On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 05:48:45 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>And these estimates by NOAA are considered conservative.
>
>All the while U.S. is racing to produce as much gas and petroleum as possible. Manmade GHG emissions are increasing. Morons are doing as much as possible to obstruct conversion to renewable energy, defame new technologies, such as cold weather heat pumps, defame EVs.
>
>Democracy is clearly not working, or, maybe it is if you allow for people getting their just deserts as a benefit, some kind of correction as the finance industry describes disaster.
>
>https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/events/US/2023?disasters[]=all-disasters

Global Warming is now "life threatening cold" in mid-USA.

On 1/12/24 12:21, John Larkin wrote:
<snip>

>
> Global Warming is now "life threatening cold" in mid-USA.
>

Tell it like it is Rush!

On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:34:51 -0500, jim whitby <jim@afraid.org> wrote:

>On 1/12/24 12:21, John Larkin wrote:
><snip>
>
>>
>> Global Warming is now "life threatening cold" in mid-USA.
>>
>
>Tell it like it is Rush!
>

Once the climate experts said we'd all freeze to death. Then we'd die
of heat exhaustion. They have hedged their "science" to be "climate
change" now so that whatever happens, they were right.

That's the story when predicting future states of strongly chaotic
systems. Most any predictions are eventually true.

It's nice day here. We finally had a bunch of rain and I expect that
our seasonal creek is running again. And there's snow in the
mountains.

On 13/01/2024 4:21 am, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 05:48:45 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And these estimates by NOAA are considered conservative.
>>
>> All the while U.S. is racing to produce as much gas and petroleum as possible. Manmade GHG emissions are increasing. Morons are doing as much as possible to obstruct conversion to renewable energy, defame new technologies, such as cold weather heat pumps, defame EVs.
>>
>> Democracy is clearly not working, or, maybe it is if you allow for people getting their just deserts as a benefit, some kind of correction as the finance industry describes disaster.
>>
>> https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/events/US/2023?disasters[]=all-disasters
>
> Global Warming is now "life threatening cold" in mid-USA.

That's why people prefer to talk about "climate change". Global warming
talks about the average temperatures over the entire planet, but that
does admit periods of colder-than-usual weather in some places.

The major effect of a warmer average temperature over the entire planet
is warmer ocean surfaces and more water vapour in the atmosphere, which
drives more extreme weather.

When that water vapour condenses over land (as a lot of it does) it
dumps energy into weather systems which can get more energetic than they
used to be.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 13/01/2024 4:21 am, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 05:48:45 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And these estimates by NOAA are considered conservative.
>>
>> All the while U.S. is racing to produce as much gas and petroleum as possible. Manmade GHG emissions are increasing. Morons are doing as much as possible to obstruct conversion to renewable energy, defame new technologies, such as cold weather heat pumps, defame EVs.
>>
>> Democracy is clearly not working, or, maybe it is if you allow for people getting their just deserts as a benefit, some kind of correction as the finance industry describes disaster.
>>
>> https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/events/US/2023?disasters[]=all-disasters
>
> Global Warming is now "life threatening cold" in mid-USA.

That's why people prefer to talk about climate change.

Global warming is a higher surface temperature averaged over the entire
planet. This is perfectly compatible with periods of colder-than usual
weather in particular places.

The main effect of global warming is warmer sea-surface temperatures and
more water vapour in the air.

When this condenses out - often over land - it dumps the heat of
vapourisation into local weather systems which can become more energetic
than they used to.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 13/01/2024 9:26 am, john larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:34:51 -0500, jim whitby <jim@afraid.org> wrote:
>
>> On 1/12/24 12:21, John Larkin wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>> Global Warming is now "life threatening cold" in mid-USA.
>>>
>>
>> Tell it like it is Rush!
>>
>
> Once the climate experts said we'd all freeze to death.

They never did. In the 1970's a few people speculated about a new ice
age, but our species has survived a few of them, so another one wouldn't
have frozen us all to death.

> Then we'd die of heat exhaustion. They have hedged their "science" to be "climate
> change" now so that whatever happens, they were right.

You don't pay any attention to what they actually say, so your opinion
is worthless.

> That's the story when predicting future states of strongly chaotic
> systems. Most any predictions are eventually true.

If you don't pay any attention to what is actually predicted, you can
think that.

> It's nice day here. We finally had a bunch of rain and I expect that
> our seasonal creek is running again. And there's snow in the
> mountains.
Global warming science needs to integrate a few more observations than that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 3:18:48 PM UTC+11, a a wrote:
> The arsehole Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> persisting in being an Off-topic troll...

Darius/a a puts a lot of effort into reminding us that he imagines everybody else to be an idiot and an asshole.

He lacks the wit to be aware that he really should tell us why he thinks that. As it stands he has told us that a lot of people are idiots who any objective observer would recognise as tolerably clever. That makes him the idiotic asshole.

--
Bill Sloman,. Sydney

On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 12:15:30 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 12:22:57 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 05:48:45 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> > <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >And these estimates by NOAA are considered conservative.
> > >
> > >All the while U.S. is racing to produce as much gas and petroleum as possible. Manmade GHG emissions are increasing. Morons are doing as much as possible to obstruct conversion to renewable energy, defame new technologies, such as cold weather heat pumps, defame EVs.
> > >
> > >Democracy is clearly not working, or, maybe it is if you allow for people getting their just deserts as a benefit, some kind of correction as the finance industry describes disaster.
> > >
> > >https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/events/US/2023?disasters[]=all-disasters
> > Global Warming is now "life threatening cold" in mid-USA.
> That sounds sarcastic but it's actually scientifically factual. The exceedingly warm atmospheric temperatures and their accompanying high pressure have produced a sudden warming of the stratospheric polar vortex. The high pressure regions acting on the tropospheric base of the vortex have pinched it in two. It was so severe this year they were expecting the tropospheric jet stream to come to a complete halt and possibly even reverse direction. The major end result is this fragmented dual polar vortex in the troposphere that is longer 'polar', dipping into ridiculously low latitudes, and bringing freezing weather with it, it is winter afterall, equatorial plane has negative declination.
>
> So, yep, you're right, global warming has in fact produced exceedingly cold winter weather across the U.S.
>
> Global warming is much more involved than just high temperatures. It is mainly high climate energy, and with that comes highly erratic and extreme weather. And there's an added bonus: the sensitivity of climate response to the Earth energy imbalance increase nonlinearly. Best estimates are that the current level of energy imbalance is equivalent to atmospheric CO2 concentration of 500 ppm.

Fred has got most of that right, but he does keep wittering on about Earth's "energy imbalance". Climate change is all about what happens on the surface of the earth and in the atmosphere above it. Raising the temperature of the surface by 1.5C would eventually raise the temperature of the whole earth by that much but it would take a very long time. There's a six month lag in the top eighteen inches of the solid earth under your feet, and there's 4000 miles of rock between the surface and the core. There's an energy imbalance while this is going on but it has got no practical significance at all.

> 2023 was an example of 1.5oC temperature rise, it's here to stay, and the climate is accelerating to 10oC.

It's not "accelerating". So far we've progressively dumped more CO2 into the atmosphere every year but we are on track so starting dumping less every year, as renewable energy sources start supplying progressively more of our energy consumption

> Enjoy watching your children die, because there's nothing that can be done to save them.

Twaddle. Fred's feckless pessimism is quite as silly and unrealistic as John Larkin's equally feckless recycling of climate change denial propaganda.

Neither has a clue about what they are talking about.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 05:15:25 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 12:22:57?PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 05:48:45 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >And these estimates by NOAA are considered conservative.
>> >
>> >All the while U.S. is racing to produce as much gas and petroleum as possible. Manmade GHG emissions are increasing. Morons are doing as much as possible to obstruct conversion to renewable energy, defame new technologies, such as cold weather heat pumps, defame EVs.
>> >
>> >Democracy is clearly not working, or, maybe it is if you allow for people getting their just deserts as a benefit, some kind of correction as the finance industry describes disaster.
>> >
>> >https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/events/US/2023?disasters[]=all-disasters
>> Global Warming is now "life threatening cold" in mid-USA.
>
>That sounds sarcastic but it's actually scientifically factual. The exceedingly warm atmospheric temperatures and their accompanying high pressure have produced a sudden warming of the stratospheric polar vortex. The high pressure regions acting on the tropospheric base of the vortex have pinched it in two. It was so severe this year they were expecting the tropospheric jet stream to come to a complete halt and possibly even reverse direction. The major end result is this fragmented dual polar vortex in the troposphere that is longer 'polar', dipping into ridiculously low latitudes, and bringing freezing weather with it, it is winter afterall, equatorial plane has negative declination.
>
>So, yep, you're right, global warming has in fact produced exceedingly cold winter weather across the U.S.
>
>Global warming is much more involved than just high temperatures. It is mainly high climate energy, and with that comes highly erratic and extreme weather. And there's an added bonus: the sensitivity of climate response to the Earth energy imbalance increase nonlinearly. Best estimates are that the current level of energy imbalance is equivalent to atmospheric CO2 concentration of 500 ppm.

I'd vote for 800.

Climate Change is more a social+political thing than a physical event.
The public is bored with it already.

>
>2023 was an example of 1.5oC temperature rise, it's here to stay, and the climate is accelerating to 10oC.
>
>Enjoy watching your children die, because there's nothing that can be done to save them.

Absurd. People are healthier and living longer than in past times, and
the trend is still up. I expect some serious advances in disease and
cancer treatment in this century, and of course better lives for the
billions now in extreme poverty.

