Population World Population: CO2 ppm World Carbon: 390 ppm

Wednesday, 21 December 2011


Google has really been cranking out the solar energy investments this year.  Just a few months ago, the company put up $75 million rooftop solar installation  and in the spring they made headlines by investing $168 million in Brightsource Energy's huge Mojave Desert Project 
Now, in time to make us feel all warm and fuzzy during the holiday season, the tech giant has announced that they're investing $94 million in a group of four solar projects by Recurrent Energy.  This latest investment brings the total of the company's renewable energy investments to almost $1 billion.

The four solar photovoltaic projects will have a combined capacity of 88 MW and will be located near Sacramento, California.  The projects will provide enough power for 13,000 homes.   


Wednesday, 14 December 2011




David Attenborough 最新的电视系列片《冰冻星球》成为他在气候变化问题上的又一力作。现年 85 岁高龄的他解说了为什么――最终――他在这个问题上毫无保留。

David Attenborough: “气候变化对我们的影响之深远,将超过北极熊消亡的影响。”
他对《卫报》说:“我不是宣传员,也不是政治家;我的主要兴趣就是观察并试图了解动物的行为方式,”David Attenborough 说。我们的访谈是在 BBC 巨大的会客室里进行的。85 岁的 Attenborough 穿着便裤、衬衫和夹克,头发有些蓬乱。人还是那么睿智,也很和蔼。当我问起在他 BBC 最新系列片《冰冻星球》的录制过程中,面对因纽特人的时候摄制组人员有何时感受时,他听得很仔细。因纽特人的生活方式正在随着他们脚下的冰层而破碎。我告诉他,我对此感到伤心,但我想他不会轻易流泪。


该系列片非常出色,制作上花了四年的时间。尽管他在片中大部分时间是解说员而非作者-出品人,这个节目还是被赞为 Attenborough 在气候变化问题上的杰作。但是 BBC 为这个片长达七个小时、有关南极和北极的电视片投入巨资,看起来有点像表达一种政治立场。
因此,在影片的最后,Attenborough 出现在现场,对着镜头,经过字斟句酌,以自己的语言谈论了正在缩小的冰川、正在变暖的海洋,以及人为造成的全球变暖所带来的威胁。“北极熊是一种惹人喜欢的动物,它的魅力能够很容易地得到人们的认同,”他说。“它很美,也充满野性;它吸引了很多人来关注它。但它只是一头白中带灰的熊,仅此而已。而所有这些重大问题需要一个吉祥物,而北极熊恰好担任了这个角色。”


Wednesday, 7 December 2011

Climate Concern in the UK?

The Environment Agency have confirmed that half of all UK households face the threat of drought restrictions in the new year if rainfall does not return to normal this winter.While we have heard statements like this before how many have been made in November!. Is the UK climate changing and if it is what are the consequences for all of us, the MET Office believe they have the answer following a study commissioned by the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

The eternally fence sitting Met Office say there is unlikely to be significant change in the current UK weather over the next thirty days, if they are right we will have enjoyed the warmest November in 300 years. Taken in isolation there is an element of so what about it; however, when placed in context of global concerns about the increasingly apparent impact of climate change should we be concerned ?. I believe the answer to this question is a resounding YES, consider these facts and decide for yourself :

1. Following some of the driest weather on record over the last year in the highly populated regions of the UK, water suppliers have urged customers to start making savings to help cope with low levels in reservoirs, rivers and underground aquifers
2. The latest appeals by Thames Water and South East Water follow the announcement by Anglian Water this week that it has applied for a drought permit to take emergency supplies out of rivers
3. South East Water said it could not rule out a drought order, and Thames Water indicated that the company needed at least average rainfall this winter to avoid tougher restrictions such as bans on using hosepipes or car washes, and watering sports pitches.
4. Veolia Water Central was more concerned, saying: "We will need very wet weather for the rest of the winter for groundwater levels to recover by next spring.  

