Time for a wingnut quote from Richard Lindzen.

After all, 1% of climatologists can't be wrong.

Add peer-reviewed science to that list of things with a "well known liberal bias."

Surface level ozone levels have been decreasing over North America for the last 30 years.

See http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/ozone.html for example.

I don't have access to the Nature article, but the LA Times write-up is either glossing some details or just has a really bad science write, because ozone has been going down in most of the industrialized world. Note that this is not going to be the case in the developing world. Background ozone concentrations are 40 ppb in North America right now, and concentrations near urban areas routinely exceed 85 ppb, not 70 ppb as claimed in the LA Times write-up. Concentrations in the developing world often exceed 250 ppb.

If the LA Times insists on writing a synopsis, it should do some basic fact checking to make sure it isn't making factually untrue statements left and right by leaving out key details.

Funny thing about cyclical processes: No matter how clear you make it that you're on the outside, they find a way to bring you inside. I guess we should have seen this one coming once we passed the end of history.

Maybe we should require fossil-fuel users to also use ozone-depleting chemicals.

A couple different responses
Surface level ozone levels have been decreasing over North America for the last 30 years.

But that doesn't mean that the problem isn't getting worse there as regard plant absorption. IIRC, the main driver in the decline of the national average is tightened rules in the worst (principally urban) areas, driven by concerns of direct impacts on human health, which has resulted in really good results in those targetted areas.

OTOH, the averages could get better in that way while the impact on plants (which aren't distributed the same way people are) is getting worse.

Maybe we should require fossil-fuel users to also use ozone-depleting chemicals.

The chemicals usually called "ozone-depleting" deplete ozone in the upper atmosphere (where its good) not near the ground (where it is bad).

OTOH, if you mean we should require, e.g., catalytic converters, well, we do.

Instead of using hydrocarbons such as propane, n-butane and isobutane in spray cans, we could use chlorofluorocarbon propellants to destroy the ozone!

Heck, I'm old and I still might outlive the planet!

Surface level ozone levels have been decreasing over North America for the last 30 years.

Which is really nice, but that hasn't stopped NOAA and CDC from still issuing alerts about dangerously high levels of ground-level ozone and recommending that children and the elderly avoid breathing while outside, now, has it?

This is a poor analogy, but it's a lot like "well good news Mrs. Jones! Your child's BAC has dropped to .021 from .030! That's a very large reduction!"
"Mumble mumble ... still in a coma ... mumble mumble make lemonade ..."

cmdicely,

Concentrations of ozone have declined the most in urban areas and those areas downwind of pollution. However, transport of ozone and ozone precursors from those urban areas will have a far larger impact than the global background ozone on trends, which is what the article seems to be about, although you couldn't tell from the LA Times synopsis. North American ozone has declined substantially at more than 90% of monitors over the last 25 years. The change is primarily driven by decreases in the urban areas, but these changes are also passed on to the rural ones. Air quality of everything except greenhouse gases is substantially improved in North America relative to 30 years ago.

My complaint is that in the LA Times article, they explicitly state,
"In some areas of the world, ozone levels are above 40 parts per billion. Some computer models project that 40 parts per billion will be the global norm by 2100 and that levels will exceed 70 parts per billion in some areas, according to the study."

Ozone background levels are above 40 ppb in North America RIGHT NOW. Ozone levels exceed 70 ppb daily during the summer months in most American cities. The staff reporter for the LA Times doesn't know what she is talking about or misquoted the Nature article.

Something don't smell right in this article. When people who call themselves scientists conflate activities in the ozone layer with events occurring with surface level ozone they hace demonstrated either ignorance, or willing obfuscation.

And when they say that rising CO2 levels cause plants to decrease respiration, I gotta wonder. 'Cuz the ozone conflation is such a blatant piece of misinformation.

Ozone is a problem every summer where it's sunny there's a lot of vehicle traffic. And when it's hot and there's little circulation (e.g., due to a strong inversion layer) it's quite persistent for extended periods.

http://www.sparetheair.com/aqthisyear.cfm

Acute and longterm health impacts are still being tallied; it's pretty clear ozone is a worse direct health threat than previously understood. That it also might contribute to climate change is icing on an already nasty cake. It's actually another compelling incentive to increase vehicle fleet mileage.

Oh Jeebus. Ozone is bad, ozone is good. Cholesterol is bad, cholesterol is good. Eggs are bad, eggs are good. Real butter is bad, real butter is good. Fluorocarbons are bad, fluorocarbons are good. R12 is bad, R134 is good. Manmade CO2 is bad, natural CO2 is good.

More crisis management. Yay!

The warmer the globe, the longer the growing season. The longer the growing season, the greater the carbon uptake.

Look, it's very simple. As the Bible clearly states, God put petroleum in the ground for the use of the human race, so the more we use, the better things will get. As to any science that contradicts, this, everyone knows the Bible trumps anything that says otherwise.

Hmmmm.... I wonder if there is any correlation between ozone levels and cow flatulence??

Right, so the rest of the world we be just as bad or worse as we are right now.

Even if ozone has dropped in urban areas, it increases every time we have a sunny day. We had more sunny days than ever recorded last year.

...And the rest of the world is catching up to our proportions. What happens when the Amazon has the same level of ozone as the forests up here? How will that impact CO2 uptake?

That's the point of the article.

Kevin, when you get a little older you will realize that, although the news in the paper is bad every day, the world does not in fact get worse every day. (Except for the getting older part, of course.)

Also, although the news is bad every day, yesterday's bad news is incompatible with today's bad news, making the whole thing unreliable. For example, global warming may be a problem, and peak oil may be a problem, but they can't both be problems, because if we run out of oil in the next 50 years, we won't have a century of runaway global warming.

y81: global warming may be a problem, and peak oil may be a problem, but they can't both be problems, because if we run out of oil in the next 50 years, we won't have a century of runaway global warming.

Actually, the opposite is true. As we run out of oil, a dirtier fuel--coal--will be used more as a partial replacement and global warming will accelerate.

Odor of rodent wafts up to the nostrils here. I grew up being informed that plants emit CO2, not absorption of same. Plants absorb oxygen, as O2 molecules, then shed their effluvia as CO2.

Ozone is a relatively unstable O3 molecule, which could, I suppose, be interfering with their intake of good ol' O2. But I suspect that Drum has mangled his post.