Wind farms cause global warming.

[Suxamethonium]

Are there any official reports on how much CO2 wind farms release and how much energy they consume?

 

Just going to guess here- but I would say about 0 tonnes of CO₂ released annually (where would it come from?).

And if you find out its efficiency (i.e. what is not being converted to heat, sound, etc) and its electrical power output, then the total energy taken from the wind should be calculated as (electrical energy + lost energy) - otherwise this thing is making energy from nothing.

[Arete]

To be fair, Esbo has a point.

 

I think there's multiple reasons why esbo is coming under criticism:

 

1) The title of the thread stems directly from a misinterpretation of a scientific article by the media.

 

2) Esbo is rejecting the scientific article without reading it. "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". Rejecting the merits of evidence without actually reading it is not a logical basis to begin with.

 

3) Esbo is, however retaining the results of the article as valid, but stating the results support his/her pet hypothesis and not that posed by the authors of the paper.

 

4) Esbo's pet hypothesis makes predictions he/she is unable to support e.g. if wind turbines cause significant warming by slowing the wind, there should be a measurable reduction in wind speed in the vicinity of the wind farms. We have not had this demonstrated so the conclusion that heating is caused by an appreciable slowing of the wind is unsupported.

 

In addition, placing an obstacle in the path of a moving body of air does not necessarily slow down the movement of the air and in cases, can speed it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_gradient

 

 

5) Claims like "The effects of CO2 are local" indicate a lack of understanding of basic principles, like the four gas laws. Most people with a basic science education would understand that a gas released from a point source dissipates into the atmosphere to approach a uniform concentration, and thus the statement made is fundamentally flawed.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Arete

[esbo]

To be fair, Esbo has a point. Wind, here on earth, is largely driven by convection currents (in conjunction with Coriolis forces etc). Those convection currents are driven by the heat from the sun warming the equator more than the poles.

 

The wind and the convection currents are the same thing.

If you stopped the wind then the equator would get hotter and the poles would get colder. ( I will come back to that)

 

One thing that keeps the ground warm is that radiation outwards from it is reduced by the presence of CO2 in the air.

The large scale circulations move heat from ground level upwards.

Once that warm air has risen there is more scope for heat to be lost by radiation because there is simply less air above it absorbing that radiation andtrapping it a la greenhouse.

But, remember the bit about the equator getting hotter.

How much hotter?

Well, just hot enough to ensure that the incoming heat from the sun is radiated away.

The pole get colder.

How much? well, just as much as to compensate for the added losses from the hotter equator.

Overall there's no change but the local effects could be a problem.

 

However.

There's no way that the effects of tapping a very small fraction of the energy of the wind will make a measurable difference.

 

The effect is too small to worry about.

 

 

 

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.

 

I think there's multiple reasons why esbo is coming under criticism:

 

1) The title of the thread stems directly from a misinterpretation of a scientific article by the media.

 

2) Esbo is rejecting the scientific article without reading it. "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". Rejecting the merits of evidence without actually reading it is not a logical basis to begin with.

 

3) Esbo is, however retaining the results of the article as valid, but stating the results support his/her pet hypothesis and not that posed by the authors of the paper.

 

4) Esbo's pet hypothesis makes predictions he/she is unable to support e.g. if wind turbines cause significant warming by slowing the wind, there should be a measurable reduction in wind speed in the vicinity of the wind farms. We have not had this demonstrated so the conclusion that heating is caused by an appreciable slowing of the wind is unsupported.

 

In addition, placing an obstacle in the path of a moving body of air does not necessarily slow down the movement of the air and in cases, can speed it up. http://en.wikipedia....i/Wind_gradient

 

 

5) Claims like "The effects of CO2 are local" indicate a lack of understanding of basic principles, like the four gas laws. Most people with a basic science education would understand that a gas released from a point source dissipates into the atmosphere to approach a uniform concentration, and thus the statement made is fundamentally flawed.

 

 

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.

 

The radiation we're primarily worried about is from the surface. It has to go through all the atmospheric CO2 regardless of any convection.

 

 

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!!!!!

[John Cuthber]

I think there's multiple reasons why esbo is coming under criticism:

 

1) The title of the thread stems directly from a misinterpretation of a scientific article by the media.

 

2) Esbo is rejecting the scientific article without reading it. "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". Rejecting the merits of evidence without actually reading it is not a logical basis to begin with.

 

3) Esbo is, however retaining the results of the article as valid, but stating the results support his/her pet hypothesis and not that posed by the authors of the paper.

 

4) Esbo's pet hypothesis makes predictions he/she is unable to support e.g. if wind turbines cause significant warming by slowing the wind, there should be a measurable reduction in wind speed in the vicinity of the wind farms. We have not had this demonstrated so the conclusion that heating is caused by an appreciable slowing of the wind is unsupported.

 

In addition, placing an obstacle in the path of a moving body of air does not necessarily slow down the movement of the air and in cases, can speed it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_gradient

 

 

5) Claims like "The effects of CO2 are local" indicate a lack of understanding of basic principles, like the four gas laws. Most people with a basic science education would understand that a gas released from a point source dissipates into the atmosphere to approach a uniform concentration, and thus the statement made is fundamentally flawed.

I think you are right on each point.

And his reply really hasn't helped.

Esbo,

The poles would get colder because the wind wouldn't carry heat to them.

That's what convection currents do. They move heat from hot places to cold places.

 

Please try to stop ignoring the rules of physics.

[iNow]

I dunno, John. His prolific use of exclamation points is beginning to win me over.

 

Physics, shmizzics. He's got copious punctuation!!1!!2!!one!!&!

[Arete]

1 .. 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.

 

How can you possibly ascertain this without reading the report?

 

 

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.

 

If you could direct us to the measurements which show appreciable declines in wind speed attributable to wind turbines, that would be great. N.B. "It's obvious" is not a viable substitute.

 

 

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.

 

I see. If we broaden the use of the term "local" to encompass the planet, you're spot on.

[rigney]

esbo, on 4 May 2012 - 12:36 PM, said:

 

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.

 

From what source is CO2 produced on a wind turbine farm? Edited May 4, 2012 by rigney

[esbo]

From what source is CO2 produced on a wind turbine farm?

 

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.

[rigney]

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 is supposed to be net generators of CO2 - that's the whole idea.

 

I believe you! And as much as I would like to agree with your overall theory, these wind farms pale in comparison to cities. Talk about stopping the wind, Wow! We should look into more efficient and less costly ways to make solar panels. With them, other than that produced during construction, CO2 is at an absolute minimum unless you have a fire. To me solar energy is our best clean energy source. Edited May 4, 2012 by rigney

[swansont]

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.

 

1. Please note that I said "primarily". Perhaps you would do a calculation of how much energy is radiated by a surface, vs some volume of gas above it.

 

2. Also note the distinction between scattering of the radiation, vs being a source of radiation. The heat radiated at higher altitudes got there because it was first radiated by the surface.

 

If air did not radiate heat the planet would be boiling hot because the heat absorbed by the greenhouse gases woudl never escape!!!!!

 

Well, no, actually; your model of how this works appears to be flawed. If the greenhouse gases didn't radiate for some reason, there are two possibilities: 1) the gases would simply absorb radiation and nothing else, in which case the surface cools down because it's still emitting radiation but receiving none from the GHGs or 2) the gases, having absorbed one photon, simply remain in that state, and are now transparent to IR, in which case the surface cools down because it's still emitting radiation but receiving none from the GHGs.

 

The main problem with greenhouse gases is not that they get hot. It is that they scatter radiation, and about half of that goes back toward the planet. It is excitation and de-excitation.

[esbo]

I believe you! And as much as I would like to agree with your overall theory, these wind farms pale in comparison to cities. Talk about stopping the wind, Wow! We should look into more efficient and less costly ways to make solar panels. With them, other than that produced during construction, CO2 is at an absolute minimum unless you have a fire. To me solar energy is our best clean energy source.

 

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.

 

How can you possibly ascertain this without reading the report?

 

 

 

 

If you could direct us to the measurements which show appreciable declines in wind speed attributable to wind turbines, that would be great. N.B. "It's obvious" is not a viable substitute.

 

 

 

 

I see. If we broaden the use of the term "local" to encompass the planet, you're spot on.

 

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

 

 

Consider once again the cylinder of air used to calculate the power in the wind. This is

often referred to as a stream tube. The stream tube travels towards the wind turbine’s rotor, as

shown in Figure 6, with an initial velocity U and slows to U1 (due to pressure changes) by the

time it reaches the rotor.

 

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.

Edited May 4, 2012 by esbo

[rigney]

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 dirt.

 

Well, if we put these wind mills on top of our city buildings they would already have a 200 or 300 meter stick to sit on, right?. So, there would be no need to manufacture this part of the structure. Personally, they are ugly as hell and I don't like them either, but they are effective. Read this link and give it some thought. Honestly, I'm not trying to steal your thunder, it's only something else you might think about.

 

http://www.ehow.com/how_4796528_convert-solar-energy-electricity.html

Edited May 4, 2012 by rigney

[esbo]

`

1. Please note that I said "primarily". Perhaps you would do a calculation of how much energy is radiated by a surface, vs some volume of gas above it.

 

2. Also note the distinction between scattering of the radiation, vs being a source of radiation. The heat radiated at higher altitudes got there because it was first radiated by the surface.

 

 

 

Well, no, actually; your model of how this works appears to be flawed. If the greenhouse gases didn't radiate for some reason, there are two possibilities: 1) the gases would simply absorb radiation and nothing else, in which case the surface cools down because it's still emitting radiation but receiving none from the GHGs or 2) the gases, having absorbed one photon, simply remain in that state, and are now transparent to IR, in which case the surface cools down because it's still emitting radiation but receiving none from the GHGs.

 

The main problem with greenhouse gases is not that they get hot. It is that they scatter radiation, and about half of that goes back toward the planet. It is excitation and de-excitation.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

(George Frey/Bloomberg) 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.

 

That’s interesting — if somewhat expected. Orange growers in Florida often use giant fans to protect their crops from frost, using much the same principles. But it’s not at all clear that this has global significance. 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.

 

Still, that didn’t stop news outlets and pundits from inflating Zhou’s study beyond all recognition. The Daily Mail ran the headline, “Wind farms make climate change WORSE.” That’s wrong. Zhou himself complained that the media coverage of his study has been “misleading.”

 

Now, to pull back a bit, there are real questions about what might happen if we massively scaled up wind farms to produce huge amounts of renewable electricity. After all, wind turbines generate power by slowing down winds and capturing their kinetic energy. Build enough wind turbines and that might have an effect on the Earth’s temperature and rainfall patterns.

 

To get a sense for what scientists know about this topic, I called Mark Jacobson, an environmental engineer at Stanford who has done a fair bit of modeling work in this area. The key thing to note is that, for now, humanity doesn’t use anywhere near enough wind power to make a big difference to global wind patterns. Jacobson’s earlier research suggested that there’s somewhere around 72 terawatts of wind power that could feasibly be harnessed worldwide. At the end of 2011, the world’s wind power generation capacity was still just 0.2 terawatts. (Human beings use about 16 terawatts of energy, all told.)

 

And scientists dispute what would happen if we did start blanketing the globe with wind turbines. One 2004 study led by the University of Calgary’s David Keith found that getting just 2 terawatts of electricity from wind could produce “non-negligible climactic change at continental scales” — including shifts in rainfall patterns. (That much wind power would not, however, change the overall temperature of the planet.) But, says Jacobson, the effects that Keith’s group modeled don’t appear to be distinguishable from random fluctuations in the Earth’s climate. “To me,” says Jacobson, “that’s a meaningless result.”

 

Jacobson himself is working on a more in-depth effort to model the effects of a very large ramp-up in wind — those results could be published later this year. He says it’s possible that a massive expansion of wind turbines over both land and sea could even cool the planet somewhat, by slowing the rate at which water evaporates from the soil and enters the atmosphere. But his study is still under review.

 

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.

 

 

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

[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!!

[John Cuthber]

Similarly, if you slow down an air current which heats a surface (as happens at the poles) then that surface will get colder.

I just verified this by switching off the fan heater. Now my feet are cold so I'm going to switch it back on.

 

 

The wind just moves heat around.

 

On average, it wouldn't get hotter or colder if the wind stopped.

The changes (if they were big enough) might make life very difficult for us, but they wouldn't be global warming.

Edited May 7, 2012 by John Cuthber

[doG]

Yea, so basically the wind farms are slowing down the air currents which cool the surface of the earth.

No they don't. Why do you keep making the same unsupportable assertion?

[John Cuthber]

Only half of it is unsupportable.

Wind farms do produce electricity. They get the energy to do this from the kinetic energy of the wind. To do so they must slow the wind down.

 

However, the extent to which they slow it down is small ( probably immeasurable) and those current heat some bits of the earth and cool others.

[esbo]

Only half of it is unsupportable.

Wind farms do produce electricity. They get the energy to do this from the kinetic energy of the wind. To do so they must slow the wind down.

 

However, the extent to which they slow it down is small ( probably immeasurable) and those current heat some bits of the earth and cool others.

 

 

It may be #small' but it will me measurable by measuring the wind speed before and after the farm.

The wind must be slowing down otherwise the turbines would not turn.

 

 

In fact if you know the amount of energy the wind farm generate then it is fairly simple calculation to calculate (approximately)

how much the wind has closed down as the power of the wind is proportional to the cube of the speed IIRC.

 

So you then just need to know the density of the air and it is a fairly straight forward calculation.

 

Then perhaps you can go on to calculate the warming effect of that loss of cooling power.

 

Then you just need to compare he small amount of energy generated to the warming produced by the slowing of the wind.

 

If you think about it it must take a hell of a lot of energy to produce the warming seen on the satellite pictures.

 

How many electric fires on the ground would you need to produce that?

 

 

Millions I would imagine.

 

Similarly, if you slow down an air current which heats a surface (as happens at the poles) then that surface will get colder.

I just verified this by switching off the fan heater. Now my feet are cold so I'm going to switch it back on.

 

 

The wind just moves heat around.

 

On average, it wouldn't get hotter or colder if the wind stopped.

The changes (if they were big enough) might make life very difficult for us, but they wouldn't be global warming.

 

I am not aware of any air currents which heat the Poles.

The sun heats the polesand the wind takes the heat away up into the atmosphere and into outer space.

That's how I understand it.

[John Cuthber]

1 It may be #small' but it will me measurable by measuring the wind speed before and after the farm.

 

2 The wind must be slowing down otherwise the turbines would not turn.

 

3 Millions I would imagine.

 

4 I am not aware of any air currents which heat the Poles.

 

5 The sun heats the poles and the wind takes the heat away up into the atmosphere and into outer space.

 

6That's how I understand it.

1 No, the effect will be too small to measure essentially because the blades are narrow and most of the air simply misses them.

2 Congratulations this bit ( an echo of what I said earlier) is actually true.

3. Stop just imagining things: Learn some physics and do some maths.

4 Yes you are aware of them. This whole tread is about them. You just don't understand that the winds are driven by the temperature difference between the poles and the equator.

5 No it doesn't. Just for a start, for a good part of the year the poles are in darkness- they can't see the sun so the idea that it heats them is just silly.

6 No. It's how you misunderstand it.

[esbo]

No I think you have got it wrong there, as had the video on my post 91 at the bottom.

 

In the video the ice bag is placed at the bottom of the tank.

 

This as you know is wrong, for it to be an accurate representation the ice bag should be at the top.

 

There is no warm air going to the poles at the surface.

 

Note it is not a real experiment because real water is not circulating, it is a computer graphic.

 

It has to be a computer graphic because a real experiment set up like that would not work

for the simple reason you will not get warm air to sink at that end of the tank.

 

 

That is just not going to happen so I don't know why they put out bad science like that, it just seems to

have confused some people.

 

So yes you can defy the laws of gravity in a computer simulation however doing that is a real

experiment just ain't gonna happen.

 

That is why you won't see a real experiment showing what is supposed to be happening in the video.

Edited May 7, 2012 by esbo

[swansont]

The sun heats the polesand the wind takes the heat away up into the atmosphere and into outer space.

That's how I understand it.

 

The wind takes the heat to outer space. The vacuum of outer space. That's how you understand it?

[esbo]

And if you do not believe me take a look in your fridge and you will find the ice box is at the

top not the bottom of the fridge.

 

 

|f the ice box was at the bottom all the food at the top would rot because it would be too warm

as the air would not circulate.

 

The wind takes the heat to outer space. The vacuum of outer space. That's how you understand it?

 

It take the air up where it radiates out into outer space.

[iNow]

And if you do not believe me take a look in your fridge and you will find the ice box is at the

top not the bottom of the fridge.

 

 

|f the ice box was at the bottom all the food at the top would rot because it would be too warm

as the air would not circulate.

Oh... my.

 

[John Cuthber]

No I think you have got it wrong there, as had the video on my post 91 at the bottom.

 

In the video the ice bag is placed at the bottom of the tank.

 

This as you know is wrong, for it to be an accurate representation the ice bag should be at the top.

 

There is no warm air going to the poles at the surface.

 

Note it is not a real experiment because real water is not circulating, it is a computer graphic.

 

It has to be a computer graphic because a real experiment set up like that would not work

for the simple reason you will not get warm air to sink at that end of the tank.

 

 

That is just not going to happen so I don't know why they put out bad science like that, it just seems to

have confused some people.

 

So yes you can defy the laws of gravity in a computer simulation however doing that is a real

experiment just ain't gonna happen.

 

That is why you won't see a real experiment showing what is supposed to be happening in the video.

I don't give a tinker's cuss for the video: I didn't watch it.

However the winds on earth are still driven by the temperature gradient between the poles and the equator.

 

What do you think drives them?

[esbo]

Oh... my.

 

 

 

 

don't buy one of those it won't work!!!!

 

 

here is proof!!

 

 

" " I've had this appliance for just over a year and have had nothing but problems! Just today we woke to a fridge that is no longer cooling and is constantly running...We've had over 8 parts replaced--including an entire door..." ."

 

 

http://www.retrevo.c...614ci664/t/1-2/

Edited May 7, 2012 by esbo