F=ma is a law, not a model. I believe his point was that any mathematical model or computer simulation of a natural process will necessarily have inaccuracies because of irreducible complexity and stochastic effects.
F = ma seems to be a pretty accurate one. I dunno if model applies to equations though. Any scientists who can help me out on this one?
It is actually F = dp/dt or even more appropriate F * dt = dp and it begs the question, what IS a force and what is mass and momentum? You can describe their properties, but what are they? Also, it is incomplete since it doesn't solve the idea of inner torques.
You should seriously look at some peer-reviewed material before you start spouting off stupid **** like "BUT CORRELATION DOES NOT MEAN CAUSATION" ; You know very little of what you're talking about. The general consensus among very recent research points all fingers towards AGW. We're helping it along. Whether or not that's a problem is a completely different issue; and the point of this thread.
I find it funny that you have a big 'SAY NO TO FOX NEWS' thing in your sig, and yet you sound EXACTLY like the 'experts' that speak on the topic on that very news channel.
I never claimed to be a global warming denier, hell it's quite obvious it's going on. Whether it's human caused, or not, I believe, is still up to debate.
I'm also all for pushing green technologies. I just remain skeptical on all the "hype".
Either way I established I recognize global warming as occurring. I don't recognize it as a significant disaster in the making. I'd love to see some of this "recent research" as it's something I'd be interested in learning.
I think too many people have read my posts as "he doesn't believe global warming is occurring, and thus is ignorant" rather than "He's just a little skeptical of cause, and still is for addressing the problem as if it is occurring."
This video explains my last point well. However, even without climate change I'd want environmental regulations just because I like clean air, and nature.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
Oh boy, this thread is an amusing read. As a major of science and engineering I forget sometimes how the general public views this issue.
To be honest the general media has a very simple view of it, but in the scientific community there is a lot of debate on the subject... After all, it was Freeman Dyson who said that the theories behind Global Warming were full of fudge factors and didn't begin to describe the real world.
P.S: Being against the theory of Global Warming is not the same as being anti-Earth/Green/etc. There have been one too many scientists who were misquoted and lost all funding for having any views opposing any small aspect of the popular belief of Global Warming. It's kind of sad when a scientist has a very real fear of talking to anyone about his work because of past issues on the topic.
F=ma is a law, not a model. I believe his point was that any mathematical model or computer simulation of a natural process will necessarily have inaccuracies because of irreducible complexity and stochastic effects.
Okay, I did use the wrong word then, my mistake. As an aside, my initial point regarding models was in response to Solaran's claim that global warming was not 100% proven, and I pointed out that without a mathamatic model (or formula) you can't 100% prove anything, and for something as complicated as global warming that was impossible. So I wouldn't my overall point still stand despite wrong terminology?
Quote from "Mad Hat" »
Water vapor is not comparable to other GHG's like carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide or fluorocarbons. As concentrations go up because of emissions, it will condense and eventually rain down. Its concentrations can only increase if other variables of the system change, such as temperature and pressure.
Whoops, forgot about that
Steam capture would probably still be good for dealing with water costs.
Quote from "Mad Hat" »
Disturbances, ocean acidification, rising ocean levels, extinctions, migrations, war and conflict.
We know of past cases of invasive species that the impact can be enormous. As local climates change, the odds increase. Never mind the costs of a drought, the costs of adaptation.
Difficult, but not exactly apocalyptic. Additionally most of these changes are relatively gradual, leaving plenty of time for adaptation (at least on the human side).
Quote from "Mad Hat" »
This will only lead to the paradox of Jevons: efficiency increases, but net use goes up. This is not a sufficient solution. Regulation is required to counteract the workings of the market, either through government or through private enforcement (e.g. consumer organizations and lobbying).
I would think that's an automatic consequence of population growth. The catch though is, if that is the case, the growth is largely happening in countries that really have problems more immediate than a decade or two away ecological issue. I mean how do you convince developing countries to limit their population and cut emissions. Additionally the green technology can be exported as well, and if it's replacing polluting technology elsewhere isn't that advantageous?
I guess I understand what you mean about the need for regulations, I just don't see the need to enforce them until technology is there to allow them (thinking mostly of increased fuel efficiency standards).
Quote from "Mad Hat" »
The problems with nuclear are the costs associated with its waste and gathering its feedstock, as well as its need for large amounts of coolant. There is the cost of dealing with decommissioning. And, of course, from the chief three nuclear accidents that have happened throughout its history, we know that the costs of such an accident are gargantuan and irreversible.
Reactivating fuel rods can take care of the feed stock issue to a degree. As for the waste, this is largely a nimby issue. The waste, properly sealed, isn't that much of an issue. The funny thing is that countries like France have been getting 80+% of their power from nuclear for decades, and haven't had a single disaster (plus I don't exactly consider three mile island a major disaster).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
@Quirk: Indeed I believe your point would still stand. I just saw the "need a scientist" line and decided to respond to that part. My main point was that the argument that "such and such model isn't 100% accurate" is essentially meaningless by itself because no model will ever be 100% accurate. That doesn't mean no model is ever useful, but it does mean models need to be evaluated by some metric other than 100% accuracy.
People are being happy that we've had nuclear power for about 5 decades with 'only' 3 serious accidents (and many more not very serious). Two of those were in the former Sovjet Union and one happened in the aftermath of a serious earthquake and tsunami. But it's not like unexpected incidents like this (natural disaster, construction error or human error) can ever be ruled out. We should be wary of technological optimism.
Only three major ones I know of are Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.
Three Mile Island (1979) was relatively minor, very well contained, and actually beneficial in that it led to the voluntary exchange of ideas among US nuclear operators that drastically improved safety in ways government regulation could only dream of. Right now, TMI-2 is permanently decommissioned and TMI-1 has just had it's license extended to operate into 2034.
Chernobyl (1986) was a man-caused fault because they screwed up a test they were running on the facility. They were trying to find a way to have the reactors safely endure the first 60-75 seconds of a catastrophic power failure to the plant. It is speculated that a lot of mistakes happened during the procedure (the operators conducting the procedure all died during the meltdown), which led to the melt down.
Fukushima Daiichi (2011) was the combination of a few problems. The biggest one was insufficient safety features built into the reactor by the company that made it (GE).
All three nuclear accidents involved very old reactor designs. Modern nuclear reactors now have safety features in them that would have prevented all of these disasters from happening (at least the ones made by my company). Using a nuclear accident such as Fukushima Daiichii to criticize all nuclear power safety today is akin to using the 1971 Ford Pinto to criticize the modern automotive industry's safety abilities.
A lot has changed in the industry in the 41 years since that reactor was commissioned.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
People are being happy that we've had nuclear power for about 5 decades with 'only' 3 serious accidents (and many more not very serious). Two of those were in the former Sovjet Union and one happened in the aftermath of a serious earthquake and tsunami. But it's not like unexpected incidents like this (natural disaster, construction error or human error) can ever be ruled out. We should be wary of technological optimism.
True, but at the moment people still seem convinced that there's some sort of silver bullet energy solution that will be safe cheap efficient, accessible and easy. Really though, at least at this point, the world doesn't have those options. Sometimes you do have to pick between the lesser of two evils, and if the threat of climate change is seriously a lesser threat than nuclear power, I'm not that concerned anymore.
Quote from "Viricide" »
@Quirk: Indeed I believe your point would still stand. I just saw the "need a scientist" line and decided to respond to that part. My main point was that the argument that "such and such model isn't 100% accurate" is essentially meaningless by itself because no model will ever be 100% accurate. That doesn't mean no model is ever useful, but it does mean models need to be evaluated by some metric other than 100% accuracy.
Cool, then we're in agreement after all ^.^
Quote from "Mad Hat" »
That's one problem. Another is that those in power in developed countries have no concern whatsoever for any issue that is two decades away. Free-market capitalism has been eroding our sense for long-term sustainability for decades now.
Fair enough, but if the developed world makes this major effort without there being anything to incentivize the developing world to do the same, aren't we just kicking the can down the road a few decades before the problem comes back? Fossil Fuels are far cheaper and more efficient than their alternatives, so developing countries will be hard pressed to build infrastructures around anything else unless better green or efficient technologies are produced.
Quote from "Mad Hat" »
But it's not just about efficient technology. It's about reduced consumption as well. That's the problem with the paradox of Jevons, which is not a problem of population increase but a problem of externalized costs. If we make fossil fuel use more efficient, people are just going to use more of it as the true costs still remain externalized.
Okay, so in other words, regulations would be placed on companies so that the cost of pollution (with pollution being the externalized cost) is internalized in the form of taxes and fees to negatively incentivize the companies to get rid of the pollution to remove the added tax/fee burden?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Why not build an earth in space while we're at it, were we can experiment with the greenhouse effect? It's like you're trying to be a caricature of obstructionism.
We don't need to which is why your statement is ridiculous. We can however conduct science and redo the assumptions without the outside pressure that now is forced on this field.
it is not ridiculous to have an independent group of scientists with no politcal or money ties peer review what is being done.
The only reason you would argue against something like that is because you are afraid of the results.
That there is a possibility that man is not the main driver of GW that climate change is a natural phenominon that can last for decades to centuries.
Chernobyl (1986) was a man-caused fault because they screwed up a test they were running on the facility.
That and the reactor should have never been brought online. they skipped a whole ton of safety requirements. it was a disaster just waiting to happen.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
We don't need to which is why your statement is ridiculous. We can however conduct science and redo the assumptions without the outside pressure that now is forced on this field.
it is not ridiculous to have an independent group of scientists with no politcal or money ties peer review what is being done.
The only reason you would argue against something like that is because you are afraid of the results.
That there is a possibility that man is not the main driver of GW that climate change is a natural phenominon that can last for decades to centuries.
Hey guys, I am going to decide that all of physics is suspect and only advanced under political motivation. You guys need to go back and retake all the data from the past 2000 years and restart physics from the beginning because I said so, and god forbid any of you make money from someone who wants to see physics proven right.
I think the way we frame the efficiency debate is too esoteric for most Americans, it might work for Europeans and some other more collectivist nations. The issue comes down to cutting costs and decreasing dependency on foreigners. At the rate between efficiency and more drilling, we're going to be exporting again as a nation.
Pushing harder on the efficiency end would've pushed the metrics a bit faster, which was one of Bush's failures. That and tax credits for stupid stuff like SUV's which were just wasteful and helped aid to Detroit's degeneration.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It is actually F = dp/dt or even more appropriate F * dt = dp and it begs the question, what IS a force and what is mass and momentum? You can describe their properties, but what are they? Also, it is incomplete since it doesn't solve the idea of inner torques.
I never claimed to be a global warming denier, hell it's quite obvious it's going on. Whether it's human caused, or not, I believe, is still up to debate.
I'm also all for pushing green technologies. I just remain skeptical on all the "hype".
Either way I established I recognize global warming as occurring. I don't recognize it as a significant disaster in the making. I'd love to see some of this "recent research" as it's something I'd be interested in learning.
I think too many people have read my posts as "he doesn't believe global warming is occurring, and thus is ignorant" rather than "He's just a little skeptical of cause, and still is for addressing the problem as if it is occurring."
This video explains my last point well. However, even without climate change I'd want environmental regulations just because I like clean air, and nature.
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
GPolukranos, Kill ALL the Things!G
To be honest the general media has a very simple view of it, but in the scientific community there is a lot of debate on the subject... After all, it was Freeman Dyson who said that the theories behind Global Warming were full of fudge factors and didn't begin to describe the real world.
P.S: Being against the theory of Global Warming is not the same as being anti-Earth/Green/etc. There have been one too many scientists who were misquoted and lost all funding for having any views opposing any small aspect of the popular belief of Global Warming. It's kind of sad when a scientist has a very real fear of talking to anyone about his work because of past issues on the topic.
Okay, I did use the wrong word then, my mistake. As an aside, my initial point regarding models was in response to Solaran's claim that global warming was not 100% proven, and I pointed out that without a mathamatic model (or formula) you can't 100% prove anything, and for something as complicated as global warming that was impossible. So I wouldn't my overall point still stand despite wrong terminology?
Whoops, forgot about that
Steam capture would probably still be good for dealing with water costs.
Difficult, but not exactly apocalyptic. Additionally most of these changes are relatively gradual, leaving plenty of time for adaptation (at least on the human side).
I would think that's an automatic consequence of population growth. The catch though is, if that is the case, the growth is largely happening in countries that really have problems more immediate than a decade or two away ecological issue. I mean how do you convince developing countries to limit their population and cut emissions. Additionally the green technology can be exported as well, and if it's replacing polluting technology elsewhere isn't that advantageous?
I guess I understand what you mean about the need for regulations, I just don't see the need to enforce them until technology is there to allow them (thinking mostly of increased fuel efficiency standards).
Reactivating fuel rods can take care of the feed stock issue to a degree. As for the waste, this is largely a nimby issue. The waste, properly sealed, isn't that much of an issue. The funny thing is that countries like France have been getting 80+% of their power from nuclear for decades, and haven't had a single disaster (plus I don't exactly consider three mile island a major disaster).
Only three major ones I know of are Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.
Three Mile Island (1979) was relatively minor, very well contained, and actually beneficial in that it led to the voluntary exchange of ideas among US nuclear operators that drastically improved safety in ways government regulation could only dream of. Right now, TMI-2 is permanently decommissioned and TMI-1 has just had it's license extended to operate into 2034.
Chernobyl (1986) was a man-caused fault because they screwed up a test they were running on the facility. They were trying to find a way to have the reactors safely endure the first 60-75 seconds of a catastrophic power failure to the plant. It is speculated that a lot of mistakes happened during the procedure (the operators conducting the procedure all died during the meltdown), which led to the melt down.
Fukushima Daiichi (2011) was the combination of a few problems. The biggest one was insufficient safety features built into the reactor by the company that made it (GE).
All three nuclear accidents involved very old reactor designs. Modern nuclear reactors now have safety features in them that would have prevented all of these disasters from happening (at least the ones made by my company). Using a nuclear accident such as Fukushima Daiichii to criticize all nuclear power safety today is akin to using the 1971 Ford Pinto to criticize the modern automotive industry's safety abilities.
A lot has changed in the industry in the 41 years since that reactor was commissioned.
True, but at the moment people still seem convinced that there's some sort of silver bullet energy solution that will be safe cheap efficient, accessible and easy. Really though, at least at this point, the world doesn't have those options. Sometimes you do have to pick between the lesser of two evils, and if the threat of climate change is seriously a lesser threat than nuclear power, I'm not that concerned anymore.
Cool, then we're in agreement after all ^.^
Fair enough, but if the developed world makes this major effort without there being anything to incentivize the developing world to do the same, aren't we just kicking the can down the road a few decades before the problem comes back? Fossil Fuels are far cheaper and more efficient than their alternatives, so developing countries will be hard pressed to build infrastructures around anything else unless better green or efficient technologies are produced.
Okay, so in other words, regulations would be placed on companies so that the cost of pollution (with pollution being the externalized cost) is internalized in the form of taxes and fees to negatively incentivize the companies to get rid of the pollution to remove the added tax/fee burden?
We don't need to which is why your statement is ridiculous. We can however conduct science and redo the assumptions without the outside pressure that now is forced on this field.
it is not ridiculous to have an independent group of scientists with no politcal or money ties peer review what is being done.
The only reason you would argue against something like that is because you are afraid of the results.
That there is a possibility that man is not the main driver of GW that climate change is a natural phenominon that can last for decades to centuries.
That and the reactor should have never been brought online. they skipped a whole ton of safety requirements. it was a disaster just waiting to happen.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Hey guys, I am going to decide that all of physics is suspect and only advanced under political motivation. You guys need to go back and retake all the data from the past 2000 years and restart physics from the beginning because I said so, and god forbid any of you make money from someone who wants to see physics proven right.
Pushing harder on the efficiency end would've pushed the metrics a bit faster, which was one of Bush's failures. That and tax credits for stupid stuff like SUV's which were just wasteful and helped aid to Detroit's degeneration.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.