I have discovered why CO2 is not a special heat trapping gas: Reinterpreting-John-Tyndalls experiment
The Fractal Record of heat trapping CO2
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:
- weather forecasting, the (micro atmosphere)
- the snowpack stability
- plate tectonics
- termite mounds
- market solution - why is (heat trapping) CO2 not sold, or shown to have a utility?
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.
The following fractal analysis is expected to offend (some), and it is totally possible – and expected – that some people will, after understanding the following observations, attempt to rewrite the cause of them so as my fractal record observations (as crudely presented as they might be) become the truth - so that they fit or 'save the phenomena' of the carbon-climatology premise. This phenomenon of changing the truth to save the phenomena is well explained in the following podcast, and the fact that this may happen is on it own (in the context of the man made climate issue) a repeating pattern.
Philosopher Alan Musgrave on realism and surrealism about science, or whether or not Adam and Eve had bellybuttons.
1. The atmosphere – CO2 and weather forecasting
There is a set of activities from which we should easily be able to deduce or infer (or not) our knowledge of the heat trapping CO2 – be it indirectly in this case – and that is from those who read (and use their knowledge of) the weather. The lives of the participants in these activates (and professions) depend on sound knowledge of meteorological phenomena for their survival. In such a case, if the carbon-climate claim were true, we would use these actives and professions (as examples) to help understand the said trapping phenomena of CO2. There would be no questioning it – if this were the case.
If it were a factor: it would be measured, monitored, reported and recorded – it is not. It would line the textbooks – be a known factor in the adiabatic laps rate – and would be questioned in examinations – it is not. It would form part of general engine icing theory in aviation – not a mention. It would be part of instrumentation, and be on the instrument panel of every craft and just like a barometer/altimeter. It is not. It would be used in weather prediction is: charts would be drawn with isotherm isobar like presentation. There are not.
2. Snow pack stability - CO2 and avalanches
3. Plate tectonics – the role of water, and the (lack of) role of CO2
The role of waterAt oceanic subduction zones water from the oceans – along with carbon – is subducted into the mantle: water is said to play an important role ‘as a lubricant’ to the subducting slab, lowering the melting temperature of the rock; forming magma – which is relatively less dense and rises to the surface to from volcanoes, and continental crust.
It is said that it is water that is an essential ingredient that drives the whole process continental production: effectively we would not be here if it were not for this process. Volcanoes-and-Water.
The following video clip describes this process and particularly the role water plays in his process. 4:47 "..one of life's key cycles here." 5:09 "Water is the to the ring of fire".
The (lack of a) role of CO2
In this context, both heat and CO2 are present. Here, at plate boundaries CO2 should show its relationship with infrared heat, and stand as an example or inference of the carbon-climate. It doesn't.
In the process in the clip above, CO2 is not given mention – not even as being part party to the process – yet it is there, and at extremely high volumes and concentrations.
One would conclude from this that it difficult to infer CO2 as a potent, temperature sensitive gas.
4. Respiration – CO2 and 'our' warm breath.
The role of CO2CO2 is also expired through the nose at a concentration of 4 to 5% of volume (40,000 to 50,000 ppmv) during respiration. This concentration increase equates to a 12,721% change in concentration –– from the 0.039% or 390ppmv ambient atmosphere and should explain or account for – at least in part – this process of rapid temperature increase – given CO2 is a heat trapping gas. The nose should stand as an example of CO2’s temperature power, and support (easily) the carbon-climate thesis.
There are no references (at the time of this publishing) to be found to support such a CO2 thesis in both medicine and biology literature. It maybe that the effect of CO2 on this temperature change in the nose is there, but the affect is too small to measure.
The role of Water
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.
5. Termite Mounds
More to come on this..
6. The (lack of a) Market – for heat trapping CO2Not to be confused with carbon trading markets (those, to date, have failed), the market structure itself – or in this case the lack of one – may offer a source of truth. CO2 does not stand, in terms of temperature and feedbacks, as a substitute or a complement in production or consumption. The profit seeking entrepreneur (whether you term entrepreneurship human or beyond human - the 'nature' world') is quick to seize upon and develop new ideas, opportunities and technologies: if CO2 has significant infrared heat trapping characteristics, as the present claims states, it would be expected that the market would have (long ago) discovered it, used it, and evolved with it – just as it has with the likes of water and fire. To repeat the general theme of this article, CO2 would form part of ‘our’ general scientific knowledge and language.
The following is comprehensive list showing the industrial uses of CO2. There is no reference or evidence of any temperature utility, feedback's or the like for CO2. (as of the likes of water).
Lack of a direct heat trapping CO2 gas market solution to climate change.
If these (temperature) properties of CO2 were true, CO2 should/would/could offer – at least in part – a solution to ‘global-warming’ as it traps heat. Instead of resources been allocated (money spent) on bizarrely burying CO2 ( the life giving gas it is), like it is a toxin, the market should/would/could use it for what it is said to offer.
Suggested (Scam!) market opportunity.
Collect this (precious to life) gas and use it as an insulate: the most practical being in double glazed windows. It should be noted: that if one were to reason, read or consult with people in the window industry, they would learn that it definitely will not work – at least enough to be measurable or economic.
Other recordsThere are many other places where CO2 and heat are gathered and show little relationship: I have found that to expand on these takes to much time, and starts to (without background knowledge) sound like conjecture.
Either the carbon- climate theory is wrong, or the fractal record of CO2 and infrared heat is wrong. If it is the latter that is wrong, then all of the knowledge of the above items will have to be changed to fit the carbon-climate theory.
What ever way it goes, as the author of this entry, I can't lose: I have either made a great discovery - granting new insights to the natural world through the above items (unlikely); or I have successfully used the fractal to (help) quash an epic myth.
In my next entry (4 of 5) - the CO2 profile, I shall attempt to show that the premise (CO2 is a heat trapping gas) is flawed, purely on fractal grounds.