Category: Archive

Heightened sensitivity

The latest evidence comes in two papers to be published in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters.

They challenge the consensus view of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global body charged with collating and analysing climate science.

The evidence for a warming Earth is stronger and the impacts of climate change are becoming observable in some cases Australian Greenhouse Office

It predicts that the global average temperature would rise by between 1.5C and 4.5C if human activities were to double the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.

That figure, known as the climate sensitivity, results from a combination of two factors:

• the direct impact of rising CO2 on the greenhouse effect
• various "feedback" mechanisms which amplify the rate of warming, such as changes in the Earth’s reflection of sunlight as ice melts

The new research adds a third component, by calculating the likely contribution of carbon dioxide released from natural ecosystems such as soil as temperatures rise.

This would add to the CO2 produced through human activities, raising temperatures still further.

Soil cycle

To calculate this extra warming, both research groups have looked back into the Earth’s history.

Animated guide: Climate change

Regularly, spells of relatively high temperatures have produced rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, which have fallen again as colder conditions took over.

The theory is that in warm spells, ecosystems such as soils, forests and oceans retain less carbon.

As the Earth’s surface is now warming again, the process might be expected to repeat itself, with higher temperatures again causing the biological world to release CO2 into the atmosphere, complementing the gas coming from homes, factories and vehicles.

To calculate the relationship between temperature rise and carbon release, the US study examined a period of about 400,000 years using data from the Vostok ice core of Antarctica.

The European group worked on a much shorter period, looking back to the "Little Ice Age", a period in the middle of the last millennium when the northern hemisphere experienced relatively low temperatures.

"Our group used long time periods, over entire glacial and interglacial cycles, to get this relationship between climate and carbon," explained John Harte from the University of California, Berkeley.

"The European team looked at a much more modern period, and also used a different analytical method," he told the BBC News website.

Several studies looking at climate sensitivity tend to show higher figures than we have been used to Martin Wild

The European group calculates that temperature rises in the future have been underestimated by between 15% and 78%; the US team expresses its results in a different way, giving a climate sensitivity of between 1.6 and 6.0C.

"We don’t get very different answers," observed Professor Harte.

"And using different periods is very helpful, because we know the results are more robust."

Supporting evidence

These are not the only recent studies to suggest that climate sensitivity may have been underestimated.

The Australian Greenhouse Office report cites research showing that some forests which were net absorbers of carbon may be turning into net producers, an effect anticipated as temperatures rise.

Data came from gas bubbles trapped in the Vostok ice core

Martin Wild from the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science (IACETH) in Zurich, a specialist on climate feedback, believes there are other reasons to revisit the current picture.

"The point is that there are several studies coming from several directions looking at climate sensitivity, and they tend to show higher figures than we have been used to," he told the BBC News website.

"There is some evidence on the uptake of heat in the deep ocean, for example, which could make it higher."

On the current carbon studies, he concluded: "If this additional carbon feedback is proven to be realistic, than that would raise the climate sensitivity up by a certain amount."

Future reflections

Both scientific teams admit their work is not as precise as they would like, and that uncertainties remain.

One particular issue is whether the past accurately reflects the future. Do forests and soils behave now, in an era of vast deforestation and widespread fertiliser use, just as they did 100,000 or even 1,000 years ago?

We have, in fact, been conservative on several points Marten Scheffer

That remains unproven; and climate "sceptics" will undoubtedly seize on this as evidence that the new research is flawed, though they will have to admit that it is substantially grounded in data and not computer models, often the target of their ire.

The researchers counter that they have not found reasons why carbon feedback mechanisms should be different in the future. And even if differences do arise, they say, future feedback could be stronger as easily as it could be weaker.

"We have, in fact, been conservative on several points," said Marten Scheffer from Wageningen University in the Netherlands, leader of the European group.

"For instance, we do not account for the greenhouse effect of methane, which is also known to increase in warm periods."

Currently the IPCC is reviewing its latest major study, the Fourth Assessment Report, which will be released next year.

The first draft, of which BBC News has seen a leaked copy, suggests it has not radically changed its projections for temperature rise since its last report in 2001.

A climate sensitivity of up to 4.5C translates to a maximum likely temperature rise of about 5.8C by the end of this century; whereas in these two studies, the US team calculates up to 7.7C, with the European group’s maximum value even higher.

