Guest Post By Willis Eschenbach
Well, I see that the Canadian climate scammers are no better at simple arithmetic than Philadelphia schoolteachers. Here’s the brilliant Canadian plan—make direct air capture (DAC) of CO2 compulsory. DAC means extracting CO2 directly from the air and pumping it deep underground where it won’t escape. In theory.
From the article:
Canada’s DAC protocol isn’t just about voluntary credits—it’s laying the groundwork for DAC to be integrated into compliance carbon markets, where credits are legally required rather than optional. Currently, compliance markets such as the EU Emissions Trading System and California’s Cap-and-Trade Program dominate global carbon trading.
This transition would dramatically increase demand for DAC credits by allowing major emitters, from power plants to manufacturing facilities, to purchase DAC offsets to meet government-mandated reduction targets. This shift would significantly scale up investments in DAC infrastructure, driving costs down over time.
Gosh, that sounds like climate nirvana. What’s not to like?
As usual, the devil is in the dollars … here’s how that works out.
Canada’s full federal budget is about CAD$450 billion. (CAD = Canadian Dollars)
Canada emits about 550 million tons of CO2 per year.
Per the article again:
According to CDR.fyi, over 1.6 million tons of DAC carbon credits have been purchased to date at an average price of $470 per ton.
CAD$470 per ton times 550 million tons/year ≈ CAD$260 billion per year.
They’re proposing that an amount equal to 60% of Canada’s total Federal budget be spent on Direct Air Capture (DAC) each and every year … which will do nothing. Nothing will be produced. No Canadians will be enriched. Nobody will be fed or clothed. Nothing of value will be created.
As I’ve said before, anyone proposing some climate plan like this should be required by law to publish their calculations regarding the savings in temperature from their genius idea. Here are the calculations for their plan, using the IPCC assumptions. Please note that I’m not saying the IPCC is right to claim that CO2 is the temperature control knob. I’m just using their assumptions to calculate the effects of climate policies if they are right.
After some thought, I stumbled across a simple way to estimate the relationship of CO2 emissions with temperature using the IPCC assumptions. However, I first need to give my trigger warning for those with math allergies. Fear not, it’s just multiplication. Here’s the warning:
With that out of the way, Figure 1 below shows the calculations. Instead of using emissions to calculate the change in atmospheric CO2 levels, then using atmospheric CO2 changes to calculate the change in CO2 forcing, then using those forcing changes to calculate the expected change in temperature, I thought I’d cut through the fog.
I decided to leave out all the intermediate steps, and simply see what the relationship looked like between emissions and temperature.
Figure 1. Berkeley Earth yearly surface temperature, and surface temperature estimated from cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions using the formula at the top of the figure. Emissions are in gigatons, Gt, which are one billion tons, or 10^9 tons. And as a reminder, correlation ≠ causation. I can get about as good a correlation with temperature using population in place of emissions … but I digress …
Note the simplicity of this method. If the IPCC is right, avoided temperature rise in degrees C is the total of the CO2 emissions avoided in gigatons, times .0008 degrees C per gigaton.
So for example, I find this:
How many tons of co2 emissions per year does the Block Island wind farm prevent?
About 40,000 tons per year
Despite its modest size, the wind farm, which cost about $300 million to build, still represents a significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions — about 40,000 tons per year.
Again assuming that the IPCC claims are correct, using the conversion factor of 0.0008°C per gigaton of CO2 emissions avoided, we find that Block Island is responsible for an avoided warming of 0.00000003°C per year.
Clearly a “significant reduction” … here’s more about the Block Island fiasco.
Here’s another example. In 2022, the IEA said:
Increased deployment of clean energy technologies such as renewables, electric vehicles, and heat pumps helped prevent an additional 550 Mt in CO2 emissions.
Sounds impressive, all right … but when we convert it to temperature, it works out to an avoided warming from all of those technologies of 0.0004°C per year … gonna take a while at that rate.
To return to Canada, at the CAD$470 per ton Direct Air Capture (DAC) cost referenced above, the 7.4 Gt of avoided CO2 emissions by 2050 will cost about CAD$3.5 TRILLION dollars.
And for that gigantic expense, the POSSIBLE THEORETICAL cooling in 2050AD will not be a tenth of a degree. It will not even be a hundredth of a degree.
It will be a pathetic six-thousandths of a degree. Lost in the noise. Unmeasurable.
Canada is proposing spending trillions for an outcome too small to measure, 0.006°C of avoided warming by 2050. How did this ever get to be thought of as a reasonable course of action?
Finally, please don’t say “But if Canada does it the rest will follow their noble example!” or the like. First, the Chinese and the Indians won’t follow, they’re realists. Next, people in almost every other country are waking up and realizing that spending $3.5 TRILLION for a possible cooling of 0.006°C a quarter century from now is bull goose looney, not to mention totally unaffordable.
Fun fact for today. Only three countries remain fully devoted to the chimeric idea of “Net Zero By 2050″—Canada, Australia, and the UK. The Commonwealth needs to wake up, heck, even the Germans are waking up. People are getting fooled. Here’s what the Canadians think they are doing.
Wow, pretty impressive! CO2 emissions have gone flat! Let’s throw more money at it!
However, out here in the real world, this is what the Canadian change looks like.
No matter how many trillions of dollars the Canadians waste on emissions control, it will make no difference. Canada could go to net zero tomorrow. It would make no difference.
WAKE UP, DEAR FRIENDS!
Here, after a bone-dry January, the “Pineapple Express” is headed toward the US Pacific Northwest again. Starting at midnight, we’re slated to get five inches (125 mm) of rain in the coming week.
So once again, the world is constantly changing. What’s not to like?
My very best to each and every one of you,
w.
As Always: I ask that when you comment you quote the exact words you are discussing. I can defend my words. I can’t defend your interpretation of my words.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I still cannot figure out why anyone in Canada would think that a degree or 2 or 3 or 4 of warming, would be a bad thing. !
-40 just wouldn’t be -40.
Children just won’t know what -50° is any longer!
Especially considering it’s supposed to be Northern Winters that are warmer.
Northern Winter is Canada except for Summer (aka June 26th) then they go back into early winter.
Just wait 13,000 years, then Northern Hemisphere winters will happen at aphelion instead of perihelion, where they do now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession
According to Google AI (standard search engine), aphelion would not make much difference. It’s mostly the earth’s tilt that affects temperature during seasons. I, however, don’t have any knowledge or strong opinions on this.
Very good summary of how silly the Carbon capture idea is.
Im sure Government would only fund the removal of any increase in CO2 above the Paris ( or Kyoto?) agreement level.
A pimple of the backside of Paris .
But of course the 550 MT annual being the calculated human emissions is only the margin of error in the natural CO2 yearly cycle for Canada
Canada has 300+ Billion trees. Total anthropogenic emissions are equivalent to about 1 Kg of tree growth per year. Average tree growth is about 10 Kg per year but some burn down and their sequestered carbon is released in an hour, some die and their sequestered carbon is released over a quarter of a century, a very small percentage is cut down and sold to the US.
The boreal forest has greatly expanded over the last 8000 years, average tree life of mature tree is only about 140 years, so forest fires and tree death are very common, just not evident over the average human’s adulthood….
I couldn’t agree more, transitioning to renewable energy for the reason of avoiding climate change is indeed batshit crazy.
You’ve done analyses that show how hard it is to transition by 2050 and they’re damning.
But its not the only reason to be transitioning. Extend that transition date to the likely practical end of fossil fuels in maybe 100 years or so, given known reserves, current usage and likely growth and its still a massive challenge.
I’ll get downvoted for this because many people here also cant do the math when it doesn’t suit them.
People can’t see your math if you don’t publish it. Willis published his. Won’t you please publish yours?
Here is Willis’ maths. Its a straight forward projection to change the 30 years he calculated for the transition (ie 2020-2050) to be 3x as long to (ie 2020-2110) and transitioning at 1/3 the pace.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/27/bright-green-impossibilities/
You can do that maths for yourself in your head.
Any such transition will occur of its own accord based on market conditions. No need for burro-crats to plan it out for us.
It’s Difficult To Make Predictions, Especially About the Future
No. You’ll get downvoted for not understanding that technology will change so dramatically in 100 years that you can’t imagine what it will be. Just like the previous 100 years, although much more so.
Fossil fuels will probably be as irrelevant then as whale blubber is to us now.
The problem with this is we have a pretty good handle on energy and the sources available to us.
Its highly unlikely something completely new and magical appears. Our best bet is fusion and that’s not much of a bet today.
Tim, there’s a simple reason that transitioning from fossil fuels to whatever succeeds them will not be a “massive challenge”.
The market.
Was it a “massive challenge” to transition from wood to coal?
Was it a “massive challenge” to transition from coal to oil?
Was it a “massive challenge” to transition from coal to gas?
The only reason the current lunacy is a “massive challenge” is because it is not market-driven. It is ideological-fantasy-driven, with an impossible time frame.
Best to you and yours,
w.
A belief in “the market” is an ideological-fantasy-driven delusion. There is no such thing. Markets are created by humans with particular rules and regulations to achieve particular ends. You can’t have a market without a government to provide a safe space for it, provide roads so that people can attend, have a legal system that ensures contracts are upheld and are valid, a police force to keep people safe, standardised weights to ensure that buyers aren’t ripped off etc etc. If governments can create the right markets then they can achieve particular ends.
And if you believe in markets you should also believe that creating a market for carbon capture would be successful in reducing the price to a level where it was feasible and viable to do so at scale.
Thanks, Izaak, but American Indians traded with each other, without your roads and legal system and all the rest that you list as being totally necessary.
Next, you claim that “if you believe in markets you should also believe that creating a market for carbon capture would be successful in reducing the price to a level where it was feasible and viable to do so at scale”.
Say what? Markets have power, but they cannot perform miracles. And absent government coercion, interference, and subsidies there is NO “market for carbon capture”, so that’s all fantasy top to bottom.
w.
“Markets have power, . . . “
Say what? That’s nearly as delusional as saying that “climate change” has “power”!
Come on Willis, back up what you said. Define “markets”. Define “power”. Otherwise, you just come across like another desperate attention seeker.
My best to you and yours, as usual.
Delusional? You’ve never heard of financial markets, presumably.
It’s called “magical thinking”. Wishing for something makes it magically happen.
Disney’s First Law
Markets are created by the supply of an item and sufficient demand from people. When you involve government, you get artificial markets where productivity is no longer considered. Look at communism if you don’t believe me.
“Look at communism if you don’t believe me.”
Walton loves government, as long as it’s a far left government.
If governments distort the markets then they can attempt to force particular ends.
Izaak,
There will never be a market for “carbon capture” as the “carbon” captured has almost no value and “capture” is ruinously and idiotically expensive. It is somewhat the equivalent of hiring people to dig holes and then fill them in. And DAC is an even more ludicrous notion.
Spoken like a true Communist. The barter system, marketplaces, and trading posts existed long before governments
Spoken like a true Communist. The barter system, marketplaces, and trading posts existed long before governments
The reason it wasn’t a massive challenge to transition from wood to coal to oil is that it was a better solution in each case.
Transitioning to renewable energy is a worse solution in terms of cost and simplicity per watt.
But the market can’t fix that. Only potentially a new solution could do so like fusion but that’s still looking unlikely.
The market also can’t fix the time it takes and that is the analysis you’ve already done.
You seem not to know the definition of recoverable oil. Recoverable oil refers to known oil that can be economically produced at today’s prices, not total existing oil. There are approximately. 1.6 trillion barrels of technically recoverable oil, i.e., all known oil that could be recovered ignoring cost. That’s enough to last 16,000 years at present consumption rates, And that’s just oil, not natural gas or coal. Man will have oil for many millennium. The only question is if technology will keep the price steady or if it will gradually increase as the costs of extraction goes up. Math is worthless if you don’t know wha the numbers mean.
“The costs of extraction” are only presumed to go up over time. Yet the explosion in fracking made the costs of extraction lower, or at least moderated such that the market price of a barrel of oil or a gallon of gasoline has become cheaper now than it was decades ago, adjusted for inflation.
We cannot know how technological advances decades from now will impact the costs of extraction. We also cannot predict market demand for oil and gas decades in the future.
These are the known unknowns … and then there are the unknown unknowns that we cannot even imagine today. How many people imagined 50 years ago that virtually every person in the world could instantly communicate with every other person in the world and have instant access to much of the world’s information using a device that fits in your pocket? Even just 20 years ago.
As Yogi Berra is often quoted:
”Predictions are hard … especially about the future.”
