I. Overview

The second official meeting of the U.S. National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST) took place August 23-28 at the J. Eric Jonsson Center in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. The meeting was chaired by Jerry Melillo and Tony Janetos, the co-chairs of the NAST.

Two new members of the NAST participated in the meeting: Virginia Burkett of the U.S. Geological Survey, and John H. Gibbons, former Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy who is joining in an ex officio capacity and as liaison to the Review Panel (still to-be-formed). In total, eleven of twelve members of the Synthesis Team participated in all or part of the meeting. There were also twenty-three additional participants, including representatives of four of five sector teams, and leaders representing the Interregional Forum, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Assessment Working Group and the National Assessment Coordination Office.

II. Attendance

The following members of the Synthesis Team participated in the meeting:

• Eric Barron, Pennsylvania State University
• Virginia Burkett, U.S. Geological Survey
• John H. Gibbons, former Office of Science and Technology Policy (ex-officio)
• Tony Janetos, NASA Headquarters (Co-Chair)
• Linda Joyce, USDA Forest Service
• Tom Karl, NOAA Climatic Data Center
• Jerry Melillo, Woods Hole MBL (Co-Chair)
• Barbara Miller, Rankin International/World Bank
• Edward Parson, Harvard/Kennedy School of Government
• Richard Richels, Electric Power Research Institute
• David Schimel, National Center for Atmospheric Research

The following additional participants were at all or part of the meeting:

• Susan Bernard, Johns Hopkins University (health sector)
• Rosina Bierbaum, Office of Science and Technology Policy (Associate Director for Environment)
• Lynne Carter, National Assessment Coordination Office
• Robert Corell, National Science Foundation (Chair, Subcommittee on Global Change Research)
• Paul Dresler, Department of Interior (Chair, National Assessment Working Group)
• Dave Easterling, NOAA National Climatic Data Center
• Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute (water sector co-chair)
• Michael MacCracken, National Assessment Coordination Office
• LaShaunda Malone, National Assessment Coordination Office
• Curt Mason, NOAA Coastal Programs (coastal sector)
• Jonathan Patz, Johns Hopkins University (health sector co-chair)
• Hugh Pitcher, Battelle/Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
• Cynthia Rosenzweig, NASA Goddard (Metropolitan East Coast region)
• Don Scavia, NOAA Coastal Programs (coastal sector co-chair)
• Melissa Taylor, National Assessment Coordination Office
• Nestor Terlickyj, NPA Data Services, Inc.
• Dave Vogt, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
• Justin Wettstein, National Assessment Coordination Office
• Tom Wilbanks, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Chair, Interregional Forum)

III. Welcome and Objectives

The Co-Chairs of the Synthesis Team outlined the objective for the meeting: to develop a first-order draft of the Synthesis Report outline that would be reviewed by regions and sectors, and would have a lifespan of about two months before a next draft was developed. In addition, the meeting would aim to develop a strategy for drafting the Synthesis Report making optimal use of the various parallel assessment efforts by regions and sectors, and assuring that the key information from these efforts is eventually integrated into the Report.

IV. Synthesis Report Outline

The development of the Synthesis Report outline provided the overall framework for the meeting, with some sessions focused on the overall outline and others on developing specific pieces of the outline. The draft outline developed throughout the course of the meeting contains an Executive Summary, and sections covering introductory materials, past and future conditions in the U.S. (including discussion and description of scenarios used), regions (both summary information and "examples"), sectors (both summary information and "examples"), and synthesis (combining regions and sectors, and exploring cross-cutting issues). Primers are also proposed to cover climate change science, the climate policy domain, and possibly other key areas. The following was formulated as a next step:

• The Synthesis Report outline developed in Woods Hole will be circulated to National Assessment participant teams for comments and additional development leading to a working draft; this new draft and further revisions will be discussed at the next Synthesis Team meeting, November 16-17 in Washington DC (see Timetable).

V. Climate Scenarios

The Synthesis Team discussed the climate scenario component of the National Assessment. Topics included the need to provide easy-to-use information to assessment teams, and the need for assessment teams to use multiple approaches (historical, GCM, and the exploration of qualitative changes) to develop a range of information about sensitivities and potential impacts. Members clarified that over the past few months, it has become clear that using one GCM (Canadian Climate Model) is insufficient, and so additional models have been brought into the mix [See Summary table below]. However, the Canadian Climate Model is still the primary GCM: if a team can only use one model, the Canadian Model is recommended.

The Synthesis Team developed the following recommendations:

• There is a need to develop maps for the assessment teams that will delineate temperature and rainfall ranges; thinking is needed about how to present the climate scenario information to the teams due to the broadening from one central model (GCM) to multiple models.
• While much emphasis has seemingly been placed on GCMs, historical data and the search for qualitative changes are still as important and are considered primary tools in this assessment. Each of the three approaches has advantages and disadvantages, and so the full suite of approaches provides a comprehensive understanding of sensitivities, potential impacts, and system boundaries.
• There is a great need to clarify the coordination mechanism for the climate scenario component, since this has proliferated to include many different components and groups.

VI. Socioeconomic Scenarios

The Synthesis Team discussed progress in developing the socioeconomic scenario component of the National Assessment. This approach was presented to regional and sectoral teams at a meeting in Monterey, California in late July; Synthesis Team members at this Woods Hole meeting discussed the reaction to the proposed approach. In particular, it was felt that the emphasis on the 2×2 matrix had not adequately communicated the underlying principles that were being emphasized by this approach, and that the principles should be emphasized rather than the matrix (see Socioeconomic Scenarios...). In addition, there were discussions about the baseline information and projections being developed through Oak Ridge National Laboratory with the support of the Department of Energy; many elements are being tasked to the NPA Data Services, Inc. (see Socioeconomic Forecasts...).

The Synthesis Team formulated the following action items:

• Synthesis Team members will redraft the socioeconomic scenarios framework document to emphasize the principles intended to underlie the 2×2 matrix; these will be emphasized rather than the matrix itself.
• Synthesis Team members will continue discussions with the NPA Data Services, Inc./Oak Ridge National Laboratory about development of baseline information and projections (conference call week of September 1).
• Synthesis Team members involved in developing the socioeconomic scenario component will channel anything new that develops into the Synthesis Report outline.

**NOTE: All scenario products are now linked directly to the National Assessment web site. Go to http://www.nacc.usgcrp.gov/ and click on "Scenarios" to access table.

VII. Regional Contributions

The Woods Hole meeting binder contained a table developed by the regional assessment teams illustrating key issues and emerging themes. For approximately three days, the Synthesis Team members used the information from this table, and from regional workshop reports and other supporting materials to explore different regional examples which could serve as stories to illustrate major themes and key impacts in the Synthesis Report. Within the overall Synthesis Report, it is envisioned that there will be both background information on regions throughout the country, and key examples to illustrate major themes.

The Synthesis Team decided on the following next steps:

• The Synthesis Team will send drafts of the relevant examples sketched out at the Woods Hole meeting to relevant regional leaders (in many cases, examples spanned several of the "20" assessment regions); regional leaders will be asked to indicate whether or not the example is on the right track and if so, to begin to help develop the example more completely. [Specifically, regional leaders will be asked if the Synthesis Team has picked the right example; if it is the right example but the wrong data; or if it is the right example, but the wrong generalization].
• After some iterations with the regional representatives, the Synthesis Team will provide a summary of the whole set.

However, it should be emphasized again that the Synthesis Report will contain both background/summary information on regions throughout the country, and these vignettes to illustrate key themes.

VIII. Sectoral Contributions

On Thursday and Friday, representatives of four of the five sectors participated in the meeting. They had an opportunity to develop the sectoral section of the Synthesis Report and to explore key issues and possible examples in breakout groups. Given that most sectors are just getting started, it was decided to use the information and examples developed as placeholders in the Synthesis Report outline.

The Synthesis Team discussed additions and revisions to their timetable. The next meeting is scheduled for November 16-17, 1998 in Washington, DC.

X. Review Process

The Synthesis Team discussed the formation of the Blue Ribbon Review Panel, to assure responsiveness to reviewer comments. Specifically, members discussed the need to engage the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), as well as to identify an existing FACA mechanism that could be organized and respond quickly.

The Synthesis Team developed the following recommendation:

• Pursue a hybrid strategy that utilizes both the NAS and an existing body such as PCAST;
• Use a PCAST Subcommittee as the overall mechanism;
• Have NAS do targeted reviews of methodologies, model approaches, and so on at vaqrious stages of the process.
• Have the PCAST Subcommittee identify Review Editors (experts in the field) who will do more labor-intensive analysis of the responsiveness to review comments and will provide summary memos to the PCAST Subcommittee members.

However, it will be the responsibility of SGCR/CENR/NSTC (Corell, Bierbaum, Lane) to evaluate and implement a strategy for this Review Panel.

XI. Post-2000

Paul Dresler, the Chair of the SGCR National Assessment Working Group made a presentation on the National Assessment "Post-2000". Specifically, he reviewed the array of options for the objectives, management structure, elements, funding mechanisms, etc. As a next step, the National Assessment Working Group, in conjunction with all other National Assessment elements, will continue to work on a plan for the post-2000 period. A preliminary proposal will be drafted in the next ~3 months.

XII. Certification

I certify that these Minutes accurately reflect discussions at this Meeting:

Melissa J. Taylor, Rapporteur