Two hours before my self-imposed deadline (to be brutally enforced by Claire), I finished a solid first draft of my research design essay, including two appendices. Weighing in at about 5000 words, sans appendices, it is right in the middle of the range from minimum to maximum length, leaving me some space to correct errors that my two much appreciated peer-editors point out before Sunday.
Many thanks to Meghan and Claire for throwing themselves in front of that bullet.
If you feel left out for not getting a copy, download one here (PDF). Please leave me comments ranging from “this word is spelled incorrectly” to “the entire methodological construction of this project is hopeless, for the following intelligent and well-articulated reasons.” The linked PDF doesn’t include the appendices because they are separate Word files and I don’t have software to merge PDF files with me. They really shouldn’t be necessary, anyhow.
[Update: 27 May 2006] I have a slightly revised version up, based on my own editing. Still waiting for comprehensive responses from external readers.
“”Since the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, which limited ozone-destroying gasses like CFCs, the Earth’s ozone layer has been recovering. However, new studies show that the ozone in the lower stratosphere is actually recovering faster than the Montreal Protocol alone can explain.” From 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. Ultraviolet rays from sunspots boost the ozone layer, while sulfurous gases emitted by some volcanoes can weaken it. Cold air in the stratosphere can either weaken or boost the ozone layer, depending on altitude and latitude. These processes and others are laid out in a review just published in the May 4th issue of Nature: ‘The search for signs of recovery of the ozone layer’ by Elizabeth Westhead and Signe Andersen.”
Source
“The over-riding purpose will be to develop new insight into the connections between science and policy making, in this context, and to express those insights in a manner accessible to scholars of international relations, environmental scientists, policy makers, and interested members of the public at large.”
What kind of an academic are you? Why would anyone in their right mind want to write something “accessible… [to] interested members of the public at large.”
;)
I have Carl Sagan listed in my annotated bibliography, with the description:
“Sagan, Carl. Pale Blue Dot : A Vision of the Human Future in Space. London: Headline, 1995.
(Sagan) – Book
Like much of Sagan’s work, this is valuable for inspiration and perspective: both about the importance of dealing with the consequences of human activity on the environment and of expressing those problems in a powerful and accessible way.”
See this comment.