Quote:

Following the 15 January 2022 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai eruption, several trace gases measured by the Aura Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) displayed anomalous stratospheric values. Trajectories and radiance simulations confirm that the H2O, SO2, and HCl enhancements were injected by the eruption. In comparison with those from previous eruptions, the SO2 and HCl mass injections were unexceptional, although they reached higher altitudes. In contrast, the H2O injection was unprecedented in both magnitude (far exceeding any previous values in the 17-year MLS record) and altitude (penetrating into the mesosphere). We estimate the mass of H2O injected into the stratosphere to be 146 ± 5 Tg, or ∼10% of the stratospheric burden. It may take several years for the H2O plume to dissipate. This eruption could impact climate not through surface cooling due to sulfate aerosols, but rather through surface warming due to the radiative forcing from the excess stratospheric H2O.

Can anybody say GHG?

Yes, it is causing a little bit of extra warming.

More info here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga_Ha%CA%BBapai_eruption_and_tsunami

and here:
https://volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=243040

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 1^st, 2023 at 3:33pm:

Yes, it is causing a little bit of extra warming.

Define "little bit". ;)

"The eruption of the submarine Hunga volcano in January 2022 was associated with a powerful blast that injected volcanic material to altitudes up to 58 km. From a combination of various types of satellite and ground-based observations supported by transport modeling, we show evidence for an unprecedented increase in the global stratospheric water mass by 13% as compared to climatological levels, and a 5-fold increase of stratospheric aerosol load, the highest in the last three decades."

https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1864748/v1_covered.pdf?c=1659031907

"Water vapor is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas. It’s responsible for about half of Earth’s greenhouse effect — the process that occurs when gases in Earth’s atmosphere trap the Sun’s heat."

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/

https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2M-temperature-Jan2022-Jul2023.jpg

A big step change. Just a little bit. ;)

You understand that you have been arguing that greenhouse gasses have had no impact for a number of years. Now you argue that this one is real because it suits your agenda. The difference is that the water vapor will dissipate over a few years where the Co2 won't.

Arguing that this greenhouse gas will have an impact in no way undermines all the times you argued the exact opposite.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 6^th, 2023 at 9:47pm:

You understand that you have been arguing that greenhouse gasses have had no impact for a number of years.

Nope. What I did question was the amount of the effect CO2, a trace gas, has.


Dnarever wrote on Aug 6^th, 2023 at 9:47pm:

The difference is that the water vapor will dissipate over a few years where the Co2 won't.

Nope. Experiments show CO2 lasts about 5 years. Models show longer.

"It doesn't help, though, that past reports from the UN panel of climate experts have made misleading statements about the lifetime of CO2, argue Archer, Caldeira and colleagues. The first assessment report, in 1990, said that CO2's lifetime is 50 to 200 years. The reports in 1995 and 2001 revised this down to 5 to 200 years. Because the oceans suck up huge amounts of the gas each year, the average CO2 molecule does spend about 5 years in the atmosphere. But the oceans also release much of that CO2 back to the air, such that man-made emissions keep the atmosphere's CO2 levels elevated for millennia. Even as CO2 levels drop, temperatures take longer to fall, according to recent studies."

https://www.nature.com/articles/climate.2008.122

Natural CO2 and Fossil Fuel CO2 have the same characteristics.


Dnarever wrote on Aug 6^th, 2023 at 9:47pm:

Arguing that this greenhouse gas will have an impact in no way undermines all the times you argued the exact opposite.

I have never argued the exact opposite, else you would be able to find it. ;)

Why would the oceans emit CO2 when the partial pressure of CO2 is increasing?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2023 at 1:55pm:

Why would the oceans emit CO2 when the partial pressure of CO2 is increasing?

So you deny the climate science? You heretic you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Aug 7^th, 2023 at 1:22pm:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 6th, 2023 at 9:47pm: You understand that you have been arguing that greenhouse gasses have had no impact for a number of years. Nope. What I did question was the amount of the effect CO2, a trace gas, has. Dnarever wrote on Aug 6th, 2023 at 9:47pm: The difference is that the water vapor will dissipate over a few years where the Co2 won't. Nope. Experiments show CO2 lasts about 5 years. Models show longer. "It doesn't help, though, that past reports from the UN panel of climate experts have made misleading statements about the lifetime of CO2, argue Archer, Caldeira and colleagues. The first assessment report, in 1990, said that CO2's lifetime is 50 to 200 years. The reports in 1995 and 2001 revised this down to 5 to 200 years. Because the oceans suck up huge amounts of the gas each year, the average CO2 molecule does spend about 5 years in the atmosphere. But the oceans also release much of that CO2 back to the air, such that man-made emissions keep the atmosphere's CO2 levels elevated for millennia. Even as CO2 levels drop, temperatures take longer to fall, according to recent studies." https://www.nature.com/articles/climate.2008.122 Natural CO2 and Fossil Fuel CO2 have the same characteristics. Dnarever wrote on Aug 6th, 2023 at 9:47pm: Arguing that this greenhouse gas will have an impact in no way undermines all the times you argued the exact opposite. I have never argued the exact opposite, else you would be able to find it. ;)

Quote:

Nope. Experiments show CO2 lasts about 5 years. Models show longer.

It is unlikely to be another deep sea eruption in the next 5 years pushing water into the stratosphere but CO2 continues at increasing rates.


Quote:

I have never argued the exact opposite

You have been posting against temp increases for years, Now you are saying that increases due to Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai eruption is why we are seeing temp increases. 2 bob each way much.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 7^th, 2023 at 9:35pm:

It is unlikely to be another deep sea eruption in the next 5 years pushing water into the stratosphere but CO2 continues at increasing rates.

And nowhere have I said different. It is interesting though, that climate science says a 1C increase in temperature raises the water vapour 7%. If we reverse engineer that, a 13% increase in water vapour should increase the temperature by 1.8C. ;)


Dnarever wrote on Aug 7^th, 2023 at 9:35pm:

You have been posting against temp increases for years,

And yet you can't show it. That was your challenge. How much warming is due to CO2? Estimates range from about 1C/doubling to 7C/doubling. ::)


Dnarever wrote on Aug 7^th, 2023 at 9:35pm:

Now you are saying that increases due to Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai eruption is why we are seeing temp increases

That is what the science says. I have never said CO2 cannot cause temperature increases. That is theoretical fact. However we don't live in a model world, and the models don't do clouds and a host of other things well or in some cases at all. ::)

lee wrote on Aug 8^th, 2023 at 1:48pm:

It is interesting though, that climate science says a 1C increase in temperature raises the water vapour 7%. If we reverse engineer that, a 13% increase in water vapour should increase the temperature by 1.8C.

It apparently doesn't.

https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/UAH-MSU-lower-strat-temp-to-202306.png

lee wrote on Aug 8^th, 2023 at 1:48pm:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 7th, 2023 at 9:35pm: It is unlikely to be another deep sea eruption in the next 5 years pushing water into the stratosphere but CO2 continues at increasing rates. And nowhere have I said different. It is interesting though, that climate science says a 1C increase in temperature raises the water vapour 7%. If we reverse engineer that, a 13% increase in water vapour should increase the temperature by 1.8C. ;) Dnarever wrote on Aug 7th, 2023 at 9:35pm: You have been posting against temp increases for years, And yet you can't show it. That was your challenge. How much warming is due to CO2? Estimates range from about 1C/doubling to 7C/doubling. ::) Dnarever wrote on Aug 7th, 2023 at 9:35pm: Now you are saying that increases due to Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai eruption is why we are seeing temp increases That is what the science says. I have never said CO2 cannot cause temperature increases. That is theoretical fact. However we don't live in a model world, and the models don't do clouds and a host of other things well or in some cases at all. ::)

Water vapor forms clouds and comes back down as rain, this is different to water being exploded into the stratosphere.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 9^th, 2023 at 12:02am:

Water vapor forms clouds and comes back down as rain, this is different to water being exploded into the stratosphere.

You mean it is different water so doesn't have the same effect? Perhaps it bypasses the troposphere? ::)