New source of climate warming: Wind farms

posted at 11:21 am on April 30, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Great news for NIMBY activists that want public policy to follow the anthropogenic global-warming agenda but don’t want their vistas cluttered.  The wind farms that they support everywhere else but nearby themselves may be part of the problem, according to Reuters:

Large wind farms might have a warming effect on the local climate, research in the United States showed on Sunday, casting a shadow over the long-term sustainability of wind power. …

Researchers at the State University of New York at Albany analysed the satellite data of areas around large wind farms in Texas, where four of the world’s largest farms are located, over the period 2003 to 2011.

The results, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, showed a warming trend of up to 0.72 degrees Celsius per decade in areas over the farms, compared with nearby regions without the farms.

“We attribute this warming primarily to wind farms,” the study said. The temperature change could be due to the effects of the energy expelled by farms and the movement and turbulence generated by turbine rotors, it said.

“These changes, if spatially large enough, may have noticeable impacts on local to regional weather and climate,” the authors said.

Wind power is already one of the worst options in the renewables market.  Wind is unreliable, and the unreliability of energy production causes numerous problems for distribution.  The manufacture and maintenance of the windmills requires a lot of energy, costs a lot of money, and creates a lot of waste, although perhaps not as much as Solyndra left behind.  The blades kill hundreds of thousands of birds a year already, and any expansion will make that destruction much worse.

Of course, the rise in temperature might be beneficial.  No one has shown that even if a warming period occurs naturally or artificially that the overall impact will be relentlessly negative.  At one time, most of Greenland was used for farming and habitation, a period that lasted a few centuries until global cooling eventually covered most of it in ice.  However, if the wind-farm advocates argue that warming is good for the environment, it negates the stated need to build expensive and inefficient wind farms in the first place.

This research, if confirmed in later studies, will demonstrate the folly of massive public investments for solutions ahead of sufficient testing, even when the problem has been firmly established.  By definition, solutions mean solving the problem, not adding to it.  While wind farms in deserts might make some sense, where birds and farmland won’t get impacted, building wind farms on otherwise arable land for the purpose of reducing the temperature of the climate and improving the natural environment makes no sense at all.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

algor hardest hit.

Logus on April 30, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Yet another “Living Causes Cancer” moment in the life of the Liberal Agenda.

jaydee_007 on April 30, 2012 at 11:24 AM

So… wind farms – built to (in part) combat global warming, are in fact, contributing to global warming?

You seriously can’t make this stuff up.

Washington Nearsider on April 30, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Can you say “Irony,” boys and girls?

coldwarrior on April 30, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Uh oh- the shaman priests in the Unitarian Church of the Warming Globe will NOT be pleased with this blasphemy.

GrassMudHorsey on April 30, 2012 at 11:26 AM

There’s one of those windmill thingies about a block from where I sit. It’s just one windmill-next to a McDonald’s.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 30, 2012 at 11:26 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on April 30, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Thought DQ was the only fast food choice in West Texas. :-)

coldwarrior on April 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM

showed a warming trend of up to 0.72 degrees Celsius per decade in areas over the farms

Isn’t this enough to melt the ice caps and glaciers and cause the oceans to rise to catastrophic levels – at least when it was hydrocarbon-based CO2 causing it?
Quick – put all turbines in reverse to stop the wind – isn’t it obvious? Wind turbulence causes global warming!!!! We must stop all wind to save the planet!!!//////
Well bayam – what do all the liberal geniuses say about this????

dentarthurdent on April 30, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Thought DQ was the only fast food choice in West Texas. :-)

coldwarrior on April 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Incorrect. It’s Chick-Fil-A. *Well it is for me. LoL*

annoyinglittletwerp on April 30, 2012 at 11:31 AM

You seriously can’t make this stuff up.

Washington Nearsider on April 30, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Well, somebody dang sure is!

Oldnuke on April 30, 2012 at 11:32 AM

So… wind farms – built to (in part) combat global warming, are in fact, contributing to global warming?

You seriously can’t make this stuff up.

Washington Nearsider on April 30, 2012 at 11:24 AM

I love “The Onion News”……Oh, what?

VegasRick on April 30, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Wind power is already one of the worst options in the renewables market. Wind is unreliable, and the unreliability of energy production causes numerous problems for distribution. The manufacture and maintenance of the windmills requires a lot of energy, costs a lot of money, and creates a lot of waste, although perhaps not as much as Solyndra left behind. The blades kill hundreds of thousands of birds a year already, and any expansion will make that destruction much worse.

That only applies to small/low altitude turbines. There are designs on the table for gigawatt turbines that will harness the trade winds. Of course those will never be built in the US because we can’t let a little thing like domestic electrical power generation get in the way of airplane traffic…

Browncoatone on April 30, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Every instinct from a liberal mind is not only wrong, but when acted upon, produces the perfect textbook irony. It’s actually so precise as to be natural law.

nitzsche on April 30, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Solar Panels, Big Wind, and Pond Scum…..this is what devolution looks like.

Dr Evil on April 30, 2012 at 11:36 AM

It’s almost as though the warmthers think that before mankind existed the earth’s temperature remained constant for millions of years and only activities of homo sapiens can have any impact on the earth’s temperatures.

talkingpoints on April 30, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Wind power is already one of the worst options in the renewables market. Wind is unreliable, and the unreliability of energy production causes numerous problems for distribution.

…so you can bet that Obama will plunge billions more of our tax dollars into it.

It’s going to save the world you know……

Baxter Greene on April 30, 2012 at 11:37 AM

….(Spain) If only we could have seen (Spain) this coming (Spain)…
………..you know…learn from (Spain) someone else’s mistakes (Spain).

Baxter Greene on April 30, 2012 at 11:38 AM

It’s probably due to all the dead bird carcasses.

ButterflyDragon on April 30, 2012 at 11:38 AM

It’s almost as though the warmthers think that before mankind existed the earth’s temperature remained constant for millions of years and only activities of homo sapiens can have any impact on the earth’s temperatures.

talkingpoints on April 30, 2012 at 11:37 AM

This is the first thing I ask when I get into one of these debates.

“I am perfectly willing to discuss how humans have altered the temperature of the planet. In order to find a starting point though, I need to know what temperature Earth is supposed to maintain. Once we’ve established that, we can determine just how much of an effect we’re having.”

The conversation tends to end there.

Washington Nearsider on April 30, 2012 at 11:38 AM

No one has shown that even if a warming period occurs naturally or artificially that the overall impact will be relentlessly negative.

Ed, you touch on the biggest obscenity. Global warming is totally positive for the human race. And that has been well documented.

So wind farms raise the local temperature around the farm? Permanently? Can anyone say something more stupid? There are plenty stupid enough to believe it it seems.

BL@KBIRD on April 30, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Engineers will be looking into growing algae on the blades of the wind turbines to offset global warming.
Trust me./

Electrongod on April 30, 2012 at 11:39 AM

“At one time, most of Greenland was used for farming and habitation, a period that lasted a few centuries until global cooling eventually covered most of it in ice.”

This is simply false. The vast majority of Greenland has been covered in ice for over a hundred thousand years. The small coastal areas that were used for farming during the medieval warm period were slightly warmer than now, but never was “most of Greenland” used for farming and habitation.

Also: “building wind farms on otherwise arable land” is a silly complaint. We have thousands of windmills on our arable land around here, and their footprint is tiny – a narrow path to a small square of land, with crops growing all around.

And you might not want to buy into the “hundreds of thousands of birds killed” argument, unless you are willing to accept the same silly statistic when applied to city skyscrapers.

I’m not arguing for wind power, but at least keep your facts straight, if you want to do more than preach to the choir.

notropis on April 30, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Their idea is completely absurd. There is no way a wind turbine could cause “warming”.

wildcat72 on April 30, 2012 at 11:40 AM

There’s a smallish wind turbine in the area that I find to be a bit absurd.

It’s owned and on private property – a construction company I believe. They have a small parking garage with lots of solar panels on the roof. So, it’s evident that being “green” is part of their deal… markets well in liberal St. Louis I guess.

Anyhow, what I find absurd is that on days where there’s clearly enough wind, the turbine often isn’t running. It’s not even an issue of shutting it off due to incliment weather.

I thought one of the deals with private energy producers is that they can sell their energy back to the utilities. Perhaps this company is off the grid – which I doubt – but I can’t think of a sound reason as to why the turbine wouldn’t be running almost every single day when there’s clearly, plenty of opportunities for it to turn and generate electricity.

Logus on April 30, 2012 at 11:40 AM

….(Spain) If only we could have seen (Spain) this coming (Spain)…
………..you know…learn from (Spain) someone else’s mistakes (Spain).

Baxter Greene on April 30, 2012 at 11:38 AM

That’s Greek to me.

Happy Nomad on April 30, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Thought DQ was the only fast food choice in West Texas. :-)

coldwarrior on April 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM

.
Incorrect. It’s Chick-Fil-A. *Well it is for me. LoL*

annoyinglittletwerp on April 30, 2012 at 11:31 AM

.
Chick-Fil-A is great, but aren’t there any Carl’s Jrs about?

And what about Taco Bells?

listens2glenn on April 30, 2012 at 11:41 AM

That only applies to small/low altitude turbines. There are designs on the table for gigawatt turbines that will harness the trade winds. Of course those will never be built in the US because we can’t let a little thing like domestic electrical power generation get in the way of airplane traffic…

Browncoatone on April 30, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Are you serious? And do you understand how tall these structures would need to be? Think about it. People also have had concepts for elevators to get to space. But there are a few little problems like gravity, engineering feasibility, and the laws of physics.

dentarthurdent on April 30, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Using wind turbines in a desert is a blatant copyright violation of Ed’s legal rights for Hot Air (TM).

Archivarix on April 30, 2012 at 11:45 AM

But there are a few little problems like gravity, engineering feasibility, and the laws of physics.

dentarthurdent on April 30, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Those may be “challenges” to successful completion but hardly an impediment for government funding.

Happy Nomad on April 30, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Their idea is completely absurd. There is no way a wind turbine could cause “warming”.

wildcat72 on April 30, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Huh?

Of course they can.

Every single one of those turbines holds more heat than the vegetation that was previously there.

Experiment:

In one section of your lawn make sure it’s nothing but grass.

In another section of your lawn sprinkle about odd bits of metal.

Wait until a nice hot day, wear as few clothes as possible, then go lay down in each section.

I bet you won’t be lying down on that metal for very long.

ButterflyDragon on April 30, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Wind farms hate the womynz.

redzap on April 30, 2012 at 11:46 AM

According to a study done, in Altamont alone, apparently, approx. 1,300 birds hit a year due to the wind turbines. That’s one “wind farm”. How many wind farms are there across the world?

Video

Logus on April 30, 2012 at 11:46 AM

It’s probably due to all the dead bird carcasses.

ButterflyDragon on April 30, 2012 at 11:38 AM

.
Would animal rights activists be outraged over this?

Or would they mumble something about “tolerable damage for the greater good”?
.
Inquiring minds want to know.

listens2glenn on April 30, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Sorry but taking an 8 year study and stating that it may have an effect on decade-by-decade climate is just as bad as the AGW alarmists.

They claim that by looking at 50-75 years of data they can ‘project’ that climate change is happening and it IS our fault. As though 75 years is more than a wink in the course of the millions of years the planet has had weather. We know it has warmed and cooled before but we still don’t understand why but we’re ready to make excuses for it. I was around in 1975 when it was global cooling. Didn’t believe it then either.

This study tries to make the same assertion that the ‘bad guys’ who want wind power are hurting the planet and taking part of a decade to ‘project’ what will happen in the next 10 years. Bunk.

Wind power is ineffective because it is unreliable, noisy and expensive. It also kills birds that are a part of the ecosystem for no reason. Those are the only reasons for killing it off till the problems are solved and better batteries created. We don’t need partial science to to back up the facts.

axshon on April 30, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Those may be “challenges” to successful completion but hardly an impediment for government funding.

Happy Nomad on April 30, 2012 at 11:46 AM

You’re absolutely right there – none of those problems will ever get in the way of Dem money laundering. In fact they are probably prerequisites for Dem funding – gives them a good excuse to shut down the whole operation once the DNC and Obummer’s campaign have their money.

dentarthurdent on April 30, 2012 at 11:49 AM

They keep telling us down here in Texas that all the wind farms will provide us with more electric energy options at a lower price (lol). I guess that a little more warming from the wind farms will mean that we will need, especially in Texas, a little more air conditioning. Ergo, the electricity from the wind farms! Brilliant!

Let’s all sing together now…

“Will the the circle be unbroken

By and by, Lord, by and by”….

lonestarleeroy on April 30, 2012 at 11:51 AM

There are designs on the table for gigawatt turbines that will harness the trade winds.

Browncoatone on April 30, 2012 at 11:34 AM

There are also designs on the table for large gigawatt range turbine-generators that use proven technology. They use steam produced by various methods to turn a generator to reliably pump out electrical power. Bear in mind that no matter the source of the wind it’s still unreliable and must be backed up by other sources of generation. Why don’t we just skip the wind thing and go straight to what works.

Oldnuke on April 30, 2012 at 11:51 AM

I enjoy the unintended pun that this story was posted on “HotAir”

bomble on April 30, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Bwaaaaaaaaaa…….

D-fusit on April 30, 2012 at 11:53 AM

…double face palm!

KOOLAID2 on April 30, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Wind power is ineffective because it is unreliable, noisy and expensive. It also kills birds that are a part of the ecosystem for no reason. Those are the only reasons for killing it off till the problems are solved and better batteries created. We don’t need partial science to to back up the facts.

axshon on April 30, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Agreed – but since the AGW alarmists all use fake science for their arguments, and deny those problems are actual problems and it’s all for the greater good to stop global warming – then pointing to the possibility that their anti-globull warming systems are actually contributing to globull warming at the very least makes for an entertaining debate.

dentarthurdent on April 30, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Their idea is completely absurd. There is no way a wind turbine could cause “warming”.

wildcat72 on April 30, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Actually there is a way. You could motorize the generator and turn it into a big fan which would transfer pump heat (for lack of a better term) into the atmosphere.

Oldnuke on April 30, 2012 at 11:55 AM

listens2glenn on April 30, 2012 at 11:41 AM

No Carl’s Jrs. We have Whataburgers. Wish we had an In-N-Out Burger here.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 30, 2012 at 11:57 AM

dentarthurdent on April 30, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Nothing and I mean nothing will ever satisfy these idiots. Well maybe total extinction of man would do it.

Oldnuke on April 30, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Hello twerp
Dom was looking for you………;)……..happy weekend………

I wonder what the genius Algore will come up with to combat the new warming threat……

angrymike on April 30, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Oldnuke on April 30, 2012 at 11:51 AM

No, no – couldn’t possibly work. There’s no way energy could be produced by just burning some substance to make steam and turn turbines – just a scheme made up by anti-Gaia heretics….///

dentarthurdent on April 30, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Also: “building wind farms on otherwise arable land” is a silly complaint. We have thousands of windmills on our arable land around here, and their footprint is tiny – a narrow path to a small square of land, with crops growing all around.

notropis on April 30, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I was going to say much the same thing. We have tons of wind farms here in North Dakota, all out on arable land. The local farmers lease out the small plots of land on which these wind turbines sit, and it really isn’t a very big footprint in terms of eating into their arable farmland. Just a rough guess, but I would say each one sits on a plot that is roughly 20-30 sq ft.

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t find them to be the eye sore that others seems to think they are. I actually think it’s rather cool to see huge flat expanses of farmland with forty or more of these wind turbines on them stretched out for 20 miles in any direction among the crops. Then again, maybe I just like that it breaks up the monotony of the flat landscape as far as they eye can see.

That’s not to say that I am a massive advocate of wind power. I mean, if we can make it work for mass power generation, then great. However, it is clear that wind and solar just are not there yet in terms of reliable mass generated power, certianly not anywhere close to what is needed to replace oil and gas. And the eco-nuts and this administration pretending they are ready for primetime in order to fuel their agenda is just plain crazy. We need to use the most efficient power source we have for the time being (oil, gas, coal), while the privately funded research continues into other methods of power generation until they are ready for mass use.

gravityman on April 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM

….(Spain) If only we could have seen (Spain) this coming (Spain)…
………..you know…learn from (Spain) someone else’s mistakes (Spain).

Baxter Greene on April 30, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Spain, three jobs lost for every “Green Job” created, 25% unemployment and an economy in complete shambles… I’m thinking Obama DID learn from Spain, and IS trying his damnedest to replicate Spain’s “Success story”…

SWalker on April 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Wish we had an In-N-Out Burger here.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 30, 2012 at 11:57 AM

.
I’m not familiar with that one.

But then I would never have heard of Carls Jr either, if it weren’t for that Paris Hilton ad.

listens2glenn on April 30, 2012 at 12:02 PM

..doncha just love the law of unintended consequences?

The War Planner on April 30, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Maybe it’s like ceiling fans, they are turning the wrong way? Is it clockwise for cooling or counter clockwise?

Cindy Munford on April 30, 2012 at 12:03 PM

There was a post on Real Science http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/epa-scientist-demonstrates-why-the-epa-cant-be-trusted/ of reports of a substantial sea level rise at Chesapeake Beach, Maryland.
A commenter responded: Having lived by the sea for 40+ years I call bullshit on that. The sea level where I live is no different in any detectable way from the way it was 40 years ago.
My reply to this comment:

I call bullshit! Reminds me of the card game. Your little sister plays “two Jacks.” But you got 3 jacks. Bullshit!
Kind of like what we see.. in the sea. With all the glaciers and icecaps in supposed virtual meltdown, we should have had -substantial- sea rise. But there’s nothing. Nil. Nada. Sure, there’s “data” showing sea rise, and they find special cases or photograph stormy high tide conditions, and say it’s rising quickly. But we go down to the beach, or “shore” as it may be, and see that the sea is just the same as its ever was. Bullshit!
I have a 40 year story myself:

I’ve been going to this tide-pooled rocky beach for ~40 years.
As a little tike I would name the big rocks (as Farm, Minor & “Major League Rock” etc), and from shore throw rocks at them. With my own eyes: the sea level has not changed. Further, recently I was there at a low tide of minus 0.5 and went out to Major rock. There was a few spotty inches of water between Minor & Major rocks.
This is EXACTLY as it was 40 years ago. Only when the tide was lower than minus 1.0 would there be no water at all between Minor & Major. I reported this to my scientist (biochem) “trust the experts” brother. He said “ok, that is some anecdotal evidence.” Me: “ANECDOTAL?!! It’s me! And you see the same thing.” Him: “Anecdotal in that it’s not scientific, or… systematic.” In a bit, he said “Those [huge] rocks have moved.” I took this as sarcastic, saying “Haha. Yeah. Another thing I hear is that the ‘land has risen.’”
Maybe the sea has risen everywhere else, while it’s just at Big Sur that it remains the same.

anotherJoe on April 30, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Wish we had an In-N-Out Burger here.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 30, 2012 at 11:57 AM

.
I’m not familiar with that one.

But then I would never have heard of Carls Jr either, if it weren’t for that Paris Hilton ad.

listens2glenn on April 30, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Meh… In-N-Out burgers are so-so, (way over rated) but they do make the best french-fries on the face of the earth…

SWalker on April 30, 2012 at 12:05 PM

I’m not familiar with that one.

But then I would never have heard of Carls Jr either, if it weren’t for that Paris Hilton ad.

listens2glenn on April 30, 2012 at 12:02 PM

..man, are you culturally deprived. You live in NY where there idiot do-gooder mayor has everyone shoveling tofu and carrot juice down their maws?

The War Planner on April 30, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Think about it. People also have had concepts for elevators to get to space. But there are a few little problems like gravity, engineering feasibility, and the laws of physics.

dentarthurdent on April 30, 2012 at 11:41 AM

First, there should be a reason to do it. Then, there needs to be a return on investment. And then, a market for it should exist.

Then you figure out how do it.

BobMbx on April 30, 2012 at 12:05 PM

angrymike on April 30, 2012 at 11:58 AM

I know he was. Just because I didn’t ‘say’ anything-doesn’t mean that I wasn’t reading along. LoL
I’ve got to go walk to drop off the rent check. It’s a 6+ mile walk…each way.
be back later.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 30, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Meh… In-N-Out burgers are so-so, (way over rated) but they do make the best french-fries on the face of the earth…

SWalker on April 30, 2012 at 12:05 PM

..watchit buster! You could get banned here for sacrilege like that!

The War Planner on April 30, 2012 at 12:06 PM

How appropriate to read this in Hot Air.

Drained Brain on April 30, 2012 at 12:07 PM

;-)

The War Planner on April 30, 2012 at 12:07 PM

gravityman on April 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Except that we’re all paying higher prices for electricity because of the push to these technologies that are not economically feasible. It’s a good deal for the farmers since they get paid for minimal land use, but the unreliability of the electricity produced wreaks havoc on the rest of the grid, and still requires the old-fashioned power plants to maintain a base load supply – and the rest of us pay for that.

dentarthurdent on April 30, 2012 at 12:07 PM

OMG. I can’t stand for laughing! Serves them right, though my dad’s investment in wind power might be hardest hit. Better sell-NOW! ;-)

totherightofthem on April 30, 2012 at 12:10 PM

“We attribute this warming primarily to wind farms,” the study said. The temperature change could be due to the effects of the energy expelled by farms and the movement and turbulence generated by turbine rotors, it said.

I’m in no way a warmist, but I really, really doubt that. And I really doubt that the wind farms are causing “a warming trend of up to 0.72 degrees Celsius per decade”. That’s just nonsense. The turbulence at those farms just can’t do that, and it hardly makes sense anyways. Are they saying that in 30 years the area in the wind farm will be ~2.1 degrees warmer than the surrounding area? Nonsense.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the temp change was mostly due to differences in land use. If the wind farms are in farm country, the surrounding farms will be cooler. This comment really hints at the land use angle:

The Texas study found the temperature around wind farms rose more at night, compared with nearby regions. This was possibly because while the earth usually cools after the sun sets, bringing the air temperature down, the turbulence produced by the farms kept the ground in their area warm.

strictnein on April 30, 2012 at 12:10 PM

anotherJoe on April 30, 2012 at 12:04 PM

When ice melts into water, the water level does not change in any significant way. The buoyancy of the ice increases as its mass decreases, keeping it floating at the same depth. The water re-entering the body of water is simply filling the area previously displaced by the ice.

Your observations are precisely what you’d expect if you had a scientific understanding of science.

Washington Nearsider on April 30, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Actually there is a way. You could motorize the generator and turn it into a big fan which would transfer pump heat (for lack of a better term) into the atmosphere.

Oldnuke on April 30, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Hmmmmm…..interesting. We could reduce or eliminate the threat of volcanoes and earthquakes if we could cool the core of the planet enough. Say we drove large heat sinks into the core, and then drew the heat up and blew it into the atmosphere.

Lets get some taxes on that right away.

BobMbx on April 30, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Agreed – but since the AGW alarmists all use fake science for their arguments, and deny those problems are actual problems and it’s all for the greater good to stop global warming – then pointing to the possibility that their anti-globull warming systems are actually contributing to globull warming at the very least makes for an entertaining debate.

dentarthurdent on April 30, 2012 at 11:54 AM

They have a set outcome they believe in wholeheartedly from which they can not be dissuaded (the Earth is warming, and it’s bad, period). They are maniuplating their models and theories about what impacts the climate based on the outcome they are sure is happening. The result is that no matter what happens in the actual climate data, they can back into a theory that supports how that data backs up their warming claims.

I suppose for a scientist, it’s nice work if you can get it. Imagine having a field of science where no matter what actually happens in the real world, you can say it is exactly what you “expect to see” and fits perfectly with your theory because you are backing into your theories from a specific outcome. The resulting upside is that they are never wrong… whatever happens always backs up their claim of warming. How great would it be to be a scientist who is never wrong?

gravityman on April 30, 2012 at 12:13 PM

This is the first thing I ask when I get into one of these debates.

“I am perfectly willing to discuss how humans have altered the temperature of the planet. In order to find a starting point though, I need to know what temperature Earth is supposed to maintain. Once we’ve established that, we can determine just how much of an effect we’re having.”

The conversation tends to end there.

Washington Nearsider on April 30, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Another thing that tends to cause an end to fruitless conversation is to point out that the CO2 levels on our planet were very much higher than they are now, back when ferns, animals, and bugs were massive because of the optimal conditions for plants and animals. Conditions that included, you guessed it, higher temperatures. Right now CO2 levels are at practically suffocation levels for plants and they need to be higher for them to flourish.

I go on to tell people that Gaia evolved humans to the point that they could help her raise the temperatures and the CO2 levels on the planet for the good of every living thing and we shouldn’t interfere with progress just when we are making some.

Lily on April 30, 2012 at 12:14 PM

First, there should be a reason to do it. Then, there needs to be a return on investment. And then, a market for it should exist.

Then you figure out how do it.

BobMbx on April 30, 2012 at 12:05 PM

No no no – that’s not the proper liberal methodology. First you figure out who in your crony group needs more money, then you dream up a coming catastrophe that has to be stopped, then you fake some data to “prove” it, then devise some unworkable technology that “needs additional funding for development”, then scare the hell out of the populace so you can pour in billions in tax $$ – for a nice campaign kick-back in return.
That’s how it REALLY works.

dentarthurdent on April 30, 2012 at 12:16 PM

dentarthurdent on April 30, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Oof. My error.

BobMbx on April 30, 2012 at 12:17 PM

I go on to tell people that Gaia evolved humans to the point that they could help her raise the temperatures and the CO2 levels on the planet for the good of every living thing and we shouldn’t interfere with progress just when we are making some.

Lily on April 30, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Now that right there is genius.

Washington Nearsider on April 30, 2012 at 12:18 PM

gravityman on April 30, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Weathermen come close, but I would have to say economists also seem to be able to make a career out of being wrong.

dentarthurdent on April 30, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Lily on April 30, 2012 at 12:14 PM

I bow to your logic skills.

dentarthurdent on April 30, 2012 at 12:21 PM

dentarthurdent on April 30, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Like I said, I’m not really an advocate of alternative energy, not until it can be as efficient as oil, gas, and coal. I’m just not personally opposed to wind farms on the grounds of it being an eye sore, but I suspect I am in the minority on that. There are certainly other reasons why they aren’t great for the local areas, as you noted. I was just commenting on the NIMBY aspect based on them being “ugly”.

gravityman on April 30, 2012 at 12:22 PM

The Texas study found the temperature around wind farms rose more at night, compared with nearby regions. This was possibly because while the earth usually cools after the sun sets, bringing the air temperature down, the turbulence produced by the farms kept the ground in their area warm.

This makes perfect sense. We often leave our windows open at night in the summer in hopes of catching that warming breeze. Let me tell you, in the summertime at night without a breeze, it gets so darn cold we turn the heat on.

“It rained all night the day I left
The weather it was dry
The sun so hot, I froze to death
Susannah, don’t you cry………”

BobMbx on April 30, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Windmils and solar cells are a joke. A cover for the bs artists (Chicken Littles) anti-energy agenda, seriously anti-energy. There cap & trade scheme, which passed in the House in ’09, would have mandated 83% CO2 cuts by 2050. Talk about taking a wrecking ball to civilization. Look at Holdren quote below. That was the goal.

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States… [we] must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth.” -John Holdren (1973), Obama’s Science Czar

Forget steel, go back to stone tools. No fire, though. That’ll make it fun!

Stewart Brand of the Whole Earth Catalogue put their goal this way, “We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster… to bomb us into the stone age, where we might live like [American] Indians…”

anotherJoe on April 30, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Are we sure this isn’t just a way for radical environmentalists to close down miniature golf courses?

dirtseller on April 30, 2012 at 12:28 PM

New source of climate warming: Wind farms

ALERT:

Studies now show conclusively that Wind Farms have altered and upset the migration patterns, and navigation of migratory birds !!

This has deleterious effect on ducks, geese, swans, hummingbirds, swallows, robins, and about any other bird you can mention.

ECO-SCAMS ARE DESTROYING THE PLANET !!

BigSven on April 30, 2012 at 12:29 PM

gravityman on April 30, 2012 at 12:22 PM

I understand. I don’t care for the eyesore argument either – I could care less – equivalent to tall buildings, power lines and cell towers in my view.

One other problem that has not been discussed much is that the turbulence caused by large wind farms produces blind spots in FAA and NORAD radars across the country. Not a good side-effect for either of those agencies to be blind in various areas.

dentarthurdent on April 30, 2012 at 12:32 PM

ECO-SCAMS ARE DESTROYING THE PLANET !!

BigSven on April 30, 2012 at 12:29 PM

You’ve got that right. Solyndra is busy not cleaning up its toxic waste.

totherightofthem on April 30, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Or perhaps they just pull the warmer air down closer to the ground in that area.

VerbumSap on April 30, 2012 at 12:42 PM

You’ve got that right. Solyndra is busy not cleaning up its toxic waste.

totherightofthem on April 30, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Oopsie. Missed that HA already had this posted. *sigh* That will teach me to start at the top and not the bottom of the home page.

totherightofthem on April 30, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Supporting windmills in order to preserve the envirnment seems, to me, to be bass-ackward on its face.

They’re not like solar panels, which only harvest excess energy that would go unused were it not harvested. Wind farms, by their very nature, drain energy from wind currents, alter their natural balance and can only, and predicably, result in climate change.

Whatever.

Tuning Spork on April 30, 2012 at 12:55 PM

“These changes, if spatially large enough, may have noticeable impacts on local to regional weather and climate,” the authors said.

Don’t worry; after covering 2/3′ds of America’s surface with toxic waste-generating solar panels, the thermal imbalances and massive destruction of flora from that will probably balance out all the warming, turbulence and weather disruption from the wind farms… or something.

logis on April 30, 2012 at 12:59 PM

The results, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, showed a warming trend of up to 0.72 degrees Celsius per decade in areas over the farms, compared with nearby regions without the farms.

This is hardly surprising. Even in nature, on a windy night, forests are usually slightly warmer than nearby open areas, because friction of the wind on the trees (which slows down the wind on the forest floor) generates some heat.

No wind turbine or electric generator is 100% efficient. When the wind strikes a turbine blade, some of the kinetic energy of the wind is converted to kinetic energy of rotation of the blade, some is lost as friction and converted to heat. If there is any friction in the turbine bearings or brushes of the generator, that energy is also converted to heat, and dissipated into nearby air.

Steve Z on April 30, 2012 at 1:07 PM

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States… [we] must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth.” -John Holdren (1973), Obama’s Science Czar

This was the exact mantra of the Cambodian revolution, a return to the earth; the return to pure noble savage Agrarian Society that has a more equitable distribution of property overseen by the Government. Facing fierce resistance, they killed everyone with a college education, who wore eyeglasses or who spoke a foreign language. When people began to die from lack of Doctors, it was blamed on “counter-revolutionary fervor”. Happily, the killing and the disposal of nearly 10% of the population was done in an Earth friendly, non-environmental impacting, Gaia loving, sustainable way.

They used heavy garbage sacks to suffocate men, women, children. Millions of them. So many eduacted were killed that that Phillip Rushton says the average I.Q. of the entire Country fell.

Good Movie about it is called “The Killing Fields”.

Bulletchaser on April 30, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Sorry, educated.

Bulletchaser on April 30, 2012 at 1:28 PM

The results, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, showed a warming trend of up to 0.72 degrees Celsius per decade in areas over the farms, compared with nearby regions without the farms.

Obama: I have just one word for this: FORWARD!

timberline on April 30, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Of course those will never be built in the US because we can’t let a little thing like domestic electrical power generation get in the way of airplane traffic…

Browncoatone on April 30, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Damn straight, especially when there are more reliable and cheaper ways of generating that power!

dominigan on April 30, 2012 at 1:29 PM

listens2glenn on April 30, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Whataburger rules.

BruceB on April 30, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Maybe this is why we’ve seen such a large increase or tornado’s in the southern region,because of the wind farms.

BruceB on April 30, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Amazing that this is just being written about after 30 years of throwing billions of taxpayer dollars each year at these wind turbines. Can’t people see they are just “big fans.” What do fans do? They dry things out which will, of course, warm up the nearby area. Proponents of wind as any source of energy are blind to the reality that wind is a failure. Sixty years ago farmers stopped using wind mills to pump water because it was feast or famine. Too much water when the wind blew and no water when the wind didn’t blow. Come on American taxpayers, contact your elected officials and tell them to to “Get some Sense”–stop all subsidies to wind and solar, stop production tax credits (just another form of subsidy), stop 1603 grants (more subsidy). You’re being conned if you think wind is viable–not in the free market is it viable.

cpasherry on April 30, 2012 at 1:45 PM

They’re not like solar panels, which only harvest excess energy that would go unused were it not harvested.

Tuning Spork on April 30, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Dude. Ever hear of these new fangled things called “farms”? We’ve been harvesting plenty of excess energy and putting it to good tasty use!

dominigan on April 30, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Maybe my memery fails me, but isn’t there a device called a cavitation heater? It works because
It agitates the water / liquid and the friction of the molecules heats the water/ liquid. Since air has some water vapor in it wouldn’t, all these windmills have the same effect on the air around them? Don’t know the answer, just asking the question.

stormridercx4 on April 30, 2012 at 1:59 PM

makes sense. friction of the wind would cause the surrounding air to warm. But this is a LOCAL event and thus not really meaningful. Wind farms are bad because of the threat to wildlife imo more so than this little bit of warming.

unseen on April 30, 2012 at 2:13 PM

cpasherry on April 30, 2012 at 1:45 PM

the goal of this environmental nutcases has always been to rewind the industrial revo*****.

unseen on April 30, 2012 at 2:15 PM

trolololo

WeekendAtBernankes on April 30, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Not to mention all the birds they kill and the loud, irritating noise they make….

albill on April 30, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Ain’t reality a bitch?

GarandFan on April 30, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2