Albert Einstein said no to CO2 radiative warming of the atmosphere

The hypothesis of global warming from man made CO2 depends on a much-repeated narrative about CO2 trapping infrared (IR) photons leaving the earth. Although a beguilingly simple idea, a host of assumptions underlie it. One of these is that the radiative photonic absorption – emission interactions of the trace gas CO2 dominate heat movement in the atmosphere. And it turns out, this argument, a pillar of the global warming theory, is false – it was refuted in advance by none other than Albert Einstein in 1917.

In this 1917 paper:

http://inspirehep.net/record/858448/files/eng.pdf

Einstein says this about radiative heating of a gas:

“During absorption and emission of radiation there is also present a transfer of momentum to the molecules. This means that just the interaction of radiation and molecules leads to a velocity distribution of the latter. This must surely be the same as the velocity distribution which molecules acquire as the result of their mutual interaction by collisions, that is, it must coincide with the Maxwell distribution. We must require that the mean kinetic energy which a molecule per degree of freedom acquires in a Plank radiation field of temperature T be

kT / 2

this must be valid regardless of the nature of the molecules and independent of frequencies which the molecules absorb and emit.”

Einstein understood like no other before or since the unity of mass, light and time. The equation e=mc^2 encapsulates this.

Mass, it turns out, is a condensed form of energy not really profoundly different from photons; mass is simply anything with inertia resisting acceleration: anything that slows you down. This PBS Space-Time video illuminates this unity, beginning with a nice demonstration of how a hypothetical box of photons which should have no mass, oppose acceleration and exert inertia exactly like mass.

https://youtu.be/gSKzgpt4HBU

A nice insight from this presentation is that the “speed” c is not merely the speed of light – it is the speed of causality, the fastest speed that any cause-effect agency can transmit influence. It is fundamental to space-time and the universe’s architecture.

This fundamental truth connects with Einstein’s assertion that the transfer of heat energy between photons and baryonic particles in a gas, is essentially no different from the Boltzmann transfer of heat energy from gas particle to gas particle.

The CO2 atmosphere warming story is a story that only recognises radiative transfer of heat. It considers most of the atmosphere – all the N2 and O2 for instance – as thermally inert. This is not credible not only because of convection, which moves at least as much heat as radiation. It is because of Einstein’s insight that radiation transfer of heat to gas is a Boltzmann process just like heat transfer from one gas molecule to another. And the much-hyped issue of IR absorption frequency bands is of negligible importance – as Einstein put it, “Regardless if the nature of the molecules and independent of the frequencies at which molecules absorb and emit.”

CO2 back radiation atmospheric warming is an error that was refuted in advance by Einstein. As in other fields such as gravitation, space time and relativity, Einstein has not yet been proved wrong. He won’t be proved wrong here either.

53 thoughts on “Albert Einstein said no to CO2 radiative warming of the atmosphere

    1. Einstein’s point was that absorption-emission phenomena account for a negligible fraction of heat transfer from radiation to a gas, most of it being Maxwell-Boltzmann type similar to mass to mass heat transfer. The whole CO2 IR absorption-emission story is of marginal importance in atmospheric heat movement.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. “Einstein’s point was that absorption-emission phenomena account for a negligible fraction of heat transfer from radiation to a gas, most of it being Maxwell-Boltzmann type similar to mass to mass heat transfer. ”

        Where exactly did Einstein write this in his 1917 paper? Please quote from it….

        Like

      2. I just did. Read what he said – it’s all there.
        To repeat the last sentence of the quote:

        “ this must be valid regardless of the nature of the molecules and independent of frequencies which the molecules absorb and emit.”

        “Regardless of the nature of the molecules”. How can it be any clearer than that?

        THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER DIFFERENT ABOUT CO2 RELATIVE TO ANY OTHER GAS IN HOW IT GETS HEATED BY RADIATION.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. What’s “valid,” and the same for all molecules, is the way molecules acquire kinetic energy — by collisions — and how that energy is partitioned among them per degree of freedom.

        Einstein certainly knew that not all molecules absorb the same frequencies, as does every first-year chemistry and physics student.

        Like

      4. “Einstein’s point was that absorption-emission phenomena account for a negligible fraction of heat transfer from radiation to a gas, most of it being Maxwell-Boltzmann type similar to mass to mass heat transfer. ”

        (“Maxwell-Boltzmann” isn’t a type of heat transfer; it’s a probability distribution for molecular velocities at a given temperature.)

