AVOID UK-USA Workshop on Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change


6 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 5 μήνες)

73 εμφανίσεις

Cover_Washington.doc - 1 –
© Crown copyright 2008

Authors: J.A. Lowe, P. Backlund, R. Warren, J. Gulledge, S. Buckle,
B. O’Neill, L. Buja, J. Caesar, M. Akrawi, P. van der Linden,
R. Hauser
Date: 29/03/2011
Reference: WS2/D1/R20
Avoiding dangerous climate change

on Avoiding Dangerous
Climate Change


AVOID UK-USA Workshop on
Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change
Supported by: DECC, FCO, NCAR

September 2010

American Geophysical Union (AGU)
2000 Florida Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20009-1277 USA

1. Background
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change states that participating nations
should seek to “avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” In
response, participating nations are planning and undertaking a wide variety of mitigation and
adaptation actions, and investigation of options for mitigating and adapting to climate change is
an increasingly prominent aspect of climate science. The UK’s AVOID programme, and similar
efforts in the United States, have produced a series of interesting findings over the past several
years, making this an opportune time for a scientific workshop to discuss and compare results,
identify important knowledge gaps, and define future research plans.
The UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (FCO) Science and Innovation Network and the US National Center for Atmospheric
Research (NCAR) jointly hosted a successful US and UK collaborative workshop in Washington
DC, on the 14
to the 16
September 2010, as part of the DECC/Defra-funded AVOID
programme. This workshop brought together more than 50 US and UK researchers from across
the realms of climate science, impacts research, socio-economics, policy and technology
development, with an aim to share and compare the latest policy-relevant scientific research on
avoiding dangerous climate change. The workshop was followed by a briefing for policy makers
in the Senate meeting rooms of the US Capitol Visitors Center.
The workshop was structured around the three questions and themes derived from the UK
AVOID programme:

What potentially undesirable physical large-scale changes in the climate system might

What emissions, climate and warming pathways hold promise for avoiding potentially
dangerous climate changes, and what are the associated impacts?

Are these pathways feasible? What are the related implications for mitigation,
adaptation, and residual impacts?

The overarching purpose of the workshop was to consider, in an integrated fashion:
(a) risks associated with climate change;
(b) costs of climate change impacts, mitigation and adaptation; and
(c) the relationship of near- and long-term targets and actions.

Related questions included an assessment of what the latest scientific results tell us about the
trade-offs between risk and costs, and adaptation and mitigation, as well as what long-term
outcomes are enabled or precluded by near-term action or inaction?

The workshop took place over three days, with the first day consisting of presentations to set
the policy context, followed by more in-depth science talks showing AVOID outputs along with
related US research. The second day consisted of breakout group discussions, which included
dangerous climate change, climate impacts, and feasibility and pathways. These discussions
aimed to identify agreements, uncertainties and areas for further analyses. The final day
consisted of summaries from the workshop discussions, and ended with a Congressional
briefing on Capitol Hill to highlight the current understanding of policy related science.

This document provides a summary of the workshop, with the following sections including an
overview of the presentations given on the first and second days, a summation of the breakout
group discussions and potential outputs from these, the briefing for policy makers, and next
2. Science & Policy Presentations
The first day of the workshop consisted of a set of presentations on the policy context of the
workshop, followed by overviews of the AVOID programme, and related science efforts in the
United States. In the afternoon, and on the morning of the second day there were more specific
science talks from AVOID scientists and US counterparts from NCAR, the Joint Global Change
Research Institute, Stratus Consulting, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These
covered the range from dangerous climate change through to the technology and economics of
emissions reductions. Talk slides and selected presentation videos are available online via:
The workshop was opened by Christine McEntee, Executive Director of the American
Geophysical Union (AGU) followed by May Akrawi (HM Consul, Head of Science & Innovation,
British Consulate-General) who spoke about UK-US science collaboration and how the FCO
Science & Innovation Network facilitates strategic relationships and research collaborations
Jason Lowe (Met Office Hadley Centre) and Peter Backlund (NCAR) gave an introduction to the
aims of the workshop, including the structure and goals of the AVOID programme, and key
results from the first year. As part of AVOID, a new set of more than 200 climate scenarios,
along with a new set of impacts and economic scenarios were developed. There was also a
study of the climate response and impacts of the Copenhagen Accord pledges.

