This triggers the climate alarmist

>>128112996
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy/2017/0428/Fuel-from-CO2-Experiment-brings-it-a-step-closer-to-reality

The UCF scientist who led the way to this accomplishment, assistant professor of chemistry Fernando Uribe-Romo, says that this research could yield major benefits. “We're trying to reach a higher[-energy] form of carbon,” he explains in a separate interview with the Monitor. When power plants emit planet-warming CO2, “you can recycle it back and use it as a real fuel.”

Much remains to be done before that vision becomes reality. While this experiment, described earlier this month in Journal of Materials Chemistry A, won’t immediately solve our energy woes, it does increase our control over light-induced chemical reactions.

Professor Strano, who serves as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Carbon P. Dubbs professor of chemical engineering, explains that these “photocatalytic reactions” could help put our greenhouse gas emissions to use. “Carbon dioxide's abundant in the atmosphere...,” he explains, “and there's a lot of interest in turning it into materials.”

File: flag-800.png (5KB, 800x400px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 800x400px

>>128112996
>a new leaf

>>128112996
Dumbass.

Let's assume climate change alarmists are correct. This wouldn't shit on climate change. This would be the answer to it. Instead of hating it because it disproves them. They would rejoice at a solution.

That being said. Probably just media misinterpreting science

>>128112996

That's not triggering, that's excellent. It's literally exactly what we need to help the situation.

>We have discovered that trees use carbon from the air to get bigger
>We can now turn that carbon into trees then burn those trees for fuel
>Cutting edge Science

Has everyone gone full retard or is it just me!?

>>128112996
>A new leaf

A

>>128113507
Climate alarmists consider climate change original sin, they would hate for the risk of it to go away because then they can feel superior to those who don't bend to their will.

>>128113507
They wouldnt rejoice, many just hate fossile fuels period. Hell even Bernie Sanders is against nuclear for bullshit hippie reasons

>>128112996

Won't come through because IT ISNT ABOUT FUCKING SAVING THE WORLD. It is about making you fear something so you pay taxes to pay off that fear. LIKE EVERY FUCKING TIME (9/11?)

Sometimes man, sometimes I think who doesn't get this fucking stupid game they play. It's obvious as fuck. If they wanted to solve the fucking issue, they could easily with things like OP said. There are countless of close breakthroughs wherever you browse on any science website. I wonder what's holding them back. OH THATS RIGHT, IT DOESNT MAKE PEOPLE PAY TAX

>>128112996
Plants literally turn carbon dioxide into fuel.

scientists at this point are as smart as plants?

>>128112996
http://www.stockhouse.com/news/newswire/2017/05/05/co2-solutions-making-carbon-capture-work

>>128113507
>implying they want a solution
Climate scare tactics are a billion dollar industry which the participants don't want to give up. 'Climate change' is the Common Enemy Behind Which To Unite The People of the populist left just like the Jews were for Hitler, commies were for post+WWII USA and the bourgeoisie for early Soviet Russia.

>>128116441
Cheap carbon capture + carbon conversion to biofuel = fossil fuel renaissance

>>128112996
>July 29, 2016

>>128112996
>researchers have found a similar way to convert carbon dioxide into a usable energy source using sunlight

Is this supposed to be a joke? We already know about that, IT'S CALLED PLANTS

>>128113507
Climate alarmists have no faith in the ability of science and engineering to develop technology to mitigate or help society adapt to climate change. Instead they see governments striking poses and making promises to crack down on their own citizens as the best approach.

Trump jumping ship on some climate change wealth redistribution program won't stop the progress of science.

>>128116844
now they can do it artificially

>>128112996
Why are science and technology blogs / columns so bad at understanding science?

See, I bet you I could make a news organisation quote a paper if I wrote that I could bio-engineer a tree that captures a shit tonne of CO2 from the air.

Is it useful? No. It's how fossil fuels came into existence in the first place. Do people really need to have it explained to them that oil and coal, which is a "fossil fuel" was created using CO2?

But it sounds cool in the news, even though it's a widely known fact and it's only dumb dumbs that haven't realised there's a reason why they're called fossil fuels.

>>128112996
The problem is to do this fast enough. We can do it, but it's not practical.
We can even create atoms if we wanted to, but only a few of them with huge amounts of energy, so it isn't practical

File: 2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png (39KB, 600x443px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x443px

>>128113507
>climate change is wrong

>>128113856
>projecting this hard
I heard IMAX is researching ways to provide more powerful projection, they could use you.

File: Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev.png (26KB, 600x436px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x436px

>>128114303

>>128116844
I read somewhere the extra Co2 is increasing plant growth. Something like twice the landmass of Australia has grown compared to before

File: 1477973383934.jpg (68KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 700x700px

>>128112996
>51 KB
>This triggers the climate alarmist Anonymous (ID: hW1RJX92) 06/02/17(Fri)01:34:17 No. 128112996
This. Cant. Be. Allowed.
We MUST fix the planet with ONLY WIND and SOLAR green ENERGY! We must make the REPUBLICANS. LOSE.

>>128113507
>still pushing the deception that this is about the environment.

>>128118920
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

>>128119040
wat
it is exactly about climate, retard

>>128112996
There's no point in doing that. Once you have CO2, you've already spent the energy. Turning it back into fuel would be pointless and cost at least as much energy as you gained from consuming the fuel in the first place. There is no effective way of turning CO2 into something else. It's thermodynamically impossible. In the future we may have such an energy surplus that it makes sense to spend the extra energy to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This isn't the case right now, and how do you know this? Because if we had such an energy surplus we wouldn't be burning oil for energy production. As long as it makes fiscal sense for us to burn oil for energy, it is completely retarded to try to remove carbondioxide from the atmosphere.

The damage is already done, you cannot reverse thermodynamic processes.

water vapor >> carbon dioxide wrt greenhouse effect

just can't tax water vapor .... so CO2 it is

>>128119410
> what is photosynthesis
Meat earing plants when.

>>128119279
no, its about the destruction of western society. the (((climate scientists))) say we dont need to stop population growth in third world countries since they dont create any co2. we need to focus more on alternative lifestyles, lgbtq, feminism, abortions in western society to achieve negative population growth in white societies.

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=3345&artikel=3955836

Population Media Center's Bill Ryerson Interviewed by LivingECHO.com's Ken Spector

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3DaMHUZ4VM

>>128118629
>reconstructed

>>128119822
>the (((climate scientists))) say we dont need to stop population growth in third world countries since they dont create any co2
No, the politicians say that. And your entire post was a massive strawman

>>128119659
Photosynthesis doesn't solve the problem. A forest doesn't constantly consume more CO2. It's either logged (and in the end, burned for fuel, regardless of its life as furniture etc) or it naturally degrades, releasing CO2 along with other things. A tiny fraction of it remains which may go on to produce fossil fuels thousands of years from now, but this is insignificant compared to the amount of fossil fuels we use.

Even if we decide to plant new forests this doesn't solve the problem. It may solve some problems (such as dry climates, storms etc), but it doesn't solve the fundamental issue. It will only add a constant CO2 sink, it will not continuously bind a significant amount of CO2.

>>128113507

That's exactly why climate change alarmists propose we immediately switch to nuclear power as a way to reduce emissions and provide cheap energy.

>>128119279
Nope. Not about the environment.

>>128120008
heres from the article from swedish state media. they are using mass media brainwashing techniques to bring own population growth in western societies. Agenda 2030 which most western countries follow calls for the use of these methods.

-
The true big litters of seven or more children are almost exclusively on the African continent. In much of the rest of the world, women average an average of just over two children, ie enough to maintain the status quo. However, in most of the most developed countries, including the United States and Sweden, women have begun to feed more children than earlier. Even though the birth rate is still far below the number of people who die, it's a worrying sign, says Paul Ehrlich.

Instead, the European countries should make every effort to speed up their population at a faster pace:
- Many European countries are at rates that are below replacement levels, which is exactly where they should be, maybe even shrinking faster.

Now, of course, it is not just about how many more we will be. Our standard of living also plays a part. For example, the amount of greenhouse gases left by a US child, its carbon footprint, is 55 times greater than an Indian child's. And 235 times greater than one child born in Bangladesh.

So let's do a little math:
India's population is expected to grow by 400 million people to the year twenty-one hundred and fifty. At the same time, the US will increase by 86 million. But if you count on the greater carbon heritage, the US children would correspond to 4.7 billion indians.


Seven billion of us: Paul Ehrlich speaks to SBS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M73SFtZxy0

>>128113203
Just for all you dummies out there, you can't get usable fuel out of CO2, ESPECIALLY CO2 in the atmosphere.

Fossils fuels are made out of carbon as well they are "a higher energy form of carbon"

Ultimately in order to make CO2 into such a fuel you would need to use just as much energy as you would be able to get out of that fuel.

This research is clearly being misunderstood by you idiots.

>>128120051
what about methane. Or water vapor - you know, the non meme gases. Should we all stop farting and cooking so we can continue to delude ourselves that we can change the weather?

>>128120771
carbon dioxide is good for the planet. every mass extinction and ice age has buried vast amounts of carbon and removed it from the atmosphere leading to an increasingly colder climate. thanks to human efforts we have reversed the process.

>>128120794
I'm not saying we should stop releasing any gasses, and I don't think the government should do anything about it. Governments are to blame for this in the first place for subsidizing coal and oil while punishing nuclear. What I am saying is that these solutions where people imagine the carbon dioxide is some big cloud that you can just catch and store somewhere (or turn into plastic) are completely ridiculous and downright damaging.

When it comes to methane the solution is more obvious. Just burn it for energy and turn it into carbon dioxide...

>>128112996
no it doesn't, we like it. we don't want to restrict businesses for the fun of it, but precisely to fight climate change. I'm happy. Notify me once this technology is ready to be used on a large scale, then you can start denying climate change again.
and btw, if you never even believed in climate change in the first place, why would you care about this new technology? are you implying that you secretly believed in it all the time?

>>128113507
Those retards don't give a fuck about climate change, they just want to force their commie bullshit.

>>128121232
You're right when you say that co2 cannot be just hidden away. There is the carbon cycle after all. The more relevant part is the waste of energy we encourage when it comes to "renewable" energy sources. For example, so make solar cells, ypu need to make a silicum wafer out of (basically)sand, a process that is very expensive in terms of energy. Now, if we are about to do this on a massive scale and replace every solar panel after 10 years, we'll use much more energy to produce the amounts of energy we produce now.
Green energy is a meme, and a very expensive and poisonous one at that.

>>128123147
>Now, if we are about to do this on a massive scale and replace every solar panel after 10 years, we'll use much more energy to produce the amounts of energy we produce now.
This isn't entirely true. Solar energy research scientists don't calculate just the energy produced by the solar panel, they also factor in the cost of production. If it doesn't cover its own production it's not considered viable. Any such scientist will tell you that solar panels make no sense to invest in here in the north, but they can make sense in the southern parts of Europe or North Africa (provided the political climate allows it). Unfortunately, politicians only listen to scientists when it fuels their agenda, which is why they instead choose to subsidize the solar panels in Sweden rather than accepting that it's not a viable alternative (at least not right now).
>The more relevant part is the waste of energy we encourage when it comes to "renewable" energy sources.
This I completely agree with.