Showing posts from 2016

To Professor Brian Cox on Facebook on Contradictions

I have now published my updated theory of the atmosphere. Quantum Mechanics and Raman Spectroscopy Refute Greenhouse Theory and The Greenhouse Gases and Infrared Radiation Misconceived by Thermoelectric Transducers 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 Earth's atmosphere. In gre enhouse 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 greenho

Lorenz Curve of the Universe's Elements

Lorenz Curve of the Universe's Elements Update May 2017 I have published a working paper on the Lorenz curve being a fractal property at . Abstract Global income has increased exponentially over the last two hundred years; while, at the same time, respective Gini coefficients have also increased, this investigation tested whether this pattern is a property of the mathematical geometry termed a fractal attractor. The Koch Snowflake fractal was selected and inverted to best model economic production and growth: all triangle area sizes in the fractal grew with iteration time from an arbitrary size – growing the total set. The area of the triangle, the ‘bits’, represented wealth. Kinematic analysis – velocity and acceleration – was undertaken, and it was noted growing triangles propagate in a sinusoidal spiral. Using Lorenz curve and Gini methods, bit size distribution – for each iteration-time – was graphed. The curves produced matched the regular Lorenz curve


I have now published my theory of the atmosphere.  Augmenting 19th Century Thermoelectric Greenhouse Theory with 20th Century Quantum Mechanics Raman Spectroscopy: Towards a Coherent Radiation Theory of the 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 that O2 and N2 (some 99% of the dry atmosphere) are only detected using Raman spectroscopy. This is due to their one (and only) vibrational mode being non-thermoelectric: they both have only symmetric vibrational modes, with no electric dipole moments to generate an electric charge by the thermopile and so are not transduced and

The Albedo-Emissivity Paradox

I would like to share with you a paradox I uncovered during my investigation into thermoelectrics ('IR spectroscopy'): the albedo-emissivity paradox.  Snow's albedo is very high as it reflects light, while its emissivity 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 thermal radiation and is 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 than white pure snow.  No one 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 have low emissivities - next to 0. Different materials don't have such low emissivities: not water and not snow - they have high

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 changing, how we know we are responsible, and what can be done to stop it. The scientific will may be there, but is the political will finally catching up? My Questions 1)       How can it be oxygen and nitrogen 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 also used   Raman spectrometers ( the complement to

Does oxygen in the vacuum of space absorb IR Radiation?

I have now published my updated theory of the atmosphere.  Augmenting 19th Century Thermoelectric Greenhouse Theory with 20th Century Quantum Mechanics Raman Spectroscopy: Towards a Coherent Radiation Theory of the Atmosphere Update: May 2017 I am writing up my findings, but I have settled on this question: N2 and O2 absorb and emit IR radiation in space, at least in the thermosphere. In the thermosphere, there can only be radiation, and these molecules are 'radiated' to a temperature of some 2500C. Good for the goose, good for the gander: N2 and O2 radiate in the troposphere, too.  The key assumption of climate science (to both proponents and sceptics of manmade climate change) is that 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 this  is true for the vacuum of space, then it must be true for the atmosphere. Space  is the place to test that premise