@parados,
I said :
Quote:Perhaps you are unaware of how metal can evaporate at room temperature ?
You said :
Quote:Gaseous metal evaporates?
I dont think it requires me to point out your error any more than once. By comparison with the original it should be obvious. Why didnt you do that ?
Seeing how it has become my unofficial job to educate you, when a metal is inserted into another metals crystalline structure in order to change certain properties of that parent metal, the energy within the structure will eventually force the "foriegn"metal out. It evaporates. Thus, exotic materials have a life.
Quote:You can only make condescending remarks.
Perhaps you have turned over a new leaf...apologise and we can move on.
@parados,
parados wrote:
Boyle's law would seem to be more important when it comes to CO2 in soda.
The question was on the evaporation of methylmercury. Forget chemistry, only thermodynamics matter, and for that you only need to look at the pressure number, identical in both cases: 0.1013 MPa (megapascals). To sum up, we're not arguing soda, only Fourier transforms:
http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Science-and-technology/Methylmercury-determination-as-volatile-methylmercury-hydride-by-purge-and-trap-gas-chromatography-i.html
@High Seas,
You might want to follow the entire conversation High Seas
ican wrote:The CO2 in the soda evaporates as the pressure in the bottle decreases to that of room pressure and its temperature increases to room temperature. However, after the pressure and temperature of the soda reach room pressure and temperature, remaining CO2 will continue to evaporate along with remaining soda as long as the soda bottle is not capped again.
Heat up the remaining soda above room temperature and the rate of evaporation of the soda and its remaining CO2 will increase, because whenever soda evaporates, any remaining CO2 with in it will also evaporate.
@parados,
parados wrote:A gas can't evaporate since it is already a gas.
A gas dissolved in water can evaporate. Open a bottle of soda, and watch the CO2 dissolved in the soda water evaporate. Initially the soda will visbily bubble. Then the bubbling will appear to stop, while more CO2 continues to evaporate. Eventually, depending on the temperature and atmospheric pressure in the room containing the open bottle of soda, much of the CO2 originally dissolved in the soda water will have evaporated. To prove that, periodically test for the density of CO2 in the soda water.
At some point, heat the remaining soda water an additional 10 degrees Fahrenheit, and watch it bubble off some of the remaining CO2 dissolved in the soda water.
Also, solids and liquids evaporate.
@ican711nm,
parados, You're gonna have to relent on this one.
You dissolve gas by cooling the environment, the apposite of what we do to dissolve solids by heat.
Who's Blogging» Links to this article
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Electronic files that were stolen from a prominent climate research center and made public last week provide a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes battle to shape the public perception of global warming.
While few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world's climate -- nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal -- public debate persists. And the newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain's Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.
In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.
"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.
Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.
"There's an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors," he said. "They're saying, 'If you print anything by this group, we won't send you any papers.' "
Mann, who directs Penn State's Earth System Science Center, said the e-mails reflected the sort of "vigorous debate" researchers engage in before reaching scientific conclusions. "We shouldn't expect the sort of refined statements that scientists make when they're speaking in public," he said.
Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute who has questioned whether climate change is human-caused, blogged that the e-mails have "the makings of a very big" scandal. "Imagine this sort of news coming in the field of AIDS research," he added.
The story of the hacking has ranked among the most popular on Web sites ranging from The Washington Post's to that of London's Daily Telegraph. And it has spurred a flood of e-mails from climate skeptics to U.S. news organizations, some likening the disclosure to the release of the Pentagon Papers during Vietnam.
Kevin Trenberth, who heads the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., and wrote some of the pirated e-mails, said it is the implications rather than the content of climate research that make some people uncomfortable.
"It is incontrovertible" that the world is warming as a result of human actions, Trenberth said. "The question to me is what to do."
"It's certainly a legitimate question," he added. "Unfortunately one of the side effects of this is the messengers get attacked."
In his new book, "Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save the Earth's Climate," Stanford University climate scientist Stephen H. Schneider details the intense debate over warming, arguing that it has helped slow the nation's public policy response.
"I've been here on the ground, in the trenches, for my entire career," writes Schneider, who was copied on one of the controversial e-mails. "I'm still at it, and the battle, while looking more winnable these days, is still not a done deal."
18
ShareMore ways to share this Article...
DiggFacebookRedditTwittermyspacedel.icio.usNewsTrustStumble It!
Understand more about:
Phil Jones
Phil JonesStephen H. Schneider
Stephen H. SchneiderMichael E. Mann
Michael E. MannClimate change
Climate changeKevin Trenberth
Kevin Trenberth
News
Images
Videos
Profiles
washingtonpost.com
The web
... loading ...
Images from Yahoo!
Videos from YouTube
More about:Phil JonesStephen H. SchneiderClimate changepowered by
People who read this also read...
Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center
Digest: After false alarm, astronauts finish spacewalk
What's the deal? The week's best travel bargains around the globe, by land, sea and air
Robin Givhan on Fashion: Must a White House state dinner really be so stately?
More Climate Change News
Green: Science. Policy. Living.
News, features, and opinions on enviromental policy, the science of climate change, and tools to live a green life.
Special Report
The Post's series on the science behind climate change.
© 2009 The Washington Post Company
Business Jobs
Computer Jobs
Construction Jobs
Education Jobs
Engineering Jobs
Healthcare Jobs
Legal Jobs
Management Jobs
Media Jobs
Non-Profit Jobs
Sales Jobs
Science Jobs
Find Your Dream Job Now!
Go
Jobs by SimplyHired
Featured Advertiser Links
Lawsuit: Hydroxycut Liver, Cochlear Implants, Zicam Recall, Yaz>>
Attorney: Mesothelioma, Lawyer, Cancer from Asbestos, Lung Cancer>>
Debt destroying your day?New Debt Wise helps you decrease your debt!>>
Create Jobs. Help the Economy. Join the National Gateway.>>
Russia Now: In-Depth Coverage of Russia News, Business, and More.>>
@cicerone imposter,
Yes, but it isn't called evaporation which is why I referenced Boyle's law.
I assume you meant "opposite" and not "apposite."
@parados,
Yes, "opposite" is correct.
Those pesky email again !
Quote:In one email, the head of Britain's Climatic Research Unit, Phil Jones, says he is "cheered" by news of the sudden death of a prominent Australian climate sceptic, John L. Daly, who died of a heart attack at his Launceston home in 2004.
Others show scientists referring to sceptical colleagues as "prats", "charlatans" and "idiots".
The emails also acknowledge the frustration of trying to find evidence to "prove" man-made climate change.
In one email, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the US Centre for Atmospheric Research, who supports the theory of man-made climate change, says: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't."
Dr Trenberth says data published last August "shows there should be even more warming... the data are surely wrong".
One email seized upon by sceptics as supposed evidence of a global warming 'con', refers to a ''trick'' being employed to massage temperature statistics to ''hide the decline'' in world temperatures.
The hackers claim the emails show that the scientists at the world-renowned climate change research centre manipulated data to bolster their argument that global warming is genuine and is being caused by human actions.
Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling
(AP) " 58 minutes ago
LONDON " A leading climate change scientist says the leak of documents stolen from a British research institute may be aimed at undermining talks at next month's Copenhagen global climate summit.
Kevin Trenberth " of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado " said in an interview Sunday that hackers cherry-picked from the stolen data and distributed selected documents to try to undermine scientific consensus on man-made climate change.
Britain's University of East Anglia said hackers last week stole data from its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change.
Skeptics claim correspondence shows collusion between scientists to overstate the case for global warming.
Trenberth says the hackers took data out of context.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Related articles
Hacked E-Mails Fuel Global Warming Debate
Wired News - 1 day ago
Of Global Warming And Potential Scientific Fraud
The New Ledger - 1 day ago
Hackers hit climate research body
IT PRO - 2 days ago
More coverage (110) »
Add News to yo
Global Cooling
It's late fall and the Indians on a remote reservation in South Dakota asked their new chief if the coming winter was going to be cold or mild.
Since he was a chief in a modern society, he had never been taught the old secrets. When he looked at the sky, he couldn't tell what the winter was going to be like.
Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, he told his tribe that the winter was indeed going to be cold and that the members of the village should collect firewood to be prepared.
But, being a practical leader, after several days, he got an idea He went to the phone booth, called the National Weather Service and asked, 'Is the coming winter going to be cold?'
'It looks like this winter is going to be quite cold,' the meteorologist at the weather service responded.
So the chief went back to his people and told them to collect even more firewood in order to be prepared.
A week later, he called the National Weather Service again. 'Does it still look like it is going to be a very cold winter?'
'Yes,' the man at National Weather Servic e again replied, 'it's going to be a very cold winter.'
The chief again went back to his people and ordered them to collect every scrap of firewood they could find.
Two weeks later, the chief called the National Weather Service again. 'Are you absolutely sure that the winter is going to be very cold?'
'Absolutely,' the man replied. 'It's looking more and more like it is going to be one of the coldest winters we've ever seen.'
'How can you be so sure?' the chief asked. The weatherman replied, 'The Indians are collecting firewood like crazy.'
@parados,
parados wrote:Yes, but it isn't called evaporation which is why I referenced Boyle's law.
What
you call it doesn't change what it is!
Quote:
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=evaporation&x=31&y=9
Main Entry:
evap·o·ra·tion
...
1 a : the change by which any substance is converted from a liquid state into and carried off in vapor; specifically : the conversion of a liquid into vapor in order to remove it wholly or partly from a liquid of higher boiling point or from solids dissolved in or mixed with it
...
2 : the process of evaporating or concentrating by conversion of a part into vapor <evaporation of syrup>
3 archaic : the product or result of evaporating : vapor formed or a reaction effected by evaporating
...
@Advocate,
An excellent example of the science behind Global Warming...ehh....Global Cooling...ah, whatever is fashionable today, put me done for half a dozen.
@ican711nm,
ican, I like your graphs, which clearly show a general plateau or decline of global temperatures during the past decade. Also, factor in the suspicion of skewed readings from parts of Europe, in particular the old Soviet Union region, because we have seen documented the existence of improperly positioned weather stations along with anomolously high readings, so how much can we trust the data, that is the question, especially in light of what we are finding out from hacked emails and so forth?
Another issue that I just read for the first time the other day, which I was not aware of, that being the apparent fact that following the Soviet breakup around 1990, many of the weather stations in the old Soviet Union were discontinued, and many of these were in the coldest regions, so it has been pointed out as curious that the rise in global temps during the 90's also conveniently correlates with the loss of data from some of the coldest weather stations in the Arctic regions of the old Soviet Union. Unless one can actually unravel the scientific and mathematical procedures of how all of this is compiled and calculated, I would very much view any of the stuff being foisted upon as highly questionable. From the reports that we get, I am not very much impressed by the idea of trusting those that are doing it, especially considering the small portion of one degree in question, and then to consider the idea that based upon a very small portion of a degree they are then making grand pronouncements of doom and consequences in years or decades if we don't enact some murky political plan for this or that. I do not buy it, not even a little bit.
@okie,
Here is a quote from a link about the weather stations mentioned:
"The end of the Soviet Union in 1991 led to a dramatic decrease in regular observations from the Arctic. The Russian government ended the system of drifting North Pole stations, and closed many of the surface stations in the Russian Arctic. Likewise the United States and Canadian governments cut back on spending for Arctic observing as the perceived need for the DEWLINE declined. As a result, the most complete collection of surface observations from the Arctic is for the period 1960 to 1990 (Serreze and Barry, 2005)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_Arctic
okie, I suggest you read the rest of the subsection that your wiki cite is from., an dconsider what it tells you about ongoing Arctic studies. I suggest you also compare NOAA data, which actually deals with the temps in the Arctic, which the HadCrut data that ican keeps using does not. I suggest you also consider the fact that, as climate models said would happen, the Arctic is the first to warm significantly, and it's quite a bit more than a degree. Further, you might want to look at the fact that permafrost is melting that has been frozen for thousands of years, that Arctic ice is at its lowest extent in recorded history (or as apparent in the archaeological record, which shows ice-adapted pre-Inuit occupation for thousands of years), and melting more, that if the present trend continues in a decade or two there will be open navigation in the summer in the Arctic, not just for the occasional small specialized icebreakers, as very occasionally in years past, but for fragile--and huge--supertankers, which have never been able to even think about sailing the Arctic circle heretofore. Then look at the tripled rate of glacier melt of the Greenland icecap. And imply that someone is cooking the data. Something is cooking the Arctic, not the data. Incidentally, some of the latest data confirming the changes in the Arctic, comes from the Danish air force, as previously mentioned here, which has had a decades-long presence in the Arctic. You think they're part of your conspiracy theory too?
@MontereyJack,
I admit to the fact that claims of significant loss in Arctic ice tend to support the thinking such as you have. I think however that the jury is far from in regarding just exactly how this is going to play out as time progresses. I doubt seriously that the icemelt is going to allow supertankers to cruise through there anytime soon, and I would not be so confident in any of your predictions for that matter. The following graph tends to show that the reduction in ice is not all that remarkable, and it shows the ice concentration this winter is tracking higher than it was in 2007.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091103_Figure2.png
Note: I deleted the chart because it was too wide for the screen, but just click on my link and it will come up.
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:I suggest you also compare NOAA data, which actually deals with the temps in the Arctic, which the HadCrut data that ican keeps using does not.
FALSE!
The HadCrut data does in fact deal with the temperatures in both the Arctic and the Anarctic. That is, the HadCrut graphs are in fact based on temperature measurements made over the entire earth including temperatures in both the Arctic and Anarctic.
