June 19, 2008
GREENLAND ICE CORE ANALYSIS SHOWS DRASTIC CLIMATE CHANGE NEAR END OF LAST ICE AGE
Information gleaned from a Greenland ice core by an international science team shows that two huge Northern Hemisphere temperature spikes prior to the close of the last ice age some 11,500 years ago were tied to fundamental shifts in atmospheric circulation.
The ice core showed the Northern Hemisphere briefly emerged from the last ice age some 14,700 years ago with a 22-degree-Fahrenheit spike in just 50 years, then plunged back into icy conditions before abruptly warming again about 11,700 years ago. Startlingly, the Greenland ice core evidence showed that a massive "reorganization" of atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere coincided with each temperature spurt, with each reorganization taking just one or two years, said the study authors.
The new findings are expected to help scientists improve existing computer models for predicting future climate change as increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere drive up Earth's temperatures globally.
The team used changes in dust levels and stable water isotopes in the annual ice layers of the two-mile-long Greenland ice core, which was hauled from the massive ice sheet between 1998 to 2004, to chart past temperature and precipitation swings. Their paper was published in the June 19 issue of Science Express, the online version of Science.
The ice cores – analyzed with powerful microscopes – were drilled as part of the North Greenland Ice Core Project led by project leader Dorthe Dahl-Jensen of the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Neils Bohr Institute of the University of Copenhagen. The study included 17 co-investigators from Europe, one from Japan and two from the United States – Jim White and Trevor Popp from the University of Colorado at Boulder.
"We have analyzed the transition from the last glacial period until our present warm interglacial period, and the climate shifts are happening suddenly, as if someone had pushed a button," said Dahl-Jenson.
According to the researchers, the first abrupt warming period beginning at 14,700 years ago lasted until about 12,900 years ago, when deep-freeze conditions returned for about 1,200 years before the onset of the second sharp warming event. The two events indicate a speed in the natural climate change process never before seen in ice cores, said White, director of CU-Boulder's Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research.
"We are beginning to tease apart the sequence of abrupt climate change," said White, whose work was funded by the National Science Foundation's Office of Polar Programs. "Since such rapid climate change would challenge even the most modern societies to successfully adapt, knowing how these massive events start and evolve is one of the most pressing climate questions we need to answer."
Both dramatic warming events were preceded by decreasing Greenland dust deposition, indicating higher tropical temperatures and significantly more rain falling on the deserts of Asia at the time, said White. The team believes the ancient tropical warming caused large, rapid atmospheric changes at the equator, the intensification of the Pacific monsoon, sea-ice loss in the north Atlantic Ocean and more atmospheric heat and moisture over Greenland and much of the rest of the Northern Hemisphere.
"Here we propose a series of events beginning in the lower latitudes and leading to changes in the ocean and atmosphere that reveal for the first time the anatomy of abrupt climate change," the authors wrote. White likened the abrupt shift in the Northern Hemisphere circulation pattern to shifts in the North American jet stream as it steers storms around the continent.
"We know such events are in Earth's future, but we don't know when," said White. "One question is whether we can see the symptoms before big problems occur. Until we answer these questions, we are speeding blindly down a narrow road, hoping there are no curves ahead."
Each yearly record of ice can reveal past temperatures and precipitation levels, the content of ancient atmospheres and even evidence for the timing and magnitude of distant storms, fires and volcanic eruptions, said White. The cores from the site – located roughly in the middle of Greenland at an elevation of about 9,850 feet – are four-inch-diameter cylinders brought to the surface in 11.5-foot lengths, said White.
##
Contact:
Jim White
University of Colorado at Boulder
303-492-2219
jwhite@colorado.edu
This text derived from:
http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/c26eac043404365b046ade72e8bc9424.html
Friday, July 4, 2008
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Congress Should Hold Propaganda Hearings
Posted on May 30.2008 by Timothy Karr
New information about the extent of the government and the mainstream media’s propaganda campaign continue to emerge, and we have not let up on pushing Congress to act.
More than 100,000 Free Press activists and our allies have already urged their members of Congress to launch an investigation into the media's role in spreading pro-war propaganda.
Now Free Press is calling on Congress to convene hearings to determine the extent of the mainstream media and the government’s wrongdoing. Sign the letter and tell Congress that we're not backing down until the truth comes out.
The country is buzzing today over a tell-all book by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. In his explosive memoir, McClellan reveals that the Bush administration ran a "political propaganda campaign" to mislead the American public on the war in Iraq.
But he takes it one step further, implicating the mainstream media for its role in "enabling" this propaganda: "The national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House" in spreading the president's case for the war, McClellan writes. The mainstream media didn't live up to its watchdog reputation. "If it had, the country would have been better served."
This should be a shock to everyone. The president's own spokesman lays a large share of the blame for Bush's pro-war propaganda on the media's "deferential" treatment of White House spin.
Please become part of a growing people-powered campaign to investigate this scandal and make media more accountable to the public:
Click on the link above and sign a letter that urges House Committee Chairs Ike Skelton, John Tierney and Henry Waxman to convene full congressional hearings about propaganda in the news.
The media's complicity in promoting this war was confirmed Wednesday night by CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin who said that network executives had pushed her not to do hard-hitting pieces on the Bush administration as the nation readied for war.
"The press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation," Yellin told CNN's Anderson Cooper. (Watch the video).
More than 100,000 Free Press activists and allies have already urged their members of Congress to launch an investigation into the media's role in spreading pro-war propaganda. By joining their call, you will be part of a massive coalition of citizens, bloggers and independent media who refuse to let Big Media off the hook:
Expose the Propaganda 'Enablers' and End Fake News
McClellan's memoir comes on the heels of an April 20 New York Times exposé, which revealed an extensive -- and likely illegal -- Pentagon program to recruit and place pro-war military pundits on nearly every major news outlet in America. Congress has promised to investigate the Pentagon’s role in the scandal, but it shouldn't end there.
Our democracy is in peril when mainstream media fail to question the official view and put the interests of ordinary Americans first. This watchdog role is especially critical during a time of war.
Sign the letter and then tell your friends to help send a loud message to Congress: We're not backing down until the truth comes out.
New information about the extent of the government and the mainstream media’s propaganda campaign continue to emerge, and we have not let up on pushing Congress to act.
More than 100,000 Free Press activists and our allies have already urged their members of Congress to launch an investigation into the media's role in spreading pro-war propaganda.
Now Free Press is calling on Congress to convene hearings to determine the extent of the mainstream media and the government’s wrongdoing. Sign the letter and tell Congress that we're not backing down until the truth comes out.
The country is buzzing today over a tell-all book by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. In his explosive memoir, McClellan reveals that the Bush administration ran a "political propaganda campaign" to mislead the American public on the war in Iraq.
But he takes it one step further, implicating the mainstream media for its role in "enabling" this propaganda: "The national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House" in spreading the president's case for the war, McClellan writes. The mainstream media didn't live up to its watchdog reputation. "If it had, the country would have been better served."
This should be a shock to everyone. The president's own spokesman lays a large share of the blame for Bush's pro-war propaganda on the media's "deferential" treatment of White House spin.
Please become part of a growing people-powered campaign to investigate this scandal and make media more accountable to the public:
Click on the link above and sign a letter that urges House Committee Chairs Ike Skelton, John Tierney and Henry Waxman to convene full congressional hearings about propaganda in the news.
The media's complicity in promoting this war was confirmed Wednesday night by CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin who said that network executives had pushed her not to do hard-hitting pieces on the Bush administration as the nation readied for war.
"The press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation," Yellin told CNN's Anderson Cooper. (Watch the video).
More than 100,000 Free Press activists and allies have already urged their members of Congress to launch an investigation into the media's role in spreading pro-war propaganda. By joining their call, you will be part of a massive coalition of citizens, bloggers and independent media who refuse to let Big Media off the hook:
Expose the Propaganda 'Enablers' and End Fake News
McClellan's memoir comes on the heels of an April 20 New York Times exposé, which revealed an extensive -- and likely illegal -- Pentagon program to recruit and place pro-war military pundits on nearly every major news outlet in America. Congress has promised to investigate the Pentagon’s role in the scandal, but it shouldn't end there.
Our democracy is in peril when mainstream media fail to question the official view and put the interests of ordinary Americans first. This watchdog role is especially critical during a time of war.
Sign the letter and then tell your friends to help send a loud message to Congress: We're not backing down until the truth comes out.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Hillary, the GOP, and Obama: And never the two shall meet.
"You just don’t know what might happen".
Something bad could happen in June. I am not saying something will, mind you, but nonetheless, something may very well happen. On a few occasions, the woman who has nothing to lose, and decreasing amount to win, is now hinting that bad things may happen. Smell that, friends, smell that odor of fear she is trying to cover the room with? Fear the uncertainties; fear the unknown, a chance on hope is not worth what “might” happen.
She is quietly selling fear. She is slowly, trying to justify her political actions, by using the same book which is used by the Republicans.
She has pandered to her older white rural and uneducated base, by trying to sell them on her legitimacy as a candidate, by referring to none other than Karl Rove and an analysis he did between herself and McCain. An analysis which shows she is far stronger than her opponent, Sen. Obama.
Karl Rove of all people she uses to support her case.
I never seem to be able to get that acid imprinted mantra out of my mind. The one where she says over and over, “If this were a republican presidential primary, I would have already won”, says a member of the Democratic Party.
As if our friends in the GOP, who have “little real blame” in letting Bush get whatever he wanted, are not so bad. It’s as if she is saying, “Don’t hate the playa’, hate the game”. Again, she dangles Republicanism in the faces of fellow democrats. At whose gain, I ask you; and at what loss.
What about Fox News, while playing softball question hour with the pundit of all pundits, Greta.
What about the slights about race made by Bill Clinton, “…at least I didn’t steal the car.” Remember South Carolina? And no, if you watch and listen to the video long enough to get his point, you see what he meant.
You have seen it. Maybe for so long it's hard to separate the true politicking of the citizen, and the divisiveness of the politics itself.
Hey wait a minute, that’s my game she wants to change. I don’t want another president who has been in Washington long enough to truly know how to play the game. I want someone in Washington who will bring a new direction to the game.
And a vote for Obama, in my view, is a vote for the future style of governmental leadership, from which I feel Americans were derailed, and have been waiting for, the last eight years.
I grew up in Washington, I have met these people. I know where they hang out. What restaurants and bars, and to which after-hours joint de fantaisie et d'élite, they go to.
My brother Aaron has a great restaurant in Washington, DC, called
The Russia House Restaurant & Lounge. It is a great and hip place (check out the link), and if you ever stop by, tell him I sent you and don’t talk politics with him (maybe I’ll get some brother credit?).
But anyway, you get those people in there as well. They are not bad people themselves, for they are just doing a job, and doing it anyway and wherever they can. It’s just the way their job is set up.
It is about time that we elected a person that will work with others in running our country. Not at the direction or insistence of a heavy lobbyist group, or from a fat and deep PAC, but because that which is trying to be done is the best thing for “our” country.
We need a person who can look at a situation from a multitude of various perspectives, and with the end goal being to have made the wisest decision for our country, and our future, that solves the issue as best as possible. That is what we need. We need governance, not from the perspective of the corporations and special interest, but from someone who is not beholden to the gold coffers of the heavy industry players.
We need someone who has a vision of what things can be like, someone who is not afraid to imagine what may be, and one who has the innate sense of diversity which allows him to see from many perspectives, and come to a much wiser decision.
We need someone in Washington who has not lost their imagination, due to the many years of the political enculturation and doctrinarian, into the old ways of politics. Be they young or old, Republican or Democrat, the old ways are dead, and information has changed the court.
It should be obvious that I support Sen. Obama, but just for the record; I support Barry. He can be trusted to make the best decisions for this great country, if and when they arise.
We need, as a Party and a Country, to move beyond the politics of destruction, and into the politics of Hope. To bring to our present political system, a more transparent and citizen minded, perspective, outlook, and visage. A 21st century view on what is the best that government can do for its citizens and the world.
That’s no different than any other President would try to do, but the crux difference between Sen. Obama and the rest, is where he has already been. The gathered world perspective he has experienced, to be able to see the world through another’s eyes, is something that comes along ever so rarely. And, for the last 8 years, not at all, it seems.
