The Royal Society of Edinburgh in association with the International Centre for Mathematical Sciences Climate Change During

the Last 10,000 Years: Reconstructions and Uncertainties Professor Heinz Wanner, University of Bern Professor John Haslett, Trinity College, Dublin Professor Gabriele Hegerl, University of Edinburgh Wednesday 14 July 2010 Report by Andrew Schurer
As part of the 11th International Meeting on Statistical Climatology (11 IMSC), in partnership with the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Professor Heinz Wanner and Professor John Haslett explained to a packed audience details about climate change during the last 10,000 years. The speakers addressed both the factors affecting the climate and the problem of uncertainties in our knowledge, as well as the difficulties facing scientists in communicating the nature of this uncertainty to others. The first speaker was Professor Heinz Wanner, an expert in palaeoclimate reconstructions, who discussed the key factors affecting past climate. He showed how the climate has changed over the past 20,000 years, warming from an initially cold ice age period until the present interglacial period, called the Holocene, by showing a graph of temperature reconstructed from observations made from Greenland ice cores. The warming trend shown was not smooth however, and after an initial strong warming, the temperature fell rapidly again back to ice age conditions for a short period of 600700 years, known as the Younger Dryas, caused by melt-water fluxes from the Laurentide ice sheet influencing the Gulf Stream. After another period of warming during the Holocene, the climate became comparatively stable, albeit with observable temperature fluctuations in the mid-latitudes and polar areas, and precipitation fluctuations in the equatorial areas. Professor Wanner mentioned that it has been proposed that this relative stability could have played a crucial role in the development of humankind. A strong factor in the Holocene climate has been the slow melting of the ice sheets, in particular the gradual melting of the Laurentide ice sheet over northern North America. This melting resulted in a strongly rising sea level until about 7000 years ago. Also important is the melting of sea ice. Sea ice reflects light, as can be clearly seen from satellites in space, as opposed to the sea which absorbs and therefore appears black; consequently the quantity of sea ice is hugely influential for our climate. Since we have no precise information about its quantity, this represents one of the greatest uncertainties in our understanding of the Holocene climate. One of the key drivers of climate during the Holocene is the change in solar radiation due to variations in the Earth's orbit round the Sun. Over the last 10,000 years, the summer solar insolation in the Northern Hemisphere has declined by approximately 40Wm-2, a significantly large amount. Conversely, the summer insolation in the Southern Hemisphere has been gradually increasing. These changes have had a large influence on the climate of the Holocene, which can be roughly divided into four periods. The first, temperate period is characterised by the Northern Hemisphere ice sheet melt, and a successive warming due to the stronger solar insolation. The middle, warm, period, also referred to as the optimal period, has the warmest temperature, also attributable to warming from the ocean, which integrated the high Northern Hemisphere summer insolation. The third cool period shows a gradual cooling due to a drop in Northern Hemisphere solar insolation. Finally, over the last 100150 years, this temperature trend has been reversed, with the temperature showing a warming. This change in the energy input has other effects, most notably a change in the position of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), which is an area of high convection near the Equator. The solar insolation change has caused the ITCZ to move southward which, in turn, has caused a weakening of the monsoons over the last 6,000 years. Also important is the effect of the change in energy input on glacier dynamics. Observations of tree-rings, moraines and sediments show that over

the last 6,000 years glaciers have been advancing in the Northern Hemisphere while they possibly retreated in the Southern Hemisphere. As well as these long-term trends the observational record also shows periods of rapid climate change where the temperature rapidly cools, referred to as Bond cycles, identified by looking at sediments in the Atlantic Ocean. It is thought that some of the early events may be due to changes in the thermohaline circulation; however the cause of the later events is still highly uncertain. Looking at the last 1,000 years, temperature reconstructions show that on average temperature was higher during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and lower during the Little Ice Age (LIA). However, if we look at maps showing temperature anomalies for these periods, the situation is more complex. It can be clearly seen that while many areas were warmer during the MWP, there were also areas which were actually colder; equally during the LIA, although many areas were colder, there were also areas showing increased temperature. Studies show that over the last 1,000 years, volcanoes have been strongly influential on the climate, having a cooling effect; in addition, changes in solar activity have also had some influence. Over the last couple of centuries, the human (anthropogenic) influence has been rapidly growing due to the burning of fossil fuels. Models including these forcings have been developed and the effect of these forcings, both in the model results and in observations, can be seen. These models show us that the anthropogenic forcings outweigh the natural forcings over the most recent period, with a high degree of certainty. It is a still an open question as to what the climate would have been like now if the anthropogenic influence had been removed, although it is thought that it would have been similar to either the LIA or to conditions experienced around 1900. Professor Wanner concluded his talk by discussing the impact of recent climate change on mankind. People in the richer developed countries in the north such as Scotland and Switzerland (his own country), might be able to afford to adapt to the changes, but people in the developing world, particularly in the areas predicted to get drier around Asia, Africa and Latin America, will face real problems. The second speaker was Professor John Haslett, a statistician from Trinity College, Dublin. He primarily addressed the issue of uncertainty and how this can be communicated. How much do we know these things? How much of them do we know? Professor Haslett showed how it is possible for scientists to communicate uncertainty to other scientists by the use of error bars. But how does the media do uncertainty? He demonstrated this by use of an example. Data from Glendalough, a glacial valley in Ireland, indicated a period of rapid climate change in the past. About 10,000 years ago, there was a period of rapid warming, when the climate went from an extremely severe cold climate to one not unlike todays climate. No one knows for sure over how short a period this warming took place; however the scientists are reasonably certain that it probably happened over a period of less than 30 years, and maybe even as short as seven. A national newspaper took up this story and illustrated it with a large picture showing, on one side, a current photo of Glendalough and, on the other, a photo of the same location with glaciers and ice superimposed, with a title How Wicklow went from Arctic to mild in 7 years .... Scientists have investigated this episode by collecting many different types of data, called proxies, from around Glendalough; for example pollen found in mud cores. It is then possible for scientists to calculate many different scenarios that are consistent with the data. This then allows for plots which show statistical uncertainty, and make possible statements such as ninety five percent of models which fit the data lie within a certain range. Rapid climate change such as this has been found to occur frequently in the past, and is an important, significant and interesting phenomenon. When the audience were asked whether the photos from the newspaper were more memorable than the scientific plots, the majority picked the photos, thus illustrating the problems in communicating scientific ideas and uncertainty to the public. Professor Haslett explained that although mathematicians can do proofs, statisticians, scientists and even the law struggle with them, (although in many cases it is possible to disprove an idea by proposing a single counter example). This then means uncertainty is involved. It is possible to study

our uncertainty statisticians make a living out of it, but it is much harder to communicate it. The website Understanding Uncertainty, set up by David Spiegelhalter, the Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk, does a good job of this. The talk concluded by discussing the large discrepancy between the scientific view on climate change and the public. The scientific community, almost to a man, is united in believing one thing, but public opinion instead is divided. Communicating the science to the public is an important and difficult task and one in which what the press say is probably more important than what the scientists say. QUESTIONS Professor Gabriele Hegerl, the Chair of the 11 IMSC Scientific Programme Committee, joined the two speakers to take questions from the audience. One audience member asked a question about pollen analysis, and whether the spatial movement of plants is taken into account. Professor Haslett answered that it depends on the nature of the analysis, and in particular on the timescale of interest and the plant in question; but agreed that there are some people studying this in great detail. Another person said that he was heartened to hear so much talk about uncertainty and felt that this is not normally communicated enough. Professor Hegerl said that the IPCC reports have a careful explanation of uncertainty and the problem is with the interface with the media. Professor Haslett pointed out that it is not entirely fair to blame the press, since it is their job to get people to buy and read their articles and that it is a huge challenge to communicate uncertainty. Professor Wanner said that it is important to explain uncertainties and to be modest and open minded. One person asked about the difference between statistical inference models and physical models and how important they are, and in particular how physical the solar models are. Professor Wanner answered that we need both, and explained that reconstructions of solar forcing are based on isotopes, and that there are only direct measurements for calibration from 1974, leading to uncertainties. Professor Hegerl agreed that both kinds of models are important and said that bringing statisticians and climatologists together is the one of the aims of the ongoing conference in Edinburgh on Statistical Climatology. Professor Haslett added that it is not a case of theory or data statisticians use them both and that statistical models are about more than just spotting patterns; they are also predictive. An audience member asked about the relationship between tree rings and temperature, and whether the statistical linear regressions performed are correct. Professor Haslett answered that this is not a yes/no question, and that it is not something to believe in or not believe in, rather it is more important to look at usefulness and what we can learn from tree rings and we can quantify the uncertainty. Professor Hegerl added that the temperature reconstructions are based on many different kinds of proxies, and although tree rings are important, they are not the only evidence; for example, bore holes form a completely separate line of evidence for past climate, and the failure of scientists to communicate this to the public has been a problem. One person questioned the link between carbon dioxide and temperature. Professor Wanner answered that there are still uncertainties concerning past climate, and much work is being done, but there is a growing body of evidence to support the link. Professor Hegerl added that the direct radiative response to CO2 is well known; however the feedbacks are less certain. Scientists are trying to constrain this using many lines of evidence and, although there is still uncertainty, there is strong evidence showing that the feedbacks are positive. A Vote of Thanks was proposed by John Toland, FRS FRSE Professor of Mathematics at the University of Bath.
Opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of the RSE, nor of its Fellows The Royal Society of Edinburgh, Scotlands National Academy, is Scottish Charity No. SC000470