New Zealand ups the ante and France nearly shock
Building on the momentum from an excellent Rugby League World Cup, the results in the first round of the Four Nations showed that test matches are anything but a one horse race.
Heading into the tournament, many believed that it was just a simple case of the Kangaroos turning up to win the title, looking to restore the balance of world league power by proving that the New Zealand 2008 World Cup win was just a fluke.
While Australia named three debutants in their first team of the Four Nations, and only eight survivors from their shock 20-34 loss to New Zealand, it was still a typically powerful side, littered with more match winners and game breakers than any other nation could hope to muster.
Most of their players would occupy a current World XIII, and after beating New Zealand 38-10 in the May Anzac test match to avenge their World Cup loss, they were almost un-backable favourites
New Zealand on the other hand were suffering numerous injuries, and were rank outsiders for the championship, with some in the English press predicting that they could struggle to make the final.
Some of the kiwi players were asked about their chances arriving in England, and their reactions were almost ominous, bristling with so many assuming not only that they would not be competitive, but that their World Cup win was a once in a lifetime sporting upset.
After eighty minutes were completed at the Twickenham stoop, many believed that New Zealand were in fact unlucky not to come away with the win.
Kangaroo’s captain Darren Lockyer and premiership winning captain Cameron Smith would later remark that they were indeed fortunate to come out of the clash with a draw.
New Zealand played to their strengths, bringing trademark physicality to the match and looking to overpower the Australians. This has often been the precursor to their clashes, but more often than not, the kiwis never quite bring the game to match their talk.
This time, they did and more.
But most importantly their defence, while physically imposing, was accurate and co-ordinated.
For all of the glamour and execution of the Australian’s vaunted backline attack, the reality is that few offenses can engineer their way past a committed and hungry defensive wall.
But in saying this, the kangaroos by and large kept playing to their patterns and for long periods dominated possession and territory due to their world class control and poise. Even despite the hammering that they received via the power game of New Zealand, they still were able to counter most of what the kiwis threw at them.
Two very different teams, in what was one of the greatest rugby league clashes in modern history.
Cut and thrust, from the kiwis opening mistake from the kick receive, through to their 14 point burst in the second half, to the Australians last minute try, it had everything that would have those still optimistic that league can be a legitimate global sport grinning from ear to ear (even if the global sport only has a handful of competitors).
It was a match that would have had England and France wide eyed in shock, although both sides may have been smiling to see their opposition teams smash each other up.
But on the form of the opening round, it will take a huge upset for either of the European hosts to stop either the World Champions or the number one ranked team in the world.
The opening clash between them looked to provide a surprise of its own, after the French came back from England’s opening try to lead 12-4 at halftime.
Les Chanteclairs were playing an up tempo and wide based game that England initially struggled with, before they came back and scored five second half tries to run out comfortable winners.
England coach Tony Smith and his side were dealt a timely reality check by the fifth ranked French (Fiji is ranked fourth in the world). England now knows that a victory over either New Zealand or Australia guarantees them a place in the final.
Coming into this tournament England had a point to prove, especially on their turf, and after watching the two current world leaders shake the foundations in their opening clash, it will not be any easier to foot it with either team.
England have already stated they intend to take a leaf out of New Zealand’s book and rattle the Australians, but it is likely the kangaroos will be far more prepared after being so thoroughly tested by the World Champions.
As for New Zealand, they will look to maintain the intensity against France.
Often international rugby league tournaments can be lost by the teams that do not have the luxury of tough matches, but by evidence of the opening round, it could be the team that emerges unscathed that hoists the trophy at Elland Road on the 14th November.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Modern man is a weakling compared to our ancient ancestors
According to some recent studies, the theory of evolution may just be that, with findings that our male ancestors were actually our physical superiors.
The concept of evolution details that over time the world has changed and so have the species that inhabit the planet.
Humans as a species are an absolute baby in the grand timeline of history, with some records dating that the earth’s origins can be traced back an astonishing 4.5 billion years. Modern day geologists and geophysicists have determined this with radiometric age dating of numerous substances, including lunar samples and mineral deposits around the world.
In this time the world has seen some periods and ages that too many would seem an absolute fantasy.
Considering that the planet earth has seen five extinction based events (events that destroyed a huge number of species and most life on the planet) going back as far as approximately 550 million years ago, the world as we know it today is essentially just a period in a massive time line of history. Nearly 99 percent of all species that have ever lived on the earth are extinct!
For the record the last extinction event is classified as the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, which happened 65.5 million years ago and rendered the dinosaurs destroyed.
Our ancient ancestors, the genus (which classifies a living organism) of homo, can be traced back as far as 2.5 million years. This is in line with the early evidence of stone tools and classifies the beginning of what is referred to as the Lower Paleolithic age – the time when are most ancient ancestors lived.
All of these species of Homo are now extinct, except for Homo sapiens, which is what we all are. Our oldest relative is thought to be the Homo Neanderthalensis, which was thought to have died out between 20,000 and 24,000 years ago.
Some evidence suggests that another species (relative!) called the Homo Floresiensis; oddly nicknamed by some scientists as “Hobbit” because of their small size, may have lived as recently as 12,000 years ago.
But while we believe we are getting faster and stronger, thanks to modern science and the exploits of runners and swimmers breaking more and more records, and certain strongmen, such as bodybuilders, being bigger and stronger than ever before; it appears that we are at the ass end of evolution.
Research suggests that we would have stood no chance against our ancestors in a classic battle of physical power or speed.
While we do have more resources and science to enable us in theory to become a specimen unlike anything ever seen, we are a society that has become more dormant than any other in recent memory.
Peter McAllister, the author of Manthropology: the Science of Inadequate Modern Man, has come up with hard evidence of our ancestor’s superior physical attributes.
Analysing sets of foot prints preserved in a fossilised lake bed, conclusion has been reached that Australian aboriginals 20,000 years ago, which was a period shift for Homo, reached speeds of 23 mph.
To put this in perspective, Usain Bolt, who carries the illustrious tag of being the fastest man on the planet, reached a top speed of 26 mph during his Beijing Olympics gold medal winning performance.
He ran 100 metres in 9.69 seconds.
McAllister claims that with modern training and science, our ancestors could reach speeds of up to 28 or even 30mph.
The same conclusions are met in regards to muscle mass and strength.
The reality is that muscle conditioning is a by product of constant physical activity, something that most people lack to the point of it being a pandemic in some countries.
To really sum up his point, McAllister - a noted anthropologist - writes in the opening pages of his book a statement which really is a scathing attack on the modern man.
"If you're reading this then you – or the male you have bought it for – are the worst man in history. No ifs, no buts – the worst man, period.”
He says the reason is the level of inactivity, even when comparing us with people decades ago.
“At the start of the industrial revolution there are statistics about how much harder people worked then. The human body is very plastic, and it responds to stress.”
"We have lost 40 per cent of the shafts of our long bones, because we have much less of a muscular load placed upon them these days.”
Realistically these findings are probably not a great surprise despite modern athletes being stronger and faster, but beyond these hard training specimens, for the bulk of the population, it is a damning find.
Motivation to go for a run now perhaps cave people?
The concept of evolution details that over time the world has changed and so have the species that inhabit the planet.
Humans as a species are an absolute baby in the grand timeline of history, with some records dating that the earth’s origins can be traced back an astonishing 4.5 billion years. Modern day geologists and geophysicists have determined this with radiometric age dating of numerous substances, including lunar samples and mineral deposits around the world.
In this time the world has seen some periods and ages that too many would seem an absolute fantasy.
Considering that the planet earth has seen five extinction based events (events that destroyed a huge number of species and most life on the planet) going back as far as approximately 550 million years ago, the world as we know it today is essentially just a period in a massive time line of history. Nearly 99 percent of all species that have ever lived on the earth are extinct!
For the record the last extinction event is classified as the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, which happened 65.5 million years ago and rendered the dinosaurs destroyed.
Our ancient ancestors, the genus (which classifies a living organism) of homo, can be traced back as far as 2.5 million years. This is in line with the early evidence of stone tools and classifies the beginning of what is referred to as the Lower Paleolithic age – the time when are most ancient ancestors lived.
All of these species of Homo are now extinct, except for Homo sapiens, which is what we all are. Our oldest relative is thought to be the Homo Neanderthalensis, which was thought to have died out between 20,000 and 24,000 years ago.
Some evidence suggests that another species (relative!) called the Homo Floresiensis; oddly nicknamed by some scientists as “Hobbit” because of their small size, may have lived as recently as 12,000 years ago.
But while we believe we are getting faster and stronger, thanks to modern science and the exploits of runners and swimmers breaking more and more records, and certain strongmen, such as bodybuilders, being bigger and stronger than ever before; it appears that we are at the ass end of evolution.
Research suggests that we would have stood no chance against our ancestors in a classic battle of physical power or speed.
While we do have more resources and science to enable us in theory to become a specimen unlike anything ever seen, we are a society that has become more dormant than any other in recent memory.
Peter McAllister, the author of Manthropology: the Science of Inadequate Modern Man, has come up with hard evidence of our ancestor’s superior physical attributes.
Analysing sets of foot prints preserved in a fossilised lake bed, conclusion has been reached that Australian aboriginals 20,000 years ago, which was a period shift for Homo, reached speeds of 23 mph.
To put this in perspective, Usain Bolt, who carries the illustrious tag of being the fastest man on the planet, reached a top speed of 26 mph during his Beijing Olympics gold medal winning performance.
He ran 100 metres in 9.69 seconds.
McAllister claims that with modern training and science, our ancestors could reach speeds of up to 28 or even 30mph.
The same conclusions are met in regards to muscle mass and strength.
The reality is that muscle conditioning is a by product of constant physical activity, something that most people lack to the point of it being a pandemic in some countries.
To really sum up his point, McAllister - a noted anthropologist - writes in the opening pages of his book a statement which really is a scathing attack on the modern man.
"If you're reading this then you – or the male you have bought it for – are the worst man in history. No ifs, no buts – the worst man, period.”
He says the reason is the level of inactivity, even when comparing us with people decades ago.
“At the start of the industrial revolution there are statistics about how much harder people worked then. The human body is very plastic, and it responds to stress.”
"We have lost 40 per cent of the shafts of our long bones, because we have much less of a muscular load placed upon them these days.”
Realistically these findings are probably not a great surprise despite modern athletes being stronger and faster, but beyond these hard training specimens, for the bulk of the population, it is a damning find.
Motivation to go for a run now perhaps cave people?
Monday, October 19, 2009
2009 Rugby League Four Nations Preview
In what is now the secondary competition to the Rugby League World Cup internationally, we see four teams of mixed strength arrive in Europe to contest the crown that anoints current world supremacy.
New Zealand will play in their first major tournament wearing the illustrious crown of World Champions. After their remarkable 34-20 win over Australia in the 2008 Rugby League World Cup, this Four Nations will be the time for the kiwi’s to prove that they were more than a one trick pony.
So far this has proven to be the case, with the much hyped rematch in this year’s ANZAC test between the two sides resulting in a 38-10 slaughter at the hands of the retribution seeking Kangaroos.
With a young squad and missing many key players, New Zealand will compete against England and France, but as always will be on the back foot against the number one ranked side in the world, and deserved tournament favourites Australia.
The Kangaroo’s march on Europe with their typical star studded roster, with a healthy spread of stars centred around six of the Premiership winning Melbourne Storm winning side.
Since losing the World Cup there is no doubt that the Australian’s have targeted this tournament as a statement maker.
The 14 point loss to New Zealand wasn’t so much an upset as a great tear in the fabric of the rugby league cosmos.
It broke the Kangaroo’s 33 year hold on the trophy, having won six consecutive events. It was only the fourth time that a team other than Australia had won the competition, their first World Cup match loss since 1995, and the first time since 1972 they had lost a final. It was also Australia’s first loss overall since losing to Great Britain in 2006, and their first loss to New Zealand in three years.
Ordinarily the word revenge isn’t uttered, but there is no doubt that Australia wish to remind New Zealand and the world of the balance of the power.
Still, while many believe that it be an Australia V New Zealand final, Kangaroo’s team manager has warned that despite such a talented squad and their favouritism; that the World Champions are still to be respected.
Especially considering New Zealand are better performers in major tournaments than one off tests, with the team not only winning the World Cup, but smashing Australia 24-0 in the 2005 Tri Nations tournament.
Allen believes that Australia might have suffered from poor build ups, beating Fiji 52-0 in the World Cup semi final and thumping France 44-12 before their 2005 final match with the kiwis.
New Zealand had tough matches against England and Great Britain before encountering Australia.
England though, the third ranked team in the world, will be keen to make a point now that they will remain their own entity, rather than being a British hybrid in the guise of “Great Britain”.
While they had an average World Cup in 2008, losing 52-4 to Australia and losing twice to New Zealand by at least 10 points, they will enter this tournament on some element of form, having beaten France in Paris 66-12 earlier this year and Wales 48-12 a few days ago in Bridgend.
They will look to make a statement, in accordance with how powerful they are in the Super League. Realistically the competition is not far off the quality of the NRL, and while typically not as fast paced as the Australian league games, it certainly is a lot more uncompromising.
Certainly when looking at the World Club Challenge, between the Super League Champions and the NRL Premiers, with the SL clubs leading the ledger 11-6, there is enough quality for the English to stand up and deliver.
While their players are spread out, current champions Leeds, runners up St Helens and Warrington provide 13 of their squad, and with all of their games at home, they should target the final if they want to show they can mix it with the Australians and New Zealanders.
France, the fifth ranked nation in the world (Fiji is fourth) is a bit of an unknown quantity.
While the country has a rich tradition in league, they are far from the famous sides of the 1950’s – who regularly beat Australia and New Zealand – and of the late seventies, where in 1978 France famously defeated the Kangaroo’s back to back.
They draw the bulk of their players from the Catalans Dragons, who finished eighth in this year’s Super League with 13 wins and 14 losses.
While it is unfair to suggest they are just making up the numbers, they will need to draw on their famous home support when playing the Southern twin powers in Toulouse and Paris.
For the sake of the tournament and the depth of world rugby league, let us cheer Les Chanteclairs and hope for a wonderful Four Nations.
2009 Rugby League Four Nations Fixtures
Round one
23rd October, England V France @ Doncaster, England
24th October, New Zealand V Australia @ London, England
Round two
31st October, England V Australia @ Wigan, England
31st October, France V New Zealand @ Toulouse, France
Round three
7th November, England V New Zealand @ Huddersfield, England
7th November, France V Australia @ Paris, France
FINAL
14th November @ Elland Road, Leeds, England
FOUR NATIONS SQUADS
Australia
Coach: Tim Sheens (Wests Tigers)
Brisbane Broncos - Darren Lockyer (c), Justin Hodges and Sam Thaiday
Canberra Raiders - David Shillington
Canterbury Bulldogs - Ben Hannant and Josh Morris
Cronulla Sharks - Paul Gallen
Manly Sea Eagles - Anthony Watmough
Melbourne Storm - Cooper Cronk, Ryan Hoffman, Greg Inglis, Billy Slater, Cameron Smith and Brett White
Newcastle Knights - Kurt Gidley
North Queensland Cowboys - Johnathan Thurston
Parramatta Eels - Jarryd Hayne and Nathan Hindmarsh
Penrith Panthers - Petero Civoniceva, Michael Jennings, Luke Lewis and Trent Waterhouse
St George Illawarra Dragons - Brett Morris (replacement for Israel Folau)
Wests Tigers - Robbie Farah
New Zealand
Coach: Stephen Kearney (Melbourne Storm)
Canberra Raiders - Bronson Harrison
Canterbury Bulldogs - Greg Eastwood and Bryson Goodwin
Manly Sea Eagles - Kieran Foran, Steve Matai and Jared Waerea-Hargreaves
Melbourne Storm - Adam Blair and Jeff Lima
Newcastle Knights - Junior Sau
New Zealand Warriors - Lance Hohaia, Kevin Locke and Ben Matulino
Parramatta Eels - Krisnan Inu and Fuifui Moimoi
Penrith Panthers - Frank Pritchard
South Sydney Rabbitohs - Issac Luke
St George Illawarra Dragons - Nathan Fien and Jason Nightingale
Sydney Roosters - Frank-Paul Nuuausala, Sam Perrett and Iosia Soliola
Wests Tigers - Benji Marshall (c)
Wigan Warriors - Thomas Leuluai
England
Coach Tony Smith (Warrington Wolves)
Bradford Bulls - Sam Burgess and Paul Sykes
Castleford Tigers - Michael Shenton
Huddersfield Giants - Eorl Crabtree and Scott Moore
Hull KR - Shaun Briscoe and Peter Fox
Leeds Rhinos - Jamie Peacock (c), Ryan Hall, Danny McGuire, Kevin Sinfield and Lee Smith
Salford Reds - Richard Myler
St Helens RLFC - Kyle Eastmond, James Graham, James Roby and Jon Wilkin
Warrington Wolves - Chris Bridge, Garreth Carvell, Adrian Morley and Ben Westwood
Wests Tigers - Gareth Ellis
Wigan Warriors - Sean O'Loughlin and Sam Tomkins
France
Coach: Bobbie Goulding
AS Carcassonne - Romain Gagliazzo, Christophe Moly and Teddy Saddaoui
Catalans Dragons - Olivier Elima (c), Jean-Philippe Baile, Thomas Bosc, Remi Casty, Vincent Duport, Jamal Fakir, David Ferriol, Cyril Gossard, Gregory Mounis, Dimitri Pelo, Sebastien Raguin, Cyril Stacul and Julien Touxagas, Clint Greenshields
Lezignan Sangliers - Jared Taylor and James Wynne
Toulouse Olympique - Eric Anselme, Mathieu Griffi, Sylvain Houles, Sebastien Planas and Constant Villegas
New Zealand will play in their first major tournament wearing the illustrious crown of World Champions. After their remarkable 34-20 win over Australia in the 2008 Rugby League World Cup, this Four Nations will be the time for the kiwi’s to prove that they were more than a one trick pony.
So far this has proven to be the case, with the much hyped rematch in this year’s ANZAC test between the two sides resulting in a 38-10 slaughter at the hands of the retribution seeking Kangaroos.
With a young squad and missing many key players, New Zealand will compete against England and France, but as always will be on the back foot against the number one ranked side in the world, and deserved tournament favourites Australia.
The Kangaroo’s march on Europe with their typical star studded roster, with a healthy spread of stars centred around six of the Premiership winning Melbourne Storm winning side.
Since losing the World Cup there is no doubt that the Australian’s have targeted this tournament as a statement maker.
The 14 point loss to New Zealand wasn’t so much an upset as a great tear in the fabric of the rugby league cosmos.
It broke the Kangaroo’s 33 year hold on the trophy, having won six consecutive events. It was only the fourth time that a team other than Australia had won the competition, their first World Cup match loss since 1995, and the first time since 1972 they had lost a final. It was also Australia’s first loss overall since losing to Great Britain in 2006, and their first loss to New Zealand in three years.
Ordinarily the word revenge isn’t uttered, but there is no doubt that Australia wish to remind New Zealand and the world of the balance of the power.
Still, while many believe that it be an Australia V New Zealand final, Kangaroo’s team manager has warned that despite such a talented squad and their favouritism; that the World Champions are still to be respected.
Especially considering New Zealand are better performers in major tournaments than one off tests, with the team not only winning the World Cup, but smashing Australia 24-0 in the 2005 Tri Nations tournament.
Allen believes that Australia might have suffered from poor build ups, beating Fiji 52-0 in the World Cup semi final and thumping France 44-12 before their 2005 final match with the kiwis.
New Zealand had tough matches against England and Great Britain before encountering Australia.
England though, the third ranked team in the world, will be keen to make a point now that they will remain their own entity, rather than being a British hybrid in the guise of “Great Britain”.
While they had an average World Cup in 2008, losing 52-4 to Australia and losing twice to New Zealand by at least 10 points, they will enter this tournament on some element of form, having beaten France in Paris 66-12 earlier this year and Wales 48-12 a few days ago in Bridgend.
They will look to make a statement, in accordance with how powerful they are in the Super League. Realistically the competition is not far off the quality of the NRL, and while typically not as fast paced as the Australian league games, it certainly is a lot more uncompromising.
Certainly when looking at the World Club Challenge, between the Super League Champions and the NRL Premiers, with the SL clubs leading the ledger 11-6, there is enough quality for the English to stand up and deliver.
While their players are spread out, current champions Leeds, runners up St Helens and Warrington provide 13 of their squad, and with all of their games at home, they should target the final if they want to show they can mix it with the Australians and New Zealanders.
France, the fifth ranked nation in the world (Fiji is fourth) is a bit of an unknown quantity.
While the country has a rich tradition in league, they are far from the famous sides of the 1950’s – who regularly beat Australia and New Zealand – and of the late seventies, where in 1978 France famously defeated the Kangaroo’s back to back.
They draw the bulk of their players from the Catalans Dragons, who finished eighth in this year’s Super League with 13 wins and 14 losses.
While it is unfair to suggest they are just making up the numbers, they will need to draw on their famous home support when playing the Southern twin powers in Toulouse and Paris.
For the sake of the tournament and the depth of world rugby league, let us cheer Les Chanteclairs and hope for a wonderful Four Nations.
2009 Rugby League Four Nations Fixtures
Round one
23rd October, England V France @ Doncaster, England
24th October, New Zealand V Australia @ London, England
Round two
31st October, England V Australia @ Wigan, England
31st October, France V New Zealand @ Toulouse, France
Round three
7th November, England V New Zealand @ Huddersfield, England
7th November, France V Australia @ Paris, France
FINAL
14th November @ Elland Road, Leeds, England
FOUR NATIONS SQUADS
Australia
Coach: Tim Sheens (Wests Tigers)
Brisbane Broncos - Darren Lockyer (c), Justin Hodges and Sam Thaiday
Canberra Raiders - David Shillington
Canterbury Bulldogs - Ben Hannant and Josh Morris
Cronulla Sharks - Paul Gallen
Manly Sea Eagles - Anthony Watmough
Melbourne Storm - Cooper Cronk, Ryan Hoffman, Greg Inglis, Billy Slater, Cameron Smith and Brett White
Newcastle Knights - Kurt Gidley
North Queensland Cowboys - Johnathan Thurston
Parramatta Eels - Jarryd Hayne and Nathan Hindmarsh
Penrith Panthers - Petero Civoniceva, Michael Jennings, Luke Lewis and Trent Waterhouse
St George Illawarra Dragons - Brett Morris (replacement for Israel Folau)
Wests Tigers - Robbie Farah
New Zealand
Coach: Stephen Kearney (Melbourne Storm)
Canberra Raiders - Bronson Harrison
Canterbury Bulldogs - Greg Eastwood and Bryson Goodwin
Manly Sea Eagles - Kieran Foran, Steve Matai and Jared Waerea-Hargreaves
Melbourne Storm - Adam Blair and Jeff Lima
Newcastle Knights - Junior Sau
New Zealand Warriors - Lance Hohaia, Kevin Locke and Ben Matulino
Parramatta Eels - Krisnan Inu and Fuifui Moimoi
Penrith Panthers - Frank Pritchard
South Sydney Rabbitohs - Issac Luke
St George Illawarra Dragons - Nathan Fien and Jason Nightingale
Sydney Roosters - Frank-Paul Nuuausala, Sam Perrett and Iosia Soliola
Wests Tigers - Benji Marshall (c)
Wigan Warriors - Thomas Leuluai
England
Coach Tony Smith (Warrington Wolves)
Bradford Bulls - Sam Burgess and Paul Sykes
Castleford Tigers - Michael Shenton
Huddersfield Giants - Eorl Crabtree and Scott Moore
Hull KR - Shaun Briscoe and Peter Fox
Leeds Rhinos - Jamie Peacock (c), Ryan Hall, Danny McGuire, Kevin Sinfield and Lee Smith
Salford Reds - Richard Myler
St Helens RLFC - Kyle Eastmond, James Graham, James Roby and Jon Wilkin
Warrington Wolves - Chris Bridge, Garreth Carvell, Adrian Morley and Ben Westwood
Wests Tigers - Gareth Ellis
Wigan Warriors - Sean O'Loughlin and Sam Tomkins
France
Coach: Bobbie Goulding
AS Carcassonne - Romain Gagliazzo, Christophe Moly and Teddy Saddaoui
Catalans Dragons - Olivier Elima (c), Jean-Philippe Baile, Thomas Bosc, Remi Casty, Vincent Duport, Jamal Fakir, David Ferriol, Cyril Gossard, Gregory Mounis, Dimitri Pelo, Sebastien Raguin, Cyril Stacul and Julien Touxagas, Clint Greenshields
Lezignan Sangliers - Jared Taylor and James Wynne
Toulouse Olympique - Eric Anselme, Mathieu Griffi, Sylvain Houles, Sebastien Planas and Constant Villegas
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Arctic Ice - Far too valuable to lose, especially in next 10-20 years
New reports have revealed that the Arctic Ice cap will completely disappear in the next few decades, contradicting earlier reports and studies that perhaps we were going to be lucky enough to have a Northern Ice shelf for another century or two.
As with all studies, it will come with its share of critics, as there are with the entire concept of global warming. The essence in all these studies for mine is the fact that they do actually come with supporting arguments.
As the toll is still to be genuinely felt around the world in regards to global warming or climate change, it is with some trepidation that we may have to wait for a major event to convince the policy makers of the need for serious, immediate and drastic change.
With just two months until arguably the most important summit the world has ever seen regarding this, one wonders whether these latest alarm bells will galvanise people into real action, or just promote more political posturing.
The melting of this key planetary balancing system, a major environmental control factor for planet earth, could be this occurrence.
British polar adventurer Pen Hadow and two others spent over two months at the Arctic ice cap over the northern spring (march to may), taking thousands of measurements and observations of the polar shelf, which have in turn been studied by numerous experts.
One such man, Cambridge University’s Professor Peter Wadhams, an expert on the Arctic ice and head of polar ocean physics group at Britain’s Cambridge University, believes that the area will be ice free during summer months in perhaps 20 years.
"The summer ice cover will completely vanish in 20 to 30 years but in less than that it will have considerably retreated," said Wadhams.
"In about 10 years, the Arctic ice will be considered as open sea."
"An average thickness of 1.8 metres is typical of first year ice, which is more vulnerable in the summer. And the multi-year ice is shrinking back more rapidly."
"It's a concrete example of global change in action."
"With a larger part of the region now in first year ice, it is clearly more vulnerable. The area is now more likely to become open water each summer, bringing forward the potential date when the summer sea ice will be completely gone."
This, as mentioned above, is a massive advance on earlier predictions. Most forecasts said that this event would not occur until around 2100-2200. With grim irony, the statement “out of sight out of mind” seems to mould to “out of lifespan, out of care” when it comes to the potentially cataclysmic events that could occur with such global shifts.
Why worry about it when it will not affect a single current living human?
Many believe that the melting of the polar icecaps most severe follow through would be the rising of the world’s sea levels, but the lack of ice cover sets in play far more powerful modifications.
The flooding itself could affect approximately 1-2 billion people, which is roughly the number of people that live at sea level. Global weather patterns would obviously change, but increases in greenhouse gas emission would spike due to the little known fact that polar ice shelves act as massive super coolers for the earth’s atmosphere.
Some populations, such as the Maldives, the lowest country on the planet (average ground level of 1.5 metres, with its highest point being 2.3 metres) would cease to exist. 2009 estimates put the Maldivian population at over 300,000.
However the flooding would not come from the melted Arctic ice itself, but rather the ensuing increases in temperature that would then affect overall climate or land based ice.
The way that the energy and heat from the sun is absorbed will irrevocably adapt without an Arctic ice cap. Most notably the way it reflects or absorbs energy, or how temperature based ocean currents, including the all important Gulf Stream, affect global climate.
The Arctic is a brilliant natural reflector thanks to phenomena called the albedo.
Effectively it refers to the reflectivity of an object, similar to wearing a black T-shirt in the sun and getting hot, or wearing a white one and feeling cooler. It is measured from 0 to 1.
Ice is second only to snow for the amount of albedo (or rating), coming in at .5 to .7, and hence maintaining the mean temperature of the planet. Open water reflects barely .1, which means that the added heat absorbed into the Arctic Ocean will increase local and regional temperatures.
