Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

[Mick]

Haha I thought I've read comical nonsense in this thread,but nothing beats "arguing for a dirty polluted world lol.While you argue for a utopia our children can be proud of.And one is not better than the other?Predestiny and universal forces?Cmon man set the bong down and slowly back away lol.

Haha, I was straight when I posted that. People around here where I live are having variations of this conversation all the time. The most base is that a lot of people hereabouts now believe that deniers, and conservatives in general, are flat-out evil. For the record I don't agree and see this as a really dangerous turn of events and completely missing the point, but parents tend to get a little pissed when they see their children's and grandchildren's future put at risk. People are funny like that. Well some are. And then there's all the young people wondering "what the fuck'.
As for "one is not better than the other", I'll give you a super simplistic example, Star Wars and the Force. So you've got 2 sides of that force, light and dark. Now imagine what would happen if you could somehow destroy or remove one side. What would be the result? You'd have no more force. Both sides make a whole, and in the vastness of space, one is no better than the other, because you need both. Like I said, that's a really simplistic example.
Lifted this from Wiki. "Obi-Wan Kenobi explains the Force to Luke as "an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together."
In this case, I think truth is heaps stranger than fiction.

 

[Mick]

Why do you try to make this a binary argument of "good" vs "evil"? If I don't agree with your logic, then...I am not an evil person--nor or you more "righteous".

Rather than attack me--why not answer the questions I posed earlier?

Why is NOAA withholding climate change data and methodology from Congress and FOIA requests from citizens?

When using a hodgepodge of technology to measure the ocean's temperature, why were antiquated devices preferred over modern technology on certain measurements, and on other measurements the modern technology devices were used (usually to show lower temps)? What is wrong with using the same technology when measuring temps? Or did antiquated devices record greater temps than modern devices...hmmm, why the lack of consistency?

I can disagree with your logic...and still desire a similar outcome (as in healthy Earth all--just not your kids); that does not make either one of "evil", just different.

BTW...the Elites do not do as you and I do, why is that? Is there a special exemption for them to consume fuel/energy in massive amounts?

You completely missed my point. I called no one evil. These conversations never go anywhere.

 

[1G12]

Reading through some of the posts in this thread, I see that there is a lot of bad information as well as misunderstandings about climate change. So, since I had this info saved to my computer, I thought I'd post it....just in case there are any science nerds out there.......


The Human Fingerprint on Global Warming


1. Human emissions of CO2 when compared with atmospheric levels show a parallel rise. The natural carbon cycle adds and removes CO2 but humans add CO2 without removing any. Although our output of 29 gigatons of*CO2*is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the*carbon cycle*each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra*CO2. About 40% of this additional*CO2*is absorbed. The rest remains in the*atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric*CO2*is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (see theTripati 2009 study). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

The carbon atom has different isotopes or different numbers of neutrons. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons & carbon 13 has 7. Plants have a lower ratio of C13/C12 than does the atmosphere because plants prefer to consume the lighter C12 over C13 during photosynthesis. Therefore fossil fuels, like coal, have a lower C13/C12 ratio because it comes from plants.
If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels then the C13/C12 ratio should be falling, which it is according to a study by Ghosh in 2003. In contrast, CO2 introduced from volcanoes or from outgassing from the ocean would not significantly affect the ratio. More CO2 in the atmosphere adds to the greenhouse effect as proven by the scientist John Tyndall in the 1850's and Nobel Prize winner (awarded in 1903)Svante Arrhenius' research in 1896.
It's been known for over 100 years that extra CO2 in the atmosphere will cause warming.

2.There is further confirmation of fossil carbon's roll by measuring oxygen levels in the atmosphere. When fossil fuels are burned, oxygen combines with the carbon12 in the fossil fuel to form CO2. As CO2 increases in the atmosphere, oxygen levels drop at a rate consistent with the rate of burning fossil fuels. See the Manning study in 2006.

3. Satellites measuring infrared radiation escaping to space saw a decrease of radiation of the wavelengths absorbed by greenhouse gases from 1970 to 1996. This is direct evidence of the increase in the greenhouse effect because greenhouse gases trap heat nearer the surface and allow less heat to escape to space thus cooling the upper atmosphere and warming the surface. See the paper by Harries 2001 and confirmed by a second paper by Griggs in 2004 and then Chen in 2007.

4. *The 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2016 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source:*NASA/GISS). This is broadly consistent with similar data by the*Climatic Research Unit*and the*National Oceanic and*Atmospheric*Administration. (from climate/nasa.gov)
So, in summery:
This proves that it is the burning of fossil fuels that's increasing greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and causing surface warming.

 

[igrowone]

Moss is turning Antarctica's icy landscape green

By Zamira Rahim, CNN

(CNN)Antarctica is home to ice, penguins and -- thanks to climate change -- rapidly increasing levels of moss, scientists say.
Moss banks, found across parts of the western Antarctic Peninsula, have grown dramatically over the past 50 years, according to a study published in the scientific journal Current Biology.
Moss growth has "increased by 4 or 5 times" in the past five decades, according to Tom Roland, one of the co-authors of the report.

Higher temperatures and less ice are "likely open up more land for the moss ecosystems to expand into," Roland said, leading to the "'greening' of the Peninsula."
"If you'd taken a photograph of these parts of the Peninsula 50 years ago it would have been a monochrome shot of ice," Dominic Hodgson, another of the study's co-authors, told CNN. "Nothing but glaciers.
"Today that photo would show extensive patches of green," he noted.
Hodgson said the spreading moss is particularly surprising given the lack of light in the Peninsula.
The scientists, from Exeter University, Cambridge University, and the British Antarctic Survey, took five "cores" of moss from three separate sites on the Peninsula, allowing them to examine changes in growth across the last 150 years.
The cold temperatures limited the moss's decomposition, assisting their work.
They concluded that rising temperatures had contributed to major changes at all the sites.
"The consistency of the growth is striking," said Hodgson. "The moss is right across the Peninsula."
Moss growth opens the door to other plants potentially taking root in the Antarctic -- and although a lush green continent might sound inviting, researchers are concerned.
"I don't see too much of a problem with regional moss species," said Hodgson "and there are also two grasses that have been found. But we need to be very careful about non-indigenous species of plants that risk being introduced."
He says that has already happened in some of the sub-Antarctic islands, where non-indigenous species have been brought in accidentally on the clothing and equipment of researchers.
Scientists fear the Arctic may beat its southern equivalent when it comes to going green.
Dan Charman, another co-author of the paper, said there are parallel findings with Arctic shrub growth. "It's likely that there will be faster rates of growth in areas of the world where low temperatures currently suppress plant growth," he explained.
Hodgson said that while the group's current research takes the moss timeline back 150 years, they plan to reach even further into the past.
"The next paper we're working on is extending this record back into the next 4,000 to 5,000 years," he said.

 

[DocTim420]

You completely missed my point. I called no one evil. These conversations never go anywhere.

No but you frame the argument that if someone doesn't agree with your logic, then they are for pollution. Smart people can disagree with each other--and still desire clean air. But to suggest those that disagree with you really want "dirty air"--is rather silly.

I posted earlier in this thread about my personal experiences with Smog Alerts and how common they were in So Cali during the 50s, 60s and 70s...(when climate change was in its infancy and was called "Global Cooling"). In June 1974, the temps hit 100 and the ozone level registered 0.51 ppm and the LAST Stage III Smog Alert was called. Prior to that, smog alerts were common place with the ozone registering in the low 0.60s ppm.

A Stage III Smog Alert allowed counties to halt ALL commercial, industrial and recreational activities (except emergency vehicles) during the Stage III episode.

What changed? Hmmm, it was called a war on smog that was fought on multiple fronts and that shitty brown haze that always hung in the basin is no mas. There were multiple strategies (not just a one horse pony that sings out "my way or the highway"--like the climate changers argue today) and today the air quality is rather decent.

A popular bumper sticker back in the day: SMUCK FOG"

Again, to believe a single group of people (climate changers) have a monopoly on good ideas--is rather foolish. Us "deniers" are NOT fighting for the "status quo"--rather we are fighting for the same thing that most normal people want, a better place for our children.

So...why is NOAA withholding the information? Normally, organizations withhold information if it is more "damaging" than "beneficial".

BTW--I think I posted pics of Antarctica's green slime earlier in this thread...along with the jumbo object that was discovered moving on the ocean's floor. Crazy for sure!

 

[HazyBulldog]

lol.

 

[Genghis Kush]

No but you frame the argument that if someone doesn't agree with your logic, then they are for pollution. Smart people can disagree with each other--and still desire clean air. But to suggest those that disagree with you really want "dirty air"--is rather silly.

I posted earlier in this thread about my personal experiences with Smog Alerts and how common they were in So Cali during the 50s, 60s and 70s...(when climate change was in its infancy and was called "Global Cooling"). In June 1974, the temps hit 100 and the ozone level registered 0.51 ppm and the LAST Stage III Smog Alert was called. Prior to that, smog alerts were common place with the ozone registering in the low 0.60s ppm.

A Stage III Smog Alert allowed counties to halt ALL commercial, industrial and recreational activities (except emergency vehicles) during the Stage III episode.

What changed? Hmmm, it was called a war on smog that was fought on multiple fronts and that shitty brown haze that always hung in the basin is no mas. There were multiple strategies (not just a one horse pony that sings out "my way or the highway"--like the climate changers argue today) and today the air quality is rather decent.

A popular bumper sticker back in the day: SMUCK FOG"

Again, to believe a single group of people (climate changers) have a monopoly on good ideas--is rather foolish. Us "deniers" are NOT fighting for the "status quo"--rather we are fighting for the same thing that most normal people want, a better place for our children.

So...why is NOAA withholding the information? Normally, organizations withhold information if it is more "damaging" than "beneficial".

BTW--I think I posted pics of Antarctica's green slime earlier in this thread...along with the jumbo object that was discovered moving on the ocean's floor. Crazy for sure!

crazy for sure

 

[DocTim420]

...This proves that it is the burning of fossil fuels that's increasing greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and causing surface warming.

Food for thought--two hundred years ago the petroleum industry was non-existent on this planet. But for much of the 19th and 20th centuries USA was largest oil producing country.

About a hundred years prior to that...during the 18th century (Industrial Revolution) "fossil fuels" (coal and natural gas) is what fueled the industrial world.

What was used prior to "fossil fuels"? Dirty burning wood and whale blubber.

Yep, the world's demand for oil was supplied by the whaling industry that killed and harvested ocean mammals.

So given two evils--kill whales or extract crude oil/coal/natural gas from the soil, mankind chose "fossil fuel". Prior to the 18th century...fossil fuels were essentially a nuisance substance that oozed from the ground, making everything it touched messy.

Now this ends this morning's history lesson.

 

[Genghis Kush]

they chopped down the forests and killed all the whales and then switched to another limited resource that will eventually run out as well.

foolishness

 

[DocTim420]

they chopped down the forests and killed all the whales and then switched to another limited resource that will eventually run out as well.

foolishness

Or is it more foolish to force technology to return to the backward ways of recent history? Oil from whale blubber?

How many centuries of fossil fuel reserves are their on Earth? Especially when you factor future technological advances.

Ahh, but each new innovation is not without its "evil". Let's take wind turbines. Innocent devices that produce green energy from wind, day and night, rain or shine, 27/7--and by 2030, USA expects to produce 20% of our electricity from wind. So far, pretty "good" right?

Now the "evil". By 2030, those American wind turbines will be killing over 3 million birds and 5 million bats annually. Translate that to wind turbines worldwide and we are talking 30 million birds and 50 million bats each year by 2030. During 2013, 49,000 wind turbines in USA sliced/chopped up over 500,000 birds and 800,000 bats.

So you say, "Ahhh, DocTim, those are just birds and creepy bats that will have to lay more eggs, besides the needs of mankind are greater than the needs of birds and bats."

To that I say, "Did you know the value of pest control services provided by bats ranges from $3.7 billion to as much as $53 billion each year in the USA...which means worldwide, that is between $30-500 billion of annual pesticide services provided by our bat friends.

So I ask this simple question to my "alternative energy" friends, (anti-fossil fuel): Why do advocate the massacre of millions and millions of birds and bats on planet Earth each year? What about the unintended consequences--like the increase of pesticide use to replace the bats you killed?

For every action there is an equal....

 

[trichrider]

!

 

[armedoldhippy]

anyone notice that the "Doomsday" seed vault on Norways island of Spitzbergen flooded as a result of the permafrost thawing, & rain falling instead of snow? the water did not breach the actual vault itself,
a repository of literally billions of seeds from food-producing plants held there for safekeeping in case of ecological disaster. but, it DID flood the access tunnel & then re-froze, forcing workers to chisel their way in to inspect the vault. a govt spokesman said "we never dreamed that the permafrost might melt when this was designed & built..." nope, apparently not. LOL! OOOOPS!

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

Arctic doomsday seed vault flooded

Arctic doomsday seed vault flooded

Thought people might find this article interesting. We can all relate to seed storage techniques.

The Arctic Doomsday Seed Vault Flooded. Thanks, Global Warming


(This story originally appeared on the Guardian and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration.)

It was designed as an impregnable deep-freeze to protect the world’s most precious seeds from any global disaster and ensure humanity’s food supply forever. But the Global Seed Vault, buried in a mountain deep inside the Arctic circle, has been breached after global warming produced extraordinary temperatures over the winter, sending meltwater gushing into the entrance tunnel.

The vault is on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen and contains almost a million packets of seeds, each a variety of an important food crop. When it was opened in 2008, the deep permafrost through which the vault was sunk was expected to provide “failsafe” protection against “the challenge of natural or man-made disasters”.

But soaring temperatures in the Arctic at the end of the world’s hottest ever recorded year led to melting and heavy rain, when light snow should have been falling. “It was not in our plans to think that the permafrost would not be there and that it would experience extreme weather like that,” said Hege Njaa Aschim, from the Norwegian government, which owns the vault.

“A lot of water went into the start of the tunnel and then it froze to ice, so it was like a glacier when you went in,” she told the Guardian. Fortunately, the meltwater did not reach the vault itself, the ice has been hacked out, and the precious seeds remain safe for now at the required storage temperature of -18°C.

But the breach has questioned the ability of the vault to survive as a lifeline for humanity if catastrophe strikes. “It was supposed to [operate] without the help of humans, but now we are watching the seed vault 24 hours a day,” Aschim said. “We must see what we can do to minimise all the risks and make sure the seed bank can take care of itself.”

The vault’s managers are now waiting to see if the extreme heat of this winter was a one-off or will be repeated or even exceeded as climate change heats the planet. The end of 2016 saw average temperatures over 7°C above normal on Spitsbergen, pushing the permafrost above melting point.

“The question is whether this is just happening now, or will it escalate?” said Aschim. The Svalbard archipelago, of which Spitsbergen is part, has warmed rapidly in recent decades, according to Ketil Isaksen, from Norway’s Meteorological Institute.

“The Arctic and especially Svalbard warms up faster than the rest of the world. The climate is changing dramatically and we are all amazed at how quickly it is going,” Isaksen told Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet.

The vault managers are now taking precautions, including major work to waterproof the 100m-long tunnel into the mountain and digging trenches into the mountainside to channel meltwater and rain away. They have also removed electrical equipment from the tunnel that produced some heat and installed pumps in the vault itself in case of a future flood.

Aschim said there was no option but to find solutions to ensure the enduring safety of the vault: “We have to find solutions. It is a big responsibility and we take it very seriously. We are doing this for the world.”

“This is supposed to last for eternity,” said Åsmund Asdal at the Nordic Genetic Resource Centre, which operates the seed vault.

https://www.wired.com/2017/05/arctic-doomsday-seed-vault-flooded-thanks-global-warming/

edit; I see some ole hippy posted this info while I was futzing with my computer!

 

[trichrider]

!

 

[DocTim420]

So we had dinner last night with another couple that are 100% into this climate change thing. And they mentioned that the next thing on their "agenda" is to change the way everyone eats.

Yep..."climate change" will now include "nutrition" and "food selection". Not believing what I heard (and yes we all were eating mighty fine steaks and drinking killer wine) I did some research this morning and look what I stumbled on:

Carbon dioxide emissions from the energy and transportation sectors currently account for the largest share of climate pollution. However, a study from Chalmers now shows that eliminating these emissions would not guarantee staying below the UN limit. Emissions from agriculture threaten to keep increasing as global meat and dairy consumption increases. If agricultural emissions are not addressed, nitrous oxide from fields and methane from livestock may double by 2070. This alone would make meeting the climate target essentially impossible.

"We have shown that reducing meat and dairy consumption is key to bringing agricultural climate pollution down to safe levels," says Fredrik Hedenus, one of the study authors. "Broad dietary change can take a long time. We should already be thinking about how we can make our food more climate friendly."

By 2070, there will be many more of us on this planet. Diets high in meat, milk, cheese, and other food associated with high emissions are expected to become more common. Because agricultural emissions are difficult and expensive to reduce via changes in production methods or technology, these growing numbers of people, eating more meat and dairy, entail increasing amounts of climate pollution from the food sector.

"These emissions can be reduced with efficiency gains in meat and dairy production, as well as with the aid of new technology," says co-author Stefan Wirsenius. "But the potential reductions from these measures are fairly limited and will probably not suffice to keep us within the climate limit, if meat and dairy consumption continue to grow."

Beef and lamb account for the largest agricultural emissions, relative to the energy they provide. By 2050, estimates indicate that beef and lamb will account for half of all agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, while only contributing 3 percent of human calorie intake. Cheese and other dairy products will account for about one quarter of total agricultural climate pollution.

Source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140330193735.htm

This paper indicates that, under current trends, food-related agricultural emissions of CH4 and N2O may increase to about 12.7 Gton CO2eq/year by the year 2070. This is likely to be larger than the total CO2-equivalent emission level compatible with meeting the 2 °C limit at chance larger than 50 % (on the order of 10–13 Gton CO2eq/year or less in 2070). Under policies that favor larger increases in livestock productivity as well as substantial implementation of technical mitigation measures, we estimate that emissions can be kept closer to what is required for the target (7.7 Gton CO2eq/year). However, only by also assuming reduced meat and dairy consumption do we find agricultural emission levels that do not take more than half of the total emissions space in 2070. We therefore conclude that dietary changes are crucial for meeting the 2 °C target with high probability. This conclusion carries even more weight when one considers that other GHG-emitting sectors, in particular energy, also face significant constraints in achieving very large reductions.

Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-014-1104-5

While a majority of the population remains unaware of the connection between climate change and animal agriculture, more researchers and government entities are acknowledging the link and recommending that humans work toward embracing a plant-based diet.

In a 2014 report in Climatic Change, Fredrik Hedenus, one of the study’s authors, said: “We have shown that reducing meat and dairy consumption is key to bringing agricultural climate pollution down to safe levels.”

Friends of the Earth (FOE) partnered with the Oakland Unified School District in California to pilot a two-year experiment that would offer more plant-based foods and fewer animal products to schools.

Over two years the school district reduced the amount of animal products served in schools by 30 percent and increased locally-purchased produce by 10 percent.

And in return, the district reduced its carbon “foodprint” by 14%, reduced “embedded water use” by 6% and saved $42,000.

Students also reported increased satisfaction with their meals.

Source: https://humaneeducation.org/blog/2017/schools-combat-climate-change-cafeteria/

Two words: Nanny State.

Please stay the fuck out of my kitchen...and my bedroom. I love meat and cheese--as they go great with wine!

And stop killing millions of birds and bats with your fucking wind turbines!

 

[shithawk420]

I literally have wind turbines in my back yard. I'll take pics to prove it. They don't kill birds anywhere near that number. Sure sometimes a few get killed buts that's pure propaganda

 

[DocTim420]

Obama's 1 week Carbon Footprint in Italy = what average Americans emit for 1 year

Obama's 1 week Carbon Footprint in Italy = what average Americans emit for 1 year

Current President Donald Trump may be living it up in Saudi Arabia, but former President Barack Obama certainly isn’t slacking off on the sweet life.

Obama and his wife Michelle are in Italy this week on vacation, after the former President spoke to the Institute for International Political Studies in Milan on the importance of addressing climate change, to preserve the world’s food supply and protect its underprivileged.

Apparently, he’s decided to demonstrate humanity’s contribution to global warming by making his own carbon footprint as big as possible.

On Friday, the Obama’s jetted into Tuscany on a private – not a commercial – plane, escorted into a small Florentine airport by six additional military jets, according to Italian state television. Footage of the landing has been broadcasting across Italy all weekend.

Once on the ground, the Obamas slipped into a black SUV and drove to the private Tuscan villa, Borgo Finocchieto, where they’ll be staying in all week, escorted by a 13-car motorcade.

The Villa, of course, is no mere motel, nestled in the Tuscan countryside just a few miles south of the city of Florence. They’ll be taking over an entire Tuscan village, where they’ll have their choice of 22 bedrooms, a library, several private spas and steam rooms, and wine-tasting room. Borgo Finocchieto also boasts commanding views of Tuscany’s vineyards.

