re: Bill Gates: Why I’m investing $1 billion into clean energy

quote:

---

We are decades away from anything resembling affordable clean energy.

---

Nuclear power. Its super efficient, clean, and yes, very safe.

Did that dude use C°?

I will never trust someone who lectures me on America while using the metric system.

quote:

---

He can give everybody in the country 5 million and it wouldn't even be 1/70 of what he has

---

Please tell me you're joking. Otherwise, the state of math education in this country truly saddens me.

For the record, $5,000,000 x 320,000,000 (population)= $1,085,000,000,000,000 (approx. $1.1 quadrillion dollars).

quote:

---

Don't tell that to all the far right wing bomb throwers on the poli board - they'll insist that Gates is "naive" and a "liberal puppet"

---

This right wing bomb thrower is all for private investors working on clean energy. That is the best way to do it.

Heres to you, Bill Gates. Poo water for everyone.

because there is only so much blow a person can do

quote:

---

Answer: He needs the write off. Taxes are a bitch.

---

You can say that about most of the incredibly rich, but Bill Gates is pretty committed to using his money to make the world a better place.

I love how renewable, clean energy is seen as such a "liberal" thing. We need to lessen our dependence on oil regardless of what you believe about climate change. Sure, we'll need it for plastic and other stuff, but the more of the air pollution we take out of the equation the better. Just because Al Gore mentioned it doesn't make trying to do better for the sake of the planet a terrible thing.

Prove that there has been warming the last 15 years. Second this is how clean energy should move forward...by the private sector not by the government which is usually just given to their buddies.

quote:

---

Everyone here should be fine with him investing his own money.

---

absolutely

it will create some jobs too

my prediction is that this enterprise won't find the energy panacea it is looking for,
but it may well stumble upon other worthy discoveries along the way

That site seems to be very against global warming with a recent article championing someone battling "warmists". That is hardly an unbiased source. The Earth is almost certainly warming, but the debate is whether or not we are responsible for this or whether or not we're dramatically accelerating the process. I'm not some global warming activists, but I think it's a topic easily dismissed by people who are accepting arguments from sources who are not qualified to make said arguments using faulty science to support them. Some mentioned "bad science" earlier, but most disputes to the issue of global warming are riddled with bad science. Any argument that is centered around whether or not warming is occurring is frankly a joke. Warming is taking place, and the only true dispute is what our contribution to this event is and what the consequences could be.

First of all, measuring surface air temperature is not some smoking gun, and it ignores the amount of heat absorbed by the ocean, which conveniently leaves out more than 95% of warming on the planet. This is called coverage bias. In fact, trusted data sets show a 0.2°C shift upwards in global surface air temperatures, which alone indicates the Earth is warming slightly regardless of whether it is a result of natural or man-made cause. Not to mention, the chart on that site includes the El Niño events, which creates a smokescreen for what is clearly a gradual increase in temperature. This is just using the most basic, untrusted metric possible that you have chosen as the basis for your argument.

First of all, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is dramatically higher than it was only 50-60 years ago, and far beyond the amount ever in recorded history. Models estimate that the current levels (~400 ppm) are up to 33% higher than the highest estimates dating back up to 500,000 years. Now, 0.2°C increases just in surface air temperature seem like very little, but it's almost universally accepted that an increase of 2°C would be very dangerous. With so much ignored in measuring surface temps alone, climate sensitivity has been used to more accurately get a look at the "bigger picture" in terms of climate change. Using models of past events, it is estimated that a doubling of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere can lead to an increase between 1.5 and 4.5°C. Current models estimate that without any changes we could easily eclipse 900 ppm by 2100, and even if we avoid that fate, we're still in for a rise as low at 1.5°C up to a terrifying 7°C by 2100. Let's not forget that there are many, many other factors in "global warming".

Also, let's not forget about things like increases in ocean temperature, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, shrinking ice sheets and snow cover, and declining arctic ice. All of these things point to a gradual warming event. This is not something taking place over 20 years, but instead, it's something taking place over the past 100 years.

It is possible that this sort of thing is an event that takes place naturally. The problem is that our contribution to the increased level of Carbon Dioxide is damn near completely quantifiable. It is, again, generally accepted that current models are accurate in terms of the comparisons between current data and historical estimates. We are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at an alarming rate.

None of this "proves" that global warming exists, but it is considered basic knowledge that the Earth is indeed warming. We also have an idea of what natural increases of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere can lead to. This leads many to the belief that even a natural warming event would be intensified quite a bit due to the drastic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere within the last 100 years alone. That is why scientists lean towards pushing for clean and renewable resources. The goal is to slow the amount of greenhouse gases humans are contributing to the atmosphere to ride this event out instead of waiting until things have gone awry 90 years from now to scramble for a solution. I'm not even that big into the global warming debate, but the science behind it shows very concrete reasons why to support tougher rules in place and a push towards more clean, renewable energy. It's a fool's game to look at this issue in such a limited time frame and make a decision. Take all of the politics out of this shite, and it's very easy to understand why this issue is something we should take seriously. You not driving a big arse truck won't change much, but every big arse truck running more cleanly would make a difference for sure. This is an issue where one is forced to think both on the macro level and on a larger timespan than 20-50 years to truly get a true understanding for why the Scientific Community (not politicians or companies looking to cash in) is recommending these changes.

If you're interested on where I got any of my data cited here, here's a few links:
NOAA: Climate Change Indicators
NASA: Evidence for Rapid Climate Change
Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends
Making sense of paleoclimate sensitivity


TL;DR: Measuring surface air temperatures, which actually does indicate slight warming, does very little to explore the possibility of a warming event. There are many, many metrics used to study this, and one of the most important is CO2 in the atmosphere and our contribution to a rapid increase in the amount of it. It is generally accepted that the Earth is indeed warming, and with the information we have at hand supporting the negative effects of large increases in CO2 in the atmosphere and resulting warming, the current rate will lead to a dangerous increase in temperatures. Actions need to be taken to slow this rate and prevent any consequences possibly caused by a warming event, whether to avoid exacerbating a natural warming event or causing one on our own.