Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Not so windy: Research suggests winds dying down

Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:26 AM EDT
business, science, us, sci, winds, diminishing
Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer

FILE -- In a Dec. 30, 2008 file photo two wind turbines stand near a traditional windmill on a farm near Mount Carmel, Iowa. A first-of-its-kind study suggests that average and peak wind speeds have been noticeably slowing since 1973, especially in the Midwest and the East. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall/file)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — The wind, a favorite power source of the green energy movement, seems to be dying down across the United States. And the cause, ironically, may be global warming — the very problem wind power seeks to address.

The idea that winds may be slowing is still a speculative one, and scientists disagree whether that is happening. But a first-of-its-kind study suggests that average and peak wind speeds have been noticeably slowing since 1973, especially in the Midwest and the East.

"It's a very large effect," said study co-author Eugene Takle, a professor of atmospheric science at Iowa State University. In some places in the Midwest, the trend shows a 10 percent drop or more over a decade. That adds up when the average wind speed in the region is about 10 to 12 miles per hour.

There's been a jump in the number of low or no wind days in the Midwest, said the study's lead author, Sara Pryor, an atmospheric scientist at Indiana University.

Wind measurements plotted out on U.S. maps by Pryor show wind speeds falling mostly along and east of the Mississippi River. Some areas that are banking on wind power, such as west Texas and parts of the Northern Plains, do not show winds slowing nearly as much. Yet, states such as Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Kansas, Virginia, Louisiana, Georgia, northern Maine and western Montana show some of the biggest drop in wind speeds.

"The stations bordering the Great Lakes do seem to have experienced the greatest changes," Pryor said Tuesday. That's probably because there's less ice on the lakes and wind speeds faster across ice than it does over water, she said.

Still, the study, which will be published in August in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research, is preliminary. There are enough questions that even the authors say it's too early to know if this is a real trend or not. But it raises a new side effect of global warming that hasn't been looked into before.

The ambiguity of the results is due to changes in wind-measuring instruments over the years, according to Pryor. And while actual measurements found diminished winds, some climate computer models — which are not direct observations — did not, she said.

Yet, a couple of earlier studies also found wind reductions in Australia and Europe, offering more comfort that the U.S. findings are real, Pryor and Takle said.

It also makes sense based on how weather and climate work, Takle said. In global warming, the poles warm more and faster than the rest of the globe, and temperature records, especially in the Arctic, show this. That means the temperature difference between the poles and the equator shrinks and with it the difference in air pressure in the two regions. Differences in barometric pressure are a main driver in strong winds. Lower pressure difference means less wind.

Even so, that information doesn't provide the definitive proof that science requires to connect reduced wind speeds to global warming, the authors said. In climate change science, there is a rigorous and specific method — which looks at all possible causes and charts their specific effects — to attribute an effect to global warming. That should be done eventually with wind, scientists say.

Jeff Freedman, an atmospheric scientist with AWS Truewind, an Albany, N.Y., renewable energy consulting firm, has studied the same topic, but hasn't published in a scientific journal yet. He said his research has found no definitive trend of reduced surface wind speed.

One of the problems Pryor acknowledges with her study is that over many years, changing conditions near wind-measuring devices can skew data. If trees grow or buildings are erected near wind gauges, that could reduce speed measurements.

Several outside experts mostly agree that there are signs that wind speed is decreasing and that global warming is the likely culprit.

The new study "demonstrates, rather conclusively in my mind, that average and peak wind speeds have decreased over the U.S. in recent decades," said Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University.

A naysayer is Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate scientist in New York who said the results conflict with climate models that show no effect from global warming. He also doubts that any decline in the winds that might be occurring has much of an effect on wind power.

But another expert, Jonathan Miles, of James Madison University, said a 10 percent reduction in wind speeds over a decade "would have an enormous effect on power production."

Pryor said a 10 percent change in peak winds would translate into a 30 percent change in how much energy is reaped. But because the research is in such early stages, she said, "at this point it would be premature to modify wind energy development plans."

Robert Gramlich, policy director at the American Wind Energy Association, said the idea of reduced winds was new to him. He wants to see verification from other studies before he worries too much about it.

___

Journal of Geophysical Research: http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/

AWS Truewind LLC: http://www.awstruewind.com/

Penn State Earth System Science Center: http://www.essc.psu.edu/

American Wind Energy Association: http://www.awea.org/

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Seth Borenstein's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Climate Change, Democrat Watch, Levinites, Newsvine Science, Reagan Conservatives, Science And Technology
  • Regions: United States , Australia , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (24)
Andy-827327

We need more wind farms, but Ted Kennedy doesn't think so, especially when there in his back yard.

Sen. Ted Kennedy and many residents who own coastal property from where they could see the wind turbines on a clear day oppose the project along with some environmental groups concerned about disrupting the patterns of migratory birds and the potential effect on local sea life.

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN1930289620071019?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true

  • 3 votes
Reply#1 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:06 AM EDT
Ted-1146979

Overall I am a fan of Ted Kennedy. But we need to become energy independent using real green energy. Clean Coal is not the answer because it simply removes the pollution from the air and puts it in the ground. That's not a solution just saving the problem for later. Wind, solar and geothermal is a great start in the right direction. I'm sorry if some birds are killed in the process. Perhaps we can generate sonar pulses that keep them away. But the facts are that far more birds get killed by cars each year that windmills yet I don't see anyone saying we shouldn't build cars...

There is some concern about wind speeds deminishing in some areas ... ok, then move the windmills to where there is higher wind velocities. Come on people. This is not difficult.

  • 1 vote
#1.1 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:11 AM EDT
Andy-827327

Ted- I'm for an all of the above approach, domestic drilling, clean coal, nuclear and alternative energy but Kennedy's opposition points to the hypocrisy of some of the so called environmental advocates, suffering from NIMBY syndrome.

  • 2 votes
#1.2 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:08 PM EDT
Reply
economicparty

Seriously folks is there any natural change in Earth's climate that Gore the bore and his alarmists will not try to blame on global warming?

  • 4 votes
Reply#2 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:15 AM EDT
Andy-827327

Seriously folks is there any natural change in Earth's climate that Gore the bore and his alarmists will not try to blame on global warming?

No there isn't EP, if the wind blows to much it's global warming, to little, global warming. If the global temperature goes up it's global warming, it goes down...you guess it, global warming (no then its called "climate change").

Meanwhile hypocrites like Kennedy are all for alternative energy sources, as long as it isn't in their back yard, we can't obstruct Teddy & Bobby Jr view when their at the "compound."

  • 4 votes
#2.1 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:40 AM EDT
rbrazys

yeah you guys are right, Al Gore invented climate change, he dreamed of duping everyone into believing that humans were adversely effecting the environment all by himself.

And since media and pundits can't (won't) keep facts straight he is also to blame for your lack of understanding of the actual science behind his research that won him a Nobel Peace prize.

Jesus America that is BRILLIANT.

  • 3 votes
#2.2 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:18 AM EDT
economicparty

rbrazys - I have a little Jeopardy question for you then? In what country did Al Gore receive his Nobel Prize?

    #2.3 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:33 AM EDT
    rbrazys

    What is Norway.
    Nobel Knowledge for 2000 please Alex,

    The 2007 Peace prize was shared by this former Vice President of the United States and this group.

    • 3 votes
    #2.4 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:57 AM EDT
    economicparty

    Correct. And in 2006, the 3rd largest oil exporter in the world is NORWAY.

    So now is Norway a hypocrite or a pramatist for this award? They export more oil to other nations than all countries but 2 others. They also are using this money to fund critical projects for their future - alternative energy, education, new industries for jobs, research and of course some social programs with an amount also set aside as a rainy day fund to invest.

    Yet oil production and consumption are the causes of global warming according to Gore. So now is he a hypocrite for accepting this award in the same country that is the 3rd largest oil exporter which is causing the global warming in the 1st place?

    • 2 votes
    #2.5 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:07 PM EDT
    Andy-827327

    EP- yikes...that one's going to leave a mark, great point!

    • 2 votes
    #2.6 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:10 PM EDT
    rbrazys

    Right and over 80% of that is shipped out to the EU via pipline and sold 'locally'. They also invest billions yearly in renewables and efficiency.

    What difference does it make if it seems hypocritical to you, me or anyone else that Al Gore accepted a Norwegian award for his research? That point is moot. Gore didn't win an award for hating on oil companies, or damning you for driving an SUV.

    and you didn't answer my Jeopardy question

    The actionable point is that the whole world must enter a new energy/sustainability paradigm. Yes we all need to continue to drive to work, and heat and light our homes, most of us in the US don't have a simple choice whether to continue to burn fossil fuels everyday or not. But going forward and exploding our population is not something we can do without seriously considering and doing something about what his research shows. Stop being such a hater that you can't see the forest for the trees.

      #2.7 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:01 PM EDT
      Andy-827327

      That point is moot. Gore didn't win an award for hating on oil companies, or damning you for driving an SUV.

      You must be joking...that's exactly why the hypocritical blow hard Gore won the award.

      • 2 votes
      #2.8 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:35 PM EDT
      economicparty

      I do not hate. Gore preaches hate.

      But beyond that I agree with you, we must find sustainable programs for energy. I want to conserve our resources as much as you and maybe even Al, although flying private jets, living in mansions and owning a yacht are hardly conservation measures in my "wide open" eyes.

      My overall point is that we will not he off of oil, gas, coal, nuclear in the short term so lets use the resources we have at our disposal instead of buying it and shipping our money overseas. And at the same time lets use the money that is now going to other countries to fund research for these alternative and sustainable energy programs.

      I am tired of shipping money to the mid-east to just borrow it back later. There is plenty of oil in the U.S. to exploit (like Norway is doing) and keep a) money here, b) create great paying jobs here, and c) use the funds for research of sustainable energy sources.

