CCD Editor’s Note: We’ve covered this topic numerous times but it’s worth reminding again: Atmospheric pressure drives temperatures, not trace gases.
In an interview at the Porto Climate Conference earlier this month, Dr. Karl Zeller provided a brief overview of the theory he and Dr. Ned Nikolov developed.
The model uses empirical NASA data to quantify the surface temperature of “all the planets across our solar system” precisely and accurately by using two values only: (1) distance from the Sun and (2) atmospheric pressure.
The gaseous composition of planetary atmospheres – including CO2 concentration – is immaterial to the calculations, as CO2 is “just like any other gas.”
Interviewer: You were saying that you and [Dr.] Ned Nikolov have a new theory. Can you tell us just a bit about that?
KZ: “Well, we actually call it a discovery. And what we did is we took NASA data and we applied the engineering principle of dimensional analysis – Buckingham pi theorem for you engineers.
“And to make a long story short, we’ve had an unbelievable fit to the NASA data, where we’ve had an exponential regression line (an empirical equation, so to speak) that explains the temperature of all the planets across our solar system – that actually includes the Earth. We can actually use planets other than the Earth.
“And we can calculate Earth’s temperature without knowing anything else about Earth [other than its atmospheric pressure value and distance from the Sun]. . . within a degree Centigrade. The amazing thing about that is [1] the Earth[‘s atmosphere] is [21%] oxygen and [78%] nitrogen, [2] Venus is [96.5%] carbon dioxide, [3] Mars is [95%] carbon dioxide, [4] Triton is [>99%] nitrogen, [5] Titan is [98.4%] nitrogen and [1.6%] methane…”
Interviewer: So you’re saying that actually, carbon dioxide is not the driver [of planetary temperatures]?
KZ: “Carbon dioxide is just like any other gas. Just like the ideal gas law, Boyle’s law, Charles’s law, Gay-Lussac’s law. Carbon dioxide isn’t any different than any other gas in those laws. And we’ve discovered that there’s a continuum across our solar system of the way atmosphere’s work: it’s strictly a function – the warmth that we experience – is due to two things: [1] distance from the Sun (which means how much solar energy we get), and [2] the amount of atmosphere we have, the atmospheric pressure that we experience here on the surface.”
Interviewer: And how was that [discovery] received? Did you have the IPCC call you up and say “Wow, this is fantastic!”?
KZ: “We had to change our names to get the first paper [Volokin and Rellez, 2014] published. It was returned [after the first attempt] because they knew who we were. And the second time we published it we were required to pull it after they found out we had . . . [smiling] we spelled our names backward. It [spelling our names backward] worked the first time, and it worked the second time [after we resubmitted it], but it was put on the internet before it was hard-copied.
“A ‘climate denier’* from WattsUpWithThat [Willis Eschenbach] turned us in. And so we experienced that, not only the so-called normal people, ‘warmists’, maybe . . . and a lot of ‘climate deniers’ do not like our work. A lot of ‘climate deniers’ hold out for a little bit of a role with carbon dioxide.”
Interviewer: So, in fact, you’re saying there’s no opportunity for scientific inquiry anymore.
KZ: “Sure seems that way. We’ve actually extended it now. We’ve actually used some of the same principles to explain some of the past climate measurements that we’ve made here on Earth. Same thing – pressure is the driver. Pressure and the Sun.”
*The term “climate denier” is offensive no matter who it is applied to (i.e., Willis Eschenbach should not be referred to as such), and is not endorsed here.
To review the full paper, see Nikolov and Zeller, 2017
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Just like with Galileo the hard greens want all skeptics to be persicuted for daring to question the authority of the Church of Green and and their deity GAIA
It’s obvious “Climate Denier” was being used in a ‘tongue in cheek’ fashion as the authors themselves would regarded as ‘climate deniers’ for not adhering to the establishment ‘CO2 drives climate’ narrative.