Slashdot Mirror
Wide-Scale US Wind Power Could Cause Significant Warming, Study Says (technologyreview.com)
XxtraLarGe shares a report: Wind power is booming in the United States. It's expanded 35-fold since 2000 and now provides 8% of the nation's electricity. The US Department of Energy expects wind turbine capacity to more than quadruple again by 2050. But a new study by a pair of Harvard researchers finds that a high amount of wind power could mean more climate warming, at least regionally and in the immediate decades ahead. The paper raises serious questions about just how much the United States or other nations should look to wind power to clean up electricity systems. The study, published in the journal Joule, found that if wind power supplied all US electricity demands, it would warm the surface of the continental United States by 0.24 C. That could significantly exceed the reduction in US warming achieved by decarbonizing the nation's electricity sector this century, which would be around 0.1 C. "If your perspective is the next 10 years, wind power actually has -- in some respects -- more climate impact than coal or gas," coauthor David Keith, a professor of applied physics and public policy at Harvard, said in a statement. "If your perspective is the next thousand years, then wind power is enormously cleaner than coal or gas."
Similar enough to https://patents.google.com/pat... and only because I'd previous built one (and dismantled it) from Meccano in 1991 and tried to patent it (rejected) after thinking the world needs more wind power :-(
Windpower does not add heat to the atmosphere of Earth, it just mixes around where it's hot and where it's cold.
Greenhouse gases add heat energy (and thus average temperature) to the Earth's global atmosphere.
These are completely different things.
Attempting to conflate them is pro-fossil-fuel FUD.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
This. This is why we can't have nice things.
Somebody's got a bad case of perpetual Debbie Downer.
We should just turn the fans on. Burn coal and dump the power into the wind farms.
From the study: "We find that generating today's US electricity demand (0.5 TW e) with wind power would warm Continental US surface temperatures by 0.24C."
Ok, who cares? We aren't really worried about warming on the surface of the continental US, or really on most concentrated surface areas. The real risk is global warming. If this heat doesn't reach the polar ice caps, is it really a problem?
Because it is only the atmosphere's kinetic energy that is involved. It is quite different than injecting tons of heat inducing chemicals into the atmosphere.
Follow the money...
What a bunch of BS. Here comes the coal-paid-for researchers to claim clean energy is bad.... yeah... f*** off Harvard
How do these compare to nuclear? Everyone keeps talking about fossil fuels and green renewables, but I have to hunt around for mention of nuclear. What gives?
Read the paper's summary. It is explicitly not pro-fossil-fuel. You fucking prejudiced idiot.
You tell me. Good, right?
MIT has a cozy relationship with Nuclear, and remember all the wealthy Cape Codders who don't want wind power off their shores...
Stuff like this always reminds me of the punch line to the Monty Python Dennis Moore sketch.... "Wait a tic... blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought." Law of unintended consequences. (insert Women's Institute applause here)
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
You're saying MIT takes zero oil money for their climate studies? Are you a pole-greasing Republican on Putin's dick or what? Go drink your oil, kid. Wind turbines mix air, they don't warm it. XXtraLarge is a known denialist shill.
I hate windmills. Ugly eyesores that don't work all the time. Kill birds and now cause local global warming.
It can get complicated, but Scientists have known for years that there is a price to be paid, somewhere, for the apparent benefits of "free energy".
It is virtually impossible to calculate ALL the costs in providing wind and solar power.Do you start with the costs of mining the materials needed to produce the components of a wind generator? Wait! How about starting with the costs of producing the machinery that mine those elements? No, that doesn't take into account the lab time and personnel needed to come up with the idea in the first place...etc., etc. I found the articles on the IEEE Spectrum page very interesting. the articles have rotated off the page but are still searchable. There are many smaller articles in the series. Here's one: https://spectrum.ieee.org/ener...
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
It's always funny when someone who clearly doesn't know how greenhouse gases work complains about "climate doom people". A greenhouse works because it stops conduction and convection. Greenhouse gases have an impact by raising the height in the atmosphere where infrared radiation is emitted into space. This means the effective temperature of the Earth for radiation emission is lower.
Remember the big towers associated with nuclear plants??? Those are cooling towers for all the excess heat given off. Most are near bodies of water or rivers for cheap cooling sources. Just think about it-- the whole thing works from STEAM and you do not extract all that heat energy.
It doesn't even come close--- you don' need cooling towers or big sources of water ... or any water source at all for a wind generator! water being the cheapest cooling option they would use water if it produced serious amounts of heat.
Academic games like this don't belong in the news.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Windpower does not add heat to the atmosphere of Earth, it just mixes around where it's hot and where it's cold.
Exactly. So if it slows hot air escaping the continent in the summer then it may cause localized increases in temperature inland while there would be a reduction over the ocean. Overall the planet wins but since we live and grow crops and animals on the land we may end up being more affected due to the localized increase in temperature due to the reduced mixing.
I've not looked at his paper so I'm not going to defend it but your argument for immediately dismissing it as false simply does not hold water. Nor do I see this as "pro-fossil fuel" - if anything it is an argument for more solar and tidal power and/or taking some care in where we place wind farms.
I'm checking out your XXTRALARGE mom's pooper hole!
If you think CO2 is enough to change that balance, then you better believe altering the patterns of motion and conduction are as well.
Global mean temperature of the Earth without greenhouse gasses is ~ 33C cooler than today.
Global mean temperature of the Earth without wind turbines is ~ exactly the same as today.
... the percentage of our energy needs that a technology needs to hit before The Usual Suspects will find some reason, any reason, to start wailing and gnashing their teeth and rending their clothes and shrieking "It's EEEVIL!! Tear it DOWN, NOW!!"
8%.
So predictable.
Windpower does not add heat to the atmosphere of Earth, it just mixes around where it's hot and where it's cold.
Yes... and no.
I take it you didn't read the link. The study didn't say that the windpower "adds" heat to the atmosphere of the Earth. What it said was that it redistributes heat through the boundary layer (by increasing boundary layer mixing), and the net redistribution of heat can reduce the thermal emission, i.e., increases the temperature. You say " it just mixes around where it's hot and where it's cold", but mixing where it's hot and where it's cold can reduce the thermal emission. They state that this occurs primarily at night: by mixing cooler low-altitude air into higher altitudes, and bringing warmer high altitude air toward the surface.
