Wind Farm Based Global Warming.

[Boerseun]

...and conversely, you seem to have a view of "wind" as a magical entity which starts at ground level and extends upwards to no more than the height of a electrical wind turbine. Show me a cross section of an inflowing air mass about to fill the void left by the rising convecting cell with the height of commercial wind turbines thrown in on which you base your assumptions.

[esbo]

...and conversely, you seem to have a view of "wind" as a magical entity which starts at ground level and extends upwards to no more than the height of a electrical wind turbine. Show me a cross section of an inflowing air mass about to fill the void left by the rising convecting cell with the height of commercial wind turbines thrown in on which you base your assumptions.

 

Assume the height is that of a red arrow and the sky is 20 time higher.

 

So that warm air can't rise without the cold air coming in.

[esbo]

Well that seems to have shut everyone up!! :lol:

[esbo]

Of course I have been aware of this for sometime, here is a tweet to prove it dated 5:32 PM - 21 Oct 09

 

https://twitter.com/notfookingtaken/status/5060700227

 

 

Not sure if this works lol

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Windfarms cause global warming - FACT. REMEMBER YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST, I want a Nobel piece prize for this, well i'll 'av the money anyway</p>— notfookingtaken (@notfookingtaken) <a href="https://twitter.com/notfookingtaken/status/5060700227" data-datetime="2009-10-22T03:32:11+00:00">October 22, 2009</a></blockquote>

<script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

 

lol well that worked a treat - not, but the links work.

 

https://twitter.com/notfookingtaken/status/5060700227

Edited September 27, 2012 by esbo

[Guest Aemilius]

Alright you guys.... Spread out!

 

 

Wind Farm Based Global Warming? Really? Global warming has to do

with greenhouse gasses that trap incoming solar radiation in the

atmosphere, raising the temperature. Wind turbines don't release

any greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, they don't even get hot

when they're in use, making the title of the thread a little moronic.

That being the case, it's perfectly logical to assume that the cause

of any increased surface temperature involves the mechanical

redistribution (turbulance) of heat energy already present in the

atmosphere, and by the way, there's a corresponding cooling effect

during the day that's explained quite nicely by the same proposed

mechanism of operation.

 

From the original post....

 

"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.

 

More from the researchers here.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Aemilius

[esbo]

That's rubbish!! "warming effect is most likely caused by the turbulence in turbine wakes".

"most likely"????? What is that supposed to mean?

 

Means they don't know what they are talking about and making hopeful guesses.

 

 

http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/2/201/2011/esd-2-201-2011.pdf

[Guest Aemilius]

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

 

Wind isn't the only way the Earth is cooled. At night, the accumulated heat that has been absorbed by the Earth during the day is radiated back into the atmosphere at night. In the deserts of the world temperatures can vary wildly from searing heat during the day to very low temperatures at night without any action of the wind.

 

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

 

Yes, it does. During the night, a more stable condition exists atmospherically than during the day. At night, when cool air is near the ground and warmer air is above, there's naturally a greater degree of atmospheric stability than during the day, when the warmer air is near the ground and the cooler air above results in a lesser degree of stability due to the cool air above seeking to fall as the warm air below seeks to rise. It actually makes perfect sense that wind turbines would have a greater effect on the relatively stable conditions at night, and less of an effect during the day when unstable conditions prevail.

 

esbo "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."

 

Just because warm air is slowed or can't move horizontitally doesn't mean it can't freely move vertically, rising as cool air comes in to replace it.... Where are you getting this stuff?

 

esbo "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!!!!!"

 

The greenhouse effect has to do with gasses that trap solar radiation in the atmosphere. Wind turbines haven't been shown to trap anything.... Show the mechanism of operation, show how wind turbines trap heat near the surface and prevent it from freely rising vertically, and show how cool air is prevented from coming in to take it's place.

 

esbo "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"

 

Again, the heat absorbed by the surface during the day is routinely radiated during the night, with or without the action of the wind.

 

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

Unfortunately both spread out."

 

Some people around here seem to just love apples and oranges comparisons. This one by you makes almost as much sense as crashing a car into a wall to see what kind of gas mileage it gets. Show how wind turbines actually create and add heat to the atmosphere and how that spreads out.

 

esbo "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 warming caused by the wind turbine? What warming? You haven't shown anything of how or even if they create any heat, as opposed to the simpler model of redistribution of heat already existing in the environment. Again, show how they actually create and add heat to the environment and explain how that would spread globally.

 

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

 

Fact check: the estimated average warming is 0.72° C, not 7.2° C.

 

esbo "OK it is 'local' to the farm but 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."

 

I still have plenty of apples and oranges.... would anyone like a balogna sandwich?

 

esbo ".....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."

 

Again, there's no apparent obstacle to warm air rising vertically even if it has been slowed down, and no apparent obstacle to cool air entering the area to replace the warm air that is rising either.... Could someone please pass the mayonaise?

 

esbo "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."

 

Well then it's a damn good thing we're cutting down all those useless forests.... Think of all the heating they caused by slowing down the wind and preventing it from cooling the planet! At least we did something right!

 

esbo "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."

 

Right.... I noticed the air here was particularly thick and viscous this morning, almost couldn't make it out of bed, it was like everything was in slow motion!

 

esbo "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!!"

 

Are you sure? Air moving at the speed of light may change things a little.

 

esbo "That's rubbish!! "warming effect is most likely caused by the turbulence in turbine wakes".

"most likely"????? What is that supposed to mean?

 

Means they don't know what they are talking about and making hopeful guesses."

 

It's called conjecture, a valid form of educated guess based on accumulated general knowledge of a subject that allows for the formulation of intuitive theoretical conclusions. It's not by any means 100% reliable, but it can sometimes be a useful tool....

 

....has anyone seen the mustard?

 

Edited September 28, 2012 by Aemilius

[esbo]

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

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the reply firstly!!

1. I never said wind was the only cooling method, however it is highly effective, that is why there isa fan on your CPU's heat sink,

radiation alone is not that efficient.

Wind isn't the only way the Earth is cooled. At night, the accumulated heat that has been absorbed by by the Earth during the day is radiated back into the atmosphere at night. In the deserts of the world temperatures can vary wildly from searing heat during the day to very low temperatures at night without any action of the wind. Without a mobile fluid air or gas radiation is not that effective alone, we always use fluid when we want to

reduce heat by and large.

 

 

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

 

Yes, it does. During the night, a more stable condition exists atmospherically than during the day. At night, when cool air is near the ground and warmer air is above, there's naturally a greater degree of atmospheric stability than during the day, when the warmer air is near the ground and the cooler air above results in a lesser degree of stability due to the cool air above seeking to fall as the warm air below seeks to rise. It actually makes perfect sense that wind turbines would have a greater effect on the relatively stable conditions at night, and less of an effect during the day when unstable conditions prevail.

 

 

I do not really see a quantified proof there. During the night cold air falls, during the day hot air rises. It's six of one and half a dozen of another in a way, also cloud cover make a lot of difference as does the wind. But even if I accept you are right to some extent it make little difference to my overall stance IMO.

 

 

esbo "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."

 

Just because warm air is slowed or can't move horizontitally doesn't mean it can't freely move vertically, rising as cool air comes in to replace it.... Where are you getting this stuff?

 

 

Err.."rising as cool air comes in to replace it"? Hold there, how can air come in if it can't move horizontally? Not really possible is it?

So perhaps I should be asking ".. Where are you getting this stuff?"

You do see that I hope?

It really can't move much at all if there is no air coming in otherwise you get a vacuum.It could only really do that by diffusing through colder

air above it, but that is going to be a rather slow process, and we pretty much know that is not how things work, what actually happens is the air tends to follow the path of least resistance, a kind of big circular movement, and that is of course wind. It could try and diffuse up or whatever but if you build a good computer model it will always flow in a sort of circle, that is what al the maths tend to add up to.

 

 

 

esbo "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!!!!!"

 

The greenhouse effect has to do with gasses that trap solar radiation in the atmosphere. Wind turbines haven't been shown to trap anything.... Show the mechanism of operation, show how wind turbines trap heat near the surface and prevent it from freely rising vertically, and show how cool air is prevented from coming in to take it's place.

 

 

When I say greenhouse effect I mean it in the sense of a warming effect. But it does behave as a green house in a way as warm air is trapped near the ground because cooler air can not come in quick enough.

And also not green house always have sides as well as roof, if they just had a roof they would not get get very warm.

But the main point is slowing the wind slows the rise of hot air as air must flow in for it to flow up efficiently.

 

 

esbo "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"

 

Again, the heat absorbed by the surface during the day is routinely radiated during the night, with or without the action of the wind.

 

Well not quite, remember all that CO2 environmentalist are always banging on about? Well that captures the radiation and heats the air.

Water vapour does it even better, hence cloudy nights are warmer. Take away the clouds and other green house gasses and the temperature would drop

massively maybe 100C (don't have the exact figures but not really important it's the principle)

 

 

 

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

Unfortunately both spread out."

 

Some people around here seem to just love apples and oranges comparisons. This one by you makes almost as much sense as crashing a car into a wall to see what kind of gas mileage it gets. Show how wind turbines actually create and add heat to the atmosphere and how that spreads out.

 

I have just explained, they slow the wind so warmed air (remember it traps the ground radiation day and night) rises less quickly thus there is more heat kept at ground level. Heat is never 'local' it dissipates everywhere, eventually into space, but the slower it does that the warmer it gets

 

esbo "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 warming caused by the wind turbine? What warming? You haven't shown anything of how or even if they create any heat, as opposed to the simpler model of redistribution of heat already existing in the environment. Again, show how they actually create and add heat to the environment and explain how that would spread globally.

 

again I have explained, they slow the dissipation of heat by holding warm and warmed air closer to the ground, they do not actually create any heat

I never said that, they may create a small bit through friction but that is negligible and not part of my argument. It is global because the wind is a global thing, there are major winds covering thousands of mile, slowing the wind in one area has an effect else where.

And perhaps not too surprisingly we tend to put wind farms in windy places, it would be stupid not too (under conventional thinking anyway!!)

 

 

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

 

Fact check: the estimated average warming is 0.72° C, not 7.2° C.

 

 

I can't recall what these figures refer to so I will have to look back so I will skip that for now and come back to it.

 

esbo "OK it is 'local' to the farm but 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."

 

I still have plenty of apples and oranges.... would anyone like a balogna sandwich?

 

 

No thinks I have some beer here ;)

 

esbo ".....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."

 

Again, there's no apparent obstacle to warm air rising vertically even if it has been slowed down, and no apparent obstacle to cool air entering the area to replace the warm air that is rising either.... Could someone please pass the mayonaise?

 

I believe I have explained that as full as I can. Nobody sticks wind turbines in chimneys to tap the 'free energy' no quite the same thing as they are removing toxic gases but think of heat as 'toxic air' (good chance for you to take the piss here I know!!)

 

esbo "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."

 

Well then it's a damn good thing we're cutting down all those useless forests.... Think of all the heating they caused by slowing down the wind and preventing it from cooling the planet! At least we did something right!

 

 

Many a true word is spoken jest (or ignorance), if wind turbines absorbed CO2 as trees to that would help a little but they don't and even if they did

I am more than confident it would not come close to the warming effect they produce by holding warm air close to the ground.

 

You have probably noticed that when you are really cold the hair on your arms or where ever is exposed, stand on end to trap warm air close to your body.

 

And that single statement proves me right doesn't it?

 

Remember your body went to a of trouble producing all those hair and the tiny muscles to make them rise to trap air to keep you warm

when you are cold. So it is obviously highly effective, the most effective method million of years of evolution could produce.

Now your body could have developed a method of producing CO2 to keep you warm, lets face it we breath the frigging stuff out mouths

so there is no shortage of it!!! But it didn't do that, it found a far more effective way of doing it, mini wind turbines, except

it never figured out how to make them spin in the wind to make them even more effective!! So much for evolution, it never invented the wheel!!

 

 

esbo "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."

 

Right.... I noticed the air here was particularly thick and viscous this morning, almost couldn't make it out of bed, it was like everything was in slow motion!

 

esbo "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!!"

 

Anyone seen the mustard?

 

 

 

anyhow if you are not convince now you never will.

Maybe I will tell you why plants are green someday!! :)

[Guest Aemilius]

esbo "Thanks for the reply firstly!!"

 

Well I certainly didn't expect that.... you're welcome.

 

It's obvious to me we're not going to see eye

to eye on this. For me the theory of the mechanism

of operation advanced earlier by one of the authors

of the paper is the simplest and makes the most

sense.... for you it doesn't. I guess we'll just

have to wait until some more reliable data emerges

that conclusively shows what's really happening one

way or the other.

 

You're a good sport.... Friends?

 

[CraigD]

Esbo, you’ve made the claim that wind power generation causes global warming.

 

In support of this, you’ve offered text (unsourced, but apparently taken from this NSF press release), which, quoting Liming Zhou, a scientist at SUNY Albany who led the study the article describes, states

"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,"

and this paper, which considers the possibility of extracting wind energy from the jet stream, not surface level winds, and states

This study should be clearly recognizable as an extreme scenario, with the overall aim being to estimate an upper-bound to jet stream kinetic energy extraction.

 

:Exclamati Neither of the links you’ve provided to support your claim do so. This is against our site rules. Please stop doing it.

 

This admonishment is not to say that Zhou’s finding of an increase in nighttime temperatures near windfarm of 0.72 C isn’t important and a cause for concern. Windfarms tend to be built in remote areas that are habitats for rare and endangered plant and animal species which might be disrupted by such small changes (not to mention giant whirling blades!) However, twisting this research to suggest that generating electricity using wind, which is intended to reduce the generation of it with fuel-burning plants that release CO₂ and other greenhouse gasses, is IMHO disengenius, and distracts from the research’s legitimate and intended message.

 

It’s also not to say that considering the effect of changing wind patterns in the way that wind turbines do cannot have an effect on average temperature across large regions. Your arguments, however, aren’t correctly supported, and you unsupported claims suggest a lack of basic understanding of the physics of heat.

 

If you’ll curtail the accusatory tone of your rhetoric, esbo, we can discuss this physics sensibly, and all learn something. That the purpose of this site – not to hurl insults and accusations.

 

Aemilius, while I appreciate you suble

(LOL – baloney – I get it :) ) and not-so-subtle

(or maybe subtle - try captioning that one :) ) graphical humor, and how much fun it can be had in an internet forum with a metaphorical sharp stick, please don’t goad Esbo. We try to keep the goading here at hypography on a strictly friendly level, and I don’t sense much of that here.

[Guest Aemilius]

CraigD "We try to keep the goading here at hypography on a strictly friendly level, and I don’t sense much of that here."

 

Understood, no goading intended.... more humorously motivated than anything else, sorry if it came across that way.

[esbo]

Ok as a slight aside, anyone care to explain why the North Pole is melting very fast and the south pole isn't?

 

I had heard someone try to explain it before but I have to say I didn't find it convincing at all.

Edited September 28, 2012 by esbo

[esbo]

Another point is that the second link IIRC point out that earlier scientific beliefs on the nature of the climate were a factor of 200

out.

 

So what happens if someone posts a link which turns out to be wrong?

 

Have they broke the rules or not?

 

Actually could someone post a link to the rules, I can't seem to find them on the forum now

I seem to have forgot where they are, or have they been moved?

Edited September 28, 2012 by esbo

[esbo]

Anyway I seem to have found the rule again.

This seems to be the relevant bit.

 

 

Be yourself. But please respect these ground rules:

 

In general, back up your claims by using links or references.

 

If you make strange claims, please provide proof or at least backup of some kind. If you fail to do so, or the backup you provide is not deemed adequate, the moderators may move your post to the Strange Claims forum.

 

If you want to refute someone's claims, please stay calm and point out where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on.

 

Do not post links to other sites as proof of your claims without commenting what the relevant sites say and why they are important to the current discussion.

 

Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted. Likewise, users who have an obvious agenda behind the majority of their posts may be banned.

 

The explicit discussion of drugs in order to promote non-scientific experimentation of drugs, show people how to obtain or create drugs, or providing histories of drug use to show off, will lead to deletion of posts, and we will issue warnings.

 

If you ask for opinions, respect the replies you get.

 

It is generally a good idea not to spend all your time in only a few topics.

 

Do not endlessly show us that *your* theory is the *only* truth. And don't follow this up by making people look stupid for pointing out that there are other answers, especially if they provide links and resources. It will get you banned!

 

Rude and offensive behaviour is not tolerated and might lead to instant banning (at the discretion of the forum staff). This includes forum posts, e-mails to users, messages in the chatroom, and private messages.

 

Avoid cross-posting--that is, posting highly similar posts in multiple threads. The majority of our members actually read most threads, and this is impolitely forcing them to read something they've probably already read. It's OK to reply in existing threads with a post containing, "I discuss a related, but different, idea in *this thread*", and provide a link, but it should be in the context of the thread in which you are posting.

 

 

Also, we will not accept racist, sexist, hateful, or derogatory posts. Such posts may be deleted or edited without further notice.

Violations of these ground rules might lead to banning without further notice. It is always a good idea to lurk around a bit before you start posting.

[esbo]

Anyhow it is going back to my original post where I posted some text.

Now I think I just pointed that as a reference document.

Indeed I am not sure it actually support my claim I will have to re-read it.

As I think I have said I believe I can support my claim with fairly basic science so

I don't think I really need to provide anything to support my claims other than

the argument laid out in my posts.

 

If you disagree with my reasoning fair enough, just say were and I will review it,

I think I have already done that and some seem to disagree, but it seems to have got to a point

where we are not discussing specific detail

 

Basically it seems I provide further clarification and no point in particular is disputed in that but

that a different explanation is preferred,

 

 

What I have found in a lot of reports about the subject is that the studies do not seem to have enough detail in them,

all the data and methodology does not seem to be there, there is some but it dos not seem comprehensive to me and then

a 'conclusion' or at least a belief by some scientist is expressed by without rigorous studies with full details to back it up.

 

Indeed often they say further research is needed indicating they do not seem to have enough data to draw

any firm conclusion, although they often give their own conclusion or belief but one that is based on insufficient or

inadequate studies hence so they are at best an educated guess.

 

AS I said my reasoning is based on fairly basic science, I mean I think we can all except that hot air is less dense than

cold air and that more dense air tends to sink be below less dense air displacing it.

You might also accept that the speed at which this happens depends on how easy it is for that air to flow below the

less dense air.

 

 

One point in the second link just demonstrates that scientist can get it badly wrong ie there it a factor of 200 difference

in the conclusions reached by two fairly recent papers, they presumable can't be right, so I am demonstrating that

scientist can get it it wrong.

 

The title of the paper is "Jet stream wind power as a renewable energy resource:

little power, big impacts"

 

Now the jet stream is part of the wind, indeed it is wind and it seems the gist of the paper is wind power can have big

effects on the climate and produce little power, so the suggestion there to me seems to be that wind power may well

not be as beneficial we think it is, indeed there seem a suggestion there it is detrimental.

 

 

I will have to read the paper again I basically just skimmed through it and it seem to have a few grandiose terms

such as "free energy balance", something I am not 100% sure as to what it means.

 

It does say however, ......well I was going to copy and paste a section of text but it won't let me do it,

that is is seems the coy and paste does not work properly, one of the marvellous benefits of pdf documents it seems!!!

 

I will perhaps try again later.