U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

54–915 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–488 

CLIMATE SERVICES: SOLUTIONS FROM 

COMMERCE TO COMMUNITIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 30, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Ranking 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Chief of Staff 

JAMES REID, Deputy Chief of Staff 

BRUCE H. ANDREWS, General Counsel 

CHRISTINE D. KURTH, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

BRIAN M. HENDRICKS, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 30, 2009 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Rockefeller ........................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Begich .................................................................................. 19 

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 21 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 23 

WITNESSES

Hon. Gary F. Locke, Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce .......................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Hon. John P. Holdren, Ph.D., Director, Office of Science and Technology 

Policy, Executive Office of the President ........................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

APPENDIX

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV 

to Hon. Gary F. Locke .......................................................................................... 33 

Response to written questions submitted to Hon. John P. Holdren, Ph.D. by: 

Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV ............................................................................ 36 

Hon. David Vitter ............................................................................................. 39 

(1) 

CLIMATE SERVICES: SOLUTIONS FROM 

COMMERCE TO COMMUNITIES 

THURSDAY, JULY 30, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:37 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John D. Rockefeller 

IV, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

The CHAIRMAN. According to my watch, it’s precisely 2:30, so it’s 

time to start the hearing. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. And let me just make an opening statement, and 

then we’re going to hear from our witnesses. And, you know, we’ve 

got all kinds of smart people sitting behind them who, I don’t 

know, I just can’t bear the thought of you three sitting back there 

saying nothing at all, but we’ll see how it works out. If one of them 

makes a mistake you can just correct them. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Our Committee has much to do with climate 

change. We spend much time on aviation and all kinds of other 

things, and, we’re heavily vested in climate change, and we have 

been for years, but not enough people know that. That’s why our 

Secretary of Commerce is here and our head of OSTP is here, John 

Holdren. 

Our climate shapes every aspect of our lives. It’s one of the most 

important pieces of legislation that we will probably ever do in the 

history of this country. Climate determines where we build our 

roads, it determines where people build homes, whether they build 

homes; it effects our health, it controls all kinds of our energy. 

Over one-third of our Nation’s gross domestic product is affected by 

weather and climate. I don’t think most people know that. I didn’t 

either, until I prepared for this statement. 

Climate change is happening. The scientists agree on that. People who say it isn’t happening, have a nice day. We have observed 

rising temperatures and sea levels, reduced snow and ice, longer 

growing season, and changes in river flow. There’s terror about 

water in the West. And there ought to be. You know, I mean, 

this—things are happening everywhere. How people can ignore any 

of it, I just don’t understand. 

2 

So, these challenges continue to grow, but so does our knowledge 

of the climate system, the reach of our scientific research. It just 

happens that our President has surrounded himself with absolutely 

brilliant scientists, and he’s fascinated by technology and research. 

And so, we couldn’t be better positioned to walk into these responsibilities. 

We have a responsibility to share what we know, widely, much 

like trying—you know, the public is sort of saying, ‘‘Well what are 

they doing up there, on healthcare? We don’t understand.’’ Well, 

that’s understandable. This is, in some ways, much more complicated and much more abstract, because it’s not immediate, it’s 

not something you take out of your pocket and pay to an insurance 

company. You may not have a house or have a pocket to take something out to give to an insurance company if climate change isn’t 

being addressed in the proper fashion. 

We continue to learn so much. Every day, dedicated scientists 

and entrepreneurs explain new challenges and highlight new opportunities, and it gives me tremendous hope, particularly when 

I’m faced with the kind of people I’m looking at right now. However, the reality is that, unless that information reaches the people 

who are confronting climate change on the front lines, it will have 

been for naught. It is time to take the science out of the laboratories and bring it into our communities, to make it a part of what 

our people trust, believe, and depend on. 

So, this is about putting climate science to work in people’s lives, 

to protect public health by predicting the spread of infectious diseases due to climate change, to anticipate droughts and take actions to reduce their economic and environmental impacts, to adjust our building codes to withstand the increased storm intensity 

and flooding. It’s also about making those tools, and the climate 

science behind them available—making it transparent and useful 

to everyday Americans. 

This hearing’s purpose, and a top priority of this committee, is 

to make sure that the essential facts—most importantly, research 

and the latest technology that have come directly from sound climate science—finds its way directly to the people who can put it 

to work for themselves and their families every day. This means 

community advocates and business leaders, public and private and 

government entities, and local, State, and Federal lawmakers. 

I would also like to note, when it comes to climate change, that 

the Commerce Committee, as I mentioned earlier, has a long history of dealing with this crucial intersection where science meets 

public policy, and the hard work of making a difference. And so, 

today I look forward to discussing these great challenges in—not 

all of them, but some of them—and the Federal Government’s work 

to translate climate science into information and services for users 

to plan for, and respond to, the effects of climate change, which are 

going on everywhere. 

The Department of Commerce, through efforts like the National 

Climate Service, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, 

continue to look for innovative new ways to share information and 

address mounting public needs, and I’m confident that their leadership will bring the best research and the latest technology front 

and center. 

3 

So, I, for one, am very honored that our two witnesses are here, 

that they’ve taken the time. I think that you’re on a time constraint, aren’t you? No? I think—aren’t you? 

Secretary LOCKE. Moderate. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is it 3:40? 

Secretary LOCKE. I think we can go a little bit beyond that. 

The CHAIRMAN. You do? OK. Well, but be very honest with me. 

Secretary LOCKE. Alright. 

The CHAIRMAN. Our Commerce Secretary brings valuable insight 

to the challenge facing climate change on the global stage. As Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, 

John Holdren, who has already had an impact on my life, is 

charged with a broad mandate of developing and implementing 

sound science and technology policies and budgets, collaborating 

across agencies—good luck, John—— 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN.—while engaging the wider science and engineering communities in that mission. So, together I hope we can look 

specifically at bringing all of our stakeholders to the table, helping 

them stay competitive in emerging markets, and making sure they 

are investing in our energy future. 

So, this hearing is a great opportunity to highlight how sound climate science can drive our economy, empower stakeholders with 

the tools to respond and thrive. 

I thank you. 

And I turn now to our good Secretary, Secretary Locke. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GARY F. LOCKE, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Secretary LOCKE. Thank you very much, Chairman Rockefeller. 

It’s good to see you again. And I want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of Commerce’s climate capabilities. 

I’m also pleased to be joined by Dr. John Holdren, Director of the 

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP. The 

Department and OSTP are close partners on the climate issues 

that I want to talk about today. 

But, before I do that, I also want to point out, in the audience 

behind me is Dennis Hightower, the President’s nominee to be Deputy Secretary of Commerce. And I believe that he has already met 

with you and perhaps is scheduled for his confirmation hearing 

next week. 

Also, I want to introduce and acknowledge Jane Lubchenco, who 

is our Administrator of NOAA, who will, at the end of the month— 

end of August—be leading the United States delegation to the 

World Climate Conference in Geneva as Administrator of NOAA, 

but, more importantly, on behalf of the entire U.S. Government. 

Climate change presents America with a daunting challenge, but 

also an historic opportunity. I’m here today to explain how the Department of Commerce is uniquely situated to help America tackle 

both of them. 

First, the challenge. The world’s climate is unequivocally going 

through dangerous and unpredictable changes. Surface air and 

ocean temperatures are increasing, sea levels are rising, and wideVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Jun 17, 2010 Jkt 054915 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\54915.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
4 

spread melting of glaciers and Arctic sea ice is accelerating. And, 

just this month, NOAA reported that the world’s ocean surface 

temperature was the warmest on record for June, breaking the previous high set in 2005. These trends are causing more extreme 

weather, coastal and agricultural degradation, droughts, and 

wildfires. And, just yesterday, Seattle reported an all-time high in 

its temperature, reaching 103 degrees. Vancouver, Washington, 

reached 107 degrees. Seattle is expected to hover at the 100-degree 

temperature mark for this entire week. 

America must take the threat of climate change seriously, but 

first we have to understand it, and that’s where NOAA has been 

indispensable for decades. NOAA’s mandate for climate activities 

was established in 1978, and its capabilities span operational climate observing networks, global greenhouse gas monitoring, climate predictions and projections, climate research, and climate 

data stewardship. Indeed, with respect to the World Climate Data 

Center—that’s the world’s largest repository of climate and 

paleoclimate data—that is maintained by NOAA. With all the 

measurement devices around the world measuring greenhouse 

gases, 66 percent of the world’s measurement systems are maintained by NOAA. 

So, NOAA has monitored and measured the carbon cycle in the 

atmosphere and oceans for 40 years. Its measurements and modeling of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas concentrations in 

the atmosphere are among the most comprehensive in the world. 

Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

NIST, has also worked with NASA and others to develop new satellite instruments that measure the Sun’s light ten times more accurately than previous instruments. 

This information that I’ve cited isn’t merely of academic interest. 

As you’ve indicated, these measurements will play an important 

role in verifying the effectiveness of our domestic and international 

policies through independent verification of emissions from both domestic and international sources, and allow us to understand 

whether emission-reduction efforts on the ground, by citizens, business, and government, are having their intended effects on our climate. 

NOAA uses its ocean and climate science to support its mandated coastal and ocean stewardship responsibilities, including 

fisheries management, conservation of coastal habitat, and protection of endangered species, such as salmon. In addition, NOAA provides support to other Federal agencies, State and local governments, but also, critically, to the private sector, as they make decisions about adjusting to climate changes. For example, NOAA 

helped answer the call of Western Governors for better monitoring 

and early warning of droughts. And, thanks to this Committee, 

NOAA is working with its Federal agency partners to respond, 

through the National Integrated Drought Information System. This 

is critical to our economy, as unchecked drought causes average annual losses to all sectors of the economy of $6 to $8 billion a year. 

And NOAA’s Air Freezing Index Program has helped the U.S. construction industry make better decisions about when and how to 

pour concrete building foundations, saving approximately $300 million in material costs every single year. 

5 

In the years ahead, a changing climate will undoubtedly force 

America to rethink our water, energy, transportation and agriculture infrastructure, in light of new wind, water, and temperature patterns. Decision-makers at all levels, public and private, will 

depend on NOAA to chart a viable way forward. 

This is America’s climate challenge. But, as I said at the outset, 

our challenge also presents an opportunity. The scientific and technological innovations that the world will need to mitigate climate 

change can also spawn one of the most promising areas of economic 

growth of the 21st century. And I want to see America at the forefront of this innovation. 

I just returned from China with Secretary of Energy, Steven 

Chu, and China is making record investments in clean energy technologies. Our conversations with the Chinese officials yielded tremendous opportunities for partnership, but also showed the way for 

new markets for U.S. companies. And that means, also, jobs for 

Americans. But, our conversations with the Chinese raised a serious question, Is the United States going to be a leader in addressing climate change, or will we fall behind? I believe that we are 

moving in the right direction. 

Indeed, the climate change and energy security legislation under 

consideration in the Congress will create new incentives for energyefficient technologies, products, and services and reduce our overdependence on foreign oil. These incentives will foster the creation 

of new businesses and the jobs, American jobs, that will come with 

them. 

The entire Department of Commerce has already been assisting 

in this transformation, and we intend to do even more. The Department is promoting ‘‘green’’ innovation, protecting the intellectual 

property behind new technologies, and developing standards and 

measurements that will enable innovations, like the smart electrical grid. 

The Department is also supporting the commercialization of 

green ideas, promoting climate-friendly economic development, and 

helping small- and medium-size manufacturers make their production processes more sustainable. 

And the Department is highlighting emerging commercial opportunities, promoting the export of new green products and services, 

and encouraging industry to become more involved in international 

climate change discussions. 

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Commerce’s Congressional 

mandate for climate activity, starting in 1978; our internationally 

recognized expertise in climate change research, as well as all of 

the data that we hold; and our mission to advance U.S. businesses 

and innovation enable us, the Department of Commerce, to lead 

America’s efforts to meet our climate challenges and capitalize on 

these opportunities. 

I thank you again for the opportunity to address this Committee 

and I look forward to your questions. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Locke follows:] 

6 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GARY F. LOCKE, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, and other honorable members 

of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of Commerce’s climate capabilities. I am pleased to be joined by Dr. John Holdren, Director 

of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). The Department and OSTP are close partners on the climate issues I will talk about today. 

Climate change presents America with a daunting challenge . . . and an historic 

opportunity. 

I am here today to explain how the Department of Commerce is uniquely situated 

to help America tackle both of them. 

First, the challenge: 

The world’s climate is unequivocally going through dangerous and unpredictable 

changes. 

• Surface air and ocean temperatures are increasing, 

• Sea levels are rising, 

• And widespread melting of glaciers and Arctic sea ice is accelerating. 

Last month, the U.S. Global Change Research Program released a landmark report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. This body of work, a 

product of 13 Federal agency and outside experts with leadership from the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

confirms many of the climate’s troubling changes and gives a comprehensive picture 

of projected future impacts on specific regions and sectors. We are seeing the impacts of this change in our own backyards in every region of the country, from extreme weather and coastal impacts to drought and wildfire trends. 

These trends should trouble anyone concerned about the health of America’s environment and the vitality of our economy. 

Just this month, NOAA reported the world’s ocean surface temperature was the 

warmest on record for June, breaking the previous high set in 2005. Warmer oceans 

could create dangerous changes in marine ecosystems, including widespread bleaching of coral reefs in places like the Florida Keys. That development alone may significantly impact thousands of Floridians who depend on fishing and tourism for 

their livelihood. 

If America is to avoid the most damaging effects of climate change, we have to 

first understand it—and that is where the Department of Commerce is instrumental. 

The Department of Commerce is a leader in climate change research and monitoring, providing critical data and services to all levels of government and the private sector—and helping companies and communities understand and adapt to climate change. 

NOAA’s mandate for climate activities was established in 1978, and its capabilities span operational climate observing networks, global greenhouse gas monitoring, 

climate predictions and projections, climate research, and climate data stewardship. 

For example, NOAA has monitored and measured the carbon cycle in the atmosphere and oceans for 40 years, taking observations on the ground, under the sea, 

and in space. NOAA’s measurements and modeling of carbon dioxide and other 

greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are among the most comprehensive in the world—and are widely considered among the best available modeling of 

carbon sources and sinks. 

NOAA’s measurements of carbon dioxide concentrations also play an important 

role in monitoring ocean acidification. As the ocean has absorbed greater amounts 

of carbon dioxide over the past two centuries, its acidity has increased by 30 percent. Simply stated, rising acidity in the ocean could potentially short-circuit the 

marine food chain—which would undoubtedly have negative effects on commercially 

important species like oysters and salmon. 

NOAA’s climate monitoring is assisted by other agencies within the Department 

as well as other Federal agencies. Our National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) worked with NASA and others to develop new satellite instruments 

that measure the Sun’s light ten times more accurately than previous instruments. 

Space-based climate monitoring is enabled by partnerships with NASA. 

This information isn’t merely of academic interest. 

These measurements will play an important role in verifying the effectiveness of 

our domestic and international policies through independent verification of bottomup emissions—from both domestic and international sources—and allow us to understand whether emissions reductions are having their intended effects on our climate. 

7 

NOAA also uses its ocean and climate science to support its mandated coastal and 

ocean stewardship responsibilities—including fisheries management, conservation of 

coastal habitats, and protection of endangered species, such as salmon. Incorporating climate impacts like sea-level rise and increasing ocean temperatures into 

long-term planning for these public trust resources is essential to ensuring their resilience and continued economic and social benefits in a changing world. 

In addition, NOAA provides critical information and services to other Federal 

agencies, state and local governments, and the private sector as they make decisions 

about adjusting to climate change. 

When I was Governor of Washington, I, along with other western Governors, 

needed information to understand and predict drought, which causes average annual losses to all sectors of the economy of $6 to $8 billion. (Economic Impacts of 

Drought and the Benefits of NOAA’s Drought Forecasting Services, NOAA Magazine, 

September 17, 2002.) It was not just about preparing our agricultural sector—we 

also needed that information to guide infrastructure investments that required an 

understanding of long-term regional climate trends. Thanks to this Committee, 

NOAA is working with its Federal agency partners to respond through the National 

Integrated Drought Information System. Now, decisionmakers can visit drought.gov 

to receive early warnings about anticipated droughts. 

