Atmospheric Pressures and Gravity

[RiffRaff]

I'm bored and will be banned. It's okay. Where it says Cold Fusion, that started with NOAA's 2014 report on
Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2014
Chapter 5 Scientific Summary

Download the complete chapter PDF file
Scientific Summary Chapter 5: Scenarios, Information, and Options for Policymakers

which quoted the IPCC's 2013 report when it said; For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases.
What they are referring to when they say that (it's on the same page); Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases.

My website; https://climate-cycling.com/

Alan Bauldree of Homer, Louisiana is whose work this is, I am posting this on his behalf.

 

[origin]

Is there something you want to discuss or are you just advertising the website?

 

[C C]

Yeah, even in Alt-Theories, it's usually best to hang around a week or so and yak-yak if you don't want the OP/thread deleted as spam or sent to Cesspool.
_

 

[RiffRaff]

Apparently no one read anything worth commenting on. I didn't know I had to be your friend to discuss science but the internet is that way.
Just for fun, how do you guys feel about the IPCC relying on the historic levels of CO2 and CH4 to continue increasing? As you both showed,
your issue is with what? You both showed it's your opinion that matters and not the work done.
I find that insulting.

Bye

p.s., A guy has used that "we need to be friends" to stalk me online for over 18 years.
As he said, he makes friends and then his friends support him. Yep, neither of you had 2 minutes
to consider actual work. That's all I need to know. Getting you guys to like me comes first in any
forum.

It's funny but scientists have never found this relationship with atmospheric pressures.

The atmospheric pressures can be factored following f(x) = Δy/Δx. y = Venus is 1350 psi/93 bars. x = (1+.02395)^x. The exponent will be the times further from the Sun than Venus squared. That allows for the inverse square law to show a decrease in the strength of the Sun’s gravitational field. The Earth is ^191 while Mars is ^403. This allows for Earth to be 93/(1+.02395)^191 = 1.01214 bars while it is 1.013 bars. And for Mars to be 93/(1+.02395)^449 = 0.0022 bars while it is .00658 bars.

But to the cesspool we go if I don't put making you my friends first. An example of why the internet sucks.

 

[DaveC426913]

The OP seems to think their wisdom is a gift to us, and that we should eagerly eat it up simply because it is offered, not because he wants to ask a question about it.

He is ignorant of how basic discussion works, and what motivates normal people to engage. He pretends it is rather about 'making friends'.

And the prophecy that noone takes him seriously is thus fulfilled.


The dog barks at the mailman to go away, the mailman moves on, the dog has saved the day once again. Self-reinforcing behavior.

 

[exchemist]

Apparently no one read anything worth commenting on. I didn't know I had to be your friend to discuss science but the internet is that way.
Just for fun, how do you guys feel about the IPCC relying on the historic levels of CO2 and CH4 to continue increasing? As you both showed,
your issue is with what? You both showed it's your opinion that matters and not the work done.
I find that insulting.

Bye

p.s., A guy has used that "we need to be friends" to stalk me online for over 18 years.
As he said, he makes friends and then his friends support him. Yep, neither of you had 2 minutes
to consider actual work. That's all I need to know. Getting you guys to like me comes first in any
forum.

It's funny but scientists have never found this relationship with atmospheric pressures.

The atmospheric pressures can be factored following f(x) = Δy/Δx. y = Venus is 1350 psi/93 bars. x = (1+.02395)^x. The exponent will be the times further from the Sun than Venus squared. That allows for the inverse square law to show a decrease in the strength of the Sun’s gravitational field. The Earth is ^191 while Mars is ^403. This allows for Earth to be 93/(1+.02395)^191 = 1.01214 bars while it is 1.013 bars. And for Mars to be 93/(1+.02395)^449 = 0.0022 bars while it is .00658 bars.

But to the cesspool we go if I don't put making you my friends first. An example of why the internet sucks.

This looks psychiatric to me. Totally incoherent.

 

[DaveC426913]

Apparently no one read anything worth commenting on. I didn't know I had to be your friend to discuss science but the internet is that way.
Just for fun, how do you guys feel about the IPCC relying on the historic levels of CO2 and CH4 to continue increasing? As you both showed,
your issue is with what? You both showed it's your opinion that matters and not the work done.
I find that insulting.

Bye

p.s., A guy has used that "we need to be friends" to stalk me online for over 18 years.
As he said, he makes friends and then his friends support him. Yep, neither of you had 2 minutes
to consider actual work. That's all I need to know. Getting you guys to like me comes first in any
forum.

It's funny but scientists have never found this relationship with atmospheric pressures.

The atmospheric pressures can be factored following f(x) = Δy/Δx. y = Venus is 1350 psi/93 bars. x = (1+.02395)^x. The exponent will be the times further from the Sun than Venus squared. That allows for the inverse square law to show a decrease in the strength of the Sun’s gravitational field. The Earth is ^191 while Mars is ^403. This allows for Earth to be 93/(1+.02395)^191 = 1.01214 bars while it is 1.013 bars. And for Mars to be 93/(1+.02395)^449 = 0.0022 bars while it is .00658 bars.

You have not provided any context or rationale for your numbers. For example, what does atmospheric pressure have to do with distance from the Sun? Why do you implicitly assume Venus or Mars atmospherics can be correlated with Earths? etc.

"... that allows for Earth to be..." followed by a number, is not communicative dialogue.

 

[C C]

[...] Chapter 5 Scientific Summary
Download the complete chapter PDF file

[...] which quoted the IPCC's 2013 report when it said; For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. What they are referring to when they say that (it's on the same page); Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. [...]

The excerpt that you seem to be referring to:

https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2014/report/chapter5_2014OzoneAssessment.pdf

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone.​

Effects of climate change are contributing to ozone loss (below). Which is to say, even in an ideology where ozone preservation is deemed more important than anything else, you'd have to pursue different recovery options than allowing high carbon dioxide and methane levels to continue.

(Nov 22, 2023) Worrying news – ozone layer not recovering after all
https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth/climate/ozone-layer-not-recovering/

INTRO: Alarming news from New Zealand scientists suggests the ozone layer might not be recovering after all, with the problem exacerbated by bushfires, volcanic eruptions and greenhouse gas emissions.

The research published in Nature Communications suggests the Antarctic ozone layer has reduced by 26% since 2004, contrary to previous reports of recovery by actions taken under an agreement called the Montreal Protocol.

The authors say wildfire and volcanic aerosols together with greenhouse gas emissions probably explain recent setbacks with record large, long-lived ozone holes re-emerging over Antarctica during Spring since 2020.

Climate change is influencing the severity and frequency of bushfires.

THE PAPER:

(Nov 21, 2023) Potential drivers of the recent large Antarctic ozone holes
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42637-0
_​

 

[RiffRaff]

You have not provided any context or rationale for your numbers. For example, what does atmospheric pressure have to do with distance from the Sun? Why do you implicitly assume Venus or Mars atmospherics can be correlated with Earths? etc.

"... that allows for Earth to be..." followed by a number, is not communicative dialogue.

Context was given. Don't you understand word problems and math? It doesn't seem that way to me. And when you say "Why do you implicitly assume Venus or Mars atmospherics can be correlated with Earths?", I did the math you didn't consider.
As you said "You have not provided any context or rationale for your numbers.", I did and it was clearly posted.

Do you really need basic math explained? Venus' orbit is about 67 million miles from the Sun. When
93 bars is divided by (1 + .02395)^x, the exponent is a variable equal to the % further from the Sun than Venus for that planet (Earth or Mars) squared. I thought that was obvious. All the (1 + .02395) is is a value
that allows the equation to accurately describe atmospheric pressure on different planets that have an atmosphere based on basic science.

 

[RiffRaff]

The excerpt that you seem to be referring to:

https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2014/report/chapter5_2014OzoneAssessment.pdf

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone.​

Effects of climate change are contributing to ozone loss (below). Which is to say, even in an ideology where ozone preservation is deemed more important than anything else, you'd have to pursue different recovery options than allowing high carbon dioxide and methane levels to continue.

(Nov 22, 2023) Worrying news – ozone layer not recovering after all
https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth/climate/ozone-layer-not-recovering/

INTRO: Alarming news from New Zealand scientists suggests the ozone layer might not be recovering after all, with the problem exacerbated by bushfires, volcanic eruptions and greenhouse gas emissions.

The research published in Nature Communications suggests the Antarctic ozone layer has reduced by 26% since 2004, contrary to previous reports of recovery by actions taken under an agreement called the Montreal Protocol.

The authors say wildfire and volcanic aerosols together with greenhouse gas emissions probably explain recent setbacks with record large, long-lived ozone holes re-emerging over Antarctica during Spring since 2020.

Climate change is influencing the severity and frequency of bushfires.

THE PAPER:

(Nov 21, 2023) Potential drivers of the recent large Antarctic ozone holes
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42637-0
_​

On the link I posted, there is an experiment that if successful would show the link/relationship between N2O, CO2, CH4 and O2. What the IPCC and NOAA reported shows a mathematical relationship between
the rates of change for those gasses. Also CCl4 (carbon tetrachloride) has emission levels at 10% of what they were before CCl4 was banned. The source is unknown.
With the ozone layer,the U.N. says something different. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stori...ery-track-helping-avoid-global-warming-05degc
I did read your link and one thought I've entertained is the northern hemisphere might cool while the southern hemisphere warms. This gets into more than the ozone layer. At the same time the northern hemisphere has
more emissions of CO2 than the southern hemisphere has. And with the coriolis effect it'd help to keep the 2 hemispheres separate from one another. This because as the troposphere has its trade winds it wouldn't be
surprising if the stratosphere behaved in a similar fashion.

p.s., With the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, that's because of PSCs (polar stratospheric clouds). Those involve different gasses and NOx and SOx are 2 of them. The experiment I've been pursuing might help scientists to understand how PSCs form. There are specific parameters which include it a drop in temperature when it's already cold.

 

[RiffRaff]

With the math for atmospheric pressure, I thought it was basic math and maybe I was wrong?
93 bars divided by 1 = 93 bars. That's 93/1 = 93. Then then (1 + .02395) is because the 1 represents the 1 and no change in atmospheric pressure.
The + .02395 works with the exponent to show a change based on moving closer to or further away from the sun than Venus.
Because Venus is essentially the limit then 100% = 1. Mercury's atmospheric pressure would be theoretical because it has no atmosphere. The
Earth is 1.38 times further from the Sun than Venus. 1.38^2 = 1.91 = 191%. Basically I use the inverse square law value where Venus is 1 and then
convert that to a percentage. When doing this, the values 1.91 and 191% are the same. With the inverse square law it is considering the surface
area of space. Because the Earth is 1.38 times further from the Sun than Venus (distance) the surface area of space/gravity is 191% greater.
That's like g = Gm/r^2. The surface area gravity is acting on of space as you move away from the center of the Earth increases in surface area and has a corresponding decrease in the acceleration of gravity. And with the a = Gm/r^2, the equation I developed shows that relationship extends to the atmosphere
pressure of the 3 rock type planets that have an atmosphere.

 

[DaveC426913]

Venus' orbit is about 67 million miles from the divided by (1 + .02395)^x, the exponent is a variable equal to the % further from the Sun than Venus for that planet (Earth or Mars) squared. I thought that was obvious. All the (1 + .02395) is is a value
that allows .

Ah. Got it. This is numerology.

If you apply enough arbitrary mathematical operations to enough numbers, you can eventually get some to line up. No matter that the operations do not model any known processes.

OP is a troll, as they declared at the outset.

 

[RiffRaff]

Ah. Got it. This is numerology.

If you apply enough arbitrary mathematical operations to enough numbers, you can eventually get some to line up. No matter that the operations do not model any known processes.

OP is a troll, as they declared at the outset.

Mr. Valued Troll, I notice you ignored my explanation. This shows the value of the internet. I actually showed where those arbitrary numbers have
a relationship to Newton's a = Gm/r^2. Did you miss that or do you have any idea what that means or are those arbitrary numbers as well? You don't
understand the relationship between a = Gm/r^2 and p = 93/(1 + .02395)^x? I took the time to explain it. Enjoy yourself Mr. Valued Troll.

I almost missed it. Newton used symbolism with no random numbers. Maybe I should've done that?

 

[C C]

[...] p.s., With the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, that's because of PSCs (polar stratospheric clouds). Those involve different gasses and NOx and SOx are 2 of them. The experiment I've been pursuing might help scientists to understand how PSCs form. There are specific parameters which include it a drop in temperature when it's already cold.

That's what the focus needs to be on -- i.e., what YOU are doing, including a clarification of the "alt-theory" (if there is one).

There doesn't seem to be an "About" or "Goals" or "Purpose" or whatever section to your site providing an overview slash synopsis of what you are promoting, challenging, etc.

Leaving it up to others to randomly wander around in the arrowless hallways and infer "what's going on" via their brief samplings of this and that display case will lead to a dozen different conclusions (including mystified bewilderment).
_

 

[RiffRaff]

That's what the focus needs to be on -- i.e., what YOU are doing, including a clarification of the "alt-theory" (if there is one).

There doesn't seem to be an "About" or "Goals" or "Purpose" or whatever section to your site providing an overview slash synopsis of what you are promoting, challenging, etc.

Leaving it up to others to randomly wander around in the arrowless hallways and infer "what's going on" via their brief samplings of this and that display case will lead to a dozen different conclusions (including mystified bewilderment).
_

So what you're saying is that you never read anything? If you're aware that the IPCC is saying CO2 levels need to be reduced while also saying that historic levels of CO2 are associated with an increase in stratospheric ozone, you don't
understand why that might be an issue?
At the moment I am 100% disabled and am working to change that. The university of kentucky wanted me to give my science experiment to someone who immigrated from Valenzuela while I'd receive nothing in return. Considering I am 1/2 Norwegian and a disabled Veteran as well, I found that insulting. I also do not have the need to give away information which a scientist might say "I can use that" so I need to be careful about protecting my work.
Where it says Cold Fusion, that's never been proven yet if my experiment is successful then I'll be making known the source of all 4 gasses that both the IPCC and NOAA cite as involved with recovery of the ozone layer. With that experiment, I think scientists do not want to challenge the IPCC. That is what that experiment does if its source is both the IPCC's and NOAA's reports on the ozone layer.

 

[C C]

So what you're saying is that you never read anything? If you're aware that the IPCC is saying CO2 levels need to be reduced while also saying that historic levels of CO2 are associated with an increase in stratospheric ozone, you don't understand why that might be an issue?

An issue for whom? People who want to accelerate climate change rather than just deny it?

Again, if YOU have no interest in clarifying what these frantic gesticulations are about -- what the point is, etc -- then others will be glad to keep interpreting them for you.

"Sound and fury, signifying...."

Why are you so combative, even when someone is encouraging you to get on the soapbox and deliver a lucid spiel, as opposed to this guessing game of charades?
_

 

[exchemist]

An issue for whom? People who want to accelerate climate change rather than just deny it?

Again, if YOU have no interest in clarifying what these frantic gesticulations are about -- what the point is, etc -- then others will be glad to keep interpreting them for you.

"Sound and fury, signifying...."

Why are you so combative, even when someone is encouraging you to get on the soapbox and deliver a lucid spiel, as opposed to this guessing game of charades?
_

 

[RiffRaff]

An issue for whom? People who want to accelerate climate change rather than just deny it?

Again, if YOU have no interest in clarifying what these frantic gesticulations are about -- what the point is, etc -- then others will be glad to keep interpreting them for you.

"Sound and fury, signifying...."

Why are you so combative, even when someone is encouraging you to get on the soapbox and deliver a lucid spiel, as opposed to this guessing game of charades?
_

I guess most of you guys haven't spent much time learning science. I gave a clear and concise explanation of how atmospheric pressures are relative to a planet's distance from the Sun.
That parallels Newton's g = Gm/r^2 for the acceleration of gravity. Can anyone in here factor the acceleration or orbital velocity of gravity or I am the only one who can?
With what the IPCC and NOAA both support about
Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the
globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater
if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases.
https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html , the "Cold Fusion" experiment would be to find out if CO2 and H2O, 2 non-NMVOCs is the missing source for CH2O in this
report. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2001JD000722 where it says;

They point to the reaction of CH3O2with HO2that in the standard reaction scheme yieldsCH3O2H with 100% yield.Ayers et al.[1997] proposed a second reaction channel directly producing
CH2O and showed that a 40% yield of this branch is sufficient to resolve the discrepancy between model and measurement.Weller et al.[2000] measured CH2O concentrations around 580 pptv over
the subtropical Atlantic Ocean, nearly a factor of 2 higher than predicted by their model calculation. They also conclude that theo bserved discrepancy is caused by a lack of understanding of the
methyl peroxy radical chemistry. Both Ayers et al.[1997] and Weller et al.[2000] do not consider CH2O production by oxidation of nonmethane volatile organic carbons (NMVOCs),such as isoprene,
ethene, propene, etc., due to absence of observational data. Therefore they cannot rule out that the root of the model under prediction lies in the contribution of NMVOC oxidation to the CH2O budget
[Ayers et al., 1997;Weller et al.,2000;Cox, 1999].

Is that so hard to understand? With me, this supports my null hypothesis that 2 non-NMVOCs are the missing source of CH2O in the report on

Are CH2O measurements in the marine boundary
layer suitable for testing the current understanding of CH4photooxidation?

which I provided the link for after NOAA's report on Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2014. Please take
time to consider what scientists have said. It is what my research is based on.

If this is being combative or "cuckoo then I suggest those people look in a mirror. It's not my job
to teach science in a science forum. I expect its members to be familiar with science. The attacks
suggest otherwise. At the same time they say that the U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world in knowing science.

Over the last three decades, the U.S. has trailed behind European and East Asian countries, ranking 28th out of 37 participating countries in reading, science, and math.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...sing-science-race-stem-china-global-tech.html

With what is being posted in this thread, it does support what the media has been making known.

 

[RiffRaff]

With what Jesus said;
Matthew 7:5; You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

As has been said, I am the problem, right? I've been stalked online by a Christian for over a decade. He doesn't like my attacking his "credibility",
his friends will tell you how good he is. He even told me that he will not let me use my being a disabled Veteran as a crutch to have a life in the U.S.
Because he kept me from pursuing surgery in a timely manner, to have surgery I will need to move to another country. Doctors and hospitals will
cover up malpractice and I have the imaging to prove it.
With my interest in Atmospheric Chemistry and Astrophysics (I'm including gravity and the Van Allen radiation belts into the equation which is not
a part of atmospheric chemistry at this time) it started when I was stationed on board the USS Kitty Hawk (I am from Dayton, Ohio) when it was
ported at Coronado which is in San Diego Bay across from San Diego.
With the chemical reactions, what helped me to create a flow chart was modifying how to verify trigonometric identities. It's a similar process. And
who'd think going to school for Propulsion Engineering in the U.S. Navy and then working in an engine room would lead to something like this?
Where I went wrong I read a biography about Albert Einstein when I was 13 or 14 years old. That got into his 1915 paper on General Relativity and
light bending more when passing the Sun from a distant star than what Newtonian gravity allows for.

 

[C C]

Best wishes with your pursuits. Take care.
_