Study: Environmentalists Have ‘Substantially Worse than Average’ Carbon Footprints - Page 5

Lollie · #41 (**permalink**) 05-17-2014, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

As for eagles, wind turbines in 10 states have killed average of 6 a year.

So, not all that deadly, considering.

The concern for me here is the ODNR tracking more and more bald eagles coming into this part of the state.
I've seen a few around here, but they mostly nest up north in Defiance county.
So with the wind energy moving more into the counties mentioned, it does cause concern for the plight of such a majestic bird, for me anyhow.
Wind power is catching on around here in a big way because of all the farmland.

rivrrat · #42 (**permalink**) 05-17-2014, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lollie

The concern for me here is the ODNR tracking more and more bald eagles coming into this part of the state.
I've seen a few around here, but they mostly nest up north in Defiance county.
So with the wind energy moving more into the counties mentioned, it does cause concern for the plight of such a majestic bird, for me anyhow.
Wind power is catching on around here in a big way because of all the farmland.

I completely agree it's a concern and so do turbine companies, which is why they're working on the problem. Newer turbines have already managed to mitigate some of the issues. I looked into a wind turbine for my house to use in conjunction with solar, but for where I live, the costs really outweigh the benefits. It's not suitable everywhere, for sure.

saltwn · #43 (**permalink**) 05-17-2014, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrancSevin

Franc is not really an environmental activist. He is a conservationist. Big difference. And based on the tons of omitted landfill and acres of remediated forest, there has been little time in his life for an armchair.

As for being a quitter, You are right about that. I am quitting this useless conversation.

conservationist/environmentalist same thing different decade
the world could use your input of knowledge yet you choose to argue politics instead.
because it's easier
fine

40yearfan · #44 (**permalink**) 05-27-2014, 10:12 PM

Question: If CO2 is the problem, why not plant more trees? Lots of them. It would have to be a lot cheaper than buying and selling carbon credits and it would increase habitat for animals substantially.

rivrrat · #45 (**permalink**) 05-27-2014, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 40yearfan

Question: If CO2 is the problem, why not plant more trees? Lots of them. It would have to be a lot cheaper than buying and selling carbon credits and it would increase habitat for animals substantially.

Trees only help with that if they're in the right places... like near the equator. But, they can only do so much anyway. Much is absorbed by the oceans which has already set in motion a slow catastrophe.

40yearfan · #46 (**permalink**) 05-27-2014, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Trees only help with that if they're in the right places... like near the equator. But, they can only do so much anyway. Much is absorbed by the oceans which has already set in motion a slow catastrophe.

I disagree. A tree is a tree no matter where it is planted. They all use CO2 and push out oxygen. We have millions of miles of open space in this country alone. It sure is a far better scheme than buying and selling carbon credits or raising utility prices by 20% in the next 2 years.

rivrrat · #47 (**permalink**) 05-27-2014, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 40yearfan

I disagree. A tree is a tree no matter where it is planted. They all use CO2 and push out oxygen. We have millions of miles of open space in this country alone. It sure is a far better scheme than buying and selling carbon credits or raising utility prices by 20% in the next 2 years.

You can disagree all you want, but facts are facts.

HowStuffWorks "Green Myth 1: Planting Trees Will Fix Global Warming"

FrancSevin · #48 (**permalink**) 05-28-2014, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

You can disagree all you want, but facts are facts.

HowStuffWorks "Green Myth 1: Planting Trees Will Fix Global Warming"

Ocean acidification by CO2 increases have not proven to be the catastrophe predicted. I have posted scientific studies of such in other threads here.
The logic of this argument completely escapes historical facts. CO2 is the building block of reef formations. Virtually all limestone on the planet is the result of such growth. Reefs are blooming and thriving all over the planet but the AGW community will not admit it.

IPPCC has volumes of peer reviewed data on the subject confirming that the impacts of acidification on sea life has not been negative.
And to further rub fur the wrong way, Deserts are turning green thanks to abundant CO2. Amazing.
.

rivrrat · #49 (**permalink**) 05-28-2014, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrancSevin

Ocean acidification by CO2 increases have not proven to be the catastrophe predicted. I have posted scientific studies of such in other threads here.

And I have posted scientific studies stating otherwise, of which there are many. Excessive CO2 kills coral reefs.

Quote:

The logic of this argument completely escapes historical facts. CO2 is the building block of reef formations. Virtually all limestone on the planet is the result of such growth. .

No, limestone is the building block of reef formations. More specifically - aragonite. Corals utilize CO2 to create limestone, however, too much CO2 is bad and causes coral reefs to die. Atmospheric CO2 isn't the only cause, but it is a significant one. Pollution is another, and rising water temps are another.

Quote:

Reefs are blooming and thriving all over the planet but the AGW community will not admit it

Not been diving on many reefs, have you? One quarter of the reefs of the world are dead with well over half significantly damaged. And in some areas, 90% of the reefs are dead. (such as Seychelles)

Quote:

IPPCC has volumes of peer reviewed data on the subject confirming that the impacts of acidification on sea life has not been negative.

You mean the IPCC?

Really? Weird.

Quote:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group II wrapped up its work at the end of March in Japan, where the final drafts were accepted for the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Both Working Group I and II highlighted ocean acidification as a concern.

Quote:

From the IPCC - “There is high confidence, based on substantial new evidence, that observed changes in marine and freshwater biological systems are associated with rising water temperatures, as well as related changes in ice cover, salinity, oxygen levels and circulation”

Quote:

And to further rub fur the wrong way, Deserts are turning green thanks to abundant CO2. Amazing.
.

WTF does that have to do with the ocean?

You do realize that "abundant CO2" in the ocean causes it to turn green too when combined with pollution that increases nutrients, by way of causing excessive algae growth. Which kills coral reefs. Do you know anything at all about reefs?

FrancSevin · #50 (**permalink**) 05-28-2014, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

And I have posted scientific studies stating otherwise, of which there are many. Excessive CO2 kills coral reefs.

No, limestone is the building block of reef formations. More specifically - aragonite. Corals utilize CO2 to create limestone, however, too much CO2 is bad and causes coral reefs to die. Atmospheric CO2 isn't the only cause, but it is a significant one. Pollution is another, and rising water temps are another.

Not been diving on many reefs, have you? One quarter of the reefs of the world are dead with well over half significantly damaged. And in some areas, 90% of the reefs are dead. (such as Seychelles)

You mean the IPCC?

Really? Weird.

WTF does that have to do with the ocean?

You do realize that "abundant CO2" in the ocean causes it to turn green too when combined with pollution that increases nutrients, by way of causing excessive algae growth. Which kills coral reefs. Do you know anything at all about reefs?

Again,

cut and parse conversations confuse what is said. If you cannot put your arguments together with cohesiveness, not much point. I didn't come here to play pong.

That said, most studies attempt to prove an agenda,a theory. Studies by the oppositio refuting those theories are the same. Best we can do is compare the logic of each to what facts we do know.

The NIPC continues to find data faults in the IPCC science. I get data updates from both. I continue to find the NIPC logic consistant with what I observe in real life.

The IPCC from the UN continues to claim Polar ice is melting. When you present them with the satilite photos to the contrary, they change thestory to "the Trend shows it melting."

The NIPC provides the evidence and allows you your own conclusions.

The IPCC asked for money to save the world. The NIPC asks for nothing but an open mind.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to rivrrat For This Useful Post:
Lollie