Decadal Prediction. Can It Be Skillful?

A new field of study, “decadal prediction,” is emerging in climate science. Decadal prediction lies between seasonal/interannual forecasting and longer-term climate change projections, and focuses on time-evolving regional climate conditions over the next 10–30 yr. Numerous assessments of climate information user needs have identified this time scale as being important to infrastructure planners, water resource managers, and many others. It is central to the information portfolio required to adapt effectively to and through climatic changes. At least three factors influence time-evolving regional climate at the decadal time scale: 1) climate change commitment (further warming as the coupled climate system comes into adjustment with increases of greenhouse gases that have already occurred), 2) external forcing, particularly from future increases of greenhouse gases and recovery of the ozone hole, and 3) internally generated variability. Some decadal prediction skill has been demonstrated to arise from the first two of these factors, and there is evidence that initialized coupled climate models can capture mechanisms of internally generated decadal climate variations, thus increasing predictive skill globally and particularly regionally. Several methods have been proposed for initializing global coupled climate models for decadal predictions, all of which involve global time-evolving three-dimensional ocean data, including temperature and salinity. An experimental framework to address decadal predictability/prediction is described in this paper and has been incorporated into the coordinated Coupled Model Intercomparison Model, phase 5 (CMIP5) experiments, some of which will be assessed for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). These experiments will likely guide work in this emerging field over the next 5 yr.

It is premature to include non-CO2 effects of aviation in emission trading schemes

The recent G8 Gleneagles climate statement signed on 8 July 2005 specifically mentions a determination to lessen the impact of aviation on climate [Gleneagles, 2005. The Gleneagles communique: climate change, energy and sustainable development. http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/PostG8_Gleneagles_Communique.pdf]. In January 2005 the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) commenced operation as the largest multi-country, multi-sector ETS in the world, albeit currently limited only to CO2 emissions. At present the scheme makes no provision for aircraft emissions. However, the UK Government would like to see aircraft included in the ETS and plans to use its Presidencies of both the EU and G8 in 2005 to implement these schemes within the EU and perhaps internationally. Non-CO2 effects have been included in some policy-orientated studies of the impact of aviation but we argue that the inclusion of such effects in any such ETS scheme is premature; we specifically argue that use of the Radiative Forcing Index for comparing emissions from different sources is inappropriate and that there is currently no metric for such a purpose that is likely to enable their inclusion in the near future. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The 2002 US Farm Bill: what's in it for CAP reform?

The 2002 U.S. Farm Bill (the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act or FSRIA) provides considerably more government subsidies for U.S. agriculture than Congress envisaged when it passed the preceding 1996–2002 FAIR Act. We review the FAIR record, showing how government subsidies increased greatly beyond those originally scheduled. For FSRIA, we outline key commodity, trade, and conservation and environmental provisions. We expect that the commodity programmes will: (a) encourage production when the market calls for less; (b) significantly increase subsidies over FAIR baseline subsidies; (c) press against current WTO and possible Doha Round support limits; and (d) aggravate trading partners. Finally, we suggest two lessons from the U.S. policy experience that might benefit those working on CAP and WTO reform. First, past research shows that farm programmes have little to do with the economic health of rural communities. Second, programme transparency, and especially public disclosure of the level of payments going to individual farmers, by name, influences the farm policy debate. Personalized data show what economists have long maintained—that the bulk of programme benefits go to a relatively few, large, producers—but do so in a way that captures the public and policy-makers' attention