Environment

Within the past month I have received a number of calls from Consultancies seeking to create, develop or expand their sustainability divisions in the past sustainability would have been a sub division of an Environmental or Building Services division but due to increasing environmental legislation and greater corporate awareness of key issues such as

climate change, energy policy and sustainable development this sector will carry on growing from strength to strength.

We strive to provide only quality information, so if there is a specific topic related to environment that you would like us to cover, please contact us at any time.

And again, thank you to those contributing daily to our Environment Website, especially regarding "renewable energy".

Add to:  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If you can't find the Environment information you are looking for? 
Try Google Search

Enter your search terms Submit search form

Web awareness-guide.com

Global warming pushes 2010 temperatures to record highs
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.8/27464?ns=guardian&pageName=Global+warming+pushes+2010+temperatures+to+record+highs%3AArticle%3A1432399&ch=Environment&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Climate+change+%28Environment%29%2CGlaciers+%28Environment%29%2CSea+level+%28environment%29%2CPolar+regions+%28Environment%29%2CEnvironment%2CWorld+news%2CMeteorology%2CClimate+change+%28Science%29%2CScience&c5=Environment+Conservation%2CNot+commercially+useful%2CClimate+Change%2CEthical+Living&c6=Juliette+Jowit&c7=10-Jul-28&c8=1432399&c9=Article&c10=News&c11=Environment&c13=&c25=&c30=content&h2=GU%2FEnvironment%2FClimate+change" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Scientists from two leading climate research centres publish 'best evidence yet' of rising long-term global temperatures <br /><br />? <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jul/28/sachs-obama-climate-change" title="Jeffrey Sachs: Obama must take a lead on climate change">Jeffrey Sachs: Obama must take a lead on climate change</a></p><p>Global temperatures in the first half of the year were the hottest since records began more than a century ago, according to two of the world's leading climate research centres.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Scientists have also released what they described as the "best evidence yet" of rising long-term temperatures. The report is the first to collate 11 different indicators ? from air and sea temperatures to melting ice ? each one based on between three and seven data sets, dating back to between 1850 and the 1970s.</p><p>The newly released data follows months of scrutiny of climate science after sceptics claimed leaked emails from the University of East Anglia (UEA) suggested temperature records had been manipulated - a charge <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-review-clears-scientists-dishonesty" title="">rejected by three inquiries</a>.</p><p>Publishing the newly collated data in London, Peter Stott, the head of climate modelling at the UK Met Office, said despite variations between individual years, the evidence was unequivocal: "When you follow those decade-to-decade trends then you see clearly and unmistakably signs of a warming world".</p><p>"That's a very remarkable result, that all those data sets agree," he added. "It's the clearest evidence in one place from a range of different indices."</p><p>Currently 1998 is the hottest year on record. Two combined land and sea surface temperature records from <a href="http://www.giss.nasa.gov/" title="">Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)</a> and the <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html" title="">US National Climatic Data Centre</a> (NCDC) both calculate that the first six months of 2010 were the hottest on record. According to GISS, four of the six months also individually showed record highs.</p><p>A third leading monitoring programme, by the Met Office, shows this period was the second hottest on record, after 1998, with two months this year ? January and March ? being hotter than their equivalents 12 years ago.</p><p></p><p>The Met Office said the variations between the figures published by the different organisations are because the Met Office uses only temperature observations, Nasa makes estimates for gaps in recorded data such as the polar regions, and the NCDC uses a mixture of the two approaches. The latest figures will give weight to <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/2010-could-be-warmest-year-ever" title="">predictions that this year could become the hottest on record</a>.</p><p>Despite annual fluctuations, the figures also highlight the clear trend for the 2000s to be hotter than the 1990s, which in turn were clearly warmer than the previous decade, said Stott.</p><p>"These numbers are not theory, but fact, indicating that the Earth's climate is moving into uncharted territory," said Rafe Pomerance, a senior fellow at Clean Air Cool Planet, a US group dedicated to helping find solutions to global warming.</p><p></p><p>The Met Office published its full list of global warming indicators, compiled by Hadley Centre researcher John Kennedy. It formed part of the State of the Climate 2009 report published as a special bulletin of the <a href="http://www.ametsoc.org/" title="">American Meteorological Society</a> by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which runs the NCDC temperature series.</p><p>Seven of the indicators rose over the last few decades, indicating "clear warming trends", although these all included annual fluctuations up and down. One of these was air temperature over land ? including data from the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA, whose figures were under scrutiny after hacked emails were posted online in November 2009, but the graphic also included figures from six other research groups all showing the same overall trends despite annual differences.</p><p>The other six rising indicators were sea surface temperatures, collected by six groups; ocean heat to 700m depth from seven groups; air temperatures over oceans (five data sets); the tropospheric temperature in the atmosphere up to 1km up (seven); humidity caused by warmer air absorbing more moisture (three); and sea level rise as hotter oceans expand and ice melts (six).</p><p>Another four indicators showed declining figures over time, again consistent with global warming: northern hemisphere snow cover (two data sets), Arctic sea ice extent (three); glacier mass loss (four); and the temperature of the stratosphere. This last cooling effect is caused by a decline in ozone in the stratosphere which prevents it absorbing as much ultraviolet radiation from the sun above.</p><p>One key data set omitted was sea ice in the Antarctic, because it was increasing in some areas and decreasing in others, due to reduced ozone causing changes in wind patterns and sea-surface circulation. This data set showed no clear trend, said Stott. These figures were also in the last report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007.</p><p>"It's not that the IPCC didn't look at this data, of course they did, but they didn't put it all together in one place," he added.</p><p>The cause of the warming was "dominated" by greenhouse gases emitted by human activity, said Stott. "It's possible there's some [other] process which can amplify other effects, such as radiation from the sun, [but] the evidence is so clear the chance there's something we haven't thought of seems to be getting smaller and smaller," he said.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change">Climate change</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/glaciers">Glaciers</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/sea-level">Sea level</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/poles">Polar regions</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/meteorology">Meteorology</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/scienceofclimatechange">Climate change</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/juliettejowit">Juliette Jowit</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
Scientists warn of global warming threat to marine food chain
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.8/5517?ns=guardian&pageName=Scientists+warn+of+global+warming+threat+to+marine+food+chain%3AArticle%3A1432388&ch=Environment&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Marine+life+%28environment%29%2COceans+%28environment%29%2CClimate+change+%28Environment%29%2CEnvironment%2CClimate+change+%28Science%29%2CPlants+%28Science%29%2CMicrobiology%2CScience%2CWorld+news&c5=Environment+Conservation%2CNot+commercially+useful%2CClimate+Change%2CEthical+Living&c6=Juliette+Jowit&c7=10-Jul-28&c8=1432388&c9=Article&c10=News&c11=Environment&c13=&c25=&c30=content&h2=GU%2FEnvironment%2FMarine+life" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Numbers of phytoplankton - the microscopic organisms that sustain the marine food chain - are plummeting as sea surface temperatures rise</p><p>Phytoplankton might be too small to see with the naked eye, but they are the foundations of the ocean food chain, ultimately capturing the energy that sustains the seas' great beasts such as whales.</p><p>A new study though has raised the alarm about fundamental changes to life underwater. It warns that populations of these microscopic organisms have plummeted in the last century, and the rate of loss has increased in recent years.</p><p>The reduction ? averaging about 1% per year ? is related to increasing sea surface temperatures, says the paper, published tomorrow in the journal <a href="http://www.nature.com/" title="">Nature</a>.</p><p>The decline of these tiny plankton will have impacted nearly all sea creatures and will also have affected fish stocks.</p><p>Phytoplankton provide food ? by capturing energy from the sun ? and recycle nutrients, and because they account for approximately half of all organic matter on earth they are hugely important as a means of absorbing carbon.</p><p>"This decline will need to be considered in future studies of marine ecosystems, geochemical cycling, ocean circulation and fisheries," add the paper's authors, from Dalhousie university in Nova Scotia, Canada.</p><p>The researchers looked at measurements of ocean transparency and tested for concentrations of chlorophyll, which gives large numbers of phytoplankton a distinctive green sheen. They said that although there were variations in some areas due to regional climate and coastal run-off, the long-term global decline was "unequivocal".</p><p>The Nature article comes as climate scientists published what they said today was the "best ever" collection of evidence for global warming, including temperature over land, at sea and in the higher atmosphere, along with records of humidity, sea-level rise, and melting ice.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/marine-life">Marine life</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/oceans">Oceans</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change">Climate change</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/scienceofclimatechange">Climate change</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/plants">Plants</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/microbiology">Microbiology</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/juliettejowit">Juliette Jowit</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
Stephen Schneider obituary
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.8/71031?ns=guardian&pageName=Stephen+Schneider+obituary%3AArticle%3A1429286&ch=Environment&c3=Guardian&c4=Climate+change+%28Environment%29%2CClimate+change+%28Science%29%2CScience%2CGlobal+climate+talks+%28environment%29%2CCopenhagen+climate+change+conference+2009+%28environment%29%2CUS+news%2CIPCC+%28Environment%29%2CEnvironment&c5=Copenhagen%2CNot+commercially+useful%2CClimate+Change%2CEthical+Living&c6=Myles+Allen&c7=10-Jul-22&c8=1429286&c9=Article&c10=Obituary&c11=Environment&c13=&c25=&c30=content&h2=GU%2FEnvironment%2FClimate+change" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Pioneering climate change scientist who fought for informed public engagement</p><p>The American climate scientist Stephen Schneider, who has died aged 65 following a heart attack, would have preferred readers to spend their time studying his books and scientific articles, looking at the evidence, doing their own research, making up their minds about climate change and lobbying local politicians ? rather than reading his obituary.</p><p>Steve believed passionately in evidence, and was always reminding me and other colleagues at meetings of&nbsp;the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) not to duck the hard questions. He was the first to recognise that it is precisely because climate change is so uncertain that it is so important to do something about it.</p><p>Back in the 1970s, when only a&nbsp;handful of scientists were working on global climate change at all, Steve was the first to recognise the importance of the balance between greenhouse warming and cooling due to other forms of atmospheric pollution. The most extreme pollution-induced cooling was, of course, the nuclear winter ? "more like a nuclear autumn", as he put it.</p><p>Although that scenario seems remote today, the magnitude of cooling by aerosols ? tiny particles suspended in the atmosphere ? and how fast the world might warm as China cleans up its power stations remain among the most important uncertainties in climate projections. As late as 1977, Steve wrote: "We just don't know enough to choose definitely at this stage whether we are in for warming or cooling ? or when."</p><p>As the world warmed through the ensuing three decades, he readily accepted that the balance of evidence pointed towards further warming. However, he still insisted on the ability of the real world to surprise us. In a&nbsp;survey of expert opinion on the range of uncertainty in the warming response to a doubling of carbon dioxide levels undertaken in the mid-1990s, Steve's response stands out as by far the most uncertain. Yet he rightly saw this uncertainty not as an excuse for inaction, but a reason to be doubly concerned about this uncontrolled global experiment.</p><p>A polymath and a consummate communicator, Steve believed strongly in the public's right to make informed decisions about climate change, but also that the science itself is a meritocracy, not a democracy: "When we're talking about what to do about it, then every citizen's opinion is just as important as&nbsp;anybody else's, and everybody should be quoted. But not about how many degrees of warming there are ? that takes a lot of knowledge, to be able to know what you're talking about."</p><p>To judge from his book The Patient from Hell (2005, with Janica Lane), in which he described his own engagement with the doctors treating him for a rare type of lymphoma, anyone can join a scientific community, at any time. By the time he had finished his treatment, Steve was just about ready to submit for a PhD in oncology. But he believed that everyone has to start out by approaching the evidence with an open mind.</p><p>Born in New York, Steve was brought up on Long Island. Having gained a&nbsp;degree in mechanical engineering from Columbia University (1966) and PhD in mechanical engineering and plasma physics (1971), he focused on&nbsp;atmospheric physics and the global environment. He was optimistic about our technical abilities as a species, and his 1971 paper on the dangers of aerosol cooling suggested: "[by 2000], nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production".</p><p>He was less sanguine about our willingness to co-operate. An adviser to successive US administrations from presidents Nixon to Obama, he was a sceptical supporter of greenhouse gas legislation and international agreements, recognising that intergovernmental agreements to share out limited resources do not have a&nbsp;promising track record.</p><p>After postdoctoral work at Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, based at Columbia, in 1972 he moved to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, Colorado, where he founded the climate project. He remained involved with the centre until 1996, and in 1992 joined the faculty at&nbsp;Stanford University, California, where he came to hold three professorships. In&nbsp;2007 the IPCC shared the Nobel peace prize with Al Gore.</p><p>Steve was an inspiring mentor of his many students, postdoctoral researchers and collaborators, negotiating to allow graduate students to accompany him to international climate negotiations ? and he was always supportive when his fellow scientists came under fire. He also put his expertise on global climate into practice, playing a key role in studies that led to groundbreaking climate change legislation in California.</p><p>One of his most influential feats came when he was 30: the founding of the journal Climatic Change, which linked the various disciplines involved. He edited the journal for the rest of his life, never shying away from publishing controversial articles. For him, anyone who played by the rules of scientific peer review deserved a hearing.</p><p>Steve saw the failure of the Copenhagen meeting last year as an opportunity to open up the public debate on emission controls to alternative approaches but was frustrated, though philosophical, when the world's media decided instead to restage old debates over whether climate change is an issue at all. He was especially exasperated by those who claimed to oppose greenhouse gas legislation in the name of democracy. Were there to be uncontrolled climate change, followed by draconian emission cuts and geo-engineering, it would pose a serious threat to liberal democracy.</p><p>The focus of Steve's most recent work, much of it in collaboration with his wife, Terry Root, was on tracing the influence of greenhouse gas emissions through to the systems people really care about, the tangible impacts of climate change on vulnerable ecosystems and societies. He had recently been appointed as convening lead author on the chapter on attribution for the forthcoming IPCC assessment of&nbsp;the impacts of climate change.</p><p>He was flying back from a scientific meeting in Sweden when he suffered his heart attack, and is survived by Terry.</p><p>? Stephen Henry Schneider, climate scientist, born 11 February 1945; died 19&nbsp;July 2010</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change">Climate change</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/scienceofclimatechange">Climate change</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/global-climate-talks">Global climate talks</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/copenhagen">Copenhagen climate change conference 2009</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usa">United States</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/ipcc">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/myles-r-allen">Myles Allen</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
Science Weekly podcast: Protecting the oceans; a space suit for dogs; and Tutankhamun goes online
<p><strong>Jay Nelson</strong>, director of <a href="http://www.globaloceanlegacy.org/">Global Ocean Legacy</a> at the <a href="http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_category.aspx?id=110">Pew Environment Group</a>, joins us to consider how we can protect the world's oceans and whether islanders are willing to be subjected to tough restrictions. </p><p>We also discuss the Chagos Archipelago, <a href="http://www.protectchagos.org">the UK's most important area of marine biodiversity</a>.</p><p>It's one small step for a mongrel ... <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jul/18/space-dog-suit">We discover how stray dogs helped Yuri Gagarin make history.</a> Space communications manager <strong>Kevin Yates</strong> takes us on a tour of the new <a href="http://spacerace2010.co.uk/">Space Race exhibition</a> at the <a href="http://www.spacecentre.co.uk/Page.aspx/1/Home/">National Space Centre</a> in Leicester, which features a canine high-altitude suit designed by the Russians at the height of their battle with the Americans to control space. </p><p>View our exclusive behind-the-scenes video of the exhibit as the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jul/18/space-dog-suit">suit is unpacked from its protective box and put on display</a>. </p><p>As the dust settles on the 'climategate' emails saga, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jul/15/climategate-public-debate">the Guardian assembled an impressive line-up of experts to debate what the affair did - and did not - reveal about research into global warming</a>. Listen to a small section of the 100-minute recording, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/audio/2010/jul/15/guardian-climategate-hacked-emails-debate">or hear the debate in its entirety here</a>. </p><p>Eighty-eight years after Tutankhamun's tomb was discovered by Howard Carter, only a fraction of the 5,000 objects unearthed have been properly studied and published. Hopefully that's about to change thanks to the internet and 15 years of hard work as <a href="http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk">the excavation notes are published online</a>. <strong>Jo Marchant</strong> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/jul/18/tutankhamun-website-howard-carter-tomb">went to the Griffith Institute in Oxford where the archive is now held</a>. </p><p>Follow the podcast on <a href="http://twitter.com/scienceweekly">our Science Weekly Twitter feed</a> and <a href="http://twitter.com/guardianscience">receive updates on all breaking science news stories from Guardian Science</a>. </p><p>Email <a href="mailto:scienceweeklypodcast@gmail.com">scienceweeklypodcast@gmail.com</a>. </p><p>Join our <a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2261841960">Facebook group</a>. </p><p>Listen back through <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/scienceweekly">our archive</a>.</p><p>Subscribe free <a href="http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=136697669">via iTunes</a> to ensure every episode gets delivered. (Here is the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/series/science/rss">non-iTunes URL feed</a>).</p><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/alokjha">Alok Jha</a></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/andyduckworth">Andy Duckworth</a></div><br/><p style="clear:both" />
Last month was the hottest June recorded worldwide, figures show
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.8/16480?ns=guardian&pageName=June+2010+was+hottest+month+recorded+worldwide%2C+figures+show%3AArticle%3A1427181&ch=Environment&c3=Guardian&c4=Climate+change+%28Environment%29%2CGlaciers+%28Environment%29%2CSea+level+%28environment%29%2CEnvironment%2CMeteorology%2CClimate+change+%28Science%29%2CScience%2CWorld+news%2CNatural+disasters+and+extreme+weather+%28News%29&c5=Not+commercially+useful%2CClimate+Change%2CEthical+Living%2CCharities&c6=John+Vidal&c7=10-Jul-20&c8=1427181&c9=Article&c10=News&c11=Environment&c13=&c25=&c30=content&h2=GU%2FEnvironment%2FClimate+change" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">US government climate data suggests 2010 on course to be warmest year since records began</p><p>Last month was the hottest June ever recorded worldwide and the fourth consecutive month that the combined global land and sea temperature records have been broken, according to the US government's climate data centre.</p><p>The <a href="http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100715_globalstats.html" title="figures released last night by the National oceanic and atmospheric administration (Noaa)">figures released last night by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)</a> suggest that 2010 is now on course to be the warmest year since records began in 1880.</p><p>The trend to a warmer world is now incontrovertible. According to NOAA, June was the 304th consecutive month with a combined global land and surface temperature above the 20th-century average. The last month with below-average temperatures was February 1985. Each of the 10 warmest average global temperatures recorded since 1880 have occurred in the last 15 years with the previous warmest first half of a year in 1998.</p><p>Temperature anomalies included Spain, which experienced its coolest June temperature since 1997, and Guizhou in southern China, which had its coolest June on record. According to Beijing Climate Centre, Inner Mongolia, Heilongjiang, and Jilin experienced their warmest June since their records began in 1951.</p><p>Scientists expressed surprise that the June land surface temperature exceeded the previous record by 0.11C (0.20F). "This large difference over land contributed strongly to the overall global land and ocean temperature anomaly," said John Leslie, a spokesman for NOAA.</p><p>Separate satellite data from the <a href="http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html" title="US National Snow and Ice Data Center data shows">US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado shows</a> that the extent of sea ice in the Arctic was at its lowest for any June since satellite records started in 1979. The icy skin over the Arctic Ocean grows each winter and shrinks in summer, reaching its annual low point in September. The monthly average for June 2010 was 10.87 km sq. The ice was declining an average of 88,000 sq km per day in June.</p><p>In a further possible sign of a warming world, the Jakobshavn Isbrae glacier, one of the largest in Greenland, <a href="http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/07/14/glacier-loses-nearly-3-miles-of-ice-%E2%80%94-overnight/" title="lost a 2.7-square mile chunk of ice between July 6 and 7">lost a 2.7-square mile chunk of ice and retreated one mile between 6-7 July</a> ? one of the largest single losses to a glacier ever recorded.</p><p>The glacier, a tongue of the Greenland ice sheet, has retreated six miles since 2000 and more than 27 miles since 1850. It is believed to be the single largest contributor to sea level rise in the northern hemisphere.</p><p>Greenland's ice sheet, a vast body of ancient ice covering 1.7m sq km, is melting today more rapidly than only a few decades ago. Since 2000, the ice sheet is calculated to have lost about 1,500 cubic kilometres of water? enough to raise global sea levels by 5mm . If the entire ice sheet melted, the world's oceans would rise by over six metres.</p><p>Glaciologists expressed surprise at the speed of the break-up of the glacier: "This is unusual because it occurs on the heels of a warm winter that saw no sea ice form in the surrounding bay ... it lends credence to the theory that warming of the oceans is responsible for the ice loss observed throughout Greenland and Antarctica," said Nasa scientist Thomas Wagner.</p><p>"These are clear signs of a rapidly warming world and exactly what the climate models have predicted. Thankfully, there is a way out of it if we can get greenhouse gas emissions under control," said Ben Stewart of Greenpeace.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change">Climate change</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/glaciers">Glaciers</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/sea-level">Sea level</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/meteorology">Meteorology</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/scienceofclimatechange">Climate change</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/natural-disasters">Natural disasters and extreme weather</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/johnvidal">John Vidal</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
Video: Guardian 'climategate' debate
<p><strong>George Monbiot</strong> chairs the Guardian 'climategate' debate with Professors Trevor Davies and Bob Watson, and environmental journalists Fred Pearce, Steve McIntyre and Doug Keenan</p><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/georgemonbiot">George Monbiot</a></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/cameronrobertson">Cameron Robertson</a></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/laurencetopham">Laurence Topham</a></div><br/><p style="clear:both" />
Audio: The Guardian's 'climategate' debate in full
<p><strong>A live debate in London last night bought together a panel of experts to debate what the 'climategate' affair did ? and did not ? reveal about the study of global warming. </strong></p><p>The panel included: </p><p>? <a href="http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/daviest">Professor Trevor Davies</a>, pro-vice-chancellor (research), University of East Anglia, and former director of the Climatic Research Unit. </p><p>? <a href="http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/watsonr" title="">Professor Bob Watson</a>, chief scientific advisor, Defra, visiting professor at the University of East Anglia and former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;</p><p>? Fred Pearce, environment journalist and author of <a href="http://www.guardianbooks.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/qs_product_tbp?storeId=10401&catalogId=25501&langId=&productId=185349" title="">The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming</a>;</p><p>? <a href="http://climateaudit.org/">Steve McIntyre</a>, editor of <a href="http://www.climateaudit.org">climateaudit.org</a></p><p>? <a href="http://www.informath.org/" title="">Doug Keenan</a>, blogger and independent researcher.</p><p>The <strong>chair</strong> was <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot">George Monbiot</a>, Guardian comment writer.</p><p><strong>? Some parts of the debate have been edited out for legal reasons.</strong></p><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/georgemonbiot">George Monbiot</a></div><br/><p style="clear:both" />
'Climategate' debate: less meltdown, more well-mannered argument | Damian Carrington
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.8/77535?ns=guardian&pageName=%27Climategate%27+debate%3A+less+meltdown%2C+more+well-mannered+argument+%7C+Damia%3AArticle%3A1426828&ch=Environment&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Hacked+climate+science+emails%2CClimate+change+%28Environment%29%2CClimate+change+scepticism+%28environment%29%2CEnvironment%2CClimate+change+%28Science%29%2CScience&c5=Not+commercially+useful%2CClimate+Change%2CEthical+Living&c6=Damian+Carrington&c7=10-Jul-15&c8=1426828&c9=Article&c10=Blogpost&c11=Environment&c13=&c25=Environment+blog%2CCif+green&c30=content&h2=GU%2FEnvironment%2FHacked+climate+science+emails" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Polemical and partisan characterises the climate debate online - but at last night's Guardian debate there was courteousness and a distinct warmth in the air</p><p>Something remarkable happened last night in the polarised world of "warmists" versus "sceptics": a candid but not rancorous public debate. I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong but, to my knowledge, never before have all sides of this frequently poisonous debate shared a stage. The outcome was illuminating.</p><p>With no little effort, I had persuaded a star panel to convene to discuss the fall out from the "Climategate" affair which followed the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/hacked-climate-science-emails" title="">exposure of 1,000 private emails between climate scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit</a> and their international colleagues. Three inquiries had emphasised that the science of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/climategate-bogus-sceptics-lies" title="">global warming remained clear</a> and that the scientists had not fiddled their data but also that there had been serious shortcomings in the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/freedom-of-information-hacked-emails" title="">transparency with which they worked</a> and in how they <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-science-emails-climate-change" title="">dealt with freedom of information requests</a>.</p><p>So almost 300 people squeezed into Riba in London last night, ready to witness a fight. Instead, they were treated to a heated argument, in the best sense of that word, with my colleague George Monbiot, who chaired magnificently, only having to threaten one heckler with ejection (yes, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn" title="Piers Corbyn">Piers Corbyn</a>, it was you).</p><p>There's a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/15/uea-hacked-emails-climate-change" title="">news story here</a>, but here's my take on the panellists and the debate:</p><p>? Professor <a href="http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/daviest" title="">Trevor Davies</a>, ex-head of CRU and now pro-vice chancellor for research at UEA: Davies had the toughest brief, given the lurid nature of some of the emails, which he said had initially "shocked" him, as well as the pounding UEA has taken in the media. But he was clear and calm, if a little stiff, backing the researchers' science while fully acknowledging the need to work more openly and be more helpful in responding to FOI requests. Inevitably, he failed to woo a sceptical chunk of the audience, who jeered when he failed to recall the exact date when the last inquiry panel was set up, but all were glad he was there.</p><p>? Steve McIntyre, editor of <a href="http://www.climateaudit.org/" title="">ClimateAudit</a>: It was hard to reconcile the much-demonised McIntyre with the open and avuncular Canadian on the stage. Despite being the highest-profile critic of CRU, he pointed out none of the three enquires had asked him to give evidence. He ducked a question on how much the Earth was warming ? "I don't know" ? he was convincing in saying his motive had always been wanting the temperature data only because he felt it was important and should be available. He noted that if he was running a government, he would be taking action on climate change. Hardly a classic sceptic.</p><p>? Professor <a href="http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/watsonr" title="">Bob Watson</a>, chief scientific advisor at Defra, visiting professor at the University of East Anglia and former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Watson took a twin-track approach: bluntly unequivocal that human activities are warming the planet but also genuine and insistent that sceptical views must be reflected in reports such as that by the IPCC: "We must not hide minority views", when based on "evidence, not ideology". But he added, reflecting on his work in the Clinton White House and the current UK government, that: "Evidence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for good policymaking."</p><p>? <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/fredpearce" title="">Fred Pearce</a>, environmental journalist and <a href="http://www.guardianbooks.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/qs_product_tbp?storeId=10401&catalogId=25501&langId=100&productId=185349" title="">author of The Climate Files</a>: Pearce was passionate in arguing that 'Climategate' was a very human tragedy, in respect of scientists feeling under siege and becoming fiercely defensive ? which only spurred on the sceptics, who thought there must be something to hide. But he thought many CRU critics were not sceptics at all: "They are actually data libertarians, rather than climate sceptics, still less climate deniers. It turned into data wars." Pearce's conclusion was that at this <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/hacked-climate-science-emails" title="">turning point for climate science</a>, more "candour" was needed from all.</p><p>? <a href="http://www.informath.org/" title="">Doug Keenan</a>, independent researcher and blogger, was focused and feisty, and did not hold back from his central theme that scientists of all stripes remain unacceptably unaccountable for the probity of their work: "Scientists are human and the prerequisite for integrity in human affairs is transparency." He made allegations of fraud in climate science but revealed his true interests were not in climate change at all, but in the founding of early civilisations, archeo-astronomy and carbon dating.</p><p>The audience played a big part too, and was mixed with both warmist and sceptic points getting loudly cheered and booed. More than one suggested the media had hyped the "Climategate" tale beyond all reason, though none of the panel fully endorsed this view.</p><p>In the bar later, the extraordinary events continued, with Bob Watson and Doug Keenan swapping contact details and promising to stay in touch. Will the friendliness that broke out at the Guardian debate prove a mere holiday romance? Or will it be the start of a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/11/climategate-muir-russell-review" title="">new way of conducting and communicating the science, especially online</a>, that will shape how the world lives for centuries, as demanded by many?</p><p>I'm cautiously optimistic.</p><p>? <strong>The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth About Global Warming</strong> by Fred Pearce is available for £8.99 (RRP £11.99) from Guardian Books. To order visit <a href="http://www.guardianbooks.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/qs_product_tbp?storeId=10401&catalogId=25501&langId=100&productId=185349" title="">guardianbooks.co.uk</a> or in the UK call 0845 606 4232.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/hacked-climate-science-emails">Hacked climate science emails</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change">Climate change</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change-scepticism">Climate change scepticism</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/scienceofclimatechange">Climate change</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/damiancarrington">Damian Carrington</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
Prince Charles attacks climate change sceptics
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.8/90488?ns=guardian&pageName=Prince+Charles+attacks+climate+change+sceptics%3AArticle%3A1426637&ch=Environment&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Climate+change+scepticism+%28environment%29%2CClimate+change+%28Environment%29%2CEnvironment%2CPrince+Charles%2CMonarchy%2CUK+news%2CClimate+change+%28Science%29%2CScience&c5=Not+commercially+useful%2CClimate+Change%2CEthical+Living&c6=Press+Association&c7=10-Jul-15&c8=1426637&c9=Article&c10=News&c11=Environment&c13=&c25=&c30=content&h2=GU%2FEnvironment%2FClimate+change+scepticism" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Prince of Wales accuses those who question whether human activity is causing global warming of 'peddling pseudo science' and blocking action</p><p>The Prince of Wales last night launched an attack on climate sceptics, deriding them for peddling "pseudo science".</p><p>In a speech to world business leaders at a climate change seminar, Charles criticised such sceptics for apparently intimidating people from "adopting the precautionary measures necessary to avert environmental collapse".</p><p></p><p>Charles, speaking yesterday at the event staged by the Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership at St James's palace, did not mention any sceptics by name but said: "People have heard the climate sceptics and attempted to listen to the kind of pseudo science they are peddling ... I have endlessly been accused of peddling pseudo science, in one way or another, for most of my life - just think about the strange irony."</p><p>During the last few decades Charles has attempted to influence public opinion by speaking about the threat climate change poses and setting up his <a href="http://www.rainforestsos.org/" title="Prince's Rainforest Project">Prince's Rainforest project</a> to try to safeguard the world's rainforests.</p><p>He has also delivered a number of high-profile speeches on the subject , <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/15/prince-charles-speech-copenhagen-climate" title="speaking at last year's UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen">speaking at last year's UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen</a>.</p><p>During his address today, Charles said: "I have already alluded to the problem of climate scepticism.</p><p>"It appears to be on the rise again with more and more people prepared to listen to those siren voices that say that everything is okay, there is no need to worry and that we can all carry on as before as all this fuss about climate change and environmental collapse is merely part of a sinister attempt to undermine the entire foundations of the market-based capitalist system.</p><p>"Well, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the urgency of the situation is too great simply to sit back and do nothing."</p><p>A small group of commentators dispute global predictions for climate change, including former Conservative chancellor Lord Lawson and environmentalist and broadcaster David Bellamy.</p><p>Lord Lawson is the chairman of the <a href="http://www.thegwpf.org/" title="Global Warming Policy Foundation">Global Warming Policy Foundation</a>, a climate sceptic thinktank.</p><p>In an interview with the Telegraph last month the former chancellor acknowledged the increase in the planet's temperature during the past 100 years and that CO2 gases have "played a part". But he claimed cutting carbon emissions would threaten the economy.</p><p>The serialisation of Peter Mandelson's book this week also revealed that the former cabinet minister <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/15/mandelson-blair-prince-charles-gm" title="described Prince Charles remarks on GM crops as "irresponsible"">described Prince Charles's remarks on GM crops as "irresponsible"</a>. He wrote: "Like Tony [Blair], I felt his remarks were becoming unhelpful. I thought they were anti-scientific and irresponsible in the light of food shortages in the developing world."</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change-scepticism">Climate change scepticism</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change">Climate change</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/prince-charles">Prince Charles</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/monarchy">Monarchy</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/scienceofclimatechange">Climate change</a></li></ul></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
UEA's delayed response to climate emails caused by shock, says professor
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.8/97123?ns=guardian&pageName=UEA%27s+delayed+response+to+climate+emails+caused+by+shock%2C+says+professor%3AArticle%3A1426556&ch=Environment&c3=Guardian&c4=Hacked+climate+science+emails%2CEnvironment%2CClimate+change+%28Environment%29%2CUniversity+of+East+Anglia%2CEducation%2CClimate+change+%28Science%29%2CClimate+change+scepticism+%28environment%29%2CUK+news%2CHacking+%28Technology%29&c5=Not+commercially+useful%2CClimate+Change%2CEducation+Weekly+Education%2CEthical+Living%2CCorporate+IT%2CHigher+Education&c6=Adam+Vaughan&c7=10-Jul-15&c8=1426556&c9=Article&c10=News&c11=Environment&c13=&c25=&c30=content&h2=GU%2FEnvironment%2FHacked+climate+science+emails" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Former head of research unit responds to criticism by arguing for necessity of assessing excerpts by independent reviews</p><p>The former head of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, which was at the centre of a media and scientific storm over leaked emails, said their response to the incident was delayed by "shock" at the leak and at the content of the communications, a Guardian debate heard last night.</p><p>Professor Trevor Davies, the UEA's pro-vice chancellor of research, spoke out after climate scientists and sceptics clashed last week over the findings of a six-month inquiry into the emails dating back 13 years.</p><p>"We were shocked too by the excerpts from the original emails and that was one reason why we were accused of slowing our response. We had to verify they were real. We decided to assess them, not by a small number of emails, but by independent reviews," Davies said.</p><p>The university was criticised by climate sceptics and commentators last year including the Guardian columnist George Monbiot, who accused it of reacting slowly to the publication of the emails in November and the ensuing media storm.</p><p>The pro vice-chancellor struck a conciliatory note at the heated debate, as panellists argued over whether the inquiry drew a line under the affair or was a "whitewash", as one critic said.</p><p>Davies said: "There are lessons to be learned. We need to be much more aware of interactions between the mainstream media and the blogosphere and contribute to public debates."</p><p>He said the university had a series of initiatives planned for later this year to such effect.</p><p>Responding to criticisms in the findings of last week's Muir Russell report, which called the university and its Climatic Research Unit's (CRU) responses to freedom of information requests "unhelpful and defensive", he said: "We have to be more helpful to freedom of information and environmental regulation requests." He defended two reviews commissioned by UEA as "wholly independent", and reiterated the conclusions of the total of three reviews into the affair, all of which cleared scientists of wrongdoing and manipulating data, and said the science was sound.</p><p>But prominent climate sceptic bloggers Stephen McIntyre and Douglas Keenan criticised the CRU and UEA. "Both the Muir Russell review and Oxburgh review [an earlier review of the emails] are clearly whitewash. That is not the problem. The real problem is the lack of systematic accountability, whereby allegations of improper behaviour are dealt with," said Keenan.</p><p>He also claimed that university researchers were switching from using their university to using Gmail addresses, to avoid being covered by freedom of information requests. Bob Watson, chief scientist at Defra, said he had not personally heard of any scientists switching to such email addresses.</p><p>Under questioning from McIntyre, Davies confirmed Sir Muir Russell, the chair of the six-month inquiry published last week, had not met Phil Jones, the current head of the CRU, in person after his inquiry's panel was appointed in February. Evidence from Jones was instead taken by other officials.</p><p>Watson, a former head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said the system for advising governments on how to act on climate change should accomodate sceptical opinions. "I think the IPCC is probably the best system you could invent... but sceptical views must be in the document."</p><p>He also said the IPCC had failed to admit mistakes quickly over an error in its last major report about the rate of glacier melting in the Himalayas. But he added the UN panel was "very strong" and would be strengthened by a review into its work due to be published in September by the InterAcademy Council. Watson was damning about media coverage of the emails affair. "The printed press said UEA was guilty without examination. One had the feeling people were guilty without an in-depth analysis." Davies said Jones, who admitted earlier this year he had considered suicide because of the pressure on him, had been "hounded by the press". The panel included science journalist Fred Pearce, Davies, Defra chief scientific adviser Bob Watson and climate sceptic bloggers Doug Keenan and Stephen McIntyre. It was chaired by Monbiot.</p><p>Last week the third and final UK report into the emails affair, the Muir Russell review, cleared the CRU of manipulating data. Announcing the findings, Muir Russell said: "Ultimately this has to be about what they did, not what they said. The honesty and rigour of CRU as scientists are not in doubt."</p><p>Jones, the former head of CRU and scientist at the centre of many of the emails, was appointed last week to the newly-created post of director of research at CRU.</p><p>? <strong>The Climate Files: The battle for the truth about global warming</strong> by Fred Pearce is available for £8.99 (RRP £11.99) from Guardian Books. To order visit <a href="http://www.guardianbooks.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/qs_product_tbp?storeId=10401&catalogId=25501&langId=100&productId=185349">guardianbooks.co.uk</a> or in the UK call 0845 606 4232.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/hacked-climate-science-emails">Hacked climate science emails</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change">Climate change</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/universityofeastanglia">University of East Anglia</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/scienceofclimatechange">Climate change</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change-scepticism">Climate change scepticism</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/hacking">Hacking</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/adam-vaughan">Adam Vaughan</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
Google climate map offers a glimpse of a 4C world | Adam Vaughan
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.8/97867?ns=guardian&pageName=Google+climate+map+offers+a+glimpse+of+a+4C+world++%7C+Adam+Vaughan%3AArticle%3A1426199&ch=Environment&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Climate+change+%28Environment%29%2CEnvironment%2CGoogle+%28Technology%29%2CInternet%2CTechnology%2CClimate+change+%28Science%29%2CScience&c5=Not+commercially+useful%2CClimate+Change%2CTechnology+Gadgets%2CEthical+Living%2CCorporate+IT&c6=Adam+Vaughan&c7=10-Jul-16&c8=1426199&c9=Article&c10=Blogpost&c11=Environment&c13=&c25=Environment+blog%2CScience+blog&c30=content&h2=GU%2FEnvironment%2Fblog%2FEnvironment+blog" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Interactive tool layering climate data over Google Earth maps shows the impact of an average global temperature rise of 4C</p><p>Think it's hot this summer? Wait until you see Google's simulation of a world with an average global temperature rise of 4C.</p><p>Using a map that was <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/22/science-museum-climate-map" title="first launched by the former Labour government in October 2009">first launched by the former Labour administration in October 2009</a>, the coalition government has taken temperature data from the Met Office Hadley Centre and other climate research centres and imposed it on to a Google Earth layer.</p><p>It's a timely arrival, with <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/05/ipcc-rising-temperature-targets-greenland-ice-sheet" title="warnings this month that current international carbon pledges will lead to a rise of nearly 4C">warnings this month that current international carbon pledges will lead to a rise of nearly 4C</a> and the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/08/muir-russell-climategate-climate-science" title="Muir Russell report censuring some climate scientists for not being more open with their data">Muir Russell report censuring some climate scientists for not being more open with their data</a> (but exonerating them of manipulating the scientific evidence).</p><p>Unlike a similar tool using IPCC data that <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/sep/25/google-earth-climate-change-copenhagen" title="was launched by Google in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate conference last year">was launched by Google in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate conference last year</a>, this map will be updated regularly with new data. It also has a series of YouTube videos of experts across the globe, with Met Office staff talking about forest fires in sub-Saharan Africa and researchers at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research explaining sea level rises. To go more in-depth you can follow links to government sites, such as <a href="http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-issues/climate-change/priorities/science/water-availability/" title="this one on water availability in a warming world">this one on water availability in a warming world</a>.</p><p>Playing with the layer is surprisingly addictive, mainly thanks to Google Earth's draggable interface. Unlike <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2009/oct/22/climate-change-carbon-emissions" title="the static map of last year">the static map of last year</a>, it also has the bonus of showing more obviously how temperature rises will differ drastically around the world. The poles glow a red (a potential rise of around 10C) while most of northern Europe escapes with light orange 2-3C rises. Other hotspots, such as Alaska, the Amazon and central Asia, also stand out.</p><p>Neatly, you can turn different climate "impacts" on and off. If you just want to see which regions will be worst affected by sea level rises - such as the UK and Netherlands as well as low-lying island states - you can. One limitation is that you have to zoom out to continental level to see the layer: if you're zoomed on your street, you can't see it.</p><p>Climate change minister Greg Barker l<a href="http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=News&id=22534587">aunched the map today</a> alongside the government's chief scientist, Prof John Beddington. Barker said: "This map reinforces our determination to act against dangerous man-made climate change. We know the stakes are high and that's why we want to help secure an ambitious global climate change deal."</p><p>The layer, of course, isn't the only one with an environmental theme to land on Google Earth. <a href="http://earth.google.com/outreach/cs_unep.html" title="UNEP has one showing deforestation">The UN's environment programme has one showing deforestation</a>, <a href="http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/project/google_earth/" title="WWF has a layer highlighting its projects across the globe">WWF has a layer highlighting its projects across the globe</a> and Google even has <a href="http://www.google.com/landing/cop15/" title="its own climate change 'tours' for Google Earth">its own climate change "tours" for Google Earth</a>. What other good green Earth layers have you stumbled across? And how do you rate the newest addition from the UK government?</p><p>? The <a href="http://www.google.com/gadgets/directory?synd=earth&preview=on&cat=featured&url=http://maps.google.com/maps/gx?oe%3Dutf-8%26output%3Dghapi%26q%3Dhttp://www.fco.gov.uk/google-earth-4degrees.kml" title="government's map, 'The impact of a global temperature rise of 4C', is here">government's map, 'The impact of a global temperature rise of 4C', is here</a> (you'll need a browser plug-in or the Google Earth app installed to view it)</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change">Climate change</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/google">Google</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/internet">Internet</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/scienceofclimatechange">Climate change</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/adam-vaughan">Adam Vaughan</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
'Climategate' shows the need for openness by scientists
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.8/36368?ns=guardian&pageName=Climategate+shows+the+need+for+openness+by+scientists%3AArticle%3A1424459&ch=Environment&c3=Obs&c4=Hacked+climate+science+emails%2CClimate+change+%28Environment%29%2CClimate+change+scepticism+%28environment%29%2CClimate+change+%28Science%29%2CScience%2CEnvironment%2CJames+Lovelock%2CUK+news&c5=Digital+Media%2CNot+commercially+useful%2CClimate+Change%2CEthical+Living&c6=Damian+Carrington&c7=10-Jul-12&c8=1424459&c9=Article&c10=News&c11=Environment&c13=&c25=&c30=content&h2=GU%2FEnvironment%2FHacked+climate+science+emails" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">In the age of the blogosphere, blocking facts means science is damaged and public trust lost</p><p>"Like it or not, this [demand for openness] indicates a transformation in the way science has to be conducted in this century." That, say many, will be the lasting legacy of the <a href="http://www.cce-review.org/" title="">independent review published last week into the controversial emails</a> between climate scientists that were stolen from the University of East Anglia and <a href="http://eastangliaemails.com/" title="">posted&nbsp;online</a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/08/muir-russell-climategate-climate-science" title="">Scientists were cleared, as expected, of any fiddling of the figures</a> to exaggerate the case for global warming. But the review heavily criticised them and the university for consistently blocking access to data and failing to recognise the risk such secrecy posed to the "credibility of UK climate science".</p><p>It is now possible to assess the damage. The scientific evidence ? showing that the world is warming fast due to human actions and presents a clear future danger ? remains untarnished. However, the public's trust in that science has been scorched.</p><p>Professor Bob Watson, chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and former head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said he wanted the report to "draw a line under this episode so that the scientific community can begin to regain the trust of the public and continue to do its vital work on climate change".</p><p>But if there was no great global warming conspiracy, why did the leaking of the emails last November become such a PR disaster? Climate scientists, such as Oxford University's Myles Allen, blame the media: "What everyone has lost sight of is the spectacular failure of mainstream journalism to keep the whole affair in perspective."</p><p>The review, led by Sir Muir Russell, does not mention the media. Instead, it examines the reaction of the scientists at the UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to the pressure exerted by bloggers: "An important feature of the blogosphere is the extent to which it demands openness and access to data. A failure to recognise this and to act appropriately can lead to immense reputational damage by feeding allegations of cover-up."</p><p>The review adds: "We found a lack of recognition? of the extent to which earlier action to release information? might have minimised the problems."</p><p>Pressure on the scientists, whose once esoteric work creating records of past temperatures had gained global significance, was intense. In 2005, CRU head Phil Jones replied to a request: "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" But, the review implies, the more they blocked, the more the Freedom of Information requests flooded in.</p><p>On the same day the Russell review was published, the Information Commissioner's Office published a little-noticed notice stating that <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-science-emails-climate-change" title="">UEA had breached two FOI regulations</a> in relation to requests made in 2008. Professor Geoffrey Boulton, an eminent earth scientist and Russell review panel member, said: "We have to move science from a private enterprise to a public enterprise."</p><p>It was bad luck that the CRU scientists were singled out, said Dr James Lovelock, originator of the Gaia hypothesis, adding that the group was among the best in the world at climate science. But he said: "Science has to start examining the way it works. This report compares peer review, which is 'pure', with the blogosphere, which is 'impure' ? and there's some truth in that, to be sure ? but the peer-review process can be exceedingly prejudiced and exert censorship even."</p><p>Russell found the CRU scientists were innocent of subverting the peer-review process, through which researchers recommend or reject work for publication in a journal. The review acknowledges the language in some emails could be thought to reflect "partial and aggressive" behaviour, such as this from CRU's Keith Briffa: "Confidentially I now need a hard and if required an extensive case for rejecting" a paper. But, said Russell, "we think it more plausible that it reflects the rough and tumble of interaction in an area of science that has become heavily contested".</p><p>Arch-critic of CRU, blogger Steve McIntyre, was far from convinced. In his opinion, "the only reasonably objective inquiry to date", which criticised the behaviour of the CRU scientists, was that by <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/series/climate-wars-hacked-emails" title="">Fred Pearce in The Guardian</a>.The editor of the <em>Lancet</em>, Dr Richard Horton, gave evidence to the inquiry on peer review. What was at stake was far bigger than the climate change science being done at CRU, he said.</p><p>"What Russell has identified is the beginning of a revolution in the way science is being done," he said. "If scientists don't adapt to this soon, the trust that the public and politicians put in science will be jeopardised. The credibility of science itself is at stake."</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/hacked-climate-science-emails">Hacked climate science emails</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change">Climate change</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change-scepticism">Climate change scepticism</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/scienceofclimatechange">Climate change</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/james-lovelock">James Lovelock</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/damiancarrington">Damian Carrington</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
Video: David Mitchell's Soap Box: Climate change
<p>David discusses why tackling climate change is always presented to us as something 'cool' and 'fun', when actually it's just something we have to do, because of facts</p><br/><p style="clear:both" />
How has 'Climategate' affected the battle against climate change? | David Adam
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.8/94870?ns=guardian&pageName=How+has+%27Climategate%27+affected+the+battle+against+climate+change%3F+%7C+Davi%3AArticle%3A1423327&ch=Environment&c3=Guardian&c4=Hacked+climate+science+emails%2CClimate+change+%28Environment%29%2CClimate+change+scepticism+%28environment%29%2CEnvironment%2CClimate+change+%28Science%29%2CScience%2CHacking+%28Technology%29%2CTechnology%2CUniversity+of+East+Anglia%2CHigher+education%2CEducation%2CUK+news&c5=Not+commercially+useful%2CClimate+Change%2CEducation+Weekly+Education%2CEthical+Living%2CHigher+Education%2CCorporate+IT&c6=David+Adam&c7=10-Jul-08&c8=1423327&c9=Article&c10=Analysis%2CComment&c11=Environment&c13=&c25=Cif+green&c30=content&h2=GU%2FEnvironment%2FHacked+climate+science+emails" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">The Muir Russell report has cleared the scientists of any dishonesty over data, but how did the scandal affect Copenhagen?</p><p>The East Anglia emails were released just weeks before world leaders <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/copenhagen" title="gathered in Copenhagen in December">gathered in Copenhagen in December</a> to continue talks on a new treaty to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Many saw this as a deliberate attempt to undermine the summit, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-deal" title="which produced a disappointing outcome">which produced a disappointing outcome</a>.</p><p></p><p>Today, the third and final review of the emails affair <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-review-clears-scientists-dishonesty" title="cleared the scientists involved of any dishonesty over data">cleared the scientists involved of any dishonesty over data</a>. But while the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/findings-muir-russell-review" title="Russell Muir report">Muir Russell report</a> may have exonerated the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists and the science, did the fuss over the emails contribute to the failure at Copenhagen to agree a meaningful deal? Was there a swing in public opinion that saw politicians retreat from the previously bullish positions on climate?</p><p></p><p>Ben Stewart, head of media at Greenpeace, says the emails controversy had a significant impact. "It's pretty hard to say what the impact has been but it would be hopelessly naive to say it has not had an effect. To peak and decline our emissions was always going to need us to push a large rock up a steep hill, but the rock got heavier and the hill got steeper because of the reporting of the emails."</p><p></p><p>Stewart says it is the media, not the CRU scientists, who are to blame for any extra confusion among the public. "The public haven't read a thousand emails from scientists they have never heard of. The emails didn't change the way that carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere, but the media created a situation that presented a false symmetry between the various sides of the debate."</p><p></p><p>Michael Jacobs, former special adviser on climate to Gordon Brown, and a figure central to the way the climate debate has unfolded in the UK, says: "I don't think it [the release of the emails] had an impact on Copenhagen. It affected the mood but not the outcome. The emails gave a huge boost to the sceptics but we didn't see a weakening of commitments on climate at a state level anywhere. Any government that wanted to stall action could have played up the importance of the emails and called for more enquiries, but that didn't happen, so I think they had less of an impact than some people were claiming."</p><p></p><p>Saudi Arabia, long-standing opponents of a global agreements to curb emissions, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/03/leaked-email-uea-inquiry" title="tried to use the emails controversy to bolster their position in Copenhagen">tried to use the emails controversy to bolster their position in Copenhagen</a>. China cited them once, but made little headway.</p><p></p><p>Jacobs, now a research fellow at the London School of Economics, adds: "Since Copenhagen it's very difficult to tell. There's no question that climate agnosticism has increased, but I think that has more to do with a backlash to all the hype around Copenhagen. We were worried about the impact [of the emails] on public opinion but government action on climate change is not driven by public attitudes, but that it is the right thing to do. Public consent is important but not essential so long as there is not downright opposition. Governments introduce plenty of things that are less popular than action on climate."</p><p></p><p>Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said: "It hasn't in any direct way affected the political process. Governments have scientific advisers who know this is just a storm in a teacup."</p><p>There could be an indirect effect, he said, from a confused public who feel there is less need to pressure politicians to cut emissions. "But I haven't seen any evidence there has been any big change in public opinion."</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/hacked-climate-science-emails">Hacked climate science emails</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change">Climate change</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change-scepticism">Climate change scepticism</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/scienceofclimatechange">Climate change</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/hacking">Hacking</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/universityofeastanglia">University of East Anglia</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/higher-education">Higher education</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/davidadam">David Adam</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
Climategate scientists cleared of manipulating data on global warming
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.20.8/59894?ns=guardian&pageName=Climategate+scientists+cleared+of+manipulating+data+on+global+warming%3AArticle%3A1423516&ch=Environment&c3=Guardian&c4=Hacked+climate+science+emails%2CClimate+change+%28Environment%29%2CClimate+change+scepticism+%28environment%29%2CEnvironment%2CClimate+change+%28Science%29%2CScience%2CEducation%2CUniversity+of+East+Anglia%2CUK+news%2CHacking+%28Technology%29%2CTechnology%2CHigher+education&c5=Not+commercially+useful%2CClimate+Change%2CEducation+Weekly+Education%2CEthical+Living%2CCorporate+IT%2CHigher+Education&c6=David+Adam%2CChristine+Ottery&c7=10-Jul-08&c8=1423516&c9=Article&c10=News&c11=Environment&c13=&c25=&c30=content&h2=GU%2FEnvironment%2FHacked+climate+science+emails" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Muir Russell report says scientists did not fudge data, but they should have been more open about their work<br /><br />? <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/findings-muir-russell-review">Read the full text of the review here</a><br />? <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-scientists-main-points">'Climategate' report - main findings</a></p><p>The climate scientists at the centre of a media storm over leaked emails were yesterday cleared of accusations that they fudged their results and silenced critics, but a review found they had failed to be open enough about their work.</p><p>Sir Muir Russell, the senior civil servant who led a six-month inquiry into the affair, said the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) were not in doubt. His investigation concluded they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism and that key data was freely available and could be used by any "competent" researcher.</p><p>But the panel said the scientists' responses to "reasonable requests for information" had been "unhelpful and defensive". The inquiry found "emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them" and that there had been "a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness". Scientists also failed to appreciate the risk their lack of transparency posed to the university and "indeed to the credibility of UK climate science".</p><p>The controversy began when 13 years of emails from CRU scientists were released online last year. Climate change sceptics claimed they showed scientists manipulating and suppressing data to back up a theory of manmade climate change. Critics also alleged the scientists abused their positions to cover up flaws and distort the peer review process that determines which studies are published in journals, and so enter the scientific record. Some alleged the emails cast doubt on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).</p><p>Announcing the findings, Russell said: "Ultimately this has to be about what they did, not what they said. The honesty and rigour of CRU as scientists are not in doubt ... We have not found any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments."</p><p>The review is the third and final inquiry into the email affair, and effectively clears Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU, and his colleagues of the most serious charges. Questions remain over the way they responded to requests for information from people outside the conventional scientific arena, some of whom were critics of Jones. "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA," said the report, commissioned by UEA at a cost of £200,000.</p><p>It also criticised the CRU scientists for failing to include proper labels on a 1999 graph prepared for the World Meteorological Organisation, which was the subject of an infamous email about Jones using a "trick" to "hide the decline". The panel said the result was misleading, though they accepted this was not deliberate as the necessary caveats had been included in the report text.</p><p>Acknowledging that the digital age brought a greater demand for openness and access to data, it concluded "like it or not, this indicates a transformation in the way science has to be conducted in this century." Edward Acton, vice-chancellor of UEA, said the university accepted the report's conclusion that it should have been more open. "The need to develop a culture of greater openness and transparency in CRU is something we faced up to internally some months ago and we are already working to put right."</p><p>He hoped the review would "finally lay to rest conspiracy theories, untruths and misunderstandings" that had been circulating, and that the "wilder assertions" about the climate science community would now stop.</p><p>Jones issued a statement which said: "I am, of course, extremely relieved that this review has now been completed. We have maintained all along that our science is honest and sound and this has been vindicated now by three different independent external bodies. There are lessons to be learned and I need time to reflect on them." Jones is to be director of research at CRU. Acton said this was "not a demotion but a shift in emphasis of role".</p><p>Ed Miliband, the former climate change secretary, said: "Muir Russell has given the world a clear message: we should not believe those who tell us that one string of emails undermines years of climate science. We should also learn lessons because maximum openness and transparency is the best weapon against those who want us to stick our heads in the sand as if climate change isn't happening. Now the world needs to step up the momentum again and get the deal that eluded us at Copenhagen."</p><p>Writing on Comment is Free, Dr Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, who testified to the inquiry, said: "The Russell review has rejected all claims of serious scientific misconduct. But he does identify failures, evasions, misleading actions, unjustifiable delays, and pervasive unhelpfulness ? all of which amounts to severely sub-optimal academic practice. Climate science will never be the same again."</p><p>Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said: "It is clear that greater transparency is required in climate research because of the intense public interest in it, and its profound implications for society. However, it is also now very apparent that many so-called sceptics owe a huge apology to the public for having presented the email messages as evidence that climate change is a hoax carried out by a conspiracy of dishonest scientists."</p><p>Acton said: "CRU will be more closely integrated in the bigger school of environmental sciences and a key difference is to place some of the administrative burden that Phil had before this incident on the head of the school."</p><p>Bob Watson, chief scientific advisor to the department of environment, food and rural affairs, said that while it was clear scientists needed to be more transparent, he hoped the report would "draw a line under this episode so that the scientific community can begin to regain the trust of the public and continue to do its vital work on climate change, which remains one of the biggest challenges we face as a planet."</p><p>Myles Allen, head of the climate dynamics group at the University of Oxford, said: "What everyone has lost sight of is the spectacular failure of mainstream journalism to keep the whole affair in perspective. Again and again, stories are sexed up with arch hints that these "revelations" might somehow impact on the evidence for human impact on climate. Yet the only error in actual data used for climate change detection to have emerged from this whole affair amounted to a few hundredths of a degree in the estimated global temperature of a couple of years in the 1870s."</p><p>? <em>Additional reporting by Christine Ottery</em></p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/hacked-climate-science-emails">Hacked climate science emails</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change">Climate change</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change-scepticism">Climate change scepticism</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/scienceofclimatechange">Climate change</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/universityofeastanglia">University of East Anglia</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/hacking">Hacking</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/higher-education">Higher education</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/davidadam">David Adam</a></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/christine-ottery">Christine Ottery</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> &copy; Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />

© Copyright 2008  - Awareness-Guide.com, All rights reserved - renewable energy