On 2024/01/13 7:46 a.m., John Larkin wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 05:15:25 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 12:22:57?PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 05:48:45 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
>>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> And these estimates by NOAA are considered conservative.
>>>>
>>>> All the while U.S. is racing to produce as much gas and petroleum as possible. Manmade GHG emissions are increasing. Morons are doing as much as possible to obstruct conversion to renewable energy, defame new technologies, such as cold weather heat pumps, defame EVs.
>>>>
>>>> Democracy is clearly not working, or, maybe it is if you allow for people getting their just deserts as a benefit, some kind of correction as the finance industry describes disaster.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/events/US/2023?disasters[]=all-disasters
>>> Global Warming is now "life threatening cold" in mid-USA.
>>
>> That sounds sarcastic but it's actually scientifically factual. The exceedingly warm atmospheric temperatures and their accompanying high pressure have produced a sudden warming of the stratospheric polar vortex. The high pressure regions acting on the tropospheric base of the vortex have pinched it in two. It was so severe this year they were expecting the tropospheric jet stream to come to a complete halt and possibly even reverse direction. The major end result is this fragmented dual polar vortex in the troposphere that is longer 'polar', dipping into ridiculously low latitudes, and bringing freezing weather with it, it is winter afterall, equatorial plane has negative declination.
>>
>> So, yep, you're right, global warming has in fact produced exceedingly cold winter weather across the U.S.
>>
>> Global warming is much more involved than just high temperatures. It is mainly high climate energy, and with that comes highly erratic and extreme weather. And there's an added bonus: the sensitivity of climate response to the Earth energy imbalance increase nonlinearly. Best estimates are that the current level of energy imbalance is equivalent to atmospheric CO2 concentration of 500 ppm.
>
> I'd vote for 800.
>
> Climate Change is more a social+political thing than a physical event.
> The public is bored with it already.
>
>>
>> 2023 was an example of 1.5oC temperature rise, it's here to stay, and the climate is accelerating to 10oC.
>>
>> Enjoy watching your children die, because there's nothing that can be done to save them.
>
> Absurd. People are healthier and living longer than in past times, and
> the trend is still up. I expect some serious advances in disease and
> cancer treatment in this century, and of course better lives for the
> billions now in extreme poverty.
>

I like to read old 1930s newspapers to get an idea of the last extreme
warming event - you may have heard of the Dust Bowl and the record heat
waves then that haven't yet been broken. Odd how the 'modern' heat
records always start from 1938.

Anyway, one thing that came out during the heat wave in 1936 was the
unprecedented extreme cold the previous winter. Winter temperatures like
today's set records then.

After a couple of years of extreme cold and heat the planet average temp
dropped for a while as the remnants of the Little Ice Age worked their
course.

And that is the period that 'modern' records start as it looks better on
the graphs.

John ;-#)#

PS, what is particularly interesting is the NASA study by Patrick
Minnis, on contrails both after 911 and Covid events. World temperatures
dropped by 1 to 1.5F just after 911 (essentially all the warming from
1970 to 2001), and a slight drop was noticed during the dramatic drop in
air traffic during Covid.

https://clouds.larc.nasa.gov/sass/NY_TIMES_091702.html

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/contrail-effect/

Note this research was denounced by James Hansen and other climatologists...

What was it that someone once said about a single person can prove his
theory wrong? I suspect Patrick Minnis, a senior research scientist at
NASA's Langely Research Center may fit that.

On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 2:47:42 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 05:15:25 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 12:22:57?PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 05:48:45 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> >So, yep, you're right, global warming has in fact produced exceedingly cold winter weather across the U.S.
> >
> >Global warming is much more involved than just high temperatures. It is mainly high climate energy, and with that comes highly erratic and extreme weather. And there's an added bonus: the sensitivity of climate response to the Earth energy imbalance increase nonlinearly. Best estimates are that the current level of energy imbalance is equivalent to atmospheric CO2 concentration of 500 ppm.
>
> I'd vote for 800.

You haven't got a vote - you don't know enough to have a opinion worth recording.

> Climate Change is more a social+political thing than a physical event.

The climate change denial propaganda machine likes to frame it that way.

In reality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

got the ball rolling in 1896, and it's applied science.

> The public is bored with it already.

Those that aren't being frozen to death or flooded out of their homes by its side-effects.

> >2023 was an example of 1.5oC temperature rise, it's here to stay, and the climate is accelerating to 10oC.
> >
> >Enjoy watching your children die, because there's nothing that can be done to save them.
>
> Absurd. People are healthier and living longer than in past times, and
> the trend is still up.

But unlikely to stay that way. Extrapolating a trend as if was a linear progression isn't great prophetic technique.

>I expect some serious advances in disease and cancer treatment in this century, and of course better lives for the
> billions now in extreme poverty.

Pollyanna would expect that. Serous advances in disease and cancer treatment don't help if you are starving to death, and climate change has already produced some nasty crop failures. There's one going on in north-eastern Australia at the moment - it's getting a lot more rain than usual and some farmers have lost their summer crops.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 3:04:49 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 9:11:04 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 12:15:30 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 12:22:57 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 05:48:45 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred....@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > > Global warming is much more involved than just high temperatures. It is mainly high climate energy, and with that comes highly erratic and extreme weather. And there's an added bonus: the sensitivity of climate response to the Earth energy imbalance increase nonlinearly. Best estimates are that the current level of energy imbalance is equivalent to atmospheric CO2 concentration of 500 ppm.
> >
> > Fred has got most of that right, but he does keep wittering on about Earth's "energy imbalance". Climate change is all about what happens on the surface of the earth and in the atmosphere above it. Raising the temperature of the surface by 1.5C would eventually raise the temperature of the whole earth by that much but it would take a very long time. There's a six month lag in the top eighteen inches of the solid earth under your feet, and there's 4000 miles of rock between the surface and the core. There's an energy imbalance while this is going on but it has got no practical significance at all.
>
> That idea is just handwaving. The various large bodies of thermal mass may take in excess heat, but that's the point, they are all getting warmer.

There's nothing "handwaving" in the concept of thermal lag. Fred doesn't seem to know anything about it, but any physicists could put him right.

> > > 2023 was an example of 1.5oC temperature rise, it's here to stay, and the climate is accelerating to 10oC.
> >
> > It's not "accelerating". So far we've progressively dumped more CO2 into the atmosphere every year but we are on track so starting dumping less every year, as renewable energy sources start supplying progressively more of our energy consumption
> > > Enjoy watching your children die, because there's nothing that can be done to save them.
> >
> > Twaddle. Fred's feckless pessimism is quite as silly and unrealistic as John Larkin's equally feckless recycling of climate change denial propaganda.
> >
> > Neither has a clue about what they are talking about.
>
> Hansen would disagree with you:
>
> https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/AnnualT2023.2024.01.12.pdf
>
> I'm pretty sure you can't understand a bit of it.

"Empirical evidence related to aerosol climate forcing will become clearer soon." is easily comprehensible.

He's worried about decreased aerosols in the atmosphere decreasing the planetary albedo. Oddly enough, that's one thing we could do something about by deliberately dumping SO2 in the stratosphere, Your line "Enjoy watching your children die, because there's nothing that can be done to save them." suggests that you have missed that. Hansen et al did give you a clue.

"Despite the absence of global monitoring of the aerosol climate forcing, it should be possible to resolve this
issue within the next few years with the help of the great inadvertent aerosol experiment caused by
the sharp imposition by the International Maritime Organization of rule changes on ship emissions."

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 3:06:58 AM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
> On 2024/01/13 7:46 a.m., John Larkin wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 05:15:25 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 12:22:57?PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 05:48:45 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred....@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> I like to read old 1930s newspapers to get an idea of the last extreme
> warming event - you may have heard of the Dust Bowl and the record heat
> waves then that haven't yet been broken. Odd how the 'modern' heat
> records always start from 1938.

The last extreme warming event was at the end of the last ice age. There aren't any newspapers surviving from back then,
>
> Anyway, one thing that came out during the heat wave in 1936 was the
> unprecedented extreme cold the previous winter. Winter temperatures like
> today's set records then.
>
> After a couple of years of extreme cold and heat the planet average temp
> dropped for a while as the remnants of the Little Ice Age worked their
> course.

The "little ice age" was a local variation around the north Atlantic. Climate change denial freaks do ignore that.
>
> And that is the period that 'modern' records start as it looks better on the graphs.
>
> PS, what is particularly interesting is the NASA study by Patrick
> Minnis, on contrails both after 911 and Covid events. World temperatures
> dropped by 1 to 1.5F just after 911 (essentially all the warming from
> 1970 to 2001), and a slight drop was noticed during the dramatic drop in
> air traffic during Covid.
>
> https://clouds.larc.nasa.gov/sass/NY_TIMES_091702.html
>
> https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/contrail-effect/
>
> Note this research was denounced by James Hansen and other climatologists....
>
> What was it that someone once said about a single person can prove his
> theory wrong? I suspect Patrick Minnis, a senior research scientist at
> NASA's Langely Research Center may fit that.

It was Einstein who said that a single observation could prove his theory wrong. Hansen isn't touting any revolutionary theory - he's just got an opinion on the influence of atmospheric aerosols on the earth's albedo, which is a very complicated subject with room for lots of different opinions.

It also offers room for experiment. We know that we can get more aerosol particles in the stratosphere by dumping SO2 up there. Cleaning up acid rain got rid of a bunch of them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 2:26:44 PM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:34:51 -0500, jim whitby <j...@afraid.org> wrote:
>
> >On 1/12/24 12:21, John Larkin wrote:
> ><snip>
> >
> >>
> >> Global Warming is now "life threatening cold" in mid-USA.

The warming is seen in the world temperature map.

<https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/01/nasa-scientist-on-2023-temperatures-were-frankly-astonished/>

> Once the climate experts said we'd all freeze to death.

That's a lie. We've heard it before, and it doesn't pass factchecking.

On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 4:36:15 PM UTC+11, darius wrote:
> The arsehole Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> persisting in being an Off-topic troll...

Darius really likes the phrase "off-topic troll". He might be less fond of it if he had the wit to realise it fits him better than all the people he castigates as "off-topic trolls". Calling somebody an off-topic troll without saying why you want to apply that label to that particular post is what only trolls do, and without any reference to the topic under discussion, it has to be a off-topic assertion.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 1/14/24 10:39, whit3rd wrote:
> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 2:26:44 PM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:34:51 -0500, jim whitby <j...@afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/12/24 12:21, John Larkin wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Global Warming is now "life threatening cold" in mid-USA.
>
> The warming is seen in the world temperature map.
>
> <https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/01/nasa-scientist-on-2023-temperatures-were-frankly-astonished/>
>
>> Once the climate experts said we'd all freeze to death.
>
> That's a lie. We've heard it before, and it doesn't pass factchecking.

I don't agree. I remember it well. In the 1960's we had a
spade of very cold winters and the scare of the time was that
it would get worse. It didn't.

Today's climatologists will deny it, of course, but it was
really what they told us at the time. And of course, there
were dissidents then too.

Jeroen Belleman

On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 9:07:49 PM UTC+11, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 1/14/24 10:39, whit3rd wrote:
> > On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 2:26:44 PM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
> >> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:34:51 -0500, jim whitby <j...@afraid.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 1/12/24 12:21, John Larkin wrote:
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Global Warming is now "life threatening cold" in mid-USA.
> >
> > The warming is seen in the world temperature map.
> >
> > <https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/01/nasa-scientist-on-2023-temperatures-were-frankly-astonished/>
> >
> >> Once the climate experts said we'd all freeze to death.
> >
> > That's a lie. We've heard it before, and it doesn't pass factchecking.
>
> I don't agree. I remember it well. In the 1960's we had a
> spate of very cold winters and the scare of the time was that
> it would get worse. It didn't.

That was journalists playing with an attention-getting idea put up by a few attention-hungry academics that we were due for new ice age.

We weren't, and there wasn't a shred of academic evidence that we were - in fact what research was being done was picking up early evidence of anthropogenic global warming - though there wasn't enough of it then to be statistically significant.

The climate experts certainly didn't take it seriously, or say anything as stupid as that "we'd all freeze to death" which even another ice age wouldn't have managed. As a species we've survived several.

John Larkin has posted a lie. It has some remote connection to reality but the "we'd all freeze to death" is pure invention.
> Today's climatologists will deny it, of course, but it was really what they told us at the time. And of course, there
> were dissidents then too.
It really wasn't. You and John are decorating what little you can remember with fantastical detail designed to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bland and unconvincing narrative.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/309058-merely-corroborative-detail-intended-to-give-artistic-verisimilitude-to-an

John Larkin has claimed that I never make jokes, but this should pass for one.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 4:43:11 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 10:38:04 PM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 3:04:49 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 9:11:04 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 12:15:30 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 12:22:57 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 05:48:45 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > > Global warming is much more involved than just high temperatures. It is mainly high climate energy, and with that comes highly erratic and extreme weather. And there's an added bonus: the sensitivity of climate response to the Earth energy imbalance increase nonlinearly. Best estimates are that the current level of energy imbalance is equivalent to atmospheric CO2 concentration of 500 ppm.
> > > >
> > > > Fred has got most of that right, but he does keep wittering on about Earth's "energy imbalance". Climate change is all about what happens on the surface of the earth and in the atmosphere above it. Raising the temperature of the surface by 1.5C would eventually raise the temperature of the whole earth by that much but it would take a very long time. There's a six month lag in the top eighteen inches of the solid earth under your feet, and there's 4000 miles of rock between the surface and the core. There's an energy imbalance while this is going on but it has got no practical significance at all.
> > >
> > > That idea is just handwaving. The various large bodies of thermal mass may take in excess heat, but that's the point, they are all getting warmer.
> > There's nothing "handwaving" in the concept of thermal lag. Fred doesn't seem to know anything about it, but any physicists could put him right.
> > > > > 2023 was an example of 1.5oC temperature rise, it's here to stay, and the climate is accelerating to 10oC.
> > > >
> > > > It's not "accelerating". So far we've progressively dumped more CO2 into the atmosphere every year but we are on track so starting dumping less every year, as renewable energy sources start supplying progressively more of our energy consumption
> > > > > Enjoy watching your children die, because there's nothing that can be done to save them.
> > > >
> > > > Twaddle. Fred's feckless pessimism is quite as silly and unrealistic as John Larkin's equally feckless recycling of climate change denial propaganda.
> > > >
> > > > Neither has a clue about what they are talking about.
> > >
> > > Hansen would disagree with you:
> > >
> > > https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/AnnualT2023.2024.01.12.pdf
> > >
> > > I'm pretty sure you can't understand a bit of it.
> > "Empirical evidence related to aerosol climate forcing will become clearer soon." is easily comprehensible.
>
> Not to you apparently. Hansen is mainly concerned with resolving the ambiguity between aerosol pollution and reduction in cloud feedback:

There is no ambiguity, Both increase the planet's albedo.

> '...it is difficult to apportion the albedo change
> between aerosol forcing and cloud feedbacks because of limited global measurements'.

But why would you bother?

> > He's worried about decreased aerosols in the atmosphere decreasing the planetary albedo. Oddly enough, that's one thing we could do something about by deliberately dumping SO2 in the stratosphere, Your line "Enjoy watching your children die, because there's nothing that can be done to save them." suggests that you have missed that. Hansen et al did give you a clue.

> Not sure Hansen ever advocated for geoengineering the atmosphere.

That's not part of his job. He's a climate scientists, not an environmental engineer.

> He has advocated for spreading basalt on every square inch of agricultural land. Disregarding the extreme cost of such a thing, and the inordinate time to have an effect, that's a very conservative approach.

