Global warming is due to sun’s radiation – NOT carbon emissions!

Physicist Ned Nikolov and retired meteorologist Karl Zeller developed a mathematical model that accurately predicts the surface temperature of rocky planets such as Mars, Venus or Moon. Scientists claim that model works also for Earth. And here comes the best part. The model indicates that the effect of global warming of our planet is rather due to solar radiation, than human activity. Check this out! 

Fake names for publications

In order to publish their papers, both Nikolov and Zeller, had to write articles under the names Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez. You can notice that their nicknames read in reverse order, form their real names. They did it on purpose as before publication process, the pair’s previous work sparked very intense – and sometimes misunderstood, they said – discussion in the climate-skeptic blogosphere. They were afraid that “journal editors and reviewers would reject our manuscripts outright after Googling our names and reading the online discussion”- wrote Volkin as a response to The Washington Post article . In consequence, this plan worked for their two papers published in 2014 and 2015.

Incorrect application of the radiation law to a sphere         

In their first article from 2014, Volokin and ReLlez provided mathematical and empirical evidence that the effect of nearly 1-bar atmosphere on Earth’s average temperature is around 90 °C. Earlier, the effect of having an atmosphere has been estimated to increase the Earth’s average temperature by 33 °C. The scientists paid attention that the 33 °C estimate referred to in virtually all meteorology or climate textbooks for the past 40 years.

Why so big difference?

The found that this significant difference has been a result of incorrect application of the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law to a sphere. In addition, their study demonstrated that the atmospheric thermal effect has a significant non-radiative component, which is controlled by air pressure. Based on these findings, scientists got to the conclusion that the contribution of greenhouse gasses to Earth’s fluctuating temperature is still uncertain and needs further research.

Model that predicts accurately the mean global temperatures of other planets

The same as before, scientists decided to submit their latest work under pseudonyms. As before,  their article passed peer review, and on Aug. 18, 2015, the journal Advances in Space Research published the study online. But after some time, editors found out about the pseudonyms and they decided to quickly withdrew the article from the journal site. One can say that the debate about over the ethics of publishing under a pseudonym has begun.

Luckily, I was able to find this paper online, you can download it here by coping this link to your web browsers:

One question arises to me, if the paper was publised under pseudonyms, why the journal simply did not changed pseudonyms to real names, but instead decided to withdraw the paper completely?

What did they find?

Volokin and ReLlez or rather Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller,  developed a new macro-level model using data from six celestial bodies in our solar system (i.e., Venus, Moon, Earth, Mars, Titan, and Triton). Their model uses only two factors, i.e. electromagnetic radiation coming from the sun and the atmospheric pressure on the surface. Amazingly, their model predicted extraordinarily precise (figure below) the mean global temperatures of rocky planets (with diverse atmospheres). Scientists pointed that  observed variation of global planetary temperatures across the solar system can be neither satisfactorily predicted by the concentration nor the partial pressure of greenhouse gasses. This means that it is very likely that global warming is a product of rather sun’s radiation than man-made carbon emissions!

A figure from the withdrawn study, arguing that the model accurately predicts planetary temperatures.
A figure from the withdrawn study, arguing that the model accurately predicts planetary temperatures.

In addition, their model fully explains the previously mentioned ~90 °C atmospheric effect as a function of atmospheric pressure and solar irradiance.

According to the authors:

“The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that deserves further investigation and possibly a theoretical interpretation.”

The last interesting thing about this research was that both authors worked together at the U.S. Forest Service. However, for these two mentioned papers they were working in off hours. Also, they did not receive any federal funding or support, so the scientific independence has not been violated.

Forestry and global warming

David South (Emeritus Professor from Auburn University, USA) published recently an open letter to the editor of New Zealand Journal of Forest Science. You can find it here:

Letter to the editor by David South. He expressed his view concerning the impacts of the studies of Volokin and ReLlez on forestry. He wrote:

“Readers should be aware that atmospheric science is not set in stone; there is plenty of room for the evolution of our understanding on this complex topic”.

In addition he paid attention that we should question again the theoretical foundation of the “greenhouse” theory and research more carefully the impacts of large-scale carbon sequestration projects, especially in forestry, on the global mean temperature.

Photo credit: NASA

22 thoughts on “Global warming is due to sun’s radiation – NOT carbon emissions!

  1. Nope. The World’s scientists claim otherwise. And this garbage should not be propagated on a respectful blog. You lost a reader.

    1. Dear Denier Skeptic,
      My idea behind this blog is to propagate all scientific results, without consideration what is trendy, liked or politically correct.
      Could you provide more arguments why this research is a garbage in your opinion?
      Hopefully, next posts will fit you better.

      1. The idea that real science is being hidden due to political correctness is simply not true. This was withdrawn because it was bunk fake science. You basically just posted the global warming version of the “vaccines cause autism” argument, and it is sort of shameful. It sounds more like you’re posting something to make it fit YOUR political beliefs and wants instead of letting the science speak for itself.

  2. I was curious so asked a couple of open minded physicist colleagues, Anastassia Makarieva and Victor Gorshkov what they thought. (if you dont know their work it is worth taking a moment to have a look …. I consider them among our planet’s most original and best atmospheric theorists). What did they say?
    They wrote:
    “There are two different papers. The earlier one claims a 80 deg C greenhouse effect on Earth. This is because they compare current Earth’s temperature with a much lower temperature of a planet with no meridional heat fluxes. On such a planet the pole’s temperature can be around absolute zero (-273 deg C). This reference point does not make much sense for the climate problem, since the greenhouse effect is not about the presence of an atmosphere (which ensures mixing and considerably equates temperatures between the poles and the equator), but about the greenhouse substances in this atmosphere. We would say this paper is irrelevant.
    The second paper claiming a relationship between atmospheric pressure and surface temperature appears to be incorrect because the only way to relate pressure to temperature is to use the vertical temperature lapse rate — however, this lapse rate itself depends on surface temperature and greenhouse effect.
    “This paper appears to reflect a common misunderstanding of the type “temperature drops with height because of a lower pressure”. In a way it is true (for the troposphere), but from this it does not follow that a planet with a higher surface pressure would have a higher mean surface temperature.”
    Hope that helps

  3. Two comments:
    The claim that solar radiation is the reason for global warming does not explain why then solar radiation did not do this for the last several millions of years? Has solar radiation suddenly changed in intensity, coinciding with the industrial revolution? Nothing indicates that. Ceteris paribus…

    And “Scientists pointed that observed variation of global planetary temperatures across the solar system can be neither satisfactorily predicted by the concentration nor the partial pressure of greenhouse gasses.” – has someone ever made this simplistic claim?

    1. Christopher

      You wonder about: “The claim that solar radiation is the reason for global warming does not explain why then solar radiation did not do this for the last several millions of years?”

      We don’t have to go back very far to see the fallacy of assuming that carbon dioxide is the only possible explanation for our current warming trend which is in and of itself debatable over the last 15 years. And then there are some predictions of a cooling period by 2030.

      Check these out and see that ice cores point out that we were warmer 9,000-13,000 years ago with around two thirds of the atmospheric carbon dioxide that we have today:

      1) The Long View = 140,000 years of Vostok temperatures –
      i.e. We have survived considerably higher temperatures than those of today.

      2) The MidTerm Detailed View = 11,000 years of Greenland temperatures – – Note the 2004 horizontal temperature line and consider that mankind has survived temperatures in excess of 2004 by as much as 2.75 degrees centigrade.

      3) Greenland temperatures compared to carbon dioxide levels prior to 1855 versus the approximated 2012 carbon dioxide levels –
      So, why weren’t carbon dioxide levels higher than today when temperatures were higher than today? Given 1, 2, and 3, where is the correlation (much less the proven science establishing a cause and effect relationship) between carbon dioxide levels and warming?
      Note that the approximated 2012 carbon dioxide levels in this graph is supported by the 2016 # of 402.24 found at

      4) Predictions of short term global cooling by scientists that shouldn’t be discounted just because they don’t buy the herd’s unproven theories:

      5) My analysis/refutation of the “95-97% of climate scientists agree” claim:

      I don’t have the answers, I just haven’t seen anything that can explain away the open questions that I have. The very act of so many not following the scientific principle of open debate is significant enough of a reason to question the herd’s panic. Not much difference than what went on with the falsehoods and unproven theories that went into the failed NSO recovery plan.

    2. Dear Christopher,

      As I explain below, we do not claim that solar radiation has changed significantly over the past 130 years (a recent warming period) or over the past 50 Million years. Our new theory proposes a different set of mechanisms: on a time scale of decades to centuries, global temperature is controlled by variations in clod cover and cloud albedo, which are induced by changes in solar MAGNETIC activity (not total radiation); On the time scale of tens of thousands of years to millions of years, Earth’s global temperature is controlled by changes in total atmospheric mass and pressure… This is a qualitatively new paradigm!

      Please, read the blog I provided at the link below:

  4. It may help to distinguish three types of theory: Theory of Place (how come there is the type of spatial variation we find in existing patterns?), Theory of Change (which combinations of processes interacting with spatial patterns can “back cast” what we currently observe?) and Theory of Induced Change (what can we expect to happen in response to specific interventions?).
    The discussion in these papers is of the first type, while climate change on earth needs the second (including climate-vegetation feedbacks) as basis for third as basis for climate policy.
    So the discussion on whether atmospheric pressure (with equal weighting of all gasses) is sufficient is pretty much irrelevant in the face of solid evidence for climate change on earth not accounted for by changes in atmospheric pressure as such. This is hype, not worthy of further promotion and attention.

  5. Dear Professor Ned Nikolov and Professor Karl Zeller
    Many thanks for your interesting finding to predict the surface temperature of the earth and other rocky planets such as Mars, Venus or Moon!
    Certainly solar radiation impact on everything and everywhere! But by this fact we should not ignore the impact of industrial activities and emission production and its impact on climate change in short time scale. Solar radiation impact may be considered in geological time scale which in comparison with human based impact is very long time scale!
    Comparison of these two facts may be resulted of clear the account of main industrial pollutants which harmfully impacted human life!
    Scientific knowledge should not be credited to the account of a specific political group.
    Climate change is a scientific fact and not a political issue which it has been used!
    I hope more success for your future valuable scientific finding. Good luck!
    Mostafa Jafari
    October 8, 2016

    1. Dr. Jafari

      Your resume is quite impressive – I would be interested in your response to the questions that I have raised in my post two places prior to your post

      Thank you,

      Gil DeHuff

      1. Thank you Dr Gil DelHuff for you kind interest and also your important post.
        I hope we would be able to work on climate changes and its effective impacts on human life without misleading science under politic dominance.
        Best wishes,
        Mostafa Jafari

  6. Hello Everyone,

    I would like to make a few clarification regarding the meaning of our pressure-temperature relationship that we derived from vetted NASA planetary data:

    1) Our semi-empirical model predicts the LONG-TERM (30-year) average surface temperature of planetary bodies with any atmosphere;

    2) The model implies that changes in the total mass and pressure of an atmosphere will cause a change in the average surface temperature of a planet;

    3) The model also implies that atmospheric composition and the availability/absence of liquid water do NOT have any impact on the average temperature of a planet;

    4) The model further implies that the albedo of a planet with tangible atmosphere is MOSTLY a byproduct (an intrinsics property) of the climate system itself;

    Our new theory of climate drivers explains the observed warming over the past 130 years with a slight decrease in cloud albedo caused by an increasing solar magnetic activity. So, it’s NOT the direct change in solar radiation (luminosity) that causes the inter-annual and decadal variations in global temperature, but the change in cloud cover and cloud albedo affected by solar MAGNETIC activity. The average solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere is quite stable, and the change in that shortwave flux has a negligible impact on Earth’s temperature. The Sun’s effect on Earth’s cloud cover is buffered by negative feedbacks operating in the climate system. As a result, the Sun’s indirect effect on Earth’s temperature (through clouds) is constrained to within plus-minus 0.7 C or so… These mechanisms are discussed in more details in the answers I provided to 12 questions by the Washington Post reporter. Please, see this blog post:

    Also for the latest version of our withdrawn paper, go to this link:

  7. You do not withdraw a peer reviewed and recommended paper because the authors’ names are not accurate but rather if there is an issue with the scientific merit. If we stuck around political correctness of research out comes, science will be static to the detriment of humanity. Controversy in science is a good thing as it opens more room for more work to support or disapprove. There is more need for experts in this area to engage in more work as the correct position will result in correct strategies to address global warming.

  8. Dear all,
    let us assess the claim from a statistical point of view. Te only figure this blog post reports is based on only six points; Venus has a huge error bar and is the point that is leveraging the whole line. Can you make the statistics of the model available? Even better, can you publish the six data pairs so that the scientific community can refit the observations with alternative models and see what happens?

  9. Dear Giorgio,
    I recommend you to read the whole study, the link to it is available in the post text. I hope you will find needed information that will help you to answer your questions. Also, you can contact the main authors of the article. In this post, I provided only the main findings, without going to much into details. Nevertheless, I think you raise important argument in the whole discussion.

  10. Having read both the 90K paper with reverse author names and the recent paper I would make the following comments:

    1. The existing paper is essentially a mathematical attempt to fit a curve to the data of 6 planets/moons. The fit found is exceptionally good and is derived from a simple formula.
    It fits all 6 chosen celestial bodies. If this is not a fluke it may well reveal something hitherto unknown about the physical and thermodynamic processes taking place in atmospheres in general (not just Earth).

    2. The 6 celestial bodies have vastly different atmospheric compositions including lots of GHGs and none. Existing theory suggests the GHG content of an atmosphere will have a large effect on planetary surface temperature. This is, in effect, the definition of a Greenhouse Gas. Therefore one would expect the celestial bodies with any GHG % to behave very differently to those with none, and those with a large % GHG to be similarly different (e.g. runaway greenhouse heating effect as is claimed for Venus). The fact that the graphical fit and simple formulae embraces both nil GHG bodies and high % GHG suggests that either the theory of GHG effect is plain wrong or massively (by orders of magnitude) miscalculated or there is some other effect going on which virtually or completely cancels it out.

    3. The normal and expected conclusion when you have a new theory like this which comes up with such a remarkably good result is to have some doubts about the existing theory (GHG theory) and therefore to go back and examine it from first principles to check for a possible “mistake”. It is interesting to note that there are no repeatable laboratory experiments which have been conducted to quantify (or verify) the thermal heating effect (back radiation) of bulk CO2 gas. All the work regarding this has been hypothesised from our supposed understanding of the frequency dependent IR response of CO2.

    4. In light of the very considerable importance attached to GHG and Climate Change and the costs (both monetary and societal) of mitigation of CO2 emissions the results of Nikolov & Zellers work require an urgent re-examination of the GHG theory. If it proves to be the case that the GHG theory is wrong and CO2 does not affect our atmosphere and our temperature adversely then this looks like a massive win-win for the whole of humankind !

  11. N & K paper’s demolition of the world-wide “carbon demonization” campaign is timely no matter what criticisms are directed at the authors, their methodology or their conclusions.
    The “carbon emissions reduction” campaigns in various nations are derived from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which is arguably the greatest fraud in the history of mankind. The objective of the fraud is centralised global control by United Nations committees rather than the successful and widely adopted Westminster system of elected representative governments. The fraud relies on international financial “climate reparations” bribes (the UN FCCC Green Climate Fund) offered to the majority of United Nations developing nations to underwrite their voting acceptance of the UNFCCC. In turn, the fraud relies on the discredited pseudoscientific presumption that greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide from combustion of fossil fuels must inevitably cause unacceptable global climate conditions. Advocates claim a number of adverse climate conditions are due to “carbon pollution” (a political marketing statement rather than a scientific claim).
    The global “climate change” pyramid marketing campaign is a political scheme devised by Maurice Strong, a Canadian millionaire with ambitions for world government. Strong used his position with the UN Environment Program (UNEP) to set up the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN FCCC) to promote his advocacy recognising that there was a majority of potential supplicant nations in the UN who would favour receiving multi-billion dollar funding from the smaller number of “rich” nations. The UN FCCC formalised Strong’s “class warfare” campaign as international obligations with the “precautionary principle” deliberately excluding the possibility of known beneficial impacts from the hypothesised
    warmer world.
    Strong integrated the “greenhouse gas warming” theory proposed in 1896 by Swedish chemist Arrhenius into the UN Climate Change Convention wording as if it was a proven scientific climate-relevant fact. While many years and many millions of dollars have been spent attempting to verify the UN FCCC “greenhouse gas warming” assumption, it has never been proven as scientifically credible or climate relevant despite confident assertions by vested interest “consensus” academics and lobby groups. Advocacy groups have invented alternative ploys and semantics to progress their marketing, such as “climate disruption,” “sea level rise,” “ocean acidification,” “clean energy,” “dirty fossil fuels,” and “carbon pollution,” none of which are true.
    Many politicians, academics and individuals perceiving personal and career advantages have become activists for the “Save the Planet” marketing campaign. Government-funded departments, agencies and institutions (such as universities and the education industry among others) also felt obliged to join the campaign in order to maintain their perceived credibility, influence and funding. Media interests joined to expand their influence and profits. Businesses were obliged to conform or face activist “social licence” vilification. The outcome has been a pyramid marketing campaign headed by
    the UN and national governments. The whole campaign has assumed the
    status of a religion, based on belief rather than informed understanding of the actual scientific evidence or lack thereof with “infidel” non-believers vilified as deviant “deniers.”
    The UN’s computer-based climate models have failed to predict the unchanged global average climate over the past 20 years. While many excuses have been advanced for this failure, they merely confirm the inadequacy of the modelling assumptions based on current scientific knowledge for predicting future climate.
    Well over a trillion dollars have been wasted on research and projects associated with the “global warming/climate change” political campaign initiated by Maurice Strong. The “climate change” campaign is perceived as the greatest fraud in human history.
    Some relevant advice from Prof Arrhenius over 100 years ago. He suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population:
    “By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”

  12. Oxygen depletion,humanity could prolong the inevitable by removing darvaza craters from the equation,though ice caps will continue to melt,trying to stabilize atmospheric oxygen levels ,but ocean oxygen levels will continue to fall until the natural cyanobacteria effect sets in to balance and produce an oxygen rebound .The blue marble becomes the green marble ?

Leave a Reply