I liked when he mentioned you could build solar panels and wind turbines, but then you’ve got the build out. I was just wondering how the hell he was planning on building all that solar/wind without releasing massive amounts of CO2?
Pure snake oil, and yet another way to waste mindboggling amounts of cash.
Nick Stokes
September 1, 2023 6:38 pm
Busted?
He takes an awfully long time to get to his point, which is that CCS would be an operation comparable to the original extraction. Well, yes, we knew that, and no-one thinks CCS is an ideal solution.
Also, the Center for Climate Energy Solutions certainly thinks so. They claim:
Carbon capture, use, and storage technologies can capture more than 90 percent of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants and industrial facilities.
Captured carbon dioxide can be stored in underground geologic formation or be put to productive use in the manufacture of fuels, building materials, enhanced oil recovery and more.
Thirty commercial-scale carbon capture projects are operating around the world with 11 more under construction, and 153 in different stages of development.
Carbon capture can achieve 14 percent of the global greenhouse gas emissions reductions needed by 2050 and is viewed as the only practical way to achieve deep decarbonization in the industrial sector.
Carbon capture from air is impossible – too much energy just to pump the air.
Carbon capture from source addresses this specific issue; we then go to the next issue: energy consumed in the capture process itself.
That process is also energy intensive. Here is a highly optimist (i.e. numbers much too low vs. reality) overview of the many different carbon capture techniques: https://energypost.eu/10-carbon-capture-methods-compared-costs-scalability-permanence-cleanness/
I say optimistic because I have looked at some of the chemical ones. Potash is potassium plus chlorine (KCL); KCL is convertible to KOH via a pretty simple and low energy process. KOH + CO2 can then be processed to K2CO3 – which is a potassium fertilizer (KCL can also be applied directly but is effectively salting the soil).
There are also processes which use KOH as a CO2 capture vehicle to then transfer the CO2 to Calcium in the form of calcium carbonate – which in turn is a stable way to “store” CO2. Unlike say, wood, CaCO3 doesn’t burn in wildfires…
The thing is: energy in the above processes for source capture isn’t free and generally isn’t CO2 free. For a natural gas generator – the CO2 generated to capture said CO2 is more than 1 to 1. For a combined cycle natural gas plant, it might be less than 1 to 1 due to greater efficiency, but it isn’t far lower than 1 to 1 meaning the capture cost is enormous.
Coming back to the above article: Global carbon emissions is ~37 billion tons a year – so $100 per ton = $3.7 trillion. Keep that in mind when looking at the cost graph – and increase all the numbers by at least $100 per ton. There are NO negative cost carbon capture processes in reality – because if so the existing carbon credit price of $40 to $80 combined with these supposed negative carbon capture costs would have led to CO2 capture plants all over the place.
The IEA notes that although there have been 50 new CCUS facilities announced since Jan 22 and expected to be operating by 2030 this deployment would be “substantially below (c. one third) of the approximately 1.2 Gt pa required in the Net Zero emissions by 2050 Scenario”
Current facilities capture over 45Mt of CO2 annually. The CCES can talk about a theoretical over 90% capture but this doesn’t mean it is going to happen!
Mr. Spencer: Yes, you are familiar with this method, where Mr. Stokes says “nobody” wants that, then other commenters debunk that. When he says, “no-one”, he means someone. He is becoming not worth the keystrokes.
Yes, Nick is wrong. The Step Up To The Trough Green Washers want it.
The problem here is the unpaid for, borrow and spend, trickle up, unfortunately bipartisan, 45q legislation. You either pay for it with a carbon tax – starting at the 45q level of ~$45/ton – rebated, fully, regularly, equitably, to every US resident* after paying off legit CCS sequesters, or you jet 45q altogether. I’m for the first. I’m assuming that you all are for the second. I’m happy to go with your solution if the COTUS won’t ball up for the proper pay for.
If you believe that it would be impossible for the COTUS to avoid Tobacco Tax Honeypotting with this revenue stream, then, well, I can’t effectively rebut.
Meanwhile the planet is in deep thrall with all that increase in number of available CO2 for the planet since 1880 to take in which results in a significant increase of greening all over.
One of the few times NASA makes an honest report.
NASA
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
whatever has happened to skepticism, or even just following your own link?
Quote 1:“An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort,
Quote 2:”carbon dioxide’s contribution, researchers ran the data for carbon dioxide and each of the other variables in isolation through several computer models that mimic the plant growth observed in the satellite data.
