Happy Easter break

I’ll be out of town over Easter, visiting the latest grandchild who is to be christened. I expect to be back to the computer on Tuesday night, but don’t expect much out of me until later in the week. If anything crops up, feel free to use this “Easter” thread or use the famous Open threads set up by Richard C.

Good luck to you all.

Richard Treadgold.

Hits: 56

16 Thoughts on “Happy Easter break

  1. Richard C (NZ) on 22/04/2011 at 1:19 pm said:

    Recycling of Heat in the Atmosphere is Impossible: A Note from Nasif S. Nahle

    Posted by Nasif S. Nahle, March 11th, 2011 – under News, Opinion.
    Tags: Physics


    Key diagrams on the Earth’s energy budget depicts an exchange of energy between the surface and the atmosphere and their subsystems considering each system as if they were blackbodies with emissivities and absorptivities of 100% 1, 2.

    This kind of analyses shows a strange “multiplication” of the heat transferred from the surface to the atmosphere and from the atmosphere to the surface which is unexplainable from a scientific viewpoint. The authors of those diagrams adduce that such increase of energy in the atmosphere obeys to a “recycling” of the heat coming from the surface by the atmosphere 1, 2, as if the atmosphere-surface were a furnace or a thermos and the heat was a substance.

    Such “recycling” of heat by the atmosphere does not occur in the real world for the reasons that I will expose later in this note.

    Few authors have avoided plotting such unreal recycling of heat and only show the percentages related to the flow of energy among systems and subsystems of the Earth 3, 4.

    We do know that serious science makes a clear distinction between heat and internal energy. However, we will not touch this abnormal definition of heat from those erroneous diagrams1, 2 on the annual Earth’s energy budget.

    In addition to the wrong concept of heat that the authors let glimpse in their articles 1, 2, the recycling of heat by the atmosphere does not and cannot occur in the real world. There are many physical factors, already proven experimentally and observationally5, that nullify the ideas of the recycling of heat by the atmosphere.

    The principal physical factor that inhibits the recycling of heat in the atmosphere is the degradation of the energy each time it is absorbed and emitted by any system10. This degradation of energy is well described by the second law of thermodynamics6, whose fundamental formulation is as follows:

    The energy is always dispersed or diffused from an energy field with lesser available microstates towards an energy field with higher available microstates5


    In other words, the energy is always dispersed or diffused from the system with a higher energy density towards the system with a lower energy density5, 10.

    The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that some evaluations 1, 2 on the Earth’s annual energy budget are not considering the laws of basic physics and thermodynamics, that the “recycling” of heat in the atmosphere is unphysical and that the carbon dioxide works like a coolant of the surface, rather than like a warmer.


    The Earth and all its subsystems are gray-bodies3; consequently, any calculations made on the basis of blackbodies greatly differ from the real world, but only provide us an idea about what could be happening in such or that physical situation5. This means that they cannot absorb all the energy that they receive from a source and that, equally, they cannot emit the whole amount of such absorbed energy in the form of energy capable to do work on other systems, but rather that the main part of that energy is no longer accessible for making work and it is lost irremediably into the natural heat sinks.

    All the spontaneous processes occurring in nature are irreversible processes 7, 8. Absolutely-reversible processes do not exist in the natural world 9, while absolutely-irreversible processes do exist in the natural world.

    Shift to Red of Dispersed Quantum/Waves and Emitted by the Atmosphere Quantum/Waves

    [Note: NOT REFLECTED, I hope you are reading this Mike Palin and Gareth Renowden]

    There are three bands of absorption of IR radiation by the carbon dioxide, i.e. 2.6 µm, 4.3 µm and 14.77 µm.

    In this assessment, we will analyze the absorption of the energy of quantum/waves with wavelengths of 4.3 µm and 14.77 µm

    The energy of an IR quantum/wave with a wavelength of 4.3 µm, emitted from the Earth’s surface is 4.62 x 10^-20 J. From this energy, a molecule of CO2 absorbs 9.24 x 10^-23 J.

    4.61 x 10^-20 J are dispersed to other systems, except to the molecules that dispersed it. This amount of energy corresponds to a wavelength of 4.31 µm. The wavelength has been lengthened (redshift) by 0.01 µm.

    A quantum/wave with wavelength = 14.77 µm –the band at which the carbon dioxide exhibits its maximum absorption potential- has an energy density of 1.345 x 10^-20 J. If it hits a molecule of CO2, the carbon dioxide molecule absorbs only 2.7 x 10^-23 J, while the energy carried by the dispersed quantum/wave is 1.3423 x 10^-20 J.

    The carbon dioxide molecule emits a quantum/wave with energy = 5.4 x 10^-26 J, which corresponds to a wavelength λ of 3.75 m. The quantum/wave emitted by the carbon dioxide is not an IR quantum wave, but a Radio quantum/wave; therefore, its energy cannot be absorbed as heat neither by the surface neither by molecules of carbon dioxide.

    Notice that 1.32145 x 10^-20 J is dispersed towards another energy field with more available microstates that resides in other systems; for example, the outer space, water vapor molecules, or dust. The wavelength of the dispersed quantum/waves has been elongated up to 14.8 µm (redshift); this elongation puts the IR quantum/wave out of the range of absorptivity of carbon dioxide by the specificity and sensitivity of absorption and emission potentials; consequently, the energy of these quantum/waves cannot be reabsorbed by molecules of carbon dioxide.

    The following calculation over the resulting quantum/wave with wavelength of 14.8 µm absorbed by the carbon dioxide does not happen in nature; however, I decided to include it for readers take notice of the impossibility that heat can be “recycled” in the atmosphere.

    Assuming that the absorption of that quantum/wave is still possible and another molecule of carbon dioxide could absorb it, we would have that:

    For a wavelength 14.8 µm, the energy absorbed by the molecule of CO2 would be 1.3215 x 10^-20 J.

    The energy of a quantum/wave emitted by that molecule of carbon dioxide would be 2.643x 10^-23 J, which would correspond to a wavelength of 0.7515 cm. This magnitude would match with the band of microwaves in the EM spectrum (microwaves’ wavelength = 0.01 to 20 cm). It still contains usable energy, but this energy can no longer be absorbed by molecules of carbon dioxide and it is lost into any of the energy sinks.

    At this point, let us remember that the longer the wavelength is, the lower the energy density of that quantum/wave is.

    The energy required to excite an electron for it shifts from a lower quantum microstate to the next higher quantum microstate is 5.4468 x 10^-19 J. Ref. 5

    Therefore, the percentage of energy absorbed by a molecule of carbon dioxide with a wavelength of 14.77 µm represents 0.2% of the total energy required to excite an electron of the atoms of a molecule of carbon dioxide.

    In that case, for an electron in the carbon dioxide molecule becomes excited and changes its energy configuration, a contribution of energy, supplied by 20554 IR quantum/waves, is required. Consequently, the carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is in an energy field with higher number of available microstates.

    This is the reason by which the flow of power is always transferred on a very specific directionality, i.e. from higher to lower and never the opposite.

    How many molecules of carbon dioxide would be needed to get 249 Joules of energy in the total volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

    ~4.6 x 10^20 molecules of carbon dioxide are needed to get a volume of air absorbing 249 Joules of energy within the wavelength 14.77 µm.

    There are ~2.61 x 10^9 molecules of carbon dioxide in one cubic meter of air; therefore, we need 1.76 x 10^11 m^3 of air for the molecules of carbon dioxide can absorb, simultaneously, 249 J.

    The total volume of the Earth’s air is 4.2 × 10^18 m^3. There are ~1.1 x 10^28 molecules of carbon dioxide in the whole volume of air on Earth; consequently, almost the whole volume of molecules of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere would absorb 249 J.

    Therefore, there are 6.23 x 10^26 probabilities that the total amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere absorbs the whole load of energy of 249 J; however, each molecule of carbon dioxide would absorb only 2.3 x 10^-26 J.

    The molecules of carbon dioxide which had absorbed 2.3 x 10^-26 J of energy would emit quantum/waves with wavelength = 4.3 km, which correspond to the spectrum of vertical gravity waves (buoyancy). Therefore, those waves are lost in the gravity field.

    As a result, the carbon dioxide is a coolant, rather than a warmer, of the Earth.

    In conclusion

    Key diagrams that purport to show the annual energy budget of Earth show a recycling in the atmosphere of the heat emitted by the surface. But they are wrong.

    The lengthening of the wavelength of quantum/waves emitted by the absorber systems and the decrease of their frequency inhibit any possibility of re-absorption of the absorbed energy -in the form of infrared radiation- by the same absorber once it has been emitted out from the absorber system.

    Additionally, this assessment confirms that the second law of thermodynamics is applicable to molecular and quantum levels.

    The carbon dioxide does not act like a warmer of the Earth’s surface, but rather like a coolant of the Earth’s surface.


  2. Richard C (NZ) on 22/04/2011 at 1:35 pm said:

    Temperatures of Void Space and Microstates: A Note from Nasif S. Nahle

    Posted by Nasif S. Nahle, March 18th, 2011 – under News, Opinion.
    Tags: Physics


    The general belief on the conditions of the deep space, beyond the terrestrial exosphere, is about a completely empty place without temperature.

    However, highly accurate measurements made by satellites, like the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) [2], have corroborated that the deep space has a temperature and, additionally, that it is not an absolutely empty space.

    WMAP has revealed a deep space temperature of 2.7251 K and a density of 1 particle/cm^3 (density based on protons in the outer space) [3].

    The theoretical temperature was confirmed by WMAP measurements. The theoretical basis related to the temperature of the deep space is given by the correlation between the temperature and the kinetic energy of the particle. On this case, the root mean square (rms) speed vrms of protons in deep space is 260 m/s.

    The purpose of this essay is to know the amount of energy emitted by the Earth towards the outer space and the concept of microstates.

    The Earth in the Cold Space

    The formula to calculate the temperature of deep space is as follows:

    T = (m*v^2rms) / (3*k)

    Where m is the mass of particles, vrms is the root mean square velocity of those particles in that medium –because protons speed is highly variable, and k is for Boltzmann constant.

    Given that ionized Hydrogen is the main constituent in the outer space, we consider the mass and the root mean square velocity of a proton in deep space to make our calculations.

    Known values:

    m = 1.67 x 10^-27 kg (mass of a proton)

    vrms = 260 m/s (root mean square velocity of protons in the outer space).

    k = Boltzmann’s constant = 1.38 x 10^-23 J/K

    By introducing magnitudes into the formula T = (mv^2rms)/( 3*k), the theoretical temperature T of deep space, taking into account the kinetic energy of protons in deep space gives a result of 2.72686. The rms error is 0.00176 K, which is quite insignificant (0.06%), therefore, the theoretical value is in conformity with direct measurements.

    The outer space is the environment of the Earth. The question is:

    How much power the Earth radiates per unit area toward the deep space? To answer this question, let us resort to the Stephan-Boltzmann Equation:

    P = e (A) (σ) (TEarth^4 – Tds^4)

    Here, a problem arises with respect to the emissivity of the Earth. However, careful examinations and calculations of the Earth’s emissivity give a mean correlation factor of 0.82. [4] Introducing this correlation factor, the power emitted by the Earth, per square meter, during one second, is 329.51 W.

    To correct this apparent incongruence with respect to the supposed amount of the incident solar IR radiation on Earth’s surface, some authors resort to iterate the quantity until the resulting power equals to the supposed incident solar IR radiation.

    However, we only are allowed to take into account the sphericity of the Earth, so the value changes to esph = e / (4(π)) = 0.644.

    The result after introducing the new correlation factor of 0.644 is 258.8 W.

    Our last option to get the emissivity is to invent it by means of introducing a flawed value of the emissions from the Earth:

    e = (249 W) / [A (σ) (TEarth^4 – Tds^4)] = 0.62

    This way, we make the hypothesis matches with the Earth’s energy budget model.

    However, this is not a valid procedure in science because the scientific methodology starts with observations and after it proceeds to produce hypotheses, which must be proven by means of experimentation, or more observations.

    If we consider the correlation coefficient 0.82 as the total emissivity of the Earth, the absorbed energy by the Earth would be 601.92 J. The latter magnitude represents 44% of the solar constant (1368 W/m^2 x 0.44 = 601.92 W/m^2). NASA assigns a theoretical absorption of solar energy by the Earth of 48%.

    Here, the power emitted by an ideal Earth should be 401 W. However, the measurements of the Earth’s emissivity reveal a correlation factor of 0.82.

    Consequently, the observations of the real world reveal that the value of 0.62 assigned a priori to the emissivity of the Earth is not real and rise serious doubts about the total amount of solar power absorbed and the amount of power emitted by our planet.

    Microstates and the Outer Space

    To properly talk about microstates, we need that any amount of matter is present in a given medium. We cannot talk about microstates if we have not, at least, one Hydron (H+) in a given medium.

    A microstate refers to any initial of final configuration of the energy in a given system.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics, although initially was derived from the observation of thermal processes, has been proven to be acting on every level of energy exchange between two or more systems.

    Initially, the Second Law was described in terms of the directionality in the flow of the energy in transit (a process function), which depends on the states of the systems involved in the exchange of such energy in transit. The Second Law clearly specified that the work only can be done by a higher energy density system on a lower energy density system and not the opposite.

    However, with the advent of Quantum Physics, the scientists wondered whether this Law was valid at the quantum level or not. The answer to this question was given heuristically through the calculations of Maxwell, Boltzmann and Gibbs. The heuristic character of the calculations vanished when those hypotheses were later confirmed by experimentation.

    In consequence, the definition of the Second Law was amplified to include its influence on the quantum level and not only on those process functions where heat and work were implied.

    This shift was important because it defined the real concept of entropy and detached it from contextual derivations. For example, now we know that the fundamental concept of entropy has nothing to do with disorder, movement, complexity or heat “content”, but with the configurations that the energy adopts in a given system and the directionality of the energy exchange.

    Entropy is now defined as the natural trend of the energy to flow towards the system or systems with a higher number of available microstates.

    Let us say that two systems permit six configurations of the energy. One of them, let us say the system A, has four “occupied” configurations and only two available configurations. The other system, or system B, has only one “occupied” configuration and five available configurations. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the energy will flow spontaneously from the system A to the system B and never the opposite.

    Perhaps, you are wondering if the energy could flow from B to A during the process. The answer is no because two systems implied in an energy exchange process cannot adopt the same configuration at once, although any system could adopt any configuration.

    To calculate the number of microstates that a system can adopt, we resort to the following formula:

    Nms = N! / (n1! * n2! * n3! …)

    Where Nms is the number of available microstates (Maxwell-Boltzmann Number), N is the number of particles, and n is the number of particles in a determined occupied microstate. For example, we have a system A that have six particles from which four are in the microstate 0E, one is in the microstate 3E and one is in the microstate 5E. The number of available microstates for system A is:

    Nms = 6! / (4! * 1! * 1!) = 720 / 24 = 30

    Then, 30 is the number of available microstates for this system.

    Let us consider a system B with the same number of particles (six) and the same number of levels of energy, i.e. six, but where each particle is occupying a level of energy, i.e. one particle at level 0E, one particle at level 1E, one particle at level 2E, etc. The solution is as follows:

    Nms = 6! / (1! * 1! * 1! *1! * 1! * 1!) = 720 / 1 = 720

    This system offers more available microstates, that is, more configurations to be adopted by the energy in a radiation process. Therefore, the radiation will flow from system A, with 30 available microstates, towards system B, with 720 available microstates.

    What about the outer space, where there is only one particle per cubic meter? Is it possible that it has more available microstates than the massive Earth?

    All the particles in the deep space are in their basic configuration, that is, there are no particles occupying any level of energy, but only high speed protons, therefore:

    Nms = 6! / (0!) = 720 / 1 = 720

    Consequently, the radiation trajectory will be always from the Earth towards the deep space, the most efficient sink of radiation of any kind. Notice that it has nothing to do with temperature, disorder, complexity, etc.

    Kevan Hashemi asked Cohenite if a particle at 300 K will or will not emit photons. Any particle at 300 K is at its fundamental energy state, i.e. its available microstates will be higher than those of any particle with a temperature above 300 K. Such particle won’t radiate, but it will absorb energy.