It think you mean olivine. And the original dutch advocate for this idea preferred river banks and beaches. You need to crush the olivine to maximise it's surface area and keep it damp to speed up the absorption of CO2. It's not all that expensive, and once you'd crush the oivine to maximise it's surface area the process goes quite fast.

https://worksinprogress.co/issue/olivine-weathering/

The crucial point is that you need to crush the rock down to 10 to 50 micron particles - silt rather than sand - and while that isn't cheap it's quite a bit cheaper than getting rid of the CO2 it absorbs in any other way.

> If the best science is clearly having extreme difficulty with predicting the trajectory of climate change, then how well do you think their geoengineering program will work?

Predicting how fast CO2 will get sucked up by finely divided rock in a shallow tropical ocean is a lot easier than keeping track of ocean currents flowing from the equator towards the poles and back again.
> > "Despite the absence of global monitoring of the aerosol climate forcing, it should be possible to resolve this
> > issue within the next few years with the help of the great inadvertent aerosol experiment caused by
> > the sharp imposition by the International Maritime Organization of rule changes on ship emissions."

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 11:08:27 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

>On 1/14/24 10:39, whit3rd wrote:
>> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 2:26:44?PM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:34:51 -0500, jim whitby <j...@afraid.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/12/24 12:21, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Global Warming is now "life threatening cold" in mid-USA.
>>
>> The warming is seen in the world temperature map.
>>
>> <https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/01/nasa-scientist-on-2023-temperatures-were-frankly-astonished/>
>>
>>> Once the climate experts said we'd all freeze to death.
>>
>> That's a lie. We've heard it before, and it doesn't pass factchecking.
>
>I don't agree. I remember it well. In the 1960's we had a
>spade of very cold winters and the scare of the time was that
>it would get worse. It didn't.
>
>Today's climatologists will deny it, of course, but it was
>really what they told us at the time. And of course, there
>were dissidents then too.
>
>Jeroen Belleman

Yes, my wife and I remember it as well.

"The Cooling World", Newsweek, April 28, 1975, page 64.

It was called Global Cooling, and peaked in the 1970s or so, giving
way to Global Warming. The following describes the transition:

"Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing", by Walter Sullivan,
NWT May 21, 1975, page 45.

Later still, it transitioned to Climate Change when the heating did
not proceed as predicted.

Joe Gwinn

On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 11:23:10 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 11:08:27 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
><jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>
>>On 1/14/24 10:39, whit3rd wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 2:26:44?PM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:34:51 -0500, jim whitby <j...@afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/12/24 12:21, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Global Warming is now "life threatening cold" in mid-USA.
>>>
>>> The warming is seen in the world temperature map.
>>>
>>> <https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/01/nasa-scientist-on-2023-temperatures-were-frankly-astonished/>
>>>
>>>> Once the climate experts said we'd all freeze to death.
>>>
>>> That's a lie. We've heard it before, and it doesn't pass factchecking.
>>
>>I don't agree. I remember it well. In the 1960's we had a
>>spade of very cold winters and the scare of the time was that
>>it would get worse. It didn't.
>>
>>Today's climatologists will deny it, of course, but it was
>>really what they told us at the time. And of course, there
>>were dissidents then too.
>>
>>Jeroen Belleman
>
>Yes, my wife and I remember it as well.
>
>"The Cooling World", Newsweek, April 28, 1975, page 64.
>
>It was called Global Cooling, and peaked in the 1970s or so, giving
>way to Global Warming. The following describes the transition:
>
>"Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing", by Walter Sullivan,
>NWT May 21, 1975, page 45.
>
>Later still, it transitioned to Climate Change when the heating did
>not proceed as predicted.
>
>Joe Gwinn

Everything is about on schedule.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png/660px-MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png

We can probably geoegineer away the worst of the coming ice age.

On 16/01/2024 3:23 am, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 11:08:27 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>
>> On 1/14/24 10:39, whit3rd wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 2:26:44?PM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:34:51 -0500, jim whitby <j...@afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/12/24 12:21, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Global Warming is now "life threatening cold" in mid-USA.
>>>
>>> The warming is seen in the world temperature map.
>>>
>>> <https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/01/nasa-scientist-on-2023-temperatures-were-frankly-astonished/>
>>>
>>>> Once the climate experts said we'd all freeze to death.
>>>
>>> That's a lie. We've heard it before, and it doesn't pass factchecking.
>>
>> I don't agree. I remember it well. In the 1960's we had a
>> spade of very cold winters and the scare of the time was that
>> it would get worse. It didn't.
>>
>> Today's climatologists will deny it, of course, but it was
>> really what they told us at the time. And of course, there
>> were dissidents then too.
>>
>> Jeroen Belleman
>
> Yes, my wife and I remember it as well.
>
> "The Cooling World", Newsweek, April 28, 1975, page 64.
>
> It was called Global Cooling, and peaked in the 1970s or so, giving
> way to Global Warming. The following describes the transition:
>
> "Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing", by Walter Sullivan,
> NWT May 21, 1975, page 45.
>
> Later still, it transitioned to Climate Change when the heating did
> not proceed as predicted.

But nobody said "we'd all freeze to death".

All that was going on was a cooling phase of multidecal Atlantic
oscillation (which hadn't been noticed at time).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

At the same time coal fired generating plants were dumping lots of SO2
into the atmosphere, producing acid rain - which is why we have SO2
scrubbers in the smoke stacks of modern generating plants - and that was
increasing the aerosol level in the stratosphere, which also had a minor
cooling effect.

