Researchers advocate for climate adaptation science
CORVALLIS, Ore. – An international team of researchers says in a new paper that climate science needs to advance to a new realm – more practical applications for dealing with the myriad impacts of climate variability.
The scientific capability already exists as does much of the organizational structure, they say, to begin responding to emerging climate-related issues ranging from declining snowpack, to severe storms, to sea level rise. What is missing is better engagement between the scientific community and the stakeholders they are seeking to inform.
Their paper is being published on Friday in the Policy Forum section of the journal Science.
“Adaptation is required in virtually all sectors of the economy and regions of the globe,” they wrote. “However, without the appropriate science delivered in a decision-relevant context, it will become increasingly difficult – if not impossible – to prepare adequately.”
Philip Mote, an Oregon State University climate scientist and co-author on the paper, said climate adaptation science involves trans-disciplinary research to understand the challenges and opportunities of climate change – and how best to respond to them.
“What we need is more visibility to gain more inclusiveness – to bring into play the private sector, resource managers, universities and a host of decision-makers and other stakeholders,” said Mote, who directs the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute at Oregon State. “The stakeholders need to know our scientific capabilities, and we need to better understand their priorities and decision-making processes.”
Oregon State is among the national leaders in climate adaptation science. In addition to the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute, the university has two regional climate centers – one established by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to work with municipalities, utilities, emergency management organizations and state and federal agencies; the other by the Department of the Interior to work primarily with federal and state agencies, and non-governmental organizations.
Mote, who is involved with all three centers, said work with stakeholders is gaining traction, but the gap that exists between scientists and decision-makers is still too large.
“The centers here and elsewhere around the country are driven by stakeholder demands, but that needs to reach deeper into the research enterprise,” Mote said. “We’re working with some water districts, forest managers and community leaders on a variety of issues, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg.”
Richard Moss, a senior scientist with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, said the Science article grew out of a NASA-funded workshop held in 2012 at the Aspen Global Change Institute in Colorado, which focused on how to improve support for decision-making in the face of a changing climate.
“Traditionally, we think that what society needs is better predictions,” said Moss, who was lead author on the Science article. “But at this workshop, all of us – climate and social scientists alike – recognized the need to consider how decisions get implemented and that climate is only one of many factors that will determine how people will adapt.”
OSU’s Mote said examples abound of issues that need the marriage of stakeholders and climate scientists. Changing snowmelt runoff is creating concerns for late-season urban water supplies, irrigation for agriculture, and migration of fish. An increasing number of plant and animal species are becoming stressed by climate change, including the white bark pine and the sage grouse. Rising sea levels and more intense storms threaten the infrastructure of coastal communities, which need to examine water and sewer systems, as well as placement of hospitals, schools and nursing homes.
Mote, Moss and their colleagues outline a comprehensive approach to research in the social, physical, environmental, engineering and other sciences. Among their recommendations for improvement:
- Understand decision processes and knowledge requirements;
- Identify vulnerabilities to climate change;
- Improve foresight about exposure to climate hazards and other stressors;
- Broaden the range of adaptation options and promote learning;
- Provide examples of adaptation science in application;
- Develop measures to establish adaptation science.
One such measure could be the development of a national institution of climate preparedness in the United States comprised of centers for adaptation science aimed at priority sectors.
“More broadly,” the authors wrote in Science, “support for sustained, use-inspired, fundamental research on adaptation needs to be increased at research agencies. A particular challenge is to develop effective approaches to learn from adaptation practice as well as published research. Universities could provide support for sustained, trans-disciplinary interactions. Progress will require making a virtue of demonstrating tangible benefits for society by connecting research and applications.”
Bill Illis says:
November 8, 2013 at 4:01 am
Can anyone name a place where the climate has changed enough in the last 30 years to require any “adaptation”.
_____________________________________________________________________________
In the US east of the Rockies over the last 40 years, I’ve had to adapt to climate in North Carolina, Ft. Sill, OK, New Orleans, Kalamazoo, MI, and Richmond, VA. Moving from NOLA to KZ requires a heck of a lot of adapting. I’ve also noticed that the father north of 60 I get the more adaptation is required even in Richmond.
I cannot agree that climate change is not a problem and a threat. But I can certainly agree that we do not need pay scientists to work on it. Indeed, it seems to me that stopping their pay may be the entire solution. But the horse has already bolted. Might as well sit back and enjoy the ride as spend money on conferences.
Riiiiigghhhtt. This is the same OSU that employed George Taylor, and gave him the title of State Climatologist, until his non CAGW views got him “untitled” by then Oregon Gov Kulongoski. So I say, yes, let’s talk about OSU spearheading this, just as soon as they denounce the hockey stick touting Marcott et al that came from their office.
