Comments on: Texas wind farms increase land surface temperature

By: brian organ

brian organ — Sat, 13 Oct 2012 22:36:19 +0000

TEFFECT ON A WEATHER PATERN IS DEPENDENT UPON THE UNDERLYING CONDITIONS ie WHETHER IT IS STABLE OR UNSTABLE
A small pertibation in the starting conditions will have no effect on the outcome over time and space ifte conditions are stable
However a “trivial small” pertibation can have an unpredictable effect if the underlying conditions are unstable.

food for thought

By: Spikosauropod

Spikosauropod — Tue, 08 May 2012 00:03:56 +0000

There is definitely evidence that the climate has changed. Of course, we can’t trust the results because Phil Jones and Michael Mann forgot they are not politicians. It is a classic example of trying to make something perfect and destroying it completely.

Now, we can never be certain if this is an isolated case of bad judgment or just the tip of some hideously incomprehensible iceberg. Anyone who has studied history realizes it is probably the latter.

In any case, Jones and Mann were not behaving as scientists. They were not analyzing facts, forming hypothesis and testing them. Where scientists are absent, science is absent. They transformed what should be the objective science of climatology into the religion of Global Warming.

Now it is one of the great religions—right up there with Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and Hinduism; and no politician who wants to be taken seriously dares tout the tenets of this faith.

By: trakk

trakk — Mon, 07 May 2012 15:17:05 +0000

You are totally wrong. Global warming sceptics like you are the kind of people who ignore facts and try to paint people who agree with global warming as ignorant.

By: trakk

trakk — Mon, 07 May 2012 15:07:47 +0000

Most scientists agree that global warming is real and most politicians say that it isnt. I’d rather believe in science than politicians.

By: Spikosauropod

Spikosauropod — Mon, 07 May 2012 01:08:05 +0000

Not a movement so much as a religion. I am certain that the vast majority of followers do not actually understand the subtle statistics that are used to advance the theory. For them, belief in global warming is a matter of faith. The prophets and priests of their religion are their source of confidence, not true understanding. When Bill Maher said that vaccines are not an established science like global warming, he was not speaking from a subtle grasp of immunology. Most followers of the global warming religion are like Bill Maher.

The real unmasking of this faith-based meme comes when followers are confronted with technologies, other than their iconic windmills and solar panels, that threaten to undermine the dogma of their faith. They say bombastic things like, “You are never going to beat peak oil,” and sanctimonious things like “Others are actually doing something about climate change.” All of this paraphrases into something akin to, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to Gaia except through me.”

And what is always the proposed solution to this pending crisis? Why nothing less than a new world order…a giant bureaucratic oligarchy headed by environmentalist intellectuals and politically connected eco-dilettantes. Would anyone like to discuss the subtle fallacies of centrally planned economies?

I say to all: Pray that the Singularity comes swiftly!

By: trakk

trakk — Sun, 06 May 2012 10:44:47 +0000

People who think global warming as a ”movement” and think that those who agree with it as ”followers” are the biggest tards in my opinion.

Global warming is not an ideology. Is gravity an ideology? Is rain or snowfall an ideology?

This is what happens when half wit morons spout their opinions.

By: Spikosauropod

Spikosauropod — Sat, 05 May 2012 18:28:17 +0000

They tried Gaia on as their deity, but the religion isn’t quite ready for that stage.

By: Spikosauropod

Spikosauropod — Sat, 05 May 2012 18:27:05 +0000

There is legitimate science behind the global warming movement, but it has become too much like a religion in its first stages of development. Greenhouse emissions are their Satan, polar bears are their martyrs, windmills and solar panels are their icons, Al Gore is their prophet, and, unfortunately for us, Ray Kurzweil is their Galileo.

By: Editor

Editor — Fri, 04 May 2012 14:34:50 +0000

Peter: In posting this story, I was careful not to modify the NASA wording in its statement in http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/tx-wind-farm.html, because this is not an area I have any expertise in. Neither do I personally have any opinions about climate change, for the same reason. http://www.atmos.albany.edu/facstaff/zhou/tmp/press_release_QA.pdf and http://www.atmos.albany.edu/facstaff/zhou/tmp/nclimate1505-aop.pdf have more in-depth information on the study that may help address some of the comments brought up here. In addition, the NASA statement is based on the peer-reviewed paper in the April 29 issue of Nature Climate Change (the news item is linked to Liming Zhou, et al. Impacts of wind farms on land surface temperature, Nature Climate Change, 2012; DOI:10.1038/nclimate1505), so that would probably be the most useful document to consult.

By: Editor

Editor — Fri, 04 May 2012 14:13:35 +0000

Peter said: “may, might, could, possibly, hope, expect etc. all indicating that they are based largely on supposition and imagination rather than real science.”

The language we use is carefully taken from statements and papers by scientists and other experts, mostly from leading academic and other institutions. We do not knowingly modify these carefully qualified verbs. If you find an example where we have made such a distortion, I would be grateful so I can correct it. Or perhaps you are saying these statements are not based on science? If so, perhaps you give provide an example? I would also note that the use of conditional verbs and qualifiers is generally associated with long-range science research and future studies, which is what we mostly cover. Definite statement are more often associated with short-range technology studies and with marketing.

By: Peter Simmons

Peter Simmons — Fri, 04 May 2012 13:43:56 +0000

Of course, it could be that Chris Thorncroft, chair of the Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences department at University at Albany, is just looking for something to do to continue the grants. But it is typical of most of the ‘stories’ on this site, which contain words like – may, might, could, possibly, hope, expect etc. all indicating that they are based largely on supposition and imagination rather than real science. Others are actually doing something about climate change, rather than fiddling about with inconsequentials. I think of this as a techno-cult site, all the dreamers who believe that science fiction is fact, that it’s only a question of time before every techno fix is invented and, there there, we don’t have to worry about anything, we’ll all live forever so don’t need to worry about dieing blah blah blah. Fantasy.

By: Peter Simmons

Peter Simmons — Fri, 04 May 2012 13:36:26 +0000

No, you’ve just failed to understand.

By: Peter Simmons

Peter Simmons — Fri, 04 May 2012 13:35:27 +0000

Actually you, along with Kurzweill?, have failed to understand what is going on. While air in proximity to the turbines will be warmer – waste energy loss – the energy has been extracted from the wind and therefore, surprise surprise, won’t be released when the wind hits trees, buildings and mountains; any other large structures. Got it? So quick to jump to conclusions based on your anti-green mindset that you make an idiot of yourself. So go away and think a bit harder Kevin.

By: Spikosauropod

Spikosauropod — Thu, 03 May 2012 06:46:40 +0000

But that’s the irony. The study and subsequent article do not have an agenda. That is what real science is like.

Scientists are not people who worship Gaia. They are people who propose and test hypotheses.

By: Nemo

Nemo — Thu, 03 May 2012 06:03:21 +0000

Climate change denier Troll comments for a pseudo scientific article with a clear deceptive agenda – Well done Kurzweil AI, I have noticed a lower standard of articles of late – keep it up and Kurzweil AI can become a Conspiracy Magazine for idiots.

By: Spikosauropod

Spikosauropod — Thu, 03 May 2012 05:19:47 +0000

Speak NOT of this study…for Gaia shall loose statistically anomalous weather patterns upon us all!

By: Kevin George Haskell

Kevin George Haskell — Wed, 02 May 2012 22:47:31 +0000

The article conclusively proves that the radical-Green figurative blowing of hot air about wind turbines has turned out to to be literally the case that wind turbines are blowing hot air. Couldn’t be more apropos.

By: Lord Penguin

Lord Penguin — Wed, 02 May 2012 21:51:04 +0000

I’m glad this article tries to not be misleading, unlike a lot of articles on this subject (as Jason noted).

By: renaissanceman

renaissanceman — Wed, 02 May 2012 19:35:34 +0000

Spikosauropod,
This study is stepping on no one’s toes because it says absolutely nothing. Its about as relevant as studying the effects of a fan in your house.

By: Spikosauropod

Spikosauropod — Wed, 02 May 2012 18:27:50 +0000

OMG, someone is stepping on the toes of the global warming people.

The reaction we are seeing shows that climate change science is actually a religion.

By: Nemo

Nemo — Wed, 02 May 2012 15:16:54 +0000

What utter garbage science

By: gaoptimize

gaoptimize — Wed, 02 May 2012 14:43:54 +0000

Of course reducing winds by absorbing some of their energy reduces convective cooling of the land. However, the emmisivity of warm air is a fraction of now warmer ground, and so the net effect would likely be a decrease in net solar heat. These issues should be carefully modeled with real data before someone accuses windmills of contributing to global warming.

By: AWEAJason

AWEAJason — Wed, 02 May 2012 10:51:40 +0000

This “new study” of the effect of local air mixing at the site of a wind farm says nothing about wind energy and global climate, and casts no doubt on all the other studies that find wind power is one of the best ways to address climate change. Local air mixing has nothing to do with climate, because no heat or heat-trapping gases are being added to the atmosphere.

To clarify the facts:

-Wind plants do not contribute to climate change, and in fact they are one of the leading technologies preventing climate change by avoiding fossil fuel use and the emission of greenhouse gases
-All studies have found that any impact wind plants may have on local weather is trivially small.

Read our full fact check on the Into the Wind Blog at http://bit.ly/IEC4tI