Abstracts

9:00 - 9:30 am
The State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): Experiment in synthesis and assessment of carbon cycle science for decision makers

Lisa Dilling (Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, CIRES, University of Colorado)

Four agencies of the federal government, organized through the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), funded an assessment and synthesis of information and research on the carbon cycle in North America. This project will culminate in the first "State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR),¨ also known as Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.2 (SAP 2.2), to be published in 2007.  SAP 2.2 will provide a synthesis and integration of the current knowledge of the North American (including land, atmosphere, and adjacent oceans) carbon budget and its context within the global carbon cycle. In a format useful to decision makers, it will (1) summarize our knowledge of carbon cycle properties and changes relevant to the contributions of and impacts upon the United States and the rest of the world, and (2) provide scientific information for U.S. decision support focused on key issues for carbon management and policy.   The audience for the SOCCR includes scientists, decision-makers in the public sector (federal, state, and local governments), private sector (carbon-related industry, including energy, transportation, agriculture, and forestry sectors; and climate policy and carbon management interest groups), and the general public.  I am co-leading the project and am also primarily responsible for ensuring that the document attends to the needs of stakeholders both in terms of process and structure.  From the start, our process involved stakeholders, with strong support from the agencies to do so.  I will describe our process for incorporating stakeholder input and balancing credibility, salience and legitimacy, as well as for developing the fairly unique structure of the SOCCR report.  For more information, please see: http://www.isse.ucar.edu/soccr/

9:30 - 10:00 am
Climate Variability and its Implications for Decision-Making in the High Arctic:  Lessons from Barrow Alaska

James Maslanik (Aerospace Engineering)

As part of an NSF-funded project entitled "Integrated Assessment of the Impacts of Climate Variability on the Alaskan North Slope Region," climate researchers and policy specialists from CU, NCAR and the Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation have worked as a team for the last five years to assemble information regarding climate variability in the Barrow, Alaska area and to distill this information into forms suitable for a broad audience.  Barrow's combination of exposed setting on the Arctic Ocean coast, long tradition of native culture and traditional knowledge, and interactions with modern technology provides unique challenges for the integration of climate research with planning and policy studies.  This presentation highlights some of the key climate-related findings from our work, with particular emphasis on severe storms and coastal flooding.  The focus of the talk, however, will be on our interactions with the community, including steps taken to identify the most relevant climate-related factors of local interest and to transmit our findings to a diverse group of Barrow-area planners, policy makers, and the general public.

10:00 - 10:30 am
Estimating Changes in Snowpack Characteristics at the Aspen Ski Area for the Years 2030 and 2100

Brian Lazar and Joel Smith (Stratus Consulting Inc), Mark Williams (Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder), and Tom Wigley (National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado)

We evaluated how climate change resulting from increased greenhouse gas concentrations may affect the quantity and quality of snow at the Aspen Mountain in the years 2030 and 2100. Changes in climate were estimated using MAGICC/SCENGEN (Wigley, 2004) and the output from 5 GCM's based on which GCMs best simulate present climate patterns.  The climate change estimates were run using the relatively mid-range, low, and high greenhouse gas emissions scenarios estimated by the IPCC (Nakicenovic et. al., 2001): A1B, B1, and A1FI. Climate sensitivity (how much global mean temperature would increase for a doubling of CO2) was set at 3oC. We also tested for climate sensitivities of 1.5 and 4.5oC. We then bracketed potential regional climate changes by using the mean of the five models, a warm-wet model projection (HadCM2), and a warm-dry model projection (ECHAM3).  Snow quantity was evaluated using the Snowmelt Runoff Model (SRM; Martinec, 1975) and snow quality was evaluated using SNTHERM (Jordan, 1991).

The date when snow starts to accumulate is pushed back by six to seven days by 2030 and anywhere from 1.5 to 4.5 weeks by 2100. This is caused by the estimated increase in air temperature. Earlier snowfall amounts in the warm-wet scenario melted in October and caused a lag in peak snow depth at the top of the mountain. For mid-winter snows, a 15% increase in snowfall compensates for a 1.5oC increase in air temperature such that there was little change in snow depth. Snow depth in 2030 during spring break showed about a 7-25% decline in the base area (approximately 8,000 to 9300 ft.), with small decreases near the top of the mountain. However, the onset of the spring avalanche cycle (melt initiation) started earlier by 4-5  days in all model runs.  All model runs show skiable snow for all elevations on Aspen Mountain in 2030, but by 2100 this is only true for the B1 scenario. Snow depth goes to almost zero for the base area in 2100 under the A1B emission scenario. In the A1FI scenario, snow depth goes to near zero for the entire lower two-thirds of the mountain. In the A1B scenario, even in 2100 with a 4-5„aC increase in air temperature, there is little change in overall snow depth in the elevation bands from 9,500 feet to the top of the mountain, compared to current levels. This is true from 10,300 ft and above for the high emission A1FI scenario, which show a more substantial 6-7„aC warming. In spite of the reduction in snowpack, snow quality has less than a 20% increase in the density of the top few inches of snow by 2030, which in our judgment does not substantially reduce the quality of the snow. By 2100 densities could be substantially higher.

Jordan, R. 1991. A one-dimensional temperature model for a snowcover:
technical documentation for SNTHERM.89. Special Report 657. Hanover, N.H.: US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory.

Martinec, J. 1975. Snowmelt-runoff model for stream flow forecasts. Nordic Hydrol. 6(3):145-154.

Nakicenovic, N., J. Alcamo, G. Davis, B. de Vries, J. Fenhann, S. Gaffin, K. Gregory, A. Grubler, T.Y. Jung, T. Kram, E.L. La Rovere, L. Michaelis, S. Mori, T. Morita, W. Pepper, H. Pitcher, L. Price, K. Raihi, A. Roehrl, H.-H. Rogner, A. Sankovski, M. Schlesinger, P. Shukla, S. Smith, R. Swart, S. van Rooijen, N. Victor, and Z. Dadi,. 2000. Emissions Scenarios. A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 599 pp.

Wigley, T. M. L. 2004. MAGICC/SCENGEN. Boulder, Colorad National Center for Atmospheric Research. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/

10:30 - 11:00 am
Science Policy Assessment and Research on Climate (SPARC)

Genevieve Maricle (ENVS),  Lisa Dilling and Roger Pielke, Jr. (Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, CIRES, University of Colorado), Daniel Sarewitz (Arizona State University)

Since the 1970s, public funding of climate science has been justified in the United States for its potential to inform societal decisions.  As such, the latest revision of the US climate program goals places a high priority on “those elements that can best support improved public debate and decision-making in the near term.”  After three decades of research and more than $25 billion in funding, climate science is increasingly under pressure to demonstrate that its results are useful.

The ability of climate research to effectively and efficiently support decision-making depends directly on the science policies used to guide the research program, and thus on science policy decisions.  These decisions shape the conduct and output of climate research by guiding resource allocations, disciplinary and interdisciplinary priorities and methods, institutional design, human resources, and standards of evaluation. 

Thus, in order to evaluate the utility of climate science, we must evaluate climate science policy decisions.  The Science Policy Assessment and Research on Climate (SPARC) project does just this. It conducts research and assessments, outreach, and education aimed at helping climate science policies better support climate-related decision making in the face of fundamental and often irreducible uncertainties.  Further, it asks: How does the nation’s multi-billion dollar investment in climate research affect climate-related decisions?  How can the societal value of this scientific investment be enhanced?

The SPARC research agenda focuses on two interconnected areas of science policy decision making where uncertainty strongly influences how knowledge is made available to society for responding to climate change, namely: 1) how climate research agendas are developed and implemented (Project on Reconciling Supply and Demand); and 2) how specific issues are prioritized given the multiple causes of global environmental change (Project on Sensitivity Analysis).  This presentation summarizes SPARC’s research and findings to these two ends.  It also highlights one particular SPARC project.  This project evaluates the effectiveness of the human dimensions of global change research (HDGCR) and asks: to what extent does HDGCR inform and influence climate science policy decisions?

