Hello Bob,

Correction needed at cosy.com!

While I fully agree with your point that the three images
you show should tell any sensible person that the concept
of "climate emergency" is not based on observed data. (although
the wordings you use are not clear to me as a foreigner.)

"Climate emergency" is based on what IPCC projections say
will happer year 2100 and later. It is denoted science, but
a better word is religion. Those of us who do not believe
in the new religion should do our best to make it more difficult
for the religion to control the political decisions that our
political leaders take. Climate politics consumes valuable
resources and prevents mankind from solving far more important
problems.

Alarmists, the promoters of the new religion, are using every
weak point on the sceptics side. False arguments against the
GHG paradigm are counter-productive and only serve as a good
argument for alarmists to discredit everybody not willing to
accept their new religion.

This place: http://cosy.com/#PlanetaryPhysics has a problem.
There is a link to Roderic Graeff's experiment:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/graeff1.pdf

The author claims that gravity causes the temperature in an
isolated vertical column of water to change by 0.04 K for
each meter. Coldest at the top.

The deepest seas are about 10000 meters deep. At the bottom
the water should be about 400 degrees warmer if the theory
were correct. Open sea is equivalent to an almost infinite number
of isolated columns. The temperature at a certain depth should
be the same for all the columns so there would be no horizontal
heat flow. The result of the theory is in obvious disagreement
with the real world observation: About 2 degrees centigrade.

Roderic Graeff also claims that the temperature of air should decrease
by 0.07 K for each meter upwards. That means he suggests that the
temperature outside the top of a 300 meter high tower should be
21 degrees lower than the temperature at the ground level.
This is violated by everyday experience. Ask anyone who flied
a hot-air balloon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot-air_balloon

You might also have a look at this photo of Mount Kilimanjaro
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Killi_from_Cessna_402.jpg
The temperature above a certain height is covered by ice. That
point is the height where the temperature has fallen below the
freezing point of water. The mountain is 5,895 metres (19,341 ft)
above sea level and about 4,900 metres (16,100 ft) above its
plateau base. The snow line of Kilimanjaro is 5500-5600 metres above
the sea level. If we assume 35 degrees centigrade at sea level
the laps rate would be 6.3 degrees per kilometer or 0.0063K/m.
Verify here:
https://www.kilimanjarochallenge.com/preparation/about-kilimanjaro/weather
They write: "When trekking, temperature on average falls 1C for every
200m in altitude gained." That is 5 degrees per kilometer. Roderic Graeff
claims 70 degrees per kilometer and that is absurdly wrong. The theory
is not right at all. If you have a 1 km high column of dry air the
temperature at the top would be 9.8 K lower at the top. That is the
laps rate of dry air. The normal variations in air temperature with
height is very well known from weather ballons.

May I suggest that you remove the following text: "Roderic Graeff's
experiment , https://tallbloke.files.wor... , detects the gravitational
temperature gradient . While admittedly modest it appears well thought
out and executed . And , of course , it makes sense . If there ever
was a FRIN ( further research is needed ) question it's this -- to
do it on a taller column." The experiment IS done with weather ballons.
During days with very low winds the ballons go straight upwards in 
an atmosphere that is equivalent to many isolated vertical columns.
We know the result. It depends on humidity and it is 0.0098K/m for
dry air.

You write also: "The GHG paradigm , excluding the Law of Gravity
in violation even of conservation of energy , being false , has
thus never presented a testable equation quantifying their asserted
spectral 'trapping' nor an experimental demonstration of it."
This statement is false. Climate models include the Law of Gravity
indirectly by the introduction of the temperature laps rate which
varies from place to place around the globe. Today there is an
experimental demonstration of the effects of IR-active gases on
the vertical temperature changes in dry cloud-free air.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf

Look at figure 15. Theory vs experiment. If you read the text you
will find that the theoretical conclusion that increased levels
of CO2 will increase cooling in wintertime Antarctica is confirmed
by observation. A negative greenhouse effect.

One of the authors, William Happer is a well known climate sceptic.
Check this interview:
https://thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/william-happer-interview/
"Happer disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change,
stating that 'Some small fraction of the 1 Ā°C warming during the past
two centuries must have been due to increasing CO2, which is indeed
a greenhouse gas', but argues that 'most of the warming has probably
been due to natural causes.'

Also the previous statement:"Newton's Law of Gravity which explains
how much faster satellites go in lower orbit also explains how much
faster molecules go at the bottoms of atmospheres and thus quantitatively
explains the temperature profiles of all planets whatever their
atmosphere including the ~ 33c warmer the bottom of our atmosphere is
than our radiative balance with the Sun." is wrong.

Assume our planed had an atmosphere of pure nitrogen and that it was grey
at all wavelengths. Albedo 0.3. Since the nitrogen can neither emit nor
absorm IR or visible light the only radiation leaving the planet would have
to be emitted by the planet itself. Thus the surface temperature would be the
same as for a planet without atmosphere. The planet is assumed to have
infinite heat conduction so the temperature would be the same everywhere.

The earth under the above assumptions with a pure nitrogen atmosphere
would be 33K below the current +18C. The temperature would fall by 9.8
degrees per kilometer height so the first part of your statement is correct.
The temperature falls as the height increases. The explanation is not
right however. A satellite at a height of 1 km has a speed of 7.9047447865024
km/s while one at a height of 2 km has a speed of 7.9041252817148 km/s. 
https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224665242
The speed ratio is 1.0000783. The kinetic energy is proportional to speed
squared so the ratio between kinetic energy for the two orbits is
1.000157. The temperature of a gas is proportional to the average kinetic
energy of the molecules so if the temperature at 1 km would be 280K we
should expect 279.95K at an altitude of 2 km according to the theory you
advocate (as I understand it.)

Imagine the following thought experiment: Fill a weightless plastic bag
to 50% with air at the ground level. It would be weightless because
the density of the air is the same as the density of the air that surrounds
it. Move the bag upwards by 1 km. The temperature outside is 9.8 degrees
colder (dry air) but the bag has expanded due to the smaller pressure
so its internal pressure is still identical to the pressure of the
surrounding air. Expansion means cooling. Inside the bag the temperature
is the same as outside. In case a force were required to move the weightless
half filled bag vertically, free air would see the same force and move
vertically. Surely that happens, but the temperature change vs height
that we discuss is for air in equilibrium without significant winds.
Particularly not vertically.

The conclusion: "Gravity not "Green House Gas" spectrum is why the bottoms
of atmospheres are hotter than their tops." is correct - but not relevant
to the climate issue.

I can not understand what you mean by "As a mathematically testable statement"
It is not verbose enough for me to understand what youi mean.

Understand the geometrically simple in simple but absolute quantitative relationships

Further down the page you write: "For those who truly grok classical physics,
it should become clear upon reflection that of the 2 macroscopic forces only
asymmetric centripetal GRAVITY can "trap" heat , ie : energy , and in fact
must do so to make the equations balance."

That is insane. What about a satellite in an orbit around the sun. We make the
albedo very close to 1.0 with shiny silvered surfaces. The satellite would be
empty and black inside with a small opening always towards the sun. A large lense
would put an image of the sun on the hole. Such an object could easily trap
heat and reach a temperature above 1000K. When looking out from the hole
in an arbitrary direction one would see the sun at 6000K over at least 20% of
solid angle through the lens. Trapping heat is electromagnetic in nature not
gravitational!! Reflection/absorption or black/shiny are electromagnetic
properties. Refraction in a lens is also.

The theories you support are at several places including these:
http://cosy.com/Science/ComputationalEarthPhysics.html
http://cosy.com/Science/y20/CompEarthPhys20200320.html

By advocating these false ideas you discredit the serious reseachers like
W. Happer, B Lomborg and others.

 I suggest you have a look at this: "Keeping
Your Cool on the Climate Debate with Bjorn Lomborg"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Te5al2APrQ

Leif Ć…sbrink

Bob A

Peace thru Freedom
Honesty enforced thru Transparency ,

-- Bob@CoSy.com -- Bob Armstrong Vita -- @CoherentSystems -- CoSyĀ  The Shortest Path from the Chip to the Math I reserve the right to post all communications I receive or generate to CoSy website for further reflection

--