« prev   random   next »

2
0

Global Warming Friendly Fire: Harvard Study Says Wind Farms Contribute Net Temp Increase

By MockingbirdKiller following x   2018 Oct 8, 1:50pm 338 views   34 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


The study, by Harvard researchers and published in the energy research journal Joule, found if the country relied entirely on wind power for energy, the average temperature in the continental United States would climb by almost a quarter of a degree Celsius.

Why? The researchers say that the warming comes from the fact that the wind turbines churn the air, and "the exchange of heat, moisture, and momentum between the surface and the atmosphere" cause temperatures to rise.

James Temple, writing in MIT Technology Review, said the study "raises serious questions about just how much the United States or other nations should look to wind power to clean up electricity systems."

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/wind-power-global-warming/


I love it when the global warming grant whore industry ends up making 'friendly fire' studies that piss all over said fraud! It's soooo awesome!

1   MockingbirdKiller   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 8, 1:51pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Oh, and yes...this is a pre-emptive response for the Global Warming Fraudsters who will no doubt raise hell over this post:

2   Evan F.   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 8, 1:59pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/06/wind-power-does-not-cause-global-warming-is-one-of-the-best-solutions/

Nah, it's cool, just keep burning as much gas and coal as possible and everything will be fine.
3   MockingbirdKiller   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 8, 2:03pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Evan F. says
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/06/wind-power-does-not-cause-global-warming-is-one-of-the-best-solutions/


You are now saying that Harvard published a bogus scientific story!

Awesome! Yet MORE friendly fire!

Evan F. says
Nah, it's cool, just keep burning as much gas and coal as possible and everything will be fine.


Bitch to the Chinese and Indians. US has reduced its CO2 emissions to 1992 levels -- and they keep dropping.
4   Evan F.   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 8, 2:15pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

MockingbirdKiller says
You are now saying that Harvard published a bogus scientific story!


Please point out where I wrote that Harvard published a bogus story. Seriously. Where did I write that? I really want to know.

I never wrote anything of the sort. And neither does the article I linked to. The article explains why this research paper is being interpreted as being evidence that green alternatives are somehow worse than our current energy infrastructure. Based on their model, yes temperatures could potentially rise by .25 C if we used 40% wind power. If we stuck with the current coal power allocation, temperatures would rise by 2.5C.

It's just irresponsible for the anti-environmentalist media to spread bullshit like this. Wind power is cheap, cleaner and better than coal fired plants, why anyone would die on this hill is beyond me.
5   Evan F.   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 8, 2:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

MockingbirdKiller says
Bitch to the Chinese and Indians. US has reduced its CO2 emissions to 1992 levels -- and they keep dropping.


Sure, but our per capita CO2 emissions is still double that of China and 10x that of India. China and India, sure they need to get their act together too. Also Canada, Saudi Arabia, Australia, in addition to the US. I don't see what badmouthing wind power has to do with this, if it ends up lowering people's electric bill while also cleaning up the air.

Maybe it's because Koch industries is clinging ever-so-tightly to the status quo.
6   socal2   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 8, 3:44pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Evan F. says
I don't see what badmouthing wind power has to do with this, if it ends up lowering people's electric bill while also cleaning up the air.


Sure - but recognize it is going to take a shit-ton more ugly windmills to put a dent in our energy needs.



7   Evan F.   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 8, 3:53pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

socal2 says
Sure - but recognize it is going to take a shit-ton more ugly windmills to put a dent in our energy needs.


I'd rather that than more coal fired plants. More solar, too.

Ugly windmills? Is that really the argument against these things? Because this is so staggeringly gorgeous:
8   MockingbirdKiller   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 8, 4:13pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Evan F. says
Please point out where I wrote that Harvard published a bogus story. Seriously. Where did I write that? I really want to know.


You posted an article that disputes what they say. Seriously. That is what you did. That is declaring the Harvard study as officially bogus, whether you try to squirm out of doing that or not.

Evan F. says
Sure, but our per capita CO2 emissions i


Who cares? Per capita doesn't mean anything if you TRULY CARED about saving Mother Gaia as you types always claim. Only total emissions matter. Mother Gaia could care less about how the emissions produced are distributed by per capita unless THEY ARE emitted by per capita, which they aren't.

Only those cloaking BS communist wealth redistribution as 'environmentalism' every bring up the 'per capita emission' BS. You just outed yourself. Congrats!

Evan F. says
Maybe it's because Koch industries is clinging ever-so-tightly to the status quo.


Now you just outed yourself as flat out trolling. No big surprise.
9   Evan F.   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 8, 4:43pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

MockingbirdKiller says
You posted an article that disputes what they say. Seriously. That is what you did. That is declaring the Harvard study as officially bogus, whether you try to squirm out of doing that or not.


Nah. The article I posted is not calling the Harvard research bogus, instead it's calling your conclusions based on the paper bogus. See the difference?

