cc: chris.anastasi@british-energy.com, geoff.jenkins@metoffice.com, john.houghton@jri.org.uk, "Stott, Peter" , m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, michael.grubb@imperial.ac.uk, peter.cox@metoffice.com, "Betts, Richard" date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 16:28:08 +0100 from: "Cox, Peter" subject: Climate Change Meeting at the Russian Academy of Sciences to: simon.ostrovsky@imedia.ru Dear Simon, good to speak to you on the phone about the climate change meeting at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow, especially in the context of your newspaper article. I appreciate the opportunity to provide a balance to the view you would have been given at yesterday's Illarionov-led news conference, which the UK delegation was excluded from ! I was part of Sir David King's (the UK Governments Chief Scientific advisor) delegation which travelled to Moscow to discuss climate change issues with respected Russian academy scientists. Others who are copied in on this email were also at the meeting, and I am sure they would be happy to talk to you about what they said, and their impressions of the meeting. Unfortunately, the original agenda for the meeting was significantly changed by Andrei Illarionov and Yuri Izrael, who invited some known climate sceptics to speak at the meeting. A number of these invitees hold extreme minority views about climate change, and have therefore felt excluded by the IPCC process. Nevertheless, the UK delegation would have been more than happy to have a scientific discussion about their views and where these differ from the IPCC. Unfortunately, such debate was strongly suppressed by Andrei Illarionov and Yuri Izrael. Andrei Illarionov in particular, dominated the question and answer sessions, allowing minimal input from other delegates (including other Russian Academicians). After Sir John Houghton's talk, Illarionov asked 8 consecutive questions before allowing any answers, and the discussion was cut off before the UK delegation could respond to all of his points! Despite the extraordinary running of this meeting (which is unlike any "scientific" meeting I have ever been to), the UK delegation did manage to make the following points: 1) Human activities (especially the burning of fossil fuels) are resulting in CO2 emissions, and the amount of emissions from each region is well known. 2) Atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by more than a third since pre-industrial times. 3) The cause of this CO2 increase is undoubtedly the human emissions of CO2, and this has been known since the mid 1950s (when Hans Suess recognised that there was a growing isotopic signature of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere). 4) CO2 is a greenhouse gas (this has been known since the 19th century) which traps the outgoing heat from the Earth's surface, providing a warming "blanket". 5) The global average temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.7 degC over the last 100 years, with most of this change occurring in the last 30 years. 6) The trend in global temperatures has not been continously upwards over the last century, because CO2 is not the only factor which affects climate. Other human pollutants (such as sulphate aerosols) are important, and natural factors such as variations in the Sun and volcanic eruptions also play a role. 7) Climate models which include all of these factors are now able to reproduce the observed changes in global temperatures over the last 100 years. These models indicate that the warming over the latter part of the 20th century is primarily due to greenhouse gases (especially CO2), leading the IPCC to make the statement "there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". 8) Solar variability appears to have had an important effect on climate during parts of the 20th century, but is unable to explain recent warming (The Sun's activity declined in the late 1990s even though temperatures have continued to increase). 9) Without attempts to reduce the growth in CO2 emissions (e.g. through the Kyoto process), CO2 concentrations will increase rapidly in the 21st century, producing an enhanced greenhouse effect and thereby climate change and impacts on humankind. 10) The Kyoto Protocol will not on its own ensure stabilisation of CO2 at "non-dangerous levels", but it is a vital first step towards limiting the growth in CO2 emissions. 11) Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol need not compromise the Russian ambition to double GDP in the next 10 years, as "transition" and developed economies have been shown to be able to grow GDP per capita with small or zero increases in emissions per capita. Furthermore, demand for Russian gas is likely to increase (rather than decrease) if the Kyoto Protocol comes into force, as gas is more CO2 efficient than alternative fossil fuels (especially coal). Michael Grubb and Chris Anastasi can provide more information on the consequences of CO2 emssions reductions for the global and Russian economies. Geoff Jenkins and Peter Stott can provide further information on the reasons for recent climate change. Mike Hulme can provide information on the impacts of climate change. Please also get back to me if you require further information. Regards Peter Cox Dr Peter Cox Head of Climate, Chemistry and Ecosystems Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research Met Office Desk B2-1, Beagle 2 Fitzroy Road Exeter EX1 3PB UK Tel: +44 (0)1392 886910 Fax:+44 (0)1392 885681 Mob:+44 (0)7973 283214 Email: peter.cox@metoffice.com