esbo

It's logarithmic effect

But the higher up the air is the easier it is for it to radiate it's heat out into space, remember as you go higher there is less green house gas to keep the heat in., thus it can cool far more rapidly than air on the surface. There is a big difference between wind-farms and trees and that is trees are not designed to extract wind energy.

also http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/Technologies_DG_Renewables/Much-ado-about-nothing-Wind-farms-global-warming-4754.html So it seem he is unsure what is happen "very likely" that sounds like speculation to me, ie he has a theory of what is happening but has not confirm it experimentally. Also he seems to think that only net warming matters, however what is important for life on earth and sea levels is the temperature on the surface. Warm air over ice will melt the ice will melt the ice even if there is cooler air above the warm air. Indeed in the atmosphere it can be 40 degrees hotter than on the surface but that is not a big deal for us on the surface as the higher temperature are high up a long way away from us. What matters to us it the temperature at the surface where we live. You can cause warming without adding extra heat if you prevent the existing heat from escaping. total heat = heat in - heat out. You do not have to add extra heat to get warming if you reduce the heat going out

Well more accurately it is the sun that provides the heat and the wind farms prevent that heat escaping as fast as it would without the windfarms Thus cause a rise in the observed temperature detected by monitoring the temperature on the surface of he earth.

Is that you tube video peer reviewed? Of course just because something is peer reviewed does not mean it's correct. 5 Published research (peer-reviewed) is more credible than the alternative. But peer-review is not perfect. So how does CO2 cause global warming? Is it adding energy? If so how?

Your understanding of my post is rather lacking. I never claimed wind farms added additional energy just that they warmed the surface of the earth. Two entirely different things. So you are refuting an argument I never made. As they slow the convection process they slow the rate at which which heat can convert into the upper atmosphere and hence radiate out into out space away from the planet. Do you have any peer reviewed evidence to show I am incorrect? Can you site any experiments which show I am incorrect? Do you accept wind turbines slow the wind?

That link does not work </h1> Do you have a working link? So what do they show? Do they show daytime cooling or day time warming or do they show neither, or do they show little of value can be conclude from the studies?

I am not talking about evaporation at all, so I am making no claims about evaporation. Hence that part of your post is irrelevant to what I am talking about which is basically convection cooling. Furthermore the article you quote says ""For most regions, the mean temperatures may not change by much because the warming and cooling effects may cancel out" note the "may cancel out" ie they don't seem to know what happens, they are speculating there. Also it says " the turbines make it warmer at night and cooler during the day, generally speaking." However this is not what the new article says, that says, ". Our results show a significant warming trend of up to 0.72 °C per decade, particularly at night-time" That seems to indicate that there is warming during the night and the day but it is more pronounced at night. It makes no mention of cooling during the day, so we have two different studies which seem to contradict each other, one says cooling during the day but the other indicates some warming during the day as well, so which is correct? Furthermore it seems to be speculation that mixing at night causes the warming at night, I say this because I expect they just have temperature sensors on the ground. The article (or at least the part that is available without paying) actually mentions satellite data so I assume this is a measure of ground temperature. What we can see of the article is evidence of warming near the wind farms, however it is unclear if it is making a claim as to how that warming occurred, it seems to be unclear if the article puts that down to mixing or whether that is others who are speculating it is mixing. All in all the studies seem to have 'gaps' and inconsistencies in them however the new study does show ground level warming and it is ground level warming which affects the temperature we feel. Also:- http://www.physicsfo...t=519049&page=2 So that respected person agrees wind turbines slow down the wind, and the OP who thought wind turbines might speed up the wind seems to have accepted he was wrong.

Fine, you can vote for the not enough evince option then.

Do wind turbines (as found on wind farms) slow down the wind that passed through them?

I so are you denying that wind farms slow they wind down? Give me a yes or no. I am taking a different course. I so are you denying that wind farms slow they wind down? Give me a yes or no.

OK lets do this a a step at a time. Claim 1) Wind turbines slow down the flow or air, ie the wind that passes by them. If we can agree on this I will more onto the next claim immediately, if not I will provide further evidence to back up this claim. If fact I will go the extra mile and produce this document and I quote "By extracting power, the turbine itself has an effect on the wind: downwind of the turbine the air moves more slowly than upwind." http://www.gurit.com/files/documents/2_aerodynamics.pdf (page one 5th paragraph). If this is accepted I will advance to the other claims. If not you might as well lock it and save me wasting my time.

If you fully quote in context anything you have a problem with and explain why I will clarify it for you. Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion but rather than attack my brain functionality attack my argument.

The point is that as you are restricting flow through the pipes the boiler will get hotter and hotter. The boiler is the earth's surface being heated by the sun, you can't turn it down to stop it over heating because of the restricted flow of air/water.

I am calling my idea 'wind farm in a pipe' The boiler is the earth surface, the radiators the upper atmosphere and the pipe are the windy areas of the planet. Obviously there is a chance the boiler will over heat and explode!!

The thing is with wind turbines is they trap warm air on the ground, it is a very effective way of keeping a warm surface warm. Might notice that you have hair on your arm for example, which rise to trap warm air when you are cold. The hairs do not generate any heat either but they keep you warm very effectively, that's why we have them!! So your argument that turbines generate no heat is null and void, I am not making that claim, your argument is a straw-man. I am arguing that they trap warm air, which they do. It is more than that though, they slow down earth cooling air circulation as well. I used real numbers when I said wind power only produces 3% (2.9%) of the electricity in the USA. If they produced 90% that 'local warming' would be a hell of a lot more global. Furthermore there will I think be a cumulative effect with the air slowed a little more each year perhaps. But even so they have produced a marked local effect whilst producing just 3% of the electricity. And further furthermore, that local warming ultimately disperse wide, warming the wider area, so you are comparing the local warming to air warmed by previous warming. And it is a trend, almost 1 degree C a decade, that is a *lot*, it takes CO2 warming over a century to produce similar warming. Finally your graph relates to capacity, most of the time wind farms are not producing anywhere near capacity, I believe 8%-10% is the figure I saw. And finally finally, surely it is obvious that placing huge wind mill farms in windy areas is likely to affect the climate and weather patterns? That's a no brainer, the only question is the extend of the effect. Lastly your ad hominem attacks ('ignorant rants') have no scientific value, they are the sign of a man ( or woman) who has lost the argument and knows it. I have read a brief summary of the paper and it is obvious it is a mainly worthless report, one which not right minded person would pay to see, the only people who would pay to see it are scientifically classified as 'mugs'.

I have been thinking about a great idea to make use of a largely untapped source of energy to get free energy and thus reduce global warming. Here is how it goes. A lot of household heating systems are gravity fed, ie they have a boiler at the bottom which heats water, that hot water rises and passed through pipes and through radiators cooling along the way until it is eventually fed back into the bottom of the boiler where it is re-heated to begin the journey round again. Now (drum roll) here is my brilliant idea......... What you do is place mini turbines inside the pipe and so they produce electricity from the waterflow through the pipes!!! What do you think? Brilliant eh?

The effects of CO2 are local. one local gas fire, one local car, one local lorry, but they all add up. The wind farms in the study are not the only wind farms in the world you know. What about the local effect of the other 100,000 wind farms, and more planned? And let's' face it wind farms do not produce a lot of energy. In the USA for example wind power makes less than 3% of the electricity used.

Yes that is a fair assessment. If you give me $18 I will buy the paper but I am not paying my money out to buy a flawed study, I would sooner give it to a Nigeria Banker to 'release the funds'. So that is what it shows it shows a warming. Now say you took those wind farms and used the electricity produced to try and hear a similarly huge area of land. There is no way in the world you woudl produce a 0.72C rise in heat oven a decade in that area. THUS PROVING WIND FARMS PRODUCE MORE WARMING THAN THEY COULD EVER HOPE TO SAVE IN REDUCTION OF CO2 PRODUCTION. Incidently 0.72C in a decade is huge considering it took 70 years for the earth's temp to rise just 0.6C So windfarms are over 10 time as bad a global warming - that's shocking!!

No it is like you saying A=B therefore C=D What I am saying is that even is A=B that does not show C=D So even if you are correct about A=B that does not prove you are correct about C=D so so even if you are right you are wrong. Hope that is simple enough for you. It does not matter where it moves, if the surface temperate has increased then it has increased. Saying the air moves up and down does not change the temperature recorded, it does not unmelt any ice, it's a pointless irrelevant statement.

It is not like that at all. IF you restrict the flow of money (heat) out of your account the balance (heat) will increase. This is what is happening you are restricting the flow of air which takes heat away from the surface of the earth. Even if you are correct you are just proving yourself wrong. We live on the surface of the earth, what is where the ice caps are that is where the vegetation is, the temperature 60 metre up matters not a jot. So even if you are right you are wrong and I don't even accept you are right because I have not see the details of the study just some people wild speculations about what is going on. As I have said several time the the 'study' is a joke. It's not bad science, it's not even science. It's anecdotal evidence an wild unfounded speculations, or in layman's terms, garbage.

I can't believe this, you could equally say a car and a power station only cause a local rise in CO2 So it's not a global problem. "If you measure the increase in CO2 around a coal fire or a power station you will detect a small local in crease in CO2 but not to worry it is tiny compared to the global rise in CO2" I am sorry you have a poor grasp of what is going on. What happen when you heat air? It rises correct!!! You understand this bit. What does that rising air leave behind???? Answer a vacuum. What does that vacuum do? It prevents the air rising because it sucks it back down. The only way the air can rise is if there is an inflow of air, that is why we have wind. If you restrict that inflow you get warming because the warm air cannot rise and cool.

OK Slight correction, "yet to see any studies showing of wind energy reduces global warming" And what does the study actually show? It shows and increase in heat around the farm, ie an increase in warming, so any energy the farms produce have to first overcome that increase, that is gonna be a lot of energy to counteract the heating of thousands of square miles of air isn't it? The science in the studies is woefully bad, it is clear those who did it are incompetent, the study is so bad it can't really show anything for sure. The one clear thing the studies show is local warming that is only fact. And that is bad new for lovers of wind farms. That local warming has to go somewhere and it goes into the atmosphere and become part of the warming they are comparing it to. The whole thing is laughably incompetent. The only good thing he can say is that the warming from wind farm is not very big compared to all the other warming effects combined. Well that is no surprise is it? A slice of a pie can never be bigger than the pie itself. (the wind farm warming is just a slice of the total warming'). You don't need a fooking study to find that out it is common sense. It's unbelievable how silly the study is

Yes really the fan takes heat out of the computer (earth) the circulating winds take heat out of the earth by bringing hot air to the extremities where it radiates the heat out into space. Windfarms slow that process and stopping a computer fan slows the equivalent process. They do interfere with the air, but more by slowing it than mixing it. The mixing effect is reversed during the day when the higher air is colder so he has told only half the story and the overall effect is negligible for the mixing effect. One city is more of an exception, but Chicago was built despite it being windy not because it was windy. There are more than a few hundred though. there are hundreds of thousands, millions probably all placed in places which use to be windy, they are bound to slow the earth cooling winds it's a no brainer. Well show your maths!!! I have seen no maths to show global warming is reduced, all the existing maths ignores the warming effect of the wind mills. If each farm produces a local effect then they combine to produce a global effect, again a no brainer. Yes a drop in a bucket, but each wind farm is also a leak in in the global warming prevention bucket. There is not evidence to show the drop in is bigger than the leak out. I imagine there will be little net effect, just a whole waste time money and energy building the things. Yes so you know reduced air flow causes heating on the surface of your computer chips, so why do you have such a hard time accepting it also causes heating on the surface of the earth. One thing a green house does is is to physical trap warm air, wind farms do the same but in a less obvious manner, hot air cannot rise because the win blowing in is slowed down so it cannot raise as fast. All this is obvious stuff, why am I the only one who can see it?

The turbine causes warming because it slows the air flow, same as running a computer without a fan. Yes buildings do cause warming by slowing the air flow but they are not designed to slow the air (usually) and we do not build them in windy places (usually). What we are doing is sticking them in all the major windy areas and that is going to slow down the cooling currents and increase warming. But it is not just local warming it is overall warming the air moves about (obviously) and there is a net warming effect on the surface (where it matters). Yes we avoid burning some fossil fuels, BUT remember, wind-farms do not produce a whole lot of energy and I have seen no proof they reduce global warming overall. Reduced air flow can produce a significant build up in damaging heat as you will find if your CPU fan stops working.