Comments on: The US Climate Change Science Program and Decision Support http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3668 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Lisa Dilling http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3668&cpage=1#comment-2429 Lisa Dilling Fri, 09 Dec 2005 03:03:46 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3668#comment-2429 Hi Roger, Thanks for your comment. RE the need for a climate observing system, computational resources etc. and a focused program, the US does spend over $2billion a year on its climate program, over 65% of which is observations. I would not dispute your last point about needing to encourage innovation etc., but I would ask, in what way should the climate enterprise be focused differently than it already is? I would argue that more attention could be paid to the issue of decision support and how it effectively accomplished. Hi Roger,
Thanks for your comment. RE the need for a climate observing system, computational resources etc. and a focused program, the US does spend over $2billion a year on its climate program, over 65% of which is observations. I would not dispute your last point about needing to encourage innovation etc., but I would ask, in what way should the climate enterprise be focused differently than it already is? I would argue that more attention could be paid to the issue of decision support and how it effectively accomplished.

]]> By: Lisa Dilling http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3668&cpage=1#comment-2428 Lisa Dilling Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:10:04 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3668#comment-2428 Roger P, thanks for the comment. Yes, it's pretty similar but perhaps with one shift. Some individual agencies are starting little pockets of activity experimenting with connecting their science to society more explictly. Activities such as NOAA's RISAs, the IRI, and NASA Applications weren't around back then. But I'd agree that for the most part there is a lot of persistence in the system.. Roger P,
thanks for the comment. Yes, it’s pretty similar but perhaps with one shift. Some individual agencies are starting little pockets of activity experimenting with connecting their science to society more explictly. Activities such as NOAA’s RISAs, the IRI, and NASA Applications weren’t around back then. But I’d agree that for the most part there is a lot of persistence in the system..

]]> By: Roger http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3668&cpage=1#comment-2427 Roger Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:16:57 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3668#comment-2427 Climate observations and modeling are becoming increasingly important for a wide segment of society ranging from water resource managers, public health officials, agribusinesses, energy providers, forest managers, insurance companies, and city planners. In order to address the consequences of climate change and better serve the nation's decision-makers, the research enterprise dealing with environmental change and environment-society interactions must be enhanced. The ability of the United States to assess future climate change is severely limited by the lack of a climate observing system, by inadequate computational resources, and by the general inability of government to focus resources on climate problems. Efforts are needed to ensure that U.S. efforts in climate research are supported and managed so as to ensure innovation, effectiveness and efficiency. Climate observations and modeling are becoming increasingly important for a wide segment of society ranging from water resource managers, public health officials, agribusinesses, energy providers, forest managers, insurance companies, and city planners. In order to address the consequences of climate change and better serve the nation’s decision-makers, the research enterprise dealing with environmental change and environment-society interactions must be enhanced. The ability of the United States to assess future climate change is severely limited by the lack of a climate observing system, by inadequate computational resources, and by the general inability of government to focus resources on climate problems. Efforts are needed to ensure that U.S. efforts in climate research are supported and managed so as to ensure innovation, effectiveness and efficiency.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3668&cpage=1#comment-2426 Roger Pielke, Jr. Sun, 04 Dec 2005 16:25:34 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3668#comment-2426 Lisa- Thanks for this very interesting report from the CCSP meeting! Jim A. and Lisa- The evolution (or not) of the CCSP supports the old adage -- the more things change, the more they stay the same. Have a look at this analysis of the USGCRP based on work more than 10 years ago: Pielke Jr., R. A., 1995: Usable Information for Policy: An Appraisal of the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Policy Sciences, 38, 39-77. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-109-1995.07.pdf Lisa- Thanks for this very interesting report from the CCSP meeting!

Jim A. and Lisa- The evolution (or not) of the CCSP supports the old adage — the more things change, the more they stay the same. Have a look at this analysis of the USGCRP based on work more than 10 years ago:

Pielke Jr., R. A., 1995: Usable Information for Policy: An Appraisal of the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Policy Sciences, 38, 39-77.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-109-1995.07.pdf

]]> By: Jim Angel http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3668&cpage=1#comment-2425 Jim Angel Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:24:14 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3668#comment-2425 Roger, Since you had some 177 comments on the hockey game and only 2 on climate decision support, can we assume that scientists are more interested in debating the finer points of data and statistics than grappling with issues of decisionmakers and stakeholders? Sadly, I think I know the answer to this semi-rhetorical question. Jim Disclaimer: the opinions expressed here by me do not represent my employer. Roger,

Since you had some 177 comments on the hockey game and only 2 on climate decision support, can we assume that scientists are more interested in debating the finer points of data and statistics than grappling with issues of decisionmakers and stakeholders? Sadly, I think I know the answer to this semi-rhetorical question.

Jim

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed here by me do not represent my employer.

]]> By: Lisa Dilling http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3668&cpage=1#comment-2424 Lisa Dilling Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:10:05 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3668#comment-2424 Hi Kevin, thanks for your comment. Of the remaining 95%, the majority is basic research. Looking at the numbers from agencies, NASA is about 77% ($1,334M) of the 2004 CCSP budget, and while I include the NASA applications program in the 5% applied research figure in the post, the vast majority is basic (NASA by definition has basic research as its mission). The next largest agency of the CCSP is NSF at $213 million, a basic research agency. DOE and NOAA/DOC contributions to CCSP are largely basic, although the regional assessments in NOAA, also mentioned in the post is about $5M a year. The rest of the agencies (EPA, USDA, etc.) involved are less than 10% of the budget. As to your second question, decisions about budgets run through the agencies (and OMB, Congress counterparts). CCSP/CSPO (the office) is an organizing umbrella, but in my experience has little power to dictate what the agencies do and no authority to allocate funds (as Dr. Mahoney himself said). One of the challenges in the interagency world is that no agency has authority over any other agency, and since the head of CSPO sits in NOAA, an agency, it is unlikely that it can really change another agency's direction, unless discussions are had at the Cabinet level and then filter down that way through the agency. Persuasion can sometimes work too at lower levels, and interagency collaborations do work that way, but they are based on trust and good will, not directives from any particular person in another agency. Hi Kevin, thanks for your comment. Of the remaining 95%, the majority is basic research. Looking at the numbers from agencies, NASA is about 77% ($1,334M) of the 2004 CCSP budget, and while I include the NASA applications program in the 5% applied research figure in the post, the vast majority is basic (NASA by definition has basic research as its mission). The next largest agency of the CCSP is NSF at $213 million, a basic research agency. DOE and NOAA/DOC contributions to CCSP are largely basic, although the regional assessments in NOAA, also mentioned in the post is about $5M a year. The rest of the agencies (EPA, USDA, etc.) involved are less than 10% of the budget. As to your second question, decisions about budgets run through the agencies (and OMB, Congress counterparts). CCSP/CSPO (the office) is an organizing umbrella, but in my experience has little power to dictate what the agencies do and no authority to allocate funds (as Dr. Mahoney himself said). One of the challenges in the interagency world is that no agency has authority over any other agency, and since the head of CSPO sits in NOAA, an agency, it is unlikely that it can really change another agency’s direction, unless discussions are had at the Cabinet level and then filter down that way through the agency. Persuasion can sometimes work too at lower levels, and interagency collaborations do work that way, but they are based on trust and good will, not directives from any particular person in another agency.

]]> By: kevin v http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3668&cpage=1#comment-2423 kevin v Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:30:17 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3668#comment-2423 Good report, Lisa. Re: the amount of $$ spent on regional assessments, etc. is less than 5% of the total pool. What is the breakdown on the remaining 95% (i.e., is it mostly basic science on atmospheric chemistry and similar veins?) and what is the decision structure behind deciding how that money is distributed? Is CSPO allocating money or does it run through NSF or other agency funding structures? Good report, Lisa. Re: the amount of $$ spent on regional assessments, etc. is less than 5% of the total pool. What is the breakdown on the remaining 95% (i.e., is it mostly basic science on atmospheric chemistry and similar veins?) and what is the decision structure behind deciding how that money is distributed? Is CSPO allocating money or does it run through NSF or other agency funding structures?

]]>