"In view of our findings," observes Marten Scheffer, "estimates of future warming that ignore these [carbon feedback] effects may have to be raised by about 50%."

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

 
Visit the original article  

According to Janice Matthews, executive director of 911truth.org, "To those who have followed the mounting evidence for US government involvement in 9/11, these results are both heartening and frankly quite amazing, given the mainstream media’s ongoing refusal to cover the most critical questions of that day. Our August 2004 Zogby poll of New Yorkers showed nearly half believe certain US officials ‘consciously’ allowed the attacks to happen and 66% want a fresh investigation, but these were people closest to the tragedy and most familiar with facts refuting the official account. This revelation that so many millions nationwide now also recognize a 9/11 cover up and the need for a new inquiry should be a wake up call for all 2006 political candidates hoping to turn this country around. We think it also indicates Americans are awakening to the larger pattern of deceit that led us into Constitutional twilight and endless war, and that our independent media may have finally come of age."

Poll co-author, W. David Kubiak concurs, saying: "Despite years of relentless media promotion, whitewash and 9/11 Commission propaganda, the official 9/11 story still can’t even muster 50% popular support. Since this myth has been the administration’s primary source of political and war-making power, this level of distrust has revolutionary implications for everyone working for peace, justice and civil liberties. If we ever hope to reclaim this country, end aggression and restore international respect, we all must finally scrutinize that day when things started to go so terribly wrong. The media and movement leaders ignore this call at their peril, because tens of millions are clearly telling us here they are ready for 9/11 truth."

SCOPE: The poll covered five related areas: 1) Iraq – do Americans think the Bush administration exploited 9/11 to attack Iraq? (44% do, 44% don’t); 2) Cover up – did the government and its 9/11 Commission conceal or refuse to investigate evidence that contradicts their official story? (only 48% said no); 3) the collapse of WTC 7, which was not even mentioned by the 9/11 Commission and has seldom been reported in the media—had respondents been aware of this collapse and, if so, did they think it should be investigated (only 52% had known about it, but over 70% of this group believe it should have been investigated); 4) new investigation of official complicity – do respondents think we need one? (only 48% said no); and 5) mass media – how do people rate its performance, including its coverage of alternative 9/11 theories, unanswered questions and inquiry issues? (43% rate it positively, 55% negatively).

(The poll sponsors see knowledge of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 as a bellwether issue, because if people do not know this elementary fact, they have probably not been exposed to any independent 9/11 research at all. Because the number of respondents who support a new investigation of 9/11 (45%)) is roughly the same as the number who knew about the collapse of Building 7 (52%), it can reasonably be extrapolated that if the entire public were exposed to independent 9/11 research, about 90 percent would support a new investigation of the events of that fateful day.)

SPONSOR: 911truth.org is a coalition of researchers, journalists and victim family members working to expose and answer the hundreds of still unresolved questions concerning 9/11, especially the nearly 400 questions that the Family Steering Committee filed with the 9/11 Commission. Initially welcomed by the commissioners as their "road map," these queries cut to the heart of 9/11 crimes and accountability, specifically raising the central issues of motive, means and cui bono (who profited?). The Commission ultimately ignored 80% of these issues, however, opting only to explore system failures, miscommunications and incompetence. The victim families’ most incisive questions remain unaddressed to this day.

For more information on the Chicago "9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming our Future" conference and other developments, see http://www.911truth.org and http://911revealingthetruth.org or contact our media coordinator, Michael Berger, at 314-308-4893.

* Numerical computations conservatively based on 2000 Census data citing 174 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 64.

Survey Methodology: Zogby America, 5/12/06 through 5/16/06

This is a telephone survey of adults nationwide conducted by Zogby International. The target sample is 1,200 interviews with approximately 81 questions asked. Samples are randomly drawn from telephone cd’s of national listed sample. Zogby International surveys employ sampling strategies in which selection probabilities are proportional to population size within area codes and exchanges. As many as six calls are made to reach a sampled phone number. Cooperation rates are calculated using one of AAPOR’s approved methodologies1 and are comparable to other professional public-opinion surveys conducted using similar sampling strategies.2 Weighting by region, party, age, race, religion, and gender is used to adjust for non-response. The margin of error is +/- 2.9 percentage points. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.

Zogby International’s sampling and weighting procedures also have been validated through its political polling: more than 95% of the firm’s polls have come within 1% of actual election-day outcomes.

###

911TRUTH.ORG
Mike Berger
314-308-4893
E-mail Information Trackback URL: http://prweb.com/pingpr.php/TWFnbi1UaGlyLUNyYXMtQ3Jhcy1IYWxmLVplcm8 =

Whether it is simply a desire to sway FCC decisions or, in NBCs parent corporation GEs case, needing to secure lucrative Department of Defense contracts, America’s corporate owned media is positioned such that they can no longer perform their function as a democracies’ guardian, servant of the people, and purveyor of information vital to vibrant democratic discourse. Because of both corporate media’s and their parent corporation’s economic need and desire to placate and please the U.S. government America’s news media has become irrelevant. Nothing highlights their insignificance better than does the preferential treatment of and reporting on George W. Bush’s growing list of outright criminal behavior.

The evidence relating to a host of significant issues currently before the American public clearly indicates a rogue and criminal presidency. Yet, America’s press blatantly and defiantly refuses to report to the American people in anything resembling an honest and truthful manner. Regardless of the mountain of proof now amassed which clearly demonstrates Bush lied the nation to war in Iraq, the press reporting completely ignores that evidence and carries the administration distortion that bad intelligence was at fault.

On the war alone the evidence of Bush’s having lied includes the undisputed Downing Street Memo, wherein British officials reported the president’s desire to "fix the intelligence" around the policy. Paul O’Neill, Bush’s former head of Treasury, said Iraq was one of the, if not the first topic discussed during the administration’s inaugural cabinet meeting. Immediately following 911, Richard Clarke highlighted the administration’s pressure placed upon him and others to link the attacks to Saddam Hussein. Several high-ranking intelligence officials have since told of intelligence contradicting the administration’s desire for war having been summarily dismissed. One former CIA official was told it was no longer about "intelligence," it was about "regime change."

Despite the mountain of evidence clearly indicating Bush lied the nation into war, not taking into account that no WMD were found in Iraq — further supporting the position that Bush had lied — and saying nothing of the debunked false claims of Saddam having had ties to al-Qaeda, America’s press refuses to report honestly and in a sustained manner the fact that Bush lied the nation to war. Never once has the press expressed the obvious, i.e., the president lied to the nation.

Today, through an abuse of power heretofore unknown in the nation’s history, the American people find the very foundation of the country being systematically and egregiously undermined by Bush’s rogue and criminal administration. It has been learned that George W. Bush is illegally spying on American citizens and even though the activity obviously serves no purpose in combating terrorism, the press mindlessly and almost feverishly parrots the administration assertion that it is a terror fighting program.

Here, too, there is overwhelming evidence that Bush is lying about his illegal NSA spy program. The evidence includes Bush’s own speech in Buffalo where he insisted "wiretapping" required a court order.

Sometime after that speech, the New York Times reported Bush had ordered NSA to eavesdrop on citizens’ phone conversations without having obtained the proper warrants. Bush did not deny this accusation and indeed, insisted he had every legal right to do so. He did, however, assure the American people that the illegal and warrantless wiretapping was being conducted only against those suspected of having terrorist ties and, too, when one party was outside the United States. Recently, USA Today reported NSA had recruited AT&T, Bell South, and Verizon to track the phone calls of more than 200 million Americans. Obviously these were not all terror related calls nor were they international calls.

The companies in question would later claim they had not turned over any records to NSA but AT&T, prior to customer backlash and a threat of multi-billion dollar lawsuits, merrily chirped an administration-like claim that, "we cannot publicly discuss issues of national security." Initially, they had even seemed to express their willingness to work with the NSA in anyway possible. Interesting too that AT&T, Bell South, and Verizon’s sudden claims of innocence just happened to coincide with the administration’s defense in court of a suit brought against AT&T. The administration claimed that Electronic Frontier Foundation could not compel the government to reveal — based on national security reasons — the nature of the illegal spy program and, therefore, could not prove customers’ phones were tapped or that AT&T ever broke the law.

Still, Bush was quick to go before the public and refuse to answer direct questions relating to the charge of spying on 200 million Americans. Instead, Bush would only claim the government was not wiretapping conversations and that what he was doing was legal. The program is obviously tracking calls originating and ending in the United States and is, therefore, extralegal because it is being done without warrants.

Further, "a senior federal official" had informed ABC News reporters that the FBI has been tracking reporters’ phone calls from ABC, Washington Post, and New York Times without a warrant. The official had even warned the reporters to get a new cell phone, "quick"! Still, despite the mountain of evidence clearly indicating guilt of serious un-Constitutional and illegal wiretapping and despite the activity having no possible connection to terrorism, the press stubbornly continues to simply repeat official White House lines.

In every press account of the illegal domestic spying, they invariably claim the activity to be a "terrorist monitoring" or "terrorist prevention" program. Forget the press daring to question the programs legality or even pretending to be looking out for the peoples’ welfare. They simply refuse to do it, preferring instead to blatantly cover for Bush’s criminal behavior.

The press might attempt to hide their negligence and overt shilling for Bush behind the notion that they eventually, timidly, tepidly, and infrequently report Bush’s illegal activity. Though it is true they do, all one need do is monitor the press wire to see the manner in which the press quickly offsets whatever damage the report might inflict upon Bush’s presidency.

Regarding the latest revelation of Bush illegally spying on 200 million Americans, for every story relating to that topic there are literally at least 50 others with blatantly administration friendly headlines. Headlines like, "Hatch: Court Briefed on Bush Surveillance," or "Bush Says Spying Legal," or "Bush Defends Spy Program," and even, "Verizon Denies Giving NSA Records."

Invariably evidence that directly contradicts the headline’s claim is found buried within the story almost as an afterthought. In the Hatch story for example, when he is asked if the judges supposedly briefed on the program approved the illegal spying he admits, "That is not their position, but they were informed." In the reports of Verizon and Bell South denying having given NSA records, it is quickly realized that the companies carefully parsed their words. They may not have given NSA records themselves, but they wouldn’t say whether or not NSA, with the companies’ cooperation, could access either records or phone calls through their switches. Which, by the way, is the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s claim (i.e., AT&T granted NSA access to the companies’ switches).

The press has further deflected attention from Bush’s illegal domestic spying by supplying disproportionate attention to topics that are obviously designed to detract from the administration’s trouble. Bush gave a speech about sending troops to the border, a plan both Republicans and Democrats alike said would have no real impact and that was nothing but pandering, and the press covered it inside and out, while completely ignoring the report about the FBI spying on reporters.

No matter what Bush does, no matter how senseless, useless, and blatant an attempt it is to detract the peoples’ attention from his criminal behavior, and further, no matter how low the president’s polls or irrelevant he becomes, the press is quick to act as though the fluff, guff, flack, and nonsense is somehow vital.

The evidence is clear: Bush is a criminal and rogue president and America’s news media has become irrelevant. The reason the corporate press behaves the way it does is simple — they are nothing more than corporations who have, for financial and economic reasons, become too beholden to the government. It is no longer possible for the press to be objective and perform their function within a democratic society, which is to serve as the people’s wall between freedom and tyranny because their allegiance is solely to their corporate owners who, in turn, owe their allegiance to a criminal and rogue administration.

Macfarlane fails to get story straight: Varying lines thrown from Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane were seized on by Democrats leader Lyn Allison, who said the government was in disarray. Macfarlane said on 22 May that the move to "value-add uranium [was] probably half a decade, maybe even a decade away". Then he did a back-flip on the midday ABC bulletin and joined Senator Minchin to say enrichment plans were still decades away, she said. "It’s like having a group of Homer Simpson clones running Australia’s energy policies."

Left united on waste front: Introducing enrichment into the debate has brought the issue of intractable waste to centre stage, with green groups, and Labor, united against enrichment. On waste, Howard said the states had been "utterly opportunistic". "We are never going to solve these big problems if we get overwhelmed, particularly on something like this," he said

The Canberra Times, 23/5/2006, p. 1

Source: Erisk Net  

NSW coal industry the target: "We really want to focus on the coal industry, which is especially bad in this state, and the whole connection between fossil fuels and greenhouse gases," said Sue Lewis, a Rozelle resident and teacher. "It is all doable. Everyone in Rozelle and Balmain can change their energy use to renewable energy."

$3600 raised at group meeting: The group attracted 72 people to a dinner on 13 May at which climate change was discussed and debated, and at which $3600 was raised towards the cost of installing solar power in local schools.

Origin offers $500 solar rebate: The group has distributed about 6000 postcards to homes on the peninsula explaining their campaign. The electricity supplier Origin Energy paid for the cards and is offering a $500 rebate on solar photovoltaic systems for residents.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 20-21/5/2006, p. 6

Source: Erisk Net