S&TR December 2017 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 4

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

S&TR December 2017 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 4 S&TR December 2017 Smoke from the 2016 Soberanes Fire in Monterey County, California—the costliest wildfire up to that time—begins to block out the Milky Way. Climate change makes droughts more likely and such fires more frequent and larger in scale. (Photo by Li Liu, M.D.) 4 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory S&TR December 2017 Climate Modeling The Atmosphere around CLIMATE MODELS Supercomputers, the laws of physics, and Lawrence Livermore’s nuclear weapons research all interact to advance atmospheric science and climate modeling. INCE the 1960s, computer models power than we carry in our pockets now, In fact, Livermore’s climate models S have been ensuring the safe whereas today’s advanced computers trace their origins to the Laboratory’s return of astronauts from orbital and allow us to study phenomena vastly more initial development of codes to simulate lunar missions by carefully predicting complex than orbital dynamics.” That nuclear weapons. Hendrickson states, complicated spacecraft trajectories. A computational power offers unprecedented “Our primary mission is nuclear weapons slight miscalculation could cause a craft to insight into how the physical world works, design, which has required us to create zoom past the Moon or Earth and become providing details about phenomena that unique computational capabilities. These lost in space, or approach too steeply would be infeasible to study with physical capabilities have also been applied to and face an equally disastrous outcome. experiments. At Lawrence Livermore, other national needs, including modeling Bruce Hendrickson, Livermore’s associate numerical models running on high- the atmosphere and the rest of the director for Computation, points out, “In performance computers are a vital part climate system.” the 1960s, scientists and engineers put of research in many programs, including Over the years, advances in scientific people on the Moon with less computing stockpile stewardship and climate studies. understanding and increased computational Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 5 Climate Modeling S&TR December 2017 power have resulted in higher First Atmospheric Animation for applications such as tracking fidelity climate models that are more From its inception, the Laboratory releases of radioactive and representative of the real world. These pursued numerical approaches to solving other hazardous materials. In computationally intense simulations have problems using cutting-edge computer the late 1950s, Livermore also helped shake down and benchmark systems. “Livermore went all-in with scientist Cecil “Chuck” subsequent generations of the Department computers,” says Glenn Fox, associate Leith developed one of Energy’s (DOE’s) supercomputers director for Physical and Life Sciences. of Livermore’s first- before the machines transition to classified “When the Laboratory’s doors opened, ever numerical models work. “Climate simulation is an application the first big procurement was a state- capable of simulating that can consume the whole machine of-the-art computer.” The room-sized the hydrodynamic and and put it through its paces in a very Univac-1 had 5,600 vacuum tubes and radiative processes demanding way,” explains Hendrickson. 9 kilobytes of memory and ran at a speed in a thermonuclear “The simulations touch every part of the of 1,000 floating-point operations per explosion. Recognizing computer.” (See S&TR, July/August 2015, second (flops). In 2018, Livermore’s fundamental similarities in pp. 3–14.) Sierra supercomputer will use more than the underlying equations and 1 million microprocessors to achieve a interested in demonstrating speed of 150 petaflops—150 trillion times what could be achieved with On July 12, 2017, a 5,801-square-kilometer piece of faster than the Univac-1. more powerful computing, Leith the Larsen C ice shelf broke away from Antarctica, Even in the Laboratory’s early days, turned his attention to creating more as shown in the satellite image. The Energy researchers understood that the same comprehensive weather system models. Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) is one of computational approaches for simulating Michael MacCracken, a now-retired the first to simulate the movement and evolution of nuclear weapons could be applied to better climate scientist who headed Livermore’s glaciers and ice sheets. (Image courtesy of NASA.) simulate evolution of the weather and atmospheric and geophysical sciences division from 1987 to 1993, came to the Laboratory as one of Leith’s graduate students. MacCracken says, “Using the most advanced computers available in the early 1960s, Leith developed an atmospheric model that was way ahead of its time.” Leith’s Livermore Atmospheric Model (LAM) divided the atmosphere into a three-dimensional (3D) mesh with six vertical layers and a horizontal grid with five-degree intervals in latitude and longitude. LAM was the world’s first global atmospheric circulation model that calculated temperature, winds, humidity, clouds, precipitation, the day-and-night cycle, and weather systems around the globe, all starting from first-principles equations for the conservation of mass, momentum, energy, and water vapor. Leith also created the first animation of atmospheric modeling results by colorizing photographs of a black-and-white video screen and stitching them together into a film. Leith’s atmospheric work also benefited other Livermore programs. For example, 6 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory S&TR December 2017 Climate Modeling Climate models divide Earth into a grid with vertical and horizontal intervals. The smaller the intervals, the finer the grid, and the better the resolution of the model—that is, the greater detail the model can produce. (Image courtesy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.) to these efforts, atmospheric chemistry models were also developed. The first such model contributed to a successful plan to limit rising concentrations of photochemical smog in the San Francisco Bay Area. The second model simulated stratospheric chemistry and was used to calculate the impact of a proposed fleet of supersonic transport aircraft on stratospheric ozone. This modeling also investigated the potential for ozone depletion from atmospheric nuclear testing back in the early 1960s and the much his study of atmospheric turbulence larger depletion that would result from a led to a better understanding of how to global nuclear war with megaton-yield represent turbulence and turbulent flows. nuclear weapons. MacCracken adds, “Although simulations When chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) of astrophysics, plasma physics, and emissions from aerosol spray cans, nuclear weapons address different refrigerators, and other sources came under temperatures, pressures, and timescales, scrutiny in the 1970s, the stratospheric The Livermore Atmospheric Model (LAM), it’s all the same basic physics. So chemistry model was applied to evaluate developed by Cecil “Chuck” Leith in the 1960s, computational advances in one area benefit the ozone depletion potential and develop was the first-ever global climate model to the others and vice-versa.” a metric for calculating depletion that be animated. Shown are screen captures of was later used in the Montreal Protocol to runs for pressure and precipitation (top) and Ozone and Nuclear Winter regulate CFC emissions. After restrictions temperature (bottom). As environmental awareness rose in the were put in place in 1987, growth of the late 1960s, Laboratory programs began to continent-size hole in the ozone layer address regional and global environmental slowed, and after further international and later became its director from 1958 to problems. Derived from LAM, an early agreements, it eventually stopped growing 1960, Edward Teller had made the critical climate model developed by MacCracken and began to slowly shrink. determination at Los Alamos that a nuclear was used to analyze hypotheses about the In the mid-1980s, famed astrophysicist explosion would not ignite the atmosphere. causes of ice age cycles, the effects of Carl Sagan and others suggested the specter Now he questioned the severity of a nuclear volcanic eruptions and changes in land of a “nuclear winter”—that the blasts and winter. Climate scientist Curt Covey, who cover, and the consequences of changes in fires from a global nuclear war could loft retired from Livermore in 2017, remembers atmospheric composition. The pioneering enough smoke and other matter into the Teller saying, “At Livermore, we have the LAM would eventually lead to the global atmosphere to obscure sunlight for months, best computers. Surely we can do the best climate models that today also encompass causing a global vegetation die-off and job in simulations.” In response, Livermore interactive representations of the oceans, a winterlike cooling of the entire planet used its modeling capabilities to investigate land surfaces, ice masses, and biological that could kill billions of people. In 1945, the global effects of nuclear winter and activity in the oceans and on land. Parallel before he cofounded Lawrence Livermore found that although significant cooling Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 7 Climate Modeling S&TR December 2017 would occur depending on the amount of Chernobyl power plant in Ukraine. A wide range of release scenarios, including smoke lofted, the effects would be less partial meltdown of the reactor’s core large fires or chemical spills, incidents severe than initially conjectured. resulted in a massive explosion
Recommended publications
  • Michael Maccracken, IUGG Fellow
    Michael MacCracken, USA IUGG Fellow Dr. Michael MacCracken is Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs with the Climate Institute in Washington DC. After graduating from Princeton University with a B.S. in Engineering in 1964 and from the University of California with a Ph.D. in Applied Science in 1968, he joined the University of California’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) as an atmospheric physicist. Building on his Ph.D. research, which involved constructing one of the world’s first global climate models and using it to evaluate suggested hypotheses of the causes of Pleistocene glacial cycling, his LLNL research focused on seeking to quantify the climatic effects of various natural and human-affected factors, including the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, injections of volcanic aerosols, albedo changes due to land- cover change, and possible dust and smoke injection in the event of a global nuclear war. In addition, he led construction of the first regional air pollution model for the San Francisco Bay Area in the early 1970s and an early inter-laboratory program researching sulfate pollution and acid precipitation in the northeastern United States in the mid 1970s. From 1993-2002, Dr. MacCracken was on assignment from LLNL as senior global change scientist for the interagency Office of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) in Washington DC. He served as the Office’s first executive director from 1993-97 and then as the first executive director of USGCRP’s coordination office for the first national assessment of the potential consequences of climate variability and change from 1997-2001.
    [Show full text]
  • December 16, 1995
    Michael C. MacCracken January 6, 2016 Present Positions and Affiliations Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs (2003- ), and member, Board of Directors (2006- ), Climate Institute, Washington DC Member (2003- ), Advisory Committee, Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Washington DC Member (2008- ), US National Committee for the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics of the National Academy of Sciences (liaison to IAMAS) Member (2010- ), Advisory Board, Climate Communication Shop Member (2010- ), Advisory Board, Climate Science Communication Network Member (2012- ), Union Commission on Climatic and Environmental Change (CCEC) of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) Member (2013- ), Advisory Council, National Center for Science Education, Oakland CA. Member (2013- ), Board of Advisors of Climate Accountability Institute (climateaccountability.org). Member (2014- ), American Meteorological Society Committee on Effective Communication of Weather and Climate Information (CECWCI) Member (2014- ), ASQ (American Standards for Quality) Technical Advisory Group ISO/TC 207 (TAG 207) on Environmental Management and the ASC Z1 Subcommittee on Environmental Management Previous Positions (selected) Atmospheric scientist (1968-2002) and Division Leader for Atmospheric and Geophysical Sciences (1987- 1993), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore CA Senior Scientist for global change (1993-2002), Office of the US Global Change Research Program, on detail from LLNL with assignments serving as the first executive
    [Show full text]
  • Text for the Remainder 5 of the Report
    Second-Order Draft Chapter 1 IPCC WG1 Fourth Assessment Report 1 Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science 2 3 Coordinating Lead Authors: Hervé Le Treut, Richard Somerville 4 5 Lead Authors: Ulrich Cubasch, Yihui Ding, Cecilie Mauritzen, Abdalah Mokssit, Thomas Peterson, 6 Michael Prather 7 8 Contributing Authors: Myles Allen, Ingeborg Auer, Mariano Barriendo, Joachim Biercamp, Curt Covey, 9 James Fleming, Joanna Haigh, Gabriele Hegerl, Ricardo García-Herrera, Peter Gleckler, Ketil Isaksen, Julie 10 Jones, Jürg Luterbacher, Michael MacCracken, Joyce Penner, Christian Pfister, Erich Roeckner, Benjamin 11 Santer, Fritz Schott, Frank Sirocko, Andrew Staniforth, Thomas Stocker, Ronald Stouffer, Karl Taylor, 12 Kevin Trenberth, Antje Weisheimer, Martin Widmann, Carl Wunsch 13 14 Review Editors: Alphonsus Baede, David Griggs, Maria Martelo 15 16 Date of Draft: 3 March 2006 17 18 Notes: TSU compiled version 19 20 21 Table of Contents 22 23 Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................................2 24 1.1 Overview of the Chapter............................................................................................................................................3 25 1.2 The Nature of Earth Science ......................................................................................................................................3 26 1.3 Examples of Progress in Detecting and Attributing Recent Climate Change ............................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • 05-1120 Massachusetts V. EPA (4/2/07)
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2006 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus MASSACHUSETTS ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PRO - TECTION AGENCY ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 05–1120. Argued November 29, 2006—Decided April 2, 2007 Based on respected scientific opinion that a well-documented rise in global temperatures and attendant climatological and environmental changes have resulted from a significant increase in the atmospheric concentration of “greenhouse gases,” a group of private organizations petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin regu- lating the emissions of four such gases, including carbon dioxide, un- der §202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, which requires that the EPA “shall by regulation prescribe . standards applicable to the emis- sion of any air pollutant from any class . of new motor vehicles . which in [the EPA Administrator’s] judgment cause[s], or contrib- ute[s] to, air pollution . reasonably . anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” 42 U. S. C. §7521(a)(1). The Act defines “air pollutant” to include “any air pollution agent . , including any physical, chemical . substance . emitted into . the ambient air.” §7602(g).
    [Show full text]
  • Prospects for Future Climate Change and the Reasons for Early Action
    2008 CRITICAL REVIEW ISSN:1047-3289 J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 58:735–786 DOI:10.3155/1047-3289.58.6.735 Copyright 2008 Air & Waste Management Association Prospects for Future Climate Change and the Reasons for Early Action Michael C. MacCracken Climate Institute, Washington, DC ABSTRACT composition and surface cover and indirectly controlling Combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas, and to a lesser the climate and sea level. As Nobelist Paul Crutzen has extent deforestation, land-cover change, and emissions of suggested, we have shifted the geological era from the halocarbons and other greenhouse gases, are rapidly increas- relative constancy of the Holocene (i.e., the last 10,000 yr) ing the atmospheric concentrations of climate-warming to the changing conditions of the new Anthropocene, the gases. The warming of approximately 0.1–0.2 °C per decade era of human dominance of the Earth system.2,3 that has resulted is very likely the primary cause of the That human activities are having a global-scale influ- increasing loss of snow cover and Arctic sea ice, of more ence is most evident in satellite views of the nighttime frequent occurrence of very heavy precipitation, of rising sea Earth. Excess light now illuminates virtually all of the devel- level, and of shifts in the natural ranges of plants and ani- oped areas of the planet, locating the cities, industrial areas, mals. The global average temperature is already approxi- tourist centers, and transportation corridors. With roughly 2 mately 0.8 °C above its preindustrial level, and present at- billion people having to rely on fires and lanterns instead of mospheric levels of greenhouse gases will contribute to electricity, what is visible only hints at the full extent of the further warming of 0.5–1 °C as equilibrium is re-established.
    [Show full text]
  • Geoengineering: Parts I, Ii, and Iii
    GEOENGINEERING: PARTS I, II, AND III HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION AND SECOND SESSION NOVEMBER 5, 2009 FEBRUARY 4, 2010 and MARCH 18, 2010 Serial No. 111–62 Serial No. 111–75 and Serial No. 111–88 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology ( GEOENGINEERING: PARTS I, II, AND III GEOENGINEERING: PARTS I, II, AND III HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION AND SECOND SESSION NOVEMBER 5, 2009 FEBRUARY 4, 2010 and MARCH 18, 2010 Serial No. 111–62 Serial No. 111–75 and Serial No. 111–88 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 53–007PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W.
