Senior decision-makers come together to connect around strategies and business trends affecting utilities.


No Evidence to Support Carbon Dioxide Causing Global Warming!

Bob Ashworth's picture
Sr. VP

Mr. Ashworth is a chemical engineer and has presented over 50 technical papers on fuels and fuel related subjects. Relating to the subject of global warming, he has written two papers, "CFC...

  • Member since 2004
  • 143 items added with 31,914 views
  • May 11, 2009 12:00 pm GMT

In the early nineties, some scientists were saying that carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions were causing global warming. This was disturbing to the author; a chemical engineer who has worked on coal conversion processes his whole life. Before it was investigated as to whether or not this was really true, the author developed a scheme to remove CO2 from power plant flue gas by bubbling it through a pond of water to form algae, then skimming it off, drying it and feeding it back to the power plant as a fuel to be blended with the coal. This would do two things, reduce the overall CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, and conserve our coal reserves. After investigating CO2 as a cause of global warming, it appeared at that time to be false.

In the late 1990's it was brought up again and in 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced that CO2 was causing the earth to warm and developed computer models to predict how much the earth would warm in the future. In 2006-2007, the author evaluated this again in depth and found the premise was clearly false. IPCC scientists did not relay that, during the time from the mid 1960's to 1998, the stratosphere cooled almost three times as much as the earth warmed. From this input, the author could prove that CFC destruction of ozone, not CO2, was the cause of the abnormal warming over that period. He wrote a paper on his CFC destruction of ozone findings. However, putting this aside, does any evidence exist to support the premise that increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have caused the earth to warm?

Do Scientists Support Global Warming?

First, most scientists do not agree with the CO2 global warming premise! In the United States 31,478 scientists, including the author, have signed a petition rejecting the Kyoto global warming agreement (see Figure 1) and of these, 9,029 have PhDs, including Dr. Edward Teller.

Figure 1. Rejection of Kyoto Global Warming Agreement 1size="1">.

In addition, U.S. Senator James Inhofe 2size="1"> (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, recently delivered a global warming speech entitled: "Global Warming Consensus in Freefall: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims." Inhofe also detailed the growing number of left of center scientists and environmental activists who are speaking out to reject man-made climate fears.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT Professor of Atmospheric Science and past UN IPCC contributor, explained that only a few scientists were involved in writing the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report 3size="1">. Although purported to speak for thousands of scientists, it was not thousands offering their consensus. Dr. Lindzen participated in that and said, "Each person who was an author wrote one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They traveled around the world several times a year for several years to write it, and the summary for policymakers had the input of about 13 of the scientists. Ultimately, it was written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit."

Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" Documentary has Cause and Effect Reversed

In the documentary "Inconvenient Truth", Al Gore conveniently separated the Vostok Ice core temperature and CO2 graphs so you could not see which came first, a warming spike or a CO2 spike. He said that a CO2 spike came first but alas, it was the just the opposite! When the graphs are combined, it is clearly seen that a global warming spike always comes first (blue line). This warms the oceans, which reduces the solubility of CO2 in water and results in the liberation of CO2 from the oceans. He also gave no explanation what would cause a CO2 spike to occur in the first place. What is so disturbing is that climatologists, like Al Gore, seem to have a problem discerning cause and effect. It is very simple and does not require a rocket scientist. If what you call an effect comes first, you have it backwards; the cause comes first to produce the effect.

Figure 2. Vostok, Antarctica Ice Core Data 4size="1">.

Does Atmospheric CO2 Change Correlate with Earth Temperature Change?

Does a correlation exist between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the earth's temperature? No, that does not exist. Does an increase in CO2 cause the earth's temperature to increase? No, look at Figure 3 below developed by Joseph D'Aleo, certified meteorologist. Even a non-scientist can see there is absolutely no correlation between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and the earth's temperature. If there were a correlation, they both would rise and fall together. The CO2 has been on a continuous upward trend -- not true for the earth's temperature.

The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. Two sets of temperature measurements are shown, one set by NASA's Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) for the troposphere and the other by the UK's Hadley Climate Research Unit for the land and sea. Both show declining temperatures over time even as CO2 has increased from 366 ppmv in January 1998 to 385 ppmv by January 2008. Note that the earth surface temperature (pink line) in January 2008 was some 0.48 oC cooler than it was in January 2003.

Figure 3. Earth Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 Concentration 5size="1">.

Global warming advocates also say that CO2 builds up in the atmosphere over a 50 to 250 year period, but this cannot be true either. Figure 3 above shows that the CO2 concentration oscillates based on the growing season in the Northern Hemisphere. The ratio of land to ocean in the Northern Hemisphere is about 1 to 1.5 and in the Southern Hemisphere is 1 to 4. Therefore, the Northern Hemisphere with much more land mass has a growing season that dominates the Southern Hemisphere growing season with respect to absorption of CO2.

As shown in Figure 3 above, each year around April, increased CO2 absorption by plants in the Northern Hemisphere starts reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere and the reduction continues until around mid to late August when plants start to go dormant. The cycles occur on a regular yearly basis and the swing in CO2 concentration is in the 5 to 8 ppmv range. If CO2 stayed in the atmosphere for long periods before being consumed, the season to season cyclic effect would not be seen. It is clear that nature reacts very fast in its consumption of carbon dioxide.

The graph in Figure 4 shows the IPPC computer modeling projections from the year 2000 to 2100 based on various assumptions of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. The black line from 1998 to 2008 was added by the author to the IPCC graph; it shows the actual measured surface temperatures.

Figure 4. IPPC Predictions compared to Actual Surface Temperature Measurements 6size="1">.

The actual temperature for 2008 was some 0.43 Degrees C cooler than the IPCC projection based on the assumption that atmospheric CO2 concentration remained constant with time. On an actual temperature basis, one sees that the IPCC models predict temperatures that are not even close to actual measurements. The temperature in 2008 was the same as in 1982. To this old chemical engineer, the predictions represent the classic "garbage in -- garbage out" analysis for computer models. It reminds me of the computer models used to predict where Hurricane Ike would hit the U. S. in 2008. Five meteorological models all predicted the hurricane would hit the west coast of Florida, then changed it to New Orleans, then to Galveston, down to Corpus Christi and then back up to Galveston, where it finally hit, all of this over a five day period. Here again, meteorological models are not trustworthy.

Human Made Emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Do you realize that CO2 emissions created by man's activities, combustion of fuels, etc. (called Anthropogenic emissions) is miniscule compared to the emissions of CO2 from nature? Table 1 was developed by the IPCC. It shows annual CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from both nature and man and how much of the CO2 emitted is re-absorbed by nature.

Carbon Dioxide Natural Human Made Total Absorption
Annual Million Metric Tons 770,000 23,100 793,100 781,400
% of Total 97.1% 2.9% 100% 98.5%


Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
(Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press, 2001), Figure 3.1, p. 188.

Using the table above in combination with a total concentration of 385 ppmv of CO2 seen in the atmosphere in January 2008, one sees that the increase in CO2 caused by all of man's activities amounted to only 11.5 ppmv. The amount of CO2 from man is a mouse milk quantity compared to nature's emissions. If we eliminated all anthropogenic CO2 emissions, we would go back to the level we had in 2001-2002 when it was warmer than it is now.

Nature absorbs 98.5% of the CO2 that is emitted by nature and man. As CO2 increases in the atmosphere, nature's controlling mechanism causes plant growth to increase via photosynthesis; CO2 is absorbed, and oxygen is liberated. Photosynthesis is an endothermic (cooling) reaction. Further, a doubling of CO2 will increase the photosynthesis rate by 30 to 100%, depending on other environmental conditions such as temperature and available moisture 7size="1">. More CO2 is absorbed by the plants due to the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere available for conversion to carbohydrates. Nature therefore has in place a built-in mechanism to regulate the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere that will always completely dwarf man's feeble attempts to regulate it. Further, no regulation by man is necessary because CO2 is not a pollutant; it is part of the animal-plant life cycle. Without it, life would not exist on earth. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases plant growth, which is a very good thing during a period of world population growth and an increasing demand for food.

No Greenhouse Signature in Atmosphere

There are several possible causes of global warming, and each warms the atmosphere at different latitudes and altitudes. Each cause will produce a distinct pattern of hot spots in the atmosphere and will leave its "signature". The greenhouse signature is very distinct -- see Figure 5. If this signature were present, warming would be concentrated in a distinct "hot spot" about 8 to 12 km up over the tropics, with less warming further away, turning to cooling above 18 km. Actual measurements have been taken where the warming is occurring using satellites and balloons.

The observed signature is shown in Figure 6. As one can clearly see, the actual signature is nothing like the predicted IPCC "Greenhouse" signature. The greenhouse signature is not seen -- no "hot spot" exists! Although not shown here, the actual signature is most like the one the IPCC developed for ozone depletion.

Figure 5. Theoretical Greenhouse Signature (UN climate models) 8size="1">.

Figure 6. Actual Observed Signature 9size="1">.

IPCC Greenhouse Effect is Impossible

The IPCC (Figure 7) analysis shows 390 watts/m2 being radiated from the earth (right side of graph) to the atmosphere, excluding thermals and water evaporation from plant leaves (evapo-transpiration) for simplicity, when only 168 watts/m2 is absorbed by the earth (left side of graph) in the first place. This graphic violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics, which in essence state that you cannot get more energy out of a system than you put into that system.

Figure 7. IPCC Greenhouse Effect 10size="1">.

If what the IPCC is presenting were true, for every unit of energy in, one would get back (390/168) = 2.32 units of energy. The U.S. Patent Office never awards a patent for a process that claims it gets more energy out than it puts in because thermodynamically it is quite impossible. Strangely, the IPCC promotes such nonsense to the people of the world and is not soundly rebuked for it!

A friend of mine, an analytical chemist 11size="1">, correctly writes, "As a further rebuttal of the influence of carbon dioxide over the climate, the alleged IPCC greenhouse effect is a non-existent effect. No greenhouse, whether made from glass, plastic, cardboard or steel will reach a higher inside temperature due to the magic of re-radiated IR energy. If it did, engineers would have long ago been able to design power stations made from air, mirrors and glass, extracting more energy out of it than was put into it -- if only!"

Carbon Tax Effect on the Average American

Taxing carbon would do absolutely nothing to improve the climate but would be a devastating economic hardship to the people in the world. Following is a summary of the U.S. carbon tax legislation 12 proposed by Michigan Representative John Dingell:

Tax on carbon content:

$50 / ton of carbon (phased in over 5 years and then adjusted for inflation)

Let us complete a ballpark analysis of the impact of a carbon tax on the cost of electricity. In the United States, 50% of our electricity comes from coal-fired power plants. According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), the average open-market selling price in 2007 was $40.80/ton for bituminous coal (12,500 Btu/lb and 70- wt% carbon). Therefore, the tax on bituminous coal would be around $35/ton (~86% of its open market selling price).

The average selling price of electricity to residential users in 2007 was $0.1061/kWhr. Assuming a heat rate of 10,000 Btu/kWhr of electricity generated for bituminous coal, the carbon tax would add $0.014/kWhr of electricity, a 13% increase.

Tax on gasoline:

$0.50/gallon of gasoline, jet fuel, kerosene (petroleum based), added to current gasoline tax phased in over 5 years and adjusted for inflation. This $0.50/gallon gas tax is in addition to what is derived from the per ton carbon tax in the previous section.

Consider gasoline contains 86-wt % carbon and weighs 6.5 lb/gal. Dingell's carbon tax would add $43/ton of gasoline or $0.14/gallon. When added to the $0.50/gal tax will equate to $0.64/gal. Based on an initial gasoline selling price of $2.00/gallon with the added carbon taxes, the price would increase to $2.64/gal, a 32% increase.


Based on actual data, CO2 causing global warming is clearly a figment of the IPCC's imagination. The lesson to the world here is, when it comes to science, never blindly accept an explanation from a politician or scientists who have turned political for their own private gain. Taxing carbon will have absolutely no beneficial effect on our climate, will hurt the economies of the world, and will be harmful to the production of food because less carbon dioxide means reduced plant growth. Many scientists, including the author, see global warming from CO2 as a cruel global swindle, so that a few, at the expense of the many, can reap huge profits from carbon taxes.


1. Global Warming Petition Project, Click Here
2. Click Here
3. Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming 'Silly' - Equates Concerns to Little Kids
Attempting to "Scare Each Other", February 1, 2007 U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Click Here
4. Petit, J.R., et. al., "Climate and Atmospheric History of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica", Nature 399: 429-436, June 3, 1999.
5. D'Aleo, J. S., "Correlation Last Decade and This Century CO2 and Global Temperatures Not There"
Click Here
6. NASA Earth Observatory, based on IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007)
(Click Here) and Hadley Climate Research Unit, Global Temperature Record, Phil Jones, Click Here
7. Pearch, R.W. and Bjorkman, O., "Physiological effects", in Lemon, E.R. (ed.), CO 2 and Plants: The Response of Plants to Rising Levels of Atmospheric CO2 (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1983), pp 65-105
8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007, p. 675, based on Santer et al, 2003. See also IPCC, 2007, Appendix 9C).
9. "Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming, November 28, 2007", Dr. David Evans,
Click Here
10. J. T. Kiehl and Kevin E. Trenberth, Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 78, No. 2, page 206, February 1997 (adopted by IPCC 2007)
11. Comments to U. S. EPA on Global Warming, Hans Schreuder, November 15, 2008
Click Here
12. Carbon Tax Summary, Click Here


Bob Ashworth's picture
Thank Bob for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on May 19, 2009
Jim: It is a big deal because Figure 7 shows 168 watts /m^2 of radiant energy hitting the earth and 390 watts/m^2 of radiant energy being emitted by the earth . Further of the 168 watts/m^2 that hit the earth 102 watts/m^2 leave the earth from thermals and evapotranspiration. I was being generous to them before. (168-102) = 66 watts/m^2 actually being absorbed by the earth but through the magic of re-radiation 390 watts/m^2 is radiated away from the earth. A friend of mine, an analytical chemist who is testifying to the Ireland government later this week on global warming stated, "As a further rebuttal of the influence of carbon dioxide over the climate, the alleged IPCC greenhouse effect is a non-existent effect. No greenhouse, whether made from glass, plastic, cardboard or steel will reach a higher inside temperature due to the magic of re-radiated IR energy. If it did, engineers would have long ago been able to design power stations made from air, mirrors and glass, extracting more energy out of it than was put into it -- if only!"

Find yourself a boiler designer where he takes into consideration radiant energy from CO2 and water vapor in the furnace and ask him how does he account for the great amount of added energy in the system he will get from the IPCC greenhouse effect? I would like to hear his response.

If that doesn't satisfy you, if a greenhouse effect exists then why is there no greenhouse signature in the atmosphere as they claim has to be there. You think someone stole it while they weren't watching?

Further, if CO2 is a pollutant then so is water vapor. Haven't heard the IPCC talk about that have you?

Ian Clothcap's picture
Ian Clothcap on May 19, 2009
Victor, we have so much food we can burn it as fuel. Fosfuel is good for a few hundred years. Fusion should become an economical reality before the end of the century, likewise hydrogen sourced energy. land may be a problem if science isn't allowed to advance. perhaps we could melt Greenland ice? That would also solve the potable water problem... For me attitude, religion and politics are the problem, not procreation.

As a lay "denier", I would like to offer my humble support Dr. Ashworth's essay. The "hole in the bucket" explains the short CO2 lifetime too.

The so called GHGs don't add energy to the system so they can't increase the energy available in the system or the amount emitted at the top of the atmosphere, but there is nothing wrong with the idea that they can delay the passage of IR out of the system by a volume increase. That cannot raise temperatures, but does extend the duration of their action on heat present. Is my interpretation correct? Nature absorbs 98.5% of emitted CO2. It doesn't play favorites. The IPCC plays kidology with their stats and blame game.

The IPCC science bloc, in apparent desperation due to the tiny warming ability of CO2, claim an H2O feedback. Latest info, courtesy of Dr. Spencer and others, strongly implies their speculation is far adrift from reality there too.

Last century's warming, if UHI corrections by various parties hold, is reduced below half a degree. Temperature already trended close to or below, depending on the stats used, Dr. Hansen and others' safe, expected natural increase as the cooling factors that caused the LIA reduce or vanish. That would appear to be around half a degree per century. The rest is political hot air IMO.

Oceans have proven a false saviour of the GHG warming myth as Dr. Pielke elucidated, there has been 0 warming of oceans for a decade.

Dr. Mann was mentioned above. His hockey stick "science" was found incompetent at best. The Antarctic study he was involved in was debunked as a product of statistical manipulation using data from a handful of stations. Sea ice has trended up since the early fifties. Large chunks of ice are wholly irrelevant except as photographic opportunities. Winter temperatures for East Antarctic have trended down in recent decades. Even the IPCC isn't disputing that. West Antarctic can be considered a different temperature zone. Arctic sea ice is recovering and glaciers, as expected following their spurt due to the reduction of blocking sea ice, are slowing down to a rate commensurate with their mass additions. NASA found up to 45% of warming was due to aerosols. If that is the penalty for cleaner air, I can live with that. On aerosols, another variable not accounted for in models, the ~0.33% pa biomass increase due to CO2 (to a large extent) must have a consequential pollen and spore increase (aerosols). Drs Phil Jones of CRU and Wang of a perhaps poorly administered uni have a problem with sharing info too. Strangely enough it relates to UHI.

Dr. Ashworth, thanks for your essay. Certainly ozone depletion must add energy because it blocks UV B and C and reducing the gas volume increases UV penetration. I hesitate to blame CFCs for the leading role in destruction, it is controversial as the trivial warming of last century had the knock-on effect of increasing stratospheric WV and we have little idea how the role of incoming UV above the stratosphere and solar proton emissions have varied as a consequence of the changing layer composition. There is also the unexpected recovery that shouldn't be happening with the lifetime of CFCs. Other variables may come in to play too, the highly variable temperatures of the upper layers (>1500 C) about which we know little for example.

Also, in Nature, "Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere - almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate. "This must have far-reaching consequences," Rex says. "If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being."

I think ozone has played a far greater role than science allows and I'm doing what I can to advance my knowledge in that area. Seeking such is how I arrived here and the reason for my post is mainly to seek assistance with my understanding. My main question is have there been developments as a result of the Nature article mentioned in the previous paragraph?

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on May 19, 2009
Jim, I know that, doesn't change a thing about this ridiculous essay.
David Bruderly's picture
David Bruderly on May 19, 2009
The errors in this analysis by Ashworth are many; in his critique of the heat balance shown in Figure 7 he completely ignores the 324w/m2 of back radiation from the atmosphere. This is just one of many inconvenient oversights. His "cause and effect" analysis of the time-series graph of temperature and CO2 concentrations over a period of 420,000 years in Figure 2 and 12 years in Figure 3 is equally ridiculous. His conclusions reflect a fundamental misuse of statistics and time series analysis. His comparisons of these data reflect a fundamental misinterpretation of the laws of physics and thermodynamics when applied at a global scale; time and scale are critical process variables that the author conveniently ignores. Perhaps these errors reflect the fact that the author is a chemical engineer used to working with high concentrations of reactants in pressure vessels in power plants and refineries rather than global scale transport phenomenom. Nevertheless this paper contains so many mistakes that his criticisms of the findings of the IPCC has no credibility with me. His economic analysis is just as biased; he completely overlooks a fundamental economic law: substitution. When the price of a commodity rises to a certain point in a market economy humans have a way of developing and using less expensive substitutes thus displacing the original commodity. His failure to recognize that low-carbon energy sources are available and are technically feasible is one more huge mistake. For example, substitution of compressed natural gas for gasoline yields an instant 30% reduction in life-cycle emissions of greenhouse gases at a cost to the consumer that is substantially lower than the current price of gasoline. Widespread conversion to domestically produced, cleaner, safer, more efficient low-carbon fuels and renewable energy technologies will have a net positive impact on the economy. My observation is that this analysis and the authors conclusions are based solely on his political ideology and belief system, not on fact and the application of appropriate and sound scientific analysis.

The tradegy of science education and policy analysis today is that policy makers do not have people on their staffs who have the education and experience to distinguish between junk science and legitimate science. Political science and english majors are poorly equiped to deal with real science; for that matter so are a lot of engineers.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on May 19, 2009

My CFC destruction of ozone paper can be found at

I found that the lower stratosphere-upper troposhpere had cooled almost three times as much as the earth and lower troposphere warmed from the mid sixties to 1998. From this, it was an easy matter to complete mass and energy balances that showed the cooling was great enough to account for the total earth warming over that time frame. The IPCC wants to include CFCs as greenhouse gases but that is not the problem. They destroy ozone and one CFC molecule, it is estimated, can destroy 100,000 molecules of ozone during its life up there.

Loss of ozone can account for all of the anomalies seen in the environment over that time frame. The CFC concentrations in the stratosphere have stopped rising now (Montreal Protocol) but haven't dropped much.

Hope this is helpful. After you read the paper I would be happy to provide any more info you might need if I can.

Scientists on neither side of the global warming debate has recognized the ozone effect except for Dr. David Evans. He used to do carbon accounting for Australia, originally believed in AGW from CO2 but changed his mind as new data came in. I sent him my paper and he replied I was more right than I knew. He sent me the IPCC greenhouse signature verus actual signature which is most like the loss of ozone effect.

Paul Ervin's picture
Paul Ervin on May 19, 2009
All, It seems everytime we get into these "whose science is correct" discussions we are fighting over whether or not we need to spend someone else's money on our research projects. Well as I (and others much wiser then me) usually point out "there is nothing new under the sun".

These projects have had money pumped into them over and over again and just as always, when the money runs out, the debate starts over again. Here's a refresher of the projects here in California that have had billions of dollars passed to activists and fill thousands of bookshelves with useless info.

Coolwater Coal Gasification Project- present state- dismantled. Coolwater Solar One- present - disabled equipment in place. California Biomass to Energy grants- used up DOE -Ethanol grants -used up .

There is a surplus of used equipment scattered across the state on projects that once the (taxpayer's) money ran out the project shut down.

The only "GREEN" jobs they have left in their wake are scrap metal recycling.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on May 19, 2009

I read your comments. I didn't overlook the back radiation. i didn't include it because it is thermodynamically impossible. Gore getting the cause and effect reversed is also true. The blue line is the temperature and the red line is the CO2 concentration in case you were confused by that. I think the ones who drew that graph may have switched the colors on purpose. Gore separated the lines so you could not see what happened first. Another commenter also did not look at the graph close enough and was confused by it. Nasif Nahle has analyzed this data over shorter time periods and one can easily see a global spike comes first followed by some 800 years before the CO2 concentration starts to increase as the solubility in the warmer sea water deceases and emits more CO2 into the atmopshere. The website I show in response to Ian is where you can find Nasif' Nahle's graph (Figure 2).

All I show is actual data. For you non-engineers, It doesn't matter how small or large a system is that you are analyzing. You draw a cirlce or sphere around it and energy in must equal energy out. I don't care if it is a planetary system or a universe thermodynamics still apply. That is the basis mass and energy balances in case you didn't know that.

If you think real data is ridiculous I think maybe you, Jim and Len should consider working on your "play station" perpetual motion machines - ONE UNIT OF ENERGY IN, 6 UNITS OR MORE OUT. Maybeyou can sell the deal to Gore.

Terry Mitchell's picture
Terry Mitchell on May 19, 2009
I am a geologist by training, and just want to offer a qualitative observation that many of you know, but some have chosen to ignore for whatever reasons. The Earth has undergone countless warming/cooling cycles (and related "CO2 events") throughout it many of hundreds of million years of existence long before mankind started combusting fossil fuels. The minor fluctuations that everyone is obsessing over today are likely real, but how the heck can anyone seriously attribute the primary driver as being human activity (and garner a Noble Prize in the process), or claim to have computer models capable of predicting the absurd disasters that the current voodoo GHG mantra does is beyond credibility, much less show proof that these fluctuations are not a normal and unstoppable cycle of Earth dynamics.

Thus, I am at a loss at understanding how the heck mankind can put a stop to something that is bigger than mankind (i.e., normal Earth dynamics) and that he did not "cause" (but only contribute to in some small part), much less how it could ever be done unless ALL of mankind (can you say China and India?) participate, much less how it would be successful at ANY cost, mush less justifying the US to finish destroying its fragile economy in a global marketplace with an very unlevel playing field by footing a globally disproportionate share of the money down the drain in vain.

What disappoints me the most is the knowledge that many of my professional peers know fully well that mankind is NOT the root cause of what is being observed by our all-too-recent modern technologies of measurement and garbage in/garbage out computer models, and that the forces at work are beyond our ability to control realistically, yet they either remain silent for fear of being shouted down by the left-wing elite or, worse, they self-servingly preach the GHG partyline and drink the "Gore coolaid" because that is where the grant money is today, not to mention the popularity poles and invitations to those elite cocktail parties with misguided Hollywood celebrities.

Having said all of that, I am fully supportive of mankind (especially Americans) becoming less wasteful in their energy lifestyles, more conservative in their carbon footprints and more responsible in general for their environment and that of the rest of our planet. Just do it sensibly based on sound reason and not bad science committed in the name of political correctness.

Thomas Stacy's picture
Thomas Stacy on May 19, 2009
The debate is over and the science is in! LOL!! The degree of certainty in the AGW religion is so low (How low is it?) ...

It is so low that you should spend more time worrying about a bolt falling from an airplane and killing you.

It takes a real egocentric to decide we can control the planet's climate, and a real imbecile not to recognize the ploy has everything to do with political control of energy . . . and life itself.

Achtung, America. Get back to your roots - schnell!

Yochai Glick's picture
Yochai Glick on May 19, 2009
Bob, Two simple questions if I may, but first let me state that I am not a scientist with any credentials to be on any petition or list, for or against, nor to write any relevant article. I do however have enough academic background in mathematics, statistics and physics to understand these articles. The 1st question is simple: If theoretically (and I stress theoretically), 200 years ago man had invented a gas, which emitted at sufficient rates would cause AGW and at that time started spewing out this gas at that rate, would any of your arguments change? My point is simple. Climate change cycles appear on extremely long periods; tens and hundreds of thousands of years. We weren't around long enough to make direct cause-effect measurements to be able to make reasonable extrapolations. Is it not therefore wrong (for both sides of the argument) to superimpose anthropogenic measurements (from the onset of the industrial age) on these cycles and draw conclusions? 2nd question: What about the rising levels of dissolved CO2 in oceans? Regardless of climate change, is the resulting environmental damage not sufficient to warrant reduction?
Herschel Specter's picture
Herschel Specter on May 19, 2009
I believe that there are two pathways to environmental disaster: One is from the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and the other from insufficent energy that leads to global warfare. I believe that we are on both of these pathways and one can not solve one challenge at the expense of the other.

However, suppose that you are skeptical about the importance of man's contribution to climate change or perhaps even do not believe that climate change is happening. It may not matter. If you examine what must be done to deal with global energy shortages, principally the disappearance of oil, then gas, and eventually coal, many of the actions that would have to be taken to deal with the threat of insufficient energy are precisely the same as what we would have to do with dealing with climate change. There is a huge amount of work-good science and great engineering- that needs to be done in any case and we have to move on beyond this particular argument about greenhouse gases and whether or not their effect is real. Will we have sufficient energy in the future? One place to look is what is practical for renewable energy a this time. I examined Mr.Gore's Repower proposal where he is basically calling for an all renewable electricity energy future just ten years from now. This proposal lets the remaining nuclear plants wither on the vine (no support for new plants) and calls for the rapid phasing out of present coal fired electricity and no mention of continuing gas fired electricity either. In their place would be wind turbines, solar electric plants in Henry Waxman's back yard, a national grid at huge expense that will not solve basic problems like grid stability or the intermittent nature of renewable energy.Even without the grid instability issue the Repower proposal won't come close to working. In a few words, the Repower proposal, in my view, borders on an abuse of power (pun intended). Yet it seems to be the mantra of many in Washington today. If you wish to get a copy of my analysis of Repower's proposed energy future and a discription of an alternative energy future where there is a mix of energy sources and strong energy conservation ( I call it an "Energy Family") write to me at

These are dangerous times as politicians dismantel the very heart of the nation's productivity. So forget the debate about greenouse gases for now and concentrate on the sufficiency issue and write to me for your copy of my analysis. Herschel Specter

Ferdinand E. Banks's picture
Ferdinand E. Banks on May 20, 2009
I wonder if this climate warming thing isn't bringing some excitement into the lives of the midday soap-opera fans. I remember how at the Asian Institute of Technology, when they had a showing of Mr Gores film, the place was absolutely packed, and apparently they had a long and lively discussion after the film. I of course didn't see the film or attend the discussion, but I thought that I saw a couple of the people in my course go into the 'theatre'. I can only hope that they had something sensible to say - or at least something that didn't reflect badly on yours truly.

The statement by Mr Specter is interesting in that he is in favor of exactly what I have been preaching for the last four or five years. An optimal energy policy will probably be an optimal environmental policy. Of course here in Sweden the ignoramuses can't spell optimal, and the energy policy they support is economically destructive. To use the terminology of Mr Specter, what they want is to dismantle this countries productivity, and the politicians are prepared to help them if it means a win on election day.

And Mr Bruderly, I seem to have run into the argument in favor of natural gas as a motor fuel somewhere else, but it doesn't sit too well with my economics. The price of natural gas has only one way to go, and that is up, where by up I don't mean twice the present price.

Peter Platell's picture
Peter Platell on May 20, 2009
I agree with you Herschel , we have a energy constrain issue, If we solve that we also solve the "possible " green house threat. What are we waiting on ? Ferdinand, for once we are also pretty agreed. But instead of new large centraliised nuclear power we shall focus on renewable energy that is harnessed local but not not in big wind farms where intermittent electricty is distributed in the big monopoly grid. Renewable calls for decentralised and small scale business models. The opposite to current utlities business models. Let the existing large centralised system operate as base load but develop the next century energy system emboided as small scale decentralised technlogy harnessing renewable . The next big step towards a less energy constrained world should be developing of STL ( Solar To Liquid) liquid fuel from solar energy ( which is spread on everybodies roof =free market will set in)

Peter Platell

Ferdinand E. Banks's picture
Ferdinand E. Banks on May 20, 2009
Peter, "new" large centralised nuclear power for me consists of two more plants to replace the two in Barsebäck that were foolishly closed. Where the rest of the show is concerned I neither know nor care. But since you almost certainly read Swedish better than me, you must know that the anti-nuclear booster club wants to do away with nuclear completely, and have fabricated various ignorant arguments along that line to feed to the dumb politicians and their dumb advisors.

The bad thing about this is that these arguments are often entertained by persons with high quality technical educations. Of course that is true everywhere: how can the energy minister in the US tolerate the presence of some of the persons working for him?

Also, let me repeat for the 1000th time, in this country - Sweden - they have been talking about renewables for as long as I can remember, and despite what you read in your favorite newspaper or see on your favorite TV station, things are moving as slowly as ever. Why is this? It's because as corrupt and greedy as many Swedish engineers and managers seem to have become, they do not want to be made fools of by accepting preposterous beliefs about what you call renewables. Unlike the environmentalists, they also know - as YOU know - that Sweden is one of the cleanest countries in the world, and almost all the talk about an environmental cleanup has to do with careers, money, and plane tickets.

Ferdinand E. Banks's picture
Ferdinand E. Banks on May 20, 2009
One more point, which is the number of "scientists" that Bob Ashworth says have signed something. He makes it out to be 30,000 or so, with 9,000 PhDs.

As far as I am concerned, a scientist without a PhD is MOST LIKELY not a scientist, while on the other hand there are persons with less - and perhaps much less - than a PhD who have every right to call themselves a scientist, or just as important to think of themselves as a scientist. Therefore, I think that when he rewrites this article he should replace that 30,000 with a scientifically credible number.

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on May 20, 2009
Bob: "I didn't overlook the back radiation. i didn't include it because it is thermodynamically impossible. " -- I've been puzzling over how anyone with an engineering background can hold such a position, and concluded that you can only mean "NET POSITIVE" back radiation. Agreed, there is always more radiation from a hot surface to a cold surface, but there is ALSO ALWAYS some radiation travelling from the cold surface to the hot surface unless the cold surface stands at absolute zero degrees, a condition thus far never achieved. The effect of adding GHG's to earth's upper atmosphere is a) no significant change in the energy travelling from the sun to earth's surface b) no significant change to the radiant energy leaving earth's surface. c) a significant increase in the energy radiated from the atmosphere back to earth's surface. b) minus c) is STILL POSITIVE (the apparent basis of your argument), but SMALLER (the reason for our concern with increasing atmosphere's GHG loading).

Those of you who think there has been no measurable effect of adding GHG's (NOT PRIMARILY CFCs, but CO2 and CH4) need only follow the dance of US,Russia, Canada, Denmark and Norway in sorting out ownership of the artic continental shelves, as I do. At the present rate, the artic is scheduled to start having ice-free summers within about 20 years. US Bush administration loudly denied global warming, but cynically had absolutely no problem claiming Canada has no jurisdiction over the inside passage across N America, which is very shortly going to become an important shipping route due to reduced ice.

Those of you crying about "money wasted on development of alternative energy systems" should investigate the history of nuclear energy development. Solar (both thermal baseload and PV peaking) is REAL, and available NOW. It only need to achieve a net installation of between 2.8 and 8.2 GW quickly to become cost competitive with fossil.

Assessment of Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Solar Technology - Cost and Performance Forecasts - Sargent & Lundy LLC Engineering Group Chicago, Illinois

[QUOTE]For the more technically aggressive low-cost case, S&L found the National Laboratories’ “SunLab” methodology and analysis to be credible. The projections by SunLab, developed in conjunction with industry, are considered by S&L to represent a “best-case analysis” in which the technology is optimized and a high deployment rate is achieved. The two sets of estimates, by SunLab and S&L, provide a band within which the costs can be expected to fall. The figure and table below highlight these results, with initial electricity costs in the range of 10 to 12.6 ¢/kWh and eventually achieving costs in the range of 3.5 to 6.2 ¢/kWh. The specific values will depend on total capacity of various technologies deployed and the extent of R&D program success. In the technically aggressive cases for troughs / towers, the S&L analysis found that cost reductions were due to volume production (26%/28%), plant scale-up (20%/48%), and technological advance (54%/24%).[/QUOTE]

Given Sargent & Lundy Engineering's worst case scenario provides peak time solar electricity at $0.062/kwh by only building 2.8 GW and doing a few minor and definitely achievable R&D improvements, plus transmission, and a clear path is provided to offering 83% capacity factor using cheap sand and gravel tanks for thermal storage with 3x collector area and no additional central plant, which should make the installation no more expensive PER KWH if only the industry can get to 2.8 GW installed, I don;t see what we are waiting for.

It also appears to me that the more agressive forecasts of NREL / SunLab of $0.035 / kwh if we can get to 8.2 GW installed quite quickly is entirely within reach.

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on May 20, 2009
And to the solar critics who'll yammer about land area, solar (either thermal or PV) at 15% electrical efficiency can provide about 280 times more auto fuel per unit area (to a PHEV) then any bio-mass growth system since photosynthesis is only about 0.35% efficient once basic inputs are counted. Battery tech WILL make it more economical in future than it already is.
Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on May 20, 2009
Institutions/professors don't just "get" grant money. They have to compete against each other for these grants. And where do these grants come from? National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, etc. These sources of funding have nothing to gain from awarding grants to universities other than advancing knowledge (which can be used to make better decisions for DOE or DOD). Sure you got some industry support, but what industry would really be funding this research? What industry would really be profiting by funding this research? The tiny alternative energy industry? As if our alternative energy industry had piles of money lying around to give to universities to play with..
Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on May 20, 2009
Yochai: 1) If theoretically (and I stress theoretically), 200 years ago man had invented a gas, which emitted at sufficient rates would cause AGW and at that time started spewing out this gas at that rate, would any of your arguments change? My arguments change only as the scientific data change. I never have preconceived notions; I just analyze the data and see what it is telling me. Also the AGW greenhouse effect is incorrect as can be seen from real temperature measurements versus IPCC predictions in Figure 4 above.

Personally, I don't see that AGW gases have much effect on the earth's temperature at all. For example, T.M.L. Wigley, a senior scientist at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, calculated the cooling that would accrue if every nation met its Kyoto Protocol obligations (U.S. reduction of 43%). By 2050, the earth’s temperature would reduce by 0.07 oC - a change so small it could not be reliably measured.

God has in place, a CO2 absorption system which is very good so runaway CO2 concentrations should never happen. The recent anomaly that I have seen caused by man is the destruction of ozone in the stratosphere by man's production of chlorofluorocarbons (Freon etc.) This destruction decreased the amount of UV light absorbed in the stratosphere and the radiant energy not absorbed up there is hitting earth and warming it up. The stratosphere cooled some 1.3C while the earth warmed around 0.5C. So man screwed up that one. Stratosphere cooling has stabilized but hasn't warmed up to what it used to be.

2) What about the rising levels of dissolved CO2 in oceans? Regardless of climate change, is the resulting environmental damage not sufficient to warrant reduction?

As the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases the algae in the oceans absorb more CO2; around 50% of what is emitted. As you say nature has been around a lot longer than man and it is under its own control. There has been no environmental damage, nature changes with time. Every 80,000 to 120,000 years we get a large burst of energy from the sun, other times the amount of radiation hitting us cycles from high to low over an 11 year period.

The Chinese say” E Ching” which means the world is always in constant change. However, man can screw it up and his ability to screw things is great.

Ferdinand: A PHD doesn't make you a scientist. In fact many of them I know are not very innovative. I worked with a guy who had a PHD in Physics and was a seismic expert. He told me if he had it to do over gain he would not get a PHD because the paradigms imposed on you limit your thinking.

Fred: With such strong convictions, do you use fossil fuels? If so why? Nuclear power only worries me for one reason, "Familiarity breeds contempt!" So as not to lose production and get blamed or fired, managers take chances on safety. I have worked in production and know that for a fact.

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on May 20, 2009
Bob: "As the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases the algae in the oceans absorb more CO2; around 50% of what is emitted." -- any reference (credible or otherwise) for that number, or did you just make it up, as apparently most of your other stats and hypotheses?
Jim Beyer's picture
Jim Beyer on May 20, 2009

Much of what you have written in your last post is incorrect.

CO2 absorption by plants, at any level, is usually a temporary event. The winter die-off causes the plant matter grown to decompose and re-release the CO2 into the air. You can see that in the annual CO2 fluctuations. The only way that CO2 is withdrawn from the system by plants is if the material is locked away into something more durable, like cellulose or lignin, and then the plant matter is covered to remove exposure to atmosphere. Think peat bogs. Peat eventually transforms into lignite, which then can become coal. It takes millions of years, far longer then the few hundred its taken us to release it.

It is true that 50% of the CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, but the algae do not make much use of it. Instead, it remains dissolved in the sea water. This is why the ocean has dropped in pH value over the last few hundred years (become more acidic, or less basic).

I also don't think you'd be happy with the IPCC if they cited God and the E Ching in their analyses, so I don't think it's comforting that you use them to defend your position.

If one accepts that the world simply changes, that's fine. But if that means abandoning and moving most of our coastal cities, then CO2 mitigation might actually prove to be the more economical approach. You can't have it both ways.

Godo Stoyke's picture
Godo Stoyke on May 20, 2009
Re: Proof of Global Warming

The world's largest ever review of evidence on climate change, involving thousands of the world's best climate scientists and many thousands of reviewed primary scientific papers, concluded that climate change is real and that it is very likely to be due to human emissions (90% or greater probability). The IPCC report is available for free download at

The scientific and meteorological bodies of the major countries have spoken up and said that global warming and climate change are real, human-induced and a serious threat to humanity

The journal Science, one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals, published a review in 2004 (December 2004, Vol 306, p. 1686) that examined 928 papers from refereed scientific journals on climate change. Of these 928 papers, 25% dealt with methodology and did not comment on climate change either way, the other 75% all supported the scientific view that human-induced climate change is real. Zero % supported the view that human-induced climate change is not real. The paper is available here:

How much more proof do you need?

On the climate denier side, you have massive funding from a few irresponsible fossil fuel companies, a group of lawyers and marketing experts and a few hired scientists that engage in astroturfing, cherry-picking, half-truths and deceit, even going so far as to create fake journal papers (see e.g. the "petition project"). Incidentally, many of the well-funded climate deniers are the same people that were hired 20 years ago to tell us that smoking is good for us. More details on the backgrounds of specific climate deniers can be found at

Godo Stoyke

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on May 20, 2009
Jim: No one has moved out of their coastal cities yet. If they do it won't be because of CO2, probably because taxes got too high. We really need to remove the CFCs and chlorine from the stratosphere. The methane in the atmosphere leveled out (methane converts to CO2 in the atmosphere) as the CFCs in the stratosphere leveled out but CFCs have such long lifetimes up there we need to remove them. Fight for that if you care about the environment. The CO2 warming premise is bogus but you want to believe it for some strange reason.

Again I ask, why is there no "Greenhouse Signature"????. Why was the earth's average temperature last year the same as it was in 1982? Why can't you calculate the effect of removing all man-made CO2 and then know if we removed it all we would be back to the 2001-2002 level we had when it was warmer than it is now.

I love science and philosophy because both are searches for truth and both should always abide in nothing but Truth. If the IPCC mentioned God I would have more respect for them not less. I could never be a member of the National Academy of Sciences because 90+ % don't believe in God. I agree with Sir Isaac Newton, who to me is probably the greatest scientist ever. Someone sarcastically asked him to prove God exists! His respond was immediate, "Look at your thumbs, that should be proof enough!" From my perspective, a great response from a very very wise man!

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on May 20, 2009
Godo: You cite all of these references. Probably they are peer reviewed but reviewed by who - ones who agree with them? There is just no real science to back up what they are saying. The ones i know who are fighting the idiocy of CO2 causing global warming are not getting paid by anyone, I know I am not.

Again like I asked Jim, why is there no "Greenhouse Signature"????.

Why was the earth's average temperature last year the same as it was in 1982?

Why can't you calculate the effect of removing all man-made CO2 and then know if we removed it all we would be back to the 2001-2002 level we had when it was warmer than it is now.

Never before in my life have I analyzed a sceintific premise where I could find no science to back it up. Are you depending on the play station computer models that predict warming but it isn't there. i guess you could say it is real because you trust computer models more than thermometers, but not me!

CFC destruction of ozone accounts for all of the global temperature anomalies we saw:

CFCs destroyed ozone in the lower stratosphere/upper troposphere causing these zones in the atmosphere to cool 1.37 oC from 1966 to 1998. This time span was selected to eliminate the effect of the natural 11 yaer solar irradiance (cooling-warming) cycle effect on the earth's temperature.

The loss of ozone allowed more UV light to pass through the stratosphere at a sufficient rate to warm the lower troposphere plus 8-3/4" of the earth by 0.48 oC (1966 to 1998).

Mass and energy balances show that the energy that was absorbed in the lower stratosphere /upper troposphere hit the lower troposphere/earth at a sustainable level of 1.69 x 10^18 Btu more in 1998 than it did in 1966. Greater ozone depletion in the Polar Regions has caused these areas to warm some two and one-half (2 ½) times that of the average earth temperature (1.2 oC vs. 0.48 oC). This has caused permafrost to melt, which is releasing copious quantities of methane taht researchers estimated at 100 times that of manmade CO2 release, to the atmosphere. Methane in the atmosphere slowly converts to CO2 and water vapor and its release has contributed to higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

There is a temperature anomaly in Antarctica. The Signey Island landmass further north, warmed like the rest of the Polar Regions; but south at Vostok, there has been a cooling effect. Although the cooling at Vostok needs to be analyzed in more detail, because of the large ozone hole there, black body radiation from Vostok (some 11,400 feet above sea level) to outer space is most likely the cause. Especially, since this phenomenon occurred over the same period that stratospheric ozone destruction took place.

Why didn't these so-called IPCC scientists recognize this. Is it mentioned in the IPCC report? Did they know it but blamed CO2 so they could cash in on the carbon scam?

Godo Stoyke's picture
Godo Stoyke on May 20, 2009
Dear Bob,

Thank you for your comments. "Godo: You cite all of these references. Probably they are peer reviewed but reviewed by who - ones who agree with them? There is just no real science to back up what they are saying."

All of the scientific references cited are peer reviewed. Otherwise, they are not considered a primary scientific source. Peer review consists of sending them to other climate scientists who are experts in the author's field. Plus the data presented have to meet scientific standards.

So if you take issue with data or interpretations (as you do above), your first step is to list your scientific references for your data and your interpretations. The next step is to submit your data and interpretations to a scientific journal. Everything else is just hand-waving.

The problem is that virtually all of the "climate denier" so-called "data" can be traced back to the marketing arm (third party) that is funded by ExxonMobil, the Western Coal Association, the three US major car companies and a few others. It has no scientific standing.

For example, the so-called "petition project" you mention above, is based on a fake "paper" created do delude people (for more details see ).

So, if you want to make any claims, the first step is to list your (believable) scientific sources.

I am not saying that you are paid by irresponsible segments of the fossil fuel industry (I have no idea who pays you). All I am saying is that the people who create these false and misleading arguments definitely are.

Godo Stoyke's picture
Godo Stoyke on May 20, 2009
PS: Why do you say that there is "no greenhouse signature"? For example, page 6 of the 2007 "Summary for Policymakers" of the AR4 of the IPCC, widely considered the world's most authoritative review on anthropogenic climate change, shows the greenhouse signature quite clearly. (Available here: )
Ferdinand E. Banks's picture
Ferdinand E. Banks on May 21, 2009
Bob, you say that a PhD doesn't make you a scientist. THIS IS EXACTLY CORRECT! Moreover, and I repeat, there are plenty of people without PhDs who have every right to think of themselves and/or call themselves scientists. But I have seen some of these lists of people who deny AGW and they are filled with persons who are not scientists, and would never call themselves or think of themselves as scientists, but who still apparently believe that they have the right to denigrate or contradict or curse men and women who - for one reason or another - work at their 'trade' for many hours every day.

At the same time I know that working at your trade (or your interests) many hours every day is - ceteris paribus and on the average - the wrong way to do things if you want to make an impression. What you have got to do is to work at it and also find some way to cut the ground out from under the amateurs. People like Lomborg can get away with contradicting real scientists because the real scientists are afraid to go to the mat with him. But I'll give Lomborg credit for one thing: when I was giving a talk in the Danish parliament, he didn't make the mistake of coming there and in order to dispense some of his so-called wisdom.

Bob Ashworth also seems to have some problems with the Obama government. He doesn't have as many as I do, but unfortunately the electoral system in the US only gave us two choices, and I saw no point in voting for a man who was prepared to continue for 100 years to fight a war that was won 5 years ago, and chose Ms Palin as his vice presidential candidate. Incidentally, 3 PhDs, one in physics and another from MIT told me that they would feel safer with Ms Palin than Mr Obama, which was enough to dilute any respect that I have for PhDs in general.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on May 21, 2009
Godo: I don't care how Wikipedia twists semantics. Here is the truth about the petition which I signed many years ago. It is headed up by Arthur and Noah Robinson, both academics with PHDs in Chemistry.

From the site - Signatories for the Oregon Petition are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

Note: Although some charlatans could probably get on the list I believe that most are who they say they are.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,803 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,810 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,818 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,964 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

Godo: The reference you gave shows no greenhouse signature. Figure 8 above shows the signature the IPCC developed. Figure 9 shows the actual measured temperatures. No hot spot there as they predict as you can plainly see.

Concerning peer review, my CFC paper was peer reviewed twice and accepted for publication by Chemical Engineering Progress. It was supposed to be published in June of this year. I recently got an email from the editor and they changed their mind because they have taken no position on Global Warming. That was pathetic. Also I filled out information to submit my paper to another science publication and I had to give five names of people I would recommend to review it (required) and five names of people I thought would be biased and not for them to review it. So much for the validity of the peer review process.

Fred: UV light has much more energy than lower frequency infrared. Did you forget about Planck's correlation. E =hf. Normal light (red through violet) has more energy than infrared as well. UV light is what gives you a tan when you are in the sun and if you have fair skin you burn. I wrote a paper on the helical tavel of light wherein i prove that radiant energy particles are just small particles of mass traveling in helical trajectories. The larger the particle the greater the frequency and the smaller the helical diameter. That is why you don't want to get hit by too many X-rays. For Godos benefit it was peer reviewed many many times before it was published in Physics Essays, an International Physics journal.

Data is data guys, you analyze it and see what it is telling you. Preconceived ideas going in is bogus. If I had found CO2 was causing global warming I would be one of the first ones to figure out how to control it. As a matter of fact, I did conceive one way to do that back in the nineties before I found out it was bogus.

I like renewable energy because it will increase the life of fossil fuels for future generations, but don't lie about carbon for some hidden agenda you may have. Without CO2 we would not exist, nor would plants. It is critical to the plant-animal life cycle.

Jim Beyer's picture
Jim Beyer on May 21, 2009
Again, I don't get it.

When the IPCC says global warming is real, the deniers rail that "consensus is not proof" and "science is not a democracy".

But then they have no problem bringing out the Oregon petition which was signed by people who merely read a paragraph or two that was mostly critical of the Kyoto plan, rather than global warming per se.

Ferdinand E. Banks's picture
Ferdinand E. Banks on May 21, 2009
Bob, when I look at the roster of people who have signed this famous document that you have so much faith in, I know one thing for sure. All except a dozen or so of those many thousands know more about climate warming or cooling than I do, or ever will.

But that's A-OK with me, because I don't know anything, and have no intention of trying to obtain even a drop of knowledge on that subject. On the other hand, I am satisfied that - on the average - these chemists, biologists and engineers that you refer to know less than legitimate climate scientists who spend their precious time studying climate science instead of signing documents or petitions unrelated to their expertise - such as it might be.

At the same time I can understand your dissatisfaction with peer review, because like your good self I happen to believe that this topic has been politicized to the point where the top scientific journals are afraid to publish materials that e.g. express a disbelief in AGW. That's what some of the hypocritical editors of these publications call honesty, and it is one of the reasons why so much has gone wrong in this old world of ours, and it's going to get much worse.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on May 21, 2009
Ferdinand: I used the example of the Oregon Petition only to relay that the science is not settled, not that I do or do not have faith in the ones that signed it. I always analyze things for myself. I never based my judgement about anything scientific based on another's opinion until I analyze it for myself. I signed the pettion because I proved to myself CO2 causing global warming was bogus.

Einstein said a photon has zero mass and the rest of the scientific community supported this premise for decades. I proved it did have mass, but no physicist has called me up and said Bob you are right. Others have developed correlations identical to mine but do it differently and as far as I know never say photons have mass. They could make such progress in physics if they only recognized that.

Ferdinand, I agree completely that science has been politicized and we are in deep trouble for it and I also agree it will get much worse.

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on May 21, 2009
Bob: Are you claiming that photons have "relativistic mass" or "rest mass"? You will find that if the former, its a mundane completely agreed assertion. If the latter it's going to be very difficult to convince anyone, since the definition of the velocity at which the relativistic mass of a body with rest mass becomes infinite is the very velocity at which a photon travels, the "speed of light". No rest mass, simply by definition of the term rest mass (that property of a body that governs its acceleration when acted on by a force. - Galileo and Newton) Measured the acceleration of a photon lately?

I think I'll get my science elsewhere, thanks.

Edward Reid, Jr.'s picture
Edward Reid, Jr. on May 21, 2009

The AGW religionists are very quick to attribute every hot or violent weather event to global climate change; and, equally quick to respond to any indication of cooling by pointing out the weather is not climate.

Global warming and global cooling have occurred numerous times in our history, as most non-Mannians would agree. The current cooling phase is both unpredicted and inexplicable using the models for AGW.

I would agree that the politics is settled. The science is another matter entirely.

I have been fascinated to note that the "convinced" politicians have been loathe to include circuit breakers in Waxman Markey. They apparently lack the courage of their "convictions" with regard to the cost and the economic pain which would result.


Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on May 21, 2009
Len: I was just using this as an example for analyzing things on your own and not accepting the status quo if it doesn't sound right. The photon does have ponderable (rest) mass and it travels at the square root of two times the measured speed of its helical wave c. The diameter of the helix is the wavelength divided by pi. This correlation works because the wavelength is identical to the circumferential length of the helix. I proved it by predicting the cut-off frequencies for 25 standard EIA waveguides within an average accuracy of deviation of less than 1%. It is pretty simple and easy to see why photon travel is discontinuous. In fact all of the qualities of light can be explained in simple terms. I explain why the photon speed is limited in free space. However, superluminal velocities do occur under ceertain conditions and have been measured by many researchers. You probably won't read it but the 1998 published version s on my website.

Further, it was peer reviewed by many reviewers before it was published, so it has to be correct, right? Sorry for the diversion guys.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on May 21, 2009
Len: I was just using this as an example for analyzing things on your own and not accepting the status quo if it doesn't sound right. The photon does have ponderable (rest) mass and it travels at the square root of two times the measured speed of its helical wave c. The diameter of the helix is the wavelength divided by pi. This correlation works because the wavelength is identical to the circumferential length of the helix. I proved it by predicting the cut-off frequencies for 25 standard EIA waveguides within an average accuracy of deviation of less than 1%. It is pretty simple and easy to see why photon travel is discontinuous. In fact all of the qualities of light can be explained in simple terms. I explain why the photon speed is limited in free space. However, superluminal velocities can occur under certain conditions and have been measured by many researchers. You probably won't read it but the 1998 published version is on my website.

Further, it was peer reviewed by many reviewers before it was published, so it has to be correct, right? Sorry for the diversion guys.

Godo Stoyke's picture
Godo Stoyke on May 22, 2009
Hello Bob, You do not have to rely on Wikipedia alone for an evaluation of the petition project (incidentally, wikipedia provides excellent pointers to original sources). The National Academy of Sciences took the unprecedented step of distancing itself from the paper, and its conclusions ( ).

Publication of a paper in a refereed scientific journal does not guarantee that its data or conclusions are the best possible representation of physical reality, but it does provide reasonable assurance of valid scientific methodology and some check by experts in the field for obvious errors or flaws, as a minimum level of entry.

It is telling that once you subtract internet chatter and self-proclaimed experts on the matter, you are left with thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers that provide support for the reality of human-induced climate change, and very few papers that do not.

PS: You label Fig. 7 as an IPCC figure, but the reference does not refer to an IPCC publication.

Ferdinand E. Banks's picture
Ferdinand E. Banks on May 22, 2009
Having met many peer reviewers in economics, and after a few beers talked with them about how they do their peer reviewing, I think that we have a phenomenon here that is very very sad. (Criminal is perhaps a better word than sad, at least where economics is concerned.) But unfortunately I can't see any substitute. One simply has to accept that a surprisingly large percentage of these peers are _____, and try to keep circulating one's work or opinions or whatever. I'm sure that it is better in e.g. physics or engineering than economics, but I don't believe that it is a great deal better.

The problem you see is that reviewers are human. We need our work reviewed by excellently programed robots. I have been engaged in a slanging match on nuclear in this forum, which greatly surprised poor me, but I am not surprised any longer. Word is out that nuclear is politically and career-wise wrong, and so the hypocrites in many countries are doing everything possible to keep it at arms length. This won't work however, because e.g. the Chinese and the Russians are much more realistic on this topic, and in the long run it is going to pay off for them in a world where energy might be more important than ever..

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on May 22, 2009
Bob: First, let me state that on reading your paper on your theory of light, I take back any hint I may have previously given that you might not understand he scientific method. It presents an interesting hypothesis with no flaws my (obviously low) level of physics education can immediately find. It's so far out of the mainstream of physics, I'm going to need a few days to digest the paper before developing an opinion of it, though my initial reaction is "What unsolved problem or phenomenon does the hypothesis explain, and what known phenomena might become problematic if this hypothesis is accepted?" One of the latter that immediately springs to mind is the issue of transparent solids. Your theory proposes that an actual physical particle traveling on a helical path at root2 x C can pass entirely through large blocks of transparent solids such as glass or ice without ever suffering any minor loss of energy due to collisions. Individual photons either pass entirely through unchanged or are halted entirely, never just loosing a small amount of energy (being downshifted in frequency/colour). Many others also I'm sure, you no doubt know of some already.
Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on May 22, 2009
Doesn't change my position on the risks of significantly increasing earth's GHG loading, however. A dumb thing to do.
Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on May 22, 2009
Len: I'm glad you read it. It is out of the mainstream of physics and the reviewer's bashed me on that at first. It was the first time i ever analyzed something where i was out there by myself. However, I love doing that it keeps my mind fresh. The more questions the reviewer's had the more I learned.

Here is one neat thing. A photon travels in a helical trajectory and always hits the surface, incident to its travel at a 45 degree angle. That is why we can observe things without a distorted view. If it hit at any other angle it would like be living in a funhouse mirror world. You would reach out for something you saw and it wouldn't be at the spot you thought it was. That 45 degree angle hit is also why they are easily reflected.

The smaller the particle, the larger the helical diameter and the less helical turns per unit of travel. This is why radio waves (small particles with large helical diameters) can pass through your house but light waves (larger particles with smaller helical diameters) are stopped except for the windows. Yet X-Rays will pass through walls. They are large particles but the helical diameters are so small the helical travel effect is pretty much negated and it travels pretty much in a straight line. X-Ray rooms should always be lead lined. It has to be due only to laws of probability of whether a photon will pass through something or be absorbed/reflected by it. Godo: I realize what you are saying should be true but with AGW I could find no empirical data to support it. The ones that support AGW to me must either be doing it for some hidden agenda or relying only on unreliable computer models.

Hans Schreuder who gave a presentation to the Northern Ireland Climate Change Committee yesterday, realyed this to them. "Computer simulations regard the earth as a flat disk, without North or South Pole, without the Tropics, without clouds and bathed in a 24 hour haze of sunshine. The reality is two icy poles and a tropical equatorial zone, with each and every square metre of our earth receiving an ever varying and different amount of energy from the sun, season to season and day to day. This reality is too difficult to input to a computer. Did you realise that?" If this is the case you can see that the computer models are pretty much worthless as real measurements glaringly show!

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on May 22, 2009
Bob: Regarding "Computer simulations regard the earth as a flat disk, without North or South Pole, without the Tropics, without clouds and bathed in a 24 hour haze of sunshine." -- I think all the many useful simulations do better than that. This is a quote from a review of the text "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (2001) ". available at The National Academies Press.

[QUOTE]The current norm for a climate system model is to include a full suite of physical representations for air, water, land, and ice with a geographic resolution scale of typically about 250 km. Model solutions match the primary planetary-scale circulation, seasonal variability, and temperature structures with qualitative validity but still some remaining discrepancies. They show forced responses of the global-mean temperature that corresponds roughly with its measured history over the past century, though this requires model adjustments. They achieve a stable equilibrium over millennial intervals with free exchanges of heat, water, and stress across the land and water surfaces. They also exhibit plausible analogues for the dominant modes of intrinsic variability, such as the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), although some important discrepancies still remain. At present, climate system models specify solar luminosity, atmospheric composition, and other agents of radiative forcing. A frontier for climate models is the incorporation of more complete biogeochemical cycles (for example, for carbon dioxide). The greater the sophistication and complexity of an atmospheric model, the greater the need for detailed multiple measurements, which test whether the model continues to mimic observational reality.[/QUOTE]

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on May 22, 2009
Len: I will pass onto Hans for comment.
Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on May 22, 2009
Godo: You can find the greenhouse signatures here. The IPCC Assessment Report 4 (AR4), 2007, Chapter 9. Figure 9.1, in Section, page 675, shows six greenhouse signature diagrams.
Ferdinand E. Banks's picture
Ferdinand E. Banks on May 26, 2009
Did you say computer models, Fred? Hmm. We have/had some computer models in economics that were constructed by men who probably deserved the designation of genius. Unfortunately though, during the years I worked in or taught econometrics, I never came into contact with one of them that provided decent results with large models, although at first glance a few were very impressive.

One of mine - a simple model dealing with the copper market - managed to almost predict the price of copper one glorious year, but between you and me that success was probably due to luck. Here we have a phenomenon that can be truly characterized by the words MORE IS LESS, and often a great deal less. Of course, some people/firms/institutions are willing to pay a lot for that 'less'.

Phil Williams's picture
Phil Williams on May 26, 2009
Your paper is most appreciated Bob. I agree that it makes sense to keep all the data on the table because the hypothesis is sure to change.

For instance, sea level has been rising for the last 18,000 years; and it has risen over 300 feet in that time. In the 19th century, sea level rose about 8 inches. In the 20th century it rose another 8 inches.

There are many good reasons for humanity to pursue energy efficiency – and it is being achieved in the design of more efficient machines, more efficient buildings and more efficient processes. Remember though that there is a one hundred year lag in the time that it takes for old equipment to be phased out and the average level of efficiency to rise.

It is worth noting that there is a close relationship between energy consumption and GDP. It is difficult to imagine a world where the average GDP per person per year could be anything like the Euro 30,000 that currently exists in a number of developed countries. Planet earth probably could not support the footprint of 6.7 billion people living to that standard. (Energy and fish from the sea being just two resources that could be difficult to stretch that far).

Many of the proposed climate change monetary mechanisms are fabricated methods to distribute wealth -- to transfer funds to developing nations on the pretext of climate.

While carbon emissions trading is an unforgivable con, a carbon tax could be acceptable if it was used within a country to improve the efficiency of infrastructure -- but a global wealth distribution plan is not acceptable or sustainable.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on May 26, 2009
What really amazes me is that no sees that CFC destruction of ozone caused the colder climes (less ozone there) to warm over twice as much as the average earth temperature rise. It also allowed the upper troposphere-lower stratosphere to cool some 1.3 degrees C. The temperature of the stratsophere has finally stabilized since the Montreal Protocol was implemented but hasn't started to warm. In 2010 the under developed countries will stop CFC production so maybe then the stratosphere will start getting a little warmer.

If you are going to call yourself a scientist use real science to analyze a problem. CO2 is our friend. Plants absorb it and give off oxygen so we can breathe. It is also an endothermic reaction (absorbs heat). One person correctly pointed out that if you sequester CO2, you also sequester Oxygen. Two molecules of oxygen (O2) for every one molecule of C sequestered. You don't like yourself or your children? You want them to be deprived of oxygen? Hello? We have an ozone hole!!!! What caused that? CFCs. When you have less ozone in the stratosphere more UVB and C light pass through to heat up the earth. If it wasn't absorbed in the stratosphere where do you think it went? Pretty basic stuff this, but climatologosts categorize CFCs only as greenhouse gases.

We could remove the chlorine and CFCs from the stratosphere fairly easily to get us back to normal. Remember it has been estimated that one CFC during its lifetime in the stratosphere will destroy 100,000 molecules of ozone. If we don't remove CFCs we will have to live with this for at least the next 50 years.

I really question what kind of scientific training the people studying climate have. To me it looks like smoke and mirror science and the ones applying it do not have a clue as to what they are doing scientifically. They arrogantly say, "The science is settled!" I came up with a saying in my sixties, "A man's arrogance is directly proportional to his ignorance!"

You might say I am being arrogant, but not here. It is so easy to see from simple observation and simple data analysis that CFCs caused the recent abnormal warming. Blame DuPont if you must blame someone but not CO2.

Len: Hans Schreuder response on the IPCC compouter models: "The original climate alarm was based on a flat earth computer model, as (He) described. Since then, computer power has increased substantially, but there is still no relation with reality."

Jim Beyer's picture
Jim Beyer on May 26, 2009
CO2 at 400 ppm vs. O2 at 209,460 ppm. So even if all CO2 was sequestered, the O2 level would drop at most to 209,060. O2 levels already dip to 12-15% over major cities today. (Note that simply increasing CO2 levels also decreases O2 by this same logic.) That's NOT science. That's fear mongering on your part. (For lots of other reasons, I'm not a fan of CO2 sequestering myself. The best way to sequester CO2 is to leave unburned coal in the ground.)

Whatever concerns you may have with IPCC being too political and not scientific enough are not strengthened by your equally unscientific counter arguments.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on May 26, 2009
Jim: Yes it is a mouse milk effect. I was just having a little fun with that. In the paper above I say that if you remove all of the CO2 made by man we would go back to the level we had in 2001-2002. Why didn't you anlayze that and come to the conclusion that limiting CO2 from man's activities is futile as well? You totally ignored my CFC argument but then no AGW backer wants to hear truth!

However, CO2 going to the atmosphere is converted back to oxygen by plants, what is stored underground is not. CO2 is not the problem Jim. Never has been, never will! I hope you will wake up to that fact some day. Who knows when some other "crazy train" scientist will start classifying oxygen as a pollutant. After all it makes steel rust.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on May 26, 2009
Full essay attached and online at:

The fear of carbon is the fear of life. The love of carbon is the love of life. Humans are animated carbon. Everything we consume and emit is carbon-based. Everything we make or purchase causes carbon emissions. It is not possible to control and regulate carbon without controlling and regulating every aspect of human existence. To be anti-carbon is to be anti-human freedom.

The war on carbon is an ill-disguised war on humanity, a war on human freedom. Carbon and carbon emissions are simply a proxy for human activity. This whole movement to demonize carbon is driven by a world-denying, man-hating worldview. It is time to rip away the mask and expose the movement whose real aim is to put the human race in chains to a system that controls every aspect of human existence. It is time to stand up and say, "You take your jackboots off my carbon and off my life."

It is heartening to see that more and more scientists are waking up to the junk science of man-made global warming alarmism and that they are now coming out of the woodwork to say so. The movement to shut down our energy sources by a beat-up against CO2, if successful, would turn off the lights of civilization. It is fitting that the symbolism of the recent Earth Hour was darkness rather than light.

There has never been more than a small coterie of pseudo-science activists and social engineers driving this global warming alarmism cart. They have been remarkably successful in closing down the debate and silencing opposition by their big lie about their enjoying an overwhelming scientific consensus. They have intimidated a lot of scientists with the fear of losing academic funding if they should open their mouths with a contrary opinion.

As for the Media that refused to obey their own credo of rigorous investigative journalism, that ducked from asking the hard questions, that forgot they were supposed to be independent journalists instead of advocates for the popular hysteria, its integrity and credibility has been trashed by its own hand. Long live the free spirits of the Internet, the indefatigable bloggers who would not be silenced. *Robert D. Brinsmead is a Horticulturist and a free-lance Writer.

Jim Beyer's picture
Jim Beyer on May 26, 2009
Check out:

CO2 emissions

1,358 GT (gigatons) of CO2 have been emitted by humanity since 1750. The current mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is 3,088 GT. So, again, Mr. Ashworth is mistaken.

You last post is simply a pseudo-rant on the virtues of CO2 (even though it makes people drowsy at 2% and can be toxic at 5%).

I'm all for self-reliance and keeping gov't off people's backs. If you want all of that, then don't add more CO2 to everyone else's atmosphere. If you are so self-reliant, then you shouldn't need an atmosphere to unsustainably (rising CO2) dump your wastes.


Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »