The problem is that the models are not complete were talking about the all the factors that can affect the upper atmosphere of a planet. If youre expecting the models to work perfectly from the get-go and get the prediction exactly right from the first, its not going to happen.
Whats taken is the variables that ARE known and can be calculated for, and those are used to run a model. If reality behaves the same as the model, then they got it right and all the power to them. Unfortunately, the models never run exactly the same as reality, because of those hidden/unknown variables. If the model varies from real life (say the hole is bigger than that model predicts), you start looking for the hidden variables, say volcano effects on the hole. Once you find out what the volcanoes do, you can then plug that data into the model and refine the predictions.
The original models for the Ozone Hole were going to be cruder than what we have now thats a given. Now that technology can run better models and research has identified some of the hidden variables, the models can change. Its not deliberate by any means its operating on insufficient data to get an exact prediction.
And if youre unhappy with retconning in science be expected to be really unhappy. As one of Werner Von Brauns quotes go If we knew what we were doing, it wouldnt be called research, would it? Models are made on current understandings of how things are, on what we believe the physical laws are at the time. Sometimes, we dont know enough and mistaken interpretations are made (epicycles or noxious vapour theory of disease) other times it comes out right/mostly right from the beginning (antibiotics). But thats what science does is that it learns from those mistakes and tries to correct the errors of what went before. When at the edge of science, mistakes will be made until further data is gathered its not with the intention to mislead the public or panic people or grab money its the nature of the beast.
I found some documents your link is the more recent, so the shift in time to 2018 is the accurate one for the start of recovery. This is the prediction of the most current model, with data that the other ones didnt have as I said, its a refinement of the technology/research, not an attempt at misleading.
Also, it wasnt an immediate oh god were to blame for ozone it was a daaamn thats a big hole there. Whats going on? Oh CFCs are at much higher levels in those areas that the rest of the world? Why? And research continued for several years to identify specifically what was going on, that CFCs do break down ozone and that there were large amounts at that level of the atmosphere, and since CFCs have only existed since we made them, thats a strong correlation.
And yes, the ozone may be a natural event that CFCs have just exacerbated the hole may have always been there. But there would have likely been effects if it had UV light can cause plant damage (Antarctica has a fair number of lichens and other things), animals would have effects (UV causes cataracts and melanomas), and could kill aquatic life (weve reduced the primary krill feeders (whales) to less than a third what they were 100 years ago but the krill is about 1/5 of what it was then). Iniut and others that live in the high latitudes should have historically higher cases of cataracts and skin cancers if ozone depletion occurred more often historically.
However can we take the chance that the ozone hole is a natural cycle or do we take efforts to protect what we can while studying it further to clarify what is actually happening? Quite frankly, Im willing to ban CFCs because we DO NOT KNOW 100%. Is the potential planetary damage worth it if we didnt ban CFCs and just said well study it for a hundred years and see if its a natural cycle, then do something. Skin cancer and cataract rates in the higher latitudes have already gone up, believed to be from ozone hole depletion.
There are some things worth taking a chance on, and some things that are not worth taking a chance on, in my opinion.
RMH
***
Abram's Advice
When eati![[Image: eyes.gif]](http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/eyes.gif)
ng an elephant, take 1 bite at a time
Whats taken is the variables that ARE known and can be calculated for, and those are used to run a model. If reality behaves the same as the model, then they got it right and all the power to them. Unfortunately, the models never run exactly the same as reality, because of those hidden/unknown variables. If the model varies from real life (say the hole is bigger than that model predicts), you start looking for the hidden variables, say volcano effects on the hole. Once you find out what the volcanoes do, you can then plug that data into the model and refine the predictions.
The original models for the Ozone Hole were going to be cruder than what we have now thats a given. Now that technology can run better models and research has identified some of the hidden variables, the models can change. Its not deliberate by any means its operating on insufficient data to get an exact prediction.
And if youre unhappy with retconning in science be expected to be really unhappy. As one of Werner Von Brauns quotes go If we knew what we were doing, it wouldnt be called research, would it? Models are made on current understandings of how things are, on what we believe the physical laws are at the time. Sometimes, we dont know enough and mistaken interpretations are made (epicycles or noxious vapour theory of disease) other times it comes out right/mostly right from the beginning (antibiotics). But thats what science does is that it learns from those mistakes and tries to correct the errors of what went before. When at the edge of science, mistakes will be made until further data is gathered its not with the intention to mislead the public or panic people or grab money its the nature of the beast.
I found some documents your link is the more recent, so the shift in time to 2018 is the accurate one for the start of recovery. This is the prediction of the most current model, with data that the other ones didnt have as I said, its a refinement of the technology/research, not an attempt at misleading.
Also, it wasnt an immediate oh god were to blame for ozone it was a daaamn thats a big hole there. Whats going on? Oh CFCs are at much higher levels in those areas that the rest of the world? Why? And research continued for several years to identify specifically what was going on, that CFCs do break down ozone and that there were large amounts at that level of the atmosphere, and since CFCs have only existed since we made them, thats a strong correlation.
And yes, the ozone may be a natural event that CFCs have just exacerbated the hole may have always been there. But there would have likely been effects if it had UV light can cause plant damage (Antarctica has a fair number of lichens and other things), animals would have effects (UV causes cataracts and melanomas), and could kill aquatic life (weve reduced the primary krill feeders (whales) to less than a third what they were 100 years ago but the krill is about 1/5 of what it was then). Iniut and others that live in the high latitudes should have historically higher cases of cataracts and skin cancers if ozone depletion occurred more often historically.
However can we take the chance that the ozone hole is a natural cycle or do we take efforts to protect what we can while studying it further to clarify what is actually happening? Quite frankly, Im willing to ban CFCs because we DO NOT KNOW 100%. Is the potential planetary damage worth it if we didnt ban CFCs and just said well study it for a hundred years and see if its a natural cycle, then do something. Skin cancer and cataract rates in the higher latitudes have already gone up, believed to be from ozone hole depletion.
There are some things worth taking a chance on, and some things that are not worth taking a chance on, in my opinion.
RMH
***
Abram's Advice
When eati
ng an elephant, take 1 bite at a time