ROM…don’t hold back now. Tell us how you really feel. *grin* I loved your rant.
But don’t despair. Science is, and always should be, the key to understanding our world and each other. As such a tool, it has already proven that, eventually, truth wins and folly leads to ruin. No one I know views “science” as the bad guy here, because science is just information. Rational people know that it is the people misusing it (or not using it at all) that are the problem. How can they look down upon, or discount, or doubt something that consistently and stubbornly remains the same no matter how much it is twisted, distorted, ignored, or abused?
In fact, I believe in actual, real science so firmly, that I believe it will be their undoing. The harder they push, the more they squeal and hand wring, the more foolish they’ll look as time goes on. And the more they inspire good, honest, brilliant people to become the scientists that prove them wrong. Nothing inspires real heros more than real injustice.
There is a lot of criticism here, but I take this paper as a good sign. Mitigation relates to the future. Adaptation has to take place in the present. That means present reality will have to be recognized by climate science.
This paper is part of the climb down from alarmism, and it is coming from OSU. We should be tentatively pleased.
No way is this pleasing, it’s just trying to figure out how to implement the worst of the Green Agenda WITHOUT the science backing them.
How many climatology papers have been ENTIRELY premised on, “Suppose global temperatures rise by 2 degrees C, what happens to the Snail Darter? Catastrophy or complete extinction?”
Activists don’t need no stinkin’ science, the memes have already been implanted in the hive mind.
Rob Potter says (November 8, 2013 at 7:49 am): “…the only thing we can do is to increase our capacity to adapt to whatever the prevailing conditions will be – when any changes actually occurr.”
Well said. As WUWT readers are well aware, climate is still unpredictable, so adaptation is the only practical strategy. Since the key to adaptation is wealth, these clowns should focus on how to improve the economy. They could start by getting real jobs instead of wasting taxpayer money.
decreasing snowpack
Snowpack is increasing. What planet are these people on?
I have a Climate Change Adaptation Plan, good for the next 30 years, which I think they will find very useful; it has the added utility of being easy to understand, and very succinct.
Buy Some Sweaters.
Would these be 5-year plans then?
kingdube says:
Guys, this is better than saying we MUST throw ourselves on our economic swords.
No it is not. It’s the same $#!^ in a different bag.
phlogiston: “What planet are these people on?”
Mann are from Venus. Watts are from…
Some of these adaptations will protect against natural disasters, so they’re a good thing.
“Adaptation is required in virtually all sectors of the economy and regions of the globe,”
“However, without the appropriate science delivered in a decision-relevant context, it will become increasingly difficult – if not impossible – to prepare adequately.”
In other words, their is no more dangerous a council who fancies itself fit to exercise a power to direct private people in the manner they employ their capital.
“No man shall be deprived of the free enjoyment of his life, liberty, or property, unless declared to be forfeited by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land.” [3]
“No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law;….” [4]
“No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”[5]
[1] Smith, Adam.; Wealth Of Nations, <a href=http://www.adamsmith.org/quotesBook IV, Chapter II, p. 456, para. 9. 1776.
[2] Ibid. para. 10.
[3] Magna Carta, 1212
[4] US Constitution, 5th Amendment, 1791
[5] Gideon J. Tucker (1866), (popularized by Mark Twain, ?date)
Bill Illis says:
November 8, 2013 at 4:01 am
Can anyone name a place where the climate has changed enough in the last 30 years to require any “adaptation”.
As always , it depends what you mean by climate change.
The most profound climatic change that I , as an agriculturalist, will experience in my lifetime is the switch between phases of the PDO. Being wholly pastoral , without irrigation , my farm is a different place since about 1999, but entirely for the better in terms of productivity and ease of management. I can’t say that I’m really looking forward to the switch back to predominantly el Nino sometime around 2030 , but at least I do know how to prepare for the inevitability, having experienced it between 1975 and 1998.
For the Busy Scientist: Highlights (with comments!) from
“Sustainability” By Any Other Name Is Still a Lie
“Adaptation is required in virtually all sectors of the economy.”
Translation: CONTROL
“… how decisions get implemented and that climate is only one of many factors that will determine how people will adapt… ”
Translation: CONTROL
“… water districts, forest managers *** water supplies, irrigation for agriculture, and migration of fish…”
Translation: CONTROL
“Develop measures to establish adaptation science.”
Translation: CONTROL
Finally,
“…just the tip of the iceberg.”
Ah, ha! Here’s where the ol’ S.S. Beaver goes hard aground on Reality:
Their “iceberg” is a snowjob and it is melting rapidly as we speak — the OBVIOUSLY NONSENSICAL hot air belching from their mouths greatly speeding up the process. Keep running that mouth, Mote, lol.
******************************
So MANY great comments above — WUWT commenters are the BEST!
(can’t applaud them all, though I should…)
Nice summary, Mr. Rasey!
@ur momisugly Gary Pearse (and Gail Combs) — Excellent point. Engineers are marginalized for the same reason criminal defense attorney’s try to keep them off juries (see any legal seminar about jury selection aimed at defense counsel): they are too interested in the truth.
*********************
Mentioning 1984 was spot on.
(from memory only)
George Orwell
Tamara says:
There is a lot of criticism here, but I take this paper as a good sign. Mitigation relates to the future. Adaptation has to take place in the present.
No.
You are mixing up your concepts. WRT ‘global warming’, mitigation and adaptation are two different strategies for dealing with the problem. The difference between them is not temporal. Both may relate to the future, both may take place in the present.
That means present reality will have to be recognized by climate science.
No it doesn’t. As these rent seekers are approaching it, adaptation means dealing with their doom and gloom ‘global warming’ predictions with policies and infrastructure other than CO2 reduction schemes.
This paper is part of the climb down from alarmism, and it is coming from OSU. We should be tentatively pleased.
No. This paper is about keeping the money flowing to the ‘global warming’ scientists, and keeping their policy objectives moving forward, even though they have accepted that people are not going to buy into the carbon elimination plan right now.
Instead, they want you to buy into their environmental policies(keep the bears on the ESL), and land use planning policies (you can’t build there), water use planning policies (you can’t have that water), public works programs, etc, etc, etc. This is still 100% ‘global warming’. They aren’t backing down 1 inch from the scary story, they are just reprioritizing their demands.
In recent decades China has dramatically built up its flood control and irrigation infrastructure, thus enhancing its hydroelectric output considerably, and saving millions of lives during the rainy seasons that earlier in the 20th century killed tens of millions of people altogether.
Over the same time span, the cities of New York and Philadelphia did not improve their defenses against heavy rains and storm surges.
Lack of information was not the key difference between the regions.
We already have the most important information that we need, namely the historical records of rains, flooding, droughts, tornadoes and other storms in each region. With or without CO2-induced changes, such variability will re-occur.
ROM says:
November 8, 2013 at 4:07 am
“Spiegel on line”.
“A Brighter, Dimmer Future: Germany’s Saviors of the Night” which deals with the problem of light pollution from a German astronomers point of view .
I d say they’re intellectually “in the dark”.
@ur momisugly J. J. (re: 11:19am today) Precise and accurate. And well said.
(from post title) “adaptation not alarmism” is, unfortunately, mistaken.
A couple of corrections from my last comment, I meant the opposites.
Perhaps Mote should consider further the way people in groups adapt.
For example how a village reacts to a fool, who repeatedly cries”Wolf” when there is none.
We are adapting to a society where endless false fears are promoted by the media(Presstitutes), quoting self proclaimed “Scientists”.
First we learn to ignore them, but when their constant screeching drowns out the real and present dangers of our world, we start to turn on them.
Being staked out to meet the wolf is only appropriate retribution, for the person who’s clamour of “Wolf,Wolf,Wolf” allowed the fox to clean out the henhouse.
Course in Mote starts thinking, he will need to dig a moat.
In 1942 an early November snowstorm hit Minneapolis/St. Paul. It dropped 17 to 19 inches in < 24 hours. It took about 10 days to completely clear the streets and restore "normal" functionality to the Mpls/St. Paul area.
In 1991, a snowstorm started on Halloween. It lasted for 36 plus hours. It dropped 30 to 38 inches on the Mpls/St. Paul metro. It DID paralyze everything for about 30 hours. Complete drivability was restored within 48 hours.
Why? As the urban area grew bigger, more dependent on truck traffic, freeways, etc. We became MORE conscious of the damage a major snow storm could do. We became aware of the need to maintain drive-able streets during all conditions. NOW how do we evaluate this better "preparedness" in 91 compared to 42? Adaptation to "climate change"? Or just social/systems progress?
You should be aware that Mote is essentially a political appointee. Former Oregon Governor Ted Kulingoski instructed OSU’s administration to remove faculty member and state climatologist George Taylor and to replace him with Mote, a member of the faculty at the University of Washington.
Taylor’s removal was prompted by his open-minded approach to climate science and not adhering to the state’s policy position on the matter.
I hear the ISS (space station) is getting a bit gamey.