Heat Transfer - they come off the Equator and traverse the semi-hemisphere to the Arctic areas, carrying moisture from tropical systems to the Arctic

March 2, 2010
16:15:14z
UNISYS North and West Infrared Satellite (click title to entry for 12 hour loop)


February 28, 2010
1800 utc
Western Hemisphere GOES East Infrared Satellite

SeaWorld Orlando Killer Whale Trainer Dawn Brancheau Laid to Rest (VIDEO)

I have no doubt that Dawn loved the Orcas she worked with, but, the reason they are 'on display' at Sea World may be mute.

I remember the first time I saw an Orca in captivity. I had my two young sons at Sea World in Orlando. It was six weeks after Baby Shamu was born. The idea then was to breed Orcas in captivity to prevent any cruelty from capturing and training wild Orcas.

I've been to other Sea World facilities as well. The Ohio complex. Was there several times with the boys. My impression then was the same as it is now, the facilities are far too small to accommodate these large mammals.

Orcas in captivity are indeed very valuable ambassadors for their ocean going peer group. The public definately makes moral decisions about these mammals and all captive wildlife when approached in a controlled environment. As human beings we can sit in judgement of the other species that inhabit Earth. Scary thought really, because people can literally make Earth sterile.

Some that value greed over life would state that is a good thing. It isn't, because to destroy the Earth's biotic content is pure foolishness. Humans need the same elements of Earth to survive that other creatures need. Quite frankly, if there was a healthy balance to all of Earth's context, humanity would not be facing the dangers to the troposphere that it is facing today.

But, that isn't the point here, or is it?

The issue is what do we as a civilized people do with marine mammals that are basically estranged from their natural habitat? How do we look at them? In pity? Or as captives? And what does that say about us as a society?

Dawn's death is wrong. Regardless, of the reason she would state her death is 'part of the scheme' of protecting these creatures in the wild, her death is wrong. We can debate the reason for the Orcas behavior and try to make their lives better and kinder, but, to allow this to continue is simply negligence. She may not want the Orca destroyed, but, that really isn't her call and it never was.

Without Dawn and other trainers alive to act in unison with these ambassadors there isn't any reason to have them in captivity at all.Their trainers, no different than caretakers of zoos are necessary to meet their needs and see to their well being.

These Orcas are first animals and they are allowed to be in captivity. Humans are allowed to enjoy their ability to entertain, if society finds that a valuable commodity. That is the 'legalese' of the issue, but, it isn't completely now is it?

Dying really should not be a reality in handling these mammals. I doubt seriously any trainer goes into practice with Sea World anticipating some day the dangers they confront will kill them. But, it does become a reality they face and in that the 'real danger' becomes more casual than it should.

Now as to the morality of the issue, that is something the legalese does not address. At least not completely.

Ric O'Berry has the right idea. There needs to be better living conditions for these Orcas. An offshore or near shore complex where literally they 'go for vacation' from the rigors of tanks of water. I believe Sea World needs to re-evaluate its continued interactions with Orcas and I would strongly suggest they find an alliance with Ric to come to a resolve regarding these mammals.

Breeding for the purpose of having performers is a huge issue. We have seen a very, very similar topic take shape with elephants. This is no different.

Humans have to make room for nature. It isn't profitable to do so. But, then morality is not necessarily profitable.

I think Ric O'Berry has the right idea, but, we already know the mammals that are in captivity will be unsuccessful in the wild. It is time to decide where indeed their lives become hideous to their purpose.

The other consideration is the gene pool of the Orcas and where that is all headed. If captive animals are bred without infusion of wild stock the gene pool will produce individuals that cannot function. It is not the purpose of Marine Mammals to make Sea World or any other marine mammal facility profitable. The Marine Mammal Protection Act must prohibit any removal of marine mammals from the wild gene pool for the purpose of profitable ventures. These are all highly endangered mammals.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act needs to be amended to include the protection of those in captivity and how their status is viewed and resolved. It is a complex moral issue, but, it does need to be addressed. These mammals need more protections and not less and certainly not more casual laws.

I'll put it this way, the folks in New York City that visit the Museum of Natural History to witness the 100 foot model of The Blue Whale, "get it."

I wouldn't worry so much about the looting. Most of what is being taken is probably broken anyway.

This is probably considered 'an act of god' and the insurance companies won't be coming around to assess the damage.

Any chance while they are looting they might be saving lives?



...The international community is mobilizing relief for Chile. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will visit Santiago briefly Tuesday, bringing emergency communications equipment.

The United Nations said Chile needs mobile bridges, field hospitals, dialysis equipment and other medical supplies, as well as food and shelter.

President Michelle Bachelet sent 10,000 soldiers to the earthquake region to restore order, and she announced that supermarkets there would distribute food free of charge. Her government also is working to deliver food, water and emergency shelters as quickly as possible to thousands of people living on the streets....

