All I disagree with is the proposition that the mechanism the study advances is an example of the working of PV=nRT.
The mechanism they describe is pretty easy to get with engineering and heat transfer principles. On any given planetary body, some distance from a heat source, the more massive the atmosphere, the hotter the atmosphere. A more massive atmosphere is thicker, able to absorb and hold more heat just by dint of its mass.
PV=nRT is manipulated by holding "n" to a constant value. This study takes a planetary body, varies "n", and concludes that as "n" increases, so does T (and so does "P," and so does "V").
PV=nRT of course works all the time. To be repetitive, I've never asserted that PV=nRT is invalid. My remark was that this principle is not the principle these fellows are describing.
You completely lost me in the context of the article, with your saying the more massive the atmosphere, the hotter.
OK, I agree that is true. But that is not the point of the article. They did not focus on earths atmosphere being hotter than the moon.
The focus of the study was to try to explain why observed temperatures on all 6 planets and moons were observed to be increasing over the past decades. Their conclusion was that the atmospheric pressure was increasing on all 6 bodies, wether the atmosphere was thick and heavy here on earth or thin and light as on our moon.
The study found that increased atmospheric pressure was the cause of rising temperature on all 6 planets and moons. That has nothing to do with the relative density ov tne atmosphere on earth vs our moon.
Their conclusion was crystal clear. Increased atmospheric pressure on any celestial causes increased temperature. Period. It is that simple.