Why can't we replace atmospheric ozone depletion?
473465
ozone is naturally replaced anyway, but the reaction between chlorofluorocarbons is much much faster than the rate of ozone production (free radicals on chlorine molecules extremely reactive, about 1 million times more reactive than the oxygen atoms involved in ozone production) so the rate of depletion would still be higher.
214694
The creation of stratospheric ozone is chiefly due to what is called the Chapman cycle which represents the production and subsequent annihilation of ozone by solar UV radiation . Destruction of ozone also results from catalytic reactions with hydrogen atoms, hydroxyl radicals (symbolised by HO-, derived from water H2O), nitric oxide (NO, from the exhausts of high-altitude aircraft), and so-called halogens, notably chlorine and bromine compounds. A catalytic reaction allows a single molecule of the triggering chemical to repeatedly react with the source chemical until its reservoir becomes depleted. However, there are complications, such as the inhibition of the destructive effects of both ClO (a compound of chlorine and oxygen) and NO2 (from NO) by their forming chlorine nitrate (ClONO2) instead. Chlorine nitrate does not destroy ozone, but it has the potential to destroy ozone since it is a reservoir of ClO.
66638
The previous answer is incorrect that there is no relation between the two problems. UNEP reports that global climate change may be slowing the healing process of the ozone layer. Warming of the atmosphere near the earth's surface actually causes cooling of the stratosphere and the cooler temperatures accelerate the chemical reactions that destroy ozone molecules.  Further, the US EPA reports that increased levels of ultraviolet-B radiation can be expected to worsen global warming by reduction of plant and phytoplankton populations. The two problems are tied in complex ways that involve feedback from both systems affecting the other. \nHere is the US EPA booklet:\nhttp://www.epa.gov/ORD/WebPubs/stratoz.pdf\n\nThe UN formed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change that resulted in the controversial Kyoto Protocol in 1997.  The UN has an excellent website that gives details on the history, the text of the protocol, some of the science, and status. \nhttp://unfccc.int/2860.php\n\nThe UN is also involved in trying to solve ozone depletion. In 1987 the Montreal Protocol was signed by international parties. They agreed to phase out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform usage which all cause ozone depletion in the atmosphere. These chemicals are used in dry cleaning, fire extinguishers, and in refrigeration. Many of these chemicals had begun phase out in the United States prior to the protocol due to EPA regulations. The UN's World Meteoroligal Organization and UNEP sponsor assessments of the ozone hole regularly. \n\n\n\nWhile the Montreal Protocol produced positive results during the late 1990's the problem has recently gotten worse- and then improved again!. Here is a NOAA graph showing that:\nhttp://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/sbuv2to/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png\n\nThe US EPA has an impressive list of links to ozone depletion information. \nhttp://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/#specinfo
531056
We have air in abundance it surrounds the earth , it's a mixture of Oxygen and Nitrogen etc.\nWhy do you want to make more??
1088321
Wow that's tough, god luck with everything. It doesn't really seem fair! Um..I think you messed up your question "i dont mind the first two but i have no idea what to say about the first one"? I think you mean the last one, so I'll write about that. If that's not what you meant then nobody loses lol because then you'd just have more ideas.\n\nIs science a good thing or a bad thing? \n\nWell, I'd say it's a good thing - just think of all the new medical procedures that can be done because of modern science. One day, maybe there will be a cure for every disease. This could only happen if scientists continue their research. Imagine what the world would be like without science. We, as a society, wouldn't have the tools to understand the environment and why things happen the way they do. Science helps us expand our intelligence in a very large way. If it weren't for science, nobody would have ever found out that there was actually a hole in the ozone layer (a part of earth's protective atmosphere that filters out harmful UV rays from the sun), and we wouldn't know about how polluting the earth can make the hole bigger. We wouldn't know about global warming/climate change and how to stop it from happening so fast.\n\nHope that helped...and I hope that's the question you meant ;)
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.
356935
it's possible considering all the rapid global warming that has been occurring all over the world. i doubt it's gonna happen anytime soon but if we continue to dump so much toxic wastes into the air as well as greenhouse gases, it's gonna come much sooner than we think =/
59269
Not sure what you mean. But here is two possible answers for you anyways.\n\n1) Oxygen which can also exist as Ozone (O3) which is a Triatomic molecule.\n2) Or like IDUNNO pointed out Astatine which is usually not considered because of its rarity in nature.
923645
No, it's an endothermic reaction meaning you need to add heat (but no necessarily a flame) to drive the reaction. The only way it would react with oxygen in the atmosphere is if the outside temperature where hot enough to drive the reaction. Of course, we'd all be dead, so we couldn't see it.
1051172
Actually, the Ozone is starting to recover.  There was an 8% increase compared to what is was 20 years ago.  Society needs to be encouraged to continue reducing emissions and recycling what they can.
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
381586
Yes we can. It's been attempted before but it's impossible. There are WAY too many people who rely on gas to do the daily things they do. It's just not going to happen.
168302
Because they deplete the ozone layer.
537834
Well, actually, the atmosphere is currently about 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen.  \n\nThere's nothing the human race could do, such as releasing balloons, that would convert the atmosphere to helium.  It's just to big!\n\nHelium has little effect on organic life, because helium is inert -- it doesn't react with anything!
213682
The main problem with mars is not thelack of air, but the local gravity's inability to hold much air on the planet- as such you need a heavy gas to be able to be held by the gravity longer. One idea would be to send rockets full of old cfc containers on a collision course to mars, the release of the cfc's would cause a partial runaway greenhouse effect thht would begin to warm the planet over decades.\nAlso, ice comets can be used on aerobraking orbitals to slowly melt in the atmosphere, thus watering the planet and warming the air by the aerobraking.\nThe temperature differentials are due to the very thin atmosphere and would become less extreme with a thicker blanket of air.\nAnother option would be to genetically modify algae and lichen to live in the high UV and co2 rich atmosphere and crack the co2 into oxygen, while leaving the carbon as a slurry-type layer that can be refined for use in building materials\nThere is lots of potential - all that really remains is to define the technology level and then go for it -  imagination is a wonderful thing - we need to use more of it
1009505
make more ozone. jk the best way to prevent it is to not cut down as many trees, not use cfc's (clorofloracarbons), and cut down on major pollution, such as factories and cars like hummers
591223
You could do a report on how Ozone O3 is created and how much energy it needs.  Also how it is broke down.