will the ozone layer be affected by a reversal?
90424
If there is no field during a reversal, the charged particles will not be spiraling down the field lines to collide with the upper atmosphere at the poles. This might have some effect on the ozone layer, which does interact with the incoming charged particles. \n\nIt was recently confirmed that the charged flux of solar storms depletes the ozone layer. With no magnetic field, this would be more evenly distributed over the entire earth rather than just at the poles (see reference). There might be less charged particle flux trapped as well, since the earth's field extends out a considerable distance. So it should allow more ozone to build up. \n\nPreviously, some had wondered if the influx of charged particles created more ozone (see reference).
587439
According to current thinking, there is not a reversal of rotation of the core. Rather, pole reversal is a much more complex phenomenon driven by convective flow in the outer core (the molten part) and Coriolis effect. The references below will give you an overview. According to ref. 1, the outer core is "seething, swirling, turbulent". Reversals take a few thousand years to complete, and during the reversal process the magnetic field looks like a fright wig. Currently the field is about twice as strong as normal, and is decreasing at about 1% per decade. Ref. 2 points out that although rotation alone (like that of a solid body) cannot produce dynamo currents, "disordered convection patterns can indeed produce an average dynamo field". Ref. 3 says there are many failed "attempts" at reversal before one does occur, "which is probably the reason why the times between reversals of the Earth's field are long and randomly distributed".
995635
great question -way beyond my knowledge base\nsomebody correct me when I'm wrong.  If the earth spins in the opposite direction then all the things affected by the Coriolis Effect are opposite- do Atlantic hurricanes  happen ? does the Gulf Stream exist ? I don't  think so because the current on the American side of the Atlantic would be going south from Arctic regions and the Europeans would get the African waters. lots of possibilities\nwe know for sure that the jet streams  will go  in the opposite direction \nclimates  would be different- a question of where  water is coming from and going to.\nagain great question
153621
No, based on the fossil record there is as yet no evidence of this. \n\nThere have been hundreds of these reversals in the history of the planet, not just a few.  In addition to that there are even more frequent major 'excursions' where the field changes strength. These take place as frequently as 50,000 year intervals. These excursions are quite useful in dating geologic events as they are preserved in the rock record. By combining high resolution (frequent) excursion measurements with isotopic dating of volcanic ash deposits that are less frequent many events can be dated with some precision. \n\nIt appears that most animals and birds which use magnetic fields to navigate during migration are able to adapt over the thousands of years it takes for the reversals to take place. Since the change in the magnetic field is so small for each generation of a species it appears there is no significant impact.  \n\nI've done paleomagnetic dating in areas like the Great Rift Basin of Africa.
777145
There was a recent Nova program that said a magnetic reversal had been captured in a lava flow, so that it had reversed while the lava was cooling.\n\nOn the other hand, they also indicate that the reversals take place as localized anomalies, so that only the area of the volcano may have reversed.\n\nMore info at\n\nhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/reversals.html
501722
Can global warming be reversed? It has been argued that so-called clean technology may be the answer. Scrubbing flue gases from power stations will certainly remove a considerable amount of sulphur dioxide and particulate matter, but nothing can remove carbon dioxide from the environment except to return it to a form of carbon, which would consume more energy than that usefully released during combustion. The same arguments apply to "clean" car engines. The reality is that international capitalism is inextricably linked to cheap oil-based technology and as George W. Bush has amply demonstrated, is incapable, at least for the foreseeable future, of dealing with the problem of global warming. Unfortunately time is not on our side. Fossil and ice core records indicate that the current level of atmospheric CO2 is associated with considerably higher global temperatures than we are currently experiencing. The latest IPCC report also predicts a long term continuation of global warming even if CO2 emissions ceased immediately. We are likely to be in a time lag where the effects of current CO2 levels have not yet fully materialised.
1020724
Based upon the study of lava formations in Hawaii, it has been deduced that the Earth's magnetic field reverses at intervals, ranging from tens of thousands to many millions of years, with an average interval of approximately 250,000 years. The last such event, called the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal, occurred some 780,000 years ago.\n\nThe mechanism responsible for geomagnetic reversals is not well understood. Some scientists have produced models for the core of the Earth wherein the magnetic field is only quasi-stable and the poles can spontaneously migrate from one orientation to the other over the course of a few hundred to a few thousand years. Other scientists propose that the geodynamo first turns itself off, either spontaneously or through some external action like a comet impact, and then restarts itself with the magnetic "North" pole pointing either North or South. External events are not likely to be routine causes of magnetic field reversals due to the lack of a correlation between the age of impact craters and the timing of reversals. Regardless of the cause, when magnetic "North" reappears in the opposite direction this is a reversal, whereas turning off and returning in the same direction is called a geomagnetic excursion.\n\nUsing a magnetic detector (a variant of a compass), scientists have measured the historical direction of the Earth's magnetic field, by studying the layered iron-rich lava rocks. This is possible as each layer has been found to maintain the original magnetic field at its time of cooling. They have found that the poles have shifted a number of times throughout the past.\n\nThe above is a quote from Wikpaedia and magnetic pole reversal is well documented in scientific literature. It still begs the question raised by one of the correspondents above as to why then there were not great extinctions as the magnetosphere would be disrupted and lethal cosmic radiation would harm all surface dwelling life.
260515
Apparently, lesser sunlight will get in. That will cause some imbalance on earth.
30054
No.  The eccentricity (measure of how non-circular an orbit is) of Earth’s orbit is very small, about 0.0167, so the difference between the distance at apehelion and perihelion is only about 3%.  You can argue that it will affect the temperature, even slightly, but this would also increase cloud cover (water would evaporate) and consequently reduce the amount of sunlight received.  The temperature increase at perihelion is negligible.\n\nThe temperature difference between summer/winter is caused by the Earth’s 23 degree tilt.  The earth spins about this 23 degree tilt axis, resulting in the the Northern hemisphere facing more directly towards the sun for about ½ a year, and the Southern hemisphere facing more directly towards the sun for ½ a year.
787129
the ozone deplation allows more rays to enter the earth's atmosphere.  Which then heats the atmosphere and raises the temps at the polar ice caps which melt.  The melted polarcaps will spill into the oceans that will spill over land.  Do you see where this is going.
416102
Yes.  There is a special anomaly called a temperature inversion, which happens in special circumstances, particularly right after sunrise.   The inversion part refers to when it does not necessarily go from hot-to-cold, starting from the surface of the earth on outward.  Sometimes it's the reverse.  It happens because the air above ground is being warmed up before the sun rises high enough to start getting infrared heat to hit the ground.
306527
yes it would. that's a very interesting question. I thoght about it a few times myself and i figured that it was because the time reversed it meant that all the life on earth would also.
317284
Well, the Earth's magnetic field has dropped to near zero many times in the past; whenever a magnetic reversal occurs, the magnetic field grows much weaker before it reverses polarity. It has been shown that the Earth went with only an extremely, extremely weak magnetic field for about 2000 years. Apparently, life was not too adversely affected by it; we still exist, and no extinction events coincided with the time frame. Therefore, the most we would have to worry about is the radiation we would recieve from the sun and space; an increase in skin cancers could be expected, though not much else.
192873
Dont listen to teh idiot above, how could cutting down trees help improve the ozone layer???\n\nThe answer is A because trees convert CO2 to O2, the more trees you cut down the less trees you have to make 02 from CO2 so there will be an increase in CO2
694162
nothing, the air is probably underneath the fluid and the position change will reverse that allowing the air to escape.
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.
1064706
Ozone is actually O3, and it can only be naturally created in the stratosphere by incoming ultraviolet light.  The problem with the ozone layer isn't a lack of oxygen -- there's plenty to do the job -- but rather the presence of CFC's that have drifted up there from ground level over the past hundred years or so.  Chlorofluorocarbons, in the presence of ultraviolet light, release free chlorine radicals which attack ozone and reduce it to O2 in a catalyzing reaction; it is calculated that each chlorine radical can reduce around 100,000 ozone molecules before reacting with something else and being removed from the stratosphere.  So the removal of ozone becomes greater than the generation of ozone and you get a thinning (the ozone "hole" over the Antarctic and Arctic regions is a result of winter vortex winds which tend to concentrate atmospheric contaminants (including CFC's) in that area right around the poles, worsening the local damage.)\n\nGenerating ozone at ground level does a lot more harm than good -- you need it about fifteen to twenty kilometers up for it to protect you, and at ground level, because ozone is a powerful oxidizing agent, it can do your body a lot of harm.  Add to that the immense expense of generating enough ozone to do any good -- ozone can be artificially created by running an electrical arc through air (it's that "electrical" smell you get before a lightning storm or if your copy machine has been running a long time)  The energy requirements to produce the ozone and the logistics of getting it up to the statosphere soon enough to do us any good have already been estimated, and let's just say if you thought your taxes are high now, just wait for the price tag on this project, estimated by some in the tens of quadrillions of dollars to be effective.  So basically, if all the nations in the world gave us ALL their money, we could jointly afford to make this project a reality.  Ain't gonna happen, sorry to say.\n\nThe best way to repair the hole in the ozone layer is to eliminate the use of CFC's as refrigerants in favor of more ecologically friendly gases, and allow nature to repair itself.  We're already seeing a gradual decrease in the seasonal size of the ozone hole from the reduction or complete cessation of CFC use by most industrialized nations (some developing nations still use CFC's because they're cheap; we're working on trying to get them to switch as well)  It'll take upwards of 50 years before we really see the benefits of this -- takes that long for ground-level gases to rise to the stratosphere through natural circulation.