Subject: Re: TWTW Jan 14, 2023
From: Bob Armstrong <bob@cosy.com>
Date: 2023-01-22, 10:49
To: William Happer <happer@princeton.edu>, "corkhayden@comcast.net" <corkhayden@comcast.net>, 'Science and Environmental Policy Project' <Ken@haapala.com>, 'Joseph Bast' <josephlbast@gmail.com>
CC: Lynnane George <lgeorge2@uccs.edu>, Karthik Krishna <karthik@kkrishenergy.com>, James Taylor <JTaylor@heartland.org>

It the gravitational >< kinetic(+radiant) adiabatic gradient which drives convection . Yes it's a heat engine because most of the thermalization of the solar spectrum occurs at the surface .

But the gradient is independent of any spectral effects and totally dependent on the mass of the atmosphere , and continuing into the solid earth .  I would expect in a totally transparent atmosphere where the all the thermalization occurred at the bottom , like a pot on a gas(šŸ˜ )  stove , and transferred to the atmosphere totally by conduction , I would expect extreme convection .

The opposite situation , which I understand is pretty much the case with Venus , where all the atmosphere is quite opaque across the spectrum and most absorption occurs at high altitude , I would expect little convection , but still the mass driven adiabatic pressure.temperature gradient .

Before photosynthesis , when all the CO2 now ` sequestered  beneath our feet in coal , carbonates & petroleum was above ` our heads forming ~ 30% of the atmosphere , it would have had a greater warming effect perhaps countering a weaker Sun .

It sounds like you fundamentally agree with Holmes , and quite a few others over the years I have no time to retrieve , that the ~ 30c+ difference for Earth , ~ 400c for Venus , difference between BoA temperatures and their lumped planet+atmosphere radiative equilibria  is due to gravity not some spectral , ie: GHG , effect .

As you argue in your Happer & van Wijngaarden paper , by the same argument as Hansen et al `81 , more CO2 simply causes the altitude of final radiation to space to increase where the adiabatic temperature is less , a small effect .  That's a small effect .  The adiabatic gradient is independent of the spectrum of the gases . It's a function of the mass .

That's the point that needs to get un-confounded .  The GHG effects aren't about 30c or 400c ; they're about maybe max ~ 2c .


It's too bad I won't be getting to Orlando .  I think we could have some more complete and deeper discussion .  I have some very significant questions I'd like the collected expertise on .
For me deep discussion would mean implementing computations , stretching & exercising CoSy , the language , in the process . I'd really like to make a planetary model in the manner of classical analytical physics , starting from the simplest geometry of an asymmetrically radiantly heated sphere . Static first . I point out that in Griffiths ElectroDynamics the 1st 280 pages are statics .  I did a fair amount in scattered pages in  CoSy , the website , in K .

But my absolute priority must be sparking a cash flow for CoSy . And its most significant potential market is ordinary ( bright ) people for support in the everyday business of life .  The teky ends , both the math and the ` chip ends are what make it a new paradigm , the major potential market is the more mundane .

Thanks again for the feedback ,
I'm sorry again I won't be getting to Orlando .

Bob A

| --

On 2023-01-22 09:18, William Happer wrote:

Dear Bob,

 

I suspect our contempt for the climate establishment is similar. 

 

But one thing most of the climate establishment  does get right is gravity. They have always included a near adiabatic lapse rate for the  troposphere. The atmosphere heats up as you approach the surface because of adiabatic compression, similar to the compression stroke of a diesel engine.   But if there were no greenhouse gases there would be troposphere like that of Earth or Venus. The churning energy of the troposphere is driven by a  heat engine, where air is the working fluid. Heat engines take heat from a hot reservoir, the solar heated surface,  and they  convert some of the heat energy to work to drive the convective motions of the atmosphere. Some of this work goes into the violent convention of hurricanes and storms.  

 

Heat engines have to dump part of the heat from a hot reservoir to a cold reservoir. They canā€™t exceed the Carnot efficiency for converting heat to worik. For Earth or Venus the cold reservoir is outer space, with an absolute temperature of only about 2.7 K for the cosmic blackbody radiation. The heat exchanger that converts waste heat to thermal radiation at the top of the atmosphere is greenhouse gases and clouds.  Without greenhouse gases and clouds convection as we know it would stop. Only the surface could radiate heat to space. There would still be complicated convection from the surface of the warm tropics to the surface of the cold poles. But it would be of an entirely different nature from the tropospheric convection that characterizes our climate and weather.

 

In the stratosphere, above the tropopause, convection in negligible, and heat transfer is mostly  radaitive. But the stratosphere is also a minor factor in Earthā€™s climate compared to the troposphere.

 

Best wishes,

 

Will

 

From: Bob Armstrong <bob@cosy.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 10:24 AM
To: William Happer <happer@princeton.edu>; corkhayden@comcast.net; 'Science and Environmental Policy Project' <Ken@haapala.com>; 'Joseph Bast' <josephlbast@gmail.com>
Cc: Lynnane George <lgeorge2@uccs.edu>; Karthik Krishna <karthik@kkrishenergy.com>; James Taylor <JTaylor@heartland.org>
Subject: Re: TWTW Jan 14, 2023

 

On 2023-01-22 06:10, William Happer wrote:

Dear Bob,

 

Gravity is at the heart of any competent work on weather or climate.  For example, the dependence of pressure on altitude is very nearly determined by the law of hydrostatic equilibrium

 

v dp = - g m dz

 

where dp is how much the air  pressure  changes for an increase dz of altitude. The coefficient g is the acceleration of gravity. The other coefficients are v, the average gas volume occupied by an air molecule and m, the mass per air molecule.

 

The adiabatic lapse rate for the temperature T of dry air is given by the equation 

 

k c_p dT= -  g m  dz

 

Here dT is the temperature change of a parcel of dry air that is raised by an altitude increment dz. The first coefficient on the right-hand side is g, the acceleration of gravity. The other symbols are Boltzmann's constant k, and c_p. the specific heat per molecule at constant pressure,

 

Because you need to account for the latent heat of condensation, the moist adiabatic lapse rate is too complicated to write down in this note. But it too is proportional to g.

 

Gravity permeates the theory of weather and climate.

 

Best wishes,

 

Will

| --

Dear Will ,

Well put .

But but it needs to be made clear that those ` parcels of air may be just individual molecules , thermally vibrating . And the pressure gradient of which temperature is a factor does not depend on convection -- it drives it ( and thus extends to the core of massive bodies as long as any external source keeps their surface above 0K ) .

This conversation illustrates that the fact that the temperature , as a factor of pressure , is a function of mass and ` height :

-  g m  dz

as you express it .   (  In  CoSy  RPN with ` space as the prime delimiter , I might write it  (' g m dz -1 `) ' * ./  where each of the quantities may be lists ( vectors ) of values . )

It's not a matter of line broadening ; it a computation of mass * distance energy .

And it is the reason why bottoms of atmospheres and bottoms of diamond mines and bore holes are hotter than their tops .

Yet I have never seen a ` Trenberth style i/o diagram which includes the gravitational term . Instead it's all energy up and energy down and some effort to explain how the BoA energy density is greater than the ToA density by some sort of GHG spectral filtering .

Certainly in the common mind the ~ 33c difference between our BoA and radiative equilibrium is presented and perceived to be due to our sinful restoration of the green molecule somehow spectrally ` trapping heat .

It's not . It's gravity .

| ---

A bit of explanation of the CoSy  above .

`  ( left tick ) simply returns the word following . I find the notion so useful I use it in ordinary writing to ` highlight the word following
('  ...  ') Execute the words between and make a list out of the results
' One of the most powerful notions in Forth . Return the address of the following word rather than executing it
./ APL's ` across . Apply the verb whose address is given across ( as if between each of ) the items in a list

| --


Thanks again for all the feedback

Bob A


From: Bob Armstrong <bob@cosy.com>tSent: Saturday, January 21, 2023 4:33 PM

To: corkhayden@comcast.net <corkhayden@comcast.net>; 'Science and Environmental Policy Project' <Ken@haapala.com>; William Happer <happer@princeton.edu>; 'Joseph Bast' <josephlbast@gmail.com>

Cc: Lynnane George <lgeorge2@uccs.edu>; Karthik Krishna <karthik@kkrishenergy.com>; James Taylor <JTaylor@heartland.org>
Subject: Re: TWTW Jan 14, 2023

 

Good to hear from you Cork . It would be great to see you at Bastiat in CS again sometime .

As I say , this whole AGW nonscience has just been a costly diversion for me . A higher priority is answering the Pig Latin challenge on next Saturday's SV-FIG Zoom .

I've seen lots of papers on radiative forcing . Many in far more detail than I have time or interest is . I often scan them to see if the ` gravity occurs .

This is not an issue of line broadening or any other spectral effect .
This is a matter of the energy of gravity acting on the mass of the atmosphere not being accounted for .

I want to see an equation of the form 
    Tsurface = RadiativeEquilibrium + E[ gravity ; mass ]

I think we are all agreed on the computation of Radiative Equilibrium , totally determined by the object's absorptivity=emissivity spectrum and the power spectra of its source(s) and sink(s) . That's the computation I presented the K language in my Heartland Venus talk showing the quantitative absurdity of trying to explain Venus's ~ 400K excess surface temperature over its radiative equilibrium . ( I've yet to translate those rather simple computations to current-&-forever 4th.CoSy , evolved from K . )  It's recognized that the object's albedo ( reflectivity wrt its source ) is actually composed of absorption_refection distributed over the height of the atmosphere and surface  . ( That's why an APL like CoSy is needed to compute a realistic finite element model . )

That computation , along with the 2nd year calc Divergence Theorem , which says it doesn't matter what you do with spectral filtering , the interior cannot be hotter than the equilibrium calculated for the effective radiative surface . This fact really got impressed on me reading Griffiths ElectroDynamics .

The source of that energy , which is omitted from the spectral GHG paradigm is Gravity . That simply cannot be omitted from the energy balance equations . It is the only asymmetric differential which keeps ( balances ) higher kinetic energy density below from lower density above .

And it is significant . Ask Elon & SpaceX . 

Holmes may have some data numbers wrong , and I've not worked thru his equations in detail , ie: I have not implemented and played around with them . But they appear to match other derivations I've seen . There are certainly a number of papers which show that above a certain pressure , pressure ( gravity acting on mass ) is the dominant parameter in determining the temperature gradients for all planets .

And the pressure.temperature gradient continues into the solid bodies of all massive objects .

Let me point out that Hansen et al's 1981 paper's hypothesis is that more CO2 causes its final radiation to space to be higher where it's colder .Happer & van Wijngaarden use the same argument .

Why is it colder  higher ?


As I said above , it is quantitatively absurd to claim Venus's extreme bottom of atmosphere temperature as some sort of spectral heat trapping effect . ONLY Gravitational Energy , left out of the enabling_equationless GHG paradigm , in violation of Conservation of Energy can .

The computations need to be done to confirm that it does .


I'm sorry I won't be getting to Heartland next month . I lobbied to get to last year's conference for a discussion of this core issue .  I had a very pleasant & extended chat with James Taylor , which I much appreciate . But it couldn't be worked out .

Until this most basic physics is settled , we are playing in the anti-reality anti-science global statist alarmist's court .

Thanks for the reply .  It's perhaps the crucial issue in the entire fiasco .

Bob A

| --

On 2023-01-21 11:38, corkhayden@comcast.net wrote:

Hi Bob,

 

Comments below.

 

Cheers,

Cork

 

_____________________

Howard "Cork" Hayden

corkhayden@comcast.net

A Must-Read: Energy: A Textbook, $25 at

www.energyadvocate.com

and  www.valeslake.com

785 S. McCoy Drive

Pueblo West, CO 81007

 

Chromoergic psychosis: The delusion that energy has a color, usually green.

 

From: Bob Armstrong <bob@cosy.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2023 9:47 AM
To: Science and Environmental Policy Project <Ken@haapala.com>; 'Hayden, Howard' <CorkHayden@comcast.net>; Will Happer <happer@Princeton.EDU>; Joseph Bast <josephlbast@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: TWTW Jan 14, 2023

 

It's Gravity .

This AlGoreWarming scientific  stagnation has impressed upon me Kuhn's observation of scientific paradigms in which Both sides are stuck in a box .

The reason why all the radiant energy i/o down/up accounting diagrams make no sense is because in defiance of Newton's 330+ year old Law of Gravity , the tradeoff of gravitational ` potential energy of the mass of the atmosphere and it's kinetic energy , is omitted from the paradigm in defiance of Conservation of Energy . This gravitational><kinetic adiabatic gradient extends on into all massive bodies

While the adiabatic " lapse rate " , ie: gradient , is sometimes given ` lip-service , it is omitted from these energy accounts and somehow that difference between bottoms of atmospheres and their lumped planet's radiative balance is claimed to be filled by some thermodynamics defying spectral heat trapping . .  You obviously have not read any papers about how the ā€œradiative forcingā€ of GHGs is calculated.  They most assuredly account for the lapse rate.  Absorption & emission rates are temperature- and pressure-dependent, and therefore latitude and altitude (hence lapse rate) are recognized as absolutely necessary for the calculations.

While there are now numerous ` papers showing the gradient across planets & atmospheres , and several presenting the analytical case in various ways , I'll just cite

  Robert Ian Holmes 2017
 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323106609_Molar_Mass_Version_of_the_Ideal_Gas_Law_Points_to_a_Very_Low_Climate_Sensitivity

Which appears to express the argument and computations cleanly . The atmospheric pressure at a point equals the weight of the atmosphere above it, per unit area.  It varies a bit as weather patterns move around, but has no big latitude dependence.  In Holmesā€™s paper, he uses 68.13 kPa for the atmospheric pressure at the South Pole.  (Itā€™s presently about 99 kPa, with 103.4 kPa.)  He does correctly quote a source, but does not indicate the slightest hint that what he quoted is absolutely false.

 

 

See Atmospheric Pressure Forecast Map | Zoom Earth for the present worldwide map of atmospheric pressure. (in millibars)

The radiative ` density at the bottom of atmospheres obviously corresponds to the temperature there . It isn't going in any particular direction .

My core interest is constantly  evolving my computational tool of thought , to use Ken Iverson's phrase . And CoSy , uniquely an APL in open Forth is my tool with the difference between note taking and computing/programming is simply the difference between tapping Enter or a Function key . I've been diverted into this almost endless brouhaha because of it violating my sense of physics , and its use as a tool of tyranny . My accreted efforts are linked at https://cosy.com/#PlanetaryPhysics including my 2014  Heartland talk on the impossibility of Venus being explained as a spectral phenomenon Joe Bast was daring enough to invite me to give .

The bottom line is : the adiabatic tradeoff of gravitational and kinetic+radiant energy needs to be explicitly acknowledged and included in all calculations . To fail to do so violates Conservation of Energy . This is a red herring.  Nobody who calculates the track of IR through the atmosphere ignores the lapse rate, the kinetic energy, or the radiant energy.

 

To repeat what I have said before:  There is no way for GRAVITY alone to explain the difference between the blackbody spectrum leaving the surface and the jagged spectrum going to space.  If you ignore molecular spectroscopy, you throw the baby out with the bathwater.

On 2023-01-15 18:28, Science and Environmental Policy Project wrote:

Austrian physicist Josef Stefan discovered the experimental result that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. In 1884, Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann derived the relationship from thermodynamic considerations, and in 1900 Max Planck derived the constant of proportionality from first principles. It took the IPCC reports over thirty years to finally mention this law explicitly, and the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6, 2021) got it wrong, in stating that a hotter planet radiates more energy to space. The surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead but radiates less energy to space than does the earth. (Compared to the radiant heat power emitted by the surface of the Earth, the geothermal energy emitted by the core is insignificant although subsurface oceanic and surface volcanoes can significantly change the greenhouse effect temporarily by increasing water vapor and emitting aerosols.)

 

Bob A

Peace thru Freedom
Honesty enforced thru Transparency ,

-- 28124 State Highway 67 Woodland Park CO 80863-9711

 

--

Bob A

Peace thru Freedom
Honesty enforced thru Transparency ,

-- 28124 State Highway 67 Woodland Park CO 80863-9711

 

--

Bob A

Peace thru Freedom
Honesty enforced thru Transparency ,

-- Bob@CoSy.com -- Bob Armstrong Vita -- 719.337.2733

CoSy  The Simplest Most ` Powerful Computing Language Environment

I reserve the right to post all communications I receive or generate to CoSy website for further reflection

-- 28124 State Highway 67 Woodland Park CO 80863-9711


--
Bob A

Peace thru Freedom
Honesty enforced thru Transparency ,
-- Bob@CoSy.com -- Bob Armstrong Vita -- 719.337.2733
CoSy  The Simplest Most ` Powerful Computing Language Environment
I reserve the right to post all communications I receive or generate to CoSy website for further reflection
-- 28124 State Highway 67 Woodland Park CO 80863-9711