Climate tech startup aims to store carbon in oceans and reshape the energy sector

zohaibahd

Posts: 934   +19
Staff
In a nutshell: A Los Angeles startup is making waves by claiming it can simultaneously address two major climate challenges: removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and storing it in the ocean, while also producing emissions-free hydrogen fuel. The concept sounds promising, but not everyone is on board with it.

Equatic says its novel technology can strip CO2 directly from the atmosphere and lock it away in the depths of the sea for millennia. At the same time, it generates green hydrogen that could one day replace fossil fuels in sectors like shipping, aviation, and heavy manufacturing.

The company is part of a growing number of startups exploring ocean-based carbon removal as an alternative to underground storage methods like carbon capture and sequestration. But Equatic says it's the only one producing hydrogen in the process.

The company has a unique approach: a proprietary electrochemical system – running on clean electricity – first converts seawater into hydrogen gas, oxygen gas, an acid stream, and an alkaline slurry. The slurry absorbs CO2 when exposed to air. The captured CO2 is discharged back into the ocean as stable mineral compounds meant to lock it up for 10,000 years or more.

With global emissions continuing to soar, many scientists believe technological intervention will be needed to actively strip CO2 back out of the atmosphere to meet climate goals. That's where startups like this come in. Equatic initially experimented with small pilot barges off the coasts of Singapore and Los Angeles. Since then, it's been scaling up rapidly.

The BBC reports that a major new plant in Singapore, said to be the world's largest ocean carbon removal facility, is currently under construction. It will have over 100 times the capacity of the prototypes, capturing an expected 4,000 tons of CO2 and churning out around 100 tons of hydrogen annually.

Then there's a much bigger commercial plant planned for Quebec, Canada, which could start operating as soon as 2026. This will boast a capacity to remove over 100,000 tons of CO2 and generate 3,600 tons of hydrogen each year.

As for how Equatic plans to make money, well, the goal is to sell the CO2 it captures as carbon offset "credits" to companies aiming to achieve net-zero emissions. These companies would essentially pay Equatic to remove CO2 from the atmosphere on their behalf as a way to offset their own emissions.

However, the concept of ocean carbon removal is stoking concerns from environmental groups. Last year, over 400 scientists signed a letter warning that large-scale tampering with ocean chemistry could have unpredictable and potentially devastating impacts on marine ecosystems.

Last year, over 400 scientists signed a letter warning that large-scale tampering with ocean chemistry could have unpredictable and potentially devastating impacts on marine ecosystems.

Critics also argue that banking on future carbon removal could undermine urgently needed cuts to greenhouse gas pollution today. And carbon offset programs in general have been plagued by credibility issues and doubts about their real climate impacts.

Equatic acknowledges the measurement challenges and has revamped its technology to keep the CO2 capture process in a closed-loop system that it says will make accounting and verification easier. The company also insists its method is designed to comply with regulations and operate within existing environmental permits.

Edward Sanders, the CEO of Equatic, argues scalability is key. He told the BBC that the company's approach could theoretically remove up to 20% of current global CO2 emissions if around 1,200 large facilities were deployed by the mid-2040s.

Permalink to story:

 
Fun Fact: all the CO2 that man 'adds' to the atmosphere was originally there in the first place, but removed through geological sequestration processes. Atmospheric CO2 has varied wildly up and down over the earth's history, but the general trend was always downward. The preindustrial level in 1800 was 280 ppm ... just barely above the 200ppm level needed to sustain photosynthesis. Had man not intervened, sequestration would have eventually meant the end of all life on earth.

Fun Fact 2: commercial greenhouses artificially boost CO2 levels to about the 1500ppm level. The current atmospheric level of 400ppm is estimated to have increased global food crop yields from anywhere from 8% to 30%, depending on plant species.
 
Fun Fact: all the CO2 that man 'adds' to the atmosphere was originally there in the first place, but removed through geological sequestration processes. Atmospheric CO2 has varied wildly up and down over the earth's history, but the general trend was always downward. The preindustrial level in 1800 was 280 ppm ... just barely above the 200ppm level needed to sustain photosynthesis. Had man not intervened, sequestration would have eventually meant the end of all life on earth.

Fun Fact 2: commercial greenhouses artificially boost CO2 levels to about the 1500ppm level. The current atmospheric level of 400ppm is estimated to have increased global food crop yields from anywhere from 8% to 30%, depending on plant species.
Don't say this, the climate activists will have a fit, especially when they find out that there have been ice ages when the CO2 content of the atmosphere was much higher than now and that CO2 is not a green house gas.
 
Don't say this, the climate activists will have a fit, especially when they find out that there have been ice ages when the CO2 content of the atmosphere was much higher than now and that CO2 is not a green house gas.
Part I is true; Part II is not. To clarify: CO2 is clearly a greenhouse gas -- but a very mild one, compared to the much larger quantity of a stronger GHG (water vapor) found naturally in the atmosphere.

In 1984, Drs. Hansen and cronies postulated a positive-feedback effect whereby CO2 acted to increase atmospheric H20, thereby amplifying its effects several times greater. This and this alone is what made CO2 a "dangerous pollutant". And yet, despite its utter lack of experimental evidence and increasing divergence from real-world data, it remains the core of modern global warming alarmism.
 
Just... don't cut down all the trees we have and plant more trees.
Cheap, effective carbon storage, and reduce the carbon footprint of common stuff where-ever possible.
Nature can sort this out rather than these startups trying to filter it out of the air to dump it in the ocean, or turn it into plastic, or diamonds or whatever other crazy ideas they come up with.

Fun fact: Per capita the US carbon footprint is twice that of Europeans.
Turns out designing cities for cars isn't just bad for obesity rates, it's bad for the environment to boot. Also hanging your washing to dry rather than running the dryer and not constantly using air-conditioning helps.
 
Fun Fact: all the CO2 that man 'adds' to the atmosphere was originally there in the first place, but removed through geological sequestration processes. Atmospheric CO2 has varied wildly up and down over the earth's history, but the general trend was always downward. The preindustrial level in 1800 was 280 ppm ... just barely above the 200ppm level needed to sustain photosynthesis. Had man not intervened, sequestration would have eventually meant the end of all life on earth.

Fun Fact 2: commercial greenhouses artificially boost CO2 levels to about the 1500ppm level. The current atmospheric level of 400ppm is estimated to have increased global food crop yields from anywhere from 8% to 30%, depending on plant species.

You should post this on Fakebook and see how fast it gets taken down, lol.
My record was 5 mins. I had COVID and posted on my page that I was doing well. Someone asked me what my diet was. I said a lot of vitamin D3, K2, soup loaded with all kinds of veggies, White Tea, & eggs. Every morning I make sure I use a good amount of dark maple syrup (real syrup and raw honey) I highly recommend researching benefits of maple syrup and antioxidants. Facebook took my post down quickly.
 
With such tech need to tread lightly as stated unexpected consequences, yet we see climate change has already done massive damage , this and human activity has led to one of the fastest extinction periods ever, one of the fastest warming periods ever
lots of these ides seaweed/kelp farms, iron filings in water

Here's a fun fact for disbelievers

None of the huge polluters, gas, oil, coal , transit, farming etc with all their billions can muster a single argument why man made climate change is not essential true in most details.In fact it's on record some knew from late 1960s and 1970s
Not one.

Why is this, they don't have the budget??
They can't they buy off any of the tens of thousands of researchers from any country
They can't put out any competing model , that stands up to scrutiny

Another fun fact
Climate deniers can not say why they specifically don't believe it , current BS is some unknown natural cycle- Can't even say what this cycle is - you have to FN gullible to swallow that mystical claptrap
You don't understand science isn't real , it's a feely thing , and magic thing , you boring scientist just don't understand my gut feeling , my need to consume greedily at expense of my grandkids
Disbelievers can not put out any predictions going forward that would remotely counter the next 100 years

They have claimed multiple times short term rise soon to end ALL wrong 100%.

Best AI models like Deepmind must also be in on the big conspiracy to deprived selfish boomers from their V8s as all data from Deepmind shows climate change is real. deepmind exploring ways to fight it, Deepmind can predict day to day weather pretty well doing it's own methods. competes quite well with current models with huge data inputs from sensors

Really put up or shut up

What is causing the ongoing temp rises.
When will it end , what are your predictions
Not interested in rubbish websites about Al Gore or a Time article written by a journalist .
That seems a perennial reason why climate change is not real - oh it was warmer in roman times
oh CO2 is wonderful for the planet , Oh we can't do anything , Oh China this and that
Oh who cares about the 3rd world or biomes . OH we will live on Mars

Plus preface with honesty - Did you always claim that it was a lie temperatures were going up , and data was fake and massaged

Fun fact most Boomer climate deniers did the above and temperatures not real , and most never admitted they were wrong.
Has anyone here ever seem they admitted they were wrong evah

