esbo

Yea, so basically the wind farms are slowing down the air currents which cool the surface of the earth. Now if you slow down the an air current which cools a surface then that surface is going to get warmer. If you still do not believe me then simply take the cooling fan out of your PC, but don't blame me if your PC over heats and crashes or worse still if the CPU is damaged. I strongly advise you not to though. Put if you want to put your money (ie PC) where your mouth is (and can afford a new CPU), go ahead and try it!! Slightly more realistic is to put the fan out side the PC and use the air from it to power a mini wind turbine which provide power to another fan mounted on the CPU. If that kind of set up keeps your PC cooler than I am wrong!!

` 1. I am not too sure what you are getting at here, I think I could do it easier for the surface, not too sure about the maths for a volume of gas. However I am not sure what you are getting at. What is your point? 2 the heat radiated at higher altitudes could get there by radiation but it could be air which was heated at lower place and then convected up and then radiated out it's heat. I meant if they did not radiate out into space, but yes they are radiating but not out into space, in this case the atmosphere warms up, getting warmer and warmer. And another massive problem with the report is that there was some suggestion that there was mixing of the air. However the satellite results did not show this, they just showed warming so what happened to the colder air? Where did it go? It seem to have gone AWOL. Now if mixing has occurred pulling down warmer air at night then we would expect to see the opposite during the day ie pulling down colder air. Had that happened the satellite data, which is averaged would have shown no warming at all - it didn't - it showed warming. There is more of the article in this report. This is one of the reports mentioned but it is pretty heavy reading. http://keith.seas.harvard.edu/papers/66.Keith.2004.WindAndClimate.e.pdf

I think you will find there is a difference between cites and wind farms. Wind farms are designed to extract energy from wind, cities are not. Cities tend to divert the wind some what rather than extract significant amounts of energy from it. By the way I am not sure what clean energy is, scientifically there is no such thing as dirt it is just chemical compounds. But I guess they are saying CO2 is not clean which is meaningless in a way unless they mean absorbing energy makes it unclean. Energy is not dirst. I have read the reports about the report and some of the Q and A bit and those things seem clear from that. Basically they were saying they need to do more research because the study left a lot of uncertainties. I post a link which confirm the obvious that wind turbines slow the wind. But here is more https://dspace.lasrworks.org/bitstream/handle/10349/145/fulltext.pdf?sequence=2 And yes when a local gas disperses it goes global eventually, all the CO2 (man made) comes from local sources where it is more concentrates and it disperses globally but less concentrated. Some also comes our of the sea which is bot local on the microscopic scale and global on the global scale.

No idea, I don't believe they generate a significant amount of CO2 apart from in the manufacture and maintenance of them (assuming power comes from a fossil fuel). They are no supposed to be net generators of CO2 - that's the whole idea.

Thanks, another person who can see what I am talking about makes sense. Well I thought that at least until I got half way through your post, then we begin to differ.. The problem with your post is that you say "The pole get colder" well there is no justification for that statement. Why should the pole get colder? There is the same energy going into the poll so there is not increase there. But what about the energy going out of the pole? Has that increased? Not it has not, the flow has slowed and the energy going out is lower so the pole gets warmer too. (and we are always being told the pole are getting warmer fr one reason for another). So yea, the poles are colder than the equator, but slowing down the wind will not make them colder it will make them warmer because slowing down the wind slows convection and thus the rate at which the heat can escape earth. Not the study found no areas where cooling occurred, it speculated that cooling was occurring higher up due to mixing. However that was just speculation, the measurement were made by satellites which measure surface temperatures, they have no data for the air higher up, that was just pure guess work and poor misguided guesswork in imo. 1 The title of the thread is my opinion based on the science I know and the measurement that have been made. It is not based on the report other than me agreeing with the observed rise. Much of the other stuff in the report looks like bad science to me. Yes they found warming but their explanation of it was woefully bad. 2. I am not rejecting all of the report just doubtful about some of the speculative bits. I accept the satellite data which shows warming. Much of the other stuff is rather speculative and not back up by any observations during the study. 3. Covered in 1 and 2 4. I have backed up all my claims, explained them and produced lots of evidence, for you to say I am unable to support them defies logic. It is widely accepted wind farms slow wind, lets face it that is the design basis of their operation. So I don't think they would have built them if the didn't expect them to work some how. 5 CO2 does effect the local area, of course it disperses over time and thus the local area becomes a wider area and eventually producing a wider effect. The effect depends on the density distribution f the CO2 as you increase height there is less CO2 above and naturally the downward forcing of radiation is less. No it does not, warm air radiates heat too, at all altitudes, the heat radiated at higher altitudes doe not have to go through all the atmospheric CO2. If air did not radiate heat the planet would be boiling hot because the heat absorbed by the greenhouse gases woudl never escape!!!!!

I never claimed wind cause convection. So I don't need to back up a claim I never made!! Convection causes a pressure differential and that causes the wind. However the speed of the wind is dependant on on resistance to the flow of the wind. Wind-farms increase that resistance and slow the wind down. The slow wind flow lowers the pressure where convection is trying to occur and thus slows the convection as the pressure differential between the top and bottom of that area is lower, thus the convection is slower and more warm air remains at ground level. You see a similar effect if a bird builds a nest one the top of a chimney, the flow of air is restricted, creating a area of low pressure at the top of the chimney slowing the flow of warm (and dangerous) gases and increasing the temperature in the room as the hot air cannot escape as fast. It is called the stack effect. http://www.ehow.com/...-flue-work.html Also here www.ehow.com/how-does_4912605_fireplace-flue-work.html

I have already detailed that other posts. Hot air cannot rise without air coming in at ground level. There is a basic article here http://www.weatherwi...eather-wind.htm More here http://www.solar-and...makes-wind.html So you can see in the above picture, if you were to stick some wind turbines on the coast or in the mountains slowing that circulation of wind, you are basically keeping a huge mass of warm air trapped on the ground so you would expect to see a rapid rise in temperature near wind farms, and that is precisely what the study shows. Some people attribute that warming to 'mixing' and there may well be some mixing, however it seems clear to me al you have to do is to slow that circulation. There is actually an excellent video here which explains it, albeit using water. Note if you slow down that water flow the area of the tank under the lamp (ie the sun) is going to get very hot!! It is well know the is CO2 in the atmosphere, let's face it if there was not we would not be erecting these huge wind mills to try and slow down it's growth!!! It is mentioned several time here. http://en.wikipedia..../Global_warming

wind is basically air movement, without wind there is no convection and without convention heat has to radiate through a huge thick layer of CO2 rather than a thin one at higher altitudes.

Well not so much the wind farms because few people live in them, I am concerned about the rest of the earth. Let's face if if wind farms screw up the system which keeps the surface of the earth at a reasonable temperature then that will make CO2 warming look like a picnic.

Well that is correct however it does not have a real impact on the situation it that energy was other wise generated from another non wind source. The point I am making though is that we are interfering with and degrading the system which cools the surface of the earth where it matters, ie where we live and where it heats up the land ice and sea (or at least it keeps warm for longer). I am trying to think of a good example but most of the cooling systems we have such as in house and cars now have a motor to circulate the coolant. However in the past many simply relied of the fact hot air and hot water rise. So you would have a boiler at ground level and the action of hot water rising would provide a natural power to circulate water around the system. It would be stupid to try and tap off energy from that natural cooling because the water would not circulate properly and you would get a build up of heat at ground level. That is what I think will happen with wind farms, we are stopping the warm air circulating properly this could lead to hot air stagnating at ground level and it becoming stiflingly hot!!

It is not depicted but it is in the atmosphere, so all the marked flows contain CO2. I am not interchanging the two just explaining how convection moves the air such that there is less CO2 above it and hence less radiation is reflected back as air is moved higher. The study did not mention any cooling taking place, it said it warmed at night (mainly) indicating it warmed during the day as well. Nowhere did that study show cooler area on the surface of the earth. And also from the atmosphere, all warm things radiate heat too cooler places. Agreed!! Warm air expand as it rises, the more it rises the less CO2 there is above it, ie as it rises the green house effect gets less and less, that is why the convection effect is very important. If you slow that down then more heat is retained for longer, that is gonna cause warming.

yes I do, but it's not really relevant, there will be as there is always a significant amount of atmospheric CO2 above it through which any heat has to radiate to escape earth. But perhaps more importantly there are no or at least not many underwater windmills. There are also other differences as the sea is warmed at the surface (top) whereas the atmosphere is mainly warmed bottom. But anyway the windfarms do no affect the sea at least they do not slow the cooling currents in the same way.

liquids always have the same amount of greenhouse above them, however in gases in the atmosphere the amount of greenhouse gas depends on the hight of that gas within the atmosphere. Thus the effect the amount of heat lost in a gas depends on it's height but not really for a liquid as it always had the maximum CO2 above it, ie no CO2 below it.

yes i know convection happen in liquids but it is fixed within the liqiud

The round is radiating yes, but the air of course is also radiating. The ground is largely solid atom, apart from the oceans etc which are liquid atoms and then you have the atmosphere which is gaseous atoms, they all radiate energy. The difference is the ground is fixed as you suggest, so is the liquid, but the gases, well they are mobile and can more up when they are warm, provided air is allowed to fill the gap they leave.

http://avstop.com/ac/5-3.html Some pictures to help your understanding.

the higher up you go the less atmosphere there is above you!!!

But there are wind farms all over the planet. The local warming adds up, there is no indication of corresponding cooling in the original report.

I can't believe you can't see any evidence, I have backed up and explained all my claims, what more do you expect. The original report gives evidence of warming, so how can you say you see no evidence? http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1505.html If that is not evidence then what is? What exactly would convince you that they cause warming if that is not enough, what do you want me to do? Construct a replica planet without wind mills and show a lower temperature on that planet? That's gonna take a while isn't it? I will be back later

sources added

Indeed it could, it could also correlate with temperature rises elsewhere or they might stay the same. The problem there is the weather is rather complicated. However there report made no mention of temperature drops in other area's did it? It actually suggested the temperatures were rising globally. For example it did not say other areas fairly near by got colder than would be expected did it? I expect they would have mention that if that were the case.

Well you see they slow down the wind, the majority seem to accept windmills slow the wind down by a vote of 3-0 in the poll. Now if wind is slowed then warm air cannot rise as fast because in order for it to rise something must come in to fill the gap it would leave, if nothing comes in then it cannot rise because that would create a vacuum beneath it and the atmospheric pressure pressing down on the hot air above the vacuum would prevent it from rising. So (colder) air must rush in to fill that vacuum, and we call that rush of air wind, so if we slow that wind we slow the rise of hot air thus the temperature will be higher for longer.

Well firstly the study in the journal reported an increase in temperature around wind farms, that appears to support the claim doesn't it? I mean if there is no extra energy going in and it is getting warmer there then surely we have to conclude there is less energy going out? Furthermore as I mentioned if the warm air is closer to the ground then it has more greenhouse gas about it thus less radiation must becoming from that area due tot he downward forcing of the greenhouse gases?

It is if they are moving energy to lower altitudes on average because that means there is more green house gas above them and hence more downwards forcing and hence less radiative loss thus more warming at lower altitudes. So the outflow would be affected.

Perhaps the interesting about the graph is that we are already at 400 ppm and the downward forcing is about 258. Now if we were to double the CO2 to 800 ppm the downward forcing woudl be about 263 that is an increase of just 5/258 or 2% We seem to going to a hell of a lot of bother to prevent a just 2% increase in downward forcing. http://zfacts.com/p/226.html now in the last 100 year the ppm has increase by 100, producing less a than a degree rise in temperature, are we really bothered by another It perhaps interesting that the rise in temperature is a good match to the rise in the number of windmills http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Wind_power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming