Global warming

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Frank, Oct 22, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AlphaWolf

    AlphaWolf Specious Misanthrope
    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2003
    Messages:
    8,415
    Likes Received:
    270
    Location:
    Treading Water
    I think it's fitting frank used the Mythbusters 'busted' logo, because their science often isn't good either.
     
  2. Sxotty

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Messages:
    4,871
    Likes Received:
    330
    Location:
    PA USA
    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.
     
  3. epicstruggle

    epicstruggle Passenger on Serenity
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    45
    Location:
    Object in Space
    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.
     
  4. rpg.314

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,298
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    /
    Just because YOU can't imagine it ever being done does not mean that it can't (or isn't) being done.
     
  5. KimB

    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    12,883
    Likes Received:
    209
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    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.
     
  6. KimB

    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    12,883
    Likes Received:
    209
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    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.
     
  7. AlphaWolf

    AlphaWolf Specious Misanthrope
    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2003
    Messages:
    8,415
    Likes Received:
    270
    Location:
    Treading Water
    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.
     
  8. hoho

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Estonia
    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?
    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.
     
  9. Sxotty

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Messages:
    4,871
    Likes Received:
    330
    Location:
    PA USA
    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.
     
  10. KimB

    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    12,883
    Likes Received:
    209
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    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.
     
  11. KimB

    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    12,883
    Likes Received:
    209
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Haha, yes, that was completely crazy. I do hope that that makes it onto an episode. I rather doubt it, though.
     
  12. Xmas

    Xmas Porous
    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    137
    Location:
    On the path to wisdom
    Let's keep the language clear: observations are fact, but explanations are theory.
     
  13. Sxotty

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Messages:
    4,871
    Likes Received:
    330
    Location:
    PA USA
    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.
     
  14. KimB

    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    12,883
    Likes Received:
    209
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    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.
     
  15. epicstruggle

    epicstruggle Passenger on Serenity
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    45
    Location:
    Object in Space
    simple question to those who believe in AGW. Do you support nuclear power?
     
  16. Blazkowicz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    256
    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.
     
  17. hoho

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Estonia
    Yes, I support it. It's pretty much the only viable longish-term solution for surviving the upcoming energy crisis
     
  18. epicstruggle

    epicstruggle Passenger on Serenity
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    45
    Location:
    Object in Space
    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.
     
  19. epicstruggle

    epicstruggle Passenger on Serenity
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    45
    Location:
    Object in Space
    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.
     
  20. Mariner

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    237
    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.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...