A place for discussion
4
2
votes
Article Rating
Open Thread
A place for discussion
121 Comments
August 2, 2026 2:07 am
How sensitive is the lower atmosphere to the computed static IR “warming” tendency from rising concentrations of CO2? That tendency is in units of Watts per square meter, W/m^2. For the 2XCO2 case, it is about 4 W/m^2. Hold that thought.
Consider this scatter plot of hourly values from the ERA5 reanalysis model for all hours of 2024 for all longitudes at latitude 45N. Using the 700 hPa pressure level in the atmosphere (~3 km), the “vertical velocity” on the y-axis is plotted against the “vertical integral of energy conversion” on the x-axis. Each dot represents one pair of these values for a particular hour at a particular longitude.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RSBKvIb5pP3OtB8U2RDig-041_bxCqDj/view?usp=sharing
The “vertical velocity” is given in units of Pascals per second, using the rate of pressure change to represent vertical movement. Positive values indicate descending air, with implied compression heating. Negative values indicate ascending air, with implied expansion cooling. At this altitude, in standard conditions, a +/- 1 Pa/sec vertical velocity corresponds to a +/- 3.8 deg C(K) per hour rate of compression heating /expansion cooling. The vertical scale goes from -3 to +3 Pa/sec to capture most of the paired values.
The “vertical integral of energy conversion” is given in Watts per square meter, W/m^2. Negative values represent the power intensity of conversion of [internal energy + potential energy] -> [kinetic energy] for the entire column of the atmosphere. Positive values represent the power intensity of conversion of [kinetic energy] -> [internal energy + potential energy] for the entire column of the atmosphere. The horizontal scale goes from -15,000 to +15,000 W/m^2 to capture most of the paired values. (Please note that kinetic energy here is computed using the bulk wind velocity. The internal energy involves the kinetic energy of molecules at the microscopic level.)
So what’s the answer? The lower atmosphere operates dynamically with values of vertical velocity in both directions that imply large hourly rates of compression heating and expansion cooling, and with large hourly values of energy conversion in both directions so as to make it inherently insensitive to the ~4 W/m^2 “warming” tendency of the 2XCO2 case. It’s a needle-in-a-haystack, flea-on-an-elephant, spitting-into-a-hurricane impossibility to isolate incremental CO2 as a cause of any trend of climate variables.
Threfore it has been implausible all along, for these physical reasons, to assume that incremental CO2 operates as a climate system “forcing.” No one knows that.
Thank you for your patience in these consequential matters.
P.S. Please see this Open Thread post from a few months ago for a more complete explanation. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/15/open-thread-181/#comment-4174555
“You can go outside and spit and have the
same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”
Reid Bryson
IPCC TAR Chapter 14 Page 771 pdf3
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system,
and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate
states is not possible.
FYI: At the the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is currently 431 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 g and contains a mere o.85 g of CO2 at STP. This miniscule amount of CO2 in the air cannot cause any warming of the air and is not a “forcing agent” as proposed by the IPCC.
The late John L. Daly showed over 25 years ago that CO2 had no caused any warming of the air at over 200 weather stations located a various locations around the world.
The greenhouse effect plays a minor role in warming of the air. The main processes for warming of the air are (1) the heating of the earth’s surfaces by absorption of sunlight, (2) warming of surface air by conduction, and (3) this heated air raises up by convention and warms the atmosphere.
Unfortunately, a great many people and especially the politicians believe the claims put forth by the corrupt IPCC and the unscrupulous collaborating scientists that CO2 is menacing molecule that is causing dangerous global warming and climate change. Look what the claims of IPCC has done to the economies of the UK, Germany, and Australia and to the climate policies of the states of New York, California and Washington.
Hopefully, the recission of the Endangerment Finding of 2009 for CO2 by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin will lead to end of this CO2 warming nonsense.
From the AGU paper:
‘The effect of O2 and N2on the outgoing longwave radiation flux (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere (assumed at 80 km altitude) is estimated by integrating radiance calculations…’
‘Estimated’? ‘Radiance’? Sounds like more phenomenological physics (aka Cli-Sci) to me. Also interesting that no one got around to ‘discovering’ this until 2012, or so.
“At this altitude, in standard conditions, a +/- 1 Pa/sec vertical velocity corresponds to a +/- 3.8 deg C(K) per hour rate of compression heating /expansion cooling.”
However. according to Google’s AI bot (my bold emphasis added):
“The temperature change for an altitude step equal to a 1 pascal pressure drop in the lower troposphere is about -0.00054 °C, depending on the standard lapse rate, air density, and gravity.”
The dry adiabatic atmospheric lapse rate is about 1.7 times higher than a wet adiabatic lapse rate. We don’t have a good estimate of what the ACTUAL lapse rate is for any given parcel of vertically moving air at any time at any given geographical location and at any given altitude range on Earth, excluding the polar regions with their very dry air from surface upward.
Therefore, -1 Pa/sec = -0.00054 °C/sec * 3600 sec/hr = 1.94 deg C(K)/hr, not 3.8 deg C(K) per hour, as an average approximation.
FWIW, a 1 pascal drop corresponds to an upward vertical displacement of about 0.083 meters, all other things being essentially constant. So, an upward vertical velocity of 0.083 m/s is equal to an upward vertical wind speed of about 0.2 mph.
Of course, in Earth’s atmosphere, mass that goes up must eventually come down to have an average hydrostatic balance.
“Test all things; hold fast what is good”
— The Bible, 1 Thessalonians 5:21
Dear TYS,
Thank you for your submission.
Our scientific review team has rejected your manuscript for having fed garbage to your AI bot. As a courtesy, here is a corrected prompt and response to correspond to the actual assumptions of the post you proposed to challenge.
To Google,
“Please compute the dry adiabatic compression heating/expansion cooling rate in units of +/- K/hour at a pressure altitude of 700 hPa at ISA standard temperature, for pressure change rates of +1 Pa/sec and -1 Pa/sec.”
Response:
“+3.95 K/hour for a pressure increase and -3.95 K/hour for a pressure decrease. These values apply at a 700 hPa pressure altitude using ISA standard temperature and a pressure change rate of plus or minus one Pascal per second.”
We note that the ISA temperature at the 700 hPa level for this calculation is 268K. The reason the result you challenged was +/- 3.8K was the use of 260K as the assumed temperature.
It is also noted that, had you checked at the link provided for full explanation, this would have been apparent to you.
In the future, please take proper care in your replies.
This matter is closed.
Be well.
One individual and “his scientific team” have jumped to the conclusion that a dry adiabatic lapse rate is the only one to be considered when talking about the 700 hPa pressure level in the atmosphere (~3 km altitude in the troposphere).
Since this team rejected out of hand a differing opinion offered by me as an individual while I referenced a major Web AI bot search result, labeling such as “garbage”, as a courtesy to Google’s AI bot that I consulted in the matter, here is that AI bot’s further commentary:
“At 3 km (approximately 10,000 feet), an environmental temperature profile matching the dry adiabatic lapse rate is rarely encountered in the Earth’s troposphere. (Reference to https://courses.ems.psu.edu/learningweather/book/export/html/36 )
Why It Is Rare
- Average Profile: The troposphere typically averages a gentler 6.5°C/km lapse rate.
- Stability Limits: A dry adiabatic lapse rate (~9.8°C/km) causes high thermodynamic instability.
- Rapid Mixing: Instability triggers swift convective overturning to restore balance.
- Moisture Effects: Rising air condenses, releasing latent heat and shifting toward a moist adiabatic lapse rate.”
Sadly, said individual (and I assume he also speaks for his “scientific team”) has declared this matter to be closed.
I can only hope that other commenters to WUWT are more open minded.
TYS,
No offense intended. I know perfectly well that the dry adiabatic compression heating/expansion cooling process is an idealized case. I used it to simplify the demonstration. From my 3/15/26 post linked above, I explained,
“I realize that the dry adiabatic case is not necessarily what is happening, but it gets the point across about the significance of up and down motion to temperature.”
Your further reply changes nothing about the point of my original post here.
Again, be well.
The top of the atmosphere is leaking substances into the space of outer space all the time and there are substances which are being captured in the atmosphere from the space the planet orbits into on its way around the sun.
No assumptions as to overall increase or decrease in the mass of the planet are anything but guesses.
I guess you mean it circulates according to gravity being always directed downward to the centre of gravity of the planet eventually preventing each molecule from reaching escape velocity.
Threfore it has been implausible all along, for these physical reasons, to assume that incremental CO2 operates as a climate system “forcing.” No one knows that.
Thank you for your patience in these consequential matters.
Incremental CO2 does not act as a forcing, but rather as an incremental forcing. These are not the same things. I have looked at a lot of your efforts here, and they are very interesting. But I note a few things.
First, I have seen that your plots of VIEC as histograms show a broad variation in values, but a mean value often in the area of 200-300W/m^2, which is about what one would expect as solar energy is the fuel driving all this. Now, VIEC it seems to me is not the same as the mechanical KE of the atmosphere. The KE within the atmosphere at any one time is an integration of the available energy in the “heat engine”. So, the VIEC has a mean value much too large as the available energy is only a few percent of the total flow of heat energy. Several places show this to be true–it’s around 10% what I found to be true in this essay, using measured atmospheric properties (plus plausible extrapolation) around the T-S cycle of an Arctic Low and the 4 W/m^2 or (2%) value determined in a published study of the entire atmosphere.
By integrated I mean that storage of small fraction of heat energy can be used to run a storm (conversion of heat to KE) with a much shorter life — like a hurricane running on warm ocean built up over half a year.
The incremental effect of doubling CO2 is twice the value of useful output of the atmosphere from the 2015 study referenced above. Looking at it in this light the incremental forcing of CO2 doesn’t seem so small.
Here is what needs to be done. A person has to begin to look at all the influences of comparable size to know what will happen. Vertical transport surface to space; horizontal transport from tropics to poles; and changes to the integrated Earth systems. It’s a large and exacting task. I myself don’t feel threatened by CO2 increases, but this is not the same as saying the Earth won’t be a different place with a doubling or two of CO2.
Hi Kevin,
Thank you for your reply and for your interest in my posts.
“First, I have seen that your plots of VIEC as histograms show a broad variation in values, but a mean value often in the area of 200-300W/m^2, which is about what one would expect as solar energy is the fuel driving all this.”
This is incorrect. The mean values of ERA5 VIEC reported in my histograms for 2022 are as follows, all in W/m^2.
10N -259.4
10S -40.9
23.5N 159.6
23.5S 137.8
45N 35.0
45S 38.4
66.5N -37.2
66.5S -178.8
My post above makes no use of a mean value at 45N for 2024.
“Now, VIEC it seems to me is not the same as the mechanical KE of the atmosphere.”
Correct. The definition of VIEC is here, as implemented within ERA5.
https://codes.ecmwf.int/grib/param-db/162064
There is a “vertical integral of kinetic energy” hourly parameter in ERA5 here if you are interested in downloading and analyzing it.
https://codes.ecmwf.int/grib/param-db/162059
“The incremental effect of doubling CO2 is twice the value of useful output of the atmosphere from the 2015 study referenced above. Looking at it in this light the incremental forcing of CO2 doesn’t seem so small.”
Correct. For conceptual understanding, it is therefore better to look at hourly values at a fine resolution from a suitable reanalysis model like ERA5 to visualize the dynamic range of what is computed to be physically occurring in the energized atmosphere. It is also helpful to conceive of the atmosphere’s operation not as a single instance of a heat engine but as a huge array of circulations, each exhibiting the nature of a heat engine, which form and dissipate over the surface of the planet.
“Here is what needs to be done. A person has to begin to look at all the influences of comparable size to know what will happen.”
Suit yourself, of course. But be reminded that looking at averages obscures the dynamic range of the physical processes. I have chosen instead to take advantage of the incredible work already done by the modelers at ECMWF in having produced the ERA5 reanalysis with so many parameters of diagnostic interest.
“I myself don’t feel threatened by CO2 increases, but this is not the same as saying the Earth won’t be a different place with a doubling or two of CO2.”
I agree. I am happy to have read that the “different place” will likely continue turning greener, as observed from space.
Thank you for those links. The second one didn’t work. I edited it and saved it here.
https://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/ftp.transfer/Book.OUP.10.6.17/Laliberte.Science.heatengine.2015.pdf
All the best to you.
‘I myself don’t feel threatened by CO2 increases, but this is not the same as saying the Earth won’t be a different place with a doubling or two of CO2.’
Nor should you feel threatened. Take a look at Figure 5 in the attached article by WE. Note that within any ‘regime’ (hot house, cool house, etc.) there is very little, if any, temperature sensitivity to CO2 variability, whereas there are sizable jumps in temperature among the various regimes. The various regimes, of course, have been subsequently linked to changes in ocean circulation due to plate tectonics.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/15/cooling-the-hothouse/
Therefore it has been implausible all along, for these physical reasons, to assume that incremental CO2 operates as a climate system “forcing.”
More than 4 years ago I demonstrated with empirical measurements that the net CO2 present in the atmosphere is insensitive to changes in anthropogenic emissions and that the seasonal temperatures demonstrate anticorrelation with the monthly CO2 concentrations.
Thanks for your reply and for that link. You might be interested in Tom Nelson’s recent interview with Jonathan Cohler and Willie Soon. I think the new paper they are discussing is still under review, but the interview gets the main points across. The central point is that the measured CO2 concentration and isotope trends show no evidence of an influence from human emissions of CO2 from hydrocarbons. It will be interesting to see the final paper to better understand their analysis.
I think that isotope analysis is the best hope for determining the sources/sinks of CO2 in the Carbon Cycle. Unfortunately, there has been little research done on isotopic fractionation. Every time carbon is involved in a phase change or chemical reaction, there is a preference expressed (minimizing the energy involved, which usually means that more of the lighter 12C is involved). That includes (bi)carbonate pH buffering, dissolution of aragonite/calcite, precipitation of carbonates, dolomitization of limestones, photosynthesis in terrestrial plants and plankton, and out-gassing of CO2. I don’t think we are anywhere near being able to track and predict all the permutations in these processes.
Clyde. Just thought I would drop by to update you on the latest reflecting pool news. You will recall I was convinced there had been no deliberate 300 ft gash by vandals (or any other significant deliberate vandalism). And now it seems the justice department agree with me and have dropped the case. They are now saying that the damage was the result of faulty workmanship (which is what I said all along).
Of course Trump is doing what Trump does and doubling down on the lie. He is like the kid who refuses to admit he stole the cookies, but he has absolutely no evidence and so …..in the light of this, I wonder if you feel, as agreed, it is now time for you to say something to me?
I wanted to wait until the investigation was concluded and all the facts presented before making a judgement. It doesn’t look like there will be a thorough investigation of the circumstances of the problem, thus, those such as yourself, who seem to be most influenced by their political leaning are not going to change their opinion. That is, the facts will not make a difference. The contractor will probably be forced to fix the problem even if there is no evidence of culpability.
Neither of us have had an opportunity to examine the sealant up close and examine it, and even so, certainly I’m not the expert you fancy yourself to be. However, the pictures I have seen on the news don’t look to me like what I would expect to see if there was a problem with a patch or patches of poorly prepared surface leading to poor adhesion and spontaneous release. Instead, what I have seen is patches of sealant that appear to still be firmly attached under the water, with the exposed edges being quite irregular. It appears to me to be failure by tension leading to jagged edges, rather than being cut. However, that doesn’t rule out someone observing a bubble, slicing it, and then pulling up on it. Without an investigation we’ll never know.
What troubles me is how quick you are to assign blame in the absence of evidence. That tells me that your opinions are based on your politics rather than objective facts. I feel sorry for you that your emotions rule your life.
Thanks for the reply Clyde and nice to hear from you.
I’m not sure why opinion, yours or mine, is relevant here. The justice department no less, has said they are dropping the case because there is not sufficient evidence to get a conviction and that what evidence there is, points to faulty workmanship which was my point all along. There never was a 300 foot gash or significant levels of vandalism as Trump claimed. It was glaringly obvious he was lying when he said these things.
What angers me most about this whole thing is Trump was more than willing (and still is) to send an innocent man to prison, to cover up that fact that his “jobs for his mates” contract had been sub standard. It sums the mans morals up so completely, in that he seems to have none.
I am replying to myself here to explain why I did not even mention “lapse rate” in my post above. There was no need. The core physical process of dry adiabatic compression heating/expansion cooling resulting from pressure increase/decrease was sufficient to support the point of the post.
Sure, the environmental lapse rate is a measured variable, influenced by the presence or absence of water vapor and droplets, radiative absorption/emission, etc. And there’s the dry adiabatic lapse rate and moist adiabatic lapse rate that are important for understanding cloud formation and dissipation and for explaining convective weather. Fine. But not necessary to talk about in connection with my post.
That is all for now.
August 2, 2026 2:32 am
Compared to the late 1960s and early 1970s, over a typical January we now enjoy almost 50% more hours of sunshine. Over the whole year, we get about 13% additional hours of sunshine. That amounts to more than 30 extra minutes of sunshine per day.
Ironically, these changes appear to be rather more to do with the absence of pollution than because of it. And surprise, surprise, more sunshine equates to higher temperatures.
And the alarm has been ringing out right across the universe, forests and woods are spontaneously combusting – despite never reaching their flashpoint unaided.
The Scottish Government has declared that climate change – not changes to land management – is driving Scotland’s growing wildfire crisis, setting up a direct clash with farmers.
And it’s back to the old gaslighting routine as that and this next example shows. We still do not know which way comrade Burnham is going to jump on energy…
Burnham risks first revolt as PM over apparent support for North Sea drilling
Labour MPs fear No 10 team lack up-to-date energy insight and don’t fully recognise voters’ climate concerns
Lacking up to date energy insight? How so?
Miatta Fahnbulleh is one of Andy Burnham’s key confidants, spearheading his agenda on energy, devolution and the cost of living. Policies the MP for Peckham has previously endorsed suggest the country is in for a sharp leftward lurch
Maybe he wasn’t paying attention to what she told him?
The extra sunshine is mostly due to the ~60 year cycle. There’s no logical reason that pollution reduction would only affect the winter sunshine. The good (?) news is that cycle is now due to move into it’s cool phase which means the clouds will soon start returning. It could even have started already. The first tell is likely to be an increase in summer Arctic sea ice.
The cycle is driven by internally driven variations in Arctic sea ice. As the sea ice expands the Arctic cools and drives the polar jet to the south. This means the jet stream will cover more of the surface and clouds tend to occur near its location.
Want a cheap way to reduce surface temperature? There is a money saving way. Shut down every stack and exhaust scrubber attached to a fossil fueled machines and abandon efforts to reduce sulfur content of these fuels. More sulfur in the air, more clouds, lower temperatures. Blame Nixon and his Clean Air Act (and his successors amendments and those of other countries) for increasing temperature. Personally, I would rather retain the scrubbers and sulfur controls and bask in the extra sunshine and slightly higher temperatures. It’s not much.
August 2, 2026 2:39 am
I’ve been thinking a lot about climate change, human priorities, and where our money actually goes.
We, especially, in Europe and North America talk constantly about “climate crisis”. We worry about another 1°C of warming over more than a century. We worry about a few days each summer that feel uncomfortable. We worry about heatwaves that last a week or two.
But here’s (my) truth:
People in Europe and North America ‘will’ survive another degree of warming.
