4 ms·

The analysis in the papers as well as the article quite deceptively presents possible surface temperature effects in a 100% onshore windfarm scenario, as a fact

The analysis in the papers as well as the article quite deceptively presents possible surface temperature effects in a 100% onshore windfarm scenario, as a factor of global warming. I view this as a controversy motivated inversion of the fact that wind turbines extract energy/heat from the atmosphere in contrast with heat plants (fossil and nuclear) which necessarily release around twice the amount of useful energy they output, as heat to local air and water resources. A global warming or cooling effect of atmospheric mixing is not established here or obvious to predict, being complicated by cloud cover, precipitation, natural vegetation and farming albedo changes... yet in the context of this "downside discussion" it is associated to wind as a technical risk. This kind of modelling is of crucial importance to environmental stewardship, but this kind of analysis is at best a stimulating exercise and at worst an obstruction to long over due investment in the clear technological solutions that we are fortunate to have at our disposal. (Wind power wouldn't be much use if fated with a Martian type atmosphere)

jessriedel 8y ago
As I interpret your comment, you are dismissing this paper's conclusions about warming effects using just the arguments that (1) intuitively wind power absorbs energy, not releases it like combustion; and (2) the atmosphere is complicated. Is that it? (1) seems like an obvious red herring since the heating/cooling effects of fossil fuels have nothing to do with the thermodynamic energy release of combustion. And (2) isn't an argument for cooling, just uncertainty, and you've given us no reason to trust you over a journal article.
- strainer 8y ago
  Wind turbines do absorb energy from the atmosphere, that is clear thermodynamic fact not my intuition. Having arranged an atmospheric modelling capability, these researchers should have included the scenario for heat plants concentrated emissions in their study, or at least in a full discussion. "heating/cooling effects of fossil fuels have nothing to do with the thermodynamic energy release of combustion" Re-examine that assumption - If windfarm's might cause problematic warming through atmospheric mixing, how have you assumed ground level heat emission from power plants can cause none? There is actually a growing body of research into this which indicates significant geographical warming is possible. You could look into "effects of anthropogenic heat flux on climate"
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    I did not include "intuitively" to suggest that it's wrong, only to make clear you're not saying anything surprising here. I also did not assume ground level heat emissions from power plants cause literally zero warming, only that it's negligible. The rest of your reasoning is similarly confused.
    - strainer 8y ago
      "model results show that AHR has a significant impact on surface temperature and that it is able to affect global atmospheric circulation, leading to a 1-2 K increase in the high-latitude areas of Eurasia and North America. The results show that AHR is able to affect global climate despite being limited to a region." Anthropogenic Heat Release: Estimation of Global Distribution and Possible Climate Effect https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jmsj/92A/0/92A_2014-A10/_article https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jmsj/92A/0/92A_2014-A10...
      - jessriedel 8y ago
        That paper confirms that carbon dioxide and other gases are the dominant cause of climate temperature changes, not anthopogenic heat release. It furthermore includes all anthropogenic heat (e.g., in cities), not just the heat release from combustion during power production which is relevant to our discussion. Since you apparently aren't arguing in good faith, I won't continue the discussion.
        strainer 8y ago
        The paper indicates 1-2K of temperature increase from current levels of AHR which is 4 to 8 times as great as the hypothetical situation in the papers that you have now elected to insult me for criticizing. In the discussed papers ALL energy consumption is generated by renewables (includes transport, air conditioning etc). You must understand that entails ALL AHR (besides a tiny fraction of body heat) Presently almost all AHR is created by burning fossil fuels - producing waste heat (a portion of AHR) and useful energy which is used and then surely ?? you know this >> ends up as heat again (the other portion of AHR) So my faith is good here - you feel free not continue, especially in the manner you started.

jessriedel 8y ago

As I interpret your comment, you are dismissing this paper's conclusions about warming effects using just the arguments that (1) intuitively wind power absorbs energy, not releases it like combustion; and (2) the atmosphere is complicated. Is that it? (1) seems like an obvious red herring since the heating/cooling effects of fossil fuels have nothing to do with the thermodynamic energy release of combustion. And (2) isn't an argument for cooling, just uncertainty, and you've given us no reason to trust you over a journal article.

strainer 8y ago
Wind turbines do absorb energy from the atmosphere, that is clear thermodynamic fact not my intuition. Having arranged an atmospheric modelling capability, these researchers should have included the scenario for heat plants concentrated emissions in their study, or at least in a full discussion. "heating/cooling effects of fossil fuels have nothing to do with the thermodynamic energy release of combustion" Re-examine that assumption - If windfarm's might cause problematic warming through atmospheric mixing, how have you assumed ground level heat emission from power plants can cause none? There is actually a growing body of research into this which indicates significant geographical warming is possible. You could look into "effects of anthropogenic heat flux on climate"
- jessriedel 8y ago
  I did not include "intuitively" to suggest that it's wrong, only to make clear you're not saying anything surprising here. I also did not assume ground level heat emissions from power plants cause literally zero warming, only that it's negligible. The rest of your reasoning is similarly confused.
  - strainer 8y ago
    "model results show that AHR has a significant impact on surface temperature and that it is able to affect global atmospheric circulation, leading to a 1-2 K increase in the high-latitude areas of Eurasia and North America. The results show that AHR is able to affect global climate despite being limited to a region." Anthropogenic Heat Release: Estimation of Global Distribution and Possible Climate Effect https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jmsj/92A/0/92A_2014-A10/_article https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jmsj/92A/0/92A_2014-A10...
    - jessriedel 8y ago
      That paper confirms that carbon dioxide and other gases are the dominant cause of climate temperature changes, not anthopogenic heat release. It furthermore includes all anthropogenic heat (e.g., in cities), not just the heat release from combustion during power production which is relevant to our discussion. Since you apparently aren't arguing in good faith, I won't continue the discussion.
      - strainer 8y ago
        The paper indicates 1-2K of temperature increase from current levels of AHR which is 4 to 8 times as great as the hypothetical situation in the papers that you have now elected to insult me for criticizing. In the discussed papers ALL energy consumption is generated by renewables (includes transport, air conditioning etc). You must understand that entails ALL AHR (besides a tiny fraction of body heat) Presently almost all AHR is created by burning fossil fuels - producing waste heat (a portion of AHR) and useful energy which is used and then surely ?? you know this >> ends up as heat again (the other portion of AHR) So my faith is good here - you feel free not continue, especially in the manner you started.