Breaking the Carbon Climate Spell with the fractal.
YouTube intro from the Author:
Last Update 2010 -12-16
Here you see something I have been working with for the last 4 or 5 years and I am feeling more and more happy with it. It's still in the rough, still in the draft, a work in progress - but the idea should be clear.
I am working on a wiki for all to get involved.
It is said: 'people in glass houses (greenhouses) shouldn’t throw stones'.The breaking the carbon climate spell - with today's telescope, the fractal.
Before you begin reading this blog, can I suggest you ponder on this (fractal) thought experiment:
Imagine if you will:
you have a button you can push - on or off - that will set in place your beliefs so that they will be universal and observable at all scales - and explain all.
In this case, your beliefs that CO2 plays a dominate role in the greater atmosphere, in respect to temperature and is responsible for 'global warming'.
When pushed on, this belief will be the truth, and will account CO2 for all related temperature phenomena - at all scales.
When you push the button, you can expect one of two realities:
1) no change - showing you were right : we have a universal understanding of the behaviour CO2.
2) an absolute change - you were wrong : nothing is recognisable, including yourself, as life, and indeed the universe, has evolved using your understanding.
Would you push it ?
Now repeat, using water instead.
Would you push it?
In other words - would you put your life on your new found knowledge?
-----CO2 (in its gaseous state) casts no shadow to light nor does it to logic; it's orderless and invisible, It's new(ish) too - at least to science - discovered around three hundred years ago and as a consequence, is known only by its given scientific name throughout the world (unlike H2O) .
It is set to be the perfect, new 'God like' 'blame' thing.
The recent passing of mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot saw media attempting to assign applications to his genius, the fractal - there are few.
Here, I've found an application - as a truth detector, a light.
There's a problem with the 'new carbon dioxide (CO2) centered' understanding of the global climate system - whether or not at the hands of humans ; it is not fractal - it doesn't hold at other scales.
In this blog I hope to expose this problem - not by analyzing and bitching over historical climate data but by applying insights gained from a relatively new and exciting mathematics, fractals.
I shall firstly introduce a theory of knowledge derived from the fractal that will expose Carbon Climate Science. This will be followed be an examination of the CO2 profile, and finally, I will introduce 'the Fractal Record' a new way of viewing knowledge - testing for the truth. I aim to offer a solution, that will get us all thinking and end this deadlock to the great debate once and for all.
Fractals will unlock our lateral thinking, logic and reason, and should offer a decisive perspective. Fractals will re-calibrate our ‘general’ knowledge of climate; reinstating water - in the context of its heat trapping ability - to its rightful place in the hierarchy of atmospheric gases. I am not suggesting CO2 does not play a part, for that it surely does – relative to the vacuum of space - but relative to water, it is little competition, and it is this fact I shall conclude.
As a person who spends his time spotting fractal patterns in the beautiful world we live in, I view this new (every) school textbook portrayal (as it has now become) of a carbon centered climate as odd - and it aches me as it is to listen to an out of tune contestant in American reality TV show Idol. I am no more a scientist than I am a music specialist, but I know when something is wrong. I feel strong in saying that carbon climate science is currently way out of tune.
Why carbon climate science is not valid:
Climate and fractals
To me, what is on trial here is not the climate record at all, but the role - or profile - of CO2 in the climate system. - or as I shall discuss, in any system. Particularly, what effect does heat have on CO2. CO2 as a potent heat trapping gas in the atmosphere does not fractalise: that is to say it does not repeat in any significant way to reveal this claim and account for any other similar heat related phenomena in which it is also present to us. If CO2 is said to be so amazing in the greater atmosphere, it follows it should be also amazing elsewhere too. This is what fractality is. A reasoned - or fractal - look at CO2’s heat related profile and CO2's 'the fractal record'- will reveal the truth that CO2 isn't that temperature amazing. It is a relatively temperature insensitive or benign gas – at all scales, environments and circumstances. If it were so amazing then the likes of: our respiration, weather forecasting, micro climates, avalanche /snow pack theory, greenhouse food production, and (my favourite) plate tectonics would all be accounted for by CO2. Indeed, if heat trapping CO2 had any validity at all we should expect 'life' itself would have evolved - taking advantage of it - or even used it in such things as climate control in insect nests, our respiration and we would expect 'the market' - with all the current political focus and pressure - to use CO2 as a solution to global warming. But it hasn't. Why not? Because it can't and it won't - at least in any significantly measurable amount .
A Theory of Knowledge:
Fractal insights to carbon knowledge claims:
What's the connection? Why fractals?
Well, fractals are said to be one of the most important mathematical discoveries ever - I actually think the most important.
Fractals demonstrate to us how the universe is 'built' on simple rules. These rules, or knowledge, (CO2 in this case) seem to repeat at all scales: not in a regular predictable (straight line) way, but in a rough irregular, unpredictable way.
So what is it that I see in fractals that shows us that carbon climatology has it so wrong. It breaks universal rules of knowing.
The rules of knowing: as taken from the fractal:
Rule 1. If the (general) knowledge of the rule is ‘good’ or well enough understood then we should see it repeat itself - ceteris paribus, all else held constant - throughout the (known) universe.
Fig. 1 Development of the Koch Snowflake
Rule 2. That knowledge (such as definitions) should be simple on the surface (as shown at step 4) but complex in the detail (the fractal zoom) - knowledge shares both simplicity and complexity or difficulty when it comes to defining something.
The carbon climate explanation or definition is simple, too simple, and to too many : it is described in a not too difficult to understand way to anybody: from informed adults, to a nine year old child – no disrespect - and from the heavy textbooks and dictionaries, to the basic children’s book. It reads as if is a poster or picture 'cut and pasted' from scripture -compared to the real . It is a flat character.
It is not complex, and this is odd, and leads me to the next insight or rule, and it is wow insight.
If we zoom in on any part of the curve - as you can see below, we see what could be the most important insight into knowledge humanity has ever seen: the seemingly endlessness of knowledge – no matter how deep one drills or zooms into the set, there is always more and more ; more and more of the same stuff; more and more complexity. But all of this built on a simple rule - in the Koch Curve Snowflake adding triangles as from step 1 to 4.
Rule 3. Coupled along with the second rule, the fractal zoom shows knowledge is deep and in a sense can be mined on and on even though we have a general understanding: it will open more questions than it answers - we never fully know.
CO2 does not open more questions about climate in which one could go on to study forever - as water does, and it doesn't leave us still not fully understanding what we've got. Listen to Scientist’s at the top of their game, on subjects as large as gravity, or evolution - both of which are strong established facts - you will hear them almost always utter the words, “we’re still not sure why” or “we still have much to learn”, or “we still don’t have a fill understanding”. This is the fractality of knowledge.
(Carbon) climatologist's utter no such words. They conversely claim to know, claim to have proof, and claim to have consensus on the climate.
A knowledge claim - like those stated on any contents page of any general science book - should be able to be studied further, and maybe even forever, (I hope) and to the highest of academia. Indeed, I actually - without looking - dealt that there is even one University department - in the world - that offers a PhD to puzzle of our understanding of the role CO2 has on the climate system: contrast this with other issues of mass destruction such viruses, asteroids, and the like and we are talking every related institution. Further, I 've never heard a Scientist speak on carbon climate as you hear them speak on the likes of lightening, clouds, aerodynamic etc - it's just shallow talk.
If it is not studied at any deep level, then just what is CO2 climatology? Myth?
Rule 4. That models help us understand phenomena, but do not allow us to predict the future with any accuracy – reality is just too complex.
Fractals and Chaos theory has its origins with climate: climate scientist's should know better: you cannot predict out into the future with models - Economists don't, at least with any accuracy.
Rule 5. General Understanding (for now) is only found where there is free and open peer review – or competition. Monopoly of knowledge is dam right dangerous in any arena.
Refer to my previous blogs for more on Perfect information.
The CO2 profile:
Here I attempt to analyse what we know about CO2 - in relation to climate.
Choose your metaphors; fractals, chaos and attractors are all known to be the mechanics behind metaphors: if you think we live in a greenhouse – you can expect stones to be thrown.
The greenhouse metaphor of the Earth's atmosphere is wrong: a greenhouse traps air behind a glass barrier -restricting convection when air is heated, resulting in an increasing of local (inside greenhouse) air temperature. It should not be associated with the global climate system at all - we do not live in a glasshouse! Convection does repeat, and is one of the laws of thermodynamics.
In fact, the metaphor connect between greenhouse and CO2 should relate to the modern production greenhouses where CO2 is actually pumped into them at relatively high concentration - to improve production! That is the real greenhouse effect of CO2.
Atmospheric Concentration: CO2’s weight behaviour
We all know and don't challenge that helium and hydrogen are lighter than air gases: CO2 is a heavier than air gas – all else being equal - it will sink down if released into the atmosphere. But not all is equal and so it blows around and dilutes quickly away at low concentrations, but we are shown images of CO2 rising from smoke stacks up into the atmosphere, and led to believe that it is floating around - yet its molecular weight of 44.010 g/mols shows it to be a lot heavier than air at 29 g/mols .http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gas-density-d_158.html
Fractalise it: at a small scale - made in the kitchen, using baking soda and vinegar - we can easily demonstrate its weight by pouring it out above a candle; it will flow and put out the candle out just like a flow of water - as shown here.
At a larger scale, volcanoes: which we respect for their sometimes very high CO2 concentrated outflows, flowing out or down the sides of the mountain, and pounding low places -like water. These outflows are real and lethal: the lake over turn of Lake Nyros in African is a horrific recent example of this.
This flow killed everything in its steam.
When reading on the volcanic hazards, they give much reference to CO2 and its downward flowing behavior, none give reference as CO2 being a ‘rising into the air’ gas .
Any thought of this by volcanologists would have to be gross negligence to the people living below.
Heat trapping: CO2’s specific heat capacity
Infrared is Heat ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared#Heat
Teach it any other way you are going to get burnt. If you want to know the effect heat has on a substance - its trapping ability - simply find its specific heat capacity coefficient. expanation of heat capacity
CO2 has a Heat Capacity around 1/2 that of water vapour - which is less than that of the heat capacity of air in general - it won't store heat in any special way. .http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-thermal-properties-d_162.html
Liquid water on the other hand has one of the highest heat capacities - some 4 times that of CO2 . http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/spesific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html
Liquid water will hold its heat 4 times longer than air or CO2, and we can see this evident in scale (fractal) examples from warm steamy bathrooms, our warm breath, hot saunas, oceanic currents, clouds, water heating in homes, water cooling, and so on.
I even have a practical hypothermia survival application; where I was taught to use a large plastic bag to trap the warm moist air breathed out while huddled in the bag. The moist warm air apparently gets into the patients lungs and helps warm them from within. I’ve tried it - had to use it once - and it worked, or was it the warm CO2??
CO2 lags behind Temperature:
This issue is the cux issue of the issue.
CO2 lags behind temperature, at the small scale (kitchen as seen in the video below) to the large(r) global scale shown in the global soil maps below:
The earth clearly vents CO2 with seasonal temperature changes and this should not be surprising, it vents water vapour too.
Click and listen to this radio podcast where 'scientists' ininvertantly talk about what I term CO2 venting in hot (drought) years..
click this and then soil carbon, then go to 02:40
It fractalises - it seems CO2 ‘vents out’ with temperature rise - at all scales.
It interests me that CO2 appears to be more and more insoluble as temperature rises – from small scale to the large scale oceanic solubility pump which may explain this venting.
What’s more (surprisingly!) CO2 density decreases with increase in temperature. it gets lighter when it warms and rises in the same way we understand air does.
The (CO2) Fractal Record
Inspired by the fossil record (which traces the evolutionary journey of living things through the scale of time) : here I intend to trace - at all resonable scales - the expected or 'infered' impact CO2 has (or should have) on the environment.
The fractal record should on a log log (a power law) diagram be a straight line ; saying that at small scales many examples, and conversely at large scales few examples.
If it's good enough for the carbon climatologist's - we should be able to INFER it good enough for…
Our Language, culture and arts
If CO2 were so 'alarming', it would show up in our languages, cultures and arts throughout the world and throughout history. The interesting fact is, that CO2 is not known (to my knowledge) as anything else other than its scientific name, unlike water. Water, like CO2 is everywhere, known (at least to my language English) with words like wet, humid and icy : CO2 fizzy, bubbly, chocking .., but not ever weather related at any scale - other than today's climate. CO2 is not in our poetry - as a metaphor.
Our perceptions: an invisible and odorless gas:
Imagine for a moment if we could see CO2 as easy as you can water (clouds), would we feel the same about it if it were as visible? It's everywhere. What would the chances be of convincng people to cut our emissions of water and store it away to manage the climate? This maybe not as crazy as it sounds, it would logically - on the evidense I am putting forward in the support of water - be the best solution.
If during respiration we breathe out or expire around 4 to 5% CO2, - 40,000 to 50,000ppmv - compared to the said current 391 – 450ppmv of concern in the atmosphere , then CO2 should - at least in part - explain why our breath is warm.
But I have found no reference that would support such a thesis. It is well understood to both Medicine and Biology that water vapour functions as raising the outside air temperature to our body temperature before the air reaches our lungs.
Interesting to see the pollution is trapped down by the inversion - I wonder if that includes CO2?
One of the great geological revelations of the modern scientific age is that of plate tectonics, and continental drift, may well be all powered by water. At oceanianic subduction zones - where water (along with carbon) is subducted - water is said to play an important role by lubricating the sub ducting slab, and lowering the melting temperature of the rock, forming magma, which rises to the surface to from volcanoes and continental crust. It is said that it is water that drives the whole process; effectively we would not be here if it were not for this process. http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Tw-Z/Volcanoes-and-Water.html
What interests me, is that in the above process CO2 is not mentioned as even being part party to the 'crime'. Yet it is there, and it is there in extremely high volumes and concentrations.
Please view this next YouTube lecture.
This is a brilliant lecture, and should be watched in its entirety. But may I draw your attention to the time 23:04 where the real CO2 (under such heat and pressure) is revealed – you will hear that CO2 all but subducts. CO2 is passive in contrast to water – and this is totally consistent with its to fractal record.
CO2 is relatively heat benign.
On the other hand, the volatility of explosive volcanoes is often explained, comparing them to and being scale similar to that of a cork being released from a champagne bottle - no problems scaling that analogy.
From the above, why aren't there any temperature (packaging) issues surrounding the 'bottling or canning of carbonated drinks? Anyway, if CO2 is so dangerous, why do we still have carbonated drinks?
That alone is inconsistent with dangerous goods.
Mosquito's and rescue robots
Mosquito's hone in on the trail of their prey's (exhaled) CO2 . They then - when in close proximity - switch to heat scenery IR detection. In none of the references I found on this did I read that they do both - which you would think they would - at the same time: track the heat trail of the CO2.
Similarly, at a more human scale, I listened to this radio interview on robotic rescue technology where droids will - in the same way as the mosquitoes - tracked buried people track them by first sensing there CO2 and then there body heat - again not by sensing both.
Commander Jim Lovell spoke on CO2 heat and water in his personal commentary on the DVD version of the Hollywood movie Apollo 13 . He clearly describes the situation - where were the three men in a survival situation - but makes no logical mention of a connect between the (cold) temperature situation and the high CO2 concentration.
He described the worries of :
- the cold and how the space craft was loosing heat over time - due to no power - down to near freezing at the end of the flight
- and the rise in CO2 levels,
- also the condensation build up because of the cold temperatures and the concern of electric shorting.
There is a diurnal temperature cycle. Here again the pattern should show up. Mars’s radiated infrared (heat) should be absorbed by its (even if weak) CO2 atmosphere, at least to keep it a little warmer at night. Instead, from what I can see, temperatures rise and then plummet, there is no such water vapour buffer as we have here on Earth . http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2681.html
Again, if CO2 were as sensitive as it is made out to be, wouldn’t you think that it would at least be part of the solution to global warming - it does traps heat right?!
Where I grew up - in (Southern) New Zealand - we had, and still have, an environmental problem with introduced , predator free animals - such as the deer from Europe and North America and opossums from Australia - where they eat out and destroy the native flora and fauna. I myself was involved - be it in a small way - in this massive (national) market solution where we trapped and hunted the vermin and then exported the produce - fur and meat. It all evolved out of necessity and while not completely solving the problem , we never will, we are managing it - as shown in this clip.
One would think, similar to the above, that the entrepreneur - seeking profit - would’ve found out all the opportunities CO2 offers, and what’s more, all of this would have happened long ago – all the solutions would be old and known.
The reality is for CO2 we haven’t found any temperature trapping related use for it, and in all respect to ourselves nor has any other living thing (to my knowledge). Instead scientist entrepreneurs are - bizarrely - lobbing Government: finding ways to bury it like it is a toxin.
Industry applications for CO2
The following is comprehensive reference shows no evidence of temperature utility for CO2.http://encyclopedia.airliquide.com/Encyclopedia.asp?GasID=26
CO2 gas fill – in double glazed windows
If I may, I would like to suggest a market solution to end this problem once and for all.
My proposal is to collect this (precious to life) gas and use it as an insulate: the most practical being in double glazed windows. I have reasoned, read and consulted with people in the window industry, enough to know that it definitely will not work – at least enough to be measurable or economic - and to be fair and balanced I have also equally reasoned, read and consulted enough people in the climate arena to know CO2 is not working there also – at least enough to be measurable.http://www.gugsconservatories.co.uk/energyefficientwins4.htm
From this industry website I quote: “Other types of gases can be used (for example, sulphur hexafluoride, carbon dioxide) to reduce sound transmission, but these gases do not offer the improved thermal performance of the inert gases mentioned above.”- Who says the market is first to rip people off?
If it works in the atmosphere is should equally work in our homes, and work places – in our windows. After all we do use water in radiators to regulate temperature in the same scaled way atmosphere and oceanic currents regulate temperature globally.
Standards should be set that all windows be CO2 filled in the name of saving our planet. Agents from government or small firms will specialize in the drilling, filling and sealing of windows. A sticker will show proof of fill (or should that be proof of fool), and money will be exchanged for the service: it will be next to impossible to test if a window is actually filled as CO2 is colourless and odourless.
At a micro scale the exercise will at least demonstrate the fraud of the carbon centred climate. It will act as a wake up call, a mirror – a call for reason. It will also leave 'some of us' wondering - red faced - if it isn’t CO2 that drives our climate – what does?
|Heating the inspired air also helps the water molecules to move faster, break away and evaporate from the watery layer of mucus on the cilia into the inspired airflow.|
The nose has evolved to humidify the air with preheated water, which is explained better here explanation of nose humidifying/ air warming function – the pattern is repeated in the same way for -at least - all other mammalian animals.
The concentrations of CO2 are so high (in climate terms) that respiration itself should explain the process – but it doesn’t, at all.
I have reviewed the thermal mechanics of the termite mounds - searching for CO2 as a temperature regulating gas – it didn’t take me long to see that there is not such reference. Indeed it is water that cools the mounds and indeed termites actually maximize mound ventilation to get rid of the CO2 - as it is a toxin to them, funny enough.
skip to 5:10 on this YouTube clip you'll get it all:
In this journal article I found this reference to temperature and CO2, but again it does not offer a connection. I quote: “While this has no negative consequences in small colonies, it produces a trade-off with gas exchange in large colonies, resulting in sub optimally low nest temperatures and increased CO2 concentrations.” http://www.springerlink.com/content/qphv36egp67b0a08/
Interestingly, Termites – our heroes of engineering and society don’t have a (CO2) climate problem.
In modern production greenhouses, CO2 is pumped in at concentration of 1 – 1.2% - not to regulate temperature but to improve production!
I have found nowhere yet where life uses CO2 as a substitute or even a compliment to regulate temperature - anywhere.
I recently (2007ish) listened to a BBC radio interview with a scientist researching into the future effects of CO2 on plant growth: he pumped up a greenhouse to the future 500ppmv, and then – to mimic the effects of ‘climate change' - he increased the temperature with a heater.
Weather forecasting: the connect between meteorology and climatology – the micro to the macro
The micro should be a function of the macro – this is true for all systems and sciences - as it is in my field, Economics. Economics' used to be all micro and some argue it still should be: macroeconomics is a relatively new area of study, but before its advent, it all used to be studied as one . One can describe a country - in generality - as one can describe an individual, a firm or any form of life. The fundamentals are the same, at all scales: trade, exchange, specialisation, cooperation and reproduction are all universal. New Carbon Climatology has much to say about CO2 at the 'macro', but where is it in the 'micro' - the weather? Ask the professionals (pilots, fishers, farmers, mountaineers and the like) whom live and die by their forecasting and knowledge of the weather whether they make (at least in part) their decisions or evaluations on current CO2 levels or if they even know anything about the physics of CO2 and I bet the answer is no. I know the answer is no. I personally once trained as a pilot, and have been an outdoor adventurer for some 30 years (and for a time was an instructor ) and in that time I have found no such reference.
All the said professionals do all they can to dodge water based phenomena - big clouds. CO2 does not factor in their lives - and you would be laughed at - in their company - if you suggest it does.
Snow pack stability - avalanches
Not withstanding all the professions mentioned above, to me there is no profession or knowledge area quite as sensitive to getting it right as that of avalanche theory and practice ; a place where lives depend on scientific application of the knowledge and is generally thought to be well understood.
Again, I have found no reference so show that CO2 is cause of snow pack instability.
Why should it? You may ask. Again, if it were a potent, heat absorbing gas it would change the stability of the snow pack (as it is thought to do in the climate), and it would be part of our knowledge -because our lives depend on such knowledge. CO2 is heavy, it sinks, it must be present in the snow and on mountains, especially on volcanoes. There are many ski areas on volcanoes - is this part of their risk management.
The physical properties of water, geography and solar influence explain much of the stability or instability problems associated to avalanches, not (at all) the thermal properties of CO2.
Temperature Gradients: in atmosphere and snow pack: