On Feb 8, 4:47 am, "Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/6/07, Gareth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think Roger Pielke argues that since this is the case there is no hurry
> in determining a policy. I think "discount rate" economics formalizes that
> argument.
His most recent piece - Lifting the taboo on adaptation (linked at
Prometheus) - is interesting. While I don't agree with his framing of
the issue - it smacks of the "new middle ground" approach of setting
up a false dichotomy - I do think that near term policy has to address
adaptation issues, and urgently.
> Seasonal forecasting is pretty different from policy time scales.
>
> Do you have a reference? My impression is that this work is more akin to
> weather prediction than climate prediction. The models are similar but the
> sorts of information we expect to get out of them are very different.
I have a poster presentation from Smith, Cusack and Murphy -
Development of decadal climate prediction systems (Hadley Centre) - in
which they claim that HadCM3 fed with a new SST database can provide
meaningful temperature forecasts over a multiyear period (don't have
the link, sorry, but it is on the web as a pdf). They are operating in
the gap between "weather" and "climate" forecasting, and to my mind
they have the beginnings of an extremely valuable tool. If we are
experiencing rapid climate change, then finding a means to measure
that, and see where we're going in the near term is at least as
valuable as knowing that we have to mitigate to avoid the bad stuff in
100 years time.
> What specific policy actions do you think might be indicated regarding
> adaptation on the decadal time scale?
One of the keys, I think, will be knowing when change is happening.
Consider agricultural adaptation: if you wait until a particular crop
becomes uneconomic in a given place, you incur considerable economic
discomfort - the farmer only knows things are going wrong when he
starts making losses, and may seek govt support to keep him going.
Only when losses become unsustainable does change happen - and with
natural climate variability and political stubbornness, that can take
a long time.
One method that might be helpful is an extension of topoclimate
studies. These are techniques to map local climate, landform and soil
types, to provide field-scale information about crop suitability. Take
today's topoclimate, project it forward 10 years, and the range of
suitable crops may change. Looking at those changes could suggest
"better" crops for any given field taking expected climate changes
into account. The change in land use can be made in a planned, phased
way so as to minimise economic dislocation. This also depends
crucially on improvements in GCM regional scale projection skill.
> The policy question is what sorts of adaptation directly affect public
> infrastructure.
Policy as it impacts private infrastructure - farming being the
obvious example - is also directly relevant. Land use change can be
encouraged: from pastoral agriculture to silviculture, for instance.
> Off the top of my head I think this will have more to do with water (and in
> some locations with wind) than with temperature.
Water will always be a huge issue. Availability is all, as Australia
demonstrates. Near term forecasts of drought or excessive warmth would
help communities to plan for change - which may mean strategic
withdrawal in some areas. Again, early action will be much less costly
than disaster management.
> Should countries like the
> US and China which span a wide range of climates move their investments
> poleward and inland? Or should they buck the trend and shore up the
> shoreline and find water for the subtropics?
The entire Gulf coast as New Holland? I think strategic withdrawal
might be a better option - but to do that you have to persuade people
to move, to give up cherished seaside houses and marinas. The social
and political consequences are significant - but to get that sort of
action you need detailed local, decadal projections for change.
Thanks for picking this up Michael, it's an area I don't see discussed
much.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
