Ned Nikolov: What Can NASA Planetary Data Tell Us about Drivers of Earth’s Climate?

Posted: February 8, 2021 by tallbloke in Analysis, Astrophysics, atmosphere, climate, Clouds, Maths, Measurement, methodology, modelling, pressure, Solar physics, solar system dynamics

Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. Has written to me with news of the presentations he made at this years AMS meeting. It’s vital we get people to understand the implications of the discoveries he and Karl Zeller have made. With our western governments jumping aboard the ‘Green New Deal’ and ‘NetZero’ bandwagons, we will need to work hard to rise awareness of viable alternative hypotheses for ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ which better explain the phenomena we can measure around us. Ned and Karl’s work should be given proper attention, because it strives for universality and general application of physics solar system wide, rather then treating Earth as a ‘special case’.

Two studies presented at the American Meteorological Society’s 34th Conference on Climate Variability and Change in January 2021 employed a novel approach to identify the forcing of Earth’s climate at various time scales. The new method, never attempted in climate science before, relies on the fundamental premise that the laws of nature are invariant across spacetime.

This means that relationships inferred from observed patterns across space can be applied to study the climate dynamics of planets through time. A new thermodynamic continuum revealed by the NASA planetary data suggests that long-term global and latitudinal surface temperatures are independent of atmospheric composition and Earth’s climate is controlled by disparate drivers on different time scales, thus refuting the long-standing assumption based on computer models that atmospheric CO2 is the “principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature”. Our studies also provided new counterintuitive insights about the role of planetary albedos in climate.

Please watch the video presentations below and share your thoughts on this emerging new paradigm about causes of climate change

Drivers of Paleoclimate:
Implications of a Semi-empirical Planetary Temperature Model for a New Understanding of Earth’s Paleoclimate History and Polar Amplification

Drivers of Modern Climate Change:
Role of Albedo in Planetary Climates: New Insights from a Semi-empirical Global Surface Temperature Model

  1. says:


    I can hear the dismissals now, saying “other planets don’t have humans emitting all that CO2” 😊


  2. Ned Nikolov says:

    Thank you, Roger, for posting this!!

  3. tallbloke says:

    Thank you Ned, for bringing your expertise to bear on this crucial issue.

  4. JB says:

    This work puts a complete kibosh on Wal Thornhill’s co-linear planetary model, which has Venus, Earth, and Mars all in coaxial polar alignment with Saturn as a rogue red dwarf some 12Kya. Findings from other areas of geophysical data also converge on the fundamental condition of the earth having been in its present orbital deviations far earlier than the catastrophic event Wal theorizes. The problem with his model is that such an alignment, combined with wandering through the galaxy cannot explain what is being found in the geophysical data.

    Other factors, such as the elemental composition of the inner planets could not have originated from Saturn which is by far the lightest of all the solar system bodies, including the sun. No amount of flaring has ever produced evidence of creating heavy elements from that process.

    These findings of Nikolov and Zeller are fantastic and revolutionary to geophysics and planetary history. Keep up the good work, guys.

  5. tallbloke says:

    JB; Not only Ned’s work, but our own work on the solar system orbital resonance would seem to rule out Saturn being a recent interloper in the solar system. As for Venus, it’s unlikely to be a coincidence that its slow retrograde revolution is the only configuration that enable it to show the same face to both Earth an Jupiter at each synodic conjunction with those two planets, which both have (within and order of magnitude) the same gravitational pull on Venus.

    I like Wal’s willingness to put new ideas out there, but I think he’s off beam with this one.

  6. Ned Nikolov says:

    Thank you, JB. Yes, our results do not support the hypothesis that Earth has changed its orbital position around the Sun in the recent geological history. The most advanced orbital models available (e.g. Laskar et al. 2011: indicate that Earth has been at today’s distance from the Sun at least for the past 250 million years. I personally think that Earth has not changed its orbital position since inception.

    An important detail not explicitly discussed in our presentations above is that, if changes in Sun’s luminosity and/or distance to Earth were a driver of paleoclimate, then Polar Amplifications would be opposite to what’s observed in the geological record, i.e. changes of Equatorial temperatures would have been larger than temperature anomalies at the Poles. Hence, only changes of total atmospheric pressure can adequately explain observed Polar Amplifications in the geological record. That’s a fundamental conclusion from our research!

  7. Ned Nikolov says:

    I agree with Roger’s opinion above…

  8. stpaulchuck says:

    sadly, President Biden is determined to attack the “climate crisis” with trillions of tax dollars to buy Chinese windmills and solar panels and similar to the UK, shut down all gasoline/diesel engines and replace them with electric vehicles.

    No one has yet told us where all those millions of batteries are coming from though, or how we will generate the millions of gigawatts to run all those vehicles as well has heat homes, cook food, etc..
    “Meanwhile, conservatives are said to have rejected science if they won’t believe that taxes control the weather.” from

  9. oldmanK says:

    The video presented has provided me with much food for thought, but in my case from a quite different perspective. Tks.

    I refer to video at 22:06, the two charts. The chart on the right – polar amplification- shows concurrent change for equatorial and polar. However in my own delving for period during the Holocene, I found polar acting contrary to equatorial on the scale of centuries. The main reason for that is changing earth tilt, the value of which I could read from ancient calendars. Several proxies corroborate in one way or another. In the chart which is based on millennial steps the opposite variations are smoothed out. The changes in temp anomaly, and what is termed as polar amplification, could be the effect of changing earth tilt (not the small secular changes due to planets, but larger changes due to other mechanisms).
    Note that at the peaks (which are likely interglacials) the temps come close, and similar to what is seen on the chart on the left for the Eocene.
    Earth tilt is only known for the past 2k years, and an earlier 1kyr that don’t agree to the calculated values. Before that, -from my point of view- from 8k to 4k ago it was substantially different than believed.
    But that is only my point of view.

  10. Ned Nikolov says:

    Yes, ideology-driven misguided policies that ignore the physical realities revealed by sound science are indeed the greatest threat to the World’s prosperity and our civilization at the moment…

  11. Ned Nikolov says:

    @oldmanK February 8, 2021 at 10:33 pm:

    Hi, I see your logic about Earth’s tilt. However, our analysis of contemporary NASA planetary data showed that axial tilt (or obliquity) of a planet has no effect on the annual global temperature. The geological records also provides no evidence that obliquity impacts Polar Amplifications on time scale of millennia. Our model does not take into account changes of obliquity, yet it reproduces them quite well by only assuming changes in total pressure. This suggests that obliquity does not impact Earth’s climate on time scales of thousands to millions of years.

  12. Damian says:

    It is interesting that there does seem to be two groupings of the planets based on axial tilt, excepting Venus and, obviously, Uranus.
    Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

  13. Paul Vaughan says:

    Annual average surface temperature:
    I am quite prepared to say Ned has some special expertise on this.

    …but I’ll never define climate by a single variable, as it’s a multivariate phenomena (definitions vary) and spatiotemporal and material variations are the greatest delight (delights vary) even when annual average surface temperature’s in lockdown.

    Some of my favorite climate stories were ones Bill Illis told about Drake Passage opening and closing, major changes in the shape of the Gulf stream with sea level change in shallow seas, etc.

    Now, something quite different. As I paddled up the inlet looking at the mountains through a gentle snowfall, I was thinking — quite peacefully — something at least 1/2-to-3/4 like this:

    Ned wrote:

    “Yes, ideology-driven misguided policies that ignore the physical realities revealed by sound science are indeed the greatest threat to the World’s prosperity and our civilization at the moment…”

    I was in total placid peace thinking about it.

    I experienced profound awareness of how much damage has been done to politics and world security by sites I’ve strictly boycotted for years. I feel a deep sense of honor for the decision I made years ago. Extreme harassment is not an acceptable way to selectively suppress the most key truths.

    I will observe the discussion quietly and peacefully with calm and placid interest.
    Thank you ever-so kind folks with whom I share the wondrous natural world.

  14. Pablo says:

    “The poles were ice-free during most of the Cretaceous,….Density contrasts in the ocean were much less than today,….The northern margin of the Tethys was almost entirely within the arid zone, exposing.. shallow (warm) epicontinental seas to high evaporation.
    Evaporation would increase the salinity in these seas, and the (more dense) saline waters would sink and flow into the deep Tethyan basins.
    The circulation would be much like the modern over-flows from the Greenland-Iceland-Norwegian sea and the Mediterranean into the North Atlantic… but on a scale larger by a factor of ten.”

  15. I’m an admirer of Ned and Karl’s work. First it’s enlightened to escape geocentrism and bring in the other planets. It’s a very illuminating insight to show that planetary surface temperature is predictable from solar distance and surface gas pressure alone – composition being irrelevant.

    It’s a victory of deductive over inductive science of which Karl Popper would be proud. Critics of Ned and Karl (and also of Volokin and Rellez 😆 ) pick up the wrong end of the stick by holding forth on why it’s a wrong theory when it’s essentially observation leading to theory (as science should be) and not the other way round.

  16. Paul Vaughan says:

    typo: “annual average surface temperature”
    correction: “global annual average surface temperature”

    PAY no mind to what they $say
    doesn’t matter anyway
    our lips are sealed
    — The Bangels

  17. Ned Nikolov says:

    @Hatter Eggburn (February 9, 2021 at 11:35 pm):

    Thank you, Hatter! You’ve got it absolutely right – we’ve made a discovery about the nature of the atmospheric thermal effect based on real data that is explainable through mechanisms of classical Thermodynamics. We do not propose a “theory” derived from a thought experiment or conjectures that needs to be verified. People often make the methodological mistake to argue against observed patterns using a “theory”. Such an approach turns the scientific method upside down, because if a theory (understanding) cannot explain measured data, one must revise the theory (one’s understanding) rather than reject the data…

  18. hlg says:

    is @1000frolly on the same page with you ned?

    i have no scientific background, but i am very interested in your work. what you are saying above about wal thornhill and his research seems not right to me, since he is referring to ancient human drawings and scripts…

    so electric universe theory seems to hold water since safire project is running and gets first results

    how about this weird growing earth theories that neil adams brought forward, could this close the gap between your findings and these of talbott and thornhill?

    thank you for your great effort in bringing logical solutions to physical problems.

    (i am from austria, the country with the explosive trees…)

  19. Ned Nikolov says:

    Hi HLG,

    1. I think Dr. Holmes fully agrees with our findings judging by his videos and comments to my Twitter posts.

    2. I’m a big supporter of the Electric Universe concept and have no disagreement in this regard with Wallace Thornhill. I have tweeted quite a bit about electric currents in Space as drivers of Earth’s climate change. This is also clearly stated in my video presentation above about modern climate change… The comment I made about Thornhill was regarding his hypothesis that Earth had significantly changed its orbit around the Sun in the recent geological past. There is no geophysical evidence to support this hypothesis and our analysis of paleo-climate dynamics does not support it either. That was the only disagreement I with Wal Thornhill, which has really nothing to do with the Electric Universe theory per se.

    3. Regarding the Expansion Tectonics (growing Earth) hypothesis, there a fair amount of geological evidence & modern satellite observations supporting it. I have tweeted extensively on this topic in the past. You’ll find lots of info & references on this, if you look up the Moments on my Twitter account:


    or try this direct link to one of my Moments there:

  20. oldbrew says:

    Game was over 10+ years ago for greenhouse theorists…

    ‘The radiating temperature of Venus should be 1.176 times that of the Earth.’

    Venus factsheet shows solar irradiance ratio of V:E is 1.911:1
    Fourth root of 1.911 is 1.176 (Stefan-Boltzmann law).

    Using the actual data from a Venus probe:

    Atmospheric pressure and temperature are co-dependent. Data not theory.
    – – –
    Consider what Earth’s surface temp might be if its atmospheric pressure there was 92 bar, like Venus, instead of 1 bar.

  21. oldmanK says:

    oldbrew says: February 22, 2021 at 6:27 pm

    The second link is interesting, and something that caught my eye reflected on a problem that stayed nagging at the back of my mind.

    Quote from part of link: “Nazlfrag’s comment above, which answers most simply: The 1,000 mb level can’t shift upwards in the governing hydrostatic approximation, it is fixed (at the surface) by the weight of the atmosphere above it.” It was answered by “Arrrgh, of course, the volume of the atmosphere can change for a planet to keep the pressure constant at the surface.” But that makes Volume proportional to Temperature, all else being constant.

    So if the pressure is constant, it is why in the Sahara desert, quote wiki “Daily variations may also be extreme: a swing from 37.5 to −0.5 °C (100 to 31 °F) has been observed”, depending on energy input/output. The daily fluctuation.

    An observation: I recall an incident where two identical machines rejected an identical quantity of heat energy via identical cascaded heat exchangers to same sink/temp. The deltaT for the intermediate fluid sat at a different level by some 20deg+ one machine from the other. It was found one had part of the system installed reversed. Ie, the intermediate state between source and sink can have different temp levels depending on mode of transport.

    I refer once more to video (first) above. At 22:06 chart on left shows a temp variation for Present, from lat-5 to lat-90, of over 50degC; at same pressure and so mass. (I note at 25:09 and at 26:34 there is also being assumed a change in mass). Thus, if mass, and so the pressure, are fixed, temp and vol would change to accommodate variations of input/output energy. Meaning the operating mechanism, -one or more-, at any one time dictate the operating temp. That, I think, is what is evident between the Eocene and Present latitude temp variations.

    Something somewhere does not seem right. ???

  22. oldbrew says:

    oldmanK – pressure overall is fixed by total atmospheric mass, but local pressure within that can and does vary as we all know from weather forecasts, e.g. highs and lows.

  23. Ned Nikolov says:

    @ oldmanK (February 22, 2021 at 10:45 am)

    The atmospheric mass affects surface temperature through the force of pressure as a form of adiabatic heating, not through atmospheric heat capacity as claimed in some papers…. There appears to be a widespread and profound confusion on this topic even among scientists!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s