Is it Game Over on the climate front?

[Genava]

B. W. you are a funny guy but you seem better at trolling than actually debating this kind of stuff. Your first link is not talking about performing an actual fusion with helium-3. This is only about heating the plasma. Your second link is not relevant, this is only claims. Your third link indeed confirms the difficulty, which are physical and not avoidable, to perform a helium-3 deuterium fusion.

About the MIT experiment in your first link, they used deuterium and hydrogen plasma with only traces of helium-3, this is not suitable for efficient fusion, check this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_fusion

They even said it, it wasn't their goal: "To be able to create such energetic ions in a non-activated device—not doing a huge amount of fusion—is beneficial, because we can study how ions with energies comparable to fusion reaction products behave, how well they would be confined."

Clearly, they didn't try to make an efficient fusion from this experiment. Suggesting that Helium-3 + Deuterium is better than Deuterium + Tritium while we are far from success in making the latter possible as commercial application is plain madness. The former is far much harder to perform than the latter:


As your third links said:

Helium-3 fusion is definitely a far distance away and should best be considered as a second generation fuel, something that may be exploited after current methods for confinement have been refined to the commercial reactor level. Nevertheless, helium-3’s benefits in terms of energy conversion and radioactivity are significant, and should be further explored. Clearly mining the moon is a crazy idea; however, the technology could be developed to make it a possibility. A great deal of capital would be required to get the ball rolling, but the value of helium-3 if it could be used for energy could be great enough to justify the expenditure.

You are suggesting to put the cart before the horse...

[Genava]

Moreover, I don't see why people will spent billions and billions on making a technology economically feasible only after decades of research while there is plenty enough coal, oil and natural gas on Earth:

There are an estimated 1.1 trillion tonnes of proven coal reserves worldwide. This means that there is enough coal to last us around 150 years at current rates of production.

https://www.worldcoal.org/coal/where-coal-found

Based on BP's Statistical Review of World Energy 2016, we'd have about 115 years of coal production, and roughly 50 years of both oil and natural gas remaining. Again, these figures are only useful as a static measure; they will continue to vary with time as our capacity to economically source and extract fossil fuels changes, and our levels of consumption rise or fall.

https://ourworldindata.org/how-long-...f-fossil-fuels

Plus recent discoveries: America's Oil And Gas Reserves Double With Massive New Permian Discovery
https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielco.../#11a281f92c91

The only reason to evolve our energy dependency to fossil fuels is acknowledging climate change. Nobody will spent billions and billions on a long and difficult development of new technologies while they can simply spent this money on cheap fossil fuels and getting huge short-term benefits. Neither spending billions to mine the Moon will be economically interesting in comparison of the fossil fuels market.

[Daruwind]

The only reason to evolve our energy dependency to fossil fuels is acknowledging climate change. Nobody will spent billions and billions on a long and difficult development of new technologies while they can simply spent this money on cheap fossil fuels and getting huge short-term benefits. Neither spending billions to mine the Moon will be economically interesting in comparison of the fossil fuels market.

In clearly economical aspects, fossil fuels cannot be beaten. But there are other issues that might change the equation. 1) Going space. Any large future spacecraft/space base will require nuclear/fussion power source. Fossil fues are clearly one thing that you cannot move in large enough quantities to space/different planet. Basically anything requiring organic process is harder. Nuclear and fussion requires "common" elements. Common in terms that there is more uranium than oil on mars probably 2) Fleet carries, futuristic ships with railguns/lasers. Same reason why US carriers already have nuclear power plant. They can operate independently without caring about logistic. Logistic in war is hell.. 3) Weapon industry at all. It is similar with nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors. 4) Logistic problems at all or even trade problems. Look at some EU states and dependancy on Russia gas. If country doesn´t have resource.. 5) Technolgoy research. By using high tech solutions you might discover new experience that will help you in other areas. Making the best fossil fuel power plants also require skill but you probably will not discover nothing new. Plus it is easier/cheaper to add 10-50% improvement in undeveloped areas than to add 1% in highly advanced fields.

I would say that spending billions on future possibilites has sense. It is hard to beat the fossils and their efficiency due to our excellence and experience with them however there are certain limits. Like nothing will soon beats planes however interstellar travelling? Getting things up? Sooner or later we would need new ways :-)

[Genava]

Sooner or later yes. But you are not talking about the same time scale than the climate change issue:
https://phys.org/news/2019-03-pathwa...re-action.html

In 1979, the US National Academies took position on the subject of climate change and greenhouse gases:
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12181/ca...fic-assessment

In 1986 and 1987, James Hansen spoke at the US congress about the issue.

In 1992, the Earth summit of Rio de Janeiro stressed the necessity to reduce global greenhouse emissions.

How far we solved the problem? We made it worse and we are actually making it even worser. We are late on this issue.

[Stario]

Good try, but this is a bad idea to use this kind of argument against a geochemist.

My point was C02 lags (on average), about 800 years behind temperature changes- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases.
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

[B. W.]

Here's a scientist voicing opinion about the scientific "consensus" on global warming:

http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.c...g-science.html

As far as the rest, I'm not trolling. Close basically stated that irradiation would make the reactors walls unusable in short order. MIT proved that was false. Close also said that achieving the temperatures required would not be economically feasible. That has also been proven false.

If travel throughout our solar system is to be viable, then mining the moon and developing fusion energy production is going to be a requirement. As we sit here typing on our keyboards and exchanging information across the globe, it is clear that some of us aren't familiar with a world where that once wasn't possible. It was the Apollo Program that made all the development that has ensued possible and how many people at that time thought it was just a gigantic waste of money?

For someone to argue that going to the moon and developing Helium fusion isn't worth the time or expense while at the same time calling for the economic destruction of our current systems is sadly amusing. It's a tragedy really.

[Stario]

edit:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/...n-all-records/
Furthermore, the empirical evidence shows that an increase of C02 does not cause an increase of temperature.

[Genava]

My point was C02 lags (on average), about 800 years behind temperature changes- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases.
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

At least you are admitting by ignoring my question that you posted statements without any scientific basis. But it doesn't seem to have hurt your oversized ego. You keep ignoring my message that this lag is normally expected by any scientist and that CO2 feedback is still a major explanation for previous temperature change.

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...limate-system/

By the way, there is also account of temperature lag after CO2.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/...n-all-records/
Furthermore, the empirical evidence shows that an increase of C02 does not cause an increase of temperature.

Since we are able to directly measure the CO2 increasing radiative forcing, this claim is baseless:

Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Genava]

Here's a scientist voicing opinion about the scientific "consensus" on global warming:

http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.c...g-science.html

As far as the rest, I'm not trolling. Close basically stated that irradiation would make the reactors walls unusable in short order. MIT proved that was false. Close also said that achieving the temperatures required would not be economically feasible. That has also been proven false.

If travel throughout our solar system is to be viable, then mining the moon and developing fusion energy production is going to be a requirement. As we sit here typing on our keyboards and exchanging information across the globe, it is clear that some of us aren't familiar with a world where that once wasn't possible. It was the Apollo Program that made all the development that has ensued possible and how many people at that time thought it was just a gigantic waste of money?

For someone to argue that going to the moon and developing Helium fusion isn't worth the time or expense while at the same time calling for the economic destruction of our current systems is sadly amusing. It's a tragedy really.

Aaaa Lindzen. The old climate denier and very efficient predictor (but failed climate scientist):


https://www.theguardian.com/environm...nge-scepticism

Edit: who needs to do science when you can say baseless claims to grab money from fossil fuel industries?
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...ard_S._Lindzen
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/w...ichard-lindzen
https://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen

[B. W.]

Ha! The Guardian article relies on corrupted data and, BTW, one of the links you posted is very complimentary to Lindzen. You should have read it before you posted it because it undercuts your premise that he is not credible.

I've read dozens of examples of how data was corrupted in many different ways. It seems you have a very limited reading venue.
Here's an 8 minute video that gives a few examples of how the data you're relying on here is corrupted. Do yourself a favor and watch it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBRBrI7O0LY

[Genava]

Ha! The Guardian article relies on corrupted data and, BTW, one of the links you posted is very complimentary to Lindzen. You should have read it before you posted it because it undercuts your premise that he is not credible.

You should learn a bit more about the heartland institute Credits and compliments from the worst of the humanity is maybe not something good.

I've read dozens of examples of how data was corrupted in many different ways. It seems you have a very limited reading venue.
Here's an 8 minute video that gives a few examples of how the data you're relying on here is corrupted. Do yourself a favor and watch it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBRBrI7O0LY

Another scientist from the Heartland institute. Funny because Roy Spencer is the first one to edit the graphics and the data from climate scientists to make his claims. He even got smashed for his bad modelling by retrospective analysis and comparison, showing that his model was the worst:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/ful...CH-D-16-0121.1
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/ful...I-D-13-00767.1


After correction to correction, their model is bit by bit looking the same than... the other climate scientists!

[B. W.]

Oh boy. What happens to funding when you disagree with global climate communists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOeOYlXrWlQ

[The spartan]

Why are you just linking crazy videos? Like, this is such bad faith; you are just pitching talking points.

[Genava]

Oh boy. What happens to funding when you disagree with global climate communists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOeOYlXrWlQ

But what the point of this figure:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As I said, before:

Now explain me why the president’s Science Advisory Committee supported in 1965 the scientific basis about human-induced climate change through dioxide carbon emissions.
http://www.climatefiles.com/climate-...arbon-dioxide/

Why the National Academies published "Carbon Dioxide and Climate A Scientific Assessment" in 1979?
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12181/ca...fic-assessment

Why so early then?

Why Exxon knew this was already something scientifically based in 1982?
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/...e%20Effect.pdf
http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmob...nhouse-effect/

For more details.

When it is assumed that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is doubled and statistical thermal equilibrium is achieved, the more realistic of the modeling efforts predict a global surface warming of between 2°C and 3.5°C, with greater increases at high latitudes. This range reflects both uncertainties in physical understanding and inaccuracies arising from the need to reduce the mathematical problem to one that can be handled by even the fastest available electronic computers. It is significant, however, that none of the model calculations predicts negligible warming. The primary effect of an increase of CO2 is to cause more absorption of thermal radiation from the earth's surface and thus to increase the air temperature in the troposphere. A strong positive feedback mechanism is the accompanying increase of moisture, which is an even more powerful absorber of terrestrial radiation. We have examined with care all known negative feed-back mechanisms, such as increase in low or middle cloud amount, and have concluded that the oversimplifications and inaccuracies in the models are not likely to have vitiated the principal conclusion that there will be appreciable warming. The known negative feedback mechanisms can reduce the warming, but they do not appear to be so strong as the positive moisture feedback. [...] To summarize, we have tried but have been unable to find any overlooked or underestimated physical effects that could reduce the currently estimated global warmings due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to negligible proportions or reverse them altogether.

[B. W.]

If you watched the video, it's pretty clear the red at the bottom of the chart shows over $2 billion being spent by the government on AGW research in 2009. The point of the video is that someone who told Vice President Al Gore he could not in good conscience support the government's AGW initiative.

I realize your point is that the chart does not have a stated source on it, but if you dispute its origin I'll try and find the time to source it.

[B. W.]

Darn busted edit feature. The point of the video shows that a prominent scientist who disagreed with the government's climate policy had his grant money pulled.

[Genava]

If you watched the video, it's pretty clear the red at the bottom of the chart shows over $2 billion being spent by the government on AGW research in 2009.

How is it related to my message where I am talking about sources from 1965, 1979 and 1982?

The whole point of this view, that climate scientists are building a hoax to grab money, is contradicted by older statements, supporting a strong consensus and NOT COMING FROM CLIMATE SCIENTISTS! Even Exxon acknowledged the consensus in 1982.

The guy that proved the importance of the greenhouse effect from CO2 is Gilbert Norman Plass, a physicist that worked with the industry and the army! Moreover, he did the demonstration on his free-time.

[conon394]

BW you you know actually read a scientific paper...

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1.../2/024024/meta

Wow your found one skeptic. You realize Heisenberg was a giant in the field of Physics certainly more so William Grey was in his field. Heisenberg's skepticism of the actually potential of an Atomic bomb kinda killed German ambitions in that realm. The consensus of the guys and gals now in New Mexico, Ames, Handford, Chicago, England, etc. was well right.

[conon394]

Since no edit BW you might also like this one where a group tried to replicate the prominent nay sayers nominally publish material - no dice.

https://link.springer.com/article/10...704-015-1597-5

or if reading science is hard a summary is here

https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scie...re-all-flawed/

[conon394]

Third addition Ha ha 4:50... You will get lots of funding and conferences in Cancun... Sorry man you watching a video by somebody who is not actually a scientist. Wow a conference where you are mostly tired, bored or god forbid you stuck on part of the committee running are scrambling to find money for it and probably planning the death of that one member who is not adding a double work week to keep the balls in the air. And of course Scientists are living high on the hog off those grants - err no. That would be the university administrators and presidents funded by taxing them. The simple fact is his climate denial science could not pass peer review or replication, no more than cold fusion.