By email
Response to the Claude.ai evaluation of H.C.
Hayden’s explanation of CO2 versus N
Nikolov and K Zeller
Howard Cork Hayden
June 10, 2025
NOTE: See the Claude.ai evaluation of Hayden versus Nikolov-Zeller below
Consider the equilibrium situations:
A: The heat absorbed from the sun equals the heat radiated to space. (100% electromagnetic.)
B: The heat absorbed by the atmosphere equals the heat lost by the atmosphere. (Some by EM radiation, some by latent heat, some by conduction/convection.)
C: The heat absorbed by the surface equals the heat lost by the surface. (Some by EM radiation, some by latent heat, some by conduction/convection. The IPCC shows no heat coming from the interior to the surface --- it’s negligible --- and no heat exchange between the surface and the oceans. That doesn’t mean there is none; it’s simply because they have neglected it. I’m sure you’re right, because we have little things like the AMO, El Niño, La Niña, icebergs breaking off and cooling the water wherever they go, and so forth. For that matter, there is also the effect of the moon and tidal friction --- slowing the rotation and moving the moon farther out.
Now comes the question of what we’re up against: It’s a massive delusion that weather is controlled by CO2, and ONLY because of the radiative forcing because of CO2. Nothing having to do with its mere presence, its mass, its heat capacity, or anything like that. RADIATIVE FORCING due to increasing CO2.
I am not making a climate model; I pretend no expertise in how those INTERNAL processes move heat around, causing storms, droughts, heavy rain, snowfall, and glacial formation. I cannot predict the climate 50 years from now. (That is something I share with the brightest minds in the 21st Century.) My goal is simple: Prove that CO2 does not control the climate.
Now, here’s my take on Happer’s work. The 1970 Nimbus measurement of IR going to space above Guam had a calculation that was remarkably good, save that it did not account for atmospheric ozone. (The references were all to spectroscopy journals.) IPCC’s Third Assessment Report had formulas
for the forcing due to CO2 and a couple of others, calculated from approximate spectral data. Happer and van Wijngaarden greatly improved on those calculations by use of high-resolution data, but also considered various concentrations of 5 GHGs from zero to double present concentrations. Why? Because those gases affect the amount of IR that goes to space, hence the amount of heat shed by the planet. The overall greenhouse effect also has influence on the surface temperature. It is, by itself, not a predictor of surface temperature.
The brainless AI says, “Hayden appears to be a climate skeptic who challenges the conventional greenhouse effect theory.” I spend a lot of time and effort explaining what the GH effect is, and do NOT challenge it.
The brainless AI approach to the 33ºC question misses the important point: It is a calculation based on some non-reality. IF (the biggest word in the language) the albedo of the Earth sans GHGs were the same as it is now, the temperature of that hypothetical Earth would be 33ºC lower. And if my mother were a truck, she would have wheels. That hypothetical Earth would have no water, no oceans, no clouds, no evaporation, no condensation, no ice, no snow, no green plants, etc. Make up any meaningless scenario you want to. Note to brainless AI: the calculation of 33ºC is numerically correct, but absolutely meaningless.
Must depart. Leaving soon on a jet plane.
Cheers, Cork
Howard "Cork" Hayden
corkhayden@comcast.net
A Must-Read: Energy: A Textbook, $25 at www.energyadvocate.com
and www.valeslake.com
785 S. McCoy Drive
Pueblo West, CO 81007
Chromoergic psychosis: The delusion that energy has a color, usually green.
Claude.ai evaluation of Howard Cork
Hayden versus Ned Nikolov - Karl Zeller on atmospheric carbon dioxide and climate science
Gerald Ratzer
June 10, 2025
Question to Claude.ai:
I am interested in Climate Change and specifically GHE - the greenhouse effect. Can you explain the difference between the position of Cork Hayden and his recent 23-page note and the work and publications of N&Z?
and the response is -
I'll search for information about Cork Hayden's recent work and N&Z's publications on the greenhouse effect to help explain the differences in their positions. Now let me search for information about N&Z (likely Nikolov and Zeller) and their work on the greenhouse effect:
Based on my search results, I can explain the key differences between Cork
Hayden's position and the work of Nikolov & Zeller (N&Z) regarding the greenhouse effect:
Cork Hayden's Position
Howard 'Cork' Hayden is a professor of physics emeritus at the University of Connecticut and editor of The Energy Advocate newsletter. From the search results, Hayden appears to be a climate skeptic who challenges the conventional greenhouse effect theory. His approach begins with paleoclimate evidence arguing that CO2 does not control temperature or climate, then examines what he considers IPCC methodology issues, and concludes by looking at CO2's role.
Nikolov & Zeller's Theory
N&Z developed what they call the "Unified Theory of Climate" with several key publications:
Their 2017 paper "New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model" was published in Environmental Pollution and Climate Change. However, this journal was published by an Indian publisher that subsequently faced multiple charges of deception from the Federal Trade Commission relating to claims of peer review.
Key Differences in Their Approaches
N&Z's Core Theory: While analyzing NASA planetary data from the Solar System collected over 45 years, Nikolov & Zeller made discoveries about the physical nature of the greenhouse effect. They propose that atmospheric pressure, rather than greenhouse gas composition, is the primary driver of planetary surface temperatures.
Hayden's Approach: Hayden appears to focus more on challenging the CO2-temperature relationship through paleoclimate evidence and critiquing mainstream climate science methodologies.
Scientific Reception: There have been refutations of Nikolov and Zeller's universal theory of climate published in the scientific literature, suggesting their work remains controversial within the scientific community. Both positions represent alternatives to the mainstream greenhouse effect theory, but they appear to take different theoretical approaches to
explaining planetary temperatures.
The fundamental difference seems to be that N&Z propose a specific alternative mechanism (pressure-based) while Hayden appears to focus more on challenging the evidence for CO2's role in climate change through paleoclimate analysis.
Cork addresses the 33C difference between ground observations and the Stefan-Boltzmann theoretical emission levels. NZ says the the difference is some 87C and the 33C is wrong. Which one do you think is correct?
This is a fascinating technical dispute about one of the fundamental calculations in climate science. Let me search for more specific information about these competing claims regarding the temperature difference.Based on the search results, I can now explain the key difference between these two positions:
The 33°C vs 87-90°C Debate
Traditional 33°C Calculation: The conventional greenhouse effect calculation shows the difference between Earth's actual average temperature (about 15°C) and the theoretical Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody temperature (-18°C) as 33°C. Earth's actual average global temperature is around 14°C (57°F), making our planet warmer than the Stefan-Boltzmann prediction by about 34°C (60°F).
Nikolov & Zeller's 87-90°C Claim: Nikolov and Zeller's study revealed that the Earth's natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years. N & Z find a very much larger ATE than previously envisaged, some 133°C rather than 33°C. N&Z went wrong in believing the atmosphere needs to account for 90ºC of warming on Earth, not just 33ºC.
Which is Correct?
The mainstream scientific consensus strongly supports the 33°C figure. Here's why:
1. Mathematical Foundation: The 33°C calculation is based on wellestablished Stefan-Boltzmann law applications that have been extensively validated.
2. Scientific Scrutiny: There have been refutations of Nikolov and Zeller's universal theory of climate published in the scientific literature, with detailed critiques showing flaws in their methodology.
3. Methodological Issues: Climate analysis identifies where N&Z went wrong in believing the atmosphere needs to account for 90ºC of warming on Earth, suggesting errors in their temperature baseline calculations.
4. Professional Assessment: Professional climate scientist Scott Denning described their theory as "too simple" and said it ignores elements of established climate physics.
The 33°C difference represents the well-established greenhouse effect calculation that has been consistently reproduced and validated across multiple independent studies. N&Z's much larger figure appears to stem from methodological errors in how they calculate the baseline temperature Earth would have without an atmosphere.
Cork Hayden's acceptance of the 33°C figure aligns with the established physics, even if he may disagree with other aspects of climate science. The 33°C calculation is one of the more robust and widely accepted elements in climate physics.