NASA and ESA on the cause of the heat wave

[Couchpotato]

You can’t argue science

Arguing that increasing the global atmospheric water vapor volume by 5% won’t increase global temperatures in the short term ie an unusually hot summer isn’t science.

 

[jc456]

That is strange.

When I open the NASA article and do a search for the letters CO...CO2 doesn't come up.

Are you getting your links confused?

Did you search on carbon dioxide? You’re a boob

 

[jc456]

Does your post address the issue of CO2 in our atmosphere and why doesn't it.

What does co2?

 

[Catsnmeters]

According to NASA:

The huge amount of water vapor hurled into the atmosphere, as detected by NASA’s Microwave Limb Sounder, could end up temporarily warming Earth’s surface.

Could. Temporarily. How much?

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

Could. Temporarily. How much?

__________________________
The excess water vapor injected by the Tonga volcano, on the other hand, could remain in the stratosphere for several years.

So? What is the effect (besides "could"?)

How much?

__________________________
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.

So we have an eruption that could temporarily warm temperatures by an amount we don't know, perpetuated by extra water vapor that would not effect climate change.

I never said anything about climate change, just like the article didn't either. It is about the global temperature and higher than usual precipitation amounts, I'm sure you've heard recently about the 'rivers of moisture' flooding the west and east coasts this year.

Just providing facts.....you tried to turn it into a climate change debate which it never was.

You've failed miserably.

You also conveniently left something out from one of your above excerpts from above.

"... 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.

So despite your omissions, we now know the effect is "small".

You are such a disengenius poster.

 

[jc456]

Could. Temporarily. How much?



Could. Temporarily. How much?



So? What is the effect (besides "could"?)

How much?



So we have an eruption that could temporarily warm temperatures by an amount we don't know, perpetuated by extra water vapor that would not effect climate change.



You also conveniently left something out from one of your above excerpts from above.

"... 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.

So despite your omissions, we now know the effect is "small".

You are such a disengenius poster.

Funny, that’s the same question you never answered when we asked

 

[Catsnmeters]

Did you search on carbon dioxide? You’re a boob

If there is something I should see to prove your point or the original posters, feel free to link it.

What I know is a word search uncovered no statements about CO2 in NASA article.

 

[Delldude]

GW

Could. Temporarily. How much?



Could. Temporarily. How much?



So? What is the effect (besides "could"?)

How much?



So we have an eruption that could temporarily warm temperatures by an amount we don't know, perpetuated by extra water vapor that would not effect climate change.



You also conveniently left something out from one of your above excerpts from above.

"... 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.

So despite your omissions, we now know the effect is "small".

You are such a disengenius poster.

You are the one who failed attempting to link the article to climate change.
Through out all your responces, you've tried to change the articles content to suit your failed claims........

My claims were never about CC......you lost it big time.

 

[Catsnmeters]

GW

You are the one who failed attempting to link the article to climate change.

I barely mentioned global warming in my last post. The ultimate point was you are drawing your own conclusions based on ambiguous claims in the article.

What I linked was you hiding relevant information and making claims based on "could".

Through out all your responces, you've tried to change the articles content to suit your failed claims........

My claims were never about CC......you lost it big time.

I quoted directly from the NASA article that the changes may be small.

You have provided no information that positively confirms your assertion; that the current heat wave is because of that eruption.

Is that the new tactic? Instead of denying any outside influence on these brutal heat waves; you invent your own?

 

[Delldude]

I quoted directly from the NASA article that the changes may be small.

To current levels of CC when the WV has been dissipated in several years, and 'returns' to 'normal' levels.

Not discussing climate change effects. Article also said this excess water vapor would take years to dissipate, and could affect our weather patterns and global temperatures worse than CO2.

Try again.

You have provided no information that positively confirms your assertion; that the current heat wave is because of that eruption.

Links, Dude.

Is that the new tactic? Instead of denying any outside influence on these brutal heat waves; you invent your own?

What would be outside influences that would be suddenly affecting global weather patterns so suddenly?

 

[jc456]

If there is something I should see to prove your point or the original posters, feel free to link it.

What I know is a word search uncovered no statements about CO2 in NASA article.

You know CO2 is ahem, carbon dioxide?

 

[Catsnmeters]

You know CO2 is ahem, carbon dioxide?

Please. As my grandpa used to say, do I look like I just fell off the turnip truck? I grew up changing CO2 cartridges in my bb gun...

That said...that is actually a good point. I had not considered it may be searchable under "carbon dioxide", in stead of CO2.

Despite this carbon dioxide doesn't show up either. The link is in post one. Feel free to do what you what you want to find a reference to CO2.

Good catch.

 

[jc456]

Please. As my grandpa used to say, do I look like I just fell off the turnip truck? I grew up changing CO2 cartridges in my bb gun...

That said...that is actually a good point. I had not considered it may be searchable under "carbon dioxide", in stead of CO2.

Despite this carbon dioxide doesn't show up either. The link is in post one. Feel free to do what you what you want to find a reference to CO2.

Good catch.

Post #14

 

[otto105]

What does co2?

Hilarious

 

[skye]

 

[otto105]

When was it been over 110 degrees in Vegas for 32 days last summer?

 

[Crick]

When was it been over 110 degrees in Vegas for 32 days last summer?

I suspect not once in the last 3 million years.

 

[jc456]

When was it been over 110 degrees in Vegas for 32 days last summer?

did you look it up?

 

[otto105]

did you look it up?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/01/opin...ange-heat-wave-carr-wing-falchetta/index.html

 

[jc456]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/01/opin...ange-heat-wave-carr-wing-falchetta/index.html

Doesn’t say how many days is a record. Why didn’t you post that link?

 

[otto105]

Doesn’t say how many days is a record. Why didn’t you post that link?

Sure fuckup, here you go.

The 1962 record of highs at 110 or higher is 10 consecutive days, from June 17 to June 26 of that year, according to National Weather Service records.

This summer it was 32 days.

You can do math right.