By P Gosselin
Countless wind turbines…Northern Germany drought may in part be caused by efforts to prevent drought (climate change)!
More wind parks means less wind, which means less precipitation, which in turn means more drought and warmer temperatures.
Image: P. Gosselin
German online Reichschuster.de here reports on Gerd Ganteför, a German professor of experimental physics who taught at the University of Konstanz and Johns Hopkins University Baltimore (USA), among others. He has authored some 150 technical articles on renewable energies or climate change.
Ganteför has been an outspoken expert critic of Germany’s energy policy and the alarmist aspects of climate science.
Recently the renowned expert once again asked uncomfortable questions about possible connections between wind parks and their impact on regional climate. The answers Ganteför gave to the German daily “Nordkurier” have raised some eyebrows.
In summary, the physicist warns: “We don’t currently know what all can happen if we continue to put up countless wind turbines.”
The interview was prompted by a 2012 NASA study that suggested large wind farms in particular lead to an increase in the ambient temperature and are thus partly responsible for the warming of the climate.
Though Ganteför, has some doubts about this phenomenon, he nevertheless believes the “connection between wind turbines and global warming is possible – albeit for a reason not examined in the study,” reports Reichschuster.de “The authors were able to show that wind turbines swirl the cool layers of air that are directly above the ground and the somewhat warmer layers above them, and that this leads to an increase in temperature near the ground.”
Proven in other scientific publications
Ganteför, however, focusses on another aspect: evaporation, which has been proven in other publications.
The mechanism goes as follows: “Large wind turbines logically slow down the wind by sapping the energy out of it. Less wind means less evaporation and thus less precipitation. And if it gets drier, it could just happen that it gets warmer.”
A study of this kind by Deutsche Windguard was reported on by reitschuster.de in July 2022.
Overdoing wind energy
Moist air from the North Atlantic plays a major role on Europe’s climate, and eventually makes its way over the sea to Germany. But that air gets slowed down by the relatively large wind farms in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, says Ganteför. The possible consequence: “If you overdo it with too many wind turbines”, the region “will become drier” and “this possible scenario needs to be meticulously played out and studied by climatologists.”
“We don’t know at the moment what all can happen if we continue to put up countless wind turbines,” warns Ganteför.
New studies warn
Germany has so far installed over 30,000 wind turbines, which is about 1 every 11 sq. km. Plans are calling for doubling or even tripling the current wind power capacity. But this may be detrimental as new studies show that wind farms are altering local climates, and thus may be having an effect on global climate and contributing to regional droughts. We reported on this here earlier this month.
Germany has so far installed over 30,000 wind turbines
____________________________________________
That about 100 billion dollars wasted.
The aspiration of net zero is to be replaced with zero energy.
And zero money in the hands of taxpayers
One windmill advocate sez build’em higher where the wind is stronger.
“But that air gets slowed down by the relatively large wind farms in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, says Ganteför. The possible consequence: “If you overdo it with too many wind turbines”, the region “will become drier””
This is a confused exposition. Slowing the wind could reduce surface evaporation locally, but that will make the land downwind more, not less, moist. It seems to say that that would lower precipitation somewhere, but, as it also says, that rain comes from wind blowing over the ocean. And it seems very unlikely that a significant fraction of the Atlantic ocean will be covered by wind turbines.
When the land downwind relies on precipitation for the majority of its moisture then reducing that precipitation will dry the land by a significant amount.
Much of the North Sea is getting carpeted in wind farms. It’s an important top up for Atlantic weather systems that dump their initial rain on Ireland and the UK.
As a grad student in physical oceanography, I once proposed mounting giant turbines in the Gulf Stream offshore from Florida. It is an enormous energy flow there and quite narrow and consistent. ‘Free’ electricity for most of the state.
My advisor, who had much grayer hair than I, suggested that I first figure out if Europe would be happy with my project.
Turns out nothing’s free. Somebody always pays. I abandoned the project and now that my own hair is white, I tell myself that I saved Europe.
Tidal stream turbines have turned out to be not very practical. The water velocity varies significantly with depth, and wave action introduces a random element that affects the top of the blade travel far more than the bottom. The result is that blade diameter is heavily restricted by the resulting vibrations and stresses. Most tidal stream turbine projects have ended up with rapid damage and extreme maintenance bills. If you make the turbines robust enough to withstand the marine environment their reduced size makes power output basically uninteresting for commercial energy.
Anything strong enough to capture tidal energy is strong enough to be colonized by marine life.
Like boats, they would have to be scraped frequently.
Focusing on the soil moisture is, I think, only a secondary effect. Wind turbines convert atmospheric KE to heat. KE goes down, wind velocity must go down. That reduces evaporation in the wake. That reduces water vapor transport upwards where it can more easily radiate to space.
I would argue that wind turbines actually promote global warming on net, while producing local heat in the form of electricity that always converts to heat. Heat which would otherwise be KE, doing the work of moving heat to space.
Nick is either confused as usual, or blowing smoke as usual.
He admits that wind farms could make the land around the wind farms more moist, but then tries to claim that this proves that more rain will occur.
I also love the way he then jumps to the conclusion that unless one covers the entire Atlantic with wind farms, nothing will happen.
You don’t need to cover the entire Atlantic with wind mills in order to change wind patterns. All you need to do is to cover the waters and lands near the coast with them. Which is well on the way to happening.
The Three Gorges dam in China is being associated with a variety of regional flooding/drought periods since its construction due to the amount of water retained and associated localized evaporation. Why wouldn’t wind turbines have impacts beyond just not reliably producing electricity?
That’s a relevant analogy, although the TGD also provides a stable base of electrical energy in addition to providing flood control, i.e., it is net beneficial. Wind turbine value for Germany?
BTW, the 1931 Yangtze River flood killed millions at a time when China’s population was roughly a third of today’s.
The government experts are so smart they would never support government policy that had unintended consequences that made climate worse – would they?
ChatGPT tells me that wind turbines make no difference to the weather. I then ask why are they being installed then and it replies to alter the climate. When I point out that climate is long run weather it gives up and stops playing with me. I conclude ChatGPT is a long way from cognitive ability.
The worst place to place wind turbines is along coastlines. That is where most of the water that ends up on land comes from. Slowing down air advection slows down precipitation.
Trees are like watered down water. They have about 30% of the thermal mass of 100% water at the same depth of cover. They have a huge moderating influence on ground temperature. Chopping trees down to make way for wind turbines and solar farms is climate vandalism.
Here in Woke-achusetts, the greens are torn over the conflict between building more wind/solar energy and the resulting deforestation. They want no trees cut- ever- so forests will do one and only one thing- sequester carbon- but they also demand net zero, which is now state law. So, some seem to tolerate putting big solar farms on fields- which are now rare in the state- the fields that still exist are often prime farm land- some on very rich soils in the Connecticut River Valley. Many greens here are now saying the “final solution” is to cover every building in the state with solar- yet, a few years ago, the state’s “energy czar” got fired because he admitted that even doing that wouldn’t produce all the energy needed just for electricity, never mind, heat, industry, transportation, etc. And of course, they hate nuclear and they even don’t like hydro power and especially pumped storage. The greens seem to like wind turbines at sea- but of course those will be extremely expensive. Now if they only would give up on the net zero lunacy, we’d all be better off and wealthier.
Urgent Appeal
It’s a blistering 14C (57.2F) in Southern England and it’s June 1st
If you have any spare warming please send…
Could it be the wind turbines?
Yeah it’s a bit chilly up here in Lincoln too. Hilarious that the Met Office keeps talking about a ‘heatwave’ – what planet do they live on?
“The wet weather will follow a period of more “settled conditions” in early June with “plenty of dry and bright weather” across the country, the Met Office forecast said. “
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1775909/uk-weather-forecast-storm-lighting-met-office
Dry and bright could apply to Antarctica.
There’s a really embarrassing lack of warming to go with the white heat of the narrative.
CET +1.4C above 1961-1990 average to 30th May.
Seems you have been unfortunate re the weather.
It’s natural variability.
You can keep your stats, they’re largely meaningless, anyway. Save them for the modelling fraternity.
Ok, just continue looking out the window and concluding the weather is the same everywhere.
TFN – your point would be well made except that it was the Met Office that ‘predicted’ a heatwave over the whole country – strativarius and myself were quite clear about the areas we were talking about. So T’ra For Now.
When did the Met Office predict a heat wave for the UK?
All the Met Office said was that parts of Scotland and Northern Ireland would be warmer than average for the time of year. Lo and behold, that has happened.
Don’t confuse the Daily Express with the Met Office (or a newspaper!)
They certainly predicted a heatwave, but when it was due kept moving, always staying at next week.
The cloudy cold conditions here in the East Midlands of the last three days came as a surprise to both TV channels.
I know my brothers in Dundee and Fife have had sun and warm up until yesterday, now gone back to normal. Warm being relative.
https://www.gbnews.com/weather/uk-weather-forecast-temperature-sun-spain-met-office-maps
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/uk-set-hotter-spain-brits-8443644
Who said the weather is the same everywhere?
I asked for warming – ie from other parts of the world – to be sent our way
I recommend you read and think before you type
Then June (I know June has only just begun) per METCHECK is 9.89C -4.26C below average
https://www.metcheck.com/WEATHER/cet.asp.
If you don’t like the weather just wait a day
Considering that we haven’t even had a full day’s temperatures, I would agree that this is likely a premature reading!
You haven’t noticed the [English] weather over the last few weeks?
Obviously you haven’t.
According ti East Midlands Weather, May was wetter than average, marginally warmer and less sunny.
Where I am the only argument I have with that is warmer. Apart from a few days a week ago it’s not been as warm as the forecast on any particular day.
My (cynical) view is that temperatures are hyped up in the forecasts so we remember that not the actuality. We had rain overnight Wednesday Thursday and during the morning on Thursday, naturally the forecast was wall to wall sunshine and mid 20s, mid teens more like.
It wasn’t warmer here in South London
That’ll be the UHI
Wait a minute……
Modus operandi for Aussie BOM
I am in the heart of the EM; just got back from daily canine exercise; first cut of haulage/silage done and gathered; grass visibly growing since that cut which suggests a normal Spring with sufficient wet weather – have not seen anything other than nominal spraying for mildew either. Sun has worked its magic.
Crops are growing strongly and starting to set stalks and grain.
Ground is cracking, at least on the surface, whilst below that level the colour of the soil is much darker hinting at good moisture below and therefore at root level.
Not scientific, just observational; May/June has been cold early AM and then into mid/upper teens and early twenties by noon onwards – hanging baskets needed covers shelter until 3rd week in May. Having spent 40+ of my adult summers playing “The Summer Game” as Tinniswood might write, I have not seen blazing late May temperatures, nor freezing cold two sweater late May weekends, nor snow in June (yet) as in years gone by.
Think its just normal weather, varying as MN does.
“Seems you have been unfortunate re the weather”
Good to hear you talking about weather instead of climate.
Yeah, we get it:
Cold = weather
Warm = climate! We’re all gonna die!!!!!
They must keep their temperature probes in closets where they’re easier to read and verify the warming.
Perhaps they’re using the anal probes instead?
Cricket match, Buxton, June 2 1975:
Nick
It’s 2023…
NB That link is duff.
Hopefully, Nick, now you get just how variable natural variability can get.
The very next year saw that amazing summer….. even the beer ran out – that was a genuine crisis.
Out of beer??!! Now that is a real and present danger.
An existential crises
And actually there was snow in Cambridge on IIRC 7th June 1976 before the heatwave got started.
Nick, I appreciate the photo of natural variability of the weather, but we were really just commenting on the disconnect between the Met Office ‘predictions’ and reality. But thanks for the attempt to join in, it’s all good.
There was real reason why they worried about cooling back then, warming today, not so much.
Nick Stokes
See the two links I posted in reply to TFN’s earlier claim about the UKMO not forecasting a countrywide heatwave, which they did. Although the claim and prediction were both overhyped. Low 20s aren’t a heatwave unless you’re north of the Highland Fault line. Us East Midlanders didn’t get more than a day or two high teens not unusual for May
There are two recorded instances in Scotland of a snowball on midsummer’s day being the rent for a property, whether because it was easy or difficult isn’t recorded
The current weather in Colorado is just about as perfect as it can get, warm and with plenty of precipitation. Tomato plants are loving it. Soon I have to decide whether I’m done snow skiing this season.
Git!
This is very silly.
For sure, there will be very localised effects from mixing air around a huge turbine. But to say that winds will be signifcantly slowed by a windfarm is absurd.
Turbines are not able to stop the wind. They are not able to sgnificantly slow the wind.
Certainly not at the altitude that clouds are pushed along.
This is ridiculae. Just because it would be ironic does not make it plausible.
Remember, laughter is only the best medicine if you don’t have any aspirin.
Unfortunately there have been studies showing that is exactly what they do at lower levels – there is only so much energy in wind and, in order to turn the turbines, the energy left is reduced. The phenomenon is exacerbated when there are multiple lines of wind turbines that the wind blows through and more so given multiple parks or farms in an area.
So if Germany now only has 30,000 bird choppers, what will be the effect when they have 10 times more? Germany is a small country with big energy needs- just where will they put all the green energy machines? Nobody will want to live there.
“Nobody will want to live there.”
Here’s a Canadian study re: housing decisions related to living in the vicinity of industrial wind turbines.
Grounded theory as an analytical tool to explore housing decisions related to living in the vicinity of industrial wind turbinesCarmen M. Krogh, Robert Y. McMurtry, W. B. Johnson, Anne Dumbrille, Mariana Alves-Pereira, Jerry L. Punch, Debra Hughes, Linda Rogers, Robert W. Rand, Richard James, Stephen E. Ambrose, Lorrie Gillis|March 25, 2021
https://www.windaction.org/posts/52262
I’m a long-retired, old engineer who has limited recollection of a semester or two of fluid dynamics in the middle of the last century. However, I am reminded of a couple of things the wind-power enthusiasts may have forgotten: 1) There is no such thing as a free lunch; and 2) You can never do just one thing. Everything we do has some effects, both intended and unintended.
On the contrary, wind turbines extract up to 66% of the energy from the wind in the area subtended by the blade arc. And that is way more than a wood or forest will. And it is the wind nearest the ground that is so affected. Given that energy is proportional to windspeed squared, that means that downwind of serious wind farm the surface level winds are likely to be about 20% slower.
And that likely menas that heatloss by evaporation will be far less and local ground temperatures therefore higher, in the same way that a city gets hot because the bulding reduces ground level wind and the tarmac reduces ground level evaporation.
The problem with wind energy is that the simple minds who believe it works are all operating on an ‘all other things being equal’ mentality that they do not even realises they possess.
Manifestly in terms of impact on other grid generators, the grid extension capital costs, the grid stability, and interconnector costs, as well as the carbon cost of construction, and more significantly maintenenance, as well, as microclimate modification, and ecosystem impact, other things are anything but equal.
Taken overall and analysed holistically windmills are a complete environmental disaster, and have absolutely no net effect on CO2 emissions. All they do is impact consumer costs, transferring cash from consumers to operators and their staff, at no net social benefit whatsoever. In fact the reverse.
The maximum power that can be extracted is 16/27 of the power in the air stream, which is a function of the windspeed cubed. Energy is power by time. The turbines are usually designed to extract the maximum power rather than just blocking the wind. A brick wall will take out 100% of the wind energy but not effective in extracting power from the wind.
And slaughter wildlife on an industrial scale as the Germans have documented.
M, intuition says that wake effects will be negligible, but if you actually look into them, they are surprisingly potent. I wrote about them on Cliscep last year: https://cliscep.com/2022/02/20/the-turbine-wakes/
And, if this article is to be believed, the wake effects are at the altitude of clouds.
They are not.
I acknowledged localised effects. But not these effects.
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2022/08/18/long-range-wake-losses-offshore-much-greater-than-expected-new-study-shows/
If turbines aren’t taking energy from the wind, where are they getting it from?
“More wind parks means less wind, which means less precipitation,” at 1 every 11 sq km that is a ridiculous assertion.
You would have to go some to suck surface wind speeds down in any detectable way. And in fact probably not, as the turbulence would just suck down wind from higher up, ie mixing up the boundary layer, and probably not impacting surface speeds at all
And then to say that this reduces precipitation?
Anyone seen the pics of turbines mixing the air up and causing clouds to form?
The fluid dynamics is atmospherics is way more complicated that this!
That turbulence is indeed caused by the wind being locally slowed, and that is just the point. Windmills shift the ground effect up higher. Being the area below ‘laminar flow’ winds where interference with the ground, and objects on it,slow the wind causing local heating and disrupting evaporation .
I personally think that a windfarm would act like a built up area, slowing the wind, reducing evaporation and creating a heat island. Thus increasing ‘global warming’
“The fluid dynamics is atmospherics is way more complicated that this!”
Good reason for “climate scientists” to ignore that topic! 🙂
“The fluid dynamics is atmospherics is way more complicated that this!”
As is the fact that a trace gas can completely banjax the entire world economy.
Those turbines aren’t adding any water to the air.
They are lowering the air pressure, which causes the air temperature to drop and water vapor levels then exceed the saturation point.
Your picture does not prove what you think it proves.
>>>>> Story Tip>>>>>>>>>>>>
Renewable energy capacity additions to hit record: IEA
Renewable energy capacity additions to hit record: IEA (msn.com)
I suppose if you add one more solar panel it’s a new record of solar capacity.
—–
FF energy capacity additions to hit record: — more gas wells to come on line..
Omega has started drilling its Canyon-2 well in Bowen Basin, Queensland, as part of its Permian Deep Gas program
The program is considered key to the development of Omega’s estimated 3 trillion cubic feet of prospective gas resources and will prove the viability of gas finds in the Kianga Formation and coals in the Permian-aged rocks.
Fracking program set to kick off later in 2023
The ugly boy asks more girls to the dance.
The flapping of how many butterfly wings creates the same chaotic response in the climate as one wind turbine?
And how many butterfly wings were chopped off?
“In summary, the physicist warns: “We don’t currently know what all can happen if we continue to put up countless wind turbines.””
For one thing, nobody will want to live within miles of wind turbines. I suspect there may be a big movement of people out of the country!
Here’s a Canadian study re: housing decisions related to living in the vicinity of industrial wind turbines.
Grounded theory as an analytical tool to explore housing decisions related to living in the vicinity of industrial wind turbinesCarmen M. Krogh, Robert Y. McMurtry, W. B. Johnson, Anne Dumbrille, Mariana Alves-Pereira, Jerry L. Punch, Debra Hughes, Linda Rogers, Robert W. Rand, Richard James, Stephen E. Ambrose, Lorrie Gillis|March 25, 2021
https://www.windaction.org/posts/52262
The study Wind farms dry surface soil in temporal and spatial variation found that “Wind farms significantly reduced soil moisture within the wind farms and in the upwind and downwind directions.“. To me, it would indeed be expected that wind turbines would dry the soil within the wind farm area, because of the vertical mixing of the air. The effect could possibly be expected to continue for a bit downwind too, and the study did show that for about 10km. However, I wouldn’t have expected much upwind effect but the study showed an upwind effect for 10km as well. Because wind farms slow the wind a bit, it seems reasonable to expect the downwind increased drying to turn quite quickly to decreased drying (ie, more soil moisture) but the study only showed that for the summer months (at 20-30km). There needs to be a lot more investigation before anyone really knows, but that would require a whole heap more government grant money to finance it, and quite frankly the money would be far better spent on dismantling the wind farms. [NB. No government money is needed to build replacement generation for the wind farms, (a) because those replacements already exist to supply back-up generation, and (b) private industry will happily invest in reliable generation once the market distortions in favour of intermittent energy have been removed.]
Edit: Sorry, I don’t know what caused the large font.
You have to be careful with cut and paste, as you can inadvertently pickup formatting as well as the text you are after.
How the fug did this one get to an ‘expert professor’
He’s a completely muddled headed chump
(But I do like him ##)
The amount of energy windmills pull out of Any Given Wind is beyond miniscule – we are talking fractions of a fraction of a fraction of nothing.
Right next door to Diddly Squat
Be careful with Hubris. OK?
A windmill, on the ground, slows the air exactly the same way as a line of trees, a wall, a house, a hedge, parked car or mountain, hill, a fence, how, dun, brough etc etc.
i.e. The Wind Sails Right Clear Clean Over The Top
The exact same rules apply as any windbreak = you get shelter for a distance (downwind) of 10 times the height of the thing and (upwind) for a distance of twice the height of the beast
Any energy that is sucked out of the wind manifests as a temperature drop..
It does seem crazy, with all that space between the blades, but as far as The Wind can ‘see’ – (rotating) windmills look like solid objects.
Do we remember, classically, from War Movies we’ve seen in the cinema or on TV = ones involving airplanes and typically, bombers.
We know the scene where The Bomber (with The Hero Heartthrob Pilot at the controls) has been shot to buggery and smoke/oil/engine-parts/rats/fleas/kitchen-sinks are pouring from at least 5 of of its 4 engines = engines with propellers attached.
The first thing he orders be done is ‘Feather the props‘
And when that happens, they stop being a drag on the plane, the sky lightens, nice music wells up, engines cease burning and thus our hero can successfully pilot the burning, crumbling & disintegrating wreck of a thing (Tesla anyone?) back home and land it successfully.
sans wheels, sans power, sans navigation, in the fog, at night.
Methinks there’s some sort of clue, moral or story in there: “feather the props……?”
Stop The Windmills to save the hero?
Nah, surely not – eh Shirley?
C’mon hun, don’t be shy, you know all about Airplanes and Hero Pilots….
How do we know windmills cool: because of that lovely picture we keep seeing of the windmills (in this thread) with the swirling wakes behind them. The drop in temperature caused the water vapour to condense. The working principle of a Cloud Chamber
## Why I like this chap is how he so nicely trashes the GHGE….
“Out of the mouths of innocents eh?”
With this: “turbines swirl the cool layers of air that are directly above the ground and the somewhat warmer layers above them,
In other words he’s describing a Negative Lapse Rate.
Well that’s garbage for a start, unless anyone is actually attempting to explain the GHGE where such wrongness is the only way for it to be valid.
The Enquiring Mind will ask, How did the air get to be warmer than the surface IF – The Sun didn’t heat it.
What else could do that? Where did the heat come from especially as the windmill was put there to extract energy from the wind.
(Could it get any worse)
Then with this reprise: and that this leads to an increase in temperature near the ground.”
Think carefully Expert Professor on what I just said, and we ‘have pictures’
Where does the energy come from?
Ans: Windmills get their energy from cooling the air.
Only residents of Flat-Land imagine they ‘slow the air’ and or heat it.
Close to the land surface, in flat-land, they afford shelter but that’s it.
Above the turbines in 3D land , windmills accelerate the air (the principle of the aircraft wing) and so on average = No Change in speed.
Enough from me, Expert Professor’s mum will be along soon to take him home from Kindergarten.
Let’s start from scratch.
Build the same fans next to 200 acres, opposite the lake in an area of low wind. Turn the giant fans on … blowing towards the property and the lake on the opposite side of the property.
Is this an impact to the property? Negative or positive is subjective depending on perspective, so all we need to know is “Do the big fans, adding, or subtracting energy, impact the property?”
For the purposes of this article, the property would hve to be at the altitude of the rainclouds.
Fe Fi Fo Fum, this argument is very dumb.
Either at the altitude of rainclouds or any altitude where there is water vapour in the air. Even a small amount of water vapour in the air would do.
dumb or not, it is not an argument … it is just a suggestion to look at things from another perspective (for some that is also considered is a dumb thing to do).
Imagine the 400 wind mills just out of sight from your house (starting a kilometer mile away). Run them to push the air toward your house, adding energy rather than extracting energy. Do you imagine there would not be a measurable or noticible impact at your house?
In your world, clouds never get moisture from lower levels of the atmosphere?
This is something I have been wondering about for several years now. Rain cells form through energy in the atmosphere, and the wind farms take energy from the atmosphere, Numerous wind farms in both prevailing wind directions (NW, & SE)from my place, and have been in a 3 year drought. However it has been broken (temporarily at least) by good rain fall in May, so I’m wondering if the demise of the La Nina and return of El Nino may have a greater effect on my regions (North central Texas) rainfall, and the wind farms do more in cluttering up the view.
Yesterday, I was in a conversation about wind farms cluttering up the view. The general conclusion was that as wind turbines eventually fail they won’t be replaced so they will be left standing and still cluttering up the view. But then citizen groups will take it upon themselves to restore the view by cutting the wind turbines down and leaving them on the ground. And then the interesting thought was voiced that the citizen groups might not wait for all the wind turbines to fail.
I can easily remember – five or more years ago – suggesting that, perhaps the many thousands of wind turbines would interfere with the wind circulation patterns and cause ‘climate change’ (there’s ironic!). I was told that this could not happen. Hmmm. Yet, a miniscule amount of CO2 can change the climate. Then again, I am a sceptic.
The known unknowns are vast.
Does cavitation of the air on the props cause localized cooling that would extract the moisture onto the props ?
etc etc
Most wind turbine blades have devices on them, similar to those found on aircraft wings, to reduce drag and prevent stalling (cavitation is only found in water). Wind turbine blades are actually very complex and the industry has developed many different ways to increase the aerodynamic properties and efficiency of them. Having said all that, I don’t think the blades induce much condensation whilst in motion unless the air temperature is very cold – icing up can be a persistent problem.
I’ve offered several comments over recent years on alteration of the weather by wind farms using plain logic. I couldn’t get much traction with it. Certainly, photos of wind farm ‘contrails’ show that pushing the moving air upwards and over the farm compresses it forming water vapor cloud streams.
This extracts water early from humid air, say, coming ashore from the N. Atlantic or the Baltic and robbing weather systems downwind of the potential for rain. Moreover, it generates clouds and blocks out sunshine over the extent of the effect (which looks quite large).
Another effect is caused by the partial damming of the wind. Wind moves from a region of high pressure to one of low pressure. It is the low pressure area leeward of the wind farm that actually demands the air, and it won’t accept less! Imagine a wind farm cresting a ridge. The damming effect of the farm causes the insistent low to draw make-up air from from another direction, thereby reducing the expected efficiency of the system to generate power and changing the weather over a much larger area than thought.
Linear thinking that gave us stupid renewables goes hand-in-hand with woeful unexpected consequences.
Compressing air heats it. What you are seeing is the air being decompressed and cooled.
Water is not being added or removed from the air, it is just temporarily changing form.
A few miles down wind, when the air warms back up, the vapor trails will disappear.