Wind Farms Cause Climate Change

http://www.winddaily.com/

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Wind Farms Cause Climate Change

  1. Mike Davis says:

    Other than providing another repository for incoming energy ( the towers and blades absorb the energy from the sun) the turbines may restrict the wind speed a touch, but probably not even measurable.
    It was probably a result of what was in the pipes they were passing around during their research pow wows than some real world evidence!

  2. Latitude says:

    UH……..

    Wind turbines are not fans, wind turbines slow down air circulation.

    Where I come from, decreasing air circulation causes crops to get colder, wetter, and more fungal diseases………….

  3. Justa Joe says:

    They do provide some fertilization with all of those bird carcasses.

    This study was created by a bunch of guys that are tied into the climate change/wind “energy” biz. Following Seekers logic their finding would be suspect at best.

  4. Paul H says:

    “to extract growth-enhancing carbon dioxide [CO2] ”

    I thought CO2 was a nasty pollutant?

    • Andrew says:

      CO2 is certainly needed by plants, and at the same time it might also be a nasty pollutant in unusually high concentrations. For example, if you live on a submarine, CO2 concentrations can easily get up to 10,000 parts per million with no ill effects to the human crew. But above 50,000 ppm the CO2 will give you headaches, and above 100,000 ppm the CO2 will kill you.

      But the real problem with CO2 is what will 400 ppm or 500 ppm in the atmosphere do to the climate, when human civilization has only known 300 ppm until very recently. The greenhouse effect of CO2 (and also CH4) is real and scientifically well-understood. The climate effect is a matter of speculation that ranges from mere discomfort of billions to the apocalyptic end of civilization.

      This subject needs more serious discussion of the scientific and economic realities, and fewer snarky put downs, don’t you think?

      • I’ve been talking about it for 30 years, most of which on the other side of the fence.

        Did you just join the conversation?

      • Mike Davis says:

        Andrew:
        I guess you do think you are for real and what you said is based on historical facts! It is not! Well the part about the effect on climate. The health effects are well known.
        When talking about those or with that believe in fantasy logic and real world evidence do not work so Snark is what is left!

  5. Paul H says:

    “Wind Daily”

    They would not be funded by wind energy companies by any chance?

  6. Perry says:

    “Wind Daily”? No bloody thanks! Flatulence is the bugbear of the lustful classes. Most of the ladies I have conjugated with, have declined the methane experience.

    It’ Latin! Decline, conjugate, Amo, Amas, Amat, Amamus, Amatis, Amant!

    A classical education is all it takes.

  7. Perry says:

    Bugger, a missing “s”.

  8. Baa Humbug says:

    That is such a sad looking photo of a beautiful coastal area.

    There was a time when enviromentalists would have gone ape$hit over this sort of development in a coastal area.

    Their silence on this eco vandalism is deafening.

  9. Perry says:

    Baa Humbug,

    Think, pigs revved up on the runway, ready for takeoff. See all those props, sloooowilly turning.

    Trust not a brace or t’ree of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_Mac.

    You sent it to your tummy, but it goes straight to your head. Hic!

    Merry whatever.

    P

  10. Perry says:

    ***king ‘ell! I’ve jus’ forlan orf mi stool! Cawl, hic, corl a flamin’ hic fffff ambulance. Ohhh mi ‘ead ‘urts.

    Panic not. I am totally sober, but t’anks for caring.

  11. Bruce says:

    Rising CO2 causes more windmills.

    Rising CO2 causes increased plant growth.

    Therefore more windmills cause increased plant growth.

    Pure logic. You know I’m right. Now gimme my grant cheque.

  12. Mike Davis says:

    I can not understand why anyone in their right mind would want to farm wind. If I want wind I just put out a couple of wind socks to capture any wind I might need. True! I do have a tree farm but I can do some useful stuff with trees. What kind of useful stuff can you do with wind that you can not do better with a store bought wind thingy. Maybe they are growing “Genetically Modified” wind of even “Organic” wind but it still does not make sense when there is enough wind already to go around.

  13. RoyFOMR says:

    I have a question, it may be a silly question but I’ll ask it anyway. I may add a few supplementary questions as well 🙂
    In the last few days we’ve heard lots about how little wind-power has contributed to the UK grid. Figures of 0.1% have been banded about and I make no claim to dispute them.
    What puzzles me is just WHY these figures are so low. Have UK wind-speeds, throughout the 3k or so large generators, slumped in this current cold spell or is there another reason?
    IIRC, Scottish Power was paid some £30k earlier this year to stop a batch of turbines cranking away because their contributions may have had a negative effect on Grid balancing.
    Given that the severity of the weather has set the target for a high demand that necessitates a ramping up of base-load, could it be that adding multiple, but unpredictable sporadic energy sources, may increase the possibility of supply outages?
    Maybe the published figure of 0.1% contribution to our energy needs is so low because a decision was taken to stop them them turning for technical reasons rather than meteorological ones!
    Does anyone know a source for the geographical contributions of Wind Power in the UK rather than just an aggregated amount? If so, it may when compared against Met Office records for windspeed throw up some interesting clues that may help me to an answer for my original question.

  14. Perry says:

    RoyFOMR

    Wind Map. Scotland is not very breezy right now . Aviemore has 1mph, so great for winter sports.

    http://www.xcweather.co.uk/

    Electricity generation. Select “Generation by fuel types (table0 from left hand column.
    Wind is generating 447 MW or 0.9% of consumption. 8-36 a.m.

    http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm

    The wind speed range is critical. More often than not, it’s too much or too little.

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/search/label/wind
    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/search/label/wind%20farms

  15. Andrew says:

    stevengoddard: This is my first time viewing your blog. I’m guessing you’re a fan of Richard Feynman. So am i. It’s sad that he never got to visit Tuva.

    Mike Davis: I’m a fan of evidence and logic. Do you have a theory as to why 97% of practicing climate scientists erroneously think the sky is falling? Are they as daft for anthropomorphic climate change as astrophysicists are for Dark Matter?

    • suyts says:

      Andrew, welcome. I, too, am a fan of evidence and logic; logic being necessary to properly interpret evidence. This brings me to the 97%. Have you looked at the actual numbers of the 97%? 97% is really 75 or 76 respondents. Try reading the study. Here’s some sites that’ll get you started. Its another useless, meaningless number not relevant to anything. They just have well as ran the 2500 number up the pole again.

      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/97-consensus-is-only-76-self-selected.html

      http://sppiblog.org/news/the-97-consensus-is-only-75-self-selected-climatologists

    • My father was one of Feynman’s students.

    • Mike Davis says:

      They still believe in the Geocentric Universe and the Piltdown Man. Disease is caused by evil spirits that are repaying humanity for not respecting them! By paying Indulgences we can atone for our sins.
      Sim Planet in their Game Boys is more realistic than the real world! Proper statistical methods result in any answers you want to get, all that is required is to use the answer to find the proper method.
      The only other thing is there is a world of difference between Climate Scientists and Climatologists. It is more drastic than the difference between Astronomers and Astrologers or Mathematicians and Numerologists.
      You apparently were referring to Climatologists. 97% of those writing peer reviewed papers that support ACC believe what they wrote!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s