
From UCAR: BOULDER—Ozone pollution across the continental United States will become far more difficult to keep in check as temperatures rise, according to new research led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The detailed study shows that Americans face the risk of a 70 percent increase in unhealthy summertime ozone levels by 2050.
This is because warmer temperatures and other changes in the atmosphere related to a changing climate, including higher atmospheric levels of methane, spur chemical reactions that lead to ozone.
Unless emissions of specific pollutants that are associated with the formation of ozone are sharply cut, almost all of the continental United States will experience at least a few days with unhealthy air during the summers, the research shows. Heavily polluted locations in parts of the East, Midwest, and West Coast in which ozone already frequently exceeds recommended levels could face unhealthy air during most of the summer.
“It doesn’t matter where you are in the United States—climate change has the potential to make your air worse,” said NCAR scientist Gabriele Pfister, the lead author of the new study. “A warming planet doesn’t just mean rising temperatures, it also means risking more summertime pollution and the health impacts that come with it.”
However, the research also showed that a sharp reduction in the emissions of certain pollutants would lead to dramatically decreased levels of ozone even as temperatures warm.
The detailed research is one of the first of its type to be conducted with new, highly advanced geoscience supercomputing capabilities. It will be published online this week in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.
The work was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), which is NCAR’s sponsor, and the U.S. Department of Energy. In addition to NCAR, the study co-authors are from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; University of Colorado, Boulder; and North-West University in South Africa.
Ozone and heat
Ozone pollution is not emitted directly, but instead forms as a result of chemical reactions that take place between nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight. These gases come from human activities such as combustion of coal and oil as well as natural sources such as emissions from plants.
Unlike ozone in the stratosphere, which benefits life on Earth by blocking ultraviolet radiation from the Sun, ground-level ozone can trigger a number of health problems. These range from coughing and throat irritation to more serious problems, including aggravation of asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. Even short periods of unhealthy ozone levels can cause local death rates to rise. Ozone pollution also damages crops and other plants.
To examine the impacts of climate change on ozone pollution, Pfister and her colleagues looked at two scenarios. In one, emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds from human activities would continue at current levels through 2050. In the other, emissions would be cut by 60-70 percent. Both scenarios assumed continued greenhouse gas emissions with significant warming.
The researchers found that, if emissions continue at present-day rates, the number of eight-hour periods in which ozone would exceed 75 parts per billion (ppb) would jump by 70 percent on average across the United States by 2050. The 75 ppb level over eight hours is the threshold that is considered unhealthy by the Environmental Protection Agency. (The agency is considering tightening the standard to a value between 65 and 70 ppb over eight hours.)
Overall, the study found that, 90 percent of the time, ozone levels would range from 30 to 87 ppb in 2050 compared with an estimated 31 to 79 ppb in the present. Although the range itself shifts only slightly, the result is a much larger number of days above the threshold now considered unhealthy.
There are three primary reasons for the increase in ozone with climate change:
- Chemical reactions in the atmosphere that produce ozone occur more rapidly at higher temperatures.
- Plants emit more volatile organic compounds at higher temperatures, which can increase ozone formation if mixed with pollutants from human sources.
- Methane, which is increasing in the atmosphere, contributes to increased ozone globally and will enhance baseline levels of surface ozone across the United States.
In the second scenario, Pfister and her colleagues found that sharp reductions in nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds could reduce ozone pollution even as the climate warms. In fact, 90 percent of the time, ozone levels would range from 27 to 55 ppb. The number of instances when ozone pollution would exceed the 75 ppb level dropped to less than 1 percent of current cases.
“Our work confirms that reducing emissions of ozone precursors would have an enormous effect on the air we all breathe,” Pfister said.
Pfister and a nationwide scientific team expect to learn more about the sources, chemistry, and movement of air pollutants this summer when they launch a major field experiment known as FRAPPÉ along Colorado’s Front Range.
The role of supercomputing
The new study was among the first conducted on the new 1.5-petaflop Yellowstone supercomputer. The IBM system, operated by NCAR and supported by funding from the NSF and the University of Wyoming, is one of the world’s most powerful computers specifically dedicated to research in the atmospheric and related sciences.
Thanks to its computing power, the scientists were able to simulate pollution levels hour by hour for 39 hypothetical summers. This allowed the team to account for year-to-year variations in meteorological conditions, such as hot and dry vs. cool and wet, thereby getting a more detailed and statistically significant picture of future pollution levels.
To simulate the interplay of global climate with regional pollution conditions, the scientists turned to two of the world’s leading atmospheric models, both based at NCAR and developed through broad collaborations with the atmospheric science community. They used the Community Earth System Model, funded primarily by the Department of Energy and NSF, to simulate global climate as well as atmospheric chemistry conditions. They also used an air chemistry version of the multiagency Weather Research and Forecasting model to obtain a more detailed picture of regional ozone levels.
Even with Yellowstone’s advanced computing speed, it took months to complete the complex simulations.
“This research would not have been possible even just a couple of years ago,” said Pfister. “Without the new computing power made possible by Yellowstone, you cannot depict the necessary detail of future changes in air chemistry over small areas, including the urban centers where most Americans live.”
“Both scenarios assumed … significant warming….” So start with the answer you want, and build a computer model that proves it. Nice work. Well worth the investment.
We can adapt to higher levels of ozone.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8998953
I know that the solution is far for ideal, but taking vitamin C will help.
http://respiratory-research.com/content/14/1/14
Eat your broccoli or your orange.
Tricky stuff, modeling even simple chemical reactions in a flask by computer. Doing it for the atmosphere on a planetary scale for half a century or so, plus all the changes that might happen due to the sun and biosphere….well that’s quite a bonus isn’t it.
My eyes just rolled out of their sockets again.
Althogh this question is simplistic – it might nt be relevant if there is catalysis, for example – chemists are taught that most chemical reactions run faster with higher reaction temperature.
Now, the ozone described above does not hang around forever. There is a chemical reaction, possibly several, that destroys it.
Why is the chemistry that makes the formation reactions run faster, diffrrent from the chemistry that should make the destruction chemistry correspondingly faster, for no change?
More importantly, do the authors study the possibility of induced reactions that could hasten the destruction? Like, what happens if you use freon type chemicals for active mitigation? Or have these been found to work only way up in the sky, not around the LA skyscrapers?
This whole ozone story has been told quite poorly. One suspects that is because big gaps of understanding remain.
Why is it asserted above that ozone close to the ground does not block UV radiation from the Sun, but stratospheric ozone does? Good things, supercomputers. Re-writing light absorption phyics, no less?
…it’s like the thousands of Global Warming studies on what will happen to this ecosystem or that species under a 4C warming of the Earth because nobody is disputing those findings.
The dispute is with the preposterous “science” touting the 4c of warming.
If your model is rubbish a bigger computer just gets you to the wrong answer faster.
Google “ozone hole” for claims the DEPLETION of ozone will lead to catastrophic effects, which is why production of CFCs was limited by international agreements. Now we are warned about the catastrophic effects of TOO MUCH ozone.
Give a kid a toy hammer and everything starts to look like a nail – give an environmentalist a computer model, and everything starts to look like an environmental disaster.
Michael Hart said: My eyes just rolled out of their sockets again ….
And the researchers here are well positioned for a grant renewal and more funding. Go figure.
I am personally very frustrated by the unintended consequence of CAGW funding exemplified by this story: “The new study was among the first conducted on the new 1.5-petaflop Yellowstone supercomputer. The IBM system, operated by NCAR and supported by funding from the NSF and the University of Wyoming, is one of the world’s most powerful computers specifically dedicated to research in the atmospheric and related sciences.”
Back of the envelope calculations would agree that all things being equal, warmer temperatures lead to more ozone air pollution and that reductions of precursor emissions will reduce ambient concentrations. All this study did was quantify those conclusions a bit better, maybe.
Meanwhile, a powerful new weather supercomputer, funded over a year ago by the U.S. Congress, has not even been ordered, even though it could radically improve U.S. operational weather prediction (http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-us-slips-to-fourth-place-in-global.html). While I cannot provide a reference I am positive that EPA and State ozone air quality modeling is not using as advanced a computer to determine how best to implement reductions of precursor emissions to reduce ambient concentrations.
Two projects that could provide immediate tangible benefits wither while consensus scientists feast at the CAGW trough of funding to provide obvious but speculative research. Yet another reason that there is little reason to question the consensus amongst the climate scientists.
