Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States pp 436–461Cite as

Moving Forward with Imperfect Information

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: NCA Regional Input Reports ((NCARIR))

Abstract

This chapter summarizes the scope of what is known and not known about climate in the Southwestern United States. There is now more evidence and more agreement among climate scientists about the physical climate and related impacts in the Southwest compared with that represented in the 2009 National Climate Assessment (Karl, Melillo and Peterson 2009). However, there remain uncertainties about the climate system, the complexities within climate models, the related impacts to the biophysical environment, and the use of climate information in decision making.

Chapter citation: Averyt, K., L. D. Brekke, D. E. Busch, L. Kaatz, L. Welling, and E. H. Hartge. 2013. “Moving Forward with Imperfect Information.” In Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment, edited by G. Garfin, A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S. LeRoy, 436–461. A report by the Southwest Climate Alliance. Washington, DC: Island Press.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

References

  • Boykoff, M. 2011. Who speaks for the climate? Making sense of media reporting on climate change. Port Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crosbie, R. S., J. L. McCallum, and G. R. Walker. 2011. The impact of climate change on dryland diffuse groundwater recharge in the Murray-Darling Basin. Waterlines Report No. 40. Canberra, Australia: National Water Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, H. J., S. Blenkinsop, and C. Tebaldi. 2007. Linking climate change modelling to impacts studies: Recent advances in downscaling techniques for hydrological modelling. International Journal of Climatology 27:1547–1578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, E., and R. Sutton. 2009. The potential to narrow uncertainty in regional climate predictions. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 90:1095–1107, doi: 10.1175/2009BAMS2607.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, E., and R. Sutton. 2011. The potential to narrow uncertainty in projections of regional precipitation change. Climate Dynamics 37:407–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iseman, T., and A. Schroder. 2012. Integrated planning: Transmission, generation and water in the western states. In The water-energy nexus in the American West, ed. D. Kenney and R. Wilkinson, chapter 15. Williston, VT: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karl, T. R., J. M. Melillo, and T. C. Peterson, eds. 2009. Global climate change impacts in the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning, M., M. Petit, D. Easterling, J. Murphy, A. Patwardhan, H-H. Rogner, R. Swart, and G. Yohe, eds. 2004. IPCC workshop on describing scientific uncertainties in climate change to support analysis of risk and of options, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland, 11–13 May, 2004: Workshop report. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastrandrea, M. D., C. B. Field, T. F. Stocker, O. Edenhofer, K. L. Ebi, D. J. Frame, H. Held, et al. 2010. Guidance note for lead authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/meetings/CGCs/Uncertainties-GN_IPCCbrochure_lo.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastrandrea, M. D., K. J. Mach, G-K. Plattner, O. Edenhofer, T. F. Stocker, C. B. Field, K. L. Ebi, and P. R. Matschloss. 2011. The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: A common approach across the working groups. Climatic Change 108:675–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAfee, S. A., J. L. Russell, and P. J. Goodman. 2011. Evaluating IPCC AR4 cool-season precipitation simulations and projections for impacts assessment over North America. Climate Dynamics 37:2271–2287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCright, A. M. 2011. Political orientation moderates Americans’ beliefs and concern about climate change. Climatic Change 104:243–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millner, A. 2012. Climate prediction for adaptation: Who needs what? Climatic Change 110:143–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milly, P. C. D., J. Betancourt, M. Falkenmark, R. M. Hirsch, Z. W. Kundzewicz, D. P. Lettenmaier, and R. J. Stouffer. 2008. Stationarity is dead: Whither water management? Science 319:573–574.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moss, R. H., and S. H. Schneider. 2000. Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR: Recommendations to lead authors for more consistent assessment and reporting. In Guidance papers on the cross cutting issues of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, ed. R. Pachauri, T. Taniguchi, and K. Tanaka, 33–51. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/guidance-papers-3rd-assessment.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakićenović, N., and R. Swart, eds. 2000. Report on emissions scenarios: A special report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/index.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Assessment Science Team. 2001. Climate change impacts on the United States: The potential consequences of climate variability and change. Report for the US Global Change Research Program. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://downloads.globalchange.gov/nca/ nca-2000-foundation-report.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). 2011. America’s climate choices. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon, N., and B. Fischhoff. 2011. The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nature Climate Change 1:35–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, D. W., T. Das, D. R. Cayan, E. P. Maurer, N. L. Miller, Y. Bao, M. Kanamitsu, et al.-2012. Probabilistic estimates of future changes in California temperature and precipitation using statistical and dynamical downscaling. Climate Dynamics, published online, doi: 10.1007/ s00382-012-1337-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichler, T., and J. Kim. 2008. Uncertainties in the climate mean state of global observations, reanalyses, and the GFDL climate model. Journal of Geophysical Research 113: D05106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risbey, J. S., and T. J. O’Kane. 2011. Sources of knowledge and ignorance in climate research. Climatic Change 108:755–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (SFBCDC). 2011. Living with a rising bay: Vulnerability and adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its shoreline. San Francisco: SFBCDC. http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/BPA/LivingWithRisingBay.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. 2008. Risk communication on climate: Mental models and mass balance. Science 322:532–533.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Trenberth, K. 2010. More knowledge, less certainty. Nature 4:20–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). 2009. Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientific uncertainty in climate decisionmaking, ed. M.G. Morgan, H. Dowlatabadi, M. Henrion, D. Keith, R. Lempert, S. McBride, M. Small, and T. Wilbanks. Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2 Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Washington, DC: Global Change Research Information Office. http://downloads.globalchange.gov/sap/sap5-2/sap5-2-final-report-all.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waage, M. D., and L. Kaatz. 2011. Nonstationary water planning: An overview of several promising planning methods. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 47:535–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilby, R. L., and I. Harris. 2006. A framework for assessing uncertainties in climate change impacts: Low-flow scenarios for the River Thames, UK. Water Resources Research 42: W02419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Colorado Boulder, Newyork, USA

    Kristen Averyt

  2. Bureau of Reclamation, Newyork, USA

    Levi D. Brekke

  3. U.S. Geological Survey, Newyork, USA

    David E. Busch

  4. Denver Water, Newyork, USA

    Laurna Kaatz

  5. National Park Service, Newyork, USA

    Leigh Welling

  6. Stanford University, Newyork, USA

    Eric H. Hartge

  7. Western Governors’ Association, Newyork, USA

    Tom Iseman

Authors
  1. Kristen Averyt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Levi D. Brekke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David E. Busch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laurna Kaatz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Leigh Welling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eric H. Hartge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tom Iseman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of the Environment, University of Arizona, N. Park Ave Ste. 532 845, 85721, Tucson, Arizona, USA

    Gregg Garfin

  2. University of Arizona, USA

    Angela Jardine , Robert Merideth , Mary Black  & Sarah LeRoy , ,  & 

Endnotes

Endnotes

  1. i

    See http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0.

  2. ii

    See http://wrf-model.org.

  3. iii

    Grid boxes are 100 miles on each side in the GCM, compared with 30 miles square in the RCM (with more than a ten-fold increase in resolution).

  4. iv

    See San Francisco Bay Plan, http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/laws_plans/plans/sfbay_plan. Since its original adoption in 1968, the plan has been amended as warranted by new data, including in October 2011, as explained in the text.

  5. v

    Climate projections based on scenarios of future emissions are inherently uncertain. Climate models were initially built as experiments intended to facilitate understanding of the physical processes driving climate systems—not to predict specific, optimal outcomes. Rather, projections emerging from climate models can provide suites of potential futures. At this point, even significant investment in computational models may not significantly increase the certainty of climate projections. However, despite their uncertainties, climate model outputs are being incorporated into decision making processes in different sectors, at different geographic scales, across the Southwestern US. Simply, uncertainty related to future climate (whether physical, biological, or regulatory) is not impeding the use of climate information in decision making.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Institute of the Environment

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Averyt, K. et al. (2013). Moving Forward with Imperfect Information. In: Garfin, G., Jardine, A., Merideth, R., Black, M., LeRoy, S. (eds) Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States. NCA Regional Input Reports. Island Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-484-0_19

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation