Global Warming and Greenhouse Effect Misnomers

1st, let’s admit that to say anything against the beaten path on this can bring much trouble for yourself as it has been made a political issue nearly from the beginning.

2nd, This post should NOT be posted in “THEORY” but probably in the “MYTHS BUSTED” section if we only look at the real science that was out there before it ever became a issue to the general public’s eyes. I will hold my opinions to the end of the post.

3rd, For background, you should know that I do consider myself a environmentalist as a form of personal practice and do not preach to others how they should do things unless they ask. Meaning, for example, that I do not use chemicals in my house or yard unless I have explored other means of doing whatever it is I’m trying to do. Much like a diet, it is a lifestyle thing.

So, let’s look at the real science and for those that have not been exposed to the “claim” and I should say theory of global warming, I’ll just touch it briefly as so not to bore those of us that are tired of hearing it.

The claim is that by burning fossil fuels, which will have a by-product of carbon dioxide, we are accelerating the warming of the earth that by most admissions, is warming on it’s own anyway (still warming from a ice age yet to reach it’s peak). The theory makers have tied the increase of carbon dioxide and warming periods of the earth together using CO2 samples taken from radio carbon dated core samples in the arctic ice.

Was this bad science… no, but is a poor theory to jump to a single conclusion ignoring existing science because we already know that when the oceans warm, they release carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.  In short, they have been measuring the effect, not the cause. Something more needs to be said about the idea of carbon dioxide being that strong of a greenhouse gas or a gas that retains heat energy. Also I think we are failing to realize other data in those core samples. That would be when the CO2 was at it’s peak, the earth then went into a new ice age. There are many other stronger greenhouse gasses that include methane and the most powerful of all by any contrast that nobody in science will dispute, …WATER VAPOR!

It is water vapor that is has the most significant impact on surface temperatures and it has more than 20 times the impact of carbon dioxide. Many of the anti-fossil fuel folks will dismiss this and I am not sure why. Because the increase in water vapor comes from the same source… fossil fuel. Many of you did not know that. It could be a observation that the folks telling us about global warming know not enough about science of chemistry.  If you doubt that, please look it up on your own or I will give you a quick link from a google search I just found for you to reference.   opens in a new window/tab.

So here is the chemistry of the combustion for methane (natural gas)

CH4[g] + 2 O2[g] -> CO2[g] + 2 H2O[g] + energy

Stated in English, it says that a single molecule of methane and two molecules of O2 burning will create a single molecule of carbon dioxide and two molecules of water (in vapor form because of temperature at combustion) and give off energy in the process. Notice twice as much water vapor is directly produced here than CO2.

If you have a high efficiency natural gas or propane furnace, you know that you need to capture that water and send it to a drain. That high efficiency furnace is extracting enough heat in it’s exchanger that the water vapor begins to condensate in the heat exchanger tubes. Did you know that the exhaust on you car normally rusts out from the inside out. Water vapor again. Your muffler has a small port or hole in it to let that water out if it. This allows water to escape if it condenses there during the time your car has not yet reached normal running temperature where it will not condense in the pipes. Put your hand near the tail pipe when running and your hand will soon feel wet.

It does not matter what kind of hydrocarbon structure you are burning, the result will be the same, Bio-fuels and methanol included. But it must be said that when burning something like coal, as it is not a pure hydrocarbon structure, it will yield the same and many other substances that are found in coal like sulfur, mercury and arsenic. But water vapor is the major output from all fossil fuel burns as they are all hydrocarbon structures. You will not find a man of science or more importantly a chemist disagree with any of that.

Remember that you never destroy matter, you only change it’s form. Notice in the formula above, every atom is accounted for.

I found it interesting that I was going to site a Wikipedia page about greenhouse gasses and water vapor but they only list irrigated fields as a source of water vapor entering the atmosphere. But they do show it as the most powerful greenhouse gas by far. Oh what the heck here it is…

So think about how much water vapor is created by every furnace, automobile, electric power plant, steel mill, stream generator and more where fossil fuels are burned. It’s not so hard to conceive it. After all, many were ready to believe the same source with carbon dioxide because it is there so says the chemistry. Even a nuclear power plant with those large cooling towers, using nearby river water to cool the steam pipes generates a lot of water vapor from water itself.

Since we use over 65 million barrels of just oil per day, that would be about 1400 million (1.4 billion) gallons of new water created every day from just oil consumption. That is over 500 billion gallons of water every year from just oil. That would be about a cubic mile of new water created from just oil consumption every two years.  There are under 3000 cubic miles of water in Great Lake Erie. I have yet to find a way to properly calculate from natural gas and other fossil fuels but I think you could just at least double those numbers for a close total mainly from natural gas and coal. The gasoline, propane, diesel, acetylene and others would be calculated in the oil section as they is refined from oil. Despite all fact that water vapor is only temporary because it eventually will condense to water one way or another, the continuous generation of water vapor has a direct effect of surface temperatures and this seldom thought about fact.

The rise of oceans helps speed-up the polar ice cap melts. Ice caps melting helps contribute to air temperature rise. But the rise of ocean levels is not entirely caused by what we have described above but it does have some impact on it. Man has made a big impact in this area and it is everywhere man develops the earth for his own needs. In fact it is also the culprit for water shortages in many areas. What is it…

Water drainage.

I want you to think of the volume of water that would normally be returning into the earth that is diverted away by every road, shopping center and industrial center parking lot and rooftop and all the water that we pump from the ground from wells. And where does that water go that is not returning to the earth…

From the local drainpipe, to a nearby stream or river and to the ocean. We have accelerated the rise of the oceans and melting of the ice caps. That process in total, increases water temperatures of the oceans and warming of the air and the whole cycle accelerates exponentially.

My opinion on this disinformation mess…

First,  I should say that the earth is a very complex item. It would be unwise to blame any one thing for the cause of something that happens that you find unpleasant or as a disaster.

Carbon dioxide is not the culprit and I get a little hot under the collar when I think of the world spending a large portion of their GDP to sequester CO2. It is all about water and water vapor. We need to take the politics out of this issue.

Water vapor is by far the largest retainer of infra-red heat energy. All be it that the effect is temporary till the moisture condenses and adds to the rising oceans. This is why “steam heat” (not hot water heat) was always considered most efficient because the vapor in the air retained the heat longer. Watch what happens to your overnight temperatures if there are no clouds at night (and no front is moving in).

The planet of Mars has more carbon dioxide in it’s air (most abundant element of air on mars) as the earth has nitrogen (earths most abundant air element)  and it is so cold on Mars that even the CO2 freezes at it’s poles. Dry ice as we call it on earth. That’s
colder than -109.3°F or -78.5°C .  CO2 has no liquid state or there would be oceans of it on mars. It is only as a gas or frozen. If the idea that CO2 is as dangerous as we have been made to believe, it would be very hot on Mars or at least hot enough to keep the CO2 itself from freezing. I am not saying it has zero impact, just not enough to have a significant impact on temperatures. Guess what… Mars has no water vapor in it’s atmosphere or it obviously would be a warmer planet that we could easily adapt for survival as it would be pretty close to are own except for the next fact that also is very significant.

Interesting fact you should know when thinking about this stuff… The earth gets 80% of it’s kinetic heat from within the earth. Not from the sun. Who is monitoring it’s changes ? It has not yet been attempted.

So are we contributing to the warming of the earth? Absolutely. The amount and exact proportion of cause and effect is in question. But know that we have been on a warming trend in North America since the mini ice age of 800A.D. What caused that… my best guess is that weather patterns were dramatically changed, mainly the jet stream because of volcano’s erupting somewhere along the pacific rim over a long period. After all, it only lasted 400 years for the worst of it. There is nothing to say that under water volcanic activity has not contributed to ocean warming.

Sequestering water and water vapor is cheaper and makes more sense. Especially if you can read and understand the above.

Requiring the use of dry wells to sequester water in every parking lot that would be capable of replacing to the ground a one inch level of rain of the area of the lot before any run-off can occur is one of the smartest things we can do.

Most of the new flooding that we see in and around cities can be attributed to major parking lots and roadway run-off attached to systems that were not originally designed to handle the volume of water they now receive. In the end, it would save you tax money and probably hikes in your insurance rates. Not to mention all of the infrastructure that would be needed (tax money again) to be put in place in areas where wells have run dry.

I am not anti-fossil fuel but I do think we need some diversity of what kind of energy we use and who and how many control it’s production and distribution.