I can tell everyone here from first hand experience during LA in smog alerts, breathing high levels of smog-ozone caused my eyes to burn and lung breathing tightness like I’d never experienced before during strenuous outdoor activities, i.e. running. I am just thankful I don’t live in SoCal. Was it just ozone or the other nasty stuff in the air? The medical physiology research says it is ozone that causes the airways to restrict. But elevated ozone is a product of excess nitric oxides and sunlight. A few degrees more of temp one day to next won’t be a significant as simply cleaning up the combustion fuels that puts the nitric oxides there in the first place. The reactions are:
NO2 + hv –> NO + O
O + O2 + M –> O3
where M is a metal catalyst, and hv is for wavelengths shorter than 424nm (blue, violet).
So decreasing the buildup of nitrogen oxides in the troposphere will go orders of magnitude further in reducing surface ozone, than will a couple of degrees C.
Our work confirms that reducing emissions of ozone precursors would have an enormous effect on the air we all breathe,” Pfister said
Do they really need a supercomputer to state the obvious.
… during LA in smog alerts, breathing high levels of smog-ozone caused my eyes to burn and lung breathing tightness like I’d never experienced before during strenuous outdoor activities, i.e. running.
Aiming for a Darwin?
Maybe they did not get “The Memo”. The global temperature has not statistically increased for the last 17+ years. Either 1) the heat increase they “think” they see is local variability or from UHI effect. Or 2) suggested/predicted by models and not supported/validated by observational data. In either case, their extrapolation is meaningless. Nice picture of a city covered in smog, thus UHI effect fully evident…
Apparently, it will also make baking cakes easier and harder at the same time, it will make buses run both early and late at the same time, amazingly more and less people will go to the cinema…
There is nothing it cannot do!
rogercaiazza says:
May 6, 2014 at 2:11 am
All this study did was quantify those conclusions a bit better, maybe.
A computer simulation of unknown accuracy can’t quantify. That requires data.
How to write a climate alarm paper:
(theoretical danger) will become more common as the climate warms, according to a new study by (“prestigious” climate reasearcher(s)). The new study demonstrates (horrible catastrophe) will occur by (date far enough that everyone will be dead before it happens, but near enough that we’ll worry about our kids).
This is because (theoretical catastrophic event) becomes more likely as the climate continues to warm, all due to human emissions of the dread gas CO2. Plants won’t save you. Nothing will save you. Except possibly funding further research by us, and only us.
(Add twisted definition of something that is extremely improbable but sounds potentially plausible when placed in the context of an impossibly warmer climate)
This important and earth-changing research was done at the (“prestigious” climate reasearch location, or one that wants to be) using the (insanely expensive data processing resources that would be far better used elsewhere).
So what has happened to the frequency of “coughing and throat irritation to more serious problems, including aggravation of asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema”, during the last 17 yrs 8 months of no warming but increasing combustion of organic products? I personally have noticed no difference, but I wasn’t looking very hard..
@mwhite
You’re missing the point. The new supercomputer represents a new ‘authority’ to appeal to.
The message is “if it took such massive computing power, our model must be sophisticated, so how can we possibly be wrong?”
If these were honest researchers, they wouldn’t need to drag the supercomputer into the story to shore up their predictions.
We need to run an experiment. Take the ‘pollutants’ that create ozone and put them in a box with the ones that destroy ozone – let’s see which team wins! 🙂
Seriously, most ozone is created by UV-B and UV-C (stratosphere) as well as lightning (troposphere), using dioxygen (found at about 20,000 ppm in air).
They are fretting over ozone levels of 0.075 ppm.
Reducing pollution is a good thing, but how this has to do with CO2, which isn’t a pollutant, is anyone’s guess.
Less Climate change, more Obama’s end goals. Which are to move everyone into urban areas (to better control them). Pack more people into smaller areas, and regardless of the temperature, pollution will increase.
Every electric appliance generates higher than ambient heat. Every light fitting, electric motor, industrial process. Every gas appliance and (shudder) solar panels and windmills. We’re doomed with every breath we take.
Another “Given global warming, then . . . .” study.
The magic in computing comes from designing programs. Not the size of the computer. Large computers are a crutch, not a solution, though the uninitiated are impressed.
Teraflop, indeed. These “scientists” have forgotten what science is.