Cambridge professor Michael Kelly on "deniers" and climate change: "science has been consistently over-egged to produce alarm."

UPDATE: 9:50AM 2/28 Professor Kelly responds in comments. It seems the Times saw fit to remove an important portion of his first paragraph. I’ve highlighted the missing text in red. Gobsmacking that they couldn’t handle this one sentence but left the rest untouched – Anthony

M J Kelly Submitted on 2012/02/28 at 9:13 am

If I told you that the first sentence of my letter was edited, your readers might be mollified.

I wrote:

Andrew Motion (report, Feb 23) is correct to castigate climate change deniers, as the climate has always been changing, but he is profoundly mistaken in linking all those who oppose the current climate science orthodoxy into one group.

Michael Kelly

=============================================================

This is a rather strong condemnation of the state of affairs in Climate Science. Professor Michael J. Kelly of the University of Cambridge Department of Engineering has written a scathing letter to The Times about rightfully criticizing “deniers” and lumping everyone else who questions climate science conclusions into that same meme. Most people I know of agree that CO2 has some impact, but the magnitude and feedbacks are the real issues of debate. Ben Pile has this to say in his summary of the Fakegate:

The myth of the climate change denier exists in the heads of environmentalists, and seems to prevent them entering into conversation with anyone that dares to criticise environmentalism. The crusade of ‘communicating’ climate change is not a project that involves an exchange of views. To criticise environmentalism is to ‘deny The Science’, no matter how incoherent the environmentalist’s grasp of science or how lacking his or her sense of proportion.

Kelly, in his letter to the times, says what we’ve been saying for a long time; the models and the effects have been grossly oversold, and real-world observations don’t match the sales brochure. He writes:

Sir, Andrew Motion (report, Feb 23) is correct to castigate climate change deniers, but he is profoundly mistaken in linking all those who oppose the current climate science orthodoxy into one group. The interpretation of the observational science has been consistently over-egged to produce alarm. All real-world data over the past 20 years has shown the climate models to be exaggerating the likely impacts — if the models cannot account for the near term, why should I trust them in the long term?

I am most worried by the billions of pounds being misinvested and lost as a consequence. Look out to sea at the end of 2015 and see how many windmills are not turning and you will get my point: there are already 14,000 abandoned windmills onshore in the US. Premature technology deployment is thoroughly bad engineering, and my taxes are subsidising it against my will and professional judgment.

Professor Michael Kelly

Prince Philip Professor of Technology, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge

Source An Englishman’s Castle via “The Times“, subscription required

major hat tip to Bishop Hill

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

It would be good to know that there are rational scientists who could take over the metaAGW science .

Chris B

“Professor Michael J. Kelly of the University of Cambridge Department of Engineering has written a scathing letter to The Times about rightfully criticizing “deniers” and lumping everyone else who questions climate science conclusions into that same meme.”
What are the “deniers” saying that should be rightfully criticized? That the globe isn’t warming, that the climate isn’t changing, or that the climate isn’t disrupting?

However, the deniers of CO2 altogether having an effect may not be wrong. As N2, O2, CO2 and H2O ALL have IR spectra, with CO2 having the least breadth, it is hard to imagine the smallest bit player in the atmosphere having any detectable effect.
The recent post regarding the IR Window (said to be closing by the warmists) indicates the above state of affairs. The IR efflux at the poles has not changed in the decades of satellite observation, despite significant CO2 increases. It does sound odd, as CO2 at the poles would be the only GHG there. But, if one remembers that the ENTIRE atmosphere is participating, changes in CO2 could easily have no undetectable effect, being swamped by the 99% of atmosphere’s N2 and O2.
The participation of the entire atmosphere in modulating IR would easily explain the observed stability of the IR efflux.
I do find it odd that it was very difficult to find an IR spectra for these two common gases. Wikipedia only mentions CO2 and H2O as GHGs, suggesting by omission that N2 and O2 do not interact with IR—a convenient result, hunh?. The reader is pointed only to CO2 and H2O. Political agenda, anyone?
Sometimes skeptics are almost too amenable to the junk science of AGW, just as they so very often mention the historically low CO2 concentrations before 1950, accepting a fabricated result and then discussing it as if it real.

CAGW is based on data that aren’t and models that don’t.
The only climate change “denier” I can think of right off hand is Michael Mann, whose hockey stick “denies” both the MWP and the LIA.
It seems that the ad hominem attacks and the arguments from “authority” are dominating the discussion, since the climate is not cooperating.

John

4 years of WUWT in two pithy paragraphs!
With such few words, Prof. Kelly couldn’t get into WHY the models are wrong, either the erroneous positive feedbacks, or natural forcings (PDO, NAO, Arctic oscillation, solar influences), not that we know any of these as well as we would like.
But for his audience, probably what matters most is that the models are wrong, and consistently over predict pretty much everything, relative to reality.

dwb

where exactly are the 14000 abandoned windmills onshore in the US? citation/source please. I don’t agree with wind either, but i think he’s making that up. It doesn’t help when you make up a misleading fact, credibility becomes an issue.

GregO

The climate alarmist message is shot through with exaggerations.
Exaggerated certainties in measurement; exaggerated scope and scale of effects, and an exaggerated role for Mankind in climate-making, and the list could go on and on.
Nothing ruins truth like stretching it.
Good to see a prominent British engineer standing up to this nonsense.

Jeremy

David Suzuki weighs in (Caanda’s equivalent to David Attenborough in UK or Carl Sagan was in USA): It’s time that climate-change deniers were exposed
http://www.straight.com/article-612156/vancouver/david-suzuki-its-time-climatechange-deniers-were-exposed
However, as this expose shows, Suzuki is like the kettle calling the pot black:
http://ezralevant.com/2011/12/davids-details.html

gb_dorset

Michael was one of the signatories to WSJ article criticizing AGW alarmism; it is good that academics of his stature are willing to go public with their condemnation of the abuse of the scientific method

Rob Schneider

The difference her is that it is a “real engineer” doing the thinking and writing. The whole climate/energy debate has been missing engineering attention, esp. in UK.

robmcn

Tthe climate warmist defense is understandable, for years they’ve been treated better than rock stars, traveled the world to the hottest locations on junkets, preached the cause and mixed with Hollywood movie stars.
They call climate skeptics “deniers” for one reason only and it has nothing to do with the science, the skeptic community at large are a threat, denying the fantastic righteous lifestyles they have been accustomed to over the past 20 years. If their message of climate change catastrophe disappears, so to does the celebrity lifestyle of scientists not having to do proper research. It will be back to the real mundane world of scientific discovery, probably too difficult and much like hard work for those now firmly entrenched as made-to-measure celebrity scientists.

Praetor

The “14,000 abandoned windmills onshore in the US” may come from here: http://www.naturalnews.com/034234_wind_turbines_abandoned.html where it says:
“…high maintenance costs, high rates of failure, and fluctuating weather conditions that affect energy production render wind turbines expensive and inefficient, which is why more than 14,000 of them have since been abandoned…”

David Ball

This a great and all, but from my perspective; what the hell took you so long? It has been painful to watch the ridiculous expenditure all these years. The Bloggies have rejuvenated my faith in the general publics reasoning skills. So that’s good.
Sad that environmentalists have to view criminal behavior as “heroic”. Dangerous line of thinking.

DirkH

higley7 says:
February 28, 2012 at 6:27 am
“However, the deniers of CO2 altogether having an effect may not be wrong. As N2, O2, CO2 and H2O ALL have IR spectra, with CO2 having the least breadth, it is hard to imagine the smallest bit player in the atmosphere having any detectable effect.”
Higley, please take another look at the scales of the absorption spectrum graphs of N2 and O2. They have very narrow spikes or lines with an absorptivity a thousand times less than the ones of CO2 and H2O. They are irrelevant.

HankHenry

I too would like to know the source for the 14,000 number. I live in a county (Lee County, Illinois) where there is in a lively debate going on as to how many turbines should be allowed to be built. I’m sure local opponents would like to know where turbines are being abandoned so this reality could be added to the debate.

John Marshall

It is the environmentalists who are the true deniers. It is they who claim that climate has been stable in the past which is far from the truth. Climate changes, it is what it does and will continue. It is the alarmists who have mistakenly claimed that atmospheric CO2 levels have remained steady at 280ppmvfor thousands of years. The real argument is about causes, feedbacks and model scenarios. The foundation theory of Greenhouse Gasses has been proved wrong in that several of its claims fail. If that theory is wrong then another mechanism for the extra surface heating above that of the BB radiated temperature must be found. Luckily there is a mechanism, thus far overlooked by mainstream scientists, that fits the bill. Adiabatic compressive heating which initiates a star’s trip into nuclear fusion down to the warming of Foehne winds. The principle of Ockham’s razor would indicate that the GHG theory was not a good choice of theory.

John

For those wanting the source of the claim that 14,000 wind turbines have been abandoned, here it is:
http://hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1698/Wind-Energys-Ghosts.aspx
Here is the relevant paragraph:
“California’s wind farms — then comprising about 80% of the world’s wind generation capacity — ceased to generate much more quickly than Kamaoa. In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned. Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills.”
We all know that you can’t necessarily believe what you read in a newspaper, including, unfortunately for the gullible elites, the NY Times. For this cynical reason, I’m not yet ready to treat the claim in this article as infallible truth, but there certainly is a source for the 14,000 dead wind turbines. I recommend reading the article, it is pretty thorough about how we have come to where we are on wind machines.

More Soylent Green!

The myth of the climate change denier exists in the heads of environmentalists, and seems to prevent them entering into conversation with anyone that dares to criticise environmentalism.

Another myth is the myth of the well-funded anti-science skeptical campaign/conspiracy. Another is the myth of the skeptics who are paid by Big Oil.
And we can and should always object to the term climate change denier for several reasons, the first of which is the implication that skeptics are no better than holocaust deniers.
The second objection is who denies the climate changes? Being a climate change denier is like being a gravity denier. It’s meaningless, except as a precalculated insult against those who disagree.. Is there any serious skeptic out there who believes the climate doesn’t change? Isn’t it the AGW proponents who try to gloss over the fact that the climate changes all the time? By using climate change instead of man-made climate change, Professor Kelly is deliberately misleading the public and using straw man arguments.

Bravo – at least someone in the academic world has the courage to speak out against dogma. The tide is turning. I was inspired by the previous post “The Skeptics Case” to write a poster comparing IPCC 2007 predictions to reality. You can find it at http://clivebest.com/data/Poster.pdf

1DandyTroll

@dwb
I believe this might be the original story, however it says: “In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned.” Only California and Hawaii is talked about so not the entire US.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/wind_energys_ghosts_1.html

I cannot attest to the 14,000 number. However, on a road trip across country about 4 years ago, I do not remember seeing a single wind turbine installed on an “erector set” tower which was operating.

Ian W

dwb says:
February 28, 2012 at 6:31 am
where exactly are the 14000 abandoned windmills onshore in the US? citation/source please. I don’t agree with wind either, but i think he’s making that up. It doesn’t help when you make up a misleading fact, credibility becomes an issue.

and
HankHenry says:
February 28, 2012 at 6:50 am

You will get multiple hits if you google: 14000 windmills
you will get multiple hits if you google: abandoned windfarms
such as
http://epaabuse.com/3124/editorials/wind-farm-grave-yards/
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/wind_energys_ghosts_1.html
You can also search in more detail and get
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/708563
http://www.flickr.com/photos/doverpast/2873736790/
http://www.artistsagainstwindfarms.com/walks/queens-exhibition/bucks-cross-folder/turbines-in-spain-and-france.html
Or of course you can just drive through some of what were the more beautiful parts of the world such as California or Spain and see them yourself.
It stands to reason that if an industry can only be worthwhile when it is subsidized that when the subsidies cease – so does the industry.

On a trip down the Columbia River gorge from Pendleton to The Dalles, where a large number of turbines sit on the summit of the gorge walls, I could see many that were inactive. I found it rather odd that for all the touted benefits of wind generation, so many of these units were at a standstill. Extrapolating…..
Something bothers me about the effect of CO2. If it has been shown to lag behind temperature rises, why then are so many agreeing that it has some effect on temperature increase? I’m not getting this.
But what REALLY bothers me is the out-of-control bellowing about “deniers”: it’s childish, sandbox-and-toybox blather that destroys the credibility of those who engage in the mudslinging. With the recent self-immolation of Dr. Gleick (an action based on a self-admitted loss of control), it only points to the childishness of the entire tendency. An immature ‘science’ using immature, whingy methods to get what it wants. Donna was correct to call the IPCC a delinquent teenager.
Glossing the attack mentality over with factoids does nothing to disguise the vitriol, as can be demonstrated by WUWT’s klatsch of resident snarks, who regularly hijack threads with their ongoing meme-citing. It is laudable that they are not censored, but what a bunch of wasted effort to sling mud back….it reduces some threads to the level of a backwoods snake-oil revival!
Common sense will prevail. Or at least, one sure hopes so. This entire industry is unsustainable, and a blight on society, science, and the world’s economic state. The apparent failure of the green energy industry is the beacon illuminating the folly-in-progress. And as the light brightens, the gleick-shriek will only increase, until it too becomes unsustainable.

dp

I’ve spent an hour trying to find the source of the 14,000 abandoned windmills claim but only find it is repeated almost endlessly but not cited. Until someone can do better than me this will have to be declared “faked but accurate” which is a code word for urban legend.

CO2 still has not start to have “some impact” in Antarctica, allegedly the most sensitive polar area to “increased greenhouse effect”. Wake me if it starts.
http://climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20ArcticAndAntarctic%20MonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

jeanparisot

Engineers vs Scientists — get your popcorn, this will be good.

Positive Feedbacks: I am a true believer in climate change positive feedbacks — not in the physical world but in the emotional and ideological world of the global warming alarmists. For those on the Left, the tipping point was probably ClimateGate and since then shrillness has truly become parabolic. It’s now out-of-control: e.g., FakeGate.

Allencic

To paraphrase the writer P. J. O’Rourke who said, “Environmentalists will do anything to save the planet except study science.” For fun you should look at the college curricula for programs such as Environmental Studies. Very flimsy on real science and math.

jaypan

As we’ll see more scientists and engineers express doubt about alarmism, we should not put too much weight on each of their words. Some may have to keep their face or may have still to learn about the variety of sceptics out there.
True science blogs, common sense and the fanatics like Peter Gleick are contributing to this process.

Eric Dailey

Professor Michael Kelly: Prince Philip Professor of Technology,
is echoing the sentiments of Prince Philip whom last November leaked that he won’t have wind turbines on “his land”, which I suspect is due to NIMBY. This denouncement by Kelly is only a political move in support of his monarch.
The 14,000 number is doubtful. Attribution is difficult to confirm. I call BS.
” The US experience with wind farms has left over 14,000 wind turbines abandoned and slowly decaying, in most instances the turbines are just left as symbols of a dying Climate Religion, nowhere have the Green Environmentalists appeared to clear up their mess or even complain about the abandoned wind farms.”
http://toryaardvark.com/2011/11/17/14000-abandoned-wind-turbines-in-the-usa/

cui bono

Climate ‘scientists’ out; engineers in.

“Prof. Kelly claims that “All real-world data over the past 20 years has shown the climate models to be exaggerating the likely impacts…” This claim does not stand up to scrutiny.
In arriving at the definitions of climatological outcomes, time series are averaged over a specified period. Thus, for example, if an outcome is a magnitude for the global average surface air temperature, this temperature is averaged over the specified period.
The IPCC is mute on the magnitude of the averaging period. If the magnitude is taken to be the 30 years that is canonical in climatology then the real-world data of the past 20 years cannot have shown a climate model to be exaggerating the likely impacts, for the duration of an independent statistical event can be no less than the averaging period and thus an independent event of a duration that contains the past 20 years cannot yet have been observed.
Furthermore, none of the IPCC models make the predictions that they would be necessary to the falsification of them. They make “projections” but the concept that is referenced by this word is materially different from the concept that is referenced by the word “predictions.”

Slartibartfast

Infographic. For those who can only think using infographics, there needs to be an arrow at the bottom of the LHS pointing to a box titled “this infographic”.

The environmentalists simply cannot see beyond the denier label. The reason is this i not about global warming (oops, don’t use that, Mr Gleicks recoomendation you know), it’s about EVERYTHING. People who question global AGW are also questioning all environmental issues and are trashers of the planet.
That’s the way their tiny minds work.

Ian W

Terry Oldberg says:
February 28, 2012 at 8:05 am
“Prof. Kelly claims that “All real-world data over the past 20 years has shown the climate models to be exaggerating the likely impacts…” This claim does not stand up to scrutiny.
In arriving at the definitions of climatological outcomes, time series are averaged over a specified period. Thus, for example, if an outcome is a magnitude for the global average surface air temperature, this temperature is averaged over the specified period.
The IPCC is mute on the magnitude of the averaging period. If the magnitude is taken to be the 30 years that is canonical in climatology then the real-world data of the past 20 years cannot have shown a climate model to be exaggerating the likely impacts, for the duration of an independent statistical event can be no less than the averaging period and thus an independent event of a duration that contains the past 20 years cannot yet have been observed.
Furthermore, none of the IPCC models make the predictions that they would be necessary to the falsification of them. They make “projections” but the concept that is referenced by this word is materially different from the concept that is referenced by the word “predictions.”

Statistics meet real-world.
Terry – try to think through what you are saying. The Earth system has a rate at which it will warm – take the ocean system (as then you won’t get confused between temperature and heat and atmospheric enthalpy). – the Sea Surface Temperatures are way below what the models said they would be as they have stayed almost flat for the 20 years. OK – so that is not 30 years. So now you should identify what could make the ocean system warm by 30 years worth of forecast/projected temperature rise but inside only a 10 years period? Have you any idea how much energy that would take? When it is 29 years 11 months real world data – will you still be using the same statistical period of measurement argument? Wait wait – its not 30 years yet?

_Jim

Excerpted from: http://www.zimbio.com/member/StoryReports/articles/qmUuK2zben5/Abandoned+Rusted+Wind+Turbines+Reflect+Hoax

The ghosts of Kamaoa [Hawaii] are not alone in warning us. Five other abandoned wind sites dot the Hawaiian Isles — but it is in California where the impact of past mandates and subsidies is felt most strongly. Thousands of abandoned wind turbines littered the landscape of wind energy’s California “big three” locations — Altamont Pass, Tehachapi, and San Gorgonio — considered among the world’s best wind sites.
Built in 1985, at the end of the boom, Kamaoa soon suffered from lack of maintenance. In 1994, the site lease was purchased by Redwood City, CA-based Apollo Energy.
Cannibalizing parts from the original 37 turbines, Apollo personnel kept the declining facility going with outdated equipment. But even in a place where wind-shaped trees grow sideways, maintenance issues were overwhelming. By 2004 Kamaoa accounts began to show up on a Hawaii State Department of Finance list of unclaimed properties. In 2006, transmission was finally cut off by Hawaii Electric Company.
California’s wind farms — then comprising about 80% of the world’s wind generation capacity — ceased to generate much more quickly than Kamaoa. In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned. Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills.

Hmmm … getting closer to the source of that 14,000 …
.

_Jim

Better article formatting and some pictures accompanying:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/wind_energys_ghosts_1.html
Article also contains references to the past legislation which spawned past wind farm ‘investments’ by govt and private/public owned utils …

When professor Kelly writes “… is correct to castigate climate change deniers …” he loses my interest. The vast majority of those called “deniers”, myself included, in fact do not deny the earth’s climate is changing. We only deny man’s impact on the climate is significant. We only have to point to the retreat of the glaciers at the end of the last ice age to show the earth warms significantly with no help from man. And don’t forget, the alarmists first started with “anthropogenic global warming”. Their “global warming” morphed into the more nebulous “climate change” when the global temperature apparently stopped rising.

Chuck

Although I generally applaud Professor Michael Kelly for writing this, I have to wonder about this part:
Sir, Andrew Motion (report, Feb 23) is correct to castigate climate change deniers, but he is profoundly mistaken in linking all those who oppose the current climate science orthodoxy into one group.
Who are these “climate change deniers” that need to be castigated? I’ve never heard of them. I suppose you can find some individuals somewhere who believe climate never changes but have they even risen to the level of becoming a group?
I’m not sure that the professor really understands the skeptical side of the issue.

Solomon Green

Terry Oldberg says,
“The IPCC is mute on the magnitude of the averaging period. If the magnitude is taken to be the 30 years …”
Since the IPCC is mute on the magnitude of the averaging period, surely the first question to ask is – Why is it mute? The next question to ask is – Why is 30 years “canonical in climatology”? And, assuming satisfactory answers to those questions there is a third – How does the real world data over the last thirty years compare with the IPCC projection?
We cannot discard the last twenty years experience just because it does not fit in with the canonical 30 years. After all when their projections are proved wrong in ten years time, the climatologists might start to use an averaging period of 150 years (the supposed period since the industrial revolution) and their projections cannot then be falsiified in our lifetimes.

Getting to the bottom of this “14,000” number is going to take going back in history, or herstory (depending on your predilections and orientation … if you visited the Bloggie winning site ‘autostraddle’ this will make much more sense as they have a category titled: “Herstory”).
From an article originally written in 1999: http://www.wind-works.org/articles/99rush.html titled “The Great Wind Rush of 99” by Paul Gipe we have this:

It has been 14 years [that would make it 1985 -_Jim] since the last great boom, and subsequent bust. Everyone is crossing their fingers that the projects being rushed to completion perform as projected. No one wants a repeat of the shoddy projects that littered California with poorly operating–sometimes non-operating–wind turbines.
From 1981 through 1985 federal and state tax subsidies in California were so great that wealthy investors could recover up to 50 percent of a wind turbine’s cost. The lure of quick riches resulted in a flood of development using new and mostly untested wind turbines. By the end of 1986, when projects already underway in 1985 were completed, developers had installed nearly 15,000 wind turbines. These machines represented 1,200 MW of capacity worth US$2.4 billion in 1986 dollars.
It took nearly a decade from the time the first flimsy wind turbines were installed before the performance of California wind projects could dispel the widespread belief among the public and investors that wind energy was just a tax scam.

The article is a good one, lots of reference to various wind farms and the subsidies in effect at the time that led to each ‘bubble’ of wind farms …
.

Rhys Jaggar

The question all sentient observers should ask is this: now one gravy train has been officially abandoned, it is extremely likely that the next one is up and running.
Perhaps this blog should invite readers to nominate the next sponging scandals across the entire spectrum of society?
Key components:
1. Difficulty to prove hypothesis one way or the other.
2. Strong ties to a febrile media.
3. Ability to dupe politicians to provide lots of funding.
4. Ability to use seniority to force dogma through.
5. Potential benefits to developing countries’ corrupt elites through ‘doing good’.

M J Kelly

If I told you that the first sentence of my letter was edited, your readers might be mollified.
I wrote:
Andrew Motion (report, Feb 23) is correct to castigate climate change deniers, as the climate has always been changing, but he is profoundly mistaken in linking all those who oppose the current climate science orthodoxy into one group.
Michael Kelly
REPLY: Thank you, I’ll add this to the post to make it known. – Anthony

Gary Pearse

DirkH says:
February 28, 2012 at 6:48 am
“Higley, please take another look at the scales of the absorption spectrum graphs of N2 and O2. They have very narrow spikes or lines with an absorptivity a thousand times less than the ones of CO2 and H2O. They are irrelevant.”
Except that they are 3000 times as abundant.

Eric Dailey says:
February 28, 2012 at 7:55 am
“Professor Michael Kelly: Prince Philip Professor of Technology, is echoing the sentiments of Prince Philip whom last November leaked that he won’t have wind turbines on “his land”, which I suspect is due to NIMBY. This denouncement by Kelly is only a political move in support of his monarch.”
Haven’t you heard? Queen Elizabeth II has been the UK monarch for the last 60 years.

commieBob

Terry Oldberg says:
February 28, 2012 at 8:05 am
Your quibbling over semantic niceties reminds me of a famous quote: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”. The statement was true as long as you defined the words correctly.
No matter how you attempt to spin it, the models have no skill.

commieBob

The link in my previous post should have been to: http://pong.tamu.edu/~rob/pubs/hetland_skill_ocemod.pdf

DirkH

Terry Oldberg says:
February 28, 2012 at 8:05 am
“Furthermore, none of the IPCC models make the predictions that they would be necessary to the falsification of them. They make “projections” but the concept that is referenced by this word is materially different from the concept that is referenced by the word “predictions.””
The difference between a projection and a prediction is that a prediction can be validated. Period. That’s the difference.
So they don’t do predictions. Instead, they initialize the model randomly, and run it for a 100 years, and they do that say a 100 times. Now they say, let’s average the outcome and see what we have. Okay, so all the details are lost and were only pomp and circumstances for the paying public anyhow. So what do they get. They get ever increasing energy content. Why? Simple.
Energy goes into the system from the sun. That’s fixed.
Energy leaves the system to space. That’s what determines the outcome of the average of the single runs. That’s where they need to work on to get the desired outcome.
And they do that not via CO2; oh no. They do it by meddling with the aerosol forcing because that still counts as uncertain.
It’s a shell game. Control how much energy leaves the system and you control the outcome.

Charlie A

The earliest source I could find for 14,000 abandoned wind turbines is http://storyreportscomments.blogspot.com/2010/02/abandoned-rusted-wind-turbines-reflect.html
The above Feb 16, 2010 article appears to be the source for the many articles published in Nov 2011.
It appears that tax subsidies in California led to about 15,000 turbines being installed In the 1981-1986 period, and that virtually all of those are now inoperative.

dwb

I looked up the “big three” wind spots mentioned in the article, and looks to me as though there is a substantial amount of generation coming from those sites. The Kamaoa (37 turbines) is actually abandoned.I don’t think there are “thousands abandonded” – it looks to me as though there are some in disrepair and they are looking to replace the older obsolete technology with newer MW-level technology. I think that the 14,000 is an urban legend. If someone can show me an actual accounting, methodology, or something (ala Wikipedia’s list of wind farms in the US, or the link to a list of wind farms) please post it. Don’t misunderstand me – wind power IMO is 100% tax subsidy fueled and probably even carbon-inefficient since a lot of gas-fired plants have to be on stand-by in case the wind stops blowing. However, I just cannot add up 14000 units – unless we really are counting basically all the units from the 80s, in which case “planned obsolescence” is a better term because the technology has vastly improved (and those sites mentioned will be rebuilt with new technology thanks to tax subsidies!).
http://www.thewindpower.net/country-datasheet-windfarms-4-usa.php