<p>There is no such thing as the 'Holmes' equation. </p>

<p>Comment: Holmes is the person that formulated this equation I has every right to name it as I please.
Could someone please validate the Holmes equation</p>

<p>There is no such thing as the 'Holmes' equation. To the ideal gas law
<span class="math-container">$$T=\frac{P\mu}{R\rho}$$</span>
if P, ρ and μ</p>

<p>are known in order to 'predict' a temperature is</p>

<ol>
<li>Trivial</li>
<li>Not a predicition, but a statement of state variables.</li>
</ol>

<p>The ideal gas law, is an Equation of State, not a predictive equation (I don't see any ∂T/∂t in it). As such, it connects the quantities in it at any given point in time, but it cannot be used to compute a time-evolution. Therefore, that Holmes can 'predict' the correct surface temperatures, given the input data P, ρ and μ is a no-brainer in any sufficiently dense gas.<br>
It's actually embarassing for the journal that would publish this. It's either intentionally misleading (climate change denier journal) or they're just garbage scientists. The science involved in predicting where temperatures will evolve is more difficult than stating an equation of state, and at an absolute minimum requires solving evolution equations for P and ρ.<br>
Any evolution for P or T will necessarily be coupled to the radiative balance of the atmosphere, which is what the whole Greenhouse issue is about, and what has been completely ignored by this publication.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-14T10:27:42.973Z
Ah, beat me too it!  But I'm not sure I agree that d/dt is necessary for a model to be predictive, especially as we're talking about an equilibrium state.  It's more about what predictors/predictands are in the model and what inferences are made.  In this case the radiative/convective effects of the atmosphere are implicitly contained in the input surface pressure and density, so T is just diagnostic.
Deditos
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-14T16:58:11.937Z
@Deditos: Well, physics would disagree. A predictive equation must have hyperbolic structure, even if the propagation of eigenvectors becomes very fast, i.e. $dQ/dt \approx 0$, giving equilibrium for some quantity $Q$, the actual physical equation remains hyperbolic, and thus predictive.
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-15T08:27:25.760Z
Has someone been explaining here that if it gets cooler when you climb, it is actually because of less CO2 traces trapping heat ?
Malawby
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-14T09:48:51.557Z
2019-09-15T00:07:53.007Z
2019-09-15T00:07:53.007Z
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
<p>Dr. Robert Holmes has converted the ideal gas law to T = P M / (ρ R) in this paper: (<a href="http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20170606.18.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate Sensitivity</a>) with T = temperature P = near-surface pressure R = gas constant ρ = near-surface density M = near-surface atmospheric mean molar mass.  </p>

<p>It seems to work on a planet that has an atmosphere  > 10 kPa to accurately determine its surface temperature regardless of the atmosphere's composition. </p>

<p>If planetary surface temperature can be determined by pressure, density and mean moles, what does this say to the IPCC claim that temperature will raise by up 5 deg C with a doubling of CO2.  </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-14T00:57:56.653Z
What? Source in a peer-reviewed journal please.
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-14T03:46:39.643Z
@Malawby The equation is the ideal gas law. It's more or less valid for low pressure (P → 0 Pa) and "high" temparature gases. Since the IGL is an equation of state the only conclusion you can draw is: if T (for whatever reason)  raises (isobaric; which is a good approx. for Earth's atmosphere), the volume of the atmosphere will be increased (which roughly means that the "TOA" is at a higher level). The further claims made by Holmes are physical BS.
klanomath
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-14T04:28:11.983Z
This is an updated paper from the same author: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c258/65d9cf63cd0f53c4c50a0e02440c4d9ee5d0.pdf
Malawby
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-14T09:32:29.550Z
@Malawby: Then getting some basic physics education before insulting people over the ideal gas law is probably prudent. Fortunately klanomath doesn't have to show you any superior reputation, because the derivation and validity of the ideal gas law can be looked up in any statistical mechanics book.
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-14T18:58:47.663Z
This journal's publisher is alleged by multiple sites to be a predatory one (see eg https://flakyj.blogspot.com/2017/01/science-publishing-group-sciencepg.html). In 2014 they published an article that claimed to be a mathematical proof of the law of Karma.
Semidiurnal Simon
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-15T08:53:38.957Z
Is it physically correct to consider radiative heat transfer as the fundamental mechanism
controlling the weather setting thermal conductivity and friction to zero?
Malawby
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-15T15:45:24.167Z
@Malawby Malcolm: If you have a second and a third question, consider asking new [questions](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions) **after** searching for similar q&a here. Quick answers: N (& N to question in your other comment made in the answer below)
klanomath
<climate-change><temperature><climate-models><earth-system><pressure>
Could someone please validate the Holmes equation
Malawby
# Could someone please validate the Holmes equation

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-09-13)

Dr. Robert Holmes has converted the ideal gas law to T = P M / (ρ R) in this paper: ([Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate Sensitivity](http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20170606.18.pdf)) with T = temperature P = near-surface pressure R = gas constant ρ = near-surface density M = near-surface atmospheric mean molar mass.

It seems to work on a planet that has an atmosphere > 10 kPa to accurately determine its surface temperature regardless of the atmosphere's composition.

If planetary surface temperature can be determined by pressure, density and mean moles, what does this say to the IPCC claim that temperature will raise by up 5 deg C with a doubling of CO2.

**Tags:** climate-change, temperature, climate-models, earth-system, pressure

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: What? Source in a peer-reviewed journal please.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 The equation is the ideal gas law. It's more or less valid for low pressure (P → 0 Pa) and "high" temparature gases. Since the IGL is an equation of state the only conclusion you can draw is: if T (for whatever reason)  raises (isobaric; which is a good approx. for Earth's atmosphere), the volume of the atmosphere will be increased (which roughly means that the "TOA" is at a higher level). The further claims made by Holmes are physical BS.  
> **username_0**: This is an updated paper from the same author: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c258/65d9cf63cd0f53c4c50a0e02440c4d9ee5d0.pdf  
> **username_1**: @username_0: Then getting some basic physics education before insulting people over the ideal gas law is probably prudent. Fortunately username_2 doesn't have to show you any superior reputation, because the derivation and validity of the ideal gas law can be looked up in any statistical mechanics book.  
> **username_3**: This journal's publisher is alleged by multiple sites to be a predatory one (see eg https://flakyj.blogspot.com/2017/01/science-publishing-group-sciencepg.html). In 2014 they published an article that claimed to be a mathematical proof of the law of Karma.  
> **username_0**: Is it physically correct to consider radiative heat transfer as the fundamental mechanism controlling the weather setting thermal conductivity and friction to zero?  
> **username_2**: @username_0 Malcolm: If you have a second and a third question, consider asking new [questions](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions) **after** searching for similar q&a here. Quick answers: N (& N to question in your other comment made in the answer below)  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-09-14. Score: 2

There is no such thing as the 'Holmes' equation.

Comment: Holmes is the person that formulated this equation I has every right to name it as I please.
Could someone please validate the Holmes equation

There is no such thing as the 'Holmes' equation. To the ideal gas law
$$T=\frac{P\mu}{R\rho}$$
if P, ρ and μ

are known in order to 'predict' a temperature is

1. Trivial
2. Not a predicition, but a statement of state variables.

The ideal gas law, is an Equation of State, not a predictive equation (I don't see any ∂T/∂t in it). As such, it connects the quantities in it at any given point in time, but it cannot be used to compute a time-evolution. Therefore, that Holmes can 'predict' the correct surface temperatures, given the input data P, ρ and μ is a no-brainer in any sufficiently dense gas.  
It's actually embarassing for the journal that would publish this. It's either intentionally misleading (climate change denier journal) or they're just garbage scientists. The science involved in predicting where temperatures will evolve is more difficult than stating an equation of state, and at an absolute minimum requires solving evolution equations for P and ρ.  
Any evolution for P or T will necessarily be coupled to the radiative balance of the atmosphere, which is what the whole Greenhouse issue is about, and what has been completely ignored by this publication.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Ah, beat me too it!  But I'm not sure I agree that d/dt is necessary for a model to be predictive, especially as we're talking about an equilibrium state.  It's more about what predictors/predictands are in the model and what inferences are made.  In this case the radiative/convective effects of the atmosphere are implicitly contained in the input surface pressure and density, so T is just diagnostic.  
> **username_1**: @username_4: Well, physics would disagree. A predictive equation must have hyperbolic structure, even if the propagation of eigenvectors becomes very fast, i.e. $dQ/dt \approx 0$, giving equilibrium for some quantity $Q$, the actual physical equation remains hyperbolic, and thus predictive.  
> **username_0**: Has someone been explaining here that if it gets cooler when you climb, it is actually because of less CO2 traces trapping heat ?  

---

