[slowhand09]

Climate change.

This volcano can be responsible for "10% of the entire water content of the stratosphere", and "The water will probably remain in the stratosphere for half a decade or more", and this will "eat away at the ozone layer".

[dfawcus]

Well, if this is correct, H20 is the greenhouse gas to be most concerned about:

http://www.ijaos.org/article/298/10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.1...

[jbotz]

> if this is correct...

It isn't.

We've known that H2O is what most absorbs infrared in the atmosphere for 150 years; the thing is that how much H2O exists in the atmosphere is a function of temperature, and with the exception of an event like this volcanic eruption, only of temperature. So H2O can't be the ultimate cause of variation in temperature because it is the effect. It is the (small) increase in temperature from the increase in CO2 that makes it possible for the atmosphere to hold more H2O which in turn dramatically amplifies the the increase in temperature.

None of this is in doubt, none of this is new. The Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius[0] modeled this feedback to a reasonable approximation in 1896.

As for the H2O from this eruption, it may seem like a lot of water, and relative to the normal amount in the stratosphere it is, but that's because of all the H2O in the atmosphere the stratosphere contains only the tiniest fraction (because it's cold up there). Most of the H2O is near the ground, and that's where most of the IR absorption happens. So this thing isn't going to have a big effect on the greenhouse effect, which is why they talk more about what it might do to the ozone layer.

And as for the paper you cited... looks like it was written by a bunch of old (retired) engineers who have absolutely no clue about actual atmospheric science.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

[dfawcus]

My understanding of that paper is that it does not dispute the feedback effects, but rather seeks to quantify them, specifically the climate sensitivity for CO2, CH4 and N2O.

> And as for the paper you cited... looks like it was written by a bunch of old (retired) engineers who have absolutely no clue about actual atmospheric science.

Surely if their approach is valid, and the maths is correct, then who they are, their age, and their field of expertise is irrelevant?

Now admittedly I've only got part way through the paper, but I've yet to find an error in their maths.

I therefor assume that either you have found an error in their maths, or that you can state why their approach is invalid. I'd appreciate it if you could explicitly state those failings.

Thanks.