Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Thanks Michah, I guess he beat you to it Az. ;)

UV in essence creates Ozone in the lower atmosphere where's there's more O2 and destroying it in the upper atmosphere where there's more O3? Are there any other ways Ozone is created?

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Pretty close. It's actually a bit more complicated.

I'm not sure I have this 100% right but I think it works like this.

The process for creating O3 requires both UV radiation and Oxygen ions. The higher you go in the atmosphere, the more UV radiation you have which increases the likelihood of breaking O2 into O. But that's a relatively slow process. However, the O2 concentration drops the higher you go. Also the increase in UV radiation also increases the likelihood of disassociating O3 into O2 and O. That's a fast process because the bond in O3 is weaker than O2. And the reassociation of O2 and O into O3 is also fast.

The lower you are in the atmosphere, the higher the concentration of oxygen molecules so there is more potential for creating oxygen ions. However the UV radiation is more heavily filtered the lower you are. The less radiation you have, the less likely you are to produce oxygen ions.

Somewhere in between those two end points is the balance. The majority (~90%) of naturally occuring Ozone occurs at the tropopause (at the boundary of the stratosphere and troposphere.)

There's another set of similiar reactions:

O2 + UV radiation => 2 O (O2 is bonded so it requires energy to break the bond)

O + O2 => O3

NO2 + photon => NO + O

O3 + NO => NO2 + O2

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Ok isn't it ozone that filters out the UV?

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

If by filter out, you mean does it totally reflect and/or absorb UV, the answer is no. Some UV radiation will be be transmitted (pass thru). It depends on which band of UV light you are talking about. Remember that UV light isn't one frequency - it's an entire spectrum or band of frequencies.

Here's a couple of pics that will help explain.

The first one shows the relative intensity of the various bands of UV light at top and bottom of the atmosphere. Notice how UV-A is only minimally absorbed/reflected by ozone and only for wavelengths less then 350 nm, while virtually no UV-C is transmitted at wavelengths less than 290 nm.

The second one shows schematically where the attenuation of the various bands of UV radiation occur and the relative concentrations of ozone at various elevations.

UV-C gets absorbed in the stratosphere, UV-B starts being absorbed/reflected in between the stratopause and the tropopause while UV-A is transmitted through the tropopause all the way to the surface.

In addition, the peak ozone concentration occurs just above the tropopause.

(note: The elevations in the second graph are approximate because the tropopause is higher in the tropics, where the concentration of ozone is lower and lower at the poles where the concentration of ozone is higher.)

http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~bethmont/e1fg2.gif

http://www.pacificu.edu/optometry/ce...es/Fig2011.jpg

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

No I don't mean totally, every few things do stuff totally ;) by filter I mean there is less UV the farther down in the atmosphere because UV and Ozone do what they do. Weither the UV is dispersed, expended, difused what ever. Sounds like Nature (for a lack of a better term) has a redundant system of creating Ozone. The first one is in the upper atmosphere were it is destroyed and created, then in the lower atmosphere where if the Ozone in the upper atmosphere lets to much UV through for what ever reason, UV creates Ozone out of just plain ole regular O2, how be it at a slower pace.

You wrote that the pace that UV destroyes O3 is fast, and that the rate O2 bonds with O is also fast, what's the ratio or relative speeds? ie: UV takes 2 minutes to destroy, O2 & O take 3 minutes to create.

What about the rate at which CFC's destroy Ozone?


The O2 that CI creates in the upper atmosphere, that would be broken down by UV into 2 O atoms letting them Bind to O2 that haven't been broken down yet Right?

Or does the O2 drop into the lower atmosphere before it gets broken down into 2 O atoms?

What are those rates?

Would more (higher levels) UV speed up breaking O2 down into 2 O Atoms?

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

GAK! I'm going to defer on the question of rates.

Go back to the first four equations I gave you:

1) O2 + UV radiation => 2 O
2) O2 + O + M = O3 + M (the original equation didn't show that this requires a non-reactive element to abbsorb energy - typically N2 or O2))
3) O3 + UV radiation (between 240 and 300 nm) => O2 + O
4) O + O3 => 2 O2

and the reaction rates are (numbers in brackets represent concentrations):

Rate1 = JO2 [O2], where JO2 is the photolysis rate constant of the reaction
Rate2 = k2 [O] [O2] [M]
Rate3 = JO3 [O3]
Rate4 = k4 [O] [O3]

Like I said, the rates of 2 and 3 are generally faster than 1 and 4. And by several orders of magnitude. I had ONE link that showed some relative numbers but I can NOT find it now.

To complicate matters, the JO3 and JO2 numbers aren't constants. They depend in part on the absorption spectrum cross section which we know varies with altitude. The net result is that there can be several order of magnitude variations in the reaction rates throughout the atmosphere. And the rate coefficient K4 isn't constant either. It varies based on temperature as

k4(O,O3) = 8.0 x 10-12 e-2060/T cm3molecule-1sec-1

And k4 is also influenced by CFCs.

I did find a parameter called PRT which is defined as the time it would take to generate the observed ozone concentration at a specific location at the existing production rate with no loss processes.

Here's a couple of pages which describe those, the reactions and far more.

http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SE...Chap_8/8_3.htm
http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SE...Chap_8/8_4.htm

And at this point I will freely admit to having reached the limit of my understanding vis a vis Ozone. LOL

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

LOL that's ok Micah, sounds like a Charlie Foxtrot with all the varibles and non constants ;)

I'm not debating the numbers just trying to figure out if after everything is said and done it all is a wash. Nothing happens in a vaccum, and any Oxygen atom, or O2 molelcule doesn't know if they got split off by a CI atom or UV. If it's all a wash then it doesn't matter how much cfc's are pumped up to the ozone. If it's not a wash then it does matter and matters a Hale of a lot.

Again I'm not argueing just trying to find out, because nothing happens in a vaccum. I'll read the links and see what I can gleen from them thanks.

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Ok read them, I'm going to sommerize and put into layman's terms The O3 > O2 & O process takes place during the daytime. The O2 + O > O3 takes place at night basicly it's a 24hr process so that's a wash.

The CfC (CI) work all the time since that process isn't so much effected by UV.

What I guess I'm trying to figure out is The CFC destruction of O3 that ends up with 2 O2 in the upper atmosphere, where there is more UV is the breaking down of that 2 O2 into 4 O by UV a wash with the cfc breaking down of O3?

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Don't sweat it JD. I'm not pushing back. We're good. :)



Here's another paper you might find useful.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/chemistr...e_kinetics.pdf

Most of the equations I've quoted are in the first few pages, but when you throw CFCs into the mix there are new reactions to consider. Scroll down to page 8 to see the new reactions and the modifications they cause. :)

There are 5 simultaneous differential equations that have to be solved in order to calculate the effect. That's asking a little too much for this thread I think. LOL

Just remember that before you add CFCs into the mix, ozone creation and destruction rates have to balance. If not the Ozone cycle would not be in equilibrium.

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

We were both posting at the same time.

If I understand what you are asking, the answer to your last question is no. CFCs still have a net effect of reducing O3.

Sent you a pm. LOL