D
Committee to Review the U.S. Climate Change Science Program’s Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.3 Statement of Task

This committee will review the U.S. CCSP's draft Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.3 entitled “Reanalyses of Historical Climate Data for Key Atmospheric Features: Implications for Attribution of Causes of Observed Change”. The purpose of the CCSP SAP 1.3 is to provide an expert assessment of the capability and limitations of state-of-the-art climate reanalyses, to describe past and current climate conditions, and the consequent implications for scientifically interpreting the causes of climate variations and change. The role of the National Academies committee will be to provide a peer review of CCSP SAP 1.3. The committee will address the following issues:

  1. Are the goals, objectives, terminology, and intended audience of the product clearly described in the document? Does the product address all questions outlined in the prospectus?

  2. Are any findings and/or recommendations adequately supported by evidence and analysis? In cases where recommendations might be based on expert value judgments or the collective opinions of the authors, is this acknowledged and supported by sound reasoning?

  3. Are the data and analyses handled in a competent manner? Are statistical methods applied appropriately?

  4. Are the document's presentation, level of technicality, and organization effective? Are the questions outlined in the prospectus addressed and communicated in a manner that is appropriate and accessible for the intended audience?

  5. Is the document scientifically objective and policy neutral? Is it consistent with the scientific literature? How do the conclusions and general approaches for addressing uncertainty compare with those embraced by other treatments of the topic (e.g., IPCC, NRC activities)? Are differences supported by explicit and sound reasoning?

  6. Is there a summary that effectively, concisely and accurately describes the key findings and recommendations? Is it consistent with other sections of the document?

  7. What other significant improvements, if any, might be made in the document?



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 58
D Committee to Review the U.S. Climate Change Science Program’s Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.3 Statement of Task This committee will review the U.S. CCSP's draft Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.3 entitled “Reanalyses of Historical Climate Data for Key Atmospheric Features: Implications for Attribution of Causes of Observed Change”. The purpose of the CCSP SAP 1.3 is to provide an expert assessment of the capability and limitations of state-of- the-art climate reanalyses, to describe past and current climate conditions, and the consequent implications for scientifically interpreting the causes of climate variations and change. The role of the National Academies committee will be to provide a peer review of CCSP SAP 1.3. The committee will address the following issues: 1. Are the goals, objectives, terminology, and intended audience of the product clearly described in the document? Does the product address all questions outlined in the prospectus? 2. Are any findings and/or recommendations adequately supported by evidence and analysis? In cases where recommendations might be based on expert value judgments or the collective opinions of the authors, is this acknowledged and supported by sound reasoning? 3. Are the data and analyses handled in a competent manner? Are statistical methods applied appropriately? 4. Are the document's presentation, level of technicality, and organization effective? Are the questions outlined in the prospectus addressed and communicated in a manner that is appropriate and accessible for the intended audience? 5. Is the document scientifically objective and policy neutral? Is it consistent with the scientific literature? How do the conclusions and general approaches for addressing uncertainty compare with those embraced by other treatments of the topic (e.g., IPCC, NRC activities)? Are differences supported by explicit and sound reasoning? 6. Is there a summary that effectively, concisely and accurately describes the key findings and recommendations? Is it consistent with other sections of the document? 7. What other significant improvements, if any, might be made in the document? 58