I. Overview

The tenth official meeting of the U. S. National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST) took place August 24, 2000 at the Governor Calvert House in Annapolis MD. The meeting was chaired by Jerry Melillo, Tony Janetos, and Tom Karl, the Co-chairs of the NAST. Eleven of the thirteen members of the NAST participated in all or part of the meeting. There were also 14 additional attendees.

II. Attendance

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

• Eric Barron, Pennsylvania State University
• Virginia Burkett, U. S. Geological Survey
• Thomas Cecich, Glaxo-Wellcome, Inc.
• Robert Corell, American Meteorological Society
• Katharine Jacobs, Arizona Department of Water Resources
• Tony Janetos, World Resources Institute (Co-chair)
• Linda Joyce, USDA Forest Service
• Tom Karl, NOAA National Climatic Data Center (Co-chair)
• Jerry Melillo, Marine Biology Laboratory, Woods Hole (Co-chair)
• Barbara Miller, World Bank
• Granger Morgan, Carnegie Mellon University

Other attendees for all or part of the meeting included:

• Peter Backlund, Office of Science and Technology Policy
• Rosina Bierbaum, Office of Science and Technology Policy
• Lynne Carter, National Assessment Coordination Office
• Philip Cooney, American Petroleum Institute
• David Easterling, National Climatic Data Center
• Ben Felzer, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
• John H. Gibbons, National Academy of Engineering
• Paul Grabhorn, Grabhorn Associates
• Susan Hassol, Aspen Global Change Institute
• Michael MacCracken, National Assessment Coordination Office
• LaShaunda Malone, National Assessment Coordination Office
• Randy Randol, Exxon-Mobil
• Joel Smith, Stratus Consulting
• Tom Spence, National Science Foundation

III. Welcome and Objectives

The meeting convened at 8:10 AM. Co-chair Melillo welcomed everyone and explained that the objective of the meeting was to review the key issues arising in the comments received during the public comment period and to agree on how they would be dealt with. He explained that the public comment period had run 61 days from June 12 through August 11 and that over 300 sets of comments had been received. He indicated that the National Assessment Coordination Office (NACO) had collated the comments received and relevant comments had been distributed to NAST liaisons for consideration. He indicated that a full set of the comments was available at the meeting for the NAST and for public inspection, and would be on file at National Science Foundation. He went on to explain that the Co-chairs had met in a writing session from August 14-18 with NACO staff and the editor/designer to go over the comments, make straightforward corrections and changes, and to identify comments requiring NAST consideration. He explained that the meeting agenda would include a public comment period, a review of major comments on the Overview in plenary, a review of comments on Foundation chapters in three subgroups, and then a final plenary to review all items, indicate concurrence and identify final steps in the process. He indicated that a notebook of comments received since the public comment period closed was also available.

Tom Spence of NSF expressed the appreciation of all the agencies for the efforts of the NAST members.

IV. Public Comment Period

Co-chair Melillo summarized the ground rules for the one-hour public comment period, namely that this was an opportunity for any member of the public to comment to the NAST.

Mr. Philip Cooney of the American Petroleum Institute (API) addressed the NAST. He indicated that those staff members of API that had participated in the technical review process had found it worthwhile and appreciated the opportunity to comment. He indicated that he would make three points: (1) He wanted to know why the initial drafts of the NAST reports were so biased with negative impacts and had a pervasive negative bias. He indicated that he did not think it should be left to the peer review process to deal with gross and pervasive bias. (2) He indicated that many printers had been broken in trying to download the NAST report files for the 60-day public comment period, and that this was a reason for requesting an extension of the review period. He also indicated that he felt the review period should be extended because not all of the bedrock documents (i.e., the regional and sectoral reports) were available during the review period and so there could not be a comparison of the NAST reports with the bedrock reports. He indicated that he believed the review was thus not in compliance with the Congressional guidance. He indicated that he hoped late comments would be considered. (3) He indicated that he felt there were a couple of fatal flaws in the process: (a) the fact that climate models cannot provide reliable regional predictions creates an underlying bias in the results; (b) the CO₂ and CH₄ emissions scenarios on which the model simulations are based vastly exceed recent scenarios and projections; and (c) the handling of uncertainties is not sufficient or professional (as indicated in the MIT comments that he had reviewed the previous night).

No other members of the public requested to speak to the NAST, and the public comment period was closed, allowing that any member of the public coming prior to 9:30 AM would be asked if they cared to offer comments to the NAST (no one came and asked to so speak).

Co-chair Melillo distributed a new working version of the NAST Overview report for consideration (copies were also made available for public inspection). This version of the report had been prepared by the NAST Co-chairs in response to public comments. He indicated that, in addition to a number of minor revisions, there were a number of key items for consideration by the NAST.

1. The use of GCMs to generate climate scenarios. Co-chair Melillo indicated that a number of comments seemed to miss the notion of the use of scenarios and that, while everyone agreed models could not make regional predictions, their results could be used to generate plausible scenarios. He reiterated that scenarios were a common approach for many sectors of society dealing with uncertain situations. To correct the lack of understanding, he indicated that text had been added to the Overview document. A number of items came up in the NAST discussion: that it needed to be made clear that the model results do not necessarily span the full range of possible futures; that systematic differences between models and observed regional conditions had been dealt with through the VEMAP normalization process (which needed to be more fully explained); that the connection between climate scenarios and impacts might need more elaboration; and that there is actually a broader base of information that is being drawn upon.
2. The reality of the emissions scenario used by the models. The model simulations used by the National Assessment are an approximation to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) IS92a scenario, and there have been questions about whether this scenario is sufficiently realistic compared to the new IPCC 2000 (SRES) scenarios. To provide context for the scenario used, a new diagram has been constructed that compares net forcing due to greenhouse gases and aerosols to cumulative carbon emissions during the 21st century. This diagram includes information on all of the IPCC's IS92 and SRES scenarios, and indicates that the two sets of scenarios are generally quite consistent, and that the radiative forcings used by the models are near the middle of the range in the new scenario set (although the CO₂ emissions for the 1% equivalent CO₂ case are a bit higher than have been observed during the 1990s, the assumed growth in sulfate aerosols over the 21st century is also quite high, so the net forcing is quite comparable to the newer scenarios). Co-chair Karl indicated that these changes in forcings were causing the IPCC in their 2000 draft report to propose raising the upper limit of projected global warming by the year 2100, so concerns about the scenario generating too much warming seem unfounded. Co-chair Melillo also pointed out that were the rate of increase in CO₂ emissions to be reduced, there would be less positive benefit from CO₂ fertilization, so that going to a different emissions scenario might reduce some kinds of effects while adversely affecting others. Discussion focused on how to make sure the various points were clearly conveyed.
3. The treatment of uncertainty. Co-chair Melillo indicated that there had been a number of comments on how uncertainties were being dealt with, particularly from the MIT group. He indicated that their proposal of interviewing people to get at estimated numerical values of uncertainties and then to do statistics on those was one approach, but that it also had a number of shortcomings. NAST member Granger Morgan defended the current approach of using conditional statements as relatively straightforward and appropriate. Discussions focused on how best to present the results.
4. The formulation of the Key Findings. A number of adjustments were proposed in the Co-chairs draft to address comments about the key findings and members considered a few further adjustments of wording for clarity and balance (e.g., to make a statement that the expected warming could also be above or below the selected range as a result of the use of different emissions scenarios or shortcomings in the climate models).
5. The summary 2-page spread of climate change impacts. Co-chair Melillo indicated that there were suggestions to add a point about impacts on urban areas, although it was not clear what point was being suggested. A few other wording adjustments were discussed (e.g., regarding the impacts on coral reefs). It was also agreed that the state of Virginia would continue to be included with the Southeast, although some issues faced by those in the northeastern sections of the state are actually covered in the Northeast section.
6. Climate and Ecosystems sections. Co-chair Melillo indicated that a few wording changes were being made. He also indicated that the table of model projected changes was being rechecked and would likely change slightly. From the floor, Mr. Randol asked that model names be listed by country rather than by center; the NAST members indicated that, for a number of reasons, including the requests of the groups and that some countries had more than one center, this would not be appropriate. Mr. Randol also asked that the late comments from David Legates be considered in revision of the climate foundation chapter.
7. Northeast section. To achieve better balance across regional sections of the report and to include mention of several key issues that had previously not been covered, 2 pages of text were added to the Northeast section of the report. NAST member Eric Barron summarized the new issues covered. Comments focused on ensuring consistency with the Health section of the report.
8. Other regional sections. As a result of only limited comments, only a few minor changes were made to the various other regional sections, generally to graphics and captions.
9. Agriculture section. Some rewriting was done to make sure that model results were not qualified by the lexicon, whereas more general conclusions were appropriately caveated. Other updates are also now included. Also, a point needs to be added to make sure it is clear that the conclusions about agriculture all assume that federal policies will remain generally consistent.
10. Water section. A few adjustments to figures were to be done, and a few more words added about the importance of changes in snowpack. Tom Karl reported on the new results relating increase in intense precipitation to changes in runoff, indicating that a new paper now accepted for publication clears up a number of the issues.
11. Health section. Co-chair Melillo indicated that this section had required the most reconsideration, mainly because there are two rather polarized viewpoints, one view is that there is high confidence that the American public health and health care systems can readily adapt, and the other is that there is increased potential vulnerability that is likely to require significant adaptation. To accommodate these views, a number of revisions have been made to the text, and care has been taken to ensure consistency with the views of the health sector team.
12. Coastal and Forestry sections. No significant changes.
13. Conclusions. The part of the Conclusions section dealing with health issues have been modified in accord with suggested changes from the health sector team. In addition, some of the other text has been modified and some additional points added in response to the public comments.

Just before the lunch break, Dr. Rosina Bierbaum of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was invited to address the NAST. She indicated how pleased OSTP was that the NAST had gotten so near the end point, and encouraged continued effort to complete the task. She thanked the NAST members for their intensive and dedicated efforts, indicating that great progress had been made over the course of the assessment, with much work and many journal articles spawned and with many thousands of people involved. She indicate that a lot of work at the regional and sectoral level will continue as a path toward helping the public and institutions build resiliency and reduce vulnerability. She indicated that the NAST's recommendations on research directions would be much appreciated and would be very important to the USGCRP long-range planning effort. In closing, she again complimented the NAST members for serving as "civil scientists," recognizing the dedication and effort this requires.

The NAST broke for lunch at 12:25 and returned to plenary session at 1:05 PM.

1. Research section. As a result of agency comments on the draft research section, both as part of the official comment period and as a result of meetings of the Co-chairs with agency program leaders, the research section has been rewritten and a new draft is now available. Extensive discussion on the new draft commenced, covering: the apparent sense of priorities and whether it was really appropriate and made the right points; the importance of indicating that it is not primarily limitations in the climate scenarios that are the issue, but rather shortcomings in assessment methods, means of presenting uncertainties, etc. A number of new ideas were raised, including, focusing climate studies on variability and extreme events, how the set of recommendations should be ordered and presented, the need to treat wildlife and biodiversity, the need to have a strategy that indicates the need for linking various aspects of the research endeavor together, the relative merits of a focus on new ideas and approaches versus on infrastructure, the need to have better ways for valuation and treatment of uncertainties, etc.

VI. NAST Discussion of Comments on its Foundation Report

The NAST broke up into three subgroups to consider the comments on the various chapters of the Foundation report. Each of the groups was led by one of the NAST Co-chairs.

1. Group A was chaired by Co-chair Karl, and included Dave Easterling, Kathy Jacobs, Joel Smith, Ben Felzer, Lynne Carter, and Mike MacCracken. (a) Climate chapter: Mike MacCracken listed a number of comments still to be addressed, including the emissions scenario diagram, the model estimates of temperature change, comments from David Legates, etc. He indicated that a revised draft should be completed in the next two weeks. (b) Midwest chapter. Dave Easterling reported that there were very few comments and that revision was straightforward. (c) Native chapter. Mike MacCracken reported that there were no comments received and that only a caption for a figure needed to be completed. (d) Water chapter. Kathy Jacobs reported that there were a number of minor changes, but that the only significant changes involved the ongoing issue relating to changes in streamflow from the changes in precipitation. Tom Karl reported on the new analyses that have now been accepted for publication and that this would lead to minor modification of the text. A response to the Legates comments, which were disagreed with, would also be prepared. (e) West chapter. Joel Smith reported that there were no substantive comments received and only minor changes were needed. (f) Islands. Lynne Carter reported that there were numerous comments on the chapter and quite a number of changes had been made in response, including strengthening the section on the Caribbean region. One remaining issue is the issue of sea-level rise over the Pacific. The complication is that the various islands are either rising or subsiding, so it is sometimes hard to see the global sea-level trend; the revised chapter will include a table of values at some points rather than a summary figure that in effect hides what is happening.
2. Group B was chaired by Co-chair Janetos, and included Eric Barron, Tom Cecich, Granger Morgan, Bob Corell, Tom Spence, and Randy Randol. (a) Health chapter. Tom Cecich reported that the chapter did not use the official lexicon, and that the health sector team chose not to do so. He indicated that they had signed off on the Overview. (b) Northeast. Eric Barron reported that few comments were received and the chapter was in good shape. (c) Socioeconomic, Alaska, and Pacific Northwest chapters. NAST liaison author Ted Parson was not in attendance, but Co-chair Janetos reported that comments received were being addressed. (d) Research chapter. Based on the earlier plenary discussion, extensive further discussion continued concerning how best to present the research recommendations. A number of suggestions were made and considered, especially with the issue of presenting how best to generate and use scenarios.
3. Group C was chaired by Co-chair Melillo, and included Linda Joyce, Virginia Burkett, LaShaunda Malone, and Peter Backlund. (a) Forest chapter. There were very minor changes to the forest chapter. (b) Agriculture. There was one outstanding issue on the Agriculture chapter involving the soil moisture section of the document. This issue was discussed with the NAST liaison (and later the leader of the Agriculture sector team). The document was revised following the NAST meeting. Additional references on pests were also added to the chapter. This document will be sent out after the meeting for NAST concurrence that it is ready to enter the NSTC process. (c) Coastal. There were very minor changes to the Coastal chapter. There were a few areas where measurements were converted so that numbers were listed in both metric and English measurements. (d) Southeast. There was discussion on the issues for which the state of Virginia was included in discussions in the Southeast chapter and whether issues relating to it were included in other portions of the NAST document. Minor clarifications were made. (e) Future Vegetation and Biogeochemical Models. This chapter had no major changes. Some references and figure citations were corrected.

