Friday, August 5, 2016

To Professor Brian Cox on Facebook on Contradictions

I have placed the following comment on Professor Brian Cox's Facebook sight in response to the following clip; I look forward to review and or feedback.


Professor Cox, yes those laws 'repeat all over the universe', but there are two gaseous molecules that - by 'our' understanding of greenhouse theory - contradict these laws, nitrogen and oxygen - together making up some 99% of Earths atmosphere. In greenhouse theory N2 and O2 are assumed, as if by law, not to absorb or emit radiation, but this, if true, is in violation of both thermodynamics and quantum mechanics where everything above absolute zero and with spectra lines (vibration modes) vibrates and radiates; but conversely, if found wrong of mistaken, would pose a violation of greenhouse theory. So what gives? I have found the solution to the problem, and thermodynamics and QM hold; it is greenhouse theory as we know it that needs to be reviewed. N2 and O2 have (I have discovered) predicted vibration modes (by the QM Schrodinger equation - no less) within the infrared range of the EMS at 2330cm-1 and 1556cm-1 respectively. These predicted modes (I have discovered) cannot be measured by thermoelectric detectors as used in 'IR spectroscopy' (the same used to define the so called greenhouse gases and first used by John Tyndall in 1859) due to a vibration property they - and all the other greenhouse gases actually - share, but they can be (very clearly) measured by Raman spectroscopy - the complementary instrument to IR spectroscopy. If you think these modes, and what I have uncovered is trivial, well they are not, else a CO2 laser would not function. N2, at the said 2330 mode is excited (just as with your hydrogen) so as to 'pump' CO2's (close) 2349cm-1 mode. In laser theory, N2 is said to be metastable, long lasting. Please note I am not suggesting the atmosphere is a laser, it is just that the mode(s) exist.

In advance of the attacks I will no dealt receive over this claim, please tell me where I am directly wrong - everything to my claim is from published work, and is easily accessible and is standard knowledge to any chemist or physicist. And please note, there are no so-called 'climate sceptics' that enjoy my claim, this is a new pillar. If I am right though, this will be the greatest upset to science since the beginning of modern science itself, since Galileo pointed his telescope. The atmosphere only has greenhouse gases, just as Fourier first posited - no special ones - and CO2 is, I'm afraid, trivial.



Friday, May 6, 2016

Lorenz Curve of the Universe's Elements

May 5th 2016
What a time, what a week, what a day – this morning I had the ‘Eureka’ of my life. For years now I’ve had my fractal model matching the evolution of the universe, but with what I discovered this morning, I now have it also matching the evolution of the elements and the periodic table. Everything fits – inextricably – through the geometry of a fractal. If you don't mind, I'm going to share, for the record, how this came about – before I get my head down writing it up. Madness!
Last week I received my paper back from an economics journal on the Lorenz Curve (income and wealth distribution) and it being a universal aspect of the fractal. (see my earlier entries: (1),(2), and (3)
They had questions for me relating to how I get growth, and accelerating growth out of this geometry - I hadn’t included this in my methods ? I replied to them saying: the Lorenz distribution is one aspect of the fractal, and that with all its aspects together (I have discovered) the fractal demonstrates (at least for economists) production, consumption and equilibrium (and other stuff). Can I write everything up in one paper for you with all the aspects? Or?
Anyway, at the same time as all this, I’ve been listening to a podcast (about 10 times actually) on (Rutherford and) Chadwick’s Neutron (prediction and) discovery, and heard the scientists talking on how the atom cannot get larger than Uranium before becoming unstable; and that the lighter elements Hydrogen (H) and Helium (He) 'want' to get larger, and that iron is the ‘sweet spot’. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07...
On about Tuesday I started to think fractal (again). Do the elements of the universe form a Lorenz curve? If they do, this is important. I searched the numbers, and drew a conclusion in quick time. Damn! Yes they do! Of course they do! Hydrogen constitutes 75% of the elements, and Helium some 23% - the rest are small fry compared. They are the ‘one the percent’ – they hold the ‘wealth’ of the elements not dissimilar to any other system. And then I thought about the other aspects of the fractal: equilibrium, production cost… equilibrium ..cost.. equilibrium...?? and then it came to me: Iron is the equilibrium - the ‘sweet spot’! And the lighter elements before iron are out of equilibrium, and so too are the heavier unstable one’s larger than it. This all conforms to my fractal model, and so I then thought about the time involved – because the first bits ( the H and He), of a fractal are the largest and their 'wealth' accelerates with time - think of the trunk of a tree as it grows, they actually do accelerate. Again – a fit. H and He were 'created', one after the other, in the first 1 or 2 seconds of the ‘big bang’. The other small fry element (and us) came later – and the sub-atomic particles earlier.
Now I’m going to try again, and get someone’s (a physicists) attention; because I really don’t want to explain this to an economist.
May 6th 2016
I have created a Lorenz Curve of the (118) known elements in the universe by their abundance. Reference: Abundance in the Universe of the elements

Thermoelectric atmosphere dialog 2

Blair Macdonald A deductive approach to special heat trapping property of CO2 would suggest CO2 should reveal its property where ever it is. It should be a Law of science: known, understand and not a discussion or controversy - like H2O isn't. I have for many years evaluated CO2 for this special property and have found no(!) examples of this special property of CO2. CO2 is next to everywhere, it does not explain or feature in literature where it should. The likes of: cloud formation, met theory, avalanche cause and theory (it is some 5000ppmv in the snowpack), plate tectonics (CO2 mostly subducts) respiration theory explaining how air is warmed from the nose to the lungs from extreme cold temperatures when the CO2 concentrations in the nose are some 45,000ppmv). None! of these make a mention of CO2's apparent special heat trapping property, Venus is not hot because of CO2 alone, it has a 90bar atmosphere pressure, that is enough to explain extreme and unusual temperature. But there is another instance where it doesn't feature and it should. WE WOULD US IT IF IT WERE SO SPECIAL - nothing does. We would have used it through time, and all of life would have evolved to use it. SO lets use it as a solution ( as scientists say it traps heat). I suggest we put it in double glazed windows to trap the heat via the 'greenhouse effect' (as stated by 97% of all scientists) I aim to start a crowd funded business, and call it CO2 FILLED . Would The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (Official) be a patron? If you don't you know you are a denier.
Simon Gigase Didnt read lol
UnlikeReply12 April at 11:30
Benjamin Wenham This reads like procedurally generated glossolalia.

Dude, the fact that CO2 is opaque to chunks of the Infrared section of the EM spectrum has been established since 1859.
But even before that, it was predicted that something would be found that had similar effects, because heat generated by solar irradience alone, could not explain the temperature found on earth. The effect of CO2 on climate is so significant, that scientists knew it had to exist 35 years before the discovery that the effect did exist.

Learn some history of science
LikeReply12 April at 15:36Edited
Blair Macdonald Benjamin Wenham By the '35 years before': are you referring to Fourier? If not who?
Benjamin Wenham Yes, Fourier, and then Claude Servais Mathias Pouillet , to name the two more commonly noted.
UnlikeReply12 April at 16:12
Blair Macdonald So Benjamin, in one (and only one) context CO2 is all powerful, and in all others is benign; that is supernatural. Something is wrong. I think I know where the problem is, and it is right where you are alluding, 1859. This is the year John Tyndall used the thermopile to define what were later to be defined as the GHGs. I have investigated his experiment at length and reinterpreted it: he in fact discovered the thermoelectric gases (N2 and O2 are not thernoelectric) via the electricity generating thermopile (via the Seebeek effect). His experiment is flawed.
Benjamin Wenham I think you need to look up what supernatural means. Materials behaving the way they are observed to behave, is not in anyway supernatural.

You oversimplifying things grossly. The opacity of CO2 to IR isn't milign or benign. It just is. That said, if it did not have that property, there would be no liquid water on earth. On the other hand, to much of it, and their will be no liquid water on earth. At one end, the water is ice, the other end water vapour.

Blair Macdonald Absolutely CO2 is a GHG, and absorbs IR heat, but so does O2 and N2 - that's where we've gone wrong. O2 and N2 have been misattributed as non GHGs: they are simply non thermoelectric and so do not register on thermopile or any electric detector. With these detectors they do not radiate, conduct or convect IR (heat) radiation, and that is not possible. Sorry about the supernatural, I don't have to over simplify in my work, I was wrong, and I do not need to resort to attacks either, it's nice doing science.
Benjamin Wenham As for your non-sense about the Seebeck effect. I can set up a IR lamp, I can set up a set up a tube of CO2, and a detector on the other side. What I will find every time, is that the amount of IR that will be detected on the other side, is less than t...See more
Blair Macdonald IR lamp - just call it a lamp. Everything radiates IR, this is thermodynamics. If something doesn't it is a contradiction. What's your detector?
Benjamin Wenham https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_lamp

Specialised IR lamps are are relatively common tool and instrument. They finf use in rolls from keeping chicks warm to labritory uses. Don't be asinine.

As for detectors, any detector with an appropriate degree of sensitivity.

UnlikeReply12 April at 16:51
Blair Macdonald Lets put 3 detectors, and raise the stakes so the lamp outputs heat (energy) to a burning temperature of say 100C. Detector 1 a thermopile, 2 the regular thermometer, 3 you or me (we can sense heat) ; radiate each gas (O2 and CO2) separately, then blow gases onto the detectors. What are the results? If you are right we die by CO2, and live by O2. If I am right we die by both. The question is, would you allow the O2 to be blown onto you on your knowledge that based on the thermopile which defines the GHGs and underpins climate science. Yes or No?
Blair Macdonald supernatural
ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l,ˌsjuː-/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. Beyond laws of nature, I'm good with that Benjamin.

Benjamin Wenham Why on earth do you want the lamp to output gases?

What matters for determining the relative Opacity of CO2 is the IR outputed by the source. In an idealised version of this experiment, the lamp is in a vaccum and outputs only IR.

Why do you think that the temperatures of the O2 will be raised, despite the fact that Direct measurements show it barely absorbs IR and that its temperature is not raised by being irradiated.

Benjamin Wenham Nothing observed with regards to CO2s physical properties meets that description.
Blair Macdonald I'll fix the typo, my point was for the lamp to radiate and heat the gases. But do answer my question.
Blair Macdonald 'Nothing observed with regards to CO2s physical properties meets that description.' explain?
Benjamin Wenham Your question still makes no sense.

What on earth is the whole passing the gas over the detector/breath it in thing is all about.

What I am prepared to answer you is that if you input 100 watts of energy into both both gases, the oxygen will have raised less in temperature than the CO2.

I won't give you a Y/N, because your question makes no sense, and I don't honestly understand what your trying to ask.

Blair Macdonald 'Why do you think that the temperatures of the O2 will be raised, despite the fact that Direct measurements show it barely absorbs IR and that its temperature is not raised by being irradiated.' Because of my knowledge of the problems of the detector,and because I live in an atmosphere of O2 and N2 and a very trace of CO2. I'm lighting my fire as I write. I hope it will heat the O2 and N2 in my house. A thermopile detector would never show it does, it can't.
Benjamin Wenham I don't see that is needs explaining, but sure. No physical property of CO2, cannot be explained by the laws of nature.
Benjamin Wenham You...you understand the difference between conduction, convection and radiation right? AKA, you clearly don't.
Benjamin Wenham Okay, I think I now understand your question.

Assuming, an equal volume of pure oxygen and pure CO2, heated exclusively by radiant IR. At a level that is enough to heat the CO2 to a level which is just hot enough to burn me, and I where to have the O2 passed over my skin,I would not be burned by it. While the CO2 would burn me.

UnlikeReply12 April at 17:44Edited
Blair Macdonald On the edge of ad hominem fallacy Benjamin, I've answered your questions, do the experiments, get at thermopile, they are cheap, experiment.
Blair Macdonald The thermopile cannot read the temperature (whether heated by conduction convection or radiation) of O2 or N2 AKA the earths atmosphere. The IR lamp will heat the gases by their respective heat capacities: they will heat up, but by the thermopile they will not. Something is wrong, but not if we understand the limitations of thermopiles. Oh and I have proof N2 and O2 absorb in the IR and an instrument to measure them, are you up to it?
Benjamin Wenham Blair, you are never cogently expressing your argument. I don't even fully understand what experiment it is you want me to run.

You are proposing a hugely, unnessicerially complex method.

The experiment needed to demonstrate the opacity of CO2 to IR is simple. It has been done and done and done.

Blair Macdonald What is your experiment and what is your detector?
Benjamin Wenham No one to the best of my knowledge has said that they do not absorb in IR.

The just combined don't absorb anywhere near as much as CO2, which my answers have acknowledged.

Blair Macdonald Oh yes they do: this is what defines a GHGs. Look it up. Look up non- GHGs. 'they do not emit or absorb IR radiation'. THis is a binary, zero, nader deal. They don't!
Benjamin Wenham I already described the method, but whatever.

Use an IR source, to illuminate a sample of CO2, measure and compare the levels of IR which successfully come out the other side.

Ideally, you use a photodetector, to measure the absorbed irradiance directly. Thermodetectors are measuring a secondary effect after all.

Blair Macdonald Don't go off the thermopile, they are of the Tyndall experiment and used in spectrometers (bolometers too).
Benjamin Wenham Anyway, it is getting stupidly late here in tokyo and I need my sleep.
Blair Macdonald What I have discovered (and you haven't asked about) is N2 and O2 radiate in the IR range of the EMS, they are both predicted to do so by the QM Shrodinger equation and only observed by??? Actually I leave that for you to answer as a test for you. What instrument can detect what the (IR spectrometer) thermopile doesn't ?
Blair Macdonald Thank you for the dialog, and be sure to find my complementary instrument. Good night.
Blair Macdonald No this is not the instrument. This is a thermo imaging camera. it uses thermopiles (or bolometers) in an array, but principles all go back to the Seebeek thermoelectric effect. Notice the CO2 is contained by a thin film of plastic and not glass. Glass is thermoelectic and behaves as CO2 H2O CH4 O3, while thin plastic does not. Salt crystal works the same and this is what Tyndall used.
Blair Macdonald Germanium (the solid) is like N2 and O2. It does not generate electricity with the thermopile and so is used as lenses on the thermo imaging devices.
Benjamin Wenham Sorry, is your claim that the IR interacts with the CO2 and the thermopile to make a current? And this so how makes masks the IR?
Benjamin Wenham I am going to make this as simple as possible. Do you accept that less IR is making it through the CO2 than made it through the tube when it contained air?

Yes or no.

Blair Macdonald No, you have to read how the thermopile works and the Seebeck effect, this is thermoelectrics, one of the great breakthroughs of the 19 Century. IR radiates (vibrates molecules) from every substance, but some vibrational modes (symmetric ones) of molecules do not have a dipole moment to generate electricity (this is not my claim but textbook theory/knowledge). N2 and O2's only vib mode does not generate electricity; CO2 and CH4 each have a molecular vibration modes that do not generate also, and as I said and asked, you need another instrument to see these modes. Have you got the instrument yet? Search the complement instrument to IR spectroscopy.
Benjamin Wenham The IR camera is not detecting the temperature of the material in the tube, it is detecting the IR that passes through the tube.
Blair Macdonald Benjamin Wenham Do you accept that less IR is making it through the CO2 than made it through the tube when it contained air? No
Benjamin Wenham By what mechanism is the IR changed, so that the instrument does not detect the IR. Explain in full. Provide citations using Harvard referencing and reliable sources. 2000 words, 10% either way.
Blair Macdonald Benjamin Wenham IR is heat and a measure of temperature. The detector is responding to the light energy that so happens to be emitted in the IR range of the EMS: this is thermoelectrics
Benjamin Wenham Now I really must sleep.
Blair Macdonald Benjamin Wenham 'By what mechanism is the IR changed, so that the instrument does not detect the IR. Explain in full. Provide citations using Harvard referencing and reliable sources. 2000 words, 10% either way.' Please!, that's a cop out! 2000 words! I've explained myself, I never said they do not detect IR, it is that they don't for all molecules (O2 and N2).
Blair Macdonald If we want to detect N2 and O2 IR behaviour (that is predicted in quantum mechanical equations) we need a Raman Spectrometer. Today these instruments detect N2 and O2 (and CO2, O3,H2O, CH4 and more) temperature from their respective intensity, and are used as an instrument of choice on solar system space probes. If we used Raman on planet Earth in conjunction with IR spectrometers (thermopiles) we would have a full Fourier atmosphere.
Blair Macdonald Here is my paper, I am currently writing another, I have found more evidence since.https://www.academia.edu/.../Reinterpreting_and...
Benjamin Wenham When the chamber is flooded with CO2, the detector stops detecting IR being immited by the heat source. Their are four options here.

Which is it.
-The the IR is absorbed.
-The properties of the IR passing through CO2 are changed, making it undetectable, where it previously was.

- something about the rules of physics changes by the addition of CO2(we cam dismiss this as magic)

-Something about the detector changes, which means it no longer detects the IR, because CO2 is in the vessel.(we cam dismiss this as magic)

Karl Anderson The "smoking gun"

Karl Anderson's photo.
Benjamin Wenham Had tried to post a spectroscopy graph, but my phone apparently wants me to suck wink emoticon
Justin Keller "Venus is not hot because of CO2 alone, it has a 90bar atmosphere pressure, that is enough to explain extreme and unusual temperature."

This is complete nonsense. A planet's temperature is determined by its energy budget, not its pressure.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/.../why-atmospheric-pressure.../

Blair Macdonald Venus was my point because it is claimed CO2 is the sole cause of its extreme and unusual heat, and not just its proximity to the sun; Spencer is referring to Earth. I have no problems with the greenhouse effect, I'm defending it. I am saying though, it is the whole atmosphere, N2 and O2 and not just 1 to 2 % of it.
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller and Karl Anderson . Yes they are well understood and I have no problems with it, but the spectra graph above is not the full picture, not complete; it misses the vibrational modes 'invisible' to the thermopile/bolometer detectors in the 'IR' spectrometers. To see these 'invisible' or IR inactive vibration modes of N2, O2 CO2 H2O CH4 and more, we need to use Raman spectrometers. The following is an image of Venus's atmosphere from a Raman spectrometer: remember Venus has some 97% CO2 and N2 is a trace gas there. The Earths atmosphere in Raman is the same. Now, if we combine the Raman with the thermoelectric gases (detected by the thermopiles and show above) we get a full 'greenhouse' atmosphere.

Blair Macdonald's photo.
Blair Macdonald I don't buy all Spencer says, (I've actually meet the guy and he didn't like me challenging CO2) A diesel engine is around 30 bar to ignite the fuel. Venus has 90! It took the Russian several goes to adjust/strengthen their probes, they couldn't believe the pressures. So it's greenhouse theory alone on Venus, that's nonsense
Benjamin Wenham So you accept the spectrograph above....but you don't accept that CO2 has a partial opacity to IR?
Blair Macdonald Of course I accept it, it is obeying the laws of thermoelectrics as I have laid out in my paper, which you have. Everything radiates in the IR, (N2 and O2 also as shown above in NASA imgage) otherwise there would be a contradiction in thermodynamics. Do you accept the Raman spectra image of Venus?
Blair Macdonald https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhyEY0Ddwz4&index=3... Look what I found just now: I wondered if the FLIR camera would not 'see' liquid or solid N2, I thought not. Here is liquid N2 measured by thermoelectrics. Would you dip your finger in on the indicated temperature? No! Explain to me why gaseous and liquid N2 is 'transparent' (does not absorb or emit IR) without contradicting, quantum mechanics electromagnetics and thermodynamics. I have.
Benjamin Wenham ROFL. Oh man...you realise that not accepting that the opacity of CO2 and accepting the findings of the spectroscopy are mutually exclusive positions, right?
Blair Macdonald ROFL. Oh man...you realise that not accepting that the opacity of liquid nitrogen (and gaseous!) and accepting the findings of the spectroscopy are mutually exclusive positions, right? You've been burnt and now frozen. ROFL.
Blair Macdonald Benjamin, unless you can develop the problem, and explain where I am wrong without attacking or taking us off the question, I have no time for this.
Blair Macdonald Have you studied science, if so to what level?
Benjamin Wenham You have consistently stated that you do not believe CO2 is opaic to IR.
You have now stated that you accept what the spectroscopic data that Karl posted, says. That spectroscopic data says that the CO2 absorbs the IR, aka it is partially opaic to IR.

Your positions are in conflict.

Blair Macdonald I can answer this, but it is hard, and I think I have explained it anyway and am repeating myself (I hate doing that), and feel like I am getting water boarded by you: you can't seem to accept the physics, the paradox brought about by addition (modern) knowledge (QM and Raman) to what is a 19th Century experiment. I'm just saying it is flawed and yes paradoxical/conflicting unless the new physics is embraced Do you have a background agenda? I just want to know that when I answer this (again) for you, you are not going to shift the goal posts again like you have already? Remember where we are: The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (Official) Reason and Science. Are you up to it, because you are showing you are not. Turn off the water and do science.
Benjamin Wenham Either the IR is absorbed, or it is not. Which is it?
Benjamin Wenham Your accusing me of moving the goal posts? Bahahaha... I have been dogged in trying to figure out why it is you do not accept the opacity of CO2 to IR.
Benjamin Wenham Thinking back, their are only two ways that what your saying, impeniterable as it is, can make any sense. They are if what you are trying to say is ....

"Both oxygen and nitrogen are also partially opaic to IR, but they emmit as much of it as they aborb"

Or

...that you are confusing what the IR camera is detecting.

The later of these is easy to put right. In the case of the video I showed you, the camera is not showing the temperature of the air in the tube. The temperature in the tube is irrelevant. What the camera is detecting is radiant IR from the heat source. What the CO2 is doing, is absorbing the IR radiated by the heat source. Which is what we would describe as opacity to IR.

Blair Macdonald Again, everything absorbs IR, everything, ( who's work is that ???, is it Maxwell? Faraday.. Hershel??). Thermopiles (or the like thermoelectric detectors in the FLIR camera of the Stewart demonstration) generate the image, they only generate from thethermoelectric potion of the molecules in from of the detector of which N2 and O2 have none. "When the chamber is flooded with CO2, the detector stops detecting IR being emitted by the heat source. " (I missed this mail sorry); because it is the CO2 vibration modes (as shown in the spectra above) it is generating electricity from rather than the flame. All this time the 'air' O2 and N2 (and trace CO2) have been 'absorbing and emitting IR, but that camera is not going to EVER show it. Visibly transparent glass has the same effect as I demonstrated in my presentation. The troughs in the spectra above correspond to the QM predicted vibration modes of the respective gases . So if we conclude it is absorbsion of only CO2 and not N2 and O2 that is misleading and wrong. Stewart is wrong and so was Tyndall and someone should have stopped him sooner. The is easy now. We have Raman. Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMLnUmbLwUI
Benjamin Wenham Everything absorbs all EM radation from across the entire spectrums, but your not claiming that you can see through concrete so I have to assume your are capable of understanding that different materials absorb different amounts of different EM radiation.

You get that the graph you say you accept, it shows absorbion of IR by all three gases you want to talk about, but that the absorbion by CO2 is much higher. Right?

Blair Macdonald 'The temperature in the tube is irrelevant. What the camera is detecting is radiant IR from the heat source. ' Not if the 'air' temperature is going to burn you, or freeze you, right? Not relevant? You need to study some basic physics my man. If something is not radiating is implies 0 energy; 0 K that is impossible. It is very relevant.
Benjamin Wenham Helloooo nurse....you just accepted absorbion of IR...my work here is done, some other person can now walk him through the raised energy state of the CO2, and why that, thanks to good old thermodynamics, that means the temperature of the CO2 is raised.
Benjamin Wenham Cause frankly this is exhausting.
Blair Macdonald Benjamin Wenham 'You get that the graph you say you accept, it shows absorbion of IR by all three gases you want to talk about, but that the absorbion by CO2 is much higher. Right?' yes, but the real measure of energy (absorption) into a substance is the specific capacity of the substance, and on that score CO2 is not special, 0.8 to 'air's' 1.
Blair Macdonald Benjamin Wenham Have the nurse take good care of those burns. -196C, you're gonna lose your fingers bro; and that 100C hot air, damn!, should have gone to some more science classes.
Karl Anderson Blair Macdonald, are you saying that as CO2 concentration increases, temperature doesn't?
Blair Macdonald Yes, of course, it's temperature first. It's a law.http://2012books.lardbucket.org/.../s17-04-effects-of... Why does beer or any other carbonated drink traste better when cold. Where do you put 'your' bubbly , after its opened - to keep bubbly? In the cooler, where the CO2 stays in solution; it's not the other way round. Of course you could argue it is the low CO2 in the cooler keeping the cooler cool, but I wouldn't. Do you know of any example of where we add CO2 to warm something up? Let me know. Not even greenhouses; but they do add CO2 there, but not for temperature.
Steve Ridge The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean as temperature rises from another forcing explains the positive feedback of temperature and CO2 in the ice cores and it's one reason temperatures precede CO2 levels.

It also explains why the other forcing, Milankovitch Cycles, alone isn't able to explain Pleistocene temperature patterns.

And, of course, as CO2 climbs, so does atmospheric water vapor, enhancing the feedback.

Karl Anderson Nobody said CO2 was the best at trapping heat. CFCs are way better on a molecule by molecule basis. The point is, that CO2 does absorb infrared and humans are boosting the levels.
Karl Anderson My best example would be the atmosphere of our planet.
Justin Keller No, Venusian temperatures are due nearly entirely to the co2 greenhouse effect. Venus actually gets less sunlight than earth despite being closer to the sun due to its high albedo. Models using co2 can well replicate the temperature conditions on Venus.
Justin Keller I was looking through your paper. Some comments:

"greenhouse gases. . . are special because of their infrared (IR) 'heat' absorbing property."

Infrared radiation and heat are not equivalent terms. Infrared are wavelengths of light whereas heat is the transfer of energy by any means.

"In principle, a 100% sample of CO2 will block out the heat source by 100%: 50% by 50%."

This is blatantly false in a couple regards. First, it is the density of the co2 that matters, not its relative abundance. Two, co2 will only block out certain wavelengths and will thus never completely block out the infrared emitted by the source.

""I could heat a lump of germanium to a dangerous temperature, but unlike the regular thermometer, the IR thermometer would not register the danger."

Again, false. The wavelengths of light an object emits is dependent on its temperature. If you heated germanium up it would emit infrared light just as any other body.

""but when the same visibly transparent glass is placed between my hand and the device, it will not measure my hand's temperature, but the temperature of the glass"

Well no duh. You are using a sensor that detects infrared light. Glass allows electromagnetic wavelengths in the visible spectrum to pass but it will block the infrared light emitted by your hand. So of course the detector is not going to pick up the infrared light emitted by your hand. This is basically the equivalent of being surprised somebody disappeared when they stepped behind a wall.

"what substance. . .is the device not measuring when you point it at my hand? The answer is, the air in between."

The air in between is certainly emitting IR that will be picked up by the detector. The air is not emitting nearly as much IR as your hand, though, since air is not very dense and has a low emissivity.

"the air. . . does not. . . emit IR radiation. . ."

False.

"Why does the IR device not measure the air temperature while a regular thermometer will?"

See above. The emissivity of air is not very high. A regular thermometer works by absorbing the kinetic energy of air molecules colliding with it.

"When the CO2 is let into the sample tube, the thermopile generates a current from the CO2 rather than the control heat source."

No, no, no. The IR picked up by the sensor is coming from the object, but some of the IR will be scattered by the CO2 in the sample and never reach the sensor.

"If the CO2 concentration of a sample is (for example), 50%, the CO2 thermopile would detect a 50% drop in electric current"

Again, false. Mars' atmosphere is nearly 100% co2 but you would notice almost no change by your IR sensor if you removed all of the co2. That is because although the atmosphere is nearly totally co2, their is hardly any atmosphere to speak of.

"It is interesting the control heat source takes time to warm up. Why?"

Because the wavelengths of light an object emits is dependent on its temperature. You need to let the heat source warm up so it will emit the correct wavelengths of light you want to measure.

"Could it be that without the differential in temperature, between the heat source and the sample, there will be no anomaly measured"

You are confusing temperature (kinetic energy) and infrared light (electromagnetic wavelenghts).

LikeReply24 April at 18:27Edited
Steve Ridge That effort is worthy of a medal. He'll never read it. He's gone.

You're too good for this.

LikeReply24 April at 05:44
Blair Macdonald Steve Ridge Why wouldn't I read it, this is feedback, this is science, it's fantastic and I look forward to seeing where I may be wrong or where I can improve, thank you, but I do need to sleep too: the world spins. Maybe in this time you have all read up on thermoelectrics and thermopiles, and their role in IR spectroscopy. If you have so, you will know that all you know about CO2 and GHGs is reduced to this knowledge/technology. If we took away the thermopile we would not be able to detect any GHG. They are the reason we are talking about climate (it all goes back to the Tyndall experiment). They are the antithesis of the telescope: the telescope broke the dogma and shows us we are not at the centre and spin (and that we are not alone in doing this); the thermopile/bolometer support a dogma and has put humans at the centre and is used by the likes of you and The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (Official).and is not science but magic. If we know about thermoelectrics and its role in knowledge and we then use this knowledge to defend or create any other truth (like religions do) from what is a natural phenomenon, the climate, we would have gone backwards, it is magic and it is fraud.The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (Official)are you listening. I've got your 'magic of reality ' book in my hand.
Blair Macdonald Steve Ridge "The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean... this is circular reasoning at its best. It has not addressed the question where I am looking for examples/ utility of special CO2. You have repeated the problem. That is bad. And you have repeated the dogma. You may as well say it is god or a teapot (as The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (Official) says.
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller Justin, "No, Venusian temperatures are due nearly entirely to the co2 greenhouse effect. Venus actually gets less sunlight than earth despite being closer to the sun due to its high albedo. Models using co2 can well replicate the temperature conditions on Venus." A high albedo would imply more reflection of all light (all light) and so less GH effect. I think you need to spend some time on Mars my man. Pressure little causal effect. Wow, you are something. Read the history Venus space probe exploration, the biggest problem was the pressure. Are you a denier of that.
Justin Keller You are a piece of work, man. Venus gets less sunlight but has much more of a greenhouse effect because it has an extremely thick atmosphere of carbon dioxide. Mars also has a nearly 100% atmosphere of carbon dioxide, but there is hardly any atmosphere to speak of. 100% times hardly anything is hardly anything.

Pressure is related to temperature through the ideal gas law but that does not explain temperatures, it simply relates them. The link I provided above is a general overview of what is wrong in your line of thinking; it is not specific to earth. A planet's temperature is determined by its energy budget. How much energy is going into the system and how much energy is leaving.

Blair Macdonald I was joking with the Mars mate, have you read the book wink emoticon Bad joke I guess. I agree with you. Pressure does not relate to temperature, and my diesel (yes I have one of those, sinner!) does not work on heat pressure laws. No chance. You're quite right. 90 bar means nothing, who listens to Russian anyway, and my diesels 30bar is is is....'simply relating temperature'. We're good. I'm going to concentrate on your review (which I appreciate) but please read what I wrote to Steve Ridge. and read all you can on thermoelectrics. oh and watch this on germanium knowing he doesn't know what you know on thermoelectrics, but he is not a political body with an agend.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFQ49dssMuk...
Blair Macdonald "the air. . . does not. . . emit IR radiation. . ." False.
Yes this is false, that's my paper, my point. Did I write that? I need to amend it if I did. Now, the main assumption of GHG theory (as derived by thernopiles) is N2 and O2 do not emit or absorb IR radiation, that is false if we use Raman spectroscopy. I can add to that now: via the thermopile, N2 and O2 (99% of the dry atmosphere on earth) does not radiate, conduct or convect. The thermopile cannot read/see/measure any O2 or N2. That is false. right?

Blair Macdonald Justin Keller ""I could heat a lump of germanium to a dangerous temperature, but unlike the regular thermometer, the IR thermometer would not register the danger."
Again, false. The wavelengths of light an object emits is dependent on its temperature. If you heated germanium up it would emit infrared light just as any other body. No you are wrong. The thermopile will not read the germanium as demonstrated by the man, and thus not register a temperature. This is the same for O2 and N2. I could blow you with deadly hot air or deadly cold and the thermopile would tell you anything and you would die. But it will tell you the temperature of a cloud of CO2 H2O CH4 , no problems. You are just wrong

Justin Keller You watch these youtube videos but you completely misapply the things you are learning in them. For instance, you mistook this guy saying the germanium is invisible in infrared to mean that it would not emit infrared radiation if you warmed it up. Your entire paper (and these comments( is chock full of these gross misunderstandings of the science.

I thought this quote from the video was rather apropos for you, Blair.

"No matter how much you pay for your infrared camera, it's value as a tool is directly proportional to your ability to accurately interpret infrared images."

Blair Macdonald I thought you would reply with that: yes, as I said, he doesn't know about thermoelectrics (if he does it is not important to him) he is using the technology and it is fantastic technology for what it is used for and he is right. But with a knowledge of thermoelectrics and vibrational behaviour or molecules , all the problems are explained. Yes it is 'your ability...' knowledge; and it applies to you too! in climate. You must know where your data/knowledge is sourced.
Justin Keller "The thermopile will not read the germanium as demonstrated by the man,"

He was viewing the germanium at room temp. If you heated the object up to 500 or 1000 degrees Celsius you would easily see it on the infrared sensor. So no, he didn't demonstrate what you are claiming he did.

Blair Macdonald Justin Keller Liquid Nitrogen Justin: do you think the IR camera (thermopile based) will detect it? It has a temperature. yes or no
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller 500 degrees, do you have a reference. You might be right (but I don't think you are I have researched it some time ago; I know water changes its thermelectric behavour with temperature ) but I'm not interested in 500degrees. I am interested in room temperature, where he is, and Tyndall was (if he had Ge)
Blair Macdonald You and I do not need to talk about the difference between heat and temp. That N2 has a temperature, it is radiating energy in (but not only) the IR range of the EMS. Thermopiles generate electricity via the seebeek effect from this IR radiation, but n...See more
Justin Keller Simply look up planck's law if you want an explanation. Additional, germanium becomes opaque to infrared at higher temperatures. See figure 5 in the link below.

"At high temperature optical grade germanium is subject to excessive absorption due to inc...See more




Among other materials for IR applications Tydex uses Germanium showing good transmission…
TYDEXOPTICS.COM
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller "In principle, a 100% sample of CO2 will block out the heat source by 100%: 50% by 50%."

This is blatantly false in several regards. This is how CO2 sensors work and also spectrometers, I have referenced and there are ample sources including the manual to my CO2 sensor.

Justin Keller "Liquid Nitrogen Justin: do you think the IR camera (thermopile based) will detect it? It has a temperature. yes or no"

I imagine it would be invisible, but I'm not sure.

Justin Keller I fail to see your point.
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller Good, thanks for the reference on Ge, and good you know Planck, good. 45C is not room temperature, and it is not important to the problem. I'll reference it, thank you. Now back to O2 and N2. Ge is not like N2 and O2 I agree, but it shares properties.
Justin Keller Might want to amend this then:

"I could heat a lump of germanium to a dangerous temperature, but unlike the regular thermometer, the IR thermometer would not register the danger."

Blair Macdonald Justin Keller My point?! The point is the camera fails to measure the temperature of liquid N2, and does not also for N2 gas. Yet this is how you know N2 (78% of atmosphere) is not a GHG. My Point! Its is the instrument (the detector) not the gas. The gas has a temperature!!
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller okay, good advice. noted.
Justin Keller What do you mean by 100% sample? If I go up to Mars and emit IR through its atmosphere I'm going to get nearly complete transmittance despite the atmosphere being nearly all co2 because there is such a low density of atmosphere there.
Justin Keller "The gas has a temperature!!"

Of course it does. That doesn't make it a greenhouse gas.

Blair Macdonald What do you mean by 100% sample? Think of it a 100% shade; and if that is so, no like; 50% shade, half light, 0% shade, all light. Thats how they work. Ratios. Nothing to do with the atmosphere or properties of the gases.
Justin Keller There is no such thing as a shade measurement. It makes no sense to say something is 50% shade and 50% light.
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller "If I go up to Mars and emit IR through its atmosphere I'm going to get nearly complete transmittance despite the atmosphere being nearly all co2 because there is such a low density of atmosphere there." Yes, on Mars (I haven't thought ab...See more
Justin Keller I'm still struggling to understand your point about nitrogen. The greenhouse effect is not due to the temperature of the gas but rather its absorption and remission of infrared light. If I shine infrared light through a sample of nitrogen basically all of the infrared light will pass through to the other side, right?
Blair Macdonald Raman reveal N2 O2 and Ge and CO2 CH4 O3 ...
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller On shade, then I need another word.... I'll find a reference, just a moment
Justin Keller I really don't care about that particular point that much. Can you answer my above question? Will there be any significant difference between the amount of infrared emitted and the amount of infrared that hits the detector after passing through a thick cloud of nitrogen gas?
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller I'm still struggling to ...Great question. To Fourier it was temperature (I'm sure), themopiles/thermocouples were not developed then (before 1828?). Now IR light is heat; we sense IR light as heat - that's Herschel. We can measure the energy to infer the temperature, and works well for thermoelectrics (mostly). Now 'shining': Appearances are deceiving without thorough investigation. I know that sounds mad - if not patranising - but so did the earth spinning when first suggested: if we know the physics behind the detector (thermoelectrics) that brings us to that conclusion then it is deceiving ( we are spinning). The detector generates no electricity from N2 and thus no signal. But that N2 is vibrating, it is predictied by shrodinger, and observed by Raman. I will share with you now a video on Raman vs IR (thermoelectric) to see its importance. And to finish, with a regular thermometer the N2 has a temperature, and thus is radiating/conducting/convecting. If it were not so, this would be a paradox not to mention catastrophe, as the atmosphere (assuming 100% N2 now) would appear (by the intrusment) to have no energy. Be sure you know. by thermoelectrics, the same a Tyndall used and the man with the FLIR used, N2 adn O2 do not exist. You and I know they exist. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ir+vs+raman



Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends,…
YOUTUBE.COM
Justin Keller So answer my question. What percentage of the infrared gets through the sample?

"Now IR light is heat"

This is a meaningless statement. Heat is just the transfer of energy. In this case that energy is taking the form of infrared light. Just call it infrared light instead of heat. Heat is obfuscating the matter. For instance, your section on heat capacity frequently used the terms IR and heat interchangeably--they're not.

Blair Macdonald To get through this, because I am not convinced will agree with me and my thermoelectric answer, we have to see it in terms of interpretation. It took Galileo enormous energy to convince, and even with the telescope it was not enough, he had to develop...See more
Justin Keller "But that N2 is vibrating, it is predictied by shrodinger, and observed by Raman. "

Raman scattering is very weak. Only about one in a million absorbed photons will undergo raman scattering. What matters is how much infrared light the nitrogen gas prevents from traveling through the sample. That is what determines the greenhouse effect.

Blair Macdonald There is no 'Raman effect' in the atmosphere, not a process or part of the greenhouse theory; it is a machine with laser. I don't know much more about it, I don't need to. Scientists in the field do and they use it. Modern Raman spectrometers can measure the temperatue of N2 and O2, by their excitation . Get That!
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller Can I give you a question: a molecule of N2 in the vacuum of space, near the Sun. Is it hot or cold? Does it absorb or not? Is it vibrating more because of the suns energy?
Justin Keller Yes, the raman effect most certainly happens in the atmosphere, it is just so tiny its irrelevant to anything.

"I don't know much more about it, I don't need to."

This about sums up the problem with your entire approach to this. You have fundamental gaps in your knowledge here but you have such delusions of grandeur thinking you're the second coming of Galileo that you are unwilling to address them.

Justin Keller Here, let me explain this again. What determines the temperature of the earth is its energy budget. That means the amount of energy coming in to the amount of energy leaving. If there is a discrepancy the earth will warm or cool until a new equilibrium is reached.

The sun comes in and warms the earth with short electromagnetic wavelengths. The earth emits longer wavelengths to cool itself off to space. If the atmosphere of earth were entirely nitrogen those longer wavelengths would simply pass right by the atmosphere and the earth would cool itself off very efficiently. Only by interrupting those infrared wavelengths will you change the energy balance between incoming and outgoing radiation. That only happens if you stop infrared light from passing through the atmosphere out into space; i.e., the greenhouse effect.

You have already admitted that nitrogen and oxygen gas do not stop infrared light, and thus they exhibit no greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect has nothing to do with a gases specific heat capacity, nor is the heat capacity an indicator of whether a substance absorbs and remits infrared radiation specifically.

Blair Macdonald Fine if it does, and I'll look into it (but it is the machine that is important here). Answer my vacuum question else I will assume you can't. and respond to my answers I have given else you are in denial. Galileo, is that blasphemy to mention his name. I'm just investigating and you don't like it. Is science religion?
Justin Keller "Justin Keller Can I give you a question: a molecule of N2 in the vacuum of space, near the Sun. Is it hot or cold? Does it absorb or not? Is it vibrating more because of the suns energy?"

You have fundamentally wrong ideas about the relationship betw...See more

Blair Macdonald Justin Keller 'You have already admitted that nitrogen and oxygen gas do not stop infrared light, and thus they exhibit no greenhouse effect' Where?
Blair Macdonald No I do not. So how close are we to the sun in my question (I didn't say) : let's say right where are now. Earth distance. Now, same question, suns energy vibrates the molecule. Y or N. Yes. Now how should we measure that energy?
Justin Keller "Where?"

The infrared sensor detects no change when nitrogen or oxygen gas is placed in front of it, therefore there was no change to the amount of infrared light hitting the sensor. I.e. there was complete transmittance of the infrared through the sample and the nitrogen and oxygen gas failed to stop any significant amounts of infrared light.

Justin Keller "So how close are we to the sun in my question (I didn't say) : let's say right where are now. Earth distance. Now, same question, suns energy vibrates the molecule. Y or N. Yes. Now how should we measure that energy?"

The nitrogen gas would be at the temperature of space, so only a few Kelvin. The Kelvin is a measure of energy; it is measuring the motion of the nitrogen gas. I don't know the specific absorption bands of n2, but if a photon excites the vibrations of the molecule it will quickly lose that energy back into space as another photon.

Blair Macdonald Justin Keller That's not my words. I'm explained what happens with the thermoelectric detector, thats your interpretation.
Justin Keller Right, because you fundamentally don't understand the difference between heat, infrared, and temperature.
Blair Macdonald 'I don't know the specific range.' I do! It's, as I have stated, in the IR range of the EMS, around 2330cm-1, right beside CO2 band. I think you are wrong, and it would heat up (a lot! K)

Blair Macdonald's photo.
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmiU5tJRJd4&index=8... Do you agree with this NASA guy's opening words?, I do. Notice he is using thermoelectrics as all IR telescopes do Spitzer and the like, interesting.
Blair Macdonald Now you look long and hard at the Venus spectra above, and explain it (to yourself). An tell me, what would be different if it were Earth's Raman spectra? Nothing. only the concentrations
Justin Keller For instance, take this trainwreck of a sentence:

"If -- based purely on how the non-GHGs are currently defined -- N2 and O2 are non-GHGs because they do not absorb heat, then this must imply they both have no specific heat capacity. . ."

N2 and O2 are non-GHGs because they do not absorb significant amounts of infrared radiation, not "heat." The idea that because they don't absorb significant amounts of infrared (not "heat") then they must not have a specific heat capacity is total rubbish.

Blair Macdonald All images and derived knowledge and policy in that video is based on thermoelectrics.
Blair Macdonald Watch the video again on heat and IR. Specfic heat capacities (SHC) are derived from the molecular behavour of the molecule itself. GH theory has it there is no aborbsion of IR (energy) by N2 (or O2). I can find ample reference to this. Don't give me this 'significant amount' it is 0. N2 and O2 are not on your IR spectragraphs, and cant be measured with your detectors.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmiU5tJRJd4&index=8...
Blair Macdonald Is there anything you have learnt so far Justin? Have I changed your thinking? Do you think I have made this up? Do you think I have an agenda?
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller Thank you for the feedback and dialog, it is important for me. Be sure, if I am right, the impact will be ........well...., you answer that (to yourself). Regards
Justin Keller "N2 and O2 are not on your IR spectragraphs, and cant be measured with your detectors."

Yes, because they don't block infrared light emitted by the earth and thus don't prevent the earth from cooling to space.

"Is there anything you have learnt so far Justin? Have I changed your thinking?"

I learned a little bit about germanium, but nothing much beyond that. I have a chemistry degree and have studied all of this stuff before.

"Do you think I have made this up? Do you think I have an agenda?"

I don't think you're disingenuous, I just think you're completely deluded.

UnlikeReply14 April at 11:47
Blair Macdonald I'm good with deluded.
Justin Keller That was a bit rude. I apologize. More honestly, I think you just don't get some of the nuances in the subject matter and that leads you to incorrect conclusions.
UnlikeReply14 April at 12:07
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller I think you are deluded also, disingenuous, and in denial and have an agenda, religious. Nothing I have said is new. My interpretation is, but the physics is not. and you need to learn more about Raman, heat and IR and how it is measured. I'm quite proud to say (in the company of you), I'm not a chemist, no degree.
Blair Macdonald I apologize too. But your review was not enough for me to take it down.
Benjamin Wenham Justin Keller, just read your post dissecting the paper. Thank you, that is epic. I now understand what is going on here.

He doesn't understand the physics of radiation and the absorbion, (and for that matter heat) even at the most basic level.

That makes everything so much clearer.

Benjamin Wenham On the liquid nitrogen thing.
The nitrogen is very cold, so it emits very little IR (conceivably well below the detection threshold of the camera) so little we might as well call it none.

The container it is held within is very slightly warmer, so it is emitting more IR. Additionally, because there are other IR

Because the nitrogen is almost completely transparent to IR, the relatively warm container is downing out IR produced by the Nitrogen.

Think of it like this.

I have a large pit, the walls and floor of the pit are covered with LEDs, and the whole thing is filled with high quality optical glass.
I have by some marvolous act of science also managed to make the glass luminesant just at the edge of human vision, just enough that it makes the observer think something strange is going on with it, even if they are not consciously aware of it.

If I turn on the LEDs , and you look in, you will not see the luminosity of the glass, because it has been drowned out. That does not mean the glass is not luminessing.

Blair Macdonald I have prepared our dialogs, edited your names out and left mine in so I can place on my blog to stand as an expert review, is that okey?
Blair Macdonald I can put your names in if you like.
Blair Macdonald I have compiled our dialogs, taken out your names but kept mine in (can put yours in again if you like) so I can post on my blog as two expert reviews. Are you good for that?
Blair Macdonald Just in the name of science.
Blair Macdonald Don't know if I need your permission? I'm the one going to be hammered right?
Blair Macdonald Benjamin Wenham Have you every tried to prove to yourself, without any background knowledge, the sun is not moving across the sky (but we are spinning)? It's tough. Try it. Actually, you can't prove it.
Benjamin Wenham Dude, there are numerous ways for an individual to demonstrate the rotation of the earth.
Blair Macdonald Benjamin Wenham Oh man! you clearly do not know about the great history of Galileo. He couldn't, not even with the telescope!
Blair Macdonald There is no way. Just conjecture
Blair Macdonald Lets not mention the great Darwin and his problems, for what is such a simple idea, evolution, by NS is proved time and time again, but not everybody agrees.
Blair Macdonald Galileo died not knowing what he achieved, what we take for granteed
Blair Macdonald N2 does not measure by thermoelectrics. You study thermoelectrics, and I will study absorption and convection and radiation....okay
Benjamin Wenham Blair, you really don't want to get into a discussion with me about evolutionary biology. You really don't. For that matter you don't want to get into a discussion with me about Galileo.

But that is all entirely beside the point, as is this entire tangent you have suddenly gone off on.

Your level of understanding of numerous areas of physics and chemistry are so shockingly low, the conclusions you draw from simple information sources so erronious that it is basically impossible to hold a conversation with you. You need to go, pick up level 2 biology, chemistry and Physics text books, read them, understand them. You then need to do the same for Level 3 in physics and chemistry.

Then maybe we can have a conversation.

Blair Macdonald You are the master of fallacy: you have lost this and all will see that. Galileo is everything, perspectives. He did defend his idea (copernicus) that was though nonsense. You are not a scientist (even if you have studied it). You think I am making up thermoelectrics. That I drew the Raman curves to make it fit do you ?
Blair Macdonald Everything you and your friend have written is fallacy. You do not addressed the problem laid out, and I want the world to see it. And you endlessly make me look like an idiot, the arogance. Fallacies over and over. I have studied all you have asked and more. If I am wrong, tell where I am wrong. You haven't. So IR is thermoelectrics.
Benjamin Wenham I don't think you are making up the thermoelectric effect, hell, my mother's wood burner has a fan powered by it, for circulating the air heated by it.

The problem is, that your understanding of physics is so poor, any your unwillingness to explain why you think what you think is so great, that it is impossible to understand A what you actually think is going on and why you think it.

That makes any kind of rational argument with you impossible.

It took hours the other day to get to the point where we got an admission from you that CO2 is in fact partially opaic to IR. I am sorry, but I just don't have the patience needed to unpick each of your misconceptions, one by one.

Blair Macdonald Fact of the matter is: if we all know about thermoelectrics and thermopile/bolometer detectors there is no climate debate - it would be over. It is over. You have a monopoly on teh knowledge and you don't want to give it over. Just like the church. You are not a scientist. If they still taugh thermoelectrics in school like they did when I was doing physics I think someone would ask questons. Someday, someone will understand thermoelectrics (I have had the support of two professors so far, big positive, but they aren't going to go any further with it, no. I can understand them not. I have another, believe it or not, climate skeptic professor (of chemistry) who thinks like you, really doesn't like it. A month of review, fill of nonsence fallacy like you, and he thought I made all this up. This is a new front on the whole debate. I have one agenda. I want good science back. I want the glaciers to melt for what ever reason. no gilt, no politics, big business science NGOs.