Wind Farm Based Global Warming.

[esbo]

Large wind farms in certain areas in the United States appear to affect local land surface temperatures, according to a paper published April 30 in the journal Nature Climate Change.

 

 

The study, led by Liming Zhou, an atmospheric scientist at the State University of New York- (SUNY) Albany, provides insights about the possible effects of wind farms.

 

The results could be important for developing efficient adaptation and management strategies to ensure long-term sustainability of wind power.

 

"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, which funded the research.

 

"The observations and analyses are for a relatively short period, but raise important issues that deserve attention as we move toward an era of rapid growth in wind farms in our quest for alternate energy sources."

 

Considerable research has linked the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels with rising global temperatures.

 

Consequently, many nations are moving toward cleaner sources of renewable energy such as wind turbines. Generating wind power creates no emissions, uses no water and is likely "green."

 

"We need to better understand the system with observations, and better describe and model the complex processes involved, to predict how wind farms may affect future weather and climate," said Zhou.

 

There have been a growing number of studies of wind farm effects on weather and climate, primarily using numerical models due to the lack of observations over wind farms.

 

As numerical models are computationally intensive and have uncertainties in simulating regional and local weather and climate, said Zhou, remote sensing is likely the most efficient and effective way to study wind farm effects over larger spatial and longer temporal scales.

 

To understand the potential impact of wind farms on local weather and climate, Zhou's team analyzed satellite-derived land surface temperatures from regions around large wind farms in Texas for the period 2003-2011.

 

The researchers found a night-time warming effect over wind farms of up to 0.72 degrees Celsius per decade over the nine-year-period in which data were collected.

 

Because the spatial pattern of warming mirrors the geographic distribution of wind turbines, the scientists attribute the warming primarily to wind farms.

 

The year-to-year land surface temperature over wind farms shows a persistent upward trend from 2003 to 2011, consistent with the increasing number of operational wind turbines with time.

 

"This warming effect is most likely caused by the turbulence in turbine wakes acting like fans to pull down warmer near-surface air from higher altitudes at night," said Somnath Baidya Roy of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, a co-author of the paper.

 

While the warming effect reported is local and small compared to the strong background year-to-year land surface temperature variation, the authors believe that this work draws attention to an important scientific issue that requires further investigation.

 

"The estimated warming trends only apply to the study region and to the study period, and thus should not be interpolated into other regions, globally or over longer periods," Zhou said. "For a given wind farm, once there are no new wind turbines added, the warming effect may reach a stable level."

 

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.

 

"We're expanding this approach to other wind farms," said Thorncroft, "and building models to understand the physical processes and mechanisms driving the interactions of wind turbines and the atmosphere boundary layer near the surface."

 

 

 

 

Other authors of the paper include Lance Bosart at SUNY-Albany, Yuhong Tian of NOAA, and Yuanlong Hu at Terra-Gen Power LLC in San Diego, Calif

 

 

 

 

Seems to me the warming is caused by the slowing of the winds which cool the earth.

The turbulence stuff does not add up as a warming effect at night would balanced by a cooling effect in the day.

 

What gets me is why people cannot see the obvious, winds are caused by the earth cooling,

the earth cannot cool effectively without wind to allow hot air to rise.

 

By slowing and draining the winds of energy hot air cannot rises as air needs to flow in to

the vacuum they would otherwise leave.

 

Thus ironically the wind farms produce a potent greenhouse effect by trapping hot air on

the surface of the earth, the very thing they were supposed to be mitigating!!!!!

[C1ay]

Your assumptions are incorrect...

 

Seems to me the warming is caused by the slowing of the winds which cool the earth.

The turbulence stuff does not add up as a warming effect at night would balanced by a cooling effect in the day.

The localized warming that is observed could be the result of impeding wind flow. Assuming that this somehow implies that any nighttime warming effect would be offset by a daytime cooling effect is an unsupportable conclusion.

 

What gets me is why people cannot see the obvious, winds are caused by the earth cooling,

the earth cannot cool effectively without wind to allow hot air to rise.

No, winds are actually caused by convection driven by the solar energy absorbed by the Earth. Wind is not needed at all for hot air to rise.

 

By slowing and draining the winds of energy hot air cannot rises as air needs to flow in to

the vacuum they would otherwise leave.

False. Convection does not need wind at all.

 

Thus ironically the wind farms produce a potent greenhouse effect by trapping hot air on

the surface of the earth, the very thing they were supposed to be mitigating!!!!!

Please support this claim. There is nothing in your quoted paper to support any claim that wind farms trap hot air on the ground.

[esbo]

Your assumptions are incorrect...

 

 

The localized warming that is observed could be the result of impeding wind flow. Assuming that this somehow implies that any nighttime warming effect would be offset by a daytime cooling effect is an unsupportable conclusion.

 

 

No, winds are actually caused by convection driven by the solar energy absorbed by the Earth. Wind is not needed at all for hot air to rise.

 

 

False. Convection does not need wind at all.

 

 

Please support this claim. There is nothing in your quoted paper to support any claim that wind farms trap hot air on the ground.

 

 

Can you support you claim that "Convection does not need wind at all"?

 

Your post is rather difficult to follow.

 

"The localized warming that is observed could be the result of impeding wind flow."

 

Could be? So you are saying you do not know what causes it?

That a bit of a none statement.

 

I think it is is caused by a slowing of the wind.

 

"Assuming that this somehow implies that any nighttime warming effect would be offset by a daytime cooling effect is an unsupportable conclusion."

 

Is it? Do you have any evidence to support you claim?

 

The ground is on average colder at night than during the day, do you deny this?

 

If you don't then my claim that the mixing effect would cancel out seems pretty

reasonable.

 

"No, winds are actually caused by convection driven by the solar energy absorbed by the Earth. Wind is not needed at all for hot air to rise. "

 

You seem to contradict yourself here.

Fist you say winds are caused by convection (hot air) rising and then you

say winds are "not needed for hot air to rise".

 

We know convection causes winds.

 

This video demonstrates it

 

Furthermore any movement of air is wind convection is vertical wind.

[esbo]

And if you do not believe that one this one is even clearer (because it is

a batter model of the earth)

 

 

 

The warm water cannot rise without water flowing in to replace the

rising water, other wise it would leave hole in the water if there

was no flow in (ie wind) the water would not be able to rise because

the weight of the water would make it fall back into the hole otherwise left

behind.

 

So wind is needed.

[esbo]

So I have supported my claim.

 

Can you support your claim "Convection does not need wind at all."?

 

I will leave it open to anyone who want to support that claim because I have seen that

claim made before I think it is pretty unsupportable.

 

Challenge of the week :)

Edited May 9, 2012 by esbo

[TAMallick]

I agree with the authors, "While the warming effect reported is local and small compared to the strong background year-to-year land surface temperature variation, the authors believe that this work draws attention to an important scientific issue that requires further investigation". Also we have to know that wind power is not cost effective, so usually it is not prospective.

[esbo]

I agree with the authors, "While the warming effect reported is local and small compared to the strong background year-to-year land surface temperature variation, the authors believe that this work draws attention to an important scientific issue that requires further investigation". Also we have to know that wind power is not cost effective, so usually it is not prospective.

 

 

Firstly warming is not local, it is only local in the same way as CO2 is locally produced.

Unfortunately both spread out.

 

The warming caused by the wind mill will have spread all around the world, of course it will be hard to detect but it is still there.

 

The CO2 produced by a coal power station is produced locally too, but it spreads globally.

 

 

"The researchers expected to see the reverse during the day -- a slight cooling effect -- but the data showed either a small warming or a negligible effect"

 

The warming is not small, it is 7.2 degrees Celsius a century that is about SEVEN TIMES the rate of CO2 warming.

 

OK it is 'local' to the farm ut as I explained that local warming adds to the global temperature globally.

So they are comparing it to the warming the mills produced in previous years, so it is actually higher than they measured.

 

And of course there are wind farms all over the world, so the the 'localness' is in fact global anyway and there are

many more wind farms planned. The growth in wind farms is exponential.

[C1ay]

...the earth cannot cool effectively without wind to allow hot air to rise....

 

So I have supported my claim....

No you haven't. Hot air will rise because it is less dense than cool air. In the big scheme of things this will cause wind but wind is not needed for the hot air to rise. That would be like saying water needs wind to come to a boil, another example of convection. Many ocean currents occur because of convection as well, without wind. Perhaps you could get a better understanding from this Physics for Kids article on thermodynamics.

[esbo]

No you haven't. Hot air will rise because it is less dense than cool air. In the big scheme of things this will cause wind but wind is not needed for the hot air to rise. That would be like saying water needs wind to come to a boil, another example of convection. Many ocean currents occur because of convection as well, without wind. Perhaps you could get a better understanding from this Physics for Kids article on thermodynamics.

 

Wind is an air current, the 'wind' in the oceans is a water current.

 

So how do you explain the warming?

 

It it were mixing of air the effect would be cancelled during the day when the air near the ground is warmest.

 

Do you physic4kids have an explanation for that?

 

 

I doubt it ;)

Edited May 10, 2012 by esbo

[C1ay]

Wind is an air current, the 'wind' in the oceans is a water current.

 

So how do you explain the warming?

 

It it were mixing of air the effect would be cancelled during the day when the air near the ground is warmest.

 

Do you physic4kids have an explanation for that?

 

 

I doubt it ;)

Quit prevaricating. You claimed that hot air could not rise without wind. That assertion is patently false. Back up your claims or move on.

[esbo]

Quit prevaricating. You claimed that hot air could not rise without wind. That assertion is patently false. Back up your claims or move on.

 

 

All movement of air is effectively wind, not withstanding that, for the air to rise other air must fall,

I take it you agree with that?

The falling air is then drawn to where the air is rising forming a ground wind and a circuit.

 

The videos I posted clearly demonstrate this.

 

I have backed up my claim, it's time you accepted that, "Quit prevaricating", and moved on!! :)

[C1ay]

...the earth cannot cool effectively without wind to allow hot air to rise.

This statement is false. Support it or retract it!

[esbo]

This statement is false. Support it or retract it!

 

 

OK I will amend it, the cooling currents of the earth cause wind.

 

Happy now? :rolleyes:

Edited May 10, 2012 by esbo

[Boerseun]

Wind is simply air moving horizontally. Convection is an air cell moving vertically. Granted, that air cell won't move upwards if it's space can't be taken by cold, denser air flowing inwards, horizontally. But the only way to prevent the denser air from flowing in to fill the gap left by the rising hot air, would be to build a solid wall many kilometers high around the rising cell. Wind farms are way too flimsy in the great scheme of things to have any impact on the inflow of dense air to fill the void left by the rising hot column.

[esbo]

Wind is simply air moving horizontally. Convection is an air cell moving vertically. Granted, that air cell won't move upwards if it's space can't be taken by cold, denser air flowing inwards, horizontally. But the only way to prevent the denser air from flowing in to fill the gap left by the rising hot air, would be to build a solid wall many kilometers high around the rising cell. Wind farms are way too flimsy in the great scheme of things to have any impact on the inflow of dense air to fill the void left by the rising hot column.

 

 

Close but no banana.

 

You accept that air cannot move up without air flowing in at the bottom. Fine.

 

Now what if it can't flow in fast enough? Can the air rise?

Yes but not as fast.

 

Now you have build the wall and the air has stopped rising, I then knock

a brick out of that wall, is it now as if the wall does not exist at all?

 

No of course not. The air flows in but not as fast, so the air cannot rise as

fast, thus the warm air remains at low levels for longer causing global warming.

 

wind farms are not flimsy they extract thousands of tonnes of energy from the wind.

 

That slows the wind and thus slows the hot air rising.

 

You seem to have a view of air as a magical ether which can instantly fill a void

but air not like that it is a viscous fluid, try sticking your hand out of a speeding

car or train and you will get an idea of how string the wind is.

 

Even if it was magical ether it would be restricted to the speed of light so it

would still hold back the warm air from rising for a while!! :blink:

[C1ay]

Hot, less dense air will rise above cooler, more dense air even if the exchange takes place in the same column of flow. Look up convective vortices to see how thunderstorms do this via tornadoes.

[esbo]

Hot, less dense air will rise above cooler, more dense air even if the exchange takes place in the same column of flow. Look up convective vortices to see how thunderstorms do this via tornadoes.

 

 

There does not seem to be any thing special about them as far as I can see.