Of course per capita emissions matter. They tell us the average American uses far more energy than most people do. Apparently nobody here feels responsible for correcting that. What's the alternative, Mr. Mockingbird killer? More of the same?

You publish this erroneous garbage with the smug notion that 'hey, I've got those stupid environmentalists cornered now!' without any attention paid to actual facts. The right decries it when the MSM engages in this cherry picking but here you have the exact same tactic coming from your corner.

How on Earth am I trolling when Koch Industries churns out more greenhouse gases than Chevron, Shell or Valero.
10   HEYYOU   ignore (18)   2018 Oct 8, 6:16pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Forget Global warming! Trolling does not protect one from chemically polluted air,earth & land.
What chu eating,drinking,breathing?
11   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 8, 7:35pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The researchers say that the warming comes from the fact that the wind turbines churn the air, and "the exchange of heat, moisture, and momentum between the surface and the atmosphere" cause temperatures to rise.

First of all, the "energy" was already in the air, all the windmill did was transform it. No new heat was created, The wind can either hit turbine blades, or it can continue until it creates friction with other air masses or land/water, and that friction will cause "heat" only as much as was already in the air anyway.

Same with solar cells. That sunlight was going hit something anyway, and whether it warms some surface or is converted to electricity has the same "energy added."

If that "the exchange of heat, moisture, and momentum between the surface and the atmosphere cause temperatures to rise" were true, we would have the formula for a perpetual motion machine.
12   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 8, 7:40pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Of course per capita emissions matter. They tell us the average American uses far more energy than most people do.

So you are on board with limiting USA population growth? Close the borders would be a great first step, we already have a declining birthrate. And only with fewer of us can we maintain a first world lifestyle that can be supported by wind, solar, and other renewables.
13   RC2006   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 8, 7:45pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

US population along with the rest of the first world is declining on its own. We need to force the third world to decrease its populations and stop overflowing into everyone else. Better to do it now than latter through war.
14   Automan Empire   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 8, 8:22pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I'm skeptical of the study's claim, that turbines mix the air as claimed. They are installed in passes and on ridges with mad wind speeds, not on plains where a stable temperature inversion can form, to be disturbed as they claim.

This smacks of fossil fuel interests reallllly reaching for a reason to dislike wind turbines.
15   komputodo   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 8, 8:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Evan F. says
Nah, it's cool, just keep burning as much gas and coal as possible and everything will be fine.


How about not turning to the govt to fix everything and start taking some personal responsibility and quit being so wasteful.
16   komputodo   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 8, 8:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

RC2006 says
We need to force the third world to decrease its populations


yeah that sounds like an american plan...Let's FORCE other countries to do what we want. LOL.
17   komputodo   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 8, 8:36pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
So you are on board with limiting USA population growth?


I'm on board with the plan to stop being so wasteful..you know, the 15 minute hot shower, the long commute with no passengers, heating and cooling a 2500 sq ft house...the american traditions!...we should just force other countries to cut back.
18   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 8, 10:03pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Evan F. says
Sure, but our per capita CO2 emissions is still double that of China and 10x that of India. China and India, sure they need to get their act together too. Also Canada, Saudi Arabia, Australia, in addition to the US. I don't see what badmouthing wind power has to do with this, if it ends up lowering people's electric bill while also cleaning up the air.


You’re right about wind power. Aside from chopping up unwary birds, it’s pretty environmentally friendly.
I don’t think your numbers on China are correct tho. China has 1.2 billion, three times our 400 million people. China emits more than twice the carbon we do, and much much more dirty air. In fact, 25% of the air pollution on the west coast originated in China. Their standards are just horrible awful world killing terrible. 1/2=1/3 is the ratio so we emit 1.5x the carbon per capital as China. That’s not bad considering we have a higher standard of living and lots more freedoms.
19   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 9, 9:45am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I'm not concerned with the myth of global warming, I like clean air, so I am for wind power. This study sounds like nonsense because trees would, in theory, do the same thing.
20   TrumpingTits   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 9, 9:23pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Evan F. says
The article I posted is not calling the Harvard research bogus, instead it's calling your conclusions based on the paper bogus. See the difference?


No. You pretty much tried to use your article to call the Harvard study bogus and, like all Greentard trolls, refuse to acknowledge this when you got caught.

That's the difference.
21   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Oct 10, 2:25am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TrumpingTits says
Evan F. says
The article I posted is not calling the Harvard research bogus, instead it's calling your conclusions based on the paper bogus. See the difference?


No. You pretty much tried to use your article to call the Harvard study bogus and, like all Greentard trolls, refuse to acknowledge this when you got caught.

That's the difference.


Harvard study says wind energy process equates to more heat, not more pollution. Evan's article suggests wind energy equals less pollution.

The articles arent discussing the same thing.
22   bob2356   ignore (2)   2018 Oct 10, 6:59am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

MockingbirdKiller says
You are now saying that Harvard published a bogus scientific story!

Awesome! Yet MORE friendly fire!


CBOEtrader says

Harvard study says wind energy process equates to more heat, not more pollution.


MockingbirdKiller says


I love it when the global warming grant whore industry


Not grasping the concept are we? THERE IS NO WARMING. DUH. The heat is being moved around. Global warming is about ADDING heat. There isn't anything bogus other than the bullshit being spread right here starting with the OP. The surface air will be slightly warmer and the air above the surface will be slightly cooler. Which would only happen if the entire energy grid was supplied by electricity from turbines in the flat midwest. A possibility that is a slightly less likely than an asteroid wiping out all life on earth. So the whole thing is a publish or perish mental masturbation exercise for ideological idiots. Which was funded by the solar energy industry. Always follow the money..
23   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2018 Oct 10, 7:21am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
THERE IS NO WARMING.

Finally talking sense.
24   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Oct 10, 7:40am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
Not grasping the concept are we?


Lol, bob to the rescue. i was pointing out the idiocy of the arguing over which of those articles is correct, completely from the title. I have made no points or statements about either article, in any way...but im sure you just couldnt help yourself when you think you can pretend to be smarter than others. Haha you must be fun at cocktail parties.
25   Evan F.   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 10, 10:40am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TrumpingTits says
No. You pretty much tried to use your article to call the Harvard study bogus and, like all Greentard trolls, refuse to acknowledge this when you got caught.


I'm not sure you read the article I originally sourced. Where in that article does it say that the Harvard study was bogus? The article takes issue with the language the Harvard study uses, and how it's being interpreted. Did you read the Joule article? Here's an interesting nugget from the Summary section:

Wind's overall environmental impacts are surely less than fossil energy.

You're not making a very compelling case with the histrionic name calling.
26   Evan F.   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 10, 10:45am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
Aside from chopping up unwary birds, it’s pretty environmentally friendly.


The current estimate is that wind farms collectively kill up to 400,000 birds per year. Meanwhile, oil fields kill over 1,000,000 birds per year. Honestly, citing bird deaths as a reason to avoid wind farms is a bit silly, considering how many hundreds of millions of birds die annually from other causes:

https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm
27   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 10, 10:52am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
Harvard study says wind energy process equates to more heat, not more pollution. Evan's article suggests wind energy equals less pollution.


Point is, the Harvard study is bullshit. Wind power is undeniably better for the environment than fossil fuels. That said, the nature of it and where it can be used makes it doomed to be only a supplemental source of energy. Still, get enough supplemental energy sources together and you’ve really got some power.

When I came to California 15 years ago there were rolling blackouts and brownouts on the regular. Now that never happens. What’s changed? Well, we shut down the nuclear plant so it’s not more generation. What has changed are all the renewables in use now. The estimate is that in the summer during the daylight hours, nearly half of California power is supplied by renewables including solar and wind. That’s a lot of juice, and it’s saving a lot of fuel and air pollution.

I like breathing. It’s nice to see the noticeable difference between then and now in smog.
28   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 10, 10:58am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I like breathing. It’s nice to see the noticeable difference between then and now in smog.

I like the less smog also, but smog abatement was more from adding catalytic converters to cars.
29   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 10, 11:13am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Darwin will develop a wind farm smart bird, but not an oil resistant bird.
30   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Oct 10, 11:16am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ceffer says
Darwin will develop a wind farm smart bird, but not an oil resistant bird.


There is miles and miles of garbage cheap land in the midwest, and the wind can knock semis off the road. Pretty sure a few dead sparrows wouldnt be a problem.
31   MockingbirdKiller   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 10, 11:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
int is, the Harvard study is bullshit.


But! But it is from Harvard! Establishment Science! Credentialed WAAY more than you are!

bob2356 says
Not grasping the concept are we? THERE IS NO WARMING. DUH.


I am grasping it quite well. Harvard just shat all over you Global Warming Fraud Useful Idiots. And you are in denial about it.

Loving this. Soo funny.
32   MockingbirdKiller   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 10, 11:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
The articles arent discussing the same thing.


Which is even more funny!
33   bob2356   ignore (2)   2018 Oct 11, 9:31am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
bob2356 says
Not grasping the concept are we?


Lol, bob to the rescue. i was pointing out the idiocy of the arguing over which of those articles is correct, completely from the title. I have made no points or statements about either article, in any way..


I used your quote for what the sentence said not you opinion about the articles. Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions about my intentions. I don't do cocktail parties, but I'm a lot of fun tailgating after a day of snowboarding.

MockingbirdKiller says
bob2356 says
Not grasping the concept are we? THERE IS NO WARMING. DUH.


I am grasping it quite well. Harvard just shat all over you Global Warming Fraud Useful Idiot


Very, very obviously not grasping anything.
34   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Oct 11, 9:37am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
I'm a lot of fun tailgating after a day of snowboarding.


Bob's dating profile hook line




The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions