Breakout group 4: Cross-cutting issues

19\. Climate variability -- Atmospheric composition -- Water cycle

Linkages among Chapters 5, 6, and 7 of the draft Plan

Moderator: Berrien Moore

Overview: Gerald Stokes

Panelists: Ellis Cowling, James Kinter, Peter Lamb, Eileen Shea

Rapporteurs: John Bates, Vikram Mehta

**Stokes**

Explicit vs implicit

From section 2 the usgcrp section

'not to be crowded out by the blinding light of the climate problem'

key linkages -- common research

clouds and radiation

observations

regional impacts and connections

Clouds and radiation

Linkage to all 3 chapters

Cloud parameterization and feedbacks

Aerosol impacts on clouds

Observations

All call for improved observations

Climate quality observations

Nature and scope -- long term, global, regional, model connection

Regional scale

Water cycle most developed

Climate variability connected only broadly

Atmospheric composition and water cycle have strong underlying regional
constituencies -- implicit connection through human dimensions

General observations

Water cycle is connected to everything

Major connections through chapter 12

Development of linkages is in formative stage

**Cowling**

Part of the nitrogen community --

Modify chapter 9 to include nitrogen not just carbon

Ongoing work -- nitrogen cycle program recommended to UN

Not ongoing -- agriculture and forestry involvement lagging

Reactive nitrogen -- Nr

Nr includes all -- biologically active, photochemically active,
radiative

History of Nitrogen

40% of world population relies on artificial Nr

Nr findings

Human induced -- 15\*

Mostly fertilizers -- 5/6 (energy 1/6)

The Nitrogen cascade of the world slide

Findings

On farm use efficiency varies greatly -- fish highest, beef lowest

Much released to emissions and water

Recommend

Chap 5 -- both crop and agriculture should be included as important
sources of greenhouse gasses

The title and context of chap 9 should be expanded to include both
carbon and Nitrogen

Largest uncertainty is about FUNDING -- include success stories to
document worth of existing programs, demonstrating benefits in terms of
cost savings and other public benefits in the US and abroad

**Kinter**

Plan has strengths -- chapter 7 echos Hornberger report

Science gaps and research gaps -- a climate modeling perspective

Common questions among chapters --

Common research needs --

Science gaps -- what to think about

No existing linkages

CCRI and GCRP whould work together

Examples of missing links -- water/energy/carbon,
aerosols/clouds&precip/water vapor

Predictability -- provides context for assessing model results, can be
used as policy guidance

Need to emphasize importance of how predictability may change in a
changing climate is missing from report

Probability -- need to cast climate variability in a probabilistic
context -- widely recognized in weather (e.g., POP),

Water cycle -- inherently important -- is principal way humans and
ecosystems will experience climate change -- water vapor feedback, why
is constant?

Regional climate -- regional predictability is an open question

Research gaps -- what to do

Need multiple, comparative observations, multi-model approach, ensemble
models

Need coupled models, bigger and more complex models are NOT necessariloy
better -- e.g., climate and chem.

Feedbacks -- how to quantify feedbacks --

Reanalysis -- what it can and can not do -- climate process teams --
must do data assim etc to bring together models and obs

Readiness -- level of scope and maturity varies greatly

Downscaling -- need to legitimize downscaling

**Lamb**

Why Kyoto not ratified? Is the plan ready for policy decisions? -- no --
is a science plan for research

3 points --

1\. Research needs to immediate products and payoffs -- these chapters
are weak in how to get from here to there -- results in 2-4 years --
requires already ongoing program to succeed in 2-4 years -- e.g., ARM
program, including use by GCIP

2\. Acknowledge gulf that exists between a) obtaining improved
understanding of climate system and b) having society benefit from this
new knowledge -- requires include substantial 'impact data sets' ,
extensive interactions with potential users of mitigation information,
and long-term collaboration with social scientists, economists, etc.

3\. Need for greatly enhanced resources if desired progress is to occur
-- qualified scientists and institutional funding -- e.g., where are
needed people with the interdisciplinary expertise -- NOAA Research
Laboratories in last 20 years has halved their capability to contribute
-- Level funding but salary and benefits continue to rise so there has
been a net budget decrease

**Shea**

Region -- Hawaii -- international -- must think internationally, but
this is weak in draft program -- sea level rise is impacting region now
with ENSO -- ENSO is proxy for long-term change in these regions

Chapter 5 --

Consider vapor and aerosols in context of hydrological --

not consistent in questions to needs

Regional air quality-climate linkages important

ENSO -- drought -- haze

Opportunities to explore policy as well as process linkages

Ongoing assessment essential

Chap 6

Not just basic research but some chapters are

Address implications at all phases of key cycles -- not just extreme
phases

Look at interactions among modes -- ENSO/monsoon, PDO/ENSO

Attention required to learn lessons from past -- esp societal

One size of indicators does not fit all -- be cautious of selecting
'most vulnerable'

Climate risk management -- explicit attention to linkages between
climate adaptation and comprehensive emergency management

Chap 7 --

'water is gold' -- natural indicator of climate processes and
consequences

remember cascading effects on other sectors

use traditional knowledge for societal impacts

lessons learned from past

explore process/mechanisms that address integrated

Integrating themes

1\. Extreme events as an integrating theme

Implications for all

Galvanizing focus for decision makers

Meet today's challenges

2\. Vulnerability as integrating focus

Focus for development, evaluation, and application of intragrated models
and decision support tools

3\. Climate information system -- 'transition to applications'

credibility and legitimacy have more facets than trust -- personal
attention required

partnerships with trusted knowledge brokers

most decision makers are interested in a continuum of timescales

integrated information required

**Open discussion**

Endorse Peter Lamb's comment on -- what resources are available to
implement plan??? -- can not implement this draft program without
additional \$\$ AND human resources -- need to increase human/societal
outreach greatly

Energy cost and pollution costs of global warming -- not addressed --
integrated assessment very complex but required

Plan does not address cost of executing program OR cost of various
impacts of not doing plan --

How to take tools -- apply adaptation/mitigation -- cost it all out end
to end

We have to deliver in 2-4 years -- HOW? -- need to focus on realistic
goals to deliver -- not just expand on existing document -- we must
delimit what can be done to fulfill this document's promises -- this
will be very difficult to do and only a few things can realistically be
done in this time frame e.g., CGM mods -- analysis -- publish -- read-
revise is a 5-10 year process -- MUST KEEP REALISTIC ON WHAT CAN BE
DELIVERED

Note part 1 vs part 2 in terms of what can be delivered on what time
frame -- Part 1 under tight control but part 2 is not well coordinated,
just a wish list -- must pare down part 2 to be much more specific

Part 2 concerns -- Part 1 is a small scale initiative -- concern that
only part 1 will get additional funding leaving only current resources
for part 2 -- most success stories will come from existing program from
part 2 -- so a disconnect

Resource need issues is critical as current discipline structure greatly
limits cross disciplinary approaches -- applications require
interface/interdisciplinary work, but no resources to do this -- can not
just end current programs to get redirected funds

Merit review -- means largely science relevancy not societal relevancy
-- so structural problems exist -- agriculture vs medicine as example --
peer review leads to high medicine cost but low agriculture cost -- peer
review is no guarantee of success

Why what we are doing are relevant -- need so base funding

Core of GCRP needs to be maintained -- but applications should be new
core

Be creative in terms of linkages with a broad spectrum -- e.g., coastal
zone, disaster management -- link with ongoing program that already do
the end users applications/interface

How to present this in a constructive way -- all scientists want is \$\$
will be said -- must note accomplishments, ongoing work nearing
accomplishments

Things we already know -- can explain today's weather -- precautionary
principle -- what the short term should be is critical, not pushing
question into long future -- world may view this conference as just
another excuse for US non-action -- freedom car example is an insult to
world community -- use agriculture as an output for sustainable energy -
\*\*\*do not ignore this input fro world community to this plan

End users -- aviation effects e.g., - bring in all as part of large
assessment -- need to ask right questions -- others are dealing with
aspects of these problems

Support issues -- infrastructure support required, not just peer
proposals -- NIST example of need for accurate standards for
observations is an infrastructure issue -- need for secure foundation to
build upon this

Need to highlight how engineering of all homes etc are dependent on
climate -- e.g., water pipes bursting, home foundation depth, heating
and air conditioning needs

General question -- international statement -- Netherlands -- Kyoto
ratification 1) not enough info to ratify?, 2) will this 2-4 year
program provide this info, then ratify, 3) other -- need vision for how
to solve problem --

Response -- Kyoto is political issue not simply science -- CO2 problems
will be ongoing and so this plan will be ongoing -- must become clear
about what we know, think we know, don't know -- must push to change
what we thing we know to what we know.

Kyoto -- a complex political issue -- this meeting is follow-up to not
ratifying Kyoto -- but this is an opportunity for science community to
respond but we need sound plan -