info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Do wind farms cause drought? No!
84 views
Skip to first unread message
Sam Wormley
Jan 14, 2016, 9:22:45 PM1/14/16
to
Do wind farms cause drought? No!
> https://www.quora.com/Do-wind-farms-cause-drought?share=1
> No, not at all. The person behind that site is a crank who believes
> that every climatologist and meteorologist in the world is incorrect,
> and that their unpublished, unpeer reviewed, wild hypotheses are
> accurate.
>
> They are a climate change denialist and hate wind farms for no
> rational reason, and are so deluded that they claim to like wind
> energy.
>
> The statements related to wind farms are completely false. The
> presumption is that storms which form over thousands of square
> kilometres and heights up to 30,000 feet are impacted by wind farms
> which cover dozens of square kilometres and heights up to 600 feet.
> Storms form upwind of wind farms and sweep through them regularly.
> The variance in scale and location is staggeringly large, and the
> theory the author espouses is incompatible with known physics, so he
> makes up new physics related to plasma creation. It's complete
> pseudo-science from top to bottom.
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
> https://www.quora.com/Do-wind-farms-cause-drought?share=1
> No, not at all. The person behind that site is a crank who believes
> that every climatologist and meteorologist in the world is incorrect,
> and that their unpublished, unpeer reviewed, wild hypotheses are
> accurate.
>
> They are a climate change denialist and hate wind farms for no
> rational reason, and are so deluded that they claim to like wind
> energy.
>
> The statements related to wind farms are completely false. The
> presumption is that storms which form over thousands of square
> kilometres and heights up to 30,000 feet are impacted by wind farms
> which cover dozens of square kilometres and heights up to 600 feet.
> Storms form upwind of wind farms and sweep through them regularly.
> The variance in scale and location is staggeringly large, and the
> theory the author espouses is incompatible with known physics, so he
> makes up new physics related to plasma creation. It's complete
> pseudo-science from top to bottom.
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
Solving Tornadoes
Jan 14, 2016, 9:47:18 PM1/14/16
to
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 6:22:45 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Do wind farms cause drought? No!
> > https://www.quora.com/Do-wind-farms-cause-drought?share=1
>
> > No, not at all. The person behind that site is a crank who believes
> > that every climatologist and meteorologist in the world is incorrect,
> > and that their unpublished, unpeer reviewed, wild hypotheses are
> > accurate.
> >
> > They are a climate change denialist and hate wind farms for no
> > rational reason, and are so deluded that they claim to like wind
> > energy.
> >
> > The statements related to wind farms are completely false. The
> > presumption is that storms which form over thousands of square
> > kilometres and heights up to 30,000 feet are impacted by wind farms
> > which cover dozens of square kilometres and heights up to 600 feet.
> > Storms form upwind of wind farms and sweep through them regularly.
> > The variance in scale and location is staggeringly large, and the
> > theory the author espouses is incompatible with known physics, so he
> > makes up new physics related to plasma creation. It's complete
> > pseudo-science from top to bottom.
Don't take my word on it. Go to any country in the world and type in (country) Wind Farm maps, then type in (country) drought maps. Draw your own conclusion. I can explain the correlation. But that is because I am an expert on storm theory. I understand the importance of smooth boundary layers at low altitude with respect to causing storms. And I realize that wind turbines destroy the smoothness of boundary layers.
> Do wind farms cause drought? No!
> > https://www.quora.com/Do-wind-farms-cause-drought?share=1
>
> > No, not at all. The person behind that site is a crank who believes
> > that every climatologist and meteorologist in the world is incorrect,
> > and that their unpublished, unpeer reviewed, wild hypotheses are
> > accurate.
> >
> > They are a climate change denialist and hate wind farms for no
> > rational reason, and are so deluded that they claim to like wind
> > energy.
> >
> > The statements related to wind farms are completely false. The
> > presumption is that storms which form over thousands of square
> > kilometres and heights up to 30,000 feet are impacted by wind farms
> > which cover dozens of square kilometres and heights up to 600 feet.
> > Storms form upwind of wind farms and sweep through them regularly.
> > The variance in scale and location is staggeringly large, and the
> > theory the author espouses is incompatible with known physics, so he
> > makes up new physics related to plasma creation. It's complete
> > pseudo-science from top to bottom.
But don't take my word on any of this. Do your own research and draw your own conclusions.
Wind Farms Cause Drought
http://t.co/i8tRtjTM1v
http://johncolemanblog.com/2014/12/10/an-essay-about-the-global-warmingclimate-change-frenzy/#comment-1767
R Kym Horsell
Jan 14, 2016, 9:54:56 PM1/14/16
to
Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do wind farms cause drought? No!
>> https://www.quora.com/Do-wind-farms-cause-drought?share=1
>> No, not at all. The person behind that site is a crank who believes
>> that every climatologist and meteorologist in the world is incorrect,
>> and that their unpublished, unpeer reviewed, wild hypotheses are
>> accurate.
>> They are a climate change denialist and hate wind farms for no
>> rational reason, and are so deluded that they claim to like wind
>> energy.
>> The statements related to wind farms are completely false. The
>> presumption is that storms which form over thousands of square
>> kilometres and heights up to 30,000 feet are impacted by wind farms
>> which cover dozens of square kilometres and heights up to 600 feet.
>> Storms form upwind of wind farms and sweep through them regularly.
>> The variance in scale and location is staggeringly large, and the
>> theory the author espouses is incompatible with known physics, so he
>> makes up new physics related to plasma creation. It's complete
>> pseudo-science from top to bottom.
Perhaps a better explanation is
> Do wind farms cause drought? No!
>> https://www.quora.com/Do-wind-farms-cause-drought?share=1
>> No, not at all. The person behind that site is a crank who believes
>> that every climatologist and meteorologist in the world is incorrect,
>> and that their unpublished, unpeer reviewed, wild hypotheses are
>> accurate.
>> They are a climate change denialist and hate wind farms for no
>> rational reason, and are so deluded that they claim to like wind
>> energy.
>> The statements related to wind farms are completely false. The
>> presumption is that storms which form over thousands of square
>> kilometres and heights up to 30,000 feet are impacted by wind farms
>> which cover dozens of square kilometres and heights up to 600 feet.
>> Storms form upwind of wind farms and sweep through them regularly.
>> The variance in scale and location is staggeringly large, and the
>> theory the author espouses is incompatible with known physics, so he
>> makes up new physics related to plasma creation. It's complete
>> pseudo-science from top to bottom.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-do-wind-farms-increase-climate-change
The story has done the rounds of the Chinese echo chambers since Roy
wrote a paper in 2011
(<http://www.atmos.illinois.edu/%7Esbroy/publ/jweia2011.pdf>)
that found the air temperature and humidity near windfarms was different
from ambient.
Big shock. Wind farms -- like skycrapers, haystacks and barns --
provably affect the movement of air.
While large urban areas can generate microclimates quite a bit of
research has now concluded they do not correspond with climate change.
If anything, some find the "Urban Heat Island" effect actually runs
the other way.
"The Urban Heat Island effect is real. Berkeley's analysis focused on the
question of whether this effect biases the global land average. Our UHI
paper <http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf>
analyzing this indicates that the urban heat island effect on our
global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero."
-- http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#question-15
--
The tank-to-wheel efficiency of a fuel-cell vehicle is greater than
45% at low loads and shows average values of about 36% when a driving
cycle like the New European Driving Cycle is used as test procedure.
The comparable NEDC value for a Diesel vehicle is 22%. In 2008 Honda
released a demonstration fuel cell electric vehicle with fuel stack
claiming a 60% tank-to-wheel efficiency.
-- wikipedia/Fuel_cell
Solving Tornadoes
Jan 14, 2016, 10:49:53 PM1/14/16
to
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 6:54:56 PM UTC-8, Kym Horsell wrote:
Wind farms -- like skycrapers, haystacks and barns --
provably affect the movement of air.
Apples and oranges. The issue is whether or not they cause/explain widespread drought. The droughts, internationally, are very real. Are there more now that there used to be before wind farms. IDK. I don't think anybody knows for sure. It could be all anecdotal.
Wind farms -- like skycrapers, haystacks and barns --
provably affect the movement of air.
There is a state in India, for example, where drought is being accepted as a permanent feature. They installed wind turbines 20 years ago, and the monsoon rains have failed ever since. Thousands of farmers have committed suicide.
But it seems to be everywhere, China, Australia, Brazil, Tanzania, Costa Rica. Drought, wind farms, drought, wind farms.
Maybe it is just conincidence, IDK. I just know that this correlation is constent with what my theory on storms predicts.
James McGinn
Jan 16, 2016, 7:07:35 PM1/16/16
to
Sergio
Jan 16, 2016, 8:22:08 PM1/16/16
to
On 1/16/2016 6:07 PM, James McGinn wrote:
Uh. There's more drag because it's wet.
You are confusing lift with traction,
where there is more traction when it's dry.
Water is a most interesting substance, and
has matter of factly many, many phases,
besides our usual water, ice, and steam.
These are usually at extremely high and
low temperature regimes, as of the super
cooled water, and live steam.
There are many an engineering and steam-
fitter's handbook with quite the few many
charts as to the behavior of water under
temperature and pressure.
In the biological realm, hydrophilicity
and the ubiquity of water as the universal
solvent is a critical component as the
medium of most molecular reactions and
molecular mechanics in respiratory cycles
and the structural folding mechanics of
proteins.
The hydrogen bond as under van der Waal's
is a weak agglomeration as of liquids, vis-
a-vis, gases, where it is a usual course
that stochastic motion as imparted by the
energy or heat of the particles leaves
them variously set and jostled.
These bonds aren't as strong as molecular
bonds as usually define molecules and thusly
their molecular or chemical properties, in
terms of the chemical elements. They are
moreso simply the establishment of phase
(material phase) in terms of settings of
uniform media, and various aggregates,
solutions, mixes, dispersions, and such.
Uh. There's more drag because it's wet.
You are confusing lift with traction,
where there is more traction when it's dry.
Water is a most interesting substance, and
has matter of factly many, many phases,
besides our usual water, ice, and steam.
These are usually at extremely high and
low temperature regimes, as of the super
cooled water, and live steam.
There are many an engineering and steam-
fitter's handbook with quite the few many
charts as to the behavior of water under
temperature and pressure.
In the biological realm, hydrophilicity
and the ubiquity of water as the universal
solvent is a critical component as the
medium of most molecular reactions and
molecular mechanics in respiratory cycles
and the structural folding mechanics of
proteins.
The hydrogen bond as under van der Waal's
is a weak agglomeration as of liquids, vis-
a-vis, gases, where it is a usual course
that stochastic motion as imparted by the
energy or heat of the particles leaves
them variously set and jostled.
These bonds aren't as strong as molecular
bonds as usually define molecules and thusly
their molecular or chemical properties, in
terms of the chemical elements. They are
moreso simply the establishment of phase
(material phase) in terms of settings of
uniform media, and various aggregates,
solutions, mixes, dispersions, and such.
Sergio
Jan 16, 2016, 8:22:21 PM1/16/16
to
James McGinn
Jan 16, 2016, 8:54:28 PM1/16/16
to
On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 5:22:21 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
Fresh Fish!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Utop2U6Zgo
We have a winner!
I knew you would come through, Sergio, uh, Mahapal, uh, Mark Fergerson, whichever one you are today.
Fresh Fish!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Utop2U6Zgo
We have a winner!
I knew you would come through, Sergio, uh, Mahapal, uh, Mark Fergerson, whichever one you are today.
Sergio
Jan 17, 2016, 3:43:00 PM1/17/16
to
Solving Tornadoes
Jan 21, 2016, 10:21:31 PM1/21/16
to
Sergio
Jan 21, 2016, 10:55:59 PM1/21/16
to
that is why you respond to your own posts,
you must be scoring it by # of views.
JSH did that but he was a master at keeping threads going, up to 130
responces on a single thread, not looks either.
James McGinn
Jan 23, 2016, 12:02:14 PM1/23/16
to
Sergio
Jan 23, 2016, 2:01:47 PM1/23/16
to
(XC) (VXV)
O
Solving Tornadoes
Jan 26, 2016, 5:11:04 PM1/26/16
to
Solving Tornadoes
Jan 28, 2016, 12:59:52 PM1/28/16
to
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 6:22:45 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>
James McGinn
Feb 1, 2016, 1:24:12 AM2/1/16
to
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 6:22:45 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
0 new messages