Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 35
3
Preliminary Assessment of
CCSP Progress
C
hapter 2 recommends dividing the evaluation of Climate Change
Science Program (CCSP) progress into two stages: (1) a broad over-
view of the entire program and (2) an in-depth analysis of areas in
which progress has been inadequate. The committee addressed task 1b—a
preliminary analysis of CCSP progress—by carrying out the first stage of
the evaluation. The first stage is focused on major issues that are relatively
easy to identify, so it can be carried out using mainly the knowledge of
the evaluators. Because the program is so broad, however, the committee
supplemented its knowledge with input from a workshop, consultation with
CCSP program managers, and reference to the literature. Qualitative scores
and commentary from the first stage of the evaluation appear in Part II, and
overall conclusions and a discussion of key areas that should undergo the
second stage of the evaluation are given below.
EVALUATION APPROACH
The committee’s preliminary (stage 1) assessment was structured
around a matrix of 33 research questions versus five categories of outputs
and outcomes (see Appendix C). Scores were assigned to each cell of the
matrix. The scores of the cells were then combined and analyzed to draw
conclusions about progress in the research elements, cross-cutting issues,
and one of the overarching goals.
At the request of the CCSP, progress was assessed for the last four years
of effort—the lifetime of the program. Nearly all of the milestones and
products in the CCSP strategic plan were to have been completed within
5
OCR for page 36
EVALUATING PROGRESS OF THE U.S. CCSP
four years, although in several cases this objective has not been met. Where
longer periods were required to demonstrate progress of fundamental re-
search (e.g., see NRC, 2005), the committee’s assessment extends beyond
four years.
Program results were gleaned from accomplishments listed in Our
Changing Planet (CCSP, 2005, 2006a) and the scientific literature. It is
generally not possible to distinguish between accomplishments that re-
sult from agency-sponsored activities (1) that are carried out to address
CCSP or related objectives and are counted in the CCSP budget, or (2)
that are relevant to the CCSP, but are not considered part of the program
(e.g., National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
[NPOESS]). Only CCSP workshops, coordinated activities (e.g., interagency
working groups [IWGs] and their science committees), and synthesis and
assessment products can be linked unambiguously to the program. In the
absence of information to make this distinction, the committee treated all
U.S. government-sponsored climate science as part of the CCSP. However,
a final evaluation of CCSP progress would focus ideally only on areas at-
tributable to the program.
A significant source of input for the evaluation was a workshop of
CCSP stakeholders (listed in Appendix D) organized by the committee in
September 2006. Stakeholders that generate or use CCSP information and
products include research scientists; private companies and nongovern-
mental organizations in the insurance, agriculture, energy, forestry, trans-
portation, water resources, public health, and emergency response sectors;
federal, state, and local government agencies; and policy makers (NRC,
2005). Their insights are particularly important for assessing program qual-
ity and outcomes. However, about 80 percent of the workshop attendees
were scientists, making the exercise more of a peer review than a broad
stakeholder assessment. Although chosen for their expertise in different
aspects of the CCSP, no small group of individuals can represent the scope
of the CCSP. Nevertheless, their collective insights enabled nearly all of the
cells in the matrix to be scored.
Because the stage 1 assessment focused on identifying major strengths
and weaknesses, the committee chose to score progress on a scale of good,
fair, and inadequate. The objective was to assign five scores to each research
question, one for each column of the matrix. However, in some cases a
score was not applicable. For example, not all research questions follow the
same progression from improving data sets to informing policy. Some will
lead simply to new research directions. Other research questions mirror the
matrix columns (e.g., question 3.1 focuses on data and physical quantities).
In such cases it did not make sense to score all columns of the matrix.
Many of the research questions are broadly written and include mul-
tiple components, each of which may have progressed at a different rate.
OCR for page 37
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF CCSP PROGRESS
Where this was the case, multiple scores were assigned to the cell and
described in the commentary. A score for progress in the overall research
question was assigned based on the scores of the five cells and the judgment
of the committee about which cells were most significant.
