{"name":"when-you-dont-believe-in-climate-change-but-you-think-8695228.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/8\/888961c375245ef75943d3084da844dc.png","w":500,"h":698,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/8\/888961c375245ef75943d3084da844dc"}

{"name":"republicans-climate-titanic-566336c33df78ce161a01579.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/4\/c48046aaaaa47808042b48fd43c09953.jpg","w":2048,"h":1431,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/4\/c48046aaaaa47808042b48fd43c09953"}

The polar ice cap may not have disappeared entirely, but he still wasn't wrong.

http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/piomas-monthly-thickness-map

It shows the extent of the ice is about 50% of what it was 30 years ago.

But nah, it's not shrinking.

{"name":"611977","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/7\/b7936f7282ccd04f4c51e7bbe454d03a.jpg","w":750,"h":405,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/7\/b7936f7282ccd04f4c51e7bbe454d03a"}

That sounds like a bit of a scam. Their first magic technology just "captures" carbon dioxide. At which point what do they do with it? Why, store it underground of course. That's probably a costly and temporary solution to the problem. And eventually it's going to leak out and do all of the same harm, but at double or triple the cost. And nevermind the other toxic gases that they'd apparently let go. Apparently carbon dioxide is the only one that matters.

Their second magic technology turns air, water, and carbon dioxide back into gasoline, diesel, etc. I don't know about you, but that seems incredibly unlikely to be something we're capable of actually doing. If we could, we'd have no need for the oil industry anymore. They of course don't explain how this works. It's just magic. I'd bet they take their usual diesel source, and mix in a tiny fraction of whatever chemical bonds they're able to produce from the inputs, and pass it off as magically recycling the carbon dioxide; when in reality, it's probably more like hiding the carbon dioxide in the fuel only to be released back into the atmosphere without providing any energy of its own to power the machinery that burns the fuel.

I have no complaints about this sort of approach to being "green". I think those are innovative ideas to help the environment while still being productive. However, I also think that their technology needs to be independently tested to prove that it really works and isn't just a pretty veil to let polluters smile and wave. "Proprietary technology" that does magic is basically just more corruption until proven otherwise.

I don't think storing the CO2 is useful at all. Eventually it's going to be compromised. However, once captured perhaps it could be fed to plants in a controlled system to produce oxygen again naturally while also producing plants. There are probably theoretical solutions, but I highly doubt they're economical.

And if none of that is economical then it isn't any better than regulations in that regard.

Of course, that aside, the environment is far more important than the economy is. So if we can't figure out a way to protect the environment without hurting the economy then we SHOULD hurt the economy. Because ultimately it's doing more harm than good. Which means a booming economy may not be as good as you think it is.

Seems a Harvard professor and students are behind it. Which is encouraging. However, that doesn't mean they've solved all the problems and it's practical today. It means theoretically it works, and they need to overcome many challenges to put it into practice on a scale that will actually help.

According to that video, around the 5:14 mark, a rather massive array is used to collect CO2 from the equivalent of 300,000 cars per year. Which is awesome, but if you look at that in the grand scheme of things it would have a negligible effect despite the amount of space that it takes. It's a massive installation, and the entire installation will need to be constantly monitored and maintained to continue working too. Which on the one hand will create jobs, but on the other hand it'll impact the cost of the industries that need it, and the costs will get passed down to consumers, driving prices up. And all of the greedy conservatives and republicans will bitch that their costs are going up. And politicians won't have any part of that so it won't be regulated, and ultimately it won't be done.

Companies are not going to volunteer to do this. You'll need to regulate them to force them down this path. And it will definitely impact their bottom line. The economy on the whole might not be impacted fully if some of the loss can be gained again, but that sounds way too good to be true. I'm sure it'll just be a big expense.

From the sounds of it (based on another video from a few years earlier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5SqwSU8ns4) the chemistry to actual produce the fuel takes a long time. The demo scale model took about a day in a box the size of a large shed to produce half a litre of petroleum. Which I think makes sense. We've known about splitting water into hydrogen for centuries, but it's a timely process. Otherwise, we'd just pump water into our cars, instantly turn it into hydrogen and oxygen, and burn it. It will be interesting where this technology goes, but that's no excuse to hold off on regulations today. We know there is a problem today, and we cannot wait until tomorrow to solve it.

Scientist: updates worldview with new information
Child: incorrectly simplifies phenomena at a juvenile level

Sounds about right.

(Global cooling was never a thing btw. Global warming is correct but people like you don't understand that an overall warming leads to more extreme variance in weather so it's been called climate change to be more inclusive.)

{"name":"611979","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/4\/643dea39aa055a55b6b9e7c8959228eb.jpg","w":550,"h":381,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/4\/643dea39aa055a55b6b9e7c8959228eb"}

The point is they've been making dire predictions for decades with poor accuracy. Not everybody trusts their motives for pushing laws that involve the transfer of money, especially when considering garbage packages like the green new deal that mixes some green energy policies with tens of trillions of dollars of Socialism.

So Neil, you were alive in 1045AD and you took that picture in Greenland? You're older than I thought.

Obviously not, but the records show that to be true as I already stated, there was a squadron of WW2 bombers that were forced to land in Greenland in WW2 and were left there until decades later. During that time a huge amount of ice and snow built up over the planes so much so that it took a lot of effort to burrow down through the ice to get to them and recover one of them. This illustrates just how much it has built up in Greenland in a short period of time. I'll try and find the story and link to it... if anyone is interested in the truth anyhow, somehow I doubt anyone will accept this either, but there is hope.

<searches> Here it is. They are buried under more than 300 feet of ice that has built up over them since 1942, now that a lot of ice. I can't see how anyone can think there has been any sort of warming when that much ice has built up since 1942.

https://www.livescience.com/63423-lost-squadron-unearthed-greenland-glacier.html

I agree with you. The extreme left is just as corrupt as the extreme right. I guess that's why I'm just left of central. And why I vote for grassroots candidates and parties.

I agree that projections are probably overly cautious. I mean, if your research indicates that there may be a threat to the planet and/or humanity, do you tell the world exactly when you predict things will END or do you subtract a little bit of time to give you a hope?

I don't think the science says it will be the end of the world. It says that the world will change a lot, many species will probably go extinct by the rapid changes in climate, rising oceans could flood out the coasts which are not prepared for such a thing, and weather extremes may intensify.

I wonder how much money it costs to throw away several major, multi-million people cities. What does it cost to build such a city? A billion? 10? 1000?

How many poor and middle class people will die as a result of these catastrophes?

Hopefully we won't have to find out the answers to these questions.

I'm 42 years old. In my town (Burgos, Spain) more than 30 years ago it snowed every day of every winter, about 50 centimetres or more per-winter. It snowed once in May and other day in June (really). Last 10 years it snowed only one or two days in 3 winters (so 7 winters it didn't snowed at all) and never more than 15 centimeters. Period

{"name":"611982","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/b\/ebfd6bb11a93b93551bef19a1479a362.jpg","w":750,"h":500,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/b\/ebfd6bb11a93b93551bef19a1479a362"}

Nuino, there tends to be LESS snowfall in COLDER weather. But the amount of snowfall does not indicate warmer or colder conditions. The weather has not significantly changed, certainly the temps have not went up like they were forecast to. We have had some cold years, some warmer ones... that's called WEATHER... it varies with the sun. It has in the past when we had much warmer trends, and much colder. That's normal weather, PERIOD