tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post6158391424275558403..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: DevelopingEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33508363892702896302010-09-06T16:40:40.027-04:002010-09-06T16:40:40.027-04:00JAXA has been below the 2009 minimum for a couple ...JAXA has been below the 2009 minimum for a couple of days now, and the three day extent loss has been the highest for any 3 day period within or partially within september in the 8 year JAXA record.<br /><br />(I've poached this from someone else's comment at Neven's blog.)<br /><br />Bremen has current extent below the 2009 minimum also, and I suspect NSIDC, too, though I've not dug through the data.<br /><br />So what will Goddard come up with now that the "arctic sea ice minimum has recovered for N years in a row" argument has collapsed?dhogazahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13589109126483161671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-39084524046673140102010-08-29T00:34:10.089-04:002010-08-29T00:34:10.089-04:00Oh, yes, it's a new paradigm, that's why s...Oh, yes, it's a new paradigm, that's why sea ice volume is so important, after all ...<br /><br />"Does the penetration of the swell throughout the ice pack count as a tipping point? It didn't used to happen."<br /><br />makes clear that extent doesn't fully capture what's happening. Area measures are better (well, would be, if the satellite sensors didn't lead to confusion between melt ponds and open water), but obviously volume is best of all. <br /><br />Anyway, JAXA has extent down to 5.45 ... it will probably be right around 5.4 tomorrow.dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-68807933882005358412010-08-28T18:40:57.348-04:002010-08-28T18:40:57.348-04:00Little Mouse wrote, "We have a new type of Ar...Little Mouse wrote, "We have a new type of Arctic Anomaly..."<br /><br />Now called the Arctic Dipole but called the Arctic Rapid change Pattern (ARP) here:<br />Xiangdong Zhang et al. (2008) Recent radical shifts of atmospheric circulations and rapid changes in Arctic climate system, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 35, L22701, doi: 10.1029/2008GL035607<a href="http://folk.uib.no/gbsag/Zhang_etal_2008.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://folk.uib.no/gbsag/Zhang_etal_2008.pdf</a><br /><br />Little Mouse wrote, "... and now a new type of El Nino."<br /><br />Sang-Wook Yeh et al.(24 Sept. 2009) El Nino in a changing climate, Nature, Vol 461, pp. 511-5<br /><a href="http://www.environmentportal.in/files/El%20Nin%CB%9Co%20in%20a%20changing%20climate.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.environmentportal.in/files/El%20Nin%CB%9Co%20in%20a%20changing%20climate.pdf</a><br /><br />Karumuri Ashok and Toshio Yamagata (24 Sept. 2009) The El Nino with a difference, , Nature, Vol 461, pp. 481-4<br /><a href="http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/The%2520El%2520Nin%2520with%2520a%2520difference.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/The%2520El%2520Nin%2520with%2520a%2520difference.pdf</a><br /><br />Little Mouse wrote, "The times they are a chang'in. The first peek at a new paradigm?"<br /><br />So it would appear.Timothy Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16400529485899488733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-16836071452195346222010-08-28T17:55:50.852-04:002010-08-28T17:55:50.852-04:00Does the penetration of the swell throughout the i...Does the penetration of the swell throughout the ice pack count as a tipping point? It didn't used to happen.<br /><br />We have a new type of Arctic Anomaly and now a new type of El Nino.<br /><br />The times they are a chang'in. The first peek at a new paradigm?<br /><br />Little MouseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-6228428175132552872010-08-28T16:58:36.673-04:002010-08-28T16:58:36.673-04:00Climate Progress has a new post up on the Arctic, ...Climate Progress has a new post up on the Arctic, how we are headed towards a new record low, how the Northwest and Northeast passages have opened up and even how the Medieval Warm Period appears not to have extended to the Arctic - judging from sedimentary proxies. Includes pictures, charts and links.<br /><br />Please see:<br /><br />Arctic sea ice volume heads toward record low as Northwest Passage melts free fourth year in a row<br /><a href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/28/arctic-sea-ice-volume-northwest-passage-david-barber-antarctic-sea-ice/" rel="nofollow">http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/28/arctic-sea-ice-volume-northwest-passage-david-barber-antarctic-sea-ice/</a><br /><br />Also, for those of you that may not be aware of Neven's Arctic Sea Ice (a blog) or who haven't visited it any later than Aug 24, there are three Aug 25 posts well worth checking out -- including photo animations showing the sea ice flow/transport including what at least appears to be shelf breakup along Greenland's east coast. However, while the breakup looks quite dramatic, however, Neven did some research and it is apparently just business as usual for the coast at this time of the year. The ice there will reform -- this winter.<br /><br />Please see:<br /><a href="http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/" rel="nofollow">http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/</a>Timothy Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16400529485899488733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-71134819668576846952010-08-28T15:01:55.306-04:002010-08-28T15:01:55.306-04:00Aaron wrote, "I think you see, what I see in ...Aaron wrote, "I think you see, what I see in the ice. That is; ice that has significant voids in it so that it floats high and fools the volume measurements, but is very weak, so when a swell hits it, it breaks and tips over, leaving nothing but a skim of tiny ice pellets on the surface of the water."<br /><br />Possible. I am still inclined more to melt given the pattern, but as my misuse of the term "compactification" would suggest I am not expert in this area.<br />*<br />Aaron wrote, "I do not think one can do chemistry without physics, or (real world) physics without chemistry. Other than for union work rules, why would we need to draw a line between chemistry and physics?"<br /><br />At first the answer seemed obvious to me -- but I found it interesting that others found the opposite answer obvious. So it was largely a matter of curiosity -- and the problem became interesting in its own right, for example, in how the "dichotomy" between intrinsic and dispositional properties might apply.<br />*<br />"Union work rules"? In a sense.<br /><br />There is obviously a degree of interdependence and overlap between the two domains. But if for example one can distinguish be one domain and the other then you can use it to illustrate the interdependence between two branches. But even in the presence of such interdependence it is possible to distinguish between one domain and another.<br />*<br />And while there clearly is a sense in which materially all chemistry ultimately reduces to physics -- I am thinking quantum mechanics -- there is also value in treating it as its own area of specialization. Just think of how difficult it would be to try and treat chemical reactions as things to be solved in terms of quantum mechanics.<br /><br />Although it is my understanding that we have been able to derive the behavior of water, including its bulk properties, phases and transitions in terms of quantum mechanics using numerical methods, the task would be monumental in the case of most of the reactions studied by chemists. Besides, physicists would simply take over and chemists would be out of work.<br />*<br />And at a more theoretical level -- largely as a matter of habit -- I am pretty much always interested in the distinction between the object of awareness and the means of awareness. The rock that I see and the eye with which I see it.<br /><br />This distinction always helps in terms of identifying the hierarchical structure of knowledge. Thus in showing how the knowledge claims made by science are different from those made by the religious fundamentalist or the relativist.<br /><br />The distinction between the how and the what of awareness and knowledge permits one to respond to the criticisms made by extreme skepticism that otherwise opens the door to both. But the last is more of a theoretical concern given the context of our discussion.<br />*<br />More importantly, nowadays the interdependence between different branches of science is requiring more interdisciplinary teams and collaboration. And by distinguishing between the different branches it becomes easier for members of the team belonging to one discipline to see the need for involving members of different disciplines. It helps one clarify how the disciplines are related so as to better coordinate the work. So while "union work rules" was meant in jest, there actually is some truth to it.<br />*<br />Aaron wrote, "Everyone should know both."<br /><br />I would most certainly agree. Especially on collaborative interdisciplinary teams.<br /><br />Anyway, don't mean to reopen the discussion regarding the specifics. Not sure there would be much to gain from at this point. Did want to clarify the nature of my interest in the topic, though.Timothy Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16400529485899488733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46251588013530714032010-08-28T13:30:36.415-04:002010-08-28T13:30:36.415-04:00Oh, sorry, that's a map of temp anomaly, not t...Oh, sorry, that's a map of temp anomaly, not temp ... still, I'll go with "warmer than usual" being favorable to continued melting ...dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42197159644924580652010-08-28T13:28:19.487-04:002010-08-28T13:28:19.487-04:00This:
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_a...This:<br /><br />http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png<br /><br />Shows a lot of water above 0C, and if this keeps up, quite a bit of that ice north of eastern siberia should melt out, I'd think ...dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-61206910319778574622010-08-28T12:37:31.343-04:002010-08-28T12:37:31.343-04:00JAXA: down to 5.4 million km^2, and no sign of a s...JAXA: down to 5.4 million km^2, and no sign of a significant let-up that I can see. That scattered stuff north of Alaska seems to continue to be disappearing quickly, while ice appears to still be getting pushed out of the basin through the Fram Strait.<br /><br />It will end up below 2009 but above 2008, I do believe, my guess all along (and it was just a guess), but there's a lot of spread out, thin ice compared to 2008, IMO.dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-57564972142959144232010-08-28T12:28:31.722-04:002010-08-28T12:28:31.722-04:00Tim,
I think you see, what I see in the ice. That...Tim,<br />I think you see, what I see in the ice. That is; ice that has significant voids in it so that it floats high and fools the volume measurements, but is very weak, so when a swell hits it, it breaks and tips over, leaving nothing but a skim of tiny ice pellets on the surface of the water.<br /><br />Of course, if we are failing to sense the melting of voids in sea ice, we are likely also failing detect the melting of voids in land ice.<br /><br />I do not think one can do chemistry without physics, or (real world) physics without chemistry. Other than for union work rules, why would we need to draw a line between chemistry and physics? Everyone should know both.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05150805906414546377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87184142691182351552010-08-28T05:49:07.351-04:002010-08-28T05:49:07.351-04:00Oh yes, SJS, that'll be me then. I'd alm...Oh yes, SJS, that'll be me then. I'd almost forgotten about that. It was a few years ago and interesting things have happened since then. I was more on the fringes, doing letters to the editor in my local paper, MP's and some forum arguing, as well as letting textbook publishers know that creationists were slagging off or misusing their texts. I see the new gvt's policies have creationists salivating with glee, so I might have to send off a few letters. (I hung out at AtBC for a while as well, I see it hasn't changed much in 4 years)<br /><br />I take it I'm not the only person a little concerned by the amount of open water? Not that I know what will happen, but the amount of melting seems ominous.guthrienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-91298696089635430082010-08-27T23:26:48.855-04:002010-08-27T23:26:48.855-04:00Somewhat of topic, but Eli -- you've comment a...Somewhat of topic, but Eli -- you've comment at DotEarth on this...<br /><br />Andrew,<br /><br />I seems that your complaints have to do with the press coverage. Your two featured links have to do with a press release and Huybers comment on the fact that the highest profile journals are looking for headline worthy studies. Yet it is well established that press releases often do not tell the whole story and they are not the scientific papers in question. Nature and Science also suffer from this affliction, yet it is not just in climate science, but in every other field in which they accept papers. <br /><br />There are pluses and minuses to this approach. On the plus side, they bring to light important research which is worthy of further investigation. On the minus side they may publish marginal research which is worthy of further investigation. Notice something in common here? A good recent example of this (apparently in the former category) is the recent paper in Nature which found sharp reductions in phytoplankton populations worldwide. I read the preprint and it seems like good work, and is in line with other recent (less high profile) work on the causes of phytoplankton blooms (work which had been published the month before). Seems good, but it needs more investigation. <br /><br />In your post about the NSF press release you cite Stephen Schneider who says that the results of the Pounds paper are provisional, but you criticize the IPCC for using the Pound paper when there had been no published research contradicting those findings. That did not come until 2008. So I assume that you think the IPCC should have a “way forward machine” so that they can see the future critiques of research they cite?<br /><br />You never did talk about the difference between climate science and cognitive science. My take on the Hauser problem is that he succumbed to confirmation bias in interpreting data which he gathered. Once he did release his videos and others could look at the videos they found no evidence of what he claimed to have observed in monkeys. Did he falsify his data or just misinterpret it? It was hard to tell from the press reports (including those in the NYT) why Harvard came to the conclusion they came to. No links to the primary documents, etc. You should probably make your points (or lack of them) more explicit. Just how do Hauser's problems relate to climate science (as practiced, and not in press releases) relate to each other? Offhand, I can't see the relation. For most datasets, climate scientists (at least those looking at changes) have full access to the data used by people doing the research and can do their own analysis. There is little room for interpretation of the raw data, interpretation is limited to how the data is analyzed.Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-70239223319216151032010-08-27T21:49:45.043-04:002010-08-27T21:49:45.043-04:00Guthrie -- did you come into the BCSE as part of t...Guthrie -- did you come into the BCSE as part of the merger between Science Just Science and the British Centre for Science Education? I know there was a Guthrie from SJS and the name had sounded familiar.Timothy Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16400529485899488733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-11263399024302426642010-08-27T21:34:18.675-04:002010-08-27T21:34:18.675-04:00guthrie wrote, "Ahh, so Timothy Chase has bee...guthrie wrote, "Ahh, so Timothy Chase has been involved in the BCSE. So was I for a wee while a few years ago when the creationists were busy in Britain. Small world and all that. "<br /><br />Yes, I actually knew some of the people from DebunkCreation and in late May 2006 got involved with a group that later formed the British Centre for Science Education two months before there was even any talk of BCSE. I was there for about a year. YEC David Anderson even personally wrote me into his great atheist conspiracy story as one of the conspirators. I took as a compliment -- coming from him.<br /><br />And actually creationism is still quite a problem from what I can tell. And it would appear that creationism is getting taught during science lessons in some schools even today -- so I am not sure that things have really gotten any better. The creationist movement in Britain and Ireland is well-financed and has been receiving help from similar organizations in the US. And it may be much more difficult to stop there as the Separation of Church and State isn't exactly a well-established principle there.<br />*<br />guthrie wrote, "Compactification is a word? I thought the one to use was compaction?"<br /><br />Actually "compaction" is undoubtedly more appropriate.<br /><br />"Compactification" is something that you normally do only to spaces, rendering infinite dimensions finite or periodic. Even the word "compactify" normally gets employed that way -- although sometimes it will get used colloquially to mean "make compact" in a way that isn't necessarily limited to spaces.<br /><br />But while I am a physics geek and may have picked up the term from there, "compactification" (in the sense that the term is "normally" used) isn't something that I would normally think about. And as for my mishandling of the term it was just "handy" at the time -- and as is too often the case, I was a bit rushed in getting things out. My apologies.Timothy Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16400529485899488733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-54318136961786966512010-08-27T19:05:25.460-04:002010-08-27T19:05:25.460-04:00Ahh, so Timothy Chase has been involved in the BCS...Ahh, so Timothy Chase has been involved in the BCSE. So was I for a wee while a few years ago when the creationists were busy in Britain. Small world and all that. <br /><br />Physical chemistry is the bit between chemistry and physics, I agree. <br /><br />Compactification is a word? I thought the one to use was compaction?guthrienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-38766557892015334122010-08-27T16:02:58.462-04:002010-08-27T16:02:58.462-04:00There are plenty of spectroscopists in chemistry a...There are plenty of spectroscopists in chemistry and physics departments. So the absorption of infrared by CO2 is chemistry. Physical chemistry. The people who synthesize toad toxins (for example) may regard spectroscopy as physics, of course.<br /><br />Gerhard Herzberg was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, although he always thought of himself as a physicist. So if the mighty Herzberg is confused, what hope remains for the rest of us?<br /><br />-Nevada NedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-66126937527919520512010-08-27T12:57:12.698-04:002010-08-27T12:57:12.698-04:00"What you were suggesting was a somewhat supe..."What you were suggesting was a somewhat superficial change: the compactification of ice by the winds -- but not the actual melting. The idea being that the extent greatly inflates the apparent amount of ice.<br /><br />However it would appear that the change that I have just observed isn't due to compactification. If it were you wouldn't expect to see the distance that the boundary has traveled to be so great."<br /><br />The fact that extent was inflated was based on both the wind patterns at the time (spreading ice out), and the fact that the extent/area ratio was higher than typical (people over at neven's blog were tracking that).<br /><br />There's no doubt that compaction plays a role when wind conditions are right. This is not to say that the ice isn't melting. Also, obviously it was and is.<br /><br />For the past few days (week? week+?), conditions have also been good for pushing ice through the Fram Strait. That should be melting as it moves into more southern waters but the immediate impact is that it tends to spread out and thus get caught as a local increase in extent, until it melts below that 15% threshold.<br /><br />CT's area anomaly is between that of 2008 and 2009 at the moment, as is extent.<br /><br />"But in this case the boundary moved a fairly large distance overnight. Much faster than the merely circulation of the sea ice. It would appear to have been due to melt. The ice is thin."<br /><br />Apparently there's been some really warm water there (by ice standards). Thin ice melts faster. Ice that's spread out melts faster. Thin ice is more easily moved around by wind, causing extent to grow or shrink depending on conditions.<br /><br />And ever-shrinking volume is the real story.dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-72342833176591452812010-08-27T12:36:38.553-04:002010-08-27T12:36:38.553-04:00dhogaza, earlier in the thread you had written, &q...dhogaza, earlier in the thread you had written, "You can see that with the right wind conditions, this would compact and extent would drop mightily. His second graphic shows the ship's position (the blinking red indicator doesn't contrast well with the purple ice extent coloration, you might need to stare for a moment, I did)."<br /><br />Now I have just observed, "Yesterday I saw a large region go to blue -- and I expected that region to disappear the next day. Sure enough. A large region -- and the ice is just gone."<br /><br />What you were suggesting was a somewhat superficial change: the compactification of ice by the winds -- but not the actual melting. The idea being that the extent greatly inflates the apparent amount of ice.<br /><br />However it would appear that the change that I have just observed isn't due to compactification. If it were you wouldn't expect to see the distance that the boundary has traveled to be so great.<br /><br />The extent changing as the result of a long stretch of ice with the boundary moving a short distance perpendicular to the length of the ice? That could be due to compactification.<br /><br />But in this case the boundary moved a fairly large distance overnight. Much faster than the merely circulation of the sea ice. It would appear to have been due to melt. The ice is thin.Timothy Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16400529485899488733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46661752722464634382010-08-27T12:13:09.195-04:002010-08-27T12:13:09.195-04:00Regarding the question of whether the absorption o...Regarding the question of whether the absorption of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide counts as either chemistry or photochemistry, Richard wrote, "Chemistry is the study of chemicals: Their properties, reactions and interactions, no?"<br /><br />I think I can see what you are arguing here: your are taking the absorption spectra of a molecule to be a property of the molecule itself. With me I am viewing the interaction between the infrared light and greenhouse gas as an interaction, as something relational, and therefore not as a property of the molecule or gas.<br /><br />It is the difference between intrinsic properties and dispositional properties where presumably the dispositional properties would derive from the intrinsic properties of the objects themselves. I am thinking in terms of intrinsic properties and you in terms of both intrinsic and dispositional properties.<br /><br />However we cannot know the intrinsic properties of a thing except insofar as it interacts with and therefore relates to something else. This being the case one could easily argue that the dichotomy between intrinsic and dispositional properties is artificial.<br /><br />So you may have a point.<br /><br />Personally I would argue that the difference between intrinsic and dispositional properties is epistemological, that is, a matter of context. Thus it makes sense to regard the absorption spectra of carbon dioxide a (dispositional) property of carbon dioxide. But when you are simply speaking of the absorption and emission of radiation by carbon dioxide this wouldn't be a property of carbon dioxide itself but a relationship between carbon dioxide and radiation.<br /><br />The difference being whether or not anything is gained -- that is in terms of cognitive economy -- by bringing in a dispositional property. Furthermore there is most certainly an "intrinsic" property of sorts that is readily identifiable in the case of carbon dioxide absorbing and emitting thermal radiation: quantized state of molecular excitation.<br /><br />But is the change from one state to another and back a change from one category of molecule to another? I would argue that it isn't -- based on the reversibility of the transformation -- as it applies to the molecule itself.Timothy Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16400529485899488733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-78890266305598400492010-08-27T11:28:41.365-04:002010-08-27T11:28:41.365-04:00dhogaza, Yesterday I saw a large region go to blue...dhogaza, Yesterday I saw a large region go to blue -- and I expected that region to disappear the next day. Sure enough. A large region -- and the ice is just gone.<br /><br />People can see it here:<br /><br />http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate.arctic.color.0.html<br /><br />Left-click on the squares representing the frames that you don't care to see so that they change to red and slide to the left the scrollbar in the upper right so that you can watch the changes from one frame to another.Timothy Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16400529485899488733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35927973346284330292010-08-27T11:02:41.446-04:002010-08-27T11:02:41.446-04:00Richard, the way I view it is that while photochem...Richard, the way I view it is that while photochemistry is certainly a branch of chemistry and for example high energy photons are involved in chemical reactions in the stratosphere during the splitting of the ozone molecule -- making it photochemistry, no actual transformation of a chemical from one to another is taking place when carbon dioxide absorbs or emits infrared radiation. Therefore at that point while you have the interaction between radiation and matter it isn't chemistry, not even photochemistry.<br /><br />The absorption and emission of thermal radiation by carbon dioxide is still physics, radiation transfer theory and quantum mechanics as it involves the interaction between radiation and matter. But for it to be chemistry you would have to have the transformation of one set of chemicals into another -- similar to the splitting of ozone in stratospheric chemistry. No such changes are occurring. Therefore it isn't photochemistry. Of course it is possible that I am missing something.Timothy Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16400529485899488733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-70240368326397236322010-08-27T09:08:45.400-04:002010-08-27T09:08:45.400-04:00In an attempt to drag this thread back on-topic, p...In an attempt to drag this thread back on-topic, please note that as of today JAXA's sea ice extent number has dropped below Steven Goddard's predicted 5.5 million km^2.<br /><br />(assuming one lets him off the hook for his earlier "recovery to 2006" "prediction".)dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-53673210768782033772010-08-27T07:54:12.590-04:002010-08-27T07:54:12.590-04:00Richard C, chemistry is the study of matter, its t...Richard C, chemistry is the study of matter, its transformations, and the energy changes associated with those transformations. Understanding how molecules gain and lose energy (via electromagnetic radiation and collisions as Tim points out) is certainly in the realm of chemistry. That is not to say that it is of interest to all chemists. (As Eli points out, the organikers in particular)Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-23985421543537676372010-08-27T02:19:28.139-04:002010-08-27T02:19:28.139-04:00Tim
I not sure how to grace you with a link to my...Tim<br /><br />I not sure how to grace you with a link to my degree!<br /><br />Chemistry is the study of chemicals: Their properties, reactions and interactions, no?<br /><br />Richard CAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-50445477795580252552010-08-26T23:55:37.896-04:002010-08-26T23:55:37.896-04:00Tim, I like your blog and I added some comments ev...Tim, I like your blog and I added some comments even if the location is ephemeral.<br /><br />To reiterate P-chem is all about radiative transfer and what not:) Keep up the good work on introns and alternative splicing mechanisms.Jacob Macknoreply@blogger.com