Overall, the committee and workshop participants found that they
were able to use the matrix to score progress in all of the research ques-
tions. The primary difficulty in scoring the left columns of the matrix (col-
umns A, B, and C) was that data, processes, and predictions can overlap
significantly, sometimes making it difficult to differentiate progress in one
area from progress in another. The most difficult cells to score were those
concerning synthesis and assessments, and risk managements and decision
support (columns D and E). Any CCSP accomplishments in these areas are
not yet widely published or known in the community. In many cases, the
committee was able to gather additional information to adjust or verify the
initial scores. However, a larger number of social scientists and state and
local decision makers would ease future evaluations.
RESULTS OF THE STAGE 1 EVALUATION
Few of the CCSP research questions scored good or fair on all five
columns of the matrix. Below is a summary of which areas of the research
elements are proceeding as well as or better than expected, and which areas
should undergo careful (stage 2) evaluation to diagnose problems and im-
prove CCSP outcomes. In selecting the areas for stage 2 analysis, the com-
mittee strove for both practicality, which limits the number of issues that
can reasonably be evaluated and monitored, and breadth. Although not all
of these areas have equal potential to improve program results, progress in
each would advance CCSP objectives.
Atmospheric Composition
Good progress has been made in understanding the factors that alter
atmospheric composition and how these alterations affect climate, humans,
and ecosystems. Examples include much better knowledge of the direct
and indirect effects of aerosols, air quality, and tropospheric ozone and the
impacts of pollutants on human health. However, limiting factors still exist,
and these could benefit from a stage 2 evaluation. For example, inclusion
of aerosol interactions, including aerosol-cloud interactions, in coupled
climate change models has been slow, and the CCSP may be able to im-
prove this by fostering better coordination between observational, process
modeling, and coupled model development groups. The CCSP has also not
undertaken a coordinated effort to evaluate future scenarios of changes
OCR for page 38
EVALUATING PROGRESS OF THE U.S. CCSP
in worldwide aerosol emissions, which is critical for projections of future
climate, decision support systems, and policy actions.
Climate Variability and Change
Significant advances have been made in understanding the Earth’s
climate system components, their interactions, their variability, and the
mechanisms driving current changes. For example, the CCSP synthesis
and assessment report on atmospheric temperature trends resolved the
discrepancy between in situ balloon observations and satellite microwave
observations and confirmed that tropospheric warming is consistent with
surface warming (CCSP, 2006b). Likewise, observations of ocean heat
content confirmed that the warming has penetrated to deeper layers of
the ocean. Proxy records have expanded our knowledge of past abrupt
climate changes, including the relationship between climate variability and
droughts or wildfires. Improved understanding has led to state-of-the-art
climate models that now reproduce many aspects of the climate of the past
century, and simulations of the evolution of global surface temperature over
the past millennium are consistent with paleoclimate reconstructions, thus
improving confidence in future projections.
However, progress in some key areas has been inadequate, and the
second stage of evaluation might show why. Ice sheet dynamics remains
a major uncertainty in future climate projections because of the need for
longer observations and the development of more advanced models. Ob-
servations are also insufficient to substantially advance understanding and
modeling of cloud and aerosol processes. In addition, even the best models
are deficient in their ability to represent extreme events (e.g., hurricanes,
heat waves), abrupt climate changes, and smaller-scale (regional to local)
processes. The CCSP does not have a coordinated strategy to collect and
archive climate observations, and this may be slowing the understanding
of some climate processes as well as the improvement of models that must
be initialized with estimates of the observed state of the climate system.
Finally, little information on climate variability and change is being used
by resource managers and planners, perhaps because sufficient bridging or
translating functions are not available.
Water Cycle
Understanding of the mechanisms that control water fluxes among the
components of the Earth system has improved over the last several years.
Good progress has been made in quantifying water fluxes and budgets from
multiple data sources, and in understanding and modeling processes such
OCR for page 39
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF CCSP PROGRESS
as cloud formation, air-sea interaction, and land-atmosphere interaction.
However, additional work needs to be done on feedbacks that cut across
disparate physical processes (e.g., aerosol and moist processes; coupled wa-
ter, energy, and carbon fluxes) and physical-human processes (e.g., account-
ing for managed ecosystems and water transfers in climate models). Fair
progress has been made on understanding long-term change and decadal
variability, but future progress will require investments in sustained and
global observing systems and in the development of robust coupled models.
Progress toward understanding the consequences of water cycle variability
for human societies and ecosystems has been inadequate, as has progress
in understanding how information about such consequences can be used to
inform decision making. A rigorous stage 2 evaluation of research activities
related to water cycle questions 4 (consequences) and 5 (information) could
reveal whether this assessment of progress is accurate and, if it is, whether
inadequate progress to date reflects low agency priorities or poor interac-
tion with relevant stakeholder communities. A stage 2 evaluation could also
gauge whether a synthesis and assessment product targeted specifically at
the water cycle might focus agency and community efforts in a way that
spurs progress across the entire research element.
Land Use and Land Cover Change
Good progress has been made in the quantification and characteriza-
tion of land use and land cover change. The availability of high-resolution
(30 m) satellite data has enabled regional estimation of rates of land cover
change. Improved understanding of the processes of change is enabling
predictive modeling of future land cover changes. However, less progress
has been made on the land use aspects of this research element. Areas that
would benefit from a stage 2 evaluation include land use modeling and
the societal impacts of land use and climate change and their interactions.
Land use modeling is in its infancy, with social, economic, and biophysical
processes only beginning to be incorporated. Researchers are just starting
to quantify the impacts of land use change on climate and to understand
the impacts of climate change on land use (e.g., on agriculture, forest, and
rangeland distribution and productivity). The absence of a national review
of land use models to guide the development of global, spatially explicit,
dynamic land use models for integration with global climate models may be
slowing progress in this area. Finally, considerable growth potential exists
for research on climate and land use interactions. The inadequate progress
to date likely reflects limited CCSP support for the social science aspects of
land use and land cover change research and analysis.
OCR for page 40
0 EVALUATING PROGRESS OF THE U.S. CCSP
Carbon Cycle
Good progress has been made in developing strategies for evaluating
the spatial distribution of, and processes responsible for, current carbon
sources and sinks. However, the fate of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and
land use emissions is still not completely determined. Thus, priorities for a
stage 2 evaluation are the current carbon budget and our ability to predict
and manage future CO2 levels.
Major uncertainties remain in the magnitude and even the sign of the
feedbacks between climate change and the distribution of carbon among
atmosphere, ocean, and land reservoirs. Coupled carbon-climate models
and observation networks emphasize seasonal-to-interannual variations in
surface-atmosphere CO2 exchange, and areas of uncertainty for the feed-
backs they address are well known. However, potentially critical processes
are difficult to assess or predict given current understanding, including the
role of disturbances (e.g., fire, pollutant deposition, vegetation change) in
land carbon balance and the potential for changes in ocean ecosystems and
thermohaline circulation to affect ocean carbon exchange. A stage 2 evalua-
tion could focus on finding ways to balance process studies, data collection,
and modeling that would yield the greatest improvements in predictions of
future CO2 levels.
Predicting how current land and ocean carbon sinks will behave in the
future is a key area of uncertainty. However, the greatest uncertainty in
predicting future atmospheric CO2 levels involves the choices that people
make about energy, carbon management, and land use. Inadequate progress
has been made in supplying scientific information to inform these choices,
perhaps because social science investigations of human choices have not
been incorporated into scenarios on which predictions are based.
Ecosystems
Good progress has been made in understanding the potential con-
sequences of natural and anthropogenic climate change for ecosystems.
Knowledge of carbon cycling processes has improved, and better estimates
of carbon inventories in marine and terrestrial ecosystems have been made.
High-quality integrated data sets have been acquired from satellite and
in situ measurement programs, and long-term sites for measuring carbon
have been established. Coupled ecosystem-climate models for marine and
terrestrial systems have advanced as a result of improved understanding of
carbon processes and advances in computation. However, progress has been
inadequate in two key areas that would benefit from a stage 2 evaluation.
First, quantitative understanding of potential feedbacks among ecosystem
components, especially those that cross boundaries (e.g., land-ocean), may
OCR for page 41
1
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF CCSP PROGRESS
be hindered by insufficient coordination among CCSP programs that focus
on different parts of the marine and terrestrial ecosystem. A coordinated ef-
fort to develop a carbon model that includes land, marine, and atmospheric
components could also foster projections of future climate states and the de-
velopment of management policies to deal with these future states. Second,
the effects of climate change on marine and terrestrial ecosystems cannot
yet be predicted reliably, perhaps because of shortcomings in coordinated
community efforts, computational resources, and/or sustained measurement
programs.
Human Contributions and Responses
Although some gains have been made in understanding stakeholder
needs and characterizing the impact of uncertainty on decision making,
overall progress has been inadequate given the breadth and depth of issues
encompassed by the research questions. Achievements have been particu-
larly insufficient regarding human drivers of ecosystem change; the nature,
magnitude, and value of climate change impacts; and the cost of mitiga-
tion and adaptation. These issues would benefit from a stage 2 evaluation
because of their importance in preparing for and responding to climate
change stressors. Inadequate progress may reflect the absence both of a
conceptual framework to understand the diverse human-ecosystem inter-
actions that work over time and of a research agenda to characterize and
measure impacts, vulnerability, and adaptive capacity. These in turn depend
in part on leadership to foster and coordinate research efforts across agen-
cies. The United States risks lagging behind other developed countries in
understanding these issues.
OVERARCHING CONCLUSIONS
Discovery science and understanding of the climate system are pro-
ceeding well, but use of that knowledge to support decision making
and to manage risks and opportunities of climate change is proceeding
slowly.
Good progress has been made in documenting climate changes and
their anthropogenic influences and in understanding many aspects of how
the Earth system works (e.g., aerosol direct forcing, glacier melting). Cou-
pled ocean-atmosphere-land climate models have also improved, although
models that enable exploration of feedbacks, assessment of human driving
forces, or trade-offs of different resource management and mitigation op-
tions are still relatively immature. The program has made a significant con-
tribution to international climate research, particularly to Working Group 1
OCR for page 42
2 EVALUATING PROGRESS OF THE U.S. CCSP
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). CCSP research
and the temperature trends report (CCSP, 2006b) have also played a role
in the findings of the recently released IPCC (2007) report.
In contrast, inadequate progress has been made in synthesizing research
results, assessing impacts on human systems, or providing knowledge to
support decision making and risk analysis. Reports on temperature trends
(CCSP, 2006b) and scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions (CCSP, 2007)
were the only CCSP synthesis and assessment products completed in the last
four years; most synthesis activities have been small, focused, community
efforts. A previous review of the CCSP strategic plan found that decision
support activities were underdeveloped (NRC, 2004). The committee’s
preliminary assessment of progress (Chapters 4 and 5) shows that decision
support has been incorporated into some aspects of the ecosystems research
element (i.e., management strategies that consider the effect of climate vari-
ability on fisheries) and the human contributions and responses research
element (e.g., Decision Making Under Uncertainty [DMUU] centers). How-
ever, these programs are small, and decision support is treated primarily as
a service activity, rather than a topic that requires fundamental research. As
a result, decisions about climate and associated environmental change have
had to be made without the benefit of a strong scientific underpinning.
Progress in understanding and predicting climate change has improved
more at global, continental, and ocean basin scales than at regional
and local scales.
The disparity in progress is partly a result of the site-specific nature
of impacts and vulnerabilities and the much greater natural variability on
smaller scales. For example, the interannual variability of surface tempera-
ture is an order of magnitude greater on the scale of an individual town
than the global average. It is these smaller spatial scales that are most rel-
evant for state and local resource managers, policy makers, and the general
public. Future projected land cover changes and changes in the distribution
of continental water due to dams and irrigation, for example, are just begin-
ning to be included in climate models. However, improving understanding
of regional-scale climate processes and their impacts in North America
would require improved integrated modeling, regional-scale observations,
and the development of scenarios of climate change and impacts. Improved
predictions of climate change at local levels should help the CCSP bridge
the gap between science and decision making.
Our understanding of the impact of climate changes on human well-be-
ing and vulnerabilities is much less developed than our understanding
of the natural climate system.
OCR for page 43
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF CCSP PROGRESS
The greatest progress in the CCSP has been made on basic climate
science associated with overarching goals 1, 2, and 3 (although human
driving forces have lagged) and the least has been made on the interac-
tion of climate change with human systems (overarching goals 4 and 5).
Improved progress toward overarching goals 4 and 5 will require stronger
connections with the social science community and a more comprehen-
sive and balanced research program. Indeed, a review of the draft CCSP
strategic plan recommended accelerating efforts in human dimensions,
economics, adaptation, and mitigation by strengthening science plans and
institutional support (NRC, 2004). Yet only a small percentage of the CCSP
research and observations budget is devoted to the human contributions
and responses research element (Table 1.1), making it difficult to carry out
even the limited research agenda outlined in the CCSP strategic plan. The
bundling of human dimensions research and decision support tools further
deemphasizes the importance of social science research and is detrimental
to both parts of the program.
Another reason for inadequate progress is that no agency has a pro-
gram focused on the human dimensions of climate. A consequence is that
expertise in the human dimensions of climate change is in short supply in
the participating agencies, which in turn makes it difficult for the CCSP to
exert leadership and forge the necessary links between these agencies and
the academic social science community. The connections that the National
Science Foundation established for its DMUU centers may provide a model
for other CCSP social science research. Finally, the human dimensions
research community is small and unorganized and thus may be unable to
advocate effectively for changing program priorities. However, the good
quality of work achieved with the low level of investment to date suggests
that the community is capable of supporting a more substantial program.
Science quality observation systems have fueled advances in climate
change science and applications, but many existing and planned observ-
ing systems have been cancelled, delayed, or degraded, which threatens
future progress.
Much of the progress in understanding the climate system has been
fueled by the availability of a wide range of data (e.g., NRC, 1999, 2007).
A rich resource of satellite and in situ observations has been collected, dis-
seminated, and archived by agencies participating in the CCSP. However,
the number and diversity of satellite observations are expected to diminish
significantly with the cancellation or delay of several planned National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellite missions (e.g., Hydros,
Global Precipitation Measurement mission, Landsat Data Continuity Mis-
OCR for page 44
EVALUATING PROGRESS OF THE U.S. CCSP
sion, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite Series-R) and the
elimination of climate instruments from NPOESS. By the end of the decade
the number of operating sensors and instruments on board NASA platforms
is expected to decrease by approximately 40 percent (NRC, 2007). In ad-
dition, a number of long-standing in situ networks (e.g., U.S. Geological
Survey stream gauge network, U.S. Department of Agriculture Snowpack
Telemetry snow observation system) are deteriorating, and planned carbon
cycle field campaigns may be cancelled because of funding shortfalls. The
anticipated decline in U.S. capability to monitor global- or regional-scale
environmental changes and the degradation of climate data records that
provide the baseline for measuring change will severely hamper future
progress in climate change research. Indeed, the reduction in remote sens-
ing capability is perhaps the single greatest threat to the future progress of
the CCSP. Yet the CCSP has no strategy for implementing, sustaining, and
evolving an observing system to address crucial questions on climate and
related environmental changes (NRC, 2004). It is also not clear what role
the CCSP might play in cooperating with other countries to obtain neces-
sary data. This is particularly worrisome, given the IPCC (2007) prediction
that the large warming trend of the last two decades will continue for at
least the next few decades.
