FirstAuthor

> I don't think I've ever seen a study which has said that the amount of carbon produced by these local changes in biomes is anywhere near the carbon saved by the move to renewables.

I recommend you read the paper for a review of research evidence that this might be true for large-scale wind energy installations.

4.2.4. Increase in Biological CO2 Emissions Caused by Wind Farms

"Typically, the annual emissions from soil respiration are roughly balanced by the absorption of CO2 via photosynthesis ... However, the total emissions from soil respiration are known to increase with temperature. Estimates of the exact rates of increase vary between studies, and there are many complexities in extrapolating from the results of e.g., a mid-latitude forest or a tropical region to global estimates ... Nonetheless, most studies suggest that the warming of soils generally leads to an increase in biological CO2 emissions from soil respiration. Therefore, given that the global CO2 emissions from soil respiration are an order of magnitude greater than anthropogenic emissions, we suggest that the increase in biological CO2 emissions caused by wind farms warming the night-time soil temperatures could potentially be similar in magnitude to the reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions from the wind farms."

https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/18/4839/htm

Thanks! This needed to be said.

Saying "Google it!" tells me the person probably has no source, no idea how unreliable the information floating around on the web can be, and no understanding of how to find and appraise a good source.

Even on searching in Google Scholar, we sometimes find that the research literature often includes papers that offer divergent estimates and opinions.

We are ‘cognitive misers'. We prefer to use simpler, easier ways of solving problems than ones requiring more thought and effort.... We don’t put enough thought into things when we need to — for example, when thinking about whether something we see online is true.

Yes, there is cleaner energy. For example, natural gas is cleaner than coal, and nuclear is cleaner than biomass.

See Table 2.

This is a thoughtless, uncivil and insubstantial remark, in breach of the spirit of HN.

Have you read the welcome page?

"The most important principle on HN, though, is to make thoughtful comments. Thoughtful in both senses: civil and substantial." ...

"What we especially discourage are comments that are empty and negative—comments that are mere name-calling."

There are technically feasible solutions to the intermittency problem, but - as the paper discusses - it's very difficult to scale them up to provide utility-scale backup for 12 or 24 hours without sun or wind. (This is presumably why they are rarely put in place.) So there are hidden challenges here: financial costs of building energy storage systems; land requirements; mineral demands; and environmental impacts of each option.

We recommend you read the full paper to consider our discussion of such issues.

Ad hominem fallacy. The paper cites 255 previous papers, mostly peer-reviewed. It's worth reading it properly rather than making glib remarks on the basis of lazy browsing.

Here's an interesting discussion of the problem of "cognitive fluency". In brief, if it takes effort to evaluate the evidence properly, there is a tendency to dismiss it. It's easier to reassure ourselves that we already know than to investigate the question properly. A pitfall for the unwary.

https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/the-psychology-of-misinfor...

We didn't need incentives to find what we found by reading the research. We reviewed the literature very thoroughly, seeking divergent opinions on every aspect, and we have presented our findings transparently. We recommend you read the full paper for yourself, and dig into the references where necessary, so that you can make up your own mind. We think you will find it very readable and thought-provoking. Enjoy!

I am the first author on this paper. Nobody paid me anything to write this paper. In fact, it cost me money, because I had to take time off to work on it.

I'll tell you what to take with a pinch of salt: allegations that the authors are taking money from vested interests. We are not.

Rather than searching for spurious grounds to discredit the authors, I recommend you read the paper for yourself. With the help of my co-authors, I searched the literature meticulously to investigate every aspect of the review, and we have cited our sources in the usual way - 255 previous papers, mostly peer-reviewed. By all means, read critically. Take all the research in this field with a heaped spoon of salt, because there may be bias in every direction. But there's no escaping the need to read the research literature if you want to assess the evidence for yourself. I hope you find it as intriguing as I did.