(January 2, 2014 at 3:26 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: 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.

Uh, yes they do. But that aside, if CFC's are emitted by Volcanos they will reach the stratosphere - how do man-made ones reach the stratosphere without the force of a volcanic eruption?

Sulfur aerosols is not the same as Chlorine particles though, yes? We were talking about chlorine particles affecting the ozone and I was saying those from volcanoes don't even get to the stratosphere. If you read my link, you would've seen this:

Quote:First, the vast majority of volcanic eruptions are too weak to reach the stratosphere, around 10 km above the surface. Thus, any HCl emitted in the eruption begins in the troposphere. Sea salt from the oceans is also released very low in the atmosphere. These compounds would have to remain airborne for 2-5 years to be carried to the stratosphere. However, both sea salt and HCl are extremely soluble in water, as opposed to CFCs which do not dissolve in water. Rain effectively scrubs the troposphere, removing both of these forms of chlorine. Steam in volcanic plumes can act the same way, removing HCl long before it reaches the ozone layer. Measurements have shown that concentrations of these substances vanish very rapidly as altitude increases. Neither sea salt from the oceans nor tropospheric-level volcanic eruptions (like Mt. Erebus in Antarctica) contribute significantly to stratospheric chlorine levels. Some sea life does produce methyl chloride, a more stable form of chlorine than sea salt, but its contribution is small, as explained below. The following graphic shows that natural sources only contribute 15% of methyl chloride to stratospheric chlorine levels, and natural sources of HCl contribute only 3%. The remaining sources of stratospheric chlorine are entirely human-made .

It's about halflife and chemical reactions that are unique to that gas. You can't expect the same thing to happen to different types of gasses. And sorry, I misspoke, I should have said volcanic sources of chlorine do not reach the stratosphere. That is empirically shown in the link I've shown you, it's not a deduction.

As for sulfur aerosols, they have an overall cooling effect and they do not deplete the ozone. Which is why I said volcanoes emit aerosols that are largely cooling if you go back up a few posts, this is what I meant. They're even talking about actively pumping this into the atmosphere, something called climate engineering.

Here is the question that bugs me about global warming or especially when it is called climate change. How do we knowthat it is man made? Or even that man has contributed enough that a change in our behavior will make a major difference? Since major climate change proponents have been caught lying in the past, how can I be assured this isn't something people are manipulating for their own benefit?

(January 2, 2014 at 2:49 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Here is the question that bugs me about global warming or especially when it is called climate change. How do we knowthat it is man made? Or even that man has contributed enough that a change in our behavior will make a major difference? Since major climate change proponents have been caught lying in the past, how can I be assured this isn't something people are manipulating for their own benefit?

Lemon, I responded to your claim about climategate, there was no evidence that they were covering up evidence or making things up. If you want to subscribe to conspiracy theories, there will be no convincing you. I mean if you cannot trust data, then you basically have to go and redo all the work that everyone has done. That is not the level of evidence that is reasonable, the fact that these data agree and that they come from all around the world should be sufficient to show that they are not made up.

Whether or not it is manmade it's hard to explain if you haven't read or understood the entire scope of the greenhouse effect. If you're looking this up, I would advice you start with the greenhouse gasses and their properties. And then the effects they have on the environment and how other types of pollution ties in with that, and understand the long term effects and how almost all of it runs on positive feedback. Then look at the data. You must first understand how it works before you can understand the data properly. For example volcanoes has been brought up to say that it contributes to warming when it actually contributes to cooling because of the sulfur aerosols.

Other types of data that are also relevant includes the cherry blossom dates that have been recorded in Japan, the rise of anomalous weather patterns, the acidification of water, sea levels rising, ice caps melting, etc. But they only make sense if you already know the theory, or it's very easy to say, well what has this got to do with CO2? And throw it aside.

I would like to add that, as someone who studied geology, I noticed nobody argues about the concept that Stromatoporoidea, among other creatures, influenced earth's climate in its history. Only when humans are involved do people seem to find controversy.

I never debate the issue with people who do not know what an urban heat island is. If cities expand and get more near the thermometer locations local measurements will not reflect long term global trends. Perhaps researchers have accounted for this.

It's the effect in which the atmosphere in and around an urban area tends to be higher than in rural areas mostly due to the surfaces involved (mainly pavement and concrete). It can be mitigated with reflective roofs and the like. Once upon a time it was thought that global warming could be an illusion produced by formerly rurual temperature guages being engulfed by urban areas, but while urban warming is an important local effect, temperatures in rural areas have been rising as well.

(January 2, 2014 at 3:11 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I never debate the issue with people who do not know what an urban heat island is. If cities expand and get more near the thermometer locations local measurements will not reflect long term global trends. Perhaps researchers have accounted for this.

They have. Even accounted for altitude, latitude, time of the year, all that. Which is why I've mentioned even earlier in this thread that you need a lot of data, a lot, before you can even know if the trend you've found is real. Which was why I referred people to the IPCC, only to have Lemon say they were caught lying when they were actually talking about tree rings and statistical methods.

(January 2, 2014 at 3:19 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote:

(January 2, 2014 at 3:11 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I never debate the issue with people who do not know what an urban heat island is. If cities expand and get more near the thermometer locations local measurements will not reflect long term global trends. Perhaps researchers have accounted for this.

They have. Even accounted for altitude, latitude, time of the year, all that. Which is why I've mentioned even earlier in this thread that you need a lot of data, a lot, before you can even know if the trend you've found is real. Which was why I referred people to the IPCC, only to have Lemon say they were caught lying when they were actually talking about tree rings and statistical methods.

And mike Hulme's bit too

(January 2, 2014 at 3:52 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(January 2, 2014 at 3:19 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: They have. Even accounted for altitude, latitude, time of the year, all that. Which is why I've mentioned even earlier in this thread that you need a lot of data, a lot, before you can even know if the trend you've found is real. Which was why I referred people to the IPCC, only to have Lemon say they were caught lying when they were actually talking about tree rings and statistical methods.

And mike Hulme's bit too

Post it please.