WEDNESDAY 4 JULY 2007

PROFESSOR ALAN RODGER, PROFESSOR GRAHAM SHIMMIELD, PROFESSOR BOB DICKSON AND PROFESSOR ANDREW WATSON

  Chairman: We welcome our second panel this morning and, again, apologies for starting slightly late. We welcome Professor alan Rodger, the Head of Science Programmes from the British Antarctic Survey, Professor Graham Shimmield, the Director from the Scottish Association for Marine Science, Professor Bob Dickson, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, and Professor Andrew Watson from the School of Environmental Sciences at UEA and the Royal Society of Chemistry. Welcome to you all. Can I ask you, Professor Rodger, to chair your panel, in case there are any disputes as we go through?

  Dr Iddon: Chairman, may I just declare an interest in that I am a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry and one of their Parliamentary advisers.

  Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. Can I ask Dr Turner to begin the session?

  Q428  Dr Turner: How much do we already know about the changes that have occurred in the oceans as a result of climate change? How firm do you think the predictions are for the future?

  Professor Rodger: Why do I not start off in the southern hemispheres, is the first question. I think we know quite a lot about the southern hemisphere oceans but the uncertainties are very significant in a whole host of areas. The uncertainties relate to carbon drawdown, about how much there is, how fast it is, where it is going, the biological roles in there—even the physical processes. I think we are uncertain about the way the ocean interacts with ice shelves and, therefore, has a fundamental effect on sea level, and then I think we have serious big questions, too, in terms of the way in which climate change is affecting the eco-system. That leads on to sustainable use of the southern oceans for biological bioresources. Those would be my three big topics. So we have a long way to go, I think, before we can give you predictions that are as robust as a scientist would wish.

  Q429  Dr Turner: However, BAS has made an impressive start, I think it is reasonable to say. Clearly, the world has two poles.

  Professor Rodger: Indeed.

  Q430  Dr Turner: We do not really seem—at least not from a UK point of view—to have made the same effort with the North Pole. Do you think there is an equivalent corpus of knowledge about the North Pole, because we need both ends of the system?

  Professor Dickson: I think that used to be the case. When the world's biggest ocean experiment set out—the World Ocean Circulation Experiment—it set out to cover the world-ocean and establish its role in climate and establish a baseline against which future change would be seen. It only went as far north as the Iceland/Scotland Ridge, and then when the Arctic Climate System Study started up a little bit later it, to study the Arctic Ocean from the same points of view, it unaccountably, only went north of Fram Strait. So the answer I would have given you ten years ago would have been "not much" in the north. Since then we have put together something called the Arctic and Subarctic Ocean Flux Study designed to put all that right. We have discovered quite a lot since then. We now have measured almost all of the ocean fluxes that connect the Atlantic and the Arctic. They could not be measured before; we can now, the technology has advanced (with a couple of exceptions). Now we have discovered that the processes were connected latitudinally between the Atlantic and the Arctic, and it was quite a surprise how diverse was the connectibility of the processes. The third thing we discovered was how extreme the changes have been as our records lengthen. There are still things that we have to do as we go into the polar year, but I think we see our job now—and we have just done it in ASOF (Arctic and Subarctic Ocean Fluxes)—as to re-sharpen what the cutting edge questions now are. So we have learned a lot. We have learned, even, how to question what the questions were and before the IPY to re-pose these. So I think the answer now is we have quite a lot of information that we would not have been able to answer you on before.

  Professor Shimmield: I think Bob is absolutely right, and I think he has described well our advances in the physical domain in the way in which the oceans are operating at the higher northern latitudes. Our knowledge of the way in which some of the biology and eco-systems are responding to those changes, and the way in which the biogeochemistry of the ocean is operating, is less well advanced, and it is a major thrust under the International Polar Year to address that. Of course, that brings in the whole dimension of human activity in the Arctic and the rate of change there. Before I move off I would say one other way that we look at the history of the oceans is the palaeo-oceanographic record—the history of the oceans—as recovered from deep-sea sediment cores and the like. In that area the UK is world leader in trying to help develop our comprehensive understanding of certain modern changes in the ocean in this historical and geological context.

  Q431  Dr Turner: If you guys are not actually yet prepared with confidence to make a statement encapsulating the relationship between the oceans and climate change, can you identify the sort of knowledge and major questions that need to be settled before you can?

