Developing Human System Modules for Regional Climate Models

1. Developing Human System Modules for Regional Climate Models Jessie Cherry IARC/INE/ARSC@UAF Peter Larsen GSPP/LBNL@UC-Berkeley

2. Presentation Outline • “Old school” approach to the study of Human Dimensions (HD) of Climate Change; • Shortcomings with the “old school” approach; • Some examples of HD modeling; • Direct integration of HD into regional climate modeling (i.e., “new school”); • Implementation potential for particular sectors

3. General Climate-related Modeling Approaches Source: IPCC, 2007

4. Past Treatment of Human Dimensions • Second (or third-order) modeling runs; • Limited use of downscaled physical projections; • Few examples of model comparison/testing platforms and input/output sensitivity analyses; • Weighted index, Delphi, and/or subjective approaches are often employed; and • Stakeholder feedback often occurs later on in the development process, if at all.

5. Examples of Modeling HD: Alaska HD Project: “Estimating Risk to Alaska Public Infrastructure from Climate Change” (Larsen et al, 2008)

6. Examples of Modeling HD: Alaska

7. Examples of Modeling HD: California HD Project: “Estimating Risk to California Energy Infrastructure from Climate Change” (Sathaye et al, 2009)

8. Examples of Modeling HD: California

9. Past/Current HD Modeling Concerns The “old school” de-coupled HD approach: • creates a strong disconnect between the physical modeling and the climate impacts communities; • occasionally ignores stakeholder needs for timely policy and decision making; • often misses important feedbacks between human agents and the climate system; and • makes it difficult to compare and test alternative modeling techniques.

10. Some Arctic Human Dimensions…. • Resource Development • Hazard Response • Freshwater Supply • Renewable Energy (wind, hydro, geothermal) • Commercial and Sport Fishing/Hunting • Public and Private Infrastructure • Tourism • Subsistence Harvest • Marine Transport • Human Health

11. A “New School” HD Modeling Proposal…. • Develop Human System Modules directly into the Arctic System Modeling platform; • Make these modules portable and transparent between different regional models; • Encourage international collaboration; • Focus on producing multiple socioeconomic impact measures; and • Facilitate model testing, scenario development, stakeholder feedback, etc.

12. Some Thoughts on Climate/HD Model Interactions • Need not occur at each model time step (e.g., hours vs. planning decades); • One or two-way coupling may be appropriate depending on the system (e.g., GHG emissions); and • Socioeconomic data collection and dissemination will need to be substantially improved; • Quantifying coupled model uncertainty is very important, but difficult to communicate.

13. Some Thoughts on Communicating Uncertainty in HD Impacts… Source: Larsen et al (2008) Three different AOGCMs Monte-carlo Simulation (varied inputs)

14. More Thoughts on Uncertainty in HD Impact Estimates… Harvard Economics Professor Martin Weitzman noted in a seminal 2008 paper that fat-tailed structural uncertainty about climate change, coupled with a lack of information about high-temperature damages, can potentially outweigh the influence of discounting in a cost-benefit analysis framework.

15. What are the Challenges? • Training and supporting interdisciplinary researchers may be the biggest challenge; • Pan-Arctic data collection and management is another major challenge; • Stakeholder engagement is time-consuming and expensive; • Some research disciplines are further along in the evolution of systems modeling; and • User-friendly “decision support tools” will need to be developed in close collaboration with stakeholders.

16. Why include HD modules directly into an ASM? • There are (some) appropriate existing regional HD models; • We have the computing resources; • We can attempt to minimize miscommunications between the physical and social scientists across the Arctic; • It’s interesting and policy-relevant work at the frontiers of research!!!

17. Questions?

18. Additional Information • International Arctic Research Center at UAF: www.iarc.uaf.edu • Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy (ACCAP): www.uaf.edu/accap/ • State of Alaska Climate Change Materials: www.climatechange.alaska.gov • E.O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: www.lbl.gov • Goldman School of Public Policy: www.gspp.berkeley.edu Note: This presentation includes personal views of Peter Larsen.

20. Climate Change Planning Walsh & Chapman: PRISM downscaled multi-model projections of temperature and precipitation for AK under various scenarios of Greenhouse Gas emissions

21. Integrated Assessment Definition: any model which combines scientific and socio-economic aspects of climate change primarily for the purpose of assessing policy options for climate change control (Kelly & Kolstad, 1998)

22. Integrated Assessment Modeling McGuffie & Henderson-Sellers, 2005

23. Integrated Assessment Models McGuffie & Henderson-Sellers, 2005

24. Example of Human System Module Goal is to be model independent; work with CCSM and other models/ couplers Cherry

25. Communicating uncertainty

26. New Scientific Methodology? Funtowicz & Ravetz, in Ecological Economics, 1991

27. Arctic human dimensions • Oil and Gas Module (spill transport) • Rural Resilience (wind power potential) • Coastal Erosion (evolving coastline) • Freshwater (hydropower, water supply) • Marine Fisheries (Bering ecosystem) • Marine Transport (ice cover trajectories)

28. BSIERP Lower Trophic Level Ecosystem Model Predation Losses Euphausiids Detritus 14 component Model NPZD-Benthos Neocalanus Pseudocalanus Large microzooplankton Small microzooplankton Small Phytoplankton Large Phytoplankton Iron Nitrate Ammonium Benthic Detritus Benthic Infauna Benthos

29. BSIERP BSIERP Vertically Integrated models Economic/ecological model FEAST Higher trophic level model NPZ-B-D Lower trophic level ROMS Physical Oceanography Nested models BEST Climate scenarios

30. Infrastructure Impact of Climate Change on Infrastructure study done for Alaska by Peter Larsen and collaborators

31. Depr.Matrix Others Climate Projections APID Infrastructure_DB_09_28_06.sas Import_Wx_UAF_NCAR_10_10_06.sas DNR DRM UAF GI NCAR Denali $ DCCED Depreciator_10_10_06b.sas Tables Flow Chart of Model Processes Graphs

32. ISER Public Infrastructure Study

33. Wind Farm Parameterization for WRF Adams & Keith Modification of the MYJ PBL scheme Similar work being done commercially by 3TIER, AER, others

34. MMS-WRF winds 1

35. MMS-WRF winds 2

36. MMS-WRF winds 3

37. MMS-WRF winds 4

38. AEA Energy Atlas, 2007 Hydropower AEA

39. Ship track

40. Example of Climate-Related Decision Support https://rsgis.crrel.usace.army.mil/aedis/