July 4, 2023 - Hottest day ever recorded

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:


Maybe just because it is the most recent in mind, the failure to understand that radiation, conduction, and convection are not "types of heat" makes the top.

You still don't know what heat is. Go back and read my response on 24-10-2023 at 4:21

James_ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:


Maybe just because it is the most recent in mind, the failure to understand that radiation, conduction, and convection are not "types of heat" makes the top.

You still don't know what heat is. Go back and read my response on 24-10-2023 at 4:21

All heat is is a flow of electromagnetic radiation. Solar radiation radiation tends to be particles that get trapped in the Van Allen radiation radiation belts.
When matter transfers heat it is transferring stored heat content. With Boltzmann's KE = 3/2kT that refers to the velocity of gasses. It's when molecules collide that they release stored heat. It's basically the same thing as wind chill. When the wind is faster it is colder then when it slows it releases heat.

Im a BM wrote:
"...three types of heat.."

No, these are not three different "types of heat".

Im a BM wrote:
Radiation, conduction, and convection are three different MECHANISMS OF HEAT TRANSFER.

Im a BM wrote:
Radiation in the infrared range transfers heat at the speed of light.

Im a BM wrote:
Conduction, when heat is transferred by direct touch from something hotter to something warmer... Not a TYPE of heat, just a means by which it get transferred. Depending on temperature difference, heat capacity, thermal conductivity, and thermal diffusivity, heat may be transferred slowly or rapidly.

Im a BM wrote:
Convection is not a "type of heat". It is another mechanism of heat transfer involving mass movement of fluid (liquid or gas). As fluid gets warm, it becomes less dense and rises above cooler fluid of the same composition. "Convection currents" are mass movement of fluid in which heat is translocated to a higher elevation.

Im a BM wrote:
Something resembling legitimate science is the claim that conduction and convection cannot occur in a vaccuum.

Im a BM wrote:
If the most prolific "scientist" on this site is correct, "there is no such thing as radiant energy".

Im a BM wrote:
So, heat could not be transferred by radiation either in this alternative reality.

Im a BM wrote:
But to talk about a mechanism of transfer as a "type of heat" is a strong indicator that there has never been even the most basic training in science.

James_ wrote:
On my website I have a page dedicated to the Earth's "green house" which is the tropopause. https://climate-cycling.com/earths-greenhouse-the-tropopause

James_ wrote:
The anvil cloud shows there is a barrier that keeps the heat that molecules conserve in the troposphere.

James_ wrote:
Usually the only way that atmospheric gasses in the troposphere and the stratosphere mix is because of a jet stream.

James_ wrote:
This allows for convection between 2 different layers of the atmosphere.

James_ wrote:
Most heat in the stratosphere

James_ wrote:
comes from O2 + O + hv > O3.

James_ wrote:
And as I mention on my website, jet streams will move when there's a significant increase in the total ozone column.

James_ wrote:
This is because the stratosphere warms and the troposphere cools.

James_ wrote:
I've noticed the jet streams like moving along the edge of such warming and cooling of the atmosphere.

James_ wrote:
And I think this helps to show how important the ozone layer is.

James_ wrote:
When there's less ozone in the stratosphere then that just means more UV solar radiation for the oceans to absorb. And we all know that 93% of the excess heat from climate change is in the oceans.

James_ wrote:
This points to both a slowing of ocean currents

James_ wrote:
and a depleted ozone layer.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
On my website I have a page dedicated to the Earth's "green house" which is the tropopause. https://climate-cycling.com/earths-greenhouse-the-tropopause

The tropopause is not a 'greenhouse'.

James_ wrote:
The anvil cloud shows there is a barrier that keeps the heat that molecules conserve in the troposphere.

Heat is on conservable. Molecules do not conserve heat. An anvil cloud is not a barrier.

James_ wrote:
Usually the only way that atmospheric gasses in the troposphere and the stratosphere mix is because of a jet stream.

A jet stream is not necessary.

James_ wrote:
This allows for convection between 2 different layers of the atmosphere.

There already is.

James_ wrote:
Most heat in the stratosphere

Heat has no location.

James_ wrote:
comes from O2 + O + hv > O3.

This chemical reaction in the stratosphere is driven by UVb acting upon oxygen. This is an endothermic reaction, cooling that air around it. The most strongly occurs at the base of the stratosphere, which is why that air is so cold. Ozone is destroyed by UVc acting upon it. These frequencies are blocked by lower and denser portions of the atmosphere. This produces an exothermic reaction that heats the air around it.

The practical upshot is that there is a temperature inversion (but not an energy inversion) in the stratosphere.

James_ wrote:
And as I mention on my website, jet streams will move when there's a significant increase in the total ozone column.

Ozone does not control the position of the jet stream.

James_ wrote:
This is because the stratosphere warms and the troposphere cools.

What does the stratosphere warm? What does the troposphere cool?

James_ wrote:
I've noticed the jet streams like moving along the edge of such warming and cooling of the atmosphere.

I guess you never learned about Hadley cells.

James_ wrote:
And I think this helps to show how important the ozone layer is.

The ozone layer does not control the position of the jet stream.

James_ wrote:
When there's less ozone in the stratosphere then that just means more UV solar radiation for the oceans to absorb. And we all know that 93% of the excess heat from climate change is in the oceans.

There is no such thing as 'excess heat'. Climate cannot change.

James_ wrote:
This points to both a slowing of ocean currents

The ocean currents are not slowing.

James_ wrote:
and a depleted ozone layer.

The ozone layer is not depleted.

James_ wrote:
Ozone is toxic in the troposphere.

James_ wrote:
It is also a byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels.

James_ wrote:
With the oceans you need to consider wind the chill factor and water absorbs UV radiation.

James_ wrote:
And then there is the thermohaline circulation. That's the flow of all water in the oceans. It's one current.

James_ wrote:
With the surface temperature of oceanic currents, that's getting into kinetic energy

James_ wrote:
and the conservation of energy.

James_ wrote:
A basic example is conduction.
When water molecules move into the atmosphere as vapor, that is an example of convection.

James_ wrote:
When water transfers kinetic energy into the atmosphere

James_ wrote:
and is realized as KE = 3/2kT then that is conduction.

James_ wrote:
Heat would be transferred from water molecules to atmospheric gasses.

James_ wrote:
With thermodynamics, momentum can dictate thermodynamics

James_ wrote:
and warm water transferring kinetic energy to atmospheric gasses would be an example of that.

James_ wrote:
This "problem" shows 2 different ways warm water can transfer energy into the Earth's atmosphere.

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

James_ wrote:
On my website I have a page dedicated to the Earth's "green house" which is the tropopause. https://climate-cycling.com/earths-greenhouse-the-tropopause

The anvil cloud shows there is a barrier that keeps the heat that molecules conserve in the troposphere. Usually the only way that atmospheric gasses in the troposphere and the stratosphere mix is because of a jet stream. This allows for convection between 2 different layers of the atmosphere.
Most heat in the stratosphere comes from O2 + O + hv > O3. An example of the effects of increased ozone in the stratosphere; https://climate-cycling.com/the-ozone-layer
And as I mention on my website, jet streams will move when there's a significant increase in the total ozone column. This is because the stratosphere warms and the troposphere cools. I've noticed the jet streams like moving along the edge of such warming and cooling of the atmosphere.
And I think this helps to show how important the ozone layer is. When there's less ozone in the stratosphere then that just means more UV solar radiation for the oceans to absorb. And we all know that 93% of the excess heat from climate change is in the oceans. This points to both a slowing of ocean currents and a depleted ozone layer.

And oceans are very deep, lot of water. Surface temperature of the ocean means very little, since water conducts heat very well. The warmer surface water also evaporates, carried off as water vapor, removing some of the thermal energy as well. Then of course, the sun sets, no more energy added for the day, but the thermal energy never sleeps, it keeps moving. Daytime/night time, are two slightly different dynamics. Day, you have sun energy added, but still there is cooling. Night time, there is only cooling. The length of the day/night varies throughout the year.

Isn't ozone toxic? Wouldn't getting rid of that nasty crap be a good thing? Besides, ozone holes only occur over the polar regions. Do polar bears an penguins really matter that much? I'm sure if depleted ozone bothered them that much, they would have moved a long time ago. Ozone holes grow during the polar winters, but shrink during the summer, when UV protection is most needed. It's a sign, 'The Big Guy in the Sky' takes care of us...

Ozone is toxic in the troposphere. It is also a byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels. In the stratosphere it can cool the troposphere.
With the oceans you need to consider wind the chill factor and water absorbs UV radiation. And then there is the thermohaline circulation. That's the flow of all water in the oceans. It's one current.
With the surface temperature of oceanic currents, that's getting into kinetic energy and the conservation of energy. A basic example is conduction. When water molecules move into the atmosphere as vapor, that is an example of convection.
When water transfers kinetic energy into the atmosphere and is realized as KE = 3/2kT then that is conduction. Heat would be transferred from water molecules to atmospheric gasses. With thermodynamics, momentum can dictate thermodynamics and warm water transferring kinetic energy to atmospheric gasses would be an example of that.
This "problem" shows 2 different ways warm water can transfer energy into the Earth's atmosphere.

LOL if Ozone increases with the production of fossil fuels, then why is there a hole and wouldn't burning more fossil fuels fix the hole?

Because of spray painter breathers like you. The propellant in spray cans destroy ozone.

You can back to your cherry tomato suppositories... Maybe you'll break your record today...

LOL a lot less paint is sprayed than oil is burned so if your nonsense is correct, we should have way too much ozone at this point.

Besides stupid aerosols no longer contain CFC's, except in your brain that is. If you ate fresher tomato's, you might understand

What a waste of a psych degree

James_ wrote:

LOL if Ozone increases with the production of fossil fuels, then why is there a hole and wouldn't burning more fossil fuels fix the hole?

Polar stratospheric clouds form when the stratosphere gets cold enough. NOx and SOx are 2 gasses that help PSCs to occur.
Since the Antarctic has Antarctica there's no "warm" water flowing there. This might be an example of "hot" flowing towards where it's cold.
This is where the Earth's spin might act as a centrifuge.

Im a BM wrote:
Frogs have lungs. Junior high school level biology. To claim that they do not and that frogs only breathe through their skin indicates a lack in the most basic training in science. Almost as ignorant as claiming that alligators are amphibians.

Im a BM wrote:
Maybe a thread dedicated to the most incredibly ignorant anti scientific quotes from the local trolls would be entertaining.

Im a BM wrote:
Maybe a thread dedicated to the most incredibly ignorant anti scientific quotes from the local trolls would be entertaining.

Maybe just because it is the most recent in mind, the failure to understand that radiation, conduction, and convection are not "types of heat" makes the top.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

James_ wrote:
On my website I have a page dedicated to the Earth's "green house" which is the tropopause. https://climate-cycling.com/earths-greenhouse-the-tropopause

The anvil cloud shows there is a barrier that keeps the heat that molecules conserve in the troposphere. Usually the only way that atmospheric gasses in the troposphere and the stratosphere mix is because of a jet stream. This allows for convection between 2 different layers of the atmosphere.
Most heat in the stratosphere comes from O2 + O + hv > O3. An example of the effects of increased ozone in the stratosphere; https://climate-cycling.com/the-ozone-layer
And as I mention on my website, jet streams will move when there's a significant increase in the total ozone column. This is because the stratosphere warms and the troposphere cools. I've noticed the jet streams like moving along the edge of such warming and cooling of the atmosphere.
And I think this helps to show how important the ozone layer is. When there's less ozone in the stratosphere then that just means more UV solar radiation for the oceans to absorb. And we all know that 93% of the excess heat from climate change is in the oceans. This points to both a slowing of ocean currents and a depleted ozone layer.

And oceans are very deep, lot of water. Surface temperature of the ocean means very little, since water conducts heat very well. The warmer surface water also evaporates, carried off as water vapor, removing some of the thermal energy as well. Then of course, the sun sets, no more energy added for the day, but the thermal energy never sleeps, it keeps moving. Daytime/night time, are two slightly different dynamics. Day, you have sun energy added, but still there is cooling. Night time, there is only cooling. The length of the day/night varies throughout the year.

Isn't ozone toxic? Wouldn't getting rid of that nasty crap be a good thing? Besides, ozone holes only occur over the polar regions. Do polar bears an penguins really matter that much? I'm sure if depleted ozone bothered them that much, they would have moved a long time ago. Ozone holes grow during the polar winters, but shrink during the summer, when UV protection is most needed. It's a sign, 'The Big Guy in the Sky' takes care of us...

Ozone is toxic in the troposphere. It is also a byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels. In the stratosphere it can cool the troposphere.
With the oceans you need to consider wind the chill factor and water absorbs UV radiation. And then there is the thermohaline circulation. That's the flow of all water in the oceans. It's one current.
With the surface temperature of oceanic currents, that's getting into kinetic energy and the conservation of energy. A basic example is conduction. When water molecules move into the atmosphere as vapor, that is an example of convection.
When water transfers kinetic energy into the atmosphere and is realized as KE = 3/2kT then that is conduction. Heat would be transferred from water molecules to atmospheric gasses. With thermodynamics, momentum can dictate thermodynamics and warm water transferring kinetic energy to atmospheric gasses would be an example of that.
This "problem" shows 2 different ways warm water can transfer energy into the Earth's atmosphere.

