Developing Human System Modules for Climate Models

Jessie Cherry, IARC/ARSC@UAF

Typical treatment of human/resource dimensions

• Offline model runs• Use of projections and scenarios• Qualitative characterizations of the future

Climate Change Planning

Walsh & Chapman:

PRISM downscaled multi-model projections of temperature and precipitation for AK under various scenarios of Greenhouse Gas emissions

Problems with this approach

• Creates a strong disconnect between the physical modeling community and the climate impacts community

• Makes it more difficult to provide decision support to stakeholders

• Could be missing important feedbacks between human agents and the climate system

Approaches to CCIAV

IPCC, 2007

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)

Integrated Assessment Modeling

McGuffie & Henderson-Sellers, 2005

Integrated Assessment Models

McGuffie & Henderson-Sellers, 2005

Characterizing the Future

IPCC, 2007

Proposal:

Code Human System Modules directly into a new Arctic System Model to make it truly ‘next generation’ and ‘system’

Example of Human System Module

Cherry

Goal is to be model independent; work with CCSM and other models/ couplers

Some Human Dimensions in the Arctic :

• Oil and Gas Recovery (& spill transport)• Freshwater Supply• Renewable Energy (wind, hydro, geo)• Commercial, Subsistence, & Sport Fishing• Infrastructure• Coastal Erosion• Subsistence Harvest of Furbearers, Caribou• Marine Transport

Decision-Support

• What is that?• Turban defines it as "an interactive, flexible,

and adaptable computer-based information system, especially developed for supporting the solution of a non-structured management problem for improved decision making. It utilizes data, provides an easy-to-use interface, and allows for the decision maker's own insights.” (Wikipedia)

https://rsgis.crrel.usace.army.mil/aedis/

Example of Climate-Related Decision Support

Goals of a Pilot Project

• Create one or more model-independent modules for socio-economic decision-making

• Test in AK, but should have international applications at least across pan-Arctic

• Create cutting edge model, i.e. one that includes human dimension directly

Interactions between Module components/Climate model

• Need not occur at every model time step

• One or two way coupling may be appropriate depending on the system

BSIERPFEAST Higher trophic

level model

NPZ-B-DLower trophic

level

ROMSPhysical

Oceanography

Economic/ecological model

Climate scenarios

BSIERP Vertically Integrated models

Nest

ed m

odelsB

EST

Infrastructure

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

Flow Chart of Model Processes

Climate Projections

NCARUAF GI

Import_Wx_UAF_NCAR_10_10_06.sas

$

Depreciator_10_10_06b.sas

Graphs Infrastructure Type Replacement Cost Units Baseline Useful Life (years)

Agriculture N/A N/A N/AAirport 5,664,812$ Whole 10Bridges 10,000$ Per foot 40Courts 16,150,618$ Whole 40Defense 305,441$ Whole 40Emergency Services 467,110$ Whole 20Energy 31,570$ Whole 30Grid 100,000$ Per mile 15Harbor 162,050$ Whole 30Hospital 44,772,750$ Whole 40Law Enforcement 3,917,245$ Whole 30Misc. Building (govt) 1,030,578$ Whole 30Misc. Building (health) 1,631,781$ Whole 30Pipeline 32,225,000$ Per mile 30Railroad 2,795,717$ Per mile 30Roads 3,000,000$ Per mile 10School 2,486,167$ Whole 40Sewer 30,000,000$ Whole 20Telecommunications 299,576$ Whole 10Telephone Line 50,000$ Per mile 15Water 5,000,000$ Whole 20

Tables

Depr.Matrix

Denali

DRM

DCCED

DNR

Others

APID

Infrastructure_DB_09_28_06.sas

ISER Public Infrastructure Study

Wind Farm Parameterization for WRFAdams & Keith

Modification of the MYJ PBL scheme

Similar work being done commercially by 3TIER, AER, others

MMS-WRF winds 1

MMS-WRF winds 2

MMS-WRF winds 3

MMS-WRF winds 4

Hydropower AEA

AEA Energy Atlas, 2007

Ship track

Readiness? If we don’t start to integrate these models they may never

become ready…

Data management may be the biggest challenge

May need to modify existing couplers/design a human dimension standard

May need to design ‘community’ decision support tool

Readiness:

• Oil and Gas Recovery (& spill transport)• Freshwater Supply• Renewable Energy (wind, hydro, geo)• Commercial, Subsistence & Sport Fishing• Infrastructure• Coastal Erosion• Subsistence Harvest of Furbearers, Caribou• Marine Transport (& emissions)

A few of the many challenges

• Data acquisition and management (international)

• Models appropriate for the pan-Arctic domain

• Decision support interface

• Representing uncertainty quantitatively (including inter-temporal discount rate)

Why code human systems directly into models?

• There are (nearly) appropriate existing models

• We have the computing resources

• Bridges the gaps between physical system and human dimension

• It’s interesting work at the frontiers of research!!!

Thanks

?

Communicating uncertainty

New Scientific Methodology?

Funtowicz & Ravetz, in Ecological Economics, 1991

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)

Ammonium

Euphausiids

Neocalanus

SmallPhytoplankton

Detritus

Smallmicrozooplankton

Largemicrozooplankton

Nitrate

LargePhytoplankton

Pseudocalanus

Iron

14 component ModelNPZD-Benthos

PredationLosses

BenthosBenthicInfauna

Benthic Detritus

BSIERPLower Trophic Level

Ecosystem Model