Guest opinion; Dr. Tim Ball
“Every wind has its weather.” English philosopher Sir Francis Bacon (1561 –1621)
What happens if the global average wind speed changes by one kilometer per hour? A great deal, including the rate of evaporation from the surface, a major mechanism of energy transfers in the atmosphere. The wind is not part of the official discussion about climate change because it is not part of the greenhouse effect (GE) mechanism. It is the major reason why GE is a false analogy. Wind is a major variable so important in physical mechanisms of the atmosphere. It is also very important in people’s interaction with the atmosphere. But consider what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR5 Physical Science Basis Report says,
AR4 concluded that mid-latitude westerly winds have generally increased in both hemispheres. Because of shortcomings in the observations, SREX stated that confidence in surface wind trends is low. Further studies assessed here confirm this assessment. (My bold)
Lack of adequate temperature and pressure measurements mean the computer models cannot reproduce accurately these mechanisms.
Wind (advection) is created by temperature differences at the surface. This creates pressure differences relatively determined as High and Low. Nature tries to offset the imbalance by moving air from the High to the Low. The strength of the wind is determined by the difference in pressure and the distance between the centres of High and Low known as the Pressure Gradient Force (PGF).
Transport of heat is an extremely important function of the wind, which it does when warm air moves into a cold region. It also does it by the least known and understood, but most important, latent heat.
Evaporation is the process of molecules of water reaching escape velocity and breaking free from the surface of the water into the air. This can increase in three ways, increasing of water temperature, increasing in air temperature or, increasing wind speed. The most important of the three is an increase in wind speed.
The energy used to increase the escape velocity of a water molecule is not lost; rather it is within the molecule as latent heat. The molecule changes from liquid to gas in the escape. When condensation occurs the water as gas goes back to liquid and the latent heat is released to warm the atmosphere. This is why air temperature increases when rain or snow occurs.
Moisture is also put into the air through plants in a process called transpiration. This also varies with heat and wind speed. The volumes of moisture are prodigious The United States Geological Survey say, “An acre of corn gives off about 3,000-4,000 gallons (11,400-15,100 liters) of water each day, and a large oak tree can transpire 40,000 gallons (151,000 liters) per year.” No wonder there is a considerable difference between cleared and forested slopes at the Coweta Experiment Station (Figure 1.)
Figure 1. Comparison of evaporation and run off from
cleared and forested slopes.
The sensationalist media focus on tornadoes and hurricanes, but strong winds constantly and consistently do far more damage. People who lived through the thirties dust bowl talk about the constant winds desiccating everything. Southern Canada saw similar pattern across the Prairies. Figure 2 shows a picture taken in Regina, Saskatchewan in April 1933. Despite this, there are few studies of the wind and its role in aggravating the situation. For example, soil erosion is a natural process, but exacerbated by increased winds.
Figure 2
Most people know about meteorology, but don’t realize it is a subset of climatology, that it only studies physics of the atmosphere. Aristotle wrote a book De Meteorologica that relates to atmospheric processes. He also studied climatology and produced a global climate classification system. The word climate comes from klima, the Greek word for inclination (The spell-checker suggested karma). They mean the angle of incidence, the angle at which the sun’s rays strike the surface. From this Aristotle identified three climate zones (Figure 3).
Figure 3
The Greeks also understood that each region had different wind patterns and seasonal movement of the zones meant changing winds that marked the change of seasons. The wind was so important that in the first century BC Andronicus built the Tower of the Winds in Athens. Each of the eight sides depicts male deities who characterize wind and weather from that direction. The only name familiar to people today is Boreas god of the north wind. We retain two important ideas. The first is that we define winds by the directions from which they come – a north wind comes from the north. For many, especially people whose livelihood like farmers are weather dependent, still use wind direction as a prognosticator of weather conditions. The idea persists because it is observable and a useful method of predicting local conditions. These empirical observations and forecasts were recorded by Theophrastus (371-287 BC), a student of Aristotle’s, in a book Meteorological Phenomena, more commonly known as the Book of Signs.
Wind direction was easily determined, but speed was always much more difficult. Early attempts used a flat board on a spring with a pointer attached set against a scale. Wind pushed the board, and the pointer indicated the force. The major change came with the wind cup or anemometer in 1846, although some earlier instruments existed from about 1450 in the pre-scientific era. It provides an accurate measure, but recording the information for analysis was more difficult. Unlike most weather variables, continuous data is critical because wind speed is extremely variable but the effect is cumulative. Any average is inadequate, except for determining global wind patterns (Figure 4).
Figure 4
George Hadley (1685-1768), lawyer and amateur meteorologist made a major contribution to climatology through an interest in the Trade Winds. He used ships weather logs to produce a theory about a major portion of atmospheric circulation. The Hadley Cell was the only portion of atmospheric circulation we understood in concept for 250 years. Ironically, and sadly, its major role in global weather and climate is still inadequately covered in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer models.
There are also distinctive regional winds that often define a cultural region. For example, hot, dry winds blowing from desert regions such as the Santa Ana winds in California, the Sirocco or Harmattan winds from the Sahara, or the Mistral in southern France. They are harbingers of stressing conditions. In Alberta, the Chinook are warm winds blowing down off the Rockies. The name means “snow eater” which reflects higher temperatures but also stronger winds. That great environmental expert Leonardo DiCaprio was in Calgary for a chinook event and displayed his ignorance by saying it was evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
Ironically, the Agricultural Revolution took people away from the weather into the confines of urban areas. When I lived in Winnipeg, I did a regular program each month on the weather. Every autumn it included warnings about travelling outside city limits. Every year people considered conditions reasonable but were suddenly caught in blowing and drifting snow. The worst was west of the city on the open Prairie. For better control, they installed gates so they could close the highway (Figure 5).
Figure 5
Most people are more removed from agriculture than ever. Those still involved recognize the impact. A book “Weather forecasting: The Country Way” by farmer/author Robin Page says in the preface,
“Yet it is strange to record that as the weather forecasting service has grown in size and expense, so its predictions seem to have become more inaccurate.”
Some of the wind observations still used in the Northern Hemisphere middle latitudes include;
Easterly winds bring rain. Or; When you can see the backs of the leaves, it will rain.
A west wind is a favourable wind.
A veering wind will clear the sky; a backing wind says storms are nigh.
Veering means the wind direction is shifting clockwise, so a wind that changes from west to northwest to north is veering. This is associated with high pressure, which brings clear skies. If the wind is backing it is turning counterclockwise then there is a low pressure bringing clouds and probably precipitation. These comments explain Buys-Ballots law that says in the Northern Hemisphere
With your back to the wind, the low pressure is on your left.
Wind effects are real-time experiences for comfort and survival of plants and animals. Air temperatures are measured in still air, so they don’t express how plants or humans are impacted. A wind chill index tells us the rate at which a body is losing heat, which is useful for avoiding severe conditions. Wind also creates large scale regional precipitation effects. For example, west or northwest winds across the open water of the Great Lakes can bring lake-effect rain or snow to large areas of the Northeast.
A significant climate change was captured in a long-term weather record. Wind was the most consistent entry in the Daily Journals of the Hudson’s Bay Company. Officers were all trained as Mariners maintained the journals. They used a standard logging technique developed by Dr. James Jurin in 1722 and recorded the wind to 32 points of the compass. At no time in the record did they measure wind speed, rather, they used a subjective scale similar to that developed by Admiral Beaufort.
Figure 6 shows plots of the percentage frequency of south winds at York Factory located on the southwest shore of Hudson Bay (Figure 5).
Figure 5
The plot compares percentage of wind directions for two decades over 100 years apart. In the early decade from 1721 to 1731, which is well within the Little Ice Age (LIA), south winds blow less than 7 percent of the time. In the decade from 1841 to 1851, which is outside of the LIA, south winds occur over 12 percent of the time with a peak in 1842 of 27 percent.
Figure 6: Percentage of south winds at York Factory
Source; Ball (1986), Climate Change, Vol. 8 pp. 121-134.
This indicates York Factory was within the zone of the polar easterlies (Figure 4) during the Little Ice Age. Then, as conditions warmed naturally, the Polar Front moved north, and York was in the zone of the Westerlies. The same change did not occur at Churchill approximately 190 km further north (Figure 5).
There are so many variables ignored, underreported or simply not understood in climate science and especially in the computer models that purport to simulate global climate. This destroys any pretense we know or understand weather and climate. James Lovelock, the originator of the Gaia hypothesis, said,
“It’s almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think that we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it’s wrong to do it.”
The degree to which the IPCC and their supporters have fooled the world is amazing. As Jean-Francois Revel said:
“How is it possible for a theory, which is false in its component parts, to be true as a whole.”
With ‘official’ climate science many parts of the whole are simply omitted. Revel explained the mentality of the AGW supporters when he wrote,
“A human group transforms itself into a crowd when it suddenly responds to a suggestion rather than to reasoning, to an image rather than to an idea, to an affirmation rather than to proof, to the repetition of a phrase rather than to arguments, to prestige rather than to competence.”
His book, “The Flight from Truth: The Reign of Deceit in the Age of Information” tells it all.
70% of the Earths Surface is covered by water and because of its distribution the oceans absorb close to 80% of the total energy in the Earths energy budget.
The oceans primary means of transferring heat to the atmosphere is via evaporation with net radiation from the surface accounting for a very tiny amount.
Latent heat, not radiation is the primary way the atmosphere is warmed.
We live on a water world. Understanding the oceans, their interaction with the atmosphere and the water cycle is the key to understanding our climate.
I once watched a talk by Andy Thomas, the first Australian astronaut. He showed some pictures from the sky, with some ocean patterns that no one at the time could explain at the time. And for which little has improved so far. He then added “If we don’t understand the ocean, we don’t understand the climate”. And, to the surprise of many, he also said: “All models based on this are wrong”. Latter, someone in the audience asked him: “Even the climate change models?” And he didn’t blink: “All models”.
EXACTLY! Storms just make it somewhat more efficient!
“Latent heat, not radiation is the primary way the atmosphere is warmed.”
Following the data of the Earth’s Radiation Balance of Kiehl and Trenberth
(http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/ceres_brochure.php?page=2) there are four means of warming the atmosphere:
1. by LW radiation (radiation surface minus ‘radiation atmospheric window + back radiation’) = 390 – (40+324) = 26 W/m2
2. by evapotranspiration 78 W/m2
3. by thermals 24 W/m2
4. by direct SW heating by the Sun: 67 W/m2
In total 195 W/m2. Of which LW radiation is 26/1,95 = 13,3%. The other three, all influenced by ‘weather’ warm the atmosphere by 86,7%.
A change in reflective capacities of the Earth influences the temperature of the atmosphere as well.
We need to know and understand at least all ‘weather’ aspects – inclusive wind – to be able to predict. A good idea of Dr. Tim Ball to ask attention for this subject.
What do we know about wind?
The effect of latent heat is immense, I learned that in heat transfer class in engineering school. Which is why the attention paid to pure temperatures is totally misplaced.
oeman50 September 11, 2016 at 8:35 am
Too true! Enthalpy expresses total heat content of a parcel of air (i.e. latent plus sensible heat). A summer day in Phoenix can be 110°F with 10% relative humidity. On the same day, Orlando it could be 85°F with 40% relative humidity. The total heat content in both cases is approximately the same but the temperatures differ by 25°F!
Air temperature alone tells us nothing about total heat content so using it as an indication of an enhanced greenhouse effect—due to human CO2 emissions—is meaningless. Doing so requires the assumption that when the average temperature of the globe has a given value there in one, and only one, coincident value for average moisture content of the atmosphere.
Given that the troposphere is highly turbulent, and weather is extremely variable, this is a very improbable assumption.
AGW due to CO2 may be real but historical temperature trends are not evidence of its existence.
Yet another reason that the term “climate change” is utter nonsense.
Climate is a REGIONAL parameter that is determined by many factors including the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
Another way to determine the climate of a REGION is the dominant plant species.
Climate is NOT a proxy for temperature, as is generally insinuated.
Therefore the “Earth’s climate” is as bogus and impossible to determine mathematically and thermodynamically as is the “mean global temperature”.
To paraphrase the Revel quotes within, ONE CANNOT DETERMINE SENSE FROM SHEER NONSENSE.
YES AND ONE MUST RECOGNIZE ALL THE HOT AIR EMINATING FROM THE REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CORRUPTION (DC). sarc
Wow I didn’t know that wind had such great influence in our lives. It is definitely fascinating to see how something that we usually take for granted can be so disasterous. Your doing an excellent job with your blog. I am glad to see that someone is actually making people aware of climate change.
#littlel0velady
#PLEASE_CHECK_OUT_MY_BLOG
Most farmers, and housewives who still dry their washing on the line, are probably more aware of the important role of wind than many educated climate scientists. Getting the washing dry on a windy night or finding a boggy patch crusted over after a windy night provides visible proof of the big role wind plays. The fact that wind is not accorded much importance by the warmist scientists plays a role in my scepticism
So then, is the relative lack of water available to evaporate in cities one of the reasons for the UHI effect?
It is mentioned as one of the factors. The planting of trees is advised. In forests the temperature is lower because of evaporation.
Thank you Dr Ball, The statement by Mr Revel :
“A human group transforms itself into a crowd when it suddenly responds to a suggestion rather than to reasoning, to an image rather than to an idea, to an affirmation rather than to proof, to the repetition of a phrase rather than to arguments, to prestige rather than to competence.”
is an absolutely immensely valuable, accurate observation, and to me you see it happen in large crowds everywhere, such as sports stadiums, parades, political and protest marches. ( even now after a democratic vote regarding Brexit in Britain the EU supporters are being mislead by the propaganda from the EU bureaucrats and politicians.
And as an example I use the comments I have heard from British visitors the past few days.
They had never heard of the deaths brought on by the regulations preventing people from using coal to heat their homes, the shutting down of coal fired electrical plants and them being converted to burning wood chips imported by ( diesel burning ships) from the USA. Let alone the lack of follow up regarding the rape culture re: Rotherham.
The couple was flabbergasted and after showing them a few different news outlets other than BBC et al they were frankly embarrassed. I have had similar reactions from family in other parts of the EU and none of them are what I would call (As Clinton puts it) “Deplorable! In fact many of them are Uni educated but that may be the problem to begin with.
( and apologies for the rant but it is despicable what the MSM has “accomplished” in the past 20 years. Their destruction of the truth and their misleading of the general public is the only thing that is truly DEPLORABLE !
Je suis deplorable.
That *itch should be in prison.
Toby,
+100
The important word there is ‘prestige’. The Brexit is another classic example. Project Fear expected that their scare stories would be believed because they came from sources with ‘prestige’. The Prime Minister, Chancellor, supposedly independent governer of the Bank of England, OECD, IMF, big international banks – how could they all be wrong. Well the first two have gone, the third should be following them, the others have had to issue reports noting that the UK economy is doing well, better than the EU, and not in meltdown. So much for ‘prestige’ eh?
Farmers and agronomists alike know that deforestation changes both wind and rainfall patterns. The flow on naturally affects evaporation and soil and the greenhouse gas lobby hides these two realities. Ongoing denuding of crucial Amazonian forests for palm oil production, in particular, means that climate science conclusions simply cannot be drawn in the ways that they are.
Wind speeds can change in geographic regions. There is information that wind speeds dropped a couple of years ago in the western U.S. and affected wind turbine production and thus earnings from the affected turbines.
EIA
‘West Coast wind patterns lead to below-normal wind generation capacity factors’
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=22452
KESQ, Palm Springs, CA, April 22, 2015
“Weather Service gave the tornado a rating of E-F-0”
http://www.kesq.com/news/solar-farm-damaged-by-desert-center-tornado/32517226
More images of solar farms damaged by wind online
KENS 5, San Antonio, April 14, 2016
‘Alamo 2 solar farm damaged by Tuesday’s hail storm’
‘looks like close to a quarter of the Alamo 2″ solar project was damaged
Rooftop solar was also damaged by this same hail storm.
http://www.kens5.com/news/local/alamo-2-solar-farm-damaged-by-tuesdays-hail-storm/133803902
More on the internet about this weather event.
Electric Light & Power
‘Wood, steel, concrete – – – Mother Nature can bring em all down’
Wind can twist metal towers like paper clips.
http://www.elp.com/articles/print/volume-77/issue-1/departments/technology/wood-steel-concrete-mother-nature-can-bring-em-all-down.html
Wind is an important factor in electricity transmission.
Well, more turbines means more power extracted from the wind thus the wind speed reduces and this has a huge effect on our climate..
When your back is to the wind, and you live in Oz, the Low is always in the direction of Canberra.
When the wind is coming from Canberra, it always smells like a breeze blowing from a manure pile.
Good one joelobryan. Thanks.
Wind speed alters ocean albedo by changing the effective surface-to-sun elevation angle.
As as resident of Saskatchewan, the province immediately West of Manitoba ( where Dr. Ball formerly lived and worked), I can confirm some of his statements. Winter blizzards here bring much greater snowfall when they “back in” on Easterly winds. And, as an interesting aspect of evaporative effects, I remember my mother hanging out washing at -20. I never understood how it could be dry after 3 or 4 hrs. until many years later when I learned about relative and absolute humidity. I know many if not most people have no idea of the fantastic amount of moisture and latent heat that is transported around the globe and to altitude, where condensation releases that heat.
And the smell of those “freeze-dried” sheets is an unforgettable childhood memory.
As a young boy I would occasionally help Nana bring in her wash. Thanks for the happy memory!
Tim Ball is correct. The dominant cooling process for the Earth’s oceans is wind driven evaporation. This is discussed in detail by Lisan Yu and coworkers from Woods Hole.
The net LWIR cooling emission from the ocean surface is nominally 50 W per sq. m. The rest of the cooling must come from wind driven evaporation. The oceans must heat up until there is sufficient water vapor pressure at the surface to remove the absorbed solar heat by wind driven evaporation. The idea that the ocean surface temperature is somehow controlled by the LWIR flux is complete and utter nonsense.
Within the equatorial Pacific warm pool, an approximate energy balance is reached between tropical solar heating and ocean surface cooling at an average wind speed of 5 m per sec. This is discussed by Clark [2013]. A change of 1 m per sec in wind speed produces a change in the evaporative cooling flux of approximately 40 W per sq. m. Over the last 200 years or so, the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration of 120 ppm has resulted in an increase in the downward LWIR flux at the surface of approximately 2 W per sq. m. In the warm pool, this corresponds to a change in wind speed 20 cm per sec. The penetration depth of the LWIR flux into the ocean surface is less than 100 micron – the width of a human hair. Any warming effect from the increase in CO2 flux is completely obliterated by the normal variation in the wind speed. The cooler water produced by evaporation at the surface sinks through the layer cooled by the LWIR emission and is replace by warmer water from the bulk ocean below.
In order to understand the global warming fraud it is necessary to go back and examine the original paper by Manabe and Wetherald that was published in 1967. Their ‘climate model’ was nothing more than a mathematical platform for the development of radiative transfer algorithms. They created global warming as a mathematical artifact of the assumptions used their model. These assumptions included an exact flux balance between an ‘average absorbed solar flux’ and the emitted LWIR flux at the top of the atmosphere. Their Earth’s surface was a blackbody surface with zero heat capacity. Water vapor amplification of the surface heating had to occur because of the fixed relative humidity profile used in their model. This type of model was used to create the global warming discussed in the Charney Report in 1979. This report established the benchmark for global warming fraud that had to be met by later models. The blackbody surface was subsequently replaced by a fake ‘ocean’ with heat capacity and thermal diffusion. This was described by Hansen et al in 1981. All of this is nothing more than computational climate fiction. Climate modeling had departed from physical reality by 1967.
References
Charney, J. G. et al, Carbon dioxide and climate: A scientific assessment report of an ad hoc study group on carbon dioxide and climate, Woods Hole, MA July 23-27 (1979)
Clark, R., 2013a, Energy and Environment 24(3, 4) 319-340 (2013) ‘A dynamic coupled thermal reservoir approach to atmospheric energy transfer Part I: Concepts’
Clark, R., 2013b, Energy and Environment 24(3, 4) 341-359 (2013) ‘A dynamic coupled thermal reservoir approach to atmospheric energy transfer Part II: Applications’
Hansen, J.; D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind and G. Russell Science 213 957-956 (1981), ‘Climate impact of increasing carbon dioxide’
Manabe, S. and R. T. Wetherald, J. Atmos. Sci., 24 241-249 (1967), ‘Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity’
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6701.pdf
Yu, L. (2012), http://oaflux.whoi.edu/images2_flux/EV_50a.jpg
Yu, L., J. Climate, 20(21) 5376-5390 (2007), ‘Global variations in oceanic evaporation (1958-2005): The role of the changing wind speed’
Yu, L., Jin, X. and Weller R. A., OAFlux Project Technical Report (OA-2008-01) Jan 2008, ‘Multidecade Global Flux Datasets from the Objectively Analyzed Air-sea Fluxes (OAFlux) Project: Latent and Sensible Heat Fluxes, Ocean Evaporation, and Related Surface Meteorological Variables’ (Available at: http://oaflux.whoi.edu/publications.html )
Which “Woods Hole” do you mean? There are two. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is the oldest and best known, founded in 1930; the ultra-warmist Woods Hole Research Center (founded in 1985), apparently hopes to ride on the reputation of the former.
Interesting. No wonder the warmists don’t mention wind.
Maybe it is because it would ‘unsettle’ their science?
“Ironically, the Agricultural Revolution took people away from the weather into the confines of urban areas”. That is why people who live in cities are in favour of wind power. They have no idea how variable wind is (in strength, gustiness and direction), nor the fact that the power is proportional to the cube of the wind speed.
people who live in cities…. have no idea
how variable wind is (in strength, gustiness and direction), nor the fact that the power is proportional to the cube of the wind speed.+100
Thanks
That makes it more understandable.
Wind from the south equals global warming, (in the Northern hemisphere). Wind from the north equals global cooling. Bottom line, don’t blame my Oldsmobile for those hot summers in the 1930s. It’s the winds fault. CLEARLY, the answer my friend, is blowing in the wind……. :-).
I posed the wind question to Willis a while back. Got no answer, in fact got no answer when posing this question to anyone. What tipped me off was the wind’s effect on sublimation in the Arctic.
Nice to see it’s been taken up by one at least, one versed in the science. Well in there Dr Ball.
When condensation occurs the water as gas goes back to liquid and the latent heat is released to warm the atmosphere. This is why air temperature increases when rain or snow occurs.
It may well do at 50,000 ft, but at ground level it sure gets colder!
Agreed. Here in Philippines it drops 3 or 4 degrees C when it rains
Yup and yup, …… when rain clouds blow in they block the incoming solar irradiance and the surface and near-surface temperature decreases.
And when the initial deluge of “cool” raindrops make contact with the “warmer” near-surface air and/or said raindrops strike the warm surface, …… some of the rainwater will “evaporate” and transport that surface and near-surface heat back into the atmosphere and the temperature will decrease some more.
Of course, the opposite effect can or will occur as a result of a “temperature inversion”, read more @ur momisugly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_(meteorology)
And here in Colorado where it is fairly dry, 10-20% RH is common, a 10-20°F drop is also common when it rains.
Dr. Tim nails it once again
Was Mikey Mann able to get the correct wind speed from his Yamal tree?
Actually, prevailing wind direction is very knowable from isolated trees. There would be an indicator of wind speed as well. Trees branches will tend to grow away from the prevailing winds, especially strong winds. Coring the tree from the windward side will also reveal different ring structure from the leeward side. The trees know which side they’re blow upon and compensate.
pbh
An important article.
“There is a considerable amount of climate information about the climatic effects of grand solar minima that essentially points to an atmospheric effect. The observed phenomenology is usually:
– Increased precipitation in mid and high-latitudes
– Decreased precipitation in tropical and subtropical areas
– Weakening of tropical monsoons.
– Increase in mid and high-latitude wind strength
– Increase in polar circulation
– General cooling
– Sea surface cooling
– Glacier advances
– Increased iceberg activity
These effects are consistent with an expansion of the polar cells, a southward displacement of the polar jet, an equatorial shift of the Ferrel cell and subtropical jet, and a similar displacement of the descending parts of the Hadley Cells that contract. The resulting change in wind patterns would be responsible for the alterations in precipitations and temperatures. These atmospheric changes were described by Joanna Haigh in her landmark 1996 article “The impact of solar variability on climate” where she described the changes found in a general circulation model when simulating changes in solar irradiance and stratospheric ozone. Since then Haigh’s hypothesis has received support not only from paleoclimatology, but also from meteorological data reanalysis. The hypothesis states that solar variability affects climate through a bottom up mechanism from surface changes in irradiation coupled to a top down mechanism from stratospheric UV and ozone changes, being the second one the main in terms of effect.
There is paleoclimatological evidence that a poleward atmospheric expansion of the Hadley and Ferrel cells, and associated wind regimes, including the Southern Westerly Winds strengthening and southern displacement associated with persistently positive phases of the Southern Annular Mode (Antarctic Oscillation) has been taking place, as assessed in the Patagonia (Chile), for over 100 years (Moreno et al., 2014). The expansion of the Hadley cells, that is usually attributed to ozone depletion, has been measured since 1979 at about 1-2° in latitude. The continuation of the Hadley cells expansion is an indication that natural recovery from the LIA has not ended, since it is believed that greenhouse gases contribute little to this phenomenon (Allen et al., 2012), and it seems to have been taking place for over 100 years.
Allen, R. J., et al. (2012) “Recent Northern Hemisphere tropical expansion primarily driven by black carbon and tropospheric ozone.” Nature 485, 7398, 350-354.
Haigh, J. D. (1996) “The impact of solar variability on climate.” Science 272, 5264, 981-984.
Moreno, P. I., et al. (2014) “Southern Annular Mode-like changes in southwestern Patagonia at centennial timescales over the last three millennia.” Nature communications 5, 4375.”
This is an extract from my upcoming article on solar variability and climate in the “Climate, Etc” blog.
Science already has partial answers to all these questions, Tim. The problem is that those answers are not to the liking of the prevalent hypothesis. The LIA was a solar induced complete rearrangement of the planetary atmosphere with the wind playing a primordial role. As a lot of evidence, including the Hudson Bay Company’s York station data from the 18th and 19th centuries presented by you, support, the atmosphere has been recovering from the LIA for the past 350 years and is still doing it.
Despite mounting evidence none of this is being taken into consideration by the prevalent hypothesis and its models, and the underestimation of the solar/atmospheric forcing, with its very long (several centuries) effect, leads inevitably to the overestimation of the anthropogenic effect.
In other words, sunspot activity levels are very connected to planetary wind levels. And…this means our local star, the sun, is the thing that controls Ice Ages and Interglacials and a host of other things.
Actually the glacial/interglacial cycle is due to the effect of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Venus on the orbit of the Earth. Nobody knows what causes Ice Ages, but an interesting theory is that they are caused by the crossing of the spiral arms of the Galaxy by the Solar System.
This statement needs clarification. When rain and snow falls the atmosphere below cloud base COOLS due to evaporative cooling. Within the cloud formation layer air temps are warmer due to latent heat release .
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/11/cost-bumpy-flights-air-turbulence-global-warming-united-airlines
Apparently wind, or turbulence, or something, is causing uncomfortable flying nowadays and it’s all caused by climate change of course.
As far as I can see they haven’t even really proved there is an increase in turbulence world wide let alone that it has a thing to do with global temperatures. Just saying that the incidence of turbulence for aircraft flying and increasing relatively proves little. How many more or less on average are passing over high mountain areas? It’s not a matter of just how many but where, both geographically and vertically in the air column, this turbulence is being noticed.
Very interesting article.
wierd moment
earlier today some uk science show a kid asked
if the planets rotation is slowing and winds affected BY rotation
then is/are wind speeds slowing?
and then someone called me..and I missed the reply. damn
Every cloud needs aerosols!!
“Our calculations indicate that an increase in wind speeds of about 5–10 m s−1 would produce an increase in cloud albedo sufficient to compensate for predicted levels of global warming.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v347/n6291/abs/347372a0.html
Increased wind speed increases salt aerosol over the oceans which increases cloud albedo.
More wind, more cooling clouds!!?
Around 7 years ago, I read an article in an engineering magazine that mentioned wind turbines causing smog build up down wind because they reduce wind speed. I believe this is because they take kinetic energy out of the wind although the article didn’t say.
Is it possible that wind turbines could alter the climate by reducing wind speeds? How large an area would wind turbines have to cover before this became a problem?
Me thinks big tall trees with medium to wide canopies (leafy limbs) will have more effect on wind speed than does wind turbines.
Are trees often cut down to make room for wind mills, or are they more likely to be built in areas in which trees are already sparse?
Trees are not a consideration when selecting a site(s) for placement of wind mills or wind turbines. Iffen there are trees on the site selected for said turbine(s) then they will be clear-cut.
So what happens when all those wind turbines pull lots of energy out of the wind?
This is something I have wondered for a very long time. At what point do wind turbines begin to alter the climate due to reduced wind speeds?
yep. i have even asked technical people provided by some of the wind companies at national consultation events here in scotland what effects are known as a result of large scale energy removal from the wind. never had an answer yet.
Makes one wonder how much energy is pulled out of the winds by those massive conifer (pine) forests that are situate across the northern latitudes of North America, Europe and Russia?
But I decided it wasn’t important …… so I quit wondering about it.
bc, I suspect they don’t want to know.
Are those conifer forests growing in size? Otherwise, why your response?
So askith pf me: MarkW
Mark, it was a mildly satirical …. “why-don’tja-think-about-it” …. response to Patrick PEAKE’s question of …….
“So what happens when all those wind turbines pull lots of energy out of the wind?”
……. in hopes of enticing those reading it to make a “wind energy” depleting comparison between several thousands of wind turbines ……. and tens-of-millions of acres of conifer forests.
Or one could compare the “wind-energy-depleting” magnitude of all the newly installed wind turbines ……. to the “wind-energy-increasing” magnitude resulting from the “clear cutting” of America’s virgin forests.
Me thinks the latter is by far, the greatest magnitude.
@Patrick Peake: Exactly what I was thinking here. Don’t wind turbines interfere with Nature’s attempt to equalize air pressure and redistribute heat? (I’m not a scientist, so forgive me if my understanding of this is incorrect). What will be the consequences of that interference with pressure equalization and heat distibution if we start harvesting wind energy on a large scale as an alternative to our fossil fuel power plants?
It seems to me that this makes wind energy harvesting on a large scale is contrary to the Green philosophy of humanity not interfering with Nature, is it not? It seems to me that this point deserves more time and attention when arguing with wind energy supporters and other Greenies about the subject.
Patrick,
I have had the same question for years.
Obviously the Turbines extract kinetic energy from the earth’s atmosphere, turn it into electricity which heats the planet when used. Similarly solar panels capture more solar energy than normal and likewise turn it into heat which must be radiated out to space or will heat the planet. To be fair, burning fossil fuels also adds heat to the earth which also must be radiated out to space.
When this question is asked, the answer is always the incremental amount of energy is small relative to the incremental energy trapped by increased CO2.
Someone else needs to quantify the impact.
Of course taking the energy out of wind also has other impacts, like affecting evaporation due to lower wind velocities which also needs explanation. Clearly it is not as simple as “they” would want us to believe. convection impact is so small.
I am skeptic about the claimed small effect of convection in their models that indicate radiation is so dominate. Others may be able to explain better than I… .
Any heat added by man’s burning anything, or use of any other energy source is so small compared to the planet’s daily dose of sunshine, that it is completely insignificant.
Alan,
It is not the total energy from the sun that needs to be compared with the relative energy from capturing wind energy, or solar or burning fossil fuels, but rather the actual energy trapped with increasing levels of CO 2 (currently at 0,04%) that needs to be compared since the claim is that CO 2 will cause significant warming even though it is a very small fraction of the gas in the atmosphere..
I would appreciate any numbers if you have them.
“but rather the actual energy trapped with increasing levels of CO 2 (currently at 0,04%) ”
Catcracking – the only known entity in the universe that is capable of “trapping” thermal (heat) energy is a Black Hole which is located at the center of a galaxy.