The first session consisted of keynote talks focused upon the application of science in a policy
context. The talks were a mix of perspectives, from both the science and policy sides. Steve
Seidel (Pew Center) and David Warrilow (DECC) gave respectively the US and UK science
policy contexts. Steve gave an overview of the work of the Pew Center, with areas of activity
focused upon Congress, the EPA and other Administration actions, court cases, and state and
regional activities. He summarized by saying that an underlying need for action remains, in
particular a need for investment certainty and competition in the clean energy sector. David
Warrilow talked about the work of DECC, both in the UK and internationally, and the pull-
through of science to policy decisions.
State and Regional Actions

Source: Steve Seidel, Recent Developments in the United States: Our Changing Climate.

There was an introduction to policy-relevant UK climate science by John Mitchell (Principal
Research Fellow, UK Met Office). Examples from the wide range of Met Office science were
presented, including observational and monitoring datasets, the 2009 UK Climate Projections
project, and recent work on decadal prediction and geoengineering climate model simulations.

Rachel Warren (Tyndall Centre, University of East Anglia) presented an overview of the climate-
impacts science coming out of the AVOID programme, which includes sectors such as health,
food and agriculture, coastal zones, flooding and biodiversity. Findings indicate that limiting
warming to 2°C will not allow us to avoid all climate related impacts, but that mitigation will help
to avoid many of the impacts, and bring economic benefits.

The morning session concluded with Vicki Arroyo (Georgetown Climate Center) speaking on the
US EPA’s endangerment finding for CO
and its ramifications for national climate policy.

The afternoon of the first day consisted of more detailed science talks. David Lawrence
(NCAR), began with a talk on the uncertainties surrounding unrepresented processes in global
climate models, and focused on permafrost. Substantial near-surface permafrost degradation is
expected during the 21
Century and the associated carbon cycle feedbacks could make it
more difficult to meet CO
targets. However, current modelling tools do not yet allow us to
quantify the integrated impact on climate.

Carbon emissions from natural
•Substantial uncertainties in;
size of global and regional inventories
timescale and magnitude of potential release
•Lack of process based modelling and understanding.
Wetlands Marine hydrates permafrost

Source: Dan Bernie, Review of post AR4 climate science for the CCC.

The next set of talks considered dangerous climate change. Dan Bernie (Met Office Hadley
Centre) gave the climate science perspective, and discussed how recent understanding on the
science had evolved. He described the work carried out under the AVOID programme to
provide an assessment of recent updates in scientific understanding for the UK Committee on
Climate Change (CCC). One area of particular interest, yet high uncertainty, is how interactions
between different climate system elements could affect the overall risk of abrupt climate
change. Sea-level rise being one example that could increase the risk of destabilizing the
Antarctic ice sheet.

What would we like to know more about? 
• Earth system feedbacks
‐ Carbon release from natural sources
• Abrupt/irreversible Earth system changes
‐ Better understanding of thresholds and linkages
• Human and ecosystem impacts
‐ Scenarios incorporating abrupt/irreversible changes 
• Earth system feedbacks
‐ Carbon release from natural sources
• Abrupt/irreversible Earth system changes
‐ Better understanding of thresholds and linkages
• Human and ecosystem impacts
‐ Scenarios incorporating abrupt/irreversible changes 

Source: Steve Smith, Dangerous Climate Change, a CCC perspective.

Steve Smith (UK Committee on Climate Change) explained the CCC structure and goals. The
CCC is tasked with setting the UK’s carbon budget, and has identified key areas where further
research could be beneficial. Among these, Earth system feedbacks, particularly carbon release
from natural sources; abrupt/irreversible Earth system changes and a better understanding of
thresholds and linkages; and human and ecosystem impacts using scenarios incorporating
abrupt/irreversible changes. Steve also raised the question of whether we have appropriate
monitoring systems to give us early warning on key impacts.

Joel Smith (Stratus Consulting) described the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) approach to dangerous climate change, and the definitions and categories used to
describe such changes. Ben DeAngelo (EPA) spoke about the science that the EPA used in its
finding that climate change endangers human health and welfare; EPA made an effort to
include scientific information from major climate assessments (such as IPCC, CCSP) instead of
relying on specific individual papers. This approach gives a more comprehensive and vetted
evidence base, and provides the right kind of information required by endangerment analysis.

AVOID is funded by the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 
Increased water scarcity due to CC
HadCM3 A1B 2100

Source: Simon Gosling, Water Security & Human Health.

Three talks on science outputs from the UK AVOID programme followed. John Caesar (Met
Office Hadley Centre) presented work on how climate extremes could be reduced under a
mitigation scenario, as simulated using a global circulation model (GCM). This assessment
found that global temperature extremes generally scale well with global mean temperature
changes and that mitigation will limit future changes in extreme temperature events. The
regional patterns for extreme precipitation changes are generally more variable and the benefits
of mitigation are less clear. Tom Osborne (Walker Institute, University of Reading) described
issues of crop production for a variety of crops, and links to food security under mitigation
scenarios. Simon Gosling (Walker Institute, University of Reading) then presented his work on
water security and human health looking at water scarcity in different regions under business-
as-usual and mitigation scenarios, and also heat wave impacts on mortality in a number of cities

The session concluded with presentations on climate change impacts and human health. Paty
Romero (NCAR) spoke about the challenges of building adaptive capacity to heat waves in
urban areas. Olga Wilhelmi (NCAR) spoke on societal risk, vulnerability, and adaptive capacity
to extreme heat in urban areas, and described a new project called System for Integrated
Modeling of Metropolitan Extreme heat Risk (SIMMER).

A terrace reception was held in the evening at AGU headquarters, with a welcome address by
Nick Bridge, Counsellor on Global Issues for the British Embassy.

The morning of the second day began with presentations focused upon emissions pathways,
economics, and technological solutions. Myles Allen (University of Oxford) started with a talk on
the concept of cumulative emissions budgets and their implications. This talk presented the
argument that, for a limit on peak warming, it is the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that
should be considered in relation to present and future emissions rates. Simon Buckle
(Grantham Institute, Imperial College London) presented a model of climate economics with
sustainable preferences, contrasting the approach with utilitarian/discounting models. The
presentation showed how cumulative climate targets fall naturally out of the modelling
framework and implicitly embody an ethical judgement on the appropriate trade off between the
(discounted) present value of consumption and long-term climate damages. The work also
underlined the importance of the nature of our preferences over the long-term: the development
of clean technology in itself was a necessary but not sufficient condition for effective mitigation

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
No. of projects:
100 by 2020
3400 by 2050
A lot of work to
IEA, Technology
Roadmap, CCS, 2010
• Urgent need for full-chain demonstration
• Need to reduce the cost of capture
• CCS can also target industrial emissions
• Social and political barriers (as with some other technologies)

Source: AVOID policy briefing presentation.

Nicola Ranger (Grantham Institute, London School of Economics (LSE)) presented work on the
economics of mitigation. Whilst limiting warming to 2°C will be challenging, several modelling
studies suggest that well-designed and consistent policies would make this target feasible. The
work from LSE also shows that policy must incorporate flexibility to respond to changing
information, both about the costs of action and impacts. The session concluded with Paul
Fennel (Grantham Institute, Imperial College London) on the technological feasibility of carbon
capture and storage (CCS), and on the feasibility of a negative emissions strategy. Paul
concluded that there is an urgent need for full-chain demonstration of CCS and to reduce the
cost of capture technologies, but the major barriers for the technology are social and political in

The remainder of the day was given over to breakout group discussions, which are described in
the next section. The evening of the second day finished with a workshop dinner at the nearby
Churchill Hotel. Kathy Jacobs, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy's
(OSTP) assistant director for climate adaptation and assessment (within the office's Energy and
Environment Division) – a special guest – spoke about US climate policy issues and then took
questions from the delegates.

3. Breakout Discussions Overview
On the second day of the workshop, three breakout sessions ran in parallel with an aim to
generate discussion around the central themes of the AVOID project, share knowledge on
relevant work, begin to agree on where future research should be directed, and identify
possibilities for direct collaborative efforts. The three sessions, along with the session leaders,
and key questions for discussion, were as follows:

• Session 1: Dangerous Climate Change John Mitchell & Lawrence Buja
o What are the possible sources of dangerous climate change?
o What is the state of knowledge on each of the sources of
dangerous climate change?

• Session 2: Climate Impacts Rachel Warren & Jay Gulledge
o Linkages
o Interactions
o “Second-best worlds” - In the area of climate change mitigation, analysts are
beginning to study “second best worlds”—more realistic policy cases including
consideration of fragmented carbon markets and technology failures.

• Session 3: Feasibility & Pathways Brian O’Neill & Simon Buckle
Are the pathways for avoiding potentially dangerous climate changes feasible? What are the
implications for mitigation, adaptation, and residual impacts?
o What are the key dimensions of ‘feasibility?’
o Feasibility and characteristics of a low-carbon transition
o Difficult sectors/issues and trade-offs

A second set of breakout discussions followed to consider these issues in a more integrated
fashion, including consideration of trade-offs - across, and between – adaptation and mitigation
options. Each of the three breakout groups were guided by the following set of questions:
1. How well do we understand the joint implication of future climate outcomes for
mitigation, adaptation and impacts? Do we understand these implications better for
particular climate outcomes more than for others?
2. To what degree are implications for mitigation, adaptation, and impacts of a given
climate change outcome characterized by trade-offs among them, as opposed to
synergies or other types of relationships?
3. What type of research would be most important to improve our understanding of
these joint implications?
4. How important is cost as a measure when assessing joint implications of future
climate outcomes for mitigation, adaptation and impacts? What other measures are
most important?

4. Workshop outputs
The UK and US partners (AVOID and NCAR) are keen to maintain and develop collaborations.
The workshop proved a valuable forum for promoting the concept and results of the AVOID
programme, and provided a basis from which the United States could develop an equivalent
policy relevant research programme. NCAR expressed a strong interest in taking this forward,
but they also plan to engage other key science agencies in the effort, such as the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP), and the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Breakout discussions continued on the morning of the third day. While those involved with the
policy briefing made their way to Capitol Hill, the remainder of the delegates stayed at AGU to
continue the break-out group discussions, and to develop ideas to take things forward after the
workshop. The following section lists some of the potential project ideas discussed at the
breakout sessions that could be taken forward by participants.

• Permafrost modelling
The release of CH4 and CO2 from permafrost in a warming climate has potential to be
a significant positive feedback on rising temperatures. NCAR is developing a world-
leading model of permafrost formation and degradation as part of the CCSM4 (NCAR)
model. These developments may enable us to reduce, or at least better quantify,
uncertainty in allowable emissions arising from permafrost feedbacks.

• “Top-Down, Bottom-Up”
Understanding linkages between mitigation, adaptation, and vulnerability in urban and
agricultural systems in the United States and United Kingdom. The objective is to create
comparative US and UK case studies on how specific social systems respond to global
climate drivers in distinct settings and, in doing so, establish new substantive
interactions between the climate science, impacts, and vulnerability assessment
communities with an aim toward developing socially relevant research.

• Linking ensemble modelling and integrated assessment
This will focus on the importance of using multiple models and ensembles. The scope
will include coupling of a simple climate model to an economic model.

• Applying ensemble techniques: Marine and terrestrial ecosystems
This will build on potential linkages through the existing Basin-scale Analysis, Synthesis
and Integration (BASIN; http://www.na-basin.org) project to look at impacts of climate
and fishing on structure and function of marine ecosystems (goods and services).
Potential actions include linking AVOID to the Euro-BASIN user group and exploring US
links - perhaps with a possibility of some kind of vulnerability project.

• Negative Emissions
Negative emissions are emerging as an area with potential for interdisciplinary work.
How can we make it happen and how will the climate respond? Initial scoping has
already been undertaken through the AVOID programme. As well as technology
aspects, we might also want to consider potential side-effects of negative emissions,
such as impacts on the thermohaline circulation.

• Descriptive detail of mitigation roadmaps
o A more in-depth investigation of mitigation options and roadmaps.
o Areas considered include how speed with which technology can be deployed,
sociological issues around energy efficiency. Possible research links with China
on investigating building efficiency and looking at behavioural and regulatory
o Economic and policy implications of cumulative emission targets. How might they
change the way the world/negotiations look? How does using cumulative targets
change the way we get there?
o Climate science looks beyond 2050 but this is a challenge for engineers etc.
Perhaps this becomes tractable if starting with the question ‘what is the world like
with zero emissions?’ – include negative emissions to offset areas of human
activity where GHG/CO2 emissions cannot be avoided; this is relevant to looking
at technologies that might be needed.
o Agriculture – do we have the right people involved, e.g., bio-technologists etc.?

• Decision making under uncertainty
The LSE is looking at making decisions under uncertainty (links between science and
policy). What can we say about policies to keep options open? We need to link science
and economics – considering possible outcomes and what decision theory tells us. The
National Science Foundation recently completed a programme (Decision Making
Uncertainty) that resonates with this.

• Economics of dangerous climate change
Consider the decision-making process leading to targets; many non-science-based
assumptions are inherent in these decisions so a need exists to consider improvements
to the economic model evidence base.

5. Congressional Briefing
On the third and final day, the workshop concluded
with a midday science briefing in the Senate Meeting
Rooms at the US Capitol Visitor Center. This was
designed to inform policy makers of the latest state of
climate science with the focus on emissions pathways
and feasibility. The event attracted more than 60
attendees, including Congressional legislative assistants from the offices of US House of
Representatives and Senate members, plus representatives from various House Committees,
the National Research Council, and a number of NGOs.

With no further emission reductions after
2020, temperature is very likely to exceed 2°C
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
n tem
re ri
Twodegc _case1
Twodegc_ case2

Source: AVOID congressional briefing.

Peter Backlund introduced and moderated the briefing. Jason Lowe gave an introduction to the
AVOID programme, and an overview of emissions pathways, including the 2°C target and the
potential flexibility in pathways toward achieving this target.

Rachel Warren followed with a discussion of the implications of pathways and targets for
various impacts sectors, including water, food, health and ecosystems. Key message included
acknowledgement that limiting emissions will reduce impacts, but that even if we meet a 2°C
target, we will not eliminate all negative climate change impacts and some adaptation will still be

Source: AVOID congressional briefing.

Simon Buckle presented the technological options and technological and economic feasibility
for meeting emissions targets. Brian O’Neill discussed the US perspective on emissions
pathways and feasibility. The briefing concluded with a question and answer session that had
good audience engagement.

Sectors and impacts indicators
water resources coastal flood fluvial flood
FOOD crop suitability crop productivity
soil carbon,
ecosystem productivity
heat effects heating/cooling needs
Key findings
Strong mitigation action to limit
temperature rise to below 2°C
avoids many of the climate impacts.
…but not all impacts are avoided.
Some adaptation may still be
The earlier action is taken to
reduce emissions then the more
of the 21
century impacts are
Climate change poses significant risks to human and natural
In response, many nations have set a goal of limiting global
average temperature increases to 2
C (3.6 F)
This would reduce the likelihood of large scale systemic
change and reduce many – but not all – impacts
We therefore need both mitigation and adaptation
The 2
C temperature goal is challenging but possible –
achieving it will require substantial reductions from current
global emissions over the next few decades
Time is short – delaying action will make it more difficult to
reach this goal and increase the chance of significant impacts
UK AVOID Programme

Summary from the AVOID congressional briefing.

6. Next Steps
a) AVOID in the United States
Following discussions during the breakout groups, considerable interest exists in developing
collaborative policy-relevant research between NCAR, UK AVOID researchers, and other
interested parties. Further discussions will identify a small number of initial collaborative projects
that will go forward. Examples suggested include permafrost modelling, or negative emissions.

Further funding opportunities will be explored. This will take a number of approaches. One will
be to approach US agencies that participated in this workshop to seek their feedback on the
event, and to identify research areas that are of particular interest to them and aligned with
AVOID related work. Consideration will be given to which aspects of AVOID can be most
successfully replicated in the United States. Of particular interest is the alignment of future work
with programmatic priorities, with science communication emerging as a priority.

