Slashdot Mirror

They are cyclical and are related to milkweed availability. But given that milkweed is considered a noxious weed and often targeted for eradication, it damages the Monarch food cycle. Too bad that milkweed is on the weed management area list.

Only the united states and canada has those standards at all...

Kinda fucking stupid to be the only ones doing it.

What are you talking about? Nearly every country has emissions standards:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Even under the stricter Obama led standards, the USA still lags most of the world in efficiency standards:

http://www.biologicaldiversity...

The accelerating rate of the extinction of species is something I personally find worrying. There is no doubt that the earth ecosystem can handle massive extinction, because it already has, but since we're dealing with a very complex system it is possible that at some point the system spirals out of control entirely in a very short time frame. These kind of phenomena are very hard to predict.

The U.S. “hybrid-electric car fleet” was not obtained without any government interference. There were tax credits and other incentives. For example, California encouraged buyers by granting access to carpool lanes to hybrid as well as electric vehicles. Gasoline taxation (by federal and state governments) also plays a significant role in fostering consumer desire for more fuel-efficient vehicles. Higher fuel economy standards, mandated by governments, have also played a role by preventing vehicle manufacturers from flooding the market with cheap gas guzzlers against which comparatively more expensive hybrid vehicles could not easily compete. If there had been no government involvement, if only the market had been speaking, we’d all be driving large yet inexpensive cars. And if foreign competition had been thwarted through protectionist policies, those cars would likely be sporting 1960’s technology (and fuel-efficiency) to boot, but that’s another story.

In regard to greenhouse gas emissions reduction, that hybrid-electric fleet is unfortunately still a drop in the bucket, for several reasons.

Transportation only contributes about 27% of airborne pollution contributing to climate change. The remaining 73% come from electric power generation, industrial production, commercial and residential activities and agriculture. (source: EPA) This is for U.S. emissions, by the way; globally, transportation only contributes about 14% of emissions. (source: IPCC, cited by EPA). Even within the U.S., figures vary significantly between states.

Further, light-duty vehicles contribute about 60% of transportation-related emissions. (source: EPA), therefore about 17% of total emissions (in the U.S.). The remainder of transportation-related emissions comes from medium- and heavy-duty road vehicles, as well as aircraft, trains, ships and boats, pipelines, etc. Those can be particularly noxious. For example, “aircraft not only emit 12 percent of CO2 emissions from U.S. transportation sources — they also emit nitrogen oxides other than nitrous oxide, causing warming when emitted at high elevation. And ships, besides releasing almost 3 percent of the world’s CO2 (about as much as all of Canada emits), are also a main source of nitrous oxide and black carbon (soot).” (source: Center for biological diversity).

Finally, the pool of hybrid-electric cars has been growing but it is still much too small (around 2% of passenger cars) to make a significant difference. (Actually, lower gasoline prices in 2014-2015 led to decreased sales of hybrid-electric cars; source: DOT/BTS). Not to mention that, in the end, it only improves fuel efficiency, but it is still largely relying on an internal combustion engine.

My point is this: with all the goodwill displayed by a small minority of pollution-conscious consumers, even if you discounted the governmental initiatives that actually convinced those consumers to adopt a hybrid-electric vehicle, the impact on greenhouse gas emissions is minimal. And it will remain so because the largest share of those emissions is caused by factors that are well outside the reach of consumers (commercial and industrial), factors that are controlled by cost considerations, and can only be durably and significantly modified by government regulations or incentives issued on a massive scale.

The amount of anti-scientific drivel on /. has become quite strange. Humans have carefully recorded the extinction events they have caused over the centuries (e.g., Steller's sea cow, the dodo, Tasmanian tiger, passenger pigeon, Carolina parakeet, etc. etc. etc.).

http://www.biologicaldiversity...

http://science.sciencemag.org/...

http://advances.sciencemag.org...

We have been doing it for tens of thousands of years...

http://science.sciencemag.org/...

http://science.sciencemag.org/...

I have to assume that lots of the anti-science types are just yanking everyone's chains for fun. It would be very disturbing to find out they actually believe the crap they type here.

If "dozens [of species are] going extinct every day" already, then what's a couple hundred more?

The earlier poster didn't need to point to a so-called "pro-lifer" providing evidence the world isn't overpopulated --by the way, those LIARS should explain THIS; just exactly how does idiotically and prejudicially promoting the extinction of several whole species every single day, as a side-effect of trying to force ever-more human mouths-to-feed to get born, count as "pro life"? The poster indicated that simply because abortion opponents claim the world is not overpopulated, various things need to be explained in terms of something ELSE being the cause of those things.

So herewith, some examples.
The Ivanpah "Hoover Dam of solar" plant in the Mojave Desert;

http://articles.latimes.com/20...
http://calwatchdog.com/2014/04...

Sunrise Powerlink, a new transmission line to bring solar and windfield power generated in Imperial Country, CA to coastal markets:
http://www.biologicaldiversity...
http://truthsayer-esther.blogs...

Hawaii does not have many options when it comes to generating power in a spread-out island chain, but the best option in its volcanic environment would be geothermal. Or so one would think:
http://www.environmentalleader...

Of course people with specific ties to an industry are going to find arguments for government subsidies to that industry. The rest of us just wish that all the subsidies would go away, so we could make decisions about purchases based on economic merit, rather than figuring some arbitrary fraction of the advertised price that gives us an advantage on some IRS form. Why, indeed, should the oil business get a "depletion allowance" that no one else enjoys? And why should farmers have their crop prices subsidized to match that one halcyon year during WW I when they got what they consider a 'fair' price?

Aaand... any progress we are going to make on cleaning up pollution, creating carbon-free energy, and not having to import our cars' vital body fluids from desert tribes which hate us, will have to be done over the metaphorical dead bodies of "environmentalists." They automatically come out against every single energy project that actually gets built:
(example: http://www.solarindustrymag.co...
and even infrastructure that links projects like this into the grid:
http://www.biologicaldiversity...

They believe in using the court system to enforce their pet opinions on science, rather than using that oh-so-dull scientific method:
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/12/mann_vs_steyn_the_trial_of_the_century__121528.html)

But hey, at least they stand responsible for a lot of new coal mining jobs in Germany.

Lead fragments found in randomly sampled packages of venison donated to food banks.

Turns out that slugs leave metal fragments too.

Slashdot ate the best link. Try this one instead. Good pictures of fragments in the meat.

The phrasing "despite many caveats, our results suggest" doesn't mean "we have shown...", it means "if we make a whole bunch of other unsupported assumptions, maybe...".

Well that's an interesting interpretation, from a person who confuses inter-glacial temperature change over many millennia with a similar number of degrees toward a global hothouse over a few hundred years.

'Caveats' likely means possibly-mitigating factors that they considered but which didn't negate their hypothesis. I have never seen the term "caveats" used to mean "unsupported assumptions" in a scientific paper (that would be setting themselves up for quick dismissal, which is no way to get published) especially when the word is bracketed by "our results are striking" and an evolutionary shortfall x 10,000 when even a factor of 2 or 20 would be considered worrisome.

In fact, they discuss the caveats in the appendices.

Normally, it would be kind of weird to debate this study and encounter dismissals like those you've set out. 'Didn't take migration into account'-- Really?? The paper is based on data about species that reach back into the geologic past. And I never expected to see a disclaimer along the lines of 'We narrowed our examination to species known for their immobility'. IOW, over time those creatures moved however they could to try to adapt.

However, in this case its not weird when you clearly didn't consider the study in good faith and instead attacked it with whatever cheap shots came to mind. No doubt its a familiar attitude to just about anyone reading this, the compulsion to misuse good diction to try to reframe an issue in accordance with market fundamentalism (which, embarrassingly enough, seems married to religious fundamentalism once again... both traditions devoted as they are to producing 'teaming masses').

As for the trend in scientific outlook, here is a sample:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0106/Climate-change-models-flawed-extinction-rate-likely-higher-than-predicted
http://www.livescience.com/16307-climate-path-migration-amphibian.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/full/nature02121.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1876.html
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/

Ah, the classic left wing approach to trying to paint economics as good-people-vs-bad-corporations. This isn't about "allowing industry" to do anything, it's about not destroying the global economy, the economy that we need to grow in order to be able to make the changes that we need to make in order to reduce population growth and carbon emissions.

Throwing what you get from people back at them (sans data) in reverse is not considered clever anymore. Empty homilies laden with unsupported assumptions (economics>ecology, regulation destroys the economy, etc.) are also unconstructive. Try some humility next time you have the urge to paint an opposing viewpoint as "stupid and unscientific", because the 'more CO2 = good' line you were towing is in fact an Exxon / Koch funded talking point modeled on the "smoking is healthy" propaganda the tobacco industry tried to put across-- you've fallen for their rank denialism.

Windmills smack birds out of the air. ... The "smacking birds out of the air" is due to birds flying into the windmills as if they were a stationary object. The blades don't spin nearly fast enough to do any "smacking."

Actually, they do. Blade tip speeds for big wind machines are upwards of 100 MPH.

The Altamont Pass wind farm is especially bad, because it's in a narrow valley on a major bird migration route, a valley full of row after row of relatively small windmills close to the ground. It's a meat-grinder for birds.

Reasonably accurate bird death numbers for the larger birds are available for Altamont Pass. Currently about a thousand big raptors a year, including over 100 golden eagles, are lost to the blades.

Windmills smack birds out of the air. ... The "smacking birds out of the air" is due to birds flying into the windmills as if they were a stationary object. The blades don't spin nearly fast enough to do any "smacking."

Actually, they do. Blade tip speeds for big wind machines are upwards of 100 MPH.

The Altamont Pass wind farm is especially bad, because it's in a narrow valley on a major bird migration route, a valley full of row after row of relatively small windmills close to the ground. It's a meat-grinder for birds.

Reasonably accurate bird death numbers for the larger birds are available for Altamont Pass. Currently about a thousand big raptors a year, including over 100 golden eagles, are lost to the blades.

Wind power may not pollute, but is very damaging to birds.

Your perception of "bias" is the same that the BBC is looking for proof of... that of some giant "left-wing/environmentalist consipiracy" against global warming. They will of course uncover no such proof as there obviously isn't any large scale overt censorship going on. However, let me offer my own (biased) right-wing view of what may be happening.

I believe that there is indeed a form of censorship going on - but that it is much more subtle - almost at the unconscious level. On the contrary I believe the bias is almost one of (for lack of a better word) inaction/agnostic. Let me give a hypothetical example [I am not claiming that any of the following is true...simply trying to demonstrate my belief in the type of bias that may be occurring]:

Let's say Al Gore goes out and make the claim that the if sea ice is melting then global warming may be occurring. He then states that melting sea ice would endgandger polar bears and then gives an example of a study that indeed shows polar bear populations decreasing. Now aside from the fact that even if all true - we still have the ever-persistent correlation vs. causality issue, we are left with a very wide interdisciplinary problem. It is highly unlikely that experts in climatology are also experts in polar bear populations.

And this is where my (completely unsubstantiated) suspicion of bias comes in. I can visualize polar bear experts all over the world watching this research unfold and thinking to themselves "odd, the population of polar bears that I am studying is not dwindling." However - and this is my key point - I also can envision them simply shrugging this off because I highly doubt that there are any neo-conservative global warming denier polar bear researchers in the field. They aren't actively supressing this hypothetical contrary data - they simply don't think their piece of the puzzle is relevant, since they probably agree with the global warming concensus.

Without getting too off-topic and in keeping within my right-wing paranoia paradigm, I see this bias functioning via exactly the same mechanism that I believe the media is biased. Neither the media, nor the global warming researchers are unethical or part of any conspiracy... they are simply sympathetic to "their" side of the argument and evidence to the contrary (however small) simply doesn't set off alarm bells like it would to someone with an axe to grind.

That said, I feel compelled to point out something very disturbing I found while researching this reply. While I only skimmed it, this petition for adding polar bears to the endangered species list contains a few egregious examples of very biased presentation of scientific results. The introduction states

"Absent substantial reductions in reductions of greenhouse gasses, by century's end average temperatures in the Arctic will likey rise upwards of 7 deg C (13.6 F)."(p. 3)

Later, on page 20, 1st paragraph they note that of 20 polar bear populations, 7 were given as "declining or unknown". What the heck is this? How many are "declining" (answer == 2 but have to actually look at the table bleow) and how many are unknown (5)? By grouping the unknowns with the delcining the author is (deliberately?) attempting to make the situation look worse for the polar bears. In the next paragraph they do the same thing again, this time grouping "poor certainty" with "unknown certainty".

Yes, I am not a climatologist nor an expert in polar bear populations. But I am a scientist and engineer and I can still read research and know when someone is using shody methodology - even when I know nothing of the subject.

To restate my point, if you allow Inuit communities to trade their "polar bear tags" for money it means that polar bear hunting is nothing but an economic subsidy.

Given that polar bears are now considered an endangered species, that makes a big difference.

I don't know Inuit traditions, but it is possible that the role of a polar bear is irreplaceable in some of them. If that is the case, I can understand the argument for allowing some hunting, even if I may not agree.

However, if hunting is just intended as a money making resource, then it is just looks completely irresponsible on the government's part. I'm sure the Canadian government can think of other ways of making money that do not involve hunting endangered species.

Altamont Pass (California) is the most lethal wind farm in N. America for raptors:

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/Programs/ bdes/altamont/altamont.html

"Research by raptor experts for the California Energy Commission (CEC) indicates that each year, Altamont Pass wind turbines kill an estimated 881 to 1,300 birds of prey"

That is not a large number at all, cars, buildings, pets, power lines, etc, etc kill WAY more than that. And the altamont pass is the single worst wind farm in north america for bird of prey deaths, because they were stupid and built it not only in the middle of a migratory path, but in the middle of the highest concentration of breeding golden eagles anywhere in the world, and with the blades positioned right at the typical altitude of those birds flight paths. This is exactly what caused the myth; old, improperly planned wind farms that haven't been fixed. Learn to find facts instead of just repeating nonsense you heard from whackjobs.

The fact that you think the tiny number of bird deaths produced by the worst wind farm on the continent is "substantial numbers" is just silly. And the fact that you pretend its indicative of modern, properly planned and constructed wind farms is just plain stupid. You can't say wind farms in general kill substantial numbers of birds just because a couple of bad wind farms were built.

The quote is from this page, there's more info there about what can be done to improve altamont specifically:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/programs/ bdes/altamont/altamont.html

Check out the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005. Its goal appears to be to threaten and endanger species. It was initiated by Richard Pombo (R-Cal), who is well known for his support of miners and loggers as well as his fight against the spotted owl.

• Sierra Club
• Biological Diversity
• Plant Societies

Or, if you don't like the House version, how about Collaboration and Recovery of Endangered Species Act (S. 2110) in the Senate, initiated by Mike Crapo (R-ID). The Republicans definitely seem to be consistent.

• Biological Diversity

Check out the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005. Its goal appears to be to threaten and endanger species. It was initiated by Richard Pombo (R-Cal), who is well known for his support of miners and loggers as well as his fight against the spotted owl.

• Sierra Club
• Biological Diversity
• Plant Societies

Or, if you don't like the House version, how about Collaboration and Recovery of Endangered Species Act (S. 2110) in the Senate, initiated by Mike Crapo (R-ID). The Republicans definitely seem to be consistent.

• Biological Diversity

CAUTION: Post contains politically incorrect crimethink.

which is why they advocate for safe technology (wind and solar power) that is economically and environmentally responsible

Note that wind power, particularly high density sited systems capable of powering more than a farmhouse, have their own consequences: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/programs/ bdes/altamont/altamont.html

Solar installations raise similar issues, related primarily to siting. The best solar power generation locations are those with little overcast, relatively close to the equator. That makes the Southwest United States a good location, but the combination of all that construction and the permanent shading of huge regions of the desert will be fought as causing more ecological damage.

Yes, solar power sats and a microwave downlink to an 'antenna farm' would cause much less damage. The land under the antenna grid can be safely farmed, and the power density (watts/square foot) would be lower than direct sunlight. That won't stop the 'deadly microwave radiation' . http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2004/Electroma gnetic-Fields-EMF1jun04.htm (Note that Arthur is someone who would be much better off if he took his medication. Seriously.)

I think alternate energy sources, from wind and geothermal though powersats, AND nuclear fission plants, would be a good thing. Never assume that the politically correct choice will be the best one, though, or that it will be blessed by all.

Since those studies, researchers have learned that a lattice structure used at the Altamont plant increased the risk of bird deaths since birds used the structures to nest and then were caught in the blades. Turbines are now designed to have clean blades, free of lattices.

Your only real data point is a statistical anomaly due to a specific design flaw. this page which decries the altamont pass installation nonetheless says that We can have wind energy without decimating imperiled wildlife populations. The issue with the view is real, I suppose, except most of the time the windmills are where no one will see them up close, and frankly they're a break in the monotony of the landscape.

From The First Link:
Bur oaks bear seed up to an age of 400 years, older than reported for any other American oak. The minimum seed-bearing age is about 35 years, and the optimum is 75 to 150 years

"Bur oak is said to have reached a height of 52 m (170 ft) and a d.b.h. of 213 cm (84 in) in the lower Ohio Valley. On the better sites, mature trees generally grow 24 to 30 in (80 to 100 ft) tall, 91 to 122 cm (36 to 48 in) in d.b.h., and live 200 to 300 years. Characteristically, they have a massive, clear trunk and a broad, open crown of stout branches."


from The Second Link:
In the early 1900's, "mature" ponderosa pines were defined as 200 years old, 300 year old trees were considered "veterans." Today, the Forest Service defines 100 year old trees "old growth."

By 1962, when the Forest Service began region- wide surveys, the forests were already highly degraded, the very largest trees being already logged off. The rule of early forestry was to exclusively and rapidly cut all the largest trees (Drake 1910, Woolsey 1911, Moore 1912). The large trees were eulogized as far back as 1891


The Third Link: