Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "Cool Worlds" channel.

  1. Aerospace Engineer here: In the last couple of years I have gotten into economics for the simple reason that economists are interfering in engineering to a staggering level, which is why we have an energy crisis, but that's another story. In looking into another profession and how it trains people you not only get to examine that profession but re-examine your own and we don't do that enough. One of the great flaws in economics is the lack of self-evaluation. They have an awful lot of theory and modelling that has NEVER been truly tested except on US and right now that's looking like very bad outcomes as they keep telling us all is well and that's not going to end well for any of us. Your profession is in a similar predicament except you are NOT costing several billion people a future like economists are. HOWEVER, what you and you colleagues are doing is modelling based on UNTESTED THEORY. Yes this is all very interesting and I like your channel because it expands my own knowledge base, but you need to temper this will reality and let people know these are theories that are UNTESTABLE because of the time frames involved. They are some every interesting theories and models but they are just that - theories and models. PLUS and I can't emphasise this enough with dating technologies whether its carbon dating or any other dating. CALIBRATING your measurement system is almost impossible beyond a few 1,000 years because where's the actual sample that you know for certain what its age is that you can use to calibrate against. Your calibration for longer time periods is theory not measured reality. You are one of the very few sciences that is allowed to get away with this lack of calibration but then we also understand that calibrating such systems is almost impossible. So you get some slack on this, but please DO NOT MISTAKE that other STEM fields are unaware of this.
    8
  2.  @gusolsthoorn1002  That's the problem I see as an engineer. Sure its been studied and that's fin an great, BUT has it been calibrated. I remember the results for the shroud of Turin and they had the 3 best labs in the world get 3 different results. 2 were sort of close to each other and the other was over 10% different. Which begs the question HOW? Its fairly simple they are testing very small samples and at the actual stage of measurement you don't have to do much with the sample to get different answers that can be significant. As a tool I think radiometric testing has been profound in helping understand the history of our planet. But it still has to be understood as just another measuring tool and like all measuring tools it has limits to its accuracy.
    2
  3.  @kanishkchaturvedi1745  I KNOW THAT And if you bothered to READ what I have said that is the problem. Do you know that when they carbon dated the Shroud of Turin they used the 3 best labs they available and the results varied by 10% at 1,000 years age. If radioactive dating is so damn accurate and so well understood then how do 3 top labs have that much variation? ALL measuring techniques have limits to their accuracy which is why calibration is so incredibly important to understand. Metrology (the science of measuring) is one of the least understood fields of science and yet its one of the most important. But trying to explain that to IGN0RANT M0R0NS is hard.
    1
  4.  @gusolsthoorn1002  AND YOU HAVE JUST PROVEN MY ARGUMENT If you can calibrate it then you can get the accuracy, but if you can't then you can't. If you have been in aviation then you know what I mean.
    1
  5.  @gusolsthoorn1002  Ok. I thought you were going in another direction.
    1
  6. SORRY BUT I JUST HAD TO STOP THIS NONSENSE when you got to the wow wee a million tons a year. I am an engineer and I can do math and this stuff is complete BULLSHlT. In 2022 the worlds coal production was 8318 Million tons which produces over 30 Billion tons of CO2 How do we know that? Because for every atom of carbon consumes links up with 2 Oxygen atoms to produce CO2 By Atomic weights C=12, O=16 and CO2=44. 44/12 = 3.667 (3.2/3). WE DON'T NEED SYSTEMS CAPABLE OF BILLIONS (with a 'B') OF TONS As for that $100/ton cost being economical! That is utter nonsense last years 37.4 Billion tons alone would cost $3.74 trillion. WHO'S GOING TO PAY THAT? And for these DAC systems to work they need LOW EMISSION energy. HINKLEY POINT C, the nuclear power station currently being built in Britain will produce 3.2 GW (once its finished circa 2028). It was budgeted at £26 Billion and now expected to cost £33 Billion. How many of those do you think we'd need to build to power these DAC systems and make a dent in the issue? I'm Australian and right now we have a pack of clowns ranting about nuclear power. Using the costs of Hinkley Point C we'd need to spend AU$440 Billion just to replace our coal fired power stations. Since our politicians and bankers (because they are addicted to home loans) want to double our population. So we'd need to at least double that making the cost AU$880 Billion. Plus we'd need a decent big chunk again to power all the electric cars we plan to have and now we are past the AU$ Trillion mark. And then we'd have to double the capacity of the power grid which would at least double that to past the AU$2 Trillion mark. At what point do you think we can then afford to pay for any DAC systems? And before you ask one of the biggest issues facing the entire developed world is the cost of replacing all of our old power stations irrespective of how they are powered. You see the difference between Engineers and all the other science is that WE HAVE TO BE PRACTICAL. What all the non-engineers FORGET is that everything wears out eventually and has to be replaced. The simplest DAC system that costs nothing to run are TREES. Best of all they don't need to be plugged into a power station. While all of us engineers are building the next generation of power stations we need the rest of you to go plant a 1,000 trees each. THAT'S ALL OF YOU ACROSS THE PLANET which totals about 8 Trillion Trees. If we consider that a lot will die but a Trillion or 2 survive then that's a lot of CO2 sucked out of the air and captured in wood fibre. So long as we don't burn any of it or let too much of it rot and produce methane we might have a chance.
    1
  7. Oh yeah. GO LEARN SOME BASIC ECONOMICS That way when the clowns waving business and economic degrees like baseball bats can't smack you stupid and manipulate you like they too many of them do. But be warned when you can make a sound economic argument they get real narky about it. Throw math back at them whenever you can. Its drives them crazy. Since you're a Brit start watching Gary Stevenson. He talk's like Jamie Oliver but is possibly the single smartest Brit I have ever seen and I'm Australian. So admitting theirs a Brit who's smarter than me at anything is almost heretical. But he really is that smart on Economics and he makes it easy like Jamie Oliver makes cooking easy.
    1
  8.  @alicianah8352  Fantastic concept now who gets to decide which group we EXTERMINATE??? You are right infinite population growth is simply not possible in a FINITE world. David Suzuki howled that from the worlds rooftops all through the 1990s and no business or political leader wanted to hear a word of it. The most important thing we have to work out is a completely NEW Economic system. Feudalism failed, Socialism failed, Communism failed and now Capitalism is failing. There is one thing that was common to all the failures - rapacious greed and consolidation of absolute power into the hands of a few people. We might not need to downsize so much if we can simply get rid of the few who cause all the problems.
    1