for you to
collaborate and work together to solve the basic problems, not
only of dealing with the increased monitoring here in the
Alaska area but also in terms of this computer problem that
seems to be pervasive as far as the whole government is
concerned. I've also heard that from Defense, I'm sure you
realize, and we have some basic problems about the position of
our Nation relative to other Nations of the world in terms of
the speed with which we are apparently able to tackle that
problem of the next generation of computer systems. But I'm
sure that there's many others that want to work with you on
this and I'll be glad to get together a group of Senators that
will plan to meet with you to try and work on that.
But I think we should have your review of the budgets for
your agencies to make certain that you can go forward with what
I believe is necessary, which is a process now of increasing
the observation and analysis of the statistics that are
available with regard to the Arctic, with particular reference,
obviously, to our State, but to the Arctic region in general
and to try and get some process of periodic validation of the
predictions that we've been given by the scientists based on
the models that have been used so far. I don't think any of
them are going to feel offended if we try to say we want to
increase the validity of those by periodically validating the
predictions that are contained in the models.
But I do appreciate your coming and I appreciate those of
you from the panel this morning.
Scott, do you have another comment?
Mr. Gudes. Yeah. I just wanted to clarify one thing in my
statement. I've been trying to find a place to say that. I
can't believe I did this on NASA TV but, when I was talking
about NPOESS, I didn't mention--I should have--that NASA's a
major participant in NPOESS and that one of the reasons why
we're very positive about being able to get that satellite and
be able to keep continuity is because NASA's come forward and
they're a full participant in what's called NPOESS Preparatory
Program in actually flying those instruments. So it actually is
a great example of interagency cooperation, Department of
Defense, NASA, Department of Commerce, NOAA. And I apologize
for not mentioning that earlier in my statement.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much. Again, I'm grateful
to all of you for coming. Many of you have come long distances
and had to change your schedules in order to accommodate the
timing of this hearing. I do want to thank KUAC Radio and--all
of us were provided the equipment, both audio and video
equipment, for the hearing here today--and the University of
Alaska for allowing us to occupy your space and for your
support. And I thank all of you that have participated in the
preparation of these visuals so that they can be more
understandable to those who might review this record, be it on
the video or on what we will print. We will print all of the
information that you've provided to us in statement form. I
don't think we'll reprint the bulletins you've already put out
but I would like to make sure we have copies of those bulletins
as you referred to so I can show them to my colleagues and
their staffs when we return and show them the record that we
will assimilate for today. I'm grateful to those who have
participated in the staffing of this, also. You've had a
considerable number of staffs accompany each one of you and I
want to thank them and my own staff, Jon Kamarck and Cheh Kim
for backing me up in terms of this hearing. But let me just
make this statement. I had a lot of calls from some of my
constituents saying, ``What are you doing?'' As a matter of
fact you heard the question to me about, ``Are you now
endorsing the whole concept of global warming?'' I've got to
tell you that I told them I don't endorse or denounce the
concept of global warming. I'm still in the process of trying
to understand what's going on. But as I travel around my State,
I find people such as Caleb who come to me and tell me what is
happening and, in many instances, happening in a way that they
feel was not predicted. And they think it is our duty in
government to be aware of change and to predict what that
change is going to mean to them in their daily lives and in
their children's lives in the future as far as their own
lifestyle. That's particularly true in the area of our
villages. But even here, in terms of the process of planning
ahead for our industrial base here, we've heard now, our
forests--they're going to move further northward and westward
and it's possible that they're--I assume from what I've heard--
that their growing cycle may be faster. It may be accelerated
in terms of their growth as this climate change takes place.
That offers a positive side to this as far as we are concerned
in terms of future utilization of some of the forest areas such
as these up here right now. They're not that stable because of
the permafrost that's under them and they don't have the kind
of roots and don't grow to the height that trees do in
southeastern Alaska. There's many changes that may come here
that I think we ought to know more about, the capability to
predict those changes and to understand what the changes will
mean for future generations who live in this part of our
country.
But it is a very serious matter as far as I'm concerned and
I think more--I sort of got on to this a little bit with one of
the bulletins one of you sent me. I don't know. That's what
sparked this whole thing, the whole idea to get together and
come up here and listen to Dr. Akasofu and his scientists who
are working here and making these predictions and, then, try to
understand what you all are doing in the areas that they are
concerned with. But I'm very sincere to tell you that I think
many of us want to understand this more. And it's not just a
question of global warming. It is to us a concept to
understanding the climate change that is taking place, not only
now, but what might happen in the future and determining if
there is an area where we who are charged with trying to set
our legislative policies for the country should take action now
in matters we have not in the past. So I thank you for your
presence and for your interest and what you've contributed to
our understanding of these issues today. And I thank all of you
who have come to be part of the audience to listen. I'm further
entranced by the subject as a result of listening to you all
day so I hope we have more meetings. Dan?
Mr. Goldin. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add another point.
And it occurred to me as you were talking. In the lower 48 most
Americans live in urban areas and cities and they are isolated
from their environment. You know, people don't know that fall
is coming because leaves fall off the trees; they know it's the
start of the football season. And spring is the start of the
baseball season. They don't see life coming into being and
they're isolated in many circumstances from death because, when
you're out in the wilderness, you see it in the animals. You
see it in the life. Alaska has a huge change in climate
compared to the lower 48. As I said, it's a harbinger of what
might occur in the future. If I remember the numbers correct
the average increase in global temperature is about a degree F
and, in Alaska, you're experiencing 4 to 7 or 8 degrees F. The
other issue in Alaska is--you could see it right away because
Alaska's very close to the melting point of ice--and seeing the
phase change is very, very apparent in permafrost, in the
forests moving, in the sea ice melting.
And I just want to thank you again for focusing on this
issue and, hopefully, Americans will get a sense about this.
And, in the end, we're a democracy and it takes the knowledge
of the people and making the people in the lower 48 sensitive
to the changes taking place here I think is a very powerful
message so that they can understand and, as a Nation, we could
take proper action.
Chairman Stevens. Whatever degree we don't understand many
of these things now--we're still searching for answers--I think
the one thing that comes through to me, as we discussed before,
is that the Arctic is going to be more affected by this change
in the near-term, and maybe even in the far-term, than any
other part of our society. And, if that is so, then I think we
ought to intensify the gathering of knowledge and validation of
predictions in this area because, if we do, perhaps then we can
understand even greater what's going to be coming as far as the
part of our country that's south of us. Maybe that's wrong but
I think we have to initiate some programs that intensify the
search for statistics, for knowledge, in the region that we
expect to have the most impact in the near future.
If you disagree, let me know, but that's my current
feeling.
And I thank you all for coming. Appreciate you being here.
Thank you very much for your assistance. And we'll check with
you about the way we put your statements in the record, and the
scientists the same way. Thank you very much.
[Clerk's Note.--The following written testimony was
submitted to the subcommittee for inclusion in the record.]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Elizabeth C. Weatherhead, University of
Colorado at Boulder
ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION IN THE ARCTIC
Ultraviolet (UV) radiation levels in the Arctic are generally
considered by those who don't live in the Arctic to be quite low. The
argument is simple: Very low sun angles, combined with traditionally
high ozone levels mean that the UV in the Arctic should be low. In
fact, we have measurements that support this view. Figure 1 shows
noontime UV levels from four U.S. sites as measured by the
Environmental Protection Agency's UV monitoring network. The data show
strong seasonal cycles with UV in the Arctic never getting as high as
UV in, for instance, Gaithersburg, MD. However, this understanding of
low UV levels in the Arctic disagrees with the experiences of those who
live in the Arctic. Figure 2 shows goggles which have been used for
millennia by Arctic peoples to protect against snowblindness--a common
Arctic eye problem that is due completely to ultraviolet radiation. The
Arctic, in fact, is the only place on Earth where native inhabitants
have had to develop ocular protection from ultraviolet radiation, again
indicating that UV levels in the Arctic are not necessarily low. There
are two important reasons for the disjoint between the idea that UV
levels in the Arctic are low and the fact that UV effects in the Arctic
are readily observable. First, daylight can be as long as 24 four hours
in the Arctic, resulting in daily doses of UV to be much larger in the
Arctic during times of the year when biologically production is high
and humans are most likely to be outdoors. Figure 3 shows daytime
integrated UV levels from the same four U.S. sites as measured by the
EPA's UV monitoring network. Once the long days are taken into account,
it is clear that the UV levels in the Arctic can easily be of the same
order of magnitude as UV levels found elsewhere in this country. The
second factor which needs to be taken into account when considering the
effects of UV radiation in the Arctic is that while these measurements
represent UV reaching a flat horizontal surface, this amount does not
represent the exposure to our eyes, exposed skin, shrubs and most
biological receptors. If instead we consider UV to, for instance, a
vertical surface, the often snow-covered areas found in the Arctic
magnify several times the amount of UV radiation our eyes or skin would
receive. When we take into account these two factors: Long days and
highly reflective snow surfaces increasing UV to many biological
receptors, we come to understand why UV radiation has been a natural
stressor to the ecosystems and people of the Arctic.
OZONE IN THE ARCTIC
In the past few decades ozone levels have changed throughout much
of the world. While many are familiar with the depletion that has taken
place over Antarctica, fewer are aware that ozone depletion has been
severe over the Arctic and sub-Arctic. In fact, ozone depletion in the
Arctic is second only to the depletion observed in the Antarctic. These
losses are supported by both scientific measurements and observations
of those who live in the Arctic. Figures 4 and 5, from the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, show how ozone levels between 60
and 90 degrees N have changed over the past 30 years. We can see that
there has been a considerable loss of ozone in the past decade, with
large year-to-year variability. A number of scientific activities have
been devoted to understanding ozone loss in the Arctic and the causes
are understood to be fundamentally the same processes that deplete
ozone in Antarctica and the rest of the world. However, because Arctic
meteorology, especially the temperature and movements of air, is
considerably different than in Antarctica, the ozone loss in the Arctic
exhibits fundamentally different characteristics from the Antarctic
ozone loss. To begin with, Arctic losses are less predictable from year
to year than in the Antarctic. Ozone loss in the Arctic may also be
strongly affected by anthropogenic climate change, which can cool
temperatures in the vicinity of the ozone layer and increase ozone
loss. State-of-the-art modeling efforts indicate further ozone
depletion in the coming two decades for the Arctic; however these
predictions are highly uncertain at this time.
UV LEVELS IN THE ARCTIC
UV levels have been measured in the Arctic for only the past 10 to
15 years. These measurements have been extremely useful for showing how
ozone, as well as a variety of other factors, including clouds, sea ice
and snow cover, can affect ultraviolet radiation. The multiple factors
that influence UV imply that the relationship between ozone and UV is
not, in practice, a direct relationship. In addition, measurements show
that considerable amounts of UV penetrate through water, ice and snow.
Quality and extent of sea ice, clouds and surface reflectivity have a
large impact. Changes that may result from anthropogenic climate
change, including changes to sea ice, snow cover and clouds, will have
a direct influence on UV levels received in the Arctic. Thus, already
highly uncertain predictions for Arctic ozone are compounded by the
uncertainty in what we expect due to changes in clouds, sea ice and
snow cover, making predictions for future UV levels extremely
uncertain.
Changes in ozone levels in the Arctic have resulted in higher UV
levels on clear sky days. Not only have measurements confirmed the
changes in UV levels in the Arctic, but reports from native peoples
have been documented, at least for the Inuit in the Eastern Canadian
Arctic. These people report that in the last 5 years or so, they have
been experiencing sunburns, something that had previously been very
rare. Older hunters who have spent long periods of time out on the sea
ice in 24-hour sunshine rarely had their skin burn in previous years.
From interviews and conversations, it is evident that the sunburns are
mostly a new experience, or that the burns are now more severe than the
Inuit had known previously. This native knowledge provides evidence of
increased UV impacts in the Arctic under a depleting ozone layer and
ties our relatively recent measurements of UV into an oral historical
record that spans at least several generations.
UV EFFECTS--OVERVIEW
UV is known to affect most biological systems. Studies confirm that
UV can affect human skin, eyes and immune systems. UV has a direct
effect on a variety of species including the eyes of virtually all
animals, fish--particularly in the egg and larval stages--and both
plant growth and quality. These effects, while identified for a number
of species, have not been well studied. Many species have not been
examined for the impacts of UV. Ecosystem effects can be much more
complicated, and less intuitive, than what we can learn from studies of
individual species in controlled laboratory settings. UV can also have
secondary impacts, for instance by making species more sensitive to
other stressors, particularly pollutants.
UV EFFECTS--HUMANS
UV exposure has well known effects on humans, including sunburn,
snowblindness and immune suppression. UV radiation is also related to
long-term health problems such as cataracts, skin cancer and other
skin-related diseases. These health issues can cost taxpayers billions
of dollars each year through Medicare and other programs.
UV EFFECTS--SPECIES
Research studies have shown that phytoplankton and other organisms,
including those at the base of the food web, can be particularly
susceptible to UV. Changes in the populations of these species could
have wide impacts upward through marine ecosystems. Many fish species,
including cod, herring, pollock, and salmonids, are also UV-sensitive,
resulting in the death of many of the larvae before they are able to
reach maturity. These losses impact not only the diversity of the
marine ecosystem, but could also be very detrimental to the fishing
industry, particularly in light of the crises that have occurred in
salmon fisheries in recent years.
Terrestrial plants and animals are also directly affected by
ultraviolet radiation. Leaf thickness, shoot growth and chemical
compositions of plants are all affected by changes in UV radiation.
Long-lived animals, including dogs, can develop cataracts under the
same mechanisms as humans do.
UV EFFECTS--ECOSYSTEMS
UV does not affect all species equally. However, the effects of UV
on one species can have immediate effects on a number of other species.
The complex interactions and feedbacks within any natural system make
extrapolation of laboratory studies on individual species difficult. At
times the results can be counter-intuitive. For instance, while UV
kills off algae in a laboratory setting, UV causes the same algae to
flourish in a natural setting, because it has an even more harmful
effect on the larvae which eat the algae in a natural setting. The
effects of increased UV across species affects terrestrial as well as
aquatic systems. There is recent evidence that increases in UV
radiation increases a plant's likelihood to produce lignins and a
number of ill-tasting chemicals. This in turn makes the plants less
likely to be digested or even eaten by the animals which feed on them.
Therefore, while the direct effects of UV may be minimal on grazing
animals, the indirect effects from changes in the quality, not
quantity, of their food supply may be significant.
UV EFFECTS--COMBINED EFFECTS
Environmental stressors, including pollutants, climate change and
water availability can further tax a plant or animal's survival by
combining nonlinearly with UV radiation. These combined effects can
threaten organisms and ecosystems, and may be much more severe than the
individual impacts. For instance, recent research has explored the role
of UV radiation in enhancing the toxicity of certain chemical
compounds. The combination of UV light and chemical molecules,
particularly those associated with oil spills or petroleum
contamination, can yield an effect known as photoenhanced toxicity.
This effect has been shown to seriously injure or kill species that
would typically be less harmed in the presence of the chemicals alone.
Pollutants and other stressors are expected to remain significant, or
as is the case for climate change, to increase in the Arctic in the
coming years.
SUMMARY
UV has long been a natural stress in the Arctic. Arctic ozone
levels have decreased significantly in the last 10 years with large
year-to-year variability that is difficult to predict. Future ozone and
UV levels are highly uncertain and difficult to predict. Both human and
ecosystem health effects can be costly, not only for the individual or
species, but also in terms of economic costs to Medicare and to
fisheries and other industries. Medicare, for instance, pays billions
of dollars every year for cataract surgery, which is the number one
therapeutic procedure performed on adults over age 65. The Alaskan
Arctic is currently home to approximately half a million people. Much
can still be learned about the effects of UV on these people and on the
plants, mammals, and fish they harvest for food. Outstanding questions
still remain, and the threat of increasing UV to the peoples and
ecosystems of the Arctic is a significant concern.
A number of international organizations, including the
International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), the Arctic Monitoring
and Assessment Program (AMAP) and Conservation of Arctic Flora and
Fauna (CAFF) have cited the uncertainties with respect to future UV
levels and their effects as being a crucial area requiring immediate
investigation. The U.S. agencies are poised to address these
uncertainties in a coordinate manner through the Interagency Arctic
Research Policy Committee's Study of Environmental Arctic Change
(SEARCH).
Conclusion of hearing
Chairman Stevens. Thank all of you very much for your
participation. The committee stands recessed.
[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., Tuesday, May 29, the hearing was
concluded, and the committee was recessed, to reconvene subject
to the call of the Chair.]