And that my friend is a bit about why I support Sen. Barack Obama.
Something bad could happen in June. I am not saying something will, mind you, but nonetheless, something may very well happen. On a few occasions, the woman who has nothing to lose, and decreasing amount to win, is now hinting that bad things may happen. Smell that, friends, smell that odor of fear she is trying to cover the room with? Fear the uncertainties; fear the unknown, a chance on hope is not worth what “might” happen.
She is quietly selling fear. She is slowly, trying to justify her political actions, by using the same book which is used by the Republicans.
She has pandered to her older white rural and uneducated base, by trying to sell them on her legitimacy as a candidate, by referring to none other than Karl Rove and an analysis he did between herself and McCain. An analysis which shows she is far stronger than her opponent, Sen. Obama.
Karl Rove of all people she uses to support her case.
I never seem to be able to get that acid imprinted mantra out of my mind. The one where she says over and over, “If this were a republican presidential primary, I would have already won”, says a member of the Democratic Party.
As if our friends in the GOP, who have “little real blame” in letting Bush get whatever he wanted, are not so bad. It’s as if she is saying, “Don’t hate the playa’, hate the game”. Again, she dangles Republicanism in the faces of fellow democrats. At whose gain, I ask you; and at what loss.
What about Fox News, while playing softball question hour with the pundit of all pundits, Greta.
What about the slights about race made by Bill Clinton, “…at least I didn’t steal the car.” Remember South Carolina? And no, if you watch and listen to the video long enough to get his point, you see what he meant.
You have seen it. Maybe for so long it's hard to separate the true politicking of the citizen, and the divisiveness of the politics itself.
Hey wait a minute, that’s my game she wants to change. I don’t want another president who has been in Washington long enough to truly know how to play the game. I want someone in Washington who will bring a new direction to the game.
And a vote for Obama, in my view, is a vote for the future style of governmental leadership, from which I feel Americans were derailed, and have been waiting for, the last eight years.
I grew up in Washington, I have met these people. I know where they hang out. What restaurants and bars, and to which after-hours joint de fantaisie et d'élite, they go to.
My brother Aaron has a great restaurant in Washington, DC, called
The Russia House Restaurant & Lounge. It is a great and hip place (check out the link), and if you ever stop by, tell him I sent you and don’t talk politics with him (maybe I’ll get some brother credit?).
But anyway, you get those people in there as well. They are not bad people themselves, for they are just doing a job, and doing it anyway and wherever they can. It’s just the way their job is set up.
It is about time that we elected a person that will work with others in running our country. Not at the direction or insistence of a heavy lobbyist group, or from a fat and deep PAC, but because that which is trying to be done is the best thing for “our” country.
We need a person who can look at a situation from a multitude of various perspectives, and with the end goal being to have made the wisest decision for our country, and our future, that solves the issue as best as possible. That is what we need. We need governance, not from the perspective of the corporations and special interest, but from someone who is not beholden to the gold coffers of the heavy industry players.
We need someone who has a vision of what things can be like, someone who is not afraid to imagine what may be, and one who has the innate sense of diversity which allows him to see from many perspectives, and come to a much wiser decision.
We need someone in Washington who has not lost their imagination, due to the many years of the political enculturation and doctrinarian, into the old ways of politics. Be they young or old, Republican or Democrat, the old ways are dead, and information has changed the court.
It should be obvious that I support Sen. Obama, but just for the record; I support Barry. He can be trusted to make the best decisions for this great country, if and when they arise.
We need, as a Party and a Country, to move beyond the politics of destruction, and into the politics of Hope. To bring to our present political system, a more transparent and citizen minded, perspective, outlook, and visage. A 21st century view on what is the best that government can do for its citizens and the world.
That’s no different than any other President would try to do, but the crux difference between Sen. Obama and the rest, is where he has already been. The gathered world perspective he has experienced, to be able to see the world through another’s eyes, is something that comes along ever so rarely. And, for the last 8 years, not at all, it seems.
And that my friend is a bit about why I support Sen. Barack Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
