Not promoting, just found this interesting.

In the wake of the most significant scientific report to date on the potentially dire consequences of global warming, a ray of hope has emerged. Ironically, it emanates from the convergence of forces that have often been at odds. One force, the world of science, has long been on the forefront of the issue of climate change. Another equally powerful force, religion, has often remained on the sidelines — until recently.
The Intergovernmental Panel on climate change (IPCC), a body of more than 2,000 of the world’s top scientists from more than 100 nations, stated in a Feb. 2 report that global warming is “unequivocal,” that it is rapidly changing the nature of our planet and its ecosystems, and that it is “very likely” being caused by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
In the course of the last decade, a significant movement within the faith community has been mobilizing around the call to care for God’s creation, the web of life that sustains us all. This calling is the essence of religious life, and people of faith are beginning to hear it, even as scientists sound the alarm that we may be nearing a climactic tipping point.

I was discussing this project with my brother, and in one message he sent me he said, “Regardless of whether global warming is an anthropogenic phenomenon or not, all evidence indicates most of our ‘renewable’ resources running out in the next 50-100 years (because our economy doesn’t value them).” He also sent me the 2001 paper “The Need to Reintegrate the Natural Sciences with Economics” by Charles Hall, Dietmar Lindenberger, Reiner Kümmel, Timm Kroeger, and Wolfgang Eichhorn. This is an excellent work that I would recommend to everyone. From the abstract:

Neoclassical economics, the dominant form of economics today, has at least three fundamental flaws from the perspective of the natural sciences, but it is possible to develop a different, biophysical basis for economics that can serve as a supplement to, or a replacement for, neoclassical economics.

That friend is the Arctic, or so it seem to residents of the Arctic. The third point of focus for this project, this forum on the radiating effects of climate change, is the Arctic. The arctic is the very cold canary that tell us what is happening with our climate before we feel it in more temperate zones. The changes, as we have heard here from Larry Merculieff, are more drastic and hit home not just to the large community of people who live above the imaginary line that describes the arctic Circle, but also the the rest of the world’s land and people. Changes include the much reported: spring thaws are earlier. Fall freeze-ups are later. Sea ice is shrinking. Unfamiliar species of plants and animals are appearing. Intense storms are more frequent.

Happy New Years, here are some pictures from New Years Day 2007 from the Windows Around the World program.

When you look out a window, we frequently see what we expect to see. Windows Around the World is helping children see different environments and to watch the changes that occur out that window over time. In another posting someone was talking about trying to get a handle on climate change and coming to realize to that they learned the most by just observing. This is part of the study on climate change - observations. It takes time, but if we watch a place over time we can see changes in the environment. It is fun and all of us can take part in making observations.

“Shrinking Ice” has made science magazine’s list of Breakthroughs of the Year. While a terrifying phenomenon, I suppose it is good to see it getting plenty of attention still, both in the scientific community, and with the public at large.

I am a sculptor who is currently working on a collaborative project on climate change. With the help of Zach Smith and Scott Battaion from the Wright Center for science education at Tufts University, I have been building very low-tech data-collecting devices that extract climate data from a particular coastal environment. This device consists of a simple, 3-D cube made out of PVC pipes that is filled with cheap science instruments through which I record daily changes in the physical environment. I strap this cube onto my back every morning and bike out to the beach, where I measure temperature (air, water, soil), wind speed and direction, wave direction and speed as well as make notes of any flora and fauna changes I may see. I also make note of the daily erosion changes that seem to constantly sculpt the sand into new formations everyday.

I’m always interested in seeking out other forms of interdisciplinary collaboration, which seem to be increasingly prevalent these days. One such form is the International Polar Year 07/08; their effort is described as:

The concept of the International Polar Year 2007-2008 is of an international programme of coordinated, interdisciplinary scientific research and observations in the Earth’s polar regions:

• to explore new scientific frontiers
• to deepen our understanding of polar processes and their global linkages
• to increase our ability to detect changes, to attract and develop the next generation of polar scientists, engineers and logistics experts
• to capture the interest of schoolchildren, the public and decision-makers.

Interestingly the first IPY was in 1882-83 and was the first international year of anything. Polar explorer Karl Weyprecht realized that the poles were the places where significant geophysical concerns were located–he felt that one nation or one research institution alone could not address such a vast and complex area, so he created an international scientific cooperative effort. There is a great site that looks at this history from the NOAA.

I just finished convening a workshop of 20 arctic experts to put together a plan to measure climate, climate change, and its impacts on the Arctic, particularly within the Brooks Range of Alaska. Here we brought together climate modelers, field ecologists, glaciologists, air quality experts, micro-climotologists, permafrost scientists, and permitting and compliance specialists to devise a long-term (50 year) plan. The main issue we were addressing is the sorry fact that there is only one long-term weather station in the US arctic (Barrow) and it is on the coast and not representative of the vast majority of the mountains and coast plain there. A few other weather stations exist, but they are not designed for long-term measurement analysis nor do they have the funding mandate to support them long-term. Similarly, there are no permafrost boreholes or glacier studies for long-term analysis through most of the Brooks Range. The National Park Service controls most of the lands within the central and wester Brooks Range, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service controls most of the eastern Brooks Range. All of these regions are therefore under a protected status where any developments are discouraged, and much of it is within “Designated Wilderness” which is under even more strict control. This poses a problem for scientists (and the public) interested in understanding climate, climate change, and its impacts on the landscape and ecology here — how do measure and monitor such changes without affecting it? And how should we decide what a reasonable comprimise is? The wilderness Act and ANILCA (the guiding legislation for these regions) both allow for scientific study, but discourage ‘permanent installations’. Though not specific beyond this, a permanent weather station is a piece of technology that is a permanent installation. For some, installation of a weather station would decrease the value of their wilderness experience (or more likely, their imaginary wilderness experience since only a few hundred people actually visit these areas annually and most would never actually notice such stations), but for others knowing that scientists are implementing the tools that they need to properly understand and manage the areas would increase their wilderness experience. Interpretation of this legislation by park superindendents varies widely, with some wholeheartedly endorsing the need for such data (and the necessary installations for this) and some stating that such installations would occur ‘over their dead body’.

Largest science Teachers Organization Rejects Gore Video … Why?

By: John F. Borowski
t r u t h o u t | Guest Columnist

Tuesday 28 November 2006

Would the world’s largest science teacher’s organization ignore climate change education? (Why did the NSTA say no to free “An Inconvenient Truth” DVDs?)

The National science Teachers Association (NSTA) has spurned 50,000 free DVDs of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and is squandering a golden opportunity to educate tens of millions of youth in the United States! Why? This 55,000-member organization of teachers and scientists could use Al Gore’s film to orchestrate the single most influential educational goal in human history: the awareness and subsequent solving of climate change. There is no denying the escalating list of climate change evidence: from the potential extinction of polar bears and retreating glacial environments to the increase of global temperatures in unison with increased carbon dioxide levels.

I have done several talks and interviews for media about my this project—Climate Commons—and the other works lately and find myself reiterating a desire for artists to throw themselves into the arena of activism and politics. The follow up questions are usually about things like what are the similarities between science and art, or how does this work function as activism, how can art effect a “real” change. Not bad questions, but are they the point? These fields or endeavors are corralled into their rigidly defined pens and only a specialized Knowledge pass allows one to enter. Why not move from one to the other, insist on permeable states of being, encourage intersection and analogy?
for those who’d like further reading: a great collection of essays on art and activism.

image: ”No Way Back?” poster. design by César Sesio