National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 2 Restructuring the Climate Change Science Program
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"3 Future Priorities." National Research Council. 2009. Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12595.
×
Page 122

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

3 Future Priorities T he committee was charged to identify priorities to guide the future evolution of the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), including changes of emphasis and identification of program elements not supported in the past. A long list of pri- orities was identified from reports, assessments, and workshop discussions, as described and summarized in Appendix C, and from the common themes and gaps that emerged from the research needs outlined in Chapter 2. From these, the committee identified a small set of priorities for the program as a whole. This chapter dis- cusses these priorities in the context of the major roles of a federal climate change research program (Box 3.1). No attempt was made to lay out a comprehensive agenda in any of these areas. Rather, the focus is on what adjustments should be made to the future pro- gram to facilitate the integrated, end-to-end approach described in Chapter 2. A key assumption was that energy and geoengineering and other technologies for mitigating climate change research would continue to be primarily the mandate of partner programs such as the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP). 85

86 RESTRUCTURING FEDERAL CLIMATE RESEARCH BOX 3.1 Roles of a Federal Climate Change Research Program The roles of a federal climate change research program are to 1. Coordinate federally-sponsored research on climate, human, and related environmental systems across multiple agencies to strengthen synergies and find efficiencies 2. Develop a research program and a strategic planning process to identify critical gaps and emerging issues and to secure the necessary resources to address them 3. Ensure the availability of climate-quality observations and com- puting capacity and the development of human resources and institutions needed to address key priorities 4. Support coordinated U.S. participation in international climate science initiatives, including global observation networks and international assessments 5. Facilitate and, where appropriate, leverage regional, state, and local research on climate change, including monitoring and understanding the effects of adaptation and mitigation 6. Communicate reliable, unbiased research findings and informa- tion needed to improve public understanding of climate change and support informed decisions on adaptation and mitigation Much has been written about programs that are needed to im- plement the various roles listed in Box 3.1. Principles and recommendations on improving management and strategic plan- ning (role 1) for the CCSP are discussed in NRC (2004c) and NRC (2005b). Below we discuss the management challenges that a co- ordinated multiagency program will face as it moves toward building the knowledge needed to inform decisions. The biggest research gap in the current program (role 2) concerns the human dimensions of global change (e.g., NRC, 1992, 2004c, 2007c), and the discussion below focuses on the importance of adaptation, mitigation, and vulnerability research to support the scientific- societal issues outlined in Chapter 2. Priorities for space-based observations (part of role 3) for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are identified in the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Decadal Survey (NRC, 2007b). This chapter discusses observations that were not included in the Decadal Survey but are needed to un- derstand the climate–human–environment system, as well as data

FUTURE PRIORITIES 87 collection issues relevant to a multiagency program. The chapter also discusses other aspects of roles 3 (e.g., modeling and computa- tion), 4 (international partnerships), and 5 (state and local government partnerships) needed to promote an end-to-end approach to climate change. Finally, communications and decision support (role 6) are discussed in NRC (2007c) and NRC (2009), respectively. Below, we focus on only one aspect of this latter issue—climate services— which is under active discussion in Congress and by the CCSP agencies. CLIMATE OBSERVATIONS AND DATA Observations are the foundation of climate change research programs. Climate observations and associated climate data re- cords are used to improve our understanding of processes, to monitor the changing climate, to understand how the natural and social systems interact and how these interactions contribute and respond to climate change, and to evaluate the effectiveness of policies to mitigate, cope with, and adapt to climate change (e.g., NRC, 1999a, 2000). The observational components needed for climate research and applications, including ground-based and sat- ellite measurements and socioeconomic surveys, are collectively referred to as a climate observing system. NASA’s Earth Observing System (EOS), designed in 1988, is the closest thing the United States has had to the satellite compo- nent of a climate observing system. Originally conceived as three series of satellites to provide sustained, long-term measurements of physical climate and other global variables—complemented by ground-, aircraft-, balloon-, and ship-based measurements (ESSC, 1988)—the project was greatly scaled back. In the end, only the first series of satellites were flown and several planned variables (e.g., those related to geological processes) were never measured. Nevertheless, the data from the EOS satellites, as well as myriad remote-sensing and in situ observing programs operated by other agencies and countries, provided the foundation on which many CCSP successes were built (NRC, 2007c, 2008a). The need for a systematic and comprehensive approach to col- lecting climate observations has taken on new urgency with the

88 RESTRUCTURING FEDERAL CLIMATE RESEARCH cancellation, delay, or degradation of existing and planned satellite and in situ observing systems and the decreasing budget for obser- vations experienced over the past several years (e.g., NRC, 2007b, c). As stated in this committee’s first report, “the loss of existing and planned satellite sensors is perhaps the biggest threat to the Climate Change Science Program” (NRC, 2007c). A coordinated effort to collect long-term, climate-quality data on land and in the oceans and atmosphere is needed to support climate change sci- ence. In addition, the need to address climate change issues in the context of mitigation and adaptation has increased the importance of collecting socioeconomic and health data that can be used to understand human drivers and responses to climate change. Recommendation. At the earliest opportunity, the restructured climate change research program should set the requirements for a U.S.-operated climate observing system and work with participating agencies (federal, state, local, and international) to establish and maintain the system. Responsibility for observations is distributed across different federal agencies that participate in the CCSP. The program thus is a logical vehicle for developing a climate observing system. The participating agencies will have to design the system and deter- mine their roles and responsibilities for making the observations and archiving and distributing data (NRC, 1999a). The program would have to (1) identify and prioritize the physical, biological, and social science observations needed to support climate change research and applications;1 (2) advocate for necessary funding; and (3) coordinate with complementary efforts of U.S. state govern- ment agencies (e.g., state mesonets participating in the National Integrated Drought Information System) and international pro- grams (e.g., Global Climate Observing System [GCOS], Global Earth Observing System of Systems [GEOSS]) to leverage invest- ments and work toward a comprehensive international global climate observing system (e.g., as called for in NOAA, 2001; GCOS, 2003, 2004; CEOS, 2006). An enormous amount of work 1 A CCSP interagency working group has begun this process, but had not completed it at the time of writing.

FUTURE PRIORITIES 89 exists to draw on (e.g., see references throughout this section). For example, the GCOS program has developed a set of observation requirements and essential climate variables (GCOS, 2006). More recently, priority satellite observations have been identified for NASA and NOAA, as discussed in the next section. The priority missions for 2013 and beyond will need to be reassessed once a comprehensive set of satellite observation requirements have been identified by the restructured climate change research program. Decadal Survey The NRC Decadal Survey identified high-priority space mis- sions to support research and monitoring of the Earth system from 2010 to 2020 (Table 3.1; NRC, 2007b). The chapter on climate variability and change identified a set of climate-mission priorities and pointed out the shortcomings of the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS), which is intended to form the basis for climate observations in the post-EOS era. It found that NPOESS would lack the capabilities of the EOS satellites and that delays and the cancellation of several key sen- sors would further weaken observing capabilities and introduce substantial gaps in key variables (NRC, 2007b). A subsequent NRC report evaluated which of the original NPOESS sensors were most important to be preserved and gave highest priority to conti- nuity of microwave radiometry, radar altimetry, and Earth radiation budget measurements (NRC, 2008b). Neither report ad- dressed the need for systematic moderate-resolution land surface observations beyond the Landsat Data Continuity Mission as a pri- ority (see “Agriculture and Food Security” in Chapter 2 for a discussion of the need for improved temporal, global coverage at that resolution). The Decadal Survey focused on the physical Earth system, al- though some of the proposed missions identified in chapters on land-use change, earth science applications, human health, and water resources may have relevance to mitigation and adaptation. A decadal survey process focused on societal issues could be a useful way for the restructured climate change research program to identify climate observation priorities for (1) in situ land and ocean

