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

Post

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
  • 6039 views
Introduction

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%


TABLE 1. GLOBAL SOURCES AND ABSORPTION OF CO2

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.

Conclusion

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.

References:

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

size="1">

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
Discussions
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on May 26, 2009
http://oceanmotion.org/html/impact/globalwarming.htm

[QUOTE]According to an unpublished survey by Potsdam University researchers Kirsten Zickfeld and Anders Levermann, expert scientific opinion varies widely on the likelihood that excess freshwater runoff from the Arctic will alter the North Atlantic conveyor belt in this century.

Some scientists consulted for the survey said there is no chance that the current will break down. Others estimated that the chance of a complete shutdown exceeds 50 percent if global warming climbs by 7.2° to 9° Fahrenheit (4° to 5° Celsius) by 2100.

Rahmstorf believes the chance of a circulation shutdown is as high as 30 percent. He said any possibility of such a scenario, even if slight, is cause for concern.

"Nobody would accept expanding nuclear power if there was a 5 percent risk of a major accident," he said. "Why would we accept expanding oil and coal power if there is a 5 percent risk of a major climate accident?"

Source: National Geographic [/QUOTE]

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on May 26, 2009
Why? Because there's a bunch of noisy **** around who don't care a whit for the long-term. Ever notice that the average age of deniers is very high? I kniow, they claim greater experience, but that's almost never true. Radical new science almost always has to wait for the current generation of scientists to die off before being recognized.
Jim Beyer's picture
Jim Beyer on May 26, 2009
Experience is an extremely valuable tool, except when it isn't. The huge experience base of IBM, Xerox, and Bell Labs didn't allow any of them to capitalize on the micro-computer revolution.

On the other hand, the experience of Hans-Ulrich Rudel (German Stuka Dive Bomber Pilot) contributed immensely to the design and success of the A-10 Warthog.

It seems that experience is quite helpful when there is no major paradigm shift, but actually can be injurious when there is. The trick to to figure out whether a paradigm is indeed shifting. Not always so easy to do.....

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on May 27, 2009
Jim: CO2 doesn't build up much in tthe atmosphere, looks to be much less than a year as evidenced by the spring to fall CO2 concentration cycle.

Len: God takes care of the long term, not Al Gore. The rise in CO2 looks to be starting to level off. Concentration of CFCs in the stratosphere and methane in the atmosphere appear in lock step with one another. The Montreal Protocol restrictions on CFCs caused the methane to stop rising but it leveled off and is not dropping yet. In 2010 they will stop production of CFCs in China, Mexico, etc so CFC concentration should start dropping and so should CO2 concentration sometime after that.

If the Montreal Protocol had not been implemented we would be in deep do-do right now. The researchers from the University of Florida in combination with other University researchers estimated the methane being released from the Siberian permafrost due to increased warming there was 100 times the Anthropogenic carbon being released.

If you want to do something helpful for the environment put your energies into fighting to remove CFCs from the stratosphere.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on May 27, 2009
FYI

Climate Depot May 27, 2009 Washington, DC

French President Nicolas Sarkozy's appears ready to appoint renowned geophysicist and former socialist party leader Dr. Claude Allegre – France's most outspoken global warming skeptic -- as the new super-ministry of industry and innovation.

Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992, letter titled "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity" in which the scientists warned that global warming's "potential risks are very great." But Allegre now believes the global warming hysteria is motivated by money. (Many of us agree on this point)

Allegre mocked former Vice President Al Gore's Nobel Prize in 2007, calling it "a political gimmick." Allegre said on October 14, 2007, "The amount of nonsense in Al Gore's film! It's all politics; it's designed to intervene in American politics. It's scandalous."

He finally woke up to the Truth. He is a good scientist because he had the integrity to admit he was wrong and cared not about saving face. Dr. David Evans did the same thing. He first supported AGW but investigated it further and joined the ranks of the skeptics. It cost him his carbon accounting job for the Australian government but it didn't matter.

Jim Beyer's picture
Jim Beyer on May 27, 2009
Bob says: "Jim: CO2 doesn't build up much in the atmosphere, looks to be much less than a year as evidenced by the spring to fall CO2 concentration cycle."

I don't know what this means. No one is saying that the CO2 has built up in just a few years. It's been going on since the industrial revolution.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on May 27, 2009
Jim: Sorry for the confusion; I was just saying it gets consumed pretty fast but you are right it was confusing. It appears that CO2 started increasing around 1650 (~215 ppmv) some 300 years before the Industrial revolution began. In 1850 It was around 330 ppmv and then dropped to around 310 ppmv in 1900 according to a graph drawn by Nasif Nahle -

http://www.biocab.org/MGW_to_2006.html

I am not sure why Nasif has two different scales on the CO2 axis, maybe to amplify the more recent effect for better visualization.

If you look at the temperature profile, there is a large solar spike that occurred some 800 years before CO2 started to increase that would have caused the oceans to warm up and liberate CO2. i haven't analyzed why it would take 800 years to liberate more CO2 but the Viostok Ice Core data shows repeated cycles like this. The earth warms then CO2 increase follows later

Scott Brooks's picture
Scott Brooks on May 27, 2009
Hi Bob:

This is the first time I became aware that UV radiation had a measurable effect on GW. I too just don't find the evidence that the IPCC or other AGW belivers claim exists.

I have found two references that show CO2 forcing is limited. They show that the forcing of CO2 stops at 325 ppm.

The first one is a dated study done by a group of scientists at Goddard:

Journal of Geophysical Research

Vol. 93, No. D8, Pages 9341~9364, August 20, 1988

Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three Dimensional Model

J. Hansen, I. Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, S. Lebedeff, R. Ruedy and G. Russell NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NY

P. Stone

MIT, Cambridge

HANSEN MARS CHALLENGE A challenge to Hansen et al 1988:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSENMARSCHALLENGE.pdf

Another significant piece of evidence was found on a blog site concerning a scientist who worked for NASA who claimed that Hansen, and other involved department heads, were deliberately misrepresenting the forcing of CO2 in regards to climate change warming.

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"

Michael Asher (Blog) - March 6, 2008 11:02 AM

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+W...

The scientist was a Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center. Some excerpts:

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount." "Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution, originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today, ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always."

NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells DailyTech. Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."

That's the nut shell of it and you will have to go to the link to read the rest of the story with the equations as well. I am interested in your comments about these sources and if you have been aware of them.

So I find this AGW claim appears to have lead to runaway funding by politico's and other groups in response to whipped up public fear mongering. It's similar to the nuclear scare. Both of my own senators stands by the cap and trade bill as if we don't take action the temperatures in the state will increase by 3 to 6 degrees F with all the associated environmental disasters that are linked to GW. I wish I had one of those gongs to wack over their heads for being such enviro policy wonks.

I have read of numerous such bureaucratic methods to support this climate bogeyman called AGW, now referred to as climate change. What a scam. Various industries are taking the ENRON approach and hopping on board the green energy train in anticipation of the greening of their own industrial pockets.

But I recognize that alternative energy research much go one when the oil production rates start decreasing, I just don't think that mandated use of the so called renewable energy alternatives is the wrong approach. I also agree that the Cap & Trade proposal is just another political tax scam to fund 'governmint' hog programs along with social programs pushed by the present Democratic Administration and Congress. Not good.

I can see where a fossil fuel tax could be used to fund research for not just renewable energy but better nuclear energy usage plus better use of coal. In Germany I've read where the government is moving whole towns so they can dig up lignite to fuel their coal fueled power plants thank's to the efforts of the green parties demonizing nuclear energy. The coal companies along with the power fueled plants don't mind as they know that the wind and solar energy returns are so meager and volatile that their futures are secure as long as the coal is there to mine. And so the enviro green wheel turns.

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on May 28, 2009
I don't know of anyone who's basing their understanding of climate change science on Al Gore's movie, so Bob and that French minister should skip that hobby horse.

Scott "lead to runaway funding by politico's and other groups in response to whipped up public fear mongering." -- could you provide any evicence of any specific grants to researchers by political entities? I think you'll liokely find only coal and oil companies there.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on May 28, 2009
Scott:

Thanks. I have done mass and energy balances most of my working life. The premise of a mass and energy balance is that energy in must equal energy out. The US patent office will not award a patent to anyone claiming a process that gets more energy out than is put in. This is so fundamental you wonder what technical training the AGW promoters have had. I completely agree with the statement below by Miscolczi.

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states.

Regarding UV light, if these AGW promoters have degrees in physics why don't they realize that the total energy spectrum has energy in accord with Planck's correlation E = hf where f is frequency and h is Planck's constant. Therefore more energy hitting earth, no matter what frequency it has warms up the earth. UV light carries more energy than the visible spectrum or infrared because it has a higher frequency.

I agree we should develop economic renewable energy because it will make our fossil fuels last longer. We should however not give tax incentives for processes like making ethanol from corn when it takes as much energy to make a gallon of ethanol than you get out. It may help farmers but it increases our food costs by increasing the demand for corn and increases energy consumption.

