I don't know whether you saw the documentary March of the Penguins. Now I know scientists don't like people attributing human characteristics to animals. However, it is hard not to when you see the father penguins so anguished when the egg they keep warm on their feet while the mother goes to get food, slips off onto the ice, freezes and kills the baby penguin inside. That was one of the saddest things I have seen.

The World Wildlife Federation says we are putting penguins at risk by not addressing climate change. Here is an article from the Wednesday, December 12, 2007, Metro newspaper, metronews.ca, page 12:

PENGUINS WILL DECLINE

The emperor penguin will march toward drastic decline if the brakes are not put on climate change, wildlife advocates announced in the United Nations conference on the topic in Bali, Indonesia, yesterday.

Already, melting sea ice and a shrinking food supply are threatening the four penguin species that live entirely on the Antarctic continent - including the celebrated star of the Academy Award-winning documentary March Of The Penguins - the World Wildlife Fund's study reveals.

:This is happening before our very eyes because of the fossil fuel pollution, we're pumping into the air," WWF Canada's director of global threats Julia Langer said yesterday from Toronto, admonishing Canada's stance at the climate talks as "not very helpful."

"We don't have time for political posturing,"

While increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is warming temperatures around the globe, it is most extreme at the poles.

Torstar News Service

From the June 2007 green issue of the Toronto Life, torontolife.com, there is a multi-page section about various green heroes, from which I have included the excerpt about Sarah Harmer.

"They are artists, entrepreneurs and activists - all standouts in their respective fields. Some are lifelong devotees to the movement; others are recent converts. But there's nothing faddish about their endeavours: these local green heros share a fierce and abiding commitment to changing the way we live. And we're finally ready for them."

By Sasha Chapman, Andrea Curtis, Gillian Grace, Jason McBride, Alec Scott and Olivia Stren

GREEN GIANTS

The Vocalist

Sarah Harmer: Songwriter, Activist, Escarpment Love

In March, Sarah Harmer won a Juno for Escarpment Blues, a documentary chronicling her now-famous fight against mining expansion in north Burlington, where her family has lived for 36 years. The award was a well-deserved honour for the folk-rock musician, but it couldn't quite match the good news she'd received two weeks earlier: in a landmark decision, the Ministry of Natural Resources had finally declared the region to be "provincially significant wetlands." While the Niagara Escarpment had long been designated a World Biosphere Reserve by UNESCO, in Ontario, only provincial legislation governs land use, and the decision put a stop to the 80-hectare expansion of an immense limestone quarry. It was a victory for both Harmer and Protecting Escarpment Rural Land, the community group she helped found two years ago, which has doggedly sought to defend the area, already home to 44 pits and quarries. No Lexus liberal (when she has to drive, she drives a Prius), Harmer speaks about water tables and impact studies with the case of an engineer. "I spend a lot of time on it," she says. "But it's really compelling work. I'm grateful it came into my life." She divides her time between the family farm on Mount Nemo, her home north of Kingston and a crash pad in Toronto. She's all about acting locally, praising Toronto's strong sense of community and insisting on the need ofor investment in regional agriculture and renewable energy sources. Inspired by George Monbiot's global warming primer Heat, she's now questioning how far she needs to go on tour, eschewing CO2 emitting airline travel in favour of performance closer to home. Still, when asked how optimistic she is, Harmer says, "I don't want to go around hanging my head. It's my job to be hopeful and positive."

This excerpt about the cost of climate change losses is from a book by Dr. Ron Nielson called The Little Green Handbook, p. 103. It was published in 2005.   

Preliminary examination of the data shows that the prospects are not encouraging, because the losses are increasing much faster than income. As we have seen, global weather-related losses per decade increased from $86 billion to $474 billion, or 450 per cent, the last two decades of the 20th century. However, GWP increased from $291 trillion per decade to $386 trillion, or 33 per cent, during the same period. GWP is still greater than the weather-related losses, but the losses are increasing much faster, and in time they might match global income. That would mean global bankruptcy. 

Weather-related economic losses can be fitted by using exponential function. The best fit corresponds to a doubling time of 4.42 years. GWP can be fitted using a polynomial function, which increases slowly and has no doubling time. The two calculated curves cross in 2045. If about that time we decide to repair the damage there will be no money left for anything else.

 

The November 5, 2006, issue of The Economist, contains an article regarding a British government economist, Sir Nicholas Stern, and his report about climate change costs impacting the economy:

Economics of climate change

STERN WARNING

Sir Nicholas Stern's figures may well turn out to be wrong. That is no excuse for inaction.

British civil servants can normally be relied on to favour calm and moderation. Not Sir Nicholas Stern, head of Britain's government economic service. His report on the economies of climate change, published on October 30th, suggests that what he calls "market failure on the greatest scale the world has seen" should lead the planet to panic.

Critics argue with his economics; and there may well be grounds for picking holes in his figures (see page 69). But that's no reason to ignore his recommendations.

Insuring the world

Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer, asked Sir Nicholas to look into the economics of climate change because he wanted some solid material to counter the argument of those who accept that global warming is happening but believe mitigating it is too expensive to be worthwhile. That view is rare these days in Europe, but common in America, where it is often infused with the belief that attempts to control greenhouse-gas emissions are part of a European socialist conspiracy to undermine the American way of life.

Sir Nicolas has tried to assess the future costs of climate change - drought in Africa, floods in Europe, hurricanes in America, rising sea levels around the world - and has set them against the costs of cutting fossil-fuel usage enough to stabilise carbon-dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. His answer to the second part of this calculation is fully uncontroversial. The costs of switching away from carbon should not be huge because of the rise in fossil-fuel prices and the fall in alternative energy prices. Sir Nicholas reckons that the world could stabilise concentrations at a reasonable level at a cost of 1% of GDP by 2050. Many other economists have looked at the matter, and most agree with Sir Nicholas.

But Sir Nicholas dissents from the general view on the costs of climate change itself. Most economists who have looked at the matter up to now reckon that, if greenhouse-gas emissions continue on their current path, the costs of climate change would be between zero (where the benefits of warming to cold countries balances out the costs) and 3% of global output over the next 100 years. Sir Nicholas thinks they would be a massive 5-20% over the next century or two: in other words, world output could be up to a fifth lower, as a result of climate change, than it otherwise would have been.

He justifies these high numbers on two main grounds. First, he says, the earlier estimates were based on temperature increases of 2-3 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. But the science has moved on. A better understanding of feedback loops in the climate, such as the melting of Arctic ice, which increases the region's tendency to absorb sunlight and therefore reinforces warming, means that, although 2-3 degrees Celsius remains the likeliest increase, scientists now think that warming of 5-6 degrees Celsius is a real possibility. That would be a massive jump: 5 degrees Celsius is the difference between the temperatures now and in the last ice age. Second, he points out, most economists have fed only the likeliest climate-change scenario into their models and ignored the outlying possibilities of catastrophe.

Sir Nicholas has received plenty of support from economists (four Nobel prize-winners have endorsed the report) and a certain amount of criticism. One complaint is that he has selected the most pessimistic research and ignored more conservative work. Richard Tol, a professor at Hamburg University and a big noise in this field, describes the report as "alarmist and incompetent." Another criticism is that figures on the economic costs of climate change are bound to be nonsense because they are based on a cascade of uncertainties. Nobody knows just how much carbon dioxide the world is going to produce in future. Nobody knows just what it will do to the temperature. Nobody knows just how temperature rises will affect the world economy. These numbers are therefore too uncertain to act on.

Sir Nicholas may well err on the gloomy side. And it is certainly impossible to predict precisely what effect climate change will have had on the world economy in a century's time. But neither point invalidates Sir Nicholas' central perception - that governments should act not on the basis of the likeliest outcome from climate change but on the risk of something really catastrophic (such as the melting of Greenland's ice sheet, which would raise sea levels by six to seven metres). Just as people spend a small slice of their incomes on buying insurance on the off-chance that their house might burn down, and nations use a slice of taxpayers' money to pay for standing armies just in case a rival power might try to invade them, so the world should invest a small proportion of its resources in trying to avert the risk of boiling the planet. The costs are not huge. The dangers are.

From the Tuesday, September 25, 2007, Toronto Star, Comment, Editorials section, under the heading "Worth Repeating", the speech of a young woman to the UN General Assembly, regarding climate change.

WORTH REPEATING

Youth call for action on climate change

Catherine Gauthier

Catherine Gauthier of Montreal addressed the UN General Assembly yesterday on behalf of Greenpeace Solar Generation, the Canadian Youth Climate Coalition, Environment Jeunesse, the U.S. Youth Network for Sustainable Development and the Australian Youth Climate Coalition. An edited excerpt of her remarks:

This is not the first time that I have had the opportunity to address leaders on the urgent need for climate action. I was one of five youth who called on you to take the first steps toward a strong post-2012 regime in my hometown of Montreal, at the 2005 conference on climate change.

In Montreal, we youth urged you to act now as there could be no more excuses. We described how youth all over the world are moving toward sustainable lifestyles and are engaging our communities to take action now.

In Nairobi last year we asked you to visualize the world you wanted for your children and then to go out and create it. We urged that you stand united on this critical, potentially devastating, issue.

These messages and our commitments to be part of the solution have not changed. Talking about my future and my children's future will never get old. You have the power to protect our future and the responsibility to do so. We must act together and we must act now.

But some things have changed. Report after report has told us that there is a small window in which global emissions need to peak if we are to avoid dangerous climate change. The citizens of the world now realize the potential magnitude of the problem and they will no longer tolerate elected leaders who do not act accordingly. I turned 18 this year and am now among the many who will vote for the climate.

The climate regime has changed too. We have seen it grow from the foundational work that was laid in Rio with the adoption of the Climate Change Convention, to the first baby steps of the Kyoto Protocol and the first Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol in Montreal. But the next round of climate talks in Bali in December is different. It can be no small step, next step, inch forward. Bali must mark the watershed of a new phase in the Kyoto Framework.

There are spin doctors in certain capitals who will try to convince you otherwise with their "diplomatic breakthroughs," "bridges" and "complementary processes." But there is only one road to a safe climate and it leads to Bali.

I've grown out of the training wheels on my bike. So has the climate regime. I have nothing but my future ahead of me and you have nothing but my future to protect. Our future is in your hands.

The visceral fear I felt for the lives of my sons and their children after seeing An Inconvenient Truth did motivate me to learn more about climate change and related issues and to do what I could to slow, stop and reduce global warming. It doesn't paralyze, but I keep the idea in the back of my mind (particularly after the regular as clockwork "sea ice or glaciers" are melting faster than we thought articles). As a mother, it is only one of the many things I do for my sons. I also do it because I sponsor four boys in Armenia through World Vision and worry about the affects of global warming on their futures.

Once you are motivated, though, I think the fear has to be put at bay in order to leave you with the mental resources to continue to do what you think must be done at home, at work, in the world regarding climate change.

Here is quote from John Donne, followed by an article from the Tuesday, October 30, 2007, Canada section of Toronto Star, page A16, about our apparent lack of motivation about many large issues which seem overwhelming such as AIDS in Africa and Darfur in Sudan and now including climate change and about the part fear might need to play in motivating some of us to action.

"No man is an island, entire of itself, every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of they friends or of thine own were: any man's death dinimishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never sent to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee." -- John Donne, Meditation XVII

CLIMATE FEARS WILL DEMAND OUR RESPONSE

 

James Travers

Ottawa

 

A good scare has been good theatre since long before King Kong cupped Fay Wray in his leathery palm. And why not? It's an adrenalin rush stripped of risk, a small thrill without fear of the big chill.

 

Outside the movies, the catharsis is different. Real horrors often freeze-frame us in uncertainty instead of stirring a response or even a scream.

 

One example is HIV/AIDS. Not even Stephen Lewis's baroque eloquence made a lasting dent in the collective consciousness of a rich country unnervingly content to let those in the poorest die.

 

Another is Darfur. Having apparently learned little from Rwanda, we now let "never again" fade form a commitment to an empty phrase.

 

These are reasons why catastrophes of biblical proportions don't move most of us very much. Africa's problems are so entrenched, the casualty lists so long, that impotence weighs us down unless leavened with proof that progress is possible.

 

It's true, too, that even in a shrinking global village we are anesthetized from evil by distance and, more powerfully, by abstraction. As U.S. psychologists found in recent research, sympathy, empathy and generosity are more likely to become action when the anonymity of suffering millions is reduced to the personalized pain of a single child, preferably with a name and gripping story.

 

That's hardly surprising. Some charities tap that donor vein with campaigns made memorable by haunting photos others dismiss as poverty pornography.

 

More puzzling is our lethargic reflex when the menace is here and we are the victims. Bells tolling for the planet speak clearly to that phenomenon. The latest scientific, peer-reviewed prognosis for the Earth hardly warranted a national capital yawn despite the red-flag warning that the ecological point of no return is approaching fast.

 

As the genre demands, the numbers in the UN's Global Environment Outlook are as asatronomical as the predictions are grim -- 23 per cent of mammals face extinction, one in 10 of the world's great rivers now run dry every year before reaching the sea and a disappearing polar ice cap will send hordes scurrying for high land.

 

Those are symptoms. Addressing the causes requires rethinking how progress is defined and wealth measured. But the body politic shrugs as Mother Earth's knees buckle under the impossible load. Now creeping toward two years in office, Conservatives, so like Liberals before them, are doing as little as possible about climate change after correctly, if recklessly, concluding the consensus still falls shorter of voter critical mass.

 

An impossibly bright, impossibly young woman put that dynamic in the historical context of sweeping change when the weekend conversation turned to environmental torpor.

 

With Bay Street law anaalysis and the sensibilities of a generation destined to inherit their parents' mess, she reached the conclusion that the familiar contest that always favous narrow interests over broad at the beginning ensures the status quo is secure for a while longer.

 

Tearing down the reinforced walls of calculated resistance takes time, and doomsday scenarios supported by statistics so overwhelming they boggle the mind don't necessarily accelerate the task. It's a brick-by-brick effort at least as dependent on the specific hope of reconstruction as on the repeated warning the building is condemned.

 

Not just a fright flick, the monster and the scare and the scream are real.

 

James Travers'  national affairs column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.

SOWING THE SEEDS OF SOCIAL ACTIVISM

Bob Benvie

Me to We Volunteer

Catherine McCauley has seen how the smallest of acts can make a profound difference in the way a young person sees the world.

Not long ago, her family heard that city politicians had made a deal with a developer to renovate an old dance hall on the waterfront, where 6-year-old daughter Renee and husband David love to ride their bikes. To accommodate a parking lot next to the dance hall, several large, old willow trees would be chopped down. On one of their rides, Renee asked her father about a group of citizens who had set up tables and a petition at the site. David said politicians intended to cut down the trees and that people unhappy with this prospect were letting them know.

Renee insisted they show support, so David signed the petition. The city eventually backed down.

Catherine says Renee still talks with pride about how she helped save what she affectionaly calls "our trees."

Seeing the effect of their actions inspires kids to social action. Research also shows socially active youth have better grades, higher academic aspirations and make informed choices about substance abuse.

I recently bought, for the first time, a can of environmentally friendly paint.  I bought it from Rona, a Canadian lumber, hardware, etc., store (a smaller version of Home Depot).  It cost twice as much as other paint, but was $10 dollars off the day I bought it, making it more reasonable.

Although I took one explanation sheet about the paint at the store, I have no idea where it is right now so here is some information on the paint from SICO's website:

http://www.sico.ca/en/Produits_Environnement.asp

In addition to explaining about the paint, there are also green painting tips, including how to dispose of the leftover paint:

Protecting the environment is one of the most important factors affecting the future of the planet. Most people are now aware of the necessity of preserving and protecting nature in order to ensure our well-being and that of our children. Pollution, especially that related to the over-consumption of certain forms of energy and the overuse of raw materials, has reached alarming levels due to our current lifestyle. That is why at Sico, we are constantly striving to minimize the consequences of our activities. At Sico, the quality of our products and the protection of the environment go hand in hand. VOC or Volatile Organic Compounds VOCs are organic solvents contained in paint. Growing concerns about VOCs are mainly related to emission problems. As paint dries after application, its solvents are released into the atmosphere. Since VOCs are precursors for smog (gas mixture formed in the lower atmosphere when UV rays interact with certain pollutants), they have been identified as pollutants. You should know, however, that all Sico latex products comply with environment protection standards. Such standards aim at reducing VOC emissions in order to improve the quality of air, thereby reducing potential negative effects on our health. Make the right choice by looking for our containers bearing the seal MEETS CANADIAN VOC STANDARDS.   By selecting a VOC-free paint, you will be making a more responsible choice. Incidentally, the Sico Design product line made up of Cashmere, Chamois, and Shantung was recently entirely reformulated to contain zero VOCs, to help improve the quality of air. This product line also proudly carries the Green Seal logo, an independent non-profit organization that ensures that a product meets rigorous, science-based environmental leadership standards. You may visit the Green Seal site at www.greenseal.org. “Green” Tips Do not buy more paint than you need for your projects. Use our paint calculator; it is there to help you! Prefer latex paint over alkyd paint. Before cleaning your paint brushes, use a paint brush and roller cleaner. This tool has a serrated edge to remove excess paint from brushes, and a concave edge for rollers. This will help you recover quite a bit of paint which you can pour back into its container. Cleaning your brushes will then require much less water. To clean your latex-covered paint brushes, finish cleaning them in a container of water instead of under the tap. If you need to use an alkyd paint, let the solvent used to clean your brushes clarify. Paint particles will go to the bottom, allowing you to filter the solvent and use it later. Do not pour leftover paint on the ground or down household or storm drains because it could contaminate a nearby stream or the water table. If your paint container is nearly empty, let the leftover paint dry completely in the open container before throwing it out. Give leftover paint to someone who could use it: a neighbour or friend, a recreational service or a non-profit organization. However, make sure the leftover paint is in its original container and that the label is intact.. Where you should take your paint remains To quickly find the closest collection point for leftover paint, please visit www.eco-peinture.ca if you are a Québec resident. This site also contains information on recovery and recycling of discarded paint and paint containers. If you live elsewhere in Canada, visit instead www.productcare.org and click on the province of your choice.

Today I started a new group on VOX called Climate Change.  (I am sending this to the other VOX groups I have joined.)

The Climate Change group is based on the premise that climate change is a given*** and that there are a number of interesting and varied topics we can share and discuss with each other. 

I hope there will be a good mix of news articles; information about solutions, new products and innovations; and tips about how we can do our bit to stop global warming.

Please have a look at the full description of the group.  I hope you'll consider joining the group or browsing now and then to look at the contents. 

***This is not the group to join if you want to debate whether or not climate change exists. 

Debunking the following various climate change myths, thanks to a link to the met site, http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html on the RealClimate: Climate Science from Climate Scientists site: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/.

1.  Ice core records show that changes in temperature drive changes in carbon dioxide, and it is not carbon dioxide that is driving the current warming;

2.  Solar activity is the main driver of climate change;

3.  There is less warming in the upper atmosphere than at the surface which disproves human-induced warming;

4.  The intensity of cosmic rays changes climate;

5.  Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change.

Climate change myths Prof. John Mitchell OBE FRS, Chief Scientist at the Met Office explores some of the common myths about climate change. The Met Office recognises that climate change is a complex subject. There are genuine areas of uncertainty and scientific controversy. There are also a number of misunderstandings and myths which are recycled, often by non-climate scientists, and portrayed as scientific fact. Recent coverage has questioned the influence of humans on the climate. While the arguments used might have been regarded as genuine areas of sceptical enquiry 20 years ago, further observed warming and advances in climate science render these out of touch.   Myth 1 - Ice core records show that changes in temperature drive changes in carbon dioxide, and it is not carbon dioxide that is driving the current warming Levels of atmospheric CO2 are higher than at any time in the last 430,000 years Click on the image for a larger view Only the first part of this statement is true. Over the several hundred thousand years covered by the ice core record, the temperature changes were primarily driven by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun. Over this period, changes in temperature did drive changes in carbon dioxide (CO2). Concentrations of CO2 are now much higher and increasing much faster than at any time in at least the last 600,000 years. This should be a warning that what is happening now is very different to what happened in the past. In fact, over the last 100 years CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due mainly to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last 50 years. The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate (due to orbit changes for example) led to cooling of the climate system. This caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 is enhancing the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming.   Myth 2 - Solar activity is the main driver of climate change Temperature change, 1850-2000 Click on the image for a larger view There are many factors which may contribute to climate change. For example, over the last million years most of the long-term changes in climate were probably due to small but well understood changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Over much of the last 1,000 years most of the variability can probably be explained by cooling due to major volcanic eruptions and changes in solar heating. However, the situation in the 20th century is more complicated. There is some evidence that increases in solar heating may have led to some warming early in the 20th century, but direct satellite measurements show no appreciable change in solar heating over the last three decades. Three major volcanic eruptions in 1963, 1982 and 1991 have led to short periods of cooling. Throughout the century CO2 increased steadily and has been shown to be responsible for most of the warming in the second half of the century. The final piece of the jigsaw is that as well as producing CO2, burning fossil fuels also produces small particles called aerosols which cool the climate by reflecting sunlight back into space. These have increased steadily in concentration over the 20th century, which has probably offset some of the warming we have seen. Only when all of these factors are included do we get a satisfactory explanation of the magnitude and patterns of climate change over the last century. The bottom line is that changes in solar activity do affect global temperatures. However, what research also shows is that increased greenhouse gas concentrations have a much greater effect than changes in the Sun’s energy over the last 50 years.   Myth 3 - There is less warming in the upper atmosphere than at the surface which disproves human-induced warming We expect greater warming in the upper atmosphere than at the surface in the tropics, but the reverse is true at high latitudes. This expectation holds whether the cause of warming is due to greenhouse gases or changes in the Sun’s output. Until recently, measurements of the temperature changes in the tropics in recent decades did not appear to show greater warming aloft than at the surface. It has now been shown that allowing for uncertainties in the observations, the theoretical and modelling results can be reconciled with the observations. The bottom line is that the range of available information is now consistent with increased warming through the troposphere (the lowest region of the atmosphere).   Myth 4 - The intensity of cosmic rays changes climate Solar activity, 1850-2000 Click on the image for a larger view A recent experiment has apparently shown that gamma radiation can form ions (electrically charged particles) in the atmosphere. Under certain circumstances, these can subsequently form ultra-fine particles (or aerosols), which could conceivably act as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) and therefore form clouds. However, the mechanism by which cosmic rays might affect climate is as yet purely speculative and unquantified. While it has long been known that radiation could form ions and, in theory, ultimately lead to cloud formation, the importance of this process compared to all the other major sources of particles and CCN has not been proven. Indeed, there is no evidence that the flux of cosmic rays has decreased over the last 30 years. The bottom line is, even if cosmic rays have a detectable effect on climate (and this remains unproven), measured solar activity over the last few decades has not significantly changed and cannot explain the continued warming trend. In contrast, increases in CO2 are well measured and its warming effect is well quantified. It offers the most plausible explanation of most of the recent warming and future increases.   Myth 5 - Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change There have been major advances in the development and use of models over the last 20 years. The models are based mainly on the laws of physics. There are also empirical techniques which use, for example, studies of detailed processes involved in cloud formation. The most advanced computer models also include detailed coupling of the circulations of atmosphere and oceans, along with detailed descriptions of the feedbacks between all components of the climate system including the cryosphere and biosphere. Climate models have been used to reproduce the main features of the current climate, the temperature changes over the last hundred years and the main features of the Holocene (6,000 years ago) and Last Glacial Maximum (21,000) years ago. The bottom line is that current models enable us to attribute the causes of past climate change and predict the main features of the future climate with a high degree of confidence. We now need to provide more regional detail and more complete analysis of extreme events.   Met Office work on climate change The Met Office Hadley Centre was opened in the early 1990s and is a world-leading climate centre. It has over 150 world-renowned climate experts who draw from the expertise of the supercomputer modellers at the Met Office. It is the UK’s official centre for climate change research — partly funded by Defra (the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs) and MOD — which provides in-depth information and advice to the Government on climate change issues. It undertakes studies of the global climate using similar, though more extensive, models of the atmosphere used for the prediction of weather conditions. It informs the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and was the leading UK contributor to the Fourth Assessment Review published in February 2007. It assembled much of the scientific basis of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (pub. October 2006). Its research also informs the UK Climate Impacts Programme on how climate change will impact at regional and national levels in the UK. It advises businesses and governments on the science of climate change and strategies for mitigation and adaptation.