Claim: Climate change threatens to worsen U.S. ozone pollution

Smoggy skies in Los Angeles as viewed from the Getty Museum
Visible pollutants can react with sunlight to create invisible ozone pollution, which frequently reaches unhealthy levels in major cities like Los Angeles. New research indicates that the pollution may worsen in coming decades due to chemical reactions in the air associated with climate change. (Wikimedia photo by Thomas.)

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.”

 

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
68 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alex
May 6, 2014 6:52 am

ferd
it refers to pollutants ‘somewhere’ in LA county. Doublespeak. I could refer to high methane levels somewhere in LA county without specifying that it was measured around a sewerage plant.

Tim
May 6, 2014 7:02 am

The date of 2050 seems to be the safe and convenient benchmark for all catastrophic climate predictions. The median age of the authors being, say, 40 would make them well and truly retired on super (plus grants).
Or having passed from the living state to being no longer alive – or accountable.

Alex
May 6, 2014 7:09 am

The EPA is the kind of organisation that would legislate CO2 to zero ppm. Then they would legislate for increases in CO2 because everything is dying. You can never win with these people. The only cure for stupidity is death. I don’t know who said that, but it has stuck in my mind.

Bill_W
May 6, 2014 7:13 am

I would like to see the errors associated with their simulations. The low end had nearly identical ozone levels and the high end is about a 10% increase. Are the numbers +/- 5%? That would say they are not really sure if they will go up. Of course, in a simulation, they can artificially make the error bars smaller by assuming tiny errors in most of their calculations. They probably have some in the paper. If so, it would be good to include those above.

Alex
May 6, 2014 7:19 am

to Tim
I miss the good old days. When a witchdoctor or emperor said something and it didn’t come true in 5 years they ended up with their head on a spike.

Alex
May 6, 2014 7:29 am

to Bill_W
you don’t get error bars in simulations-they are perfect. You only get error bars with measurements. Foolish person

Alex
May 6, 2014 7:38 am

if you want error bars you have to pay extra

george e. smith
May 6, 2014 7:56 am

“””””…..Visible pollutants can react with sunlight to create invisible ozone pollution, which frequently reaches unhealthy levels in major cities like Los Angeles. New research indicates that the pollution may worsen in coming decades due to chemical reactions in the air associated with climate change. (Wikimedia photo by Thomas.)…..”””””
“Visible pollutants, (brown oxygen in this photo) combine with sunlight (solar UV or “black light) to create invisible (except at 9.6 micron LWIR) Ozone; which we need to fill the ozone hole so the solar black light doesn’t get us ??

george e. smith
May 6, 2014 8:02 am

“””””…..tadchem says:
May 6, 2014 at 4:35 am
We need to run an experiment. …..””””
Slipped a cog there tad; it’s 200,000 ppm, not 20,000.

May 6, 2014 9:16 am

just a mere layman here and i havent read the report or the comments yet, but one thing bothers about this ozone warning stuff…..they keep saying on TV that driving cars CAUSES the ground level ozone, and i always wonder since we do drive cars year round why it is that cars only “cause” the ozone on the hottest days of summer??? why not in winter?????
POINT = even i understand it is the HEAT that causes the ozone to form NOT driving cars.

Billy Liar
May 6, 2014 9:30 am

ferd berple says:
May 6, 2014 at 6:49 am
All other things being equal, reduced ozone levels could be a proxy for reduced anti-cyclonic weather.

PRD
May 6, 2014 10:00 am

I’ve read through and I find something quite missing.
O2 + UV ~ catalyzed on titanium dioxide -> O3 You don’t need NO, CH4, NH3 or anything else.
How about coating a few million acres of east, south, and west faces of buildings with TiO2 and exposing it to sunlight? ICYDK: TiO2 is the white pigment of choice in paints and metal anodizing.

May 6, 2014 11:03 am

The new fast supercomputer finishes endless loops before doomsday…

DD More
May 6, 2014 11:27 am

Even with Yellowstone’s advanced computing speed, it took months to complete the complex simulations.
And from the ‘way-back’ memory machine “Measuring 108,000 square feet in total with 15,000-20,000 square feet of raised floor, it will be built for 8 megawatts of power, with 4-5 megawatts for computing and 3-4 for cooling.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/16/wyoming-experiences-that-giant-sucking-sound-as-new-coal-fired-climate-supercomputer-is-turned-on/
So this little run took 8MW-+months of coal fired power = how big a carbon footprint.
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.)
Anti-spin translation – 75 ppb is the threshold we now consider because we were not getting to raise enough alerts with the prior level. We want to keep lowering the rate so we will be able to scream and wave the alarm flags and keep our job.

Billy Liar
May 6, 2014 4:18 pm

DD More says:
May 6, 2014 at 11:27 am
Let’s be generous and say ‘months’ is 60 days. The power consumed on the project would be 11.52GWh ~ $170/MWh = ~$2M
Do taxpayers think it was $2M well spent on ‘confirming’ the obvious?

May 6, 2014 8:38 pm

A number of interesting questions here
“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! :)”
Yep, these are called smog chambers. Some are quite large. Just google the name. and look at the images.

May 6, 2014 8:40 pm

Another
“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.”
The kind of modeling described here is on a much smaller geographical level, maybe something like Denver or the LA basin.

RFYoung
May 7, 2014 12:00 pm

Just a note: Pine trees are the leading cause ofozone exceedances in many areas. The only solution is logging.