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.

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  

I – earlier in my life – personally trained as a pilot, and have been an outdoor adventurer for some 30 years, and for some time of this as an outdoor instructor and guide: in this time, I have never heard of a connection between weather and CO2.

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.

They are the likes of the aviators, the mariners, and the mountaineers – the fishers, sailors, and the farmers. Whether they are professionals, or whether they be amateurs, they all depend on their knowledge of the weather. They do not derive their knowledge of meteorology from the media – if they did, they would be measuring CO2 levels, at the same time they tap their barometer – as they walk out the door. They quite literally live (and die) by their ability to read the meteorological phenomena, and they are proud of their knowledge. They sport it, and talk it, in specialist language that earns incredible respect. They read instruments – air pressure, temperature, humidity, and wind speed – which is often at the frontier of technology; they can equally use their eyes to read the clouds, and by the weather maps. They are often experts with the science (even if they have not studied it directly), and they will not stand for non-sense. Even the mere act of me writing and suggesting they factor it, is laughable, and any attempt to suggest to them directly that they should, would no dealt result in sharp ridicule.
They are able to decide, evaluate and predict the on coming weather; but nowhere do they use, or factor CO2 concentrations into their thinking. Why not? CO2 is everywhere, and is said to determine the climate, so why not the weather? It may well be that it does factor, but one might suspect, at a levels too low to cause any accident.
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. 

Repeating where I started, we should be able to infer CO2’s role in the climate from its role in the above examples.
What is known, and what is factored – and what all the above groups are very familiar with – is the science of water.  
With water they study its properties – often to the highest level – but never (as far as I can tell) do they study the physics of CO2.

2. Snow pack stability - CO2 and avalanches

Is CO2 a causal factor of snow pack instability?

Not withstanding the activities mentioned above, there maybe no other profession quite so sensitive to getting knowledge wrong than that of avalanche theory and practice. Again it is a practice where peoples lives depend directly on scientific knowledge and application – in this case, the knowledge of snow – and is one where I have had direct involvement with. If CO2 traps heat in the way it is said to do in the atmosphere (and determine and underpin the climate) then if follows it should have an affect in a snow pack too.  We must assume it is present there, at least (at the ambient 380 ppmv) as: it is denser than air and so would sink and flow down through the snow pack (at higher than ambient concentrations) in much the same way cold dense air does (in adiabatic/ katabolic mountain winds) Snow experts would surely know about this, if it were true, just as they know and understand  the affect wind has on the snow stability; and CO2 preserves in (ancient) ice-core samples – dating back many thousands of years.  It would most certainly show its instability affect on volcanoes – as CO2 is vented from them, and at (sometimes) high concentrations.
It is standard practice for mountain adventurer’s to dig snow pits to evaluate the snow pack for its stability where they measure, monitor, record and share such things as the temperature, the snow layers, and snow crystal type of a cross section of the pack.  They do not at all measure CO2 concentrations.
Experts – and amateurs alike – understand that it is the physical properties of water, temperature gradients, weather history, geography, and the heat from the sun that explain much of the instability problems associated with snow-packs and cause avalanches, but not (at all) the thermal properties of CO2. If it does, it may be that it is so low that it is not measurable, noticeable, or pose any danger.

3. Plate tectonics – the role of water, and the (lack of) role of CO2

Plate tectonics and continental drift is said to be one of the most important discoveries of the modern (scientific) age, complementing our knowledge of the evolution of life on earth.
Of particular interest is the phenomena of arc subduction zones, where continental crust is produced and volcanic activity prevalent.

The role of water

At 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 " 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.

In the following lecture clip (among the best on this subject of arc subduction and should be watched in its entirety) at 23:04 minutes the Professor turns his attention to the gases and liquids, inputs and outputs and effects. With such heat, water reacts, and is vented off, but next to all the CO2 subducts onwards into the mantle, and only part of it (20%) is vented out of the volcanoes above. CO2 is here, or at least appears to be, infrared heat benign. CO2 does not appear to play any part in the process – as does the water.

24:08 " the phases(?) that are carrying the carbon into the mantle are really stable, and they see through the tremendous temperatures and pressures which are exerted on them when they make it into the mantle; so they are stable through these, and they pass most probably into the deeper mantle."

If the CO2 trapped heat, it would be extremely dangerous at the surface, not only for its suffocation danger, but also for its heat danger. Water at the surface is dangerous for it’s heat – this makes more sense because it is known that water traps heat.  Is there any signage in volcanic parks where people are warned of the hot CO2 in the same way they are warned for the hot water?
One would conclude from this that it difficult to infer CO2 as a potent, temperature sensitive gas.

4. Respiration – CO and 'our' warm breath.

The nose has a function of regulating air temperature in respiration: when we breathe in through our nose air is warmed in the nasal cavity to body temperature – ready for the lungs. Why Does My Nose Run When It is Cold Outside? We (humans) can (apparently) breathe in at air temperatures lower than -40C, and the same air will reach the lungs at body temperature – moments later. How does it work? Does CO2 have a role to play?

The role of CO2

CO2 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 COis 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

What the literature suggests is that process is attributed to the physical properties of water (vapour). The nasal cavity has evolved to humidify the air with pre-heated (from the body) water: explanation of nose humidifying/ air warming function.

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

Termites in their mounds have both a temperature regulation problems, and (independently) high CO2 concentration problems. Literature on termites does not point to a connect between temperature and CO2 concentrations. Counter to carbon-climate theory – which ties CO2 concentrations to temperature changes (at the global scale) – termites maximize mound ventilation to expel toxic CO2 – this is made easier as CO2 is dense and sinks; and in a separate process, water (evaporation) is used to regulate the temperature (or cool) the mound.
More to come on this..

6. The (lack of a) Market – for heat trapping CO2

Not 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).
Gas Encyclopedia
The fact that – in 'all' the different cultures and languages – CO2 is only known by it’s scientific name, rather than any other (unlike water and heat, which has a different name in every language) is testament of its unimportance. This is not to say the gas was not identified and named early on, but it was not known, and isolated and used in the context of heat.

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.
The free market (to sure thinkers) offers alternative solutions to environmental problems by the 'f'ree' trade of the good. As extreme as they may sometimes sound, paradoxically, by exploiting the problem they can help control the problem (the externality). Examples may be seen in developing countries, where plastic-bag littering is a problem: a market solution spawned where products are created from the waste; or in countries where noxious pests destroy sensitive environments, the 'pests' are hunted and their by-products (meat and fur for example) are sold, controlling the numbers of the pest. There is even talk of legalising the trade of banned substances.
There is no evidence for any similar market use developed for CO2. The reality is that with CO2 - as shown above - we have not found any temperature trapping or related use for it.  In all respect to us humans, nor has any other life form (to the authors knowledge).  

Suggested (Scam!) market opportunity. 

CO2 does open itself for a scam: CO2 filled – double glazed windows. But not even the dis-honest (to date) have exploited this opportunity – to develop one of  CO2’s said 'features'. Unlike the bomb detectors bought by the UN!
If it works for the atmosphere and climate, it must work for the window. The only reason it won't work is that people won't believe it.
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.
If it were used, it would most definitely be a scam: from this industry website we can see why: Reference: Double Glazing - Gas Filling  “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."

Other records

There are many other places where COand 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.   


The fractal record of heat trapping CO2  reveals no evidence of a relationship of such a relationship (at least in the instances covered). If anyone claims that CO2 to be the cause of global climate change, be it at the hand of humans of not and through all of time, they will have to also explain why their claim does not explain the items in this entry (without rewriting them).
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 (CO is a heat trapping gas) is flawed, purely on fractal grounds.

No comments:

Post a Comment