The hypothesis proposed by Douglas J. Cotton, which asserts that gravity, rather than radiative forcing, primarily governs the tropospheric temperature gradient, challenges the foundational assumptions of mainstream climate models, and hence Net Zero, which is set to destroy Western economies. This blog essay examines the merit of Cotton's position, particularly his concepts of a gravitationally induced temperature gradient and "heat creep," by analysing the underlying physics, supporting arguments, and counterpoints within the broader context of atmospheric science. As a physicist this naturally interested me.
Cotton argues that the temperature gradient in the troposphere, commonly referred to as the lapse rate, is primarily a consequence of gravity acting on air molecules, not radiative processes driven by greenhouse gases. He suggests that gravity induces a vertical stratification of molecular kinetic energy, where molecules moving upward lose kinetic energy (cooling) and those moving downward gain it (warming). This process, he claims, establishes a stable equilibrium gradient consistent with maximum entropy, where the sum of kinetic and gravitational potential energy remains constant with altitude.
This idea draws from first principles in thermodynamics. In a sealed vertical column of gas, molecules ascending against gravity convert kinetic energy into potential energy, reducing their temperature, while descending molecules gain kinetic energy, increasing their temperature. Cotton extends this to the troposphere, proposing that the dry adiabatic lapse rate (approximately 9.8°C/km on Earth) emerges naturally from gravitational effects and the specific heat of atmospheric gases, as outlined in his 2013 paper, Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.
Supporting Evidence
1.Thermodynamic Equilibrium and Entropy: Cotton's model aligns with the concept of thermodynamic equilibrium, where the total energy (kinetic plus potential) is conserved across altitudes. This is analogous to the behaviour of ideal gases in a gravitational field, as seen in theoretical models like the barometric formula, which describes how atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude due to gravity.
2.Analogy to Vortex Cooling Tubes: Cotton cites vortex cooling tubes, where centrifugal forces create temperature gradients, as evidence that non-radiative processes can influence temperature distributions. This suggests that gravitational potential energy plays a role in entropy calculations, challenging models that focus solely on radiative heat transfer.
3.Planetary Comparisons: Cotton applies his theory to Venus, where the extreme surface temperature (approximately 460°C) is difficult to explain solely through radiative forcing due to the planet's thick CO2 atmosphere. He argues that "heat creep," a process where solar energy absorbed in the upper atmosphere is convectively transported downward along the gravitationally induced gradient, provides a coherent explanation for sustained surface warming on Venus and, to a lesser extent, Earth.
4.Critiques from Prominent Figures: Cotton references Nobel laureate Dr. John Clauser, physicist Hal Lewis, and others who have criticised mainstream climate models, suggesting that scepticism of radiative forcing as the dominant mechanism is not without precedent in the scientific community.
The Heat Creep Mechanism
Central to Cotton's argument is the "heat creep" process, where solar energy absorbed in the upper atmosphere is redistributed downward through convective processes, driven by the stable temperature gradient. This mechanism, he claims, explains why planetary surfaces maintain higher temperatures than expected from radiative balance alone. On Earth, this process is most evident during calm nighttime conditions, where the lapse rate stabilises, and energy flows downward to warm the surface.
The heat creep hypothesis challenges the conventional view that greenhouse gases are the primary drivers of surface warming. Cotton argues that trace gases like CO2 (0.04% of the atmosphere) and methane (0.0002%) have a limited radiative impact, primarily dampening the lapse rate through intermolecular radiative exchange rather than driving the temperature profile.
Cotton's hypothesis raises important questions about the assumptions underlying climate models. By emphasising gravity's role, he highlights a fundamental physical process that is sometimes under-discussed in popular climate narratives.
In conclusion, Cotton's gravitational temperature gradient hypothesis offers a thought-provoking perspective by emphasising gravity's role in shaping the tropospheric lapse rate. The heat creep mechanism provides an alternative lens for understanding energy redistribution in planetary atmospheres.
For Cotton's ideas to gain traction, they require rigorous empirical validation, particularly for the heat creep process, and a clearer explanation of how they integrate with or improve upon existing models. Until then, the hypothesis remains an interesting but speculative challenge to mainstream climatology, reminding us to continually question and refine our understanding of complex systems like Earth's atmosphere.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/10/why_climate_models_fail.html
"Why climate models fail
Mainstream climatology models are fundamentally flawed because they ignore a now established physical reality: gravity — not radiative forcing — governs the temperature gradient in the troposphere. This gradient arises from gravity's direct influence on individual air molecules, slowing those with upward velocity components and accelerating those moving downward. The result is a vertical stratification of molecular kinetic energy — what we measure as temperature.
To visualize this, consider a sealed vertical cylinder, initially devoid of air. Introduce air molecules through a central aperture. Those that ascend lose kinetic energy (cool), while those that descend gain it (warm). This produces a stable temperature gradient — an equilibrium state of maximum entropy — where the sum of kinetic and gravitational potential energy remains constant with altitude. There are no unbalanced energy potentials; the system is in what we physicists call thermodynamic equilibrium (not to be confused with thermal equilibrium).
This same principle applies to the entire troposphere. In the absence of greenhouse gases — which act to dampen the gradient via radiative exchange between molecules at different altitudes — the equilibrium gradient (inappropriately named the "dry adiabatic lapse rate") can be derived from first principles, as demonstrated in my 2013 paper "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures." That work builds on my earlier peer-reviewed paper, "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics," which cites the seminal contributions of Prof. Claes Johnson in his "Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation." I urge readers to examine page 24 of that text — material that remains conspicuously absent from climatological discourse.
In short, the tropospheric temperature gradient is a gravitational phenomenon, not a radiative one. The notion that trace gases like CO2 (0.04%) or CH4 (0.0002%) drive global temperature profiles is not just misguided; it's the final nail in the coffin of anthropogenic global warming conjecture.
Until the scientific community fully acknowledges the significance of the gravitationally induced temperature gradient, pseudoscientific narratives will flourish — despite being rightly condemned by Nobel laureate Dr. John Clauser; the late Hal Lewis; and, with characteristic bluntness, President Donald Trump as the greatest scam in history.
This temperature gradient, which naturally tends toward a stable, non-zero state — especially during calm nighttime conditions — has led to the discovery of what I term the "heat creep" process. In this mechanism, energy absorbed from solar radiation in the upper atmosphere is gradually conveyed downward through convective transfer, ultimately warming the planetary surface. This occurs because the gradient's inherent stability drives the redistribution of energy in all directions, effectively shifting the temperature-altitude profile upward in a parallel fashion.
Heat creep offers the only physically coherent explanation for the sustained surface temperatures observed on planets such as Venus — and, to a significant extent, on Earth. The gradient itself, derived from the ratio of a planet's gravitational acceleration to the weighted mean specific heat of its atmospheric gases, underpins this energy transfer mechanism.
The issue is not a lack of evidence, but a widespread refusal to engage with it. Critics dismiss heat creep because it challenges conventional interpretations of entropy — interpretations that narrowly focus on molecular kinetic energy while ignoring other critical forms of internal energy. Entropy is also influenced by gravitational potential and centrifugal effects, as demonstrated in vortex cooling tubes. These are not peripheral details; they are central to a complete understanding of thermodynamics.
Planets did not begin as fiery spheres. They coalesced from interstellar matter at temperatures near 2K, drawn together by gravity and shaped into spheres through liquefaction. Their internal heat did not arise from some mythical primordial furnace; it was sourced from the Sun. Gravity-enabled heat creep transported solar energy deep into planetary interiors.