It was all fractions of a degree stuff, and not remotely comparable with
anthropogenic global warming.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 16/01/2024 4:17 am, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 11:23:10 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 11:08:27 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/14/24 10:39, whit3rd wrote:
>>>> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 2:26:44?PM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:34:51 -0500, jim whitby <j...@afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/12/24 12:21, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Global Warming is now "life threatening cold" in mid-USA.
>>>>
>>>> The warming is seen in the world temperature map.
>>>>
>>>> <https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/01/nasa-scientist-on-2023-temperatures-were-frankly-astonished/>
>>>>
>>>>> Once the climate experts said we'd all freeze to death.
>>>>
>>>> That's a lie. We've heard it before, and it doesn't pass factchecking.
>>>
>>> I don't agree. I remember it well. In the 1960's we had a
>>> spade of very cold winters and the scare of the time was that
>>> it would get worse. It didn't.
>>>
>>> Today's climatologists will deny it, of course, but it was
>>> really what they told us at the time. And of course, there
>>> were dissidents then too.
>>>
>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>
>> Yes, my wife and I remember it as well.
>>
>> "The Cooling World", Newsweek, April 28, 1975, page 64.
>>
>> It was called Global Cooling, and peaked in the 1970s or so, giving
>> way to Global Warming. The following describes the transition:
>>
>> "Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing", by Walter Sullivan,
>> NWT May 21, 1975, page 45.
>>
>> Later still, it transitioned to Climate Change when the heating did
>> not proceed as predicted.
>
> Everything is about on schedule.
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png/660px-MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png

It isn't, and an out-of-context bunch of graphs isn't any kind of
evidence of anything.

It's just the graphs that might support a long version of this article,
without the commentary that would have illustrated that John Larkin (or
more likely his climate change denial source) - was misrepresenting them.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/

> We can probably geoegineer away the worst of the coming ice age.

https://www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean/ocean-topics/climate-weather/abrupt-climate-change/are-we-on-the-brink-of-a-new-little-ice-age/

doesn't think that there's any "coming ice age". There might have been
if we hadn't geo-engineered a nasty lump of anthropogenic global
warming, but one of the side effect of looking at anthropogenic global
warming is that we now have a much better idea of how we flip from ice
ages to interglacials, and back, and it is now thought that the current
interglacial would have been a long one anyway.

--
Bill Slomnan, Sydney

On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:23:28 AM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 11:08:27 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
> <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
>
> >On 1/14/24 10:39, whit3rd wrote:
> >> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 2:26:44?PM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:34:51 -0500, jim whitby <j...@afraid.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 1/12/24 12:21, John Larkin wrote:
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Global Warming is now "life threatening cold" in mid-USA.
> >>
> >> The warming is seen in the world temperature map.
> >>
> >> <https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/01/nasa-scientist-on-2023-temperatures-were-frankly-astonished/>
> >>
> >>> Once the climate experts said we'd all freeze to death.
> >>
> >> That's a lie. We've heard it before, and it doesn't pass factchecking.
> >
> >I don't agree. I remember it well. In the 1960's we had a
> >spade of very cold winters and the scare of the time was that
> >it would get worse. It didn't.
> >
> >Today's climatologists will deny it, of course, but it was
> >really what they told us at the time. And of course, there
> >were dissidents then too.

No denial is necessary. Science makes progress, and
peer review (looks like dissident activity) happens.
No news there, it was just another add-a-piece to the
big spreadsheet full of climate effects.
Sometimes the piece is UP, sometimes DOWN, sometimes
oscillatory. Until greenhouse gas changes, there was no
'scare of the time' happening.

> Yes, my wife and I remember it as well.
>
> "The Cooling World", Newsweek, April 28, 1975, page 64.
>
> It was called Global Cooling, and peaked in the 1970s or so, giving
> way to Global Warming. The following describes the transition:
>
> "Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing", by Walter Sullivan,
> NWT May 21, 1975, page 45.
>
> Later still, it transitioned to Climate Change when the heating did
> not proceed as predicted.

Nonsense. The 1970s story was about smog (and subsequent air-quality
improvements killed the effect). Entirely different issues and solutions, and
more importantly, NEVER a prediction of long term deviation
from normality.

Here's an account you can read without a trip to a library
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/>

