Why is this thread in the wrong forum? Doesn't it belong in the General Science or the Physical Sciences forum?

There are a few facts that are true beyond any doubt regarding Global Warming. These are:

1. During the 20th century the world experienced a warming trend in global mean surface temperature.
2. The trend totalled 0.6 degrees.
3. The world is constantly warming or cooling a few tenths of a degree every century.
4. Since 1998 we do not know whether we're still in a warming trend or not.

If you accept the Global Warming science on face-value, then what it means is that you'd accept that 0.6 degrees is attributable to human activity, with 47% attributed to CO2, 27% attributed to Methane and 22% attributed to black carbon* (I'm sorry I can never find the exact figures when I want them, I think they're correct, if you know where they are please link them, they come from NASA), here's a rudimentary link for the moment. So we can say that 0.3 degrees is attributable to CO2, so far, if you accept the science on face-value.

I don't. And I'm "so sceptical" that I think that CO2 is responsible for 0.1-0.2 degrees of the trend. Wow, didn't I just completely reject all the science? Pfft, hardly.

So in my mind, the worst-case scenario is that CO2 has contributed 0.2 degrees warming, and it's very difficult for it to contribute any more to global warming trends because it absorbs the vast majority of solar radiation reflected off the earth’s surface that it is capable of doing.

The lie told by alarmists is that CO2 is the main contributor - it's not. It's the main known single contributor, but it's not the main contributor. You can put 0.2-0.4 degrees of the trend down to natural causes, and that only leaves 0.4-0.2 degrees to work with for CO2 and the other anthropogenic causes, and as CO2 only contributes 1/2 (in fact less than half) with the remainder being made up by methane, black carbon, and CFC's, that means CO2 cannot possibly be driving climate change - it does contribute, but only very slightly.

(December 31, 2013 at 9:38 pm)Aractus Wrote: Why is this thread in the wrong forum? Doesn't it belong in the General Science or the Physical Sciences forum?

Global Warming is often portrayed in the media, supported by both mediocre and legitimate evidence. I thought that the media section suited my question quite well. Then again I may be wrong, but until then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGIYNKOQpFk

(December 31, 2013 at 9:38 pm)Aractus Wrote: Why is this thread in the wrong forum? Doesn't it belong in the General Science or the Physical Sciences forum?

There are a few facts that are true beyond any doubt regarding Global Warming. These are:

1. During the 20th century the world experienced a warming trend in global mean surface temperature.
2. The trend totalled 0.6 degrees.
3. The world is constantly warming or cooling a few tenths of a degree every century.
4. Since 1998 we do not know whether we're still in a warming trend or not.

If you accept the Global Warming science on face-value, then what it means is that you'd accept that 0.6 degrees is attributable to human activity, with 47% attributed to CO2, 27% attributed to Methane and 22% attributed to black carbon* (I'm sorry I can never find the exact figures when I want them, I think they're correct, if you know where they are please link them, they come from NASA), here's a rudimentary link for the moment. So we can say that 0.3 degrees is attributable to CO2, so far, if you accept the science on face-value.

I don't. And I'm "so sceptical" that I think that CO2 is responsible for 0.1-0.2 degrees of the trend. Wow, didn't I just completely reject all the science? Pfft, hardly.

So in my mind, the worst-case scenario is that CO2 has contributed 0.2 degrees warming, and it's very difficult for it to contribute any more to global warming trends because it absorbs the vast majority of solar radiation reflected off the earth’s surface that it is capable of doing.

The lie told by alarmists is that CO2 is the main contributor - it's not. It's the main known single contributor, but it's not the main contributor. You can put 0.2-0.4 degrees of the trend down to natural causes, and that only leaves 0.4-0.2 degrees to work with for CO2 and the other anthropogenic causes, and as CO2 only contributes 1/2 (in fact less than half) with the remainder being made up by methane, black carbon, and CFC's, that means CO2 cannot possibly be driving climate change - it does contribute, but only very slightly.

I'd like to add to that one good volcanic eruption can spew out more CO2 then all human activity ever.

Actually volcanic eruptions release a great deal of aerosols that contributes to a cooling effect. Methane is largely human caused now thanks to farming cows and other animals. CFCs have been replaced, unless you're using really old appliances, they shouldn't use CFCs anymore. I don't if I've already said this in this thread, but there is more than one greenhouse gas. H2O absorbs the most radiation if you really want to compare but greenhouse gasses are diverse and more complicated than that. Claiming things are lies doesn't make them lies, it's funny that everyone is ready to take scientists' word for it until it's something they don't believe, then they insist on doing the investigation themselves, which is completely fine and honest if you actually do these investigations properly with the right understanding. I'm not referring to anyone in particular, just what I usually see when people talk about climate change.

(January 2, 2014 at 12:17 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: ...I'm not referring to anyone in particular...

I think you are...

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/arch...15233c.jpg

Yes, Al Gore lies through his teeth. One of my friends is a teacher, and asked me to supply her with a list of errors Gore makes in Inconvenient Truth - I provided her with these. There's so little fact in that video that I think showing it to students is indoctrination using propaganda. It's much better to teach them to ask questions, and to teach them the basic facts that are "settled" among climate scientists. In my list above, I did forget to add that nobody has yet proven that we're responsible for 100% of the CO2 increase, and some scientists think you can only attribute 1/2 of the CO2 increase to human activity. I didn't list this though because I think you have to be willing to make the assumption that we are responsible for changing the CO2 level, but not responsible for more than 1/3rd of the present climate change (taking into account Methane, Black Carbon and CFC's).

And yes, we release CFC's - in fact they're meant to have been phased out completely as of 2010, but we're not there yet. A volcanic eruption emits CFC's, and consequently a decent eruption will significantly impact upon the Ozone layer.

http://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-war...study-says

FYI to that study I say: PFFT utter rubbish CFC's are driving climate change!

Volcanoes emit HCl not CFCs, both have different reactions and half-lives and volcanic eruptions rarely reach the stratosphere, only the troposphere. What you're saying turns out to be a common myth when I googled it. I don't know what Al Gore said, I've never seen that movie so I won't comment on that.

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/myths/volcano.html

Here you go.

ETA: If you look into global warming and understand its effects, you should also understand that it's hardly just about greenhouse gases. Most of the chemical reactions that lead to climate change tend to run on positive feedback, meaning a snowballing effect. So it's not just about how much greenhouse gases, it's also about how long they stay there before they get to their "sinks" and what these sinks are and how that affects the environment and the climate. It's not as simplistic as most people think it is because I don't think this is even taught in the US schools, is it? Or it probably is taught like evolution, half heartedly.

You link says nothing about whether or not volcano's produce CFC's.
They do, or might, (depending on where the volcano is) according to my readings.

Frische, M., Garofalo, K., Hansteen, T. H., Borchers, R., Harnisch, J., 2006, "The Origin of Stable Halogenated Compounds in Volcanic Gases", Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 13, pp. 406-413.

Quote:However, the occurrence of CFCs in volcanic gases is controversially discussed. The first data on volcano- genic CFC-11 (CCl3F) in fumarolic gas samples (with a 95 vol% air content) were reported by Stoiber et al. (1971) at Santiaguito volcano in western Guatemala, where concentra- tion 'well above unpolluted atmospheric levels' were described. Rasmussen et al. (1979) rejected a volcanic formation of CFCs in fumarolic gases from Mauna Loa, Hawaii. CFC-11 and CFC-12 (CCl2F2) have been used for the determination of air contents in plume gas samples and ash particles from Mount St. Helens (Rasmussen et al. 1982). Stratospheric measure- ments of the 1980 eruptive plume of Mount St. Helens show no enrichment in CFC-11 and CFC-12 (Inn et al. 1981). Symonds et al. (1988) furthermore exclude the formation of CFCs in gas phase under volcanic conditions on the base of thermodynamic model calculations. Isidorov et al. (1990) pub- lished solfataric gas data from Mendeleev and Golovnin vol- cano on Kunashir Island (Kurile Island) with concentrations of up to 80 ppbv CFC-11 and 160 ppbv CFC-12. Jordan et al. (2000) detected more than 300 organic substances, including numerous halogenated organic compounds, in fumarolic and lava gas from Japanese (Kuju and Satsuma Iwojima) and Italian (Mt. Etna and Vulcano) volcanoes. With the excep- tion of CFC-11 found in concentration up to 1 ppbv in some samples, CFCs were generally present at concentrations equal to or below ambient air levels (Jordan 2003). Schwandner et al. (2004) reported 3,700 pptv of CFC-11 in dry fumarolic gas from Vulcano (Aeolian Islands, Italy). Using a H2O con- centration of 95 vol% for typical fumarolic gases, this value translates into 185 pptv of CFC-11, which is less than the reported ambient air level of 268 pptv, but nevertheless this does not explain the relative enrichment of CFC-11 in the dry gas found by Schwandner et al. (2004). Analyses of fumarolic and lava gas samples from Kuju and Satsuma Iwo- jima (Japan) as well as Mt. Etna and Vulcano (Italy) con- firm that these volcanoes do not contribute to the atmos- pheric load of CF4 and SF6 (Harnisch & Eisenhauer 1998).

…

The relatively high concentrations of CFC-11 in fumarolic gas from Santiaguito (Guatemala) (Stoiber et al. 1971) and in samples from Vulcano (Italy) (Jordan et al. 2000, Schwandner et al. 2004) are not mirrored by Nicaraguan fumarolic gases.

…

Another possible reason for the absence of fluorinated compounds such as CFCs in fumarolic gases can be the relatively low fluorine concen- trations in Nicaraguan fluids (Garofalo et al., manuscript in preparation, 2006), which could prevent fluorination reac- tions. It is likely that in magmatic systems with higher con- centrations of fluorine the synthesis of CFCs is facilitated. The most common reaction forming CFCs is the fluorina- tion of CCl4 with magmatic HF in catalytic gas phase reac- tions (E6) (Jordan 2003).

It depends on the volcano then, and it seems controversial. (note how I didn't cherry pick, that first sentence in the quote could have been excluded and made me look a lot better)

That Schwander article* I found to be largely unreadable, but:

Quote: In contrast, higher CO2 fluxes correspond to significant increases in CFC-11 concentrations. This observation as well as the above mentioned strong enrichments in the crater area, especially in the fumarolic gases, documents a deep, abiogenic and nonatmospheric origin of this compound. In addition, this correlation allows quantification of fluxes for individual volcanoes and on a global scale (F. Schwandner et al., manuscript in preparation, 2004).

Schwandner FM, Seward TM, Gize AP, Hall PA, Dietrich VJ (2004): Diffuse emission of organic trace gases from the flank and crater of a quiescent active volcano (Vulcano, Aeolian Islands, Italy). J Geophys Res 109.

(January 2, 2014 at 2:56 am)Stue Denim Wrote: You link says nothing about whether or not volcano's produce CFC's.
They do, or might, (depending on where the volcano is) according to my readings.

Frische, M., Garofalo, K., Hansteen, T. H., Borchers, R., Harnisch, J., 2006, "The Origin of Stable Halogenated Compounds in Volcanic Gases", Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 13, pp. 406-413.

Quote:However, the occurrence of CFCs in volcanic gases is controversially discussed. The first data on volcano- genic CFC-11 (CCl3F) in fumarolic gas samples (with a 95 vol% air content) were reported by Stoiber et al. (1971) at Santiaguito volcano in western Guatemala, where concentra- tion 'well above unpolluted atmospheric levels' were described. Rasmussen et al. (1979) rejected a volcanic formation of CFCs in fumarolic gases from Mauna Loa, Hawaii. CFC-11 and CFC-12 (CCl2F2) have been used for the determination of air contents in plume gas samples and ash particles from Mount St. Helens (Rasmussen et al. 1982). Stratospheric measure- ments of the 1980 eruptive plume of Mount St. Helens show no enrichment in CFC-11 and CFC-12 (Inn et al. 1981). Symonds et al. (1988) furthermore exclude the formation of CFCs in gas phase under volcanic conditions on the base of thermodynamic model calculations. Isidorov et al. (1990) pub- lished solfataric gas data from Mendeleev and Golovnin vol- cano on Kunashir Island (Kurile Island) with concentrations of up to 80 ppbv CFC-11 and 160 ppbv CFC-12. Jordan et al. (2000) detected more than 300 organic substances, including numerous halogenated organic compounds, in fumarolic and lava gas from Japanese (Kuju and Satsuma Iwojima) and Italian (Mt. Etna and Vulcano) volcanoes. With the excep- tion of CFC-11 found in concentration up to 1 ppbv in some samples, CFCs were generally present at concentrations equal to or below ambient air levels (Jordan 2003). Schwandner et al. (2004) reported 3,700 pptv of CFC-11 in dry fumarolic gas from Vulcano (Aeolian Islands, Italy). Using a H2O con- centration of 95 vol% for typical fumarolic gases, this value translates into 185 pptv of CFC-11, which is less than the reported ambient air level of 268 pptv, but nevertheless this does not explain the relative enrichment of CFC-11 in the dry gas found by Schwandner et al. (2004). Analyses of fumarolic and lava gas samples from Kuju and Satsuma Iwo- jima (Japan) as well as Mt. Etna and Vulcano (Italy) con- firm that these volcanoes do not contribute to the atmos- pheric load of CF4 and SF6 (Harnisch & Eisenhauer 1998).

…

The relatively high concentrations of CFC-11 in fumarolic gas from Santiaguito (Guatemala) (Stoiber et al. 1971) and in samples from Vulcano (Italy) (Jordan et al. 2000, Schwandner et al. 2004) are not mirrored by Nicaraguan fumarolic gases.

…

Another possible reason for the absence of fluorinated compounds such as CFCs in fumarolic gases can be the relatively low fluorine concen- trations in Nicaraguan fluids (Garofalo et al., manuscript in preparation, 2006), which could prevent fluorination reac- tions. It is likely that in magmatic systems with higher con- centrations of fluorine the synthesis of CFCs is facilitated. The most common reaction forming CFCs is the fluorina- tion of CCl4 with magmatic HF in catalytic gas phase reac- tions (E6) (Jordan 2003).

It depends on the volcano then, and it seems controversial. (note how I didn't cherry pick, that first sentence in the quote could have been excluded and made me look a lot better)

(Red highlights added by me)

There will be contradicting reports on almost everything in science, the key is to look at the papers one by one and check their methodology and see if the result has been duplicated or if they offer anything in their discussion that should make you cautious about the results. I'm not going to do that with all these, it would take a really long time. But looking at what you quoted, it seems like there was one initial report and the result was never found again? That usually means error, especially if it was as high as they said it was.

So maybe volcanoes emit CFCs or CFCs form when volcanoes erupt (this is me conceding my point or conceding that yours may be right, although I am not convinced yet), but the claim that they affect the ozone is still not founded because only really powerful eruptions reach the stratosphere. I highlighted a phrase in there that says they found negligible CFC in the stratosphere.

And I highlighted what it said about how CFCs are commonly formed. By carbontetrachoride and HF, carbontetrachloride is a manmade chemical. So still indirectly anthropogenic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tetrachloride

Quote:That Schwander article* I found to be largely unreadable, but:

Quote: In contrast, higher CO2 fluxes correspond to significant increases in CFC-11 concentrations. This observation as well as the above mentioned strong enrichments in the crater area, especially in the fumarolic gases, documents a deep, abiogenic and nonatmospheric origin of this compound. In addition, this correlation allows quantification of fluxes for individual volcanoes and on a global scale (F. Schwandner et al., manuscript in preparation, 2004).

Schwandner FM, Seward TM, Gize AP, Hall PA, Dietrich VJ (2004): Diffuse emission of organic trace gases from the flank and crater of a quiescent active volcano (Vulcano, Aeolian Islands, Italy). J Geophys Res 109.

Yea I have no idea what that meant either lol, will need the entire report


My link does talk about CFCs and volcano eruptions. It explains what is found in the stratosphere and where they come from and states that CFCs are manmade (which they are). Chlorine has to get to the stratosphere to affect ozone. Volcano eruptions don't get that high.