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

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 » Mon Dec 26, 2016 2:31 pm

ladajo wrote:Producing power has not traditionally been the issue. It is distribution that has been a bitch (and energy eater).

Agreed 100 percent
Providing distributed storage and other methods of transport will eat up twice the amount of the panels cost. There is no good reason not to distribute the panels world wide. But is could turn the desert into the next fuel resource of the world using the Sabatier reaction or Sabatier process. We will still need nuclear fuel and ground oil for those energy dence process and city states of the future.
and a good fusion reactor still would be nice and the icing on the cake.
Not to mention we have one of the worlds largest geothermal source , and we could tap that and solve our problems
War for oil rights is now starting to get ridiculous at best . Musk gigafactory is a step in the right direction and if every first world country built one our energy needs would be solved. https://www.tesla.com/gigafactory
Last edited by paperburn1 on Mon Dec 26, 2016 2:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

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 2:44 pm

hanelyp wrote: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.


I don't think any climatologists understand convection and evaporation/condensation, which i, for one, learned in middle school. (but of course no climatologists went to middle school.)

Maybe you should write a paper enlightening them and submit it to a scientific journal.

Also, the good think about science is you don't need to trust an authority - you can reproduce the experiments yourself.

which you are welcome to do. if you find out that you get totally different results - submit that do a scientific journal, they will eat it up.

oh i forget, science is propaganda.
Last edited by happyjack27 on Mon Dec 26, 2016 6:50 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 » Mon Dec 26, 2016 2:54 pm

hanelyp wrote: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.


hanelyp, in your (apparently) infinite wisdom, can you tell me what are the different energy INPUTS and OUTPUTS to the biosphere, and what are the primary things that have a long term effect on these rates?
(hint: NOT convection and evaporation/condensation - space doesn't have atmosphere or water vapor.)

in other words, what factors change the amout of heat capacity of the planet & atmosphere, and the rate at which that battery is charged and/or discharged?

-- a simpler question:

if i have an apple in my left hand, and an apple in my right, and i can swap them, does that prove that it's impossible for me to drop an apple, or pick a third one?

-- another simple question:

do you understand that convection and evaporation/condensation do NOT change the average temperature?

in order for the internal energy to change, energy has to enter or leave the system.
Last edited by happyjack27 on Mon Dec 26, 2016 7:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Mon Dec 26, 2016 3:30 pm

paperburn1 wrote:
ladajo wrote:Producing power has not traditionally been the issue. It is distribution that has been a bitch (and energy eater).

Agreed 100 percent
Providing distributed storage and other methods of transport will eat up twice the amount of the panels cost. There is no good reason not to distribute the panels world wide. But is could turn the desert into the next fuel resource of the world using the Sabatier reaction or Sabatier process. We will still need nuclear fuel and ground oil for those energy dence process and city states of the future.
and a good fusion reactor still would be nice and the icing on the cake.
Not to mention we have one of the worlds largest geothermal source , and we could tap that and solve our problems
War for oil rights is now starting to get ridiculous at best . Musk gigafactory is a step in the right direction and if every first world country built one our energy needs would be solved. https://www.tesla.com/gigafactory


I gir one am a fan of distributed power approaches. I think we should be chasing small scale fission, as well as distributed solar, and wind. I do not think there is one answer, it will be a combination of answers. These are things we can do now, while we figure out fusion.
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)

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 » Mon Dec 26, 2016 3:44 pm

Do CO2 not have any other polluting effects? What about the other stuff that is released by combustible fuel?

Keep in mind, the same people that denies AGW are the same people that think our general pollution is okay and EPA is over stepping (Even if EPA is overstepping and hindering CAPTAINS OF INDUSTRY FROM BRINGING PARADISE, wouldnt you want to work with EPA to bring about the proper regulation to keep pollution from happening?)

People care about money, and solar is gonna be extremely competitive, cheaper than oil in the future.
Throwing my life away for this whole Fusion mess.

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 » Mon Dec 26, 2016 3:52 pm

http://carbonrecycling.is/george-olah/2 ... anol-plant


Got to love those icelanders even if you can't understand them.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

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 4:19 pm

Robthebob wrote:Do CO2 not have any other polluting effects? What about the other stuff that is released by combustible fuel?

Keep in mind, the same people that denies AGW are the same people that think our general pollution is okay ...

And so the AGW propaganda goes, with a general slander. NOx, SO2, soot, and incompletely combusted hydrocarbons out the exhaust pipe are pollution. And modern engines used in the West do a good job of controlling those emissions. CO2, even at multiples of current levels, is plant food.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

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 5:03 pm

hanelyp wrote:
Robthebob wrote:Do CO2 not have any other polluting effects? What about the other stuff that is released by combustible fuel?

Keep in mind, the same people that denies AGW are the same people that think our general pollution is okay ...

And so the AGW propaganda goes, with a general slander. NOx, SO2, soot, and incompletely combusted hydrocarbons out the exhaust pipe are pollution. And modern engines used in the West do a good job of controlling those emissions. CO2, even at multiples of current levels, is plant food.


other than it being a greenhouse gas, a basic concept which hanelyp is apparently incapable of understanding.

CO2 as a Pollutant

"CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is as necessary for life - just as oxygen and nitrogen are. It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless. It is in no way a pollutant."

They key to qualifying as a "pollutant" is whether it poses a threat to public health and welfare. CO2 clearly creates this threat through climate change, and thus qualifies as a pollutant. The fact that CO2 is colorless, tasteless, and odorless is completely irrelevant. The argument that CO2 is necessary for life, implying that it therefore can never cause harm, is nonsense. Water is equally necessary for life, but too much of it can be fatal.

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 » Mon Dec 26, 2016 6:04 pm

ladajo wrote:I gir one am a fan of distributed power approaches. I think we should be chasing small scale fission, as well as distributed solar, and wind. I do not think there is one answer, it will be a combination of answers. These are things we can do now, while we figure out fusion.

Yes. Ladajo 4 prez.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

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

Postby Diogenes » Tue Dec 27, 2016 12:22 am

happyjack27 wrote:
Image


Image

Image


Image






Image


Image

Image


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 —

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 » Tue Dec 27, 2016 12:47 am

Diogenes wrote:
happyjack27 wrote:
Image


Image

Image


Image






Image


Image

Image


Image


Not sure why you're posting random pictures.

Anyone can post random pictures.

Are you trying to make a point that anyone can post random pictures?

Everyone knows that.

Are you saying you're having a hard time understanding the explanations?

What part or parts are you struggling with?

The images are visual representations of data collected by various instruments around the globe.

I can give you a link to some of the research papers and what not if that'd help. it'd only be a small sample, of course, as those graphs are summarizing TONS of data and research, from multiple streams of evidence.

Whatever the case, not sure what you're asking. Posting a bunch of random pictures doesn't really convey a lot of information.

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 » Tue Dec 27, 2016 1:03 am

Happyjack, Diogenes is saying that you're citing religious texts. And I agree with him on that.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

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 » Tue Dec 27, 2016 1:15 am

hanelyp wrote:Happyjack, Diogenes is saying that you're citing religious texts. And I agree with him on that.


i don't recall citing any religious texts. can you show me where i did?

i've been citing scientific studies well-backed by research and evidence. All which are reproducible and falsifiable.

To better understand how science differs from religion (and more generally, non-science), you can read up on what's called "the demarcation problem".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem

See for example Popper's demarcation criterion:
Falsifiability is the demarcation criterion proposed by Karl Popper as opposed to verificationism: "statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations".[14] Popper saw demarcation as a central problem in the philosophy of science. Unlike the Vienna Circle, Popper stated that his proposal was not a criterion of "meaningfulness".

Popper's demarcation criterion has been criticized both for excluding legitimate science… and for giving some pseudosciences the status of being scientific… According to Larry Laudan (1983, 121), it "has the untoward consequence of countenancing as 'scientific' every crank claim which makes ascertainably false assertions". Astrology, rightly taken by Popper as an unusually clear example of a pseudoscience, has in fact been tested and thoroughly refuted… Similarly, the major threats to the scientific status of psychoanalysis, another of his major targets, do not come from claims that it is untestable but from claims that it has been tested and failed the tests.[14]

— Sven Ove Hansson, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Science and Pseudo-Science"
In Popper's later work, he stated that falsifiability is both a necessary and a sufficient criterion for demarcation. He described falsifiability as a property of "the logical structure of sentences and classes of sentences," so that a statement's scientific or non-scientific status does not change over time. This has been summarized as a statement being falsifiable "if and only if it logically contradicts some (empirical) sentence that describes a logically possible event that it would be logically possible to observe."[14]/quote]

--From wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcati ... ifiability

As I said, the images are visual representations of data collected by various instruments around the globe. As such, they clearly are "capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations".


For more on what differentiates science from religion, if you enjoy short videos (i do!), i highly recommend Feynamn explaining the scientific method:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw


As i've mentioned many times now, if you think any of the research or data is wrong, you are welcome to do your own empirical research and submit it for review. (The research and data that these images summarize are "capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations".)

i'd give you some papers but like i said there are millions, and new studies and measurements and what not are constantly being done. the articles i've linked to provide a decent starting point, though.

(EDITS: made a couple of edits...)

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 » Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:06 am

hanelyp & Diogenes:

here's an excerpt from karl popper's "conjectures and refutations", read out loud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztmvtKLuR7I

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 » Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:11 am

For me, the very best experimental research would be to try growing the very same crops in the very same northernmost places as during the MWP, using the same technology of that time frame.
CHoff


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests