Marine Heatwaves Leading To Rapid Hurricane Intensification Before Landfall

[donsutherland1]

30 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Because the "gate-keepers" of the peer review process  are climate alarmists and won't entertain anything else.  

Quality research would get published. Claims that lack evidence would not.

[donsutherland1]

25 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Assuming that fossil fuels leads to dangerous global warming which is a circular argument. You can't make this assumption.  Humans have made tremendous advances in quality of life to a level not ever seem by Homo Sapiens.  This is because of cheap energy.  Go ahead, go to renewables before the technology is ready and you will see global economic collapse. And poor people already struggling would suffer the most. The agenda of the radical climate activists would be exceptional cruel to a lot of poorer people. It is an anti-human campaign.  So do you folks still drive gas power cars? Use heat from fossil fuels? Use products that were derived from fossil fuels?  

I don’t know of any serious policy proposals that would seek an abrupt shift. All, even AOC’s “Green New Deal,” which is more than just climate legislation, have a transition. Technology sharing will almost certainly be part of any effective coordinated multilateral approach in a shift toward renewable energy. Moreover, just as has been the case with prior technologies, there will likely be significant improvements in renewable energy technologies in coming years.

[blizzard1024]

47 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Quality research would get published. Claims that lack evidence would not.

Who defines what quality research is?  Its similar to history, the winner of a war writes the history.... 

[blizzard1024]

6 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

It's not me saying it. The information I have provided comes from the EIA and from power companies. Also just look around - power companies are installing wind and solar everywhere because it's cheap. This will make the 13th time I have posted this. I am sorry you find fact-based corrections of your lies to be 'bullying'. If you don't like being 'bullied' stop posting lies.

 

https://sciencing.com/effects-solar-power-farms-environment-13547.html     

[blizzard1024]

Read this too....   https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2020/10/10/the-west-intends-energy-suicide-will-it-succeed/#5044408c490e

This gives you another side to your "rosy" green energy fantasies.   I have told you this like 12 times now...and you don't listen. /sarc 

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

Who defines what quality research is?  Its similar to history, the winner of a war writes the history.... 

The scientific profession defines its own standards. Quality involves study design, research questions, methods of research, evidence related to the research questions, etc. Today, AGW is to climate science what Evolution is to biology. That’s based on the evidence that has been gathered.

[blizzard1024]

Here's another for your skier...  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/30000-wind-turbines-located-in-critical-bird-habitats/ 

 

and another.... https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-birds/collisions/wind-turbines.php#:~:text=Bird collisions increase with turbine,increased bird collisions are likely

 

[blizzard1024]

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

[donsutherland1]

32 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Here's another for your skier...  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/30000-wind-turbines-located-in-critical-bird-habitats/ 

 

and another.... https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-birds/collisions/wind-turbines.php#:~:text=Bird collisions increase with turbine,increased bird collisions are likely

 

That pales in comparison to the threat posed by climate change.

https://www.audubon.org/climate/survivalbydegrees

 

[blizzard1024]

11 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

That pales in comparison to the threat posed by climate change.

https://www.audubon.org/climate/survivalbydegrees

 

This is a BS study because our birds survived the Holocene warming 8000 years ago. Audubon is a radical left wing institution that wants your donations. That's all.  Back when I was a kid they were saying how all these bird species would go extinct because of tropical deforestation on their wintering grounds by the year 2000. Well many of those species are doing better than ever. It turns out, they don't even use primary rainforest on their wintering grounds. Audubon does this for money. period. 

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

This is a BS study because our birds survived the Holocene warming 8000 years ago. Audubon is a radical left wing institution that wants your donations. That's all.  Back when I was a kid they were saying how all these bird species would go extinct because of tropical deforestation on their wintering grounds by the year 2000. Well many of those species are doing better than ever. It turns out, they don't even use primary rainforest on their wintering grounds. Audubon does this for money. period. 

If that were the only such report, one could argue that it is an outlier. However, it is not the only such report. A peer-reviewed study:

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/8/4211

[skierinvermont]

16 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

That pales in comparison to the threat posed by climate change.

https://www.audubon.org/climate/survivalbydegrees

 

Correction Don, it (birds hitting wind turbines) pales in comparison to house cats and glass windows. It's not even in the same universe as climate change or air pollution

[skierinvermont]

19 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

https://sciencing.com/effects-solar-power-farms-environment-13547.html     

Literally every single human activity affects the environment. A few birds and tortoises bumping into the physical infrastructure is literally nothing compared to the effects of air pollution, oil spills, oil holding ponds, acid rain, ozone, strip mining, and climate change on humans and the environment from coal and natural gas which collectively cause millions of premature human deaths and a mass-extinction event for animals.

I have already provided literature to show that bird collisions with turbines are less than .1% of bird deaths from domestic house cats, glass windows, and communication towers. And the areal extent of solar power would be far less than 2-3% of the current area of industrial agriculture.

[blizzard1024]

The new proposed wind farms were are supposed to be even higher up than current ones are going to be mass slayers of birds. Birds already have enough to killing them off...cats, collisions with buildings, windows, cars etc. Now we are going to put up tons of new wind farms even higher up. For what?  Nothing its not going to make a difference at all except make some energy company rich. Oil companies indeed have exploited the environment too with negative consequences too. Now "green" energy companies will do the same. They underreport bird kills on purpose. 

[skierinvermont]

36 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

The new proposed wind farms were are supposed to be even higher up than current ones are going to be mass slayers of birds. Birds already have enough to killing them off...cats, collisions with buildings, windows, cars etc. Now we are going to put up tons of new wind farms even higher up. For what?  Nothing its not going to make a difference at all except make some energy company rich. Oil companies indeed have exploited the environment too with negative consequences too. Now "green" energy companies will do the same. They underreport bird kills on purpose. 

The studies I posted were independent scientific assessments of bird deaths. Your claims of underreporting are without evidence or merit. Given that cats, windows, and Comm towers kill 1000x more I think those are the bigger issue to focus on not a few birds killed by wind mills. 
 

The benefit is an end to strip mining, oil spills, oil holding ponds, air pollution which kills tens of thousands of adults just in the United States every year, climate change, acid rain, and much more. The oil and gas industry has wreaked havoc on the environment and human health for far too long. Oil holding ponds alone, which is like the smallest aspect of the oil industries affects, kill more birds than windmills such as the picture above from an oil holding pond. That’s just the tip of the iceberg with oil.

[etudiant]

7 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

The studies I posted were independent scientific assessments of bird deaths. Your claims of underreporting are without evidence or merit. Given that cats, windows, and Comm towers kill 1000x more I think those are the bigger issue to focus on not a few birds killed by wind mills. 
 

The benefit is an end to strip mining, oil spills, oil holding ponds, air pollution which kills tens of thousands of adults just in the United States every year, climate change, acid rain, and much more. The oil and gas industry has wreaked havoc on the environment and human health for far too long. Oil holding ponds alone, which is like the smallest aspect of the oil industries affects, kill more birds than windmills such as the picture above from an oil holding pond. That’s just the tip of the iceberg with oil.

Windmills are selective killers, they preferentially kill large soaring birds, eagles, hawks and other large avifauna. The victims,  who seek out the same windy spots to stay in the air without much effort, cannot see the blade coming down of them from above. Removing the slow breeding large birds this way is not a sensible policy imho.

They also are efficient bat killers, as the vacuum left by the blade speeding by (tip speed is close to sonic velocity) ruptures the bats lungs, but bats get less attention.from the media.

That said, no argument about the damages inflicted by the fossil fuel industry. But that is no reason to give the other 'green' power initiatives a license to destroy either.

[blizzard1024]

1 hour ago, etudiant said:

That said, no argument about the damages inflicted by the fossil fuel industry. But that is no reason to give the other 'green' power initiatives a license to destroy either.

Totally agree. Yeah the oil and coal industries have been horrible on the environment. This doesn't give the "green" companies a pass. There was a company pushing hard to have a huge wind farm on a migratory bird pathway by eastern Lake Ontario. They almost got their bird killing wind farm on a large scale except a bird watcher found a bald eagle nest on the exact area that they were gonna to put the  majority of the wind mills. In fact, they were going to have to take that tree down. They didn't disclose that there was an eagle nest their on purpose!  The entire project was cancelled. Serves them right.  When there is money to be made, companies do anything they can to make money, even if it destroys the environment. We saw with this oil and coal companies. Coal companies destroyed mountain tops completely! Oil companies have a terrible track record too. To think green energy is going to be different is wrong.

We need a strong well funded EPA and the states need strong well funded environmental protection. But you know how that goes. anyway, the prospect of wind farms on a massive scale will cause a lot of bird deaths especially raptors including eagles. The eagles just came back from the banning of DDT.  Contrary to what many of you may think of me, I am a staunch environmentalist. Birds are very adaptable creatures to changing climates. Cardinals for instance 120 years ago were southern birds. Now they have spread north to the northern U.S. Many other southern species have slowly been moving north. Northern species actually have been doing fine because of the maturation of northern hardwood forests and conifer forests. There has been no major declines for many forest birds. The birds that have declined most are those that nest in brushy areas ones that need less mature woods (which have grown up), field birds and shorebirds. Shorebirds are a BIG concern. Many species migrate up through the Plains from South America and the obstacles of wind farms now dotting the landscape in the fields that use to forage will eventually threaten many species with extinction. It is has been found that they do much better in the Arctic nesting grounds raising more young during milder summers which have been happening lately. Yet they decline still. It is likely the wind farms. Green energy is mean energy for birds. 
 

[skierinvermont]

2 hours ago, etudiant said:

Windmills are selective killers, they preferentially kill large soaring birds, eagles, hawks and other large avifauna. The victims,  who seek out the same windy spots to stay in the air without much effort, cannot see the blade coming down of them from above. Removing the slow breeding large birds this way is not a sensible policy imho.

They also are efficient bat killers, as the vacuum left by the blade speeding by (tip speed is close to sonic velocity) ruptures the bats lungs, but bats get less attention.from the media.

That said, no argument about the damages inflicted by the fossil fuel industry. But that is no reason to give the other 'green' power initiatives a license to destroy either.

I'm all for minimizing bird deaths by placing them out of migratory areas and pristine habitat. The data shows wind mills kill many many raptors but the numbers are simply not material on a national scale. People have a hard time with statistics. It's hard to understand that wind mills kill so many birds and yet statistically these numbers are trivial, at least for wind developments that are properly situated outside pristine habitat and migratory routes. Even for raptors specifically. Communication towers also preferentially kill large soaring boards,  but 100x more than windmills because of their extreme height and thin wires, should we get rid of them too?

 

This is raptor specific mortality. Vehicle collisions 194. Buildings 98. Fences 7. Wind turbines 3.

https://www.jwildlifedis.org/doi/full/10.7589/2017-07-157

 

 

[donsutherland1]

Marine Heatwaves also have an adverse impact on ocean ecosystems. One example:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/massive-marine-heat-wave-blob-unprecedented-seabird-die-off

 

[Bhs1975]

Totally agree. Yeah the oil and coal industries have been horrible on the environment. This doesn't give the "green" companies a pass. There was a company pushing hard to have a huge wind farm on a migratory bird pathway by eastern Lake Ontario. They almost got their bird killing wind farm on a large scale except a bird watcher found a bald eagle nest on the exact area that they were gonna to put the  majority of the wind mills. In fact, they were going to have to take that tree down. They didn't disclose that there was an eagle nest their on purpose!  The entire project was cancelled. Serves them right.  When there is money to be made, companies do anything they can to make money, even if it destroys the environment. We saw with this oil and coal companies. Coal companies destroyed mountain tops completely! Oil companies have a terrible track record too. To think green energy is going to be different is wrong.

We need a strong well funded EPA and the states need strong well funded environmental protection. But you know how that goes. anyway, the prospect of wind farms on a massive scale will cause a lot of bird deaths especially raptors including eagles. The eagles just came back from the banning of DDT.  Contrary to what many of you may think of me, I am a staunch environmentalist. Birds are very adaptable creatures to changing climates. Cardinals for instance 120 years ago were southern birds. Now they have spread north to the northern U.S. Many other southern species have slowly been moving north. Northern species actually have been doing fine because of the maturation of northern hardwood forests and conifer forests. There has been no major declines for many forest birds. The birds that have declined most are those that nest in brushy areas ones that need less mature woods (which have grown up), field birds and shorebirds. Shorebirds are a BIG concern. Many species migrate up through the Plains from South America and the obstacles of wind farms now dotting the landscape in the fields that use to forage will eventually threaten many species with extinction. It is has been found that they do much better in the Arctic nesting grounds raising more young during milder summers which have been happening lately. Yet they decline still. It is likely the wind farms. Green energy is mean energy for birds. 

 

They survived a giant asteroid hitting the Earth. They will be fine.

[LibertyBell]

On 10/10/2020 at 7:56 AM, donsutherland1 said:

There is a lot of merit to that Planck quote. Fortunately, at least as far as climate science is concerned, the science has triumphed. No credible opposition to AGW remains. From the sidelines, there continues to be noisy objections—most of it from those who have no background in climate science and a vanquished few who proved unable to build a credible alternative scientific case—but the literature reflects the reality that AGW is the dominant cause of contemporary climate change. Uncertainties in various areas e.g., feedbacks, persist, but the overarching idea about the causation of contemporary climate change has been established.

Where inroads remain to be made is on the policy front. At present large carbon emitters are permitted to dump their emissions into the climate system with impunity. Their products are underpriced, as the costs of their emissions are isolated from their cost structures and instead incurred by society. They also receive billions of dollars in subsidies that incentivize increases in such pollution. Thus, market function is actually impaired by these distortions and shifts toward cleaner energy are impeded. 

That will likely gradually begin to change. But once the Millennials and Generation Z, whose life exposure to climate change is far greater than that for preceding generations, gain political clout, much more rapid change is likely. Opinion surveys show that they do not view the fossil fuel industry as sufficiently sacrosanct that it must be held immune to the costs and consequences of its emissions. The worldview that seems to arise out of the polling is the idea that society isn’t built around industry, but that industry is part of society. With that comes responsibilities to society.

That’s where the issue of externalities (carbon pollution in this case) arises. Under the former mindset, it’s accepted (and acceptable by industry advocates) that the costs of externalities be borne by society. In the latter, all costs, including those associated with externalities, should be borne by those responsible. In a way, even as the language appears absent from what I have read about the rising younger generations, this amounts to a rediscovery of the old idea of individual responsibility.

Yes, I never understood the idea that we should bear the responsibilities of what they do, while they also take our money.

[LibertyBell]

On 10/12/2020 at 6:51 PM, skierinvermont said:

I'm all for minimizing bird deaths by placing them out of migratory areas and pristine habitat. The data shows wind mills kill many many raptors but the numbers are simply not material on a national scale. People have a hard time with statistics. It's hard to understand that wind mills kill so many birds and yet statistically these numbers are trivial, at least for wind developments that are properly situated outside pristine habitat and migratory routes. Even for raptors specifically. Communication towers also preferentially kill large soaring boards,  but 100x more than windmills because of their extreme height and thin wires, should we get rid of them too?

 

This is raptor specific mortality. Vehicle collisions 194. Buildings 98. Fences 7. Wind turbines 3.

https://www.jwildlifedis.org/doi/full/10.7589/2017-07-157

 

 

More advanced wind turbines have built in computers that shut down individual units when birds approach.  This problem is going to lessen with new tech.

[LibertyBell]

On 10/12/2020 at 5:55 PM, blizzard1024 said:

Totally agree. Yeah the oil and coal industries have been horrible on the environment. This doesn't give the "green" companies a pass. There was a company pushing hard to have a huge wind farm on a migratory bird pathway by eastern Lake Ontario. They almost got their bird killing wind farm on a large scale except a bird watcher found a bald eagle nest on the exact area that they were gonna to put the  majority of the wind mills. In fact, they were going to have to take that tree down. They didn't disclose that there was an eagle nest their on purpose!  The entire project was cancelled. Serves them right.  When there is money to be made, companies do anything they can to make money, even if it destroys the environment. We saw with this oil and coal companies. Coal companies destroyed mountain tops completely! Oil companies have a terrible track record too. To think green energy is going to be different is wrong.

We need a strong well funded EPA and the states need strong well funded environmental protection. But you know how that goes. anyway, the prospect of wind farms on a massive scale will cause a lot of bird deaths especially raptors including eagles. The eagles just came back from the banning of DDT.  Contrary to what many of you may think of me, I am a staunch environmentalist. Birds are very adaptable creatures to changing climates. Cardinals for instance 120 years ago were southern birds. Now they have spread north to the northern U.S. Many other southern species have slowly been moving north. Northern species actually have been doing fine because of the maturation of northern hardwood forests and conifer forests. There has been no major declines for many forest birds. The birds that have declined most are those that nest in brushy areas ones that need less mature woods (which have grown up), field birds and shorebirds. Shorebirds are a BIG concern. Many species migrate up through the Plains from South America and the obstacles of wind farms now dotting the landscape in the fields that use to forage will eventually threaten many species with extinction. It is has been found that they do much better in the Arctic nesting grounds raising more young during milder summers which have been happening lately. Yet they decline still. It is likely the wind farms. Green energy is mean energy for birds. 
 

a well funded EPA that doesn't employ people who are part of the industries they are supposed to be regulating (we could also say that about the FDA and other regulatory agencies.)

 

[LibertyBell]

On 10/12/2020 at 8:43 AM, donsutherland1 said:

If that were the only such report, one could argue that it is an outlier. However, it is not the only such report. A peer-reviewed study:

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/8/4211

Humanity has a horrible history of driving species to extinction throughout their history.  What a tragic legacy.

https://www.livescience.com/first-human-caused-animal-extinction.html

https://www.livescience.com/53822-dodo-birds-were-smart.html

https://www.livescience.com/earth-without-people.html#xenforo-comments-3341

 

They even lied and tried to blame the species themselves for their own extinction by saying they were stupid when they clearly weren't.

I liked the last piece the most, how long it will take for the planet to recover from the mess we've caused when humanity finally goes extinct.

 

 

[LibertyBell]

On 10/11/2020 at 4:41 PM, donsutherland1 said:

I don’t know of any serious policy proposals that would seek an abrupt shift. All, even AOC’s “Green New Deal,” which is more than just climate legislation, have a transition. Technology sharing will almost certainly be part of any effective coordinated multilateral approach in a shift toward renewable energy. Moreover, just as has been the case with prior technologies, there will likely be significant improvements in renewable energy technologies in coming years.

The GND is very thorough in addressing the many problems we face as a society, from the antiquated land use policy that is driving the current mass extinction to the unhealthy high meat/processed food diet that is driving the high rates of diabetes and obesity and the worst BMI in the world, to the problems of plastic pollution that are ubiquitous worldwide.  The IPCC has stated we must cut fossil fuel usage by half  by 2030 to avoid irreversible consequences and even that may be too conservative, as the damage we've already caused is expected to stick with us for thousands of years.

 

[blizzard1024]

On 10/12/2020 at 6:51 PM, skierinvermont said:

I'm all for minimizing bird deaths by placing them out of migratory areas and pristine habitat.

something we agree on! 

[LibertyBell]

On 10/14/2020 at 3:27 PM, blizzard1024 said:

something we agree on! 

we also need to do something about birds that get killed in collisions with airplanes.  

[LibertyBell]

Maybe we could go after the fossil fuel cartels on antitrust grounds?  Posted this on the political forum also:

One of the few good things this justice department has done (and I suspect it's as a result of the bipartisan antitrust congressional hearings) is going after Google.  This needs to be done to all 5 big tech companies (Facebook, Apple, Google, Amazon and Microsoft).  Europe fines them billions for stealing and using personal data, we need to catch up.  Hopefully Warren gets a big role in the new administration's Justice Dept, because she's been forward-thinking on this important issue for years now.

 

[bluewave]

 

 

[donsutherland1]

New paper: Hurricanes are now weakening more slowly over land due to climate change.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2867-7.epdf