Review of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program's Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.2, "Climate Projections Based on Emission Scenarios for Long-lived and Short-lived Radiatively Active Gases and Aerosols" (2007)

This committee will review the U.S. CCSP's draft Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.2 entitled “Climate Projections Based on Emissions Scenarios for long-lived radiatively active trace gases and future climate impacts of short-lived radiatively active gases and aerosols”. The purpose of the CCSP SAP 3.2 is to provide information to those who use climate model outputs to assess the potential effects of human activities on climate, air quality and ecosystem behavior. The role of the National Academies committee will be to provide a peer review of CCSP SAP 3.2. 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?