Why this ad? Open Colleges – TAFE Courses Online – Study from home at your own pace with Open Colleges. Download a free course guide.

Ocean acidification oaiccproject@gmail.com via google.com	1:04 AM (8 hours ago)
to me

Ocean acidification state in western Antarctic surface waters: controls and interannual variability (update)

Posted: 07 Jan 2014 05:57 AM PST

Why this ad? Open Colleges – TAFE Courses Online – Study from home at your own pace with Open Colleges. Download a free course guide.

George Monbiot news@monbiot.com via google.com	7:15 PM (3 hours ago)
to me

Dead Zone

Posted: 06 Jan 2014 12:33 PM PST

A shocking new bill threatens to make this country feel like a giant shopping mall.
By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 7th January 2014

Until the late 19th Century, much of our city space was owned by private landlords. Squares were gated, streets were controlled by turnpikes(1). The great unwashed, many of whom had been expelled from the countryside by acts of enclosure, were also excluded from desirable parts of town.

Social reformers and democratic movements tore down the barriers, and public space became a right, not a privilege. But social exclusion follows inequality as night follows day, and now, with little public debate, our city centres are again being privatised or semi-privatised. They are being turned by the companies that run them into soulless, cheerless, pasteurised piazzas, in which plastic policemen harry anyone loitering without intent to shop.

Streetlife in these places is reduced to a trance-world of consumerism, of conformity and atomisation, in which nothing unpredictable or disconcerting happens, a world made safe for selling mountains of pointless junk to tranquilised shoppers. Spontaneous gatherings of any other kind – unruly, exuberant, open-ended, oppositional – are banned. Young, homeless and eccentric people are, in the eyes of those upholding this dead-eyed, sanitised version of public order, guilty until proven innocent.

Now this dreary ethos is creeping into places which are not, ostensibly, owned or controlled by corporations. It is enforced less by gates and barriers (though plenty of these are reappearing) than by legal instruments, used to exclude or control the ever widening class of undesirables.

The existing rules are bad enough. Introduced by the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, anti-social behavour orders (Asbos) have criminalised an apparently endless range of activities, subjecting thousands – mostly young and poor – to bespoke laws(2). They have been used to enforce a kind of caste prohibition: personalised rules which prevent the untouchables from intruding into the lives of others.

You get an Asbo for behaving in a manner deemed by a magistrate as likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to other people. Under this injunction, the proscribed behaviour becomes a criminal offence. Asbos have been granted which forbid the carrying of condoms by a prostitute, homeless alcoholics from possessing alcohol in a public place, a soup kitchen from giving food to the poor, a young man from walking down any road other than his own, children from playing football in the street(3). They were used to ban peaceful protests against the Olympic clearances(4).

Inevitably, over half the people subject to Asbos break them. As Liberty says, these injunctions “set the young, vulnerable or mentally ill up to fail”, and fast-track them into the criminal justice system(5). They allow the courts to imprison people for offences which are not otherwise imprisonable. One homeless young man was sentenced to five years in jail for begging: an offence for which no custodial sentence exists(6). Asbos permit the police and courts to create their own laws and their own penal codes.

All this is about to get much worse. Tomorrow the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill reaches its report stage (close to the end of the process) in the House of Lords(7). It is remarkable how little fuss has been made about it, and how little we know of what is about to hit us.

The bill would permit injunctions against anyone of 10 or above who “has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person.”(8) It would replace Asbos with Ipnas (Injunctions to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance), which would not only forbid certain forms of behaviour, but also force the recipient to discharge positive obligations. In other words, they can impose a kind of community service on people who have committed no crime, which could, the law proposes, remain in force for the rest of their lives.

The bill also introduces Public Space Protection Orders, which can prevent either everybody or particular kinds of people from doing certain things in certain places. It creates new dispersal powers, which can be used by the police to exclude people from an area (there is no size limit), whether or not they have done anything wrong.

