Geodude

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!1i

YOU GUYS ARE ALL PATHETIC, YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY BAN ME!!!!!!!!!! ATOMIKPSYCHO IS A FAG WHO LIKES GOATS!!!!!!!!!!!

ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO

ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO

ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO

[much more of the same... ]

ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO

ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO

ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO ATOMIKPSYCHO

Where is this echoing bollocsk coming from?

 

On the contrary, the followers of the modern day faith in manmade global warming are the religious types! They believe the claims without question or scrutiny because they are unable to interpret data, models and general draw conclusions of their own. See a pattern?

 

The suggestion that the scientifically cautious to flash-in-the-pan claims are creationist analogies is the pot calling the kettle black in the extreme.

LOL, the same could be said about you. We deniers at least look at the data BEFORE we say with certainty that it is bunk.

Dont come the idiot, you know full well Im parodying the type of guys you are a sockpuppet of. Just as you are parodying me. Who are you really? the guy with the judo avatar?

Excuse me? You actually believe that I am a sockpuppet! Geez, it seems as if you'll do anything to win an argument. You've already discredited yourself with your lame insults you know.

Ok here is the proof that global warming is our fault(you wont be able to understand it though because creationist type people dont understand percentages):

Gee, can't you be more creative with you insults. Seriously, do you think that I will actually be bothered by that! HA! They are just as pathetic as you are.

 

I don't think Geodude is being a troll, I think he's frustrated from banging his head against a wall of facts, truths and (to be blunt) locally-accepted norms. I could join you in calling him out for failing to defend his evidence, or remind him that telling people to google is not productive, but in the end he's going to have to learn the hard way that minds are pretty well set on this issue here, for better or worse. And you guys are doing just fine without my underinformed help.

 

Thanks, I guess.... I already promised to be more specific when needed.

Geodude, IMO the best that GW opponents can really accomplish on a regular basis here at SFN are efforts like those of SkepticLance who can routinely hold his own on the sub-issue of the level of human contribution to GW. That's about it. Whether that's a reflection on a higher truth, or just a local social thing, well, I'm not qualified to say. I defer to those more intelligent and informed on the subject, and I have to say they have a lot of intelligent things to say. You should hear them out rather than storm in here with your own conclusions.

I read them.

It has been my experience that debate is about listening far more than it is about speaking. I have learned a LOT about global warming by listening and paying attention here, even when I was strongly inclined to think another way.

I have too, but so far most on this thread, except for maybe lucaspa or CDarwin or 1veedo actually done that. I think you should tell that to the rest of the membership.

OK its parodies is it? Ill play.

 

Geo' date=' we all know for fact that we are causing global warming because we have a graph of co2 increases in the last 30 years that match so well with the earth getting hotter in the same period, that the only conclusion is global warming is our fault.

[/quote']

 

Ok, so now your going from THEORY to FACT. Great! So, in principle since you say that your theory is so good it is unfalsifiable. Real scientific there. Haven't you ever heard that correlation does not equal causation? The same applies to your so called "fact". No wonder why we haven't been able to solve any ACTUAL problems.

 

Also you are nothing but a creationist for not believing something so scientific as this, which is for fact more certain than evolution, nurnurnurnurnur

 

I'm afraid the reverse is true for you. YOU are nothing but a creationist for believing in junk science. Have you any data to support your claim? Or are you just going to be like everyone else and not think critically about this?

Geodude, all you have demonstrated was that you appear incapable of discriminating between good science and bad science, or for that matter, whether someone is refuting your points or mocking you. Very nicely done, yourdadonapogos.

 

Though you have provided several assertions, you have provided no data that supports your claims (the graph of solar irradiance you provided says nothing about temperature as you claim, btw). So, got any evidence?

Do you really want a more precise graph? Here:

Why don't you contemplate that, instead of making a bunch of baseless assumptions. As you can see, I presented plenty of data here, and now I'm presenting more. I will do so if need to be, since you guys are clearly incapable of seeing the obvious. All I've seen so far is ad hominems from most of you guys, only one or two people here have even bothered to present any data for their position.

Please then remind me. What are your arguments? You've stated that global warming is bunk and provided no sources to support your claim.

Neither did you. And yes I did. Don't project your failures on me.

I'm going to go ahead and call a troll alert. Pangloss, please don't infract me. I don't mean this as attack, but a statement of fact.

 

 

 

 

No, not everything. Only what you stated you would do. Thanks.

WHAT!? Just because you can't counter my arguments your just going to call me a troll?

That's real original. I thought this was a science site, where people are free to express their ideas and theories. All I did was made the argument that our current global warming theories are bunk, and gave some reasons. You have yet to counter them. But your not interested in critical thinking, are you? When they present information that contradicts the dogma, simply dismiss as troll. Wonderful.

Do you, iNow, have any DATA or effective arguments that supports YOUR position. As far as I know, you haven't presented anything, you just threw ad hominems at me and rolled your eyes.

Ad Hom? Really? Who did I attack? You're just trying to make me look insane so that others will doubt my TRUTH! You're trying to start a cover-up. Listen here, mister, I won't have any of that!

But you haven't presented anything that could adequately counter my points though. Your just trying to save your ridiculous position with more logical fallacies.

The excess man-made greenhouse gases have slowly pushed the amount of ghgs in the atmosphere up. It is true that humans emit fewer ghgs than nature does but nature does a good job balancing it out with negative feedback systems, or climate sinks. About half of all anthropogenic ghgs have been absorbed by these feedback sinks, most of it in the oceans, but the other half has just accumulated in the atmopshere. Sense it has no place to go it just sort of hangs out and makes the Earth hotter.

Not really, extrapolated over millions, or even thousands of years, CO2 concentrations were either much smaller or much larger. Humans weren't around then. What makes this situation any different?

I think I'll make my contribution to this thread by debunking that rather persistent and irritating myth.

 

 

 

That's from the USGS. I hope that's a reliable enough source for you.

 

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

 

The statement is disingenuous anyway. Isotope studies demonstrate that the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the 20th Century is mostly due to human sources.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

The volcano was just an example though. There are a lot of other sources of CO2 you know, and not including human ones. CO2 doesn't even keep heat in that well either. Methane, for example, is 25 times more potent. Plus, it spews out a huge amount of CO2 during eruptions, far more than humans do in a single year in that single instant.

CDarwin is clearly ignoring my cow hypothesis. Therefore, I must be correct. Global warming has nothing to do with us; it's all about the gassy cows.

Keep your ad hominems to yourself. Really, they don't support your position. By this, its already clear that you cannot back up your arguments.

Well when it comes to citing evidence. YES!

But I already did. It's not my fault if you don't want to look at it. I gave SPECIFIC examples.

afaict, your reason was basically: 'it's happened before because of the sun, so this time it's because of the sun'. Which isn't a very good reason.

 

correct me if i'm wrong.

Well, now your just misrepresenting or misunderstanding, because I did NOT say that! The reasons I gave were not just the sun but also other natural sources such as methane, etc. The amount of greenhouse gases do fluctuate time and again. Remember what I said before, natural sources usually give out a great deal more pollutants than man-made sources. Take a look at some of the volcanoes in Hawaii for example.

mm-hmm. and, is there any reason to believe that the sun is responsable for this rise? is, for example, solar activity increasing in such a way that could explain the warming?

I already gave you a reason. And yes it is. What possible reason could there be to justify the paranoia over anthropogenic global warming, of which is obviously trash? Is listening to whatever CNN or Al Gore says your justification?

Besides, you just spelled "responsible" wrong.

No, "we" are acting as if that were irrelevant.

Oh, I see how it is now. Your only willing to cherry pick data that agrees with your premise, rather than considering other factors. Hardly scientific you know, especially since that you should know to avoid that given your title as a physics "expert".

No. This is not an acceptable response. You said "Global Warming is bunk! There is plenty of data out there that PROVES this. If you want I can show you." Which of the 421,000 results supports your position?

 

Show us. EXACTLY which ones support your contention. My preference is for links to specific sources, however, if you cite them using standard citation format, that would suffice.

 

A link to 421,000 google search results does not prove your point "Global Warming is bunk! There is plenty of data out there that PROVES this." So, if you'd be so kind as to make good on your offer "If you want I can show you." ... That would be super.

 

 

As a general observation on what you did present, I did not notice ANY .edu or .gov sites in the first 100 hits.

What, do you expect me to do everything for you? I gave you a list, just stay on the first couple of pages and look through them. and .gov or .edu sites doesn't necessarily mean that they are good, there are plenty of .edu and .gov sites that support all sorts of crackpottery and quackery, just take a look at the alternative medicine department on the nih.gov site.

afaik, it was done by counting sun-spots with telescopes. the chinese did it, not sure if others did.

 

 

 

do you mean the little ice-age? afaict, it's currently debated that the sun was a cause of that, tho it co-insided with a decrease in observed solar activity (lending weight to the idea that 'the sun did it')... is there any such current increase in observed solar activity to lend weight to the idea that the sun is currently reponsable for the rapid increase in temperature.

 

Which, btw, is more sudden than the drop in temperature going into the little ice-age.

so what? it was sudden enough. It happened on much the same time scale, give or take a couple of decades. The point is it does happen.

This is misrepresentation. If you go to the page and read it, you find:

"Because of the dependence of the Sun's irradiance on solar activity,

reductions from contemporary levels are expected during the

seventeenth century Maunder Minimum. New reconstructions of spectral

irradiance are developed since 1600 with absolute scales traceable to

spacebased observations. The long-term variations track the envelope

of group sunspot numbers and have amplitudes consistent with the range

of Ca II brightness in Sun-like stars. Estimated increases since 1675

are 0.7%, 0.2% and 0.07% in broad ultraviolet, visible/near infrared

and infrared spectral bands, with a total irradiance increase of 0.2%."

 

This means that it is increase since the Maunder Minimum, which is in the middle of the Little Ice Age. There are NO claims that this increase will account for current global warming. Instead, it just gets us back to what solar irradiation was before the Minimum. But ice cores show that average temps then were a lot lower than now.

 

Solar forcing has been considered as cause of global warming. As have the other causes listed at http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/

 

They are insufficient to account for the increase in mean global temps.

 

 

 

Only from the Maunder Minimum. It has long been known that sunspot activity declined to the Minimum and then increases since then. This has all been taken into account by climatologists.

 

 

 

People guilty of blatant misinformation should not project their failures on others.

Why not though? Why would they be insufficient? Certainly greenhouse gases can't have done the job. You know how much more pollution a volcano or natural seepage of crude oil does than any man made sources? A lot more than we have been putting in!

Yes. I would like that very much. Please cite your resources so I may examine the data you reference ... ("plenty of data out there that PROVES [Global Warming is bunk]").

 

 

With open orificia...

Here's a list of them right here on google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Global+Warming+is+Bunk&btnG=Google+Search

Pick and choose my friend.

hmm, i suspect sarcasm.

 

geodude, how do you explain the recent spike in temperature?

The temperatures have always been spiking up and down. What makes this recent one any different. Take a look at the time when temperatures suddenly dropped about a few centuries ago. In that case it was caused by the sun.

right, so you accept that CO2 and other green house gases play a role in keeping the earth warm.

 

yet you refuse to believe that the increase in concentration made by humans has any effect whatsoever? even though it is an extremely significant rise?

You guys seem to act as if this never happens in Earth's long history. To give an example, about 55 million years ago there was believed to be a runaway greenhouse event caused by methane, from what we can tell from the fossil record. Ironically, that event was what set forth the evolution of mammals into overdrive and eventually gave rise to mankind.

Besides, humans release a lot more than just CO2 the atmosphere. They also release a bunch of aerosols.

By your own admission, your data is bunk too... the variables you talk about for emmisions -> global warming link certainly apply to sun spots and sun temperatures as well.

No not really. the sun is a kind of a really big factor in keeping the planet heated. Greenhouse gases are too, without them the Earth would have an average temperature somewhere below 0 C. The main thing that is bunk are the models used for prediction, the various extrapolations, and a whole host of other so called "data" I care not mention right now. To somehow get incomplete data and tie it all to human activity seems a little rash and hasty.

First off,

 

Does the presentation of the equation differ depending on the type of chemical bonding taking place(ionic, covalent, etc)?

 

Can the same two elements bond in two different ways?

 

Or do specific types of bonding apply to specific combinations of elements, and vice versa?

 

Depends on the number of free electrons in the s and p orbitals there are. And how many other atoms it is bonding with.

 

I'm aware of that there are two major types of bonds:

 

Intramolecular Bonds – Strong

(Bonds within the molecule)

 

Covalent Bonds

Ionic Bonds

Metallic Bonds

 

Intermolecular Bonds - Weak

(Bonds between molecules)

 

Hydrogen Bonds

Van der Waals Forces

Molecule-Ion Attractions

 

 

I'm basically just wondering if strong and weak bonds occur only among certain types of elements.

 

 

Regards,

 

Cory

 

The strength of the bond depends largely on the number of free electrons. As for the elements with the strongest bonds, the Alkali and the Halogen groups produce some of the strongest bonds. Ionic bonds tend to be very, very strong.

I don't know my stance on this. I guess it depends on the situation, though I find that being "anti-abortionist" tends to draw some negativity these days.

To me its all relative.

Please don't put any acid in it because you will generate toxic chlorine gas.

Seconded. It will react with the moisture in your lungs and create hydrochloric acid. You don't want your lungs corroding away now.

so you are denying that the global average temperature is experience an upwards trend?

no, not that it hasn't been experiencing an upward trend, but that this is a completely natural phenomenon.

also, ice cores from greenland and antartica can provide data on the temperature, atmospheric composition and even certain types of solar activity.

Recent ones yes, but the deeper you go down the less reliable they become.

also, the climate models have been proven to be reasonably accurate both for prediction and retrodiction.

Not really. The problems with them is because there are many many variables AND there are various ones that either haven't been discovered or aren't taken to account. However tiny those variables may be, they might still have a huge impact on future trends. You can see for yourself right here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUFM.A51G..02W

just because YOU don't think it's true doesn't mean it is not true.

The same could be said for you.

So it's total bunk to tie climate change to any particular variable, and it's been shown that solar variability is the cause of the warming? Riiight...

Do you have any RELIABLE data to prove otherwise, I gave you my graph, show me a counter example?

Like I said. Reminds me of arguing evolution with a creationist.

 

Please do define "scant evidence," as I can show you a metric ass load of data about global climate change and the long-term impact our actions have which is not "derived from the popular culture section." That is, of course, if you would be willing to take your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes.

Dude, YOU should take your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes. Global Warming is bunk! There is plenty of data out there that PROVES this. If you want I can show you.

All that has been shown in this thread is that you pro-global warming people guys have been misled to believe otherwise.

Global warming is total bunk, seriously I don't know why people and many scientists buy into it. First of all, the Earth has been much warmer millions of years into the past, in fact it has been a little warmer in the recent past.

The climate models that are used are not very good at all. There are thousands upon thousands of variables and new ones are being added every once in a while. There is no possible way that you can possibly predict the climate, because of the chaotic nature of the climate. Didn't anyone ever hear of the butterfly affect? Also, many predictions were wrong.

And it has been shown that it is solar irradiance is the cause of the warming, as is has been for the past billions of years or so. Right here:

Some people don't just know that all of these records on greenhouse gases have only been reliably measured for the past 100 or so years. Also, notice how the sunspot activity has been increasing steadily.

And yet, everyone gets all paranoid over this bunch of misinformation. All in an effort to make lots of money off of the ignorant. Global warming on the scale as described is such an exaggeration, and total bunk.