RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Evidence of Ozone recovery, Good news!  Science works.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,21:34   

I remember 25 years ago when the conservatives were all saying that the scientists who were calling for bans on CFC's to reduce ozone depletions were all "chicken littles" (literally ; )

guess what?

seems the scientists were right all along. What a shocker (NOT!)

http://www.physorg.com/news67869676.html

Quote
Their new study, entitled "Attribution of recovery in lower-stratospheric ozone," was just accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. It concludes that about half of the recent trend is due to CFC reductions.


Now if we could only get the idiots who claim there is no human influence on global warming to put this in their files to remind them....

I'd really rather we dealt with the issue now, than be able to say "we told you so" 25 years later.

oh, and in case you hadn't noticed yet, I've been spending a lot of time on physorg.com lately.

check the archives there; lot's of great references to recent studies in a lot of different fields.

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,22:10   

EDIT -

Quote
Montreal Protocol was for the elimination of Freon otherwise known as Hydrochlorofluorocarbons - HCFC. I wonder how the Kyoto Protocol is doing though.


My apologies - it would seem that over the last few years they have decided to drop the H (Hydro) from the acronym (I just did a web research). However in the protocol orginally signed they used HCFC's buggers.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,08:50   

pardon's in the mail.

;)

  
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,10:00   

The whole ozone thing seemed fishy to me from the start.

People were saying things like "CFCs made the 'ozone hole'" as if they knew for sure that this is the case.

It's still not certain that this is actually true. It's also not sure AT ALL whether continued use of CFCs would deplete the ozone around the globe.

Its all well and good to play it safe and stop using CFCs if there are alternatives, but all these claims of certainty are not warranted. I mean, shit, a Nobel Prize was awarded for this crap.

Let's take a look at the language in the article though, which is a little better than the OP in this thread.

 
Quote
While the ozone hole over Antarctica continues to open wide, the ozone layer around the rest of the planet seems to be on the mend. For the last 9 years, worldwide ozone has remained roughly constant, halting the decline first noticed in the 1980s.

When did we have the ability to start measuring global ozone levels? When we started measuring were the levels in an overall decline? Were they increasing in places and decreasing in others? Why? Now, overall global levels have been constant for the last 9 years. Why? Can we unequivocally state that it's because of the Montreal Protocol?

Thankfully, the article says    
Quote
The question is why? Is the Montreal Protocol responsible? Or is some other process at work?

It's a complicated question. CFCs are not the only things that can influence the ozone layer; sunspots, volcanoes and weather also play a role.

And can we accurately work out what factors really affect the trend?    
Quote
Sorting out cause and effect is difficult, but a group of NASA and university researchers may have made some headway. Their new study, entitled "Attribution of recovery in lower-stratospheric ozone," was just accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. It concludes that about half of the recent trend is due to CFC reductions.

May have ... made some headway ... into finding out.
That hardly warrants anyone claiming that CFCs definitely significantly deplete the ozone layer of the entire planet.

I guess the article hasn't been published yet, so I can't comment on it directly, but that's not the point.


To me this type of thing is not a matter of conservative/liberal, it's a matter of stating things as absolute fact when we don't really know for sure.

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,10:47   

Quote
People were saying things like "CFCs made the 'ozone hole'" as if they knew for sure that this is the case.


as if we need to rekindle a 25 year old argument that was actually resolved in lab tests and field tests over 20 years ago.

*sigh*

well, here goes.

they did.

how?

1. lab studies showed exactly how CFC's affected ozone degredation. there were hundreds of published studies on this in the 70's and 80's. perhaps you should have read a few of them? Heck, I even remember my old high school chemistry professor having us look at the chemistry involved in class.

2. field studies with ultra-high-flying jets that could do stratospheric sampling conclusively demonstrated the effect of CFC's on stratospheric ozone in the early and mid 80's.

3. global levels of ozone and CFC's can be indirectly measured via satellite sampling (looking at UV irradiance measures, etc.) and again, by subsampling directly with UHF jets.

4. you ignored the part of the article which mentions the theoretical models that were developed in the late 70's/early 80's to predict the effects of CFC's on ozone depeletion. these models were based on stratospheric ozone (again, as mentioned even in the news article). Current measurements EXACTLY fit the predictions made for stratospheric ozone regeneration based on measured levels of CFC reductions in the stratosphere.

5. Yes, the lower level atmospheric ozone is more complicated, and because of variable unpredictable inputs (like volcanic), models don't fit as well.

Is that so surprising?

amazing you could be so resistant to seeing the whole point of the article.

no wait...

It's not like i never saw this kind of reaction before.

hence the exact reason i posted the article.

thanks for reminding me of some of the ridiculous arguments made against the protocol before it was finally established, and showing the lurkers here the same.

I'm sure some of them are too young to remember.

oh, and btw, I was a registered republican at the time the protocol was passed :)

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,11:36   

Quote
as if we need to rekindle a 25 year old argument that was actually resolved in lab tests and field tests over 20 years ago.

I'm with Sir T. on this. The evidence supporting the Molina - Rowland hypothesis has been overwhelming. Conclusive evidence supporting global warming has been a bit slower to arrive, but it's now in. You can look here, or here, or here. I particularly like this one...but that's just me. Here's one final link. Note the warning:
 
Quote
In December, 2005 Bellouin et al suggested in Nature that the reflectivity effect of airborne pollutants was about double that previously expected, and that therefore some global warming was being masked. If supported by further studies, this would imply that existing models underpredict future global warming. [51]


The hole might be getting smaller, but so are the glaciers. :(

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,11:45   

Ghost, I'm glad to see that you're not another global warming denier, though I'm still not convinced you're not parodying a YEC.
:)

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,11:48   

I knew gawp was smarter than he played on TV.

or maybe it's because he ate his spinach today?

;)

see, BV, you never know what you're gonna agree with somebody about, even if you disagree with just about everything else they ever even thought about putting in print.

Quote
oh, and btw, I was a registered republican at the time the protocol was passed


in fact, IIRC, the prevalence of arguments against the protocol within the GoP at the time is one of the reasons I decided to dump the party and start voting demo.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,11:54   

jeannot:
 
Quote
Ghost, I'm glad to see that you're not another global warming denier, though I'm still not convinced you're not parodying a YEC.

You might be surprised at the number of us "fundies" who care about the planet. To be sure, this particular stance doesn't make me popular with my fellow conservatives, but I gotta be me.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,15:23   

Quote
When did we have the ability to start measuring global ozone levels? When we started measuring were the levels in an overall decline? Were they increasing in places and decreasing in others? Why?


I used this page as a statistical source while doing a paper of the Montreal Protocol.

Quotations:

"In the area over Antarctica, there are stratospheric cloud ice particles that are not present at warmer latitudes. Reactions occur on the surface of the ice particles that accelerate the ozone destruction caused by stratospheric chlorine. Polar regions get a much larger variation in sunlight than anywhere else, and during the 3 months of winter spend most of time in the dark without solar radiation. Temperatures hover around or below -80'C for much of the winter and the extremely low antarctic temperatures cause cloud formation in the relatively ''dry''stratosphere. These Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC's) are composed of ice crystals that provide the surface for a multitude of reactions, many of which speed the degredation of ozone molecules.  This phenomenon has caused documented decreases in ozone concentrations over Antarctica."

"In 1984, when the British first reported their findings, October ozone levels were about 35 percent lower than the average for the 1960s. When the first measurements were taken the drop in ozone levels in the stratosphere was so dramatic that at first the scientists thought their instruments were faulty."

"The U.S. satellite Nimbus-7 quickly confirmed the results, and the term Antarctic ozone hole entered popular language."

Source of Quotations.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,15:46   

Man, GoP is right on something where Beervolcano is wrong. That hits me right in the gut.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2006,16:12   

methinks you'll recover.

:D

besides, the basic argument BV was making was a good one.

It IS always good to doublecheck research results posted as popular fact.

and he was correct in pointing out the model's failure to predict results in the lower atmosphere (missed by half; I've seen worse, but still)


I just disagree with the specific results obtained by BV by doing so in this case.

I'm sure I'll say something overgeneral tommorrow that he will be quite right to call me on.

*shrug*

such is life.

  
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,11:31   

Quote
1.  lab studies showed exactly how CFC's affected ozone degredation.  there were hundreds of published studies on this in the 70's and 80's.  perhaps you should have read a few of them?  Heck, I even remember my old high school chemistry professor having us look at the chemistry involved in class.

I'm not retarded. I'm fully aware that CFCs (chlorine radicals actually) react with ozone. So do a lot of things. Ozone isn't terribly stable, being an odd-electron molecule and all, and lots of things can react with it.

Quote
2.  field studies with ultra-high-flying jets that could do stratospheric sampling conclusively demonstrated the effect of CFC's on stratospheric ozone in the early and mid 80's.
Did they also screen NOx gases too? H2S? The lot? Yes, CFCs affect ozone. Yes, that part isn't a mystery.

Quote
3.  global levels of ozone and CFC's can be indirectly measured via satellite sampling (looking at UV irradiance measures, etc.) and again, by subsampling directly with UHF jets.
And they've been doing this for 100 years? 200? You think they have an accurate baseline from which to plot trends?

Quote
4.  you ignored the part of the article which mentions the theoretical models that were developed in the late 70's/early 80's to predict the effects of CFC's on ozone depeletion.  these models were based on stratospheric ozone (again, as mentioned even in the news article).  Current measurements EXACTLY fit the predictions made for stratospheric ozone regeneration based on measured levels of CFC reductions in the stratosphere.
I hate to say it like this, but there were also computer models that said that the Kyoto protocol would hurt the US economy. Computer models can say a lot of things.

Of course, CFCs react with ozone. But can we make catastrophic predictions based on that? That's my whole point. Like global warming. Obiously CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, but the atmosphere/biosphere is much more complicated than simply saying, "increased CO2 means that coastal cities will flood in 50 years."

Quote
5.  Yes, the lower level atmospheric ozone is more complicated, and because of variable unpredictable inputs (like volcanic), models don't fit as well.
Volcanos spew stuff well into the stratosphere.

Quote
thanks for reminding me of some of the ridiculous arguments made against the protocol before it was finally established, and showing the lurkers here the same.
I made NO argument against the protocol. I made arguments against making doomsday claims based on minimal information.

Quote
I'm sure some of them are too young to remember.
Too young to remember 1995?

Quote
oh, and btw, I was a registered republican at the time the protocol was passed
which has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of it.

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

  
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,11:38   

Quote
I used this page as a statistical source while doing a paper of the Montreal Protocol.

Quotations:

"In the area over Antarctica, there are stratospheric cloud ice particles that are not present at warmer latitudes. Reactions occur on the surface of the ice particles that accelerate the ozone destruction caused by stratospheric chlorine. Polar regions get a much larger variation in sunlight than anywhere else, and during the 3 months of winter spend most of time in the dark without solar radiation. Temperatures hover around or below -80'C for much of the winter and the extremely low antarctic temperatures cause cloud formation in the relatively ''dry''stratosphere. These Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC's) are composed of ice crystals that provide the surface for a multitude of reactions, many of which speed the degredation of ozone molecules.  This phenomenon has caused documented decreases in ozone concentrations over Antarctica."

"In 1984, when the British first reported their findings, October ozone levels were about 35 percent lower than the average for the 1960s. When the first measurements were taken the drop in ozone levels in the stratosphere was so dramatic that at first the scientists thought their instruments were faulty."

"The U.S. satellite Nimbus-7 quickly confirmed the results, and the term Antarctic ozone hole entered popular language."


I've seen this all before.

Can you tell me there was never an ozone hole before? Was there an ozone hole in 1850? Yes or no.

Quote
and he was correct in pointing out the model's failure to predict results in the lower atmosphere (missed by half; I've seen worse, but still)
When did I mention this? Never.

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

  
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,11:50   

From the wiki article:

Quote
There is a slight caveat to this, however. Global warming from CO2 is expected to cool the stratosphere. This, in turn, would lead to a relative increase in ozone depletion and the frequency of ozone holes. The effect may not be linear: ozone holes form because of polar stratospheric clouds; the formation of polar stratospheric clouds has a temperature threshold above which they will not form; cooling of the Arctic stratosphere might lead to Antarctic-ozone-hole-like conditions. But at the moment this is not clear.

Even though the stratosphere as a whole is cooling, high-latitude areas may become increasingly predisposed to springtime stratospheric warming events as weather patterns change in response to higher greenhouse gas loading.
It's just plain complicated.

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,11:51   

sorry, i was evidently giving you too much credit.

I thought that was part of your argument based you quoting this part of the article:

Quote
It's a complicated question. CFCs are not the only things that can influence the ozone layer; sunspots, volcanoes and weather also play a role.


this was in response to explaining why the model did not as acurately predict ozone changes in the lower atmosphere, so I naturally thought that's what you were pointing out.

so sorry.

really, I think you're digging yourself in deeper and deeper.

but go right on ahead, don't let me stop you.

again, it's not like I haven't seen this argument before.

at this point I suppose there's little point in me reiterating that you take a gander at the subsampling studies on levels of CFC's in the stratosphere that were used to build the models to begin with?

naww.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,11:52   

The same kind of objections could be made against the causes of global warming, Beervolcano.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,12:35   

Hang on- Beervolcanoes argument looks very similar to that used by YEC'ers.  No insult intended.

  
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,13:43   

Quote
sorry, i was evidently giving you too much credit.

I thought that was part of your argument based you quoting this part of the article:

It's a complicated question. CFCs are not the only things that can influence the ozone layer; sunspots, volcanoes and weather also play a role.

this was in response to explaining why the model did not as acurately predict ozone changes in the lower atmosphere, so I naturally thought that's what you were pointing out.

The "ozone layer" means stratospheric ozone, not tropospheric ozone.

 
Quote
so sorry.

really, I think you're digging yourself in deeper and deeper.

but go right on ahead, don't let me stop you.

again, it's not like I haven't seen this argument before.

And it's not like I haven't seen people making doomsday predictions based on quite incomplete data.

 
Quote
at this point I suppose there's little point in me reiterating that you take a gander at the subsampling studies on levels of CFC's in the stratosphere that were used to build the models to begin with?

naww.

I would have to do a lit search. Apparently you already have. Maybe you can just give me the weblinks you used to find these articles.

 
Quote
The same kind of objections could be made against the causes of global warming, Beervolcano.
Precisely, and the wiki quote above says that the two issues may be linked.

I agree that humans can have an impact on the atmosphere. I think you people assume I'm coming from a different position from what I actually am.

It's just that these things are systems involving the whole earth and the earth has various feedback loops to buffer (or amplify) any changes occuring in the atmosphere, which is affected by the biosphere, which is affected by the geosphere, on and on.

If we want to be safe, go ahead. Have the Montreal Protocol. If we don't know wether or not our actions may cause future catastrophe, then we'd better play it safe.

Maybe the only way to do that is to scare the pants off everyone by feeding them these doomsday, worst-case scenarios. Hey, it worked for Bush.

 
Quote
Hang on- Beervolcanoes argument looks very similar to that used by YEC'ers.  No insult intended.
In what way?

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,13:57   

Quote
Can you tell me there was never an ozone hole before? Was there an ozone hole in 1850? Yes or no.


The start of the industrial era? Scientists claim this is when trouble with the ozone layer started, yes. How factual is that? I have NO idea.

  
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,14:02   

Quote (Fractatious @ May 28 2006,18:57)
Quote
Can you tell me there was never an ozone hole before? Was there an ozone hole in 1850? Yes or no.

... ... I have NO idea.

Thanks.

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,15:08   

Quote
Thanks.


please tell me you didn't just take that as support for your argument??

are you on something?

