‘Greenhouse Gas Effect Does Not Exist,’ Says Swiss Physicist
Hot on the heels of a German scientist publicly saying there is no such thing as the ‘greenhouse effect’, a Swiss physicist now says the same thing.
Thomas Allmendinger, an independent Swiss physicist, has conducted a series of experiments published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that call into question the physical principles of the greenhouse gas theory.
Allmendinger, an independent scholar educated at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, has dared to challenge the conventional politically correct climate dictum that CO2 is a greenhouse gas with unique global warming properties.
In a series of articles published in scientific journals, Allmendinger has argued that his experimental research with the thermal absorption of infrared radiation (IR) has proved that “atmospheric trace gases such as carbon dioxide do not have any influence on the climate.”
The theory of greenhouse gases traces back to an 1827 publication by French physicist Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier entitled “Mémoire sur les temperature du globe Terrestre ed de espaces planétaires,” [in English: “Memoir on the temperatures of the terrestrial globe and planetary spaces.”] Like many metaphors in science, the greenhouse image is deceptive in that it suggests certain gases like water vapor and CO2 act as a shield preventing infrared radiation (IR) emitted by the sun and absorbed by Earth from escaping at night into outer space.
A source as supposedly authoritative as NASA still elaborates on the greenhouse gas effect as follows:
“A real greenhouse is made of glass, which lets visible sunlight through from the outside. This light gets absorbed by all the materials inside, and the warmed surfaces radiate infrared light, sometimes called “heat rays,” back.
But the glass, although transparent to visible light, acts as a partial shield to the infrared light. So, some of this infrared radiation, or heat, gets trapped inside. The result is that everything inside the greenhouse, including the air, becomes warmer.”
This NASA description is reminiscent of a gardening website that explains the complicated physics in these simplistic terms: “While the sunlight gets in, the heat cannot get out,” a description that attributes the greenhouse effect to heat convection.
But rather than blocking IR from escaping the glazed undercoating of greenhouse gas, atmospheric greenhouse gases “shield” against the escape of IR to outer space by absorbing the escaping IR energy. Conventional IR physics going back some 200 years relies predominantly on spectrographic analysis, from which is derived the presumption that only dipole gases like water vapor or CO2 can absorb infrared radiation.
Most of the atmosphere is composed of oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2), neither of which are dipole gases.
In 2016, Allmendinger published a paper entitled “The thermal behavior of gases under the influence of infrared radiation” in the International Journal of Physical Sciences. Here Allmendinger addressed the conventional wisdom that “any IR-activity of molecules or atoms requires a shift of the electric dipole moment, so that two-atomic homo-nuclear molecules (like O2 or N2) are always IR-active.”
Allmendinger insisted this proposition “must be regarded as a theorem and not as a principal natural law” because “numerous examples of nonpolar substances are known where an interaction with electromagnetic radiation occurs, e.g., at halogens where even colored and thus visible light is absorbed.”
What Allmendinger found surprising was physical scientists had relied almost entirely on spectrographic analysis to measure the molecular absorption of IR energy by gases.
He stressed that “apparently no thermal measurements have been made of gases in the presence of IR-radiation, particularly of sunlight,” even though the primary climate concern with greenhouse gases involves the thermal absorption of IR energy.
In 2017, Allmendinger published an article entitled “The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory: A Hopeful Alternative” in Environmental Pollution and Climate Change. Allmendinger argued for the need to measure thermal absorption to determine if the spectrographic analysis had failed to detect molecular activity that absorbed IR energy in non-dipole atmospheric gasses. In highly technical language, he explained:
“As we know today, photometric absorption is accompanied by the (quantized) excitation of electrons being followed by a light emission, due to the back-jumping of the excited electrons into the ground state. This electronic jumping maybe–but needs not be–associated with vibrations or rotations of the nuclei in the molecule.
In solid bodies, and to a certain extent also in fluid media, these vibrations or rotations are not independent but coupled. However, in gases they are widely independent since the molecules or atoms are moving around obeying statistical laws, whereby their mean kinetic translational energy is proportional to their absolute temperature.”
He continued:
“Nevertheless, in the case of an electronic excitation a part of the vibration or rotation energy may be converted into kinetic energy, and thus in sensible heat, but the fractional amount of this concerted energy is not a priori theoretically derivable but must be determined experimentally.
Inversely, part of the kinetic heat energy may be converted into molecular or atomic vibration energy.”
Allmendinger concluded:
“Thus, in gases two kinds of energy are involved: “internal” energy being related to intramolecular motions, and “external” energy being related to intermolecular motions. The first kind is subject of the quantum mechanics, while the second kind is subject of the kinetic gas theory.
As a consequence, photometric or spectroscopic measurements cannot deliver quantitative information about the warming-up of gases due to thermal or other infrared radiation, while such measurements never have been made so far.”
Allmendinger constructed an experimental apparatus that enabled him to measure the IR thermal absorption (rather than the spectrographic light wave absorption) of atmospheric gases, including CO2, O2, N2, and argon (Ar).
In a 2018 article entitled “The Real Cause of Global Warming and Its Consequences on Climate,” published in the SciFed Journal of Global Warming, Allmendinger summed up his experimental findings.
His thermal measurements concluded that “any gas absorbs IR—even noble gases do so [like Ar]— being warmed up to a limiting temperature which is achieved when the absorption power is equal to the emission power of the warmed gas.”
He continued:
“It could be theoretically demonstrated that the emission power of a gas is related to the frequency of their particles (atoms or molecules) and thus to their size.”
Allmendinger’s experimental tests found no significant differences between the IR absorption capabilities of CO2, O2, N2, or Ar when thermal absorption was measured instead of spectrographic wave absorption.
“As a consequence, a ‘greenhouse effect’ does not really exist, at least not related to trace gases such as carbon dioxide.”
The global warming orthodox scientific community has rejected Allmendinger’s work as utter nonsense, arguing that he “is currently not affiliated with any reputable research institute or university.” Yet, Thomas Kuhn, in his highly influential 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, reminded us that scientific paradigm shifts involve revolutions, in which new, competing theories appear first as “heresies.”
Challenges to scientific orthodoxy must fight their way to acceptance against a legion of established opponents who have invested careers basing their global warming and climate change views on the greenhouse gas theory.
Thomas Allmendinger’s argument that the CO2 greenhouse gas effect is non-existent bears serious consideration.
The global warming argument fails if CO2, a trace element in Earth’s complex atmosphere, can be proven to have no atmosphere warming abilities not equally shared by oxygen and nitrogen.
See more here: climatedepot
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Alan
| #
There are many more who have said the same, and books have been written on the subject. The issue is that scientific truth does not have an international “star” to promote it. We need somebody of Attenborough’s standing to promote the truth, but where is this person?
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
I am here and next year my bigger newer bolder experiment will be thrust into the publics face and everyone will see and hear that RGHE IS A LIE and this can be demonstrated.
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
“Only an Airhead Can Save Us from Air” at ClimateRealist on June 26, 2009 > NO GHE
“Green Prince of Darkness” at CanadaFreePress on July 15, 2010 > UNSUSTAINABLE
“Fossil Fuel is Nuclear Waste” at CanadaFreePress on Sept 26, 2010
“Slaying the Sky Dragon” delivered to Jerome at TFIRE meeting on Mar 17, 2015. It took him a decade to find other sources and avoid original sources.
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
Since the RATE of energy leaving the planet is greatly increased by natural warming which is far higher than CO2 is postulated to generate warming rate thus warming the planet by increasing CO2 is impossible.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
We can’t have this whole man made CO2 industry shut down….what would the IPCC and all the researchers and politicians do? We gotta keep this thing going…it can last decades more….there are billions to be made…….there are lots of profits from wind/solar and batteries….just say to those doubters – you want a good climate, dontcha? Help save the planet.
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
A number of physicists have debunked CAGWH for its baseless premises, disconnect with reality and thermodynamic inconsistency. Two pairs of physicists examined the major “climate change” notions 11 and 13 years ago and ripped every one.
See, e.g. — Gerlich, Gerhard, & Ralf D. Tscheuschner, “Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame of physics. “ International J. of modern physics B, v. 23, No.3 (2009), 275-364, and Kramm, Gerhard & Ralph Diugi, “Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact,” Natural Science, 17 Oct. 2011, v. 3, pp. 971-998. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ns.2011.32124.
If this keeps up, and word gets around, the bottom ought to drop out of the old wheeze. The problem of course is getting the word around. All that seems to be there now is money, mediocrity and habit.
Reply
James
| #
It’s clear IPCC does not think CO2 has a warming efect, which is why they proposed five math model levels for warming supposedly caused by doubling CO2. They had no known mechanism that could be reduced to mathematics, so could not do the sums. The possible one due to Nikolov and Zeller, based on real temperatures and pressures measured by Nasa on all the rocky planets and moons in the solar system, was simply ignored. A return to the Dark Ages is under way; will there ever be an Enlightenment again?
Reply
James
| #
In any case, India and China have no intention of following the CO2 route, so there is no chance of CO2 actiaulaly being reduced. So why should we bet all our cash on that single horse, which we don’t know if or when it will come home. Let’s hope someone is hedging our bets by invstng in adaptation. Now that there’s no ice left in the Alps, so very little melt for irrigation, even Italian politicians have to think about the main problem: food and water. Once it came from Egypt; then the Green Halfmoon; now Ukraine Putin allowing; next century?
Reply
Albert Ellul
| #
It is a scientifically accepted fact, according to peer-reviewed papers, that CO2’s effect on the Earth’s atmospheric temperature is halved with each doubling of CO2, is most significant at 150 – 250, and becomes insignificant at about 500 ppm (parts per million).
Another fact: Below 150 ppm of CO2’s component of Earth’s atmosphere all life, marine, and terrestrial becomes non-existent.
Reply
Squidly
| #
Another fact, thenso-called “greenhouse effect”, at any atmospheric CO2 concentration is impossible in this universe, PERIOD!
Reply
Squidly
| #
Your halving of this and doubling of that is poppycock bullshit and still a violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics and the physical laws that govern our universe.
Reply
rhoda klapp
| #
All they need to do is measure it, in the lab and in the wild. Can’t be difficult, can it?
Reply
Anthony Bright-Paul
| #
There is no such entity as a Greenhouse Gas, there never has been and there never can be. The characteristic of a Gas is that it is formless, without shape. The characteristic of a Greenhouse, big or small, is that it is a rigid structure. This is a matter of language, not science. Until that is resolved Skeptics will argue in vain.
Reply
Aaron Tout-McCarthy
| #
This is why Feynman didn’t like analogies… because people get lost in them… you don’t need a ridged frame 🤦 it’s like filling a jar with different solutions and watching them separate… eventually as the solutions find equilibrium there will be distinct layers… same idea but it’s not a jar it’s a ball, The gravity isn’t separating from top to bottom but from the middle out…
Reply
Aaron Tout-McCarthy
| #
To state that a greenhouse effect can’t happen without a man made greenhouse (ridged structure) is fundamentally flawed… to use that as the stopping point in any further discussion is absurd! (This is why Feynman didn’t like using analogy)
It’s no secret that solids, liquids and gases will separate into distinct layers if the energy in the system is suitable and the two substances CAN NOT / HAVE NOT met the conditions for them to combine…
I’m not Feynman so I’ll take a shot at another analogy… if oil forms over water it will create a layer on top of the water that will effect how the sun can transfer energy to the ecosystem below… (no ridged structure needed)
As per the paper though… it’s interesting… finding the frequency each can act like a dipole and quantifying how they react to IR is pretty amazing…
Knowing that they can under specific frequency does not necessarily mean that those frequency are met in nature though…
Does make me excited for the field…
lots of cool science stuff to be done with data like this!
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Aaron:
To state that a greenhouse effect can’t happen without a man made greenhouse (ridged structure) is fundamentally flawed…
JMcG:
Belief in greenhouse effect is not based on fundamentals. It’s based on conjecture and conversation.
Aaron:
to use that as the stopping point in any further discussion is absurd!
JMcG:
There has never been a starting point. The discussion has always been absurd and always will be. There is no drama in CO2’s thermal properties. The whole thing is mass delusion.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Yes, there are gases in the atmosphere, as there is water in the ocean. Deeper, colder water in the ocean does not warm surface water in Aruba. Similarly, gases at various elevation in our atmosphere (which are colder than surface) do not warm anything.
Which part of Thermodynamics 101 did the ‘climate scientists’ skip?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Kevin,
The gases in the atmosphere are not colder because they have less kinetic energy than the molecules on the Earth’s surface but because there are fewer of them transferring energy. You can cook food faster in 100 C water than in a 200C oven because there are more molecule (with less kinetic energy) transferring energy to the food. The density of the atmosphere continually declines with altitude because the kinetic energy of the molecules continually increases, not because the force of gravity changes significantly.
Herb
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Are the gases in the atmosphere being acted upon by centrifugal force? What if the earth’s rotation was greatly increased? What if the earth’s rotation stopped? Would the atmosphere then collapse closer to the surface? Gravity is not a force – it is the bending of space-time.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The atmosphere travels east faster than the surface of the Earth. This was shown when the radioactive clouds from atmospheric nuclear test orbited east losing radioactive particle. It is not being driven by the Earth’s rotation.
The atmosphere would only collapse if the sun stopped stopped transferring energy to the molecules.
Gravity is not a force but the energy being radiated by the Earth.
Herb
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
The atmosphere above the poles travels east? Satellite images show ….hurricanes in the Atlantic mostly travel westward? The sun transmits energy to the molecules at night? Gravity is not a force….you just said it was a force? What kind of energy is being radiated by the earth? Gravity is the name used for the interaction of space-time and mass…..space-time tells mass how to move and mass tells space-time how to bend. The people in the International Space Station are actually falling around the earth…..they experience the same weightlessness that an individual feels if he falls off a building. I trust you are not an “influencer” in physics.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Gravity is the interaction of space-time and mass. Since gravity and acceleration are equal in a stronger gravitational field time expands. This why the closer a satellite/planet is to a source of gravity, the slower its velocity.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
The clocks of the people in the International Space Station run a little different than ours …..it’s a very small amount…..it can be calculated….faster due to less gravity but slower due to higher velocity. Astronomers discovered that the rotation of stars around the center of a spiral galaxy seem to move too fast on the outer fringes….and that’s when Dark Matter was invented.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Physics today is an A.E. cult whose prayer is: Oh great A.E. please give us a new subatomic particle, magic quantum spell, or some new invisible entity that will allow us to make an uncooperative reality conform to your theories. We need no evidence or logic to support these creations only our undying faith in your great infallibility.
.
Reply