swansont Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 So how does CO2 cause global warming? Is it adding energy? If so how? By trapping energy that would otherwise be radiated out into space. The energy came from the sun. Less radiative loss results in an increase in temperature. The wind farms are moving energy around, but that's not the same as affecting the influx or outflux
doG Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) You can cause warming without adding extra heat if you prevent the existing heat from escaping. You do not have to add extra heat to get warming if you reduce the heat going out I said that in the post you quoted but there's no evidence of wind farms reducing Earth's radiation. Can you support that claim? Edited May 2, 2012 by doG
esbo Posted May 2, 2012 Author Posted May 2, 2012 By trapping energy that would otherwise be radiated out into space. The energy came from the sun. Less radiative loss results in an increase in temperature. The wind farms are moving energy around, but that's not the same as affecting the influx or outflux 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.
doG Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 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. Windmills don't move the wind anywhere, the wind moves the windmills where the windmills are situated. Windmills on the ground are turned by wind on the ground. They don't go up into higher altitudes and bring the wind down to the ground to turn them. Is that what you want us to believe that you're trying to suggest?
esbo Posted May 2, 2012 Author Posted May 2, 2012 I said that in the post you quoted but there's no evidence of wind farms reducing Earth's radiation. Can you support that claim? 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?
doG Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 Well firstly the study in the journal reported an increase in temperature around wind farms, that appears to support the claim doesn't it? Not at all. You cannot use localized measurements to extrapolate system wide effects. a temperature rise in one area could very likely correlate with a temperature drop in another.
esbo Posted May 2, 2012 Author Posted May 2, 2012 Windmills don't move the wind anywhere, the wind moves the windmills where the windmills are situated. Windmills on the ground are turned by wind on the ground. They don't go up into higher altitudes and bring the wind down to the ground to turn them. Is that what you want us to believe that you're trying to suggest? 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.
doG Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 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. You need to study up on convection. Your post makes it incredibly obvious that you have no understanding of how our climate works.
esbo Posted May 2, 2012 Author Posted May 2, 2012 Not at all. You cannot use localized measurements to extrapolate system wide effects. a temperature rise in one area could very likely correlate with a temperature drop in another. 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.
hypervalent_iodine Posted May 3, 2012 Posted May 3, 2012 ! Moderator Note Not seeing any evidence, esbo.
esbo Posted May 3, 2012 Author Posted May 3, 2012 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 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. 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
doG Posted May 3, 2012 Posted May 3, 2012 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 Localized warming over wind farms IS NOT GLOBAL WARMING!!! I can't believe you can't see that. Global warming is warming on a planet wide scale. Do you really not understand that?
esbo Posted May 3, 2012 Author Posted May 3, 2012 Localized warming over wind farms IS NOT GLOBAL WARMING!!! I can't believe you can't see that. Global warming is warming on a planet wide scale. Do you really not understand that? 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.
questionposter Posted May 3, 2012 Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) 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? I am not familiar with wind farms causing global warming, do you have any good links? The first article wasn't very good, it simply stated "that" wind farms were being built, not how much CO2 they release or how many joules of energy it takes to power them. 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. By that logic though I could argue nuclear reactors don't release a lot of energy simply because a majority of the country relies on coal instead, even though Japan recently almost had a meltdown. With wind farms, the issue isn't necessarily efficiency, it's coal and gas companies lobbying. It's not good to be too dependent on any one source. Edited May 3, 2012 by questionposter
swansont Posted May 3, 2012 Posted May 3, 2012 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. How do you reach the conclusion that there is more CO2 above them? Even if this is the case, there has been no CO2 created; more above means less below.
esbo Posted May 3, 2012 Author Posted May 3, 2012 How do you reach the conclusion that there is more CO2 above them? Even if this is the case, there has been no CO2 created; more above means less below. the higher up you go the less atmosphere there is above you!!!
swansont Posted May 3, 2012 Posted May 3, 2012 the higher up you go the less atmosphere there is above you!!! Um, I'm pretty sure the ground doesn't move around in this scenario. The ground is what is radiating.
esbo Posted May 3, 2012 Author Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) http://avstop.com/ac/5-3.html Some pictures to help your understanding. Edited May 3, 2012 by esbo
rigney Posted May 3, 2012 Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) Perhaps in a hundred years or so we will have build our own Sahara? This is the wind tunnel of Texas. http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_resource_maps.asp?stateab=tx Here is another that may be of interest, if you read into it. http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/environment/chapter-2-environmental-impacts/onshore-impacts.html Localized warming over wind farms IS NOT GLOBAL WARMING!!! I can't believe you can't see that. Global warming is warming on a planet wide scale. Do you really not understand that? A 200' X 400' gymnasium has an ambient temperature of 33 F. You sit a small stove equipped with a BTU to overcome 33 F. in that enclosure and eventually the gym will get warmer. Even as a planet, we are locked in. Edited May 3, 2012 by rigney
imatfaal Posted May 3, 2012 Posted May 3, 2012 Perhaps in a hundred years or so we will have build our own Sahara? This is the wind tunnel of Texas. http://www.windpower....asp?stateab=tx Here is another that may be of interest, if you read into it. http://www.wind-ener...re-impacts.html A 200' X 400' gymnasium has an ambient temperature of 33 F. You sit a small stove equipped with a BTU to overcome 33 F. in that enclosure and eventually the gym will get warmer. Even as a planet, we are locked in. That's because you are burning fuel - ie converting chemical energy into heat. the wind turbines are merely (claimed to be) creating separate local areas of hot and cold - they are not a significant heat source.
swansont Posted May 3, 2012 Posted May 3, 2012 Some pictures to help your understanding. Where are the CO2 levels depicted in the pictures? Well firstly the study in the journal reported an increase in temperature around wind farms, that appears to support the claim doesn't it? One is convection and the other is radiation. You cannot simply interchange the two. 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? It's getting warmer in one spot. Cooler in another. 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? The radiation source is the surface of the earth.
esbo Posted May 3, 2012 Author Posted May 3, 2012 Um, I'm pretty sure the ground doesn't move around in this scenario. The ground is what is radiating. 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.
rigney Posted May 3, 2012 Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) 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. esbo, electricity is made by magnetic field interaction, which also produces heat. This, whether it's a motor or generator. Heat produced during the process of turning kinetic energy into electrical force is dissapated back into the atmosphere during and after the process. Check it out. I'm not knocking wind mills, it's just that you don't get something for nothing. Edited May 3, 2012 by rigney
Arete Posted May 3, 2012 Posted May 3, 2012 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. might want to double check that one... (convection happens in liquids too...) http://www.redmap.or...nd-downwelling/ http://www.tpub.com/weather3/1-24.htm
Recommended Posts