Ph.D. Physical Scientist with a broad range of interests in various fields of science, i.e. climate, cosmology, astrophysics, nutrition, archaeology etc.
Denver, CO
Joined July 2017
- Tweets71.9K
- Following158
- Followers37.5K
- Likes13.1K
Pinned Tweet
This is an updated list of peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, video podcasts, and key blog articles explaining various aspect of our new climate-science paradigm currently known as the Nikolov-Zeller (NZ) Climate Concept.
This full-fledged, physics-based and data-driven concept will eventually replace the "greenhouse theory" of climate change, which was proposed as a pure conjecture more than 120 years ago, and is now falsified by modern satellite observations from projects such as NASA CERES (ceres.larc.nasa.gov/):
Peer-reviewed Scientific Papers:
- 2014. On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect: springerplus.springeropen.co…
- 2017. New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model: omicsonline.org/open-access/…
- 2024. Roles of Earth’s Albedo Variations and Top-of-the-Atmosphere Energy Imbalance in Recent Warming: New Insights from Satellite and Surface Observations: mdpi.com/2673-7418/4/3/17
Video Presentations & Podcasts:
- 2021. Demystifying the Atmospheric Thermal Effect. Toward a New Paradigm of Climate Science: vimeo.com/602819278
- 2021. Drivers of Earth's Paleoclimate, a New Paradigm of Understanding: youtube.com/watch?v=DpUkPPtk…
- 2024. Beyond the Greenhouse Theory: youtube.com/watch?v=L1GgmBIe…
- 2025. The ill-defined “Greenhouse Effect” and Greenhouse-Gas "Radiative Forcing" youtube.com/watch?v=tTMEc5DP…
- 2025. What's the Truth? Unpacking Climate Science (Podcast with Dr. Shawn Baker): youtube.com/watch?v=-DhlH66Q…
- 2026. Is the Global Mean Surface Temperature Physically Meaningful? youtube.com/watch?v=WqmxpWII…
Blog Articles:
- 2022. Dispelling the Milankovitch Myth: Why were Ice Ages not caused by Orbital Cycles? tallbloke.wordpress.com/2022…
- 2022. A Surface Solar Radiation Dataset exposes a major manipulation of Global Temperature Records between 1960 and 1980: tallbloke.wordpress.com/2022…
- 2024. Misrepresentation of Critical Satellite Data by the IPCC 6th Assessment Report: tallbloke.wordpress.com/2024…
- 2024. An Open Letter to IPCC discussing omissions & data misrepresentations in AR6: tallbloke.wordpress.com/wp-c…
Spread the word about our new climate science, for it has the power to save the World through knowledge from a self-induced destruction caused by collective ignorance!
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. retweeted
According to Plate Tectonics, the currently accepted theory of Earth's crustal evolution by mainstream Geology, continental plates slide on top of a "molten mantle" like potatoes on a greasy skillet:
youtube.com/watch?v=61VU3GDk…
Here is a video illustrating this idea with the Indian tectonic plate, which is believed to have traveled by itself from Madagascar (near the southern tip of East Africa) northward for 45 My before colliding with the Asian plate some 55 My ago and forming the the Himalayan Mountain as a result. Note that the Indian plate is shown to move autonomously & independently of the other tectonic plates!
Do you think such "sliding" was possible provided that: (a) the upper mantle has a viscosity of 10^19 - 10^21 Pa-second, which is 6-7 ORDERS of magnitude higher than the viscosity of solid ice; and (b) the continental plates are anchored to the upper mantle by granite roots that are 150 - 300 km deep?
FYI, viscosity measures the resistance of a material to flow or deformation. A viscosity value of 10^19 - 10^21 Pa-second implies a solid body for all practical purposes.
According to Plate Tectonics, the currently accepted theory of Earth's crustal evolution by mainstream Geology, continental plates slide on top of a "molten mantle" like potatoes on a greasy skillet:
youtube.com/watch?v=61VU3GDk…
Here is a video illustrating this idea with the Indian tectonic plate, which is believed to have traveled by itself from Madagascar (near the southern tip of East Africa) northward for 45 My before colliding with the Asian plate some 55 My ago and forming the the Himalayan Mountain as a result. Note that the Indian plate is shown to move autonomously & independently of the other tectonic plates!
Do you think such "sliding" was possible provided that: (a) the upper mantle has a viscosity of 10^19 - 10^21 Pa-second, which is 6-7 ORDERS of magnitude higher than the viscosity of solid ice; and (b) the continental plates are anchored to the upper mantle by granite roots that are 150 - 300 km deep?
FYI, viscosity measures the resistance of a material to flow or deformation. A viscosity value of 10^19 - 10^21 Pa-second implies a solid body for all practical purposes.
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. retweeted
Here are some reasons that make the subduction of one tectonic plate under another and its sinking into the mantle physically impossible:
1. North America is anchored to the upper mantle by a 250-600-km deep root called craton. Other continents have similar cratons. This makes "slipping" of a crustal plate under a continent impossible.
2. The crust has lower density than the upper mantle, and there is an enormous pressure directed from the mantle outwards that cannot be overcome by gravity. This makes sinking of a crustal plate into the mantle impossible.
3. The mantle is practically solid as a rock, because it has an estimated viscosity in the order of 10^19 - 10^21 Pa-s. It cannot be penetrated by a lower-density upper plate.
Finally, subduction requires the presence of piles of rubble on the ocean floor at the seam between two plates, where one plate moves under the other. Nothing like that is observed in reality!
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. retweeted
It appears that "subduction zones" in Geology are equivalent to "CO2 radiative forcing" in climate science meaning that they are both FICTIONS created to keep a wrong theory afloat...
People oftentimes dismiss hypotheses (ideas) they cannot explain. However, science is about FOLLOWING the evidence, no matter where it leads. Sometimes the evidence points toward phenomena that we cannot mechanistically describe in terms of known processes.
One such phenomenon is the "Expanding Earth". The NOAA age map of the ocean-floor lithosphere (created over several decades) ONLY shows zones of expansion surrounding all continents (see the attached image). In this map, one cannot find subduction zones required by the Plate Tectonic theory. The map implies that Earth has been expanding that oceans did not exist prior to 180 My ago and only shallow seas were present.
Do you agree?
It appears that "subduction zones" in Geology are equivalent to "CO2 radiative forcing" in climate science meaning that they are both FICTIONS created to keep a wrong theory afloat...
People oftentimes dismiss hypotheses (ideas) they cannot explain. However, science is about FOLLOWING the evidence, no matter where it leads. Sometimes the evidence points toward phenomena that we cannot mechanistically describe in terms of known processes.
One such phenomenon is the "Expanding Earth". The NOAA age map of the ocean-floor lithosphere (created over several decades) ONLY shows zones of expansion surrounding all continents (see the attached image). In this map, one cannot find subduction zones required by the Plate Tectonic theory. The map implies that Earth has been expanding that oceans did not exist prior to 180 My ago and only shallow seas were present.
Do you agree?
Here are some reasons that make the subduction of one tectonic plate under another and its sinking into the mantle physically impossible:
1. North America is anchored to the upper mantle by a 250-600-km deep root called craton. Other continents have similar cratons. This makes "slipping" of a crustal plate under a continent impossible.
2. The crust has lower density than the upper mantle, and there is an enormous pressure directed from the mantle outwards that cannot be overcome by gravity. This makes sinking of a crustal plate into the mantle impossible.
3. The mantle is practically solid as a rock, because it has an estimated viscosity in the order of 10^19 - 10^21 Pa-s. It cannot be penetrated by a lower-density upper plate.
Finally, subduction requires the presence of piles of rubble on the ocean floor at the seam between two plates, where one plate moves under the other. Nothing like that is observed in reality!
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. retweeted
1. Subduction requires piles of rubble on the ocean floor at the seam, where one plate goes under the other. Nothing like that is observed.
2. North America is anchored to the upper mantle by a 250-600-km deep root called craton (see attached AI response). Other continents have similar cratons. This makes "slipping" under a continent impossible.
3. The crust has a lower density than the upper mantle, and there is an enormous pressure directed from the mantle outwards that cannot be overcome by gravity. This makes sinking of the crust into the mantle physically impossible.
4. The mantle is practically solid, since it has an estimated viscosity in the order of 10^19 - 10^21 Pa-s.
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. retweeted
People oftentimes dismiss hypotheses (ideas) they cannot explain. However, science is about FOLLOWING the evidence, no matter where it leads. Sometimes the evidence points toward phenomena that we cannot mechanistically describe in terms of known processes.
One such phenomenon is the "Expanding Earth". The NOAA age map of the ocean-floor lithosphere (created over several decades) ONLY shows zones of expansion surrounding all continents (see the attached image). In this map, one cannot find subduction zones required by the Plate Tectonic theory. The map implies that Earth has been expanding that oceans did not exist prior to 180 My ago and only shallow seas were present.
Do you agree?
People oftentimes dismiss hypotheses (ideas) they cannot explain. However, science is about FOLLOWING the evidence, no matter where it leads. Sometimes the evidence points toward phenomena that we cannot mechanistically describe in terms of known processes.
One such phenomenon is the "Expanding Earth". The NOAA age map of the ocean-floor lithosphere (created over several decades) ONLY shows zones of expansion surrounding all continents (see the attached image). In this map, one cannot find subduction zones required by the Plate Tectonic theory. The map implies that Earth has been expanding that oceans did not exist prior to 180 My ago and only shallow seas were present.
Do you agree?
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. retweeted
This graph shows changes in Earth's absolute gravity over the past 220 My. It complements the relative-gravity graph in my top post...
This is quite interesting:
Two independent estimates of the evolution of Earth's gravity over the past 220 My produce very similar results.
One method is based on the measured body volume and estimated weight of extinct animals (mostly dinosaurs), while the other method uses a reconstruction of Earth's past diameter from a NOAA map of oceanic lithosphere ages done by Maxlow (2012). The first method uses the circumference of femur and humerus weight-bearing bones of extinct animals to estimate their weight when they were alive. The ratio of that weight to the animals' body mass (assuming an average tissue density of 0.99 tones m-3) gives an estimate of the relative gravity in the past. The second method assumes that Earth has been expanding according to Maxlow's Expansion Tectonics.
These results indicate that during the Mesozoic Era (the era of dinosaurs), from 252 My ago to 66 My ago, Earth's gravity was less than 75% of today's value. This can help explain the enormous sizes of some sauropods.
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. retweeted
Indeed! Our research concluded that the dinosaur evolution was stimulated (aided) by 3 factors:
- Warm climate with none or little ice at the Poles;
- High O2 partial pressure approaching levels similar to our total pressure today. This was a result of higher O2 concentration (up to 35 %) and a high total pressure (up to 2-3 bar);
- Lower gravity;
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. retweeted
This slide described the method I used to estimate Earth's past gravity from Maxlow''s reconstructions of Earth's past diameter.
This slide described the method I used to estimate Earth's past gravity from Maxlow''s reconstructions of Earth's past diameter.
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. retweeted
This is quite interesting:
Two independent estimates of the evolution of Earth's gravity over the past 220 My produce very similar results.
One method is based on the measured body volume and estimated weight of extinct animals (mostly dinosaurs), while the other method uses a reconstruction of Earth's past diameter from a NOAA map of oceanic lithosphere ages done by Maxlow (2012). The first method uses the circumference of femur and humerus weight-bearing bones of extinct animals to estimate their weight when they were alive. The ratio of that weight to the animals' body mass (assuming an average tissue density of 0.99 tones m-3) gives an estimate of the relative gravity in the past. The second method assumes that Earth has been expanding according to Maxlow's Expansion Tectonics.
These results indicate that during the Mesozoic Era (the era of dinosaurs), from 252 My ago to 66 My ago, Earth's gravity was less than 75% of today's value. This can help explain the enormous sizes of some sauropods.
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. retweeted
Yes, the atmospheric pressure during the Mesozoic era was higher than today, but the pressure calculations by David Esker on the website you provided are TOTALLY wrong! He claims that, 150 My ago, the total pressure was 370 atm at the surface... This is laughable, because the current pressure on Venus is only 92 atm.
A surface pressure of 370 atm would create such a strong Atmospheric Thermal Effect that all oceans on Earth would evaporate and life will be fried to a crisp!
According to our reconstruction based on the N-Z model derived from NASA data, during the Mesozoic era (252 to 66 My ago), the mean surface pressure varied between 140 and 425 kPa (1.4 to 4.2 atm.)
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. retweeted
Could an O2 partial pressure of 70-90 kPa during the late Cretaceous explain, at least in part, the existence of colossal dinosaurs on land such as Argentinosaurus estimated to have weighted between 65 and 100 tonnes with a length of 30 to 40 m?
These animals required a huge rate of oxygenation to support their muscles.
Argentinosaurus size compared to a human:
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. retweeted
What, do you think, was the stamina and power of animal physiology 90 My years ago, when the partial pressure of oxygen in the atmosphere was 4.3 times higher than today?
Note that, 90 My ago, the oxygen concentration was about 33% or only 1.57 times higher than today's concentration according to data obtained from air bubbles trapped in amber (Landis et al. 1996). The O2 partial pressure was much higher back then than the concentration values because the total atmospheric pressure was about 270 kPa compared to 98.55 kPa at present.
What, do you think, was the stamina and power of animal physiology 90 My years ago, when the partial pressure of oxygen in the atmosphere was 4.3 times higher than today?
Note that, 90 My ago, the oxygen concentration was about 33% or only 1.57 times higher than today's concentration according to data obtained from air bubbles trapped in amber (Landis et al. 1996). The O2 partial pressure was much higher back then than the concentration values because the total atmospheric pressure was about 270 kPa compared to 98.55 kPa at present.
Could an O2 partial pressure of 70-90 kPa during the late Cretaceous explain, at least in part, the existence of colossal dinosaurs on land such as Argentinosaurus estimated to have weighted between 65 and 100 tonnes with a length of 30 to 40 m?
These animals required a huge rate of oxygenation to support their muscles.
Argentinosaurus size compared to a human: