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

[lustyd]

The point I was trying to make was that energy diffusion is an important and significant feature of atmospheric physics. It is the answer to Benetau’s question about what happens to energy in the atmosphere.

If that's the case then you agree with both of us, yet for some reason have been vehemently arguing the opposite.

 

[Beneteau381]

If that's the case then you agree with both of us, yet for some reason have been vehemently arguing the opposite.

As I said, keyboard warrior (not eco) ?

 

[franksingleton]

If that's the case then you agree with both of us, yet for some reason have been vehemently arguing the opposite.

I have only said that energy is lost by friction snd diffusion. If that is what you lot are saying, then yes, I agree. My understanding is that is not what you were saying. Benetesu was suggesting that turbulence could result in showers. He was talking about effects on climate and tried to drag butterflies into it.
Looking through this thread and counting posts, it is quite clear who are the keyboard warriors?

 

[lustyd]

Yes that's what we've been saying, energy is lost and (here's the important bit) that affects the weather! The more energy that's removed, the more it affects the weather. He was also saying that that energy was doing something before downstream, and can no longer do that thing. All leading to the obvious (to some) conclusion that too much "renewable" energy consumption will inevitably become a problem.

 

[Beneteau381]

I have only said that energy is lost by friction snd diffusion. If that is what you lot are saying, then yes, I agree. My understanding is that is not what you were saying. Benetesu was suggesting that turbulence could result in showers. He was talking about effects on climate and tried to drag butterflies into it.
Looking through this thread and counting posts, it is quite clear who are the keyboard warriors?

Frankie dear boy, I think you are losing the plot, nowhere have I mentioned showers! Similarly nowhere have I called people eco warriors which you stated I have!
Time to gracefully retire?

 

[franksingleton]

Frankie dear boy, I think you are losing the plot, nowhere have I mentioned showers! Similarly nowhere have I called people eco warriors which you stated I have!
Time to gracefully retire?

I got the wrong B.

 

[franksingleton]

Yes that's what we've been saying, energy is lost and (here's the important bit) that affects the weather! The more energy that's removed, the more it affects the weather. He was also saying that that energy was doing something before downstream, and can no longer do that thing. All leading to the obvious (to some) conclusion that too much "renewable" energy consumption will inevitably become a problem.

Anything interfering with winds will have an effect be it buildings or wind farms. Man made structures will only have small local effects. A wind farm extracts energy from the wind. If the wind farm is removed, that energy would be dissipated downstream due to friction and diffusion. There must, presumably, be some heating effect but tiny in the overall scheme of the atmosphere.

 

[johnalison]

I would suppose that the size of the interference would dictate the size of the area affected. While a single wind farm will generally have no effect more than or or two tens of miles downstream, I’m not so sure that this would apply if most of the North Sea were covered. Just as tree cover is reported to affect wind patterns over a continent, I would imagine that there comes a point where parts of maybe Denmark and neighbouring countries might notice some change. This might not be enough for the average citizen to notice but it could be measurable.

 

[lustyd]

There must, presumably, be some heating effect but tiny in the overall scheme of the atmosphere.

And yet, that heat is accounted for in weather models so...

 

[Beneteau381]

Anything interfering with winds will have an effect be it buildings or wind farms. Man made structures will only have small local effects. A wind farm extracts energy from the wind. If the wind farm is removed, that energy would be dissipated downstream due to friction and diffusion. There must, presumably, be some heating effect but tiny in the overall scheme of the atmosphere.

So Frankie, getting rid of your inbuilt prejudices against anyone who dares ask questions about windfarms and their effect on our environement leads you to grudgingly agree with myself and others that there is cause and effect.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

I think you’revmissing the bit where the wind ultimately dissipates as heat. Meaning, if you take energy out of it as electricity, theres less wind, and less heat. You’ll be moving the heat, effectively, to where the electricity is used. No more heat is produced, as energy is conserved. You can’t ‘make‘ energy, apart from nuclear of course. So locally, there would be changes, measurable or not. Planet wise, the net change is zero. Actual zero.

 

[lustyd]

No, total energy change of the system is zero. That's not the same as net change of zero. Burning fossil fuel doesn't release new energy either, but the carbon released does have an effect on the planet. Similarly if we reduce or increase cloud cover, change wind patterns, redistribute heat etc. then there will absolutely be an effect. No, the energy of the system won't change, but the effect could be quite drastic nonetheless.