The AGW promoters think we are stupid. They present their pseudo-science, repeat it over and over and denigrate those that point out they are wrong. A former VP of a large utility relayed to me recently that a US Senator told him 12 years ago that the Democrats would eventually tax carbon because it was another way of taxing us and the American people are too stupid to realize what they are doing. (They may be right on that but I hope not) This is not a party issue on my part. I was a Republican, switched to being a Democrat, now I think of myself as a moderate Independent.

The politicos in my opinion don't care much about the ones they represent, they just care about themselves. Secretary of Defense Bob Gates recognized this when he said " (Washington) Where you can see prominent people walking down lover’s lane holding their own hands."

Len: Gore singlehandedly created AGW through his "Convenient Lie" documentary. Convenient Lie for him because his Generation Investment Management, LLC went from zero to $5 billion in investments in four years. He is by far the greatest scam artist this world has ever seen. Coal and oil companies don't care if you tax carbon, those costs are passed directly on to We the People! I didn't see them fighting this scam at all. I finally realized why!

Edward Reid, Jr.'s picture
Edward Reid, Jr. on May 29, 2009
...and, if we don't, we shall anyway.
Scott Brooks's picture
Scott Brooks on May 30, 2009
Len Wrote:

{Scott "lead to runaway funding by politico's and other groups in response to whipped up public fear mongering." -- could you provide any evidence of any specific grants to researchers by political entities? I think you'll likely find only coal and oil companies there.}

Oh really Len! Thie oil and coal industry mantra is getting old. If you had bothered to read the article I linked to concerning Ferenc Miskolczi, you would have found why he got ostracized by NASA program directors, FUNDING!

These links to articles will show that it defiantly goes beyond oil and coal lobbies.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/stimulating-scientists-into-proving-global-...

‘Stimulating’ Scientists Into Proving Global Warming

The new bill will spend billions to adjust data to “prove” the fallacy that humans are responsible for global warming. February 27, 2009 - by Frank J. Tipler

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller23.html

The Trouble With Government Grants

by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD

A scientist who writes a grant proposal that dissents from the ruling paradigm will be left without a grant. Speaking for his fellow scientists Pollack writes, "We have evolved into a culture of obedient sycophants, bowing politely to the high priests of orthodoxy."

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/arguments-against-global-w...

Global Warming Greatest Scam In History!

John Coleman argues against global warming

Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture.

And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.

Does that answer your question Len? You just follow the money trail for the MO! But I do not include scientists like Bob Ashworth. There are still honest scientists out there and many are of the counter 'consensus'. They are the modern day Galileo's who buck the religious high priests of pseudo science orthodoxy'

Bob;

I value your honesty and objectivity, I cannot help but concur with you. We have too many opportunists who are too eager to jump on some money gravy train. I at least wanted to expose you to some other facts concerning global warming.

This controversy reminds me of at least one false consensus of a century ago. Back in the early part of the 20th century demonic possession was blamed for a fungus called wheat rust. People who ate the contaminated wheat by products where diagnosed as being victims of witchcraft by high priests of 'orthodoxy' back then. It took real scientists to show that it was the 'fungus amongus' that was the source. But up until then many innocent people got either branded, ostracized or burned at the stake for religious hysteria. The same hysteria has morphed into environmentalism extremists who falsely blame technology for many of todays ills. They push their green agendas to the point of religious enviro rants and scare mongering.

Someone previously mentioned that there are more skeptics over the age of 50. Well that's because they have increasingly become aware of the sexed up pseudo science and are realizing the real science. But some people never become aware or are just stubborn diehards. There's just too much bad science and hype muddying the science waters for common folks to see the truth. But more seemed to becoming aware thanks to guy's like you Bob along with recent seasonal trends.

I personally think that the real problem is population numbers, with-out real sustainable energy like nuclear, people will see regressive economic conditions along with all the social ills that follow. Right now it's a lobbyist ENRON shell game of alternative energy proposals for funding rights. Our governments has overstepped it bounds of regulatory fugalness. They are mandating economic fiascoes in the name of public good. About as cheesy as pure spring water in plastic bottles.

Jerry Watson's picture
Jerry Watson on May 30, 2009
Fred Don't stick your finger in your eye it will only make you cry.

One of the few commonalities we all have is the certainty of death. Me I am relatively certain this planet will remain reasonably similar to is current state for the remainder of the time that I will need it. However, I am both a father and a grandfather. I have a grandson whose age is still measured in months and an adopted son (mi corazon) that moved into his 4th year of life in April. I would like their and my other children and grandchildren’s standards of living to be near my own consistently throughout their lives. So I have no desire for my generation to make errors that they will have to suffer and pay for.

I know a lot about the energy business due to a rather mixed background. I easily know more than Steve Chu as do many thousands of others of course it could have been much worse he is at least analytical but should avoid bike shorts. I assume everyone here knows his position on global warming. To move back to making errors that will affect the things I prize most my children and grandchildren. I hope these can be avoided or minimized. One of the epiphanies of my life came as a result of my time spent as a control room operator at an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant.

It is bragging but I was a gifted operator. My peers had varying degrees of success in the role. I wanted to understand why individuals equally trained and just as bright as or even brighter than me often hated the role and a few those really sucked at it. The plant is so complex it takes two control room operators to run it which made it easy to observe my peers to try to resolve this mystery in my on mind. What it boiled down to is making errors. In the control room there were two fundamental types of errors, errors of commission and errors of omission. The mediocre persons tended to make errors of omission they did nothing but gather information and the control system either reined the process back or shut it down; however, they could rarely be blamed which served to preserve their reputations. The ones that stunk the place up made errors of commission, their actions made matters worse and were less effective than doing nothing. Their errors were generally obvious and traceable and served to degrade their reputations. The group that was most effective made both types of errors based on the information available. They generally used a strategy of risk reduction. They took actions that would predictably slow the rate at which the situation decayed while they gathered more information and continued to take more mitigating actions until true cause could be identified and rectified or they could consciously decide a controlled crash landing was called for. I think a similar strategy is called for in protecting the future well being of those we will leave behind. I do not believe we are to the point a controlled crash is called for. I fear we are vacillating between two possible errors doing nothing or making matters worse by making the wrong decisions. Luckily we have time to gather enough information to make the best possible choices. Of course my measure of success is standard of living we will leave those the follow us not CO2 ppm or even global temperature. I fear a lot of the actions we will take will be a massive waste of resources that the next generation will pay in the form of a much lower standard of living. I guess it would be to much to ask to try sound logical judgements like one would make in the operation of a machine.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on May 31, 2009
Fred: You need to be updated here. Strip mining used to be a problem back in time but is a non-issue today. Now by Federal Law, miining companies have to fix the land and make it simliar to what it was before. The mining company uses bulldozers to flatten raised mining strips until they are all even. Topsoil is bulldozed over the top of everything and trees and grasses are planted.

Fred, from the data I have obtained and analyzed there is no connection between the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the earth's temperature. If you legislate carbon taxes, here in the US under the cap and trade legislation by Waxman and Markey, each family will pay more taxes to the tune of some $3,100/year. This is a huge consequence, all done for nothing except to have another way to tax us.

I already told you it was CFC destruction of ozone that caused the warming from the mid sixties to 1998. The Montreal Protocol had CFC production stopped in developed countries and around 1998 its concentration in the stratosphere stopped rising and so did the temperature. That correlates.

Carbon dioxide concentration is still going up but it appears to be leveling off now. The reason for the rise was two-fold, 1) solar spikes from the sun that warmed up the oceans and caused more CO2 to be liberated from the water and 2) CFC emissions that destroyed ozone and allowed the polar regions (ozone destruction greater in cold climates) to warm and release methane to the atmosphere estimated at 100 times that of man-made carbon emissions. This is why both methane and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increased. Methane is coverted to CO2 through oxidation in the atmosphere.

I am fighting this scam created by Gore not so much for myself but for my children and grandchildren and everyone elses. We know politicans lie but it is disheartening to see scientists doing the same thing for the same reason (to make more money).

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Jun 1, 2009
Fred: We could go back to living like cavemen. That is what fringe environmentalists seem to want. Look what is happening to California, because of their not this, not that environmental policies. Not many can afford to live there anymore because of less jobs and high prices.

If you put in a coal mine you should use the environmental controls required so as not to harm the environment long term. We need to have energy and coal is the most abundant form. What happened in PA was caused by not having environmental controls in place on mining back in time. When i went to school at WVU in the late fifties I remember that Cheat Lake near Morgantown had a pH of 4.0. I agree that that was not good.

I am an environmentalist. I developed a slagging coal gasifier that reduces SO2 emissions by 70+%, NOx emissions to below 0.10 lb/miilion Btu, mercury by 90 to 100% and other heavy metals by 80 to 100%. The energy demand is too great to have wind and solar provide us with energy and it is more costly than fossil fuels.

What worries me about nuclear is not the technology so much as it is, "Familiarity breeds contempt!" If someone screws up a coal fired power plant we can recover without long term damage but with a nuclear power plant screw up the area could be contaminated for many many years with a lot of associated deaths(Chernobyl).

Don Giegler's picture
Don Giegler on Jun 1, 2009
Bob,

"If someone screws up a coal fired power plant we can recover without long term damage but with a nuclear power plant screw up the area could be contaminated for many many years with a lot of associated deaths(Chernobyl)."

You seem to be one who values facts and independent analyses. A hackneyed old bromide like "Familiarity breeds contempt!" doesn't do justice to such a POV. Do you have any concrete comparative analyses or even facts that support the advantage of coal-fired power over nuclear power w.r.t. long term contamination and associated deaths for normal operation of such technologies as well as for accident situations?

Richard Vesel's picture
Richard Vesel on Jun 2, 2009
For someone who can't even figure out how to read Fig 7 (by this, I mean the author), I wouldn't lend much credence to any other claims.

This is an energy balance diagram! All inputs and outputs are in balance. The earth does not reradiate 3 times as much energy as it gets from solar insolation - DUH! It radiates off exactly what it takes in from net surface insolation from direct sunlight, and from the IR it gets as energy cycled from the atmosphere. Total solar insolation (342) at top of atmosphere is equal to amount reflected (107) plus reradiated (235). Everything else going on down below is in balance as well.

Now Bob, here is some more analysis for you...

Total atmospheric load (currently) of CO2 is a little over 2 Trillion tonnes. Manking ADDS to this load about 1.3% every recently, and that grow to 1.5% by 2030, according to Exxon Mobil. Yes, all of this CO2 is cycling into, AND OUT OF, the oceans, vegetation, and animal life forms. The idea is to stop ADDING to the buildup - it has no place to go. Nature will not just turn on some mechanism short term to make up for our dumping tens of billions of tonnes every year into the atmosphere.

All forms of energy generation have their costs - we have to rely on the ones with the absolute least impact, and get off the ones that are just plain old cheap and dirty. No need to live in caves, just need to live with a high level view towards minimizing our collective impact on a system of finite size and capacity to sustain.

Nuclear, sun, wind, geothermal, biomethane - these are the answers...

Regards, RWVesel

Richard Vesel's picture
Richard Vesel on Jun 2, 2009
And ANOTHER thing...

Blowing smoke up our collective keisters like "Cap & Trade will cost every American Family $3100 a year" - yeah if CO2 credits go to $200+ a ton it will, but we will change many things long before THAT happens...

My three car, gas heated, coal electrified, jet travelling family of five lifestyle emits about 40 tons of CO2 per year, according to a few calculators. At $20 a ton, that's $800, which I am happy to pay via ten cents more per gallon of gas, and $50 a month more in my utility bills...especially if it makes alternative non-fossil energy that much more accessible.

GEEZ!!!

PLEASE - DO THE #$!@#& NUMBERS instead of spouting nonsensical rubbish ad nauseum.

Scott Brooks's picture
Scott Brooks on Jun 2, 2009
Well I disagree on what Bob and Fred think of Nuclear.

http://www.chernobyllegacy.com/index.php?cat=3&sub=2 http://www.world-nuclear.org

The Chernobyl Reactor, 1 of 3, blewup because it was mismanaged by the then- Soviet handlers. Nuclear power has got a bad name through Chernobyl. Chernobyl reactors are of the RBMK design, a rudimentary graphite moderated steam cooled plant with no containment vessel, indeed, it was no better that the original ‘graphite pile’ in the Manhattan Project (circa 1943). Remember that graphite and steam are an explosive combination if they get hot enough, and that’s exactly what happened at Chernobyl (this was NOT a ‘nuclear’ explosion). RBMK's are not being built anywhere else. The Soviets used this type because it was good for producing plutonium and uranium for weapon use. Modern LWR use uranium enriched no more then 4% from bomb grade. The Three Mile Island mishap occurred because of lack of sensor monitors. That has since been remedied and that is why you have not heard of any more major reactor disasters.

The Russian RBMKs are the equivalent of a model T Ford, the USAs PWRs represent auto technology from the ’60s, but we are now capable of producing Lexus and Mercedes type reactor technology, which provide a quantum leap in terms of safety and efficiency. The point is that there are methods of reducing nuclear risks if we put our minds to it. The latest design from Westinghouse the AP1000, LWR will be able to deliver 10 times the efficiency of the reactors in current use. They use passive cooling technology over the maze of coolant plumbing of TMI type reactors. The USAs PWRs (Pressurized Water Reactors) are naturally fission-stable, and their very nature will resist and counter a runaway thermic event like that which occurred at Chernobyl.

In addition there are High Temperature Gas Cooled reactors that use helium as a coolant. HTGRs are very thermal efficient and use fuel that not enriched enough to melt down like other designs. There is also the thorium reactors where thorium is abundant. Used spent fuel from LWR can be reprocessed for extraction of usable fuel. More fuel can be created with the fast breeder reactor designs. They can extend the nuclear fuel out to 10,000 years. There is all kinds of safe and new nuclear technology being pioneered under generation IV reactor technology. There is a reactor design called the TVR prototype. Unlike today’s reactors, a traveling-wave reactor requires very little enriched uranium, reducing the risk of weapons proliferation. The reactor uses depleted-uranium fuel packed inside hundreds of hexagonal pillars.

The US needs to ramp up research on this now instead of blowing stimulus money on dubious bailouts, renewable fiascoes and infrastructure upgrades along with numerous pork earmarks.

So if you compare so called renewable to nuclear it's like comparing ant power to elephant power. Lookup this article to see what I mean:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/25/renewable-energy-%E2%80%93-our-dow...

Renewable energy our downfall?

The antinuclear fanatics have done their damage, they have demonized nuclear beyond realities of todays technology just like they have done with spotted owls and polar bears. It's the same type of fear mongering with guns and CO2. And this is coming from someone who use to think renewables were the energy saviors, it will take decades of development before they could possibly compete with fossil or nuclear today for our present lifestyle expectations. Renewables are just not really sustainable in their present states of technology or even foreseable when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it. It's become a revenue/power shell game and green energy shill.

And Fred, if you had bothered to look up the recent facts on polar icecaps, the Antarctic ice overall has been increasing on the East side while the Arctic ice has been expanding since 2007. True, the glaciers have been melting, but not at an accelerated rate and some are now reversing. Land ice has been melting at a constant rate since the Little Ice Age and greatly since the last ice age. The Oceans have been reportedly rising at a constant rate of about 10~15cm per century. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/24/disproving-the-anthropogenic-globa...

Disproving The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Problem

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/greenland_glacier.html

GREENLAND GLACIER TREND

The AGWer claims are mostly smoke and mirrors based on questionable computer models and paleontology proxie data. It boils down to qualifying for research grants.

And to further the AGW fraud there's this article that can be found on the icecap.us site I call the Gore- ENRON connection:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/05/29/la...

May 30, 2009 Larry Solomon: ENRON’S Other Secret

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Jun 3, 2009
Don: I worked in a production plant and my boss told the operator to by-pass a safety device that wasn’t working so we could get back onstream. You don’t make money when the plant is down. Familiarity here breeded contempt for the safety device and could have resulted in a disaster. I also worked for a company that designed nuclear plants. The technology works but the human element in operating the plants is what I worry about. You have to take into account, both human and mechanical considerations. Besides Chernobyl, I also remember the Three Mile Island incident hear Harrisburg.

Fred: The other choices to coal for power generation are not that vast. Why do we have to have the same topography that we were given anyway? It doesn’t stop airport construction, roads or anything else that causes as much if not more havoc with the topography than a mine. It is noble to want a pristine environment but you also need to provide for your family.

Concerning the Grand Canyon visibility, I don’t think coal fired power plants are to blame for that. You might want to look into the covert geoengineering (spraying of fine bauxite particles and other minerals into our atmosphere) that is implemented in our country and others, that can explain the increase in asthma and poor visibility. I have started to write a book on this.

Data analysis is the same no matter what field of endeavor you choose. You collect the data then analyze it without trying to spin it to your preconceived notions and see what it is telling you. This was one of the simpler systems I have analyzed.

Richard: To make a mass and energy balance around a system, here is what you do for the earth. Draw a sphere around it. Whatever energy goes into the earth from an outside source like radiation from the sun goes into that sphere. The energy leaving that sphere can never be greater than 100% as the pseudo-scientists from Colorado show. Energy and mass can never be created nor destroyed it just goes from one form to another. So in their graph if the only energy they have hitting the earth is 168 watts/sq. meter; this is the maximum energy available. They also show 122 watts/sq. meter going to the atmosphere from thermals and evapotranspiration (moisture evaporating from plants). Now they only have 46 watts/sq. meter left to fiddle with. Yet on the right side of the graph they have 390 watts/sq. meter being radiated from the earth. Here is where they start violating the laws of thermodynamics. Many scientists besides me have pointed this out to the AGW proponents but I guess they don’t have the thermodynamic background to understand it. If this phenomenon existed, which it clearly does not (no greenhouse signature found in the atmosphere) we would only need the energy of the sun and the magic of re-radiation to supply us with all of our energy needs. Solar cells could be put on cars that have 10% efficiency that would be raised to (390/46) x10 or almost 85% efficiency.

“Nature will not just turn on some mechanism short term to make up for our dumping tens of billions of tones”. This mechanism has been in place since the beginning of man, it is called photosynthesis and you would be hard pressed to find a mechanism longer term than this. Even the misguided IPCC admit that 98.5% of the CO2 that is emitted to the atmosphere is absorbed by nature.

Scott: “In addition there are High Temperature Gas Cooled reactors that use helium as a coolant. HTGRs are very thermal efficient and use fuel that not enriched enough to melt down like other designs. There are also the thorium reactors where thorium is abundant. Used spent fuel from LWR can be reprocessed for extraction of usable fuel. More fuel can be created with the fast breeder reactor designs. They can extend the nuclear fuel out to 10,000 years. There are all kinds of safe and new nuclear technology being pioneered under generation IV reactor technology. There is a reactor design called the TVR prototype. Unlike today’s reactors, a traveling-wave reactor requires very little enriched uranium, reducing the risk of weapons proliferation. The reactor uses depleted-uranium fuel packed inside hundreds of hexagonal pillars. The US needs to ramp up research on this now instead of blowing stimulus money on dubious bailouts, renewable fiascoes and infrastructure upgrades along with numerous pork earmarks."

I agree with your statements. If you can make nuclear power safe and find how to store the waste so man cannot screw it up, nuclear power is okay with me.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Jun 3, 2009
Richard: PLEASE - DO THE #$!@#& NUMBERS instead of spouting nonsensical rubbish ad nauseum

I didn't calculate it but researched it.

NY Times Wednesday, June 3, 2009

How Much Will ‘Cap and Trade’ Cost? By Casey B. Mulligan Casey B. Mulligan is an economics professor at the University of Chicago.

" Some estimates suggest that the amount at stake for the taxpayers is over $3,000 per person (not per family as i relayed from another source i read)." Sorry for the low ball estimate.

Here is another one. "Cap-and-Trade Could Cost Average Family $10,800 in Lost Income, Says Economist Arthur Laffer; Proposed Global Warming Policy Likened to 1970s-Era Energy Crunch"

If they do this crap and for no good purpose, you must know more jobs will go to Mexico, China, Russia and others who would never tax carbon.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Jun 3, 2009
Fred: " Concerning the Grand Canyon visibility, I don’t think coal fired power plants are to blame for that. You might want to look into the covert geoengineering (spraying of fine bauxite particles and other minerals into our atmosphere) that is implemented in our country and others, that can explain the increase in asthma and poor visibility. I have started to write a book on this. "

I'll look for it in the fiction section. (Already have made up your mind before you analyzed it for yourself. That seems to be the modus operandum for the AGW crowd.)

Type in chemtrails in Google search. The pictures are similar to ones I have taken over my home. Observation Fred, observation! You can't walk around all of the time with your eyes wide shut.

In your responses you seem to have gievn up on CO2 casuing global warming and now you just want to bash coal, the greenest fuel we can use.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Jun 4, 2009
Fred:

Mad as a hatter eh! A reviewer of my paper on the Helical Travel of Light called me that when I proved photons have mass. Oh yes, even after his diatribe the paper was published. Coal use makes CO2 which causes plants to grow faster; it is the greenest fossil fuel we have. Wiith your reasoning you pollute the air everytime you breathe out, CO2, bacteria, particulate etc. Should people lbe banned from the earth?

You hate coal. Gore does too, that is why he lost to Bush in his home state of Tennesee. The people who live in coal producing states love coal. It provides them a good living. Have you ever lived in a state that mines coal? I would guess not. Would rather live by a coal mine or by commercial chicken houses?

My native state is West Virginia and a lot of coal is mined there. John Denver called it, "Almost heaven! I agree with him. Everything in live has risks asscoaited with it. You could get hit by a car anytime. Why not ban automobiles and every other form of travel, they are much more devastating to society than coal.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Jun 4, 2009
FYI: All comments below from the heritage Foundation

The conservative Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis used an econometric model of the U.S. economy to measure the projected impact of Waxman-Markey (Cap and Trade bill) and found that by 2035, it would: § Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $7.4 trillion, § Destroy 844,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 1,900,000 jobs, § Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation, § Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent, § Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent, § Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,500, and § Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 29 percent, or $33,400 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation. That is a prescription for wrecking American prosperity for decades to come.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Jun 8, 2009
Fred: I agree that mine regulations need to be enforced to keep miners as safe as possible, but that doesn't mean you should close down all coal mines. If someone cut-off a finger at a Deli, you wouldn't be shouting to close down all Delis. Yes, you are probably right about a cover-up. Local communities never want certain things to get out that would put their community in a bad light.
Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Jun 12, 2009
Fred: Thanks for the compliment. I do have some ideas on using anti-gravity to generate power. That came after I realized that all radiant energy waves are just small particles of mass traveling in helical trajectories. However, I am getting old without the funds necessary to pursue that - but it would be fun! Take care of yourself and in your search for Truth always follow your own heart, not somebody else's.
Richard Vesel's picture
Richard Vesel on Jul 7, 2009
Mr. Ashworth,

I do not consider Arther Laffer or the Heritage Foundation to be credible sources for anything but right-wing free-market blathering, er, "opinion".

Surely you realize that the "anti" side of any argument attempts to bolster their position with gross overestimations (or references to them) of the possible costs.

$200 per ton for CO2 mitigation will most CERTAINLY foster entire new methods, processes and industries for energy generation, simply to AVOID paying $200 per ton. The effective cost of using coal would go up by a factor of 5x to 10x, depending on where you buy your coal, because burning a ton of coal generates (more or less) about a ton and a half of CO2. So your $30 per ton of coal now costs $330 per ton to use. I think people will abandon coal long before it gets to that point, don't you?

Regarding the picture above, you still don't get the energy balance picture. Please review until you do see it. It is accurate...that's all I can offer you, unliess you would like each element balanced out for you with pictures.

PS - Circularly polarized light has been known about for a long time - those travelling helices preceeded your "discovery" of them by a few decades...I think I recall learing about this in high school in the early 70's, where it was already in the mainstream physics textbooks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization

Get working on that anti-gravity thing! I need it to keep my own perpetual motion machine in operation!

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Sep 22, 2009
Richard: Didn't see your comment until now. I never heard about others talking about helical travel, not even the physicists that reviewed my paper over the five years it took for me to get it published. Glad they did though. After i wrote my paper others did come up with light traveling in a helix but none of them that I know of says that light is a particle, although that is what Richard Feynman said. He showed a graph like a helix for light travel but inferred more than four dimensions were involved but which are not.

All photons travel in helices. The paricle travels at the square root of two times its helical wave travel (c). The diameter of the helix is its wavelength divided by pi. The reason this works is that the circumference of the helix is identical to its wavelength. The photon also always hits the surface of an object at a 45 degree angle incedent to its travel. If it hit at any other angle it would be like living in a funhouse mirror, everything would be distorted. Pretty amazing job by God. I know antigravity exists, Jesus walked on water and St. Francis of Assisi could levitate as well as a lot of Holy Men from India back in time, Gravity is the same as light except the particles are much smaller.

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Sep 24, 2009
Mr Ashworth's use of a revisionist and lying historical reference, in comment near end dated 9.24.09 starting From Piers Corbyn:

Mr Ashwoth: "Piers Corbyn ... Remember the UN Security Council Feb 2003 hearing 'evidence' of Weapons of Mass Destruction to justify the Iraq war? UN weapons inspector Hans Blix was unable to find any weapons of mass destruction"

You clearly and knowingly are using a reference who is flat lying about how the 2003 (war on/illegal invasion of) Iraq got started. For a long period prior, Mr. Blix had convinced the Security Council that there were no WMD in Iraq. However, the US Government did a brainwash media blitz on their own people, including the President lying (probably knowingly) in a state of the union address to congress, and topped it off with a publicly broadcast presentation by Colin Powell to the UN in which Mr. Powell explicitly lied to the council members (likely due to false information provided to him by the intelligence bodies not under his conrol). It ruined his reputation and his excellent chances of going further in public service, though it has been clearly documented that he and his staff were blocked in their many attempts at accessing backup data beforehand, no doubt because it didn't exist. The moves ruined worldwide trust in accuracy of US staff abroad permanently, and rightly so. Your use of such material to promote your claims leaves me believing that if you spoke the time of day I would need to consult my watch first before believing it.

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Sep 24, 2009
Trying to twist that event to discedit the UN's IPCC is unconsionable lying.
Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Dec 4, 2009
Len: I knew they were lying and Climategate has now given proof to the big lie. Now does the IPCC deserve to be discredited. Eyes wide shut Len.

Pages

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 »