Arctic Layer Cake

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

There’s a recent paper paywalled here, called Arctic winter warming amplified by the thermal inversion and consequent low infrared cooling to space. Fortunately, the Supplementary Online Information is available here, and it contains much valuable information. The paper claims that during the arctic winter, the atmospheric radiation doesn’t go out to space … instead it is directed downwards, increasing the surface warming.

Now I haven’t figured out yet how that works, radiation being “directed downwards”. But that’s what they say. From their Abstract: 

We find that the surface inversion in fact intensifies Arctic amplification, because the ability of the Arctic wintertime clear-sky atmosphere to cool to space decreases with inversion strength. Specifically, we find that the cold layers close to the surface in Arctic winter, where most of the warming takes place, hardly contribute to the infrared radiation that goes out to space. Instead, the additional radiation that is generated by the warming of these layers is directed downwards, and thus amplifies the warming. We conclude that the predominant Arctic wintertime temperature inversion damps infrared cooling of the system, and thus constitutes a positive warming feedback.

Hmmm … so their basic claim is that the (poorly named) “greenhouse effect” is strengthened by the temperature inversion in the winter, that this slows the surface cooling, and that as a result the surface ends up warmer than it would otherwise be. A second claim is that the cause of additional Arctic winter downwelling radiation at the surface is a temperature inversion. The third claim is that this Arctic inversion is not unusual, but that there is a “predominate” winter temperature inversion in the Arctic.

Now, all of these claims can be investigated using the CERES satellite radiation dataset. To look at their first claim, I thought I’d follow the lead of the estimable Ramanathan and consider how much of the upwelling radiation from the surface is absorbed during the Arctic summer versus the Arctic winter. Ramanathan proposed the use of this atmospheric absorption of surface radiation as a measure of the strength of the greenhouse effect. Obviously, the more upwelling longwave that is absorbed by the atmosphere, the warmer the surface ends up. Figure 1 shows the strength of the greenhouse effect using Ramanathan’s measurement (absorbed radiation as a percentage of surface radiation) in June and in December.

CERES june atmospheric absorption upwelling longwaveCERES December atmospheric absorption upwelling longwaveFigure 1. Strength of the poorly-named “greenhouse effect”, as measured by the percentage of the surface upwelling longwave radiation (thermal infrared radiation) that is absorbed by the atmosphere. The situation is shown for the month of June (upper panel) and December (lower panel). Following Ramanathan, the absorbed radiation is calculated as the upwelling surface radiation minus the upwelling TOA radiation.

As you might imagine, and can see in Figure 1, the greenhouse effect is strongest where there is water. As a result, the effect is strongest in the tropics, and is stronger over the ocean than over the land. For the same reason, the greenhouse effect is weaker over the deserts and at the poles.

Now, their claim is that there is additional greenhouse warming in the Arctic in the wintertime compared to the summertime, slowing the radiative cooling of the surface. However, the CERES data disagrees, and indeed it shows the opposite. The CERES data says that at both poles, the greenhouse effect is stronger in the summertime, not weaker. This makes sense, because there is more water vapor in the air in the summer.

Note also that while there are areas of temperature inversions (shown in blue), and they do occur in a few areas in the Arctic winter(lower panel), they are not a general feature of the Arctic. On the other hand, large areas of the Antarctic do have a temperature inversion in winter (upper panel, blue). 

So the CERES data doesn’t agree with the study regarding the slowed cooling in winter. The CERES data says the opposite, that cooling is easier in winter because less upwelling surface longwave is absorbed by the atmosphere. Nor does the Arctic temperature inversion seem to be as widespread or pervasive as the authors state.

Next, they claim increased downwelling longwave at the surface in the Arctic winter. To investigate this claim, Figure 2 shows the June and December downwelling longwave surface radiation, once again as a percentage of the upwelling longwave surface radiation.

CERES June surface downwelling as percent of upwellingCERES December surface downwelling as percent of upwellingFigure 2. Downwelling surface longwave radiation as a percentage of the upwelling longwave surface radiation, June (upper panel) and December (lower panel).

The main oddity in Figure 2 is that most places, most of the time, the downwelling radiation is about 86-88%, with not much difference summer to winter or place to place, particularly in the ocean. I wouldn’t have guessed that. Note that Figure 2 also reveals the widespread winter temperature inversion in the Antarctic winter (upper panel, red) indicated by downwelling longwave radiation exceeding upwelling surface radiation, and the lack of such a widespread inversion in the Arctic winter (lower panel, red).

More to the current point, we have a curiosity related to the authors’ claims about the Arctic. Note that in Antarctica in the wintertime (upper panel) there is a marked increase in the downwelling radiation as a percentage of the surface radiation compared to their summer (lower panel). The difference is large, 98% versus 64%. Presumably, this is the increased downwelling that they describe in their paper (although as expected the upwelling also increases).

But in the Arctic, where the paper claims this phenomenon of increased downwelling radiation is occurring, there is no difference between the downwelling surface longwave in the summer and the winter (88% in both cases).

So we do in fact find the phenomenon they point to of increasing downwelling radiation  … but we don’t find it in the Arctic as they claim, we find it at the opposite pole.

Summary

1. Their claim, that there is “reduced cooling” in the arctic in wintertime that affects the surface temperature, is not supported by the CERES data. To the contrary, the CERES data shows the Arctic radiative cooling is much more rapid in the winter than the summer, because the atmosphere is absorbing much less radiation. Note that this is what we’d expect, due to the reduced amount of water vapor in winter.

2. Their claim, that the Arctic temperature inversion is widespread, is not supported by the CERES data. It shows general wintertime temperature inversion in the Antarctic, but not in the Arctic.

3. Their claim, that the Arctic downwelling longwave radiation increases in the winter, is not supported by the CERES data. Curiously, it is true in the Antarctic. In the Arctic, however, there is almost no difference between summer and winter.

Now, how did they get this so wrong? From their methods section (emphasis mine):

An often used method to increase the signal-to-noise (i.e. climate change- to-variability) ratio is to study multi-model output, such as those obtained in the CMIP3 initiative for ‘realistic’ forcing scenarios. The general idea then is to apply statistics on the multitude of independent members (individual models) to reduce the noise, and also to use intermodel differences to relate climate processes to feedbacks2.

Another method, the one employed here, is to use one climate model and apply a sufficiently large forcing (e.g. 2xCO2) to obtain a climate change signal that is much larger than the noise. The advantage of this approach is that dedicated experiments can be carried out, including changing certain model processes in order to link these to feedbacks (as is done in this study).

So … as usual, rather than mess with ugly observational data, it’s models all the way down. Actually it’s worse, it’s the output of one single solitary model all the way down. Or as a typical adulatory media report of the story says:

Pithan and co-author Thorsten Mauritsen tested air layering and many other Arctic climate feedback effects using sophisticated climate computer models.

Hey, as long they used a sophisticated climate model, and it is reportedly “based on true physics” in the best Hollywood tradition, what’s not to like?

Best to everyone,

w.

The Usual Request: If you disagree with something I say, please quote my exact words so we know what you are referring to. I can defend my own words. I cannot defend some vague claim like “Willis, your logic is wrong”. It may well be … but we’ll never find out unless you quote exactly the logical claims I made that you don’t like.

Data and Code: CERES calculated surface data (in R “save()” format) is here, 110Mbytes. and the CERES measured TOA data is here, 230 Mbytes. CERES Setup.R and CERES Functions.R are needed for the analysis. Finally, the code for this post is Arctic Amplification.R

Also, it’s worth noting that while the CERES top-of-atmosphere data is from measurements, the surface data is calculated from the TOA data using energy balance considerations. Obviously, a global set of observational surface radiation data would be wonderful … but since we haven’t got that, the CERES data is the best we have.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
ren

Please see the pressure distribution over the polar circle.
http://oi59.tinypic.com/244e7px.jpg

Willis Eschenbach

ren says:
February 3, 2014 at 10:09 pm

Please see the pressure distribution over the polar circle.
http://oi59.tinypic.com/244e7px.jpg

Thanks, Ren but … say what? According to your linked graph, the units are microSieverts … it shows radiation, not pressure.
w.

Eugene WR Gallun

Nice
Eugene WR Gallun

“Another method, the one employed here, is to use one climate model and apply a sufficiently large forcing (e.g. 2xCO2) to obtain a climate change signal that is much larger than the noise. The advantage of this approach is that dedicated experiments can be carried out, including changing certain model processes in order to link these to feedbacks (as is done in this study).”
Even I, a non-scientist, can tell that this is ABSOLUTE BS.
Apply a sufficiently large forcing to get the answer that they want.
“The advantage of this approach is that ONE CAN MAKE UP ANYTHING AS NEEDED.”
Fixed it for them.

Carl

At least it gives one useful result: The prediction from analyzing the model disagrees with observation. Therefore the model is wrong.

Peer-checked paper. Now, who were the “peers” who checked it?
Who pays the peer-reviewers’ salaries? Who are they in debt to now?
What did THEY say and what did THEY criticize and what did THEY “approve without checking” based on the author’s “reputation” as “scientists”?

BioBob

“Aristotle wrote that heavy objects fell more rapidly. Europeans believed him for two thousand years.” Benjamin Crowell
Thanks to Willis, we don’t need to wait two thousand years for climate-hacks to be corrected. LOL
Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change? Oddball, Kelly’s Heroes

charles nelson

What a load of bollocks.
Every single piece of common sense evidence tells us that during the Arctic Winter (i.e. 24 hr darkness and sub-zero temperatures) ‘infra red’ energy will be in short supply…its ‘suppression’ and subsequent ‘warming’ effect..is at best negligible and at worst absurd.
There is a ring of desperation creeping into their theorising…a sound I adore.

noaaprogrammer

What is the source of this long wave radiation in the artic during the winter where the sun doesn’t shine for days on end? Open water/ground heat from the previous summer’s heating?

BioBob said @ February 3, 2014 at 10:32 pm

“Aristotle wrote that heavy objects fell more rapidly. Europeans believed him for two thousand years.” Benjamin Crowell

It’s possible that was because it’s true! As Galileo found out when he conducted the experiment of dropping a wooden cannonball and an iron cannonball of the same diameter. Initially the wooden cannonball fell faster before being overtaken by the iron cannonball. Interestingly Galileo reported his results even though he had previously believed that both “ought” to arrive at the ground simultaneously. The real world is tough on theory and experiments 🙂

ren

“Thanks, Ren but … say what? According to your linked graph, the units are microSieverts … it shows radiation, not pressure.”
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f00.gif
More important than the temperature value is its distribution over the the polar circle.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t100_nh_f00.gif

Alan Robertson

I was gonna say :Once again, turtles models all the way down, but you already said it. Nice work, Willis.

ren

Willis Eschenbach, ionizing radiation is lower where there is more ozone.
Best regards and thank you.

albertalad

You damn genius Willis – brilliant work sir! But the bad news – you will not be getting on their Christmas card list – again.

Eugene WR Gallun

BioBob 10:32pm
When Aristotle created his universe he had Chaos stratify into four layers — topmost fire, below fire was air, below air was water and under water was earth. These four elements each had their place and remained in it unless moved by an outside force. So if a bit of fire was moved downward it would struggle to regain its proper place and move back upward. If a bit of earth was lifted up, when released, it would go downward to regain its proper place. So also for air and water. If they were moved out of their place they would seek to return to it.
Most things that man dealt with were compound bodies — bodies composed of parts of all four elements. How fast a body fell was determined by how much of each element it had that was struggling to go upward and how much of each element it had that was struggling to go downward.
So to say it simply, a compound body that contained a lot of fire was slowed in its fall downward because the fire was working to go upward. A compound body with little fire did not face such a great impediment.
Earth was the heaviest element so compound bodies with a lot of earth weighed more BUT THE WEIGHT ITSELF WAS NOT THE REASON THE COMPOUND BODY MOVED DOWNWARD.
To make this clear if for some reason Aristotle had given the element earth place as the outer most layer and below it water and below water next came air and below air, at the very center was fire — fire would draw all compound bodies that contained fire DOWNWARD. And fire being the lightest element — this would mean that compound bodies that contained the most fire would fall the fastest. IN OTHER WORDS THE LIGHTEST BODIES WOULD FALL THE FASTEST.
There is a total misunderstanding of “movement” in academic writing about Aristotle because the academics don’t understand how Aristotle created his universe — how he sets the whole thing up.
There is no gravity in Aristotle — only elements moved out of their proper place and seeking to return to it..
Eugene WR Gallun

John F. Hultquist
Richard111

Couple of silly layman questions; if there is no sunlight, what is making the ozone?
If a surface is radiating over any specific band of radiation how is able to absorb that band of radiation from any other source?

Stephen Skinner

“Specifically, we find that the cold layers close to the surface in Arctic winter, where most of the warming takes place, hardly contribute to the infrared radiation that goes out to space. ”
…So if something is cold it contributes less to warming? Er..yes..and?
…Cold layers where most of the warming takes place? What?

Greg

Hey Willis , why don’t you try to find a study where models get something right, it would probably be quicker than listing everything they get wrong 😉
Seriously, well spotted. AGW apologists seem to have retreated into the fantasy world of model output since there’s nothing in the observational data to support it any more.
“Note also that while there are areas of temperature inversions (shown in blue)…”
I’m not sure you imply temperature inversion at surface from TOA radiation budget. How would such data distinguish between a temp inv at the surface or higher in the troposphere or some difference in stratosphere? TOA is the net sum of all layers, how do the blue bits tell us about surface conditions?
The big flaw in the paper’s argument (apart from not using any DATA) is that temperature inversion’s main effect would be to suppress _convection_ not radiation. And that could conceivably cause slower cooling in winter.
If there is such an effect in REAL DATA then this may help explain polar amplification
In reality , with the tropopause getting very low in winter and with the stirring of the blizzards and the polar vortex I expect there is not that much stratification.

Willis Eschenbach

noaaprogrammer says:
February 3, 2014 at 10:37 pm

What is the source of this long wave radiation in the artic during the winter where the sun doesn’t shine for days on end? Open water/ground heat from the previous summer’s heating?

Good question, NOAAP. The heat is transported to the poles from the tropics by the atmosphere and the ocean. See my post here for a discussion.
w.

Hmmm … so their basic claim is that the (poorly named) “greenhouse effect” is strengthened by the temperature inversion in the winter, that this slows the surface cooling, and that as a result the surface ends up warmer than it would otherwise be.

Well, the inversion is the greenhouse effect – it does not “strengthen” it.
Without the polar downwelling radiation, the surface temperature would be about 45K. The only reason that it stays a moderate -70C (203K) is the downwelling radiation. This is very clear when you look at the radiosonde data.
The other contribution to polar winter warmth is clouds. When there is no Sun for 6 months, the clouds all but stop thermal radiation from the surface to space. I don’t think the satellite data correctly provides that data.

A second claim is that the cause of additional Arctic winter downwelling radiation at the surface is a temperature inversion.

That’s backwards. The downwelling radiation produces the temperature inversion.

The third claim is that this Arctic inversion is not unusual, but that there is a “predominate” winter temperature inversion in the Arctic.

That is absolutely true. The radiosonde data demonstrates that quite clearly.

Greg

noaaprogrammer says:
What is the source of this long wave radiation in the artic during the winter where the sun doesn’t shine for days on end? Open water/ground heat from the previous summer’s heating?
===
I would have thought the contraction of the Arctic air mass (which gives rise to the ‘night-time’ polar vortex) bringing in warmer air from lower latitudes. This warmth would obviously radiate in all directions including downwards.
I think this is what they are trying to convey in the abstract, though it is so badly worded it’s not at all clear whether that is a correct interpretation.

ren

Temperature anomalies result from the decomposition of ozone over the Arctic Circle. Temperature in the Arctic increases when the polar vortex is weak and shifted. Only then warm air can overcome the barrier jet stream.

Greg

“…. where the sun doesn’t shine for days on end”
parts of the Arctic do not get direct ground level insolation for varying lengths of time, however, that does not mean that the stratosphere and higher parts of the troposphere are not illuminated.

Dr. Strangelove

Willis
My hypothesis why there’s greater “greenhouse effect” in winter at Antarctica is due to more pronounced ozone depletion cooling. The ‘greenhouse effect’ is defined here as upwelling surface radiation minus upwelling TOA radiation. Then divided by the former. During winter there’s less solar radiation hence more pronounced cooling of stratosphere and troposphere, plus additional warming of surface from ozone depletion. This decreases TOA radiation and increases surface radiation. Therefore this is not really due to greenhouse gases but to the ozone hole.

daddylonglegs

One gets the impression that somewhere is a smoke-filled war room where increasingly desperate AGW supremos are struggling to put out fires ad maintain the crumbling credibility of the whole AGW narrative. This time they have woken up to the fact that convection and IR might dominate heat loss at the Arctic rather than only albedo as they complacently imagined up to now. So increased open sea in the Arctic summer loses heat by convection and IR rather than gaining it by reduced ice albedo – i.e. the feedback in negative, not positive as the AGW shareholders require and demand. Thus the haste to rush out a story about some bizzare new physics about some Alice-in-Wonderland atmospheric IR umbrella over the Arctic.
Willis with usual skill shows that the merest brush with real data brings the whole fabrication crashing down.

Willis Eschenbach

Greg says:
February 4, 2014 at 12:38 am

“…. where the sun doesn’t shine for days on end”

parts of the Arctic do not get direct ground level insolation for varying lengths of time, however, that does not mean that the stratosphere and higher parts of the troposphere are not illuminated.

Thanks, Greg. I think that’s a difference that doesn’t make a lot of difference. The tropopause in the Arctic is at something like 10 km or so. A line tangent to the surface of the planet has an altitude of 10 km after traveling about 360 km, which is about 3° of latitude. You’ll get a bit more from the bending of the light rays, call it 4°.
So everything more than about 4° north of the terminator will be in total darkness including the atmosphere. On December 31st, that would be everything north of about 70°North … which is about 70% the area above the Arctic Circle.
Regards,
w.

steveta_uk

Another method, the one employed here, is to use one climate model and apply a sufficiently large forcing (e.g. 2xCO2) to obtain a climate change signal that is much larger than the noise. Unfortunately this also means that the model is operating well outside its calibration ranges, but c’est la vie.

ren

“The heat is transported to the poles from the tropics by the atmosphere and the ocean.”
This is entirely consistent with the observations. You should not multiply theory.

JBJ

“1. Their claim, that there is “reduced cooling” in the arctic in wintertime that affects the surface temperature, is not supported by the CERES data. To the contrary, the CERES data shows the Arctic radiative cooling is much more rapid in the winter than the summer, because the atmosphere is absorbing much less radiation. Note that this is what we’d expect, due to the reduced amount of water vapor in winter.”
The data here tends to suggest that there is reduced cooling in winter: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
For most years since 2005 the winter temperatures above 80 degs north have been above the 1954-2014 average.

Adam Gallon

Reckon any of these here Climate Scientists will submit a letter to this journal, pointing out this inconvenient truth? Hard bits been done by Willis, all they have to do is a quick copy & paste.

ren

“For most years since 2005 the winter temperatures above 80 degs north have been above the 1954-2014 average.”
This is exactly the period of growth of cosmic radiation.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=2000&starttime=00%3A00&endday=04&endmonth=02&endyear=2014&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on

ren

Here you can see exactly the effects of anomalies in the stratosphere to the troposphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_NH_2013.gif

Dodgy Geezer

…Now, how did they get this so wrong?…
I understand that Nature has the facility for people to submit ‘letters arising’ comments on papers. It might be interesting to submit the item above as a ‘letter arising’, and see if Nature deals with it in a similar way to the way it suppressed the McIntyre hockey-stick take-down…

M Seward

“Now I haven’t figured out yet how that works, radiation being “directed downwards”.”
Oh Willis, Willis, Willis! It isn’t directed downwards but is attracted downwards by the same Earthian gravitational attraction that draws the heat down into the hidden depths of the ocean without warming up the matter that the heat passes through.

M Seward

Can you moderate my name to “M Seward” in the previous post! Sad isn’t it?

Greg

Willis: “So everything more than about 4° north of the terminator will be in total darkness including the atmosphere. On December 31st, that would be everything north of about 70°North … which is about 70% the area above the Arctic Circle.”
Thanks for providing some numbers. 70% of the area is a fairly significant difference from 100% at ground level. And that’s near the solstice maximum dark period. The average over a longer period will be more important.
Another aspect of this that AFAIK gets ignored is surface reflection at grazing incident angle. This can be 80-90% of incident radiation at low angles like 10 degrees which occurs in these polar winter conditions.
This radiation will then hit the _underside_ of any cloud cover and also get absorbed in part by the atmosphere. This would also add to the downward IR.
Since instruments on satellites have to be protected when opposite the sun this does not get properly measured and likely is not represented in the CERES data.
Reflection from the surface of melt pools in summer also is unaccounted for in the major models.

David

noaaprogrammer says:
February 3, 2014 at 10:37 pm
What is the source of this long wave radiation in the artic during the winter where the sun doesn’t shine for days on end?
I can name one place where the sun don’t shine. Maybe they got it from there.

“Their claim, that the Arctic temperature inversion is widespread, is not supported by the CERES data.”
It might help to use a more appropriate tool, for example radiosonde observations or reanalysis data.

Willis, you probably mean December 21st. For fun I looked up the sun declination for Dec 21st = -23°26′
And 31st = -23°08′

tadchem

Evidently they have located Maxwell’s Demon.

ren
Kelvin Vaughan

When I read the list of recent posts I always know when they are yours Willis, just by the title.
I have been 100% right so far. Thanks for the posts.

bobl

If I recall correctly don’t inversions cause warming by limiting convection, rather than radiation? Is there a basic science problem here?

ren

Only changes in the polar vortex are ozone during the polar night could cause changes circulation in the troposphere and the influx of warm air over the the Arctic Circle.

johnmarshall

Sounds like a rehash of that crap GHG theory. Radiation from the Arctic will not be the average 240W/m2 but far lower. The maximum radiation to space is from tropical regions because the temperature is higher. The rate of heat loss is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature difference.
Radiation does not come from the surface either as there is a more efficient method of heat loss– convection.

Alan the Brit

I agree with Mr Nelson! Absolute imho!
“using sophisticated climate computer models.”
Sophist: A paid teacher of philosophy in ancient Greece, a reasoner willing to avail himself of fallacies that will help his case.
Sophisticated: spoil the purity or simplicity or naturalness of: corrupt or adulterate or tamper with!
Simulate/Simulation: Feign, pretend to have or were the guise of, or act the part of, counterfeit, having the appearance of, shadowy likeness or mere pretence of unreal thing!
Represent/Representation: Call up by description or portrayal or imagination, figure. place, likeness of or before mind of senses, serve or be meant as likeness of, state by way of expostulation or incentive, symbolize, act as embodiment of, be specimen of, work of art portraying, fill place of, substitute for!
What wonders computer models are! (sarc off!)

cedarhill

This is a great finding for the folks at geoscience. Anyone told them they can swim to the North Pole in winter? After all, the Russians have that really big icebreaker. Better, maybe they’ll join the Southern Loons and charter another cruise?

Thanks, Willis. As a layman I lack your skills with computers and even basic math, but simply eyeballing the maps on the DMI home page at http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/index.uk.php all winter, I can observe what actually happens. What I observe is heat vanishing fairly quickly.
It seems to me that, because the sun doesn’t shin up there in the winter, any downward-infrared-heat must be from milder air imported from further south. I can see these invasions of air occur on the DMI maps. Because Siberian and Alaskan and Canadian tundra is so cold, the invasions come from the far milder Atlantic and Pacific. (A surge of Atlantic mildness is moving up the west coast of Norway as I now type.) When this air makes it to the Pole it can be surprisingly mild for the dead of winter. (On a few occasions I’ve watched the above-freezing isotherm get north of Svalbard.) However such air chills very quickly. Within a two or three days it has cooled ten or twenty degrees. It is therefore hard to visualize any downward-infrared-heat doing any “warming.” If such a warming is occurring it must be overwhelmed by other chilling effects.
In any case, when I first heard about the paper you discuss I had the sense something didn’t smell right. Unfortunately it is quite possible, due my weaknesses with computers and math, to baffle me with bull. It takes me a long time, sometimes years, (as was the case with various “albedo” papers,) to figure things out. Therefore it is a great relief to see you discuss issues so swiftly and succinctly. Thanks again.

Vince Causey

“There is no gravity in Aristotle — only elements moved out of their proper place and seeking to return to it..”
You say that as if it is wrong, but it is not. There is no gravity, only bodies seeking to maintain their shortest proper time through space-time. A body moves through space-time so as its clock shows the shortest duration of time. Matter causes space-time to bend so that this trajectory will be curved through space-time. This looks to us as an acceleration through space.
How prescient was Aristotle!