Ozone Increased in the Northern Hemisphere Over the Last Two Decades (phys.org) 34
Phys.org reports:
In a first-ever study using ozone data collected by commercial aircraft, researchers from the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado Boulder found that levels of the pollutant in the lowest part of Earth's atmosphere have increased across the Northern Hemisphere over the past 20 years. That's even as tighter controls on emissions of ozone precursors have lowered ground-level ozone in some places, including North America and Europe...
In a study published today in the journal Science Advances, the team found an overall increase in ozone levels above the Northern Hemisphere. "That's a big deal because it means that as we try to limit our pollution locally, it might not work as well as we thought," said Audrey Gaudel, a CIRES scientist working in the NOAA Chemical Sciences Laboratory and the study's lead author...
In the so-called "lower troposphere," which is closer to Earth's surface, ozone has decreased above some mid-latitude regions, including Europe and the United States, where ozone precursor emissions have decreased. The researchers found those reductions were offset by increases higher in the troposphere — with the net result being an overall ozone increase from the surface to 12 km... The model showed that increased anthropogenic emissions in the tropics were likely driving the observed increase of ozone in the Northern Hemisphere.
In a study published today in the journal Science Advances, the team found an overall increase in ozone levels above the Northern Hemisphere. "That's a big deal because it means that as we try to limit our pollution locally, it might not work as well as we thought," said Audrey Gaudel, a CIRES scientist working in the NOAA Chemical Sciences Laboratory and the study's lead author...
In the so-called "lower troposphere," which is closer to Earth's surface, ozone has decreased above some mid-latitude regions, including Europe and the United States, where ozone precursor emissions have decreased. The researchers found those reductions were offset by increases higher in the troposphere — with the net result being an overall ozone increase from the surface to 12 km... The model showed that increased anthropogenic emissions in the tropics were likely driving the observed increase of ozone in the Northern Hemisphere.
UV (Score:1)
Re:UV (Score:5, Interesting)
They are talking about tropospheric ozone. The troposphere, you know that part of the atmosphere where you live. Having ozone hanging around us is bad since it causes all kinds of medical issues. Freon destroyed the stratospheric ozone. Since we do not live in the stratosphere (no matter what that casino in Vegas says) having ozone up there is good since it filters high energy UV and is critical for life as we know it to survive and everything.
Re: (Score:2)
They do not break out where upper/lower is def
Re: (Score:2)
If it did, why do I get a sunburn so quickly now compared to 20 years ago? Something else missing that also helped divert UV? As a kid in the 70s and teenager in the 80s it was actually difficult to get a sunburn playing/being outside all damn day, every day, all bloody summer. Now I go wash and clean the car for an hour, or cut the grass, or whatever else and my head, face, and arms are beet red.
Re: UV (Score:4)
You might want to consider if you're over interpreting the data connecting your sunburn to ozone. Another likely explanation is that you were outside more an a light tan protects you from getting burned, also speaking for myself I couldn't give you a statistically reliable measure of my childhood sunburns if my life depended on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it did, why do I get a sunburn so quickly now compared to 20 years ago? Something else missing that also helped divert UV? As a kid in the 70s and teenager in the 80s it was actually difficult to get a sunburn playing/being outside all damn day, every day, all bloody summer. Now I go wash and clean the car for an hour, or cut the grass, or whatever else and my head, face, and arms are beet red.
I think you said it yourself: as a kid and teenager you were playing/being outside all day.
So probably during spring and early summer your skin was gradually adjusting to the sun and you wouldn't get a burn.
Now you spend much more time indoors, you go outside in the summer with your unadjusted, pale skin, you gonna burn, fool!
Use sunblocker.
Re: (Score:2)
You are old now.
Me too.
In fact, get your ass to a dermatologist.
Re: UV (Score:2)
Ever notice how you burn faster in the pool than out? Water is reflecting that light. Perhaps more moisture in the atmosphere than before? You also need to consider solar cycles as well, which affect intensity. And if you live in Australia. They have no ozone layer when that antarctic hole shifts over them.
Re: UV (Score:2)
Its dem Aliens!
I seen em!
Re:UV (Score:5, Informative)
The increase in ozone is mainly from burning fossil fuels, so driving cars and coal power plants.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a quack medicine "Cold Quartz Ultraviolet and Ozone Apparatus" from the 1950s. It is a powerful mostly unshielded UV lamp and when you operate it, it reeks of ozone. It's pretty freaky that when it was current technology they marketed it as a medical therapy device. It incorporates a single 117L7GT vacuum tube in its high voltage power supply.
I used to use it to erase EPROMs.
Re: (Score:1)
There is even one listed on ebay [ebay.com] right now..
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like that's only a few steps away from erasing your DNA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ozone is pretty easy to make. You can get very compact ozone generators as pool sanitizers, as an alternative to chlorine.
They are usually made so the whole unit can be tossed when the bulb fails, because it's cheaper to make a waterproof enclosure if you just embed the whole thing in sealant.
Re: UV (Score:2)
Well they were selling those fanless air purifiers like 10 years ago also, essentially a pair of long corona discharge wires, and they generated copious amounts of ozone in the house, ( Fresh air , just like after a thunderstorm advertised) .
When people caught on , they added a charcoal filter in front to convert the ozone to O2, just like photocopiers use.
Re: (Score:2)
Ozone is like a super-powered oxidant, it is made of three oxygen molecules instead of two
Ozone, also known as trioxygen, is gas with a molecule composed of three oxygen atoms. It is a powerful oxidant compared to dioxygen. I would not call it super-powered... it is about 50% more powerful than chlorine, but nowhere as powerful as fluorine.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: UV (Score:2)
I never could understand how its stable in that molecular configuration. The covalent bond should be weak. How fast will H3O become H2O + O2 in the presence of hydrogen?
Need better global leaders (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Consider the WHO today, run by a man whose claim to fame is covering up outbreaks for the political benefit of a dictator, which helped China cover up it's failures and lies, and issued recommendations like, "don't cut off travel from China".
Well-known effect. (Score:1)
I've been told effects on the Ozone layer have a 30 year delay, by some sciene source I can't remember. It was presented as a well-known effect.
They might have an accurate result, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
there's no excuse for the appalling methodology and analysis.
They essentially used six areas within three regions, and then extrapolated across the nation - this is their first, and most obvious error, and not an uncommon one these days. Taking a few spot samples of anything and then extrapolating across the whole is fine when the thing sampled is known to be uniform, like a slab of some material (but even in that instance it can miss a localized irregularity). The atmosphere over the continental US is, however, well-known to NOT be uniform, as evidenced by the methane bloom in the southwest [phys.org] (as only one of many examples). When the thing you are sampling is well-known to be NOT uniform, you are obligated to take many more samples with a much better distribution that this study did.
I also believe they did not do sufficient analysis of the effects of the tech they were using upon the data they gathered and analyzed. A huge portion of the studies of Earth's atmosphere in the past several decades have fallen into this trap. Having more, better, and better-used instruments in the current time than in the past can have significant effects upon then-vs-now comparisons which many of these studies essentially are. Many modern studies of the atmosphere, the oceans, groundwater, etc are guilty of this oversight, often mixing/comparing data taken with better and better-used instruments that can detect more of something now against more poorly trained data gatherers with less sensitive instruments in the pass.
As I stated earlier, I am not disagreeing with the results which may well be correct given the reduction in ozone destroying chemicals as other posters here have already noted, but bad methods should be rejected whether they are used in studies we disagree with or studies we fully support. People who present themselves to the public as speaking for science have a special moral obligation to shoot straight, and when they fail to do so they undermine the credibility of ALL science including the work of people who themselves did work earnestly and honestly.
All bad news all the time.. fatigue (Score:2, Interesting)
30-40 years after we stopped using Freon as it was bad, we haven't received any positive feedback as to whether this worked. At least it was never on a headline which people saw.
We are doing all the stuff to meet the Paris accord... and rather than telling us whether we have been successful in anything we do, the green parties throughout Europe instead just ke
Re: (Score:2)
30-40 years after we stopped using Freon as it was bad, we haven't received any positive feedback as to whether this worked.
Yes we have. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g... [nasa.gov] Nasa not mainstream enough for you? https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com] Oh and it's not a one off. Here's an article from 2 years ago https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com] Or shit man have some "fake news" from 4 years ago https://edition.cnn.com/2016/0... [cnn.com] Or maybe a story from 2009 https://www.abc.net.au/news/20... [abc.net.au] ?
and rather than telling us whether we have been successful in anything we do, the green parties throughout Europe instead just keep the momentum going non-stop by bashing everyone for being so absolutely awful.
That's because we have done fuck all and basically every country is on track to miss it's obligations, obligations which scientists said up front are li
How is this bad? (Score:2)
The study indicates that ozone is increasing in the upper troposphere but decreasing in the lower troposphere (where we live). Is there something wrong with that?