90 RESTRUCTURING FEDERAL CLIMATE RESEARCH measurement systems and (2) data on the human dimensions of climate change. TABLE 3.1 Satellite Measurements Recommended in the Decadal Survey Cost Agency Mission Description ($M)a 2010–2013 NASA Solar and Earth radiation; spectrally resolved 200 forcing and response of the climate system Soil moisture and freeze-thaw for weather and 300 water-cycle processes Ice sheet height changes for climate change 300 diagnosis Surface and ice sheet deformation for under- 700 standing natural hazards and climate; vegetation structure for ecosystem health NOAA Solar and Earth radiation characteristics for 65 understanding climate forcing High-accuracy, all-weather temperature, water 150 vapor, and electron density profiles for weather, climate, and space weather 2013–2016 NASA Land surface composition for agriculture and 300 mineral characterization; vegetation types for ecosystem health Day/night, all-latitude, all-season CO2 column 400 integrals for climate emissions Ocean, lake, and river water levels for ocean 450 and inland water dynamics Atmospheric gas columns for air quality fore- 550 casts; ocean color for coastal ecosystem health and climate emissions Aerosol and cloud profiles for climate and wa- 800 ter cycle; ocean color for open ocean biogeochemistry NOAA Sea-surface wind vectors for weather and 350 ocean ecosystems

FUTURE PRIORITIES 91 TABLE 3.1 Continued Cost Agency Mission Description ($M)a 2016–2020 NASA Land surface topography for landslide hazards 300 and water runoff High-frequency, all-weather temperature and 450 humidity soundings for weather forecasting and sea-surface temperature High-temporal-resolution gravity fields for track- 450 ing large-scale water movement Snow accumulation for freshwater availability 500 Ozone and related gases for intercontinental 600 air quality and stratospheric ozone layer predic- tion Tropospheric winds for weather forecasting 650 and pollution transport a Rough cost estimates, in FY 2006 dollars. SOURCE: NRC (2007b) Human Dimensions Observations The shortage of reliable and consistent data on the interactions between climate, humans, and environmental systems limits our ability to understand how humans affect climate and vice versa, and hence to design policy responses to climate change. This shortage is particularly critical in less developed regions of the world, where socioeconomic and health data may be absent, un- available, and/or unreliable. Even in developed countries such as the United States, demographic (e.g., housing, census), transporta- tion, economic, and other observations on humans, organizations, institutions, cultures, and societies are sparse and the associated location information may be unavailable to protect individual pri- vacy. There is a particular need for: • Time-series data related to human pressures on the envi- ronment, such as land cover and land use, resource extraction, energy consumption, pollutant emissions from different sources and sectors, and human attitudes, valuations, and responses

92 RESTRUCTURING FEDERAL CLIMATE RESEARCH • Data on human exposure, sensitivities, and responses to global environmental change, such as morbidity and mortality as- sociated with air and water quality, and vulnerabilities to extreme weather and climate events Moreover, human-social variables tend to be measured and the data organized for purposes other than climate change research. For example, the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) data on energy consumers in households and businesses are not organized in a way that could support research on the causes and trends of green- house gas emissions in the United States (Appendix D). To be most useful for climate research, human dimensions data must be better organized and available at different scales of aggregation, including data from surveys and case-study libraries. Finally, data on human systems are rarely coordinated with other observational systems, making it difficult to carry out global analyses or inte- grated social-natural systems research. Some of the data to support integrated assessments of climate change and other studies of so- cial and ecological systems are coming from research initiatives such as the National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) Biocomplexity Program and its successor Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Hu- man Systems program (e.g., Box 3.2). Such programs show what might be possible for a restructured climate change research pro- gram. Major research directions for the human dimensions, which would provide a focus for collecting and organizing observations, are discussed in the section “Human Dimensions of Climate and Global Change Research,” below. ANALYSIS OF EARTH SYSTEM DATA The climate record is built from the analysis of many types of weather and climate-related observations. High-quality, long-term datasets are critical for making better predictions and hence for developing management scenarios to inform decision making and respond to climate change. However, the shortness and/or inho- mogeneity of many climate datasets can limit their usefulness for studying climate variability and change and supporting decision making. The value of diverse atmospheric observations can be

FUTURE PRIORITIES 93 BOX 3.2 Carbon Storage in Residential Neighborhoods Research on human-ecosystem interactions is yielding new insights on how homeowner preferences affect land use and hence carbon stor- age in exurban (beyond the suburbs) areas.a In one project, coupled human-ecological models were built that integrated social data (surveys of over 4,000 residents in southeastern Michigan) with land-use change spa- tial data (parcel records from municipalities and aerial photographs) and satellite data (Landsat and Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer). The models showed that exurban development increases vegetation pro- ductivity (Zhao et al., 2007) and that residential preferences for landscapes that look like those of their neighbors affect ecological function (Zellner et al., 2008). A follow-up study will examine how zoning and other policies might enhance carbon storage in exurban residential areas. For example, policies advocating increased carbon storage are likely to encourage more vegetation, whereas policies advocating water conservation are likely to encourage less. Because exurban development in the United States and other developed countries covers large areas, local policies and home- owner preferences may have regional- and global-scale implications. _____________________________ a Project SLUCE: Spatial Land-Use Change and Ecological Effects at the Rural- Urban Interface: Agent Based Modeling and Evaluation of Alternative Policies and Interventions. See http://www.cscs.umich.edu/sluce/. improved by assimilating them into a global atmospheric model to produce a best estimate of the state of the atmosphere at a given point in time. Such global analyses of atmospheric fields have sup- ported many needs of the research and climate modeling communities. Since they are primarily produced by operational forecasting centers, which are less concerned with long-term data consistency, many changes are made to both the models and the as- similation systems over time. These changes produce spurious “climate changes” in the analysis fields, which obscure the signals of true short-term climate changes or interannual climate variability. A solution is to reanalyze the diverse atmospheric observations over time using a constant (or “frozen”) state-of-the-art assimila- tion model (e.g., Kalnay et al., 1996; Uppala et al., 2005). Today, the products of these global reanalyses provide the foundation for assessments of the state of current climate; diagnostic studies of weather systems, monsoons, El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and other natural climate variations; and studies of climate predict- ability (e.g., Trenberth et al., 2008). They also support regional

94 RESTRUCTURING FEDERAL CLIMATE RESEARCH reanalysis projects and downscaling for studies of local climate and climate impacts. Moreover, the reanalysis process reveals de- ficiencies in assimilation and prediction systems that need to be improved. For the detection and attribution of long-term climate trends and variability, the quality of the observations and the data assimilation systems and changes in the number and types of at- mospheric observations over time can limit the utility of the atmospheric reanalysis products. Reanalysis is being extended to support research on other as- pects of the climate system. As assimilation techniques for observations of atmospheric trace constituents (e.g., aerosols, ozone, carbon dioxide) are refined, reanalysis should eventually provide the means to develop consistent climatologies for the chemical components of the atmosphere, including the carbon cy- cle, and thus help to quantify key uncertainties in the radiative forcing of climate (IPCC, 2007a). Reanalysis (or synthesis) of ocean data has led to novel techniques to increase the homogeneity of small historical ocean datasets. Other promising developments are occurring in sea ice and land surface reanalysis, and coupled data assimilation systems are beginning to be developed. Finally, adaptation and mitigation planning requires decadal forecasts of the natural climate variability and the response of the system to future changes in greenhouse-gas, aerosol and land-surface forc- ing. Coupled analysis and reanalysis products are necessary to provide the initial conditions for developing these decadal predic- tion systems. Improvements in reanalysis depend on continued support for the underpinning research, the development of comprehensive Earth system models to expand the scope of reanalysis, and the infrastructure for data handling and processing. As the scope of global reanalysis grows, so will the research effort and the need for international cooperation. Recommendation. A restructured climate change research program should sustain production of atmosphere and ocean reanalyses, further develop and support research on coupled data assimilation techniques (e.g., for the land surface), and improve coordination with similar efforts in other countries.

