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
dwb says:
February 28, 2012 at 11:35 am
“@jim
not sure what your question is. read my whole comment. I don’t think 14000 have been “abandonded”.”
Take the number that was built in the 70’s and the 80’s and most of them are still standing, wholly or in part, dead today since most countries don’t have a fine print that forces the energy companies to recycle wind turbine constructions. Companies only do that if it’s economically feasible. It’s not much difference with old dead industries, they only get recycled when gov pay for the cleanup (which they only do when there’s a need for more houses and apartments or new industries.)
The life span of a wind turbine is only about 20 years at best, so the number isn’t all that shocking.
What’s shocking in EU is why the greens here never forced the energy companies to pay for the cleanups wind mill sites so the sites can be re-introduced to nature as energy companies are forced to do with coal-, gas-, hydro-, and nuclear-power plants.
On the Windmill issue, and perhaps relevant to some:
http://www.masterresource.org/2012/02/wind-spin/
This is a rather strong condemnation of the state of affairs in Climate Science.
The highlighted missing phrase is itself a strong condemnation of the state of journalistic ethics at that publication.
Gleickenspiel again
With malice aforethought, deleting a key phrase to misrepresent the writer.
What the h**l have the T***s got to gain by that kind of f***dulent misrepresentation?
Perhaps the Levison enquiry would like to hear about the omission from Dr Kelly’s letter
the press in the UK has reached its absolute bottom of integrity/professionalism.
An interesting little find (for the technical among us) – a quick tour (and description) of used California (commercial) wind turbines dating back to the boom years in the 1980’s in the section as linked below:
Wind power: renewable energy for home, farm, and business By Paul Gipe
The author includes comments about which ones were unreliable, needed more maintenance, etc.
.
“Climate change deniers”
I don’t know of anyone who fits this exact description, but plenty of us think that man-made climate change is trivial. The phrase was global warming deniers, until the graph changed direction…
Que?
Removal and Restoration Costs in California: Who Will Pay? by Paul Gipe
(An edited version of the article which appeared in the Spring 1997 issue of WindStats Newsletter, Vol. 10, No. 2)
Longish article … here are just a few details to whet one’s interest:
Also note the total of 12,000 1st generation California turbines of which (at the time in 1997!) “3,000 turbines” were good only for scrap .. and this was 1997, before the ‘boom’ or Wind Rush in the 1999 time frame.
.
Well, don’t get too comfortable. A comparison from my own field: the chemist’s choice of weapon, the 250ml Erlenmeyer flask; mine (chemical engineer), the 5.000 gallon batch reactor.
Engineering is like Science, only LOUDER. 😉
Umm, Jeremy..
David Suzuki is not Carl Sagan.
He is widely known,and has a reputation for explaining science to youngsters. Being a grandatherly looking figure he may have been more accepted.
But I’d want to look back at his public teachings to check what he was saying.
He’s clearly a Marxist, note for examplehis raning against businesses when he spoke and wrote in support of the Occupy mob.
The source of the 14,000 abandoned turbines is Paul Gipe. His resume is here:
http://www.wind-works.org/giperesume.html
He has written numerous books on wind energy. Ironically, he is a strong advocated of wind turbines. Try his article in the 1999 edition of New Energy if you are still a ‘denier’.
If you Bing ‘Gipe 14,000 turbine’ you will see that he has been quoted thousands of times on this.
Keith Sketchley says: February 28, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Umm, Jeremy..
David Suzuki is not Carl Sagan…
… He’s clearly a Marxist, note for example his ranting against businesses when he spoke and wrote in support of the Occupy mob.
_____________________
Suzuki used to be a peace, love and crunchy-granola kinda guy… …a Harpo Marxist.
As he aged and became old, angry and bitter, he changed… …into a Groucho Marxist.
Enviro-radicals have to keep re-inventing themselves, and their scary stories.
For example, scary “Catastrophic Manmade Global Warming” was changed into very-scary “Climate Change”.
Very-scary “Climate Change” was even better than scary “Global Warming”, because “Climate Change” is so vaguely defined that it is non-falsifiable – “Climate Change” can be warmer, cooler, wetter, drier, up, down, in, out or sideways.
Climate Alarmists say anything they want, fabricate their false alarms with facile impunity, change their scary stories daily or even hourly, and still believe they are operating within a logical, rational envelope.
However, those of us who remember the crazy Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland have seen this sort of behaviour before.
It is the Climate Alarmists irrational behaviour that is indeed unbalanced and truly scary – their very-scary stories, not so much.
_Jim : February 28, 2012 at 12:06 pm
“Wind Turbines South Point Hawaii”
Rough count from the early part of the vid looks like 9 bladeless, 8 bladed but not turning. Of the 37 that I could see in the vid, about 46% were non-operable in some manner. (not counting internal stuff)
Ian W ( February 28, 2012 at 8:32 am ):
Thanks for taking the time to respond. A model is legitimately tested by comparison of the predicted to the observed outcomes of the events in a statistical sample. In such a sample, there is no such thing as a partial event (e.g., an event in which 20 of the 30 years of a complete event have elapsed) for in such an event the outcome cannot have been observed.
Frank Davis says:
February 28, 2012 at 10:27 am
Did I miss something? I thought they already had!
DaveE.
Engineer vs Scientist? I’ll place my bet on the engineer.
An engineer works with what can be proven to be viable. Understanding of physics required. Responsible for results.
A real scientist would likely work with the engineer to see if a particular theory / idea could be developed into a viable product or process.
A ‘climate scientist’ will work with any fallacy as long as the grants keep coming in. Appeal of authority is the only prerequisite required. . Credibility or ethics optional but not required and not desired in post normal science.
JPeden says:
February 28, 2012 at 1:52 pm
“Gobsmacking that they couldn’t handle this one sentence but left the rest untouched – as the climate has always been changing” . So that Dr. Kelly’s actual statement is”
“Andrew Motion (report, Feb 23) is correct to castigate climate change deniers, as the climate has always been changing….”, and it appears that the offending Editors themselves are climate change deniers.
=====================
Good point. “The offending Editors themselves are climate change deniers.” The editors are literally living in a parallel universe of post normal science and journalism (if it could be called that).
If I might quote from a comment I left on Bishop Hill
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/5/16/david-mackay-at-oxford.html
“Go to http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/releases/shownews.htm?NewsID=553
and download “Generating the Future”. So far as I am aware this is the only serious study which has been carried out into the practical implications of reducing CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050″
Michael Kelly was one of the engineers who produced this essential report.
But it is with fury and shame that I note that the (UK) Institution of Civil Engineers (my professional body) has been taken over by the greenie plague and their forthcoming Brunel Lecture is titled “Delivery of a Low Carbon Society – Beyond Rhetoric Or Not?”
Grrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!
I’m sure that the editting of the good Prof’s letter, was simply done to fit in with the amount of space available and to improve its appearence & readability!
eyes;
Ethics in Crimatology makes you unreliable, like a Soviet counter-revolutionary cad (Limeliters). Ostracism, purging, elimination of sources of income, and exile are the responses of choice.
Quite a few years ago the Daily Telegraph printed my letter about the European Union. The night before, the editor phoned me and asked permission to cut a bit out, as it was too long. I agreed, as it did not change the main thrust of my letter.
In this case, cutting just a few words from Michael Kelly’s letter completely changed that sentence’s meaning, clearly indicating that Kelly agreed with Motion’s stunted beliefs. If I were Kelly I would insist that the Times print a correction.
It is ironic – and stupid – that the true believers like to use the ‘climate change denier’ label. It is insulting, bnecause it is clearly designed to sound like ‘holocaust denier’. It is also stupid because a major sceptical argument is that the climate is always changing.
The whole purpose of the hockey stick is to show that there was essentially no climate change until the 20th century, despite the mountains of evidence for a global MWP that was quite possible warmer than the present.
So who are the real climate change deniers?
By the way, for anyone who objects to this, why not shoot off an email to the Times?
Chris
dwb says:
February 28, 2012 at 6:31 am
There are 37 broken or dismantled 250 KW wind turbines at South Point on the Island of Hawaii. Replaced by 14 new 1.5 MW turbines built less than two miles away which went online April 2007. The old units were installed in 1987 and a declining number kept running by salvaging parts from broken units until 2006. I saw them during Christmas in 2011 and the towers and nacelles are still standing although many now lack blades. See here.
Given that earlier windfarms used smaller turbines and if the lifecycle experience in Hawaii is typical, I’m guessing virtually 100% of the turbines installed before 1990 are now broken. Does anyone know of any old turbines which have been completely dismantled and removed?
The Digest of United Kindom Energy Statistics (DUKES) gives the total wind energy contribution to the UK’s electricity output for 2010 as 2.7% (10,216 GWh of a total 371,977 from all sources).
Renewable UK is the trade and professional body for the UK wind and marine renewables industries. It tells us that one modern wind turbine saves over 2000 tonnes of CO2 emissions annually, and that there are 3422 operational turbines in the UK.
That’s a total of about 7 million tonnes of CO2 saved annually, which sounds very impressive.
However, the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 3 thousand gigatonnes. Divide the amount saved by the amount in the air and you’ll see that the turbines are ‘saving’ two millionths of the atmospheric total annually.
Thanks for the tally; we might also note, for the record, that those in the industry have a term for non-operational (non-generation) turning (rotation) of the turbine blades, in lieu of ‘locking’ the rotor: ‘virtual mode’. Virtual mode or operation is done for a couple of reason: for lubrication (keeps bearings and bearing surfaces lubed and not ‘seated’ in one position (deformation issues), keeps seals ‘moist’ and flexible, runs the lube/pressure pump) _and_ it looks good to the public (a PR move; public has higher measured and tabulated opinion of wind power when they see a dynamically-acting vs statically-displayed wind turbine).
So, those that may be ‘turning’ might not be generating. Depending on the wind turbine deisgn/model (a synchronous vs asynchronous generator/alternator affixed after the gear box) one might expect all blades to be rotating in synchronism (synchronous alts) or slightly off (asynchronous alts) … also, ‘facing into the wind’ is done via actuation of “Yaw” motor which rotates the nacelle assembly based on the integrated/average direction indicated by the wind vane.
.
Even assuming you can make an economic case for wind turbines with a 20-year lifetime until complete replacement, doesn’t anyone find it odd that new turbines don’t just replace older non-functional ones? Take the Hawaiian example: 100 acres of defunct turbines were left there while a new park was built close by. Why isn’t it economic to re-use the access roads previously built? Must be some other distorting effect of the subsidies.