Wind Farms Cause Localised Warming At Night, But It Is Nice Eco Warming

Study shows that wind farms increase night time temperatures by .72 C, but do not worry because experts say this type of warming would be beneficial.

Apart from turning birds of prey into raptor mince, bursting the lungs of bats flying nearby, destroying the environment where they are manufactured, producing an unreliable electricity supply, pushing up energy costs with their lifeline of Green subsidy, wind farms now cause localised warming at night and very  large wind farms have the potential to alter weather systems as well.

A study by the University of Illinois shows that wind farms decrease day time temperatures slightly and increase night time temperatures:

But wind can affect local climates, making it cooler in the day and warmer at night, according to research from the University of Illinois. The lead researcher, U of I atmospheric sciences professor Somnath Baidya Roy, worked on the study with Neil Kelley, a principal scientist at the National Wind Technology Center. Roy had earlier proposed a model describing the local climate impact of wind farms. Kelley had collected temperature data from a wind farm in San Gorgonio, California, in 1989.

Side by side, the model and data confirmed each other.

“The study found that the area immediately surrounding turbines was slightly cooler during the day and slightly warmer at night than the rest of the region,” according to a description on ScienceDaily.

According to Roy, when turning turbine rotors generate turbulence, upper-level air is pulled down toward the surface, and surface-level air is pushed up.

The mention of any form of man made warming should have the ecomentalists baying for the end of wind power and predicting localised environmental holocaust, instead the Big Green Spin Machine has gone into overdrive to try and spin the bad news, Damian Carrington in the Guardian:

“Overall, the warming effect reported in our study is local and is small compared to the strong year-to-year changes” that result from natural variation, said Zhou. The study is published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

He told the Guardian that his results could not be used as an justification for blocking new windfarms. “The warming might have positive effects,”

The usual hypocrisy and Greenwash from Carrington when it comes to wind farms, warming caused by a wind farm could have positive effects, warming caused by fossil fuels could only have negative effects, so it is not the warming that matters, but how the warming comes about that defines if the warming has a positive or negative effect.

About Tory Aardvark

Climate Realist, Conservative and proud NRA member. I don't buy into the Man Made Global Warming Scam, science is never settled. @ToryAardvark on Twitter ToryAardvark on Facebook

Posted on April 30, 2012, in Anthropogenic Global Warming, Climate Change, Green Jobs Lie, Green Lies, Renewables, Sustainable Development, Wind Power and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 20 Comments.

  1. You guys really do make me laugh.
    This whole web site is against the idea of man made climate you have been bleating for years that human activity could not POSSIBLY contribute to Global Warming… never never never. The scientists promoting it must be liars, You say.

    But, wait! Now there’s a study, presumably by a scientist, which shows that Wind Turbines (man made, by the way), are contributing to Global Warming! Well, it must be true, then!

    I wonder if the same study looked at the nighttime temperatures in places where hundreds of oil derricks are standing?
    Or a giant coal factory, belching smoke into the atmosphere, and millions of cars belching exhaust into the atmosphere… those cannot possible affect the climate.

    • Well the amusement is mutual, there has been no warming for 15 years, all the alarmist promises of environmental Armageddon have failed to happen.

      Most amusing is a politician who has still to wake up to the fact that scam of man made climate change has been exposed, there is no such thing as a Green economy and long lasting Green jobs.

      It will be interesting to see at the next election if your constituents share you desire for unreliable renewable energy and the drudge of the Green Agrarian ecomony.

      It is people like you, Cameron and Goldsmith that are convincing life long Conservative voters that voting UKIP is the way forward.

  2. this would appear to be similar to the effect on temperature gauges that are now surrounded by pavement, structures, or other things which have resulted in higher readings. The temp changes are limited to the surrounding area, and not a sign of MMGW. I would think a better question is to the extent of this evening warming – if it is enough to be detrimental to plants which need very cold nights or winters to ‘do their things’ – such as flower bulbs.

  3. Please cite your evidence for “no warming for 15 years” because I don’t see it. Have you seen HadCrut4, which adds in temperature readings from many polar observational stations that were not included in the previous data sets?

    But then that’s the rub? For years you people have been banging on about “no warming since…(the record El Nino event of) …1998” (if you had any idea about climatology you would know that La Nina [cooling] events always follow El Nino [warming] events), without seeing the hypocrisy of relying on the data sets from the Hadley Climate Research Unit to support your argument. You bang on about global warming being a scam and then claim that perhaps the leading climatalogical institution in the world’s evidence in support of anthropogenic warming ‘proves’ that there has been no warming.

    Either it is a scam and their data are worthless or their data are good and your argument is worthless.

    • no warming in 15 years is shown by HadCrut global temperatures have remained static 14.44 +/- 0.16 deg

      • i just love the way you people cherry-pick ‘evidence’. You must sit there praying that those of us who call “Bullshit!” on your proclamations don’t check your purported sources. Alas, anyone who actually understands science knows that data is useless unless the source and therefore the context in which it was used can be verified. This case is by no means any different.

        Oh and by the way, you even misquote the GWPF by claiming IPCC predictions of a 0.2C per year temperature rise rather than per decade. Was this deliberate or made in error?

        Clearly, you’ve just relied on the article from the GWPF who counted from ’97 so that they could include the ’98 El Nino data which skews the results dramatically, despite the dataset being from ’87 (if used in it’s entirety gives a true multi-decadal plot and shows an undeniable warming trend).
        It is also worth noting that HadCrut4 does NOT include any data from ’11 or ’12, so how anyone could possibly have arrived at any meaningful conclusion, particularly for a 15 year trend from ’97 is anybody’s guess. Even the GWPF admit that they assumed the figure for 2011 (using IMO flawed methodology), something you failed to note.
        The honest act here would be to take fifteen years from the published data – the most recent being ’96 to ’10 – but then that would show a warming trend!
        (See MET GSTA
        The GWPF’s (and your own, for relaying without scrutiny) dishonesty is obvious.

        GWPF (and you) claim that temperatures haven’t risen since 1997, but failed to accurately give the context of the statement by completing the paragraph in the email exchange between Phil Jones and Mike Lockwood that was cited “Bottom line – the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried. We’re really counting this from about 2004/5 and not 1998. 1998 was warm due to the El Nino.”

        Ultimately as any fule nose, it is the long term trends that are important. Check out the graph at the link below.

      • All that graph shows is that if you measaure temperatures in .1 degree that is the only way any warming can be show, plotted in whole degrees the temperature is stable

  4. Windfarms have far smaller environmental impacts that conventional power generation plants!

    There is this popular fallacy that it is more efficient to heat water to turn turbines which in turn produce electricity, than it is to just turn turbines and produce electricity, despite water being one of the most energy intensive substances to heat (see Specific Heat Capacity). Most conventional fossil-fuel (coal iis prevalent) steam-turbine power stations operate at 31% efficiency, meaning less than a third of the energy in the fuel is converted to electricity. Even experimental coal gasification plants, which are not yet in use, can’t quite match wind turbines for peak efficiency, while their minimum efficiency already equals conventional coals’ maximum.
    Nuclear cannot operate at more than 30-32% efficiency and like (or perhaps worse than) fossil fuels, the power stations generate massive amounts of contamination, effluent and long-term environmental impacts, both locally and for the wider environment as well as needing massive and often destructive transport infrastructures to support and maintain them.
    Solar’s efficiency is currently 30-50%, although the potential is far greater (as in all our energy needs could be met), where new innovative techniques of harvesting the energy from the sun to be found.
    Wave and tidal power are perhaps the key to our energy needs however, given that unlike wind or solar, they are constant and potentially (according to the US Air Force and the NWE) could be 99% and 80% efficient respectively, but their development is being held back by retards like yourself who believe that conservatism involves maintaining the corporate and political power of the hegemonies established over the last century at the expense of the health, prosperity and well-being of the population and society, largely because your views are influenced by (unqualified) charismatic types who claim to be acting in your best interest, even when the evidence suggests otherwise.

    Uptake of renewable power generation (and incorporation of recent developments in static battery technologies), along with improved energy efficiency and increased use of electric vehicles, can easily meet our future energy needs without the massive environmental impacts caused by the archaic methods of steam-turbine power generation that have been with us and have remained largely the same since the Victorian era.

    • The conversation ended with the word retard, only a retard believes that CO2 is a driver of climate, or that renewables will ever be anything other than a drain on economies, increasing energy bills and killing real jobs with short term Green jobs which are nothing more than fitters jobs.

