[DS Forum Support]

Originally Posted by njp

I have never denied that windturbines can create their own micro-climate. Most built structures have some kind of effect on the environment. However, advection fog does not require the presence of an aerodynamic structure, and can happen in the same weather conditions with or without the presence of turbines. Only where the windfarm alone is shrouded in advection fog can one confidently assert causation. In those circumstances, the turbines have forced the warmer air into contact with the cooler sea.


And straight back to the unsupported assertions. How do you imagine windturbines "create" humidity? You seem to be getting confused with aircraft exhausts! How do you know the effect seen in your solitary image is not rare?


No. We have one apparently rare method, and one not so rare method. And we (or rather you) have yet to show that either of them have any significant effect on climate.




It depends. Water vapour will condense if the vortex core temperature drops below the dew point. If the temperature is low enough, the water droplets will freeze. Usually, they will promptly turn back into water vapour as they leave the conditions which formed them, making the phenomenon short-lived. Indeed, one of the reasons I suspected this phenomenon is rare in wind turbines is because the (so far unique!) photograph showed a persistent effect. I think that requires quite an unusual coincidence of circumstances.

Oh, and I think you mean visible wingtip vortices, since they are there whether you can see them or not!

This thread is a continuation of: Royal Society forced to think again on AGW (Part 2)

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by njp

Only where the windfarm alone is shrouded in advection fog can one confidently assert causation. In those circumstances, the turbines have forced the warmer air into contact with the cooler sea.

Even then you may not be able to confidently assert that. Advection fog can happily form on it's own and gives us nice pictures of fog rolling in from the sea. If there's fog and no wind, so no blade movement then it may not be possible to attribute the fog to the windmills.

And straight back to the unsupported assertions. How do you imagine windturbines "create" humidity? You seem to be getting confused with aircraft exhausts!

And straight back to the misquoting. I never said windmills 'create' humidity, althought the surface effects may encourage evaporation.. Or there's no 'may' about that given there's 1.5 peer reviewed papers showing those effects. The PNAS one was another Schneider sponsored paper so not counting that as a 'proper' paper, even though it discussed this effect. I think I also pointed out the difference between contrails and the effects shown, so it's not me getting confused.

How do you know the effect seen in your solitary image is not rare?

Nothing about the physical processes suggests it woudl be rare, nothing about the image suggests the weather conditions were anything unusual. I never suggested they were 'rare', you did. And still can't explain why.

But then this is pretty much what Trenberth did recently. Declare consensus and that climate science is settled, and challenge the sceptics to prove him wrong. Or find his missing heat for him. It's his job, and your job to support your statement and why you think it 'rare'.

I suspected this phenomenon is rare in wind turbines is because the (so far unique!) photograph showed a persistent effect. I think that requires quite an unusual coincidence of circumstances.

Such as? Shame the EXIF info is missing from the image though. The location is known, so the weather reports could be checked.

Oh, and I think you mean visible wingtip vortices, since they are there whether you can see them or not!

Yes, I know that. The non-visible effects are something being studied with the larger windmills given wake turbulence from large aircraft's vortices can crash small ones. It may suprise you that both the fog effects and wake effects are of interest to the MoD and others given potential implications for radar and aircraft.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Even then you may not be able to confidently assert that. Advection fog can happily form on it's own and gives us nice pictures of fog rolling in from the sea.

That's why I specifically talked about the windfarm alone being shrouded in fog! Try reading my words next time.

And straight back to the misquoting. I never said windmills 'create' humidity

Here are your words from the previous thread:

Originally Posted by Jelly Quixote

So as I said, a function of blade speed/design creating the low pressure, temperature and humidity. But nothing 'rare' as you seemed to think.

If you don't want to be misunderstood, chose your words more carefully.

Or there's no 'may' about that given there's 1.5 peer reviewed papers showing those effects. The PNAS one was another Schneider sponsored paper so not counting that as a 'proper' paper, even though it discussed this effect. I think I also pointed out the difference between contrails and the effects shown, so it's not me getting confused.

What are you droning on about now? The PNAS paper is a perfectly proper paper - we've discussed the PNAS submission procedures exhaustively in the past, and (as usual) you were wrong, and I was right.

I don't think the PNAS paper discussed either advection fog or wingtip contrails. IIRC, it was talking about boundary layer mixing. And found no significant global impact.

Nothing about the physical processes suggests it woudl be rare, nothing about the image suggests the weather conditions were anything unusual. I never suggested they were 'rare', you did. And still can't explain why.

Well, I think it's rare. And you still have only a single image, so it looks like I'm right. If you want to explain with the relevant equations and weather statistics why you are right, and I am wrong, go ahead. I decided that was too much work, so I'm sticking with my informed intuition, and your lack of counter-evidence.

[bmillam]

perhaps Mr plod is taking a leaf out of AGW alarmists book. and plaid about with the evidence. loose a bit there add a bit here.

*earth *h*eats

Jones in Lincs

I received a lot of nasty emails from November to March/April last year from people threatening to kill me among other things. I passed them on to Norfolk police who said they didn’t fulfil the criteria for death threats.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011...-in-lincs.html

[bmillam]

self-regulation of the climate system so where is all the AGW warmers evidence refuting this then.

Self Regulation Of The Climate System By Deep Cumulus Convection

.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.co...us-convection/

[bmillam]

wonderful things. most reliable when you really want them.

We Spent Billions on Wind Power… and All I Got Was a Rolling Blackout

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/0...ling-blackout/

[andykn]

Originally Posted by bmillam

self-regulation of the climate system so where is all the AGW warmers evidence refuting this then.

Self Regulation Of The Climate System By Deep Cumulus Convection
.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.co...us-convection/

Er, where are all the sceptics who like to remind us that the earth has been much warmer? Are you now saying it wasn't?

[andykn]

Originally Posted by bmillam

wonderful things. most reliable when you really want them.

We Spent Billions on Wind Power… and All I Got Was a Rolling Blackout

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/0...ling-blackout/

Er, we had rolling blackouts in the 70s, but that was shortage of coal. Don't think we've had any since.

Were the ones in Texas anything to do with wind either? "Tripped" isn't normally associated with lack of generating capacity.

[bmillam]

Originally Posted by andykn

Er, where are all the sceptics who like to remind us that the earth has been much warmer? Are you now saying it wasn't?

depends how far back you are thinking. I suppose.

[bmillam]

Originally Posted by andykn

Er, we had rolling blackouts in the 70s, but that was shortage of coal. Don't think we've had any since.

Were the ones in Texas anything to do with wind either? "Tripped" isn't normally associated with lack of generating capacity.

7,000 megawatts of generating capacity probably wind power that wasn't. leaving conventional power suppliers unable to take up the slack.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by bmillam

depends how far back you are thinking. I suppose. p p

But how does that tie in with what you posted? Is any of that somehow time related?

[andykn]

Originally Posted by bmillam

7,000 megawatts of generating capacity probably wind power that wasn't. leaving conventional power suppliers unable to take up the slack. p p

I don't think wind power "trips".

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by njp

That's why I specifically talked about the windfarm alone being shrouded in fog! Try reading my words next time.

Yes, you said advective fog but you seemed to deny any causation with the windmills. I'd considered the same, but looked more closely at the images.

If you don't want to be misunderstood, chose your words more carefully.

Ah, when losing an argument, eat, shoot and leave.

I don't think the PNAS paper discussed either advection fog or wingtip contrails. IIRC, it was talking about boundary layer mixing. And found no significant global impact.

Allow me to toss this cherry back at you

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16115.full

We find that very large amounts of wind power can produce nonnegligible climatic change at continental scales.

But as you say, it didn't really go very deeply into the humidity effects of boundary layer mixing. But as we know, CAGW happens because clouds amplify the effects of CO2. So we solve the problem by utilising a technology that increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.. H2O is a much more potent GHG than CO2 isn't it?

I decided that was too much work, so I'm sticking with my informed intuition, and your lack of counter-evidence.

You've provided no evidence for your 'rare' statement. I've shown you a black swan where large clouds are formed in good weather conditions. Nothing in the science, or images suggests the phenomena or conditions were in any way unusual, or rare. You don't like this idea, because according to CAGW dogma, clouds are bad.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by andykn

I don't think wind power "trips".

Texas invested heavily in 'renewables' rather than conventional generation. So when demand outstrips supply because climate change isn't happening as expected, or the wind just isn't blowing, demand has to be managed and Texas gets it's rolling blackouts.

The only reason they're occuring is because renewables don't and can't deliver reliable, predictable power. They're simply an enormous waste of money.

[Orri]

Originally Posted by bmillam

self-regulation of the climate system so where is all the AGW warmers evidence refuting this then.

Self Regulation Of The Climate System By Deep Cumulus Convection
.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.co...us-convection/

Given that the linked page mentions massive rises in equatorial sea temperature, or almost all the icecaps melting, it would seem that it isn't claiming that global warming is not happening, or that somehow the rise in surface temperature is constrained. What it is saying is that there won't be massive changes in the temperature of the troposphere until a certain level of warming at the surface has taken place.
What is being explained is why there is no significant warming in the upper atmosphere, although it does mention a certain pressure level, so it's not absolute altitude that's being talked about. That last is important because otherwise tracking temperature at a specific height would give a misleading impression of what is going on.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by Orri

What is being explained is why there is no significant warming in the upper atmosphere, although it does mention a certain pressure level, so it's not absolute altitude that's being talked about. That last is important because otherwise tracking temperature at a specific height would give a misleading impression of what is going on.

You mean like the surface temperature record? Yes, that can be misleading. But for real science, we need to be able to accurately measure both surface and space. Diff is then GW and might help Trenberth find his missing heat.

But glad someone mentioned cumulonimbus clouds given they form at levels close to the hub height of the biggest windmills, and well below the blade height of many. Climate scientists get nervous about the role of GCR's and cloud condensation nuclei wrt cloud formation, yet seem nonplussed when we build and deploy machines to creat CCN's and potentially climate change.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Texas invested heavily in 'renewables' rather than conventional generation. So when demand outstrips supply because climate change isn't happening as expected,

Perhaps they were the sort of moron who thinks that predicted temps for 2050 will be reached by even decadal rises, even though the rises of last century weren't.

Or don't understand what the CC stands for in IPCC.

or the wind just isn't blowing, demand has to be managed and Texas gets it's rolling blackouts.

The only reason they're occuring is because renewables don't and can't deliver reliable, predictable power. They're simply an enormous waste of money.

Really?:

"Initially, it appears, some coal plants went offline due to cold-weather problems, taking a large chunk of electricity out of the grid. Luminant, a major power-generation company, confirmed that its two coal units at the Oak Grove plant in Robertson County failed, as did two units at a coal plant in Milam County."

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-en...xas-blackouts/

[Orri]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

So we solve the problem by utilising a technology that increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.. H2O is a much more potent GHG than CO2 isn't it?

The problem here is that the clouds/fog being formed are from water that was already in the air. The energy removed from the air has lowered the temperature and pressure enough. It would have been obvious to you if you had paid a bit of attention earlier. The main risk here is that the water falls to the sea, or that it doesn't reach the shore. And given the "clouds" are close to the surface, and will dissipate as soon as the air warms up again, I fail to see the problem. An other scenario would be one where the fog is static, and thus a super saturated body of air lies over the sea. In that situation it would prevent evaporation, and thus decrease the amount of water vapour in the air.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by andykn

Or don't understand what the CC stands for in IPCC.

Climate Change. It's why Queensland built desalination plants and allowed dams to go over capacity to cope with predicted droughts. Doh!

Really?

Yep. How much new baseload capacity has been built in Texas over the last decade compared to 'renewables'? UK has similar issues in lack of capacity for similar reasons, but will affect a country rather than a state.:

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by Orri

And given the "clouds" are close to the surface, and will dissipate as soon as the air warms up again, I fail to see the problem.

You're ignoring potential boundary layer mixing. It's often a fairly shallow layer.

An other scenario would be one where the fog is static, and thus a super saturated body of air lies over the sea. In that situation it would prevent evaporation, and thus decrease the amount of water vapour in the air.

Less likely given the fog wouldn't be static if it were being produced by the windmills, it'd drift downwind and dissipate. Rest is probably a scaling issue, ie the Horns Rev image is a few square kilometer effect. Larger offshore windfarms may create larger effects from forced evaporation due to turbulence and enhanced cooling/warming due to the cloud/fog layer. Night time, it'd trap heat the same way AGW dogma predicts CO2/H2O forcing, daytime it'd reduce heat absorbed by the sea.

[alanwarwic]

So the catastrophic once in 100 years Amazon drought of 2005 happened again in 2010.
Eight billion tonnes of carbon dioxide are pumped out with trees shutting down.

Its a god job that it should not happen again for another 10,000 years.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

So the catastrophic once in 100 years Amazon drought of 2005 happened again in 2010.
Eight billion tonnes of carbon dioxide are pumped out with trees shutting down.

Trees tend to shut down when CO2 levels drop, but source?

Meanwhile, something to ponder..

http://www.heatisonline.org/contents...16&method=full

Amazon rainforest 'could become a desert'

And that could speed up global warming with 'incalculable consequences', says alarming new research

The Independent (U.K.), July 23, 2006

..Studies by the blue-chip Woods Hole Research Centre, carried out in Amazonia, have concluded that the forest cannot withstand more than two consecutive years of drought without breaking down.

It's 2011. They haven't broken down. But then this is the paper that gave us the end of snow story. Can't find this article at the Indie, so perhaps they've hit the history eraser button on it to avoid any more embarrassment like their 'expert' forecast on snowfall caused them.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Climate Change. It's why Queensland built desalination plants and allowed dams to go over capacity to cope with predicted droughts. Doh!

"predicted"? You should get out more, Australia has been in permanent drought for many years.

Yep. How much new baseload capacity has been built in Texas over the last decade compared to 'renewables'? UK has similar issues in lack of capacity for similar reasons, but will affect a country rather than a state.:

Sorry, should have put more of the quote in:

"Initially, it appears, some coal plants went offline due to cold-weather problems, taking a large chunk of electricity out of the grid. Luminant, a major power-generation company, confirmed that its two coal units at the Oak Grove plant in Robertson County failed, as did two units at a coal plant in Milam County. "We are in various stages of start-up and operation for that group," Allan Koenig, a Luminant spokesman, said via e-mail. Three of these four units only began operating in the last few years; "
...
"We didn't have enough available gas,"

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

But then this is the paper that gave us the end of snow story. Can't find this article at the Indie, so perhaps they've hit the history eraser button on it to avoid any more embarrassment like their 'expert' forecast on snowfall caused them.

Or perhaps you don't want people reading what was actually said:

"Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared"

So, even though BAA were actually expecting snow:

"Heathrow's snow team has been working for months to ensure the UK's hub airport will once again be prepared for the onset of winter."

They were still "unprepared"

http://www.heathrowairport.com/porta...0357e120a____/

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...st-724017.html

[Orri]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

It's 2011. They haven't broken down. But then this is the paper that gave us the end of snow story. Can't find this article at the Indie, so perhaps they've hit the history eraser button on it to avoid any more embarrassment like their 'expert' forecast on snowfall caused them.

Have they had more than two consecutive years of drought then?
If not then the prediction hasn't been tested.

And as the prediction about snow has 10 years to run, and we're already being surprised by snow, it's hard to see how that has failed.

As far as snow goes, I think a lot of local authorities took a gamble on being able to save money by not making preparations. If I was being cynical I might wonder if causing a revolt against anti-AGW measures was a side benefit in some minds.