Global warming
- Thread starter Frank
- Start date
- Status
I KNOW>>> Sry I love hate mythbusters. It is a fun show, but I find myself sitting there thinking, this is crap, this is wrong, why didn't they do this... it is kinda frustrating.
As to Frank's suppositions, well it is good that ... I dunno anything nice I can say about it.
No, he isn't saying that. Your "religion" is getting in the way of looking at anything but what you "believe". He is saying that human caused global warming is not only not happening, but the whole theory is bunk.
No one disputes climate change.
Just because YOU can't imagine it ever being done does not mean that it can't (or isn't) being done.
Heh. I actually really like Mythbusters. Yes, they don't engage in very rigorous examinations. Yes, they make mistakes fairly often when explaining things and whatnot. But at its core, the process they go through is the very heart of science. Not being quite as careful as they could be is just a minor detail: getting out there and doing tests, and most importantly re-doing tests based upon feedback from others, are the really important things.
Epic, he actually did. Right here:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1617943&postcount=1284
And by the way, claiming that my acceptance of the very obvious evidence is a "religion" is absurd in the extreme. The Earth is warming and humans are causing the lion's share of that warming. Those are the facts, and your psychological projection is unimpressive.
I enjoy the Mythbusters, I (like Sxotty said above) just find that often their obvious scientific oversights can be a cause for frustration. It's good that they do the science, but occasionally their controls are terrible or they miss an obvious error in their reasoning. (Their failing on the ice bullet because they couldn't come up with the idea to insulate the ice from the heat continues to annoy me, I actually did this when I was 14 with a .410 shotgun and a light load). This has led to them busting myths in error, just like Frank.
So that was so good question that you chose not to answer it? Interesting.
Fun anecdotal evidence:
the five hottest and coldest months of past ~100 years in Estonia have occurred during past 10 years.
In case you didn't know, "global warming" does not just mean universal warming everywhere but the extremes getting bigger.
I did but I didn't start with making up my mind and then "researching" the papers that would support it.
So basically you think it's too much of a hassle and expensive so we should ignore it?Frank said:
Can you point out some of those lies? Obviously I expect them to be something that is generally accepted, not random ramblings of a single person.Frank said:
To me, it seems on the show, more often they bust myths when their evidence is not supporting it, but the myths do deserve busted. Too bad they are out of the cannon business though
I assume youguys heard about that.Yeah, sometimes those things are annoying. But at the same time, that's what makes the show such a great demonstration of what science is really about! The discussion that goes on about what Mythbusters do and how they screw up is very much the kind of discussion that goes on within science. These kinds of screwups within science are really much more common than most would like to admit. But science remains extremely trustworthy precisely because it is involved in this broader discussion.
Same with Mythbusters. Yes, they screw up. But they go back and revisit things in response to feedback and improve their tests. So overall, it's generally a pretty reliable show. Not quite as reliable as real science, because most people don't get to see the whole discussion, and because you don't have competing teams doing different investigations to test their results. But still more reliable than a lot of the crap that we see on TV.
Haha, yes, that was completely crazy. I do hope that that makes it onto an episode. I rather doubt it, though.To me, it seems on the show, more often they bust myths when their evidence is not supporting it, but the myths do deserve busted. Too bad they are out of the cannon business though
Let's keep the language clear: observations are fact, but explanations are theory.
Fine.
Fact: the earth is warming
Fact: CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and heats the atmosphere
Fact: Humans have emitted lots of CO2 since the industrial revolution
Fact: Modeling complex systems is hard
Theory: Humans have caused the bulk of warming through emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Theory: There are a lot that try to link the ppm to temperature. These models are not facts, they are based on certain evidence, but will not be perfect now, nor in the future.
Fact: the earth is warming
Fact: CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and heats the atmosphere
Fact: Humans have emitted lots of CO2 since the industrial revolution
Fact: Modeling complex systems is hard
Theory: Humans have caused the bulk of warming through emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Theory: There are a lot that try to link the ppm to temperature. These models are not facts, they are based on certain evidence, but will not be perfect now, nor in the future.
Meh, the line blurs between these things all the time. But to be a bit pedantic, copious amounts of evidence from many different directions support the statement that humans are causing the Earth to warm, primarily as a result of CO2 emissions. The evidence of this is, today, so strong that there is no longer any serious discussion about this. The scientific discussion is, instead, about just how bad the warming will get in the future. And that is a very difficult question to answer ahead of time, unfortunately. But no matter which way you slice it, the outlook is quite dire if we don't do anything.
simple question to those who believe in AGW. Do you support nuclear power?
Blazkowicz
Legend
I do, sort of, and believe we should let Iran use it, but I'm increasingly concerned about humongous costs. many tens of billions dollars/euros in future costs for the whole life cycle and death of power plants have been swept under the rug. the nuclear catastrophes aren't pretty as well, they do have a very low probability of occuring but eventually do on the span of decades.
so, are they a necessary evil I don't know. all energy options are crappy short of nuclear fusion - which is quite slowly being researched, I wonder why ITER hasn't been built already.
I like the concept of "mini" nuke plants, assembled on a line and deried from naval reactors, they sound great when you read about them : cheap, low maintenance, low hazard. but I don't know if it's hype, and the industry still favors big reactor megaprojects.
so, are they a necessary evil I don't know. all energy options are crappy short of nuclear fusion - which is quite slowly being researched, I wonder why ITER hasn't been built already.
I like the concept of "mini" nuke plants, assembled on a line and deried from naval reactors, they sound great when you read about them : cheap, low maintenance, low hazard. but I don't know if it's hype, and the industry still favors big reactor megaprojects.
Yes, I support it. It's pretty much the only viable longish-term solution for surviving the upcoming energy crisis
Isn't the cost of doing nothing higher? At some point wind/solar will be a viable alternative but right now nuclear energy is the only solution, if you believe AGW is a serious issue thats needs to be dealt with right now.
Agreed, wish the environmental movement would get out of the way and let those who want to build nuclear power plants do so. This right here could decrease the amount of pollution right away.
Much of the problem with Nuclear power plants is 'regulatory ratcheting' of costs which have increased the costs of building plants tenfold (or more). Here's an interesting link which discusses this problem:
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
France, of course, has been sensible and gone for Nuclear power in a big way. Decommissioning costs are, of course, high but shouldn't be considered too much of a problem given the long life of the power plants.
However, I think it is worth noting the differences between the older Pressurised Water Reactor designs and the newer Gen III/Gen IV alternatives.
Personally, I'm firmly in the camp of the Thorium Molten Salt Reactor (LFTR) which at long last, appears to be garnering some attention. Forty years ago, the Americans decided that they didn't want to continue developing this promising technology, preferring to chuck their money at the Sodium-Cooled Reactor boondoggle. However, the Chinese are now putting resources into researching this technology so it wouldn't surprise me to see them selling such reactors back to the West in a decade or two.
- Status
Similar threads
