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: 1200
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: 10127
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: 1200
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: 10127
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: 10127
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: 10127
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: 1898
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

   
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2006,07:27   

Read this page:
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=592383

It explains things way better than I can.
The problem I have with this page is that it tries to discount the theory altogether. I have no problem with the idea that CFCs can destroy ozone or that human made CFCs make it into the stratosphere and destroy some ozone (which becomes replaced.)

What I personally have a problem with are all the scare tactics that were used to persuade people to stop using CFCs.
     
Quote
The public was left with a distorted view of chlorofluorocarbons and the ozone layer.

Their theory was based on a fact, however. CFCs will break down in ultraviolet radiation and release reactive chlorine. The theory was that if the CFCs could be lifted into the air 10,000 meters where the level of UV would increase dramatically. CFCs would probably remain stable until they reached the ozone layer where it would be too vulnerable then break down and destroy the all-important ozone layer. It's a very unstable theory but that did not stop environmentalists. The case was most difficult for the defense which needed to prove that this does not happen. All the prosecution needed was a theory backed with highly emotional and exaggerated disaster scenarios.

When the ozone hole didn't show up during the winters of 1989 and 1992, the debate began to disentegrate but NASA came back in 1992 with new reports of high levels of chlorine in the north pole. Something that had never been seen before, an ozone hole in the arctic! But still, 8 years later there has never been an ozone hole in the north pole.


Then you'll find some pages saying that these claims are myths.

http://info-pollution.com/common.htm

Look, it has to be extremely cold in the stratosphere for there to be an ozone hole. You need a set of fairly specific conditions. These conditions can never be global. They will pretty much remain around the poles, and major depletions have never been observed around the north pole. If global warming is right and the models that show the antarctic becoming colder, then this means less ozone no matter what.
     
Quote
Indeed, the 2005 ozone hole was one of the biggest ever, spanning 24 million sq km in area, nearly the size of North America.

And Al Gore can tell you that 2005 was the warmest year on record, globally. Based on what's been said before, it must have been one of the coldest years for the antarctic stratosphere. The colder it gets, the more PSCs form and you get less ozone.

Look, the OP and the article (which I still can't find, must not be on the web yet) say that the Montreal Protocol is responsible for the steady levels of ozone. While they may have evidence to back up this claim. It doesn't mean that they can claim these things unequivocally.
     
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.
Mid latitude levels fluctuate within a few percent. This is what they are measuring. Or did they just say that the Montreal Protocol ISN'T working because "the ozone hole over Antarctica continues to open wide"? Hmm.

     
Quote
please tell me you didn't just take that as support for your argument??
What? That we don't know how natural the ozone hole may be? We don't. We don't know if there was one there before we started manufacturing CFCs. We certainly don't know if continued use of CFCs would give everyone cancer. Play it safe, fine with me. Don't make the things, they aren't essential for living, but don't go around saying "See See! We saved the Earth!"

     
Quote
are you on something?
An internet message board, you?

     
Quote
In my first rebuttal in incorrectly used "lower atmosphere" to refer to lower stratosphere.  However, this is what I was on about:
No biggie. I just responded to what I read.

     
Quote
"Up there, the Montreal Protocol seems to be working," says co-author Mike Newchurch of the Global Hydrology and Climate Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
But at the poles, it seems to not be working?
Or can we say what's working and what's not?

     
Quote
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.
See? Just like the article above. It's easy for you to say that all these scare tactics were warranted because there are people who already invested lots of time to make their case. All you did was point to their work. Now, you're challenging me to duplicate years of work by 100s of people. Gimme a break.

     
Quote
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
What I can see is a lot of exaggeration. There is a theory, yes. It takes into account many variables, yes. I don't have a problem with the science that was done. I have a problem with the exaggerations and appeals to emotion made on the political level in order to scare people into believing certain things, like "If you don't stop using Freon, we'll all get cancer."

     
Quote
In fact, if you're really interested (are you?) i would highly encourage you to do so.
Really, I'm not that interested, but you seem to be emotionally invested in this. Did you get scared? Is that why you changed your voting habits? Fear? Hey, it works, so what am I complaining about? They are just doing what works.

     
Quote
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.
Gimme some links man. You've obviously read all this and know right where all this stuff is. I don't want to have to so a Sci-Finder search, that'll take all day and I've got work to do.

     
Quote
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.
Hey, worked for Bush!

And I haven't seen a mushroom cloud yet, so the war in Iraq must be working!

But ok. Maybe you HAVE to say "We're all doomed" before anything will happen at all. So, whatever. Then later you have to justify all the money spent by saying "It's working. The places we measured show steady ozone levels and we figure it's because of the protocol. Never mind the other places that don't. Our plan is a success!" (Bush version, "The war is working because people voted. Never mind the bombings and nasty things on TV. Our plan is a success!")

     
Quote

hmm, this does bring up a bit of an issue if we want to actually hash this out.
I just figured you had access to all this stuff. Sorry, I don't have time for this. I can't believe I've just wasted ~20 minutes typing this post out. Crap, I have to get back to work!

     
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.  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.
I have full subscriptions to just about citation you can find. Just gimme some citations. Er, well, actually, some journals don't put things before 1995 on the web, but some have their entire archive there. We'll just have to see.

I just don't want to have to search for this stuff. I can if I need to, but you know.

     
Quote
and no, wiki doesn't qualify as primary literature
I thought I was using a supplied link? Maybe not.

Again, just find me the citations that you are so familiar with and I'll look them up. Heck(?), I'll even try to upload whole papers somewhere for mutual benefit.
Here's a latter article from Nature.
Will read it later.

--------------
("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 29 2006,07:36   

Fractatious,

Just link directly to the article. If someone has an institutional subscription, then they'll see it. If not, they'll be prompted to give their password anyway.

BWE,

I think there is a possibility of their leaving some stuff out.
My experience with computer modelling is more of the DFT, molecular mechanics, and Gaussian type ab initio stuff. In most of these cases it's garbage in-garbage out. What comes out is very dependent on what goes in. It can either be very accurate or very inaccurate. And when there's nothing experimental to check by, then you really don't know what you've got.

It's getting better, though.

Can I ask you if you know whether these ozone models predict utter catastrophe?

--------------
("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 29 2006,08:47   

no, BV.  You're the one who challenged the paper and the position.  You're the one who needs to provide evidence to that effect.

If it's of interest to you, feel free, but if you don't have time, don't.

It's already a resolved issue in my mind, but I'd be more than happy to examine any specific primary references you run across, including the ones you posted above.

If you actually do have some access, you can search Current Contents for any of the hundreds of references on this stuff from the 80's, but that's your job, not mine.

ah, and while we're at it:

Quote
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.


well, it has nothing to do with experimental methods or results, but it has a lot to do with interpretations and the politics involved with making the protocol work.

certainly you don't think that politics had nothing to do with the preponderance of conservatives speaking out against the protocol and the general effects of CFC's, do you?

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2006,08:58   

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


I have read some articles on the use of fractal modeling to predict growth patterns in some organisms.

Would that be of interest?

If so, I can try to dig the references up for you.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2006,09:12   

Quote
Look, the OP and the article (which I still can't find, must not be on the web yet) say that the Montreal Protocol is responsible for the steady levels of ozone. While they may have evidence to back up this claim. It doesn't mean that they can claim these things unequivocally.


what can we say but that we have evidence to support a theory?

uh, multiple pardons, but that's kinda what science is all about.

I could understand the position you are taking if the model was less accurate than it apparently was at predicting ozone concentrations in the upper stratosphere, but don't you think they ran any kind of statistical tests for significance before deciding to publish the paper?

Perhaps the reason the paper garnered attention to begin with was for the simple fact that the evidence to support the CFC model IS becoming clearer now?

btw, IIRC, that's pretty much what everybody was saying 20 years ago; that it would take 20 to 30 years before enough data could be collected to confirm or reject the model's predictions.

Moreover, it seems you are conflating the "science" of the work, with the politics involved in getting a protocol to fruition.  The two are not always (actually rarely) related.

 
Quote
 
Quote

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

What? That we don't know how natural the ozone hole may be? We don't.


lol.  no, that you took someone who clearly professed having no background on the subject claiming she has no idea as evidence to support your argument.

which you apparently did, based on your response.

Look, why don't you boil down EXACTLY what argument you are trying to make here.

Is it that all of the data that went into the models predicting the effects of CFC's on ozone concentrations in situ are wrong?

Is it that some major piece of data was completely ignored that totally invalidates the models, like temperature?  

Is it that you don't like that politics affects how the results of scientific experiments are interpreted and used?

I don't think you or i have the time to explore all 3 possibilities, so pick the one that has you the most peeved and we can go from there.

Quote
All you did was point to their work. Now, you're challenging me to duplicate years of work by 100s of people. Gimme a break.


funny, i was viewing this in almost the exact reverse:

"All you did was refute their work.  Now, you're saying that the work of 100's of people over several decades is wrong because you assumed they didn't include interrelated variables in their models.  Gimme a break.

interesting.

I have no idea how to resolve such a basic impase of viewpoint on the issue.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2006,09:26   

Quote
Hey, worked for Bush!

And I haven't seen a mushroom cloud yet, so the war in Iraq must be working!

But ok. Maybe you HAVE to say "We're all doomed" before anything will happen at all.


you mean like saying we have to invade Iraq because Saddam is about to use his links to al Qaida to blow us all up with his WMD's?

Yeah, that's exactly the argument I'm trying to make.

You see the argument, but not the implication.

Of course it isn't the case that extreme arguments always produce results that are desirable.

it's that extreme arguments are often the ONLY way to achieve any result at all in politics, for better or worse.

Want to change that?

Hey, like I mentioned to you in the other thread; more power to you.  You have the right attitude, and as i said, I don't argue against the prudence position as a scientist.  If you could somehow change the world of politics such that scientists were listened to without having to create extreme scenarios to begin with, I'd vote for ya.

I spent several years myself trying to this exact thing.

I worked with a large NGO entitled "Committee for the National Insitute for the Environment" that was trying to promote legislation to form a federally funded organization on a scale and structure similar to NIH, but with the specific goal of promoting long-term ecological research, instead of health research.  It was a very sound approach, and we had the support of the director of NIH at the time, as well as a large handfull of congressmen and senators.  We even managed to get a bill put before the house, which was promptly tabled.  Since then, funding issues (national) has relegated the grand plan to little more than the effort to produce a national online library for environmental studies.

ever hear of the National Institute for the Environment?

