Explain how we believe the Antarctica Ozone hole forms?
115204
This is complex issue without consensus in the scientific world.  Getting away from the politically correct interpretations is the following:\n\nFor years, the ozone depletion-impact crowd was worrying about the effects surface ultraviolet radiation would have on the Antarctic ecosystem—though, as we’ve said before, the Antarctica ecosystem, except for a few penguins, consists entirely of scientists studying the ozone hole.\nThis year (and it has happened before), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) reported the infamous hole (which is not really a hole at all but a reduction in total column ozone) has spread over a populated area: Punta Arenas, Chile. Chilean health officials warned people to remain indoors during the high sun periods as ozone levels there dropped to about 175 Dobson Units (a measure of the total amount of ozone in the atmospheric column above any location). Similarly low values were occurring over and surround Antarctica.\nQuickly, David Hofmann, director of the Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), countered that though the hole is large, the severity of the ozone depletion within that hole was comparable to ozone levels measured over the past few years.\nThen, the World Meteorological Organization, which measures ozone depletion slightly differently, spun its own ozone yarn, declaring that the end of September’s depletion was the worst on record. But once again, as is unfortunately common with most environmental news, this is much ado about nada.\nFirst, the size, shape, and amount of ozone depletion are significantly affected by the weather. The Antarctic stratosphere was cold this past winter (global warming?), which resulted in more depletion than normal. That minor factoid was buried in the last paragraph of CNN’s coverage of this nonstory.\nAs NOAA’s Hoffman explained, “year-to-year fluctuations in the geographical size of the ozone hole and the timing of the ozone production are believed to be related to meteorological factors such as temperature and winds, rather than further increases in ozone-destroying chemicals in the atmosphere.”\nSecond, if these levels of ultraviolet radiation seen in Punta Arenas were truly harmful, most of the world’s population would be in grave danger. Most of us, on a regular basis, are exposed to solar radiation far more intense than that seen in southern Chile.\nAn index of global ultraviolet light levels, assuming cloud-free and unpolluted skies, was constructed for October 11, the same day as the 175 Dobson Units reading in Punta Arenas. The UV index there of around 9 is much lower than UV levels across more than half of the planet. Most places receive more intense solar rays than Punta Arenas does.\nThird, the expanded ozone hole is short-lived. By November, as Antarctica warms, the vortex of winds that effectively isolate Antarctica from the rest of the planet weakens, and high ozone levels over the rest of the hemisphere quickly fill the so-called hole. That process only serves to highlight the climatological uniqueness of the situation over Antarctica.
899108
The atmosphere would freeze out on the dark side of the planet. \n\nEven rotating once a year, the greenhouse effect would not be enough to prevent this. Even in Antarctica it can get cold enough for CO2 ice to form during its long dark night. As the CO2 is sucked out of the atmosphere it gets much colder quite quickly. The oceans on the day side would join the frozen air air since as the air pressure dropped, they would evaporate too and the water vapor would meet the same fate. The first cycle would probably take many years to occur due to residual heat in the crust and the amout of time it will take to freeze out most of the CO2 to get the ball rolling quickly.\n\n\nBits of the frozen atmosphere would thaw as it came into sunlight but diffusion would eventually carry anything that thawed to the cold side where it would precipitate out and stick.  I suppose in equilibrium there would be some sort of VERY thin atmosphere, but not much.  I could not tell you how slowly the Earth has to rotate for this to occur. Without ozone, mcuh of the water that evaporates will be photolyzed quite quickly and the hydrogen will mostly escape to space. So the water ice will be lost over time.\n\nSo, you would have a big old mountain of frozen water, nitrogen and oxygen, with less and less water each year on the dark side, and nitrogen/oxygen snows not far from the dayside terminator. \n\nThings are much more stable if the earth is tidally locked to the sun. All the stuff falls on the night side and just stays there.
733895
From Glenn Kawesch:\nThe layer of atmosphere that lies about 15 to 50 kilometres above the Earth's surface. In the stratosphere, the temperature rises with increasing height, which is the opposite of the situation in the lower atmosphere. Ozone occurs in minute quantities throughout the full depth of the atmosphere, but its concentration peaks within the stratosphere at an altitude of about 35 kilometres. This is referred to as the ozone layer. There is little up-and-down air movement in the stratosphere, so the ozone layer stays in position.\n\nGlenn Kawesch
659288
are you asking for second layer from the bottom or form the top.\nFrom the bottom it is stratosphere, whichi houses the ozone layer. Many jet aircrafts fly in this layer because it is veru stable.\nFrom the top, it is the thermosphere. Auroras take place in this layer. It is also where the space shuttle orbits. It is also the layer in which space shuttles orbit.
183750
One molecule of Oxygen is referred as Oxygen atom.  When two of these are fused together (by reaction), it is called Oxygen (exists in gas phase but can also exist as liquid under high pressure).  When three atoms are fused together, it is called Ozone.  Yes, the same one you hear about making hole in the atomosphere.  I am assuming that you are a bigginer chemist so I will not go through scientifc discussions regarding this chemical reaction.  If you are interested, post me anote and I will explain in details.
651288
There is little precipitation at the Antarctica because of the low temperatures. Cold air does not hold as much moisture as hot air. In the winter for exsample the humidity is lower than in the summer ( humidity is scale of how much moisture is in the air). Moisture in the air rises and settles in the clouds to produce snow or rain. When the temperature stays as cold as in does in Antarctica little moisture is present to create snow or rain. The snow that is on the ground in pictures and movies that you may see has been there for sometime. There is stays so cold that when snow does fall it takes it a long time to melt. I hope this was helpful.
88504
in my opinion is it doesn't exist. because think about it we are coming out of an ice age. it makes sense doesn't it? fact: there have been ice ages. fact: there is a lot of ice in ice ages. so if you know about water then you know the same amount of it is here that was here when the earth began so literally it is dinosaurs piss. well during an ice age lots of stuff is covered in water/ice ( i know i live in Minnesota and it is known that it was fully covered with ice.). so where is all the water? in ice bergs, glaciers, etc. so it would make sense that to leave an ice age most things would melt right? so they are still melting they will finish melting and cover parts of the world, then it will slowly freeze causing an ice age. why would humans make that big of a difference? we are insignificant to the world.(everyone in the world could fit in Texas and it would only be as densely populated as NY city). so our vehicles and combustible engines couldn't have that big of an effect. but you say "what about the ozone thinning?" well i am not saying it hasn't but it was because of the CFC's(chloral floral carbons) which broke up the ozone by attaching to ozone molecules. but the CFC's are no longer around. the ozone is healing itself as it is meant too. their was no real hole only a thinning which is also bad. but now it is closing up and returning to normal. if you think that the co2 we produced cant be good well think about it it isn't that much and while the earth was cooling after being created it released tons of co2. so what people will notice in the next 1-9000 years is it will warm up but in that time it will also cool down and eventually there will be an ice age. just because the great human race is here doesn't mean that the earth will stop having ice ages as it has done by its self for billions of years. think about it. am i a genius or what i mean i just looked at what has happened in history wow who would have thought history would repeat its self
182912
no in my opinion is it doesn't exist. because think about it we are coming out of an ice age. it makes sense doesn't it? fact: there have been ice ages. fact: there is a lot of ice in ice ages. so if you know about water then you know the same amount of it is here that was here when the earth began so literally it is dinosaurs piss. well during an ice age lots of stuff is covered in water/ice ( i know i live in Minnesota and it is known that it was fully covered with ice.). so where is all the water? in ice bergs, glaciers, etc. so it would make sense that to leave an ice age most things would melt right? so they are still melting they will finish melting and cover parts of the world, then it will slowly freeze causing an ice age. why would humans make that big of a difference? we are insignificant to the world.(everyone in the world could fit in Texas and it would only be as densely populated as NY city). so our vehicles and combustible engines couldn't have that big of an effect. but you say "what about the ozone thinning?" well i am not saying it hasn't but it was because of the CFC's(chloral floral carbons) which broke up the ozone by attaching to ozone molecules. but the CFC's are no longer around. the ozone is healing itself as it is meant too. their was no real hole only a thinning which is also bad. but now it is closing up and returning to normal. if you think that the co2 we produced cant be good well think about it it isn't that much and while the earth was cooling after being created it released tons of co2. so what people will notice in the next 1-9000 years is it will warm up but in that time it will also cool down and eventually there will be an ice age. just because the great human race is here doesn't mean that the earth will stop having ice ages as it has done by its self for billions of years. think about it. am i a genius or what i mean i just looked at what has happened in history wow who would have thought history would repeat its self
1124867
Defiantly, I think that's how the world will end. I think and can all but prove my theory. Ozone is what protects us from the sun. all of the nine planets in our solar sys have had ozone at one time. out of the the first 4 planets we are the only planet left with ozone the other 3 are all charred and burned. THAT'S THE  EXACT THING THAT WILL HAPPEN TO US IF THAT HOLE IN OUR OZONE CONTINUES TO GROW . WE WILL BURN AND BECOME THE FOURTH CHARRED PLANET. along with mercury Venus and mars. That's what happened to them. Their ozone depleted and they burned.
181335
============================================================\nMagnetic Shield \n\nEarth's geodynamo creates a magnetic field that shields most of the habited parts of our planet from charged particles that come mostly from the sun. The field deflects the speeding particles toward Earth's Poles. \n\nWithout our planet's magnetic field, Earth would be subjected to more cosmic radiation. The increase could knock out power grids, scramble the communications systems on spacecraft, temporarily widen atmospheric ozone holes, and generate more aurora activity. \n\nA number of Earth's creatures, including some birds, turtles, and bees, rely on Earth's magnetic field to navigate. The field is in constant flux, scientists say. But even without it, life on Earth will continue, researchers say. \n\n"There are small fluctuations, which lead to nothing, and large ones, which we know from the geologic record are associated with reversals," said Peter Olson, a geophysicist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. \n============================================================\n\nMore at the following link:
623863
Here are some cool facts...\n\n~Antarctica is actually a desert, receiving about the same precipitation (less than 2 inches a year), as the Sahara Desert. \n\n~Dogs have been banned from Antarctica to protect the seal population. \n\n~If Antarctica were to melt, the sea level would rise over 200 feet. \n\nHere are some links that have more...
323732
I hope you mean the ozone layer, rather than a lair!\n\nBut, no, that is not true, and whoever told you that is now laughing at you!
536734
Alfred Wegener, German meteorologist, was gathering climate information with a partner when he started noticing glacial deposits that matched on different continents.\n\nThis led to more study of course. Why were similar deposits found in such far removed places?\n\nWhile looking into this, he also noticed that rocks & fossils on different continents were also identical.\n\nThis, along w/ the "continent puzzle" led to his hypothesis of continental drift. Notice, it is referred to as a hypothesis. This is because Wegener could never provide a driving mechanism for continental drift.\n\nWegener tried explaining how continents could move but to no avail. His explanation that the continental crust literally plowed through oceanic crust did not "cut" it. PUN intended. This was not possible w/o leaving torn crustal plates behind & there was no evidence of that.\n\nMost scientists rejected his hypothesis. Some, however, kept searching for the "driving mechanism" behind continental drift.\n\nIn 1968, scientists could finally provide this force behind the movement of the crust. It was named the theory of plate tectonics.\n\nThis theory stated that the earth's crust was broken down into many major & minor lithospheric plates. These plates moved due to uneven heating of the molten magma in the earth's mantle.\n\nConvection currents w/in the mantle are created by cooler magma sinking & hotter magma rising. As the hotter magma rises towards the asthenosphere, it will cool & then sink. This principle works in the same manner as it does in the atmosphere.\n\nPlates were either pulled apart at divergent boundaries or subducted at convergent boundaries unless it is at two continental convergent boundaries. In this case the two crusts are less dense than the magma below & will deform rather than be subducted.\n\nSo yes, Alfred Wegener did suggest the theory of continental drift. But it was not actually taken seriously until the theory of plate tectonics came along.
1147808
My Adventures in the Ozone Layer\nby S. Fred Singer\nNational Review, June 1989\n \nThe 123-nation Conference to Save the Ozone Layer, held in London in March 1989, ended with a whimper. The developing nations, principally China and India, were quite unconvinced by the evidence and unwilling to go along with the European Community and the United States in rushing to phase out completely the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other widely used chemicals. It seems they know better.\n\nIt is rumored that Mrs. Thatcher was converted into a global ozone fan by Sir Crispin Tickell, the diplomat turned eco-freak. Lord knows who the President Bush has been listening to, but he deserves better advice.\n\nNow it's on to a European conference in the Hague to which Maggie and George have not been invited --tsk, tsk-- and then a follow- up to London in Helsinki in May. All this after the 1985 Vienna Convention, the Montreal Protocol (Sept 1987), Geneva, Toronto, and who knows how many other international gabfests in between. Who can keep track of them? Norway's Prime Minister Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland hardly spends time in Oslo anymore. My word! When do these people ever govern?\n\nThe hyperactivity this creates in the agencies, mainly in the State Department and EPA, has to be seen to be believed. The congressional Government Accounting Office would have done an investigation and totaled up the thousands of hours and the huge resources spent on this issue -- except for the fact that Congress and its staffs are just as involved. As the Hill folks try to outdo the Administration and the feds dream up new initiatives, things are building up to a fever pitch -- spurred on by lurid stories in the media about the imminent danger. "Arctic Ozone is Poised for a Fall " scream the headlines. "Skin Cancer is on the Rise!" \n\nIs it all hype? Or is it a hoax? And is the hysteria for real? As we'll see later, the scientific basis for the much-touted ozone crisis may be evaporating-- leaving the new breed of geo- eco-politicians high and dry.\n\n\n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nHow did we get here? It's a long way from the supersonic transport to the Antarctic "ozone hole". But it all started with the SST, just twenty years ago. The emerging environmental movement scored its first great victory by convincing Congress to cancel the program to build two SST prototypes that would have been tested in the stratosphere. When sonic boom and noise objections didn't bring down the program, the activists discovered the stratospheric ozone layer and the fact that a fleet of 500 planes might have some influence on the ozone content of the upper atmosphere. Most influential was the argument that a reduction in the ozone content would increase the rate of skin cancers. That did it. And the skin cancer scare has been with us ever since, inextricably intertwined with the stratospheric ozone issue.\nThroughout these past two decades many truths were uncovered by outstanding and imaginative researchers, but many truths were not revealed to the public -- and quite a few things were propagated that departed from scientific truth. Scientists, by and large, behaved honorably, although egos and ambitions collided with the facts, tempting some to ignore facts. Politicians had no such problems or any hesitation to manipulate science and even scientists. And the media had a field day. Let me give you a personal account of this fascinating history.\n\nSSTs and Ozone\n\nI first got involved in the SST issue in 1970 while serving as a deputy assistant administrator of the EPA. I was asked to take on the additional task of chairing an interagency committee for the Department of Transportation on the environmental effects of the SST. Of course, I had some background in atmospheric physics, having been active in the earliest rocket experiments on the ozone layer, and even invented th
920554
That would be a cold (or at least cool), dry mass of air that originated over a large region of land near the north pole.  (Not over an ocean, unless it was the Arctic Ocean, which is covered by ice.)
147782
Ozone depletion describes the observed loss of ozone in the stratosphere over the past 50 years. It encompasses both a steady thinning of the ozone layer at mid-latitudes and its catastrophic springtime collapse at the poles, often called the ozone hole. In both cases, the proximate cause is catalytic destruction of ozone by atomic chlorine and bromine. The source of the halogen atoms is photodissociation of Freon and Halon molecules transported into the stratosphere after being emitted at the surface. The detailed mechanism by which the ozone hole forms is different from that for the mid-latitude thinning. Finally, people often confuse tropospheric ozone with stratospheric ozone. These are completely different problems with different causes, effects and solutions.
516952
Antarctica is a desert.  It is what is known as a cold desert, which is probably why you find that it is not classified along with hot deserts like the Sahara.  A hot desert is defined by geographers as a region where the rate of evaporation exceeds precipitation, and where precipitation is below 254 mm per year.  In a cold desert, by contrast, there is little evaporation, so low \nprecipitation alone determines its status as a desert.\n\nIn Antarctica precipitation is less in the interior of the continent than along the coasts.  The reason is that coastal areas are more open to the influence of cyclones.  In the interior of Antarctica precipitation is as low as 50 mm per year, while in coastal regions it can be as high as 250 \nmm per year.  Thus even coastal precipitation is usually within the range that we would consider to be a desert.  The entire continent is, therefore, a vast cold desert.  It is, larger than the Sahara (Antarctica is about 14.2 million square kilometers in size, and the Sahara is just over 9 million square kilometers).  \n\nAntarctica is clearly the largest desert on Earth.  The reason you do not often see it listed along with hot deserts \nis mainly just that people think of deserts as hot.