"The Great Climate Trick"

Book Description:

The book challenges the "greenhouse" metaphor as a literal physical model of the atmosphere, pointing out that this analogy has been elevated to the status of dogma without undergoing rigorous verification of its physical consistency. The focus of the criticism is a fundamental paradox: how can an atmosphere that is 99.9% empty massively absorb infrared radiation (300 W/m²), as claimed in the Standard Model?

The author demonstrates that, at the molecular level, air molecules are so separated that direct radiative interactions with infrared photons would be extremely rare, calling into question the ability of trace gases (such as CO₂) to generate global warming of 33°C through radiative absorption and backscattering.

Alternative Proposal:

Far from denying atmospheric warming, the book offers an alternative, quantifiable model based on sound physical principles. This model focuses on molecular oxygen (O₂), which makes up 21% of the atmosphere and is usually considered "inert" in climate terms.

The new model proposes that:

O₂ directly absorbs ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the Sun (in bands such as Schumann-Runge and Herzberg).

This absorption excites oxygen molecules, increasing their kinetic energy.

Through molecular collisions, this energy is transferred to nitrogen (N₂, 78%) and the rest of the air, heating the atmosphere by conduction (contact), not by radiative "trapping."

Thermal equilibrium is not instantaneous, but a progressive process over time, respecting the microphysics of air.

This model does not require a dense medium, nor magical backscattering, nor nitrogen to absorb IR. It only requires O₂ to do what it really does: absorb direct solar energy.

Conclusion:

This book is a call to scientific honesty. It invites us to rethink the atmosphere not as a "dense blanket," but as a system of particles dispersed in a vacuum, and to construct theories that respect that physical reality. This isn't denialism, but rather a demand for rigor: science advances not through consensus, but through uncomfortable questions.