Responses

This work responds to a paper by Robert Holmes (2019) which suggests that the temperatures of terrestrial planets with thick atmospheres depend primarily on total solar irradiance and pressure, based on examination of Venus, Earth, and Titan at an altitude where the pressure is 1 bar. A re-evaluation of the data invalidates the hypothesis in the case of Titan. Calculating a temperature for Earth based on Titan data yields a temperature for Earth that is too low by 25-30 K.

This work responds to papers by Robert Holmes (2017, 2018), which assert that the Ideal Gas Law (IGL) predicts planetary surface temperatures and shows that increases in atmospheric CO2 can have only minimal impact on temperatures; also asserting that the greenhouse effect does not produce significant warming, and that surface temperatures are enhanced by convection and “auto-compression."

In 2015, Feldman et al. published a study that offered direct observational confirmation of the relationship between local variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration, and the radiative flux of downwelling longwave radiation (DLR) at the surface. In this essay, I'll address a question about interpreting these findings.

A 2016 experiment by Thomas Allmendinger claimed to have demonstrated that infrared radiation is absorbed by gases such as nitrogen, oxygen, and noble gasses, thereby invalidating the status of water vapor and CO2 as Greenhouse gasses. However, the flawed experiment actually demonstrated aluminum foil absorbing radiation.

Terigi Ciccone published a whitepaper titled “REVISED, WHY CAN’T CO2 AND GREENHOUSE EFFECTS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING?” (2021). It’s apparently a “Top Download” on academia.edu. I was curious. So, I carefully reviewed it. The paper is a nice collection of many…

Climate blogger Willis Eschenbach has suggested that tropical thunderstorms provide a “thermostatic mechanism” that helps to stabilize the temperature of the Earth within a narrow range. He has also offered a procedure for predicting surface temperatures changes in response to increased radiative forcing...

I have been trying to understand and deconstruct the climate-modeling work of Philip Mulholland and Stephen Wilde (M&W). M&W seem to believe that the model they have developed explains planetary temperatures as a consequence of atmospheric mass movement, without any need to reference the radiative effects of greenhouse gases.

Nikolov & Zeller published an empirical formula for the temperature of a planet which depends on atmospheric effects only through pressure. N&Z perceived a problem that wasn’t really there, and found a "solution" that is neither statistically significant nor compatible with the laws of physics...

Gerlich & Tscheuschner published a paper purporting to prove that there is no such thing as an atmospheric greenhouse effect. Instead, they proved they have no idea what is meant by the “atmospheric greenhouse effect.” Yet, many people believe their conclusions. So...