Tidal heights changes caused by 18.61 years cycle of lunar 'wobbles'

[franksingleton]

Total power received from the sun... 120,000,000,000,000,000 Watts
World total installed wind generation... 830,000,000,000 Watts

0.0007%

Thank you. That saved me from doing the sums and having them queried by those trying to argue about effects of turbines.
Solar emissions vary over a sun-spot cycle by about 0.1%.
Let us assume that wind energy could meet the total demand, assume, also the turbines are 50% efficient. Then wind turbines would be extracting 0.0014% of the total heat input. That is well within the noise level of solar emission variability.
Even in the most extreme scenario, wind farms could only have minimal effect on climate. There will be some local effects downstream but these are the small. Increased turbulence is one effect. One result would be less cold nights.

 

[AngusMcDoon]

Thank you. That saved me from doing the sums and having them queried by those trying to argue about effects of turbines.
Solar emissions vary over a sun-spot cycle by about 0.1%.
Let us assume that wind energy could meet the total demand, assume, also the turbines are 50% efficient. Then wind turbines would be extracting 0.0014% of the total heat input. That is well within the noise level of solar emission variability.
Even in the most extreme scenario, wind farms could only have minimal effect on climate. There will be some local effects downstream but these are the small. Increased turbulence is one effect. One result would be less cold nights.

Average height of a 2021 installed wind turbine hub... 94m
Height of atmosphere at 20% pressure... 11,800m

Assume atmosphere is pretty much all below the 20% pressure level (where the tropopause approximately is), percentage of the troposphere height that a wind turbine reaches in to... 0.8%.

 

[AngusMcDoon]

Thank you. That saved me from doing the sums and having them queried by those trying to argue about effects of turbines.
Solar emissions vary over a sun-spot cycle by about 0.1%.
Let us assume that wind energy could meet the total demand, assume, also the turbines are 50% efficient. Then wind turbines would be extracting 0.0014% of the total heat input. That is well within the noise level of solar emission variability.
Even in the most extreme scenario, wind farms could only have minimal effect on climate. There will be some local effects downstream but these are the small. Increased turbulence is one effect. One result would be less cold nights.

Average power from a wind turbine... 2MW
Total power output from all world's wind turbines... 830 GW
Approximation of number of wind turbines installed worldwide... 415,000
Land needed by a 2MW wind turbine... 10 hectares
Total land occupied by wind turbines... 4,150,000 hectares
World land area of forests... 406,000,000,000 hectares
Percentage of land from wind turbines causing turbulence compared to forests causing turbulence... 0.001%

 

[lustyd]

You're both using lots of numbers as an excuse to be lazy here. It doesn't matter what percentage of energy is removed from the system. What matters is the effect that has on that system. The percentage of atmosphere that is CO2 has not appreciably changed, yet there is a fairly drastic effect on climate.

Frank, you claim to understand how the models work, try running a weather model but remove half of the energy from just one grid square and see what happens.

 

[boomerangben]

According to Scientific America, the average wind speed across the globe has risen from 7mph to 7.4mph since 2010, despite the proliferation of wind turbines in that time. Any effect of extracting wind energy certainly hasn’t reduced wind speeds so it follows that other factors are in play, ie increases in global temperatures. So any change of weather due to wind farms is going to more than offset than by much, much bigger factors.
Reading an interesting book called Tides by Jonathan White, whose research has shown that frictional effects have reduced tide energy causing the moon to orbit at ever increasing distance from the earth, but that friction is hugely affected by sea levels. But as for man’s impact on extracting tidal power……….. flying over the Pentland Firth, it is difficult to imagine any man made extraction having a significant effect unless of course we build a tidal barrage.

 

[lustyd]

local reduction in wind can lead to (much) stronger winds elsewhere. That's the point. Wind is just pressure equalising, and anything we do to change that equalisation will have an impact.

 

[franksingleton]

You're both using lots of numbers as an excuse to be lazy here. It doesn't matter what percentage of energy is removed from the system. What matters is the effect that has on that system. The percentage of atmosphere that is CO2 has not appreciably changed, yet there is a fairly drastic effect on climate.

CO2 concentrations have increased from under 300 ppm in the mid 18th century to nearly 415 ppm now. That is the primary cause of the increase in temperature globally, the increased storm intensity, accelerating sea level rise and ice melt. We

Frank, you claim to understand how the models work, try running a weather model but remove half of the energy from just one grid square and see what happens.

A meaningless challenge. I do not have a supercomputer at my command. In any case, so what? It would not be meteorologically meaningful.

 

[franksingleton]

local reduction in wind can lead to (much) stronger winds elsewhere. That's the point. Wind is just pressure equalising, and anything we do to change that equalisation will have an impact.

A hand waving statement. Why add the word “much”? In any case, you are forgetting that atmosphere is 3-dimensional. A wind farm will take energy out of the atmosphere but will also increase turbulence. At night, particularly over land, that could increase wind speeds. You have to accept that the amount of energy removed by wind farms may be large in terms of gigaWatts to but is minimal in the atmosphere overall. The atmosphere moves 3-dimensionally.

 

[boomerangben]

local reduction in wind can lead to (much) stronger winds elsewhere. That's the point. Wind is just pressure equalising, and anything we do to change that equalisation will have an impact.

Have you got examples of where this happens?

 

[AngusMcDoon]

The atmosphere moves 3-dimensionally.

4 dimensionally, through space time. Come on Frank, you're a physicist. You should know that! The relativistic effects of the wind's mass and velocity will be about as significant as a wind turbine to the world wind patterns, but mustn't be ignored. I hope your models take it into account.

 

[franksingleton]

4 dimensionally, through space time. Come on Frank, you're a physicist. You should know that! The relativistic effects of the wind's mass and velocity will be about as significant as a wind turbine to the world wind patterns, but mustn't be ignored. I hope your models take it into account.

OK. I often refer to 4-D analyses. They are not my models. Global operational models use grids down to 0.1 degree lat/Lon (ECMWF and UK ). I doubt very much thst they take wind farms into account. I suppose that local area models using 0.01 degree grids old do so but doubt.

 

[nemein]

I always thought it was the butterflies that were to blame?

 

[lustyd]

CO2 concentrations have increased from under 300 ppm in the mid 18th century to nearly 415 ppm now. That is the primary cause of the increase in temperature globally, the increased storm intensity, accelerating sea level rise and ice melt. We

But to use your own arguments against you, that's a tiny, tiny percentage of the atmosphere, so how could it have a noticeable effect? 415 in a million is not many

A meaningless challenge. I do not have a supercomputer at my command. In any case, so what? It would not be meteorologically meaningful.

It's not meaningless, it's the whole point. Weather comprises lots of interconnected systems, and the models do a fairly poor job of representing them, but they do represent them. Add more energy and something changes, remove energy it changes again. The thing it changes will be an input into the next thing and so on. If we reduce wind, then waves get smaller, because waves are smaller there is less resistance and so downstream wind might get stronger. If we slow the wind, we might reduce pressure. Any kid with a candle and some paper can show that effect pulling wind from the other direction.

I find it astounding that you claim to understand the models and yet refuse to even consider that changing any variable will have knock on effects. I would suggest therefore that while you may have learned what the models do, you certainly lack any understanding of them.

 

[lustyd]

I always thought it was the butterflies that were to blame?

The idea that a butterfly doesn't have an effect is naive. It obviously does, based on everything we know about physics. The level of that effect locally may be very small but could well snowball in the grand scheme. In the case of a butterfly, it's quite likely that the effect is equalised very quickly within the local environment due to its small size. In the case of windfarms which represent a large area of the north sea, that equalisation will be on a much grander scale and will have measurable knock on effects.

 

[AngusMcDoon]

OK. I often refer to 4-D analyses. They are not my models. Global operational models use grids down to 0.1 degree lat/Lon (ECMWF and UK ). I doubt very much thst they take wind farms into account. I suppose that local area models using 0.01 degree grids old do so but doubt.

What's your opinion on the Sandcastle Effect problem? Each year in the UK alone surveys show that kiddies (and I) build nearly 13 million sand castles annually on UK beaches (I account for about 1 ppm). Each one of those affects the wave patterns on the beach when they are washed away at high tide, and that leads to shifting of sand that otherwise wouldn't happen. This in turn must affect tide flows and sea levels which then must have an effect on currents in the nearby ocean. Scaled up to all the world's sandcastles built by all nations' kids (and me) that could lead to the North Atlantic Current stopping and a return to an ice age. Do oceanographers' and climatologists' models account for sandcastles?

Anyone who thinks that each and every sandcastle doesn't have an effect is naive. It obviously does, based on everything we know about physics. The level of that effect locally may be very small but could well snowball in the grand scheme. In the case of a sandcastle, it's quite likely that the effect is washed away very quickly within the local environment due to its small size (some of mine are not so small though). In the case of bucket and spade wielding kiddies (and me) along miles of Norfolk beaches which represent a large coast along the north sea, that equalisation will be on a much grander scale and will have measurable knock on effects.

 

[franksingleton]

But to use your own arguments against you, that's a tiny, tiny percentage of the atmosphere, so how could it have a noticeable effect? 415 in a million is not many

Clearly, you have no understanding of the physics. There is a primer at Climate Change - Franks-Weather - The Weather Window. You might start there.

It's not meaningless, it's the whole point. Weather comprises lots of interconnected systems, and the models do a fairly poor job of representing them, but they do represent them. Add more energy and something changes, remove energy it changes again. The thing it changes will be an input into the next thing and so on. If we reduce wind, then waves get smaller, because waves are smaller there is less resistance and so downstream wind might get stronger. If we slow the wind, we might reduce pressure. Any kid with a candle and some paper can show that effect pulling wind from the other direction.

It is a matter of perspective. Any forecaster with a memory 10, 20 ….. 60 years ago will tell you that forecasts have greatly improved over that time. Those, like you, who claim otherwise do not understand the concept of predictability.

I find it astounding that you claim to understand the models and yet refuse to even consider that changing any variable will have knock on effects. I would suggest therefore that while you may have learned what the models do, you certainly lack any understanding of them.

You are shifting your feet without moving your ground. You asked me to try running a model. Why do you not run a model? I know well how models work, what their data inputs are and what they can do. I do not know, neither do you, the results of some hypothetical exercise that nobody developing models has ever done. They would ask what was the point. Of course, you may know better than some of the top scientists in the field. Clearly, that excludes me.
Small details have short lifetimes and are quickly lost.
A small cumulus last s few minutes, a thunderstorm a few hours. Both must transport heat within the overall pattern. A good, large scale effect is due to volcanoes. After Krakatoa, it took several years before the atmosphere returned to its previous state. This is a simulation of a climate model with several volcano scenarios.

even after major eruptions, the effects eventually vanish.

 

[SaltyC]

local reduction in wind can lead to (much) stronger winds elsewhere. That's the point. Wind is just pressure equalising, and anything we do to change that equalisation will have an impact.

OK, now into the Gladiators arena.

Frank is a well respected and qualified Meterologist and I respect his comments. His understanding is way above mine as a mere engineer.

We now have a statement of 'local reduction in wind can lead to (much) stronger winds elsewhere' please give evidence. Can isnot definitive - examples required.

We KNOW energy cannot be destroyed it 'transfers' to another form. Yes, wind farms and tidal energy removed will have an effect - we do not know how much or if relevant - YET!! This may not be a Green solution some believe but be another problem for future generations?

It appears to me some are persuing their own agenda despite a logical and scientific response. To all actions there is an equal and opposite reaction, sorry a bit of distortion but we do not know the latter.

That is my Tuppenerth, I will not respond, I will not get drawn in to what appears Bullying to get a very informed and educated scientist to confirm an eco warriors thoughts.

 

[franksingleton]

What's your opinion on the Sandcastle Effect problem? Each year in the UK alone surveys show that kiddies (and I) build nearly 13 million sand castles annually on UK beaches. Each one of those affects the wave patterns on the beach when they are washed away at high tide, and that leads to shifting of sand that otherwise wouldn't happen. This in turn must affect tide flows and sea levels which then must have an effect on currents in the nearby ocean. Scaled up to all the world's sandcastles built by all nations' kids (and me) that could lead to the North Atlantic Current stopping and a return to an ice age. Do oceanographers' and climatologists' models account for sandcastles?

Anyone who thinks that each and every sandcastle doesn't have an effect is naive. It obviously does, based on everything we know about physics. The level of that effect locally may be very small but could well snowball in the grand scheme. In the case of a sandcastle, it's quite likely that the effect is washed away very quickly within the local environment due to its small size (some of mine are not so small though). In the case of bucket and spade wielding kiddies (and me) along miles of Norfolk beaches which represent a large coast along the north sea, that equalisation will be on a much grander scale and will have measurable knock on effects.

But might well not ……. Other, more significant effects will dominate. Any effects will quickly get lost. They will be tiny murmurs in a noisy system. Back to the butterfly effect.

 

[lustyd]

Frank is a well respected and qualified Meterologist and I respect his comments

I'm sure he is. I also get the impression that he's the sort who started out staring at clouds and trying to find patterns, rather than the sort who models physics into a working weather solution. The former knows that when we see certain conditions, a certain kind of weather generally follows, but not necessarily why. The latter understands that changing input parameters in one model grid square will change the predicted weather, and that those output parameters are the input for the neighboring grid square. Some of us build enormous data simulations, and some of us consume them.

 

[franksingleton]

I'm sure he is. I also get the impression that he's the sort who started out staring at clouds and trying to find patterns, rather than the sort who models physics into a working weather solution. The former knows that when we see certain conditions, a certain kind of weather generally follows, but not necessarily why. The latter understands that changing input parameters in one model grid square will change the predicted weather, and that those output parameters are the input for the neighboring grid square. Some of us build enormous data simulations, and some of us consume them.

Unlike most in these forums, I do not hide behind a pseudonym. A brief bio is on my website. In brief, I am a generalist and, because of my various posts, I have a good overview of operational meteorology, modelling, climate change and observing systems from rain gauges to satellites. I had close working contacts with top people in all those fields. In recent years, I have been asked to write two books on weather for sailors. I was a (not very good) dinghy sailor and now have nearly 60,000 cruising miles - Channel, W France, Brittany, Biscay, Iberia, Mediterranean and Caribbean.