It usually goes for $15,000 per night, but luckily for Obama, it belongs to his former ambassador to Italy, so no doubt the pair will get a deal.

In just his trip back and forth to Italy, for his presentation and his vacation, Barack Obama has emitted more than 16 metric tons of carbon – just shy of what an average American emits in a year. Add to that the motorcade, the internal travel in Italy, and, of course, the villa, and Obama and his wife have easily emitted more carbon in one single week than most Americans will in 2017.

Last week, Obama implored those same Americans – and their compatriots across Europe – to cut down on their carbon emissions in order to draw global warming to a standstill.

“When it comes to climate change, the hour is almost upon us,” Obama told the audience at his IIPS keynote. “I do not believe that this planet is condemned to ever-rising temperatures. I believe these are problems that were caused by man and can be solved by man.”

He even predicted that such egregious energy consumption to lead to food shortages as Europe struggles to take in refugees from the Middle East. If it were such an imperative, however, perhaps Obama, like other famous environmental activists, should be reconsidering his own personal habits.

Source: https://heatst.com/politics/obama-speaks-on-global-warming-then-spews-co2-with-private-jet-13-car-motorcade/

 

[DocTim420]

I literally have wind turbines in my back yard. I'll take pics to prove it. They don't kill birds anywhere near that number. Sure sometimes a few get killed buts that's pure propaganda

In 2010 David Newstead, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service field biologist, visited the Gulf shoreline of Laguna Madre, Texas, to survey skimmers, terns, and egrets. But it was a flock of 15 American White Pelicans that caught his eye, flying toward the nearby Peñascal wind farm. As he watched, a pelican at the flock’s tail end was swiped by a massive turbine blade and “literally ‘erased’ from the air,” Newstead wrote afterwards. This in itself isn’t surprising—wind turbines are notorious bird killers—but this specific farm was supposedly equipped with radar that could detect approaching birds and halt the blades. The radar had failed to do its job.

Wind turbines kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds each year in North America, making it the most threatening form of green energy. And yet, it’s also one of the most rapidly expanding energy industries: more than 49,000 individual wind turbines now exist across 39 states.

The wind industry has the incentive to stop the slaughter: Thanks to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, it’s illegal to kill any bird protected by the Act—even if the death is "incidental," meaning it occurs unintentionally on the part of the wind farm. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act recommends that to avoid eagle deaths, specifically, companies seriously consider where they site their wind developments, and that they also limit turbines’ impact using techniques like radar to detect incoming birds. But as the accident at the Peñascal wind farm shows, it’s unclear if deterrents like these actually work.

The Ways Wind Farms Try to Scare Birds Away

There are many kinds of retrofits that people are testing to hopefully make wind turbines better for birds. Here are some of the options.

Cameras, Radar, and GPS: The most advanced and widespread technologies are those that use radar and GPS to detect incoming flocks and turn off the turbines in time for the birds to fly through. In 2006, company Babcock and Brown was the first to install such a system at the Gulf Wind Project in Texas (now owned by Pattern Energy). At other sites, these technologies are species-specific: In California’s Tehachapi Mountains, wind developer Terra-Gen has tailored its bird detection systems to protect the California Condor, North America’s largest and most threatened bird species (only about 230 survive in the wild). Since most condors are tagged with GPS sensors, the wind farm sets up a system that shuts down the turbines when a condor is within two miles of the wind farm—all in less than two minutes.

Source: http://www.audubon.org/news/will-wind-turbines-ever-be-safe-birds

Wind turbines are actually slaughtering millions of birds and bats annually

The Obama administration is issuing 30-year permits for “taking” (killing) bald and golden eagles. The great birds will be legally slaughtered “unintentionally” by lethal wind turbines installed in their breeding territories, and in “dispersion areas” where their young congregate (e.g. Altamont Pass).

By chance (if you believe in coincidences), a timely government study claims wind farms will kill “only” 1.4 million birds yearly by 2030. This new report is just one of many, financed with taxpayers’ money, aimed at convincing the public that additional mortality caused by wind plants is sustainable. – It is not.

Dr. Shawn Smallwood’s 2004 study, spanning four years, estimated that California’s Altamont Pass wind “farm” killed an average of 116 Golden Eagles annually. This adds up to 2,900 dead “goldies” since it was built 25 years ago. Altamont is the biggest sinkhole for the species, but not the only one, and industry-financed research claiming that California’s GE population is stable is but a white-wash.

Beheaded Golden Eagle

Eagles are not the only victims. Smallwood also estimated that Altamont killed an average of 300 red-tailed hawks, 333 American kestrels and 380 burrowing owls annually – plus even more non-raptors, including 2,526 rock doves and 2,557 western meadowlarks.

In 2012, breaking the European omerta on wind farm mortality, the Spanish Ornithological Society (SEO/Birdlife) reviewed actual carcass counts from 136 monitoring studies. They concluded that Spain’s 18,000 wind turbines are killing 6-18 million birds and bats yearly.

Extrapolating that and similar (little publicized) German and Swedish studies, 39,000 U.S. wind turbines would not be killing “only” 440,000 birds (USFWS, 2009) or “just” 573,000 birds and 888,000 bats (Smallwood, 2013), but 13-39 million birds and bats every year!

However, this carnage is being covered up by self-serving and/or politically motivated government agencies, wind industry lobbyists, environmental groups and ornithologists, under a pile of misleading studies paid for with more taxpayer money.

Wildlife expert Jim Wiegand has documented how areas searched under wind turbines are still confined to 200-foot radiuses, even though modern monster turbines catapult 80% of bird and bat carcasses much further. Windfarm owners, operating under voluntary (!) USFWS guidelines, commission studies that search much-too-small areas, look only once every 30-90 days, ensuring that scavengers remove most carcasses, and ignore wounded birds that happen to be found within search perimeters.

These research protocols are designed to guarantee extremely low mortality statistics, hiding the true death tolls – and the USFWS seems inclined to let the deception continue. In addition, bird mortality data are now considered to be the property of windfarm owners, which means the public no longer has a right to know.

Nevertheless, news has leaked that eagles are being hacked to death all across America. This is hardly surprising, as raptors are attracted to wind turbines. They perch on them to rest or scan for prey. They come because turbines are often built in habitats that have abundant food (live or carrion) and good winds for gliding.

Save the Eagles International (STEI) has posted photographs of raptors perched on nacelles or nonmoving blades , and ospreys building a nest on a decommissioned turbine. Moving blades don’t deter them either: videos show a turkey vulture perched on the hub of a spinning turbine, and a griffon vulture being struck. Birds perceive areas traveled by spinning blades as open space, unaware that blade tips are moving at up to 180 mph. Many are focused on prey. These factors make wind turbines “ecological death traps,” wherever they are located.

Chopped Griffon Vultures

By 2030, the United States plans to produce 20% of its electricity from wind. That’s nearly six times as much as today, from three or four times as many turbines, striking more flying creatures due to their bigger size (even the mendacious study predicting 1.4 million bird kills recognizes this). Using the higher but still underestimated level of mortality published by Smallwood in 2013, by 2030 our wind turbines would be killing over 3 million birds and 5 million bats annually.

But this is shy of reality by a factor of ten, because 90% of casualties land outside the search perimeter and are not counted. We are thus really talking about an unsustainable death toll of 30 million birds and 50 million bats a year – and more still if we factor in other hide-the-mortality tricks documented by STEI.

This carnage includes protected species that cars and cats rarely kill: eagles, hawks, falcons, owls, condors, whooping cranes, geese, bats and many others. The raptor slaughter will cause rodent populations to soar. Butchery of bats, already being decimated by White Nose Syndrome, will hammer agriculture and forestry.

The U.S. Geological Survey says the value of pest-control services to US agriculture provided by bats ranges from $3.7 billion to as much as $53 billion yearly. These chiropters also control forest pests and serve as pollinators. A Swedish study documents their attraction from as far as nine miles away to insects that swarm around wind turbines. Hence the slaughter.

Wind lobbyists claim they need “regulatory certainty.” However, eagle “take” permits will also ensure extinction certainty – and ecological, agricultural, economic, social and health disasters that we cannot afford.

Source: http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html

These are real...no propaganda here. I may question the logic of climate changers, but there is no doubt of my love and affection for birds, bats, butterflies, bees...basically all things with wings. Ever pickup an oil covered bird at the beach and wash it, and nurture it back to health? My wife and I did/do. What have you done lately for our feathered friends?

 

[trichrider]

!

 

[trichrider]