I have written about this before. The mainstream media with their climate hysteria fixation bury this line of research. Wind, and solar, plants have an impact on climate that is quite negative. This is particularly true of wind turbines out in the ocean. It is obvious to anyone who thinks for one minute about these turbines do that they would impact weather and climate and the ocean environment. These are incredibly large structures that are intended to and do block and redirect winds, aside from their bird and bat killing functions. Here is the latest in the research about these impacts, which was published in a journal that fully buys into the climate hysteria, but apparently is at least willing to print studies warning about the dangers of so-called renewable energy. (SA Article)
The study does involve modeling, so recall that model accuracy depends on assumptions and that a model is just a bunch of coding that gives you an output that depends on what you give it for assumptions and data–in other words, the model tells you what you tell it to tell you. And the study’s nominal purpose is to investigate whether these effects limit the energy produced by wind turbines. The environmental consequences, however, are unavoidable. Wind turbines obviously reduce wind speeds and turbulence. The consequences include ocean surface warming and less mixing of ocean water layers. Barely receiving any mention are the also obvious impacts on ocean life. This is typical of the whacko environmenalists who place demonizing carbon above the fate of animals, fish, birds and other life forms. But then, this whole climate hysteria is driven by money–the renewable energy companies make a fortune, they give to the environmental organizations who intentionally create research blaming CO2 for non-existent global warming and everybody donates to Dem politicians. It is disgusting, harmful to the planet and a fleecing of American taxpayers and electricity purchasers.
You wrote, “…–in other words, the model tells you what you tell it to tell you.” This is not true of “good” modeling. I worked for an oil company research group. We were trying to model the output of an oil field. There was a near by oil field that the geologists said was not connected to the oil field we were trying to model. The only way we could get the model to reproduce the historical output of the field in question was to postulate a connection between the two fields. Years later the geologists found the connection. It did indeed exist after all. The model required it, but it wasn’t part of the model until it was the only way to have the model produce what had been produced based on the production data.
On shore wind advocates state that farming and ranching operate unimpeded under wind farms with the exception of the actual food print of the wind turbine tower. Yet they never mention the change in crop or ranching yields. The question is whether the wind turbines affect crop and ranching yields. There is also a absence of studies on the change in crop yields which should be an indication that something is amiss in claim.
The Wind advocates often compare land usage of wind turbines vs oil and gas operations. The pro wind turbine advocates will use the total oil and gas acreage including subsurface acreage while only including the footprint of the wind turbines. See Marc Jacobson’s 100% renewable studies for the deception.