Decision support experiments and evaluations using seasonal to ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The U.S. Climate Change Science Program Glossary and Acronyms 160 integrated water resource planning efforts to manage water by balancing supply and demand considerations through identifying feasible alternatives that meet the test of least cost without sacrificing other policy goals–such as depleted aquifer recharge, seasonal groundwater recharge, conservation, growth management strategies, and wastewater reuse knowledge-to-action networks the interaction among scientists and decision makers that results in decision-support system development; it begins with basic research, continues through development of information products, and concludes with end use application of information products; what makes this process a “system” is that scientists and users discuss what is needed as well as what can be provided; learn from one another’s perspectives; and try to understand one another’s roles and professional constraints Loading Dock model issuing forecasts with little notion of whether they will be used by other organizations–they are organizations that provide information to the public–but provide what they think are relevant for decision making without consulting the user to see if the information is useful objective hybrid forecasts forecast that uses some combination of objective forecast tools (typically, a combination of dynamical and statistical approaches) physical vulnerability the hazard posed to, for example, water resources and water resource systems by exposure to harmful natural or harmful technological events such as pollution, flooding, sea-level rise, or temperature change predictand a target variable used in statistics-based methods of forecasting probabilistic forecast a forecast that summarizes the results in terms of statistics of the forecast ensemble and presents the probabilistic forecast in terms of selected statistics, like probabilities of being more or less than normal sensitivity the degree to which people and the things they value can be harmed by exposure to a hazardous event; all other factors being equal, a water system with old infrastructure will be more sensitive to a flood or drought than one with state-ofthe-art infrastructure social vulnerability the social factors (e.g., level of income, knowledge, institutional capacity, disaster experience) that affect a system’s sensitivity to exposure to a hazardous event, and that also influences its capacity to respond and adapt to exposure statistical forecasts objective forecasts based on empirically determined relationships between observed predictors and predictands subjective consensus forecasts forecasts in which expert judgment is subjectively applied to modify or combine outputs from other forecast approaches water year or hydrologic year October 1st through September 30th; this reflects the natural cycle in many hydrologic parameters such as the seasonal cycle of evaporative demand, and of the snow accumulation, melt, and runoff periods in many parts of the United States
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACCAP Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy ACF Apalachicola–Chattahoochee– Flint river basin compact AHPS Advanced Hydrologic Prediction System AMO Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation CALFED California Bay–Delta Program CDWR California Department of Water Resources CEFA Center for Ecological and Fire Applications CFS Climate Forecast System (see NCEP) CLIMAS Climate Assessment for the Southwest Project CVP Central Valley (California) Project DO dissolved oxygen DOE U.S. Department of Energy DOI U.S. Department of the Interior DRBC Delaware River Basin Commission DSS decision support system ENSO El Niño–Southern Oscillation ESA Endangered Species Act ESP Ensemble Streamflow Prediction FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission GCM General Circulation Model ICLEI International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives ICPRB Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin INFORM Integrated Forecast and Reservoir Management project IJC International Joint Commission IPCC United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IWRP integrated water resource planning KAF thousand acre feet NCEP National Center for Environmental Predictions GFS Global Forecast System (see NCEP) MDBA Murray–Darling Basin Agreement MLR Multiple Linear Regression MOS Model Output Statistics NCRFC North Central River Forecast Center Decision-Support Experiments and Evaluations using Seasonal to Interannual Forecasts and Observational Data: A Focus on Water Resources NGOs non-governmental organizations NIFC National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, Idaho NRC National Research Council NSAW National Seasonal Assessment Workshop NWS National Weather Service NYCDEP New York City Department of Environmental Protection OASIS A systems model used for reconstructing daily river flows ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation PET potential evapotranspiration RGWM Regional Groundwater Model RISAs Regional Integrated Science Assessment teams SARP Sectoral Applications Research Program SECC Southeast Climate Consortium SFWMD South Florida Water Management District SI Seasonal to Interannual SPU Seattle Public Utilities SRBC Susquehanna River Basin Commission SST sea surface temperature SWE snow water equivalent SWP State Water Project (California) TOGA Tropical Ocean–Global Atmosphere TRACS Transition of Research Applications to Climate Services program TVA Tennessee Valley Authority USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USGS U.S. Geological Survey WMA Washington (D.C.) Metropolitan Area WRC U.S. Water Resources Council WSE Water Supply and Environment —a regulation schedule for Lake Okeechobee 161
Page 1 and 2:
Decision-Support Experiments and Ev
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ........
Page 7 and 8:
TABLE OF CONTENTS 5................
