Comments Posted By Adrian Vance
Displaying 1 To 1 Of 1 Comments


John Tyndall (1820-1893), one of the great English physicists, did a study of the "radiative properties" of atmospheric gases in 1859 as it was clear to him that air was absorbing energy, but how? To facilitate his work Tyndall developed the first ratio spectrophotometer which he used to measure the relative energy absorption of atmospheric gasses.
Tyndall discovered that nitrogen and oxygen are transparent to heat waves, "IR," infrared radiation, absorbing none, but water vapor, the next most abundant gas in air, absorbed IR very well, but water as gas at any temperature under 100 degrees C is a vapor that can be forced out of the air by gases that are far above their boiling points, like nitrogen and oxygen.
The amount of water vapor in air is limited to 3% by the gas/vapor preference mechanism. Only a small fraction of the water molecules will have enough energy to escape the liquid and become gas.
Nitrogen boils at -196 degrees Celsius, oxygen at -183 and water at plus 100, almost 300 degrees up the scale! Nitrogen and oxygen have much greater vapor pressure or tendency to be gasses than water and force it out of the air. Rain, dew, mist, clouds, sweat and frost are all products of an adjustmen in the gas equilibrium between nitrogen, oxygen and water vapor which make 99% of our air.
Tyndall worked with saturated air, containing 3% water vapor, but it varies around the world between one and three percent. Gases of less than one percent concentration are called “trace gases” and not thought of as significant. The next gas John Tyndall worked with was carbon dioxide and he found that it too absorbs IR, but only about 1/12th as well as water vapor. In Tyndall’s time carbon dioxide was present to 280 parts/million or 0.28% and where the carbon dioxide molecule is 2.44 times as heavy as water all factors meant water vapor was 3215 times as significant in absorbing IR as carbon dioxide in saturated air, i.e. responsible for 99.96% of the IR capture.
In the NASA "Earth Observatory" web "On the Shoulders of Giants" we see: "He (Tyndall) concluded that among the constituents of the atmosphere, water vapor is the strongest absorber of radiant heat and is therefore the most important gas in controlling Earth’s surface temperature."
Late in the 19th century Svante Arrhenius, (1859-1927) the greatest Swedish chemist investigated IR capture with the idea of warming Sweden. It is a cold, dark country much of the time, but fossil evidence indicated bananas had grown there as recently as 6,000 BC.
Arrhenius studied the work of Tyndall as well as doing some lab work on his own and abandoned the idea. The Carbon dioxide in air was too poor an absorber. All of this is documented on the NASA website “On The Shoulders Of Giants” under “Arrenhius.”
In our review of the literature and correspondence with authors we have found that most ignore water vapor because it is variable! Their problem has been, “What concentration to pick?” The solution is to write maximum and minimum concentration equations, input values and assume the result is somewhere in the area between the two curves. With the range from one to three percent water vapor by weight exceeds carbon dioxide by 263 to 789 times and by chemical moles 641 to 1925 times. Omission is not acceptable practice, but it has been done consistently.
Government paid scientists know from where the money comes, taxes. If they can show Congress where to tax more they will advance their careers and thrive. It is just that simple.

The Numerical Case

At Tyndall’s data is shown. His charts include absorption spectra for the range 1 to 10 um, (micrometers, 10^-6 m) as this is the range for infrared, "heat" radiation. When the charts are printed on 8 ½ by 11 paper the critical graph area is 125 mm wide and 15 mm tall. It has an area of 1875 mm^2. Of this CO2 absorption covers only 45 mm^2 while water vapor covers 555 mm^2, 12.3 times the area, and “heat wave,” IR absorption, of carbon dioxide, CO2.
Heat wave, IR, absorption is proportional to the area under the curves. Water vapor (H2O) IR absorption is 12.3 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2) in air. And, there are many more water vapor molecules than carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is now 380 parts/million, 0.00038 or 0.038%. And, carbon dioxide, CO2, has a molecular weight of 44 g/mole where water vapor is only 18 g/mole. So there are between 62.4 and 193 times as many water molecules in air carbon dioxide by:

[Minimum] (44g/mole/18 g/mole) X (0.01/0.00038) = 62.4

[Maximum] (44g/mole/18g/mole) X (0.03/0.00038) = 193

This is important as absorption is also directly proportional to the number of molecules. And, the overall effect is a product of the relative absorption and the ratio of concentrations. Thus:

Min. 12.3 X 62.4 = 767.5 or Max. 12.3 X 193 = 2374

Water vapor is between 767.5 and 2374 times more significant in "global warming" than carbon dioxide, thus responsible for 99.87% to 99.96% of all atmospheric heating, but it is never mentioned in any article, textbook or film produced by major media, government or grant supported scientist. And, please note that with relative ease we have dealt with the issue of variability.

The Forcing Concept

As water vapor began to appear in the discussions of global warming a new concept called “forcing” has followed. The authors admit to the primary role of water vapor, but tie it to carbon dioxide saying that water vapor’s concentration is dependent on the amount of carbon dioxide, i.e. that carbon dioxide “forces” water into the air! The true case is the reverse: Adding carbon dioxide forces water out of the atmosphere because carbon dioxide is a true gas normally where it boils at -78 degrees Celsius, but water is a vapor where it boils at 100 degrees Celsius.
Increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere forces water out of the air and reduces atmospheric heating which may explain the temperature declines seen immediately after great increases in industrial activity in WWII. From 1940 to 1970 there was decline in our average temperature and talk of a coming ice age.

Statistical Significance

In the July 27, 2006 hearing of the House Global Climate Change Subcommittee the expert witnesses stated that of the 186 gigatons of carbon dioxide produced annually on the planet man makes only six gigatons. The committee members did not see the insignificance of our contribution at only 3.22% and that cutting our contribution 50% would only take 0.4% from where we contribute only 25% in the first place, but they did determine that the global warming movement at the highest level of science includes 42 scientists who take turns co-authoring papers and acting on peer review panels which like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. It is really significant that these same 42 taxpayer paid scientists are the some ones that had sounded the carbon dioxide over the last 20 years.
The dominance of water vapor in "global warming" and the real effect of adding carbon dioxide is bad news for bureau-building, tax-seeking socialists and panic-pushing Marxist environmentalists. Water vapor cannot be taxed, regulated, treatied for or controlled. Water is everywhere, it covers three-fourths of the planet and is totally out of political control. When facts are inconvenient the elected class ignores them.
And, where this evidence is clearly shown on a NASA website but is never quoted or cited is ironic. Many responsible professionals have been guided into "politically correct" positions that jeopardize reputations when their cavalier ways with science and truth are known.
Blaming carbon dioxide offers new taxes, regulations, bureaus, treaties, land and resource grabbing, demonizing big business and "evil corporations." So the elected class and their complicitous media take the hypothesis that serves their purpose. How much tax and how much power?
We have about 60 million vehicles on the road in America. The average gas mileage is about 15 miles per gallon and the average vehicle is driven about 15,000 miles per year. It uses 1,000 gallons of fuel per year. And, the total amount of fuel used in the US is 60 billion gallons per year. If socialist Democrats can get another dollar of tax on every gallon that is $60 billion dollars they can spend buying votes and making Americans more dependent on them. But, that is only the beginning.
Suppose all these people that hate us could get us to sign the Kyoto treaty: We would abide by it; they would not. As we have seen many times to communists a treaty is a piece of paper. The agreement during the term of the Clinton administration called for a 40% pullback from what were using in 1999. That would be a more than a 50% cut from what we use now. The Clinton/Gore plan was to pile taxes on gasoline until use fell back to these levels. What would it take? Five dollars a gallon, six or seven? They would have gone there, and beyond.
With half the energy America can produce only half the goods, selling at twice the price and employ half the people. What happens to the other half? This would be a time twice as bad as The Great Depression when 25% were unemployed and a victory for international socialism over capitalism.
We can predict what would have happened had Al Gore been elected. It's all in his book, "Earth In The Balance." There he wrote: "The internal combustion engine is a greater threat to the people of the world than nuclear weapons." He wanted to eliminate it totally.
The last census taken before the development and utilization of the internal combustion engine was in 1900. In 1900 America had 70 million people in a horse-drawn, steam powered, sailing ship served economy. That is all 1900 technology could support and it wasn’t even that good. In 1900 one million Americans starved to death. We were actually beyond our limit in what today many fantasize to have been a better world.
Thanks to automobiles, trucks, tractors, farm equipment, busses, Diesel trains and ships, jet aircraft, and on, all internal combustion powered, we have abundance for 300 million people. Food is our largest export. If Al Gore had gotten his way 230 million Americans would starve to death to put "Earth in balance," in his terms.
For more factual information on this issue go to: and input "Global Warming" to the search engine on the left side of the page. The National Center for Policy Analysis is a non-profit, non-partisan organization with full documentation on its' sources and publications.

Adrian Vance

Comment Posted By Adrian Vance On 13.08.2006 @ 23:05

Powered by WordPress



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page