Together these six water companies cover much of central and south-eastern England and serve more than 11million of the country's 22million  households on the mains water supply

Met Office Facts
There has been a marked lack of rainfall across parts of the UK this year, with some areas seeing their driest January to October period on record. The Midlands and East Anglia have been particularly badly affected, but the whole of the south of the country is well down on normal rainfall levels.
Leicestershire, Warwickshire, Rutland and Shropshire have all had their driest first ten months of the year in the Met Office records, which go back to at 1910. Each of those counties has had just over 60% of the normal amount of rainfall we would expect for the period.
Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Huntingdonshire and Worcestershire are not far behind, as they have all notched up totals which are the second or third driest in the records.
District / Region
Jan – Oct total    
1971-2000 Average
% of Average
Driest since 1929, 3rd driest in series
Driest in series
Driest in series
Driest in series
Driest in series
Driest since 1959, 2nd driest in series
Driest since 1929, 3rd driest in series
Driest since 1921, 3rd driest in seri

As well as the recent dry weather, water companies and environment regulators are expecting the UK to have more frequent dry winters as a result of climate change. Combined with increasing regulation to force companies to reduce the amount of water they take from rivers to protect wildlife, and growing water use from a rising population, several water companies are planning major infrastructure projects to avoid future water shortages, including the return of major transfers between regions, and new reservoirs. Thames Water has also built a desalination plant to turn briney water from the Thames Estuary into tap water in emergency situations, a technology more commonly associated with parched Middle East countries.

The Met Office released a global climate study commissioned by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) at the COP17 Conference in Durban South Africa this week.

Headlines of the presentation in South Africa include the following :

  • 18,000,000 UK citizens will experience increased water shortage and will be increasingly affected by coastal flooding by 2100 if CO2 emissions continue to rise. 
  • The UN recently announced that emissions are rising at 2X that which is needed to see temperatures stabilise and there is broad agreement that the 2OC rise global target is no longer possible and 4OC should be considered a minimum
  • The Met Office Reports (MOR) cover 24 nations and applies consistent methodology allowing accurate comparative analysis
  • MOR comes at a time when South and East England is facing one of  its  driest years ever, we have sourced the data and are waiting until the year end to publish and analysis
  • MOR concludes as we would expect that rainfall patterns are unpredictable. However the Climate and Energy Secretary Chris Huhne concluded :

“Life for millions of people could change forever. This makes the challenge of reducing carbon emissions ever more urgent”

CarbonFix Foundation ( www.carbonfix.it ) will be issuing a Conference summary when it concludes at the end of the week.


Saturday, 22 October 2011

David Attenburgh : Climate Change will have a Profound Affect on Mankind


David Attenborough's latest TV series, Frozen Planet, is being heralded as his take on climate change. Now 85, he explains why - finally - he's speaking out on the issue.
David Attenborough.
David Attenborough: 'Climate change is going to affect us much more profoundly than the loss of the polar bear.'
He explained to the Guardian Newspaper ..'I'm not a propagandist, I'm not a polemicist; my primary interest is just looking at and trying to understand how animals work," says David Attenborough. We are talking in a gigantic BBC sitting room. Attenborough, wearing slacks, shirt and jacket, is a trifle unkempt at 85, but sharp as ever and kind, too, listening carefully as I ask what it felt like for the crew on his latest BBC series, Frozen Planet, to meet the Inuit people whose way of life is cracking up with the ice underneath them. I tell him I found this upsetting, but imagine he doesn't cry easily.

"No, I don't cry easily. Yes. [He pauses.] Yes, but there's inevitability about it.  

The series, which is stunning, and took four years to make, has been heralded as Attenborough's take on climate change – though for most of it he is the narrator rather than author-presenter. But while it might look like a political statement for the BBC to invest a vast sum in seven hours of TV about the Arctic and Antarctic – 
And so, in the final programme, Attenborough appears on location, talking to camera in his own measured words about shrinking glaciers, warming oceans, and the threat posed by man-made global warming. "The polar bear is the easy one, it's a very charismatic animal that people can identify with," he says. "It's beautiful, and also savage; it's got a lot going for it. But it's only a white grizzly bear, really. All these big issues need a mascot and that's what the polar bear is. 

"But climate change is going to affect us all much more profoundly than the loss of the polar bear."

Source : the Guardian 22.10.2011

Friday, 14 October 2011

Climate Change: Major New Scientific Discoveries

Paul Thompson
(credits below)
14th October 2011

The latest science summarized below suggests that the impacts of climate change in many areas of the world are not advancing linearly: profound changes are already occurring and models project even greater changes for the remainder of the 21st Century. The findings support the need for rapid and deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, and at the same time confirm that climate adaptation measures are increasingly required today—and will be ever more important in the future—to enhance the resilience of both human communities and ecosystems. There is new and abundant literature on four topics: climate feedbacks where the literature generally suggests positive feedbacks from many different processes; sea level rise where the evidence indicates that previous estimates of sea level rise are likely to be revised upward; ocean acidification where new science is confirming the potential global implications of an ocean that is already 30 percent more acidic than about 100 years ago; and on climate impacts to ecological systems, where the literature base on climate impacts is broadened to provide more evidence of changes to a variety of species and discussion of our entering the sixth mass extinction of species that the planet has experienced. This review is divided into  three sections:
  • Physical Climate
  • Hydrological Cycle
  • Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services

Sample Findings

Physical Climate:
  • 2000–2009 was the warmest decade on record since 1880 (NASA, p. 4).
  • Models indicate that cumulative total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions need to be limited to 1 trillion tons in the future if global average temperature increase is to remain below 2° C (roughly one half of the 1 trillion tons have already been emitted) (Allen et al., p. 4).
  • The climate system has a number of different feedback mechanisms built into it, some of which are better known than others. New evidence suggests that as temperature rises, there may be positive feedbacks (processes that reinforce processes) through less cloud cover and in changes in aerosols, soils, peatlands, and Arctic ice cover (pages 6–11), which can lead to accelerated climate change impacts.
  • Recent estimated projections of future global sea level rise (Horton et al., Vermeer and Rahmstorf, Grinsted et al., and Jevrejeva et al., p. 11) have generally been significantly higher than estimates from the 2007 IPCC Report. Additionally, new estimates also suggest that global sea level could rise approximately 3.26 meters from the melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. If perturbations in Earth’s rotation and shoreline migration are taken into account, the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of the United States, could be impacted by sea levels 25 percent higher than the global mean at the end of the century (Mitrovica et al., p. 12).
Hydrological Cycle:
  • Observations show that multi-year (MY) winter sea ice area decreased by 42 percent between 2005 and 2008 and that there was a thinning of ~0.6 m in MY ice thickness over the same 4 years (average thickness of the seasonal ice in midwinter is ~2 m) (Kwok et al., p. 19).
  • As much as 12 percent of the volume of Swiss alpine glaciers was lost over the period from 1999 to 2008 (Farinotti et al., p. 17).
  • As glaciers melt, persistent organic pollutants are finding their way into “pristine” alpine lakes, representing a toxic “blast from the past” (Bogdal et al., p. 18).
  • The rate of mass loss in the East Antarctic Ice Sheet may be greater than previously estimated (Chen et al., p. 15).
  • Changing ice dynamics in the Arctic may be leading to an increase in observed “winter weather” including more snow and colder temperatures in temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere (Francis et al. and Petoukhov et al., p. 21).
Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services:
  • New research suggests that while wildfire frequency increases in response to climate change globally, regional changes demonstrate both increases and decreases in wildfire distribution, largely mediated by regionally-specific vegetation, precipitation changes and CO2 fertilization (Krawchuk et al., p. 30).
  • Ocean acidification, which only recently was recognized a threat to coral in areas such as the Great Barrier Reef (and is happening much more quickly than anticipated (De’ath et al., p. 32), is now recognized as having implications for the entire ocean food web which is critical to whales, fish, and mollusks (snails and scallops) (Munday et al., Gooding et al. and Comeau et al., pages 33–34).
  • Based on human physiological estimates, a global average temperature increase of 7° C, which is toward the extreme upper part of the range of current projections, would make large portions of the world uninhabitable (Sherwood et al., p. 28).
  • The impacts of projected climate change on emperor penguin populations are likely to be significant; with a 36 percent probability of “quasi extinction” (greater than 95 percent decline) by 2100 (Jenouvrier et al., p. 25).
  • A 28 cm future sea level rise is projected to reduce the current Bengal tiger habitat in the Sundarban region of Bangladesh by 96 percent and would likely reduce tiger numbers to 20 breeding pairs (Loucks et al., p. 26). Climate Change Mitigation Technologies and Geoengineering:
  • Land-use change associated with planting biofuel crops can have implications on the regional average temperatures through an albedo effect (Georgescu et al., p. 39).
  • Advances in more flexible, cheaper small-scale solar photovoltaics could make it easier and less expensive to integrate solar-powered electricity generation into building materials (Lee et al., p. 36).
  • If all urban surfaces worldwide were made reflective, the heat trapping effects of urban surfaces would be eliminated, an impact greater than eliminating the annual anthropogenic emissions of the entire globe (Akbari et al., p. 41).
  • Geoengineering—“the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planet’s environment to counteract climate change” (Royal Society 2009)—is being more widely studied in terms of its potential to limit global warming if efforts to reduce emissions fail, as well as its implications. Various proposals (and preliminary findings), grouped into two categories—carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM—are summarized here (pages 40–44).Credit : World Resource Institute

Tuesday, 4 October 2011

Volcanic vs. Anthropogenic CO2

Guest Commentary by Terry Gerlach*

TV screen images of erupting and exploding volcanoes spewing forth emissions are typically spectacular, awesome, and vividly suggestive of huge additions of gas to the atmosphere. By comparison, the smokestack and exhaust pipe venting of anthropogenic emissions is comparatively unexciting, unimpressive, and commonplace. Consequently, it easy to get traction with the general public for claims that volcanic CO2 emissions are far greater than those of human activities, or that the CO2 released in some recent or ongoing eruption exceeds anthropogenic releases in all of human history, or that the threat of a future super-eruption makes concerns about our carbon footprint laughable. The evidence from volcanology, however, does not support these claims.

Volcanic plume ** V Fossil fuel plumes**

My article “Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide” appeared in the June 14 issue of the American Geophysical Union’s publication Eos and addresses the widespread mis-perception in the media, the blogosphere, and much of the climate skeptic literature that volcanic CO2 emissions greatly exceed anthropogenic CO2 emissions. I wrote the article to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic using only published peer-reviewed data with a minimum of technical jargon for a broad spectrum of Earth science researchers and educators, students, policy makers, the media, and the general public. AGU has made the article public; anyone can download a copy. There is also an Eos online supplement, although I have a better formatted pdf version that is available upon request.

The bottom line? Annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions exceed annual volcanic CO2 by two orders of magnitude, and probably exceed the CO2 output of one or more super-eruptions***. Thus there is no scientific basis for using volcanic CO2 emissions as an excuse for failing to manage humanity’s carbon footprint.

*Terry Gerlach is retired from the U.S. Geological Survey where he was a volcanic gas geochemist.The views expressed are his own.
** Yes we are aware that CO2 is colorless and that the plumes in the figures are mostly steam. – Eds.
***Super-eruptions are extremely rare, with recurrence intervals of 100,000–200,000 years; none have occurred historically, the most recent examples being Indonesia’s Toba volcano, which erupted 74,000 years ago, and the United States’ Yellowstone caldera, which erupted 2 million years ago.

Tuesday, 27 September 2011

10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

The NOAA State of the Climate 2009 report is an excellent summary of the many lines of evidence that global warming is happening. Acknowledging the fact that the planet is warming leads to the all important question - what's causing global warming? To answer this, here is a summary of the empirical evidence that answer this question. Many different observations find a distinct human fingerprint on climate change:

10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
To get a closer look, click on the pic above to get a high-rez 1024x768 version (you're all welcome to use this graphic in your Powerpoint presentations). Or to dig even deeper, here's more info on each indicator (including links to the original data or peer-reviewed research):
  1. Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (CDIAC). Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let's look at more evidence that we're responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.
  2. When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Manning 2006).
  3. This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you'd expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide (Manning 2006).
  4. Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Pelejero 2005).
  5. So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What's the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". (Harries 2001Griggs 2004Chen 2007).
  6. If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation (Philipona 2004,Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming." (Evans 2006).
  7. If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004Alexander 2006).
  8. Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upper atmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what's happening (Jones 2003).
  9. With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003).
  10. An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. This has been observed by satellites (Laštovi?ka 2006).
Science isn't a house of cards, ready to topple if you remove one line of evidence. Instead, it's like a jigsaw puzzle. As the body of evidence builds, we get a clearer picture of what's driving our climate. We now have many lines of evidence all pointing to a single, consistent answer - the main driver of global warming is rising carbon dioxide levels from our fossil fuel burning.

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

If there's one thing that all sides of the climate debate can agree on, it's that climate has changed naturally in the past. Long before industrial times, the planet underwent many warming and cooling periods. This has led some to conclude that if global temperatures changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and plasma TVs, nature must be the cause of current global warming. This conclusion is the opposite of peer-reviewed science has found.
Our climate is governed by the following principle: when you add more heat to our climate, global temperatures rise. Conversely, when the climate loses heat, temperatures fall. Say the planet is in positive energy imbalance. More energy is coming in than radiating back out to space. This is known as radiative forcing, the change in net energy flow at the top of the atmosphere. When the Earth experiences positive radiative forcing, our climate accumulates heat and global temperature rises (not monotonically, of course, internal variability will add noise to the signal).
How much does temperature change for a given radiative forcing? This is determined by the planet's climate sensitivity. The more sensitive our climate, the greater the change in temperature. The most common way of describing climate sensitivity is the change in global temperature if atmospheric CO2 is doubled. What does this mean? The amount of energy absorbed by CO2 can be calculated using line-by-line radiative transfer codes. These results have been experimentally confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 Watts per square metre (W/m2) (IPCC AR4 Section 2.3.1).
So when we talk about climate sensitivity to doubled CO2, we're talking about the change in global temperatures from a radiative forcing of 3.7 Wm-2. This forcing doesn't necessarily have to come from CO2. It can come from any factor that causes an energy imbalance.
How much does it warm if CO2 is doubled? If we lived in a climate with no feedbacks, global temperatures would rise 1.2°C (Lorius 1990). However, our climate has feedbacks, both positive and negative. The strongest positive feedback is water vapour. As temperature rises, so too does the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. However, water vapour is a greenhouse gas which causes more warming which leads to more water vapour and so on. There are also negative feedbacks - more water vapour causes more clouds which can have both a cooling and warming effect.
What is the net feedback? Climate sensitivity can be calculated from empirical observations. One needs to find a period where we have temperature records and measurements of the various forcings that drove the climate change. Once you have the change in temperature and radiative forcing, climate sensitivity can be calculated. Figure 1 shows a summary of the peer-reviewed studies that have determined climate sensitivity from past periods (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).
Figure 1: Distributions and ranges for climate sensitivity from different lines of evidence. The circle indicates the most likely value. The thick coloured bars indicate likely value (more than 66% probability). The thin coloured bars indicate most likely values (more than 90% probability). Dashed lines indicate no robust constraint on an upper bound. The IPCC likely range (2 to 4.5°C) and most likely value (3°C) are indicated by the vertical grey bar and black line, respectively.
There have been many estimates of climate sensitivity based on the instrumental record (the past 150 years). Several studies used the observed surface and ocean warming over the twentieth century and an estimate of the radiative forcing. A variety of methods have been employed - simple or intermediate-complexity models, statistical models or energy balance calculations. Satellite data for the radiation budget have also been analyzed to infer climate sensitivity.
Some recent analyses used the well-observed forcing and response to major volcanic eruptions during the twentieth century. A few studies examined palaeoclimate reconstructions from the past millennium or the period around 12,000 years ago when the planet came out of a global ice age (Last Glacial Maximum).
What can we conclude from this? We have a number of independent studies covering a range of periods, studying different aspects of climate and employing various methods of analysis. They all yield a broadly consistent range of climate sensitivity with a most likely value of 3°C for a doubling of CO2.
The combined evidence indicates that the net feedback to radiative forcing is significantly positive. There is no credible line of evidence that yields very high or very low climate sensitivity as a best estimate.
CO2 has caused an accumulation of heat in our climate. The radiative forcing from CO2 is known with high understanding and confirmed by empirical observations. The climate response to this heat build-up is determined by climate sensitivity.
Ironically, when skeptics cite past climate change, they're in fact invoking evidence for strong climate sensitivity and net positive feedback. Higher climate sensitivity means a larger climate response to CO2 forcing. Past climate change actually provides evidence that humans can affect climate now.
written by John Cook. Last updated on 9 August 2010.

Sunday, 25 September 2011

Walrus become latest indicators of Climate Change

Looking more like a crowded summer beach than a frosty Alaskan coastline, walruses cram the sand in this recent shot from Point Lay in the northwest corner of the state. A contractor spotted a total of 8000 walruses in two sections of beach during an aerial survey of the Chukchi Sea Wednesday.
While female walruses and their young usually camp out on sea ice each summer, warmer waters forced the families into becoming beach bums. As the animals' icy home receded to deeper waters, food from the ocean floor was put out of reach. The walruses have packed the shores in four of the last five summers in what has become a seasonal display of climate change. Last year they came in record numbers with as many as 20,000 walruses jamming the shores of Point Lay. The dense conditions increase the risk for deadly stampedes.

New Scientist
Michael Marshall : Marine Life shifts as temperatures rise

Climate Change, are you concerned but don't know what to do : STEP 1

STEP 1 :  Fully understand what the causes are AND  the effects.

This may seem too simplistic, it isn't; these are the building blocks upon which you can then move towards taking real and effective action.

Start here, watch the video sequence then sign up using the link in the top right of the site  http://www.carbonfix.it


Thawing Permafrost Could Release Vast Amounts of Carbon and Accelerate Climate Change beyond the Control of Mankind

Could immense quantities of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide and methane (20 time more destructive) spell disaster for climate change and global warming  which could run out of control rendering any action taken by mankind to reduce greenhouse gas emission (GHG) pointless. In the words of Nobel Prize Physicist and US Secretary of State for Energy Stepehn Chu "we cannot go there".

Opinions differ, what is agreed though is that the Arctic permafrost contains immense amounts of carbon currently held in suspended animation; as temperatures rise the permafrost melts and micro-organisms drive decomposition resulting in release of  the GHG. As the GHG,s are released then temperatures rise further increasing the melt rate and acting as a catalyst for enhanced emissions in a negative feedback loop. At stake is an estimated 2,167 petagrams of carbon in all layers of high latitude soil which is more than two trillion US tons.

Research recently published by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory concluded that their model found that the increased in carbon uptake by biomass production associated with higher temperatures will be overshadowed by a much larger amount of carbon released into the atmosphere. 

As usual further research is recommended; however, while this is advisable the fact remains that temperatures are rising faster in the Arctic than anywhere else on the planet, the permafrost is melting and vast quantities of carbon are already being released into the atmosphere and the rate is increasing.

Paul Thompson

1. Dan Krotz 510-486-4019  dakrotz@lbl.gov

Lose the fight to save Rainforests and we lose the fight against Climate Change

The need for urgent action

The Prince’s Rainforests Project believes that emergency funding is needed to help protect rainforests and to encourage rainforest nations to continue to develop without the need for deforestation.
If we don’t take action, we could lose another 100 million hectares of tropical forests over the next 10 years – that’s an area the size of Egypt.
Saving the rainforests will give the world a better chance to achieve its goals of stabilising climate change, while also preserving important ecosystem benefits, not to mention the fact that over one billion of the poorest people on Earth depend on the rainforests for their livelihoods.
The need for action is urgent. Recent research shows that it will be impossible to avoid catastrophic climate change without it [1].
1 McKinsey & Company, ‘Global GHG Abatement Cost Curve v2′ (2009); ClimateWorks Foundation / McKinsey & Company ‘Project Catalyst’
2.  http://www.rainforestsos.org/about-rainforests/

Welcome to The CarbonFix Foundation

The CarbonFix Foundation is a Science based charity which works with Business, Educational Institutions and individuals helping them understand climate change then introduces effective action to reduce their impact.

Why Now  It is very likely that most of the observed impacts of climate change are caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions at a time when the usual cause of warming, solar activity and other natural factors have been insignificant. Man-made change of the earth’s climate threatens the very core of our civilisation now; do nothing and our children will never forgive us

Charity:   The CarbonFix Foundation charity was established in September 2011, we are regulated by the Charity Commission and all funds go towards meeting the mission of the charity and are not wasted in dividends, profits or other pressures associated with none charitable organisations.

Mission:   The CarbonFix Foundation is a Science based charity which works with Business, Educational Institutions and individuals helping them understand climate change then introduces effective action to reduce their impact. The Charity implements carbon reduction projects around the world which aims to provide sustainable and audited benefits for local communities, biodiversity and greenhouse gas reduction