 

[franksingleton]

So Frankie, getting rid of your inbuilt prejudices against anyone who dares ask questions about windfarms and their effect on our environement leads you to grudgingly agree with myself and others that there is cause and effect. Taking it a step further, your grudgung admission that they may be some heating effect but tiny! Hmm lets think this through eh? You dismiss the effect of gigawatts of energy being produced by wind, that it is a tiny amoint of heat. Lets call the windfarm production for what it is, 20 plus megs? Tiny as you call it, but the equivalent of a gas powered genny? Using your line of reasoning, and doing a bit of fag packet calcs, would you call the effects on the enviroment of a similar sized gas genny tiny as well?

I have no antipathy to anyone asking questions about wind farms. That is your invention. I have never thought or said that wind farms have no effect on weather. Another invention. Obviously, there will be local effects. Wind farms will generate vast amounts of energy. But the total energy in the atmosphere is far greater. Somebody brighter tha I am can do the sums. The diagram that I showed earlier had a 7net 240 W/sq metre per second. Do the sums and then estimate the total energy generated by wind farms. Tell us the results. I am sure that you will find that there is a large mismatch.

 

[AngusMcDoon]

Wind farms will generate vast amounts of energy. But the total energy in the atmosphere is far greater. Somebody brighter tha I am can do the sums. The diagram that I showed earlier had a 7net 240 W/sq metre per second. Do the sums and then estimate the total energy generated by wind farms. Tell us the results. I am sure that you will find that there is a large mismatch.

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%

 

[Chiara’s slave]

Redistributing 0.0007% of the sun’s energy is not going to have a drastic effect. We are still burning fossil fuels at a far higher level, releasing that energy is still minute. It’s not the release of heat or energy that we worry about, they are all negligible in that respect. Nobody cares about the heat from all the coal fired power stations in China. What we have to worry about is the millions of tons of greenhouse gases, and in the case of coal, all the other pollutants.

 

[lustyd]

240 W/sq metre per second

That’s the problem. You’re assuming it’s a constant per second value. It’s not, if we remove energy that number goes down and remains down. The knock on effects are what we’re discussing and those will continue downstream all the way around the planet as it spins. We can’t remove energy from a system and expect no results, it’s moronic to assume there’s no effect.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

That’s the problem. You’re assuming it’s a constant per second value. It’s not, if we remove energy that number goes down and remains down. The knock on effects are what we’re discussing and those will continue downstream all the way around the planet as it spins. We can’t remove energy from a system and expect no results, it’s moronic to assume there’s no effect.

First, no energy is removed. What reaches us from the sun remains as energy, in the form of heat. You might move some, as I said. But that energy we are currently moving is dwarfed by the energy released by fossil fuels, still, even though we have some large wind farms. But it’s even more dwarfed by solar output. If you seriously think that 0.0007% is going to make a difference… it’s probably less than one moderate Atlantic depression. In total. And in any case, the heat, or other energy isn’t the issue. For about the 10th time. Forget about heat generation, it’s tiny, inconsequential, pointless. Our total energy production is 0.01% of solar output that arrives on earth. Expend your own energy on worrying about greenhouse gases. They are the cause of global warming, not any heat production imaginable by human endeavour. We are trapping the sun’s warmth. The sun’s warmth, the contribution of human energy production isn’t measurable alongside that.

 

[lustyd]

First, no energy is removed.

Please stop commenting, you clearly don’t understand the subject. We’re not saying energy is destroyed we’re saying it’s removed from the system and it is being removed from the system.
Imagine the weather model cut into 1km squares. If we have a square with a wind turbine in it the next square will have less energy and so the calculated weather is different that it otherwise would have been. If that square has another turbine the next square has even less energy, less wind, possibly less pressure and so the output is different again. If there is a solar farm the same is true and there’s less heat going into the model. Once we get to a grid square without “renewables” it still starts calculating with different values than it otherwise would have had, and this will continue through the whole model, with wind strength and direction changes, cloud cover changes (leading to further energy difference) and so on.
It’s only complicated because it’s 3d and has many parameters, but ultimately it’s a very simple input output system and removing energy will have effects throughout that system whether you understand it or not.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

Against fools, the gods themselves contend in vain.

 

[lustyd]

Exactly. That’s why we race from one ecological disaster to the next, unfortunately the fools are far greater in number.

If you were right we could put a wind turbine behind a wind turbine and generate the same energy from each. We also can’t put solar panels on top of solar panels and double output. You contend that no energy is removed but don’t understand the most basic parts of the model.