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:
Name calling in the climate debate has to stop, and we have to engage seriously with each other to formulate a genuine consensus policy.
There is no debate. There is nothing at all in the science-deniers drivel to "seriously engage with" . And there is nothing to formulate.

The problem is one of education and getting rid of the social norms in America of ignorance and arrogance.

All I get from your screeds is that you are part of a cult and you do not understand water vapor.


Image


It is you who is displaying ignorance and arrogance.
‘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 »

Maui wrote:
JoeP wrote:Right, pragmatism. Its not as if we have any real choice anyway without some kind of fusion breakthrough that is rolled out in an unbelievably short time. Humanity will be consuming fossil fuels for a long time, and at an increasing rate.
From a global perspective, but that is absolutely not true from the developed world. In the U.S, coal has long since peaked and oil probably has peaked as well. Natural gas will probably continue to rise for some time, but so will renewables-- and fast. Wind, solar and batteries have consistently to decreased in cost at faster rates than expected. That doesn't mean the fossil fuel infrastructure is going to go away instantly or even in the next few decades. But it does mean the majority of new energy capacity is going to be renewables.

I think of Mars when you mention natural gas. It's largely used for heating. Yet on Mars - a far colder planet - it is entirely unavailable!
I've read that while solar power is initially really the only viable energy source on Mars, a nuclear reactor would actually be a great idea for mid-stage colonization.

I struggle to think how our homes would be heated in the cold winter on earth, without utilizing stores chemical energy, not to mention mars, which is much colder, and has none!

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:
Name calling in the climate debate has to stop, and we have to engage seriously with each other to formulate a genuine consensus policy.
There is no debate. There is nothing at all in the science-deniers drivel to "seriously engage with" . And there is nothing to formulate.

The problem is one of education and getting rid of the social norms in America of ignorance and arrogance.

All I get from your screeds is that you are part of a cult and you do not understand water vapor.


Image


It is you who is displaying ignorance and arrogance.

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

As you know from citing the research of SCIENTISTS.

Thanks for that. It's nice to establish a baseline. So you understand greenhouse gases and are aware of at least one of then, and accept the science at least when it comes to the absorption and reflection spectrum of water vapor.

Or no?

By the way, if you want to keep score, so far it's

Me: ignorance: 0, arrogance: 0
You: ignorance: 0, arrogance: 1

I feel we should add a category for irony:

Me: irony 0
You: irony 1 - for citing the work of climatologists in attempt to refute them on the very same subject
Last edited by happyjack27 on Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:43 am, edited 4 times in total.

Maui
Posts: 586
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

Post by Maui »

I'm certainly not claiming that wind, solar + batteries alone will account for all our energy needs (though I think its conceivable). Its just that by the time gas plants start to be decommissioned in large numbers we'll have something non-fossil fuel based to replace them with.

BTW, as far as feasibility of not using gas for heating on Earth, don't forget about geothermal.

Maui
Posts: 586
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

Post by Maui »

happyjack27 wrote: Me: irony 0
You: irony 1 - for citing the work of climatologists in attempt to refute them on the very same subject
What's even more ironic is that this is so fundamental that we might as well cite 19th century scientists:
Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5oC temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This research was a by-product of research of whether carbon dioxide would explain the causes of the great Ice Ages. This was not actually verified until 1987.
FWIW, I think you may have racked up an arrogance point, tho.

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 »

Maui wrote: FWIW, I think you may have racked up an arrogance point, tho.
Accepted.
I'll rack one up on myself for "general tone". Which makes us tied on everything but irony.

pbelter
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

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

Post by pbelter »

happyjack27:
I tried your experiment with the CO2 warming.
I had 2 jars one with regular air, about 400 CO2 parts per billion, and another jar with roughly billion parts per billion of CO2.
I put identical thermometers in both. Overall I tried to replicate the same setup documented here:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Why_the ... t_work.htm
and first pioneered by Al Gore and Bill Nye.
Within margin of error I could not tell the difference in the temperatures between the 2 jars.

Now could you perform the experiment I recommended where you measure temperature outdoors on midnight and then again at noon and report the results?
Any conclusions?

Maui
Posts: 586
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

Post by Maui »

Hey RERT, to establish some research as to whether it really is the pro or anti-AGW crowds that are more closed minded, as an experiment, can you show us it is possible to rationalize with pbelter?

(I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion this is the continuation of an AGW debate that has been going on in another place, eh?)

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 »

pbelter wrote:happyjack27:
I tried your experiment with the CO2 warming.
I had 2 jars one with regular air, about 400 CO2 parts per billion, and another jar with roughly billion parts per billion of CO2.
I put identical thermometers in both. Overall I tried to replicate the same setup documented here:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Why_the ... t_work.htm
and first pioneered by Al Gore and Bill Nye.
Within margin of error I could not tell the difference in the temperatures between the 2 jars.

Now could you perform the experiment I recommended where you measure temperature outdoors on midnight and then again at noon and report the results?
Any conclusions?
I need not perform such an experiment. I can tell you the conclusion just from common sense: the jar will be colder during the night than the day.


I'm sorry do you want me to patronize you? "The earth rotates about its axis with a period of about 24 Hours, and..." Is that what you want me to say? Because if I were you I'd find that insulting!


I'll spare you the insult, if it's not too late!

You thought I didn't realize water vapor was a green house gas, now you think I don't know the earth rotates?

You try my patience!
Last edited by happyjack27 on Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

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 »

So, counting... That's definitely another point arrogance you.

hanelyp
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

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

Post by hanelyp »

Members of the Climatist Cult apparently also don't understand convection, evaporation/condensation/cloud formation, or adiabatic lapse rate. IR radiation is a minor component of heat transfer through the troposphere. Cutting it to zero with oodles more "greenhouse" gases would have a relatively minor impact on total heat transfer. On top of which, when equatorial waters reach a threshold temperature warmed by the sun, cloud formation goes into overdrive, providing a convenient temperature feedback to reduce absorbed sunlight.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

pbelter
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

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

Post by pbelter »

I got a pretty thick skin and don't get insulted easily :lol:
If one wants to question established dogma one ought to be somewhat resistant to ridicule.
I was hoping you would conclude that fluctuation in Sun's radiation between day and night, cause the differences in temperatures between night and day.

My next point was going to be that it is reasonable to expect that there are other less extreme fluctuations such as the 11 year cycle.
On top of that there might be other cycles.

I want to use scientific method to get a better understanding of the world.
Every scientific hypothesis has to be falsifiable or it is not scientific.

What do you think about possibility of another Maunder minimum around 2035?
Is that to be ignored because it does not fit the model of the predicted warming? It is a way more scientific hypothesis than AGW and fully falsifiable.

The temperature measurement of 2 different gas jars where one contains several orders of magnitude of CO2 more than that claimed to cause the AGW seems like a good validation setup. If the temperatures significantly increased in the CO2 jar would that validate AGW? If so then the opposite result must lead to contrary conclusions.
There may be other factors involved so the result my not be conclusive but it is a strong indication.

Now, having people like Al Gore and Bill Nye falsifying the experiment in order to "prove" AGW means that they are not honest which implies their narrative is not to be trusted. This is a simple conclusion. If someone tries to sell you something and you catch them lying and falsifying data there is no reason to give them any credibility. Do you find my conclusions wrong? I am not being ironic here, I am really asking.
After the Climate Gate why would anyone trust people who admit to falsifying the data in email exchanges between themselves.

When you say "equating that with the overwhelming evidence that is a matter of public record - I submit that not only is that false balance, but it is just plain idiotic" this is just talk and talk is cheap.
I grew up under an economic system called "Scientific Socialism"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism
where all the "scientists" based on their study of the Theory of Evolution declared that socialism was next step in the evolution of the human race. If you were an economist and disagreed you did not get any funding.

Yet at the same time few believed it and lots of people run away to the West. At the same time nobody fled to Soviet Union.
When you want to see what people really believe in see how they behave economically.

Have you seen property prices consistently dropping in coastal areas? They don't because nobody take it seriously, even people who say they do.

My point is not that the AGW hypothesis is false, which more appropriate to the General forum, but that few take it seriously unless they have a personal gain, and therefore there will be no fusion research funding coming from that corner.

My hypothesis is fully falsifiable. If there is a significant fusion research funding from the AGW crowd before fusion is just short term economic investment then I am wrong. And that is of course what I would be hoping for if the evidence did not point to the contrary.

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 »

paperburn1 wrote:Bill gates did meet with some polywell guys a while back ; but by the end of next year Elon Musk will be solving the power problem "FOR the WORLD because he will have finished his second solar cell plant and that can account for 2 percent of the production needed to make the WORLD solar powered. (I haven't decided if he is a Superhero Or a Supervillain yet But I have found his Island Lair.)
That's what I suspected. Apparently they really do believe that piddle-power schemes can generate the terrawatts of power 24/7 365 days per years. I think we can write this venture fund off as a source of funding for polywell and other fusion concepts. What about the Koreans? I heard there was some interest on the part of Koreans in financing polywell. Any news on this?

Bill Gates did a good job in building Microsoft in the 80's and 90's. But he seems to have lost his mojo in the past 10 years or so.
Last edited by kurt9 on Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 »

This has devolved from humorous in its idiocy to just plain word soup. The science-denial idiocy was never deserving of a response but at least it was amusing. Now it is not even that.

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 »

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.

Post Reply