Thursday, April 21, 2016

Raman and Thermoelectric Atmosphere

THE FULL COMPLEMENT OF GREENHOUSE GASES

This is a diagram of all the vibrational modes ('absorption bands') of the Earth's atmospheric gases; in the near infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Gases are detected by thermoelectric thermopile or bolometer detectors (below), 'what is incorrectly termed 'IR spectroscopy'; and by thermoelectric's complement, Raman (Laser Lidar) spectroscopy (above).

Notice O2 and N2 (some 99% of the dry atmosphere) are only detected by means of Raman spectroscopy. This is due to them both having their one (and only) vibrational mode being non-thermoelectric:  they both have only symmetric vibrational modes, with no electric dipole moments to generate, by the thermopile, an electric charge, and so are not detected. Notice the other greenhouse gases, CO2, CH4, and O3 with symmetric modes figure by Raman also.

 N2 and O2 have been wrongfully assumed non 'greenhouse gases', and this needs to be reviewed.

The so called greenhouse gases have wrongly been interpreted, and are really the thermoelectric gases, only detected by thermoelectric (thermopiles).

Reference to Vibrational Modes




References:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/meetings/archive/vexag_12/presentations/OM3_Sharma_etal.pdf

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/


Monday, April 11, 2016

The Infrared Catastrophe



If the non-greenhouse gases oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2) – some 99% of the dry atmosphere – do not block (absorb or emit) infrared radiation - as assumed in greenhouse theory -  there is a contradiction in thermodynamics, which states all substances above absolute zero radiate thermal infrared radiation.
Converse to the above, if O2 and N2 do radiate infrared - in accordance with thermal dynamics  - there is a contradiction in greenhouse theory as greenhouse theory assumes, as a key implied premise - derived by the Tyndall  thermopile experiment - O2 and N2 are non-greenhouse gases and do not radiate or absorb any IR.

This is a catastrophe: not the ‘ultraviolet’ one, but an infrared one. It is the infrared catastrophe (my words). 

Something is either wrong with our greenhouse reasoning, or thermodynamics is wrong. Something is wrong, and I have identified the problem. Climate discussion and debate is an extrapolation based on dated physics.


I am calling for a total review of heat and atmospheric  physics. In the 'light' of new technology (Raman spectroscopy), and physics (quantum mechanics) we need to review how we understand radiation and emissivity which is currently based on 19th century experiments and knowledge. Only then can we discuss the climate system.

I have been involved in  a heavy review process over the last months (which will be summarised in a coming blog entry) and have been attacked by every logic fallacy in the book. I look to reviews from the highest level - Professors of Chemistry and Physics only please.

Review at:
https://www.academia.edu/12043014/Reinterpreting_and_Augmenting_John_Tyndall_s_1859_Greenhouse_Gas_Experiment_with_Thermoelectric_Theory_and_Raman_Spectroscopy
or
http://vixra.org/abs/1504.0165

Sunday, April 10, 2016

The Albedo-Emissivity Paradox

I would like to share with you a paradox I have uncovered during my investigation into thermoelectrics ('IR spectroscopy') that I call the albedo-emissivity paradox. 

The albedo of snow is very high (it reflects light), and - what is said to be related - the emissivity of snow is also very high (near 1, which implies it absorbs and emits IR radiation, and does not reflect IR (thermal) radiation). Does it really not reflect IR? In any other context IR is thermo radiation, and related to heat and temperature. Snow absorbs this IR but does not reflect it? Can this be true?
I don't think anyone has discussed this paradox.  What have I - or we - got wrong? 

I have a possible answer to this, and the clew is aluminium and other shiny metals - all of which have low emissivities, but not other materials, and not water, and not snow - they have high emissivities.


Monday, February 29, 2016

Questions to the infinite monkey cage on climate change



 
Here are my questions to the team of the The Infinite Monkey Cage, Series 13  on Climate Change
 
Where: Brian Cox and Robin Ince are joined by guests Dara O Briain, Professor Tony Ryan and Dr Gabrielle Walker to discuss the ever-hot topic of climate change. They take a forensic look at the evidence that the climate is indeed changing, how we know that we are responsible, and what can be done to stop it. The scientific willing may be there, but is the political will finally catching up?
 

