Tackling Human-Relevant Climate Change

[Kernos]

Three federal agencies announced the launch Monday of a joint program to predict climate change and its impacts on local scales over a few decades, information that decision makers will need to adapt to the inevitable. Obtaining such detail is an ambitious goal; computer models today yield seemingly reliable predictions of temperature and precipitation on continent-spanning scales at best. Under the Decadal and Regional Climate Prediction Using Earth System Models (EaSM) program, the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energy will kick in a total of $50 million a year for 5 years.

"People live in regions, not on the global mean," said NSF Director Arden Bement in announcing the initiative. "Our experience of climate change is always local." To move from the continent- and century-scale to the Midwest- or Northwest-scale and decade-scale, scientists from computer specialists to geoscientists to biologists will draw on the "petaflop" calculating power of current supercomputers, said Bement. At the same time, understanding of climate change, especially the chronic problem of the role of clouds and aerosols, must be improved as well, he conceded.

For more information: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?c ... &from=news

[Dendrias]

May I first give You some thoughts, then comment the source You gave?

I think it's nice, that "three federal agencies" develop programmes to generate predictions. I guess, it's not at their loss, looking at the figures. But, to be honest, I don't know how much $50 million a year will be for these agencies. "Local scales" are nice, as well, because no-one is more ignorant, than somebody who sees snow on a mountain and has to be informed about global warming. Or the other way round. What do I care about dust-bowls, when it's pouring cats and dogs here.
"information that decision makers will need to adapt to the inevitable" of course is shocking pessimism/realism, but what the heck does "adaptation" mean? And with that, read this: "understanding of climate change [...] must be improved as well."

The websites reads alike: "the program is designed to generate models that [...] can help decision-makers develop adaptation strategies addressing climate change"
Is it all about "adaptation"? There is no "action"! Where, along all the "more powerful, higher resoluted predictions" is something that will help, that can make the difference. Do these nsf-guys want to tell us, that prediction is all one can do about the future hurly-burly?

Now pick one from the catalogue, You'll get one free (at least): "prolonged droughts, increased ecosystem stress, reduced agriculture and forest productivity, altered biological feedbacks, degraded ocean and permafrost habitats and the rapid retreat of glaciers and sea ice." They will be delivered right to Your door.

Now, here it comes. Maybe, a few thousand dollars might be spent not on computing, but on action: "[the consequences] are expected to have major impacts on ecological, economic and social systems as well as on human health." So there will be more millions to be spent, by public hand and from private side.