Isn't Hubble in hand is worth more than a possibly lost shuttle?

In sci.environment Don Libby wrote:
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
In sci.environment Don Libby wrote:
...seek help from sci.chem.

(heh, heh, heh)


But I think partial correlation is a bit of Ho Ho Ho.

Bah, humbug!
-dl

Then you can't benefit from what I found from using it.

So far I have not sleuthed out the halocarbon figures. But I did put the
ozone levels at Lauder, the 3 years of shuttle flights and average daily
solar activity for each year into a simple Pearson calculator just to get
some idea of what is happening (I used the 10.7 cm solar output).

Pearson is supposed to have normal distributions to work with, rather than
the ranks I used before. But I give you this progress report.

Correlations where o=ozone, f=flights, s=solar activity

Correlation of shuttle flights over three preceding years to ozone level
at Lauder.

r(of)= -0.61 by this method, (remember -0.4 by rank correlation
and I might do the others by rank, later, too).

Correlation of ozone to solar activity
r(os)= 0.27 The solar activity showed the approximate 11 year cycle
which does not have a high correlation to ozone level.

And the interesting one which I earlier suggested should be looked at
shuttle flights to solar activity
r(fs)= -0.62 which gives that shuttle flights were rather less common
when the sun was more active.

Now go to partial correlation to see what can be learned.

What if the effect of solar activity on flights and ozone is partialled
out:
r(of.s)= -0.17 rather a large drop from r(of)=-0.61, suggesting r(of) is
tending towards being spurious.

Very interesting, ozone and solar activity, partialling out flights
r(os.f)= -0.59 a huge change from r(os)= 0.27. Is it that shuttle flights
were not sent up so much in more pronounced solar
activity, the sort which would go beyond stimulating
ozone, into destroying it? (Applause, please?)

Shuttle flights and solar activity, partialling out ozone
r(fs.o)= 0.27 a large change from r(fs)= -0.62. Looks like shuttle
flights *were* sent up in moderate solar activity,
provided it was not so great as to be destroying ozone.
(Second round of applause?)

I worked out the partials on a calculator it is not dificult.

Thanks for going with me through the learning experience so far.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In sci.environment Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
February 1, 2004

Brian Sandle wrote:

Though my correlation of greater than 0.4 with Shuttle flights
traces loss of ozone within three years of the flights. Address
that.

The SRB contribution to things like ozone depletion and global warming, while not exactly 'insignificant', are quite small. Rather than obsessing on it, notice that the solution to the problem is trivial. Don't use SRBs. They
have lots of other problems anyways, in addition to being dirty. Low ISP, rough burning, little or no throttling, high failure rate, etc...

Elifrtiz's article (on google not on my posting server) gives three
https, but scanning them for km gives nothing at the 100s of
kms where the Shuttle injects HCl.

That is because the SRBs don't inject pollutants at that altitude, they barely make it above 50 km.

OK well it does not give anything there either, I think.

They aren't my articles, you can google them yourself, there are dozens like those. If you google in far enough, you'll see that the Shuttle SRBs do make honorable mention in global climate models, but that is about the extent
of it, and only at flight rates that were never achieved in practice.

My suggestion is to use the Delta IV medium, but then watch out, they'll jump all over you about the evil hydrogen atom, and that nasty wasser stuff. This is a great big little rocket, I just don't understand why everyone is
practically ignoring it.

Try http://www.dhmo.org (veracity not implied)


If it does some damage that someone has to pay to look into I guess it will
get accepted.

The way economics works big oil spills stimulate the economies of the
countries whose coasts they pollute. Lots of money is spent in the area.

Are there not companies making a large profit out of bad climate?

And if a species of some creatures or other becomes scarce because of lack of
ozone/excess UV, then someone will jump in to make a profit out of the
scarcity. The way space technologists are treating the atmosphere is parallel
to uneducated indigenous peoples being exploited to supply ivory from
elephants.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----