NASA and ESA on the cause of the heat wave

[Dagosa]

That's not the same Newsweek who predicted a second ice age in the seventies, is it?

In 1975, Newsweek Predicted A New Ice Age. We’re Still Living with the Consequences. - Longreads

1975, amazing.

 

[Delldude]

1975, amazing.

You were the one who predicted the ice age?

Why am I not surprised.

 

[Dagosa]

You were the one who predicted the ice age?

Why am I not surprised.

Really ? You have a quote. Nope. More made up shit.

 

[Delldude]

Really ? You have a quote. Nope. More made up shit.

You clowns surely come unglued about climate change over an article, sourced by two lead scientific agencies, that had nothing in it about affecting climate change.

Wig out much?

 

[Dagosa]

You clowns surely come unglued about climate change over an article, sourced by two lead scientific agencies, that had nothing in it about affecting climate change.

Wig out much?

So you don‘t
have a quote. Just made up shit.

 

[Delldude]

So you don‘t
have a quote. Just made up shit.

Sounded like a question...yes or no.

Well, care to answer?

 

[mamooth]

That's not the same Newsweek who predicted a second ice age in the seventies, is it?

Yes, you denier and our nutty conservative MSM have been faceplanting at climate for that long. It's why you're classified as cult clowns. You were predicting a new ice age in the 1970s, and most of you are still predicting a new ice age any day now.

In contrast, the climate scientists were correctly predicting warming in the 1970s. They've been correct about everything for 50 years now, which is why climate science has such credibility.

I do understand why Delldude didn't know it was his own side of morons predicting the ice age. He only gets info from his cult and the MSM, so he has no idea of what the facts are. His cult deliberately keeps him stupid.

 

[ReinyDays]

From the NASA article....try again. NASA, you know, the climate weenies go to propaganda outlet.

You've misread the article ... water vapor can't exist underwater ... and what little water vapor is produced by volcanoes just makes the ash and rocks damper ... or just simply combines with all the sulfur forming sulfates and sulfites ...

Still with a space agency to get your weather information ... sad, very sad ... what does NOAA have to say:

Vog - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ReinyDays]

Yes, you denier and our nutty conservative MSM have been faceplanting at climate for that long. It's why you're classified as cult clowns. You were predicting a new ice age in the 1970s, and most of you are still predicting a new ice age any day now.

In contrast, the climate scientists were correctly predicting warming in the 1970s. They've been correct about everything for 50 years now, which is why climate science has such credibility.

I do understand why Delldude didn't know it was his own side of morons predicting the ice age. He only gets info from his cult and the MSM, so he has no idea of what the facts are. His cult deliberately keeps him stupid.

In the 1970s, computers the size of a living room were slower and less able than our wristwatches today ... also notable is we were in a period of global cooling at the time according to NOAA ...

It's not until Prof. James Hansen et. al. got their hands on the machine that the GISS built and their seminal paper "Global Climate Changes ..." -- Aug 20th, 1988 ... and ever since, computers have just gotten faster and better ... exoscale at Oakridge today ...

I don't blame Hansen's prediction being so far off ... I blame lay-folk who claim he was accurate ... read the paper above yourself, Hansen et. al. is fully double the temperature rise that was observed in 2019 ... indicative of using a "climate sensitivity" value much much too high, because Henson et. al. get paid for every mouse-click ... apparently, climatologists who interview on NPR don't, they always say when confronted "It's too soon to tell" ...

I'm a denialist of the third order ... I agree the Earth is warming, and I agree man-kind contributes to this effect ... and I believe it's a good thing, more benefits than harm, and that's a philosophical position ... and I base these opinions on the one year formal education I've received in such matters ...

Weather is catastrophic, climate averages these events out ... therefore climate is never catastrophic ... ask an aviator ...

 

[Delldude]

You've misread the article ... water vapor can't exist underwater

So magma reacting with sea water underneath the surface of the ocean doesn't create steam?

Still with a space agency to get your weather information ... sad, very sad ... what does NOAA have to say:

Don't you mean 'what does Wikipedia have to say'?

Love your scholarly sourcing.

 

[ReinyDays]

So magma reacting with sea water underneath the surface of the ocean doesn't create steam?

Don't you mean 'what does Wikipedia have to say'?

Love your scholarly sourcing.

Steam is water in it's liquid state, we can see it ... water vapor is transparent in visible light, and so we can't see it ...

Halliday, David; Resnick, Robert; Fundamentals of Physics; John Wiley & Sons, New York; Revised Edition; 1974 ... do you know how to read a scientific citation? ...

 

[Crick]

I blame lay-folk who claim he was accurate ... read the paper above yourself, Hansen et. al. is fully double the temperature rise that was observed in 2019 ... indicative of using a "climate sensitivity" value much much too high, because Henson et. al. get paid for every mouse-click ... apparently, climatologists who interview on NPR don't, they always say when confronted "It's too soon to tell" ...

I'm afraid that's bullshit. Hansen estimated that climate sensitivity was 3+1C. "The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) stated that there is high confidence that ECS is within the range of 2.5 °C to 4 °C, with a best estimate of 3 °C." --Wikipedia. He was spot-fucking-on.

I'm a denialist of the third order ... I agree the Earth is warming, and I agree man-kind contributes to this effect ... and I believe it's a good thing, more benefits than harm, and that's a philosophical position ... and I base these opinions on the one year formal education I've received in such matters ...

More benefit than harm is only a philosophical position if you believe benefit and harm to be subjective effects. That may be true for the more subtle effects, but when you're talking about floods from rising sea levels, crop losses, lack of drinking water, mass extinctions, cat 5 hurricanes... you would be hard pressed to make a case that the harms are debateable.

Weather is catastrophic, climate averages these events out ... therefore climate is never catastrophic ... ask an aviator ...

I've got a better idea. Ask a paleontologist what it was like for all of Earth's living things 66 million years ago when the Chicxulub impactor modified Earth's climate. Both weather and climate can cause catastrophes if they undergo changes large enough and quickly enough.

 

[Delldude]

Steam is water in it's liquid state

Water vapour (sometimes referred to as steam, especially when it holds temperatures above 100oC) is the gaseous state of water. Liquid water can enter the gaseous phase via two different processes – evaporation and boiling.

Duh....

 

[mamooth]

I don't blame Hansen's prediction being so far off ...

Hansen's 1988 prediction was pretty good. This article explores it in detail.

What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction?

<p>Subsequent comparison of observations with predictions find that Hansen's Scenario B (which most closely matched the level of CO2 emissions) shows close correlation with observed temperatures.</p>

skepticalscience.com

Hansen's 1988 model predicted 0.26C/decade, so it was about 25% too high. People claiming "double" are not stating the facts accurately.

 

[Dagosa]

So magma reacting with sea water underneath the surface of the ocean doesn't create steam?

Don't you mean 'what does Wikipedia have to say'?

Love your scholarly sourcing.

That means next to NOTHING give the atmospheres total acces to water. . You act like the atmosphere never has access to water. The concentration of water in the atmosphere is directly related to the ambient temperature of the atmosphere and the surrounding oceans and land mass that contributes to that temperature rise. Get a life. Get an education.

 

[Delldude]

That means next to NOTHING give the atmospheres total acces to water. . You act like the atmosphere never has access to water. The concentration of water in the atmosphere is directly related to the ambient temperature of the atmosphere and the surrounding oceans and land mass that contributes to that temperature rise. Get a life. Get an education.

Real scientists disagree with you.

 

[Dagosa]

Real scientists disagree with you.

You’re full of shit. You’ve never been in a green house have you . It’s called thermal dynamics non science person.
For every degree Celsius that Earth’s atmospheric temperature rises, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere can increase by about 7%, according to the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[Delldude]

You’re full of shit. You’ve never been in a green house have you . It’s called thermal dynamics non science person.
For every degree Celsius that Earth’s atmospheric temperature rises, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere can increase by about 7%, according to the laws of thermodynamics.

I'm impressed.
However, there was one helluva lot of excess water vapor injected into the upper atmosphere during that event.
I'll stick with the real scientists findings.

 

[Dagosa]

I'm impressed.
However, there was one helluva lot of excess water vapor injected into the upper atmosphere during that event.
I'll stick with the real scientists findings.

There you go again. Fostering a lie. Water is not injected into the atmosphere like all will remain there. Much falls to earth immediately or some is retained depending upon the ambient temperature. How many swimming Pools ? Hilarious. You must have an aversion to science. No real scientist thinks the way you do. I invite you to actual read a science text….on this matter. Geesus, you think NASA and MIT and the hundreds of other climate science people don’t know thermal dynamics ? You’re funny.,

 

[ReinyDays]

Hansen's 1988 prediction was pretty good. This article explores it in detail.

What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction?

<p>Subsequent comparison of observations with predictions find that Hansen's Scenario B (which most closely matched the level of CO2 emissions) shows close correlation with observed temperatures.</p>

skepticalscience.com

Hansen's 1988 model predicted 0.26C/decade, so it was about 25% too high. People claiming "double" are not stating the facts accurately.

I'm relying on Figure 3 and associated text in the actual paper itself ... 1.7ºC above 1951-1980 average ... whereas NOAA is reporting 0.8ºC ... and all this is ±0.5ºC ... using cheap Walmart thermometers ...

The key text for you to read is Section 4, about radiative forcing and different scenarios ... the mistake is using exponential growth, instead of logarithmic, in his Scenario A ... what we've actually measured is consistent with his Scenario C, massive reductions is carbon dioxide output by Year 2000 ... [shakes head] ... that's not accurate ...

Irradation is proportional to the fourth root of Temperature ... that's not opinion, it's the Law ... I'm sorry climatologists are just meteorology school washouts ... they're not the brightest people in the world ...