In my first rebuttal in incorrectly used "lower atmosphere" to refer to lower stratosphere.  However, this is what I was on about:

The good news: In the upper stratosphere (above roughly 18 km), ozone recovery can be explained almost entirely by CFC reductions. "Up there, the Montreal Protocol seems to be working," says co-author Mike Newchurch of the Global Hydrology and Climate Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

The puzzle: In the lower stratosphere (between 10 and 18 km) ozone has recovered even better than changes in CFCs alone would predict. Something else must be affecting the trend at these lower altitudes.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,15:10   

Don't expect beervolcano to play your silly game. Sure there may be dots to be connected, but there also may be fundamental discontinuities in the data, and that's what beervolcano is discovering.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,15:47   

silly game???

tell you what BV and all, if you want to challenge the findings of this paper, and all the research that lead to the protocol, go right on ahead.

feel free to show me the models that would predict the same results based on changes in H2S, or nitrous oxide, or whatever else you wish.

feel free to reference primary literature that conflicts with the studies on CFC's from the 80's for example.

To me, what I see is beervolcano attempting to start an argument based on his assumption that any of the variables he mentions were never covered by anyone involved with the models used to support the protocol; which is a pretty ridiculous position to take (Did he think they were retarded?)

Hey, wanna prove them wrong?

go right on ahead. You got about 30 years plus worth of articles to review and reject.

In fact, if you're really interested (are you?) i would highly encourage you to do so.

I'm sure we would all garner valuable information from the attempt, one way or the other.

I must admit that I haven't glanced at much of the primary literature in this area in over 10 years. I could use a refresher, and this study, and my support of it, could be completely wrong.

I just don't think it logical to expect 30 years of research to be overturned because you thought they might have forgotten to include NoX or H2S in the models.

Also note that the reason i posted this here was to mainly to bring up the "good news" that the ozone layer appears to be on the mend.

onto another thing. It's been my experience that the "chicken little" argument usually comes from those that have never had to deal with Government agencies or representatives of congress.

If you want to accomplish ANYTHING, you almost HAVE to overstate your case.

Not that I'm saying the case for CFC's was in this instance, but rather, that there is some political expediency to the "chicken little" syndrome.

I want to point this out, because I very often ran into scientists, in my own lab and when i was working with ngo's, that wanted to wait and wait and wait until every single detail was worked out, when it was blatantly obvious that at least some aspect of a particular issue could be acted on with likely productive results immediately.

Being careful is a good thing, but when you let the forest be bulldozed because there isn't rock-solid evidence that this forest is the ONLY significant gene pool for a specific species, well.... I think you can see what i mean. And yes, this isn't too far from many of the examples I saw both as a student, a researcher, and when working with ngo's.

You can make all the arguments for prudence you wish, BV, but can you really say that you examined the data and research at the time the protocol was put into effect enough to conclude there would be no benefit to reductions in CFC outputs?

Your general point of prudence in science is obvious.

Your specific contention that there is no value in the models used to predict the effects of CFC's on ozone levels needs more evidence.

Quote
I would have to do a lit search. Apparently you already have. Maybe you can just give me the weblinks you used to find these articles.


EDIT:

hmm, this does bring up a bit of an issue if we want to actually hash this out.

I read these things over 10-15 years ago when I had access to research libraries.  the web links were nonexistent, otherwise I would be glad to.  I'd bet that both you and I are in the same boat that we can't afford easy access to anything but abstracts these days.  If you can find links to abstracts to support your refutations, at least I can check them out the next time I hit the library.

It's likely to get pretty frustrating tho.

got a better idea?

and no, wiki doesn't qualify as primary literature ;)

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,16:25   

Quote
silly game???


It's a dembski reference. :-)

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,16:57   

ah, sorry. I think I actively put Dembski content out of my brain.

not enough room in there for sustained idiocy, and I use "irony divining rods" these days (blew too many fuses with normal irony meters), so you have to kind of bonk me on the head with any less than completely obvious irony.

BTW:

what the heck happened to the Piston's last night?  I saw your post that it was within 1 point, went to try to find the game updates online, and by the time I did, it was pretty much over; the Piston's apparently having fizzled completely after they brought it to the point you mentioned.

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,17:23   

Quote
I read these things over 10-15 years ago when I had access to research libraries. the web links were nonexistent, otherwise I would be glad to.


This I can do through my universities online data base and meta links. Which I will do very soon.

Example:

BIRA-IASB Develops New Online Ozone Forecasting Service.(Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy)(Brief Article).

Ozone Depletion Network Online Today (Nov 7, 2003): p0.

Full Text :COPYRIGHT 2003 EIN Publishing, Inc.

The European Space Agency (ESA) recently announced that the Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy (BIRA-IASB) has developed a new online "near-real time global ozone forecasting service," known as the Belgian Assimilation System of Chemical Observations from Envisat (BASCOE), that "maps and forecasts not only the concentration of ozone in the stratosphere but also 56 other chemical species, including those responsible for ozone depletion."

According to ESA, BASCOE relies upon an instrument aboard the environmental monitoring satellite Envisat known as the Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding (MIPAS), which "works day and night to measure infrared emissions from the Earth's 'limb' -- the narrow band of atmosphere between the planetary surface and empty space."

"The stratosphere is one of the best-understood areas of atmospheric chemistry, a fact which makes the BASCOE model possible," said BIRA-IASB official Dominique Fonteyn. "In fact this model predates the launch of Envisat, and was originally intended simply as a summary of our existing understanding of stratospheric chemistry. But the large amount of work that went into it -- some 50,000 lines of code -- made us look at using it in other ways, and assimilating Envisat data into it for operational use."

ESA noted that users of BASCOE, which is available online at http://bascoe.oma.be, can obtain forecasts of global ozone levels for the week ahead as well as maps of nitric acid trihydrate (NAT) and active chlorine (CIOx), "both implicated in ozone thinning."

Contact: ESA, website http://www.esa.int.

(EIN STAFF: 10/31)

Copyright 2003 by EIN Publishing, Inc.

Source Citation: "BIRA-IASB Develops New Online Ozone Forecasting Service.(Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy)(Brief Article)." Ozone Depletion Network Online Today (Nov 7, 2003): 0. InfoTrac OneFile. Thomson Gale. University of Waikato Library. 28 May. 2006

(I'm not sure if the link will work without a login)

Source Article.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,17:30   

Quote

what the heck happened to the Piston's last night?  I saw your post that it was within 1 point, went to try to find the game updates online, and by the time I did, it was pretty much over; the Piston's apparently having fizzled completely after they brought it to the point you mentioned.
Yeah, I think that was early in the 3rd quarter? I don't know. by the end of the game I was hammered and really don't know what happened to them. I'm still a bit surprised about the Spurs. These playoffs have been better than they have in years. there've been some incredible games. so far tonight, the first half of Dallas/Phoenix has been pretty ordinary. Maybe the second half will be interesting.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,17:43   

Quote
(I'm not sure if the link will work without a login)


nope, but that's not surprising really.

thanks much for the effort though; it's still valuable info.

I do hope someday that the effort towards the Open Journal standard will gain more ground.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,19:11   

Beer Volcano. I understand why you  might think that sort of a thing. There is a lot of press out there pointing out the poor quality of modeling technology and poor results it gives.

I should qualify my statement by saying that I couldn't build a high-tech model that could work in 3-d and all to save my life. But,

I use data from models all the time. It is only marginally less valuable than real data from sampling stations. We model water temperature, populations, salinity and a host of other things. I suppose that the data might be just lucky but we've been relying on it for quite some time. When you are isolating a specific element of a chaotic system, like ozone in the stratosphere, I would bet that the models are basically correct. Not to be too hot on models but they do come with error percentages and dates that you can carry data out to and etc. I've never seen an error that wasn't accounted for before the model ran. In other words, the models are pretty good at even predicting their errors. Bottom line, They work. If they don't, you know before you run the model. The more factors in the model (complexity) the more errors. But in things like ozone levels in a specific temperature and density setting are modelable. ???

Anyone care to give us an update on fractal modeling technology?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
  58 replies since May 26 2006,21:34 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]