EVAULUATE!! Southern Oscillation Index (1 Viewer)

[mrwaggles]

This 6 mark question wasnt expecting us to know the details of how it works...but rather that we could apply the EVALUATION criteria it gave us: Usefullness reliability and valid.

This was also the case in the ecosytem's question. They werent seeing if we could rattle off about management strategies...but rather we could use the 'ecological sustainability' cirteria to EVALUATE the strategies!

This is all out of the syllabus...
So, it might comfort some...and well, sorry to the rest!

Hope you enjoyed!

 

[*Lozzie*]

well still a silly question why did it have to be the 6 marker they could of put in vertical exageration cause i can now do it wasnt happy

oh well

 

[Datto120]

For this question i just compared the Oscillation index with the map of rainfall and commented on reliability and all that crap???

Did i do it wrong???

 

[SuNrIsE_oVa_sEa]

ummm.....i talked about Darwin....


cause on the bottom map it said in writing up the top that it was measuring Darwin!??? n plus they pointed it out on the map on the top

 

[carmen s]

i talked abotu Darwin too... although all i did was ramble coz i have gt no idea how to read that thing... or even really wot it was showing.
i agree... bring on vertical exaggeration, we practised that so much in class!
oh well, it was overall a good paper, i rekon!

 

[bellany]

Mmmm when I read the SOI question it threw me because there wasn't enough information in the two graphs to actually determine its reliability...but I suspect that that is the discriminating mark or whatever...because there literally is not enough information to determine reliability or validity, as you can't possibly ascertain if there was a sustained pattern over time. So I think you needed to show you understood the graphs but also say that the two graphs do NOT prove validity or reliabilty.

 

[DsDeMoN]

The validility and reliability stuff, if you do Chemistry, shouldn't be new to you.

I went on a different tangent and said the data was reliable as it was taken over time and it came from the bereau of meteorology. Valid because it could accuratley predict the drought of 82-83 (i think) and the extremely high season of 200-01.

Any thoughts?

 

[mrwaggles]

Yeah...it sounds good. I said it was useless cuz there were no significant trends and there were uneven fluctuations, therefore its hard to see what the future wll be like.

 

[whoami]

hey guys..this was what I put but not sure if its right..to me it seemed logical..

reliability: reliable becuase its from Bureau of Meteorology, 2004 (shown by the bottom)

Usefullness: Not useful, because if compared with data from annual rainfall averages (source G), there are no correlations. For example: In 1980-1982, there was a Negative reading on the SOI (indicated by the red), while it showed "well above to extremely high rainfall" on source G. In 1982-1983, there was a Positive reading on the SOI (indicated by the blue), while showed "well below to extremely low rainfall"
Therefore for the years 1890-1983, the:
- Negative SOI represented rainfall
- Postive SOI represented drought

HOWEVER, this representation is reversed for the years 2000-2003 showing the
- Negative SOI represented drought (2002-2003)
- Postive SOI represented rainafall (2000-2002)

In conclusion, it cannot prove from statistics that there are any correlation in the SOI to predict drought.

Validty: The SOI is valid itself, but should not be used to indicate drought "throughout" Australia becuase Darwin is at the top and Australia is large. The air pressure of Darwin does no nescessary reflect on the whole of Australia.


Thats what i put in but not in that structure..hope that gives my opinion and how I tackled it.

 

[Datto120]

I said unrealiable coz in the two later years where the was really low levels of rainfall the OSI thing differed greatly yet the lack of rainfall was pretty much the same in both.
Making there no trend in the OSI thing but in the first 3 and second 3 australia maps the less rainfall the lower the osi was but it wasnt similiar enough to be able to validly predict drought

 

[H.A.L.]

This question wasn't that bad. Pretty opened ended, you just had to 'make judgement based on criteria' as to whether it was reliable for predicting drought for the whole of australia.

Because it said 'All of Australia' I said it was unreliable in this regard, however more reliable for the Eastern states, and this was largely due to the fact that Tahiti is closer to the eastern states and they boarder/ are surrounded by the same ocean.