My comment would be "I'll wait to hear if there's a consensus on this model result, since it seems somewhat disputed right now." But that's not the same as "it's complete bullshit."
(I'll also point out that the effect they're talking about is proportional to the wind power, whereas the warming by carbon-containing fuel burning to generate energy is proportional to the integral of the power. So over the long term, burning carbon adds a lot more heat: the heating effect of the carbon dioxide lingers for at least a hundred years, and, according to some analyses, much longer.)
How much wind do those block? How much do the trucks and cars on the highway change the wind? How much wind do trees block, let's cut them all down...
What a biased piece of crap.
The wind goes right around the wind turbines for the most part. And it isn't going to make a difference in the overall wind speed.
Goodnight
If you think CO2 is enough to change that balance, then you better believe altering the patterns of motion and conduction are as well.
Yes, that's exactly what Manabe and Wetherald did: they did the greenhouse calculation with accurate wavelength-dependent infrared absorption and a model of convection.
BTW a greenhouse works not so much because it stops radiation but because it prevents conduction and convection.
Uh... no. You may be thinking of the kind of greenhouse that's made out of glass, the ones that you grow plants in. That's not what we're talking about here (and even there, conduction is trivial-- look up the thermal conductivity of air some time.) The "greenhouse effect" we're talking about is due to infrared absorption.
Yeah that 100 parts per million is murder.
It's always funny when someone who clearly doesn't know how greenhouse gases work complains about "climate doom people". A greenhouse works because it stops conduction and convection. Greenhouse gases have an impact by raising the height in the atmosphere where infrared radiation is emitted into space. This means the effective temperature of the Earth for radiation emission is lower.
Always funny when a greenie proves not only don't they understand physics but also can't read
"BTW a greenhouse works not so much because it stops radiation but because it prevents conduction and convection."
MIT has a cozy relationship with Nuclear, and remember all the wealthy Cape Codders who don't want wind power off their shores...
You're aware that the authors of this study were Harvard scientists, right? Harvard is not MIT.
(https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30446-X , if you missed the link in the summary)
The islands will tip over when the marines land to guard the grain stored in the pyramids. Without the cool breezes, the pyramids will concentrate the energy and ruin the grain. It's a worst case scenario.
..if the Trump administration twists this into a reason to ban wind power in favor of more goddamned coal burning.
If you think CO2 is enough to change that balance, then you better believe altering the patterns of motion and conduction are as well.
Global mean temperature of the Earth without greenhouse gasses is ~ 33C cooler than today.
Global mean temperature of the Earth without wind turbines is ~ exactly the same as today.
And the bulk of that is from water vapor, hmm why didn't link mention water except for cooling ? hmmmmmm
"Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It controls the Earth's temperature.” It's true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect
https://www.acs.org/content/ac..."
1. Physical motion of the fluid ( Convection and any other source of velocity)
2. Conduction (hot areas heating cooler areas by being in physical contact)
3. Radiation a gas molecule emits a photon and it's absorbed by another molecule, in the case of the earth you can include the planet as a heat source)
If you think CO2 is enough to change that balance, then you better believe altering the patterns of motion and conduction are as well.
Off the top of my head, heat leaving the Earth (excluding primary reflection) is something like 83% radiative, 17% convective. Early models were more convective, but that was a long time ago.
The heat absorbed by CO2 is indeed tiny, which is why Climate Science is a science, not a high school experiment: there are feedback mechanisms which greatly exaggerate the direct effect of the CO2 (positive and negative, BTW, though the positive feedback dominates in the short term). Climate Science is about the study of those poorly-understood feedback mechanisms, not about thousands of scientists trying to understand how much IR CO2 absorbs.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"I'm not sure why you think that climate scientists don't understand this. "
I am not sure why you can't read
vs what I said
"It never ceases to amaze me how the climate doom people never understand the most basic concepts about heat transport."
vs what I was replying to which is so many ways wrong it's not even funny
"Windpower does not add heat to the atmosphere of Earth, it just mixes around where it's hot and where it's cold.
Greenhouse gases add heat energy (and thus average temperature) to the Earth's global atmosphere."
Nuking our self might increase temperatures in the short term, but in the long term it might be better.
Apparently everything else we do will negatively affect the climate, whether using coal or wind or solar.
Uh... no. You may be thinking of the kind of greenhouse that's made out of glass
Speaking of not being able to read, I said greenhouse not greenhouse effect. You should at least know the terms of what you are talking about.
Have they figured out how to make the wind turbines last long enough to break even or turn a profit?
pure trumptard science.
More energy used = more heat to the atmosphere.
You need to reduce the energy used to cool the planet down!
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
let me guess - next FUD rearch will show... butterfly effect - an increase in tornados and huricanes caused by wind turbines....
This article in Joule needs peer review very badly. The author of the article didn't explain in enough detail how a wind turbine in California can possibly cause a glacier in Greenland to melt down, or for the arctic ice cap to disappear. Clearly the entire North American Continent will not be covered by a thick blanket of wind turbines stretching from coast to coast.
You realize that in 100 years it adds up to 1 part per hundred, right?
Step 1: Create Controversy
Step 2: Provide paid access to the materials needed to refute that controversy
Step 3: Profit!
First, this is a simulation, for which as far as I can tell (remember, they are selling any clues here), they didn't even model all the physical laws of the real world. The "model" for that simulation expressed in Figure 1 is absolutely laughable.
Note, the wind turbine has transferred a percentage of "heat" elsewhere in the form of electricity. This electricity is representative of heat that is no longer in the local system, thus not all the heat is mixed and even still present in the "local" system. That heat generated by the "use" of that electricity would have been generated no matter what the source of that electricity might be.
The mixing of the air effectively lowers the overall environmental temperature of the local system. Extracting energy from that air lowers it even more.
Sure, you are totally right... and venus is a paradise, with its 400C air temperature (higher than mercury) because CO2 do not generate greenhouse effect and heat a planet
Planets radiate heat they absorb from the sun and the atmosphere absorb some of that heat and with conduction heats the atmosphere and the planet... not only that, but it will also release it back... some will still go to space, but another part will be sent back to the planet... repeat this and you get the greenhouse effect...
this happen for all components in the atmosphere. The problem with CO2 is that it is bigger and can absorb more heat than nitrogen and oxigen. Half of it still goes to space, but the other half will be resent to the earth surface again. And not not forget that conduction will also transfer some of that heat back to earth. That small differences adds up with time.
please read the image to try to understand: https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
Limiting the science is a wrong way to do science. You are right in small scale, but in huge planet size scale, small details do make difference, specially over time
Higuita
what part of the sentence "that's not what we're talking about here" are you finding hard to understand?
the kind of greenhouse that's made out of glass, the ones that you grow plants in, is not what we're discussing here. When we talk about the "greenhouse effect": that's not it.
33 Celsius warmer today? That is SOME Ice Age we missed!!
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
We're talking about a small regional temperature change for excellent long-term benefit. This is not the same as a climbing planetary average.
I don't see how this is a major issue, but it's good to know in places where the warmer climate is marginal to supporting the current way-of-life. In those places, they may want to reconsider putting too much wind power up. Here in Wisconsin, I'm pretty sure they can put up all the wind mills they like and people will just be happy with it. Wind power is still a "no brainer."
The headline is misleading. "Significant" has a number of meanings, one of which is essentially "a whole lot." I would have preferred "statistically significant." Because that's really what we're talking about: it's measurable and beyond the margin of error. Big whoop.
Dude you totally overlooked the heat generated by all the anti-wind-turbine protesters. That is transferred without fluid motion or conductors, as they can transfer their anger over the internet.
If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
Assuming the claims are true, and that switching all of the US to wind would increase the world's temperature by 0.24 C...how much would the temperature *lower* by eradicating all the other sources?
What part of greenhouse effect is not applicable to how a windmill affects heat transport but how a greenhouse works is can't you understand ?
Seriously at least when I talk to a fundamentalist about the age of the earth they know their beliefs are religious.
Fud its just fucking FUD
Sure, you are totally right... and venus is a paradise, with its 400C air temperature (higher than mercury) because CO2 do not generate greenhouse effect and heat a planet
Venus has 90 times the atmosphere we do, and mercury has none but is roughly 1/3rd the destance from the Sun we are.
You have no idea how any of this works do you ? Thank you for demonstrating that you can be deeply religious without even realizing it.
Dude you totally overlooked the heat generated by all the anti-wind-turbine protesters. That is transferred without fluid motion or conductors, as they can transfer their anger over the internet.
Lol it's offset by the cold fury of environmentalists that think they are saving the world. Hell if they weren't saving the world, they would have to admit they are useless losers.
Problem is described in your own post. "Balance".
By definition, to disturb balance in one direction, you do not need a significant increase on the "emission" end. You just need enough to be more than "absorption" part. No altering of any other patterns is necessary.
Nope, this is coming from fossil fuel corporations who stand to lose $107 TRILLION in investments if we all move to renewables.
It's like they always say, follow the money, and the sunk investments in fossil fuels ECLIPSE any money spent on funding AGW studies
The greenhouse effect absolutely works by blocking radiation. CO2 is a trace gas that has no direct physical effect whatsoever on convection.
The reason CO2 affects the energy in the atmosphere is that the Earth receives an immense amount of solar energy, enough that tiny variations (such as produced by orbital resonances) can have what to us seem enormous effects.
Conduction has minimal effect on energy transfer within a medium (air or water) in comparison to advection and diffusion, but ti does play some role (along with evaporation and condensation) in transferring energy between the oceans and the atmosphere.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
We're literally coming out of ice age. It was here just a few tens of thousands of years ago. Problem is, we've accelerated the warming process to the point where adaptation to it has become a significant challenge for many species, including ourselves.
Strange comparison considering Mercury has no stable atmosphere, unlike Venus (and Earth).
1 part per hundred is 10,000 ppm. It will take 3 to 4 thousand years before it will hit that at current rates.
Wind power extracts energy from the system and converts it electricity and whatever heat is created from the inherent friction of moving mechanical parts. The point here is that wind power systems EXTRACT energy from the weather system.
The greenhouse effect is not what makes a greenhouse work. Don't believe me ? How well do you think a greenhouse with just a roof and no walls would work.
If you can't actually think for yourself
Here's a firm that trains people how to operate greenhouses
https://www.pthorticulture.com...
And before you go BBBBBBUt CO2
Water vapor the American Chemical society disagrees with you
https://www.acs.org/content/ac...
I post these because I know many people can only appear to reason and can't actually accept a fact unless it's conveyed by someone in the proper robes and religious gear.
We should put a giant fan outside earth to cool us down.
Problem is described in your own post. "Balance".
By definition, to disturb balance in one direction, you do not need a significant increase on the "emission" end. You just need enough to be more than "absorption" part. No altering of any other patterns is necessary.
I don't dispute this but I question why you think it lends validity to the stupid original post, that called anything the poster didn't like FUD
Last month, a study was posted in Science that said wind turbines in Africa could boost vegetation in the semi-desert regions at the edge of the Sahara: Study: Large-scale wind and solar farms in the Sahara would increase heat, rain, vegetation
Seems like there's no real reason to avoid using wind turbines in either study, at least not compared to fossil fuels, and yet inevitably this headline will make the rounds, no one will read the article, we'll all forget last month's study, and in the end we'll just have some wrong, dumb little talking point.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and claim that this is a product of bias and mental issues by the authors.
Much like how the authors of SuperFreakonomics couldn't have resisted their "one clever trick to fix global warming" chapter thanks to their personal biases. Which came back to bite them.
Also, the claim made in the paper is clearly false, even fraudulent.
Whether due to bias or to drum up publicity, I don't know. But they actually show that they are wrong.
More on that below. First a word or two on authors.
David W.Keith is a pusher of solar and geoengineering as a solution for climate change.
Also, best way to solve that climate change, according to him, is to start spraying sulfuric acid into air.
And he owns and runs a geoengineering company.
Which kinda runs on tar sands money.
Carbon Engineering is funded by several government and sustainability-focused agencies as well as by private investors, including Microsoft founder Bill Gates and oil sands financier N. Murray Edwards.[5][6][7]
Lee Miller on the other hand really hates them windmills.
And both windmills and photovoltaics should be kept out of the cities, tucked away somewhere in the desert.
In fact, he's done resear... I mean he played with computer models to "prove" that installing windmills will basically... stop the wind. Well... slow it down.
Someone should have told him about all those sails we used to use globally, that we're no longer using.
I.e. That a reduction of things to preindustrial levels actually requires reduction of wind speeds as well.
Or remind him that the air moved by the wind is a fluid. Like water.
And just like how water in the sea doesn't stop moving because of all the boats blocking it from moving freely... neither will global air currents actually slow down.
And even if they do - we could just reduce the number of flags and start driving cars only downwind, while wearing more tight fitting clothes, right?
Or tell him about the chance that his model is NOT REALLY a completely accurate representation of reality.
As for the study... It claims the following:
generating today's US electricity demand (0.5 TWe) with wind power would warm Continental US surface temperatures by 0.24 C.
...
The warming effect is: small compared with projections of 21st century warming, approximately equivalent to the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing global electricity generation, and large compared with the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing US electricity with wind.
It also claims that solar effect would be smaller but that's besides the point, unless you're looking for more bias fodder.
The issue is that those "approximately equivalent" and "large compared with the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing US electricity" are COMPLETELY ignoring that the US is a part of a global system.
As seen from the graph they've provided.
They claim a warming of 0.24C over Continental US from 0.5TWe produced with wind power, by 2080, at which point it would level out.
At the same time they claim a cooling of about -0.48C over Continental US from
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
You realize that in 100 years it adds up to 1 part per hundred, right?
You realize that, that 100 ppm is since the industrial revolution ? Or going on 300 years now not per year ?
And people wonder why I hold environmentalists in the same regard I hold young earth creationists.
I don't think it lends any validity to original post, considering I disputed it in my other reply. I'm simply addressing things that I see being wrong/missing as I see them.
I'm well familiar with slashdot's weirdo green ultras who hold religious style dogmaic beliefs on global warming, and have butted heads with them quite often in the past when they post nonsense.
We're literally coming out of ice age. It was here just a few tens of thousands of years ago. Problem is, we've accelerated the warming process to the point where adaptation to it has become a significant challenge for many species, including ourselves.
We are literally in an ice age. We were due to come out of it anyway, and if you pick the starting point as the little ice age, instead of the roman optimum it's no wonder it looks like things are happening fast. Only an idiot would think they could control the process.
Oy. Nobody is saying the Earth is literally a greenhouse with a glass roof. However it does have a troposphere, which is warming, and a stratosphere, which is cooling (although there is more going on there than CO2).
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
But the earths atmosphere acts as a greenhouse with walls. Or are you one of those flat earthers?
Nobody is saying the Earth is literally a greenhouse with a glass roof
LOL sure they aren't. That would be the same way the OP is insightful for saying "Greenhouse gases add heat energy" / sarcasm
We don't have to control the process. We just need to control the people. With our placards and bullhorns. And political power we accumulate over time.
It's always worked so well in the past. What could go wrong?
The abstract mentions that the mechanism seems to be that the turbines or air patterns due to them break the boundary layers, allowing warmer air back down to warm the surface. This seems like it would be geographically very localized to within and downwind of large wind farms, and is not in any way atmospheric or climate warming.
Based on the included graph, I'm also going to guess that they're in the photovoltaic camp and feel that wind should be a secondary option.
fencepost
just a little off
Please tell those "climate deniers" at NASA
Appeal to authority. Perhaps we should apply to the CIA for our questions about intelligence.
Why did you link to a children's educational webpage that nasa sponsors?
3. Radiation a gas molecule emits a photon and it's absorbed by another molecule, in the case of the earth you can include the planet as a heat source)
If you think CO2 is enough to change that balance, then you better believe altering the patterns of motion and conduction are as well.
Or, that person just knows things about spectra.
Ezekiel 23:20
So your best argument is that a physical process doesn't exist because it was ineptly named? The power of magical thinking...
Ezekiel 23:20
If you read the summary well, they are comparing a 100% wind setup for USA (something that we all know that is not even desirable, we need several power sources) and they agree that the worse case is a "small" 0.24C increase due a little higher mixing of atmospheric layers... comparing that with the current setup is a clear win, as that value is even less what we get if we could stop using coal and other dirty power sources everywhere.
Yes, everything we do can change things, probably big cities make higher temperature increase due to their skyscrapers and AC systems than wind farms and this paper just try to measure this... and agree that is a better solution.
Sadly people do not really read things, just quickly screen the summary and assume what they want... or even worse, dirty energy lobbies abuse the paper to try to spread FUD.
Higuita
Interesting, do you have a source for that number? I hope it's true, it would put the conspiracy theorists' "follow the money" argument 6ft under once and for all.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
So your best argument is that a physical process doesn't exist because it was ineptly named? The power of magical thinking...
Says the man who can't understand there are two processes at work and only one applicable analogy. Or did you think radiative transport would be dominant in the effects a windmill has on the atmosphere ? You know what ? I believe you just might.
3. Radiation a gas molecule emits a photon and it's absorbed by another molecule, in the case of the earth you can include the planet as a heat source)
If you think CO2 is enough to change that balance, then you better believe altering the patterns of motion and conduction are as well.
Or, that person just knows things about spectra.
And absolutely nothing about anything else that contributes to the Earth's temperature. You seem to be in that club.
Greenhouse gases cause a reduction in energy radiation to space, thus effectively adding heat energy over time to the system, which is measurable as atmospheric and ocean temperature increase over time. Is that literal and pedantic enough for you?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
So, how much more heat does a wind turbine create compared with say the wind blasting against a rock face?
I am not a robot. I am a unicorn.
Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2015/06/25/how-much-oil-does-the-world-have-left/#7227563d5b1f
"Even at current lowered crude prices of $63 per barrel, the 1.7 trillion proven reserves alone have a value of $107 trillion"
You see you have pegged yourself as being dishonest here quite likely with yourself.
Lets take your point as granted
"cause a reduction in energy radiation to space, thus effectively adding heat energy over time to the system,"
This makes the OP's other half of his statement wrong
"Windpower does not add heat to the atmosphere of Earth, it just mixes around where it's hot and where it's cold."
Because by the definition you use anything that "causes a reduction in energy radiation to space", adds energy to the system.
So to answer your question " Is that literal and pedantic enough for you?"
No, it might have been if you could have gotten it right.
The 0.03% contribution of Earth's internal heat is actually negligible.
Ezekiel 23:20
The entire problem is that we cannot control it. Our CO2 emissions accelerated the exit, which makes species that rely on genetic adaptation go from "fast enough to adapt" to "not fast enough to adapt".
We as humans are likely still going to adapt to it with minimal discomfort at this point, as we have cultural adaptation as our primary adaptation technique at this point in history. It's still going to be costly, so it makes sense to try to slow down the change to minimize cost to ourselves as species.
Two is a weird number to throw around. In any complex system, it's unlikely that there are *only* (and exactly) two processes at work. There's a multitude of them.
Ezekiel 23:20
Water vapor is subject to short-term feedback loops that CO2 is not. That is why it has different impact. And also why it's not of such interest for changes taking decades.
Ezekiel 23:20
And the bulk of that is from water vapor, hmm why didn't link mention water except for cooling ? hmmmmmm
Because NASA is part of the global conspiracy. Obviously.
The 0.03% contribution of Earth's internal heat is actually negligible.
1.68 degree K co2's contribution , Earth average temperature 288 degrees K .03% seems a little off there chief looks like CO2 contributes about half a percent or .005 ratio of Earth's temp.
Two is a weird number to throw around. In any complex system, it's unlikely that there are *only* (and exactly) two processes at work. There's a multitude of them.
Yeah I'd take that more seriously but I can still see your original comment
So your best argument is that a physical process doesn't exist because it was ineptly named? The power of magical thinking...
For someone who doesn't like binary characterizations, you are awful quick to go to anyone who doesn't agree with me is a fantasist.
Don't let me stop you though. I am enjoying watching you defend the OP dog whistling you.
Water vapor is subject to short-term feedback loops that CO2 is not. That is why it has different impact. And also why it's not of such interest for changes taking decades.
In English that's "Water vapor is too complex to understand so even though we know from observation it has the biggest impact by far, we choose to ignore it"
I see why you are supporting the OP, non linear flow around wind turbines and the effect of changing the atmospheric flows is also complex and hard to understand. Best just ignore it.
And the bulk of that is from water vapor, hmm why didn't link mention water except for cooling ? hmmmmmm
Because NASA is part of the global conspiracy. Obviously.
Was that before or after they defined their primary mission to be Muslim outreach ?
https://www.realclearpolitics....
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority you appeal to is not competent in the topic.
E.g. because Mr. Smith, btw. a Doctor in Medicine, thinks climate change is bollocks, then we better all side with Dr. Smith!! He must be right, after all he is a PhD!
That was a fallacy.
On the other hand: Dr. Roman Miller, PhD in climatology, PhD in meteorology, Professor at MiT, tells us: "climate change could happen quicker and stronger, than we at the moment expect". Considering that Dr. Miller, is an expert in "climate stuff", I rather side with him, than a random journalist from huffington post.
That is not a fallacy. Albeit Dr. Miller might be wrong, and me believing him, might be wrong, too.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Off the top of my head, heat leaving the Earth (excluding primary reflection) is something like 83% radiative, 17% convective. Early models were more convective, but that was a long time ago.
Obviously it is 100% by radiation. Where exactly would 17% "convect" to? Convect into outer space? By losing atmosphere? Do we need to be concerned about suffocating now, too?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Cue the Kevin Spacey Lex Luthor.
Wrong!
By themselves, greenhouse gasses add NOTHING.
What greenhouse gasses do is TRAP heat.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Fan death, hello!
We NEED to have multiple types of energy. Wind, and Solar should be just PART of our energy.
We need to add more Geo-thermal, tidal, and most of all, Nukes.
In the end, we need to create an energy matrix and limit the input from any one of these energy types.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
No, people don't wonder shit about what regard you hold anyone in.
People just think you're an idiot and you provide more evidence of that with every post you make.
Only I can judge you.
33 Celsius warmer today? That is SOME Ice Age we missed!!
The difference between the depths of the last glacial period and the current interglacial is only about 4.5C. We've caused the Earth to warm about 1/4 >ice age unit so far by burning fossil fuels.
The 33C refers to our planet without greenhouse gasses vs the real Earth.
Well yeah, Muslims are part of the global conspiracy. So are Catholics.
"Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It controls the Earth's temperature.” It's true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect
Indeed. Is water vapor so complex to understand that you missed the sentence of
water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature
in the article cited by you that actually contradicts your own quotation?
Ezekiel 23:20
Well one example of convective perhaps affecting temperature is hot air blowing into a desert at night and then radiating (due to lack of water vapor) into space. The opposite could also happen, hot air convecting to an ocean and the heat getting more trapped by the water vapor.
Whether it actually happens, I don't know as I'm not a climate scientist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
No wonder you can't read basic science - you can't even string words together coherently. At least attempt some punctuation? Please?
Just another example of people using higher math to back up some crackpot idea, like claiming a Prius pollutes more than a Hummer.
It's a fraction of the Earth's energy budget, not a ratio of the absolute temperature (47 TW of internal heat vs 173,000 TW of solar heat). See the references here for details.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
If an electrician slips and falls to his death while performing maintenance on a nuclear cooling tower, would you say that fatality was due to nuclear power? Of course not, you'd say that was an industrial accident. Same as if that electrician's brother slips and falls to his death while performing maintenance on a wind turbine.
When a wind farm produces a deadly tornado, or a solar farm turns in an Archimedes death ray, let us know. And no other power source has the chance for such devastation that each of its generators has an evacuation zone for everyone within a ten mile radius.
A +1 Informative goes to the first one to identify correctly the common and obvious logical fallacy employed by Crashmarik's "proof".
-Z.
IT'S COMPLETE BULLSHIT YOU ARE A FAGGOT XX LARGE FAGGOT
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Gee really ? You mean the prior poster failed to mention that the greenhouse effect contributes about 40 degrees K to our absolute temperature and without it at all we would be at a temperature of 248 Degrees K ?
Of that 40 degrees minimally 60% is from water and less two degrees can in any way be attributed to CO2 ?
What's more CO2 still fails to explain the medieval warm period and the Roman warm period ?
Me I am expecting the news to stop talking about climate shortly and start talking about freak cold snaps as they always seem to around this time of year.
The lovely thing about this subject is nobody knows what's going on but everyone is willing to demand money and other people do things
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/ea...
Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.
Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
All the article does is reaffirm my point that without a thorough understanding of how the dominant green house gas functions you can't make meaningful predictions based on incomplete models.
But hey tell me again how anything that says windpower causes warming is FUD.
Well yeah, Muslims are part of the global conspiracy. So are Catholics.
OK I can forgive someone not knowing the political history of Islam, but seriously you don't know the political role the Catholic Church has had in history ?
No, people don't wonder shit about what regard you hold anyone in.
People just think you're an idiot and you provide more evidence of that with every post you make.
Yeah that's about the level I have always seen from environmentalists. People that can't make their position, are always resorting to violence of some kind or other and for all the world act like they need to be punished by authority.
Why don't you come back when you learn how to actually have a position besides STFU.
what part of the sentence "that's not what we're talking about here" are you finding hard to understand?
It's the part with words that he has trouble with.
Appeal to authority is a fallacy as soon as you imply that the truth of an idea is influenced by who said something, or that you can measure the truth of something by measuring the amount of authority that the speaker has.
My goodness. Dude. Words can have more than one meaning. It is not only allowed, it is required for language to work.
No it is not.
It is a fallacy if the authority has no competence about the matter you are talking about.
E.g. applying to the seniority to a (insert religion) reverend when talking about vaccines.
It is not a fallacy if you cite or refer to a medical doctor talking about vaccines. If it would I would need to be a medical doctor myself to even talk about vaccines ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
My goodness. Dude. Words can have more than one meaning. It is not only allowed, it is required for language to work.
No really ? You mean all the people insisting that the greenhouse effect is relevant when speaking of windmills actually were talking about how greenhouses work ?
Well smack my head. Seeing as they kept saying otherwise how did you know ?
if you can cool the planet safely thats still bad.
Look at history, when all civs collapsed or when disease broke out or when millions starved it was due to sudden cool cold summers.
COLD = death.
Extra warmness means more time to grow food, = more food.
Try growing crops at -2c, on ice, with all water frozen solid.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Market value of raw materials in the ground is not the same as investments. In fact, they are entirely different.
When you figure out what an investment is you may return and possibly be taken semi seriously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Keith_(scientist)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Engineering
Carbon Engineering is a Direct Air Capture technology company, whose aim is clearly not to promote wind power.
There is an increase in a small area (compared to the distance you HAVE to have between wind turbines for optimal efficiency) but it is miniscule and static. The same effect happens with buildings. And the effect is FAR FAR LESS than the UHI effect. Don't see any studies warning about building towns and cities, do you?
Guess which assumption is the least viable...
Oh, hang on, thats already going to happen if the USA plants all the power needed as wind turbines to replace its power use. So, yeah, not a problem.
Oh, what WOULD happen is the USA (no glaciers) gets warmer while the other places (with glaciers) get cooler. Which will reverse the glacier retreat that AGW has produced, increase the snow cover, increase the reflection of solar energy into space and therefore decrease the global energy budget, cooling the planet.
Too busy trying to find ways to halt changing to renewables to think this through, aren't you?
But what about the study. Debunk it.
No? Then please explain why your point is relevant. There ARE harvard professors who are ideologues. If you're a rightwinger you already know this. They're all liberal anti christian commies out to indoctrinate your children for the NWO.
So please tell me what YOU think causes someone to NOT have an anti-renewable ideology if they're a Harvard Applied Physics professor? And explain why one of them owning a company funded by money from fracking and fossil fuels companies isn't being affected when you already insist that the entire AGW thing is due to scientists chasing that research grant money?
Tell us where the only options for people who don't agree with your bollocks is "anything that says windpower causes warming is FUD". THIS report and your bullshit is FUD, but you aren't ALL THERE IS about wind power.
You frigging idiot.
so wind power adds 0.24C _one_ time.
fossil fuel power rise in earth's warming will not stop and keep on increasing unless we stop using it (and even if we stop using it, the rise in temperature might still continue to go on).
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
could mean more climate warming, at least regionally
Isn't that just a fancy way of saying local weather? And don't we always hear the argument that we shouldn't look at local weather when talking about climate change?
Actually, it seems as a one of two study. A post doc student, doing his diligence. Of something never published. Such as what are the results downwind from something upwind. It would have been better if he would have used the engineering studies already out to validate his results, but he was using what tools we have now, supposedly better then the slide rule results of previous studies. He validated the old studies. Stick a building up, you change the airflow, you stick a fan on it, you create a non laminar flow. Air pressure changes, downwind. Now, here are some of the changes. And he listed them. How's that a bad study. Even naval engeeners of the 16 the century, knew to interrupt the windflow of the enemy, cut their manuverability, and changed a battle. Is it any different now?
I'm not sure where you're trying to go with all this - I hadn't mentioned the greenhouse effect, nor did the "prior poster".
Yes, climate scientists are aware that the great majority of trapped warmth is from water, and the effect of CO2 is relatively small. But even tiny effects add up over time when the equilibrium is altered, and we're observing exactly that. The calculated decrease in radiative transfer from the IR blocked by all the extra CO2 agrees very well with these observations - and no other potential cause comes close.
The evidence shows that the localised RWP, MWP, and LIA events were triggered by factors other than CO2 - like fluctuations in solar irradiance and vulcanism.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
check the map of Washington dc, you'll see seminaries, catholic school etc all around it, what a way to be close to where the action is and to influence it
Doesn't matter who you appeal to.
It is the first example:
https://www.logicallyfallaciou...
It's about heat loss near the surface. C'mon, Rear Admiral Pedantic. You know the ionosphere is 1000-1300 degrees, right? CO2 or anything else doesn't matter for shit once you get high enough, as the atmosphere gets very thin. All of "weather" is convection, transporting heat to an altitude where it stops mattering to us.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
That example is not an appeal to authority, but an illogical attempt for getting a conclusion.
See the example: "Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and perhaps the foremost expert in the field, says that evolution is true. Therefore, it's true."
This is simply plain dumb, and not a fallacy.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I Google'd "deaths per terawatt" and found this: https://www.statista.com/stati...
Non-paywalled data is at https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
The biggest problem with this claim is that it is a gross oversimplification even with some pretty straight forward reasoning. To understand the deaths by certain industrial causes you have to consider direct and indirect mechanisms. Direct mechanisms contribute historical data, however indirect mechanisms do not create obvious historical data.
For us to consider deaths by Solar and Wind direct causes maybe someone falling off a roof or a tower. The duration of such incidents are hours. An indirect cause maybe a chemical byproduct of the production process or perhaps going crazy from infra sound. These are somewhat avoidable and correctable issues with a duration of months to years. Propagation over area can be tens to hundreds of metres.
To consider Coal direct causes maybe someone getting black lung from mining, being burnt to death, falling, crushed or fire. The duration of such incidents are days to weeks. Indirect causes maybe asthma or other lung diseases. You may breathe in a natural radio-isotope causing lung cancer. These are difficult to avoid and correct with a duration of years to decades. Propagation over area can be tens to hundreds of Kilometres.
These are easy to understand because the means that creates the deaths are obvious. However with Nuclear the causes of death are not so obvious.
To consider Nuclear direct causes maybe Industrial accidents similar to a coal plant or a severe exposure to radiation. The duration of such incidents are years to indefinite considering that Chernobyl has only just been bought under control with New Safe Confinement and Fukushima is barely controlled. Indirect causes for Nuclear are ignored in the forbes article because it ignores the externalities of the Nuclear industry whilst focusing on the one for other industries. These are so varied because the vectors are cancer from absorbing radio-isotopes, transgenic disease from DNA damage received in a previous generation, pregnancies that failed to come to term and fatal birth defects from those who did all occur over a long time. You may breathe in an enriched radio-isotope causing lung cancer. You may drink or eat it and you could not detect it was there as it organically binds inside your body. These are impossible to correct with a duration of decades to unknown amount of years. You can't tell if you do or do not avoid them. Propagation of radio-isotopes from Fukushima has spread all over the world, with much of it landing on the west coast of the US. We know this because the MOX fuel elements in Unit three can be tracked using data from the Nuclear test ban treaty monitoring stations. Bio-accumulation in the environment is also a complex subject that takes a long time to manifest as something that can be measured. This is all relative to the rates at which the radio-isotopes decay through their daughter products.
When I get a chance I subscribe to statistica to have a look at the underlying data however it is clear to see the flaw in the reasoning is that we are still at the beginning of the nuclear accidents, there is no historical data to compare. Considerable obfuscation of data has been performed to keep the truth vague and ambiguous. To truly understand it you have to model the propagation of these elements in the body and the environment. However I think H. L. Mencken summed it up nicely when he said:
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I'm not sure where you're trying to go with all this - I hadn't mentioned the greenhouse effect, nor did the "prior poster".
What did you think he was talking about ?
The evidence shows that the localised RWP, MWP, and LIA events were triggered by factors other than CO2 - like fluctuations in solar irradiance and vulcanism [utexas.edu].
From your article " Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic."
o'rly? And you do not think that they have invested money in finding those proven reserves, or licensing access or even put those potential revenues on their balance sheets or projections for future revenues?
Then you are simple a useful idiot who parses words in their most simplistic form, enjoy your shilling
Venus have NOW more atmosphere, as the high temperature promotes ebullition and so higher gas quantity. But even before reaching that level, they where for sure very similar, their size and composition is similar... Venus did got hot, triggering more CO2 and other components to be released to atmosphere and deploying a never ending of greenhouse effect (hot, more gas release, more hotter)
As you said mercury have no atmosphere... so you are agreeing that atmosphere do correlate with the surface temperature of a planet...
While simplifying, my description is what happen, but as you are so good, please inform us all about your scientific point of view, Your original description is totally correct, except the part that you assume that higher CO2 can not change the rate of heat dissipated by the planet... based on what you assume that?
Higuita
the comparison is just to cut the common excuse that venus is closer to the sun... mercury is lot closer and have lower temperature, so proving that atmosphere DO affect the planet surface temperature
Higuita
It simply doesn't have a stable atmosphere to heat up but merely an exosphere, because it gets literally pushed off on the sunny side by extremely concentrated solar wind before it gets a chance to heat up. Which is why Mercury has an almost comet-like trail of atmosphere on the dark side.
This is not a valid comparison by any reasonable line of thinking. One has a proper atmosphere, which provides the insulation effect against convection and radiation of energy outward from the surface. Other radiates its temperature straight out with minimal obstacles in the way. You're literally arguing "insulation helps retain temperature, and this is somehow novel". No, it's not. This is something humans knew since they first donned clothing and furs.
There are some. Solar causes localized cooling and massive farms could actually become a weather problem, especially if efficiency keeps going up. But, all of that heat energy just gets moved with the electricity produced.
But, as a kid, I loved water skiing near the nuclear plant at Lake Keowee during cooler weather because the water was about 10 degrees warmer. That is what nuclear plants do - create heat. The portion that does not become electricity due to inefficiencies goes into the local environment.
Any source that uses heat to drive turbines is going to heat the local environment. They just aren't very efficient at the conversion.
But, as this article points out, any source that drives a turbine at all will generate heat. So, even hydro is going to lose some of its energy to heating the water and the things the water flows over.
But, I'd be surprised if the net effect to the local environment versus letting the water free flow through the same fall is not a cooling one because a lot of the potential energy is converted to electricity that would have otherwise been converted to heat in the natural course of the water's movement.
The paper states that wind farms have local impact mostly at night. In total they do not have an climate impact, but it could have an local effect which can cause negative results when 0.28 ÂC more is an issue for local plants and animals.
They further want to support the selection of whether to use solar or wind in certain areas.
Unfortunately, the /. title suggests an issue comparable to CO2 emissions. This is not what the study is about.
Sorry, but i may have explain badly what i mean, i'm not saying that mercury have atmosphere or that insulation is a new thing. I know that comparing the two is hard because so much differences between then.
Let me try again:
i'm comparing earth CO2 greenhouse effect with Venus runaway greenhouse effect and high temperature... and to avoid the the reply that venus is closer to the sun, so it is normal to be hotter, i also gave the example that mercury is less hot than venus. This also proves that the thick venus atmosphere is the one to blame for high temperature. Nothing that i said is new or amazing discoveries, all this is just because the previous post was saying that it was impossible for the CO2 to make the planet hotter.
Higuita
They have not invested $107 trillion, as you stated, so don't be a smart ass.
Nope, this is coming from fossil fuel corporations who stand to lose $107 TRILLION in investments....
You even contradicted yourself with:
"Even at current lowered crude prices of $63 per barrel, the 1.7 trillion proven reserves alone have a value of $107 trillion"
You claim $107 trillion in investments and then you state $107 trillion in product value. Are you trying to imply it costs $1 in investment to get $1 in oil out of the ground?
Of course you aren't, so nobody has invested $107 trillion. Admit your mistake, like an adult, and move on..
oooh. good comeback. He gives facts, you respond with feelz..
You people couldn't hide if you tried.
Of course. Venus' atmosphere has an insulating impact on the Venus surface. It can't just convect/radiate thermal energy into space the way Mercury surface can. It can only convect it into the atmosphere, which provides effective insulation layers, which in turn concentrates thermal energy close to surface. And radiation passage out of the Venus' atmosphere gets hampered by atmosphere itself as well as the greenhouse effect within it.
So less energy input, but even less energy output as well leads to higher temperatures on Venus surface vs Mercury surface. Again, this is not a novel concept, and something people understand instinctively since the time before they invented fire, and long before they knew that air existed, much less basics of astronomy. Which is why the analogy is just too flawed to be in any way useful. You may as well just argue "furs provide isolation layer, just like atmosphere does, so convection and radiation doesn't vent energy directly into space, but into atmosphere around it, from which it then in turn has to rise up a portion of it can vent into space".
What did you think he was talking about ?
I was more interested in nailing down what you're talking about.
Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic.
Yes, this sort of thing often happens when something changes the climate. Again, what's your point? If you're attempting to show CO2 has no significant role in our changing climate, I don't see how.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
What did you think he was talking about ?
I was more interested in nailing down what you're talking about.
Seeing as I was talking about what he was saying, knowing what he said would be a necessary prerequisite.
Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic.
Yes, this sort of thing often happens when something changes the climate. Again, what's your point? If you're attempting to show CO2 has no significant role in our changing climate, I don't see how.
Vs the OP
Windpower does not add heat to the atmosphere of Earth, it just mixes around where it's hot and where it's cold.
Greenhouse gases add heat energy (and thus average temperature) to the Earth's global atmosphere.
Does that help you see why you need to understand the whole conversation ?
Or is it your contention that mixing up the atmosphere can't change climate and only CO2 can ? (See how easy that is to do ?)
I'm quite confident I know what the OP was referring to, thanks. What I was trying to clarify was your response, but you don't seem interested in explaining yourself.
The whole point here is that wind farms only change the climate locally, in the immediate area of the turbines, by mixing different temperature airstreams. They don't affect global average temperatures like CO2 release does. If you were trying to draw a parallel with ocean circulation, that is also a local effect (though can be much larger) - and again, doesn't directly affect global average climate (though indirect feedbacks are possible if e.g. sea ice melting causes albedo changes).
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I'm quite confident I know what the OP was referring to, thanks. What I was trying to clarify was your response, but you don't seem interested in explaining yourself.
Seems you are more concerned with mischaracterizing my response into something I explicitly didn't say.
The whole point here is that wind farms only change the climate locally, in the immediate area of the turbines, by mixing different temperature airstreams. They don't affect global average temperatures like CO2 release does
Really I didn't see that, matter of fact the article strongly suggests the exact opposite.
The core problem is that wind turbines generate electricity by extracting energy out of the air, slowing down wind and otherwise altering “the exchange of heat, moisture, and momentum between the surface and the atmosphere,” the study explains. That can produce some level of warming.
So it seems not only do you not understand the OP but you don't understand the article. Oh and btw moisture, that's water vapor the absolutely dominant greenhouse gas at work.
If you're concerned about mischaracterisation then perhaps you should try and actually clarify what you're saying, instead of all these deflections?
matter of fact the article strongly suggests the exact opposite
This is why you should read the study instead, where it explicitly states that turbines are "redistributing heat by mixing the boundary layer". Any warming in one layer of air is offset by cooling in another; there is no extra heat generated. If you believe otherwise, please cite where in the study it contradicts this. What physical method is supposed to produce "some level of warming", other than moving the heat from elsewhere?
As for moisture, it's well known that it is a far more powerful greenhouse gas - but this is irrelevant, because atmospheric water levels are not changing. The effect of water vapour is the same as it's always been - no more, no less. CO2 levels are most definitely changing, and the cumulative effect of this is already being felt.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
If you're concerned about mischaracterisation then perhaps you should try and actually clarify what you're saying, instead of all these deflections?
Would you care to explain how pointing out the errors in your premises is deflection ? I encourage to take your own advice so you at least appear less ignorant
This is why you should read the study instead, where it explicitly states that turbines are "redistributing heat by mixing the boundary layer". Any warming in one layer of air is offset by cooling in another; there is no extra heat generated. If you believe otherwise, please cite where in the study it contradicts this. What physical method is supposed to produce "some level of warming", other than moving the heat from elsewhere?
As for moisture, it's well known that it is a far more powerful greenhouse gas - but this is irrelevant, because atmospheric water levels are not changing. The effect of water vapour is the same as it's always been - no more, no less. CO2 levels are most definitely changing, and the cumulative effect of this is already being felt.
How the structure of the atmosphere affects heat transfer.
https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/S...
Simpler, turn on a ceiling fan in a house with a hot attic.
BTW my original statement was
It never ceases to amaze me how the climate doom people never understand the most basic concepts about heat transport.
Thanks for providing empirical evidence.
Would you care to explain how pointing out the errors in your premises is deflection ?
And which statement of mine is in error? All you've done is answer polite requests for clarification with rhetorical questions of your own, insults, and flat denials. Sounds like deflection to me.
turn on a ceiling fan in a house with a hot attic
And the air mixing will result in some small heat transfer from the attic to the room. So by implication (since you're still being deliberately opaque) - I must assume your claim is that the downwards heat transfer from air mixing at sub-km altitudes around wind farms will similarly result in some small heat transfer from the air further above that. This is not in question - but it's still a localised effect. There's nothing in the study that suggests any significant effect on the upper atmospheric layers.
My point is a) nowhere in the study does it claim that this heat transfer from higher layers is at all significant, especially for anything above the troposphere, and b) none of this could be described as adding heat to the atmosphere (as the OP stated) - it merely moves it about.
Or perhaps you're trying to claim that any atmospheric mixing at the bottom will affect net radiative transfer out of the atmosphere altogether? If so, please cite evidence (from this study or any other) that it's non-negligible.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
And the air mixing will result in some small heat transfer from the attic to the room. So by implication (since you're still being deliberately opaque) - I must assume your claim is that the downwards heat transfer from air mixing at sub-km altitudes around wind farms will similarly result in some small heat transfer from the air further above that. This is not in question - but it's still a localised effect. There's nothing in the study that suggests any significant effect on the upper atmospheric layers.
Most people don't live in the upper atmosphere, hows the housing prices ?
Well, as you're still not answering anything, I guess either you're at least as confused as you're accusing others of being, or you're just another combative troll. Good luck with that.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?