On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 22:19:30 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:23:28?AM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 11:08:27 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
>> <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
>>
>> >On 1/14/24 10:39, whit3rd wrote:
>> >> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 2:26:44?PM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:34:51 -0500, jim whitby <j...@afraid.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 1/12/24 12:21, John Larkin wrote:
>> >>>> <snip>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Global Warming is now "life threatening cold" in mid-USA.
>> >>
>> >> The warming is seen in the world temperature map.
>> >>
>> >> <https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/01/nasa-scientist-on-2023-temperatures-were-frankly-astonished/>
>> >>
>> >>> Once the climate experts said we'd all freeze to death.
>> >>
>> >> That's a lie. We've heard it before, and it doesn't pass factchecking.
>> >
>> >I don't agree. I remember it well. In the 1960's we had a
>> >spade of very cold winters and the scare of the time was that
>> >it would get worse. It didn't.
>> >
>> >Today's climatologists will deny it, of course, but it was
>> >really what they told us at the time. And of course, there
>> >were dissidents then too.
>
>No denial is necessary. Science makes progress, and
>peer review (looks like dissident activity) happens.
>No news there, it was just another add-a-piece to the
>big spreadsheet full of climate effects.
>
>Sometimes the piece is UP, sometimes DOWN, sometimes
>oscillatory. Until greenhouse gas changes, there was no
>'scare of the time' happening.
>
>> Yes, my wife and I remember it as well.
>>
>> "The Cooling World", Newsweek, April 28, 1975, page 64.
>>
>> It was called Global Cooling, and peaked in the 1970s or so, giving
>> way to Global Warming. The following describes the transition:
>>
>> "Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing", by Walter Sullivan,
>> NYT May 21, 1975, page 45.
>>
>> Later still, it transitioned to Climate Change when the heating did
>> not proceed as predicted.
>
>Nonsense. The 1970s story was about smog (and subsequent air-quality
>improvements killed the effect). Entirely different issues and solutions, and
>more importantly, NEVER a prediction of long term deviation
>from normality.
>
>Here's an account you can read without a trip to a library
><https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/>

Easier isn't necessarily better. This ScAm article was written in
2014, but it actually doesn't matter if the author changed his mind
forty years after the fact.

We are talking about what people believed in the 1970s, when it was in
fact Global Cooling that people worried about.

Read the New York Times article, from their morgue. This is a
contemporaneous original source, written long before political storms
of today.

Here is the URL:

..<https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1975/05/21/80043535.html?pageNumber=45>

Scroll past the paywall stuff to see the text of the article. For the
diagrams you may need to subscribe, or visit your local Library.

Joe Gwinn

On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 4:30:19 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 22:19:30 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:23:28?AM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >> On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 11:08:27 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
> >> <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 1/14/24 10:39, whit3rd wrote:
> >> >> On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 2:26:44?PM UTC-8, john larkin wrote:
> >> >>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:34:51 -0500, jim whitby <j...@afraid.org> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On 1/12/24 12:21, John Larkin wrote:
> >> >>>> <snip>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Global Warming is now "life threatening cold" in mid-USA.
> >> >>
> >> >> The warming is seen in the world temperature map.
> >> >>
> >> >> <https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/01/nasa-scientist-on-2023-temperatures-were-frankly-astonished/>
> >> >>
> >> >>> Once the climate experts said we'd all freeze to death.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's a lie. We've heard it before, and it doesn't pass factchecking.
> >> >
> >> >I don't agree. I remember it well. In the 1960's we had a
> >> >spade of very cold winters and the scare of the time was that
> >> >it would get worse. It didn't.
> >> >
> >> >Today's climatologists will deny it, of course, but it was
> >> >really what they told us at the time. And of course, there
> >> >were dissidents then too.
> >
> >No denial is necessary. Science makes progress, and
> >peer review (looks like dissident activity) happens.
> >No news there, it was just another add-a-piece to the
> >big spreadsheet full of climate effects.
> >
> >Sometimes the piece is UP, sometimes DOWN, sometimes
> >oscillatory. Until greenhouse gas changes, there was no
> >'scare of the time' happening.
> >
> >> Yes, my wife and I remember it as well.
> >>
> >> "The Cooling World", Newsweek, April 28, 1975, page 64.
> >>
> >> It was called Global Cooling, and peaked in the 1970s or so, giving
> >> way to Global Warming. The following describes the transition:
> >>
> >> "Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing", by Walter Sullivan,
> >> NYT May 21, 1975, page 45.
> >>
> >> Later still, it transitioned to Climate Change when the heating did
> >> not proceed as predicted.
> >
> >Nonsense. The 1970s story was about smog (and subsequent air-quality
> >improvements killed the effect). Entirely different issues and solutions, and
> >more importantly, NEVER a prediction of long term deviation
> >from normality.
> >
> >Here's an account you can read without a trip to a library
> ><https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/>
> Easier isn't necessarily better. This ScAm article was written in
> 2014, but it actually doesn't matter if the author changed his mind
> forty years after the fact.
>
> We are talking about what people believed in the 1970s, when it was in
> fact Global Cooling that people worried about.

No, it wasn't. There were occasional alarmist articles about the next ice age, but nobody worried about it. Anthropogenic global warming is a much more serious issue, and we've now got heaps of evidence that it is actually happening.
Back then "the next ice age" was going to happen eventually, but there wasn't a shred of evidence that it might happen soon. and nobody took it seriously.
> Read the New York Times article, from their morgue. This is a
> contemporaneous original source, written long before political storms
> of today.
>
> Here is the URL:
>
> .<https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1975/05/21/80043535.html?pageNumber=45>
>
> Scroll past the paywall stuff to see the text of the article. For the
> diagrams you may need to subscribe, or visit your local Library.

I don't have to bother. I was reading New Scientist and Scientific American back then - I was 33 in 1975 and had had my Ph.D. in chemistry for some five years by then.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney