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.

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:
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:
Scientists find night-warming effect over large wind farms in Texas
Wind turbines interact with atmospheric boundary layer near the surface
![]() |
||||
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.”
![]() |
||||
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.
![]() |
||||
“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.



How in this world can wind farms create any “trend” in temperatures?……………….
I’m waiting for a paper that shows that all the extreme weather events – all the “weather wierding” and “climate disruption” – is actually being caused by wind farms. Now that would be ironic.
> Ric Werme says: wmconnolley says: No, its caused by mixed down air from higher up. wayne says:… They create turbulence breaking the smooth surface skin laminar flow which increases soil evaporation
> While Wayne may not have worded things quite right, exactly how is the air inversion broken up without turbulence?
Wayne is wrong to think that evaporation is a significant part of the effect. The effect is the turbines mix down warmer air from above, on nights with an inversion (principally or entirely; I can’t see the paper either, so I’m not quite sure exactly what their results say).
There is no energy conversion from kinetic to heat, or whatever (or at least, it isn’t significant). All that is happening is mixing. So, in particular, the total atmospheric heat isn’t changed. So its only a local effect.
Do you think it is at all interesting that not one of the “skeptics” here had the slightest idea what the effect was? Or were even capable of reading what Black had, pretty clearly, written?
REPLY: Hey Connolley, read the first paragraph before you say “not one”. I’m really growing weary of your condescension. Since you think we are all “stupid”, as you stated publicly, why not go back to your Stoat blog and rant there. I don’t disagree with your explanation, but saying “not one of the “skeptics” here had the slightest idea what the effect was” is a condescending assumption on your part, and is dead wrong. – Anthony
wmconnolley says:
April 30, 2012 at 6:06 am
“Daytime temperatures do not appear to be affected.
This is also true of global warming, where most of the change in the past 150 years has occurred over land, to night-time temperatures. The obvious conclusion is that warming is a result of increased mixing of the atmosphere due to land use changes.
150 years ago humans were using 4% of the surface of the earth. We are now using 40%. Largely made possible by the switch from animal energy to fossil energy. It is this change in land use that is changing the temperature, not changes in CO2.
CO2 is well mixed, and we would see changes in both daytime and nighttime temperatures. As well we would see temperature changes in the atmosphere first, leading the changes in surface temperatures. What has been clear from the satellites and from weather balloons for some time is that the atmosphere is not heating as fast as the surface. Thus, CO2 cannot be the cause.
There is no mechanism that allows increased CO2 to warm the surface faster than the atmosphere. There is no mechanism that allows CO2 to warm the night faster than the day. The CO2 theory of AGW cannot explain these effects, which are the principle components of the observed global warming over the past 150 years.
This sounds just a bit crazy to me. There is no net warming going on here. This is all energy that is already here and is only being moved around – there is mixing but no new energy is introduced. The volumetric energy level doesn’t change. The same thing happens when nature builds a mountain. The energy from the cool air warms the upper air and finally the dark night sky beyond Earth. Some of that lost energy is returned to the lower atmosphere on its way out, but out it goes.
I’m skeptical. It also seems I’m in agreement with Connolley which I find offensive but that’s science for you.
WUWT readers may be interested to know the wmconelley has offered a bet on sea ice that has been accepted by smokey. An offer made and accepted is a legally binding contract.
wmconnolley says:
April 27, 2012 at 12:28 am
I offered to bet against anyone who thought the sea ice this summer wouldn’t be substantially less than normal.
Smokey says:
April 26, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Loser pays a hundred bucks to the WUWT “Donate” button. Real money.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/26/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-4-nsidc-arctic-sea-ice-extent-touches-the-normal-line/#comment-971554
“Substantially below is usually defined as a discrepancy of more than 2 standard deviations”
http://www.mcburney.wisc.edu/information/documentation/lddisdocguide.php
“At its maximum extent on March 18, Arctic sea ice extent was within two standard deviations of the average, a measure that scientists look at as an estimate of the natural range of variability for the data.”
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
There was a similar papar published by MIT in 2010 on said subject.
Summay article http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/climate-wind-0312.html
Free paper http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/2053/2010/acp-10-2053-2010.html
“Overall, the warming effect reported in this study is local and is small compared to the strong background year-to-year land surface temperature changes. Very likely, the wind turbines do not create a net warming of the air and instead only re-distribute the air’s heat near the surface, which is fundamentally different from the large-scale warming effect caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases”.
taken from a Q&A with the paper’s authors. Incidentally, the Fox News coverage of this is fantastic. [/sarc]
http://nation.foxnews.com/global-warming/2012/04/30/new-research-shows-wind-farms-cause-global-warming
AHHA!!!
This explains how the Texas Rangers are 16-6….. warmer temps from wind turbines (Texas having the largest!!) resulting in more home runs…. We have correlation, and finally causation.
(For our foreign friends, the Rangers are an American baseball team, and George Bush Jr had a 1% interest in the team from 1989 to 1994……. I’m sure someone will figure out how to blame Bush for the warming)
So added turbulence is bringing atmospheric heat from above down to the
surface, and increasing surface temperature on clear nights. This increases
outgoing radiation, and therefore cooling of the atmosphere.
At this rate, more wind farms could slightly *decrease* peak daytime
temperatures when there are clear nights with wind.
wmconnolley says:
April 30, 2012 at 6:06 am
“The estimated warming trend only applies to the study region and to the study period, and thus should not be extrapolated linearly into other regions or over longer periods.”
=========
Ah, the hockey stick school of statistical analysis as presented by the IPCC. Take a limited number of trees that grow in limited areas and limited elevations, and use this to extrapolate global temperatures for the next 100 years.
97% of the climate scientists in the world signed on to this. They said it was valid statistics. Proper science. Now we are hearing that you can’t do this, that you can’t extrapolate to other regions or longer periods of time???
Preposterous, the IPCC has already set the ground rules for science. These rules have been accepted by 97% of all climate scientists. If one small sample over a limited time period is valid to extrapolate over the entire globe a century into the future, then all samples are valid.
The evidence is clear. Windmills are heating the surface at 0.72C per decade. This is 10 times the observed rate of global warming attributed to CO2. 10 Times!! And windmills are increasing much, much faster than CO2. Hundreds, even thousands of times faster than CO2.
What we have on our hand is CWM. Catastrophic Windmill Warming.
wmconnolley says:
April 30, 2012 at 6:03 am
Mark says:… Richard Black has (albeit with huge caveats) covered this at the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17871300
Yes, and Balck has got it right: the key bit you’ve all missed is “The scientists believe the effect is caused by turbines bringing relatively warm air down to ground level.”
==========================================================
Nobody missed it. “Believe” suggests to me that it’s a theory developed to explain the observations which will need to be further investigated. Nice to see a theory being developed to explain the data rather than the other way round.
One question, though. The claim is that there is a temperature differential between the ground and air at night but not in the day. I was under the (obviously) mistaken impression that during the day, the ground was warmer and then radiated the extra heat back to the air at night. In that case, I’d have thought that the same mechanics would lead to turbines “bringing the relatively cool air down to ground level” during the day and commensurately reducing daytime ground temperature?
REPLY: This is just another case of the “Connolley is superior and we are all stupid” mindset he holds. Apparently he missed my introduction about frost mitigation when he lumped me and everyone into “you’ve all missed it”. What a plonker of a comment. – Anthony
Reminds me of a method used in the Arabia desert at one time to create ice. A barrier is erected and water placed in shallow trays behind it. As the prevailing wind flows over the barrier it increases the cooling effect on the leeward side, allowing ice to be formed where it would otherwise not be possible.
Connelly is here?
William, whatever happened with you taking your toys and running home… never to return?
[Moderator’s Note: I don’t believe he ever said that. Please keep the Connolley bashing to a minimum and engage him with substance. -REP]
Headline 2014: Windturbines Help Save Us from Cooling Planet
“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”
And why does the air closer to the ground become colder, but that it radiates to the 3 K of outer space, while air above it doesn’t lose heat energy via radiation in the wavelengths of the ‘atmospheric window’ like the ‘black body’ of the ground surface? There isn’t any overall warming, actually cooling, from more radiative heat loss from the warmer ground, just an increase in surface temps.
Charlie says:
April 30, 2012 at 7:33 am
“Overall, the warming effect reported in this study is local and is small compared to the strong background year-to-year land surface temperature changes. *** Very likely, the wind turbines do not create a net warming of the air and instead only re-distribute the air’s heat near the surface ***, which is fundamentally different from the large-scale warming effect caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases”.
Reblogged this on contrary2belief and commented:
The changing climate; courtesy of those who try to stop it from changing.
The only way to fight entropy is to produce greater entropy elsewhere.
> [Moderator’s Note: I don’t believe he ever said that. Please keep the Connolley bashing to a minimum and engage him with substance. -REP]
You mean stuff like “What a plonker of a comment.”? You’ll need to check in with the organ grinder, I think 🙂
[Reply: After that “organ grinder” comment, I would be surprised if in future the moderator goes out of his way to defend Mr Connolley. ~dbs, mod.]
I’ll go with the farmers any day – they know the effect better than anyone here and have used this method of frost prevention to save their produce by common practice. That’s a local effect. In regard to the temperatures itself – it appears our methods of temperature record keeping merely measures where gages are at any given moment in time at what altitude. I can tell you the temperature next to my house but I have no idea what that temperature is 10 or 20 or 200 meters above my house. Exactly who does at all points over the earth? I believe if my memory serves me correctly – Anthony you did a very nice study on the local Reno ( I think that was you) area and its UHI effect for that local area awhile back that would be similar to the local area covered by windmills here. Would this effect then be somewhat similar?
Weather channel has a reality show called “Turbine Cowboys” about the brave workers who install and maintain these bird grinders. In one segment, we see men risking their lives to replace huge turbines destroyed by high winds, just so a few rich homeowners on a island can say they use renewal energy. Has anyone ever accurately calculated how much energy is used to produce, maintain, and repair these colossal machines?
I would have thought that the concrete bases and metal structure would also cause warming? As someone said above another UHI effect.
If the CO2 alarmists were serious about the precautionary principle they would be very alarmed about the un-known consequences of this human impact.
As an amusing side note, observe that warming the nighttime surface actually causes more rapid net cooling of the Earth viewed as a system. The warmer the ground temperatures are at night, the more they radiate. The more they are re-warmed by recirculated air the more net energy they radiate away over the course of the night (because recall that the air itself almost doesn’t radiate at all — nearly transparent in the broad band of BB radiation centroid to its temperature). The cooler, then, the air itself at the end of the night.
Since this doesn’t affect the rate that energy is absorbed the following day, the overall effect is net cooling.
I am a bit dubious, though. Wind turbines don’t turn unless there is enough wind to turn them. They then have to significantly increase the downstream turbulence in order to produce enough mixing to significantly warm the ground, especially when there is generally a thermal lapse rate that goes the other way, with the air overhead being cooler, not warmer, than the air on the ground (although yes, this could at some point invert over the course of an evening — but does the inversion occur that regularly?). In general it sounds like the sort of thing that can happen only when the conditions are just right — dry near-desert air so that ground-air temperatures generally do invert, a smooth, flat plain with gentle vertically structured laminar flow breezes with little ground structure to create turbulence. Too strong a breeze or just a few trees and you get mixing and turbulence anyway, too much humidity and you don’t get the inversion, and so on. Texas, perhaps, NC I very much doubt it (too humid, little inversion, lots of turbulence anyway, at least near the coast or on mountain slopes where there is likely to be a sustained wind).
Either way, though — warmer ground due to mixing equals a cooler Earth overall. In fact, one can compute the additional radiative loss associated with 1 degree K of sustained differential surface heating and see just how much cooler the Earth as a whole will be. Oh, and we get a bit more differential cooling by turning some of the energy of the wind into electricity and then turning the electricity into LOCALIZED heat — the more hot spots we have, the more efficient the cooling. Thermally homogeneous air and ground cools the slowest.
rgb
Just a thought here … I really think this ought to be balanced (that is, measured or contrasted with or) against a ‘natural’ environment background of ‘greenery’ i.e. plants, grass, trees etc. which a) absorb some impinging sunlight energy and also b) provides evaporative cooling to maintain a lowered ‘plant’ (vegetative) temperature …
.