Friday, August 5, 2016

To Professor Brian Cox on Facebook on Contradictions

I have placed the following comment on Professor Brian Cox's Facebook sight in response to the following clip; I look forward to review and or feedback.

Professor Cox, yes those laws 'repeat all over the universe', but there are two gaseous molecules that - by 'our' understanding of greenhouse theory - contradict these laws, nitrogen and oxygen - together making up some 99% of Earths atmosphere. In greenhouse theory N2 and O2 are assumed, as if by law, not to absorb or emit radiation, but this, if true, is in violation of both thermodynamics and quantum mechanics where everything above absolute zero and with spectra lines (vibration modes) vibrates and radiates; but conversely, if found wrong of mistaken, would pose a violation of greenhouse theory. So what gives? I have found the solution to the problem, and thermodynamics and QM hold; it is greenhouse theory as we know it that needs to be reviewed. N2 and O2 have (I have discovered) predicted vibration modes (by the QM Schrodinger equation - no less) within the infrared range of the EMS at 2330cm-1 and 1556cm-1 respectively. These predicted modes (I have discovered) cannot be measured by thermoelectric detectors as used in 'IR spectroscopy' (the same used to define the so called greenhouse gases and first used by John Tyndall in 1859) due to a vibration property they - and all the other greenhouse gases actually - share, but they can be (very clearly) measured by Raman spectroscopy - the complementary instrument to IR spectroscopy. If you think these modes, and what I have uncovered is trivial, well they are not, else a CO2 laser would not function. N2, at the said 2330 mode is excited (just as with your hydrogen) so as to 'pump' CO2's (close) 2349cm-1 mode. In laser theory, N2 is said to be metastable, long lasting. Please note I am not suggesting the atmosphere is a laser, it is just that the mode(s) exist.

In advance of the attacks I will no dealt receive over this claim, please tell me where I am directly wrong - everything to my claim is from published work, and is easily accessible and is standard knowledge to any chemist or physicist. And please note, there are no so-called 'climate sceptics' that enjoy my claim, this is a new pillar. If I am right though, this will be the greatest upset to science since the beginning of modern science itself, since Galileo pointed his telescope. The atmosphere only has greenhouse gases, just as Fourier first posited - no special ones - and CO2 is, I'm afraid, trivial.

Friday, May 6, 2016

Lorenz Curve of the Universe's Elements

Update May 2017
I have published a working paper on the Lorenz curve being a fractal property at

