Our blogs about
America's Wars
War on Iraq
War on Drugs
War on Afghanistan
War on Columbia
War on Philippines
War on Venezuela

More
Matrix Masters
Blogs
World Events
US News
Science & Health
Earth News
Free Speech
News from Africa
News from Palestine
Bill of Rights Under Attack

Matrix Masters'
SUPPORTERS

Lorenzo's
Random Musings
. . . about Chaos,
Reason, and Hope

 

Arctic ice 'disappearing fast'
(Richard Black, BBC NEWS, 28 September 2005)
The area covered by sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk for a fourth consecutive year, according to new data released by US scientists. . . . They say that this month sees the lowest extent of ice cover for more than a century. . . . The Arctic climate varies naturally, but the researchers conclude that human-induced global warming is at least partially responsible. . . . They warn the shrinkage could lead to even faster melting in coming years. . . . "September 2005 will set a new record minimum in the amount of Arctic sea ice cover," said Mark Serreze, of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Boulder, Colorado. . . . "It's the least sea ice we've seen in the satellite record, and continues a pattern of extreme low extents of sea ice which we've now seen for the last four years," he told BBC News. . . . The current rate of shrinkage they calculate at 8% per decade; at this rate there may be no ice at all during the summer of 2060. . . . An NSIDC analysis of historical records also suggests that ice cover is less this year than during the low periods of the 1930s and 40s. . . . Mark Serreze believes that the findings are evidence of climate change induced by human activities. . . . "It's still a controversial issue, and there's always going to be some uncertainty because the climate system does have a lot of natural variability, especially in the Arctic," he said. . . . "But I think the evidence is growing very, very strong that part of what we're seeing now is the increased greenhouse effect. If you asked me, I'd bet the mortgage that that's just what's happening." . . . rofessor Morris is involved in a new European satellite, Cryosat, which should be able to give definitive measurements of ice thickness as well as extent; its launch is scheduled for 8 October. . . . But she also believes that the NSIDC data suggests an impact from the human-enhanced greenhouse effect. . . . "All data goes through cycles, and so you have to be careful," she said, "but it's also true to say that we wouldn't expect to have four years in a row of shrinkage. . . . "That, combined with rising temperatures in the Arctic, suggests a human impact; and I would also bet my mortgage on it, because if you change the radiation absorption process of the atmosphere (through increased production of greenhouse gases) so there is more heating of the lower atmosphere, sooner or later you are going to melt ice." . . . Though there are significant variations across the region, on average the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, according to a major report released last year. . . . "These dark areas absorb a lot of the Sun's energy, much more than the ice; and what happens then is that the oceans start to warm up, and it becomes very difficult for ice to form during the following autumn and winter. . . . "It looks like this is exactly what we're seeing - a positive feedback effect, a 'tipping-point'." . . . The idea behind tipping-points is that at some stage the rate of global warming would accelerate, as rising temperatures break down natural restraints or trigger environmental changes which release further amounts of greenhouse gases. . . . Possible tipping-points include: . . . the disappearance of sea ice leading to greater absorption of solar radiation . . . a switch from forests being net absorbers of carbon dioxide to net producers . . . melting permafrost, releasing trapped methane . . . This study is the latest to indicate that such positive feedback mechanisms may be in operation, though definitive proof of their influence on the Earth's climatic future remains elusive.

posted by LoZo 12:35 PM

 

Scientists pinpoint mystery Maya city in Guatemala
(Eduardo Garcia, Reuters, September 28, 2005)
A Mayan city whose fabulous art has beguiled collectors for decades but whose true location was until now a mystery has been pinpointed in the jungles of northern Guatemala, scientists said on Tuesday. . . . 'Site Q' has been a Holy Grail of archaeology ever since an exquisite set of Mayan artworks from the period A.D. 600 to 900 showed up in U.S. and European museums and galleries in the 1970s. . . . Now researchers have found a sculpture at ruins long known as La Corona in Guatemala that matches the mysterious gallery pieces, said Salvador Lopez, Guatemala's head of historical monuments. . . . International researchers had increasingly speculated that La Corona was Site Q, and the recent find leaves no doubt, Lopez said. . . . "The panel confirms that this is Site Q," he told Reuters. . . . Many of the carved stone sculptures that began appearing three decades ago bear a strange snake-head glyph. They had so much in common that experts soon speculated that they had all been looted from one Mayan city. . . . But in recent years some archaeologists had begun to suggest that Site Q was a myth and that the snake-headed carvings had really come from a number of different sites in the region. . . . Lopez said the newly found panel sculpture suggested that La Corona had been founded by leaders from Mexico's giant Maya kingdom Calakmul to help the empire in its epic wars with the Guatemala's Tikal, the Mayan world's second empire. . . . "It narrates the history of the two powers, Tikal and Calakmul," he said. . . . La Corona lies within the boundaries of the Laguna del Tigre national park, a dangerous part of Guatemala where scientists work alongside drug traffickers, clandestine loggers and illegal ranchers. . . . The site is being excavated by an international team of experts from Yale University, the National Geographic Society, among others.

posted by LoZo 12:26 PM

 

Earthquakes up to magnitude 4.7 strike area north of Los Angeles
(Associated Press, September 22, 2005)
A series of earthquakes ranging up to magnitude 4.7 shook the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley on Thursday. There were no reports of injuries. . . . The temblors, three miles southwest of Mettler and about 70 miles northwest of Los Angeles, began with a magnitude-3.4 jolt that was quickly followed by the 4.7 at 1:24 p.m., according to the U.S. Geological Survey in Pasadena. Those quakes were initially estimated at 4.0 and 4.9 but were lowered after a review. . . . Sullivan said the rattle knocked drinks and sodas off the shelves, but did not do much damage. . . . "We felt it pretty good, like someone picked up the store and shook it," he said. . . . Customers at Mettler's Panda Express restaurant jumped up when the earthquakes struck, and an employee hid under a table, said manager Cato Fuentes. . . . "Everybody was a little shocked, waiting in case something else happened," said Fuentes. "But everything turned out all right." . . . There was no damage to the building or equipment, he said. . . . Seismologists recorded numerous aftershocks through the afternoon. . . . "The only things we're getting reported is that some items toppled over on shelves, but we've gotten no reports of damages or injuries," said Kern County fire Capt. Doug Johnston. . . . Johnston said the area contains mostly dairies and farmlands. . . . The California Aqueduct runs through the area but the State Water Project Operations control center did not report any problems, said Don Strickland, spokesman for the Department of Water Resources. . . . "Everything is functioning normally as of right now. It would take a pretty big earthquake in a real specific spot to cause a problem with the aqueduct," Strickland said. . . . The quakes occurred near the White Wolf fault, a type in which the rock above the fault moves up relative to the rock below it. . . . The last time the White Wolf fault caused a major earthquake was in 1952 when an estimated magnitude-7.5 temblor killed 12 people and injured 18.

posted by LoZo 10:33 AM

 

New Scientist News - Earth trembles as big winds move in
( NewScientist.com news service, 01 July 2005)
HURRICANES can trigger swarms of weak earthquakes and even set the Earth vibrating, according to the first study of such effects.

When Hurricane Charley slammed into Florida in August 2004, physicist Randall Peters of Mercer University in Macon, Georgia, had a seismometer ready to monitor any vibrations in the Earth's crust. He did so for over 36 hours as Charley travelled briefly over Florida, then slid back out into the Atlantic.

As the hurricane reached land, the seismometer recorded a series of "micro-tremors" from the Earth's crust. This happened again as the storm moved back out to sea. Then, as Charley grazed the continental shelf on its way out, it caused a sharp seismic spike. "I suspect the storm triggered a subterranean landslide," says Peters.

More surprisingly, the storm also caused the Earth to vibrate. The planet's surface in the vicinity of the hurricane started moving up and down at several frequencies ranging from 0.9 to 3 millihertz. Such low-frequency vibrations have been detected following large earthquakes, but this is the first time a storm has been found to be the cause (www.arxiv.org/physics/0506162).

posted by LoZo 10:14 AM

 

Warmer soils add to climate worry
(BBC NEWS, 8 September 2005)
Higher UK temperatures are causing soils to "exhale" large quantities of carbon dioxide, probably accelerating global warming, scientists report. . . . They base their assessment on a huge analysis of soil samples gathered from across England and Wales over 25 years. . . . The team says its findings, if extended to the whole of the UK, suggest some 13 million tonnes of carbon are being lost from British soils each year. . . . The scientists say computer models used to forecast future climate trends will now have to be revised because the calculations on which they are based will be wide of the mark. . . . "Our findings suggest the soil part of the equation is scarier than we had thought," Professor Guy Kirk, of Cranfield University, told journalists at the British Association's Festival of Science in Dublin, Ireland. . . . "The consequence is that there is more urgency about doing something - global warming will accelerate." . . . Indeed, as an illustration of how big a problem this is, it is likely the carbon lost from British soils since 1990 will have completely wiped out any reductions the country might have made through technological gains over the same period. . . . The scientists cannot say for sure where all the carbon has gone. Some will have been leached to deeper layers and into waterways but most of it is likely to have gone straight into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (CO2) - the chief gas thought responsible for driving higher global temperatures. . . . "If the mechanisms we describe are correct, this will be happening in other temperate countries," said Professor Kirk. . . . "And this is going to be more important in temperate countries than in the tropics because three-quarters of the world's carbon in soils is in temperate areas."

posted by LoZo 10:05 AM

 

The peak for category 3, 4, and 5 hurricanes came between 1930 and 1950, and at that time, we were still using and abusing horses. It is a well proven fact that the use and abuse of theses beautiful creatures leads to a dramatic increase in equine flatulence which introduces more methane gas into the ozone causing a sharp increase in global warming, hence the major hurricanes of that era.

Were it not for our noble, highly-educated, liberal friends coming to the aid of these horses, it could probably be demonstrated that we would now be experiencing more category 5 hurricanes. [Sorry, just kidding about the horses...just making fun of Rush Limbaugh. However, there have been some serious studies about horses and methane, a greenhouse gas.]

But seriously...
Green Hotheads Exploit Hurricane Tragedy
By Michael Fumento

I don't think you could find any hurricane scientist that would be willing to make the statement that the hurricanes of last year or Katrina are caused by global warming. Please don't forget SCIENCE! Quit ignoring Science.

"The hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name was global warming." So wrote environmental activist Ross Gelbspan in a Boston Globe op-ed that one commentator aptly described as "almost giddy." The green group Friends of the Earth linked Katrina to global warming, as did Germany's Green Party Environment Minister.

As you might guess neither Gelbspan nor RFK Jr. are scientists; they're professional scaremongers. Having authored two books on the forthcoming catastrophe of global warming, Gelbspan's fortunes are as tied to this issue as GM's are to vehicles.

Time for an ice-water bath, hotheads. If you'd bothered to consult the scientists (remember them?) you'd find they've extensively studied the issue and found no evidence that global warming is causing either an increase in frequency or intensity of hurricanes.

Thus the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which believes global warming is both real and man-made, stated in its last assessment (2001) that "Changes in tropical and extra-tropical storm intensity and frequency are dominated by [variations within and between decades], with no significant trends over the twentieth century evident."

So, too, states the Tropical Meteorological Project at Colorado State University. In a paper issued AFTER Katrina hit it noted hurricane activity since 1995 has "been similar" to that "of the mid-1920s to the mid-1960s when many more major hurricanes struck the U.S. East Coast and Florida." These are the people, chiefly professor of atmospheric science William Gray, who issue the annual hurricane forecasts each May.

In fact, according to the National Hurricane Center, the peak for major hurricanes (levels 3, 4, and 5) came between 1930 and 1950.

posted by Hal 1:36 PM

 

After Katrina: The toxic timebomb
(Andrew Gumbel and Rupert Cornwell, The Independent, 07 September 2005)
The devastation of Hurricane Katrina has created a vast toxic soup that stretches across south-eastern Louisiana and Mississippi, and portends the arrival of an environmental disaster to rival the awe-inspiring destruction of property and human life over the past week. . . . Toxicologists and public health experts warned yesterday that pumping billions of gallons of contaminated water from the streets of New Orleans back into the Gulf of Mexico - the only viable option if the city is ever to return to even a semblance of its former self -would have a crippling effect on marine and animal life, compromise the wetlands that form the first line of resistance to future hurricanes, and carry deleterious consequences for human health throughout the region. . . . The full extent of the danger is unknown and unknowable, but the polluted waters are known to contain human and animal waste, the bodies of people and animals, household effluence, and chemical and petrochemical toxins from the refineries that dot the Gulf coast in and around New Orleans. . . . "We're talking about a mass of decomposing dead bodies and animals. This is going to produce a horrible festering of unknown consequences," said Harold Zeliger, a chemical toxicologist and independent consultant based in New York State. . . . The waters now swilling around the streets and neighbourhoods of New Orleans will probably end up either in the Mississippi River or in Lake Pontchartrain, just to the north of the city, where they are likely to react with the oxygen in the water and deprive all living creatures, starting with the fish, of the means to life. . . . "We're looking conceivably at zero-dissolved oxygen, which will lead to the death of fish and other organisms," Dr Zeliger said. "If the migratory birds who pass through the area find any fish to eat, they will be contaminated so the birds will start dying in large quantities ... Reptiles and snakes are going to be driven out of their nests and habitats, which has implications for human safety. We're going to see water moccasins [a highly venomous snake], which are nasty critters, and alligators threatening people." . . . Already, more and more bodies are appearing, floating in the water, or pointed out by people still being rescued from their homes. Some of the bodies have been loaded onto refrigerated trucks and mobile morgues before being identified. . . . "It's going to be awful, and it's going to wake the nation up again," said Ray Nagin, Mayor of New Orleans, who has suggested that 10,000 may have died in his city alone. . . . Mr Nagin said that once pumping was completed, it would take several weeks more to clear the debris. Some military engineers are measuring the process in months rather than weeks, and are warning that it could take a year or more before New Orleans was once again habitable in any meaningful sense. . . . The toxic consequences of the disaster will have a profound impact on New Orleans even after the initial clearing is done. Dr Zeliger pointed out that the only way to make the water remotely potable would be to chlorinate it, but given the degree of contamination, this would create its own devastating side effects. . . . "If one chlorinates poor-quality water, it creates categories of trihalmethanes and other compounds that produce their own nightmarish effects on human health, such as spontaneous abortions," he said. "You'll see the formation of chloroform and bromoform and other toxins. It will be a long time before decent potable water can be drawn - my prediction would be a minimum of one year." . . . And New Orleans is only one casualty of a storm that, in varying degrees, devastated a region almost as large as Britain. From south-eastern Louisiana across coastal Mississippi, towns and villages have been all but obliterated.

posted by LoZo 11:16 AM

 

Did New Orleans Catastrophe Have to Happen?
(Will Bunch, Editor & Publisher, August 31, 2005)
New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane. In fact, the federal government has been working with state and local officials in the region since the late 1960s on major hurricane and flood relief efforts. When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA. . . . Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside. . . . Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars. . . . "No one can say they didn't see it coming. ... Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation." . . . In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to a Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness. . . . On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; told the Times-Picayune: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us." . . . From the June 18, 2004 Times-Picayune: "The system is in great shape, but the levees are sinking. Everything is sinking, and if we don't get the money fast enough to raise them, then we can't stay ahead of the settlement," he said. "The problem that we have isn't that the levee is low, but that the federal funds have dried up so that we can't raise them." . . . The panel authorized that money, and on July 1, 2004, it had to pony up another $250,000 when it learned that stretches of the levee in Metairie had sunk by four feet. The agency had to pay for the work with higher property taxes. The levee board noted in October 2004 that the feds were also now not paying for a hoped-for $15 million project to better shore up the banks of Lake Pontchartrain. . . . The 2004 hurricane season was the worst in decades. In spite of that, the federal government came back this spring with the steepest reduction in hurricane and flood-control funding for New Orleans in history. Because of the proposed cuts, the Corps office there imposed a hiring freeze. Officials said that money targeted for the SELA project -- $10.4 million, down from $36.5 million -- was not enough to start any new jobs. . . . There was, at the same time, a growing recognition that more research was needed to see what New Orleans must do to protect itself from a Category 4 or 5 hurricane. But once again, the money was not there. As the Times-Picayune reported last Sept. 22: "That second study would take about four years to complete and would cost about $4 million, said Army Corps of Engineers project manager Al Naomi. About $300,000 in federal money was proposed for the 2005 fiscal-year budget, and the state had agreed to match that amount. But the cost of the Iraq war forced the Bush administration to order the New Orleans district office not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money, he said." . . . The Senate was seeking to restore some of the SELA funding cuts for 2006. But now it's too late. . . . One project that a contractor had been racing to finish this summer: a bridge and levee job right at the 17th Street Canal, site of the main breach on Monday. . . . "The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana's coast, only to be opposed by the White House. ... In its budget, the Bush administration proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana's chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth of what local officials say they need."

posted by LoZo 9:17 PM

 

Brace for More Katrinas, Say Experts
(Agence France Presse, 30 August 2005)
Paris - For all its numbing ferocity, Hurricane Katrina will not be a unique event, say scientists, who say that global warming appears to be pumping up the power of big Atlantic storms. . . . 2005 is on track to be the worst-ever year for hurricanes, according to experts measuring ocean temperatures and trade winds - the two big factors that breed these storms in the Caribbean and tropical North Atlantic. . . . Earlier this month, Tropical Storm Risk, a London-based consortium of experts, predicted that the region would see 22 tropical storms during the six-month June-November season, the most ever recorded and more than twice the average annual tally since records began in 1851. . . . Seven of these storms would strike the United States, of which three would be hurricanes, it said. . . . Already, 2004 and 2003 were exceptional years: they marked the highest two-year totals ever recorded for overall hurricane activity in the North Atlantic. . . . This increase has also coincided with a big rise in Earth's surface temperature in recent years, driven by greenhouse gases that cause the Sun's heat to be stored in the sea, land and air rather than radiate back out to space. . . . "There have been other high-frequency periods for storms, such as in the 1950s and 60s, and it could be that what we are seeing now is simply part of a cycle, with highs and lows." . . . On the other hand, more and more scientists estimate that global warming, while not necessarily making hurricanes more frequent or likelier to make landfall, is making them more vicious. . . . Hurricanes derive from clusters of thunderstorms over tropical waters that are warmer than 27.2 C (81 C). . . . A key factor in ferocity is the temperature differential between the sea surface and the air above the storm. The warmer the sea, the bigger the differential and the bigger the potential to "pump up" the storm. . . . Just a tiny increase in surface temperature can have an extraordinary effect, says researcher Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). . . . In a study published in Nature in July, Emanuel found that the destructive power of North Atlantic storms had doubled over the past 30 years, during which the sea-surface temperature rose by only 0.5 C (0.9 F). . . . Emanuel's yardstick is storm duration and windpower: hurricanes lasted longer and packed higher windspeeds than before. . . . Another factor in destructiveness is flooding. Kevin Trenberth of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research suggests that hurricanes are dumping more rainfall as warmer seas suck more moisture into the air, swelling the stormclouds. . . . "The intensity of and rainfalls from hurricanes are probably increasing, even if this increase cannot yet be proven with a formal statistical test," Trenberth wrote in the US journal Science in June. He said computer models "suggest a shift" toward the extreme in in hurricane intensities.

posted by LoZo 10:01 AM