I bet not.

But hey, if you have a better idea on how to bring scientists closer to the ears of politicos, go for it.

right now, we're still left with the "chicken little" approach being the primary MO to accomplish anything in congress.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2006,09:39   

Quote
Did you get scared? Is that why you changed your voting habits?


no, you entirely missed the point.

the reason i changed my political affiliations was because the irrationality of the argument was entirely on the side of the conservatives in this case.

It wasn't a case of republicans challenging the data with with actual research, it was a case of complete denial of the problem to begin with.

very much like we have heard for the past 15 years plus with the majority of "global warming deniers" being of the republican persuasion.

are they arguing for scientific prudence, or are they arguing for some other, rather obvious reason?

Think Bill Frist cares about scientific prudence?

Is that a bit clearer?

If not, here it is again:

I changed my voting strategy because there was a preponderance of obvious lying and denial gaining ground within the party i had been voting for previously, and that hasn't faded any in the convening 20 years.

If anything, it seems to have gotten worse within the GoP.

do i need to point out the parallels between the ozone issue, global warming, and the creationism/evolution issue?

hmmm, there does seem to be a pattern....

Quote
Really, I'm not that interested, but you seem to be emotionally invested in this.


I'm not emotionally invested in the science itself; as i said, the issue seemed pretty clear to me ages ago, but even then was happy to check out any support for your refutations.  I AM emotionally invested in the politics surrounding the issue, though.  

Two different issues here:

the politics surrounding the protocol, and the science.

  
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2006,09:54   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 29 2006,13:47)
no, BV.  You're the one who challenged the paper and the position.  You're the one who needs to provide evidence to that effect.

If it's of interest to you, feel free, but if you don't have time, don't.

It's already a resolved issue in my mind, but I'd be more than happy to examine any specific primary references you run across, including the ones you posted above.

If you actually do have some access, you can search Current Contents for any of the hundreds of references on this stuff from the 80's, but that's your job, not mine.

ah, and while we're at it:

   
Quote
   
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.


well, it has nothing to do with experimental methods or results, but it has a lot to do with interpretations and the politics involved with making the protocol work.

You didn't provide the paper. You provided a news story about it.

You started this thread making some grandiose claims. (Well, citing a news story that made grandiose claims.) and then didn't say anything but nya nya those Republicans were wrong.

Wrong about what? That everyone would have cancer unless we stopped using CFCs? and methyl bromide, etc.?

Now, I have to look up 30 years of research to back up my claims that there wasn't some huge crisis to begin with?

As far as politics influencing science, I wonder if politics had anything to do with this sort of stuff:

Remember hearing that frog populations were linked to global warming?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5008940.stm
"An invasive frog species may be implicated in the spread of a fungus linked to global amphibian decline, research indicates."

An earlier article links it to the fungus too, but darn it if they don't want to give up on global warming killing all the frogs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4602116.stm
Global warming spreads the fungus! Oh no!
"The fate of amphibians has previously been connected with the chytrid fungus and climate change, but scientists were puzzled because the fungus is known as a more effective killer at lower temperatures rather than the higher temperatures usually associated with global warming.

But scientists now believe they have unravelled the mystery.

General warming is causing extra cloud cover over the tropical mountains favoured by the harlequin frogs. This means cooler days locally and warmer nights, providing the conditions in which the chytrid fungus thrives. "

We needed to blame this on global warming SOMEHOW so we won't look stupid for blaming it on global warming for years. So this fungus couldn't kill all these frogs unless global warming helped it. See? It's heads global warming is the bullet, tails global warming was the trigger. Either way global warming is responsible for a disaster. I mean, that's what global warming does, right, cause disasters?

I know we weren't talking about global warming. I, though, was talking about claiming things that we aren't too sure about as absolute truth and then making catastrophic predictions based on that. Then, going back and justifying all the claims by making even more grandiose claims about the success of all their efforts in averting the catastrophe!




 
Quote

certainly you don't think that politics had nothing to do with the preponderance of conservatives speaking out against the protocol and the general effects of CFC's, do you?
If by politics you mean following what someone says simply because they are on TV, then of course politics had something to do with it. Just like politics had something to do with all the people that opposed them. You don't think all those people analyzed all the data themselves and came to the same conclusions, do you? Or did they listen to someone on TV, see what the other side thinks, then base their opinions on that?

edit: yikes, I didn't see all those other posts from you.

I'll have to come back to this later when I get home from work tonight. I won't mess with this until about 9pm. (It's almost 3 now).

--------------
("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 29 2006,10:23   

Quote
That everyone would have cancer unless we stopped using CFCs? and methyl bromide, etc.?


strawman.

I never claimed that republicans were arguing against the notion that we would all get cancer unless we banned CFC's.  I was focusing entirely on the republicans who kept denying there was a problem, at all.

In fact, did you ever consider the possibility that stating the issue in the extreme terms you mention was a deliberate political tactic to begin with?

kind of like saying that all enviromentalists want is to prevent economic growth of any kind, and they're all "tree-hugging hippies".

You're attacking the second-tier political argument, if that makes sense, rather than the primary one.

btw, can we focus here?

which do you want to explore:

the politics or the science.

if the science, then yes, if you want to claim the models were based on faulty data or assumptions, I'd say you would at least have to spend some time looking at the original research that was used to develop them to begin with.

I don't see that as an outrageous request.

I'm reading the articles you posted, so obviously you had enough interest in tracking those down.  

as i said, if you have access to CC, it shouldn't take you more than an hour to track down a significant proportion of related articles.

actually, if it were me, I'd probably start with the references listed in the appendices of meetings surrounding the formation of the protocol to begin with.

should be able to google that document up, and go from there.

but, implied in your statement is that you either didn't before or no longer recall having read any of the literature during that time period.

without having done so, I can imagine this argument going round and round and round.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2006,10:30   

global warming denial is a good example of moving goalposts. For a long time, they republican types denied there was any warming. While one or two still do (Rush Limbaugh, for instance), most have moved to the less ridiculous claim that it's happening, but we don't know if it'll be bad.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2006,10:51   

agreed.

so hypothetically, if you had conlusive (for the sake of argument) evidence that global warming was occuring, and was primarily due to human activities, what would you do to try to convince your congressional representatives that some action needed to be taken to try to limit or slow the impact?

how would your actions be affected if you weren't the scientist directly involved with the study, but a layperson who read it and became convinced of the general conclusion it made?

what if it wasn't conclusive, but highly suggestive (e.g., large trend towards, but not yet reaching the defined level of significance of 5%)?

ever try to explain to someone with a general knowledge of science like Bill Frist what the difference is between 5% and 6% that makes something "significant" as far as science is concerned?

I kinda think one of the reasons we often sharpen our knives on the AFDaves of the world is to prepare to present just such a case.

but how much traction do OBVIOUS arguments, let alone subtle ones, have on changing the viewpoint of someone completely ignorant of how science works?

hence, screaming that global warming is a BAD, BAD, thing over and over again motivates the real influencers of congressfolk, their constituents.

as BV pointed out with reference to the Iraq war, simple, scary arguments work well with constituents.

I don't know how many times i can say this, but I guess one more time couldn't hurt:

I don't disagree with the idea that scientists should be appropriately prudent wrt to interpreting the results of their own work, or when reviewing others.  I've been in the middle of just such issues for a long time.

EDIT:  as an example, try bouncing around the political football that surrounds great white shark research.  If you work for an NGO, one part of your mission is to gather data and do research, but the other is that your subjects are at significant risk of dissapearing altogether, so you need to call attention to get laws passed so they don't.

However, there is a reality here that contrains the effectiveness of the scientific method when it enters the realm of politics.

the obvious response to the claim that extreme positions are negative in toto is:

what would happen if we had done nothing to try to stem the production and usage of CFC's (as a specific example, but extend it to any you wish - lead in paint, tobacco, the value of seat belts or motorcycle helmets, etc.)?

Again, if someone can think of a better way to translate scientific data into political action, go for it.  I tried as best I could for about 10 years without much success.

Is it the evidence for evolution that changes the minds of politicians about whether we should teach ID in schools or not?

ask George Bush's science advisor.

  
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2006,11:07   

Ok, I've got a few minutes anyway. I hate getting into thise things because they take forever.

Quote
what can we say but that we have evidence to support a theory?
That's not the way you put it in the OP.

Basically it went like this.

1. We were right!
2. They were wrong!
3. The Montreal Protocol worked!

That's saying a lot more than "we have a theory that the Montreal Protocol had some effect in a part of the atmosphere, but wrt to other parts, whether it had an effect or not is more ambiguous."

Quote
Moreover, it seems you are conflating the "science" of the work, with the politics involved in getting a protocol to fruition.  The two are not always (actually rarely) related.
Actually, what I am doing is saying that certain people have made grandiose claims based on limited data. These grandiose claims were used to make even more outlandish claims in order to affect public policy. Later, studies are done whose conclusions are, of course, debatable. These debatable conclusions, though, are touted as being a successful report card for the earlier grandiose claims.

Quote
Is it that all of the data that went into the models predicting the effects of CFC's on ozone concentrations in situ are wrong?
Did these models predict catastrophe?

Quote
All you did was refute their work.

I did not.

Maybe Stevestory can appreciate your moving of the goalposts.

Look, we are not headed for some global disaster by using freaking CFCs.

Quote
right now, we're still left with the "chicken little" approach being the primary MO to accomplish anything in congress.
Enough of it though and the effect will wear off. It won't work after a while. Maybe I'm wrong. I thought that we'd never get into another hopeless quagmire of a war after Vietnam, but hey...

Quote
It wasn't a case of republicans challenging the data with with actual research, it was a case of complete denial of the problem to begin with.
Well, anytime I see someone arguing against everyone dying because of no ozone layer, I see them coming with the same data from the same research and simply pointing to what they think will make their case. But this is on the internet. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but there are objectors to this who object based on the same data being used by the proponents of the theory.

Quote
are they arguing for scientific prudence, or are they arguing for some other, rather obvious reason?
Obvious reason? It's not so obvious to me. I can understand global warming and oil. Oil is the most commonly traded commodity on the planet. CFCs - not so much. There are also alternatives to CFCs. They don't work as well, but they can be bought and sold just the same. Some have higher profit margins even. So, no I don't see the "obvious" reason for people to doubt the notion that there will be some global ozone hole.

Quote
do i need to point out the parallels between the ozone issue, global warming, and the creationism/evolution issue?
Point them out. Please. Make sure that it's all backed up by citations from the literature. Nothing less than fully annotated internet discussions, I always say.

Quote
the politics surrounding the protocol, and the science.
Precisely, and they both affect each other.

--------------
("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 29 2006,11:25   

Quote
strawman.

?? In what way?

What was the Montreal Protocol intended to stop (or slow)?

Quote
I was focusing entirely on the republicans who kept denying there was a problem, at all.

If we're not going to die from UV rays, then what was the problem that Montreal was supposed to address?

From the treaty:

.Recognizing that world-wide emissions of certain substances can significantly deplete and otherwise modify the ozone layer in a manner that is likely to result in adverse effects on human health and the environment,

I know you don't like wiki, but here you go:

Quote
In 1973 Chemists Frank Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina, at the University of California-Irvine, began studying the impacts of CFCs in the earth's atmosphere. They discovered that CFC molecules were stable enough to remain in the atmosphere until they got up into the middle of the stratosphere where they would finally (after an average of 50-100 years for two common CFCs) be broken down by ultraviolet radiation releasing a chlorine atom. Rowland and Molina then proposed that these chlorine atoms might be expected to cause the breakdown of large amounts of ozone (O3) in the stratosphere. Their argument was based upon an analogy to recent work by Paul J. Crutzen and Harold Johnston, which had shown that nitric oxide (NO) could catalyze the destruction of ozone. (Several other scientists, including Ralph Cicerone, Richard Stolarski, Michael McElroy, and Steven Wofsy had independently proposed that chlorine could catalyze ozone loss, but none had realized that CFCs were a potentially large source of chlorine.) Crutzen, Molina and Rowland were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for their work on this problem.

The environmental consequence of this discovery was that, since stratospheric ozone absorbs most of the ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation reaching the surface of the planet, depletion of the ozone layer by CFCs would lead to an in increase in UV-B radiation at the surface, resulting in an increase in skin cancer and other impacts such as damage to crops and to marine phytoplankton.

So after hanging around in the stratosphere for 50-100 years (how long did it take to get there?) it starts to deplete the ozone layer leading to catastrophe.

Supposedly the first ozone hole was truly measured in 1976 (or 1956 depending on whom you ask). So are the CFCs from the 1920s responsible?

What about chloroform and methylene chloride? These are volatile and can hang out in the atmosphere for quite a while. Yet we use these solvents by the train load, all over the place. We spew Cl2 straight into the atmosphere in some places, especially during the manufacture of magnesium metal (as well as others).

Look, I'm sure all these papers you speak of will take all this stuff into account. We just have to find them.

Quote
without having done so, I can imagine this argument going round and round and round.
Yes, it has already.

It's hard to seperate the science from the politics. ####, the first experiments with CFCs and ozone led some guy to freak out and head straight to the House of Representatives.

In some areas, it's hard to pick the politics out of the science. Take the hockey stick plot in the golbal warming debate.

--------------
("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 29 2006,11:32   

Quote
If we're not going to die from UV rays,


are you now going to say that there is no evidence that there is an increase in skin cancer with increasing exposure to UV?

I'm going to stop here until i finish reading the articles you posted, and continue tonight.

  
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2006,11:36   

Quote (stevestory @ May 29 2006,15:30)
global warming denial is a good example of moving goalposts. For a long time, they republican types denied there was any warming. While one or two still do (Rush Limbaugh, for instance), most have moved to the less ridiculous claim that it's happening, but we don't know if it'll be bad.

Actually, it's at the point over whether the temperature of the entire planet can be drastically affected by human activities.

It's definitely a possibility and we should play it safe, but...

Who knows?

Anyone claiming to know for sure is lying.



----------------------------------------------------------------

A quick aside:


The ozone "hole" is more like an ozone "crater."

Can someone explain the red ring around the ozone "hole"?


It's at the North Pole too. There is a ring of very high levels of ozone around a dip in ozone. Can anyone here explain it?




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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2006,11:47   

Quote (beervolcano @ May 29 2006,17:36)

Quote

Actually, it's at the point over whether the temperature of the entire planet can be drastically affected by human activities.


That's old and busted. Accepting that we are, but denying the consequences, that's the new hotness.

   
beervolcano



Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2006,11:51   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 29 2006,16:32)
Quote
If we're not going to die from UV rays,


are you now going to say that there is no evidence that there is an increase in skin cancer with increasing exposure to UV?

I'm going to stop here until i finish reading the articles you posted, and continue tonight.

Wait, I thought you said that "dying from UV rays" was a Strawman.

--------------
("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 29 2006,12:02   

Quote (stevestory @ May 29 2006,16:47)
Quote (beervolcano @ May 29 2006,17:36)

 
Quote

Actually, it's at the point over whether the temperature of the entire planet can be drastically affected by human activities.


That's old and busted. Accepting that we are, but denying the consequences, that's the new hotness.

What you posted was a guy saying that "man made global warming is real" that linked to a clip of a report that simply said warming is happening. I didn't see where it concluded that "man made global warming is real."

I for one am totally on the fence on this one. I have yet to be convinced either way.

All I know is that release of CO2 by humans, which is constant and ever increasing, must eventually have some effect on the atmosphere. Whether it'll mean less deserts or flooded coastlines, I don't know either.



PEOPLE on this thread. You must understand that I am a huge skeptic. It takes A LOT of convincing to get me to totally believe something. Just because I'm making skepitcal arguments against certain politically hot topics doesn't mean anything wrt my political affiliation, of which I have none.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2006,12:09   

The guy in question is Ron Bailey, author of "Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death" who famously gave in to the evidence recently. Now he argues that the consequences aren't so bad. He's just one example. I've seen other conservative types switch from total denial to this argument recently. What I was supporting was that the argument has changed, not whether or not the argument is valid, which is why I didn't post any science.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2006,14:02   

Quote
Read this page:
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=592383

It explains things way better than I can.


(emphasis mine)

I just did.

If you really think that it explains things way better than you can, then we can end this right here.  I can just hand it off to the first responder to the op-ed piece you just linked to.

You did read the responses to that op-ed piece, didn't you?

I think your argument is better suited to continue over there than here.

However, I am still interested in any primary literature you might run across that would serve to refute the validity and predictive power of the models referenced in the article I originally posted about.

In fact, when it does come out, if you get access to it, we can examine the methods and conclusions together if you like.

Until then, having glanced at what you consider to be a good representation of your viewpoint, I feel I'm wasting my time to continue.

Here's what I will cede you:

My own political biases and the emotional stake i have in ridding the US of the neocon idiocy did indeed flavor the content of my original post.

in fact, one might have almost considered it an attempt to troll and see if there were any such conservatives hanging about.

instead, it seemed to catch yourself.

oh well.

live and learn.

I'll be happy to pick this up again once the article comes out and both of us have access to it.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2006,05:28   

From B.V.'s source:
             
Quote
Our manmade materials have not have a true effect on the atmosphere. We would have to try really hard if we wanted to make a dent. So much more of this chlorine (which is the bad part in CFCs) occurs naturally than we make. A large volcanic blast can contribute 100 to 1000 million tons of active chlorine to the atmosphere, and a large portion of it may very well reach the stratosphere. Slower eruptions make a slow stream of chlorine, like Mount Erebus which has released 300,000 tons per year for the past 30 years Salt spray from oceans, forest and brush fires contribute an average of 700 million tons annually! All of these natural contributions add up to make a total four to five orders of magnitude greater than the man-made contribution. Also, take into fact that only a very minor portion of CFCs actually make into the stratosphere. The molecules are 4 to 8 times heavier than air and adhere easily to the ground and other things attached to the ground.

No doubt about it, whoever wrote this is ignorant. From the source I cited earlier:
             
Quote
Myths about ozone depletion
Various untruths and halftruths about ozone depletion are prevalent. A few of the most common are addressed briefly here; more detailed discussions can be found in the ozone FAQ.

[edit]
CFCs are "too heavy" to reach the stratosphere
One frequently hears that since CFC molecules are much heavier than nitrogen or oxygen, they cannot reach the stratosphere in significant quantities. [20] But atmospheric gases are not sorted by weight; the forces of wind (turbulence) are strong enough to fully intermix gases in the atmosphere. CFCs are heavier than air, but just like argon, krypton and other heavy gases with a long lifetime they are uniformly distributed throughout the turbosphere and reach the upper atmosphere. See [21] and the FAQ, part I, section 1.3.

[edit]
Manmade chlorine is insignificant compared to natural sources
One occasionally encounters statements such as It is generally agreed that natural sources of tropospheric chlorine (volcanoes, ocean spray, etc.) are four to five orders of magnitude larger than man-made sources. This falls into the "true but irrelevant" category as tropospheric chlorine is irrelevant; it is stratospheric chlorine that matters. The chlorine from ocean spray is in the form HCl and is soluble; it never reaches the stratosphere. CFCs, in contrast, are insoluble and long-lived and hence do reach the stratosphere. Even in the lower atmosphere there is more chlorine present in the form of CFCs and related haloalkanes than there is in HCl from salt spray, and in the stratosphere the organic source gases dominate overwhelmingly. This includes the CFCs and methyl chloride, which has both natural and man made sources (FAQ, Part II, section 4.3). Another point which must be kept in mind when evaluating the contributions of various gases to stratospheric ozone is that methyl chloride molecules only contribute a single chlorine atom, but CFC molecules contribute multiple chlorine atoms. Very large volcanic eruptions can inject HCl directly into the stratosphere, but direct measurements (FAQ, Part II, section 4.4) have shown that their contribution is small compared to chlorine from CFCs.


B.V's source....
           
Quote
On a final note, remember that the first major hole in the ozone above the Antarctic (that we noticed) was in 1956, long before chlorofluorocarbons were in widespread use. This "hole" is a naturally occurring event that happens periodically.


The response.....
           
Quote
An ozone hole was first observed in 1956
G.M.B. Dobson (Exploring the Atmosphere, 2nd Edition, Oxford, 1968) mentioned that when springtime ozone levels over Halley Bay were first measured, he was surprised to find that they were ~320 DU, about 150 DU below spring levels, ~450 DU, in the Arctic. These, however, were the pre-ozone hole normal climatological values. What Dobson describes is essentially the baseline from which the ozone hole is measured: actual ozone hole values are in the 150-100 DU range.

The discrepancy between the Arctic and Antarctic noted by Dobson was primarily a matter of timing: during the Antarctic spring ozone levels rose smoothly, peaking in April, whereas in the Antarctic they stayed approximately constant during early spring, rising abruptly in November when the polar vortex broke down.

The behavior seen in the Antarctic ozone hole is completely different. Instead of staying constant, early springtime ozone levels suddenly drop from their already low winter values, by as much as 50%, and normal values are not reached again until December. (FAQ, Part III, section 6)


As for the "UVB is harmless" claim.....
         
Quote
The big problem the environmentalists and the public had was the "infamous, deadly UV rays". Well there are different kinds of UV rays. The shorter wavelength type, UVC, is responsible for splitting oxygen molecules, and creating billions of tons of ozone per second. The longer wavelength type, UVB, breaks it down. Both UVC and UVB are effectively blocked by the ozone layer. The longest wavelength, UVA, is not affected by oxygen or the ozone layer and passes through freely. Ironically, this is the wavelength proven to be the cause of melanoma, the deadly skin cancer.


Nice try, Lex Luthor!

         
Quote
UVB (the higher energy UV radiation absorbed by ozone) is generally accepted to be a contributory factor to skin cancer. The most common forms of skin cancer in humans, basal and squamous cell carcinomas, have been strongly linked to UVB exposure. The mechanism by which UVB induces these cancers is well understood — absorption of UVB radiation causes the pyrimidine bases in the DNA molecule to form dimers, resulting in transcription errors when the DNA replicates. These cancers are relatively mild and rarely fatal, although the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma sometimes requires extensive reconstructive surgery. By combining epidemiological data with results of animal studies, scientists have estimated that a one percent decrease in stratospheric ozone would increase the incidence of these cancers by 2% [7].



Great link, guy.

Also see this page:
     
Quote
Skin
UVA, UVB and UVC can all damage collagen fibers and thereby accelerate aging of the skin. In general, UVA is the least harmful, but can contribute to the aging of skin, DNA damage and possibly skin cancer. It penetrates deeply and does not cause sunburn. Because it does not cause reddening of the skin (erythema) it cannot be measured in the SPF testing. There is no good clinical measurement of the blocking of UVA radiation, but it is important that sunscreen block both UVA and UVB.

UVA light is also known as "dark-light" and, because of its longer wavelength, can penetrate most windows. It also penetrates deeper into the skin than UVB light and is thought to be a prime cause of wrinkles.

UVB light can cause skin cancer. The radiation excites DNA molecules in skin cells, causing covalent bonds to form between adjacent thymine bases, producing thymidine dimers. Thymidine dimers do not base pair normally, which can cause distortion of the DNA helix, stalled replication, gaps, and misincorporation. These can lead to mutations, which can result in cancerous growths. The mutagenicity of UV radiation can be easily observed in bacteria cultures.

This cancer connection is one reason for concern about ozone depletion and the ozone hole.
As a defense against UV radiation, the body tans when exposed to moderate (depending on skin type) levels of radiation by releasing the brown pigment melanin. This helps to block UV penetration and prevent damage to the vulnerable skin tissues deeper down. Suntan lotion that partly blocks UV is widely available (often referred to as "sun block" or "sunscreen"). Most of these products contain an "SPF rating" that describes the amount of protection given. This protection applies only to UVB light.


If you don't trust Wikipedia, try here:
     
Quote
There is convincing evidence that UVR can cause damage to DNA and in animal experiments it has been shown to be a cause of cancer. The International Agency for Research in Cancer (IARC) has concluded that solar radiation, broad spectrum UVR, and UVA, UVB or UVC radiation are all carcinogenic to experimental animals (IARC, 1992). Exposure to UVR also increases the risk of skin cancer in man and produces other undesirable health effects. The main tissues of the human body affected are those of the skin and the eye. There are also effects on the immune system, the significance of which for human health is not yet clear. The principal known beneficial effect of UVR exposure is its role in the production of vitamin D in the skin.
Skin
The most serious adverse health effects for which exposure to UVR is a recognised risk factor are the cutaneous malignancies (skin cancers). UVB has been recognised for some time as carcinogenic in experimental animals, and there is increasing evidence that UVA, which penetrates more deeply into the skin, also contributes to the induction of cancer. UVC from the sun is absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere, and any arising from artificial sources does not readily penetrate to the sensitive basal layer of the skin.
[....]
Pathological responses of the human eye to excessive UVR exposure include photokeratitis and photoconjunctivitis (inflammation of the cornea and the conjunctiva, respectively). Repeated exposure is considered to be a major factor in the causation of non-malignant clinical lesions of the cornea and conjunctiva such as climatic droplet degeneration (discrete areas of yellow protein deposits in the cornea and conjunctiva), pterygium (an overgrowth of the conjunctiva on to the cornea) and, probably, pinguecula (small yellow growths in the conjunctiva). Damage can result from exposure to UVA, UVB and UVC.
There is epidemiological evidence that chronic exposure of the eye to intense levels of UVR contributes to the development of cortical cataract. Evidence for a causal role of solar radiation in macular degeneration (a major cause of blindness) is conflicting. The extent to which UVR exposure is an important risk factor for cataracts in the general population is unclear, as is its relation to eye melanoma.
There is good evidence that prolonged gazing at very bright light sources, particularly those emitting shorter wavelength blue light, causes retinal damage resulting in transient or permanent loss of visual acuity. Staring at the sun can damage the retina permanently. Such an effect would normally be prevented by the natural aversion response invoked by looking at a bright light, but this response can be intentionally suppressed. Similar damage has also been induced in the non-human primate retina following acute exposure, particularly to blue light. It is not clear to what extent UVA is involved as its transmission through the lens is low in adults but is higher in children.


You're welcome.

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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2006,08:13   

Quote
Beervolcano:I have no problem with the idea that CFCs can destroy ozone or that human made CFCs make it into the stratosphere and destroy some ozone (which becomes replaced.)

What I personally have a problem with are all the scare tactics that were used to persuade people to stop using CFCs.


If the naysayers would not start off denying the evidence for an effect, maybe they would have some credibility on the "scariness" issue.  It would at least show they can argue based on the scientific facts, rather than wishful thinking.  Early attempts at modeling fell short of the observed depletion, because it turns out that reactions at surfaces of ices and aerosols enhance the depletion of ozone over gas phase collisions.

Ozone depeletion has been seen primarily in the antarctic, some in the arctic.  Increased UV is expected and seen.
Increases in skin cancer have not been seen, but those take years to appear, and there are trends that lead to a decrease in skin cancers (awareness of exposure risks).
would with the effects from that (DNA damage, leading to cancer).  Effects on other organisms are not well known (at least to me).

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2006,09:21   

Beervolcano,

I'd like to know your ideological problem with the fact that scientist advised against the production of CFCs (or even CO2).
You keep questioning the validity or their reseach, but I feel that your motives are not scientific. This is not a criticism, you can have a personal opinion on a burning issue like this one. What is it?

I don't buy your claim that scientists were deliberately scaring people. Could you develop?

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2006,10:55   

Quote (beervolcano @ May 29 2006,12:36)
Fractatious,

Just link directly to the article. If someone has an institutional subscription, then they'll see it. If not, they'll be prompted to give their password anyway.

BWE,

I think there is a possibility of their leaving some stuff out.
My experience with computer modelling is more of the DFT, molecular mechanics, and Gaussian type ab initio stuff. In most of these cases it's garbage in-garbage out. What comes out is very dependent on what goes in. It can either be very accurate or very inaccurate. And when there's nothing experimental to check by, then you really don't know what you've got.

It's getting better, though.

Can I ask you if you know whether these ozone models predict utter catastrophe?

I don't know what they predict if CFC use had continued to grow. But, my curiosity piqued, I emailed a guy I know in New Zealand who works for the Environment Ministry who (I thought) deals with ozone specifically. Turns out he deals with UV indexes but he did, well, I'll just paste in a bit of his email:
Quote


...and they are probably a 21 year old physics student with a bone to pick...
The models for stratosperic ozone concentrations...
give us the essentially the same data as our satellites... Basically, they always have...

the abstracts, but you could find a good summary of that early science HERE.
[ http://www.ciesin.org/docs/011-466/011-466.html ]

and it's no joke. The sunburns are surreal.



And I went to the site and found a good resource too:the main ozone page.

It honestly never occurred to me that the science might be weak. I suspect now that it isn't. Nothing is ever certain but this seems close enough to use certainty as a working principle. I probably won't do any advanced research though so, I am of no further use in the material part of this investigation. You might be able to get some lighthearted quips from me though. We'll see.

--------------
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

   
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2006,20:09   

Quote
Fractatious,

Just link directly to the article. If someone has an institutional subscription, then they'll see it. If not, they'll be prompted to give their password anyway.


I did. Right at the bottom of what I posted. I am using my Universities server and I don't think any here will have their login - it (my University) wraps itself with the article.

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2006,20:17   

Quote (beervolcano @ May 29 2006,12:36)
know in New Zealand who works for the Environment Ministry who (I thought) deals with ozone specifically. Turns out he deals with UV indexes but he did, well, I'll just paste in a bit of his email:  

New Zealand Ministry for the Environment: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/ozone/
Quote
and it's no joke. The sunburns are surreal

Unless you're a nice brown - they it takes an extra 7 minutes to cook your ass (knows from experience).

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,02:55   

On a related note, This Article from LiveScience makes for an interesting read.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,04:50   

Fractacious,

Have you been there? I had to take quite a bit of the email out since it was of a personal nature. (He was talking about nude beaches:) ). Can you really burn badly in 15 minutes on a high UV day? Is that consistent with your experience?

Ouch. I'll make sure to bring my sunscreen. I've been trying to make a work trip out of NZ for the last 5 years but so far, no luck. It could happen though.

--------------
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

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2006,08:57   

Quote
Ouch. I'll make sure to bring my sunscreen. I've been trying to make a work trip out of NZ for the last 5 years but so far, no luck. It could happen though.


see you there.

;)

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
  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]