BY ROBERT L. BRADLEY, JR. of the Institute for Energy Research
“The current annual cost to extract all of the annual emissions [of CO2] is of the order of $1,000 per person per year in developed countries, about $600/person/year on global average. Extracting all current emissions is a realistic approximation of the need, as the allowed carbon budget to keep warming in the range specified by the Paris accord is nearly exhausted.”
– James Hansen and Pushker Kharecha, “Cost of Carbon Capture: Can Young People Bear the Burden?” Joule, August 15, 2018.
What Al Gore called “the central organizing principle of civilization” marches on. Premised on population, affluence, and technology (PAT) as the scourge of the natural environment, anti-industrial activists effortlessly jump from alleged market failure to recommended government correction, program by new program.
What is the latest public policy push regarding global warming? According to scientist/activist James Hansen, the time has come to construct new-technology industrial plants to generate “negative” carbon emissions to “stabilize” global climate. Versus carbon-dioxide tax proposals around $40 per metric ton, this new program would cost between $150 and $200 per metric ton.
Background
James Hansen is a force for climate activism. Not only did his 1988 Congressional testimony launch the global-warming scare, his carbon tax (“fee and dividend”) advocacyis the policy centerpiece of the national lobby group Citizens’ Climate Lobby.
Hansen has long warned of a shrinking timetable for significantly reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Back in 2006, he announced a ten-year window to “alter fundamentally the trajectory of global warming emissions.” In 2009, he reported that “the dangerous threshold of greenhouse gases is actually lower than what we told you a few years ago.” He added: “If the world does not make a dramatic shift in energy policies over the next few years, we may well pass the point of no return.”
Game, set, and match fossil fuels. The steady growth of natural gas, coal, and oil has busted beyond Hansen’s “point of no return.” With a US-led global boom in oil and gas extraction, business-as-usual is being redefined upwards for hydrocarbons worldwide.
“Global energy demand grew by 2.1% in 2017, and carbon emissions rose for the first time since 2014,” reported the International Energy Agency in its latest Global Energy and CO2Status Report. More than two-thirds of this increase was met by fossil fuels, IEA added, with increasing usage of coal (1 percent), oil (1.6 percent), and natural gas (3 percent). “Fossil fuels accounted for 81% of total energy demand in 2017,” IEA’s press release ended, “a level that has remained stable for more than three decades.”
Continued growth in fossil fuels is the base forecast for all of the major forecasting agencies (IEA, EIA, BP, ExxonMobil). Predictions of Peak Demand have grown about as quiet as talk of Peak Supply.
Meanwhile, the great hope of (politically correct) renewable energies hangs by government threads. With subsidy fatigue growing around the world, the bubble industries of industrial wind and on-grid solar could burst. And nuclear? The environmentalist civil war over the one large-scale carbon-free electricity source has been joined by the costly failure of new operational designs (such as Georgia’s Plant Vogtle).
Renewables: “Grossly Inadequate”
With the Paris climate accord going the way of the Kyoto Protocol (both described by Hansen and Kharecha as “precatory agreements, wishful thinking, which do almost nothing to address the fundamental problem”), the economic/political reality would seem to be free-market adaptation to the human influence on climate.
After all, Hansen himself decried the renewables movement as hopelessly unrealistic. “Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole,” he stated, “is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”
But no. The new plan is a grand leap into the technologically controversial, no-not-what-cost world of carbon capture and storage to create, in effect, carbon-neutral hydrocarbons fuels.
The New Imperative
Hansen and Kharecha premise their case on certain knowledge, absolute grounds:
“In view of our long-standing knowledge of the threat posed by climate change, we find it morally repugnant and reprehensible that we, the older generations, have not developed, tested, and costed the known technological options for addressing climate change, so that today’s young people and future generations will have viable options for addressing climate change.”
If nuclear power was Plan A for low-carbon energy given the limitations of wind and solar, negative emissions is Plan B for the failure of CO2 emissions mitigation. We already owe money in this regard, according to Hansen and Kharecha: “The average citizen in developed countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, has a debt of over $100,000 to remove their country’s contribution to climate change via fossil fuel burning.”
Hansen and Kharecha do not have the answers. They simply report the results of a new paper estimating the cost of negative emissions via direct air capture by an industrial plant. In “A Process for Capturing CO2 from the Atmosphere” (Joule: August 15, 2018), authors David Keith et al. report:
“We describe a process for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere in an industrial plant. The design captures ~1 Mt-CO2/year in a continuous process using an aqueous KOH sorbent coupled to a calcium caustic recovery loop…We report results from a pilot plant that provides data on performance of the major unit operations…Depending on financial assumptions, energy costs, and the specific choice of inputs and outputs, the levelized cost per ton CO2captured from the atmosphere ranges from 94 to 232 $/t-CO2.”
Versus a wide estimated range of CO2 capture between $50 and $1,000 per metric ton, this paper reports the results from an actual (pilot) project.
But the mid-point of the above estimate, $163 per metric ton of CO2 captured (storage would add $10–$20/tCO2 more), is three times the Obama-decreed social cost of carbon of $42 per metric ton. And as a pilot project, the authors rightly caution about its results “prior to its widespread deployment.”
Boondoggle, Cronyism Alert
“Estimated costs, exceeding $100 per ton of CO2 without including the cost of CO2storage, are lower than some prior estimates, yet are so high as to strongly support the need for rapid reduction of fossil fuel emissions,” state Hansen and Kharecha. But this window of opportunity has all but closed with the clash of economics versus politics being won by energy economics.
Remember the U.S. Synthetic Fuel Corporation (1980–86)? Remember the Kemper County carbon capture and storage project most recently? The latest from carbon capture should be treated with great caution, certainly guilty-until-proven-innocent.
Expect pushback for having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too from environmentalists who just don’t like cake.
And expect an upsurge of corporate cronyism. In fact, with the recent formation of the Carbon Capture Coalition, and ExxonMobil’s big talk (greenwashing to critics) about fuel-cell CO2 capture, taxpayers are put on notice.
When it comes to man-versus-nature, there seems to be no cost too high to pay according to the scientist emperors. The last word belongs to Nathan Confas, et al. who recently wrote in American Sociologist:
“There is a strong possibility that conservatives are not opposed to, or skeptical of, science per se. Rather, they lack trust in impact scientists whom they see as seeking to influence policy in a liberal direction.”
The Malthusian litany of false alarms justifies such skepticism.
I agree… the perfect solution cannot exist, or the scaremongers will be out of jobs.
I’ve lost track of the number of “point of no returns” and tipping points that we have passed over the last 20 years.
Not only has nothing bad happened, things are getting better everywhere.
The trouble is, the projections based on math and physics tells us that CO2 will be high in the air for 1000s of years, regardless of what we do now. And the maximum temp we reach is governed by what we are putting into the air now.
So, thinking people realize that’s bad. That doesn’t extend to WUWTer’s, because, well it’s obvious..
250 million years CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere stood at more than 1000ppm. Would you like to talk us through the catastrophic tipping point that occurred? (clue: there wasn’t one).
And would like to tell me what the sun was doing then? Bet you don’t know.
Thinking people don’t have to ask, we know that the sun was a couple of percent less bright back then. Which wasn’t enough to matter.
Why don’t you get back with your handlers and get some new myths to peddle.
These old ones are worn out.
No, would you like to tell US why the sun has suddenly been dragged into this comment thread which, up to this point, was only concerned with the importance or otherwise of CO2 concentration levels?
Is the sun now important to global temp, or are you just changing the subject? Or both?
If at first you don’t succeed, change the subject.
Craig from Oz,
The sun has always been the driver of climate and weather. CO2 has never been.
ReallySkeptical
The only observable manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2 is that the planet has greened.
Then there’s the fact that no one has demonstrated by empirical means that CO2 causes the planet to warm.
And as MarkW points out, in 40 years all we have had are failed predictions of catastrophe from climate alarmists.
“If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000,” claimed ecology professor Kenneth E.F. Watt at the University of California in 1970. “This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”
In March 2000 “senior research scientist” David Viner, working for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”
The next year, snowfall across the United Kingdom increased by more than 50 percent. In 2008 London saw its first October snow since 1934 (possibly even 1922). In December of 2009, London saw its heaviest levels of snowfall in two decades. In 2010, the coldest U.K. winter since records began a century ago blanketed the islands with snow.
In 1988 James Hanson told the world that within 20 years “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water,” Hansen claimed. “And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change…. There will be more police cars …
Remind me again why I shouldn’t be sceptical of all the BS you and your nutty co-calamatists peddle?
HotScot, Hansen was right about the birds. Few birds have a life span in the wild beyond a few years. The birds that live there now are descendants of the birds he so correctly predicted would be dead.
“And would like to tell me what the sun was doing then? ”
So it’s the sun then? CO2 has nothing much to do with it!
Always wrong, never in doubt.
the line is..
“It’s the sun, stupid”
and yes it drives far more on the planet than co2 ever will
Sami Solanki et al of the Max Plank Institute, back in 2011(?) “suggested” that the Sun is burning brighter now than at any time in the last 11,500 years! Guess what happened 11,500 years ago, give or take, the last Ice-Age ended!
‘And would like to tell me what the sun was doing then? ‘
You are saying that a few percent of brightness is equal to 600 ppm of CO2 ?
He has no idea whether it does or not.
It’s just the latest excuse to try and explain the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature.
It doesn’t have to actually make sense.
And here I thought ReallySkeptical (ReallyApologist more aptly named) was actually going to contribute something of substance, rather than the typical empty accusations, goal post moving, and ad hominems.
ReallySkeptical – would you please attempt to bring some substance to your antagonism? The folks here aren’t millennial automatons, so we know how to think. That means empty cliches and baseless assertions don’t work.
I know in your mind you have it all figured out and you trust CNN/HuffPo/MSNBC/Guardian/Vox, etc.. but I don’t know that you recognize the irony of your smug attitude and lack of knowledge.
I don’t know if I’d use the word “catastrophic” to describe something that resulted in growing conditions being so good that dense plant growth covered much of the planet, and earth became so conducive to life that cats grew to the size of horses, butterflies had 2′ wingspans, and reptiles and other creatures grew to enormous sizes.
“So, thinking people realize that’s bad. That doesn’t extend to WUWTer’s, because, well it’s obvious..”
Not our problem any more…the USA dropped emissions back to 1992 levels
(left up to the USA, CO2 levels would be back where they were in 1992….350ppm)
The trouble is, thinking people wonder why hysterical warmests are all in favor of China, Russia, India, etc etc on and on…
..emitting unicorn fart CO2 that’s not dangerous…and that’s obvious too
…so take your BS, put it in a can, and dispose of it where ever you think would be the most comfortable
Well. It might be necessary to think in terms of per capita, or per size of economy.
The US is still emitting much more per capita than say, the EU. But even the EU has been increasing emissions, not decreasing.
per capita is total BS…..global warming does not care how much money you make
….global warming only cares how much CO2 is emitted
When USA emissions went down….it immediately changed to….but you make so much money and we don’t
Don’t fall for this crap
per capita refers to population, not wealth.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/capita
Don’t you mean “most uncomfortable”? 😉
So… CO2 “high in the air” is worse than CO2 low in the air?
pH-corrected Phanerozoic temperature anomaly vs. GEOCARB III CO2…
Shocking!!! It yields a climate sensitivity of 1.28 °C. Royer’s pH corrections were derived from CO2; so it shouldn’t be too much of a surprise that the correlation was so good (R² = 0.6701)… But the low climate sensitivity is truly “mind blowing”… /Sarc.
1.28 °C per doubling of CO2 falls well-within the sarcastic BFD range.
Most scientists think it’s not 1.28C. Most think that it’s in the 2.5-4.0 range, with an average in the 3s. But you like to deceive yourself, so who am I to correct you.
Based on what?
Almost every recent observation-derived estimate of climate sensitivity puts the transient climate response in the neighborhood of 1.0-1.5 °C.
But that is a very selective list which is also out of date. It misses out a large number of much higher estimates of climate sensitivities usually based on past climates. For example “High Earth-system climate sensitivity determined from Pliocene carbon dioxide concentrations” by Pagani et al. in 2009 estimate a climate sensitivity of between 7.1 and 9.6 degrees C per doubling of CO2 in the past. Snyder in Nature in 2016 suggested a climate sensitivity of 9 degrees. Cox et al. published this year a new study that put the ECS at 2.8 degrees per doubling. And there are plenty more examples in the literature.
Well, Percy ( I guess you read juvenile books, then)…maybe there are reasons why ‘estimates’ such as Snyders is not included. You know, some said of that study ‘The paper claims that ESS is ~9ºC and that this implies that the long term committed warming from today’s CO2 levels is a further 3-7ºC. This is simply wrong. ‘
No point in including something that is ‘simply wrong’, don’t you think?
And you mention ‘a large number of much higher estimates’, but only come up with three examples, all of which are dismissed by the climate science consensus. Not a very solid argument.
The figure shown by David is appropriate, and reflects the ongoing development of the understanding of climate system sensitivity to forcing. Numbers are coming down, and the associated limit for catastrophe has moved down from 1995’s +6°C to the +2°C we hear about nowadays. There is correlation, after all.
Anders,
I was not making any claims as to the accuracy of the papers merely pointing out that the graph is presenting a selective view of the literature and a more complete analysis might well come to a different conclusion about whether or not there is any trend in the literature towards a lower equilibrium climate sensitivity.
Percy, you are basically asserting that the figure is misleading since it leaves out some studies. If we are to get any further, you should come up with thos ‘large numbers’ with higher estimates. And it is relevant how accurate they are, or as in the case of Snyder how wrong they are. You don’t include everything just because it has been published or, as in Snyders case, even peer reviewed. It has to have merit, and most of those given in the figure shown by David at least have som merit.
You argue the figure is misleading, thus placing the responsibility for showing that is the case squarely upon your own shoulders.
The one time in the history of the planet when both CO2 and temperatures are high.
And you complain about others having a selective list.
There are no temperature or CO2 “observations” from the Pliocene. There are no globally useful temperature “observations” before the mid-1800’s. There are no globally significant CO2 “observations” before 1958.
Isotope geochemistry is great for estimating past climatic conditions… But they aren’t “observations” of climatic conditions.
The Pliocene was likely much warmer than it is today and CO2 was likely about the same or slightly higher. The Pliocene’s warmth had nothing to do with CO2. It was driven by enhanced ocean heat transport. The formation of the Isthmus of Panama and other tectonic forces reduced ocean heat transport effectiveness in the Pleistocene… It got colder and CO2 was sucked up by the colder oceans.
Trentberth’s rebuttal to Lindzen & Choi included an observation-based ECS of about 2.3. If you look at the graph I posted, the current ECS estimates are the range of 1.5 to 2.8 C. However, ECS isn’t what matters from a human perspective. TCR is what matters. TCR estimates currently range from 1.0 to 1.8 C.
The difference between TCR and ECS plays out over hundreds of years and will likely be lost in the noise level.
Here’s an updated version of the shrinking sensitivity graph…
http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/
And a 2017 paper by Smirnov…
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-30813-5_10
“based on what”
So you only like observation-derived estimates I see, because, well, I know, looking at all the science is hard on a dinnn1ers brain.
But:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/09/01/the-ecs-is-probably-above-2k/
@ ReallySkeptical:
“So you only like observation-derived estimates”
OMG, that was funny. The best laugh I have had all week.
Have you considered a career as a Stand-Up comedian?
I wasted the Billy Madison clip on one of his less moronic comments.
TonyL : My degree was in biology, but my understanding is that science, in general, if not in all sciences, is grounded on observations, preferably multiple, concurred with by others, and consistent over time.. : .
How cruel, do you really want to see him DIE!!! (On stage that is.)
Why is it that genuinely stupid people insist on flaunting their stupidity?
Ignoring observations turns the scientific method into an unscientific circle jerk.
Can you please suggest how we construct earth 2 so we can prove the effect of ghgs on the temperature by experiment and observation.
The cost is a trifle high and Trump is cutting climate funding. Duplicating flora and fauna would be tricky in the available time scale too!
There’s no need for an Earth 2. We have decades of direct observations of temperatures, radiative balance and GHG’s. The observations all point to a low climate sensitivity.
We also have decades of climate models, 95% of which overestimate the warming subsequently observed. The relationship of the models to the observations poinst to a low climate sensitivity.
Wow!
What an absolutely wild “red herring” straw man fallacy!
ghalfgrunt introduces a rhetorical apparently desperate fear driven demand for a 2nd Earth for “testing and experimentation”.
A) Ignoring Earth’s many eras of history of higher CO₂ levels with abundant life over millions of years.
B) Ignoring that Earth’s climate has remained remarkably stable, within the needs of Earth creatures over hundreds of millions of years.
C) Ignoring that over that entire time, climate has constantly changed based upon influences and the sun’s energy.
D) Ignoring the reality that every alarmist fear and predicted disaster has been debunked or failed to materialize.
E) Ignoring that the claimed “temperature increase) is within the error range of our modern instruments; i.e. unable to confirm the cause!
F) Cost? What costs? To date, all estimated CAGW related costs are economist fantasies and academic fallacies, unproven in the real world.
G) Over thirty years of irrational climate alarms and mismanagement have wasted trillions of dollars!
* i) Thirty years of anti-science gerrymandering by alarmists in absurd attempts to keep their fantasy alive, have utterly destroyed several fields of science where models are preferred to reality.
H) Climate alarmism is entrenched within government entities. Their earnings, travel, glory, reward structure, etc. is utterly dependent upon keeping the alarmist mantra alive. Otherwise, they return to a mostly boring life of assessing weather, weather patterns, and analyzing vast tranches of real data.
I) Real data that clearly identifies large temperature ranges over:
a) diurnal periods
b) local-regional-mesoscale-national-global areas
c) weekly periods
d) monthly periods
e) seasonal periods
f) annual periods
1) Yet, undue attention and alarmism is focused a micro temperature variation within a very large temperature range.
* i) A variation that is still undetectable to humans.
* ii) A variation that is impossible to attribute to any specific cause beyond sunlight, cloud cover and weather. i.e. No one is capable of proving how much of that temperature variation is actually caused by CO₂ at any and every specific location.
So typical, models trump real world data.
I guess it’s easier than thinking for yourself.
“So you only like observation-derived estimates I see, because, well, I know, looking at all the science is hard on a dinnn1ers brain.”
How about not using connotations like “dinnn1ers”?
That might get you more respect instead of implementing Goodwins law …CUZ….I just stop reading your posts after that.
hahahaha! I just spit my coffee nearly hitting my keyboard. Thank you RS, you just made my morning joyful. I love laughing at the stupid, gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling inside.
I might just print that out and post it on my wall to brighten my mondays.
You really do repeat the mantra well.
To bad you have no science to back up your beliefs.
“so who am I to correct you.”
You are someone who believes he/she/it knows much more than all of us, and therefore it’s your job to correct us. That’s what I would do. Personally I would use facts and figures, instead of ad homs. But that’s just me – you do it your way.
Geocarb3 is a model
You do not believe models
Yo do not believe temps to 1800s how can you then believe temperatures millions of years ago?
Where did I say that I don’t believe in models?
Models are tools, very useful heuristic tools… But they aren’t observations.
The δ18O ratio in an ice or sediment core is an observation. The depths of the δ18O measurements within the core are observations.
Models enable us to estimate water temperatures and ages from the observations… But those model-derived estimates are not observations. Over most of geologic time, there are no direct observations of climatic and atmospheric conditions. These have to be estimated from proxies.
When all you have are models, you have to make do with models.
When you have direct observations and they conflict with the models… you go with the observations in every scientific field other than climate “science.”
David, Once upon a time we were battling with a federal agency over the management of an internationally important fish species. We had just ripped their model a part. The agency did admit that we had accumulated the best data set of all the species being managed in the Atlantic Ocean. So I asked if the data continued to indicate a decline in the stock but your model said otherwise which would your agency base its management on? The answer: The model. That led to a two hour recess of the meeting, a disbanding of the modeling team and a lot of politicians asking questions. Do bad we can’t make that happen with climate models.
Fascinating.
Pointing out the problems with temperature measurements in the 1800’s means you can’t trust temperature calculations, using entirely different methods for millions of years ago?
You aren’t a deep thinker, are you.
With an OCO-2 satellite up in space actually tracking CO₂ around the globe, why is there a Geocarb3 model?
The answer is, because the model gives entrenched alarmists the results they want, unlike the inconvenient fact measuring satellite.
A reason that explains why so many climate alarmist researcher depend upon the models, not facts and observations.
There are many historical temperature records back to the 1800s, in a few countries. None of which support CO₂ CAGW alarmism.
There are also historical temperature records and climate observations dating back into the late middle ages, in a very few specific spots.
Oddly, they record powerful disastrous storms, rainfalls, snowfalls, heat waves, droughts, etc. All well before substantial CAGW CO₂ influences.
e.g. There are records of powerful hurricane lost ships along with records of massive damage upon landfall that date back to the late 1600s.
e.g. 2, A number of countries record crops grown successfully over the last couple of thousand years. Including crops that do not grow in those latitudes today.
e.g. 3, whether tracking glaciers, permafrost or tree lines, there are many records showing that glaciers and permafrost are increasing while tree lines are lower in altitude or latitude.
e.g. 4, temperature records clearly show multiple warming periods equal in slope and variation to our modern warming period; e.g. 1880s, 1930s.
The alleged proxies are presented as equal to thermometers in the graphs.
1) proxies are not measured during daily temperature maximums and minimums!
2) proxies are incapable of representing hourly, daily, weekly, monthly or even annual temperatures! a proxy temperature resolution is a gross average over a span of years! Proxies are incapable of representing temperature maximums or minimums as used in CAGW oriented anomalies.
3) proxies are themselves assumptions with few proven correlations and fewer proven causations. There may be definitive relationships, but further proof that that relationship provides a viable causation correlation within a sample is rarely achieved.
* i) A prime example of proxy misuse surrounds tree rings where all tree rings in a sample are taken as definitive evidence of temperature.
https://youtu.be/AihvuZiDhsg
Yeah, right.
CO2 was “high in the air” long before man put any there.
Maybe you meant to imply that CO2 we emit today will be “high in the air for 1000s of years.” That would be a blatant lie or a pathetic display of ignorance.
Could you elaborate on your “math and physics”, looking forward to being enlightened?
Google is your friend, I am not your wet nurse. But to help, try https://www.princeton.edu/news/2013/11/24/even-if-emissions-stop-carbon-dioxide-could-warm-earth-centuries
He’s a troll. Let’s not respond to this fool
I’m guessing that RS and RyanS have the same handler, you rarely see them posting at the same time, and their style and choice of propaganda are pretty similar as well.
Mark- I agree. I would like to put their comments through some filter or application that can determine whether your instincts are accurate.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there were only 2 or 3 accounts posting all the different trolling commenter monikers.
I only see two genuine detractors: Nick Stokes and Kristi Silber. Regardless of how I view their perspective, they seem to be consistently polite and at least attempt to think. These other yahoo’s are just here to sew dissent.
honest liberty
Seconded about Nick Stokes and Kristi Silber.
“sew dissent”
I have accused them of making up their claims out of whole cloth.
ReallySkeptical says:
“the projections based on math and physics tells us that CO2 will be high in the air for 1000s of years”
Well, maybe the projections tell you that, the calculations tell us something completely different.
Currently, the general consensus is that about half of all anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed by the environment from the atmosphere. This is on a yearly basis, ongoing year after year.
Fair enough?
So what would happen if all CO2 emissions were to stop tomorrow? The same forces currently removing CO2 from the atmosphere would continue. As a result, atmospheric CO2 levels will fall to some equilibrium value, governed by Approach to Equilibrium kinetics.
So how long will this take?
Good question. Several determinations on the residence of CO2 in the atmosphere have been done. Results are reported variously as half-life, e-fold time, and a few others.
Bottom line, approximate half life ~5 years (some kinetic studies) to ~20 years, for the Bern Model. (The Bern Model is the one the warmists all favor, imagine that.)
The notion of anthropogenic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere persisting for 1000s of years is utterly unfounded. It is sheer alarmism without a shred of support in the data.
“Currently, the general consensus is that about half of all anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed by the environment from the atmosphere. This is on a yearly basis, ongoing year after year.”
Yup. And an an equal amt to that is emitted the next. It’s sort of like, because old paper dollars are taken out of use, more are introduced.
So, bottom line, it doesnt matter. The CO2 stays high, even if the original molecules aren’t there.
Physics.
Do you want to make a bet on ice extent and temperature ?
Propose your parameters and lay your money down.
The additional net ppm are only 1/2 % a year . To get to 560 which will be double the pre industrial level of 280 will take another 63 years. Even if climate sensitivity was 5 C higher the icecaps would not melt. Sure more people would die of heat stroke on hottest days but by that time, if you dont have air conditioning then you are refusing to join the modern world or you were left too poor because of the ridiculous climate alarm restrictions on fossil fuels. I am not worried by climate sensitivity. Nothing bad could happen even if the world was on average 5 C higher. In Canada we see temperature differences sometimes of 20 C even in a 24 hour period. Christopher Monckton is right. Alarmists are bedwetters
Nothing bad could happen even if the world was on average 5 C higher.
Meh, what could go wrong?
RyanS
What’s gone wrong so far?
Meh.
And Ryan ‘Sandpit’ S puts in an appearance. oh noes
No nothing wrong. We have been there.
Heat distribution on Earth is working way that it is enabling temperature of ocean to go to around 26C, then heat is vigorously extracted by storms and wind and transferred to north or to south where energy input from sun is lower. So basically with 5C higher temperature tropics still would be on 26 average, but colder parts of the world like Siberia, Europe, USA and Canada would be warmer from current ~13C average to 18C average like current US Southeast. Arctic would be even warmer maybe 10C warmer than now to keep overall 5C increase.
https://www.climate-charts.com/World-Climate-Maps.html#temperature
Green stripe (-4.5C to 0C) in North America and Eurazia would become habitable. Part of Greenland would be habitable again.
The world has been 5C warmer in the last 10K years, and nothing bad happened. Why do you believe this time will be different?
We don’t need no stinking coral reefs. Technology has the answer – virtual reality coral reef!
The coral reefs are doing just fine.
They survived much warmer in the past.
Perhaps if you studied a little bit on the subject you wouldn’t sound like such a parrot.
Ghalfrunt
Coral reefs have been around a lot longer than the human race, and will be around a long time after we’re gone.
Don’t worry your petty little head.
Corals grow (and die) forming reefs, and track both the water level and optimal conditions for that species. Given that there was a land-bridge to Tasmania recently enough for humans to cross it, the Great Barrier Reef cannot have been where it is now. Corals appear to be thriving quite close to underwater volcanic vents pushing the levels of temperature and ‘acidity’ vastly higher than achieved by raised CO2 air levels. So: from the sense of three of the Alarmist panic buttons – Ocean ‘acidification’ (yes, I know, but the Alarmist term), raised temperatures, and changes in sea-level, corals of all species, are not a great poster child for panic. There are other threats to corals, but not really the effects of CO2
Half way time of anthropogenic CO2 (that is the elevated CO2 concentration, not CO2 molecules with “human fingerprints”) is about 30 years. With about 1000Gt of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (~128ppm) CO2 sinks absorb about 23Gt a year, or 2.3%. This 2.3% figure has stayed extremely stable over the period of observation since the early 60ies, and over the increasing CO2 levels going from 320ppm to 405ppm.
So it is safe to say this relation will stay largely constant even if we moved beyond 500ppm. Furthermore we can tell what CO2 concentrations can be attained in the long run with any given levels of emissions. For instance if we eternally emitted 42Gt a year we would yield an equilibrium of (42/0,023) / 7.8 + 280 = 514ppm.
In other words, with the current emissions it is physically impossible to double CO2 levels.
The trouble is, projections, math and physics are not real and therefore cannot “tell” us anything. You’re guilty of reification. They are nothing more than tools and models that humans have developed help understand the physical world. Thinking people understand that and know the limits of models and projections. You have no idea what you’re talking about, because, well it’s obvious…
right. “math and physics are not real” right.
They are constructs. Even a math denier such as your self should have known that.
Derrida distorted Foucault’s argument that there was no absolute truth in social science to include the hard sciences. Foucault would have disagreed, but the Left continues Derrida’s misrepresentation because it suits their purposes.
right. “math and physics are not real” right.
That was not what was said! Of course they’re real you numpty, it’s your own blasted ignorance that embarrasses you, & you display it so well, you’re a gift!
ReallySkeptical
“right. “math and physics are not real” right.”
Not yours.
Hey reallyskeptical, what’s not real is a positive social cost of carbon. Last time I’ve checked, the S&P 500 was doing much better than the discount rate being used that gives a positive value to the social cost of carbon. I’ve done enough present-value cost estimates for clients to know how easy it is to change the outcome by tweeting the discount rate.
Create an earth 2 on which I can experiment then.
It is risky doing uncontrolled experiment on the only livable real estate!
Returning the earth to conditions that it enjoyed over 99% of geological history is an experiment?
Thinking people realize that the real world is more complicated than faulty computer models.
Thinking people can look at history and see that the world has been much warmer than now, and thrived.
Thinking people can look at history and see that CO2 levels have been higher than they are today, with temperatures much lower than they are today.
Thinking people can look at the data and realize the claim that CO2 will stay in the air for thousands of years and recognize it for the nonsensical propaganda that it is.
To bad you have never had any desire to be a thinking person.
” CO2 will be high in the air for 1000s of years, regardless of what we do now. ”
Is that so? Where is the C14 that was put into the atmosphere between 1945 and 1965 by A-bomb testing?
Walter that fact alone destroys all of climate alarmism. Because without long residence times the alarmists cant claim that mans input isn’t ~ 4%. If it is only 4%, as it really is, then the whole idea of CO2 causing massive positive forcing of more water vapour falls like a house of cards blown apart from the rising convection clouds caused by the 86.4W/m^2 of evaporation at about 3mm per day averaged over the total of the earth surface. Since positive forcing has to happen on a local regional level, the exchange of CO2 around the world is too fast for anyone area to build up with CO2 and indeed that is why CO2 is fairly well mixed. This fact alone that it is well mixed in the troposphere guarantees that (the small net increase of CO2 of 1/2 % per year net) cannot do any supposed positive forcing. On a local level the CO2 would have to be an order of magnitude higher to cause enough of a temperature rise to cause an increase in evaporation. The whole idea of a positive forcing on evaporation is nonsense anyway because evaporation is how the heat leaves the world’s oceans. The latent heat is then transported inside the water molecule into the troposphere where the water molecule eventually condenses releasing the latent heat that then is released to outer space. It doesnt come back down or else we would have had runaway global heating 4 billion years ago when the earth’s oceans 1st formed.
The other main reason that the IPCC says 400 or more years is that they can then tell scary stories of hard it is to get rid of CO2 even if the whole world completely stopped emitting.
So you can see that nothing in the CO2 global warming meme makes any sense.
The problem with the global warming theory is that once you tell one lie and that lie is exposed, then all the other lies that had to be built on that lie are also exposed one by one like dominoes. The analogy is the boy that stole the cookies from the cookie jar. After the first lie that said he wasnt home that day, he has to keep telling lies from then on , to explain what he did that day . Eventually he cant keep all the lies logically together.
Put simply the Anthropomorphic earth “sweats” to keep cool. Unfortunately it does not have a mechanism to keep warm when that is what is required; hence the glacial periods!
Except that the boy doesn’t have the luxury of just screaming louder each time he gets caught.
It has yet to be established how big a factor the CO2 is. Based on the past few decades of increased CO2 and not significant temp increase, it would seem the impact is very small. Remember all these doomsday predictions are just computer models that have countless variables of which we are not certain how each of them interact and how big an impact they have. Some things are too complex to analysis without more accurate knowledge of the system.
Tell us something we don’t know.
A 100 different studies have shown that CO2 lasts anywhere from 4 to 15 years. The IPCC claim and your claim are absolute nonsense. This is one of the stupidest claims of the alarmist side.
The residence time of an individual C in CO2 is very different from the half life of the emission itself. It appears about half the human emissions disappear, otherwise the atmospheric portion would grow about 100% faster. Should we stop emissions now, the CO2 in atmosphere would start a rapid drop.
“the maximum temp we reach is governed by what we are putting into the air now”
If that were true, the effect would be immediate and we should have had a scorching summer. But we didn’t. CO2 doesn’t determine climate. Location does. An increase in temperature is not the same thing as a change in climate.
They believe in haunting heat stored in oceans. Sigh.
Seriously? When even your beloved climate scientivists only claim a 100 year maximum, & that genuine studies suggest (they can only ever suggest, not prove) a maximum residence of between 5-10 years, with a mean of 7 years! I “suggest” unthinking people realise that’s bad! Crunch your numbers using UNIPCC data, that actually contradicts the claims made by the UNIPCC themselves!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/24/co2-residence-time-said-to-be-40-years-not-1000-as-noaa-claims/
RS is correct, that is what math and physics estimated.
However, RS is grievously wrong because they left out any projections based on biology.
I am not aware of a single model from the alarmist camp that even came close to the actual response of the biosphere to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. If the major carbon sink variable in your model is wrong – then your whole model is wrong.
Math: 5-2=3. 5-1=4
So why is it that when I take a gallon of watter out of a full 5 gallon rain barrel during a rain storm, it has 5 gallons in it a few minutes later?
For the slow witted: It has something to do with the math not including all the variables.
The lesson: observation trumps the math. The real world takes precedence over models.
I now see my problem….I just don’t view CO2 is pollution. Oops.
That’s not a problem, Macha. It’s reality based science and common sense.
To clarify:
It’s reality based science and common sense that CO2 is not pollution.
It is entirely beneficial and essential plant food!
Thank you for the clarification. For a moment I thought you had switched to the dark side.
“The Malthusian litany of false alarms justifies such skepticism….”
Amen to that.
Apparently, it’s a dream job. link
‘Impact Scientist’ isn’t a term invented by the skeptics. It’s an honest-to-God job description.
By any rational analysis, an Impact Scientist is a propagandist. When I was a pup, nobody wanted to be known as a propagandist for obvious reasons. People have short memories I guess.
Great Idea! Let’s piss away Trillion$ to starve the plants worldwide and placate the irrational climate change fearmongers!
All of this about “Carbon capture”as being the solution. So what then happens with the CO2. ?
If we store it can we guarantee that it cannot escape, after all it will displace the oxygen and people will die. Or do we convert it into fuel, no way thats producing more of the dreaded CO2. Can we make it into fertilizer, that sound good, but why, its alrteady natures fertilizer.
We could use it on depleted oil wells to get more oil out, but wait that will then produce more of the CO2.
The simple answer is that its best to let it do what nature intended all along, to fertilizer the plants which we need to keep us alive, but thats too simple for our Greenies to ever understand. .
MJE
Last November 17, The Economist published a page 1 story,” What they’re not telling you about Climate Change”.
What the were not telling us was that the Paris targets would not solve what was seen as the intractable problem of keeping the world temperatures below a 1.5 degrees C increase ( or even 2 degrees C ) by 2050.
From 411 ppm.at present it was necessary to reduce greenhouse gases to less than 350 ppm. it was asserted. “Negative emissions” were required.
It is the same lament that is contained in the Hansen and Kharecha paper here.
A number of geo-engineering programs were discussed without much optimism.
And the cost of such an exercise of sucking greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere?
“An awful lot of money” according to the Economist article!
I can remember thinking several decades ago when I first read of the global warming theory that if the alarmists were correct the prospects of decarbonising the world were negligible.
I see little here to change that opinion.
Quick update, today CO2 measured at Mauna Loa was 406 ppm (they reported 405.96).
Lookie there! The CO2 reduction has already started!
Down to 406 ppm from the alarmist stated 411 ppm.
Next thing ya know, the seas will start receding and open up giga-acres of new beach front property.
Boy, Oh Boy! Is algore gonna be surprised when I buy the ‘new’ property in front of his beach front home and open up a beach side resort for Conservative Climate Studies – With Wahinis In Bikinis And Little Umbrella Drinks (CCS-WWIBALUD). OK. OK! It might need a ‘sexier’ name than that….. before I put out the crowd source funding request!
It always drops during northern hemisphere summer.
MarkW,
And the claims of Anthropogenic Global Warming rise each summer….. because it’s summer! If the proponents of AGW can use naturally warmer summer weather to claim ‘Global Warming’, I can equally use their specious reasoning to spoof their deceits! It’s called Sarchasm….
or perhaps sarcasm?
Sarchasm: The gulf between my sense of humor and how some others comprehend it.
As I have said before, when the Real Estate agents start reducing the price of sea-front properties, then I’ll think again about AGW, but only then! Can anyone tell me, is Al Gore babystill enjoying his $4M sea front pad he bought on the proceeds of An Inconvenient Truth?
How can there be .96 of a CO2 molecule?
It requires a 97% consensus…..
0.96 ppm is just 960 parts per billion. So why not.
0.96 is not a whole CO2 molecule, thus cannot exist in the real world. Because I have no idea how 0.04 is shaved off the C or O atoms in CO2. How does that work?
I just explained.
So our challenge now is to get dispatchable renewable/sustainable electricity down to <$0.03/kWh to get hydrogen to < $1,000/ton, and cut CO2 air capture by 80% to <$35/ton to make fuel to replace depleting fossil fuels. So "between my brains, his strength, and your steel . . ." what's the problem? Let's get on with it. http://heshydrogen.com/hydrogen-fuel-cost-vs-gasoline/
The only “process for capturing CO2” that makes any economic sense, invloves pumping it back into the ground for enhanced crude oil recovery.
Or recycling the CO2 into synthetic sustainable fuel.
I think the economics for that process are still a bit off in the future… But very real.
Or using it to grow yummy plants.
MarkW
I’ll stick to steak. Leave all the “yummy plants” to the cows. 🙂
Just watch out for gout.
Why waste resources on artificial CO2 capture when our world full of plants do it entirely naturally for free? If collecting and pumping it into existing oil fields provides a true net present value gain – fine. Do it. But if any proposal does not meet that criteria, forget about it!
CO2 is not pollution. It’s essential plant food.
Let it float around, free. It will find a friendly plant to feed or be washed out of the sky and bind to some calcium and retire from its travels for a few million years. CO2 has been doing this for over 3 billion years with no deleterious effect.
The presumption that CO2 must be removed from Earth’s atmosphere is insane.
Calling CO2 pollution is insane.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is a small part of the global biogeochemical carbon cycle.
Higher CO2 concentrations always benefit global biology.
“Negative carbon emissions” isn’t that what plants do? Seems some people, unbeknown to them, want to be farmers.
Hang on a minute, hasn’t it recently be shown that ECS is quite low and that increased CO2 is good for planet Earth..?
In which case, why are these people still banging on about their crackpot schemes?! They must be up to no good.
Anyway, if they really want to capture some CO2, why not roll their sleeves up and plant lots of trees..?
I’m doing my part to reduce CO2 emissions; there is a surcharge on my Georgia Power bill each month to fund the cost overruns on Plant Vogtle reactors 3 and 4. Without that surcharge they would halt construction and 2.3 GW of output would have to be made up from fossil fuel sources.
I figure with just this one contribution, I’m doing more to reduce CO2 than Al Gore (but then again, who isn’t?).
“The current annual cost to extract all of the annual emissions [of CO2] is of the order of $1,000 per person per year in developed countries, about $600/person/year on global average. ”
Anyone who has studied at least economics 101 will know that these sums are probably guesses and I would say that the cost will be considerably more.
In fact though, in my opinion, this cost on every individual will cause a lethal world wide recession. That is to say, there will be wide spread starvation.
We all know that Donald Trump’s reducing of taxation and red tape is causing a great boom, well reversing more deeply than from where Donald Trump started from will cause that recession. This is how sensitive economies are to human manipulation.
Shades of Venezuela spring to mind. 🙁
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
I think the number itself might be precise, but we just don’t know how that could happen. I don’t afford $4000/yr, or, if I do, the economy won’t survive that.
This negative emission baloney reminds me of nonsense that California came up with decades ago. Our government came up with a stupid law that shut down a business. Avco Lycoming had an aircraft piston engine factory, near Los Angeles, for new and remanufactured engines and had run-up test stands to check if the engines met specs, and California decreed that the exhaust from the engines had to be cleaner than the surrounding air the engines took in. A kind of “new math” where 5+ 2 is less than or equal to 4 ? The factory closed.
And that is why we are stuck on earth.
In 1959 a person could purchase a Cessna 182B for around $9,500.00.
That was a little more than the average family annual income.
It traveled 150 MPH and could haul 1000 pounds at 12 miles per gallon.
About the same as a half ton Pickup truck in fuel consumption.
And then came the FAA.
Progress?
“the central organizing principle of civilization” is code for one world government . . . with Al Gore at the top.
NaaaaH, he’s already made his millions!
Could we get a patent on natural CO2 sinks? Just asking as they consume about 22Gt of CO2 per year (or 2.2% of anthropogenic CO2). At a price of 100$ per ton they produce a value 2.2 trillion dollars, annually. I mean such a patent could be profitable.
I want the patent on plants.
You’ll have to pay me every time you grow one.
I did a rough calculation of the amount of air the CO2 capture plant would have to process in order to yield 1Mt/yr of CO2. Assuming the process gets all 400 ppm out of every volume of air, they’d have to process 1.5E6 standard cubic feet of air per second (91E6 scfm). Is that possible? Sure, it’s the equivalent of the air flow through a 200 foot diameter wind turbine at 48 feet per second (33 mph). Not impossible. But in order to get that to happen, you have to put in the amount of power the wind turbine would have generated under those conditions, at a minimum. That’s about 400 kW. Assuming 24/7 operation, just the air blower would consume 3.5E6 kW-hr. At industrial rates, that’s $100 k a year, at least. That works out to $0.1/tonne CO2. Not bad.
I was originally skeptical of this, but it’s not necessarily inane. In fact, there are ways to set things up such that the blower actually produces power. My major professor in engineering school came up with the idea of a wind turbine mounted with the blades parallel to the ground, and injecting a fine water spray from the trailing edges of the blades. The point was to cool the air, producing a strong downdraft. He wanted to use seawater, to evaporate enough of the water to be able to mine the leavings for various minerals. But using an excess of water, loaded with KOH, one could reasonably capture all of the CO2, and generate power to run the rest of the system to boot. (A vertical wind turbine using water cooling spray was featured, many years later, on the cover of Popular Science.)
If Hanson believes he has the ‘chops’ to convince his coalition of brainwashed CAGW cultists to build more nuclear power plants, he’s even more deluded than he is about the risk of the Earth turning into another Venus. ha ha ha ha
CAGW’s CMIP5 model mean projected the global temp anomaly would be around 1.2C by August 2018.. UAH’s August anomaly is at 0.19 (SIX TIMES less than projections):
(Dr. Christy needs to update this chart because the disparity between CAGW model projections vs. observations has increased substantially since 2016).
The disparity between CAGW’s projections vs. reality are already large enough and long enough to disconfirm the CAGW hypothesis. The disparity/duration will continue to increase once: the PDO/AMO/NAO are all in their respective 30-year cool cycles from around the early 2020’s, a La Nina event starts around 2020, a large volcanic event event occurs shortly (we’re due for one), and a Grand Solar Minimum starts from around 2020…
We’re definitely reaching the beginning of the end of the biggest and most expensive political scam in human history…
It’s amazing CAGW is still a thing given that NONE of their doom and gloom predictions are even close to reflecting reality…
Just eyeballing that chart, it looks like the observations end around 2016. During the most recent El Nino. I’d love to see a version of that chart that runs to 2018. It would look even worse for the warmistas.
If you extend the chart back to 1930 you find that this is a pretend problem.
So, as usual, adaptation is the key action if it were to be a global warming due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions and not going back to the Stone Age.
Off topic Elon Musk to leave Tesla;
https://mywealthpredictor.com/tesla-stock-slides-amid-reports-elon-musk-board-will-meet-sec-next-week/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7-j0xY6o3QIVh4yWCh1-7AUZEAEYASAAEgIZU_D_BwE
Tips and notes doesn’t seem to work.
So Hansen and Kharecha want us to pay more taxes in order to capture CO2 and “save the planet”.
But as I understand it, oceans play an important role in atmospheric CO2 regulation since they emit or capture CO2 to achieve equilibrium between atmospheric and aqueous CO2
(Henry’s law – aquatic chemistry :
http://ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Endersbee-oceans.pdf
http://bosmin.com/SeaChange.pdf
etc.)
and this equilibrium depends on oceans temperatures.
And since oceans contain about 50 times more aqueous CO2 than atmosphere contains CO2, it seems that there is no way to change this by any human process, be it industrial, contemplative, shamanic or by witchcraft :
– oceans will compensate any human CO2 capture by emitting nearly the same amount.
Another alarmists farcical “coup d’épée dans l’eau” which will cost trillions ?
“So Hansen and Karecha wants us to pay more taxes in order to capture CO2 and save the planet”
Seems they want to charge us in order to further increase our poverty. Doesn’t seem quite right to me (sarc.
Why don’t they decide to do something more useful to “save the planet “ – my idea is that we get all the alarmists and eco-worshippers to form a long double-line from the mouth of a major river, each person with a bucket, all the way up to its source. Then they fill the bucket and pass it up the line to pour back at the start of the river. Once the process has started this will enable a more efficient use of hydro electricity generation with its zero emissions.
A kind of perpetual motion virtue signalling eco-machine providing useful employment for green idiots in huge numbers so that they can stop screwing world progress and feel good about it. What could possibly be wrong about the science – they might work it out eventually, until then it’s all downhill, err uphill that it.
Moderately Cross of East Anglia
They have to be fed. That’s a major source of CO2 emissions, not even considering the transportation and processing.
I suppose they could eat each other though.
Its simply a way to get the plebs to accept grinding poverty whilst the oligarchy rush around in private jets.
socialists all believe they’ll be members of the elite. They somehow believe ‘they’ are blessed with superhuman qualities that will have them plucked from the prols, destined for greatness.
Only a dead planet is carbon neutral.
Carbon capture creates a hazard where there was none. Think Lake Nyos. That said, I swear they are fanatical enough that they’d remove all CO2 from the atmosphere if they could.
Look at Hansen’s photo at the Senate stunt where he delivered the opening lines of the climate mania.
It is clearer and clearer that he he was crazy wrong then.
This latest paper indicated he has not gotten the treatment he desperately needs.
His pathetic delusional obsession about confusing Earth and Venus and blaming humanity for his confused state has not gotten better with time.
James Hansen was one of the first computer climate modellers that in 1988 predicted warming scenarios. Because he actually published 2 papers in 1981 on CO2 forcing and went to Congress twice to testify in 1987 and again in 1988 in favour of global warning you may accurately say that he James Hansen is the father of computer climate modelling . However he is the father of a scientific discipline that started with a scam as Willis has pointed out and has had to tell one lie after another just to keep the scam going. Billions have been wasted on this scam and billions more will be wasted before the scam ends.
The only consolation we skeptics have is that each one of us is contributing the hastening of that end. I ask everyone I meet “Have you seen global warming yet? I have been looking for it for 30 years and cant seem to find it. Do you know where it is? If they mention something like the Arctic or Greenland I give them statistics that I have learned in 9 months of studying this for 8 hours a day.
TELL EVERYONE YOU MEET THAT IT IS A SCAM AND WHY.
1 WUWT contributer said, this scam in comparison makes Bernie Madoff look like a petty thief. Bernie Madoff in the end caused losses 0f ~$7 billion to his investors. As least they had a choice to invest or not. The world’s poor DO NOT have a choice. They are paying for James Hansen and others’ scam every day so that the end result might be $7 trillion down the drain before it is all over.
Now for some comments about James Hansen
It boggles the mind how truly deranged this man is. He is completely unstuck mentally and a bonafide nut case, devoid of any common sense or rational thought. To think he was the director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies(GISS) a division of NASA for a large % of time of the 32 years that he worked there. Before he retired in 2013, he turned that agency into an agency of global warming. He was arrested 5 times for protesting illegally for green causes.
Some of his predictions and some statements in his own words, and hallmarks of his life are as follows:
1) In 1988 he predicted that the Hudson River would overflow because of rising sea level caused by CO2 and New York would be underwater by 2008.
2) In 1986 he predicted that the earth would be 1.1C higher within 20 years and then by
3) 1999 he said that the earth had cooled and that the US hadn’t warmed in 50 years
4 He had also said that the Arctic would lose all of its ice by 2000.
5) In december 2005, Hansen argued that the earth will become “a different planet” without U.S. leadership in cutting global greenhouse gas emissions.
6) He also said that global warming of 2C above preindustrial times (~ 1850) would be dangerous and that mankind would be unable to adapt.
7) In 2008 he coauthored a paper that said that unless mankind limited the CO2 to 350ppm that we would have not have the same planet that we grew up with. Well 10 years later we are at 410ppm and the planet looks the same to me.
8) in 2009 Hansen called coal companies criminal enterprises and said that Obama had 4 years left to save the planet.
9) In 2012 Hansen accused skeptics of crimes against humanity and nature.
10) Hansen is involved with a 2015 lawsuit involving 21 kids that argues that their constitutional rights were interfered with by CO2
11) He then said in march 2016 that the seas could rise several metres in 50 to 150 years and swamp coastal cities .
12) in 2017 he has admitted that CAGW does not happen with burning fossil fuels.
“One flaw in my book Storms of My Grandchildren is my inference you can get runaway climate change on a relatively short timescale. ”
“Do you think that’s possible on a many-millions-of-years timescale?
It can’t be done with fossil-fuel burning.”
13) Then he said “But if you’re really talking about four or five degrees, that means the tropics and the subtropics are going to be practically uninhabitable.”
He doesnt seem to know that their average temperature is 28C.
14) But then he said that climate change was running a $535 trillion debt
15) He has been quoted many times that equates climate change to all sorts of extreme weather events. No database in the world shows any more than there ever were.
16) Hansen has published way over 100 fraudulent climate studies with almost all of them using results from computer climate models that are woefully inadequate and that have never been validated except by the human modeler.
17) In 2018 he made this quote in a study “The average citizen in developed countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, has a debt of over $100,000 to remove their country’s contribution to climate change via fossil fuel burning.”
Obviously the man just doesnt know when to shut up.
I totally agree! One question however; Who benefits from the sc@m? Hansen? I think not!
As director of GISS he was paid handsomely all those years plus someone is funding his studies.
“It is clearer and clearer that he he was crazy wrong then.”
He he. Always wrong, never in doubt!
The two most consistent characteristics of the “Climate change” cult, like all such cults, is its constant non stop, never pausing for a post [ non ] event analysis, a concentration on “predictions” of imminent and dangerous Nature and civilisation destroying events arising from the aforesaid “Climate change” unless “we do something”.
The second such characteristic of the climate change cult [ and “renewable energy”, another direct and unaffordable civilisation disrupting consequence of the Climate Change cult ] is a whole bucketful of extremely dubious and usually just plain straight out highly misleading and even straight out f—–dulent numerical calculations based on those aforesaid Climate change predictions, which purport to show how seriously the Climate change claims and the claims of its adherents must be treated.
Rarely if ever do we see any serious analysis other than wild hand waving claims coming from the Climate change cultists themselves on the non eventuating but previously “predicted” climate change events and their supposed “predicted” consequences.
The self importance and hubris of these people is just galactic.
I’ve looked and looked and looked and failed to find a thing I found ages ago.
It was a real experiment conducted in a field in South West Scotland. I remember it because it would have been barely 45 minutes drive from my old place.
Basically a farmer had ploughed a tired old pasture field and was going to leave it ‘fallow’ for 12 months
Researchers took the opportunity to plant some CO2 flux meters in the field for the 12 months.
As it happened and due to the less than clement weather in that part of the world, the meters were running for 2 years.
Just sitting on some bare ploughed field. at 55+ degrees North.
They recorded that for both of the 2 years, that bare soil was releasing 10 tonnes per acre per year of CO2
Does ‘World Farmland’ extend to 1,200 million acres, roughly.
Work it out. Compare to fossil emissions….
No matter until you see this, (something I did properly bookmark and is *still* there. Nice.)
http://flux.aos.wisc.edu/~adesai/documents/Desai-AFM-Multisite.pdf
It describes how they did the reverse experiment – looking to see how much CO2 an actively growing and mixed tree-age forest, at reasonable latitude, absorbed.
Just eyeballing their Fig 2, I’d guess that their forest was soaking up about 5 grams of carbon per square metre per day over the 3 months of summer. Nil otherwise.
I get that to be just shy of 5 tonnes of CO2 per acre per year- which stacks up *perfectly* with a figure someone here quoted about Douglas Fir forest growing on Oregon.
I calculated then that it would need 720 acres of Douglas Fir to soak up 1 hour’s worth of output from the wood-burning exercise currently going on inside Drax Power Station. Even before they get all of Drax burning wood and thus quadruple that figure.
See the ‘problem’…
Acre for acre, ploughed dirt is releasing twice as much CO2 as forest is absorbing – the *difference* amounting to 1,200 million acres at 5 tonnes per acre = 60+ gigatons annually
(From my experience of livestock farming and grazed dirt and what our (now disappeared) contributor – RGB@Duke – used to say= ‘Goats make deserts’…..
(A desert being defined as a place with low to zero soil organic content)
…I would assert that grazed farmland is producing just as much CO2 as ploughed farmland)
In light of that, are Fossil Fuels a problem – is there anything to worry about or get into a blind panic about, as is patently happening now amongst scientists and politicos…….
PS I take ‘farmland’ to be 10% of entire Earth surface, hence= 10% of 5E14 square metres
https://www.producer.com/2017/11/worlds-farmland-total-bigger-expected/
Satellite figures show 15 % more farmland they they thought.
The answer is 4.62 billion acres are farmland.
After a crop started growing ; the soil would not release as much CO2. However you are correct that the IPCC is surely underestimating the land use component of CO2 emission to atmosphere. Mankind is now emitting over 10 GT of carbon or 36.7 GT of CO2 per year. The US DOE has vastly underestimated the landuse component and the IPCC just blindly copies as usual.
According to your calcs your number should have been 6 not 60 . However with the true total of farmland at 4.62 billion acres at 5 tonnes CO2 net per acre emission , the total would be 23.1 billion tons of CO2 or 6.29 GT of carbon because of farmland. However some of that farmland is orchards and never gets ploughed. % of orchards in Europe is 0.25% so subtract .1 to give you 23 GT of CO2 or 6.267 GT of carbon .
However your premise is correct. You are brillant. You have just found the reason why the CO2 in the air is increasing by a net of 1/2 % per year. It is land use. Since the IPCC says land use is 29% of total that means per year actual farmland (IPCC figure ) emits 2.9 GT of carbon or 10.6 GT of CO2. However your figure is 6.267 GT of carbon or 23 GT of CO2. Even just adding 15% more farmland and disregrading your figures for a moment would give 3.335 Gt of carbon(revised IPCC figure) or 12.24 GT CO2(revised IPCC figure) which is 1.64GT CO2 more which is 0.435 GT of carbon more or 1.596 GT CO2 more. That represents a revised IPCC figure which is 4.35% higher .
However adding your revised figures to this revelation we get 6.267 – 2.9 = 3.367 GT Carbon or 12.356 GT CO2 more. Your figures give 33.67 % more . Some of that is because of the 15% more farmland and some of it is because of your figure of net 5 tonnes CO2 emission per acre per year is obviously way more than what the IPCC says.
***************************************************************************************
Both AGW and CAGW are busted. Amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On 2nd thought the alarmists are going to argue that no matter whether it is farmland or fossil fuels or cement making the CO2 is going up because of man. So I guess it isnt a bust but it sure makes the IPCC look like a grade schooler who hasn’t learned to do the experiments on CO2 emissions and hasnt learned to use the info on satellites.
Delete the phrase “or 1.596 GT CO2 more”. and delete the sentence “That represents a revised IPCC figure which is 4.35% higher . ” Add the sentence That represents a revised IPCC figure from all 3 sources of manmade emissions which is 4.35% higher .
Okay AGW and CAGW are not necessarily busted from this but it sure raises questions about the accuracy of the carbon cycle. Here is a corrected copy of the above.
https://www.producer.com/2017/11/worlds-farmland-total-bigger-expected/
Satellite figures show 17 % more farmland they they thought.
The answer is 4.62 billion acres are farmland.
After a crop started growing the soil would not release as much CO2. However you are correct that the IPCC is surely underestimating the land use component of CO2 emission to atmosphere. Mankind is now emitting over 10 GT of carbon or 36.7 GT of CO2 per year. The US DOE has vastly underestimated the landuse component and the IPCC just blindly copies as usual.
According to your calcs your number should have been 6 not 60 . However with the true total of farmland at 4.62 billion acres at 5 tonnes CO2 net per acre emission , the total would be 23.1 billion tons of CO2 or 6.29 GT of carbon because of farmland. However some of that farmland is orchards and never gets ploughed. % of orchards in Europe is 0.25% so subtract .1 to give you 23 GT of CO2 or 6.267 GT of carbon .
However your premise is correct. You are brillant. You have just found a big hole in the carbon cycle. It is land use. Since the IPCC says land use is 29% of total that means per year actual farmland (IPCC figure ) emits 2.9 GT of carbon or 10.643 GT of CO2. However your figure is 6.267 GT of carbon or 23 GT of CO2. Even just adding 17% more farmland and disregarding your figures for a moment, would give 3.393 Gt of carbon(revised IPCC figure) or 12.45 GT CO2(revised IPCC figure) which is 1.81GT CO2 more which is 0.493 GT of carbon more . That represents a revised IPCC figure which is 4.93% higher for all sources of mankind emissions.
However adding your revised figures to this revelation we get 6.267 – 2.9 = 3.367 GT Carbon more or 12.357 GT CO2 more. Your figures give 33.67 % more . Some of that is because of the 17% more farmland and some of it is because of your figure of net 5 tonnes CO2 emission per acre per year is obviously way more than what the IPCC says.
Okay AGW and CAGW are not necessarily busted from this but it sure raises questions about the accuracy of the carbon cycle. Here is a corrected copy of the above.
https://www.producer.com/2017/11/worlds-farmland-total-bigger-expected/
Satellite figures show 17 % more farmland they they thought.
The answer is 4.62 billion acres are farmland.
After a crop started growing the soil would not release as much CO2. However you are correct that the IPCC is surely underestimating the land use component of CO2 emission to atmosphere. Mankind is now emitting over 10 GT of carbon or 36.7 GT of CO2 per year. The US DOE has vastly underestimated the landuse component and the IPCC just blindly copies as usual.
According to your calcs your number should have been 6 not 60 . However with the true total of farmland at 4.62 billion acres at 5 tonnes CO2 net per acre emission , the total would be 23.1 billion tons of CO2 or 6.29 GT of carbon because of farmland. However some of that farmland is orchards and never gets ploughed. % of orchards in Europe is 0.25% so subtract .1 to give you 23 GT of CO2 or 6.267 GT of carbon .
However your premise is correct. You are brillant. You have just found the reason why the CO2 in the air is increasing by a net of 1/2 % per year. It is land use. Since the IPCC says land use is 29% of total that means per year actual farmland (IPCC figure ) emits 2.9 GT of carbon or 10.643 GT of CO2. However your figure is 6.267 GT of carbon or 23 GT of CO2. Even just adding 17% more farmland and disregarding your figures for a moment, would give 3.393 Gt of carbon(revised IPCC figure) or 12.45 GT CO2(revised IPCC figure) which is 1.81GT CO2 more which is 0.493 GT of carbon more . That represents a revised IPCC figure which is 4.93% higher for all sources of mankind emissions.
However adding your revised figures to this revelation we get 6.267 – 2.9 = 3.367 GT Carbon more or 12.357 GT CO2 more. Your figures give 33.67 % more . Some of that is because of the 17% more farmland and some of it is because of your figure of net 5 tonnes CO2 emission per acre per year is obviously way more than what the IPCC says.
Oh well, I suppose it’s back tothe drawing board for the Alarmists!
Late 1940s to mid 1950s, we were all going to hell in a handcart because of nuclear war! Didn’t happen!
Mid-late 1950s to mid 1960s, we were all going to hell in a handcart because of chemical/germ warfare! Didn’t happen!
Late 1960s to mid 1970s, we were all going to hell in a handcart because of Global Cooling. Didn’t happen!
Late 1970s to present day, we were all going to hell in a handcart because ofGlobal Warming. Isn’t happening!
What’s next? I suppose they could always cling to the claim that aliens trillions of miles from Earth are boringly watching us, with a view to invading us to prevent us destroying the planet! They haven’t got around to that one yet, have they…………………? 😉 (They ruined aperfectly good classic sci-fi movie with its predicably crap remake ………..Keanau Reeves is no Michael Rennie imho!
Twitter/Facebook etc. I see them everywhere in transport hubs like Town Hall in Sydney, Australia. 80% not looking where they are going, just gawping into their “smart” phones! Sheesh!
“The environmentalist civil war over the one large-scale carbon-free electricity source has been joined by the costly failure of new operational designs (such as Georgia’s Plant Vogtle).”
Nothing like cherry picking the biggest flop. That new operational design is being built all around the globe – China has their own replica that they can build at a cost more than twice as cheaply as Westingthouse can in the U.S., which was done in by dependency upon a Chicago steel works that had no capability of building a reactor. Westinghouse is building that same reactor in China in several locales and has no problem getting quality steel work from Chinese suppliers.
BUT the biggest ignorance is that the new molten salt reactor designs are not even mentioned.
Aside from eliminating any and all complaints about tradtitional nuclear power, thee small modular reactors are easy andcheap to build- in factories, and require minimal site preparation. They can be located ANYWHERE and do not require cooling bodies of water. Costs are roughly half that of a typical nuclear reactor and can produce th echeapest power of any technology.
Can also burn Thorium, an inexhaustible fuel source. When “energy experts” realize that molten salt reactors are the future of power, perhaps they will stop creating these stupid future scenarios that will never exist.
did they factor in the cost of inhaling and exhaling?
old white guy
Nope, just cow farts.
What Hansen and his cohorts are suggesting is climate numptyism on steroids combined with financial numptyism on steroids. You can smell the desperation, though. Their beloved anti-human, anti-science and anti-life ideology is dying, and they know it. COP24 will be an even bigger farce than Paris.
Bruce Cobb
I smell numptyism.
“We describe a process for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere in an industrial plant. The design captures ~1 Mt-CO2/year in a continuous process using an aqueous KOH sorbent coupled to a calcium caustic recovery loop…We report results from a pilot plant that provides data on performance of the major unit operations…Depending on financial assumptions, energy costs, and the specific choice of inputs and outputs, the levelized cost per ton CO2captured from the atmosphere ranges from 94 to 232 $/t-CO2.”
The described system sounds much like the caustic recovery system as used in Kraft pulp mills. The problem is in producing the calcium caustic recovery loop. Chemically:
KCO3 + Ca(OH)2-> KOH + CaCo3.
The CaCO3 needs to then be recovered by roasting giving
CaCO3 + heat ->CaO + CO2
CaO + H2O -> Ca(OH)2
The process of recovering the caustic calcium releases the CO2 that was absorbed in the first place so it appears to me to be an exercise in futility.
Can anyone explain the mechanism being described, ‘an aqueous KOH sorbent’ etc? I use NaOH granules to adsorb CO2 in my anaesthetic system, when exhausted they have to be discarded as hazardous waste: what will have to be disposed of ( without releasing CO2) in the suggested method?
If Peta of Newark is correct. See his and my post near the bottom . Then there is a big hole in the carbon cycle. It amounts to 3.367 GT of carbon or 12.357 GT CO2. Plus there is another 1 GT carbon or 3.67 GT CO2 that mankind has increased over the past couple of years that the carbon cycle diagrams have not incorporated. Thus there is now a missing amount of ~ 4.36 GT of carbon or ~16 GT CO2. Where has it gone? The oceans maybe , but the IPCC likes to say that the oceans and atmosphere are perfectly balanced in a trade of CO2. This is a lot of CO2 ; over 33% of all of mankind’s emissions per year. The net emissions from all sources to the atmosphere are still 4 GT carbon or 14.68 GT CO2 but that figure is showing no increase in % over time. For the last 10years ; It is now 0.617% higher than a year ago which was 0.484% higher than previous year which was 0.745% higher than previous year which was 0.753% higher than previous year which was 0.549% higher than previous year which was 0.512% higher than previous year which was 0.669% higher than previous year which was 0.494% higher than previous year which was 0.601% higher than previous year which was 0.526% higher than previous year. The alarmists will look at that data and say the graph shows a slight trend upwards. Perhaps, but if that is their idea of CAGW, then spare me the marmalade.
Another thought. Cows according to the IPCC are thought to cause 18 % of global warming all by themselves because of the methane release. So we have 11.8 Gt carbon equivalent of emissions before the revised figures of Peta of Newark and myself are taken into account. If you add in the new land use figure for farming of 6.267 GT carbon plus the 1.8 GT carbon for the cows to the 10 GT carbon listed in IPCC figures you then have a total of over 18 GT carbon of which 8.067 is agricultural caused which is 44.6 % of global warming emissions. Yup the farm sector is the highest man made emitter followed by fossil fuel burning and then cement making. So does this mean we ban farming or at least put a carbon price tax on farms?? I can see all the farmers lining up now to lynch every climate scientist they can get their hands on. I have to admit I would be hard pressed to attempt to stop them.
What’s the per person cost to pump CO2 up to 800-1200ppm?
I don’t think we have enough fossil fuels to get CO2 up to those levels.
Maybe we could we mine the seabed clathrates, just pump them up and flare them off – not try to make it commercially viable? Something government could do …
Use nuclear power to disassociate limestone.
Then make more cement. We could have all the CO2 we want.
Someday this Ice Age is going to end.
Let’s look at the technical aspect of CO2 absorption from the air. “… a continuous process using an aqueous KOH sorbent coupled with calcium caustic recovering loop..”
Calcium caustic is obtained by calcium carbonate ignition followed by quenching calcium oxide with water. Clearly, calcium caustic could not absorb more CO2 that was discharged from initial carbonate. It turns out that for CO2 from fossil fuels only KOH remains.
In order to absorb billions of tons of CO2 from the atmosphere, it is necessary to electrolyse billions of tons of KCl, while utilizing billions of tons of toxic chlorine and billions of tons of soluble K2CO3. The project is absurd and technically unworkable, not to mention the doubtfulness of the goal.
Off the wall proposal for no reliably good reason. Followed by discussion on how the proposal might not be that off the wall and the possibility that the reason could be good if you changed the circumstances and the certainty levels. Responded to with a discussion of the possibility of different circumstances and certainty levels. Net result is an off the wall proposal for no reliably good reason gets wider notice while seeming worth serious consideration. Sorry, no time to play today.
they lack trust in impact scientists
Where can I get a degree in impact science? Oh, wait, maybe crash-test dummies own that.
The talkabout by climate change action advocates is similar to confabulation by people suffering from cognative impairment. Ridiculous, unrelated, incorrect, true, false–everything dumped into the diminishing scrambled neural network to conclude nonsense.
Negative emissions? We’d need to populate the tropopause w/mini black holes. Well, not 100% negative — there’s the Hawking radiation they emit.
Idealistic gloom and doom priests seldom talk about real, on the ground solutions except in the very broadest terms. A few of them certainly know their pie in the sky solutions will never come to fruition. Still so long as the public doesn’t understand they can keep preaching while raking in the personal praise and if they play it right lots of big donations. Now with progressive billionaires willing to throw money at the preaching, though seldom any real proposed solution, the high priest keep preaching. The problem Hansen, et al, face is that in many places the public is getting a good taste at just how expensive the “solutions” being propose really are.
Mr Hansen wants “negative carbon/CO2 emissions”? Easy, peasy, PLANT TREES. LOTS of lovely, lovely trees. Make them fruit trees, so that hungry people can have work, and food to eat, at harvest time.
But that doesn’t fit in with the PC One World Order Gooberment Talking Points and Socialist/Communist Control Agenda.
“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole,” he stated, “is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”
— I wonder how Hansen would explain the world’s fascination with fighting global warming through a combination of:
1) subsidies for windmills and solar panels
2) higher taxes
3) wealth transfers
4) grants to people who do modeling
5) weekend cocktail confabs
Just what does all that say about what people on his side actually believe?
Well, most of the CO2 on the planet is bound in sea water. If one thinks CO2 is harmful, something I doubt, should you not extract CO2 from this sea water instead and not from the air?
“…the central organizing principle of civilization…” Ah, political corruption.
I must post a reply to Mr. Bradley’s assertion that Plant Vogtle is a “costly failure.” Costly, yes, failure no. It is still under construction, not having yet been abandoned. And the “new operational design” is now in operation in China since the the first AP-1000 has started up. Now the V.C. Summer plant is a better poster child for costly failures because the construction of both of the new units has been abandoned and has become a political football for the government of South Carolina.
CO2 sinks perfectly scale with CO2 concentration, making all global warming disaster scenarios impossible.
http://i736.photobucket.com/albums/xx10/Oliver25/co2%20sinks.png
http://i736.photobucket.com/albums/xx10/Oliver25/co2sinks.png