Earth's magnetic field is weakening in the southern hemisphere. Could this be the reason for the Ozone Hole?

The Ozone hole was discovered by the British Antarctic Survey in the mid 80s, the instrument used is called a Dobson (after its inventor) they had been monitoring ozone levels since the IGY in the 50s and they clearly showed that the first holes formed in the mid 1970s. It is a thinning, to around 1/3 of the usual thickness, hole is just the popular name given to it.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/journalists/reso...

The Australian Antarctic program has conducted parallel research on this and also collect ozone data as do a number of other countries, there is no doubt about this, at all !

http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=28910

This is the latest version of the Dobson Spectrophotometer

http://www.ozonelayer.noaa.gov/action/dobson.htm

The earliest version of this instrument has been around since the 1920s

For Conservatives Agenda benefit the Ozone hole is and has been since it's discovery a seasonal event (September through November) recovery at the poles is being hampered by the intense cold at the level ozone forms.

Away from the poles there is a clear correlation between the recovery of ozone levels and the reduction in CFC production

http://www.theozonehole.com/

(about one third of the way down graph labeled "NASA/NOAA Data")

No. The ozone molecule does have an electric dipole moment, but no magnetic dipole.

The ozone hole has nothing to do with the Earth's magnetic field, and is only weakly related to global warming, although thinning of the hole has meant less warming in Antarctica than would otherwise have been the case.

The thinning observed since the 1970s was due to CFCs, as verified by the presence of HF in samples collected from the upper atmosphere by U2 aircraft, and the scientists responsible for unravelling the relevant atmospheric chemistry were awarded the Nobel prize in chemistry (note that the relevant committee has nothing to do with, and is actually in a different country from, the committee that awards the Nobel Peace Prize) in 1995

CFCs were phased out following the 1987 Montréal protocol, signed by then president George Bush (sr.), and the ozone layer has been recovering measurably for the past decade.

Some people persist in regarding the thinning of the ozone layer as a natural phenomenon. I think that speaks volumes about their credibility.

the in the earth has liquid iron that strikes in convection currents to seek for thermal equilibrium. the warmth that melts the iron is being generated by ability of a mix of radioactive components in the interior and gravity compressing the interior. The shifting iron generates a magnetic field. because of the fact the warmth is dispensed to the mantle and the radioactive components stop the decay technique, much less warmth is produced and finally the iron will solidify. whilst that happens the earth's magnetic field will weaken billions of years into our destiny. yet we even have short term weakening. As Raymond documented, there are additionally short term reversals of the magnetic field. it extremely is not nicely understood what the mechanism for it extremely is. besides the undeniable fact that it extremely is obviously been occurring for a protracted time as documented by ability of the magnetic field reversals frozen in the solid lava flows alongside the mid-Atlantic Ocean ridge.

Not sure of the mechanism behind a weaker magnetosphere leading to (much) warming, so let's rule that out.

A weakening magnetosphere could, in part, be _a_ cause the ozone hole over antarctica. The magnetosphere helps to modulate cosmic ray flux (both from intra and extrasolar sources). Cosmic ray collisions tend to liberate bound electrons, which then break down CFCs, releasing chlorine atoms, etc.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227025.600...

The magnetic field in general does allow dissipation of energy to the field, allowing monatomic oxygen to more easily "brake" and combine with something. I don't think this will push equilibrium in any particular direction.

The magnetic field does direct positive and negative charges to the poles. The positive charges are mostly hydrogen, and they both block ozone production (via trapping oxygen adhered temporarily to N2), and speed its decay (via formation of H2O2). So a decreasing field strength would direct less hydrogen to the poles and Earth in general.

The magnetic field should have no other significant effect on the formation (or decay) of ozone.

Your link didn't work. Perhaps you know this already, but the magnetic field is weakening everywhere. There has been a spot in the South Atlantic that has essentially gone to zero. The earth's magetosphere is the result of eddies in the convection currents in the outer core. The Earth's spin tends to orient the overall field along the axis of rotation which is the north and south poles. Currently the field is oriented toward the north pole but is in the process of reversal. It is a slow process that takes centuries. There are a number of things that happen as the poles reverse. Careful studies of basalts at mid ocean ridges provides the historic context. Anyway, I don't think the magnetosphere significantly affects ozone holes. If anything, I would expect a weakening field to increase it for the reason you gave, it would increase solar radiation.

The ozone hole is at the south pole where air currents and lack of sunshine are more likely responsible, IMO. I have theorized that the weakening field might cause more clouds to form but I haven't heard any formal theories suggesting that. Anyway, I think it is a good question.

Note: Paul is incorrect in my opinion. I am skeptical that CFC's are responsible. I believe that CFCs do destroy ozone but I am not convinced that ozone holes haven't been common occurrences in the past before CFCs. It was a theory and nothing more.

Note to Gary F. My degree is in geological engineering. Don't even pretend to be in the majority of geologists. You think your politics is science. You pretend to be an expert. You didn't provide a single fact. You certainly can't refute anything I said. Get off your fat *** and get a clue.

CFCs, the chemical in Aerosol cans was phased out in the late 1980s and is an example of how humans can indeed damage the planet and then let the planet heal itself. The same may be true for global warming. Let's hope so...

The ozone hole has come and gone from the time in the '70s that we had the ability to monitor it.

What makes you think the ozone hole hasn't been doing this for all time?

Paul, CFCs were indeed phased out--In CERTAIN countries. The level of CFCs in the atmosphere has continued to climb as it is still produced in China, Russia, and Mexico--to name three. Also, the CFCs that were produced and used in AC units before the ban are still leaking.

The ozone hole has closed for periods in the recent past even though the CFC's are still rising.

There is no correllation between CFC levels and ozone hole size that can be demonstrated.

There has been a spot in the South Atlantic that has essentially gone to zero. (Other poster)

Where is this and what happens to magnetic compasses at this point?

jim z --

>"Paul is incorrect in my opinion. There is no good evidence indicating CFC's are responsible. Does he believe CFCs make a beeline for the south pole."

Good job of countering his empirical argument with your opinion.

>"It was a theory and nothing more."

Where I went to graduate school and later worked for 15 years, it is called the Department of Geosciences. I guess you got your degree in Geology someplace without a College of Science, otherwise you would know what a "theory" means in that context. Or are you one of those lame geologists that spend their lives looking for foraminifera in hopes of striking black gold?

====

jim z --

Spare me. You claim to be a scientist (and do not confuse engineering with science because they are not the same thing) yet you apparently do not understand the concept of a scientific theory. The on-line program that gave you your degree probably charged extra for the philosophy of science and epistemology of knowledge insstruction, huh?

I am trained, skilled, and practiced in the collection and preparation of Paleomagnetic and Archaeomagnetic samples for studying the historical behavior of the earth's magnetic field.

You probably decided not to pay for that training either, huh?

I collected and developed the 8,000 year-long data set with decadal resolution used to refine the C-14 calibration equation established by the Arizona Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) Laboratory.

I have collected geophysical and proxy climate data in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Polar Siberia.

I have 15 years experience at a world renowned research lab (using my own data as well as that of other scientists) developing and testing scientific hypotheses for the earth’s climate system using complex statistical models of multivariate geophysical, climatological and hydrological, and drought variables.

My areas of expertise include: systems theory, experimental design and sampling techniques; probability theory and analysis of continuous and discrete distributions; combinatorial mathematics; static and dynamic systems; multivariate analysis of variance and nonparametric statistical alternatives to standard univariate, bivariate and multivariate procedures; statistical model calibration and validation techniques; time and frequency domain filtering techniques and modeling; Box-Jenkins ARMA techniques; univariate and bivariate spectral analysis; singular spectrum analysis; statistical program development using structured programming techniques; and simulating physical systems.

Maybe you should ask for a refund on the Junior-scientist badge you claim to have.

====

edit --

Your question was answered when Paul pointed out that your basic assumption (the "I know" part) was false. Once Paul killed your question; What more - exactly - is there to say?