Via NASA

Here is a picture of the whole gulf:

BP sure screwed up but is trying to fix it. The Feds screwed up and are trying to use it.

Nickki Buck hears her first words in 10 years after having cochlear implants installed.

It is shocking, and silly,  to me that many in the deaf “community” oppose this.  Being deaf may not be a disability from many parts of life, but it still sucks.  To not hear music? Or my kids singing, or birds chirping – when I could again?  Not partaking of all of natures bounty, when you can, just seems silly.

I visited MIT and Massachusetts Eye and Ear researchers working on these 15 years ago, and I’m glad their research has come far enough to help the typical deaf person.

Check out 8 other videos of people hearing for the first time.

H/T Ace

The ocean acts as a sink for C02 and holds 36,000 billion tons of C02. The atmosphere holds 720 billion tons of C02.  A warmer ocean holds less C02, a 1 degree change would release about 1440 billion tons into the atmosphere. BTW: Humans emit about 26 tons of CO2 per year, with about 40% absorbed by natural sinks (trees, ocean, etc…).

An enterprising researcher in Hawaii has flipped global warming science on its head and formulated a simple model, backed by actual unmodified data, that shows that warming causes C02 rise, not the other way around.

With data from present back to 1960, he strongly correlated the rate of change in CO2 (derivative) levels with ocean temperature increases preceding.  Prior to 1960, he correlated it to El Nino events (warmer water, although not precisely measured) preceding the C02 rise.

In summary:

Using two well accepted data sets, a simple model can be used to show that the rise in CO2 is a result of the temperature anomaly, not the other way around.  This is the exact opposite of the IPCC model that claims that rising CO2 causes the temperature anomaly.

We offer no explanation for why global temperatures are changing now or have changed in the past, but it seems abundantly clear that the recent temperature rise is not caused by the rise in CO2 levels.

Read the article here – it can get a bit “technical” but is worth reading.

There are other researchers finding similar results – but you can bet those researchers won’t be getting their grants renewed…

As I’ve predicted here… we are more likely to get cold than warm.

Reasons… volcanoes, El Nino, and lower sun activity.  And BTW… these are things actually measured and KNOWN to make it cold. No simulations here. Simulations don’t shut down air travel!

More here…

This is not alarmist fantasy or 2012 babble — several natural forces that are known to cause cooling are awakening simultaneously, raising speculation of a “perfect storm” of downward pressures on global temperature. These forces let loose one at a time can cause the Earth to cool and can bring about harsh winter conditions. If they all break free at once, the effects could be felt not just in the coming winter, but year-round, and for several years to come.

Our spring in St. George has been awesome. I wouldn’t mind a little summer cooling here. But… in the interest of humanity, I’ll accept that global warming is probably better for us as an aggregate.

Nature has a new paper with another “angle” attempting to prove global warming.

Geologists led by Brown University have determined the east African rift lake has experienced unprecedented warming during the last century, and its surface waters are the warmest on record.

Willis Eschenbach, who had done some research on the same lake, grew concerned about the report because he knew there were no temperature records for the lake.

I was puzzled by the claims in the new article regarding the changes in Lake Tanganyika surface temperatures, because I knew that there was almost no historical data on lake surface temperature. I wondered how they determined the surface temperature of the lake over the past 1,500 years. So I sprung the $18 to purchase the Nature paper and find out …

It soon turned out to be tree ring data methods. The researchers used a “proxy” that they can correlate to lake temperatures. They then proceeded to toss out parts of the proxy data that didn’t help their goal of showing warming,  used fancy axis and other graphing techniques to minimize visible anomalies that put holes in their theory, and although claiming to know lake temperatures for 1500 years, they only actually had three (3!!!) actual measurements, all from 2003.  How can you proxy 1500 years, with just 3 actual samples to correlate to?

He sums up the “science”:

My point is, the Tierney 2010 report is a study of the change in Lake Tanganyika surface temperature over time, which contains no measurements of the change in LST over time, and which has exactly three actual surface temperature measurements, which are poorly cited, are from different parts of the lake, and are all from 2003 …

I don’t know the reason these ‘scientists’ did such shoddy research – whether incompetence, grant seeking, or political motivations, or all of the above– I don’t know. All I do know is that we can’t trust this branch of science to perform quality science. I see no reason to further fund their activities, nor to make decisions based on their work.

In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in globally averaged temperature anomaly, I am quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age.

Dr. Richard Lindzen
in this presentation on the current state of global warming “science”

Biological Darwinism, loosely defined as random mutation and survival of the fittest mutation, seems largely accepted in Science and common culture. I’ll not comment on if it should be accepted, or what it means regarding a “higher” force.

Let’s assume, for discussion, that biology works this way.  The question physicists address now is  “does everything follow Darwin”?   And does it link quantum randomness with the order we see in our universe?

For it to be so there would have to be a selection process – something picking winners. For biology, death and reproduction does that. What is  a winner in quantum affairs?   Researchers claim something called “scarring” is the quantum selection force:

Scarring has something to do with quantum waveform interference patterns but, rather than try and foist what that means on you, just understand that quantum scars (see image) appear to have the ability to “reproduce”—in terms of information/pattern—in relation to their environment, something demonstrated in recent weeks in the computing structure known as a “quantum dot.”

In other words, some states can copy themselves, others can’t. Still others can copy themselves really well, others not so well. The universe gradually moved towards the classical physical state we see around us.

This is sort of interesting, in a metaphysical sort of way.  More pragmatically, research in this area could help progress in quantum computing, which desperately needs a push.

I’d be fine cutting our manned space program entirely and spending the savings on propulsion research.  I do think we need to reach for the stars, but it makes no sense to waste resources getting to places (like the Moon or Mars) just to get there. If we can’t take useful things (and people) there, or bring resources back – why go?   We need propulsion advances so we can lift big things to space as well as build big things in space.

Ion Propulsion, described in this NASA article, is the sort of idea I’m talking about:

Using solar arrays spanning 65 feet, Dawn collects power from the sun to ionize atoms of xenon. These ions are expelled by a strong electric field out the back of the spacecraft, producing a gentle thrust. The weightless and frictionless conditions of space flight allow this gossamer force effect to build up, so the spacecraft gains speed slowly and continuously.

Most of our space program, IMHO, wastes money and resources (brain talent especially) in support of efforts that may be exciting to be part of but are of little long term use to the nation or humanity.

I, too, see no need to rocket off to the moon:

President Barack Obama is essentially grounding efforts to return astronauts to the moon and instead is sending NASA in new directions with roughly $6 billion more, according to officials familiar with the plans.

Naturally he does something I don’t agree with in the same sentence.  I wouldn’t give NASA more money. I’d cut their budget and focus them mostly on propulsion. Until we figure out a way to break earth’s gravitational clutch easier, space isn’t going to happen like scifi buffs and other futurists want. 

I think it much more likely that commercial interests will figure out space faster, cheaper and better than NASA.  NASA’s goal is more budget next year. That is hardly conducive to technical innovation and speed.   Also, NASA’s scientists, like James Hansen, have become too politicized.

Well.. we could move all the thermometers:

“NOAA . . . systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler,” the authors say. “The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs.”

“Scientifically” they say this is cool because they, say, take a thermometer from Toronto and “interpolate” it for what the Arctic would be.  In other words, “guess”.

Oh.. .interpolation can be useful. Most images you see, that look pretty real, have interpolated data. But… interpolation looks at past data sets and would not capture changes in the places that used to be measured but that are independent from places where stations remain.

Weather is big and complex, interpolation is guessing.

“Twenty percent wind is an ambitious goal, but this study shows that there are multiple scenarios through which it can be achieved,” said David Corbus, NREL project manager for the study. “Whether we’re talking about using land-based wind in the Midwest, offshore wind in the East or any combination of wind power resources, any plausible scenario requires transmission infrastructure upgrades and we need to start planning for that immediately.”

Do you believe them?  I don’t.   Look at their title “National Renewable Energy Lab”… would they advocate some other solution? Or are they voting for their team to win?

I don’t trust anything or anybody using “renewable” “green” “sustainable”. That means they already made their mind up.

Can wind help? Sure. But I’m very dubious it will make up 20% of eastern power unless subsidized extensively.

I’d rather have a report from the “Department of More Energy than we could ever Use”.

Harry Reid said, "On average, an American dies from lack of health insurance every ten minutes." If he can say that, then I can say, "On average, an American dies from voting Democrat every 3.5 minutes." Both statements are equally valid.

Hoven also limited his data to just Americans, when we all know that voting Democratic kills people in other countries too.

What he is really writing about is that causation and correlation do not go together.

Journalist students should be required to study relatively advanced statistics so they will know when Harry Reid lies to them. Or they could just assume he is.

Calculated using seismic refraction

The “stimulus” bill, which paid off Democratic constituencies and donors all over the world, didn’t skip the little guy. Nope, it reached down and lifted up none other than ClimageGates own “hide the decline” Michael Mann:

Mann is also the creator of the “Hockey Stick” graph, which purported to show a sharp increase in recent temperatures. That work has been thoroughly discredited by researcher Stephen McIntyre. Yet, in June 2009, the National Science Foundation awarded Mann a three-year $500,000 to further study the climate’s response to human activity. According to the grant award:

      The broader impacts involve supporting postdoctoral scholars and 
      graduate students and contributing to the understanding of abrupt
      climate change.

So the science seems settled and now we have to study what will happen, not what might. Right.  

First off, this isn’t appropriate for “jobs stimulus”. Second, Mann’s science is so suspect he shouldn’t be given grants at all, and we should probably try to get money back from past grants.

The Democrats fight all out war on this country and leave no stone unturned. In the unlikely event we survive their crazy policies of today, they need a firewall of climate change based laws to ensure we stay down.

Can Key West outrun the sea?

Try doing it when the land is moving:

"Key West has the distinction of being the Western Hemisphere’s longest sea level record. It dates back to 1846, and although it has several multi-year gaps, it shows a long-term trend of rising sea level of about +2 mm per year."

"However these very preliminary data paint a general picture for Florida and that is sea level has been rising steadily for at least 160 years, and will most likely continue to do so into the future."

http://www.fsbpa.com/documents/Florida%20Sea%20Level_rev04042008.pdf

In fact, Florida is moving west-northwest 5x faster than it is "sinking".

I don’t envy climate scientists the difficulty of their science, I just wish they would approach it more humbly, with less preconceived bias, and with less of an eye on global politics.