PHYSICS: Climate Change - Some Simple Truths

Climate Change – Some Simple Truths

M.J.Bull, 2013

The ongoing debate, more than 20 years old by now, about the planet's changing climate has become mired in the unchanging traits of human beings, and the fundamentals of the debate seem to have been lost somewhere along the way.

The human input is the politicisation, the self interest and advantage taking, the endless bickering, the debunking of one view or the other, the endless rounds of talk-fests and protocols, the skewing of data, much of which is (lies and) statistics and is largely irrelevant to the original hypothesis. Many people see it as a cause worthy of support, which gives them a sense of group belonging and a feeling of legitimisation and worth, and some also see it as a quasi-religion which can become fanaticised and repugnant, brooking no contrary view and largely independent of facts.

Most of the fundamentals of the climate change phenomenon can be put reasonably simply, considered in context, and consequences can be estimated based on evidence from similar events in the paleontological records in our geology.

1. The Chemistry of the Atmosphere: The atmosphere is significant to life based upon, among other things, the ratio of oxygen to carbon dioxide. Plants consume CO₂ and exhaust O₂ . Animals consume O₂ and exhaust CO₂ . In periods such as the Carboniferous, about 300 million years ago, the atmosphere contained higher than 'normal' concentrations of CO₂. This was a result of a high volcanic output of carbon compounds into the atmosphere. Plants, as a result of that, proliferated and that was when much of our coal and oil reserves were laid down. At that time the proliferation of plants increased the concentration of O₂ in the atmosphere, from a 'normal' 20% to about 30%. Following the Carboniferous period came the Jurassic period, a time of mega-fauna in the form of very large reptiles, their size a result of a high concentration of O₂ in the atmosphere, among other inputs. Mega- fauna have been noted in time periods much closer to our own, also probably resulting from an elevated concentration of O₂ in the atmosphere. The point is that plants provide the breath and sustenance for all animals, including humans.

2. The Water Cycle: Fresh water is essential for both plants and animals to survive and thrive. The oceans and solar radiation are the drivers of the water cycle. The spin of the planet, west to east, inside the envelope of the atmosphere means the gaseous atmosphere spins at a slightly lower speed than solid earth. Consequently the apparent movement of air is east to west (complicated further by the Coriolis force). This is the reason that the wetter areas are on the eastern seaboards of the continents. The tropics are wetter because of the heat induced north-south atmospheric circulation caused by the sun. Essentially the tropics are dominated by rising air, which precipitates its water vapour as it gains altitude and cools, causing rain. At a further distance from the equator in both hemispheres is a band of falling air, which rarely precipitates its moisture because its temperature is rising as it loses altitude, so it has the capacity to absorb rather than release water. All of the worlds deserts are in these latitudes which are about 20 to 35 degrees north and south latitude. At just below the arctic and antarctic circles there is another zone of falling air, which makes a wet zone. The wet zones contain the tropical forests and temperate coniferous forests, both are regions of high plant density, CO₂ consumption and O₂ production. These regions also regulate temperature through their influence on solar energy absorption and reflection (albedo).

3. Temperature: Global temperature has a number of different inputs. One is the planet's distance from the sun which varies over a cycle of many decades and is an astronomy related phenomenon to do with the cycle of the Earth's slightly elliptical orbit. Temperature is of major importance to the rate of plant growth, which in turn moderates temperature at the planet's surface, through its influence on the Water Cycle. The ideal temperature for plants in the present world and evolutionary state is from about 15 to 28 degrees C. Many plants are adapted to live outside this range but they do not make up the major bio-mass, or O₂ producers. The oceans are the major stabilizers of temperature because of the enormous volume and heat capacity of the water contained by them.

4. The Oceans: Oceans transfer heat energy across the globe in directions the atmosphere does not. They also contain the majority of plant life in terms of bio-mass. The ecology of the oceans is influential upon that of the land, in that it is complimentary and far larger. The highly productive areas of plant and animal life in the oceans exist in the colder regions of the planet. For example the algal blooms of the northern Pacific, the giant kelps of the south Atlantic and the huge krill populations of the Antarctic. These all support marine life from the micro to the macro. The higher water temperatures support adapted marine life, such as tropical reefs, but these are not the major oceanic plant and animal biomasses. They equate to the terrestrial drylands. The oceans also provide a different mode of heat energy transfer from the atmosphere, through different directions and routes via ocean currents. The oceans, along with the terrestrial soils, are the reservoirs of nutrients required by both plants and animals for their growth and proliferation after the basics mentioned above are supplied. The nutrients have their own cycles.

The interdependence of the above four influences are obvious, but there is no need to confuse the interdependence with complexity or unfathomable relationships. The details may be many and complex, but the basic physics and chemistry are not.

Why do we think we may have changed the above-mentioned balances within the last few hundred years? The current popular thinking is that we now emit excessive CO₂ from the burning of fossil fuels over the last 400 years. The fairly recent small volcanic eruption in Iceland which closed European air traffic for a few days emitted more hydrocarbons into the atmosphere than the entire human population did in one year. Volcanic activity does not attract media attention, and most volcanic emissions go unreported. They happen continuously on a global basis, far exceeding human CO₂ emissions. We have an inflated perception of our effect on CO₂ emissions.

Where are we really having a significant impact? We are, in a period where we are contributing to the increase in the ratio of CO₂ over O₂ , at the same time reducing the planet's plant biomass through de-afforestation for fuel and agriculture. This process is in direct opposition to the planet's normal re-balancing process for CO₂ and O₂. The need to produce more food and fuel for an increasing population is at odds with the need to increase plant biomass to balance CO₂ and O₂ in the atmosphere.

What needs to happen? We need to allow plants to re-balance the chemistry of the atmosphere. To do that we need to stop reducing plant biomass, and if possible help increase it. That will have a far larger effect than reducing our own (relatively small) contribution to atmospheric CO₂. It is our destruction of plant biomass at a time when it would naturally be increasing that is causing the imbalance we call 'Climate Change'.

What are the consequences of doing nothing differently? Nature will (passively) change what it must to allow an increase in plant biomass. A possible solution is to reduce the animal population to the level where plants again regain the necessary ascendency to re-balance the O₂ to CO₂ ratio. Possible re-balancing solutions include major volcanic activity increasing CO₂ to the advantage of plants and disadvantage of animals as happened in the Carboniferous period. Others may include a change in water cycle and temperature regimes to the disadvantage of animals and favouring plants. The oceans may have effects we do not as yet contemplate through a deficit in our knowledge.

What can we do that is of practical help? Politics and placards, taxes and financial penalties are totally irrelevant. Our rates of carbon emission are miniscule beside the power of even a single volcano. Life on Earth has been re-balancing our environment to its advantage for a billion years. We need to understand how not to interfere with that process. Plants are the dominant and fundamental form of life on Earth. Animals are, to a large extent, parasitic upon plants. We need to accept that and refrain from destroying the bulk of plant biomass on which our survival is totally dependent. Whatever is required to remove the financial or other motivation to destroy plants must be recognised and addressed. Whatever can be done to assist plants to increase quickly should be supported. There is no other solution to 'Climate Change'. If we fail to recognise these fundamental facts, the consequence is that nature will see the destruction of most of the species called homo sapiens.

PHYSICS: How does Life fit into the mathematics which describe the Universe?

Theoria Omnia

How does Life fit into the Mathematics which describe the Universe ?

    It seems appropriate (if controversial), to include the possibility that life is also a legitimate and ubiquitous part of the universe and has a place in the considerations of the 'Theory of Everything', the multitude of 'beliefs' notwithstanding. With reference to the Table below - The tentative placement of life at the t/s ratio position of t⁴/s⁴ implies an additional scalar motion, that of energy (t/s) applied to mass, that is, life = mass x energy, ( t⁴/s⁴ = t³/s³ x t/s). These mathematics imply that life has an additional degree of freedom of scalar motion (4) when compared with mass (3), and also that life's inherent energy equivalent is mc³ if Einstein's logic is carried past mass.

    The other part of life, that of the intangible working of mind or 'consciousness', has its theoretical position in the s/t ratio area, again with an additional degree of freedom above that of gravity, at s⁴/t⁴ which is also reciprocal to the physical part of life, t⁴/s⁴ as discussed above. The implication of the mathematics is that   life x consciousness = unity, which makes the organism whole, still an analogue of t/s and s/t as discussed in a previous post for the lower power indices of s and t which are electricity, magnetism and mass. Similarly, the mathematical implication is that the 'consciousness field' is weaker per unit volume than the other fields but if consistent with the other fields, ranges across a larger volume of space than do the others. It may also have an underlying constant at s⁴/t⁵ analogous to K_g , suggesting a higher frequency.

    This mathematical view is not without parallel in the disciplines of philosophy and psychology, therein sometimes described as 'the spark of life' and 'the meeting of minds'. Another implication of the mathematics is that all life is connected with all other life, just as all mass is connected with all other mass via its reciprocal field, in the case of mass by the gravity field and in the case of life by the consciousness field. There is ample evidence every day to support the connection between life of different species, and between the same species on Earth. No-one likes to see their kitty run over, or their child either.

    The proposed mathematical congruity between life and the rest of the physics of the universe imply that life is a part of the universe rather than an exception to it, suggesting that it should be expected at some point to encounter life from other places and times. That may change the perspective that homo sapiens has of its own species and those other species which share the planet Earth. Communication via the 'consciousness field' may be a possibilty both intra and ex planet. There is anecdotal evidence of that.

    Another interesting question is why matter loses its fourth energy freedom after a defined passage of time and results in 'death', or a return of the physical state of life back to the state of mass. That there is a difference between mass and life can hardly be denied. The fourth degree of freedom may differ in its behaviour from the other space-time ratios, including the possibility that, perhaps like quantum waves, it may be sourced from time-space. The fourth energy freedom may not move through 'observable' space-time and may be analogous to the wave form moving through time-space, suggesting an explanation for a finite physical life span.

Table of Space-Time Units of Measure

                          MATTER                  Space Expansion ---->             VISIBLE UNIVERSE

0	s0	s1	s2	s3	s4	1/s	1/s2	1/s3	1/s4
t 0	s 0 t 0 singularity BIG BANG	s length, electric quantity (C)	s 2 area, magnetic quantity (W/m2)	s 3 volume, mass quantity (kg)	s 4 ?	1/s power (elec.mag. mass)	1/s2 ?	1/s3 ?	1/s4 ?
t1	t time	t s up quark	t s2 charm quark	t s3 top quark	t s4 gluon	t/s energy, work, electric charge	t/s2 force, electric potential, emf (Velec )	t/s3 elect field intensity (E)	t/s4 pressure
t2	t 2 ?	t 2 s down quark	t 2s2 strange quark	t 2s3 bottom quark	t 2s4 photon	t 2/s inertia	t 2/s 2 momentum, magnetic charge, electrical resistivity (ρ)	t 2/s 3 electric resistance (R), magnetic potential, mmf (Vmag )	t 2/s 4 magnetic field intensity (H)
t3	t 3 ?	t 3s electron	t 3s2 muon	t 3s3 tau	t 3s4 Z-boson	t 3/s moment of inertia	t 3/s2 ?	t 3/s3 mass charge	t 3/s4 magnetic resistance (μ), mass potential, massmf (Vmass)
t4	t 4 ?	t 4s electron nutrino	t 4s2 muon nutrino	t 4s3 tau nutrino	t 4s4 W-boson	t 4/s ?	t 4/s2 ?	t 4/s3 ?	t 4/s4 life charge (?)
1/t	1/t frequency 1 freedom υ	s/t speed, elec.current Ielec, Efield	s 2/t Hawking radiation (RH) (?)	s 3/t ?	s 4/t ?	1/ ts	1/ ts2	1/ ts3	1/ ts4
1/t2	1/t2 frequency 2 freedom (?)	s/t2 Δ speed, acceleration KE = Eυ 9.487 x 1033	s 2/t2 magnetic current Imag, Bfield electrical concuctivity (σ)	s 3/t2 ?	s 4/t2 ?	1/ t2s	1/ t2s2	1/ t2s3	1/ t2s4
1/t3	1/t3 frequency 3 freedom (?)	s/t3 Δ accel.,	s 2/t3 KB = Bυ  2.846x1042	s 3/t3 gravity mass current Imass, gfield	s 4/t3 ?	1/ t3s positron	1/ t3s2	1/ t3s3	1/ t3s4
1/t4	1/t4 ?	s/t4 ?	s 2/t4 ?	s 3/t4 Kg = gυ 8.538x1050	s 4/t4 consciousness life current Ilife (?)	1/ t4s	1/ t4s2	1/ t4s3	1/ t4s4

Time                              VISIBLE UNIVERSE                                       ANTI-MATTER
↓ Expansion

PHYSICS: The Constants, old and new

The fundamental constants which Planck proposed are based upon the physics of free space rather than any contrived unit of measure are:

Name                    Symbol            Value                   SI unit                         Space-Time unit

Planck constant         h         1.054 x 10^-34                J.s                                  t²/s (inertia)

Coulomb constant     k_e       1.054 x 10⁹                 kg m³ s^-2 C^-2                    t/s² (voltage, force)

Boltzmann's constant k_B       1.380 x 10^-23              J K^-1                                t/s (elec.chg,energy)

Speed of light           c          2.997 x 10⁸                 m/s                                  s/t (speed)

Gravitational constant G       6.67 x 10^-11                 m³ kg^-1 s^-2                      s⁶/t⁵ ( makes no sense)

(a) The Planck constant, is known as the 'quantum of action' which means that it is the smallest quantity of (vectorial) motion which can be applied to a mass. There is no further division of that 'action' into smaller parts, which is what the word 'quantum' implies. The space-time unit for h is t²/s, which is the unit for inertia and at magnitude 10^-34 is extremely small and at the level affecting fundamental particles. The Planck constant links Energy to Frequency, (E = hυ), in S-T units t/s = t²/s x 1/t = t/s ; Frequency to the Speed of light, (υ = c/λ) in S-T units 1/t = s/t x 1/s = 1/t ; Wavelength to Momentum, ( λ = h/p) in S-T units s = t²/s / t²/s² = t²/s x s²/t² = s. The S-T units are again entirely consistent with the SI units.

(b) The Coulomb constant is the 'quantum voltage' which applies between charges on fundamental particles such as the electron or positron. (The electron can exist without an electric charge, s, within a conductor and in that case may carry magnetic charge, s².) The charge can exist without the electron when it is a 'static' charge, perhaps attached to an atom, which does not move through the conductor. Synthetic clothing is a good example. Charge is described as a 'scalar motion' which can attach to a particle. It is the charge 'motion' which moves through a conductor as a current rather than the particle. An electron cannot 'escape' from a conductor unless it carries a charge, which enables it to move through space. The charge gives the electron the ability to move through space either within or from a conductor. The space-time unit for C is t/s² which is volts.

(c) The Boltzmann constant relates to the laws of thermodynamics, and is the 'quantum energy' relating to the motion of atoms and molecules which is manifested as heat, or temperature in degrees Kelvin. The space-time unit for k_B is t/s which is energy.

(d) The Speed of Light is the maximum limit to velocity which can be achieved by a particle possessing mass or momentum. It is the constant which relates mass to its energy equivalent. The constant c has the space-time unit s/t which is speed. For further observations on c refer below.

(e) The Gravitational constant relates the acceleration between two masses which is powered by the gravitational field. It is calculated from scientific observation and applies not as a fundamental quantity. The fundamental underlying equation is F = ma, where the 'a' equals Gm'/r². G relates the observed results to the fundamental equation. G has no space-time units which make sense.

Three of these constants define 'quantum quantities' which means the smallest possible amount ( h, C, k_B) The fourth defines the maximum limit (c). The only anomaly in Planck's five constants is G which probably does not belong there. That error arises from science's long history of misconception of the nature of gravity. It may be more appropriate to instead include the quantum of matter which, from Table 1 is 'ts' (= st) or what is presently known as the 'up-quark', if Table 1 has correctly identified the 'ts' particle. This has yet to be confirmed.

The Derivation of Frequency Constants

The above discussion of the Constants and the quantum physics equations, much of which can be credited to Max Planck's work, open further consideration of the electro-magnetic-gravity relationship and where they belong in the electromagnetic radiation spectrum. As far as is known by this author, there has not been a consideration that these fields may have a frequency. The highest known frequencies are associated with gamma radiation, which is of the order of 10²⁵ Hz. The current electro-magnetic spectrum does not look beyond gamma radiation.

The equations relevant are E_nergy = mc², E = hυ, υ = c/λ and λ = h/ρ. The Space-Time (S-T) units (Table 1) can be used to confirm the validity of the equations used to calculate the Frequency Constants. The three fields compared are the electric (E) field, the magnetic (B) field and the gravity (g) field.

                                   E field                              B field                                g field

Equation                   E_field = 1/mc²                     B_field = 1/mc                          g_field = 1/m

                                       = 1/hυ                                = c/hυ                                  = c²/hυ

S-T unit            s/t = (t³/s³ x s²/t²)^-1 = s/t    s²/t² = (t³/s³ x s/t)^-1 = s²/t²     s³/t³ = (t³/s³)^-1 = s³/t³ equations check    = (t²/s x 1/t)^-1 = s/t                 = s/t (t²/s x 1/t)^-1 = s²/t²        = s²/t²(t²/s 1/t)^-1 = s³/t³

All correct

Sub value for h,c E = 1/hυ = 1/1.054x10^-34υ B = c/hυ = 3x10⁸/1.054x10^-34υ g= c²/hυ = 9x10¹⁶/1.054x10^-34υ

              Eυ = 9.487x10³³ = K_E          Bυ = 2.846 x10⁴² = K_B            gυ = 8.538 x 10⁵⁰ = K_g

The constants allow the calculation of the frequency and wavelength of, for example the gravitational fields of the Earth and the Sun, which vary with the gravitational field strength.

Freq'cy υ_{g earth} = K_g /g_earth = 8.538x10⁵⁰/ 9.8 = 8.712x10⁴⁹Hz and Wavelength λ_{g earth} = 3.443x10^-42 m.

υ_{g sun} = K_g /g_sun = 8.538x10⁵⁰/ 274 = 3.116x10⁴⁸Hz and wavelength λ_{g sun} = 9.646x10^-41 m.

The mathematics indicate that the smaller the acceleration of matter through the gravity field, the higher the the frequency of the gravity field, and therefore the higher the energy of the gravity field. This counter-intuitive result supports the validity of the equation mg = 1. It is a high mass charge which increases matter acceleration, not a high gravity field value. The constant K_g underlies a (variable) gravitation frequency many orders of magnitude higher than gamma radiation. This may help explain the large reach of the gravity field compared to the other fields, given also that the gravity field is scalar motion (speed, s/t) in three degrees of freedom, the x, y and z axes. These do not denote a position in space, but denote an orientation relationship between the axes relative to each other.