Your comment is awaiting moderation.
OK, I’ll drop that subject and deal directly with the subject of your blog post.
You state that:
“If the Earth’s atmospheric pressure is to contribute to the enhanced surface temperature, then that would mean that the atmosphere would need to continually provide energy to the surface. It could only do this through the conversion of gravitational potential energy to thermal energy. This would then require the continual contraction of the Earth’s atmosphere.”
This quote demonstrates that you’ve fundamentally misunderstood Ned Nikolov’s hypothesis. He’s not positing a raised surface T due to an ongoing gravitational collapse producing a compression, generating heat which is then lost to space.
Atmospheric pressure produces a density gradient; i.e. it forces there to be more air molecules per unit volume at lower altitude than at higher altitude. Denser air intercepts and absorbs more of the sunlight passing through it than less dense air, producing more molecular collisions and excitation. It therefore holds more kinetic energy.The more kinetic energy it holds the higher its temperature will be.











![Half Moon Bay State Beach, California [credit: Wikipedia]](https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/half_moon_bay.jpg?w=300&h=200)

![Propeller power [image: BBC]](https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/tidalpower.jpg?w=300&h=201)



I’m of the opinion that before getting into the complexity of numerical modelling, it’s wise to put considerable effort into trying to understand the physical processes at work in the climate system, and the origins of the energy flows that drive them. David Evans’ ![Arctic sea ice [image credit: BBC/Getty Images]](https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/arctic_ice.jpg?w=614&h=345)

