|
Our Nation’s
Plan for Research in One year ago, as The National Academy of Sciences had
criticized the Draft Plan as “lacking a vision, clear goals, and
explicit priorities.” (See our report in the
Spring 2003 newsletter, or the Academy’s critique.)
After considering the critique and hundreds of comments received on the
draft, the What is the essence
of this ambitious Program? What is its vision, and where is it going? Vision: After the
The Priorities. First, the Science Program chose to
follow some recommendations of the National Research Council (NRC – an
arm of the • the
sources and sinks of carbon in the global carbon cycle, particularly in • the
sensitivity of climate to external changes, and the feedbacks in the climate
system that determine the amount and the rate of temperature increases; • the
distribution and the effects of aerosols in the atmosphere. In its 2001 report, the National Research
Council began by recommending to the President: “Predictions of global climate change
will require major advances in understanding and modeling of (1) the factors
that determine atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols,
and (2) the so-called ‘feedbacks’ that determine the sensitivity
of the climate to an increase in greenhouse gases.”
The NRC then identified six “key
gaps” in the scientific understanding of climate change (see the box
above). For the next four years, the Administration’s priority is to
emphasize three of these six areas of uncertainty. Science Goals. The new Science Program organizes the
nations’s climate research around five goals: 1. To better
understand the Earth’s past and present climate— including its
variability—and to understand the causes of observed climate change and
variations. In part, this goal is to understand natural
climate cycles, such as El Niņo, and the North Atlantic Oscillation; to
improve forecasting of such variations; to understand how and why climate has
changed, how climate change affects extreme weather, and whether such extreme
events are “natural”or not. 2. Define and measure the forces that change the Earth’s
climate. This goal includes “quantifying” the amounts, sources, and
sinks of greenhouse gases and aerosols that affect Earth’s climate, and
what creates and destroys them. 3. Project how
Earth’s climate may change in the future with more confidence and
certainty. The Program intends to build the
Nation’s capacity to develop and use climate models, and to clarify the
limitations of models, within 2 years. Another part of this goal is to
understand some key “feedbacks” that either amplify or dampen the
initial changes due to greenhouse gases and other agents. This would allow us
to understand “climate sensitivity”: how much will climate change
if we do this or do that ? 4. Understand the vulnerability, and also the adaptability, of
natural communities, agriculture, and human societies, to climate and global
change. It is good to know in advance what the
impacts of climate change may be, in order to reduce the negative impacts
while taking advantage of positive impacts by adapting to the changes. 5. Explore ways
to manage the risks of climate change and variation. What are the
limitations of these ways of risk management? Explore opportunities of which
our society might take advantage. |
Highest Priority
Science: The Climate Change Science Program results
from fusing a high-priority action agenda with the ongoing long-term Global
Change Research Program that began in 1990. The short-term agenda evolved
from President Bush’s announcement in 2001 of the Climate Change
Science Initiative, whose task is to provide answers to the gaps in
understanding climate change in the box at the left, below. The Program will address these gaps in some
20 “synthesis and assessment reports” during the next four years.
The Goal 1:
Understand the Earth’s past and present climate and the causes of
observed climate change Two questions are to be completed within 2
years: • How much has the temperature changed
in the lower atmosphere in the last 25 years? This is an attempt to reconcile
differences among research teams. (See our Lead article in this issue.) • How has climate changed in the Within 2 to 4 years: • Re-analyze historical data for key
climate patterns, then attempt to attribute causes to observed changes in the
past. Goal 2: Quantify
the forces that change the Earth’s climate TO BE COMPLETED IN
TWO YEARS: • Project
future emissions and concentrations of greenhouse gases; • Complete a carbon budget for • What are the properties of aerosols
in the atmosphere, and how do they affect climate? • Are ozone-depleting gases, and ozone
itself, increasing or decreasing? What will their effects be on climate and
on exposure to ultraviolet (UV) rays? Goal 3: Project the future
climate of Earth with more confidence and certainty Within 2 years, clarify the uses and
limitations of climate models, and their sensitivities and uncertainties. Within 4 years, the Program will address: • Projections of future climates based
on various scenarios of emissions; Goal 4: Understand the
vulnerability and adaptability of natural communities and human societies to
climate change Within 2 years, evaluate how well societies
can cope with potential rises in sea level. WITHIN FOUR YEARS • How much climate change can natural
ecosystems withstand before they suddenly change? Goal 5: Explore how to manage
the risks and opportunities of climate changes Three research topics should all be
completed within 2 years: • There is a great need for regional
climate information. What is the reliability and the limitations of current
regional forecasts and observations, especially for making decisions? LONGER TERM RESEARCH The Climate Change Science Program has
organized its research in seven main Areas (called research elements) in the
Strategic Plan. As a practical matter, distinct teams of research planners
and managers have been writing separate chapters of the Strategic Plan. These
research areas were suggested four years ago in a report of the National Research
Council. The seven areas are: • Land Use change • Ecosystems In its just released
report, a Panel of the
National Academy of Sciences urged that this "much improved"
Strategic Plan be put into force as soon as possible. While the Plan can
still be improved, the big challenge will be to implement it, said Panel
chair Thomas E. Graedel, of The new management structure of the Program
is complex and "essentially untested," the Academy Panel cautioned.
They urged the leadership to create accountability among managers for meeting
Program goals. Finally, the Academy Panel wants the government to create an
Advisory Board to ensure the independence and credibility of its climate
research. The involvement of cabinet level administration officials
(necessary for obtaining the needed funding) may lead to real or perceived
political influence, that would discredit the whole initiative. Finally, the Academy said that the Plan
"falls short" in creating and sustaining an Earth observation
system that can answer the crucial questions outlined in this article. It
also lacks a strategy for meeting the goals in climate modeling, including
long-term climate prediction, regional climate prediction, and prediction of
impacts on society. * The
Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–606) |
|
FROM THE EDITOR A well stated Vision would help the Nation
to focus on understanding climate change and then to apply that knowledge.
The Nation needs to make some hard choices about what kind of science to
invest in. Unfortunately, the Vision statement fails to make those choices. The choice of Goals for the next two to four
years, however, succeeds where the Vision does not. The five goals specify
the largest gaps in our understanding of climate change, and ask scientists
to close these gaps or at least to reduce uncertainty around them in two to
four years. That adds a sense of urgency to climate science which has been
lacking. Though debates on the causes of climate
changes will certainly continue, now answering the “key
questions” will become more urgent than asking them. This Program has succeeded in involving the
interested public. More than 1,300 scientists, stakeholders, and citizens
attended the Planning Workshop in December 2002, and most of them contributed
comments. Because of the number of participants, and because 13 federal
agencies were involved in drafting it, the revised Strategic Plan is unwieldy
(although it is better than the draft plan). The document attempts to satisfy
many sectors having competing viewpoints. The Climate Change Science Program
is a compromise, with a vision that is less than inspiring, and a long-term
research agenda that suffers from a lack of focus. |
Nevertheless, in the short-term plan,
“key scientific uncertainties” about climate change are going to
receive the focused attention they sorely need. Some activists argue that
spending two years on uncertainties will delay actions needed now. Yet as
slow as it has been to develop, this road map for Climate Change Science is
an ambitious step in the right direction. As the
|
