A few days ago I tweeted this in response to a tweet from Ryan Maue:
Climate Change causes EXTREME CALM!
Originally tweeted by Charles Rotter (@crotter8) on October 9, 2021.
Here is a more comprehensive take on the subject. Reposted from MasterResource
“Global Stilling” from Global Warming (latest EU/UK energy excuse)
By Robert Bradley Jr. — October 12, 2021
“The explanation of [wind speed anomalies] points to the phenomenon called global stilling and it is related to #climatechange induced warming in the poles.” (Roberta Boscolo, UN World Meteorological Organization, below)
“… we were told not to worry … it would resolve itself, they said, either because wind is usually blowing somewhere, or through the development of electricity storage in giant battery farms. This was plain wrong.” (Matt Ridley, September 20, 2021)
The present UK/EU energy crises, expected to head into the winter, have much to do with forced energy transformation from coal/natural gas to wind/solar. After looking the other way, the mainstream media now recognizes the problem but is offering excuses.
Excuses, excuses. It’s COVID and an economic snap-back that was faster than expected, as well as poorly coordinated international energy planning, states Thomas Friedman in the New York Times. Or it’s just a cost of doing business in the climate emergency: a bump in the road, not overinvestment in dilute, intermittent energies and underinvestment in dense, mineral energies.
Add something else. Someone, somewhere has a brand new theory–and the cause of the global energy crisis is … you and me via the human influence on climate. Global warming for global stillness….
Surprising? Not really. The human influence on climate is all bad things, after all. (Anthropogenic benefits? That’s politically incorrect, relegated to the sidelines.)
———————————-
Add to our sins global stillness, which is responsible for the lower-than-expected wind output of northern Europe and is allegedly caused by global warming. A consulting firm, Vortex, calculated that up to 15 percent less wind on average was occurring. (Never mind that other studies point toward the opposite, so “Wind Speeds Drop as They Speed Up!“)
Roberta Boscolo, Lead of Climate & Energy, UN World Meteorological Organization, stated:
Great coverage of Financial Times on the wind speed anomalies that affected #windpower generation in Europe. According to @vortex (https://lnkd.in/dsGt8Fb7) the wind strength across northern Europe was 15% less on average since the beginning of 2021. The explanation of this trend points to the phenomenon called global stilling and it is related to #climatechange induced warming in the poles.
An article in the Financial Times (paywall), “Europe’s electricity generation from wind blown off course,” pushed this narrative.
On LinkedIn, where you can actually debate climate science issues, some comments raised some questions to one Stilling post.
“Of course, more hurricanes and cyclones from climate change, but also less wind because climate change. Completely logical.” (Geoff Cruickshank)
“Climate change the great explainer for everything. All of a sudden we have this global shortage of energy yet 2 years ago the papers were full of oil and gas consumption falling due to energy efficiencies, renewable capacity increasing, nuclear, electric cars, hybrids etc, all softening demand. Two yrs ago the price of renewable energy stocks like Vestas, Hylion, Siemens price going through the roof and barrel of oil on the floor. Now renewables share prices getting hammered…. ” (Michael Desmond)
“Having priced and structured many derivatives on wind speed, a monthly average windspeed 15% lower than average is not that big and will happen sometimes…. In terms of wind stilling causing these low speeds this year it may have had an impact, however it will be dwarfed by the volatility in the wind speed that is usually there.” (Antony Stace)
“One possible explanation is that we always underestimate the range of natural variability. “Since records began” , “in living memory” are pretty irrelevant when establishing a realistic base-line and ranges. Maybe, just maybe, periods of calm are normal, if not frequent or typical….” (Richard Norris)
And of course I had to chime in:
Climate change lost my homework.
We live in a crazy world where emotions and agenda drive climate science, at least in the telling. The experts are getting edgy and concerned; will midcourse corrections be made?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hmm, when a fossil fuel driller sinks a hole and it’s barren, it’s a mistake with their projections and science – they update their maps and tweak the computers that predict such things. They go on to make a profit somewhere else.
When a wind turbine farm is built and fails to produce reliable energy, it’s climate change and NOTHING is learned. They keep wasting money and putting lives at risk.
What makes you think a wind turbine is intended to generate useful electricity? The whole point is to harvest the subsidies.
Sure glad it doesn’t cause more hurricanes.
Whirligig speed of rotation must be proportional to wind speed.
I don’t know the actual relationship, but I recall that energy produced is allegedly related to the fourth power of rotational speed. Which is why the British Bullshit Corporation’s latest canard (every rotation of a turbine powers a house for a full day) is blatant nonsense.
With low wind speeds a turbine might only rotate a few times a day.
But if the ‘fourth power’ relationship holds, a 15% average wind speed drop will give you just 52% of average power output.
Wonderful.
The formula for the maximum power theoretically available from a wind turbine is
P= 16/27(AρV^3) where A is the swept area, ρ is the density of the air (which varies with temperature, pressure and humidity primarily) and V is the velocity of the wind. Practical performance tends to fall somewhat short of that ideal. This is a typical curve, based on “standard” air density of 1.225 kg/M^3
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/GqyyC/1/
Thanks!
Worse than we thought?
The Peter Ridd case result should be out any time now.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/peter-ridd-legal-action-fund-2019
He lost.
And more so did academic institutional integrity.
“will midcourse corrections be made?”
The natural answer is h*ll no, they will just keep going with the “climate change causes everything” meme. Let’s face it, it is easy to argue that global warming causes more intense tropical storms, and these suck the wind out of the non-tropics. If that’s not the pattern being observed, you just change the narrative.
But another thought has recently occurred to me: The promoters if the “climate change” panic did so for reasons which included getting even wealthier from government subsidies and mandates for renewable energy. The smart ones among them (they may be evil but they are smart) will be noticing the electricity ststems of California, Germany, Britain, etc nearing collapse, and they may well now quietly dispose of their assets to late-comers, then short sell them and start a new narrative. In other words, a classic pump-and-dump.
The authoritarian politicians riding on the coat-tails of “climate change” obvioysly don’t think it’s a pump-and-dump. Late-comers never do.
OK, maybe it’s just wishful thinking, but it is an interesting thought.
PS. I first keyed incorrectly on my phone: pimp-and-dimp. Maybe I should have left it that way. (Urban dictionary – dimp: Dimp is used when an idea, so dumb, that you just don’t want to bother replying. [Their grammar not mine]).
If global stilling is a thing, what’s the point building wind turbines? The mental gymnastics is impressive though.
I see that sadly Peter Ridd lost his case in the Australian High Court.
From the article: ““Of course, more hurricanes and cyclones from climate change, but also less wind because climate change. Completely logical.” (Geoff Cruickshank)”
I think that sums it up nicely.
Here’s another way to put it: Alarmists Cognitive Dissonance.
Global stilling, or maybe they just miscalculated the amount of time wind turbines would operate the way they miscalculated everything else in “climate change.” Guess the wind farm investors will be lobbying for a bigger subsidy now.
Global stilling = Persistent High Pressure systems.
Like the one that settled in over Texas last February, and all the windmills stopped working because the winds stopped blowing.
Exactly
Of course if this “global stilling” wasn’t showing up the failure of windmills to provide energy when needed, not just at the whim of the winds, these pleasant days of mild calm weather would be celebrated by the public who would not suffer being harangued by the ignorant “climate crisis” zealots about their selfish use of efficient, cheap and reliable fossil fuels.
That’s why we should change the terminology and only refer to it as RANDOM energy.
Think about it. What’s so “renewable” about yesterday’s wind? Can we recycle this morning’s wind? or last week’s?
Hey, that gives me an idea. Let’s harvest energy from Brownian motion using nanoparticles.
Weather weirding.
MSM and alarmists blame everything but themselves, their horrible specious claims and demands for alleged renewable energy.
Now, alongside alarmist claims for stronger more frequent storms dropping larger amounts of rain while winds destroy forests and towns, they want to claim that global warming causes becalmed wind turbines and shaded solar arrays…
Are you guys sure these people are not space aliens?
Just askin’, because they don’t seem to be familiar – even a little bit – with how atmospheres work.
“…points to the phenomenon called global stilling and it is related to #climatechange induced warming in the poles.”
I’ve wondered for some time if taking energy out of the wind is causing climate change itself, especially in the case of large wind farms. Wind moves from an area of of high atmospheric pressure to one of low pressure. If you reduce the direct flow by upwind wind farms, the low pressure area would draw air preferentially from other directions, probably setting up new weather cells and robbing the prime location of the wind speed it used to have.
It’s like building a hydro dam, say ¾ the way across the fast flowing River. Some electricity is produced but half the water makes an end run around the turbines.
Here is some more windmill climate change below:
?auto=webp&s=d209e8f2f74cfe9c5fbf32958a591bd02055f669
Oops:
http://ict-aeolus.eu/images/horns_rev.jpg
I’ve alluded to this myself. And think about this – in their zeal to “save us” from the nonexistent “climate crisis,” they have built these things which might have a potential and completely unknown effect on the weather (dare I say “climate”) without a moment’s thought regarding such possible effects (no to mention how many birds, bats and insects meet their deaths due to these stupid things), which would seem far more direct, and thus likely, than adding a little extra plant food to the atmosphere.
“Save the planet,” my ass.
Critical Silliness Theory
. The realisation that climate silliness is a white academic mental condition brought on by an academic’s and politician’s need to feel important and snuffle at the free money trough.
Can be cured by questioning dogma and looking at hard data honestly.
Nothing more than a or any child would say when it was caught with its hand in Sweet Jar
It does go right to The Humongous Contradiction which exists at the heart of Climate Science Theory – a bit like Black Holes at the centres of galaxies
Climate Science originally and still does assert = Global Warming
Warm vs Cold is the difference between Summer vs Winter
(for places/latitudes that have summers and winters)
But and as we all know:
Thus, Global Stilling is an accurate and true prediction
Yet Climate Science has always said/claimed something that is Diametrically Opposite.
i.e. that Warmer = Worser
Just like the black hole in the galactic centre will eat the galaxy, so the humongous contradiction will eat the science
Nothing else can possibly happen
Take hope, not sweeties, because sweeties really are: Worse Than Anyone Could Evah Imagine
This can’t be.
The science is settled, meaning new theories and ideas are fake news.
Since 97% of scientists didn’t predict “global stilling”, it is not real science.
Right Griff?
Or did you find a member of the 97% who claimed winds would weaken, or strengthen, or stay the same, and therefore 100% accurately predicted this?
They told us AGW increases wind speeds, now they blame AGW for lower wind speeds.
AGW should warm the equator same or more than the poles because the equator receives more sunlight and more atmosphere above their heads. Now they claim the north pole has more warming (south had record low temps, more sea ice coverage than 1980s).
It seems they can cover all possible outcomes if they use enough models, with more input parameters & more model runs. Atleast 1 model run will be right for a place each day. But not 1 of the models by themselves is any where near accurate for multiple places & longer time periods.
It’s like buying a ticket for every horse in the Melbourne Cup & later claim how smart you were to pick the winner but you only got back a small fraction of your money spent. They spend more time creating plausibility than ensuring factual reliability.
If Climate Change makes windmills useless due to increased “stillness”, then we’d better stop building more useless windmills, since climate change is now apparently unavoidable.
See how easy k1lling the climate scam is!!
#FJB
Charles, sorry about this…. It’s time we talked about global smoothing.
Look at the image accompanying this post. Look at the surface of the sea. There is a large smoothed area with less pollutes areas near the edges which are ruffled by the wind. The reason is oil or surfactant spill.
The smoothed area has lower albedo. It will warm. It has resistance to wave breaking so produces fewer salt aerosols. This reduces cloud cover. This increases warming.
The smoothed warm area stratifies.After using up nutrients which would normally be stirred up from below. Phytoplankton growth moves lower into low light low CO2 levels where they are forced to use carbon concentration mechanisms which are less averse to the heavier carbon isotopes. This pulls down C13/14. Light isotope signal.
Warmer, light isotope signal, less oceanic cloud. Sound familiar?
JF
If anyone ever looked in the submissions folder they would find my more lengthy explanation
There is a basic logic issue here. If you’re convinced that climate change is a critical issue such that minimizing it requires wind power, and also that climate change significantly reduces wind – well I think you have a problem in your thought process there! All those expensive windmills will make less and less power as time goes on if this is true.
Sounds like global shtumming to me.
But, but.. wasn’t this the point of reducing CO2? So we could have calmer weather? No? What did I miss?..
At time of writing, this thread is 11 hours old and no word as yet from griff, loydo, simon, banton.. it’s almost as if they know their religion is based on lies..