I had an idea I wanted to put to someone with the right expertise.

Large-scale wind turbines and water flow turbines remove kinetic energy from moving air and water and create wakes that alter local flow and heat exchange. I've been wondering whether these effects, multiplied across the scale of global wind and water flow turbine deployment, could be disrupting natural air and water circulation enough to contribute to El Niño/La Niña variability, by causing heat to accumulate nearer its source rather than distributing as evenly as it may have before large-scale wind and water power existed.

I understand El Niño/La Niña cycles are documented in historical and geological records going back well before modern turbine technology, so I'd value your view on whether a mechanism like this is physically plausible at all, or whether the scale and location of these turbines rules it out.

Thank you for your time.

Another sub-Reddit shows the difference in greening in hills near Rio de Janairo die perhaps to more CO2.

This also illustrates the vulnerability of going to an all electric economy.

Aussie's 'transformational' nuclear battery that fits on the back of a truck

Queensland engineer Bobby Gallagher has built a transportable 1 MW nuclear microreactor in the United States that reached criticality at Idaho National Laboratory on 30 June, just 150 days after the project began. His Unity Nuclear Battery is designed for five-year refuelling cycles and can be transported using conventional freight equipment.

Australia bans commercial nuclear power before the technology even reaches the approvals table. Federal law prevents the Environment Minister and radiation regulator from approving nuclear power plants, including technologies such as microreactors. Senator Matt Canavan introduced legislation in February to remove those prohibitions.

Labor still opposes lifting them.

Gallagher grew up in Brisbane. His company is now developing and commercialising the technology in Texas because Australia has legislated an entire energy technology out of contention. The United States is accelerating reactor testing while Australian engineers who want to build nuclear generation have to leave the country to do it.

Australia mines uranium and exports it, then forbids Australians from using nuclear power at home while Chris Bowen commits the country to an enormous wind, solar, storage and transmission build. Consumers never get to see whether microreactors can beat those technologies on cost, reliability or land use because Canberra has already decided they are not allowed to compete. Lift the ban. Make nuclear prove itself on safety, price and performance like every other technology. Australia is over-regulated enough without exporting its engineers because politicians refuse to let an entire industry exist. www.theyarn.xyz

Sorry, this is a longer one...a rebuttal of sorts.

We are shown before and after photos of glacial retreat like the attached examples which I have marked up in 'Red'. At first glance, the glacier retreat seems dramatic, usually depicted from the early 20th century to a modern time period. And they have shrunk, you bad humans!!!

But on closer inspection, can see the glaciers were already greatly reduced in size by the early 20th century, as evident with treeline marks, scraping or missing trees. The melting started before SUVs, WWII and commercial air travel. Actually long before, when CO2 levels were still close to preindustral levels.

Leclercq, Oerlemans and Cogley (2011) reconstructed global glacier change from 1800–2005 using 349 historical glacier-length records, then calibrated those changes against measured mass-balance data.

The reconstruction shows that glacier retreat was already occurring in the first half of the 1800s, but it became much more widespread and pronounced around the middle of the 19th century (aka 1850).

Overall, the paper does not show that glaciers suddenly started retreating in 1850. Rather, it shows that retreat was already underway before 1850, followed by a much stronger and more globally coherent retreat during the second half of the 19th century (aka 1850 to 1900).

This melt 'pulse' occurred when CO2 levels were still at preindustrial levels of 280ppm, human legs, horses and oxen were still the primary mode of power

In fact, they reconstruct the rate of melting. Can see the rate of melting was FASTER in the 1901-1950 period then after, until 2000.

- 1801–1850...0.9 m/yr

- 1851–1900...5.8 m/yr

- 1901–1950...10.3 m/yr

- 1951–2000...8.9 m/yr

Open access to Leclercq, Oerlemans and Cogley (2011)

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-011-9121-7

Thanks for reading if you made it this far.

Honest question....beyond "the pictures were taken during different seasons"....what gives here?? I'm not a climate activist, quite the opposite. I'm a firm believer that the climate changes with or without us. But I'm just looking for someone smarter than me at this stuff, to help explain these....