Review of my Thermoelectric Atmosphere Theory
- Get link
- Other Apps
The following is a dialog with scientists to do with my thermoelectric interpretation of the atmosphere.
The first is from a dialog from facebook. I am showing this to show the logical fallacies scientists are using, but they are not listening to my arguments. But I am learning from their dialogs because they take me everywhere except on the issue, the claim - that thermoelectrics must be understood to understand the atmosphere.
These dialogs are a typical response I get from scientists.
The first is from a dialog from facebook. I am showing this to show the logical fallacies scientists are using, but they are not listening to my arguments. But I am learning from their dialogs because they take me everywhere except on the issue, the claim - that thermoelectrics must be understood to understand the atmosphere.
These dialogs are a typical response I get from scientists.
Blair Macdonald How would a climate like Copernicus, Galileo or Darwin be accepted today? What would happen - just say as a thought experiment - CO2 and all the GHGs were found to be totally benign due to a mistake in the assumptions ( and the key premise)That say the detectors were misunderstood: that we all got it wrong? Would he or she be a hero of a villain?
Nils Lindgren Yes - I am certain you are the first to think of this. Surely noone has questioned nor looked into the key assumptions. Hats off: the Nobel Committe is waiting.
Another Dialog:
Blair Macdonald The great question is what to do with the unbelievers? Help us The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (Official), what should we do?
Educate them: someone replied
Blair Macdonald Okay, they're uneducated, yes. So, lets listen to Lawrence here, he's the master educator (for me). I think he speaks for the science establishment (sorry organisations..any country on the planet). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYw6YMJd-tw
Justin Keller Blair Macdonald "But they are educated."
Based on what I read in your paper, I'm going to have to disagree.
Based on what I read in your paper, I'm going to have to disagree.
Justin Keller Your video is the perfect example. Here is the warming trend 1997 to present in both the UAH and NASA GISS record.
http://woodfortrees.org/.../plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend...See more
http://woodfortrees.org/.../plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend...See more
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller I'm educated enough to know thishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking t…
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Justin Keller Blair Macdonald "Justin Keller I sent the links to 1000Frolly, it's for him to respond."
I thought you said you were educated on this topic. Why can't you respond?
I thought you said you were educated on this topic. Why can't you respond?
Blair Macdonald Jeff Wolverton Justin and I have been communicating on this thread where I have made a claim and he has only attacked, hence ad hominem. I have know worries about ALL, of course its ALL. This is the global doctrine, it's everywhere. Why didn't you add the pope, global stock markets, and my children's daycare. It all reads the same, everywhere, it's like the bible, its scripture. It's not science, its religion, and Lawrence should listen to himself - can you not hear his ranting mantra? Please take a listen to this very good podcast, I think it is relevant. I think climate stands as an example of secular surrealism. http://www.radionz.co.nz/.../philosophy-of-science-and...
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller 'Why can't you respond?' it is not my area of focus. I'd like to know his opion on your source. I have no idea. I am not going to draw any conclusion that you are: rising CO2 is the cause. I'm glad its rising, keep it coming, its healthy, it's not a sin ( like you seem to think it is).
Justin Keller No, I have thoroughly shown in the other thread that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Raman scattering is a very weak effect and it does not effect outgoing infrared radiation emitted by earth, as is plainly evidence in earth's spectral flux at the top of the atmosphere.
Justin Keller "I am not going to draw any conclusion that you are: rising CO2 is the cause."
We have measured the enhanced greenhouse effect from anthropogenic carbon dioxide. That shows a direct cause-effect relationship between rising atmospheric co2 and rising global temperatures.
We have measured the enhanced greenhouse effect from anthropogenic carbon dioxide. That shows a direct cause-effect relationship between rising atmospheric co2 and rising global temperatures.
Blair Macdonald Jeff Wolverton "WHO ARE you going by instead?" I watch the solar activity pretty much daily, just as I tap the glass before going out, and am very interested in cosmo-climatology, and have since I first read books on climate history (back in the 70's/ 80's,) before the carbon revolution. Those books are gone now. "(Also, do you apply this same logic to other fields of science, or just this one? I mean, NASA and the rest also say the planet Jupiter exists. Do you think that's a hoax too?) " Fallacy. Read my claim, and read the fallacy poster .https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller All I have done is reinterpreted how and what we know about thermal images IR spectrographs - and shown the extrapolated special 'GHGs - is wrong: that they are all thermoelectric derived. They are thermoelectric images and spectrographs and the gases are thermoelectric. Take the time to spot how many fallacies you have broken in our discussions, I think most.https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster
Blair Macdonald "We have measured the enhanced greenhouse effect from anthropogenic carbon dioxide. That shows a direct cause-effect relationship between rising atmospheric co2 and rising global temperatures." Well then, lets go into business: we'll start a crowd funding project, to collect CO2 an use it as a climate solution to raise the temperature in houses and buildings. Will can fill double glazed windows with it.
Justin Keller "Well then, lets go into business: we'll start a crowd funding project, to collect CO2 an use it as a climate solution to raise the temperature in houses and buildings."
Added co2 works by raising the atmospheric layer which loses heat to space, not by stopping additional infrared radiation at the surface (outside of a slight pressure broadening effect). Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
http://www.realclimate.org/.../a-saturated-gassy-argument/
Added co2 works by raising the atmospheric layer which loses heat to space, not by stopping additional infrared radiation at the surface (outside of a slight pressure broadening effect). Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
http://www.realclimate.org/.../a-saturated-gassy-argument/
Blair Macdonald Wow! 'not by stopping additional infrared radiation at the surface '. Did you write that. Just when I (and the rest of the 'science community) understood it, it's not what I thought. I read your artical: it should still work in a window - if that's what scienctists say, it should trap the heat. You sound like you don't believe your own science. Did you listen to Allan Musgrave on secular surrealism (here it is again):' we don't understand it (the ways of god), and we're not supposed to'. You, I think, make CO2 and climate change sound like god. ,I try to explain how we know. WIth my work one should be able to make a machine the shows the (thermoelectric)absorbtion bands of CO2 and with another machine (Raman) the non thermoelectric bands. http://www.radionz.co.nz/.../philosophy-of-science-and...
Justin Keller "I read your artical: it should still work in a window - if that's what scienctists say, it should trap the heat. "
Windows are already opaque to infrared radiation. Remember the hand example in your paper? I don't think you really thought this one through, Blair.
Windows are already opaque to infrared radiation. Remember the hand example in your paper? I don't think you really thought this one through, Blair.
Steve Ridge Has anyone published a paper regarding thermal images IR spectrographs that show "the extrapolated special 'GHGs - is wrong: that they are all thermoelectric derived" and how this relates to mainstream climate science?
Steve Ridge You also wrote..."I read your artical (sic): it should still work in a window - if that's what scienctists (sic) say, it should trap the heat. You sound like you don't believe your own science."
Since it's not used in windows to trap heat, practically every climate scientist is wrong and this demonstrates that it doesn't the greenhouse properties we've observed thousands of times in laboratories?
For energy efficiency, windows are designed to keep the heat in during the winter and cold in during the summer. We'd want something with a low conductivity.
For insulative properties, we compare the specific heat of various gases and Argon is about half that of CO2 so its conductivity is lower.
Since it's not used in windows to trap heat, practically every climate scientist is wrong and this demonstrates that it doesn't the greenhouse properties we've observed thousands of times in laboratories?
For energy efficiency, windows are designed to keep the heat in during the winter and cold in during the summer. We'd want something with a low conductivity.
For insulative properties, we compare the specific heat of various gases and Argon is about half that of CO2 so its conductivity is lower.
Blair Macdonald Steve Ridge "Has anyone published a paper regarding thermal images IR spectrographs that show.." Yes, I have. It is not published as such, but I have 'posted it. It is pretty basic, but at least states my hypothesis: that we have all (and I mean all, skeptics and all) made a mistake: we've mistaken the thermoelectric behaviour of molecules for IR behaviour and have extrapolated the GHGs and their effect. He's my pitch (I can do much better and a link to my paper): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0IHKKkOwdU
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller "Windows are already opaque to infrared radiation. Remember the hand example in your paper? I don't think you really thought this one through, Blair." So if glass is opaque to IR, why isn't it the centre of attention as a greenhouse solid and a cause of global warming. It shares the same properties as CO2, both transparent in the visible, and both opaque in the IR. Glass production has increased from the mid 19th Century, it must cause climate change.
Blair Macdonald Steve Ridge It won't work in windows, I'm making a joke of it. It doesn't work anywhere - so as to show itself special as it is said (at 400ppmv) to do in the atmosphere - that is my claim. Look at this CO2 profile of the snowpack. If CO2 had a special heat relationship/property it would factor in avalanche knowledge and we would measure it, I would measure it - our lives would depend on this knowledge. I know of no reference to its danger and have asked my expert (international guide) friends - it doesn't figure. Why not? Look at the concentrations.
Justin Keller "So if glass is opaque to IR, why isn't it the centre of attention as a greenhouse solid and a cause of global warming."
Oh, I don't know. It might have something to do with the fact that the earth isn't surrounded by a firmament of glass.
Oh, I don't know. It might have something to do with the fact that the earth isn't surrounded by a firmament of glass.
Justin Keller " I'm making a joke of it. It doesn't work anywhere"
No, you can plainly see the impact of carbon dioxide in the greenhouse effect by looking at the difference between the wavelengths of light emitted by earth (red line) and the wavelengths of light that escape out into space (green). The huge bite out of the center corresponds to co2's radiative forcing back down towards earth.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/.../briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
No, you can plainly see the impact of carbon dioxide in the greenhouse effect by looking at the difference between the wavelengths of light emitted by earth (red line) and the wavelengths of light that escape out into space (green). The huge bite out of the center corresponds to co2's radiative forcing back down towards earth.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/.../briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Steve Ridge " It won't work in windows, I'm making a joke of it. "
Nope. You were taking a shot in a dark, masked with sciency-sounding gibberish and failed.
Nope. You were taking a shot in a dark, masked with sciency-sounding gibberish and failed.
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller This (wonderful) curve is produced by thermoelectric detectors (either bolometer or thermopile) and therefore actually a thermoelectric curve of planet Earth's thermoelectric gases. It clearly shows the (poorly termed 'IR active') vibrational modes/absorption bands of the molecules (as tabled in my link). What is does not show is the non thermoelectric vibrational modes correctly termed Raman Active and observed by a Raman spectrometer. It doesn't for example (Raman) CO2 at 1338, (Raman) CH4 at 1534, and importantly to my argument (Raman) O2 at 1556.https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/vibrational.html
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller Here is a Raman spectra of Venus. It will be (is!) the same for Earth, only the gas concentrations are different.
Blair Macdonald Steve Ridge and Justin, can I share with you a paradox I have uncovered during my investigation that I call the albedo-emissivity paradox: the albedo for snow is very high (it reflects light), but the emissivity of snow is also very high (it absorbs and emits and does not reflect IR). It does not reflect IR? In any other context IR is thermo radiation, and related to heat and temperature. It absorbs this IR. I don't think anyone has discussed this: what have I (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.
Justin Keller Infrared detectors don't pick up IR inactive gases because--surprise surprise--those gases don't block infrared radiation from passing through a sample. The Raman Effect is extremely weak; less than one in a million photons which interact with a molecule experience it. That is why infrared detectors do not pick up those absorption bands, because those gases do absolutely nothing to prevent the earth from cooling of to space.
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller "those gases don't block infrared radiation from passing through a sample" If this is true, there is a contradiction to thermodynamics, as all substances above absolute zero radiate IR. So something is wrong with your reasoning, or thermodynamics is wrong. And conversely, if they do block and thus radiate there is a contradiction in greenhouse theory . It is a catastrophe: not the ultraviolet one, but the infrared one, the infrared catastrophe (my words).Something is wrong with this IR / greenhouse gases model, and I am offering the solution. Your use of the Raman effect in the atmosphere is a 'red herring' (fallacy), it is not my point (and no one else's in the climate debate from what I read, and if it were, it is still not my point - clear!). My point, as I have stated, is the laser based Raman spectrometer detects the vibrational modes (bands) the thermoelectric detectors cannot - as shown in the Venus spectra above.
Justin Keller Yes, everything with a temperature radiaties electromagnetic radiation. That does nothing to contradict what I wrote above.
- Get link
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment