Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by Diogenes »

happyjack27 wrote:


Water vapor is a green house gas, yes. This is common knowledge to any climatologist.


Here's another piece of knowledge of which you do not seem cognizant. 3/4ths of the Earth's surface is covered in water. Look up "Diffusion" and pay close attention to the effect heat has on it.


Image
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by Diogenes »

Maui wrote:
What's even more ironic is that this is so fundamental that we might as well cite 19th century scientists:

Why sure! After all, they were right about the Aether weren't they?
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by happyjack27 »

kurt9 wrote:The reality test of science is if it results in technological innovation. Science that does not result in technological innovation may be real or it may be bogus, but its certainly useless.
so knowing e.g. that i should drink a fair amount of water everyday is useless?

all of psychology and all of sociology are apparently useless.

preventative health? useless.

this is a horrible definition.


The reality test of science is experimental confirmation.

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by happyjack27 »

Diogenes wrote:
Maui wrote:
What's even more ironic is that this is so fundamental that we might as well cite 19th century scientists:

Why sure! After all, they were right about the Aether weren't they?
This is awesome logic. (sarcasm, if you can't tell.)

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by happyjack27 »

Diogenes wrote:
happyjack27 wrote:


Water vapor is a green house gas, yes. This is common knowledge to any climatologist.


Here's another piece of knowledge of which you do not seem cognizant. 3/4ths of the Earth's surface is covered in water. Look up "Diffusion" and pay close attention to the effect heat has on it.
:shock: 3/4ths of the earths' surface is covered in water?!? WHAT?!?! :shock:

Image

RERT
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:10 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by RERT »

Maui - thanks. Contact with one apparently sane human being makes trying to communicate worthwhile.

No, I'm not going to make a case for everyone with the same label as me. You can make your own judgements. I'm forced to confess to an overly sweeping generalisation regarding the character of sceptics and others, though I don't recall stating any group was perfect. Still, at least I might get a point for sweeping generalisation....

I think it's a shame that people have been worn down by the ferocity of the discussion, to the extent that engaging with a different view is now unusual, and usually ends badly, witness this thread. I end up back more or less where I started, which is that the world would be a better place with less screaming and name calling, and more polite consensus building.

On matters of substance: I was reading yesterday on the falling costs of Solar power. It does seem that in maybe 10 years, the cost per installed watt of Solar might be less than that for coal. Unfortunately the back of my envelope says that the cost of intermittency will still be vastly greater than the cost of fuel, if you take LIon batteries as the cure for intermittency. The problem is not so much the cost per kWh, but the restricted cycle life, which is off from where it needs to be by at least a factor of ten. So I think that a 'moonshot' to get batteries to $100/kWh with a 10,000 cycle life would enable grid storage, domestic storage, and be close to making EV competitive. (Though as far as I can see EV can never compete with $25/bbl oil)

Interested to hear your views.

kurt9
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by kurt9 »

happyjack27 wrote:
all of psychology and all of sociology are apparently useless.
Most certainly. All of the "soft" fields are garbage.
happyjack27 wrote:
preventative health? useless.
A lot of it is, which is why I avoid doctors. Most of what they are calling preventative health is nothing more than vaccines, colonoscopies, and statin drugs. I avoid the vaccines because I am allergic to the Mercury compounds used as preservative in the vaccines. Colonoscopies are actually a lot more risky than they claim and statins are poisons. I would never take any statin drug under any circumstance at all.

One look at the reaction pathway chart for statins (easily googled) will tell you why they are criminal drugs.

Real preventative medicine would involve the use of compounds and supplements that have potential anti-aging effects (CoQ-10, PQQ, Resveratrol, and Nicotinamide Riboside; all of which I take. It would also include body building weight training (2 day split - 4 days per week) and either swimming or cycling 40 minutes 3 times per week. The purpose of preventative medicine is to get you through to the time when the SENS therapies are available for true anti-aging, which will be in the 2030-2040 time period.

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by happyjack27 »

kurt9 wrote:
happyjack27 wrote:
all of psychology and all of sociology are apparently useless.
Most certainly. All of the "soft" fields are garbage.
happyjack27 wrote:
preventative health? useless.
A lot of it is, which is why I avoid doctors. Most of what they are calling preventative health is nothing more than vaccines, colonoscopies, and statin drugs. I avoid the vaccines because I am allergic to the Mercury compounds used as preservative in the vaccines. Colonoscopies are actually a lot more risky than they claim and statins are poisons. I would never take any statin drug under any circumstance at all.

One look at the reaction pathway chart for statins (easily googled) will tell you why they are criminal drugs.

Real preventative medicine would involve the use of compounds and supplements that have potential anti-aging effects (CoQ-10, PQQ, Resveratrol, and Nicotinamide Riboside; all of which I take. It would also include body building weight training (2 day split - 4 days per week) and either swimming or cycling 40 minutes 3 times per week. The purpose of preventative medicine is to get you through to the time when the SENS therapies are available for true anti-aging, which will be in the 2030-2040 time period.
wait, so is it useless or not?

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by happyjack27 »

Diogenes wrote:
happyjack27 wrote:


Water vapor is a green house gas, yes. This is common knowledge to any climatologist.


Here's another piece of knowledge of which you do not seem cognizant. 3/4ths of the Earth's surface is covered in water. Look up "Diffusion" and pay close attention to the effect heat has on it.

Diognes, you should write a paper about this for Science magazine.

I'm sure they will love your revolutionary proof that everything we know about climates is wrong because clouds.

Now we just have to figure out why all of our temperature readings show warming when there isn't. I'm sure you'll come up with something equally brilliant.

paperburn1
Posts: 2484
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by paperburn1 »

kurt9 wrote: Happyjack

Real preventative medicine would involve the use of compounds and supplements that have potential anti-aging effects (CoQ-10, PQQ, Resveratrol, and Nicotinamide Riboside; all of which I take. It would also include body building weight training (2 day split - 4 days per week) and either swimming or cycling 40 minutes 3 times per week. The purpose of preventative medicine is to get you through to the time when the SENS therapies are available for true anti-aging, which will be in the 2030-2040 time period.
Serious question,
Do you feel any of these chemical therapies are making a noticeable difference?
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by Diogenes »

happyjack27 wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Maui wrote:
What's even more ironic is that this is so fundamental that we might as well cite 19th century scientists:

Why sure! After all, they were right about the Aether weren't they?
This is awesome logic. (sarcasm, if you can't tell.)


The point here is that "consensus" among scientists doesn't mean a D@mn thing, and that's if we are willing (i'm not) to accept the ridiculous assertion that "97%" of the scientists are in agreement about Global warming.


Years ago I was reading an issue of "Scientific American" in which they had asked 50 scientists to provide their insight on the question of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I noticed a curious thing.


There were a lot of people supporting it, but when I looked at their claimed field of expertise I noticed that virtually all of them were Botanists, Marine Biologists, Anthropologists, Zoologists and so forth.

There were quite a few people not supporting it, and when I looked at their claimed field of expertise I noticed that virtually all of these were Physicists, Chemists and Astrophysicists.


I concluded that people who did not understand the material being discussed believed in it, while those who did understand the material being discussed either didn't believe it, or were not willing to draw any conclusions about it.


That they are "scientists" actually had nothing to do with it. They needed to be a "scientist" in a field that has some relationship to the issue.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by Diogenes »

happyjack27 wrote:

Diognes, you should write a paper about this for Science magazine.

I'm sure they will love your revolutionary proof that everything we know about climates is wrong because clouds.


I didn't think you would understand the point. You think it's about clouds. Let me attempt to steer you back toward's the right direction for comprehending my point.

You can see by the chart I posted earlier that Water Vapor is a better absorber and re-radiator of energy than is carbon dioxide.


Imagine how much water vapor exists as a result of 3/4ths of the planet being covered by oceans. Think for a moment about how diffusion increases with heat.


Now imagine that all those billions of tons of water vapor in the atmosphere were C02.


What does your theory say should happen in such a circumstance?
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

kunkmiester
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by kunkmiester »

Maui wrote:
kunkmiester wrote:Isn't most of that cost red tape and over the top redundancy? The technical issues haven't changed much, just the environment.
Perhaps. But I feel like I remember reading that even in states where pro-nuclear policy was put in place, no one wanted to build.
But most of the red tape is national, from the NRC as I recall.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by happyjack27 »

Diogenes wrote:
happyjack27 wrote:

Diognes, you should write a paper about this for Science magazine.

I'm sure they will love your revolutionary proof that everything we know about climates is wrong because clouds.


I didn't think you would understand the point. You think it's about clouds. Let me attempt to steer you back toward's the right direction for comprehending my point.

You can see by the chart I posted earlier that Water Vapor is a better absorber and re-radiator of energy than is carbon dioxide.


Imagine how much water vapor exists as a result of 3/4ths of the planet being covered by oceans. Think for a moment about how diffusion increases with heat.


Now imagine that all those billions of tons of water vapor in the atmosphere were C02.


What does your theory say should happen in such a circumstance?
i don't have any theories. i'm not stupid enough to think that armchair theorizing by a layman can somehow magically overturn decades of research.

i use science. like what you're talking about. you're using knowledge from the very same climatoligsts you seek to disprove - in an effort to disprove them.

didn't we already cover this point about irony?

clearly it didn't sink in.


you know maybe we should take all of these various factors together and run a giant high-resolution global climate simulation.

hmmmm.... i can't believe no one's thought of that....

JoeP
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:10 am

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by JoeP »

Dio, what is your point....that climatologist models do not account for changes in water vapor due to heat/pressure, and dynamic feedback as more heat is trapped; more/less cloud cover/reflection and such? I'm sure these are all fundamental to well designed models and the effects of are at least attempted to be accounted for. Seems like a basic requirement and I don't see how that would be overlooked.

Of course models can always use improvement for the sheer complexity and feedback loops in such a large solution space, but I doubt such a basic rule as the interaction between heat and water vapor pressure is not part of any serious one.

Post Reply