  3. Richard C (NZ) on 22/04/2011 at 1:50 pm said:

    Total Emissivity of the Earth and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide: A Note from Nasif S. Nahle

    Posted by Nasif S. Nahle, March 25th, 2011 – under News, Opinion.
    Tags: Climate & Climate Change, Physics


    Central to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the assumption that the Earth and every one of its subsystems behaviors as if they were blackbodies, that is their “emissivity” potential is calculated as 1.0. [1]

    But this is an erroneous assumption because the Earth and its subsystems are not blackbodies, but gray-bodies. The Earth and all of its subsystems are gray-bodies because they do not absorb the whole load of radiant energy that they receive from the Sun and they do not emit the whole load of radiant energy that they absorb. [8] [9] [10]

    Furthermore the role of carbon dioxide is misunderstood. According to AGW hypothesis, carbon dioxide is the second most significant driver of the Earth’s temperature, behind the water vapor, which is considered the most important driver of the Earth’s climate. [2] Other authors of AGW discharge absolutely the role of water vapor and focus their arguments on the carbon dioxide. [3]

    What is the total emissivity of carbon dioxide? I will consider this question with reference to the science of radiative heat transfer.

    Total Emissivity of the Carbon Dioxide – The Partial Pressures Method

    In 1954, Hoyt C. Hottel undertook an experiment for determining the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide and the water vapor [6]. He found that the total emissivity was linked to the temperature of the gas and its partial pressure. As the temperature increased above 277 K, the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide decreased, and as the partial pressure (p) of the carbon dioxide increased, its total emissivity also increased.

    Hottel found also that the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide in a saturated state was very low (Ɛcd = 0.23 at 1.524 atm-m and Tcd = 1,116 °C). [6]

    As Hottel diminished the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide, its total emissivity also decreased in such form that, below a partial pressure of 0.006096 atm-m and a temperature of 33 °C, the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide was not quantifiable because it was almost zero. [6] [7] [8]

    After Hottel’s experiment, in 1972, Bo Leckner made the same experiment and corrected and error on the graphs plotted by Hottel. However, Leckner’s results placed the carbon dioxide in a lower stand than that found by Hottel. [6] [7]

    The missing part, however, remained at the real partial pressure of the carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere and instantaneous temperatures. Contemporary authors, like Michael Modest, and Donald Pitts and Leighton Sissom made use of the following formula to know the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide considering the whole emissive spectrum, at any instantaneous tropospheric temperature and altitude [6] [7] [8]:

    Ɛcd = [1 – (((a-1 * 1 –PE)/(a + b – (1 + PE)) * e (-c (Log10 ((paL)m / paL)^2))] * (Ɛcd)0 [8]

    Introducing 7700 meters as the average altitude of the troposphere and the real partial pressure of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (0.00038 atm-m), the resulting total emissivity of the carbon dioxide is 0.0017 (0.002, rounding up the number).

    Evidently, the carbon dioxide is not a blackbody, but a very inefficient emitter (a gray-body). For comparison, Acetylene has a total emissivity that is 485 times higher than the total emissivity of the carbon dioxide.

    After getting this outstanding result, I proceeded to test my results by means of another methodology that is also based on experimental and observational data. The algorithm is outlined in the following section.

    Total Emissivity of CO2 – Mean Free Path Length and Crossing Time Lapse of Quantum/Waves Method

    The mean free path length is the distance traversed by quantum/waves through a given medium before it collides with a particle with gravitational mass. The crossing time lapse is the time spent by the quantum/waves on crossing a determined medium; in this case, the atmosphere is such medium.

    As the carbon dioxide is an absorber of longwave IR, we will consider only the quantum/waves emitted by the surface towards the outer space.

    The mean free path length of quantum/waves emitted by the surface, traversing the Earth’s troposphere, is l = 47 m, and the crossing time is t = 0.0042 s (4.2 milliseconds). [9] [10]

    Considering l = 47 m to know the crossing time lapse of quantum/waves through the troposphere, I obtained the crossing time lapse t = 0.0042 s. By introducing t into the following equation, we obtain the real total emissivity of the atmospheric carbon dioxide:

    Ɛcd = [1-(e (t * (- 1/s))] / √π [9] [10]

    Ɛcd = [1-(e (0.0042 s * (1/s))] / √ 3.141592… = 0.0024

    Therefore, the total emissivity of the atmospheric carbon dioxide obtained by considering the mean free path length and the crossing time lapse for the quantum/waves emitted from the surface coincides with the value obtained from the partial pressures method:

    Ɛcd 1 = 0.0017 = 0.0017

    Ɛcd 2 = 0.0024 = 0.0024

    The difference is 0.0007, which is trivial in this kind of assessment.


    In the introduction I asked: What is the total emissivity of carbon dioxide?

    In this note I have calculated the real total emissivity of the atmospheric carbon dioxide at its current partial pressure and instantaneous temperature to be 0.002.

    Clearly carbon dioxide is not a nearly blackbody system as suggested by the IPCC and does not have an emissivity of 1.0. Quite the opposite, given its total absorptivity, which is the same than its total emissivity, the carbon dioxide is a quite inefficient – on absorbing and emitting radiation – making it a gray-body.

    Accepting that carbon dioxide is not a black body and that the potential of the carbon dioxide to absorb and emit radiant energy is negligible, I conclude that the AGW hypothesis is based on unreal magnitudes, unreal processes and unreal physics.


    This blog post was inspired by Chapter 12 of the book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon.

    “This first catechism will be referred to in a later figure as the ‘Cold Earth Fallacy’, and it is based on the erroneous assumption that the earth’s surface and all the other entities involved in its radiative losses to free space all have unit emissivity. The second catechism has already been discussed: the contention that Venus’ high surface temperature is caused by the ‘greenhouse effect’ of its CO2 atmosphere.”

    -Dr. Martin Hertzberg. Slaying the Sky Dragon-Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory. 2011. Chapter 12. Page 163. [11]


  4. Richard C (NZ) on 22/04/2011 at 2:25 pm said:

    Determining the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing Overlapping Absorption Bands: A Note from Nasif S. Nahle

    Posted by Nasif S. Nahle, April 6th, 2011 – under News, Opinion.
    Tags: Climate & Climate Change, Physics


    According to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, carbon dioxide increases the potential of water vapor to absorb and emit IR radiation as a consequence of the overlapping absorption/emission spectral bands. I have determined the total emissivity of a mixture of gases containing 5% of water vapor and 0.039% of carbon dioxide in all spectral bands where their absorptivities/emissivities overlap. The result of my calculations is that carbon dioxide reduces the total absorptivity/emissivity of the water vapor, working like a coolant, not a warmer of the atmosphere and the surface.

    Update April 8, 2011. There was an error in calculating the overlapping bands, discovered thanks to criticism from ’Neutrino’. The errors are now shown with lines through them, the correct figures beside them. The ‘adjusted’ calculations give a greater cooling effect from carbon dioxide .


    Since the popularization of AGW theory in 1988, proponents have argued that carbon dioxide causes an increase in the total absorptivity of the atmosphere1, 2, 3.

    For example, at Environmental Defense1 it is argued that:

    “As humans emit greenhouse gases like CO2, the air warms and holds more water vapor, which then traps more heat and accelerates warming.”

    And at Science Daily2 that:

    “Climate warming causes many changes in the global carbon cycle, with the net effect generally considered to be an increase in atmospheric CO2 with increasing temperature — in other words, a positive feedback between temperature and CO2.”

    Masato Sugi and Jun Yoshimura3 claim that:

    “By the overlap effect of CO2 and water vapor absorption bands, the existence of CO2 significantly reduces the cooling rate of water vapor…”

    These arguments suggest that by increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere there will be warming of the atmosphere.

    However, according to results from experimentation made by H. C. Hottel11, B. Leckner12, M. Lapp13, C. B. Ludwig14, A. F. Sarofim15 and their collaborators14, 15 on this matter, the combined effect of overlapping absorption bands causes a reduction on the total absorptivity of a mixture of gases4, 5, 6.

    My assessment reinforces the argument made by H. C. Hottel11, B. Leckner12, M. Lapp13, C. B. Ludwig14, A. F. Sarofim15 and their collaborators14, 15 because my calculations coincide with the results obtained from the algorithms derived from their experiments.

    In 1954, Hoyt C. Hottel conducted an experiment to determine the total emissivity/absorptivity of carbon dioxide and water vapor11. From his experiments, he found that the carbon dioxide has a total emissivity of almost zero below a temperature of 33 °C (306 K) in combination with a partial pressure of the carbon dioxide of 0.6096 atm cm.

    Seventeen years later, B. Leckner repeated Hottel’s experiment and corrected the graphs12 plotted by Hottel. However, the results of Hottel were verified and Leckner found the same extremely insignificant emissivity of the carbon dioxide below 33 °C (306 K) of temperature and 0.6096 atm cm of partial pressure.

    Hottel’s and Leckner’s graphs show a total emissivity of the carbon dioxide of zero under those conditions.

    The results of Hottel and Leckner have been verified by other researchers, like Marshall Lapp13, C. B. Ludwig14, A. F. Sarofim15, who also found the same physical trend of the carbon dioxide.

    On the other hand, in agreement with observations and experimentation carried out by the same investigators11, 12, 14, 15, 16, the atmospheric water vapor, in a proportion of 5% at 33 °C, has a total emissivity/absorptivity of 0.4.5, 6

    The total emissivity/absorptivity of water vapor combined with its high specific heat capacity and its volumetric mass fraction makes water vapor the most efficient absorbent and emitter of Infrared Radiation among all gases forming the Earth’s atmosphere.

    In contrast, the carbon dioxide has negligible total emissivities and partial pressures as a component of the atmosphere (the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide at the present atmosphere is 0.0051 atm cm).

    So what is the effect of a combination of water vapor and carbon dioxide at current conditions of partial pressure, temperature and mass densities in the atmosphere?


    The whole range of spectral absorption of both gases and an effective path length (Le) of 7000 m were considered for calculating the total emissivity of a mixture of water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I have made use of formulas on radiative heat transfer taken from the references numbered as 4, 5 and 6. However, I made use of the main formula to calculate the total emissivity of a mixture of gases in the atmosphere, where their absorption bands overlap, that was derived by H. C. Hottel11, B. Leckner12, M. Lapp13, C. B. Ludwig14, A. F. Sarofim15 and their collaborators14, 15, and enhanced by contemporary authors as Michael Modest5, as from the results of observations, as from the results of experimentation.

    The effective path length is the length of the radiation path through the atmosphere. It differs from the geometrical distance travelled because the radiation is scattered or absorbed on entering and leaving the atmosphere. In a vacuum there is no difference between the effective path length and the geometrical path length. As this assessment deals with the atmosphere, I considered the effective path length in my calculations.

    The volumetric mass fraction of water vapor in the atmosphere fluctuates between 10000 ppmV and 50000 ppmV 10. This variability allows the water vapor to show a wide range of high total absorptivities and total emissivities which may vary according to the temperature of the molecule of water vapor. For this reason, I considered the maximum mass fraction of the water vapor in the atmosphere.

    The water vapor potential to absorb shortwave infrared radiation from the solar photon stream makes of it the most efficient absorbent of Infrared Radiation. In quantum physics, a photon stream is a current of photons emitted by a source that behave as particles and waves and have a specific directionality i.e. from the source towards the surroundings.

    After concluding my analysis, Dr. Charles R. Anderson called my attention to the observation that these calculations constituted further evidence for his theory about the cooling effect of carbon dioxide on the Earth’s surface. When Dr. Anderson and I further examined the calculations, we found that carbon dioxide not only has a cooling effect on the surface, but also on the molecules of other gases in the atmosphere.

    The total emissivities of the atmospheric carbon dioxide, water vapor and oxygen were obtained by taking into account the mean free path length of the quantum/waves through those gases, taken individually, and the time lapse rate that a quantum/wave takes on leaving the troposphere after colliding with molecules of carbon dioxide, water vapor and oxygen. This set of calculations will be described in a future article.

    Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Water Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the Current Atmosphere of the Earth

    On July 3, 2010, at 10:00 hr (UT), the proportion of water vapor in the atmosphere at the location situated at 25º 48´ N lat. and 100 º 19’ W long., at an altitude of 513 m ASL, in San Nicolas de los Garza, Nuevo Leon, Mexico, was 5%. The temperature of the air at an altitude of 1 m was 310.95 K and the temperature of the soil was 330 K. I chose this location, near my office, because it is an open field, far enough from the city and its urban effects.

    From this data, I proceeded to calculate the following elements:

    1. The correction factor for the overlapping emissive bands of H2Og and CO2g.

    2. The correction factor of the total emissivity of carbon dioxide where the radiative emission bands of both gases overlaps, considering that the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide is 0.00039 atm.

    3. The total emissivity of the mixture of water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    4. The total normal intensity of the mixture of water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    5. The change of temperature caused by the mixture of water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    Obtaining the correction factor for the overlapping emissive bands of H2Og and CO2g

    To obtain the total emissivity of the mixture of water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we need to know the equilibrium partial pressure of the mixture of water vapor and carbon dioxide. The formula for obtaining the equilibrium partial pressure (ζ) of the mixture is as follows:

    ζ = pH2O / (pH2O + pCO2) (Ref. 5)

    Where pH2O is the partial pressure of water vapor in a proportion of 5% in the atmosphere –which is an instantaneous measurement of the water vapor, and pCO2 is the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide.

    Known values:

    pH2O = 0.05 atm

    pCO2 = 0.00039 atm

    Introducing magnitudes:

    ζ = pH2O / (pH2O + pCO2) = 0.05 atm / (0.05 atm + 0.00039 atm) = 0.9923

    Therefore, ζ = 0.9923

    Obtaining the total emissivity of a mixture of water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere:

    Now let us proceed to calculate the magnitude of the overlapped radiative emission bands of the water vapor and the carbon dioxide. To do this, we apply the following formula:

    ΔE = [[ζ / (10.7 + 101 ζ)] – 0.0089 (ζ)^10.4] (log10 [(pH2O + pCO2) L] / (pabsL) 0)^2.76 [Ref. 5]

    Known values:

    ζ = 0.9923

    pH2O = 0.05 atm

    pCO2 = 0.00039 atm

    (pabsL)0 (absolute pressure of the mixture of gases on the Earth’s surface) = 1 atm m

    Le = (2.3026)) (Aas / μa) = 7000 m

    Introducing magnitudes:

    ΔE = [(0.992 / 110.892) – (0.0089 * (0.992)^10.4] * (log10 [(0.05 atm + 0.00039 atm) 7000 m] / (1 atm m)0)^2.76 (Ref. 2)

    ΔE = [0.00076] * (2.55 atm m / 1 atm m) = 0.0019; rounding up the cipher, ΔE = 0.002

    Therefore, the correction addend for the overlapping absorption bands is 0.002

    Consequently, the total emissivity of the mixture water vapor and carbon dioxide is as follows:

    E mixture = ECO2 + EH2O – ΔE = 0.0017 + 0.4 – 0.002 = 0.3997

    Total Normal Intensity of the energy radiated by the mixture of gases in the air:

    Therefore, the total normal intensity (I) (or the spectral radiance over wavelength) caused by the mixture of water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is:

    I = Emix (σ) (T)^4 / π (Ref. 5 and 6)

    I = 0.3997 (5.6697 x 10^-8 W/m^2 K^4) (310.95)^4 / 3.1416 = 67.44 W/m^2 sr

    By way of contrast, the spectral irradiance over wavelength caused by the surface (soil), with a total emissivity of 0.82 (Ref. 1 and 5), is as follows:

    I = Esurface (σ) (T)^4 / π (Ref. 5 and 6)

    I = 0.82 (5.6697 x 10-8 W/m^2 K^4) (330 K) / 3.1416 = 203 W/m^2 sr

    Following Dr. Anderson’s recommendation (which I mentioned above in the abstract) I calculated the overlapping bands of a mixture of water vapor (4%), carbon dioxide (0.039%) and Oxygen (21%).

    The calculation for a mixture of atmospheric Oxygen (O2), Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is as follows:

    ζ = pO2 / (pO2 + pCO2) = 0.21 atm / (0.21 atm + 0.00039 atm) = 4.1675 0.9981

    ζ = pO2+CO2 / (pHO2 + pO2+CO2) = 0.9981 4.1675 atm / ( 0.9981 4.1675 atm + 0.05 atm) = 0.9881 0.9522

    Consequently, the equilibrium partial pressure of the mixture of oxygen, water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 0.9881 0.9522

    And the change of the total emissivity of the mixture is:

    ΔE = [[ζ / (10.7 + 101 ζ)] – 0.0089 (ζ)^10.4] (log10 [(pH2O + pCO2 + pO2) L] / (pabsL) 0)^2.76 [Ref. 5, 11,12,14 and 15]

    ΔE = [[0.9881/ (10.7 + 101 (0.9881)^10.4)] – 0.0089 (0.9881)^10.4] (log10 [(0.26039 atm) 7000 m] / (1 atm)^2.76 = 0.00989

    ΔE = [[0. 9522/ (10.7 + 101 (0.9522)^10.4)] – 0.0089 (0.9522)^10.4] (log10 [(0.26039 atm) 1 m] / (1 atm)^2.76 = 0.008 * 26.11 = 0.2086

    And the total emissivity of the mixture of gases in the atmosphere is:

    E mixture = ECO2 + EH2O – ΔE = 0.0017 + 0.4 + 0.004 – 0.00989 0.2086 = 0.3958 0.1971; or 0.2 if we round up the number.

    Evidently, the mixture of oxygen, carbon dioxide and water vapor, at current conditions of temperature and partial pressures, causes a sensible decrease of the total emissivity of the mixture of air.

    The general conclusion is that by adding any gas with total emissivity/absorptivity lower than the total emissivity/absorptivity of the main absorber/emitter in the mixture of gases makes that the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture of gases decreases.

    In consequence, the carbon dioxide and the oxygen at the overlapping absorption spectral bands act as mitigating factors of the warming of the atmosphere, not as intensifier factors of the total absorptivity/emissivity of the atmosphere.


    My assessment demonstrates that there will be no increase in warming from an increase of absorptivity of IR by water vapor due to overlapping spectral bands with carbon dioxide.

    On the overlapping absorption spectral bands of carbon dioxide and water vapor, the carbon dioxide propitiates a decrease of the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture in the atmosphere, not an increase, as AGW proponents argue 1, 2, 3.

    Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the carbon dioxide behaves as a coolant of the Earth’s surface and the Earth’s atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases.

    Dr. Anderson and I found that the coolant effect of the carbon dioxide is stronger when oxygen is included into the mixture, giving a value of ΔE = 0.3814, which is lower than the value of ΔE obtained by considering only the mixture of water vapor and carbon dioxide.

    by Nasif S. Nahle, Director of Scientific Research Division at Biology Cabinet Mexico

    Read more from Nasif by scrolling through the articles here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/author/nasif-s-nahle/ .


    I am very grateful to Dr. Charles R. Anderson, PhD, author of the Chapter 20 in the book Slaying the Sky Dragon-Death of the Greenhouse Gases Theory, especially page 313 for his valuable help on realizing the cooling role of the Oxygen in the atmosphere.


  5. Richard C (NZ) on 22/04/2011 at 2:59 pm said:

    Infrared (IR) light is electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength longer than that of visible light, measured from the nominal edge of visible red light at 0.7 micrometres, and extending conventionally to 300 micrometres. These wavelengths correspond to a frequency range of approximately 430 to 1 THz,[1] and include most of the thermal radiation emitted by objects near room temperature. Microscopically, IR light is typically emitted or absorbed by molecules when they change their rotational-vibrational movements.

    Heat: Infrared radiation is popularly known as “heat” or sometimes known as “heat radiation”, since many people attribute all radiant heating to infrared light and/or all infrared radiation to heating. This is a widespread misconception, since light and electromagnetic waves of any frequency will heat surfaces that absorb them. Infrared light from the Sun only accounts for 49%[11] of the heating of the Earth, with the rest being caused by visible light that is absorbed then re-radiated at longer wavelengths. Visible light or ultraviolet-emitting lasers can char paper and incandescently hot objects emit visible radiation. Objects at room temperature will emit radiation mostly concentrated in the 8 to 25 micrometer band, but this is not distinct from the emission of visible light by incandescent objects and ultraviolet by even hotter objects (see black body and Wien’s displacement law).[12]

    Heat is energy in transient form that flows due to temperature difference. Unlike heat transmitted by thermal conduction or thermal convection, radiation can propagate through a vacuum.

    The concept of emissivity is important in understanding the infrared emissions of objects. This is a property of a surface which describes how its thermal emissions deviate from the ideal of a black body. To further explain, two objects at the same physical temperature will not “appear” the same temperature in an infrared image if they have differing emissivities.

    Heating: Infrared radiation can be used as a deliberate heating source. For example it is used in infrared saunas to heat the occupants, and also to remove ice from the wings of aircraft (de-icing). FIR is also gaining popularity as a safe heat therapy method of natural health care & physiotherapy. Infrared can be used in cooking and heating food as it predominantly heats the opaque, absorbent objects, rather than the air around them.

    Infrared heating is also becoming more popular in industrial manufacturing processes, e.g. curing of coatings, forming of plastics, annealing, plastic welding, print drying. In these applications, infrared heaters replace convection ovens and contact heating. Efficiency is achieved by matching the wavelength of the infrared heater to the absorption characteristics of the material.

    * Near-infrared (NIR, IR-A DIN): 0.75-1.4 µm in wavelength, defined by the water absorption, and commonly used in fiber optic telecommunication because of low attenuation losses in the SiO2 glass (silica) medium. Image intensifiers are sensitive to this area of the spectrum. Examples include night vision devices such as night vision goggles.
    * Short-wavelength infrared (SWIR, IR-B DIN): 1.4-3 µm, water absorption increases significantly at 1,450 nm. The 1,530 to 1,560 nm range is the dominant spectral region for long-distance telecommunications.
    * Mid-wavelength infrared (MWIR, IR-C DIN) also called intermediate infrared (IIR): 3-8 µm. In guided missile technology the 3-5 µm portion of this band is the atmospheric window in which the homing heads of passive IR ‘heat seeking’ missiles are designed to work, homing on to the Infrared signature of the target aircraft, typically the jet engine exhaust plume.
    * Long-wavelength infrared (LWIR, IR-C DIN): 8–15 µm. This is the “thermal imaging” region, in which sensors can obtain a completely passive picture of the outside world based on thermal emissions only and requiring no external light or thermal source such as the sun, moon or infrared illuminator. Forward-looking infrared (FLIR) systems use this area of the spectrum. Sometimes also called the “far infrared.”
    * Far infrared (FIR): 15 – 1,000 µm (see also far infrared laser).

    NIR and SWIR is sometimes called “reflected infrared” while MWIR and LWIR is sometimes referred to as “thermal infrared.” Due to the nature of the blackbody radiation curves, typical ‘hot’ objects, such as exhaust pipes, often appear brighter in the MW compared to the same object viewed in the LW.


  6. Mike Jowsey on 23/04/2011 at 1:43 am said:

    Have a memorable Easter, Richard. Be safe, be happy.

  7. Andy on 23/04/2011 at 4:20 pm said:

    A 25 min video on the NZ ETS is available here


  8. Andy on 23/04/2011 at 9:31 pm said:

    There’s been a bit more on the Greenpeace/iwi protest against seismic surveying offshore NZ

    Protests over the Brazilian oil giant Petrobras’s ship heated up when police from a patrolling navy boat boarded San Pietro, which is owned by local iwi.

    A Police spokesman said the arrest of skipper <b<Elvis Teddy came after a blatant breach of safety by the boat.

    “This followed repeated warnings to the boat about activity it was engaged in that was causing grave concerns to the master of the Ocean Explorer,” he said.

    Police could not go into further detail of what activity was being carried out by the protest vessel or what the skipper would be charged with.

    San Pietro was being sailed by the remaining crew on board.

    The boat is owned by East Coast iwi Te Whanau a Apanui and is part of the flotilla that includes Greenpeace.

    In a statement, Greenpeace defended the actions of the San Pietro crew.

    “The crew of te Whanau a Apanui’s fishing boat San Pietro went fishing at a safe distance in front of the deep sea oil survey ship, Orient Explorer.”

    Whanau a Apanui tribal leader Rikirangi Gage radioed the Captain of the Orient Explorer and said he was not welcome in the iwi’s waters.


    Such a great day for NZ.
    Big high fives for Elvis Teddy, slayer of the evil Oil Dragons.

    • Andy on 23/04/2011 at 9:46 pm said:


      I have been shown pictures of the (in)famous Elvis Teddy, saviour of our planet and the Biggest Baddest Bear to stop the tracks of Big Oil polluting our beautiful coastline and spoiling our Clean Green Image ™



      Doesn’t it make your heart swell with pride?

    • Andy on 23/04/2011 at 10:21 pm said:

      This was supposed to be a response to this:

      A Police spokesman said the arrest of skipper Elvis Teddy came after a blatant breach of safety by the boat.

      My markup got a bit lost.

      I am sure Easter Bunny will sort it out.

  9. Andy on 23/04/2011 at 11:08 pm said:

    The Science is settled, yeah right


    Dr David Evans talks( video)

  10. Andy on 25/04/2011 at 2:33 pm said:

    Biased BBC on the “conspiracy”

    and here


    This has all spun off the story about GLOBE published by the Telegraph which Richard North writes on so eloquently here


    So here is your one-stop shop for all those useful idiots who howl with laughter at all your conspiracy theories.

    Fraud and corruption on a massive scale might be a better description.

  11. Andy on 28/04/2011 at 4:59 pm said:

    Interesting presentation from Prof Aynsley Kellow (2008)

    All in a good cause:
    Framing science for public policy

    I was interested in this quotation on the use of the word “denier”, in which Prof Kellow compares the use of this with “Godwin’s Law”

    Anyone want to tell Prof Gluckman?

    One of the means commonly employed is the use of
    the term ‘denier’, a rhetorically powerful signifier quite
    deliberately first used (as far as I can tell) by a couple
    of defenders of the faith reviewing Bjorn Lomborg’s The
    Sceptical Environmentalist for Nature. It was used quite
    deliberately by Jeff Harvey and Stuart Pimm to liken
    Lomborg to a holocaust denier for daring to question the
    highly questionable estimates of the number of species
    extinctions that supposedly occur every year.
    The computer-based estimates of species extinction
    range all the way from a few tens of thousands to
    50-100,000 (if you can believe Greenpeace). The actual
    documented number accepted by the International
    Union for the Conservation of Nature is around 800 over
    the 500 years for which we have records.
    While I’m prepared to accept we have missed more
    than a few, and I’m a passionate advocate for the conservation
    of charismatic megafauna (such as tigers and
    orangutans), I think the use of the term ‘denier’ tells us
    more about the person using it than about the target. I
    think the use of it amounts to an example of Godwins’s
    Law of Internet Discussions, which holds that eventually
    someone will liken someone else to Hitler, at which
    point rational debate is over. (Implicitly, the person using
    it loses).
    Unfortunately, the use of the term is rife in debates
    over climate change, where those on one side seem finally
    to have cottoned on to the point that scepticism in science
    is actually a good thing, and it was even used last
    year by the now minister responsible.
    If it has served any purpose, this use of illiberal name
    calling serves to remind us of what is needed to ensure
    that noble cause corruption does not afflict the science
    informing public policy.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation