Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP (Jl 2003), Wojick's Assessment of Plan(D 2003)

Expand Messages
  • npat1@juno.com
    ... From: Pat J Neuman To: Debate@list.climatechangedebate.org Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 16:23:35 -0600 Subject: Re: Strategic Plan for the U.S.
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 4, 2004
      --------- Forwarded message ----------
      From: Pat J Neuman <npat@...>
      To: Debate@...
      Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 16:23:35 -0600
      Subject: Re: Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP (Jl 2003), Wojick's
      Assessment of Plan (D 2003)
      Message-ID: <20040103.162336.-442433.0.npat@...>

      David,

      Regarding the StratPlan, you say ...
      > they systematically blur the distinction between natural
      > climate change and human induced change, even though
      > that is the fundamental scientific issue.

      From my 7 Feb 2003 post to CCD by NOAA/CMDL:

      > >> "What's missing is that climate change itself could
      > >> significantly affect our predictions for the carbon cycle
      > >> even if we understand carbon dynamics pretty well.

      How is it possible not to systematically blur the distinction between
      natural climate change and human induced change, when climate change
      itself significantly affects the carbon cycle? The is absolutely no
      natural climate or natural climate change anymore, its already completely
      blurred with anthropogenic elements overwhelming minimal natural
      influences to such an extent that the natural influences are near zero in
      effect.

      From one of my Feb posts on the draft StratPlan: ...

      > >> Comments on SPCC: Chapter 9: Carbon Cycle
      From: npat1 (view other messages by this author
      <index.html?by=Author&a=npat1>)
      Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:34:21

      I recently reviewed: "The Written Public Comments on the Strategic
      Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program" (SPCC).

      In my review of public comments on Chapter 9, carbon cycle, I selected
      a few excerpts that I think have important information for consideration.
      It is clear to me that the greatest and overwhelming influence on
      world climate warming are anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

      MCCLAIN, NASA
      "Derscriptions or the atmospheric and terrestrial knowledge, needs,
      products, and payoffs are more detailed than for the oceans. However,
      it is thought that the oceans regulate about half of the CO2 uptake and
      global primary production (some recent publications have reduced the
      sequestration numbers). Therefore, the oceans role should be
      represented in a more balanced manner."

      JEFFREY GAFFNEY, ARGONNE NAT'L LABORATORY
      "the carbon cycle includes the emissions of isoprene and monoterpene
      hydrocarbons as well as a number of other trace gas species..." These
      emissions are quite large and are now known to play a role in
      determining the atmospheric composition of the troposphere on regional
      and global scales. Indeed their presence in areas where there are
      anthropogenic emissions of air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and
      sulfur dioxide, can lead to increased levels or regional ozone and fine
      aerosols that are important in radiative balance considerations"
      >snip<
      Ozone is a potent plant phytotoxin. Increased tropospheric ozone (a
      greenhouse gas) levels will lead to the stomatal resistance beintg
      increased leading to reduced uptake of carbon dioxide, less water
      emitted through evapotranspiration, and less emission of volatile
      organic carbon (i.e. isoprene) from plants. Carbon sequestration under
      ozone exposures have been shown to reduce carbon uptake in FACE
      experiments even at moderate levels ...". "At 60 ppb levels carbon
      dioxide uptake even under high carbon dioxide exposure was reduced
      significantly due to this interaction.
      This type of feedback is not really addressed in this document."

      NED FORD, SIERRA CLUB
      "A reasonable estimate of the rate of ocean saturation suggests that by
      the end of this century under BAU, we will have effectively saturated
      the ocean. Further air/ocean transfer will occur, but it will require
      proportionally larger increases in atmospheric levels and much more
      time."

      NOAA/CMDL
      "What's missing is that climate change itself could significantly affect
      our predictions for the carbon cycle even if we understand carbon
      dynamics pretty well. CH4 is specifically mentioned here and Human
      Dimensions pops up."

