Heat - Thermal Pollution

If polywell fusion is developed, in what ways will the world change for better or worse? Discuss.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
JohnP
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:29 am
Location: Chicago

Heat - Thermal Pollution

Post by JohnP »

Supposing polywell works and is cheap to build. Everyone will want one. Regardless of how electricity is generated (steam or electrostatic recovery) all that power will eventually end up as heat. Might global warming continue via this new heat producer instead of CO2 buildup? Are there economic forces (cost of generation, distribution, etc) that would limit the number of polywells kicking out heat?

tonybarry
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:32 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by tonybarry »

I think that the amount of influence humans have on the environment is small compared with a decent volcano or earthquake.

We may have some influence on algal blooms, which could indirectly alter the amount of insolation we receive.

We should moderate the impact we make on our planet, because it ain't good to poo in our own nest ... but I think it's hubris to imagine we can compete with a near earth orbit asteroid or solar phenomena.

Regards,
Tony Barry

Nanos
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Treasure Island

Post by Nanos »

I'm of a similar mindset, though living in London I do notice the +2c tempreature difference due entirely from what I understand is the human element. (And duely suffer each summer needing 3 x AC units to even get the temp down to 40c here due to my neighbours love of having the heating on 24/7 and the local govenment insistance on improved insulation for us 'poor' people..)

JoeStrout
Site Admin
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:40 pm
Location: Fort Collins, CO, USA
Contact:

Post by JoeStrout »

I think the evidence that humans are having a significant impact on global climate (not to mention ecology) is overwhelming. However, this is mainly through greenhouse gasses (and when it comes to ecology, through other forms of pollution, overharvesting, and habitat destruction).

Affecting the heat balance of the Earth through the addition of actual heat from fusion seems unlikely. The amount of energy we release, even in reasonably extreme scenarios, will be minor compared the the energy we receive from insolation. The problem of global warming is that we're mucking with the balance point of insolation vs. radiation.
Joe Strout
Talk-Polywell.org site administrator

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

The Atmosphere Is A Heat Pipe

Post by MSimon »

The earth is not a green house (circulation limited by a material barrier).

It is a heat pipe (energy transfer through evaporation condensation).

The heat pipe stuff (very important - perhaps determining) is poorly modeled. A fact the climate scientists readily admit. They don't even know the sign of the cloud term let alone the magnitude. Which they readily admit.

How can you know anything when one of the most important aspects of the model is poorly done?

BTW AGW is all model based. There are limited first principles included and the rest due to limitations of computer power or understanding are parameterized.

Belief in the models is more a religious phenomenon than a scientific one.

Then there is the "divergence" problem. The models and reality have been diverging for the last 10 to 20 years. This is commonly thought to be a problem with reality as the models are fine.

Nanos
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Treasure Island

Post by Nanos »

Somewhat tounge in cheek the other day I posted on a green forum about how they must have been having the same argument about global warming during the end of the last ice age, but I'm not sure anyone there understood what I was trying to get at.

tonybarry
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:32 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by tonybarry »

If the data does not fit the model, then the model needs fixing. If anthropogenic global warming is happening, there will be evidence for it. TheJames Randi Educational Forum has an ongoing thread on the subject (be warned; it gets feisty at times).

The thread quotes this pdf by Armstrong et al:-
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Pu ... udit31.pdf
which I extract from below:-
We conducted an audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of the total of 140 principles. The forecasting procedures that were used violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.

Regards,
Tony Barry

dch24
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:43 pm

Post by dch24 »

tonybarry wrote:We conducted an audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of the total of 140 principles. The forecasting procedures that were used violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.
Which means we will soon desperately need home polywell fusion generators to heat our homes, as a new ice age descends. :lol:

JoeStrout
Site Admin
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:40 pm
Location: Fort Collins, CO, USA
Contact:

Post by JoeStrout »

Wow, there is a lot of nonsense in this thread, and the scary thing is that otherwise very intelligent and reasonable people can be duped by it. It's just like the evolution vs. creationism debate; the creationists have their "scientists" who sound just as plausible and credentialled, to lay people, as the real scientists. So they're left with the false impression that there is some controversy in the scientific community about the basic facts, when there is not.

Climate science is in the same unfortunate situation today; right-wing political machines have so successfully manipulated political opinion, trotting out plausible-sounding "scientists" and blowing minor controversies way out of proportion, that lay people don't know whom to believe. Yet if you're actually involved in the community (even insofar as reading, say, Science on a regular basis), you know that the basic facts are not in dispute (among real climate scientists), because the evidence for them is overwhelming.

In my own native field, neuroscience, there have been a few minor such skirmishes with nonsense — like Roger Penrose attempting to keep consciousness mysterious by invoking quantum effects in the microtubules — but these have thankfully gone unnoticed by the general public, so scientists can ignore the kooks in peace and get on with their work. But once politics or religion gets involved, and starts seriously pushing the kookiness onto the public, then scientists are forced to go onto the defensive, trying to explain on 10-second sound-bites why firm theories based on years of study of real evidence and theory outweighs the nuttiness pushed by political agendas. But of course, you can't explain anything in 10-second sound bites, and meanwhile the nuts are pushing their own sound bites even more aggressively, so people believe it.

It's sad... but I believe that eventually, the truth comes out, no matter how firmly it is opposed. Evolution is generally accepted now, even by most churches, and even the Bush Administration has finally given up denying global warming. There are still pockets of staunch creationists, and staunch AGW deniers, but on the whole science eventually wins.

Best,
— Joe

P.S. In a dogged attempt to drag this back to relevancy for this forum: by the same principle, if polywell fusion works, we can expect it to be developed eventually, despite apathy or even opposition by the entrenched tokamak community.
Joe Strout
Talk-Polywell.org site administrator

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Joe,

It is not politics. It is science.

I will gladly accept AGW models if you can tell me the sign of cloud feedback. Not even the magnitude. Just the sign.

It can't be done because there is no agreement on it.

Now are clouds a right wing phenomenon?

Who knew?

tonybarry
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:32 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by tonybarry »

Hello Joe,
I am a regular reader of NewScientist, and such journals as they report on and I am interested in.
I am not however a creationist, although I have a few religious convictions.
I believe in the scientific method because it has gotten us much farther than any religion has ever done.
For that reason, I believe in evidence which is either repeatably demonstrable or attested to by witnesses and documented fairly.
I will believe in anthropogenic global warming if I can find evidence for it.
I think that an "overwhelming consensus of scientists" is good support, but I owe it to myself to be influenced by evidence rather than opinion, where I can understand such evidence.
And what I read right now, is that the modelling of climate is still not well done, and needs further work to be predictive.
I believe that we *should* reduce our "footprint" on this earth, and so I support green projects where I am able. But I do this on a philosophical basis.
I hope that, despite my obstinacy, you will continue to post your thoughts to the forum. I value your input, even where it may not correspond with my own.
And - like you - I hope we can continue to improve the Bussard polywell's chances of being built. If it works it will provide a great way out of this current polluting system we have grown up with.

Regards,
Tony Barry

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Joe,

The IPCC is still using Mann's hockey stick graph despite its being refuted acceptably by an IPCC scientists (Wegman).

The IPCC accepted the refutation as valid and still uses the graph.

Is that how science normally operates?

BTW could you tell me if Wegman is a right winger? I won't accept his criticism of Mann if he is.

In fact please tell me all the people I should ignore based on their politics. That would simplify science considerably.

Also is it safe to get on airplanes and fly? In my aerospace engineering experience something like 60% to 80% of the engineers were right wingers. Strong military type guys. Is it safe to trust them?

==========

As to The Bussard Fusion Reactor. My view of that is just as evidence based as my view of climate science.

I started out as an enthusiastic sceptic. I thought it had promise, but I was doubtful of the science. My initial estimate of the probability of Dr. B being correct were in the 1% to 5% range. As I learned more of the science and the results of various lab experiments my confidence has gone up. I'm now at around 80% to 90% probability that the physics is essentially correct and that a power producing device can be built.

My estimates of the tokamak have gone in the other direction. I give it these days a 50% chance of making more power than it uses. It give it less than 1% chance of ever being commercially successful.

Now this particular leopard doesn't change its spots. I use the same method for evaluating climate science as I do fusion science.

My conclusions may be right or wrong, but I am not significantly influenced by politics. I do admit having a jaundiced eye for socialists (my engineering studies required a detour through economics) - and yet Lumborg is a socialist and I agree with him on his major points:

1. The data record has problems
2. The computer models have problems
3. There are better things to spend the money on - I wonder if he has heard of the Bussard Reactor?

====

The heart of science is data and the effort to make useful predictions from the data. You make measurements and try to see if there is a rule connecting them.

I don't care who takes the measurements as long as I can follow the data from its inception through the various manipulations and signal extractors to see if the conclusion is valid.

We see it all the time that a belief in a certain theory biases results. There is no way out of this except to have proponents of all theories have at each other. Continuously. The science is never settled. Ever. Ever. Ever.

If there was nobody sniping at the Bussard Fusion Reactor I'd feel that it was trivial. Not worth pursuing. Rider has done us a great service. Monkton - who is not of the Dr. B religion (respectful but not a believer) - refuted him handily.

We have together amassed quite a body of literature supporting our understanding and extending it. I look forward to sniping. I LOVE peer reviews (or as we call them in places where getting it right matters - design reviews) giving or receiving.

There are two critical differences in a design review. Any one can comment - even the dept secretary, if there is an issue that s/he wants to bring up. Second, all objections must be answered thoroughly.

Peer review is (as admitted by peer reviewers) a once over lightly in the vast majority of the cases.

===========

I note that the IPCC has no panel of statisticians to review the statistical work that goes into the studies it uses. It uses the peer review method of checking papers. I'd like to see them design reviewed. Or in commoner terms an engineering audit. The Climate Audit guys have the right idea. Pick it apart starting with the data. Then methods. Then conclusions.

Most engineers I know who have taken a serious look at the state of what passes for climate science feel it could not pass a design review.

Start with the data and methodically work your way forward to conclusions.

And encourage sniping. Giving and receiving.

Competition improves the breed.

=====

You know something is political/religious when dissent is not tolerated. When dissenters are not reasoned with but denounced.

=====

Did I mention there are no solar scientists on the IPCC roster? Did you know the sunspot number is still zero?

Some solar scientists believe we are headed for a Dalton type minimum. Another little ice age.

Global temperatures have flatlined since about '99. Is this a temporary stall (not predicted by the models) or an inflection point?

=====

It is much too soon to say the science is settled. Much too soon.

And I would say the same about the Bussard Reactor. There are some experiments I'd like to do.........

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Reviewing The Designers

Post by MSimon »

In the software business (as in hardware) it is gospel that the build team are builders and the audit team are breakers.

Rare is the engineer who enjoys breaking his own stuff (the focus is on making it work) as much as s/he enjoys making it. The best engineers focus as much effort on failure modes as they do on making it work. This is rare.

So part of doing it right is to have antagonistic reviewers.

Climate science - if it was real science - would welcome them.

Nuke plant operators, military eqpt. designers, and aerospace engineers spend most of their time making things break, understanding the consequences of failure, and investigating failures. So I am fortunate to have had a triple dose.

I still miss things. Which is why I LOVE reviews. The tougher the better. They make me a better engineer.

===

In climate science there doesn't seem to be much difference between the scientists and the reviewers. We look askance at auditors who are not independent. Why not the same attitude to climate science?

Post Reply