ENvlRONMENTAL COSTS

MAY233 1995

to be much more specific.
(3) Q And the IPCC report is not intended by its authors to
be used in the way a primary source would be used: is that
correct?
(6) A Of course not.
(71 Q For what purpose is it intended by its authors to be
used?
(9) A For policy guidance.
(io) MR. WIRTSCHAFTER: No further questions.
(12) THE JUDGE: Okay. Who would like to be next? Ms.
Sasseville. RECROSS-EXAMINATION
(15) BY MS. SASSEVILLE:
(16) Q To what extent do scientists rely on tertiary sources in
their research?
(is) A Very little. I mean normally not at all.
(19) MS. SASSEVILLE: Thank you, no further questions.
(21) THE JUDGE: Anyone else? Ms. Hedman.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
(23) BY MS. HEDMAN:
(24) Q Dr. Lindzen, were you present during the Conference
of the Parties in Berlin?
PAGE

-

VOLUME 9

PAGE 49

(1) would like to raise before we begin with the next witness.
It shouldn’t take too long.
(3) MS. ZIBELMAN: Your Honor, the issue that I’d like to

raise is I have not yet seen the additional surrebuttal filed by
the Environmental Coalition with the two new witnesses. And
I am concerned that these witnesses may be putting in,
because of their backgrounds, information that we would not
have seen if Dr. Whitelaw had testified. What I’d like is an
opportunity, if need be, to respond to that through additional
testimony by our witnesses, and I would propose if it‘s short
that we just ask leave to allow us to elicit it on the stand or
file short additional surrebuttal. But the concern relates to
the fact that I don’t know what these witnesses will be
saying, if they’re supplementing essentially the direct and
rebuttal by adding in new information that they have that he
wouldn’t have had, we have been deprived then of our
opportunity to file surrebuttal to Dr. Whitelaw and 1 think we
should be given that opportunity.
(24) M E JUDGE: Ms. Hedman, I wasn’t certain whether the
surrebuttal that was filed by these

47

A No.
Q And isn’t it the case that you filed your testimony prior
to the meeting in Berlin, the Conference of the Parties, that
occurred at the end of April and early May?
(6) A Yes.
(7) MS. HEDMAN: No further questions.
(s) MS. ZIBELMAN: I have a follow-up question.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
(11) BY MS. ZIBELMAN:
(12) Q Dr. Lindzen, you testified in response to a question
from Mr. Wirtschafter that the IPCC is used for policy
guidance. To your knowledge is the IPCC intended to be
used by state public utility commissions to set environmental
costs for state utilities?
(is) MR. WIRTSCHAFTER: I object to the friendly redirect or
friendly cross here.
(20) THE JUDGE: Well -(21) MS. ZIBELMAN: I don’t know if it’s friendly or not, it’s a
follow-up.
(-1 THE JUDGE: Just a moment, just a moment. I think it’s
a legitimate thing, you can answer the question.

PAGE 50

(1)
(2)

(1) two witnesses was in lieu of Whitelaw’s filing or whether
they would have filed separately anyway even if Whitelaw
had been available.
(4) MS. HEDMAN: They would not have filed separately.
This was testimony which they were participating in
preparation of for surrebuttal on behalf of the Environmental
Coalition, it would have been filed anyway.
(9) THE JUDGE: It seems to me that we don’t know if
there’s a problem yet and so there’s no point in doing
anything until we do know whether there’s a problem. So I
think we just wait and see whether there is a problem. I’m a
little bit leery of having testimony come in which has not
been prefiled just because it raises questions about surprise
and that kind of thing, but let‘s wait and see if there’s a
problem, first of all.
(is) MS. SASSEVILLE: Your Honor, I’m sorry that t wasn’t
there and this perhaps wasn’t discussed in-depth, but if Dr.
Whitelaw isn’t dead, I mean why can’t he be subpoenaed to
appear here? Presumably you have a contractual
relationship with him and he has an obligation to appear.
And it puts, it not only puts us at a disadvantage, of course
it’s putting you at a

PAGE 48

It’s formally stated that it is to advise
essentially international parties. And it was formally started in
connection with the plans for Rio. I don’t think they ever
intended it for Minnesota specifically though.
(7) THE JUDGE: Okay. Is there anything further for this
witness? Ms. Hedman. RECROSS-EXAMINATION
(io) BY MS. HEDMAN:
(11) Q Dr. Undzen, can you cite an IPCC document that
indicates that Its use is for making international policy?
(14) A I can’t give you a direct citation here, I’d have to look,
but one would have to go back to ’88 to find the documents
creating the IPCC and I don’t have those here.
(18) THE JUDGE: Okay. Anything further for the witness?
Thank you. (Break taken.) (Whereupon, Exhibits 57 and 58
were marked for identification by the court reporter.)
(24) THE JUDGE: Let’s go on the record. Ms. Zibelman has
a housekeeping item that she
(1) THE WITNESS:

PAGE 51

disadvantage. And has that been explored?
MS. HEDMAN: I’ve taken every step I can to work things
out, it’s not possible.
( 4 ) THE JUDGE: I don’t -- I mean we can’t say really until
these people appear and are cross-examined, but I don’t
know that it’s going to be that much of a problem. I think
we’ll have to wait and see what the situation is. All right. I
believe, Mr. Glaser, the next witness is yours. You may call
him.
(11) MR. GLASER: Yes. We call Dr. Patrick Michaels to the
stand PATRICK J. MICHAELS, after having been first duly
;worn, was examined and testified on his oath as follows:
IIRECT EXAMINATION
17) BY MR. GLASER:
is) Q Dr. Michaels, would you state your name for the
(1)

(2)

I

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (612)888-7687

OCpoMeqqe

Page 10

 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS
record, please?
(20) A Patrick J. Michaels.
(21) Q And would you state your business address, please?
(23) A Department of Environmental Sciences.
(24) Q And do you have in front of you a document entitled
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Patrick J.
PAGE 52

Michaels that has been marked as Exhibit 57?
A Yes.
(3) Q And does this exhibit consist of your rebuttal testimony
and exhibit that consists of your resume?
(6) A Yes.
(7-1 Q Have you made any changes to this exhibit?
(8) A Yes, I have. Would you like me to detail them?
(9) Q Yes, please.
(io) A On page 10 there are two typographical mistakes. In
the table labeled Net Temperature Change, under the
subhead Globe, Century, after the number 0.50 there is a
bullet, a typographical bullet that should not be there. And
immediately beneath that, under the subhead Century,
category Northern Hemisphere, there is a one plus, that is a
typographical error, it should read 0.40 only.
(is) Q And have you indicated these changes in writing on
the exhibit in front of you?
(20) A Yes, I have.
(21) Q And have you initialed those?
(22) A Yes, I have.
(23) Q And do you also have an exhibit in front of you
entitled Surrebuttal Testimony of Dr. Patrick J. Michaels?
(1)

(2)

PAGE 53

A Yes, I do.
Q And that is identified as Exhibit 59?
(3) A 58.
(4) Q 58, I'm sorry.
(5) A Yes.
(6) Q And were Exhibits 57 and 58 prepared by you?
(7) A Yes, they were.
(8) Q And if I asked you the questions in those two exhibits
today now that you're under oath would you give me the
same answers?
(11) A Yes, I would.
(12) MR. GLASER: Your Honor, I move admission of these
two exhibits into evidence.
(14) THE JUDGE: All right. Is there any objection to 57 or
(1)
(2)

a?

MS. FREESE: Your Honor, we would like to preserve
our opportunity to make motions to strike some of this
testimony after the hearing consistent with our motions for Dr.
Lindzen's testimony.
(21) THE JUDGE: All right. Anything else? Then 57 and 58
are received subject to that possibiiity.
(24) MR. GLASER: And Dr. Michaels is available for
cross-examination.
(16)

_.

-

PAGE W

THE JUDGE: who would like to go first?
MS. FREESE: Your Honor, I'm prepared to proceed.
THE JUDGE: All right. CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MS. FREESE:
m Q Dr. Michaels, good morning.
(s) A Good morning.
(1)

(2)
(4)
(6)

Q Let me start with a question regarding your surrebuttal
on page 2. At the very end of that page you state, referring
to the period from 4,000 to 7,000 years ago, that textbooks
published in the 1970s referred to this era as the climatic
optimum?
(1% A Yes.
(16) Q Regarding the term climatic optimum, that simply
means that it's the warmest period: is that correct?
(19) A No, it means, the textbooks in that era generally refer
to this as the climatic optimum because it accompanied the
ascendants of agriculture in civilization.
(23) Q I have some questions, Dr. Michaels, regarding natural
variability, in climatic natural variability of temperature change.
The IPCC 1990
(9)

-.

- .______

PAGE 55

(1) report states that natural variability of the climate system
could be as large as the changes observed to date over the
past century which they characterize as a global mean
temperature increase of .3 to .6 degrees centigrade. Leaving
aside whether their estimate of the amount of warming over
the past century is correct, do you agree that natural
variability of climate over a century could be in the range of
.3 to .6 degrees centigrade?
(11) A Yes.
(12) Q What is your best estimate of natural variabilty?
(13) A That is a very, very difficult question. It may require
me to digress a l i e bit. If we look at climate records over
the last 1,000 years, it's probably plus or minus about 1.2
degrees Celsius. If we look back 4 to 7,000 years ago we
see excursions of two degrees on the global scale, much
larger excursions on the local scale, and then when we go
back to the glaciations the numbers get much larger than
that.
(22) Q How about if you go back a century?
(23) A It depends upon the century.
(24) Q The last one.
(23) A That's not representative of all the centuries.
PAGE 56

-

(1) We see, for example, in
as in the period roughly, I think
about 13,000 years ago and then probably around 11,000
years ago, we see repeated excursions in the climate. This
is from a paper by Lehman, L-E-H-M-A-N, and Keitwin,
K-E-I-T-W-I-N, of I believe plus four, plus or minus four to
five degrees in 40 years. So that's a very large range of
natural Variability that has been obsewed.
(io) Q Would you agree, Dr. Michaels, that it is possible that
an even greater enhanced greenhouse effect is being hidden
by natural variability?
(13) MR. GLASER: I object. There's no foundation for what
is meant by "even greater enhanced greenhouse".
(16) MS. FREESE: I can rephrase that.
(17) THE JUDGE: Okay.
(is) BY MS. FREESE:
(19) Q Let's assume hypothetically that a .3 to -6 degrees
centigrade warming has occurred in the past century and
let's assume hypothetically that that entire warming could be
attributed to enhanced greenhouse effect. Would you agree
that it is even -- that it is possible that an even greater
snhanced greenhouse effect is being hidden
PAGE 57

 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS

MAY 23, 1995

-

VOLUME 9
~

by natural variability?
A It is possible.
(3) Q Would you agree that it is possible that an even
greater enhanced greenhouse effect is being hidden, I
assume you would then, by a combination of natural
variability and other human factors?
rn A It is possible.
(8) Q You'd agree, wouldn't you, that the earth will undergo
some warming as a result of the increase in
anthropogenerated greenhouse gases?
(11) A Yes, I do.
(12) Q You state on page 24 of your testimony, beginning on
line 23, that the warming trend of the last century is taking
place at a rate far below that required to meet the forecast of
4.2 degrees centigrade for a doubling of effective carbon
dioxide within a relative time frame. The most conservative
estimate is that GCMs are off by a factor of two. When you
say GCMs are you referring again to the GCMs that forecast
warming of 4.2 degrees centigrade?
(22) A I'm referring to the suite of models there that was the
background for the IPCC '90 report, that's correct.
(2s) Q So using your conservative, a conservative
()I

(2)

PAGE 58

(1) estimate, the observational record would support warming
predictions of 2.1 degrees centigrade?
(3) A No. I do need to elaborate on that statement, if I
could. We have three sets of observed records that are in
fact independent sets of observed records. And they give us
a very, I think, consistent answer with respect to the
greenhouse issue. If we look, for example, at the shorfest of
these records, the MSU satellite record, it actually shows a
net cooling, it begins in 1979. However, if you adjust that
record as Spencer and Christy did for volcanism, and it was
a somewhat debatable adjustment, one gets a warming in it
of about .09degrees per decade. That's about, that's
between a factor of three and four beneath the warming
predicted to have occurred during that period by those
models. Another record that we have is something called the
radiosonde record. Radiosonde, R-A-D-I-0-S-0-N-0-E. That
record is valid globally back to 1958 and is a highly
callbrated record because these are the instruments that go
up in the weather balloons twice a day and set the computer
for the daily weather forecast. This

PAGE 59
(1) record shows

a decadal warming of about -11 degrees
Celsius per decade, which again
(3) Q I'm sorry, could I just ask you, this shows what kind of
warming?
(5) A Decadal.
(6) Q Decadal?
(7) A Decadal of about .I1 degrees per decade which is a
factor of about three underneath the warming predicted by
the referred suite of models. The last record that we have is
the so-called ground based temperature record, the surface
based temperature record which has a lot of problems
associated with it. It shows a warming of roughly half a
degree. But much of that warming, about, let's say a half or
so, maybe a little more, occurred before there was much of a
change in the greenhouse effect. So if we discount that, we
come up with a warming that is between a factor of three or
four beneath the trend projected by those models. So what

--

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (612)888-7687

~~

we have here are three independent sources of data. All
putting us in the same ballpark, which is centering around 8
factor of three.
(25) Q Which gets me back to your testimony on pages 24
~~

PACE

60

and 25, my question, which I still don't understand your
response to, is if you're saying, as you do on page 24, that
the most conservative estimate is that GCMs are off by a
factor of two, could we then say that the most conservative
estimate would be that if the GCMs predicted half as much
warming as they do they'd be on track?
(8) A That's allowing, that is -- implied in that statement is
that the observed record is in fact missing somehow a large
portion of the projected greenhouse enhancement. And at
the same -- at the other end, perhaps the observed record
would be in error by an equal or opposite amount, you'd be
up to a factor of four. The point is that the observed record
shows three and there are three independent ways of
demonstrating this.
(17) Q The observed record shows that they are
overestimating by a factor of three?
(19) A Correct.
(20) Q And when you say "they" you're talking about the
GCMs?
(22) A The suite -(a)Q You're talking about the GCMs that predict in the
range of 4.2 degrees?
(25) A That's the average of that suite.
(I)

PAGE 61
(1) Q Dr. Michaels, you explain, beginning on page 15 of
your testimony, line 4, that you do not believe that the
effective sulfate aerosols emitted into the air by industrial
activities can explain what you call, quote, the failure of the
warming forecast, unquote. Isn't it true that in 1992 you
hypothesized in the bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society that in the Northern Hemisphere the presence of
sulfates in the air may actually produce a negative forcing,
that is cooling effect, equal to the warming effect caused by
C02?
(13) A I have two papers in the bulletin there. I want to
make sure. You must have a copy of that paper, tell me
what page it is on?
(16) Q This is the paper beginning on 1563.
(13 A Correct. I see it.
(IS) 0 And you're answering correct to my earlier question?
(20) A No, I now have the paper. My answer to your
excuse me. My answer to your question is that that was
stated as a hypothesis and in the conclusion to the paper I
will quote, it said, "If this is the course the earth has
embarked upon," et cetera, et cetera, "that course is not

--

PAGE 62

consistent with an increase in sulfate aerosol."
Q So you're concluding in this paper that your hypothesis
IS wrong?
3) A It was a hypothesis. In a scientific paper one sets up a
iypothesis, it's not my hypothesis.
:6) M E JUDGE: But to answer the question, did you
:onclude that the hypothesis was incorrect?
p) THE WITNESS: It was not sufficiently explanatory.
p) BY MS. FREESE:
(1)

(2)

Dcp-Merge

Page 12

 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS

MAY 23, 1995

(12) Q Do you not also conclude in that paper at the bottom
of page 1575, "I believe that both the observed and
theoretical evidence for mitigation of greenhouse warming by
anthropogenerated particulates serves to partially explain
several disparate measurements that seemed counter what
would be observed in a simple greenhouse enhancement"?
(20) A The operative word is partially.
(21) Q Let's explore that then. In your view what effect
in
your view how do you define partially in that sentence?
(a)A Sulfate aerosols do not explain the behavior of the
climate in a spatial sense. In fact, the

-

-

PAGE 63
(1) behavior of the observed climate in several important
areas is opposite to what one would expect from a sulfate
greenhouse interaction.
(4) Q You're referring to your 1994 study?
(5) A In part. I'm referring
in part I'm referring to that.
(71 Q My question, Dr. Michaels, is in your view now how
much of a cooling effect do you believe that sulfate aerosols
have had?
(io) A I can't give you that number. I never attempted to
calculate that number.
(12) Q In your view do they have no effect on the
have
they had no cooling effect?
(14) A I think it is a fair statement to say that our
Understanding, our, meaning the scientific understanding of
the magnitude of the sulfate response is very cloudy, to use
a double entendre. Clouded, excuse me.
(19) Q And can you state that there is some cooling effect
from sulfate aerosols?
(21) A I do not know, though perhaps you could help me. A
paper that directly measures cooling from sulfate aerosols.
(2.4) Q Do you know what the IPCC's view on the cooling
effect of sulfate aerosols is?

--

--

-

PAGE 64

(1) A Yes. It is that they have very, very little confidence in
their ability to estimate it.
(3) Q Is their assumption, however, that there is some cooling
effect?
(9 A Again, there is a recent report on radiative transfer, I
believe, in the atmosphere, by IPCC, and twice in their
report, and only twice so far as I can tell, they rate their
confidence in their ability to quantify the cooling effect of
sulfates. The highest confidence that they ascribe to that
abilii is, quote, low. The median confidence is between low
and very low.
(13) Q That is to quantify the effect?
(14) A To correctly quantify the effect.
(15) Q How about to determine whether it has a cooling effect
or no effect?
(in A I believe that they do say they exert a cooling effect.
But Icaution you that in science, a qualitative statement is
essentially a meaningless statement.
(21) Q Do sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere from volcanoes
lead to cooling?
(a)A They should. The effect is much less subtle. One
knows what happens when the sun goes behind a cloud.
PAGE 65
(1) Q I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your answer to
that. Isn't it fairly well established that sulfate aerosols from

SHADDJX & ASSOCIATES (612)888-7687

-

VOLUME 9

volcanoes lead to a cooling of the mean global temperature?
(5) A That's not the same question you just asked.
( 6) Q Perhaps you would answer that one then?
(7) A The first or the second?
(e) Q The second.
(9) A I would think the first is the more appropriate question,
if I could. The second question is much more difficult. And I
could explain why.
(12) Q Let's try to answer both.
(13) THE JUDGE: Let's start with the first question.
(is) THE WITNESS: The first question, what line am I
looking at? Here we go, I've got it. "Do sulfate aerosols in
the stratosphere from volcanoes lead to cooling," that's the
first question.
( X I ) BY MS. FREESE:
(21) Q Okay.
(22) A The answer to that is yes.
(23) Q Okay.
(24) A The key word is stratosphere.
(2s) Q Why is that the key word?
PAGE 66
(1) A Because aerosol from volcanoes does not reside in the
troposphere very long.
(3) Q But you're not suggesting that the cooling does not
occur on the surface?
(5) A The cooling occurs because the aerosol is in the
stratosphere.
(71 Q And the cooling is felt on the surface?
(e) A Correct.
(9) Q Isn't it the case, Dr. Michaels, that in your 1992 article
you cited as evidence for the hypothesis that sulfate aerosols
are having a cooling effect, the works of several scientists,
including Mayewski. M-A-Y-E-W-S-K-I, et ai?
(14) A M-A-Y-E-W?
(15) Q M-A-Y-E-W-S-K-I. Who had demonstrated that the
amount of sulfate humans are putting into the air in the
Northern Hemisphere is equivalent to the amount put in from
the Tambora Volcano. T-A-M-6-0-R-A, which was associated
with a short-term cooling of one to two degrees centigrade?
(22) A That's correct.
(a)Q And just to be clear, before i leave this point, you
have not ruled out the possibility that the presence of such
pollutants has had a coollng

PAGE 67

effect on the planet?
A Nor have I ruled out the observation that it clearly does
not explain the temporal behavior of climate during the
greenhouse enhancement.
(5) Q So your answer is no?
(6) A I said
(7) Q You have not ruled out the possibility?
(B) A Right. But I also add the second statement as answer
to your question.
(10) THE JUDGE: It would save, I think, a little time and
extra questions if you could try to start out answers like that
with the words, no, but I also want to point out such and
such. That way those of us who are not trained in this area
know that the basic answer is no in addtion to whatever else
you want to say.
(17) THE WITNESS: Thank you.
(le) BY MS. FREESE:
(1)
(2)

Depo Merge

--

Page 13

 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS

MAY 23, 1995

(19) Q You testified beginning on page 17 of your rebuttal
that there is evidence of increasing cloudiness particularly in
North America and particularly since 1950. In 1992, again
that article I referred you to, you suggested that the industrial
pollutants were creating the low leveled cloudiness: is that
correct? You
PAGE 68
(1) hypothesized?
(2)

A Yes.

(3) Q Have you ruled out this possibility now?

A As I concluded -- no, as 1 concluded in the 1992 paper,
however, that effect does not sufficiently explain the disparity
between forecasts of the current climate and the current
climate.
(8) Q But it partially explains it?
(9) A It could.
(io) Q And just to be clear on this then, you leave open the
possibility that whatever increased cloudiness you observed
could have been caused by industrial pollution?
(14) A I have to answer no to your question because you
used the word whatever. There are -- there is evidence for
cloud increases that could not have been caused by sulfate
aerosols.
(18) Q Okay. So some of the increased cloudiness you could
not attribute to these aerosols?
(to) A Correct.
(21) Q But some you could?
(22) A You couldn't rule them out is the correct answer.
(23) Q Are you aware of what the IPCC view is on this
subject?
(2s) A I believe I am.
(4)

PAGE 69

Q Do they agree with you?
A I think they do. Can I elaborate on that answer?
(3) M E JUDGE: Yes.
(4) M E WITNESS: I have to say I must elaborate on that
answer. I think we are in agreement inasmuch as we both
say that the confidence in the quantitative estimate of the
effect of sulfate aerosol varies between a low and very low.
(io) BY MS. FREESE:
(11) Q Are you in agreement that some of the increased
cloudlness can be attributed to sulfate aerosol?
(13) A With the confidence level between low and very low.
(1s) Q Is the hypothesis that
which I would atbibute to you
based on your testimony -- that warming will be, any warming
would be manifested as warmer nights and cooler days
something that is accepted by the IPCC?
(20) MR. GLASER: Excuse me. Let me just jump in. When
you say any warming, could you please be more specific?
(23) MS. FREESE: Perhaps 1 could unpack that question into
two.
(25) MR. WITHAM: Your Honor, I also have an
(1)

(2)

--

PAGE 70
(1) objection

on the same question. She keeps referring in
her questions to the IPCC. As Dr. Lindzen testified, the
IPCC is not a person, it's a series of documents, and to
clarify her questions I think she should be referring to which
document she's referring to or meaning when she refers to
the IPCC.
(8) THE JUDGE: Can you refer to documents as the '90or

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (612)888-7687

-

VOLUME 9

'92 or '94, that kind of thing, are you prepared to do that?
MS. FREESE: I may be able to. If it would work I'd
prefer to refer to them as a body of work and then if there is
a distinction that comes up between the different drafts then
the witness could identify that distinction for us.
(16) THE JUDGE: Okay.
(17) BY MS. FREESE:
(18) Q Do you hypothesize that any enhanced greenhouse
effect would be manifested as warmer nights and cooler
days?
(21) A I have hypothesized that. That will serve as my
answer.
(23) Q Is that the working hypothesis of the IPCC?
(24) A That depends on which IPCC report you're referring
to.
(11)

PAGE 71

Q Is it the working hypothesis of any IPCC report?
A Let me explain. In 1990, I reviewed the 1990 report
and in my review I pointed out the propensity for night
(1)

(2)

warming and little, if any, day warming. That review never,
not one word of that appeared in the 1990 report. In the
most recent versions of IPCC, and I am going to have to
check a reference here, if you don't mind. IPCC 1992
reports a reduction in the range of daily temperature. That
means that has been detected, and I want to be precise on
this, if you'll give me a moment. That has been detected
primarily as a rise in the night temperatures with little change
in the day.
(15) Q Did you find the page there in looking for that?
(16) A Well, actually what I'm looking at is a reference to
IPCC '92 which is IPCC '95. They did not give the page
number.
(19) Q Okay. Just one minute, Your Honor. Directing your
attention to page 29 of your rebuttal testimony.
(22) A Excuse me, I'm a little overloaded up here with
information. Yes.
(24) Q You show in your chart, the top portion, that in about
1950 the amount of C02 emissions began to
PAGE 72

increase steeply; is that correct?
A Correct.
(3) Q And in the Northern Hemisphere, based on the second
part of the chart, temperatures do not go up dramatically at
that time, but rather they go down for a few years before
they start to come up again?
(8) A There's no net change in the temperature that's
statistically significant in this representation in the Northern
Hemisphere.
(11) Q Looking at just a portion from 1950 -(12) A Correct.
(13) Q -- forward, between the beginning and the end, I
presume you would say there was no significant net change?
(16) A Right. This is the ENSO, E-N-S-0, corrected record,
yes.
(re) Q But recognize there is a general dip in temperatures
until, say, the O OS, and then it appears to go back up again?
;zi) A The point of the illustration is that every observed
Vorthern Hemisphere temperature after the carbon emissions
ake off, falls beneath the warming that was established
sfore it did.
,251 Q Do you hypothesize in your 1982 article that the
(1)
(2)

~cpo~ege

Page 14

 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS

MAY 23, 1995

-.

PAGE 73
(1) difference between what happens in the Northern
Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere after 1950
appears to be associated with the onset of world
industrialization after 1950?
(SI MR. GLASER: Could you give him a cite to the 1982
article that you're referring to?
(7) MS. FREESE: Page 1574. Did I say '82? I meant '92.
It's the article we discussed earlier.
(io) THE WITNESS: Okay. What column are we in here,
left or right?
(12) BY MS. FREESE:
(13) Q Left column in the very beginning of that page, in fact
part of the sentence is on the previous page.
(16) A Correct.
(17) Q Now, looking again at page 29, isn't it true that you
would not expect global mean temperatures to immediately
go up in response to increased C02 due to, among other
factors, the ocean lag or the theory that the oceans would
delay the onset of atmospheric warming?
(23) A No. That's not correct.
(24) Q So you're saying that you would, if warming were to
occur in response to C02. you would expect a
._

-

PAGE 74

line that began to rise as soon as C02 began to rise?
A It would not be a line, it would not be smooth. Climate
has certain noise associated with it. However, you are
bringing up one of the real problems with the entire
greenhouse issue. And that is the following: That when we
change the radiation, say five watts per meter squared, when
volcanic ash gets into the stratosphere, we see a rather
quick effect, an immediate effect on the global temperature.
It maximizes at approximately 18 months after the radiation
change. Here we have a change in the down welling
radiation, via the greenhouse effect, conceptually estimated at
2.5 watts per meter squared and we don't see that type of
behavior. We don't see the same type of response. That
question has never, ever, been resolved as to why the two
would behave differently.
(20) Q Are you suggesting then, Dr. Michaels, that because
the earth cools off quickly after a volcano, the earth should
warm up equally quickly in response to greater C02
emissions?
(u)A It depends upon the rate of change.
(a)Q The rate of change?
(1)

(3)

PAGE 75

A The rate of change in the forcing. But the subject of
delay has been more an attempt to try and sort of fit the
earth's behavior to a model and to try and account for the
lack of warming rather than the other way around.
(6) Q You do not believe, then, that there is a theoretical
basis for the idea of an ocean lag?
(a) A Oh, most certainly. Most certainly there is.
(9) Q That there should be some lag based on theory?
(IO) A Correct. However, there are experiments that one can
perform where the oceanic Influence should be minimized.
Suppose we had, for example. a situation where there was
little advection, A-D-V-E-GT-CON, from the oceanic region
and the atmosphere were allowed to radate outward, given,
given pardon me. Period, radiate outward, period. Such a
(1)

-

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (612)888-7687

-

VOLUME 9

situation occurs in the high latitudes during polar night. One
would expect to see substantial warming in that situation and
yet when Jonathon Kahl, K-A-H-L, looked at surface
temperatures during polar winter, precisely during the period
in which you, to which you are referring, namely 1950
onward, he found no net warming of the winter, in fact, he
found a cooling.
PAGE 76
(1) MS. SASSEVILLE: Your Honor, would you ask the
witness to define advection?
(3) THE WITNESS: Lateral motion.
(4) MS. SASSEVILLE: Thank you.
(5) BY MS. FREESE:
(6) 0 For the record then, let's get back to your view on
ocean lag. Do you agree that there should be some lag?
(9) A Yes. But when the ocean would not be influencing the
climate. If our understanding were the understanding that is
given by transient, remember that word? By the way, you
asked a question, do you want to know what transient
means?
(14) THE JUDGE: Sure.
(IS) THE WITNESS: It doesn't mean at the bus station. A
transient climate model is one in which the change in the
atmospheric's, atmosphere's radiative characteristics are
changed gradually, to save on computer time, most of the
early models changed it ail at once. But at any rate, back to
where I was, if I could. Let me pick up on my last sentence,
if I couid. Where transient models predict large warming to
have occurred, happens to be, I should

PAGE

n

correct and say the largest, happens to be precisely in
the areas where there is very little ocean influence on that
type of temperature and it is precisely those areas where we
do not see the large forecast winter warming, where in fact
Kahl, K-A-H-L, in Nature Magazine, found a cooling in the
winter.
(8) BY MS. FREESE:
(9) Q In nature, for the group as a whole, you would agree
that the earth will have I'm sony. That the ocean will have
an effect of slowing down any warming that would result from
C02?
(13) A Where it has an effect It would have an effect. Where
it
(15) Q How about
(16) A Where it doesn't have much of an effect it shouldn't.
(18) Q How about on average?
(19) A The planet, planetary climate doesn't behave
I'm
sorry. Referring to planetary climate to averages, discounts
the fact that there are different radiative regimes for different
times and seasons. If you want me to say on the average, if
we'd averaged all the numbers up, if we added all the apples
and the oranges, would I
(1)

--

--

-

--

~

-

.___

PAGE 78

get apple/oranges? Yes.
Q The predictions of the models are global mean
averages, correct? They're in those terms?
(4) A The predictions of the model are summations of grid
point, latitude, longitude calculations. If we go much further I
think we're going to be adding apples and oranges, but let's
proceed.
(1)

(2)

Dephfegc

Page 15

 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS

MAY 23, 1995

Q And the number of 4.2, for example, that is a global
mean average that you characterize as being the predictions
of the GCM models?
(11) A Yes. Yes. And I think it is because of the addition of
the polar apples and the oceanic oranges in part that
explains why it didn't warm as much as was projected. And
further, that the sulfates don't explain it.
(16) Q Dr. Michaels, if the atmosphere warms will the oceans
warm?
(18)A Yes.
(19) Q Will some of the heating of the atmosphere be drawn
off to raise ocean temperatures?
(21) A You could characterize it that way.
(u)
Q What is the characteristic circulation time of the
oceans?
(24) A I'm not an oceanographer, I don't want to give an
answer that may not be precise.

-

VOLUME 9

(8)

PAGK 79

(1) Q Would you agree that since the relationship between
the atmosphere and the oceans is not well understood, this
relationship is thought to be the source of possible climatic
surprises in the future. That is, a sudden warming that will
explain a lack of observed warming?
0 MR. GLASER: I'm going to object on the grounds that
that's vague. I'm not sure what is thought to be, or thought
by anybody, who, the IPCC?
(11) MS. FREESE: Let me be more specific, Your Honor.
(13) BY MS. FREESE:
(14) Q Dr. Michaels, did you state in 1992 in the article that
we were referring to earlier, that since the relationship
between the atmosphere and oceans is not well understood,
this relationship, quote, is thought to be the source of
possible climatic surprises in the future. That is, a sudden
warming that will explain the lack of observed warming?
(22) A I would answer by quoting from the National Academy
of Sciences' report.
(24) Q Could you first answer that question?
(25) MR. GLASER: The question is not coming
___.

PAGE 81

(1) I mean

that statement is, is just to draw attention to this
hypothesis and to say that nobody can say anything about it.
(4) Q I hesitate to belabor this point, but I'm still a bit
confused on what effect you would expect, quite apart from
surprises, the ocean to have on affecting the rate of warming
from C02. Let me ask you -(9) A I suspect in San Francisco where the wind blows from
the west off the massive Pacific Ocean that it would have
some, it would have a much greater effect than it would have
in the high latitude polar winter. So it depends on where you
are and that's the problem with this issue. That's why your
question is so very difficult to answer.
(16) Q Given how much of the planet is covered by ocean, is
it fair to say that the climate of the entire planet is affected
by the presence of those oceans, though in varying degrees?
(20) A Yes.
(21) Q If you were looking at, looking for a greenhouse
signal, in other words, evidence that enhanced greenhouse
effect is occurring, and you saw C02 emissions rising
steeply, would you expect -- let me strike that last "would you
expecr.
PAGE 82

(I) Would you consider it evidence that warming will not
occur if there were not an immediate warming in response?
(4) MR. GLASER: I'm going to have to object to that one.
We got a lot of negatives in there. Could I just ask you to
rephrase that?
(7)THE JUDGE: Well, I think it's -- I think he can answer it.
Unless he's confused, but -(IO) THE WITNESS: People have accused me of that, but I
think I understand the question. What I would do is I would
go fishing where the climatic fish are supposed to be.
Namely, in a dry place at night with very lime wind. And
need 1 elaborate on why I would look there? I ask that as a
subquestion.
(17)BY MS. FREESE:
(18) Q A dry place, you mean a place far from oceans?
(19)A A place where the mean atmospheric humidity were
low.
(21) Q Okay. I don't understand why you would go there.
(22) A Because the radiative response to greenhouse gases
is logarithmic. And water vapor and carbon dioxide have
something called an overlap. So that where there is very
lime water vapor, if one

______I_

PAGE 80

--

up clearly for me. You're asking him did he you're
asking him to confirm that his 1992 article said what you're
quoting here?
(4) MS. FREESE: That's my first question.
(5) MR. GLASER: Does the witness have the
(7) THE WITNESS: Say it again. I'm sorry.
(8) BY MS. FREESE:
(9) Q Maybe I could just give you a reference. Page 1565 of
your 1992 article.
(11) A Yes.
(12) Q First column, second full sentence, you conclude here,
do you not, that, or you at least state the relationship
between deep ocean circulation and climate is very unclear
and is thought to be a source of possible climatic surprises in
the future. That is, a sudden warming that will explain a lack
of observed warming.
(19)A That statement is a clearly hypothetical statement.
(21) Q That is, you think it's possible but not proven?
(u)
A It was in reference to the National Academy of
Sciences' report that said that no credible claim could be
made that this type of event is eminent, dot, dot, dot,
although none could be precluded.
(1)

--

SHADDM & ASSOCIATES (612)888-7687

-

PAGE 83

changes the carbon dioxide, the net radiative effect is
large. And furthermore, if we could find a place where there
wasn't very much other air, if you will, blowing in, that would
be a nice experimental ground. And further, if we looked at
night, when there's no incoming solar, and the only process
that's going on is the earth is reradiating out long wave
radiation, that's where the fish are. That's where one would
look. I know we talk about the fingerprint, that's the body.
And the problem is that one sees little, if any warming, under
those circumstances, and Jonathon Kahl actually found a
winter cooling. So what that tells me, and that's what you're
really asking, is that our understanding is, from a modeled
point of view, is tragically flawed.
:le) 0 Is your testimony that if in such a place there is not
(I)

DepoMegc

Page 16

 ENVIR~NMENTALCOSTS
immediate warming in response to increased C02, that that
is evidence that C02 will not later cause warming?
(22) A One would have to devise a hypothesis,
observationally based, to explain this very peculiar finding
which is well-known. I believe those hypotheses are being
formed, though I don’t
~

PAGE 81
(1) believe

_

properly, and I could stand corrected, that the politicians, if
you will, policy makers, kinder word, demand an answer.
And once an issue is obviously complicated, judging from our
conversation over the last hour, requires discreet answers for
use in the political process. That is de facto evidence that
the process must be politicized.
_ .__
~
(17)Q Have you ever been to a plenary session of the
IPCC?

they have been adequately tested.
Q Can you describe, Dr. Michaels, model response at the
surface for a double C02 for just the C02 component if you
include the water vapor overlap?
(5) A Could you phrase that question more specifically?
That’s a very broad question. Are you asking me to draw
you a map?
(8) Q We’ll move on to another point. You have been both a
reviewer and contributor to the IPCC process, correct?
(11) A Correct.
(12) Q In the course of your reviews and contributions did
you express to the IPCC authors the views you have
presented in your testimony in this proceeding?
(16) A That answer is most certainly true, but I can’t, chapter
and verse, tell you what we may have forgotten or not. I do
not have my review loaded on this computer, unfortunately.
(20) Q You state on page 21 of your testimony, line 25, you
begin there with the statement that you are compelled to
agree with the statements of your colleagues that, quote,
there has been an unfortunate poliicization of science in the
IPCC process, unquote. In response to an MPCA
(2)

PAGE 85
(1) information request

asking you for evidence of this
politicization, you cite to the Bohmer Christiansen article in
Nature which your colleague Dr. Lindzen testified about
earlier, correct?
(6) A That was a partial answer. It was a very, very large
question.
(a) Q That was the answer you provided to us earlier?
(9) A Correct.
(io) MR. GIASER: Well, I need to point out that the answer
that was provided was subject to an overall objection to
discovery requests that they were very broad, that we could
not in time provide complete answers, that we were going to
do the best that we could in the time that we had. And that‘s
also a part of the discovery response.
(17)THE JUDGE: All right.
(18) BY MS. FREESE:
(19) Q In your own words, Dr. Michaels, could you describe
what you understand to be the politicization identified by
Bohmer Christiansen?
(22) A I need to look at my response there. I think it’s in
here, excuse me. Do you remember what question that was,
what question number?
(23) Q 60, perhaps. Let‘s try 60. Yes, it is.
PAGE 86

(1) A Yeah, okay. What Bohmer Christiansen refers to in her
article at the time, and we have the spelling on that from
before, no? I hope it’s right. 80-H-M-E-R.
GH-R-I-S-T-I-A-N-S-E-N. I do not have her article in front of
me, but my recollection is that she noted that the IPCC was
a process that must have interacted with the political sphere
because, and I think I am texturally stating what she said

(19)

A NO.
Q Dr. Michaels, on page 5 of your resume

--

actually I
think that might be a wrong page, let me check it. It is the
wrong page. Page 15 of your resume. You list the sources
of your financial support over $10,000. Could you identify
which of those research projects involved global warming?
(20)

PAGE 87

--

(1) A 19
I’m sorry, the answer is going to be somewhat
extensive. 1986, ‘88, $140,000, Commonwealth of Virginia.
(4) Q That was a global warming research project?
(5) A It turned
it was a project on air stream trajectories
and we discovered in the process, it was that there was in
our final report we said that there was quite a remarkable
relationship between what we found and some of the
trajectory patterns that we had been paid to look at with
respect to the climate change issue. m a t was in fact in
fact the referee publication that came from that, I think,
concluded that we had found something quite interesting. It
might be boring to you, but it related to the global warming
issue. So that‘s Commonwealth of Virginia, 140 K. Cypress
Minerals, 40,000.
(is) Q How did that relate to global warming?
(19) A You know, with all due respect, you’re going to think
I’m not telling you the truth. I’m trying to remember directly
what came out of that project, and please don’t tell the
grantor. I’m sure we were looking at regional temperatures
in some way. Anonymous, 50 K.
(25) Q What was that project?

--

--

--

PAGE 80

A That was general research support on climate change.
3) Q General?
:r) A Research support.
3) Q So whatever research you were doing at the time
;6) A Ithink, for example, I would guess that the 1992 paper
that you refer to is from there. Edison Electric is to support
araduate students to keep up with the global warming
iteratures and essentially is a training grant. Western Fuels is
to do research on global climate change. And the German
Mas dayhight. I’m sorry, nighttime cooling rate work which is
n the process of publication, I think if I talked about the
ssults, which I’d love to, we’d probably be busting into
Friday, but too bad.
:in Q Would you translate the German for us?
:is) A I can’t. Don’t ask me. I don’t know, can you?
:i9) Q Is it the German Coal Trade Association?
.20) A Beats me. Peter, do you speak German?
:21) Q Who did you get this money from?
:u)
A It was work through a scientist by the name of Gerth
Jaber (phonetic).
u)Q And you don’t know the nature of the organization?
25) A Is a, I mean it is a German energy-related
(1)

-

’AGE 89

 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS

MAY 23, 1995
~

(1) company. But please don’t ask me for a direct
translation.
(3) Q That‘s fine. Do you publish a journal called the World
Climate Review, a quarterly review of issues concerning
global climate change?
(6) A No longer.
(I) Q No longer? You formerly did?
(8) A Yes.
(9) Q And how long did you publish that?
(io) A A little less than three years.
(11) Q Who funded it?
(12) A Westem Fuels Association.
(13) MS. FREESE: I have no further questions.
(15) THE JUDGE: All right. Who would like to be next? Ms.
Hedman. CROSS-EXAMINATION
(is) BY MS. HEDMAN:
(19) Q Dr. Michaels, I’m Susan Hedman and I represent the
Environmental Coalition.
(21) A Good morning.
(22) Q To follow up on that last question that Ms. Freese
asked you, I was also curious about the publication that you
headed that was funded by Western Fuels. I didn’t see any
mention of that
-

-.

-

PAGE 90
(1) on your

CV or in your introductory statement. Am I
correct in noting that that was omitted?
(3) A Well, that is the -- if you look in the CV, financial
support, the one there that says 1992, 1993, Western Fuels,
it says Research on Global Climate Change, I believe if you
look at the University of Virginia contract it may be titled
Research Publication on Global Climate Change. That is,
again, an I think, but probably correct.
(io) Q With respect to your work at the University of Virginia,
I note you’re an associate professor, are you tenured?
(13) A No. I can’t be. Not on the line I’m on anyway.
(14) Q On page 2 of your testimony I note that you are a
senior fellow at the Cat0 Institute. Would you disagree if I
characterized that as a neo-conservative organization?
(IS) A Yes, I would.
(19) MR. GLASER: Wait, wait, I’m going to object to that as
vague. I don’t know what we mean by neo-conservative
organization. And I’m not sure what this witness’s
characterization of the organization. what that means in terms
of evidence in this proceeding.
(25) THE JUDGE: Well, I think it’s a
PAGE 91

-

legitimate I would overrule the objection. I don’t think
it’s vague, I think you can answer the question. I think you
did answer the question, didn’t you?
(5) THE WITNESS: Well, I hope I don’t get in trouble here
with the, quote, authorities, but Cat0 was a rather vociferous
supporter of L. Douglas Wilder who is the former Governor of
Virginia and I think would be characterized, and I hope I
don’t step on any toes here, as a very liberal democrat.
(12) BY MS. HEDMAN:
(13) Q In its natural resources program doesn’t the Cat0
Institute fund seminars and publications that advocate the
expansions of the use of the takings clause?
(1’1) A I am unaware that Cato has a natural resources
program. Do they?
(19) MR. MILLER: I object to that. I mean I don’t think we
(1)

-

VOLUME 9

~~

SHADDM & ASSOCIATES (612)888-7687

need a response from Ms. Hedman on that.
E JUDGE: The objection is sustained.
E WITNESS: Sorry, I goofed, my apologies.
(25) BY MS. HEDMAN:
(2)
M
(23) M

PAGE 92
(1) Q Doesn’t the Cat0 Institute fund publications and
seminars advocating the expansion of the takings clause?
(4) A I know absolutely nothing of Cato’s funding.
(5) Q On takings?
(6) A On anything.
(7) Q Presumably you know the funding of your work?
(8) A Cat0 doesn’t fund me. My remuneration from Cato is
zero dollars and zero zero cents.
(io) Q What is your role at the Cato Institute?
(11) A They said when I go up to Washington if I wanted to
use a computer and some office space 1 would be perfectly
welcome. And they have this room in their new building for
visiting fellows, I think there are three of us, I believe.
(16) Q Do you happen to know if Terry Anderson is one of
the fellows?
(is) A Is he?
(19) Q I’m asking.
(u))A I thought, and I might be wrong, I thought that the
fellows were myself, an ecologist who wrote Visions on the
Land, do you remember who that is? And P.J. ORourke, the
humorist, are the fellows. It’s not Terry Anderson. Whoever
wrote Visions on the Land.
PAGE 93

Q Doesn’t Visions on the Land deal with, in part, with
privatizing the national parks?
(3) A I’ve never read Visions on the Land.
(4) Q Going to page 7 of your CV. About the middle of the
page you have a 1994 publication about U-6 radiation?
(7)A Yes.
(8) Q Does that appear in Science or Science News?
(9) A Science.
(io) Q Was that an -(11) A I believe it was -- Science News, one does not publish
in Science News, that’s a welt, I’m trying to be charitable.
A summary sheet that serve for the journals and I believe
they did, believe me, and 1 would not, I guess I am not
supposed to say I would not tesbfy to, but I think that they
did reference it.
(18) Q And did that study relate to a reanalysis of data by
James, collected by James Kerr and C. Thomas McGelroy
(phonetic) up in Byron, Canada?
(21) A Specifically your answer, or your question, I might not
be able to answer in the affirmative because what it was was
an analysis of data that they had somehow not analyzed.
(25) Q Are you familiar with the statements that they
(1)

-

PAGE 94

made in Science News regarding your article?
A No. Science News is not -- it comes in my mailbox but
it’s one of those things that oftentimes is not read.
(5) Q So do you recall, if I showed you a copy of that article
might it refresh your memory?
(3 A The Science News article?
[a) Q Yes.
~ 9A
) Sure.
(io) MR. WITHAM: Objection, Your Honor. I don’t think
(I)

(2)

Depo Merge

Page 18

 ENVIR?NMENTAL COSTS

MAY 23, 1995
~

there's foundation yet that he's even read the article, so I
don't think she's refreshing his memory about anything.
(14) THE JUDGE: It's my recollection of his testimony
let
me just take a look here was that he wasn't familiar with it
at all.
(17) THE WITNESS: This article is not about global warming,
Your Honor, I should mention that.
(20) THE JUDGE: Okay. Well, just a moment. How do you
know it's not about global warming?
(22) THE WITNESS: The Science article that I wrote was not
about global warming.
(24) THE JUDGE: Oh, the Science article.
(25) THE WITNESS: I believe this is what

--

-

PAGE 95

she's referring to.
MS. HEDMAN: I'm exploring this area simply because of
the rejoinder related to Mr. Michaels' methodological
approaches.
(5) MR. GLASER: But the only rejoinder that you have is
something that's reported in something that's not a primary
source publication, it's some sort of news summary that is
going to report on something somebody says and the witness
says he hasn't seen it before. We're not dealing with global
warming, I really think it's time to get on to global warming
here.
(13) THE WITNESS: There was
(14) MR. GLASER: Wait, wait, there's no pending question.
(16) THE JUDGE: Okay. We've got an objection. Do you
want to say anything else, Ms. Hedman, about it?
(19) MS. HEDMAN: No, Your Honor.
(20) THE JUDGE: I'm going to sustain the objection.
(u)
BY MS. HEDMAN:
(a)Q Do you recall, in preparation of your article for
Science, the one we're discussing, that you only used winter
data as opposed to the total data
(1)
(2)

--

- _ _ _..

PAGB

- .

-

%

attempted to be collected by Kerr and McGelroy?
(2) MR. GLASER: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this on
the grounds of relevance. This article does not have to do
with global warming, it has to do with an entirely different
subject and Ijust don't see the relevance.
0 THE JUDGE: Do you want to respond?
(8) MS. HEDMAN: Only that, again, I'm offering this for the
purpose of an example of a commentary on Mr. Michaels'
methodological approaches.
(12) THE JUDGE: Okay. And this is the article entitled
Increasing Ultraviolet-B Radiation: Is there a Trend?
(is) MS. HEDMAN: It's the rejoinder that followed in Science
News.
(17) THE JUDGE: But that's the article we're talking about?
(19) MS. HEDMAN: Yes.
(20) THE JUDGE: Does that have anything to do with global
warming?
(22) MS. HEDMAN: Well, to the extent that when we talk
about global warming and the greenhouse effect we're also
concerned about holes in the ozone layer and increases in
radiation. I
(1)

PAGE 97

(1)
(2)

-

VOLUME 9

~~

think it is relevant.
THE JUDGE: Well, I'm going to sustain the objection.

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (612)888-7687

(4) BY MS. HEDMAN:

Q Mr. Michaels, Dr. Michaels, I believe you were in the
mom earlier when I was cross-examining Dr. Lindzen
regarding the various issues and degrees of certainty related
to the global warming question: is that correct?
(io) A I did step out, yes, and I may or may not have been
there, I don't know. Go ahead.
(12) Q Were you active, an active participant in the Clinton
administration's Office of Science and Technology policy
working group on climate modeling?
(16) A Working group on climate modeling? What group do
you mean?
(18)Q I mean the -- I guess the formal name was the Forum
on Global Change Modeling.
(20) A I was at the meeting for one day.
(21) Q Okay. Again, I'm not wishing to cross-examine you on
the document that was produced out of that process, but for
purposes of clarifying the record, I would like to and will be
taking each of the natural and physical science witnesses
through
(5)

PAGE 98
(1) these various points so we can identify where the specific
disagreement is of uncertainty.
(3) MR. GLASER: Objection for the same reason that this
was excluded this morning or earlier this morning. There's
no document that's been identified in the record to ask him to
comment on statements that were made in something that
might or might not be a draft, this is not appropriate.
(io) MS. HEDMAN: Again, I'm not trying to get the document
in, I just think it's a very useful set of issues and probabilities
and he can say whether he agrees or disagrees with the
statement, not with the document itself.
(in THE JUDGE: I think it's a legitimate process and she
can do it.
(17)MR. GLASER: Your Honor, can we just clarify, then,
that there's nothing in this questioning that is meant to bring
this document into evidence or give any evidentiary weight to
the statements that are in the document whatsoever?
(23) THE JUDGE: Yes, I think I went through that already
with Dr. Lindzen.
(25) MR. GLASER: All right.

PACE 99

MR. MILLER: I don't think Ms. Hedman needs with each
witness then to make a statement that my next series of
questions is going to relate to this document If she just
wants to ask her questions she should do it
(6) MS. HEDMAN: Your Honor, In the case of Mr. Undzen
and Dr. Michaels, they did participate in the process, I
thought it would expedite the questioning if I
(io) MR. GLASER: I think it has to be very clear that the
witness is to ascribe no weight at all to the questions that are
being asked in terms of characterizing the results of that
process.
(14) THE JUDGE: Just a second. Ms. Hedrnan, I don't think
it's necessary to refer to the document. They'll figure it out.
(17) BY MS. HEDMAN:
[le) Q I'm going to ask you a series of questions and ask
you whether you would agree with the questions. The first is
to ask whether you would agree that something is virtually
zertain, in giving your earlier testimony that is necessary to
quantify something for it to have meaning in your eyes. Let's
(1)

~epo~nac

--

Page 19

 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS
say that virtually certain means a io0 percent or near 100
percent probability, 99
PAGE 100

(1) percent probability- And I would ask you whether or not
you would agree that it is virtually certain that the increase in
carbon dioxide concentration and ozone depletion that is
currently occurring will cause large stratospheric cooling?
(7)A You’re asking me to make a probabilistic statement.
(9) Q I’m asking you whether or not -(io) A You said probability.
(11) 0
it’s virtually certain -(12) A And then you said probability.
(13) Q No, I‘m not -(14) A The nature of probabilities is something that requires -(16) MR. GLASER: Can I ask the witness to wait? Let’s get
a question framed here first.
(18) BY MS. HEDMAN:
(19) Q I’m simply asking whether or not you believe that that
is virtually certain if virtually certain means 99 percent likely
to occur?
(22) A And restate the question in its entirety, I‘m sorry, and I
don’t mean to be -- please accept that.
(25) Q Whether or not you agree that you’re virtually

--

PAGE 101

(1) certain that the increases in carbon dioxide concentrations
and ozone depletion that are currently documented will cause
large stratospheric cooling?
(5) A Again, the operative word is large. We have
stratospheric data which I have here. And I would say, I
would answer your question that the former, the change in
greenhouse effect, would be associated with a drop in
Stratospheric temperature. I would be very careful on the
ozone to not misplace my chickens and eggs. Because it is
often stated that the stratosphere ozone loss was a result of
a result. I don’t of a drop in stratosphere temperature, not
causative. And stratosphere temperatures vary, by the way,
an awful lot, and we have not very good measurements of
them.
(is) Q But you would agree that there is association between
what you term the greenhouse effect and stratospheric
cooling?
,
(21) A I think there should be an association between the
two, yes.
(13) Q Now I’m going to ask you about a number of
statements and ask you whether you agree that it’s very
probable. And since the next series or

--

PAGE 102

(1) statements I’m going to ask you about are whether they
are probable, which i would take to be more than 50 percent,
just for the sake of argument let’s say we’re talking about
very probable meaning about a midpoint there, about 75
percent chance that they’re true, or you’d have a 75 percent
level of certainty and you can use that as a rough gauge.
Would you agree that it is very probable that if no changes
occur in the current rate of emissions growth that global
mean surface temperature warming will increase from about
half a degree to two degrees over the period 1990 to 2050?
(in A Probability estimates are based upon sample sue. It is
not a one cannot make a sign a scientifically based
probability to that question because we do not have multiple

-

SHADDDT & ASSOCIATES (612)888-7687

sample size.
(19) Q So you’re telling me that between being virtually
certain and the that something is true and something
virtually certain is something that‘s false, there’s no way we
can talk about the continuum of certainly in between?
(24) MR. GLASER: I’d like to ask for a clarification here. Are
you redefining very

--

PAGE 103

probable? Before you said 75 percent, is that still what
you mean by very probable in this question?
(4) MS. HEDMAN: I’m willing to work with the witness on a
definition. I’m trying to work with him because in his earlier
testimony he indicated he gave a number, he said he
couldn’t work with just concepts. I’m offering this, if you have
a way that we could work with very probable -(11) THE WITNESS: That is precisely the problem. Not to
use the word “prob” too many times. I mean fragment. I
don’t know how to answer your question in terms of
probability. When we ask the question what’s the chance,
what’s the probability I’m going to walk outdoors and get hit
by a car, that‘s based upon a known number of observations
of people walking out the door and a known number of
observations of people getting hit by cars.
(21) BY MS. HEDMAN:
(22) Q That’s correct, that’s a measurement of risk. I’m
asking you about a certainty.
(24) A In this case they’re one in the same.
(25) Q Well, let’s explore that point.
(1)

PAGE 104

(1) THE JUDGE: Well, okay, but if the witness is unwilling to
answer the question the way you framed it he can say I can’t
answer it and we can move on.
(5) BY MS. HEDMAN:
(6) Q I’d like to explore the witness’s claim that risk and
uncertainty are synonymous. In the case of temperature
change, would you agree with me that there might be two
components in thinking, in the simple sense, thinking about
temperature change, one component of the model might be
inputs which we cannot quantify or do not know at this point,
and that those might be termed uncertain inputs?
(15) A Are you asking me are there uncertainties?
(16) 0 Are there uncertainties?
(1’1) A Yes.
(18) Q And distinct from that, might there be things that we
can quantify and do know, for instance, you know, because
of Boyle’s law we know certain things about the relationships
between temperature and pressure, that we can assign a
certain probability that something is going to occur with the
raise -(25) A But the naughty problem with the issue about which
-~

__ .-

-

PAGE 105

we are speaking is that the uncertainties and the
certainties interact.
(3) 0 Is it your testimony that the
(4) A Would you like -- I’d be happy to elaborate on that.
Ne’ve been talking about it for the last hour and 15 minutes.
:7) 0 I guess I’d like to have you elaborate on specific
aspects of it. Let’s take this concept of uncertainty and risk
ind go back to the question of if we continue at the current
ate of emissions, whether global mean surface temperature
(1)

Dep-Metp

--

Page 20

 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS

MAY 23, 1995

warming will increase half a degree to two degrees over the
period from 1990 to 2050?
(14) A I don't agree with the range that you have given. I
have testified and I maintain that the record, rather, that
independent and internally consistent records steer one
toward the lower value and away from the upper value. If
you asked me a half a degree I'd be much more comfortable
with that.
(20) Q So you might say that you believe that a half a degree
is very probable?
(22) A No. I said I would be more comfortable with that.
(24) Q Meaning that you are somewhat more certain that that
number is correct?
PAGE 106

(1) A Based upon what we have been speaking about, and I
just want to clarify, you were saying one-half a degree in
what period of time?
(4) Q 1990 to 2050.
(5) MR. GIASER: I
s this temperature?
(6) THE WITNESS: Yeah, global average.
(7) MR. GIASER: Global mean temperature?
(8) MS. HEDMAN: Global mean surface temperature.
(IO) MR. GLASER: Increase from 1990 to 2050?
(12) MS. HEDMAN: Yes.
(13) MR. GLASER: For a doubling of C02?
(14) MS. HEDMAN: For the current rate of emissions
increase.
(16) MR. GLASER: Do you understand the current rate of
emissions increase?
(18)THE JUDGE: If you could answer for the record,
please? Don't just nod your head.
(20) THE WITNESS: I'm thinking. I do that, I think,
unfortunately I'm giving it away that I'm thinking, you can tell
how often I'm not. I am, and I'm going to choose my words
carefully here. Please understand that. I am very
uncomfortable with anything above the bottom
PAGE 107

(I) portion, meaning the 0.5 of that range. And I think that

one could construct an argument that it's possible it would be
underneath that, so, but had you phrased your question, you
know, do you think that .5 degrees is a reasonable limit or
reasonable target, I'd have to say I'm not uncomfortable with
that. But I caution you that that number is virtually irrelevant
because it doesn't matter at that level really what the
magnitude is, it's how it expresses itself. And we continue to
see in the record this propensity for the night rather than the
day, et cetera, et cetera. You know the rest of the story.
(14) BY MS. HEDMAN:
(is) Q You're making that distinction. I would like to stick to
the question of whether the reason you are more, to use
your word, comfortable, with half a degree is because you
are somewhat more certain that it is right?
(20) A That's much more consistent with the facts rather than
the forecast facts. That is why I am more comfortable with it.
(23) Q And do you mean that by saying that, that because it's
not a forecast, rather it's based on historical data, you're
saying that you can have a
PACE 108
(1) greater
(2)

degree of certainty?
A With the again, we have gone over this, we seem to

-

SHADDDL & ASSOCIATES (612)888-7687

-

VOLUME 9

be going back and back over the same territory. Given the
failure of the atmosphere to conform spatially,
S-P-A-T-I-A-L-L-Y, to the patterns of warming that were
forecast, one is -- the patterns, not, we're not even
discussing magnitude, pattern is more important than
magnitude.
(io) Q That's your contention, yes.
(11) A It's not my contention, that's science. Given that
failure, one is left to rely upon data more than models. I'm
reminded of Egor Sykorsky (phonetic), the aeronautical
engineer who had a famous Statement in a graduation
speech, he said, "Ladies and gentlemen, sometime in your
lie you will confront a situation where the facts and the
theory do not coincide. I urge you to pay attention to the
facts." And that's what we must do.
(21) Q Aren't facts used to develop theories?
(22) A No, the way
you must understand, if I could, what a
model is in science. A model is a hypothesis. All these
things really should be not GCMs, but GCHs. A series of
interacting

--

PAGE 109

equations -Q Hypotheses.
(3) A That's correct. And one can reject hypotheses based
upon data.
(5) Q And they can be rejected with very
or accepted with
varying degrees of certainty?
(71 A Accepting a hypothesis is much different. It's much
easier to falsify
(9) Q To set up
(io) A
than to verify.
(11) Q To set up an all
(12) A And that is precisely what I did in that 1994 paper. It
was a formal mathematical model to test the hypothesis,
whether the pattern, not the mean, but the pattern, resembled
the forecast.
(16) Q So your testimony does not address the null
hypothesis, a null hypothesis relating to mean temperature?
(19) A NO. NO.
(20) Q Let's move on to the
ff the record. (Discussion held off the
(21) MR. GLASER: O
record.)
(23) BY MS. HEDMAN:
[u)Q Let's move on to the next one, and again, the reason
I'm doing this is in the hopes of
._
___
(1)

(2)

-

--

---

--

--

PAGE 110

[I) clarifying

where the differences are for the record.

3) A Differences?
;I) Q The differences in views of the various experts that will

De testifying in this proceeding, so bear with me, I'd like to go
through this, this list. Would you agree with the statement
that it is very probable that if the current emission rates
Zontinue, the global mean precipitation will rise?
:ii) A Can I ask a question, a procedural question off the
.ecord?
.13) THE JUDGE: On the record.
14) THE WITNESS: Okay. Is it appropriate for me to refer
o previous testimony today?
16) MS. SASSEVILLE: Yes.
17) THE WITNESS: Dr. Undzen testified in response to that
duestion that the hypotheses that storminess would increase

Depo-McgC

Page 21

 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS

MAY 23, 1995

__

BY MS. HEDMAN:
(21) Q I’m asking
actually
(22) A Precipitation comes from storms.
(23) Q Actually, if I recall his response, his response was
simply no because he didn’t agree with the prior statement
which he took to be -__ _
_
(20)

--

--

PAGE 111

A The evidence -Q We can go back and check the record, if you’d like.
(4) A Sure.
(5) M E JUDGE: Well, no. I’d just rather have you answer
the question, please, without characterizing what Dr. Lindzen
said. It just leads to disputes. Please, if you can just
answer the question.
(io) THE WITNESS: My apologies.
(11) THE JUDGE: Okay. If you can just answer it on your
own.
(13) THE WITNESS: I’m used to faculty meetings. Okay. 1’11
answer the question now then.
(16) THE JUDGE: Okay.
(17)THE WITNESS: Some types of precipitation should
increase, some types should decrease, the jury is out as to
what the net effect ultimately will be.
(21) BY MS. HEDMAN:
(a)
Q And relating to your earlier testimony about patterns, I
take it that in some areas you would expect to see increased
precipitation, in other cases, in other areas, perhaps,
decreases in
(1)

(2)

PAGE I12

precipitation?
A We have to couch this discussion in terms of statistical
significance. Those are the rules of science. And I will
answer your question by saying that it wll take a long time,
given the noisiness of precipitation data, to see any signal in
this.
(8) Q Is it you’re saying that there is a great deal of
uncertainty regarding this?
(io) A A great deal of noise. No, noise is not uncertainty,
noise is random behavior. It’s a difference, it’s really not all
that subtle between the two.
(14) Q Let me ask you whether or not you would agree that
it’s very probable that if current rates of emissions growth
continue that the Northern Hemisphere sea ice will diminish?
(18) A No.
(19) MA. MILLER: Your Honor, I’m going to object to this
question. Northern Hemisphere sea ice will diminish by what,
a gram, a ton? You know, I think the question is so vague
that she’s got to ask something a little bit more focused for
him to give a response.
(25) THE JUDGE: Do you want to respond?
(1)
(2)

~

PAGE 113
(1) MS. HEDMAN:

My response would be that often
scientists can only, in their hypotheses, hypothesize a sign
plus or minus. Here diminish would be a minus sign to
whatever you’re testing.
(5) THE WllNESS: A statistically significant fashion, that’s
the rule we usually play by.
(8) M E JUDGE: I‘d allow him to answer it.
(9) THE WITNESS: The answer is, in my mind, is that the

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (612)888-7687

.

-

VOLUME 9

jury is again out. We see evidence in the historical record
during the so-called, the climatic optimum, which we
mentioned way back in the beginning of this testimony, that
the snowfall rates in the high latitudes were increased. It is
not clear whether the net change under this scenario would
be positive or negative. And that, the opinion on that
changes really from almost from year to year depending
upon what the latest findings are. I’m going to answer and
say that I believe the jury is still out on that.
(21) BY MS. HEDMAN:
(22) Q And would you agree that it is very probable that
wintertime warming will occur in arctic land areas?
(25) A Theoretically, yes.
PAGE 114

(1) Q And would you agree that it’s very probable that the
rate of the rise in global sea level will increase at the current
rate of increase if the current rate of CO2 emissions
continues?
(5) A There has been no change in the rate of sea level rise
for the last 100 years. So do you mean to say do I agree
it’s probable that what has happened, meaning I believe it’s
two and a half to three inches, please don’t hold me to that,
but 1 think that’s the number, of sea level rise in the last 100
years, that that trend would continue? The answer is yes.
(13) Q So you’re assuming that there have been -- in your
answer to this question you’re assuming there are no -- there
has been no change in sea level?
(16) A No, there has. In sea level rise it’s been a couple of
inches. And I would agree with your statement, yes, that
would continue.
(19) Q Okay. Finally, would you agree that it is very probable
that prolonged forcing from solar variability would be
insignificant compared to the effects of greenhouse gas
emissions?
(23) A If?
(24) Q If carbon emissions continue to increase at the current
rate?
.-

__

~

PAGE 115

A Yes.
Q And then I have a final series of questions which 11
’1
simply ask you whether you agree that it’s probable, and let’s
take that to mean that you think it’s slightly more true than
untrue, you‘re slightly more comfortable than uncomfortable,
however that works best. Would you agree that it is
probable that dryness will be on the rise during the summer
period in the Northem Hemisphere, midlatitude continental
area, if the trends we discussed earlier continue?
(12) A We don’t have any scientific information that allows us
to make that determination. So I must answer based upon
science, the answer is I don’t know. The models are
equivocal, the data is noisy.
(17) Q And would you agree that it’s probable that high
latitude precipitation would rise if the emission trends
continue?
(20) A Based upon the work over thousands of years ago, I
would say that it’s likely that the high latitude snowfall would
increase. I don’t know about high latitude rainfall.
[24) Q And would you agree that it’s probable that warming
will be slower in the Antarctic and North
(1)

(2)

PAGE 116

DepO-Mqe

Page 22

 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS

MAY 23, 1995

-

VOLUME 9

~~
~~

Atlantic ocean regions than elsewhere?
A No.
(3) Q And then finally, would you agree that short-term
cooling will result from transient explosive volcanic eruptions?
(6) A Yes, if we have volcanic eruptions.
cn MS. HEDMAN: Thank you. I don’t have any further
questions.
(9) THE JUDGE: All right. O
ff the record. (Discussion held
off the record.) (Break taken.)
(12) THE JUDGE: All right. We’re now resuming after a
break. Who would like to be next?
(is) MR. WIRTSCHAFTER: I will go.
(16) THE JUDGE: Okay. CROSS-EXAMINATION
(18) BY MR. WIRTSCHAFTER:
(19) Q Good afternoon, Dr. Michaels.
(20) A Good afternoon.
(21) Q My name is Joshua Wirtschafter, I represent the
Department of Public Service. On page 23 of your testimony
you stated that science effect does not work by static
consensus?
(1)

(2)

PAGE 117

A Yes.
Q By that do you mean that the state of scientific
knowledge is always in flux?
(4) A It depends upon the issue that we’re talking about.
The state of scientific knowledge is not in flux about the earth
being round, but it is in flux about the earth’s climate.
(8) Q So in complex questions like the earth’s climate there
will always be a state of flux within scientific knowledge?
(11) A I would never say always in science. It could be
samewhere, 100 years from now, we’ll live in what I would
view as an undesirable world where we knew everything
about the weather, that could happen.
(15) Q You wouldn’t expect that to happen
(16) A Soon.
(17) Q -- for decades. And until that happens there will
always be observed phenomenon that do not, the
predominant theories of the day: would you agree?
(20) A Yes, but theories are modified in light of disparate
observations, and if I could 1’11 draw you what I think is a
poignant example of that on the issue of global warming.
(u)Q That‘s all right, you can do that on redirect. In the
on-line transcn‘pt at page 1484, that you can
(1)
(2)

--

~~

~~

~~

PAGE 118

reach by hitting J, at line 13.
A Okay.
(3) Q You mention that policy makers require discreet
answers. Could you explain what you mean by discreet
answers?
(6) A Yes. John Houghton said that when they wrote the
policy maker summary for the 1990 report, that they
recognized that there was a great deal of what I would call
balanced uncertainty. And that he chose to write the
executive, or the policy maker summary, in a way that
corresponded, and I’m using his words, and we can find
these back in the papers if we have to, in a way that
corresponded more to a weather forecast than a scientific
document, I believe is the correct word, end quote.
(17) Q Could you explain what you mean by discreet
answers?
(19) A That they wanted a document that was less equivocal
(1)

(2)

SHADDJX & ASSOCIATES (612)888-7687

~

than reality. Or I’m sorry, less equivocal than the state of
science was. The policy makers excuse me, I’m sorry. 1’11
rephrase that. That policy makers desire a document that is
less equivocal than the state of science on this issue.

-

PAGE 119
(1)

(2)

0 And why is that?

A You’d have to ask a policy maker, but I suspect that it

is difficult to formulate policy in an environment of factual
conflict.
(5) Q Do you believe that policy making usually requires
making decisions based on the predominant theories of the
time?
(8) MR. GLASER: I’m going to object to that as beyond the
scope of the testimony. The witness is testifying as a
scientist, not as a policy witness.
(12) MR. WIRTSCHAFTER: The witness has testified about
how he thinks science should be used in policy making.
(15) MR. WITHAM: I also object because I think the phrase
“predominant theories” is vague.
(17) THE JUDGE: I’m going to sustain the objection.
(19) MR. WIRTSCHAFTER: On what grounds is that?
(21) THE JUDGE: I am going to sustain it because I don’t
think he, what he believes the policy makers in this situation
are going to do, meaning the situation of our proceeding in
Minnesota, is irrelevant. He’s in no position to
PAGE 120

know.
BY MR. WIRTSCHAFTER:
(3) 0 On page 1481 of the on-line transcript, at line 11. You
were having a discussion with Ms. Freese about where one
would find evidence of global warming and at that line you
use the phrase ”our understanding”. What did you mean
when you said “our Understanding” in that context?
(9) MS. SASSEVILLE: Where is this?
(io) THE WITNESS: I’m going to have to back up a line or
two, if you don’t mind.
[la) BY MR. WIRTSCHAFTER:
(13) 0 That’s fine.
(14) A Yes. I think, the context of this discussion was that
we were referring to the concept of going fishing where the
Aimate fish were. And it was that if one was going to find a
substantially enhanced warming, one would look for it in a
dryer environment at night and in the winter. Because of our
understanding of the absorption characteristics of greenhouse
gases, and the fact that there’s very little mixing from the
3cean to high latitude dry winter environments. So our
understanding would say, well, this should be where a
dramatic warming would be quite evident
(1)
(2)

PAGE 121

:I) and our reality doesn’t even conform to that

Jnderstanding.
:3) Q So when you say ”our understanding,” do you mean
something like the predominant views of the majority of
scientists’ work in global warming?
5) A Yeah.
:7) Q So I take it you think it does make sense to talk about
he existence of, of this understanding of the of the
iredominant views of the scientists working on global
warming?
11) MS. ZIBELMAN: Objection, Your Honor, Ws vague. In

D e p Meqe

--

Page 23

 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS

-

MAY 23, 1995
~

what context is he referring to? I’m referring back to the
earlier question that he asked that was objected to and
sustained. It makes sense -(16) THE JUDGE: Well, no, no, no. I think the witness was
about to start out by answering the question in a way that
suggests what you’re getting at. If the witness believes he
can answer it he can answer it. You can answer the
question.
(u)
M E WITNESS: Our understanding or the strength of a
paradigm, if you will, depends upon the nature of the
phenomena. For example, if we had between me and you a
tube, in which we passed
PAGE 122

(1) carbon dioxide and had infrared energy measurement at
one end of the tube and at the other, you and I would
conclude that carbon dioxide absorbs in the infrared. That is
almost like saying the earth is round. However, we would
have a difficult time concluding from that or drawing from that
very real physical fact that, let us say, the dryness of a point
on the earth would increase or decrease. In other words,
our understanding is, or the robustness of our understanding
is a function of the variable that we are describing.
(12) BY MR. WIRTSCHAFTER:
(13) Q I take it your use of the word paradigm is taken from
the ideas put forth by Thomas Kuhn in the structure of
scientific revolutions, is that what you mean by paradigm? Is
that sort of the working theories of the scientific community?
(18) A I mean what he says and also a paradigm is a
structure, a referential structure. You don’t need Thomas
Kuhn to have a paradigm.
(21) Q Do you think within the community of global warming
scientists there is a dominant paradigm at the present time?
(24) A Depends upon the
again, in answer to your previous
question, it depends upon the nature of

--

I
_
_
_
_
_

PAGE 123

(1) the phenomena. Again, if we wanted, if --.perhaps the
word you should use is unshakeable. strong. There is a
strong paradigm that C02 absorbs in the infrared. When we
take that and a series of interacting differential equations,
some of which are only partially parametrized, and put in
solar values that we know aren’t real, and heat fluxes that we
know aren’t occurring, in order to simulate the transient
behavior of dimate as that known phenomena that you and I
just proved in our little mental laboratory, when we do all
those things to make that simulation, we come up with a very
weak paradigm, indeed, and in fact we come up with
conflicting results. So is there a paradigm as to whether one
can reliably estimate regional climate change, such as in the
state of Minnesota, in a greenhouse scenario, the answer is
that one can’t. There is no paradigm of reliable estimation
for, as we call it, a grain size such as this state. If we were
in Virginia it would be commonwealth.
(22) THE JUDGE: Let me suggest that it’s really going to
speed things up if you -(24) THE WITNESS: Go back to yes and no.
(2% THE JUDGE:
try to answer the

--

PAGE 124

question as briefly as possible and only use examples
when necessary. It really just invites people to question you
on the examples.
(1)

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (612)888-7687

~

VOLUME 9
~~

M E WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, my apologies.
MR. WIRTSCHAFTER: I have no further questions.
(8) THE JUDGE: Who would like to be next?
(9) MS. SASSEVILLE: I would, I have just two questions.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
(12) BY MS. SASSEVILLE:
(13) Q The first one is just if you could clarify for me, Dr.
Michaels -- I’m Katie Sasseville, I represent Otter Tail Power
Company. I’m not sure I understood what your conclusion is
about the effect of changing ocean temperatures on land
temperatures because it seemed to be counterintuitive to my
experience of climatic differences on land masses that are
close to oceans. For example, in Juneau, Alaska it‘s clear
that the Japan current has a warming effect and in Door
County, Wisconsin it’s clear that the Great Lakes have a
warming effect. Could you explain simply the difference
between those observations
(4)
(6)

___

PAGE 125

and what you were saying?
A What I was saying is that, that in fact areas that are
oceanically influenced, such as the west coast of continents,
would be expected to have a climate that corresponds very
closely to the oceanic temperature. Places that are more
continental, I don’t mean that in the cultural sense, I mean
more in the North Dakotan sense.
(9) M E JUDGE: To draw a clear distinction.
(11) THE WITNESS: All right. Never laugh at your own
jokes. Places that are more continental see less of an
influence, direct influence, from the ocean’s temperature. So
that today, if you and I were going to look for changes,
climate changes related to the greenhouse effect, we’d like to
look in a continental area, North Dakota being a fine
example, again, under, probably under nighttime clear
conditions.
(21) BY MS. SASSEVILLE:
(22) Q Thank you.
(23) A That work is in progress.
(24) Q Then I just have one other question. It was about a
possibility raised by Ms. Freese and there were
(1)
(2)

PAGE 126

(I)

enough negatives in it, so I’m just not clear. But she

asked you about the masking possibility or the hiding

possibility that natural variabili in temperature could have on
a potential greenhouse effect. And my question is, is that
scenario that she was talking about the same thing as saying
that without the greenhouse related warming, whatever that
level might be, natural variability over the last 20 years could
have otherwise resulted in cooling and precipitation changes
that would be harmful to agricultural production in this area?
(13) MR. GUSER: This area means Minnesota?
(14) MS. SASSEVILLE: And North Dakota, the upper great
plains.
(16) THE WITNESS: The answer to that, in the hypothetical,
is yes. In the reality, between 1930 and 1970 in southern
Minnesota, the mean temperature fell a statistically significant
1.3 degrees. I don’t know if anyone has ever ascribed an
economic or ecological effect to a fall of that magnitude in
that time in Minnesota.
(23) BY MS. SASSEVILLE:
(24) Q Okay.
A But what, it does say that regional climate

~rpo-~cgc

Page 24

 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS

MAY 23, 1995
-

PAGE 127

changes quite a bit, naturally.
MS. SASSEVILLE: Okay, thank you. I have no other
questions.
(4) M E JUDGE: Okay. Mr. Witham.
(5) MR. WIRTSCHAFTER: I take it that Mr. Witham is doing
the redirect for the parties sponsoring?
(8) M E JUDGE: No.
(9) MR. WITHAM: I have one question.
(io) MR. WIRTSCHAFTER: He is one of the parties
sponsoring Dr. Michaels.
(12) M E JUDGE: Oh. Mr. Witham is pari of your coalition?
(14) MR. GLASER: He did cosponsor.
(15) MR. WITHAM: 11
' 1withdraw my question. It was a
question I could hardly resist, but I won't ask it.
(is) MR. GLASER: I think it had to do with the North Dakota
statement.
(zo) M E JUDGE: Ms. Heitkamp, you know we tried. Is there
any other cross-examination? All right. Seeing none, what
about redirect? REDIRECT EXAMINATION
(25) BY MR. GLASER:
(1)

-

VOLUME 9

that leads one to question the efficacy of man-made aerosol
as the explanatory agent. And that was the conclusion of my
1992 paper, which I should add has another paper in the

(2)

-- -~

.

--

-

PAGE 128

(1) Q Dr. Michaels, in response to questions by Ms. Freese,
you testified about sulfates and some of the questions were
concerning whether anthropogenically emitted sulfates were
retarding expected warming. And I believe your testimony
was that you believe that sulfate emissions were insufficient
to explain the failure of actual warming to be of the
magnitude predicted by the models. And then you also
talked about volcanoes that emitted sulfur and that you could
see a detectable cooling as a result of certain volcanoes. I
wonder if you could just explain your testimony generally
about the difference between man-made emissions and
volcanic emissions and the effect on temperature?
(inA If it's a volcanic aerosol from an explosive volcano,
and there are two different types of volcanoes, there are
volcanoes that ooze and volcanoes that explode. Explosive
volcanoes can put these sulfate particulates and other
particulates up into the stratosphere. There is very l i e air
exchanged normally between the surface and the
stratosphere, two known mechanisms are nuclear explosions
and volcanic explosions, to
PAGE 129

(1) get a lot in there at once. When anything gets into the
stratosphere it resides a long time. The volcanic aerosol in
the stratosphere resides roughly an average of a year and a
haif, that's a half-life, some of it lasts much longer. So that it
has a substantial amount of time, if you will. to veil the
atmosphere, and it does so, if not globally, over a large
portion, usually much more than one hemisphere or onehalf
of the planet. The anthropogenerated aerosol lies in the
troposphere, in particular in the bottom of the troposphere, in
the bottom, about, on the average, the bottom 7,000 feet of
the atmosphere. And its liietime is only, on the average, a
few days. It is not distributed as evenly as the volcanic
aerosol and, therefore, should leave a much less even, but
nonetheless very detectable climate signal which would
Include, because they are so relatively pristine, a rather large
warming at the poles. They couldn't be hiding things at the
poles. And we don't see that. Because we don't see that

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (612)888-7687

PACE 130

(1) same journal that followed on to precisely your question.
And it was there that we pointed out that there were other
mechanisms that might in fact explain some of the lack of
warming.
( 5 ) Q Yeah. Could you, the 1992 paper, can you say what
the name of that paper is for the record, please?
(7) A The title was "Global Warming: A Reduced Threat?"
(9) Q Okay. And can you just very briefly state your
hypothesis and your conclusion of that paper since we had
so much discussion on it?
(12) MS. FREESE: Your Honor, it's not clear to me whether
this is within the scope of my cross-examination or not.
(15) MR. GLASER: We certainly had a number of questions

-_

(17) THE JUDGE: Are we talking about the first paper or
second paper? It's my understanding if we assume that the
one Ms. Freese was asking about is the first paper, are you
now asking about the second paper?
(22) MR. GLASER: No, I'm asking about the first paper.
(24) M E JUDGE: All right. Do you understand that?
PAGE 131

-

M E WITNESS: Yeah. I should point I'm sorry. The
usual scientific practice is if one writes a letter about a paper,
and the author of that paper responds to that letter in the
same journal, that they are considered one in the same
paper. And that's what we're talking about here.
(7) M E JUDGE: Okay. I guess what I'm interested in is
sticking with what Ms. Freese asked you.
(io) M E WITNESS: I think I can do that. At the risk of
being wordy I will list the hypotheses, recognizing the clock.
[in BY MR. GLASER:
(14) Q I just want an overall, and again, recognizing the
clock, since we had so much discussion about this, just
generally what was the hypothesis of the paper and your
:onclusions?
(18) A The hypothesis of the paper, the hypotheses were that
Ne would see night warming and that if it were if it related
to an increase in cloudiness.
:n)Q If what were?
:a)A I'm sorry, that was a misstatement. Night warming
slated to an increase in cloudiness. And that the paper
said, yes, we do see those two things.
(1)

--

PAGE 132

The paper then asks the question in hypothetical form, is
he cloudiness increase a result of a change in sulfate
aerosol? And the paper concluded that sulfates were
nsufficient to explain the change in cloudiness and, therefore,
are insufficient to explain night warming, muted day warming
and, therefore, insufficient to explain the disparity, that since
ias been alluded to in the literature in many many citations
letween the model forecasts and the real temperature.
12) Q And there was a question from Ms. Hedman about
whether your testimony did or did not address mean
emperatures; do you recall that?
13) A Yes.
16) Q And my question is, i'm not sure if the record was
:I)

Dew-Merge

Page 25

 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS

MAY 23, 1995

clear on that, does your testimony address mean
temperatures?
(19) A In part it does. I may have misspoke there.
(20) Q And can you explain for us why patterns of climate
are more important than -- would they be patterns in which
temperature increases express themselves more important
than the overall magnitude of the temperature increases?
(25) MS. HEDMAN: Objection. The question is
PAGE 133

vague. Important and more important than what?
THE JUDGE: Could you explain it, more important in -(4) MR. GLASER: Sure.
(5) BY MR. GLASER:
(6) Q Dr. Michaels, do you recall testifying about patterns of
temperature increases?
(8) A Yes.
(9) Q Can you explain to us, do you believe that patterns of
temperature increases are important in discussing
greenhouse predictions?
(12) A They are of absolute importance because it’s the
pattern of climate that determines the patterns of our
ecosphere. And, therefore, the logical test of a forecast of
global warming would be, are the patterns that are forecast
to have evolved the ones that did evolve. I think that’s much
more important from the ecological point of view than the
mere question of global temperature. And that’s why, in
earlier testimony, I stated that mean temperature may not be
as important as the way temperature changes.
(2s) MR. GLASER: May I have one minute, Your Honor.?
(25) THE JUDGE: Yes.
(1)

(2)

PAGE 134

(Discussion held off the record.)
BY MR. GLASER:
(3) 0 The last one, Dr. Michaels, if you could scroll up to
page 1514, line 24?
(5) A Yes.
(6) Q And that’s your answer, you were asked a question just
above that and then in your answer you said that you would
give an example: do you recall that?
(io) A Yes.
(11) Q Could you go ahead and give us that example now?
(12) A I’m sorry, I’m missing your question.
(13) Q The question, there’s a question and then there’s an
answer and then you offer to give an example and then in
the next question the counsel said that’s all right. you can do
that on redirect?
(1.17) A I must be on the wrong page. What page are you
on?
(19) Q This is 1514.
(20) A I’m on 7515. Line?
(21) Q Go up to line 25 where the question is.
( E ) A Wait a minute. Okay.
(23) Q You read that question and the answer?
(24) A The theories are modified in light of disparate -- that’s
computerese. Oh, yes. Oh, yes. If we
(1)
(2)

PAGE 135

(1) take a look at the 1990 IPCC report, which the process,
as you know, is rather involved, when I reviewed that I said, I
stated in rather extensive review that something looked to be
amiss, it looked like there was a disparity between the model

SHADDM & ASSOCIATES (612)888-7687

-

VOLUME 9

temperature and the observed temperature and that one of
the causes could be related to sulfate aerosol. And in this
report that barely appears. There is a sentence that says
something like that early in the report. By the time we get to
1992 -- I should point out, that then in 1990, and this review
was probably written in ’89 for the 1990 report, the folks who
made, who made that assertion might have been called
nonconsentual, outside a paradigm. By the time we got to
1992 there is more text that states that sulfates or something
may be compensating for the warming. When we get out to
1994 and ’95 we see more and more of this. At the same
time, tests were being done by scientists, by myself, asking
the hard and quantitative question, is it sulfates or is it
something else, or sulfates plus something else. And what
we, I think, are going to see, probably because of the
process that’s associated with the production of
-~ -

~

PAGE 136

this type of document, is now the acceptance of the
paradigm of sulfate compensation, when in fact the advancing
from, of knowledge, is going to be, no, that’s not enough.
That that doesn’t explain it. So you see, you know, you see
shifts in scientific, or changes in scientific consensus and
when one attempts to force a consensus by making very
large documents like this, almost certainly that forced
consensus is behind what the state of the science really is
on its forward march.
(11) MR. GLASER: That’s all that I have.
(12) THE JUDGE: All right. Could 1 just ask you to do
something on the electronic transcript, please? If you could
go to 1514, where you were earlier, but then take a look at
the question on line 18 and your answer on line 19.
(17)THE WITNESS: Wouldn’t you expect that to happen?
(19) THE JUDGE: That’s it. And I think there’s some
confusion there, if I’m not mistaken, and you tell me if I am
mistaken, but the implication I get from that question and
answer is that you expect it to happen “soon“. And I don’t
think that that’s correct based on your answer to the previous
question.
(1)

PAGE 137

THE WITNESS: I think the answer was not soon.
JUDGE: Okay. Is not soon more consistent with
your belief?
(5) THE WITNESS: Oh, yes.
(6) THE JUDGE: That’s what I thought, yes.
MR. WIRTSCHAFTER: While we’re there though, I think
I’m not sure this is all clarified yet, just a moment.
(io) MS. FREESE: After Mr. Wirtschafter said for decades
the answer was no. And I think that’s not reflected in here.
(13) THE WITNESS: Meaning it would take longer than
decades.
(is) MS. FREESE: It would not happen for decades.
(13
THE JUDGE: My understanding of the word soon is
very, you know, reasonably soon within the next few years
and that clearly is not what he was saying. All right, good.
Is there any recross based on the redirect?
(u)
MS. FREESE: One point briefly, Your Honor.
(24) THE JUDGE: Yes, Ms. Freese.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
(1)

(3) THE

--

PAGE 138
[I) BY MS.

~epo-~egc

FREESE:

Page 26

 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS

MAY 23, 1995

Q Dr. Michaels, you have before you Global Warming: A
Reduced Threat, your 1992 article. Would you read for us
the second paragraph of the abstract?
(5) A An extensive body of evidence?
(6) Q Right.
m A Can we just enter it into the record?
(8) Q It’s only two or three sentences.
(9) MR. GLASER: I would be willing to enter the entire
article into the record. There’s been so much testimony on it
I’m afraid of him just reading three sentences out of it. We
can put the whole thing in.
(14) THE JUDGE: I would prefer to put the whole thing in.
(16) MS. FREESE: Additional cross-examination, what I’m
asking him to read from is the abstract which is generally
intended to give someone the general flavor of the article for
people not having time to read the whole thing.
(22) THE WITNESS: Then read the entire abstract.
(24) MS. FREESE: If you prefer, I think the second
paragraph -(2)

.-

--

_-

-.

__

less extensive policies?
A Yes, I do agree. Please remember that the third
clause, in the general lack of previously predicted warming, is
not written as a consequence to the second clause. Which
is the sensitivity of climate through anthropogenerated
aerosols. Two facts.
( 8 ) MR. FREESE: Okay. That’s all I have, Your Honor.
(io) THE JUDGE: Okay, good. Let me just see if there’s
any other recross. Any other recross?
(12) MS. SASSEVILLE: Just one question.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
(14) BY MS. SASSEVILLE:
(15) Q You testified about the relative importance of climate
patterns versus mean. Is the reason you think that patterns
are more important is because two opposite patterns can
have the same mean?
(19) A That, that’s certainly one of many reasons, yes.
(20) MS. SASSEVILLE: Thank you.
(21) THE JUDGE: Okay. Any further recross? Okay.
Redirect? REDIRECT EXAMINATION
(24) BY MR. GLASER:
(25) Q Dr. Michaels, in response to the questions that
(1)

(2)

-.

M E JUDGE: Mr. Witham?
MR. WITHAM: Yes. I would move for admission of that
article as Exhibft 59, I believe.
(5) THE JUDGE: Well, can we agree that the abstract is a
fair summary of the article and put the whole abstract in?
(8) THE WITNESS: I actually
I remember that when this
paper went to press that I looked at the abstract and said,
yeah, that‘s okay, but perhaps, you know, you should have
added something.
(13) MR. GLASER: You don’t like the abstract. do you?
(15) THE WITNESS: It‘s all right.
(16) MR. GLASER: You don’t actually author the abstract?
(is) THE WITNESS: Yes. But I would prefer it be viewed in
context of the overall article.
(20) THE JUDGE: Okay. Unless, Ms. Freese, that you
believe that his summary of the hypotheses and conclusions
is somehow incomplete, that’s the only basis I would allow to
put in the whole thing.
(25) MS. FREESE: That his summary of what’s
(1)
(2)

PAGE 142

Ms. Freese just asked you on her recross, do you believe
her questions, the statements that she asked you to agree to
or not to agree to completely summarize the findings and
conclusions of the article referred to?
(6) A Not completely. I would always refer a person to an
entire scientific article rather than to an abstract.
(9) MR. GLASER: That’s all I have.
(io) THE JUDGE: Anything further for this witness? Ms.
Hedman.
(12) MS. HEDMAN: One quick question related to that article.
(14) MS. ZIBELMAN: Your Honor, I mean for those of us
who don’t have it, it’s kind of I would ask that we could
just introduce it as an exhibit.
(is) MS. HEDMAN: It’s not related to the article, I’m simply
asking a question relating to Mr. Glaser’s question.
(21) THE JUDGE: Well, if you’re making it, I mean you can
either ask for it informally, there seem to be a number of
copies floating around. If you’re asking for it formally, we
haven’t dealt we haven’t heard enough argument on that
yet to be
(1)

--

--

PAGE 140

-

in
THE JUDGE: No, he was asked about the hypotheses
and the conclusion. Is that what your problem is?
u) MS. FREESE: Yes. Perhaps I should simply ask
questions based on his abstract that he can answer.
(8) THE JUDGE: Let‘s see If A works better.
(io) BY MS. FREESE:
(11) Q Would you agree there’s an extensive body of
evidence now indicating anthropogenerated sulfate emissions
are mitigating some of the warming, and that increased
cloudiness as a result of these emissions will further enhance
night, rather than day, warming?
(171 A Yes, I agree, and the operative word is some.
(1s) Q And would you agree that the sulfate emissions,
though. are not sufficient to explain all the night warming?
(21) A Yes, I would.
(22) Q Would you agree that, however, the sensitivity of
climate to anthropogenerated aerosols and the lack of
previously predicted warming could drastically alter the
debate of global warming in favor of

--

(2)

SHADDIX & ASSOCIATES (612)888-7687

VOLUME 9

PAGE 141

PAGE 139

(1)

-

PAGE 143

able to deal with A, 1’11 have to hear argument pros and
cons.
(3) MS. SASSEVILLE: At this point would we be able to
refer to the article in briefing?
(5) THE JUDGE: Conceptually, yes.
(6) MS. SASSEVILLE: Okay.
(7)THE JUDGE: Okay. Ms. Hedman, I think you had a
question. RECROSS-EXAMINATION
[io) BY MS. HEDMAN:
(11) Q Just one final question relating to the role of the
sulfate emissions in mitigating global warming. You do
agree, don’t you, Dr. Michaels, that there is a substantial
mdy of evidence that indicates that sulfate emissions do
nitigate some of the warming?
:if) A Yes, but the confidence in our ability to quantify that is
liven In most recent IPCC as maximal at low and medially
(1)

I

Dcpo-Mege

Page 27

 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS
~

MAY 23, 1995

~~~-

between low and very low.
THE JUDGE: All right. Is there anything further for the
witness? Mr. Witham.
(22) MR. WITHAM: Your Honor, I guess my motion for the
admission of the article has not been addressed in the
record. I would move it be admitted for the purpose of
elucidating the
(20)

-

-

VOLUME 9

(17) MS. FREESE: No, I did not.
(is) MS. HEDMAN: Nor did I.
(19) THE JUDGE: All right. I think that the way this was
introduced, for the limited purpose of clarrfying the questions
that were asked out of it, means that it’s not introduced for
the truth or falsehood, if you will, of what’s contained in the
article. So, therefore, I don’t think the response and the
subsequent follow-up article are

PAGE 144

questions and answers asked and not for the proof of the
matter asserted and I renew my motion for admission.
( 4 ) THE JUDGE: Okay. So you’re moving it essentially as a
clarification item?
(6) MR. WITHAM: Yes.
I-J) THE JUDGE: Is there any objection to that motion?
(9) MS. FREESE: No objection.
(io) THE JUDGE: All right. Hearing no objection, the motion
is granted and the document will be received. Does
somebody have a copy we can take?
(14) MS. FREESE: I have copies I can distribute.
(16) THE WITNESS: Again, the article in the scientific world,
when there is a question, a letter -(19) MS. HEDMAN: There’s no question pending.
(21) THE JUDGE: All right. Mr. Glaser is aware of the
situation, if Mr. Glaser wants to do it he can do it.
(24) MR. GLASER: I don’t even know what she’s handing
out.
(1)

PAGE 147

(1) necessary for the purpose for which this is received. So I
would deny your request to add more material to it.
(4) MR. GLASER: Off the record. (Discussion held off the
record.) (Hearing adjourned at ?:35 p.m.)

PACE 145
( 1 ) THE JUDGE: Let’s wait and see. Why don’t you hand it
out, please, Ms. Freese. Thank you. (Whereupon, Exhibit 59
was marked for identification by the court reporter.)
(7) MR. GLASER: In response to the motion to introduce this
exhibit into evidence, I think we do have testimony on the
record and we can certainly get more testimony on the
record, but this is not the complete article. That the practice
is that when an article like this is written, and then there is a
letter that is written in response to it, the author gets a
chance to reply to the letter and the letter and reply are
published and all three are documents, the initial article, the
letter and the reply are considered to be all part of the same
article that was written. And as long as we are putting the
document in the record I think we ought to have all three
documents.
(u)
MS. FREESE: Your Honor, it seems to me that this
letter, or rather this article, stood alone at the time that it was
published. The fact that there was subsequent
correspondence and a

-

.__-

--

PAGE 146

(I) follow-up response to that, I think that while it may be
considered in some circles to make it all the same article,
these were not published at the same time, is my
understanding, and subsequent dialogue does not necessarily
follow that it should be admitted along with this.
(3 MS. PETERSON: Clarification. I thought that this was
being admitted for illustrative or clarification purposes on the
questions and I’m not sure, I don’t think any questions were
asked on the letter and the follow-up response, but perhaps
they were, I don’t know.
(13) THE JUDGE: Ms. Freese, I think you and Ms. Hedman
were the ones who focused on this article, did you ask
questions about the letters or the response?

SHADDJX & ASSOCXATES (612)888-7687

Depo Mergc

Page 28