Suggested Agenda/Topics of Discussion for 3rd ENSO/Regime Shift meeting

 

Suggested Date: 24 September, 9 AM, IPHC Conference room (though open to alternate location)

What I have in mind is development of a white paper or Perspectives paper on the general subject of climate variability and fisheries/ecosystem impacts. Ideally, it would cover a broad range of issues. I guess I’m thinking it would be useful to expand the discussion beyond this ENSO event or possible regime shift and look at the bigger picture. Listed below are a few issues I think are worth discussing and drafting up a consensus on.

Please let me know if you think this is a good idea. Feel free to suggest other topics. It would be quite good if people stepped forward and said they would lead the discussion on one or more of the questions and even came prepared to lead off with a five minute spiel. If people do so, I will include their names next to the topic and continually update this email on the 1995 Regime Shift home page at (remember the cut and paste problem):

http://www.iphc.washington.edu:80/PAGES/IPHC/Staff/hare/html/decadal/1995/1995_regime_shift.html

By the way, I should be back receiving email by 16 September. It is doubtful that I will ever see any email sent to me between 10 and 15 September, so if you sent me something, please resend it.
 

  1. Scales of climate variability (Mantua, Hare, Ebbesmeyer)
    On what temporal and spatial scales can we identify climate variability that is important to marine ecosystems

    How do these climate processes (ENSO, PDO, global warming, spring transition) affect the NE Pacific

    What are the definitions of the terms we use, e.g., regime shifts, (inter)decadal, PDO (Hare)

     

  1. How do the ecosystem components respond (Wooster, Hollowed)

    2. What are the different response times of various species

    What are the pathways by which climate affects organisms

    What is the relative importance of fishing vis-à-vis climate and other ecological interactions (Is Thompson-Burkenroad resolvable?)

     

  2. Can we use our knowledge to provide management advice? (Pinnix)

    3. If we can’t provide a simple answer should we instead provide none?

    Because this is such a difficult subject (linking climate to fish) should we abandon all attempts as certain Canadian researchers would have us do? (Francis)

    Can we incorporate knowledge of decadal scale climate variability into our pop dy models?

     

  3. How much should we say in talking to the public?

         The public wants some opinions on why things happen as they do. Do we just spout the line that we can’t PROVE anything? Or do we express opinions based on our understanding of events? (NW Cable News called me three times just this week trying to get me to sit for another interview, but I punted).

        How much advice or opinion should we provide to fishermen and processors? (Bigler)

 

 

 Cheers

Steven