        Nowhere does Einstein say that “absorption-emission phenomena account for a negligible fraction” of anything.

        (The only thing I see in Einstein’s paper that could possibly be misinterpreted in this way is a passage that says “the momentum transferred by radiation is so small that it always drops out as compared to that from other dynamical processes. But for the theoretical considerations, this small effect is on an equal footing with the energy transferred by radiation…” And, this passage doesn’t say “phenomena account for a negligible fraction of heat transfer”; it says that momentum-transfer accounts of a negligible faction of the total energy that radiation transfers to gas molecules. So, this doesn’t justify the assertion. Nor does anything else in Einstein’s paper.)

        Like

    2. “this must be valid regardless of the nature of the molecules and independent of frequencies which the molecules absorb and emit”, quoting Einstein.

      And if your answer is “he’s wrong and I’m right”, then … get help.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Your quote is from Einstein’s discussion of kinetic energy per degree of freedom in a radiation field. It doesn’t compare the relative energies, kinetic to radiation. Does it?

        Like

      2. It shows that CO2 will be heated in a radiation field no more and no less than any other gas. That its IR absorption-emission behaviour is irrelevant.

        “ this must be valid regardless of the nature of the molecules and independent of frequencies which the molecules absorb and emit.”

        Einstein’s words, not mine.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. You’re confusing absorption and kinetic energy.

        Einstein is talking strictly about kinetic energy there — “which molecules acquire as the result of their mutual interaction by collisions” — not energy that’s absorbed.

        Like

      4. It’s one form of heat. Radiation is another. IR is emitted by the Earth. CO2 is extremely good at absorbing IR. N2 and O2 absorb very very little of it. These are fundamental facts.

        Like

      5. Kinetic energy of molecules is not heat, it is a form of energy. Radiation is not heat, it is a form of energy. Particles, molecules, systems can have energy, not heat. Heat is a mode of transfer of energy – it is not a form of energy nor indeed a form of anything. Heat is a process, not a thing. It’s a bit like running. Running is a mode of transfer of human beings. It is a process, not a thing. Humans do not contain “running” in much the same way that gases do not contain “heat”. Radiation certainly is not heat.

        Liked by 3 people

      6. However in experiments, if vials containing only O2 and N2 are irradiated by IR, they heat up. The presence or absence of CO2 seems to make little difference. How are N2 and O2 heated by IR? Or do you deny that this happens? Do O2 and N2 remain at static temperature in an IR field? Is there less interaction between N2/O2 and IR than between those gasses and neutrinos?

        Like

      7. “However in experiments, if vials containing only O2 and N2 are irradiated by IR, they heat up.”

        Do they? Says who?
        Maybe it’s the vial inself that heats up.

        Like

      8. Says Albert Einstein. That’s good enough for me. Appeal to authority is not cool generally but Einstein is an exception to prove that rule.

        Back in 1944 it was discovered that there is a night sky emitted IR component from molecular nitrogen:

        Click to access nph-iarticle_query

        And NASA have also studied nitrogen’s emission and absorption in IR:

        https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19700043976

        in recent years a deathly silence has fallen over IR behaviour of nitrogen and oxygen, for obvious political reasons. But to return to my original point, it is nonsensical to posit that the gasses N2 and O2 interact less with IR irradiation – or any electromagnetic radiation – less than they do with neutrinos. And remember that there is 2000 times more N2 in the atmosphere than CO2. So even if N2’s IR interactions are 1000x less than CO2, then they will still predominate.

        Here is the nonexistent emission spectrum of nitrogen:

        https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/nitrogen-active-in-the-ir-a-ghg/#jp-carousel-26947

        Liked by 3 people

      9. It’s one form of heat. Radiation is another. IR is emitted by the Earth.

        No. Radiation is emphatically NOT a form of heat. Heat is collisional and vibrational movement of atoms and molecules. Light is a massless field so it is meaningless to talk of light having or being heat. Anything with mass cannot travel at light speed, so the division between light and matter is absoute. Heat has to involve mass so immediately light is excluded. Light can transmit energy which originated as heat of matter. And light impingent on matter can make that matter hotter. Light can be characteristic of a temperature – e.g. cosmic microwave background characteristic of 2-3 K primordial residue heat from the big bang.

        But, light is not and can never be heat.

        Liked by 2 people

      10. Dave is right, and you are wrong, so help yourself to Raypierre’s online atmospheric physics tutorial.

        If you can’t be bothered , “then… get help”

        Like

      11. Phil Salmon wrote:
        “in recent years a deathly silence has fallen over IR behaviour of nitrogen and oxygen, for obvious political reasons.”

        In point of fact, the homonuclear diatomics (N2, O2) absorb (and emit) roughly as much IR as does CO2, by dint of their higher atmospheric concentration, and largely due to collisional broadening. There’s a study out there somewhere showing this, I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find it.

        I could delve into the quantum physics of radiative transfer of energy to demolish David Appell (and the entire CAGW construct), but really, what’s the point? It’s been done so many times, and he (and his ilk) never seems to learn.

        No, it’s much more satisfying to position oneself to profit from the gullible rubes pushing CAGW, and to laugh raucously as we watch it (and the heads of those gullible rubes) inevitably self-implode.

        Liked by 1 person

      12. Phil Salmon wrote: ‘ “this must be valid regardless of the nature of the molecules and independent of frequencies which the molecules absorb and emit”, quoting Einstein.’

        You need to pay attention to WHAT must be valid.

        If you read the entire paper to understand the context of Einstein’s words, it becomes clear that Einstein’s words meant “thermal radiation associated with a temperature T must not change the statistical distribution of velocities in a gas at that same temperature T, no made what the resonant absorption/emission frequencies are of any particular gas.”

        He uses this constraint to re-derive Planck’s radiation formula, proving along the way that the constraint he had named will automatically be satisfied (for all gases) so long as radiation obeys the Planck radiation law.

        That’s what Einstein is writing about. Nothing else.

        Note that Einstein’s words are entirely about ensuring that radiation from matter at a temperature T will not raise or lower the temperature of a gas at that SAME temperature T.

        Einstein makes no mention whatsoever of what happens when radiation from matter at temperature T1 encounters gas at a temperature T2 where these two temperatures are DIFFERENT.

        Far from asserting anything about the strength or weakness of radiative heat transfer, Einstein doesn’t talk about heat transfer at all!

        * * *

        Phil Salmon wrote: “It shows that CO2 will be heated in a radiation field no more and no less than any other gas. That its IR absorption-emission behaviour is irrelevant.”

        No. It only shows that if CO₂ is exposed to thermal radiation from a black-body at the same temperature at the CO₂, then the momentum-transfers between photons and molecules will neither warm nor cool the CO₂, just as would be the case for any other gas.

        Einstein doesn’t address what happens when there are differences in temperature, nor does Einstein address the aspects of photon-molecule interactions that do not relate to momentum transfer.

        * * *

        Phil Salmon wrote: “Appeal to authority is not cool generally but Einstein is an exception to prove that rule.”

        You appear to be fraudulently “borrowing authority” from Einstein, projecting conclusions onto his words that Einstein did not say or mean, and attributing your ideas to him.

        Putting words in Einstein’s mouth is definitely “not cool.”

        Like

    3. Einstein didn’t say that directly but mathematically and logically demonstrated that gases are not merely warmed from incident radiation like solids and liquids are.

      Click to access eng.pdf

      The Law of Conservation of Momentum applies to gases and their incident radiation, thus the back radiation hypothesis violates the known physical laws. Stimulated emission was proposed by Einstein in 1917 to account for radiative heat transfer in gases to conform to known laws of physics. And given that lasers work, I’d say his quantum theory of radiation is quite correct.

      Like

  1. Russel

    Atmospheric radiative physics, you mean presumably.

    Weather and climate are a set of structures – clouds, circulation cells in both atmosphere and ocean, storms, oscillations, etc. Dimensionality keeps on dipping from chaotic turbulence down to the borderline region of emergent pattern. Ilya Prigogine explained it all with his nonlinear thermodynamics and his theory of “dissipative structures”. Time this was re-learned. Climate is a landscape of dissipative structures exporting entropy.

    And check out Noether’s law on how such a complex system will respond to perturbation: by exerting the minimum energy:

    https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/02/09/the-principle-of-least-action-calls-into-question-atmosphere-warming-by-co2/

    CO2 warming contravenes Noether / Fermat’s principle of least action. It’s more like most action.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That link is poppycock and anyway says “**MAYBE** the principle of least action could apply to atmospheric thermodynamics.” (Emphasis mine on MAYBE.) It’s just junk with no scientific proof or justification. In a few cases the (mechanical) notion of action, S= integral of the Lagrangian over time, can be extended to thermodynamics, but certainly not to a complex situation like the atmosphere, let alone CO2’s role in it.

      This is grasping at straws to the Nth-degree and the conclusion re: CO2 is absurd.

      Like

      1. If it’s ‘poppycock’, as you claim, would you be so kind as to explain why or give a few examples? Specious assertions do not sway in a scientific argument.

        Like

    2. David
      The CO2 emission height story contravenes Noether’s law. That is obvious and not poppycock.

      BTW this paper details meticulous experimental work, hard to find in the literature, that shows that the IR heating of air, CO2 and argon are indistinguishable.

      Click to access Allmendinger_Behaviour-of-Gases_IJPS-rev.pdf

      And it shows that the heating mechanism is NOT frequency specific absorption but just Boltzmann like vibrational exchange. This proves experimentally exactly what Einstein said:

      “During absorption and emission of radiation there is also present a transfer of momentum to the molecules. This means that just the interaction of radiation and molecules leads to a velocity distribution of the latter. This must surely be the same as the velocity distribution which molecules acquire as the result of their mutual interaction by collisions, that is, it must coincide with the Maxwell distribution. We must require that the mean kinetic energy which a molecule per degree of freedom acquires in a Plank radiation field of temperature T be

      kT / 2

      this must be valid regardless of the nature of the molecules and independent of frequencies which the molecules absorb and emit.”

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Phil Salmon wrote: “the heating mechanism is NOT frequency specific absorption but just Boltzmann like vibrational exchange. ” He amends this by adding “I meant Maxwell, or Brownian like.”

        Either way, you are using words in a way that suggests you don’t know what those words mean. You are using the words in a way that does not seem to mean anything coherent.

        Radiation can affect a gas in one of three ways:

        1. The radiation can be absorbed by a solid or liquid, and then be transferred to the gas via conduction and convection. (This is probably the primary heat transfer mechanism in the experiment you cited.)

        2. The radiation can be absorbed by the gas and directly transfer momentum to the gas molecules.

        3. The radiation can be absorbed by the gas and excite a vibration (or rotation) of the molecule. Subsequent collisions then transfer this energy to other energetic modes of the gas.

        Effect #3 is about a trillion times larger than effect #2. Einstein’s paper deliberately focused only on effect #2.

        Einstein’s paper said nothing whatsoever about “the heating mechanism” or about that mechanism being about “vibrational exchange.”

        You are fantasizing that Einstein is saying something like that. It’s not there in Einstein’s words, as would be clear if you read and understood the complete paper.

        Like

      2. Allmendiger’s experiment used materials such as polystyrene foam and thin polymer foils to exclude heating from the container. So that explanation (that speculative flail) is false. IR heats air with or without CO2.

        Like

      3. Bob
        “You are using the words in a way that does not seem to mean anything coherent.”

        I’m not a physicist, atmospheric or otherwise, and I’m quoting outside my comfort zone scientifically – you’re right to call me out on this to a degree. But the overall picture still doesn’t make sense. You helpfully define three categories of photon gas interaction. Ignoring nearby solids (#1), regarding Einstein’s quote, types 2 and 3 are relevant. For # 2 according to Einstein it’s particle to particle (including photon) energy transfer, imparting momentum, whoever’s name you choose to attach to it (Maxwell etc.) For #2 it doesn’t matter what the gas is. So CO2 is irrelevant to # 2. But type 3 involves quantum type absorption and emission at specific frequencies and clearly CO2 as a dipole is much more active in this process than other gasses – you give a factor of a trillion or so.

        Logically, if #3 is the most important heat transfer process from photon to gas, and CO2 does it trillions of times better than other gases, then yes – you would expect photon heating of gas to be via CO2 and other similar IR active gasses only with negligible effects of other gases. In this case – then it should be trivially easy to demonstrate this experimentally. IR heating of a mass of gas would be overwhelmingly more effective in the presence of CO2 than in its absence (leaving out water vapour).

        And to avoid problems of container heating, with a reasonable scientific investment (proportional to the supposed importance of the issue of global warming) it would be possible to – for instance – build something like power station cooling towers out of polystyrene foam bricks, also similarly sealed at the top, so that the gas volume is very large and peripheral container heating negligible. It’s surprising considering the importance and economic significance of the climate issue that this is not done. The only experiments in actual gas heating with IR involve small lab improvised knock-ups involving for instance exercise balls bought from high street sports shops. It’s almost as if no one really wants to know if this exclusivity of atmosphere thermodynamics to CO2 is true or not.

        And such experiments as have been done find either no effect or tiny marginal effect, comparing heating air with or without CO2, or pure CO2, or argon, etc. This doesn’t add up. Theoretically CO2 absorbs heat a trillion or so times more than N2 and O2. But this can’t be shown experimentally, where pure CO2 behaves almost the same as argon.

        It almost looks as if the difference between #2 and #3 is quite a lot less than a trillion. Or there’s another factor not being considered.

        Like

  2. Phil, no one opposed this for a while, so Einstein + Allmendinger seem proof enough that there is no Greenhouse effect caused by CO2.
    But the earth is heating, but probably on the average is as slow as 0.15 C per 10 years (Roy Spencer). This is maybe both natural and antroprogen:
    Water vapour (like in clouds) traps heat, and an interglaciar heating earth produces more clouds. The heating is both natural (recurring interglacial periods between ice ages) and (recent 150 years) antroprogen due to rising population end its energy production – this at least is my present understanding.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. I am relaxed and enjoying your findings! The significance of solar (in)activity is pretty interesting, especially for the coming solar cycles, referring to e.g. work of Valentina Zharkova.

        Liked by 3 people

    1. Lennart
      A while ago I made an approximate calculation of the direct heating effect of human fossil fuel burning on the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 emitted allows calculation of the energy released by hydrocarbon combustion. The number I got was about 0.1 degree per CO2 doubling (at current levels) – one tenth of the claimed CO2 warming effect. Not a dominant effect explaining all the warming but not insignificant.

      Like

  3. As I interpret the situation both CO2 and Ozone are potent absorbers in the infrared spectrum emitted by the Earth instantly transmitting the vibrational energy to adjacent molecules regardless of their chemical constitution. All particles radiate energy. Oxygen and Nitrogen don’t need to be direct absorbers in order to become radiators.

    But the key point is that the parcel of air so warmed (increased kinetic energy of movement) expands, loses density, is convected aloft, and cools via decompression conjunctionally, so ridding itself of the energy so acquired. There is no time lapse in this process.

    Gases are free to expand as soon as they acquire kinetic energy. It’s stupid to assert that they behave like a stationary solid emitter, end of story.

    Observation confirms that it is those parts of atmosphere that have a higher partial pressure of ozone that exhibit the widest fluctuations in temperature. It is the parts containing ozone that have reduced density (generally 10% of that at the surface above 10hPa or 10 km in elevation) and the weakest convection. But in high latitudes, where the proportion of the atmosphere that contains ozone is up to 60% of its mass, the convection is massive. Hence the polar vortex created by polar cyclones with a radius of thousands of kilometers, a central pressure lower than that in category five tropical cyclone that elevate air to an elevation of 45 kilometers, effectively the upper limits of the stratosphere beyond which the ozone content falls away and we are in the mesosphere.

    That’s what Einstein explains when he writes: ‘During absorption and emission of radiation there is also present a transfer of momentum to the molecules. This means that just the interaction of radiation and molecules leads to a velocity distribution of the latter. This must surely be the same as the velocity distribution which molecules acquire as the result of their mutual interaction by collisions,’

    Liked by 1 person

  4. The author has taken some words from Einstein’s paper out of context, without paying any apparent attention to the context in which Einstein said those words and what conclusion he reached subsequently. If one reads Einsteins whole 1917 paper, “Quantum Theory of Radiation,” it becomes clear that the significance of Einstein’s words are very different than what the author seems to believe.

    Yes, Einstein wrote: “During absorption and emission of radiation there is also present a transfer of momentum to the molecules. This means that just the interaction of radiation and molecules leads to a velocity distribution of the latter. This must surely be the same as the velocity distribution which molecules acquire as the result of their mutual interaction by collisions, that is, it must coincide with the Maxwell distribution… this must be valid regardless of the nature of the molecules and independent of frequencies which the molecules absorb and emit.”

    But, the author leaves out Einstein’s words that followed immediately after: ” In this paper we wish to verify that this far–reaching requirement is, indeed, satisfied quite generally.”

    Later in the paper, Einstein writes “In order now to show that the momenta transferred from the radiation to the molecule according to our basic hypotheses never disturb the thermodynamic equilibrium, we need only… [equations]… We obtained, without effort… Planck’s radiation formula.”

    In other words, Einstein used what he wrote about requirements on “the interaction of radiation and molecules” as a constraint on his theory. Applying this constraint allowed him to re-derive Planck’s radiation formula. Given that Planck’s radiation formula applies, the “requirement” he had named earlier will be automatically satisfied.

    Einstein did NOT use the quoted ideas to conclude that there is any barrier to gases being heated radiatively.

    Instead, Einstein used the quoted ideas to to re-derive the characteristics of thermal radiation, thereby confirming that he had proposed a valid quantum theory of radiation.

    The requirement the author quoted, far from suggesting that there was any problem with radiation warming a gas, led Einstein to conclude that “this far–reaching requirement is, indeed, satisfied quite generally.” In other words, it’s not a problem of any sort.

    * * *

    Those asserting that Einstein’s paper on the “Quantum Theory of Radiation” amounted to him having “said no to CO2 radiative warming of the atmosphere” are demonstrating that they have no understanding whatsoever of the paper that they are quoting from.

    Like

    1. Robert
      Thanks for your comment.
      I think there’s a misunderstanding from me not being clear.
      The point is not that there is any “barrier” to heat transfer from radiation to gas – the opposite in fact, that this transfer from photons happens universally with all gasses.
      The argument being opposed is that in the earth’s atmosphere, IR heating is only via CO2 (in dry air), and that with no CO2 present, dry air would not be heated by IR at all. This is what (a) I find hard to believe and (b) appears to be disproved by experiment.

      Like

  5. Nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb infra-red. They do not have a dynamic dipole moment i.e. a dipole moment which changes during the molecular vibration. This is an absolute requirement for a molecule to be able to absorb Infra red radiation and to have their vibrational modes excited by it. You have referred to bands in the visible spectra of nitrogen in the aurora. The visible spectrum involves the electronic excitation of the N2 molecule. These transitions can show vibrational fine structure as the electronic excitation can be accompanied by vibrational and rotational excitation. N2 may also have a Raman spectrum which shows the molecular vibration when visible light is inelastically scattered from the molecule.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Dr nick canning physical chemist wrote:
      “Nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb infra-red. They do not have a dynamic dipole moment i.e. a dipole moment which changes during the molecular vibration. This is an absolute requirement for a molecule to be able to absorb infra red radiation and to have their vibrational modes excited by it.”

      A homonuclear diatomic (N2, O2) cannot absorb (nor emit) unless it has its net-zero magnetic dipole perturbed via collision, which is why their vibrational mode quantum states are meta-stable and relatively long-lived barring collision… do N2 and O2 undergo collision in the atmosphere? Absolutely they do. Hence the link to NASA’s study entitled “Infrared electronic emission spectrum of nitrogen”, link:
      https://sci-hub.se/10.1364/ao.9.000195

      So while the N2 may have been excited in its electronic mode, that energy was equipartitioned into the molecule’s vibrational mode quantum states, as well… and it requires collision to perturb the molecule’s net-zero magnetic dipole in order to emit.

      The same applies to N2 (and O2) absorption, except there would need to be a resonant photon inciding upon the molecule at the exact instant (or very shortly thereafter) that it underwent collision.

      So yes, N2 and O2 can absorb IR.

      Like

    2. Now, you may be saying, “But that study is for electronically excited N2! So that IR emission must be from electronic transition!”

      No, the lowest N2 electronic mode quantum state has energy equivalent to a photon of 0.1916 µm, and that’s definitely not in the IR range… the IR emission is from that energy which, after the molecule is electronically excited, is equipartitioned into the molecule’s vibrational mode quantum states. The emission from the N2{v1(1)} vibrational mode quantum state emits a 1179.5 cm-1 (8.47 µm) photon, and the emission from the N2{v1(2)} vibrational mode quantum state emits a 3539 cm-1 (2.82 µm) photon. Those cannot be coming from electronic mode transition, they can only come from vibrational mode quantum state radiative relaxation, said quantum states excited via equipartition of energy from the excited electronic mode.

      Like

  6. What this all boils down to is the assertion that N2 and O2 gasses have zero interaction with IR. As if they are effectively dark matter in relation to IR. This has been demonstrated experimentally to be false – there’s not much difference between IR heating of N2/O2 (air) and CO2.

    Click to access Allmendinger_Behaviour-of-Gases_IJPS-rev.pdf

    Why go to such extraordinary theoretical lengths to assert that O2 and N2 are effectively dark matter in relation to near IR, when simple experiment shows it not to be true?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Reference:

      The thermal behaviour of gases under the influence of infrared-radiation
      Thomas Allmendinger
      International Journal of Physical Sciences
      Vol. 11(15), pp. 183-205, 16 August, 2016 DOI: 10.5897/IJPS2016.4500
      Article Number: E00ABBF60017
      ISSN 1992 – 1950

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s