Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
Summary
T
he U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) was created in
February 2002 under a new cabinet-level management structure
designed to improve government-wide management of climate and
related environmental science. The CCSP integrated the then-existing U.S.
Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) with the administration’s
Climate Change Research Initiative. The CCSP was formed with an ambi-
tious, but practical, guiding vision: a nation and the global community
empowered with the science based knowledge to manage the risks and op-
portunities of change in the climate and related environmental systems.
Although the U.S. government has sponsored research on climate and
related environmental change through the CCSP or USGCRP for more
than 15 years, the progress of either program has never been evaluated.
Such evaluations are important for identifying strengths and weaknesses
and determining what adjustments should be made to achieve program
goals. At the request of Dr. James Mahoney, then director of the CCSP, the
National Research Council (NRC) established the Committee on Strategic
Advice on the U.S. Climate Science Program to carry out three tasks over
a three-year period. The first task—an evaluation of program progress—is
the subject of this report:
Task 1. The committee will assist the CCSP in evaluating progress
toward program goals. The CCSP Strategic Plan and the guidelines given
in the 2005 NRC report Thinking Strategically: The Appropriate Use of
Metrics for the Climate Change Science Program will provide a starting
point for this examination. The report will address two subtasks:
1
OCR for page 2
2 EVALUATING PROGRESS OF THE U.S. CCSP
1a. Findings and recommendations on the process for evaluating
progress toward the five goals in the CCSP strategic plan. The recommen-
dations should be practical and consider the trade-offs between strategic
utility and program costs associated with implementing metrics.
1b. A preliminary assessment of progress made toward the pro-
gram’s goals. The results will serve as an interim report for a more compre-
hensive analysis of the program’s progress to be completed in subsequent
years.
The focus of this report is on progress made over the past four years—
the lifetime of the CCSP. How the program should evolve to address gaps
and weaknesses or to respond to new needs is the subject of the committee’s
second task and report.
The CCSP’s structure, activities, and time line for delivering products
are laid out in a 2003 strategic plan. Thirteen federal agencies participate in
the CCSP, which has an annual budget of about $1.7 billion. The budget is
provided and managed by the participating agencies, which also help set the
direction of the program through interagency committees at various levels.
The overall program is guided by a director (currently an acting director)
and carried out by the agencies and a small program office.
The CCSP is divided into three main components: (1) overarching
goals, which represent what the overall program is trying to achieve (e.g.,
scientific understanding, reduction of uncertainties, risk management); (2)
research elements (e.g., atmospheric composition, carbon cycle, human con-
tributions and responses), which lay out the research agenda in the form of
33 questions to be answered; and (3) cross-cutting issues (e.g., observations,
decision support resources, communications), which are common to all of
the research elements. A method for evaluating the progress of all three
components and conclusions from the committee’s preliminary evaluation
are described below.
METHOD FOR EVALUATING PROGRESS
Recommendation. CCSP progress should be evaluated in two stages:
(1) a broad overview of the entire program based on the knowledge
of the reviewers, and (2) a more in-depth analysis of areas in which
progress has been inadequate, using the process and input metrics from
NRC (2005).
A 2005 NRC report proposed a framework of 24 metrics that could
be used to evaluate the CCSP from end to end—from program processes
(e.g., strategic planning, peer review) to inputs (e.g., resources), to short-
term outputs (e.g., publications), to long-term outcomes (e.g., improved
OCR for page 3
SUMMARY
understanding, use of science to support decision making) and impacts (e.g.,
improved public policy). The committee found that this framework yields
a wealth of information on CCSP progress, but the detailed budget and
management information necessary to score the process and input metrics
is not readily available, even to CCSP agencies. Consequently, the commit-
tee developed an alternative two-stage evaluation approach that balances
practicality and strategic utility. The first stage would be a high-level as-
sessment of strengths and weaknesses of the entire program, based mainly
on the reviewers’ knowledge of program results. The entire program can be
evaluated using a matrix of the 33 research questions in the research ele-
ments (rows of the matrix) versus five categories of outputs and outcomes
(columns of the matrix):
A: Improve data sets in space and time, and improve estimates of
physical quantities
B: Improve understanding and representation of processes
C: Improve predictability, predictive capabilities, or assessment of
uncertainty
D: Improve synthesis and assessment to inform
E: Improve assessment and management of risk, and improve decision
support for management and policy making
The rows of the matrix (research questions) are connected to the CCSP
overarching goals, and the columns of the matrix overlap with the cross-
cutting issues. In particular, category A includes observations and monitor-
ing, category C includes modeling, category D includes communication, and
category E includes decision support resources. By combining the scores of
the cells of the matrix in different ways, it is possible to assess progress in
the CCSP research elements, overarching goals, and cross-cutting issues.
The second stage of evaluation would be a careful analysis of areas
identified as not meeting expectations. These areas would be evaluated with
the process and input metrics from NRC (2005), which provide tools for
diagnosing the reasons for program weaknesses and making strategic deci-
sions about where adjustments should be made to improve outcomes.
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS
The committee used its matrix to carry out the first stage of the evalua-
tion of CCSP progress. Findings based on that evaluation are given below.
The separation of leadership and budget authority presents a serious
obstacle to progress in the CCSP.
OCR for page 4
EVALUATING PROGRESS OF THE U.S. CCSP
Leadership to guide the program is generally required if a program
is to succeed (NRC, 2005). The strength of the current CCSP leadership
structure lies in its potential to engage the expertise found across U.S. gov-
ernment agencies and international partners to address climate science and
applications. CCSP leaders can advocate for the program at higher levels in
the government or with participating agencies when the decisions of a single
agency adversely affect the entire program (e.g., cancellation of critical
climate sensors) or when changing CCSP priorities would require changes
in agency programs (e.g., a greater emphasis on supporting decision mak-
ing). However, the CCSP director and agency principals lack authority to
allocate or prioritize funding across the agencies, and the interagency work-
ing group members often have little budgetary authority to implement the
research directions that they define. Such authority usually resides at higher
levels in the participating agencies. As a result, progress is most likely when
CCSP and agency interests coincide.
Discovery science and understanding of the climate system are pro-
ceeding well, but use of that knowledge to support decision making
and to manage risks and opportunities of climate change is proceeding
slowly.
Good progress has been made in documenting the climate changes of
the past few decades and in unraveling the anthropogenic influences on the
observed climate changes. The period has witnessed improved understand-
ing of many aspects of the climate and related environmental systems,
including aerosol direct forcing, land use change, sea ice retreat, glacier
melting, and atmospheric warming. Predictive capabilities have also im-
proved, especially of coupled ocean-atmosphere-land climate models used
to evaluate the human impact on observed trends, although models that
enable exploration of feedbacks, predictions at regional to local scales, or
trade-offs of different resource management and mitigation options are still
relatively immature. In contrast, progress in synthesizing research results
or supporting decision making and risk management has been inadequate.
Although the temperature trends assessment (CCSP, 2006b) was influential
in the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 19
other CCSP synthesis and assessment products scheduled to be released by
now are still in the production stage. Also, only a few small programs (e.g.,
Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments program, Decision Making
Under Uncertainty centers) have been initiated to identify and engage deci-
sion makers.
OCR for page 5
5
SUMMARY
Progress in understanding and predicting climate change has improved
more at global, continental, and ocean basin scales than at regional
and local scales.
Information at regional and local scales is most relevant for state and
local resource managers and policy makers, as well as for the general popu-
lation, but progress on these smaller spatial scales has been inadequate.
Improving understanding of regional-scale climate processes and their im-
pacts in North America, for example, would require improved integrated
modeling, regional-scale observations, and the development of scenarios of
climate change and impacts.
Our understanding of the impact of climate changes on human well-be-
ing and vulnerabilities is much less developed than our understanding
of the natural climate system.
Progress in human dimensions research has lagged progress in natural
climate science, and the two fields have not yet been integrated in a way
that would allow the potential societal impacts of climate change and
management responses to be addressed. This disparity in progress likely re-
flects the inability of the CCSP to support a consistent and cogent research
agenda as recommended in previous studies. The level of investment ($25
million to $30 million) remains substantially lower than the level of invest-
ment in the other research elements, and funding is atomized across many
agency programs. Few social scientists are in leadership positions in the
federal agencies, which makes it difficult for the CCSP to increase program
emphasis in this area or to establish links with the academic social science
community. Finally, the research community is small and thus may be un-
able to advocate effectively for changing program priorities.
Science quality observation systems have fueled advances in climate
change science and applications, but many existing and planned observ-
ing systems have been cancelled, delayed, or degraded, which threatens
future progress.
Knowledge of climate variability and change rests on consistent long-
term observations that are broadly disseminated and archived for future
generations of scientists. The contribution of remote sensing and in situ
observations and their associated information systems to Earth system
science and applications has been a major achievement of the CCSP-US-
GCRP agencies. However, a number of planned satellite sensors critical to
the long-term (multidecadal) data record have been cancelled or seriously
OCR for page 6
EVALUATING PROGRESS OF THE U.S. CCSP
delayed (e.g., National Polar-orbiting Environmental Satellite System cli-
mate instruments, Hydros, Landsat, Global Precipitation Measurement mis-
sion), and long-standing (decades to a century or longer) in situ networks
are deteriorating (e.g., stream gauge network, Snowpack Telemetry snow
observation system) because of funding shortfalls. The loss of existing and
planned satellite sensors is perhaps the single greatest threat to the future
success of the CCSP. Without a wide array of continuous satellite and in situ
observations, the U.S. capability to monitor trends, document the impacts
of future climate change, and further improve prediction and assimilation
models through comparison with observations will decline even as the ur-
gency of addressing climate change increases.
Progress in communicating CCSP results and engaging stakeholders is
inadequate.
The program has had some successes interacting with scientists, federal
government agencies, and water resource managers. However, efforts to
identify and engage in a two-way dialogue with state and local officials,
nongovernmental organizations, and the climate change technology com-
munity have generally been limited and ad hoc. As a result, the program is
not gaining the input it needs on what scientifically based CCSP products
to create, and opportunities to inform decision making are being missed.
The committee notes that differences in the rates of program progress
between the natural and social sciences and between science and commu-
nications and decision support are not surprising, given the long history of
support of fundamental research through the USGCRP and the allocation
of CCSP funding. Only a small fraction of the CCSP budget is devoted to
decision support resources and communication (CCSP, 2006a). However,
if the program is to achieve its vision of producing information that can
be used to formulate strategies for preventing, mitigating, and adapting to
effects of climate change, adjustments will have to be made in the balance
between science and applications.