Page 9 and 10:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would
Page 11 and 12:
ABSTRACT Faced with mounting pressu
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
PREFACE Report Motivation and Guida
Page 17 and 18:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 WHAT IS DECI
Page 19 and 20:
• Improved bias corrections in ex
Page 21 and 22:
• • ness with customized produc
Page 23 and 24:
CHAPTER 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION Increasi
Page 25 and 26:
western United States and is the ba
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Study or Experiment Chapter CPC Sea
Page 31 and 32:
Study or Experiment Chapter Interpr
Page 33 and 34:
Study or Experiment Chapter Integra
Page 35 and 36:
Study or Experiment Chapter Regiona
Page 37 and 38:
Study or Experiment Chapter Murray-
Page 39 and 40:
Study or Experiment Chapter Integra
Page 41 and 42:
Study or Experiment Chapter Regiona
Page 43 and 44:
Study or Experiment Chapter Murray-
Page 45 and 46:
CHAPTER 2 KEY FINDINGS Decision-Sup
Page 47 and 48:
2.1 INTRODUCTION In the past, water
Page 49 and 50:
data and forecast products that sup
Page 51 and 52:
BOX 2.2: Forecast Approaches Decisi
Page 53 and 54:
cal elements, including models, dat
Page 55 and 56:
a sub-seasonal lead time, the singl
Page 57 and 58:
The hydrologic and water resources
Page 59 and 60:
forecasts link to CPC drought produ
Page 61 and 62:
losses of snowpack and the tendenci
Page 63 and 64:
At NCEP, the dynamical tool, CFS, i
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
2.4.1 Improving Seasonal-to- Intera
Page 69 and 70:
climate variations. The rationale f
Page 71 and 72:
2.4.2.2 improvementS in hydrologic
Page 73 and 74:
BOX 2.3: The CPC Seasonal Drought O
Page 75 and 76:
Koch’s research to operational pr
Page 77 and 78:
BOX 2.4: What Role Can a "Testbed"
Page 79 and 80:
satisfy all users. The Advanced Hyd
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
discuss impediments to forecast inf
Page 85 and 86:
Commission (SRBC) to pave the way f
Page 87 and 88:
BOX 3.1: Georgia Drought Decision-S
Page 89 and 90:
Figure 3.1 Water resources decision
Page 91 and 92:
frameworks for decision making are
Page 93 and 94:
Adaptive capacity is the least expl
Page 95 and 96:
tions, discussion, feedback, and re
Page 97 and 98:
water quality in downstream reservo
Page 99 and 100:
25 years, as predicted by the Energ
Page 101 and 102:
forecasting, however, is hampered b
Page 103 and 104:
3.2.5 Reliability and Trustworthine
Page 105 and 106:
mental conditions (e.g., demands fo
Page 107 and 108:
it must involve an extended group o
Page 109 and 110:
egional population and economic gro
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
to the gravity of its consequences.
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
including ecological restoration, r
Page 121 and 122:
For example, observed global sea-le
Page 123 and 124:
into the Pacific Ocean. The Norther
Page 125 and 126: leaders in considering climate chan
Page 127 and 128: and communities vulnerable to wildf
Page 129 and 130: tion patterns. There are concerns t
Page 131 and 132: forecasts in the region also enhanc
Page 133 and 134: knowledge, as well as development o
Page 135 and 136: obust communication in which each s
Page 137 and 138: Organizational measures to hasten,
Page 139 and 140: and, thus, able to span the domains
Page 141 and 142: in climate and weather (Garfin and
Page 143 and 144: local water supply sector: the grow
Page 145 and 146: investment” efforts and their eff
Page 147 and 148: time by the interest of groups to c
Page 149 and 150: Case Study F: Southeast Climate Con
Page 151 and 152: ect application of climate science
Page 153 and 154: a receptive audience for new tools
Page 155 and 156: strength offered by the case study
Page 157 and 158: CHAPTER 5 5.1 INTRODUCTION The futu
Page 159 and 160: poverty, and resources are required
Page 161 and 162: Fostering inclusive, equitable acce
Page 163 and 164: effective in managing problems, or
Page 165 and 166: 5.3.1 A Better Understanding of Vul
Page 167 and 168: on climate variability and water re
Page 169 and 170: apid development of better decision
Page 171 and 172: APPENDIX A Decision-Support Experim
Page 173 and 174: APPENDIX B Decision-Support Experim
Page 175: GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS adaptive capa
Page 179 and 180: REFERENCES References marked with (
Page 181 and 182: Atger, F., 2003: Spatial and intera
Page 183 and 184: Hughes, M.K. and P.M. Brown, 1992:
Page 185 and 186: of seasonal forecasts. Bulletin of
Page 187 and 188: Brandon, D., B. Udall, and J. Lowre
Page 189 and 190: Georgia Forestry Commission, 2007:
Page 191 and 192: Leatherman, S.P. and G. White, 2005
Page 193 and 194: Pringle, C.M., 2000: Threats to U.S
Page 195 and 196: Yarnal, B., A.L. Heasley, R.E. O’
Page 197 and 198: Gallaher, B.M. and R.J. Koch, 2004:
Page 199 and 200: McNie, E.C., 2007: Reconciling the
Page 201 and 202: * Trimble, P.J., E.R. Santee, and C
Page 203 and 204: Hartmann, H., 2001: Stakeholder Dri
Page 205 and 206: PHOTGRAPHY CREDITS Cover/Title Page
Page 207 and 208: Global Change Research Information
show all

Decision support experiments and evaluations using seasonal to ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?