      The US is showing the way the future is shale gas

      • So can I construe from your comments that you don’t believe in the Greenhouse Effect?
        Or that CO2 molecules absorb infra-red radiation along wavelengths which the principle greenhouse gas, namely water vapour, does not?
        Are you one of these people who believes that something that is measured in parts per billion can’t possibly have an effect on the atmosphere?
        Do you also genuinely believe that renewables are uneconomical regardless of the economy?
        And that an oil and gas extraction technology that is still unproven on both large and long term scales is the answer to future energy demands?

  5. “…plotted in whole degrees the temperature is stable.”

    Do you have any idea of how to interpret the globally averaged surface temperature anomalies, that the Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit collaborate on? Surely you must realise the irrelevance that climatologists place on these datasets in the face of the overwhelming evidence found elsewhere, or from the larger temperature and climatological datasets that contribute to them? You do understand that the HadCRUT datasets are more often political tools used to help the lay-person grasp the subject, because the science can be far too complicated for many people?

  6. Re CO2 the Middle Age Warming Period, a global event as was the little Ice Age that followed it,. During the MWP CO2 was around 260ppm yet temperatures were 2.5 warmer, explain.

    The Little Ice corresponded with a low in solar activity,

    CO2 at its current level of 393 ppm 0.04% of the atmosphere, I dont believe it drives the climate, the sun does that, as do an increasing number of people who once believed the fear stories of AGW, Fritz Vahrenholt for example James Lovelock, need I go on.

    You might find this interesting on water vapour

    I believe that in the right environment renewables are economically viable i.e. huge solar farms in the Sahra make sense, in northern latitudes they do not make economic sense.

    Wind will never be more than an expensive Green subsidised moneypit as it will always need 24/7 fossil fuel power stations on standby for when the wind fails to blow at the limited speed range bird choppers work at.

    Fracking is not a new technology. its been around since 1980, do some research and see what fracking has done for US energy prices, not to mention reductions in CO2 emissions if they matter to you.

    I have a very good idea how to interpret data either in graphical or tabular form, the graph you presented to me, as I am fully aware is just more Greenwash like the Peak Oil picture, its not a graph, they have an X and a Y axis, which does not alter the fact that plotted in whole degrees there is no warming, the graph is like the Peak Oil picture, Greenwash to keep the whole AGW scam alive.

    Its no use trying to spin the people wouldn’t understand, its too complicated as an excuse, the HadCrut datasets are what the warming alarnist propaganda machine quotes ad nauseam, so that is what the AGW scam will be judged on, and all the failed predictions of Environmental Armageddon

    • I shall answer each point individually.
      Firstly, the MWP was 260ppm but temperatures were 2.5C warmer?
      Well, the MWP was not globally contiguous, with the Southern Hemisphere experiencing cooler temperatures than the Northern Hemisphere on . Indeed, between 900 and 1250 the Patagonian rainforest experienced…
      “…cold/wet conditions…” (Jara & Moreno, 2012., while North America experienced prolonged droughts.
      I don’t know where you got your 2.5 degrees celsius warmer figure, because there is no scientific basis for it.
      (Unless you or your source is confused with the Obliquity Cycle of Milankovich Theory, which explains that such a temperature range can affect the Earth over 41000 years.)
      Perhaps you could cite the source?
      The LIA was caused by low solar activity combined with increased volcanic forcing – I don’t think there’s much argument on this point, but then it doesn’t contradict the consensus view on climate science, so I’m not sure what the argument is.

      So you want me to take the word of a former politician and non-expert, who along with his co-author is currently employed by Germany’s second largest energy company and who has a book to sell?
      “Vahrenholt admits he has no expertise in climate science…” (SkS,
      His claims that the IPCC edited out all mention of natural forcings from the 4th Assessment Report, when those of us who think to check find that they didn’t. He cherry picks the last 14 years and suggests at no increased temperatures – and you and I have already been there, haven’t we? Ultimately, he just trots out the same tired canards and expects them to go unchallenged. Call me a cynic, I think he realises which is the bigger market for a book on climate change – because deniers are so desperate for it not to be true, they’ll buy anything.
      And Lovelock? Lovelock said he’d been alarmist in saying global warming would be out of control by the millenium, but did not change his view on the science itself. If you can show otherwise, then please do so.

  7. I do find the Isaac and Wijngaarden paper interesting, especially the conclusion (I thought I’d check the source – – this seems to be the source, although seemingly with only one author). This paper finds for warmer temperatures and increased water vapour pressure over this time period, so if relative humidity were reduced then there would be less chance of rain. The study covered the North American continent and did not suggest that there had been less cloud cover or less warming than observed.
    Your statement that solar photovoltauic at the UK’s latitude is not economically viable is true. At present costs it is not, but as solar pv use increases and unit costs reduce, combined with increases in generating ability, it will. Solar water heating is already viable and can provide sufficient hot water for 70% of the year.
    Wind is a good backstop and as I pointed out could be incorporated with static batteries either in the home, or within the grid to increase it’s viability. Indeed, in the US, some utility companies have been using consumer’s storage heaters to dump excess wind power in times of high generation and thus have less demand when those consumers want it, therefore reducing overall emissions.
    The long term effects of fracking on a large scale have not been explored in any great length. You accuse me of conducting no research, when you never seem to check the source of your own articles before regurgitating the opinion of someone you agree with.

    The HadCRUT data reinforces the AGW argument.

    • Are you incapable of finding an actual scientific paper to reinforce your assertion that the MWP was globally contiguous? I suspect you are and so as a result you have to resort to using opinion pieces by other people who have cherry-picked data which supports their view and ignored other data which contradicts it. As I have said and demonstrated with evidence, the warm periods attributed to the MWP did not occur everywhere in the world at the same time. If that were the case, there would not be cooler and wetter conditions prevailing in some places as has been found. The strongest theories suggest at thermohaline strengthening, which leaves the SH lagging the NH by around 150 years. I did not disagree on the LIA being global, so bunching the two together is just a cheap cop-out.

      • the links I posted refer to research papers that MWP was global.

        Lets face it we will will never agree, you believe in the Green political agenda and that CO2 is a climate drive, I dont buy into the Green political agenda, I dont belive science is ever setteled or that science conforms to a consensus, I believe that main Climate Driver is the Sun.

        There is little point in continuing this debate

      • And as anyone with an idea of scientific method understands, it is always best to check the source material rather than relying on an obviously biased opinion piece as supporting evidence.

        You claim there is little point in continuing this debate, but then you host a blog that seeks to discredit the consensus on climate change and so it is in your interest to have no naysayers commenting on the inaccuracies of your submissions. As long as you continue to post inaccurate or misleading articles, then I shall continue to highlight where the errors and deceit lie. Unless you block me, which isn’t congruent with a free and fair debate, but may be the course of action you decide to take.

        Let me just get something straight however. There is not one single person who has an understanding of climatology who would dispute that the Sun is the principal driver of climate. The next most important driver is water vapour – again nobody who knows the science would dispute this. Where we disagree, is on the forcing caused by carbon dioxide. Or do you deny completely that CO2 is a climate driver?

        There is much within the green political agenda that I believe is far too extreme and interventionist to be taken seriously, however I think there is also much which should be adopted forthwith – principally improvements in energy efficiency and exploitation of the abundant sources of energy that directly turn turbines or generate heat or power without burning fossil fuels, as opposed to subsidising (directly or through tax-breaks) the largely destructive, polluting and inefficient technologies that predominate. Given, there are issues with solar PV at this latitude and wind power generation suffers with a lack of storage capacity to support it, but solar hot water is completely viable in the UK and new static battery techologies could solve the wind power issue. I don’t believe that nuclear should be adopted further, rather that the billions of pounds (per station) could easily be invested in driving and subsidising rigourous energy efficiency and conservation programmes that, were they adopted nationwide, could negate the the need for greater generating capacity, whilst also stimulating the economy.

        I doubt very much that you do not believe that science ever conforms to a consensus, otherwise you would surely be doubtful about the other established and widely accepted consensuses like gravity, evolution, thermodynamics, conservation of energy, relativity…

  8. Humans pollute. They do not cause global warming. There is a difference, if you still think humans can control the climate you are misled. Sustainability yes we need to work on that, but temperatures in large cities not only cause pollution but also contribute to the Urban Heat Island effect. Outside these cities it is not effected. The problem is we have too many people living in concentrated areas, and if the planet cools as expected, this will affect food production. Islands are subject to erosion and atolls come and go. Clean energy won’t change the climate, so what is your solution. Those that promote this are doing it for one thing $$$’s! They know we need electricity and if the planet cools we’ll need something to keep warm too.

  1. Pingback: Britain’s New Right Wing Environment Secretary « Tory Aardvark

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: