At the Commission for Climatology meeting in Turkey this week, the Met Office submitted a Proposal for a New International Analysis of Land Surface Air Temperature Data, a document which calls for a reassessment of more than 150 years of global temperature records. This is part of a new comprehensive approach for analysing temperature data in order to better assess the risks of dangerous climate change. This will help to strengthen decisions on adapting to the effects of global warming.

The proposal is being viewed as a bid to regain public confidence, at a time when public conviction about the threat of climate change has steeply declined: an Ipsos Mori survey published this week showed that the proportion of adults who believe that climate change is ‘definitely’ a reality has dropped from 44% to 31% during the last year. The poll of just over 1,000 people in Great Britain was taken at the end of January, shortly after the scandal concerning leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, where allegations were made that researchers had manipulated the evidence in order to support man-made global warming.

The proposal emphasises that no substantial changes in overall trends are expected as a result of the reassessment; the main purpose is to ensure that datasets are completely robust and methods are transparent.

Source: Guardian, 25th February

Last night saw the BES Policy Team attend the winter reception of the All Party Parliamentary Environment Group (APEG) at the Houses of Parliament. Delegates from NGOs and industry were joined by MPs and Prospective Parliamentary Candidates on the House of Commons Terrace, for an evening of networking and speeches from Jonathan Porritt, Peter Ainsworth MP and representatives of the energy sector.

Peter Ainsworth MP, Chair of the APEG, introduced the event by stressing the importance of highlighting the up-side of a transition to a low-carbon economy to the electorate. He praised those present from the renewable energy sector for taking advantage of opportunities to create jobs. This was a theme of the evening; the need to relate climate change and the alterations needed in society and to people’s lifestyles to their everyday concerns. In a time of economic hardship people are concerned about their jobs and livlihoods; the opportunities which a transition to a more sustainable society can bring need to be better articulated.

The event was sponsored by the Mark Group and by the Micropower Council and speakers from both bodies again stressed the positives to come from a low-carbon society. Feed-in tariffs, paying people for the electricity they generate in their own homes and feed back into the National Grid (whether through solar panels or roof-mounted wind turbines), have now been released and are due to come into force on 1st April. One speaker emphasised that generating your own electricity can now yield a return of 8% on your investment, ‘better than any bank’. Householders will need an excuse not to generate their own energy, speakers stressed.

Jonathan Porritt, former Chair of the Sustainable Development Commission, praised the APEG and Peter Ainsworth in particular for work in parliament to raise the profile of environmental issues. However, politicians still haven’t woken up to the reality of what living within sustainable limits actually means, he said. Commenting on the environmental agenda for the next Parliament he saw it as unlikely that any new Prime Minister would take the difficult, innovative, decisions needed to move to a new form of economic system. He said, therefore, that backbench MPs and groups like the APEG would be more important than ever to highlight environmental concerns, particularly if no political party achieves a clear majority at the next election. He wished all the Prospective Parliamentary Candidates present luck with the election, urging them to enter parliament energised and with new ideas for reform. He stressed the need for them, and others present, to work hard to move other environmental issues up the agenda; these have not simply followed in the wake of climate change and more needs to be done to raise awareness of biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystem services – and what these too mean for society.

One powerful point made by Mr Porritt was directed at science and scientists. ‘The truth will not conquer all’, he suggested; the public will not simply accept that changes need to be made to their lifestyles if the science behind climate change is presented to them- the reality of public engagement with science is far more complex. Scientists have to be better communicators and must relate climate change to people’s everyday lives. Again, as with other speakers he stressed that the positive side of de-carbonising the economy, the wider suite of benefits it will bring to society, must be articulated.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) this weekend, Dr Ralph Cicerone, President of the US National Academy of Sciences, argued that there has been a general deterioration of the public’s faith in science, in America and in other countries, over the course of the past three months. American opinion polls point to the public’s growing lack of trust in science and in scientists. Catalysed by the leakage of emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and the incorporation of flawed data on the melting rates of Himalayan glaciers into a report from the Iintergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s, Dr Cicerone argued that public mistrust of science is now spreading beyond the science of climate change.

“I think the damage has spilled over to other kinds of science”, Dr Cicerone said at the conference on Saturday. I don’t think it’s fair, but we have to address our fundamentals in any case as we improve science. Let’s do it, and I hope we can set a new level of transparency and trust.” Dr Cicerone warned that continuing attacks on climate change science by sceptics would further damage public attitudes to science.

The ‘Thought for the Day’ piece on BBC Radio 4 this morning focused on public attitudes to science, calling for better funding for scientific research, leaving science and scientists less open to accusations of ‘collusion’ with industry and corporate interests in order to achieve funding for their work. Greater communication on the part of scientists was also highlighted as means to tackle public mistrust.

Scientists hit by climate doubt fallout: Independent, John van Radowitz, PA, Saturday 20 February

India’s Prime Minister has today announced that India will boost its contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Indian Network for Climate Change Assessment (INCCA) will provide research findings to the IPCC by November 2010, informing its next Assessment Report, due in 2014. The involvement of INCCA will represent the first time that Indian scientists have contributed to the IPCC at an institutional level.

The focus of INCCA’s work will be on measuring, modelling and monitoring to assess the impact of climate change on ecosystems, biodiversity, health and agriculture, amongst other key sectors.

Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh commented that this development would bring science “back into the mainstream” of the Department’s work and decision-making.

SciDev.Net, 8 February, India boosts climate data contribution to IPCC, T. V. Padma

From the editorial at www.SciDev.net:

Historians of science have long known that Gregor Mendel, the 19th century Augustinian monk who discovered how genetic traits are inherited, ‘fudged’ some of his data. His experimental methods were not as rigorous as they should have been and he failed to publish results of experiments that did not turn out as expected. Such revelations show that science is less exact than many people would like to believe. But they do not invalidate Mendel’s insights, which have become the cornerstone of modern genetics.

The same could be said of the ‘Climategate’ row that erupted last month after emails were hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The emails suggest that some university researchers may have selected favourable data in their publications to boost arguments about the severity of climate change and its origins in human activity.

Opponents of action on climate change have leapt upon the emails and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been forced onto the defensive, with its officials condemning publication of the emails as an illegal act intended to discredit the panel’s work. But dismissing the emails on the grounds that they were obtained illegally misses the important point that they show science to be a more human process than is usually portrayed. The emails reveal that the scientists who wrote them were frustrated by the attacks of critics and, like Mendel, were anxious to sharpen the strength of their conclusions.

To gain public trust, scientists are coming under increasing pressure to be open about how they achieve their results. However, if researchers are to be more transparent and avoid accusations of tampering with data as being unscientific, the public must also accept how science is actually practised. To achieve this, scientists must do more to present a human face when explaining their processes and practices instead of hiding behind the claim that science is entirely objective.

Climategate is teaching the IPCC this lesson the hard way. By relying excessively on the apparent objectivity of its research assessments to give the panel its authority, it has made itself and its conclusions politically vulnerable. Now any criticism that challenges the objectivity of research used by the IPCC, however minor, undermines the panel’s reputation.

The IPCC, to its credit, tries hard to be transparent in its own handling of scientific evidence by making good use of communication channels. For instance, it logged and replied online to each of the estimated 300,000 comments received on its latest assessment report, published in 2007. But unless it is prepared to accept a more accurate picture of how scientific evidence is compiled, such transparency will not be sufficient.

The media, too, must improve its understanding and description of science. It often demands a black-and-white picture of scientific evidence, rather than a more nuanced description based on the social nature of scientific inquiry. This undervalues the true robustness of the scientific process and undermines the strength of political decisions based on conclusions emerging from it.

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Hilary Benn MP, is due to address policy-makers assembled at the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen today, as part of ‘Oceans Day’. The Secretary of State is due to highlight the dangers posed to marine life and human well-being by ocean acidification, and the limited attention which this issue receives compared to others being discussed by climate change negotiators.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now 30% higher than during pre-industrial times. A proportion of the carbon dioxide which has entered the atmosphere over the past 200 years has been absorbed by the oceans – with constant gaseous exchange between the seas and air. When carbon dioxide dissolves in water, carbonic acid is formed, which dissociates into hydrogen and carbonate ions. The Ph of the ocean, measuring hydrogen ion concentration and hence acidity, is now 0.1 unit lower, with a total decrease of 0.3 or 0.4 Ph units expected by the end of the century. An increase in the acidity of the seas will affect the ability of corals and other organisms to build calcium carbonate shells; studies have shown that coral growth in the Great Barrier Reef is already slowing.

Mr Benn told the BBC News that ocean acidification “doesn’t get as much attention as other problems; it is really important”. Destruction of corals will affect all those who depend on the reefs – from the fish which forage there to the populations which depend on these fish for protein; over 1 bilion people worldwide. He will recommend to policy-makers today that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) investigates ocean acidification during its next major assessment of world climate, scheduled for release in 2013.

Original source; ‘Acidifying oceans’ threaten food supply, UK warns, Richard Black, BBC News Website

The 15th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 15) begins today in Copenhagen. Over the next two weeks, climate change negotiators from 192 countries will gather to discuss a successor to the Kyoto Protocol in the aim of crafting an agreement which can limit a rise in temperature to 2 degrees centigrade, agreed by policy-makers as the upper limit to avoid ‘dangerous’ climate change.

The Guardian this morning carries an editorial on its front page calling for world leaders to take action on climate change; an editorial which simultaneously appears in 56 newspapers around the globe. The piece calls for politicians to agree the essential elements of a deal in Copenhagen, with a timetable for turning it into a treaty. In the same newspaper, Prime Minister Gordon Brown calls for a global, legally-binding, treaty to be agreed no more than six months after the Copenhagen summit ends.

The newspaper reports that the mood around the negotiations has become more optimistic, with 100 world leaders, including President Obama, now declaring their intention to attend. The US is also expected to announce that CO2 will be declared a ‘public danger’, clearing the way for the Environmental Protection Agency to take action on emissions, in the absence of a US climate change law.

Over 5,000 journalists are expected to attend the Copenhagen summit and many blogs will cover the negotiations in real time. The Guardian has a section of its website dedicated to COP 15, including a live blog and twitter feeds from others, including WWF, covering the conference.

The BES Policy Team yesterday attended the launch of the National Assessment of UK Forestry and Climate Change report, an exercise established by the Forestry Commission and conducted by a team of experts, led by Professor Sir David Read, Biological Secretary of the Royal Society and Professor of Plant Sciences at the University of Sheffield.

Professor Sir Read began the afternoon with a presentation outlining the main results of the report, which examines the potential of UK forests to assist society in mitigating and adapting to, climate change. The Assessment set out to review and synthesise existing knowledge, to provide baseline information on forests in the UK and to identify gaps and weaknesses to determine research priorities for the next few years.

From the 1950’s – 70’s around 25,000 hectares of woodland was planted each year, but this has declined massively in recent years: we are now harvesting the trees planted during these decades and, as this occurs and forests aren’t replaced, the sequestration of carbon by trees in the UK will fall. UK forests store 790 megatonnes of carbon and remove 15 megatonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere each year. The headline conclusion of the Assessment is that traditional management of the tree stock we already have is not sufficient. In order to enhance sequestration we have to plant new woodland, approximately 23,000 hectares per year on an annual basis from now to 2050.

Professor Read also highlighted ’substitution’, carbon lock-up after felling, as a key way in which the forestry sector could contribute to tackling climate change in the UK. Wood should be used as biomass, as a substitute for fossil fuels, and wood should be greater used by the construction sector.

Professor Read highlighted, albeit briefly, that the Assessment’s proposals would pose difficult questions for the conservation of biodiversity in woodland communities in the UK, particularly given recommendations that non-native tree species (e.g. from the Mediterranean) make up the new forests – as these species may be more likely to thrive as the climate warms. Professor Read called for immediate field-trials to identify those species which it would be most appropriate to grow in the UK, and which would be least likely to beome invasively.

Professor Read’s presentation was followed by an address from the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Hilary Benn, who remained afterwards to take questions as part of the panel discussion. Mr Benn welcomed the report on behalf of the Government, stating that as a nation the UK will have to plant more trees and that the Government will have to ensure that this happens. Alluding to the TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) study, the Minister stressed that trees must be assigned a value standing, as they are felled, and that the UK Government is wiling to pledge its share at the forthcoming Copenhagen climate negotiations to support a REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) mechanism in developing countries. Mr Benn is due to host a round-table of environment Ministers today, with the Director of the IUCN, examining the sustainable use of the world’s forests.

One major point to emerge from the discussion session following the presentations was the need to recognise the increasing threat posed to trees by pests and disease, with losses eroding any gains in coverage through planting more trees. Increasingly mild and wet winters are likely to favour the development and survival of pathogen populations. Panellists stressed the need to apply science to find a solution, with the Minister drawing attention to a £25 million Defra-funded research project into two major tree diseases. Nevertheless, there was acknowledgment that it will be necessary to live with some future tree diseases, and their consequences.

The Forestry Commission and UK Government will now consider the contents of the report before making a decision on how to implement its recommendations.

The way in which the media communicates climate change to the public has come under scrutiny in the past, with controversies over the media providing an equal platform for both climate scientists and climate sceptics. A free event next week at the Science Museum’s Dana Centre will explore this and other issues in asking, ‘How do the UK media report climate change?’.

Tuesday 24 November, 19.00 – 20.45

Speakers
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor, The Times
Tim Gallagher, Executive Producer, Sky News
Ben Jackson, Environment Editor, The Sun
James Randerson, Environment Website Editor, The Guardian

For details of how to register for this event (you must pre-book) see the Dana Centre website.

For details of the BES’s Press work see our Press Pages.

A group of scientists, led by Professor Corinne Le Quéré at the University of East Anglia, have called for urgent action at the UN climate change talks in Copenhagen to avert a catastrophic 6C rise in average global temperature. Professor Le Quéré and colleagues from the British Antarctic Survey published their results, part of the Global Carbon Project, in Nature Geoscience. The Guardian this morning describes the study as ‘the most comprehensive analysis to date of how economic changes and shifts in land use have affected carbon dioxide concentrations’.

The scientists suggest that the global trend, with emissions rising by 29% in the past decade, is towards 6C of warming before 2100. To limit a rise in temperature to 2C, a target favoured by policy-makers as necessary to avoid ‘dangerous climate change’, emissions would have to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then fall to one tonne per capita globally by 2050. At present the average British citizen is responsible for approximately 9.3 tonnes of carbon emissions per annum. A firm agreement at the Copenhagen summit is therefore vital, they say.

The scientists estimated how much carbon dioxide is being absorbed by forests, oceans and soil. They conclude that these natural carbon sinks are becoming less effective; absorbing 55% of carbon emissions now, compared to 60% 50 years ago. These results are however disputed by Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol, who published an analysis of similar data in Geophysical Research Letters showing that carbon sinks had not noticeably changed. Professor Le Quéré suggests that her team’s data is more robust, using monthly, rather than annual data on carbon dioxide levels.

Both teams of scientists agree that an improved understanding of land and ocean carbon sinks is crucial, with sinks holding a major influence in determining links between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.

Original article: Global temperatures will rise by 6C by the end of the century, say scientists