Wind Farms cause global warming

[AcesHigh]

If you subscribe to AGW then in fact windmills DO cause global warming. In certain contries, Germany for one, nuclear power is being eliminated partially due to the "promise" of wind power and solar. Since these sources are so variable, fairly inefficient fossil fuel plants are needed as a back-up. So "wind" has caused (or will soon cause) an increase in CO2 emissions and thus an increase in AGW.

that makes no sense at all.

a good % of people who subscribe to AGW support nuclear energy.

and a good % of people who dont believe in AGW, are against nuclear energy.

dont mix things up.

people who subscribe to AGW are against the massive amounts of CO2 we are throwing in the atmosphere. Simple as that.

the solutions to replace CO2 emissive fuels or how to diminish them vary wildly amongst the many different groups.

its just ridiculous of some here to equate AGW with "greens".

[tomclarke]

If you subscribe to AGW then in fact windmills DO cause global warming. In certain contries, Germany for one, nuclear power is being eliminated partially due to the "promise" of wind power and solar. Since these sources are so variable, fairly inefficient fossil fuel plants are needed as a back-up. So "wind" has caused (or will soon cause) an increase in CO2 emissions and thus an increase in AGW.

that makes no sense at all.

a good % of people who subscribe to AGW support nuclear energy.

and a good % of people who dont believe in AGW, are against nuclear energy.

dont mix things up.

people who subscribe to AGW are against the massive amounts of CO2 we are throwing in the atmosphere. Simple as that.

the solutions to replace CO2 emissive fuels or how to diminish them vary wildly amongst the many different groups.

its just ridiculous of some here to equate AGW with "greens".

Those greens who do not support nuclear are putting ideology before reality. They annoy me a lot. However the more reflective and sensible greens do support nuclear, even though they may not much like it.

[KitemanSA]

If you subscribe to AGW then in fact windmills DO cause global warming. In certain contries, Germany for one, nuclear power is being eliminated partially due to the "promise" of wind power and solar. Since these sources are so variable, fairly inefficient fossil fuel plants are needed as a back-up. So "wind" has caused (or will soon cause) an increase in CO2 emissions and thus an increase in AGW.

that makes no sense at all.

Unable to parse the precise logic?

a good % of people who subscribe to AGW support nuclear energy.

Didn't say otherwise.

and a good % of people who dont believe in AGW, are against nuclear energy.

IBID

dont mix things up.

I am not mixing anything up. YOU may be, but not me!

people who subscribe to AGW are against the massive amounts of CO2 we are throwing in the atmosphere. Simple as that.

Where did I say anything to suggest differently?
If the "promise" of windmills causes anyone to eliminate a nuclear power plant it WILL result in a massive amount of CO2 being dumped into the atmoshpere since NEITHER windmills NOR solar are sufficiently reliable to provide the CO2 free baseload that a nuclear plant can. The nuclear plants would HAVE to be replaced with fossile fuel plants, increasing CO2 emissions, and leading to "AGW".

the solutions to replace CO2 emissive fuels or how to diminish them vary wildly amongst the many different groups.

Yup, but if they eliminate nukes in that mix, then additional AGW will result. And so far, there is a good correlation between the appearance of "alternative energy" (like windmills) and the elimination of nukes.

its just ridiculous of some here to equate AGW with "greens".

It is also ridiculous how some people TOTALLY misread into other people's posts statements that were never made.

[tomclarke]

If you subscribe to AGW then in fact windmills DO cause global warming. In certain contries, Germany for one, nuclear power is being eliminated partially due to the "promise" of wind power and solar. Since these sources are so variable, fairly inefficient fossil fuel plants are needed as a back-up. So "wind" has caused (or will soon cause) an increase in CO2 emissions and thus an increase in AGW.

that makes no sense at all.

Unable to parse the precise logic?

a good % of people who subscribe to AGW support nuclear energy.

Didn't say otherwise.

and a good % of people who dont believe in AGW, are against nuclear energy.

IBID

dont mix things up.

I am not mixing anything up. YOU may be, but not me!

people who subscribe to AGW are against the massive amounts of CO2 we are throwing in the atmosphere. Simple as that.

Where did I say anything to suggest differently?
If the "promise" of windmills causes anyone to eliminate a nuclear power plant it WILL result in a massive amount of CO2 being dumped into the atmoshpere since NEITHER windmills NOR solar are sufficiently reliable to provide the CO2 free baseload that a nuclear plant can. The nuclear plants would HAVE to be replaced with fossile fuel plants, increasing CO2 emissions, and leading to "AGW".

the solutions to replace CO2 emissive fuels or how to diminish them vary wildly amongst the many different groups.

Yup, but if they eliminate nukes in that mix, then additional AGW will result. And so far, there is a good correlation between the appearance of "alternative energy" (like windmills) and the elimination of nukes.

its just ridiculous of some here to equate AGW with "greens".

It is also ridiculous how some people TOTALLY misread into other people's posts statements that were never made.

You are wrong about renewables. True, 50% renewables would be very CO2 positive now for the reasons you say. But no-one has 50% renewables. As renewables come on stream so load balancing must be added. We have gas for quite a while, much better than coal.

As EVs become important intelligent EV charging can load balance. As can intelligent househole appliances of all sorts. intelligent electric heating, intelligent industrial supply use. There is a lot that can be done cheaply simply by incentivising intelligent automatic control of demand.

[choff]

I've been reading websites about the Viking settlements in Greenland. There are reports of Norse artifacts being found in the high central arctic, and a description of traveling to Greenland by sailing north from Norway and then east past lands that paid tribute to the Russians, then travelling on past barren lands until arriving at western Greenland. Even a claim they found the northwest passage and Vinland was on Vancouver Island, not so far from where I live.

The bottom line is that it was a heck of a lot warmer in the Viking era than now. Even discounting the more fantastic claims, they had horses, goats, sheep and cows grazing in Greenland 1000 years ago.

[KitemanSA]

You are wrong about renewables. True, 50% renewables would be very CO2 positive now for the reasons you say. But no-one has 50% renewables. As renewables come on stream so load balancing must be added. We have gas for quite a while, much better than coal.

If you have to replace coal baseload with "spinning reserve gas", you are still CO2 excessive. But my point had been about nuclear, as in the idiocy of Germany replacing nukes because "renewables" can do it.

As EVs become important intelligent EV charging can load balance. As can intelligent househole appliances of all sorts. intelligent electric heating, intelligent industrial supply use. There is a lot that can be done cheaply simply by incentivising intelligent automatic control of demand.

Maybe in 20 years when all the electrical appliences have been replaced... But by then, LFTRs and heck, even Polywells could do a better job.
But right NOW, windmills cause global warming, if you subscribe to AGW.

[KitemanSA]

You are wrong about renewables. True, 50% renewables would be very CO2 positive now for the reasons you say. But no-one has 50% renewables. As renewables come on stream so load balancing must be added. We have gas for quite a while, much better than coal.

If you have to replace coal baseload with "spinning reserve gas", you are still CO2 excessive. But my point had been about nuclear, as in the idiocy of Germany replacing nukes because "renewables" can do it.

As EVs become important intelligent EV charging can load balance. As can intelligent househole appliances of all sorts. intelligent electric heating, intelligent industrial supply use. There is a lot that can be done cheaply simply by incentivising intelligent automatic control of demand.

Maybe in 20 years when all the electrical appliences have been replaced... But by then, LFTRs and heck, maybe even Polywells, could do a better job.
But right NOW, windmills cause global warming, if you subscribe to AGW.

[93143]

As EVs become important intelligent EV charging can load balance. As can intelligent househole appliances of all sorts. intelligent electric heating, intelligent industrial supply use. There is a lot that can be done cheaply simply by incentivising intelligent automatic control of demand.

In other words, you are proposing machines that work when the sun shines and the wind blows, rather than when their owners want them to. That is basically what "intelligent" means in this context. The phrase "control of demand" should have been a huge red flag.

If Polywell or an equivalent is successful, problem solved. If solar panels on roofs end up being economic, great - they can help. If energy storage undergoes a sort of singularity, allowing wind and solar farms to provide baseload, okay - maybe they have their place, if they can get cheap enough to compete with Gen IV nuclear on a level playing field. Increases in efficiency at the point of use (Passivhaus and such)? All good. But don't pretend that "intelligent" "control of demand" is anything other than a gigantic step backward.

[Betruger]

Yes, ok, the system meaning all essential elements which includes people. Weakest link sort of deal. I'm not trying to play with words.

No I can't think of a better system.

One of the many factoids that propagates because it should like evidence against AGW being anything to worry about?

Don't know what you mean.

Neither do I. Apologies! I meant that there any number of individual vignettes which propagate on the internet and which appear to support a specific anti-science message (creationism, anti-AGW, to name two). Alhough when examined closely the individual vignettes are not incompatible with the relevant science (evolutionary theory, current climate modelling) they can taken as a whole, without careful examination, seem like strong evidence against.

The study's tentative conclusions as I remember them is that we are having AGW instead of natural cooling. That human influence is overriding what would otherwise be an opposite temperature trend.
I don't remember any refs or details with which to dig this study up, so I guess that's as far as I can inquire about/argue the subject.

There are many trends on decadal, multi-decadal timescales which can modify, or temporarily over-ride, whatever overall trend there is. Climate (and especially regional microclimate, which is what we experience) is very variable on short timescales! It is just very unclear how large each of these is, given the real temperature record comes from variability on many timescales and all of these different factors have some uncertainty associated.

It has been true in the past century that at different times man-made aerosol increase has roughly cancelled CO2 forcing, and also that volcanic activity has temporarily reversed it: so it is quite possible.

Best wishes, Tom

That's clear enough. Thanks Tom.

[AcesHigh]

Don't believe the headlines. Wind farms do not cause 'global' warming.

A recent study published in Nature Climate Change suggests that large wind farms could be pulling down hot air at night, raising the average temperature of the local region. The results of the study, however, have been widely misconstrued in the news media.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0 ... al-warming

...Yet exaggerated interpolation seems to be stock-in-trade for many of the media outlets covering this story. Take, for example, FOX News' headline: Wind farms are warming the Earth, or that of Forbes: Wind Farms Cause Global Warming! or that of the Inquistr's: Wind Farms May Contribute to Global Warming, or that of Newser: Latest Global Warming Culprit: Wind Farms. It should be noted that nearly all of these stories contradict their own headlines by explaining that the observed effect was local....

[seedload]

Don't believe the headlines. Wind farms do not cause 'global' warming.

A recent study published in Nature Climate Change suggests that large wind farms could be pulling down hot air at night, raising the average temperature of the local region. The results of the study, however, have been widely misconstrued in the news media.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0 ... al-warming

...Yet exaggerated interpolation seems to be stock-in-trade for many of the media outlets covering this story. Take, for example, FOX News' headline: Wind farms are warming the Earth, or that of Forbes: Wind Farms Cause Global Warming! or that of the Inquistr's: Wind Farms May Contribute to Global Warming, or that of Newser: Latest Global Warming Culprit: Wind Farms. It should be noted that nearly all of these stories contradict their own headlines by explaining that the observed effect was local....

Thanks for the post. Obviously, some media is part of the oil companies' campaign to both discredit AGW and simultaneously end any and all investment in alternative energy. I guess I am gullible because when I first saw these reports I actually believed that wind farms are causing global warming. You helped me out.

Now back to reading the more legitimate news items on global warming and its effects. Like this one:

Climate Change 'Is Harming Eye Health' - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/raconte ... 98982.html

Now that's news! Thank god for legitimate and realistic reports of the coming catastrophe.

[Diogenes]

It is the modulated carbon dioxide emissions from the orifices of command-economy proponents which are responsible for "Anthropological Global Warming."

I suggest that if we halt the modulation, or even the emissions themselves, it would resolve the problem.

[seedload]

Wind farms cause global warming because the subsidies would be more wisely spent on advancing nuclear power.

[krenshala]

I think its both: removing funds from nuclear power sources (of various flavors) and the increased output of modulated carbon dioxide sources.

[AcesHigh]

Don't believe the headlines. Wind farms do not cause 'global' warming.

A recent study published in Nature Climate Change suggests that large wind farms could be pulling down hot air at night, raising the average temperature of the local region. The results of the study, however, have been widely misconstrued in the news media.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0 ... al-warming

...Yet exaggerated interpolation seems to be stock-in-trade for many of the media outlets covering this story. Take, for example, FOX News' headline: Wind farms are warming the Earth, or that of Forbes: Wind Farms Cause Global Warming! or that of the Inquistr's: Wind Farms May Contribute to Global Warming, or that of Newser: Latest Global Warming Culprit: Wind Farms. It should be noted that nearly all of these stories contradict their own headlines by explaining that the observed effect was local....

Thanks for the post. Obviously, some media is part of the oil companies' campaign to both discredit AGW and simultaneously end any and all investment in alternative energy. I guess I am gullible because when I first saw these reports I actually believed that wind farms are causing global warming. You helped me out.

Now back to reading the more legitimate news items on global warming and its effects. Like this one:

Climate Change 'Is Harming Eye Health' - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/raconte ... 98982.html

Now that's news! Thank god for legitimate and realistic reports of the coming catastrophe.

well, if you like to only read the extreme views from both sides.

there are many gray shades in the middle of the debate.