WTF?

mhaze says: "Well not a single link from WTF. As best I can work it out, his 'analysis' comes from an article in the Guardian!!"

I find this rather strange as on Tuesday 01/08/2023 states "And the Argo project is showing only minor warming at depths and indeed cooling in plenty of locations."

This information does not match that from the ARGO website so I don't know where mhaze is getting his information from.

So mhaze (incorrectly) mentions ARGO without any links.

I specifically state that the information comes from the ARGO website and the American Meteorological Society website is easy enough to find.

As I have mentioned many times before it does not matter who reports on primary information - anyone can find that information for themselves.

Hello Foxy and hasbeen,

I think I am correct in remembering that hasbeen has told us that in the past he flew fighter jets.

I'm happy to be corrected on this.

From the NASA website: "That first “A” in NASA stands for aeronautics—the science of travel through the air. It’s as much about you flying on airplanes and arriving safely at your destination as it is about astronauts flying in space. NASA’s roots go back to the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, established to “supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight.” Wind tunnels, flight testing, and computer simulations are among NASA’s many tools for research on those problems.

Today’s entire aviation industry relies on technology rooted in NASA research.

I wonder why hasbeen is so reluctant to embrace all of NASA's research.

The safe operation and functioning of fighter jets was and is dependant on NASA research.

The problem WTF is that neither the Argo website nor the AMO says anything like " it indicates a constant increase in ocean heat content in the top 700m."

So I thought you might have had access to some different data. Obviously not. Just a different way of making the same assertions.

Dear mhaze,

No I meant capitol.

And no you specifically claimed the eruption would have a noticeable effect. A full 1 degree Celsius in fact.

"It took man 150 years to eject enough CO2 which according to the alarmists caused a c. 1c increase in temperatures. It took nature one day to achieve the same effect."

However the modelling said: "The model calculated the monthly change in Earth’s energy balance caused by the eruption and showed that water vapor could increase the average global temperature by up to 0.035°C over the next 5 years."
https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push-earth-closer-to-1-5c-of-warming

Overblown really should be your middle name.

Oh modelling said that? Well that seals it then. </sarc>

Elsewhere NASA said the effect would last two years, not seven. So upshot is no one knows.

But, SR, if you don't want it to be true, then obviously it isn't.

Oh and no contrition for claiming that I'd omitted that the effect would be small and temporary when I had specifically done so? The level of integrity we've come to expect from SR.