Global income has increased exponentially over the last two hundred years; while, and at the same time respective Gini coefficients have also increased: this investigation tested whether this pattern is a property of the mathematical geometry termed a fractal attractor. The Koch Snowflake fractal was selected and inverted to best model economic production and growth: all triangle area sizes in the fractal grew with iteration-time from an arbitrary size – growing the total set. Area of triangle the ‘bits’ represented wealth. Kinematic analysis – velocity and acceleration – was undertaken, and it was noted growing triangles propagate in a sinusoidal spiral. Using Lorenz curve and Gini methods, bit size distribution – for each iteration-time – was graphed. The curves produced matched the regular Lorenz curve shape and expanded out to the right with fractal growth – increasing the corresponding Gini coefficients: contradicting Kuznets cycles. The ‘gap’ between iteration triangle sizes (wealth) was found to accelerate apart, just as it is conjectured to do so in reality. It was concluded the wealth (and income) Lorenz distribution – along with acceleration properties – is an aspect of the fractal. Form and change of the Lorenz curve are inextricably linked to the growth and development of a fractal attractor; and from this – given real economic data – it can be deduced an economy – whether cultural or not – behaves as a fractal and can be explained as a fractal. Questions of the discrete and wave properties and the accelerated expansion – similar to that of trees and the conjectured growth of universe at large – of the fractal growth, were discussed.
May 5th 2016
What a time, what a week, what a day – this morning I had the ‘Eureka’ of my life. For years now I’ve had my fractal model matching the evolution of the universe, but with what I discovered this morning, I now have it also matching the evolution of the elements and the periodic table. Everything fits – inextricably – through the geometry of a fractal. If you don't mind, I'm going to share, for the record, how this came about – before I get my head down writing it up. Madness!
Last week I received my paper back from an economics journal on the Lorenz Curve (income and wealth distribution) and it being a universal aspect of the fractal. (see my earlier entries: (1),(2), and (3)
They had questions for me relating to how I get growth, and accelerating growth out of this geometry - I hadn’t included this in my methods ? I replied to them saying: the Lorenz distribution is one aspect of the fractal, and that with all its aspects together (I have discovered) the fractal demonstrates (at least for economists) production, consumption and equilibrium (and other stuff). Can I write everything up in one paper for you with all the aspects? Or?
Anyway, at the same time as all this, I’ve been listening to a podcast (about 10 times actually) on (Rutherford and) Chadwick’s Neutron (prediction and) discovery, and heard the scientists talking on how the atom cannot get larger than Uranium before becoming unstable; and that the lighter elements Hydrogen (H) and Helium (He) 'want' to get larger, and that iron is the ‘sweet spot’.
On about Tuesday I started to think fractal (again). Do the elements of the universe form a Lorenz curve? If they do, this is important. I searched the numbers, and drew a conclusion in quick time. Damn! Yes they do! Of course they do! Hydrogen constitutes 75% of the elements, and Helium some 23% - the rest are small fry compared. They are the ‘one the percent’ – they hold the ‘wealth’ of the elements not dissimilar to any other system. And then I thought about the other aspects of the fractal: equilibrium, production cost… equilibrium ..cost.. equilibrium...?? and then it came to me: Iron is the equilibrium - the ‘sweet spot’! And the lighter elements before iron are out of equilibrium, and so too are the heavier unstable one’s larger than it. This all conforms to my fractal model, and so I then thought about the time involved – because the first bits ( the H and He), of a fractal are the largest and their 'wealth' accelerates with time - think of the trunk of a tree as it grows, they actually do accelerate. Again – a fit. H and He were 'created', one after the other, in the first 1 or 2 seconds of the ‘big bang’. The other small fry element (and us) came later – and the sub-atomic particles earlier.
Now I’m going to try again, and get someone’s (a physicists) attention; because I really don’t want to explain this to an economist.
May 6th 2016
I have created a Lorenz Curve of the (118) known elements in the universe by their abundance. Reference: Abundance in the Universe of the elements
I have been watching the documentary BBC Atom: The Key to the Cosmos for inspiration. Below is an image of Jim Al-Khalili showing iron Fe the most stable and of 'modest' abundance of the elements. And below that the periodic table showing how and when elements were formed. The older the more abundant.

Thermoelectric atmosphere dialog 2

Blair Macdonald A deductive approach to special heat trapping property of CO2 would suggest CO2 should reveal its property where ever it is. It should be a Law of science: known, understand and not a discussion or controversy - like H2O isn't. I have for many years evaluated CO2 for this special property and have found no(!) examples of this special property of CO2. CO2 is next to everywhere, it does not explain or feature in literature where it should. The likes of: cloud formation, met theory, avalanche cause and theory (it is some 5000ppmv in the snowpack), plate tectonics (CO2 mostly subducts) respiration theory explaining how air is warmed from the nose to the lungs from extreme cold temperatures when the CO2 concentrations in the nose are some 45,000ppmv). None! of these make a mention of CO2's apparent special heat trapping property, Venus is not hot because of CO2 alone, it has a 90bar atmosphere pressure, that is enough to explain extreme and unusual temperature. But there is another instance where it doesn't feature and it should. WE WOULD US IT IF IT WERE SO SPECIAL - nothing does. We would have used it through time, and all of life would have evolved to use it. SO lets use it as a solution ( as scientists say it traps heat). I suggest we put it in double glazed windows to trap the heat via the 'greenhouse effect' (as stated by 97% of all scientists) I aim to start a crowd funded business, and call it CO2 FILLED . Would The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (Official) be a patron? If you don't you know you are a denier.
Simon Gigase Didnt read lol
UnlikeReply12 April at 11:30
Benjamin Wenham This reads like procedurally generated glossolalia.

Dude, the fact that CO2 is opaque to chunks of the Infrared section of the EM spectrum has been established since 1859.
But even before that, it was predicted that something would be found that had similar effects, because heat generated by solar irradience alone, could not explain the temperature found on earth. The effect of CO2 on climate is so significant, that scientists knew it had to exist 35 years before the discovery that the effect did exist.

Learn some history of science
LikeReply12 April at 15:36Edited
Blair Macdonald Benjamin Wenham By the '35 years before': are you referring to Fourier? If not who?
Benjamin Wenham Yes, Fourier, and then Claude Servais Mathias Pouillet , to name the two more commonly noted.
UnlikeReply12 April at 16:12
Blair Macdonald So Benjamin, in one (and only one) context CO2 is all powerful, and in all others is benign; that is supernatural. Something is wrong. I think I know where the problem is, and it is right where you are alluding, 1859. This is the year John Tyndall used the thermopile to define what were later to be defined as the GHGs. I have investigated his experiment at length and reinterpreted it: he in fact discovered the thermoelectric gases (N2 and O2 are not thernoelectric) via the electricity

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Thermoelectric atmosphere Facebook dialog

The following is a dialog with scientists to do with my thermoelectric interpretation of the atmosphere. 

The first is from a dialog from facebook.  I am showing this to show the logical fallacies scientists  are using, but they are not listening to my arguments. But I am learning from their dialogs because they take me everywhere except on the issue, the claim - that thermoelectrics must be understood to understand the atmosphere.
These dialogs are a typical response I get from scientists.

Blair Macdonald How would a climate like Copernicus, Galileo or Darwin be accepted today? What would happen - just say as a thought experiment - CO2 and all the GHGs were found to be totally benign due to a mistake in the assumptions ( and the key premise)That say the detectors were misunderstood: that we all got it wrong? Would he or she be a hero of a villain?
Nils Lindgren Yes - I am certain you are the first to think of this. Surely noone has questioned nor looked into the key assumptions. Hats off: the Nobel Committe is waiting.
LikeReply12 April at 12:15

Another Dialog: 
Blair Macdonald The great question is what to do with the unbelievers? Help us The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (Official), what should we do?

Educate them: someone replied
Blair Macdonald But they are educated.
Steve Ridge Just like creationists are "educated."
Blair Macdonald Okay, they're uneducated, yes. So, lets listen to Lawrence here, he's the master educator (for me). I think he speaks for the science establishment (sorry organisations..any country on the planet).
Justin Keller Blair Macdonald "But they are educated."

Based on what I read in your paper, I'm going to have to disagree.

Justin Keller Your video is the perfect example. Here is the warming trend 1997 to present in both the UAH and NASA GISS record. more

Blair Macdonald Justin Keller I'm educated enough to know this

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking t…
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller I sent the links to 1000Frolly, it's for him to respond.
Justin Keller Blair Macdonald "Justin Keller I sent the links to 1000Frolly, it's for him to respond."

I thought you said you were educated on this topic. Why can't you respond?

Blair Macdonald Jeff Wolverton Justin and I have been communicating on this thread where I have made a claim and he has only attacked, hence ad hominem. I have know worries about ALL, of course its ALL. This is the global doctrine, it's everywhere. Why didn't you add the pope, global stock markets, and my children's daycare. It all reads the same, everywhere, it's like the bible, its scripture. It's not science, its religion, and Lawrence should listen to himself - can you not hear his ranting mantra? Please take a listen to this very good podcast, I think it is relevant. I think climate stands as an example of secular surrealism.
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller 'Why can't you respond?' it is not my area of focus. I'd like to know his opion on your source. I have no idea. I am not going to draw any conclusion that you are: rising CO2 is the cause. I'm glad its rising, keep it coming, its healthy, it's not a sin ( like you seem to think it is).
Justin Keller No, I have thoroughly shown in the other thread that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Raman scattering is a very weak effect and it does not effect outgoing infrared radiation emitted by earth, as is plainly evidence in earth's spectral flux at the top of the atmosphere.
Justin Keller "I am not going to draw any conclusion that you are: rising CO2 is the cause."

We have measured the enhanced greenhouse effect from anthropogenic carbon dioxide. That shows a direct cause-effect relationship between rising atmospheric co2 and rising global temperatures.

Blair Macdonald Jeff Wolverton "WHO ARE you going by instead?" I watch the solar activity pretty much daily, just as I tap the glass before going out, and am very interested in cosmo-climatology, and have since I first read books on climate history (back in the 70's/ 80's,) before the carbon revolution. Those books are gone now. "(Also, do you apply this same logic to other fields of science, or just this one? I mean, NASA and the rest also say the planet Jupiter exists. Do you think that's a hoax too?) " Fallacy. Read my claim, and read the fallacy poster .

Download a free logical fallacies poster to hang up in your favourite place that has walls, or…
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller All I have done is reinterpreted how and what we know about thermal images IR spectrographs - and shown the extrapolated special 'GHGs - is wrong: that they are all thermoelectric derived. They are thermoelectric images and spectrographs and the gases are thermoelectric. Take the time to spot how many fallacies you have broken in our discussions, I think most.

Download a free logical fallacies poster to hang up in your favourite place that has walls, or…
Blair Macdonald "We have measured the enhanced greenhouse effect from anthropogenic carbon dioxide. That shows a direct cause-effect relationship between rising atmospheric co2 and rising global temperatures." Well then, lets go into business: we'll start a crowd funding project, to collect CO2 an use it as a climate solution to raise the temperature in houses and buildings. Will can fill double glazed windows with it.
Justin Keller "Well then, lets go into business: we'll start a crowd funding project, to collect CO2 an use it as a climate solution to raise the temperature in houses and buildings."

Added co2 works by raising the atmospheric layer which loses heat to space, not by stopping additional infrared radiation at the surface (outside of a slight pressure broadening effect). Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

A guest post by Spencer Weart, in collaboration with Raymond T. Pierrehumbert The simple…
LikeReply28 April at 09:03
Blair Macdonald Wow! 'not by stopping additional infrared radiation at the surface '. Did you write that. Just when I (and the rest of the 'science community) understood it, it's not what I thought. I read your artical: it should still work in a window - if that's what scienctists say, it should trap the heat. You sound like you don't believe your own science. Did you listen to Allan Musgrave on secular surrealism (here it is again):' we don't understand it (the ways of god), and we're not supposed to'. You, I think, make CO2 and climate change sound like god. ,I try to explain how we know. WIth my work one should be able to make a machine the shows the (thermoelectric)absorbtion bands of CO2 and with another machine (Raman) the non thermoelectric bands.
Justin Keller "I read your artical: it should still work in a window - if that's what scienctists say, it should trap the heat. "

Windows are already opaque to infrared radiation. Remember the hand example in your paper? I don't think you really thought this one through, Blair.

LikeReply28 April at 20:57
Steve Ridge Has anyone published a paper regarding thermal images IR spectrographs that show "the extrapolated special 'GHGs - is wrong: that they are all thermoelectric derived" and how this relates to mainstream climate science?
Steve Ridge You also wrote..."I read your artical (sic): it should still work in a window - if that's what scienctists (sic) say, it should trap the heat. You sound like you don't believe your own science."

Since it's not used in windows to trap heat, practically every climate scientist is wrong and this demonstrates that it doesn't the greenhouse properties we've observed thousands of times in laboratories?

For energy efficiency, windows are designed to keep the heat in during the winter and cold in during the summer. We'd want something with a low conductivity.

For insulative properties, we compare the specific heat of various gases and Argon is about half that of CO2 so its conductivity is lower.

LikeReply18 April at 22:00
Blair Macdonald Steve Ridge "Has anyone published a paper regarding thermal images IR spectrographs that show.." Yes, I have. It is not published as such, but I have 'posted it. It is pretty basic, but at least states my hypothesis: that we have all (and I mean all, skeptics and all) made a mistake: we've mistaken the thermoelectric behaviour of molecules for IR behaviour and have extrapolated the GHGs and their effect. He's my pitch (I can do much better and a link to my paper):
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller "Windows are already opaque to infrared radiation. Remember the hand example in your paper? I don't think you really thought this one through, Blair." So if glass is opaque to IR, why isn't it the centre of attention as a greenhouse solid and a cause of global warming. It shares the same properties as CO2, both transparent in the visible, and both opaque in the IR. Glass production has increased from the mid 19th Century, it must cause climate change.
Blair Macdonald Steve Ridge It won't work in windows, I'm making a joke of it. It doesn't work anywhere - so as to show itself special as it is said (at 400ppmv) to do in the atmosphere - that is my claim. Look at this CO2 profile of the snowpack. If CO2 had a special heat relationship/property it would factor in avalanche knowledge and we would measure it, I would measure it - our lives would depend on this knowledge. I know of no reference to its danger and have asked my expert (international guide) friends - it doesn't figure. Why not? Look at the concentrations.

Blair Macdonald's photo.
Blair Macdonald Jeff Wolverton You mentioned "Appeal to authority." Where did I?
Justin Keller "So if glass is opaque to IR, why isn't it the centre of attention as a greenhouse solid and a cause of global warming."

Oh, I don't know. It might have something to do with the fact that the earth isn't surrounded by a firmament of glass.

LikeReply29 April at 17:38
Justin Keller " I'm making a joke of it. It doesn't work anywhere"

No, you can plainly see the impact of carbon dioxide in the greenhouse effect by looking at the difference between the wavelengths of light emitted by earth (red line) and the wavelengths of light that escape out into space (green). The huge bite out of the center corresponds to co2's radiative forcing back down towards earth.

LikeReply29 April at 17:40
Steve Ridge " It won't work in windows, I'm making a joke of it. "

Nope. You were taking a shot in a dark, masked with sciency-sounding gibberish and failed.

Blair Macdonald Justin Keller This (wonderful) curve is produced by thermoelectric detectors (either bolometer or thermopile) and therefore actually a thermoelectric curve of planet Earth's thermoelectric gases. It clearly shows the (poorly termed 'IR active') vibrational modes/absorption bands of the molecules (as tabled in my link). What is does not show is the non thermoelectric vibrational modes correctly termed Raman Active and observed by a Raman spectrometer. It doesn't for example (Raman) CO2 at 1338, (Raman) CH4 at 1534, and importantly to my argument (Raman) O2 at 1556.
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller Here is a Raman spectra of Venus. It will be (is!) the same for Earth, only the gas concentrations are different.

Blair Macdonald's photo.
Blair Macdonald Steve Ridge and Justin, can I share with you a paradox I have uncovered during my investigation that I call the albedo-emissivity paradox: the albedo for snow is very high (it reflects light), but the emissivity of snow is also very high (it absorbs and emits and does not reflect IR). It does not reflect IR? In any other context IR is thermo radiation, and related to heat and temperature. It absorbs this IR. I don't think anyone has discussed this: what have I (we) got wrong? I have a possible answer to this, and the clew is aluminium and other shiny metals all of which have low emissivities, but not other materials, and not water and not snow.
Justin Keller Infrared detectors don't pick up IR inactive gases because--surprise surprise--those gases don't block infrared radiation from passing through a sample. The Raman Effect is extremely weak; less than one in a million photons which interact with a molecule experience it. That is why infrared detectors do not pick up those absorption bands, because those gases do absolutely nothing to prevent the earth from cooling of to space.
LikeReply110 April at 22:03
Blair Macdonald Justin Keller "those gases don't block infrared radiation from passing through a sample" If this is true, there is a contradiction to thermodynamics, as all substances above absolute zero radiate IR. So something is wrong with your reasoning, or thermodynamics is wrong. And conversely, if they do block and thus radiate there is a contradiction in greenhouse theory . It is a catastrophe: not the ultraviolet one, but the infrared one, the infrared catastrophe (my words).Something is wrong with this IR / greenhouse gases model, and I am offering the solution. Your use of the Raman effect in the atmosphere is a 'red herring' (fallacy), it is not my point (and no one else's in the climate debate from what I read, and if it were, it is still not my point - clear!). My point, as I have stated, is the laser based Raman spectrometer detects the vibrational modes (bands) the thermoelectric detectors cannot - as shown in the Venus spectra above.
Justin Keller Yes, everything with a temperature radiaties electromagnetic radiation. That does nothing to contradict what I wrote above.