AMS Town Hall Meeting Comment Summary

Paul Try (International GEWEX Project Office) "You should put the high impact topics up front like implications for society, and so on. Also, you might consider referencing IPCC on the importance of the hydrologic cycle as part of the rationale."

Roger Pielke Sr. (Colorado State University): "You should be careful to state that acceleration of hydrologic cycle as possible result of green house gas increases is a hypothesis, not a known fact. Just because the IPCC says so doesn’t make it true. It would be better to focus on human-induced changes in the water cycle, including all anthropogenic effects, like land use change, rather than just greenhouse gases."

Alan Robock (Rutgers University): "What’s not included, i.e., how would this program be different than others that are studying climate change?"

Steve Hu (University of Nebraska) "How will groundwater, and groundwater/surface water interactions be handled?"

Jack Bates (NOAA) "This study came about as a result of the NRC Pathways Report, which identified the global water cycle as a priority area. That report, which constituted NRC advice to USGCRP, somewhat constrains the range of what this group is charged with undertaking."

Wayne Higgins (NOAA): "Are changes in the frequency of extreme events excluded (in response to panel comment that scope of plan will not include weather, given that committee is responding to USGCRP, which has responsibility for climate, not weather)." Panel response: changes in frequency of extremes are considered within the realm of climate, but forecasting extremes is not.

Alan Betts (Atmospheric Research): "It isn’t clear what Science Question 1 really includes, and what it is necessary. Is it just characterization?"

Pete Robertson (NASA/MSFC): "I’m uneasy about the focus on predictability in Science Question 2, and especially how this could be done without including the ocean. Even though ocean circulation may not be appropriate to include, the group has to recognize that the ocean is a primary driver of climate, and S/I variability."

Dan Cayan (Scripps/USGS) "The CLIVAR basin scale experiment plans for the Pacific and Atlantic are evolving, there is a need for coordination with the U.S. CLIVAR group on this."

Yogesh Sud (NASA/GSFC): "Everything seems to be in the outline, but …. The plan should focus on what we need to do things better, especially weak links. The land surface is a weak link in climate understanding, perhaps its better to put the focus there, rather than including areas where reasonable progress is being made now." Note: the general response of the panel and interagency W.G. is to the effect that it’s not wise to leave out areas where progress is being made now, as they might end up being seen as "low priority", and wither.

Alan Robock (Rutgers University): "There should be a strong emphasis that ‘people live on land’, make this the thrust."

Yogesh Sud (NASA/GSFC): "Changes in the water cycle due to human intervention should be the focus. Note that this is a weak point in most coupled land-atmosphere models, for instance irrigation isn’t represented at all in any GCMs, nor in most mesoscale climate models."

Alan Betts (Atmospheric Research): "I applaud inclusion of Science Question 3 (links with carbon and nutrient cycles), these research efforts need to be better coordinated".

Ted Cress (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory): "The report should note the importance of leveraging from ongoing studies and programs, emphasize that we aren’t starting from zero. There should be an introductory section indicating what we know now, and where do we need to go?"

Ken Kunkel (Illinois Climate Survey) "What will happen with the plan – i.e., who will read it, how will it impact the budget process?

Ted Cress (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory): "The observational element of the plan will be particularly important. What is the expected lifetime of the program?" (Some discussion seemed to suggest that about 1 decade is a "reasonable" planning horizon.)

John Roads (Scripps) "What is the uncertainty in the atmospheric hydrologic cycle relative to the land surface?"

Jinwon Kim (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory): The observational element needs more emphasis."

John Bates (NOAA): "The plane should consider the importance of monsoons, deserts, and droughts. Essentially droughts only have impacts over land, but not much progress has been made on forecasting droughts. This could be a major priority. Note, for instance, the effects of most recent El Nino on Indonesia. Droughts result from large scale atmospheric anomalies, and their interaction with the land surface, and have major impacts on societies. Perhaps one of the science questions could be built around drought."

Pete Robertson (NASA/MSFC): The plan will need to deal with water delivery from the oceans (evaporation), even if other aspects of the oceans are left out."

Alan Betts (Atmospheric Research): "There is a need for a parallel treatment of the energy cycle, which seems weak in the outline. Where are clouds and radiation in the plan? Are they in S.Q. 1? Especially over land, the radiation budget has critical implications for the water budget, the two can’t realistically be treated separately."

Ted Cress (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory): "It will be a challenge to capture all of the important topics, while keeping focus."

Brent Lofgren (NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory): "Freshwater lakes and wetlands are important elements of the water cycle, which are often handled poorly in present models. Also, how much of the cryosphere will be included." (Some discussion followed on lake ice, ephemeral snow, vs permanent snow and ice caps (Antarctica, Greenland). The sense was that former should probably be included, the latter probably not.)