Test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test. Test test test test. What you would need is definitively need an icebreaker to navigate that piece of geography. What you dont see on this map because it would clutter it is beyond that 100 coverage inside of that blue line, there are areas where you get 60 sea ice coverage, 30, 40, which you would probably also want an icebreaker or definitely need an ice hardened clad ship to navigate. The purple line, on the edges of the map because the arctic is entirely icecovered in the winter and the maximum ice is in march. The minimum is in september. What you see there is you need an icebreaker to navigate any of that in the march time frame. It provides a rough seasonality in the arctic. So how has that changed over the last 50, 40, 30 years, whatever it is . Is it bigger, smaller, the same . What are we looking at . The navy uses a figure of a per decade loss of 3 of maximum ice per year and 13 of minimum ice per year. So theres is it that measure it is measurable and quantifiable and goes to those time frames. Historically, you have relatively precise measurements, but looking forward youre thinking 3 loss in mass and 13 minimum . Is that what youre telling me . Yes, sir. And that tracks whats happened up to this point . Yes, sir. Okay. Mr. Kiemel, mentioned difficulty in measuring impact of Climate Change on all other issues, all aspects of migrations, all those things. You mentioned it was a relatively complicated model with a variety of variables. Any stance of how much more complicated that is than the underlying Climate Science modeling that goes on . Which is more difficult to model . The impact or whether its going to happen or not . The Climate Change. Model. From the perspective, were not doing the scientific modeling which one . Im sorry . Youre not doing scientific modeling were not doing it on Climate Change. Were using whats been done by other scientists to inform our judgments. So i really cant speak to that. He has a better sense of that. Its not the im trying to get a sense of how complicated it is. I believe the modeling for Climate Change is relatively complicated. Is extremely complicated. Its still science, which means that some of our colleagues say this science is subtle. Which to me makes a bit of an odd statement. I dont think any science is settled in that regard. Trying to figure out in that regard a lot of conversation about not a lot of conversation about the modeling youre doing. Im trying to get a sense of which is more complicated and more speculation than the other. And i would definitely agree with you, your previous point, too, that the other factors are very complicated and very difficult to model as well. To define precisely what percent of an impact Climate Change has had on one National Security problem or another is difficult. We look at the overall trends im trying to compare the two major modeling projects. Climate change and the affect it has on affect it has on everything else. Wouldnt know how to code much of it into a computer. Were talking about societal variables and other biophysical conditions and political conditions. Theyre all in a be group of conditions. Its difficult to model those things beyond the framework. I yield back. Ms. Sule. Can we talk about how the ic assesses the approaching increase disease incidences that we see and whether or not were prepared for the affect of diseases being weaponized in a way that would affect our National Security thats for anyone who would like to talk about it. Ill take a swing at it. The Intelligence Community has many highly qualified experts to talk about Infectious Diseases and global health. But i think this topic is a good illustration of how why National Security has broadened over the years. I think few would dispute Infectious Diseases and pandemic potential are National Security concerns. I see the topic of Climate Change going that same direction. Really, we could spend an entire hearing on this topic. Its a giant topic. A direct answer to your question would be tough. Let me answer your question about whether were ready. Arguably, were not ready for a lot of these factors. Even without Climate Change effects. Just due to the element of surprise of infectious in the rapid onset of potential pandemics. Just looking at climate hazards and Climate Change hazards, some groups of people are especially susceptible to climate sense of health hazards, periods of extreme heat, for example. Young children be, populations already experiencing social marginalization and we could talk about a number of direct risks from flooding. In terms of like global organizations like the world health organization, our participation or participation in the paris accords, how are those types of things helping, affecting our ability to be prepared for these global risks that exist because of Climate Change . Im not certain i have an answer to that since that strays into policy restrictive language. Maybe peter, you can one of the point the broader points about dealing with macro issues like Climate Change is its not all about the potential threats to National Security. Its also about opportunities to find solutions to them as well. I think the chairman mentioned earlier rivers and disputes over the flow of rivers water disputes have historically been major bones of contention between states like india and pakistan. Exactly. Thats what im trying to figure out. We cant solve this alone. That this is a global issue. And a global threat. To the extent that we as International Actors play a part of that, i would think that its about, you know, us working with our allies as well in getting prepared for be these threats. Yes. States working together to find solutions has been one of the reasons why water conflicts havent really caused wars. Theyve actually led to actual engagement between countries that wouldnt naturally engage with each other. There are possibilities for at that as well. The other question i had, i wanted to dig a little deeper on the geo what did you call it . Geoengineering. If you could tell us a little bit about that more. How does one engineer weather . The effects of that as a global threat. So were not talking about changing the weather, were talking about changing the climate. Longterm average of the weather over a long period of time. So one technique that has been discussed is taking jumbo jets that are filled with Something Like sulfur dioxide, which is a known coolant of radiation and to inject that into the stratosphere which is the layer of the atmosphere thats above the tropp sphere in which we live. With the there are some computer models that are trying to assess. Sovereign states are that have i know its theoretical. But it also could be practical. How will we in the ic trying to prepare ourselves against uses of advanced technologies like this . The Intelligence Community is trying to understand the Global Developments in geoengineering and trying to determine the risk factors and so the ic itself isnt doing anything in the geoengineering space. In terms of malice its frightening that you could change climate that way. And one can see the possibilities of weaponizing Something Like that. We should see how were mitigating i think it would be hard to think of ways to weapon eyes a geoengineering method because of its global reach. If youre talking about changing the weather in a more regional system, you know, thats a different set of topics and i have high doubts about that from a scientific standpoint. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I know my time is over. Very interesting and thank you so much for having this public hearing. Thank you very much. My son just told me that sulfur dioxide was part of his standardized test. Theyre teechk about this in our high schools which is good. Mr. Stewart . Thank you, chairman. To all of you for your presentation today. Im going to try to be brief because were coming up on i want to give everyone a chance. I commend you for sincerely appreciate your comments in discussing something that is really an emotional issue. I was talking with one of the staff earlier, said this is like talking religion. Hard to make converts. Its like talking politics. Theres a lot of emotion to t and people seem to stakeout their position and i think fairly defensive of that generally. I think you have presented a fair evaluation of the risks while noting some of the uncertainties. Mr. Kiemel in our opening comments, you talked about variables in model. Very difficult to model. A more aggressive description may be possible. You recognize that climb change is Human Behavior in the future is trying to predict 40, 50, 100 years in the future is difficult to do. Yet, at the same time, you have said that these are the things that are worrying us and things that were dealing with now and that we have to consider. I agree with you on that. Im curious, im going to sidebar for a minute before i get to my question. Do you think that some of the predictions or the warnings or some of the dire emotional claims that weve heard over the last half generation or so, for example and weve been told that we have 12 years to fix this or its the end of mankind, do you think that helps a conversation or make it more complicated and more emotional than perhaps we should be in this . Just a Quick Response fif you would. Any of you. Im trying to think about from the National Security implications of Climate Change what the how the conversation about Climate Change itself impacts us. I think we tried to separate ourselves from the politics on any given issue. Believe me, any issue related to National Security has multinl sid am multiple sides to it. We see that with policy debates within the administration that go on, let alone across parties. So every National Security implication issue has, has a Debate Associated with it. Let me simplify this. When you hear warnings or emotional claims that turn out not to be true, does that help the conversation or not help it when were trying to be unemotional or analytical about this. Thats where we tried to put on our clear lenses and look at and separate it from the emotional warnings. Argument about the science itself. Again, i think youve done a fine job of doing that today. Im going to ask this question. I have no idea how youre going to answer it. Im really curious how youre going to answer it. Im assuming that all of you have at least a ts security clearance, is that right . You deal in a wide range of National Security issues, is that fair . I mean, you are experts on certain things. But you also have exposure and in the course of your work see other threats as well, is that true . Peter, for you as well . Yes. If you tried to prioritize this, would you put this issue that were dealing with today somewhere in the top two or three of the most urgent problems that we have to deal with over the next, say, five years . I would be hesitant to talk about the in an unclassified setting how we rank the competing threats. I will say that when we did the unclassified version of the annual threat assessment this year, we intentionally say we dont put these threats in here in rank order. We we include the full range of threats. And we included in that threat assessment a discussion of this particular issue. We do include it amongst the top issues. Jeff or rod, do you have a response to that . Yeah. I think one of the difficulties is the time scale of potential danger that every year or every week it would be hard to say Climate Change affects its a whole range of other events. If you integrate over time, 20, 30, 40 years, id be hardpressed to that its not in the top i would say that its not in the top of the russians National Security priorities. They in some respects welcome Climate Change. As do some other nations as well, i suppose. I said i would be brief. Turns out i wasnt. I apologize. I yield back. Mr. Quigley. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Kiemel, you said something akin to nations dont enter conflicts over water, Something Like that. Historically, that has been a part of the solution to bilateral problems between states than a course of cause of conflict. Sixday war is an exception . That was certainly a factor in that war of many. But dont you see many examples like that where desperate countries do things in effort to secure their own situation and create conflicts . Because if theyre that desperate and theres ageold conflicts as you discussed earlier, this exacerbates the situation and becomes the spark to dry kindling. I think this is why were looking at this as a National Security issue as an intelligence topic. Because, while this has been largely the case here to fore, our concern is as droughts become more common, we are going to see rising disputes over water driven by water as natural disasters by flooding, become more common. Were going to were seeing this. Its particularly evident that water as an internal conflict. As i mentioned in my statement for the record, molly is an example. Just last month in nigeria there were northern and southern california. Precisely. Theres a lot of internal conflict over water. In these places like in west africa and eastern nigeria for example, you have water and drought as an issue intermixed with historic rivalries and ethnic rivalries and you have water as a contributor to an intensifying factor in those kinds of conflict. That provides opportunities for extremist groups, for terrorist organizations to take advantage of those conflicts to advance their interests as well. Thank you. If we have just for a few moments. Sir, you were talking about the changes in the russians northern fleet. You seem to minimize the abilities and changes that that will do. The changing ice patterns. Mr. Pompeo warned in just this last month of the dangers of russian and chinese activities in the arctic due to these changes. Could you say if there are threats, military what does it do for them pbesides make thm more navigable. Is it easier to defend . From a defense issues, not just protecting ourselves but a threat to the u. S. And our allies, why does this change the ball game, if it does . I think in most respects the arctic has been a closed off from a defense perspective for years. Now it appears that the ice there is melting. Thats going to open up from a russian perspective a threat vector to them. Theyre going to but theyve been fairly modest in their modernization. Theyre going to develop capabilities across the islands, primarily for monitoring is it simply it makes it easier for them to defend their interests there or how is it a greater threat to the u. S. And its allies . More laymans term. Its less a threat to the United States directly than it would be to our allies. Of the eight arctic states, theyre mostly nato, sweden and finland the exceptions but close allies. Conflicts that involve russia and our allies in the region involve us. I think that would be the threat. Again, is the main threat that they can move their ship being easier and its easier for them to be aggressive . I dont think thats the threat. Their shipping is very small and minuscule and i dont think it eases their ability to be aggressive. The fact that norms in the arctic are now a question of governance and sort of establishing that governance opens the potentiality for conflict. To date, arctic nations have shown a good bit of restraint in being able to resolve the issues bilateral bilaterally. Thank you. Dr. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here. On one side of the issue we recognize that in handling all this, u. S. Cant do it alone. If the u. S. Is acting alone to make change and do things right with technology, et cetera, et cetera, in some ways its kind of like being a nonsmoking section on a plane. If were the only ones who are doing it. Were going to have to deal with this in a lot of ways and deal with the changes. I appreciated mr. Quigleys question about what are other nations doing to their advantage, are they taking opportunity or protecting themselves in some ways. You know, we also look at situations for some. Farming becomes more difficult in this situation. For others, it may become more viable in other parts of the world. I think you mentioned something about new markets of fishing lanes and things like that, that may open up as a result. These are things to keep an eye on, too. The point im trying to make, for some there may be good things and others not good things, right . Lets go to Infectious Diseases and things like that for a second and epidemics due to Climate Change. I understand a change in water status and temperature and migration of certainly animals may lead to diseases. Animals or insects. Mainly to diseases that need to be dealt with. I wonder if you can give me examples that we should be concerned about. Not necessarily the u. S. But around the world. Ill get to why i want to be concerned about how its affecting other parts of the world. I had two points on this issue. One issue is Warming Trends in combination with more rainfall and flooding. Its potential to increase the frequency of waterborne diseases. I mentioned that. I didnt know if there were any particular that you were seeing or need to be predicting or to be ready for. I understand that. I said i understand waterborne and temperature. Malaria, things like that. Depending upon the situation. Heres where im going. Wi