3 ms·

Wind turbines do absorb energy from the atmosphere, that is clear thermodynamic fact not my intuition. Having arranged an atmospheric modelling capability, thes

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

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.