From the European Space Agency:
ESA finds that Venus has an ozone layer too

ESA’s Venus Express spacecraft has discovered an ozone layer high in the atmosphere of Venus. Comparing its properties with those of the equivalent layers on Earth and Mars will help astronomers refine their searches for life on other planets.
Venus Express made the discovery while watching stars seen right at the edge of the planet set through its atmosphere. Its SPICAV instrument analysed the starlight, looking for the characteristic fingerprints of gases in the atmosphere as they absorbed light at specific wavelengths.
The ozone was detectable because it absorbed some of the ultraviolet from the starlight.
Ozone is a molecule containing three oxygen atoms. According to computer models, the ozone on Venus is formed when sunlight breaks up carbon dioxide molecules, releasing oxygen atoms.
These atoms are then swept around to the nightside of the planet by winds in the atmosphere: they can then combine to form two-atom oxygen molecules, but also sometimes three-atom ozone molecules.
“This detection gives us an important constraint on understanding the chemistry of Venus’ atmosphere,” says Franck Montmessin, who led the research.
It may also offer a useful comparison for searching for life on other worlds.
Ozone has only previously been detected in the atmospheres of Earth and Mars. On Earth, it is of fundamental importance to life because it absorbs much of the Sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. Not only that, it is thought to have been generated by life itself in the first place.
The build-up of oxygen, and consequently ozone, in Earth’s atmosphere began 2.4 billion years ago. Although the exact reasons for it are not entirely understood, microbes excreting oxygen as a waste gas must have played an important role.
Along with plant life, they continue to do so, constantly replenishing Earth’s oxygen and ozone.
As a result, some astrobiologists have suggested that the simultaneous presence of carbon dioxide, oxygen and ozone in an atmosphere could be used to tell whether there could be life on the planet.
This would allow future telescopes to target planets around other stars and assess their habitability. However, as these new results highlight, the amount of ozone is crucial.
The small amount of ozone in Mars’ atmosphere has not been generated by life. There, it is the result of sunlight breaking up carbon dioxide molecules.
Venus too, now supports this view of a modest ozone build-up by non-biological means. Its ozone layer sits at an altitude of 100 km, about four times higher in the atmosphere than Earth’s and is a hundred to a thousand times less dense.
Theoretical work by astrobiologists suggests that a planet’s ozone concentration must be 20% of Earth’s value before life should be considered as a cause.
These new results support that conclusion because Venus clearly remains below this threshold.
“We can use these new observations to test and refine the scenarios for the detection of life on other worlds,” says Dr Montmessin.
Yet, even if there is no life on Venus, the detection of ozone there brings Venus a step closer to Earth and Mars. All three planets have an ozone layer.
“This ozone detection tells us a lot about the circulation and the chemistry of Venus’ atmosphere,” says Håkan Svedhem, ESA Project Scientist for the Venus Express mission.
“Beyond that, it is yet more evidence of the fundamental similarity between the rocky planets, and shows the importance of studying Venus to understand them all.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I just need to get this straight so any help would be apreciated.
* Take a carbon atom, “burn” it with Oxygen to get CO2 (and get some work done in the process)
* Send the CO2 aloft where sunlight “whamm” disassociates the atoms, leaving us C and O atoms.
* return the C atom back down, “burn” it with Oxygen (get more work done) etc etc
* Repeat ad infinitum
I see a problem with all that so my understanding must be incomplete.
A sidenote: There seem to be two conflicting themes in space science in our era:
1. Anything that can be remotely tied to the possibility of Life-Out-There is made important thereby.
2. It is no big deal for Humans to explore space, Robot craft are economically more efficient and avoid the dangers Man faces in Space travel and so are preferred.
For me, humans spreading our life into space is what this science should be all about. For others, it seems they more fear that humans will contaminate space than hope to extend mankind’s dominion. When I was a kid in the 60’s, and man landed on the moon, I was sure a colony on Mars would come within decades. Now it looks like nothing of this scale will happen in my lifetime. Makes me sad. I don’t get it: Other Life-Out-There is important, but Human Life-Out-There isn’t worth the tiny percent of GDP we would have to spend to “make it happen”, as Captain Picard would have demanded.
Captain Fatty says:
October 7, 2011 at 9:22 am
Now to look for the holes at the poles…
—
That would be really interesting.
I wonder if Venus has an “Ozone Hole”:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/venus-polar-vortex/
George E Smith says:
“Apparently (I’m not a chemist) one of the two O-O bonds in Ozone is a rather weak ionic bond, rather than the (apparently) stronger covalent bond; so that ozone is readily destroyed by longer wavelength sunlight (mid spectrum)”
Not so. The ozone molecule is symmetric. The two bonds are exactly the same as each other, though weaker than the one bond in O2.
I have no comment on the discovery of ozone because I am simply too disheartened by the amateurish and adolescent quality of the writing in the press release.
kwinterkorn says:
October 7, 2011 at 2:42 pm
That’s because we once were explorers in an unending search to discover the mysteries waiting over an ever-shifting horizon. From the depths of our hearts, we swelled to the aged Ulysses’s cry:
Come, my friends,
‘Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
Today, however, we check with our lawyers to see if the term “western stars” is somehow discriminatory and pass legislation for safer baths.
It is well known that lightning produces ozone. Given the large amount of lightning occurring in Venus’ atmosphere, the ozone find should not be surprising. The only reason they were surprised is that they didn’t look for it in the first place.
http://atoc.colorado.edu/~seand/headinacloud/?p=216
For the first time, scientists have evidence of lightning on Venus found from this mission. Many scientists were caught off guard in seeing it. Scientists believed that it wasn’t possible to have lightning on Venus due to the smog-type of cloud found there. Since smog-type clouds generally don’t produce elecrical charges, they assumed it wasn’t possible. They now wonder if they have thought of all the reasons electricity could be generated by the atmosphere.
The operative thought here is what scientists thought what was NOT possible:
“In addition to all the pressure and heat, we can confirm there is lightning on Venus — maybe even more activity than there is here on Earth,” said Christopher Russell, a NASA-sponsored scientist on Venus Express from the University of California, Los Angeles, and lead author of one of the Nature papers.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/venus-20071128.html
More lightning occurring on Venus than Earth! In other words, due to the preconceptions of scientists they would have missed the discovery of ozone were it not for serendipity. Gives you real confidence in the educated elites claiming we should defer to them on matters of science. /snark/
George E. Smith; says:
October 7, 2011 at 10:26 am
That is exactly what I thought too. Thanks for your explanation of the process.
The conclusion is inevitable. Just as the ozone on Earth is caused by life, so it is with CO2 on Earth, all three planets have atmospheric CO2, In the absence of any better explanation, atmospheric CO2 on Earth is man-made, because man only exists on Earth.
Ozone provides protection against UV radiation and is created by UV breaking down CO2. Therefore, and I am sure that Al Gore does not know that, the more humans there are on Earth and the more CO2 they produce, the more Ozone there will be and the more all life on Earth will be protected against cancer-causing UV radiation. We know that because “scientists say so.” /sarc off
“Not only that, it is thought to have been generated by life itself in the first place.”
Wow, we have a theory that life itself generated ozone. Not wanting to abandon this theory, we now change it so that a bit of ozone can be produced without life – say 20% of earth’s ozone amount. This changing your theory instead of discarding it in face of empirical data that falsifies it is part of this new post normal science where the science is settled – we just have to bend it a bit in the face of a potential falsification. I can see why this is here. They have obviously spent a lot of time, money and careers looking for life on other planets by checking out if it has ozone or not. Gee it would be inconvenient to get rid of this theory now. Sounds familiar!
“””””” jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 7, 2011 at 4:13 pm
George E Smith says:
“Apparently (I’m not a chemist) one of the two O-O bonds in Ozone is a rather weak ionic bond, rather than the (apparently) stronger covalent bond; so that ozone is readily destroyed by longer wavelength sunlight (mid spectrum)”
Not so. The ozone molecule is symmetric. The two bonds are exactly the same as each other, though weaker than the one bond in O2. “””””
See you prove my point; I am not a chemist, which is why I said so. And neither did I make up the comment about the Oxygen bonds; I read it somewhere, in what I presumed was a more accurate source than my imagination. It might also have suggested that those two bonds switched places much as do the single and double bonds in the Benzene ring.
But I’m happy to adopt your correction, since as I said, I am not a chemist.
“”””” Phil. says:
October 7, 2011 at 11:13 am
George E. Smith; says:
October 7, 2011 at 10:26 am
“”””” Ozone has only previously been detected in the atmospheres of Earth and Mars. On Earth, it is of fundamental importance to life because it absorbs much of the Sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. Not only that, it is thought to have been generated by life itself in the first place. “””””
Well I would say that the “news” in this story is the amazing revelation that life produces the earth’s ozone.
Hi George, the point is that the oxygen in the earth’s atmosphere was produced by life and photodissociation of the O2 is the major source of O3 on Earth. In the primaeval atmosphere there would have been much less ozone. “””””
Thanks Phil, good to see your posts again. And of course I would agree that we believe that life on earth ultimately produced the free Oxygen of the atmosphere and ultimately the ozone. I thought the new story was implying a more direct process of ozone creation by life.
Odd that life on earth arose in an oxygen and ozone free environment and presumably a good dose of solar UV.. Well some high energy photons might be helpful in stimulating some of the syntheses that must have taken place.
But earth certainly had plenty of Oxygen and Carbon long before life arose.; strange that we view either as evidence of life.
Anthony, good you hedged about light waves and photons. Photons is one of the planks for the AGW believers, and is frequently mentioned by those who do not understand the engineering discipline of heat and mass transfer. Nobel prize winner WE Lamb jr does not like the concept of photons see here http://www-3.unipv.it/fis/tamq/Anti-photon.pdf and this paper may provide additional insight http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5711.pdf
“”””” “””””” jimmi_the_dalek says:
October 7, 2011 at 4:13 pm
George E Smith says:
“Apparently (I’m not a chemist) one of the two O-O bonds in Ozone is a rather weak ionic bond, rather than the (apparently) stronger covalent bond; so that ozone is readily destroyed by longer wavelength sunlight (mid spectrum)”
Not so. The ozone molecule is symmetric. The two bonds are exactly the same as each other, though weaker than the one bond in O2. “”””” “””””
Well I Binged a couple of different web sites actually three; one of which was Wikipedia, which I took with a large grain of NaCl; but all three were in agreement, in saying that the Ozone molecule is NOT symmetrical; one O=O bond is a double bond, but the other O-O bond is a single bond. OK they didn’t say one was ionic, and the other covalent, so I must have just imagined that part. A couple of them also mentioned that the structure was a resonant one, similar to the Benzene ring structure which I also had allouded to, so the single and double bonds can switch places. Of course Mother Gaia is the only one who can read the serial numbers of each Oxygen atom and so tell them apart; but at any time when one looks at the molecule is is NOT symmetrical.
But I am NOT a chemist so a whole lot of the mumbo-jumbo they cited, in detail is quite foreign to me..
Right George, on average the molecule will look symmetrical but it’s vibrating in three different modes which have frequencies at about 10^14 Hz.