Below is a lecture the Connollys gave on their findings with balloon data and is highly recommended in that it demonstrates through balloon data that CO2 isn’t doing anything to our atmosphere.
This is exactly what I found in my recent survey of balloon data. For anyone interested, balloon data can be found from a number of different sources, including here: https://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html What can be done from this University of Wyoming site is that one can specify a date range— such as the month of July, 2021— and specify ‘GIF-skew-T’ in ‘type of plot,’ and one will get a slide show of balloon data for that month. Interesting.
To show why balloon data demonstrates that CO2 isn’t doing anything and that in fact radiative effects aren’t doing what climate scientists claim they’re doing, one needs to understand something about the adiabatic (‘without heat added or taken away’) lapse rates. As explained before, these are simply the rates the atmosphere cools with height and are given as the dry and moist lapse rates. They’re plotted on the skew-T diagrams, and they’re consistent for whatever ground temperature we start with: the curves, like the temperature lines, don’t change.
The lapse rate plotted on the above diagram is the somewhat thicker gray line, and this is the estimated path of an air parcel lifted from the first one km or so, where there’s a great deal of turbulence. Ideally, the temperature readings would take that path and this is useful to know in forecasting upper air turbulence for pilots. Importantly, this lapse rate path follows parallel to a moist adiabat curve.
The dashed line I drew shows the -30C temperature lines, and you might notice how just after my dash the actual lines get slightly darker. This is to help pick out the temperature lines among all the other lines.
Notice how the moist adiabats become parallel to the dry adiabats in the upper reaches of the troposphere; this is because the air become much drier there.
The above skew-T diagram (copied below for convenience) shows the dew-point soundings as an erratic plot to the left of the temperature plot on the right.
What we can see in the above is that the temperature starts out at ground level following a moist adiabat, and then we get some faster cooling at about 800 hPa (pressure scale on left) and then the temperature profile follows the same moist adiabat after this little foray. Then, at about 550 hPa, we see some sort of turbulence denoted by the dew point soundings and also the wind barbs on the right of the diagram, which pushed the temperature along the -5 C temperature line for a short time until the temperature again follows parallel to the same adiabat. At about 170 hPa the temperature becomes isothermal and follows the -65C skewed temperature line; this is the location of the tropopause.
What’s remarkable about reading these skew-T diagrams is that they show the earth cooling naturally and consistently according to the lapse rates, with occasional forays outside of these due to changes in wind or dew point or the release of heat of condensation when clouds are forming. The lapse rate formulas have no terms for radiative effects.
Nothing is happening. The earth is cooling naturally and there’s no congestion or back-radiation or ‘hot spots’ that inhibit this cooling. Once convection brings an air parcel up to the -65C tropopause— and it does, every single day— then in my book that’s plenty cool enough. Beyond about 500 hPa the air is thin enough that any radiation will more than likely be into space; more CO2 wouldn’t cause congestion there and even if it did, then that simply means more molecules radiating over a greater area (if the emissions height radius does in fact increase.)
Remarkably, and as the Connolly video explains, climate scientists haven’t bothered to test their ideas against the real world. They suppose that it’s all about radiation and have plenty of calculations, but if we look at balloon data we see no reflection of radiative turbulence or back-radiation or congestion anywhere.
CO2 catastrophe is complete fiction. It’s sold to us through a variety of logical fallacies, the chief of them being the fallacy of misplaced causation: something is happening (e.g., deterioration of reefs) and instead of acknowledging the real causes (overfishing and pollution) we’re told that CO2 is the cause. There’s a lot of groupthink involved, too.
I hope this ends my excursion into climate science; I trust I’ve provided enough information so that those who are willing to see can see for themselves the true state of the science.
I don’t know if I’ll continue this substack. There’s so much happening now that it’s hard to keep up, and I’m not sure I’m making much of a contribution. Also, I really do have a life and things I need to attend to. So I might give this a break and see how things pan out in the coming months.
If we wanted to talk about the logic of climate science, we might say that the paradigm of catastrophic warming has ontological status only as unproven theory, which is to say that it really has no scientific status at all. However, in the realm of ideas the theory of catastrophic CO2 warming has a great deal of status as justification for the Great Reset, wherein the theory serves as a foundational term in the logic of the reset. This is why it’s important to dismantle this theory.
I have enjoyed your excursions and if you wish to extend, I will read!
While understandable, it saddens me that you are “ending your excursion into the climate science. Be certain that you are making a great contribution. I cannot thank you enough for the joy, and knowledge experienced when reading this substack.