<p><a href="https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/a/10513/12095">kingledion gave a great overview on the general scientific quality of the papers</a>, but I don't think the title question has been really answered yet.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Is the Unified Theory of Climate (Nikolov &amp; Zeller) compatible with the AGW/GHG theory in any respect?</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>Yes.</strong></p>

<hr>

<p>First, I too would comment on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723" rel="noreferrer">that preceding paper (<em>On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies...</em>)</a>. What it's concerned with is the equation
$$
  T_\mathrm{e} = \left(\frac{S_0\cdot(1-\alpha_\mathrm{p})}{4\cdot\epsilon\cdot\sigma}\right)^{1/4},
$$
which derives from the Stefan-Boltzmann law the <em>radiating equilibrium temperature</em> $T_\mathrm{e}$. The main point of the paper is that this temperature is not in any way physically meaningful for airless bodies. Which is completely correct: airless bodies do indeed not have a &ldquo;representative mean temperature&rdquo;, because the integral over a function of some quantity (here, fourth power of temperature) isn't directly related to the function value of the <em>average</em> of the quantity<sup>&dagger;</sup>. For a body without atmosphere like the moon, temperature varies extremely strongly over the surface, and thermal emission is completely dominated by the hot regions.</p>

<p>This does not really give rise to any interesting conclusions though, because $T_\mathrm{e}$ isn't of much interest for climatology anyway. Any proper climate model is well aware of the importance of locally varying temperatures, as Volokin/ReLlez themselves admit:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>It should be pointed out that global climate models intrinsically account for Hölder’s inequality by virtue of being three-dimensional and explicitly resolving the spatial heterogeneity of radiation absorption and emission (as well as other energy transport processes) within the context of a spherical geometry. However, 3-D models have not historically been applied to assess
  the strength of Earth’s ATE (GE). Hence, our critique is strictly directed towards the effective emission-temperature formula (3) and other similar 1-D radiative-transfer models (e.g. Manabe and Möller 1961; Manabe and
  Strickler 1964).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>One could also add here that $T_\mathrm{e}$ is not quite so meaningless for a planet <em>with substantial atmosphere but no greenhouse gases</em>, because here the spatial temperature variations are less pronounced, yet the surface is in radiative equilibrium with the sun/space. I'll come back to that.</p>

<hr>

<p>Now to <a href="https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf" rel="noreferrer">the paper you're asking about</a>. It does two things:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>Fit <em>generic models without a-priori physical motivation</em> to observed values of pressure, density, greenhouse-gas content and observed and vacuum-predicted temperatures.</p></li>
<li><p>Try to take new physical conclusions from the fit result.</p></li>
</ul>

<p>kingledion discussed well how sensible this approach is in principle. Yes, it is sensible to <em>just fit the available data</em>, if that's all you have available. It can even be valid to inter- or extrapolate from that data somewhat, using the fitted models as a guide. Nikolov/Zeller emphasize that they chose models which make such extrapolation particularly robust. Ok.</p>

<p>But there's one principle that anybody using statistical methods surely must always keep in mind: <strong>correlation does not imply causation</strong>. What Nikolov/Zeller &ldquo;find out&rdquo; is that you get a marvellous fit when considering $\frac{T_s}{T_{\mathrm{na}}}$ as a function of $\frac{P}{P_r}$, namely
$$
\frac{T_s}{T_{\mathrm{na}}}
    = \exp\left(0.174205\cdot(\tfrac{P}{P_r})^{0.150263}
        + 1.83121\times10^{-5}\cdot(\tfrac{P}{P_r})^{1.04193}\right)
$$
gives a coefficient of determination $R^2 = 0.9999$. Wow!</p>

<p>Is this surprising?</p>

<p>Um, no. What they've discovered there is most of all the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law" rel="noreferrer">ideal gas law</a>. That connects pressure and temperature in a pretty rigid way.</p>

<p>So far, everything is... ok. Nothing actually <em>new</em> (just long-known physics, re-discovered in an inefficient way). The trouble only really starts with the conclusions.</p>

<p>Nikolov/Zeller argue that this excellent fit, and the much worse fits of similar models relating other quantities &ndash; in particular, greenhouse-gas concentrations &ndash; mean that it's actually <em>only the pressure which influences the surface temperature</em>, and that GHG are irrelevant.</p>

<p>But that's completely and utterly fallacious!
<br>Again: it's not surprising that the ideal gas law holds &ndash; rather, it would be extremely surprising if it didn't. So, the $T_s(P/P_r)$ fit tells up about as much as a fit of fall-times of weights from different heights in vacuum: <em>nothing</em>, they just reaffirm the long-known Newton laws of motion.</p>

<p>And it does <em>not</em> mean that &ldquo;temperature is only influenced by pressure&rdquo;. On the contrary: just as much, <em>pressure is influenced by temperature</em> &ndash; if you somehow lowered the mean temperature of a given planet, surface pressure would drop as well<sup>&ddagger;</sup>.</p>

<p><em>Both</em> pressure and temperature also depend on other quantities though. Notably, yes, on greenhouse-gas concentration. But unlike the gas law, the mechanism is a bit more complex and can't be captured properly<sup>&para;</sup> by fitting such a primitive model to a few measured points. Instead, it requires 3D climatology models, which incorporate <em>all of these quantities</em>, and not just in a global-mean sense but in a detailed, latitude- and altitide-dependent way.</p>

<p>I said I'd come back to the scenario of an atmosphere of significant density but without greenhouse gases. Such an atmosphere would keep spatial and temporal variations limited, but wouldn't influence the radiation processes, i.e. this is the case where the surface temperature would actually be similar to $T_\mathrm{e}$. How is this still compatible with the Nikolov/Zeller model 12? Well, again that model is mostly just the gas equation. Such an atmosphere would still obey it. The higher reaches would be colder than the surface due to adiabatic expansion. Really, this scenario isn't very exotic in terms of fundamental physics, but it illustrates that GHG are absolutely essential for a climate like Earths. The Volokin/ReLlez paper just proves that $T_\mathrm{e}$ isn't relevant for bodies without any atmosphere <em>at all</em>, but that's hardly interesting for any discussions regarding Earth's climate.</p>

<hr>

<p><sup>&dagger;</sup><sub>The paper specifically discusses the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%B6lder%27s_inequality" rel="noreferrer">H&ouml;lder inequality</a>, which is somewhat curious because that inequality actually states that there <em>is</em>, for power functions, a relation between mean-of-the-function $\langle f(x)\rangle$ and function-of-the-mean $f(\langle x\rangle)$, namely, the latter gives an upper bound to the former. The H&ouml;lder inequality does not actually imply that $\langle f(x)\rangle$ lies <em>beneath</em> that upper bound &ndash; it could just as well instead be <em>smack on the bound</em>; but it's true that there are quantities for which it is substantially below.</sub></p>

<p><sup>&ddagger;</sup><sub>At that point, I am oversimplifying. There's a whole bunch of different scenarious what could happen when you alter a planet's surface temperature (even assuming you managed to do this in a way other than directly tweaking atmosphere properties). The pressure-drop case is what happens when it gets so cold that the formerly atmospheric gases condense onto the surface; this is relevant to e.g. Mars and Titan. In other planetary bodies, other mechanisms would step in; in either case however, you could be sure that the ideal gas law continues to hold.</sub></p>

<p><sup>&para;</sup><sub>Ironically enough, Nikolov/Zeller's Model 7 actually hints that greenhouse concentration does correlate to temperature, even though it lacks the quantities that would be needed to make the fit tight.</sub></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-31T13:37:02.500Z
Great write up!
kingledion
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-30T23:49:27.973Z
2018-01-31T11:23:22.487Z
2018-01-31T11:23:22.487Z
leftaroundabout
<p>The paper you linked lists as its first reference <a href="https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723" rel="noreferrer">Volokin and ReLlez, 2014</a>; a paper that addresses the magnitude of the Earth's greenhouse effect. The validity of the paper you found largely hinges on the reputation of the Volokin and ReLlez, so we will investigate that one first. </p>

<h1>The science of Volokin and ReLlez</h1>

<p>The traditional way to determine the 'greenhouse effect' of a planet is to compare actual planetary temperatures with Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody temperature based on the luminosity of the star, distance from star, and the albedo and emissivity of the planet. This calculation is done in Volokin and ReLlez and can also be found on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature#Surface_temperature_of_a_planet" rel="noreferrer">Wikipedia</a>. </p>

<p>Volokin and ReLlez are arguing that the actual greenhouse effect should be measured using the albedo of a bare planet stripped of its clouds. The Earth's albedo is 0.294, but they propose a bare albedo of the Earth of between 0.122 and 0.13. They then make an argument that simple albedo calculations are not very accurate, and that a use of Holder's Inequality should be used to integrate the effects of albedo and radiation incidence angle over the exposed surface of the bare planet. Redoing the Stefan-Boltzmann expected temperature calculations with this new method, they then calculate that actual 'greenhouse effect' of the Earth is more like 90 K, instead of the 33 K normally cited. This is significant because temperature magnitude of the Earth's greenhouse effect affects the climate sensitivity factor of global warming models.</p>

<p>I actually think this paper is pretty interesting. The core of its mathematical arguments seems valid (though I didn't try to work any of it out myself) However, the conclusions are not very good, and not very related to much of the mathematical arguments in the body. While there is an argument to be made that calculating expected surface temperature should assume a bare planet, the authors are basically concluding that <em>all</em> temperature differences between the bare planet and the observed Earth should be assigned to the greenhouse effect. That just isn't supported by the information they present. The Earth's actual atmosphere and biosphere are much more dynamic than the bare model they are presenting; the formation of high-albedo clouds by equatorial rainforests,and the presence of high-albedo sand in the sunniest places on Earth are just two non-greenhouse related effects that account for temperature differences between the author's ideal bare Earth and the real Earth. </p>

<p>While they consider a lot of interesting factors, I think Volokin and ReLlez are guilty of making too much of a spherical cow estimate. The author's make an argument for one thing, then make some huge leaps to an unsupported conclusion. All in all, I don't think that the author's conclusion of a 90 K greenhouse effect is valid.</p>

<h1>The publication of the reference</h1>

<p>Whatever its scientific merits, the paper doesn't look very good upon meta review. First off, the authors used fake names to publish the paper in an open access site. In fact, it is the same two authors of the paper you linked, except that they spelled their names backwards (Nikolov -> Volokin; Zeller -> ReLlez). Ummm...what? Also, they later <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/13/u-s-govt-researchers-withdraw-climate-paper-after-using-pseudonyms/" rel="noreferrer">retracted the paper</a>. Also also, the journal they published in <a href="https://springerplus.springeropen.com/" rel="noreferrer">is now defunct</a>. All in all, this is not a sign that the paper is good science. </p>

<h1>Back to the original paper</h1>

<p>So the paper that you are asking about (Nikolov and Zeller, 2017) is based on a paper by the same authors which has not-very-good conclusions, and was generally published in a shady manner. That's a big black mark at the very outset. </p>

<p>This paper is pretty long and detailed, and I admit I did not read all of it. But the kill shot for me was on the very first page:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>We  began  our  study  with  the  premise  that  processes 
  controlling   the  Global  Mean  Annual  near-surface  Temperature 
  (GMAT)  of  Earth   are  also  responsible  for  creating  the 
  observed  pattern  of  planetary   temperatures across the Solar
  System. Thus, our working hypothesis was  that  a  general  physical 
  model  should  exist,  which  accurately  describes   equilibrium 
  GMATs  of  planets  using  a  common  set  of  drivers.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That is great, but we have already gone over how these authors are attempting to oversimplify a bare planet approach for predicting expected temperatures. The predictor variables they are using are stellar irradiance, blackbody reference temperature, greenhouse gas partial pressure and density, atmospheric pressure and density, and reference pressure for greenhouse fluids. We can see the authors are once again ignoring the effects of cloud formation and the way the biosphere affects albedo, amongst other things.</p>

<p>On a methodology note, the authors use a regression model to try to get some useful results. As a statistician (not a planetary scientist), this strikes me as a poor choice. Regression analysis of complex systems is a good way to get insight into what factors are important in affecting this system. I think they can be very useful for predicting trends, but I do not believe they are good for providing predictions that are accurate by physical science standards. </p>

<p>For example, I'm writing a paper right now that uses regression analysis to predict subway ridership at each station on a subway network. This is a very complex system (like planetary atmospheres), and our goal is to get error scores of 0.2 or so. That is great for predicting subway ridership, not so much for planetary temperatures. An error score of 0.2 is like predicting a temperature to be 300 K but it is actually 360 K. That's not good enough. So I just don't know what the authors are really trying to accomplish using a regression approach, especially with so few predictor variables. The physics behind the interaction of the predictor variables is pretty well known, so there isn't a lot of value if determining the correlations of the predictor values to the planet surface temperature; it is as if they are using the regression to test if the physics is correct. Finally, the data set is way too small to be using a regression analysis. Their only available data points are the planets and moons in our own solar system. </p>

<h1>Conclusion</h1>

<p>Well I wrote a lot there, and hopefully it is all comprehensible. All in all, there are some interesting bits to Nikolov and Zeller's approach, but I think they are over simplifying some things and are using a non-physical science applicable methodology to obtain questionable conclusions.</p>

<p>Honestly, I don't think that anyone should be treating their research pejoratively (I'm looking at you Andrew Jon Dodds in the comments). It is interesting, and it is certainly novel (from everything I've read). It just doesn't have great conclusions. And that's fine! Most research probably doesn't lead anywhere useful. At least they tried something. People seem to be mad at them just because the results are contrary to the general climate change consensus. Research should be appraised on its merits (or lack thereof) and not on whether its conclusions match preconceptions. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-02T22:12:05.330Z
AhHa - you have written up your illumination of the garbage. I need to read the first reference paper first (by the same authors, backwards names !) before commenting in much detail.
user7733
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-13T17:20:53.517Z
UPvote for clear and nonjudgmental tone alone, wish i could upvote twice. Over-reaching in conclusions is a common enough problem and does not completely invalidate a work.
John
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-09T15:06:50.550Z
"The validity of the paper you found largely hinges on the reputation of the Volokin and ReLlez" -- really? The majority of the validity of a scientific hypothesis rests on who says it? ...
Dale Cloudman
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-02T13:24:22.017Z
2017-07-13T18:30:29.263Z
2017-07-13T18:30:29.263Z
kingledion
<p>In physics, you should  get the same result whichever way you calculate. As long as you do not make an error in calculations. </p>

<p>Calculating the greenhouse effect using radiative transfer equation, we get a result pretty close to the observed one, even if we neglect effects such as turbulent heat fluxes as long as we get Planck optical depth right. And this is why I think, even without following their derivation, that they must  have made a massive error. </p>

<p>Another reason for that is simple intuition that airless (shortwave) albedo must be unimportant on planets with large optical  depths (thick clouds) because at the surface you do not have much shortwave (solar) radiation anyway. The surface is dominated by longwave radiation (IR) which albedo is close to 0.0, anyway.</p>

<hr>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-13T10:05:34.347Z
How does this answer the question?
Gimelist
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-13T12:50:01.507Z
I claim their results are wrong. This makes the answer negative or void, depending on one's philosophical point of view.
Arctic Haze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2017-07-13T09:54:18.853Z
2018-11-20T16:00:22.447Z
2018-11-20T16:00:22.447Z
Arctic Haze
<p>Nikolov &amp; Zeller have published a paper concerning what they call The Unified Theory of Climate.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf" rel="noreferrer">https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf</a></p>

<p>Please read the paper in full and then answer my question. </p>

<p>Personally I can see no areas in which the new theory is compatible with the current theory of the Greenhouse Gas Effect and Anthropogenic Global Warming however there are some extremely knowledgeable participants on this site so I welcome their input but only, please, if you have read the whole paper.  </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-02T08:34:51.887Z
Have to downvote this because it's impossible to discuss without using pejorative terms. The paper simply disregards basic physics in favor of curve fitting.
Andrew Jon Dodds
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-02T09:53:26.757Z
I would be extremely sceptical of anything published by Omics
Gimelist
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-02T12:16:10.910Z
People who are downvoting because of the content of the linked paper are doing this site a dis-service. A user is asking for our expertise in assessing something scientific that he does not understand; that is a good question and an excellent addition to the knowledge base of this site. If the linked paper is garbage, the correct response is to post an answer explaining why.
kingledion
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-02T12:38:39.547Z
@AndrewJonDodds So then convince people! user7733 seemed quite reasonable in his approach and attitude (and sounds like he agrees with you)... but the thing is, others may yet come less informed. Maybe there'll be some inexorable folks, but data and facts speak a lot more than ridicule. We scientists wonder why so many many won't hear us, yet we often bring attitudes of "believe us, we're scientists" or dismissiveness when challenged. Attitudes like that are against the enlightenment that scientific thought is supposed to be.
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-02T12:40:43.070Z
If you wish to convince, bring not just the conclusion, but attempt to work with them to help them understand the reasoning process and the data. Folks will be smarter than many seem to think they are. Honestly I mostly steer well clear of this whole issue anymore because most discussions become dogmatic and indeed inflammatory long before anyone gets anywhere, plus admit my somewhat limited knowledge. But you sound rather familiar with the information and topic... so post a levelheaded and quality response. Convince people... or dissuade them by your unwillingness to give them the time of day
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-02T13:18:08.637Z
I know it's a lot of work, and it's an often thankless job. And sometimes one just doesn't have the time to write out a good answer, or it's tough to muster the compassion and energy on occasion. But show people you're willing to make time for them, to put in the effort for them, to help them understand why, and you'll do something a quick dismissive comment entirely fails :-) :-)
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-02T21:54:30.647Z
@AndrewJonDodds  Describing DA as "curve fitting" is crude but not entirely inaccurate however in the context used it appears a valid technique. They attempt to find a formulae that produces a curve that does fit the data and they found one with a great fit. Looks like a reasonable scientific technique to me. How would you suggest we eliminate the "flukey fit" possibility?
user7733
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-02T21:58:08.253Z
@Michael  Fenyman said we should disregard who is making the theory, so should we not also disregard who is publishing it? We don't want an argument about who has the acceptable peer reviewers and who does not, we want a discussion about the science. Personally I don't mind if a science theory is written in pencil on the back of a (large) envelope. I am interested in what is said, not who wrote it or how.
user7733
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-02T21:59:39.003Z
@kingledion Yes, show me the garbage please !
user7733
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-02T22:13:16.227Z
@JeopardyTempest  I spent a full 8hrs reading and rereading the paper so I am happy to wait for responses on this. It's not the usual kind of thing you come across here and by its very nature is likely to be "controversial" (stir things up).
user7733
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-03T05:10:30.713Z
@user7733 but Nikolov and Zeller are not Feyman, and it does not make anything they say correct.
Gimelist
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-03T21:20:46.710Z
@Michael. You initial criticism was of the publisher which I rejected via a reference to Feynman , i.e. consider the science not the publisher/writer.
user7733
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-13T19:52:01.597Z
This is Ned Nikolov, one of the authors to papers discussed here. I have one request (and recommendations) to all interested in the climate science. Please read our papers several times *in full* before jumping to conclusions! The paper presents a lot of new information that is IMPOSSIBLE to be assimilated even after a single read. People, who have not read the paper in full, and have not contemplated at its content for a while, should not even think of making comments, because whatever they believe they have understood is probably a MISUNDERSTANDING. Examples are some of the comments written
Ned Nikolov
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-14T13:36:47.017Z
(Continuation of comment by Ned Nikolov) Examples are some of the comments written by kingledion above (I will not even try to correct the numerous incorrect conclusions by kingledion).

Please realize that the results discussed in Volokin and ReLlez (2014) and Nikolov and Zeller (2017) are part of a NEW PARADIGM, and require a shift in one's worldview in order to fully grasp. It's not a simple process ...

Thank you! Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. Physical Scientist  (End of comment posted as answer by Ned Nikolov)
gerrit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-08T21:03:06.800Z
@NedNikolov. Hi, just come back here after a long break and didn't expect you to be here !! Thanks for participating, I have reread the paper again today and it does get better the more you understand it. I do believe your conclusions are not in anyway compatible with GHG.AGW, it really is an Either/Or. I understand you are working on more papers. When can we expect the next one?
user7733
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-13T10:07:09.703Z
@kingledion people whjo are downvoting this are doing the site a great service. Any question that requires people to read a paper elsewhere in order to be able to answer it, is not a good fit for this site. Questions here need to be much more self-contained than that.
410 gone
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-13T12:13:06.927Z
Referring to @kingledion's answer are you Nikolov also Volokin? Or is it just pure coincidence?
Communisty
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-18T21:05:10.930Z
*Please read the paper in full and then answer my question* That's not how we do it on SE sites. [Like in answers](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/225370/your-answer-is-in-another-castle-when-is-an-answer-not-an-answer) you will have to state what *specifically* you want an answer for. Voting to close as 'too broad', but 'unclear what you are asking' also applies.
Jan Doggen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-07-25T22:18:30.097Z
@JanDoggen Well it is how I am doing it and it SHOULD be how you are all doing it too. The question relates to the paper by Nikolov and Zeller. Attempting to answer it without reading the whole paper would be absurd. In future if you think any of my questions are unclear or too broad please ask for clarification and I will be happy to rephrase it in terms you find easier to understand.
user7733
<atmosphere><climate><climate-change>
Is the Unified Theory of Climate (Nikolov & Zeller) compatible with the AGW/GHG theory in any respect?
user7733
# Is the Unified Theory of Climate (Nikolov & Zeller) compatible with the AGW/GHG theory in any respect?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-06-02)

username_5 & Zeller have published a paper concerning what they call The Unified Theory of Climate.

<https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf>

Please read the paper in full and then answer my question.

Personally I can see no areas in which the new theory is compatible with the current theory of the Greenhouse Gas Effect and Anthropogenic Global Warming however there are some extremely knowledgeable participants on this site so I welcome their input but only, please, if you have read the whole paper.

**Tags:** atmosphere, climate, climate-change

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Have to downvote this because it's impossible to discuss without using pejorative terms. The paper simply disregards basic physics in favor of curve fitting.  
> **username_2**: I would be extremely sceptical of anything published by Omics  
> **username_3**: People who are downvoting because of the content of the linked paper are doing this site a dis-service. A user is asking for our expertise in assessing something scientific that he does not understand; that is a good question and an excellent addition to the knowledge base of this site. If the linked paper is garbage, the correct response is to post an answer explaining why.  
> **username_4**: @username_1 So then convince people! username_0 seemed quite reasonable in his approach and attitude (and sounds like he agrees with you)... but the thing is, others may yet come less informed. Maybe there'll be some inexorable folks, but data and facts speak a lot more than ridicule. We scientists wonder why so many many won't hear us, yet we often bring attitudes of "believe us, we're scientists" or dismissiveness when challenged. Attitudes like that are against the enlightenment that scientific thought is supposed to be.  
> **username_4**: If you wish to convince, bring not just the conclusion, but attempt to work with them to help them understand the reasoning process and the data. Folks will be smarter than many seem to think they are. Honestly I mostly steer well clear of this whole issue anymore because most discussions become dogmatic and indeed inflammatory long before anyone gets anywhere, plus admit my somewhat limited knowledge. But you sound rather familiar with the information and topic... so post a levelheaded and quality response. Convince people... or dissuade them by your unwillingness to give them the time of day  
> **username_4**: I know it's a lot of work, and it's an often thankless job. And sometimes one just doesn't have the time to write out a good answer, or it's tough to muster the compassion and energy on occasion. But show people you're willing to make time for them, to put in the effort for them, to help them understand why, and you'll do something a quick dismissive comment entirely fails :-) :-)  
> **username_0**: @username_1  Describing DA as "curve fitting" is crude but not entirely inaccurate however in the context used it appears a valid technique. They attempt to find a formulae that produces a curve that does fit the data and they found one with a great fit. Looks like a reasonable scientific technique to me. How would you suggest we eliminate the "flukey fit" possibility?  
> **username_0**: @Michael  Fenyman said we should disregard who is making the theory, so should we not also disregard who is publishing it? We don't want an argument about who has the acceptable peer reviewers and who does not, we want a discussion about the science. Personally I don't mind if a science theory is written in pencil on the back of a (large) envelope. I am interested in what is said, not who wrote it or how.  
> **username_0**: @username_3 Yes, show me the garbage please !  
> **username_0**: @username_4  I spent a full 8hrs reading and rereading the paper so I am happy to wait for responses on this. It's not the usual kind of thing you come across here and by its very nature is likely to be "controversial" (stir things up).  
> **username_2**: @username_0 but username_5 and Zeller are not Feyman, and it does not make anything they say correct.  
> **username_0**: @Michael. You initial criticism was of the publisher which I rejected via a reference to Feynman , i.e. consider the science not the publisher/writer.  
> **username_5**: This is Ned username_5, one of the authors to papers discussed here. I have one request (and recommendations) to all interested in the climate science. Please read our papers several times *in full* before jumping to conclusions! The paper presents a lot of new information that is IMPOSSIBLE to be assimilated even after a single read. People, who have not read the paper in full, and have not contemplated at its content for a while, should not even think of making comments, because whatever they believe they have understood is probably a MISUNDERSTANDING. Examples are some of the comments written  
> **username_6**: (Continuation of comment by Ned username_5) Examples are some of the comments written by username_3 above (I will not even try to correct the numerous incorrect conclusions by username_3).  Please realize that the results discussed in Volokin and ReLlez (2014) and username_5 and Zeller (2017) are part of a NEW PARADIGM, and require a shift in one's worldview in order to fully grasp. It's not a simple process ...  Thank you! Ned username_5, Ph.D. Physical Scientist  (End of comment posted as answer by Ned username_5)  
> **username_0**: @username_5. Hi, just come back here after a long break and didn't expect you to be here !! Thanks for participating, I have reread the paper again today and it does get better the more you understand it. I do believe your conclusions are not in anyway compatible with GHG.AGW, it really is an Either/Or. I understand you are working on more papers. When can we expect the next one?  
> **username_7**: @username_3 people whjo are downvoting this are doing the site a great service. Any question that requires people to read a paper elsewhere in order to be able to answer it, is not a good fit for this site. Questions here need to be much more self-contained than that.  
> **username_8**: Referring to @username_3's answer are you username_5 also Volokin? Or is it just pure coincidence?  
> **username_9**: *Please read the paper in full and then answer my question* That's not how we do it on SE sites. [Like in answers](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/225370/your-answer-is-in-another-castle-when-is-an-answer-not-an-answer) you will have to state what *specifically* you want an answer for. Voting to close as 'too broad', but 'unclear what you are asking' also applies.  
> **username_0**: @username_9 Well it is how I am doing it and it SHOULD be how you are all doing it too. The question relates to the paper by username_5 and Zeller. Attempting to answer it without reading the whole paper would be absurd. In future if you think any of my questions are unclear or too broad please ask for clarification and I will be happy to rephrase it in terms you find easier to understand.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2017-06-02. Score: 19

The paper you linked lists as its first reference [Volokin and ReLlez, 2014](https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723); a paper that addresses the magnitude of the Earth's greenhouse effect. The validity of the paper you found largely hinges on the reputation of the Volokin and ReLlez, so we will investigate that one first.

# The science of Volokin and ReLlez

The traditional way to determine the 'greenhouse effect' of a planet is to compare actual planetary temperatures with Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody temperature based on the luminosity of the star, distance from star, and the albedo and emissivity of the planet. This calculation is done in Volokin and ReLlez and can also be found on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature#Surface_temperature_of_a_planet).

Volokin and ReLlez are arguing that the actual greenhouse effect should be measured using the albedo of a bare planet stripped of its clouds. The Earth's albedo is 0.294, but they propose a bare albedo of the Earth of between 0.122 and 0.13. They then make an argument that simple albedo calculations are not very accurate, and that a use of Holder's Inequality should be used to integrate the effects of albedo and radiation incidence angle over the exposed surface of the bare planet. Redoing the Stefan-Boltzmann expected temperature calculations with this new method, they then calculate that actual 'greenhouse effect' of the Earth is more like 90 K, instead of the 33 K normally cited. This is significant because temperature magnitude of the Earth's greenhouse effect affects the climate sensitivity factor of global warming models.

I actually think this paper is pretty interesting. The core of its mathematical arguments seems valid (though I didn't try to work any of it out myself) However, the conclusions are not very good, and not very related to much of the mathematical arguments in the body. While there is an argument to be made that calculating expected surface temperature should assume a bare planet, the authors are basically concluding that *all* temperature differences between the bare planet and the observed Earth should be assigned to the greenhouse effect. That just isn't supported by the information they present. The Earth's actual atmosphere and biosphere are much more dynamic than the bare model they are presenting; the formation of high-albedo clouds by equatorial rainforests,and the presence of high-albedo sand in the sunniest places on Earth are just two non-greenhouse related effects that account for temperature differences between the author's ideal bare Earth and the real Earth.

While they consider a lot of interesting factors, I think Volokin and ReLlez are guilty of making too much of a spherical cow estimate. The author's make an argument for one thing, then make some huge leaps to an unsupported conclusion. All in all, I don't think that the author's conclusion of a 90 K greenhouse effect is valid.

# The publication of the reference

Whatever its scientific merits, the paper doesn't look very good upon meta review. First off, the authors used fake names to publish the paper in an open access site. In fact, it is the same two authors of the paper you linked, except that they spelled their names backwards (username_5 -> Volokin; Zeller -> ReLlez). Ummm...what? Also, they later [retracted the paper](http://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/13/u-s-govt-researchers-withdraw-climate-paper-after-using-pseudonyms/). Also also, the journal they published in [is now defunct](https://springerplus.springeropen.com/). All in all, this is not a sign that the paper is good science.

# Back to the original paper

So the paper that you are asking about (username_5 and Zeller, 2017) is based on a paper by the same authors which has not-very-good conclusions, and was generally published in a shady manner. That's a big black mark at the very outset.

This paper is pretty long and detailed, and I admit I did not read all of it. But the kill shot for me was on the very first page:

> We began our study with the premise that processes
> controlling the Global Mean Annual near-surface Temperature
> (GMAT) of Earth are also responsible for creating the
> observed pattern of planetary temperatures across the Solar
> System. Thus, our working hypothesis was that a general physical
> model should exist, which accurately describes equilibrium
> GMATs of planets using a common set of drivers.

That is great, but we have already username_7 over how these authors are attempting to oversimplify a bare planet approach for predicting expected temperatures. The predictor variables they are using are stellar irradiance, blackbody reference temperature, greenhouse gas partial pressure and density, atmospheric pressure and density, and reference pressure for greenhouse fluids. We can see the authors are once again ignoring the effects of cloud formation and the way the biosphere affects albedo, amongst other things.

On a methodology note, the authors use a regression model to try to get some useful results. As a statistician (not a planetary scientist), this strikes me as a poor choice. Regression analysis of complex systems is a good way to get insight into what factors are important in affecting this system. I think they can be very useful for predicting trends, but I do not believe they are good for providing predictions that are accurate by physical science standards.

For example, I'm writing a paper right now that uses regression analysis to predict subway ridership at each station on a subway network. This is a very complex system (like planetary atmospheres), and our goal is to get error scores of 0.2 or so. That is great for predicting subway ridership, not so much for planetary temperatures. An error score of 0.2 is like predicting a temperature to be 300 K but it is actually 360 K. That's not good enough. So I just don't know what the authors are really trying to accomplish using a regression approach, especially with so few predictor variables. The physics behind the interaction of the predictor variables is pretty well known, so there isn't a lot of value if determining the correlations of the predictor values to the planet surface temperature; it is as if they are using the regression to test if the physics is correct. Finally, the data set is way too small to be using a regression analysis. Their only available data points are the planets and moons in our own solar system.

# Conclusion

Well I wrote a lot there, and hopefully it is all comprehensible. All in all, there are some interesting bits to username_5 and Zeller's approach, but I think they are over simplifying some things and are using a non-physical science applicable methodology to obtain questionable conclusions.

Honestly, I don't think that anyone should be treating their research pejoratively (I'm looking at you username_1 Jon username_1 in the comments). It is interesting, and it is certainly novel (from everything I've read). It just doesn't have great conclusions. And that's fine! Most research probably doesn't lead anywhere useful. At least they tried something. People seem to be mad at them just because the results are contrary to the general climate change consensus. Research should be appraised on its merits (or lack thereof) and not on whether its conclusions match preconceptions.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: AhHa - you have written up your illumination of the garbage. I need to read the first reference paper first (by the same authors, backwards names !) before commenting in much detail.  
> **username_11**: UPvote for clear and nonjudgmental tone alone, wish i could upvote twice. Over-reaching in conclusions is a common enough problem and does not completely invalidate a work.  
> **username_12**: "The validity of the paper you found largely hinges on the reputation of the Volokin and ReLlez" -- really? The majority of the validity of a scientific hypothesis rests on who says it? ...  

---

### Answer by username_10 on 2018-01-30. Score: 9

[username_3 gave a great overview on the general scientific quality of the papers](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/a/10513/12095), but I don't think the title question has been really answered yet.

> Is the Unified Theory of Climate (username_5 & Zeller) compatible with the AGW/GHG theory in any respect?

**Yes.**

---

First, I too would comment on [that preceding paper (*On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies...*)](https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723). What it's concerned with is the equation
$$
T\_\mathrm{e} = \left(\frac{S\_0\cdot(1-\alpha\_\mathrm{p})}{4\cdot\epsilon\cdot\sigma}\right)^{1/4},
$$
which derives from the Stefan-Boltzmann law the *radiating equilibrium temperature* $T\_\mathrm{e}$. The main point of the paper is that this temperature is not in any way physically meaningful for airless bodies. Which is completely correct: airless bodies do indeed not have a “representative mean temperature”, because the integral over a function of some quantity (here, fourth power of temperature) isn't directly related to the function value of the *average* of the quantity†. For a body without atmosphere like the moon, temperature varies extremely strongly over the surface, and thermal emission is completely dominated by the hot regions.

This does not really give rise to any interesting conclusions though, because $T\_\mathrm{e}$ isn't of much interest for climatology anyway. Any proper climate model is well aware of the importance of locally varying temperatures, as Volokin/ReLlez themselves admit:

> It should be pointed out that global climate models intrinsically account for Hölder’s inequality by virtue of being three-dimensional and explicitly resolving the spatial heterogeneity of radiation absorption and emission (as well as other energy transport processes) within the context of a spherical geometry. However, 3-D models have not historically been applied to assess
> the strength of Earth’s ATE (GE). Hence, our critique is strictly directed towards the effective emission-temperature formula (3) and other similar 1-D radiative-transfer models (e.g. Manabe and Möller 1961; Manabe and
> Strickler 1964).

One could also add here that $T\_\mathrm{e}$ is not quite so meaningless for a planet *with substantial atmosphere but no greenhouse gases*, because here the spatial temperature variations are less pronounced, yet the surface is in radiative equilibrium with the sun/space. I'll come back to that.

---

Now to [the paper you're asking about](https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf). It does two things:

* Fit *generic models without a-priori physical motivation* to observed values of pressure, density, greenhouse-gas content and observed and vacuum-predicted temperatures.
* Try to take new physical conclusions from the fit result.

username_3 discussed well how sensible this approach is in principle. Yes, it is sensible to *just fit the available data*, if that's all you have available. It can even be valid to inter- or extrapolate from that data somewhat, using the fitted models as a guide. username_5/Zeller emphasize that they chose models which make such extrapolation particularly robust. Ok.

But there's one principle that anybody using statistical methods surely must always keep in mind: **correlation does not imply causation**. What username_5/Zeller “find out” is that you get a marvellous fit when considering $\frac{T\_s}{T\_{\mathrm{na}}}$ as a function of $\frac{P}{P\_r}$, namely
$$
\frac{T\_s}{T\_{\mathrm{na}}}
= \exp\left(0.174205\cdot(\tfrac{P}{P\_r})^{0.150263}
+ 1.83121\times10^{-5}\cdot(\tfrac{P}{P\_r})^{1.04193}\right)
$$
gives a coefficient of determination $R^2 = 0.9999$. Wow!

Is this surprising?

Um, no. What they've discovered there is most of all the [ideal gas law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law). That connects pressure and temperature in a pretty rigid way.

So far, everything is... ok. Nothing actually *new* (just long-known physics, re-discovered in an inefficient way). The trouble only really starts with the conclusions.

username_5/Zeller argue that this excellent fit, and the much worse fits of similar models relating other quantities – in particular, greenhouse-gas concentrations – mean that it's actually *only the pressure which influences the surface temperature*, and that GHG are irrelevant.

But that's completely and utterly fallacious!
  
Again: it's not surprising that the ideal gas law holds – rather, it would be extremely surprising if it didn't. So, the $T\_s(P/P\_r)$ fit tells up about as much as a fit of fall-times of weights from different heights in vacuum: *nothing*, they just reaffirm the long-known Newton laws of motion.

And it does *not* mean that “temperature is only influenced by pressure”. On the contrary: just as much, *pressure is influenced by temperature* – if you somehow lowered the mean temperature of a given planet, surface pressure would drop as well&ddagger;.

*Both* pressure and temperature also depend on other quantities though. Notably, yes, on greenhouse-gas concentration. But unlike the gas law, the mechanism is a bit more complex and can't be captured properly¶ by fitting such a primitive model to a few measured points. Instead, it requires 3D climatology models, which incorporate *all of these quantities*, and not just in a global-mean sense but in a detailed, latitude- and altitide-dependent way.

I said I'd come back to the scenario of an atmosphere of significant density but without greenhouse gases. Such an atmosphere would keep spatial and temporal variations limited, but wouldn't influence the radiation processes, i.e. this is the case where the surface temperature would actually be similar to $T\_\mathrm{e}$. How is this still compatible with the username_5/Zeller model 12? Well, again that model is mostly just the gas equation. Such an atmosphere would still obey it. The higher reaches would be colder than the surface due to adiabatic expansion. Really, this scenario isn't very exotic in terms of fundamental physics, but it illustrates that GHG are absolutely essential for a climate like Earths. The Volokin/ReLlez paper just proves that $T\_\mathrm{e}$ isn't relevant for bodies without any atmosphere *at all*, but that's hardly interesting for any discussions regarding Earth's climate.

---

†The paper specifically discusses the [Hölder inequality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%B6lder%27s_inequality), which is somewhat curious because that inequality actually states that there *is*, for power functions, a relation between mean-of-the-function $\langle f(x)\rangle$ and function-of-the-mean $f(\langle x\rangle)$, namely, the latter gives an upper bound to the former. The Hölder inequality does not actually imply that $\langle f(x)\rangle$ lies *beneath* that upper bound – it could just as well instead be *smack on the bound*; but it's true that there are quantities for which it is substantially below.

&ddagger;At that point, I am oversimplifying. There's a whole bunch of different scenarious what could happen when you alter a planet's surface temperature (even assuming you managed to do this in a way other than directly tweaking atmosphere properties). The pressure-drop case is what happens when it gets so cold that the formerly atmospheric gases condense onto the surface; this is relevant to e.g. Mars and Titan. In other planetary bodies, other mechanisms would step in; in either case however, you could be sure that the ideal gas law continues to hold.

¶Ironically enough, username_5/Zeller's Model 7 actually hints that greenhouse concentration does correlate to temperature, even though it lacks the quantities that would be needed to make the fit tight.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: Great write up!  

---

### Answer by username_13 on 2017-07-13. Score: 0

In physics, you should get the same result whichever way you calculate. As long as you do not make an error in calculations.

Calculating the greenhouse effect using radiative transfer equation, we get a result pretty close to the observed one, even if we neglect effects such as turbulent heat fluxes as long as we get Planck optical depth right. And this is why I think, even without following their derivation, that they must have made a massive error.

Another reason for that is simple intuition that airless (shortwave) albedo must be unimportant on planets with large optical depths (thick clouds) because at the surface you do not have much shortwave (solar) radiation anyway. The surface is dominated by longwave radiation (IR) which albedo is close to 0.0, anyway.

---

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: How does this answer the question?  
> **username_13**: I claim their results are wrong. This makes the answer negative or void, depending on one's philosophical point of view.  

---

