Week in Review
One of the solutions to global warming has one minor drawback. Wind farms may cause global warming. Talk about your ironies (see Wind farms can increase night time temperatures, research reveals by Damian Carrington posted 4/29/2012 on The Guardian).
Large windfarms can increase local night time temperatures by fanning warmer air onto the ground, new research has revealed. The study used satellite data to show that the building of huge wind farms in west Texas over the last decade has warmed the nights by up to 0.72C…
The scientists say the effect is due to the gentle turbulence caused by the wind turbines. After the sun has set, the land cools down more quickly than the air, leaving a cold blanket of air just above the ground. But the turbine wakes mix this cold layer with the warmer air above, raising the temperature. A previous study found a similar effect but was based on data from only two weather stations over just six weeks.
“The result looks pretty solid to me,” said Steven Sherwood at the climate change research centre at the University of New South Wales, Australia. “The same strategy is commonly used by fruit growers, who fly helicopters over the orchards rather than erect windmills, to combat early morning frosts…”
He told the Guardian that his results could not be used as an justification for blocking new wind farms. “The warming might have positive effects,” he said. “Furthermore, this study is focused only on one region and for only 9 years. Much more work is needed before we can draw any conclusion.”
For those outside the metric system, that 0.72 degrees Celsius temperature rise is almost 2 degrees Fahrenheit. Which can be the difference between water and ice. Or frost.
This warming might have positive effects? As opposed to the kind of warming that wind farms are supposed to prevent? Interesting. Warming is bad. So we need to build wind farms. Wind farms may cause warming. But, hang on, warming can now be beneficial (such as when it improves crop yields in orchards). What is this? Schrödinger’s Cat? That is both alive and dead when sealed in a box. And only do we know its true state when we open the box and observe what’s inside. If so then why do the global warming alarmists, I mean scientists, always assume the cat is dead when it could very well be alive?
Of course it’s premature to draw any conclusions because it’s been barely a decade of study. We don’t want to jump to any conclusions like they did when they said an ice age was coming. Just before they changed their mind and said it was global warming. And the science had always said it was global warming. Despite what conclusions they jumped to back then. Back to Schrödinger’s Cat we go. Where apparently they observe what they want to observe to favor the prevailing political climate. So I guess it’s climate science after all. The science of political climate.