วีดีโอ

6:42 English automatic: not derived from ideal gas nor... , but: "derived from ideal gas Law..."

It is more likely that the primary temperature feedback is ice sheet albedo. See paper: Modulation of Ice Ages by Dust and Albedo. Which perfectly explains the ice age temperature cycle. Ralph

Why would anyone care?

Nice example of Carnot cycles!

Lately I came up with a horrefying thought that all those windmills generate a lot of extra moisture being caused by friction and so heating the air (action = reaction), that on it's turn stays longer in the air because the balancing out of high and low pressure systems is delayed by these very mills. Sounds like this has been happening lately??????????????????

Prof Yong - Neutral heating by auroral electrodynamics th-cam.com/video/SYaEo7udAuA/w-d-xo.html and measure physical quantities, including the line-of-sight Doppler shift velocity, emission intensity, rotational temperature, and column density. th-cam.com/video/Yz-h-cDvPSU/w-d-xo.html

I get the basics of black body radiation and the Plank curve. But how does an IR thermometer see a wall that's 20 meters away when the air is the same temperature?

Sabina presented a complex subject in a simplified format to make it understandable. Dr. Yong seems to want to recomplicate it through semantic nitpicking.

NASA posted measured values for the gaseous planets temperature K vs pressure in bar excluding Mars as its atmosphere is just to thin. They showed the temperature above the blackbody temperatures in K calculate. At 1 bar Venus high from the surface was around 350 K, this from memory so i purposely shot high , Venus at the surface was 90 bar and about 738 K. Do not bother looking it disappeared about Feb 2021 with Biden admin. going 5 fire bells alarmist, they removed it or buried it

NASA posted measured values for the gaseous planets temperature K vs pressure in bar excluding Mars as its atmosphere is just to thin. They showed the temperature above the blackbody temperatures in K calculate. At 1 bar Venus high from the surface was around 350 K, this from memory so i purposely shot high , Venus at the surface was 90 bar and about 738 K. Do not bother looking it disappeared about Feb 2021 with Biden admin. going 5 fire bells alarmist, they removed it or buried it

NASA posted measured values for the gaseous planets temperature K vs pressure in bar excluding Mars as its atmosphere is just to thin. They showed the temperature above the blackbody temperatures in K calculate. At 1 bar Venus high from the surface was around 350 K, this from memory so i purposely shot high , Venus at the surface was 90 bar and about 738 K. Do not bother looking it disappeared about Feb 2021 with Biden admin. going 5 fire bells alarmist, they removed it or buried it

12:00 Zeroth law of Thermodynamics made of three close connected systems; A, B and C law based on pure logic, if A temp equal to C temp and they all close together thus B also have same temp. Earth ground is A energetic system, atmosphere which touches ground is B and who is C energetic system, Sun ? It not makes sense. If argument that ground over day not radiates EMW to space it is true, it sounds legit, but at night temp. drops anyway. Sahara desert without water to store immense amount of energy radiates energy back to space that been torched by sun at day time, hot ground capacity is not enough to keep nights warm. In Sahara sometimes drop to -3 Celsius. In Sahara desert biggest threat is cold at night.

I'm not sure exactly what it is this presenter is trying to prove. Nomally, at the beginning of a paper, there is an abstract that gives you an idea of what the paper is about. Maybe I'm missing something here, but it would be nice if the presenter was a bit more clear about what his theory is, and how it is applied.

I suspect that for air density, one needs more than two measurements (temp and pressure) - the reason for my thinking in this is that air pressure is a combination of static and dymaic pressures, both of which are normally measured to gether with temperature to determine the density of air. - Now the velocity impact on pressure may or may not be of consequence for most weather observations, I would think that it is worth sizing the density error that could arise from the neglect of air veocity when measurements are taken

Out of phase due to dry hot air leaving ground (so low hot air from nearby will replenish the leaving air) to push against higher levels of air to increase the atmospheric pressure, perhaps? Different with humid hot air, I guess. That air would easier get into porous ground/soil and besides attach/cling their moisture to rocks, trees... to bring heat more easily into their core or layers. Then we have better levelling of temperature (lower gloobal temperature) with heat spread along a larger available area with humid air than with dry air. Mines and "underground activity" should not be closed to air passage. Relative humidity has been lower globally last decades (see humidity paradox). But more billions of buildings cover the ground each decade and make it impossible to water and air to enter right below the ground were levelling is important. Cool cores and earth layers by human activity could be the main reason of climate change.

you may be interested in the work of Makarieva and Gorshkov "Where do winds come from? A new theory on how water vapor condensation influences atmospheric pressure and dynamics". Their mechanism is through mass removal of water from the gas phase through condensation.

OK, I'm going to follow this. Your opening question has me thinking. Thanks.

The plot before @4:20, it seems both temperature and pressure varies with about 10%?

How does one prove or disprove an unreachable possibility?

As a pilot, I was taught and I generally observe that 2000 ft winds (nominally and not in mountainous regions obviously) are isobaric. Variations from that are katabatic, thermal, etc. The closer to the land surface, the greater the effect of the boundary layer which generally results in less more variable wind which is usually backed in direction (N. Hem!). This obviously depends on the terrain. Over flat desert, the wind remains very consistent to a much lower level. The same over the sea. This is due to the lack of obstructions such as buildings, trees, etc. Generally at night, even over highly feature rich terrain (buildings, trees, etc), due to lack of convection, the boundary layer is much thinner and there are far fewer variations and virtually no turbulence. But, turbulence at a high level increases: light turbulence is very prevalent at around 35,000' at night (I notice this just as it gets dark at altitude and it reduces into the early hours) when the same route was smooth during the day. As the conditions at altitude are generally very stable, I presume this is due to the various columns of air realigning themselves vertically in relation to the troposphere as the air at lower altitude cools and contracts height of the columns at different rates causing increased vertical movement of air.

😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘

Hm, interesting.

This book has a chapter devoted to air pressure at 1 bar and 0.1, showing the temperatures above the Blackbody temperatures for the 7 gaseous planets. Mars was left out due to even lower surface pressure. The graphic and values of pressure in Bar vs K is from a NASA publication that has since disappeared from the NASA site or has been buried because this raised questions about the CO2 narrative. The book is found on Amazon in Kindle format, and I found a newly printed paperback copy by searching the internet. It was first published 2011, also available in Google ebooks. This book is an elementary treatment in terms of math, but it does show in detail how calculations are made and explains radiative transport, and it has many examples. BOOK: " Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory Kindle Edition by John O'Sullivan (Author), & 7 more Format: Kindle Edition Even before publication, Slaying the Sky Dragon was destined to be the benchmark for future generations of climate researchers. This is the world's first and only full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming. Nine leading international experts methodically expose how willful fakery and outright incompetence were hidden within the politicized realm of government climatology. Applying a thoughtful and sympathetic writing style, the authors help even the untrained mind to navigate the maze of atmospheric thermodynamics. Step-by-step the reader is shown why the so-called greenhouse effect cannot possibly exist in nature. By deft statistical analysis the cornerstones of climate equations - incorrectly calculated by an incredible factor of three - are exposed then shattered.

This book has a chapter devoted to air pressure at 1 bar and 0.1, showing the temperatures above the Blackbody temperatures for the 7 gaseous planets. Mars was left out due to even lower surface pressure. The graphic and values of pressure in Bar vs K is from a NASA publication that has since disappeared from the NASA site or has been buried because this raised questions about the CO2 narrative. The book is found on Amazon in Kindle format, and I found a newly printed paperback copy by searching the internet. It was first published 2011, also available in Google ebooks. This book is an elementary treatment in terms of math, but it does show in detail how calculations are made and explains radiative transport, and it has many examples. BOOK: " Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory Kindle Edition by John O'Sullivan (Author), & 7 more Format: Kindle Edition Even before publication, Slaying the Sky Dragon was destined to be the benchmark for future generations of climate researchers. This is the world's first and only full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming. Nine leading international experts methodically expose how willful fakery and outright incompetence were hidden within the politicized realm of government climatology. Applying a thoughtful and sympathetic writing style, the authors help even the untrained mind to navigate the maze of atmospheric thermodynamics. Step-by-step the reader is shown why the so-called greenhouse effect cannot possibly exist in nature. By deft statistical analysis the cornerstones of climate equations - incorrectly calculated by an incredible factor of three - are exposed then shattered.

My understanding is that Happer came up with a number with some high level math equation that indicated it is low #. No doubling of temp. Aka behaves logarithmically.

the obsession with average global annual daytime temperature is a stupid way to look at greenhouse effect. we should look at nighttime temperature fall off in dry and humid conditions. this would probably tell us water vapor has some effect and CO2 very little. We could consider the whole of the infrared spectrum of interest for about 300K as several resistors in parallel. Water vapor has resistance in all of the resistors to some degree. CO2 has resistance in only some. It doesn't matter how much CO2 obstructs heat transfer in its band, the heat will go out the other.

Backgorund Van Meer! I like this guy just for that fact.

Calculation is correct, but General Relativity (or a similar theory) is definitely necessary to correct it. Without a relativistic theory of gravity, you get half of the observed value. To be fair, Einstein himself initially obtained a similar result to what you have, before realizing his own mistake.

Go back to Wilhelm Weber, unification is then much clearer, there is only one force required to explain everything and it is a proper Newtonian force.

I thought they have measurements of surface radiation or have i been mislead?

Interesting ideas, as always. Here in Ireland the correlation of High and Low air pressure with temperature seems to be seasonal. In summer: H = hotter temperatures, little wind, little precipitation. L = cooler temps, windy, wet. In winter, however: H = cold temps, no wind, dry. L = milder temps, stormy weather, very wet.

In the days of sailing ships, variations in air pressure were the best indications of future weather. Hence their significance in modern weather maps.

How does your theory take account of cloud formation? Can it explain why it is often sunnier (less clouds) by the sea?

We can measure pressure and temperature with readily available instruments. Measuring air density is not so easy. I am not really convinced by this argument, because it omits humidity. This too is key. Moist air is less dense than dry air, because water vapour is less dense than nitrogen and oxygen. We can measure humidity also with readily available instruments. You can calculate density from these parameters that you can measure. But does it give any helpful insights? I suppose, it tells us the potential for air to rise. Whether it will form clouds requires another measurement: density of nucleation particles. Such as pollen grains, soot, aerosols etc. Really I think that cloud formation is key.

Interesting, as always. And I see that my understanding of H and L on an isobaric map was backwards somehow. I thought H and L stood for high and low 'air pressure' as opposed to high and low 'air density'. Now I am wondering why the weather is generally warmer and better in H (high density) zones (per the weather reports) when that should mean colder temperatures rather than warmer.

No way air pressure can be a constant, that would surely make weather a constant...

I posted a comment, and you deleted it. It included a link to a graphic which was a plot of pressure versus temperature from METAR data at a local airport. Despite the fact that the result was not as expected it still needs to be explained. So I posted a link to a image sharing website. When you click on that link the browser (firefox) incorrectly indicates that you are leaving this website. That is not what happens. A new tab opens up with the graphic, and you can switch back and forth from this site to the graphic to read text and look at the graphic. When you close the new tab with the graphic, you are right back here. I don't know any other way to share graphic information in a comment here. Do you have any suggestions?

In incompressible flows, the pressure doesn't appear at all as a term in a simulation. It's subsumed in div.V = 0, i.e., take the solenoidal part of the result of pure convection at each step.

Dichte( rho)=m/V ist äquivalent zu V=m/Dichte.

Durch die Erddrehung und die diversen Gravitationskräfte sowie die Reibung mit dem Untergrund verschiebt sich die Lufthulle direkt uber dem Boden. Winde und Windzellen entstehen.

Die Dichte der Luft hängt von ihrem Wasseranteil ab.

Yes, I watched that one and felt there was something incorrect. I love my "waste" heat in the winter! It'll eventually radiate and convect away, sending me back to the energy vendor.

My understanding has been that low pressure means that relatively warm (and so less dense) moist air is rising versus high pressure where cold and therefore dense dry air from the stratosphere is of course descending and in doing so these air masses moving across the surface of the earth are influenced by the coriolis and centrifugal forces as well as local topography. So yes, understanding air pressure and the movement of these air-masses is crucial to understanding weather. I'm looking forward to more of Dr Yong's insights

I live in Ireland. Id love to see high pressure zones ( H) coming in. Contrary to Yongs presentation, H means HIGHER temperatures, especially in summer. Low (L) means LOWER temperatures, more clouds, more rain, often brings closer isobars and higher wind speeds. From Ireland you can spot the usual summer H over the european continent while we get the westerlies w depression and shite weather. One consolation only: it's worse in Scotland..😁

You don't understand sh!t. Go away.

This looks logical and interesting. my question is, how does the air mass affect the constant density curves?

Another interesting but counter-intuitive factor in atmospheric behavior is that wet air is less dense than dry air. The molecular weight of water is 18; air is 29 (average). This can result in gravity convection (vertical). BTW, speed of sound only depends on temperature.

My subjective personal experience tells me that Highs and Lows do not directly relate to temperature, but cloud coverage. But my guess is that we have the whole thing upside down anyway. I suspect the driving force behind weather are the electric currents on a global scale (global electric circuit). E.g. for local thunderstorms it's not the air movement that causes high voltage and lightning, but the increased voltage and currents in that area cause strong winds. Hence it seems difficult to me to argue about density vs. pressure.

There are 3 modes of heat transfer and diffusion is not one of them; "hot" air particles do not infiltrate volumes of "cold" air particles! "Isobar" means EQUAL pressure, not CONSTANT pressure.