How to Establish the Scientific Value of Multiple GCM-RCM Simulation Programs: An Example from NARCCAP

Abstract:

There have been a number of multiple GCM-RCM programs, covering Europe, North America, and now, through CORDEX, most regions of the world. Standard metrics of success for these programs include number of publications, number of users of the data, and number of citations to the program. However, these metrics do not necessarily reflect the scientific value of the program, for example, what new scientific knowledge has been developed. We began to carefully consider how one does establish the scientific value of such programs. We thought that establishing the scientific value of the North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program (NARCCAP) would be a good way to examine this issue. We present in this paper our thinking so far on this issue and demonstrate how we are proceeding. We hope that our analysis will prove useful for explicitly establishing the value of such programs throughout the world. Perhaps the most direct indication of a program’s value is whether the goals set out for the program have been met. In the case of NARCCAP, this is relatively straightforward. We can point to the research papers published that quantify the uncertainty based on the global and regional climate simulations (e.g., Mearns et al., 2013), and we can point to the number of data users and the number of papers published by the impacts community using the NARCCAP data. Of particular interest, however, is determining what we have learned about future climate projections and their impacts based on the use of higher resolution dynamically generated future climate information. We evaluated all research articles and major reports that used the NARCCAP database, and we report in this talk the major research advances indicated in this literature.