I remember the history of the best minds of science telling us that we might incinerate the atmosphere with a nuclear bomb. Then, a short time later, it was said that the earth’s atmosphere was to large and the atom blasts were to puny. And the nuclear tests continued, each time notes were taken and the blasts get larger and larger and the notes were not released to the public. But when much of the data was declassified, some of those folks began talking about those notes and they talked about just how close we came to actually destroying the atmosphere with 50 – 80 megaton bombs. This data was shared with countries like USSR and China to stop the above ground tests. I believe that the USSR has their own testimonials to similar observations. We even shared our computer modeling technology for the A-bomb to get them to stop testing above ground. We did however continue to test the atom bombs underground to stop that risk.

The moral of that story should be obvious, being a expert or a scientist does not always make you correct. But the best question is…   Can you afford to be wrong ? Can you tell the difference between a theory and a fact ? Just something to think about going forward.


Real Time Travel Is Not Possible

It is a touchy thing to go against the grain of so much hyped theory of famous people within which many other theories have been based and so much money is poured down a endless waste of  effort by many who are considered “smart”. Basing new theories on a improper understanding of a well known theory does not make it so no matter how famous you are or the “wow factor” you present.

Let me do that touchy thing and dispelling any idea that real time travel has any remote possibility.

Most of the “smart” folks start off by siting Einstein’s theories that they themselves are not sure to understand or they would not be making such a statement that real time travel was possible.

For a simple fact that what Einstein was describing was no more than a similarity to the DOPPLER EFFECT of sound is to radio waves or light. That if you were able to travel faster than the speed of sound (or light), you could witness a event and then traveling faster than that given speed, see (or hear) what has already taken place yet again. That is not time travel but just traveling faster than the speed of light (or sound). You did not go into the past. It is only a perception.

Einstein had went on to describe the different distortions of what the light would do when traveling faster, slower or near the same speed. Only the appearance of time travel is noted, not actual time travel. It is only a perception.  He called it space time. Space as it is in his notes is distance. The same effects can be noted with the speed of sound and probably very much correct as it pertains to light even though it will remain a unproven theory, it clearly makes sense.

Many of these “smart” folks continue to site his use of the speed of light in the basis for the theory of relativity as a absolute proof of time travel. I really do not know where they might come up with that idea as Einstein used the speed of light in equations for one reason only. It is that the speed of light can be expected to be the same no matter where you are in the universe. It is considered to be a universal constant. Where as time is only what we make of it in a some mechanical comprehension. So the speed of light is used to measure a elemental of perceived mechanical time and/or distance (space-time) in some of his theories. Also note that we all use it to measure vast distances of space everyday, but it has nothing to do with actual time outside of the fact that we know how far it will travel in a given amount of our imposed mechanical time.

When you look up at the night sky, know this. It is the same time here as it is at any star you see in the night sky and you are not looking at the way the stars are now. You are looking at the way they were, based on the distance they are from us  and how long it takes for that light to get here… (space time…  probably before the earth had any life). Most are more than thousands of light years away at best and may not even exist anymore or exploded, burnt out or collided with other systems etc.

It takes light nearly eight minutes to reach us from our own star (the sun).  Is it not the same time at the sun as it is here ? If you were traveling towards the sun faster than the speed of light, time would seem accelerated to you (events on the sun appear to be happening faster than normal) but you have not went into the future even though (if you were closer to it than the earth) you would see events on the sun before we would see them on earth . By the same token, if you were traveling away from the sun faster than the speed of light, time would seem slower than normal as it relates to the sun.  These are only perceptions. It is actually the same time for you as it is here on earth even if you do not perceive it to be so.

So here is one for you to ponder…

You are moving directly from one star to another star faster than the speed of light. Events on the star you are moving away from appear to be happening slower and the events on the star you are moving towards appear to be happening faster. What time is it where you are? The correct answer is no change in time or the same time it is here on earth.

Now ponder this…

If you travel away from a star “exactly” at the speed of light, would time appear (perception) to stand still (as Einstein theorized) or would you actually even see that star ? Might it appear as a black hole or something similar?

While Hollywood and Steven Hawking get a lot of press speaking of and captivating your imagination, real time travel is just simply science fiction. You can have the appearance of time travel anytime you look up at the stars as things have already happened that you have yet to see. Are you living in the past ?

“Time is the only truth in the Universe and we can’t even measure it. You can not manipulate anything you can not measure”.