4 ms·

I'm curious why you think it would be free of effect. I asked because it occurred to me that it could. Then, someone pointed me to the paper (linked in this th

I'm curious why you think it would be free of effect. I asked because it occurred to me that it could. Then, someone pointed me to the paper (linked in this thread) and the researchers say so: "Large-scale use of wind power can alter local and global climate by extracting kinetic energy and altering turbulent transport in the atmospheric boundary layer" and "very large amounts of wind power can produce nonnegligible climatic change" Whether or not that change is a problem is the next step of the process. CO2 doesn't have anything to do with this situation, because wind turbines don't produce much CO2.

dahart 3y ago
I suggested the effect might be too small to measure, and I’d guess that’s true today despite some researchers saying it might be possible. Really stop to think about the volume of air passing through turbines (most of which isn’t disturbed much) compared to the volume of all air. I think that’s what the comment about going into orbit was about. We’re talking about the tiniest fraction of the earth’s air coming into contact with turbines. I don’t know that there’s no effect at all, maybe there is a little, but it doesn’t seem very plausible that the effect could amount to much given the obviously enormous ratio of air that’s not affected to air that is. We probably have several orders of magnitude more turbulence in the air due to cities and airplanes and other man made structures than turbines. CO2 absolutely has everything to do with this, because you asked about climate change. CO2 is one of the things use of turbines is intended to reduce. You can’t ask a question about climate change and proceed to ignore CO2. CO2 emissions are reduced when coal plants are replaced with turbines. If you want to have any idea of the affect of turbines on climate change, you must account for the relative changes in CO2, and it’s likely to be larger than whatever effects turbulence cause. If you are interested in what turbulence can do to the climate, then it’s also important to ask the question what has already happened due to deforestation. Does the introduction of turbines have any chance of compensating for the number of trees we’re removed from exposure to surface winds?
- ibejoeb 3y ago
  > I’m curious why you suspect there’s any effect. What am I supposed to say? > CO2 absolutely has everything to do with this In fact, it's not. The climate is not comprised entirely of CO2. You're so wrapped up in the unrelated issue of CO2 that you're not addressing the actual question. My question is "can wind turbines provoke climate change?" It's not "how is wind better than coal?" Why not ask "how do wind turbines reduce atmospheric H2O?" It's ridiculous. This is a reasonable thing to consider. If there is no material effect, or if there is a mitigation, then we're golden. But I'm hearing "you're so dumb for even thinking that, and have you even seen them from space, and what about coal?" Well fuck me for asking then. > Does the introduction of turbines have any chance of compensating for the number of trees we’re removed from exposure to surface winds? Let's ask that question. I don't know why we should conflate those two things, but yeah, what has deforestation done to the climate?
  - dahart 3y ago
    Please relax, you seem really defensive. We can have a friendly discussion. Your question is reasonable to ask, I’m just asking you (like the other commenter did) to consider the scale of your question, and to do some napkin-arithmetic estimates of the maximum possible magnitude of effect that turbines might have on the earth’s air, in order to answer the question you asked. There might be some effect. I’ll be surprised if it’s large, but it wouldn’t be the first time I was surprised. I’m also asking you to make some comparisons and put it in context. It doesn’t make sense to ask about wind turbine air turbulence causing climate change without asking the same question about cities and all the existing power plants and all man-made and plant structures that obstruct air. It’s not possible to answer your question about turbines and climate without talking about CO2, so if you refuse to discuss CO2, then... CO2 is the known cause of current climate change. I didn’t ask if wind is better than coal (answer:yes). The pre-supposed answer to your question by many people is that use of turbines will cause positive changes to the climate due to their ability to reduce CO2. Will that be offset by warming caused by turbulence? Personally I doubt it, but maybe. Deforestation is, as I understand it, contributing to warming, among other environmental negatives. It also removes turbulence causing obstacles from the boundary layer of air at the same time that turbines are adding some. Why wouldn’t you worry about tree turbulence, if you’re going to worry about wind turbine turbulence?

dahart 3y ago

I suggested the effect might be too small to measure, and I’d guess that’s true today despite some researchers saying it might be possible. Really stop to think about the volume of air passing through turbines (most of which isn’t disturbed much) compared to the volume of all air. I think that’s what the comment about going into orbit was about. We’re talking about the tiniest fraction of the earth’s air coming into contact with turbines. I don’t know that there’s no effect at all, maybe there is a little, but it doesn’t seem very plausible that the effect could amount to much given the obviously enormous ratio of air that’s not affected to air that is. We probably have several orders of magnitude more turbulence in the air due to cities and airplanes and other man made structures than turbines. CO2 absolutely has everything to do with this, because you asked about climate change. CO2 is one of the things use of turbines is intended to reduce. You can’t ask a question about climate change and proceed to ignore CO2. CO2 emissions are reduced when coal plants are replaced with turbines. If you want to have any idea of the affect of turbines on climate change, you must account for the relative changes in CO2, and it’s likely to be larger than whatever effects turbulence cause. If you are interested in what turbulence can do to the climate, then it’s also important to ask the question what has already happened due to deforestation. Does the introduction of turbines have any chance of compensating for the number of trees we’re removed from exposure to surface winds?

ibejoeb 3y ago
> I’m curious why you suspect there’s any effect. What am I supposed to say? > CO2 absolutely has everything to do with this In fact, it's not. The climate is not comprised entirely of CO2. You're so wrapped up in the unrelated issue of CO2 that you're not addressing the actual question. My question is "can wind turbines provoke climate change?" It's not "how is wind better than coal?" Why not ask "how do wind turbines reduce atmospheric H2O?" It's ridiculous. This is a reasonable thing to consider. If there is no material effect, or if there is a mitigation, then we're golden. But I'm hearing "you're so dumb for even thinking that, and have you even seen them from space, and what about coal?" Well fuck me for asking then. > Does the introduction of turbines have any chance of compensating for the number of trees we’re removed from exposure to surface winds? Let's ask that question. I don't know why we should conflate those two things, but yeah, what has deforestation done to the climate?
- dahart 3y ago
  Please relax, you seem really defensive. We can have a friendly discussion. Your question is reasonable to ask, I’m just asking you (like the other commenter did) to consider the scale of your question, and to do some napkin-arithmetic estimates of the maximum possible magnitude of effect that turbines might have on the earth’s air, in order to answer the question you asked. There might be some effect. I’ll be surprised if it’s large, but it wouldn’t be the first time I was surprised. I’m also asking you to make some comparisons and put it in context. It doesn’t make sense to ask about wind turbine air turbulence causing climate change without asking the same question about cities and all the existing power plants and all man-made and plant structures that obstruct air. It’s not possible to answer your question about turbines and climate without talking about CO2, so if you refuse to discuss CO2, then... CO2 is the known cause of current climate change. I didn’t ask if wind is better than coal (answer:yes). The pre-supposed answer to your question by many people is that use of turbines will cause positive changes to the climate due to their ability to reduce CO2. Will that be offset by warming caused by turbulence? Personally I doubt it, but maybe. Deforestation is, as I understand it, contributing to warming, among other environmental negatives. It also removes turbulence causing obstacles from the boundary layer of air at the same time that turbines are adding some. Why wouldn’t you worry about tree turbulence, if you’re going to worry about wind turbine turbulence?