---

#PlanetaryTemperature #Top

I am looking forward to meeting again old friends and meeting more of the great warriors for rationality I have yet to meet in person . I will be pressing for discussion with the eminent collected physicists what I consider the most consequential omission in the spectral GHG AlGoreWarming( h/t Stanley Goldenberg ) paradigm,industry :

In 2014 At Heartland ICCC9 , major thanks to Joe Bast , I gave a talk on the quantitative absurdity of trying to explain the extreme temperature of the bottom of Venus's atmosphere as a spectral filtering effect . It is clear in the Q&A that while proving with the most basic physics computed in the array language K my alternate hypothesis for explaining the extreme bottom of atmosphere temperature was : I don't know .
 
I'm not a ` Climate_Scientist  . I've only gotten diverted into this costly several decade stagnation because I saw no computable equations -- and I won't claim to understand anything quantitative without implementing and playing in the parameter space . While I aced PSSC physics in high school , I turned to visual psychophysics thru grad school and math late in grad school and APL as a revolutionary tool for playing with it . The power of APL to aid my ability to succinctly implement and thereby understand math level concepts turned my focus to the creation of the simplest and most powerful computing environments where the usefulness of a time stamped diary ( one first must remember ) is commanded and programmed by simply tapping a function key instead of Enter -- a Captain Picard's Log . Thereby always having evolved and evolving array mathematics available at my fingertips . See my Vita .

Thus my approach starts with seeking a computable understanding at an AP high school and undergrad physics/engineering level .  Let me understand , implement the quantitative relationships for , a simple radiantly heated sphere first .

And here's where we run into trouble . Whatever the effective radiative envelope of the planet is , second year calc Stokes Theorem implies the average temperature inside a body must match that of its surface unless there is a net interior source or sink .

Thermal radiation ( and conduction ) is radially symmetric , isotropic . A warmer portion will net radiate toward cooler until the temperature is uniform . Generalized Fourier's diffusion equation . It cannot create a gradient .  This is why there has been a continual voice over the decades saying the GHG paradigm violates basic thermodynamics . It does .

That is why there is no testable fundamental equation quantitatively explaining how and by how much the bottom of an atmosphere can be hotter than the radiative equilibrium of the planet as a whole .

So what's the explanation ?
It was in  WUWT comment/discussion that it finally got thru to me that the elephant the spectral filtering paradigm omits is GRAVITY . Simple 330+ year old Newton's Law of Gravity -- in defiance of Conservation of Energy .

A number of papers , most noted perhaps Nikolov & Zeller , show pressure , above a certain level , determines the temperature gradients across planets . But pressure is not a prime cause , ie: force . There are essentially only 2 : em , and the other macroscopic force : gravity . Pressure is the result of gravity acting on mass . It is universally observed from the tops of atmospheres to the cores of planets . As I put it at https://cosy.com/#PlanetaryPhysics :

Particles moving "up" in a gravitational field slow down , ie: cool ;   Those moving down speed up , ie: heat . 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 . 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 .

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 . | Leif Asbrink diputes Graeff's calculations :. See Re: Particles moving "up" in a gravitational field | 20210505.1544 |

The most recent paper I've seen which works thru the computations is Robert Ian Holmes 2017 : Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate Sensitivity .  I've had an email discussion w several notable physicists .

| below is what delayed mailing until Thu.Feb,20230209 |

It's one thing to say where's your equation and another to actually assert your own .

I'm implementing the various equations in the CoSy Job https://cosy.com/Science/Physics/Physics.csy ( requires  CoSy ) with the definitions in the script https://cosy.com/4thCoSy/Code/Physics/general.f .

For instance , Pressure can be expressed ( in traditional infix ) as
or as a ( stack commented )  CoSy Forth RPN definition ,
simply the quotient . Note , tho , that  CoSy definitions like this generally apply to corresponding leafs ( eg: numerical lists ) of arrays .  Thus can be applied directly to every voxel in a finite element model of the atmosphere .

Temperature is essentially average kinetic energy per particle , per unit mass .

To the right are Holmes's equations .

The adiabatic , ie: constant total energy , tradeoff of gravitational ( which computes as a negative ) and radiant+kinetic completes the equation for bottom of atmosphere temperature :



or as a  Forth RPN ( ReversePolishNotation )  CoSy definition


The GHG paradigm includes the RadiativeEqulibrium term and the RGinteraction term in the form of spectral broadening with pressure , and the fundamental argument from Hansen et al's 1981 paper , which helped kick off this decades of stagnation , that more CO2 radiates from ` higher where it's colder , so radiates less , trapping more . But Hansen then goes on to claim the entire adiabatic gradient below as due to that ` trapping . And that has never been questioned by the CC industry .

 The adiabatic gradient is an independent term and must by Conservation of Energy be accounted for .


Lavoisier turned alchemy into chemistry by bringing his accounting background to bear , demanding quantitative accounting of all inputs and outputs .The same needs to be demanded of so-called Climate Science .

I am looking forward to discussions at Heartland , because I have so major questions , beyond the fundamentals here , I don't yet understand .

Some refs :

• Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate Sensitivity
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin%E2%80%93Helmholtz_mechanism
• https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/12/how-gravity-continuously-does-work-on.html
• https://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_06.pdf
• https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/03/on-cop21-and-the-madness-of-crowds/#comment-1659082

|  BobA  20230208.2341 |

---

---