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

choff
Posts: 2432
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

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

Postby choff » Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:32 am

Does this mean I can take up farming in Greenland anytime soon? If the Vikings could do it why can't we, they didn't even have tractors or electric power. Land would probably sell cheap enough.
CHoff

hanelyp
Posts: 2255
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

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

Postby hanelyp » Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:53 am

A window into the mindset of climatism, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Mw5_EBk0g 10 10 videos featuring skeptics and resisters being blown up for not pledging to support the effort. Statements like these, made in unguarded moments, are why some of us are so militant in discrediting the climatist movement. We see them as an indicator of what they'd do to us if they could. And who wouldn't get behind murder if they were brainwashed to believe getting rid of resistance was needed to keep the planet habitable?

Note that these videos were made by a climatist organization as part of a "carbon reduction" ad campaign. And only when they were completed did they realize the message the videos sent and cancel the ad campaign.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

Maui
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Madison, WI

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

Postby Maui » Sat Dec 24, 2016 5:15 am

RERT wrote:Maui -

I'm sorry for the sideways remark about food stamps. It was an attempt to make people busy advocating higher electricity prices to reflect on the consequences of their policies. On reflection let's not make this thread busy by getting into US politics (as well)!

What could possibly go wrong? ;)

RERT wrote:Your remark on sea walls highlights some of the difference between us. Sea levels rose a foot in the 19th century, about a foot in the 20th century. It was not news: industrialisation, wars, technology, they were news. Not sea level rise. The rate in the 21st century is basically the same. Be generous, it might be up a couple of feet in the 21st. It still won't be news. There is no need to panic. I think Hansen's prediction that Highways in New York would be under water soon have already failed. Now, perhaps more sensibly, his predictions for sea level rise are for a sharp acceleration after he is long dead.

Nah, not that much of a difference. I am fully aware of the excessive fear-mongering that has been done (on the sea-level rise issue in particular). I agree, we do have time. But even a couple of feet does have a cost. I fully admit that I haven't done the research on this one-- how much does it cost to make sure cities are sufficiently protected against 2 or 3 more feet? Perhaps it doesn't justify a terrible large expenditure now. It does, however, have a cost. What cost would need to be incurred now to save the cost of an extra foot of sea in 85 years? That is a more relevant place to start in justifying the cost of renewable energy programs.

Also, Katrina and Superstorm Sandy were news. Was the extra foot of sea the tipping point for either? Was the extra foot plus the higher baseline climate temp? Probably not. But both factors do add to the likelihood of such events by some non-zero amount. Multiply the fraction of risk by the cost of these storms. There is some cost there. And some news (even if not cataclysmic).

RERT wrote:Someone suggested that it was easier being a skeptic than a warmist. Quite the contrary. Warmists are in authority, in the majority, they can be insulting, dismissive and nasty. There are enough examples in this thread. If you want an easy life, just say you believe in 'climate change'.

Hmmm... are you a skeptic? Earlier comments you made would have me pick a label more along the lines of "pragmatist". I don't think you are dismissing the science even though you feel some may have been influenced by subjective opinions. Did I have you wrong?

RERT wrote:Before I sign off for Christmas, here is a story worth reflecting on over your turkey. Back in the 80's, there was terrible unemployment in the UK. It made the 'Great Recession' look like a walk in the park. It came to light later, that of around 20 'statistical adjustments' made to the numbers by government statisticians, all but one had the effect of moving the nemployment rate in the same direction.

Do you have to ask what direction that was?

Look, I'm not going to argue that science is immune to improper influence. But there are differences here. Government statisticians are under a direct chain of command from an administration probably embarrassed by the state of the economy it ruled over. The scientific community is very much ad-hoc and dispersed in comparison... and operating within multitudes of nations with multitudes of different political environments. And keep in mind accusations of government meddling in AGW research goes both ways.

RERT wrote:As an independent observer, I don't need to know anything else. Someone was fiddling the books. I don't need to know or care what the adjustments were. Each one might even be valid. What is wrong is the 20 other missing adjustments which move the dial the other way, which were either vetoed or self-censored.

Fast forward to the temperature record today, and the same is true. Adjustments are all one way. YES. It sounds bat-shit crazy to suggest scientists are biased. But as an independent observer, my conclusion is the same as the first case. Somebody is cooking the books.

... and you lost me. Dang.

RERT wrote:Lastly, there are many references here to Skeptical Science. John Cook runs that site. Cook partnered Lewandowsky to write the fraudulent 97% paper. Why would I believe what he pushes? I'd like to find a level headed website to sample a different viewpoint, but I don't fancy that one. And before anyone says so, probably 50% of WUWT is either dodgy or political, but some is very interesting.

I would agree to having a discourse that excludes both Skeptical Science and WUWT... but I get the feels you'd want to exclude the IPCC as well, and at that point I don't know where to turn.

RERT wrote:Yes, I really am a skeptic. But I can hold a reasoned conversation, and if people could restrain themselves from insulting me, dismissing me and trying to close the discussion, I would participate in forming a broader consensus.

Seem I really did have you pegged wrong. Or maybe you were misrepresenting yourself earlier? Either way, if the starting point is that IPCC numbers are cooked, I'm not sure how much common ground we have to work from after all.

RERT wrote:That's it. I'm almost out of energy. No more posts until after Christmas.

Merry Christmas all!

And Merry Christmas to you!


Maui
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Madison, WI

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

Postby Maui » Sat Dec 24, 2016 5:53 am

pbelter wrote:Well seems we are getting some common ground here.

sigh. I am not so sure.

pbelter wrote:The AGW should be all over this proving that there are no meaningful fluctuations in the Solar radiation presently occurring and getting more funding to Mars, Venus and other climate studies to use them as control group.

It's really frustrating to me when arguments are made by people that don't have any expertise in climate research that obvious factors are being universally disregarded by the scientists studying climate. Solar radiation and water vapor have been completely overlooked? I almost prefer dio's commie takeover conspiracy theory honestly.

pbelter wrote:The zealousy of people like happy trying to prove that everything agrees with their pet theory and there is no doubt, actually convinces me otherwise even further.

So instead of looking to research studies for the answers to questions, you find it justified to use the zealots on the other side of the issue as the sole source of truth?

pbelter wrote:I could entertain a thought that there is really an AGW, and there may be, but when its proponents advocate "acting now or it is too late" with several deadlines already in the past, it is too reminiscent of snake oil salesman that tells you that "you have to act now as this incredible offer is not going to last".

I hear you. Really, I think this is the biggest problem with politics (at least U.S. politics) of last couple decades. Each side reacts to a disagreement by framing the other side's position as extreme while taking a more extreme position themselves to counter the other side. It's stupid. It leads to threads like this one.

happyjack27
Posts: 1435
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

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

Postby happyjack27 » Sat Dec 24, 2016 4:56 pm

Maui wrote:
pbelter wrote:
pbelter wrote:The zealousy of people like happy trying to prove that everything agrees with their pet theory and there is no doubt, actually convinces me otherwise even further.

So instead of looking to research studies for the answers to questions, you find it justified to use the zealots on the other side of the issue as the sole source of truth?


"a day, maybe half a day on google" and getting basic things totally wrong > all the science, research, and data in the world.

seems legit.

im clearly the zealous one ignoring everything that disagrees with my pet theory here.

happyjack27
Posts: 1435
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

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

Postby happyjack27 » Sat Dec 24, 2016 5:33 pm

Maui wrote:
pbelter wrote:The AGW should be all over this proving that there are no meaningful fluctuations in the Solar radiation presently occurring and getting more funding to Mars, Venus and other climate studies to use them as control group.

It's really frustrating to me when arguments are made by people that don't have any expertise in climate research that obvious factors are being universally disregarded by the scientists studying climate. Solar radiation and water vapor have been completely overlooked? I almost prefer dio's commie takeover conspiracy theory honestly.


Especially when these people are crying about falsifiability.

"They don't consider solar radiation." Ok, here's an example of them considering solar radiation:...

statement: no b in set x are a.
counter-example: a b in set x that is a.
Falsified.

"They don't consider water vapor." (Really, CLIMATE scientists, not considering WATER VAPOR?!) Ok, here's an example of them considering water vapor:...

statement: no b in set x are a.
counter-example: a b in set x that is a.
Falsified.


But no, showing ACTUAL COUNTER-EXAMPLES ON ACTUAL BINARY STATEMENTS is not enough there.

THAT doesn' t convince them.

But 2 statistical data points out of thousands, from a planet whose climate doesn't even operate the same, and all the sudden they're convinced beyond a doubt that the whole scientific community is deceived, and no one can tell them otherwise.

Falsifiability my *ss.
Last edited by happyjack27 on Sat Dec 24, 2016 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

happyjack27
Posts: 1435
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

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

Postby happyjack27 » Sat Dec 24, 2016 6:29 pm

Just saw this today:

Does combatting quackery and pseudoscience through rational argument and ridicule work?

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/ ... cule-work/

Image

happyjack27
Posts: 1435
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

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

Postby happyjack27 » Sun Dec 25, 2016 4:28 pm

just published 2 days ago:

it's about political beliefs, rather than conspiracy theories and quackery, but i imagine there are similiar neural correlates.

Neural correlates of maintaining one’s political beliefs in the face of counterevidence

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep39589

Robthebob
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:12 pm
Location: Auburn, Alabama

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

Postby Robthebob » Sun Dec 25, 2016 6:07 pm

This thread is so gross.

1. Using combustible fuel causes pollution we can literally see with our eyes. Even if AGW is just a pile of shit, we still need to get away from combustible fuel. Do you really think smog, acid rain, etc are not as dangerous as our planets warming and causing huge environmental problems? Even if they're not as dangerous as the world ending, it is still a very serious problem.

2. Over the last few years (and yes I am still a proponent of fusion), solar energy cost have quickly been reducing to catch fossil fuels. To most of the clean energy movement, solar is proven technology, and it's only getting better. I mean imagine if they got subsidies as fossil fuel (not just dollars, but including costs of pollution problems. Even if you just count the dollars, it's still not even close).
Throwing my life away for this whole Fusion mess.

hanelyp
Posts: 2255
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

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

Postby hanelyp » Sun Dec 25, 2016 7:53 pm

What is disgusting is identifying harmless CO2 emissions with real pollution, that false equivalence being used as a bludgeon against the engine of prosperity.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

paperburn1
Posts: 2454
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

Postby paperburn1 » Sun Dec 25, 2016 10:22 pm

The total world energy usage (coal+oil+hydroelectric+nuclear+renewable) in 2015 was 13,000 Million Ton Oil Equivalent (13,000 MTOE) - see World Energy Consumption & Stats. This translates to 17.3 Terawatts continuous power during the year.

Now, if we cover an area of the Earth 335 kilometers by 335 kilometers with solar panels, even with moderate efficiencies achievable easily today, it will provide more than 17,4 TW power. This area is 43,000 square miles. The Great Saharan Desert in Africa is 3.6 million square miles and is prime for solar power (more than twelve hours per day). That means 1.2% of the Sahara desert is sufficient to cover all of the energy needs of the world in solar energy. There is no way coal, oil, wind, geothermal or nuclear can compete with this. The cost of the project will be about five trillion dollars, one time cost at today's prices without any economy of scale savings. That is less than the bail out cost of banks by Obama in the last recession. Easier to imagine the cost is 1/4 of US national debt, and equal to 10% of world one year GDP. So this cost is rather small compared to other spending in the world. There is no future in other energy forms. In twenty to thirty years solar will replace everything. There will still be need for liquid fuels
By the way, note that the cost of a 1 GWe (Gigawatt electric) nuclear plant is about three billion dollars. the cost of 17.3 TW nuclear power will be fifty-two trillion dollars or ten times that of solar even if all the other issues with safety and uranium supply are resolved.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

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

Postby ladajo » Sun Dec 25, 2016 11:24 pm

Producing power has not traditionally been the issue. It is distribution that has been a bitch (and energy eater).
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

happyjack27
Posts: 1435
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

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

Postby happyjack27 » Mon Dec 26, 2016 1:55 am

hanelyp wrote:What is disgusting is identifying harmless CO2 emissions with real pollution, that false equivalence being used as a bludgeon against the engine of prosperity.


From OSS:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/enviro ... te-forcing


Climate Forcing
Climate forcing has to do with the amount of energy we receive from the sun, and the amount of energy we radiate back into space. Variances in climate forcing are determined by physical influences on the atmosphere such as orbital and axial changes as well as the amount of greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.
Climate Forcing
NASA/GISS Climate Forcing & Temperature

Climate Forcing
Climate forcings are a major cause of climate change. A climate forcing is any influence on climate that originates from outside the climate system itself. The climate system includes the oceans, land surface, cryosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere.

Examples of external forcings include:

Surface reflectivity (albedo)
Human induced changes in greenhouse gases
Atmospheric aerosols (volcanic sulfates, industrial output)
These examples all influence the balance of energy entering and leaving the Earth system. These types of forcings are often referred to as radiative forcing and can be quantified in units of the extra energy in watts per meter squared (W m-2) entering the Earth near the top of the atmosphere (TOA).

Image

Not all climate changes are caused by climate forcings, however. Climate is intrinsically variable and can change even if there is no external forcing. An unforced change would be some kind of natural shift like an El Nino. El Nino events tend to cause atmospheric warming because they are transporting heat from the ocean back into the atmosphere. This happens even though there is no change in solar output or other external forcing.

Climate forcing must generate a response, the same way a mechanic force causes an object to move. A positive radiative forcing involves shifting the balance such that the Earth gains heat and the climate warms. As the climate warms, the Earth will emit more infrared radiation to space, but this change at the top of the atmosphere is a response to the forcing, and not a new forcing. Warming will continue until a new balance is achieved between energy gained and lost at the top of the atmosphere.

Understanding climate forcing is actually easy. Think of it this way. If you are standing and someone begins to push against you, initially you may start to fall over. This is a state of imbalance due to the forcing imposed on you. Your natural reaction is to readjust your posture to push back (and avoid falling over). If the person keeps pushing, you will need to keep pushing back. The forcing is the initial push, your reaction is the response.

Climate Response
The Earth reacts to positive radiative forcing by warming up until a new balance is achieved at a higher temperature. This new steady state is actually a forced steady state as opposed to an unforced steady state, which would be the natural state without the human induced forcing.

The rate at which the Earth's climate warms in response to positive radiative forcing depends on several factors besides just the forcing. A major factor is the thermal inertia of the ocean which slows the response because the ocean can store a lot of heat. It takes a long time to warm the ocean, just as it takes a long time to cook a turkey. The temperature of the atmosphere is also influenced by the oceans, so the slow warming of the ocean also slows the warming of the atmosphere.

The National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Board on Atmospheric Science and Climate Present:
'Climate Change: Lines of Evidence - How Much Warming?'

(video: https://youtu.be/hVvzVs1AKGY?list=SP38EB9C0BC54A9EE2 )


Changes in Climate "Forcings"
A number of processes are now contributing to forcing the Earth's climate away from a natural state. To get a sense of the net effect, you can add all the components of forcing that are positive and negative and you end up with a view of the total forcing in the climate system of Earth.

The following figure shows changes in climate "forcings" or factors that have contributed to climate change since 1750, before human influences on climate were very significant.

Bar chart showing changes in climate forcings in units of Watts per meter-squared.

Image

These agents can be categorized into three areas: greenhouse gases, other man-made (anthropogenic) forcings, and natural forcings. The greenhouse gases consist of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Other anthropogenic forcings consist of black carbon (soot, formed by incomplete combustion), reflective aerosols (tiny airborne particles that reflect sunlight back to space), soil or dust, land cover changes, and forced cloud changes. Natural forcings include changes of the sun's energy. Figure is also available in PDF format. (Source: Figure 28 of Hansen et al. 2005. See references below.)

IPCC AR4 Forcing Components
Radiative Forcing Components IPCC AR4 SPM – Figure SPM.2. Global average radiative forcing (RF) estimates and ranges in 2005 for anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2 ), methane (CH4 ), nitrous oxide (N2O) and other important agents and mechanisms, together with the typical geographical extent (spatial scale) of the forcing and the assessed level of scientific understanding (LOSU). The net anthropogenic radiative forcing and its range are also shown. These require summing asymmetric uncertainty estimates from the component terms, and cannot be obtained by simple addition. Additional forcing factors not included here are considered to have a very low LOSU. Volcanic aerosols contribute an additional natural forcing but are not included in this figure due to their episodic nature. The range for linear contrails does not include other possible effects of aviation on cloudiness. {2.9, Figure 2.20} – Source (page 4): http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4 ... nt_SPM.pdf

Image


hanelyp
Posts: 2255
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

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

Postby hanelyp » Mon Dec 26, 2016 5:33 am

Happyjack appeals to authority, citing another propaganda piece about "radiative forcing", suggesting he doesn't understand convection and evaporation/condensation as dominant heat transfer modes in the troposphere.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 12 guests