May 1, 2010

ClimAID Report Comments – Art DeGaetano

Chapter 1 Vulnerability

Great chapter super authors

Chapter 2 Equity and Economics

• EJ has nice strong chapter ties. This is a great preface to the

subsequent chapters
• Communication could easily argue that these snow/ice costs
would be AVERTED under climate change.
• Economics (page 14-16) is a bit to academic. Should do a better
job of integrating sector examples throughout as is done in EJ
• Economics needs better proofing fro grammar etc., especially
page 17

Chapter 3 Climate

• Figures are inserted into text in all other chapters

• Figures 3.4 – 3.7 are too small

• The regional GCM section is still long. It was not used directly in
ClimAID and tends to complicate the discussion. I don’t think it
should be omitted, but it does need to be shortened.

• I still have problems with the drought projections . I have

amended the text a bit.

• I did read this chapter more closely than the others and will
forward an annotated copy that has a number of typos
indentified.

Chapter 4 Water

• Is there any evidence in the literature that can be cited for the
potential population shift back to NY
• Extensive snow survey data (more or less) already exists for NY
as part of the NY Cooperative Snow Survey (page 55)
• Does salt front (intake of salt water) cause any other problems
other then health. Perhaps corrosion of infrastructure?
• Not quite clear on why decreases in ground water tables will
outpace sea level rise. What is the casual mechanism?
 • Hydro needs to tie to Energy chapter. Need to make sure
discussion in both chapters align. The same is true for
Agricultural water use.

Chapter 5 Ocean Coastal Zone

• Nice succinct case studies

• Seems to be the only sector with stakeholder section as part of
the text, some have it as an appendix others don’t have it.
• Kristin Marcell’s name is misspelled
• Page 8 Font changes
• Page 25 in the middle, text does not seem to flow correctly
• Little salt water into LI ground water
• Page 37? gelpful should be helpful
• I believe the quoted bottom temperature on page 33 is in error. I
don’t see how it can be 2°F (wrong units?)
• Good correspondence to transportation on case studies
Chapter 6 Ecosystem

• Are chapters suppose to have a science Policy Section. This was

does, some others do, others don’t.
• Figures are inserted into text in all other chapters
• Some redundancy in text between text in body and case studies
later on (fish and maple for example). This could be tightened.
• Page 7 Only 3 Forest-related jobs??
• Page 19 Is washoff f fungicides/pesticides important for
ecosystems or is this a carry over from ag?
• Should tables such as Table 6.5 be altered to match CAC TWGlet
ideas?
• Was fish example used in EJ? Says so, but I didn’t see it?

Chapter 7 Agriculture

• Some redundancy of text with ecosystems, this is ok since they

are related
• “possible” is misspelled at bottom of page 17
• Are dams/reservoirs really feasible adaptation strategies
• Page 21 Not hourly temps directly from CLIMAID, these were
specially downscaled
• McDonald, Riha, DiTomasso, DeGaetano reference as a weed
study?
Chapter 8 Energy

• Pages 52-53 lots of typos

• Good ties to other chapters, especially climate
 •Are chapters suppose to have a science Policy Section. This was
does, some others do, others don’t.
• Table 8.4 is great, but such a table is not in all chapters, notably
health
Chapter 9 Transportation

•Some may argue that recent climate is not changing at an

accerating rate (past decade “cool’) on page 25.
• Need to be careful about the claim of an increase in extreme
weather (page 12). Climate chapter is very careful not to make
this claim or at least couch it as highly uncertain.
• On page 15 most studies show that the cost of snow removal is a
function of the number of events, not the total amount of snow.
• Page 27. Energy chapter cites lower winds, you say higher. This
needs to be clarified (mean vs. extreme perhaps) of made
consistent.
• A mention of freeze thaw cycle in relation to potholes and road
maintenance is absent
• The case study is almost 50 (out of 80) pages long. Much longer
than any of the others.
• Not much discussion about airports.
• Pages 1-10 are very NYC cntric except for roads and thruway.
No mention of public transportation in upstate cities, ferry
service on Lake Champaign, upstate rail lines, Erie Canal. The
Great Lakes are handled nicely later on.
• In 9.4, no adaptations are listed for the Great Lakes
• No mention of EWR airport, although there is a mention of TET
• Avoid “shalls” in recommendations
• None of the recommendations are focused on upstate
Chapter 10 Communications

• This is still a hard for the assessment. Main conclusion is that

climate change impact is small. The impacts are hard to quantify
even qualitatively.
• Figure 10.2 needs to be clearer
• Although icing does occur with nor’easter, I doubt that any of the
most significant events occur with this type of weather system.
Most are associated with stationary frontal boundaries.
• On page 2, I don’t think we expect any MORE snow or ice storms
• There are over 10 pages devoted to ice storms, albeit the link
between these storms and climate change is weak and
uncertain.
• This chapter is much more weather than climate focused. I
realize that this is necessary to show impact, but it might
confuse the reader as to the difference between weather and
 climate. It is probably not correct to call things like ice storms
“climate change hazards”
• Adaptation strategies (section 10.4) are a stretch from climate.
Is it CLIMAIDs roles to make these types of recommendations
that are only very indirectly related to climate.
• Six inches of rain falling as part of a freezing rain event seems
quite high.
• How were values for the 50 years storms in the case studies
obtained.
• Is there a source for the figure that one third of all poles would
fall
• I like the stakeholder appendix!
Chapter 11 Health

• Need to be careful about the claim of an increase in extreme

weather (page 12). Climate chapter is very careful not to make
this claim or at least couch it as highly uncertain.
• Is it possible to show a quantification of the mortality heat
relationship
• The chapter needs better and more specific ties to the climate
chapter.
• Figure 11.8 seems like a huge map, given that the numbers are
confined to just a few NYC area counties
• Ozone study could use a figure
• I would say that the NWS flood warning system has improved
considerably since the 1983 reference cited on page 15
• There are problems with the degree day and evaporation values
on page 17. You cannot just say degrees days above some
threshold occur, I assume the relationship is between number of
mosquitoes and the accumulation of some number of degree
days above 65°F. Same is true for evaporation. Evaporation
ALWAYS occurs. It does not make sense to say that evaporation
occurs five weeks earlier than average. You need to refer to
some specific amount of evaporation (x inches for example).