Average surface temperature independent of radiative gasses?

[Andre]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117715005712

from the abstract:

..Our analysis revealed that GMATs (Global Mean Annual near-surface Temperature) of rocky planets can accurately be predicted over a broad range of atmospheric conditions and radiative regimes only using two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure...

Obviously, the most prominent missing 'forcing' parameter here, is "concentration of greenhouse gasses". There is probably some food for thoughts here, especially when the analysis of Den Volokin and Lark Reliez prove to be robust by independent sources. Would that mean that the climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 is zero?

 

[Bystander]

food for thoughts

Yes.

climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 is zero?

Probably not "zero."

Need to play some gas giant games with extinction coefficients (dark depth of atmosphere equivalent to rocky planet surface) and see if this isn't more general than it's presented as being.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Andre, shame on you.

The paper makes no such claims. Either you haven't read the paper and have misled us to think you had, or you have read the paper and are misleading us as to its contents. In either case, shame on you.

The authors do not claim that the variables in their regression fit are causal, and indeed at the bottom of page 37 they say pretty much the opposite: "Equations (10a), (12) and (13) have one feature in common - they all predict the effect of pressure on a system’s temperature. The presence of such qualitatively similar relations in disparate physical systems can fundamentally be explained by the fact that pressure as a force per unit area represents a key component of kinetic energy (defined as force applied over a unit distance), while temperature is merely a physical manifestation of the available kinetic energy."

 

[Dale]

Closed pending moderation.