NASA and ESA on the cause of the heat wave

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is what I got from the article:

The sheer amount of water vapor could be enough to temporarily affect Earth’s global average temperature.

It does not say how much or for how long.

But there is this from the NASA article:

Volcanic eruptions rarely inject much water into the stratosphere. In the 18 years that NASA has been taking measurements, only two other eruptions – the 2008 Kasatochi event in Alaska and the 2015 Calbuco eruption in Chile – sent appreciable amounts of water vapor to such high altitudes. But those were mere blips compared to the Tonga event, and the water vapor from both previous eruptions dissipated quickly. The excess water vapor injected by the Tonga volcano, on the other hand, could remain in the stratosphere for several years.

Now, what that extra in the air for "several years" means....they didn't say.

And finally, there was this.....

This extra water vapor could influence atmospheric chemistry, boosting certain chemical reactions that could temporarily worsen depletion of the ozone layer. It could also influence surface temperatures. Massive volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa and Mount Pinatubo typically cool Earth’s surface by ejecting gases, dust, and ash that reflect sunlight back into space. In contrast, the Tonga volcano didn’t inject large amounts of aerosols into the stratosphere, and the huge amounts of water vapor from the eruption may have a small, temporary warming effect, since water vapor traps heat. The effect would dissipate when the extra water vapor cycles out of the stratosphere and would not be enough to noticeably exacerbate climate change effects.

What it references is climate change effects. Just what those are, they don't say. And they don't identify it as natural of man-made climate change.

Maybe that is where the confusion is.

Wait, do you mean it's not the global scientific community that is confused?


no way!

 

[HikerGuy83]

Wrong, as always. The entire scientific community says it. This is what happens when you open your mouth about a topic you don't know anything about.

You are just quoting talking points.

Stop ask asking others to answer questions when you can't do it yourself.

 

[Delldude]

Wrong, as always. The entire scientific community says it. This is what happens when you open your mouth about a topic you don't know anything about.

LOL.............the entire scientific community doesn't say it. The ones who don't drink the koolaid are censored.......

 

[HikerGuy83]

Wait, do you mean it's not the global scientific community that is confused?


no way!

I was pointing out what I found in the article.

Did you want to take exception to the article, it's statements or the fact that it was published at all.

You seem to be the most confused person here.

 

[Delldude]

You didn't make any point there.

Crick made my point for me.................

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are just quoting talking points.

The only one that matters.

Whine about me all you want. when you're done, you're still a bunch of uneducated slobs on a message board who don't know what youre talking about.

 

[HikerGuy83]

The only one that matters.

In your uneducated opinion.

 

[Delldude]

The only one that matters.

Whine about me all you want. when you're done, you're still a bunch of uneducated slobs on a message board who don't know what youre talking about.

But you are the omnipotent source of knowledge on this issue.....That is funnier than fuck.

 

[ding]

Yes, that's why you are here, shouting at clouds on the internet and pretending to know what you are talking about.

And scientists are publishing science.

Yes, it's a very clear and easy distinction. You have, in fact, been dealt with. This is your lot in life.

You are one of the jackanapes I was speaking about. You shouldn't be wearing your ignorance as a badge of honor.

 

[Crick]

You are one of the jackanapes I was speaking about. You shouldn't be wearing your ignorance as a badge of honor.

DEFINITION

Irony: /ˈīrənē/ noun See Ding post #249

 

[ding]

DEFINITION

Irony: /ˈīrənē/ noun See Ding post #249

Presenting computer models - which triple the radiative forcing effect of CO2 - as science is irony.

 

[Crick]

Are the temperature increases we see here the product of computer models?

Could you explain to us what you believe a computer model to be and why you hold the opinion of it that you do?

And, while you're at it, please explain what you would use instead of computer models to make projections.

 

[ding]

Are the temperature increases we see here the product of computer models?

View attachment 848331

Could you explain to us what you believe a computer model to be and why you hold the opinion of it that you do?

And, while you're at it, please explain what you would use instead of computer models to make projections.

No. natural climate fluctuations which the geologic record is littered with.

 

[ding]

Are the temperature increases we see here the product of computer models?

View attachment 848331

Could you explain to us what you believe a computer model to be and why you hold the opinion of it that you do?

And, while you're at it, please explain what you would use instead of computer models to make projections.

They use climate models to estimate how much is natural and how much is CO2 related but their models:

1. include UHI effect
2. don't use the high variability solar output dataset
3. are routinely fine tuned to remove natural variations which they call drift

 

[ding]

That chickenshit didn't use the reply feature so I wouldn't get an alert.

 

[Delldude]

Are the temperature increases we see here the product of computer models?

View attachment 848331

Could you explain to us what you believe a computer model to be and why you hold the opinion of it that you do?

And, while you're at it, please explain what you would use instead of computer models to make projections.

Computer modeling isn't perfect which says the results aren't either.

 

[ding]

And, while you're at it, please explain what you would use instead of computer models to make projections.

They don't use computer models for just projections. They use computer models to estimate how much of the past warming is due to CO2.

I have no problems with computer modeling per se. I have problems with how they are doing it which I already explained.

The real issue is how they match and the unrealistic feedbacks the models produce that predict future temperatures. They already know their models are running hot, so I don't need you to agree with me as they have already conceded their models are running too hot.

 

[Crick]

Computer modeling isn't perfect which says the results aren't either.

Do you really want to suggest that that's how you roll?

 

[ding]

Do you really want to suggest that that's how you roll?

"Garbage in equals garbage out" is a saying that exists about computer simulations for a reason.

 

[Crick]

"Garbage in equals garbage out" is a saying that exists about computer simulations for a reason.

GIGO is about computers in general, not simulations. And it undeniably implies that good data in makes for good data out.