FUTURE PRIORITIES 95 EARTH SYSTEM MODELING From Global Projections to Regional Predictions Despite impressive gains in knowledge of global climate change, our predictive capability of the Earth system remains in- sufficient for many societal needs, particularly for forming adaptation and mitigation strategies, which would benefit from more accurate and reliable predictions of regional climate change (NRC, 2007c). Improved predictions of climate change at regional and local scales should help a restructured climate change research program to bridge the gap between science and decision making. Improving attribution and regional prediction of weather and climate will require improved numerical models. In particular, a stepwise jump in accurately representing the continuum of tempo- ral and spatial variability arising from a wide range of physical and dynamical phenomena and their associated feedbacks is a challeng- ing but essential goal. Our limited understanding and capability to simulate the complex, multiscale interactions intrinsic to atmos- pheric, oceanic, and cryospheric fluid motions is a barrier to advancing weather and climate prediction on timescales from days to years. The leading-edge need is to develop a more unified modeling framework that provides for the hierarchical treatment of climate and forecast phenomena that span a wide range of space and time- scales. To plan for the effects of climate change, the next generation of global climate models will have to provide numerical simulations on a spatial scale of a few kilometers, with enhanced vertical resolution and better representation of the upper atmos- phere. For example, the poor representation of cloud processes is currently a major contributor to uncertainty in the response of the climate system to changes in radiative forcing. Such models are essential to improve our understanding of the multiscale interac- tions in the coupled system, to identify those of greatest importance, and to document their effects on climate. Ultimately, such basic research will help determine how to better represent small-scale processes in climate models; for instance the manner in which moist convection and its associated mesoscale organization drives larger circulations or the complex regional climate processes that occur

96 RESTRUCTURING FEDERAL CLIMATE RESEARCH along the west coasts of continents in tropical and subtropical zones. Another example is the simulation and prediction of hurricanes and depiction of their effects on climate in models, which has been miss- ing altogether. Sustained, long-term, global observations are needed to de- velop, initialize, and constrain the models. The distinction between shorter-term predictions and longer-term climate projections is becoming blurred, given the realization that all climate system predictions may require that coupled general circulation models be initialized with best estimates of the current observed state of the atmosphere, oceans, cryosphere, and land surface. However, there are many challenges. For instance, there is currently no direct way to measure soil moisture, and ocean salinity reconstructions remain a significant problem for initializing the ocean circulation. Provid- ing more credible predictions of regional variability and change will therefore require more work on data assimilation techniques and stronger links to numerical weather prediction. In addition, there is a great need to better characterize and quantify the uncer- tainties in climate system predictions to best guide mitigation policy and adaptation strategies. All of these advances will require more people and more powerful computers dedicated to reliably predict climate and associated uncertainties with a level of detail and com- plexity that is not possible now. Recommendation. The restructured climate change research program should develop and implement a strategy to improve modeling of regional climate change. Improved predictions of climate change at regional and local scales will require (1) a new suite of high-resolution climate models; (2) increased computational resources; (3) tighter connections between cli- mate model development, numerical weather prediction, and data assimilation research; and (4) a larger cadre of scientists capable of developing models and analyzing model output at the regional scale.

FUTURE PRIORITIES 97 FIGURE 3.1 Multiple stressors related to climate, agriculture, and food security. Biophysical factors (white boxes) and socioeconomic factors (blue boxes) interact in the context of climate change to affect food se- curity. Although food security depends on supply, accessibility, and utilization, food supply is a function of a complex interaction of climate and socioeconomic conditions and trade. Integrated Modeling of Multiple Stressors Climate change is occurring in concert with other environ- mental and socioeconomic changes. A better understanding of the interactions and feedbacks between different components of the natural and social systems is required to understand the potential impacts of climate change and the various responses. Models are a primary means for understanding such processes and assessing potential outcomes and policy options. However, few models are capable of simulating the complex interplay of multiple stressors (e.g., energy use, land-use change, water resource availability, so- cietal risks and vulnerabilities; see Figure 3.1) on environmental and social systems. Research challenges include the integration of models and datasets with inherently different spatial and tempo- ral scales and uncertainties, and the limitations of socioeconomic

98 RESTRUCTURING FEDERAL CLIMATE RESEARCH datasets, which are often available only in aggregated form (see “Climate Observations and Data,” above). Interest is growing in coupling assessment models with Earth system models. For example, the CCSP used three integrated as- sessment models to calculate mitigation costs of emission scenarios (Levy et al., 2008). A recent workshop addressed the changing role of integrated assessment models in the context of climate change mitigation and adaptation (DOE, 2008). The workshop identified areas of emphasis for impacts modeling (e.g., water quantity, qual- ity, supply, and management) and for exploring the relationships between climate and the energy and transportation sectors. It also laid out a research agenda for the adaptation domain, starting with addressing decisions in the agricultural, energy, and forestry sec- tors, for which the integrated assessment models already have reasonably sophisticated representations. Only integrated models can reasonably be expected to explore the quantitative relationships between decision making on mitiga- tion and adaptation, and influences on the carbon cycle and other aspects of the environment. A much larger investment in integrated model development, validation, uncertainty analysis, and model intercomparison is needed to achieve the potential payoffs. Recommendation. The restructured climate change research program should support advances in integrated modeling to address science and policy questions associated with the im- pacts of climate change and mitigation and adaptation responses. In particular, such integrated models should be used to im- prove the characterization of the end-to-end uncertainty in projected climate changes and impacts at regional and local levels. HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF CLIMATE AND GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH The biggest shift in emphasis for the restructured climate change research program is to give considerably more attention to the human dimensions of climate change, a research element of both the CCSP and its predecessor U.S. Global Change Research

FUTURE PRIORITIES 99 Program (USGCRP) that has been significantly underfunded in the past (NRC, 2004c, 2007c). Human dimensions research seeks to answer questions about the role of human actions and behavior in changing climate and in mitigating and adapting to the impacts of climate change. Despite the importance of these issues, however, spending on human dimensions research has never exceeded 3 per- cent of the CCSP research budget (NRC, 1992, 2007c). As a result, research, data collection, and modeling of socioeconomic and be- havioral functions have lagged behind corresponding activities on the physical climate system, and the human capacity has fallen short of what is now needed (NRC, 2007c). Without adequate re- search and capacity, the provision of usable science for policy and decision making will be severely limited. Chapter 2 lays out a research agenda in which human dimen- sions and natural science are integrated to address societal issues. Progress on these issues would be sped by also making a focused effort to strengthen research in the following areas: (1) understand- ing and quantifying societal gains and losses from taking or not taking action, (2) human drivers of climate change, (3) vulnerabil- ity and adaptation, and (4) mitigation. The last three are described below and in greater detail in Appendix D, and the first, which came out strongly at the committee’s second workshop, is de- scribed in “Impacts on the Economy of the United States” in Chapter 2. Knowledge of human driving forces, vulnerability, im- pacts, and responses is also needed to improve the integrated assessment models discussed above. Until these variables can be represented realistically, the models will be insufficient and in- complete. Research on the human drivers of climate change seeks to un- derstand how humans affect rates of greenhouse gas emissions through population growth, migration, behavior, technological change, land use, or consumption (e.g., NRC, 1997, 1999c, 2005a; Kates, 2000). It examines how behavior at the individual, house- hold, and organization levels drives climate change and how institutions and governance both shape these drivers (e.g., by af- fecting resource use) and create possibilities for mitigation and adaptation. Specific topics to support policy include the factors that influence population and consumption growth; the links among economic consumption, resource consumption, and human

100 RESTRUCTURING FEDERAL CLIMATE RESEARCH well-being, including the potential to satisfy basic needs and other demands with significantly less resource consumption; and ways that population growth and consumption behavior responds to ef- forts to change them through information, persuasion, incentives, and regulations (Appendix D). These behaviors occur in the con- text of the natural environment, and so research is also needed on the interactions between natural and social systems and the net ef- fects of population growth and human behavior on water, land, and energy use; carbon fluxes; ecosystems; coastal resources; and the built environment. Studies of vulnerability and adaptation focus on the material conditions, values, institutions, governance, and politics that shape individuals’ and organizations’ vulnerability (exposure and sensi- tivity), adaptive capacity, and adaptation options and barriers, and their ability to cope with and recover from the impacts of climate change. Adaptation refers to social and economic changes under- taken in response to climate change impacts. Such changes may be autonomous (triggered by other ecological, market, or welfare changes) or planned (deliberate policy decisions aimed at returning to, maintaining, or achieving a desired state of affairs) (IPCC, 2007c, Appendix I). Adaptation may be anticipatory when it seeks to prevent and prepare for, rather than respond to, an actual change. There are many constraints on adaptation, particularly on or- ganized adaptation aimed at social change. For example, the political context for adaptation must be considered. Climate is but one of many issues that come before Congress and state legisla- tures, and its perceived priority is often lower than that of issues such as national security or the economy. Enabling or fostering adaptation by enacting new laws or amending existing statutes re- quires not only the political will to move forward, but also a time- consuming balancing of interests through the political process. Another barrier is that social networks connect many of the early and later adopters in adaptation structures in which communication and information is often slower and more uneven than rapid adap- tation demands. For example, although seasonal climate information is widely and rapidly disseminated, organizational and institutional constraints can inhibit its use (Beller-Simms et al., 2008). Many behavioral constraints (e.g., established roles, professional training,

FUTURE PRIORITIES 101 bureaucratic inertia) are not well understood and are entrenched in political and economic structures and practices (Lemos, 2008). A related problem is that climate products developed by scientists in isolation from information users commonly do not meet managers’ needs, preventing their use for adaptation. Vulnerability is the degree to which the environmental or hu- man systems are unable to cope with the adverse effects of climate change and experiences harm. Integrated research to find robust approaches to support policy design and implementation to de- crease vulnerability includes (1) developing scenarios, vulnerability maps, and adaptive capacity metrics; (2) modeling feedbacks and nonlinearity between adaptation and mitigation; and (3) examining vulnerability, adaptive capacity, and adaptation options on several dimensions, including type of event (e.g., storm surge, crop fail- ure), location and scale, socioeconomic characteristics of affected populations, sector (e.g., water, health), and constraints and oppor- tunities for governance and policy implementation. Other research needs include the evaluation and costing of impacts, mitigation, and adaptation options and a better understanding of climate im- pacts. For example, estimates of the time trajectories of vulnerabilities could yield scenarios of vulnerability and adaptive capacity that could be integrated with climate scenarios to improve projections of the impacts of climate change (NRC, 1998, 1999c; Appendix D). Mitigation refers to purposeful efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or enhance greenhouse gas sinks. Mitigation re- search seeks to understand how the incentives and regulations to reduce carbon consumption will be implemented, how much im- plementation will cost, and how institutions shape the incentive environment within which mitigation occurs. A range of opportu- nities for mitigation exist, from human needs and desires to the consequences of climate change (Hohenemser et al., 1985), although all will not be equally cost-effective. Robust mitigation strategies typically rely on risk research and assessment, as well as learning from experience. In the climate change arena, where global equity issues and in- ternational agreements are involved, national programs are not sufficient. For example, in forest-rich countries such as Brazil, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Papua New Guinea, potential

102 RESTRUCTURING FEDERAL CLIMATE RESEARCH solutions to deforestation (e.g., market-led conservation) are con- strained by the lack of baseline data and empirical research on market mechanisms and local governance, and poor understanding of carbon economy institutions that could shape current patterns of land use and change in these countries. On the response side, re- search is needed to improve our understanding of the many available options, ways to evaluate them across different dimen- sions (e.g., dollars, species, lives), ways to diffuse them across society, and ways they interact and feed back on each other. For example, the costs and benefits of adaptation may depend on the outcomes of prevention efforts, and both may be affected by the temporal and spatial scale of the analysis (Appendix D). Better understanding of responses is important not only for adverse im- pacts that are predicted but also for those that have not yet been identified. Recommendation. The restructured climate change research program should support new research initiatives on (1) human drivers; (2) impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation; (3) mitiga- tion and responses; and (4) understanding and quantifying societal gains and losses. Over time, these initiatives would help address societal con- cerns of direct relevance to the program and provide a concrete focus for collecting human dimensions data and growing the re- search community. DECISION SUPPORT A key provision of the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 is to produce “information readily usable by policymakers attempting to formulate effective strategies for preventing, mitigat- ing, and adapting to the effects of global change.” The committee’s first report (NRC, 2007c) found that use of CCSP-generated knowledge to support decision making and to manage the risks and opportunities of climate change is proceeding slowly. Congres- sional legislation under discussion would amend the Global Change Research Act to require more focus on science that sup-

FUTURE PRIORITIES 103 ports decision making or authorize new research programs on sec- tor-based mitigation or adaptation (Appendix A). A wide variety of policy makers and other stakeholders are making decisions on cli- mate change mitigation and adaptation, including • State climate coordination groups focused on carbon se- questration and water issues • State-level managers concerned with natural resource is- sues, such as water, agriculture, fire, rangelands, and forestry, and with human health • Federal land and water managers from agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Nongovernmental organizations concerned with conserva- tion, policy, and community advice • Policy makers, including governors, mayors, and county supervisors • Federal, state, and county health departments • Private companies and foundations offering products and services related to energy, reinsurance, finance, engineering, agri- culture, fisheries, forestry, range management, health, and tourism • Individuals making climate-related decisions, such as plant- ing drought-resistant crops and consuming water and energy These stakeholder groups use and/or provide climate-related information, research, and services, often without interacting with the CCSP. The deficiency of two-way communication between the program and stakeholders is a major obstacle to decision support (NRC, 2007c). Engaging stakeholders in a restructured climate change research program would increase the resource base (people, ideas, dollars) to support actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change, inform the program and its researchers about stakeholder priorities, and possibly provide opportunities for leveraging re- search funding (e.g., California climate research; see Box 3.3). A logical avenue for developing partnerships is through decision support activities, where policy makers and managers have defined