This increase could affect Greenland, and increase the mean temperatures of the permafrost areas of Canada and Russia. Not only could this in turn dump millions of tonnes of fresh water into the ocean, but release methane which in turn again, would increase temperatures.
That is the horror of such events, of major climate change incidents.
If one does indeed occur, it will start a chain reaction that we will be powerless to stop.
As well as humans, animals and local arctic species will suffer, if not become extinct.
But once the Ice has gone, there are estimated vast reserves of gas and oil underneath the Arctic. Who would it belong too? Would this then lead to a conflict over territory?
What of the new shipping lanes opened up by ice free Northern oceans?
These are all questions that would arguably be too difficult to answer, but at the moment the subject and information at hand is being largely avoided. There is far too much information at hand for this to be dismissed by sceptics, and accordingly we shall await Copenhagen with hushed breath.
As with all studies, it will come with its share of critics, as there are with the entire concept of global warming. The essence in all these studies for mine is the fact that they do actually come with supporting arguments.
As the toll is still to be genuinely felt around the world in regards to global warming or climate change, it is with some trepidation that we may have to wait for a major event to convince the policy makers of the need for serious, immediate and drastic change.
With just two months until arguably the most important summit the world has ever seen regarding this, one wonders whether these latest alarm bells will galvanise people into real action, or just promote more political posturing.
The melting of this key planetary balancing system, a major environmental control factor for planet earth, could be this occurrence.
British polar adventurer Pen Hadow and two others spent over two months at the Arctic ice cap over the northern spring (march to may), taking thousands of measurements and observations of the polar shelf, which have in turn been studied by numerous experts.
One such man, Cambridge University’s Professor Peter Wadhams, an expert on the Arctic ice and head of polar ocean physics group at Britain’s Cambridge University, believes that the area will be ice free during summer months in perhaps 20 years.
"The summer ice cover will completely vanish in 20 to 30 years but in less than that it will have considerably retreated," said Wadhams.
"In about 10 years, the Arctic ice will be considered as open sea."
"An average thickness of 1.8 metres is typical of first year ice, which is more vulnerable in the summer. And the multi-year ice is shrinking back more rapidly."
"It's a concrete example of global change in action."
"With a larger part of the region now in first year ice, it is clearly more vulnerable. The area is now more likely to become open water each summer, bringing forward the potential date when the summer sea ice will be completely gone."
This, as mentioned above, is a massive advance on earlier predictions. Most forecasts said that this event would not occur until around 2100-2200. With grim irony, the statement “out of sight out of mind” seems to mould to “out of lifespan, out of care” when it comes to the potentially cataclysmic events that could occur with such global shifts.
Why worry about it when it will not affect a single current living human?
Many believe that the melting of the polar icecaps most severe follow through would be the rising of the world’s sea levels, but the lack of ice cover sets in play far more powerful modifications.
The flooding itself could affect approximately 1-2 billion people, which is roughly the number of people that live at sea level. Global weather patterns would obviously change, but increases in greenhouse gas emission would spike due to the little known fact that polar ice shelves act as massive super coolers for the earth’s atmosphere.
Some populations, such as the Maldives, the lowest country on the planet (average ground level of 1.5 metres, with its highest point being 2.3 metres) would cease to exist. 2009 estimates put the Maldivian population at over 300,000.
However the flooding would not come from the melted Arctic ice itself, but rather the ensuing increases in temperature that would then affect overall climate or land based ice.
The way that the energy and heat from the sun is absorbed will irrevocably adapt without an Arctic ice cap. Most notably the way it reflects or absorbs energy, or how temperature based ocean currents, including the all important Gulf Stream, affect global climate.
The Arctic is a brilliant natural reflector thanks to phenomena called the albedo.
Effectively it refers to the reflectivity of an object, similar to wearing a black T-shirt in the sun and getting hot, or wearing a white one and feeling cooler. It is measured from 0 to 1.
Ice is second only to snow for the amount of albedo (or rating), coming in at .5 to .7, and hence maintaining the mean temperature of the planet. Open water reflects barely .1, which means that the added heat absorbed into the Arctic Ocean will increase local and regional temperatures.
This increase could affect Greenland, and increase the mean temperatures of the permafrost areas of Canada and Russia. Not only could this in turn dump millions of tonnes of fresh water into the ocean, but release methane which in turn again, would increase temperatures.
That is the horror of such events, of major climate change incidents.
If one does indeed occur, it will start a chain reaction that we will be powerless to stop.
As well as humans, animals and local arctic species will suffer, if not become extinct.
But once the Ice has gone, there are estimated vast reserves of gas and oil underneath the Arctic. Who would it belong too? Would this then lead to a conflict over territory?
What of the new shipping lanes opened up by ice free Northern oceans?
These are all questions that would arguably be too difficult to answer, but at the moment the subject and information at hand is being largely avoided. There is far too much information at hand for this to be dismissed by sceptics, and accordingly we shall await Copenhagen with hushed breath.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Afghanistan and the United States - The unwinnable war?
In October 7th 2001, two key military operations were launched. While the actual operations are regarded by many as the War in Afghanistan, the purpose of the "invasion" is actually a little more complex.
The United States launched Operation Enduring Freedom, and the British executed Operation Herrick. These were essentially in response to the September 11 attacks in 2001 in which nearly 3,000 lives were lost.
The other major miltary operation is the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) established by the UN Security Council late 2001. Essentially their mission is more of a securement focus, and represents over 60,000 military personal. NATO members provide the bulk of the force, with the US contingent numbering close to half the troops.
However, the war itself is not so much on Afghanistan, as much as it is against both Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Actions were being undertaken and strategies in place far before the above military operations were launched.
Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have always had a loose alliance or treaty with the Taliban, and after the 1998 US embassy bombings, the Americans had launched pre-emptive and restrictive missile and bombing strikes on the Taliban camps.
Essentially, that is the primary aim of this invasion, to find Bin Laden, destroy Al-Qaeda, and essentially remove the Taliban, who were (are) giving haven to the terrorists.
It was official US policy under George Bush that it there was no distinction between either terrorists nor nations or governments that harbored them.
The timeline leading to the Afghan invasion was clear.
On September 20th, 2001, Bush delivered an ultimatum to the Taliban government of Afghanistan demanding numerous actions, including the deliverance of Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda authorities, closure of terrorist camps, and so forth.
"They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate" said Bush. "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there."
The Taliban responded claiming there was no evidence that linked Bin Laden to the September 11 attacks (although he did essentially claim responsibility) but did make it plain that Bin Laden was a guest in their country, and that codes of behaviour (under Pashtun law) required that such guests be granted full asylum.
All countries, with the exception of Pakistan, effectively severed all ties recognising the Taliban as any form of legal government within days of the announcement.
On October 7th, 2001, the Taliban did offer Bin Laden, but only to an Islamic court in Afghanistan. The US rejected this offer and commenced hostilities the same day.
A week later the Taliban offered Bin Laden to a "neutral" country for trial, but only if bombing and attacks halted and evidence was offered as to Al-Qaeda's guilt.
U.S. President Bush declared "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty."
While the United Nations did not authorise the campaign, effectively many viewed this as a moot point, as the invasion was considered an act of self-defence, under Article 51 of the United Nations charter.
The US did not declare war, but labelled Taliban terrorists and not soldiers, denying them protections of law and of the Geneva Convention. This stance has been backed by the US Supreme Court.
So far over 1,400 coalition troops have been killed, over 5,000 Afghan security forces and over 100 civilian contractors.
Over 22,000 insurgents (the Taliban) are reported dead.
But after eight years, how long can this go on?
The news appears to be getting worse in Afghanistan, and it now appears that a surge may be implemented into the war theatre, with some US commanders looking at the addition of up to 60,000 troops.
There is real fear now that this war may be unwinnable, with recent attacks in Pakistan showing that the Taliban are adapting. The words unbeatable are probably a bit rich, considering that they are waging war with the most powerful and well funded military machine the world has ever seen.
But as Iraq showed (and Vietnam before it) while the United States prides itself on its ability to adapt to any enemy, any terrain - sometimes they can be slow learners.
And often as history has shown, it is near impossible to remove a native people from their land.
The Afghan elections were seen by many as a giant farce, and corruption is rife, while the poppy trade; one of the biggest economical earners in the country, is thriving.
Numerous polls of late, namely by CNN and Fox, has shown that support for the war amongst Americans is waning, but Obama and other world leaders have stressed that this war is crucial.
Perhaps ironic that the war's biggest advocate is the latest peace prize winner?
But Obama is ready to answer tough questions regarding the region.
"Many people in the United States -- and many in partner countries that have sacrificed so much -- have a simple question: What is our purpose in Afghanistan?" the president said.
"After so many years, they ask, why do our men and women still fight and die there? And they deserve a straightforward answer. So let me be clear: Al Qaeda and its allies -- the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks -- are in Pakistan and Afghanistan."
"Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban -- or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged -- that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can."
The reality now, is that this war must be won. For in essence, failure to achieve the result, even if that remains clouded, would be a victory far beyond any terrorist bomb or suicide attack.
What has made this war a bit more colluded is the fact that Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal, and the entire region now is at risk due to the instability with the Afghan insurgency.
Still, it is a war that is not without it's associated conspiracies, in a world where it now seems impossible for a war not to be fought, on one front or another. Perhaps the question should be asked is what are the military forces of democracy going to do with no Iraq or Afghanistan to hold their attention?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
