[Note: Chris Martz is a must-follow on X, a meteorology student who has been driving climate alarmists nuts for the past year or so on that platform with posts questioning their prevailing narratives.
and my favorite - since 95% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is naturally occurring, that means the most that could be removed, if we somehow magically removed all CO2 from burning fossil fuels, amounts to something like 1 one hundredth of 1% of the - so you really believe that changing the makeup of the atmosphere by 1 one hundredth of 1% is going to create the perfect climate
Mr. Martz is asking excellent questions. As a meteorology student though, he should forget sending his resume to the Weather Channel- he’ll never get a job there! I was traveling recently and had to do some work in a hotel business center, which had a TV running. The TV was turned to the Weather Channel. In between weather updates, the reporters were continually talking about how weather will worsen as temperatures rise due to climate change. I’ve never seen such alarmist broadcasting, not even on CNN! Watching “King of Queens” would have been more insightful. In any event it’s refreshing to see a meteorology expert discuss facts! Thanks for sharing this, David!
Bingo bango bongo. Try and count the many ways our lives would be better if they kept their religion to themselves and stop the collective might of Big G and business cronies that alone benefit.
Cost of living, itself, would normalize. Cost of ignoring, manipulating, and making up "truth" is gigantic.
Climatology in and of itself however has been useful in establishing planting zones for agricultural crops for example. It has been however also subject to falsification with using bad data sets and models. It's like knowing that medical peer reviewed studies have been both falsified and that over 50 percent cannot be duplicated. Recall that the Gates heavily funded Imperial College of London gave us the model that used a very bad dataset that gave us what he needed, a Plandemic.
On point 7, I am ready to meet with any leftist greenie that volunteers to pay my share of their forced dream to collect my payment. Of course let’s meet very soon as there aren’t enough leftist greenies to cover true entire population; and like a leftist greenie I want mine before anyone else’s.
The total absurdity of the entire green movement is just staggering.
But I do agree, they should show us the way to net zero by personal demonstration, today or tomorrow would be just great.
Bill Gates claimed he is doing it. Of course he's an expert because he wrote a book on it. Someone shared a copy with me. I'm sure to use that carbon block when I need to add to the firebox someday, soy ink and all.
On Number 9, in the early 1990's I spoke to the issue called the Greenhouse effect back then with Dr. William Kellogg of the Aspen Institute.
I offered the argument that intensified energy conservation could reduce power consumption in the long term by up to 50% in the residential market alone. (Most homes even today woefully uninsulated, bad fenestration, no passive and active solar use...etc.) None of the three Nuclear power advocates with PhD's could refute the argument that by doing so, there really was no need for new nuke plants. As for coal, the real issues are all about removing the sulfur and the mercury , both which do well established harm to ecosystems. A coal fired power plant run by the Public Service Company of New Mexico is being shuttered now. It was caught about a decade ago shutting their scrubbers down and running two sets of books on pollution controls.
We can improve energy conservation and production at the same time. But even with aggressive conservation, we will still need dramatically increased production going forward. That would be true even without growing AI data centers, but the demand for AI will greatly increase demand in coming years and decades.
Also, passive and active solar on homes is ugly and expensive, and no one would have it if not for the myriad of govenment subsidies. Were it not for absurd overregulation, nuclear power would be very economical. We know that for fact because it WAS very economical in the early days back in the 60s and 70s, before the overregulation began. And it proved to be the safest and cleanest form of energy by far. Read Jack Devanney's substack articles on the topic. https://substack.com/@jackdevanney
I will check it out but do realize that a judgement call on beauty is hardly a good one when my use of a south facing solar wall has been a hybrid passive active system in and operating since 1982. Passive storage was also taken advantage of as the home was built of CMU which was exterior insulated. However like anything else it does have maintenance. (Otherwise guys would have nothing else to do but play bloody war games)
Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My wife and I think solar panels on rooftops are ugly, particularly the ones that are not rectangular and look like jigsaw puzzles for some reason that I don't understand. Others may disagree, however.
