Remember me
▼ Content

Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy


Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy15-09-2019 16:26
Blair Macdonald
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
I have written two working papers on the systematic error in atmospheric IR measurements and understanding that has unfolded for some 150 years. The first paper (links below) is on how the GHGs are really the thermoelectric (TE) gases as they are detected by TE transducers via the Seebeek effect; and the other is on modern Raman spectroscopy - the modern complement instrument to TE spectrometers. Together - today well known to all chemists and the like - these two instruments measure and explain the IR atmosphere, but this fact has not been communicated in climate discussions. My findings will also change radiation theory as we know it as blackbody radiation curves are also a direct derivation - by first principles - of thermoelectrics and are discriminant and misleading in 'light' of modern laser Raman spectroscopy.

The key premise of GH theory is that 99% of the dry atmosphere does not radiate infrared (IR) and only the 'special' GHGs do. This contradicts quantum mechanics where all matter above absolute zero radiates IR. You can't have 99% of anything let alone the atmosphere not interacting with infrared light. If it didn't, it would be like dark matter and dark energy and would need an explanation.

I have found - by quantum mechanics - the Non-GHGs (the 99%) O2 and N2 emit and absorb IR (at 1556 and 2338 cm-1 respectively), as also does the non-IR active spectra of CO2 (1338cm-1), CH4's (2 spectra) and H2O vapour 3652cm-1 and others. What is more, I have found these quantum predicted spectra (all of H2O's spectra) are observed only by Raman - laser-based - spectrometers, and to a very high degree of accuracy. Raman spectrometers (I have many papers on this) measure the temperatures of the gases and this (I have found) is mathematically described by an equation that invokes the Boltzmann constant. The Boltzmann constant is the hollies of hollies: it units atomic movement with temperature and is central to radiation theory.

I have also found that as the so-called GHGs are only detected by thermoelectric (TE) instruments, they are really and only the TE gases. Tyndall discovered the TE gases; if he had a Raman spectrometer, I am sure he would have concluded differently. If we all (sceptics included) used the measurements and quantum physics behind IR Raman Laser Spectroscopy (IR spectroscopies complement instrument) we would not be in this position.

The Raman spectrometer - I say - is the equivalent to the 17th Century telescope, it allows us to see what we are missing and correct our bias. Raman spectroscopy is so good it makes IR spectroscopy (the one that defines the special GHGs) redundant. It is known to all chemists and physicists that in IR spectroscopy Raman spectrometers (exploiting the Raman effect) are complementary instruments to 19th century based (so-called) IR spectroscopy. I have found that together they show us the complete IR atmosphere - that there are no special gases, only special instruments and we have fooled ourselves thinking what we - and you - do; that there is a special group of gases. What I am saying is, there has been a systematic error, and Raman clears it up. Raman spectroscopy does it all - there are hundreds of papers (more!) on it and many on the atmosphere and its many related applications.
It is even used on a solar system space probe to determine the composition of Venus's atmosphere, and it can measure the methane emissions of cows - all on the physics that would to anyone informed collapse greenhouse theory. Just look at this paper's title alone: "Determination of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration using Raman spectroscopy" Raman spectroscopy can measure the Keeling curve - all on the physics that contradicts the special GHGs.

What is more, I found, as supporting evidence to my hypothesis all the gases absorb and emit IR radiation: N2 also absorbs at its (said) 2338cm-1 mode in the 'pumping process' of the CO2 laser. It absorbs by electrons, and by photons, I have papers to show both. Interestingly N2 then passes on its absorbed energy (heat) to the CO2 molecule. I have concluded this is the process in the atmosphere also.

I have written work in the form of a working paper but no one yet has given a good and fair review. I intend to rewrite my work in the form of a paper for publication. I am small, not a scientist, have no money, but will try to get my thesis published.

"Quantum Mechanics and Raman Spectroscopy Refute Greenhouse Theory" http://vixra.org/abs/1811.0498 "The Greenhouse Gases and Infrared Radiation Misconceived by Thermoelectric Transducers" [url]http://vixra.org/abs/1811.0499 [/url]and wrote this article https://principia-scientific.org/settling-the-climate-woo-with-quantum-based-raman-spectroscopy/ My paper are also at Researchgate and Academia.edu
Edited on 15-09-2019 16:39
15-09-2019 18:04
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
What is surprising is that virtually every person not on the IPCC except disgraced liars no longer believe in greenhouse gases or human caused climate change.

Tony Heller wrote a search engine that can look through old newspapers all over the US and Europe and shows categorically that NASA and NOAA have lied about the temperatures recorded. Furthermore, he has shown that they recorded temperatures elsewhere around the world where there was never any stations to record them.

Ocean level experts from around the world had stated categorically that the ocean level changes HAVE NOT changed from the rates that they had been changing in other parts of the world where they've been recorded and in the US since we've been recording since at least the Civil War. The ocean levels in the Pacific Coast as measured in San Francisco have not changed at all.

It has been my contention that absorption of IR is meaningless since that simply adds to the energy conducted through the atmosphere into the upper atmosphere where it is exposed to additional radiation from the Sun and radiates this energy away, while in a rather complicated way, into open space.
15-09-2019 18:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Blair Macdonald wrote:I am ...not a scientist,

Yes you are! It's cool to have you here as you clearly have some real information and understanding to share. I'm assuming you studied chemistry or physics. What is your profession?

Blair Macdonald wrote:
The key premise of GH theory is that 99% of the dry atmosphere does not radiate infrared (IR) and only the 'special' GHGs do.

I had thought it was that they did "very little". I'm not totally clear on everything and only read the summary of your papers. Could you please help me understand what you're saying in reference to this 1 min video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw

Is the camera being used have a TE Transducer and not a Raman spectroscopy?

Blair Macdonald wrote:
I have written work in the form of a working paper but no one yet has given a good and fair review.


You should check out this: Dr Pat Frank He's a Stanford faculty member and had a very hard time getting his paper published as it questioned the status quo.

Wake wrote:
It has been my contention that absorption of IR is meaningless since that simply adds to the energy conducted through the atmosphere


But doesn't it change the ground level temperature when you add to the energy being conducted?
15-09-2019 22:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
Wake wrote:
What is surprising is that virtually every person not on the IPCC except disgraced liars no longer believe in greenhouse gases or human caused climate change.

Tony Heller wrote a search engine that can look through old newspapers all over the US and Europe and shows categorically that NASA and NOAA have lied about the temperatures recorded. Furthermore, he has shown that they recorded temperatures elsewhere around the world where there was never any stations to record them.

Ocean level experts from around the world had stated categorically that the ocean level changes HAVE NOT changed from the rates that they had been changing in other parts of the world where they've been recorded and in the US since we've been recording since at least the Civil War. The ocean levels in the Pacific Coast as measured in San Francisco have not changed at all.

It has been my contention that absorption of IR is meaningless since that simply adds to the energy conducted through the atmosphere into the upper atmosphere where it is exposed to additional radiation from the Sun and radiates this energy away, while in a rather complicated way, into open space.


* You cannot decrease entropy in any system.
* Radiance is not conduction.

What is complicated about radiance?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-09-2019 22:21
16-09-2019 05:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Into the Night wrote:What is complicated about radiance?


[comment="from the peanut gallery"]
I would say that radiance comes with an inherent confusion factor, i.e. the "Area" normalization.

There is a natural tendency to equate radiance with power ... but it is specifically total power normalized over the total surface area. Yes, it is only one mathemtaical operation but it is easy to get confused over use-cases and thought experiments, especially if someone is using an unclear element like "your surroundings" or "the atmosphere" which doesn't have a surface area. How are you expected to compute the radiance vs. the power?
[/comment]


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-09-2019 19:41
Blair Macdonald
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
TMiddle: Thank you for your support and great questions.
I'm assuming you studied chemistry or physics. What is your profession?
I am and economics teacher, that's my day job; otherwise, I study and investigate climate physics. Lots of other stuff too - cosmology etc.
Could you please help me understand what you're saying in reference to this 1 min video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw

Is the camera being used have a TE Transducer and not a Raman spectroscopy?

In my paper on transducers, I go through the 'Stewart demonstration' - it should be in the table of contents. The detector in the camera is a TE transducer; if he were using a modern Raman spectrometer he could measure the temperature and concentrations of the gases all by the 'Raman active spectra. Included in my Raman paper is the following experiment to measure a flame by RS. Notice the Boltzmann constant is invoked. https://www.strath.ac.uk/media/1newwebsite/centres/advancedformingresearchcentre/documents/20170322-empress-meier.pdf

The thermal camera is only showing the TE substances. Glass is TE, so glass is not containing the gas else we would not see the flame, but just blue, it is thin plastic that is containing the gas. Solid germanium would do the same as the thin plastic as would thin salt crystal (what Tyndall used). N2 and O2 are not TE, but the flame is and so is the cold CO2 gas, and it is this gas that is being transduced in your image. Notice this slight image of the flame: well, not all the CO2 transduces, some of the flame heat transduces. This is essentially the same apparatus as Tyndall - we are seeing the TE gases.


You should check out this: Dr Pat Frank He's a Stanford faculty member and had a very hard time getting his paper published as it questioned the status quo.


I will do, thank you.

It has been my contention that absorption of IR is meaningless since that simply adds to the energy conducted through the atmosphere


But doesn't it change the ground level temperature when you add to the energy being conducted?[/quote]

I guess I am a radiation guy all the way: everything radiates IR, that's QM. Conduction must mean radiation at the quantum level, atoms don't touch, apparently. I can't go any more on this, but I think and can show by Raman experiments the atmosphere absorbs and from the ground it 'conducts' - if that's what we are calling it.
Thanks again.
Edited on 16-09-2019 19:43
16-09-2019 20:41
Harry C
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
I'm very interested in your findings Mr. Blair McDonald but also really struggling to reinforce my own lack of knowledge to tie it together. Thanks for sharing!
16-09-2019 21:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
Blair Macdonald wrote:
TMiddle: Thank you for your support and great questions.
I'm assuming you studied chemistry or physics. What is your profession?
I am and economics teacher, that's my day job; otherwise, I study and investigate climate physics. Lots of other stuff too - cosmology etc.
Could you please help me understand what you're saying in reference to this 1 min video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw

Is the camera being used have a TE Transducer and not a Raman spectroscopy?

In my paper on transducers, I go through the 'Stewart demonstration' - it should be in the table of contents. The detector in the camera is a TE transducer; if he were using a modern Raman spectrometer he could measure the temperature and concentrations of the gases all by the 'Raman active spectra. Included in my Raman paper is the following experiment to measure a flame by RS. Notice the Boltzmann constant is invoked. https://www.strath.ac.uk/media/1newwebsite/centres/advancedformingresearchcentre/documents/20170322-empress-meier.pdf

The thermal camera is only showing the TE substances. Glass is TE, so glass is not containing the gas else we would not see the flame, but just blue, it is thin plastic that is containing the gas. Solid germanium would do the same as the thin plastic as would thin salt crystal (what Tyndall used). N2 and O2 are not TE, but the flame is and so is the cold CO2 gas, and it is this gas that is being transduced in your image. Notice this slight image of the flame: well, not all the CO2 transduces, some of the flame heat transduces. This is essentially the same apparatus as Tyndall - we are seeing the TE gases.


You should check out this: Dr Pat Frank He's a Stanford faculty member and had a very hard time getting his paper published as it questioned the status quo.


I will do, thank you.

It has been my contention that absorption of IR is meaningless since that simply adds to the energy conducted through the atmosphere


But doesn't it change the ground level temperature when you add to the energy being conducted?


I guess I am a radiation guy all the way: everything radiates IR, that's QM. Conduction must mean radiation at the quantum level, atoms don't touch, apparently. I can't go any more on this, but I think and can show by Raman experiments the atmosphere absorbs and from the ground it 'conducts' - if that's what we are calling it.
Thanks again.[/quote]

Atoms don't touch, but their effects do.

Conduction is not radiance.


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2019 03:03
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:

Atoms don't touch, but their effects do.

Conduction is not radiance.


Please stop talking about crap you have no understanding of.

For the others here, please excuse my comments towards this moron but I've had enough of his idiocy about anything and everything.

This is they guys that says that you can't calculate MGT or that a satellite can't read temperatures in the mass below it. I would bet that he also believes that the CIA blew up the Twin Towers and not a group of Taliban suicide terrorists.
17-09-2019 07:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Wake wrote:This is they guys that says that you can't calculate MGT or that a satellite can't read temperatures in the mass below it.

I'm certainly intrigued. Given a downward-looking satellite, how does it know the altitude of the temperature it is reading? Isn't there an entire wide range of temperatures within the column between the satellite's altitude in orbit and the earth's solid (or oceanic) surface?



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-09-2019 08:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Atoms don't touch, but their effects do.

Conduction is not radiance.


Please stop talking about crap you have no understanding of.

Inversion fallacy. Conduction is not radiance. The effects of atoms do touch each other.
Wake wrote:
For the others here, please excuse my comments towards this moron but I've had enough of his idiocy about anything and everything.

Bulverism fallacy.
Wake wrote:
This is they guys that says that you can't calculate MGT

You can't. You don't have enough thermometers, what we do have is not uniformly placed, and they are not read at the same time by the same authority.
Wake wrote:
or that a satellite can't read temperatures in the mass below it.

It can't. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
Wake wrote:
I would bet that he also believes that the CIA blew up the Twin Towers

Nope. They have no reason to.
Wake wrote:
and not a group of Taliban suicide terrorists.

They didn't blow them up either. No one blew up any building at the World Trade Center. Three buildings were lost, not two.

The towers collapsed due to fire, just as all steel lattice structures do when exposed to fire long enough.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2019 00:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Blair Macdonald wrote:
Tmiddles wrote:
Is the camera being used have a TE Transducer and not a Raman spectroscopy?
...The detector in the camera is a TE transducer; if he were using a modern Raman spectrometer ....


So if you shot the same video with a "Raman" camera instead of a "TE" camera you wouldn't see the flame disappear as CO2 was added?


Blair Macdonald wrote:
Tmiddles wrote:
But doesn't it change the ground level temperature when you add to the energy being conducted?
I guess I am a radiation guy all the way: everything radiates IR, that's QM....


So "No"? I believe it's well established that planets with atmospheres have a higher average ground level temperature than those without them. We've been to the moon, Venus and Mercury to confirm this.

Your presentation looks great and I will give it more of a thorough reading but hope to get my bearings with your help first.

Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:...the Sun and radiates this energy away, while in a rather complicated way, into open space.

What is complicated about radiance?
Radiance is complicated for you ITN. You never had an answer for how you're not freezing to death right now! Radiance from the ground is complicated as Wake correctly pointed out. Conduction, convection and radiance are all ping ponging around as thermal energy makes it's way up through the atmosphere.

Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Atoms don't touch,...

This is they guys that says that you can't calculate ....

The ITN/IBD goal is to end debate. We can't know/measure/do anything is the mantra.

Into the Night wrote:You can't. You don't have enough thermometers, ....
For anything ever according to you.



Edited on 20-09-2019 00:19
20-09-2019 01:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Blair Macdonald wrote:
Tmiddles wrote:
Is the camera being used have a TE Transducer and not a Raman spectroscopy?
...The detector in the camera is a TE transducer; if he were using a modern Raman spectrometer ....


So if you shot the same video with a "Raman" camera instead of a "TE" camera you wouldn't see the flame disappear as CO2 was added?


Blair Macdonald wrote:
Tmiddles wrote:
But doesn't it change the ground level temperature when you add to the energy being conducted?
I guess I am a radiation guy all the way: everything radiates IR, that's QM....


So "No"? I believe it's well established that planets with atmospheres have a higher average ground level temperature than those without them.

We already know your belief and your religion.
tmiddles wrote:
We've been to the moon, Venus and Mercury to confirm this.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Moon, Venus, or Mercury. You are self confirming your belief. That is fundamentalism.
tmiddles wrote:
Your presentation looks great and I will give it more of a thorough reading but hope to get my bearings with your help first.

Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:...the Sun and radiates this energy away, while in a rather complicated way, into open space.

What is complicated about radiance?
Radiance is complicated for you ITN.

Not in the least. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you deny.
tmiddles wrote:
You never had an answer for how you're not freezing to death right now!

Repetitious question already answered.
tmiddles wrote:
Radiance from the ground is complicated as Wake correctly pointed out.

Appeal to complexity fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Conduction, convection and radiance are all ping ponging around as thermal energy makes it's way up through the atmosphere.

Light isn't thermal energy.
tmiddles wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Atoms don't touch,...

This is they guys that says that you can't calculate ....

The ITN/IBD goal is to end debate. We can't know/measure/do anything is the mantra.

Inversion fallacy. You are projecting again. It is YOU that wants to end debate. I never said we can't measure anything or do anything, dumbass.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:You can't. You don't have enough thermometers, ....
For anything ever according to you.

Lie. Never said any such thing.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2019 01:50
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Moon, Venus, or Mercury.
So according to you is it possible to measure the temperature of anything? If so what and how? Just one example.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them.
Edited on 20-09-2019 01:51
20-09-2019 19:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Moon, Venus, or Mercury.
So according to you is it possible to measure the temperature of anything? If so what and how? Just one example.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them.

Repetitious question already answered.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2019 21:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
Repetitious question already answered.

Need to have the last word fallacy. (note the respectfully edited quoting)
20-09-2019 22:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Repetitious question already answered.

Need to have the last word fallacy. (note the respectfully edited quoting)

I'm fine giving you the last word.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-09-2019 23:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Repetitious question already answered.

Need to have the last word fallacy. (note the respectfully edited quoting)


Buzzword fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2019 09:09
Blair Macdonald
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
Reply to tmiddles
So if you shot the same video with a "Raman" camera instead of a "TE" camera you wouldn't see the flame disappear as CO2 was added?


Yes, that is right. The Raman spectrometer (RS) laser would measure all the 'Raman Active' spectra of the molecules and show their respective temperatures. That is O2 and N2's ( spectra in the infrared) 1556cm-1 and 2338cm-1 and CO2 1338 and others. RS can measure through glass to too, and water. Of course, there is no such camera (yet) but maybe in the future; there are basic thermograms produced from RS.
The following is one of my favourite RS applications and experiments. Notice RS can measure CO2 concentrations at every distance. It is fantastic. file:///C:/Users/Blair/Downloads/remotesensing-10-01439.pdf


So "No"? I believe it's well established that planets with atmospheres have a higher average ground level temperature than those without them. We've been to the moon, Venus and Mercury to confirm this.


Here is a pdf of the application of RS and atmosphere analysis. RS also measure the temperature of radiated N2 in the thermosphere. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/jan_2007/thursday/wang230.pdf

Your presentation looks great and I will give it more of a thorough reading but hope to get my bearings with your help first.

Cheers, it's a start.
21-09-2019 17:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Blair Macdonald wrote:
lpi.usra.edu/vexag/jan_2007/thursday/wang230.pdf
Cheers, it's a start.

That first link was to your own computer : )

So what's happening with the older tech infrared cameras? Are they only detecting a narrower band of frequencies?
22-09-2019 09:31
Blair Macdonald
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
tmiddles wrote:
Blair Macdonald wrote:
lpi.usra.edu/vexag/jan_2007/thursday/wang230.pdf
Cheers, it's a start.

That first link was to your own computer : )

So what's happening with the older tech infrared cameras? Are they only detecting a narrower band of frequencies?


Try this link and look at the images: "Development of Raman Lidar for Remote Sensing of CO2 Leakage at an Artificial Carbon Capture and
Storage Site" https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/9/1439

The infrared cameras? Well, they are - from my deduction - thermo-electric (TE) cameras. They detect part but not all IR radiating matter in the near IR range of the EMS. They help us infer the quantum predicted spectra, but not all of them; to infer the others we need - of course - RS. The TE detectors are all of a kin to the same detectors that John Tyndall used in 1859 - as did Planck and others - and to what we should all own, the simple non-contact IR thermometer. Chemists have the answer as to why the different spectra are detected and it all comes down to whether or not a spectra has a ( an electric) dipole moment. If it does, it is TE; if not, it is Raman active. Using both instruments together we get the full IR picture - and again chemists know this. We call the TE spectra 'IR' because at the time that was the only detector to the infrared; now - in the last 50 years - we have RS.
B
22-09-2019 09:34
Blair Macdonald
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
tmiddles wrote:
Blair Macdonald wrote:
lpi.usra.edu/vexag/jan_2007/thursday/wang230.pdf
Cheers, it's a start.

That first link was to your own computer : )

So what's happening with the older tech infrared cameras? Are they only detecting a narrower band of frequencies?


Try this link and look at the images: "Development of Raman Lidar for Remote Sensing of CO2 Leakage at an Artificial Carbon Capture and
Storage Site" https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/9/1439

The infrared cameras? Well, they are - from my deduction - thermo-electric (TE) cameras. They detect part but not all IR radiating matter in the near IR range of the EMS. They help us infer the quantum predicted spectra, but not all of them; to infer the others we need - of course - RS. The TE detectors are all of akin to the same detectors that John Tyndall used in 1859 - as did Planck and others when deriving the blackbody curve - and to what we should all own, the simple non-contact IR thermometer. The problem and paradox associated with 'emissivity' is all (I have again deducted) a problem of thermoelectrics. I just shows not all matter is received by the TE transducer. Chemists have the answer as to why the different spectra are detected and it all comes down to whether or not a spectra has a ( an electric) dipole moment. If it does, it is TE; if not, it is Raman active. Using both instruments together we get the full IR picture - and again chemists know this. We call the TE spectra 'IR' because at the time that was the only detector to the infrared; now - in the last 50 years - we have RS.
B
22-09-2019 13:56
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Blair Macdonald wrote:
... it all comes down to whether or not a spectra has a ( an electric) dipole moment. If it does, it is TE; if not, it is Raman active....

So does this mean the non-greenhouse gases also partially absorb the radiance coming up from the ground level of Earth?

Maybe you could contribute in this topic:our-fragile-planet
I was just asking there:
tmiddles wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
I doubt a dry nitrogen Earth avoids freezing.

How would a planet with only Nitrogen compare with its ground level temperature to the same planet with no atmosphere at all.
I would think there would a warmer dark side as the gases radiated down as they connected up.

I think understanding how 95-99% of the atmosphere behaves without greenhouse gases is worthwhile.
22-09-2019 20:00
Blair Macdonald
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
tmiddles wrote:
Blair Macdonald wrote:
... it all comes down to whether or not a spectra has a ( an electric) dipole moment. If it does, it is TE; if not, it is Raman active....

So does this mean the non-greenhouse gases also partially absorb the radiance coming up from the ground level of Earth?

[/quote]

Yes it does (absorb and emit); just as should and as all matter does.
Even liquid oxygen and nitrogen do not show with IR cameras; so our knowledge that they are both transparent is based on TE transducers. RS shows they behave like all other matter and this will include absolute absorption 'from ground level' (back radiation).
With RS we have to review all our knowledge.
22-09-2019 22:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Blair Macdonald wrote:
RS shows they behave like all other matter and this will include absolute absorption.


Very interesting? I responded here: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/our-fragile-planet-d6-e2772-s200.php#post_44697


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them




Join the debate Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N224512-12-2019 01:35
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law74322-11-2019 04:54
So what if the Chinese fossil fuel industry pays me to spread lies about greenhouse gas?7515-11-2019 04:47
Next year will the first year since lord knows when CO2 is more than 400 ppm all year at Moana Loa305-11-2019 18:15
Year Long, Arctic Climate Change Study... How 'Green'?121-09-2019 03:46
Articles
Theory
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact