True....and I didn't say these windmills in the numbers we have right now are changing the climate. I'm saying, they DO dry the grounds around them. They DO dry the air around them. And as the article states......the more and more we get, the more it can and will affect our weather. Right now, Obama is giving our federal money to build more and more wind farms off the coastline of New Jersey...and other places, for instance. Do you think they are going to be welcome everywhere? I know that the late Teddy Kennedy fought them when they were going to ruin HIS view from HIS Massachusetts estate. Let's see how the rest of the rich Dems take to them.
And Big Al....who became a billionaire off all this crapola.....was allowed to go into our public schools and scare the hell out of our children with this nonsense......as he tried to indoctrinate them. Shameful. I think most parents told their kids he was a scary rich guy who didn't know what he was talking about. This was also the same Al Gore who didn't practice what he preached on energy saving efforts. In fact, not covered by the mainstream press at the time was the FACT that Pres. George W. Bush had a MUCH more energy efficient ranch than Al Gore ever considered for his property. Conservatives practice it; some libs like Big Al simply spew it!
Oh I don't know it seems kind of ignorant to claim we can't create situations and circumstances that could effect the climate. Too much of anything can be a bad thing. We kill enough trees or pollute the oceans enough, things are going to change. Most likely for the worse. It is however correct to assume that if something happens that creates a situation where humans become extinct like the dinosaurs, the earth will still be here, and keep chugging along. It was here long before us and will be here long after we are a distant memory.
Exactly my point wind generators work because of the wind, they don't create wind. At least that is the basic principal in how they operate. If there is no wind they do not turn. I doubt anybody is going to be to accepting about them in 'their' area. It's like homeless shelters and soup kitchens. It's something that communities need but not over by the country club, or in a place in town where it brings down the value of the neighborhood.
All well and good, but find me some real evidence, give me some factual numbers that demonstrate to what degree we are causing this change. Don't throw it all under a big government crises alarm and then demand radical changes that have big affects on the economy, lifestyles and everything else until we know for sure. To suspect and to analyze is one thing, to have the government start making sweeping changes to law and policy when we really don't know is something else.
You're far more patient than me. Wow. More irrefutable "proof". How does water vapor disappear? Does it sublimate into water, which then disappears or never evaporates? Does this matter get destroyed by a magical process? Please enlighten us on how wind turbines cause matter to disappear. While we're at it, wind turbines are not fans. They slow down the air around them -- they don't speed it up. It's this slowing down that creates the energy (kinetic to electric). The vanes are 'collapsible' to create a more constant slowing down of the wind. All structures -- from trees to buildings -- generally slow down the wind around them. There will be spots where the wind speed is actually increased due to the Bernoulli effect (like the top of an airplane wing or the vane of a wind turbine), but generally, the wind slows down around structures. Similarly, hydroelectric dams slow down the flow of rivers and this creates small lakes on one side of the dam.
Actually, TWIT, if you knew ANYTHING about Al Gore and his environmental interest and subsequent activism, you would KNOW the he studied in college under a imminent professor who was just starting to talk about 'The ENVIRONMENT'. Gore was an eager student and dug in. Just like he 'dug in' to learn about the internet. If you read anything about GORE, you would know that he was a policy WONK. Give him a subject that he was interested him, he dug in and learned everything about it. When the INTERNET was an unknown to 90% of the population other than the military and academia, he dug in. He TAUGHT and SCHOOLED lawmakers on what the hell it was, how it could worked, commercial use, and 'shephered' each piece legislation to get it and keep it going AND GOT FUNDING for it's development! Thank AL GORE when you are spewing RW garbage day in and day out on this 'thing'!
I actually am not claiming we are totally responsible nor do I know to what degree we do effect it, if we actually do, which I believe we do. My claim is the location she is talking about is under a severe drought, so the ground is dry, and the fact that wind turbines do not create wind and they only turn because of the presence of wind. Without wind they will not turn and they don't turn faster than the wind around them. The wind is the only thing drying out the ground. It's like suggesting that hanging your clothes on the line will dry your lawn faster because the clothes generate wind when they are on the line. They only blow in the wind that already exists whether the clothes are there or not. The government uses excuses to pass laws and create legislation that helps them with their major agenda, keeping their rich masters, rich. By convincing enough people something is a problem (whether it really is or relevant to the cause they are throwing against the wall to see what sticks), it makes their job easier because people will demand change, not even realizing they are partners in crime at that point, and we get 4 million pages of change whether we want it or not.
When the RIGHT starts being INTELLECTUALLY HONEST enough to realize (and ADMIT) that MAN is changing it far far beyond its capability to ameliorate man's effects on it.
I don't buy your theory. Fans do not dry up the air. They increase evaporation, which is different. The thing is, a windmill is opposite of a fan. It's not blowing air, it's taking energy from wind. If anything, under your fan theory, a windmill will increase moisture, as it slows down the wind. On reading a quick google of wind farm weather effects, I couldn't find anything conclusive other than that windmills change weather--the specifics vary based on local conditions.
So you are saying that his theory that wind farms change weather is unbelievable because you found google hits saying he is correct? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea...can-cause-climate-change-finds-new-study.html "The study, published in Nature, found a “significant warming trend” of up to 0.72C (1.37F) per decade, particularly at night-time, over wind farms relative to near-by non-wind-farm regions. "
That's a really weird thing to say. Fans don't dry out the air. They just cause the air to move. Circulation then increases evaporation because saturated air is constantly replaced by unsaturated air. But as has already been mentioned by a couple of folks, the turbines are the opposite of fans. Except at specific points, they reduce circulation and therefore evaporation. You might have been thinking about air conditioning, which does dry out the air because water condenses out of it as it passes over the cooling elements.
Are you saying you think that the wind turbines are fans? I could see an argument being made that wind turbines slow the wind down- which would tend to reduce drying of the ground- but wind turbines do not generate air movement like a ceiling fan does. The wind is blowing over the ground- that wind is what would dry out the ground.
The problem is the central production concept. Big Business likes it that way because, it keeps us indebted to their fixed prices. Solar and wind would be much more useful and less harmful as peripheral energy producers. Peripheral such as a small number of houses using power from a particular small wind turbine or houses with solar roofs as opposed to plating the desert with mirrors. Neither wind not solar is well suited for central energy production due to environmental impacts. Damn the corporationist who force such solutions on us with their environmental lies. Damn Them To Hell ! Moi Shoot A Rich Corporationist For Yes I mean it, we need to make them "fear" cheating us. A copy of this upload is on file at the NSA No
I am not a fan of the ground wind turbines... they really are bird killers, ugly, noisy, devices that produce inconsistent electricity. However, changing the weather is not one of their effects.... However, I did see an idea for a floating turbine that harnesses the higher altitude winds that are stronger and more consistent. Seems like there are fewer birds at 2000 ft too. [video=youtube;_u6xJdZ3b1c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u6xJdZ3b1c[/video]
Well I am still waiting for a shred of evidence to support any of the claims. I would imagine trees create localized turbulence as do grain silos, but that doesn't mean that they dry up the ground or that chicken little should run around clucking that the sky is falling. The wind farms I have seen have all been in marginal farming country, every bit of which tends to be dry most of the year anyway.
Ever driven through the Altamont pass? Before the wind turbines were installed there, it was used only for cattle grazing- not great grazing- being California the rains usually stop in March and don't start again until November, and being on the slopes, the grasses dry pretty quickly. Now the turbines are there- and so are the cows. The ranchers are making more money than before. Now- care to provide ANY evidence to support your claims that wind turbines are acting like ceiling fans and drying out land?
I'm far from a scientist but was relieved to see others realize turbines do not create wind but lessen it. As much as I like to pick on the warmers for fun I see no evidence or rational that turbines can create any significant effect. Less wind beyond the turbine can create warmer ground temperatures that may aid in drying. This seems to be the argument being made and it's valid. But increase the wind speed on that particular piece of ground as it would be without the turbine and pretty much the same drying effect will take place. Wind generally does not dry the air unless it's crashing molecules of water hard enough into structures to leave them behind. It will dry earth though. I'm seeing a net effect of zero between the two models. Maybe I'm missing something.
