New study about wether CO2 being responsable of global warming or not?

Journal of Geology and Geoscience

Recent Discoveries in Atmospheric Physics and their Consequences on Climate Mitigation

Thomas Allmendinger*
CH-8152 Glattbrugg/Zürich, Switzerland

After reviewing the respective science history from Newton to Planck, the two novel and recently published detection methods are reported which have been developed and mathematically modeled by the author. Their results are basically questioning the conventional theory,particularly the greenhouse theory, providing a better understanding of atmospheric processes and delivering practical clues for mitigating the climate.The first method concerns the measurement of temperature enhancement of gases irradiated by infrared light, while the second method allows the direct determination of the solar absorption coefficients of coloured opaque materials. In both cases, the irradiated material is warmed up to a steady limiting temperature where the intensity of the absorbed light is equal to the intensity of the emitted radiation or heat. An eminent theoretical finding of the author was delivered by the evidence that the intensity of the thermal emission of gases is proportional to the collisional frequency of the gas particles. Based on this assumption, and verified by measurements at two distinct locations differingin their altitudes and thus in their respective atmospheric pressures, a direct dependence of the atmospheric counter-radiation intensity on the pressure and on the square root of the absolute temperature could be found. This physical law explains the paradox that the temperatures on mountains are generally lower than those in lowlands, in spite of the higher solar radiation intensity on mountains. Moreover, it clearly proves that atmospheric trace gases such as carbon-dioxide do not have any influence on the climate.

As a comment just few brief observations about the publisher, the journal, and the author:

  1. First, a proper link to the source mentioned above: J Geol Geosci, Volume 3(1): 2018.

  2. Dr. Allmendinger is currently not affiliated with any reputable research institute or university. He only is affiliated with his own web-page.

  3. Based on the information on his web page, Dr. Allmendinger is a pensioner who took a career move out from academia already in 1992. While it is possible for someone so outside the academic circles to make groundbreaking science that revolutionizes the way climate should be analyzed and evaluated, it is very doubtful that this lone hero could simply beat the thousands of researchers who do nothing but climate research work. However, it is not impossible. Just very, very unlikely. So any reader should keep this in mind and check his claims carefully.

  4. The article of Dr. Allmendinger is published in an open access journal that should be approached with concern. It is good that the publisher has not been blacklisted in the so called Beall list, that has since been closed. But unfortunately this open access journal is also not listed in Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), a highly regarded, quality-controlled list of reputable open access journals. Further, the publisher is also not member of Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) an associoation legitimate open access publishers are usually members of. So this leaves the journal into a “gray zone,” where special care should be taken when evaluating the quality of the journal and its review practices.

  5. There is a very small number of articles published in this open access journal. This year (2019) so far nothing, and both in 2017 and 2018 only three research articles each year. This is clearly a journal that does not enjoy much popularity.

I will limit my commentary here. Anyone considering this journal article and its findings should consider this background. You should not rely to the fact that the paper has been published in a scientific journal, when the journal and the author has such a foggy standing. Thus any reader should take care to really evaluate and critically study the above work and its findings. In practice, do much of the same work any reviewer should do when reviewing a newly submitted manuscript.