[aquila48]

I agree there may be some local increase in temperature, but the kinetic energy that the wind lost in the turbines would have eventually been lost downstream, thus decreasing the temperature somewhere downstream.

My point is that there is no net energy input into the earth as a whole due to the wind farms, therefore no “global” warming or cooling as a result.

[ThunderSleeps]

Agreed, no net energy gain. They don't generate energy (like say combustion converting stored chemical energy, nuclear decay, etc.) That heat the faster moving wind would've carried away doesn't get dissipated downstream. So somewhere it is cooler and calmer.

Hmm, slower moving, cooler air probably increases local relative humidity, picks up less moisture from the surface... Less atmospheric moisture means more sunlight striking the ground, more surface warming... Or maybe not. Maybe higher relative humidity is still enough to form water droplets and block/absorb sunlight. Complex system. Don't ever let climate "scientists" tell you they have it all figured out either. ;-)

Anyway, yeah I believe it is probably locally warmer there, cooler someplace else. But global warming? Ha. Localized phenomena around the wind farms.

[DuncanWaring]

but the kinetic energy that the wind lost in the turbines would have eventually been lost downstream, thus decreasing the temperature somewhere downstream.

The kinetic energy lost downstream turns into heat.