http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz2j3BhL47c

I was encouraged to take in the audiovisual presentation of “All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace”, wherein Adam Curtis demonstrates what appears to be a lack of understanding regarding failure in the financial markets. Most foundational year ecologists can tell you that systems are self-correcting, that virtual bubbles get popped, that hubris gets torn down, that over-population gets underfed. Rabbits and foxes. Owls and mice. George Monbiot’s “War On Slugs” because of missing hedgehogs and thrushes. It all depends on the natural resources available to feed the participants in the game. The global economy can only accelerate growth so much before it implodes. There are Limits to Growth. Curtis could be said to be expressing his suspicions that the fake “Knowledge Economy”, the Asian “Shock Doctrine” and the Property Crash were an artefact of a secret evil cabal formed from the vaguely impressed followers of Ayn Rand – but the rest of us all know that’s silly. She was a lovely, sensitive, principled woman, although she could have done with a little more kindness in her life to inspire altruism in her worldview.

Adam’s next splurge is going to try to tear down the foundations of environmentalism itself, and I think somebody should take him to one side and challenge him about his stance – apparently trying to annoy the Greens and the social action movement collectively, all in one over-energetic Guardian “grudge” piece :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/adam-curtis-ecosystems-tansley-smuts

He can’t seem to bear the thought that people, as Ayn Rand advised, should act on their own free will, their enlightened libertarian self-interest, and form associations around causes that they believe in. I’ve taken part in enough democracy to know that UK Uncut is the closest thing to pure people power since Climate Camp pulled together. You cannot fight the imposition of social injustice with a massive, slow-moving bureaucratic organism – you need runners and movers and shakers to get out there and nudge like crazy.

People need to take responsibility for their actions, and we have to trust them to have thought long and hard about the ethics of their intentions and intended actions before they take part in public life in any way. Personally, my political action does not include the destruction of private or public property, nor the harming of other people, animals or other lifeforms. My non-violent direct action is as non-violent as it can be. I would certainly recommend this path to anyone, but I know some people find it hard to take this kind of advice on board. Adam Curtis has to be included in the set of people who act through violence, in my view, poking a big stick in the faces of the peace-loving philosophers of Nature.

This is what democracy looks like : a group of individuals – really individually unique individuals – not pigeonholed segments of an market audience – get talking about what’s wrong and fixing on one thing that they can all agree needs to be opposed – or built – then going out and doing something about it. The best organisations have an almost completely flat hierarchical structure, with small cells of between 5 and 13 people, with equal rights and remuneration, cooperatives, taking on their own tasks, and using interconnecting information people to keep the cells working together. This is a model of organisation drawn directly from Nature, and can be seen in everything from the self-teaching human brain with its delegated centres of executive control, to the way that birds fly in formation.

I don’t agree with everything from James Lovelock’s internal picture of the Gaia universe, but I will agree on this – the ways that people work together best are based on models drawn from the carefully studied ecosystems around us, and our own physical make-up. It’s natural, and it’s efficient. Each person has a task that’s unique to them, that is their personal interest and is the focus of their own individual attention. This is how we get democracy done. By behaving like a self-organising, self-correcting ecosystem. And this is how both Social Change and Climate Change can be addressed – by small, local groups doing action, education, training and political engagement at the grass roots level, or rather, the tree roots level, above which we can grow a strong new trunk to hold our New Low Carbon Nation together. Al Gore spoke of his gameplan as a series of one-to-one conversations. This is a model of political and social influence we can all follow.

Image Credit : Funk the Cuts

http://www.crudeawakening.org.uk/

Just what are they brewing ?

An e-mail trail with a certain amount of political content…

from: Kate Shepherd
date: Tue, Aug 10, 2010
subject: Climate Week

Hello Jo

It was lovely to speak with you today about Climate Week and I’d be grateful if you could pass on the information to the rest of your team.

Climate Week, 21st – 27th March 2011, is a new national occasion on climate change, backed by the Prime Minister, Al Gore and Kofi Annan. During Climate Week, thousands of events will be run by organisations from every part of society to highlight the positive steps being taken to help prevent climate change.

I have attached a document for further information, the document includes a list of supporters of Climate Week, which range from every part of society: from the Chief Fire Officers Association to the Women’s Institute, the Girl Guiding UK to several Regional Development Agencies.

The organisations backing Climate Week have added their names to the growing list of organisations backing Climate Week, they are encouraging their networks and members to get involved in Climate Week and are starting to think about some events/activities they can run.

Kevin Steele, the founder and CEO of Climate Week, sits on the steering committee for David Cameron’s Big Society and founded Global Entrepreneurship Week and National Family Week. The Climate Week model – with thousands of events all over the UK – will inspire those wanting to do their bit and promote those who are already doing their bit.

In November we are holding a stakeholder event in Westminster for the directors of the organisations supporting Climate Week – I will keep you posted and also let you know as soon as our website is launched (at the beginning of September).

It would be fantastic to add XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX to the growing list of supporters of Climate Week and speak about other ways you might be able to get involved.

I look forward to hearing from you

With very best wishes

Kate Shepherd, Head of Campaigns, Climate Week
http://www.climateweek.com
Telephone (direct line) +44 (0)203 397 2602
20 Grosvenor Street, London W1K 4QH, UK

Dear Kate,

Several members of the central coordinating group in XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX have noted with concern that EdF and RBS are mentioned as sponsoring Climate Week in this article here :-

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/1011388/Climate-Week-signs-key-sponsors-event/

Electricite de France and Royal Bank of Scotland are engaged in producing and financing dirty old “conventional” energy, both in Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power.

If those are the companies being referred to by the acronyms “EDF” and “RBS” in the article, it is possible that XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX as an organisation are possibly going to object to having our name associated with Climate Week.

Could you please confirm or deny the rumours, so that I can appraise my colleagues of the facts of the matter.

Thanks,

jo.

from: Kate Shepherd

Hello Jo,

We began work on Climate Week just over two months ago and have been busy putting together a website (due to be launched in October). There is currently a very limited amount of information available online – although that is soon to change, I’m sorry if you have been searching.

There are 7 of us here in the Climate Week office, and in only a short time there are over 100 national networks supporting the initiative, including several faith communities.

Climate Week is the idea of social and environmental campaigner Kevin Steele. Throughout his career, Kevin has dedicated his energy to social justice. He conceived the anti-poverty Trade Justice Movement, he led one of the two largest sections of the Jubilee 2000 campaign, he founded Global Entrepreneurship Week (this year there were 35,000 events in 88 countries) and co-founded National Family Week, the Uk’s largest coalition on family issues. Kevin sat on Gordon Brown’s Social Action Group and currently sits on Cameron’s Big Society steering committee.

Kevin conceived Climate Week with the belief that all other social gains will be wasted if we do not collectively address climate change. For the last two years he has been working behind the scenes, gaining support from figures such as David Cameron, Al Gore and Kofi Annan.

We are also thrilled to have four mainstream sponsors of Climate Week for our independent campaign. All four of the sponsors are part of the national make-up and all four are taking positive steps towards a low-carbon Britain.

I would very much like to invite you and some of your committee to our networking event in Westminster on the 8th November so you can speak with other supporters and get a feel for this inclusive national occasion. The event is for the leaders of all supporting organisations and those organisations wanting to learn more. I will send you an invitation in the next week, could you let me know the names of any other colleagues who might like to attend?

Best wishes

Kate

from: jo abbess

Dear Kate,

Could you please be more precise about the four corporate sponsors you have for Climate Week ?

It is very important for my colleagues to know before we can assent to be linked to this project.

If the Royal Bank of Scotland are, as reported, one of your sponsors, then I’m sorry to say that there will likely be strong objections from my colleagues, as due to publicity from Climate Camp, RBS are now well-known in the public perception as being the financiers of major global Fossil Fuel projects, and we might well decide we couldn’t risk having our position compromised by being associated with this.

Electricite de France is viewed by some energy activists as a many-headed Hydra of spin, compromise and unfulfilled promises, and their adherence to burning coal is regarded as a sign of the deepest hypocrisy. Their CEO Vincent de Rivaz has apparently been campaigning for a long while for governments to support a new round of Nuclear Power plants by permitting higher energy prices, which some view as potentially yet another public bailout for privatised atomic energy (which clearly remains “uneconomic”).

EdF’s “Green Britain Day”, according to some things I have read, has been ridiculed as a pathetic attempt at shoring up public support for their business.

For EdF and RBS to sponsor a public feel-good Climate Week could be considered the ultimate “free advertisement” to prop up the ailing and failing Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Power industries.

The funds that EdF and RBS would be making available for Climate Week, as sponsors, if they are sponsors, could be said to be a very cheap way to generate positive public relations for their private enterprise.

If these companies were really serious about Low Carbon energy, then they would direct their own capital and financing powers towards Renewable Energy, a truly sustainable solution to both the Energy and Climate crises (and help with the Economic one, too).

Anything else could be described as flim-flam, an attempt to paper over the cracks.

In April, in the Gulf of Mexico, people saw what happened when a major energy company experienced engineering problems in producing ever-more-difficult Fossil Fuel resources.

“Conventional” energy is not getting any easier.

Germany has agreed to extend the life of their nuclear power plants, but at what risk ?

All it will take is for yet another French nuclear reactor to fail over winter because of maintenance mishap, and for the Media to decide to cover the story properly, for EdF and other nuclear operators to entirely lose their green credentials, permanently.

If RBS are sponsoring Climate Week, you should expect that some quite vocal people will react to Climate Week as if it is merely an exercise in corporate propaganda.

On these bases, I think it is reasonable for you to be completely transparent about who is behind Climate Week.

Thank you,

jo.

Dear Jo,

Thanks for your email and giving Climate Week such serious thought. Our four sponsors, EDF, RBS, Aviva and Kelloggs are marked on all of our marketing materials (I have reattached our flyer).

Our website is due to be launched in October when more information will be available in the public domain.

With best wishes

Kate

Oh dear. It appears that the Edinburgh Chapter of the Peoples Golfing Association, formed in 2005 ahead of the G8 Gleneagles Summit, has got the band back together at the Climate Camp, and played a round just a tad too close to the buildings of the Headquarters of the Royal Bank of Scotland :-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-11054166

“22 August 2010 : Climate change protesters arrested at RBS office : Two women have been arrested after climate change protesters attacked the Royal Bank of Scotland’s (RBS) Edinburgh headquarters on Sunday. More than 100 protesters took part in the action, which also involved an oil-like substance being thrown at the building and windows being smashed. The protest comes in response to RBS’s investment in oil industry developments around the world…Shaun Caulfield, who took part in the attempted raid, said: “RBS is one of the biggest climate criminals in the UK. People are angry that bankers are ploughing the billions that they got in the bail out into incredibly destructive fossil fuel projects around the world.” Golf balls were also apparently thrown at the building, the Press Association reported…”

I wouldn’t call it an “attack”. It was more like a good walk spoiled.

And as for “attempted raid”…well…there are plenty enough doors to sneak through, nobody needs to break anything to get inside. They probably didn’t.

Who chipped the first ball into the panes of expensive coated glass, eh ? Lady golfers or police chappies ?

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/east-central/193315-hundreds-gather-for-rbs-climate-camp-protest/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/aug/23/climate-camp-day-action-edinburgh

Shock ! Horror ! Major Climate Change Scientist spotted at Climate Camp…ah, but which one… ? How to distinguish one dressed-down, unwashed individual with dishevelled locks from any another ?

Any sign of Climate Change sceptic-denier Andrew Montford, as affectionately known as “Bishop Hill” ? Can’t make him out, but he might have responded to the banner appeal to “Come On Over for Lunch”. You never know. That might be him chopping potatoes, right in the thick of it.

Don’t worry. This isn’t a threat, Andrew. It’s a invitation. When the rocket stoves have been lit and the canvas staked out, you’re invited to come and talk with real people about the realities of Climate Change instead of being cooped up with your hot laptop at home cooking up hurtful and inaccurate things to say about working Scientists and activists.

By the way, I rocked with laughter at this recent review of your book “The Hockey Stick Illusion” :-

http://www.scottishreviewofbooks.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=357:reviews&catid=36:volume-6-issue-3-2010&Itemid=85

THE HOCKEY STICK ILLUSION

A.W. Montford
STACEY INTERNATIONAL, £10.99 PP482 ISBN 9781906768355

The ‘hockey stick’ is a graph showing the Earth’s temperature relatively constant for the past thousand years but then, like a hockey stick’s blade, rising sharply from about 1900 when human-induced greenhouse gas emissions seriously kicked in. But according to A.W. Montford’s “definitive exposé”, it’s just not true.

The captain of the ‘Hockey Team’, Montford writes, is the renowned American climatologist, Michael Mann, and at least forty-two named co-conspirators, all acclaimed scientists. Their motivation?

To keep the hockey-stick’s handle long and flat. Why? Because “the flatter the representation [before the upward swing]… the scarier were the conclusions”.

To generate the scare, and with it, win grant-grubbing political prestige, the scientists on the ‘Hockey Team’ had to massage out the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) – an epoch that lasted 300 years until 1250, when Vikings swashbuckled Greenland and wine from home-grown grapes swilled the manor halls of England.

Had the MWP been left in, claims Montford, the temperature curve for the past millennium would look more U-shaped. This would have diminished the case for human-induced global warming, obviating the urgency to discomfort ourselves by cutting CO2 emissions.

Montford claims that the MWP was airbrushed out by cherry-picking and statistically steamrollering tree-ring data – one of the proxies used to reconstruct past planetary temperatures. Leaked East Anglia emails clinch the case. Bottom line: the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate has “proven itself to be corrupt, biased and beset by conflicts of interest…. There is no conceivable way that politicians can justify this failing to their electorates. They have no choice but to start again.”

But who is Montford, and what are his sources?

Andrew Montford is a chartered accountant with a BSc in chemistry from St Andrews University. Based in Edinburgh, he is better known as the pseudonymous blogger, Bishop Hill – self-described as “the dissentient afflicted with the malady of thought”.

His book’s opening paragraph tells how he learned the intricacies of climate science by reading Climate Audit – the blog of Canadian mining consultant, Steve McIntyre. He relates: “While some of the statistics was [sic] over my head … I wondered if my newly-found understanding of the debate would enable me to take on … a public duty to make the story more widely known.”

After posting a summary on the internet, “my sleepy and relatively obscure website [turned] into a hive of activity, with thirty thousand hits being received over the following three days … saying nice things about what I had written [and] even an attempt to use my article as a source document for Wikipedia.”

But McIntyre’s attack on Mann is strongly contested. A study from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution concluded that McIntyre had overplayed his hand.

A German appraisal picked up “a glitch” but “found this glitch to be of very minor significance”. An investigation by the US National Academy of Sciences, according to a report in Nature, “essentially upholds Mann’s findings”. And a review this year by Mann’s own university exonerated him, not necessarily of all error (which is inevitable in fast-evolving scientific fields), but of “any wrongdoing”.

Even if Mann were guilty as charged by the climate change contrarians, the hockey stick has been replicated by at least a dozen other studies. Above all, the MWP is probably a red herring. Its warming effect was probably more regional than global.

A parallel would be our past winter which was exceptionally cold regionally in Europe, but globally the hottest that NASA has ever recorded.

Montford’s analysis might cut the mustard with tabloid intellectuals but not with most scientists. Credibility counts. Mann has published over a hundred relevant contributions to scholarly journals compared, seemingly, with McIntyre, three, and Montford, nil. Meanwhile, Mann and his colleagues get on with refining their methods and datasets, publishing in such world-renowned journals such as Nature and Science.

The Hockey Stick Illusion might serve a psychological need in those who can’t face their own complicity in climate change, but at the end of the day it’s exactly what it says on the box: a write-up of somebody else’s blog.

At best it will help to keep already-overstretched scientists “on their toes”. At worst, it’s a yapping terrier worrying the bull; it cripples action, potentially costing lives and livelihoods.

Alastair McIntosh

Alastair McIntosh is a lovely man. I met him and his wife last year, and he is completely trustworthy. You do need to pay attention to what he says.

For a complete analysis of your work, see here :-

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/

Andrew, why are you so unfaithful to Chemistry ? Didn’t you learn about the vibrational modes of gas molecules ? Don’t you know how electromagnetic radiation interacts with matter ?

Please read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report. It’s free and available online. Get the true picture :-

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm

You’ve got no excuse now. All the facts are in front of you. You need to start to digest them. Then you’ll be ready for your fireside chat with the Scientists and Engineers at Climate Camp when you get the courage to get on down there.

Al Gore has been telling all the young people, and well, all of us, really, to protest, in public, to make a downright law-unabiding nuisance of ourselves :-

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/114717-al-gore-calls-for-us-protests-on-climate-change-inaction

“Gore calls for major protests on government’s climate change inaction…In a post on his personal blog headlined “The Movement We Need”…”

Well, it won’t work to call people out onto the street. Most people are too busy credit-crunching, wage-slaving or favour-scraping to be able to commit to a short-term, potentially self-defeating public display of annoyance, frustration and shrill demands.

And if people do come out to the big protests, it won’t achieve much. News reports can be swept into the trash. Activists can be swept into holding facilities. Politicians can conveniently ignore anything that isn’t violent.

Drop the loud-hailers and home-made placards, I say, and do something more…focussed.

The Climate Camp want to target the Royal Bank of Scotland for financing Coal power plants and Tar Sands oil projects, which are very bad things to be doing, and smacks of huge corporate irresponsibility, considering the bank is largely owned by the British taxpayer, and I say, if you can’t make the camp (and I can’t for reasons which I shall not go into just now), do something about money in other ways instead.

What’s your money doing ? Which oppressive regimes in oil-rich countries is it supporting ? Which Fossil Fuel companies trashing your Environment do your bank support ? Why not switch your money to an ethical financial organisation ? Why don’t we all try to do this at the same time ? “Crowd-banking” could have an impact, you never know until you try.

Let’s pick, say, Monday 23rd August 2010. And let’s all spend our way out of Climageddon together on that day. Transfer your money to an ethical bank, or pledge to do so. Phone your bank and tell them you’re leaving for a sustainable bank.

Other actions possibly useful :-

1. Refuse to buy Fossil Fuels for a day.

2. Refuse to use any hot water for one day (most hot water is produced by burning Fossil Fuels). It’s summer in the Northern Hemisphere – come on – a cool shower won’t hurt you.

3. Don’t spend any money on anything that had Petroleum-based plastic or Natural Gas-based chemicals in its production – which would rule out 85% of non-food purchases, I reckon.

4. If you’re working for a company or an organisation who have anything to do with the Energy industry, make a point of asking your boss, or their boss, or the Chief Executive or something what the company/organisation intends to do about moving the whole business to Renewable Energy.

5. One short telephone call could have you moving from burning Coal for your home electricity to a Green Energy account.

This is not a riot – but it is an emergency, and the response should match the scale of the problem.

Our Climate – Not for Sale.

Bloody Oil from Felix Gonzales on Vimeo.

Banks + Coal = Climate Chaos

People + Information = Social Change

Just say no. No to Coal. And then no to all the other Fossil Fuels.

On the night of 15th May 2010 in London, England, an all-night, all-party, all-age, all-opinion vigil will be held to uphold the Climate of the Earth in the newly elected British Parliament.

A candlelight service of thankfulness, commitment and prayer will be held at the ancient church of St Martin’s in the Fields, just off Trafalgar Square, and then events will be held by torchlight throughout the night, in and around Parliament Square :-

http://www.campaigncc.org/overnightvigil

The organisers of the event are asking for chamber and orchestral musicians to participate in the church service, and in some of the overnight moments, which will feature a range of artistic performances, culminating in a Vigil Breakfast in the early hours.

There will be no money, but there will be plenty of love and respect, and perhaps even a little fame, for all musicians who take part.

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC : GLOBAL WARMING 101 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJAbATJCugs

Each year the Climate Camp run a wide-ranging agenda of workshops, with subjects from Climate Change Policy to how to build efficient camping “rocket” camping stoves.

Here follows the text and graphics from this year’s “Climate 101″ workshop. Do follow up the sources and check when you encounter the myths and ask yourselves why they are still being propagated.

A huge shout out for Ben Hart from the massive Climate Camp posse who stitched all the information together :-

http://www.projectdirt.com/profiles/blog/list?user=1jq364q12jc23

All the images are available on the Internet apart from Climate101K which is a screenshot from the Climate Safety manual, and is credited to PIRC, the Public Interest Research Centre (thanks, guys !) :-

http://pirc.info/

Climate Science 101 – Climate Change for Beginners

Basic Science Overview

1. The Greenhouse Effect

· The air, or atmosphere, is an envelope of gases surrounding this planet, within which all life on Earth survives.

· This atmosphere is made up of different gases which are: Nitrogen (78%), Oxygen (21%), Argon (1%), Carbon Dioxide (0.03%) and trace gases such as Methane.

· There is also water as a gas in the atmosphere (water vapour), and small particles of things like soot and dust which act like part of the atmosphere (aerosols).

· These gases and aerosols take in (absorb) the energy of different colours (wavelengths) in sunlight.

· When the sunlight energy reaches the Earth’s surface, some is reflected back, but in different colours (wavelengths).

· This reflected sunlight is trapped by the gases in the atmosphere, and becomes extra heat in the air and oceans.

· In a nutshell this is the Greenhouse Effect and is the reason the planet stays at a temperature suitable for life, currently around 15°C (Celsius/Centigrade) or 59°F (Fahrenheit).

· Without the atmosphere, the average temperature of the surface of the Earth would be about -18°C or 0°F, a planet covered in ice and almost certainly lifeless.

Image : Climate101A

2. Temperature Distribution

· Because the Earth is round, when the Sun’s rays hit the midline (Equator) there is less atmosphere for them to pass through than at the poles. Therefore more heat energy reaches the ground at the Equator which causes an uneven temperature distribution from the Equator to the poles.

Image : Climate101B

· Heat energy always moves from an area of high heat to an area of low heat. In the Earth’s system, the uneven temperature distribution means that heat energy needs to move from the Equator to the poles.

· The two main ways this happens is through the movement of air parcels (which creates weather) and the movement of warm water to the poles. Combined with differences in salt content of seawater, this is known as Thermohaline Circulation (more on this later).

3. Carbon Cycles

· Everything in our planetary system is cyclic in nature; i.e. everything is constantly moving between its sources and sinks. This is especially true for the gases in our atmosphere. The main cycle we are concerned with right now is the Carbon Cycle, which is shown below:

Image : Climate101C

· As can be seen, the human (anthropogenic) contribution of Carbon to the atmosphere is very small (5.5 Gigatonnes of Carbon, or GtC) compared to natural influxes.

· This balance between natural sources and sinks has developed over millions of years. However, due to the very small timescales (>200 years) within which anthropogenic emissions have entered the stmosphere, the natural Carbon sinks are unable to absorb the excess and the Carbon stays in the atmosphere.

· Also, the fact that we are reducing these Carbon sinks (e.g. Rainforests) doesn’t help matters.

· All of this means that the levels of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere are rising steadily, from about 250 parts per million, or ppm in the 1800s to nearly 390 ppm today.

Image : Climate101D

Effects of Climate Change

· It’s already here: Climate Change is the response of the Earth systems to excess heating, which is known as Global Warming. The natural flows of heat energy on the Earth change as more heat energy is added. Heat energy moves around the planet mainly in water circulation patterns of the oceans, and patterns of wind in the atmosphere. Both the ocean circulations and the wind patterns influence the weather systems, and affect how clouds form and where and when rain falls. Rainfall is essential to all life on land, and changes in rainfall are being constantly monitored to help the world adapt.

· Disappearing Rivers – Increased use: Some major rivers no longer always run to the sea, partly because of increased agricultural irrigation. Taking more water from rivers to grow food crops is necessary partly because of changes in rainfall, and partly because of increases in what is known as Evapotranspiration, evaporation of moisture from open ground.

· Disappearing Rivers – Decreased refill: Changes in rainfall on mountains, and the changes in temperature, impact the amount of snow and ice pack at high altitudes. Less Spring melt means less water entering rivers that source from the mountains. In some areas, changes in rainfall mean that there is less rainwater coming directly into rivers.

· Water Wars: Less water comes into the rivers and less reaches the sea. There have been major and lasting droughts around the world in the last 40 years. There are already disputes between regions and countries about how water should be shared.

· Mass Migration – Storms and flooding: Paradoxically, while some parts of the world have less rainfall, others have more, but it’s the wrong kind of rain. The extra heat in the Earth system can cause stronger, more frequent rainstorms in areas without the waterways to cope, which leads to damaging floods, food crop destruction, soil erosion, loss of trees and destroyed freshwater sources. Some areas will need to be abandoned.

· Mass Migration – Sea level rise: Even though the current rise in sea levels is very small, some areas like river deltas are losing a lot of farming land each year, both under water and from salt poisoning. People are already moving inland from submerged farming areas and leaving low-lying islands in the rivers and oceans.

· Hot Zones – Urban heat stress: Global Warming affects the weather directly in terms of air temperatures. In Cities, there is the Heat Island Effect, which is making urban areas less comfortable to live in as the average temperatures increase. Much of Southern Europe and the Middle East are starting to suffer from unbearable heatwaves, which will eventually last for several months of the year, making some places uninhabitable.

· Hot Zones – Creeping desert: The higher average temperatures, coupled with the loss of water from ground and rivers, is causing a loss of trees and other plant life, allowing deserts to expand, encroaching upon towns and villages and forcing people to migrate.

· The Big Hunger: Global food production is directly affected by higher temperatures and lower rainfall in the major crop-growing regions. The global patterns of trade will have to change, and there will be a high risk of famine in some regions, with the high risk of conflict.

· Positive Feedback Effects: “when an increase in A produces more of B which in turn increases more of A”. A well known example is the ice-albedo effect; warmer temperatures melt more ice, which reduces reflection of sunlight and therefore causes more warming. Another is increased temperatures causing more water vapour which captures more radiation which raises the temperature.

· Tipping points: There are certain tipping points in the system which when passed will mean that increasingly dramatic warming is inevitable. These include: Methane Hydrate release from deep oceans; Methane release from permafrost, melting of the Greenland and West Antarctica ice sheets, Amazon rainforest diebacks, etc, etc.

Image : Climate101E

How do we know all this? – The Current Scientific Thinking

Scientists throughout history have monitored changes in the planetary system (weather, temperature, etc). Over the past few decades, as problems with the climatic system have become more of an emerging issue, the amount of data collected by scientists has increased exponentially; due in no small part to the efforts of Environmentalists to bring these issues to the forefront of society.

Since 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been collating and reviewing the most up to date research on Climate Science and publishing the results in a report every four to five years, with the last being 2007. The IPCC is the best approximation of a global scientific consensus we currently have. As discussed on its website:

“The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports.”

The IPCC reports synthesise the current data from climate science research and uses this to make predictions of global climate change based on 4 different scenarios of future development:

Image : Climate101F

· A1 storyline and scenario family: a future world of very rapid economic growth, global population that peaks in mid-century and declines thereafter, and rapid introduction of new and more efficient technologies.

· A2 storyline and scenario family: a very heterogeneous world with continuously increasing global population and regionally oriented economic growth that is more fragmented and slower than in other storylines.

· B1 storyline and scenario family: a convergent world with the same global population as in the A1 storyline but with rapid changes in economic structures toward a service and information economy, with reductions in material intensity, and the introduction of clean and resource-efficient technologies.

· B2 storyline and scenario family: a world in which the emphasis is on local solutions to economic, social, and environmental sustainability, with continuously increasing population (lower than A2) and intermediate economic development.

The diagram below is taken from an IPCC report showing future predictions based on the above scenarios (For more info on these scenarios go to the ‘Future Scenarios’ workshop).

Image : Climate101G

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/arch/images/ipcc_21st_century_clim.jpg

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/CLIMATE/IPCC_TAR/wg1/008.htm

http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/index.html

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/Solomon_IPCCWG1.ppt

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf

It is important to note the existence of uncertainties in science. This is one of the main problems scientists have in communicating their findings to the outside world.

In science there are always uncertainties in the results- you can never be 100% sure of any conclusion, especially when it comes to predicting future happenings.

One fundamental aspect of science is to attempt to reduce these uncertainties. This is done through repeating experiments, maintaining controls, increasing the amount of data studied, etc.

However, people in normal society (and especially politicians) want to deal in certainties. They want to know if we do X to something, Y will definitely happen.

This is a fundamental problem in communicating data between scientists and non-scientists and has led to a lot of stalling and misdirection by those who tend to benefit from inaction on climate change.

There are a myriad reasons for this confusion, but the result of this is that the international targets are based on the mid-range predictions from the IPCC, which are themselves based on the mid range conclusions of the scientific data.

This essentially means they are ignoring all of the more extreme predictions, even though those predictions themselves may be conservative.

Current Observations and Climate Canaries

Unfortunately, observations of the climate system seem to be showing that the IPCC predictions are, indeed too conservative.

Published in 2008 by the Public Interest Research Centre, The Climate Safety report shows that the current observed impacts of climate change are way ahead of the IPCC‘s 2007 report.

One major observation is the reduction in Arctic Sea ice:

Image : Climate101H

http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2008/jul/vims071307.html

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3900

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3307816/Arctic-sea-ice-melts-to-all-time-low.html

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/satellite-observations-in-arctic-sea-ice-1979-and-2003

http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Tipping-Point–Our-Climates-Point-of-No-Return

http://www.stopglobalwarming.com.au/global_warming_current_climate_impacts.html

The IPCC report states that “Arctic summer sea ice is projected to disappear almost completely before the end of the 21st century”. After record losses in 2007, recent studies have now predicted a complete loss between 2011 and 2015 (that’s more than 80 years ahead of schedule). The graph below shows the observed versus the predicted levels of sea ice in the arctic:

Image : Climate101I

A similar trend is seen in the northern permafrost- increased warming is causing huge amounts of methane and carbon dioxide to be released. As the warmth spreads from the south, huge areas of permafrost will start to melt and released their stored carbon. Worryingly, not only is there twice as much carbon stored in permafrost than currently exists in the atmosphere, it is not even included in current climate models!!

Image : Climate101J

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/permafrost.jsp

http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html

Image : Climate101K

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3108/3269414390_1461e2a8c1.jpg

Climate Sceptics Arguments

Climate Change Deniers (or as they prefer “Sceptics”) are very fond of a certain limited set of arguments which can easily be refuted/debunked/dismissed. Here’s a brief summary of some of the best clangers around, myths that cling on despite the progress in Climate Science.

MYTH #1: The Climate is always Changing…
Yes, it is, but not like it is now. The only way we can explain recent Global Warming is to take account of mankind’s activities, including burning Fossil Fuels and logging rainforests.

MYTH #2: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions aren’t causing Global Warming…
Recent Global Warming is a fact, and Chemistry and Physics tell us that Carbon Dioxide is one of the key Greenhouse Gases.

MYTH #3: Global Warming is caused by changes in the Sun…
It is true that virtually all the heat energy on Earth comes from the Sun. But changes in solar activity (or solar wind or cosmic rays) cannot explain the current rise in Global Warming. In fact, until recently, solar changes implied the opposite.

MYTH #4: Global Warming stopped in 1998…
No, it didn’t, and if you check the graphs of the Earth temperature record for the last 100 years you will see for yourself that Global Warming is still going on.

MYTH #5: Computer models get the weather wrong, so they can’t predict climate…
Weather is not the same as climate. The British climate is “temperate”, but nobody can say for sure when a cloud will empty rain on Berkshire. Computer models are based on historical fact projected into the future with high confidence.

MYTH #6: Satellites and weather balloons disprove Global Warming theory.
No, they don’t. They confirm it.

MYTH #7: The Oceans are cooling…the Arctic Sea Ice is recovering…the glaciers are growing…the ice sheets are getting thicker…
All wrong. Go look at the data.

MYTH #8: There’s not enough Fossil Fuel to burn to cause dangerous
Climate Change from the Global Warming Potential of Carbon Dioxide…
There is less Petroleum Oil, Natural Gas and Coal than currently admitted. The global economy may collapse soon and stop burning much Fossil Fuel. But most scientists calculate that even so, Carbon Dioxide emissions from another 10 years of burning the remaining Fossil Fuels at the same rate as today could cause dangerous Global Warming. Besides which, Carbon Dioxide is not the only Greenhouse Gas. Very importantly, we need to control Methane from land and animal management; and soot emissions from Coal and Biomass (mostly wood) burning.

MYTH #9: Rising Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is due to Global Warming…
Some of the extra Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Nitrous Oxide coming into the atmosphere is a result of the Earth system responding to Global Warming. But the majority of Greenhouse Gases coming into the air are a result of mankind’s activities, and most of the Global Warming is a result of anthropogenic (man-made) Greenhouse Gas emissions.

MYTH #10: Scientists are always changing their minds…scientists keep getting things wrong…
The theoretical and observational science of Climate Change has matured sufficiently to be fully reliable.

Helpful links in answering these myths, obfuscations and cherry-picking fallacies:-

“Climate change: A guide for the perplexed”:-
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

“Climate Change controversies – a simple guide” :-
http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=6220

“A guide to facts and fictions about climate change” :-
http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630

“How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common
skeptical arguments on global warming A Grist Special Series” :-
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
http://www.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/cause/climate_sceptics/

“Skeptics’ disputes with the IPCC” :-
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_warming_skeptic
http://www.operationnoah.org/resources/factsheets/countering-climate-change-sceptics-and-handling-tricky-questions

“Climate change deniers: failsafe tips on how to spot them”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/mar/10/climate-change-denier

Denialism :-
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism

“Global Warming Sceptic Bingo” :-
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/04/gwsbingo.php

NERC Climate Change Challenge :-
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/debate.aspx?did=1&pg=1

“How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic” :-
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

“Responses to common contrarian arguments” :-
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Responses

Solutions?

Zero Carbon Britain tackles Global Warming by addressing Energy matters. The only strategy with a hint of success is to Powerdown and Power Up : reduce Carbon Energy use whilst at the same time ramping up Renewable Energy use :-

http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com

The Green New Deal is an attempt by unionists, environmentalists and politicians to redirect the world’s economy towards Clean Energy, and thereby creating huge new employment opportunities:

http://www.greennewdealgroup.org>

Socolow’s Wedges show how certain policies, regulations and market choices can reduce overall Carbon Dioxide emissions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_Wedge_Game

Transition Towns and Sustainable Cities are two models for citizen participation in reducing Energy consumption and increasing non-Carbon ways of life:-

http://www.transitiontowns.org

http://www.sustainable-cities.eu

Climate Safety is a sociopolitical strategy to achieving change in the UK:

http://www.climatesafety.org

The Low Carbon Transition is the Government strategy in the UK:-

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/publications/lc_trans_plan/lc_trans_plan.aspx

Sources

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/

WHY CO2 IS SO IMPORTANT

SEA ICE ANIMATION
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003400/a003474/index.html

ARCTIC SEA ICE
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003400/a003456/

IPCC TAR Third Assessment Report
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=
/CLIMATE/IPCC_TAR/wg1/518.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm

2007 IPCC WG1 AR4 Fourth Assessment Report Powerpoint Presentations
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-figures.html
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Figures/AR4WG1_TS-Figs_2007-07-11.ppt

FLYER FOR 2007 IPCC REPORT LAUNCH

INDEX OF IPCC SLIDES
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/index.htm

SOME NICE SLIDES
http://johnsonhaas.wordpress.com/

PROJECTED SEA LEVEL RISE
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/projected-sea-level-rise-for-the-21st-century

IPCC WORKING GROUPS
http://www.ipcc.ch/working_groups/working_groups.htm

IPCC Summary For Policymakers 2007 AR4 Fourth Assessment Report
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf

IPCC FAQ 2007 – HIGH DEFINITION
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/docs/AR4WG1_FAQ-Brochure_HiRes.pdf