 
My Questions

 
1)      How can it be oxygen and nitrogen do not absorb or emit infrared radiation when (in the next chapter of my physics book) it is said ‘no substance does not radiate infrared’?
2)      Would a molecule of oxygen in the vacuum of space, in the sun, absorb IR (heat)? If not why not?
3)      Why do we only use thermoelectric thermopile detectors (as John Tyndall used in his 1859 experiment) when if we used also  Raman spectrometers ( the complement to IR/thermoelectric spectrometers) we would see clearly the predicted vibrational modes of oxygen and nitrogen at 1556 and 2330cm-1  respectively (right within the IR range of the EMS)?
4)      Why don’t we use CO2 as a heat trapping gas as it is said to be? We could put it in double glazed windows. If it is good enough for the climate, it is good enough for my house.
5)      If I were to start a crowd funding project  to research the heat trapping potential of CO2 (as an insulant) would you indorse my project? Put your support, or your money where your mouth is?
6)      Why haven’t any animal evolved to use CO2 to trap heat like they do water vapour?   
7)      If CO2 changes climate; why doesn’t it factor in meteorology  - directly? Why don’t pilots measure it? They measure water, and air pressure and temperature – not any greenhouse gases as far as I know.
 


I will post the answers when I get them.
Blair

Does oxygen in the vacuum of space absorb IR Radiation?

The key assumption of climate science (to both proponents and skeptics of manmade climate change) is N2 and O2 – the non greenhouse gases; constituting 99% of the dry atmosphere – do not absorb or emit IR radiation.  In space, there is only radiation to transfer heat energy. If it is true for the vacuum of space, then it must be true for the atmosphere. Space is the place to test that premise. 
I have asked three expert physicists (two of them ex-Professors of chemistry, and one of them a climate skeptic) and they all suggest, tentatively, they must. I don't think anyone has thought about it before. The thought experiment came to me while watching Apollo 13  - they 'vented' O2 gas into space. NASA, we’ve got a problem. 
I can imagine a molecule of O2 (and or N2) warming, gaining energy as it gets nearer the sun, and cooling when farther from the sun. They must, otherwise they defy
thermodynamics.  
Besides this, in thermal radiation theory, all substances are said to radiate infrared; if N2 and O2 don't, then there is a contradiction. 

So where have we gone wrong?
It is instrumentation: we have been using an instrument that uses thermopile detectors. These thermopiles discriminate both N2 and O2 as – due to N2 and O2 lack of a symmetric/ non electric dipole moment – they do not generate electricity via the Seebeck effect and so are not measured; while CO2, CH4, H2O, and the others (the so called greenhouse gases, but really should be called the thermoelectric gases) – do and are.

I have discovered N2 and O2 both have vibration modes in the IR range of the electromagnetic spectrum, at 2330cm-1 and 1556 cm-1 respectively, and these vibrational modes can both be clearly observed by using a Raman Spectrometer.
There’s where we have gone wrong.
She followed my reasoning.
My Professor friend asked me: 'why are you asking these questions Blair?' I replied: isn’t that what science is about?

Here is a clip of my discoveries. 



Friday, October 30, 2015

Improved Fractal Lorenz Curve

Four years ago I conducted a 'loose' experiment on a Christmas tree to test the weight distribution of branches for Lorenz curve wealth distribution similarities in an economy. This week I finished the Figure 3 chart (below) after modelling the Koch Snowflake fractal for (Lorenz) area distribution. Took me hours. 
I found the area distribution not only follows what we observe with wealth distribution, but expands as the fractal grows (or develops) with time (Table 1). I also found different area groups (triangle sizes) grow with time (from an arbitrary size), and accelerate apart from each other with time. This is a geometry and can be observed in any fractal structure. I have updated my post at academia.edu













Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Problem in Thin Ice documentary


In the documentary Thin Ice I have identified a mistake that I would like to reveal to you. This mistake, if correct, is so large as to discredit not only the documentary but also the science.