I just read a comment on a Linkedin post - in Wales, Great Britain - they are clearing trees on the sides of the mountains where they placed wind turbines at the top of the ridges. This is to even out the air flow for greater wind production - but what about all that carbon sequestration of the trees, and carbon release when they took them down - where is the carbon savings there - never mind the future runoff and land degradation.... NEVER was about saving on carbon just collecting the money - our money, taxpayer money!!
There is no such thing as "free energy", if you remove energy from a natural process, there is always a knock on effect. Tidal power effects the speed of the planets rotation. Solar removes energy for photosynthesis and top soil regeneration.
There are growing number of literature reports and citations about the drying effect and destruction of flora underneath and surrounding the wind farms.
I’ve been diametrically opposed to wind and solar projects for many years and for the reasons most commonly mentioned and associated. Yet, I have not previously read the facts as you’ve presented them. The fact of the ground heating/drying from the turbines is occasionally mentioned but I’m blown away, pardon the unintended pun, by this new-to-me information. Thanks!
Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned
out to be Wrong)
BY EVAN ANDREWS ON MARCH 12, 2010
Google it.
GHE will join this list.
PhD, BFD, does not make one infallible or ethical.
Wrong before and wrong now.
GHE/CAGW BIG LIE depends on two 2 erroneous assumptions:
1 Near Earth space is cold & w/o GHE Earth becomes a 33 C colder, 255 K ice ball ice.
2 Earth’s surface radiates “extra” LWIR energy as a BB.
Both wrong!!
Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or even just the GHGs and the Earth becomes much like the Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, no 30% albedo becoming a barren rock ball, hot^3 (400 K) on the lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on the dark. At our distance from the Sun space is hot (394 K) not cold (5 K).
That’s NOT what the RGHE theory says.
EVIDENCE:
RGHE theory “288 K w – 255 K w/o = a 33 C colder ice ball Earth” 255 K assumes w/o keeps 30% albedo, an assumption akin to criminal fraud.
Nikolov “Airless Celestial Bodies”
Kramm “Moon as test bed for Earth”
UCLA Diviner lunar mission data
JWST solar shield
ISS HVAC design for lit side of 250 F. (ISS web site)
Astronaut backpack life support w/ AC and cool water tubing underwear. (Space Discovery Center)
TFK_bams09 (Google it)
1,368 W/m^2 = solar constant over discular Earth cross-sectional area, area = pi r^2.
Divide by 4 = 342 to average over spherical surface, area = 4 pi r^2.
Deduct 30% albedo, (1-.3)*342=240
Deduct 79 absorbed by atmos = 161 arriving at surface.
Per LoT 1 161 is all that can leave.
17 sensible + 80 latent + 63 LWIR from sun = balance is closed.
What is the origin of the 396 upwelling/333 back/2nd helping 63 GHE loop appearing out of nowhere violating LoT 1?
396 is the theoretical, “What if?” S-B calculation for a BB at 16 C, 289 K, that fills the denominator of the emissivity ratio, 63/396=0.16.
396/333/63 is “extra” not real, violates LoT1.
333 moving energy from cold atmos to warm surface without work violates LoT2
If it were not for the pseudo-science horse manure of man caused climate change, wind turbines would no longer be built and the ones to date abandoned.
I am angry about the corruption of science, the waste of resources and violation of civil liberties.
Where does Biden get the authority to just declare these ridiculous climate fixing, unscientific regulations??
Y’all evade my 3 pts changing the subject, appealing to authorities & parroting handwavium y’all don’t understand.
Mystery solved. Now we know. The reason 2023 had some record high temperatures wasn't just because of the immense amount of water vapor spewed into the atmosphere by Hunga Tonga eruption; part of the cause of the temp increase obviously was because of the increase of wind turbines. Ha.
Earth is cooler with the atmosphere, water vapor, 30% albedo not warmer.
Ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics use bad math & badder physics.
The kinetic heat transfer modes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules render impossible a BB surface upwelling and looping “extra” LWIR energy for the GHE.
Consensus science has a well-documented history of being wrong & abusing those who dared to challenge it. (Bruno, drawn & quartered)
GHE & CAGW are wrong so alarmists resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship & violence.
You have avoided my 3 points for an appeal to authority.
PhD, BFD, does not make them infallible or correct or willing to lie to protect their careers & grants.
ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!! That is the very essence of science!!
Authoritative & consensual & popular & way wrong = recurring theme in science history, e.g. phlogiston, caloric, luminiferous ether, spontaneous generation, planet Vulcan, water filled Martian canals, medical humors, expanding Big Bang all turned up wrong.
GHE will join them.
“Nullius et verba.”
“Take no one’s word for it.”
Motto of the Royal Society
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
—Carl Sagan, astronomer and writer (1934-1996)
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.-Carl Sagan
If it can be destroyed by the truth, it deserves to be destroyed by the truth.-Carl Sagan
There are no forbidden questions in science, no matters too sensitive or delicate to be probed, no sacred truths.-Carl Sagan
“The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth.””
Richard P. Feynman, “Six Easy Pieces”
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” Richard P. Feynman
Ok - so I was answering your one comment of "rubbish".. and being sarcastic with it - I had not seen your long diatribe at that point.
I do not believe in consensus science - so we can agree on that! If you think you are right someone will prove you wrong!
so let me get this straight - you are saying - quite adamantly that the science you propose is correct and the science in this article is incorrect?
I am not in a position to yes to either side of the science, but to bring forward different opinions and let readers decide on what ever outcome they want to look into.
There has been so much information on "green" and "clean" with no backup science but pretty marketing tactics to fool everyone into thinking this might be good for them. But the bigger question is - is it really - and is it worth substituting something that we know as intermittent to replace reliable and what is the human cost - money wise and quality of life.
You seem to be quite angry about this report do you want to give us some counter reports to back up your position?
I just added a pdf of a seminal article from Nature that shows that land temperatures in Texas increased by 0.7 C over a period of 8 years:
"Impacts of wind farms on land surface temperature" - see addition in Newsletter
I just read a comment on a Linkedin post - in Wales, Great Britain - they are clearing trees on the sides of the mountains where they placed wind turbines at the top of the ridges. This is to even out the air flow for greater wind production - but what about all that carbon sequestration of the trees, and carbon release when they took them down - where is the carbon savings there - never mind the future runoff and land degradation.... NEVER was about saving on carbon just collecting the money - our money, taxpayer money!!
WOW 😳😣
Thank you for this information. Keep bringing facts to reality. Someday this fantasy of the left will die
There is no such thing as "free energy", if you remove energy from a natural process, there is always a knock on effect. Tidal power effects the speed of the planets rotation. Solar removes energy for photosynthesis and top soil regeneration.
Great points, good ol fashioned 101.
Wind turbines also adversely affect the soil around them, drying it out and rendering it a dust blighted, eroded wasteland
Thanks for the comment, very true.
There are growing number of literature reports and citations about the drying effect and destruction of flora underneath and surrounding the wind farms.
Good stuff, TC!
I’ve been diametrically opposed to wind and solar projects for many years and for the reasons most commonly mentioned and associated. Yet, I have not previously read the facts as you’ve presented them. The fact of the ground heating/drying from the turbines is occasionally mentioned but I’m blown away, pardon the unintended pun, by this new-to-me information. Thanks!
Thanks for stopping by and great pun 😃.
Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned
out to be Wrong)
BY EVAN ANDREWS ON MARCH 12, 2010
Google it.
GHE will join this list.
PhD, BFD, does not make one infallible or ethical.
Wrong before and wrong now.
GHE/CAGW BIG LIE depends on two 2 erroneous assumptions:
1 Near Earth space is cold & w/o GHE Earth becomes a 33 C colder, 255 K ice ball ice.
2 Earth’s surface radiates “extra” LWIR energy as a BB.
Both wrong!!
Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or even just the GHGs and the Earth becomes much like the Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, no 30% albedo becoming a barren rock ball, hot^3 (400 K) on the lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on the dark. At our distance from the Sun space is hot (394 K) not cold (5 K).
That’s NOT what the RGHE theory says.
EVIDENCE:
RGHE theory “288 K w – 255 K w/o = a 33 C colder ice ball Earth” 255 K assumes w/o keeps 30% albedo, an assumption akin to criminal fraud.
Nikolov “Airless Celestial Bodies”
Kramm “Moon as test bed for Earth”
UCLA Diviner lunar mission data
JWST solar shield
ISS HVAC design for lit side of 250 F. (ISS web site)
Astronaut backpack life support w/ AC and cool water tubing underwear. (Space Discovery Center)
TFK_bams09 (Google it)
1,368 W/m^2 = solar constant over discular Earth cross-sectional area, area = pi r^2.
Divide by 4 = 342 to average over spherical surface, area = 4 pi r^2.
Deduct 30% albedo, (1-.3)*342=240
Deduct 79 absorbed by atmos = 161 arriving at surface.
Per LoT 1 161 is all that can leave.
17 sensible + 80 latent + 63 LWIR from sun = balance is closed.
What is the origin of the 396 upwelling/333 back/2nd helping 63 GHE loop appearing out of nowhere violating LoT 1?
396 is the theoretical, “What if?” S-B calculation for a BB at 16 C, 289 K, that fills the denominator of the emissivity ratio, 63/396=0.16.
396/333/63 is “extra” not real, violates LoT1.
333 moving energy from cold atmos to warm surface without work violates LoT2
289 K + BB = 396 = Wrong.
289 K + 0.16 = 63 = Correct.
If it were not for the pseudo-science horse manure of man caused climate change, wind turbines would no longer be built and the ones to date abandoned.
I am angry about the corruption of science, the waste of resources and violation of civil liberties.
Where does Biden get the authority to just declare these ridiculous climate fixing, unscientific regulations??
Y’all evade my 3 pts changing the subject, appealing to authorities & parroting handwavium y’all don’t understand.
1 cooler not warmer,
2 balance graphics are trash,
3 surface cannot radiate BB.
1 or 2 or 3 or sum = 0 GHE/0 GHG heat/0 CAGW
Bring it!!! to these 3 points!
Wind turbines remove kinetic energy from the flowing air stream converting it to mechanical and then electrical energy.
That can only COOL the system - period!!!!!
Mystery solved. Now we know. The reason 2023 had some record high temperatures wasn't just because of the immense amount of water vapor spewed into the atmosphere by Hunga Tonga eruption; part of the cause of the temp increase obviously was because of the increase of wind turbines. Ha.
Handwavium nonsense!
Real science uses the Kelvin scale.
0.5 Celsius on the K scale is meaningless.
Nobody measures this in the field.
And pointless since the GHE does not exist.
Earth is cooler with the atmosphere, water vapor, 30% albedo not warmer.
Ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics use bad math & badder physics.
The kinetic heat transfer modes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules render impossible a BB surface upwelling and looping “extra” LWIR energy for the GHE.
Consensus science has a well-documented history of being wrong & abusing those who dared to challenge it. (Bruno, drawn & quartered)
GHE & CAGW are wrong so alarmists resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship & violence.
Rubbish!!
But it is THE science - at least a dozen or more peer reviewed scientific papers. Are we to question the science?
You have avoided my 3 points for an appeal to authority.
PhD, BFD, does not make them infallible or correct or willing to lie to protect their careers & grants.
ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!! That is the very essence of science!!
Authoritative & consensual & popular & way wrong = recurring theme in science history, e.g. phlogiston, caloric, luminiferous ether, spontaneous generation, planet Vulcan, water filled Martian canals, medical humors, expanding Big Bang all turned up wrong.
GHE will join them.
“Nullius et verba.”
“Take no one’s word for it.”
Motto of the Royal Society
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
—Carl Sagan, astronomer and writer (1934-1996)
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.-Carl Sagan
If it can be destroyed by the truth, it deserves to be destroyed by the truth.-Carl Sagan
There are no forbidden questions in science, no matters too sensitive or delicate to be probed, no sacred truths.-Carl Sagan
“The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth.””
Richard P. Feynman, “Six Easy Pieces”
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” Richard P. Feynman
Ok - so I was answering your one comment of "rubbish".. and being sarcastic with it - I had not seen your long diatribe at that point.
I do not believe in consensus science - so we can agree on that! If you think you are right someone will prove you wrong!
so let me get this straight - you are saying - quite adamantly that the science you propose is correct and the science in this article is incorrect?
I am not in a position to yes to either side of the science, but to bring forward different opinions and let readers decide on what ever outcome they want to look into.
There has been so much information on "green" and "clean" with no backup science but pretty marketing tactics to fool everyone into thinking this might be good for them. But the bigger question is - is it really - and is it worth substituting something that we know as intermittent to replace reliable and what is the human cost - money wise and quality of life.
You seem to be quite angry about this report do you want to give us some counter reports to back up your position?
Uncle Nicky
You are focusing on the attention grabbing title.
We agree.
TC