My work on the analysis of the fractal. Insights into fractal economics, fractal cosmology, quantum foundations, atmospheric science and more. Towards a theory of knowledge, economics, quantum foundations and cosmology.
Blair MacdonaldA 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.
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.
Blair MacdonaldSo 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 WenhamI 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 MacdonaldAbsolutely 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 WenhamAs 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 MacdonaldLets 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 Macdonaldsupernatural 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.
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.
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.
Blair MacdonaldThe 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?
Blair MacdonaldWhat 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 MacdonaldNo 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 MacdonaldNo, 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 WenhamBy 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 MacdonaldBenjamin 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 MacdonaldIf 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 MacdonaldVenus 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 MacdonaldJustin 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 MacdonaldI 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
Blair MacdonaldOf 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 Macdonaldhttps://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.
Blair MacdonaldROFL. 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.
Benjamin WenhamYou 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.
Blair MacdonaldI 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 WenhamThinking 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"
...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 MacdonaldAgain, 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 WenhamEverything 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 WenhamHelloooo 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.
Blair MacdonaldBenjamin 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 MacdonaldYes, 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 RidgeThe 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.
Justin KellerNo, 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.
"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. . ."
"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).
Blair MacdonaldSteve 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 MacdonaldJustin 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 KellerYou 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 MacdonaldI 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 MacdonaldJustin 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 KellerYou 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 MacdonaldI 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 MacdonaldJustin 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 MacdonaldYou 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
Blair MacdonaldJustin 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.
Blair MacdonaldJustin 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!!
Justin KellerWhat 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.
Blair MacdonaldWhat 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.
Blair MacdonaldJustin 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 KellerI'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?
Justin KellerI 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 MacdonaldJustin 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
Justin KellerSo 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 MacdonaldTo 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 MacdonaldThere 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 MacdonaldJustin 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 KellerYes, 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 KellerHere, 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 MacdonaldFine 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 MacdonaldNo 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?
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'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 MacdonaldNow 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
"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 MacdonaldWatch 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 MacdonaldJustin 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.
Benjamin WenhamOn 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 MacdonaldBenjamin 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 WenhamBlair, 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.
Blair MacdonaldYou 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 MacdonaldEverything 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 WenhamI 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 MacdonaldFact 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.
Is Arethusa Pool (New Zealand) and its island's the worlds only natural fractal lake? I was there with my family in January: it was a wonderful day, and very exciting for me - mathematically speaking. Arethusa Pool (and its island) is on Mou Waho Island, which is on Lake Wanaka, which is on the South Island of New Zealand, which is in the South Pacific Ocean. Water (the South Pacific Ocean), land (South Island New Zealand), water (lake Wanaka), land (Mou Waho Island) , water (Arethusa Pool), land (islands on Arethusa Pool); water in a puddle after rain (or when I filled it), land as small as a square centimeter inside the puddle, ..... water?? Arethusa Pool, and Lake Wanaka New Zealand 2015.
Update May 2017 This is by far my best idea; I have written it up in a working paper at my academia.edu and vixra , and named it: Quantum Mechanics, Information and Knowledge, all Aspects of Fractal Geometry and Revealed in an Understanding of Marginal Economics. I shall post the Abstract, followed by the original post, followed by the paper. I hope to have some collaborate and review my work in time. Abstract Fractal geometry is found universally and is said to be one of the best descriptions of our reality – from clouds and trees, to market price behaviour. As a fractal structure emerges – the repeating of a simple rule – it appears to share direct properties familiar to classical economics, including production, consumption, and equilibrium. This paper was an investigation into whether the mathematical principles behind ‘the market’ – known as marginalism – is an aspect or manifestation of a fractal geometry or attractor. Total and marginal areas (assumed to stand
This entry is one of a set of entries on the fractal and the strange (quantum like) nature of them. I use the word quantum because there is no other area of knowledge that comes close to explaining or relating to the discoveries I am making with fractal geometry. Blair 11,03,2013 Wave and particle D uality - and the fractal The below entry is a discovery, not an explanation. I (intend to) write what I see, and what I expect I have found - I do not pretend to fully understand. Just as the atom can ' weirdly' be described as being both a particle and as a ‘smeared out’ wave at the same time, so too, as I shall demonstrate, can the fractal be described in such a way - only for the fractal it is not so weird. The fractal demonstrating a (discrete) particle: The fractal is defined by a pattern, object or shape repeating or iterating. The the Koch Snowflake (below) demonstrates this iterating - the triangle represents the particle. The triangle (in the Koch