Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!

OK but then we can address each of those situations with the carbon-grabbing technology separately without having to butt heads with the producers of the fossil fuel, no?

Sequestration alone will not solve the problem. Burning fossil fuels is the problem and needs to be *drastically* reduced. There is no way to do that without costing Big Carbon $$billions. They will not allow that to happen. And they have the means to stop it.The best way I know of to reduce emissions by the amounts needed is through a carbon tax levied on the refineries and coal mines. That would drastically increase the cost of gasoline, oil, heating fuel, natural gas, coal, shale oil.This will spur improvements and efficiencies in alternatives like electric cars, solar for homes and businesses, alternative electric generation. More and more people would switch to avoid the higher costs.To offset the cost to the less fortunate in our society a tax refund equal to the average cost increase would be given. But only to those making less than some number, say $200,000.Additionally, the new taxes would fund tax incentives to utilities to switch to alternative power sources and would fund R&D into more efficient vehicles and additional alternative power sources and sequestration technologies.But Big Carbon has a stranglehold on our political institutions. And the voting public, dumb as a stump, is too disposed to their propaganda and manipulation to change that. We're screwed.Those of us here will not be around for the bad stuff, but, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will have it much harder than we as ecosystems and social systems come under the strain of near collapse. In the short term, 200-500 years, those poor souls will suffer greatly. In the long term ... well ... the only thing that will be left is for whatever remains of humanity to take a comfortable seat, bend over real far and kiss their ass goodbye.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Even here in the backwoods of Saskatchewan we've been experimenting with carbon-capture for years. I just heard on the news recently that somebody is experimenting with sequestering captured carbon in concrete buildings. And so on.You really need to get a better source of news.

Good ol' thermodynamics still raises its head. When we add oxygen to long chain carbon molecules in fossil fuels we get energy, carbon dioxide, and water out of that reaction. If we want to run it in reverse, then we have to add energy. If we use fossil fuels to sequester carbon dioxide, then we aren't gaining anything. In fact, it would probably increase the carbon dioxide in the air because it wouldn't be 100% efficient.

Maybe there is some twist to help the problem, but...

quote:

---

Carbon concentration in cement spans from 5% in cement structures to 8% in the case of roads in cement.[53] Cement manufacturing releases CO2 in the atmosphere both directly when calcium carbonate is heated, producing lime and carbon dioxide,[54][55] and also indirectly through the use of energy if its production involves the emission of CO2. The cement industry produces about 10% of global man-made CO2 emissions, of which 60% is from the chemical process, and 40% from burning fuel.[56] A Chatham House study from 2018 estimates that the 4 billion tonnes of cement produced annually account for 8% of worldwide CO2 emissions.[57]

​

Nearly 900 kg of CO2 are emitted for every 1000 kg of Portland cement produced. ...

---

Cement - WikipediaMoose

Faith, this may be what you heard about:

quote:

---

MIT Scientists Say They Found a New Way to Scrub Atmospheric CO2

​

Carbon Capture

​

A team of MIT engineers claims to have figured out how to scrub harmful carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, potentially giving the world a new weapon in the fight against climate change.

​

While many scientists argue that carbon capture technology is a necessary part of preventing the worst effects of climate change, current approaches to the tech have never scaled enough to be practical. Now, the team which founded a company called Verdox to commercialize its system thinks it may have cracked the code. By sending air past an electrically-charged plate of carbon nanotubes, they say, the system can literally suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.

​

Scaling Up

​

The key to the MIT researchers’ carbon capture system is that it requires much less energy it could theoretically be built up to an industrial scale without requiring so much heat that it ends up harming the environment, according to research published in the journal Energy & Environmental Science.

---

ie -- it may or may not be a net benefit.Easier and more cost effective is to use proven technology to produce renewable energy electricity and to reduce the use of fossil fuels in all manufacturing and energy generation.Hemp can replace plastics and fuels. Growing hemp also reduces CO2 more than the same acreage of trees, and provides a reliable crop for farmers. win-win. Only if they get their heads out of their butts and join the human race plans for survival instead of profits.Enjoy

New study shows global warming, even within the target 2^oC, will cause greater climate changes than previously expected. Due to the land warming faster than the oceans over the short term, human population and growing regions will be under greater stress than initial indications.

quote:

---

Using climate model simulations, researchers have shown that short-term, rapid warming will cause up to 91 percent of people on Earth to experience higher local temperatures. Plus, under this scenario, the likelihood of extreme heat events is at least twice as high in some areas.
.
.
.
And judging by our progress so far, that seems the most likely scenario. Greenhouse gases are continuing to surge worldwide, so much so that last year, scientists compared them to a "speeding freight train".

​

We do actually have the tools to slow that train down - it just looks like we need to act even faster than anyone suspected.

---

Here's How We're Making That 2C Global Temperature Increase Far Worse For Humans : ScienceAlertThe study abstract: Global and regional impacts differ between transient and equilibrium warmer worlds | Nature Climate ChangeThis, also, will fall on deaf ears as short-term greed continues to rule business, governments and populations.We're fucked.Edited by AZPaul3, : added original abstract

Since not a single climate-change prophecy has ever come true, why should we believe this one?

Are you happy for that argument to be applied to biblical prophecies ?

Does it help climate change prophecy to come true if you change the subject?

I notice you avoid the question.But here’s a page of evidence it took me two seconds to find: Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? - Carbon Brief

Like the "prophecy" of average temperature increases that have occurred for the last several years, each year outdoing the previous years?

quote:

---

Climate Change: Global Temperature
Rebecca Lindsey and LuAnn Dahlman
September 19, 2019

​

Given the size and tremendous heat capacity of the global oceans, it takes a massive amount of accumulated heat energy to raise Earth’s average yearly surface temperature even a small amount. Behind the seemingly small increase in global average surface temperature over the past century is a significant increase in accumulated heat. That extra heat is driving regional and seasonal temperature extremes, reducing snow cover and sea ice, intensifying heavy rainfall, and changing habitat ranges for plants and animalsexpanding some and shrinking others.

​

Change over time

​

Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling. According to the NOAA 2018 Global Climate Summary, the combined land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07C (0.13F) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase since 1981 (0.17C / 0.31F) is more than twice as great.

​

The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998, and 9 of the 10 have occurred since 2005. The year 1998 is the only year from the twentieth century still among the ten warmest years on record. Looking back to 1988, a pattern emerges: except for 2011, as each new year is added to the historical record, it becomes one of the top 10 warmest on record at that time, but it is ultimately replaced as the top ten window shifts forward in time.

---

Like the "prophecy" of sea level rise that has the city of Miami rebuilding roads at higher elevations so they don't flood?https://www.bbc.com/...3-miamis-fight-against-sea-level-rise
Miami is racing against time to keep up with sea-level riseLike the islands that have disappeared due to sea level rise?Five Pacific islands disappear as sea levels rise - BBC NewsThe sea is rising because it is being warmed, and warmed water expands. Simple physics. This is augmented by the melting of glaciers (ice that was resting on land) due to higher average temperatures and changes in air temperature distributions (changing jet stream, warmer polar regions, etc).Then there are the increased size, severity and number of fires around the world. Australia, for example, with new record temps recorded and then superseded.Australia fires: 'Catastrophic' alerts in South Australia and Victoria - BBC News
Australia weather: 50C temperatures could become the norm as hundreds of climate records broken in 90 days, report finds | The Independent | The Independent
What is Australia doing to tackle climate change? - BBC NewsYou have to be willingly ignorant to not be aware of a single effect of climate change. Because it is based on science and facts, not wishful thinking.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..

Facts and evidence prove that you are an idiot or a troll or both. Facts and evidence disprove the premise of your statement.

So I guess we just ignore all the older prophecies that failed completely, and now rely on some much more recent ones that are based on a known trend?I don't have a problem with SOME rise in temps since I know glaciers have been melting for instance. But I also think in terms of an ice age, just one, that started at the end of the Flood, and encroached very far south before it began to retreat, which it's been doing for some long time. It's now almost completely retreated, and of coruse as it retreats the planet warms.Not that there mightn't be some human input but the ice age retreat was going to happen in spite of us. Yeah I know....

Perhaps because we are talking about scientific predictions rather than belief prophecies.The difference between science and belief is the ability/willingness to change when new information is available.When scientific predictions are based on limited or incomplete information, then they will likely need to change when new information is added. Early predictions were based on data that was incomplete or lacking in certain areas -- the arctic/antarctic poles and the deep ocean for instance.When the predictions don't match the results, the model is revised ... because a model that doesn't predict accurate results is useless.The first models of hurricane behavior were fairly poor at predicting hurricane paths. The ones we have now are much better (... and they are WAY better than orange-top with a sharpie). Cherry picking what evidence you use again? The overall trend shows a sharp increase in the temperatures around the earth commensurate with the rise in CO2 from burning fossil fuels. Except the actual evidence shows many ice ages of different lengths.

quote:

---

Ice Age

​

An ice age is a period of colder global temperatures and recurring glacial expansion capable of lasting hundreds of millions of years. Thanks to the efforts of geologist Louis Agassiz and mathematician Milutin Milankovitch, scientists have determined that variations in the Earth’s orbit and shifting plate tectonics spur the waxing and waning of these periods. There have been at least five significant ice ages in Earth’s history, with approximately a dozen epochs of glacial expansion occurring in the past 1 million years. Humans developed significantly during the most recent glaciation period, emerging as the dominant land animal afterward as megafauna such as the wooly mammoth went extinct.

​

Scientists have recorded five significant ice ages throughout the Earth’s history: the Huronian (2.4-2.1 billion years ago), Cryogenian (850-635 million years ago), Andean-Saharan (460-430 mya), Karoo (360-260 mya) and Quaternary (2.6 mya-present). Approximately a dozen major glaciations have occurred over the past 1 million years, the largest of which peaked 650,000 years ago and lasted for 50,000 years. The most recent glaciation period, often known simply as the Ice Age, reached peak conditions some 18,000 years ago before giving way to the interglacial Holocene epoch 11,700 years ago.

​

At the height of the recent glaciation, the ice grew to more than 12,000 feet thick as sheets spread across Canada, Scandinavia, Russia and South America. Corresponding sea levels plunged more than 400 feet, while global temperatures dipped around 10 degrees Fahrenheit on average and up to 40 degrees in some areas. In North America, the region of the Gulf Coast states was dotted with the pine forests and prairie grasses that are today associated with the northern states and Canada.

---

Five biggy ice ages and several smaller ones. Which never happened. Except that it's the other way around: as the planet warms the ice melts. Ice doesn't melt on it's own and not only do we have more ice melting than before, but there is less snow each year to replenish the ice. That you are wrong. Again. And it is the details again Faith. The details show that the major contributor to climate change in the last several thousand years is human activity.That means we should be able to fix it or ameliorate it ... if we get off our hinnies and work on it.Enjoy