We have strong housing, clean water, sanitation, healthcare, refrigeration, emergency services, and infrastructure. We have air conditioning if we need it. We have governments that can respond. We have the ability to adapt.
Meanwhile, down the road,.…
Millions of people in Africa suffer every single day not from climate change, but from lack of clean water.
Not “in 2050”. Not “in 2100”. Not “if we don’t act”. But today.
Every day:
- children die from water‑borne diseases
- families walk miles to collect unsafe water
- crops fail because wells run dry
- girls miss school because they spend hours fetching water
- communities lose livestock to thirst
- preventable diseases spread because sanitation is impossible without water
Here is the part that should make all of us stop and think.
The world has spent in the region of $40–50 trillion on climate change since 1988.
That’s not a typo. Trillions every year, and still rising fast.
Now let us consider:
0.001% of that money – just one thousandth of one percent could give clean water to tens of millions of Africans.
0.001% of $40 trillion = $400 million
0.001% of $50 trillion = $500 million
With that amount, we could:
- build 30,000–50,000 village wells
- give 20–40 million people clean water for life
- eliminate most water‑borne disease in entire regions
- stop children dying from diarrhoea
- stop women walking 5–10 miles a day for water
- stop schools closing because there’s no water
- stop communities losing livestock to drought
All for 0.001% of what we already spend on climate.
Not 1%. Not 0.1%. Not even 0.01%.
Just 0.001%.
The tragedy isn’t cost – it’s just a basic priority.
We spend trillions on climate models, conferences, subsidies, and infrastructure in wealthy nations… while millions of people die from problems that cost pennies to solve.
I’m not saying climate change doesn’t matter. I’m not denying greenhouse physics. I’m not denying warming. I’m not denying CO₂ plays a role, including anthropogenic CO₂.
But I am saying this:
If we truly care about human life, then clean water in Africa should be the world’s first climate priority because it saves lives today, not in 2050.
Europe and North America will cope with another degree of warming. Africa cannot cope with another decade of thirst.
If we want to “save the world”, maybe we should start by saving the people who need help right now!
Demand the UN act now, today, to resolve this basic human right.
I would presume they don’t boil water because they lack fuel, time, pots, containers, and sanitation. What I witnessed was the total lack of decent cooking pots and very basic cooking facilities. Animal dung was a fuel source. I would have thought that, boiling at scale, for a large family, is difficult if not impossible. Give every village a well and basic solar energy to at least power a fridge to store vital medicine/s costing pennies in comparison to the ‘waste’ surrounding Net Zero!
Both problems need to be solved. And it’s more than a FeW hOt DaYs for europe. Playing out one against the other doesn’t help.
If you cared about human life you would advocate for renewables, more sustainable transport and mitigating climate change.
From a short search:
Extreme weather and climate events impact millions in Africa in 2025
https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/extreme-weather-and-climate-events-impact-millions-africa-2025
The past and future impact of climate change on childhood malaria in Africa
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10840-w
United Nations Fact Sheet on Climate Change (Warning, PDF)
https://unfccc.int/files/press/backgrounders/application/pdf/factsheet_africa.pdf
And of you want to advocate for money spend for better uses, why not start here:
Top 25 countries by military spending in 2026.
https://militaryspend.org/country-profiles
Fewer blown up school girls in foreign countries sounds like a good start to me.
If you are from the US advocate for the restart of US AID
USAID shutdown has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths
https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hundreds-of-thousands-of-deaths/
1.. Africa has always had extreme weather event, droughts .. anyone older than 15 would remember bad droughts and famines occurring in many parts of Africa.
2.. Malaria is borne by mosquitos that can be controlled by chemicals.. but the racists at the leftist world institutions will not help fund it or refuse to allow the use of the necessary chemicals… Mosquitos are a massive problem in many cold climates… nothing to do with “warming”
3.. Basically everything in the UN climate pdf is blatant propaganda that is provably untrue. From the start they are trying to blame human CO2 for changing the climate.. so they are lying. !
4.. Do you recall on Oct 7 a few years ago when your Hamas/Iranian buddies butchered over 1000 people at a concert. !!
5.. USAID was nothing but a Democrat slush fund for all their degenerate ideologies. People have been save because it was shutdown,.
Real aid to countries that need it for humanitarian reasons continues.
Most issues in Africa come from corrupt and inept governments, and the actions of groups like the IMF, World Bank, UN etc that refuse funding unless it is for the green anti-human agendas.
African countries need strong and reliable energy supplies… something “renewables” can never offer.
Mosquitos are a massive problem in many cold climates… nothing to do with “warming”
There is the joke that the mosquito is the state bird of Alaska. To be fair it isn’t just the presence of mosquitoes that is the problem. Some species are vectors for malaria and others are not. It also may be an issue of the streams and rivers freezing in Alaska and creating an inhospitable environment for the plasmodium parasite. That isn’t an area of expertise for me so I will leave it to others to comment on whether or not that is a factor as well.
Interesting factoid here: malaria was very common in the US prior to proper drainage of standing water-the Midwest was a prime example; Illinois and any recently de-glaciated area that had poor drainage suffered…Hellzbelles, Chicago was a swamp more or less, as were the old, flat glacial lake beds around Champagne which had to be ditched and tiled to crop them.
A few years ago I had the occasion to talk with a man who was a descendant of an original rancher near the Merced River in California. The original home still stands and is in use. However, I was a little surprised to discover that it was about a mile from the river. I would have thought that they would have built closer to the river for water for drinking, washing, and their livestock and pets. However, he informed me that it was purposely built away from the river to avoid the malaria-carrying mosquitoes! Malaria has since been extirpated in California, except for an occasional recent immigrant from south of the border.
People forget, don’t they? Or rather they simply didn’t know. Your comment about recent immigrants (so diplomatic, that) reminded me of something an old Prof. said about the ease of reintroducing that disease because nobody would expect it-or know to look for it. How things have changed as regards not only malaria but other fun things being imported-so to speak. Thanks for the comment-very timely.
CO2 does nothing. All the expenditure on wind and solar attached to the grid is a horrible waste of money for ignorant voters who believe what they are told by the UN.
There is a good paper that analysis the AIRS satellite OLR spectrum. The author went looking for data to confirm the influence of CO2 by its absorption over the last to decades. He first discarded all daytime readings because solar reflections makes it impossible to detect the CO2 absorption. Then he had to cull 89% of the nighttime data because it was cloudy and ice has broad spectrum absorption for long wave radiation so CO2 cannot be detected. So after discarding 94.5% of all the data he was able to calculate the changing absorption of CO2. Then there is an almighty assumption that the CO2 absorption actually changes the radiation balance. This is a link to the paper:
RADIATIVE FORCING BY CO2 OBSERVED AT TOP OF ATMOSPHERE FROM 2002-2019
The fact is that solar energy over the tropics has been slowly trending up for the last 700 years. The tropics is responding to that increase by more moisture being evaporated into the atmosphere. So the atmosphere is more energetic and able to transport more heat poleward. This is how the current interglacial in the NH terminates as snowfall once again overtakes snow melt. So far only on Greenland above 2300m.
CO2 does nothing more than the extra mass of the carbon. Ice is the dominant factor in Earth’s heat release over the tropics and the tropics is the dominant region of excess radiation energy uptake. The Rentsch paper is proof of that because he could only detect the absorption of CO2 when there were no clouds.
There is no where over any ocean that has emission temperature above 273K. And the H2O molecule is by far the dominant emitter in the atmosphere. That means Ice dominates emissions over oceans, which are the main energy stores.
‘I’m not denying greenhouse physics. I’m not denying warming. I’m not denying CO₂ plays a role, including anthropogenic CO₂.’
You should be. But getting to the main issue of your comment, Africans lack clean water because they’re poor. And they’re poor because collectivism, whether implemented at the level of a village or a nation, squanders resources. Unfortunately, we in the West seem determined to go down this road ourselves.
Ahem .. Isn’t clean water as we know it in North America, Europe, Japan and (probably) China mostly a collective effort? We have a small stream running in back of our lot. But we don’t get our domestic water from it. Neither do we have a well or cistern. Nope, the water comes from a reservoir miles away behind a dam on a different (larger) stream. We pay our town maybe a thousand dollars a year to make sure that water is safe, to deliver it to us, and deal with our waste water. In what way is that not collectivism?
Cell phones got worse and more expansive when you didn’t have to buy them from the government franchised and controlled telephone utilities?
Digital bandwidth got worse and more expensive when private companies began burying copper and fiber to the home/business instead of having to buy from government franchised and controlled telephone utiltiies?
Education has to be judged based on cost *and* results. You think government provided education is better than private education?
The government can’t manage either Medicare or Medicaid. You think the government would provide better service at a lower cost than private providers if they had to do so for *everyone*? Why then is Medicare going broke?
Pull your head out of where ever you have it buried and actually look around.
Yes it is. So why not use the same approach for something like peaches or any other food; grown on Government land, picked, packed, shipped, delivered and sold by the Government? That to would be collectivism; Mamdani would love it. Do you really think it would work better than an individual enterprise, regulated where needed by Government, but not owned by Government. The Soviets thought so as did China and a few other countries, even Sweden for a time, but it has failed everywhere it was tried. Everywhere.
Why do so many people not know that the backbone grid of farm-to-market roads that exist in America were first built by PRIVATE FUNDS FROM PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS?
When I was growing up in a small farming town of 300 people in SE Kansas, trash pickup and disposal was PRIVATE, not city or county or state. It was actually done by an old man with a buckboard and mule and it was picked up EVERY DAY! Even here today my sewage disposal is done BY MYSELF PRIVATELY using a septic tank and lateral lines – no government involvement. And I am not alone in this.
Here in Pierce county, Washington I pay under $250/year for excellent, safe water and it’s distribution. Local mutual water non-profit company started by shareholders (property owners) to supply water from local aquifer and participation in reservoirs in the Cascade mountains. Our electricity comes from a similar enterprise – a city owned public utility with >90% hydroelectric power. About $0.09 /kWh + $30 fixed charge. Is that common interest establishment of a business to supply our basic needs a socialist enterprise? Well, kinda, I guess…. My favorite Grocery is an employee owned business. Socialism?
Life is good!
That’s how it is today in cities. However, I have a cousin my age who lives in South Dakota who still relies on a well for drinking water.
Where I used to live, in Columbia (Calif.) many of the local residents depended on ditch water behind their homes that was supplied from a reservoir on the campus of the local community college. After hydraulic gold mining ceased, people continued to use the potable water. I think that they may have finally ended that practice. During the transition, people were being given bottled water (no doubt with microplastic particles) to solve a non-existent problem of unsafe water.
Often in the past, people have recognized that there are economies of scale when people don’t have to duplicate efforts of impounding and treating water, so they would create compacts to hire specialists to build a dam or drill wells and either city-run water companies or private companies (such as in ‘Silicon Valley’) supply the water, not the government.
August 2, 2026 2:47 am
Say it loud, say it proud…
Chris Murray, the Labour MP for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, said the UK must stay the course on decarbonisation. “Britain was the first country to industrialise and we have a duty to lead the world on net zero. – Guardian
Yes, it is our duty to lead the deindustrial revolution.
August 2, 2026 2:55 am
UN has managed to create a cargo cult response to changing climate. They have Europeans marching into energy poverty in the vain hope of fixing the weather that is in no way broken.
The climate is doing what it has done for billions of years – changing. None of the current changes are of historical significance. The tropics have been getting more solar energy now for 700 years and the effects of that is a gentle warming trend as atmospheric moisture increases and the atmosphere becomes more energetic.
The Southern Hemisphere is trending to milder extremes while the NH is trending toward warmer summers and wetter, snowier winters – more extreme. This means energy poverty is now a serious threat to health in regions that need both warming and cooling to make conditions suitable for humans,
Not burning carbon is in the same category as burning witches to fix the weather. Europe is returning to the dark ages where odd beliefs trump scientific observation.
August 2, 2026 3:03 am
Looks like the Iran thing is still a disaster for trump.
In Iran, the U.S. Appears Headed for a Strategic Defeat, Allies Fear
Iranian missiles and drones not only restrict traffic through the strait and damage the economic infrastructure of allied energy production, but they also continue to threaten American bases across the Middle East and have killed or injured American service members.
DUI hire Hegseth told us that can’t be. Curious.
And he can’t stop antagonizing US allies
Trump says Greenland will be under US control by the time he leaves office
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-greenland-threats-europe-b3025688.html
At least he’s getting the world to move faster away from fossil fuels. And from the US and the petrodollar
Quarterly sales of electric cars break records in several key markets amid energy crisis
https://www.iea.org/news/quarterly-sales-of-electric-cars-break-records-in-several-key-markets-amid-energy-crisis
In Australia, Brazil, India, Korea and Viet Nam – all sizeable electric car markets – sales roughly doubled between March and June compared with the same period in 2025. Overall, more than 90 countries recorded year-on-year growth in electric car sales during the first half of 2026.
Quarterly sales of electric cars break records in several key markets amid energy crisis
Until direct and indirect subsidies vanish, I suspect.
For example, there are howls of anguish when EV drivers are asked to contribute to the cost of road maintenance, or to pay the true commercial cost of electricity dedicated to EV charging. To say nothing of increased micro-particles from specially built tyres to cope with heavy EVs, combined with monstrous torque on demand.
Every kg of rubber lost as the tyre wears down has to go somewhere – into the air, then into your lungs if you’re in the vicinity. Sad but true.
It will work itself out, I’m sure. In the meantime an ICE vehicle suits my needs. Horses for courses.
There have been heavy vehicles on the roads running rubber tires since they were invented. My dad drove a Cadillac when I was growing up. Semi trucks cause vastly more road damage than any automobile. My Chevy Volt weighs under 3800 lbs. A Chevy Suburban can weigh over 6500 lbs…. and where I live vehicles over 4000 lbs incur an additional fee during annual registration.
I’ve been around and driving for many decades, yet my lungs are in great shape! (pushing 75 y.o.) Pick up a tire…. they are heavy because of density of rubber.
How many trillions of tires have been worn out over the past 100 years? The micro/nano particles of rubber are much more likely to be washed to the side of the road and become part of the soil rather that floating around in the air.
I’ve never noticed any black particles in the air filters in my vehicles – certainly none in the cabin air filter!
“At least he’s getting the world to move faster away from fossil fuels”
Total BS of course. What has happened is that many countries have had a massive surge in oil and gas exploration and extraction. (I am not going to bother pasting the every growing list of links)
Fossil fuels still provide 85%+ of all energy on the planet.. Wind and solar are a vague afterthought.
August 2, 2026 3:14 am
The Central England Temperature data for July is as you would expect exceptional in the near 400 year series.
The mean temperature was 3.5C above the climatological average. This ranked second to 2006 by 0.3C, and was 0.9C above 1976.
The maximum temperatures averaged 5.3C above, with every single day well above the average. This ranked first, a statistical tie with 2006, and was 1.4C above 1976.
Southern England was even warmer with average maximum temperatures about 2C higher than the CET, well over 27C, astonishing. Also had record sunshine and record low rainfall for July, and any month in 190 years for one or both (can’t remember what the weatherman said).
The number of UK days above 30C in 2026 so far is way ahead of 1976, second only to 1995 which had 34. 2026 is only 2 or 3 days behind that.
That is what you should expect when you build wind stilling bird mincers around your coastline and interrupt the gentle onshore afternoon sea breeze that brings cooler, moist air onshore.
And the solar energy into the tropics has only been increasing for 700 years in a 10,000 upward trend. Peak summer solar intensity in the NH south of 55N has been increasing as well with millennia more increase to come.
UK needs to get serious about energy security and forget demonising CO2. Stopping carbon combustion to fix the weather is in the same belief system as burning witches to fix the weather – both unscientific claptrap.
Med will hit full throttle in a week or two and monsoon will kick in to take the heat out of southern Europe.
Where are the current thermometers located compared with 1976?
What, if anything, has changed in the surroundings of the thermometer locations?
What type of thermometers were used in 1976 compared with the 21st century?
Some 1976 facts:
”In the Central England temperature record, it was the warmest summer in the series only equalled by 2025. It was the warmest summer in the Aberdeen area since at least 1864, and the driest summer since 1868 in Glasgow.[4] It remains a reference point for unusually hot summers in the country.”
“Heathrow had 16 consecutive days with daily maxima over 30 °C (86 °F) from 23 June to 8 July[5] and for 15 consecutive days from 23 June to 7 July temperatures reached 32.2 °C (90 °F) somewhere in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, five days saw temperatures exceed 35 °C (95 °F). On 28 June, temperatures reached 35.6 °C (96.1 °F) in Southampton. The hottest day of all was 3 July, with temperatures reaching 35.9 °C (96.6 °F) in Cheltenham.“
“Where are the current thermometers located compared with 1976?”
some were flying in free air in the atmosphere….
Observations for Station 03882 at 00 UTC 26 Jun 2026
Latitude: 50.891 Longitude: 0.317
—————————————————————————–
PRES HGHT TEMP DWPT RELH MIXR DRCT SPED THTA THTE THTV
hPa m C C % g/kg deg m/s K K K
850.0 1560 22.5 9.5 44 8.83 160 12.0 309.7 337.0 311.3
Observations for Station 03774 at 12 UTC 03 Jul 1976
Latitude: 51.080 Longitude: -0.220
—————————————————————————–
PRES HGHT TEMP DWPT RELH MIXR DRCT SPED THTA THTE THTV
hPa m C C % g/kg deg m/s K K K
850.0 1560 17.2 6.2 48 7.01 190 2.6 304.2 325.5 305.4
These 2 radiosonde ascents were made at 00Z on the night before the hottet day of ’76 and of ’26 (so far).
They are ~ 30ml apart.
It can be seen that in 1976 at 850mb (5000ft) the air temp was 17.2C
and this year it was 22.5C.
That is more tha 5C warmer this year than it was in 1976
adding 15C for the DALR down to surfce makes 32.2 + 3C for a surface superadiabatic gives us 35.2C (th recorded high that day was (as you posted) 35.9C
This year we had 22.5 +15 +3 = 40.5C.
The actual record max was 38C – so 2.5C shy.
If anything the recorded surface temps this year did not make their potential.
In 1976 the ground in SE England was exceptionally parched which resulted in a super of ~ 5C (see below)
In comparison this was the sounding for 00Z this year (no 12Z available in archive) ….
So sorry, the meteorological evidence is that the heatwave this year was definitively hotter that the hottest day in 1976.
Yeah. The atmosphere in 2026 was clearly significantly warmer in 2026 vs 1976 as can be plainly seen by those upper air station plots. I can also see that the planetary boundary layer is dry-adiabatic from 700mb. If you follow that dry-adiabat down to the surface you’re in the upper 30’s. And in lieu of a suppressive effect if the surface went super-adiabatic like it did in 1976 then 40 C or higher isn’t out of the question with that sounding.
August 2, 2026 6:56 am
“The people who build AI for a living never take the first answer. Before letting it respond, they type one line: “Ask me five questions that would improve your answer.”
Here’s why. Given a vague request, a chatbot won’t admit it’s confused. It fills the blanks with average assumptions and hands you a generic answer with total confidence. Those five questions pull your real situation onto the page.”
Kim Komando
August 2, 2026 8:14 am
The Energy Bad Boys posted this article on Substack on August 1st, 2026:
A Near-Blackout in Southwest Power Pool West (Why didn’t they turn the wind turbines up?)
Those who follow Mark Jacobson’s line of thinking argue that the wind is always blowing somewhere and the sun is always shining somewhere. And, so they claim, huge volumes of regional battery storage aren’t needed, only enough storage to flatten the duck curve and to get through a few windless and sunless days.
Here in the US Pacific Northwest, wind and solar advocates want to combine several areas of load balancing authority inside the Western Interconnection into a single RTO for the region. Their justification for the new RTO is to avoid buying the huge volumes of battery storage needed to make power in the US Northwest independently reliable on those days when wind and solar aren’t producing.
By political diktat, all future expansions of the Pacific Northwest power supply must come from wind and solar. I wrote about this topic back in July here on WUWT:
In the course of my analysis for a hypothetical 3,000 MW baseload wind & solar capacity expansion for the US Northwest, I played with several W&S overbuild factors and several mixes of wind and solar with the goal of reducing the total volume of battery storage required to get through the inevitable summer and winter W&S doldrums.
After a month or so of running my spreadsheets, the best reduction in battery storage volume I could come up with yielded 3.6 terawatt-hours of required battery storage using a 6X overbuild factor and an even mix of wind and solar; i.e., 9,000 MW nameplate wind plus 9,000 MW nameplate solar for a combined total of 18,000 MW nameplate W&S.
The price tag for that combination of wind capacity, solar capacity, and battery storage capacity was roughly two trillion dollars, give or take a few hundred billion.
An earlier trial run using a 4X W&S overbuild as opposed to a 6X overbuild, and with an even mix of wind and solar, yielded ~12 terawatt-hours of required battery storage — a result with a capital cost price tag of perhaps six trillion dollars, the bulk of it for battery storage.
Would creating a new regional RTO for the Pacific Northwest have any reasonable chance of eliminating the need for huge volumes of regional battery storage?
Not a chance. Because the weather patterns which produce those multi-day summer and winter W&S doldrums affect the entire US Northwest region at the same time.
What the region’s wind and solar advocates refuse to recognize is that for the Mark Jacobson Theory to work — i.e., the wind is always blowing somewhere, the sun is always shining somewhere — these points must be addressed:
— The thirty-eight areas of load balancing authority within the Western Interconnection must be consolidated into a single gigantic area of load balancing authority with completely centralized real-time system operation and control.
— The wind and solar overbuilds needed inside the Western Interconnection as a whole are probably in the range of 6X to 8X in order to assure that the wind is always blowing somewhere and the sun is always shining somewhere.
— Enough additional transmission capacity must be installed throughout the entire Western Interconnection to get the power from where it is being generated to where it is being consumed.
— Expansion of the Western Interconnection’s new W&S infrastructure must proceed simultaneously at the same pace and at the same time in all regions the Interconnection now serves.
— As fossil fuel infrastructure is systematically retired, a misalignment of project phases between regions would result in huge imbalances in the grid reliability of some regions in comparison with others.
— The required W&S expansion inside the Western Interconnection must be accomplished very quickly, possibly in a decade’s time or less. Otherwise the misalignment of project phases among regions would guarantee huge imbalances in grid reliability among those regions.
— The needed wind and solar expansion inside the Western Interconnection must be highly coordinated by a centralized planning organization. That centralized organization must be directly responsible for the engineering and the procurement activities needed to quickly expand the required overbuild of capacity.
As it concerns the total project scope of work needed, wind and solar advocates here in the US Northwest haven’t got a clue how all this work can be accomplished in practice, let alone how long it would take or how much it would cost.
August 2, 2026 9:29 am
“Climate hushing” – the latest idiotic talking point created by the enviro-activists as a call for their mob to start threatening news outlets and Democrat candidates for not being loud enough about their beloved [anti-science] issue.
Cool! – WUWT guest poster Eric Worrall already had a piece cued here on this dumb situation, online minutes after my above comment
August 2, 2026 10:25 am
A plethora of points.
Colder w GHE not warmer I
Stand before a blazing campfire on some chilly Autumn evening.
Lift up a blanket between.
Colder now or warmer?
Drop the blanket.
Colder now or warmer?
That is what Earth’s atmosphere does, especially the albedo. It’s why JWST has five layers of gold plated mylar facing the sun like the reflective panel sitting on the dash without which its IR equipment would be blinded in a convective 390 K solar fog.
Colder w GHE not warmer II
Per GHE theory Earth is 288 K, 15 C, with it and 255 K, -18 C, without it, Earth becoming a 33 C cooler, -18 C, ball of ice.
The GMST of 288 K, 15 C, has no consensus and was 15 C in Arrhenius’ 1896 paper.
255 K is a calculated value: 1,368 W/m^2 ISR divided by 4 to average over spherical ToA = 342 W/m^2 reduced by a 30% albedo:
(1-0.3) * 342 = 240. Applying the S-B hocus pocus factor gives 255 K.
Without the GHE & GHGs there would be no water vapor, no clouds, snow, ice & for that matter no water, no oceans and no 30% albedo.
Applying the process above: 1,368/4=342 & S-B hocus pocus = 278 K or 5 C.
Without GHE Earth is 23 C warmer than with GHE.
Emissivity
There are two definitions of emissivity.
The first is the energy leaving a system by radiation compared to all the energy leaving that system. Using TFK_bams09 as an example: 63 W/m^2/160 W/m^2 = 0.39. This is the emissivity to use when performing energy and mass calculations.
The second is the energy leaving a system by radiation compared to the radiation that would leave were the system a BB at its temperature, i.e. 396 W/m^2 at 16 C. Using TFK_bams09 63 W/m^2/396 W/m^2 = 0.16. 396 W/m^2 fills the denominator of this emissivity.
IR thermometers are designed and calibrated assuming the target is a BB. If the target is not, the operator should mimic a BB target with black tape or paint or insert known emissivity, 396 *.16 = 63.
The 396 BB/333 “back”/63 duplicate net GHE loop is an imaginary, theoretical calculation.
Black Body
A BB is a perfect absorber and emitter of radiation where all entering and leaving energy must do so by radiation alone.
Entering radiation can be reflected, transported or absorbed.
Exiting radiation shares that heat transfer with the kinetic processes, i.e. conduction, convection, advection and latent of the contiguous atmospheric molecules.
The Earth’s surface cannot behave as a BB.
Five modes of heat transfer
Q = Conduction + Convection + Advection (wind) + Latent (evap & cond) + Radiation = 100%
Temperature is a function of the four kinetic processes, radiation is a function of that temperature & just comes along for the ride.
As the kinetic modes increase, temperature decreases as does radiation and vice versa.
The high participation of the kinetic processes in surface transfer render a surface BB impossible.
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
For the experimental write up see:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
Search: Bruges group “boiling water pot” Schroeder
No attach graphic option. Shucks.
Nicholas wrote –
Stand before a blazing campfire on some chilly Autumn evening.
Lift up a blanket between.
Colder now or warmer?
Drop the blanket.
Colder now or warmer?
If your “elementary physics of electromagnetic radiation?” tells you that the Earth’s atmosphere causes higher surface temperatures than say, the airless Moon (given the same exposure time, etc.), then you might like to check your knowledge of physics.
Not only that, but adding CO2 to air does not make thermometers hotter.
This is not kindergarten, you pompous fool.
I have been someone who KNOWS that it is a fact that the climate changes for the last 80 years.
I have known that discoveries over the last 60 years have established multiple aspects of the sun, the orbit of the earth, the precession of the equinox, the planetary conjunctions and the cosmic ray flux have all left evidence of their part in bringing about CHANGES in the climate. I know that there are some other influences OTHER THAN CO2, including ONE-OFF events which make changes, some very brief and some prolonged.
I KNOW that an atmosphere over a ball of rock the size of the solid planet earth naked to space in the Goldilocks Zone makes the total system warmer.
So, sit in the corner, suck your thumb and stfu when I comment here.
August 2, 2026 2:37 pm
Willi Soon et al have concluded that the residence time of CO2 is only 3.8 years. In that time most of any released CO2 gets absorbed mostly in the oceans. The logical conclusion is that mostly CO2 concentration is defined by the temperature of the oceans. Therefore the primary driver of warming is something else and the CO2 density is a secondary consequence which may add to the warming by some value. I have shown that the slope of CO2 is highly (~80%) correlated to temperature over the last 45 years.
Therefore the source of our global warming is likely to be the change in Albedo of the planet caused by the magnetic field of the sun changing the quantity of gamma radiation reaching Earth, which in turn create clouds.
A consequence of this thought is that the ice core measurements of CO2 are wrong in that we should expect the density in medieval times to be 430ppm rather than the 270ppm value decoded from the ice cores.
Your thoughts would be appreciated.
“The logical conclusion is that mostly CO2 concentration is defined by the temperature of the oceans.”
Certainly the rate of CO2 increase is closely tied to ocean temperatures, slightly lagged. (graphs are scaled for comparison.)
In this chart we see the per annum changes in rate of CO2 increase, with peaks at El Nino events and a slight step up in the general rate after each major El Nino.
“Willi Soon et al have concluded that the residence time of CO2 is only 3.8 years. In that time most of any released CO2 gets absorbed mostly in the oceans. “
That is the residence time for individual atoms and not for a pulse (large emission).
VIS: A shopping centre at a busy time. A “pulse” of people enter to shop. Lots of peeps, but many only stay a short time – however more are entering as they leave. Result the overall number remains the same (given the pulse continues).
”Residence Time vs. Adjustment Time
- Residence Time (3–4 years): The average time one CO2 molecule stays in the air before dissolving into the ocean or being used by plants. [1]
- Molecular Exchange: When a molecule leaves the air, another usually takes its place from the ocean or biosphere, which just cycles existing carbon without lowering total atmospheric levels. [1, 2]
- Adjustment Time (Decades to Centuries): The time it takes for the total extra amount of CO2 added by humans to actually disappear from the air.“
August 2, 2026 3:37 pm
An interesting observation that I think applies to “global temperature” constructs –
Even in a deterministic universe where the present states of all particles are enough to perfectly determine the future, our ability to predict the future can be inherently limited;
the tiniest infinitesimal error in our measurement of the present explodes into a huge error when we attempt to extrapolate even a small distance into the future.
Noah SmithSubstack
https://substack.com/@noahpinion
What will more intelligence actually do for us?A lot, actually. But it won’t look quite like what humans do with our intelligence.
August 4, 2026 7:51 am
Story tip: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/08/04/britain-will-soon-be-europes-energy-powerhouse/
I like Ambrose, but this is genuine next level delusion.
August 4, 2026 9:24 am
Another incompetent ‘journalist’:
Opinion: Summer means many things, but there’s no escaping change | Vancouver Sun
I whacked him (verbally):
“You are losing your memory – temperatures here are little more than decades ago, I clearly remember +30C several times, lasting for a few days each time.
Starts to feel humid at that level but nothing like NYC in summer (the whole east coast from south edge of New England around through Houston, people at a conference in NYC told me).
Claiming you needed to wear a sweater in Vancouver BC 45 years ago seems almost silly – a warm day in July in the sun.
Claiming frequent rain in July is nonsense, but it often rains some in late August – have you never noticed weather for the PNE in your 45 years here?
Nothing new about lightning strikes inland – they vary yearly, some months are ‘dry’ (little rain). Lightning is not common on the midwet coast but it happened several days ago in Saanich BC and the San Juan Islands when temperature was about +30C. Go cool yourself at the campground up east side of Harrison Lake and watch the brown hills to the east from the shore not a boat – clouds form out of clear sky, wind picks up, rain falls, sky clears, day after day. No lightning when I observed the phenomenon but the storms weren’t huge. Avoid Edmonton as tornadoes occur every few years, one several decades ago killed people in a campground – that’s before the climate heating trend you claim. Often are in open terrain south of Edmonton – in August 2003 I watched a nasty storm near the International airport, fortunately only one injury: a golfer took shelter in a gazebo on the course, it collapsed and broke his arm.
Nothing unusual about this forest fire season – bad one happens every few years, often different areas, but BotCheap refuses to contract for sufficient air and ground resources to fight fires. Look up Kelowna area and Barriere town in 2003 for a quick example.
You should ventilate your bedroom, though with your memory a care residence would be appropriate. Definitely retire from newspaper writing as you are not competent.
August 4, 2026 11:59 am
Astronomy magazine September issue.
One of the major challenges for Lunar & Martian missions is stockpiling cryogenic fuels in LEO depots.
“For one, active cooling systems for cryogenic fuel demand significant power.”
“It takes a lot of electrical work to move a small amount of heat out of the tank.”
Alvero Romero-Calvo
Georgia tech.
So, why not use GHE’s “back” radiation that moves energy from the cold troposphere to the warm surface with no additional energy at all.
I mean, what’s their problem anyway? Deniers??
“So, why not use GHE’s “back” radiation that moves energy from the cold troposphere to the warm surface with no additional energy at all.”
It doesn’t move energy back to the surface.
It slows it’s escape to space.
Correct – indeed, there is no extra energy employed.
Just like insolation doesn’t employ any when slowing heat leaving the inside of your house to the outside.
Or the coat you wear in winter.
