Naturally Stable TV covering natural hair, weaves, wigs, cosmetics and product reviews. Tapping everything fashionable.

All products are purchased by me. I am not getting paid by any company to review or use their products.

1000Frolly channel relies on your generosity and support to keep up the fight against the forces of pseudo-science. Please assist of you can;

Patreon https://www.patreon.com/1000Frolly

I have decided to adhere to convention and replace the n with an M.

This is to avoid confusion with n which is used by many as the number of moles – not the mean molecular weight.

So the formula is now;

T = PM/Rρ

T = near-surface atmospheric temperature in Kelvin

P = near-surface atmospheric pressure in kPa

R = gas constant 8.314

ρ = near-surface atmospheric density in kg/m³

M = near-surface atmospheric mean molecular weight (in grams per mole)

Where is the so-called ‘Greenhouse Effect’?

A GHE of the size claimed by the IPCC or the ‘mainstream’ climate scientists simply can’t be ‘baked in’ to this formula.

Firstly you have the ‘problem’ of the claimed 33C from the GHE, which because of the gas law results incorporating auto-compression has disappeared.

There is also the second problem that if the temperature can be accurately calculated by knowing just three gas parameters, then the climate sensitivity to CO2 has to be extremely low, not more than 0.02C which means that the CO2 alarm is totally unnecessary. In effect, the formula proves that ‘extra’ CO2 has no more effect than more of any other gas has on temperatures.

Here I present a hypothesis that the supposed 33C “greenhouse gas warming” of the troposphere does not in fact exist.

The suggestion, and the calculations show, that by using a derivative of the Ideal gas law, the 33C difference between the predicted Black Body Law temperature of 255 Kelvin and the measured global average temperature of 288 Kelvin, is actually caused by Auto-Compression.

The proof is that by using just three gas parameters; Pressure, Density and Molar Mass, the average near-surface temperature of any planetary body with an atmospheric pressure of more than 10Kpa can be accurately determined.

No separate input from solar insolation, albedo or the “greenhouse gas effect” is needed.

Here, I have rearranged the previous formula, on a suggestion by AfroPhysics on the “Climate Sophistry” website. I think it does make calculations a little simpler.

References;

Fulchignoni, M., Ferri, F., Angrilli, F., Ball, A. J., Bar-Nun, A., Barucci, M. A., … & Coradini,, M. 2005. In situ measurements of the physical characteristics of Titan’s environment. Nature, 4387069, 785-791.

Lindal, G. F., Wood, G., Hotz, H., Sweetnam, D., Eshleman, V., & Tyler, G. 1983. The atmosphere of Titan: An analysis of the Voyager 1 radio occultation measurements. Icarus, 532, 348-363.

Moroz, V., Ekonomov, A., Moshkin, B., Revercomb, H., Sromovsky, L., Schofield, J., . . . Tomasko, M. G. 1985. Solar and thermal radiation in the Venus atmosphere. Advances in Space Research, 511, 197-232.

NASA fact sheet data on the planets, 2017. Accessed 10/4/2017 https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/

Robinson, T. D., & Catling, D. C. 2014. Common 0.1 thinsp bar tropopause in thick atmospheres set by pressure-dependent infrared transparency. Nature Geoscience, 71, 12-15.

Schmidt, G. A., Ruedy, R. A., Miller, R. L., & Lacis, A. A. 2010. Attribution of the present‐day total greenhouse effect. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 115D20.

Southpole.aq/environment/climate.html

Wikipedia, Properties of Earth’s atmosphere, 2017. Accessed 6/4/2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air

Zasova, L. V., Ignatiev, N., Khatuntsev, I., & Linkin, V. 2007. Structure of the Venus atmosphere. Planetary and Space Science, 5512, 1712-1728.

**Video Rating: / 5**

Nice and all, but have you considered that the near surface pressure is dependent on the near surface temperature?

So all you have proven here is that the ideal gas law works on other planets. It's just how a gas behaves at certain conditions, not how these conditions came to be. The temperature you can derive from the energy balance of the planet, and the pressure will then be a function of the temperature, not the other way around.

And adiabatic compression can not give us extra temperature on earth. I'll show you:

Let's first have an earth without an atmosphere and without a sun. It's really, really cold.

Now add the sun, and you get a temperature of 255 K.

Then give the earth very slowly an atmosphere. add the molecules from a high altitude so compression can occur. Temperature will rise again. Once all the air particles are added, the system will find an equilibrium: no more heat production through compression, only insolation. And without the greenhouse effect, earth will cool down again to 255K.

There is no valid physics supporting the contention that radiation from one molecule of cold carbon dioxide in every 2,500 other air molecules can cause heat transfer into the warmer surface and thus raise the temperature. Long-established physics may be used to explain why greenhouse gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide can only COOL us, which is why rainforests are cooler than deserts at similar latitude and altitude. For the correct science visit my website.whyitsnotco2.com and read my papers at ssrn.com/author=2627605

If surface temperatures are entirely determined by adiabatic auto compression, then the 255 K black body temperature determined by the S-B law should occur just where the atmospheric pressure is 10 kPa. It does not. It occurs at a height of about 5 kms. At this height the atmospheric pressure is about 50 kPa.

Three questions: 1) Where do insolation (or distance from the sun) and albedo figure in your "formula"? 2) How do you explain both historical data and the current rise in temperature in line with the scientific consensus of all relevant scientific bodies on Earth? 3) In which reputable journal have you published your "insights"?

LOL, this video perfectly explains why every place below sea level is hot as fuck. Always. And the deeper you go in a mine, the hotter it gets. It also explains the major idiotic flaw of all the IPCC scientists for not figuring this out on their own. They can't think. IQ 150 here.

Whoa, the south pole number. Help me out here. Someone talk me through this.

The fundamental error, propagated time and again is the assumption that heat transfer in the troposphere is dictated by radiative heat transfer with a temperature gradient modified by the hydrostatic equation. That is where the global warming comes from. The heat transfer in the troposphere is governed by the constant flow energy equation, any radiative heat transfer from the troposphere is directly into space. There is a potential effect if this direct transfer is blocked, but there are substantial feedback mechanisms in place preventing the temperature at the surface reaching the absurd levels claimed by an invalid theory. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQmEJAquZDQ

all this science bullshit what i see is videos of people standing where they used to plant gardens and the water is up to their knees what gives with the measurements of millimeters sounds like bullshit to me and ive watched alot of videos

See my attempt at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRJttBwrWUU&t=885s, We account for the temperature distribution in the troposphere by 'sensible heat', 'latent heat' and potential energy. The greenhouse effect, as stated, actually contravenes the First Law of Thermodynamics. Also I believe the criterion is 20kPa, not 10kPa. It makes hardly any difference to the answers.

You might also check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-gtyBDm6wQ&t=9s, where I show it is nonsense for Venus and Mars as well

ssrn.com/abstract=3117385

Hi 1000Frolly,

So impressed was I with this revelation that I referenced it on Tony Heller's Web site 'realclimatescience.com' on his article titled: NASA bebunks global warming theory. Of course, it took flack but I think you could respond better that I could. I'd say (to the claim that the formula 'Q=U A dT' is better than 'T=Pn/Rp')…that I had a lecturer that would say, to students that couldn't accept the validity of a formula, "Try it, your mother did". Using just three variables and a constant to determine surface temperature is fairly impressive – if you can do it with just two variables, make a YouTube video and show us.

Tony Heller is nearly on the nail, but not quite there. Would you consider working on a collaborative project for a new video on this same topic? He has greater audience reach and better presentation skills but you have the answer that needs shouting from the roof tops (and from the bottom of the deepest mine shafts).

This is good, interesting. How do you account for diurnal temperature variation? I hope radiation. Does this theory correspond and cohere with how we understand 'air' to increase in temperature generally? I think radiation is still a key factor; maybe this is what you mean by ' solar insulation' and the end. B

I'm usually a big fan of 1000frolly, but this video is embarrassingly wrong. Not only does he abandon his original thesis, never proving the source of the missing 33C, but he makes some boner moves deriving his equation, adding a term without justification and removing another term without justification. You simply don't do that with equations. Perhaps he merely left out a few steps, but he made it look like voodoo, instead of algebra. He shows no connection between the finished formula and the missing 33C. The notion of calculating temperature from existing measurements of pressure, density and molar mass are pretty standard, so all 1000frolly has demonstrated is his ability to do high school algebra (poorly).

Heat of compression doesn't persist. This is his big fallacy! Heat will radiate away. It does this every day after the sun goes down, especially in a cloudless sky.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2 is transparent to visible light, and absorbs and re-emits infrared. In a denser atmosphere, enough of the gas will absorb outbound infrared to make heat loss by radiative transfer increasingly less efficient with greater pressure. 1000frolly is right about this one detail, but wrong on the overall thesis. And this effect of decreased heat loss by radiative transfer is exactly what the greenhouse effect is about. That absorbed radiation is re-emitted in both directions, tending to buffer the heat loss and create a thermal blanket effect.

The IPCC is wrong about a lot of things, but greenhouse effect is not one of them.

Astonishing, even the most simple facts are groundlessly denied. Svante Arhenius must be turning in his grave right now.

This discussion about the 'green house effect' total ignores the fact that a main the main contributor it is not carbon dioxide or other so-called green house gases….it is water vapour. The roll of water vapour in the heating/cooling of the atmosphere is easily demonstrated by the difference in day/night temperatures of deserts compared to say rain forests. And let us not forget that water in the atmosphere is treated as a constant by computer models since they have no way of accurately modeling it. Think of cloud cover and how that effects energy balance of the atmosphere.

The science here is beyond me but I'm glad that this video is in the public domain.

So math just debunked the whole thing

You were very sloppy with the algebra. Or rather, you didn't actually go through the algebra at all and threw up some misleading steps where you literally just arbitrarily added and dropped terms, without explaining the validity of doing so. In the process, you actually changed the meaning of the variable n, without explaining what you did. Please don't do that. Either show enough work to make the steps clear or leave it as an exercise to the listener/reader to do the conversion. (Not explaining it is literally better than explaining it wrong, as long as the result is correct and can be validated elsewhere.)

We can't eliminate any terms from the ideal gas law equation. We

can,however, transform some parameters into others.PV = nRT

Start by rearranging the equation so that the volume and the number of moles switch sides:

PV = nRT

PV/(nV) = nRT/(nV)

P/n = RT/V

Now multiply both sides by mass:

mP/n = mRT/V

P(m/n) = (m/V)RT

Now, by definitions,

Density: ρ = m/V

Molar mass: M = m/n (amount of mass per mole of the substance)

we can replace terms:

PM = ρRT

This form of the ideal gas law can then be rearranged into the equation you use for calculations. Except here, we use the more conventional M symbol for molar mass and don't hijack the existing variable n that already means something different (with different units even!!).

Try these for some insight into the problem.

nov79.com/gbwm/grn.html

nov79.com/gbwm/tmp.html#sbap

nov79.com/gbwm/revr.html

Clearly the Stephan-Boltzman equation is at the core of the fraud of "greenhouse effect" and where the errors are. Air cools the planet, and does not heat it up. A real value of radiation without an atmosphere would be much hotter (51C) and not -18 C with a 20 times lesser value of radiation for the SB equation. Therefore the -33 degrees would be +36, thus requiring a COOLING by conduction, convection and radiation, with radiation being very little of the amount. This better conforms to reality, not this nonsense of CO2 heating the planet.

As for the video…very interesting, 1000 frolly.

What do you mean by the S-B law? Stephen Boltzman?