      I think we kid ourselves by thinking that magically overnight we will produce enough energy from alternative sources at competitive rates. Gore's approach is not to bring the price of alternative energy down as Intel did for computer processors, but instead to raise the price of existing energy sources. That is not the right solution. Maybe because he owns so much stock in solar and wind generation companies, he wants the price and profits for himself. I don't know. But you seldom see a sustainable industry built around increasing prices. Eventually most industries need scale and reduced costs to be competitive.

      • 2 votes
      #2.9 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:43 PM EDT
      rbrazys

      Sounds more like a jealousy issue here. You are jealous of a.) Norway for doing more oil business than the US b) Gore for making sound investments then helping create the conditions for those investments to do well.

      The idea that we will have to invest now, using regulations on the energy industry which will cause higher prices for consumers, to subsidize this massive change in the way we use energy and the kinds of energy we use, is a sound one. Don't think for a second that the higher prices we pay now are the only funds going towards this research an development, the energy companies are all doing their best to keep up because they no when the oil goes away, they need to be doing something else already.

      Nobody said (especially not Gore) that it would be a change made overnight. He has been working on it for over 30 years, how long have you even been aware of the issue?

      My final bit: Wind energy accounts for only about >1% of US energy suppliers, but is the fastest growing source for renewable energy and is already cheaper than traditional sources. Keep that in mind.

        #2.10 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:30 PM EDT
        economicparty

        Heck we have wind power on our farm in the midwest. I am investigating solar power for my home in the southwest, but the costs are just too high.

        How can I be jealous of Norway - I am Norwegian. And Gore, sorry nothing about him appeals to me. He is just trying to enrich himself at our expense.

        • 2 votes
        #2.11 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:48 PM EDT
        rbrazys

        At your expense?!? How is what he is doing costing you a dime?

          #2.12 - Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:25 PM EDT
          Reply
          mike from wisc

          I think that this is kind of funny since the wind has been blowing hard every day fo the last few months. The only thing the wind is good for is flying a kite or sailing.

          • 1 vote
          Reply#3 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:18 AM EDT
          smpcompdude

          Couldn't prove that to me. The wind still blows in the spring here in in NM. We've had some real good ones.

          Of course you know it's based on how highs and lows move across terrain along with heating and cooling.

            Reply#4 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:48 AM EDT
            SamC

            One of the problems Pryor acknowledges with her study is that over many years, changing conditions near wind-measuring devices can skew data. If trees grow or buildings are erected near wind gauges, that could reduce speed measurements.

            Well now, good for her.

            That is just one of the things that the AGW Alarmists refuse to acknowledge about their temperature recording instruments, and that is, the changes in the immediate vicinity where they are located.

              Reply#5 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:48 AM EDT
              Bloohkaht

              We're running out of wind power? Oh no!... Next thing you know we'll be running out of hot air :)

                Reply#6 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:51 PM EDT
                Jswen

                I still have my money on something sciencefictiony that will take us off of carbon based fuels. My first bet is Hot Fusion, my second would be anti-matter. I'm positive I will live to see one of them used efficiently or something even stranger.

                  Reply#7 - Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:45 PM EDT
                  mori

                  I'm with Mike from Wisc---- it really seems like there are more windy days now then when I was a kid.

                    Reply#8 - Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:47 AM EDT
                    Rainbow Warrior

                    It really does not matter which form of energy you want to use, not discounting that some are much better than others, but to use as little as possible. This is the smartest strategy! I deal with people that want to buy very expensive alternative energy systems for their homes and businesses all the time, but in many cases I tell them to come back after they have fixed the design flaws and terrible construction, because then they can buy a much smaller system that will work better for them and cost less, and give them a quicker return on their investment.

                    Jimmy Carter started the problem when he asked people to turn down their thermastats, and not insulate their homes! If we did a better job of educating people, and building better structures and fixing the ones we have... with technology that's been around for some time now, we could worry less about the energy sources.

                    Alternative energy systems work best on a small scale, decentralized basis. This is why the energy corporations have suppressed and obstructed the renewables from day one; they are independently owned systems that use a free fuel source that deprives them of future revenue, and thus puts them out of business.

                    What do you think all this talk about a "smart grid" is about.

                    The energy corporations need to maintain and defend their centralized control systems that help them to consolidate wealth and power at the expense of the masses... duh!!!

                      Reply#9 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:15 PM EDT
                      Rainbow Warrior

                      I might add this post smells fishy... if I was in the coal business I would pay some one to write something like this just to confuse people and stop them from investing in wind!

                      This energy chess game has been going on for too long now! If they can block a move to protect their very profitable position, don't you think they would?

                        Reply#10 - Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:25 PM EDT
                        Leave a Comment:
                        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                        You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                        (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                        Newsvine Privacy Statement
                        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                        FUN STUFF:
                        • Leaderboard |
                        • E-Mail Alerts |
                        • Top of the Vine |
                        • Newsvine Live |
                        • Newsvine Archives |
                        • The Greenhouse
                        COMPANY STUFF:
                        • Code of Honor |
                        • Company Info |
                        • Contact Us |
                        • Jobs |
                        • User Agreement |
                        • Privacy Policy |
                        • About our ads
                        LEGAL STUFF:
                        • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                        • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                        • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com