LOL if Ozone increases with the production of fossil fuels, then why is there a hole and wouldn't burning more fossil fuels fix the hole?

Because of spray painter breathers like you. The propellant in spray cans destroy ozone.

You can back to your cherry tomato suppositories... Maybe you'll break your record today...

LOL a lot less paint is sprayed than oil is burned so if your nonsense is correct, we should have way too much ozone at this point.

Besides stupid aerosols no longer contain CFC's, except in your brain that is. If you ate fresher tomato's, you might understand

What a waste of a psych degree

CFCs do not destroy ozone. CFCs are inert in the presence of ozone.
CFCs are also heavier than air. They do not get up to the ozone layer.

James_ wrote:
All heat is is a flow of electromagnetic radiation.

James_ wrote:
Solar radiation radiation tends to be particles that get trapped in the Van Allen radiation radiation belts.

James_ wrote:
When matter transfers heat it is transferring stored heat content.

James_ wrote:
With Boltzmann's KE = 3/2kT that refers to the velocity of gasses. It's when molecules collide that they release stored heat.

James_ wrote:
It's basically the same thing as wind chill. When the wind is faster it is colder then when it slows it releases heat.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
On my website I have a page dedicated to the Earth's "green house" which is the tropopause. https://climate-cycling.com/earths-greenhouse-the-tropopause

The tropopause is not a 'greenhouse'.

James_ wrote:
The anvil cloud shows there is a barrier that keeps the heat that molecules conserve in the troposphere.

Heat is on conservable. Molecules do not conserve heat. An anvil cloud is not a barrier.

James_ wrote:
Usually the only way that atmospheric gasses in the troposphere and the stratosphere mix is because of a jet stream.

A jet stream is not necessary.

James_ wrote:
This allows for convection between 2 different layers of the atmosphere.

There already is.

James_ wrote:
Most heat in the stratosphere

Heat has no location.

James_ wrote:
comes from O2 + O + hv > O3.

This chemical reaction in the stratosphere is driven by UVb acting upon oxygen. This is an endothermic reaction, cooling that air around it. The most strongly occurs at the base of the stratosphere, which is why that air is so cold. Ozone is destroyed by UVc acting upon it. These frequencies are blocked by lower and denser portions of the atmosphere. This produces an exothermic reaction that heats the air around it.

The practical upshot is that there is a temperature inversion (but not an energy inversion) in the stratosphere.

James_ wrote:
And as I mention on my website, jet streams will move when there's a significant increase in the total ozone column.

Ozone does not control the position of the jet stream.

James_ wrote:
This is because the stratosphere warms and the troposphere cools.

What does the stratosphere warm? What does the troposphere cool?

James_ wrote:
I've noticed the jet streams like moving along the edge of such warming and cooling of the atmosphere.

I guess you never learned about Hadley cells.

James_ wrote:
And I think this helps to show how important the ozone layer is.

The ozone layer does not control the position of the jet stream.

James_ wrote:
When there's less ozone in the stratosphere then that just means more UV solar radiation for the oceans to absorb. And we all know that 93% of the excess heat from climate change is in the oceans.

There is no such thing as 'excess heat'. Climate cannot change.

James_ wrote:
This points to both a slowing of ocean currents

The ocean currents are not slowing.

James_ wrote:
and a depleted ozone layer.

The ozone layer is not depleted.

Are you having fun being triggered?

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
CFCs do not destroy ozone. CFCs are inert in the presence of ozone.
CFCs are also heavier than air. They do not get up to the ozone layer.

Coming from an ass like you that does not even believe that the Earth has a climate, your words mean nothing to any human other than you.

Swan wrote:
"One must consider two issues: the mechanisms for mixing between the troposphere (the bottom layer of the atmosphere) and the overlying stratosphere, and the average time that CFCs remain in the troposphere before chemical processes scrub them from the air.

Swan wrote:
In very general terms, mixing within the atmosphere is caused by differences in temperature and by pressure gradients. These irregularities make some parcels of air buoyant, which results in the transport of pollutants throughout the atmosphere. Given sufficiently large variations in temperature and pressure, air parcels containing contaminants can be transported through the troposphere and into the stratosphere, in much the way that a hot air balloon can be used to loft people high above the ground and transport them from one place to another. Pollutants can reach the stratosphere, however, only if there are no major mechanisms that pull them out of the air while they are still in the troposphere.

Swan wrote:
"In general, there are two main mechanisms that remove compounds in the atmosphere: deposition and reaction. A common example of deposition is 'rain out': compounds that are soluble in water can be removed from the atmosphere by precipitation. This phenomenon is responsible for acid rain. The most abundant CFCs emitted into the troposphere are CFC 11 and CFC 12. These CFCs are not soluble in water, so deposition does not removed them from the air.

Swan wrote:
"The only other mechanism that removes compounds from the troposphere is reaction with an abundant oxidizing agent--such as hydroxyl radicals, ozone, or nitrate radicals. Atmospheric researchers have determined the rates at which several CFCs react with hydroxyl radicals; the lifetimes for these CFCs with respect to hydroxyl radicals is approximately 80 years. In other words, if hydroxyl radicals were the only thing reacting with the CFCs, it would take 80 years to completely remove them from the atmosphere. That is a long time! In comparison, methanol, a component of some alternative fuels, has a lifetime with respect to hydroxyl radical reaction of just 17 days. Ozone and nitrate radicals are even less effective at breaking down CFCs.

Swan wrote:
"Because CFCs are so long-lived in the lower atmosphere, there is ample time and opportunity for them to become well mixed and eventually to reach the stratosphere."

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
It is also a byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels.

Not possible, since there is no such thing as a fossil fuel. Fossils are not used as fuel. Fossils don't burn. ALL types of engines and electrical equipment produce ozone, not in high enough concentration to be toxic.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
CFCs do not destroy ozone. CFCs are inert in the presence of ozone.
CFCs are also heavier than air. They do not get up to the ozone layer.

Coming from an ass like you that does not even believe that the Earth has a climate, your words mean nothing to any human other than you.

Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everybody. You only get to speak for you.

Swan wrote:
"One must consider two issues: the mechanisms for mixing between the troposphere (the bottom layer of the atmosphere) and the overlying stratosphere, and the average time that CFCs remain in the troposphere before chemical processes scrub them from the air.

They don't need to be 'scrubbed from the air'. UVa light is sufficient to break down CFCs.