The Slave Masters have spoken. "Go scrub floors with a toothbrush for the benefit of your country."

And be grateful for the money you get to buy an item from the dollar menu at McDonald's even if you can't pay your heating bill.

Wave the flag and you'll feel better.

Unemployment rate in Kentucky as of December 2009 is 10.4%. (click here)

How The GOP Unleashed A Monster, And Brought Its Jim Bunning Problem Onto Itself (click here)

Mar. 1, 2010, 4:54 PM
Gus Lubin
The Kentucky senator who is causing havoc for his own party was antagonized by GOP leaders in 2009.

Jim Bunning, the oldest Republican in the senate, cited pressure from other Republicans in his decision not to run for a third term in 2010. In a statement from his office, Bunning said colleagues had done "everything in their power to dry up my fundraising."...

Pouting Republicans are really sucky stuff. Only in the USA.

Ky. Sen. Jim Bunning not running for re-election (click here)

AP foreign, Monday July 27 2009

MARY CLARE JALONICK

Associated Press Writers= WASHINGTON (AP) Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky said Monday he will not run for a third term in 2010, citing a lack of campaign money and interference from Senate Republicans who were pushing for him to exit the race. In a statement issued by his office, Bunning said his GOP colleagues had done "everything in their power to dry up my fundraising."

Bunning, 77, has been considered the GOP's most vulnerable senator since a razor-thin re-election in 2004 and a public spat with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who has made it clear he would like his embattled colleague to retire as he tries to boost his party's numbers in the Senate.

McConnell has had a tough job, as Republicans are coming off back-to-back losses that cost them control of Congress and the presidency...

It's Age Discrimination, Bubba. But, then who ever said Republicans give a damn about the law.

Nancy Pelosi is absolutely correct. It will take courage to do the right thing for the nation in Health Care Reconciliation.

February 28, 2010
Washington, DC
Photographer states :: The full moon rose at 87 degrees azimuth in Washington, D.C., which aligned it with the monuments.

...House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (click title to entry - thank you) said “time is up” for Congress to pass health-care legislation and that lawmakers in her chamber need to figure out the right policy, see what the Senate does, then decide how to vote.

“We all agree that the present system is unsustainable,” the Democrat from California said, according to a transcript of an interview on the ABC News “This Week” program, scheduled for broadcast today. “What’s the point of talking about it any longer?”...

That is the crime in having a media service such as Murdoch's tribe that INJURES the country politically. The Tea Bagger movement was started through the mentoring of his radio shows.

Last week, a caller told Hannity he isn't presenting both sides of the story and Hannity snapped back at the man, "I never stated I was fair and balanced, I am a Reagan Republican."

Really?

Wow. Because the news organization that synidcates the hate mongering states it is fair and balanced. That was quite a confession by Hannity, I thought. At the time he was all bent out of shape over the televised conference the President held, so his mood wasn't really 'tempered' to meet the challenge.

But, the Democrats are not a party of political cowards. They can rise to meet the challenge and I imagine they will. They have a long road to November and for the most part folks don't make up their minds about the 'issues of the day' until a week or two before the elections. I believe most of the electorate is open minded to understanding the challenge of voting well and not just being 'one vote' of a mistake they'll regret later.

I don't want to hear how Murdoch doesn't participate in UNILATERAL political advertising through his media circuses.

There is currently a movement spawned by Neil Boortz regarding the Fair Tax. He has an Online March to Washington that is directly connected with his radio show. That is political activism and it serves his 'fiscal bottom line' because people come to his show and buy from his advertisers and he makes plenty of money on book sales and all that mess.

"The Fair Tax" (click here)

And the Republican Party DIRECTLY benefits from these radio and talk shows. There is nothing fair or balanced about this mess. In the You Tube video below Mike Pence is featured and it appears on the website for the Fair Tax.

All Boortz ever talks about is his 'Fair Tax.' It is all connected. It is all political and the Tea Baggers are nothing more than disgruntled and disillusioned Republicans. Everyone wants to say they were started because of Big Government Democrats.

BULLONEY.

They were started up immediately after the loss of the election by McCain in 2008. They tried to gather up the remnants of it and put it back together again because the Republican Party has become so egregious to the American people.

They are nothing but BIG MEDIA PROPAGANDISTS that are in it to win it because it pays them well.

There is no equity here and it is all free advertising for Republicans. The Tea Baggers are those folks that were never able to break into the Republican base before. They are throwing out incumbents and that is all this mess is. There is nothing new here.

Elections will tell us just how potent Tea Party's brew is (click here)

08:29 AM CST on Monday, March 1, 2010

By TODD J. GILLMAN / The Dallas Morning News
tgillman@dallasnews.com

In just over a year, the Tea Party movement has spawned campaigns in Texas for governor, the Legislature and Congress. Election returns Tuesday will help gauge how potent that force has become.

But the movement is still maturing, and its direction remains in flux. A third party? A rump caucus within the Republican tent? Or will it fade, ideas cannibalized, or energy sapped by squabbles and diffuse leadership...

...Texas has one of the nation's earliest primary dates this year, and as the biggest Republican state on the map, it serves as the first widespread test of the Tea Party movement. Political novices claiming Tea Party roots are taking on state senators and House members. Debra Medina, an obscure Wharton County Republican leader not long ago, made herself a factor in a contest pitting a sitting governor and U.S. senator....

I don't know why Sled Racing isn't a part of the Winter Olympics.

February 27, 2010
Anchorage, Alaska
Photographer states :: A matched set. Participants in the Fur Rondy Open World Championship Sled Dog Race. (click title to entry - thank you) 3 days of action along the main streets and back country of Anchorage where mushers go 25 miles each day for a chance at some of the $80,000 in prize money. Be sure and watch the video as they are outbound coming down Cordova Hill, which at the end of the day they have to 'go back up it'.

Local Time :: 5:08 AM AKST (GMT -09)

Lat/Lon :: 58.8° N 137.0° W

Elevation :: 33 feet above sea level

Temperature :: 37 Fahrenheit

Conditions :: Overcast

Windchill :: 31 Fahrenheit

Humidity :: 93%

Dew Point :: 36 Fahrenheit

Wind :: 8 mph from the North Northwest

Pressure :: 29.33 inches (Rising)

Visibility :: 10.0 miles

UV :: 0 out of 16

Clouds :: Overcast at 2300 feet

"Morning Papers" - Its Origins

The Rooster
"Okeydoke"

What the United Nation's Climate Panel does it irrespective of the findings of NASA and NOAA and is completely unrelated to Former Vice President Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize. The climate data of the USA was never in question. Never. And never will be.

Op-Ed Contributor

We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change (click here)

By AL GORE

Published: February 27, 2010

It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.

Of course, we would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil. And we would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy — the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century.

But what a burden would be lifted! We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands. We could instead celebrate the naysayers who had doggedly persisted in proving that every major National Academy of Sciences report on climate change had simply made a huge mistake.

I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion. But unfortunately, the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovery of at least two mistakes in the thousands of pages of careful scientific work over the last 22 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, the crisis is still growing because we are continuing to dump 90 million tons of global-warming pollution every 24 hours into the atmosphere — as if it were an open sewer.

It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate of the melting of debris-covered glacier in the Himalayas, and used information about the Netherlands provided to it by the government, which was later found to be partly inaccurate. In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics may not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law.

But the scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes. What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged. It is also worth noting that the panel’s scientists — acting in good faith on the best information then available to them — probably underestimated the range of sea-level rise in this century, the speed with which the Arctic ice cap is disappearing and the speed with which some of the large glacial flows in Antarctica and Greenland are melting and racing to the sea.

Because these and other effects of global warming are distributed globally, they are difficult to identify and interpret in any particular location. For example, January was seen as unusually cold in much of the United States. Yet from a global perspective, it was the second-hottest January since surface temperatures were first measured 130 years ago.

Similarly, even though climate deniers have speciously argued for several years that there has been no warming in the last decade, scientists confirmed last month that the last 10 years were the hottest decade since modern records have been kept.

The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth, yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere — thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States. Just as it’s important not to miss the forest for the trees, neither should we miss the climate for the snowstorm.

Here is what scientists have found is happening to our climate: man-made global-warming pollution traps heat from the sun and increases atmospheric temperatures. These pollutants — especially carbon dioxide — have been increasing rapidly with the growth in the burning of coal, oil, natural gas and forests, and temperatures have increased over the same period. Almost all of the ice-covered regions of the Earth are melting — and seas are rising. Hurricanes are predicted to grow stronger and more destructive, though their number is expected to decrease. Droughts are getting longer and deeper in many mid-continent regions, even as the severity of flooding increases. The seasonal predictability of rainfall and temperatures is being disrupted, posing serious threats to agriculture. The rate of species extinction is accelerating to dangerous levels.

Though there have been impressive efforts by many business leaders, hundreds of millions of individuals and families throughout the world and many national, regional and local governments, our civilization is still failing miserably to slow the rate at which these emissions are increasing — much less reduce them.

And in spite of President Obama’s efforts at the Copenhagen climate summit meeting in December, global leaders failed to muster anything more than a decision to “take note” of an intention to act.

Because the world still relies on leadership from the United States, the failure by the Senate to pass legislation intended to cap American emissions before the Copenhagen meeting guaranteed that the outcome would fall far short of even the minimum needed to build momentum toward a meaningful solution.

The political paralysis that is now so painfully evident in Washington has thus far prevented action by the Senate — not only on climate and energy legislation, but also on health care reform, financial regulatory reform and a host of other pressing issues.

This comes with painful costs. China, now the world’s largest and fastest-growing source of global-warming pollution, had privately signaled early last year that if the United States passed meaningful legislation, it would join in serious efforts to produce an effective treaty. When the Senate failed to follow the lead of the House of Representatives, forcing the president to go to Copenhagen without a new law in hand, the Chinese balked. With the two largest polluters refusing to act, the world community was paralyzed.

Some analysts attribute the failure to an inherent flaw in the design of the chosen solution — arguing that a cap-and-trade approach is too unwieldy and difficult to put in place. Moreover, these critics add, the financial crisis that began in 2008 shook the world’s confidence in the use of any market-based solution.

But there are two big problems with this critique: First, there is no readily apparent alternative that would be any easier politically. It is difficult to imagine a globally harmonized carbon tax or a coordinated multilateral regulatory effort. The flexibility of a global market-based policy — supplemented by regulation and revenue-neutral tax policies — is the option that has by far the best chance of success. The fact that it is extremely difficult does not mean that we should simply give up.

Second, we should have no illusions about the difficulty and the time needed to convince the rest of the world to adopt a completely new approach. The lags in the global climate system, including the buildup of heat in the oceans from which it is slowly reintroduced into the atmosphere, means that we can create conditions that make large and destructive consequences inevitable long before their awful manifestations become apparent: the displacement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees, civil unrest, chaos and the collapse of governance in many developing countries, large-scale crop failures and the spread of deadly diseases.

It’s important to point out that the United States is not alone in its inaction. Global political paralysis has thus far stymied work not only on climate, but on trade and other pressing issues that require coordinated international action.

The reasons for this are primarily economic. The globalization of the economy, coupled with the outsourcing of jobs from industrial countries, has simultaneously heightened fears of further job losses in the industrial world and encouraged rising expectations in emerging economies. The result? Heightened opposition, in both the industrial and developing worlds, to any constraints on the use of carbon-based fuels, which remain our principal source of energy.

The decisive victory of democratic capitalism over communism in the 1990s led to a period of philosophical dominance for market economics worldwide and the illusion of a unipolar world. It also led, in the United States, to a hubristic “bubble” of market fundamentalism that encouraged opponents of regulatory constraints to mount an aggressive effort to shift the internal boundary between the democracy sphere and the market sphere. Over time, markets would most efficiently solve most problems, they argued. Laws and regulations interfering with the operations of the market carried a faint odor of the discredited statist adversary we had just defeated.

This period of market triumphalism coincided with confirmation by scientists that earlier fears about global warming had been grossly understated. But by then, the political context in which this debate took form was tilted heavily toward the views of market fundamentalists, who fought to weaken existing constraints and scoffed at the possibility that global constraints would be needed to halt the dangerous dumping of global-warming pollution into the atmosphere.

Over the years, as the science has become clearer and clearer, some industries and companies whose business plans are dependent on unrestrained pollution of the atmospheric commons have become ever more entrenched. They are ferociously fighting against the mildest regulation — just as tobacco companies blocked constraints on the marketing of cigarettes for four decades after science confirmed the link of cigarettes to diseases of the lung and the heart.

Simultaneously, changes in America’s political system — including the replacement of newspapers and magazines by television as the dominant medium of communication — conferred powerful advantages on wealthy advocates of unrestrained markets and weakened advocates of legal and regulatory reforms. Some news media organizations now present showmen masquerading as political thinkers who package hatred and divisiveness as entertainment. And as in times past, that has proved to be a potent drug in the veins of the body politic. Their most consistent theme is to label as “socialist” any proposal to reform exploitive behavior in the marketplace.

From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption. After all has been said and so little done, the truth about the climate crisis — inconvenient as ever — must still be faced.

The pathway to success is still open, though it tracks the outer boundary of what we are capable of doing. It begins with a choice by the United States to pass a law establishing a cost for global warming pollution. The House of Representatives has already passed legislation, with some Republican support, to take the first halting steps for pricing greenhouse gas emissions.

Later this week, Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman are expected to present for consideration similar cap-and-trade legislation.

I hope that it will place a true cap on carbon emissions and stimulate the rapid development of low-carbon sources of energy.

We have overcome existential threats before. Winston Churchill is widely quoted as having said, “Sometimes doing your best is not good enough. Sometimes, you must do what is required.” Now is that time. Public officials must rise to this challenge by doing what is required; and the public must demand that they do so — or must replace them.

Al Gore, the vice president from 1993 to 2001, is the founder of the Alliance for Climate Protection and the author of “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis.” As a businessman, he is an investor in alternative energy companies.