date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 16:52:28 +0100 from: Carol Williams subject: EC polar climate research meeting to: "'domraynaud@glaciog.grenet.fr'" , "'reeh@emi.dtu.dk'" , "'Ib.Troen@dg12.cec.be'" , "'anver.ghazi@dg12.cec.be'" , "'ola.johannessen@nrsc.no'" , "'jouzel@obelix.saclay.cea.fr'" Dear colleagues, Please find attached a first draft of the discussion during this meeting. I know that I was unable to assign names to some of the comments, so you may wish to add this to your other additions and corrections. I look forward to hearing from you by 1 April please. Please let me know if you have any problems reading the attached file. Best regards, Carol EC Meeting on Polar Climate Research Copenhagen 12-13 March 1998 DISCUSSION On future challenges for the polar regions Discussion Panel : A Ghazi, J. Thiede, O. Orheim Participants : L Anderson, K Briffa, H Decleir, M Fily, T Friborg, A Hakon Hoel, J O Hagen, C Hammer, J P Hart Hansen, D Hedberg, J C Hesselbjerg, K Holmen, K Hutter, E Jansen, O Johannessen, J Jouzel, G Jugie, A Korhola, K Kristjansson, E Larsen, P Lemke, P Malkki, H Miller, J Oerlemans, V Pavlenko, S Raper, C Rapley, D Raynaud ; N Reeh, O Rogne, B Stauffer, J Taagholt, I Troen, C A Williams, M Zucchelli, Anver Ghazi outlined before the discussion that global change, climate and biodiversity received during Framework Programme 1V 350 MECU over 5 years. The Framework Programme 5 budget will be 1.04 BECU. The EC is obliged to follow the environmental policy as outlined in the Maastrict Treaty and the science results are meant to provide input to the policy makers within EC DGXI If the Environmental policy continues then it is very likely that the research on the environment will continue to be funded. The EC has funded various different areas of climate research but we should go beyond this and achieve a European dimension in the understanding of climate and the environment. 32 MECU is reserved for polar research in additon to funds within the MAST programme in FP4. There should be close interaction between the European Polar Board (EPB) and the thematic groups. In addition the EC will be setting up external advisory groups. O Johannessen asked what the position was for US and Canadian collaborators. There is a science and technology agreement between the EC and these countries and there will be the first meeting between Clinton's science advisor and Routti in June 1998 and climate research will be discussed there. Under FP5 the funding of projects outside the EC will be possible, for example, joint workshops in which US or Canadian scientists can join. A Ghazi also mentioned that there was an inter DG Cabinet meeting on 11 March to address the post-Kyoto research agenda which will be developed by DGXII in collaboration with other DGs. For example transport ministers are now interested in climate change in order to mitigate the effects upon transportation. This gives climate studies a high profile in the European Parliament. C Rapley commented that in a report of the UK Department of Environment and Transport there is no mention of scientific research. Similarly the UN advisory Board on Sustainable Development identified the impediments of climate change but again with no mention of scientific research; this is a crucial issue. The connection between science and society is still not adequately developed. P Malkki said the EU science agenda is similar to national science council agendas and was more reactive than active. The message from this meeting should be on focussing. For example in global change by combining basic research and applied developments this could lead, for example, to the development of a comprehensive model on ozone/ice. Modelling C Rapley gave an example where during IGBP pieces of the GAME project were synthesied into a world model. Similar syntheses could be done with parts of WCRP and IHDP which would be valuable. O Orheim added that if the Arctic is to be shown as being important for Europe then models should be on a smaller rather than on a global scale. C Rapley replied that there should be an overlap between research and processes. There will be some funding for monitoring in FP5 and it could be of European interest to put these three - research, processes and monitoring - together. E Augstein said that the outcome from Kyoto could be very critical. We know enough about climate to have to react, but we do not know enough especially about ocean functions and polar regions with respect to climate. We should put atmosphere, ocean, ice, glaciers and ice sheets together in models to see how the rest of the climate system reacts with the polar part. O Johanessen remarked that Augstein and he are on the ESA Advisory Committee and it was important to bring ESA closer to European Climate science. C Hammer was pessimistic that models which provide information for the global system do not fit into a regional model. Regional models need a separate approach and their own philosophy. Orheim said the challenge is to seek a scale which illustrates the European dimension and also the scale which usefully relates to societal aspects. E Augstein added that probably there will be a break through on the decadel scale but we also need the decadel to century scale, particularly for northern ocean oscillations and carbon flux models. P Lemke expanded this need into the small scale, the mesoscale and large scale. It was added that there is also a need to include more terrestrial aspects. E Larsen pointed out that it would be more useful to move away from time-slices and to think more about time-dependent models. The future Augstein said that we know enough about the risks of an anthropogenic effect upon the climate, but we do not know enough about natural climate changes ; We should encourage the EC to embark upon a CLIVAR programme lasting 15-20 years. N Reeh added that we know present ice reactions to climate but we do not know them in the past, therefore we need to study the long-term effects. We should also take a bi-polar approach and remember that tele-connections are very important aspects in climate. The interface between science and politics B Stauffer said that science could not prevent global climate change, therefore science should support sustainability, however if science can point to means of reducing the rate of global change, this would show that there was something that could be done and would evoke political decisions. J Jouzel said that the truth will come from the use of models and their validation and that there was a move in WCRP - CLIVAR to take more interest in palaeo-data. Communications between scientists and politicians are becoming more and more important and the scientific population must be large enough to be visible. D Raynaud commented that the work by Stocker in 1997 on the gross rate of emissions and the change in thermo circulation is important to conferences such as Kyoto. K Hutter added that politicians accused scientists of a high signal to noise ratio; scientists must make sure that they come up with stronger signals. The time-frame for science and politics is very different; politicians need instant information, but scientific results take a long time A Ghazi pointed out that the funding is set once the politicians want the research to be done. We need to make them understand that we do not understand the climate system. Kyoto was a compromise and the EC accepted pollution levels which were not accepted by all members. At the next meeting in Buenos Aires in November 1998 we must learn how to approach the USA. The USA wants to buy the 30% of emissions that is not achieved in Russia. This emission trading is not acceptable. However the US argues that if the EC is trading within itself then it can do so also, however the EC will be achieving an emissions reduction of 6-8 There needs to be more science representation to interact with the policy makers. Chris Rapley added that the message needs to be passed that science has the rational approach and that to look at the Earth from a policy-makers point of view raises different issues and interconnections. Biodiversity P Malkki said politicians should realise that ninety percent of the bio-variables is due to physical and chemical factors; this is so for variations in fish stocks, although cod and other pelagic species are affected by climate and this can be of great consequence to some societies. Orheim added that humans also affect the whale populations. The Biodiversity strategy paper of the EC should consider this. Hutter asked whether biodiversivity is being taken enough into account in climate change models, for example in the carbon dioxide variables. Most studies concentrated on summer data, but winter fluxes could also be significant. Shared Facilities J Thiede stated that the EC projects presented here lacked linkages between themselves and between other programmes. How can DGXII and the EPB react usefully to ipmprove this ? We need to convince politicians that the study of earth system resources is Earth system management and that Europe has unique facilities for bi-polar research. These are not used very efficiently and networking between international programmes would help this. Biffa added that the integration of Russian resources is often spoken about but there exists no mechanism for integrating fieldwork or programmes. However C Rapley pointed out that during the IGBP transects the purpose was to integrate field work. A Ghazi said that in principal FP5 will be open to Eastern European countries and funds will be made available for global change and several other projects where Russian science is involved and it looks optimistic for INTAS and other mechanisms for funding Russian scientists. Ib Troen suggested it might be worth considering a polar concerted action to discuss programmes such as CLIVAR, modelling and palaeocimate at the same time. Sweden and Finland have nine ice breakers each which cannot all be funded by science; we should look into the better use of these. We should also look into co-ordinating research aeroplanes. Ghazi mentioned that some chemistry programmes had a concerted approach to the use of planes, balloons etc. Anders Karlqvist pointed out that current arrangements for the exchange of facilities is based on an exchange of services with no money passing hands. There is a lack of mechanisms for dealing with money and we need European advice for this. The pooling of resources is interesting and it will be a challenge to get nations working together. This could be a constructive role for the EPB. Thanks J P Hart Hansen thanked Anver Ghazi and the rest of the meeting for their contributions. He reminded us that polar science is a very broad field covering the natural and also social and medical sciences and the humanities. There were many useful comments on the sharing logistics and facilities and on communications to politicians and it is clear that bi-polar science must continue. 20.3.98