What bothers me more than aesthetics, however, is the economics. The newer thorium nuclear designs are so incredibly efficient and energy-dense that they can produce all the energy you will use for your entire lifetime with a piece of throrium about the size of a golf ball. If you think about that a bit, you realize that it makes solar and wind seem incredibly inefficient in terms of resource consumption.
Oh my. Another attempt for true believing. Any use of molten salt in reactors is extremely problematic and expensive. We knew this in the 90's and yet it appears that physicists and engineers have still that hurdle to overcome. Here the Canadians say maybe mid century. Well, I guess those with nuclear degrees still have to be paid. Meanwhile....zzzz and stop wasting tens of millions when all I ever wanted was a warm house in winter and passively cooled roofs to keep the surface temp in the home of the ceilings below body temperature.
Meanwhile can I be a bit pissed off at how bad Mastercool new generation evaporative coolers are working in comparison to the discontinued Sears Rotobelt design?
But then again demand for power must be generated otherwise EE's would have less work to do too.
By the way if the Climate Scary Pants need something to kvetch about they really should do something about those Hunga Tonga eruptions. Satellite video available of GHG hitting into the upper stratosphere. Kills off a lot of the natural diurnal heat cycle we in the southwest depend on for cooling down homes at night.
I don't have time for a deep dive into this issue, but the article you cited is outdated and far from credible. In discussing the first experimental MSR, they point out that it required many unplanned shutdowns -- as if that would be unexpected for a prototype reactor. That is a bit like pointing out that the Wright Brothers had no assigned seating or cargo space on their first airplanes.
If you are interested in something more current, ThorCon is actually building MSR reactors. https://thorconpower.com/ Here is an excerpt from their website:
What is Thorcon? The Thorcon 500 is a molten salt fission reactor. Unlike all current nuclear reactors, the fuel is in liquid form. It can be moved around with a pump and passively drained. This 500 MW fission power plant is encapsulated in a hull, built in a shipyard, towed to a shallow water site, ballasted to the seabed. Visit Designs

Ready to Go. Thorcon requires no new technology. Thorcon has scaled up the successful United States Oak Ridge National Laboratory Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE). A full-scale 500 MW Thorcon 500 prototype can be operating under test by 2029. After proving the plant safely handles multiple potential failures and problems, commercial power plant production can begin. Visit MSRE.
The people who buy into this absolute climate lie are lazy, do not read and only hear sound bites that they do not question. I cannot believe there are that many stupid people walking around, plus the really, really ignorant ones screaming in the streets, glueing themselves to roadways and throwing paint on priceless historical objects. 😡
If sequestering carbon dioxide in underground reservoirs is going to help reduce climate change, then show me the calculations of how much in tonnes per year must be sequestered in order to make a measurable difference and show me how much reservoir capacity that will take. Also explain how it will be possible to contain carbon dioxide in the planned saline aquifers which in many cases have surface outcrops of the same formations.
If hydrogen is a good alternative fuel, then how does that account for the fact that hydrogen is itself a sort of co-enabler greenhouse gas, which reduces the amount of the reaction that eliminates methane from the atmosphere, thus being about ten times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, and show me how all these new hydrogen facilities, pipelines, storage tanks, fuel tanks, and consumers are not going to leak any hydrogen.
If mining is so bad, then why not ban all products that use mined metals like copper, lithium, rare earth metals, cobalt, nickel, germanium, and all the things that are used for building alternative energy devices like batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines?
If 99.99% of all the carbon dioxide on the planet has already been permanently sequestered by natural means, by carbonate forming organisms in the ocean, and stored as carbonate rocks for perpetuity or until plate tectonics pushes them into a plate boundary volcanic or metamorphic reaction, how much is left to sequester and is there enough to sustain life if we reduce the current atmospheric levels by enough to reach the "ideal" climate?
Most of the methane in the atmosphere comes from natural seeps and other natural sources. Earthquakes are known to cause methane seeps to have rapid increases in rates of release, so why is it we can't let natural gas drillers reduce the amount of methane stored underground in the areas where there are natural seeps (e.g. California offshore, Gulf of Mexico offshore, Black Sea, Greenland and Barents Sea- considered largest in the world, Mid-Atlantic Bight offshore US East Coast, etc.) in order to prevent the inevitable release of this methane if we do not remove it from those underground reservoirs? And what do we do about the many natural biogenic methane reservoirs that produce methane actively, if we don't collect and use that methane before it reaches pressures that will cause it to move out of the reservoirs to the surface, where it goes into the atmosphere? There are even reservoirs of coal-bed methane that naturally leak methane to the surface (San Juan Basin where outcrops at the edge of the basin would catch fire and burn for years back in the 1800's before anyone drilled it). These methane seeps are common world wide around similar basins. So should we stop reducing the pressure in those reservoirs by not producing the methane and just let it go back to its natural method of release into the atmosphere?
And finally, if methane is 1931 parts per BILLION in the atmosphere, which is less than 2 parts per MILLION that carbon dioxide is measured in the atmosphere, then why is less than 2 parts per million of a gas that has a 7.5 year half life in the atmosphere, compared to 422 part per million for carbon dioxide at present, and has a very long life in the atmosphere (unless we remove it) such a problem? E If you believe the 28 times potency factor for the 100 year projection that still makes methane no more that 16% of the total greenhouse gases (source IPCC) and since we don't measure natural release of methane from soil (seeping from underground methane reservoirs), from natural surface seeps, or from ocean floor seeps, how much do we think we can reduce that even if we stopped using methane for anything? Would it change our climate?
and my favorite - since 95% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is naturally occurring, that means the most that could be removed, if we somehow magically removed all CO2 from burning fossil fuels, amounts to something like 1 one hundredth of 1% of the - so you really believe that changing the makeup of the atmosphere by 1 one hundredth of 1% is going to create the perfect climate
“Climate pant-soilers” 😂
I thought that was a good turn of a phrase. Would sure make a good protest sticker or poster.
Mr. Martz is asking excellent questions. As a meteorology student though, he should forget sending his resume to the Weather Channel- he’ll never get a job there! I was traveling recently and had to do some work in a hotel business center, which had a TV running. The TV was turned to the Weather Channel. In between weather updates, the reporters were continually talking about how weather will worsen as temperatures rise due to climate change. I’ve never seen such alarmist broadcasting, not even on CNN! Watching “King of Queens” would have been more insightful. In any event it’s refreshing to see a meteorology expert discuss facts! Thanks for sharing this, David!
I too wish the weather channel would net zero itself.
Bingo bango bongo. Try and count the many ways our lives would be better if they kept their religion to themselves and stop the collective might of Big G and business cronies that alone benefit.
Cost of living, itself, would normalize. Cost of ignoring, manipulating, and making up "truth" is gigantic.
Climatology in and of itself however has been useful in establishing planting zones for agricultural crops for example. It has been however also subject to falsification with using bad data sets and models. It's like knowing that medical peer reviewed studies have been both falsified and that over 50 percent cannot be duplicated. Recall that the Gates heavily funded Imperial College of London gave us the model that used a very bad dataset that gave us what he needed, a Plandemic.
Exactly!
On point 7, I am ready to meet with any leftist greenie that volunteers to pay my share of their forced dream to collect my payment. Of course let’s meet very soon as there aren’t enough leftist greenies to cover true entire population; and like a leftist greenie I want mine before anyone else’s.
The total absurdity of the entire green movement is just staggering.
But I do agree, they should show us the way to net zero by personal demonstration, today or tomorrow would be just great.
Bill Gates claimed he is doing it. Of course he's an expert because he wrote a book on it. Someone shared a copy with me. I'm sure to use that carbon block when I need to add to the firebox someday, soy ink and all.
The Empire Solar Minimum starting in 2030 will settle the question with several hundred yrs. of cold weather.
On Number 9, in the early 1990's I spoke to the issue called the Greenhouse effect back then with Dr. William Kellogg of the Aspen Institute.
I offered the argument that intensified energy conservation could reduce power consumption in the long term by up to 50% in the residential market alone. (Most homes even today woefully uninsulated, bad fenestration, no passive and active solar use...etc.) None of the three Nuclear power advocates with PhD's could refute the argument that by doing so, there really was no need for new nuke plants. As for coal, the real issues are all about removing the sulfur and the mercury , both which do well established harm to ecosystems. A coal fired power plant run by the Public Service Company of New Mexico is being shuttered now. It was caught about a decade ago shutting their scrubbers down and running two sets of books on pollution controls.
We can improve energy conservation and production at the same time. But even with aggressive conservation, we will still need dramatically increased production going forward. That would be true even without growing AI data centers, but the demand for AI will greatly increase demand in coming years and decades.
Also, passive and active solar on homes is ugly and expensive, and no one would have it if not for the myriad of govenment subsidies. Were it not for absurd overregulation, nuclear power would be very economical. We know that for fact because it WAS very economical in the early days back in the 60s and 70s, before the overregulation began. And it proved to be the safest and cleanest form of energy by far. Read Jack Devanney's substack articles on the topic. https://substack.com/@jackdevanney
I will check it out but do realize that a judgement call on beauty is hardly a good one when my use of a south facing solar wall has been a hybrid passive active system in and operating since 1982. Passive storage was also taken advantage of as the home was built of CMU which was exterior insulated. However like anything else it does have maintenance. (Otherwise guys would have nothing else to do but play bloody war games)
Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My wife and I think solar panels on rooftops are ugly, particularly the ones that are not rectangular and look like jigsaw puzzles for some reason that I don't understand. Others may disagree, however.
What bothers me more than aesthetics, however, is the economics. The newer thorium nuclear designs are so incredibly efficient and energy-dense that they can produce all the energy you will use for your entire lifetime with a piece of throrium about the size of a golf ball. If you think about that a bit, you realize that it makes solar and wind seem incredibly inefficient in terms of resource consumption.
Oh my. Another attempt for true believing. Any use of molten salt in reactors is extremely problematic and expensive. We knew this in the 90's and yet it appears that physicists and engineers have still that hurdle to overcome. Here the Canadians say maybe mid century. Well, I guess those with nuclear degrees still have to be paid. Meanwhile....zzzz and stop wasting tens of millions when all I ever wanted was a warm house in winter and passively cooled roofs to keep the surface temp in the home of the ceilings below body temperature.
Meanwhile can I be a bit pissed off at how bad Mastercool new generation evaporative coolers are working in comparison to the discontinued Sears Rotobelt design?
But then again demand for power must be generated otherwise EE's would have less work to do too.
By the way if the Climate Scary Pants need something to kvetch about they really should do something about those Hunga Tonga eruptions. Satellite video available of GHG hitting into the upper stratosphere. Kills off a lot of the natural diurnal heat cycle we in the southwest depend on for cooling down homes at night.
https://theconversation.com/nuclear-power-why-molten-salt-reactors-are-problematic-and-canada-investing-in-them-is-a-waste-167019
Geophys Res Lett. 2022 Jul 16; 49(13): e2022GL099381.
Published online 2022 Jul 1. doi: 10.1029/2022GL099381
PMCID: PMC9285945
PMID: 35865735
The Hunga Tonga‐Hunga Ha'apai Hydration of the Stratosphere
I don't have time for a deep dive into this issue, but the article you cited is outdated and far from credible. In discussing the first experimental MSR, they point out that it required many unplanned shutdowns -- as if that would be unexpected for a prototype reactor. That is a bit like pointing out that the Wright Brothers had no assigned seating or cargo space on their first airplanes.
If you are interested in something more current, ThorCon is actually building MSR reactors. https://thorconpower.com/ Here is an excerpt from their website:
What is Thorcon? The Thorcon 500 is a molten salt fission reactor. Unlike all current nuclear reactors, the fuel is in liquid form. It can be moved around with a pump and passively drained. This 500 MW fission power plant is encapsulated in a hull, built in a shipyard, towed to a shallow water site, ballasted to the seabed. Visit Designs

Ready to Go. Thorcon requires no new technology. Thorcon has scaled up the successful United States Oak Ridge National Laboratory Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE). A full-scale 500 MW Thorcon 500 prototype can be operating under test by 2029. After proving the plant safely handles multiple potential failures and problems, commercial power plant production can begin. Visit MSRE.
Again, cost per KWH? And, the proof is we still have none commercially built or did I miss something
https://www.nanalyze.com/2015/10/6-nuclear-energy-companies-building-molten-salt-reactors/
Duh! Not a "gold ball," a golf ball!
The people who buy into this absolute climate lie are lazy, do not read and only hear sound bites that they do not question. I cannot believe there are that many stupid people walking around, plus the really, really ignorant ones screaming in the streets, glueing themselves to roadways and throwing paint on priceless historical objects. 😡
Let me add a few more off the top of my head:
If sequestering carbon dioxide in underground reservoirs is going to help reduce climate change, then show me the calculations of how much in tonnes per year must be sequestered in order to make a measurable difference and show me how much reservoir capacity that will take. Also explain how it will be possible to contain carbon dioxide in the planned saline aquifers which in many cases have surface outcrops of the same formations.
If hydrogen is a good alternative fuel, then how does that account for the fact that hydrogen is itself a sort of co-enabler greenhouse gas, which reduces the amount of the reaction that eliminates methane from the atmosphere, thus being about ten times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, and show me how all these new hydrogen facilities, pipelines, storage tanks, fuel tanks, and consumers are not going to leak any hydrogen.
If mining is so bad, then why not ban all products that use mined metals like copper, lithium, rare earth metals, cobalt, nickel, germanium, and all the things that are used for building alternative energy devices like batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines?
If 99.99% of all the carbon dioxide on the planet has already been permanently sequestered by natural means, by carbonate forming organisms in the ocean, and stored as carbonate rocks for perpetuity or until plate tectonics pushes them into a plate boundary volcanic or metamorphic reaction, how much is left to sequester and is there enough to sustain life if we reduce the current atmospheric levels by enough to reach the "ideal" climate?
Most of the methane in the atmosphere comes from natural seeps and other natural sources. Earthquakes are known to cause methane seeps to have rapid increases in rates of release, so why is it we can't let natural gas drillers reduce the amount of methane stored underground in the areas where there are natural seeps (e.g. California offshore, Gulf of Mexico offshore, Black Sea, Greenland and Barents Sea- considered largest in the world, Mid-Atlantic Bight offshore US East Coast, etc.) in order to prevent the inevitable release of this methane if we do not remove it from those underground reservoirs? And what do we do about the many natural biogenic methane reservoirs that produce methane actively, if we don't collect and use that methane before it reaches pressures that will cause it to move out of the reservoirs to the surface, where it goes into the atmosphere? There are even reservoirs of coal-bed methane that naturally leak methane to the surface (San Juan Basin where outcrops at the edge of the basin would catch fire and burn for years back in the 1800's before anyone drilled it). These methane seeps are common world wide around similar basins. So should we stop reducing the pressure in those reservoirs by not producing the methane and just let it go back to its natural method of release into the atmosphere?
And finally, if methane is 1931 parts per BILLION in the atmosphere, which is less than 2 parts per MILLION that carbon dioxide is measured in the atmosphere, then why is less than 2 parts per million of a gas that has a 7.5 year half life in the atmosphere, compared to 422 part per million for carbon dioxide at present, and has a very long life in the atmosphere (unless we remove it) such a problem? E If you believe the 28 times potency factor for the 100 year projection that still makes methane no more that 16% of the total greenhouse gases (source IPCC) and since we don't measure natural release of methane from soil (seeping from underground methane reservoirs), from natural surface seeps, or from ocean floor seeps, how much do we think we can reduce that even if we stopped using methane for anything? Would it change our climate?
Brilliant David 👍 👏
11. Why don't you own an EV, since you voted for those who are shoving them upon us?
12. Why doesn't your home have solar panels, since you voted for those who are shutting down and dismantling our coal plants?
13. Why do you own a full sized ICE pickup if those are destroying the earth?
14. Why does it still dump snow in Atigun Pass, Elliot Highway, in the Books Range of Alaska, EVERY September if the earth is warming?