Not only do wind turbines kill birds, including Eagles (which Obama just gave them a 30-year exemption from the Endangered Species Act to keep killing them) the machines also remove energy from the wind, and this will have an impact on the weather and ultimately the climate. Ground warming and drying for miles around is already known... but cumulative effects on the weather—especially if wind farming grows significantly—are unpredictable. Recently, I took a drive out to Montague County in northeast Texas and drove through an area of wind turbines. Not only do they destroy the beautiful landscapes.....they look like giant monsters. They are seen from long distances and dotting the once-beautiful horizons. Property owners "sell out" in order to take the money offered.....but is it worth it to destroy the lands, not to mention the birds? And for the few homes it provides energy to? Insignificant. Same problem with solar plants.....as we discovered in our recent readings about the Nevada problem. Those solar plants also destroy wildlife, including endangered species. They are ugly, obtrusive and take up lands that cannot be used for anything else. I would much rather see the smaller oil or gas pump working every mile or so......than these ungodly mammoth wind turbines and solar plants. Even better.....I would rather have the Keystone Pipeline bringing down oil from a friendly neighboring nation.....in safe underground pipelines that we don't even have to look at....and are computer-monitored for safety. It's unbelievable that this Democrat president kowtows so much to his base in lieu of doing what is best for the country! Unfortunately, we will have to wait until he's gone BEFORE we can get on with doing what is right. Do Wind Farms Have an Impact on Weather? MAY 11, 2014 By MARILYN VOS SAVANT Do wind farms affect weather? Edward B. of Vancouver, Wash., writes: Do wind farms affect weather, at least locally? Marilyn responds: Yes, and the more widespread they become, the more these changes will go beyond the immediate area. Some effects, such as ground warming and drying for miles around, are already known, but cumulative effects on the weather—especially if wind farming grows significantly—are unpredictable. One point to note is that while wind farms are a source of renewable energy, this doesn’t mean they—and other forms of renewable energy, for that matter—don’t cause change. Even improved engineering of the turbines (to reduce turbulence, etc.) cannot eliminate the fact that the machines remove energy from the wind, and this will have an impact on the weather and ultimately the climate. http://parade.condenast.com/291812/marilynvossavant/291812/
This probably would mean more if this wasn't an unsupported claim from Parade Magazine. She is supposed to be super smart- but that doesn't mean we need to accept the claim without anything to support it- and she may well be correct- but I wouldn't accept anything without seeing the science to support the claim.
AND WHO IS THIS WOMAN?? Give me feedback and analysis from APPROPRIATE SCIENTISTS with +/- effects on the use of wind turbines. Birds WILL reroute themselves. PS This woman is known for having a HIGH IQ and writing about that. Is she a meterologist or CLIMATE SCIENTIST?? What are her degrees in? Hell, I could write an article and 'publish' on the internet. PSS From PARADE magzine? The one that used to come in Sunday papers??
Doesn't help we are in the middle of a drought, and most of the plant life is dying off. So if windmills can have a devastating effect on the environment, then manufacturing and combustion engines have to have some sort of effect on the planet as well? You can't complain about one and deny the effects of another.
"Removing energy from the wind".... without further quotes, I've got to say that this reads like a satire post, except for the dead birds. Well, one more: "They are ugly, obtrusive and take up lands that cannot be used for anything else." The outrage! How dare they take up lands that cannot be used for anything else? And how can this claim of "a negative impact on weather" be qualified? "Ground warming"? What a kooky claim! The ground may be a little warmer in the immediate area where the wind has been absorbed, but no more than it is on a day when the wind isn't blowing As for your preference for oil and gas... You do know that this is NOT renewable, dontcha'? There is simply no way to obtain electricity without making some kind of a mess. Solar technology is advancing very quickly these days. In a thread n the Science section of this forum, Above Alpha claims that the energy needs of the entire country could be met by the construction of large solar facilities in our SW deserts. He says that in the next 20 years or so, we'll see solar panels embedded in road surfaces to power electric cars directly. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=352722 We don't have a way of making electricity yet that doesn't impact the environment, but we're working on it...
That this is a story shows the sad state of science education in the USA and the gullibility of a certain segment of American society to believe anything that goes against the idea of climate change.
I don't think I used the word "devastating." I said they have a negative impact on weather.....which would become even more cumulative as more and more dot the nation. At least the fossil fuels can be transported underground safely and without taking up so much land space...as both wind turbines AND solar farms require. All I'm claiming is that there are negatives in ALL of it. One is certainly NOT better than the other. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to KNOW that fans dry out the air. All you have to do is turn on your ceiling fan.....and you'll see and feel it yourself. These giant turbines placed every mile or so apart will certainly dry out more air and grounds below than a ceiling fan could do. You think the people that live nearby aren't being affected? Of course they are. And as the article says.....it only gets worse as their numbers increase.
What part of Texas do you live in? In the east part you get lots of humidity from the Gulf of Mexico. Now how does that moisture get to your great state. Now let's think about wind turbines, just how much air do they move and what altitudes do they do it. Like I said. Science education is really lacking in this country.
I dunno, is Al Gore a meteorologist, or have a doctorates, or any degree in climatology or weather? I mean, come on, he won a Nobel prize for some ridiculous movie that more or less started all this global warming (*)(*)(*)(*) you lefties gobble up like haagen dazs ice cream. You seem to have no problem throwing around reports from highly suspicious sources in huffy poo or MSNBC... Really...what's the difference?
Or that a politician, with no formal climate or meteorological education can get a Nobel prize for a ridiculous movie about a made-up crisis.
I've seen them! They could put a strip of them along the road behind me in a skinny ass minute--if they take the ELECTRIC POLES DOWN. Frankly, I think they are calming to watch.
When was the last time anybody cited Al Gore on climate science? You guys need to stop beating that dead horse. Gore made climate science more visible; but the evidence for AGW is in the actual science, not Gore.
and no one has ever argued otherwise, but that is NOT what Al Gore argued and started and it is not what is being claimed by most on the left.
It's liberals who need to examine closely what is being spoon-fed to them. This government report that Obama asked for is done by a POLITICAL organization. The National Climate Assessment Report was done by government employees. HELLO????? They work for the federal government...and Obama asked them for a report that would help him formulate his Climate Change action plans. "The National Climate Assessment is a political call to action document meant for the presidents left-leaning constituency. What pretense of scientific support that decorates it quickly falls away under a close and critical inspection. Perhaps most telling is the letter to the members of Congress that introduces the just-released report, co-signed by White House Science Adviser John Holdren and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration head Kathryn Sullivan. The letter concludes, When President Obama launched his Climate Action Plan last year, he made clear that the essential information contained in this report would be used by the Executive Branch to underpin future policies and decisions to better understand and manage the risks of climate change. Now....did you really believe he was going to get something he did NOT ask for??? Really???? Seriously??? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/7/knappenberger-ringing-a-climate-change-false-alarm/ Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...g-a-climate-change-false-alarm/#ixzz31cAbIRUK
No one has ever said the climate doesn't/isn't changing. You know as well as I do that isn't the issue. When the left can start being intellectually honest, maybe there can be meaningful discussion.
Nobody refutes that climate changes. It's changed continually my entire life....and WAY before I ever existed...and WAY beyond. Climate was changing even before we had fossil fuels, BTW. While we should....and have.....strived to keep our air as clean as we possibly can....it's rather arrogant of humans to think that we are actually CHANGING the climate. - - - Updated - - - HUH? Oh yea....toss out the conspiracy word. That's another way to try to end a discussion. When "racist" is not being used, that is.
This claim is hilarious. Wind farms are safe, clean and allow farmers and ranchers to earn extra income.
That's exactly right. They don't want to discuss it rationally; they only want to denigrate anyone who doesn't believe the same thing they do.
Oh so it is natural.... gotcha. - - - Updated - - - Shhh. I am still waiting for an explanation on the energy part! (It is that 1st law of thermodynamics )
Again we are in a drought and there isn't much difference, noticeably anyway between Montague County, or Wilbarger, who has no windmills, and still is suffering from a drought. And anybody who lives in these parts knows that the wind isn't scarce around these parts. One of the reasons they put them in this part of the country. In the mean time Lawton Oklahoma has them and is getting much more rainfall than north Texas and their area looks just fine. Am I saying there isn't other consequences with having them? No. The bird thing is a big issue. There are golden and bald eagle populations in all these areas. But in an area where the wind blows most everyday of the year, I doubt there is a big difference between the wind mother nature provides or the wind these turbines create. Wind is wind right?
Looking like Obama and the Dems are going to have a LOT Of trouble from one of their very own political bases who are now suing. This is one time I agree with them......because it's true that Obama should not be cutting a deal on a law when it doesn't fit with something else he wants to do. He sure as hell wouldn't be giving a 30-year pass to a fossil fuel company for ANYTHING!!! "One of the nation's leading bird conservation groups plans to sue the Obama administration over a federal regulation that allows wind energy companies to obtain 30-year permits to kill eagles without prosecution by the government. The American Bird Conservancy on Wednesday announced its intent to file the lawsuit, arguing the Department of the Interior violated federal laws when it promulgated the regulation it says sanctions the killing of bald and golden eagles. "The rule lacks a firm foundation in scientific justification and was generated without the benefit of a full assessment of its impacts on eagle populations, said Michael Hutchins, National Coordinator of ABC's Bird Smart Wind Energy Campaign." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-challenges-feds-over-wind-farm-eagle-deaths/
Perhaps not you in particular, but the left in general. Since Al Gore made his movie it was all about MAN MADE global warming, it was the evil oil company that was causing all this global warming. This, of course attracted the tree huggers and many on the left (since it is a common theme on the left that corporations are evil and should be giving more of their money to the people...I think the current term is "income inequality")....anyway so they jumped on the bandwagon too. The tree huggers love it, obviously. In addition, it was no small consequence that a certain, recent former president has ties to oil.... The problem in all this is that no one has ever proven to what degree mankind is actually affecting the planet's temperatures, or if at all. We know this to be true because those involved in this "crisis" have changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change. There is/was no evidence to support their wild crisis, so they have shifted the discussion into something a bit more esoteric to the original claim, but one that doesn't require a crisis to explain, but can be manipulated for political influence and policy (to further certain agendas). No one has ever argued that our climate isn't changing or doesn't change...the point precisely is WHAT is causing it and to what degree. The political backlash (and subsequent policy, economic consequences, etc) are far and away above reasonable or what anyone would expect for such a question. Remember, this "call of alarm" manifested from the less than accurate movie made by a politician. As I've said in the past, any time the government sounds an alarm and it turns into a "crisis" it is automatically suspect....especially considering what some in the administration have been quoted as saying in respect to said crises.
