Everyone matters when it comes to understanding and acting on environmental issues such as biodiversity, climate change and resource use. This project brings together accounts of the creativity, imagination, struggle and determination that are an essential part of our responses to these challenges.
Creative Climate invites you to start your story which will help to track humanity’s progress in the face of these challenges. Taken together, the stories will grow into a living archive of our experiences and ideas in a fascinating and important period of time. We are making history and this project invites a global public to help 'write the first draft'.
The project is collecting thoughts and stories from doorstep to workplace, from lab to garden; from international conference to community meeting – from all over the world. Many people will start a story as an individual, but others will want to post as a group, or as an institution. Some may also want to submit on behalf of some thing or some place: a street; a glacier; an insect. Others may gather stories from other people, acting as independent researchers of changing understanding and action.
Creative Climate started in 2009 and already we have hundreds of diary entries from across the world – explore the collection and start your own story. When you have shared yours, help others to contribute by sharing the page with your friends using the share button below.
Login or Register to post comments
Thoughts on Svensmark?
Hi Dr Smith,
I would like to say the passion you have shown for your field is clear and inspirational, and as such I would be interested to hear your thoughts on Henrik Svensmark cosmic ray theory in relation to the the theory of anthropogenic climate change you promote.
Secondly, I've recently come across a podcast entitled 'letter to a climate skeptic', and thought it curious that you made reference to the Climategate fiasco in a letter to a person skeptical of your position. After reviewing the independent investigations which you state exonerate the scientists involved of any wrong-doing, I feel the investigations do not have the authority you appear to ascribe to them.
For instance the one day hearing by a UK parliamentary committee which issued a report claiming that the scientific reputation of Phil Jones and CRU remained intact, despite the fact that no testimony from any skeptic or dissenting voice was featured. Committee chairman Phil Willis stressed that the report did not address all of the issues raised by Climategate and admitted that the committee had rushed to produce a report before the general elections.
Another investigation was the Oxburg inquiry, chaired by (carbon-trading wind farmer) Lord Ron Oxburgh, the UK Vice Chair of Globe International. The Oxburgh inquiry released a five page report after having reviewed 11 scientific papers unrelated to the Climategate scandal that had been hand-picked by Phil Jones himself. It heard no testimony or evidence from anyone critical of the CRU. It too unsurprisingly found the Climategaters not guilty of academic misconduct, however given the biases introduced by chair selection and review material, it appears this too is meaningless.
If there is a further review of Climategate you feel more upstanding than the two I've described, please point me towards it, however I currently am of the understanding none exist.
Finally, do you have any comment on the Gleick/Heartland exchange.
Best of luck with your work,
Sincerely
M
Climate Change or Global Warming?
Why is it now called Climate Change and not Global Warming anymore?
Could it be because it has been announced recently in the news that we had the coldest winter ever recorded?
Isn't change an innate property of climate/weather? If so, why so much emphasis on something obvious?
Hi Andres, Many thanks for
Hi Andres,
Many thanks for your comment, the official answer from the US government's Environmental Protection Agency site is as follows:-
'The term climate change is often used interchangeably with the term global warming, but according to the National Academy of Sciences, "the phrase 'climate change' is growing in preferred use to 'global warming' because it helps convey that there are [other] changes in addition to rising temperatures."
Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from:
natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or slow changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun;
natural processes within the climate system (e.g. changes in ocean circulation);
human activities that change the atmosphere's composition (e.g. through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g. deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification, etc.)
Global warming is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human induced. In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.
I hope this answers your question - please feel free to visit the website at the following address - http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html
Many thanks
OpenLearn Moderator
Terminology
'Acid rain' is another one that disappeared from the vernacular.
Great idea...
I'll try and contribute once this U316 end of year assessment is finished!
All the best,
Simon