esbo Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 Article here http://www.telegraph...-new-study.html The article is garbled nonsense but wind farms do cause warming because they slow down the circulating air which cools the earth. That is obvious they take energy from the cooling currents and slow them so they cool the earth less. Simples. Again the article is bad science which is right and wrong at random much like a monkey typing like this:- doejd uhf erfooireo fkler to e e dhwed the lwjrjwer werewjf r ehre ohlljhrere jflsjdfjs fis cfdokkfdp is wejf er;fon tree frhtg rtg t r car ijto;j;ej;t I expect the usually thumbs down but you can deny the truth but it will be true nonetheless -1
iNow Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 Does the local air temperature rise as a result of the turbine? Sure... a tiny bit... On net, however, the warming that would have resulted had that energy been instead generated by coal or gas or other petroleum products would have exceeded the miniscule degree of local warming caused by the change in air currents from the turbine... in both scale and duration. You see, the the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries. Also, the argument you're using could equally apply to buildings. Buildings alter the wind currents, and so local temperatures are relatively higher as a result. Same with billboards on the side of the highway. Same with mountains. OMG!!! Mountains result in some local warming relative to surrounding areas!!! Silly, really. It doesn't change global climates. Just local surrounding air temps.
esbo Posted May 1, 2012 Author Posted May 1, 2012 The turbine causes warming because it slows the air flow, same as running a computer without a fan. Yes buildings do cause warming by slowing the air flow but they are not designed to slow the air (usually) and we do not build them in windy places (usually). What we are doing is sticking them in all the major windy areas and that is going to slow down the cooling currents and increase warming. But it is not just local warming it is overall warming the air moves about (obviously) and there is a net warming effect on the surface (where it matters). Yes we avoid burning some fossil fuels, BUT remember, wind-farms do not produce a whole lot of energy and I have seen no proof they reduce global warming overall. Reduced air flow can produce a significant build up in damaging heat as you will find if your CPU fan stops working.
iNow Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 The turbine causes warming because it slows the air flow, same as running a computer without a fan. Not really, no. The computer components radiate heat as part of their operations, and the fan helps to evacuate some of that. The turbine circulates the surrounding volume of air, and alters its flow somewhat, but that air is ambient and cannot accurately be compared in the way you have. Yes buildings do cause warming by slowing the air flow but they are not designed to slow the air (usually) Regardless of what they are "designed" to do, they interfere with the natural movement of the air. Some more, some less. That doesn't negate the point I was making. and we do not build them in windy places (usually). No buildings in the city of Chicago, eh? They windy city, right? Fascinating. What we are doing is sticking them in all the major windy areas and that is going to slow down the cooling Where I think you're mistaken is in assuming that the GLOBAL average temperatures change in any significant way as a result of a few hundred turbines. But it is not just local warming it is overall warming the air moves about (obviously) and there is a net warming effect Not globally, and also not when you do the math correctly by accounting for the reduction in CO2 from lack of use of coal. Yes we avoid burning some fossil fuels, BUT remember, wind-farms do not produce a whole lot of energy and Sure they do. It depends on the size of the farm and on the size of the turbines and on the local wind patterns and strength. I have seen no proof they reduce global warming overall. It is a drop of water in the bucket, sure... but eventually one of those drops causes the bucket to overflow when you keep dropping them in. Reduced air flow can produce a significant build up in damaging heat as you will find if your CPU fan stops working. Okay. That's good of you to share. Thanks. I sort of knew that already, though.
esbo Posted May 1, 2012 Author Posted May 1, 2012 Not really, no. The computer components radiate heat as part of their operations, and the fan helps to evacuate some of that. The turbine circulates the surrounding volume of air, and alters its flow somewhat, but that air is ambient and cannot accurately be compared in the way you have. Yes really the fan takes heat out of the computer (earth) the circulating winds take heat out of the earth by bringing hot air to the extremities where it radiates the heat out into space. Windfarms slow that process and stopping a computer fan slows the equivalent process. Regardless of what they are "designed" to do, they interfere with the natural movement of the air. Some more, some less. That doesn't negate the point I was making. No buildings in the city of Chicago, eh? They windy city, right? Fascinating. They do interfere with the air, but more by slowing it than mixing it. The mixing effect is reversed during the day when the higher air is colder so he has told only half the story and the overall effect is negligible for the mixing effect. One city is more of an exception, but Chicago was built despite it being windy not because it was windy. Where I think you're mistaken is in assuming that the GLOBAL average temperatures change in any significant way as a result of a few hundred turbines. Not globally, and also not when you do the math correctly by accounting for the reduction in CO2 from lack of use of coal. There are more than a few hundred though. there are hundreds of thousands, millions probably all placed in places which use to be windy, they are bound to slow the earth cooling winds it's a no brainer. Well show your maths!!! I have seen no maths to show global warming is reduced, all the existing maths ignores the warming effect of the wind mills. If each farm produces a local effect then they combine to produce a global effect, again a no brainer. It is a drop of water in the bucket, sure... but eventually one of those drops causes the bucket to overflow when you keep dropping them in. Okay. That's good of you to share. Thanks. I sort of knew that already, though. Yes a drop in a bucket, but each wind farm is also a leak in in the global warming prevention bucket. There is not evidence to show the drop in is bigger than the leak out. I imagine there will be little net effect, just a whole waste time money and energy building the things. Yes so you know reduced air flow causes heating on the surface of your computer chips, so why do you have such a hard time accepting it also causes heating on the surface of the earth. One thing a green house does is is to physical trap warm air, wind farms do the same but in a less obvious manner, hot air cannot rise because the win blowing in is slowed down so it cannot raise as fast. All this is obvious stuff, why am I the only one who can see it?
iNow Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 (edited) So, you're basically arguing that sticking a few straws in your living room is going to increase your electricity bills because it blocks the breeze from the A/C. Uhhmm... Okay. If that's your starting position then I'll concede I lack the patience to educate you. This will be my final reply. One city is more of an exception, but Chicago was built despite it being windy not because it was windy. You seem to have misunderstood my comment. I was not arguing that they built Chicago there because it was windy, so your comment is moot. You said that we usually do not build buildings in windy areas. I provided you the most obvious counter example which negated your point by mentioning Chicago. There are others. There are more than a few hundred [wind turbines around the world] though.there are hundreds of thousands, millions probably No, not "millions probably." There are roughly 660 thousand: http://www.wwindea.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=348&Itemid=40 it's a no brainer. Sure, if by "no brainer" you mean that you have to stop using your brain to accept such ridiculous nonsense. I have seen no maths to show global warming is reduced You should know that argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy, and suggests a deep weakness in your position. Roughly, you're here saying, "I personally have not spent enough time reading to see the refutations of my point, therefore there are no refutations of my point." It's dumb, right? Either way, what is perhaps most saddening is how the very study you're using to defend your claims explicitly states that it is one of the first of its kind. You should read this comment as, "You may not have seen many yet, but they are coming, and they will very probably show a net decrease in global warming due to the reductions in CO2 that wind power enables." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120430152045.htm The study represents a first step in exploring the potential of using satellite data to quantify the possible effects of the development of big wind farms on weather and climate, said Chris Thorncroft of SUNY-Albany, a co-author of the paper. Ergo, continuing here to argue that you have "yet to see any studies showing the impact of wind energy on global warming" is a bit disingenuous, dontcha think? If each farm produces a local effect then they combine to produce a global effect, again a no brainer. See above (re: both the global effect and the "no brain"). Further, there is no new energy being added to the system by wind turbines, so you're definitely ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics with your position. They turbines may change how the energy in the system is distributed, but it is not adding any as you are both implicitly and explicitly suggesting. I imagine there will be little net effect, just a whole waste time money and energy building the things. Even if I stipulate that wind farms do more harm than good (which I do not), you are still wrong about the money. These investments create jobs and put people to work. Folks in factories, or working in allows, or assembling them, or servicing them, or running power lines to neighborhoods, or hooking up meters to houses, etc... These are all jobs that people would not otherwise have. Those workers earn paychecks and go buy things with those paychecks, which puts other people to work, and there is a massive multiplier effect. So, even if I were to concede that your point about wind farms was valid (which it's not), they still stimulate the economy and serve as a very worth while investment. Yes so you know reduced air flow causes heating on the surface of your computer chips, so why do you have such a hard time accepting it also causes heating on the surface of the earth. Because the earth is not a computer chip, and analogies carried too far very frequently break down... much like yours has here. One thing a green house does is is to physical trap warm air, wind farms do the same but in a less obvious manner, Just to clarify, greenhouse gases don't "physical <sic> trap warm air." What happens is some wavelengths of light get radiated back downward as opposed to escaping into outer space, which results in a net increase in the radiation that is part of the earth system. Oh, and btw: http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0430/Don-t-believe-the-headlines.-Wind-farms-do-not-cause-global-warming Specifically, the study found that large tracts of wind turbines in remote areas of Texas appear to be increasing local surface temperatures. The results of this study have been misconstrued by certain media outlets as ironic evidence that a supposedly "green" technology is contributing to global warming, despite the lack of any supporting evidence. Here are the facts: The team of researchers, led by SUNY Albany environmental scientist Liming Zhou, analyzed surface temperature data of Texan wind farms – the data courtesy of NASA's Terra and Aqua satellites. Zhou and his colleagues found that the immediate surroundings of the wind farms rose an average of 0.72 degrees Celsius between 2003 and 2011. The effect was most prominent at night. Some of the team has speculated that this localized warming trend could be an effect of the turbines pulling down warm air from higher altitudes at night, when the air above the land would otherwise be cooler. In a recent University at Albany press release, Zhou warned that "the estimated warming trends only apply to the study region and to the study period, and thus should not be interpolated linearly into other regions (e.g., globally) or over longer periods (e.g., for another 20 years)," he said. "For a given wind farm, once there are no new wind turbines added, the warming effect may reach a stable level." Yet exaggerated interpolation seems to be stock-in-trade for many of the media outlets covering this story. Take, for example, FOX News' headline: Wind farms are warming the Earth, or that of Forbes: Wind Farms Cause Global Warming! or that of the Inquistr's: Wind Farms May Contribute to Global Warming, or that of Newser: Latest Global Warming Culprit: Wind Farms. It should be noted that nearly all of these stories contradict their own headlines by explaining that the observed effect was local. This new study doesn't necessarily illustrate a causal link between wind turbines and localized warming, let alone temperature change on a global scale. The authors of the Nature paper were the first to admit that further science is needed to determine that exact nature of this link. If it were true that the spinning blades of wind turbines increased the overall temperature of the planet, as opposed to simply redistributing thermal energy, we would have to rewrite some basic laws of physics, particularly the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This is an important distinction from the burning of fossil fuels, which produces gas that increases how much of the sun's energy the Earth retains. In this respect, this process contributes to a globally warming climate because the source of energy (the sun) is apart from the system that is warmed (the Earth.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/no-wind-farms-are-not-causing-global-warming/2012/04/30/gIQAMl2GsT_blog.html Scientific studies are misrepresented all the time. But now and again the distortions get particularly bad. That was the case Monday, when Fox News ran the headline, “New Research Shows Wind Farms Cause Global Warming.” A number of other media outlets did the same thing. And it’s... not true at all. The frenzy started after Liming Zhou, a scientist at the University of Albany, published a short study in Nature Climate Change. Zhou’s team analyzed satellite data for a handful of large wind farms in west-central Texas. And he found that, between 2003 and 2011, the surface temperature in the immediate vicinity of Texas’ wind farms had heated up a fair bit, especially during the night hours, as the wind turbines pulled warmer air from the atmosphere down closer to the ground. <...> As Zhou himself explained in an accompanying Q&A (pdf) about his paper: “the warming effect reported in this study is local and is small compared to the strong background year-to-year land surface temperature changes. Very likely, the wind turbines do not create a net warming of the air and instead only re-distribute the air’s heat near the surface, which is fundamentally different from the large-scale warming effect caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.” Read that paragraph again. Wind turbines appear to move some warm air around in a relatively small patch of Texas — a fact that might be of note to, say, nearby farmers. But that’s not the same thing as putting more carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere, which traps heat that would otherwise escape out into space and which leads to a net overall increase in the Earth’s temperature. The latter is global warming. The former is not. <...> For any of these effects to be noticeable, however, the wind industry would have to be several orders of magnitude larger than it is now. As far as the present day is concerned, there’s no evidence that wind power is having a major effect on the world’s climate, while there’s plenty of evidence that the greenhouse gases we’re pumping into the air are doing quite a bit to heat the Earth. Either way, it's been fun. You can either go learn more and correct your misconceptions, or remain ignorant and continue to accept the lies being spun and spoonfed to you. Bye. Edited May 1, 2012 by iNow 1
Yarn Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 Slowing down air redistribution from one area to another will cause localized heating and localized cooling because if one place receives less hot air, another will retain more. We are talking about convection. Hot air flows not just poleward, but also up. To the extent that lateral movement is retarded one would expect an increase in vertical movement, so if the wind turbines were really obstructive to air flow to any significant degree, this would cause greater heat flow upward and out into space. However, I am skeptical of the idea that wind turbines are sufficiently obstructive to make a significant difference one way or another. Even supposing they made much of a difference at ground level, they are short enough that convection can simply continue apace by going above them. Cities have been mentioned in this discussion, however, i've never seen a set of wind turbines that came anywhere close to comparing to a city in size or blockage.
swansont Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 This premise sounds a lot like saying that moving money from your checking account to your savings account means you have more money. 1
CaptainPanic Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 It wind turbines cause local warming, and local cooling, then due to the way radiation works (specifically: radiation is a 4th power function of temperature), the net result across the entire planet should be global cooling. The article only mentions local warming, not global. Esbo, it's sad that you think that the article is nonsense when it is actually not... and that you then replace a correct article with your own faulty theory.
hypervalent_iodine Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 Esbo, it's sad that you think that the article is nonsense when it is actually not... and that you then replace a correct article with your own faulty theory. ! Moderator Note Agreed, which would make this a Speculations thread. Moved!
esbo Posted May 1, 2012 Author Posted May 1, 2012 Either way, what is perhaps most saddening is how the very study you're using to defend your claims explicitly states that it is one of the first of its kind. You should read this comment as, "You may not have seen many yet, but they are coming, and they will very probably show a net decrease in global warming due to the reductions in CO2 that wind power enables." http://www.scienceda...20430152045.htm Ergo, continuing here to argue that you have "yet to see any studies showing the impact of wind energy on global warming" is a bit disingenuous, dontcha think? OK Slight correction, "yet to see any studies showing of wind energy reduces global warming" "This study indicates that land surface temperatures have warmed in the vicinity of large wind farms in west-central Texas, especially at night," says Anjuli Bamzai, program director in the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, And what does the study actually show? It shows and increase in heat around the farm, ie an increase in warming, so any energy the farms produce have to first overcome that increase, that is gonna be a lot of energy to counteract the heating of thousands of square miles of air isn't it? Either way, it's been fun. You can either go learn more and correct your misconceptions, or remain ignorant and continue to accept the lies being spun and spoonfed to you. Bye. The science in the studies is woefully bad, it is clear those who did it are incompetent, the study is so bad it can't really show anything for sure. The one clear thing the studies show is local warming that is only fact. And that is bad new for lovers of wind farms. That local warming has to go somewhere and it goes into the atmosphere and become part of the warming they are comparing it to. The whole thing is laughably incompetent. The only good thing he can say is that the warming from wind farm is not very big compared to all the other warming effects combined. Well that is no surprise is it? A slice of a pie can never be bigger than the pie itself. (the wind farm warming is just a slice of the total warming'). You don't need a fooking study to find that out it is common sense. It's unbelievable how silly the study is
iNow Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 This premise sounds a lot like saying that moving money from your checking account to your savings account means you have more money. Given his reply above, this seems about right.
esbo Posted May 1, 2012 Author Posted May 1, 2012 It wind turbines cause local warming, and local cooling, then due to the way radiation works (specifically: radiation is a 4th power function of temperature), the net result across the entire planet should be global cooling. The article only mentions local warming, not global. Esbo, it's sad that you think that the article is nonsense when it is actually not... and that you then replace a correct article with your own faulty theory. I can't believe this, you could equally say a car and a power station only cause a local rise in CO2 So it's not a global problem. "If you measure the increase in CO2 around a coal fire or a power station you will detect a small local in crease in CO2 but not to worry it is tiny compared to the global rise in CO2" Slowing down air redistribution from one area to another will cause localized heating and localized cooling because if one place receives less hot air, another will retain more. We are talking about convection. Hot air flows not just poleward, but also up. To the extent that lateral movement is retarded one would expect an increase in vertical movement, so if the wind turbines were really obstructive to air flow to any significant degree, this would cause greater heat flow upward and out into space. However, I am skeptical of the idea that wind turbines are sufficiently obstructive to make a significant difference one way or another. Even supposing they made much of a difference at ground level, they are short enough that convection can simply continue apace by going above them. Cities have been mentioned in this discussion, however, i've never seen a set of wind turbines that came anywhere close to comparing to a city in size or blockage. I am sorry you have a poor grasp of what is going on. What happen when you heat air? It rises correct!!! You understand this bit. What does that rising air leave behind???? Answer a vacuum. What does that vacuum do? It prevents the air rising because it sucks it back down. The only way the air can rise is if there is an inflow of air, that is why we have wind. If you restrict that inflow you get warming because the warm air cannot rise and cool. -2
Arete Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 It's unbelievable how silly the study is OK - re -read this sentence over a few times. "the surface temperature in the immediate vicinity of Texas’ wind farms had heated up, especially during the night hours, as the wind turbines pulled warmer air from the atmosphere down closer to the ground." The wind turbines move heat from high up, to down low. They move heat. Not create. Moving heat=/= making heat. There's a loss of heat in the upper atmosphere and extra heat at ground level. No extra heat. If I move a chair from my office to the hallway I don't make any chairs. There is still only one chair. There's an extra chair in the hallway, and one less in my office. 3
esbo Posted May 1, 2012 Author Posted May 1, 2012 This premise sounds a lot like saying that moving money from your checking account to your savings account means you have more money. It is not like that at all. IF you restrict the flow of money (heat) out of your account the balance (heat) will increase. This is what is happening you are restricting the flow of air which takes heat away from the surface of the earth. OK - re -read this sentence over a few times. "the surface temperature in the immediate vicinity of Texas' wind farms had heated up, especially during the night hours, as the wind turbines pulled warmer air from the atmosphere down closer to the ground." The wind turbines move heat from high up, to down low. They move heat. Not create. Moving heat=/= making heat. There's a loss of heat in the upper atmosphere and extra heat at ground level. No extra heat. If I move a chair from my office to the hallway I don't make any chairs. There is still only one chair. There's an extra chair in the hallway, and one less in my office. Even if you are correct you are just proving yourself wrong. We live on the surface of the earth, what is where the ice caps are that is where the vegetation is, the temperature 60 metre up matters not a jot. So even if you are right you are wrong and I don't even accept you are right because I have not see the details of the study just some people wild speculations about what is going on. As I have said several time the the 'study' is a joke. It's not bad science, it's not even science. It's anecdotal evidence an wild unfounded speculations, or in layman's terms, garbage. -2
Arete Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 (edited) Even if you are correct you are just proving yourself wrong. That sentence is a self contradiction that doesn't actually make sense. We live on the surface of the earth, what is where the ice caps are that is where the vegetation is, the temperature 60 metre up matters not a jot. Except air moves up and down - http://en.wikipedia....eric_convection I have not see the details of the study just some people wild speculations about what is going on ... As I have said several time the the 'study' is a joke. So ultimately you're dimissing he paper as "garbage" without actually reading it? Edited May 1, 2012 by Arete
esbo Posted May 1, 2012 Author Posted May 1, 2012 That sentence is a self contradiction that doesn't actually make sense. No it is like you saying A=B therefore C=D What I am saying is that even is A=B that does not show C=D So even if you are correct about A=B that does not prove you are correct about C=D so so even if you are right you are wrong. Hope that is simple enough for you. That sentence is a self contradiction that doesn't actually make sense. Except air moves up and down - http://en.wikipedia....eric_convection It does not matter where it moves, if the surface temperate has increased then it has increased. Saying the air moves up and down does not change the temperature recorded, it does not unmelt any ice, it's a pointless irrelevant statement. -2
esbo Posted May 1, 2012 Author Posted May 1, 2012 So ultimately you're dimissing he paper as "garbage" without actually reading it? Yes that is a fair assessment. If you give me $18 I will buy the paper but I am not paying my money out to buy a flawed study, I would sooner give it to a Nigeria Banker to 'release the funds'. Our results show a significant warming trend of up to 0.72 °C per decade, particularly at night-time, over wind farms relative to nearby non-wind-farm regions. So that is what it shows it shows a warming. Now say you took those wind farms and used the electricity produced to try and hear a similarly huge area of land. There is no way in the world you woudl produce a 0.72C rise in heat oven a decade in that area. THUS PROVING WIND FARMS PRODUCE MORE WARMING THAN THEY COULD EVER HOPE TO SAVE IN REDUCTION OF CO2 PRODUCTION. Incidently 0.72C in a decade is huge considering it took 70 years for the earth's temp to rise just 0.6C So windfarms are over 10 time as bad a global warming - that's shocking!!
Yarn Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 Incidently 0.72C in a decade is huge considering it took 70 years for the earth's temp to rise just 0.6C So windfarms are over 10 time as bad a global warming - that's shocking!! The 0.72 C effect was local, hence by comparing it to global temperatures you are comparing apples to oranges unless you are proposing that we put them everywhere.
esbo Posted May 1, 2012 Author Posted May 1, 2012 The 0.72 C effect was local, hence by comparing it to global temperatures you are comparing apples to oranges unless you are proposing that we put them everywhere. The effects of CO2 are local. one local gas fire, one local car, one local lorry, but they all add up. The wind farms in the study are not the only wind farms in the world you know. What about the local effect of the other 100,000 wind farms, and more planned? And let's' face it wind farms do not produce a lot of energy. In the USA for example wind power makes less than 3% of the electricity used.
iNow Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 I'm unsure why I bother... The effects of CO2 are local. Not just local, though. Global, and CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries. Further, the CO2 interacts with new incoming energy/radiation from the sun. This means there are outside systems interacting with the CO2 in the earth system. That CO2 magnifies the effect of incoming radiation/energy from an outside source. The wind turbines, however, add no new energy to the system, and do not interact with other radiant sources nor outside systems. They just mix what's already there (see examples before about moving money from your checking to your savings account, or how taking a chair from your dining room into your den does not result in any additional chairs). And let's' face it wind farms do not produce a lot of energy. "A lot" and "a little" are really subjective terms, and of little use unless you qualify them. "Not a lot" to you could be a tremendous amount to a small village in Africa or to a community of farmers in South America. You must use real numbers, and also explain why they are at all relevant to your ignorant rants. For reference, wind farms were already producing 238 gigawatts of capacity by the end of last year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Wind_power_capacity_and_production
Arete Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 Hope that is simple enough for you. So ultimately you're dismissing the paper as "garbage" without actually reading it? Yes that is a fair assessment. Not the point you were trying to make, but yes, the above offers a pretty concise summation. 1
esbo Posted May 2, 2012 Author Posted May 2, 2012 I'm unsure why I bother... Not just local, though. Global, and CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries. Further, the CO2 interacts with new incoming energy/radiation from the sun. This means there are outside systems interacting with the CO2 in the earth system. That CO2 magnifies the effect of incoming radiation/energy from an outside source. The wind turbines, however, add no new energy to the system, and do not interact with other radiant sources nor outside systems. They just mix what's already there (see examples before about moving money from your checking to your savings account, or how taking a chair from your dining room into your den does not result in any additional chairs). "A lot" and "a little" are really subjective terms, and of little use unless you qualify them. "Not a lot" to you could be a tremendous amount to a small village in Africa or to a community of farmers in South America. You must use real numbers, and also explain why they are at all relevant to your ignorant rants. For reference, wind farms were already producing 238 gigawatts of capacity by the end of last year. http://en.wikipedia...._and_production The thing is with wind turbines is they trap warm air on the ground, it is a very effective way of keeping a warm surface warm. Might notice that you have hair on your arm for example, which rise to trap warm air when you are cold. The hairs do not generate any heat either but they keep you warm very effectively, that's why we have them!! So your argument that turbines generate no heat is null and void, I am not making that claim, your argument is a straw-man. I am arguing that they trap warm air, which they do. It is more than that though, they slow down earth cooling air circulation as well. I used real numbers when I said wind power only produces 3% (2.9%) of the electricity in the USA. If they produced 90% that 'local warming' would be a hell of a lot more global. Furthermore there will I think be a cumulative effect with the air slowed a little more each year perhaps. But even so they have produced a marked local effect whilst producing just 3% of the electricity. And further furthermore, that local warming ultimately disperse wide, warming the wider area, so you are comparing the local warming to air warmed by previous warming. And it is a trend, almost 1 degree C a decade, that is a *lot*, it takes CO2 warming over a century to produce similar warming. Finally your graph relates to capacity, most of the time wind farms are not producing anywhere near capacity, I believe 8%-10% is the figure I saw. And finally finally, surely it is obvious that placing huge wind mill farms in windy areas is likely to affect the climate and weather patterns? That's a no brainer, the only question is the extend of the effect. Lastly your ad hominem attacks ('ignorant rants') have no scientific value, they are the sign of a man ( or woman) who has lost the argument and knows it. Not the point you were trying to make, but yes, the above offers a pretty concise summation. I have read a brief summary of the paper and it is obvious it is a mainly worthless report, one which not right minded person would pay to see, the only people who would pay to see it are scientifically classified as 'mugs'.
ewmon Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 I haven't voted yet, but I want to say that the 0.72°C effect was due to the wind turbines mixing the cooler layer of air at the surface with the warmer layer of air above it. It was the surface temps that rose 0.72°C, and this means that the layer above it cooled, probably by a similar amount. Heat was not generated, right? Some farms use the downwash from helicopters to prevent frosts from ruining crops.
hypervalent_iodine Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 Lastly your ad hominem attacks ('ignorant rants') have no scientific value, they are the sign of a man ( or woman) who has lost the argument and knows it. ! Moderator Note And neither do any of your posts in this thread. All you've managed to do thus far is posit baseless speculation, claimed statistics without references and offhandedly ignored the counter-evidence provided to you by others with a simple, 'that's obviously wrong', with no real explanation as to why. If you want us to believe you, you'll need to convince us. You'll need to provide evidence to back up your claims and you'll need to have reasonable and logical explanations for any counter points and questions asked of you. If you can't do that, I'll be closing this thread.
Recommended Posts