Subject: Re: TWTW Jan 14, 2023
From: Bob Armstrong <bob@cosy.com>
Date: 2023-01-21, 09:46
To: Science and Environmental Policy Project <Ken@haapala.com>, "'Hayden, Howard'" <CorkHayden@comcast.net>, Will Happer <happer@Princeton.EDU>, Joseph Bast <josephlbast@gmail.com>

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 .

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 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 .

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 ,
-- 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