Water vapor holds first place amongst all greenhouse gases—a whopping 96% of all greenhouse gases by average volume. Carbon dioxide comes in a distant second. Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas, but at its current minuscule content, doubling it would produce an immeasurable effect. Yet politicians have already implemented a cow fart tax in some parts of the world. This isn’t about climate or money; it’s about power and government intrusion into our lives. The more they can get away with, the more they will do.
In dry air (without water vapor), the constituents are,
- Carbon dioxide—0.04% (approximately)
- Methane—0.00018% (approximately)
But the air in our atmosphere is never perfectly dry. When there is high humidity, water vapor—the gaseous form of water—far exceeds the amount of carbon dioxide. So, water vapor does most of the heavy lifting in keeping Earth warm by greenhouse effects—a radiation blanket that traps much of the warmth and keeps it from escaping into space.
Water vapor definition: Water in a gaseous state, especially when diffused as a vapor in the atmosphere and at a temperature below boiling point (thefreedictionary.com).
What the alarmists don’t tell you in the global warming debate is that many industrial processes release immense quantities of water vapor, too. The alarmists are happy to point out that CO2 creates an amplification of the greenhouse effect, but that is not the only effect which happens. There’s the more monstrous amplification of the dreaded water vapor.
And—watch out—you contribute both major greenhouse gases with every breath you take.
Water vapor can greatly increase the greenhouse effect, adding positive feedbacks to increase the warming which produces more evaporation (water vapor) and more warming. But it can also create negative feedbacks through cloud formation and reflecting much of the sunlight back into space before it has a chance to warm the planet.
So much of what the news media and proponents of the “climate change” scare do, tries to stifle debate through ridicule, witch hunts, and claims of “consensus” and “settled science.” The problem is, science is never “settled” and is never done by consensus. Science is not a popularity contest and never has been. And even the so-called “laws” of science have been revised and updated as science discovers new things about our universe. Newton’s laws held sway for hundreds of years, but got an upgrade with Einstein’s Relativity. Not settled!
In climate, the debate is still raging over the amount additional warming that new carbon dioxide adds to the atmosphere. Many scientists feel that the quantity of this warming is extremely small. But the answers are not yet in.
Most ironic about this topic is that warmth is not really the bad guy they make it out to be. Life thrives in warmth and dies in the cold. If you believe the media and the governments, you’re becoming blind to logic and reality. As former head of the CIA, William Casey told President Reagan in 1981, “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” Are you feeling it, yet?
If you look at Earth’s history, you find that there have been periods of roughly a hundred million years each in which both carbon dioxide and temperature were far higher than today. Life thrived. And the planet did not suffer some world-destroying meltdown. Here’s a chart of the last few hundred million years of global average temperature and CO2 levels.
Why Not a Water Vapor Tax?
If the climate change alarmists are so bent on taxing the production of carbon dioxide, why not add a water vapor tax, too? Individuals will have to pay for every breath they take—part carbon tax, part water vapor tax.
Cook a meal? Water vapor tax for all the steam which comes off your meal, and carbon tax for the energy you use (either direct carbon dioxide production from burning fuel, or indirect CO2 production from the use of electricity which depends on the burning of fossil fuels).
When you exercise or otherwise exert yourself, you sweat. When that sweat evaporates, that’s more water vapor. And, of course, all that heavy breathing also produces far more carbon dioxide.
To Deny, or Not to Deny
The climate change alarmists like to call their skeptics, “deniers.” Besides being an emotionally charged term (false comparison to Holocaust denial and other forms of “not facing reality”), it remains a hollow term with little basis in fact. It’s like asking an innocent man how many times he molested his daughter. Once the accusation is out there, some brainless people will always assume the man is guilty. Incredible!
In a video I saw recently for the second time, Lord Christopher Monckton—a champion in the cause of climate change calm and reason—took a rather interesting survey at the 2014 International Conference on Climate Change. In his keynote speech, he asked his audience of so-called “deniers” six questions:
- Does climate change?
- Has the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased since the late 1950s?
- Is Man likely to have contributed to the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since the late 1950s?
- Other things being equal, is it likely that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some global warming?
- Is it likely that there has been some global warming since the late 1950s?
- Is it likely that Man’s emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950?
One hundred percent (100%) of the audience effectively said “yes” to each of these. Not a denier in the lot. All too frequently, the climate change alarmists accuse them of disagreeing with all of these points. Looks like the alarmists are wrong on all counts.
“We are not climate change deniers,” said Monckton.
The debate isn’t about climate change, but about the amount of man’s contribution to that change. Even amongst the alarmists, there is great disagreement on how much. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has published findings that have a broad range of estimates—all produced by computer models, instead of real observation. And all of the model outputs are running decidedly “hot”—above the temperatures actually observed. Oops!
Ice Age Denial
What the climate change alarmists fail to mention is that we’re in an Ice Age and that the current warming trend hasn’t begun to return Earth’s climate to the far warmer average of past millennia. In fact, the alarmists are in denial that we’re still in an Ice Age. But you know those “little” white things at the poles? Yep! Indications that we’re in an Ice Age and have been for nearly 3 million years.
Being in an Ice Age, means far less rain than normal. Why? Because rain requires water vapor, and the largest portion of water vapor comes from evaporation of the oceans. When it’s cooler, evaporation is more scarce. A potent example can be found in human experience in the early part of the Holocene. Climate then was sufficiently warmer than today by enough to cause significant increases in evaporation and rain. How do we know? During a 3,000 year stretch, the Sahara was green. What is desert, now, was grazing land.
At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, Earth was coming out of a minor cold spell called the Little Ice Age. It made food harder to produce, because of lower temperatures and a lack of rain. That Little Ice Age also caused more violent storms because of the greater thermal potential between poles and equator. Melt the polar glaciers and there is very little difference (thermal potential) between poles and equator. Thus, fewer and weaker storms. This is opposite to what the alarmists are saying. But think about it. Which creates more energy. Which produces more energy, a weak, used battery (less potential), or a fresh, new battery (more potential)? Now, that you know, the lies of the alarmists seem to grow pretty thin.
But the level of carbon dioxide at the start of the Industrial Revolution was historically quite low—dangerously low. If levels had been half of what they had been, all plant life would have been on the verge of dying of suffocation—not getting enough CO2. If that ever happens, then most all life on the planet would disappear. Why? Because animals cannot survive long without plants.
Some of the alarmists tell us, “Why not be safe and do something to cool down the planet. Prevention won’t harm us. Just in case we are right.” The problem is, blindly taking action to prevent problems could end up creating more problems, like ending the Holocene early and ushering in a new glacial period. Moving cities because of rising oceans is far easier than growing crops in the snow for 7-plus billion people. When snow is permanent in the corn and wheat belts of America, people will starve to death, by the millions.
After Dangerous Water Vapor, Reducing Oxygen Footprint?
Growing plants are contributing to the disaster that threatens to destroy the world (joke). Plants produce oxygen which gives rise to more animals which breath out carbon dioxide. Perhaps next we should launch a campaign to reduce our oxygen footprints, too.
Ironically, there are some who seem quite happy with the idea that humans will die off and leave the world to species which don’t destroy nature. That sentiment seems to be all too common these days, along with legalized murder (abortion), euthanasia, forced sterilization, forced vaccinations (despite dangerous toxins) and government programs to experiment on its own citizens. Yes, the United States has a dark history most people would rather not know about.
The problem is not humans. It never has been. The problem is selfishness—the one attitude that remains the source of all evil.
Though some of the ideas in this article can seem somewhat comical, what the governments have been doing in this climate change hysteria has been ironically not so funny. Critical thinking has become short in supply. We too readily believe the media and the governments, trusting them to do the right thing, all while feeling a bit queasy that something is not quite right.
There is a rare breed of psychopath who knows the difference between right and wrong, doesn’t care that people suffer and has truckloads of money to accomplish their every whim. They use their money to buy governments, to poison the thoughts of the masses with mind-numbing distractions called “entertainment,” while subtly shifting the language toward Orwell’s Newspeak. They have some of their oil companies fund the so-called “deniers,” while the Biggest Oil Rockefellers fund the alarmists. Like the psychopaths of old, they know that there is power in controlling both sides of any debate. But it only works as long as you are not aware of what they are doing, or don’t believe it is as bad as it actually is.
Comments, solutions? I’d love to hear what your thoughts are on this topic.
This article was originally published 2015:1003 on RodMartinJr.com.