ChatterBank7 mins ago
Species Extinction
48 Answers
It's often been claimed that species are becoming extinct at an unprecedented rate. But the question never asked is – which ones specifically?
Name them.
In brief – where are the bodies?
Which ones were here today but are no longer with us? If species are dropping off this mortal coil at such an unprecedented rate, shouldn't we know what species they are?
Name them.
In brief – where are the bodies?
Which ones were here today but are no longer with us? If species are dropping off this mortal coil at such an unprecedented rate, shouldn't we know what species they are?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by birdie1971. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This opinion carries more gravitas for me than your hand wringing and herd mentality view I'm afraid Jim.
Oxford ecologist, Clive Hambler, talking about the problem in the Spectator a few years back.
""Every year in Spain alone — according to research by the conservation group SEO/Birdlife — between 6 and 18 million birds and bats are killed by wind farms. They kill roughly twice as many bats as birds. This breaks down as approximately 110–330 birds per turbine per year and 200–670 bats per year. And these figures may be conservative if you compare them to statistics published in December 2002 by the California Energy Commission: ‘In a summary of avian impacts at wind turbines by Benner et al (1993) bird deaths per turbine per year were as high as 309 in Germany and 895 in Sweden.’
Because wind farms tend to be built on uplands, where there are good thermals, they kill a disproportionate number of raptors. In Australia, the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle is threatened with global extinction by wind farms. In north America, wind farms are killing tens of thousands of raptors including golden eagles and America’s national bird, the bald eagle. In Spain, the Egyptian vulture is threatened, as too is the Griffon vulture — 400 of which were killed in one year at Navarra alone. Norwegian wind farms kill over ten white-tailed eagles per year and the population of Smøla has been severely impacted by turbines built against the opposition of ornithologists.
Nor are many other avian species safe. In North America, for example, proposed wind farms on the Great Lakes would kill large numbers of migratory songbirds. In the Atlantic, seabirds such as the Manx Shearwater are threatened. Offshore wind farms are just as bad as onshore ones, posing a growing threat to seabirds and migratory birds, and reducing habitat availability for marine birds (such as common scoter and eider ducks).""
Oxford ecologist, Clive Hambler, talking about the problem in the Spectator a few years back.
""Every year in Spain alone — according to research by the conservation group SEO/Birdlife — between 6 and 18 million birds and bats are killed by wind farms. They kill roughly twice as many bats as birds. This breaks down as approximately 110–330 birds per turbine per year and 200–670 bats per year. And these figures may be conservative if you compare them to statistics published in December 2002 by the California Energy Commission: ‘In a summary of avian impacts at wind turbines by Benner et al (1993) bird deaths per turbine per year were as high as 309 in Germany and 895 in Sweden.’
Because wind farms tend to be built on uplands, where there are good thermals, they kill a disproportionate number of raptors. In Australia, the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle is threatened with global extinction by wind farms. In north America, wind farms are killing tens of thousands of raptors including golden eagles and America’s national bird, the bald eagle. In Spain, the Egyptian vulture is threatened, as too is the Griffon vulture — 400 of which were killed in one year at Navarra alone. Norwegian wind farms kill over ten white-tailed eagles per year and the population of Smøla has been severely impacted by turbines built against the opposition of ornithologists.
Nor are many other avian species safe. In North America, for example, proposed wind farms on the Great Lakes would kill large numbers of migratory songbirds. In the Atlantic, seabirds such as the Manx Shearwater are threatened. Offshore wind farms are just as bad as onshore ones, posing a growing threat to seabirds and migratory birds, and reducing habitat availability for marine birds (such as common scoter and eider ducks).""
Or, put another way, wind turbines are clearly less than ideal for birds but then so are traditional fossil fuel stations. Heck, even windows can be deadly. As best as we can make out the worse damage to bird populations is being done by pets. So if you are targeting wind farms, put those figures into their proper context. It's not "hand wringing" to use statistics properly.
Peter Pedant - Are you on some kind of medication? Your posts are borderline incomprehensible.
PP - “... hmm good point - that is perhaps because the IPCC deal with complaints about the british police...”
Err, I presume you know that the IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and not the Independent Police Complaints Commission? I couldn't tell if you were being serious or a complete cretin. Hopefully it's not the latter.
PP - “... this is a bit of a silly thread again BUT on a positive side - we havent had Brexit or Nazi yet.”
Yeah, very cogent. Not.
You have made not one coherent argument against anything I wrote. You demonstrably don't know anything about the subject that you're commenting on. I seriously doubt that you even knew that the atmosphere contains only 0.042% CO2. On this matter, I think it's fair to consider you a low information commenter.
PP - “... hmm good point - that is perhaps because the IPCC deal with complaints about the british police...”
Err, I presume you know that the IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and not the Independent Police Complaints Commission? I couldn't tell if you were being serious or a complete cretin. Hopefully it's not the latter.
PP - “... this is a bit of a silly thread again BUT on a positive side - we havent had Brexit or Nazi yet.”
Yeah, very cogent. Not.
You have made not one coherent argument against anything I wrote. You demonstrably don't know anything about the subject that you're commenting on. I seriously doubt that you even knew that the atmosphere contains only 0.042% CO2. On this matter, I think it's fair to consider you a low information commenter.
Jackthehat - “... It would certainly been preferable that humans don't strip the planet of its' finite resources causing irreparable harm to flora and fauna and *then* realise that they could perhaps have gone about matters in a better manner.”
Do you seriously believe that people like me and others who question the Climate Change narrative (also known by the acronym CAGW – Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) want the planet stripped of its natural resources or that harm should be done to the flora and fauna? I utterly despise the destruction of animal habitats and the pollution of the air and oceans. I, like you, breath the air and drink the water. Do you think I want polluted air and water?
The fact is, the alarmists have managed to link pollution and carbon dioxide together so that anyone opposed to say, grossly expensive, ugly, unreliable, intermittent, bird and bat killing, economic basket cases known as wind turbines are somehow in favour of pollution of our air and water! It's absolutely unbelievable really.
Carbon dioxide is a trace gas that has almost zero effect on global temperatures. It is currently at around 420ppm (parts per million) or 0.042% of atmospheric gasses. It has never been demonstrated that it controls the Earth's temperature. Never. Not once in ANY peer reviewed paper published in any country. The idea that man-made atmospheric CO2 is causing CAGW is a lie. It's an unproven hypothesis that actually has no basis in reality but is very useful in securing massive government grants for research. The lack of empirical proof behind the scare is also the reason why the phrase “Global Warming” has morphed into “Climate Change” - Global Warming can be disproved, Climate Change cannot since the climate has always and will always change.
But even if you disagree with everything written above, there's a very simple way to blow my argument out of the water – show me a peer reviewed paper that demonstrates that anthropogenic carbon dioxide causes global warming.
I'll wait...
Do you seriously believe that people like me and others who question the Climate Change narrative (also known by the acronym CAGW – Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) want the planet stripped of its natural resources or that harm should be done to the flora and fauna? I utterly despise the destruction of animal habitats and the pollution of the air and oceans. I, like you, breath the air and drink the water. Do you think I want polluted air and water?
The fact is, the alarmists have managed to link pollution and carbon dioxide together so that anyone opposed to say, grossly expensive, ugly, unreliable, intermittent, bird and bat killing, economic basket cases known as wind turbines are somehow in favour of pollution of our air and water! It's absolutely unbelievable really.
Carbon dioxide is a trace gas that has almost zero effect on global temperatures. It is currently at around 420ppm (parts per million) or 0.042% of atmospheric gasses. It has never been demonstrated that it controls the Earth's temperature. Never. Not once in ANY peer reviewed paper published in any country. The idea that man-made atmospheric CO2 is causing CAGW is a lie. It's an unproven hypothesis that actually has no basis in reality but is very useful in securing massive government grants for research. The lack of empirical proof behind the scare is also the reason why the phrase “Global Warming” has morphed into “Climate Change” - Global Warming can be disproved, Climate Change cannot since the climate has always and will always change.
But even if you disagree with everything written above, there's a very simple way to blow my argument out of the water – show me a peer reviewed paper that demonstrates that anthropogenic carbon dioxide causes global warming.
I'll wait...
Jim360 - “... if the earth's atmosphere had as much CO2 as Venus does then the temperature would be not that different from Venus...”
- The atmosphere of Venus is 96.5% CO2. It's average surface temperature is around 460 Celsius. It is 0.723 astronomical units [AU] from the sun. The sun's energy hitting Venus is around 2500 W/m2
- The atmosphere of the Earth is 0.042% CO2. It's average surface temperature is around 60 degrees Celsius. It is 1 AU from the sun. The sun's energy hitting the Earth is around 1000 W/m2
- The atmosphere of Mars is 95% CO2. It's average surface temperature is around MINUS 60 degrees Celsius. It is 1.524 AU from the sun. The sun's energy hitting Mars is around 590 W/m2.
The discrepancy between the average surface temperatures of these three planets and the distance from the sun in relation to the CO2 content of their respective atmospheres does not demonstrate that CO2 is the “control knob” of planetary temperature. In fact, it demonstrates the opposite. CO2 is demonstrably not the primary driver of planetary temperature. Atmospheric CO2 plays little part in planetary temperatures.
- The atmosphere of Venus is 96.5% CO2. It's average surface temperature is around 460 Celsius. It is 0.723 astronomical units [AU] from the sun. The sun's energy hitting Venus is around 2500 W/m2
- The atmosphere of the Earth is 0.042% CO2. It's average surface temperature is around 60 degrees Celsius. It is 1 AU from the sun. The sun's energy hitting the Earth is around 1000 W/m2
- The atmosphere of Mars is 95% CO2. It's average surface temperature is around MINUS 60 degrees Celsius. It is 1.524 AU from the sun. The sun's energy hitting Mars is around 590 W/m2.
The discrepancy between the average surface temperatures of these three planets and the distance from the sun in relation to the CO2 content of their respective atmospheres does not demonstrate that CO2 is the “control knob” of planetary temperature. In fact, it demonstrates the opposite. CO2 is demonstrably not the primary driver of planetary temperature. Atmospheric CO2 plays little part in planetary temperatures.
//..grossly expensive, ugly, unreliable, intermittent, bird and bat killing, economic basket cases known as wind turbines//
Is the a reference to Kate ("Get you kit off") Humble and her support for the RSPB's advocacy for wind turbines
Are wind turbines made of steel? Do they need ball bearings? Do they break down? Where does the steel and the ball bearings come from? How do they get to Northumberland hillsides?
These questions only become important, of course, if the wind is blowing.
Is the a reference to Kate ("Get you kit off") Humble and her support for the RSPB's advocacy for wind turbines
Are wind turbines made of steel? Do they need ball bearings? Do they break down? Where does the steel and the ball bearings come from? How do they get to Northumberland hillsides?
These questions only become important, of course, if the wind is blowing.
// [Earth]'s average surface temperature is around 60 degrees Celsius. //
OK, what? It really isn't remotely true that Earth's average temperature is 60 degrees Celsius. Are you sure you didn't mean Fahrenheit?
There are tonnes of references on the link between CO2 and temperature in the IPCC reports, of course. You're welcome to read them. The most cogent summary would be this one:
https:/
See also references therein. Note also that the Intensity of solar radiation of earth is only maximally 1000W/m^2, not constantly that -- the actual average is 342W/m^2 , as shown in the figure, because you (and your sources) forgot that only half of the Earth is illuminated at any given time. Ditto the other planets. Even Mars' atmosphere, though it may be mostly CO2, is also tiny compared to Earth's: 200 times smaller, so that the actual difference in CO2 concentration is only a factor 10 in Mars' favour.
It has been calculated that the Earth's temperature would be permanently 30 degrees Celsius cooler if there were no greenhouse gases present. Again, I am struggling to understand why you insist that there is no link between the presence of greenhouse gases and temperature. It is an established fact that there is a link; it's been demonstrated that CO2 responds in the necessary way to infrared radiation in order for there to be such a link. It may well be that the "temperature budget" is weighted in favour of other factors -- no-one would pretend that the Earth's temperature would stay as it is if the Sun disappeared -- but it is utterly nonsensical to insist that there is no link at all. You can play your numbers game all you like, lie-in, but it's clear that you don't know how to use the numbers, and you can't even be bothered to check your own sources for blatant errors.
There's only one person on this thread with an agenda.
OK, what? It really isn't remotely true that Earth's average temperature is 60 degrees Celsius. Are you sure you didn't mean Fahrenheit?
There are tonnes of references on the link between CO2 and temperature in the IPCC reports, of course. You're welcome to read them. The most cogent summary would be this one:
https:/
See also references therein. Note also that the Intensity of solar radiation of earth is only maximally 1000W/m^2, not constantly that -- the actual average is 342W/m^2 , as shown in the figure, because you (and your sources) forgot that only half of the Earth is illuminated at any given time. Ditto the other planets. Even Mars' atmosphere, though it may be mostly CO2, is also tiny compared to Earth's: 200 times smaller, so that the actual difference in CO2 concentration is only a factor 10 in Mars' favour.
It has been calculated that the Earth's temperature would be permanently 30 degrees Celsius cooler if there were no greenhouse gases present. Again, I am struggling to understand why you insist that there is no link between the presence of greenhouse gases and temperature. It is an established fact that there is a link; it's been demonstrated that CO2 responds in the necessary way to infrared radiation in order for there to be such a link. It may well be that the "temperature budget" is weighted in favour of other factors -- no-one would pretend that the Earth's temperature would stay as it is if the Sun disappeared -- but it is utterly nonsensical to insist that there is no link at all. You can play your numbers game all you like, lie-in, but it's clear that you don't know how to use the numbers, and you can't even be bothered to check your own sources for blatant errors.
There's only one person on this thread with an agenda.
I just want to make a final point, until birdie returns (not lie-in as I erroneously put in my last post): the science behind the link between greenhouse gases and temperature dates back to at least the mid 19th century, when an experiment by John Tyndall demonstrated that thermal radiation can be absorbed and re-emitted by C02. By about now we'd have noticed if this wasn't even remotely true, and the same understanding has been replicated countless times between now.
There is no ambiguity here: although CO2, and greenhouse gases generally, are not the only contributing factor to Earth's climate, they *do* matter. There is no doubt about this. Trying to pretend otherwise, trying to ignore further humanity's contibution to the recent spike in CO2 levels, and trying to call out anybody who has paid attention to centuries of research into climate science as a "denier", is utterly misguided.
There is no ambiguity here: although CO2, and greenhouse gases generally, are not the only contributing factor to Earth's climate, they *do* matter. There is no doubt about this. Trying to pretend otherwise, trying to ignore further humanity's contibution to the recent spike in CO2 levels, and trying to call out anybody who has paid attention to centuries of research into climate science as a "denier", is utterly misguided.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
I'm not interested in giving your sources the credibility they don't deserve. the first link you provided is to a site that, among other things, is still busy publishing articles that claim that Special (let alone General) Relativity is all wrong; any site that publishes such easily refuted nonsense shouldn't be trusted to have any kind of quality control. And if you can't recognise that then I don't see why I should take anything else you post seriously.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Crosswords23 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles33 mins ago
ChatterBank60 mins ago
News63 mins ago
