Thursday, April 21, 2016

Raman and Thermoelectric Atmosphere


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


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:

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 as it reflects light, while at the same time 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). Snow and ice are near perfect black bodies.
But, does snow really not reflect IR (heat)? 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 so. Black painted or dyed snow will melt faster that white pure snow. 
I don't think anyone has discussed this paradox.  Where have I - or scientists gone wrong? 

I have a possible answer to this, and the clew is aluminium and other shiny metals - all of which all have low emissivities - next to 0.  Other materials don't have such a low emissivities: not water, and not snow - they have high emissivities. 

Thermopiles and their mechanism thermoelectrics are the problem.
I will write up my theory as soon as I have time.