"Either all three models are coincidentally correct for only these planets, or they are revealing a deeper field driven equilibrium that conventional radiative/convective models have ignored."For decades, mainstream climate science has centred on the radiative greenhouse effect and planetary albedo as the core mechanisms for explaining planetary surface temperatures. This doctrine—reflected in IPCC models—assumes that without greenhouse gases trapping infrared radiation, planets like Earth or Venus would be frozen wastelands.
Yet this foundational claim is never directly measured; it is inferred from heavily parameterized, post-hoc statistical models that bake in assumptions and then re-calculate them as conclusions.
This paper challenges that entire framework.We demonstrate that it is possible to reproduce the observed surface temperatures of Earth and Venus—specifically at the 1-bar pressure level—without invoking greenhouse gases or planetary albedo at all. Instead, we present three independent, physically motivated models that each derive temperature from fundamental field interactions: gravitational force per area, solar flux scaled by gravitational strength, and electrodynamic electron-count energy.
While each model comes from a distinct conceptual domain (Newtonian mechanics, radiative scaling, and charge-based energetics), they all converge numerically on the same temperatures—288 K for Earth, and approximately 331–339 K for Venus.This triple convergence is not a fluke. These three models are dimensionally distinct and arise from unrelated physical quantities. Yet they yield the same result. This is not coincidence. This is a "wake you up moment" that modern climate theory has missed something fundamental.
The fact that these models work without any input from CO2 levels, water vapor, methane or albedo implies that planetary temperature is set by field geometry, not atmospheric composition. Radiation is certainly the output or the exhaust. But it is not the source!
Venus is the ultimate stress test. With a thick CO2 atmosphere and surface pressures over 90 bars, it has been the poster child for runaway greenhouse theory. Yet at the 1-bar level which is roughly 50–55 km in altitude, the temperature is remarkably Earth-like, hovering around 330–339 K. All three models presented here return this value without ever referencing radiative trapping or CO2 absorption spectra. This breaks the supposed “proof” of greenhouse back-radiation as the determinant of temperature.
What this paper offers is not just an empirical coincidence, but a theoretical challenge. If three different field-based approaches, using entirely different dimensional structures, all yield the same temperature at 1-bar, then our current science must explain why. Either all three models are coincidentally correct for only these planets, or they are revealing a deeper field driven equilibrium that conventional radiative/convective models have ignored.
The climate establishment may dismiss this work by retreating into statistical consensus. But numbers don’t lie. And when numbers from three unrelated field equations all point to the same thermodynamic anchor—without invoking greenhouse gases—we are left with one of two options: either these are flukes (on two different planets), or we’ve been modeling the wrong physics.
In short, this isn’t a “climate denial” paper. It’s a field-reality paper. And the data speak for themselves.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/957n5xkoxhp0au52h6u9b/Toward_a_Universal_Field_Law_of_Temperature-1.pdf?rlkey=54aal7px1tbv0h53okj4u5j5n&st=l3jk0izq&dl=0