      Public comments on SPCC are in:
      <http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/stratplan2003/toc.htm>

      > >> Pat Neuman
      > >> Chanhassen, MN

      On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 10:28:18 -0500 "David E. Wojick" <dwojick@...>
      writes:
      > Pat, I have no idea how much influence I had on the CCSP StratPlan.
      > One never does in massive gov't efforts like this. On the one hand,
      > they certainly know who I am. When the CCSP was first formed I
      > criticized the warminess of some of its statements. The CCSP boss --
      > Asst. Commerce Sec. Jim Mahoney -- met with the Cooler Heads,
      > including me, to hear our concerns. I then made an invited
      > presentation on my New View study at their Stratplan workshop (my
      > pictures are still up as far as I know -- lucky panel 13). The New
      > View study circulated pretty widely on the Hill and I discussed it
      > with Inhofe's people. I presented it a NAM, who posted it, etc.,
      > etc. That's about all I know. I like to think I made the case for
      > uncertainty.
      >
      > On the other hand, except for the milestones, the StratPlan is
      > pretty warm. As I point out in the new study, they systematically
      > blur the distinction between natural climate change and human
      > induced change, even though that is the fundamental scientific
      > issue. They also have a bunch of near term milestones on predicting
      > regional climate, ignoring the fact that whether this is even
      > possible depends on resolving some of the long term milestones.
      > That's why I want to see the CPM network. They shouldn't promise
      > what can't be done by their own numbers.
      >
      > Why do you ask?
      >
      > David W.
      >
      > >--------- Forwarded message ----------
      > >From: npat1@...
      > >To: Paleontology_and_Climate@yahoogroups.com
      > >Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 08:30:18 -0600
      > >Subject:
      > >Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP (Jl 2003), Wojick's Assessment of
      > Plan
      > >(D 2003)
      > >Message-ID: <20040103.083020.-358945.0.npat1@...>
      > >
      > >To: Paleontology_and_Climate discussion group members:
      > >
      > >Please post any comments you may have on:
      > >
      > >1. Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP, July 2003
      > >
      > >and/or:
      > >
      > >2. Wojick's: ' Uncertainties, Milestones and Issues in the CCSP.
      > An
      > >Assessment of the Strategic Plan of the U.S. Climate Change Science
      > >Program' (Dec 2003).
      > >
      > >Explanation follows. Please let me know if you have questions.
      > ... pat
      > >...
      > >
      > >Wojick boasted about his new role in Washington during the Fall of
      > 2002
      > >... while the Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science
      > Program
      > >(CCSP) was being developed in Washington.
      > >
      > >Wojick's latest report ... ' Uncertainties, Milestones and Issues
      > in the
      > >CCSP. An Assessment of the Strategic Plan of the U.S. Climate
      > Change
      > >Science Program' (Dec 2003) is at http://www.api.org ( do a search
      > on '
      > >wojick ' ).
      > >
      > >Wojick concludes that:
      > >
      > >'Therefore, it will likely be a decade or more before the
      > >science is settled, one way or the other. This in itself is
      > >an important finding. Comments welcome'
      > >
      > >Question: How much influence did Wojick have in the development of
      > the
      > >U.S. Strategic Plan for the CCSP? [ Report with Letter to Members
      > of
      > >Congress dated July, 2003]
      > >
      > >I provided comment for the draft Strategic Plan for the CCSP in
      > January,
      > >2003. From page 1. of my copy of the:
      > >
      > >
      > >Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP, July 2003:
      > >
      > >---
      > >July 2003
      > >
      > >Members of Congress:
      > >
      > >Transmitted herein is a copy of the Strategic Plan for the Climate
      > Change
      > >Science Program. This document describes the Climate Change
      > Science
      > >Program(CCSP) approach to enhancing scientific understanding of
      > global
      > >climate change. ...
      > >...
      > >...
      > >We than the participating departments and agencies of the CCSP for
      > their
      > >close cooperation and support and look forward to working with
      > Congress
      > >in the continued development of these important programs.
      > >
      > >Spencer Abraham
      > >Secretary of Energy
      > >Chair, Committee on Climate Change
      > >Science and Technology Integration
      > >
      > >Donald L. Evans
      > >Secretary of Commerce
      > >Vice Chair, Committee on Climate Change
      > >Science and Technology Integration
      > >
      > >John H. Marburger III, Ph. D.
      > >Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy
      > >Executive Director, Committee on Climate Change
      > >Science and Technology Integration
      > >---
      > >
      > >
      > >>From the back cover of the:
      > >Strategic Plan of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program:
      > >
      > >
      > >---
      > >CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE PROGRAM OFFICE
      > >
      > >(right side of page)
      > >
      > >To obtain a copy of this document, contact:
      > >
      > >Climate Change Science Program Office
      > >1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
      > >Suite 250
      > >Washington, DC 20006
      > >202 223 6262 (voice)
      > >202 223 3065 (fax)
      > >information@...
      > >http://www.climatescience.gov
      > >http://usgcrp.gov
      > >
      > >The Climate Change Science Program
      > >incorporates the U.S. Global Change
      > >Research Program and the Climate Change
      > >Research Initiative.
      > >
      > >(left side of page)
      > >
      > >James R. Mahoney, CSSP Director
      > >Richard H. Moss, CCSPO Director
      > >...
      > >---
      > >
      > >Pat
      > >
      > >--------- Forwarded message ----------
      > >From: "David E. Wojick" <dwojick@...>
      > >To: Debate <Debate@...>
      > >Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:25:18 -0500
      > >Subject: My science milestone report is up
      > >Message-ID: <p04320401bc1b7314dce3@[204.111.84.75]>
      > >
      > >Dear Listers, I have a new report just out--
      > >
      > >Wojick, David E., 2003. Uncertainties, Milestones and Issues in the
      > CCSP.
      > >An Assessment of the Strategic Plan of the U.S. Climate Change
      > Science
      > >Program. December 2003. Online go to <http://www.api.org> and
      > search on
      > ><wojick>.
      > >
      > >My basic point is that the CCSP Strategic Plan gives many
      > time-estimated
      > >milestones for resolving key scientific uncertainties. These must
      > be
      > >resolved before we can determine whether or not humans are in fact
      > >influencing climate. This definition of milestones is a major step
      > >forward, for which the CCSP is to be commended. What remains is to
      > >network the critical dependencies between these milestones, to find
      > the
      > >critical path to resolution. Then do the research to work thru that
      > path.
      > >
      > >
      > >Many of the key time estimates are "beyond 4 years," and some have
      > to
      > >wait for others to be resolved along the critical path. Therefore,
      > it
      > >will likely be a decade or more before the science is settled, one
      > way or
      > >the other. This in itself is an important finding. Comments
      > welcome.
      > >
      > >Critical path scheduling is a well known project management method.
      > it
      > >should be applied to climate research.
      > >
      > >Happy New Year,
      > >
      > >David W.
      > >
      > >David E. Wojick, PE, Ph.D.
      > ><dwojick@...>
      > >President
      > >Climatechangedebate.org
      > >
      > >Over 15,000 knowledgeable postings a year!
      > >Non subscribers can follow the debate at
      > >http://www.eScribe.com/science/ClimateChangeDebate/
      > >or sign up for the free email debate listserv at
      > >http://www.climatechangedebate.org
      > >See my latest climate science study at http://www.nam.org/wojick
      > >
      > >http://www.bydesign.com/powervision/resume.html provides a Wojick
      > bio and
      > >client list.
      > >
      >

      ________________________________________________________________
      The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
      Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
      Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
    • npat1@juno.com
      Correction to month date in following sentence should read: ... public forum in Oct 2002 at the University of Minnesota ... Furthermore, chief atmospheric
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 4, 2004
        Correction to month date in following sentence should read:
        ... public forum in Oct 2002 at the University of Minnesota ...

        Furthermore, chief atmospheric scientist Dennis Hartmann,
        University of Washington, Seattle showed in his powerpoint
        lecture at a public forum in Oct 2003 at the University of
        Minnesota that anthropogenic forcing from greenhouse
        gases overwhelmed all other forcing in the late 1990s-early
        21st century period.

        --------- Forwarded message ----------
        From: npat1@...
        To: Paleontology_and_Climate@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 18:57:00 -0600 Subject:
        Re: Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP (Jl 2003), Wojick's Assessment of
        Plan(D 2003)

        > npat1@j... wrote:
        > >
        > > the enhanced greenhouse effect overwhelms other
        > > factors in driving climate change (global warming)
        > >
        >
        > Please explain the above. Since the enhanced greenhouse
        > effect is all about trapping heat, how are the other factors
        > overwhelmed?
        > Jim

        Jim,

        Please reread the excerpts that follow from the statement by the
        American Geophysical Union - Human Impacts on Climate - adopted by the
        Council December, 2003:

        - - -
        Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot
        explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed
        during the second half of the 20th century.

        A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be
        rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly
        following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

        Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will
        remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years.

        The hydrologic cycle will change and intensify, leading to changes in
        water supply as well as flood and drought patterns.

        Actions that decrease emissions of some air pollutants will reduce their
        climate effects in the short term. Even so, the impacts of increasing
        greenhouse gas concentrations would remain.

        The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together
        with other human influences on climate over the past century and those
        anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern.
        - - -
        American Geophysical Union (AGU), Human Impacts on Climate, Adopted by
        Council December, 2003 [ Entire statement has been posted to
        ClimateArchive].

        I think my statement:

        > > the enhanced greenhouse effect overwhelms other
        > > factors in driving climate change (global warming)

        is not much different than the statements above by AGU. Furthermore,
        chief atmospheric scientist Dennis Hartmann, University of Washington,
        Seattle showed in his powerpoint lecture at a public forum in Oct 2003 at
        the University of Minnesota that anthropogenic forcing from greenhouse
        gases overwhelmed all other forcing in the late 1990s-early 21st century
        period. The powerpoint lecture is on the Internet, found through the
        link to Minnesota Climatology office, as I suggested for review to Bob on
        the 1991Pinatuba eruption.

        Pat


        ________________________________________________________________
        The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
        Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
        Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
      • npat1@juno.com
        I have summarized below what I feel are the important points regarding this threat, please review. If others are willing to provide comments on this threat I
        Message 3 of 3 , Jan 4, 2004
          I have summarized below what I feel are the important points regarding
          this threat, please review. If others are willing to provide comments
          on this threat I will continue to participate in it. Otherwise, I
          consider this threat stopped for now.

          Summary:

          This threat was begun for the purpose of receiving comment from others
          regarding:

          A. Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP (July, 2003)

          B. David Wojick's Strategic Plan Assessment (Dec. 2003)

          More specifically,

          1. - - - Wojick concluded:
          > > Therefore, it will likely be a decade or more before
          > > the science is settled, one way or the other. This in
          > > itself is an important finding. Comments welcome.

          Many scientists believe that the science has been settled for many years
          already, and that further delay in slowing anthropogenic GHG emissions
          will be extremely costly in damages to the environment.


          2. - - - How much influence did Wojick have in the development of
          > > the U.S. Strategic Plan for the CCSP? [ Report with Letter to
          > > Members of Congress dated July, 2003 (excerpt included below)

          David Wojick answered my question by his Jan 3 post to his discussion
          group at ClimateChangeDebate, shown below.

          > Pat, I have no idea how much influence I had on the CCSP StratPlan.
          > One never does in massive gov't efforts like this. On the one hand,
          > they certainly know who I am. When the CCSP was first formed I
          > criticized the warminess of some of its statements. The CCSP boss --
          > Asst. Commerce Sec. Jim Mahoney -- met with the Cooler Heads,
          > including me, to hear our concerns. I then made an invited
          > presentation on my New View study at their Stratplan workshop (my
          > pictures are still up as far as I know -- lucky panel 13). The New
          > View study circulated pretty widely on the Hill and I discussed it
          > with Inhofe's people. I presented it a NAM, who posted it, etc.,
          > etc. That's about all I know. I like to think I made the case for
          > uncertainty.
          >
          > On the other hand, except for the milestones, the StratPlan is
          > pretty warm. As I point out in the new study, they systematically
          > blur the distinction between natural climate change and human
          > induced change, even though that is the fundamental scientific
          > issue. They also have a bunch of near term milestones on predicting
          > regional climate, ignoring the fact that whether this is even
          > possible depends on resolving some of the long term milestones.
          > That's why I want to see the CPM network. They shouldn't promise
          > what can't be done by their own numbers.
          >
          > Why do you ask?
          >
          > David W.

          I provided my answer on why I asked in a post included below. If others
          are willing to provide comments on this threat I will continue to
          participate. Otherwise, I consider this threat stopped for now.

          Pat

          --------- Forwarded message ----------
          From: npat1@...
          To: ClimateArchive@yahoogroups.com
          Cc: Paleontology_and_Climate@yahoogroups.com,
          Birds-and-Landscapes@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 08:13:35 -0600
          Subject: Re: Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP (Jl 2003), Wojick's
          Assessment of Plan(D 2003)
          Message-ID: <20040104.081336.-292597.0.npat1@...>


          --------- Forwarded message ----------
          From: Pat J Neuman <npat@...>
          To: Debate@...
          Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 16:23:35 -0600
          Subject: Re: Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP (Jl 2003), Wojick's
          Assessment of Plan (D 2003)
          Message-ID: <20040103.162336.-442433.0.npat@...>

          David,

          Regarding the StratPlan, you say ...
          > they systematically blur the distinction between natural
          > climate change and human induced change, even though
          > that is the fundamental scientific issue.

          From my 7 Feb 2003 post to CCD by NOAA/CMDL:

          > >> "What's missing is that climate change itself could
          > >> significantly affect our predictions for the carbon cycle
          > >> even if we understand carbon dynamics pretty well.

          How is it possible not to systematically blur the distinction between
          natural climate change and human induced change, when climate change
          itself significantly affects the carbon cycle? The is absolutely no
          natural climate or natural climate change anymore, its already completely
          blurred with anthropogenic elements overwhelming minimal natural
          influences to such an extent that the natural influences are near zero in
          effect.

          From one of my Feb posts on the draft StratPlan: ...

          > >> Comments on SPCC: Chapter 9: Carbon Cycle
          From: npat1 (view other messages by this author
          <index.html?by=Author&a=npat1>)
          Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:34:21

          I recently reviewed: "The Written Public Comments on the Strategic
          Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program" (SPCC).

          In my review of public comments on Chapter 9, carbon cycle, I selected
          a few excerpts that I think have important information for consideration.
          It is clear to me that the greatest and overwhelming influence on
          world climate warming are anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

          MCCLAIN, NASA
          "Derscriptions or the atmospheric and terrestrial knowledge, needs,
          products, and payoffs are more detailed than for the oceans. However,
          it is thought that the oceans regulate about half of the CO2 uptake and
          global primary production (some recent publications have reduced the
          sequestration numbers). Therefore, the oceans role should be
          represented in a more balanced manner."

          JEFFREY GAFFNEY, ARGONNE NAT'L LABORATORY
          "the carbon cycle includes the emissions of isoprene and monoterpene
          hydrocarbons as well as a number of other trace gas species..." These
          emissions are quite large and are now known to play a role in
          determining the atmospheric composition of the troposphere on regional
          and global scales. Indeed their presence in areas where there are
          anthropogenic emissions of air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and
          sulfur dioxide, can lead to increased levels or regional ozone and fine
          aerosols that are important in radiative balance considerations"
          >snip<
          Ozone is a potent plant phytotoxin. Increased tropospheric ozone (a
          greenhouse gas) levels will lead to the stomatal resistance beintg
          increased leading to reduced uptake of carbon dioxide, less water
          emitted through evapotranspiration, and less emission of volatile
          organic carbon (i.e. isoprene) from plants. Carbon sequestration under
          ozone exposures have been shown to reduce carbon uptake in FACE
          experiments even at moderate levels ...". "At 60 ppb levels carbon
          dioxide uptake even under high carbon dioxide exposure was reduced
          significantly due to this interaction.
          This type of feedback is not really addressed in this document."

          NED FORD, SIERRA CLUB
          "A reasonable estimate of the rate of ocean saturation suggests that by
          the end of this century under BAU, we will have effectively saturated
          the ocean. Further air/ocean transfer will occur, but it will require
          proportionally larger increases in atmospheric levels and much more
          time."

          NOAA/CMDL
          "What's missing is that climate change itself could significantly affect
          our predictions for the carbon cycle even if we understand carbon
          dynamics pretty well. CH4 is specifically mentioned here and Human
          Dimensions pops up."

          Public comments on SPCC are in:
          <http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/stratplan2003/toc.htm>

          > >> Pat Neuman
          > >> Chanhassen, MN

          On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 10:28:18 -0500 "David E. Wojick" <dwojick@...>
          writes:
          > Pat, I have no idea how much influence I had on the CCSP StratPlan.
          > One never does in massive gov't efforts like this. On the one hand,
          > they certainly know who I am. When the CCSP was first formed I
          > criticized the warminess of some of its statements. The CCSP boss --
          > Asst. Commerce Sec. Jim Mahoney -- met with the Cooler Heads,
          > including me, to hear our concerns. I then made an invited
          > presentation on my New View study at their Stratplan workshop (my
          > pictures are still up as far as I know -- lucky panel 13). The New
          > View study circulated pretty widely on the Hill and I discussed it
          > with Inhofe's people. I presented it a NAM, who posted it, etc.,
          > etc. That's about all I know. I like to think I made the case for
          > uncertainty.
          >
          > On the other hand, except for the milestones, the StratPlan is
          > pretty warm. As I point out in the new study, they systematically
          > blur the distinction between natural climate change and human
          > induced change, even though that is the fundamental scientific
          > issue. They also have a bunch of near term milestones on predicting
          > regional climate, ignoring the fact that whether this is even
          > possible depends on resolving some of the long term milestones.
          > That's why I want to see the CPM network. They shouldn't promise
          > what can't be done by their own numbers.
          >
          > Why do you ask?
          >
          > David W.
          >
          > >--------- Forwarded message ----------
          > >From: npat1@...
          > >To: Paleontology_and_Climate@yahoogroups.com
          > >Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 08:30:18 -0600
          > >Subject:
          > >Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP (Jl 2003), Wojick's Assessment of
          > Plan
          > >(D 2003)
          > >Message-ID: <20040103.083020.-358945.0.npat1@...>
          > >
          > >To: Paleontology_and_Climate discussion group members:
          > >
          > >Please post any comments you may have on:
          > >
          > >1. Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP, July 2003
          > >
          > >and/or:
          > >
          > >2. Wojick's: ' Uncertainties, Milestones and Issues in the CCSP.
          > An
          > >Assessment of the Strategic Plan of the U.S. Climate Change Science
          > >Program' (Dec 2003).
          > >
          > >Explanation follows. Please let me know if you have questions.
          > ... pat
          > >...
          > >
          > >Wojick boasted about his new role in Washington during the Fall of
          > 2002
          > >... while the Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science
          > Program
          > >(CCSP) was being developed in Washington.
          > >
          > >Wojick's latest report ... ' Uncertainties, Milestones and Issues
          > in the
          > >CCSP. An Assessment of the Strategic Plan of the U.S. Climate
          > Change
          > >Science Program' (Dec 2003) is at http://www.api.org ( do a search
          > on '
          > >wojick ' ).
          > >
          > >Wojick concludes that:
          > >
          > >'Therefore, it will likely be a decade or more before the
          > >science is settled, one way or the other. This in itself is
          > >an important finding. Comments welcome'
          > >
          > >Question: How much influence did Wojick have in the development of
          > the
          > >U.S. Strategic Plan for the CCSP? [ Report with Letter to Members
          > of
          > >Congress dated July, 2003]
          > >
          > >I provided comment for the draft Strategic Plan for the CCSP in
          January, 2003.
          > >
          > >
          > > From page 1. of my copy of the:
          > >
          > >Strategic Plan for the U.S. CCSP, July 2003:
          > >
          > >---
          > >July 2003
          > >
          > >Members of Congress:
          > >
          > >Transmitted herein is a copy of the Strategic Plan for the Climate
          > Change
          > >Science Program. This document describes the Climate Change
          > Science
          > >Program(CCSP) approach to enhancing scientific understanding of
          > global
          > >climate change. ...
          > >...
          > >...
          > >We than the participating departments and agencies of the CCSP for
          > their
          > >close cooperation and support and look forward to working with
          > Congress
          > >in the continued development of these important programs.
          > >
          > >Spencer Abraham
          > >Secretary of Energy
          > >Chair, Committee on Climate Change
          > >Science and Technology Integration
          > >
          > >Donald L. Evans
          > >Secretary of Commerce
          > >Vice Chair, Committee on Climate Change
          > >Science and Technology Integration
          > >
          > >John H. Marburger III, Ph. D.
          > >Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy
          > >Executive Director, Committee on Climate Change
          > >Science and Technology Integration
          > >---
          > >
          > >
          > >>From the back cover of the:
          > >Strategic Plan of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program:
          > >
          > >
          > >---
          > >CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE PROGRAM OFFICE
          > >
          > >(right side of page)
          > >
          > >To obtain a copy of this document, contact:
          > >
          > >Climate Change Science Program Office
          > >1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          > >Suite 250
          > >Washington, DC 20006
          > >202 223 6262 (voice)
          > >202 223 3065 (fax)
          > >information@...
          > >http://www.climatescience.gov
          > >http://usgcrp.gov
          > >
          > >The Climate Change Science Program
          > >incorporates the U.S. Global Change
          > >Research Program and the Climate Change
          > >Research Initiative.
          > >
          > >(left side of page)
          > >
          > >James R. Mahoney, CSSP Director
          > >Richard H. Moss, CCSPO Director
          > >...
          > >---
          > >
          > >Pat
          > >
          > >--------- Forwarded message ----------
          > >From: "David E. Wojick" <dwojick@...>
          > >To: Debate <Debate@...>
          > >Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:25:18 -0500
          > >Subject: My science milestone report is up
          > >Message-ID: <p04320401bc1b7314dce3@[204.111.84.75]>
          > >
          > >Dear Listers, I have a new report just out--
          > >
          > >Wojick, David E., 2003. Uncertainties, Milestones and Issues in the
          > CCSP.
          > >An Assessment of the Strategic Plan of the U.S. Climate Change
          > Science
          > >Program. December 2003. Online go to <http://www.api.org> and
          > search on
          > ><wojick>.
          > >
          > >My basic point is that the CCSP Strategic Plan gives many
          > time-estimated
          > >milestones for resolving key scientific uncertainties. These must
          > be
          > >resolved before we can determine whether or not humans are in fact
          > >influencing climate. This definition of milestones is a major step
          > >forward, for which the CCSP is to be commended. What remains is to
          > >network the critical dependencies between these milestones, to find
          > the
          > >critical path to resolution. Then do the research to work thru that
          > path.
          > >
          > >
          > >Many of the key time estimates are "beyond 4 years," and some have
          > to
          > >wait for others to be resolved along the critical path. Therefore,
          > it
          > >will likely be a decade or more before the science is settled, one
          > way or
          > >the other. This in itself is an important finding. Comments
          > welcome.
          > >
          > >Critical path scheduling is a well known project management method.
          > it
          > >should be applied to climate research.
          > >
          > >Happy New Year,
          > >
          > >David W.
          > >
          > >David E. Wojick, PE, Ph.D.
          > ><dwojick@...>
          > >President
          > >Climatechangedebate.org
          > >
          > >Over 15,000 knowledgeable postings a year!
          > >Non subscribers can follow the debate at
          > >http://www.eScribe.com/science/ClimateChangeDebate/
          > >or sign up for the free email debate listserv at
          > >http://www.climatechangedebate.org
          > >See my latest climate science study at http://www.nam.org/wojick
          > >
          > >http://www.bydesign.com/powervision/resume.html provides a Wojick
          > bio and
          > >client list.
          > >
          >


          ________________________________________________________________
          The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
          Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
          Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.