Progress in communicating CCSP results and engaging stakeholders is
inadequate.
One of the most important differences between the CCSP and the U.S.
Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is the increased emphasis on
communicating research results to stakeholders and encouraging the use
of science-based products to support decision makers. Indeed, using CCSP
knowledge to manage risks and opportunities related to climate variability
and change is an overarching goal of the program. However, a coherent
communications strategy, informed by basic social science research, has
not yet been developed. Most efforts to carry out the two-way dialogue
envisioned in the CCSP strategic plan appear to be ad hoc and to rely more
on communicating research results—especially to federal agencies and, to a
lesser extent, the scientific community—than on hearing what others need
from the program. NOAA’s Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments
program has been effective in communicating research results to stakehold-
ers in particular sectors (e.g., impact of seasonal-to-interannual climate
variability on water resources) or regions, but this program is small and has
limited reach. Other efforts to identify and engage state and local officials,
nongovernmental organizations, and the climate change technology com-
munity are still in the early stages. Building and maintaining relationships
with stakeholders is not easy and requires more resources in the CCSP
OCR for page 45
5
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF CCSP PROGRESS
Office and participating agencies than are currently available. Yet a well-
developed list of stakeholders, target audiences, and their needs is essential
for educating the public and informing decision making with scientifically
based CCSP products.
The separation of leadership and budget authority presents a serious
obstacle to progress in the CCSP.
A principle in Thinking Strategically (NRC, 2005) is that a leader
with authority to direct resources and/or research effort is essential if the
program is to succeed. However, the CCSP is an interagency program in
which responsibility for program management and budget allocation is
shared among the participating agencies. As a result, effective coordina-
tion mechanisms are essential. Strong coordination at all levels of the
program—within research questions, among closely related research ele-
ments and cross-cutting issues, and across the program as a whole—can
create new avenues of investigation and should enable the CCSP to achieve
more than its participating agencies could accomplish alone. Advances in
characterizing the carbon budget, for example, have been attributed in part
to an active IWG and scientific steering committee, community-established
implementation plans, and a long history of interagency cooperation on
carbon cycle research projects (see Chapter 4). Established coordination
mechanisms exist at both the component level (IWGs for research elements
and cross-cutting issues; see Table 1.1 and Figure 2.1) and the program level
(CCSP principals and program office).
However, coordination of budgets has been less effective. In the early
years of the USGCRP, the Office of Management and Budget worked
closely with the program leadership to identify priorities and to commu-
nicate those priorities to the relevant agency heads (NRC, 1999). CCSP
budget allocations are coordinated to a much lesser extent today. Budgets
are reported for major components of the CCSP (e.g., overarching goals,
research elements), although this is primarily a post factum accounting ex-
ercise, not a true allocation of funds to carry out the program. The CCSP
director and agency principals have only a small budget over which they
have discretionary control, and they must rely on persuasion rather than
authority to allocate or prioritize funding across the agencies. For example,
the CCSP appears to have had little influence either on the decisions taken
to cancel or delay satellite missions or on what resources should be al-
located to expand or upgrade in situ networks, despite the importance of
observing systems to achieving CCSP objectives. Instead, these decisions
are made by the respective agencies. Similarly, the interagency working
groups have few discretionary funds and little authority to implement
OCR for page 46
EVALUATING PROGRESS OF THE U.S. CCSP
the objectives that they define, unless these objectives coincide with their
agency objectives. Even funding for the Climate Change Research Initia-
tive is disbursed among agency programs. Such fragmented authority can
only weaken coherent leadership and priority setting and slow progress in
achieving the overall goals of the program.
