A place for discussion
0
0
votes
Article Rating
Open Thread
A place for discussion
7 Comments
June 28, 2026 2:22 am
Two weeks ago I went with my wife, at her suggestion, to see the new movie “Pressure.” The movie is about the extensive weather observation and forecasting effort that was involved in the decision to delay the D-Day invasion of France by the Allies from June 5 to June 6, 1944. It’s a good movie, if you get a chance to watch it.
Let’s be reminded of the meteorological fundamentals that were well understood in the years leading up to the war, that are relevant to the present claims of the “climate” movement.
In 1938, Guy Callendar wrote a Royal Meteorological Society paper attributing a reported warming trend (in the station data) to the radiative influence of rising concentrations of CO2. It was from within the meteorological discipline that Sir George Simpson and Professor David Brunt explained to him that the physical nature of atmospheric circulation makes it “…impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation.” They took no issue with the validity of the static radiative computations Callendar had performed. But the motion, in their view, made it such that “…the effect of an increase in the absorbing power of the atmosphere would not be a simple change of temperature, but would modify the general circulation, and so yield a very complicated series of changes in conditions.”
Modern numerical modeling confirms their sense of the issue. I posted about this a few months ago, with complete quotes, references, and plots from the ERA5 reanalysis model.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/15/open-thread-181/#comment-4174555
Two main points emerge.
First, it is important to see that dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation massively overwhelms the minor static radiative effect of incremental CO2. This annotated plot I have been sharing gives a concise explanation.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=sharing
Second, the modeled hourly values of “vertical velocity” confirm that the compression heating and expansion cooling processes throughout the depth of the troposphere are many orders of magnitude greater than the “warming” rate. (See the first link) This makes it impossible to isolate the incremental IR absorbing power of rising pCO2 for reliable attribution of an overall trend, from within the dynamics of compressible flow inherent to the general circulation.
Was there ever a physically justified reason to expect sensible heat gain on land and in the oceans and in the lower atmosphere to be driven by rising pCO2? No, not in the proper context of the motion.
The current situation remains the same as in 1938: NO ONE “KNOWS” that emissions of CO2 have anything perceptible to do with ANY trend of climate variables or ANY weather event in the news.
Thank you for your patience in these important matters.
“You can go outside and spit and have the
same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”
Reid Bryson
“The current situation remains the same as in 1938: NO ONE “KNOWS” that emissions of CO2 have anything perceptible to do with ANY trend of climate variables or ANY weather event in the news.”
That is the bottom line.
The Climate Alarmist are “jumping the gun” when it comes to CO2. First, they need to get some evidence that CO2 has any effect on Earth’s weather or climate. To date, they have failed to do so.
Yet society is wasting TRILLIONS of dollars trying to reduce CO2 amounts. None of this spending is doing any good reducing CO2 since it continues to increase despite all these efforts. The inmates are in charge of the asylum.
I guess Trump is the only one who sees clearly with regard to CO2. Other world leaders are living in a delusion and making their people live in it, too.
British heatwaves are overstated compared to a real heatwave.
A couple of days over 100F is a nothing burger blown out of proportion by Climate Alarmists/Hysterical Met office.
Only 20 percent of Europeans have air conditioning. That alone should tell you Europe has a very mild climate compared to other parts of the world.
Let’s see what the temperature are like in a couple of days when the high pressure system moves on.
June 28, 2026 4:09 am
I have had to block two people on Substack as they accused me of being arrogant by expressing an ignorant opinion, when I questioned their statements about anthropogenic climate change by talking about solar cycles and the variability in radiation emissions particularly at different wavelengths. One implied that the solar output is nominally constant because the sunspot cycles are surface features only, despite me providing references. I don’t mind having such discussions providing there’s a mutual exchange of views without ad hominem.