What is causing it disbelievers? when will in end , show me your scientific model
Why are even current best AI models wrong all the normal scientists worldwide that could be your son or daughter who study for 3 to 8 years with degrees and PHDs

 
Carbon are soaked up by trees, but people cut the trees down to make space and stuffs for ourselves. So the “brilliant idea” now is to store in the ocean because it’s the dumping ground. Anything bad, people’s idea is to hide it under the sea. Out of sight, out of mind, and nobody really knows what happens there. And when you store things that generally don’t occur naturally in unusually high quantities there, what could go wrong right? Every decision has its consequences,
 
Last edited:
With such tech need to tread lightly as stated unexpected consequences, yet we see climate change has already done massive damage , this and human activity has led to one of the fastest extinction periods ever, one of the fastest warming periods ever
lots of these ides seaweed/kelp farms, iron filings in water

Here's a fun fact for disbelievers

None of the huge polluters, gas, oil, coal , transit, farming etc with all their billions can muster a single argument why man made climate change is not essential true in most details.In fact it's on record some knew from late 1960s and 1970s
Not one.

Why is this, they don't have the budget??
They can't they buy off any of the tens of thousands of researchers from any country
They can't put out any competing model , that stands up to scrutiny

Another fun fact
Climate deniers can not say why they specifically don't believe it , current BS is some unknown natural cycle- Can't even say what this cycle is - you have to FN gullible to swallow that mystical claptrap
You don't understand science isn't real , it's a feely thing , and magic thing , you boring scientist just don't understand my gut feeling , my need to consume greedily at expense of my grandkids
Disbelievers can not put out any predictions going forward that would remotely counter the next 100 years

They have claimed multiple times short term rise soon to end ALL wrong 100%.

Best AI models like Deepmind must also be in on the big conspiracy to deprived selfish boomers from their V8s as all data from Deepmind shows climate change is real. deepmind exploring ways to fight it, Deepmind can predict day to day weather pretty well doing it's own methods. competes quite well with current models with huge data inputs from sensors

Really put up or shut up

What is causing the ongoing temp rises.
When will it end , what are your predictions
Not interested in rubbish websites about Al Gore or a Time article written by a journalist .
That seems a perennial reason why climate change is not real - oh it was warmer in roman times
oh CO2 is wonderful for the planet , Oh we can't do anything , Oh China this and that
Oh who cares about the 3rd world or biomes . OH we will live on Mars

Plus preface with honesty - Did you always claim that it was a lie temperatures were going up , and data was fake and massaged

Fun fact most Boomer climate deniers did the above and temperatures not real , and most never admitted they were wrong.
Has anyone here ever seem they admitted they were wrong evah

What is causing it disbelievers? when will in end , show me your scientific model
Why are even current best AI models wrong all the normal scientists worldwide that could be your son or daughter who study for 3 to 8 years with degrees and PHDs
Why don't you explain why Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus are also experiencing climate change? Don't have the budget to research it? Maybe you need more pHD's to figure it out.

Man made climate change is so severe that it's affecting the entire solar system we as a species are absolutely amazing.
 
Climate deniers can not say why they specifically don't believe it
We've been explaining why since the 1970s; you're simply not listening. The models consistently and severely overpredict warming, and the actual amount we'll experience will almost certainly have many more positive benefits than negative.

Another fun fact on which every climate scientist -- even the most alarmist -- agrees, but that journalists never report: CO2's effects follow a logarithmic forcing model -- the more you add, the less effective each increment actually is.
 
Since the year 2000, Western nations' total CO2 emissions and per capita emissions have actually decreased. Whereas China's and India's CO2 emissions have continued to rise significantly.

https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2023/the-changing-landscape-of-global-emissions
And notice that, despite total CO2 Output being significantly higher, Florida is not underwater, despite the doomsday predictions, and we are still alive.
With such tech need to tread lightly as stated unexpected consequences, yet we see climate change has already done massive damage , this and human activity has led to one of the fastest extinction periods ever, one of the fastest warming periods ever
lots of these ides seaweed/kelp farms, iron filings in water

Here's a fun fact for disbelievers

None of the huge polluters, gas, oil, coal , transit, farming etc with all their billions can muster a single argument why man made climate change is not essential true in most details.In fact it's on record some knew from late 1960s and 1970s
Not one.

Why is this, they don't have the budget??
They can't they buy off any of the tens of thousands of researchers from any country
They can't put out any competing model , that stands up to scrutiny

Another fun fact
Climate deniers can not say why they specifically don't believe it , current BS is some unknown natural cycle- Can't even say what this cycle is - you have to FN gullible to swallow that mystical claptrap
You don't understand science isn't real , it's a feely thing , and magic thing , you boring scientist just don't understand my gut feeling , my need to consume greedily at expense of my grandkids
Disbelievers can not put out any predictions going forward that would remotely counter the next 100 years

They have claimed multiple times short term rise soon to end ALL wrong 100%.

Best AI models like Deepmind must also be in on the big conspiracy to deprived selfish boomers from their V8s as all data from Deepmind shows climate change is real. deepmind exploring ways to fight it, Deepmind can predict day to day weather pretty well doing it's own methods. competes quite well with current models with huge data inputs from sensors

Really put up or shut up

What is causing the ongoing temp rises.
When will it end , what are your predictions
Not interested in rubbish websites about Al Gore or a Time article written by a journalist .
That seems a perennial reason why climate change is not real - oh it was warmer in roman times
oh CO2 is wonderful for the planet , Oh we can't do anything , Oh China this and that
Oh who cares about the 3rd world or biomes . OH we will live on Mars

Plus preface with honesty - Did you always claim that it was a lie temperatures were going up , and data was fake and massaged

Fun fact most Boomer climate deniers did the above and temperatures not real , and most never admitted they were wrong.Has anyone here ever seem they admitted they were wrong evah
What is causing it disbelievers? when will in end , show me your scientific model
Why are even current best AI models wrong all the normal scientists worldwide that could be your son or daughter who study for 3 to 8 years with degrees and PHDs
Remember when it was called global warming? How it was going to be the end of the world if we didn't throw away our trucks and buy hybrids? Climate "science" had a prediction model worse then meteorologists. At least they are sometimes right.

How many times have "experts" warned us that we have only "X" years left to reverse change or it becomes "permanent"? How many times have we explained that that is total nonsense? How many times have they been proven wrong? The beauty of the internet is that we can collect proof of these silly claims.

Here's an example:
german climate lol.png

This is an image from a German environmental magazine, where the top headline reads "Larger than expected snowfall the result of climate change" and the bottom reads" Lack of snowfall the result of climate change". There were BOTH from 2023. Here's another:

guardianlol.jpeg

18 years ago, we had 10 years left to "save the world". The same line of argumentation was used by the likes of AoC in congress in the last 2 years. When climate "experts" constantly post contradictory claims like this, it's no wonder people dont believe you.

For the better part of 50 years, environmentalist groups have had the ear of policy makers the world over. For 50 years, we've been hearing contradictory evidence that conveniently always points out that there is an imminent crisis. And after 50 years, people are getting sick of it. As for that AI: LOL, farmers almanac was predicting the weather accurately 100 years ago. What AI were they using then? Chat GPT: steam powered edition? That proves nothing.

Environmentalism has gone from a movement to clean the air and water, to a religion, if not an outright death cult, that is convinced if we dont destroy everything we have built and buy into their new hype speech, the whole world is going to perish. The rapture! The rapture! Prepare your souls! Like any good religion, deviation from the sermons of the faithful is seen as blasphemous, and must be silenced. And like any good religion, the wheels start coming off as more people question their intent. This is why "None of the huge polluters, gas, oil, coal , transit, farming etc with all their billions can muster a single argument why man made climate change is not essential true in most details.In fact it's on record some knew from late 1960s and 1970s
Not one.". Because you refuse to believe in scriptures that disagree with your holy book.

Frankly, if environmentalists cared, they wouldnt have stood in the way of 50 years of nuclear progress. They wouldnt be pushing for new "energy efficiency" requirements that turn appliances from 50 year tools to 5 year disposable junk. They wouldnt be clearing marshlands in florida to put up solar panels. The list goes on. It's a cult, one that uses its beliefs to hammer everyone who doesnt agree with them. And especially after 2020, people have had enough of "experts" trying to flatten them under overt messaging.
 
Fun Fact: all the CO2 that man 'adds' to the atmosphere was originally there in the first place, but removed through geological sequestration processes. Atmospheric CO2 has varied wildly up and down over the earth's history, but the general trend was always downward. The preindustrial level in 1800 was 280 ppm ... just barely above the 200ppm level needed to sustain photosynthesis. Had man not intervened, sequestration would have eventually meant the end of all life on earth.

Fun Fact 2: commercial greenhouses artificially boost CO2 levels to about the 1500ppm level. The current atmospheric level of 400ppm is estimated to have increased global food crop yields from anywhere from 8% to 30%, depending on plant species.

CO2 ppm goes up and down with surface temperature anomaly, and it maxes out at 300. It's now over 400.

And it's going up at 15 times the rate it did across those hundreds of thousands of years.

My understanding is that crop yields went up because of the use of fossil fuels, etc., for mechanized agriculture, as part of the Green Revolution.

The NAS argues that because the science is so complex the results cannot be predicted. Deniers supported BEST to counter that but it ended up making the same conclusions.
 
Part I is true; Part II is not. To clarify: CO2 is clearly a greenhouse gas -- but a very mild one, compared to the much larger quantity of a stronger GHG (water vapor) found naturally in the atmosphere.

In 1984, Drs. Hansen and cronies postulated a positive-feedback effect whereby CO2 acted to increase atmospheric H20, thereby amplifying its effects several times greater. This and this alone is what made CO2 a "dangerous pollutant". And yet, despite its utter lack of experimental evidence and increasing divergence from real-world data, it remains the core of modern global warming alarmism.

According to the NAS, CO2 has a forcing and feedback factor, and it's likely the former that's kicking in. In short, it doesn't have to be a "non-mild" greenhouse gas to have an effect on climate.
 
Since the year 2000, Western nations' total CO2 emissions and per capita emissions have actually decreased. Whereas China's and India's CO2 emissions have continued to rise significantly.

https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2023/the-changing-landscape-of-global-emissions

The first is part of the effects of late capitalism, which include increasing debt and with any manufacturing outsourced to poorer countries. Meanwhile, the latter want to be like the former, which means industrialization, and with that, increasing CO2 emissions.
 
Why don't you explain why Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus are also experiencing climate change? Don't have the budget to research it? Maybe you need more pHD's to figure it out.

Man made climate change is so severe that it's affecting the entire solar system we as a species are absolutely amazing.

 
We've been explaining why since the 1970s; you're simply not listening. The models consistently and severely overpredict warming, and the actual amount we'll experience will almost certainly have many more positive benefits than negative.

Another fun fact on which every climate scientist -- even the most alarmist -- agrees, but that journalists never report: CO2's effects follow a logarithmic forcing model -- the more you add, the less effective each increment actually is.

Actually, the NAS did a study on those reconstructions and they concluded that they are generally accurate.
 
And notice that, despite total CO2 Output being significantly higher, Florida is not underwater, despite the doomsday predictions, and we are still alive.


Remember when it was called global warming? How it was going to be the end of the world if we didn't throw away our trucks and buy hybrids? Climate "science" had a prediction model worse then meteorologists. At least they are sometimes right.

How many times have "experts" warned us that we have only "X" years left to reverse change or it becomes "permanent"? How many times have we explained that that is total nonsense? How many times have they been proven wrong? The beauty of the internet is that we can collect proof of these silly claims.

Here's an example:
View attachment 90114

This is an image from a German environmental magazine, where the top headline reads "Larger than expected snowfall the result of climate change" and the bottom reads" Lack of snowfall the result of climate change". There were BOTH from 2023. Here's another:

View attachment 90115

18 years ago, we had 10 years left to "save the world". The same line of argumentation was used by the likes of AoC in congress in the last 2 years. When climate "experts" constantly post contradictory claims like this, it's no wonder people dont believe you.

For the better part of 50 years, environmentalist groups have had the ear of policy makers the world over. For 50 years, we've been hearing contradictory evidence that conveniently always points out that there is an imminent crisis. And after 50 years, people are getting sick of it. As for that AI: LOL, farmers almanac was predicting the weather accurately 100 years ago. What AI were they using then? Chat GPT: steam powered edition? That proves nothing.

Environmentalism has gone from a movement to clean the air and water, to a religion, if not an outright death cult, that is convinced if we dont destroy everything we have built and buy into their new hype speech, the whole world is going to perish. The rapture! The rapture! Prepare your souls! Like any good religion, deviation from the sermons of the faithful is seen as blasphemous, and must be silenced. And like any good religion, the wheels start coming off as more people question their intent. This is why "None of the huge polluters, gas, oil, coal , transit, farming etc with all their billions can muster a single argument why man made climate change is not essential true in most details.In fact it's on record some knew from late 1960s and 1970s
Not one.". Because you refuse to believe in scriptures that disagree with your holy book.

Frankly, if environmentalists cared, they wouldnt have stood in the way of 50 years of nuclear progress. They wouldnt be pushing for new "energy efficiency" requirements that turn appliances from 50 year tools to 5 year disposable junk. They wouldnt be clearing marshlands in florida to put up solar panels. The list goes on. It's a cult, one that uses its beliefs to hammer everyone who doesnt agree with them. And especially after 2020, people have had enough of "experts" trying to flatten them under overt messaging.

Good grief.

 
As I recall, there were numerous studies published, and multiply-redundant news stories hyping the fact that CO2 is being released from the ocean due to global warming, thus endangering our lives.

Yet the new thing is to get rid of the CO2 by putting it back into the ocean?

Where is can be released, over and over?
 
I sincerely don't understand how some of the commenters in here function in our society being this ignorant? You are not smarter than scientists. Seriously, get over yourselves. I have climate change rules that govern every aspect of my tiny little O&G company. If the Railroad Commission in Texas believes in climate change, you had better catch up?
 
I sincerely don't understand how some of the commenters in here function in our society being this ignorant? You are not smarter than scientists. Seriously, get over yourselves. I have climate change rules that govern every aspect of my tiny little O&G company. If the Railroad Commission in Texas believes in climate change, you had better catch up?
Yeah, "catching up" isn't exactly what that right wing media cult is known for.
You are talking to people that still believe dooms day predictions in the 70s and 80s were a scientific consensus.

"a significantly greater number - approximately six times more - published papers indicating the opposite - that we were warming. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gases that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would exert a much stronger influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects."

GlobalCooling.JPG


"Results showed that despite the media claims, just ten percent of papers predicted a cooling trend. On the other hand, 62% predicted global warming and 28% made no comment either way. The take-home from this one? It's the old media adage, Never let the truth get in the way of a good story”


I put the last sentence in italics because, well, look at the idiocy of some of the claims above.

"Unfortunately though, the small number of predictions of an ice age were far more 'sticky' than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the 1970s popular press that so many people tend to remember. Sticky themes sell papers."

All the sourcing is listed. Including Nature, the JSTOR archives, and the American Meteorological Society.
NASA, NOAA, and the NWS also have published supportive writings over the decades.


“You know it's true…
Every disaster movie begins with a scientist being ignored.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
 
Last edited:
Actually, the NAS did a study on those reconstructions and they concluded that they are generally accurate.
Actually, no. Hansen's '80s-era models overpredicted current warming from 0.3C - 0.4C (depending on model version) using his "business as usual" scenario. That doesn't sound terrible .. until you realize CO2 emissions didn't continue business as usual: the rapid industrialization of China, India, and much of SE Asia led to a doubling to emissions, which should have resulted in a world nearly one full degree C warmer than it actually is.


How about all the models that predicted a large increase in hurricane activity? What actually occurred was a decade of the lowest hurricane activity ever on record. So the models were revised to now predict a 25-35% decrease in total hurricane/cyclone activity ... but still the media reports the exact opposite:

 
We've been explaining why since the 1970s; you're simply not listening. The models consistently and severely overpredict warming, and the actual amount we'll experience will almost certainly have many more positive benefits than negative.

Another fun fact on which every climate scientist -- even the most alarmist -- agrees, but that journalists never report: CO2's effects follow a logarithmic forcing model -- the more you add, the less effective each increment actually is.

You have not put up, what is your model, what is causing this warming

Saying "logarithmic forcing model" is just a distraction to the masses
The current models are pretty accurate , if anything they have under predicted

Pretty much all these gotchas like "logarithmic forcing model"
are all built into models

The one I used to laugh about, was deniers used to say but when ice melts water level didn't rise. Like they knew need something all the climate searchers didn't know.
A simple search could have explain how far from the reality they were

Modelling is always improving , unexpected consequences
Some make it warmer - eg cleaning up certain types of pollution- eg more efficient shipping means less carbon for fuel , and less cooling pollants being belched out
forest fires release carbon but produce a lot of smoke

Your gotcha pales in significance to huge additives , less ice coverage , less heat reflected back into space and dark ground/water warms up a lot more

Given most deniers are old guys , you already know this is spring snow melt, when a rock becomes exposed they melt around it accelerates it

as planet warms permafrost releases methane that has a very strong "short" term effect

The current models are really good and probably now have thousands of stuff build in, they even include galactic dust moving through our solar system reducing sunlight to planet

What is your model ?
What are your predictions?
Did you argue 10 to 20 years ago it was a lie that that world was not getting warmer - like ALL deniers did back then ?
 
Back