New Paper: Experiment Reveals No Detectable ‘Greenhouse’ Difference Between CO2 And Air

Ph.D. Physicist Uses Empirical Data To Assert CO2 Greenhouse Theory A ‘Phantasm’ To Be ‘Neglected’

Below is a very abridged quoted summary of a new scientific paper published by Dr. Thomas Allmendinger, a physicist (chemistry, quantum mechanics) who uses a real-world experiment to document a glaring lack of empirical support for the position that CO2 is a dominant agent of atmospheric warming.

One-sentence summary: Shortwave radiation heats both CO2 and air only up to a limited temperature threshold, and there is no observed difference between the heat absorption/emission of  air vs. CO2.  

Dr. Thomas Allmendinger (2017)

Original Greenhouse Theory Not Backed By Experimental Data

The starting point of the here referenced research was the generally accepted greenhouse thesis which assumes that the present climate change is mainly due to the observed growing amount of the so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, particularly of carbon-dioxide in spite of the fact that, unlike a greenhouse, the Earth atmosphere doesn’t exhibit a transparent roof …  This [greenhouse effect] idea takes its source in Fourier’s treatise made in 1827, exhibiting no empirical data or physical calculations and experimental data.

The first results were delivered by Tyndall in the sixties of the 19th century, using artificial IR (= infrared) radiation. His photometric [light-measuring] apparatus consisted of metallic tubes as gas vessels and Leslie cubes as heat radiation sources, entailing comparatively low temperatures, namely 100°C and lower. In the [eighteen] nineties, Arrhenius continued such measurements. He established the greenhouse thesis claiming that, unlike air, carbon-dioxide considerably absorbs infrared-radiation. Thereby we distinguish between near IR (λ = 0.8 – 3μm), emitted at high temperatures (> 1000 K), and medium IR (λ = 3 – 50μm) occurring at lower temperatures as usual thermal radiation, while IR-radiation with larger wavelengths (λ = 50 – 1000μm) is defined as far IR.

[O]verall, the greenhouse thesis has been commonly settled even if[…] its empiric basis appears poor while several theoretical presumptions are speculative.  … there is reason enough to examine the current climate theory, and in particular the greenhouse thesis, regarding fundamental scientific principles and possibly to question the usual assumptions.

The analytic methods applied in climatology were exclusively photometric [light-measuring] ones. … Thermal measurements have never been made, except those by pyranometers comprising the whole spectrum, so that direct coherences between light absorption and warming-up effects at matter have not been detected yet.

The natural laws which were used for constructing the theory were confined to the temperature law of Stefan-Boltzmann (1), Planck’s distribution law (2), both being solely valid for black bodies, and BeerLambert’s absorption law (3), being unequivocally valid solely for visible light, and not compellingly for IR radiation (see below). These laws were often impermissibly generalized and used in an incorrect way leading to wrong conclusions.

Questioning The CO2-IR-Warms-The-Atmosphere Assumption

[A]ccording to this [greenhouse theory] model the assumption is made that any warming-up of the atmosphere is exclusively due to a partial absorption of medium-wave IR-radiation while any short-wave IR-absorption can be excluded since it has never been detected spectrometrically.

Against this, at least the following [5] arguments may be alleged [just the 1st , 4th, and 5th arguments are included here in very condensed form]:

1. As already found within a previous investigation [12], the greater part – namely at least 60% – of the energy being emitted from a warmed plate to the surrounding atmosphere is transferred by heat conduction, and not by heat radiation [i.e., via the greenhouse effect] obeying Stefan-Boltzmann’s law which is only valid in the vacuum. That part is even enhanced when the air convection is enhanced. Moreover, near the ground the molar concentration of water vapour is much higher than that one of carbon dioxide letting assume that its absorbance of heat radiation is much stronger. (e.g. at 20°C and 60% rel. humidity, the molar concentration of water vapour is 36 times larger than that one of carbon-dioxide being 0.038 volume%). Hence it can be assumed that the major part of the heat transfer between Earth surface and atmosphere occurs near the ground while the greenhouse theory neglects that part solely regarding the radiative absorption by CO2 passing the whole atmosphere.

4. Between the energetic absorption of electromagnetic radiation by gases and their resulting warming-up no empirical – and also no theoretical – coherence is known which would be needed to carry spectroscopic results onto thermodynamic properties. There is no good reason to assume that absorbed IR-radiation will be entirely transformed into heat. Rather it is conceivable that a part of it is re-emitted, to wit in all directions [i.e., to space]. But the link between the two phenomena is not known.

5. The question of radiation emission by hot gases is related with it since it is obvious that any gas, also air, begins to radiate to such an extent as it is warmed-up. This question arises when the so-called radiative energy transfer is studied. But instead of empiric measurements, complicated theories were developed [15-17] starting from the abstruse assumption that the atmosphere behaves like a black body obeying Stefan-Boltzmann’s emission law, and disregarding the kinetic gas theory.

Overall it must be assessed that the atmospheric theory is on a shaky ground. widely missing empiric key methods to check the principles and their consequences.

Air Vs. CO2 Experiment: ‘The Final Proof That The Climate Theory Cannot Be True’

Beyond, there is an aspect which hitherto has been overlooked, and which delivers the final proof that the climate theory cannot be true. It is the topic of the here reported author’s work [Allmendinger, 2016] concerning thermal measurements instead of spectroscopic ones, and delivering the evidence that any gas absorbs IR-radiation – but in the short wavelength range -, with the consequence that air is warmed up by direct solar insolation – as well as by artificial IR-light – up to a limiting temperature due to radiative emission, and leading to an equilibrium state.

Preliminary tests for the present investigation were made with solar light using square twin-tubes from Styrofoam (3 cm thick, 1 m long, outer diameter 25 cm), each equipped with three thermometers at different positions, and covered above and below by a thin transparent foil (preferably a 0.01 mm thick Saran-wrap). The tubes were pivoted on a frame in such a way that they could be oriented in the direction of the solar light (Figure 3). One tube was filled with air, the other with carbon-dioxide. Incipiently, the tubes were covered on the tops with aluminium-foils being removed at the start of the experiment.

The primary experimental result was quite astonishing in many respects.

Firstly: The content gases warmed within a few minutes by approximately 10°C up to a constant limiting temperature. This was surprising – at least in the case of air – for no warming-up was anticipated since sunlight is colourless and allegedly not able to absorb any IR-radiation. However, the existence of a limiting temperature is conceivable since a growing radiative emission has to be expected as far as the temperature rises.

Secondly: The limiting temperatures were more or less equal at any measuring point. This means that the intensity of the sun beam was virtually not affected by the heat absorption in the gas tube since the latter one was comparatively weak.

And thirdly: Between the two tubes [one filled with air, the other with CO2] no significant difference could be detected.  Therefore, thanks to this simple experiment a special effect of carbon dioxide on the direct sunlight absorption could already be excluded.

As evident from Figure 8any gas absorbs IR-light – even the noble [non-greenhouse] gases argon, neon and helium do so – while there is no significant difference between argon and carbon dioxide, but only a small difference between carbon-dioxide and air.


Besides a critical discussion of the convenient atmosphere theory profoundly questioning the greenhouse thesis by disclosing several basic errors, the here reported investigation reveals the discovery of direct absorption of shortwave IR-radiation by air. It is part of the incident solar light, but also of artificial light which enables a more exact detection. It is caused by another effect than the one which is responsible for the longer-wave absorption being observed at carbon dioxide, and it is not detectable by IR-spectroscopy since its absorption coefficient is too low. However, it is clearly detectable by means of the here applied apparatus leading to a distinct temperature elevation up to a limiting temperature which depends on the radiative emission. The limiting temperature depends on the gas kind, whereby practically no difference between air and carbon-dioxide could be found.

Nevertheless, that direct absorption effect [shortwave] which was discovered thanks to this method probably contributes significantly to the warming up of the atmosphere while the warming-up due to carbon-dioxide can be neglected.

But since the direct absorption cannot be influenced, the surface albedo must be focused as the governing factor providing the only [anthropogenic] opportunity to mitigate the climate, or at least the microclimate, by changing colour and structure of the surface, particularly in urban areas. However, a prediction seems not feasible since the global climate is too complex. But the greenhouse theory turns out to be a phantasm delivering the wrong diagnosis for the climate change, and a wrong diagnosis cannot enable a healing.



Thermophobia – Why Fear of Warming in the current Ice Age is all wrong

Vid #2

Vid #3

Climate Articles & Blog

Thermophobia book…


PART 1: Fear Itself
In the next century, Globalists predict an increase in average temperature of 5.4F. 57.2 to 62.6F (+3C: 14 to 17C). Catastrophe? Rising Oceans, Droughts, Floods, Tornadoes, Hurricanes. Warmth will do all that? A sizzling 5.4F (3C) difference? Many people can barely tell such a small change. Is someone trying to trick us into hating warmth?

Do you fear… A warm blanket? A hot shower? A hot meal? Vacationing on the beach?

Ask yourself why warmth is so appealing, and why someone would try to make you think it isn’t. Fear warmth? Of course not. We love, warm cuddling, getting some sun, and even if we play in the snow, we love hot cocoa and warm fires. Why would someone want you to think warmth is bad?

PART 2: Ice Age Madness
We live in an Ice Age. For the last 2.6 Million years, we’ve had nothing but one continuous Ice Age. You know those little white things at the poles?

Our current Ice Age is divided into Glacial periods, each about 90,000 years long, and Interglacials, each about 11,000 years long.

Our Holocene interglacial is 500 years overdue to end! That means we could suffer another 90,000 years of ice starting later today and nearly a thousand centuries with very little evaporation. Scarce evaporation means rain becomes rare and deserts plentiful. Scarce rain means perpetual crop failures and the death of Billions. Death of Billions means that civilization as we know it, dies.

Face the fact that warming is good, and prepare for the Holocene’s end.

What about the United Nations saying that Earth is burning up? All of the IPCC (UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) projections are running far warmer than reality. The UN’s campaign against global warming is wrong on two counts:
1) Warming is good! Life thrives in warmth and dies in the cold.
2) The warming isn’t caused by humans. It would be nice if it was.

The globalists argue that we need to do something to protect our future. It’s called the “precautionary principle”—better to do something than to do nothing. The “precautionary principle” only works if you’re headed in the right direction. Cooling the planet in an Ice Age is a very, very bad idea!

PART 3: Fear of the Ordinary
Climate has always changed and always will. We’ve had more than 4 Billion years of climate change, almost all of it without humanity. Calling today’s so-called problem, “Climate Change” remains a deception. Calling “global warming” a problem is equally deceptive. All of the disasters pushed in the Corporate news media are anecdotal and ordinary. There is no trend for increasing extreme weather events.

Temperature: We’re still cool enough to be in an Ice Age. and the trend of global average temperatures for the past several years has remained relatively flat.

Rain & Drought: The longest rainfall record we have is for England and Wales, going back to 1766. There is no trend (up or down) in extreme rain events. The extreme events are scattered rather normally throughout the 250-year period. All very ordinary and gradual. The current California drought is small compared to two Mega-droughts experienced during the Middle Ages.

Sea Level: Between 1993 and 2015, oceans have steadily risen a “horrifying” 7 centimeters. That’s less than 3 inches. Much of this is attributable to thermal water expansion, instead of glacial melt.

Sea Ice: Global area covered by sea ice, including both polar areas, has remained relatively flat between 1979 and 2015.

US Tornadoes: The trend of moderate-to-violent tornadoes from 1954 to 2014 remains relatively flat (ordinary). When measuring only the stronger tornadoes (EF-3 through EF-5), the trend over the same period is decidedly downward.

Tropical Cyclones: Total accumulated cyclone energy from hurricanes and typhoons reached a peak in 1993 and shows a strong, downward trend for the past 20 years. The number of global hurricanes has been on a 40+ year downward trend.

Summary: Floods, droughts, rising oceans, sea ice, tornadoes and tropical cyclones—all ordinary. Nothing spectacular, here. Global average temperature remains at Ice Age levels—far below the norm of the last 500 million years. CO2 levels also remain far below average.

PART 4: Which sounds better: Cold?
Let us see where embracing Cold takes us.
1) Cool down planet,
2) End Holocene early,
3) Bring on next Glacial period.

Summer snow storms, rain scarce—crops fail, infrastructure severely damaged, rivers dry up, deserts take over, glaciers overtake land, billions die from cold & starvation, glaciers overtake many cities, sea levels fall far from old ports.

PART 5: Which sounds better: Warm?
Life thrives in warmth. The Cure for Thermophobia: Fear? Hah! Embrace the Warmth


Newscats – on Patreon or Payoneer ID: 55968469

Cherry May Timbol – Independent Reporter
Contact Cherry at: or
Support Cherry May directly at:


Why do CO2 lag behind temperature?

71% of the earth is covered by ocean, water is a 1000 times denser than air and the mass of the oceans are 360 times that of the atmosphere, small temperature changes in the oceans doesn’t only modulate air temperature, but it also affect the CO2 level according to Henry’s Law.

The reason it is called “Law” is because it has been “proven”!

“.. scientific laws describe phenomena that the scientific community has found to be provably true ..”

That means, the graph proves CO2 do not control temperature, that again proves (Man Made) Global Warming, now called “Climate Change” due to lack of … Warming is – again – debunked!