susu.exp wrote:A few notes:
Sure enough the startosphere has a lot of powerful greenhouse gases. But it´s not as if the concentration of stratospheric greenhose gases has been increasing a lot recently (quite the opposite: Ozone was depleted after all).

Well, ozone wasn't quite "depleted," it was reduced, and mainly over the Antarctic, where it became very thin and remains so although it is rebuilding, a slow process.

I don't know about the stratosphere, but we are dumping 28,000 billion tons of C02 into the atmsophere every year and the concentration of that GHG alone has been rising, now at about 390ppm and continuing to rise at a rate of about 2-3 per cent per decade, to hit 450ppm by around 2040 or 2050. And 450ppm is an exceedingly dangerous level of this gas vis-a-vis global warming. It's the point at and beyond which earth's climate will have warmed enough to really impact the world in very big ways, which, as we see from ongoing severe weather events, has started to happen.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:Well, ozone wasn't quite "depleted," it was reduced, and mainly over the Antarctic, where it became very thin and remains so although it is rebuilding, a slow process.

As far as I´m aware "depleted" and "reduced" are synonyms.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:I don't know about the stratosphere, but we are dumping 28,000 billion tons of C02 into the atmsophere every year and the concentration of that GHG alone has been rising, now at about 390ppm and continuing to rise at a rate of about 2-3 per cent per decade, to hit 450ppm by around 2040 or 2050. And 450ppm is an exceedingly dangerous level of this gas vis-a-vis global warming. It's the point at and beyond which earth's climate will have warmed enough to really impact the world in very big ways, which, as we see from ongoing severe weather events, has started to happen.

I don´t disagree here.
Rereading what I wrote I can see how it could have been misunderstood, but the point there was that while all greenhouse gases, both natural and anthropogenic have an effect on climate, climate change has to be explained in terms of their changes. The argument the person Tzelemel was having a discussion with basically boiled down to: There are some very potent greenhouse gases in the stratosphere and Ozone is mainly controlled by UV light. So our current warming is due to an increase of UV light, which led to an increase in Ozone, which in turn produces the current warming. The main reason this argument fails is that Ozone has been reduced recently and a reduction in a greenhouse gas doesn´t lead to warming. On the other hand we have increased the CO2 content of mainly the troposphere and this does account for the warming rather well.

susu.exp wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:Well, ozone wasn't quite "depleted," it was reduced, and mainly over the Antarctic, where it became very thin and remains so although it is rebuilding, a slow process.

As far as I´m aware "depleted" and "reduced" are synonyms.

No. "Depleted" mens empty, emptied out, drawn down to zero or near zero; "reduced" means there's still some left.

susu.exp wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:I don't know about the stratosphere, but we are dumping 28,000 billion tons of C02 into the atmsophere every year and the concentration of that GHG alone has been rising, now at about 390ppm and continuing to rise at a rate of about 2-3 per cent per decade, to hit 450ppm by around 2040 or 2050. And 450ppm is an exceedingly dangerous level of this gas vis-a-vis global warming. It's the point at and beyond which earth's climate will have warmed enough to really impact the world in very big ways, which, as we see from ongoing severe weather events, has started to happen.

I don´t disagree here.

Rereading what I wrote I can see how it could have been misunderstood, but the point there was that while all greenhouse gases, both natural and anthropogenic have an effect on climate, climate change has to be explained in terms of their changes. The argument the person Tzelemel was having a discussion with basically boiled down to: There are some very potent greenhouse gases in the stratosphere and Ozone is mainly controlled by UV light. So our current warming is due to an increase of UV light, which led to an increase in Ozone, which in turn produces the current warming. The main reason this argument fails is that Ozone has been reduced recently and a reduction in a greenhouse gas doesn´t lead to warming. On the other hand we have increased the CO2 content of mainly the troposphere and this does account for the warming rather well.

And indeed it does, yes.

I'm afraid the gentleman with whom Tzelemel was debating is just another denier with no clue, foaming at the mouth with long-since debunked claims about the causes of warming, badly out of date.