Talk:Ozone layer

message: Reading about ozone and the ozone layer in Wikipedia and other sources left a lot of questions to answer. So I ventured a  bit farther in the field and gathered enough data about electromagnetic radiation (EMR), the properties of photons end the interaction between electrons and photons, especially in gases.
My questions were not answerd by this, but I can formulate them more precisely,so here we go.Just a few for starters.
1. About ozone in the atmosphere. Above the region where the ozone layer is situated a lot of air is found and of course enough EMR with frequenties of UV or higher. So why no ozone is found there?
2. Ozone concentrations of up to 10 parts per million  occur in the ozone layer, according to ENCARTA.
O2 concentrations in the atmosphere is about 2 parts per 10 or 200.000 parts per million. So for every mol O3 ther are 20.000 mol O2. Why are there so few ozone molecules while there is EMR and O2 enough to produce a lot more ozone ?
F.pakker 15:31, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And that is a made-up answer. He probably misspelled ozone depletion. There's no such thing as ozone deflection. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about the ozone layer 

message: This page contained a number of scientifically incorrect statements. I've just corrected these, but I think the page could use a more substantive rewrite, focussing on the basic physics and chemistry of the ozone layer instead of on ozone depletion, since the latter subject has a page of its own.
--Rparson 22:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: CI, you are correct. Please revert Barwicks version to the one before it... see the discusssion at Ozone depletion where he has spammed the same nonsense in. William M. Connolley 09:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Just removed the geocities stuff. Not a valid source. Find a peer reviewed source or leave it out. Vsmith 14:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! Keep watching though... I doubt we're finished... William M. Connolley 15:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page needs substantive revision 

message: Nice job, William and SEWilco. I just deleted some of my old text which has been made redundant by your additions. I think there are other redundancies that could be cleaned up over time.
Also, I suggest moving the figure at the head of Amount of Ozone down to Ozone depletion, where it is more relevant. --Rparson 11:13, 14 Apr 2005
: (William M. Connolley 20:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the figure showing "ozone amount" belongs with "Amount of Ozone".  "Ozone depletion" can use improvement, but without sucking in all of the main article on the topic.  (SEWilco 05:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much better now 

message: Would it make sense to merge the page on Ozone-oxygen cycle to here? I am not very happy with that page - too small really and does not really to my mind get across the essentially cyclic nature of the Chapman cycle. It would be nice to include the standard exercise calculating the expected ozone concentations which one gets from the Chapman cycle (time to dig out some old notes...) and explain that this concentration is wrong because of the catalytic destruction reactions. These could then be listed.--NHSavage 21:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems sensible to me. That article always seemed to be something of an outlier. BTW, I haven't ever seen it referred to as the "ozone-oxygen cycle" anyway, it's always been "Chapman Mechanism" or "Chapman Cycle", but that just might reflect the sources that I tend to read.--Rparson 03:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chapman mechanism etc

message: I'd like to see more details (numbers) on what happens in the ozone layer.  Specifically:
* The article says that the ozone layer does not occur higher because the oxygen is ionized.  Why does it not occur lower (this may have been answered already; I'll have to look again more closely)?  How much of the ionization is due to UV?
* Does UV have some unusual affinity for O3, as opposed to O1, O2 or N?  We have an entire atmosphere worth of oxygen molecules.  Can we get some figures on how much UV is stopped by the ionized oxygen, etc.?
* The idea behind natural selection is that beings adjust to their environment.  Is there any reason to believe that this would not happen with increased UV?  Note, I'm not asking whether we would like it or not. :)  I've also seen mention that suntan lotion may be responsible for some skin cancer, along with the fact that we apparently made do without suntan lotion for many thousands of years.
* What percentage of total UV is filtered out at each step?  If the amount of ozone would only be a few millimeters thick at sea-level, then it seems like ozone alone would not catch much.
--Scott McNay 23:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More details requested 

message: The article doesn't give the "thickness" (that is, distance from bottom to top) of the ozone layer.  This link from Caltech gives information that I would like to see explained in the article.
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_kids/AskKids/earthozone.shtml
--70.131.51.64 09:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not a very good answer. Thats the thickness it would have if it were just a layer of pure ozone (at SLP?). The thickness of the atmos layer that ozone occurs in in is ?30 km? William M. Connolley 09:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please somebody explain this to me. 

message: Bromofluorocarbons, which besides CFC's also have high ozone depletion value, have not been described, in regard to regulation (by industrial and developing countries). As besides CFC's this too has extremely high ozone depletion value it should be described. Besides this, there should be a list or reference in what products CFC's and bromofluorocarbons are present (as still sold in developing countries).
KVDP 13:06, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  State of regulation on bromofluorocarbons 

message: The article mentions that "stratospheric ozone is produced by solar UV radiation", but that's the extent to which it's discussed.  Could a knowledgeable person write a section explaining why the ozone layer exists?  (Prompted by a short unsigned question over at Talk:Ozone depletion.)  Tempshill 16:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be a section  on this, but some vandal deleted it way back when and it was never restored. I've put it back in.--Rparson 21:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does it exist? 

message: why is it not as much of an issue as global warming? AbsoluteZero255 18:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The usual answer to "why" is "money".  But the article needs sources which state why before the article can state why.  (SEWilco 19:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why is no one paying attention to the hole in the ozone layer anymore? 

message: I am not very educated and some articles probably have already answered my question.  Do we have the technology yet to replenish the ozone layer?  If so, are we doing it or the price is too expensive to do so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.37.8.105 (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  query 

message: i wanted to know that since all the major developed countries release more amount of cfc then why the ozone layer of antarctic deplets and why not the ozone layer above that particular country?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.64.195 (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: CFC's are well mixed William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

text: and the higher depletion at the poles is due to concentration of ODS by certain wind patterns and the faster chemical reactions that can occur on ice crystals.HeyRobbie (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  question about the depletion 

message: Is there any proof of this claim?
As per talk pages here and here, according to the Senior Registry Clerk at Sweden's Ministry of the Environment, The ban against CFC in aerosol spray came in to force 1st January 1989. 1 Currently (as of 2007), CFC is regulated under a newer ordinance 2. 
Having seen mention of a 1979 ban at the EPA's website and the Stocholm Convention's website, neither providing a date or scope of the mentioned ban, I can only speculate. Whatever it was, it doesn't appear to have been written into Sweden's law. Kentholke (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE: - The EPA has informed me that they cannot locate any information within their main information storage center as to Sweden's ban other than the press release. Details of the email are here. I'm removing the reference to Sweden having enacted their ban in 1979 from this article for now.  Kentholke (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweden the first to ban aerosols? January 23, 1978? 

message: I think the ozone layer contains relatively high concentrations of ozone(03).
this layer absorbs 93 - 99 % of the suns powerfull rays
amawee  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.146.125 (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ozone layer 

message: What's with the inclusion of the graph TOMS_Global_Ozone_65N-65S.png? OK, it demonstrates an observed ~5% depletion on equatorial ozone as measured in Dobson Units over a 23 year period, but it's also a lesson from misrepresenting statistics 101. The vertical component wildly misrepresents the seasonal variation, as it represents approximately 1/8th of the axis as measured from 0 DU, and it gives no indication of any error margin given by the measuring apparatus. In fact, documentation available at the source  seems to indicate a minimum standard deviation of 2%, which is a significant portion of the area of the graph as depicted. I can understand why this information is not represented in the graph, as it is a small part of a greater body of information, however it is not presented with the appropriate caveats here.
While I have no doubt that it represents significant data, I believe that it is wildly misrepresentative when presented out-of-context in this manner 82.39.139.136 (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Gave it a few days, no-one cares. Removing the graph, as the easiest fix. 82.39.139.136 (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking at this article I think the graph is perfectly appropriate, most WP users who can read a graph understand that the axes do not necessarily cross at the zero point and a graph without that would be barely readable. Plus the extent of the seasonal variation is far greater than the statistical error and the decline is larger. I'm restoring the graph as illustrating variations in ozone over time as it certainly adds to the article.Stub Mandrel (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  very poor graph 

message: I noticed a new term; "ozonosphere."  In fact, Wiki redirects it to here.  I wonder if it's legit.  Googling around, it does seem to be in a few dictionaries.  Yet the term in nowhere in any of say, Robert Parson's four 1997 Ozone Depletion FAQs: http://faqs.cs.uu.nl/na-dir/ozone-depletion/ .  Nor is the term used in this article.
My quick search I did not notice the term in any peer reviewed papers.  So, due to the remaining controversial political arguments on this topic, I wonder if the term was invented with an agenda. ("Science is actually part of The Great Evil Liberal Conspiracy Plot!") Thoughts?  --67.125.106.195 (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ozonosphere"  ?? 

message: Hello, the article states that "...medium-frequency UV, which potentially damages exposed life forms on Earth." I suppose the exposed life forms discussed are mainly life forms on land. How do plants on land react to excessive UV? Ozone was a prerequisite for life to extend to land, but would marine life forms be safe from UV if there were no ozone layer? I believe there were cyanobacteria before the ozone layer had developed. --Hartz (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  UV and unexposed life forms in seas 

message: you should add a nice picture like that:
if you find errors, please contact me, I will improve it.--Smiles :( :\ :o :() (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ozone layer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://yly-mac.gps.caltech.edu/N2O/Prasad/Matsumi_O3_cr0205255%20copy.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A bit confused - the article appears to have been the 'article for improvement' a day short of three years' ago, but has its time come again? I've restored a graph removed in 2009 for what I think appear to be spurious reasons and added a note on how the ozone layer affects UV astronomy as my first contribution to the AFI project. Stub Mandrel (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I find this weird as well. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements 

message: so in school i was picked to do a science presentation on the ozone layer with two of my friends
but I'm still struggling a bit
Pls post some articles that are explained so a child can understand easily 
thx! :DAjijola (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ozone layer HELP! 

message: Chlorofluorocarbon molecules are 4-8 times heavier than air but we are told they rise into the upper atmosphere. How? Does helium ever sink towards the Earth?
The miniscule amount of Freon in the upper atmosphere is due to vulcanoes and escapes from aircraft.
I once wrote an article for a newspaper confessing that I had personally destroyed the entire Ozone Layer over Australia because I used a small aerosol can of Freon, as an electronics technician. The truth is that the Freon immediately fell downwards where soil bacteria digested it within a few weeks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.111.240 (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magic! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ozone layer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826115142/http://stsclimate.soc.ku.dk/papers/grundmannclimatechangeandknowledgepolitics.pdf to http://stsclimate.soc.ku.dk/papers/grundmannclimatechangeandknowledgepolitics.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Actually, this question has been thoroughly and exhaustively answered. One only needs to conduct a quick google search to find the answers. For ease of access, here is the question answered in the World Meteorological Organization 'Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994', "Although the CFC molecules are indeed several times heavier than air, thousands of measurements have been made from balloons, aircraft and satellites demonstrating that the CFCs are actually present in the stratosphere. The atmosphere is not stagnant. Winds mix the atmosphere to altitudes far above the top of the stratosphere much faster than molecules can settle according to their weight. Gases such as CFCs that are insoluble in water and relatively unreactive in the lower atmosphere (below about 10 kilometers) are quickly mixed and therefore reach the stratosphere regardless of their weight.
Much can be learned about the atmospheric fate of compounds from the measured changes in concentration versus altitude. For example, the two gases carbon tetrafluoride (CF4, produced mainly as a by-product of the manufacture of aluminum) and CFC-11 (CCl3F, used in a variety of human activities) are both much heavier than air. Carbon tetrafluoride is completely unreactive in the lower 99.9 percent of the atmosphere, and measurements show it to be nearly uniformly distributed throughout the atmosphere as shown in the figure. There have also been measurements over the past two decades of several other completely unreactive gases, one lighter than air (neon) and some heavier than air (argon, krypton), which show that they also mix upward uniformly through the stratosphere regardless of their weight, just as observed with carbon tetrafluoride. CFC-11 is unreactive in the lower atmosphere (below about 15 kilometers) and is similarly uniformly mixed there, as shown. The abundance of CFC-11 decreases as the gas reaches higher altitudes, where it is broken down by high energy solar ultraviolet radiation. Chlorine released from this breakdown of CFC-11 and other CFCs remains in the stratosphere for several years, where it destroys many thousands of molecules of ozone."
The more you know...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microscone (talk • contribs) 15:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to: Magic! 

message: Please care to explain it easy..the words are hard 41.114.251.184 (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't understand 

message: Ozone layer is a layer which is a layer which protect the earth from ultraviolet race of sun . ओजोन लेयर लाइज बिटवीन मी सॉफ्टवेयर 2409:4043:2E85:5B24:0:0:178B:6B14 (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ozone 

message: Any 5 main points about ozone layer 117.246.57.4 (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biology 

message: kccjd 2A00:23C7:FE12:2A01:706A:F812:D18B:B8BA (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ozone layer 

message: The article's main image caption has a misspelling: "Earht" instead of "Earth".
The ozone layer visible from space at Earht's horizon as a blue band of afterglow within the bottom of the large bright blue band that is the stratosphere, with a silhouette of a cumulonimbus in the orange afterglow of the troposphere. EditorEli (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , thanks, EditorEli. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2024