104 RESTRUCTURING FEDERAL CLIMATE RESEARCH BOX 3.3 California Actions on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation The state of California has taken a leadership role in climate change mitigation and adaptation, establishing policies and taking action well in advance of the federal government in many areas. For example, California is the first state in the nation to have adopted a legislatively required greenhouse gas mitigation plan that involves a wide range of economic sectors and includes actions such as • Establishing a cap-and-trade program that links with seven west- ern states and four Canadian provinces • Achieving a statewide renewable energy mix of 33 percent • Establishing targets for reducing transportation-related green- house gas emissions, including setting state vehicle emissions standards that are stricter than federal requirements • Expanding and strengthening energy efficiency programs (CARB, 2008) Implementing this plan is expected to have significant economic im- plications, and there are opportunities for directed research to help support implementation. After the federal government, California is the largest governmental funder of climate change programs and supporting research in the nation. The California Energy Commission’s Public Inter- est Energy Research program, funded at $83.5 million per year, supports climate monitoring, analysis, and modeling; improvement of greenhouse gas inventory methods; options to reduce greenhouse emissions; and impacts and adaptation. Work on the latter has included downscaling re- sults of global climate models and developing sector-specific information on impacts at state or regional scales for state agencies to used in adap- tation plans required by a governor’s executive order.a ________ SOURCES: Hanemann (2008); http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/index.html. a http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/executive-order/1861/. goals, such as compliance with statutory mandates, that could in- form the research agenda. The CCSP has taken the first steps toward supporting decision makers through pilot programs of individual agencies. These pro- grams range from providing information and tools needed by a variety of stakeholder groups (e.g., National Integrated Drought Information System, seasonal outlooks, Environmental Protection Agency’s [EPA’s] National Center for Environmental Assessment) or specific sectors (e.g., NOAA’s Sectoral Applications Research Program), to actively engaging with stakeholders to determine their needs and provide tailored information products and services

FUTURE PRIORITIES 105 (e.g., NOAA’s Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments [RISA] program, International Research Institute for Climate and Society).2 The RISA program in particular has had successes in delivering information stakeholders need far out of proportion to its modest funding (about $6.6 million annually), earning the sup- port of some stakeholder groups.3 Although these programs have proven useful, they are small and ad hoc (NRC, 2007c). An NRC report lays out a comprehensive framework for or- ganizing climate-related decision support activities, including principles for effective decision support, provision of climate ser- vices, and research needed to support the services (Box 3.4; NRC, 2009). The report recommends that decision support activities be carried out by organizations that are closest to users, including fed- eral, state, and local government agencies and private organizations. Federal roles would include (1) supporting decision making by federal agencies and the constituents they are bound by statute or mandate to serve, and (2) facilitating the development and im- provement of decision support systems by nonfederal entities by providing scientific research, methods, communication networks, databases, standards, and training. The ultimate objective would be to create a distributed capacity for decision support that helps deci- sion makers better cope with surprise and local climate change conditions. Such a distributed capacity for decision making raises chal- lenges for research. We currently possess only limited knowledge of how such decisions may best be made and when decisions may be better deferred in hopes that uncertainties will be narrowed by further research. As pointed out in a number of IPCC reports, cur- rent uncertainties about climate change will not be easily resolved by research carried out now or in the near term. Nevertheless, deci- sions will have to be made. Basic research, such as that sponsored 2 See http://www.drought.gov/portal/server.pt/community/drought.gov/202, http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=157003, http://www.climate.noaa.gov/cpo_pa/sarp/, http://www.climate.noaa.gov/cpo_pa/risa/, http://portal.iri.columbia.edu/portal/server.pt. 3 For example, see http://www.westgov.org/wswc/050407%20risa%20resolution.pdf.

106 RESTRUCTURING FEDERAL CLIMATE RESEARCH BOX 3.4 Elements of a Decision Support Framework Recommended in Informing Decisions in a Changing Climate (NRC, 2009) Principles for effective decision support: 1. Begin with users’ needs, identified through two-way communication between knowledge producers and decision makers 2. Give priority to process (e.g., two-way communication with users) over products (e.g., data, maps, projections, tools, models) to ensure that useful products are created 3. Link information producers and users 4. Build connections across disciplines and organizations 5. Seek institutional stability for longevity and effectiveness 6. Design for learning from experience, flexibility, and adaptability Components of a National Climate Decision Support Initiative: 1. Services, including activities, consultations, and development of deci- sion support networks and processes to identify information needs, provide needed information, and facilitate decision making and learning processes in constituencies affected by climate change 2. Research for informing climate change response, a component of equal importance to current research on climate change processes: a. Science to support decision making, including understanding climate change vulnerabilities, mitigation potential, adaptation contexts and capacities, the interaction between mitigation and adaptation, and emerg- ing opportunities associated with climate variation and change (e.g., alternative energy development) b. Research on decision support, including research to understand in- formation needs, climate risk and uncertainty, processes related to decision support, design and application of decision support products, and assessment of decision support experiments under NSF’s Decision Making Under Uncertainty program, con- tinues to be a pressing need. A comprehensive decision support framework is described in NRC (2009). The component that is receiving the most attention from Congress and the CCSP is a national climate service, which may be created within NOAA (S 2307) or as an interagency effort. NOAA is currently implementing a recommendation of its Science Advisory Board to examine alternative ways of managing a na- tional climate service.4 The relationship between a national climate 4 http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Reports/Reports.html.

FUTURE PRIORITIES 107 service and a restructured climate change research program is dis- cussed below. Climate Services A national climate service could facilitate two-way dialog with stakeholders and translate scientific and technical information into language that is more easily understood by policy makers and the public. It could be responsible for provision of products (e.g., ob- servations, regional forecasts and predictions), tools (e.g., models, Web services), and outreach and extension services needed to sup- port resource managers and policy makers at the national, state, and local levels (NRC, 2001, 2003; Miles et al., 2006). The potential relationship between the CCSP and a national climate service is illustrated in Figure 3.2. Climate and decision support research, as well as climate models, observations, and as- sessments provide the underpinning for climate services, and the demand for services in turn will influence the direction of the cli- mate change research program. Climate services are not currently part of the CCSP, with the exception of pilot efforts (e.g., RISA programs) noted above. Simi- larly, the user-driven research needed to expand these exploratory initiatives has received little CCSP attention. For example, a logi- cal extension of ENSO forecasting is climate services related to agriculture and water management practices. Further research is needed on the trade-off between forecast skill and information value and the scientific outputs suited to the needs of water re- source managers (Beller-Simms et al., 2008; NRC, 2008c). Research is also needed to extend these forecasts to decadal projections, and to provide services in the context of mitigation and adaptation to long-term climate change. Whether climate services should be included in a restructured climate change research program or only linked to it is under de- bate. The need for close linkages with the research program that develops the products and tools and also uses some of them to un- derstand trends and improve predictions argues for incorporating climate services into the research program. On the other hand, the operational nature of the activities, the need for supporting data, models, and research from other sources beyond the CCSP (e.g.,

108 RESTRUCTURING FEDERAL CLIMATE RESEARCH FIGURE 3.2 Simplified diagram showing the components of a restruc- tured climate change research program that is more responsive to the information needs of stakeholders. Basic research underpins the program. Applying the results of basic research to resource management and policy decisions requires user-driven research, and the supporting data collection and model development (e.g., regional models) is influenced by these practical needs. Research results are made available to stakeholders via the communications component of the program. Information products and services targeted to specific user needs (climate services) may be pro- vided outside the program. Climate services, user-driven research, and parts of basic research (e.g., the science of decision support) comprise decision support. Two-way interaction with stakeholders occurs primarily through climate services but also through user-driven research and the national assessment. CCTP), and the potential to overwhelm the research program with the demands for specialized services argue for establishing a sepa- rate climate service. The solution may be to carry out climate service activities outside the program, even if the coordination takes place within the program. A possible model is a cooperative extension service for climate, similar to one established for agri- culture by the Smith Lever Act of 1914. The agricultural extension