Q: Computer models that mimic plant growth???? A: Wild speculation based on Kindergarten Science
Q: By how many people? A: Oh you say, it takes 33 or more people to form a consensus
Q: Where are the Real Pictures, on the ground, of this immense amount of greenery? Why is it so difficult for anybody to photograph all this extra stuff?
Q: How did the Sputnik that recorded this manage to get such a clear picture of the ground especially when the OCO2 Sputnik has vast amounts of its output ‘disappeared’ because (according to NASA) ‘clouds got in the way‘
Even more especially when for the OCO2 Sputnik, clouds shouldn’t matter. A: Because they contradicted each other. In the original, now deleted OCO2 photo-gallery, there was masses of CO₂ hanging over the world’s large forests = exactly where it should not have been for every reason on Earth.
i.e. For every reason that utterly trashes the notion of Green House Gases causing Global Warming
IOW: The forests were/are burning and the rising CO₂ is NOT coming from the industrialised parts of Earth
So, to protect the warming narrative, NASA deleted the OCO2 data and confected this garbage at the same time.
And backdated it to way before the Greening Sputnik was even thought of.
And to ‘self-protect’ the junk that it is, enrolled as many people and institutions as they easily rapidly could
Global Greening is a device to make fools out of skeptics – and skeptics have completely swallowed it
right-click > Open in new tab to see the image clearly
(It’s just a screenshot from the NASA 2016 greening link)
Oh. And why is that link/page now soooo old?
Why hasn’t it, after all this time, not been updated or superseded?
and Will Happer is his own, and Skeptism’s, worst enemy
He is a self-important, lying, fluffing bumbling, barely coherent minutia miner and trivia obsessive.
I cringed when he came out with the bit about ‘growing up in the countryside ‘with plants”
He knows less about how plants grow and work than either NASA or any/all members of the Idso family
The study covered a 35 year period but the report made it clear that increased CO2 in the air increased plant growth thus can be modeled to some extent that from 1880 to 1980 there also a greening going on around the world.
You didn’t make any real counterpoints to the report itself thus your comment was never relevant.
It hasn’t been updated because the alarmists realized they presented the world one of the best arguments in favour of a “regardless of whether there is or isn’t global warming – just relax and enjoy it” policy, that no one seems to advocate.
I have looked at that map so eagerly punted as showing all the greening. It shows a lot of increase. It also shows a lot of decrease. I have not seen anyone subtract the one from the other, so I shut up and watch…
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
That tells me the area that “greened”. It is not obvious, or even easily surmised, how much “browning” there was, of which I perfunctorily noticed a lot of on said map. So I wondered.
Besides, with the Scientific Reputation as it is now, for all I know, some students were put to work counting leaves, find the average size, then calculate all the leaf area in one square meter of land, and add them up as if they each covered a section of land.
I bet you the average tree can cover half a city block…before record adjustments.
Now you apparently have serious eye problems because this was right in front of you:
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
The report already accounted for the decrease by area in the report by showing the map, but they make clear the increase overall is equivalent to,
The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions.
“something” has been eating up half the CO2 emissions that mankind has been adding
I have a chortleberry farm. I am only getting half a harvest of chortleberries, because the unicorns steal half of them at night. I know this, because the man at the seedling shop told me how many chortleberries I am harvesting, but the scales always show half that…and we know how unicorns love chortleberries.
Well sure it is. Once it’s a pile of Iron Oxide we can use some Coal to purify it for future use and create some more life giving CO2 for our plant friends in the process.
Tom Halla
September 1, 2023 6:46 pm
He has the mistaken belief both that CO2 controls temperature, and that warming is a bad outcome. CO2 definitely affects plant growth, and no other proven effect.
He is a silly green, and hates anything people do.
John Aqua
September 1, 2023 7:13 pm
At the 6:00 minute mark, the narrator states that the greatest threat to humanity is climate change. I beg to differ. How about that German guy in the 1940’s or the little bacteria that caused infections and death. Plague? I am sure there have been others more dire than so called Climate Change.
Climate change in the form of the next natural glaciation is a major long term threat to humanity. Particularly as a large part of the population live in the hemisphere mostly affected if not actually buried in ice
How many ways can we be screwed by smug CAGWarmist that mix truth with fallacious(massive error in assessing sensitivity)scientific reasoning ( build credibility by establishing that he is a hard hitting “ realist”) Then finish up with we humans are a selfish blight on the planet might as well just off ourselves.
Funny how these people always skip through the actual science that they claim the skeptics are ignoring or rationalizing away.
Never heard such an arrant load of nonsense in the last 10 or so minutes when this twerp went of a full-on “future catastrophe” rant about temperature rising etc etc.
All the AGW cult mantra cracked-crystal-balls idiocy spewed out at once.
And extrapolation of the faked GISS urban adjusted temperatures as if they mean anything.
Ludicrous anti-science.. !
Mark Luhman
September 1, 2023 8:12 pm
Human beings exhaling CO2 add no CO2 to the atmosphere, all CO2 we exhale was once CO2 in the atmosphere and that true for all animals. It a net zero to begin with. The reason all our food was once CO2 in the atmosphere. That also true for fossil fuels the only problem is the carbon was sequestered a long time ago. The real problem is to much CO2 is being sequestered into calcium carbonate by simple single and multiple cell animals. The huge limestone deposits are depriving the world of the CO2 life needs. The real problem is to much CO2 sequestration, not enough. As Ron White puts it “you can’t fix stupid” God help us.
The idea is a complete waste of money as there is no Climate Crisis as made clear when using the baseline data and that CO2 at the 430 ppm level isn’t adding worth a darn in the warm forcing arena.
1) No Lower Tropospheric “Hot Spot” seen after 25 years of waiting.
2) No increase in storminess.
3) No increase in wildfire trend.
4) No increase in sea level rise.
5) Arctic Ice decline has stopped.
5) There is however an increase in irrational behavior by warmist/alarmists.
6) Increase in the misleading and lying claims by the hyperbolic Media.
7) Increased trend in avoiding honest debate with climate Realists they have become cut and paste master’s from the Al $$$ Gore school.
13 minutes of reasonably good numbers based on current industrial capabilities and costs, followed by 6 minutes of fearful climate nonsense.
Assumes that mankind will somehow double fossil fuel consumption, therefore CO2 emissions, every 25 years as in the past…which would render fossil fuels uncompetitive with biofuels or other synthetic fuels about when we hit about 1600 ppm CO2 (due to fossil fuel finding costs). Run that on Modtran to see what the warming is. Answer about 1.6 degrees warming with current 240 watts outgoing IR.
Result: No crisis except the need for new energy sources as oil and gas finding costs grow.
Re: Double emissions every 25 years / CO2 reaching 1600ppm
The quasi-scientist/eco-fanatic’s Malthusian nightmare fails to take into account that population levels are starting to level off (China especially noticable after the big increases of the past), technology keeps improving – and that nature loves that extra CO2 we’ve been making since the biosphere has been growing enough to keep up with about half of our increasing emissions. Once the emissions level off due to maintenance level birth rates, technology improvements and changes (switching to nuclear as fossil fuels possibly get more expensive), then the biosphere has a chance to catch up, and the little bit of gentle warming we’ve experienced over the recent 5 decades helps the biosphere to grow as well as the extra CO2.
So there’s not much to justify a CO2 emissions increase rate of much more than the 2ppm/yr that has been experienced so far, +/- about 1ppm.
Even if we use 4ppm/yr that’s 400ppm over the next century and a doubling of our current levels to 800ppm, the plants and plankton will still find it wanting and would prefer more. Projecting further than that is useless.
“And even the pain we can see is apparently quite bad. Two states are already likely to breach “the interim reliability measure” in this coming summer. Ominously, just one day after releasing the report, the AEMO is calling for tenders for “reliability reserves” in South Australia and Victoria. Apparently, they want offers of industries ready to shut down who aren’t already on the list, and they want spare generation too — get this — even asking for “small onsite generators”. Does that sound bad to you? It sounds bad to me.
As the calm analyst Paul McArdle says:
“Based on current trajectory, we’re in for a world of pain ahead. …the AEMO projections are looking pretty dire.”
It looks like it is about time Australia changed course and started building reliable electricty generation. Their experiment with unreliable wind and solar has failed. How much pain will be inflicted on the population before the politicians wake up to the fact they are going down the wrong road?
If only there were a natural organic process using solar power to sequester carbon. Perhaps they could find a way to make fibrous composites using relatively lightweight high strength carbon compounds like lignite and cellulose, which are easy to cut down to the proper size so they can be sequestered in structures like houses, furniture and decks.
They might even be able to disguise the organic solar powered carbon sequestering fiber assembling things to look like trees, just like they do cell phone towers.
I briefly toyed with the idea of making them self propagating, but I realized they’d quickly take over almost the whole planet, any place with enough water and sunlight would be overrun. In the right conditions they’d grow so densely sunlight would seldom even reach the ground.
My problem isn’t spellcheck, because that involves my active intervention. I find the problem is what Microsoft calls “text suggestions” and others call autocompletion or some variation. These require special attention because the beginning of the word is the same and human minds are really good at ignoring the tail end. Further, minds are proficient at recognizing jumbled words and reading them correctly. In the case “bnice” points out, the two words start with the same 4 letters: lignite vs lignin.
Or fossilized lignin:
“Both lignite and lignin contain the parent structures convertible to benzene carboxylic acids with similar yield distributions. Our results imply that lignite is directly coalificated from lignin and keeps the main aromatic properties of lignin.”
Tusten02
September 1, 2023 11:58 pm
CCS = Carbon Capture Sisyphos! The atmosphere is not a closed system. The seas contain multiple more CO2 than the atmosphere and according to Henry’s law, at every temperature, there is a given relation between the gas pressure in the atmosphere and in the sea. Take away some CO2 from the air, the balance will be restord with some delay. Hence, similar to Sisyphos rolling up a stone a hill, only to see it rolling back and he must start all over again! Thus – CCS is sheer stupidity! Not to mention the benefits of CO2 and that there is no climate crisis!
“Aaahhh! But the Green that it generates. ($’s)” to the politically connected select few and not the ignorant tools.
Coeur de Lion
September 2, 2023 1:06 am
Have you noticed how carbon becomes carbon dioxide when it isn’t scaring us? Liars. Has anyone done the numbers here? 31%. Chinese
aelfrith
September 2, 2023 2:39 am
The youtube link won’t connect
Old Mike
September 2, 2023 4:53 am
David Keith and Klaus Lackner have been been spinning and pushing this concept for about forty years now.
So we should think about future generations should we?
OK lets do that, strapping carbon capture with deep disposal on to a coal fired power station would reduce energy output efficiency by a nominal 40% due to the parasitic power demand to run the technology those are hard numbers from multi-industry studies that I participated in in the late 90’s
That implies that to maintain current electricity production we would burn through and deplete the lowest cost energy source available at a rate approaching twice that of the current. That’s a very irresponsible action to solve a none problem
That example is capturing CO2 from a much higher concentration source than the atmosphere itself, capture from air is inherently going to be even more energy wasteful.
These scammers have never to my knowledge published a full mass and energy balance for their proposed solution for the none problem. Our dumb, gullible, politicians continue to be led by the nose, and the grant cows keeps producing the money these shysters are taking.
J Boles
September 2, 2023 7:25 am
LOOK at all those fans! OMG it must work, it MUST do what they say it will, and think of all the C02 produced in making that big sucker.
Josh Scandlen
September 2, 2023 9:26 am
I like when he said there was a “normal” level of CO2. “Normal”? according to whom?
The IPCC is getting their temperatures from thermometers that are mostly in cities where it is warmer. The Sun warms the concrete and asphalt in the cities to higher temperatures and they warm the air.
Being half right is better than being all wrong.
Gotta love his linear projection of temperature. He needs a strong dose of Will Happer
The last third of this video is complete alarmist garbage. I would only call him 33% right.
I liked when he mentioned you could build solar panels and wind turbines, but then you’ve got the build out. I was just wondering how the hell he was planning on building all that solar/wind without releasing massive amounts of CO2?
He wasn’t. He expects those who don’t matter to die, leaving him and the elites to live on.
He’s an idiot. Being right once in his life doesn’t earn him any kudos.
Pure snake oil, and yet another way to waste mindboggling amounts of cash.
Busted?
He takes an awfully long time to get to his point, which is that CCS would be an operation comparable to the original extraction. Well, yes, we knew that, and no-one thinks CCS is an ideal solution.
Much worse than “Ideal”, it takes plant food out of the Biosphere.
and these idiots think that along with deforestation is a good idea – as someone said – you just can’f fix stupid
A solution to WHAT ?
CO2 is beneficial to all life on Earth,….. NOT a problem.
Does NOT need a solution. !
It is being promoted as though some think so.
https://scitechdaily.com/climate-change-solution-or-worse-than-coal-new-research-explores-debate-around-controversial-energy-technology/
Also, the Center for Climate Energy Solutions certainly thinks so. They claim:
https://www.c2es.org/content/carbon-capture/
Carbon capture from air is impossible – too much energy just to pump the air.
Carbon capture from source addresses this specific issue; we then go to the next issue: energy consumed in the capture process itself.
That process is also energy intensive. Here is a highly optimist (i.e. numbers much too low vs. reality) overview of the many different carbon capture techniques: https://energypost.eu/10-carbon-capture-methods-compared-costs-scalability-permanence-cleanness/
I say optimistic because I have looked at some of the chemical ones. Potash is potassium plus chlorine (KCL); KCL is convertible to KOH via a pretty simple and low energy process. KOH + CO2 can then be processed to K2CO3 – which is a potassium fertilizer (KCL can also be applied directly but is effectively salting the soil).
There are also processes which use KOH as a CO2 capture vehicle to then transfer the CO2 to Calcium in the form of calcium carbonate – which in turn is a stable way to “store” CO2. Unlike say, wood, CaCO3 doesn’t burn in wildfires…
The thing is: energy in the above processes for source capture isn’t free and generally isn’t CO2 free. For a natural gas generator – the CO2 generated to capture said CO2 is more than 1 to 1. For a combined cycle natural gas plant, it might be less than 1 to 1 due to greater efficiency, but it isn’t far lower than 1 to 1 meaning the capture cost is enormous.
Coming back to the above article: Global carbon emissions is ~37 billion tons a year – so $100 per ton = $3.7 trillion. Keep that in mind when looking at the cost graph – and increase all the numbers by at least $100 per ton. There are NO negative cost carbon capture processes in reality – because if so the existing carbon credit price of $40 to $80 combined with these supposed negative carbon capture costs would have led to CO2 capture plants all over the place.
The IEA notes that although there have been 50 new CCUS facilities announced since Jan 22 and expected to be operating by 2030 this deployment would be “substantially below (c. one third) of the approximately 1.2 Gt pa required in the Net Zero emissions by 2050 Scenario”
Current facilities capture over 45Mt of CO2 annually. The CCES can talk about a theoretical over 90% capture but this doesn’t mean it is going to happen!
https://www.iea.org/energy-sytem/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage
Nor do we want it to happen. More CO2 is better.
Mr. Spencer: Yes, you are familiar with this method, where Mr. Stokes says “nobody” wants that, then other commenters debunk that. When he says, “no-one”, he means someone. He is becoming not worth the keystrokes.
Yes, Nick is wrong. The Step Up To The Trough Green Washers want it.
The problem here is the unpaid for, borrow and spend, trickle up, unfortunately bipartisan, 45q legislation. You either pay for it with a carbon tax – starting at the 45q level of ~$45/ton – rebated, fully, regularly, equitably, to every US resident* after paying off legit CCS sequesters, or you jet 45q altogether. I’m for the first. I’m assuming that you all are for the second. I’m happy to go with your solution if the COTUS won’t ball up for the proper pay for.
Meanwhile the planet is in deep thrall with all that increase in number of available CO2 for the planet since 1880 to take in which results in a significant increase of greening all over.
One of the few times NASA makes an honest report.
NASA
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
LINK
The CCS idea is stupid as hell economic or not.
whatever has happened to skepticism, or even just following your own link?
Quote 1:“An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort,
Quote 2:”carbon dioxide’s contribution, researchers ran the data for carbon dioxide and each of the other variables in isolation through several computer models that mimic the plant growth observed in the satellite data.
Q: Computer models that mimic plant growth????
A: Wild speculation based on Kindergarten Science
Q: By how many people?
A: Oh you say, it takes 33 or more people to form a consensus
Q: Where are the Real Pictures, on the ground, of this immense amount of greenery? Why is it so difficult for anybody to photograph all this extra stuff?
Q: How did the Sputnik that recorded this manage to get such a clear picture of the ground especially when the OCO2 Sputnik has vast amounts of its output ‘disappeared’ because (according to NASA) ‘clouds got in the way‘
Even more especially when for the OCO2 Sputnik, clouds shouldn’t matter.
A: Because they contradicted each other. In the original, now deleted OCO2 photo-gallery, there was masses of CO₂ hanging over the world’s large forests = exactly where it should not have been for every reason on Earth.
i.e. For every reason that utterly trashes the notion of Green House Gases causing Global Warming
IOW: The forests were/are burning and the rising CO₂ is NOT coming from the industrialised parts of Earth
So, to protect the warming narrative, NASA deleted the OCO2 data and confected this garbage at the same time.
And backdated it to way before the Greening Sputnik was even thought of.
And to ‘self-protect’ the junk that it is, enrolled as many people and institutions as they easily rapidly could
Global Greening is a device to make fools out of skeptics – and skeptics have completely swallowed it
right-click > Open in new tab to see the image clearly
(It’s just a screenshot from the NASA 2016 greening link)
Oh. And why is that link/page now soooo old?
Why hasn’t it, after all this time, not been updated or superseded?
and Will Happer is his own, and Skeptism’s, worst enemy
He is a self-important, lying, fluffing bumbling, barely coherent minutia miner and trivia obsessive.
I cringed when he came out with the bit about ‘growing up in the countryside ‘with plants”
He knows less about how plants grow and work than either NASA or any/all members of the Idso family
The study covered a 35 year period but the report made it clear that increased CO2 in the air increased plant growth thus can be modeled to some extent that from 1880 to 1980 there also a greening going on around the world.
You didn’t make any real counterpoints to the report itself thus your comment was never relevant.
It hasn’t been updated because the alarmists realized they presented the world one of the best arguments in favour of a “regardless of whether there is or isn’t global warming – just relax and enjoy it” policy, that no one seems to advocate.
I have looked at that map so eagerly punted as showing all the greening. It shows a lot of increase. It also shows a lot of decrease. I have not seen anyone subtract the one from the other, so I shut up and watch…
Quoting from the report,
It was an overall increase.
That tells me the area that “greened”. It is not obvious, or even easily surmised, how much “browning” there was, of which I perfunctorily noticed a lot of on said map. So I wondered.
Besides, with the Scientific Reputation as it is now, for all I know, some students were put to work counting leaves, find the average size, then calculate all the leaf area in one square meter of land, and add them up as if they each covered a section of land.
I bet you the average tree can cover half a city block…before record adjustments.
Now you apparently have serious eye problems because this was right in front of you:
The report already accounted for the decrease by area in the report by showing the map, but they make clear the increase overall is equivalent to,
It increased overall.
I repeat part that you left out:
Real data was the basis for their report.
Ooops.
How do you explain that “something” has been eating up half the CO2 emissions that mankind has been adding to the atmosphere?
And that’s not counting the co2 from the net-ungreening that you are assuming.
I have a chortleberry farm. I am only getting half a harvest of chortleberries, because the unicorns steal half of them at night. I know this, because the man at the seedling shop told me how many chortleberries I am harvesting, but the scales always show half that…and we know how unicorns love chortleberries.
That explains your stupid replies then……..
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Already posted it a day earlier, thanks for the repeat for others to read.
LINK
A complete and total waste of energy, Stokes, its not a solution to anything.
On the Good News front, after a few years sitting unused due to economic downturn the device will go from BUSTED to RUSTED
That doesn’t sound like good news
Yeah, rusted means they’re sequestering oxygen from the atmosphere, and I Use that.
The fellow does seem to be a true believer, though he didn’t give any reason why he thinks warmer is not better.
Well sure it is. Once it’s a pile of Iron Oxide we can use some Coal to purify it for future use and create some more life giving CO2 for our plant friends in the process.
He has the mistaken belief both that CO2 controls temperature, and that warming is a bad outcome. CO2 definitely affects plant growth, and no other proven effect.
He is a silly green, and hates anything people do.
At the 6:00 minute mark, the narrator states that the greatest threat to humanity is climate change. I beg to differ. How about that German guy in the 1940’s or the little bacteria that caused infections and death. Plague? I am sure there have been others more dire than so called Climate Change.
One of the BIGGEST threats to world civilisations is the anti-CO2 Climate Change Agenda.
Destroying economies.
Destroying reliability of electricity supplies.
Destroying the environment.
Destroying food production.
Climate change in the form of the next natural glaciation is a major long term threat to humanity. Particularly as a large part of the population live in the hemisphere mostly affected if not actually buried in ice
The greatest threat to humanity is arrogant stupidity.
The Mayers from the House of Rothschild were Bavarian, not German.
How many ways can we be screwed by smug CAGWarmist that mix truth with fallacious(massive error in assessing sensitivity)scientific reasoning ( build credibility by establishing that he is a hard hitting “ realist”) Then finish up with we humans are a selfish blight on the planet might as well just off ourselves.
Funny how these people always skip through the actual science that they claim the skeptics are ignoring or rationalizing away.
Never heard such an arrant load of nonsense in the last 10 or so minutes when this twerp went of a full-on “future catastrophe” rant about temperature rising etc etc.
All the AGW cult mantra cracked-crystal-balls idiocy spewed out at once.
Utter claptrap.. !
And extrapolation of the faked GISS urban adjusted temperatures as if they mean anything.
Ludicrous anti-science.. !
Human beings exhaling CO2 add no CO2 to the atmosphere, all CO2 we exhale was once CO2 in the atmosphere and that true for all animals. It a net zero to begin with. The reason all our food was once CO2 in the atmosphere. That also true for fossil fuels the only problem is the carbon was sequestered a long time ago. The real problem is to much CO2 is being sequestered into calcium carbonate by simple single and multiple cell animals. The huge limestone deposits are depriving the world of the CO2 life needs. The real problem is to much CO2 sequestration, not enough. As Ron White puts it “you can’t fix stupid” God help us.
Everyone should have a hobby.
The idea is a complete waste of money as there is no Climate Crisis as made clear when using the baseline data and that CO2 at the 430 ppm level isn’t adding worth a darn in the warm forcing arena.
1) No Lower Tropospheric “Hot Spot” seen after 25 years of waiting.
2) No increase in storminess.
3) No increase in wildfire trend.
4) No increase in sea level rise.
5) Arctic Ice decline has stopped.
5) There is however an increase in irrational behavior by warmist/alarmists.
6) Increase in the misleading and lying claims by the hyperbolic Media.
7) Increased trend in avoiding honest debate with climate Realists they have become cut and paste master’s from the Al $$$ Gore school.
13 minutes of reasonably good numbers based on current industrial capabilities and costs, followed by 6 minutes of fearful climate nonsense.
Assumes that mankind will somehow double fossil fuel consumption, therefore CO2 emissions, every 25 years as in the past…which would render fossil fuels uncompetitive with biofuels or other synthetic fuels about when we hit about 1600 ppm CO2 (due to fossil fuel finding costs). Run that on Modtran to see what the warming is. Answer about 1.6 degrees warming with current 240 watts outgoing IR.
Result: No crisis except the need for new energy sources as oil and gas finding costs grow.
Re: Double emissions every 25 years / CO2 reaching 1600ppm
The quasi-scientist/eco-fanatic’s Malthusian nightmare fails to take into account that population levels are starting to level off (China especially noticable after the big increases of the past), technology keeps improving – and that nature loves that extra CO2 we’ve been making since the biosphere has been growing enough to keep up with about half of our increasing emissions. Once the emissions level off due to maintenance level birth rates, technology improvements and changes (switching to nuclear as fossil fuels possibly get more expensive), then the biosphere has a chance to catch up, and the little bit of gentle warming we’ve experienced over the recent 5 decades helps the biosphere to grow as well as the extra CO2.
So there’s not much to justify a CO2 emissions increase rate of much more than the 2ppm/yr that has been experienced so far, +/- about 1ppm.
Even if we use 4ppm/yr that’s 400ppm over the next century and a doubling of our current levels to 800ppm, the plants and plankton will still find it wanting and would prefer more. Projecting further than that is useless.
If the temperature drops and atmospheric CO2 levels drop…
… that is when the **** will hit the proverbial fan.
Don’t you mean, when temperature drops and CO2 continues to rise!
Wait, that’s happening now, so why isn’t **** hitting the fan yet?
The slightly higher levels of CO2 is one factor that is allowing crop and produce yields to rise.
If ocean temp does start to drop, eventually, so will atmospheric CO2.
There is no data that says temperatures are dropping yet, thankfully.
Story Tip
Panic now: The Australian national grid manager admits blackouts are coming « JoNova (joannenova.com.au)
From your link:
“And even the pain we can see is apparently quite bad. Two states are already likely to breach “the interim reliability measure” in this coming summer. Ominously, just one day after releasing the report, the AEMO is calling for tenders for “reliability reserves” in South Australia and Victoria. Apparently, they want offers of industries ready to shut down who aren’t already on the list, and they want spare generation too — get this — even asking for “small onsite generators”. Does that sound bad to you? It sounds bad to me.
As the calm analyst Paul McArdle says:
“Based on current trajectory, we’re in for a world of pain ahead. …the AEMO projections are looking pretty dire.”
It looks like it is about time Australia changed course and started building reliable electricty generation. Their experiment with unreliable wind and solar has failed. How much pain will be inflicted on the population before the politicians wake up to the fact they are going down the wrong road?
If only there were a natural organic process using solar power to sequester carbon. Perhaps they could find a way to make fibrous composites using relatively lightweight high strength carbon compounds like lignite and cellulose, which are easy to cut down to the proper size so they can be sequestered in structures like houses, furniture and decks.
They might even be able to disguise the organic solar powered carbon sequestering fiber assembling things to look like trees, just like they do cell phone towers.
I got to patent this idea.
Sorry, I think the Russians claim they invented it. Right after they invented the telephone.
“lignite” ??
Not sure that is the word you wanted..
Lignite is brown coal.
Perhaps… “lignin” ??
You do your own invention, but I’m going to want royalties.
Probably was spellcheck did me in.
I must say, do rather like the idea of your invention.
It seems eminently sensible. Wish I was in a position to provide some financial backing. ! 😉
I briefly toyed with the idea of making them self propagating, but I realized they’d quickly take over almost the whole planet, any place with enough water and sunlight would be overrun. In the right conditions they’d grow so densely sunlight would seldom even reach the ground.
Kudzu – Wikipedia
My problem isn’t spellcheck, because that involves my active intervention. I find the problem is what Microsoft calls “text suggestions” and others call autocompletion or some variation. These require special attention because the beginning of the word is the same and human minds are really good at ignoring the tail end. Further, minds are proficient at recognizing jumbled words and reading them correctly.
In the case “bnice” points out, the two words start with the same 4 letters: lignite vs lignin.
“Lignite”. Also described as highngrade dirt.
Or fossilized lignin:
“Both lignite and lignin contain the parent structures convertible to benzene carboxylic acids with similar yield distributions. Our results imply that lignite is directly coalificated from lignin and keeps the main aromatic properties of lignin.”
CCS = Carbon Capture Sisyphos! The atmosphere is not a closed system. The seas contain multiple more CO2 than the atmosphere and according to Henry’s law, at every temperature, there is a given relation between the gas pressure in the atmosphere and in the sea. Take away some CO2 from the air, the balance will be restord with some delay. Hence, similar to Sisyphos rolling up a stone a hill, only to see it rolling back and he must start all over again! Thus – CCS is sheer stupidity! Not to mention the benefits of CO2 and that there is no climate crisis!
Well said Sir!
Carbon capture is so 1990’s, this century CCS is sheer irresponsible madness and must be called out.
Aaahhh! But the Green that it generates. ($’s)
“Aaahhh! But the Green that it generates. ($’s)” to the politically connected select few and not the ignorant tools.
Have you noticed how carbon becomes carbon dioxide when it isn’t scaring us? Liars. Has anyone done the numbers here? 31%. Chinese
The youtube link won’t connect
David Keith and Klaus Lackner have been been spinning and pushing this concept for about forty years now.
So we should think about future generations should we?
OK lets do that, strapping carbon capture with deep disposal on to a coal fired power station would reduce energy output efficiency by a nominal 40% due to the parasitic power demand to run the technology those are hard numbers from multi-industry studies that I participated in in the late 90’s
That implies that to maintain current electricity production we would burn through and deplete the lowest cost energy source available at a rate approaching twice that of the current. That’s a very irresponsible action to solve a none problem
That example is capturing CO2 from a much higher concentration source than the atmosphere itself, capture from air is inherently going to be even more energy wasteful.
These scammers have never to my knowledge published a full mass and energy balance for their proposed solution for the none problem. Our dumb, gullible, politicians continue to be led by the nose, and the grant cows keeps producing the money these shysters are taking.
LOOK at all those fans! OMG it must work, it MUST do what they say it will, and think of all the C02 produced in making that big sucker.
I like when he said there was a “normal” level of CO2. “Normal”? according to whom?
The US hasn’t warmed at all since 2005, NOAA says.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/1/0
The IPCC is getting their temperatures from thermometers that are mostly in cities where it is warmer. The Sun warms the concrete and asphalt in the cities to higher temperatures and they warm the air.
Each day, tons of food are brought into every city where consumption continues 24 hours per day.
Here is an estimate of what that means:
How much heat per hour do humans dissipate? (physlink.com)
Bottom line: roughly equal to energy given off by a 100 Watt light bulb!
If a city has 5 million people, there is a diffuse heat source equivalent to 5,000,000 100W bulbs.
I do’t think this video is that helpful.