Swan wrote:
In very general terms, mixing within the atmosphere is caused by differences in temperature and by pressure gradients. These irregularities make some parcels of air buoyant, which results in the transport of pollutants throughout the atmosphere. Given sufficiently large variations in temperature and pressure, air parcels containing contaminants can be transported through the troposphere and into the stratosphere, in much the way that a hot air balloon can be used to loft people high above the ground and transport them from one place to another. Pollutants can reach the stratosphere, however, only if there are no major mechanisms that pull them out of the air while they are still in the troposphere.

False equivalence fallacy. A hot air balloon rises because of reduced air density in the balloon. CFCs are heavier than air.

Swan wrote:
"In general, there are two main mechanisms that remove compounds in the atmosphere: deposition and reaction. A common example of deposition is 'rain out': compounds that are soluble in water can be removed from the atmosphere by precipitation. This phenomenon is responsible for acid rain. The most abundant CFCs emitted into the troposphere are CFC 11 and CFC 12. These CFCs are not soluble in water, so deposition does not removed them from the air.

So? UVa light is sufficient to break them down.

Swan wrote:
"The only other mechanism that removes compounds from the troposphere is reaction with an abundant oxidizing agent--such as hydroxyl radicals, ozone, or nitrate radicals. Atmospheric researchers have determined the rates at which several CFCs react with hydroxyl radicals; the lifetimes for these CFCs with respect to hydroxyl radicals is approximately 80 years. In other words, if hydroxyl radicals were the only thing reacting with the CFCs, it would take 80 years to completely remove them from the atmosphere. That is a long time! In comparison, methanol, a component of some alternative fuels, has a lifetime with respect to hydroxyl radical reaction of just 17 days. Ozone and nitrate radicals are even less effective at breaking down CFCs.

So you just supported what I said. CFCs are basically chemically inert. They do not destroy ozone.

Swan wrote:
"Because CFCs are so long-lived in the lower atmosphere, there is ample time and opportunity for them to become well mixed and eventually to reach the stratosphere."

CFCs are heavier than air.

Into the Night wrote:

CFCs are heavier than air.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
CFCs do not destroy ozone. CFCs are inert in the presence of ozone.
CFCs are also heavier than air. They do not get up to the ozone layer.

Coming from an ass like you that does not even believe that the Earth has a climate, your words mean nothing to any human other than you.

Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everybody. You only get to speak for you.

Swan wrote:
"One must consider two issues: the mechanisms for mixing between the troposphere (the bottom layer of the atmosphere) and the overlying stratosphere, and the average time that CFCs remain in the troposphere before chemical processes scrub them from the air.

They don't need to be 'scrubbed from the air'. UVa light is sufficient to break down CFCs.

Swan wrote:
In very general terms, mixing within the atmosphere is caused by differences in temperature and by pressure gradients. These irregularities make some parcels of air buoyant, which results in the transport of pollutants throughout the atmosphere. Given sufficiently large variations in temperature and pressure, air parcels containing contaminants can be transported through the troposphere and into the stratosphere, in much the way that a hot air balloon can be used to loft people high above the ground and transport them from one place to another. Pollutants can reach the stratosphere, however, only if there are no major mechanisms that pull them out of the air while they are still in the troposphere.

False equivalence fallacy. A hot air balloon rises because of reduced air density in the balloon. CFCs are heavier than air.

Swan wrote:
"In general, there are two main mechanisms that remove compounds in the atmosphere: deposition and reaction. A common example of deposition is 'rain out': compounds that are soluble in water can be removed from the atmosphere by precipitation. This phenomenon is responsible for acid rain. The most abundant CFCs emitted into the troposphere are CFC 11 and CFC 12. These CFCs are not soluble in water, so deposition does not removed them from the air.

So? UVa light is sufficient to break them down.

Swan wrote:
"The only other mechanism that removes compounds from the troposphere is reaction with an abundant oxidizing agent--such as hydroxyl radicals, ozone, or nitrate radicals. Atmospheric researchers have determined the rates at which several CFCs react with hydroxyl radicals; the lifetimes for these CFCs with respect to hydroxyl radicals is approximately 80 years. In other words, if hydroxyl radicals were the only thing reacting with the CFCs, it would take 80 years to completely remove them from the atmosphere. That is a long time! In comparison, methanol, a component of some alternative fuels, has a lifetime with respect to hydroxyl radical reaction of just 17 days. Ozone and nitrate radicals are even less effective at breaking down CFCs.

So you just supported what I said. CFCs are basically chemically inert. They do not destroy ozone.

Swan wrote:
"Because CFCs are so long-lived in the lower atmosphere, there is ample time and opportunity for them to become well mixed and eventually to reach the stratosphere."

CFCs are heavier than air.

James_ wrote:
Harvey, air is the combination/mixture of gasses in the atmosphere.

James_ wrote:
Harvey, air is the combination/mixture of gasses in the atmosphere.

HarveyH55 wrote:

James_ wrote:
Harvey, air is the combination/mixture of gasses in the atmosphere.

So one of those gasses couldn't be heavier than air, because it is included.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
CFCs do not destroy ozone. CFCs are inert in the presence of ozone.
CFCs are also heavier than air. They do not get up to the ozone layer.

Coming from an ass like you that does not even believe that the Earth has a climate, your words mean nothing to any human other than you.

Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everybody. You only get to speak for you.

Swan wrote:
"One must consider two issues: the mechanisms for mixing between the troposphere (the bottom layer of the atmosphere) and the overlying stratosphere, and the average time that CFCs remain in the troposphere before chemical processes scrub them from the air.

They don't need to be 'scrubbed from the air'. UVa light is sufficient to break down CFCs.

Swan wrote:
In very general terms, mixing within the atmosphere is caused by differences in temperature and by pressure gradients. These irregularities make some parcels of air buoyant, which results in the transport of pollutants throughout the atmosphere. Given sufficiently large variations in temperature and pressure, air parcels containing contaminants can be transported through the troposphere and into the stratosphere, in much the way that a hot air balloon can be used to loft people high above the ground and transport them from one place to another. Pollutants can reach the stratosphere, however, only if there are no major mechanisms that pull them out of the air while they are still in the troposphere.

False equivalence fallacy. A hot air balloon rises because of reduced air density in the balloon. CFCs are heavier than air.

Swan wrote:
"In general, there are two main mechanisms that remove compounds in the atmosphere: deposition and reaction. A common example of deposition is 'rain out': compounds that are soluble in water can be removed from the atmosphere by precipitation. This phenomenon is responsible for acid rain. The most abundant CFCs emitted into the troposphere are CFC 11 and CFC 12. These CFCs are not soluble in water, so deposition does not removed them from the air.

So? UVa light is sufficient to break them down.

Swan wrote:
"The only other mechanism that removes compounds from the troposphere is reaction with an abundant oxidizing agent--such as hydroxyl radicals, ozone, or nitrate radicals. Atmospheric researchers have determined the rates at which several CFCs react with hydroxyl radicals; the lifetimes for these CFCs with respect to hydroxyl radicals is approximately 80 years. In other words, if hydroxyl radicals were the only thing reacting with the CFCs, it would take 80 years to completely remove them from the atmosphere. That is a long time! In comparison, methanol, a component of some alternative fuels, has a lifetime with respect to hydroxyl radical reaction of just 17 days. Ozone and nitrate radicals are even less effective at breaking down CFCs.

So you just supported what I said. CFCs are basically chemically inert. They do not destroy ozone.

Swan wrote:
"Because CFCs are so long-lived in the lower atmosphere, there is ample time and opportunity for them to become well mixed and eventually to reach the stratosphere."

CFCs are heavier than air.

What is 'air'...

True, CFCs were chosen as propellants and refrigerants specifically because they didn't react with much of anything, stable.

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
CFCs do not destroy ozone. CFCs are inert in the presence of ozone.
CFCs are also heavier than air. They do not get up to the ozone layer.

Coming from an ass like you that does not even believe that the Earth has a climate, your words mean nothing to any human other than you.

Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everybody. You only get to speak for you.

Swan wrote:
"One must consider two issues: the mechanisms for mixing between the troposphere (the bottom layer of the atmosphere) and the overlying stratosphere, and the average time that CFCs remain in the troposphere before chemical processes scrub them from the air.

They don't need to be 'scrubbed from the air'. UVa light is sufficient to break down CFCs.

Swan wrote:
In very general terms, mixing within the atmosphere is caused by differences in temperature and by pressure gradients. These irregularities make some parcels of air buoyant, which results in the transport of pollutants throughout the atmosphere. Given sufficiently large variations in temperature and pressure, air parcels containing contaminants can be transported through the troposphere and into the stratosphere, in much the way that a hot air balloon can be used to loft people high above the ground and transport them from one place to another. Pollutants can reach the stratosphere, however, only if there are no major mechanisms that pull them out of the air while they are still in the troposphere.

False equivalence fallacy. A hot air balloon rises because of reduced air density in the balloon. CFCs are heavier than air.

Swan wrote:
"In general, there are two main mechanisms that remove compounds in the atmosphere: deposition and reaction. A common example of deposition is 'rain out': compounds that are soluble in water can be removed from the atmosphere by precipitation. This phenomenon is responsible for acid rain. The most abundant CFCs emitted into the troposphere are CFC 11 and CFC 12. These CFCs are not soluble in water, so deposition does not removed them from the air.

So? UVa light is sufficient to break them down.

Swan wrote:
"The only other mechanism that removes compounds from the troposphere is reaction with an abundant oxidizing agent--such as hydroxyl radicals, ozone, or nitrate radicals. Atmospheric researchers have determined the rates at which several CFCs react with hydroxyl radicals; the lifetimes for these CFCs with respect to hydroxyl radicals is approximately 80 years. In other words, if hydroxyl radicals were the only thing reacting with the CFCs, it would take 80 years to completely remove them from the atmosphere. That is a long time! In comparison, methanol, a component of some alternative fuels, has a lifetime with respect to hydroxyl radical reaction of just 17 days. Ozone and nitrate radicals are even less effective at breaking down CFCs.

So you just supported what I said. CFCs are basically chemically inert. They do not destroy ozone.

Swan wrote:
"Because CFCs are so long-lived in the lower atmosphere, there is ample time and opportunity for them to become well mixed and eventually to reach the stratosphere."

CFCs are heavier than air.

What is 'air'...

True, CFCs were chosen as propellants and refrigerants specifically because they didn't react with much of anything, stable.

The naturally occurring gases surrounding Earth.
CFCs are man made. It is heavier than the combination of nitrogen, oxygen, argon, or even carbon dioxide.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
CFCs do not destroy ozone. CFCs are inert in the presence of ozone.
CFCs are also heavier than air. They do not get up to the ozone layer.

Coming from an ass like you that does not even believe that the Earth has a climate, your words mean nothing to any human other than you.

Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everybody. You only get to speak for you.

Swan wrote:
"One must consider two issues: the mechanisms for mixing between the troposphere (the bottom layer of the atmosphere) and the overlying stratosphere, and the average time that CFCs remain in the troposphere before chemical processes scrub them from the air.

They don't need to be 'scrubbed from the air'. UVa light is sufficient to break down CFCs.

Swan wrote:
In very general terms, mixing within the atmosphere is caused by differences in temperature and by pressure gradients. These irregularities make some parcels of air buoyant, which results in the transport of pollutants throughout the atmosphere. Given sufficiently large variations in temperature and pressure, air parcels containing contaminants can be transported through the troposphere and into the stratosphere, in much the way that a hot air balloon can be used to loft people high above the ground and transport them from one place to another. Pollutants can reach the stratosphere, however, only if there are no major mechanisms that pull them out of the air while they are still in the troposphere.

False equivalence fallacy. A hot air balloon rises because of reduced air density in the balloon. CFCs are heavier than air.

Swan wrote:
"In general, there are two main mechanisms that remove compounds in the atmosphere: deposition and reaction. A common example of deposition is 'rain out': compounds that are soluble in water can be removed from the atmosphere by precipitation. This phenomenon is responsible for acid rain. The most abundant CFCs emitted into the troposphere are CFC 11 and CFC 12. These CFCs are not soluble in water, so deposition does not removed them from the air.

So? UVa light is sufficient to break them down.

Swan wrote:
"The only other mechanism that removes compounds from the troposphere is reaction with an abundant oxidizing agent--such as hydroxyl radicals, ozone, or nitrate radicals. Atmospheric researchers have determined the rates at which several CFCs react with hydroxyl radicals; the lifetimes for these CFCs with respect to hydroxyl radicals is approximately 80 years. In other words, if hydroxyl radicals were the only thing reacting with the CFCs, it would take 80 years to completely remove them from the atmosphere. That is a long time! In comparison, methanol, a component of some alternative fuels, has a lifetime with respect to hydroxyl radical reaction of just 17 days. Ozone and nitrate radicals are even less effective at breaking down CFCs.

So you just supported what I said. CFCs are basically chemically inert. They do not destroy ozone.

Swan wrote:
"Because CFCs are so long-lived in the lower atmosphere, there is ample time and opportunity for them to become well mixed and eventually to reach the stratosphere."

CFCs are heavier than air.

What is 'air'...

True, CFCs were chosen as propellants and refrigerants specifically because they didn't react with much of anything, stable.

The naturally occurring gases surrounding Earth.
CFCs are man made. It is heavier than the combination of nitrogen, oxygen, argon, or even carbon dioxide.

Volcanic ash is millions of times heavier than air, but it still gets lifted into the stratosphere.

Got that kid

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
CFCs do not destroy ozone. CFCs are inert in the presence of ozone.
CFCs are also heavier than air. They do not get up to the ozone layer.

Coming from an ass like you that does not even believe that the Earth has a climate, your words mean nothing to any human other than you.

Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everybody. You only get to speak for you.

Swan wrote:
"One must consider two issues: the mechanisms for mixing between the troposphere (the bottom layer of the atmosphere) and the overlying stratosphere, and the average time that CFCs remain in the troposphere before chemical processes scrub them from the air.

They don't need to be 'scrubbed from the air'. UVa light is sufficient to break down CFCs.

Swan wrote:
In very general terms, mixing within the atmosphere is caused by differences in temperature and by pressure gradients. These irregularities make some parcels of air buoyant, which results in the transport of pollutants throughout the atmosphere. Given sufficiently large variations in temperature and pressure, air parcels containing contaminants can be transported through the troposphere and into the stratosphere, in much the way that a hot air balloon can be used to loft people high above the ground and transport them from one place to another. Pollutants can reach the stratosphere, however, only if there are no major mechanisms that pull them out of the air while they are still in the troposphere.

False equivalence fallacy. A hot air balloon rises because of reduced air density in the balloon. CFCs are heavier than air.

Swan wrote:
"In general, there are two main mechanisms that remove compounds in the atmosphere: deposition and reaction. A common example of deposition is 'rain out': compounds that are soluble in water can be removed from the atmosphere by precipitation. This phenomenon is responsible for acid rain. The most abundant CFCs emitted into the troposphere are CFC 11 and CFC 12. These CFCs are not soluble in water, so deposition does not removed them from the air.

So? UVa light is sufficient to break them down.

Swan wrote:
"The only other mechanism that removes compounds from the troposphere is reaction with an abundant oxidizing agent--such as hydroxyl radicals, ozone, or nitrate radicals. Atmospheric researchers have determined the rates at which several CFCs react with hydroxyl radicals; the lifetimes for these CFCs with respect to hydroxyl radicals is approximately 80 years. In other words, if hydroxyl radicals were the only thing reacting with the CFCs, it would take 80 years to completely remove them from the atmosphere. That is a long time! In comparison, methanol, a component of some alternative fuels, has a lifetime with respect to hydroxyl radical reaction of just 17 days. Ozone and nitrate radicals are even less effective at breaking down CFCs.

So you just supported what I said. CFCs are basically chemically inert. They do not destroy ozone.

Swan wrote:
"Because CFCs are so long-lived in the lower atmosphere, there is ample time and opportunity for them to become well mixed and eventually to reach the stratosphere."

CFCs are heavier than air.

What is 'air'...

True, CFCs were chosen as propellants and refrigerants specifically because they didn't react with much of anything, stable.

The naturally occurring gases surrounding Earth.
CFCs are man made. It is heavier than the combination of nitrogen, oxygen, argon, or even carbon dioxide.

Volcanic ash is millions of times heavier than air, but it still gets lifted into the stratosphere.

Got that kid

And then it comes right back down again.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
It is not official yet.

But all indications are that when the data is all compiled, it will show:

July 4, 2023 was the hottest day ever recorded.

There is no data.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
It is not official yet.

But all indications are that when the data is all compiled, it will show:

July 4, 2023 was the hottest day ever recorded.

There is no data.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About a week ago, the STRONGEST STORM EVER TO HIT MEXICO came ashore near Acapulco. So much water came down so quickly that it added enough weight to the land surface to trigger a small earthquake.

Earlier this year, the STRONGEST STORM EVER TO HIT CANADA set the new record.

In theory, a website such as this would have active discussion about the evidence from the real world, such as all the extreme weather events setting new record after record.

Instead, a handful of scientifically illiterate trolls derail any attempt to have a rational discussion.

"There is no data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth"

This absurd assertion in one form or another has been posted thousands of times on this website.

"There is no data". Straight up stupidity to make such a claim.

There is more data than ever. Scientists do not become less informed the more data they collect. Knowledge advances forward. And there was already enough data THIRTY YEARS AGO to serve as irrefutable proof that climate change was occurring.

"It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth."

An irrelevant straw man of an assertion.

Nobody is claiming that it is possible to jam a thermometer into the earth to get one single measurement that is "the temperature of the Earth."

It is possible to measure the temperature of air and water with accuracy and precision. A large number of such measurements make it possible to calculate averages with accuracy and precision.

But any attempt to have a rational discussion about the fact that GLOBAL WARMING IS ALREADY HAPPENING WITH DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES get the same stupid sentences in reply, over and over and over.

Particularly the parrot posts - sometimes five or ten at a time.

And now it says that there are 1687 members. There were 1582 when I first posted a year and a half ago. The new members ALWAYS give up and leave. The handful who have been here between 5-8 years already are the only ones doing virtually all the posting.

Who are you going to believe?

The trolls?

Or your own lying thermometer...

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
It is not official yet.

But all indications are that when the data is all compiled, it will show:

July 4, 2023 was the hottest day ever recorded.

There is no data.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About a week ago, the STRONGEST STORM EVER TO HIT MEXICO came ashore near Acapulco. So much water came down so quickly that it added enough weight to the land surface to trigger a small earthquake.

Earlier this year, the STRONGEST STORM EVER TO HIT CANADA set the new record.

In theory, a website such as this would have active discussion about the evidence from the real world, such as all the extreme weather events setting new record after record.

Instead, a handful of scientifically illiterate trolls derail any attempt to have a rational discussion.

"There is no data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth"

This absurd assertion in one form or another has been posted thousands of times on this website.

"There is no data". Straight up stupidity to make such a claim.

There is more data than ever. Scientists do not become less informed the more data they collect. Knowledge advances forward. And there was already enough data THIRTY YEARS AGO to serve as irrefutable proof that climate change was occurring.

"It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth."

An irrelevant straw man of an assertion.

Nobody is claiming that it is possible to jam a thermometer into the earth to get one single measurement that is "the temperature of the Earth."

It is possible to measure the temperature of air and water with accuracy and precision. A large number of such measurements make it possible to calculate averages with accuracy and precision.

But any attempt to have a rational discussion about the fact that GLOBAL WARMING IS ALREADY HAPPENING WITH DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES get the same stupid sentences in reply, over and over and over.

Particularly the parrot posts - sometimes five or ten at a time.

And now it says that there are 1687 members. There were 1582 when I first posted a year and a half ago. The new members ALWAYS give up and leave. The handful who have been here between 5-8 years already are the only ones doing virtually all the posting.

Who are you going to believe?

The trolls?

Or your own lying thermometer...

There are not 1687 post today, there are 4

Time to Ban Swan? James_ 181 23 Today, 12:03

July 4, 2023 - Hottest day ever recorded - (Side: 1 2 ... 5) Im a BM 3434 187 Today, 11:14

Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems - (Side: 1 2 ... 21) sealover 20410 801 Today, 10:10

threats keepit 112 8 Today, 10:03
TED - (Side: 1 2

Facebook is not concerned

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
It is not official yet.

But all indications are that when the data is all compiled, it will show:

July 4, 2023 was the hottest day ever recorded.

There is no data.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About a week ago, the STRONGEST STORM EVER TO HIT MEXICO came ashore near Acapulco. So much water came down so quickly that it added enough weight to the land surface to trigger a small earthquake.

Earlier this year, the STRONGEST STORM EVER TO HIT CANADA set the new record.

In theory, a website such as this would have active discussion about the evidence from the real world, such as all the extreme weather events setting new record after record.

Instead, a handful of scientifically illiterate trolls derail any attempt to have a rational discussion.

"There is no data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth"

This absurd assertion in one form or another has been posted thousands of times on this website.

"There is no data". Straight up stupidity to make such a claim.

There is more data than ever. Scientists do not become less informed the more data they collect. Knowledge advances forward. And there was already enough data THIRTY YEARS AGO to serve as irrefutable proof that climate change was occurring.

"It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth."

An irrelevant straw man of an assertion.

Nobody is claiming that it is possible to jam a thermometer into the earth to get one single measurement that is "the temperature of the Earth."

It is possible to measure the temperature of air and water with accuracy and precision. A large number of such measurements make it possible to calculate averages with accuracy and precision.

But any attempt to have a rational discussion about the fact that GLOBAL WARMING IS ALREADY HAPPENING WITH DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES get the same stupid sentences in reply, over and over and over.

Particularly the parrot posts - sometimes five or ten at a time.

And now it says that there are 1687 members. There were 1582 when I first posted a year and a half ago. The new members ALWAYS give up and leave. The handful who have been here between 5-8 years already are the only ones doing virtually all the posting.

Who are you going to believe?

The trolls?

Or your own lying thermometer...

There are not 1687 post today, there are 4

Time to Ban Swan? James_ 181 23 Today, 12:03

July 4, 2023 - Hottest day ever recorded - (Side: 1 2 ... 5) Im a BM 3434 187 Today, 11:14

Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems - (Side: 1 2 ... 21) sealover 20410 801 Today, 10:10

threats keepit 112 8 Today, 10:03
TED - (Side: 1 2

Facebook is not concerned

Your reading comprehension really is quite terrible.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
CFCs do not destroy ozone. CFCs are inert in the presence of ozone.
CFCs are also heavier than air. They do not get up to the ozone layer.

Coming from an ass like you that does not even believe that the Earth has a climate, your words mean nothing to any human other than you.

Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everybody. You only get to speak for you.

Swan wrote:
"One must consider two issues: the mechanisms for mixing between the troposphere (the bottom layer of the atmosphere) and the overlying stratosphere, and the average time that CFCs remain in the troposphere before chemical processes scrub them from the air.

They don't need to be 'scrubbed from the air'. UVa light is sufficient to break down CFCs.

Swan wrote:
In very general terms, mixing within the atmosphere is caused by differences in temperature and by pressure gradients. These irregularities make some parcels of air buoyant, which results in the transport of pollutants throughout the atmosphere. Given sufficiently large variations in temperature and pressure, air parcels containing contaminants can be transported through the troposphere and into the stratosphere, in much the way that a hot air balloon can be used to loft people high above the ground and transport them from one place to another. Pollutants can reach the stratosphere, however, only if there are no major mechanisms that pull them out of the air while they are still in the troposphere.

False equivalence fallacy. A hot air balloon rises because of reduced air density in the balloon. CFCs are heavier than air.

Swan wrote:
"In general, there are two main mechanisms that remove compounds in the atmosphere: deposition and reaction. A common example of deposition is 'rain out': compounds that are soluble in water can be removed from the atmosphere by precipitation. This phenomenon is responsible for acid rain. The most abundant CFCs emitted into the troposphere are CFC 11 and CFC 12. These CFCs are not soluble in water, so deposition does not removed them from the air.

So? UVa light is sufficient to break them down.

Swan wrote:
"The only other mechanism that removes compounds from the troposphere is reaction with an abundant oxidizing agent--such as hydroxyl radicals, ozone, or nitrate radicals. Atmospheric researchers have determined the rates at which several CFCs react with hydroxyl radicals; the lifetimes for these CFCs with respect to hydroxyl radicals is approximately 80 years. In other words, if hydroxyl radicals were the only thing reacting with the CFCs, it would take 80 years to completely remove them from the atmosphere. That is a long time! In comparison, methanol, a component of some alternative fuels, has a lifetime with respect to hydroxyl radical reaction of just 17 days. Ozone and nitrate radicals are even less effective at breaking down CFCs.

So you just supported what I said. CFCs are basically chemically inert. They do not destroy ozone.

Swan wrote:
"Because CFCs are so long-lived in the lower atmosphere, there is ample time and opportunity for them to become well mixed and eventually to reach the stratosphere."

CFCs are heavier than air.

What is 'air'...

True, CFCs were chosen as propellants and refrigerants specifically because they didn't react with much of anything, stable.

The naturally occurring gases surrounding Earth.
CFCs are man made. It is heavier than the combination of nitrogen, oxygen, argon, or even carbon dioxide.

Volcanic ash is millions of times heavier than air, but it still gets lifted into the stratosphere.

Got that kid

And then it comes right back down again.

Wrong because after major eruptions there is a cooling effect that can last years to decades due to the fine ash particles blocking the Sun.

Next imbecile

Im a BM wrote:
About a week ago, the STRONGEST STORM EVER TO HIT MEXICO came ashore near Acapulco. So much water came down so quickly that it added enough weight to the land surface to trigger a small earthquake.

Im a BM wrote:
Earlier this year, the STRONGEST STORM EVER TO HIT CANADA set the new record.

Im a BM wrote:
In theory, a website such as this would have active discussion about the evidence from the real world, such as all the extreme weather events setting new record after record.

Im a BM wrote:
Instead, a handful of scientifically illiterate trolls derail any attempt to have a rational discussion.

Im a BM wrote:
This absurd assertion in one form or another has been posted thousands of times on this website.

"There is no data". Straight up stupidity to make such a claim.

Im a BM wrote:
There is more data than ever.

Im a BM wrote:
Scientists do not become less informed the more data they collect.

Im a BM wrote:
Knowledge advances forward.

Im a BM wrote:
And there was already enough data THIRTY YEARS AGO to serve as irrefutable proof that climate change was occurring.

Im a BM wrote:
"It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth."

An irrelevant straw man of an assertion.

Im a BM wrote:
Nobody is claiming that it is possible to jam a thermometer into the earth to get one single measurement that is "the temperature of the Earth."

Im a BM wrote:
It is possible to measure the temperature of air and water with accuracy and precision. A large number of such measurements make it possible to calculate averages with accuracy and precision.

Im a BM wrote:
But any attempt to have a rational discussion about the fact that GLOBAL WARMING IS ALREADY HAPPENING WITH DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES get the same stupid sentences in reply, over and over and over.

Im a BM wrote:
Particularly the parrot posts - sometimes five or ten at a time.

Im a BM wrote:
And now it says that there are 1687 members. There were 1582 when I first posted a year and a half ago. The new members ALWAYS give up and leave. The handful who have been here between 5-8 years already are the only ones doing virtually all the posting.

Who are you going to believe?

The trolls?

Im a BM wrote:
Or your own lying thermometer...

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
CFCs do not destroy ozone. CFCs are inert in the presence of ozone.
CFCs are also heavier than air. They do not get up to the ozone layer.

Coming from an ass like you that does not even believe that the Earth has a climate, your words mean nothing to any human other than you.

Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everybody. You only get to speak for you.

Swan wrote:
"One must consider two issues: the mechanisms for mixing between the troposphere (the bottom layer of the atmosphere) and the overlying stratosphere, and the average time that CFCs remain in the troposphere before chemical processes scrub them from the air.

They don't need to be 'scrubbed from the air'. UVa light is sufficient to break down CFCs.

Swan wrote:
In very general terms, mixing within the atmosphere is caused by differences in temperature and by pressure gradients. These irregularities make some parcels of air buoyant, which results in the transport of pollutants throughout the atmosphere. Given sufficiently large variations in temperature and pressure, air parcels containing contaminants can be transported through the troposphere and into the stratosphere, in much the way that a hot air balloon can be used to loft people high above the ground and transport them from one place to another. Pollutants can reach the stratosphere, however, only if there are no major mechanisms that pull them out of the air while they are still in the troposphere.

False equivalence fallacy. A hot air balloon rises because of reduced air density in the balloon. CFCs are heavier than air.

Swan wrote:
"In general, there are two main mechanisms that remove compounds in the atmosphere: deposition and reaction. A common example of deposition is 'rain out': compounds that are soluble in water can be removed from the atmosphere by precipitation. This phenomenon is responsible for acid rain. The most abundant CFCs emitted into the troposphere are CFC 11 and CFC 12. These CFCs are not soluble in water, so deposition does not removed them from the air.

So? UVa light is sufficient to break them down.

Swan wrote:
"The only other mechanism that removes compounds from the troposphere is reaction with an abundant oxidizing agent--such as hydroxyl radicals, ozone, or nitrate radicals. Atmospheric researchers have determined the rates at which several CFCs react with hydroxyl radicals; the lifetimes for these CFCs with respect to hydroxyl radicals is approximately 80 years. In other words, if hydroxyl radicals were the only thing reacting with the CFCs, it would take 80 years to completely remove them from the atmosphere. That is a long time! In comparison, methanol, a component of some alternative fuels, has a lifetime with respect to hydroxyl radical reaction of just 17 days. Ozone and nitrate radicals are even less effective at breaking down CFCs.

So you just supported what I said. CFCs are basically chemically inert. They do not destroy ozone.

Swan wrote:
"Because CFCs are so long-lived in the lower atmosphere, there is ample time and opportunity for them to become well mixed and eventually to reach the stratosphere."

CFCs are heavier than air.

What is 'air'...

True, CFCs were chosen as propellants and refrigerants specifically because they didn't react with much of anything, stable.

The naturally occurring gases surrounding Earth.
CFCs are man made. It is heavier than the combination of nitrogen, oxygen, argon, or even carbon dioxide.

Volcanic ash is millions of times heavier than air, but it still gets lifted into the stratosphere.

Got that kid

And then it comes right back down again.

Wrong because after major eruptions there is a cooling effect that can last years to decades due to the fine ash particles blocking the Sun.

Next imbecile

What 'cooling effect'? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
What 'cooling effect'? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

You are wrong as usual, but at least your delusions are persistent.

Swan wrote:
Approximately every few decades, a volcanic eruption, such as Mount Pinatubo or El Chichón, releases a substantial number of particles and gases. Some of these particles and gases temporarily block enough sunlight to induce a brief global cooling period. While these effects typically dissipate after 1 to 2 years, their impact is felt across the globe.

Im a BM wrote:
It is not official yet.

But all indications are that when the data is all compiled, it will show:

July 4, 2023 was the hottest day ever recorded.

sealover wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
It is not official yet.

But all indications are that when the data is all compiled, it will show:

July 4, 2023 was the hottest day ever recorded.

With the new year just about a week away, it is already clear:

2023 was the hottest year ever recorded.

Extreme weather events with widespread impacts over large regions occurred throughout the year.

Extreme to the point that they almost rendered the terms "1000 year drought", "1000 year flood", and "1000 year storm" meaningless.

Wildfire smoke gave us some of the worst air quality ever seen.

Glaciers are melting faster than worst case scenarios predicted a few decades back, and sea level rise has accelerated to a rate exceeding worst case predictions as well.

Yes, it turns out the "alarmists" were wrong.

The theoretical models turned out to be wrong.

They underestimated how bad the situation would already be by 2023.

Swan wrote:LOL as 99.99999% of all Earth years went un-recorded

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL as 99.99999% of all Earth years went un-recorded

How do you know that 0.00001% of each year (3.15 seconds) was recorded?

What was recorded for the 3.15 seconds of the first Earth year? How was it recorded? ... audio cassette?

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL as 99.99999% of all Earth years went un-recorded

How do you know that 0.00001% of each year (3.15 seconds) was recorded?

What was recorded for the 3.15 seconds of the first Earth year? How was it recorded? ... audio cassette?

Actually 100% of every year has been recorded since 1850/1880 or so. Before that there are no records of any type.

Now take your pills and go back to sleep