COMMITTEE ON GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH' Members CHARLES F. KENNEL (Chairman), Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, JAMES G. ANDERSON, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts JULIA COLE, University of Arizona, Tucson ROBERT C. HARRISS, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado JEFFREY T. KIEHL, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado WILLIAM KUPERMAN, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California STEPHEN LEATHERMAN, Florida International University, Miami JOHN J. MAGNUSON, University of Wisconsin, Madison GREGG MARLAND, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee ROBERTA BALSTAD MILLER, CIESIN, Columbia University, Palisades, New York JOHN REILLY, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge EDWARD SARACHIK, University of Washington, Seattle WILLIAM SCHLESINGER, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina ALBERT J. SEMTNER, JR., Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California W. JAMES SHUTTLEWORTH, University of Arizona, Tucson KEVIN TRENBERTH, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado Ex-Officio Members ERIC J. BARRON (BASC), Pennsylvania State University, University Park KENNETH BRINK (OSB), Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts TOM DIETZ (CHDGC), George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia W. LAWRENCE GATES (WCRP), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California J. BERNARD MINSTER (CGED), Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California' BERRIEN MOORE III (IGBP), University of New Hampshire, Durham EUGENE RASMUSSON (CRC), University of Maryland, College Park 'This report was written while the CGCR was under the auspices of the NRC's Policy Division. The CGCR is now located in the NRC's Division on Earth and Life Studies. 2 The ex officio members provided substantial input to the report and have been involved in all of the committee's deliberations on it, but the final responsibility of authorship rests with the regular members. Appointed to the committee after the report had been completed. iv Consultants WILLIAM C. CLARK, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts EDWARD A. FRIEMAN, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California PAMELA MATSON, Stanford University, Stanford, California LISA SHAFFER, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California NRC Staff PETER SCHULTZ, Program Director *The consultants were instrumental in formulating the committee's initial approach to the report and provided advice to the committee throughout the writing process. Acknowledgments This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: RICHARD GOODY, Harvard University DEBRA KNOPMAN, Progressive Policy Institute THOMAS MALONE, North Carolina State University SUSAN SOLOMON, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Robert Frosch, Harvard University, appointed by the NRC's Report Review Committee, who was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. vii Preface The National Research Council (NRC), the National Science Board (NSB), and many other planning bodies have worked to identify the scientific understanding needed to foster a productive relationship between society and the environment. Three recent reports, themselves syntheses of many other studies, are useful guides to the state of knowledge and the requirements for future progress. Global Environmental Change: Research Pathways for the Next Decade, produced by the NRC's Committee on Global Change Research, summarizes the past 10 years' accomplishments of global change research and proposes a strategy for global-scale research in the next 10 years. In this context, global change research attempts to improve understanding of those natural and human-induced changes in ecosystems, the atmosphere, and the oceans that are appreciable at the global scale. Our Common Journey: A Transition Toward Sustainability, a report of the NRC's Board on Sustainable Development, presents a strategy for the research needed to more closely link the evolving scientific agenda of global change research, addressed in the Pathways report, with growing social concerns for progress toward a transition to environmentally sustainable development—the reconciliation of society's developmental goals with its environmental limits over the long term. The comprehensive challenge is to meet the needs of a larger global population, substantially reduce hunger and poverty, and sustain the environmental support systems and biological diversity of the planet. Meeting this challenge will require closer, more interactive linkages between those who create new knowledge through natural and social sciences research, together with technology development, and those who use that knowledge in direct support of decision making and management. Completing this survey is Environmental Science and Engineering for the 21" Century. This is a strategic analysis by the NSB of changes in orientation, organization, and funding of the research enterprise that will be necessary to meet the challenges explored in the NRC reports and other recent analyses. This report, The Science of Regional and Global Change—Putting Knowledge to Work, is intended to promote a dialogue between the scientific community and the government officials who will lead our nation in the coming years. Part I is a brief description of the challenges and proposed responses needed from the highest levels of the government. Part II provides more detailed discussion and is directed to agency-level issues and responses. Part III is a detailed bibliography that lists many of the specific reports on which the views outlined here are ultimately based. Charles F. Kennel, Chairman Committee on Global Change Research 1 At the National Leadership Level A WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES? central challenge facing the United States and other countries in the twenty-first century will be to enhance human well-being in a world where growing populations and the drive to improve living standards place potentially huge demands on natural resources and the environment. Whether we succeed or fail in meeting this challenge will be determined, in part, by how we respond to immediate demands to address human health and economic growth in the context of the wide range of crucial, environmentally related decisions made every day by insurance companies, water resource managers, agribusiness, households, city planners, public health officials, and countless others. Rising to this challenge will entail using natural resources as efficiently as possible, devising practical solutions that meet our immediate needs and also provide for long-run economic growth, while maintaining the environmental systems on which life depends. To guide wise public policy decisions that continue to improve human and economic conditions and to clarify public debate, it is necessary to restructure the science and engineering framework addressing the biological, chemical, and physical integrity of our surroundings. Private-sector and governmental decisions will be made regarding air, water, and living systems that will fundamentally affect our nation's health and its economic and environmental vitality. Will the information that is necessary to adequately inform these decisions be available? The answer to this question is not consistently "yes" because of several limitations that are beyond the capacities of individual agencies, including the following: The observing "system" available today is a composite of observations that do not provide the information needed nor the continuity in the data to support decisions on many critical issues. The United States today does not have the computational and modeling capabilities needed to serve society's information needs for reliable environmental predictions and projections. 1 |