Friday Funny: That Giant Sucking Sound – CO2 Edition

One of the dumbest yet at the same time accurate political statements ever came from former presidential candidate H.Ross Perot, who was commenting during a debate about the trade imbalance that NAFTA would cause for the United States.

That phrase is what immediately went through my head when I saw this “CO2 sucker” show up on my Facebook Feed this morning:

Here is the link if you want to read about it.

Some simple datapoints suggest this would never even appear as a blip in the atmospheric CO2 content. For example, the volume of the atmosphere is roughly 4,200,000,000 cubic kilometers. Considering that they have a prototype plant of 15 machines that promises to remove 4000 tons of CO2 per year, and given that in 2020, there was 34.81 billion metric tons of CO2 emitted, with 2021 being on track to release 36.4 billion metric tons, it will be a very long time before they have any impact on CO2 levels.

Some simple math. 36,400,000,000 tons/4000 tons per 15 unit CO2 plant = 9,100,000 15 unit CO2 plants.

And that’s just for 2021 numbers. Over nine million of these 15 unit CO2 capture facilities would be needed, just to start making a dent in yearly CO2 emissions globally. It will never happen.

It reminds me of the “solar roads” scam, and clearly illustrates the phrase closely associated with P. T. Barnum.

There’s a sucker born every minute, literally. Pun intended.

4.8 20 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Garrett
December 10, 2021 10:21 am

There is nothing scarier than the regnant ignorance and endemic innumeracy that so thoroughly pervades the U.S. in respect of the evidence-light “Catastrophic/dangerous, CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming/climate change” CONJECTURE

It takes a truly world-class case of gullibility to buy into a scam like this. Alternatively, it takes a world-class case of thievery to promote such snake oil.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Garrett
Reply to  John Garrett
December 10, 2021 10:45 am

And who will audit them to make sure they are actually building these dumb things rather than just fleecing dumb people into paying for something that, while useless, doesn’t actually exist anyway?

Reply to  AndyHce
December 10, 2021 8:38 pm

One does wonder just where these yahoos expect to dispose of their ill-gotten CO₂?

Free frozen CO₂ blocks for the grocery chains?
Dumped blocks of dry ice in the desert?
Cylinders of compressed pure CO₂ to all of the bars and soda joints?

Or do they intend to flood farmer’s fields with CO₂?

Their plan must be to franchise this nonsense, since franchise growth is primarily fueled by expansion.

At some point, the electricity used by these cretins must be exposed.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  ATheoK
December 12, 2021 9:40 am


You ask, “One does wonder just where these yahoos expect to dispose of their ill-gotten CO₂?”

We solved that question at the UK’s Coal Research Establishment nearly 40 years ago. The possibility of carbon capture and storage (CCS) was being suggested as a stalling argument to defer complaints at CO2 emissions from coal-fired power stations.

The model for CCS was the possibility of vitrification of nuclear waste. No method for development of that idea existed (and still does not exist) but – instead of addressing fears of nuclear waste – the vitrification was proclaimed as a ‘solution’ which was being perfected. These proclamations worked and overcame the fears until they were forgotten.

The difference is that we did perfect a way to dispose of collected CO2.

I suggested that the CO2 would be frozen to form blocks of ‘dry ice’ which would be dropped to the bottom of deep ocean. The blocks would melt to become pools of liquid CO2 on the ocean floor and would be stable at temperatures and pressures below the thermocline.

The suggestion worked. The blocks obtained coatings of water-ice which insulated them as they sank to ocean bottom. The ice would spall but insulated the blocks so little CO2 failed to reach the ocean depths. Dissolution of the CO2 pools was slow and even if the CO2 did dissolve it would be a trivial addition to the CO2 dissolved in the oceans.

Unfortunately, the success of the research project was a failure of the purpose for instigation of the project. The desire was for a political argument akin to the nuclear waste vitrification argument.

Nobody wanted something that worked because that could result in arguments for unwanted CCS projects of the kind proposed in the above article. So, our research was not advertised.


bill Johnston
Reply to  John Garrett
December 10, 2021 11:45 am

Sounds like they are made for each other. Just so long as taxpayer money is never involved. Whether direct subsidies or thru tax deductions.

Reply to  bill Johnston
December 10, 2021 12:13 pm

Make sure that they properly report their income so that it can be taxed.
Who said there was no benefit?

Pop Piasa
Reply to  MarkW
December 10, 2021 4:46 pm

Oh, surely they’ll be forgiven any taxes, they’re helping to save dearest Gaia.
I’ll bet that the government will treat them like EV buyers and provide incentive rebates also.
It’s the the currently viral government insanity.

Ron Long
Reply to  John Garrett
December 10, 2021 12:34 pm

Let them have it, John. The only reality here is that this is actually a “Billionaires Virtue Signaling Club Event”. I think this Poor Boy will drive around in his SUV and think about it.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  John Garrett
December 10, 2021 12:44 pm

John, not only the US but UK, Ireland, most European countries and of course all those third world countries that think that they can make a quick buck out of these guilt-ridden white people.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
December 10, 2021 5:22 pm

We are in the grip of a global governmental fomentation of racism which is essentially reversed in its nature; The providers of historical progress have been judged by new-age historians to have been racist and empirical without any regard to the circumstances of the period and its social paradigm.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  John Garrett
December 10, 2021 1:18 pm

Shall I ask the obvious question? Where is the power coming from to run these machines? Unicorn farts? Or might it be coal- or gas-powered electrical generating plants?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
December 10, 2021 1:57 pm

Right- and what is the carbon footprint of the machines over their lifetime?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 10, 2021 3:19 pm

Is there a net reduction after accounting for the CO2 emitted by the power stations?

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 10, 2021 5:30 pm

I think the real question is; are we wasting money on something that ultimately only hurts the plants?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Pop Piasa
December 10, 2021 9:17 pm

The point I was trying to make is that even those who believe it is desirable to reduce CO2, can’t demonstrate that their scheme will accomplish what they set out to do. They are either stupid or innumerate.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 16, 2021 5:54 am

I don’t see how there is a net reduction, entropy being what it is. They would have to be powered exclusively from non-CO2 emitting sources. That’s not taking into account their inherent CO2 footprint from manufacturing them.

Tom Halla
December 10, 2021 10:21 am

Innumeracy in action.

Gary Pearse
December 10, 2021 10:34 am

So how much concrete, steel/aluminum, power, chemicals, etc. and CO2 emitted for each unit. How much power, etc will it use, maintenance …

December 10, 2021 10:43 am

It will have at least as much effect on atmospheric CO2 as man’s emissions.

December 10, 2021 10:44 am

Climeworks raises USD 30.8 million in funding.

Climeworks raises CHF 100 million in funding and hosts the first ever Direct Air Capture SummitAudi and Stripe become corporate partners.

The investment of Other Peoples’ Money as a handy virtue signaling exercise.

There are some hugely dumb people in this world, but quite evidently Jan and Christoph are not two of ’em.

Joe Gordon
December 10, 2021 10:56 am

Exactly why government should be as limited as possible (the NEA is even changing my mind about the school system – though charter schools need more regulation than most businesses).

When you’re asked to spend someone else’s money, and their wallet is seemingly limitless, there’s no incentive to spend it wisely – only politically. And thus all kinds of grifters will be happy to create ways for you to spend it politically.

Reply to  Joe Gordon
December 10, 2021 12:14 pm

Why would you assume that charter schools would need to be more heavily regulated than other public schools?

Joe Gordon
Reply to  MarkW
December 10, 2021 1:10 pm

Because, in fairness, there are organizations out there that seek to use charter school law to defraud taxpayers. As mired in self-interest as the NEA is, there are certain safeguards in place with regard to teacher education, facilities, basic protection of students. If we go to a more charter-centric model, we have to ensure that charters in the urban areas truly serve the most vulnerable students (not that they would necessarily be much worse than the public schools, but some actually are – read about EdisonLearning for one particularly bad case).

Reply to  Joe Gordon
December 10, 2021 2:18 pm

Your belief that government schools are inherently less likely to commit educational fraud is cute, and entirely devoid of any connection with reality.

Government schools are under the thumb of the teacher’s unions and operate solely for the benefit of those unions. As has been demonstrated repeatedly over the last 30 to 40 years, any education actually committed is by accident and quickly eliminated.

Why is it that certain people are convinced that if they can find any fault in the private sector, this proves that the government sector is superior?

Joe Gordon
Reply to  MarkW
December 10, 2021 11:55 pm

I don’t know. I would say the opposite. I am convinced that privatizing the educational system would be better than what we have now.

However, in order to best serve our nation, education needs public funding. And with this huge source of unchecked revenue, fraud is inevitable. That’s why regulation needs to be stringent.

Evidence of fraud is not evidence of a flaw in all charter schools. But we have to keep our eyes open, as the EdisonLearning case shows.

December 10, 2021 11:02 am

*eyeroll* *heavy sigh* This is sort of off topic, but it kind of addresses what this announcement is about, Saving The World From Climate Change™!!! I’m interviewing with a company, they are looking for an engineer to do building energy audits and suggest ways to reduce consumption, which is what I do, I have been doing it for 25 years. But the one page of their website I have perused says (at least four times) their mission is to “…save the world from Climate Change…” through reductions in carbon emissions. Since I believe we don’t have much, if any, effect on the climate and even if we do it’s not primarily through our CO2 emissions, and therefore our actions can’t “save” us from climate change either, how do I interview? I mean, I could certainly do what I do best, and if they want to use “carbon emissions” as a proxy for consumption and/or efficiency, I’m OK with that, it wouldn’t be too far off target, but could I really work for a company with that mission statement?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
December 10, 2021 11:44 am

The question is, is their ultimate goal to save money, or is it “saving the planet”? Saving energy has an expense side to the equation. Does the expense outweigh the expected return in saving on energy in say 10 years? Then it’s probably a dumb idea. How dumb are they, really?

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 13, 2021 9:24 am

Well, yes, of course, that’s why they need to hire someone like me, to estimate the savings, estimate the cost of the measure, then do a cost/benefit analysis to rank the good from the better from the best, recommend doing the best now and put the others on file to reconsider if/when energy costs rise some more. Like I said, something I have been doing for 25 years. I guess, before I take the job, I’ll have to ask them if I ever have to include the Social Cost Of Carbon™ in my analysis? If the answer is yes, then I can’t work there.

It may be a moot point, I did a telephone interview on Thursday, she said if they wanted to go to the next step she would get back with me, probably before the end of the week, but I haven’t heard from them again. Have I been already eliminated, or did she just not realize how close the end-of-the-week already was?

Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
December 13, 2021 10:58 am

I just got the e-mail… I have been eliminated from consideration. Maybe they searched my posts on FB or even LinkedIn, and found me exhibiting rational thought. Oh well, saves me from having to worry about how/when/where to keep my mouth shut.

Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
December 10, 2021 12:10 pm

You just have to play the game. There are just too many of those with wokeness. I work with many bright computer engineers and some of their views on global warming…climate change….climate extinction are out there.

Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
December 10, 2021 12:16 pm

I strongly suspect that you will have a tough time stomaching the employee meetings.

Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
December 10, 2021 12:20 pm

you Could work for them …

… do you have it in you to be a slacker?

(I got a call last week from a governmental agency upper manager asking me if I would would be interested in managing a giant (Xx million) Fed grant they are getting. “I know it would be less money, but If you are interested stop by to discuss. It’s probably about a 5 year position, exclusive to the grant project.”

My response “Have you forgot about the things that you guys say about me? Aren’t there others there that would blackball me because of my obnoxious side?”)

I have had friends and acquaintances turn to the slacker side after just a year of immersion in public employment. If you tried really hard, and started drinking, mebbe you could forget who you are in around 8 months.

Dave Fair
Reply to  DonM
December 10, 2021 2:36 pm

I met many of those slacker types during my stint with the Federal government. After 11 years I quit at a fairly high level because of debilitating effects of fighting a losing battle. Maybe I should have just started drinking more; might have made it to the top of the Department of Energy!

Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
December 10, 2021 12:55 pm

Why not just help them Save The World?

Every year the world does not burst into flames and then explode is another year you claim a performance bonus. {Along with an unspoken “pay up or else”.}

Modern problems require modern solutions.

Reply to  TonyL
December 13, 2021 9:26 am

The Liberals/Lefties will probably beat me to the punch. As soon as they can no longer “hide the decline” they’ll claim it was only because of their diligence that the world was saved, and thus we must double down on woke stupid “engineering”.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
December 10, 2021 2:30 pm

As long as the company is selling its actual energy conservation measures as a pure cost/benefit rationale to its customers and not inducing them to over-invest in unnecessary conservation measures using CAGW as an inducement, what’s to worry about? If they are fleecing their customers with the phony CAGW meme, then turn them in to the appropriate industry regulatory body.

John Larson
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
December 10, 2021 10:38 pm

I wouldn’t, I’ve got the truth telling habit ; )

Reply to  John Larson
December 12, 2021 4:37 pm

Yeah, me too. I’m a really lousy liar. I’m wondering if I can even keep my mouth shut without an eye roll?

December 10, 2021 11:03 am

The religion is spreading:

Carbon capturing farmers and if their efforts are impacting the fight against climate change

December 10, 2021 11:41 am

I put solar on my roof 7 years ago. I’ve removed 33 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere.

The US government subsidized my CO2 removal by giving me $15,000. But these clowns want to charge me $60 per month to do the same thing.

John Pickens
Reply to  Doonman
December 10, 2021 7:47 pm

Unless you live in a solar optimal zone, such as Arizona, there is no currently available rooftop solar system which can reach energy of production breakeven in 7 years.
When the cost of concurrent conventional electrical generation equipment operation is added, your rooftop system produced far more CO2 than if it had never existed.

Reply to  John Pickens
December 10, 2021 9:17 pm

Breakeven hasn’t happened on my system yet, but I never claimed that it did. However, the claims I did make are correct.

Last edited 1 year ago by doonman
Reply to  Doonman
December 11, 2021 1:06 am

Are you talking about cost breakeven or energy of production breakeven like John Pickens was discussing? Energy breakeven is hard, but if you’re system didn’t reach cost breakeven after 7 years, with a $15,000 subsidy, wow, that’s just crazy.

Reply to  PCman999
December 11, 2021 10:31 am

There is only one breakeven point for home systems and that is cost. Installing solar systems to save the earth is crazy, especially in northern latitudes and cloudy conditions. But there are other advantages to having a solar system installed.

Reply to  Doonman
December 11, 2021 12:49 pm

At best, you’ve prevented CO2 from being released in the US. You caused a great deal of CO2 to be released wherever the panels where made and the materials were mined and refined.

December 10, 2021 11:45 am

My father-in-law was a school classmate of Perot, he didn’t think very highly of Ross. But with a large portion of medium-to-heavy industry relocated (and still moving) to just South of the U.S.- Mexican border, many of the nice U.S. union jobs gone, and functionally replaced by Mexican manufacturing, and Detroit perhaps highest on the list of U.S. rust belt factory towns now all but abandoned, I can’t help but think that Perot’s inappropriate colloquialism (in Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas referring to bayous and swamps) was prescient. NAFTA, which he was ostensibly campaigning against, remains a much bigger, and more successful fraud than this silly carbon indulgence con.
Ross was quite successful, too, in that his real purpose was to elect “anybody but Bush.” I wonder if Clinton hadn’t been elected, in no small part due to Perot, we would ever have heard of Gore again.

Reply to  dk_
December 10, 2021 12:18 pm

Most of the companies that have moved to Mexico, would have gone to Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, etc. had NAFTA not been passed.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  MarkW
December 10, 2021 2:05 pm

I should think that a nation could find a way to keep companies from moving out- make it expensive for them.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 10, 2021 2:20 pm

Fascinating how the assumption that the best way to keep companies from leaving is to punish those that want to leave.
How totalitarian of you.
How about stop doing those things that are forcing companies to leave?
If a company wants to leave, it has every right to do so. Just as if a person wants to leave, they to have every right to do so.
Are you going to propose building walls so that people can’t leave next?

Last edited 1 year ago by MarkW
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  MarkW
December 10, 2021 2:49 pm

Companies that got rich thanks to the benefits of doing business in America- then deciding they want dirt cheap labor- shouldn’t be prevented from leaving but there ought to be a cost to it- given the fact that the rest of us will now have to help the deprived community and workers who lost their jobs. So, we should pay for that while the companies runs off to dirt cheap labor markets? Nobody FORCES those companies to leave and there certainly are places in America where the cost of doing business is relatively cheap, like The South. As for walls to keep people in- no- because if individuals want to leave, it doesn’t cost the rest of us anything. Few people want to leave but many corporations HAVE left. That’s why I like Trump’s tariffs.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 10, 2021 3:16 pm

Labor costs always increase over time. “Those companies” are quite different from “those companies” that they grew up from, and their markets, skills, and ownership changes constantly. Perot was right only in that those industries were dying anyway, and whatever they’d done in the past couldn’t possibly continue in the future; but he was wrong, because it wasn’t NAFTA that caused it.. But it was a hell of an effective campaign position that differentiated him from both of the globalists he was half-heartedly running against.

My point was only that while our host author’s criticism of the carbon capture con is well-founded, his analogy isn’t. At the surface, Perot’s stupid-seeming, hyperbolic campaign talking point may be seen today as being correct, and the carbon confidence trick is obviously exactly what it seems.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 10, 2021 4:01 pm

Wow, just by living in the US, you become slaves to the US.
That’s convenient.
The same lack of thinking can be applied to people. They got their wealth and education thanks to the loving kindness of the American people, therefor nobody is allowed to leave.
Most East German’s were told the same thing by their government.

Companies get wealthy by providing stuff people want to buy.

I find it funny that people who drive a few miles out of their way to find the cheapest products, will then turn around and condemn companies that due the same thing.

As to having to support people if the companies leave, the same thing would happen had the company never been created.
Your belief that government has the right to control basic business decisions will ensure that no company in it’s right mind will form in the US, they will form elsewhere to begin with.

As to tariffs, why do you hate consumers so much?