Another real-world service is the climate data that NOAA’s air freezing index program provides. It allows building foundations to be more economically constructed, 

reducing the materials costs of the U.S. construction industry by approximately 

$300 million per year. (Economic Value for the Nation, NOAA Satellites and Information, September 2001.) 

The Department of Commerce is working with our Federal partners, including the 

National Science Foundation, the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and Dr. Holdren’s Office of Science and 

Technology Policy, among others, to further bridge climate science and the growing 

needs of public and private decisionmakers. 

In the years ahead, a changing climate will undoubtedly force America to rethink 

our water, energy, transportation and agriculture infrastructure in light of new 

wind, water and temperature patterns. Decisions on where and how we build a 

bridge, a levee, an oil pipeline or an irrigation system will all have to take climate 

change into account. NOAA will be there to inform a viable way forward. 

This is America’s climate challenge. But, as I said at the outset, our challenge also 

presents an opportunity. 

The scientific and technological innovations the world will need to mitigate climate change can spawn one of the most promising areas of economic growth in the 

21st century—and I want to see America at the forefront. 

I just returned from China, where they are making significant investments in 

clean energy technologies. My conversations with Chinese officials yielded tremendous opportunities for partnership, and new markets for U.S. industry. But they 

also raised a serious question: 

‘‘Is the United States going to be a leader in addressing climate change, or will 

we fall behind?’’ 

I believe we are moving in the right direction. 

Indeed, the climate change and energy security legislation under consideration in 

Congress will create new incentives for energy efficient technologies, products and 

services and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 

These incentives will drive demand that will foster the creation of new businesses 

and the jobs that come with them. 

The entire Department of Commerce stands ready to assist in this transformation. 

The Department of Commerce is a vital ally of Main Street American business— 

serving both as an enabler of innovation and sustainability at home as well as the 

advocate for U.S. businesses around the world. We can help foster ‘‘green’’ and 

‘‘blue’’ jobs that will be created by new businesses offering climate solutions. 

The Department is encouraging green innovation. Our Patent and Trademark Office protects the intellectual property behind new technologies, while NIST develops 

standards and measurements that enable innovations like the Smart Grid, which 

has the potential to use technology to help deliver electricity more efficiently, save 

energy, and reduce costs to consumers. 

The Department is supporting the commercialization of green ideas. The Economic Development Administration is helping communities adapt in this changing 

environment, while sustaining their economic development. NIST’s Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership is helping small and medium-sized manufacturers 

make their production processes more sustainable. 

And, the Department’s International Trade Administration is highlighting emerging commercial opportunities, promoting the export of new green products and servVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Jun 17, 2010 Jkt 054915 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\54915.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
8 

ices, and encouraging industry to become more involved in international climate 

change discussions. 

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Commerce’s expertise in climate change research and our mission to advance U.S. businesses and innovation, enables us to 

lead America’s efforts to meet our climate challenges, and capitalize on the opportunities. 

I thank you again for the opportunity to address this Committee, and I look forward to your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Dr. Holdren? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN P. HOLDREN, PH.D., DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, EXECUTIVE 

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

Dr. HOLDREN. Chairman Rockefeller, Senator Begich, it is a 

great pleasure to be with you again in this room, especially so with 

my confirmation safely behind me. 

It’s a particular pleasure to be here in the company of my colleague, Secretary Locke, and to have both of us backed, as it were, 

by Under Secretary Lubchenco, who, as you know, went through 

the confirmation process with me in tandem. 

The latest and best scientific information forms—— 

The CHAIRMAN. You don’t say that with a great deal of warmth— 

not with respect to Jane, but with respect to the process. And you 

shouldn’t. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. HOLDREN. I won’t comment further on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. HOLDREN. But, I’m delighted it’s behind us. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. HOLDREN. The latest and best scientific information forms 

the bedrock on which effective policy to combat and cope with climate change has to be built. To assist the government, and society 

as a whole, understand, mitigate, and adapt to climate change, the 

agencies of the Federal Government deploy a wide range of powerful science and technology resources. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, USGCRP, brings together into a single interagency program the essential capabilities for research and observations that are widely distributed across these government agencies, 

13 of them in all. The USGCRP is managed by a director from one 

of the participating agencies, currently NASA, with the help of a 

program office and interagency working groups that plan future research and crosscutting activities, including communications, decision support and information and data issues. 

OSTP and OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, work 

closely with the program office and the working groups to establish 

research priorities and funding plans to ensure that the program 

is aligned with the Administration’s priorities and reflects agency 

planning. 

The Climate Change Technology Program, CCTP, is the technology counterpart to USGCRP. Its aim is to accelerate the development of new and advanced technologies to address climate 

change, focusing on energy efficiency enhancements and technologies that can reduce, avoid, or capture and store greenhouse 

9 

gas emissions. The Department of Energy serves as the lead agency 

for that effort. Twelve agencies participate in the interagency coordination efforts of the CCTP. 

Clearly, the USGCRP and the CCTP need to coordinate their efforts in order to get the maximum benefit from each effort and 

from the combination. The necessary interaction has, unfortunately, not always occurred. OSTP is now working with DOE and 

with OMB to help create the necessary coordination between the 

USGCRP and the CCTP to help ensure maximum flow and synergy 

between these science and technology programs. 

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I’d now like to elaborate briefly on two 

aspects of all this that I believe are of particular interest to the 

Committee and that are treated in some detail in my written statement: the coordination of Earth observations and the development 

of an effective climate-services capability in the Federal Government. 

First, observations. Making the observations needed to determine 

how the climate is changing, and how those changes are affecting 

environmental conditions important to human well-being, is the 

starting point for all understanding of the climate change challenge. And this domain of activity, all by itself, is an immensely 

complicated endeavor requiring cooperation and coordination across 

agencies and levels of government, as well as internationally. 

The myriad of observations being made today vary widely in purpose and scope, and are distributed among literally hundreds of 

programs under the purview of Federal agencies and other institutions, domestic and international. To a large degree, up until now 

these observations have been only loosely coordinated and integrated, but that shortcoming is now widely recognized, the needs 

and opportunities for doing better have been analyzed in reports 

produced inside and outside the government, and progress is starting to be made. 

The concept of an integrated Earth-observing system has been 

articulated and increasingly fleshed out by the Group on Earth Observations, GEO, which is a consortium of 79 countries, the European Commission, and over 50 international organizations. Much of 

that body’s effort has been focused on creation of something called 

the Global Earth Observation System of Systems, which coordinates Earth observations at the international level, facilitates the 

sharing and productive application of global, regional, and local 

data from satellites, ocean buoys, weather stations, and other surface and airborne Earth-observing instruments. The United States 

component of that effort, called USGO, is a standing subcommittee 

of the National Science and Technology Council, which is coordinated by OSTP. 

As Members of this Committee know, however, the outlook for 

U.S. space-based Earth observation systems is clouded, if you’ll forgive my use of that term in this context; and, in particular, continuity of our weather forecasting capabilities is threatened by reductions and delays in the three agency National Polar-orbiting 

Environmental Satellite System Program—NPOESS, for short— 

and plans for climate change measurements by this system have 

been scaled back. In addition, a gap in land imagery is now almost 

10 

inevitable, and will impact multiple societal needs, including agriculture, biodiversity, ecosystems, and water. 

Clearly, we need to increase oversight and improve interagency 

coordination in our Earth-observation satellite programs. We need 

to proactively manage these programs to avert future cost and 

schedule overruns. Agencies need to work together to manage the 

contractors building the satellites and to demand cost and schedule 

accountability. 

As Members of this Committee and I agreed during my confirmation hearing, a large part of the responsibility for seeing that this 

happens rests on OSTP. In this connection, getting NPOESS back 

on track has been, and remains, a particularly high priority for me 

and for others in the Administration’s leadership team. 

I started convening meetings of the relevant officials in the three 

NPOESS agencies—NASA, NOAA and DOD—to address this issue 

immediately after I was confirmed, and all are now committed to 

cooperating in solving the problems that have plagued this critically important program. 

We are now forming a task force, within the Executive Office of 

the President, that will meet regularly with the leaders of the 

NPOESS effort in NASA, NOAA, and DOD to monitor progress and 

help overcome obstacles on the way to fixing this program. 

Now to climate services. The increasing attention that this concept is getting is rooted in the recognition that coordinated climate 

information and related services are needed to assist decisionmaking all across the public and private sectors concerning how to 

deal with climate variability and change. And just as the Nation’s 

climate research efforts require and benefit from interagency and 

academic partnerships, so, too, will the development and communication of climate change information to users. No single agency 

is capable of providing all of the information and services needed 

to inform decisionmaking. To be successful, the delivery of climate 

services will require sustained Federal agency partnerships and 

collaborations, engaging climate service providers and end-users 

alike. 

While much work has already been done to evaluate the need for 

climate services and a national climate service, the Administration 

believes that additional assessment and analysis of existing climate 

service capabilities and user needs for climate services is necessary. 

A national climate service—and, more broadly, our Nation’s approach to delivering climate services—will require that such analysis and assessment is ongoing, science-based, user-responsive, and 

relevant to all levels of interest—that is, local, regional, national 

and international. The Administration recognizes the need to move 

forward with the climate services concept. 

To this end, OSTP plans to convene an NSTC task force, with 

representation from the full range of relevant agencies—NOAA, 

NASA, NIST, USGS, EPA, the Department’s of Commerce, Interior, Agriculture, and Energy, and more—to be charged with examining national assets, existing data and information gaps, and costs 

related to the development of a cohesive framework for delivering 

accurate climate-related information to the public. This process is 

intended to lead to a detailed, functional, and organizational approach for delivering climate services to the Nation. 

11 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize that I regard it 

as one of the primary challenges to OSTP to provide the oversight 

and coordination of this country’s global-change research, monitoring, and information services that will be needed to ensure that 

our decisionmakers, our businesses, our farmers, our fishermen, 

and all of our citizens have the information they need to understand climate change, the ways we can mitigate it, and the ways 

we can adapt to the degree of change we can’t avoid. Working in 

partnership with the OMB, other White House offices, executivebranch departments and agencies, and the Congress, we aim to 

pull together the expertise, across the government, to construct the 

relationships and interactions among these entities that will result 

in an integrated effort that is both greater than the sum of its 

parts and adequate to the country’s needs. 

I look forward to working with the Committee in this effort, and 

I’ll be pleased to try to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Holdren follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN P. HOLDREN, PH.D., DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, and Members of the Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to testify at this important hearing. Your 

Committee has a long history of leadership in addressing the need to improve our 

scientific understanding of climate change, which is so critical in shaping the kinds 

of policy decisions with which Congress is now grappling. I will focus my testimony 

here on the science of global climate change and what it is telling us about the challenges we face as a global community and as a nation, and on the role that the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) plays in coordinating climate change 

science and technology programs across the relevant Federal agencies for the benefit 

of the Nation. 

Science and the Climate Challenge 

Investments in climate science over the past several decades have contributed to 

greatly increasing understanding of global climate change, including its attribution 

mainly to human influences. 

We now know that climate is changing all across the globe. The air and the 

oceans are warming, mountain glaciers are disappearing, sea ice is shrinking, permafrost is thawing, the great land ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are showing signs of instability, and sea level is rising. And the consequences for human 

well-being are already being felt: more heat waves, floods, droughts, and wildfires; 

tropical diseases reaching into the temperate zones; vast areas of forest destroyed 

by pest outbreaks linked to warming; alterations in patterns of rainfall on which 

agriculture depends; and coastal property increasingly at risk from the surging seas. 

All of these kinds of impacts are being experienced here in the United States as well 

as elsewhere, as extensively documented in a report of the U.S. Global Change Research program on Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States that was 

released with the endorsement of OSTP and NOAA last month. 

We know the primary cause of these perils beyond any reasonable doubt. It is the 

emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping pollutants from our factories, our vehicles, and our power plants, and from use of our land in ways that 

move carbon from soils and vegetation into the atmosphere in the form of CO2. We 

also know that failure to curb these emissions will bring far bigger impacts from 

global climate change in the future than those experienced so far. Devastating increases in the power of the strongest hurricanes, sharp drops in the productivity of 

farms and ocean fisheries, a dramatic acceleration of species extinctions, and inundation of low-lying areas by rising sea level are among the possible outcomes. 

And we know what we can and must do to avoid the worst of the possible outcomes of climate change. We can transform our technologies for supplying and using 

energy from polluting and wasteful to clean and efficient, using new incentives to 

accelerate the process and new agreements and forms of cooperation to bring the 

rest of the world along. We can halt and reverse deforestation, and we can modify 

farming practices in ways that increase rather than decrease the amounts of carbon 

stored in agricultural soils. Indeed, with care in choice of locations and methods, we 

12 

can make our farms and our forests sustainable sources not only of food and fiber 

but of clean, renewable biofuels to help with the energy side of the solution. 

Extensive use of technologies that increase energy end-use efficiency and that 

supply energy with greatly reduced carbon dioxide emissions will be needed, along 

with improved management of forests and agricultural soils, to achieve President 

Obama’s stated goal of an 83 percent reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 

below 2005 levels by 2050—a goal intended, when coupled with similarly ambitious 

performance by other major emitting countries, to avoid the worst effects of climate 

change. Improving the technologies of energy end-use and supply, as well as relevant practices in agriculture and forestry, will play a major role in getting this 

done. To this end, the Federal Government is increasing funding for research and 

development across a broad portfolio of greenhouse gas mitigation options, including 

high-performance buildings; advanced manufacturing; advanced vehicles; clean 

biofuels; wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear power; carbon capture and sequestration; advanced energy storage; a more intelligent electric grid; techniques for reducing emissions and/or increasing uptake of CO2 in agriculture and forestry; and more. 

The government will also need to implement incentives, as outlined in the Recovery Act and the FY 2010 Budget, to encourage firms and individuals to choose climate-friendly technologies, to contribute funding for early stage and high-risk research and development where the private sector on its own would do less than society needs, and to help execute ongoing and planned demonstration projects (such 

as for carbon capture and sequestration) where the scale and risk of the needed efforts would inhibit solely private approaches. The creation of the needed set of signals and supports is of course a primary aim of the comprehensive energy-climate 

legislation that has been passed by the House and is now under consideration in 

the Senate. 

Unfortunately, it is simply not practical to reduce heat-trapping emissions rapidly 

enough to halt overnight the build-up of the offending substances in the atmosphere, 

both because of the inertia in our energy infrastructure and in agricultural and forestry practices and because of the long residence times in the atmosphere of many 

of the greenhouse gases. Even if the atmospheric concentrations of all of the relevant substances could be stabilized instantaneously, the average surface temperature of the Earth would continue to slowly climb for decades, with accompanying 

changes in associated climatic phenomena such as rainfall patterns and temperature extremes, because of long lag time needed for the oceans to reach equilibrium 

with these atmospheric conditions. 

This circumstance underlines the need to invest, in parallel with efforts to reduce 

emissions and increase uptake of the main heat-trapping gases and particles, in adaptation to the changes in climate that can no longer be avoided—e.g., breeding 

heat- and drought-resistant crop strains, bolstering defenses against tropical diseases, improving the efficiency of water use, managing ecosystems to improve their 

resilience, and management of coastal zones with sea-level rise in mind. As noted 

by the USGCRP Global Climate Change Impacts report, informed choices about adaptation will need to be made at many scales of human activity, from an individual 

farmer switching to growing a different crop variety better suited to warmer or drier 

conditions, to a company relocating key business centers away from coastal areas 

vulnerable to sea-level rise and hurricanes, to a community altering its zoning and 

building codes to place fewer structures in harm’s way and making buildings less 

vulnerable to damage from floods, fires, and other extreme events. 

When we do all that we ought to do in the way of both mitigation and adaptation, 

we will benefit not only by avoiding the worst damages from climate change, but 

also by reducing our overdependence on petroleum, continuing to improve air quality in our cities, preserving our forests as havens for biodiversity and sources of sustainable livelihoods, reducing our vulnerability to the extreme weather events that 

occur from time to time even when climate is not changing overall, and generating 

new businesses, new jobs, and new growth in the course of getting it all done. 

Accelerating Progress Through Interagency Coordination 

The latest and best scientific information forms the bedrock on which effective 

policy to combat and cope with climate change must be built. To assist the government and society as a whole with understanding, mitigating, and adapting to climate change, the agencies of the Federal Government deploy a wide range of powerful science and technology resources. Each agency has different sets of key specialists and capabilities, different networks and relationships with the external research 

community, and separate program and budget authorities. The U.S. Global Change 

Research Program (USGCRP) brings together into a single interagency program the 

essential capacities for research and observations that are widely distributed across 

these government agencies. An essential component of success in delivering the inVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Jun 17, 2010 Jkt 054915 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\54915.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
13 

formation necessary for decisionmaking is coordination of the programmatic and 

budgetary decisions of the 13 agencies that make up the USGCRP. 

Growing out of interagency activities and planning beginning in about 1988, with 

relevant heritage going back even further, creation of the USGCRP energized cooperative interagency activities, with each agency bringing its strength to the collaborative effort. In 1990, the USGCRP received Congressional support under the Global 

Change Research Act (GCRA). The Act called for the development of a research program ‘‘. . . to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change,’’ and it guided federally-supported global change research for the next decade. In 2001, President Bush established the Climate Change 

Research Initiative (CCRI) to investigate uncertainties and set research priorities in 

climate-change science, aiming to fill gaps in understanding within a few years. In 

the following year, it was announced that the USGCRP and CCRI together would 

become the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). The USGCRP label remained 

attached to many of the program’s activities, however, and consistent with the language of the GCRA statute the whole effort is going forward in the Obama Administration as the USGCRP, with CCSP as a component. 

The USGCRP is managed by a director from one of the participating agencies 

(currently from NASA) with the help of a program office (the USGCRP Integration 

and Coordination Office) and interagency working groups that plan future research 

and crosscutting activities, such as communications, decision support, and information and data concerns. OSTP and OMB work closely with the Interagency Integration and Coordination Office and the working groups to establish research priorities 

and funding plans to assure the program is aligned with the Administration’s priorities and reflects agency planning. The 2010 Budget provides $2.0 billion for USGCRP/CCSP programs, an increase of $46 million or 2.3 percent over the 2009 level (excluding Recovery Act funds). 

USGCRP programs also received $461 million in Recovery Act funding based on preliminary agency allocations, including $237 million for NASA climate activities. Recovery Act funding also includes $170 million for NOAA climate modeling activities. 

The 2010 Budget supports research activities including the development of an integrated Earth system analysis capability; a focus toward creating a high-quality 

record of the state of the atmosphere and ocean since 1979; development of an endto-end hydrologic projection and application capability; enhanced carbon cycle research on high latitude systems; quantification of climate forcing and feedbacks by 

aerosols, non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases, water vapor, and clouds; assessment 

of abrupt change in a warming climate; examination of the feasibility of development of an abrupt change early warning system; understanding climate change impacts on ecosystem functions; and refining ecological forecasting. 

The Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) is the technology counterpart 

to USGCRP. Its aim is to accelerate the development of new and advanced technologies to address climate change, focusing on energy-efficiency enhancements and 

technologies that can reduce, avoid, or capture and store greenhouse gas emissions. 

The CCTP was established administratively in 2002 and authorized by the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005, and it began supporting and coordinating programs in 2007. The 

Department of Energy serves as the lead agency for the effort. Twelve agencies participate in the interagency coordination efforts of CCTP, eight of which also fund 

activities included in the CCTP portfolio. 

The 2010 Budget provides $5.3 billion for CCTP programs, an increase of $52 million over the 2009 level, excluding Recovery Act funds described below. The Budget 

funds a wide range of activities important to making progress toward climatechange goals. The Budget funds a wide range of activities that support progress toward climate change goals including programs that focus on energy efficiency improvements, low-carbon fuels and power, enabling technologies, such as energy storage and improving the electric power grid, power distribution and controls, and efforts to promote reductions emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases. 

CCTP programs received over $25 billion in Recovery Act funding allocations, 

with most of it supporting DOE programs, including $16.8 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy, $4.2 billion for electricity delivery and energy reliability, $3.4 billion for efficiency and sequestration programs in fossil energy R&D, 

and $400 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-E (ARPA–E), augmenting the support for advanced research in the DOE science programs. Other 

agencies also received Recovery Act funding for CCTP-related technology development and deployment, including DOD ($139M), DOT ($100M), NASA ($39M), and 

NSF ($2M). 

Clearly, CCSP and CCTP need to coordinate their efforts in order to get the maximum benefit from each effort and from the combination. The necessary interaction 

has not always occurred, however. OSTP is now working with DOE and with OMB 

14 

1 National Research Council, 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

to help create the necessary coordination between the CCSP and the CCTP to help 

ensure maximum flow and synergy between science and technology programs. 

Reforming the USGCRP to Address Emerging National Needs 

The USGCRP works most effectively to address national needs when the scientific 

capacities of individual agencies are leveraged with coordinated interagency planning and priority setting across the program. To encourage cooperation and budgetary discipline, the GCRA requires an integrated research plan in combination with 

an interagency budget cross-cut. With strong OSTP and OMB involvement in their 

preparation, these collective interagency budgets have enabled significant advances 

in research efforts, including international field programs that combined the satellite and other capabilities of NASA, satellite, aircraft, ship and network capabilities of the Department of Commerce’s NOAA, the university research and field experiment capabilities of NSF, and long-term atmospheric and terrestrial ecosystem 

observation capabilities of DOE. 

These investments led to much more comprehensive and complete data sets for 

analysis by scientists in all nations, thus promoting, at lower cost to the United 

States, more complete and faster insight into such phenomena as the El Nin ̃ o Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the photochemistry of global and polar ozone loss, oceanic uptake of carbon, and much more. Improvement of climate models and transfer 

of such models to the new generations of massively parallel computers was accelerated by combining the scientific and technical strengths of DOE, the Department 

of Commerce’s NOAA, NSF, and NASA with the world leading high-performance 

computing capabilities developed by DOE. The sharing of data and model results 

allowed other agencies, such as the Department of the Interior, the Department of 

Agriculture, and the Smithsonian Institution to draw on the results to study 

changes in terrestrial ecosystems, hydrology, agriculture, human settlements, and 

the polar-regions. The capacity and leadership of the program significantly advanced 

scientific understanding in ways that continue to benefit society. 

Although the USGCRP supports a wide variety of research activities to gain more 

detailed predictive understanding of climate change, there remain significant gaps 

in going from an estimate of how much the climate may change to the effects these 

changes may have on ecosystem services, water resources, natural resource utilization, human health, and societal well-being. It is important for the USGCRP to 

make a strong commitment to providing the information that society is seeking in 

order to reduce vulnerabilities and improve resilience to variability and change. For 

example, a recent National Research Council report recommends restructuring the 

USGCRP around ‘‘. . . the end-to-end climate change problem, from understanding 

causes and processes to supporting actions needed to cope with the impending societal problems of climate change.’’ 1 This will require the USGCRP to support a balanced portfolio of fundamental and application-oriented research activities from expanded modeling efforts to studies of coupled human-natural systems and institutional resilience. 

In addition, it would mean boosting adaptation research; bolstering capacity to 

monitor change and its impacts (including not only enhancing our monitoring networks on land and for the oceans but also strengthening our system of Earth-observation satellites); producing the sorts of integrated assessment of the pace, patterns, 

and regional impacts of climate change that will be needed by decisionmakers as 

input into their deliberations on the metrics and goals to be embraced for both mitigation and adaptation; and making climate data and information accessible to those 

who need it. 

Three areas of particular need for more comprehensive and coordinated treatment 

from USGCRP are adaptation research, integrated assessment, and climate services. 

I take up each briefly in turn. 

Adaptation Research 

There currently exists limited knowledge about the ability of communities, regions, and sectors to adapt to a changing climate. To address this shortfall, research 

on climate change impacts and adaptation must include complex human dimensions, 

such as economics, management, governance, behavior, and equity. Interdisciplinary 

research on adaptation that takes into account the interconnectedness of the Earth 

system and the complex nature of the social, political, and economic environment 

in which adaptation decisions must be made would be central to this effort. Given 

the relationships between climate change and extreme events, the community of researchers, engineers and other experts who work on reducing risks from natural and 

15 

human-caused disasters will have an important role to play in framing climate 

change adaptation strategies and in providing information to support decision-making during implementation. For example, assessments of emergency preparedness 

and response systems, insurance systems, and disaster-relief capabilities are an important component of a society’s adaptive capacity. 

Integrated Assessment 

Preparing for and adapting and responding to the impacts of climate change must 

start locally and regionally, as each region is distinct, and each type of impact is 

experienced in different ways in different places and for different sectors of the economy. Any national assessment activity must engage localities and sectors to aggregate information into a national picture of climate impacts, and should also use this 

engagement to gather information on the ‘‘demand-side’’ of the adaptation problem, 

where people live and work, to reorient research and observation investments. While 

there are certainly issues where national policy steps are warranted, there will be 

many challenges where individuals, public and private sector organizations, local 

communities, states, and regions will need to respond. USGCRP activities need to 

serve all of these scales and stakeholders, not dictating what policies to follow, but 

providing information and capabilities needed by those experiencing the impacts so 

that they can prepare for and adapt and respond to future conditions. 

Climate Services 

Coordinated climate information and services are needed to assist decision-making across public and private sectors. Local planners will want information on likely 

changes in precipitation amount and flooding rains; farmers and farm cooperatives 

will want information on changes in season length and temperature, not just for 

their own farms, but for those of their local and distant competitors; coastal zone 

managers will want information on likely changes in sea level, storms, and estuarine temperatures; water resource managers will want information on likely 

changes in snowpack and runoff, and the chance of floods and drought; community 

health planners will want information on changes in location of freezing conditions 

and the frequency of extreme heat waves; industry will want information on 

changes in extremes that might affect their businesses and shipping; those preparing environmental impact statements will need information on how changes in 

a given location affect environmental outcomes; those doing economic analyses will 

want information across the region, and much more. 

Just as the Nation’s climate research efforts require and benefit from interagency 

and academic partnerships, so too will the development and communication of climate change information to users. No single agency is capable of providing all of 

the information and services needed to inform decisionmaking. To be successful, the 

delivery of climate services will require sustained Federal agency partnerships and 

collaboration with climate service providers and end users. 

While much work has been done to evaluate the need for climate services and a 

National Climate Service, the Administration believes that additional assessment 

and analysis of existing climate-service capabilities and user needs for climate services is necessary. A National Climate Service and, more broadly, our Nation’s approach to delivering climate services will require that such analysis and assessment 

is ongoing, science-based, user-responsive, and relevant to all levels of interest, e.g., 

local, regional, national and international. Such a framework must also be able to 

adapt to new developments in the scientific understanding of climate change and 

resultant impacts to serve the needs of decisionmakers and the public. 

The Administration recognizes that the Nation needs reliable and accurate climate information. To promptly address this issue, the OSTP is working to convene 

a task force with representation from a diverse group of key agencies whose charge 

will be to examine national assets, existing data and information gaps, and costs 

related to the development of a cohesive framework for delivering accurate climaterelated information to the public. This process is intended to result in a more detailed functional and organizational approach for delivering climate services to the 

Nation, in concert with the Administration’s views presented here for a broad authorizing framework. 

Earth Observations and Continuity of Climate Data Records 

Physical, chemical, and biological information about our planet is vital to our ability to plan, predict, respond, and to protect our citizens and infrastructure. Today, 

millions of individual observations are collected every day, allowing us to examine, 

monitor, and try to model atmospheric composition, seismic activity, ecosystem 

health, weather patterns, and hundreds of other characteristics of our planet. Developing the ability to assess and protect environmental services of all kinds—verifying 

‘‘bottom-up’’ information used by decisionmakers with independent ‘‘top-down’’ obVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Jun 17, 2010 Jkt 054915 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\54915.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
16 

servation systems—will require continuing efforts to improve our understanding of 

and ability to measure stocks and flows of water, carbon, and nitrogen at global, 

regional, and local scales. 

Observations are taken from space, and within the Earth system (in situ), from 

the air and on and below the land and the oceans. Obtaining accurate climate data 

requires calibrated measurement systems that are traceable to national and international standards. Once the integrity of the data is validated, the data can then 

be interpreted, interpolated, and integrated. The myriad of observations taken today 

vary widely in purpose and scope and are appropriately distributed among hundreds 

of programs under the purview of Federal agencies and other institutions and individuals. To a large degree, these observations have been only loosely coupled, coordinated, traceable and integrated. The critical leap forward can only be achieved with 

a synergy between remotely sensed and in situ observations supported by robust 

data systems. 

Increasingly this promise is being realized, and seemingly disparate observations 

are combined in new ways to produce benefits across multiple societal areas. This 

recognition has led to the concept of an integrated Earth-observing system as articulated by the Group on Earth Observations (GEO). In order to achieve the synergies 

and benefits of an integrated system of observations, the United States Group on 

Earth Observations (USGEO) was formed in 2005 as a standing subcommittee of 

the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). That same year, the Global 

Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), was formed to coordinate observations at the international level. By 2009, 79 countries, the European Commission 

and over 50 international organizations were engaged in this effort. The U.S. contribution to GEOSS is the Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS). GEOSS 

and IEOS will facilitate the sharing and applied usage of global, regional, and local 

data from satellites, ocean buoys, weather stations, and other surface and airborne 

Earth-observing instruments. The end result will be access to an unprecedented 

amount of environmental information, integrated into new data products benefiting 

societies and economies worldwide. 

The state of the U.S. space-based observational system in 2009 is largely unchanged from that of 2005, but the outlook has significantly worsened, according to 

the National Research Council (NRC) Decadal Survey Report. Continuity of the 

weather system is threatened by reductions and delays in the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) and plans for climate 

measurements on NPOESS have been scaled back. The likelihood of a gap in land 

imagery impacting multiple societal needs (e.g., agriculture, biodiversity, climate, 

ecosystems, water, etc.) is now almost a certainty. In addition, no plans have been 

developed to continue some of the valuable observations demonstrated by the NASA 

Earth Observing System (EOS) program that benefit the disaster preparedness, 

human health, climate, and water areas. 

OSTP will play an important role in coordinating interagency satellite observation 

policy. We must increase government oversight and improve the interagency partnerships central to the management of civilian satellite programs, which among 

other things, are critical to the Nation’s climate and weather forecasting. We need 

to proactively manage our programs to avert future cost and schedule overruns. 

Agencies must work together to manage the contractors building these satellites and 

demand cost and schedule accountability. The management of the NPOESS program 

and ensuring continuity of weather and climate data is a high priority for the Administration’s leadership team. I have directed the formation of a Task Force within 

the Executive Office of the President (which will include representatives from the 

Office of Management and Budget as well as the National Security Council) that 

will meet regularly with NOAA, NASA, and the Department of Defense (DOD), the 

three agencies partnering on the program, to monitor progress and results in addressing key issues facing the success of this program. 

In an overall sense, deployments of new and replacement satellites are not keeping pace with the termination of older systems, even though many existing satellites 

are operating well past their nominal lifetimes. A number of satellites built as research missions are now seen to have ongoing societal benefit, but there are currently no plans for continuity of many of these. Over the next 8 years, 50 percent 

of the world’s current and planned suite of Earth-observing satellites will be past 

their useful life. Given the long development times associated with fielding new systems, particularly satellite systems, and absent a dramatically increased commitment to sensor system development, this declining census of instruments and missions could lead to a loss of observing capability in the next decade. This reality reinforces the need to address the recommendations in the NRC’s Decadal Survey. 

In addition to global observations made from space, in situ measurements provide 

critical data at fine spatial and temporal scales and of parameters and in places not 

17 

achievable from space. Our observational infrastructure for in-situ measurements is 

aging and investment in monitoring programs has declined despite growing demand. 

And, there still remains the grand challenge and promise of using geospatial information to link the broad coverage and context of our top-down remote-sensing view 

with the comprehensive and detailed measurements made in situ in order to best 

characterize and understand environmental resources. 

Development of an integrated climate-observing system stands as a large and urgent challenge. One part of the challenge is that the required observing system 

must deliver multidecade data records with the accuracy and precision needed to 

distinguish long-term climate changes from natural variability and other environmental influences. To help ensure compatibility and consistency between various 

international monitoring organizations and laboratories, the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST), the Nation’s national measurement institute, can 

provide traceable measurement techniques and standards based on the International System of Units. In addition, NASA EOS demonstrated the ability to create 

long-term, high-precision climate data records. The experience of this program has 

revealed the difficulties in ‘‘transitioning’’ long-term, research-type measurements to 

an operational system. We have work to do in overcoming the limitations of the current ‘‘research to operations’’ paradigm with respect to climate observations, which 

require a long-term research effort. The institutional structures and capacity, and 

specific agency roles and responsibilities must be developed to deliver an integrated 

climate-observing system. 

The effort to evaluate and assess options for the NPOESS program is just the first 

step toward building a solid foundation of continued Earth observations for the future, which would take into account both the NRC’s Decadal Survey as well as the 

ability to coordinate with GEOSS at an international level. 

Conclusion 

The climate is changing with increasing potential for disrupting human wellbeing. We know the causes, and we know what we have to do to avoid the worst 

of the possible effects. Science, technology, and innovation are all going to be crucial 

in mastering the climate-change challenge. As Director of OSTP, I regard one of the 

primary challenges and one of the primary functions of OSTP to be providing the 

leadership and needed coordination of global change research to ensure that our decisionmakers, our businesses, our farmers, our health care workers, and all our citizens have the information they need to take actions to improve human well-being 

and environmental management as the climate changes. Working in partnership 

with the Office of Management and Budget and the Congress, we aim to pull together the expertise across the government, drawing from each agency’s distinctive 

capacity, to construct the relationships and interactions among the agencies that 

will result in a program for global change research that is both greater than the 

sum of its parts and adequate to the country’s needs. 

I look forward to working with the Committee in this effort. I will be pleased to 

try to answer any questions the Committee may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Holdren. 

We’ll do questions in order of appearance, which, happily, allows 

me to start. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. For Secretary Locke, are you serious, 103 degrees? 

Secretary LOCKE. 103 in Seattle yesterday. We moved the whole 

family out yesterday, caught the plane at 1 o’clock in the afternoon, 

but, before that, visited with my mom and dad, who are elderly, 

making sure that they were drinking a lot of liquids, and trying to 

cool down the house as much as possible. But, the day before, I 

think we reached about 98, 99 degrees in Seattle, and the rest of 

the week, all through Saturday and Sunday, it should be close to 

100 degrees. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you’ll feel very comfortable in Washington. 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary LOCKE. We don’t have the humidity in Seattle—— 

The CHAIRMAN. That is true. 

18 

Secretary LOCKE.—or the Northwest—— 

The CHAIRMAN. That is true. 

Secretary LOCKE.—like you have here in D.C. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, this, a little bit, steals from what Dr. 

Holdren was saying, but we’ve been working very hard to create a 

National Climate Service in this Committee, and I would like your, 

sort of, views on a couple of aspects of this. 

The—you know, the American Clean Energy and Security Act includes a provision authorizing a National Climate Service. So, I’d 

like to get a sense of, What do you think the core functions ought 

to be? Second, if you’ve looked at that law, do they—does that, sort 

of, meet your basic criteria, or does it not? But, really, most importantly, from my point of view—and I’ve seen this so much—I spend 

so much time on healthcare; I say that with joy and happiness, of 

course—but, it is so easy for basic truths to be lost to implementation by national public policy, because people get caught up in 

antigovernment fever or—you know, or they’re trying to tell us this 

or that. 

So, in both of your answering questions if—much as you can, 

weave in, How do we make what we’re talking about here somehow 

friendly to conservatives? 

I have a question, later on, should we have a National Climate 

Service in every state? Now, that’s a stupid question, I think. But, 

it gets at that point. Things that come out of Washington, people 

are slower to react to. Things that come out of—very confidently 

out of Washington, people are slower to react to. People don’t like 

change. People from my part of the country like—don’t like change, 

really, hardly at all. And so, this whole matter—it’s like getting the 

Department of Defense and everybody to do work together, as you 

were talking about, Dr. Holdren—this has to also somehow be felt 

by the American people, I think, for them to support climate 

change, in terms of public policy. 

Secretary LOCKE. Well, I think that clearly a National Climate 

Service is badly needed. And the Department of Commerce— 

NOAA, in particular—we think has been exercising a leadership 

role in these activities for several decades. We stand ready to work 

with other Federal agencies on a coordinated approach. And that 

is the most important thing. We have to have a partnership with 

the Federal agencies as we provide a National Climate Service. 

But, I think, in order to be credible—in order to—and you asked 

the question, ‘‘What are the assets or the attributes most needed 

of a National Climate Service?—it has to be credible, it has to be 

authoritative. There needs to be a single point of accountability 

that everyone in the country—policymakers, local governments, 

businesses, individuals—can all go to. And this agency or service 

must provide climate modeling in terms of forecasts and projections. People need to understand what’s coming down the road. 

And it needs to provide regional and national assessments of climate change so that people in different parts of the region understand—can get, as much as possible, tailored scientific information 

as it pertains to them and their livelihoods and their future. And 

the climate service has to work closely with stakeholders to really 

understand and analyze evolving needs. 

19 

And finally, I think that this climate service needs to also work 

on helping the public understand climate change is happening, and 

what it means—so that we’re working with all different levels of 

citizens, the public and private sector, and individuals. Credibility 

is at stake; we need authoritative information based on scientific 

research. 

The CHAIRMAN. Just taking that point—and my time is about 

out—I hope that we really can talk about how we make the public 

feel participatory. I really believe that. If the healthcare bill fails 

to pass, it will be because people grabbed onto, sort of, ‘‘The government trying to tell me what doctor I can go to’’—never leaves 

that point of view. They’re good people, they’re wonderful people, 

they’re wonderful Americans, but they will not yield to what they 

know, as opposed to what might be different. 

And so, the question of bringing it to the level of the people. And 

I’d say this to my two colleagues on the dais, here, to—I really— 

I just think it’s so important that people see climate change, not 

only as moderately threatening, because it’s going to change the 

way we all live and the way everybody does everything, pretty 

much, and yet, somehow they understand that it’s not being 

dumped on them, but it’s being worked through them—they are 

stakeholders—so that they are more open to this change, which is 

going to be very dramatic over a period of years. 

My time is out. 

And I call upon Senator Begich. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for doing this Committee hearing on an issue that, in Alaska—you know, we face this everyday. We’ve had some conversations already about this. And so, again, thank you for having the 

Commerce Committee participate in this. 

I want to kind of hone in a little bit on—because we have one 

bill that’s kind of moving from the House side over the WaxmanMarkey bill. And there are elements—I mean, there’s one element, 

which I’m not—maybe I’ll be too parochial here, but let me just say 

that I know there are, I think, six climate service centers, or climate centers, around the country—none in Alaska, which is the 

place that’s being most affected by climate change, which—somewhat amazing that didn’t happen on the House bill, but we’ll deal 

with that, hopefully, here. But, can you—first, both of you—I think 

you both said, through your testimony, that you agree with the 

idea of a national climate service, a single point of entry regarding 

climate change. Do you both agree with that? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yup. 

Secretary LOCKE. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. Is that—I just wanted to make sure I understood that in the conversation. 

And second, with—understanding that, do you think—and I don’t 

know how much review you’ve already done on the Waxman-Markey bill—are there suggestions to improve that single point of 

entry, from your perspective, that you’re prepared today, or in the 

20 

near future, to give us some recommendations, from both of you? 

Maybe Secretary Locke first, and then Mr. Holdren. 

Secretary LOCKE. Well, first of all, I want to say that everything 

that we’re trying to do at the Department of Commerce is to 

streamline our operations and make all of our information and 

services more accessible to the people we serve, whether it’s businesses or individuals, with respect to weather. In terms of our businesses, we’re revamping our programs to offer one-stop-shop business assistance centers, where all businesses have one focal point, 

one place that they can go to in every community, instead of going 

to five or six different offices. We’re doing the same thing with a 

lot of our websites, one single point of contact. That is now happening, with respect to climate services, within NOAA, where we’re 

putting all of the information on all the different programs that we 

have, one location on its website, one place that people can go to, 

in terms of understanding the effects of climate change, the need 

to adapt, as well as all the information that we provide. 

The House bill does call for six climate offices in the country. We 

think that the more offices that there are around the country, then 

it gets to the Chairman’s notion of really bringing the message 

home in an understandable fashion, and it allows policymakers, 

whether local governments, water resource managers, to state governments, to businesses, to have a place where they can get more 

information about the forecasted impact of climate change on their 

community. 

Now, most of the modeling that’s being done is on a region-byregion basis. We’re not down to a city or a state basis yet. And a 

lot of the modeling and the forecasting is being done over a decade 

period, for the next 10, 20 years. 

We do have, in fact, weather services and climate services available in every state, and would welcome the opportunity to work 

with the members of the Committee, depending on the level of 

funding, in terms of the number of climate offices that we could actually have throughout the country, and—whether it’s one for every 

state—we also need to find out if the states are even interested in 

having a climate service office in that particular state. 

Senator BEGICH. I guess, let me—again, I want to see if there is 

opportunity—and, again, maybe not today—but, as you look at the 

Waxman-Markey bill, what recommendations you might have to 

improve on those elements. But, I guess my point is—and, again, 

I don’t want to be so parochial—but, there’s no other state—no 

other state in this country that would be considered ground zero 

when it comes to climate change. And yet—— 

Secretary LOCKE. Well, clearly the—— 

Senator BEGICH. And yet, when you look at the bill, it doesn’t 

even reference, in a sense, of—you know, we have the natural lab, 

from the Arctic, the fisheries, acidification, permafrost melting— 

you don’t have to do it now, because we have such limited time, but 

I think this is an important piece as we try to understand climate 

change. We have a natural lab, in Alaska, and we should take advantage of it to understand it from a variety of areas that will affect the country for many generations to come. I’m not necessarily 

looking for just the service center. If we’re going to do climate 

change, it should be a single point of entry, so we can have a better 

21 

understanding. Because every committee meeting I have here that 

climate change comes up, I always ask for the org chart; nothing 

exists, because it’s too complex, in the sense of who handles what, 

and then, at the end of the day, who pulls the trigger to make the 

decisions. Because when you have multiple agencies, everyone’s 

going to have jurisdiction. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, if I may, Senator, let me comment on both 

aspects of your question. 

First of all, I agree with you that Alaska is, unfortunately, a natural laboratory for what’s happening in climate change. It’s happening faster there, bigger effects are being felt sooner. We need 

to understand it. And clearly, Alaska’s a very important place, both 

as a producer of relevant data and as a consumer of information 

that will enable people to better adapt to the degree of climate 

change that we can’t avoid. 

The Administration is not ready, at this moment, to make a specific recommendation as to exactly how the whole climate services 

area should be organized. We are studying it. A number of things 

are clear about the issue. Those things that are clear include that 

NOAA is going to have a very big role—there’s a large concentration of relevant capabilities in NOAA—but also clear is that a variety of other agencies and departments have big stakes, both on the 

supply side and the demand side—that is, as providers of information and as users of information—Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, EPA, DOE—all are examples of agencies 

that are going to have to play significant roles in this. It is going 

to be a big challenge to get the coordination right and to figure out 

exactly how this is to be structured, and we’re still working on it. 

But I assure you that we are going to come up with an answer that 

will make it work. It’s too important to allow it to fail. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you. 

My time is up. And thank you both very much. Appreciate it. 

And thanks for your written testimony, too. 

The CHAIRMAN. Before I call on Senator Cantwell, I have my 

usual pleasure of announcing that the Senate is accommodating 

themselves to us. We’re going to have a whole series of stacked 

votes, starting at 3:40. And so, let’s make sure that we get the 

maximum we can from our two witnesses. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

holding this important hearing. 

And, Secretary Locke and Dr. Holdren, even if we do take major 

steps to curb greenhouse gases, we are still going to experience 

some level of warming and impact, and our Nation is going to have 

to adapt to that. And I guess I’m asking, Do you think that Congress needs a comprehensive action plan on adaptation, and not 

just mitigation? 

Secretary LOCKE. Well, I clearly think that the country, and all 

sectors within the country, will need to focus on adaptation, a response to the changes in climate. As much as we can try to avoid 

or mitigate the intended changes, we will—there undoubtedly will 

be changes in our climate that will have devastating impacts, and 

22 

very significant impacts, on all sectors, from recreation to industry 

to business, agriculture, to the responsibilities of municipal governments, and State and Federal Government, as well. And that’s why 

I think that we need to have that information disseminated. The 

forecasting must be as accurate as possible, and scientifically 

based, so that people can make appropriate decisions. The Department of Commerce and NOAA stand ready to work with the White 

House in partnership with the other Federal agencies, in the creation and organization of a national climate service. 

But, we feel that NOAA has been exercising leadership in providing much of the information, sharing that information, collecting 

the information for many decades, and that we intend, and are desiring, to stay in that strong leadership role with the other Federal 

agencies. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, we passed an adaptation bill out of this 

Committee last year, and I hope that we can do so again this year, 

because the impacts on these communities—they have no ability to 

plan for some of these things themselves, whether we’re talking 

about something as basic as our hydro system and what happens 

to that, or flooding areas, or public health problems, just—it’s beyond what individual communities can do. 

Dr. Holdren, should we be planning for abrupt climate change? 

And what are the potential consequences of that? And how do we 

get the additional research that we need in that area? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, Senator, the first thing I would say is, we’re 

already finding climate change is becoming more abrupt than we 

expected, even a few years ago. Many different aspects of climate 

change are happening more rapidly than the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change predicted in its recent reports. It could 

become even more abrupt. Nobody knows for sure. Our understanding of all the details is not adequate to say exactly which potential tipping point might be crossed when, which would cause 

some of the climatic changes that we’re experiencing to accelerate 

drastically, but we should be ready for it. 

I would say that this is simply another dimension of why adaptation is, as the first part of your remark suggested, so important as 

part of our national strategy for addressing climate change. It’s not 

enough just to focus on mitigation. You’re absolutely right that, no 

matter what we do in mitigation, we cannot stop climate change 

overnight. There’s going to be some more. We have, with mitigation, the possibility of avoiding the worst outcomes, but we have to 

be ready, on the adaptation side, for whatever comes. And we don’t 

really know enough about it yet. We need more research on adaptation. There are many things that are obvious that we can do in the 

way of adaptation, including work on developing heat- and 

drought-resistant crops, including doing coastal planning with sealevel rise in mind, including strengthening our defenses against 

tropical diseases—a wide variety of things we already know how to 

do. But, there are many more opportunities that we will discover 

for adaptation as we study this domain more carefully. 

And in my written testimony, I talked about the ways that everybody who has looked at this question carefully, concludes that we 

should be expanding the research agenda of the U.S. Global 

Change Research Program to include the adaptation elements, inVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Jun 17, 2010 Jkt 054915 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\54915.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
23 

cluding the sociopolitical parts. We have a lot still to understand 

about the economic and institutional dimensions of adaptation to 

climate change. And that is an area that is starting to be studied, 

but we need to do a lot more, and we need to integrate it, in the 

USGCRP, with the studies that have historically gone on there on 

the dynamics of climate change itself. 

Secretary LOCKE. If I could just point out, Senator, I think the 

demands for climate information and assistance to adapt to climate 

change are going to increase over time as people—more and more 

people see the effects of climate change and understand it, appreciate it, and get worried about it. 

Senator Begich raised the issues of Alaska. I mean it is ground 

zero. It will require assistance, help, in terms of relocation, infrastructure investments, emergency response efforts to flooding and 

storms that will be coming about, and changes in the weather pattern. 

Just in terms of the Cascade Mountains or the Sierra Nevadas, 

a ski-lift operator of a ski lodge, do they continue to invest or put 

more money into building chairlifts because, depending on the elevation, 20 years from now, will what now falls as snow actually be 

only rain? 

And so, so many people are going to be depending on this information in making investment decisions on where to build, how far 

away from rivers and streams—depending on the weather patterns, 

will some of these rivers and streams be more prone to flooding? 

Will the floodplains change? That will drive a whole host of decisions among public and private decisionmakers. And the need for 

climate information, the need for climate services, is even more 

pronounced. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I thank our witnesses. 

Mr. Chairman, you urged the Subcommittee on Oceans and Atmosphere to have a hearing, earlier in the year on this related 

topic, in which a lot of the witnesses pointed to the fact that 60 

percent of our country’s—well, our country’s coastal regions—basically, if you took them as economy, a separate economy, they’re the 

third-largest economy in the world. And yet, these are the very 

areas—our coastal regions, that are the backbone of our U.S. economy—will be the areas that will be impacted by climate change. 

And so, we will be, economically, very vulnerable without an adaptation plan. 

So, I thank the witnesses. And I thank the Chairman for holding 

this hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

Senator Nelson? 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Well, on that issue, when can we expect to see 

some of those plans—for example, on sea-level rise—of the economic and the physical impacts? 

Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary LOCKE. Well, I’m not sure that we can actually document, immediately, the economic impacts on sea-level rise. We can 

make those forecasts, and the forecasting models are becoming a 

24 

lot more precise every single day and every single year. We’re able, 

now, perhaps, to estimate the climate change for the next—over a 

decade, instead of 50 years from now—but over the next decade. 

And that’s why I think that we’re going to need that cooperation 

and partnership with local governments, State governments, Federal agencies, as well as private sector, to, for instance, say, if the 

oceans rise by 6 inches in the next so many years, or a foot in so 

many years, or even a meter, as so many scientists are predicting 

over the next 50 years, then we’re going to be receiving all that information, and collecting that, from public and private sectors. 

Many people on the Marshall Islands are very concerned that the 

entire Marshall Islands will be underwater. It will be up to the 

people on the Marshall Islands to present that economic data on 

the total cost or impact of that level of rise of sea levels. 

But, clearly, first we need to have the data. We need to make 

sure that the public and private sector understand what the effects 

are. 

Senator NELSON. Let me get into that, because we’re going to 

have these votes called. We need the data. Now, we’ve got a satellite, sitting on the ground, named Discover. The problem is, 

Who’s going to pay for the launch cost? And what Discover will do, 

when it gets out there at the Lagrange point between the Earth 

and the Sun, is, it will specifically measure the heat going in and 

the heat coming out from the Earth so we know precisely how 

much heat is being trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere. 

We have put, in the Defense authorization bill, language that requires the Air Force to study, by them taking a very necessary defense instrument and putting on that, that it is needed also at the 

Lagrange point, and let the Air Force pay the $150-million cost of 

launching it. So, it’s those kind of things that we’re trying to get 

out. 

Now, one of the things that’s in your bailiwick, and in Dr. 

Holdren’s bailiwick and Dr. Lubchenco’s bailiwick, is that we 

haven’t been doing too good with NPOESS. It’s not working. What’s 

the Administration’s timeline for the decisionmaking? 

Secretary LOCKE. With respect to NPOESS, Dr. Holdren covered 

that a little bit in his testimony, but, as I indicated to the Committee at my confirmation hearing, and as I indicated to the House 

Committee, the NPOESS project, is of utmost concern to me. And, 

Dr. Holdren and I have been having a lot of conversations about 

it, and I’m really pleased that Dr. Holdren convened a meeting of 

all the principals, agencies involved in the NPOESS, and we’re now 

developing an action plan and analysis of what is happening. 

The interagency working group that oversees it, on its own, has 

now concluded, on its own, which is great, including the Defense 

Department, that the NPOESS management is seriously flawed 

and must be changed. So, we are, as an administration, with all 

the players, including Dr. Holdren taking the lead, looking at major 

changes in NPOESS. It is fundamental to our weather capability 

and climate service capability. 

With respect to the satellite that’s on the ground, ready to be 

launched, I’m very proud to say that the Department of Commerce, 

NIST—National Institute of Science and Technology—worked with 

the stakeholders to improve the accuracy of the Total and Spectral 

25 

Solar Irradiance Sensor or TSIS for NPOESS so that the uncertainty level is less than 1–100th of a percent, down from the previous .3-and-a-half-tenths percent. 

So, we understand how important these satellite programs are, 

the accuracy and the reliability of the instruments, and the sophistication of the instruments, and—but, we know that—we’re very 

proud of what we’re doing on this particular satellite that’s ready 

to be launched, but we also know that all the agencies need to aggressively change the management structure and the success of the 

NPOESS project. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Let me just add to that, if I may, that I did make 

a strong statement in my oral testimony, and I’ll reinforce it here, 

that it is a high priority for me and the rest of the leadership in 

the Administration to get this NPOESS system fixed. We have new 

leadership in all of the relevant positions in the three agencies, and 

everybody now is committed to cooperate to a degree that has not 

characterized this three-agency effort in the past, and indeed to the 

degree that will be needed to get it back on track. We are moving 

forward. We are forming a task force in the Executive Office of the 

President to work with the leadership in the agencies to make sure 

this gets done. It is too important to let it fail. 

As to the Discover satellite, I agree with you, it would be a wonderful thing to get that up there. The better our data, the better 

our ability to respond to climate change, to give people the information that they will need. And I certainly join you, Senator Nelson, 

in my enthusiasm for getting this done. We are going to figure it 

out. 

Senator NELSON. And NASA’s going to have a role in the National Climate Service? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Absolutely. Again, I said that in my oral testimony, and I’ll say it again, NASA, along with NOAA, NIST, USGS, 

Agriculture, Interior—the capabilities that are relevant, the needs 

for the information, are spread across a range of agencies. We’re 

going to get them to coordinate and work together, for sure. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

I want to use what I think will probably have to be my last question. Go back to the thing that worries me the most, that we can 

be doing everything right, here in Washington, with respect to the 

right kind of research, with the right order of its priority, getting— 

I mean, you sound, Dr. Holdren, like you’re already way ahead of 

Admiral Blair, in terms of eliminating stovepipes to, you know, 

major agency consideration and cooperation in climate change problems. 

Dr. HOLDREN. We’re working on it. 

The CHAIRMAN. You’ve got DOD working with you, you’re ahead 

of a lot of people. But, that’s one aspect. It has to be accurate. 

That’s a really hard set of work on the part of thousands of people. 

It has to be, then, put into form, which has the integrity of the U.S. 

Government behind it, which, for example, could be validated by 

the scientific community around the country. But, then there’s a 

huge gap. And I would make that gap—and I’d, in a sense, sort of, 

separate myself, not in feeling, but just in location, from my three 

colleagues—two—three colleagues who are here, all of who are 

26 

from coastal areas. One of the facts of the Midwest and the MidAtlantic is that there is less receptivity to the concept of climate 

change—I mean, an individual Senator or Congressman might be 

either way out in front or way out behind—but, the people trust 

what they can see and feel and understand, and what is somehow 

given to them through validators who they can trust and understand. 

Now, to me, this is important, in terms of being able to do the 

right type of legislation, and in terms of changing people’s attitudes 

about thing like caulking their homes. Nice little article in the 

Washington Post, I think, this morning about white roofs, and how 

it’s already cooling down somebody’s house, and he’s really happy 

about it, and there he is, tapping in the nails on top of the house. 

I don’t—there’s not, probably, a great deal of that going on in the 

part of the country I’m talking about, because it’s higher in elevation, certainly not by much, or it’s not higher in elevation, but 

it’s insulated inside of the oceans, and they don’t have the same 

fear, generally speaking. 

I think it’s human nature to avoid having to make difficult 

changes until you really believe that it’s in your interest to do so. 

I mean, you could have conscription, like you do in the—in World 

War II, when we finally got it—I think, only by one vote, at that. 

You know, that’s fine, that works there, but it doesn’t work on this. 

You have to convince people that we need to make changes and it’s 

in their interest, it’s not government—you know, it’s like—even I— 

I feel this, when I read a report by some international organization 

of scientists which say that everything is proceeding at twice the 

speed of deterioration, worse than they had come out with 2 years 

before. And they’ve got a long acronym name, and it just sort of 

goes right on through my head, because it’s not close at hand. I 

can’t talk about that to the people I represent, because they don’t 

know what it is, and they’re not moved by it. And you understand 

what I—already, what I’m saying. But, this whole question of—as 

we do our work, that we somehow bring the American people into 

it, in a way which is not preemptive or nasty or threatening, but 

which is clearly to their self-interest and which, therefore, to some 

extent, they might even come to welcome. 

Secretary LOCKE. Well, I think it begins with making sure that 

the agencies that are involved in a National Climate Service, 

whether NASA, NOAA, Department of Agriculture, that because 

they come from a highly respected position, in the first place, that 

the information they impart will be viewed as credible. And I 

think, for a National Climate Service to be effective, it has to have 

that credibility. And so many of the Federal agencies, that I think 

will be part of that partnership, have that credibility. 

Of course, NOAA has that incredible credibility, and the National 

Weather Service has that credibility, which people in the midStates have always relied on. The National Weather Service, in 

terms of weather for crops and for so many other decisions that— 

in the construction industry, and recreation, and the list goes on 

and on. 

But, NOAA has been doing—providing this data, for decades, and 

we are proud of that leadership position. In many cases, we are the 

world’s largest, most-respected repository of climate data informaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Jun 17, 2010 Jkt 054915 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\54915.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
27 

tion, greenhouse gas data, and we intend to continue to exert that 

leadership position. 

I also think that we need to figure out ways in which we can disseminate that information, all of the information, from all the different Federal agencies, in a way that’s more appealing to the general public. And so, what we’re doing at the Department of Commerce, at NOAA, for instance, to have all our climate information 

services basically at one stop, one location, one website, to make it 

easier for users, public/private sector, individuals, government, to 

access, I think, is key. 

And second of all, there will always be some people who, even 

with the information, will fail to take the necessary steps. As Governor, there were parts of the State of Washington that routinely 

flooded and the Federal Government, with FEMA, was always 

going in and providing help. And we would tell these people, ‘‘You 

really need to move out of the floodplain.’’ The insurance companies 

would no longer insure their homes. And yet, they stayed. Even 

though it would be more cost effective to take the State and Federal funds, insurance funds, and move, or even move the entire 

town, and yet people would resist until the very, very last minute. 

But, I think that, with information, most Americans are willing 

to make changes. And if they know that it’s in their economic interest to make changes, whether simply to insulate your house, put 

more insulation in the attic, and you can show the payback, and 

the payback of using energy-efficient appliances, I think most people, most Americans, want that information, desire that information, and will act accordingly. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Senator, if I may just add—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Please. 

Dr. HOLDREN.—to what the Secretary has said, and take off from 

his last point. 

The fact that this is not just a bad-news story, that this is a 

story of challenge, but also of opportunity, that there are ways to 

address the climate change issue in a manner that will make 

money, that will create jobs, that will drive new industries, I think 

it’s terribly important that we get better at communicating this 

message that we’re not simply in a position where we have to 

wring our hands. There’s a lot we can do, both to reduce the potential damages of climate change, but to benefit from innovation and 

what we often call win-win approaches, measures that make sense 

in their own right, even if you weren’t worried about climate 

change, but will help you with climate change, as well. Getting people off of the floodplains is a good example of that. We should be 

doing that anyway, just on the basis of the frequency with which 

major floods come along, even in a climate that is not changing. We 

simply have to do it even more urgently with climate changing. 

We have to get better at telling the story, but the story is also 

telling itself more and more powerfully. And even in parts of the 

country which may initially not be experiencing such a high rate 

of obvious climate change, people will continue to turn on their 

televisions and see what’s happening elsewhere and, I think, ultimately, come to the understanding that this a challenge that we’re 

all in together and that we all have to meet. 

28 

The CHAIRMAN. Just to end my time, the perfect example is in, 

let’s say, West Virginia. Four percent of our land is flat, as I am 

painfully aware, and everything else is—goes up or down. We have 

a lot of rain. Water is not our problem. And we have a lot of flooding. That’s a big problem. People get flooded out of their houses because they have five generations who have lived on this house on 

the Little Coal River or the Big Sandy River, or whatever it is, and 

it gets flooded out. And only 4 percent of the people had flood insurance, 20 years ago; only 4 percent of the people have flood insurance today. They get flooded out, and move back in—and move 

back in, really, to nothing. They get taken in by their neighbors, 

because that’s what we do in West Virginia—you never have to 

open up a National Guard armory. You do, in case, but you don’t— 

it doesn’t get used, because people take each other in. In other 

words, they are using traditional means of overcoming newer and 

worse and more dangerous problems, simply because the silt level 

is building up, and all the rest of it. 

And I—I’m not asking a question, I’m just trying to urgently 

make the point that people accept something as being in their interest, not because somebody’s going to make money off of it— 

that’s for—the lucky entrepreneurs will have that—but, the rest 

will be changing the way they live, and being a little grumpy about 

it, in certain parts of the country, including some of the coastal 

areas, I’m sure. I’m sure that’s true in Alaska. You know, people 

don’t like change. 

So, I just think it’s a huge psychological factor in the incredible 

work that all of you at the table, and behind the table, are doing 

to virtually save this Nation and this planet. No response required. 

Senator Begich? 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

First, I want to thank the panel and the Chairman, because you 

just—you know, I have a new home, here, and I—you just reminded me—I had to put it on my list, here—to get the white coating for my black tar roof, so I can save a little energy. So, you just 

made me think about it, so thank you very much for that part of 

it, for a personal opportunity. 

Secretary LOCKE. And maybe put on a solar panel, on top, while 

you’re at it. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BEGICH. Well, you know, I’m north, so it doesn’t bring 

the sun in properly, but thank you for that. 

You know, the commentary—and this is where I’m struggling— 

in part, is what the Chairman talked about, which is simplification 

of the message so the public understands what’s in it for them. I 

mean, that’s basically—in order to get their interest—they do see 

it, but when they see, you know, Shishmaref, Alaska, disappeared 

in the ocean, and you live in Kansas, it’s not a direct connection; 

but yet, it will be at some point. So, how we make that real is important. And I think the Chairman has a very good point there. 

But, the one that—I’m going to throw out an idea. I know, in 

some existing legislation, this exists, to some extent, but not for all 

departments. But, in order to get the coordination—and what I 

see—now, again, I’ve gone through, now, a couple of these hearings 

with different folks. Everyone has a piece of climate change, in 

29 

some form or another. The goal is to try to bring it together, coordinate it. But, in the—I know, in the Waxman-Markey bill, the national climate office—or service office isn’t going to be in place for 

3 years. It actually has a delayed implementation time, which—of 

course, I would argue that it should be now, and then work to implement. But, as a former mayor, getting departments on a common goal is a difficult task. As a mayor—strong mayor for—I could 

pull the trigger and make him do it. You’re going to run in—an office within the White House, you run a department, which, in 

itself, is going to be difficult. 

What happens if this could occur, and tell me what you think of 

this. If, in the end day of a climate change bill, that all budgets 

that are directly related to climate change issues have to be a unified budget—in other words, the budget’s drive the operations 

around here. 

VOICE. Right. 

Senator BEGICH. You know, great policy—everyone talks about 

great reports, but the money drives the show. So, if it was required 

that all the budgets have to be unified in one central point, maybe 

your office or some office that has to review that so you’re not duplicating efforts or spreading efforts around—does that make any 

sense to either one of you? And I—maybe the things that are too 

logical won’t make sense here in this group, but I’m hoping—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, Senator, we actually do that, to a very substantial extent, in the interaction of OMB with OSTP—— 

Senator BEGICH. Let me hold you there. This is what I know 

about—yes. But, when we see it, we really don’t see it stand out 

that way. I mean, OMB tries to bring it—I’m familiar with that. 

But, I sit in—I mean, I’m on the Arms Services Committee, I hear 

what Senator Nelson talked about. DOD has a piece of the action. 

You know, everyone has a piece. But, from a policymaker standpoint, we don’t see that. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, maybe that’s another part of the story we 

need to get better at telling—— 

Senator BEGICH. Right. Well, I—— 

Dr. HOLDREN.—coordination is among those different pieces. 

Senator BEGICH. Yes. I mean—but, you agree with that principle. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. 

Secretary LOCKE. I think it’s a great idea to have, on—a single 

document that shows all the spending and the budgets related to 

climate services from all the different agencies—— 

VOICE. Right. 

Secretary LOCKE.—so that the policymakers are able to see what 

NASA is doing, what EPA is doing, what Agriculture is doing, what 

Interior is doing, what NOAA is doing, what NIST is doing within 

the Department of Commerce, so you see, in one format, what everyone is doing by way of climate services, so that you, as a policymaker, can say, actually, that you think this area needs to be increased or this area is deficient, this area is being neglected, and 

this area needs to be emphasized. 

Senator BEGICH. Now, let me ask you one more step. And, Mr. 

Holdren or Secretary Locke, either one of you could answer this. 

But, again, as a former mayor, I know OMB’s operation is—it’s 

30 

number-crunching, it’s balancing—policy is a piece of it, but not as 

much as the agencies. 

Should there be one person or one director or level person that 

says, ‘‘I see the whole budget, but, geez, Department of Commerce—you know, Ag’s already doing this. We’re not going to have 

you budget for that’’—or vice versa—should one person or one 

agency have that role? Not—OMB is a different ballgame, I mean 

they’re the guys that you all go to, you plead your case, and they 

smile, and say, ‘‘Thank you very much,’’ and then they do whatever 

they do, and then they give you back a budget, and you have to 

live with it. But, from a policy standpoint. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I actually have a very specific responsibility 

to do that, together with Peter Orszag, the Director of OMB. And 

I bring the science and technology policy perspective that is responsible for integrating the pieces from the different agencies. And if 

that’s gotten wrong, it’s my fault. The—— 

Senator BEGICH. But, I guess—— 

Dr. HOLDREN.—the Administration’s budget request does include 

a section where the various interagency crosscutting programs are 

described in one place. And I very strongly suspect that, in future 

years, the climate services will be a category that gets that sort of 

attention. 

Senator BEGICH. But, it’s this—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. The Global Change Research Program already 

gets that sort of attention, but climate services, I expect, will get 

it, in the future, so one will be able to see what the whole picture 

looks like, who’s doing what, where the gaps are, and what needs 

to be filled. I completely agree that that’s desirable, and I say to 

you, if it doesn’t happen in the White House in this domain, it’s 

going to be my fault. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. Well, I would—I appreciate that, for taking 

the heat. But, the piece, too, for example—and my time is up, and 

we’re—got to run to votes—but, you know, I look at the title of 

your office, Science and Technology; I don’t see ‘‘Economic Development,’’ so forth, so on. So, the coordination of all these pieces— 

there’s so much engaged in this. I mean, as we talk about the Arctic, which is the premier result of climate change—— 

VOICE. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH.—Defense Department’s going to be a critical 

piece of that, Transportation’s going to be a critical piece, the Coast 

Guard will be a critical piece. So, that’s—I appreciate your comments, because I think that’s where I continually go back to, that 

if you don’t coordinate this, develop it enough, where we, as policymakers, can see the big picture and see how all these play into it, 

and not duplicate our efforts, but really focus them, we’re losing 

ground quickly. 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, I do understand, Senator. And let me just 

mention that my Deputy Director for Policy is dual-hatted with the 

National Economic Council. 

Senator BEGICH. Good. 

Dr. HOLDREN. My Associate Director for National Security and 

International Affairs, who has not yet been appointed, but I hope 

to be coming to this Committee soon with the nomination, will be 

dual-hatted with the National Security Council. 

31 

So, we are aware of these intersections and the need to coordinate across these boundaries. 

Senator BEGICH. Great. 

Dr. HOLDREN. And my own inclination, for my whole long disciplinary career, has been crossing boundaries and putting pieces 

together, so I do intend to get it right in the White House. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. And, Secretary Locke, 

thank you very much, also, for your commentary. 

Secretary LOCKE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just end on this note, we—the reason 

that Senator Begich and I are asking these questions, and others 

ask these questions, is only made possible because we already have 

in place the beginning of all of this, the right beginning, which is 

called ‘‘you.’’ The President, I think, has surrounded himself with 

some of the most brilliant choices—Dr. Holdren, I don’t want to 

embarrass you, but I sometimes refer to you as ‘‘walking on water.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. That may be the end of your career, but—— 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. You know, we brought that 5-percent carbon guy 

from New Hampshire, and had him sit right where you are, and 

he told us all about it, because you told me about it. A really superb technical scientific team. And everything else, of the questions 

we ask and ‘‘How do Americans understand all this, and react to 

it?’’ is incredibly important. But, we’re—what we—we need to know 

that is already in place and working is the top part of the team, 

spreading out and coordinating, superb thinking, superb arguments, and, you know, a superb policy. 

So, I—frankly, it’s one of the most exciting things about this Administration, is just the presence of all of you. 

And, on that dour note, the hearing is over. 

[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(33) 

A P P E N D I X 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV 

TO HON. GARY F. LOCKE

Question 1. How is the Department of Commerce reorganizing its programs to be 

more user-focused and respond to community and business needs to address climate 

change? 

Answer. One of my priorities as Secretary is to ensure that the services the Department of Commerce provides to the American people and businesses are easily 

accessible and user-friendly. In June 2009, I launched the Department’s ‘‘one-stop’’ 

shop initiative to provide a single point of contact for the full-spectrum of Commerce 

programs available to business owners. The first ‘‘one-stop’’ shop will open in Detroit, Michigan, and will serve as a model for other metropolitan centers across the 

country. 

In the same way, I believe there is a strong need for a National Climate Service 

that is coordinated across Federal agencies and user-driven to meet the needs of 

public and private sector decision-makers. NOAA is already working to improve and 

strengthen its climate services. However, more needs to be done. The Department 

of Commerce is working with its Federal partners, including the National Science 

Foundation, the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and 

the Office of Science and Technology Policy, among others, to address the growing 

demand for climate services. 

NOAA already provides a wide array of climate information and services including 

ground, ocean and space-based observations, climate assessments, drought early 

warning information, and climate predictions and projections. This information is 

delivered to a range of users. For example, NOAA provides information to local 

coastal managers to help prepare for and mitigate against likely changes in sea 

level, storms and ocean temperatures. 

For inland and coastal states alike, the issue of water management in our changing climate is critical. For example, NOAA’s climate information indicates that the 

state of West Virginia is projected to continue receiving very heavy rainstorms with 

longer dry periods between. Targeted climate services are helping state and local 

managers to ensure that heavier rainfall can be handled by stormwater systems and 

reservoirs are big enough to ensure ample water supply during dry periods. 

In 2008, NOAA began an effort to improve its integrated climate services to, 

among other things, develop and deliver a broader range of operational climate information products and services in partnership with other Federal agencies with 

trust resource mandates. To ensure NOAA is best organized internally to coordinate 

its climate services, I have asked Dr. Lubchenco to integrate the climate services 

interspersed throughout NOAA’s line offices into one office so users only have to 

knock on one door to access NOAA’s diverse expert resources. 

I look forward to working with the Committee on these efforts. 

Question 2. Has the United States ever conducted an oceans assessment to analyze the effects of global change? Would NOAA support an oceans assessment, either 

by the United States or as an international effort? 

Answer. No, to the best of my knowledge, the United States has not conducted 

a comprehensive national oceans assessment to analyze the effects of global climate 

change on the environment and ecosystems. 

President Obama, recognizing the need for a comprehensive national oceans policy, including an ecosystem-based framework for the long-term conservation of our 

resources, established the White House Ocean Policy Task Force. Under Secretary 

Lubchenco, representing the Department of Commerce, has provided a strong voice 

on the Task Force. 

Should the Task Force develop recommendations for an integrated ocean ecosystem assessment, the Department, through NOAA, stands ready to bring its assets and expertise to bear to support such an effort. 

34 

Question 3. Is our current greenhouse gas monitoring and measurement system 

sufficient to meet our needs to verify emission reductions at the regional, national, 

and international levels? If not, what is lacking with the current system and how 

do we make improvements? 

Answer. NOAA’s sustained efforts to monitor and measure the carbon cycle in the 

atmosphere and oceans over more than 40 years provide a key component of the 

basis for our understanding of climate change today. 

In addition, NOAA and its sister agency, the Department’s National Institute of 

Standards and Technology play a crucial role in ensuring the accuracy and reliability of monitoring by providing an unbiased scientific assessment of the quality 

of current greenhouse gas measurements and models, as well as evaluation and validation of new standards and measurement methods. 

Other Federal greenhouse gas monitoring and measurement systems also provide 

a strong foundation for emission reduction efforts today. EPA, USDA, and DOE 

have facility, corporate, regional and national level reporting systems that can be 

used to support comprehensive economy wide and credible reduction programs for 

greenhouse gases. Examples include the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gases and 

Sinks, EPA’s proposed mandatory reporting rule for greenhouse gases, measurement 

of CO2 emissions from the electric power sector under the Clean Air Act’s Acid Rain 

Program (accounting for 1/3 of all U.S. CO2 emissions), and robust statistical systems for gathering activity data from energy and land-use that are implemented by 

DOE and USDA, respectively. The U.S. Government has worked with partner nations on the implementation of measurement systems to track emission reductions 

internationally. 

Our country is poised to embark on a critical effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change. To be effective in this endeavor, we must upgrade the current greenhouse gas and aerosol monitoring system 

to ensure our monitoring of greenhouse gases is comprehensive, coordinated, and 

globally coherent. Current greenhouse gas monitoring systems implemented by Federal science agencies are designed to support research to understand the role of the 

carbon cycle and gases and aerosols in climate change. However, the growing need 

for scientific verification and support for efforts to mitigate climate change requires 

a sustained, more comprehensive and operational monitoring system. Such an approach should combine ground-based and space-based observations, self-reporting by 

industry, carbon-cycle modeling, fossil-fuel use data, land-use data and a strong 

analytic component. This comprehensive approach has proven instrumental in the 

effective implementation of other policy frameworks for reduction of atmospheric 

pollutants, including the greenhouse gas sulfur hexafluoride and ozone depleting 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons, both covered by the Montreal Protocol. 

A comprehensive monitoring and analysis system that involves a number of agencies will allow validation, on regional scales, whether reported emissions are consistent with atmospheric concentrations. Such understanding and verification are 

critical to determining whether domestic and international policy decisions are having their intended effects, and being implemented equitably and efficiently. 

Question 4. There is growing interest to establish and operate a National Climate 

Service. Yet, there was not a request for the National Climate Service in the FY 

2010 budget request for NOAA. How does NOAA’s budget support this effort? Will 

you include a robust request for the National Climate Service in your FY2011 budget for NOAA? 

Answer. A National Climate Service should be established as the bridge between 

decision-makers and climate change science and information, providing timely and 

authoritative information, such as predictions of changing temperatures and water 

availability, and assessments of associated impacts, risks, and vulnerabilities. 

NOAA provides a wide-array of climate information and services including 

ground, ocean and space-based observations, climate assessments, drought early 

warning information, and climate predictions and projections. NOAA currently 

works with a broad spectrum of users to provide climate change information to help 

inform resource management, business, and industry decisionmaking. 

NOAA is already moving forward to improve and strengthen its climate services. 

NOAA envisions a National Climate Service as a partnership that would be established among other Federal agencies, various levels of government, and the private 

sector. While there is no specific request for the National Climate Service in FY 

2010, NOAA’s budget request provides a foundation for strengthening climate services and building a broader national effort. 

NOAA requested $297 million for climate activities in FY 2010. The FY 2010 request supports and enhances NOAA’s integrated program of climate observations, 

research, modeling, prediction, decision support, and assessment. 

35 

NOAA has taken several near-term actions within its existing authorities to improve how it delivers climate science and services. NOAA has been evaluating climate services activities within the agency, and is actively engaging its partners and 

the user community to determine their specific information needs and the contributions these groups may bring to the development of climate services. NOAA looks 

forward to engaging in these dialogues with the Congress, its Federal agency partners, and the range of public and private sector interests in climate services, as the 

Administration moves forward to coordinate and expand its national climate science 

programs and develop the FY 2011 budget. 

Question 5. How is NOAA helping coastal communities, marine resource managers, and ocean industries adapt to climate change? What additional authorities 

and resources does the Department need to improve marine adaptation efforts? 

Answer. Climate change is already having significant impacts on our coastal and 

marine resources, environments, and communities. Given its stewardship responsibilities, NOAA is both a producer and a consumer of climate change information. 

NOAA’ s climate services already reach coastal communities, marine resource managers and ocean industries. NOAA provides local managers information on likely 

changes in sea level, storms and ocean temperatures. In addition, coastal communities, decision-makers, and relevant industries and organizations have been engaged in an ongoing dialogue about their needs for climate information and access 

to the climate services they require. 

Climate change information is already being incorporated into marine resource 

and coastal ecosystem management decisions within NOAA through adaptation 

planning for marine fisheries, coastal and ocean habitats. NOAA’s mandated responsibilities include, for example: fisheries, endangered species and marine mammal 

management, National Marine Sanctuaries, and coastal and estuarine management. 

With each of these mandates, NOAA managers must account for the effects of climate variability and change on coastal and marine ecosystems, resources, and communities to adapt their management practices accordingly. For example, NOAA is 

incorporating climate information into living resource management in a variety of 

ways, such as considering water use planning decisions in salmon management, 

measuring and evaluating the effects of sea level rise and the loss of sea ice on protected resources, and determining the impact of warming ocean temperatures on the 

productivity and distribution of fisheries, marine mammals, and habitats. 

In addition, NOAA supports other Federal agencies, state and local governments, 

and the private sector, as they make decisions about adapting to climate change including coastal planning and development efforts, maritime transportation, water 

resource management, and other issues such as insurance, energy and agriculture. 

For example, NOAA is integrating its climate and ocean ecosystem observations and 

predictions to improve its delivery of climate information and tools to ocean and 

coastal decision-makers, and to assist them in managing and adapting to a changing 

climate. 

Question 6. Given NIST’s critical role in developing the foundational science to enable Earth observations, climate science, mitigation technologies, and cap and trade 

monitoring and verification, how are they coordinating with other agencies to ensure 

accurate assessments of climate change? 

Answer. NIST will continue to provide the basis for the unbiased scientific assessment of the quality of current greenhouse gas measurements. These activities span 

the range of measurements upon which a comprehensive U.S. monitoring system 

will be based and ensures its international recognition. Expansion of NIST’s engagement with other Federal agencies, including NOAA, NASA, NSF, EPA, the Departments of Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture, will provide the measurements 

and standards foundation of a comprehensive monitoring system. 

In addition, NIST is initiating engagement with the private sector to strengthen 

current measurement practices and standards, to develop new measurement approaches for monitoring and verification, and, where feasible, to provide a range of 

measurement approaches for individual emissions source or sink monitoring. Because the private sector will bear significant responsibility for facility-by-facility implementation of mitigation approaches, cooperative efforts between industry and 

government will enhance the quality of U.S. inventories through development and 

use of measurements and standards closely tied to national measurement standards 

and measurement science. The long history of successful NIST engagement with the 

private sector, in its third party role, and with the consensus standards community 

will strengthen confidence in greenhouse quantity determination, improving compliance with market-based reforms and regulation of carbon pollution. As harmonization of U.S. inventories with those of other countries becomes a more pressing 

36 

need, the internationally-recognized measurements and standards foundation provided by NIST will be critical to acceptance of U.S. inventories internationally. 

Some specific examples of current NIST involvement include: 

• Participation in policy-level coordination activities at the interagency and international levels. 

• Participation in measurement and monitoring discussions in many strategic 

working groups, committees and workshops along with other Federal agencies, 

the academic climate change research community and the private sector. 

• Direct interaction with other Federal agencies in the following areas: 

• Measurement and calibration standards for remote-sensing satellite instruments and sensors. NISI has partnered on workshops with the satellite programs at NASA and NOAA to improve satellite measurements associated 

with climate change and to reduce key discrepancies in climate measurements. NIST also works with NASA, USGS, and NOAA’s satellite programs 

(NPOESS, GOES–R, CLARREO, EOS, LDCM etc.) to help improve the accuracy and comparability of satellite measurements. 

• Measurement needs in greenhouse gas monitoring system. NIST is developing 

new measurement science and standards to improve the accuracy and comparability of climate change and greenhouse gas measurements. NIST works 

with NASA to provide key laboratory data that supports satellite measurements of the state of the atmosphere. 

• Identification of gaps in the measurement capabilities critical to climate 

change monitoring. NIST, with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

funding, has developed a grant program to solicit new measurement science 

technology in support of climate and environmental measurement. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV 

TO HON. JOHN P. HOLDREN, PH.D. 

Question 1. How is the Administration keeping an eye on the budgets of individual Federal agencies, as well as on the overall Global Change Research Program 

so that the Nation has a well-funded, comprehensive climate program—one that 

serves the Nation’s needs? 

Answer. OSTP, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Management 

and Budget, and the Office of Energy and Climate Change monitor the budgets and 

activities of Federal climate change programs on an ongoing basis. OSTP provides 

leadership for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), and we are integrating its activities with other climate change programs such as the Climate 

Change Technology Program, our international climate change programs, and ongoing climate-related activities in departments and agencies that do not otherwise fall 

under the purview of USGCRP. We use USGCRP and agency expertise and data to 

identify and address research gaps, and we actively seek out resources or initiatives 

to close the gaps. We are currently engaged with OMB in a comprehensive assessment of Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 climate change spending, and we have begun to identify resource requirements, scientific opportunities, and science and technology 

needs in the climate change domain in preparing the FY 2011 budget request. 

Question 2. What do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of the Global 

Change Research Program? What specific changes would you recommend to respond 

to current and future climate change challenges? 

Answer. The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) brings together 

into a single interagency program the essential capacities for research and observations on climate change that are widely distributed across government agencies. 

Growing out of interagency activities and planning beginning in about 1988, and receiving congressional support under the Global Change Research Act (GCRA) in 

1990, the USGCRP has energized cooperative interagency activities, with each agency bringing its strength to the collaborative effort. An essential component of success 

in delivering the information necessary for decisionmaking is coordination of the 

programmatic and budgetary decisions of the 13 agencies that make up the 

USGCRP. OSTP and OMB work closely with the USGCRP Interagency Integration 

and Coordination Office and the USGCRP interagency working groups to establish 

research priorities and funding plans to assure the program is aligned with the Administration’s priorities and reflects agency planning. 

The cooperative work of the USGCRP agencies has yielded significant advances 

in our characterization, understanding, and ability to predict climate variability and 

change. This integrated work culminated in the recent release of the report, Global 

37 

1 NRC, 2007, Evaluating Progress of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program: Methods and 

Preliminary Results, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 170 pp. 2 NRC, 2009, Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate 

Change, National Academies Press, Washington DC, 266 p. 

Climate Change Impacts in the United States, which provides concrete scientific evidence that the climate is changing and presents the most comprehensive available 

picture of likely current and future impacts on specific regions and sectors. 

USGCRP’s strength in climate science is attested to in a recent evaluation by the 

National Research Council 1 The same study, however, also identified areas for programmatic improvement, including the need to make progress on applying climatescience knowledge in management and decisionmaking, improving predictive capabilities at regional and local scales, and increasing understanding of human impacts. 

Another recent NRC study 2 points to the difficulty of transforming the program 

from one focused on understanding causes and processes of climate change to support for actions needed to cope with the approaching societal problems associated 

with its impacts. This transition will require the USGCRP to support a balanced 

portfolio of fundamental and application-oriented research activities from expanded 

modeling efforts to studies of coupled human-natural systems and institutional resilience. 

Both NRC studies emphasize the need to link sound climate change science and 

information with decision-making for society’s benefit. For example, it is important 

for the USGCRP to make a strong commitment to providing the information that 

society is seeking in order to reduce vulnerabilities and improve resilience to variability and change. One essential element for making this link is the coordination 

of the programmatic and budgetary decisions among the 13 agencies comprising the 

USGCRP. This coordination role must continue based on a fully integrated research 

plan with an interagency budget crosscut. There are specific research areas that the 

research plan should include to better link science and information with decisionmaking, and these areas must be addressed by expertise from agencies that are 

strong in social sciences and economics as well as the physical and biological 

sciences. 

Question 3. How is the Office of Science and Technology Policy engaging and coordinating the efforts of academia, private industry, and Federal agencies to develop 

an integrated and comprehensive network to provide usable climate information to 

stakeholders and decisionmakers? 

Answer. Coordinated climate information and services are needed to assist decision-making across public and private sectors. Just as the Nation’s climate research 

efforts require and benefit from interagency and academic partnerships, so too will 

the development and communication of climate change information to users. 

While much work has been done to evaluate the need for climate services and a 

National Climate Service, the Administration believes that additional assessment 

and analysis of existing climate- service capabilities and user needs for climate services is necessary. A National Climate Service and, more broadly, our Nation’s approach to delivering climate services will require that such analysis and assessment 

is ongoing, science-based, user-responsive, and relevant to all levels of interest, e.g., 

local, regional, national and international. Such a framework must also be able to 

adapt to new developments in the scientific understanding of climate change and 

resultant impacts to serve the needs of decision-makers and the public. 

To promptly address this issue within the Federal Government, OSTP is working 

to convene a task force with representation from a diverse group of key agencies 

whose charge will be to examine national assets, existing data and information 

gaps, and costs related to the development of a cohesive framework for delivering 

accurate climate-related information to the public. This process is intended to result 

in a more detailed functional and organizational approach for delivering climate 

services to the Nation. 

As part of the process to engage external stakeholders and customers, the 

USGCRP has undertaken a series of ‘‘listening sessions’’ with a variety of stakeholder groups, including from academia, private industry, and nongovernmental organizations, around the country to gain a better understanding of the emerging 

needs for climate information and ways in which Federal research might be shaped 

to meet those needs. The program and its member departments and agencies have 

also commissioned a number of reports from the National Research Council to help 

guide it in its current activities and future planning, including the recently published NRC reports Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges 

of Climate Change (2009) and Informing Decisions in a Changing Climate (2009). 

To be successful, the delivery of climate services will require sustained Federal 

38 

agency partnerships, such as those fostered by the USGCRP, and collaboration with 

climate service providers and end users. 

Question 4. Dr. Holdren, given that a national assessment of climate change has 

not been conducted since 2000, are you making it a priority to do so within the next 

4 years as required by law? 

Answer. Yes, absolutely. The recently released Global Climate Change Impacts in 

the United States report and the underlying Synthesis and Assessment Products 

provide a useful foundation on which to build the next national assessment. 

Question 4a. If yes, how will the Administration make sure the assessment has 

broad stakeholder participation to determine the risks and costs of climate change 

impacts on the United States and to evaluate options for responding? If no, why 

not? 

Answer. Broad stakeholder participation is critical for this type of comprehensive 

assessment and product. We will employ a wide variety of traditional techniques for 

gathering this input such as public meetings, requests for comments on drafts published in the Federal register, interaction with academe, and others. We will also 

take advantage of new methods currently being pioneered at OSTP and other government agencies to promote open government and to engage stakeholders via a variety of electronic means such as web-postings and blogs. 

Question 5. Has the United States ever conducted an oceans assessment to analyze the effects of global change? Would you support an oceans assessment, either 

by the United States or as an international effort? 

Answer. While a comprehensive assessment of the oceans and global change has 

never been undertaken, a number of domestic and international efforts have assessed some of the effects of climate change on coastal and oceanic regions. Many 

aspects of coastal effects were recently documented in the U.S. Global Research Program (USGCRP)’s report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. 

Coastal regions will be considered in the national assessment under discussion by 

the USGCRP that is mandated by the U.S. Global Change Research Act and due 

in 2012. In addition, the National Marine Fisheries Service and international counterparts conduct assessments of fishing pressure and the status of living marine resources, and these efforts should contribute to our understanding in the long term. 

A global marine assessment to complement the efforts already undertaken by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is under consideration by the 

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and other United Nations bodies. It 

is unclear at this early stage whether the effort would be cost-effective and significantly add to the IPCC and other efforts. 

Question 6. Is our current greenhouse gas monitoring and measurement system 

sufficient to meet our needs to verify emission reductions at the regional, national, 

and international levels? 

Answer. Methods are currently available for calculating GHG emissions and uptake at scales from projects to nations. The capacity to confirm such calculations 

with observations with the needed coverage and at all the relevant scales does not 

yet exist, however. I believe that the existing information and measurement capabilities are adequate to support the initiation of national climate policies, but 

achieving the high level of accuracy, precision, and confidence that decision-makers 

and the public will want concerning offsets and the reality of emissions reductions 

or uptake increases claimed for other initiatives in the agriculture, forestry, energy, 

and other sectors will require continuing effort to improve our understanding of and 

ability to accurately and precisely measure stocks and flows of carbon and nitrogen 

at global, regional, and local scales. 

Question 6a. If not, what is lacking with the current system and how do we make 

improvements? 

Answer. At the Earth’s surface (in situ systems on land, sea, and airborne platforms) the United States currently has good approaches for taking inventory of 

greenhouse gas emissions. Fossil fuel emissions are tracked by EPA and EIA, while 

biosphere contributions to emissions (e.g., agriculture, forests, soils), are tracked by 

USDA. In addition, the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides most of the world’s long-term measurements 

of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and currently operates 2/3 of the global atmospheric greenhouse gas observing sites. NOAA and NSF together also provide 

about half of the world’s oceanic greenhouse gas measurements. However, these systems do not account for all greenhouse gases, and our biosphere monitoring is not 

comprehensive. Further, the current surface-based carbon dioxide monitoring network alone is too sparse to identify the locations of carbon sinks, or tell us what 

controls changes in their efficiency from year to year. 

39 

In space, NASA, NOAA, and USGS operate satellites that acquire surface characteristics of the land and ocean, as well as weather satellites that provide information necessary for tracking gas distributions in the atmosphere. Current space-based 

capabilities need to be tied to accurate in situ surface sensor measurements and 

higher-density space-based observations are necessary for fine scale monitoring of 

sources and sinks of greenhouse gases that will allow for the verification of emissions reductions offsets and of the effects of climate change. Additionally, measurements at all spatial and temporal scales must be based on internationally-recognized measurement standards, established and disseminated for the U.S. by the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), to 

ensure their accuracy and comparability. 

In the future, space-based remote sensing of atmospheric CO2 has potential to deliver data products with the accuracy, precision, temporal and spatial resolution, 

and coverage to independently assess the variability of CO2 sources and sinks at regional, national and international levels. This information could help facilitate emissions reduction verification. Robust surface-based observations will be necessary in 

the testing and refining of satellite measurement capability, and the ability to measure and describe components contributions to aggregate CO2 sources and sinks. 

Question 7. Do you think that our current Earth observing capabilities are adequate to provide decision-makers and policymakers with the information they need 

to respond to climate change? 

Answer. The United States and our partners around the world operate a vast 

array of instruments and systems that provide data on many important phenomena, 

but the development of an integrated climate observing system stands as an important challenge. Long-term, high-accuracy, stable environmental observations are essential to define the state of the global integrated Earth system, its history and its 

future variability and change. To a large degree, the existing Federal observational 

capabilities have been only loosely integrated. The critical leap forward can only be 

achieved with a synergy between remotely sensed and in situ observations supported by robust data systems. One endeavor to address this challenge is the Global 

Climate Observing System (GCOS), a ‘‘system of systems’’ that builds on the climate-relevant components of existing observing systems. GCOS is the climate observing system within the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) 

developed under the auspices of the intergovernmental Group on Earth Observations (GEO). 

Question 7a. What are your plans to develop a robust, long-term, national Earth 

observing strategy to meet those needs? 

Answer. OSTP is currently addressing this challenge via the U.S. Group on Earth 

Observations (USGEO), an interagency subcommittee of the National Science and 

Technology Council charged with developing an integrated Earth observation system 

to ensure that adequate data, products, and services are available to wisely manage 

human and natural systems. This integrated approach takes into account the Earth 

observation activities of Federal, State, regional, local, tribal government, non-governmental organizations, academia, commercial firms and foreign governments, and 

it will encourage the full, open, and timely sharing and exchange of data, products, 

and services. 

Question 7b. How can you ensure that these observational data are comparable 

between different agencies, platforms, and countries? 

Answer. To ensure that observational data are comparable between different 

agencies, platforms, and countries, the strategy being worked on by USGEO will encourage the adoption of widely accepted standards, such as web-services-based service oriented architecture, as well as data management principles such as multi-use, 

preservation, quality, and access. Further, traceability of the measurements to 

standards based on the International System of Units (SI) such as provided by NIST 

and similar organizations around the world is fundamental for ensuring data accuracy and comparability independent of when and where the measurements were 

made. Data harmonization and interoperability efforts are coordinated nationally by 

USGEO, and internationally by the Group on Earth Observations (GEO). 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BY HON. DAVID VITTER TO

HON. JOHN P. HOLDREN, PH.D. 

Question 1. When was the last recorded global warming, as recorded by satellites? 

Does this shake your confidence at all in the climate models? 

Answer. Satellite data records for the temperature of the lower atmosphere (near 

the Earth’s surface) have been available since 1979. In 2006, a summary comparing 

40 

the satellite data and surface temperature records as recorded by thermometers 

(Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1 ‘‘Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences’’) showed a substantial upward trend for the global averages of temperature 

for both the lower atmosphere and at the surface, starting at the beginning of the 

satellite data record and continuing through 2005, the most recent year that was 

analyzed in the study. (See the response to question 5 for a discussion of the need 

to look at long-term trends versus year-to-year-variability.) This long-term upward 

trend has continued in the surface temperature record, and is also accurately reproduced by the climate models, as shown in the recently released U.S. Global Change 

Research Program (USGCRP) report entitled ‘‘Global Change Impacts in the United 

States’’ (2009). (See section titled ‘‘Global Climate Change,’’ pages 13–26.) The most 

recent data (last updated for August 2009) can be found on the website http:// 

data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/, with the methodology documented in the reference 

Hansen et al 2006: Global temperature change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 103, 14288– 

14293, doi:10.1073/pnas.0606291103. Thus the data records from both the satellites 

and surface thermometers, as well as the analyses of computer models, are all in 

agreement that the warming of the recent decades is real, continuing, and primarily 

due to human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases. 

Question 2. Some scientists have said that climate is always changing—either 

warming or cooling? Is this correct, and for how many years (thousands, millions, 

billions) has the climate been changing? 

Answer. Climate has changed on many time scales throughout Earth’s multi-billion-year history, for reasons ranging from variations in the sun’s output, to re-arrangement of land and ocean areas under continental drift, to variations in Earth’s 

orbit and tilt, to gradual changes in the composition of the atmosphere as a result 

of geochemical and biological processes, to more rapid changes in atmospheric composition caused by volcanism and asteroid impacts. The changes in climate now 

being imposed by human additions of heat-trapping gases and particles to the atmosphere are more rapid than almost all of the natural changes that came before— 

hence more difficult for ecosystems to adjust to. It can be added that the most rapid 

of the natural changes were associated with massive extinctions, and even some of 

the less rapid natural changes that occurred in the human era are thought to have 

played decisive roles in the disappearance of a number of premodern civilizations. 

Question 3. Was the climate warmer 1000 yrs ago than today? 

Answer. Paleoclimate analyses (in which temperature is inferred from tree rings, 

ice cores, sediment layers, fossil pollens, and so on) are used to answer such questions, since the global thermometer record only goes back about 150 years. These 

analyses, which are necessarily approximate, indicate that some regions in Northern 

Europe may have been warmer 1000 years ago than in the 20th Century, but that 

the globe as a whole was very likely cooler than in the 20th Century. (See for example the 2006 National Research Council report, ‘‘Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years’’, which notes ‘‘an array of evidence that includes . . . 

pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on icecaps 

and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years.’’) 

Question 4. Would it be accurate or inaccurate to say that sea levels have been 

rising steadily for about 18,000 years, and why? 

Answer. Inaccurate. Following the end of the last ice age (approximately 21,000 

years ago), sea level rose by about 120 meters, taking 18–19,000 years to do so before stabilizing between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago. The evidence indicates that global sea level did not change significantly from then until the late 19th Century. The 

average rate of sea level rise in the 20th Century was about 1.5 millimeters per 

year; since 1993, the rate of rise has been around 3 mm per year, and the rate is 

continuing to increase. 

Question 5. Graphs that have been distributed recently on Capitol Hill by a number of organizations show that the climate has not warmed since 1998, while CO2

levels have been rising. 

a. Please provide the most current satellite and balloon data. 

b. Please provide a comparison of the EACH of the model projections starting in 

the Year 2000 with the data from satellites and balloons. 

Answer. Attempts to support the claim that the Earth has not been warming 

since 1998 have generally been based on global average surface air temperatures 

as measured by thermometers, which are indeed a more direct and relevant indicator, compared to satellite and balloon measurements, of what is happening where 

it most matters—namely where the people, other organisms, soils, and most of the 

ice and liquid water are. The mistake in these attempts is that they confuse shortVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Jun 17, 2010 Jkt 054915 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\54915.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
41 

term variability with long-term trends. A recent peer-reviewed paper (Easterling, 

D.R., and M.F. Wehner, 2009: Is the climate warming or cooling? Geophys. Res. 

Letts, 36, doi:10.1029/2009GL037810.) directly addresses the issue of confusing 

short-term variability with long-term warming due to increasing greenhouse gases. 

The paper shows that periods of a decade or two that show no warming or even 

slight cooling are found both in the observed record during periods of long-run 

warming and in climate-model simulations of strong warming driven to increasing 

greenhouse gases. 

Furthermore, 1998 was an exceptionally hot year—hotter than all of the succeeding ones until 2005—because it superimposed a very powerful El Nin ̃ o on top 

of the long-run warming trend. This is evident in the year-by-year, global-average 

surface temperature data compiled by NASA (Figures 1 and 2). Also evident in these 

figures are: (1) the sudden coolings caused by the El Chichon and Pinatubo volcanic 

eruptions in the early 1980s and early 1990s, respectively, and (2) in Figure 1 two 

periods are highlighted that show no warming, even with the strong overall warming. These figures show that o One cannot draw valid conclusions about long-term 

trends from either the individual peaks or the individual valleys in year-to-year 

temperature trends. 

Figure 1. Globally averaged surface air temperature compiled by NASA. Blue lines are eightyear overlapping trend lines. 

Taking a closer look the effects of short-term variability can be separated from 

long-run trends by averaging over multi-year periods—the longer the averaging period, the less evident the short-term variability becomes and the easier it is to see 

the underlying longterm trend. Shown in blue in Figure 1 are 8-year trend lines. 

These give the average rate of change over the 8-year period where each line begins. 

One can see that the high short-term variability of the 1980s and very early 1990s 

produced both upward and downward 8-year trend lines in this period. But one can 

also see that, even despite the large El Nin ̃ o temperature spike in 1998, the 8-year 

trend lines from 1991 onward are all sloping upward—that is, all showing warming. 

In Figure 2, a longer averaging time reduces the influence of short-term variability still further. The blue lines now show the 15-year trends, and one sees that 

they are consistently upward from the beginning of the plot in the late 1970s 

through the end of the data in 2007. 


730HOLDQ1.eps
42 

Figure 2. Same as in Figure 1 except the trend lines are for fifteen-year periods. 

To understand the relation of surface temperature measurements to those made 

from balloons and from satellites—and how these different sorts of measurements 

are now understood to be consistent with each other and with the predictions of climate models, please see the two enclosed references (Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1 ‘‘Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences’’; and Santer et al., 

2008: ‘‘Consistency of modeled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere’’, Intl. J. Climatol., 28, 1703–1722, doi:10.1002/joc.1756). 

Unlike weather forecast models that start with the observed conditions and then 

simulate days or weeks into the future, climate models are started with conditions 

in, typically, 1,750 or 1,850, and then run without knowledge of observed conditions, 

except for observed changes in greenhouse gases and volcanic aerosols, to 2,000. To 

simulate future climate they are then run with scenarios of increasing greenhouse 

gases usually to 2,100. Climate models are not designed to try to simulate shortterm variations (i.e., decadal to even multi-decadal) in the climate, but the longer 

term changes in the baseline climate over multiple decades to centuries. What the 

models thus simulate (and each model is run a number of times to account for the 

chaotic behavior of the atmosphere) is the envelope of possible conditions over a period, and the question is then whether the observed climate is within that envelope 

of conditions. The crucial result of these comparisons is that the observed climate 

IS within the envelope of model simulations if and only if the model simulations 

include both human and natural influences over the course of the 20th Century. Figure 3 (from Easterling and Wehner 2009) shows one example of a climate model 

simulation for the 21st Century starting in 2001 that has strong increasing greenhouse gases and warms by about 4°C by 2100. Two periods are highlighted, 2001– 

2010 and 2016–2031, both of which show slight cooling, even though the simulation 

shows strong overall warming by the end of the 21st Century. Thus, due to natural 

variability of the climate, periods of a decade or two that show no warming are expected, even with strong warming by the end of this century. 


730HOLDQ2.eps
43 

Figure 3. One realization of the globally averaged surface air temperature from the ECHAM5 

coupled climate model forced with the SRES A2 greenhouse gas increase scenario for the 21st 

Century. 

Question 6. Would it be accurate to state that the climate cooled between 1940 

and 1975 while CO2 levels rose rapidly after WW-II? 

Answer. After rising rapidly during the first part of the 20th century, global average surface temperature did cool somewhat (on the order of 0.2°C) in the period 

from 1940 to about 1975. During this time period, increases in reflective particles 

in the atmosphere, from both industrial activities and volcanoes, more than compensated for the increases in the concentration of CO2. Thereafter, the increasingly 

rapid rise of CO2 came to dominate, with the help of pollution-control measures that 

reduced particle concentrations without doing anything about CO2. 

When the best estimates of the time histories of radiative forcing by anthropogenic greenhouse gases and particulate matter are included in modern climate models, along with solar variability and volcanic eruptions, they reproduce with remarkable fidelity the temperature trajectory observed over the 20th Century, including 

the cooling period between 1940 and 1975. 

Question 7. Why is it that climate models try to picture such events as ‘anomalous’ and adjust their model assumptions only AFTER the fact? 

Answer. Scientists are not suggesting that the cooling period from 1940 to 1975 

was ‘‘anomalous’’—as noted above, it is explained by current understandings of the 

relative importance of positive and negative forcings, natural and anthropogenic, 

over time. It may be added that science routinely proceeds by identifying discrepancies between theory and measurement, or between modeling and measurement, 

and then seeking to determine whether it is the theory (and/or models) are flawed, 

or the measurements that are lacking. Global climate models and our understanding 

of Earth’s climate system, as well as our ability to make systematic measurements 

of climate parameters, continue to improve through this interplay between scientific 

theory and observations. 

Question 8. Do you agree that CO2 is essential to plant growth—and all agriculture? As well, are you aware of current projects to convert algae to biofuels that 

are looking at injecting CO2 to increase growth? Would such projects be working 

under the assumption that increased CO2 can increase plant growth? 

Answer. Yes, CO2 is an essential input to photosynthesis in both natural and 

managed vegetation. And, under some circumstances, including adequate availability of water, nutrients, and sunlight, increasing the amount of CO2 available to 

plants will increase their productivity. This is indeed the idea behind projects to acVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Jun 17, 2010 Jkt 054915 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\54915.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE

730HOLDQ3.eps
44 

celerate the growth of algae, for conversion to biofuels, with the use of CO2 emitted 

by fuel-burning power plants. 

As for the effects on plant growth of the ongoing build-up of atmospheric CO2 as 

a result of human activities, the picture is complicated because of the changes in 

temperature and other climatic variables that accompany the CO2 increase. The conventional wisdom about effects of climate change on the productivity of farms and 

forests, up until a few years ago, was that modest increases in temperature accompanied by increases in atmospheric CO2 and rainfall (which increases in a warmer 

world because evaporation increases) would lead to increases in plant growth in 

many regions and thus to increases in crop yields and sustainable forest output. 

Only when the global average temperature increase reached 3.6°F (2°C) or more 

above the pre-industrial value, it was thought, would the effects of heat stress on 

plants offset the beneficial effects of increased CO2 and increased rainfall in enough 

places to lead to declines in farm and forest productivity on a global basis. 

Recent improvements in understanding of plant physiology, the ecology of plant 

pests and pathogens, and the implications of changes in average temperatures for 

temperature extremes and for changes in the patterns of precipitation and evaporation—all underpinned not just by theory and modeling but by observations—have 

changed this picture for the worse. It now seems that many plants are less helped 

by extra CO2 and more hurt by heat stress and pests and pathogens (which generally do better in a warmer climate) than had been thought. Crop and forest productivity is being further imperiled in many regions by increased incidence of 

drought, which tends to increase in a warmer world, despite an increase in global 

precipitation, in part because more of the rainfall occurs in extreme events (with 

more of the water lost to storm runoff) and the intervals between these events often 

increase (with more soil drying from the combination of the longer interval and 

higher temperatures). 

Question 9. If indeed the observed 20th Century warming is not due to CO2 increase but is naturally caused—likely a recovery from the Little Ice Age—do you 

see any point to limiting the emission of CO2? 

Answer. The scientific evidence is very strong that the pronounced warming of the 

last part of the 20th Century, continuing into the 21st, has been and is being driven 

primarily by the buildup in the atmosphere of CO2 and other heat-trapping gases 

and particles caused by human activities. The so-called ‘‘Little Ice Age’’ (which was 

not a glacial period but a moderate cooling) was a regional (Europe) rather than a 

global phenomenon. Scientific consensus clearly indicates that the first part of the 

question is a faulty premise as global warming is unequivocal and primarily humaninduced (IPCC 2007) and there is no plausibility to the proposition that the observed 

global warming could be a ‘‘recovery’’ from a regional cooling. If one did, nonetheless, believe that the recent warming was mainly explained by such a recovery, 

there would still be a good argument for trying to avoid the adverse impacts of the 

further warming that the solid science of greenhouse-gas influences indicates will 

be the result of further CO2 build-up in the atmosphere. 

In addition to the warming caused by increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2, the 

recently released U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) report entitled 

‘‘Global Change Impacts in the United States’’ (2009) states the following: 

‘‘In addition to carbon dioxide’s heat-trapping effect, the increase in its concentration in the atmosphere is gradually acidifying the ocean. About one-third 

of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities has been absorbed by the 

ocean, resulting in a decrease in the ocean’s pH. Since the beginning of the industrial era, ocean pH has declined demonstrably and is projected to decline 

much more by 2100 if current emissions trends continue. Further declines in 

pH are very likely to continue to affect the ability of living things to create and 

maintain shells or skeletons of calcium carbonate. This is because at a lower 

pH less of the dissolved carbon is available as carbonate ions. 

‘‘Ocean acidification will affect living things including important plankton species in the open ocean, mollusks and other shellfish, and corals. The effects on 

reef-building corals are likely to be particularly severe during this century. 

Coral calcification rates are likely to decline by more than 30 percent under a 

doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, with erosion outpacing 

reef formation at even lower concentrations. In addition, the reduction in pH 

also affects photosynthesis, growth, and reproduction. The upwelling of deeper 

ocean water, deficient in carbonate, and thus potentially detrimental to the food 

chains supporting juvenile salmon has recently been observed along the U.S. 

West Coast.’’ 

45 

Question 10. If the G–5 (China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa) and Russia do not commit to legally verifiable reductions, at what point will the global concentrations reach 450 ppm GHG? 

Answer. The Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth assessment report stated in 2007 that, ‘‘The total CO2-equivalent concentration of all longlived GHGs is now about 455 ppm CO2-eq.’’ Incorporating the cooling effect of 

aerosols, other air pollutants and gases released from land-use change into the 

equivalent concentration, leads to an effective total CO2-eq concentration of about 

380 ppm. Future greenhouse gas emissions, and the resultant atmospheric concentrations, depend on future demographic, economic, and technological developments, all of which are uncertain. If we assume that the Organisation for Economic 

Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries reduce their combined emissions to 

80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and that there is no reduction below the 

IPCC’s reference scenarios in the combined emissions of the non-OECD countries, 

then the total radiative forcing would reach the equivalent of 450 ppmv of carbon 

dioxide by 2045, plus or minus 5 years. Stabilizing the atmosphere at less than 450 

ppmv CO2-equivalent would require significant emission reductions by non-OECD 

countries to begin before 2030. Legally binding commitments by these countries that 

they will do so are highly desirable, though other options should also continue to 

be explored. 

Question 11. If the global target of 50 percent reduction of emissions by 2050 is 

to be achieved, what is the corresponding U.S. reduction required by 2030, 2040, 

and 2050? Provide this answer assuming that there are no commitments as described in Q–10 above? 

Answer. The reduction in U.S. emissions that is required to achieve a given global 

reduction depends on the emissions of other countries. The emissions of all other 

countries are not specified in the question. If, however, we assume that there is no 

reduction below the reference scenarios in non-OECD emissions, then it is impossible to achieve a global target of a 50 percent reduction in emissions by 2050. This 

is because the projections of future emissions from non-OECD countries in the reference scenarios exceed current total world emissions. 

Question 12. You recently shared that the idea of geoengineering the climate is 

being discussed at the White House. You have also shared that one such extreme 

option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the 

sun’s rays and that such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort. Can you discuss what technologies you have discussed with fellow staff, and 

the cost-benefit analysis the White House is using? In addition, can you share why 

this would be necessary if the earth continues to cool at the same pace it has over 

the last 7+ years? 

Answer. The reporter’s question that I answered in the affirmative was whether 

geoengineering had ever been mentioned in conversations about climate change in 

the White House. In my answer I indicated that there is probably no aspect of the 

climate-change issue that has not been mentioned in such discussions, and I went 

on to say that, as a scientist, my personal view is that we need to look at all of 

the possibilities in order to understand their potential leverage, their limitations, 

their costs, and their side effects. None of this is the same as saying, as was erroneously reported, that geoengineering is currently ‘‘under consideration’’ to be a 

component of the White House’s climate strategy. 

Indeed, the ‘‘mentions’’ of geoengineering in White House discussions of which I 

am aware have largely been unfavorable, based on current understandings suggesting that effectiveness would be low in relation to costs and risks, except in the 

case of such simple (and limited) measures as making roofs and pavement white instead of black in order to reflect sunlight that otherwise would be absorbed. But I 

think most would agree that geoengineering ideas should continue to be studied and 

evaluated in the scientific community, in case something more promising can be 

identified. The reason for continuing scientific attention to all of the possibilities for 

both mitigation of global climate change (measures to reduce its pace and magnitude) and adaptation to it (measures to reduce the damages from the degree of 

climate change we fail to avoid) is that the great bulk of the scientific evidence indicates that warming is continuing (see answer to Question 5) and that the growth 

of impacts from it is accelerating. 

Question 13. Can you explain how it is possible to increase the cost of energy 

(which would include everything from electricity and fuel to heat a home, to gasoline, manufactured goods and food) on the poor without reducing their standard of 

living or limiting their freedom? 

Answer. Under a cap-and-trade program, an increase in the cost of energy for lowincome households can be offset through a variety of methods of returning a portion 

46 

of the value of emissions allowances to households. For example, a system in which 

most allowances were auctioned, and most of the auction revenue was returned to 

households through a tax credit on a per-capita basis, could provide a net benefit 

to low-income households. By creating incentives for consumers to conserve energy 

and consumption of energy-intensive goods and services, this approach is more economically efficient than an alternative that effectively shields households from seeing any changes in energy prices. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 

has estimated that H.R. 2454, which would implement a cap-and-trade system to 

reduce GHG emissions, would provide net benefits to households in the lowest income quintile in 2020: CBO estimated that the bill would impose average gross costs 

of $425 per household in the lowest income quintile in 2020, but also provide an 

average financial benefit of $465 to these households. In addition, demand response, 

weatherization programs and improved energy-efficiency standards for vehicles and 

appliances could lead to net reductions in family expenditures on energy despite 

higher energy prices. For example, households may reduce their demand for energy 

and energy-intensive goods in response to a carbon price, which then makes them 

less vulnerable to future increases in the prices of energy. 

Question 14. Why is it that India believes it is necessary to increase their fossil 

fuel consumption, and as a consequence their GHG emissions, in order to bring a 

significant portion of their population out of poverty? 

Answer. Per-capita energy use in India is currently 20 times less than in the 

United States, 10 times less than in most other developed countries, and 4 times 

less than in China. Today, 40 percent of India’s population does not have access to 

electricity. Improved energy services are necessary for the continued economic development of India. Increasing the efficiency of energy use can make a substantial contribution to improved energy services, but India’s total energy consumption is likely 

to continue to increase for some time. In the near-term, these increases will be provided mostly by fossil fuels, because they are the options currently most available 

at scale at competitive costs. In the longer term, increased reliance on low-carbon 

energy sources, such as wind, solar, modern biomass, and nuclear energy, as well 

as the use of carbon sequestration, can largely decouple economic development from 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

Æ