cc: , , , , date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:00:28 +0100 from: Hans.Verolme@fco.gov.uk subject: Soon again: Modeling used by U.N., EPA questioned to: , Today the Senate will hold a hearing on the never-ending story of the hockey stick. Michael Mann and Willie Soon are slated to testify. Below please find Greenwire's preview, which cites a report by another sceptic think-tank, the Independent Institute (hyperlink below). In case you were not aware, the Senate Environment Cie. chair, Inhofe, is aligned with the sceptics. But don't despair, your recent debunking of the Soon and Baliunas paper for the Marshall Institute has found its way to sympathetic Senate staff, stripped of its origins. Senators Jeffords and Clinton will hold their feet to the fire. Peter's paper in GRL has also been provided to the NY Times science editor. I suggested he review it in the context of last week's science strategy release and this week's Earth Observation Summit. Let's see. We will formally report on the EOS and fold in related issues. HANS Modeling used by U.N., EPA questioned Lauren Miura, Greenwire reporter A panel of researchers attacked the science used to help guide global and U.S. climate change policy yesterday, as representatives from both sides of the debate geared up to testify on the issue during a Senate committee hearing. At issue are the models used to predict how much temperatures will rise, particularly the model that produced the so-called "hockey stick" graph showing a sharp rise in Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past two decades. That model, and the study that produced it, is widely cited as evidence that 1990-2000 was the warmest decade in the last millennium. It has been featured in reports from United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Clinton Administration's 2000 report Climate Change Impacts on the United States and subsequently, U.S. EPA's 2001 Climate Action Report. But with the release of a new report yesterday, the free-market-oriented Independent Institute charged the IPCC-favored "hockey stick" graph is faulty, in part because the model is based on a "severely limited" sample and assumes a wide margin of error. The IPCC panel, made up of thousands of scientists from around the globe, estimated in 2001 that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have increased by almost one-third since 1750 to their highest level in at least 420,000 years and possibly as long as 20 million years. A member of the IPCC was scheduled to testify today to support Sen. Jim Jeffords' (I-Vt.) view that manmade CO2 emissions from industrial plants, electric utilities and motor vehicles are the leading contributor to climate change. Meanwhile Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chairman Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) contends that the Earth's warming climate is not caused by manmade emissions but is instead determined by a more far-reaching set of historical trends (Environment & Energy Daily, July 28). "The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used a temperature record for the last 1,000 years that can only be called a scientific outlier," said Patrick J. Michaels, a professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Michaels said the "hockey stick" model is outside the scientific norm because it does not acknowledge what scentists refer to as "the Little Ice Age" ending in the late 19th century and a "Medieval Warm Period" before that, as "hundreds and hundreds" of other studies do. Further, the Independent Institute says satellite data show an upward global temperature trend of 0.06 degrees celsius per decade, "several times less than what was forecast by computer models that served as the basis for the original 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change." "Climate models cannot take into account the very complicated feedbacks in the atmosphere, specifically clouds and water vapor," said Independent Institute research fellow and former EPA official S. Fred Singer. Even if the computer models were right, Michaels said, the average temperatures would increase only 1.6 degrees celsius over the next 100 years. "If something appears to be moderate and you couldn't stop it anyway, shouldn't that be the end of the issue?" Michaels asked. Environmentalists downplayed the report's reliability. Jeff Fiedler of the Natural Resources Defense Council described the Independent Institute's scientific panel as "pretty much a who's who of the remaining climate skeptics out there," adding that most of the panelists are outside the mainstream of climate research. Click here to download a copy of the report [1]http://www.independent.org/tii/news/030728story.html *********************************************************************************** For more information on the Foreign & Commonwealth Office visit: http://www.fco.gov.uk For information about the UK visit: http://www.i-uk.com Please note that all messages sent and received by members of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and its missions overseas may be monitored centrally. This is done to ensure the integrity of the system. ***********************************************************************************