While, as a result of a successful legal challenge, Asbos can be granted only if a court is satisfied “beyond reasonable doubt” that anti-social behaviour took place, Ipnas can be granted “on the balance of probabilities”. Breaching them will not be classed as a criminal offence, but can still carry a custodial sentence: without committing a crime, you can be imprisoned for up to two years. Children, who cannot currently be detained for contempt of court, will be subject to an inspiring new range of punishments for breaking an Ipna, including three months in a young offenders’ centre(9).

Lord Macdonald, formerly the director of public prosecutions, points out that “it is difficult to imagine a broader concept than causing ‘nuisance’ or ‘annoyance’. The phrase is apt to catch a vast range of everyday behaviours to an extent that may have serious implications for the rule of law”(10). Protesters, buskers, preachers: all, he argues, could end up with Ipnas.

The Home Office minister, Norman Baker, once a defender of civil liberties, now the architect of the most oppressive bill pushed through any recent parliament, claims that the amendments he offered in December will “reassure people that basic liberties will not be affected”(11). But Liberty describes them as “a little bit of window-dressing: nothing substantial has changed.”(12)

The new injunctions and the new dispersal orders create a system in which the authorities can prevent anyone from doing more or less anything. But they won’t be deployed against anyone. Advertisers, who cause plenty of nuisance and annoyance, have nothing to fear; nor do opera lovers hogging the pavements of Covent Garden. Annoyance and nuisance are what young people cause; they are inflicted by oddballs, the underclass, those who dispute the claims of power.

These laws will be used to stamp out plurality and difference, to douse the exuberance of youth, to pursue children for the crime of being young and together in a public place, to help turn this nation into a money-making monoculture, controlled, homogenised, lifeless, strifeless and bland. For a government which represents the old and the rich, that must sound like paradise.

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. Anna Minton, ?2006. The privatisation of public space. The Royal Institution
of Chartered Surveyors.  http://www.annaminton.com/Privatepublicspace.pdf

2. http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/media/articles/pdfs/asbos-and-human-rights-2004.pdf

3. http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy13/liberty-s-briefing-on-the-draft-anti-social-behaviour-bill-feb-2013-.pdf

4. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/apr/17/protester-receives-olympic-asbo

5. http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy13/liberty-s-briefing-on-the-draft-anti-social-behaviour-bill-feb-2013-.pdf

6. http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy13/liberty-s-briefing-on-the-draft-anti-social-behaviour-bill-feb-2013-.pdf

7. http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/antisocialbehaviourcrimeandpolicingbill.html

8. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2013-2014/0066/lbill_2013-20140066_en_1.htm

9. See also: http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/11/11/the-birth-of-a-police-state-uk-police-to-be-granted-sweeping-new-powers-2/

10. http://reformclause1.org.uk/files/opinion.pdf

11. http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/dec/18/right-to-protest-anti-social-behaviour-crime-policing-bill

07 January 2014

Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it

by Sophie Lewis and David Karoly, via The Conversation

Australia saw extreme heat and bushfires in 2013. Flickr/Rossco ( Image Focus Australia )

The Bureau of Meteorology has confirmed that 2013 was the hottest year in Australia since records began in 1910.

Unusual heat was a persistent feature throughout the year. For the continent as a whole, we experienced our hottest day on record on January 7. Then January was the hottest month on record, and the 2012-13 summer was the hottest recorded for the nation.

The nation-wide temperature record set for the month of September exceeded the previous record by more than a degree. This was the largest temperature anomaly for any month yet recorded.
 Averaged across all of Australia, the temperature for 2013 was 1.2C above the 1961-1990 average, and well above the previous record hot year of 2005 of 1.03C above average.

What caused these extreme temperatures? Climate scientists have a problem: because climate deals with averages and trends, we can’t attribute specific records to a particular cause.

But our research has made significant headway in identifying the causes of climate events, by calculating how much various factors increase the risk of extreme climate events occurring. And we have found sobering results.

We previously analysed the role human-caused climate change played in recent extremes across Australia.

For various record-breaking 2013 Australian temperatures, we investigated the contributing factors to temperature extremes using a suite of state-of-the-art global climate models. The models simulated well the natural variability of Australian temperatures.

Using this approach, we calculated the probability of hot Australian temperatures in model experiments. These incorporated human (changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols and ozone) and natural (solar radiation changes and volcanic) factors. We compared these probabilities to those calculated for a parallel set of experiments that include only natural factors. In this way, natural and human climate influences can be separated.

In our previous studies, we then applied an approach (known as Fraction of Attributable Risk) widely used in health and population studies to quantify the contribution of a risk factor to the occurrence of a disease. Health studies, for example, can quantify how much smoking increases the risk of lung cancer.

Using the climate models, the Fraction of Attributable Risk (FAR) shows how much the risk of extreme temperatures increases thanks to human influences.

In our earlier study of our record hot Australian summer of 2012-13, we found that it was very likely (with 90% confidence) that human influences increased the odds of extreme summers such as 2012-13 by at least five times.

In August 2013, Australia broke the record for the hottest 12-month period. The odds of this occurring increased again from the hottest summer. We found that human influence increased the odds of setting this new record by at least 100 times.

Recent extreme temperatures are exceeding previous records by increasingly large margins. The chance of reaching these extreme temperatures from natural climate variations alone is becoming increasingly unlikely. When we considered the 12-month record at the end of August, it was nearly impossible for this temperature extreme to occur from natural climate variations alone in these model experiments.

We have just completed a preliminary investigation of contributing factors for the record Australian temperature in the 2013 calendar year.

In the model experiments, it is impossible to reach such a temperature record due to natural climate variations alone. In climate model simulations with only natural factors, none of the nearly 13,000 model years analysed exceed the previous hottest year recorded back in 2005.

Australian annual temperature changes (relative to 1911-1940 average) for observations (dashed black) and model simulations with natural influences only (green) and with both human and natural influences (red). The grey plumes indicate the range of values simulated across nine global climate models used. Average Australian temperature anomalies are indicated for 2013 and the previous hottest year on record in 2005. David Karoly & Sophie Lewis

In contrast, in model simulations including both natural and human factors, such as increasing greenhouse gases, record temperatures occur approximately once in every ten years during the period 2006 to 2020. (On a mathematical note, as there is no instance in which the record hot yearly temperature occurred without human contributions, the FAR value is one.)

Probabilities of annual average temperatures for Australia from climate model simulations including natural influences only (green) and both natural and human climate influences (red) for model years 2006-2020. The vertical lines show the temperature anomalies observed in 2013 and in 2005 (the previous hottest year observed). David Karoly & Sophie Lewis

Clearly both natural climate variability and global warming from humans contribute to recent temperature records. Natural variability always plays a major role in the occurrence of weather and climate extremes. But in the case of our recent hottest year on record, human-caused global warming made a crucial contribution to our extreme temperatures.
Our extensive catalogue of 2013 record-breaking events in Australia occurred in a global context of increasing temperatures that must be considered. Globally, 2013 will likely rank as the 6^th hottest year recorded.

So to return to our question, what caused the 2013 record hot year across Australia? Simply put, our climate has changed due to human activities. Recent extremes, such as this hot year, are occurring well outside the bounds of natural climate variations alone.

RELATED STORIES

• BoM: Annual climate statement 2013

Header PromoThe Drum on ABC News 24

A lot more is at stake than just whaling

Posted 6 hours 59 minutes ago

Photo: New images of Japanese whaling have triggered fresh calls for the Abbott Government to take action. (AAP: Tim Watters/Sea Shepherd Australia)

Enforcing Australian law against Japanese whalers could unleash a diplomatic and legal maelstrom with serious consequences for Australia’s Antarctic claim – that’s something Greg Hunt was right to avoid, writes Donald Rothwell.

Despite the criticism from the Australian Greens and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Environment Minister Greg Hunt has made the right call in electing to not send an Australian government ship to monitor the Japanese whaling fleet this summer.

On December 22, Hunt announced that the Abbott Government would undertake aerial surveillance and monitoring of the Japanese whalers, most likely relying upon a civilian Airbus A319 that is currently under charter to the Australian Antarctic Division.

Sea Shepherd has now released video images of the Japanese undertaking their annual whaling operations, and this has triggered fresh calls for the Abbott government to be taking action.

While in Opposition, Hunt regularly called for the Gillard government to send an Australian ship to the Southern Ocean to act as a “cop on the beat”. The Coalition indicated that if elected they would act on this promise.

Australia did send a monitoring ship to the Southern Ocean in 2008 when the newly elected Rudd government sent the ACV Oceanic Viking to monitor the Japanese whalers and collect evidence for a potential international legal challenge. Graphic photographic evidence was obtained by the Oceanic Viking, which was also on hand to end a standoff that developed between Sea Shepherd and the Japanese whalers after two of the conservationists had boarded one of the whaling ships.

Since that time, however, no further Australian monitoring operations have been conducted. Nevertheless, there were some legitimate expectations that this year would be different, and Sea Shepherd’s spokesperson, Bob Brown, has been calling the government to account. Hunt has now indicated that Australian aerial surveillance will commence soon, but importantly this will not be a law-enforcement operation.

The failure of successive Australian governments to undertake monitoring of Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean, and enforcement of Australian law against whaling, has continually frustrated Sea Shepherd. They and other environmental groups point to a 2008 Federal Court ruling which found that the activities of the Japanese whalers were in contravention of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. That Act established an Australian Whale Sanctuary around Australia and offshore the Australian Antarctic Territory. All whaling within the Sanctuary, which extends 200 miles from the coast, is prohibited. The Federal Court found in favour of an application sought by Humane Society International that the Japanese whalers were acting in contravention of Australian law; however, those orders have never been enforced. Why then has Australian law not been enforced against the Japanese whalers?

It is not widely appreciated that notwithstanding Australia’s longstanding claim to the Australian Antarctic Territory, that claim is not widely recognised. In fact only France, New Zealand, Norway and the UK formally recognise the Australian claim, and those countries also have territorial claims in Antarctica. Not only is Australia’s Antarctic claim not widely recognised, Australia is also compromised from actively asserting its sovereignty in Antarctica under the terms of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty.

The Treaty was negotiated at the height of the Cold War at a time when there was grave concern that Antarctica could become the scene of territorial dispute between America and Russia. Article IV of the Treaty attempted to settle these disputes by putting to one side all territorial issues, and by and large it has been very successful. One element of this settlement was that Australia also agreed to limitations on the exercise of Australian law against foreign nationals. As a result, any attempt by Australia to enforce its laws against foreigners in the Australian Antarctic Territory including the adjacent waters of the Australian Whale Sanctuary would be seen as a violation of the Treaty.

This reality was recognised by former Coalition Attorney-General Philip Ruddock in submissions made to the Federal Court in 2004. Australia’s Antarctic legal reality is that active enforcement of Australian law that prohibits whaling in the Australian Whale Sanctuary against the Japanese whalers could unleash a diplomatic and legal maelstrom with very serious consequences for Australia’s Antarctic claim and for the Antarctic Treaty. This is something which any Australian government would wish to avoid.

As a result, Greg Hunt’s decision to undertake aerial monitoring of the Japanese whalers is a more prudent course of action. It gives to the Australian government some capacity to exercise surveillance of whaling while remaining at arms’ length from any Southern Ocean confrontations that may develop between Sea Shepherd and the whalers. The Abbott Government is also right to be cautious at this time about not seeking to inflame tensions with Japan over whaling.

The position of both countries is well known. In 2010 Australia commenced an historic challenge in the International Court of Justice against the international legal validity of Japan’s ongoing conduct of its Southern Ocean whaling program. That case concluded in July and a decision is expected in the next few months. Australia’s case before the International Court was that Japan’s conduct is in violation of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Mindful of the limitations created by the Antarctic Treaty, the Australian case did not rely upon enforcement of Australian law. The Abbott Government is right to now await the International Court’s decision before making its next move on whaling.

Donald Rothwell is Professor of International Law at the ANU College of Law, Australian National University. View his full profile here.