    [Show full text]
  • Text for the Remainder of the Report
    Final Draft Chapter 1 IPCC WG1 Fourth Assessment Report 1 Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science 2 3 Coordinating Lead Authors: Hervé Le Treut (France), Richard Somerville (USA) 4 5 Lead Authors: Ulrich Cubasch (Germany), Yihui Ding (China), Cecilie Mauritzen (Norway), Abdalah 6 Mokssit (Morocco), Thomas Peterson (USA), Michael Prather (USA) 7 8 Contributing Authors: Myles Allen (UK), Ingeborg Auer (Austria), Joachim Biercamp (Germany), Curt 9 Covey (USA), James Fleming (USA), Joanna Haigh (UK), Gabriele Hegerl (USA, Germany), Ricardo 10 García-Herrera (Spain), Peter Gleckler (USA), Ketil Isaksen (Norway), Julie Jones (Germany, UK), Jürg 11 Luterbacher (Switzerland), Michael MacCracken (USA), Joyce E. Penner (USA), Christian Pfister 12 (Switzerland), Erich Roeckner (Germany), Benjamin Santer (USA), Friedrich Schott (Germany), Frank 13 Sirocko (Germany), Andrew Staniforth (UK), Thomas F. Stocker (Switzerland), Ronald J. Stouffer (USA), 14 Karl E. Taylor (USA), Kevin E. Trenberth (USA), Antje Weisheimer (UK, Germany), Martin Widmann 15 (Germany, UK), Carl Wunsch (USA) 16 17 Review Editors: Alphonsus Baede (Netherlands), David Griggs (UK), Maria Martelo (Venezuela) 18 19 Date of Draft: 27 October 2006 20 21 Do Not Cite or Quote 1-1 Total pages: 44 Final Draft Chapter 1 IPCC WG1 Fourth Assessment Report 1 Table of Contents 2 3 Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................................3 4 1.1 Overview of the
    [Show full text]
  • WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS Assessing the Benefits of Avoided Climate Change: Cost‐Benefit Analysis and Beyond
    WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS Assessing the Benefits of Avoided Climate Change: Cost‐Benefit Analysis and Beyond March 16‐17, 2009 Washington, DC May 2010 This workshop was made possible through a generous grant from the Energy Foundation. Energy Foundation 301 Battery St. San Francisco, CA 94111 Workshop Speakers David Anthoff, Eileen Claussen, Kristie Ebi, Chris Hope, Richard Howarth, Anthony Janetos, Dina Kruger, James Lester, Michael MacCracken, Michael Mastrandrea, Steve Newbold, Brian O’Neill, Jon O’Riordan, Christopher Pyke, Martha Roberts, Steve Rose, Joel Smith, Paul Watkiss, Gary Yohe Project Directors Steve Seidel Janet Peace Project Manager Jay Gulledge Production Editor L. Jeremy Richardson Content Editors Jay Gulledge, L. Jeremy Richardson, Liwayway Adkins, Steve Seidel Suggested Citation Gulledge, J., L. J. Richardson, L. Adkins, and S. Seidel (eds.), 2010. Assessing the Benefits of Avoided Climate Change: Cost­Benefit Analysis and Beyond. Proceedings of Workshop on Assessing the Benefits of Avoided Climate Change, Washington, DC, March 16‐17, 2009. Pew Center on Global Climate Change: Arlington, VA. Available at: http://www.pewclimate.org/events/2009/benefitsworkshop. The complete workshop proceedings, including video of 17 expert presentations, this summary report, and individual off­prints of expert papers are available free of charge from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change at http://www.pewclimate.org/events/2009/benefitsworkshop. May 2010 Pew Center on Global Climate Change 2101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 550 Arlington, VA 22201
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. Michael Maccracken Has Been Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs with the Climate Institute in Washington DC Since October 2002
    Dr. Michael MacCracken has been Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs with the Climate Institute in Washington DC since October 2002. His current research interests include human-induced climate change and consequent impacts, climate engineering (particularly, on the potential for countering specific climate change impacts), and the beneficial effects of limiting emissions of short-lived greenhouse gases (e.g., methane, precursors to tropospheric ozone) and black carbon. At Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Mike led studies from 1968-93 using computer models to evaluate the climatic effects of CO2 and other climate-warming gases, volcanic eruptions, land-cover change, and smoke and dust in the event of a major nuclear war. His research also included study of the causes of Bay Area air pollution, and he led a multi-DOE lab research program on acid deposition from 1976-79 and advised DOE on its climate change research program from 1978-93. From 1993-97, Mike served on detail from LLNL as the first executive director of the interagency Office of the U.S. Global Change Research Program and from 1997-2001 as executive director of the National Assessment Coordination Office. After the detail ended in September 2002, Mike retired from LLNL and took on his role with the Climate Institute. Since that time, he has also served as president of the International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences (2003-07), as an integration team member for the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2002-04), and as an author, review editor, and reviewer in various of the four assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
    [Show full text]
  • Geopiracy: the Case Against Geoengineering I Geopiracy: the Case Against Geoengineering
    “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Albert Einstein “We already are inadvertently changing the climate. So why not advertently try to counterbalance it?” Michael MacCracken, Climate Institute, USA About the cover ETC Group gratefully acknowledges the financial support of SwedBio The cover is an adaptation of The (Sweden), HKH Foundation (USA), Scream by Edvard Munch, painted in CS Fund (USA), Christensen Fund 1893, shown on the right. Munch (USA), Heinrich Böll Foundation painted several versions of this image (Germany), the Lillian Goldman over the years, which reflected his Charitable Trust (USA), Oxfam Novib feeling of "a great unending scream (Netherlands), and the Norwegian piercing through nature." One theory is Forum for Environment and that the red sky was inspired by the Development. ETC Group is solely eruption of Krakatoa, a volcano that responsible for the views expressed in cooled the Earth by spewing sulphur this document. into the sky, which blocked the sun. Geoengineers seek to artificially Copy-edited by Leila Marshy reproduce this process. Design by Shtig (.net) Geopiracy: The Case Against Acknowledgements Geoengineering is ETC Group We also thank the Beehive Collective Communiqué # 103 ETC Group is grateful to Almuth for artwork and all the participants of First published October 2010 Ernsting of Biofuelwatch, Niclas the HOME campaign for their ongoing Second edition November 2010 Hällström of the Swedish Society for participation and support as well as the Conservation of Nature (that Leila Marshy and Shtig for good- All ETC Group publications are published Retooling the Planet from humoured patience and professionalism available free of charge on our website: which some of this material is drawn).
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 of 15 Statement by Dr. Michael C. Maccracken Chief Scientist For
    Page 1 of 15 Statement by Dr. Michael C. MacCracken Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs Climate Institute, Washington DC before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, House Committee on Science and Technology United States House of Representatives for the hearing entitled “Reorienting the U.S. Global Change Research Program toward a user-driven research endeavor: H.R. 906” May 3, 2007 Introduction Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing on H. R. 906, the Global Change Research and Data Management Act of 2007. I am honored to testify before you today in both my capacity, since 2002, as Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs at the Climate Institute1 here in Washington DC and as the executive director of the Office of the U. S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) from 1993 to 1997 and of USGCRP’s National Assessment Coordination Office from 1997-2001. 2 My detail as senior scientist with the Office of the USGCRP as senior scientist for climate change concluded in September 2002. Prior to my detail from the University of California’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) to the Office of the USGCRP in 1993, my research at LLNL beginning in 1968 focused 1 The Climate Institute is a non-partisan, non-governmental 501(c)(3) organization that was established under the leadership of John Topping in 1986 to heighten national and international awareness of climate change and to identify practical ways for dealing with it, both through preparing for and responding to the ongoing and prospective changes in climate and by reducing emissions and slowing the long-term rate of change.
    [Show full text]
  • The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Transportation
    DOT Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Transportation Federal Research Partnership Workshop October 1-2, 2002 Summary and Discussion Papers The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Transportation Research Workshop was sponsored by: U.S. Department of Transportation Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The U.S. Global Change Research Program of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program U.S. Department of Energy ii Interagency Working Group Department of Transportation Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting Karrigan Bork Department of Transportation Kay Drucker Bureau of Transportation Statistics Paul Marx Federal Transit Administration Michael Savonis Federal Highway Administration Donald Trilling Department of Transportation (retired) Robert Hyman Consultant to Federal Highway Administration (Cambridge Systematics) Joanne R. Potter Consultant to Federal Highway Administration (Cambridge Systematics) Environmental Protection Agency Ken Adler Anne Grambsch Jim Titus Department of Energy Mitch Baer U.S. Global Change Research Program Michael MacCracken (retired) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The DOT Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting would like to thank the Brookings Institution for providing space for this workshop, Douglas Brookman of Public Solutions for facilitation services, and the members of the interagency working group for their invaluable assistance in planning the workshop and this publication. Thanks go to Karrigan Bork, Virginia Burkett, Mort Downey, Kay Drucker, David Easterling, Robert Hyman, Timothy Klein, Michael MacCracken, Paul Marx, Lourdes Maurice, Brian Mills, J. Rolf Olsen, Donald Plotkin, Michael Rossetti, Michael Savonis, Jim Shrouds, Donald Trilling, Martin Wachs, and Rae Zimmerman for reviewing and commenting on the workshop summary.
    [Show full text]