11:00 - 11:30 am
Strategic Navigation in a Carbon-Constrained World: Toward Competitive Corporate Responses to Global Climate Change

David Payne (Leeds School of Business)

Few businesses will escape the impact of carbon constraints in our increasingly interconnected global economy. Business needs to know how to respond; yet precious little knowledge exists. In a sense, we have no maps for plotting a safe course through this uncharted territory. Worse yet, when we consult our old maps - the ones we used to navigate through prior environmental concerns such as the ozone-depleting chemicals or other non-GHG pollutants - they lead us in the wrong direction, toward the land of compliance costs and endless regulatory battles.

Climate change, and particularly the carbon constraints imposed to mitigate it, creates a fundamentally different strategic landscape for business. While the threats associated with carbon-limiting regulations are real, the resultant monetization of more than half the world's carbon creates tremendous opportunities for companies that strategically manage their carbon assets.  We need to develop new road maps that can help us navigate toward competitive advantage, while avoiding the inevitable threats and pitfalls along the way.

11:30 - noon
Recycling and Climate Change

Jack DeBell (University of Colorado Environmental Center)

Almost everyone knows that reducing waste is good for the environment. What most people don’t know is how significant solid waste reduction and recycling is in ameliorating global climate change. Waste prevention and recycling reduce greenhouse gases associated with the manufacture, distribution, and use of products by cutting methane emissions, saving energy, and increasing forest carbon sequestration. The magnitude of these benefits is important to understand. In 2003 for instance, the 72 million tons of materials recycled in the U.S saved an estimated 256 million barrels of oil. If national recycling rates in 2008 grew by five percent over 2003 levels, the increased energy savings would have the same effect as removing 27 million passenger cars annually. Considering recycling rates doubled in the U.S between 1990 and 2000, these targets are not unrealistic.

Recent advances in quantifying energy savings and greenhouse gas emission (GHG) reductions during the lifecycle of products can now enable decision-makers at all levels to include waste reduction and recycling in their energy conservation plans. Demonstrating the connection between a local action (recycling and source reduction) and a global problem (GHG emissions) is a valuable activity that increases public awareness and motivates people to participate in other ecologically-sustainable programs.

This presentation will provide an overview of recycling’s set of benefits. Areas for collaboration with other sustainability initiatives will be suggested. Finally, a framework will be presented for decision-makers to evaluate GHG emission reduction impacts of various waste management practices in their jurisdictions such as waste reduction, durable goods reuse, recycling, and composting.

12:30 - 1:00 pm
Abandoned Mines, Mountain Sports, and Climate Change: Trouble Ahead and Trouble Behind

Diane McKnight (INSTAAR)

The release of acidic, metal-enriched water from abandoned mines and mining wastes, referred to as acid rock drainage (ARD), is a long-term and pervasive environmental problem in the Rocky Mountains and Sierras. Contamination has not abated since the mining boom ended about 70 years ago, largely because these contaminants are continuously generated from the exposure to oxygen of pyrite in the mine workings and tailings. The streams and rivers receiving ARD typically have high dissolved concentrations of toxic metals, such as Zn, Cu, Cd and Pb, and their streambeds are covered with metal oxides for some distance below the mine inflows. These streams and rivers support species-poor aquatic ecosystems, and fish are typically absent. Recently, economic development in mountain regions has been driven by the ski industry, resulting in increasing demand for water for snow-making to compensate for late winter snowfall, possibly associated with changing climate. The ski industry is also pursuing a four seasons resort approach in the future. ARD can constrain the use of stream water for snowmaking and for summer recreation such as fishing and rafting. In addition to general environmental concerns, this situation has focused attention on potential remediation of abandoned mines in mountain catchments. One challenging initial question for state and local agencies and watershed stakeholders’ groups is determining which of the many abandoned mines in a particular catchment are the major sources of ARD and how these various sources will change under a changing hydrologic regime and climate. This challenge can be addressed through field sampling, stream-scale experiments, and integration of hydrologic and biogeochemical processes into a climate-driven, catchment-scale model. Another challenge is prediction of the ecological outcomes that would be achieved by a proposed remediation. The ARD problem in mountain catchments illustrates how improved understanding of specific processes will be inadequate to address current water resource problems unless we can understand the role of climate variability in controlling the hydrology in the future.

1:00 - 1:30 pm
Climate in the Courtroom

Marilyn Averill (ENVS)

Citizens concerned about climate change are turning to the courts to resolve climate-related issues. Litigants will use law, science, economics, ethics, policy, and other fields in arguments to support of their claims. Climate litigation provides a laboratory for study of how courts integrate these factors to influence policy and how court decisions may shape perceptions about the components themselves.

Each court decision will shape climate policy and have implications far beyond the courtroom. Challenges against state and federal governments will clarify their authority and responsibility to address climate issues under existing law. Claims against industry will determine whether corporations should be held responsible for actions contributing to the greenhouse effect. When publicized by the media, climate litigation can educate the public about the science and possible impacts of climate change, illuminate issues about fairness and responsibility, and stimulate debate about how society should respond. In addition, court decisions about expert testimony and the treatment of uncertainty can affect perceptions of the legitimacy, credibility, and salience of climate science, both inside and outside the courtroom.

1:30 - 2:00 pm
Climate Change and the Future of the American West: Exploring the Legal and Policy Dimensions

Mark Squillace (Natural Resources Law Center and CU Law School)

The Natural Resources Law Center's 2006 summer conference will explore a wide range of issues from climate science, to the impacts of climate change on water resources and ecological systems.  It will consider the implications of climate change on land use and transportation, energy resources, and the business community.  This will set the stage for an exploration of the legal and policy dimensions of climate change, with attention focused on all levels of government.  The conference will conclude with two panels that look toward the future.  The first will consider what we in the West might do collectively to confront climate change, and the second will look more broadly at the future of the American West in a world facing climate change. 

2:00 - 2:30 pm
Creating a Climate for Change: What have we learned about communicating about climate change and its connection to facilitating social change?

Lisa Dilling (Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, CIRES, University of Colorado) and Susi Moser (Institute for the Study of Society and the Environment, National Center for Atmospheric Research)

It started as a fairly simple question for us, given that responding to climate change will likely involve action at some level for many different people in society, how can we as a society best facilitate an effective conversation on the subject?  With support from the MacArthur Foundation to improve communication of science between scientists and non-governmental organizations, we broadened from there and embarked on a project to specifically examine the relationship between traditional modes of communication on climate change and social change, at many levels.  Our initial exploration of the topic revealed that while the public had a high level of awareness of the term global warming or climate change, this awareness did not translate into urgency for action or social change in response.  Consequently, many communicators were employing tactics to increase the urgency, including focusing on the fearful and dangerous aspects of climate change, or increasing the public¡¦s knowledge of the science of climate change, believing that these tactics would impel action and societal response.  Research has shown that these types of strategies are quite unsuccessful most of the time at motivating change.  This suggested to us that a) research from the fields of risk communication, psychology, behavior change, decision processes, cultural studies, education, and the like was not being effectively translated and communicated across disciplinary lines, i.e. to the climate-concerned community and b) new strategies for effective communication were needed if indeed society is to respond to climate challenges in the future.  We thus convened a multi-disciplinary workshop to address this topic with both academic and practitioner experts in the fields of communication and social change. Over 40 individuals from academia, government, non-profit advocacy groups, the business community and other areas of the private sectors met in June 2004 for a three-day workshop at NCAR. Quite deliberately, we invited not only professionals who were concerned with climate change communication or societal response to that problem.  Following this successful workshop, we worked with many contributors to produce an edited volume on this topic, forthcoming from Cambridge University Press.  In this presentation, we will focus on a few aspects of our findings, in particular we will dispel a number of myths still prevalent among communicators and social change agents that we believe hinder change. Second, we will present suggestions from the broad range of contributors involved in our project that could improve climate change communication and advance the evolution of this issue domain. Finally, we suggest questions for future research and action steps.  For more information, see: http://www.isse.ucar.edu/communication/