Jump to content

Climate Change thread


Recommended Posts

Just now, Magilla said:

Said without a hint of understanding that in this case "their selective and often deliberate misinterpretation of data in order to establish a political view."...

 

...could well be a reference to your posts! :thumbsup: :hihi:

"so's your old man"  :)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Magilla said:

Ozone levels in the atmosphere have been recorded for nearly a 100 years... using Dobson spectrophotometers. The British Antarctic Survey was taking measurements in the 50's.

 

Drops in Ozone levels were recorded long before 1978, satellite monitoring confirmed what was already known.

 

I know they were but I was specifically talking about the ozone hole that was originally mapped and detected by satellites which had never before been seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dromedary said:

I know they were but I was specifically talking about the ozone hole that was originally mapped and detected by satellites which had never before been seen.

It wasn't detected by satellites, it was confirmed by them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Dromedary said:

I know they were but I was specifically talking about the ozone hole that was originally mapped and detected by satellites which had never before been seen.

The effects of CFC's on ozone was already known.

Seasonal depletion of the ozone layer was already known .

The BAS ground station observed a non-seasonal depletion of the ozone over Antarctica but they did not know its extent.

NASAs Nimbus-4 carrying a specific sensor designed to 'see' ozone around the world and the artificial colour image (as we cannot see levels of UV light so the scale is converted into colours) became a media favourite known as the hole. 

All the ground stations in and around Antarctica, aircraft and balloons used far more accurate devices as did later satellites.

 

There is a misconception that satellites do everything-they don't.

They are phenomenally expensive, very small, less sensitive, difficult to adjust and are 'blind' to many measurements, often need calibrating and usually short lived, the are just one of many 'tool' used to make observations.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.