Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Model Critique topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioner presses technical critique of MCFRM; model assumptions spark debate
Summary
Commissioner Chuck Wagner presented a technical critique arguing parts of the MCFRM rely on an emissions scenario some climate scientists consider implausible; presenters said MCFRM is adjustable and recommended 2050 as an interim baseline while science is reviewed.
EASTHAM — A substantive technical exchange broke out during Eastham’s July 22 work session when Commissioner Chuck Wagner presented slide material challenging the climate scenario underlying the Massachusetts Coast Flood Risk Model. Wagner argued the model’s use of an RCP 8.5-type pathway leads to higher sea-level projections than observed recent trends would suggest.
Wagner said his calculations showed a large discrepancy between the MCFRM 2070 projection and linear historical averages, urging commissioners to avoid adopting regulatory boundaries based solely on the current MCFRM run. “That particular scenario was no longer plausible,” he said, describing why he believes some of the model’s inputs should be revisited. Presenters responded that the MCFRM incorporates multiple components (sea-level projections, storm surge, elevation and local subsidence) and that Woods Hole Group and local modelers have already adjusted MCFRM inputs for Cape Cod use. Shannon Holst said the commission can adopt the 2050 horizon as a practicable near-term choice while scientists re-evaluate scenarios and the commission requested a technical follow-up session to examine assumptions in greater depth.
The exchange did not produce a final technical determination; commissioners agreed to continue the conversation with modelers and to circulate local overlays so members can evaluate parcel-level impacts.
