Comments on: Recent study on decreasing US wind energy not as advertised

By: Mouli Cohen

Mouli Cohen — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:15:07 +0000

It’s true that science reporting in this country leaves a lot to be desired. And certainly this study is inconclusive. But it is important to look at wind patterns when thinking about creating a wind energy sector. I personally think the emphasis in research on wind technology should be on creating larger scale turbines capable of harnessing extreme winds like those seen in the gulf coast area during the hurricane and tropical storm seasons. That way we would be able to harvest the excess wind that will come from superstorms created by fast-rising sea temperatures.

This study is certainly vague, and in the end will probably not have significant impact on the creation of new wind energy facilities.

By: RJ Hendrickson

RJ Hendrickson — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 04:54:49 +0000

Just goes to show ya, Climate Science is very subjective. The team can’t even decide among themselves which way they want to roll this week. AGW will increase winds, winds will decrease…….sounds to me like the same thing that’s been going on for the last 4 billions years or so. Sigh……..

Climate Science is apparently a very nebulous art.

neb⋅u⋅lous
1. hazy, vague, indistinct, or confused
2. cloudy or cloudlike.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:25:38 +0000

Re: Ross Berteig (#53),

If you look at this photo, the trees to left appear taller than the tower and the 170ft TV tower to the right might have some effect.

http://www.bluehill.org/observatory/bho_aerial05.jpg

By: ryanm

ryanm — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:56:56 +0000

Re: Chris Schoneveld (#71), no, we can't agree that there should only be secular universities. Private schools with their own funding can do as they please as guaranteed by the rule of law. The point of the Greenwashing comment is to diagnose a feedback prevalent in public universities in which liberal policies are incubated in a disproportionate manner compared to more conservative viewpoints. This was suggested to be at work here with the Wind Farm press release. It is no secret that in climate science, the supporters and skeptics line up along the ideological divide. The feedback occurs when the reliably left-wing media successfully frames the evolution of the "debate" through the promotion of positive-result climate change studies, the selection of certain groups or individuals for quotations in stories, and the non-promotion of skeptical or contradictory viewpoints. The goal of the comment was not to elicit a long debate on the politics of American public universities, but provide a hypothesis for the interesting dynamics at work with this particular study. I try to adhere to Steve's policy of not discussing politics as there are other forums for detailed exploration of the politics of climate change. But alas, sometimes I fail.

By: Bob McDonald

Bob McDonald — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:27:43 +0000

Any chance these differing opinions can be explained by UWIs (Urban Wind Islands)? Also, can the angular displacement of bristlecone pines from the local vertical be used as a proxy for wind speed universally?

By: Chris Schoneveld

Chris Schoneveld — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:56:05 +0000

Re: ryanm (#21), "This is colloquially called greenwashing, and it infests most liberal universities." Since you introduce this political comment I feel no hesitation to expand on it. I get my blood boiling when I hear there are such things as "liberal universities". What has politics to do with scientific education? Any educational institution (from kindergarten, primary school, secondary school to tertiary education) should be free of any political or religious leaning. So can we agree that we should strive for a world without Christian schools, Islamic schools, Republican schools (if they exist in the US) or liberal universities etc?

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:36:43 +0000

Re: Phil Nizialek (#69), One would think fewer trees would mean easier air flow, but if not clearly the opposite is true!

By: Phil Nizialek

Phil Nizialek — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:20:42 +0000

Obviously there are fewer trees around Blue Hill now then in the pre 1980 time frame. Every reputable scientist knows that wind is caused by the movement of leaves on trees.

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:43:46 +0000

realclimate seems to have removed their post on the AP article and the Mann/Schmidt difference of opinion

Steve: It’s there as of June 16 6 pm Eastern.

By: TJA

TJA — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:34:04 +0000

Global warming is sort of like Maxwell’s Daemon. It takes the wind from good things, like operating wind turbines and powering sailboats on sunny summer lakes and moves it to bad things, like tornadoes, increased turbulence knocking planes out of the air, and hurricanes, of course. It is amazing stuff. You would think they would be embarrassed to make these kinds of claims.