Thoughts/challenges on BRACE processes for historical and future climate information:
- knowing how to divide up the state/whether or not to place special attention on certain geographies/demographics
- we relied on NOAA climate divisions and a selection of high-quality weather station locations
- these stations were quality-controlled by GLISA and others may not have capacity to perform similar analysis
- importance of placing Michigan's climate in a more regional context
- climate drivers (air masses, natural variations, and lake effects)
- for Michigan, the role of the lakes is vital to understand since they modify our local climate
- helps to better understand cause/effect for future changes
- Climate projections must be evaluated for the quality of information they provide
- with the vast array of climate projections available for use, some guidance as to which ones are really best for the state is necessary so their information can be placed in a proper framework for relying on them
- we started with the set of projections that are highlighted in the NOAA technical reports
- additional framing was required to explain that the models do not simulate one of our primary climate drivers well - the lakes
- we used this as an opportunity to strengthen our model of first relying on the historical observations (what has happened) to have an anchor for thinking about the future (what will happen)
- When using pre-packaged information (NOAA Technical report) there's little room for customization
- only a limited number of indices/thresholds are available for analysis - public health may have different thresholds that are more meaningful than the standard set (days above 95, below 32, etc)
- we relied on pre-made maps and had little control over customizing maps for Michigan
- getting higher quality regional data to do our own analysis and presentation is a huge effort that GLISA is currently wading into, but its a long process to make sure it is done well. States may not be able to wait.
Add comment