I seem to remember someone posted here about a "virtual host" error when trying to access gridwatch.templar but can't find the post.
I have the same thing on Firefox 8.0 running on Linux (Fedora 15); the error "Virtual host not found on this server" appears, yet Firefox 8.0 running in an XP virtual host on the same box works.
Not whinging, just odd behaviour.
In article , Mike Tomlinson writes
Ignore me. I'd put "
Suggestion: under the line "ServerName
THAT wont work..cos gridwatch.templar.co.uk points at another server entirely :-)
howver, that might be adjusted...
Seems to work OK here. BTW Wind power output is pegged to the endstop at
3.1GW and has been since 10am this morning. Maybe fsd should be 5.0GWRegards, Martin Brown
Forgive my ignorance, but what is the maximum installed capacity for wind power in the UK ATM, and shouldn't the scale be set to that value? I assume this is how the maxima on the other scales are set. And while I'm asking questions, what's the significance of the red and orange segments on the coal, nuclear and ccgt dials? Also, I see the French, Dutch and Irish ICT scales go from -ve to +ve, presumably depending on which way the power is going. Would I be right in assuming that -ve values refer to power being exported from the UK, and +ve values to imported power?
the meter won't get damaged from a very short and *very* occasional overload :-)
I fixed the addresses so most typos work...
DNS may take time to propagate tho
Smiths industries knew how to make things that would last. PS. I hope there is no radium on the dial pointers. :-)
Regards, Martin Brown
Smiths industries have just supplied me with a 3.5GW meter. Now installed. There's lots of radium in the dials.
I believe in hormesis ;-)
:-) I have held a piece of Trinitite glass (long after the event).
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.
I suspect certain wind farm players are not to put too fine a point on it corrupt or at the very least gaming the system. Visibility of this charade would do wonders for encouraging wind farms only to be built in locations where the average wind speed is high enough to be worthwhile.
you find the web site, and I will scrape the data.
I have found that there is almost zero real hard data online about almost anything.
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.
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..
Don't hold your breath but I will see if I can find anything useful.
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).
Realtime RTC info on route maps is pretty useful and available now.
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.
Yes, thats the one area where it works properly.
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.
There are far too many deniers for hire paid to mislead the public. Exxon has been sponsoring a fair number of players to spread massive amounts of disinformation to the public. Bad enough that the Royal Society got annoyed enough to write them an open letter to cease and desist funding deliberate misrepresentation of the science.
Agreed. On this I prefer looking at model fits on the available data and it looks pretty much like the recent GHG forcings have been of the order of 1K/century (but with most of it in the last fifty years) with various periodic terms and annual noise thrown in to make spotting the trends harder. Atmospheric CO2 continues to rise at an ever increasing rate from fossil fuels - sooner or later it will get to the point where permafrost melting will cause a sudden positive feedback.
Since you are clearly good at data mining try passing HADCRUT or the new longer global temperature time series though a low pass filter with a sharp 11 year high frequency cutoff (11 year boxcar will do). This zaps any solar sunspot cycle contributions and most of the inter annual noise. I think you will be surprised with what is left. I was.
It is more likely to be around 2K but could be higher.
No. We have merchant bankers to do that for us by trading worthless pieces of digital paper and then demanding massive taxpayer bailouts. So long as they get their *BIG* bonuses they do not care.
At least AGW mitigation would produce real engineering infrastructure jobs if managed correctly. I don't favour anything beyond no regrets energy saving measures at present of the sort that were last seen in the OPEC induced oil crisis of the 1970's "Save It" campaign.
I am a physicist by training I have a pretty good idea how to sort the wheat from the chaff. My position on this is roughly in line with BP.
No it wont. Thats an assumption.
No. I said IF YOU TAKE OUT THE FUDGE FACTOR.
The WHOLE IPCC positions relies on the ASSUMPTION that any temperature rise we cant account for MUST be accounted for by CO2 AND by 'positive feedback factors' .
No one knows what these are, what value to place on them or wherther they even exist.
The more the studies come out, the more they seem to NOT exist.
Vis the latest offering in 'Ccience' (Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum)
where they estimate that IF the sensitivity to CO2 was what the IPCC says it is, the whole world would have frozen solid in the last ice age. Oddly, it did not.
They are coming out with far lower temperature rises due to AGW. There main conclusion is that its 'unlikely to be serious'
But it won't be, because its being managed by governments and lobby groups
I don't favour anything beyond no regrets
It is virtually certain and is already starting to happen. Arctic methane emissions are up by 30% over the past few years and there is a
*lot* of trapped methane up there in the tundra permafrost.But if you look at the data it is pretty clear that the net effect observed so far due to GHG predicts something around 2K/century going forward. It is splitting hairs to haggle over how much of that change is driven by exactly which greenhouse gas.
Of which the most obvious is that we are sat on a planet covered with
70% oceans. Make the air warmer and it holds more water vapour which is itself a potent greenhouse gas. And although Lindzens iris theory which claims more water gives more clouds and counteracts AGW sounds plausible it has so far been refuted by observations.The tricky bit is guessing the mix of clouds - aircraft contrail released cirrus are a rather potent net warming force. The grounding over the USA post 9/11 allowed that signal to be detected.
Not true. The "deniers for hire" would certainly like you to believe that and have executed a very effective public disinformation campaign.
My reading was that if they are right we probably have a bit longer before things will turn really nasty. There are a lot of very important global population centres that are only a modest height above sea level and will become very vulnerable to flooding as sea levels rise.
That is certainly a risk. Governments these days don't seem to be able to get anything right. Look at the useless lot we are lumbered with.
British Petroleum.
Although I don't support any form of CO2 cap & trade policy - that will just become yet another chip for the casino bankers to gamble with.
Regards, Martin Brown
No it really is NOT clear. It depends utterly which data you cherry pick.
If you actually look at the palaeontological record, its less than maybe
1C for all the CO2 we are ever likely to produce. Says a latish study..And that is consistent with NO multiplier effect being added.
Which then leads to the question the IPCC never asked 'if its not CO2 that drove 1950-200 temperature rises, what did?'
The influence of low level clouds is MASSIVELY more significant than any amount of CO2. We really dont know what drives clouds in any but the broadest detail.
We haven't had the kit in orbit to monitor cloud and albedo very long either.
I mean there was a hugely detectable drop in night time temperatures post 911 when all nearly US aircraft activity ceased. High level cloud including contrails acts more as a night time greenhouse layer than low cloud, which tends to act as a daytime sunshield.. and if temperatures tart to rise its not very far fetched to assume that low level cloud will increase as mire water vapour hits the atmosphere. Acting as NEGATIVE feedback.
Clouds are very complex beasts, in formation, and in effect. Really the IPCC mdoel is nowhere near as sophisticated as it really should be, if we are going to decide the fate of nations on it. That's always been known, but the POLITICAL requirement to present a clear strong unified message has totally ridden rough shod over ALL the caveats the real scientists wanted in it.
Well no it hasn't. All that we can say is that over the past 50 years there is good - but actually not VERY good, correlation between increased CO2 and increased temperature. Go back further in time and the the lambda factors that worked for the last 50 years (or the last 500 if you utterly ignore the mediaeval warming period and the little ice age) are being shown to be utterly WRONG.
Now if it wasn't so politically sensitive, this is the point where scientists would keep open minds, and do more and better research. But any research that comes up with any disagreement with the current received wisdom gets shunned. And doesn't get funding. Its terribly dangerous.
That charge can equally be applied to the warmists, frankly. Warmistw are for hire and have been hired by very powerful commercial and political lobbies.
Who are in it for purely selfish motives.
But sea levels are NOT rising.
Or not by anything like what the model says they should be.
Precisely. Why should we trust ANY powerful lobby group on whose a opinions huge sums of profitable money are being made, or lost?
There is SO MUCH evidence that the renewables lobby is essentially perpetrating a fraud, irrespective of AGW or not. They NEED AGW to justify the rip off - and even WITH AGW its not justified in pure cost benefit terms.
And what IS their line? they seem to have spun all their solar power into an easily diversifiable company they can ditch when it is worth something and before it becomes worthless.
BP isn't following climate change, its following MONEY and as long as governments throw stupid sums at renewables they will be in that business if its profitable.
The correct way to reduce CO2 is to tax carbon fuels. End of story. Then whatever becomes the cheaper way to not use them, is what gets built.
Of course everybody knows what that is is nuclear power.
Which would leave the renewables industry dead in the water. Which is why they are all united against it.
snip
Well no..once again its a set of arguments based on an unproven assertion: Namely that the IPCC predictions on temperature rise are accurate, and likewise that the modelling being used includes all relevant data. and the correct weightings..and probably that the relationship is broadly linear.
Even te simplest of thongs - a loaded column - can be shown to have instability failure modes..that completely negate in certain scenarios the actual compressive stress failure modes. Fail to appreciate that and your church or cathedral falls down. That was noted years before Euler finally used calculus to nail the problem in a correct mathematical form
Climate change models for sure LOOK impressive, but in reality they are crude as shit.
Hmm... wasn't there a really hard winter '46/47? All that cross-over
30kft traffic to Germany the previous couple of years had suddenly stopped in '45. Bit of a time gap, but might have been some knock-on effect. Jan and Feb '45 were apparently among the coldest winter months on record of the 20thC. Otoh, the winter of '45/46 was surprisingly mild- so who knows, perhaps it's all bollocks.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.