sethoflagos

But won't a significant number of bronze alloys yield a false positive for this test? I'm thinking in particular of most aluminium bronzes and gunmetals. And perhaps a word of caution against employing aggressive bucket chemistry on materials that can have significant lead and arsenic content?

No. There are too many (ie hundreds) of different alloy compositions under these umbrella headings, and no simple single test will uniquely separate them. Aluminium bronzes typically contain no intentionally introduced tin. (But some grades do) Admiralty brasses can contain both zinc and tin in varying amounts. So there is a certain amount of overlap and the choice of whether to class an alloy as a brass or a bronze can be a matter of convention rather than actual composition. Any experienced eye can usually recognise the more common (and more familiar) brass alloys by colour (both metal and patina) and context (brasses and bronzes typically have distinct applications). It takes a certain amount of courage to make a positive identification of many of the bronzes without recourse to eg. X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy.

Emily Lime prefers her limes detartrated.

Execrable. No. My street food takeaway tonight is four sticks of barbecued kidney; salad of raw cabbage, onion, tomatoes, and cucumber seasoned with suya pepper. Delicious, healthy, and enough to see me through tomorrow. Cost me all of $2.

Checked my own favourite brand. Interesting FAQ that has a ring of honesty about it. Taylors ImpactProgress on our plant-based tea bagsWe're working towards removing all oil-based plastic from our tea bags, moving towards plant based alternatives.Obviously a bit of a dilemma as to the biodegradability of PLA. I have to admit to a leaning towards pyrolysis as the most credible disposal route (short of a simple ban on manufacture/ import) for all persistent polymers. https://www.taylorsimpact.com/environmental-footprint/products-packaging/products-and-plastics/plastic-in-tea-bags

Dark times maybe. But I enjoyed that!

No. Not really. Think about it. If DPG keeps cosmetic products moist under drying ambient conditions, this implies that at some concentration within the formulation, it is able to extract moisture from air at perhaps <50% RH. This makes it a humectant wrt to the facepack or whatever it is a component of, but wrt the ambient surroundings it is a dessicant, and this is how it is classified on eg. PubChem. This does not sound compatible with a 50:50 aqueous solution buffering an equilibrium 70% RH atmosphere which is what you want in a humidor and what MPG provides.

... where it is a part of the formulation and helps retain moisture within that product. So yes, it acts as a humectant in that context. But we are not talking about that context are we? The DPG is not going inside the... cigars(?) As I said, I wish you well.

I wish you well. But I would caution that just as ethylene glycol (MEG), diethylene glycol (DEG), and triethylene glycol (TEG) have very different enduse applications due at least in part to their very different hygroscopic strengths (TEG being by far the strongest dehumidifier), then you may find out why propylene glycol is a recognised humectant and DPG is not.

Take Copernicus' heliocentric model as an example. Due to his lifelong conviction that planetary orbits should be perfectly circular, the existing epicycle models had better predictive success than he could ever achieve. Any contemporary who valued empirical data more highly than mathematical purity would naturally reject Copernican theory until Digges' modification began to shift the balance. Do we not see some of that difference still at the forefront of science today? Those who follow the empirical data, however ugly, wherever it leads, and those who go seeking pretty mathematical models whether or not the data is pointing in that direction. May be it's not so much a dichotomy as a spectrum, but even so... Sorry, I'm quoting @TheVat there, not @CharonY

No. Just our way of telling you to...

Not sure @zapatos has yet posted to this thread. That's you referring to those who have not read the papers... ... and this is also you referring to people who have and don't buy into the science (otherwise "obtuse" would be the wrong word) Different "thems". Why are you attempting to conflate two mutually exclusive contexts? Obviously. The phrasing had a distinct odour of LLM. The paper discusses the challenges of real world measurement NOT the validity of estimates generated by mathematical modelling. Two entirely different classes of data and therefore utterly irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't support your argument in the slightest. Clearly a bit of dead catting. Howl it to the moon. No one else is agreeing with you. My assertion is withheld as it would contravene site rules in so many ways.

The other way round, isn't it? Australia sent them Rupert Murdoch.

Back when "them" referred to people who hadn't read any of the science rather than those who had but were simply being "obtuse"? Nevertheless,, comment withdrawn with apologies.

But it didn't, did it. It is even further away from the <-50o C limit currently accepted for an ice dominated earth. So your assertion is, as you would not hesitate to say, "factually inaccurate". The heart of this thread is about how to establish credibilty. Your postings are fine examples of how to achieve the opposite. You didn't use those words either. Not even close. Haven't you been pulled up for misquoting in other threads? Illuminating. Chrome has a neat little "Find" function that allows one to check if a purported quote is truly contained within a document. This one isn't from your referenced paper. Not even close. Under the circumstances, I don't feel inclined to take this assertion at face value.

Yet your 'precise' -18o C turns out to be a worse estimate than my 'nearest round number' -20o C. Isn't that strange. Where exactly did you say this? Can't seem to find it.

In the absence clearly stated tolerances, the more the number of significant digits, the greater the lie (a generalisation but pretty well grounded) Do you have a shred of evidence that more than one person in a hundred habitually reads academic papers?

The lunar diurnal variation has been gnawing away at me. I approximated the lunar surface temperature to be 251 +/- D Kelvin for daytime/nighttime average temperature values and calculated for D. Turns out that a D value as low as 60 K was enough to account for the temperature discrepancy of 20 K I'd run into in the opening post.

If the message is to be taken on board by the target audience then it most definitely does have to be intentionally simplified - to a choice of where we want to be in a narrow Goldilocks zone in the spectrum between Moon (really bad) and Venus (even worse). The moment you get into tipping points and feedback mechanisms etc., you've lost your target audience and the other side win. That is the nature of the game whether you wish it or not. Arguing over eg. exact figures for hypothetical scenarios is just playing into the enemy's hands. It shows us to be weak and divided when it is imperative we appear strong and united.

Think this through. If as you say, this hypothetical earth were at or around -20oC then what state are the oceans in? As things stand, earth has a significantly higher albedo than the moon, and an ice covering will increase that difference considerably. This will drive the equilibrium temperature of the earth down to the <-50oC estimates for 'Snowball Earth' scenarios of the late Proterozoic. (Ref: Hoffman, P. F., Kaufman, A. J., Halverson, G. P., & Schrag, D. P. (1998). "A new model for Neoproterozoic glaciation." Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 286(1-2), 295-310.; Abbot, D. S., & Tziperman, E. (2009). "Glacial–interglacial cycles and Snowball Earth." Nature, 457(7227), 179-183.) For the specific purposes of this topic, I did not need to introduce this complication in order to establish the principle that having some greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is beneficial. I chose this wording carefully: it is in agreement with expert concensus. Something of an understatement actually.

Perhaps you should read through the threads before you post to them and gain some small understanding of what's actually being discussed.

On what planet is "-18°C to -19°C" "much colder" than "-23°C"? "much colder (than)" is a subset of "no higher than" Why the italics and quotation marks around "like the Moon"? Not my words, even inferentially. "because the greenhouse effect is absent" is a subset of "Without CO2" Can't actually find any significant rebuttal in your post - more of an incoherent paraphrasing of my own argument. You say that as if it were (in context) a bad thing.

Is that big business where you come from - exporting roadkill to the international sashimi market?

IMHO the best priest is the pointy end of a spring-handled welding hammer. Definitely the bees knees if you're sharing the deck of a small boat with a lively 20 kg barracuda or similar. I've tried most options...

Is that pertinent? The OP seems to present an arguable reason.