On Twitter I had an interesting conversation last night with some climate geniuses. I pointed to a Stanford study which said that wind turbines could have reduced Sandy’s wind speeds by 65 MPH.
Stanford University researchers used computer simulations to calculate that a protective wall of 70,000 offshore wind turbines built 60 miles offshore from New Orleans would have reduced Hurricane Katrina’s wind speeds by 50 percent by the time it reached land.
A similar array off the coast of New York or New Jersey could have reduced Hurricane Sandy’s wind speeds by 65 miles per hours, the scientists found.
How offshore wind farms could protect us from hurricanes | Grist
Sandy was 80 MPH at landfall. If they slowed down the winds by 65 MPH, that would be 15 MPH. I wrote :
They responded with this :
Unless the author explicitly says that 15 MPH is not a hurricane, Evan can’t deduce that fact. Then Evan went the other direction, and claimed that I am saying 15 MPH is 0 MPH
Finally, another genius jumped in and said that conservation of energy doesn’t apply to wind farms.
here’s something you might like:
Good news… Increasing CO2 will DECREASE risk of skin cancer
14th Sept 2013, International Ozone Day
Dr. Paul A. Newman is the Chief Scientist for Atmospheric Sciences at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in the Earth Sciences Division.
Carbon dioxide increases will cause the upper stratosphere to substantially cool, and this will lead to a stronger ozone recovery in the upper stratosphere.
In the lower stratosphere, the problem breaks into two parts: the tropics and the mid-latitudes. In the tropics, climate change will slow ozone recovery due to a changing circulation, and possibly causing ozone to decrease. In the mid latitudes, climate will cause ozone to increase beyond[italic] its natural level.
http://rajendrashende.com/?p=1316
Hmm, most the world’s population live in the mid-latitudes; “ozone to increase beyond its natural level” would mean les UV and less UV would mean less skin cancer!
Increasing CO2 will DECREASE risk of skin cancer!
But increases global worrying.
Earth’s wind is a closed system. Wind on Earth doesn’t affect wind on Mars
Brilliant comment, Morgan!!!
Or the moon, or the space station, or anything over a 100 miles up. /sarc
I term I haven’t heard in a long while applies here. Mental midgets.
Sorry, Morgan, I obviously meant the cultist bunch.. You beat me to writing what I was thinking about.
Not the winds, but EM radiation can go to (and come from) outer space, therefore the system is not closed.
Obviously, if a windmill removes energy from the atmosphere at some point, then the Sun has to increase its radiance to compensate. Or something.
Excuse me but wouldn’t hurricane force winds require the shut down of wind turbines to prevent them from exceeding their max design speeds?
Some Insight Into The Mindless World Of Peer Review –
“At least 120 computer generated nonsense papers have been reviewed and published in publications of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and Springer, as well as conference proceedings. The fakes have just been discovered by a French researcher and are being withdrawn.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/busted-120-gibberish-science-papers-withdrawn-so-much-for-peer-review/
70,000 wind turbines? Does this guy get paid for this? Where can I get a job making predictions that can never be verified? A brilliant waste of money.
How much will the wind slow down while it is mowing down 70,000 wind turbines?
That’s 210,000 blades slicing and dicing everything when they eventually come down out of a cat4/cat5 wind. The CCW winds should bring them down somewhere around Boston or NYC. But, if they first make it to some altitude, it could be DC. 60 miles off New Orleans, with the timely turn north, could make Bourbon St a work of modern art.
Is there any PhD authored computer generated fiction these rubes won’t believe?
Some of the “models” make me wonder what fantastic recreational pharmaceuticals the PhDs are smoking on campus these days.
Scientific literacy is determined by one’s devotion to the AGW scare.
Eh, that’s nothing … this guy thinks we should build 1,000 foot walls to protect Kansas from tornado’s.
Can giant walls protect the USA from tornadoes?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/02/25/giant-walls-tornado-alley/5808887/
ROFLMAO
But on the lighter side, seems the little pooches in Colorado have found their master’s pot …
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/02/25/vets-seeing-more-dogs-eating-edible-marijuana/
More likely the hurricanes would have ripped their bird chopping prayer wheels up into dangerous shards hurtling toward endangered people. I don’t think the prayer wheels are designed to withstand Force 5 with a 40 foot breaking sea.
Well now, aren’t you a little ray of sunshine. I’ll have you know that the fragmentation of composites removes LOTS of energy from the wind & further, that the conversion of those fragments into human-seeking missiles converts even more energy into useful work. Why, if you could simply throw enough windmills & bodies into the hurricane, the combination of shattering, electricity generation, and mutilation could solve all of the Earth problems in one fell swoop.
The scientists at Real Life University have run a computer model that shows that lashing EPA regulator and their boss to the blades of bird choppers would save the American people about 100 Billion dollars and reduce bird deaths by 78%. Computer models say anything you program them to say.
Reblogged this on The Firewall.
If the alarmist would only fill in the Atlantic Ocean from the southern tip of Africa and South America all the way up to Labrador and northern Scotland then there would be no reason to worry about future hurricanes, ever.
Right. Just typhoons.
I am highly skeptical of computer models that say stuff like this: http://local.msn.com/a-new-tool-in-the-fight-against-hurricanes-wind-farms. Even if true, you would need thousands of square miles of expensive offshore wind turbines to do the job.
Offshore wind turbines will not be functional in a hurricane, and the surface friction they cause would dissipate a miniscule fraction of this much hurricane energy: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html
A journey into the Twilight Zone!
Ah my friend Evcricket! He still hasn’t falsified or even answered all the citations and data I had been giving him on two other blogs.
He’s got persistence, I’ll give him that. Brains, no, but persistence, yes.
Would the 70,000 wind turbines have stopped the storm surge, too?
If they can stop the wind, they can stop the storm surge. However I am skeptical that enough of them can be built to significantly stop the wind.
At a conservative $1 million apiece ($70 billion total), wind turbines would have saved New Orleans from the wind that didn’t breach its levies.
Bet you could build robust levees for less than $70B. Anyone know how much money was spent after Katrina to shore them up?
If Everest can’t stop the wind, I doubt a few turbines can
“February has reported the highest summit wind speeds, estimated at 175mph (78 meters per second) as was the case on February 6, 2004”
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/extreme-weather-the-weather-of-the-summit-of-mt-everest
In order to stop the wind, the object has to remove energy from the wind. That is why wind turbines turn. Unlike wind turbines, Mt Everest doesn’t move, so it doesn’t have a mechanism for removing large amounts of energy from the wind.
What does Everest have to do with it?
Wind turbines can also remove energy from the wind just by standing there, not spinning. The obstruction itself creates turbulence and wind energy is converted to heat. Of course, turbines spinning can convert the wind to useful work rather than waste heat.
I remain skeptical that a bunch of offshore wind farms can extract energy of the magnitude discussed in my link above at 6:59 p.m. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html
Is this the intellectual level of warmista these days ? Probably a finger painter.
More likely a window licker….
Mt. Everest, and mountains in general remove energy from wind by a change in vertical displacement and pressure. The change in altitude cools the wind, causing condensation to occur. Some of the internal energy the wind was carrying is deposited onto the mountain in the form of precipitation.
The wind on the wayward side of the mountain is generally moister and carries more energy than the drier wind on the leeward side.
However, the velocity of the wind is generally faster and more turbulent as it enters the leeward side.
Winds away up thar are generally quite a lot faster than winds at lower altitudes.
http://earth.nullschool.net/
Play around a bit, & look at what winds are like at 500 millibars & 250 millibars. (the peak of Everest is around 300 millibars)
“miles per hours” They don’t even talk too good.
Reducing 80 mph winds by even 6 mph drops them out of hurricane status and makes them harmless. 65 is serious overkill.