Reply to  MarkW
December 12, 2021 4:49 pm

There actually exists two sides to the tariff question… I used to think ALL tariffs were bad. But once Trump enacted specific tariffs the U. S. experienced one of its lowest periods of unemployment, particularly among low-skill workers of all races and genders. So consider that, without the tariffs, those who had jobs and therefore money would have paid less for those appliances but fewer people were able to buy them at all. With the tariffs, even at higher prices, there were more people with the wherewithal to buy appliances, so in the end, more appliances got sold. I call that a pretty good win. From a standpoint of good-of-the-country, I believe it is a good thing to have the capability to do something for ourselves, here in this country. As far as a carrot, a lot of companies that had made noises about taking more manufacturing and even headquarters overseas decided to stay once the tax bill passed. I liked that result, too.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  dk_
December 10, 2021 1:29 pm

Out lead guitarist wrote a song that was being considered for his campaign song before he dropped out of the race, so we were all upset when he dropped out. From what I heard he claimed that he dropped out because “Republican operatives” had threatened to disrupt his daughter’s wedding.

Reply to  Joe Crawford
December 10, 2021 2:23 pm

Shortly after he dropped out, he dropped back in again.

Reply to  Joe Crawford
December 10, 2021 3:24 pm

The way I remember it, he unofficially dropped out when Bush dropped lower in the polls among conservatives than either Perot or Clinton, and “came back in” when it looked like he might be in trouble for soliciting campaign funding if he got out too early. It was already over, and I’m pretty sure Perot got what he wanted.

I would hope that we all learn to require an up-front retainer for commissioned art work.

John Garrett
Reply to  dk_
December 10, 2021 3:37 pm

The unfortunate and sad fact is that William Jefferson Blythe (a/k/a “William Jefferson Clinton”) was elected over George H. W. Bush because a whole lot of people opted for Perot rather than Bush.

Many people have forgotten that fact.

Reply to  dk_
December 11, 2021 1:39 pm

Perot got Clinton elected, but I don’t think he hated the U.S. enough to consider it a success once Clinton’s policies started to come into effect.

Gary Pearse
December 10, 2021 11:47 am

Of course, direct removal of CO2, even if significant amounts could be achieved, lowers partial P of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the ocean responds by emitting more to re-establish equilibrium, so the sc@m is even worse than it appears!

December 10, 2021 11:52 am

4,00 tons per year can’t be very many trees worth. And trees build and operate all by themselves.

Reply to  DHR
December 10, 2021 12:18 pm

Trees don’t need to be powered from the grid.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  MarkW
December 10, 2021 2:12 pm

Most forests in New England can capture 1-2 tons per year. In the American south or in the redwoods- the amount could be much greater. The greens now want to lock up all the forests for this purpose depriving the economy of wood as a raw material. But forests stop accumulating carbon when mature- which can range from 50-300 years. Better to harvest wood and put it into long term use- such as buildings, furniture, etc.- which will allow the forests to keep sequestering carbon, if doing so matters, and I don’t think it does- I just like seeing productive forests with people working in them- doing honest labor- not terribly well paid, but the people doing it like the work.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 10, 2021 2:46 pm

Bullshit, Joseph: I liked the work of logging in the Pacific Northwest so much that I was happy when the U.S. Army drafted me. That was, up to that time, the best thing that had happened to me. While I was wounded in Vietnam, logging would have eventually killed me. And I prepaid my health care with a Purple Heart.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 10, 2021 2:55 pm

OK, you hated logging. I know hundreds of loggers. They like it. And it’s gotten easier here in New England with the big machines. Now they drive those in comfort- air conditioned and with great stereo. So, what’s bullshit about what I wrote? I suspect logging in the NW is more difficult and more dangerous- but that’s one small part of the logging world.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 10, 2021 3:43 pm

To springboard off Gavin Schmidt, all logging is local.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 10, 2021 5:10 pm

Every logger I know complains that they find it difficult to earn enough but none has ever said to me they don’t like the work. They’re mostly guys who don’t mind working alone- they hunt and fish and love being outside. But earning enough is difficult because of excessive regulations, much of the wood products industries have left the country (especially furniture and paper), the hatred of the greens, and they don’t like people looking down at them as unsophisticated rednecks. Most are just as smart as the people who hang out in this blog and few are rednecks. A great way to understand them and what’s left of the logging “profession” is to read The Northern Logger trade journal. I’m a forester but I don’t read forestry propaganda/bullshit- I prefer that trade journal to tell it like it is.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 10, 2021 4:02 pm

I think Mr. Fair [THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE FOR FREEDOM, SIR] has some strong emotions attached to his experiences… .

Looking at trees as a crop is the most accurate way to view them.

