|
House Science Committee holds climate science hearing; Commerce, Justice, and Science explores NOAA's proposed 2012 Budget 13 April 2011
The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a hearing—"Climate Change: The Processes Used to Create Science and Policy"—on 31 March 2011. The hearing largely addressed issues relating to the validity of climate science.
Chairman Hall (R-TX) opened the hearing by stressing that he hoped to hold a series of hearings on climate science with witnesses representing a broad range of viewpoints and, following the leaked East Anglia emails, wondered whether climate scientists were following accepted scientific processes. Ranking member Johnson (D-TX) responded by predicting that the hearing would fall "far short of a meaningful discussion" and warned that "allowing partisan politics to inform science is short-sighted."
Of six witnesses called before the committee, three were physical scientists (the remaining three were an economist, a professor of marketing, and a lawyer), including John Christy, an Alabama state climatologist, Richard Muller, a UC Berkeley physicist, and Kerry Emanuel, a MIT atmospheric scientist. The most surprising testimony came from Muller, who stressed that preliminary data from his Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project indicated results similar to previous assessments and that the integrity of the data behind previous assessments is good. Emanuel testified that "mavericks are indispensible to the progress of science, but politicians who make mascots out of mavericks are invariably engaging in advocacy."
Questioning focused on two main themes: the processes and biases within climate science and the economics of responding to climate change. Reps. Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Broun (R-GA), and Rohrabacher (R-CA) focused much of their questioning on "ClimateGate", stating that the British panels that investigated the leaked emails mostly whitewashed the issue. Reps. Harris (R-MD), Cravaack (R-MN), and Brooks (R-AL) focused their questioning on natural variability within the climate system, asking about both the Medieval Warm Period as well as the 1970s "Global Cooling" hypothesis.
Democrats spent much of their questioning exploring the funding and biases of the witnesses and stressed that all of the witnesses agreed that climate was changing and that humans had some influence over this change. Much discussion focused on the uncertainty behind climate models. Emanuel and Christy both stressed that the uncertainty behind IPCC climate models is very large, though Emanuel repeatedly stated that this does not mean the impacts of climate change will be benign.
For information on the hearing, the archived webcast, and the witnesses' written testimony, click here.
The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science held a hearing Friday, 1 April 2011, on NOAA's proposed fiscal year 2012 budget. Jane Lubchenco, the NOAA Administrator, presented the details of the agency's budget to the committee and fielded a variety of questions, most related to NOAA's proposed Climate Service and its Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS).
Lubchenco began her testimony by highlighting several components of NOAA's budget critical to its operations and to providing NOAA's services to Americans. The FY2012 request includes approximately $2 billion for NOAA's satellite service, including an increase of $688 million for JPSS, a program to replace NOAA's aging polar-orbiting environmental satellites (for more information on NPOESS and JPSS, see "The Future of NPOESS" Science Policy Alert). Additionally, the request includes $368 million for the Climate Service, a budget-neutral reorganization that "brings together NOAA's existing widely dispersed climate capabilities under a single line office."
Chairman Wolf (R-VA) began by stating that NOAA's proposed 15% budget increase over FY2010 was large in today's budget climate and that "Congress will not be in a position to provide" such appropriations. He also called for a tsunami summit—one to be held on each coast—to bring together NOAA, USGS, universities, the state governors' offices, and state and local planners to learn from the Japanese tsunami.
Many of the committee members focused their questions on the impacts of not properly funding JPSS and whether NOAA had a backup plan for obtaining the data that would not be captured if JPSS does not launch on time. Lubchenco impressed upon the committee that the likelihood of a data gap is high, and that without a total of $910 million appropriated for JPSS this fiscal year, a data gap starting in 2017 is certain to occur. The impacts would be severe and "all the money in the world" will not prevent the data gap from occurring unless funding is provided this fiscal year and next to speed JPSS toward its scheduled launch date. Rep. Schiff (D-CA) asked whether the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP), which will provide temporary polar-orbiting services, could substitute for JPSS. Lubchenco stated that NPP has a designed lifespan of 3 years, but NOAA is hoping the satellite can remain aloft for 5 years.
Ranking member Fattah (D-PA) asked if NOAA has considered using a fee-for-service model, much like many European nations. Lubchenco responded that, while this may be a viable long-term change, it does not negate the fact that NOAA needs money this fiscal year and next to maintain its weather, climate, and ocean services.
Chairman Wolf asked whether NOAA could redirect funds to JPSS given its importance; Lubchenco responded by saying that because JPSS is such a large budget item NOAA has very little ability to reallocate funds. Wolf and Rep. Bonner (R-AL) expressed skepticism about the proposed Climate Service and wondered whether it would result in impaired and reduced science. Lubchenco answered that the Climate Service is a budget-neutral reorganization that simply improves NOAA's efficiencies, was recommended by a Congressional-mandated study by the National Academy of Public Administration, and has the support of all stakeholders.
For more information on the hearing and to read Lubchenco's written testimony, click here.