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


You need to be a member of Energy Central to access some features and content. Please or register to continue.


No Such Thing as Greenhouse Gases

Power Plant Under Construction


It seems persons trying to rid the planet of our conventional fuels; coal, oil and natural gas, will go to great lengths of completely lying.  First of all, so-called but misnamed "greenhouse" gases cool the earth - they don't warm it!  Also, so-called "green energy" is not green at all!

Greenhouse Gases do not Exist

Any mass between you and a radiant energy source will provide cooling.  Stand near a fireplace that is burning and feel the warmth of the radiant energy; then have two people drape a blanket between you and the fireplace -- you will feel cooler!  Another example, stand outside on a sun shiny day. When a cloud goes over and shades you from the direct rays of the sun, most people feel cooler, but perhaps not the IPCC scientists.  Nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, carbon dioxide and any dust that is in the atmosphere all provide cooling as well. Why is this? If there were no atmosphere, all radiant energy from the sun would hit the earth. However, with an atmosphere, a portion of the incoming sun's rays are absorbed or reflected away from earth by striking the gas molecules and dust particles, so less radiant energy hits the earth and the earth is cooler because of its atmosphere, see Figure 1

(Solar Irradiance - 342 Watts/m2 coming to total earth surface - only 164 Watts/m2 hits the earth surface)

Figure 1.  Cooling Effect of Earth's Atmosphere.

Everyone knows that cloud cover at night (more insulation) prevents the earth from cooling off as fast as it does when there are no clouds. However this insulating effect is minimal compared to the daytime effect. No rocket science is required here, just common sense. Scientific proof confirms common sense.

Everyone knows that cloud cover at night (more insulation) prevents the earth from cooling off as fast as it does when there are no clouds. However this insulating effect is minimal compared to the daytime effect. No rocket science is required here, just common sense. Scientific proof confirms common sense.

The cooling effect of water vapor in the stratosphere was proved following the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Atmospheric scientists studied the effect of water vapor on temperature in the wake of the attacks. The Federal Aviation Administration prohibited commercial aviation over the United States for three days following the attacks and this presented a unique opportunity to study the temperature of the earth without airplanes and their contrails1.

Dr. Travis, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Wisconsin along with Dr. Carleton, a geologist at Penn State University, looked at how temperatures for those three days compared to other days when planes were flying. They analyzed maximum and minimum temperature data from about 4,000 weather stations throughout the contiguous (48 states) United States for the period 1971-2000.  It was found that the average daily temperature range between highs and lows was around 1.1 oC higher during September 11-14 with air traffic grounded compared to September 8-11 and September 11-14 with normal air traffic.  The data proved that stratospheric water vapor trails have a net cooling effect and therefore all other so-called greenhouse gases must have a similar effect because the IPCC says water vapor is the worst "greenhouse gas".  IPCC and NASA scientists tried to discredit this analysis after it was made; what else is new about them, their approach is to manipulate or disregard data to fit their own nefarious goals. 

Carl Brehmer also showed the cooling effect of water vapor, see Figure 2. 


Figure 2.  Effect of Humidity on Soil Temperature 2.

An experiment was performed to study the effect of rising and falling levels of humidity on soil temperature and it was discovered that the addition of moisture to the atmosphere exerts a significant negative feedback (cooling effect).

The experiment showed the same result as the analysis of the 9-11 data.  The data was taken over 38 days so the first thing done was to find the 38 day mean dew point and divide the days up between those that fell above the mean -- the "humid" days -- and those that fell below the mean -- the "arid" days. Then the data was averaged as shown on the curves on the graph above. One can readily see the hotter day time temperatures for the arid days (red line) compared to the cooler humid days (blue line).

The cooling effect of carbon dioxide because of its relatively low concentration (some 400 ppmv), compared to water vapor (~1 to 2% in the atmosphere) that you can measure, has a very slight cooling effect but the effect is so small it cannot be measured.

Non Green Electric Power Generation

Most of the misnamed "green" technologies being touted are not green at all and have their own set of environmental problems of killing many birds, bats, butterflies and fish. 

Wind Turbines

Even though wind power generates only 3 percent of the U.S. electrical power, a study reported3 that wind turbines kill around 573,000 birds (including 83,000 hawks and eagles)and 888,000 bats each year.  Many of the birds and bats (see Figure 3) killed by wind turbines are endangered and protected species.  The author of the study, Smallwood, emphasized that restricting carbon dioxide emissions, and thus conventional power generation in the name of addressing global warming creates even worse environmental problems, explained above.  

Despite numerous violations, the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has unofficially exempted the wind industry from prosecution under the Eagle Protection and Migratory Bird Treaty Acts.


Figure 3.  Why Wind Turbines Endanger Bats?


A new report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finds that solar facilities in California are acting like a "mega trap" that kills and injures birds4.  As a result, "entire food chains" are being disrupted. The National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory studied three solar farms in Southern California: Desert Sunlight, Genesis Solar and Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System.