We have thousands of acres of beautiful old growth trees in the U.S.A. for future generations to enjoy.

I live near the (mostly former) logging community of Sedro-Woolley, WA. The logging in Washington State was and is dangerous, but, it is much safer now, than it was when the trees now being harvested were planted. Big, powerful, machines have taken the place of people in many of the dangerous jobs.

And, yes, the thundering sound of a felled Douglas Fir hitting the ground and its groaning as it falls are deeply moving (to me). It is, nevertheless, only a very large plant. If God someday reveals that trees do, indeed (as the ancient Greeks believed), have souls, so be it: their soul is thereby released from its earthly bonds by that falling. Furthermore, in the stump, it lives. Oh, yes. As any pioneer farmer knew, in the stump, the tree lives.

Bottom line:

The key isn’t the danger in harvesting the tree crop, it is in the economics of it (given adequate conservation).

Your assertion makes good sense for many reasons, Mr. Zorzin.

Last edited 1 year ago by Janice Moore
Thomas Edwardson
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 11, 2021 8:47 pm

Janice, you are spot on about trees as a crop.

In my travels as a big data scientist, I met a guy from Pacific Weyerhaeuser with an interesting problem – How do you keep large data sets alive, searchable, and intact across decades long timescales while being forced to change out the underlying computers, operating systems, database technologies, and programming languages as they all age and become obsolete during normal operating life cycles?

He had detailed records on millions of tagged trees – exact location, slope angle, facing exposure, rainfall, soil type, growth rate, estimated yield, and current value. His data set spanned 40 years, and he was on his fourth major migration trying to keep the data hosted on a working system.

They were obviously managing a crop and making very informed decisions on which trees to cut each year.

December 10, 2021 12:02 pm

In other news…CNBC just noted a study of New York neighborhoods that reveal the poorer more crowded streets are hotter than the wide avenues of the rich – who knew? Of course, they were silent about the winter temps but talked about climate change and how last July was the hottest month on record.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Anti-griff
December 10, 2021 2:19 pm

Sure, it was hot- but my garden (in MA) never grew so well- it was hot but with lots of rain. What really grew well were my apple and pear trees- so overloaded with fruit that the branches bent to the ground.

Robert of Texas
December 10, 2021 12:11 pm

Put a carbon tax on all active volcanoes. That will do as much good and is just as reasonable.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
December 10, 2021 6:22 pm

That’s government interference and would depress the price of volcanos, Robert.

Would you buy a volcano if you knew a special tax was going to be levied on it?

Let the free market determine the price of volcanos.


December 10, 2021 12:12 pm

How much power do these alleged units consume?

December 10, 2021 12:13 pm

If only nature had a solution, like something notoriously sucking CO2 from the atmosphere..

Uncle Mort
December 10, 2021 12:47 pm

Seems about right – a giant mouth-breather.

Janice Moore
December 10, 2021 12:55 pm

Thanks for the laugh, Anthony.

I doubt this company will be around long. They already made a stupid mistake in their choice of photo. Two men in windbreakers (apparently, to keep warm) LAUGHING at the contraption they are standing beside.

RightGuy: Seriously??

LeftGuy: hahahahah — y-y-y-es — hahahah


Janice Moore
Reply to  Anthony Watts
December 10, 2021 3:38 pm


Reply to  Janice Moore
December 11, 2021 1:48 pm

The company doesn’t have to worry about their product or service generating a profit. It will be viable as long as they can garner subsidies, corporate tax write-offs, or virtue signaling dollars.

David Noel Chorley
December 10, 2021 1:01 pm

The entire corn harvest of the USA, if sequestered in a hot dry place (Arizona) would take about 400 million tonnes of CO2 out of the environment. What these CO2 scams don’t let you know is that you have to filter 1 million tonnes of air to extract 400 tonnes of CO2 . It’s insane.

December 10, 2021 1:11 pm

I don’t believe in this math bacause math is racist /s

Reply to  Pauleta
December 10, 2021 6:25 pm

That may be so, but you can trust Feminist Glaciology, Pauleta

Bruce Cobb
December 10, 2021 1:14 pm

I am building a giant, alien spaceship – zapping machine, which will destabilize them, causing them to crash. I too have monthly plans available allowing you to donate to this Planet-Protector thus becoming a Planetary Hero, with complimentary plaque and gold-embossed card you can show your friends. Working together, we can keep our planet safe from marauding space aliens.
Let’s do this!

Rich Davis
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 10, 2021 6:05 pm

And I understand that you guarantee to destabilize and crash every single alien spaceship that enters our atmosphere? Wow, people, how could we not get on board this bandwagon?

Reply to  Rich Davis
December 11, 2021 1:51 pm

He’s shot down every known alien spaceship so far, as with any investment past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

Reply to  Ted
December 12, 2021 4:56 pm

He must have! How many alien spacecraft have you met in your lifetime? See there… it works!

charles nelson
December 10, 2021 1:20 pm

Made me remember back when we were kids and a trick question did the rounds of the playground; ‘Which is heavier, a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers?
Maybe someone should point out that in order to recover 400 grams of CO2 it is necessary to process ONE TON of air.
Maybe they think that a ton of air is lighter than a ton of any other material?

Ireneusz Palmowski
December 10, 2021 1:21 pm

“Grimsvotn volcano in Iceland is on an increased alert, after an earthquake swarm and a subglacial flood. The available data shows that the volcano is nearing critical pressure, now being in the final runup stages before an eruption.
Grimsvotn is currently the main candidate for the next larger explosive eruption in Iceland. As you will see from all the data, the latest activity has pushed it very near to an eruption, which could be just days away. The volcano is under increased monitoring, as it typically erupts in a violent explosive fashion, having an intense history of effects sometimes spanning the Northern Hemisphere.”

Janice Moore
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
December 10, 2021 1:29 pm

Thanks for the warning, Ireneusz. I live several time zones away, so I’m safe.

I suggest you hang up and dial 911 (or 999 or whatever your emergency ## is). Posting your warning on WUWT’s “Friday Funny” thread isn’t, I’m afraid, going to do much good. 😉

Peter Wells
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
December 10, 2021 2:18 pm

Oh, dear! Think of all the CO2 another volcanic eruption will emit!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Peter Wells
December 10, 2021 2:51 pm

Why aren’t we ready to capture it? The fate of the world is on the line; no expense is too great.

Dr. Bob
December 10, 2021 1:30 pm

Some light reading on DAC:
McQueen, N., et al. (2020). “Cost Analysis of Direct Air Capture and Sequestration Coupled to Low-Carbon Thermal Energy in the United States.” Environmental Science & Technology 54(12): 7542-7551. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00476
Negative emissions technologies will play an important role in preventing 2 °C warming by 2100. The next decade is critical for technological innovation and deployment to meet mid-century carbon removal goals of 10–20 GtCO2/yr. Direct air capture (DAC) is positioned to play a critical role in carbon removal, yet remains under paced in deployment efforts, mainly because of high costs. This study outlines a roadmap for DAC cost reductions through the exploitation of low-temperature heat, recent U.S. policy drivers, and logical, regional end-use opportunities in the United States. Specifically, two scenarios are identified that allow for the production of compressed high-purity CO2 for costs ≤$300/tCO2, net delivered with an opportunity to scale to 19 MtCO2/yr. These scenarios use thermal energy from geothermal and nuclear power plants to produce steam and transport the purified CO2 via trucks to the nearest opportunity for direct use or subsurface permanent storage. Although some utilization pathways result in the re-emission of CO2 and cannot be considered true carbon removal, they would provide economic incentive to deploying DAC plants at scale by mid-century. In addition, the federal tax credit 45Q was applied for qualifying facilities (i.e., producing ≥100 ktCO2/yr).
Fasihi, M., et al. (2019). “Techno-economic assessment of CO2 direct air capture plants.” Journal of cleaner production 224: 957-980.
CO2 direct air capture (DAC) has been increasingly discussed as a climate change mitigation option. Despite technical advances in the past decade, there are still misconceptions about DAC’s current and long-term costs as well as energy, water and area demands. This could undermine DAC’s anticipated role in a neutral or negative greenhouse gas emission energy system, and influence policy makers. In this study, a literature review and techno-economic analyses of state-of-the-art DAC technologies are performed, wherein, DAC technologies are categorised as high temperature aqueous solutions (HT DAC) and low temperature solid sorbent (LT DAC) systems, from an energy system perspective. DAC capital expenditures, energy demands and costs have been estimated under two scenarios for DAC capacities and financial learning rates in the period 2020 to 2050. DAC system costs could be lowered significantly with commercialisation in the 2020s followed by massive implementation in the 2040s and 2050s, making them cost competitive with point source carbon capture and an affordable climate change mitigation solution. It is concluded that LT DAC systems are favourable due to lower heat supply costs and the possibility of using waste heat from other systems. CO2 capture costs of LT DAC systems powered by hybrid PV-Wind-battery systems for Moroccan conditions and based on a conservative scenario, without/with utilisation of free waste heat are calculated at 222/133, 105/60, 69/40 and 54/32 €/tCO2 in 2020, 2030, 2040 and 2050, respectively. These new findings could enhance DAC’s role in a successful climate change mitigation strategy.

Costs of fuel produced by DAC is in the $100 to $1000/gal range. Such a deal And this is per NAS.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Dr. Bob
December 10, 2021 3:09 pm

Gee, the cost of 300 $/ton times the estimated 19 Gt/yr is only 5.7 trillion dollars per year. But sales of high-quality CO2 would certainly cover those paltry costs.

Reply to  Dr. Bob
December 11, 2021 1:33 am

Carbon capture seems like such a Rube Goldberg kind of operation. Much better to encourage planting on every available area, and trying ocean fertilization, if co2 is a boogy man for you. If it’s not, then you still have the real and more important benefit of providing shade and habitat to forest creatures.

December 10, 2021 1:42 pm

Shut up and take my money!

peter dimopoulos
December 10, 2021 1:53 pm

Hey, we need ‘temperature capture’ machines… will capture the heat in the environment.
I’ve done the math; and it will work. All I need is billions for my startup.

Joseph Zorzin
December 10, 2021 1:55 pm

“One of the dumbest yet at the same time accurate political statements ever…”
What was so dumb about it?

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 10, 2021 2:27 pm

It’s inaccuracy?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  MarkW
December 10, 2021 2:51 pm

OK, I don’t get it. Somebody explain what was dumb about Perot’s comment. Sounds to me like he nailed it- other than he missed the fact that so many jobs went to China not just Mexico.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 10, 2021 4:06 pm

Because NAFTA never caused a great sucking of jobs. It never caused any sucking of jobs.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  MarkW
December 10, 2021 5:03 pm

So it wasn’t an elegant way of saying many jobs left due to NAFTA but that’s what happened. If you don’t believe that please explain.

December 10, 2021 5:36 pm

Cold water anywhere absorbs CO2. Clouds and the rain that results probably delivers 95% of all emitted CO2 (both natural and anthropogenic) to the surface. What is pumped into the upper atmosphere in thunder clouds is transported to the poles via jet streams. There it is consumed by the cold open waters and phytoplankton blooms. In the Arctic during the winter, CO2 builds up over sea ice. When the ice melts, all that buildup is consumed by the cold water. There is no accumulation beyond a year. Over land, trees, and grass work on the same schedule as the polar oceans. Natural emissions are around 20 times anthropogenic emissions. The IPPC models assume there is no accumulation of natural emissions, but at the same time they calculate that about half of anthropogenic emissions accumulates. It just isn’t possible. All those natural sinks are not selective. They absorb anthropogenic emissions just as effectively, and they do without making a sucking sound with either CO2 or dollars.

Leo Smith
December 10, 2021 7:13 pm

It is believed by some authoriries that human sacrifice on top of the giant pyramids of Chichen Itza was to appease the climate change Gods, who, nevertheless, were not so appeased.

Civilisation and its bureaucracy, its upper, middle and priestly classes collapsed, and only the peasants survived. Grinding poverty being about all an illiterate and innumerate society could manage,

J P Kalishek
December 11, 2021 4:31 am

I have 4 giant CO2 Suckers in my yard!
3 Maples, and an Ash
There’s a big Spruce right next door too

dirty dave
December 11, 2021 7:18 am

Do these clowns know when to turn them off?
ie. when plant growth declines due to inadequate CO2 availablity

Jules Guidry
December 11, 2021 7:34 am

“There’s a sucker born every minute, literally. Pun intended.” So very accurate.
I’m no rocket scientist, but even an old geezer such as myself can readily discern when a con is played and when not. Seen a lot of those scams since I started paying attention somewhere around my 18th year on the planet. Many decades ago.
The machine shown in this article, if the one being shown is what they intend to build in huge numbers, reminds me of an oil cooler on some high performance vehicles. WTH?
Obvious that the snake oil salesmen have greatly evolved since the days of hawking miracle cures from the back of circus wagons. Unfortunately, there are a lot of suckers out there willingly to put other people’s (taxpayer) money on the line to throw away on something which will do the usual nothing for anything meaningful. Except fill the pockets of the salesmen and the politicians who get behind whatever it is. Same with the current scamdemic being foisted on the world. Pharma and politicians, of all stripes being enriched with other people’s money.
And the beat goes on.

December 12, 2021 4:53 pm

One of the dumbest yet…

What? Your political acumen is lacking Anthony. Piss poor take…

Mark Schimmer
December 20, 2021 5:19 am

A little excursion to where Climeworks is situated, what it does and the geology around it.

Climeworks states that they process around 4 kilotonnes of co2 per year. Not far from it is Katla, a volcano beneath a glacier, which emits 12 to 24 kilotonnes
of co2 per DAY. This alone shows the futility of that project.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights