Infrared astronomer doesn’t buy CO2

Posted: January 27, 2014 by tchannon in ozone, radiative theory, Uncategorized

Comment left at Steve Goddard’s by Mike Sanicola

I’m a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere’s back-radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what? In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all. In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason.

I’m retired so I don’t need to keep my mouth shut anymore. Kept my mouth shut for 40 years,

Yep. Lots of void, no evidence for the posit. I’m still waiting for the missing primary dataset, if it can be directly measured. Proxy is wiggle matching. Ozone, sure, been known for 100 years. Angstrom reported it from Sweden.

We don’t know whether the comment is valid but I am not surprised at the statement.

Steve Goddard elevated the comment to a post,  not linked for technical reasons.

Posted by Tim

Comments
  1. Wayne Job says:

    It would not be difficult to find out if this is the case. Just ask other astronomers quietly.

    For Roger the Chiefio has some posts that has some good evidence based on the Earth, moon , Sun relationship to our weather.

    Good batting practice for him I think, it is rare to find any one disputing his findings.
    I do hope Willis tries it on.

  2. AlecM says:

    One of the 13 Physics’ mistakes in Climate Alchemy has been to imagine that IR energy from a higher temperature source absorbed by GHG molecules is thermalised** in the gas phase. This is impossible for fundamental statistical thermodynamics’ reasons. It’s there in the text books but has been completely ignored by Ramanathan for example, who blindly assumed such thermalisation.

    The reason for this is the Law of Equipartition of Energy, one of the most basic axioms of physics along with Maxwell’s Equations and Quantum theory, for example. It states that in an assembly of many particles, energy is shared equally amongst all possible translational and rotational forms, and this is a function of temperature, (1/2)(kb)T per degree of freedom where kb is the Maxwell-Boltzmann constant and T is absolute temperature.

    Therefore, if IR energy is absorbed in an internal vibrational state, even though it will bidirectionally convert to translational or rotational energy, that kinetic energy is fixed for a given temperature. Hence, for every IR absorption event, an equal amount of energy is ejected from a thermally-activated molecule outside the local volume. This is called Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium, LTE.

    So, there can be no homogeneous, gas phase thermalisation of absorbed R energy, no extra ‘Forcing’***, scotching the enhanced GHE idea. This is why the IR astronomer measures extra IR energy coming into he atmosphere in the so-called absorption bands. The energy, which was from a higher temperature source, scatters in the atmosphere before thermalising at a heterogeneous interface, e.g. the detector.

    Therefore, this IR astronomer’s practical observation proves behind doubt that there is no possibility of any enhanced GHE.

    **Thermalisation in Physics means the transformation of EM energy to kinetic energy. It occurs at heterogeneities because the absorption bands are broadened and connected directly to internal kinetic energy. In the gas phase, the GHG molecules have an IR density of states that is solely a function of temperature and, second-order, concentration (self-absorption).

    ***The ‘Forcing’ concept is unscientific because it presumes that the extra Radiation Field from increasing pGHG comes back as greater surface IR absorbed in the gas phase. In reality, the extra ‘Forcing’ reduces surface IR emission. In the absence of any other factor, surface temperature would rise to increase convection. This mistake is crucial to the Climate Alchemy fraud – it is in effect a form of Gresham’s Law, bad physics driving out good.

  3. ren says:

    Too littleemphasizes the role of ozone. It is clear that not only absorbs solar radiation, but also the cosmic. On the monitor, you can see that where there there is more ozone less radioactive radiation gets into the Earth.
    Only that ozone acts mainly in the stratosphere and where his role is unique.

    Instead, the CO2 need to be addressed ozone.

  4. A C Osborn says:

    I have been saying for a number of years that if Downwelling back radiation existed in the quantities proposed by the warmists that you could do “Work” with it in the same way that you can with Solar energy.
    Condensed solar energy can boil water, heat steel to 350 degrees C and burn wood or paper.
    You can’t with back radiation.
    When Downwelling back radiation is condensed it makes Objects COOLER, there have been many studies proving this.
    The Warmist’s answer when challenged on why it can’t be used for work is that the objects on the Earths Surface are too warm???????????????
    Thereby admitting that if it exists it cannot warm a warmer object.
    When Roy Spencer did the same experiment and got a cooler object his reasoning was that it would be much cooler without it, going all the way down to 3 Kelvin, it was only the back radiation keeping it warmer than that.

  5. A C Osborn says:

    Can we get any Astronomers to confirm Mike Sanicola’s comment?

  6. AlecM says:

    Had a further think on this: the IR telescopes are at 13,000 ft altitude so above water vapour.

  7. Kevin Hearle says:

    AlecM says “IR telescopes are at 13000ft so are above water vapour”, Clouds go according to NoAA to 12Km or for American infidels that’s 39,370 feet. So what are clouds made of above 13000ft?

  8. tchannon says:

    Looks like I need to apologise for posting and walking. Looked, nearly commented some time ago then got sidetracked.

    AlecM, yes they do try and put them above weather. Turbidity is a big factor.

    Angstrom was the trailblazer on atmospheric optical characteristics, been mentioned in various posts but I have never shown all of it. His father Angstrom (were three physicist Angstroms father son father son) reported ozone radiation in Sweden 100 years ago. In effect his instruments are the basis of modern instruments. (excluding the thermopile brigade).

    Water vapour was found to be the dominant factor way back. This included mountain and balloon work.
    Ah yes, here is a post on my own blog
    Day and night are the same so given filtering day is the same as nocturnal.
    http://daedalearth.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/anders-angstrom-nocturnal-radiation-at-various-altitudes/
    This is related, oh dear looks like broken links there, grrrr…. Hopefully now fixed, not sure about the primer though.
    http://daedalearth.wordpress.com/2013/07/13/stratospheric-ozone-dobson-history-at-oxford/
    Probably some stuff on the Talkshop.

  9. A C Osborn says:

    tchannon says:January 28, 2014 at 4:02 am

    It is interesting in that .pdf document that Angstrom strongly suggests in his conclusion that the Earth’s Surface does not react to higher temperatures by increasing it’s direct radiation.
    Or am I reading it wrong?

  10. michael hart says:

    AlecM, are you saying that collisional thermalisation doesn’t happen at all in the gas phase, or that it is just much lower than from solid and liquid surfaces?

  11. tchannon says:

    ACO, I’m not sure.

    That post was getting something out in response to some comments at the Talkshop some time ago. The general work was done to try and put together a huge post marking the centenary of the first major work on terrestrial radiation. I spent weeks if not months on the project before concluding it was beyond me.
    One of the sobering conclusions is 100 years ago there is a young Swede writing beautifully in English.

    Going back to your point about his conclusion, a lot more material is involved in trying to deduce his true opinion since the PDF was written near the start of his life’s work. He was involved internationally but there I don’t make his subsequent involvement fully clear. the link to the WMO interview will add more but I need to add a warning about the political nature of WMO, the “interview” contains AGW spin. (curiously WMO are selective over which interviews are made fully public). As I read it A Ang. was not on board with the politics.

    This also sheds light on the Davos outfit where I have a mountain of other stuff. That seems to be involve a pile of PhD running around with their pet instrument all disagreeing, and on an on. A lot of the radiation stuff is dubious. The clarity of the atmosphere is the single prime matter.

    I smiled when I reread the conclusion of that PDF, fortunately I had remembered correctly it referred clearly to ozone, 100 years ago. This was so early it predates electronics K. Ang. using electrical, although note that what are being called “radiometers”, active cavity radiometers as flying in space are merely a K. Anstrom instrument inside a closed box and instead of a human adjusting the electrical power it is done by robot electronics. Some legacy.