Martin Brown wrote:
On 25/11/2011 10:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:

While I have your attention is there any chance of doing a more
detailed probe to determine the proportion of wind turbines that are
actually generating against the official total installed capacity.

I am convinced that some near me I pass regularly where 2 out of 3 are
feathered most days are installed to farm renewable grants rather than
wind and it would be very interesting to see. Even the best windfarms
seem to have at least 10% of turbines feathered at any one time.


you find the web site, and I will scrape the data.

Don't hold your breath but I will see if I can find anything useful.

I have found that there is almost zero real hard data online about
almost anything.

Astronomy and HEP is actually quite well catered for. The Web was
actually put together to allow CERN to share data on the Internet. We
used JANET to move some astronomy data around long before that. You
could be very unpopular for moving big files (big then was small today).

The internet is full of opinions, and spin, but appalingly low actual
real hard facts.

Despite the fact that the world is littered with sensors.

Its a shame, because sites that would do things like showing you how
high the river down the road is, or where all the trains actually are,
at any given moment, could be unbelievably useful.

Realtime RTC info on route maps is pretty useful and available now.


Yes, thats the one area where it works properly.

I wondered about a sort of 'you have data, post it here' sort of site..

so all the people with e.g. home weather stations could post a location
and data, and one could build a map..

But then I realised all the AGW tools would simply add 5 degrees and
troll..

Careful. AGW is real enough even if the enviros and greens overplay it.
The really bad guys are the deniers for hire that work for various US
ultra-right wing "think tanks" and have previous for doing big tobaccos
dirty work by convincing people to keep smoking. They use the same
disinformation and smear tactics against AGW and climate researchers.

Its not a question of denying it, its a question of denying the magnitude.

Obviously CO2 does something: the question is what?, and how much?

If you take out the fudge factors that are built in to make it fit the
curves (that are increasingly being challenged in their validity) the
answer would seem to be:

'it warms things up, but not by a noticeable amount: Other things, some
of which we don't really understand, make a far larger impact'

If you take out the fudge factor its about 0.25 C over the next century.
Hardly worth wrecking the world's economy for.

http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=32

is worth a glance to summarise some of the other possibilities.