FUTURE PRIORITIES 109 service provides federal support at the state level for meeting pub- lic information needs at the local level. However, the best decision support model for any particular case or set of decision makers will be a matter of empirical research (NRC, 2009). Because successful programs have a leader (NRC, 2005b), the committee recommends that one agency take the lead in develop- ing the climate service, although multiple agencies would have to be involved in its design and implementation. Interagency coordi- nation in the framework of a restructured climate change research program would provide essential linkages to the federal research programs and take advantage of the expertise and capabilities of different agencies and the relationships they have established with the various stakeholder communities. The interagency framework would also provide a mechanism to identify gaps and new priori- ties and to minimize duplication (NRC, 2009). Recommendation. The restructured climate change research program provides a framework to coordinate federal efforts to provide climate services to meet the climate information needs of policy and decision makers concerned with impacts, mitiga- tion, and adaptation to climate change at federal, state, and local levels. The services should be led by a single agency but have broad participation from other federal agencies. NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE IMPACTS AND ADAPTATION OPTIONS The 1990 Global Change Research Act calls for a national as- sessment at least every 4 years 1. To integrate, evaluate, and interpret the findings of the program and discuss the scientific uncertainties associated with such findings 2. To analyze the effects of global change on the natural en- vironment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems, and biological diversity

110 RESTRUCTURING FEDERAL CLIMATE RESEARCH 3. To analyze current trends in global change, both human- induced and natural, and projects major trends for the subsequent 25 to 100 years5 National assessments have the potential to engage stake- holders; to focus research effort on climate change impacts, trends, and predictions needed by decision makers; and to communicate program results. Unlike assessments of published scientific re- search, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, a U.S. national assessment involves undertaking targeted research and creating new datasets and model runs at the regional scale, tailored to address U.S. national issues and con- cerns. The first national assessment, which was initiated in 1997 and released in 2001, involved 20 public workshops, 5 sector teams, and extensive stakeholder interaction. The resulting report (NAST, 2001) addressed key scientific questions on climate change impacts on the United States. The next U.S. attempt took the form of 21 synthesis and assessment reports on diverse topics identified by the CCSP and an overarching assessment of the ef- fects of global change on the United States. The reports, which were published between 2006 and 2008,6 were based on findings from CCSP research and previous scientific assessments, par- ticularly the IPCC assessments (CENR, 2008). The overarching assessment was done as a literature review without significant stakeholder involvement. Although the in-depth analysis of spe- cific issues is useful, the collection of disparate reports does not add up to a national assessment, and studying the issues separately misses opportunities to integrate across topics, regions, or sectors (NRC, 2007a). Ideally, a future national assessment would build ongoing re- lationships with stakeholders to address evolving scientific and societal needs and to identify useful decision-support products and research priorities. Stakeholder engagement was a strength of the 2001 assessment (Box 3.5). Many of the contacts made in that process will have to be renewed and other individuals with a stake in addressing climate impacts will have to be identified. The sec- 5 P.L. 101-606, 104 Stat. 3096–3104. 6 The synthesis and assessment reports are available at http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/default.htm#sap.

FUTURE PRIORITIES 111 toral workshops, convened by CCSP program staff in 2007 and 2008 to seek input on a new strategic plan for the program, were a good step toward building these relationships. The national as- sessment would act as a catalyst for the development of national and regional data products and models designed to address stake- holder needs. In this context, the assessment will need a strong underpinning of user-driven research (e.g., see Figure 3.2). Em- phasis will also have to be given to reporting findings of the assessment, which are often based on complex information, in a way that stakeholders can easily understand. Some form of na- tional climate change indices or report card may provide a useful communication tool. Foci for the next assessment include the fol- lowing: • The likely changes over the next few decades, the associ- ated impacts in multiple regions and across various sectors, and mitigation and adaptation options • The extent to which we understand the science, technolo- gies, economics, and politics underlying mitigation and adaptation strategies in the context of other socioeconomic and environmental changes Recommendation. The restructured climate change research program should immediately begin planning a national assess- ment on climate change impacts, adaptation, and mitigation; consulting with stakeholders on the focus, content, and ap- proach; establishing a strategy and schedule for implementation; securing the necessary financial and institutional commitments; and developing the regional climate projections, datasets, and models that will be used. Depending on the focus, the program may also need to build the scientific capability and human capacity in some areas (e.g., see “Earth System Modeling” and “Decision Support,” above).

112 RESTRUCTURING FEDERAL CLIMATE RESEARCH BOX 3.5 Lessons Learned from the 2001 National Assessment Strengths of the 2001 National Assessment • The assessment process was intended to be transparent and in- clusionary • The assessment engaged a large number of scientists, advanced our understanding of assessment methods, and initiated extensive stake- holder interactions • Although the questions were mostly framed by policy makers, the results were independent and the conclusions were not subjected to ad- ministrative or policy review Weaknesses of the 2001 National Assessment • The process was cumbersome • Funding for the assessment was not included in the normal budg- eting process, limiting the participation of some agencies • Private-sector involvement was minimal Guidelines for a useful assessment • A clear mandate and well-defined criteria for defining structure and scope • Strong leadership • Efficient use of scientific and stakeholder capital (data, people, previous efforts) • A specific goal of building a community of people and institutions with the knowledge required to work at the interface between basic sci- ence and stakeholders • A strategy for continued two-way communication between scien- tists and other stakeholders throughout the assessment process • A commitment to funding _______________________________ SOURCES: Morgan et al., (2005); NRC (2004c, 2007a); October 2007 workshop. INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS Climate change is a global phenomenon, and a number of countries are investing in climate research, observations, and miti- gation and participating in international climate programs. The participation of U.S. scientists and program managers in setting and helping to implement the research agendas of these interna-

FUTURE PRIORITIES 113 tional programs strengthens the linkages to the U.S. program and will leverage international investments. Working with the interna- tional research community on common problems also increases the pool of scientific expertise and takes advantage of complementary strengths and approaches. For example, the benefits of interna- tional cooperation in providing climate services have already been demonstrated by the various Climate Outlook fora, held regularly around the world.7 International partnerships can also be used to stretch observing system dollars. With the decrease in U.S. funding for Earth observations and the increased investment by nations such as China, Brazil, and India, U.S. scientists will increasingly have to turn to other countries for data. Finally, if the United States is to take an international leadership role on climate change policy, it will need to help the U.S. research community work effectively within international science coordination structures. Strengthening the appropriate program linkages at the international level will help enable the science to inform policy. The CCSP supports the U.S. contribution to the IPCC, which has played a critical role in developing the international scientific consensus on climate change. U.S. leadership and participation in the IPCC has been substantial. However, the CCSP has not actively coordinated U.S. participation in other international programs that address climate-related research (e.g., WCRP, IGBP, IHDP, IAI, START), assessments (e.g., WHO), or observations (e.g., GEOSS, GCOS, GTOS, GOOS, CEOS),8 missing opportunities to influence the direction of these programs and find synergies with U.S. pro- grams. Instead, individual agencies have supported the participation of individual scientists in a largely ad hoc fashion. Developing an overall strategy for participating in international programs and sup- 7 http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/wcp/wcasp/clips/outlooks/climate_ fore- casts.html. 8 Note: CEOS = Committee on Earth Observation Satellites; GOOS = Global Ocean Observing System; GTOS = Global Terrestrial Observing System; IAI = Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research; IGBP = International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme; IHDP = Interna- tional Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change; START = Global Change System for Analysis, Research, and Training; WCRP = World Climate Research Programme; WHO = World Health Organization.

114 RESTRUCTURING FEDERAL CLIMATE RESEARCH porting international program offices would help a restructured climate change research program understand the extent of U.S. participation, identify crucial gaps, and set priorities for federal participation in international programs that can help meet its pro- gram objectives. A number of international coordination programs are aligning themselves in ways that will facilitate interaction with a restructured U.S. climate change research program. For example, IGBP has added fast-track initiatives to foster integrated research across its core programs (e.g., ocean acidification over time),9 and GEOSS is organized along many of the themes outlined in Chapter 2 (e.g., health, water, agriculture). The involvement of the U.S. Agency for International Devel- opment in the CCSP has been rather small (about 1 percent of the research budget in 2007; see CCSP, 2008). However, the most vulnerable populations and the largest areas of biodiversity are in developing countries, where climate change will compound other stressors on food and water supply, human health and livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. As these nations start to respond to climate change impacts and develop adaptation strategies, climate change will have to figure more centrally in the U.S. development agenda (e.g., through participation in the Kyoto Protocol’s Adapta- tion Fund). Nongovernmental organizations with international programs are already developing climate change initiatives in these areas.10 CCSP research on impacts and adaptation approaches could help guide U.S. investments in developing countries. U.S. Earth observing systems could help target interventions and moni- tor the effectiveness of these approaches and policies. It is interesting to note that the 2008 drought in Iraq caught the atten- tion of the Department of Defense (DOD), which is concerned with the implications of water scarcity, crop failure, and resulting food shortages on security in the region.11 Such issues may give DOD a strategic interest in expanding its participation in a climate change research program. The improved regional prediction of floods, droughts, and other extreme events and assessment of their 9 See http://www.igbp.net/page.php?pid=130. 10 See, for example, the World Wildlife Fund’s climate program, http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/index.cfm. 11 http://www.mnf-raq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view& id=22856&Itemid=128.

FUTURE PRIORITIES 115 impacts on society may well influence which U.S. agencies are involved in the restructured climate change research program. Recommendation. The restructured climate change research program should play a lead role in coordinating and increasing U.S. participation in climate-related efforts of international programs, and in developing and implementing a shared agenda of climate observations, research, and applications. TOP PRIORITIES AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS The committee’s top priorities, cast as actions for a restruc- tured climate change research program to better meet national needs, are as follows: • Reorganize the program around integrated scientific- societal issues to facilitate crosscutting research focused on un- derstanding the interactions among the climate, human, and environmental systems and on supporting societal responses to climate change. The traditional approach of organizing research along scientific disciplines or themes (e.g., atmospheric composi- tion) cannot fully address issues of concern to society, such as the impacts of severe weather and climate. • Establish a U.S. climate observing system, defined as in- cluding physical, biological, and social observations, to ensure that data needed to address climate change are collected or con- tinued. The role of a restructured climate change research program is to develop a prioritized list of satellite and in situ observations and to work with local, state, and federal government agencies and international programs to ensure their collection. • Develop the science base and infrastructure to support a new generation of coupled Earth system models to improve attri- bution and prediction of high-impact regional weather and climate, to initialize seasonal-to-decadal climate forecasting, and to provide predictions of impacts affecting adaptive capacities and vulnerabilities of environmental and human systems. Achieving this objective requires a considerable expansion of local- and regional-scale

116 RESTRUCTURING FEDERAL CLIMATE RESEARCH modeling activities, supported by advanced computational facilities, and improved and sustained communication with stakeholders. • Strengthen research on adaptation, mitigation, and vulner- ability. Integrated research, combining natural, social, and health science from a variety of disciplines, will be required to boost ca- pabilities and enable the results to be applied to a broad spectrum of climate problems. The program will have to find mechanisms for attracting new research talent to build the capacity needed to support sound adaptation and mitigation strategies. • Initiate a national assessment process with broad stake- holder participation to determine the risks and costs of climate change impacts on the United States and to evaluate options for responding. Early planning steps include (1) identifying stake- holders as well as agencies that should be involved so funding can be raised or reprogrammed to ensure their participation, and (2) determining the scope of the assessment so development of the necessary datasets and models can begin. • Coordinate federal efforts to provide climate services (sci- entific information, tools, and forecasts) routinely to decision makers. Although the design of a national climate service is still under discussion, a restructured climate change research program could begin laying the foundation by identifying the roles of the various federal agencies and increasing emphasis on user-driven research. All six of these actions are necessary for building a program that supports both research and action. They are listed as a logical sequence of actions, but work can begin on all simultaneously. First is organizing the research around scientific-societal issues to help the program address not only how and why the climate is changing, but also to develop options for adapting to or mitigating the changes. Next is the collection of natural and social science observations to document and understand how the climate is evolving in response to rapid increases in CO2 and other human drivers. To use these observations to predict future changes, we need new regional- and local- scale models. The observations and new fine-scale models should pave the way for strengthening re- search on adaptation, mitigation, and societal vulnerability and for undertaking a national assessment on the impacts of climate change.

FUTURE PRIORITIES 117 The data, models, and research results provide the foundation for informing climate change-related decisions, but a new institutional arrangement will be required to work effectively with stakeholders and provide the climate services (specialized products, tools, and forecasts) they need. Budget Implications Each of these initiatives would expand the scope of a restruc- tured climate change research program, with varying budget implications. Organizational and planning activities are typically carried out using CCSP Office funding (currently nearly $2 million annually) and the in-kind support of program managers serving on interagency committees. Assuming that such funds continue to be made available, restructuring the research part of the program, set- ting observations priorities, and planning major initiatives should be cost neutral. Similarly, funding for a national assessment may not require new resources. According to the CCSP Office, the cost of the last national assessment was a few tens of millions of dol- lars, about the same as the combined cost of the 21 synthesis and assessment reports.12 The CCSP budget for FY 2008 was about $1.8 billion (CCSP, 2008). Adjustments on the order of a few tens of millions of dol- lars should be possible without substantially undermining major parts of the program. Two of the committee’s priorities fit into this category. First, increasing research on adaptation, mitigation, and vulnerability would require a substantial increase in funding, but since current funding levels in these areas are low, the total amount would be relatively small. Directing some of the increased funding to support Ph.D. students and postdoctoral fellows in the areas of human dimensions and integrated climate–society systems should encourage growth of this research community. Funding may be available from new partners with expertise in this area (e.g., Bu- reau of Land Management) or from CCSP agencies that have programs in the human dimensions (e.g., NSF’s Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate, DOE’s Integrated Assessment 12 Personal communication from Peter Schultz, director of the CCSP Of- fice, on November 20, 2008.

