4 ms·
Here's a 2004 study looking at that question https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0406930101 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0406930101 The answer is th
by papercrane 3y ago
Here's a 2004 study looking at that question https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0406930101 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0406930101
The answer is that it would take a lot and is dwarfed by GHG climate change.
- ibejoeb 3y agoGood link, thanks. I said nothing about wind vs petro/coal. But we're at a point where we've decided that we've taken petro too far, and it changed the climate, so we need to replace it with something else. We're rolling out something new, but I'm not seeing a lot of activity on addressing the potential for the new thing to change the climate. "Although large-scale effects are observed, wind power has a negligible effect on global-mean surface temperature." Hmm. Is that the de facto measure of bad climate change?
- modzu 3y agoYes because if the mean temperature continues to rise the earth will become uninhabitable sometime around 2012
- ibejoeb 3y agoLol. But, seriously again, isn't that a weird thing to examine in this study? The researchers hypothesize that wind turbines might increase the surface temperature, and they found that they do not. Great. I don't know why anyone would look to examine that, since they produce negligible GHG. If I were examining it, I would look at stuff like how much wind energy getting removed changes things that are contingent on wind.