VII. Plenary Discussion of Overall Status and Concurrence on Report

Chair Melillo asked each of the breakout leaders to report on the overall status of their discussions:

1. Group A: Co-chair Karl reported that the Native, Midwest, Islands, and Water chapters were all in good shape and should be accepted. He indicate that the revised climate chapter should be circulated to the NAST when available for concurrence.
2. Group B: NAST member Corell reported that the Socioeconomic, Northeast, Pacific Northwest, and Alaska chapters were all in good shape and should be accepted. He indicated that NAST member Cecich would work with the Health sector team on a revision to the health chapter and this would be circulated to the NAST for concurrence. The research chapter also needs to be revised once its overall form is agreed upon.
3. Group C: Co-chair Melillo reported that that the Ecosystems, Southeast, Great Plains, Forests, and Coastal chapters were all good shape and should be accepted. The Agriculture chapter needs a few more changes (dealing with issues of pests and soil moisture) and a revised version should be available in two weeks.

Based on these reports and the morning plenary discussion, the NAST concurred unanimously on the body of the Overview report, with the exception of the Research section. They also concurred on all of the Foundation chapters with the exception of those that would be circulated (i.e., Climate, Health, Agriculture, and Research).

VIII. Further Discussion of Research Directions

The NAST then continued discussion on the Research Directions section of the Overview and Foundation reports. Issues raised and considered included: the importance of getting better estimates of climate change; whether the section should discuss how to continue the assessment process; how to organize the various types of research needs; on the need for the two-way dialogue nature of the assessment process to be made clear; on possible alternative approaches to linking together the various aspects of the process; on the use of the word regional, and the possible alternative portrayal of assessment as being about relevance; etc.

In that a revised draft is needed quickly and there are different views about how to proceed, Co-chair Melillo asked NAST members Bob Corell and Eric Barron to each prepare new proposed drafts of the Overview section on research for consideration by the NAST over email over the next two weeks. The intent would be to get to a new chapter by Sept. 10.

IX. Discussion of Next Steps

Co-chair Melillo reviewed the next steps needed in order to get a revised draft prepared for review by the Blue Ribbon Panel and the NSTC. He indicated that the four outstanding chapters needed to be revised and circulated for concurrence, that the Acknowledgements section needed to be rechecked by everyone, the attributions of graphics needed to be carefully checked by everyone, etc.

With thanks and acknowledgements of the very hard efforts of everyone, the meeting was adjourned at about 5:10 PM.

X. Material Made Available for or at the Meeting

Materials distributed for consideration at or before the meeting (and provided for inspection by the public at the meeting) included:

• Collation of comments received during the Public Comment Period (including general and specific comments)
• Set of comments received subsequent to the public comment period
• Co-chairs proposed revision of the NAST Overview report
• Set of current versions of Foundation report chapters
• Set of news articles reporting on the release of the NAST reports for public comment
• Revised draft of Overview report

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

______________________________________________
Jerry M. Melillo, NAST Co-Chair