The Never-Ending Story: News of the World’s Andy Coulson Condoned Police Payoffs | Vanity Fair
Milly Dowler, the late school girl whose phone was reportedly hacked. From Handout/PA Wire/AP Images.Andy Coulson, who edited Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World tabloid from 2003 to 2006, condoned payments from members of his staff at the News of the World to Scotland Yard, according to e-mails the company has handed over to the police. “It is correct to state that new information has recently been provided to the police,” a News Corp. spokesman told Vanity Fair. “We cannot comment any further due to the ongoing investigation.”Coulson resigned as editor of the paper in 2007 in response to the phone-hacking scandal, though he never admitted that . Months after resigning his editorship, Coulson became the chief spokesman to Prime Minister David Cameron, before resigning from that post earlier this year, again in response to the furor over phone hacking.Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. turned over the e-mails to Scotland Yard as part of a broader inquiry into phone hacking and the close relationship between the News of the World and the police. Coulson’s predecessor Rebekah Wade, who is now C.E.O. of Murdoch’s U.K. newspaper group, admitted in 2003 to paying police officers, though she has since said she can’t recall any specific instances of payments.
Around the Web
Powered By ZergNetWordPress Powers 18.9% of the Web, Has 46M Downloads, Says Mullenweg
powered byBlogging software WordPress is
a number of impressive growth stats today. WordPress is now powering 14.7% of the top million websites in the world, up from 8.5%. And 22 out of every 100 new active domains in the US are running WordPress. These stats apply to
and WordPress.org sites.
You can also check out Founder Matt Mullenweg’s
last week. In July,
blogs passed the
At the time, WordPress revealed that each month, 287 million people account for 2.5 billion pageviews
In his speech, Mullenweg says that WordPress now has 15,000 plugins and has seen 200 million plugin downloads.
had 500,000 downloads in the first two days, representing the fastest upgrade speed in the blogging platform’s history.
Today, WordPress is also releasing the findings of a user and developer survey, which got over 18,000 responses from users around the world. Mullenweg says that 6,800 self-employed respondents were responsible for over 170,000 sites personally, and charged a median hourly rate of $50.
Enter Address
Popular PostsGlobal Warming: A closer look at the numbers
Global Warming:A
closer look at the numbers
Water Vapor Rulesthe Greenhouse System
how much of the &Greenhouse
Effect& is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is
taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global
warming that how water vapor is or
isn't factored
into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between
describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse
effect, or a negligible one.
Water vapor constitutes
Earth's most significant greenhouse
gas, accounting for about 95% of
Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many &facts and figures' regarding
global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in
the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human
impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999%
of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous
oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter,
which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse
gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation,
and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison
to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the
most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small--
perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.
For those interested in more details a series of
data sets and charts have been assembled below in a 5-step
statistical synopsis.
Note that the first two steps ignore water vapor.
1. Greenhouse
gas concentrations
2. Converting concentrations to
contribution
3. Factoring
in water vapor
4. Distinguishing
natural vs man-made greenhouse gases
5. Putting
it all together
Note: Calculations
are expressed to 3 significant digits to reduce rounding errors, not necessarily
to indicate statistical precision of the data. All charts were plotted
using Lotus 1-2-3.
This analysis is intended to provide a simplified comparison of the various
man-made and natural greenhouse gases on an equal basis with each other.
It does not take into account all of the complicated interactions between
atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial systems, a feat which can only be accomplished
by better computer models than are currently in use.
Greenhouse Gas Concentrations:
Natural vs man-made (anthropogenic)
following table was constructed from data published by the U.S. Department
of Energy (1)
summarizing concentrations of the various atmospheric greenhouse gases,
and supplemented with information from other sources (2-7). Because some of the
concentrations are very small the numbers are stated in parts per billion.
DOE chose to NOT show water vapor as a greenhouse gas!
The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1)
(all concentrations expressed in parts per billion)
Pre-industrial baseline
Natural additions
Man-made additions
Total (ppb) Concentration
Percent of Total
&Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
11,880&(2)
&Methane (CH4)
&Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
&Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)
The chart at left summarizes
the % of greenhouse gas concentrations in Earth's atmosphere from Table
1. This is not a very meaningful view though because 1) the data has
not been corrected for the actual Global Warming Potential (GWP)
of each gas, and 2) water vapor is ignored.
But these are the numbers one would use if the goal
is to exaggerate human greenhouse contributions:
Man-made and natural
carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises 99.44% of all greenhouse gas
concentrations
(368,400 / 370,484 )--(ignoring water
Also, from Table 1 (but not shown on graph):
Anthropogenic (man-made)
CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse
gas concentrations, (ignoring water
Total combined
anthropogenic greenhouse gases comprise (12,217
/ 370,484) or 3.298% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).
The various greenhouse gases are not equal
in their heat-retention properties though, so to remain statistically relevant
% concentrations must be changed
to % contribution relative to CO2.
This is done in Table 2, below, through the use of GWP multipliers
for each gas, derived by various researchers.
Converting greenhouse gas concentrations to greenhouse effect contribution(using global warming potential )
appropriate corrections for the Global Warming Potential of the
respective gases provides the following more meaningful comparison of greenhouse
gases, based on the conversion:
( concentration
) X ( the appropriate
GWP multiplier (3) (4) of each gas relative to CO2 ) = greenhouse contribution.:
Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)adjusted for heat retention characteristics, relative to CO2
This table adjusts values in Table 1 to compare greenhouse
gases equally with respect to CO2. ( #'s are unit-less)
Multiplier (GWP)
Pre-industrial baseline(new)
Natural additions (new)
Man-made additions (new)
Tot. Relative Contribution
Percent of Total (new)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
<FONT COLOR="#ff%&
Methane (CH4)
<FONT COLOR="#ff%&
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
<FONT COLOR="#ff%&
<FONT COLOR="#ff%&
NOTE: GWP (Global Warming Potential) is used to contrast
different greenhouse gases relative to CO2.
Compared to the concentration statistics
in Table 1, the GWP comparison in Table 2 illustrates, among
other things:
Total carbon dioxide
(CO2) contributions are reduced to 72.37% of all greenhouse gases (368,400
/ 509,056)-- (ignoring water
Also, from Table 2 (but not shown on graph):
Anthropogenic (man-made)
CO2 contributions drop to (11,880 / 509,056) or 2.33% of total of all
greenhouse gases, (ignoring water
Total combined
anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes (28,162 / 509,056)
or 5.53% of all greenhouse gas contributions, (ignoring water vapor).
Relative to carbon
dioxide the other greenhouse gases together comprise about 27.63%
of the greenhouse effect (ignoring water
vapor) but only about 0.56% of total
greenhouse gas concentrations. Put another way, as a group methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), and
are about 50 times more potent than CO2
as greenhouse gases.
To properly represent the total relative impacts
of Earth's greenhouse gases Table 3 (below) factors in the effect of water
vapor on the system.
Water vapor overwhelmsall other
natural and man-madegreenhouse contributions.
3, shows what happens when the effect of
water vapor
is factored in, and together with all other
greenhouse gases expressed as a relative % of the total greenhouse effect.
Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases (man-made
and natural) as a % of RelativeContribution to the &Greenhouse
Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention
characteristics
Percent of Total
&Percent of Total --adjusted for water vapor
&Water vapor
&Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
&Methane (CH4)
Nitrous oxide (N2O)
&CFC's (and other misc. gases)
As illustrated in this chart
of the data in Table 3, the combined greenhouse contributions
of CO2, methane, N2O
and misc. gases are
small compared to water vapor!
Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- both
man-made and natural-- is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect--
a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored
Water vapor, the
most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible
for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (5). Among climatologists this
is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups,
and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.
Conceding that it might be &a little misleading&
to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating
that it is &customary& to do so!
Comparing natural vs man-made concentrations of greenhouse gases
course, even among the remaining 5% of non-water vapor greenhouse
gases, humans contribute only a very small part (and human contributions
to water vapor are negligible).
Constructed from data in Table 1, the charts
(below) illustrate graphically how much of each greenhouse gas is natural
vs how much is man-made. These allocations are used for the next
and final step in this analysis-- total man-made contributions to the greenhouse
effect. Units are expressed to 3 significant digits in order to reduce
rounding errors for those who wish to walk through the calculations, not
to imply numerical precision as there is some variation among various researchers.
Putting it all together: total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse
finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution
to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic
(man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117%
of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity.
The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized
Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the &GreenhouseEffect,& expressed as % of Total (water
vapor INCLUDED)
Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention
characteristics
&% of Greenhouse Effect
% Man-made
&Water vapor
&Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
&Methane (CH4)
&Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
&Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)
When greenhouse contributions are
listed by source, the relative overwhelming component of the natural
greenhouse effect, is readily apparent.
From Table 4a, both natural and man-made greenhouse
contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively.
For clarity only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled
on the chart.
Water vapor,
responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999%
natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing
to change this.
Anthropogenic (man-made)
CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect,
(factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!
Adding up all anthropogenic
greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect
is around 0.28% (factoring in water
Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of
30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions
this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating
effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your
winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to
zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come
Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on
all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse
contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.
This is much less than the natural variability of
Earth's climate system!
While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high
human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would
yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to
climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant
global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.
There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed,
(the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures
-- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. &
Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicistProfessor
Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,and former director of the US Weather Satellite Sin a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal
Research to Watch
Scientists are increasingly recognizing the importance
of water vapor in the climate system. Some, like , a geochemist at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory,
suggest that it is such an important factor that much of the global warming
in the last 10,000 years may be due to the increasing water vapor concentrations
in Earth's atmosphere.
His research indicates that air reaching glaciers
during the last Ice Age had less than half the water vapor content of today.
Such increases in atmospheric moisture during our current interglacial
period would have played a far greater role in global warming than
carbon dioxide or other minor gases.
& I can only
see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast,
global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to
changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas--
water vapor. &
Dr. Wallace Broecker,
a leading world authority on climateLamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory, Columbia University,lecture presented at R.
A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union'sspring
meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.
Known causes of global climate change, like cyclical
eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as
variations in the sun's energy output, are the primary causes of
climate cycles measured over the last half million years. However, secondary
greenhouse effects stemming from changes in the ability of a warming atmosphere
to support greater concentrations of gases like water vapor and carbon
dioxide also appear to play a significant role. As demonstrated in the
data above, of all Earth's greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the
dominant player.
The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water
vapor is negligible. As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is
to require that human beings are the cause of global warming must discount
or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments, citing
numbers similar to those in
. If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren't high priorities
for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their
models or statistics. Chances are, it wasn't!
References:
(updated October, 2000)Carbon
Dioxide Information Analysis Center(the primary global-change
data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only
to &members&)IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United
Tom V. Segalstad, University of Oslo
(updated April, 2002)Carbon
Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (CDIAC), U.S. Department of
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
4) Chemical
formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and
sales of CFC's and other chemicals from International Trade Commission,
Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington,
DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994
Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington,
DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks,
, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.
5) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:
a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption
by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General
Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (-7264
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998 Virginia State Climatologist
and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
c. Energy Information A Official Energy Statistics
from the U.S. Government
d. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. LindzenAlfred
P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT
e. by Dr. Tim Patterson, January
Professor of Geology-- Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada: f. by
the , 2006
g.by Dr. Robert
Essenhigh, May 2001
h. Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climateby Zbigniew
Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter
, pp. 52-65
5) Global Climate Change Student GuideDepartment
of Environmental and Geographical Sciences
Manchester Metropolitan University
Chester Street
Manchester
United Kingdom
6) William C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey,
and Patrick Neill
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California
7) Robert Grumbine
Useful conversions:
1 Gt = 1 billion tons = 1 cu. km. H20
1 Gt Carbon(C) = ~3.67 Gt Carbon Dioxide(CO2)
2.12 Gt C = ~7.8 Gt CO2 = 1ppmv CO2
This page by: Last revised: March 2, 2007
