Also available:
CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Products. Four-page background document (dated September 2007). In addition, it is available as a PDF file and can be ordered in hardcopy from the GCRIO Online Catalog

Response to Public Comments

Prepared by:
Dr. Janet L. Gamble
Convening Lead Author
July 21, 2006

Public Review Comment Period:
12 June – 12 July 2006

Note: These comments also are available as a PDF file.

Reviewers:

Name: Michael MacCracken, Ph.D.
Organization: Climate Institute
Mailing Address: 1785 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 100, Washington DC 20036
Phone: 301-564-4255
E-mail:
Areas of expertise: Climate change, climate impacts, and assessment

Name: Avery Sen
Organization: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Mailing Address: 1315 East West Highway SSMC3, Room 15755, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: 301.713.1622 x203
E-mail:
Area of Expertise: Science & Technology Policy

General Comments:

Reviewer’s name, affiliation: Michael MacCracken, Climate Institute

1. General Comment: This prospectus describes an interesting, excellent and very important effort. It should certainly go forward and be well supported.

RESPONSE: No response required.

Reviewer’s name, affiliation: Michael MacCracken, Climate Institute

2. General Comment: On page 11, section 3.2, and or on page 13, section 6, in that it will help to ensure the credibility of the report, it would be helpful to make a bit more explicit in the first paragraph that at each stage in the review process the FACA panel will prepare a collective written review (e.g., letter or report—but more than the minutes of the meeting) that will be made available to the public rather than just holding a meeting to discuss the report and having the authors prepare a response to what might well be their recording of the oral comments.

RESPONSE: The prospectus has been revised to reflect this suggestion.

Specific Comments:

Reviewer/affiliation: Avery Sen, NOAA, Program Planning and Integration

1. Specific Comment: Page 8, lines 7-40 and page 9, line 27. Why focus solely on human impacts within the US? Settlements in non-US nations, many of which are less developed, will feel the largest impact of changing climate - from inundation to freshwater availability to vector borne diseases. OUR NATION WILL NOT BE ISOLATED FROM THESE EFFECTS. The US will feel the impacts of climate change on non-US settlements via issues of foreign conflict, the spread of disease, immigration of displaced peoples, not to mention US humanitarian aid to those locations, among a host of other issues. Considering the pedigree of the primary authors of Product 4.6, it would be a great waste of expertise not to include analyses impacts on non-US human settlements. Otherwise, retitle the section from "Human Settlement Impacts" to "American Settlement Impacts."

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

RESPONSE: The Global Change Research Act (1990) mandates the study of impacts of global change in the United States. Nonetheless, it is certainly the case that the SAP 4.6 will consider impacts beyond the borders of the U.S. that may influence the nature or extent of effects on human health, human welfare, or human settlements realized by Americans. For example, the human settlements section may consider impacts of climate variability and change on migration patterns, both within the U.S. and related to the potential for in-migration to the U.S. of persons displaced by climate impacts in foreign countries. Similarly, transboundary issues related to climate change impacts on infectious disease will also be considered. The Prospectus has been revised to be consistent with this intent.