Click bat for larger bat.Jim Olson wrote:
Some claim that wind turbines are bad for migratory birds, and for raptors. The noise and vibrations of the blades in the wind distract or disorient the birds, and they sometimes get hit by the blades.
Tuesday, 26 August, 2008
==============
OKAY! YOU WIN THE PIZZA! The Down Side of wind turbines is Eagle Sausage = Adlerwurst!
BUT ........ check out this story in today's Toronto Globe & Mail!!!
==============
Toronto Globe & Mail
Toronto Canada
Tuesday 26 August 2008
What is killing
the bats
of Pincher Creek?
by Katherine O'Neill
A mystery surrounding the large number of dead animals on a wind farm in Alberta prompted a groundbreaking study at the University of Calgary that found the drop in air pressure around some turbines resulted in fatal respiratory injuries
EDMONTON — Alberta proudly leads the country when it comes to producing wind energy, but in 2005, a troubling mystery began to emerge at a newly opened wind farm near Pincher Creek.
A large number of migratory bats were being found dead at the bottom of wind turbines, and many didn't show signs of actually coming into contact with the turbine blades.
TransAlta Corp., a Calgary-based energy firm that owns the wind farm, quickly approached bat experts at the University of Calgary in search of answers.
Sean Whittaker, vice-president of policy with the Canadian Wind Energy Association, said the fact that large numbers of dead bats have been found at only a few wind farms around North America at a time when hundreds are in operation made the deaths more perplexing.
After a two-year study, University of Calgary researchers have found that most of the bats suffered severe injuries to their respiratory systems consistent with a sudden drop in air pressure - called barotrauma - that occurs near the turbine blades.
The study will be released today in the online edition of the journal Current Biology.
Erin Baerwald, the research's project leader and a University of Calgary graduate student, said that bats rarely run into manmade structures because the flying mammals can detect objects with echolocation, the location of objects by reflected sound.
"An atmospheric pressure drop at wind turbine blades is an undetectable - and potentially unforeseeable - hazard for bats, thus partially explaining the large number of bat fatalities at these specific structures," she said.
Bats, unlike birds, do not have a respiratory system that can withstand sudden pressure changes in the air.
Ms. Baerwald said that one way in which energy companies could reduce or prevent bat fatalities is to increase the wind speed at which turbine blades begin to rotate during the bats' migration period, which runs annually from mid-July to mid-September in Alberta. This strategy would work, she added, because bats are more active when wind speeds are low.
While the University of Calgary is well known for its bat research, Ms. Baerwald said there is still a dearth of knowledge about these animals, and conducting this study was difficult but ground-breaking for the field. The researchers examined the carcasses of nearly 190 bats killed at turbines in southern Alberta.
"They aren't seen as sexy animals," she said. "People love to sit in their backyards and watch birds. It's much harder to watch bats because they are nocturnal."
She said the animals - nine species of bats are found in Alberta - are important because they play a major role in pest control. An average bat can gobble up its body weight in insects every night.
Ms. Baerwald plans to expand on the latest study, which was funded by government, industry and conservation groups, by researching bat migration.
Jason Edworthy, director of stakeholder relations at TransAlta Corp.'s wind arm in Calgary, said the company welcomes the study's findings. "It was important for us to determine as much as we could about this issue," he said.
Mr. Edworthy said even before the research was finished, the company began experimenting with ways to reduce bat fatalities, and that they've already seen results.
He said lack of information about bats was initially a barrier. "We had to be quite patient, mainly because we were started from a knowledge base that wasn't quite zero but very, very low."
There are 473 commercial wind turbines operating in Alberta, the vast majority in the southern portion of the province.
Deadly whirl
Bats are dying as they fly into low-pressure zones around wind turbines. The sudden low pressure causes the air in their lungs to expand and cause tissue damage, called barotrauma.
Low-pressure area: most severe immediately out from the blades and decreases as it gets closer to the centre of the turbine.
There is also a low-pressure area down the shaft.
WHY BATS FARE WORSE THAN BIRDS
Bats have large, pliable lungs and hearts that expand, causing tissue damage when exposed to a sudden drop in pressure.
Birds have compact, rigid lungs that do not expand in the same conditions.
- 30 -
CARRIE COCKBURN/ THE GLOBE AND MAIL; SOURCES: GRADY SEMMENS, UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY, CURRENT BIOLOGY, HOWSTUFFWORKS.COM
============
comments
============
1.
Fran Manns from Toronto, Ontario, Canada writes: This is an untended consequence of religious environmentalism - the faith based approach. How many bats, birds and insects have been killed world wide? Environmental impact asessment must be required so that the alternative sources be held up to the light to see their negative effect on the environment. The effect of CO2 is de minimis, except to raise temperatiure, increase humidity and allow clouds, rain and snow to cool things off again. The unintended left has been pushing 1/2 of the story because of their limited scientific vocabulary.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 8:12 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
2.
Jeff Kelly from Kitchener, Canada writes: Religious environmentalism?
Wind turbines are another way to generate electricity... And wind-power in one form or another has been in use for centuries (think Holland's windmills).
Windmills do indeed have negative consequences (There is no such thing as a free lunch). They OUGHT to be studied more. More concern OUGHT to be used when choosing placement, etc. But to pretend that 'traditional' fossil-fuel burning (ie Carbon producing) sources are benign is both dishonest and naive, Fran. The CO2 is slowly cooking us.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 8:41 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
3.
CHP My vote from Whoville, Canada writes: Fran, I'm not an environmentalist, but I'm in favour of wind energy. They've found the problem, so now they need to address it and the bats are okay. Increase the speed requirements for turbine activation from July to September, and Bob's your uncle!
* Posted 26/08/08 at 8:42 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
4.
William J Gillies from Canada writes: Fran Manns from Toronto, Ontario, Canada writes: 'This is an untended consequence of religious environmentalism - the faith based approach.'
How libertarian of you to say that.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 8:44 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
5.
Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: Always a trade-off, never a gift or a free-bee!
* Posted 26/08/08 at 8:48 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
6.
Luke Ellis from Sudbury, Canada writes: Alright Fran Mans you can cut that religious based environmentalism crap right now. it's all BS anyways.
Study it more? what do you think is happening.
You can sit in a lab and look at a model windmill and run numbers all day but no one is going to think of pressure drops killing bats. There are always going to be unforeseen consequences of enacting any technology. All that can be done is to address the problems as quickly as possible to limit the effects, which is exactly what they did.
Seriously if people were as careful as Jeff Kelly would like to be with new developments analyzing them to death because they are terrified something bad might happen. We would still probably not have used fire because it's too dangerous.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 9:32 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
7.
Tilman Kluge from Bad Soden (GER), Germany writes: Jeff Kelly is right, when he says, that there is no such thing as a free lunch (26/08/08 at 8:41). But as well, there is no electricity, which could be cheap, because instead of higher costs too many birds fall victim to wind energy use. That is why at all sites, which are estimated suitable for wind energy use, the compatibility with birdlife must be tested. It is no religious environmentalism, to choose the most harmless sites and reject those exceeding the average level of danger for birds.
Not bird mortality in general but negligence in avoiding avoidable bird mortality is a great problem. Some investors oppose strictly to the test with fear, their favourite sites could not be classified as preferable. The permission for wind energy projects at such sites must be refused until there has been given evidence confirming an avifaunistical sufficient quality.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 9:34 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
8.
Tilman Kluge from Bad Soden (GER), Germany writes: I have to complete my posting from 26/08/08 at 9:34 AM with the remark, that it also applies to bats. Without the remark, people could imagine, I counted bats to the bird family. I never should do that although in the bible bats belong to the bord family.....
* Posted 26/08/08 at 9:42 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
9.
Arnet Sheppard from Ottawa, Canada writes: I just wonder whether this is the whole story. Perhaps there is something about the sound frequencies of these turbines that is attracting the bats? Maybe in the bat soundscape they are the mother of all insect swarms.
Sad story, and further proof that when it comes to energy there is no free lunch.
A
* Posted 26/08/08 at 9:47 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
10.
Joseph Bloggins from Canada writes: Where are the lunatics from Greenpeace with their stupid placards chanting they are 'outraged' by the deaths of these bats? I mean, the idiots virtually called for a state funeral for the 500 ducks in the oilsands (who may well have been baited).
* Posted 26/08/08 at 10:12 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
11.
Arec Bardwin from Upper Canada, Canada writes: Bats aren't very cute. The environmentalists don't care about animals that aren't cute. Polar bears and seal pups on the other hand....
* Posted 26/08/08 at 10:12 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
12.
Bat Fink from Bat Cave, Canada writes: Your turbines cannot harm me. My wings are like a shield of steel. Oh, wait...gasp...arrrrggghhh!
* Posted 26/08/08 at 10:18 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
13.
max from edmonton from Canada writes: I think the Wind turbines need to be stopped.
I have invented a machine that will hurl baby seals (the cutest ones) up into the air so they can be chopped up by the fan blades.
once the raging environmentalists see how many cute baby seal pups are killed in Alberta each year, due to windmills. They will join the fight to shut down these machines of spinning death!
Big Wind can not be trusted!
* Posted 26/08/08 at 10:27 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
14.
Mike Fraser from Montreal, Canada writes: All bats fear ultrasonic sounds.To install ultrasonic generator near the wind turbines and birds and bats never come in this dangerouse places.
If you don't belive me, ask biologists and carry out experiments.
I know it because russian system education in the school much better then canadian.We learn how invent and think, not rewrite a lot of books.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 10:30 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
15.
Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:
The Dark Knight is not amused.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 10:45 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
16.
Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:
And seriously?
In our headlong rush to alleviate GHG emissions we are going to replace hydrocarbon cunsumption presumably with windmills and solar panels.
Anybody give any thought what environmental damage a mass conversion to these would entail?
Nobody foresaw the automobile causing any damage.
Consider just hydroelectricity for example.
It absolutely wipes out every living thing in any valleys that are flooded.
GHG friendly if you don't count drowning.
There is no free lunch.
We'll probably end up changing the jet stream with wind turbines or something stupid and throw the earth off it's axis creating an even bigger problem than GHGs ever could.
I mean, does anybody ever consider this stuff?
* Posted 26/08/08 at 10:51 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
17.
Dr Demento from Canada writes: Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:
'Consider just hydroelectricity for example.
It absolutely wipes out every living thing in any valleys that are flooded.
GHG friendly if you don't count drowning.'
Duh - no. Animals do not drown when a hydroelectric reservoir is filled. They simply move to adjacent dry land . . .
* Posted 26/08/08 at 11:08 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
18.
Jack Sprat from Calgary, Canada writes: A few dead bats .. tsk tsk. What maybe .0000001% of the area Bats get killed. Please people move on with life
* Posted 26/08/08 at 11:18 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
19.
Green Canada from Canada writes: Arec Bardwin from Upper Canada, Canada writes: Bats aren't very cute. The environmentalists don't care about animals that aren't cute. Polar bears and seal pups on the other hand
___________________________________________
actually I love bats, I would say they are very cute (and most people who have seen them up close would likely agree) and I would call my self an environmentalist...environmental groups are pursuing protection of many 'not cute' things, from rodents to lichens.
it's the public at large that only gets riled up about the cute and cuddly things.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 11:36 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
20.
Snowed in in Barrie from Canada writes: Okay, wind turbines cause some problems too. However, it's a lot easier to count the dead bats lying at the bottom of the wind turbine than to count how many bats and other creatures are suffering as a result of pollution from coal-fired generators and also as a result of disruption in their habitats as a result of global warning. My guess is, that for every bat killed by a wind turbine there are thousands that are better off because of the lack of pollution caused by the turbine.
Michael Sharp, do you really think we're going to throw the Earth off it's axis due to some wind turbines? That's just silly.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 11:36 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
21.
max from edmonton from Canada writes: We must break big wind!
* Posted 26/08/08 at 11:51 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
22.
Bill Palmer from Paisley, Canada writes: Somehow, when mankind was given dominion over every living creature in the Bible, we seem to have interpreted it as our right to do to them what we want, and as it suits our purpose, whether to kill them for our pleasure as a challenge, or to suffer them to die as we 'developed' the world to suit our desires. Sadly we lost sight of the next sentences in the Bible which warns, 'Then God saw everything that He had made, and it was indeed good.'
Even worse, we often loose sight of the commandment to love our neighbour as we rush to 'develop' the world to suit our purposes, or to maximize our profit as developers.
When our developments, whether wind turbines, or any other 'improvement' to our world, are installed without adequately considering their impact on the rest of the world (our neighbours, or the flora and fauna that God saw was 'indeed good') so as to maximixe profit for the developer, we put our desires above those of God.
Oh heck, it's just a few fuzzy bats, who cares? (except possibly those who depend on bats to eat insects that spread disease). And heck, it's only complainers who don't want wind turbines in their backyard that protest the noise and the risk of injury - it's for the good of society isn't it? If a few suffer the noise impacts from wind turbines, then they can move, cannot they? After all, the fact that they have lived there perhaps for years, cannot be of any consequence, can it?
Isn't it true that money makes the world go around? Maybe, but when our love of our neighbour is replaced by love of money, and when we neglect our job to 'tend and keep' the creation of God as we put our desires to 'improve' the creation first, then maybe it's time we stop and think what we are doing. Let's not dismiss the harm we do to creation or our neighbour as trivial, please. I believe that God had a better plan for us.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 12:08 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
23.
Julie Gelfand from Ottawa, Canada writes: What we really need to think about is how to conserve as much energy as possible so that we do not have to produce as much. As many have noted previously, all forms of energy production has some type of impact. The less we need to use, the less impacts we will create.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 12:12 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
24.
Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:
No, I do NOT think wind turbines will throw the earth off it's axis.
Sarcasm being elusive.
Point being...
Not so long ago, nobody gave it second thought as to cars and GHGs.
Nobody is giving second thought to wind turbines and solar panels.
What will the world look like covered in solar panels and wind turbines?
Super-Green.
We got Binky up here saying animals don't drown in hydroelectric projects.
They just move away.
Presumably all the flora grow legs.
And the fauna what got legs can't move 'em fast enough.
Hydroelectricity is Super-Green.
Riiiiggghhhttt...
Nuclear power is the way to go.
We'll just take the nuclear waste and sent it to the moon.
Nuclear power is Super-Green.
Riiiggghhhttt...
Is it that the dying bats are the canaries in the coal mine vis-a-vis wind power?
* Posted 26/08/08 at 12:14 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
25.
Dennis sinneD from Calgary, Canada writes: Dr Demento from Canada writes: 'Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:
'Consider just hydroelectricity for example.
It absolutely wipes out every living thing in any valleys that are flooded.
GHG friendly if you don't count drowning.'
Duh - no. Animals do not drown when a hydroelectric reservoir is filled. They simply move to adjacent dry land . . . '
How fast can caterpillars crawl? Slugs? Furry spiders?
* Posted 26/08/08 at 12:20 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
26.
Laura Dover from Calgary, Canada writes: Bats aren't sexy??!!? Oh I beg to differ.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 12:23 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
27.
GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Jeff Kelly from Kitchener, Canada writes:'The CO2 is slowly cooking us.'
You haven't been keeping track of the temperatures. There has been no signifigant warming since 2001, and the current average for 2008 so far is comparable to those of the mid 1990s.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf
It is becoming more and more obvious that solar realted phenomena are of much greater importance than GHGs when it comes to affecting the global average temperatures.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 12:38 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
28.
GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Hmmm; that should have read 'related', and not 'realted'.
I catch 80% of my typos before whacking 'submit', but a few escape from time to time.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 12:40 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
29.
GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Joseph Bloggins from Canada writes: 'Where are the lunatics from Greenpeace with their stupid placards chanting they are 'outraged' by the deaths of these bats?'
Seals are apparently cuter than bats, and thus more money can be made off donations trumpeting their big, sad-looking, tearyeyes.
In contrast, bats have scrunched faces and beady little eyes, so their cuteness factor isn't strong enough to generate much in the way of donations to the organization.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 12:44 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
30.
Jack Sprat from Calgary, Canada writes: Now we have theology lessons on this blog all from a few dead bats. Man has been killing animals long before there was a bible Bill ....... get over it.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 12:46 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
31.
Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:
The part about global warming that has always alarmed me is the hysteria.
Hysteria is not rational thought.
It is doom-saying.
It is the guy on the corner with the placard claiming the world is going to end.
Before we get carried away with our own importance and rush head-long into some new 'Save The World' technologies should we not at least consider what THEIR long term impact might be.
We ONCE thought autos were benign.
We now think wind turbines and solar panels are benign.
At the risk of contradicting myself could it be that the cure might be worse than the disease?
* Posted 26/08/08 at 12:46 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
32.
Steve Church from Canada writes: Michael Sharp: 'Not so long ago, nobody gave it second thought as to cars and GHGs' . That's another one of your crony-claims, isn't it? Fact is, the GHG pollution problem has been on the table for a century. It's been measured for half a century. It's been warned about for a quarter of a century. ................................................. And the alternate energy downsides have been debated from the concept stage. You only score points against straw-man stuff. And you fall on your face when you try to crab-walk your way back from an orbit-dislocation joke. Get it straight - the longer the delay, the more likely the eventually responses will cause backlashes that makes the bat problem look like a flock of ducks on a tar sand pond.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 12:49 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
33.
GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes: 'We ONCE thought autos were benign.'
Compared with horses, they certainly are. At the end of the 19th century the city of London had to deal with thousands of tons of horse manure per day.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 12:51 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
34.
Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:
Steve Church admonishes me, 'Get it straight - the longer the delay, the more likely the eventually responses will cause backlashes that makes...'
'The end of the world more likely.'
If I may finish your sentence.
You might frighten the children, Steve, but not me.
40 years ago billions were to be dying now from mass starvation.
That was the end of the world scenario in the 70s.
It didn't happen.
It's such an EASY argument.
If they got it wrong 40 years ago, why couldn't they get it wrong now?
For the very simple reason that predicting the future is notoriously hard to do.
The future has it's own agenda.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 12:56 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
35.
Steve Church from Canada writes: GlynnMhor again repeats the abject nonsense of a non-existant cooling trend. The temperatures are not consistent with the mid-90s - temperatures so far for 2008 rank 9th highest. July ranked 5th globally. That's consistent with the La Nina system that resulted in the severest down spike in 20 years. Your Sun-worship chant fails both the observational and data test; it is still popular with the pro-pollutionists. It is pitiful that you, again, throw your one-trick phony into a discussion about something else. Why don't you have a nice cuppa carbon for lunch?
* Posted 26/08/08 at 12:58 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
36.
Paul C from Toronto, Canada writes: Shut down the wind farms and burn more coal. Nothing bad happens when we burn coal.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 12:59 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
37.
Antonio San from Canada writes: Wind farms will do well with all the hot air moved from steve church's ar... mouth.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 1:04 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
38.
Antonio San from Canada writes: 'Alan Burke from Canada writes: Antonio San, I have read about those effects. They do not refute the fact that melting is happening in the Arctic at historically-unprecedented rates.
Measurements, not just models, show it. '
The problem A.Burke is that you do not see the forest from the tree because of your ignorance in atmospheric circulation.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 1:07 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
39.
GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Steve Church from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor again repeats the abject nonsense of a non-existant cooling trend. The temperatures are not consistent with the mid-90s - temperatures so far for 2008 rank 9th highest.'
If the temperature average for 2008 is '9th highest', that means it's COOLER than 8 preceding years, so the cooling trend cannot by that alone be 'non-existant'. BTW, according to the dataset used by the IPCC, the HadCRUT3, 2008 is 11th warmest, not 9th.
And the temperature anomaly so far for 2008 is 0.278, quite comparable to the 0.275 of 1995.
And signifigant warming stopped after 2001, and we have had consistent cooling since 2005, with temperature anomalies of 0.482, 0.422, 0.405, and now 0.278.
The recent 'nina' finished this past spring, and yet temperatures just aren't climbing back. The 'nina' excuse just doesn't pass muster, Steve.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 1:10 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
40.
Toxic Planet from dead zone USA, Canada writes: shut down the wind turbines, solar panels dont kill bats.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 1:42 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
41.
Toxic Planet from dead zone USA, Canada writes: "Bill Palmer from Paisley, Canada writes: Let's not dismiss the harm we do to creation or our neighbour as trivial, please. I believe that God had a better plan for us. "
God must be out to lunch or maybe God doesnt really give a flying fart because that "better plan" seems to be lacking any significance right about now.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 1:48 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
42.
Curious G from Canada writes: Im curious - how many posters/readers here actually believe the currents (el nino, la nina) impact on our weather can be accurately predicted?
Moreover - I remember the 70s - and a curious phenomenon that it gave birth to: global cooling and the new ice age. A series of years where the scientific community screamed bloody murder that the world was experiencing a massive cooling trend that could trigger the next ice age.
Until we can predict global weather patterns, beyond 6 months, to within say a 1% tolerable error rate, you should all relax about these "models" that show our doom and "inevitable" destruction.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 2:00 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
43.
martha stewart from Canada writes: Dr Demento writes: "Duh - no. Animals do not drown when a hydroelectric reservoir is filled. They simply move to adjacent dry land . . . "
Duh. That habitat is permanently lost. If it fills up a valley as it does in BC the adjacent higher habitat is not the same and may not be suitable at all. If the habitat is similar then it is likely already occupied by the same species, leaving no space for the displaced individuals.
Reservoirs also block migration routes.
And though I don't have the exact stats, I can guarantee you that exponentially more animals have drowned in hydro reservoirs than polar bears have drowned allegedly due to The Warming.
Everything has a cost. Given the vast number of planned windfarms, this cost will be high. When all things are considered, THE most benign way to produce electricity is nuclear power.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 2:00 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
44.
GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: If there are any gods, it seems doubtful any of them would care much one way or another.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 2:00 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
45.
Steve Church from Canada writes: Mike Sharpe - Your strawman response was useless. If you need an argument about the end of the world, I suggest your starting point is to buy a mirror.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 2:17 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
46.
Steve Church from Canada writes: Glynn Mhor - 9th highest does not mean cooler than 8 preceeding years. It means any other 8 years over the full data set. ....................... Don't even try to tongue your way to that's what you said. ......................................... Glynn Mhor - NOAA issued the paper, and your mix n match to make a claim is more phony-ism from the Carbon Man Can. You tried to score by comparing the 1995 El Nino peak with the La Nina half of 2008 - and still came up shy. What a piece of straw-grasping .................................................................. And yes, temps are rebounding (but the year will show cool). July ranked 5th after June ranked 8th. The spring showed monthly ranks of 2 - 8. It remains typical for you to talk about the La Nina 'finished' like it was a switch. Stand back, and it'll disappear altogether so you can go back to your sun-worshipping blemish-free religion. It's just more bunk delay - now the collateral damage is wind-farm bats.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 2:38 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
47.
GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Steve Church from Canada writes: "Glynn Mhor - 9th highest does not mean cooler than 8 preceeding years. It means any other 8 years over the full data set."
Heh heh heh heh... and since this is the last year in the dataset, all of those 8 other years must necessarily precede this one, eh?
* Posted 26/08/08 at 2:44 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
48.
GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Steve Church from Canada writes: "GlynnMhor ...temps are rebounding (but the year will show cool). July ranked 5th after June ranked 8th."
No month this year has come up to the average of any of the years since 2001, though March (not June or july) came the closest.
And as you just confessed, above, those months you mention are COOLER than many others, meaning that there is no warming going on at all, much less at the rate seen from 1910-1940, or 1970-2000.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 2:49 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
49.
Steve Church from Canada writes: GlynnMhor - Your response is exactly the cloth-eared tongue dump I expected. You're wrong again ... as usual ... a one-trick phony selling pro-pollution.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 2:51 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
50.
GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Steve Church from Canada writes: "GlynnMhor NOAA issued the paper, and your mix n match to make a claim is more phony-ism from the Carbon Man Can."
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. NOAA has published many papers, some of which have been used by the IPCC.
If you are making a reference to the use of the Hadley dataset as opposed to the NOAA one, they differ only trivially, and as you can see for example on page 684 of the IPCC's Fourth Report
http://tinyurl.com/yplrpb
it is indeed the HadCRUT3 dataset that the IPCC uses.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 2:55 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
51.
Steve Church from Canada writes: Glylnn - "No month this year" - Yea, the La Nina trough that you've tried to use without acknowledging. No points, you're wrong ... again. And wronge, technically as well - Jan, Feb, April, June 7th (low), May 5h, March tied 4th, July 2nd. .... Your CO2-loving spew doesn't stand up ... again.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 3:00 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
52.
GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Steve Church from Canada writes: "GlynnMhor... You're wrong again"
This post of yours reminds me of the sketch from Monty Python:
- An argument is a collected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It's not just saying "No it isn't"
- Yes it is.
- No it isn't!
Now if you can come up with a set of statements that tend to establish your proposition you might become a bit more credible.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 3:00 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
53.
r b from Calgary, Canada writes: Those bats would be alive today if we had adopted Kyoto.
* Posted 26/08/08 at 3:14 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
54.
GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: r b from Calgary, Canada writes: "Those bats would be alive today if we had adopted Kyoto."
Adopted Dion's dog?
* Posted 26/08/08 at 3:16 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
55.
martha stewart from Canada writes: Steve Church writes: "now the collateral damage is wind-farm bats."
This doesn't even make any sense at all. Wind farms are a response to CO2 concerns. If it was up to your "pro-pollutionist" demons, they wouldn't be there. Thus, following your absurdly simplistic level of thinking, these bats were killed by the "anti-CO2" movement of which you are obviously a zealous supporter.
Steve, why do you and the anti-CO2-ists hate bats? Too many vampire movies as a child?
* Posted 26/08/08 at 4:08 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
CTVglobemedia © Copyright 2008 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc., 444 Front St. W., Toronto, ON Canada M5V 2S9
No comments:
Post a Comment