Moss Richard H.

No Thumbnail Available
Last Name
Moss
First Name
Richard H.
ORCID

Filters

2015 - 2019 3
2 1
3
Reset filters

Settings

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Article
    Evaluating knowledge to support climate action: A framework for sustained assessment. report of an independent advisory committee on applied climate assessment.
    (American Meteorological Society, 2019-05-21) Moss, Richard H. ; Avery, Susan K. ; Baja, Kristin ; Burkett, Maxine ; Chischilly, Ann Marie ; Dell, Janet ; Fleming, P. A. ; Geil, Kerrie L. ; Jacobs, Katharine L. ; Jones, Alan H. ; Knowlton, Kim ; Koh, Jay ; Lemos, Maria Carmen ; Melillo, Jerry M. ; Pandya, Rajul ; Richmond, Terese ; Scarlett, Lynn ; Snyder, Jared ; Stults, Melissa ; Waple, Anne ; Whitehead, Jessica ; Zarrilli, Daniel ; Ayyub, Bilal M. ; Fox, James ; Ganguly, Auroop ; Joppa, Lucas ; Julius, Susan ; Kirshen, Paul ; Kreutter, Rebecca ; McGovern, Amy ; Meyer, Ryan ; Neumann, James ; Solecki, William ; Smith, Joel ; Tissot, Philippe ; Yohe, Gary ; Zimmerman, Rae
    As states, cities, tribes, and private interests cope with climate damages and seek to increase preparedness and resilience, they will need to navigate myriad choices and options available to them. Making these choices in ways that identify pathways for climate action that support their development objectives will require constructive public dialogue, community participation, and flexible and ongoing access to science- and experience-based knowledge. In 2016, a Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) was convened to recommend how to conduct a sustained National Climate Assessment (NCA) to increase the relevance and usability of assessments for informing action. The FAC was disbanded in 2017, but members and additional experts reconvened to complete the report that is presented here. A key recommendation is establishing a new nonfederal “climate assessment consortium” to increase the role of state/local/tribal government and civil society in assessments. The expanded process would 1) focus on applied problems faced by practitioners, 2) organize sustained partnerships for collaborative learning across similar projects and case studies to identify effective tested practices, and 3) assess and improve knowledge-based methods for project implementation. Specific recommendations include evaluating climate models and data using user-defined metrics; improving benefit–cost assessment and supporting decision-making under uncertainty; and accelerating application of tools and methods such as citizen science, artificial intelligence, indicators, and geospatial analysis. The recommendations are the result of broad consultation and present an ambitious agenda for federal agencies, state/local/tribal jurisdictions, universities and the research sector, professional associations, nongovernmental and community-based organizations, and private-sector firms.
  • Article
    Framework for sustained climate assessment in the United States
    (American Meteorological Society, 2019-06-04) Moss, Richard H. ; Avery, Susan K. ; Baja, Kristin ; Burkett, Maxine ; Chischilly, Ann Marie ; Dell, Janet ; Fleming, P. A. ; Geilf, Kerrie L. ; Jacobs, Katharine L. ; Jones, Alan H. ; Knowlton, Kim ; Koh, Jay ; Lemos, Maria Carmen ; Melillo, Jerry M. ; Pandya, Rajul ; Richmond, Terese ; Scarlett, Lynn ; Snyder, Jared ; Stults, Melissa ; Waple, Anne ; Whitehead, Jessica ; Zarrilli, Daniel ; Fox, James ; Ganguly, Auroop ; Joppa, Lucas ; Julius, Susan ; Kirshen, Paul ; Kreutter, Rebecca ; McGovern, Amy ; Meyer, Ryan ; Neumann, James ; Solecki, William ; Smith, Joel ; Tissot, Philippe ; Yohe, Gary ; Zimmerman, Rae
    As states, cities, tribes, and private interests cope with climate damages and seek to increase preparedness and resilience, they will need to navigate myriad choices and options available to them. Making these choices in ways that identify pathways for climate action that support their development objectives will require constructive public dialogue, community participation, and flexible and ongoing access to science- and experience-based knowledge. In 2016, a Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) was convened to recommend how to conduct a sustained National Climate Assessment (NCA) to increase the relevance and usability of assessments for informing action. The FAC was disbanded in 2017, but members and additional experts reconvened to complete the report that is presented here. A key recommendation is establishing a new nonfederal “climate assessment consortium” to increase the role of state/local/tribal government and civil society in assessments. The expanded process would 1) focus on applied problems faced by practitioners, 2) organize sustained partnerships for collaborative learning across similar projects and case studies to identify effective tested practices, and 3) assess and improve knowledge-based methods for project implementation. Specific recommendations include evaluating climate models and data using user-defined metrics; improving benefit–cost assessment and supporting decision-making under uncertainty; and accelerating application of tools and methods such as citizen science, artificial intelligence, indicators, and geospatial analysis. The recommendations are the result of broad consultation and present an ambitious agenda for federal agencies, state/local/tribal jurisdictions, universities and the research sector, professional associations, nongovernmental and community-based organizations, and private-sector firms.
  • Preprint
    Aspirations and common tensions : larger lessons from the third US national climate assessment
    ( 2015-10) Moser, Susanne C. ; Melillo, Jerry M. ; Jacobs, Katharine L. ; Moss, Richard H. ; Buizer, James L.
    The Third US National Climate Assessment (NCA3) was produced by experts in response to the US Global Change Research Act of 1990. Based on lessons learned from previous domestic and international assessments, the NCA3 was designed to speak to a broad public and inform the concerns of policy- and decision-makers at different scales. The NCA3 was also intended to be the first step in an ongoing assessment process that would build the nation’s capacity to respond to climate change. This concluding paper draws larger lessons from the insights gained throughout the assessment process that are of significance to future US and international assessment designers. We bring attention to process and products delivered, communication and engagement efforts, and how they contributed to the sustained assessment. Based on areas where expectations were exceeded or not fully met, we address four common tensions that all assessment designers must confront and manage: between (1) core assessment ingredients (knowledge base, institutional set-up, principled process, and the people involved), (2) national scope and subnational adaptive management information needs, (3) scope, complexity, and manageability, and (4) deliberate evaluation and ongoing learning approaches. Managing these tensions, amidst the social and political contexts in which assessments are conducted, is critical to ensure that assessments are feasible and productive, while its outcomes are perceived as credible, salient, and legitimate.