Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach (Yeah, I’m still wrongly blocked on X. See here for updated details.)
One of the greatest joys in my life is learning. Today, to my dismay, I learned that there are US tax credits for the meaningless job of removing CO2 from the air. Here’s a summary from perplexity.ai:
Summary of the U.S. 45Q Tax Credits
Overview
The U.S. Section 45Q tax credit is a federal incentive designed to support carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) projects. It provides a performance-based tax credit for capturing and either securely storing or reusing carbon oxides (including CO₂ and CO) from industrial, power, and direct air capture (DAC) facilities 1 2 3 5.
Credit Amounts (as of 2025, with prevailing wage requirements met):
| Project Type | Credit per Metric Ton CO₂ |
| Secure geologic storage (industry/power) | $85 |
| Carbon reuse (fuels, chemicals, products) | $60 |
| Secure geologic storage (oil/gas fields) | $60 |
| Secure geologic storage (DAC) | $180 |
| Carbon reuse/EOR (DAC) | $130 |
- Lower base rates apply if prevailing wage requirements are not met (e.g., $17/ton for industrial storage, $36/ton for DAC storage) 3.
Eligibility and Requirements
- The owner of the carbon capture equipment claims the credit 1 2 3.
- The captured carbon must be securely stored in approved geologic formations or reused in qualifying products (e.g., fuels, chemicals, building materials) 1 3.
- Projects must meet minimum annual capture thresholds (e.g., 1,000 tons/year for DAC, 12,500–18,750 tons/year for other facilities) 3.
- Credits are available for 12 years after the facility is placed in service 2 5.
- If stored carbon is later released, the credit must be repaid (credit recapture) 2 4.
Recent Enhancements
- Lowered annual capture thresholds, expanding eligibility 1.
- Credits can be transferred to other taxpaying entities or claimed as a direct payment for certain tax-exempt and government entities 1 3 4.
- Construction must begin by January 1, 2026, to qualify 2 5.
Purpose and Impact
- The 45Q credit aims to reduce the cost and investment risk for CCUS, encouraging broader deployment in hard-to-decarbonize sectors such as cement, steel, and power generation 1 5.
Key Takeaways
- 45Q is a major federal incentive for CCUS, offering up to $180/ton for DAC and $85/ton for industrial storage when prevailing wage conditions are met.
- The credit is flexible, transferable, and designed to spur private investment and accelerate decarbonization across multiple sectors 1 3 5.
(Note-each individual digit of the links shown above goes to a different source for the statement in question.)
Based on that, here’s a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation:
The US emits around 4.8 billion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.
Average cost of the U.S. 45Q tax credits is on the order of $130 per tonne.
So to offset the US emissions using carbon capture would cost us a mere 625 billion dollars per year.
This is just under a third of the Federal Income Tax Revenue, so to offset it, our Federal Income Tax payments would have to increase by 50%!!
Can I contact DOGE by calling 911? Because this is assuredly an emergency …
w.
Yeah, you’ve heard it before: When you comment, please quote the exact words you are discussing. It avoids endless misunderstandings.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wonder what the cost of irrigating deserts with desalinated sea water would be by comparison?
Israel gets 85% of its potable water from desalination, they recycle the sewerage and use the effluent for irrigation.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-desalination-wastewater-treatment-becomes-global-model-for-water-scarcity/
If the econazis really believed their lies they would be all in on ocean fertilization but since that is too effective and efficient at removing CO2 and costs peanuts, there’s no way to coerse carbon credits and such to make a killing.
So it’s not about saving the world, it’s about scamming it.
Anything is possible in the world where Ukraine attacked Russia.
Seeking to rationalize a bureaucracy is forlorn.
Happy Easter to all!
Provoked is not attacked.
Buona Pasqua!
Hmmm. Does this mean that every large tree is entitled to an occasional check from the US government?
Well, yes. Except it will have to pay the credit back after it dies and rots away.
I could envision an entire economy springing up based on credits given to the thousands of maturing descendants of the previous generation of carbon storage alumni.
Those descendants will increase exponentially.
We’ll all be rich!
Trees are not permanent storage but mineral storage is. The tropical islands and atolls that climate activist warn will sink below rising seas but somehow manage to grow instead are effectively sequestering CO2 like they have been doing for billions of years in warm shallow seas. Perhaps instead of demanding to be saved from sinking they should sell carbon credits based on their rates of growth.
Or burns up in a government sponsored megafire. The tonnage of CO2 emissions from wildfire exceeds all human-caused emissions in many western states. These fires are predictable and preventable, but Congress won’t.
The legislators who vote for carbon credits or capture should be SUED blue when their schemes backfire. If every senator and representative got sued for a billion dollars every time a forest burned, that might help solve our fire crisis.
Which was put in as a payback for union support of the Democrat party, i.e. the so called Inflation Reduction Act is nothing more than pure pork.
Ya but you can still eat pork; IRA has already been digested.
Unions are stupid and only their leadership benefits. The membership has been shafted for decades.
Trump’s tariff policies are the biggest boon to the average worker in my half century plus of lifetime.
How does paying considerably more for everything that is imported into the US benefit the average worker? Will the average worker really want to work in a sweatshop making cheap clothes for other Americans to wear?
Izaak, read my post below, and the posts it links to. They lay out a full explanation of just how the average worker will benefit from tariffs. If you find anything you disagree with, please QUOTE it and SHOW us (not just claim) why it’s wrong.
Best to you,
w.
https://rosebyanyothernameblog.wordpress.com/2024/09/12/vegan-waste-matter/
Willis,
none of that post explains how the average worker will benefit. It makes a claim that a country as a whole will be better off it imports less. So to take your example currently the average worker could spend $1 on food and still have $1 dollar left to spend on other goods. While if there are tariffs then that same worker would have to spend $2 on food and have nothing left over. So while there might be more low paid farm jobs there will be fewer skilled jobs in manufacturing since there will be less disposable income in the country.
Secondly the argument that the country is poorer as a result of imports neglects the fact that wealth is constantly being produced. So it is possible to have a negative balance of trade and become richer year after year as long as the country produces more wealth every year as the US does.
Thanks, Izaak. To put it into a single sentence:
“What good are cheap Mexican goods when your factory and your job moved to Mexico and you’re out of work?”
w.
But those people aren’t the “average worker”. Globalisation has winners and losers and it is a tragedy whenever communities lose their main source of income whether it is a coal mine or a car factory or fishing industry. But the country as a whole can be richer and better off even if some people lose out. More people in the US will benefit from cheaper food than will lose out from the loss of farm jobs. And that surplus income will create new jobs in different sectors. In the US there is currently very low unemployment and so the loss of factory jobs to people in Mexico has not created a permanent loss of jobs but rather a temporary rearrangement.
On the other hand, what good are expensive and inferior US goods when you can’t afford to buy them?
It’s not always black and white – often many shades of gray.
Willis writes
Then why do you so vehemently oppose spending money manufacturing and installing renewable energy producers like wind turbines and solar panels?
If they’re manufactured in the US then exactly the same argument applies. The money is circulated within the US and produces many jobs.
The ROI for wind and solar is oft times less than zero. You still must build conventional power plant. Plus you’re spending money for no reason. Waste is never beneficial to anyone.
And yet here Willis recommends 100% inflation but not if it involves energy production. If the renewables need additional infrastructure to work effectively then that’s even more employment. There’s no getting around the obvious bias in the argument.
He doesn’t recommend 100% inflation – the tariffs get the other countries’s attention so that trade can be right sized. The deals are already coming together, stop listening to Democrat propaganda.
This post is headed by a post from Willis. You need to read it and his link to get the context of the discussion.
Why? Because wind turbines and solar panels are just some greenie liberal’s wet dream no matter where they are made. We’ve spent HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS on them and here’s what we’ve gotten.
Best regards,
w.
But that’s fine if it is circulating in the US economy using your own argument.
This is why I endlessly say, as I did on this post, “Yeah, you’ve heard it before: When you comment, please quote the exact words you are discussing. It avoids endless misunderstandings.”
Please quote where I said that wasting money is OK if we waste it in America, or anything like that.
I’ll wait,
w.
You said this
And this
And you said money shouldn’t leave the country and the important thing was the jobs.
You say nothing about money being used non-productively and its not even true that renewable energy is non-productive.
Non-productive spend includes a huge amount of the money people spend including vacations, fashion, art, renovations, excessive food. The list is endless.
It’s not good to spend money on crap just to create jobs, and wind and solar are crap. I love the “idea” of wind and solar but they are crap for utility grade power because they are intermittent. Storage is not free and not cheap. And none of the whole green thing will last more than a couple of decades so it’s not even green.
Spending money on green power to creat jobs is like paying one group of people to dig holes and paying another group to fill them.
If you are going to rob money from productive people to give to others, then at least make it productive work.
The only way the US will turn around its economy is by being productive, not by stifling trade.
Maybe, over time, tariffs will bring industry back to the US and increase productivity and maybe they wont.
Meanwhile prices for goods will necessarily increase because they are, by definition, not the cheapest available.
Maybe tariffs will bring industry back to the US?
MAYBE??
Here’s a list of the commitments already made since President Trump’s election.
w.
Investment in New U.S. Factories Committed To Since the 2024 Presidential Election
Since the 2024 presidential election, there has been a substantial wave of announcements regarding new investments in U.S. manufacturing. These commitments span multiple sectors, including semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, automotive, clean energy, and artificial intelligence infrastructure. Below is a summary of the major investments publicly announced since November 2024, based on the most recent and credible reporting:
Major Announced Investments (Post-2024 Election):
-Apple: In February 2025, Apple announced a historic $500 billion investment over the next four years to expand its U.S. manufacturing and research capabilities, including a new AI server manufacturing facility in Houston, Texas [6] [5].
-TSMC (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company): In March 2025, TSMC committed an additional $100 billion to U.S. semiconductor manufacturing, bringing its total U.S. investment to $165 billion. This includes five new fabrication plants in Arizona [7] [2] [5].
-Nvidia: Nvidia has pledged “hundreds of billions of dollars” over the next four years to expand U.S.-based manufacturing operations, particularly in support of AI infrastructure [3].
-OpenAI, Oracle, and Softbank: In January 2025, a $500 billion private investment in AI infrastructure was announced, led by these companies [3] [5].
-Eli Lilly: The pharmaceutical giant announced it will more than double its U.S. manufacturing investment to $50 billion, up from $23 billion committed between 2020 and 2024, with new facilities focused on active pharmaceutical ingredients and supply chain resilience [2] [6] [5].
-GE Aerospace: Announced nearly $1 billion in new investments in its U.S. manufacturing and supply chain, including expanding production capacity and hiring about 5,000 new workers [2] [5].
-Stellantis: Committed $5 billion to reopen and upgrade its Belvidere, Illinois assembly plant and make improvements across its U.S. manufacturing network [5].
-Merck: Announced $8 billion in new U.S. manufacturing investments over several years, including a new $1 billion facility in North Carolina [5].
-ArcelorMittal: Plans to build a $1.2 billion advanced electrical steel manufacturing facility in Alabama, supporting the automotive and renewable energy sectors [6].
-CMA CGM (Shipping/Logistics): Announced a $20 billion investment in U.S. shipping and logistics, creating 10,000 jobs [5].
-DAMAC Properties: Committed $20 billion to build new U.S.-based data centers [5].
-Clarios (Energy Storage): Announced a $6 billion expansion of U.S. manufacturing [5].
Estimated Total Value
Adding up the major announced investments since the 2024 election, the total promised investment in new and expanded U.S. factories and related infrastructure exceeds$1.5 trillion. This figure is dominated by multi-hundred-billion-dollar commitments from Apple, TSMC, Nvidia, and the AI infrastructure consortium, alongside significant investments from pharmaceutical, automotive, and logistics companies [5] [6] [7] [3] [2].
Context and Trends
• The scale and pace of these announcements represent a sharp acceleration compared to previous years, driven by both federal incentives (such as the CHIPS Act and Inflation Reduction Act) and new policy priorities under the current administration [1] [4].
• The investments are heavily concentrated in high-tech sectors (semiconductors, AI, clean energy), but also include traditional manufacturing and supply chain infrastructure [2] [6].
• Many of these projects are multi-year commitments, with construction and hiring expected to ramp up through 2028 and beyond [6] [7].
In summary:
Since the 2024 presidential election, companies have announced over $1.5 trillion in new investments for U.S. factories and manufacturing infrastructure, spanning technology, pharmaceuticals, automotive, logistics, and clean energy. This surge reflects both policy incentives and a broader shift toward domestic production and supply chain resilience [5] [6] [7] [3] [2].
Citations, including those not explicitly referenced in the text:
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/business-trump-biden-investments-manufacturing-recession-2048775
[2] https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/companies-have-announced-intention-increase-us-manufucturing
[3] https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/03/president-trump-positions-u-s-as-global-superpower-in-manufacturing/
[4] https://www.bluegreenalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Then-and-Now-US-Manufacturing-Under-the-Trump-and-Biden-Harris-Admnistrations.pdf
[5] https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/03/president-trump-is-remaking-america-into-a-manufacturing-superpower/
[6] https://www.industryselect.com/blog/new-us-factories-announced-in-february-2025
[7] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/03/tsmc-to-announce-100-billion-investment-in-us-chip-plants.html
[8] https://www.americanprogress.org/article/chaos-reigns-gambling-the-future-of-american-manufacturing/
[9] https://www.bonadio.com/article/potential-impact-of-2024-election-on-manufacturing-distribution-industry/
[10] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/roche-invest-50-billion-united-050958745.html
[11] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-spurred-new-factories-and-infrastructure-projects-trump-will-be-in-office-for-the-ribbon-cutting
[12] https://www.industryselect.com/blog/new-us-factories-announced-in-december-2024
[13] https://www.reuters.com/technology/tsmc-ceo-meet-with-trump-tout-investment-plans-2025-03-03/
[14] https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-industrial-policy-projects-boosted-harris-and-hurt-trump-in-the-2024-election-but-not-by-much/
[15] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/02/apple-will-spend-more-than-500-billion-usd-in-the-us-over-the-next-four-years/
[16] https://www.commerce.gov/news/blog/2024/10/manufacturing-booms-thanks-biden-harris-administration-investments
[17] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/future-us-manufacturing-policies-post-2024-election-wysong-zbpke
[18] https://atlaspolicy.com/u-s-investments-in-electric-vehicle-manufacturing-2024/
[19] https://nam.org/manufacturers-to-trump-and-congress-act-now-on-comprehensive-commonsense-manufacturing-strategy-as-tariffs-hit-manufacturing-industry-33417/
[20] https://nam.org/manufacturers-to-trump-its-time-to-get-to-work-to-address-the-policies-that-will-define-your-administration-32538/
There’s a few good manufacturing increases there. TSMC is an important strategic one, but there’s overall a lot of tech AI involved and it’s still a drop in the ocean of the breadth of imported products the US relies on from China and others. Time will tell.
Willis,
As a further example, China has just stopped buying planes from Boeing as a result of the higher tariffs (see https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/21/china-returns-boeing-737-jet-us-too-expensive-tariffs) which will mean the loss of highly skilled and highly paid jobs. In return there might be more jobs growing food or in making clothes. Which do you think the average worker would prefer doing?
Here you go, Izaak.
w.
https://rosebyanyothernameblog.wordpress.com/2018/03/26/trade-war-bring-it-on/
Willis,
the claims there ignore the fact that most money and thus wealth is created through fractional reserve banking. Money is debt and thus all of the service industries that you claim don’t create wealth actually do because they give people a stable income and thus the ability to borrow money. Almost all the money in the US was created by commercial banks through lending. Hence reducing the amount of disposable income that people have through tariffs or by making people pay more for food is going to reduce their ability to borrow and thus reduce the rate of growth of the economy.
Thanks, Isaak. I fear you are mistaking money for wealth. Wealth is the things we use in our lives—houses, food, clothing, medicine, fuel, and the like.
To emphasize the difference between money and wealth, would you rather be stuck on a deserted island with a house, food, clothing, fuel, and medicine … or stuck on a deserted island with $50,000 in cash?
w.
Willis,
we are not living on a desert island but rather in a modern economy that runs on money (mostly electronic) and if you have money you can buy anything you need. Claiming that money isn’t wealth just isn’t true today.
If I had $50000 in cash I could buy everything I needed to take with me to survive on a desert island. So even if money isn’t wealth it certainly can be easily transformed into wealth. And to bring the conversation back to the original topic without tariffs you could buy twice as much wealth as you otherwise do if you had to rely on homemade products.
Really?
Einstein uses a famous thought experiment involving an elevator to show the equivalence of acceleration and gravity
Then along comes Isaak to solemnly inform him, “But Einstein, that’s meaningless because we’re not stuck inside a windowless elevator in outer space. And besides, if we just cut windows in the elevator the outcome would be totally different!” …
It’s called a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. You have to take the situation as postulated, regardless of whether it corresponds to daily life, and you don’t get to change the postulates by cutting windows into Einstein’s elevator.
You have not engaged with my thought experiment. Instead, you are making up a different thought experiment. Sorry, can’t do that.
Start over.
w.
Let’s look at it another way.
Suppose the US Government decides to print money until there is twice as much in circulation …
… is the US any wealthier?
I say no, not a bit, because money ≠ wealth.
What say you?
w.
I would say that money is a matter of trust. And as long as people trust the US government then it can print money and become wealthier. If people stop believing that the US can or will pay its debts then it will suddenly become bankrupt just like a run on a bank.
At the moment the US is in the lucky position that countries have to buy US dollars in order to buy oil. Hence it can and has run a budget deficit for years without any issue. But if people stop buying oil in US dollars (or shift to renewable energy) then the financial position of the US government will become unsustainable.
Willis,
you have a strange definition of wealth that appears to depend on the usefulness of an object in a particular location. Of course if I was on a desert island with a ton of gold then I would soon starve to death and that gold would be completely useless. However in any other circumstance I would be considered to be extremely wealthy by almost everyone. I doubt anyone would accept a definition of wealth as “stuff you can use on a desert island”.
Wealth only makes sense in the context of a functioning economy. If you are alone on a desert island you can be as poor or as rich as you want to believe you are. In a society however you are only as rich or as wealthy as other people think you are.
I repeat my previous post, which you appear to have overlooked.
===
Let’s look at it another way.
Suppose the US Government decides to print money until there is twice as much in circulation …
… is the US any wealthier?
I say no, not a bit, because money ≠ wealth.
What say you?
===
w.
No serious economist or business leader thinks Trump’s mindless tariffs are anything but a humongous disaster to all of us, whether working class individuals or business and industries.
You can post all the unserious amateurish magical thinking posts you like – there are millions who would claim that ghosts exist, and that religious leaders can bring the dead back to life etc etc … but that doesn’t make it not bullshit.
From post:”… religious leaders can bring the dead back to life…”
That only happened once and we just celebrated it.
I know the reference. What puzzles me is which religious leaders brought who back to life?
Trade, whether local or international, is always beneficial because it expands specialization and the division of labor. I’m hoping Trump’s goal is simply to bring about bilateral negotiations with our trade partners to eliminate those tariffs and ‘Mickey Mouse’ regulations that are clearly protectionist.
However, let’s not lose sight of the fact that it is our profligate Federal government’s punishing regulatory environment and endless deficit spending that is mainly to blame for our chronic trade imbalances.
That and the fact the US deliberately chose to offshore it’s manufacturing years ago because the goods ended up being much cheaper. Well the chickens are coming home to roost now.
I see it as ‘capital’ having come to realize that it was less likely to be confiscated by foreign commies than by domestic progressives.
I don’t see it as being political. Offshoring is a corporate strategy, not a political one. I see it as the shortcut to low prices for its citizens and high profit for corporations was always going to decrease US productivity and ultimately lead to this point.
Bullshit – western workers, not just Americans, were thrown under the bus for corporate profits made on the backs of Chinese slave labour, and now the CCP is making the profits and putting it into aircraft carriers and jets. Worked out great, huh?
/Sarc
Still not political. There were hundreds of millions of Chinese workers living well below the poverty line by western standards.
They worked for essentially nothing compared to workers in the West and Western corporations leveraged that to produce goods at prices well below what was possible otherwise.
Now the West relies on that manufacturing which is increasingly becoming automated, even in China, and the Chinese have increased their standard of living massively which is a very good thing.
But now the West finds itself captured by the (supply) chains of its own making. I wouldn’t be antagonising the Chinese military if I were you. Better to encourage democracy than risk war which wont end well for anyone.
‘I don’t see it as being political.’
‘Offshoring’ was never a political goal, but it was definitely an unintended consequence of domestic and foreign policies spanning many decades. For example, prior to Nixon going to China, presumably to open a second front against the USSR during the Cold War, any CEO considering setting up operations in the PRC would have likely been certified as insane and removed from his position by his Board.
To gain advantage based on lower labor costs, yes.
The we did step increases in minimum wage. Did that help?
Well, Duane, you’ve proven one thing—you’re good at waving your hands, invoking unidentified anonymous support for your claims, and calling me childish names.
w.
Sorry Willis that you have to deal with all the yapping trolls, you’re one of the most thoughtful, thorough and easy to understand writers on this or any other site.
Thanks, PCman, much appreciated. I’m always surprised by the number of people who think calling names, making accusations, and advancing unsupported claims is how science works …
Best to you and yours,
w.
Duane, you seem to think that something I said was wrong. If so, I invite you to QUOTE it and SHOW us why it’s wrong.
Because waving your hands and mumbling about “no serious economist or business leader” is meaningless.
To understand why it’s meaningless, see the post below.
w.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/05/agreeing-to-disagree/
“Scientists say….”
Sweatshop? Stop and think. What is the energy for?
You can Willis, but I hope you get a more engaging response than what I did when I called 911 to ask what self-preservation measures I needed to take, after our local City had declared a “Climate Emergency”.
After disrespectfully questioning the legitimacy of my angst, 911 eventually referred me back to the City, whereupon I called them and sought the same applicable directives for my self-preservation.
For my trouble, I was called a crank, and threated with a police report.
So I still don’t know how to survive our local “Climate Emergency”, and it’s keeping me awake at night. I’ve had to resort to self-prescribed medication in the form of 2 large slugs of whiskey every evening.
Is there anyone here who offers pro bono legal advice about my chances of a substantial award of $$$s for the anxiety, humiliation, insomnia and medicinal substance costs inflicted upon my person by such an authoritative declaration of a “Climate Emergency” by the City?
WTH is a climate emergency 🙁
That’s funny- calling 911 over the Emergency.
Well Willis has it in mind to.
And why not – the more the absurdities are tested, the more the public might become more skeptical about the whole AGW crapola.
I’m tempted to do the same- here in Wokeachusetts, I hear about “the emergency” all the time. The state government, all local governments and the entire media is fanatic over it.
Oh, so that’s a “crank”! I always wondered. Merriam Websters dictionary provides (definition 2):”something crooked or out of line”; and 2d) “a bad-tempered, often quarrelsome person” which makes sense. If you’re cranky you’re touchy and easily provoked.
I’m pretty sure there’s a subspecies of crank which loiters near public restrooms in a trenchcoat making lewd suggestive remarks to women. That one wasn’t in the dicitionary.
Awesome that you flung their stupidity back at them!
They were drunk with power after all the COVID emergency powers and now they can’t help themselves.
The tax credit for sequestering CO2 is about the same as the cost of the fuel to start with. It’s an experiment, politician-style to determine the slope of the demand line and gauge the political repercussions. It might make sense to an economist, but to a voter with 3 digit IQ, the idea of paying more for your home heating (the indirect result) so you can keep it from getting a degree or two warmer outside is not going to cause long term satisfaction.
Yet another example of the government wasting tax payers money.
The absurd just gets more absurd.
There are two basic forms of CCUS.
An major process for removing CO2 from the air is absorption by the oceans. Since the pH of the oceans is ca. 8.1, the CO2 is converted to bicarbonate anion, HCO3^1- and carbonate anion, CO3^2-. These are used to make shells for shellfish, coral, sea stars, and snails. There are micro organisms that make CaCO3 envelopes, but I don’t remember the genera. The vast limestone formation were made from these millions of years ago.
Alga, sea grasses and weeds, and kelp fix large amounts of CO2 from the air as well as that from thermal vents and under water volcanoes.
Baleen whales are a large sink for CO2 since they consume vast quantities of alga and zooplankton.
At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in the air is 427 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air contains a mere 0.839 g of CO2 and has a mass of 1.29 kg. Most all people and especially the politicians do not know how little CO2 there is in the air.
Mother Nature has been operating an efficient CCUS for millions of years and we don’t need to waste time and money of this scheme.
You would be thinking of foraminifera and other similar classes.
Cocolithophores are the droids you seek Obi-Wan…
Thanks for the info. The massive limestone formations around the world indicate that the CO2 concentration in air millions of years ago must have
been much higher than the present concentration of only 427 ppmv. One cubic meter of air contains a mere 0.839 g of CO2. This is why plants grow slowly.
The most famous limestone formation is at Bedford, IN. Do a search on
“Bedford Limestone”. You will be amazed to learn about the many famous buildings that used this limestone.
It’s even more absurd when you realize that only human emitted CO2 should be captured and sequestered as only it can be legally classified as harmful.
After all, sequestering naturally emitted CO2 is a crime against nature. You can’t play God with the atmosphere, so each molecule will need to be identified first as harmful (human emitted) or benevolent (naturally emitted). Follow the science, that is what it says.
It was extremely absurd right from the beginning, paying hard earned tax money to remove the CO2 from the air that is mostly made by China and other countries.
And the tax to cover that insanity will further drive production to China and company, which will produce even more CO2, and in greater proportion than what was saved in the West since China doesn’t have fussy CO2 emissions regulations.
The lawyers will have a field day with “discovery” in those cases.
Imagine a floating platform with a pump lifting water from the north side and dumping the water off of the south side. After a time, move the pump to the west side and dump the water on the east. Imagine a circular platform and move the pump along the edge 1° every day. After 364 days – start over.
This is only slightly more stupid than moving the evil demon-witch CO2 molecule around.
All these “Carbon Capture” are really about removing Man’s CO2 from the air and even the oceans.
My question is, When and how could they know they’ve removed too much? When the subsidies run out?
You should call DOGE because payments don’t need to increase by 50% if the federal spend is instead reduced to 50% and that’s what DOGE is working towards.
Thanks, Tim. Thanks to the diligence of a reader called EB who researched the question and emailed me about it, I’ve found out that there is an email address for tips to DOGE:
doge@mail.house.gov
I sent them a link to this post, and I invite others to use the email to notify DOGE of money wasted on climate.
Regards,
w.
So far its about policies related to DEI and other obvious waste and fraud. Its a whole different kettle of fish to have DOGE act on expenditure that might have considerable public approval even though its obvious to some of us to be dangerously counterproductive in terms of sensible energy policy.
So the US is paying over $100/tonne to remove the CO2 that China puts in the air for free.
Biden wasn’t the only senile politician in DC when this was approved.
The money isn’t “wasted”. It goes into the bank accounts of oligarch-types, and then people borrow it from the banks to pay for their houses …contributing to jobs and the wealth of society. You’ve got to get on track with modern economic theory. No more “broken window” theories, it’s actually “hire whole government departments to break windows”.
Seems to be a balance of trade issue.
HAROLD THE ORGANIC CHEMIST SAYS:
ATTN: WILLIS AND EVERYONE
RE: CO2 DOES NOT CAUSE WARMING OF AIR!
Shown in the chart (See below) are plots of temperatures at the Furnace Creek weather station from 1922 to 2001. In 1922 the concentration of CO2 was ca.
303 ppmv (0.59 g of CO2/cu. m.), and by 2001, it had increased to ca. 371 ppmv (0.73 g of CO2/ cu. m.), but there was no corresponding increase in the air temperature at remote desert. The reason there was no increase in the air temperature at this arid desert is quite simple: There is too little CO2 in the air to absorb out-going long wave IR radiation from desert surface.
The empirical data and the above calculations show that the claims by the IPCC that CO2 causes global warming and is the “control knob” of the climate are fabrications and lies. The purpose of these lies is to provide the justification for the maintenance and generous funding of not only the IPCC but also the UNFCCC and the UN COP. Hopefully, President Trump will put an end to the greatest scientific fraud since the Piltdown Man.
NB: The temperature chart of Death Valley was obtained from the late
John Daly’s website: “Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at:
http://www.John-Daly.com. From home page, scroll down to the end and click on
“Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map”, click on country or region to gain access to the temperature charts from the many weather stations located all around the world. John Daly found over 200 weather stations which showed no warming up to 2002.
Willis, as I can tell the only successful CO2 sequestration is done by Dakota Gasification. The only large-scale gasification facility in the US, It started as a government boondoggle then was turned over to a private utility in 2000. It produces a 150 mcf per day of pipeline quality gas. And it pumps liquid CO2 (at a profit) to Alberta for oil extraction.
Hmmm, that injection CO2 is a couple of % H2S, making it quite deadly in the event of a leak…so one could say a good thing it is going back in the ground again I suppose. There are dozens of sequestration projects in the Western sedimentary basin, mostly in Alberta….most of them sequestering CO2 auxiliary to their main purpose of avoiding the cost of installing and operating a sulphur plant….plus in gas industry lingo, the flow rate is 150 mmcfd, that is million cubic feet per day wheras a single “m” means “thousand”….showing my age and industry….
Your answer lies in your earlier yarn – CO2 and the Humanoids. Almost a bodice ripper. It is one which I take great delight in using as a basis for the argument that CO2 is a camp follower not a market leader.
Willis, you wrote –
Oh dear, does X also consider your opinion to be worthless? Have you tried some of the tactics you use here when someone doesn’t agree with you?
Sorry Willis, but maybe nobody really cares whether you have been “blocked” or not. Why go on about it? Do you think anybody is really concerned?
I don’t do down votes, but I do think censorship is serious business, thus my reply.
If they can censor Willis, then they can censor you and me.
Seeing as how X is supposed to have curbed censorship, I’m surprised at how they have treated Willis.
I don’t do X either, so it doesn’t affect me much. I decided Twitter was not for me when they initiated a 140 character limit on posts when they first went online. I couldn’t even get warmed up within 140 characters. 🙂
Tom,
I happen to be in the minority of one who believes in unfettered free speech.
I also agree with Winston Churchill who said –
Unfortunately, people who use a commercial service need to accept the terms of service, however capricious and stupid they might appear. That’s reality.
Willis can grumble. X can ignore him. Life goes on.
I look at that diagram and just think, “why don’t you just plant some trees?”
This seems like a fuss over essentially nothing. According to “https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11455” “In December 2022, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that Section 45Q-associated tax expenditures would be less than $50 million per year (the de minimis amount) through 2026.
And one can compare the $50 million cost with the predicted $500 billion cost arising from DOGE cuts to the IRS which has resulted in a drop in tax receipts:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/03/22/irs-tax-revenue-loss-federal-budget/
You are going to be so surprised.
About what?
About how well things are going to be going in the United States in the near future.
Would you please expand? What will be going well, when, and by at least how much?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/20/back-breaking-taxes/#comment-4064299
Strangely silent. You are one of the busiest here, but for some reason can’t back up this simple claim with any specificity. You are saying that “things” are going to be “well” in “the near future” but can’t even put a floor of quantification on any of these 3 parameters. DUDE, this is YOUR claim….
Tom, it is never a surprise that WAPO puts out bullshit.
The surprise is that (increasingly fewer) people believe it.
Relax.
Even at these prices, CO2 capture loses money. There’s minimal budget impact because nobody can afford to use the programs.
Quote:
“provides a performance-based tax credit for capturing and either securely storing or reusing carbon oxides (including CO₂ and CO)”
Carbon monoxide (CO) is an invisible, odorless, colorless, tasteless and deadly gas. Known as the “silent killer,” carbon monoxide poisoning is responsible for the deaths of over 400 people in the United States each year and sends over 14,000 others to the emergency room.
Source: https://www.firstalert.com/us/en/safetycorner/where-does-carbon-monoxide-come-from/
So these are incentives for amassing large quantaties of “silent killer”.
What could possibly go wrong…?
Or maybe better phrased, is there no end to government stupidity?
Years ago there was a discussion of America’s massive use of wood frame housing and that it was a massive carbon sink that grows. Any thoughts?
Willis, you wrote –
You just don’t seem to be very good at it. How long do you think it will take you to learn that adding CO2 to air doesn’t make it hotter?
I appreciate the effort you put in, but maybe you are more suited to fishing or scuba diving. Basic physics seems to be a bit beyond your grasp. The Earth is cooling, and has been doing so since its creation. It loses more energy than it receives. Currently, about 44 tW or so.
Refusal to accept reality is not my idea of learning, but obviously you believe otherwise.
More insults. Pass. First Rule Of Pig Wrestling applies, and I was a fool to ignore it in the hope that you would back up our ridiculous claim that there is “No “heat moving poleward””.
Mea culpa,
w.
Willis, as Richard Feynman said –
The fact that you cannot find a consistent and unambiguous description of the Greenhouse Effect might lead to be somewhat sceptical about its existence.
The fact that the Earth continues to cool as it has done for four and a half billion years might lead you to question nonsensical assertions from “climate scientists”.
And so it goes. You mention that you were a fool, and if you believe that “heat moves polewards”, you demonstrate that you still are. You seem to have faith in “climate scientists”, and uncritically accept their bizarre assertions. Feynman also said –
You don’t seem to be learning much.
You continue to refuse to accept reality, Wien’s law being one example. You continue to believe that AI tells the truth!
Phil, well done!
Unsubstantiated assertions don’t bring a lot of credibility to the table. You might be confusing me with Willis about the reliability of Absolutely Idiotic computer programs.
I assume that you are trying to make people believe that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter, or that Michael Mann won a Nobel,Prize, or something equally nonsensical. Good luck with that.
No confusion I have substantiated that statement on multiple occasions and you just run away and hide! Here’s one of the posts:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/12/ocean-co2-outgassing-with-temperature/#comment-4061294
Phil, you can lead a horse to water … but you can’t teach him to do the backstroke. Discussing science with Michael goes nowhere.
w.
Why do you bother, then? The consensus of the delusional and gullible (climate scientists) can discuss all they like. You might care to join in.
Facts don’t change. The Earth is still cooling, and adding CO2 to air doesn’t make it hotter.
I agree Willis, I guess it’s my professorial instinct that wants me to make sure that someone reading his rubbish isn’t conned into believing it might be true!
True for me as well. I gave him 20 or so scientific references showing that his ludicrous claim that there’s no tropical heat moving to the poles. I got insults in return, but I hope some folks noticed.
So I asked him for 1 such reference, and got insults in return. Again, I can only hope that folks noticed.
I have no clue why he hasn’t been banned from the site, both for his endless insults and his cosmic scientific ignorance, but hey, that’s just me.
Best to you and yours.
w.
Good for you, Phil. Appealing to your own dubious authority, like WillIs, makes you look as silly as him.
No unlike you I give sources, for example in response to your unsupported assertion that “The Earth is still cooling” I have quoted facts: “Actually the Earth’s energy imbalance is positive which means it’s gaining energy!
https://wmo.int/media/news/new-study-shows-earth-energy-imbalance
“The Earth has accumulated nearly 0.5 watts (0.48 ± 0.1) over every square meter of Earth’s surface over the past 50 years (since 1971);””
Phil, you are a gullible wee soul, aren’t you?
Heat cannot be “accumulated”, particularly not in the ocean, the depths of which are heated from beneath. Even worse, 70% of the surface is sea floor – held at the temperature of the densest water – which absorbs no sunlight at all!
You may believe what you want – your religion is your affair.
I accept reality – the Earth has cooled, continues to do so, and adding CO2 to air doesn’t make it hotter. You could always try talking to some like-minded cultist who values your opinions.
I don’t.
“Heat cannot be “accumulated”, particularly not in the ocean, the depths of which are heated from beneath. Even worse, 70% of the surface is sea floor – held at the temperature of the densest water – which absorbs no sunlight at all!”
What a strange belief, what do you think happens when the ocean warms up? Heat accumulates!
You assert that the Earth is losing about 44TW without any source despite being asked. Based on your strange concept that the ocean surface is not part of the Earth’s surface I conclude that you mean the heat transfer from the Earth’s core through the manifold. That number is consistent with the value I have seen of 47± 2 TW.
The Earth receives from the sun about 173,000 TW so the contribution to the energy balance from the Earth’s core is trivial by comparison.
The reality is that the Earth has accumulated heat over the last half century, try accepting reality!
and so on.
No, the ocean bottom water is heated from beneath, warmer water ascends, cools at night, eventually resulting in the densest water at the bottom.
Heat does not accumulate. The Earth has cooled since the surface was molten, whether you believe it or not.
Being more than 99% glowing hot, it continues to cool. Fools believe that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter – that’s why they are fools!
After four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, the surface has cooled considerably. As Fourier pointed out (and is plain to everyone except the mentally challenged), during the night, all the heat of the day is lost, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat. The Earth would not have cooled, otherwise.
Carry on expressing your opinions – maybe you can convince someone to value them. It certainly won’t be me. Why should I value the opinion of a deranged nutter?
The “deranged nutter” here is the one that believes that the sea floor is the Earth’s surface wrt heating!
Phil, the surface of the Earth is the surface. The ignorant and gullible “climate scientists” can’t even decide what their surface is!
They certainly seem to believe that the atmosphere is the “surface”, and measure “air temperatures” for some bizarre reason, calling it the “surface temperature”.
Apart from when the surface is underwater, where they apparently believe the “surface” is beneath the surface of the water, but can’t quite decide where – except if satellites are used, where the “surface” is estimated to be where the surface of the water would be, if it was smooth!
So where would you measure the surface temperature of the Earth, and how would you do it? Beneath the surface? Above the surface? Anywhere except on the surface? By pretending to measure the air or water temperature?
That might sound like deranged nuttery to anybody except a climate scientist – or someone like you!
I know it’s not considered good form to laugh at the mentally afflicted, but you do make it very inviting. Carry on.
Phil, I tried to warn you …
w.
I knew what to expect Willis!
And sadly, you got it in spades, scientific ignorance plus endless insults.
Sigh …
Best to you,
w.
Willis, he obviously values your opinions about has much as I do.
Best to you!
m.
Yes Willis, as expected, in doing so, however, he reveals his complete lack of knowledge about the subject, never, of course, quoting sources or addressing the contrary facts presented!
All the best.
The vast majority of the Earth’s energy input is from the sun (173,000 TW vs ~20 TW from radioactive decay). Your version of the Earth’s surface has 70% not receiving that input, not a very good model of the Earth’s energy balance!
Phil, I don’t have a “version” of anything.
After four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, the surface has cooled quite a lot, by all accounts. If you choose to believe otherwise, I’d be interested in your reasons.
At night, the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little internal heat. Once again, you may choose to believe otherwise.
According to admittedly sparse measurements, geophysicists have the Earth losing energy at around 44 TW. That’s the definition of cooling – losing more energy than it receives.
Sorry Phil, but adding CO2 to air doesn’t make it hotter, if that’s what you’re trying to imply.
“At night, the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little internal heat. Once again, you may choose to believe otherwise.”
That’s an assumption. In order to cool it must lose more heat than it receives from the sun if not it will warm up.
“According to admittedly sparse measurements, geophysicists have the Earth losing energy at around 44 TW. That’s the definition of cooling – losing more energy than it receives.”
No, they have heat transfer from the core through the mantle about 47 TW, about half of which is from radioactive decay.
“Sorry Phil, but adding CO2 to air doesn’t make it hotter, if that’s what you’re trying to imply.”
No I’m stating that the major source of heat from to the surface of the Earth is solar radiation which is opposed by radiative loss from the surface, it is the balance between these two that determines whether the Earth heats or cools.
Phil,
And the Earth has cooled, in spite of four and a half billion years of sunlight.
By the way, it was Baron Fourier (Fourier’s law of heat conduction, etc), who also said that the surface loses all the heat of the day at night, plus a little internal heat.
You don’t have to believe him, or me, or any rational person who accepts that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years.
This seemed unlikely to me, so I looked it up.
w.
===
Joseph Fourier, known for Fourier’s law of heat conduction and his pioneering work on planetary temperatures, did not state that “the surface loses all the heat of the day at night, plus a little internal heat.” Instead, Fourier’s writings and theories present a more nuanced understanding of how Earth’s surface temperature is regulated.
What Fourier Actually Said
-Solar Heat as Main Source: Fourier recognized that the primary source of heat at the Earth’s surface is solar radiation. He noted that the primordial (internal) heat of the Earth no longer has a significant effect at the surface, though it remains immense in the Earth’s interior [1] [4].
-Heat Loss Mechanism: Fourier deduced that a planet loses heat almost exclusively by infrared radiation (which he called “chaleur obscure” or ‘dark heat’), and this radiation can escape even in a vacuum [4]. He understood that the Earth warms up until it loses heat at the same rate it receives it from the Sun.
-Atmospheric Effect: Crucially, Fourier argued that the atmosphere acts like an insulating layer, analogous to glass in a hotbox, allowing sunlight (visible light) to penetrate and warm the surface, but slowing the escape of infrared radiation back to space. This effect keeps the planet warmer at night than it would be if all the day’s heat were lost immediately [3] [4] [5].
> “Fourier also realized there must be more to the story than that, otherwise the heat from the sun would escape to space just as fast as it arrived, causing night-time temperatures to drop back down to the temperature of space-and yet they don’t.” [3]
-Thermal Inertia and Heat Transport: Fourier was aware of, but did not fully emphasize, the roles of thermal inertia (the ability of the ground and oceans to retain heat) and atmospheric and oceanic heat transport in moderating night-time cooling [4].
Did Fourier Say the Surface Loses All the Heat of the Day at Night?
No, Fourier did not claim that the Earth’s surface loses all the heat it gained during the day at night, plus a little internal heat. In fact, he specifically argued against such a simplistic view. He understood that:
• The atmosphere and oceans moderate temperature swings, preventing the surface from losing all its heat at night [3] [4].
• The internal heat of the Earth is negligible at the surface compared to solar input [1] [4].
• The heat budget is balanced over time: the planet must lose as much heat (primarily via infrared radiation) as it receives, but this is a continuous process, not a simple day-night cycle of complete gain and loss [4].
Conclusion
Fourier did not state that the surface loses all the day’s heat at night, plus a little internal heat. Instead, he laid the foundation for the modern understanding of planetary energy balance and the greenhouse effect, emphasizing the continuous interplay between incoming solar energy, outgoing infrared radiation, and the moderating influence of the atmosphere [3] [4] [5].
Citations
[1] https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/Fourier1827Trans.pdf
[3] https://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2017/03/the-discovery-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
[4] https://www.nature.com/articles/432677a
[5] https://engineering.purdue.edu/ece477/Course/ToSource/Assignments/Reference/greenhouse_revisited2.pdf
Willis, you wrote –
You don’t state what you looked up, and, as usual, refuse to quote the words with which you disagree.
However, you didn’t “look it up”, you posed an unstated question to an Actually Idiotic computer program, which regurgitated the usual nonsense placed an the internet by people obviously as gullible and ignorant as yourself.
You don’t even read your references – my translation of Fourier is very close to that of your reference –
Hence, the cooling of the Earth in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight.
One of your references even provides experimental evidence to show that Fourier’s “hotbox” speculation was wrong – but you can’t even be bothered reading the citations provided by a mindless computer program.
Sorry, Willis, but your touching faith in AI is sorely misplaced in this instance. No GHE, the Earth is cooling, adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter, and you refuse to accept reality.
All my best to you – you seem to live in a world of your own.
m.
The one who lives in a world of his own is you Michael, I found it very ironic that you attempted to use Fourier, the discoverer of the Greenhouse effect, in support of your false claim about the Earth’s energy balance!
Phil, good for you.
That the Earth is cooler than when it was in a molten state billions of years ago is of no relevance to its totally different state now.
In fact the data shows that:
https://wmo.int/media/news/new-study-shows-earth-energy-imbalance
“The Earth has accumulated nearly 0.5 watts (0.48 ± 0.1) over every square meter of Earth’s surface over the past 50 years (since 1971);”
Phil, the Earth has cooled, hasn’t it?
In the past yes, we had those things called ‘ice ages’, it has also warmed in the past and recently it has been warming.
Phil,
“Ice age” doesn’t mean the Earth was totally ice covered, you know. That’s a physical impossibility. Just a fantasy of people like Carl Sagan, and many GHE believers.
The Earth hasn’t “warmed in the past” – unless you can come up with some physical reason, and you can’t, can you?
Of course thermometers have been getting hotter recently. Eight billion people use far more energy than one billion people, and every speck of that energy eventually escapes to space, after warming thermometers along the way. No heat is “stored” or “accumulated”.
Heck, the operators of Ivanpah couldn’t even manage to “store heat” overnight!
Sorry Phil. Maybe you have fooled yourself into believing that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter, but it doesn’t.
““Ice age” doesn’t mean the Earth was totally ice covered, you know. That’s a physical impossibility.”
I’m well aware of that and I made no such suggestion!
“The Earth hasn’t “warmed in the past” – unless you can come up with some physical reason, and you can’t, can you?”
The presence of such considerable volumes of ice in the past indicates it must have been colder then than now which indicates that the Earth has warmed since then.
I certainly can come up with a reason!
One well documented reason for such changes in the past is the Milankovitch cycle
Sorry, Phil, but even NASA says –
“May contribute”. In other words, just another guess – no physical basis for the Earth “warming”.
Your “reason” has no physical basis. If the Earth’s orbital changes bring it closer to the Sun, it just cools a little more slowly. You are no doubt thinking that the end of Winter shows that the Earth is getting hotter!
That thinking is a few thousand years out of date.
“Your “reason” has no physical basis. If the Earth’s orbital changes bring it closer to the Sun, it just cools a little more slowly.”
No the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth would increase in that case. Stability requires that an equal amount of energy would need to be emitted from the Earth so it would have to be hotter.
Not at all. Exactly the same as Summer being hotter than Winter, while the Earth continues to cool – as it has done for four and half billion years.
The Earth’s orbit is elliptical – sometimes closer, sometimes farther away. The Earth still continues to cool.
Maybe you should just repeat that you never said that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter? Then you could just stick to one piece of stupidity.
“ while the Earth continues to cool – as it has done for four and half billion years.”
So 20,000 years ago when Canada was covered in ice about 3km thick according to you the Earth was actually warmer than it is now following the melting of all that ice and sea level increasing by a few hundred feet!
That is certainly one of your “pieces of stupidity”.
Of course it was. Why would it not be? 99% of the Earth ranges from dull red heat to blindingly incandescent!
A long way from the closest external heat source – the Sun. Four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight hasn’t stopped the Earth cooling.
“Of course it was. Why would it not be? 99% of the Earth ranges from dull red heat to blindingly incandescent!”
And that part is surrounded by ~40km of insulation so that it only loses ~20TW compared with the 173,000TW incoming from the sun!
Phil, if you doubled or trebled the amount of sunlight reaching the surface, the earth would still cool. Work it out for yourself if you want.
i think you have backed yourself into a corner, and have forgotten about trying to justify the GHE. The earth has cooled for the past four and a half billion years – no amount of sunlight or CO2 in the atmosphere stopped the cooling.
“Phil, if you doubled or trebled the amount of sunlight reaching the surface, the earth would still cool. Work it out for yourself if you want.”
Cool down to the temperature of Venus?
Phil, what are you on about? What has Venus to do with your calculations?
Ignorance can be overcome, gullibility possibly, but stupidity not at all.
Maybe you could use Newton’s Law of Cooling for a start.
You asked: “Phil, if you doubled or trebled the amount of sunlight reaching the surface, the earth would still cool. Work it out for yourself if you want.”
Venus is about the same size as Earth and has more sunlight reaching the planet so it serves as a good example.
Phil, don’t go out of your way to look silly. Venus is not the Earth.
If you don’t want to believe the glowing hot Earth, suspended in space 300 million kms from the Sun, having cooled for four and a half billion years, is continuing to do so, just say so.
If you believe that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter, you are insane, if a characteristic of insanity is the inability to accept reality.
“Phil, don’t go out of your way to look silly. Venus is not the Earth.”
No but it is approximately the same size and receives more sunlight and so met the conditions of your question!
“If you don’t want to believe the glowing hot Earth, suspended in space 300 million kms from the Sun, having cooled for four and a half billion years, is continuing to do so, just say so.”
The Earth that I live on is not glowing hot and I have continued to say that it is not continuing to cool and have given data to back it up (something you have not done wrt your assertion).
By the way Newton’s Law of Cooling doesn’t apply to planet Earth, and the Earth is 149 million km from the Sun.
You are the one who is unable to accept reality!
Yes it is. More than 99% of it, from a dull red heat to incandescent white! If you don’t want to believe it, fine. If you reject physics, and claim the Earth is getting hotter, fine.
If you are a fan of Absolute Idiocy, here’s what AI says about Venus –
If you believe that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter, you are insane, if a characteristic of insanity is the inability to accept reality. Feel free to keep denying reality.
No GHE.
“Yes it is. More than 99% of it, from a dull red heat to incandescent white! If you don’t want to believe it, fine. If you reject physics, and claim the Earth is getting hotter, fine.”
This is the planet I live on viewed from about one million miles away, no sign of that “dull red heat to incandescent white” that you refer to!
Still no evidence offered by you for your assertions, except for unverifiable AI
Phil,
Of course it does. Just not enough to stop the Earth from cooling – as it has done for the last four and a half billion years.
Using a bogus, static, flat earth model.
No using measurements and the spherical geometry of the Earth.
Nobody uses such a model. That’s not happening. Here’s what is used.
Neither bogus, static nor flat.
w.
Bogus, static, and perfectly spherical?
Even the IPCC states that it is not possible to predict future climate states, so the models are completely without utility.
All my best to you – I hope you learn something.
m.
Michael, what I’ve learned is that with you the First Rule Of Pig Wrestling always applies.
w.
Willis, spouting the gibberish you do does not make you look any more intelligent than you are, you know.
Maybe one day you will learn that adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter, but I doubt it. Your oft repeated obsession with porcine pursuits demonstrates your intellectual level.
All my best to you,
m.
Can someone in authority here ban this nasty, insult-spouting scientific illiterate? Every single post I write ends up with him doing nothing but claiming things like that there’s no heat moving from the tropics to the poles and calling me endless nasty names.
Do we really have to put up with this nonsense forever? What has he ever added to any discussion other than bile and scientific misunderstandings?
Lately, l I literally wince thinking about writing another post for WUWT, which is a lot of work, only to have him hijack the comment threads.
Am I the only one who has had it up to here with his garbage? I hate to see someone blocked, and I’ve held off requesting that he be blocked from commenting, hoping that somehow, someway, he’d come to his senses and dial it back … but no joy.
Sigh …
w.
Willis, when you comment, please quote the exact words you are discussing. It avoids endless misunderstandings.
I can’t help it if you choose to feel insulted, and particularly when you refuse to nominate these supposed “insults”. As to being “nasty”, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. You provide no reason why I should value your opinion.
As to “scientifically illiterate”, once again you refuse to provide examples of this supposed “scientific illiteracy”. Is this another of your unsupported opinions that I am supposed to take notice of?
Unlike yourself, I support unbiased free speech, and support Richard Feynman’s statement –
So there you are, Willis. Harry S Truman popularised the saying “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” Presumably you support his opinion?
I’ll finish off as you do –
m.
Sorry for not quoting your words, Michael. You’re right, I should have. Here you go. To start with, I said:
OK, I’ve quoted your words. They certainly make you look like a charming fellow and a beneficial addition to any scientific discussion.
Can someone please block this wonderful man’s endless stream of insults? On what planet does that have anything to do with science?
Like I said, I’ve begun to dread writing another post for WUWT because I know it will be subject to the unceasing flow of foul invective from your mouth, a tiny part of which I’ve quoted above.
I’m done with this post. The rest of y’all can read Michael’s no doubt pleasant response to my post. I don’t have time for this.
My best to all, even Michael, curiously … it’s how I am.
w.
Thank you for your encomium. I appreciate it.
As you have pointed out before –
You have quoted me extensively, and told me how wonderful you think I am. Are you disagree with anything I said? If so, you should SHOW us why I am wrong, not just tell everyone how charming and scientifically beneficial my comments are.
My very best to you Willis, you probably need a bit of support. You do sound a little bitter.
m.
Fortunately the vast, vast majority of CO2 tax credits for CO2 emissions will never be claimed. I’ve talked before about how the Bakken operators would love to use CO2 to enhance oil recovery – but that means building a CO2 pipeline from the Wyoming coal plants to North Dakota.
The likelihood of this happening in under a decade is probably zero.
The likelihood of this EVER happening is probably pretty low too, because nobody wants a CO2 pipeline in their backyard – or even within 100 miles of their backyard. Oil and natural gas pipeline pollute when they rupture but CO2 pipelines will kill, and fast, if they rupture.
Thanks, c1. I never considered the dangers of a CO2 pipeline before, but a bit of research shows they are very real.
Always more to learn,
w.
Never truer words. Have you learned that adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter, or do you prefer to ignore the fact?
All the best to you, and good luck with your endeavours to learn.
m.