Potential options were discussed for holding follow-up events linked to two workshops that are
scheduled for 2011; one was the joint Met Office/NCAR workshop on scalability in March 2011;
the other is the World Climate Research Program (WCRP) meeting in Denver in October 2011.
A further option would be a stand-alone workshop to be held in Exeter, UK, during summer
2011. Exchange trips for scientists between the UK and NCAR will also be considered.

b) Vision Paper
A paper will be written outlining the AVOID programme and the benefits of this type of
integrated interdisciplinary approach to climate research, and its application to support policy
formulation and decision making.

c) Further international AVOID workshops
Interest has been expressed in holding similar AVOID workshops in other countries, with plans
progressing on workshops in India and China. The workshop in China would focus on
dangerous climate change and plausible mitigation pathways and involve collaborative work
with Chinese research institutes, culminating in a joint workshop in China in 2012.

7. Conclusions
This workshop has been the first of its kind from the AVOID programme. It has not only aided in
promoting AVOID programme results internationally, it has also enabled presentation of the
concepts underpinning AVOID to be presented to a diverse audience of influential scientists and
policy makers. Other clear benefits are emerging from the workshop, including prospects for
greater international collaboration on policy-relevant science.

The workshop has been successful on many levels, from that of scientists meeting and
discussing policy relevant scientific issues, providing a unique bridge between policy makers
and scientists from both sides of the Atlantic, to high-level interaction of research, policy and
funding organizations that can influence the direction of future research programmes and
utilization of relevant science in decision making.

• The workshop proved to be a positive forum through which to promote the AVOID
programme concept and results.
• It provided an environment in which to discuss and encourage building of links
between science and policy.
• NCAR is keen to maintain and deepen UK-based collaboration. Interest exists in
developing a US-equivalent of the AVOID programme, possibly with input from US
scientific agencies.
• Sharing best practice – continuing links with OSTP, NOAA, United States Global
Change Research Program (US GCRP) may influence the US process for scientific
communication with policymakers.
• This event provided a rare opportunity for scientists to interact in an integrated fashion
across the broad disciplines of physical climate science, climate impacts science, social
science, technology and economics,
• The workshop discussions have helped identify a hierarchy of potential, well-defined
follow-up research projects, including possible links with NCAR and other institutions
on permafrost, methane and the carbon cycle. 
We would like to acknowledge the assistance of the American Geophysical Union in making
their venue available and for provision of logistical support throughout the workshop, in
particular with help from Michelle Brown.

For the organization of the Capitol Hill briefing, we would like to thank Cindy Schmidt, Kate
VonHolle, James Ritchotte, Dave Britton, Barry Gromett, Rachel Hauser, Catherine Santamaria,
May Akrawi, John Caesar, Paul van der Linden, Gloria Kelly, Michael Henry, Peter Weiss, and
David Hosansky.
Appendix 1 – Workshop Scientific Steering Committee
Jason Lowe
Met Office Hadley Centre, UK
Peter Backlund
National Center for Atmospheric Research, USA
Rachel Warren
Tyndall Centre, University of East Anglia, UK
Jay Gulledge
Pew Center on Global Climate Change, USA
Simon Buckle
Grantham Institute, Imperial College London, UK
Brian O’Neill
National Center for Atmospheric Research, USA
Jolene Cook
Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK
Lawrence Buja
National Center for Atmospheric Research, USA
Appendix 2 – Workshop participants

US Participants
Vicki Arroyo
Executive Director
Georgetown State-Federal Climate Resource Center
Georgetown University Law Center
Anjuli Bamzai
Program Director
NSF's Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences
National Science Foundation
Lawrence Buja
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Kate Cardamone
NNEMS fellow
Environmental Protection Agency

Ben DeAngelo
Senior Analyst
Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Tim Gallaudet
Captain US Navy
Deputy Director, Navy Task Force Climate Change, Office
of the Oceanographer of the Navy
Greg Guibert
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Jay Gulledge
Senior Scientist and Director, Science and Impacts Program
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Jerry Hatfield

Supervisory Plant Physiologist
National Soil Tilth Research Laboratory
USDA Agricultural Research Service
Rachel Hauser
Writer, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Bill Hohenstein
Director of
Global Change Program Office
Climate Change Program Office
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Anthony Janetos
Director, Joint Global Change Research Institute
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/University of
Klaus Keller
Associate Professor,
Department of Geosciences,
Penn State University
David Lawrence
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Margaret Leinen
Founder and CEO of the Climate Response Fund
Al McGartland
Office Director of
National Center for Environmental
Economics (NCEE)
National Center for Environmental Economics
US Environmental Protection Agency
Brian O’Neill
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Steve Newbold
Environmental Protection Agency
Dennis Ojima
Senior Scholar at the Heinz Center
Senior Research Scientist of the Natural Resource Ecology
Laboratory (NREL) at Colorado State University
Ted Parson
Law Professor, University of Michigan
Paula Robinson
NCAR Programme Support
Paty Romero
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Sarah Ruth
Program Director Geosciences (GEO)
National Science Foundation
Jason Samenow
Environmental Scientist / Climate Science Analyst
Environmental Protection Agency
Cindy Schmidt
UCAR Office of Government Affairs
Vanessa Schweizer
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Joel Smith
Vice President of Stratus Consulting
Courtney St. John
Office of Naval Research
Pam Stevens
Senior Advisor
Directorate of Geosciences
National Science Foundation
Bob Vallario
Office of Biological and Environmental Research
Climate and Environmental Sciences Division
US Dept. of Energy
Meg Walsh
Climate Change Program Office
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Olga Wilhelmi
National Center for Atmospheric Research


UK & International Participants
May Akrawi
Consul, Head of Science & Innovation,
British Consulate-General, Houston, TX.
Icarus Allen
Head of Science: Today's Models, Tomorrow's Futures
Plymouth Marine Laboratory
Myles Allen
Head of Climate Dynamics group, Atmospheric, Oceanic
and Planetary Physics Department, University of Oxford
Dan Bernie
Climate Scientist, Met Office Hadley Centre
Pam Berry
Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Change Institute,
University of Oxford
Dave Britton
Chief Press Officer, Met Office
Simon Buckle
Director, Climate Policy, Grantham Institute, Imperial
College London
John Caesar
Climate Scientist, Met Office Hadley Centre
Hannah Chalmers
Lecturer, Institute for Energy Systems, University of
Jolene Cook
Programme Officer for AVOID & Climate Science Advisor,
UK Department of Energy & Climate Change
Paul Fennel
Grantham Institute, Imperial College
Simon Gosling
Walker Institute, University of Reading
Neil Hirst
Grantham Institute, Imperial College
Jason Lowe
AVOID Chief Scientist & Head of Mitigation Advice,
Met Office Hadley Centre
Kenichi Matsumoto
Climate Policy Assessment Research Section,
Center for Global Environmental Research (CGER),
National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), Japan
John Mitchell
Principal Research Fellow, Met Office
Tom Osborne
Walker Institute, University of Reading
Nicola Ranger
Research Fellow, Centre for Climate Change Economics
and Policy, London School of Economics
James Richotte
Senior Policy Advisor, Climate Change,
Global Issues Group, British Embassy
Science & Innovation,
British Consulate-General, Houston, TX.
Emily Shuckburgh
UK Department of Energy & Climate Change
Steve Smith
Committee on Climate Change
Blake Suttle
Grantham Institute, Imperial College
Chris Taylor
UK Department of Energy & Climate Change
Kate VonHolle
Senior Policy Advisor, Science and Innovation, Global
Issues Group, British Embassy
Rachel Warren
NERC Advanced Research Fellow and leader of Integrated
Modelling Programme, Tyndall Centre, University of East
David Warrilow
UK Department of Energy & Climate Change


Appendix 3 – Workshop Programme

Day 1: Tuesday
Registration. Light continental breakfast and coffee
AGU Offices

Opening address – Room A
09:45 -10:15
Christine McEntee, AGU Executive Director
May Akrawi, Head of Science & Innovation, British Consulate-General, FCO

Introduction to the aims of the workshop
Jason Lowe, Peter Backlund
Session 1
Keynote talks – Room A
Plenary session chaired by P. Backlund and J. Lowe
US policy context: Steve Seidel, Pew Center 20 mins
UK policy context: David Warrilow, DECC 20 mins
Short coffee break
UK climate science: John Mitchell, Met Office 20 mins
The AVOID programme: Rachel Warren, UEA                     40 mins
U.S. Policy on Dangerous Climate Change - EPA's
Endangerment Finding on GHG’s: Vicki Arroyo, GLCC 20 mins
Buffet lunch
Session 2
Science talks – Room A
Plenary session chaired by J. Cook & R. Hauser
Session 1: Uncertainties due to unrepresented processes in GCMs: The
permafrost story – David Lawrence, NCAR
Session 2: Dangerous climate change
(a) the climate system – Dan Bernie, Met Office
(b) perspectives – Steve Smith, CCC
(c) the IPCC approach to dangerous climate change – Joel Smith,
Session 3: Agricultural Extent and Food Prices: Results from the RCPs
– Allison Thomson, Joint Global Change Research Institute
Coffee break
Results from the AVOID programme for climate change impacts on:
(a) projected changes in extreme events – John Caesar, Met
(b) food security – Tom Osborne, Walker Inst.
(c) water security and human health – Simon Gosling, Walker
Session 5: Perspectives on climate change impacts and human health:
(a) challenges of building adaptive capacity in urban centers –
Patricia Romero Lankao, NCAR
(b) societal risk, vulnerability and adaptive capacity to extreme
heat – Olga Wilhelmi, NCAR
Session 6: How EPA used science in its finding that climate change
endangers human health and welfare - Ben DeAngelo, EPA
Climate Change Div.
Terrace reception and poster display at AGU
Day 2: Wednesday
Light continental breakfast and coffee
Session 7: Adding up
(a) cumulative emissions: Myles Allen – University of Oxford
(b) cumulative economics: S. Buckle – Grantham Institute at
Imperial Col.
Session 8: Linking long-term climate change goals to shorter-term actions:
near term and long term emissions targets – Brian O’Neill, NCAR
Session 9: The technology and economics of emissions reductions:
(a) the economics of mitigation – Nicola Ranger, LSE
(b) CCS and negative emissions – Paul Fennel, Grantham
Institute at Imperial College
Coffee break
Session 3
Breakout groups
The aim of the breakout groups is to take AVOID results as a starting point,
consider related work that is represented by other meeting attendees, and
then identify areas for further exploration that may yield new results (and its
potential relevance to policymakers).

Room A
Room B
Room C
Breakout 1
Dangerous Climate
L. Buja NCAR
J. Mitchell Met Office

What changes in the
climate system can be
considered potentially
As knowledge of the
climate system
increases, how does
our understanding of
DCC change?

Breakout 2
Climate Impacts

J. Gulledge Pew Centre
R. Warren UEA

What will be the climate
change impacts resulting
from a post-Copenhagen
A consideration of a range of
sectors (health, ecosystems,
food security, water, coastal
impacts etc.) associated with
the post-Copenhagen world.
Breakout 3
Feasibility &

S. Buckle Grantham
Institute a
B. O’Neill NCAR

Are the pathways
for avoiding
dangerous climate
changes feasible?
What are their
implications for
adaptation, and
residual impacts?

Buffet lunch
Breakout groups continue
Breakout 1
Dangerous Climate
L. Buja NCAR
J. Mitchell Met Office
Breakout 2
Climate Impacts

J. Gulledge Pew Centre
R. Warren UEA
Breakout 3
Feasibility &

S. Buckle Grantham
Institute a
B. O’Neill NCAR
The three breakout groups continue, with some delegates asked to move
between the groups.
The second set of breakout discussions is intended to consider their issues in
a more integrated fashion, including consideration of trade-offs across and
between adaptation and mitigation options. Each of the three groups is
requested to have a discussion that includes consideration of all three topics
that were treated separately in the first breakout round.
Coffee break

Plenary reporting and discussion – Room A
Plenary session chaired by P. Backlund and J. Lowe
Breakout groups to report back
A chair from each breakout group will present the findings of their group
followed by a plenary discussion
30 minutes max allocated for each group
End of Day 2
Science Steering Committee meeting (only for SSC members)
Workshop dinner at the Churchill Hotel, 1914 Connecticut Avenue NW
(across the street from the Courtyard Hotel)

Day 3: Thursday
Light continental breakfast and coffee

Plenary discussion – Room A
Plenary session for all delegates for assimilating information from breakout
groups into outreach talks, and resolving any remaining questions.
New Research Partnerships and Next Steps – chaired by L. Buja and J.
Buffet lunch

Outreach event
Policy/Congressional Briefing – invitation only
Capitol Hill meeting rooms