NationStates Jolt Archive

A few years ago, the local TV meteorologist would answer questions people sent to the station. One question was about ozone. The question had to do with why ozone produced at ground level was so bad because it would help replenish the ozone layer.

The meteorologist said the ozone produced at ground level could not reach the ozone layer because ozone is heavier than the air above and could not get up to the ozone layer.

Well, I started thinking. If ozone can’t get from ground level to the ozone layer, how can all those greenhouse gases that destroy the ozone layer get up there? Aren’t they heavier than the atmosphere above? Wouldn’t that prevent them from getting there just like that prevents the ozone from getting there?

Can anyone explain this to me?

A few years ago, the local TV meteorologist would answer questions people sent to the station. One question was about ozone. The question had to do with why ozone produced at ground level was so bad because it would help replenish the ozone layer.

The meteorologist said the ozone produced at ground level could not reach the ozone layer because ozone is heavier than the air above and could not get up to the ozone layer.

Well, I started thinking. If ozone can’t get from ground level to the ozone layer, how can all those greenhouse gases that destroy the ozone layer get up there? Aren’t they heavier than the atmosphere above? Wouldn’t that prevent them from getting there just like that prevents the ozone from getting there?

Can anyone explain this to me?

Ozone is a heavier gas than carbon dioxide, maybe... And the ozone, thus, only stays up b/c it's a temporary form?

Well, I started thinking. If ozone can’t get from ground level to the ozone layer, how can all those greenhouse gases that destroy the ozone layer get up there? Aren’t they heavier than the atmosphere above? Wouldn’t that prevent them from getting there just like that prevents the ozone from getting there?

It has more to do with ho the gas breaks down, here is a link that explains a little more.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_354.html

I would presume that the TV meteorologist is wrong as to his reasoning. Ozone at ground level wouldn't help the Ozone layer as it would break down long before it ever got anywhere near close to the Ozone layer.

Also the Ozone layer is much higher than the altitude of the "Green House Gas Layer". The Ozone layer starts at 10km above the Earth's surface and ends about 50km above the Earth's surface (the stratosphere). In comparison the the layer in which green house gases are present is called the Troposhere which is measured from the Earth's surface to 10km high.

Also the Ozone layer is much higher than the altitude of the "Green House Gas Layer". The Ozone layer starts at 10km above the Earth's surface and ends about 50km above the Earth's surface (the stratosphere). In comparison the the layer in which green house gases are present is called the Troposhere which is measured from the Earth's surface to 10km high.

So, how do the greenhouse gasses get up there to destroy the ozone?

So, how do the greenhouse gasses get up there to destroy the ozone?

Magic.

So, how do the greenhouse gases get up there to destroy the ozone?

they don't, greenhouse gases have nothing to do with ozone.

they're destroyed by halogens (which maybe can be greenhouse gases, I'm not sure about that, but the main greenhouse gases are CO2 and methane IIRC). The problem is that the halogens are catalysts and therefore one particle can destroy a very large amount of O3. Look here for some further info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion)

So, how do the greenhouse gasses get up there to destroy the ozone?

They dont. CFCs (which arent used anymore) are what helped destroy the ozone layer. Greenhouse gasses are something completely different.

So, how do the greenhouse gasses get up there to destroy the ozone?Green house gases don't destroy Ozone. CFCs do. CFCs are unreactive at ground level and can survive in the atmosphere for centuries. This gives them plenty of time to diffuse up into stratosphere where they finally begin to react with UV light (not present at ground level in large quantities due to Ozone). The UV light breaks off the Chlorine from the CFCs as ions. These Chlorine ions (free radicals) attack Ozone causing it to break down. However, the reaction is self sustaining, meaning a single CFC molecule can break down many thousands of Ozone molecules.

The Reaction
Cl· + O3 → ClO· + O2

ClO· + O3 → Cl· + 2 O2 Both Cl· and ClO· are free radicals.

They dont. CFCs (which arent used anymore) are what helped destroy the ozone layer. Greenhouse gasses are something completely different.

So, how did the CFC's get up there? And now that they aren't being used anymore I presume there is no longer a danger of destroying the ozone layer?

So, how did the CFC's get up there? And now that they aren't being used anymore I presume there is no longer a danger of destroying the ozone layer?The reason to be concerned about greenhouse gases is not that they destroy the ozone, it is that they cause global warming.

The reason to be concerned about greenhouse gases is not that they destroy the ozone, it is that they cause global warming.

Thank you. Now with the limited use of CFC's is the ozone problem solved?

So, how did the CFC's get up there? And now that they aren't being used anymore I presume there is no longer a danger of destroying the ozone layer?See my previous post.

In answer to your latter question. The free radical chlorine ion eventually comes across another chlorine ion and reacts with to produce diatomic chlorine gas which can't be broken down by UV light.

CFCs are no longer used as they once where and when they are used they carefully disposed of after use. This means the amount of chlorine ions in the stratosphere is gradually being reduced as they are no new CFCs to replenish the supply of chlorine ions

Well, I started thinking.
Well....this is probably the greatest part of your problem!! :D

The ozone layer does replenish itself, but slowly-if it weren't destroyed it'd become much too thick and be as detrimental as it's thinning is claimed to be-but bear in mind the ozone layer has been blasted to 10% of it's current level within human history, and mankind survived. Volcanic eruptions put the majority of the destructive gasses in the air, despite the left's hatred of people with air conditioners and nice cars. As far as global warming goes, there are two points to consider-firstly, in the seventies it was a new Ice Age coming to wipe us out for our environmentally unfriendly stance, and second-the lesser Ice Age ended the same year Washington and his troops wintered in Valley Forge, so I should hope there is some global warming going on-quite frankly, we haven't been monitoring the situation long enough to make these snap decisions, but modern environmentalism is less concerned with keeping the planet livable than destroying personal property rights.

but modern environmentalism is less concerned with keeping the planet livable than destroying personal property rights.

what does environmentalism have to do with property rights? there are many capitalists investing in sustainable energy and stuff like that.

but modern environmentalism is less concerned with keeping the planet livable than destroying personal property rights.


Throws on flameguard 2000. Yeah what he said.... :D

Green house gases don't destroy Ozone. CFCs do. CFCs are unreactive at ground level and can survive in the atmosphere for centuries. This gives them plenty of time to diffuse up into stratosphere where they finally begin to react with UV light (not present at ground level in large quantities due to Ozone). The UV light breaks off the Chlorine from the CFCs as ions. These Chlorine ions (free radicals) attack Ozone causing it to break down. However, the reaction is self sustaining, meaning a single CFC molecule can break down many thousands of Ozone molecules.

The Reaction
Both Cl· and ClO· are free radicals.

Thank you.

Well....this is probably the greatest part of your problem!! :D

Come on now, I'm old, getting ready to retire, and have plenty of time to think. And if you think it's bad now, wait another two years when I do retire. :eek:

The ozone layer does replenish itself, but slowly-if it weren't destroyed it'd become much too thick and be as detrimental as it's thinning is claimed to be-but bear in mind the ozone layer has been blasted to 10% of it's current level within human history, and mankind survived. Volcanic eruptions put the majority of the destructive gasses in the air, despite the left's hatred of people with air conditioners and nice cars. As far as global warming goes, there are two points to consider-firstly, in the seventies it was a new Ice Age coming to wipe us out for our environmentally unfriendly stance, and second-the lesser Ice Age ended the same year Washington and his troops wintered in Valley Forge, so I should hope there is some global warming going on-quite frankly, we haven't been monitoring the situation long enough to make these snap decisions, but modern environmentalism is less concerned with keeping the planet livable than destroying personal property rights.You don't appear to know what you are talking about.

1) The Ozone 'Hole' does not mean a hole through the entirety of the stratosphere. Just the lower half. The upper half remains unaffected, though there is less Ozone in the upper half. This means that a 'hole' has formed when an area in stratosphere contains 50% less total Ozone then it normally would be expected to (33% is the lowest ever recorded over Antarctica).

2) The Ozone Holes were only ever formed close to the poles. Meaning that the majority of the Earth's population never suffered from the super exposure than the Ozone holes would have exposed them to.

3) A lack of Ozone would have made life on Earth very unpleasant. Ozone levels in the UK are ~10% lower than they were three decades ago, but has seen the incidence of malignant melanoma soar by ~400% in the same period. Where an Ozone Hole to occur over the UK this would mean that pretty much every one would suffer from malignant melanoma at least once within their life time. Malignant Melanoma currently has a death rate of 20%.


4) Your comment about natural chlorine sources only refers to tropospheric chlorine, not stratospheric chlorine. Manmade compounds are responsible for 80% of stratospheric chlorine. Naturally produced methyl chloride is pretty much responsible for the rest.

5) I think we have been monitoring the situation long enough when a 10,000-year-old ice shelf collapses into the sea due to increases water temperatures.

6) Antarctica is the warmest it has been for over 100,000 years - since before the rise of civilisation by an order of magnitude.

x) Congratulations on a 95 word sentence (I think you actually made four points in that sentence anyway).

The ozone layer does replenish itself, but slowly-if it weren't destroyed it'd become much too thick and be as detrimental as it's thinning is claimed to be-but bear in mind the ozone layer has been blasted to 10% of it's current level within human history, and mankind survived. Volcanic eruptions put the majority of the destructive gasses in the air, despite the left's hatred of people with air conditioners and nice cars. As far as global warming goes, there are two points to consider-firstly, in the seventies it was a new Ice Age coming to wipe us out for our environmentally unfriendly stance, and second-the lesser Ice Age ended the same year Washington and his troops wintered in Valley Forge, so I should hope there is some global warming going on-quite frankly, we haven't been monitoring the situation long enough to make these snap decisions, but modern environmentalism is less concerned with keeping the planet livable than destroying personal property rights.

Try sunbathing on a New Zealand beach for half an hour without SPF30 on, and find out what having no ozone does to humans.

they don't, greenhouse gases have nothing to do with ozone.

Not entirely true. Greenhouse gasses help trap heat closer to the Earth's surface meaning that the upper parts of the atmosphere end up getting cooler. Lower temperatures exacerbate ozone depletion by CFCs and the like, which is part of the explanation as to why it was the polar religions that ended up with the "hole".

So, while greenhouse gasses do not directly destroy the ozone layer, their accumulation has an indirect exacerbating effect.

Oklatex, weren't you something like a teacher? This is taught in schools. At least where I live it is... seems like it isn't just sex ed that suffers under the loony contingent of USA politics.

So, how did the CFC's get up there? And now that they aren't being used anymore I presume there is no longer a danger of destroying the ozone layer?

Global wind patterns. While there is a temperature layer that causes hot gasses to "ceiling" when rising, and fall, there is no hot air layer at a pole that never faces the sun for a long time, and that means that CFCs, can enter the ozone layer there. IIRC O3 does as well, but CFCs set off chain reactions in larger quantity than the added O3. Global wind patterns form two sets of spirals, one of which goes away from the equator, and the other heads towards the individual poles.

I could have some of my details wrong, since I haven't had an envi sci course in a couple years.

Oklatex, weren't you something like a teacher? This is taught in schools. At least where I live it is... seems like it isn't just sex ed that suffers under the loony contingent of USA politics

Environmental Science is offered at the High School level, as an AP course, but is supposed to be taught in Biology courses (In my experience, the "Environmental Science" section of Biology was a month long, and about different Ecosystems). However, in perspective, my High School was in between two large states in the middle of the list, with a couple hundred students, in participation in the program.

So, how did the CFC's get up there? And now that they aren't being used anymore I presume there is no longer a danger of destroying the ozone layer?

There's now actually an expected date for full ozone recovery.

So, how do the greenhouse gasses get up there to destroy the ozone?
Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and nitrous oxide don't destroy the ozone.

Manmade greenhouse gases like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), as well as sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), have a much longer lifetime.

Methane, for example, has a lifespan of 10-12 years in the atmosphere, whereas some CFCs (you know, the stuff used as a propellant in sprays for about half a century) have an atmospheric lifespan of a century or more. They have all the time they'd need to distribute throughout the atmosphere and reach those areas where they are damaging to the ozone.

Read up on it here: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

Oklatex, weren't you something like a teacher? This is taught in schools. At least where I live it is... seems like it isn't just sex ed that suffers under the loony contingent of USA politics.

Post secondary technical courses. More specifically avionics in an aviation technical college. Very limited in scope as technical education should be limited.

A few years ago, the local TV meteorologist would answer questions people sent to the station.

Meterologist?

Or "weather guy"?

Oklatex, weren't you something like a teacher? This is taught in schools. At least where I live it is... seems like it isn't just sex ed that suffers under the loony contingent of USA politics.


Today it is taught but someone that went to school 20+ years ago would not have the knowledge taught to them that are taught to kids today. Science has progressed as well as education. I am assuming you are a young 20 something. Instead you take a jab at the US as if everyone is uneducated. You can come up with better then grade school antics can't you?

So, how do the greenhouse gasses get up there to destroy the ozone?

Greenhouse gasses don't destroy ozone. They have nothing to do with each other. That's like asking, "how does arsenic cause brain cancer?" Ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect have nothing to do with each other. The ozone layer in teh mid atmosphere, way higher than where the greenhouse effect occurs, blocks a lot of ultra violet radiation which can cause cancer and interfere with photosynthesis. The greenhouse effect makes the air at the surface of the earth and a couple miles up warmer. A completely seperate issue. The ozone depletion issue, by the way, has largely been solved and the hole that would open at the South Pole every winter has stopped growing and is expected to make a complete recovery. We simply stopped using the chemicals that cause the problem, chloroflourocarbons, and the erosion of teh ozone layer stopped.

Oh.



I guess others beat me to it.



Nevermind.

Oh, on the subject of Ozone ... if you want experience what Ozone is like, get yourself a laser printer (preferably one of older ones).
http://www.aerias.org/DesktopModules/ArticleDetail.aspx?articleId=87