Even if emissions stop, carbon dioxide could warm Earth for centuries

[westwall]

Save us the research and show the data that proves your assertion. Please.

I just did. Can't you read?

Where is the link for the 400,000 birds killed by windmills?

It's been posted many times. C'mon socko, do a thread search. They are all in the enviro threads.

 

[daveman]

Daveman:

Did you notice the similiarity in the last 2 posts??

Me talking with Matthew..


You whooping on the troll..


Could this be a sign that we're about to reach a new level of interspecies communications?

I doubt it, honestly. I don't think we can throttle back our brains to their level. At least not without recreational pharmaceuticals.

I like the "boy in the bubble" avatar.

Just seeing how the other half lives.

 

[Impenitent]

I just did. Can't you read?

Where is the link for the 400,000 birds killed by windmills?

It's been posted many times. C'mon socko, do a thread search. They are all in the enviro threads.

Sorry, I've been frequenting a forum that required citations for such assertions.

Here's something I found on goggle:


Man-made structure/technology

Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)

Feral and domestic cats

Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]

Power lines

130 million -- 174 million [source: AWEA]

Windows (residential and commercial)

100 million -- 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]

Pesticides

70 million [source: AWEA]

Automobiles

60 million -- 80 million [source: AWEA]

Lighted communication towers

40 million -- 50 million [source: AWEA]

Wind turbines

10,000 -- 40,000 [source: ABC]

HowStuffWorks "Do wind turbines kill birds?"

I thought, perhaps, this was your source, and perhaps you inadvertently added a zero to it. But perhaps not.


I noticed you did cite the number of birds found in the first week of BP. Since that number was surprisingly low, it that why you cited anyway?

Like I said, I'm used to having to prove my asserts, particularly in scientific threads... socko.

 

[westwall]

Where is the link for the 400,000 birds killed by windmills?

It's been posted many times. C'mon socko, do a thread search. They are all in the enviro threads.

Sorry, I've been frequenting a forum that required citations for such assertions.

Here's something I found on goggle:


Man-made structure/technology

Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)

Feral and domestic cats

Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]

Power lines

130 million -- 174 million [source: AWEA]

Windows (residential and commercial)

100 million -- 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]

Pesticides

70 million [source: AWEA]

Automobiles

60 million -- 80 million [source: AWEA]

Lighted communication towers

40 million -- 50 million [source: AWEA]

Wind turbines

10,000 -- 40,000 [source: ABC]

HowStuffWorks "Do wind turbines kill birds?"

I thought, perhaps, this was your source, and perhaps you inadvertently added a zero to it. But perhaps not.


I noticed you did cite the number of birds found in the first week of BP. Since that number was surprisingly low, it that why you cited anyway?

Like I said, I'm used to having to prove my asserts, particularly in scientific threads... socko.

How stuff works? Sounds like a real credible source

Now that comedy night is dealt with here is a more credible source for you. One of many had you bothered to look on this board.


"The Challenge

Wind power has the potential to be a green, bird-friendly form of power generation, but it can also adversely affect birds. In 2009, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimated that 440,000 birds per year were killed by U.S. wind turbines and included this figure in the agency’s 2013 budget request to Congress. But in 2012, the agency changed how it describes the estimate and now says it maintains no official number. More recently, researcher K. Shawn Smallwood, well-known for his work at Altamont Pass, has estimated 573,000 bird fatalities/year (including 83,000 raptor fatalities) from wind turbines in the United States in 2012.
Birds can die in collisions with the turbine blades, towers, power lines, or related structures. They can also be impacted through habitat destruction from the siting of turbines, power lines, and access roads. Some birds, such as sage-grouse, are particularly sensitive to the presence of turbines and can be scared away from their breeding grounds up to several miles away from a wind development."



Birds and Wind Development

 

[Impenitent]

It's been posted many times. C'mon socko, do a thread search. They are all in the enviro threads.

Sorry, I've been frequenting a forum that required citations for such assertions.

Here's something I found on goggle:


Man-made structure/technology

Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)

Feral and domestic cats

Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]

Power lines

130 million -- 174 million [source: AWEA]

Windows (residential and commercial)

100 million -- 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]

Pesticides

70 million [source: AWEA]

Automobiles

60 million -- 80 million [source: AWEA]

Lighted communication towers

40 million -- 50 million [source: AWEA]

Wind turbines

10,000 -- 40,000 [source: ABC]

HowStuffWorks "Do wind turbines kill birds?"

I thought, perhaps, this was your source, and perhaps you inadvertently added a zero to it. But perhaps not.


I noticed you did cite the number of birds found in the first week of BP. Since that number was surprisingly low, it that why you cited anyway?

Like I said, I'm used to having to prove my asserts, particularly in scientific threads... socko.

How stuff works? Sounds like a real credible source

Now that comedy night is dealt with here is a more credible source for you. One of many had you bothered to look on this board.


"The Challenge

Wind power has the potential to be a green, bird-friendly form of power generation, but it can also adversely affect birds. In 2009, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimated that 440,000 birds per year were killed by U.S. wind turbines and included this figure in the agency’s 2013 budget request to Congress. But in 2012, the agency changed how it describes the estimate and now says it maintains no official number. More recently, researcher K. Shawn Smallwood, well-known for his work at Altamont Pass, has estimated 573,000 bird fatalities/year (including 83,000 raptor fatalities) from wind turbines in the United States in 2012.
Birds can die in collisions with the turbine blades, towers, power lines, or related structures. They can also be impacted through habitat destruction from the siting of turbines, power lines, and access roads. Some birds, such as sage-grouse, are particularly sensitive to the presence of turbines and can be scared away from their breeding grounds up to several miles away from a wind development."



Birds and Wind Development

First of all, how would I know that I merely had to search the thread for lore that was posted prior to my join date. You gave not a hint.

And my link has a hot link back to ABC that didn't survive my cut and paste.

Now let's talk about your source, which is an estimate. The vast majority of birds killed in your estimate are unseen by human eyes, but are assumed to be carried away by predators.

I guess that would be reasonable, but you only counted birds seen by humans in the first few weeks of the BP spill. No reasonable estimation there!

So your dead bird estimation is proof positive. It's like the Republican proof for voter fraud - the lack of evidence and convictions is proof that voter fraud is a massive left wing conspiracy.

Gotta call it a night.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You do realize their is no such thing as global warming?
Spotty warming would be the more accurate name.
Oh and spotty cooling can also be used
oh and the 4 season zone would be another name.

 

[Old Rocks]

You do realize that you are displaying your willfull ignorance for the whole world to see?

 

[Old Rocks]

Point me out a national government that doesn't work with industry

I like the private sector as it can do things right and the government is the guy with the power to choose where the resources go.

You don't POWER your way to choosing the best engineering solutions and technology.

The govt needs to stay the **** out of picking particular winners and losers. By screwing with the subsidies and promotion of particular companies and ideas, it ruins the "natural selection" of the process. And they notoriously SUCK AT IT..

Govt should be limited to PROCUREMENT of their particular tech needs and the funding of ONLY the most fundamental and vanilla science research.. Research SOOOO generic that it benefits ALL companies in the field. Not just their political favorites and donors..

You have this view that Nancy Pelosi and Michelle Bachman are gonna create the future in a better image.. They are not. POWER is only important to future technology in places like CHINA where dictates come from the top.. ((and the bottom is too intimidated to think for themselves)).. This works for awhile.. But in short order, you create a nation that can only copy, steal or borrow ideas from others. And China already knows this..

And it beats the hell out of me why YOU and other Big Govt statists want to TRY THIS OUT at this late stage of the game for the USA...

Posting your enormous ignorance of history for all the see, Flat. The 'government' decided that we needed railroads spanning the continent, rather than horse drawn wagons, during the Civil War. And our nation became a continental power with that decision. After WW2, 'Government' decided that we need the nation laced together with the Interstate Highway System, and we became a better and stronger nation because of that.

From organizatons like the USGS to the CDC, government has done many things very well tha private enterprise simply would not do. But your silly ideology will not let you admit any of this. And that is the reason that you 'Conservatives' are held in deep distrust by most, and in contempt by those with a good education.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You do realize that you are displaying your willfull ignorance for the whole world to see?

I'm not dumb enough to fall in that bull shit global warming thing you are.

 

[Old Rocks]

Where is the link for the 400,000 birds killed by windmills?

It's been posted many times. C'mon socko, do a thread search. They are all in the enviro threads.

Sorry, I've been frequenting a forum that required citations for such assertions.

Here's something I found on goggle:


Man-made structure/technology

Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)

Feral and domestic cats

Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]

Power lines

130 million -- 174 million [source: AWEA]

Windows (residential and commercial)

100 million -- 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]

Pesticides

70 million [source: AWEA]

Automobiles

60 million -- 80 million [source: AWEA]

Lighted communication towers

40 million -- 50 million [source: AWEA]

Wind turbines

10,000 -- 40,000 [source: ABC]

HowStuffWorks "Do wind turbines kill birds?"

I thought, perhaps, this was your source, and perhaps you inadvertently added a zero to it. But perhaps not.


I noticed you did cite the number of birds found in the first week of BP. Since that number was surprisingly low, it that why you cited anyway?

Like I said, I'm used to having to prove my asserts, particularly in scientific threads... socko.

Walleyes would not 'inadvertantly' add a zero. He would do it on purpose and only regret that he did not add two zeros.

 

[Old Rocks]

You do realize that you are displaying your willfull ignorance for the whole world to see?

I'm not dumb enough to fall in that bull shit global warming thing you are.

Provide evidence that it is not valid. Things like why most of the glaciers worldwide are not receding. Like the Arctic Ice is not in a death spiral. Why the US has not seen a 1.5 F increase in temps in the last 150 years. Evidence. Proof. Stuff other than mindless flap-yap.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You do realize that you are displaying your willfull ignorance for the whole world to see?

I'm not dumb enough to fall in that bull shit global warming thing you are.

Provide evidence that it is not valid. Things like why most of the glaciers worldwide are not receding. Like the Arctic Ice is not in a death spiral. Why the US has not seen a 1.5 F increase in temps in the last 150 years. Evidence. Proof. Stuff other than mindless flap-yap.

provide evidence that it is?

OK I'll throw you a bone.
earth warms every year it's called summer it happens somewhere on the globe every year.

 

[PMZ]

You do realize that you are displaying your willfull ignorance for the whole world to see?

I'm not dumb enough to fall in that bull shit global warming thing you are.

But you are too dumb to provide any science that supports what you wish was true.

 

[PMZ]

I'm not dumb enough to fall in that bull shit global warming thing you are.

Provide evidence that it is not valid. Things like why most of the glaciers worldwide are not receding. Like the Arctic Ice is not in a death spiral. Why the US has not seen a 1.5 F increase in temps in the last 150 years. Evidence. Proof. Stuff other than mindless flap-yap.

provide evidence that it is?

OK I'll throw you a bone.
earth warms every year it's called summer it happens somewhere on the globe every year.

You are fleeing reality. That’s not possible.

 

[daveman]

Provide evidence that it is not valid. Things like why most of the glaciers worldwide are not receding. Like the Arctic Ice is not in a death spiral. Why the US has not seen a 1.5 F increase in temps in the last 150 years. Evidence. Proof. Stuff other than mindless flap-yap.

provide evidence that it is?

OK I'll throw you a bone.
earth warms every year it's called summer it happens somewhere on the globe every year.

You are fleeing reality. That’s not possible.

Summer is not possible?

Wow. Just...wow.

 

[PMZ]

provide evidence that it is?

OK I'll throw you a bone.
earth warms every year it's called summer it happens somewhere on the globe every year.

You are fleeing reality. That’s not possible.

Summer is not possible?

Wow. Just...wow.

Summer is not climate. It's weather. Easy to confuse.

AGW can only be measured by change in climate as it is a variable on top of all of the other causes of weather. It's only evident with certainly if all of the weather is effected, which we call climate.

On the other hand what we experience from day to day is only weather, not climate.

AGW energizes some combination of water, land, life and atmosphere. It leads to more energetic weather and/or higher sea levels. At least until stability and energy balance return.

How AGW manifests will continually change.

Mankind will be chasing a moving environmental target to adapt to until atmospheric GHG concentrations stabilize, and energy balance is restored.

A very long time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are fleeing reality. That’s not possible.

Summer is not possible?

Wow. Just...wow.

Summer is not climate. It's weather. Easy to confuse.

AGW can only be measured by change in climate as it is a variable on top of all of the other causes of weather. It's only evident with certainly if all of the weather is effected, which we call climate.

On the other hand what we experience from day to day is only weather, not climate.

AGW energizes some combination of water, land, life and atmosphere. It leads to more energetic weather and/or higher sea levels. At least until stability and energy balance return.

How AGW manifests will continually change.

Mankind will be chasing a moving environmental target to adapt to until atmospheric GHG concentrations stabilize, and energy balance is restored.

A very long time.

Now whose fleeing reality? Summer is weather?

sum·mer1
ˈsəmər/Submit
noun
1.
the warmest season of the year, in the northern hemisphere from June to August and in the southern hemisphere from December to February.

 

[PMZ]

Summer is not possible?

Wow. Just...wow.

Summer is not climate. It's weather. Easy to confuse.

AGW can only be measured by change in climate as it is a variable on top of all of the other causes of weather. It's only evident with certainly if all of the weather is effected, which we call climate.

On the other hand what we experience from day to day is only weather, not climate.

AGW energizes some combination of water, land, life and atmosphere. It leads to more energetic weather and/or higher sea levels. At least until stability and energy balance return.

How AGW manifests will continually change.

Mankind will be chasing a moving environmental target to adapt to until atmospheric GHG concentrations stabilize, and energy balance is restored.

A very long time.

Now whose fleeing reality? Summer is weather?

sum·mer1
ˈsəmər/Submit
noun
1.
the warmest season of the year, in the northern hemisphere from June to August and in the southern hemisphere from December to February.

It's a predictable annual change in weather. It's not a change in climate.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Summer is not climate. It's weather. Easy to confuse.

AGW can only be measured by change in climate as it is a variable on top of all of the other causes of weather. It's only evident with certainly if all of the weather is effected, which we call climate.

On the other hand what we experience from day to day is only weather, not climate.

AGW energizes some combination of water, land, life and atmosphere. It leads to more energetic weather and/or higher sea levels. At least until stability and energy balance return.

How AGW manifests will continually change.

Mankind will be chasing a moving environmental target to adapt to until atmospheric GHG concentrations stabilize, and energy balance is restored.

A very long time.

Now whose fleeing reality? Summer is weather?

sum·mer1
ˈsəmər/Submit
noun
1.
the warmest season of the year, in the northern hemisphere from June to August and in the southern hemisphere from December to February.

It's a predictable annual change in weather. It's not a change in climate.

I said summer was a season it does it once every year.

 

[PMZ]

Now whose fleeing reality? Summer is weather?

sum·mer1
ˈsəmər/Submit
noun
1.
the warmest season of the year, in the northern hemisphere from June to August and in the southern hemisphere from December to February.

It's a predictable annual change in weather. It's not a change in climate.

I said summer was a season it does it once every year.

I agree. My point is that because it happens every year, predictably, it not climate change.