From CSIRO Australia
New energy in search for future wind
Scientists are taking the first steps to improve estimates of long-term wind speed changes for the fast-growing wind energy sector. The research is intended to identify the risks for generators in a changing climate.
Some recent international studies have shown a decrease in wind speeds in several parts of the globe, including across Australia. However, more recent results by CSIRO show that Australia’s average wind speed is actually increasing.
Scientists at CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research have analysed wind speed observations to understand the causes of variations in near-surface wind and explore long-term wind speed trends over Australia.
“We have a good picture of wind energy availability across Australia from previous CSIRO wind mapping and, with the growth of wind farms, there is an emerging need to understand how climate change can affect the wind resource,” says Dr Alberto Troccoli, lead author of the paper published in the Journal of Climate.
“Wind power production is expected to increase greatly over the coming years and the associated electricity system will be subject to variations of several hundred megawatts – depending on wind availability.
“The ability to quantify with accuracy these long-term variations is essential to the sector from an economic point of view,” he said.
The conjunction of energy and meteorology is the subject of an international conference on the Gold Coast in November – http://www.icem2011.org/index.html
Dr Troccoli said that averaged across Australia wind speeds measured at a height of 10 metres had increased by 0.69% per annum compared to a decline of 0.36% per annum for wind speeds measured at 2m height, both over the 1989-2006 period.
Accurate estimates of long-term trends of wind speed provide a useful indicator for circulation changes in the atmosphere and are invaluable for the planning and financing of sectors such as wind energy.
“The potential for increasing the efficiency of energy operations by using quality weather and climate information is therefore apparent and one of the first steps is the standardisation of wind recording stations.
” Wind observations, like other meteorological variables, are sensitive to the conditions in which they are observed – for example, where the instrumentation sits relative to topographical features, vegetation and urban developments.”
The team found that the wind speed trends over Australia are sensitive to the height of the station, with winds measured at 10m displaying an opposite and positive trend to that reported by a previous study which analysed only winds measured at 2m.
Light winds measured at 10m, a height that represents better the free atmospheric flow, tend to increase more rapidly than the average, whereas strong winds increase less rapidly than the average winds. Light and strong wind measured at a height of 2m tend to vary in line with the average winds.
“Our work shows a number of challenges with the consistency of the observations during their period of operation and between sites across Australia.
“The quality of future wind observational datasets will depend on having consistency between sites, particularly with respect to measurement procedure, maintenance of instrumentation, and detailed records of the site history,” Dr Troccoli said.
He said the work has implications for a variety of sectors beyond wind energy including building construction, coastal erosion, and evaporation rates.
The research was partly funded by a grant from the Australian Climate Change Science Program supported by the Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.
Dr Troccoli said that averaged across Australia wind speeds measured at a height of 10 metres had increased by 0.69% per annum compared to a decline of 0.36% per annum for wind speeds measured at 2m height
The good Dr has found a proxy for tree height in a locality.
Would this increased wind be related to higher La Nino winds? Or is Oz too far away to be affected?
Somebody give Dr Troccoli a banana, please! I don’t want him wasting any more of my hard earned tax dollars on this tripe.
I would be very interested as an engineer to know how sub 1% accuracies are possible with anemometer technologies available now let alone 18 years ago allowing for drift,temperature coefficient and inherent non-linearity. But I suppose measurement accuracy has never been allowed to get in the way of ” climate science”.
Baron
Just 1 thing with this analysis:
Tower height 69m
Blade length 40m
So this 10m analysis still falls 19m short of blade tip & 59m short of blade centre?
(Info from Wonthaggi Wind Farm ‘Green Power’ brochure)
Remember the CSIRO were involved with the introduction of the can toad. I’d take any study/paper published by them with pinch of salt.
“Dr Troccoli said that averaged across Australia wind speeds measured at a height of 10 metres had increased by 0.69% per annum compared to a decline of 0.36% per annum for wind speeds measured at 2m height, both over the 1989-2006 period.”
Not only are thermometers subject to UHI, the anemometers have positional errors too as buildings are erected.
“The research was partly funded by a grant from the Australian Climate Change Science Program supported by the Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.”
Like any good consultant, the good doctor provides the appropriate analysis that the organisations providing the money are seeking. Waste of good bits and bytes!
First sentence is repeated.
The drums sound louder tonight.
Thrrmm… thrrmm.
Do you think they’re coming closer?
Thrrmm…thrrmm.
(Extract from “Voodoo Science” by S.Keptick.)
I thought climate change was measured over 30 years?
Not 17 years like in this study. (1989-2006)?
And why on earth leave out the 4 last years up to 2011?
Because that is not going to produce the result the buyers of this study is kloning for?
Are the results ENSO and PDO adjusted?
If not they are measuring changes in jetstreams due to changes in the larger circulation systems on Earth.
In Norway the last 4-5 winters have become colder, drier and less wind, due to more High’s.
And the summers have become colder, wetter and windier, due to more low’s.
“The research was partly funded by a grant from the Australian Climate Change Science Program supported by the Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.”
…………… Kinda says it all. Crony corporatism. Global Socialism. Corrupt politics cavorting as science, all done using our money. The Labor Party’s political skillbase, after all, is only a morally bankrupt ex Union elite with a credit card drawing endlessly on Union members money….. They simply swap it for a credit card endlessly drawing on the Australian taxpayer instead.
They may buy prostitutes on the weekends, but they screw Australia every day.
It has long been known that temperature is sensitive to equipment and to height above ground.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/Jane%20Warne%20thermometry.pdf
“However it needs to be born in mind that an aspirated screen measures an integrated vertical column of air while a non aspirated screen measure a horizontal slice of the air. In the situation where a strong vertical gradient of temperature exists this can result in large discrepancies. These conditions could not be tested in this study. Also the difference of an aspirated screen to
the small Stevenson screen will be greatest at low wind speed.”
To the extent that wind velocity/vector shows variations, so would one expect temperature to do likewise, just because the wind properties are changing over time.
Where do these academic ne’er-do-wells come from? Big High moving in over UK so the much warmer weather [Indian Summer] promised for later this week will have little contribution from wind farms to supply air con electricity. Then later on this year when it will be bitterly cold the wind farms will not help heat our homes as they will be static once again! As for wind maps………Doh!
“Whom the gods would destroy they first make insane”. Wind farms are a monument on the road to civilizational collapse.
The notion of ‘average wind speed’ across an entire continent is meaningless, whatever height you choose.
My taxes at work, again. Sigh.
Ah, don’t worry, they’ll make a model to account for it, and project wind speed to ten decimal places…all at an altitude below that of a wind turbine. Then they can add in the parabolic boundary-layer velocity fudge factor to show that indeed, once all the wind farms are built, CO2 will decrease, and wind speeds will eventually pick up in areas of presently-becalmed bird-dicers. Or, at least, that’s as plausible an outcome as what is being presented here.
The notion of ‘average wind speed’ across an entire continent is meaningless, whatever height you choose.
Of course it is, Johanna is absolutely right. This is all particularly silly!
Brett_McS (@Brett_McS) says: (September 26, 2011 at 10:58 pm) “Wind farms are a monument on the road to civilizational collapse.”
Hope it don’t hit collapse, Brett… but a very nice, albeit sobering, line.
“Wind power production is expected to increase greatly over the coming years…”
Boy, I hope not.
Australians in general from my expertience…. need to go back to secondary school and learn some maths, logic, science, reading and writing etc…. LOL Would not trust CSIRO as far as you could through their 2000 ton building haha
all the eggs may be moving into a single basket:
27 Sept: WSJ: Goldman Sachs to buy majority stake in ReNew Wind Power
Goldman Sachs has invested more than $2 billion through private equity and its own funds in India since 2006, the statement added. The recipients included vehicle maker Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd and TVS Logistics…
http://www.livemint.com/2011/09/26235718/Goldman-Sachs-to-buy-majority.html?h=B
15 Sept: UK Independent: SSE ditches nuclear power for gas, wind and biomass
Dealing a blow to government plans to ramp up nuclear generation, SSE has pulled out of a joint venture with France’s GDF Suez and Spain’s Iberdrola that would have involved it in atomic energy for the first time.
SSE has sold its 25 per cent stake to its partners in the NuGeneration consortium, which will develop two or three 1.6GW reactors at Sellafield…
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/sse-ditches-nuclear-power-for-gas-wind-and-biomass-2360140.html
24 Sept: AFP: Japan plans floating wind farm near nuclear plant
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hpN6NBbtjIRf-vxyP8dlcOpa_2tg?docId=CNG.bd52ba8ffae71e0859d1fbbcebf08d3e.2b1
23 Sept: Houston Business Journal: Wind power companies lack strategies in place for disposal of aging turbines
The old parts will need to be disposed of, but few companies have created end-of-life strategies for aging wind turbines, which could lead to logistical problems down the road, said Richard Williams, president of Houston-based Shell WindEnergy Inc…
http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/print-edition/2011/09/23/wind-power-companies-lack-strategies.html
Am I being stupid.
Firstly why would the average wind speed at 10 m increase by 0.69% and decrease by 0.3 % at 2m height?
Secondly given the instrumentation used and their accuracy do the increases in fact show there has been no increase?
Wind turbine energy production has a very non-linear response to wind speed. As mentioned, wind vary with height. The sustained wind speed at the height of the proposed wind tubine is the issue, as Steve 9:27 pm pointed out.
But wait! There’s more!
Big turbines take up about 80 acres each (despite the lies the state may try to tell you). Consequently, the amount of area with these sustained wind speeds must be known, otherwise, there may not be enough wind available for all of the turbines you might want to construct. If you want to put a dent in the energy needs of a large population, you’ll need to build many thousands, not dozens or hundreds.
In California, 100 m wind speed maps make clear there is not enough land area with the needed sustained winds to construct the numbers of wind turbines you need. The capacity factor is about 30% being VERY generous, so you have to construct about 3x the turbine nameplate capacity, and probably store what you make to use when you need it. The turbines California would need will have to be constructed off shore. To supply only 10% of our power needs, 20,000 1.5 MW turbines will require 2500 square miles of area. The levelized cost of marine wind is much higher than the already expensive land-based wind power, because everything has to be corrosion resistant.
The entire concept is fatally flawed. They can’t be built. They can’t be operated and maintained. We can’t afford the power they produce.
Green power is energy poverty.
The actual abstract says:
So the press release is a bit hyped, isn’t it?
It also states:
and it founds only a qualitative link:
-0.10 ±0.03% Amazing accuracy, but meaningless, considering that the best quality wind monitor we have at present has an accuracy of 1%, much less in 1948!
The synchrocrat cup anemometer used by CSIRO has an uncernainty of ±1.5 m/s (http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/IMOP/WebPortal-AWS/Tests/ITR633.pdf)
3 months == “minimal gap” ……
You cannot get a ±0.03% from reanalysis
May be Pielke jr should send his paper to the JoC, will be published at Trenberth speed records
Neil Gibson says:
September 26, 2011 at 9:21 pm
I would be very interested as an engineer to know how sub 1% accuracies are possible with anemometer technologies available
———
It’s due to a bit of advanced mathematics called averaging. The precision of one anenometer is say 10%. The precision of 100 anemometers is 1/sqrt(100) * 10% = 1%. Now extend that principle to trends.
Also since we are talking trends, accuracy is not relevant, precision and reproducability is.
So please move the goal posts and requibble.
Sigh!!! I just don’t know what they teach the younger generation of engineers these days.
Stacey says:
September 26, 2011 at 11:59 pm
Am I being stupid.
Firstly why would the average wind speed at 10 m increase by 0.69% and decrease by 0.3 % at 2m height?
————-
No it’s a very good question. I puzzled over this myself. One factor is going to be that the speeds at the different heights are different. One good suggestion here (unproven) is that there has been more ground level obstructions build up over time. Could be more subtle effects such as aerodynamic skin effects. Could be errors in the research. Etc…
Considering how many eagles windmills have slaughtered, when will we start seeing the end of some sub-species? I suppose it’s a noble sacrifice, to save the Earth and all. /s
Andrew says: (September 26, 2011 at 11:37 pm) “Australians in general from my expertience…. (Huh?)
need to go back to secondary school and learn some maths, logic, science, reading and writing etc….
LOL Would not trust CSIRO as far as you could through (is that “look through”?) their 2000 ton building haha
But I’m here to be taut, Andrew…
(Just a simple Aussie)
Stacey and all scientists on this blog, could it be that heat rising from the ground deflects air currents? Gliders (the planes not hang gliders) say there is a distinct difference flying over urban or city development than over forests and open ground. The air terminals differ in height.
PS. More money going to waste. There is talk the ALP/Greens are now going to do something to our superannuation funds, not sure about it, but the libs had the same idea years ago.
Australia has one of the planet’s largest wind farms, around 1000Km across I have read, and they still cannot get a constant electricity supply from it. About time to give up on wind for an industrial country my friends.
Well – waddya know – someone actually doing some research (albeit totally inconclusive) about future wind availability…
We in the UK, by contrast, simply plaster the countryside with these ‘monuments to lunacy’ (to quote the Telegraph’s Chris Booker) – never mind whether they produce any meaningful amounts of electricity – just build them anyway and everyone please keep their fingers crossed….
As i write, a nice blocking anticyclone is on its way to give the UK some much-needed late summer warmth – but, coincidentally, its going to sit its backside over Denmark and Germany, which should be interesting in terms of their wind power output…
Still – I expect they did some research on the subject…
I also thought Andrew was a bit harsh on us Aussies,but to each his own.
An interactive site on Australian windfarms, from the Australian Energy Marketing Operator (AEMO):-
http://windfarmperformance.info/
You can see today’s output from each and every windfarm, just switch the areas on/off, and compare with the consumer load.
Now I’ll have to pop off and attend my secondary school maths, logic, science, reading and writing etc…..
J.T.
Aussie commenters here have mentioned the large amount of development that has occurred over the past couple of decades (I noted the comments in the flooding threads). Any of that have an effect, ya think?
John at 1.34 am. Where is this? I haven’t heard of it. Victoria has toughened its legislation of where these wind turbines can be placed? Because of the health problems associated with people living closely to wind turbines. Mind you farmers in the Northern Tablelands where I live
were rejoicing that they would be paid from $10,000 – $30,000 a year rent to have them placed on their land. Fair enough you can’t blame them. One Victorian farmer that was featured last month on a program by the ABC I think, ‘Health problems experienced by farmers’ said that he had 15 on his land.$150,000 a year eh? How much tax would they pay on this I wonder. If you note that these wind turbines are quite close together. They don’t supply enough electricity to be worth it I feel. And generally the main grid has to take on their shortfall, that makes electricity more expensive, same has solar buy back has done, ok for those that can afford the solar panels but it places other users with the burden of the extra money paid to them.
HR – last couple of decades? I was aware that 60 wind turbines were used for a desalination plant near Sydney, and people were complaining about the noise, sounding like a jet winding up.
But that’s not over the last few decades. UK and Europe have had them, and most of the English people I have spoken to have said they are useless and bird choppers. Canada also . Not as far as I have heard in Oz. It’s a relatively new useless Green initiative. I wrote to the local press and
am known as a skeptic. But one writer replied, that I had said that wind farms are not reliable
24/7, and she wrote that I was wrong, and coal fired generators weren’t either. Well as I replied
at 3 am in the morning while I am blogging overseas, I still have electricity for my computer?
JeffT – re the wind power graphs – I particularly like the right-hand graph of the final pair of graphs showing wind output versus demand for 2010…
There it is – bumbling along the baseline….
The key phrase for me is “Accurate estimates of long-term trends of wind speed provide a useful indicator for circulation changes in the atmosphere and are invaluable for the planning and financing of sectors such as wind energy.”
How long is it prudent to wait before an estimate can be shown to be accurate, and also to show whether the trend is linear or not? I am a true sceptic over the use of linear trends for any of these forecasts of future climate, as logic dictates that at some point any “linear” trend must depart from linearity to avoid plainly absurd values for the trended variable.
If surface winds are decreasing while high level winds are increasing, that would imply less turbulence or storminess.
I’d start with this hypothesis: Recent years have shown a LOT of semi-permanent highs and lows, which means that the wind in the boundary regions is much more constant than before. This would mean less wind within the semi-permanent highs and lows, but perhaps the ‘temporal density’ of the wind in boundary zones pulls up the spatial average.
Kohl says:
September 26, 2011 at 11:15 pm
The notion of ‘average wind speed’ across an entire continent is meaningless, whatever height you choose.
Of course it is, Johanna is absolutely right. This is all particularly silly!
——————————————–
Kinda makes one wonder about “average global temperature”, don’t it?
I’m sure now we will have a “team” in the US studing this. And, they will want lots of tax dollars to pay for it.
Am I being stupid.
Firstly why would the average wind speed at 10 m increase by 0.69% and decrease by 0.3 % at 2m height?
————-
No it’s a very good question. I puzzled over this myself. One factor is going to be that the speeds at the different heights are different. One good suggestion here (unproven) is that there has been more ground level obstructions build up over time. Could be more subtle effects such as aerodynamic skin effects. Could be errors in the research. Etc…
—————————
It is clear that the 100 ppm of added CO2 has significantly altered the average viscosity of the air causing it to be ‘slipperier’ in the absence of cellulosic flora or silicate minerals. I hope to receive substantial grant money to further investigate this new phenomena of burning fossil fuels…
J2
On this topic of wind I think I’ll… uh, pass.
(Sorry! Couldn’t resist!)
Stacey says:
September 26, 2011 at 11:59 pm
Am I being stupid.
Firstly why would the average wind speed at 10 m increase by 0.69% and decrease by 0.3 % at 2m height?
It hasn’t. This is just what their magic averaging 8-ball says.
Chuck Nolan, I absolutely agree, this CSIRO experiment proves nothing. Actually there is data already there. But what has been proven is wind turbines are subject to wind strength over 24 hrs a day to make the turbines turn from the wind, and no one can calculate this it varies. And the thing is that wind turbines are driven by wind not engines. It is known if the wind valocity is too low they won’t turn, if it gets too high they are stopped from producing electricity even damaged. They are just an unproven reliable source for electricity. Do you spend millions of dollars on an uncertain and more importantly an already unproven technology?
@bushbunnyy says:
September 27, 2011 at 3:20 am
Oh dear… I wasn’t clear. I was just referring to where the wind speed measures were taken and thinking that comparing the past to the present at more developed locations might only be revealing how many buildings had been built.
I do appreciate the info on the Aussie bird dicers, though. The Brits here have talked a lot about what’s going on in their neck of the woods and Anthony has posted a lot about the Raptor-O-Matics in the US of A. Maybe (maybe? Hah!) my memory is shot and I don’t recall much on the situation in Australia. Thanks.
Stacey says: @ September 26, 2011 at 11:59 pm
“Am I being stupid.
Firstly why would the average wind speed at 10 m increase by 0.69% and decrease by 0.3 % at 2m height?”
A shot in the dark is the increase in trees due to Australia green “no clearing policy” the year 2006 was the year of “Fire and Drought” See
“…Across Australia in 2006, fires sprang up before summer was even officially underway. An ongoing drought and high temperatures have created extremely risky conditions for fires in many parts of the country. In late November and early December, satellites captured numerous images of fires in places as far flung as northwestern Australia and Southern Queensland….” earthobservatory.nasa.gov
Also see Anthony’s “We’ve lost two people in my family because you dickheads won’t cut trees down…”
The No Clearing policy:
“…As a result of this campaign, in 1991 the State Government passed laws to protect endangered and threatened types of bushland on leasehold land. For the first time leaseholders had to get a permit to clear native bushland. However, clearing continued unchecked on privately owned land.
Environmentalists continued their campaign, this time highlighting the escalating rates of clearing on private (or freehold) land. In 1999 the State again introduced new laws — this time to prevent the clearing of endangered bushland on private land….. “ http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/land-clearing/qld_landclearing
So Dr Troccoli seeing “…a decline of 0.36% per annum for wind speeds measured at 2m height…over the 1989-2006 period.” has a very reasonable explanation.
The determination of the actual changes in the landscape at each test site over the period of the study is left to Dr Troccoli or someone else who wants to try for a peer reviewed paper.
Do not forget to include the get out of jail free card. “The increase in CO2 caused…….”
Does anybody remember the derivatives contracts built around weather that Enron was developing? Wind futures to hedge wind energy cannot be far off. It may make wind energy appear more substantial, but you can bet on any activity in which mankind engages. That doesn’t mean the activity is good, just widespread.
The Climate Change jugernaut continues its travels. Eventually the entire world will be working on Climate Change research, and all the taxes will collapse the last remaining Mom-and-Pop flower shop. Then we’ll all be back to hunting and gathering and the Greens – the ones not eaten by lions, tigers and feral polar bears released from zoos, will be smiling. Until the GMO apes (“We all have the right to better brains!”) take over.
Right. Been done, sort of.
For $10 I will happily sell you details of my prediction system that will enhance your chances of winning the jackpot on your local lottery. I do not guarantee success and cannot offer a money back guarantee, but your chances of picking up those lesser prizes will also be enhanced and I am confident that you will be delighted with your purchase. What I can absolutely assure you of is that your chances of winning will not be one iota less than those of people who labour on without my help, and will be better by some way than those of Dr. Troccoli predicting future wind speeds in Australia.
I am curious about how these anemometer stations are sited. How many are at the end of airport runways? How many are in valleys or near tall buildings or other natural obstacles? Any near air conditioning outlets? Might this be another task for the WUWT team? 🙂
Lessee… per annum:
+0.69% at 10m
-0.36% at 2M
But we’re interested in long term changes, right? So over, say, a century:
+69% at 10m
-36% at 2m
Right, sounds plausible to me. Oh, wait… they actually say that over a longer term, the trend is zero.
“Our work shows a number of challenges with the consistency of the observations during their period of operation and between sites across Australia.”
I think that’s their most valuable finding, right there!
For those of us “into” wind farms… Have we seen this scheme?
http://atelierdna.com/?p=144
Best,
Frank
It seems probable that in ideal places for concentrating windmills, we will slow the wind down with the windmills and shift the ideal places to either side of the wind farm in an end run, much like tall buildings in cities increase the wind in man-made canyons. Does this make sense?
The risks of windpower are much more worthy of concern than risks too wind power. For one thing:
http://www.masterresource.org/2011/09/wind-radar-national-security/
This whole “Renewable Energy” push reminds me of Tulip Mania and the Emu Craze. Only this time it is whole countries joining in on the insanity with tax payers unwillingly footing the bill.
Gail Combs says:
September 27, 2011 at 10:49 am
“This whole “Renewable Energy” push reminds me of Tulip Mania and the Emu Craze.”
Found a video from Minnesota that has the beautiful mating call of the female Emu on its soundtrack. Turn up the subwoofer!
http://articles.latimes.com/1997/dec/16/news/mn-64567
JeffT says:
September 27, 2011 at 2:33 am
————————————————–
You can get the same UK data at the following site:
http://www.netareports.com/reports.jsp
Warning: to see the windmill contribution to the UK’s energy needs you need to enlarge the graphs quite a bit. Wind output is generally the thin pink sliver just below ‘Other’. This freely available, almost real-time, damning evidence against wind power makes me wonder how much longer this site will be on public view.
Future wind is broken — so to speak.
In order to increase wind speeds, one needs to increase pressure differences. I doubt any prediction is going to work out better than chance.
“Dr Troccoli said that averaged across Australia wind speeds measured at a height of 10 metres had increased by 0.69% per annum compared to a decline of 0.36% per annum for wind speeds measured at 2m height, both over the 1989-2006 period.”
Does he really mean this? Clarity of language is important here, as a 0.69% annual increase would eventually produce a beautiful curve very different to an implied trend line with a gradient showing an 11.73% (17 yrs x 0.69%) over the 17 year period. The language implies the former, whereas I suspect the latter is much closer to the mark.
Working on the basis of the projected increase at 10 metres and decrease at 2 metres and using a common starting speed of 30kph, by the end of the century the wind speed will be 64kph at 10 M and 20kph at 2 M a difference of 44kph, good luck to roof tilers working on a two story house.
crosspatch says:
September 27, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Future wind is broken — so to speak.
In order to increase wind speeds, one needs to increase pressure differences. I doubt any prediction is going to work out better than chance.
________________________________________________________________________
I was under the impression (at least locally) that the wind direction/speed stays “typical” until the ocean oscillations change. Then of course there is the confounding effects of la nina/el nino and the jet streams becoming more “loopy” (the Rossby Waves get deeper )…..
See Chiefio: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/of-turbulence-hadley-ferrel-cells-and-loopy-jet-streams/
Needless to say you need to look at a minimum of at least 60 years worth of data before getting anything worth writing a paper about.
I have watch the local weather closely for twenty years and the “sudden” loopyness of the jet streams recently has completely mucked up the weather forecasting in my area. The weather no longer comes from the southeast and travels to the northwest. Now it can come from any direction including the southeast depending on where the jet stream loops are currently.
(I am in NC – USA)
I’m not a big fan (pardon the pun) of wind turbines, but this stuff seems to be over complicating the issue. If I was going to put up wind turbines, I would find where the wind currently is consistent enough and of sufficient velocity to run the turbines most efficiently. And as I have to replace worn out turbines, I would continue to scout out the best locations and place the new ones there. However, this attempt to forecast wind trends looks to me to be one method the eco-lunatics/AGW one-worlders will use to put large tracts of land (and coast line) off limits because of the “predicted” optimal use for wind farms.
Australian AS1170 was what I used for the best part of a decade to design structures to withstand wind loading; based on the fastest, 3-second gust expected in a period of 50 years. The Standard provides a means of calculating wind speed at different heights above ground level, given a “description” of the surrounding terrain and the rating wind speed. The equations given by the Standard use corresponding profile coefficients to find the wind speed at a given height, given the “nominal” wind speed.
A higher terrain category means more obstruction to wind, so the profile coefficient “sharpens” the wind profile. i.e. wind speed close to the surface is very much less than at substantial height above the surface. Those coefficients have been derived (historically) from empirical measurements in conjunction with basic fluid mechanics.
Dr Troccoli and his team should read AS1170 and the documents on which it is based. If all their paper represents is a plea for more funds to research what is essentially already known, then that is par for the course of what we have come to expect of the formerly-repected but now politicized CSIRO.
The observation that winds speeds near the surface have reduced should invite those who understand Le Chatelier’s Principle to expect winds at greater height to be somewhat faster. Increased obstruction to wind near the surface will tend to force the wind to try to go around the obstruction, preferably horizontally, but if the back-pressure of doing so becomes too high, then the wind will instead lift to above the obstruction. Flow continuum requires an increase in wind speed.
Wind power has an EROEI of no more than 0.29 and is unsustainable.
Re-measure the wind to your heart’s content.
Wind power will never amount to anything but huge profits for developers, banks, brokerage houses, land owners. and politically connected manufacturers. The taxpayer, as usual, will be saddled with the bill for this colossal waste of resources.
All computer models are flawed. Unless they predict something we like.
REPLY: Speak for yourself
“REPLY: Speak for yourself”
I wasn’t pronouncing any judgements. I completely acknowledge that this bias is just as widespread among the “other side”.
Recently, there was a fake study saying that meat eaters are more egoïstic people. As a vegetarian, this is the kind of stuff I like to hear. But I was immediately skeptical and started looking for the study but couldn’t find it. A couple of days later, I read it was a hoax.
As was to be expected, many people on “my side” had jumped on the story, victoriously trumpeting it as proof of how right they were.
Not.
(By the way, what on Earth were these authors thinking?)
It happens everywhere. We’re all human. Nobody’s perfect.
Skepticism is the difficult path towards objectivity and truth.
So, what’s my point? Be skeptical with yourself. I’m skeptical with myself, too. When a computer model predicts something you don’t want to hear, you say it’s flawed. But this wind prediction is trustworthy.
I do it. too, you know. It’s very tempting.
When I see obvious errors on my side, I will also point them out. Ok, I admit, in a more subtle* way. I think that’s allowed.
* More subtle than say, getting all excited about cuts in Al Gore’s CO2-in-a-jar experiment. I mean, seriously, does that change the radiative properties of CO2? How about the cuts in Phelim McAleer’s “armed response to climategate question” video? Will you tell your readers about that? Or the nice editing of Carl Wunsch’s comments in “The Great Global Warming Swindle”?
Thanks for not blocking me. Thanks for being kind, despite the hostile environment. It’s essential. Without kindness, this life isn’t worth living.