Climate Science hearing in the Senate Commerce Comm Thursday

[TayTay]

March 12, 10 am. Here is the lineup from the Commerce Committee site.

Climate Science – Empowering Our Response to Climate Change

Thursday, March 12, 2009
10:00 AM

WASHINGTON, DC-- The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation announces a full committee hearing on Climate Science: Empowering Our Response to Climate Change.

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=af3b14fd-92e8-47dd-be28-5688634135a1

Witnesses

Opening Remarks

Panel 1
Mr. Sean Dilweg
Wisconsin Commissioner of Insurance
National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Office of the Commissioner of Insurance

Dr. Katharine Jacobs
Executive Director
Arizona Water Institute

Dr. Timothy Killeen
Assistant Director of Geosciences
National Science Foundation

Mr. Frank Alix
Chief Executive Officer
Powerspan Corporation

[MarjorieG]

1. Reporting that Cap and Trade/Budget in danger from "centrists"

Which is wordspeak, I guess, for industry supporters. Any word on how possible to get that through? Kerry's reaction, other than the suicide comment to our doing nothing on warming.

[karynnj]

2. Interesting hearing

The statements are now finished and Rockefeller is starting his questions.

Rockefeller asks about reversing global warming - rather than mitigation. Answer from expert - No given practical concerns. There are questions if land and water can continue to absorb carbon. The uptake of carbon may be plateauing. This effects how much carbon could be taken out of the atmosphere.

Rockefeller asks what they need to know - answer the rate at which carbon can be taking out and how much is in. The quantity of carbon in the air is a function of carbon put in and the amount taken out. The overall carbon cycle known but it needs to be fine tuned - especially on the "sink" side. (taking carbon out)

Hutchinson next

Hutchinson asked if cloud seeding in CO effects WY etc - she wanted NOAH (not sure of acronym. Do we need tracking on this and where should it be done. Scientist agreed the whole hydrological system needs to be studied. There was a big effort on climate mitigation 30 years ago - but the tools weren't there. Fed agencies are interacting well - The National Science Foundation has a process to determine where it goes. Scientist suggests partnership - where NOAH and NSF both have role. Asking if we have reasonable chance to mitigate a hurricane over the Atlantic to make it weaker when it hits the US. Answer - he can imagine it is the future but we are nowhere near - even 10 years from now.

Beglich now:

Spoke of impact in Alaska - where the permafrost is less and the water is acidified. Asked about the methane that will be released as permafrost melts - scientist says studies are known as the rate at which permafrost is degraded are not that well known. It needs to be down as it is a positive feedback to climate change and is not now in the global warming model (yikes!)

Second question on acidification. Scientist spoke of how change in chemistry of water could impact fish stock. Asked what a legislator can do to make the impact more immediate to people. Answer - example - connect science to what they care about - ie in Phoenix speak of water supply. Spoke of Mayor's green page.

Kerry now:
Emission growing 4 times faster than in the 1990s and every model shows that it is worse. Taking BEST of what every country is willing to do is not enough - Scientist said there is a rough consensus with Kerry's facts. Spoke of the parts in million that can be done - the scientists said there is some debate on that - Kerry went to the down side of being wrong on erring each way - scientist agreed.

CO2 half life means that what is already there is there for 100 years. Not quite that simple because there are different rates for different sink processes.

To Alix - Speaking on sequestration - asked if there are non-geologic ways to do it. (answer interesting, but I would make huge errors trying to say what was said - mentioned that this was doen in the Dakotas.)

Klobachar next:
Spoke of MN and science and her trip to Greenland where potatoes are now grown where permanent snow once was. Referenced Kerry's comment that things are worse and tied it to the methane from permafrost melting. Scientist said that it is that the carbon emissions are higher and the response different with ice melting faster. Science struggling to understand the complex interactions. Semi chaotic system - what is range of possibilities. Science doesn't know the effect of double carbon. K said there won't be new report before Copenhagen. Says that far more people know speak to her on global warming - different than before. Scientist agreed that there is no question that people's awareness is increasing, but the knowledge and motivation to take action.

Lautenberg now:
Mentioned he is on Environment committee too - spoke of being to Antarctic and Greenland and the amount of ice lost is a problem. 1/3 of greenhouse gas is from transportation and rail is a solution moving things more efficiently (in terms of carbon). Committee needs to push freight and passenger rail.

Water problem - as temp raises, people and plants use more water and water evaporates faster. In addition, it appears there will be less precipitation - esp in some areas. Lautenberg said this will be the eleventh plague. He asked about why some places have colder weather - in context 2008 was the 10th warmest - compared to other recent years being hotter.

Thune:

Says cap and trade will have economic cost and affect people - so we need best info. He asks what the primary regulatory for Carbon sequestration. It has to be regulated and cost driven down -but it is hard to do until more is done. Wants to know what can be done "at this level" now. What kind of regulations needed to make this interesting for investors - Having a cap and trade. Set of standards are being developed by EPA. (This is going to fast for me to understand and type - the key is that Thune is not negative.

[karynnj]

3. q&A continued

Udall (NM):

Mentioned models show less precipitation for NM - referring to Beglich's question on speaking to people, spoke of how the map lets him show that Santa Fe would be more like Chihuahua Mexico - which is far drier. Impact on forests will be major. Scientist - the regional level data is not good enough to "take to the bank". They will be working to do that and it will be usable by city planners - within a decade to do these type of regional models. Wild fire modeling impacts where you place plants near houses.

Warner:
Still trying to master being in three places at a time. (lol) Asked cost to put in sequestration and the cost in lost output - 3 to 4 cents a kilowatt - so not insignificant. 15 to 20% reduction in output on new, 25% for retrofitted.

Cantwell:
What models are needed for local governments and why aren't they there. Difficult to know how much uncertainty there is - over than in general ways. This does mean you need to beef up reservoirs. More definitive answers not available. She spoke of 2 back to back "100 year floods". The state of the art model today far better than 1970s/1980s/1990s - each of which had major improvements. They are working to do more to aid policy makers.

What research level is needed for acidification of water?

Rockefeller:
Asked about new insurance policies. Question is if they are pricing things right - ie are they assessing the risk correctly. He then asked a question on Lieberman/Warner where his numbers were wrong - but the answer was that coal sequestrations cost of the 3 or 4 cents per kwh is a deterrent.

Hutchinson:
Asked about the surges related to hurricanes that seem stronger and going further in. (Katrina and Ike) Is there record - there are now people publishing results that intensity has increased. Active area of research.

Warner -
Made an analogy to how wireless hit an inflection point and all forecasts earlier were completely surpassed. He then said that people think just "turn out lights" and "buy a Prius" - asked if there could be a "gold start on steroids" to help people buy green. The scientist essentially said he didn't do marketing theory. (WHY did anyone ever see him as a future star of the party!!! He is clueless.)

Rockefeller:
Speaking of how CSS makes coal nearly as clean as nuclear. Asked why companies aren't doing it - the answer is only one company willing to pay the money. Solution - charge for carbon in some way and there will be action. He is complaining that there are 4 committees that all think they can do it - and they will have to merge ideas. (My solution - do it in the committee with the most knowledgeable chair. :) )

[Mass]

4. The doubters seem to make progress.

According to the latest Gallup Poll on the topic, 41 % think it is exaggerated (which I guess mean that 59 think it is as important as described.

Now, given the economical situation, it is also possible that some people have simply shifted their priorities and that immediate survival is more important than long term survival. This said, it is a worrying tendency.
http://www.examiner.com/x-219-Denver-Weather-Examiner~y2009m3d11-Gallup-Poll--Americans-doubting-global-warming

http://www.examiner.com/examinerslideshow.html?entryid=138652 (graphs for poll result)

[beachmom]

5. Well, based on what my relatives in Germany have told me,

cap and trade is no barrel of laughs. It means paying more for energy -- higher gas prices, higher utility bills. I have worried about this for two years -- I just don't feel like the American people have been properly prepped for what lowering carbon emissions will entail. It is not a painless process. I doubt many people know this, and when they do, they are not going to be happy.

[karynnj]

6. On MSNBC, Debbie Stabanow said she is asking that they remove cap and trade from the budget

Ignoring that it plays a role in creating demand for green technology by adding a cost to not be green. She also has been a Senator long enough to know why that is in the budget. Out of the budget, it will be filibustered - where it can't be filibustered if it is in the budget. Keeping it in the budget is likely the only way it would pass. I hope Obama has the commitment and the guts to stand up for this.

She is, of course, very happy to get the green energy incentives - noting that they could be manufactured in Michigan. This likely means that she belongs in one of those two groups - either not REALLY believing the science or being overwhelmed with MI's economic plight.

[Mass]

7. Once again, the Michigan senators are trying to block necessary progress.

They help sinking the industry energy by preventing progress that was made elsewhere in the world. They will continue with this.

They think they are helping the automobile industry and the workers, but they are not. They are hurting them. The auto industry should have been forced years ago to modernize and to go to more efficient cars. :Sigh: It never changes.

[karynnj]

8. Senator Inhofe is earning his title as leader of the flat earth caucus,

He is giving a speech on the floor of the Senate calling global warming a myth and arguing that we are now in global cooling. He is speaking of all the scientists coming out of the woodwork refusing to be intimidated by losing grants from the government and liberal foundations to speak against global warming.