Fracking isn’t about getting more oil, its about getting the oil we know about more quickly. Its a technique to help satisfy the demand of about 100M barrels per day.
But a side effect of fracking is that the wells dry up more quickly. There cant be an unforeseen better technology getting the oil even more quickly when there is virtually none left in the well in the first place.
Fracking is about extracting more oil at an economically viable price. This process often occurs at depths greater than 6,000 feet and can access areas that traditional drilling cannot It’s the only way to get
unconventional oil and gas” — called unconventional as the productive rock is a source rock like shale (Ie where the oil and gas is made by natural processes) instead of a reservoir rock like sandstone, (where the oil or gas is trapped inconventional oil and gas). In 2022, two-thirds of all US oil came from fracking.What fracking did was change those oil reserves from technically recoverable oil to recoverable oil. It increased our recoverable reserves. For Mankind, the technically recoverable oil can be considered limitless. Every time there is a new technology reducing the cost of extraction more technically recoverable oil becomes recoverable oil.
No its not, or at least that’s not my understanding. There may be a few wells that applies to, but the vast majority of fracking is to increase the productivity of wells.
Perhaps you have a reference to back up that claim?
Meanwhile…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracking
It can expose oil that wouldn’t have flowed to the original well at all by creating a path to it and that increases the overall potential but its not a panacea for extending the life of oil far beyond what was already found.
Fracking opens up the fissures and pore spaces within oil and gas bearing rock formations. It both helps existing wells produce more (because until fracking, the rate of oil and gas extraction naturally decreases in a given well or oils field over time due to growing resistance to the flow of same). Fracking also makes other untapped formations that were previously found to be uneconomic producers into economic producers.
“The only question is if technology will keep the price steady or if it will gradually increase as the costs of extraction goes up.” Perhaps something was lost in the translation. I was not presuming the cost of extraction would go up over time. That should have been clear. Either technology holds the price steady OR, by definition, the costs of extraction goes up.
I wasn’t criticizing your comment, but adding to it. The “peak oil” types have been predicting peak oil for many decades now based upon an assumption of increasing production costs as proven deposits are extracted. But because technology has disrupted the oil and gas production industry by lowering costs making more oil economically feasible to extract, that prediction has been proven to be premature, if not practically speaking, false.
The people who love to assert predictions of the future seem never take into account even the known unknowns, let alone the unknown unknowns. Fracking was an unknown unknown – a truly disruptive technical advance. The known unknowns include what the future demand for oil and gas will be (due to such things as alternative energy sources like nuclear, as well as economic factors, as well as generally improved if not disruptive technologies that tend to either conserve energy, or like AI server farms, consume large amounts of energy).
TTTM,
If “proven reserves” were a valid way to gauge how much fossil fuels are left, the world would have run out in the 1920s.
You are right that the time will come when a transition must be made. It will eventually be prohibitively expensive to extract fossil fuels at some point. I’m guessing more like centuries than decades from now.
The market will determine the timing for each region of the world when the cost of a new energy source is lower than the cost of extracting and transporting fossil fuels to a point of use.
No energy source or capture method will be viable unless it is part of a reliable system. Windmills and solar panels face an impossible cost barrier unless we ascribe huge value to avoiding CO2 emissions.
In a sane world, people would recognize that CO2 has a trivial impact on global temperatures and to the extent that it has any impact, it is wholly beneficial.
We should be pricing in CO2 emissions not as a cost but as a benefit. Those who are contributing CO2 to the biosphere ought to be subsidized by taxes on those who do not contribute.
We should certainly always be able to run combined cycle gas turbines far more cheaply than windmills and solar panels combined with grid-scale batteries or other storage schemes necessary to make the system dispatchable.
We can only go with what we know. We may want there to be enormous unfound reserves but they’ve…well…not been found and in fact the rate of discovery has been decreasing for some time.
What has been increasing is our willingness to exploit previously uneconomical reserves like offshore oil and tar sands. We’re not doing it because we’ve made them economical, it still costs waaaay more than land based wells, we’re doing it to keep up with demand.
I’m with TTTM on this. The finding costs of new oil is exponentially increasing and the tech to remove the oil from existing depleted reserves has high energy demands that result in a bad EROI. This is going to be a problem much sooner than we think and the schedule defies calculation. We already put oil wells in the depths of the ocean and in far north Arctic ice fields.
Regadless of whose timeline is accurate, there’s no reason for governments to apply a heavy hand. The profit motive will induce new technologies. Those may only be viable as the price of oil and gas rise due to rising costs and/or constrained supply. It’s also possible that new technologies will be developed that provide energy at a lower unit cost than today.
It might be new and better extraction technology for producing conventional fuels (such as fracking) or it might be something new like molten salt thorium breeder reactors.
There are vast supplies of easily extracted coal. That coal could be gasified and liquified into conventional fuels as the Apartheid South Africans did and the Nazis before them. It’s not done today because extraction is cheaper. Just as fissile uranium is usually not reprocessed from spent fuel rods because the extractive process is still cheaper.
Trust markets. When government interferes, the distortion of the market always imposes new costs on some and grants unearned profits to cronies.
Have you factored inflation into your arithmetic?
The”cost”of exploration goes up as the value of the dollar goes down.
“The EIA analysis shows that global oil and gas companies are adding to proved reserves despite spending less on exploration and development. An assessment of U.S. oil and gas technically recoverable resources shows that the United States has 290 years of oil and 96 years of natural gas at 2021 usage levels. And, comparing proved oil reserves in 1944 to 2020 shows that oil companies are continually producing more oil and adding to proved reserves.”
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/gas-and-oil/global-oil-and-gas-proved-reserves-increase-in-2021/#:~:text=Adding%201716%20billion%20barrels%20of,oil%20at%202021%20usage%20levels.
Canada’s DAC plan has another little problem beyond the math detail WE points out.
Per a 2024 Science Direct paper, current DAC technology uses about 1500 KWh per ton of CO2. Because of the low CO2 air concentration, removing 1 ton requires processing 1.8 million cubic meters of air. The electricity powers the fans and heats the sorbent to remove captured CO2
Per the EIA, using CCGT to generate the electricity produces 0.81 pounds of CO2 per KWh. So removing one ton of CO2 using DAC also produces 0.6 tons of CO2. You cannot get there from here, with Canada’s present nuclear and hydro already maxed out.
Of course, use added renewables! Except as of ye2023, solar penetration was effectively nil (northern insolation) , and wind was only 6% (lack of suitable wind).
Hilarious, Rud, well spotted.
w.
My regards to you and your gorgeous ex-fiancé.
Thanks, my friend, I’ll let her know.
w.
As usual, the big green dreams require LOTS of FF to power them, hilarious how reducing C02 requires making lots of C02.
Canada gets a high proportion of its electricity from hydro and nuclear.
Wind and solar… not so much. !
Ontario, right now.
Good one, Rud. When I saw the promotion of DAC, my skeptical meter pegged. It has long been recognized the energy efficiency of DAC is much lower than capture directly from power plants due to the lower concentration of CO2.
But that does not stop true believers from promoting DAC.
Somebody gets the money governments spend. They got it from taxing people, then they tax the income of the people they give it to. They actually think this way… “net beneficial”.
No realization that money is a measure of human toil.
Canada as the 51st US state would be like a second California.
Except Canada really needs to be warmer.
When you go more than 100 miles north of the US – Canada border, all you see are Eskimos and polar bears. Or so I’ve heard.
100 ? Not even close.
I’ve heard there are more Polar Bears in the Lower 48 States than in the area you have described. I think I saw an “Eskimo” in a diorama, maybe in Atlanta, years ago.
Here is a map of Canada’s population density… (2006).
There may be other later ones, but this one has the 100km line marked on it.
Canada Population density 2022
In all that White part….if your bush plane goes down, you ain’t ever gonna be found….the red part is indistinguishable from Minnesota or Colorado if you wake up there after your bachelor party….
They’re eating the dogs, they’re eating the cats, they’re eating the polar bears…that live there…
How can it be? I’m sure all the polar bears have long gone extinct due to oil, gas and coal.
Canada is appropriately described as ‘Gay Nth Dakota’.
Been there, Saskatchewan to the North is nicer, JMHO.
I have truely woken up to their scamming here in the UK.
Where my focus is placed on their attempts to try and link the weather with their CO2 cause. As this is one area where l know they are weak.
With this in mind l am going to kept a daily record on the Max & Min temps from February 1st onwards. So l have my own record on max temps and monthly mean averages. As l have begun to lose serious trust in the official data.
In the UK a simple heuristic is: The more windmills and solar panels are used to generate energy, the more energy bills rise and economic activity falls.
I hate to be critical of your idea to measure temperature for yourself, but what is the point of measuring a single point change of a 4d dynamic temperature field and then distilling it down to daily min/max and a monthly mean? That’s why you are right to be sceptical about the reported data from weather stations.
The sun has 99.8% of the mass of the entire solar system. Without the moon, life on earth as we know it, wouldn’t exist. And yet, the Green Brigade demonise the life sustaining molecule, CO2. How can this be classed as a pollutant when all life on the planet depends on it? Carbon capture is the epitome of scientific hubris.
The reason l collecting my own data is because last year l had serious doubts about the claims the Met Office were making about record warmth in the UK. So l wish to collect my own data to compare it with when l have such doubts
There are about 20 nations acting as if they are taking Net Zero seriously, Not three nations. The US and most EU nations are among them. About 175 of 195 nations don’t really care about CO2 emissions but are part of the Paris Accord anyway.
China promised to reduce CO2 emissions and they might do that someday, but not for a long time.
The US has reduced CO2 emissions 6% from 2019 to 2023, mainly by substituting natural gas for coal when generating electricity.
China is significantly increasing its use of renewable energy sources like solar and wind power, currently leading the world in renewable energy deployment, adding more capacity than the rest of the world combined, and aiming to double its wind and solar capacity by 2030; this rapid growth is driven by government policies
China is also building lots of new coal power plants, mainly to replace older more polluting coal plants.
China has had a serious urban air pollution problem and has been trying to control it for the past 10 to 15 years,
According to recent data, in 2024, approximately 40.9% of car sales in China were New Energy Vehicles (NEVs), meaning nearly 41% of all cars sold in the country were electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles. Although charging their batteries with mainly coal generated electricity seems like a contradiction.
China also builds cities no one lives in, uses slave labor, and allows no questioning of its policies. Not exactly a ringing endorsement, is it? Chuckle. The countries “acting as if” are trying to be more like China. Stupid is as stupid does.
“China also builds cities no one lives in, uses slave labor, and allows no questioning of its policies.”
Maybe you mean some Chinese entrepreneurs manage to lose billions of other people’s dollars (just like the US), use “slave labour” like unpaid “interns” in the US, and the Chinese government does not like dissenters who point out government failings – just like the US Government, Facebook, Google, X, and all the rest.
Or are you just rabidly anti-Chinese? I don’t live in China, and don’t want to. However, I just bought a Chinese motor vehicle because in my opinion it represented better value for money than, for example, a US equivalent.
And when it comes to spending my money, my opinion is the only one that counts. My brother’s Chinese 4×4 has over 100,000 km, needed no warranty work, and is performing fine with regular capped price servicing. Cheap, too. The “slave labour” is obviously highly skilled and conscientious.
And no, my Chinese vehicle doesn’t seem to be capable of sending my location and driving habits to the Chinese Government. As if I’d care.
100,000km is just nicely ‘broken in’, imo. My 1994 F150 has over 200,000MILES on it, and runs fine. Check back in when your brother’s vehicle has that.
“like unpaid “interns” in the US”
Those interns can quit any time they want.
“There are about 20 nations acting as if they are taking Net Zero seriously, Not three nations. The US and most EU nations are among them.”
Some parts of the US take it fanatically, like CA, CT and Wokeachusetts. Other states much less so. Be careful of such generalizing. And, the US federal government under Trump isn’t going to take it seriously- and that will put pressure on the crazy states to back off.
China is one place where EV’s sort of make sense. Most people will only travel short distances within cities, and they have quite good rail transport between cities.
…and anything is an improvement on those old two-stroke oil-powered motorbikes.
I heard somewhere that there is now big push away from using Li-ion, to other types of batteries in e-scooters, because of the fire risk.
China promises nothing..
China lies nearly as much as the Biden crime family does…nearly but not quite.
Harold the Organic Chemist Says:
CO2 Does Not Cause Heating Of Air!
Shown in the chart (See below) are plots of temperatures at the Furnace Creek weather station in Death Valley from 1922 to 2001. In 1922, the concentration of CO2 was 303 ppmv
(0.595 g of CO2/cu. m.) and by 2001, it had increased to 371 ppmv (0.729 g of CO2/cu. m.), but there was no corresponding increase in the air temperature at this remote arid desert. The reason there was no increase in air temperature is quite simple: There is too little CO2 in the air.
Presently, at the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is 425 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air contains 0.835 g of CO2 and has a mass of 1.29 kg at. This trace amount of CO2 can heat up such a large amount of air by a very small amount if at all.
On the basis of the above empirical data and simple calculations. I have concluded that claim by the IPCC that CO2 causes “global warming” and is the “control knob” of “climate change” is deliberate fabrication and a lie. The objective of this lie is to provide the UN the justification
of the distribution of donor funds, via the UNFCCC and the UNCOP, from the rich countries to the poor countries to them cope with global warming and climate change. The poor countries came to recent COP29 conference in Baku clamoring for not billions but trillions of funds. The poor countries left the conference empty handed with no pledges of funds from the rich countries. Pres. Trump just ended donations to these UN organizations.
NB: The chart was obtained from the late John Daly’s website: “Still Waiting for Greenhouse”
available at: http://www.John-Daly.com. From the home page scroll down to the end and click on “Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map” click on a region or country to access temperature data from the weather stations there. John Daly located several hundred weather stations that showed no warming up to 2002.
Sure, it’s nonsense; but what a thing to tax! An endless source of government boodoggle and junket per diem. And so, so easy to redirect to campaign funds.
NEWS TIP
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/01/trump-reportedly-tells-usda-remove-all-climate-change/
the climate IS changing .
😉
Actually it removal of all climate change propaganda if one reads the article.
Well, as an insurance policy against unsettled science, President Trump has issued an order to the USDA, telling them that they are to remove all climate change “propaganda from their websites “no later than close of business day on Friday (today).”
Just came across this claim.
NASA shows that Canada (and many other places) sinks more CO2 than it emits.
(story tip)?
Canada is covered with large forests, but has small population of only 40 million people.
What is the url?
try these Harold –
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3251/nasa-space-mission-takes-stock-of-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-countries/
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3251/nasa-space-mission-takes-stock-of-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-countries/
Please stop saying Canadians as though the whole country believes this hogwash. I suspect that the majority of the country just doesn’t care. It’s the Government and specifically the Trudeau Government and they are just realizing that their BS is going to defeat them in the coming election. Even their leading hogwasher, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, is beginning to back down, apparently newly seeing the writing on the wall.
When it comes to mainly talk and few results regarding climate action, not many countries could match Canada. As I’ve pointed out several times recently, despite the country’s carbon taxes and excessive numbers of delegates appearing at every climate conference, it hasn’t come anywhere close to meeting its 2030 emissions reductions goals. It’s supposed to reduce them by 40- 45% of its 2005 levels. All it’s succeeded in doing is lowering them by 8.5%; i.e., one fifth of its target, and at that rate, it could take until the end of the century to get these. What’s more, surveys consistently show that the vast majority of its citizens really don’t care if these goals are met anyway, especially if they would entail higher taxes and new laws and restrictions.
“No matter how many trillions of dollars the Canadians waste on emissions control, it will make no difference. Canada could go to net zero tomorrow. It would make no difference.”
Assuming the Conservatives win it, the next Canadian parliamentary elections cannot get here soon enough for many of our neighbors north of the U.S. border.
_________________________________________________
So why don’t you do that for Methane, Nitrous Oxide and some
of the other green house gases that have nearly astronomical
GWP numbers and report how much warming they are on track
to produce over the next several decades.
If you come up with anything more significant than 0.1°C by 2100
for any one of them, I’d like to see your work and references.
WooHoo! More rain. We, down in the bay area, get significantly less than you on the average. So it’s even more appreciated. On another note, as you are aware, this supposed causal CO2-temperature increase, has not resulted in anything weatherwise. So, Canadians, knock yourselves out!
Dear Willis, we miss you on X.
What happened?
Here’s the story, Arjan. Turns out free speech on X is only free if you don’t ask Muslim’s questions, because that’s “HARASSMENT”!!!
Best to you and yours,
w.
https://rosebyanyothernameblog.wordpress.com/2025/01/01/%f0%9d%95%8f-censorship-rides-again/
I’ve made the protest on X. Hope for many RTs and hope to see you back soon. Best regards.
Thanks, Arjan, much appreciated.
w.
Willis, you wrote –
“Please note that I’m not saying the IPCC is right to claim that CO2 is the temperature control knob. . . . “, and you’re not saying the opposite, either.
You steadfastly continue to refuse to take a stand on anything at all, and might complain if anybody points this out.
Maybe you believe in the GHE, and maybe you don’t – it’s hard to figure out.
Please not that I’m not saying that you are a complete idiot, of course, but if you are, that would explain ridiculous nonsense like the “Steel Greenhouse” and similar impossible flights of fancy. Are you starting to accept that CO2 might have no discernible or measurable effects on terrestrial surface temperatures, atmospheric temperatures, or temperatures in general?
Perhaps you could indicate what you are “saying”, rather than repeatedly stating what you are not actually “saying”. Please note that I am certainly not saying that you are a slippery pretentious nitwit, and I’m sure you would agree.
All the best to you and yours, and please make sure that you quote my exact words to show you are not misunderstanding anything I didn’t say.
Willis presents data. You can conclude whatever you like as a result. But getting pissy because he didn’t make a sweeping statement one way or the other is just childish.
Best thing about writing for the web?
When I see the name “Michael Flynn” at the top of the comment, I know I can safely skip to the next comment and all I’ll be missing is childish whining.
w.
All the best to you and yours, and please make sure that you quote my exact words to show you are not misunderstanding anything I didn’t say.
Of course, a hypocrite would not think of doing to others as he would have done to him.
Come on Willis, you pretend that you are prepared to defend what you say. Continuously saying that you’re ” . . . not saying . . . ” anything, is not saying much at all, is it?
Still defending your “Steel Greenhouse”? Or are you not prepared to say?
All my best.
m.
Pass. With you, the First Rule Of Pig Wrestling is definitely in play.
w.
PS—Yes, the Steel Greenhouse is 100% true.
As it happens i looked at the EIA website just yesterday for something else, and decided to update my “US offshore windfarms” spreadsheet while I was there.
They now have data up to November 2024.
URL for those who want to check I didn’t misplace a decimal point somewhere :
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/58035/
Three and a half years on from your “Blocking the wind” post the attached graph shows just how well the promoters’ “promises” have been kept … or not …
Note that BIWF = Block Island Wind Farm (five 6MW turbines) and CVOW = Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (two 6MW turbines).
My understanding is that the large dip in the summer of 2021 was due to a combination of COVID restrictions plus multiple turbine failures.
If anyone knows what happened in the summer of 2023 I, for one, would appreciate the information (my “Google-fu” skills seem to be lacking in this particular case).
That looks very rhythmic. Why is that?
Just speculation here, but it could be caused by periodic occurrences of offshore wind dumkopflauta.
No idea why, it’s just an observation that at extra-tropical latitudes there is a definite “seasonality” to available wind energy (with a monthly time resolution, at least).
Both those windfarms are in the north-west Atlantic ocean (off the USA’s east coast). It’s ironic that the “doldrums season” is right in the middle of “hurricane season” …
Some more empirical data to give you “food for thought”.
The British electrical grid has solar panels and (onshore) wind turbines on the land mass of the island of Great Britain … plus offshore turbines (mostly) in the North Sea.
This means that grid is “weather dependant” for the area on the surface of planet Earth with “opposite corners” of approximately (50°N, 6°W) to (59°N, 3°E).
Attached is a plot of the monthly sums for the “ruinable / unreliable” components of the GB grid from January 2018 to January 2025.
If you squint a bit … OK, make that “a lot” … you can (maybe ?) see where the claims that “Wind” and “Solar” contributions can be “complementary” — AKA “When one is low the other one will be high” — originated from.
Thanks, Willis. As a “story tip,” how about doing the same analysis and calculation for California as it virtuously marches toward “net zero?”
Canada is suffering from Carbon Mania. Like the Dutch tulip mania, the country has been left bankrupt spending billions to produce something of no economic value.
Politically, Canada is California. Ruled by leftist family dynasties locked in a tight race to be crowned bat shzt crazy.
It cannot be emphasized enough that the AGW philosophy is a religious belief system, of the same school as Marxism. Like the flat-earthers and “Apollo was faked” crowd, no amount of evidence will convince them.Their world view depends on it.
Very nice Willis.