Warming Brings Poisonous Ozone Down to Earth

reply to post by angelx666


Once again, you post ignorance, and no facts.

For the record, Wiki is not "a" source, it is "a collection" of multiple sources. If you would have actually researched (second time you failed) you would have found multiple sources that confirm that ozone problem.

Here is two .pdf documents linked by Wiki that you should have read:

www.euro.who.int...

www.euro.who.int...


reply to post by TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
To start with, this is talking about high concentrations.

The OP's source, and myself are talking about "higher concentrations then normal"....... We are not talking about normal concentrations.

So, what the heck? Do you realize your error?

The source says:

Globally, as much as 23 percent more ozone -- 151 million tons -- will be pouring its way down each year by the end of the century.

That is 23 percent MORE THAN AVERAGE. That means it will be a higher concentration.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Now, please research out and explain to me exactly how pollution contributes to the production of ozone. Please.

You obviously didn't read the OP's source. Pollution will not be "producing" any ozone. Pollution will bring ozone that already exists down to the surface of Earth.

The pollution will effect global winds (it already does), and that is what will bring the ozone down to the surface. It will not be "producing" anything..

Read this link too, provided by the OP's source:
dsc.discovery.com...

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Ozone has, since recorded history, acted as an oxidizer. That means it tends to destroy pollutants by oxidizing with them. Now unless the basic tenets of chemistry have changed somehow in the last decade, the above article can hereby be declared to be, at best, suspect.

Yes ozone does act as an "oxidizer" that is why ozone is harmful!

www.alaw.org...

Ozone reacts chemically ("oxidizes") with internal body tissues that it comes in contact with, such as those in the lung.

...but you are missing the point.

The pollution actually cools the ozone, and the colder temperatures slow down those chemical reactions you are talking about.

dsc.discovery.com...

Scientists know that the accumulation of greenhouse gasses, including carbon dioxide, actually makes the stratosphere colder, even as it traps heats lower down. That's a good thing for the ozone layer, because the reactions that break down ozone happen more slowly in colder conditions.

...BUT, that is not the problem being talked about. The problem is that pollution speeds up the circulation of the ozone!

dsc.discovery.com...

But the increase in greenhouse gasses also speeds up the circulation of ozone through the atmosphere.......

This changes global wind's....... which will bring more ozone down to the surface.

So once again... pollution will/is effecting global currents, and that will force more ozone down to the surface.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Nines]

reply to post by pteridine

You're right; that site seems at least as easy to read as Wikipedia and does not contain a glaring error. I am a bit concerned about the reference to NOx combining with organic gases. It is definitely a reaction in our atmosphere, but I would expect it to be a very minor player in any ozone production. Organic compounds would have to lose an oxygen atom, the NO2 would have to lose its nitrogen atom (turning it into diatomic oxygen) and the oxygen atom would have to be excited enough to combine into the more unstable O3 molecule. Most of the ozone is formed by their first description, where UV radiation (or a high ionization charge such as lightning) breaks a molecule and the energetic atoms then recombine with diatomic oxygen to form ozone, typically in the upper atmosphere, but a bit in the lower reaches where we live.

They also had a very good explanation of the formation of ozone from NOx itself. But the reaction is reversible. I quote from the source you referenced, "The process described above results in no net gain in ozone." This is, again, due to the high speed with which ozone breaks down, and means that pollution plays no part in any increase in low-altitude ozone. If anything, the equation shifts stability when large amounts of NOx are present, meaning that ozone tends to break down the NOx much easier than it forms from it.

I agree with you on the ozone not caring what it attacks. The difference is that a bacteria is much more dependent on each individual reaction than larger creatures like ourselves. We can lose a few thousand cells and never notice it. High enough concentrations, however, can indeed cause serious problems. That's really what bothers me about this thread. There's just a smidgen of truth in it, the fact that high concentrations of ozone are dangerous, and that can be twisted to make people believe ozone is deadly poison, just as the present CO2 scare has done.

Good reading in that article. I recommend it for anyone wanting to understand the ways ozone can be created.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Nines


Actually nitrogen oxides, volatile organic comounds, and sunlight will produce ozone from oxygen at ground level. The VOCs and nitrogen oxides are considered to be pollution. Read my previous post.

Perhaps the theory is that changes in circulation will add to ground level ozone concentrations. It is, of course, just a theory.

reply to post by TheRedneck


This sub-link explains the VOC pathway in a more detailed fashion using methane as a simple example.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Nines

For the record, Wiki is not "a" source, it is "a collection" of multiple sources. If you would have actually researched (second time you failed) you would have found multiple sources that confirm that ozone problem.

Semantics. You are now rapidly losing any respect I had for your opinion.

If you can't debate without resorting to semantics, I suggest you try Yahoo.

You obviously didn't read the OP's source. Pollution will not be "producing" any ozone. Pollution will bring ozone that already exists down to the surface of Earth.

You obviously didn't read the excerpt from Wikipedia you posted. That was what my reply was in reference to.

The pollution will effect global winds (it already does), and that is what will bring the ozone down to the surface. It will not be "producing" anything..

Actually, since you appear to be heavily into semantics, it is the warming temperatures that are being suspected of future wind pattern changes. Ironically, there have been a few threads expressing a small concern over the use of too many windmills for power affecting the wind patterns. No seemingly horrendous worry about ozone being drawn to the surface in those. Hmmmm..... did Congress pass a law that only pollution can affect wind patterns?

The pollution actually cools the ozone, and the colder temperatures slow down those chemical reactions you are talking about.

The pollution cools the ozone? What, are we using pollution ice cubes or something now?

Source, please (from someone with nothing to gain from carbon credits). My library of textbooks state the air temperature is already cooler at the ozone layer than near the surface.

So once again... pollution will/is effecting global currents, and that will force more ozone down to the surface.

... where within a half hour or so it will break down into diatomic oxygen.

Hey, didn't we just outlaw CFCs a few years back because they destroy ozone?

TheRedneck

reply to post by pteridine

Thank you for the link. I will have to continue this tomorrow, however. After a full day of studying magnetic flux equations, my poor head is tired...

Cheers.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Maxwell is your friend and so is Tesla.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Semantics. You are now rapidly losing any respect I had for your opinion.

If you can't debate without resorting to semantics, I suggest you try Yahoo.

Symantics?? You can't even spell it right.... it is semantics.

You are the one trying to discredit Wiki while at the same time using Wiki as a reference! You are a hypocrite!

I was talking to Angelx666 when she also tried to discredit Wiki as a source. She miserably FAILED, just like you did, because even though my link was to Wiki, the actual source was NOT Wiki, it was another source within Wiki.

That is why I said, Wiki is not a source, it is a collection of sources. So while you are busy trying to discredit sources (talk about semantics), you FAILED to notice the actual source was not even from Wiki.

YOU FAILED.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
You obviously didn't read the excerpt from Wikipedia you posted. That was what my reply was in reference to.

No I read it. I figured you were smart enough to know how pollution creates ozone, so I figured you were talking about the OP's source.

Obviously you don't even know the basics about ozone! How can you sit here and argue a point you obviously have no clue about??

Here let me help you:

Low Level Ozone:
en.wikipedia.org...

Low level ozone (or tropospheric ozone) is regarded as a pollutant by the World Health Organization[15] and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is not emitted directly by car engines or by industrial operations, but formed by the reaction of sunlight on air containing hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides that react to form ozone directly at the source of the pollution or many kilometers down wind.

www.alaw.org...

How Is It Produced?
Ozone is formed by the action of sunlight on carbon-based chemicals known as hydrocarbons, acting in combination with a group of air pollutants called oxides of nitrogen. Hydrocarbons are emitted by motor vehicles, oil and chemical storage and handling facilities, and a variety of commercial and industrial sources such as gas stations, dry cleaners and degreasing operations. Oxides of nitrogen are a by-product of burning fuel in sources such as power plants, steel mills and other heavy industry and in motor vehicles.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Ozone can also be found in the troposphere, the lowest layer of the atmosphere. Tropospheric ozone (often termed "bad" ozone) is man-made, a result of air pollution from internal combustion engines and power plants. Automobile exhaust and industrial emissions release a family of nitrogen oxide gases (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC), by-products of burning gasoline and coal. NOx and VOC combine chemically with oxygen to form ozone during sunny, high-temperature conditions of late spring, summer and early fall. High levels of ozone are usually formed in the heat of the afternoon and early evening, dissipating during the cooler nights.

That is how pollution produces "bad" ozone... You should have already known, but YOU FAILED.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Actually, since you appear to be heavily into semantics, it is the warming temperatures that are being suspected of future wind pattern changes.

So you accuse me of using semantics (which I wasn't), then you go and TRY to use semantics against me. Absolute hypocrite!

TheRedneck, it is BOTH the warming, and the cooling of different areas by pollution, that is going to cause the wind pattern changes. You fail once again.

...to be continued...

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Ironically, there have been a few threads expressing a small concern over the use of too many windmills for power affecting the wind patterns. No seemingly horrendous worry about ozone being drawn to the surface in those. Hmmmm..... did Congress pass a law that only pollution can affect wind patterns?

When wind hits a windmill, it doesn't just disappear. Windmills have VERY SMALL effects on wind patterns. Almost unmeasurable amounts of change. Nice try though.

I suggest you read this:
www.ucalgary.ca...

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The pollution cools the ozone? What, are we using pollution ice cubes or something now?

Source, please (from someone with nothing to gain from carbon credits). My library of textbooks state the air temperature is already cooler at the ozone layer than near the surface.

Why are you even on this topic if you know absolutely NOTHING about the ozone, or basic science??

discovermagazine.com...

Carbon dioxide absorbs heat rising from the surface of the planet; that’s the greenhouse effect. By trapping heat in the lower atmosphere, however, the greenhouse effect also cools the stratosphere (ozone).

Understanding Environmental Pollution

On the other hand, CFC's cool the stratosphere. This happens because ozone normally absorbs the sun's energy as it breaks down. this warms the stratosphere. With ozone destroyed, there is less to interact with the sun's radiation. So, the stratosphere cools.

www.giss.nasa.gov...

While the buildup of greenhouse gases leads to global warming at Earth's surface, it also cools the stratosphere, which increases the amount of ozone depletion in the polar regions.

www.wunderground.com...

A significant portion of the observed stratospheric cooling is also due to human-emitted greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane.

You failed... once again...

Originally posted by TheRedneck
... where within a half hour or so it will break down into diatomic oxygen.

You need to learn the difference between "bad" ozone, and "good" ozone. Obviously you are making a mistake. Seriously, read this:
science.howstuffworks.com...

Polluted ozone doesn't just turn into diatomic oxygen.... try again.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Hey, didn't we just outlaw CFCs a few years back because they destroy ozone?

Yes because CFCs are a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, and other man-made pollutions. So we still have a problem, because we still make large amounts of CO2.

I don't even know why I am replying to you, it's obvious you would rather post blindly before doing any research.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Nines]

reply to post by Aggie Man


From SOURCE:

However, climate change is likely to interfere, altering global winds such that they will drag millions of tons of ozone down toward the planet's surface, where it becomes a greenhouse gas that is toxic to people and plants.

Also from SOURCE:

Global warming will also have an impact on the amount of ultraviolet radiation that reaches Earth's surface, according to the study's authors.

Apparently these authors are equating "climate change " with "global warming" and they think GW is involved with the changes that will bring down O3.

The good news is that we do not have GW, we currently have global cooling and have had for quite some time. Temperatures are and have been in a decreasing pattern on a planetary scale.

When will global politics wake up and feel the cooling?

Not their agenda you say?

Originally posted by plumranch
The good news is that we do not have GW, we currently have global cooling and have had for quite some time. Temperatures are and have been in a decreasing pattern on a planetary scale.

The correct term has always been "global climate change". You must understand the process.

In outer space, there is extreme heat in the Sun light, and extreme cold in the darkness. The Earth has systems that balance the temperatures for us. Too much pollution will cause these systems to fail, and the result will be up and down changes in the temperature. So there will be both cooling and warming in different periods. However, because of our closeness to the Sun, warmth will win over cold.

Earth will then be similar to Venus.

hypertextbook.com...

Water and water vapor are extremely rare on Venus due to its high surface temperature that can approach 758 K (900 °F). This extreme temperature is caused by the greenhouse effect. As sunlight heats Venus' surface, the surface radiates infrared energy that is kept from escaping the planet by dense carbon dioxide atmosphere.

If we allow too much pollution, our planet will turn out like Venus. This isn't ficiton, this is FACT. Water vapor will then become more and more rare on Earth too.... that will make things even more hot. It's a complicated mess.

Originally posted by plumranch
When will global politics wake up and feel the cooling?

Cooling is a positive sign that "climate change" is actually happening, and Earth is become unbalanced. The climate was predicted to fluctuate from hot, cold, hot, cold, hot.... and will get stuck on hot in the end (if we don't fix our unnatural pollution).

The Earth never before had humans burning oil for energy. So there is more pollution than normal. The Earth will either have to adapt to humans via climate change, or humans have to fix their ways.

Originally posted by plumranch
Not their agenda you say?

How about you study more science like thermodynamics, color theory, and meteorology, and YOU find the OBVIOUS conclusion on your own?

Stop listening to what scientists say, stop worrying about an agenda, and do the calculations on your own. Study on your own, and you will see that "climate change" is an inevitable reaction to human pollution.

With your logic, you are saying everyone who KNOWS climate change is real is a part of some "agenda". I am not a part of any agenda, yet I still KNOW climate change is real based on personal calculations and deductive reasoning.

It's pretty simple. When humans didn't exist, Earth was creating is own normal amounts of pollution (x). Now that humans exist and are creating massive amounts of pollution (y), that changes the "normal" equation (x+y=z). So humans are "changing" Earth....

It is true, without a doubt, that our pollution acts like a greenhouse. It doesn't let light/heat escape. More pollution means more light/heat. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that.... and it's not a joke or agenda. It's nothing but truth....

reply to post by pteridine

Again, a very well-written article. I'm bookmarking those links for future reference. One thing I wish they had done was to include the ionic components of the reactions (OH- instead of just saying OH), but at least they did identify the radicals as such.

I still maintain that these reactions are minimal. The atmosphere is approximately 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen; the rest is a mixture of CO2, O3, inert gases, and the NOx and other air pollutants. So it just makes sense that these very minor components would not have the amount of impact that the major components have.

The thread, however, is about upper-level ozone being brought down to the lower levels of the atmosphere by wind shifts. We could go on all day about the many different potential chemical reactions that take place in the atmosphere.

Still, you have provided some pretty good reading. One of the things I am working on actually utilizes some of the reactions in that last link, so thank you!

Maxwell is your friend and so is Tesla.

So is Gauss. But some days they just seem to be a bit sadistic.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Nines

Symantics?? You can't even spell it right.... it is semantics.

Oh

My

God!

I mispelled a word!

My entire career is ruined!

I have to return everything I made during that 15-year career in design!

My 4.0 GPA is gone.... gone... GONE!

...

On second though, how about if I just let you ramble?

Have a nice day, enjoy your CO2 and ozone, and dress warmly. Global Warming is going to cause cooling this year.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Ozone impacts human health at relatively low levels, so the impact of small amounts is noticeable. The additional, unexplained ozone produced through the NOx/VOC reactions was what triggered investigation into that pathway.

Ozone is a really reactive compound, and usually in the lower atmosphere it will become regular old oxygen after shedding that pesky third wheel O atom. Ozone reacts to just about everything which is why it doesn't stay ozone for long in the lower atmosphere.

The decay of ozone in indoor air was measured in a closed chamber after contact with different building materials and residential surfaces. The tested materials were: vinyl wall paper, woodchip paper, plywood, latex paint, fitted carpet, and plaster. In the summer of 1996, the entry of ozone from ambient air into indoor air during ventilation and the ozone decay in indoor air, after windows had been closed again, were studied. Measurements were done in a residential house on the outskirts of Berlin. The following results were gained: the chamber measurements showed a decay of ozone after contact with most of the materials put inside the chamber. Higher decay rates have been obtained for wall papers, plywood, fitted carpet and plaster. As described in the literature, ozone is able to react with olefines inside the materials and is able to form formaldehyde and other components. This formation of formaldehyde could also be confirmed in our investigations. Thus, in most cases, the formaldehyde concentrations were lower than the German guideline value of 0.1 ppm. The formation of formaldehyde could be prevented when a special wall paper that was coated with activated carbon was used. In the house, a complete ozone diffusion into indoor air took place during ventilation within 30 min. After closing the windows, the ozone concentrations decreased to the basic level before ventilation within 60–90 min.

Source

reply to post by pteridine

Let me reiterate that nothing in my posts should be construed to indicate I ignore the obvious hazards of any such corrosive material at high concentrations.

At the levels we typically experience from the lower troposphere, ozone has been shown to be generally safe. After all, how many times have you heard of anyone's illness being blamed on ozone exposure? the only such times I know of is a slight tendency for the thunderstorm-generated ozone levels to aggravate asthma in some people. A typical thunderstorm puts out many times the ozone that could be put out by the interaction of fairly rare contaminants in the atmosphere. Not only are the components for the reaction only extant in low concentrations, but the UV radiation required as a catalyst is rare as well, most of it having been absorbed at the higher levels to create ozone there.

If ground-level ozone was such a health risk, why are people allowed to use ozone generators? Also, most of the reports I have heard from these people showed a general feeling of well-being. Even if we attribute that feeling to psycho-somatic causes, why have there been no adverse health effects reported? Ozone is also used in some countries in lieu opf chlorine to purify water. That process requires some pretty hefty concentrations of ozone, but the only health concerns to my knowledge are while the workers are in direct contact with those high industrial concentrations.

Now I'm all for any reasonable attempt to lower NOx levels. NOx, while a natural trace substance in air, is produced in much high than normal concentrations my man-made activities and does contribute to some nasty chemical reactions. I just don't think the amount of ozone produced from NOx is enough to warrant panic at this time. I'm personally more concerned with the acid rain from atmospheric nitric and nitrous acids as well as sulfuric acid.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Nines


May I reiterate that the authors of the source article seemed to indicate that G warming was the cause of the ozone coming down in the atmospheric column. Yet more likely we are having global cooling. Then they switched from G warming to G climate change in their terminology. So which is it?

Thunderstorms produce a tremendous amount of O3! And BTW O3 is not very irritating to the animals that I work with, only mildly in a respiratory sense. So if you have a cat with asthma, for example, keep it away from the ozone generator, otherwise, not to worry.

I worked in west Africa for a year and on one expedition I measured and recorded electrical impulses generated by a species of a small electrical fish. Our sensors were sensitive to the frequency of the fish but also picked up thunderstorms from all over the world. We were at the edge of the Sahara so there certainly were no thunderstorms where we were yet the cacophony of thunderstorm discharges was constant. My conclusion is that there are a lot of thunderstorms out there constantly renewing the O3 supply whether you realize it or not.

And if anyone thinks that politics does not play a big roll in the global climate debate then, well, you know...

Originally posted by TheRedneck
First of all, ozone is not poisonous. It is corrosive. There's a difference. Ozone is not some green cloud of nerve gas that will cause us to all black out and die coughing in a coma.

Second of all, ozone is welcomed by a lot of people who buy products like The Ionic Pro. The high voltage ionizes the air and produces...

drum roll please...

more drum roll...

wait for it...

OZONE!

Ozone is responsible for that clean fresh smell you smell after a thunderstorm has passed. It is also responsible for that sharp odor you smell just after a close lightning strike. The difference is the concentration of ozone and what happens to it after it is produced. That thunderstorm produces ozone by ionizing the oxygen in the air (via the lightning) and letting it recombine under electrostatic charge, similar to the way solar radiation works in the upper atmosphere. That ozone then drifts along until it finds an ionic contaminant, say a bit of nitrates. The ozone, being unstable, breaks down and oxidizes that contaminant into a solid form, which the rain can then wash out of the air.

The Ionic Pro does the exact same thing, but instead of washing the air, it uses electrostatic attraction to remove the contaminants.

Mind if I reword the title a bit?

"Warming brings natural air freshener down to earth"

TheRedneck

Unfortunately the Ionic Pro's you are talking about warn that you should not use them in a non ventilated space as the ozone emitted is... wait for it...

POISONOUS.

reply to post by BaronVonGodzilla

And I pray that the ozone remain and that it doesn't come down and beat us to death with it's rage. I remember when the ozone was dying, and now, based on this evidence, maybe we should have finished it off then.

Yes And I remember my friends being badly burned because the government banned freon. When pentene was substituted as an aerosol in spray cans at the factory where I worked it created a major fire/explosion hazard and it blew up one of the lines. I wonder how many people have died or been badly burned because of the switch? No one ever counts the cost in lives when these laws go through do they.?

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

I am sure we can make enough money to start a franchise.

Redneck, ElectricUniverse
Hey guys I want in can I buy a franchise. Think we can sell a bunch of very pricey masks to Al Gore and Maurice Strong???