The secondary and primary sources are significant in their own ways. The primary source is the main scientific experimental results. As the secondary source is a way to communicate the results to the public in a way most people will understand. They both have their own way of displaying the results of the data. The secondary source I found is an article called the UN Says the Ozone Depletion is Over Thanks to the Montreal Protocol. It is said that the ozone layer is not depleting anymore but potentially getting better. By mid century it may be fully recovered. It is due to the Montreal protocol signed in 1987, which controls the use of harmful products that affect the ozone layer. From reading both the primary and secondary sources, there are distinct differences between the way the information presented.
The secondary source reveals the conclusion of the data the scientists collected. This source explains the basis of the ozone layer and how it works to protect the earth. It also includes the main chemicals that affects the ozone layer such as CFCs, which most people use within their households. It explains the ozone layer as though the person reading it may have never heard of it before. The article tells the reader the main purpose of the ozone layer and some basic facts about it. It gives a brief history of the thinning of the ozone layer. However, it fails to mention that there is still ongoing problems associated with the ozone layer and we do need to continue to protect it. This source tends to tell only the good part of the ozone depletion decreasing but in reality it is still a fragile asset on earth. The secondary source also tends to quote the primary source and scientists involved. “Global ozone, including ozone in the polar region, is no longer decreasing but not yet increasing." (Len Barrie, the world meterological organization). This gives a more convincing argument to the public and proves what the article is presenting is in fact true.
The secondary source reveals the conclusion of the data the scientists collected. This source explains the basis of the ozone layer and how it works to protect the earth. It also includes the main chemicals that affects the ozone layer such as CFCs, which most people use within their households. It explains the ozone layer as though the person reading it may have never heard of it before. The article tells the reader the main purpose of the ozone layer and some basic facts about it. It gives a brief history of the thinning of the ozone layer. However, it fails to mention that there is still ongoing problems associated with the ozone layer and we do need to continue to protect it. This source tends to tell only the good part of the ozone depletion decreasing but in reality it is still a fragile asset on earth. The secondary source also tends to quote the primary source and scientists involved. “Global ozone, including ozone in the polar region, is no longer decreasing but not yet increasing." (Len Barrie, the world meterological organization). This gives a more convincing argument to the public and proves what the article is presenting is in fact true.
The primary source of the article, gets more involved with the substances depleting the ozone layer and the percentages they emit throughout the year. It is a much a longer and detailed representation of the proofs they are claiming. It takes into consideration all the aspects affecting the ozone layer. The primary source discusses the chemicals involved with ozone depletion, the ones people usually don’t hear about such as carbon tetrachloride and bromine. How these substances are decreasing, helping the ozone layer recover. The use of CFCs, HFCs and HCFCs are also discussed on a global level and how they are decreasing in the atomsphere as well. The primary proves how much time it took to conduct the experiments in order to make strong statements, such as the ozone layer is not depletinganymore. It took years of observations and the Montreal protocol was the first step to the recovery process of the ozone layer. There are also many graphical representations comparing the amount of harmful substances and showing their relationship to the ozone depletion.
Throughout the primary source, it explains the experiment using mathematics and comparison. “HFCs currently used as ODS replacements contributes about 0.4 Gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent per year to total global CO2-equivalent emissions.” (Scientific assessment of ozone layer, primary source). The scientists use the data from previous experiments in order to compare and make predictions about the ozone layer. As the secondary source doesn’t show this type of data to the reader and mainly just reveals the final theory of everything.
In comparison of the primary and secondary sources, the secondary source is put into the words an average person would be able to comprehend. It breaks down the scientific information collected and presents the main point. Even if the person has no scientific background they will still be able to understand the point of the article. The primary source goes into numerical values and substances most people haven’t heard of. The primary source relates the ozone layer over the past couple of decades and the relation to climate change. It uses other experimental data to prove the point of how the Montreal protocol may have saved the ozone. The values of how the stratosphere affects the earth and UV radiations we also face from the ozone layer. The Montreal protocol is the first way that the ozone layer is being saved and without it over the past decades, it may have to lead to even worse depletion.
Furthermore, both sources differ in terms of length and format. The primary source has clearly a more scientific background and the secondary source reveals the beneficial part of the entire research. The secondary source proves the main thesis of the primary source but with limited scientific data. Both sources give the main idea of how the ozone layer is actually improving but they are extremely different in arrangement. As a result, the secondary source may not include all the scientific information but is it the optimum way to communicate the findings to society. The primary source is there for further proofs and to show the experiments done to come to the final inference.
By: Ashley Venner
References:
Hondro, M (2010) UN Says Ozone Layer Depletion Over Thanks to Montreal Protocol Retrieved from: http://www.suite101.com/content/depletion-of-ozone-layer-has-stopped-scientists-study-says-a287483
Scientific assessment panel of the Montreal protocol. (2010) Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/PDF/PressReleases/898_ExecutiveSummary_EMB.pdf
Throughout the primary source, it explains the experiment using mathematics and comparison. “HFCs currently used as ODS replacements contributes about 0.4 Gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent per year to total global CO2-equivalent emissions.” (Scientific assessment of ozone layer, primary source). The scientists use the data from previous experiments in order to compare and make predictions about the ozone layer. As the secondary source doesn’t show this type of data to the reader and mainly just reveals the final theory of everything.
In comparison of the primary and secondary sources, the secondary source is put into the words an average person would be able to comprehend. It breaks down the scientific information collected and presents the main point. Even if the person has no scientific background they will still be able to understand the point of the article. The primary source goes into numerical values and substances most people haven’t heard of. The primary source relates the ozone layer over the past couple of decades and the relation to climate change. It uses other experimental data to prove the point of how the Montreal protocol may have saved the ozone. The values of how the stratosphere affects the earth and UV radiations we also face from the ozone layer. The Montreal protocol is the first way that the ozone layer is being saved and without it over the past decades, it may have to lead to even worse depletion.
Furthermore, both sources differ in terms of length and format. The primary source has clearly a more scientific background and the secondary source reveals the beneficial part of the entire research. The secondary source proves the main thesis of the primary source but with limited scientific data. Both sources give the main idea of how the ozone layer is actually improving but they are extremely different in arrangement. As a result, the secondary source may not include all the scientific information but is it the optimum way to communicate the findings to society. The primary source is there for further proofs and to show the experiments done to come to the final inference.
By: Ashley Venner
References:
Hondro, M (2010) UN Says Ozone Layer Depletion Over Thanks to Montreal Protocol Retrieved from: http://www.suite101.com/content/depletion-of-ozone-layer-has-stopped-scientists-study-says-a287483
Scientific assessment panel of the Montreal protocol. (2010) Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/PDF/PressReleases/898_ExecutiveSummary_EMB.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment