Supreme irony: wind farms can cause atmospheric warming, finds a new study

NOTE: An update has been added below, using the press release that came out today after the news stories yesterday.

While ironic that something designed to reduce CO2 emissions (and presumably warming)is actually producing warming around it, this isn’t really any big surprise. Orchardists and vineyard operators in California have been using motor driven wind turbines to elevate local temperatures to save crops from frost for over half a century. What is different here is the scale of nighttime warming, large enough to be visible on MODIS satellite imagery thanks to large scale wind farms.

Large scale wind turbine farm in the Oklahoma panhandle. I had just visited a USHCN climate monitoring station about 2 miles downwind when I took this photo in December of 2008.

Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. and associates have been doing research along these lines for quite some time, and has this summary on some recent research.

From Louise Gray in the Telegraph:

Wind farms can cause climate change, according to new research, that shows for the first time the new technology is already pushing up temperatures.

Usually at night the air closer to the ground becomes colder when the sun goes down and the earth cools. But on huge wind farms the motion of the turbines mixes the air higher in the atmosphere that is warmer, pushing up the overall temperature.

Satellite data over a large area in Texas, that is now covered by four of the world’s largest wind farms, found that over a decade the local temperature went up by almost 1C as more turbines are built. This could have long term effects on wildlife living in the immediate areas of larger wind farms. It could also affect regional weather patterns as warmer areas affect the formation of cloud and even wind speeds.

Full story here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9234715/Wind-farms-can-cause-climate-change-finds-new-study.html

Here’s the paper:

Zhou, Liming, Yuhong Tian, Somnath Baidya Roy, Chris Thorncroft, Lance F. Bosart and Yuanlong Hu 2012: Impacts of wind farms on land surface temperature. Nature Climate Chnage. doi:10.1038/nclimate1505

And the abstract (bold mine):

The wind industry in the United States has experienced a remarkably rapid expansion of capacity in recent years and this fast growth is expected to continue in the future. While converting wind’s kinetic energy into electricity, wind turbines modify surface–atmosphere exchanges and the transfer of energy, momentum, mass and moisture within the atmosphere. These changes, if spatially large enough, may have noticeable impacts on local to regional weather and climate.

Here we present observational evidence for such impacts based on analyses of satellite data for the period of 2003–2011 over a region in west-central Texas, where four of the world’s largest wind farms are located. Our results show a significant warming trend of up to 0.72 °C per decade, particularly at night-time, over wind farms relative to nearby non-wind-farm regions. We attribute this warming primarily to wind farms as its spatial pattern and magnitude couples very well with the geographic distribution of wind turbines.

h/t to WUWT reader Andrew Kissling

=====================================================

UPDATE: 4/30/12:30PM PST  The press release came out this morning, including this image:

Temperature Differences near Wind Farms

This graph shows the night-time land surface temperature differences near wind farms between 2010 and 2013. Credit: Liming Zhou et al., Nature Climate Change

Here’s the PR:

National Science Foundation

Scientists find night-warming effect over large wind farms in Texas

Wind turbines interact with atmospheric boundary layer near the surface

IMAGE:Wind farms are numerous in parts of Texas; scientists report new results on their effects.Click here for more information.

Large wind farms in certain areas in the United States appear to affect local land surface temperatures, according to a paper published today in the journal Nature Climate Change.

The study, led by Liming Zhou, an atmospheric scientist at the State University of New York- (SUNY) Albany, provides insights about the possible effects of wind farms.

The results could be important for developing efficient adaptation and management strategies to ensure long-term sustainability of wind power.

“This study indicates that land surface temperatures have warmed in the vicinity of large wind farms in west-central Texas, especially at night,” says Anjuli Bamzai, program director in the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, which funded the research.

“The observations and analyses are for a relatively short period, but raise important issues that deserve attention as we move toward an era of rapid growth in wind farms in our quest for alternate energy sources.”

IMAGE:This graph shows the night-time land surface temperature differences near wind farms between 2010 and 2013.Click here for more information.

Considerable research has linked the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels with rising global temperatures.

Consequently, many nations are moving toward cleaner sources of renewable energy such as wind turbines. Generating wind power creates no emissions, uses no water and is likely “green.”

“We need to better understand the system with observations, and better describe and model the complex processes involved, to predict how wind farms may affect future weather and climate,” said Zhou.

There have been a growing number of studies of wind farm effects on weather and climate, primarily using numerical models due to the lack of observations over wind farms.

As numerical models are computationally intensive and have uncertainties in simulating regional and local weather and climate, said Zhou, remote sensing is likely the most efficient and effective way to study wind farm effects over larger spatial and longer temporal scales.

To understand the potential impact of wind farms on local weather and climate, Zhou’s team analyzed satellite-derived land surface temperatures from regions around large wind farms in Texas for the period 2003-2011.

The researchers found a night-time warming effect over wind farms of up to 0.72 degrees Celsius per decade over the nine-year-period in which data were collected.

Because the spatial pattern of warming mirrors the geographic distribution of wind turbines, the scientists attribute the warming primarily to wind farms.

The year-to-year land surface temperature over wind farms shows a persistent upward trend from 2003 to 2011, consistent with the increasing number of operational wind turbines with time.

IMAGE:Wind farms dot the horizon in Lubbock County and other Texas areas.Click here for more information.

“This warming effect is most likely caused by the turbulence in turbine wakes acting like fans to pull down warmer near-surface air from higher altitudes at night,” said Somnath Baidya Roy of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, a co-author of the paper.

While the warming effect reported is local and small compared to the strong background year-to-year land surface temperature variation, the authors believe that this work draws attention to an important scientific issue that requires further investigation.

“The estimated warming trends only apply to the study region and to the study period, and thus should not be interpolated into other regions, globally or over longer periods,” Zhou said. “For a given wind farm, once there are no new wind turbines added, the warming effect may reach a stable level.”

The study represents a first step in exploring the potential of using satellite data to quantify the possible effects of the development of big wind farms on weather and climate, said Chris Thorncroft of SUNY-Albany, a co-author of the paper.

“We’re expanding this approach to other wind farms,” said Thorncroft, “and building models to understand the physical processes and mechanisms driving the interactions of wind turbines and the atmosphere boundary layer near the surface.”

###

Other authors of the paper include Lance Bosart at SUNY-Albany, Yuhong Tian of NOAA, and Yuanlong Hu at Terra-Gen Power LLC in San Diego, Calif.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
tokyoboy

No doubt warming is a good thing for both human and ecological systems.

David Jones

The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again!!

Uh…..no, I just can’t say it. Too coarse to be snip-proof. Truly, nothing is sacred any more. The causation has flipped.

Tony Mach

I wonder with regards to the UHI effect if high-rise buildings could lead to turbulences – and therefore too to the mixing of warmer air from higher up. This could be another contribution to the UHI.

If you dig a lot of big holes in a small area and fill them full of concrete, won’t this cause a sort of mini-UHI effect?

Reblogged this on Johnsono ne'Blog'as and commented:
Vėjo turbinos šiltina klimatą

MB

OMG 1C warmer! And we all know how utterly devastating 1C is. My goodness, it is a wonder that Texas is not under water by now, what with the huge increase in temperature it is suffering from. That must be why there is no Coral Reef in Texas. It’s too hot.

I am following the comments at the Telegraph article…… OM goodness there are so many green activists there, all wanting and pushing for green clean alternate energy sources including nuclear…… they are dumb and deaf to any who disagree

bulaman

From 2010.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251721/Pictured-The-stunning-micro-climate-sea-fog-created-Britains-windfarms.html
Air mixing making fog.. oh what about the albedo? Positive or negative feedbacks?

Lets save the world from warming by making it warmer!!!! Go Green! [/sarc]
Well i guess it is time to admit not only is their favorite tech not worth the wind that powers it, but now it accomplishes the exact thing it was meant to prevent. How wrong can they become in this debate?

Rob Schneider

Is this not caused by the basic thermo effect of heat being created whenever there is a conversion of one type of energy to another? Windmills convert kinetic energy to electricity. I would presume all power generation systems, e.g. coal, gas, etc. also has local heating effect?

prjindigo

Trees affect the local temperature at night as well, its a common enough problem with ANY kind of ground clutter. This has likely had input into UHI. Just another application of the law of thermodynamics.

eljay

This is both tragic & funny at the same time – Shakespeare would have a ball with this material.

wayne

That’s a no brainer. I commented on that very subject over a year ago here on a post showing offshore windmills streaming clouds behind. Then just speculating. They create turbulence breaking the smooth surface skin laminar flow which increases soil evaporation. Dry soil does get hotter, and where will you mostly see this excess in energy manifest itself… during the cooler nightime temperatures. Don’t have to be a rocket scientist to connect those dots.
Windmills are destructive in every respect.

This phenomenon has been known for some time but at last it’s getting traction. When we submitted against this wind farm we raised the issue of wind turbines dessicating the native forest in the area and increasing the likelihood of a catastrophic fire, we were ignored.

http://palmerstonnorth.blogspot.com/
sorry missed the website.

Andrew

The paper is pay-walled so difficult to see to what extentthe observed effects impact maximum (daytime) temperature readings. But potentially very important finding since the results would seem to require that the definition of the ‘urban heat island’ (UHI) now be extended well beyond the perimeter of the surbubs and the airports…
And as the study also points-out – teh same effect is also observed in grape-growing regions which use horizontal windmills (ie. helicopters) to mix air in order to elevate ground temperatures.
Presumably maximum temperatures during short winter days will be similarly affected ie. artifically increased…?
Perhaps now time to simply accept that the land-based record has been, and increasingly is, corrupted to the point of no utility in measuring temperature change? Too many confounding/ corrupting variables in data recording, data creation (interpolation) and data analysis.
Time to assign the land-based records to the category of science fiction. The satellites are demonstrably far more dependable and far less prone to man-made sources of ‘error’.

Luther Wu

I’m not too sure about this. The turbines are removing energy from the wind, not adding energy as in the California growers example. The turbines would be causing local effects of mixing of the layers, to be sure. If satellite data reveals increased local temps, they may be on to something.
Still, the paper makes me think that there might be something to the oft- quoted “one butterfly” example derived from Chaos Theory… all of those locally missing wing beats from churned birds, you see.

JoeH

I have ceased to be surprised, I begin to wonder is there anything that AGW devotion doesn’t make worse than the problem it was supposed to solve. Reading the comments on the Telegraph site it also seems that the true believers are becoming even more dogmatic, they allow for no argument that might upset their belief that wind technology can be anything other short of wonderful. The emperor’s clothes are now openly styled and worn by warmists.

P. Solar

From Louise Gray in the Telegraph:
>>
Wind farms can cause climate change, according to new research, that shows for the first time the new technology is already pushing up temperatures.
>>
A localised heating effect is NOT a change in climate. If anyone thinks that then we’d better stop bitching about UHI .
Nuclear power plants warm the local rivers and this may legitimately be called an effect on the local environment , it is not “climate change”.

Adam Gallon

Will we see a sudden increase in the number of weather stations being relocated into these wind-subsidy farms’ footprint & GISS doing a spot of “backdating”? 😉

artwest

Surprised that Louise “cut n’ paste any old press release from Greenpeace/WWF” Gray regurgitated something this critical. Guess she didn’t even read it – just saw “peer review” and “wind farms” and assumed it was straightforward alarmist stuff.

wikeroy

It is hillarious! Try Thorium instead.

P. Solar

>>
While ironic that something designed to reduce CO2 emissions (and presumably warming)is actually producing warming around it, this isn’t really any big surprise.
>>
Wind turbines are designed to produce renewable energy. That is their function and always has been. Anyone thinking they well reduce global CO2 is probably beyond help.
The fact that they cause localised warming is indeed not surprising. Just about any technique producing or consuming hundreds of MW of power will produce localised warming.
Coal plants give of huge amounts of steam from their cooling towers: huge installations designed to dump heat into the local atmosphere. Nuclear plant does the same thing into local water ways or coastal waters.
Both those effects are much larger than the warming caused by the turbulence of wind mills. Classical power generation is only about 35% efficient, the rest ending up as heat. For a 1GW nuclear plant that’s about 650MW of localise heating 24/7 .
So the article is correct, it’s no surprise that large scale power generation causes local warming. Why then is it worth an article?
If localised heating is supposed to be an “issue” maybe this would be a plus wind generators. If not, it’s a just a badly thought out bash at wind generation.

richard verney

This story is being carried in some of the UK press (The Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph).
I am sceptical about the study although it would not surprise me that at a local level, a windfarm could have some impact on its immediate environment. It is obviously altering the natural windflow. There have also been some reports suggesting that windfarms may be reducing the average wind speed.
Whether this local impact has any significant bearing on global levels is, of course, a very different matter.
We now know that windfarms do not to any significant degree reduce CO2 levels (if for no other reason that they require almost 100% back up with conventional power generation). They therefore fail at their primary aim. It would be a lovely irony if there is merit in this study and they actually add to global warming.
Hopefully, this study will add to the weight of evidence calling for a re-think on windfarms.

“But on huge wind farms the motion of the turbines mixes the air higher in the atmosphere that is warmer, pushing up the overall temperature.”
Sounds like a basis for a perpetuum mobile…
The motion of the wind itself creates eddies which warm the surface at night compared to still nights, whether there are any wind turbines in the vicinity or not.

I’m no fan of these ugly, bird killing contraptions, but it seems that the warming is restricted to the surface. Since wind farms mix different layers of the atmosphere, as the lower ones absorb heat, the higher parts should get colder. So perhaps (I couldn’t read the paywalled paper) claiming that wind farms cause atmospheric warming is a bit misleading.

Mark

Surprisingly, Richard Black has (albeit with huge caveats) covered this at the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17871300 – next to a story about the Campaign for the Protestion of Rural England demanding further clarity and control over the march of inappropriately sized and located turbine farms across the countryside. Perhaps the tide is starting to turn against wind…

Philip Bradley

The ‘over wind farms’ has me a bit baffled. That indicates less turbulence, resulting in less air to surface heat transfer during the night. Whereas I’d expect wind turbines to increase turbulence as any obstruction would.

Graham Jarvis

So they cause warming – great. They also confuse the hell out of birds, who fly into the blades and die – many of these are from endangered or at risk species … I’ve got to go to my fallback about ecomentalists – they just aren’t very environmentally friendly.

Larry Ledwick (hotrod)

Tony Mach says:
April 30, 2012 at 12:18 am
I wonder with regards to the UHI effect if high-rise buildings could lead to turbulences – and therefore too to the mixing of warmer air from higher up. This could be another contribution to the UHI.

Never thought of that issue before but now that you mention it — yes most certainly. In the last few decades there has been a specialty in urban design and architecture where they analyze the effect of tall building complexes on surface winds. There a many example of buildings magnifying surface winds by redirecting airflow as the prevailiing wind impacts the up wind side of the building. Sometimes those surface winds are strong enough to blow pedestrians off their feet.
The Dept of Reclamation building on the Denver Federal Center is one of those buildings where there is a large court yard under the open lowest story of the building. During our front range wind storms they close access to that area because the winds will literally pick people up and slam dunk them to the pavement.
Larry

You take energy out of the atmosphere and it gets warmer! Perpetual motion has been discovered!

polistra

When even High Priestess Louise Gray says wind “power” is warm, you can be sure it has lost its coolness. And since all modern religious “science” is solely about coolness and status, an uncool “power” source will be on the way out soon.
Without wind “power”, the Gaian repertoire of Healing Sacraments gets mighty short. The Solar Sacrament doesn’t work at all in Northern Europe; they haven’t even tried to defend that one.

ROM

Strong winds do not necessarily create turbulence at ground level ,Tallbloke.
I have flown light aircraft and gliders for over 50 years now so am very familiar with wind shear and the changes in wind velocities with height. And with low level wind shear which can and has embarrassed many a pilot while landing an aircraft.
My most memorable example of some really marked wind shear was late at night some 50 plus years ago when I was still of the “quite wet behind the ears” vintage.
It happened very late at night while I was sowing our winter wheat crop.
The area is dead flat for kilometres in all directions so it was ideal for wind shear.
There was almost no sound after the tractor was switched off during this very cold, late at night winter period and the air was almost completely still.
I climbed onto about a metre high platform on the seeder and stood up and to my amazement, damn near got blown off that platform with the strength of the wind.
With a little experimentation I found that the shear layer was perhaps no more than a foot thick and was about 2.5 metres above ground level which is why I did not detect it while on the ground or even when I was driving the open topped tractor. Not much in the way of comforts for farmers in those, thankfully, long gone days.
By ducking down to waist level while on the seeder’s platform, I found that I was in almost dead still air.
Stand up and from my chest level up was a howling gale but without the noise effects.
It was one of the most marked and amazing examples of wind shear at low levels I have ever come across and was completely undetectable at ground level in those wide open obstruction free spaces.

SPreserv

How about this; let those who want wind energy buy only electricity generated that way.
Then let those of us who don’t want it, buy our electricity from other, non wind-generated sources.
Then we’ll wait for the next big freeze and the entire chicken-little crowd will have changed their minds.

Nick Stokes

The paper is paywalled, so I, like I guess most here, haven’t read it. So some basic physics will have to do.
Wind turbines do not emit GHGs. They just convert wind kinetic energy to electrical, plus waste heat liberated at and downwind of the site. The electrical energy is destined to end up as heat too, but somewhere else.
But the kinetic energy of the wind was always going to be converted to heat somewhere, with or without turbines. It’s the only thing that can happen to it. The question is, where?
The wind farms create turbulence which turns KE into heat locally. But that isn’t heat added to the Earth. It’s just moving the location of heat production. More is produced near the wind farm; less wherever the wind was going.

DirkH

P. Solar says:
April 30, 2012 at 1:38 am
“Wind turbines are designed to produce renewable energy. That is their function and always has been. Anyone thinking they well reduce global CO2 is probably beyond help.”
I disagree, their main function, for the time being, is pumping money. The energy is a byproduct.
“The fact that they cause localised warming is indeed not surprising. Just about any technique producing or consuming hundreds of MW of power will produce localised warming.”
Don’t be silly. You’d need about 2,000 2.5 MW Wind turbines to replace one single 1 GW coal or nuclear plant; assuming a capacity factor of 20 %; and then you’d still need the GW plant to accomodate for when the wind doesn’t blow.
“Coal plants give of huge amounts of steam from their cooling towers: huge installations designed to dump heat into the local atmosphere. Nuclear plant does the same thing into local water ways or coastal waters.”
Again, one plant against 2,000 wind turbines.
“Both those effects are much larger than the warming caused by the turbulence of wind mills. Classical power generation is only about 35% efficient, the rest ending up as heat. For a 1GW nuclear plant that’s about 650MW of localise heating 24/7 .”
That is one cooling tower against 2,000 big wind turbine wakes. Again, you’re trying to belittle the effect of wind turbines by not mentioning the number needed. 2,000 big wind turbine wakes cover a lot of area.
“So the article is correct, it’s no surprise that large scale power generation causes local warming. Why then is it worth an article?”
You have been trying to deceive with every sentence in your comment by making it sound like that’s one wind turbine vs. one power plant.
Now, I couldn’t care less about this negligible warming, it’s probably even good for plants and wildlife at least where I live, but we can and will use this warming effect to irritate warmists and make them blather self-contradictory stuff. After all, I’d like to see the subsidies gone.

MangoChutney

So global warming is anthropogenic and here’s the proof. Of course, I always knew it was and you dirty, rotten, scoundrel, denialisters had better believe me now! /sarc
OK, I get the (local) warming bit – a Polish study from a few years back made a simialr suggestion – but it’s hardly global warming / cAGW, is it?

MangoChutney

Having said that, if the IPCC were to extrapolate in line with their usual “scenarios” …..

izen

As other posters have noted the wind turbines dont actually warm anything, they just cause the same sort of turbulence that any object sticking up out of the flat landscape generates.
I’ve always thought it rather ironic that an efficient wind farm removes per unit area, about the same amount of energy from the atmopshere as is put there by the increased CO2; approx 1.2 W/m2.

Say you have a 500 Megawatt wind farm ( they do that size in Texas) and your generators are 90% efficient (including the gearing and orientation motors and all). That’s 10% of the energy turned into heat. 50 Megawatts. Think dumping 50 Megawatts into the air over a Texas farm will matter?
But it’s actually worse than that. That’s the electrical efficiency. The aerodynamic efficiency is less. The wind arrives with energy as velocity. That velocity is turned into motion of the wind turbine and into heat via turbulence. The theoretical max efficiency of a wind turbine is about 59%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz'_law
So depending on how much kinetic energy in the wind is turned into thermal energy, you will get various quantities of heat produced. Call it 40%. Now we’re talking about 200 Megawatts of heat from our wind farm.
The actual numbers will be something else, but these numbers give some useful bounds on the problem. Somewhere between 50 and 200 Megawatts moved from linear kinetic energy to thermal energy (molecular kinetic energy) for our wind farm… Plus the layer mixing effects.
You just can’t ignore the laws of thermodynamics, and ANY energy conversion will involve waste heat dumped to the environment. The only question is the size of the numbers.
It is also the case that you can not ignore enthalpy and entropy. It isn’t just about temperatures.
BTW, something similar must happen with solar power. A dark solar panel (required to efficiently absorb sunlight) will have more total sunshine turned to heat and less reflected back to space. Net, it must warm the air near it. If you doubt that, realize that many solar panels have been made which run water through pipes attached to the cells. Both to cool the cells and heat the water… The typical absorption of average natural surfaces is 18% (which is why photographers use an 18% gray card to set exposure meters…). Say our dark solar cells raise this to 72% ( I think it will be more than that, but let’s be conservative). That’s 4 x 18%. So a 300% increase in solar absorption. At 1 kW / m^2, we had been 180 W and now we’re at 720 Watts of absorbed sunshine turned into heat.
Now imagine a 1000 Megawatt solar thermal plant. It’s increased the heat absorbed (and eventually rejected to the atmosphere) by 540 Megawatts. (720 – 180 original). But even the energy that gets turned into electrons eventually becomes heat at the end user location. Just no way around it. (Physics is like that…)
I guess it’s too much to ask that Greens learn some thermodynamics principles…

@Nick Stokes & Izen:
You can’t just hand wave away that heating with a ‘somewhere’. The “where” matters. IF that wind went up a hill, the heat gets lost to enthalpy changes, not temperature changes.
IF that wind passes over water, evaporation turns that heat into water vapor, not temperature.
IF that water vapor rises (as it does) to make rain, that heat can be dumped at altitude, perhaps even at the top of a thunderstorm in the lower stratosphere (as thunderclouds can do).
SO where and how both matter. As hail making in the lower stratospheric layers is far different heat liberation than hot air at ground level. One will show up in the Stevenson Screen down wind of the farm, the other as ice on the ground. I think that matters.
Heat flow is not temperature. These things are creating temperature rises at ground level out of that energy in the wind. That wind could have gone on to many other non-temperature-rise heat flows instead.
As “Global Warmists” want to ignore that fact and pretend that temperature at ground level is all that matters (and religiously ignore enthalpy – i.e. things like dew point and humidity changes) then meet your own petard and realize that it is only temperature rise at ground level that matters at that wind farm. Don’t like that? Then how about putting in some enthalpy calculations in your Global Average Temperatures and adding some vertical convective heat dumping into the lower stratosphere (as is seen every time there’s a thunderstorm or hurricane or cyclone or monsoon or….) and adjusting for air density changes and…

nowayman

Another thing is by slowing down the wind ever slow slightly reduces the cooling power of the wind. As a result there is increased heating down wind from the wind farm.

Philip Bradley

E.M.Smith says:
Thanks that solved my bafflement.
And the albedo change from solar panels is interesting.

Nick Stokes

E.M.Smith says: April 30, 2012 at 3:48 am
“You just can’t ignore the laws of thermodynamics, and ANY energy conversion will involve waste heat dumped to the environment. The only question is the size of the numbers.”

Yes, so let’s look. The wind calc is spurious, because what you’re not allowing for is what would have happened if the wind farm had not dissipated that heat. All wind energy ends up as heat somewhere. Wind farms just move the location.
But the other thing is that the direct use of energy by humans is very small compared to GHG forcing. Total energy use is about 15000 GW. That’s about 0.03 W/m2 of the Earth’s surface. The waste energy that you are talking about would be of the same order, if the energy generation was all renewable. But GHG forcing is about two orders of magnitude greater.

smu

Did anybody here read the paper! Roughly 50 times the word spatial is used. This is a highly local event possibly caused by increase surface roughness and air mixing by turbine blades as state in the article.
Nowhere in the article the authors make the suggestion that this would have any effect on global temperatures. It is probably a nice effect if you have a vinyard downwind so you do not have to fear the night time frosts that much. In some contries you have to pay helicopters to do excatly this job, yet you would not ague that this would cause global warming.
Regrards smu

Nick Stokes

E.M.Smith says: April 30, 2012 at 4:04 am
“You can’t just hand wave away that heating with a ‘somewhere’. The “where” matters. IF that wind went up a hill, the heat gets lost to enthalpy changes, not temperature changes.”

No, none of the things you listed are permanent energy storages. If air goes up a hill, the atmosphere doesn’t rise; other air is displaced down. If water evaporates, it will later condense. If PV work is done, it will be undone. It all has to end up as heat. Somewhere.
But, as I said later, the amounts are all small compared with GHG forcing. No “warmists” worry about the direct production of heat by human activity, on a global scale. It’s tiny compared with GHG. And the same is true of the associated waste heat.

PaulH

Is is any surprise that a computer model predicts more warming?
/snark

tadchem

“Satellite data over a large area in Texas, that is now covered by four of the world’s largest wind farms, found that over a decade the local temperature went up by almost 1C as more turbines are built.”
T. Boone Pickens’ oily handprints are all over this one.

Wind farms remove energy from the air, slowing it down, and between the slower air and the warming by mixing, evaporation is going to increase, increasing water needs for crops and creating the permanent drought that they so excitedly predict.
When the disasters from global warming-that-isn’t fail to appear, never fear. Green energy will make it happens anyhow!