Ozone, found in the atmosphere, found in the lab

Strangely enough, ozone at ground level is a pollutant. Too much of it in our cities. Unfortunately, ferrying it to the upper atmosphere is far from cost effective.

That is dredged out of my sometimes faulty memory, so don't take it as gospel. I'm sure the qualified nerds (I'm just a wannabe nerd) will be along soon to set the record straight.

While the qualified nerds are coming, I'll just mention an article I read a couple of years ago (and thus, cannot cite properly) pointing out that the ozone layer seemed to naturally thicken and thin out now and again, as perennial as loads of other things on earth.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

TsukiRyoko said:

Ozone, or O[sub]3[/sub], is the stuff that forms a protective layer around our Earth, keeping UV rays out and aiding in the regulation of the seasons, temperatures, weather, etc etc.

It is also the same stuff used to...sterilize medical equipment?

What I would like to find out is: do we manufacture synthetic ozone, or extract it from natural sources? And if we do, in fact, manufacture synthetic ozone, would it be possible to somehow repair the ozone layer that surrounds and protects our Earth (even if it's just a little repair)?

Click to expand...

Ozone is manufactured from Oxygen (O2) in an Ozonolyser by passing a stream of Oxygen through a high voltage discharge tube. Ozone is a highly reactive oxidising agent.

In English, Tsuki, he said we make it. We take pure O2 and squish three of them together until we have two O3. It's like making a triple-decker sandwich instead of a regular one.

The levels of ozone fluctuate in our atmosphere due to a number of reasons. A lot of scientists feel it may have something to do with the amoung of oxygen-producing trees we have on the planet, which is why the environmental scare crusade of the 70s/80s (ozone layer depletion) was tied so heavily to the "save the amazon" campaigns.

The ozone layer has nothing whatever to do with producing the oxygen (O2) we breathe. That atmospheric O2, concentrated at much lower elevations, is exuded by photosynthesis in plants ranging from single-celled algae to giant sequoias.

caw

Ozone is produced by ultraviolet rays reacting with oxygen in the upper atmosphere. It then most conveniently screens those self-same ultraviolet rays, making sure we don't get excessive amounts down here. And then, most conveniently again, the ozone breaks down if it occurs in large concentrations, making sure that enough UV gets through to allow our bodies to produce the Vitamin D we need. A finely balanced machine. I find this stuff gorgeous. The carbon and nitrogen cycles make me drool too. Almost enough to make you think it was purposely designed. *ducks and runs*

Ennyhoo, there are natural fluctuations in the ozone layer, but CFC's from aerosols messed up the whole system by causing breakdown of the ozone faster than it was being replenished. Now that we've backed off of CFC's, apparently the situation is improving.

TsukiRyoko said:

I think I read something about the world's breathing oxygen coming from the ozone layer. It goes through a process opposite of fusion (instead of two cells fusing, they detach, but I can't think of what it's called)

Click to expand...

The opposite of fusion is fission - that's the process that makes a nuclear weapon go boom, so I don't reckon it's that.

Fission is the splitting of atoms, not molecules. Molecules split and recombine all the time.

Judg said:

Fission is the splitting of atoms, not molecules. Molecules split and recombine all the time.

Click to expand...

Aye, and fusion (which Tsuki mentioned) is the combination of atoms, not molecules.

Phrased another way, chemical energy is the energy that binds electrons to atomic nuclei, and chemistry is the interaction of the energies of those electron bonds. Nuclear energy is the energy that binds the particles of the atomic nucleus itself together, and is far stronger than the levels of energy with which electrons interact. Which is why a nuclear bomb releases so much more energy than a chemical explosive does.

caw

OK, now you're confusing global warming and the thinning of the ozone layer. These are two entirely different problems. A thinner ozone layer does not make the world warmer, it makes sunlight more dangerous.

As for global warming, there always has been a flux in long-term temperatures. That we are currently in a warming trend is well-nigh indisputable. That human activity is a primary cause is highly disputed. I am old enough to remember when scientists were warning of a looming ice age... Makes you a bit cynical after a while. It is also not clear whether the current warming trend is a very temporary blip or whether it is part of a longer-term trend.

Having said that, I'm all in favour of leaving a smaller environmental footprint. But I also refuse to get hysterical just because things are changing. They always have changed. And there have always been prophets of doom. Very occasionally they are right. But rarely.

JimmyB27 said:

The opposite of fusion is fission - that's the process that makes a nuclear weapon go boom, so I don't reckon it's that.

Click to expand...

Speaking of women...

Judg said:

Fission is the splitting of atoms, not molecules. Molecules split and recombine all the time.

Click to expand...

I hope this doesn't confuse things further, but in biology, fission means cell division.

Judg said:

As for global warming, there always has been a flux in long-term temperatures. That we are currently in a warming trend is well-nigh indisputable. That human activity is a primary cause is highly disputed. I am old enough to remember when scientists were warning of a looming ice age... Makes you a bit cynical after a while. It is also not clear whether the current warming trend is a very temporary blip or whether it is part of a longer-term trend.

Click to expand...

Well if we really want to argue about this we should better start a new thread but just let me note that a) the "global cooling" was really a lot more media hype than actual opion in the scientific community, that b) human influence is not highly disputed since there is ample evidence to suggest it is a major factor as well as very well known mechanism to cause and c) no matter whether we really are at fault or not, we better do everything we can to prevent it from happening, since humans will be among the most endangered of living creatures on the planet. The cockroaches won't care much.

TsukiRyoko said:

Honestly, the way the puzzle pieces of the world all fit together is the single thing that keeps me believing in the possibility of some higher force. While my personal beliefs are rough around the edges, very mix-and-matched, and follows no organized religion, I probably wouldn't even have it if it weren't for the wonders of science.

Click to expand...

Maybe it's the other way around? We just grew to perfectly fit this niche. Maybe someday we'll find live on jupiter wondering about exactly the same thing, how the jupiter environment so perfectly fits them.

But is it improving at a quick enough rate, I wonder? thanks to the ozone layer depleting, worldwide changes are already taking effect. Ice glaciers that took thousands of years to form are taking less than a decade or so to melt. The weather patterns are already changing. We'll have to update all of the maps soon because the poles are changing so drastically and the oceans are beginning to take new shapes. It's a scary thing, but we're so dependent upon the things that ruin the Earth that we won't be able to change quickly enough. The future is going to be interesting to see....

Click to expand...

None of this has to do with ozone layer. Global warming is due to greenhouse gases, mostly CO2 and water vapour. The ozone layer protects against hard radiaten in the sunlight, i.e. against skin cancer. After the global campaign for it kicked into full gear, iirc the ozone layer already shows signs of regeneration. Good for the aussies but got nothing to do with global warming.

Every time lightning strikes, a little ozone is born.

Global warming is due to greenhouse gases, mostly CO2 and water vapour. The ozone layer protects against hard radiaten in the sunlight, i.e. against skin cancer. After the global campaign for it kicked into full gear, iirc the ozone layer already shows signs of regeneration. Good for the aussies but got nothing to do with global warming.[/quote]

Given that other planets are also showing signs of warming, perhaps it's the current energy out put of the sun that is doing the warming. The jury is still out on the human factor. Even so, going green is good if for no other than esthetic reasons. Trees, green grass, fresh air and fresh, clean water. Good stuff.

Lhun said:

Well if we really want to argue about this we should better start a new thread but just let me note that a) the "global cooling" was really a lot more media hype than actual opion in the scientific community, that b) human influence is not highly disputed since there is ample evidence to suggest it is a major factor as well as very well known mechanism to cause and c) no matter whether we really are at fault or not, we better do everything we can to prevent it from happening, since humans will be among the most endangered of living creatures on the planet. The cockroaches won't care much.

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I do believe human activity is a factor, and enough of one that it is worth the effort to change gears. I also try to live in accordance with that, partly by necessity, partly by virtue.

So this isn't a cover-up for an unwillingness to change. I am still not convinced that human activity is the major factor. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't tackle what can be done. Natural cycles are one thing. Exacerbated natural cycles caused by irresponsible living are another.

TsukiRyoko said:

Honestly, the way the puzzle pieces of the world all fit together is the single thing that keeps me believing in the possibility of some higher force.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's pretty straightforward. Anything that requires something in order to survive that is not found on Earth, is never going to exist in the first place. If you go right back to the first organic compounds and earliest life, only those things that could make use of what was in the environment would survive. So right from the get-go, the development of life moved in lockstep with the environment. It's a basic progression. When organisms evolved that expelled oxygen, then other organisms that could use oxygen survived and flourished.

This is why it is so dangerous for us to continue to pour our garbage into the environment. It is a remarkably complex system and we still have no idea just what could knock it irreparably off kilter. People can argue until they're blue in the face about whether or not what we're doing is causing global warming, but what so many seem to be incapable of grasping is that dumping billions of tons of chemicals into the oceans and atmosphere is just plain STUPID precisely because we don't know what the hell it's going to do to the Earth's ability to sustain us.

The only thing we do know for certain is that our crap can't hurt the environment if we don't dump it into the environment in the first place.

Echoes from my chemistry class: “Dilution is the solution to pollution.”

I think they’ve finally stopped saying that.