Global warming causing 'irreversible' mass melting in Antarctica - scientist

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, WalkingOrders said:

Act? Sure, shall we cut oil production? Depress the global economy, put people out of work, make them hungry, destabilize their Govts, and all for theoretical effect on modeled Co2 rise? We disagree, on the science. Accept that.

It is meretricious to claim people will starve if oil production is cut. It's more likely Americans will get  healthier. They might have to walk or use bicycles.

I read a statistic some time ago that the USA, with 5% of the world's population, consumes about 40% of the world's resources.

If we leave the Polynesians out, who have a genetic predisposition,  the next nation in terms of obesity levels is the USA.

Face it, Americans are pigs at a trough, and they are squealing because their swill may be taken away from them.

 

[WalkingOrders]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

We do disagree, I accept the fact that man made climate is real and action needs to be taken

I have no argument that there is man made Co2, but I disagree as to the amount caused by man, and I believe that not enough is known regarding this process, and of other processes feedback loops involved. I also strongly disagree with mitigation efforts, that could cause far more problems then those they purport to fix. Additionally, more needs to be put into how to learn with it, then believing there is a magic bullet of shutting down fossil fuels, without any thought to what that means and how it would transform the world, potentially to extreme negative effect.

 

I object strongly to people claiming all the science is settled, and the use of climate as a left wing umbrella scare tactic fundraising tool.

 

And I object to vague generalities made "Action needs to be taken" that carry within them a threat of doom.

 

Likewise I most strongly object to conversation with anyone who does not understand the monetary issues involved with the Paris Accords as this indicatesvI am speaking to someone with absolutely zero understanding of both sides of the issue. If someone does not understand both sides of an argument  then frankly they know nothing at all about what they are even talking about, and cannot even make a cogent argument at all, and cannot even understand the meaning of their own position let alone someone elses.

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

I have no argument that there is man made Co2, but I disagree as to the amount caused by man, and I believe that not enough is known regarding this process, and of other processes feedback loops involved. I also strongly disagree with mitigation efforts, that could cause far more problems then those they purport to fix. Additionally, more needs to be put into how to learn with it, then believing there is a magic bullet of shutting down fossil fuels, without any thought to what that means and how it would transform the world, potentially to extreme negative effect.

 

I object strongly to people claiming all the science is settled, and the use of climate as a left wing umbrella scare tactic fundraising tool.

 

And I object to vague generalities made "Action needs to be taken" that carry within them a threat of doom.

 

Likewise I most strongly object to conversation with anyone who does not understand the monetary issues involved with the Paris Accords as this indicatesvI am speaking to someone with absolutely zero understanding of both sides of the issue. If someone does not understand both sides of an argument  then frankly they know nothing at all about what they are even talking about, and cannot even make a cogent argument at all, and cannot even understand the meaning of their own position let alone someone elses.

I fully understand the meaning of my position and fully reject yours. 

[WalkingOrders]

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It is meretricious to claim people will starve if oil production is cut. It's more likely Americans will get  healthier. They might have to walk or use bicycles.

I read a statistic some time ago that the USA, with 5% of the world's population, consumes about 40% of the world's resources.

If we leave the Polynesians out, who have a genetic predisposition,  the next nation in terms of obesity levels is the USA.

Face it, Americans are pigs at a trough, and they are squealing because their swill may be taken away from them.

 

Ok, you cut oil production and this is what happens. Price goes up. Disagree? Go ahead present an economic argument.

 

If oil price goes up, the price of shipping rises, as well as all transportation. Disagree? Present an argument.

 

If shipping price is up, and price of ferilizers up, the price of food commodities go up. Disagree? Present your economic argument.

 

Now what happens to bring prices down if production is high, but the price goes down, typically that is global recession. And that is not good. As I said earlier, what do you want? My Govt is the USA, we cannot force other countries to pay for catalytic converters for their autos, or filter and recapture systems for their coal plants.

 

Nor do I support insane ideas of disrupting the global economy, or offering economic incintives to other countries to save themselves.

[brokenbone]

21 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

We do disagree, I accept the fact that man made climate is real and action needs to be taken. 

alright, lets assume that, the 0.26c increase per century since little ice age driven by nature

was phased out at the same time as man made temp increase was phased in,

so that the linear increase of 0.26c per century is now solely thanks to man.

is that a bad thing, and if so why ?

and why is action needed to be taken ?

what action is needed to be taken ?

and what is the action intended to accomplish ?

 

[WalkingOrders]

And no one here is yet to offer a criticism of my critique of the article that launched this thread!

[Bluespunk]

Just now, brokenbone said:

alright, lets assume that, the 0.26c increase per century since little ice age driven by nature

was phased out at the same time as man made temp increase was phased in,

so that the linear increase of 0.26c per century is now solely thanks to man.

is that a bad thing, and if so why ?

and why is action needed to be taken ?

what action is needed to be taken ?

and what is the action intended to accomplish ?

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/26/graphic-the-ipccs-four-key-findings/

 

 

https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/

[brokenbone]

16 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

And no one here is yet to offer a criticism of my critique of the article that launched this thread!

 

as you pointed out in bold in this post, its the same ole relentless

FUD attempt with could/approaching a breaking point/ world is gonna end in 12 years/

time is against us/end is nigh.

 

in short, its an attempt to create stress in order to bypass

verification of  said hypothesis/apocalypse/prophesy,

in order to impose an unsound policy before the scam is exposed 

PAY NOW ! ask questions later

 

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by brokenbone

[Vacuum]

On 2/19/2020 at 10:52 AM, snoop1130 said:

Global warming was leading to an “irreversible” mass melting of the Antarctic ice

How many people go touristing to the Antartica? What's the problem?

[brokenbone]

3 minutes ago, Vacuum said:

How many people go touristing to the Antartica? What's the problem?

well, if ice melt and temperature there becomes nice,

humans can be expected to go touristing there

[Lacessit]

31 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

And no one here is yet to offer a criticism of my critique of the article that launched this thread!

Perhaps no one can be bothered.

[WalkingOrders]

52 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Perhaps no one can be bothered.

Exactly, and that speaks volumes about alarmists. Reason not in the vocabulary. Totalitarianism is.

[tomazbodner]

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, tomazbodner said:

the drama, once upon a time people could keep their house heated during winter,

and because of those sods, we are now back at stone age,

keeping warm around a fire, civilization is no more,

three quarters of man starved to death, yada yada.

what ever happened to reasoning ?

[rabas]

Ocasio-Cortez the intelligent

 

It is totally insane for someone clueless about a kitchen sink disposal to explain that fixing nature's most complex problem must cost at least $10 trillion USD. 

 

""I'm not excited to say we need to spend $10 trillion on climate, but ... it's just the fact of the scenario," she said.   link

 

A fact, she explains, as dollar signs flash in the minds of every politician and wealthy industrialist.  Do you ever ask why humanity must render it's remaining wealth to use less of a commodity?

 

Better idea. First fix the huge error bars on climate forecasting, remove all the politics and alarmism, then develop a plan to financially benefit consumers for using less.

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by rabas

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

Exactly, and that speaks volumes about alarmists. Reason not in the vocabulary. Totalitarianism is.

I think I'd enjoy a game of cricket with you. Everything would be going through to the wicketkeeper.

[WalkingOrders]

12 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I think I'd enjoy a game of cricket with you. Everything would be going through to the wicketkeeper.

The closest I have ever been to a game of cricket is on the beach with a tennis ball and stacked empty beer cans for wickets. As I recall over 40 years back, I didn't do that bad.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

Ok, you cut oil production and this is what happens. Price goes up. Disagree? Go ahead present an economic argument.

 

If oil price goes up, the price of shipping rises, as well as all transportation. Disagree? Present an argument.

 

If shipping price is up, and price of ferilizers up, the price of food commodities go up. Disagree? Present your economic argument.

 

Now what happens to bring prices down if production is high, but the price goes down, typically that is global recession. And that is not good. As I said earlier, what do you want? My Govt is the USA, we cannot force other countries to pay for catalytic converters for their autos, or filter and recapture systems for their coal plants.

 

Nor do I support insane ideas of disrupting the global economy, or offering economic incintives to other countries to save themselves.

Individuals, businesses and governments across the globe are adopting non fossil fuel energy, the trend is accelerating.

 

The adoption of non fossil fuel energy sources, reduces demand for fossil fuels and therefore I inevitably will brings about a reduction in the cost of fossil fuels.

 

And here’s the good bit, renewable energy sources rely on technology and products that, unlike commodities such as fossil fuels, become cheaper as the market grows.

 

The movement away from fossil fuels is underway, it is not the sudden banning of fossil fuels as employees in your straw man arguments.

 

[bristolboy]

48 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Individuals, businesses and governments across the globe are adopting non fossil fuel energy, the trend is accelerating.

 

The adoption of non fossil fuel energy sources, reduces demand for fossil fuels and therefore I inevitably will brings about a reduction in the cost of fossil fuels.

 

And here’s the good bit, renewable energy sources rely on technology and products that, unlike commodities such as fossil fuels, become cheaper as the market grows.

 

The movement away from fossil fuels is underway, it is not the sudden banning of fossil fuels as employees in your straw man arguments.

 

And as the IMF has reported, about 6 percent of global GDP goes toward subsidizing fossil fuels.

[Forethat]

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

False.

Antarctic sea ice extent reached 18.2 million km² on average in September 2019, which was 0.2 million km² (or about 0.9%) below the 1981-2010 average for September. Even though many of the months leading up to September 2019 have shown large negative sea ice anomalies overall, the September 2019 sea ice extent is relatively close to average, ranking 15^th lowest in our 41-year record. September is usually the month when Antarctic sea ice cover reaches its annual maximum extent.

https://sunshinehours.net/2020/02/23/sea-ice-extent-global-antarctic-and-arctic-day-53-2020/

And just in case you're wondering, no miraculous surge of sea ice extent occurred later to make 2019 #2.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-climate-antarctic-sea-ice-extent

And....THERE you switched from discussing the current conditions, subject of the discussion, and instead decided to bring the data for September into scope.

 

Ok. Interesting debating technique, but whatever floats your boat...

[WalkingOrders]

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Individuals, businesses and governments across the globe are adopting non fossil fuel energy, the trend is accelerating.

 

The adoption of non fossil fuel energy sources, reduces demand for fossil fuels and therefore I inevitably will brings about a reduction in the cost of fossil fuels.

 

And here’s the good bit, renewable energy sources rely on technology and products that, unlike commodities such as fossil fuels, become cheaper as the market grows.

 

The movement away from fossil fuels is underway, it is not the sudden banning of fossil fuels as employees in your straw man arguments.

 

Everything that you just said is true, except for the last line. I currently have a man running for President of the United States who has said that's he wants to throw oil executives in jail, ban fracking, nationalize the entire American power grid, and the fossil fuels industry, and therefore I assume ban new drilling projects in places such as the Anwar. He has also said he wants to nationalize the entire healthcare industry, and based upon what he says about American pharmaceutical companies he wants to severely restrict their profit margins, and thereby limit their ability to compete, and bring new product to market. In short he is calling for what I think could reasonably be called a government takeover of substantial sectors of the US economy. I assume the number of executive orders he would issue would dwarf all Presidents before him.

 

He has been unable, by his own admission on live television, to put a pricetag on his plans. Not even a reasonable estimate. 

 

I will stop right there.

 

Now, let's talk about the IPCC, and for the sake of argument, that all of their best guesstimates, assumptions, and projections are 100% correct. 

 

Let's also assume the USA, signs onto Paris agreement's. It gets a bit tricky now sir. You have to thoroughly read them, and understand a bit of wealth transfer is taking place within them. You need to be comfortable with that.

 

Next you have to really understand what the IPCC is really recommending to policy makers. After you read, it should be noticed by you that it is all a bit vague, with all the discussion of UN development goals, and economic justice etc.

 

OK we are on the same page? Am I being unkind?

 

Now let's go back your earlier assertions about renewable fuels etc. I say great! So we agree.

 

So please tell me what fuel will be used for international shipping?

 

What fuel used for aircraft, for vehicles?

 

Are you proposing everyone go nuclear?

 

Build more hydro electric dams, restrict more rivers?

 

Are you suggesting the USA, UK, etc turn to isolationism to restrict international trade? We could do that. Including changing our defense posture, we could do that too.

 

Ground all aircraft except essential?

 

Ban auto and boat racing, and recreational vehicles?

 

After all ten years to act or we miss 1.5

 

Or we could simply continue the search for alternative fuels, and deploy them as available, and work within our own countries to mitigate effects of a changing climate within our own nations as possible.

 

Which does not entail potential drastic upset of the global economy. Food for thought. Am I playing nice? Is anyone mad?

[bristolboy]

22 minutes ago, Forethat said:

And....THERE you switched from discussing the current conditions, subject of the discussion, and instead decided to bring the data for September into scope.

 

Ok. Interesting debating technique, but whatever floats your boat...

I cited September because that's generally the month where the period of maximum sea ice extent occurs for the Antarctic. Occasionally it's October. You claimed first that sea ice extent was at record levels, then you claimed it was #2. 

Anyway, if it's current conditions you want,  the closest I can come is for January 2020. This is from the report:

"By the end of the month, extent was nearly within the interquartile range of the median extent, though still below average. January is the month of the second largest seasonal ice loss, behind December, as the Antarctic extent approaches its annual minimum, usually in February."

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

"below average" doesn't exactly jibe with anything close to record setting, does it? Or are you claiming that data you possess from February readings is going to show something vastly different? Got some data to share with us?

Give it up already. You're wrong. Live with it.

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by bristolboy

[bristolboy]

10 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Everything that you just said is true, except for the last line. I currently have a man running for President of the United States who has said that's he wants to throw oil executives in jail, ban fracking, nationalize the entire American power grid, and the fossil fuels industry, and therefore I assume ban new drilling projects in places such as the Anwar. He has also said he wants to nationalize the entire healthcare industry, and based upon what he says about American pharmaceutical companies he wants to severely restrict their profit margins, and thereby limit their ability to compete, and bring new product to market. In short he is calling for what I think could reasonably be called a government takeover of substantial sectors of the US economy. I assume the number of executive orders he would issue would dwarf all Presidents before him.

 

He has been unable, by his own admission on live television, to put a pricetag on his plans. Not even a reasonable estimate. 

 

I will stop right there.

 

Now, let's talk about the IPCC, and for the sake of argument, that all of their best guesstimates, assumptions, and projections are 100% correct. 

 

Let's also assume the USA, signs onto Paris agreement's. It gets a bit tricky now sir. You have to thoroughly read them, and understand a bit of wealth transfer is taking place within them. You need to be comfortable with that.

 

Next you have to really understand what the IPCC is really recommending to policy makers. After you read, it should be noticed by you that it is all a bit vague, with all the discussion of UN development goals, and economic justice etc.

 

OK we are on the same page? Am I being unkind?

 

Now let's go back your earlier assertions about renewable fuels etc. I say great! So we agree.

 

So please tell me what fuel will be used for international shipping?

 

What fuel used for aircraft, for vehicles?

 

Are you proposing everyone go nuclear?

 

Build more hydro electric dams, restrict more rivers?

 

Are you suggesting the USA, UK, etc turn to isolationism to restrict international trade? We could do that. Including changing our defense posture, we could do that too.

 

Ground all aircraft except essential?

 

Ban auto and boat racing, and recreational vehicles?

 

After all ten years to act or we miss 1.5

 

Or we could simply continue the search for alternative fuels, and deploy them as available, and work within our own countries to mitigate effects of a changing climate within our own nations as possible.

 

Which does not entail potential drastic upset of the global economy. Food for thought. Am I playing nice? Is anyone mad?

Paris Accords are strictly voluntary. There is no enforcement mechanism. So no one is being forced to do anything.

No one, including Sanders, has said, to turn the tap off immediately on petroleum production. What is proposed is a building a smart grid and investing heavily in renewable R&D to stop burning fossil fuels ASAP. As the IMF reports, in 2017 the US economy subsidized fossil fuels to the tune of something like 645 billion dollars. 

As for Sanders threats to prosecute oil industry executives. He proposed it because as we now know, Exxon, for one, conducted very extensive research into the dangers of CO2-caused global warming and scientists pointed out the dangers of increased CO2 levels long ago to its executives.. Not only did Exxon ultimately ignore them, but it subsidized organizations such as the Heartland Institute (the same institute that used to be in the pay of Big Tobacco) to promote denialism. Whether there is a legally sustainable criminal case to be made against oil company executives, I don't know. What I do know is that the US Supreme Court refused Exxon's attempts to block  the Massachusetts AG's investigation of Exxon.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07012019/exxon-climate-fraud-investigation-supreme-court-ruling-massachusetts-attorney-general-healey

 

 

[WalkingOrders]

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Paris Accords are strictly voluntary. There is no enforcement mechanism. So no one is being forced to do anything.

No one, including Sanders, has said, to turn the tap off immediately on petroleum production. What is proposed is a building a smart grid and investing heavily in renewable R&D to stop burning fossil fuels ASAP. As the IMF reports, in 2017 the US economy subsidized fossil fuels to the tune of something like 645 billion dollars. 

As for Sanders threats to prosecute oil industry executives. He proposed it because as we now know, Exxon, for one, conducted very extensive research into the dangers of CO2-caused global warming and scientists pointed out the dangers of increased CO2 levels long ago to its executives.. Not only did Exxon ultimately ignore them, but it subsidized organizations such as the Heartland Institute (the same institute that used to be in the pay of Big Tobacco) to promote denialism. Whether there is a legally sustainable criminal case to be made against oil company executives, I don't know. What I do know is that the US Supreme Court refused Exxon's attempts to block  the Massachusetts AG's investigation of Exxon.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07012019/exxon-climate-fraud-investigation-supreme-court-ruling-massachusetts-attorney-general-healey

 

 

Voluntary to join, and no enforcement. Why is an international agreement even required? And it is ridiculous to blame oil execs for what fuels all of mankind's progress. Sanders said what I said he said. There is no denialism. There is only a requirement, a honest one, that science be allowed to do what science does. Building a smart grid is a reasonable expenditure on its face, provided it is not a pork barrel that feeds party representatives pockets. Public programs can easily be called what they are not.

[Forethat]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

I cited September because that's generally the month where the period of maximum sea ice extent occurs for the Antarctic. Occasionally it's October. You claimed first that sea ice extent was at record levels, then you claimed it was #2. 

Anyway, if it's current conditions you want,  the closest I can come is for January 2020. This is from the report:

"By the end of the month, extent was nearly within the interquartile range of the median extent, though still below average. January is the month of the second largest seasonal ice loss, behind December, as the Antarctic extent approaches its annual minimum, usually in February."

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

"below average" doesn't exactly jibe with anything close to record setting, does it? Or are you claiming that data you possess from February readings is going to show something vastly different? Got some data to share with us?

Give it up already. You're wrong. Live with it.

 

Of course I'm wrong if you keep moving the goalpost (the trait climate alarmist).

You wrote:

Quote

Antarctic sea ice is declining dramatically and we don’t know why

 

But the funny thing is that it is NOT declining. What's even funnier is that you then post a picture of a diagram that shows exactly my point (thanks for that!!). 

The sea ice extent in antarctica is higher now (not in September, but NOW) than it was 2019, 2018, 2017 and 2016. Looks like it is more or less at the same level as 2016 now to be fair.

 

Diagram from https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

 

And to address my initial point: why is this data removed from the diagram posted on NSIDCs front page? Why is it that the current ice level is always presented in charts that makes it look like the level is the lowest EVER? It isn't, the sea ice extent is growing.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Forethat

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, Forethat said:

Of course I'm wrong if you keep moving the goalpost (the trait climate alarmist).

You wrote:

 

But the funny thing is that it is NOT declining. What's even funnier is that you then post a picture of a diagram that shows exactly my point (thanks for that!!). 

The sea ice extent in antarctica is higher now (not in September, but NOW) than it was 2019, 2018, 2017 and 2016. Looks like it is more or less at the same level as 2016 now to be fair.

 

Diagram from https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

 

And to address my initial point: why is this data removed from the diagram posted on NSIDCs front page? Why is it that the current ice level is always presented in charts that makes it look like the level is the lowest EVER? It isn't, the sea ice extent is growing.

earth has entered a cooling phase, but much like co2 lags behind temp,

consensus lag behind climate trend, we just havnt established

how much consensus lag just yet

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

Everything that you just said is true, except for the last line. I currently have a man running for President of the United States who has said that's he wants to throw oil executives in jail, ban fracking, nationalize the entire American power grid, and the fossil fuels industry, and therefore I assume ban new drilling projects in places such as the Anwar. He has also said he wants to nationalize the entire healthcare industry, and based upon what he says about American pharmaceutical companies he wants to severely restrict their profit margins, and thereby limit their ability to compete, and bring new product to market. In short he is calling for what I think could reasonably be called a government takeover of substantial sectors of the US economy. I assume the number of executive orders he would issue would dwarf all Presidents before him.

 

He has been unable, by his own admission on live television, to put a pricetag on his plans. Not even a reasonable estimate. 

 

I will stop right there.

 

Now, let's talk about the IPCC, and for the sake of argument, that all of their best guesstimates, assumptions, and projections are 100% correct. 

 

Let's also assume the USA, signs onto Paris agreement's. It gets a bit tricky now sir. You have to thoroughly read them, and understand a bit of wealth transfer is taking place within them. You need to be comfortable with that.

 

Next you have to really understand what the IPCC is really recommending to policy makers. After you read, it should be noticed by you that it is all a bit vague, with all the discussion of UN development goals, and economic justice etc.

 

OK we are on the same page? Am I being unkind?

 

Now let's go back your earlier assertions about renewable fuels etc. I say great! So we agree.

 

So please tell me what fuel will be used for international shipping?

 

What fuel used for aircraft, for vehicles?

 

Are you proposing everyone go nuclear?

 

Build more hydro electric dams, restrict more rivers?

 

Are you suggesting the USA, UK, etc turn to isolationism to restrict international trade? We could do that. Including changing our defense posture, we could do that too.

 

Ground all aircraft except essential?

 

Ban auto and boat racing, and recreational vehicles?

 

After all ten years to act or we miss 1.5

 

Or we could simply continue the search for alternative fuels, and deploy them as available, and work within our own countries to mitigate effects of a changing climate within our own nations as possible.

 

Which does not entail potential drastic upset of the global economy. Food for thought. Am I playing nice? Is anyone mad?

You need to get a new man, the one you have will not be the candidate.

 

 

Which pulls the rug from under everything else you said thereafter.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

And I object to vague generalities made "Action needs to be taken" that carry within them a threat of doom.

I note that those that say such things rarely if ever say what they think should be done. As I've heard nothing from government except use bicycles, and pay more taxes, I'm at a loss to know just what is actually proposed that would make an actual difference. Reducing population would, but no one in government wants to talk about that.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

Or we could simply continue the search for alternative fuels,

The search was over ages ago. Hydrogen is the way to go, and if all the money used on battery powered cars had been used to perfect hydrogen in cars we'd be using that now.

Batteries are a dead end because of limited raw materials, limited life and pollution.

[Forethat]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The search was over ages ago. Hydrogen is the way to go, and if all the money used on battery powered cars had been used to perfect hydrogen in cars we'd be using that now.

Batteries are a dead end because of limited raw materials, limited life and pollution.

Totally. Hydrogen Fuel Cells will eventually take over. A shame development of that technology got distracted and interrupted by one of the most environmentally damaging technologies there is.