Removing ‘carbon’ from atmosphere only way to save climate, says desperate UN report

Posted: April 3, 2022 by oldbrew in alarmism, atmosphere, Emissions, IPCC, net zero, Temperature
Tags: , ,

CO2 is not pollution

H/T New York Post.

Everyone knows that won’t happen. Too expensive, and no adequate methods available anyway even if it was a good idea, which it isn’t. Nobody consults the growers and planters of the world, it seems. Little or no role is allocated to natural climate variation, but that’s only one of many issues.
– – –
Sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is the world’s only chance to avoid climate change disaster, according to a report due to be released Monday.

The paper by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is expected to say that dangerous climate change will be avoided only if vast quantities of carbon dioxide are removed from the air, the Times of London reported.

“Carbon dioxide removal is necessary to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions globally and nationally,” a draft version of the summary report said, according to The Times. If “negative emission” technologies fulfill their potential, it continues, they could even enable a reversal of global warming.

However, carbon-capturing technology is nowhere near where it needs to be. Today, 19 operational plants capture only 10,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year, compared to the 36 billion tons the world produces annually, according to the report.

The paper also says that an urgent and wholesale shift away from fossil fuels is needed for there to be any chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.

Scientists believe topping that threshold will lead to significant and irreversible harm to Earth’s climate.

But the report, commissioned and endorsed by 195 governments, acknowledges that the only “negative emissions” strategy currently used on a mass scale is tree planting.

Scientists are working on other techniques, including air capture or giant fans extracting carbon dioxide from the air and storing it underground or converting it into jet fuel.

Full article here.
– – –
BBC: Scientists race to finish key IPCC report — says the same thing.

  1. dennisambler says:

    “..director of the Centre for Climate Repair at Cambridge University”

    If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

  2. ilma630 says:

    Giant fans to capture CO2 and convert it to jet fuel!? Wow! Have these lunatics ever considered what’s going to power all this? Have they ever considered the inefficiency, aka: energy losses of doing this? Clearly not. A bit like thinking hydrogen is a good idea, not understanding the energy RoI is 30% max, or at least 70% input energy wasted. And they think they’re the enlightened ones! Pah!

  3. dennisambler says:

    “giant fans extracting carbon dioxide from the air”
    Where are they going to get the electricity from? Ah, those other big fans that only work when the wind blows at the right speed.

    “the only “negative emissions” strategy currently used on a mass scale is tree planting.”
    Another “feel good” myth:

    “Chemical reactions involving tree V.O.C.s produce methane and ozone, two powerful greenhouse gases, and form particles that can affect the condensation of clouds.

    Research by my group at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and by other laboratories, suggests that changes in tree V.O.C.s affect the climate on a scale similar to changes in the earth’s surface color and carbon storage capacity.

    While trees provide carbon storage, forestry is not a permanent solution because trees and soil also “breathe” — that is, burn oxygen and release carbon dioxide back into the air. Eventually, all of the carbon finds its way back into the atmosphere when trees die or burn.

    Moreover, it is a myth that photosynthesis controls the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.

    Even if all photosynthesis on the planet were shut down, the atmosphere’s oxygen content would change by less than 1 percent. The Amazon rain forest is often perceived as the lungs of the planet.

    In fact, almost all the oxygen the Amazon produces during the day remains there and is reabsorbed by the forest at night. In other words, the Amazon rain forest is a closed system that uses all its own oxygen and carbon dioxide.”

    The author of the Yale paper was jumped on from a great height at the time and is these days at UEA, (perhaps for re-education). And then there’s this, which seems to accept Amazon sequestration, but says it is nullified by river outgassing.

    “Amazon River CO2 outgassing equals Rainforest sequestration”
    Evaluation of Primary Production in the Lower Amazon River Based on a Dissolved Oxygen Stable Isotopic Mass Balance

    The Amazon River outgasses nearly an equivalent amount of CO2 as the rainforest sequesters on an annual basis due to microbial decomposition of terrigenous and aquatic organic matter.

    The Amazon River is a major source of CO2 to the atmosphere, but understanding the interplay between photosynthesis and respiration is critical for understanding the fundamental mechanisms driving these fluxes and the overall productivity of the ecosystem.

    The science is settled…

  4. JB says:

    Has anyone ever weighed out the amount of bologna-baloney published by the NYT?
    The IPCC has been doing it from day one.

  5. ilma630 says:

    Not forgetting of course that lungs and forests have the OPPOSITE O2CO2 processes. Forests are not lungs!

  6. oldbrew says:

    Nature already has a carbon cycle, which is far from well understood, but seems to work unless someone can show otherwise.

    Estimates of the carbon cycle—vital to predicting climate change—are incorrect, researchers show

  7. oldbrew says:

    Scotland’s giant fan plan (2021)

    Powered by…? They must be joking – would need thousands of them, and somewhere to put all the CO2. Uselessness on stilts.

  8. Val says:

    Vintage naivety from the UN. As fast as they might remove carbon dioxide from the air, nature will put it right back in.

    “the observed behavior of 14CO2 provides an upper bound on the anthropogenic perturbation of atmospheric CO2 . It represents only a few percent of the observed increase.”

  9. oldbrew says:

    Val says:

    I suspect that’s right. The notion that nature won’t mind a reduction in CO2 if it’s able to counter it, is questionable to say the least.

  10. stpaulchuck says:

    just one more stupid idea requiring most of my family’s treasure so they can ride around in Limo’s and eat lobster and Chateaubriand while swilling $100 bottles of wine and not actually accomplishing the target against and imaginary boogeyman.

  11. stpaulchuck says:


  12. Kip Hansen says:

    Planting/replanting forests (more trees) is a great idea for a lot of reasons — removing CO2 from the atmosphere at scale is not one of them.

  13. Chaswarnertoo says:

    What planet are these morons on? Call me when we have hippos in the Thames, like the Neanderthals.

  14. Phoenix44 says:

    Where has this concept of “irreversible harm” come from? Why would anything be irreversible?

    They really are hysterical fantasists.

  15. oldbrew says:

    Hairshirts at the ready…

    APRIL 4, 2022
    UN to release handbook of climate change solutions

  16. ilma630 says:

    Yep. Providing logs for the wood burner in the absence of gas or when it becomes too expensive is one of them.

  17. ilma630 says:

    Just heard Net Zero Watch interviewed on GB News Radio saying “regardless of the price of gas, the Introduction of renewables will raise energy prices” (truth), immediately followed by the news, where “Scientists say we need to rapidly increase transition to renewables to keep global temps within 1.5C…” (lies). How many millions of people will our dumb MPs hurt & ruin financially before they realise ‘climate change’ is the biggest pseudo scientific fraud and scam in history.

  18. Paul Cottingham says:

    With an IQ of 164, and confusion about the Carbon Cycle. I had to work it out myself. So my understanding of the Carbon Cycle is resolved by “Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2, (1997) by Tom Segalstad” which shows up the scientific fraud in the Carbon Cycle. The IPCC “Cancelled” Henrys law. So the answer is that Ice core data shows that there is a 800 year lag for natural CO2 level increase. The Medieval Warm period peaked 800 years ago, so that proves that most of the increase was natural CO2 from the deep Ocean which has a 275 to 1 ratio mixing with the Atmosphere over a period of 800 years. The upper Ocean has a 50 to 1 ratio mixing with the Atmosphere over a seven year period. I also read a paper that said that 4 percent of the 400ppm of CO2 was man-made and volcanic. That was 6ppm for Man-made CO2, while the evidence reveals that 224ppm of the increase was natural, including the 12ppm for volcanic emissions. The ocean contains more than 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. Most of this is stored in the very cold benthic layers of the ocean. The solubility of CO2 in water depends on temperature. The warmer the water temperature the less CO2 it can dissolve. Hence as the ocean depths are warmed CO2 is released. This is known as oceanic out-gassing. This 212ppm out-gassing is the cause of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, not the 6ppm man made emissions. The temperature at one bar on all the planetary atmospheres proves that man-made climate change must be either a deliberate hoax, or the moronic dogma of upper class globalist twits.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s