Sunday, March 31, 2013

The fractal record of (heat trapping) CO2

Update 2015 05 04
I have discovered why CO2 is not a special heat trapping gas: Reinterpreting-John-Tyndalls experiment

The Fractal Record of heat trapping CO2

This is a study to identify other places or instances where CO2 traps heat in the everyday real world -  as it is implied. The 'fractal record' (taken from the fossil record) shows there are no examples (at least at a level to be measurable) or evidence to support the claim CO2 traps heat; that CO2 is a special heat trapping gas.
To develop the fractal (record) as an instrument of reason. 
To end carbon-climate debate.
The fractal record should help settle the inductive argument (set by carbon-climatology) and show the truth and real relationship between heat and CO2. CO2 and (infrared) heat are next to ubiquitous (at least) on Earth: in this entry I shall (crudely, as I am not an expert) identify and analyse the occurrences where the two ('heat' and CO2) are present and should point to support the claim of greenhouse heat tapping CO2. If CO2 traps heat, and is the cause of climate change – it should also be the cause of, and form part of our general understanding of the below:
  1. weather forecasting, the (micro atmosphere) 
  2. the snowpack stability
  3. plate tectonics 
  4. respiration 
  5. termite mounds 
  6.  market solution - why is (heat trapping) CO2 not sold, or shown to have a utility?
The fractal record?
The fractal record is directly inspired by the fossil record of life: it aims to show a record of  instances or examples of a said rule or object (at all different scales or places) – in this case CO2’s said heat trapping property (of carbon-climatology). It will show us (or not) if and where the premise repeats in nature; and reveal the expected (or 'inferred') effect the said gas has on temperature and (should have) on its surrounding environment  – given our understanding of the premise.
I could have equally developed a fractal record on the premise of orbiting bodies, but that would not be so interesting  – at least today in the 21 Century – to demonstrate the fractal.
In the previous entry 'the CO2 profile' I show that the premise 'CO2 is a heat trapping (greenhouse) gas' is mis-interpreted. It may - compared to the vaccum of space - trap heat, but nothing like water. It is nothing special, only typical.

Friday, March 8, 2013

Measuring the fractal wavelength

An attempt to measure the fractal wavelength.
This entry came (to me) from working on the fractal spiral, the fractal wave, and de Broglie demand curve entries. I thought - as it is impossible to measure both time and distance - that it may be possible to measure - even if only in principle - the distance of the wavelength - based on a known dimension, the length of the triangle side (l).

Fig. 1 below shows the fractal and its (while developing) 'wave like' nature. It shows the wave takes 6 iterations to repeat or produce one cycle, but it does not show the length of the wave, the wavelength (λ).

Fig. 1 

Measuring the wavelength, an experiment.
I came to me that through a simple 'experiment', the wavelength (λ) may be measure, or at least better understood.

  1. Take the iteration 0 triangle, and post it on a wall. 
  2. Cut out from a paper print the iteration 1 triangle from the fully developed Koch snowflake 
  3. Hold the paper at arms length and sight the triangle 0 through the triangle 1 hole.
  4. The arm length will be known as a standard observation distance* 
  5. Move forward or back with the paper extended at standard distance, and find the place where the triangle 0 appears the same size as triangle 1. 
  6. Make a mark of this distance.
  7. Repeat the process, this time for triangle 2, mark the distance. 
  8. Repeat the process, this time for triangle 3, mark the distance. 
  9. Record the distances (in metres) then divide these distances by the triangle base length.
*There is an issue with the 'standard distance': The accuracy and thus validity of the distances measured in process 6,7,8 and 9 are dependent on the standard distance, and as this distance is subjective, there is a measurement problem. And thus no standard distance.
More to come.