Talk-Polywell.org

Jeeze. More crap. What kind of wave would give us x hottest years recently in the last 134 years? A sine wave about to start declining.

Now what may help you along is that we have had at least 14 years with rising CO2 and no temperature rise. In fact the last 6 or so years are showing a very slight decline. Before adjustments.

BTW 1934 used to be the hottest year - before adjustments.

The US government spends about $2 bn a year to get the answers it wants on global warming. Think of how far that would go if spent on Polywell.

I'm going to quit now before I waste any more time.

MSimon wrote:I'm getting crotchety in my old age. I object to people who object to plant food. I like plants.

Do you have any idea what the minimum amount of plant food in the atmosphere should be?

Below 100 PPM the plants suffer
Maximum levels for growth are about 1000-1200 PPM
Plants will grow in much higher levels
Plants will suffer no ill effects at 150-200 and start normal growth cycles at that point.
Normal levels in you home range from 500 to 1000 PPM
There is some sort of feedback mechanic that keep co2 from going below 200 ppm in the wild
I had a greenhouse.

paperburn1 wrote:

MSimon wrote:I'm getting crotchety in my old age. I object to people who object to plant food. I like plants.

Do you have any idea what the minimum amount of plant food in the atmosphere should be?

Below 100 PPM the plants suffer
Maximum levels for growth are about 1000-1200 PPM
Plants will grow in much higher levels
Plants will suffer no ill effects at 150-200 and start normal growth cycles at that point.
Normal levels in you home range from 500 to 1000 PPM
There is some sort of feedback mechanic that keep co2 from going below 200 ppm in the wild
:lol: I had a greenhouse.

I believe it depends on the kind of plant. Some of them require about 250 ppm. But all plants do better at higher ppms. people that do illegal indoor farming say that 1,000 to 1,500 ppm is good.

But you may be correct - I'm not that up on the minimums. I got my information from climate blogs. Mostly.

MSimon wrote:

classicpenny wrote: Go to aneutronics.org and download "Aneutronics: to Slow the Rising Tide". Turn to Chapter 2. Carefully study each graph in sequence. Read the Chapter.

Ya know I object to...the very first page...
Analysis: Solar activity & ocean cycles are the 2 primary drivers of climate, not CO2
Read the analysis - it is not very long.

I didn't mention the first page. I said "Turn to Chapter 2"... where you will find Hockeyschtick's solar activity and ocean cycles are supported and addressed. Problem is, there has been a recent anomalous divergence in the data. "Study each Chapter 2 graph in sequence."

MSimon wrote:The US government spends about $2 bn a year to get the answers it wants on global warming. Think of how far that would go if spent on Polywell.

Point well taken; and they waste WAY more than $2 bn a year on various approaches to the alleged mitigation of global warming - approaches which are either ineffective or outrageously expensive - and yes, I do think how far that would go if spent on Polywell. I suspect our only real difference here is our sense of the degree of urgency in getting the Polywell operational.

classicpenny wrote:

MSimon wrote:

classicpenny wrote: Go to aneutronics.org and download "Aneutronics: to Slow the Rising Tide". Turn to Chapter 2. Carefully study each graph in sequence. Read the Chapter.

Ya know I object to...the very first page...
Analysis: Solar activity & ocean cycles are the 2 primary drivers of climate, not CO2
Read the analysis - it is not very long.

I didn't mention the first page. I said "Turn to Chapter 2"... where you will find Hockeyschtick's solar activity and ocean cycles are supported and addressed. Problem is, there has been a recent anomalous divergence in the data. "Study each Chapter 2 graph in sequence."

It turns out I had read most of Chapter 2 by accident. And my conclusion is still the same. CO2 has about zero effect on climate. And if it has any - for the next 50 or 80 years you will be glad of it because we are headed into a little ice age because of the quiet sun. We are going into a Dalton or Maunder minimum type climate. Cheap abundant energy will come in very handy.

Check out the work of solar scientist Habibullo Abdussamatov.

I think it makes sense to get off fossil fuels. But tying the reasons to CO2/global warming is not one of them. To me your book, well done though it is, already looks quaint. Within 3 or 4 years it is going to look quaint to a lot more people. Good sales tools should stick with facts that are not as variable as climate.

That we will run out of fossil fuels eventually is indisputable. That we need better rockets is indisputable.

So what about all the "evidence" ? It has been doctored and the best the doctors could do was to keep "global" temperatures flatlined for the last 14 or 17 years - depending on how you count. In the next 2 to 4 years the "global" temps are going to crash so precipitously that not even the doctors can fix the data.

The NH jet stream has wandered significantly south in both the US and Russia this week. That is rather unusual for summer. IMO that is a harbinger of things to come. It looks to me like the jet stream location is a rough indicator of planetary energy balance. If it moves north in the NH the planetary energy is increasing. South and the energy is decreasing. The twitch we saw last winter was just the beginning.

You might want to consider how you would re-write your book for a little ice age.

Dr. Park is giving another seminar, but this time at the University of Maryland on September 9th:

Physics Colloquium
Speaker Name: Jaeyoung Park

Speaker Institution: E=mc2

Title: Measurement of Enhanced Confinement at High Pressure Magnetic Cusp System

Abstract: 56 years ago, Harold Grad and his team at New Your University conjectured (and to some extent calculated) that the confinement properties of a magnetic cusp would be dramatically improved if the confined plasma had sufficiently high pressure to exclude the B-field from the interior. We have carried out an experiment that demonstrates, for the first time, that this effect is real. This has dramatic implications for the future of cusp confined fusion.
When: Tue, September 9, 2014 - 4:00pm
Where: Lobby of the Physical Sciences Complex

http://umdphysics.umd.edu/index.php/eve ... inars.html

MSimon wrote:

paperburn1 wrote:

MSimon wrote:I'm getting crotchety in my old age. I object to people who object to plant food. I like plants.

Do you have any idea what the minimum amount of plant food in the atmosphere should be?

Below 100 PPM the plants suffer
Maximum levels for growth are about 1000-1200 PPM
Plants will grow in much higher levels
Plants will suffer no ill effects at 150-200 and start normal growth cycles at that point.
Normal levels in you home range from 500 to 1000 PPM
There is some sort of feedback mechanic that keep co2 from going below 200 ppm in the wild
I had a greenhouse.

I believe it depends on the kind of plant. Some of them require about 250 ppm. But all plants do better at higher ppms. people that do illegal indoor farming say that 1,000 to 1,500 ppm is good.

But you may be correct - I'm not that up on the minimums. I got my information from climate blogs. Mostly.

An obvious reason to curb our use of CO2 is the effect it will have on our grandchildren's air quality. By 2050 the world population is projected to be 9.6 billion - if they all aspire to a lifestyle achieved by generating CO2, then world levels will easily exceed the optimum for plant growth. That gets unpleasant:

https://www.kane.co.uk/knowledge-centre ... 2-in-rooms

Playing the "what if" game here I see. If we do the "what if" game isn't there worse things to imagine to entertain ourselves? What fun!

What if a super volcano erupted? What if a 1km meteor struck the earth? What if a virus mutated into a deadly airborne pathogen? What if a super solar flare destroyed all the electronics and put us back into the dark ages? What if there was an alien invasion? What if artificial intelligence science produced a..... Oh, gosh, how will I sleep now just imagining all these disasters?!

What we need is one ring to rule them all and prevent all these possibilities? Oh, wait, that is another thing to worry about...

Or we could take these chicken little imaginings to "General?" Oh, wait, they are already there!

Today emissions are 35 bn tonnes CO2. That's from roughly 2bn industrialized inhabitants. So suppose 10bn people emit 5 times that. At the moment CO2 is rising about 2.8 ppm per year. In the worst case scenario, it would be rising at 14 ppm per year. It would rise linearly, because CO2 per head has been flat for decades in the west. So even if I could wave a magic wand and fill the world with 10 bn rich people (Hurray!) today, CO2 would be a little more than 900 ppm by 2050. And that is an absolutely insanely 'pessimistic' scenario, calling for a miracle of development instantly. At current rates of growth it will take 100 years for CO2 to double to 800. And since the biosphere has survived levels in the thousands, there is no cause for concern for the planet.

RERT wrote:Today emissions are 35 bn tonnes CO2. That's from roughly 2bn industrialized inhabitants. So suppose 10bn people emit 5 times that. At the moment CO2 is rising about 2.8 ppm per year. In the worst case scenario, it would be rising at 14 ppm per year. It would rise linearly, because CO2 per head has been flat for decades in the west. So even if I could wave a magic wand and fill the world with 10 bn rich people (Hurray!) today, CO2 would be a little more than 900 ppm by 2050. And that is an absolutely insanely 'pessimistic' scenario, calling for a miracle of development instantly. At current rates of growth it will take 100 years for CO2 to double to 800. And since the biosphere has survived levels in the thousands, there is no cause for concern for the planet.

That is absolutely true. But the planet can survive many things - including catastrophic mega-volcanoes and meteorites that suddenly alter climate.

Our technological civilisation may survive as well, but at what (financial) cost in terms of major city and agriculture relocation? We do not know, and the argument above in no way clarifies the matter.

I will just make my own forest
http://www.cnet.com/news/this-man-made- ... ce-travel/

tomclarke wrote:

RERT wrote:Today emissions are 35 bn tonnes CO2. That's from roughly 2bn industrialized inhabitants. So suppose 10bn people emit 5 times that. At the moment CO2 is rising about 2.8 ppm per year. In the worst case scenario, it would be rising at 14 ppm per year. It would rise linearly, because CO2 per head has been flat for decades in the west. So even if I could wave a magic wand and fill the world with 10 bn rich people (Hurray!) today, CO2 would be a little more than 900 ppm by 2050. And that is an absolutely insanely 'pessimistic' scenario, calling for a miracle of development instantly. At current rates of growth it will take 100 years for CO2 to double to 800. And since the biosphere has survived levels in the thousands, there is no cause for concern for the planet.

That is absolutely true. But the planet can survive many things - including catastrophic mega-volcanoes and meteorites that suddenly alter climate.

Our technological civilisation may survive as well, but at what (financial) cost in terms of major city and agriculture relocation? We do not know, and the argument above in no way clarifies the matter.

With the present level of atmospheric CO2 at about 400 ppm, normal indoor concentrations are in the 500 ppm to 1,000 ppm range. If the atmospheric level rises to 800 ppm, to use RERT's figure, then normal indoor concentrations will be in the 900 ppm to 1,400 ppm range - which is already becoming uncomfortable.

Use more indoor plants if you are worried about indoor CO2.

I prefer to worry about a rapid ice age glaciation event. You go ahead and worry about CO2, worry is fun. I'll imagine my own disaster scenario to entertain myself. Someone else will have a different epic disaster preference.

But why is it again that this is still being pursued here as this is more appropriate to be discussed in general?

alexjrgreen wrote:But why is it again that this is still being pursued here as this is more appropriate to be discussed in general?

I'm sure msimon will move it if he sees fit. CO2 is in the news this week:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/ ... JW20140821
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... s-CO2.html

If polywell becomes successful it will significantly lower our CO2 output.