Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
702409
label
Global Warming (2 of 2) - 1990 [6]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
702409
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Global Warming (2 of 2) - 1990 [6]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
29158-006
collections
Records of the White House Office of the Chief of Staff to the President (George H. W. Bush Administration)
John Sununu Issues Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
702409
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
771c47adcdb96c9c
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
1998-0004-F[1]
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin: Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
Subseries:
Issues Files
OA/ID Number:
29158
Folder ID Number:
29158-006
Folder Title:
Global Warming (2 of 2) - 1990 [6]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
15
25
2
3
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Doc. No. / Type
Subject/Title
Date
Restriction
Classification
01 Paper
From Committee on Earth Sciences
n.d.
P-5
Re: U.S. Global Change Research Program
Options paragraphs redacted (7 pp.)
02 Memo
From David Bates to POTUS
11/29/89
P-5
Re: Recommendations of the DPC Working Group on Global
Change for President's 1990 Environmental Program (5 pp.)
03. Memo
From D. Allan Bromley to POTUS
11/27/89
(b)(1)
RIP
Re: Meeting w/President Gorbachev
[redacted] (11 pp.)
Page 1 of 1
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
Subseries:
Issues Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Global Warming (2 of 2) - 1990 [6]
Pinksheet Number:
KO0766
OA/ID Number:
29158-006
Date Closed:
12/17/2004
FOIA/Sys Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 12-13-89 4:34PM
2023953261-
2024562397;# 2
SENI BY:Xerox relecopier 7021 12-13-89 5:37PM
2023953462-
20239532611# 2
NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH
P.O. Box 3000 Boulder, Colorado 80307-3000
Telephone: (303)497-1000 Telex: 989764
6 December 1989
Dr. D. Allan Bromley
Science Adviser to the U.S. President
Executive Offices of the President
Washington, DO 20500
Dear Dr. Bromley:
In an article in the 20 November 1989 issue of Newsweek, John Sununu referred
to the new climate-change modeling research by Washington and Meehl (1989) at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). (Another editorial, also on 20
November, in The Wall Street Journal, incorrectly quoted results from the same re-
search.) When I saw the Newsweek article, I telegrammed Dr. Sununu and invited him
to call me If he wanted more information on our experiments. In our ensuing telephone
discussions about the state of climate modeling and our research, he suggested that I
contact you directly.
My purpose in writing you, therefore, is to correct the media statements and to
clarify the conclusions to be drawn from the model results at NCAR. Our modeling
group is one of the few research groups that has successfully coupled a global aimo-
spheric model to a global dynamical ocean model. The ocean model is driven by heat
fluxes to and from the atmosphere, by wind foreing, and by salinity differences caused
by atmospheric precipitation and evaporation. Although the coupled model can expe-
rience many problems from lack of constraints, its advantage is that it can be used to
examine climate sensitivity to a gradual increase of carbon dioxide in addition to an
instantaneous doubling of carbon dioxide.
The Wall Street Journal's editorial says that we have "cut in half" our estimates
of climate change. This assumption is erroneous for the following reasons. In previous
climate-change experiments, We used a simple, nixed-layer upper ocean with a thick-
ness of 50 n. Although such an ocean model does not include vertical or horizonial
heat transport mechanisms and other important ocean processes (such as mixing with
intermediate and deep ocean layers), it does include some important aspects of the sea-
sonal heat storage in the upper oceans, that is, heat is stored in summer and released in
winter. The GISS model used by James Hansen is an example of a simple, mixed-layer
model with a specified poleward flux of heat from the tropics.
Because of the prohibitive expense in running our new model with a dynamical
it certainly would be larger than the value quoted in Newsweek. In fact, we have ruu it
ocean to equilibrium, we cannot say exactly what the new equilibrium would be, but
studies indicated that land and ocean areas usually warm, but our recent studies show,
Fluid Dynamics Laboratory have revealed new insights into global warming. Previous
warining in the oceans and atmosphere. Our research and that of NOAA's Geophysical
farther than reported in the referenced article and it continues to show globally averaged
for the first time, that some ocean regions actually cool. In our experiments with
North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans are cooler-a pattern similar to that observed
a gradual increase of carbon dioxide, the lands are warmer and in certain regions the
for climate prediction, they yield behavior patterns heretofore unseen in other enough model
by Karoly (1989). Although our coupled dynamical models are not precise
studies with simple oceans, and this behavior is only one part of a myriad of climate
The National Conter for Atmospheric Research is operated by the University Corporation
for Atmospheric Research under sponsorship of the National Science Foundation.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 12-13-89 4:35PM
2023953261-
SENI BT:Xerox relecopier 7021 12-13-89 ; 5:38PM ;
2023953462->
2023953261:# 3
2024562397:# 3 3
To Dr. D. Allan Bromley
6 December 1989
Page 2
system interactions we are beginning to explore. The simplified picture of using some
globally averaged warming number is not meaningful for the observations or for the
models. The large-scale regional patterns that appear are likely to be quite complex
with a great deal of natural variability.
The Wall Street Journal editorial also recommended that George Bush, John Su-
nunn, Bill Reilly, Congress, and the governors gather together on C-SPAN to hear
top climate modelers discuss and "settle" the issues surrounding the greenhouse effect.
We do not believe that this in the best method of dealing with scientific uncertainties.
Rather, we should consider the recommendations to be made in 1990 by the Intergov-
ernmental Panel on Cliniate Change (IPCO)-a study involving worldwide experts on
climate change. We at NCAR are, participating In this IPCC study, as well as in in-
tercomparisons of models under the Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Program.
Both efforts are extremely critical to our understanding of what the models are really
telling us.
Your statements to the press and public indicate that you are an advocate of global-
change research. We urge your continued support. Climate modelers must continue
resolution. to refine the uncertain aspects of physical processes, such as clouds, and to improve
If you would like more information, please call me at (303) 497-1321; my FAX
number is (303) 497-1137.
Sincerely,
Wenen M. Washington
Warren M. Washington, Director
Climate & Global Dynamics Division
Enclosures
CC: John Sunuhu
Nancy Maynard
Richard Anthes
Peter Gilman
Ari Patrinos
Michael Riches
Robert Serafin
Deborah Stirling
References:
Karoly, D., 1989: Northern Henisphere temperature trends: A possible
greenhouse gas effect Geophys. Res. Lett., in press.
Washington, W.M. and G.M. Mechl, 1989: Climate sensitivity due to
increased CO2: experiments with a coupled atmosphere and ocean
general circulation model. Climate Dynamics, 4, 1-38.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 12-13-89 4:35PM
2023953261->
2024562397; 4
SENI BY xerox relecopier 7021 512-13-88 5:38PM
2023953462->
2023953261:# 4
SCIENCE
Is It All
Just Hot Air?
New computer models question the severity
and timing of the greenhouse effect
ow worried should we be about
H
19th century should have warmed the plan-
the greenhouse effect? Last week
at 8 degrees Calsius, according to the mod-
British Prime Minister Margaret
els-but the world has warmed no more
Thatcher, hardly an acc-freak,
than halfa degree. The discrepancy may be
called on the United Nations to
due to # delay between the emission of
adopta binding treaty restricting emissions
greenhouse gases and their warming effect,
of gases that threaten to warm the planet,
a delay determined in part by how much
causing deadly fioods and food shortages.
CO, the ocepns absorb and by how long it
Yet just the day before, at an internat tional
takes the waters to warm up. But critics
meeting in a Dutah senside resort, only 30 of
don't accept that. "The most conservative
the 65 nations in attendance supported a
climate model overestimated warming by
Dutch proposal to freeze the level of emis-
factor of six," says climatologist Patrick
aions of greenhouse gases by the end of the
Michaels of the University of Virginia.
century and cut them 20 percent by 2005.
"Yen't that anough to give you payes about
Japan, the Soviet Union, China and the
(forecasts the and of the world?"
CO2: Polluted Mexico City
United States-which together account for
Although computer models say green-
58 percent of the world's output of these
house warming has begun, the data are
climate will be like by, say, 2030. To answer
gases-agreed only that stabilising them
controversial. Climatologist James Han-
"should be achieved assoon as possible."
that, researchers Are making their models
ship of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space
Environmentalists lambasted the emp-
more realistic. In one recent fine-tuning,
Studies, using global-temperature data
researchers led by J.F.B. Mitchell of the
ty statement as "sither A failure of nerve
covering the last 100 years, concludes that
British Meteorclogical Office rewrote their
or a cynical ploy," as Brooks Yeager of
the greenhouse effect has indeed kicked in:
the National Audubon Society put it. Per-
equations to simulate clouds ntaining ice
the readings have gone up an average of 0.4
haps, but it also reflects the uncertainty
crystals, not only water vapor as before. The
degree Calaius. But skeptica argue that the
of greenhouse science. Predictions of glob-
effect: overcase increases, which cools the
tiny warming is due largely to urban heat
al warming rest on the observation that
world just as does a passing cirrus on a July
islands-cities heating their surroundings.
certain gases-carbon dioxide (CO₂), ni-
afternoon. The result, the BMO group
And since the thermometers are on land
trous oxides, methans, chlorofluorocar-
wrote in the journal Nature, is a global
they may not reflect the (mestly watery)
bons (OFCa)-act like glass in a botanical
warming of 1.9 degrees Celsius, not the 3 to
planet as a whole. "Odean temperatures
greenhouse, trapping heat and thus
5.5 degrees predicted by most current mod-
show no change since the 19th century,"
warming the planet. That much remains
els. (In Fahrenheit, that's a warming of 3.4
contends geophysicist Richard Lindzen of
unquestioned: a greenhouse of some mag-
degrees, rather than 5.4 to 9.9 degrees.)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
nitude is coming some time. The debate
White House chief of staff John Suaunu
Thetas clasion New data, however,
turns on three points:
(an MIT-trained engineer) and science ad-
strengthen the case for the greenhouse.
Have greenhouse gases affected our
viser D. Allan Bromley (a physicist) have
Next month, at a meeting of the American
weather yes?
seined on this result to argue against taking
Geophyaical Union, mathematicians from
How much will temperatures rise once
stops to mitigate the greenhouse. "You do
AT&T Bell Labe will report that, by ruling
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reach
not establish policies on the basis of incom-
out other explanations of global warming--
twice their current levels, around 2080?
plate modela," Sunuau told NEWSWEEK.
from chance to solar cadillations-they
A degree, or an specifyptic 5.5 degrees?
"We have the time and obligation to find out
were able to conclude that "there is a 99.99
$ How long does it take for the meroury
what's going on. We're going to do the right
percent chance that the warming and the
to shoot up?
CO. rise are enusally related," says David
thing. We want to know what the right
For answers, climatologists turn to com-
thing im." Trus enough. But the White
Thomson. And researchers from Ohio State
puter models. But these mathematical for-
House may be taking more comfort from
University announced this month that ice
mulations ATE crude approximations at
the new results than is warranted. V. Ra-
cores from a glacier in Tibet show that Cen-
best, as the modelers are the first to admit.
tral Asia has warmed 1 to $ degrees Celsius
manathan a University of Chicago geo-
For instance, greenhouse contrarians
in the last 100 years-comething that can-
physicist nor noted for apecalypti shetoric,
charge, the models do not even "predict"
explains that cloud behavior "Involves
not be attributed to Warm cities.
the past very well. Gases released since the
about 25 different interactions, and our
The more pressing question is what the
models simulate only one or two, When we
64 NEWSWEEK NOVEMBER 30, 1989
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 12-13-89 ; 4:36PM ;
2023953261-
2024562397;# 5
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 12-13-89 ; 5:38PM ;
2023953462-
2023953261:# 5
have 25 in there, greenhouse predictions
maygetwored."
Caution like Sununu's may be prudent;
unbridled optimism is not. He citas another
newstudy that lowers projections of green-
house warming. Warren Washington and
Gerald Meshi of the National Center for
Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.,
used more sophisticated simulations of the
oceans' circulation and heat exchange than
did sarlier computer runs. In their worst-
case scenario-an overnight doubling of
CO-the pair found that the world would
warm 1.6 degrees Celsius within 30 years,
again a more mild greenhouse. But Meehl
points out that their model did not run long
enough to show all the warming CO, would
produce. Some remained bottled up in the
great heat sink of the OCERD. (Therseas ab-
sorb most of the CO₂ produced on the plan-
et.) Running the modals out another few
decades would produce more hearing Bays
Meshl, "It may take longer to see climate
change, but you dosse it. "
Stormy weather Even increases of a degree
or two can have unpleasent effects.
Droughts would be more likely. Storms
would be more severe and frequent, because
the atmosphere holds more energy. Agri-
cultural belts would shift, possibly causing
crop failures. Although many skeptics ar
gue that crops would thrive on the extra
CO2, in fact plants have responded to past
CO₂ increases by developing fewer of the
Keeping a Weather Eye on the Meroury
tiny pores that breathe in this gas. Most
worrisome, while a mild greenhouse may
Even sophisticated formulas used to predict the greenhouse can't account for all
not be a great place to live, no one can
of nature's forces. Several variables may make the climate mild or hellish.
rule out the chance of a hellish tomorrow.
"Although a 1-degree warming is much
Bilver Linings
more probable," says climatologist (and
skeptic) Robert Balling of Arizona State
Clouds: Higher temperatures increase evapora-
tion and hence clouds, which are made of water
University, "It is ludicrous to say 5.5 de-
grees cannot happen."
vapor and help cool the planet.
But when? Current inhabitants of the
Volcanoes: Eruptions spew May particles into the
White House don't have to worry. Because
atmosphere that deflect sunlight. causing cooling.
the oceans absorb so much heat, it will be
Plankton: Warmth and extra CO, might promote
decades before the world gets appreciably
the growth of these tiny marine organisms, which
hotter because of CO, already loosed on the
absorb CO2 and take It out of circulation.
planet-unless some of the unknown forces
LARRY
Oceans: Their heat-absorbing capacity might de-
that shape climate bring on more warming
More data, please: Sununu
lay warming for more than a century.
more quickly (table). Says elimatologist Mi-
chael Schlesinger of the University of Illi-
nois, "Our children will ask
Start Building an Ark
why their folks didn't do some-
Sea See: Once it starts to melt, less sunlight will be
thing about sreenhouse warm-
reflected away, exacerbating the warming.
when they had the chance.'
That leaves society with a
Acid rain: Sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain,
painfully familiar choice: how
also cools the earth. Controlling acid rain might
thus accelerate the greenhouse effect.
to act in the face of undertainty.
As NCAR climatologist Ste-
Permatrost: Warming might meit the frozen soll.
phan Schneider puts it in his
releasing buried methane-a greenhouse gae.
new book, "Global Warming,"
Soft: Warming ordinary soil would increase the
"Can we base trillion-dollar de-
rate at which bacteria convert dead organic matter
cisions about global economic
into co, intensifying the man-made greenhouse.
-
development strategies on
Barly
wornings
Hanson
these admittedly cloudy crystal balls?" He
says yes-procrestinating would be reck-
less. But MIT's Lindsen recommends wait-
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 12-13-89 ; 4:37PM ;
2023953261-
2024562397;# 6
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 12-13-89 ; 5:40PM
2023953462->
20239532611# 6
ing, since of these questions will beon
significantly surer ground in five years."
ton and algas that support the
Other experts think 10 or 20 years is more
rest of the aquatio food chain.
like it, and that what we learn is as likely to
Food shortages are already at-
point to à worse groenhouse. Says Mohr
fecting the walleyed pike, &
med El-Ashry of the World Resources Insti-
perchlike species that accounts
tute, a Washington think tank, "When we
for most of Ohio's $500 mil-
waited for more research 8 acid rain, we
lion sports-fahing industry and
ended up realising that everything we
is harvested commercially in
knew 10 years earlier was true. And wait-
Canada. This year Ohio's catch
ing exacts & price. Gradually replacing oil
will be off by an estimated
with solar energy, for Instance, is much Issue
800,000 dah (down from 4.9 mil-
painful than a sudden switch. And the long-
lian to 4.3 million), and Canadi-
er greenhouse gases are emitted, the more
an fishermen say the walleyes
warming we may ultimately confront.
they're catching are smaller
How we respond to the greenhouse threst
than usual.
will depend not only on acience but also on
That's just the beginning.
the palatability of the required changes.
Mature sebre mussels use
The industry-sponsored Global Climate Co-
tough, threadlike membranes
alition opposes singling out American com-
to latch onto hard surfaces in
panies to "cure" the greenhouse. Ford
layered colonies, and they
Motor Co., for instance, points out that U.S.
seem particularly fond of the
passenger care account for 1.2 percent of
huge intake pipes that provide
global CO2 emissions; doubling fuel offi-
water supplies throughout the
clancy would out that to .6 percent. "It
Prom the deep: Mussel magnified three times
Great Lakes Basin. The town
would throw industry into a tailspin and
of Monroe, Mich, had to ban
have minimum environmental impact,"
ENVIRONMENT
lawn sprinklers this summer. after the
argues Ford's Kelly Brown. But vehicles
crustaceans colonised its 30-inch-wide. 10-
account for 32 percent of America's CO,
Showdown at
mile-long intake pips, reducing its capaci-
emissions; utilities, for 34 percent. Of
ty by a third. Musselbound waterlines
course, America alone cannot stop the
have brought a halt to development in the
greenhouse, but if a rich, technologically
advanced nation won't put its own house in
Mussel Beach
town of West Lorns, in southwest Onterio,
and caused a series of equipment failures
order, then developing countries-poten-
at the Ford Motor Co.'s Windsor (Ont)
tially wares greenhouse villains-have a
Marauding crustaceans
Casting Plant, where engine blocks are
perfect secuse to do nothing.
cast from molten iron.
Persign all: Changes that would mitigate
terrorize Great Lakes
Ford officials were able to kill the invad-
the greenhouse would actually bring oth-
ors with 300-pound doses of chlorine, leav-
or benefits. Energy conservation reduces
ing cleanup crews to contand with moun-
dependence on imported oil; fuel-afficient
t may lack the girth of the Blob or the
tains of malodorous dead. But municipal
care and planting trees clean the air.
officials have to think about purity as well
Some changes would improve competitive-
menacing shirp of Hitchcock's birds, but
as quantity. Since chlorine and mussel
the mobra mussel is staging a classic
ness. At least the Japanese, whose models
creep-show routine on the western shores
proteins can mix to form suspected carcin.
show & temperature increase of 1.5 to 3
of Lake Erie. The striped freshwater clam
agens, Monroe officials are trying to devel-
degrees Calsius by 2030, to think
op a whirling scrubber that will unsest
inveded North America just three years
so, They are researching ways to recycle
ago, when a European tanker Bushed its
the intruders mechanically. Other com-
CO2 released in industrial processes, de-
velop energy sources to replace fossil
ballasts into Lake St. Clair. Since then,
munities are trying to concoot filters that
fuels and capture CO, by using marine
populations have spread through the De-
will keep the mussels from entering the
algae to "fix" it.
troit River and into Lake Eris at a clip of
pipes in the first place. These devices will
160 miles & year. The prolific crustaceans
cost an estimated $50 million apiece, and
For those who fear that the greenhouse
are now antombing boat hulls and beaches,
dosens of towns may require them. "Many
will arrive-and no responsible scientist
disrupting a large fishing industry and
of us are moving quickly to contain this
denies that possibility--it seems impers-
clogging waterlines that support cities and
mussel," says Michael Donahue of the
tive to take immediate steps to mitigate it.
For those who fear such changes, It seems
factories. Unless the invasion is stopped,
Great Lakes Commission, an eight-state
more prudent to postpone action until the
experts speculate, 26 million people could
consortium of governments. "But I can
effect in indisputably upon us. The Bush
Jose their water supplies within five years.
tell you that the cost will be much more
For Great Lakes fishermen, the immedi-
than the Exxon oil spill."
administration has budgated 8250 million
this fiscal year for climate modeling,
ate threat is not the thumb-sixe grown-ups
Natural predators may offer the best
but the subvisible larvas they spawn by the
hope of all. No amount of garlic or butter
money that would go to both scientific
tens of thousands. Off the shores of Toledo
will turn a sebre mussel into restaurant
camps. Some of the uncertainties might be
and Cleveland and near Leamington, Ont,,
fare, but the striped pests have turned up in
resolved by the next world climate confer-
ance, in late 1990. But the debate will not
asingle subie meter of water often contains
the stomachs of several species of fish. Div.
be over by then. Society will have to face
a half-million mussal larvas. "I don't think
ing ducks like them. too, and large flocks
its demons and decide which it fears most.
it has reached its peak even there." says
will spend the next two months in the
Garry Mackie, a biologist at the University
Great Lakes, on route from Canada to the
of Gualph. The voractous youngsters have
southern United States. Let us hope
SHARON MARY HAGES
in Washington, LARRY WILSON in New York
increased WAter clarity threefold-but
they're hungry.
and bureen reports
they've done it by gobbling up the plank-
GROPPREY Cowlex with
Louis AGUILAR in Detroit
88 NEWSWEEK: NOVEMBER 20, 1989
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 12-13-89 ; 4:38PM
2023953261-
2024562397;# 7
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 12-13-89 ; 5:41PM i
2023853462->
2023853261:# 7
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Chill Out
We keep reading that the debate
widely credited with launching the
over the greenhouse affect is "set"
highly politicized crisis atmosphere
tied" and that all "sertous" scientists
around the greenhouse question. Mr.
subscribe to it. Such a strong sense of
Hansen went before a congressional
consensus in science is a remarkable
committee and said that he was 98%
thing. no matter what the subject. We
sure that the earth was getting
continue to wonder. though. # the
warmer, and he had "a high degree of
greenhouse debate is really over.
confidence" that warming was caused
In January, for Instance, the New
by the greenhouse effect. This of
York Times publicized a study which
course got the desired effect-tremen-
reported that there has been no warm.
dous press play. But some of Mr. Han-
ing trend in the United States over the
sen's scientific colleagues were dis.
past century. Scientists at the Na-
mayed.
tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
In an article titled "Hansan VE. the
ministration reported that since 1895,
World on the Greenhouse Threat." the
"AW IOW "IVHNOT INSURE TW
the climate in the U.S. has grown nei-
journal Science reported that Mr.
ther warmer nor colder. watter nor
Hansen's colleagues found his green-
drier. The chorus quickly responded
house assertions "unfor givable."
that the U.S. results are an anomaly,
largely because of their absolutist cer-
and that when a wider sample came
titude. But absolutism ("no respect-
in, its theory would be vindicated.
able scientist denies") to a command-
A wider sample has just arrived.
ment of modern environmentalism.
Three MIT scientists-Reginald New
Mr. Hansen is 8 highly respected
all, Jane Halung and Wu Zhongxiang-
modeler, but be reaints acknowledging
recently processed ocean-tamperature
the possibility of shortcomings in his
data taken all over the world by mer-
computer creation. However и
chant mariners since the mid-19th
models have begun to grow alightly
century. Their results were summa-
more realistic recently, the green-
rised in the current issue of Technol-
house predictions have varied enor-
egy Review: "One of the most strik-
mously. Researchers at the National
ing results suggested by the data is
Center for Atmospheric Research
that there appears to have been little
have cut their greenhouse prediction
or no global warming over the past
in half. Lacking empirical confirms-
century." The computer models that
tion of their primitive models, scien-
foretall a greenhouse effect predict
tists and environmentalists have
that there already should have been
adopted 1 fallback position. They say
about a 1.8 degree rise in global tem-
the greenhouse effect may or may not
perature. But that hasn't happened.
be serious, but we should take insur-
Also. the uncongenial MIT report has
ance precautions anyway. But the cost
been virtually ignored. Science may
over 20 years has been estimated to
still be about surveying all the avail.
run between $1 trillion and nearly 34
able facts but. increasingly. public
trillion.
policy isn't.
The final greenhouse argument is
Today. much public policy. expe-
that it is far cheaper to address the
cially as practiced by many environ-
problem now, than later, when infor-
mental advocates. is mainly shout
mation is more reliable. This recalls
making doubters or opponents relue-
to mind the 19th-century suientists
tant to challange the consensus.
who worried that the world was run-
Strobe Talbott of Time magazine, for
ning out of coal.
example, recently announced that "no
Maybe there's a way out of this:
respectable scientist denies" the
Lat's put all the relevant policy
greenhouse phenomenon.
players in & room together-George
No doubt, participants of all stripes
Bush. John Sumunu. Bill Railly of
in the policy game these days/have
RPA, Congress and governors. They'll
become frustrated at their inability to
listen while the top academic climate
enact their agendas. What secrns to
modelors discuss the available evi.
sometimes work. though. is whipping
dence around the greenhouse effect.
up a kind of mass-media forver be-
The public will watch on C-SPAN. And
hind one's ideas. The danger in this is
when it's over, the politicians can go
that it may cause the public to think
before the microphones and tell us
that acience is now primarily about
what they think is "mattled" about
politics, and in polities about half the
global warming and, most important,
people usually think that you're not
how much they want to spend on it.
telling the truth.
We agree with the absolutists. Time is
MASA scientist Tames Mansan la
maney Let's mattin "
DEC-13-89 WED 12:05 FREDERICK SEITZ
PRO BONO Ф
THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY
1230 YORK AVENUE NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021-6399
->>>-
December 12, 1989
The Honorable John H. Sununu
Chief of Staff to the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Governor Sununu:
You probably have seen the accompanying item by Leslie Roberts
which appeared in the November 24th issue of science. It is highly
critical of the report of the George C. Marshall Institute
concerning the Greenhouse Effect and is strongly supportive of the
more extremist group which wishes our country to take the lead,
essentially overnight, in a vast and expensive shift in our use of
fossil fuels. The article is not only highly biased in favor of
the extremist groups which it quotes extensively but gives a
grossly distorted representation of our own report. Among other
things our report was carefully reviewed by experts who have spent
a number of years in following atmospheric changes that might lead
to a significant greenhouse effect in the immediate future.
The responses to the editor of Science of the group
responsible for the Marshall Report as well as responses from other
scientists who are aware of the issues involved are also appended
to this letter. It is our hope that the editor of Science will
have the courtesy to publish them in a forthcoming issue of
science. I am also enclosing an editorial written by John Maddox
which appeared in the November 24th issue of Nature and which
adopts a viewpoint close to that contained in our report from the
Marshall Institute.
It seems very strange that a group of scientists should
express such vehemence in connection with a plan that would have
our own country take the lead in turning back the clock for many
decades. In fact, it is not very clear who would follow us.
We remain interested in this issue and will continue our
study.
Best regards.
sincerely,
Fred Sert sexts
DEC-13-89 WED 12:06 FREDERICK SEITZ
P.03
Activity in the other direction includes
visits to the Soviet Union, under the same
Global Warming:
program. by a half-dozen American sociolo-
gy lecturers. Among them are Neil Smelser
of the University of California at Berkeley
Blaming the Sun
and Kohn of Johns Hopkins, who will be
going to Moscow in December. Soviet uni-
versities are also soliciting American Ful-
A report that essentially wishes away greenhouse warming is said
bright lecturers.
Kohn adds that Cornell University has
to be having a major influence on White House policy
made a unique arrangement with Igor Kon,
the Soviet Union's leading expert on U.S.
sociology, who will have a 2-weck-per-year
A SLIM, UNREFEREED REPORT that many
the report as a political document. Nearly 6
visiting professorship. Kon, says Kohn, has
scientists have dismissed as blased and mis-
months after its release, he is still arguing
managed to keep abreast of the field while
leading is said to be at least partly behind the
about the report's scientific basis with Nicrt
working at an institute in Leningrad-main-
White House's recent temporizing on cli-
enberg, via letters.
ly by obtaining review copies of American
mate change.
"Noisy junk science," says Jerry Mahiman,
books. He cleverly managed to convey the
And that is causing consternation among
director of the National Oceanic and Atmo-
meat of the scholarship by beginning and
elimatologists and other greenhouse experts,
spheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid
ending his reviews with "Marxist diatribes,"
who are dismayed that this 35-page docu-
Dynamics Laboratory, where one of the
says Kohn. So knowledgeable is the Soviet
ment by the George C. Marshall Institute, a
major greenhouse models was developed.
sociologist that when be came to the ASA
Washington, D.C., think tank-rather than
A number of other respected climate re-
convention in August 1988, he was able to
one of the massive, carefully researched and
scarchers have suggested that the National
identify the main accomplishments of every
reviewed expert reports of the past several
Academy of Sciences review the study. The
author to whom he was introduced.
years-seems to be holding sway in the
Academy is likely to weigh into the ruckus
Kohn has also been involved in initiating
upper echelons of the Administration.
in some way-a couple of committees are
a series of joint conferences, which have
The report, "Scientific Perspectives on the
looking at the report-though it will stop
been in the planning stage since before
Greenhouse Problem," is by three promi-
short of giving the document a formal re¹
Gorbachev took over. IREX and the ASA
nent scientists-William
vlew.
A. Nierenberg, director
At the Environmental
are supplying funds to support five U.S.-
Soviet conferences that are being held alter-
emeritus of Scripps Insti-
Protection Agency, Alan
nately in the United States and the Soviet
tution of Oceanography;
Hecht, deputy assistant
Union. The first, in 1987, was a conference
Robert Jastrow, founder
administrator in the office
on sociology and the psychology of work,
and former director of the
of international activities,
held in Vilnius. This December there will be
Goddard Institute for
says he has "real problems*
a conference in Moscow on public opinion
Space Studies; and Freder-
with the study and recently
research.
ick Scitz, president emeri-
passed a critique of it onto
All this cross-fertilization--indeed, the
tus of Rockefeller Univer-
EPA administrator Wil-
blossoming Soviet interest in sociology gen-
sity and past president of
liam K. Reilly. As part of
crally-is regarded as good news both for
the National Academy of
this Informal review,
the discipline and for U.S. Sovietologists in
Sciences. The trio's other
Hecht asked Schneider for
particular. Shelley notes that "academic po-
major foray into public
his comments on the rc-
sitions for sociologists trained in Soviet
policy was a vigorous de-
port; Schnelder's less.
studies have gone untilled in recent years"
Fense of the Strategic De.
High-level proponent. Wil-
than-Aattering letter is
and expects that to change.
fense Initiative a few years
tiam Nicrenberg, one of the authors,
now circulating In the sci-
Further, William V. D'Antonio, head of
ago.
briefed White House officials.
entific community and on
the ASA, says he hopes eventually to ace
Summing up the abun-
Capitol Hill, where Sena
U.S. students doing graduate work in the
dant uncertainties that surround greenhouse
for Albert Gore (D-TN), for one, is con-
Soviet Union.
models and predictions, the authors say it is
cerned.
For its part, the ASA is looking toward
too soon to take any actions to reduce
The report does have its scientific sup
bringing over another crop of Soviet stu-
greenhouse gases. And by their reckoning,
porters, including meteorologists like Je-
dents next year, this time including political
there is little need to. They argue that there
rome Namias of Scripps, and Richard Lind.
scientists and economists, with the coopera-
is no evidence that the modest temperature
zcn and Reginald Newell of Massachusetts
tion of the American Political Science Asso-
rise of 0.5°C that has occurred this century is
Institute of Technology-distinguished sci
clation and the American Economics Associ-
correlated with emissions of greenhouse
entists whose major work is largely outside
ation. "Sovicts are acknowledging that
gases, and they predict that decreased solar
the greenhouse field. On 23 September/
American sociology is where it's at," says
activity in the next century will lead to a
Lindzen and Namias wrote to President
D'Antonio. Shelley agrees. She reports that
cooling trend likely to offset any greenhouse
Bush extolling the merits of the Marshall
the United States-where sociology is a
warming. All of this is couched in ample
report and citing its conclusion that "current
heavily quantitative Field-was chosen as the
caveats, but the underlying message is that
forecasts of global warming for the 21st
destination for the 17 students because
the entire problem has been overblown.
century are to Inaccurate and fraught with
"French sociology is seen as too qualitative
Several scientists are up in arms. Steve
uncertainty as to be useless to policy-maks
and German sociology too philosophical."
Schneider of the National Center for Atino-
ers."
CONSTANCE HOLDEN
spheric Research, for one, has denounced
The message apparently has gotten
SCIENCE, VOL 146
992
DEC-13-89 WED 12:08 FREDERICK SEITZ
P.01
experts Jastrow consulted in writing
through, if 311st to Bush then to his
the report. "Bob Jastrow would call
chief of staff John Summe. who, it is
me at work and at home on Saturday
widely believed, is quite taken with
and Sunday, I would say "No, no,
the report. Says Schneider: "Somunu
you can't make that prediction.' I was
is holding the report up like a cross
shocked when I saw what came out."
to a vampire, fending off greenhouse
warming."
Jastrow says the emphasis his col-
Just what Impact the report has
leagues are putting on the solar vari-
had on Administration policy is diffi-
ability discussion is a "distorted"
cult " pin down, and Summis office
reading of the report, maintaining,
is on the subject. But it has
along with Nierenberg, that the solar
been widely reported that Summit
tried to block EPA head Reilly from
Jay Dickness
variation hypothesis is just a minor
part of their argument.
attending an International meeting
"Then why did they put it In?"
on climate change at The Hague in
Leading opponent. A critique of the report by elimatologist
snaps a senior Academy official.
early November. At that meeting, the
Stephen Schneider has been widely circulated.
Their bottom line, lastrow insists,
United States refused to commit It-
is simply that no scientific conclusion
self to cutting emissions of carbon dioxide.
stead, they look for natural causes to explain
can be drawn about the future greenhouse
Nierenberg, for his part, has been work-
the rise and find that solar variation mirrors
warming, "and we have time to find out."
ing hard to get the message into the White
it rather well. The authors' underlying as-
They assert that with $100 million for su-
louse. He personally briefed senior Admin-
sumption is that if they can break the con-
percomputers, answers to these questions
istration staff, including representatives
nection between that 0.5°C rise and accu-
will be fortherming in 3 to 5 years, so why
from the White House Office of Cabinet
mulating greenhouse gases, then all bets for
not wait before taking precipitous policy
Affairs, the White House Office of Policy
future warming are off.
action?
Development, the Council of Economic Ad-
No such luck, says Schnelder, who thinks
"No one in his right mind would say
visers, and the Office of Management and
they are setting up a straw man. "Could the
that," counters Hecht at EPA, who, along
Budget.
sun have done it? Sure," he says, adding that
with everyone else Science spoke with, says it
"I was impressed with the report," says
a variety of natural phenomena could ex-
will take a decade or more to address these
Juanita Duggan, special assistant to the
plain the temperature rise of the last century.
questions.
President in the cabinet affairs office. "Ev-
But that, he adds, says nothing about the
In 25 years, Mahlman adds, "Congress
cryone has read it. Everyone takes it serious-
future greenhouse warming.
will still be asking us questions we can't
ly. We have a collerent policy in the federal
"There are uncertainties, but I can't think
answer. I don't care if you pour $100 billion
government that is not inconsistent with the
of any combination of them that could
at the problem."
Marshall Institute report."
conspire to make the problem go away,"
The higgest gripe people have with the
"R is well worth listening to," adds Paul
says NOAA's Mahiman. Typotheses are
report is that the authors, in summoning
Roelling, a senior analyst In the White
fine, he adds, "but to advise the White
uncertainty to their cause, fail to acknowl-
House Office of Policy Development. "They
House on the basis of this type of argument?
edge that it cuts both ways. Explains
are eminent scientists. I was impressed."
Give me R break. That is not responsible."
Schneider: "What we don't know is just as
But White House Science Adviser D.
The reason people are worried about
likely to make it worse as better."
Allan Bromley, who was not yet in place
greenhouse warming, Schneider, Mahiman,
Solar variability is a case in point.
when the report was released. seems to be
and others say, is not because of the 0.5°C
Schneider offers 2 counter scenario to that in
distancing himself from it. "it has a distin-
temperature rise during the past century but
the Marshall Institute report: That during
guished group of authors, but there is no
because emissions of carbon dioxide, chloro-
the past 100 years, solar energy output was
general conscusus on the details and it has
fluorocarbons, and methane are clearly in-
decreasing rather 841.88 increasing, And with-
not been peer-reviewed," he said in a state-
creasing. And it is dead certain that if
out that natural cooling, which masked the
ment to Science.
enough of these greenhouse gases are re-
greenhouse signal, the earth's temperature
All the critics concede that the first part of
leased into the atmosphere, where they trap
would have warmed up twice as much. "It's
the report is a good description of the
heat. global temperatures will rise. The only
pure speculation," he adds, but since no one
scientific uncertainties surrounding predie-
question is how much, and by when.
really knows what the sun was doing 100
tions of greenhouse warming. And every-
Then the Marshall Institute pulls out an-
years back, "it is just as likely as theirs."
offe, not surprisingly, agrees with the ic.
other card. After analyzing the historical
Moreover, says Schneider, If the earth
port's plea for $100 million for more re-
record of solar activity, which can be In-
warms up 2° to 4°C, as models usually
search.
ferred from earbon-14 in tree rings, the
predict, "it will swamp anything the sun has
Where the report veers from the main-
authors predict that solar activity will de-
done in the past 100 years."
stream Is with the assertion that the warm-
crease in the next century, leading to a mini
John Perry, a meteorologist and staff di-
ing trend of the past century was probably
Ice Age that will offset any greenhouse
rector of the Board of Atmospheric Sciences
caused by increased solar activity and not by
warming.
and Climate at the National Research Coun-
an accumulation of greenhouse gases-and
Preposterous, say solar physicists like
cil, ngrees. "If the report had just said, in an
that, ipso facto, the greenhouse warming
John Eddy of the University Corporation
evenhanded way, 'don't rely on the models
next century will be small, perhaps I°C.
for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, who
because there are hellacious uncertainties,"
The basis of the report is an analysis of
calls their extrapolation "very shaky" at best.
we all would have applauded. But the way is
this 0.5°C warming trend, which, the all-
We simply don't have the ability to predict
comes across Is that all the uncertainties are
thors point out, does not follow the curve of
future solar activity, he says.
on the downside. I don't think that is very
rising emissions of greenhouse gases. In-
Curiously, Eddy was one of the sunspot
democratic."
LESLIE ROBERTS
24 NOVEMBER 1989
NSWS & COMMENT 993
DEC-13-89 WED 12:05 FREDERICK SEITZ
P.01
PRO O.HUMANI Rockefeller University 1901
THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY
1230 YORK AVENUE . NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021-6399
FAX COVER SHEET
TO The Honorable John H. Sununu, Chief of Staff to the President
FAX NUMBER (202) 456-2397
NUMBER OF PAGES FOLLOWING THIS ONE ten
FROM Frederick Seitz
THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY
FAX NUMBER - 212-570-7559
TELEPHONE NUMBER - 212-570-8423
Originals of the following material will also be mailed.
DEC-13-89 WED 12:09 FREDERICK SEITZ
Dartmouth College HANOVER NEW HAMPSHIRE 03755
Department of Earth Sciences Fairchild Science Center (603) 646-2373
December 4, 1989
To the Editor:
Leslie Roberts' article <1> on the Marshall Institute study
of the greenhouse problem does not, in my opinion, do justice to
the standards of objective reporting usually seen in SCIENCE.
I gave Roberts the names of three prominent meteorologists --
Richard Lindzen, Jerome Namiag and Reginald Newell -- who have
endorsed - the Marshall report's findings on the inadequacies of
current global warming predictions. The article mentions their
support, but dismisses them with with the comment that their major
work is outside the field. This is a major misstatement.
Lindzen, Namias and Newell have been far more active in the fields
of research pertinent to the greenhouse effect than any critic of
the Marshall study quoted in the article. This slighting
reference to the only supporters of the Marshall report mentioned
in the article betrays a bias.
The report's critics quoted by Roberts lay great stress on
the matter of solar variability and climate change. Solar
variability is an important topic and a personal research interest
of mine, but it is not essential to the principal findings of the
report. The emphasis on solar variability is a smokescreen thrown
up by the critics to conceal the report's main conclusion -- that
clouds and oceans introduce enormous uncertainties into the global
warming predictions. This view is widely held in the climatology
community <2>. The report just published by the UK Meteorology
Office, reducing the UKMO estimate of greenhouse warming from 5.2K
to 1.9 K as a result of a change in assumed cloud properties,
confirms this judgment <3>.
As a recent editorial in NATURE comments, it is "plainly
foolhardy to pretend" in these circumstances that climate
modellers can predict just what the future course of the
greenhouse warming will amount to <4>.
But the vituperative and nonsubstantive nature of some of the
criticisms quoted by Roberts (e.g., "noisy junk science") reveals
that more than technical issues are involved in the hostile
reaction to the Marshall report.
The nature of the hidden issues emerges in the disagreement
over the amount of time required to narrow the range of
uncertainty in the greenhouse forecasts. Roberts quotes critics
of the Marshall report as saying it will take at least 10 years,
and possibly decades, to obtain appreciably better results. We
have concluded that the models could yield the accuracy needed by
policy makers in 3-5 years -- PROVIDED the government accelerates
the pace of climate research with a major infusion of funds. The
Bush administration has taken a big step in that direction with at
DEC-13-89 WED 12:10 FREDERICK SEITZ
P.03
Global Change Research Program budgeted at $191 million and talk
of a further increase to $250 million.
However, critics of the Marshall report say we can't afford
wait. They would like to see the government move now toward
to limits on CO2 emissions. That appears to be the policy issue
underlying the technical argument.
our view, the technical facts indicate that early limite
CO2 In emission are unnecessary and may be undesitable. A 3-5
on investment in better forecasts will still give the U.S.
year sufficient time to counter the greenhouse threat if that turns out
to be necessary. But if the decision on CO2 limits is made now,
and turns out to be the wrong decision because it was based on
inaccurate information, the cost to the United States can be
staggering. Studies by the Congressional Budget office and
several private groups set the cost to the U. S. of limiting
carbon dioxide emissions at $0.8 to $3.6 trillion <5>.
with a price tag like that, a few years of waiting for the
fruits of an accelerated research program would seem to be in
order. Frudence dictates spending-$250 million dollars to obtain
guidance on the wisdom of decisions Niat could cost the U.S.
trillions of dollars.
Dartmouth College
Rost Robert Jastrow
1. SCIENCE 246, 992-993 (1989).
2. For example, C.D. Cess, et al., SCIENCE 245, 513-516 (1989).
3. J. F. B. Mitchell, C. A. Senior and W. J. Ingram, NATURE, 341,
132-134 (1989).
4. NATURE, 342, 339 (1989)
5. Reported in the NEW YORK TIMES, November 19, 1989.
DEC-13-89 WED 12:10 FREDERICK SEITZ
P.04
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
ID
(617) 495-7000
60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138
100
November 28, 1989
Editor, Science
1333 = Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
To the Editor:
Roberts' account on the Marshall greenhouse report ("Global Warming: of what the Blam-
Ing the Leslie Sun," 24 November 1989. p. 992) is a very inaccurate description
report says about solar activity and climate.
to Roberts, the report asserts that "the warming trend of the past century can
was According probably caused by Increased solar activity..." Nowhere in the Marshall report
statements be found that would justify Roberts' remark.
The report's correctly that fulls in solar activity have tended to occur every years solar fulls
approach to the climate impact of solar variability is suitably 200 cautious. or so It
comments the last thousand years, quotes findings by Wigley and Kelly that correlation these
during correlated with cold spells in climate, and concludes, "if the
tend between to be low solar activity and low temperature continues," a natural cold spell can be
expected In the 21st century.
operative word in this conclusion is "V". The Marshall statement is of not a
"prediction," The as Roberts called it, but a reasonable comment on the meaning past
trends in solar and climate data.
Marshall report makes an effective argument for careful research Into all factors
causing The climate change. Without an accurate assessment of all sources of climate change,
we will not be able to infer the component of change caused by manmade greenhouse
gases.
Sincerely,
Salve Baliumos
Saille Ballunes
(617) 495-7415
HARVARD COLLEGE OBSERVATORY
SMITHSONIAN ASTROPHYSICAL OBSERVATORY
Sesquicentennial Year 1989
Centennial Year 1990
DEC-13-89 WED 12:11 FREDERICK SEITZ
P.05
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. SAN DIEGO
PERKELEY DAVID IRVINE LOS ANCELES RIVERSIDE BAN DIFCO SAN FRANCISCO
SANTA BARBARA SANTA CRUZ
LA JOLLA CALIFORNIA 92093
WILLIAM A NIERENBERG
MAIL CODE A-021
DIRECTOR EMERITUS
SCRIPTS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY
THONE: (619) 534-6126
CABLE SIOCEAN
TWX: 910-337-1271
November 29, 1989
Letter to the Editor
SCIENCE Magazine
1333 28 Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Editor:
This is in response to the "News & Comment" article entitled "Global Warming:
Blaming the Sun," which appears on page 992 of SCIENCE, Volume 246, 24 November
1989, written by Leslie Roberts.
1 object to both the tone and to much of the material presented ae slanted or
wrong. Immediately, 1 dispute the statement in the subtitle. Our report does not
wish away greenhouse warming. We make two recommendations. One is that a very
large Increase be made in resources to study these effects. We would not have made
this recommendation if we did not believe that the possibilities were extremely
serious.
Our second recommendation, that major policy actions not be undertaken until
the implications are better understood, seems to be the source of the various
criticisms. More to the point seems to be the interest in the possibility that
this report has influenced White House thinking in a major way. This gives rise to
a second misstatement of fact -- one that I look at as personal criticism. The
article anys, "Nierenberg, for his part, has been working hard to get the message
into the White House." I have done no such ching. 1 was not even aware that anyone
in the White House had a copy of the report when I received a call to come to
Washington from La Jolla, on very short notice, to briel some staff. At great
personal inconvenience, I did 80, but I must any -- from then until now, I have had
no further contact with anyone in the White House.
It is more likely that letters to the president and the White House by such
distinguished acientiats as Jerry Namias and Richard Lindsen have had at least an
equal, if not grenter, impact. Despite the report's flat statement to the contrary,
Lindzen, Newell, and Namine have made important contributions to the subject, unlike
some of the critics cited in the article.
In response to John Perry's remark on the climate models, we agree that
"
there are hellacious uncertainties... which is one of the major reasons
.12.
DEC-13-89 WED 12:11 FREDERICK SEITZ
P.06
Letter to the Editor
SCIENCE Magnzine
November 29, 1989
Page 2.
for our recommendation on policy, but I disagree when Perry says that all the
uncertainties we present are on the downside. If I were to criticize our report
when a variety of evidence now makes it seem questionable. Having attended the
today, it would be for having presented a 0.5°C rise in temperature as a fact
most recent meeting of the Climate Diagnostics Workshop, I am certain that most
working elimntologists believe that there has been no significant increase in
attendees and only two papers were directly on global warming. It is not a happy
temperature in the Inst one hundred years. There were one hundred and fifty
circumstance to note that none of these people were quoted in the SCIENCE article.
The only reason that the Namias and Lindzen letters were cited is that X
transmitted them to the reporter. Other communications with a similar point of
view were not cited nor were their authors interviewed either.
To respond to the remark "snapped" by an unnamed "senior Academy official"
about the influence of possible solar veriations, it is correct that it was
discussed -- but only as an example of the many ill-underated possible contributions
to the problem, among which remain water in the form of vapor and clouds (which is
the most difficult), the other greenhouse gases, colloidal particles, and turbidity,
Despite Steve Schneider's trivial comment about solar variations, much good
work is being done that gives a positive indication of the influence of solar
variations, even back over the last century. A paper on the subject covering the
atmospheric temperature over the oceans presented by Newell at the Climate Diagnostics
meeting showed such an effect. Another paper by C.D. Keeling, analyzing his famous
data set, also shows the influence of solar variation and is being prepared for
publication.
What I found very perplexing was the repetitious references to the Academy.
I WAS chairman of the Academy committee that submitted the 1983 report on global
warming that is the most complete that has been published and is still being widely
referenced. It was put forward during the discussions at the same White House
meeting where the Marsholl Report was summarized. Fred Seits, Dick Lindzen, Jerry
Namine, and t are all members of the Academy, and while we do not speak for the
Academy, we do make for n certain presence and it was only natural for me to include
the Academy's findings in the White House briefing.
Sincerely,
William William A. Nierenberg a. Nacienberg
WAN/elb
DEC-13-89 WED 12:12 FREDERICK SEITZ
P.07
MASSACHUSETTS
THE
RICHARD $. LINDZEN
SLOAN PROFESSOR OF METROROLOGY
December 1, 1989
COPY
To the editors, Science Magazine
Re: Global Warmings Blaming the Sun
Lestle Roberts' article "Global Warming: Blaming the Sun" (Science, November 24,
of the Marshall Institute Report, William Nierenberg. also prepared the major NRC report
1989) is misleading on several counts. It should first be noted that one of the authors
on the topic (the most massive of the 'carefully researched and reviewed expert reports'
reported to be scientists 'whose major work Is Jargely outside the greenhouse field.' It
Roberts refers to). The three scientists referred to as supporters of the report, are
is hard to know what is meant by this. Virtually no one I know of has devoted his or
her career to the 'greenhouse field.' However, each of the scientists mentioned (Newell,
Namias and myself) has published more papers on climate dynamics In the refereed
professional literature than have any of the other figures mentioned in the article. In
the letter by Namins And myself that is referred to by Roberts, we simply endorsed the
existence of the 'greenhouse effect can be found In the temperature records of the last
major conclusions of the Marshall report namely, that first, no evidence for the
100 years; and second, current forecasts of global warming for the 21" Century are so
Innccurate and fraught with uncertainty as to be useless to policy-makers. We still
endorse these conclusions. As to the Importance of research, no one suggests that five
unreasonable to Insist that we can't reduce the degree of uncertainty substantially In
years will bring absolute certainty on the Issue of the warming, but It seems
roughly this period.
I personally do not know why the discussion of solar effects was Included In the
report; it certainly was far from central to the main arguments. It would be difficult to
with the contention attributed to Schnelder, Mahiman and others, that 'the only
argue question (concerning the warming) is how much, and by when.' However, what Is omitted
from such contentions is the plausible possibility that the answer to the question 'how
much' may forn out to be very little. It is over this possibility that much current
debate centers. To be sure, even five years of debate cannot settle such an Issue, but
research might.
Richard S. Lindzen,
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of
Meteorology. M.I.T.
Cambridge. MA 02139
ROOM 54.1418, CENTER FOR MRIEOROLOGY AND PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. CAMBRIDGE. MA 02189
TELE: 617 253-2432 TELEX: 02 1478 MIT CAM
TOTAL P.01
DEC-13-89 WED 12:13 FREDERICK SEITZ
P.08
NEWS AND VIEWS
Disentangling the greenhouse
meeting Continuing last week In the Netherlands, that the details of an International convention should be settled on spot.
uncertainties about the working of the greenhouse enhancement give the lie to those demanding, the at a
tite. Even so, It Is remarkable that so tittle
port In the opposite direction. The net
Melbourne
has so for been said about the flux of uton-
northwards flux, of 2001 million tonnes N
EVERYBODY secus to know that this is the
violet light reaching the surface of the
year, Is Just over one per cent of the flux In
part of the Earth's surface at which the
Antatetic ozone hole reaches furthest
Earth In even recent years. Paradoxically,
either direction, or just under 9 per cent of
north. While the observations of
If It were shown that ozone depletion
the annual production of this greenhouse
anomatous springtime ozone depletion
means extra uttraviolet, it would be enster
gas. This is much smaller than expected.
to separate that from the direct enhance.
What con be the explanation? One is
outside the Antaretic Circle covers only il
ment of the greenbouse.
that the thin may be Insufficient. Three
single season (this time last year). people
seem convinced that this will be the bench
While there should by now be no doubt
sets of mensurements of co, concentra-
summer of total block, of warnth without
that the next practical step should be the
tion with depth are not many, although
fon (see Nature 340, 290-294: 1989).
negotiation of nn international convention
the authors of the study have used pre-
Australiabs the not lightly forgo such
to restrict the release of all greenhouse
vious survey data to Interpotate between
pleasures, which IN why some wonder how
gases, the more obdurate Impediments to
their stations. Another is that, while CO,
understanding and prediction remain IS
will be released ns the lower waters of the
long fasting will be the resolve to keep
ultraviolet nway from skin.
obdurate us ever. II Is muddening that the
Cluff Stream reach the surface, " will be
But even in literate Austintin, the con-
hig uncertainties seem to change only
reabsorbed from the atmosphere 29.4 the
fuston between the nzone hole and what is
Nowly with the passage of time. "Twar stand
Colf Streem cools. reducing the partial
strictly the supposed enhancement of the
out. The climate models cm Incorporate
pressure of the give, Still another is that
normal greenhouse effect by atmospherle
what is colled average cloudlness, but the
expectations are not yet fulfilled because
constituents opnque to Infrared Is ns pro-
effect of real clouds, with real edges, on
there has not been enough time, since the
found as elsewhere. There may be sough
the heat balance In the troposphere could
onset of rapid greenhouse gus production
justice In that, The springtime Antarctic
be qualitatively different, In principle if
bulf n century "g", for the deep waters of
ozone hole. the reality of which seems
not in magnitude, the uncertaloties are
the North Atlantic to have travelled as fur
well attested by this season's observa-
like those of estimating the role of clouds
north.
tions, is nt least a sign that A mensurable
In nuclear whiter (see Name 318; 99;
In the efreumstances, It must phinty be
property of the atmosphere is affected by
1985). hit must remain = problem.
foothardly to pretend Just what the future
the rate nt which unwanted refugerhnts
The other big uncertainty, nt least so fnt
course of the enhancement of the green-
nic discharged to the stmosphere. If
as the greenhouse enhancement due to
house effect will amount 10. Better and
chlorothuorocarbons (CFC) cmn affect
CO, concerned. remains the of knowing
more mensurements will help. although
the ozone layer, why should ..... the much
the fate of whatever fraction of the atmos-
none will be declsive. But If more were
NINE coptons releases of other green.
pherle content Is dissolved In the oceans
known of the variation of CO, concentra-
house gases, such as carbon dioxide, offect
every year. Increased conversion to In-
tion with bottude in the deep waters of the
the ellmate?
organic carbon would be benign. solution
Atlantic, " might of least be possible to
The confusion is nevertheless A threat to
ns Dicarbonate In A stendity deepening
guess when transport Into the North
good causes, some of which me also
layer of warm water above the oceanic
Atlantic atmosphere would become sub-
green. CFCs are greenhouse gases in their
thermoctine would be the opposite. That
stanthet. That would provide " means of
own right (and, motecule for moterute,
Issue has been endlessly disensed, but
telling Just how quickly the International
are more effective than CO,, But to It flist
there are few who 01 this stage would put
convention must be negotiated and
approximation, nzone depletion, what-
their hands on their hearts md say they
brought effect.
ever its cause, does not affect the ellmate
know the quantitative truth.
Questions such 115 these were platuty in
or even the weather. To a second approxt.
Even relatively operational questions,
the minds of some of those attending last
mation, of course, ozone depletion (and
that of the movement of CO, within the
week's meeting In the Netherfands, one of
50 (TCx) affect both climate and weather
oceans for example, me unresolved. That
several meetings phoned IIN preparation
through the changed valation of tempera-
Is nicely Illustrated by IIII attempt last year,
for the more foint diplomatle confer-
ture with attitude the tropopanse is
by Peter 0, Drewer and Catherine Coyet
ences to be held next year. Governments
lowered - but the consequences cannot
of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Instl-
such us the British were pittorled, but un-
easily be predicted quantitutively let above
tution and David Dyrssen of the Chatmers
fultly. for having asked that the details of n
discutangled from the data.
Institute of Technology nt Clothenburg, to
convention the date of which the
How can the distinction between the
mensure the northwords flux of CO, In the
further accomulation of greenhouse guses
ozone hole and the enhancement of the
North Atlantic (Sclence 2.16, 477; 1989).
should be bohed. for example - should
greenhouse effect best be established as R
The North Attantic is usually supposed to
awalt further study. That, of course, is
part of general knowledge? Much might
be n substantial shuk for the gus, which is
entirely sensible, II is In nobody's Interests
be done by the direct measurement of the
supposed to be enrled northwards by
that the economic disroption an luter-
spectrum of solar ultraviolet radiation
oceanle currents. 03:08 measurements
national convention will certifuly bilng
teaching the surface of the Earth at differ.
neross the Florida Chilf and at three
should he accelerated. " Is not that there
ent places md sensons, The most obvious
stations along the 25th parallel In mid-
is nothing else to lilk about, the demand
practical impediments are those of call.
Atlantic lend to the conclusion that while
on behalf of developing countries for fair
bration, which, In the absence of data
there is A substantial northerly transport,
shores In my quota system there may be
from the past, must necessarily be abso-
that is atmost but not quite offset by trans-
for one thing.
John Maddox
NATURE VOL 342 23 NOVEMBER 1989
339
NOTE:
THIS SHEET HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE PRESIDENT AND HIS
IMMEDIATE STAFF ONLY. IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO
AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES.
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM
Funding Summary
(dollars in millions)
Original
CES
Appeal
Request
Level
Agency
1989
1990
1991
1991
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Budget Authority
409
489
746
661
Outlays
387
458
587
550
National Science Foundation
Budget Authority
39
51
110
103
Outlays
20
42
79
76
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Budget Authority
9
18
105
87
Outlays
6
14
76
64
Department of the Interior
Budget Authority
5
11
49
44
Outlays
5
10
47
42
Department of Energy
Budget Authority
20
45
66
66
Outlays
10
29
52
52
Environmental Protection Agency
Budget Authority
18
17
26
26
Outlays
5
14
20
20
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Budget Authority
18
33
47
47
Outlays
18
33
47
47
Total
Budget Authority
519
663
1,149
1,034
Outlays
451
601
908
851
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
DIRECTOR'S REVIEW - FY 1991 BUDGET
(dollars in millions)
Issue 1: U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)
Summary: This issue paper includes all seven agencies involved in the USGCRP but, in
particular, NASA's Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE). MTPE (space-based research) represents
roughly 75 percent of this interagency research effort.
Rec.
Rec.
Agency
Delta
Delta
Enacted
GRH
Request
Rec.
From GRH
From GRH
1990
1991
1991
1991
Dollars
Percent
Space-based
454
471
724
639
+168
+36
Earth-based
163
170
403
351
+182
+206
TOTAL BA
617
641
1127
990
+350
+54
o
583
627
908
829
+202
+32
FY 1990: the enacted funding level is currently estimated to be $617 million. This
increase above the $192 million in the FY 1990 Budget is due primarily to the
inclusion of previously approved NASA programs (e.g., Space Station polar platform)
and Congressional actions.
FY 1991: the request (as approved by the Committee on Earth Sciences) totals $1127
million, an increase of $486 million, or 76 percent, over the FY 1991 GRH Base. OMB
Staff recommend a funding level of $990 million, an increase of $350 million, or 54
percent, over FY 1991 GRH Base.
Issues: The major issues to be decided are the initiation of the NASA Earth
Observing System (EOS), the degree of EOS international cooperation, the level of
Earth-based research, and the question of early scientific benefits.
-14-
Evolution of the Program: Over the past decade, there has been an increasing interest in
studying the Earth as an integrated system from a multidisiciplinary perspective. This
interest has been sparked by concern that human activities were causing global-scale
impacts, and the development of satellite and computer systems had reached the point where
this type of ambitious study is possible. For example:
In the early 1980s, NASA began planning a mission known as "Global Habitability"
intended to examine the Earth as an integrated set of complex processes.
In May 1986, a NASA science advisory committee (the Bretherton Committee) produced a
report entitled "Earth System Science: A Program for Global Change". The report
outlined an ambitious, multi-agency research plan, including the development of the
Earth Observing System (EOS), which had been under study by NASA for several years.
Shortly after the publication of the Bretherton report, OMB staff conducted the first
crosscut of earth science research. This crosscut showed that the U.S. was planning
to invest roughly $1 billion in earth science research over the next five years, with
little or no coordination.
In February 1987, the OSTP established the Committee on Earth Science (CES) to
develop a coordinated "global change" research program.
In August 1987, the Sally Ride Report (NASA) entitled "Leadership and America's
Future in Space" outlined four space leadership initiatives, including Mission to
Planet Earth (MTPE) The MTPE program included polar, equatorial, and geostationary
space observation platforms to build a long-term environmental data base.
President Bush endorsed Mission to Planet Earth on several occasions during the
campaign , including (Marshall Space Flight Center, 9-29-87) :
-
"Let us remember as we chase our dream into the stars that our first
responsibility is to our Earth, to our children, to ourselves. Yes, let us
dream, and let us pursue those dreams, but let us first preserve the fragile and
precious world we inhabit. and
-
"George Bush endorses "Mission to Planet Earth, If an initiative put forth by Dr.
Sally Ride in a report to the NASA Administrator."
-15-
The need for improved global observation was endorsed by President Bush on several
additional occasions after the election, including:
-
II
we ask all countries to combine their efforts in order to improve
observation and monitoring on a global scale." (June 1989 G7 Economic Summit
Communique), and
-
"A major national -- and international-- initiative is needed to seek new
solutions for ozone depletion, global warming, and acid rain. This initiative-
- Mission to Planet Earth-- is a critical part of our space program.' " (July 20,
1989 speech marking the 20th anniversary of the first U.S. lunar landing)
In 1988, the CES, working closely with OMB, developed a global change research
strategy document that was submitted to the Congress with the Reagan FY 1990 Budget.
In August, 1989, the CES published a detailed and prioritized research implementation
plan.
Goals and Objectives of the U.S. Global Change Research Program: The goal of the USGCRP
is to establish the scientific basis for national and international policy formulation
related to natural and human-influenced global change. Accomplishing this goal will
require significant improvements in observing, understanding, and predicting the complex
and integrated processes that constitute the Earth system.
The USGCRP is unique among federal interagency research programs in several respects:
-
It is broad in scope, including research on the changes (i.e., physical,
biological, chemical, etc.) in the Earth's components (i.e., atmosphere, oceans,
etc.) and the outcome of these changes (i.e., global warming, ozone depletion,
drought, etc.) that occur on timescales of decades to centuries.
-
Because of this decadal timescale, a majority (70-80 percent) of the current
program can directly address climate issues.
-
It includes basic as well as applied research. The basic research is aimed at
advancing the underlying science. The applied research is directed more toward
specific problem solving or agency mission concerns.
-16-
The need for such an approach is necessary to be able to respond to unforeseen future
environmental issues. For example, had NASA and NOAA not invested in small, but long-
term, efforts in ozone research there would not have been the talent or knowledge to
understand the radical seasonal decreases of stratospheric ozone in the Antarctic over the
past several years.
The USGCRP is divided into seven interdisciplinary science elements that represent the new
integrated approach to Earth system science (see Figure 1). The USGCRP goals, objectives,
science elements, and priority framework were developed in collaboration with the National
Academy of Sciences and other related international science organizations. Each of the
seven agencies has a specific role and resources to contribute to the program. Both the
national and international research communities recognize the quality and maturity of this
planning effort and view the U.S. as a leader in this area.
Note: The USGCRP does not include research on mitigation (e.g., energy conservation) or
adaptation (e.g., agricultural practices). The federal budget includes significant and
important R&D on these objectives as well, but these activities are more directly in
support of individual agency missions and are independent of the USGCRP program.
Discussion of the FY 1991 Proposed Research Program: The USGCRP is composed of a space-
and earth-based component.
Space-based (NASA) Research: The FY 1991 NASA Mission To Planet Earth program includes
four elements: several ongoing satellite and research programs, the Earth Observing System
(EOS), Earthprobes, and Attached Payloads on the Space Station Freedom.
EOS: EOS is designed to provide a time series of environmental data monitored from space.
The EOS program actually consists of three components: space-based platforms (spacecraft)
and remote sensing instruments, a large data management system, and support for individual
researchers to analyze the data.
NASA is proposing that the space-based monitoring instruments be mounted on two
platform series in polar orbit (EOS A and B). Each platform series would support a
variety of specialized monitoring instruments. The platforms would provide a
centralized power sources, orbital positioning, and communications capabilities for
all the attached instruments. Because of the size and polar orbit of the platforms,
they would be launched on large expendable launch vehicles (Titan IV).
-17-
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
Support Broad U.S. and International Scientific Effort
Identify Natural and Human-Induced Changes
Focus on Interactions and Interdisciplinary Science
Share Financial Burden, Use the Best Resources,
and Encourage Full Participation
INTEGRATING PRIORITIES
Documention of Earth System Change
Observational Programs
Data Management Systems
Focused Studies on Controlling Processes
and Improved Understanding
Integrated Conceptual and Predictive Models
SCIENCE PRIORITIES
Climate and
Biogeochemical
Ecological Systems
Earth System
Human
Solid Earth
Solar
Hydrologic Systems
Dynamics
and Dynamics
History
Interactions
Processes
Influences
Role of Clouds
Bio/Atm/Ocean Fluxes
Long-Term Measure-
Paleoclimate
Data Base Development
Coastal Erosion
EUV/UV Monitoring
Ocean Circulation and
of Trace Species
ments of Structure/
Paleoecology
Models Linking:
Volcanic Processes
Atm/Solar Energy
Heat Flux
Atm Processing of
Function
Atmospheric
Population Growth
Permafrost and Marine
Coupling
Increasing Priority
Land/Atm/Ocean
Trace Species
Response to Climate
Composition
and Distribution
Gas Hydrates
Irradiance (Measure/
Water & Energy
Surface/Deep Water
and Other Stresses
Ocean Circulation
Energy Demands
Ocean/Seafloor Heat
Model)
Fluxes
Biogeochemistry
Interactions between
and Composition
Changes in Land Use
and Energy Fluxes
Climate/Solar Record
Coupled Climate System
Terrestrial Biosphere
Physical and
Ocean Productivity
Industrial Production
Surficial Processes
Proxy Measurements
& Quantitative Links
Nutrient and
Biological Processes
Sea Level Change
Crustal Motions and
and Long-Term
Ocean/Atm/Cryosphere
Carbon Cycling
Models of Interactions,
Paleohydrology
Sea Level
Data Base
Interactions
Terrestrial Inputs to
Feedbacks, and
Marine Ecosystems
Responses
Productivity/Resource
Models
Increasing Priority
Figure 1
U.S. Global Change Research Program Priority Framework
-18-
-
EOS-A instruments will measure atmospheric, land, and ocean surface features
(i.e., vegetation, ocean phytoplankton, surface temperature, clouds,
precipitation, and sea ice) using visible and infrared detectors.
-
EOS-B instruments will focus primarily on surface features measurable by radar
techniques (i.e., ocean circulation, atmospheric-ocean gas exchanges, and
stresses in the Earth's crust.) but will also include several infrared
instruments to observe the atmospheric chemistry of important greenhouse gases
that can not be accommodated on EOS-A.
-
Each platform series would provide 15 years of data (because the useful life of
each platform is only five years, a total of three platforms will be needed for
each series, flown at five year intervals). EOS-A and B series would be
staggered at two year intervals to provide the maximum simultaneity of data
observations.
NASA has conducted several trade studies and scientific reviews to examine data
requirements and to determine the kinds of instruments and the number and size of
platforms needed to satisfy these requirements. The two series platform design was
chosen primarily based on the requirement to provide simultaneously collected data
within 15 years and the availability and cost of launch vehicles. Figure 2
illustrates the Eos instruments, the diverse physical parameters being measured, and
some examples of simultaneity requirements.
Several other designs (smaller and more numerous platforms) were examined by both
NASA and the Europeans but the current designs, in addition to providing better
coverage, proved to be roughly the same or less cost depending on the particular
configuration. Instrument selection was done by peer review and took over two years.
It was one of the most complicated scientific peer reviews ever undertaken.
The EOS program also has undergone a non-advocacy technical review which resulted in
several program changes, including a reduction in instruments, simplified the
management structure, and standardized the platforms and instruments configurations
over the 15 year mission life (no upgrades).
Planning for EOS has been done actively with the Europeans and Japanese who have
proposed to contribute two additional platforms, as recommended in the MTPE concept.
Several proposed U.S. research instruments will fly on these foreign platforms and
the European platform will support operational meteorological instruments from NOAA.
-19-
LOCATION
SURFACE
ATMOSPHERE
ENERGY
ATMOSPHERE
PRECISION
IMAGING
CORRECTION
BUDGET
SOUNDERS
GGI
MODIS
HIRIS
ITIR
EOSP
MISR
CERES
HIMSS
AIRS/
AMSU
TEMP
MOISTURE
GEOLOGY
RAIN
EVAP
ECOSYSTEM
H2O
DYNAMICS
LAND
OCEAN
BIOLOGY
BIOLOGY
SEA ICE
Figure 2
EOS-A Simultaneity Requirements
Vegetation changes (insolation and drying) occur on timescales of about 1 hour.
Atmospheric changes (turbulence, clouds, aerosols) occur on timescales of 10's of
seconds.
To provide the necessary interpretation precision, reduce the complexity and cost of
analysis, surface imagers (land, bio, oceans) and atmospheric correction instruments
should fly on the same platform to register conditions, location, and time.
-20-
M
EOS is not just a space hardware program. Two-thirds of the program cost is for
scientific data analysis, modeling, and the data distribution system, providing
significant contributions even prior to the flight program. The other third is for
the remote sensing instruments and platforms. In fact, the platforms are estimated
to be less expensive than other comparable space platforms (e.g., the Hubble Space
Telescope, Gama Ray Observatory, etc.).
Earthprobes: The Earthprobes program is aimed at undertaking innovative (low-cost and
low-risk) approaches to fly small instruments as soon as possible. For example, the first
Earthprobe is a $20 million (including launch vehicle) instrument to measure global ozone
concentrations.
Space Station Attached Payloads: The Attached Payloads will be a series of instruments
designed to monitor environmental parameters (e.g., stratosphere aerosols, lightning, and
the Earth's radiation budget) in the equatorial regions under the path of the Space
Station.
Ongoing Programs: The last element of the NASA MTPE concept is the near-term NASA
satellite missions and research programs already approved and funded (i.e., TOPEX, Upper
Atmosphere Research Satellite, etc.). Although all of these projects will contribute to
near-term improvements, they are focused on specific processes and collect data at widely
different time scales (many separated by several years).
Table 1 illustrates NASA's proposed schedule for all four elements of Mission to Planet
Earth and other related satellite missions.
-21-
Earth-based (interagency) Research: The earth-based programs encompass all seven science
elements identified in the USGCRP priority framework. A total of six federal agencies
sponsor research in this activity. Many of these programs are dependent on the data
collected by NASA's Earth Observing System or provide ground-based data needed to
calibrate the space data. Nearly all of these efforts have some element of international
coordination, represent the broad spectrum of research activities necessary to address
this issue, and can provide near-term incremental improvements to modeling capabilities
prior to the development of the global data set from space. Table 2 lists some of the
ongoing and proposed earth-based programs. The individual agency contributions include:
Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has
nineteen programs focused on ocean and climate modeling, atmospheric trace gases
fluxes, and data management. These activities are consistent both with NOAA's agency
mission and its resources.
Department of the Interior (DOI) has twenty-three programs focused primarily on the
hydrologic and geologic processes.
Department of Energy (DOE) has twelve programs focused on carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse emissions and the climate's response to these emissions.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has six programs focused on research to assess,
evaluate, and predict ecological, environmental, and human-health consequences of
global change, including the feedback of these changes on regional air and water
quality.
National Science Foundation (NSF) has twenty programs that support all areas of the
earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences. These university-based fundamental research
programs are focused on earth-based studies on regional and global scales, large
scale field programs, and development of environmental models, including ocean
circulation, and energy/greenhouse gas/water fluxes between the biosphere,
atmosphere, and oceans.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has fourteen programs focused on assessing the
effects of global change on the agricultural food and fiber production system and
forest ecosystems of the U.S. and world wide, including soil moisture and erosion,
energy/carbon/water cycles, and forest fire severity.
-22-
Table 1
Schedule for Mission to Planet Earth and Related Satellite Missions
Mission
Purpose
Launch Date
Currently in Orbit
Lageos-1/2 (NASA)
Solid Earth
1975/1983-90s
Nimbus-7 (NASA)
Meteorological
1970s-1991
ERBE (NASA)
Radiation Budget
1984-1992
GEOSAT (DOD)
Solid Earth
1980s-1991
MOS (European)
Meteorological
1988-1991
POLAR (NOAA)
Meteorological
1970s-00s
GOES (NOAA)
Meteorological
1970s-00s
LANDSAT (NOAA)
Land/Bio Processes
1970s-00s
SPOT (Foreign)
Land/Bio Processes
1980s-00s
DMSP (DOD)
Meteorological
1970s-00s
METEOSAT (European)
Meteorological
1970s-1995
Approved and Funded
UARS (NASA)
Atmospheric Chemistry
1991-1993
TOPEX (NASA)
Ocean Circulation
1992-1995
NSCAT (NASA)
Ocean Circulation
1995-1998
ERS-1 (European)
Land/Bio Processes
1990-1993
JERS-1 (Japan)
Land/Bio Processes
1992-1995
ADEOS (Japan)
Oceans Circulation
1995-1998
Radarsat (Canada)
Land/Bio Processes
1994-1999
Shuttle-based Insts. (NASA)
Earth System Science
1991-2000s
New Proposals (1)
Earthprobes 1 (NASA)
Ozone Monitor
1993
Earthprobes 2 (NASA)
Ozone Monitor
1995
Earthprobes 3 (NASA)
Ozone Mointor
1997
Earthprobes 4 (NASA)
Ocean Circulation
1995
Earthprobes 5 (NASA)
Ocean/Bio Processes
1992
Earthprobes 6 (NASA)
Tropical Rainfall
1997
EOS-A (NASA)
Earth System Science
1997-2011
EOS-B (NASA)
Earth System Science
1998-2011
EPOP (European)
Earth System Science
1997-2000s
JPOP (Japan)
Earth System Science
1998-2000s
Attached Payloads (3,NASA)
Atmos. Chem./Radiation
1998-2000s
(1) The key to these new proposals and the problem with the ongoing programs is the
simultaneous collection of these various environmental parameters.
-23-
Table 2
Example of Major Approved and Proposed U.S. Global Change Research Program Earth-based Programs
Mission
Agencies (1)
Purpose
Schedule
Approved and Funded
GEWEX (2)
NASA, NOAA, NSF, DOE
Clouds/Radiations
1990-1999
WOCE
NASA, NSF, NOAA, DOI
Ocean Circulation
1989-1997
ARCCS (2)
NASA, NSF, NOAA, DOI
Sea Ice Change
1989-1996
TOGA
NASA, NSF, NOAA, EPA
Ocean/Atm Fluxes
1985-1990s
GTC
NASA, NSF, NOAA
Tropospheric Chem.
1986-2000s
GOFS/JGOFS (2)
NASA, NSF, NOAA, DOI, DOE
Ocean Fluxes
1989-1990s
LMER
NASA, NSF, DOE, USDA
Carbon Cycle
1989-1990s
RIDGE
DOI, NSF
Seafloor Heat Flux
1990-1999
CEDAR
NSF
Atmos. Coupling
1988-1995
LTER (2)
NSF
Ecosystem
1985
Proposed
GLOBEC
NASA, NSF, NOAA, EPA, USDA
Ecosystem
1992-1990s
MHAR
DOE, EPA, NSF, USDA
Human Interactions
1991
DMI
DOE
GCM Intercomparison
1991
LANDATA
NASA, NSF, DOI
Coastal Erosion
1991
GEM
NASA, NSF
Solar Flux
1991-1996
1:
Most of these programs rely on partnerships with NASA's space-based programs.
2:
Augmentations are being requested for these programs in the FY 1991 request.
-24-
Science Benefits from the Proposed Program
It is extremely difficult to predict in advance the results from a long-term program of
scientific research. Moreover, because of the very nature of earth processes, it will
require many years of observations in order to develop a sound understanding and
predictive capability. Thus, forecasts of science improvements are subject to
uncertainty. Science improvements may take longer to realize than expected, on the other
hand, major improvements could be achieved relatively soon (as was the case with the
Antarctic Ozone Hole).
The CES believes that its proposed program will result in major improvements in process
analysis and modelling, as early as three to five years after launch of the first EOS
platform, or shortly after the year 2000. The CES believes that important improvements in
our understanding of specific global change issues will be achieved sooner since each
science element will focus on the following highest priority research needs:
-
Climate and Hydrological Systems: addresses the roles of clouds in the Earth's
energy budget, redistribution of energy by ocean circulation, and the Earth's
water cycle. For example, clouds may drastically lessen global warming and the
oceans may be able to store most of the additional heat trapped by greenhouse
gases. NASA's ERBE, TOPEX, and EOS missions, NOAA's meteorological satellites,
DOE climate model activities, and NSF's basic research all contribute to this
element. There are also several interagency and international programs (e.g.,
GEWEX, WOCE, TOGA, etc.).
-
Biogeochemical Dynamics: addresses the flux of trace gases between the
atmosphere, biosphere, land, and oceans. For example, ocean phytoplankton may
lessen global warming by trapping carbon from the burning of fossil fuels for
millions of years. NASA's Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite and NSF's CEDAR
program contribute to this science element.
-
Ecological Systems and Dynamics: addresses the response of biological and
ecological communities to greenhouse gases and the impact of these responses on
the physical climate system. For example, many ecological communities help
regulate global warming by consuming greenhouse gases but they could also be
damaged by changes in the climate. Experiments aboard the Space Shuttle, EOS,
and NSF's LTER program contribute to this science element.
-25-
-
Human Interactions: addresses the linkage between human activities and
environmental change. For example, the impact of man's use of land, water, and
other resources on the environment and the impact of these changes on man. The
interagency (DOE, EPA, NSF, and USDA) MHAR proposal for FY 1991 is specifically
focused on these issues.
-
Earth System History: addresses the reconstruction of the Earth's past climates
and environments through ice cores, fossils, pollens, and geology. For example,
the natural variability of climate over millions of years can be identified by
gas concentrations trapped in ice cores, as well as the impact on the
environment from these climate changes. NSF's Ice Coring Experiment and DOI's
paleoclimate programs contribute to this element.
-
Solid Earth Process: addresses the erosion and wetland loss caused by sea level
rise and the contribution of volcanoes to greenhouse gases. NASA's LAGEOS and
EOS satellites contribute to this element.
-
Solar Influences: addresses the long-term records of solar output and the
coupling of energy between atmospheric regions. For example, the climate
changes as a function of solar cycles, as does the production and destruction of
ozone. The GEM (NASA, NSF) and EOS (NASA) program focus on these issues.
-26-
Baseline Projection and Discussion of Alternatives
GRH Baseline: The FY 1990 budget request for the USGCRP totaled $656 million, an increase
of 26 percent over the FY 1989 level. Even though the request was divided among seven
agencies in five different Appropriations bills, the Congress approved the request in
full. The enacted level was reduced by the application of across-the-board reductions for
drugs, GRH sequester, and the distribution of a general reduction in NASA. At the GRH
baseline level, the government, would spend nearly $3.5 billion on global change research
over the next five years.
Enacted
Pres.
Post-
Agency
Actual
Req.
Seq.
Request
GRH Baseline
1987
1988
1989
1990
1990
1991
1991
1992
1993
1994
Space-Based
NA
NA
409
483
454
724
471
488
503
518
Earth-Based
NA
NA
110
173
163
403
170
176
181
186
TOTAL BA
NA
NA
519
656
617
1127
641
664
684
704
o
NA
NA
460
615
583
908
627
650
672
691
USGCRP FY 1991 Budget Request: The CES has been an effective interagency coordinating
committee and recently submitted a recommendation for the FY 1991 USGCRP based on the
prioritization of the individual agency requests. At the request of OMB, the CES produced
five possible FY 1991 funding scenarios. After the initial OMB review of these five
options, the CES was asked to examine three additional options at lower funding levels,
related to different assumptions regarding NASA's EOS program. After review and
consolidation of these eight options, four possible funding alternatives were chosen for
this paper.
-27-
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01. Paper
From Committee on Earth Sciences
n.d.
P/5
Re: U.S. Global Change Research Program
Options paragraphs redacted (7 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
Issues Files
WHORM Cat.:
By SP (NLGB) on 10/28/05
File Location:
Global Warming (2 of 2) - 1990 [6]
Date Closed:
12/17/2004
OA/ID Number:
29158-006
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile
Alternative #1 (CES Recommendation): The CES recommended funding level for FY 1991 is
$1127 million, an increase of $486 million or a 76 percent increase over the FY 1991 GRH
Baseline. Total five-year funding would be $12 billion, $8.5 billion above the baseline.
It includes full funding of an aggressive NASA Mission to Planet Earth program, with EOS-
A launch in FY 1997, EOS-B launch in FY 1999, full funding for 6 Earthprobes (1992 to
1997), and a comprehensive, complementary earth-based program.
GRH
Base
Impact on Baseline
1991
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Space-based
471
+0
+252
+640
+1451
+1798
Earth-based
170
+0
+234
+389
+530
+611
Total BA
641
+0
+486
+1028
+1981
+2409
O
627
+0
+280
+720
+1407
+2037
PROS:
Represents a very aggressive research program that fully addresses the_goals_and
objectives outlined in the USGCRP research plan.
Would demonstrate a strong U.S. leadership position on environmental issues.
Represents a well-balanced program, with significant near-term activity (ongoing
projects plus Earthprobes), as well as longer-term work (EOS-A and -B).
Includes a significant degree of international cooperation, with the Japanese and
European platforms and earth-based research.
The vast majority of these programs have been reviewed for merit by the scientific
community and are technically and scientifically ready to proceed.
CONS:
An extremely ambitious schedule, particularly for the NASA EOS program, with
significant technical and management challenges.
The funding requirement would be very difficult to meet (roughly $8.5 billion above
the baseline over the next five years).
-28-
Alternative #2 (PAD Recommendation): The funding level for this alternative for FY 1991
is $990 million, an increase of $349 million, or 54 percent, over the FY 1991 GRH Base.
Total five-year funding would be $11 billion, $7.5 billion above the baseline. The
alternative provides for EOS-A launch in FY 1998, EOS-B launch in FY 2000, funding for 5
Earthprobes (1992 to 199), and a relatively robust earth-based component.
GRH
Base
Impact on Baseline
1991
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Space-based
471
+0
+168
+421
+1253
+1634
Earth-based
170
+0
+182
+284
+466
+535
Total BA
641
+0
+350
+704
+1719
+2169
O
627
+0
+201
+508
+1139
+1768
PROS:
At this significant level, this alternative would be a major positive Presidential
initiative, and would still allow for significant international cooperation.
Initiates EOS on a slightly less ambitious schedule (six months slower) than
Alternative #1, in view of the technical and management challenges (e.g., data
management).
The science benefits would be similar to those of Alternative 1, except that
expensive large-scale field experiments would be deferred in favor of a series of
less costly regional-scale experiments.
The ongoing program, plus the Earthprobes program, could provide important early
scientific benefits.
CONS:
Requires roughly $7.5 billion dollars above the baseline over the next five years.
Under this alternative, the European platform, which is proposed for launch in FY
1997, would be in orbit a year sooner than EOS-A.
Some Members of Congress have already criticized NASA for not planning to launch the
first EOS platform until FY 1997. A FY 1998 launch may compound this criticism.
-29-
Alternative #3 (Increased International Cooperation and Accelerated Early EOS Program) :
The funding level for this alternative is $973 million, an increase of $332 million, or 52
percent, over the FY 1991 GRH Base. Total five-year funding would be $9.5 billion, $6
billion above the baseline. This alternative represents several significant shifts in the
strategy proposed by the CES. This alternative was developed as a mechanism to seek
additional foreign contribution and to address the National Space Council's concern of
increasing the near-term science return. Under this alternative:
EOS-A would be initiated in FY 1991, with a launch date of 1998, rather than 1997 as
proposed by NASA and the CES.
The budget would initiate a new (as yet undefined) program, early EOS, consisting of
several individual satellites, to further increase near-term data collection. The
program would be specifically focused on global warming science issues, such as the
role of clouds and ocean-atmosphere fluxes.
In addition, the Administration would seek even greater international participation
in the EOS-B phase of the program, including the possibility of foreign funding of
EOS-B platform development, or alternatively, flying U.S. EOS-B instruments on
foreign platforms.
The budget for Earthprobes and the earth-based research would be the same as
Alternative #2.
GRH
Base
Impact on Baseline
1991
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Space-based
471
+0
+150
+468
+1001
+1603
Earth-based
170
+0
+182
+284
+466
+535
Total BA
641
+0
+332
+752
+1467
+2138
0
627
+0
+188
+515
+1060
+1645
PROS:
o
Would provide a strong statement of the President's leadership on environmental
issues, particularly the need for early scientific returns.
-30-
The new, early EOS program could provide additional near-term contributions, address
Congressional criticism that EOS provides little near-term science improvements, and
promotes the use of low-cost, low risk flight opportunities.
Provides a greater opportunity for foreign participation, including financial
participation from the lesser developed countries (LDCs), even if only at a small
dollar level.
All of the countries of the world would benefit from this research and should
appropriately share in the cost and could facilitate later cooperation on mitigation
actions.
Could take advantage of elimination of any redundant instruments among the U.S.,
European, and Japanese platforms and/or the elimination of NOAA operational
instruments from the European Polar Platform.
CONS:
Establishing in the budget process a new, as yet undefined, early EOS program could
undermine the credibility of this initiative and the CES interagency program.
The current program already has substantial near-term scientific activity. It simply
may not be feasible to accelerate the science any further.
Europe and Japan have proposed contributing a total of $2.5 billion for Mission to
Planet Earth. This contribution includes their own space platforms and instruments
and flying several U.S. instruments. It may be unrealistic to expect any substantial
additional participation from these sources, or from other countries.
Further slippage of the EOS-A schedule will increase criticism of this initiative.
Deletion of funding for the EOS-B platform would leave Mission to Planet Earth some
what undefined, because the exact configuration of the space-based component would
depend on what arrangements could be worked out with potential international partners
to fly U.S. payloads. NASA will appeal deferral of EOS-B.
-31-
Alternative #4 (Defer and Re-study EOS) The funding level for this alternative is $855
million, an increase of $214 million, or 33 percent, over the FY 1991 GRH Base. Total
five-year funding would be $5 billion. This alternative funds 5 Earthprobes, and provides
a smaller increase for earth-based programs, but defers the EOS decision for one year
pending further review of the EOS program, as well as a more detailed analysis of
alternatives. For example, some believe that the EOS program might be more cost
effective, and perhaps provide earlier science benefits, if certain instruments were flown
separately rather than placed on the EOS platform.
GRH
Base
Impact on Baseline
1991
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Space-based
471
+0
+69
+7
+41
+78
Earth-based
170
+0
+145
+205
+279
+307
Total BA
641
+0
+214
+212
+320
+385
o
627
+0
+128
+221
+289
+340
PROS:
o
Allows time for a further consideration of the EOS program issues, such as data
management and platform configurations.
Would be responsive to concerns likely to be raised by Senator Gore (and perhaps
others) that the current EOS project is too expensive and too late (monitoring
capability would not be on-line for another 5-10 years).
Provides a 33 percent overall funding increase over the GRH Base, and still provides
some near-term scientific benefits from ongoing activities, Earthprobes and earth-
based research.
CONS:
EOS has already been extensively reviewed by the scientific community and found to be
technically sound and cost effective.
A delay in EOS, however justified, could result in criticism of the President's
leadership on environmental issues, his commitment to the USGCRP and Mission to
Planet Earth, and the loss of foreign contributions.
-32-
A deferral of EOS likely could lead to a loss of potential support for the Space
Station and Manned Space Exploration programs because of the perceived near-term
program. importance of global change research among many Congressional supporters of the space
CES agencies (especially NASA) will strongly appeal and the agencies' continued
participation in the CES interagency process could be jeopardized.
OMB Staff Recommendation: OMB Staff believe that improved understanding of the Earth
system is an important national objective and, accordingly, have strongly supported the
USGCRP process. The CES member agencies have invested an extremely large amount of time
and energy in developing this interagency program, and as a result, the U.S. is far out in
front of any other nation's planning efforts. The USGCRP represents an excellent
opportunity for President Bush to demonstrate high quality, national and international,
leadership on environmental issues.
However, the USGCRP, and in particularly NASA's MTPE, request is difficult to accommodate
in the current fiscal environment. Even the lowest USGCRP funding options submitted to
the OMB by the CES, requested several billions of dollars over the next five years. OMB
staff have worked very hard with the CES to lower this request. However, staff believe
that a robust program of research will require significant budget increases.
On balance, Staff recommend Alternative #2, which includes:
An aggressive near-term program of Earthprobes and other satellite investigations.
Initiation of EOS, with launch of the first EOS-A platform in 1998.
Provides significant international cooperation and roughly doubles the funding for
earth-based research.
-33-
Recommend, prior to execution of the FY 1991 Program, that the President's Science
Advisor, working with the CES, undertakes the following tasks:
1. Request a formal review of the proposed FY 1991 USGCRP by the National Academy
of Sciences.
2. As part of that review, specifically task the Academy to review EOS, as well as
possible alternatives, to ensure that the proposed project is technically ready,
cost-effective, and will provide the greatest possible scientific return on the
investment.
Possible Reaction: The CES agencies will accept the Staff recommendation. Alternative #2
will be viewed by most Congressional observers and the public as an ambitious
Administration initiative. Some members, such as Rep. Green and Senator Mikulski, will
object to the FY 1998 launch and argue that it should be sooner. Others, such as Senator
Gore, will argue that the program, particularly EOS, does not provide enough near-term
information for policy decisionmaking. Staff believe that Alternative 2 falls in the
middle of these opposing positions. Alternative 2 provides a significant level of near-
term research and observations (e.g., many ongoing satellite mission, earth-based research
and field experiments, and Earthprobes) with little delay in the launch of EOS.
-34-
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
02. Memo
From David Bates to POTUS
11/29/89
5
Re: Recommendations of the DPC Working Group on Global
Change for President's 1990 Environmental Program (5 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Open on Expiration of PRA
(Document Follows)
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
Subseries:
Issues Files
By & (NLGB) on 10/28/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Global Warming (2 of 2) - 1990 [6]
Date Closed:
12/17/2004
OA/ID Number:
29158-006
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S.
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile,
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 29, 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
DAVID Q. BATES
For
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
Allan
SUBJECT:
Recommendations of the DPC Working Group on
Global Change for President's 1990
Environmental Program
ISSUE
The Cabinet-level DPC Working Group on Global Change was
first convened in October to formulate and coordinate
United States policy on global warming and other selected
environmental issues. The Working Group was recently
assigned the task of developing options to fulfill the
President's campaign pledge to host an international
conference on the environment and to seize the initiative
on the international environmental agenda. The group has
developed a consensus recommendation for a series of three
events to be held during 1990.
BACKGROUND
A. Campaign Pledge -- during the campaign you pledged to
hold during your first year in office an international
conference on the environment:
"In my first year in office, I will convene a global
conference on the environment at the White House. It
will include the Soviets, the Chinese, the developing
world as well as the developed. All nations will be
welcome -- and indeed, all nations will be needed.
"The agenda will be clear. We will talk about global
warming. We will talk about acid rain. We will talk
about saving our oceans, and preventing the loss of
tropical forests. And we will act."
B. IPCC Activity -- the U.S. participates in the U.N.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the
principal international forum to address the issue of
global warming:
-- Key working groups are chaired by Great Britain on
science, the Soviet Union on effects and the United
States on response strategies.
2
-- U.S. will host the third plenary session of the
IPCC in February, 1990, in Washington. The IPCC will
meet in plenary session a final time in August, 1990,
at which the completed reports of the working groups
will be presented, leading up to the Second World
Climate Conference in November, 1990.
-- You have stated that you expect the IPCC
deliberations to lead, upon completion of the IPCC
reports, to the negotiation of a framework convention
on climate change.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following series of events recommended by the Working
Group on Global Change was developed within the context of
the U.S. commitment to the IPCC and the accomplishments of
the Administration on global warming (set forth in greater
detail at Appendix A).
It should be noted that you will announce your budget in
the State of the Union on January 30, 1990, which will
include a number of environmental initiatives related to
global warming. It is strongly suggested that the package
described below be announced either in the State of the
Union or in a major address directly before or after the
State of the Union, whichever is appropriate.
I. The President's 1990 Environmental Initiative
The three events recommended below are packaged as a
1990 Presidential environmental initiative
culminating in the President's International
Conference on the Conservation of Nature.
A. Address to the February, 1990 IPCC plenary
session in Washington
-- speech would explain U.S. policy on global climate
change and promote the enormous investment the United
States has made both in understanding the scientific
elements of global climate change and in beginning to
take mitigating action.
-- opportunity to assert the U.S. leadership role on
global climate change and reinforce the U.S.
commitment to the IPCC as the principal forum for
addressing the problem.
3
B. White House meeting on international
environmental research
-- attended by international delegations composed of
the chief science official, chief economics official
and chief environmental official from each nation.
-- focus of the meeting would not be on any
particular environmental issues but on advancing the
quality and understanding of the analytical tools for
confronting environmental problems. Result would be
a common integrated approach for use in future
negotiations on environmental problems.
-- all or any parts of the deliberations could be
attended by the President.
C. President's International Conference on the
Conservation of Nature
-- President to host an international conference, in
the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, focused on the twin
goals of the conservation of nature and sustainable
development.
-- emphasis on energy conservation, biological
diversity, reforestation, wetlands and oceans,
highlighting as models successful domestic programs,
international ventures (e.g., the pending U.S.-Brazil
agreement for assistance in the management of
Brazilian national forests, banning of ivory imports,
and debt-for nature swaps) and future initiatives
(e.g., the reforestation initiative to be announced
in the State of the Union and the America the
Beautiful initiative to be included in the 1991
budget).
-- significant "thousand points of light" voluntary
component to be included.
-- approach separates the volatile issues of
atmosphere and global warming from the event with
which you will be most closely identified.
II. Timing (see attached calendar)
A. IPCC Plenary Session: date fixed, February, 1990.
B. White House Meeting on Environmental Research:
Spring, 1990, date to be determined.
4
C. President's Conference on the Conservation of
Nature: Spring - Summer - Fall, 1990, date to be
determined.
III. Additional Initiative
The Working Group also discussed the issue of hosting
the first negotiating session of the international
framework convention on climate change. The United
States has agreed to participate in the negotiations,
yet has made no decision to serve as host. The
United States, in our capacity as chair of the
Response Strategies Working Group under the IPCC,
hosted a "workshop" to begin discussions of the
likely elements of a framework convention. It is
suggested that the United States may wish to host the
negotiations for the framework convention, which are
not scheduled to begin until after the Second World
Climate Conference in November, 1990 (which for
practical purposes means not until 1991), and
announce that decision at an appropriate time.
PROS
- decision to host the framework convention and,
by extension, an early announcement of the
decision, could give the U.S. leverage and an
element of control in the negotiation process,
allowing the U.S. to promote concepts such as
market mechanisms, emissions trading and offset
policies.
- hosting the "Washington Convention" would put
the U.S. in a leadership role on international
environmental issues.
- concern that any delay on a decision within
the U.S. government will result in the U.S.
being bypassed by another nation acting faster.
CONS
- no international consensus on the legal
instrument to be employed for the framework
convention. The legal instrument could range
anywhere from model employed to negotiate the
Law of the Sea Convention to a model less
intrusive on national sovereignty.
Unwise to host a negotiating session for a
framework convention before the U.S. knows what
the convention will be.
5
- consensus that the framework convention will
be extraordinarily difficult to negotiate and
could easily result in a document that the U.S.
could not sign.
- would place enormous pressure on the United
States to commit to economically injurious
reductions, arrived at politically, of emissions
for which there are no known substitutes at this
time.
- unique mix of Congressional, interest group,
and media interplay that would surround a
"Washington Convention" would make any
discipline or control over U.S. negotiating
positions all but impossible.
In the discussion of this issue within the Working
Group, a majority of your advisors expressed the
opinion that in the very near future, namely after
the February IPCC plenary session, the United States
will be in a better position to gauge the direction
of the IPCC and the legal instrument to be employed
in negotiating the framework convention, and that it
would better serve U.S. interests to postpone a
decision on hosting the convention until that time.
GEORGE BUSH LIBRARY
THIS FORM MARKS THE FILE LOCATION OF ITEM NUMBER
2
LISTED IN THE WITHDRAWAL SHEET AT THE FRONT OF THIS FOLDER.
1990 ENVIRONMENTAL CALENDAR
(Dates and Events in Bold are Fixed)
January
State of the Union
February 5-8
IPCC Plenary Session (Presidential Address)
March-April
*White House Meeting on Environmental
Research
April 22
Earth Day
*President's International Conference on
Conservation of Nature
May 8-16
Conference on "Action for our Future" -
Bergen
May
*White House Meeting on Environmental
Research
July 9-11
G-7 Economic Summit
July
*White House Meeting on Environmental
Research or President's International
Conference on Conservation of Nature
August
Final Plenary Session of IPCC - Stockholm
September-October
*President's International Conference on
Conservation of Nature
November 12-13
Second World Climate Conference - Geneva
* Represents Alternative Dates for Events
U.S. ACTIONS ALREADY UNDERWAY TO CUT GREENHOUSE GASES
In the first 11 months of the Administration, the U.S. has
already taken several actions unilaterally which, in addition to
being meritorious in their own right, will reduce CO₂ emissions
and address the global warming problem.
o
The Administration's proposed Clean Air Act, by
significantly reducing pollution from coal-fired power
plants and placing a permanent cap on emissions, creates a
powerful incentive for conservation. This alone could
reduce CO₂ emission by several percent a year. No other
nation has adopted such an ambitious clean air strategy.
The Administration's action to increase required corporate
average fuel efficiency (cafe) standards to 27.5 miles per
gallon will cut CO₂ emissions from automobiles.
The Administration has not only called for a worldwide phase
out of CFC's by the year 2000, but the Administration's
February 9th budget included a unilateral fee on CFC
emissions, which will sharply reduce U.S. production and
emissions of CFC's. The CFC fee has been adopted by the
Congress. Scientists believe that CFC's are responsible for
20% of the greenhouse problem. In addition, the
Administration has proposed expanding the Montreal Protocol
to cover additional greenhouse gases which deplete the ozone
layer.
o
The Administration has sharply increased funding for global
climate change research. The fiscal year 1990 budget
contains almost $1/2 billion for this effort, a 21% increase
over 1989 levels. We expect another increase in the FY 1991
budget, with the amount to be determined. No other nation
is spending nearly this much on research.
The Administration is now developing a national energy
strategy, to be released in April. One of the clear goals
in developing the strategy is to increase energy
conservation.
Clean coal technologies proposed by the President in his
Clean Air proposal and federally funded will reduce the
production of greenhouse gases which are a by product of
current, older technologies. Current technologies can add
approximately 3% to greenhouse gas production per plant.
The President's proposed alternative fuels program for
automobiles has the potential to reduce CO₂ emissions from
automobiles.
- 2 -
o
The Administration is preparing a major reforestation
initiative for possible inclusion in the State of the Union
address. The initiative will include funding of
approximately $175 million annually under a program called
"America the Beautiful." This program will encompass a
national partnership for tree planting. We hope to work
hand in hand with state and local governments, foundations,
corporations, and private citizens to reforest urban and
rural areas, on public and private lands.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
03. Memo
From D. Allan Bromley to POTUS
11/27/89
(b)(1)
Re: Meeting w/President Gorbachev
[redacted] (11 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Document Partially Declassified
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
(Copy of Document Follows)
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
By sos
on 6/26/15
Subseries:
Issues Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Global Warming (2 of 2) - 1990 [6]
Date Closed:
12/17/2004
OA/ID Number:
29158-006
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
98-0004-F/1 (590)
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
Released in Part
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date: 8/16/2013
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
THE WHITE HOUSE
GEORGE M. H.W. BUSH
WASHINGTON
November 27, 1989
dup of
1989 NOV 27 PH 5: 15
2
500
LIBRARY
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Duan
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
SUBJECT:
Your Meeting with President Gorbachev
My Soviet friends in the science and technology areas have
suggested privately to me that Mr. Gorbachev may wish to give
matters of the global environment very high visibility during
your forthcoming meeting in the Mediterranean.
In particular, given the state of the environment in many Soviet
cities (102 of these cities now exceed their own standards
by more than a factor of ten), I believe that his emphasis
may well be on obtaining U.S. technology and expertise (very
much like that required by the Third World) that will enable
the Soviet Union to continue widespread burning of fossil
fuel, as required in its economy without the current level
of concommitant environmental insults.
There are also a number of areas in which the Soviets may
well wish to raise other environmental issues with you.
Among them are the following:
a. Creation of a Global Fund for Environmental
Protection
Background
There has been discussion of such an initiative in
Soviet papers recently, and Foreign Minister
Shevardnadze has mentioned it on more than one
occasion. The statements imply that this proposed fund
would be financed from reduced military expenditures
reflecting reduced East-West tensions. The Third World
would react enthusiastically to such a proposal, as
would many of our own citizens.
DECLASSIFIED IN PART
PER E.O. 13526
2010-2818-MR
SCS 8/16/13
2
Recommendation
As noted following the Noordwijk meeting, I believe
that it would be unwise for us to commit to such a fund
unless we could target our support to specific areas
and activities.
b. Call for a Reduction in Missile Launches and/or
Space Shuttle Flights to Minimize Stratospheric Ozone
Depletion
Background
The Soviets have long maintained that their space
missions do substantially less damage to stratospheric
ozone than do ours, because of difference in our lift
vehicle exhausts. I do not understand this claim and
am trying to get data on it in time for your meeting.
It could well be, however, that President Gorbachev
will use this environmentally attractive argument to
take U.S. competitive pressure off his own space
program and economy.
Recommendation
Pending more information on the credibility of the
Soviet claims, I cannot give a solid scientific
recommendation, but I would certainly resist this
proposal in the absence of such reliable scientific
information.
C. Call for Strengthening of the U.N. Environmental
Program and Creation of Some Kind of International
Center for Ecological Aid and/or a Global Environmental
Monitoring System
Background
The Soviets are relatively recent entrants in the
environmental field, having established their State
Committee for the Preservation of Nature only in January
1988. They are preparing a draft of a comprehensive global
change program; it first surfaced during this past summer
(1989) in informal conversations and, in recent weeks, has
been mentioned officially on Soviet television. No detailed
information is available as yet as to its content, beyond
the general statement that it is "ambitious." Shevardnadze
has very recently published a long article on Ecology and
Diplomacy in one of the leading Soviet journals. They
3
may wish to use this meeting to establish, publicly, a
more aggressive environmental stance, while
simultaneously gaining good P.R.
Recommendation
If this comes up, perhaps you should emphasize our
strong support for the U.N. Environmental Program
(UNEP) and suggest that the restructured International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in
Vienna, to which I refer below, might represent a first
and important step along the lines proposed.
d. Request a Lifting of COCOM Restrictions on the
Export of U.S. Supercomputer Hardware and Software
Essential to the Modelling of Global Change and of High
Technology Pollution Monitoring Equipment
Background
The Soviets have long had an outstanding climate
modelling group at Novosibirsk, headed by Academician
Marchuk, now president of the Soviet Academy of
Sciences. They have, however, been limited,
particularly in recent years, by their available
computing capacity. These global climate models are
among the most demanding computer applications yet
encountered in science and technology.
Recommendation
I would recommend against any immediate relaxation of
COCOM controls until we were as certain as possible as
to the precise technology involved, how it would be
used, and what safeguards, if any, we would develop
against improper use.
e. Propose a Joint US/USSR Program to Repair
Environmental Damage in Eastern Europe
Background
Again, a highly visible political possibility, but one
based only on very vague and unreliable rumors.
Recommendation
Would need substantial additional study to define and
delimit our obligations in any such program. I cannot
help being reminded of the child who kills his parents
and then throws himself on the mercy of the court
because he is an orphan!
4
In the global change research area, there are a number of
specific areas where the Soviets would wish to establish or
initiate joint projects.
a.
Admission of the Soviet Union to the Ocean
Drilling Program (ODP)
Background
The Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) is an international
program of basic research in the marine geosciences
that utilizes an offshore drilling vessel converted for
scientific research. The objective of the ODP is to
explore the structure and history of the Earth as it is
recorded in the basement rock and overlying sediments
accumulated on the seafloor. The program is managed by
the National Science Foundation (NSF), which supports
over half of the program costs. Six international
partners representing 18 nations provide the remainder
of the necessary funds. The ODP is the successor to
the highly successful Deep Sea Drilling Program (DSDP)
which ceased operations in 1983.
After preliminary governmental review and approval in
1985, NSF requested that the Soviet Academy of Sciences
consider joining the ODP. A second review by the
Administration, however, raised concerns regarding
Soviet access to technology used in the ODP. Further
discussions with the Soviet Academy of Sciences were
terminated in March of 1987.
Since 1987, both the U.S. scientific community and the
international partners participating in ODP have
reiterated their support for Soviet involvement in the
ODP. The Soviet Union is the only country with global
geoscience capability that is not a member of the ODP.
In September 1988, the Executive Committee of the ODP,
which represents its participating members, unanimously
passed the following resolution:
Whereas the USSR has a long and distinguished
record of accomplishments in earth sciences, and
was an active and valued partner in the
International Phase of Ocean Drilling and,
the USSR continues to have an active interest in
global earth science as does the Ocean Drilling
Program, and
5
the U.S. Government has not yet offered to enter
into a Memorandum of Understanding with the USSR,
and recognizing that:
the USSR is still interested in joining ODP as a
full member, but the USSR cannot keep the
potential commitment open indefinitely,
Therefore: EXCOM reaffirms its previous
resolution and recommends that the U.S. Government
immediately take appropriate steps to secure full
membership in ODP for the USSR.
Recommendation
I believe that it would be in the best interests of
both our countries were you to invite the Soviet Union
to participate in the Ocean Drilling Program, along the
lines initially approved in 1985.
NOTE: I understand the Dr. Michael T. Halbouty plans
to discuss this matter with you while he is in
Washington November 27-29, and that he will strongly
support Soviet participation in ODP. He has already
discussed this with Boyden Gray (July 1989).
b. Marine Geological and Geophysical Research in the
Arctic Ocean Basin
Background
The polar marine geosciences are evolving rapidly and
contribute a broad spectrum of essential research
elements to the recent thrust in global-scale studies.
The fundamental goal is to integrate the Arctic Ocean
Basin into the global perspective of paleoclimate and
geology and to develop quantitative models. All
aspects of the geology and geophysics of the Arctic
Ocean Basin remain largely unresolved. The Arctic ice
cover makes marine geophysical and geological field
studies extremely difficulty. Therefore, we have only
the most basic picture of the structure and evolution
of the Arctic Ocean Basin and its relation to the
surrounding continental areas.
Marine sediments contain a record of tectonic
evolution, environmental processes on the adjacent
continents, and fluctuations in global climate. A
primary objective of marine geological research in the
Arctic Ocean is to recover good quality cores (up to 20
meters in length). The geophysical framework must also
6
be carefully prepared in order that the scientific
return be maximized. This involves access to modern
research icebreakers and ice platforms and deployment
of marine geophysical instrumentation such as
multi-channel seismic equipment. In order to advance
our knowledge significantly, we require a coordinated
marine geological and geophysical effort to address the
unresolved questions of global scope:
--
Determination of the tectonic evolution of the
Arctic Ocean Basin and the origin of its present
configuration;
--
Determination of the Cretaceous and Cenozoic
paleo-oceanographic history of the Arctic region,
with emphasis on episodes of widespread anoxia and
Cenozoic climatic deterioration;
--
Determination of the paleoclimatic history of the
circum-Arctic region, with emphasis on the origin,
nature, and forcing functions of intense climatic
cycles and the history of the last deglaciation.
Proposed Joint Activities
1.
Preparation of an overall science plan aimed at
the establishment of a geological and geophysical
framework for the Arctic Ocean Basin through
site-specific, geologic sampling; and
2.
Acquisition of sediment cores from mobile
platforms (icebreakers equipped for marine
geological sampling) in order to establish
geophysical "ground truth" and reconstruct the
polar sedimentary record.
Recommendation
I have discussed this program with Erich Bloch and his
staff at NSF; they strongly recommend it, and I would
suggest that you might wish to propose it to President
Gorbachev.
NOTE: Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska is a very strong
supporter of this initiative and has discussed it with
me on two occasions.
C.
Arctic Ocean Sea Ice Thickness and Extent
Background
The quasi-permanent Arctic sea ice cover is a
significant component of the global climate system.
7
Climatic-scale variability in its extent or thickness
is an important research issue. Sea ice is a primary
determinant of the annual surface temperature range
because it modulates the energy exchange between the
ocean and the atmosphere. Recent reports suggest a
significant thinning of sea ice covering the Arctic
Ocean. Both the United States and the Soviet Union
have compiled information on the extent and
concentration of the Arctic sea ice cover. Cooperation in
the areas of data exchange, planning of future cooperative
experiments, and instrument technique development would
yield substantial advances in our understanding of not only
sea ice dynamics, but also the internal processes of the
Arctic environmental energy budget. Moreover, it would
provide a definitive test of the ice-albedo feedback
loop, serve as a wide-ranging surface truth experiment
for upcoming satellite-based synthetic aperture radar
programs, and contribute to a number of interagency
Arctic Ocean research objectives.
The following are topics of interest:
-- Sea ice as the climatic modulator of the Eurasian
Basin: The Eurasian Basin is a region of seasonally
highly variable sea ice concentration, and extremely
active heat exchange between the ocean and the
atmosphere. Research would involve comprehensive
measurements of the surface heat budget and sampling of
ice concentration, thickness, mechanics, and
thermodynamics, along with the structure of the upper
ocean and lower atmosphere over a large grid of
stations within a relatively short time period.
-- The thickness and real extent of Arctic sea ice:
Thickness and extent are the fundamental parameters
that influence processes of high-latitude air-sea
interaction important to global climate. Moreover,
significant change in climate will affect ice
thickness. Satellite data obtained nearly continuously
since 1973 provide estimates of sea ice extent. The
body of in situ measurements needs to be evaluated in
order to estimate changes in sea ice thickness and
volume and to complement satellite observations.
Proposed Joint Activities: Meeting of U.S. and Soviet
sea ice specialists to review availability of current
information on sea ice and to plan future cooperative
research.
Recommendation
Again, I have discussed this program with Erich Bloch
and his staff and with members of the Federal
8
Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering and
Technology (FCCSET) Committee on Earth Sciences. I
would again recommend that you suggest this initiative
to President Gorbachev.
d.
Meeting of Senior Scientists, Economists and
Environmental Ministers on the Topic of Global Change
Background
Following up on our brief discussion of a possible
meeting of G-7 science ministers, discussions within
the DPC Working Group, and discussions during the
Noordwijk conference, there appears to be quite general
support for a meeting here in Washington in March or
April of 1990, at which delegations composed of the
chief science official, the chief governmental
economist, and the chief environmental officials of
each participating, nation would meet to try to develop
a comprehensive methodology for national and
international use in confronting environmental
problems, interrelating all their scientific, economic
and environmental components. This would fill a
generally acknowledged gap in the current international
analytical processes and would lead to a matrix,
building upon the U.S. domestic approach to problem
solving, for all future negotiations on environmental
problems, as well as build a strong foundation for
future international cooperation in this area.
There is now a consensus -- following Noordwijk -- that
it would be unwise to restrict participation to the G-7
nations only.
Recommendation
I would suggest that you invite President Gorbachev to
send his senior representatives in science, economics
and the environment to such a meeting.
There are three additional topics that I should mention in
connection with your meeting with President Gorbachev. They
are the following:
a.
Destruction of U.S. and USSR Stocks of wild
Smallpox Virus
Background
Only the U.S. and the USSR have admitted remaining
stocks of smallpox virus. All other supplies were
9
destroyed under U.N. auspices a number of years ago --
with the possible exception of remaining clandestine
supplies in Libya and similar areas. We now have the
technology -- in three years, and for about $3 million
-- to map the entire genome of this virus so that in
the very remote possibility of needing it at some
future time, we could recreate it.
As Secretary Sullivan, I believe, has already discussed
with you, there is at least the possibility that the
Soviets might announce -- for public relations purposes
-- their intention to take the lead in destroying their
supplies of this virus in the interests of peace and
human welfare. This could develop into a significant
public relations coup.
Recommendation
I would suggest that you raise with President Gorbachev
the possibility of a joint U.S. /USSR project to map the
genome of the smallpox virus, followed by its total
destruction. This would be an excellent example of our
two nations acting, once and for all, to remove from
the planet what was even recently one of mankind's
terrible scourges.
b. The International Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis (IIASA)
Background
This international institute based in Vienna was
established in the aftermath of the 1973 oil shortage
and focused primarily in its early days on
energv-related issues.
(b)(1)
Some of the more liberal members of the
Democratic organization in the Boston area convinced
the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, based in
Boston, to take over American representation in, and
support of, IIASA and over the years have managed to
provide some private -- and, more recently, some
National Science Foundation -- support for it. The
Boston group, led by Senator Moynihan but with strong
support from senior members of the Harvard and M.I.T.
faculties, is now seeking to have the U.S. formally
rejoin in supporting IIASA at the federal level.
(b)(1)
10
Recommendation
Given the need for better communication with Eastern
Bloc countries and the fact that IIASA is an existing
East-West entity, I would recommend that we consider
renewing our formal support but with the understanding
that the mandate of the Institute be changed to that of
study of global change problems, rather than the more
restricted ones of the past and that its name be
changed to reflect its new role. It would take several
years to get a new organization into action and
conversion of IIASA can be done much more quickly and
efficiently.
You might wish to make the offer of reinstituting U.S.
support conditional on the above mentioned changes.
C. Exchange of Pershing II and 88-20 missiles for
Museum Display
Background
Over much of the past year, there have been a series of
discussions involving the director -- Martin Harwit --
and staff of the National Air and Space Museum with
representatives of the Soviet Union concerning the
possibility of an exchange of an American Pershing II
and a Soviet SS-20 missile -- committing establishment
of a permanent memorial -- in both the U.S. and the
USSR to the first nuclear disarmament agreement.
The Department of State and the Department of Defense
have agreed to cooperate, and the Army is prepared to
offer two Pershing II missiles for use in these
displays.
Prior to retiring as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, Admiral William J. Crowe, Jr. formally discussed
such an exchange with his counterpart, General Mikhail
A. Moiseyev. The proposal has also been discussed with
Ambassador Yuriy Dobinin, with Marshal Sergei
Akhromeyev and Defense Minister Dmitri Yazov, on the
occasions of their separate visits to the Air and Space
Museum. All have indicated their support for the idea,
but as yet there has been no official response from the
Soviet Union.
I suspect that all of the Soviet representatives
involved are waiting for some formal approval from Mr.
Gorbachev. If you agree with me that this proposed
exchange is one that would be in the interests of both
11
our countries, I suspect that a word from you to Mr.
Gorbachev during your forthcoming meeting could very
well make it happen.
Recommendation
That you mention this to President Gorbachev if the
occasion arises.
Finally, I expect to receive shortly the first two copies of
the inaugural American edition of the Soviet high school
science and mathematics magazine, Quantum, which will
shortly be distributed to over 200, 000 U.S. students, with
NSF support. I will provide you these two copies (which
will bear appropriate designation as copy 1 and copy 2), one
for yourself and one to present to Mr. Gorbachev.
RCV BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 11-30-89 ; 2:24PM ;
2026474503-
2024562397;# 2
Zoellick Draft
Press Backgrounder
President Bush to Host Environmental Negotiations
President Bush discussed global climate change with General
Secretary Gorbochev, telling him that the US intends to
offer to host negotiations for a framework convention on
global climate change to begin after the IPCC completes its
work next fall.
The President raised the environmental issue because of its
importance globally and because the US and the Soviet Union
are working closely together in the IPCC process.
The IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is
an offshoot of the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) and
the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It was set up
in 1988 to provide a central forum to discuss global
climate change.
IPCC has three working groups: the Soviet Union chairs the
Working Group assessing the impacts of climate change and
the US chairs the Working Group tasked with identifying
strategies to respond to climate change; the Working Group
on science is chaired by the UK.
Both the US and the Soviet Union believe the IPCC process
is working well; the leaders reaffirmed their support for
the IPCC's work and look forward to the next IPCC meeting
to be held in Washington, D.C., in February.
Scientific uncertainties about global climate change
remain: we understand that increased emissions of certain
gases, called greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, CFCs,
methane, etc), can cause global warming but existing
scientific models cannot predict precisely how the global
climate system will respond because of variables, such as
cloud cover, ocean temperature and rainfall.
Given these uncertainties, our approach must be flexible
enough to allow changes to be made as our understanding
increases: we believe a framework convention with
L
associated protocols is the best approach. This format was
used successfully in the Vienna Convention and its Montreal
Protocol to Protect the Ozone Layer.
More scientific research is needed to address these
uncertainties. The United States proposes to invest $500
million in global climate change research during the coming
2
year; we hope others will join our efforts.
Even with the scientific uncertainties, President Bush
believes we should take actions that are also important for
other environmental reasons. Such actions include ending
the use of CFCs by 2000, controlling CO2 emissions,
undertaking aggressive reforestation programs and promoting
energy conservation and energy efficiency. A number of
these and other important initiatives are included in the
President's ambitious Clean Air Act proposal.