118 RESTRUCTURING FEDERAL CLIMATE RESEARCH Program, EPA, USDA, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; NOAA’s RISA program and Sectoral Applications Re- search Program). Second, more room must be made within the program to expand existing research activities aimed at developing methods and information to support decision making. Programs that are successfully providing prototype climate services (e.g., the NOAA RISAs) are funded at a relatively low level (i.e., less than $10 million per year), and significant increases would not ad- versely affect the natural science program. CCSP program activities and associated budgets are reported annually to Congress in Our Changing Planet (e.g., CCSP, 2008). Because they are highly aggregated (NRC, 2007c), it was not pos- sible to identify the successful programs that are nearing completion that could be replaced by new research initiatives. Substantial new investment is required to implement the other major initiatives proposed in this report, including regional mod- eling, a climate observing system, and climate services. A small fraction of the required funding may be found through budget trades (e.g., redirect some funding from global modeling to re- gional modeling) or partnerships with relevant international, state, regional, and local efforts and/or with federal agencies that have had little or no participation in the CCSP. New partnerships with the intelligence community, for example, may result in new fund- ing for research on climate impacts, which are relevant to a wide variety of issues including national security. However, significant funds for implementing the major initiatives cannot be diverted from the current program, which provides the underpinning re- search and must be sustained. Management Challenges Implementing the priorities identified by the committee will not be easy. The program faces a number of management chal- lenges, including an interagency structure, insufficient attention from key White House offices, a natural science culture, inade- quate community capacity in critical areas, and a broad mandate that requires coordination with other interagency programs. Al- though the committee offers a few suggestions about how to overcome these management challenges, it had neither the charge

FUTURE PRIORITIES 119 nor expertise to evaluate different program structures (e.g., a single climate agency versus interagency coordination) or to prescribe how an interagency program should operate. The interagency structure is both a strength and a weakness of the program. The CCSP coordinates the climate change programs of 13 agencies, each of which designates a piece of its program portfolio as part of the CCSP. The major strength of this approach is its potential to harness the expertise and funding needed to carry out program goals and objectives. Weaknesses include the follow- ing: • CCSP priorities usually do not align directly with agency and department priorities, making it difficult to match agency and CCSP programs and thus to obtain funding for CCSP priorities. • The need for multiple agencies to coordinate activities poses a high administrative burden in the form of additional meet- ings and reporting. This burden is increased by the need for the same agencies to coordinate activities with related programs, such as a national climate service (if developed outside the program), the CCTP, the Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology, and international research and observing programs. These problems would be exacerbated in the climate change re- search program envisioned in this report because more federal agencies as well as state and local government agencies and emerging potential partners (e.g., nongovernmental organizations, foundations, businesses) would be involved. However, the problems are not in- surmountable, even in an interagency structure. The most important factor is good leaders with the authority to direct resources and/or research to achieve program goals (NRC, 2005b). A charismatic leader with strong scientific credentials is also needed to communi- cate the importance of taking an end-to-end approach to the climate problem and convincing agency heads and appropriators to make the necessary investments. Although the CCSP has a director (an acting director for sev- eral years), he has authority to direct only that part of the program funded through his agency. The managers responsible for imple- mentation have even less authority over budgets and programs. The absence of centralized budget authority limits the ability of the

120 RESTRUCTURING FEDERAL CLIMATE RESEARCH CCSP to influence the climate priorities of participating agencies or implement new research directions that fall outside or across agency missions (NRC, 2007c). An increased discretionary budget for the CCSP director, sufficient to carry out interagency efforts such as workshops and tactical studies, would provide flexibility and seed money for objectives that are of higher priority to the program than to any participating agency. Another principle for successful organizations is that what gets attention gets done.13 In the early years of the predecessor USGCRP, a close working relationship between the Office of Management and Budget and agency leaders was instrumental in securing funding for key program priorities (NRC, 1999b). A simi- lar relationship is even more important now, given the large number of congressional committees responsible for appropriating climate research funding. However, even a management structure intended to provide cabinet-level oversight of the CCSP (and the CCTP) has not resulted in strong linkages between the CCSP, CCTP, and the White House. The creation of a climate czar posi- tion and the appointments of respected scientists with interests in climate and energy to lead OSTP, DOE, and NOAA in the new administration should provide the level of attention needed to make the program succeed. It should also strengthen coordination of climate change science and technologies across the federal gov- ernment. Such high-level attention is especially important for observations, which underpin the entire research program, but are chosen primarily by NASA (satellite observations take up nearly half of the CCSP budget) and other individual agencies. Reconcil- ing the different priorities and planning horizons is essential for developing the knowledge foundation needed to address climate- related problems. Another leadership issue concerns the human dimensions of climate change. The relevant programs are small compared to natural science programs and scattered around different agencies. This makes it difficult for human dimensions program managers to take a strong leadership role in the CCSP, which in turn makes it difficult to move the CCSP in new directions. The result is that 13 Presentation to the committee by Robert Waterman, management con- sultant, The Waterman Group, Inc., on March 21, 2008.

FUTURE PRIORITIES 121 even with 13 agencies participating in the program, CCSP agency leaders have relatively little expertise in the human dimensions of climate change or in adaptation and mitigation research. It seems unlikely that the future climate change research program will be able to take a more comprehensive view of the climate–human– environmental system unless an agency devoted to basic and ap- plied social science research (such as NSF) steps up to help organize and build the research community and bring a stronger human dimensions perspective to the program leadership. For ex- ample, a strong human dimensions program leader would be able to work with natural science counterparts to develop integrated research teams to work together on the scientific-societal issues outlined in Chapter 2. Building the human dimensions research community will be important not only for the research component of the future cli- mate change research program, but also for climate services and a national assessment of climate impacts and adaptation options. The latter has the potential to overburden a small community that is already participating in the IPCC assessments. Indeed, the much larger natural science community is struggling to contribute to these assessments while continuing to generate new research re- sults. Because national and international assessments are valuable for monitoring climate change and impacts and for summarizing what is known for policy makers, the future climate change re- search program will have to take steps to minimize the burden on the scientific community. Approaches that might be taken include limiting the scope of ongoing assessments to significant new de- velopments and timing new assessments to optimize the ability to build on previous assessments (NRC, 2007a). Finally, the increased demand for climate information has am- plified the importance of providing information that users can trust. Examples of political considerations dictating what climate research results are communicated have been widely reported (e.g., Donaghy et al., 2007; House of Representatives, 2007). Even the possibility that research results have been withheld, delayed, or selectively interpreted can weaken trust in the program and dis- courage decision makers from using science-based information. The most effective way to guard against political interference is to institute transparent processes for key stages of research, from se-

122 RESTRUCTURING FEDERAL CLIMATE RESEARCH lecting priorities and approaches to peer reviewing scientific results, and to give a restructured climate change science program the au- thority to communicate results to the public in a timely fashion. Climate change is critically important to our nation and the world. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a strengthened research program aimed at understanding climate variability and change as well as supporting robust ap- proaches for mitigating the causes and anticipating and adapting to the expected changes. Although this end-to-end approach was called for in the CCSP strategic plan (CCSP, 2003), for it to be realized, the emphasis will have to be shifted toward understanding the complex interactions between climate, humans, and the envi- ronment. This, in turn, will require a more integrated approach to research—one without the false dichotomies between natural and social science, between scientific disciplines, and between basic and applied science. To ensure that this shift also succeeds in pro- ducing information that decision makers need, stronger connections will have to be forged with major groups of stakeholders (e.g., water resource and land managers, policy makers), who can con- tribute data to support research objectives, guide the development of a national assessment and a national climate service, and benefit from the results. Fortunately, the successes of the CCSP and its predecessor USGCRP provide a strong foundation for making this transition to meet today’s challenges.

Next: References »
Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $76.00 Buy Ebook | $59.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Climate change is one of the most important global environmental problems facing the world today. Policy decisions are already being made to limit or adapt to climate change and its impacts, but there is a need for greater integration between science and decision making. This book proposes six priorities for restructuring the United States' climate change research program to develop a more robust knowledge base and support informed responses:

  • Reorganize the Program Around Integrated Scientific-Societal Issues
  • Establish a U.S. Climate Observing System
  • Support a New Generation of Coupled Earth System Models
  • Strengthen Research on Adaptation, Mitigation, and Vulnerability
  • Initiate a National Assessment of the Risks and Costs of Climate Change Impacts and Options to Respond
  • Coordinate Federal Efforts to Provide Climate Information, Tools, and Forecasts Routinely to Decision Makers
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!