Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

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.

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

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

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.