Two-hundred and thirty-three different birds from 71 species were found over the course of a two-year study. The three main causes of death were: 1) Solar flux: exposure to temperatures over 800 degrees F; 2) Impact (or blunt force) trauma: the birds' wings are rendered inoperable while flying, causing them to crash into the ground; 3) Predators: When a bird's wings are singed and it cannot fly, it loses its primary means of defense against animals like foxes and coyotes. The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) is shown in Figure 4.  It covers 4000 acres or 6.25 square miles of land.


Figure 4. Solar Electric Generation

In one instance, researchers found "hundreds upon hundreds" of butterfly carcasses (including Monarchs).  The butterflies were attracted to the light from the solar farm, which in turn attracted birds and has perpetuated a cycle of death and injury for both birds and butterflies.  In addition, you can see from Figure 4, how large of an area where potential plant growth has been totally eliminated.

Hydroelectric Dams

There are more than 80,000 dams across the United States.  They are constructed for a variety of reasons, including the generation of hydroelectric power, stabilizing the water flow of a river, and assuring a reliable water supply for agricultural irrigation or for urban consumers.  Dams create serious problems, see Figure 5.  The presence of such a substantial barrier interferes with the migration and spawning of native fish (notably salmon).  Also some 15 to 20% of the fish that go through the current generating turbines are killed.  The lakes and reservoirs that form behind dams drown both human communities and entire riparian ("stream side") ecosystems beneath hundreds of feet of water - less plant growth. The dams also traps sediment, which is critical for maintaining physical processes and habitats downstream stream of the dams (the maintenance of productive deltas, barrier islands, fertile floodplains and coastal wetlands).

Figure 5. Hydroelectric Dam

 According to the Hydropower Reform Coalition (HRC), a consortium of 150 groups concerned about the impact of dams, a degraded water quality is one of the chief concerns. Organic materials from within and outside the river that would normally wash downstream get built up behind dams and start to consume a large amount of oxygen as they decompose. In some cases this triggers algae blooms which, in turn, creates oxygen-starved "dead zones" incapable of supporting river life of any kind.  Also, water temperatures in dam reservoirs can differ greatly between the surface and bottom, further complicating survival for marine life evolved to handle only the natural temperature cycling of a river. Further, when dam operators release oxygen-deprived water with unnatural temperatures into the river below, they harm downstream environments as well.

Fish passage is also a concern.  Migratory fish like salmon, which are born upstream and may or may not survive their downstream trip around, over or through a dam, stand an even poorer chance of completing the round trip to spawn.  Indeed, wild salmon numbers in the Pacific Northwest's Columbia River basin are down some 85 percent since the big dams were constructed a half century ago. 

According to a non-profit group - American Rivers, over 1,000 dams across the U.S. have been removed to date.  The biggest dam removal project in history is now underway in Olympic National Park in Washington State where two century-old dams along the Elwha River are being removed.  Why go to all the trouble and expense of removing dams, especially if they contribute electricity to our power grids?  The decision usually comes down to a cost/benefit analysis taking into account how much power a given dam generates and how much harm its existence is doing to its host river's environment.  The outcome of the Elwha River evaluation was a negative benefit.


So my question to the global warming crowd is this: "Is it better to use conventional combustible fuels to generate power or the "non-green" so-called green energy technologies?"  Carbon dioxide warms nothing, due to its low concentration in the atmosphere (~400 ppmv with man's contribution 12 ppmv) it is slightly cooling, not warming.  Over ninety-eight percent of the CO2 produced by nature and man is absorbed by plants (~10,000 Btu/lb of energy is absorbed with photosynthesis - another cooling effect).  It also provides oxygen for animals to breathe. 

Wind turbines, solar facilities and hydroelectric dams kill animals and butterflies and are not green at all.  It is strange that conventional combustible (abiogenic) fuels are considered not green when they are the only ones that are green, carbon dioxide makes plants grow.  Recently it was found that the study results that showed 97% of scientists supporting global warming was really only 0.5%6.  However, with global warmers, everything that is right is wrong and everything that is wrong is right.  How they have gotten away with this for so long?  It is because of habitual lying!  Truth in science is critical to society, otherwise charlatans will lie about anything to take money from others.



1.     Travis, D., A. Carleton, and R. Lauritsen, 2002: Contrails reduce daily temperature range. Nature, 418, 601

 2.     Brehmer, C, "The Greenhouse Effect Explored", February 21, 2012,

 3.     Smallwood, K. S.,"Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American wind-energy projects", Wildlife Society Bulletin Volume 37, Issue 1, pages 19-33, March 2013

 4.     Kagan, R., Viner T., Trail, P., Espinoza E., "Avian Mortality at Solar Energy Facilities in Southern California: A Preliminary Analysis", National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory, April 2014.           

 5.     Scientific American, "The Downside of Dams: Is the Environmental Price of Hydroelectric Power Too High?", Sep 18, 2012

 6.     William F. Jaspar,  New American, , May 20, 2014

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.


Bob Amorosi's picture
Bob Amorosi on Jun 18, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
Perhaps focusing on the earth's surface (soil) temperature as it is affected by all the variables is incorrect for the purposes of climate change discussion.

I would agree with Bob that the atmosphere and any other gases or vapours or clouds effectively reduce the solar radiation incident on the earth's surface, thereby cooling its surface soil temperature. But what about the portion of solar energy that is absorbed by these things in the atmosphere? Doesn't absorption by these things cause the atmosphere's temperature to rise, hence potentially changing the atmosphere's climate behaviour?

In other words, yes the earth's surface soil temperature may be cooled by the presence of our atmosphere and anything in it over what the earth's surface temperature would be without an atmosphere. But surely not all the energy prevented from hitting the earth's surface is reflected back out into space. A substantial portion of energy is absorbed by the atmosphere and its constituents, and the more absorption there is, the greater the resulting "average" temperature of the total atmosphere. Hence I believe the atmosphere's climate is affected by changing its constituents i.e. by adding greenhouse gases or any other sort of pollutants that increase solar energy absorption by the atmosphere.

Steve Fugate's picture
Steve Fugate on Jun 19, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
Bob, did you know George Orwell? In the future, your great grandchildren will be embarrassed that their progenitor was leading the race to the bottom.
Robert Hutchinson's picture
Robert Hutchinson on Jun 19, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
Bob - visit the polar regions or a research station high here in the Rockies, where the change you think is impossible is going on very clearly, with data for 50 years. Remember to remain a scientist and understand the hard facts. Instead of theorizing that everyone else must be wrong. We need smart, creative thinkers like you to solve problems, not pretend they do not exist!
Ferdinand E. Banks's picture
Ferdinand E. Banks on Jun 19, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
I remember teaching a course in energy economics somewhere, and being told that dams were an enemy of the human race. I would have failed the guy who told me than, only I talked to him and concluded that he was nuts. As for solar and wind, they have no future at the present time, although there are people who tell you that they are turning Germany into an energy paradise. They are not nuts but ignorant...something like the American president.
Joe Schiller's picture
Joe Schiller on Jun 19, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
Mr. Ashworth's background may be in chemical engineering, but he seems to have an astounding ignorance of basic physics. The reason that not all substances cool the earth due to their presence in the atmosphere is the fact that not all wavelengths of electromagnetic energy are equally reflected or absorbed by any specific substance. Carbon dioxide is more opaque to longer wavelengths (i.e. "heat" energy) than to shorter wavelengths that penetrate to the earths surface. When shorter wavelengths penetrate to the surface they are absorbed by other substances such as water, land, etc., which become warmer and then emit that heat energy back to the atmosphere as longer wavelength radiation which is absorbed better by carbon dioxide. The absorbed longer wavelength energy heats the earths atmosphere. I cannot believe Energy Central would publish an article that is so technically flawed.

Dr. Joe Schiller

John Howe's picture
John Howe on Jun 19, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
It's hard to know who should be more embarrassed by this piece -- Mr. Ashworth for writing it, or EnergyCentral, for allowing it to be run under its masthead. The level of scientific ignorance displayed here seriously undermines the credibility of the brand.
Anne Kirby's picture
Anne Kirby on Jun 20, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
EnergyCentral is the one who should be most embarrassed. More despicable than the article is EnergyCentral's waste of our time by posting this. I am all for hearing opposing viewpoints, but this "article" is a sham.
Bruce Cook's picture
Bruce Cook on Sep 24, 2017 1:18 pm GMT

Why is it that throughout history of the planet that we have had warmer temps with less CO2 and Cooler temps with more CO2 ? And then we have you telling us this is embarrassing...What is embarrassing is you.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Oct 6, 2018 4:24 pm GMT

Thank you Anne. I guess in our contemporary alt-fact environment, the opinions of a creationist climate-denier are worthy of consideration.

If so, we should hear what flat-earthers and voodoo witch-doctors have to say on this topic...isn’t it best to get all sides of the story?

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Jun 20, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
You give the AGW crowd data that confirms your analysis but that is not accepted because of their desire to destroy fossil fuel production. No truth, just jabber! Truth in science is important to our kids and grand kids.

You all must know that the man-made CO2 in the atmosphere is only some 12 ppmv of the 400 ppmv. (IPCC Report 2001, since then they eliminated that table like they did with Lois Lerner's emails). Since 2002 temperature has not increased and CO2 has risen some 24 ppmv. If you eliminated all man-made CO2 worldwide (12 ppmv), we would go back to the level in the atmosphere we had in 2008.

I tell the truth but many people don't like that and try to make fun of me! That's okay I am an old chemical engineer and people have used the small town politics approach on me before.

God is Truth, and Truth alone Triumphs!

Jack Ellis's picture
Jack Ellis on Jun 20, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
Regarding the effects of CO2, there are two things readers need to know. First, that Dr. Schiller has his facts straight while Mr. Ashworth is making is up. If Mr. Ashworth thinks Dr. Schiller's explanation is correct, I'd like to see peer-reviewed experimental evidence that suggests otherwise. Second, while I'm not prepared to defend the atmospheric trajectories that come out of the IPCC, the principle of conservation of energy says that additional heat absorbed by the atmosphere due to higher concentrations of CO2 have to go somewhere, and that somewhere includes increases in the temperature of exposed portions of the earth's crust, melting ice, higher sea temperatures, and higher atmospheric temperatures. All of this is in addition to any natural variation.

I'm a bit more inclined to agree with Mr. Ashworth's assertion that renewable energy technologies are not as clean as proponents suggest. But the fact is, none of the available methods for supplying heating, cooling, cooking and power are without environmental impacts. It's a matter of picking our poison. We can mitigate the adverse impacts to varying degrees in exchange for higher energy prices, less convenience or a combination of the two.

Jack Ellis, Tahoe City, CA

Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Jun 22, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
I recall several years ago having to go through all kinds of hoop-jumping attempting to get a small combined-cycle power plant licensed in California. Turtles, mice, insects birds, etc may get adversely impacted! OMG. All this for measly acre or so of land. Yet, up pop solar plants affecting thousands of acres and hardly a peep from the regulators. Unquestionably, a double standard.

Accidentally (or deliberately) shoot an eagle here in Kansas and watch what happens. Huge fines and off to the slammer. Wind turbines routinely chop up the bird population (including eagles and hawks) and no problemo. They are immune from prosecution (it's in the fine print of the laws). Yet again, double standard.

The outright hypocrisy of the "green-energy" religion is breathtaking to behold. Typical of the radical left who consider themselves above the law because of their "sacred" mission.

PS Fred Linn - looks like you are a "denier" about wind turbines killing bats and birds.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Jun 23, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
Shiller and Ellis are wrong. My analyses are based on real data. To say this or that about certain wavelengths doesn't prove anything. Since 2002 there has been no increase in global warming even though the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased some 24 ppmv and all of mandmade CO2 is only some 12 ppmv. Evaluate the data gentlemen, once again don't just jabber you are correct. My analysis is not based on something I made up, it is real data. We get our energy from the sun in case you don't know that, which is much more than that which is radiated back from the earth and by the way the same atmosphere reflects energy back to space as it reflects energy back to the earth. Oh by the way, I proved Einstein was wrong about photons having no mass (Physics Essays 1998) as they travel through space. Doesn't prove I am right here but I know something about physics
Richard Vesel's picture
Richard Vesel on Jun 23, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
Mr. Ashworth, it's a wonder you don't travel the country and stop in all the greenhouses that you find and try to convince their owners that their transparent roofs should be cooling the interiors, not warming them up, and that the interiors are truly hot because they are humid.

ugh - the foolishness you continue to try to push on us is mind-numbing.

Richard Vesel's picture
Richard Vesel on Jun 23, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
So we must argue, from two centuries of scientific research about what ARE greenhouse gases and how do they work? To directly refute Ashworth's claim, there ARE greenhouse gases, and CO2 is one of them!

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Jun 23, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
Mr. Vessel: What do transparent roofs have to do with CO2? I have worked in a greenhouse but probably none of the AGW supporters have! I was the process designer and project manager for a coal-fired AFBC unit that was installed to heat a greenhouse in the winter. They don't heat themselves. Sometimes the exhaust gases from a natural gas fired heater are exhausted into the greenhouse to increase plant growth. Also, I doubt any of the AGW people know this but photosynthesis is an endothermic reaction, approximately 8,000 Btu are absorbed for every pound of CO2 absorbed. 6CO2 + 6H2O = C6H12O6 + 6O2 In other words a very strong cooling reaction.

Also for every ton of CO2 you do away with oxygen for man and animals to breathe is reduced some 1450 lbs.

Richard Vesel's picture
Richard Vesel on Jun 24, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
The bulk of your response is a non sequitor, however ...

CO2 behaves the same way as glass in a greenhouse, Mr. Ashworth. It is transparent to the bulk of the solar spectrum, and that energy hits the surface of the earth (or the interior of the greenhouse) and heats it. The heated surfaces re-radiate that heat as far infrared, which is then is absorbed and reradiated omnidirectionally by CO2 (or greenhouse glass) rather than allowed to freely pass through back into space. Hence the heat trapping property or "greenhouse" effect. It would be creating far more noticeable temperature effects if CO2 were present in higher concentrations, but these levels are already significant.

Denying the existence of, and the effects of, "greenhouse gases" is bunk. Please stop perpetuating bunk. Two hundred years of chemistry proves you wrong, and to continually rail against these PROVEN FACTS is nothing short of kooky.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Jun 24, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
Mr. Vessel:

Same thing happens in a car with a moon roof, is it a greenhouse too?

There are many things taught that are not true:

Evolution - If a chance of occurrence is less that 1*10^-50 it will never occur. The chance for a horse to appear is 1*10^-3,000,000. Yet this crap is still being taught to our children.

Sun Energy from Hydrogen Fusion - Wrong it is from neutron repulsion created by the gravitational effect. If it were from fusion we would be bombarded by neutrinos - we are not. Yet still taught in schools.

Photons travelling through space have no mass - They should have called them Houdinis then. They do have mass and travel in a helix at the square root of two times the speed of the measured wave. Diameter of helix is the wavelength divided by pi. Yet having no mass is still being taught.

Greenhouse gases and CO2 causing warming - This non sequitor is still being taught. All gases and dust in the atmosphere cool our planet. The same atmosphere that reflects energy from the sun to space also reflects energy back to earth, but the energy from the sun is far greater, so overall effect is cooling. Yet the opposite is taught. The greenhouse gas kooks think you only need insulation to keep warm in the winter, no furnace is needed to provide heat. They only consider one-half of the mass and energy balance.

From 2002 to 2014 the CO2 in our atmosphere raised 24 ppmv; yet no warming. The CO2 that man makes is a mouse milk quantity compared to nature. From the IPCC Report of 2001 (table since deleted like Lois Lerner emails) man-made CO2 is only 2.9% and nature 97.1%. Do you want to eliminate nature's contribution so we have no more plants and no oxygen for man.

My advice is that if something doesn't make sense then analyze it yourself. As seen with global warming from CO2, it is a completely bogus explanation.

Dave Garrison's picture
Dave Garrison on Jun 24, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
Any mass between you and a radiant energy source will provide cooling? How you phrase it will determine the outcome. By placing a blanket between yourself and a fire will have a cooling effect, no question. Place a greenhouse ( also a mass) between you and the sun does not provide a cooling effect. So by placing any mass between yourself and radiant energy is a false claim. This article was placed around an agenda. My mind now has reserves on the rest of this article.
Nathan Kautzer's picture
Nathan Kautzer on Jun 24, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
"My advice is that if something doesn't make sense then analyze it yourself. As seen with global warming from CO2, it is a completely bogus explanation."

In other words, if the science doesn't agree with your politics or has a negative influence on your bottom line, ignore the experts and live in blissful ignorance.

cite your source that .5% of scientists support global warming. While youre at it, find a reputable source doubting the science of evolution. That should keep you busy enough that we never have to hear your drivel on this site again. Seems like every couple of months the editors on this site decide to throw a gossip piece in the middle of actual news and and analysis. Odd.

Larry Kelley's picture
Larry Kelley on Jun 24, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
Bob, Your comments are refreshing.
peter legrove's picture
peter legrove on Jun 24, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
You guys might be interested in this from the NY Times

I don't really know where i stand on global warming but Old Man Bob had a few scientific facts in his article which he referenced where as the rest of you guys haven't cited much.

I can''t say walking through a wind farm with some dogs is very scientific. I live very close to a wind farm and I must admit I haven't seen any dead birds but then again I'm not really looking for them.

Harry Valentine's picture
Harry Valentine on Jun 24, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
With regard to ice melting at Antarctica, there are active undersea volcanoes in that region spewing out lava . . . . and raising nearby undersea temperatures sufficiently to cause some melting of the southern polar ice. With regard to ice melting at Greenland, Greenland is located in close proximity to Iceland where volcanoes occasionally erupt. There are also active undersea volcanoes along the mid-Atlantic Rift, extending north toward Greenland . . . . underwater geothermal Geysers may be the main cause of Greenland ice melting.

There is a dormant volcano in the NE USA (Mount St Helen's), with dormant volcanoes in Alaska and hot springs occurring in British Columbia, Canada . . . . . . and the Arctic Ocean Current flows from Northern Alaska TOWARD Canada . . . . any undersea heating of coastal ocean water off Northern Alaska will be carried eastbound into Northern Canada, where it would likely increase the melting of Canadian Arctic Ice.

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Jun 25, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
A ridiculous piece of screed. Ashworth can't even read standard science texts, such as those telling us that the sun provides about 1350 watts energy to the upper atmosphere, and 1000 watts to the surface, on average. Or those which clearly describe irrefutably the effects on earth of greenhouse gasses.

Nuts. It makes EnergyPulse look very foolish to publish such garbage as this.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Jun 25, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
Len don't you know the same atmosphere that blocks radiant energy from the sun blocks radiant energy from the earth. The energy from the sun is the greatest rate (our source of energy) so the overall effect is always cooling. Have you ever done a mass and energy balance, because you guys are doing only one-half of a mass and energy balance. When you are outside on a sunshiny day and a cloud goes over and shades you, it makes you warmer? The AGW crowd have no common sense.

CFC destruction of ozone caused more UV light to hit earth and warm it from 1965 to 2002. The Montreal Protocol went into effect in 2000 to eliminate CFC production and from 2002 to present there has been slight cooling, yet CO2 has increased 24 ppmv. Man-made CO2 contributes only 12 ppmv to the atmosphere and nature the rest. The AGW crowd say CO2 warms the earth because they say it does - no data just jabber! They developed models regarding temperatures and the projections they made had nothing to do with reality. They are the ones that are the masters of screed, not me!

Subhash Mathur's picture
Subhash Mathur on Jun 26, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
I can not firmly say that there is nothing like green house gases but i can definitely say that the bogey of green house gases has been created by some such environmental activists.So called GHG emission does not create such alarming situation any where on globe irrespective of who is emitting more CO2 gas in environment.It is still not established that global warming is because of GHG emission. I am an advocate of clean thermal power always. We have to find reasons of global temperature rise and remedial action for reducing are also needed.Further more studies are required to ascertain the reasons for global warming but till then thermal power should not be discouraged . subhash chandra mathur
Richard Vesel's picture
Richard Vesel on Jun 30, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
THIS is science, which may be totally unrecognizable by Mr. Ashworth and the other denialists

Their summary for well-mixed greenhouse gases (WMGG), which include Mr. Ashworth's bogey of CFC's, at 10% of the overall radiative forcing which is being attributed to the entire collection of stuff we are emitting. Net radiative forcing due to WMGG's is 2.25W/cm^2. Please read it. I repeat their summary here...

“Three radiative transfer models are used to estimate the radiative forcing due to the WMGG. The radiative forcing due to CO2 is found to be about 15% lower than the IPCC estimate. On the other hand the radiative forcing due to the CFCs are higher than the IPCC estimates, especially for CFC-11 and CFC-12 (between 10% and 25% higher and somewhat model dependent). IPCC has used the simplified expressions resulting from our calculations which treat all the components in a consistent way. We suggest an explanation for the range of forcing found for CH4 in other studies.”

Out of the 2.25@/cm^2, 60% is attributed to CO2, 22% to CH4, 5% to N2O, and the remaining 13% to all the other GHGs, including CFCs, SF6, etc.


Richard Vesel's picture
Richard Vesel on Jun 30, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
Mr. Valentine suggest volcanic activity is causing ice melting in Greenland and the Antarctic. Yes, a tiny bit in either case. The vast bulk of the melting is occurring because atmospheric and ocean temperatures are rising, not because of some fresh subterranean heat sources. Another "must read" regarding Greenland's ice loss.

Purely observational data, with some prediction of near total loss within 1000 years - consequence: 7m (23ft) global sea rise level, just due to Greenland ice melts. What contribution will come from the Antarctic? An additional 15-20m (49-65 ft) sea level rise.

Richard Vesel's picture
Richard Vesel on Jun 30, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
Mr. LeGrove,

Mr. Bob Ashworth's article is, for all practical purposes, fact-free, or anti-fact. I have attempted to insert just a little "real science" into the discussion...

Regarding you link: Yes, Hank Paulson has been on board for a good long time, and I would think that he is not blowing smoke, or participating in any grand wealth redistribution "scheme". I am inclined to believe he is as well informed on the topic as any powerful non-scientist could be. He has recently joined forces with a couple of other visible vocal high-powered individuals who are on the same page. This is fresh, as of last week. Wall Street is going to start assessing business risks associated with climate (DISRUPTION!) change:

"The report from the Risky Business Project urges businesses and industrial companies to curb carbon emissions in an effort to slow global warming. The initiative was spearheaded by former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and billionaire investor Tom Steyer."

I found this to be refreshing and encouraging, perhaps a few photons of light coming from the end of the business tunnel on this topic.


Richard Vesel's picture
Richard Vesel on Jun 30, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
correction: units error! Radiative forcing value is 2.25W/m^2, not /cm^2 (my apologies)


Malcolm Rawlingson's picture
Malcolm Rawlingson on Jun 30, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
Bob Ashworth shines the light of common sense derived from experience not computer models. To those who do not like his position you are quite free not to read it. No one forced you to.

To encourage Energy Pulse to screen out his articles beause you don't like what someone has to say is very reminiscent of the attitude of many global warming theorists and along the same lines as the string of emails unearthed at the Unioversity of Essex some years ago. If you don't like opposing views - suppress and ridicule. Shame on all those that promote that point of view. If you cannot be adult enough to read and consider an alternate view without descending into childish jibes at a contributor then the free speech we enjoy - and many a soldier died for - is very much in jeopardy. So please keep on posting Bob. You opinion is as valuable as any I have read here.

Clearly (since this is not the first post on this topic written by Bob) people commenting on his article chose to read it knowing full well the opinion he was likely to present.

I certainly disagree with some of Bob's reasoning as to how the Sun operates but I will never dispute his right to post here.

The willingness to listen and consider different opinions on energy matters is why we are here isn't it?


Malcolm Rawlingson's picture
Malcolm Rawlingson on Jun 30, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
Bob, Interested in this item you wrote.

Sun Energy from Hydrogen Fusion - Wrong it is from neutron repulsion created by the gravitational effect. If it were from fusion we would be bombarded by neutrinos - we are not. Yet still taught in schools.

It is my understanding that neutrons are not charged therefore they cannot repulse each other. If they did nuclear reactors could not work and fission would never occur. Maybe under intense gravitational fields such as in the Sun things behave differently but neutrons cannot exhibit electrostatic repulsion (if that is what you were saying) when they have no net charge. Neutrons are comprised of a proton (+1) plus an electron (-1) so the net charge is zero.

Also (again my understanding) the energy from the Sun is not from Hydrogen fusion only but from a series of nuclear fusion processes ending at iron. We are indeed bombarded by neutrinos. However fortunately fo us there is almost no interaction between neutrinos and matter so we survive unaffected by the bombardment. The neutrinos come not only from our own Sun but from all the Suns in the Universe so we are swimming in a field of them.

Like CO2 it does not appear to be doing us too much harm.

Keep on posting Bob. You have as much right to your views as anyone here.


Malcolm Rawlingson's picture
Malcolm Rawlingson on Jun 30, 2014 6:00 pm GMT

You made this statement above.

Purely observational data, with some prediction of near total loss within 1000 years - consequence: 7m (23ft) global sea rise level, just due to Greenland ice melts. What contribution will come from the Antarctic? An additional 15-20m (49-65 ft) sea level rise.

As far as I can tell from the reports I have read the Antarctic Ice sheet is getting bigger - not smaller. If that trend continues the net effect on sea levels should be about zero.

According to the IPCC we are already past the point of no return therefore we should be focussing efforts on subtracting CO2 from the atmosphere. The fact that we are not really says all that needs to be said. This is a politics. Not science.


Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Jul 1, 2014 6:00 pm GMT

Although UV light is only some 8% of the total sunlight and Visible light is some 33% of the total sunlight. UV light though consists of much larger photons, remember E = hf.

UVB is 2% and UVA is 98% of the total UV light. E = 1.988E^-10 ergs for UVB waves that ozone absorbs, UVA is not absorbed by ozone. Visible light ranges from E = 2.65E^-12 ergs to 5.09E^-12 ergs for an average of 3.87E^-12 ergs. So for UVB (0.08*0.02*1.988E^-10 ergs) = 0.318E^-12 ergs and for visible light (0.33*3.87E^-12) = 1.277E^-12 ergs.

Therefore, UVB light energy that hits earth provides around 25% of the energy to the earth that visible light provides. Energy is what causes heating, and the UVB light energy is significant!

Malcom: Neutron repulsion is from the great gravitational effect. Oliver Manual a ex-NASA scientist developed this. I always thought it was due to gravity. The earth is hot at the core!

Malcolm Rawlingson's picture
Malcolm Rawlingson on Jul 1, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
Not quite sure I get that Bob. If things have mass (neutrons have a mass of slightly more than 1 atomic mass unit) then Gravitational force will cause them to attract according to the formula G= gMm/r^2. It is what keeps the Moon where it is - the balance between gravity and centrifugal force. Electric charge causes things to repel each other if the charges are the same. So gravity should cause mass to attract not repel in the absence of any electrical forces doing the opposite. I will have to read Oliver Manuals work as it is distiinctly different from most other works I have read on what goes on inside stars.

It is true that the Earth is molten at its core - at least we think that is the case - but I am not sure whether any of the theories put forward really explain why that is so or how it came to be.

Gravity is what initiates the fusion process. That is why only stars of a certain size can "ignite". They need to have enough mass to develop the gravitational field necessary to force the hydrogen nucleii together. Hydrogen is essentially just a proton with a single orbitting electron. Gravity heats the hydrogen to a plasma (H is stripped of its electron and becomes just a proton. The Coulombic relulsion between the two protons is normally sufficient to prevent them from fusing but intense gravitational forces will overcome that repulsive force if large enough. When two Hydrogen nuclei do fuse there is a huge output of "binding energy" as Helium is formed. Along with it a pile of gamma rays and neutrinos. So it is correct that you need gravity first but the light and heat energy output from the Sun can only come from fusion reactions - at least that is my understanding.

In support of this, recently astronomers discovered many "almost Suns" that are just a bit too small to develop the gravitational field necessary to cause fusion and are dark as a result. In fact they believe our Galaxy - The Milky Way has hundreds times more of these than it does operating Suns.

Any way always open to new ideas. I will certainly look into Oliver Manuals concepts. He may well have an alternate theory that bears further reading. Stephen Hawking is well worth reading on this subject too and his theories seem to hang together quite well with the observations we have made of the universe.



Richard Vesel's picture
Richard Vesel on Jul 7, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
Mixing politics and science, and placing political opinion above the science WILL be the one of the last nails in the coffin. This is not an issue of class warfare or any other socio-political problem. Historically, a similar scientific issue, where evidence and "belief" had to evolve over many generations, was evolution v. creationism. Our author above, despite 160 years of overwhelming scientific EVIDENCE, still insists evolution is rubbish ... as well as insisting that the solar heat source is gravitational collapse. He still doesn't understand heat balance, which he proved a couple of years ago in another of his "articles".

Mr. Ashworth - you would do well to learn some basic stellar physics. Total potential energy of the sun's mass collapsing from infinity down to a sphere of 10% of it's current size does not equal the total energy output of from the sun for a tiny fraction of its 4.6B year age. It is the fusion energy generated at the sun's core that PREVENTS its gravitational collapse (in a simplistic sense), by creating enough of a counter-pressure to balance it out and stop it. This balance will continue until most of the available hydrogen is gone, and the sun enters later stages of stellar evolution - helium "burning", carbon "burning", etc.

However, if you REALLY are a creationist, and you believe the sun is only 6000 year old, then all of these discussions immediately come to an end, because you believe in nonsense, and do not have command of enough science to go any further.


Malcolm Rawlingson's picture
Malcolm Rawlingson on Jul 8, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
I would be careful to tread there Richard. It is my policy not to comment on areas of religion as what people believe is their own business.

It appears unlikely to me that the Sun is 6000 years old based on my understanding of nuclear physics but I am always willing to entertain the possibility that I could be wrong. I am sure Stephen Hawking, when he proposed the Big Bang theory and Unified theory of the Universe was surprised when astronomers found galaxies accelerating away from us when the theory predicts precisely the opposite - deceleration. There is so much we do not understand about the universe that making any assumption or discounting any theory is extremely presumptuous. It assumes we know all the answers when in fact we know very few. What is dark matter - what role does it play in the universe? What force is pushing galaxies away from us at an increasing speed? These are fundamental unanswered questions. To say that we fully understand how the Sun works when we do not have the answers to these major questions is, I would say, closing the mind to other possibilities.

However I would also add that widely held scientific beliefs have been routinely demolished by further advances in science and technology. What we thought were facts have proven to be not so and this has occurred routinely in science over the centuries.

It is the very nature of the development of science.

The Sun goes through cyclical periods of Sun spot activity. We do not have a rational explanation as to why this is or what causes it so to presume that we know everything about how the Sun works is to make the assumption that we know everything and clearly we do not.

In the Victorian era it was a widely held belief that there was nothing more to learn and society had learned everything there was to know. The came Einstein, Maxwell, Planck, Rutherford, Bohr,Faraday and others who questioned the conventional wisdom of the day.

The key to scientific advancement is to question everything. Every fact, every theory. Every assumption and every belief. All scientists understand that the more we know the more we realise how little we do actually know.

When we get to the point where we think we know it all....that is a bad place to be.

While on a different topic I recently read an old article by Marion King Hubbert written in about 1956 in which he advanced his peak oil theory. This was a widely held belief until very recently and was likely correct based on oil extraction technology of the time. Dr. Kent Moors an oil analyst suggests that with current tight oil extraction methods vast areas of the earths crust are now accessible to oil and gas drilling technologies unheard of when Hubbert wrote his paper. While it can be argued that the worlds oil reserves are depleting (we can measure how much we use per day) how long those supplies will last depends on how much there is and we don't know that. The point is that his theory was based on an assumption and for many years this assumption (based on drilling vertical holes into the earth to release pressurised pools of oil) was valid.

Then horizontal drilling invalidated that assumption.

As Dr. Kent Moors says in his article "In 1914 the US Bureau of Mines said that US oil reserves would be exhausted by 1924. The Interior Department said that global reserves would last 13 years (that was in 1939)"

These predictions were all made based on assumptions and they were completely wrong. Generally it is when those assumptions are challenged that advances are made.

So I would caution everyone not to make assumptions about science or anything else. You are likely to be proved wrong.


Richard Vesel's picture
Richard Vesel on Jul 9, 2014 6:00 pm GMT

Yes, I understand the nature of progress and discovery.

However, underneath your recounting of history, you have "fueled" one essential point in my argument. There is usually more of something than we think, as we research and discover new sources, as technology advances and we can do more research and exploration.

There is more oil than we used to think.

There is more natural gas than we used to think.

There is more matter and energy in the universe than we used to think - by a factor of ten, just in the latest revision of the cosmological model, with the incorporation of dark matter and energy. Not to mention all the other revisions made over the past 100 years as telescopes got better and better.

So what I am getting at is this - there are going to be more GHG's than we might generally project, too. The world came together on the subject of CFC's a couple of decades ago, and tried to do something about that before we entirely destroyed the ozone layer. The bigger problem now is fossil-sourced GHG's, and it will only get BIGGER, unless serious actions are taken.

Solar cycles are going to be just noise on top of the problem WE are creating.


Richard Vesel's picture
Richard Vesel on Jul 11, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
Regarding author Ashworth's misunderstanding about stellar core physics, here is the abbreviated version:

"In the core of a star the intense heat destroys the internal structure of an atom and consequently all atoms are broken down into their constituent parts. An atom is constructed of protons, electrons and neutrons. Neutrons have no electric charge and therefore do not interact much with the surrounding medium. As a result neutrons leave the core fairly quickly. The protons, which have positive electric charge, and the electrons, which have negative electric charge, remain in the core and drive the reactions which fuel the Sun."

I took several astronomy courses during college, including one called "Stellar Interiors" - a few details stuck with me! Why did I take that particular course? Because my main course of study was plasma physics and controlled fusion - way back in 1976-78.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Jul 15, 2014 6:00 pm GMT
Richard: Evolution is a pet peeve of mind. It is completely illogical that a scientist, a person who observes and analyzes the nature of things, could say that he or she does not believe in a Creator. It is obvious that the universe and everything in it was created. What logic could lead one to conclude that non-intelligence was capable of creating intelligence? Science itself does not back up the theory of evolution. In mathematics, if a probability of occurrence is less than 1x10-50, it is impossible for the event to ever occur. The probability of a one-cell organism forming by accident is orders of magnitude less likely; it is calculated to be 1x10 -78,000. With analyses like these by many well known mathematicians, one wonders how a scientist could ever embrace evolution, and yet strangely they do.

In 1997, over ninety percent of the National Academy of Sciences did not believe in God. The reason for this is that they had not found a bridge to link science to its Creator. Thought is the scientific bridge - the beginning state of existence that is the root cause and support of energy and mass! The unit relationship of thought to energy is postulated to be TI = E, where T is thought and I is thought intensity. Krishna said all of creation came from His thought.

Further there is only one consciousness of which you, I and all of creation are a part. We have to keep being reborn until we become Perfect like Jesus. The ego must go so we can clearly see our oneness with the One Pure Consciousness. Jesus said before Abraham was I am. Krishna told Arjuna you and I have been born many times, I remember al of my previous lives - Arjuna you don't remember. Evolution is negative for our kids.

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 »