IainM
Landlord.
Ahahaha. A short paper 'eh. It runs to 77 pages, and it is absolute nonsense. It reads like an overenthusiastic teenager's homework. It hasn't been peer reviewed, or even proof-read by the looks of it. Blair D. Macdonald doesn't even understand basic chemistry. I don't even know where to begin trying to explain how bad that paper is, or his misunderstandings of the science, but here are a few points.
1) He presents literally no evidence to back up his assertions. Seriously, the methods section starts with "No experiment as such was undertaken, but rather a first principles review of literature, theory, application, and instruments with respect to the hypothesis." So, instead of presenting any data, he does a "first principles review". What the hell even is that? I think he just likes the phrase "first principles" because it sounds sciency, even if he isn't capable of using it coherently.
2) The beginning of his intro states that the theory of greenhouse gasses assumes that "the non-GHGs nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2) – 99% of the dry atmosphere – do not absorb or emit any IR radiation, at any temperature". He doesn't reference this, probably because it is ********. I have never met a chemist, physicist, climate scientist, astonomer or geologist who would accept that. He says the same thing at the beginning of the abstract: "Greenhouse theory’s premise, nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases as they do not emit and absorb infrared radiation presents a paradox; it contradicts both quantum mechanics and thermodynamics – where all matter above absolute 0 Kelvin radiates IR photons." Not a good start.
3) His main ideas which "proves" that N2 and O2 are greenhouse gasses is Ramen spectroscopy. From the abstract "It was hypothesised these gases do radiate at quantum mechanics predicted spectra, and these spectra are observed by IR spectroscopy’s complement instrument, Raman Spectroscopy". Oh, do you see what he did there? He didn't use IR spectroscopy, you know the method that actually detects the absorption of IR radiation. No no, he uses Ramen spectroscopy, which measures the scattering of IR radiation. Is that what you think climate scientists think? That global warming is caused by scattering? His entire argument is based on the fact that the experiment that would show that O2 and N2 are greenhouse gasses conclusively shows that they aren't, and so he pretends that a different experiment can when they don't. I'm not surprised that this didn't pass peer-review - it is explicitly designed so that his fellow scientifically illiterates look at it and say "ooooh, this has some sciency words in and therefore must be true"
4) In fairness, some energy can be added to or taken away from the IR light as it is scattered. It is a weak effect and irrelevant to greenhouse gasses, but it does happen, and MacDonald has managed to find some evidence of it using his mad googling skillz. This is his all-powerful knockout sciencey conclusion. From the abstract: "It was found the gases do possess quantum predicted emission spectra at 2338cm-1 and 1556cm-1 respectively". Ahahahahah! 2338cm-1 and 1556cm-1. Those frequencies aren't even in the frequency range of the IR emitted from Earth. Seriously, the guy is claiming that N2 and O2 are greenhouse gasses because the can absorb or emit radiation in a part of the spectrum that is completely irrelevant for global warming because there isn't even any appreciable amount of IR radiation in that region that even be trapped in the first place. What a moron!
5) There is so much more that is wrong with this paper scientifically. There is literally too much to spell out. It is littered with mistakes and he clearly has no experience in science. The figures are a joke. He literally copy-pasted them from other papers and websites, complete with their text. Just look at them. Some are screen grabs of youtube videos. Youtube! That master authority on matters of truth. He even adds references to youtube. Most of his non-youtube references aren't even to the scientific literature, but to random websites.
If that is what passes as evidence for denialists, then no wonder they are seen as a scientific joke. I never knew it got this bad. You've made my day Gunge, you really have. What are you going to post as "evidence" next? Deepak Chopra? The bible?
