cc: chris.anastasi@british-energy.com, geoff.jenkins@metoffice.com, john.houghton@jri.org.uk, "Stott, Peter" <peter.stott@metoffice.com>, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, michael.grubb@imperial.ac.uk, peter.cox@metoffice.com, "Betts, Richard" <richard.betts@metoffice.com>
date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 16:28:08 +0100
from: "Cox, Peter" <peter.cox@metoffice.com>
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
