1

The Environment / Why Does CO2 Escape From An Enclosure More Easily Than Air?

« on: 21/06/2011 16:22:23 »

Hi John, thanks for the prompt response.

I’m surprised that you are

.. intrigued with the idea of a Hickey Stick ..

As I understand it this is what the global mean atmospheric CO2 content during the past 1000 years is claimed to be by the paleoclimatologists using measurements of air “trapped” in ice.
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
(http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/Image18.gif)
It looks very similar to the hockey stick claimed to be a true representation of the mean atmospheric temperature anomaly during the past 1000 years by Michael Mann

<spam link removed>


I’m sorry that I continue

to miss the whole point of the evidence in the Vostok Ice core

and of lots of other ice cores

 [ Invalid Attachment ]
(http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_800kyr.jpg) but even though I accept that CO2

.. can only move from regions of higher concentration to lower concentration ..

wouldn’t those persistent

.. sharp variations over periods of less than 1 kyr in the Vostok record ..

still exist if the original CO2 concentration was much much higher than the level shown in the ice core record if the rate of migration was very very slow? Could not a slow rate of migration still leave residual peaks and troughs as seen from that record? Could this then mean that

.. The detail of presence of liquid water or not, or fancy notions about diffusion mechanisms and bubble formation mechanisms and so on ..

would be totally relevant?

Under those circumstance could not the claim that

.. that there is 100% solid proof in the ice record that the CO2 has moved less than 1 kyr through the profile in the whole lifetime of the ice sheet ..

be more opinion than fact?

Of course, not being a scientist I could be totally wrong, but Jaworowski and his supporter Professor Hartmut Frank are scientists, the latter being highly regarded by his peers. As Pete Ridley said almost a year ago

Dr. Hartmut Frank (Professor of Chemistry and Ecotoxicology, University of Bayreuth, Germany) who wrote the forward to Jaworowski’s 1994 paper, says QUOTE:
.. Prof. Jaworowski's main argument is valid and will remain valid because it is based on simple, but hard physicochemical facts. Most of the facts can be found in the old, traditional "Gmelin's Handbook of Inorganic Chemistry” - but nobody reads such books anymore today. The facts are so basic that one cannot even start a research project on an investigation of the validity of such carbon dioxide analyses in ice cores because the referees would judge it too trivial. But if one would apply proper quality assurance/quality control principles, as they are common in most other areas of application of chemical-analytical methods (for instance in drug control or toxicology) the whole building of climate change would collapse because of the overlooked fault.

And so one continues because there are so many living in or from this building. UNQUOTE

(http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/07/monbiot-exonerated.html).

2

The Environment / Why Does CO2 Escape From An Enclosure More Easily Than Air?

« on: 21/06/2011 10:22:44 »

Hi John (damocles) thanks for having a stab at explaining that sudden collapse of the balloon with ½ CO2 and ½ air. It’s now down to 200mm diameter from the original 440mm while the air-filled one remains at 430mm (down from 450mm). Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the original (uncoloured) balloon that I filled with air about a month ago is still fully inflated. Hi John (damocles) thanks for having a stab at explaining that sudden collapse of the balloon with ½ CO2 and ½ air. It’s now down to 200mm diameter from the original 440mm while the air-filled one remains at 430mm (down from 450mm). Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the original (uncoloured) balloon that I filled with air about a month ago is still fully inflated.

I propose to re-use those same balloons but swop around the CO2 and air to try to rule out a difference in each balloon’s properties.



Regarding your response to my comment about Jaworowski discussing liquid water in deep ice, I misled you on that. I should have said water in deep firn. In his 1997 paper “ANOTHER GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD EXPOSED Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase”  (http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/IceCoreSprg97.pdf) Fig. 2 Jaworoski provided an illustration of the vertical structure of an ice sheet and says

.. meltwater seeps down and collect over impermeable layers. The firn density gradually increases with depth and at .83 g/cm3, firn changes into solid ice in which all pores are occluded, forming the primary air bubbles. Between a depth of 900 to 1,200m air bubbles disappear. Liquid water is contained in quasi-infinite network of capillary veins and films between the ice crystals. ..

He goes on to talk extensively about liquid water in the ice, e.g.

.. liquid water is present in ice even at very low temperatures, and because many chemical and physical processes occur, in situ, in ice sheets and in recovered ice cores. These factors, discussed in References 8, 12, 22, and 24-28, change the original composition of air entrapped in ice, making the ice core results unrepresentative of the original chemical composition of the ancient atmosphere ..

He says in

.. Some False Assumptions - For climatic interpretation of the ice core data the following assumptions are used:
.. (2) No liquid phase occurs in firn and ice at average annual air temperatures of 224°C or less ..
these assumptions are incorrect, and thus that the conclusions on low pre-industrial levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases are wrong .

Professor Eric Wolff said on Pete Ridley’s “Another Hickey Stick Illusion?” thread

I think that none of us has a definite molecular level understanding of the physical process occurring at close-off ..

(http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38675.msg354373#msg354373). If we can for the moment make the assumption that Jaworowski is correct about that water in firn (and there are plenty who say that he is wrong) what effect do you think that would have on the movement of CO2 within the firn and ice?

3

The Environment / Why Does CO2 Escape From An Enclosure More Easily Than Air?

« on: 20/06/2011 19:10:42 »

On 31/05/2011 10:21:16 I reported on my repeat of the balloon experiment that I started on 29th May where I had two balloons again, one filled with air and the other being half CO2 and half air. My comment after two days in which both balloons stayed the same size, was

If the CO2 was going into the balloon like you said then the one with half CO2 should have gone down a bit by now

After 17 days the situation was no different and I was tempted to terminate it, guessing that the reason might be that the balloons were coloured (not natural as on previous tests) and perhaps the die/colouring reduced the size of pores in the latex or was preventing the CO2 dissolving.

I was about to terminate the experiment because my wife had complained about the tape measure I’d stuck to the floor to get the balloon diameter when I noticed that the CO2 balloon looked a lot smaller than the other and sure enough it has suddenly started to deflate. It was down to 350mm and half an hour later it was at 300mm v the original 440mm while the air one is at 420mm v 450mm. I tested the CO2 balloon in waterwhen it was at 300mm and saw no bubbles escaping through any leak but an hour later it is down to 230mm but still no sign of a leak when immersed in water.

Have any of the experts here any idea why there would be that delayed response and what is causing this sudden collapse? - Dr. Christie, please help.

Regarding Dr. Christie’s response of 14th June @ 19:13 it looks as though the preferential escape of CO2 v other atmospheric gases from a latex enclosure may be a different process to that covering the escape of CO2 from air pockets in ice. On the other hand, Dr. Zbiniew Jaworowski has discussed in several of his numerous papers how liquid water exists in deep ice. I propose to take a look at his ideas again and comment on them in the hopes of getting some further assistance here on that .

I’ll first have a look at an article that I hadn’t come across until now “Doing Jaworowski justice” (http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=116&sid=502c043eca9509535498780bbd11b74f) because the exchanges between Ferdinand Engelbeen and Lucy Skywalker are it is along the same lines as Pete Ridley’s exchanges with others on “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?” (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38675.0).

Talking about Lucy Skywalker (anyone have any information about her?) she posted an interesting guest post “Yamal treering proxy temperature reconstructions don’t match local thermometer records” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/yamal-treering-proxy-temperature-reconstructions-dont-match-local-thermometer-records/) relating to Michal Mann’s original “hockey stick”.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

As Lucy concluded “There is no sign whasoever of a Hockey Stick shape with serious uptick in the twentieth century, in the thermometer records. Yet these records are clearly very consistent with each other, no matter how long the record or how cold, high, or maritime the locality, with a distance span of over a thousand miles. Neither does the Hockey Stick consistently show in the treerings except in the case of a single tree. Even with thermometer records that are incomplete and suffering other problems, the “robust” conclusion is -
“Warmist” treering proxy temperature evidence is falsified directly by local thermometer records”.

4

The Environment / Is the unusual weather we have been having a result of global warming?

« on: 20/06/2011 18:32:45 »

BenV, ta for the clarification. I now understand that you’re not talking about scientists, just anyone. But I hope that objection that you have to personal attacks is not selective but applies to anyone who is doing it against anyone else.

5

The Environment / Is the unusual weather we have been having a result of global warming?

« on: 20/06/2011 16:48:01 »

Hi BenV, I’m afraid that you have lost me with your claim that I am attacking specific scientists, unless you are referring to the people at Realclimate. Which specific scientists are you talking about?

6

The Environment / Is the unusual weather we have been having a result of global warming?

« on: 20/06/2011 12:27:46 »

Maybe it is time to take a close look at the level of scientific expertise in that highly complicated scientific subject of the processes and drivers of the different global climates has been demonstrated by authors of the articles linked to by a resident disciple of the CACC doctrine.

04/06/2011 02:07:01: “Ocean Reflux” (http://horseflyriver.ca/salmonfestival/teacher-info/info3/Ocean%20Reflux.doc) is by Kathleen McAuliffe,

Education: .. Trinity College Dublin, in Ireland, obtaining a M.A. in natural science after graduating with first-class honors. Her final year thesis on electro-encephalography (EEG) recordings of the human brain was presented at the Eastern Psychology Association Conference in 1977

(http://www.kmcauliffe.com/bio/) – hhmm!!

07/06/2011 15:24:30: The link to the graph “annual frequency of north Atlantic tropical storms” came from CACC disciple John Cook’s Skeptical Science blog in an article by Graham P Wayne (http://gpwayne.wordpress.com/about/). As far as I can ascertain neither “computer geek” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/28/climate-change-denial-skeptical-science) John nor novelist (http://gpwayne.wordpress.com/about/) Graham are unbiased sources of information. The graph was copied from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change who’s founder and President is Eileen Claussen

Education: B.A. from George Washington University in English Literature (although she started out in Political Science). Her M.A. came from the University of Virginia

(http://papedia.wikispaces.com/Eileen+Claussen) - another hhmm!
As far as I can ascertain the Pew Centre is concerned with impacts of climate change, not causes.

Perhaps links to more reliable and less biased sources of information on the precesses and drivers of the different global climates would be more convincing. There is a saying “Birds of a feather stick together” which seems to fit the bill here.

I’ve only touched on the first two links so far but will look at the others. I don’t expect any significant difference as I see that the next one is to Michael Mann’s “Hockey team” back-room lot Realclimate.

7

The Environment / Is the unusual weather we have been having a result of global warming?

« on: 19/06/2011 21:36:53 »

It was reassuring to see an acknowledgement here that

the sun is a driver too, nobody doubts that

however

But whether it has driven us to the climate we see today? Nope

requires scientific evidence to support it, otherwise it is pure speculation. I am puzzled about what is meant by

Want to link me the stud(y)ies stating your thoughts, so I can read it?

because once again it is not clear what is being asked for. I’ll make an assumption that the request for links to studies stating my thoughts is referring to my thoughts about solar impacts on the different global climates (http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/koppen.htm).

I expect that the comment

stop trying to play out solar scientists against other disciplines. It makes me wonder what you are Yelder?

will appear as nonsense to sceptics and others who recognise the significant uncertainties within most of the numerous disciplines involved in trying to improve our poor understanding of the processes and drivers of the global climates.  As I pointed out on 13th June @ 09:30:46 biologist Professor Barry Brook of Adelaide University acknowledged back in April 2009,

There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers. ..

(http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/).

Saying

Pointing at solar variables is all good and proper, but I prefer something more substantial, like a study proving it

and asking

Just link me to it, but try to avoid 'pay sites' please

is puzzling because I recall providing ten links to relevant pages only yesterday. It appears that no attempt has been made to read and understand them. I repeat

BTW, the very interesting paper “Solar Influences on Climate” by Gray et al. (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/2009RG000282.pdf) covers the subject in great detail

Here’s a sample from that free 53-page October 2010 study published by the

.. Stanford Solar Center .. provides teachers, students, and the interested public with the latest information about the Sun. .. Stanford scientists study the Sun via two space-based instruments, the Solar Dynamics Observatory and the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, as well as a ground-based telescope called the Wilcox Solar Observatory on the Stanford University campus ..

(http://solar-center.stanford.edu/).

Understanding the influence of solar variability on the Earth’s climate requires knowledge of solar variability, solar-terrestrial interactions, and the mechanisms determining the response of the Earth’s climate system. We provide a summary of our current understanding in each of these three areas. Observations and mechanisms for the Sun’s variability are described, including solar irradiance variations on both decadal and centennial time scales and their relation to galactic cosmic rays. Corresponding observations of variations of the Earth’s climate on associated time scales are described, including variations in ozone, temperatures, winds, clouds, precipitation, and regional modes of variability such as the monsoons and the North Atlantic Oscillation. A discussion of the available solar and climate proxies is provided. Mechanisms proposed to explain these climate observations are described, including the effects of variations in solar irradiance and of charged particles. Finally, the contributions of solar variations to recent observations of global climate change are discussed.

.. A full understanding of the influence of solar variability on the Earth’s climate requires knowledge of .. the short- and long-term solar variability, .. solar-terrestrial interactions, and .. the mechanisms determining the response of the Earth’s climate system to these interactions .. There have been substantial increases in our knowledge of each of these areas in recent years and renewed interest because of the importance of understanding and characterizing natural variability and its contribution to the observed climate change .. Correct attribution of past changes is key to the prediction of future change.

.. Of greater importance to climate change issues are longer-term drifts in this radiative forcing. .. However, observations indicate, at least regionally, larger solar‐induced climate variations than would be expected from this simple calculation, suggesting that more complicated mechanisms are required to explain them. .. A great number of papers have reported correlations between solar variability and climate parameters. One relatively early association .. examined historical evidence of weather conditions in Europe back to the Middle Ages, including the severity of winters in London and Paris, and suggested that during times of few or no sunspots, e.g., during the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715), the Sun’s radiative output was reduced, leading to a colder climate. Although many of the early reported relationships between solar variability and climate have been questioned on statistical grounds, some correlations have been found to be more robust, and the addition of more years of data has confirmed their ignificance. ..

Mechanisms proposed to explain the climate response to very small solar variations can be grouped broadly into two categories. The first involves a response to variations in solar irradiance. .. The second mechanism category involves energetic particles, including solar energetic particle (SEP) events and GCRs. .. At stratospheric heights .. This region of the atmosphere has the potential to affect the troposphere immediately below it and hence the surface climate. Estimated stratospheric temperature changes associated with the 11 year SC show a signal of 2 K over the equatorial stratopause (50 km) with a secondary maximum in the lower stratosphere (20–25 km ... The direct effect of irradiance variations is amplified by an important feedback mechanism involving ozone production, which is an additional source of heating .. The origins of the lower stratospheric maximum and the observed signal that penetrates deep into the troposphere at midlatitudes are less well understood and require feedback/transfer mechanisms both within the stratosphere and between the stratosphere and underlying troposphere .. While the testing of solar influence on climate via changes in solar irradiance is relatively well advanced, the GCR cloud mechanisms have only just begun to be quantified. ..

In the context of assessing the contribution of solar forcing to climate change, an important question is whether there has been a long-term drift in solar irradiance that might have contributed to the observed surface warming in the latter half of the last century. Reconstructions of past TSI variations have been employed in model studies and allow us to examine how the climate might respond to such imposed forcings. The direct effects of 11 year SC irradiance variations are relatively small at the surface and are damped by the long response time of the ocean-atmosphere system. However, model estimates of the response to centennial time scale irradiance variations are larger since the accumulated effect of small signals over long time periods would not be damped to the same extent as decadal-scale responses. .. There are also large uncertainties in estimates of long‐term irradiance changes ..

the low level of scientific understanding of the solar influence is noted [IPCC, 2007]. The uncertainty is probably also underestimated because of the poorly resolved stratosphere in most of these models. Nevertheless, IPCC [2007] concludes that changes in the Sun have played a role in the observed warming of the Earth since 1750, but these changes are very small compared to the role played by increasing long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. .. The purpose of this review is to present up-to-date information on our knowledge of solar variability and its impact on climate and climate change, as an update to previous reviews ..

Further observations and research are required to improve our understanding of solar forcing mechanisms and their impacts on the Earth’s climate.

I hope that these snippets are enough to encourage those who, rather than try to improve their understanding of this very complex subject, simply repeat CACC dogma, submit their own beliefs and opinions to study the available material in an open-minded way. Careful study of this document by Gray et al. should help to improve the reader’s appreciation of the complexity of the processes and drivers of the different global climates, but it relates to only one of many different scientific disciplines, each of which has a lot more research to do before we can do little more than speculate about how Nature controls weather and climate.

BTW, I ask again, please can someone tell me how I can remove those mini-images that appeared at the bottom of my comment on 18th June @ 19:47:18.

8

The Environment / Is the unusual weather we have been having a result of global warming?

« on: 19/06/2011 12:25:50 »

It’s such a shame that so many disciples of the CACC doctrine have to resort to distorting what others say because they can’t present a reason for rejecting what sceptics like me really say. As an example

you want to use to prove .. That it's all due to the sun? And CO2 becoming some imaginary driver, according to you?

is a complete misrepresentation of what I have said anywhere.

I challenged the unsubstantiated claim that

the temperature globally is on the raise, the CO2 driving it

with

scientists seem to recognise the sun’s variations are not a "possible” but at least as a probable driver

and provided evidence of this.

On 16th June @ 21:51:06 I pointed to two recent articles in NASA Science News (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/) about the sun and its impact upon earth. One of those concludes

To understand what causes low interplanetary magnetic fields and what causes coronal holes in general. This is all part of the solar cycle. And all part of what causes effects on Earth

(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/solar-minima.html). The other says

But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation .. All three of these lines of research to point to the familiar sunspot cycle shutting down for a while. “If we are right,” Hill concluded, “this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”

(http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/4032/drop-in-suns-activity-expected).

Yesterday @ 19:47:18 I said

I think that most of us recognise the sun as the major driver .. scientists seem to recognise the sun’s variations are not a "possible” but at least as a probable driver

and linked to further evidence.

Nothing there claims to

prove ..  That it is all due to the sun

simply that the sun is the major driver.

On 17th June @ 14:18:03 then again at 19:44:18 I said

Many sceptics recognise that atmospheric CO2 has a small forcing effect on global temperatures (less than 2C for a doubling if all other drivers were to remain constant). There are plenty scientists looking elsewhere for other drivers having much greater significance that CO2

Nothing there attempts to

prove .. CO2 becoming some imaginary driver

On the contrary, it recognises CO2 as being a real driver, albeit far less significant than others, such as H2O.

9

The Environment / Is the unusual weather we have been having a result of global warming?

« on: 18/06/2011 19:47:18 »

I suspect that long before industrialisation even some of the more intelligent forms of life recognised

strange stuff happening

when the earth cools (e.g. sun obscured) and warms (e.g. sun visible). That sort of “stuff” has been going on since the beginning. The claim that

the temperature globally is on the raise, the CO2 driving it

is pure speculation. There is no point in arguing about the drivers because we don’t know enough about them to do that. The best we can do at present is discuss the possibilities and try to identify what they might be and what is the significance of each.

I think that most of us recognise the sun as the major driver, supplying the bulk of the energy that heats up the world, but not in a consistent manner. To say

you have the suns variations as a possible driver

appears to me to be playing down the significance of those variations because scientists seem to recognise the sun’s variations are not a "possible” but at least as a probable driver. (e.g. see the link in my comment yesterday @ 19:44:18 http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2009-episodes-jastp-71-194.pdf).

There is an interesting 2008 paper “Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing” by Eichler et al. In which the abstract says

The strong correlation between reconstructed temperature and solar activity suggests solar forcing as a main driver for temperature variations during the period 1250–1850 in this region. The precisely dated record allowed for the identification of a 10–30 year lag between solar forcing and temperature response, underlining the importance of indirect sun-climate mechanisms involving ocean-induced changes in atmospheric circulation. Solar contribution to temperature change became less important during industrial period 1850–2000 in the Altai region

(http://europa.agu.org/?uri=/journals/gl/gl0901/2008GL035930/2008GL035930.xml&view=article).

Switzerland’s largest research centre for natural and engineering sciences The Paul Scherrer Institut (primarily financed by the Swiss Confederation) has an article about this which paraphrases (distorts?) that last sentence of the paper’s abstract as

The strong rise in temperature in the Altai between 1850 and 2000 can not be explained by solar activity changes, but rather by the increased concentration of the greenhouse gas CO2 in the atmosphere

(http://www.psi.ch/media/temperature). It includes an interesting graph that suggests a good correlation between solar modulation (blue) and Altai temperature deviation when corrected for the lag.
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
There would appear to be no sound reason for doubting that the solar variation drives the temperature variation rather than the other way round but the real question that remains to be answered is concerning the last 160 years of temperature variation.

The Stanford Solar Center (funded by NASA) has an article “Global Warming” (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html) which in the section Solar Variability & Global Warming” includes a graph for the period 1855-2000
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
This shows the usual global mean temperature anomaly (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/) estimated from those dubious measurements that Anthony Watts et al. write about in their peer-reviewed paper “Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/11/the-long-awaited-surfacestations-paper/). Also shown is the usual estimate of global atmospheric CO2 change arrived at by merging the measurements of atmospheric CO2 content on top of an active volcano (Mauna Loa) with those dubious attempts to reconstruct past concentration from air trapped in ice (discussed by Dr. Zbiniew Jaworowski in his numerous papers, including “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time” http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf).

The graph suggests a correlation of estimated global mean temperature with both solar activity and estimated atmospheric CO2 content. Of course a correlation does not indicate a cause/effect relationship and much more research is required before we will know what causes global temperatures to change and even more research is required before we know what causes the different global climates to change in the way that they do.

To claim that “What we do see is that the temperature globally is on the raise, the CO2 driving it .. CO2 is one, the main one I know of ..” stretches the imagination somewhat. As CliffordK said QUOTE: Such a knee-jerk reaction to blame everything on "Global Warming" and "CO2" is a disservice to climatology science, and the argument in general UNQUOTE (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=39689.msg358005#msg358005).


BTW, the very interesting paper “Solar Influences on Climate” by Gray et al. (http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/2009RG000282.pdf) covers the subject in great detail.

PS:

Please can someone tell me how to remove the miniature diagrams that appear at the bottom of my post.

10

The Environment / Is the unusual weather we have been having a result of global warming?

« on: 17/06/2011 19:44:18 »

I don’t know how many times I’m going to have to repeat this but once again

Many sceptics recognise that atmospheric CO2 has a small forcing effect on global temperatures (less than 2C for a doubling if all other drivers were to remain constant)

Please take note of the “small forcing” bit. I certainly do not believe that

it's all about 'natural variations' in climate. Which then mean that we can't do a thing, just sit back and try to enjoy the 'ride'

What I and many others believe is that our emissions of CO2 from our use of fossil fuels has an insignificant impact compared with natural process and drivers. As a consequence we have to continue doing what humans and other forms of life have had to do since becoming a part of this wonderful world, live with whatever Nature throws our way.

For the moment our understanding of global climate processes and drivers is too poor for us to be able to do anything else. Until that understanding improves significantly all we can do is control our very limited immediate environments. Attempting to do this on a global scale is very risky, as Stephen Schneider said way back in 1989 (

even though he was talking on a program about global cooling, a big media scare at that time.

I fully agree that scientists

should try to cooperate

but as Climategate showed (see http://www.climate-gate.com) there are those having their own agenda who try very hard to gag sceptics.

I can’t see how I am to blame for politicising the debate. That started long before I became involved. I simply linked to one of many articles about it (http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1).

If

It's not political Yelder

is talking about the CACC propaganda being pushed out by supporters of the UN’s IPCC then that is simply wrong. It certainly isn’t science.
If

you only have a very short stay here

is referring to living on this wonderful earth enjoying a wonderful life then sadly, that’s true, but I’ve been lucky and suspect that others commenting here have been too. There are millions who don’t have it so good and can barely eke out an existence. That's the big global catastrophe, not global warming or cooling or climate change. Most of us who are fortunate enough to live in one of the developed economies could

do so much better than that

if that is referring to how we use the resources available to us, but maybe that wasn’t what was meant.

The comment was made that

The reason (the west Antarctica ice sheet) rest there is due to its mass, if 'under-ice' streams hollow that sheet out, as well as it simultaneously melts from above, losing its mass as it gets lubricated from down under it can start to move

Taken along with the opinions of some that our use of fossil fuels is warming the globe catastrophically the unwary might be fooled into thinking that we were causing that movement. That is of course incorrect. As the Climate Institute says

Glaciers and ice sheets are large, slow-moving assemblages of ice

(http://www.climate.org/topics/sea-level/index.html), but this is not a post-industrialisation phenomenon. It has always been the case when glaciers and ice sheets existed.

Before "global warming" started 18,000 years ago most of the earth was a frozen and arid wasteland. Over half of earth 's surface was covered by glaciers or extreme desert.  Forests were rare. Not a very fun place to live

(http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html). Thank goodness for that global warming, which happened then despite humans using very very little in the way of fossil fuels. Of course it wasn’t a non-stop period of warming since then. There have been cooling periods along the way and there will be again.

Unfortunately we look to have been entering one for the past 12 years. As ex-biologist Fred Dardick (http://conservativespotlight.com/?page_id=2) said in The Canada Free Press says

We are in the midst of the convergence of 3 major solar, ocean, and atmospheric cycles all heading in the direction of global cooling. Last year the Southern hemisphere experienced its coldest winter in 50 years and Europe just went through two particularly cold winters in a row, and the cooling trend has only just begun. The likelihood of a repeat of the Year Without a Summer in 1816 or The Great Frost of 1709 is growing with every day. .. Even though disaster is staring the world in the face, far too many climate scientists remain beholden to liberal anti-human politics to do anything useful about it. At a time they should be sounding the warning siren for society to prepare for possible food and energy shortages, most still amazingly insist that an insignificant atmospheric molecule (CO2) is more responsible for warming the Earth than the Sun

(http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/36664).

The Space and Science Research Corporation (http://www.spaceandscience.net/id1.html) has an article by Director John L. Casey saying

Based on the data from the AMSR-E instrument on board the NASA Aqua satellite, sea surface temperatures just posted this week showed their steepest decline since the satellite was made operational in 2002. This major drop from the warm temperature levels seen in 2010 is also echoed by a dramatic decline in atmospheric temperatures in the lower troposphere, where we live, with the data coming from NOAA satellites. At present rates of descent, both ocean and atmospheric temperatures are likely to soon surpass the temperature lows set in the 2007-2008 period. Even with a small correction that is usually seen after such a rapid drop, there is no doubt that the Earth is entering a prolonged global cooling period and will soon set another record drop in temperatures by the November-December 2012 time frame as was forecast in the SSRC press release from May 10, 2010

(http://www.spaceandscience.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/ssrcpressrelease2-2011globalcooling.pdf).

Now Joe, that’s really scary - BBbbrrrrr - but I hope that it helps you to understand a bit more about the process and drivers of global climates and weather events.

11

The Environment / Is the unusual weather we have been having a result of global warming?

« on: 17/06/2011 14:18:03 »

We’ve seen a lot of opinion and speculation from CACC disciples here so lets balance the discussion with some denier opinion and speculation.

Ref. 16/06/2011 22:29:37:-
Sceptics want scientists involved in climate research to significantly improve the present poor understanding of the processes and drivers of the different global climates. I’m not aware of any sceptics who wish to be left in peace on this important issue.

Ref. today at 02:24:46:-
Many sceptics recognise that atmospheric CO2 has a small forcing effect on global temperatures (less than 2C for a doubling if all other drivers were to remain constant). There are plenty scientists looking elsewhere for other drivers having much greater significance that CO2 (dipping fingers in hot pans of milk is not really a helpful contribution to the science). They also understand that the tiny proportion of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere absorbs a small proportion of the IR emitted by the earth and passes a lot of that small amount of energy on to other atmospheric molecules, some of which cannot emit IR. CO2 can but can pass energy on to those that can, particularly H2O, which emits over a much broader range of IR than CO2 and is present in the atmosphere in much lager proportions. (There’s no way of knowing where to expect CO2 to be in a millennium.)

As for Hansen, he’s the scaremonger who, with his buddies Al Gore and Tim Wirth set out to frighten the US congress into the CACC camp. “In the summer of 1988, global warming first captured the imagination of the American public. In early June of that summer Senator Al Gore (D-TN) organized a congressional hearing to bring attention to the subject, one that he had been focusing on in Congress for more than a decade. The hearing that day was carefully stage-managed to present a bit of political theater, as was later explained by Senator Tim Wirth (D-CO), who served alongside Gore in the Senate and, like Gore, was also interested in the topic of global warming. “We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn't working inside the room.” (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/climate_fix/book_clips.html).

12

The Environment / Is the unusual weather we have been having a result of global warming?

« on: 17/06/2011 11:11:24 »

It seems that there are some commenting here either do not understand Joe’s original question. For example, in the comments posted on 16th at 22:29 and today at 02:24 and 04:45 I can see nothing that attempts to answer it. I can see no science whatsoever, only 1300 words that amount to what moderator JP referred to as “editorial comments” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/editorial)

.. unless you have something new to add to your original question, aside from editorial comments .. in this thread please stick to the question at hand, .. this is primarily a science Q&A site, not your personal blog

(http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38723.msg353414#msg353414).

Perhaps I missed some science buried within those words so if anyone spotted any then please would you point it out for me.

Joe, do you feel that you are being helped by the responses here. I see that you haven’t been back since 4th June.


Please don't tell other users how to behave on the forum.  If you have a complaint, tell the mods.

13

The Environment / Is the unusual weather we have been having a result of global warming?

« on: 16/06/2011 21:51:06 »

Joe, here’s some more speculation for you:
- “All three of these lines of research to point to the familiar sunspot cycle shutting down for a while” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/all-three-of-these-lines-of-research-to-point-to-the-familiar-sunspot-cycle-shutting-down-for-a-while/)
- “Solar Cycle 25” (http://sc25.com/about.php) – interesting graphs
or you might like the first two articles linked at NASA’s Science News (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/).

14

The Environment / Is the unusual weather we have been having a result of global warming?

« on: 16/06/2011 20:43:34 »

Yesterday @ 15:35 it was suggested that

Yelder - I think it would be best if we avoided this thread becoming a repository for blog postings by politicians and interested by-standers.  ..  Let us try to keep to scientific questions, answers, and refutations .. The OP was "Is the unusual weather we have been having a result of global warming?" - let's .. try and advance the scientific debate on the original question

Joe Ogan’s comment supporting his original question on 3rd June was

I believe the weather we have been having is unusual.  I would like to know if it is a result of Global warming

making it quite clear that he was asking about the cause of recent weathr events, not the cause of global warming.

It was also suggested that

I think it would be best if we avoided this thread becoming a repository for blog postings by politicians and interested by-standers.  ..  Let us try to keep to scientific questions, answers, and refutations and allow those who wish to read further to find those articles for themselves

I took that to be a rebuke for posting comments and linking to articles that deviated from Joe’s original question and assume that the rebuke was directed at all who are commenting on this thread.

Jo was not asking what was the cause of global warming but the first response

The debate is whether the warming is affected by man or part of a nature cycle

immediately took things off-course, with an immediate scare-mongering comment about our use of fossil fuels causing a global catastrophe. The very first link posted on this thread was not to a scientific paper about the cause of recent weather events but to a Discover magazine article on “Ocean Acidification: A Global Case of Osteoporosis” http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/16-ocean-acidification-a-global-case-of-osteoporosis/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=. The article wasn’t even written by a scientist, simply a journalist.

CliffordK tried very hard to bring the comments back on course with his

Such a knee-jerk reaction to blame everything on "Global Warming" and "CO2" is a disservice to climatology science, and the argument in general

along with some very helpful information but once again we had some scare-mongering, e.g.

We are fast going for a tipping point, or possibly already past one

So it continues, with even CliffordK being sucked away from the original question into commenting on the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures.

What tickles me is that one of the very first comments here on 4th June @ 23:20 was

I think some of the worst excesses of colonial rule coupled with some of worst excess of post-colonial rule also have something to do with that

This had absolutely nothing to do with the original  question but not a squeak from moderation. A similar point was made on 04th May @ 21:09 on the “What does Iain Stewart's ‘CO2 experiment’ Demonstrate” thread http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38723.50 when saying

forum moderators appear to set their own rules here so we visitors have to abide by them

I suggest that the best answer

to Joe's original question, I think the answer is a definite maybe. .. The bottom line is that we really don't have a very good handle on what's going on, and, even if we did, there does not appear to be a quick fix

(09/06/2011 @ 07:21  http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=39689.25).

Hypotheses about the causes and effects of global warming abound but we really have a very poor understanding of how Nature controls global weather events that are used as the basis for our definitions of the different global climates. Much more research is required before we can confidently answer such questions. Meanwhile we will have CACC doctrine disciples and deniers alike speculating about what “might” “could” “should” happen “if” this that and the other.

To keep the speculation going, here’s a link to a 2008 article “Episodes of relative global warming” (http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2009-episodes-jastp-71-194.pdf) by Jager and Duhau in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics concludes

The three main results of this study are the following: First, there exists a relation between solar activity and average tropospheric temperatures. Next, this relation depends both on the toroidal and the poloidal component of solar magnetism. The seven temperature sets that we studied here, evidently give different results but it is gratifying that they agree qualitatively in confirming the dependence of tropospheric temperature on both components of solar activity. The third result is that a comparison of observed with calculated temperatures shows residual peaks and valleys. Some of these are significant, appearing in all seven data sets studied here.

These results may be of importance for understanding the solar mechanisms that influence climate. The refereed literature contains 15 global or NH temperature data sets. Obviously all must be studied in order to further check the above results. It is also necessary to discuss the heliophysical and climatologic aspects of these findings. Such a study is presently underway with colleagues

Here’s a copy of one of their graphs, taken from “World Climate Report - The Web’s Longest-Running Climate Change Bog: Solar Story Update” (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/05/26/solar-story-update/)

(I must be going blind because I can't see the "Insert into message" Link that is supposed to be by the filename that I wanted to insert).

Figure 1. Observed minus predicted temperatures based solar activity (from de Jager and Duhau, 2009)

That World Climate Report article also references a paper “Possible solar forcing of 400-year wet-dry climate cycles in northwestern China” by Wu JingLu; Yu ZiCheng; Zeng Hai'Ao; Wang NingLian in Climatic Change 2009 Vol. 96 No. 4 pp. 473-482. This says

Our results suggest that solar activities might have played a significant role in driving wet-dry climate oscillations at centennial scales in the interior of Eurasian continent

From the other side we have “Comments on - Episodes of relative global warming, by de Jager en Duhau - ” by Gerbrand Komen (http://home.kpn.nl/g.j.komen/zon.pdf). Physicist Professor Komen concluded

1. The statement by de Jager (2008) and dJ-D concerning the nature of recent warming is NOT supported by their statistical relation between solar magnetic variations and terrestrial temperatures.
2. Correlations between solar magnetic activity and terrestrial NH temperatures are likely to be contaminated by other forcings, not only in the 20th century but also in earlier centuries.
3. Models forced with solar irradiance variations and other established physical mechanisms have successfully simulated the evolution of the NH-temperature in the period under consideration, confirming the existence of a certain amount of correlation between NH temperatures and solar activity, especially in the period prior to the 20th century, where two temperature minima coincide with the Maunder and the Dalton minimum. The magnitude of the temperature variations is consistent with estimates in solar irradiance and volcanic forcing.
4. Attribution to solar magnetic variation through an unknown mechanisms as made by dJ-D seems premature, since the reconstructed NH temperature can also be understood in terms of solar irradiance variations and other known physical processes.
One may hope that a future more detailed analysis announced by De Jager and co-workers will help clarify these issues

“Hear, hear” to that last sentence, meanwhile disciples and deniers of the CACC doctrine will continue speculating about the processes and drivers of global climates about which

we don’t know anything much useful

(13/06/2011 @ 09:30:46 http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=39689.50).

15

The Environment / Why Does CO2 Escape From An Enclosure More Easily Than Air?

« on: 15/06/2011 19:07:02 »

Hi Rosy, yes, it can be a little frustrating at times, can't it, especially because it does not make it clear to a newcomer what the problem is.

16

The Environment / Is the unusual weather we have been having a result of global warming?

« on: 15/06/2011 19:03:08 »

Hi Imatfaal, I have no problem with that provided everyone else is encouraged to do the same.

17

The Environment / Is the unusual weather we have been having a result of global warming?

« on: 15/06/2011 12:58:14 »

When JP, yor_on, Geezer and graham.d. started discussing the politicisation of CO2 on 8th & 9th June I mentioned Lord Lawson (my comment of 11th June @ 14:31 - for some reason hidden by the moderator  [!]). Lawson’s 11th June article “A fatuous obsession: The Coalition's absurd energy policy is damaging industry and adding hundreds of pounds to every family's fuel bills” is well worth reading. He says

The first, as more and more eminent scientists are finding the courage to point out (the most recent being the distinguished physicist Professor William Happer of Princeton University), is that it is far from clear that there is a serious problem — let alone a catastrophic one — of global warming at all

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002333/Nigel-Lawson-says-Coalitions-absurd-energy-policy-damaging-industry-adding-hundreds-pounds-familys-fuel-bills.html#ixzz1PHOoKHWR.

I’m a bit puzzled by Lawson’s

the most recent being .. Professor William Happer

Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, because he has been presenting his sceptical arguments for at least a couple of years. It seems that his most recent article was “The Truth About Greenhouse Gases: The dubious science of the climate crusaders” http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases in which he says

I want to discuss a contemporary moral epidemic: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet. The “climate crusade” is one characterized by true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types—even children’s crusades—all based on contested science and dubious claims

  Happer made a statement on climate change before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in February 2009 http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=84462e2d-6bff-4983-a574-31f5ae8e8a42 part of which can be seen at http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/william-happer-wants-to-party-like-its-79999999-bc (don’t be fooled by the date of July 10, 2002 as it is just a hang-over from one of his earlier statements probably due to re-using the same document - http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Homeland_Security_National_Labs.asp.

Talking about

eminent scientists .. point out .. that it is far from clear that there is a serious problem — let alone a catastrophic one

reminds me of others like Happer. While searching for a link between Grant Foster and Tamino I came across “Dog Brothers Public Forum” http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?action=printpage;topic=1454.0 which may find of interest as it mentions numerous scientists who converted from supporters to deniers of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis, including paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa, environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, and paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa. It also mentions Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski who Pete Ridley talked about on his “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?” thread http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=24442;sa=showPosts.
 
There's also an interesting comment about

Global Warming Ruled a Religion by British Judge

Another very interesting article published by the SPPI on 10th June “Lindzen-Choi ‘Special Treatment’: Is Peer Review Biased Against Nonalarmist Climate Science?” http://sppiblog.org/news/lindzen-choi-%E2%80%98special-treatment%E2%80%99-is-peer-review-biased-against-nonalarmist-climate-science was drawn to my attention yesterday. It also includes a reference to Happer but more importantly describes the sort of treatment that sceptical scientists are subjected to when submitting papers for publication, just as the Climategate E-mails indicated. The comment about Happer said

Attachment2.pdf. This attachment begins with what we regard as a libelous description of our choice of reviewers. Will Happer, though a physicist, was in charge of research at DOE including pioneering climate research. Moreover, he has, in fact, published professionally on atmospheric turbulence. He is also a member of the NAS

.

The article is well worth reading – enjoy.

There’s also an interesting article “Politicization of Climate Change & CO2” http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/p/sundry-papers.html which originally appeared on The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition site http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1.

18

The Environment / Is the unusual weather we have been having a result of global warming?

« on: 15/06/2011 12:42:48 »

Hi CZARCAR, reference your comment of 13th June @ 18:40 can you provide a link to your source of 5% human emissions? IPCC AR4 WG1 Figure 7.3 http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html seems to present a different picture, with human emissions (fossil fuels, land use change) being 28GtC (102GtCO2) compared with natural emissions of 190.2GtC (697GtCO2), i.e. 4% from humans so your assumption isn’t far out (if the IPCC figures and my manipulation of them can be trusted).

Hi KliffordK, too many of us are forced to make assumptions (aka guesses) relating to climate change because of insufficient evidence or lack of clarity. Let me make the assumption (please correct me if I’m wrong) that when you say that

the "industrial" CO2 increases has been from 280ppm to 380ppm

you are implying that this CO2 increase is directly and totally due to our use of fossil fuels since the start of the industrial revolution. If my assumption is correct then is your assumption that we have cause a 35% increase flawed in any way? My understanding of those figures from the IPCC is that natural emissions account for 96% of that 35% increase. Of course we have to be a bit suspicious of those pre-industrial figures don’t we. After all, they come from air “trapped” in ice, which may not be a reliable record of the real atmospheric composition.

Your (and Geezer’s) concern about

30 gigatons of CO2 into the air every year.  That is a LOT of carbon

needs to be viewed in the context of natural emissions of CO2, which according to the IPCC amount to 697GtCO2 per year. Doesn’t that make natural emissions (87% of the total) look far larger by comparison? Also, let’s not overlook the IPCC statement that

Gross fluxes generally have uncertainties of more than ±20%

. On top of that the estimated concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than a mere 0.04% even during this claimed unusually warm period.

Of course, if global temperatures continue the trend of the past 12 years or even start to fall then might not CO2 levels even start falling, with the risk of positive feedback driving us towards another ice age, with more floods, more droughts, more hurricanes and tornadoes, more earth quakes and volcanoes, polar bears frozen to the ice sheets. Thank goodness that’s all wild speculation based upon unfounded assumptions.

While I was looking up information on the mean ocean temperature rise during the past 200 years I was reminded of Graham.d’s quote (at 14:40 yesterday) from the IPCC’s AR4

most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations

and of Professor Muller’s interpretation of it

According to the most recent IPCC report (2007), the human component became apparent only after 1957, and it amounts to “most” of the 0.7 degree rise since then

Those claims provide another example of conclusions drawn from an assumption that remains to be validated.

Looking at the GISS http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif and HADCRUT http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif estimates of mean global temperature I can see no rising trend at all until about 1977 so what do you think Muller spotted from 1957 that I have missed. After all, he’s Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley so must know what he’s talking about, despite what people like Connolley http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/04/muller_is_rubbish.php, Watts http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/response_to_muller_testimony.pdf, Pielke Sr http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/01/pielke-sr-on-the-muller-testimony/, Tamino - Grant Foster? – http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/richard-muller-love-fest/, etc. say.

19

The Environment / Why Does CO2 Escape From An Enclosure More Easily Than Air?

« on: 14/06/2011 19:13:21 »

Dr. Christie E-mailed today that he

Tried to post the following on the discussion forum, but the posting failed with an unspecified error, so I am sending it to you here

so I'll post his response to my previous comment on his behalf.
 
------
Hi Yelder

If my understanding is flawed again then please put me straight.
 
If I understand correctly then can you explain the difference between a balloon that has been punctured with numerous tiny holes (let’s say 10nm diameter each) and one that naturally has numerous tiny pores (let's say 0.33nm) as a result of being blown up and the latex stretched? Michegan State University Chemistry Department provides a spacefill model (which you can zoom into) of the molecular structure of latex [urlhttp://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/VirtTxtJml/lipidstr2.htm#rubber/url]. This tells me that there are tiny air spaces between the fabric (a matrix of C and H atoms? With no mention of anything else, like water) which must grow larger as the fabric is stretched (as in blowing up a balloon). At some stage the spaces must become large enough to let through any trapped gas inside, like He or CO2.

 
I will have a try.
 
Firstly, the space-filling model of molecular structure shown in Prof Reusch's website is intended to show how the polymer molecules are put together in terms of the relationships and bonding of individual atoms in the molecular chain. What the model shows is the structure of a small section of an individual chain. It repeats at the purple atoms, and a single molecule of latex would typically contain between about 1000 and 10000 of these repetitions, and they do not run in a straight line.
 
Secondly this one molecule is fairly tightly packed in laterally with parts of chains of other molecules. In a polymer of this sort the packing cannot be perfect; there are always holes. But these are randomly sized and shaped sealed cells, not open channels (unless the rubber is perished or damaged).
 
Thirdly, there is no way that the tiny gaps you see are "air spaces". Any of the molecules in air are about the size of two of the dark grey carbon atoms, and there is no way that they would fit in the tiny gaps you are seeing in the model.
 
Fourthly, when you stretch rubber, you are not producing a regular expansion of the molecular structure. You are not stretching the chemical bonds between atoms nor even opening out the bond angles from their natural 110-120 degrees closer to a 180 degree straight line. Rather, you are actually partly unravelling a tangled series of random chain coils into a more extended chain -- a lot like trying to pull a tangle of ropes apart. Surprisingly, even some chemists in the rubber industry are not aware of this!
 
If you would really like to find out about how polymers work -- rubbery polymers, glassy polymers, and crystalline polymers -- I thoroughly recommend a book (a little old by now, like me) by Leo Mandelkern: "An Introduction to Macromolecules". It is an accessible and e-n-j-o-y-able read even for an intelligent layman.

-----------

Dr. Christie, thanks very much for another very helpful comment.

PS: I see that the problem was the spam detector picking up on the word "e-n-j-o-y-able" minus the -.

20

The Environment / Is the unusual weather we have been having a result of global warming?

« on: 13/06/2011 21:46:30 »

Hi Graham.d. you may recall me mentioning software engineer William Connolley in my comment of 11th June @ 14:31 (another of my comments that the moderator chose to hide from view). In following up on your comment about people trying to discredit Professor Muller I came across this staunch supporter of the CACC doctrine doing just that. His 5th April article “Muller is Rubbish” http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/04/muller_is_rubbish.php includes

Why then is he rubbish? Because he is still basically clueless about climate science

It isn’t usual for me to think along the same lines as Connolley but I was unable to seriously argue against much of what he wrote in that article.

Connolley's article also links to some others that make interesting reading, including Anthony Watts’ “Letter of response from Anthony Watts to Dr. Richard Muller testimony 3/31/2011” http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/response_to_muller_testimony.pdf.