  Professor Watson: I would say that the interaction of the climate with the ocean circulation is critical, because it feeds into the issues of the chemistry and how the ocean takes up carbon dioxide. Incidentally, that uptake of carbon dioxide is extremely important because it has slowed the rate of climate change, which we do not understand well—we do not understand how long it will continue, whether it is increasing or whether it is decreasing; we have some evidence that it is decreasing. This interacts with the ocean circulation, in particular, on our own doorstep, the overturning circulation of the Atlantic, which is fed by the currents coming down from the Arctic Ocean over the Iceland/Scotland Ridge. That is a critical area which we have to understand. This involves modelling the ocean circulation, but, also, the biology and the chemistry of the ocean, and that requires big computers, which is the reason why we are not further forward than we might otherwise be.

  Professor Rodger: There are some serious difficulties in all sorts of areas; for example, in sea ice. We know the stories of Arctic sea ice disappearing but, also, in the Antarctic, it is a critical issue from the point of view of acting as a lid on that ocean interface, that energy transfer between the ocean and atmosphere. Indeed, what we are seeing now is some beginnings of changes in sea ice in the Antarctic that have not been reported before. Therefore, mesoscale structures as well are changing. So all things are changing on all timescales, and it is really difficult at this juncture to give you accurate predictions, because it is the interaction of scale sizes as well as the biogeochemistry, as well as the atmosphere that, I think, is demanding, these higher resolution computer models that have just been described.

  Q432  Dr Turner: Do you think that the current programmes ordered by NERC and the EU are asking the right questions, from your point of view? Do we need any change of direction—any shift in emphasis—in our research programmes? Especially as the 2025 programme, for instance, leaves out the universities. Do we need to widen that programme?

  Professor Shimmield: First, on Oceans 2025, what we have set out there is building on existing work, particularly in the Arctic region, and linking across to the work of the British Antarctic Survey. I should say that is only a first step and, currently, as we are sitting here, a group known as the Polar Sciences Working Group is helping to develop this further within the readjustment of NERC's overall scientific strategy, which will encompass the broad range of funding, both to institutes and to university sectors. So it will address both aspects. That working group is also looking at infrastructure aspects to support the scientific programme and to set priorities, and will report very shortly. In the context of my knowledge base within the Arctic, then the European/UK interaction at all levels is quite strong—it is certainly led by some key institutions—but there is a broad diversity of scientists taking part in those initiatives, and the International Polar Year has been a strong catalyst in grouping people into clusters and setting the priorities accordingly. I think we should be quite proud of the way we are going forward at this moment in time. Resources are still a limitation, though.

  Professor Watson: I would say that we do need to be careful. Oceans 2025 only covered, as you say, the NERC institutes. There are places in the universities—my own group is one of them, which is, for instance, doing long-term observations on carbon dioxide in the Atlantic Ocean. It is not funded by NERC, it was never funded by NERC, and it is completely left outside of that structure. There is no mechanism, actually, in the UK for funding those kinds of long-term observations—none that I know of; we have to go to Europe to get funding for that. That can be quite dodgy, too. So I think there are large areas that have been left outside, certainly, of NERC. You would naturally look to the NERC to do some of this co-ordination, and I think that they have, to a certain extent, left out sections of the community. In the area of ocean acidification—I should say that I was asked here by the Royal Society of Chemistry who gave evidence to you on ocean acidification—there is comparatively little work being done within Oceans 2025.

  Q433  Dr Turner: I think you have identified an area which has been pointed out to us by several previous witnesses where there is a problem in maintaining long-term monitoring as opposed to specific, immediate research projects. However, without the monitoring we will not have a framework in which to place whatever other knowledge we get. Would you agree that that is something which urgently needs to be addressed?

  Professor Watson: Yes, I think so. NERC has done something on this, with its Oceans 2025, but, as you rightly say, it only is a subsection of the community and it is not very well co-ordinated with the rest of the community. We see no real mechanism for them to do that.

  Professor Rodger: Perhaps I could say a little bit (I should, perhaps, declare an interest being funded by the Natural Environment Research Council) in the sense that they are changing the way in which they operate, the way in which things are being funded, into different categories, one of which is national capability. This is a regime whereby things like long-term monitoring and survey of the oceans will have much more clearly-defined activity and principles by which they are decided. So I think there is a seed-change, if you like, and that seed-change, if I can go back to your earlier question, is also trying to build the links between the university system and the institutes, which have in the past been less well-integrated. However, I think things are changing quite markedly, and the evidence I would give you is that there is money in Oceans 2025 to work specifically with the universities, and the number of joint grants NERC is awarding between institutes and universities is increasing.

  Q434  Dr Turner: So there are hopeful straws in the wind, at the very least. Clearly, ocean sciences have benefited, to a degree, from the political attention to climate change. Are you worried that this might take over completely and distort ocean science so that it only looks at climate change and not anything else?

  Professor Dickson: I do not think so. I think we need more observations of the northern seas—which used to be a data dessert. The reason for my slight spluttering about your earlier question, is that we are actually producing this week a 750-page book called The Role of Northern Seas in Climate. So it is not that we are bashful about saying what we have learned—

  Q435  Dr Turner: Can you send us copies?

  Professor Dickson: I will certainly send you a copy—with a bill!

  Q436  Dr Turner: I do not want the bill!

  Professor Dickson: The second question you asked was: are we asking the right questions? I think the second output from that sort of study is to re-hone the questions. Certainly the EC effort, the biggest one on the oceans that we know of is Damocles. It costs something like 25 million euros over the next four years or so, of which the EC is producing about 17. All the other institutions involved are providing matching funding for this, including the UK, Norway and others. So the question they focus on is the central one: what is the state and fate of the Arctic sea ice? All sorts of other "oceans role in climate" issues will come up as they study that. It is important not to be too prescriptive when you define the first question, the central question, that a big programme like this will answer. I think we have got the question right: is the Arctic perennial sea ice going to disappear in late summer, and if so, when? What will it do to the earth's climate? In many ways the peripheral observations that we have to arm that with go back to the 100-year time series that we have at certain places, and forward to the observations that we have only just learnt to make. So we have a continuum between the 120-year time series, which are rare but, nonetheless, important, and the ones where a technique has been so wanted, so needed but only just available that we have hardly any time series of it at all. I think if that is the question then we are getting there. Of course, looking at variability is a hard thing to do.

  Q437  Chris Mole: You may feel that you have answered this to an extent already, in which case do not repeat yourself. Is the balance of funding between monitoring and basic research right then? We have limited pots of money, but if NERC has any increases where should it direct it?

  Professor Rodger: I will answer that, in the first instance. I think we know quite a lot about the surface of the ocean—we do very well from space—but we know remarkably little about under the water, to be perfectly honest. We are at a cusp, I believe, in the sense that there is new technology out there that has been around for a few years. The UK has not yet invested heavily in this area.

  Q438  Chris Mole: Gliders?

  Professor Rodger: Gliders, towed systems, buoys, more moorings, very clever moorings—ones that do not yet operate in sea ice, unfortunately. In general, there is a lot more technology around there, and whether you call that research or whether you call it long-term monitoring, I will leave as an open question, but it is absolutely essential to get more understanding and more measurements throughout the ocean profile. This is the part of the planet that is least well understood in many ways, and least well measured. That is what I would spend my money on, if you like—if I had money today.

  Professor Shimmield: I think the monitoring programmes will get more for your money as well by integrating with other nations, approaching this in an international co-ordination effort. Clearly, there are good examples in the past—we have heard about some of them today—and there are more planned in the future, and I think the activities of the Global Ocean Observing System and how that integrates across into regional activities is something that is important. The UK then has to play a leadership role in determining both the course of those programmes and the investment, and ensuring that all the parts of government that needs the aspects of monitoring (we were hearing about that in the earlier session this morning) really derive maximum benefit, and that is where the co-ordination is required.

  Professor Watson: I would say that to a certain extent the difference between research and monitoring is decreasing. What is happening is, to a certain extent, the era of the single investigator—the one man and his post-doc kind of research grant—is less important when we are dealing with global climate change. Increasingly, we are having to do large, co-ordinated programmes. Sometimes they involve long-term monitoring for decades, but they almost always involve periods of monitoring of four or five years. There is a need to make the funding structure better able to promote that kind of—

  Q439  Chris Mole: Are you concerned about the sustainability of monitoring? One man for five years on a research grant can do some very good work, but if you really need to see the trends—is that something that concerns you?

  Professor Watson: Yes, it is. I think that NERC, for instance, is always torn between being a research council and running its institutes. When one looks at the countries that do this well, the United States with NOAA2[2], Japan with JAMSTEC, they have dedicated agencies that do this monitoring, and if we had not got, for instance, NOAA's measurements going back over decades (they funded Keeling3[3] for many, many years) we would know precious little about the global environment.

3   3 Note from the witness: "Keeling: CD Keeling, responsible for the first monitoring of atmospheric carbon dioxide." Back