1veedo

Except the Earth should be cooling right now, not getting warmer. We're not enhancing any sort of natural cycle; what we are doing is turning these cycles 180 degrees in reverse.

I'm a big supporter of this ozone hole and what it wants to accomplish.

You don't eat actual nitric oxide. Your body uses arginine, and sometimes smaller amounts of other amino acids, to produce nitric oxide. Generally speaking the more arginine the supplement has the greater the effect you get while lifting. Some NO2 supplements put too much in them IMO cause you do get a decent amount of arginine if you supplement with protein and eat enough meat. I think NO2 is overrated in weight lifting though. All you really need is protein, plenty of water, and a routine creatine cycle.

Trace amounts of a lot of things can have big effects on your body.

Yeah, pretty much. There are a lot of claims companies like to make but it basically gives you a bigger pump. When you lift your muscles dilate with blood which helps you lift more, and it also has the effect of making your muscles look bigger.

x2 It's just a matter of time before someone, somewhere, gets a lucky configuration for a quick solve. You need similar luck even for the 20 second solves. One cuber might try several times before getting his time that low at a competition then everyone's like OMFG 20 seconds.

Oops my bad lol I meant theobromine. Theobromine is what everyone usually talks about when discussing green tea -- it's a mood elevator and is responsible for green tea's calming effect. It (and other flavanols) also stimulate NO2 production in the body which is why green tea is good for your heart.

Lol you wish. You keep trying to "interpret" graphs the way you want to but the fact is actual scientists have already interpreted the data and seem to disagree with your position.

A cup of green tea has about a third as much caffeine as coffee. 35ish mg in green tea vs 110 in coffee. Some of the green tea you can buy at like a gas station (pre-brewed) has added caffeine though. Theophyline is the same stuff in chocolate, and kills dogs if you give them too much. Theophyline isn't necessarily toxic, dogs just don't metabolize it as fast as humans. Btw I hear meth is a pretty big stimulant. Keeps you up all night so you can do your homework. It's pretty bad for you though, much worse than caffeine.

This is perfectly safe, whatever it is. You don't inhale it, you ingest it orally. I don't know anything about the other NOs. Of course you're actually consuming the precursors to NO2, not actual NO2. Your body turns the arginine and everything into NO2 once it's been digested.

Not the climate though, you generally need supercomputers for that kind of work.

Depends on what NO you're talking about. NO is not the same thing as NO2. The latter is a bodybuilding/weight lifting supplement that effects the vascular system making your muscles look bigger (it gives you a "pump"), the former I think is laughing gas and makes your penis bigger. edit -- Actually I think there's NO, and two NO2s. The way chemistry works you can reduce chemical formulas down to like NO2 from two separate chemicals to make it easier to read (and say -- Nitric Oxide). I never had a real chemistry class but I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

He means where in this thread. You were arguing against something that nobody had claimed -- it's known as a straw man. How can it be unscientific if that's exactly what the scientific community agrees upon?

If I were you I wouldn't take it as a compliment, nor would I brag about it.

No, Fred56 had his head in the sand, not me. j/k But if I read your post correctly SkepticLance all I saw was one big straw man. Neither one of us suggested the sun had no effect on the climate, just that it's not causing global warming.

Lol. An ego is what you have while you're not tripping shrooms. I guess if you're one of those "one with the universe" people shrooms and other psychedelics would be the only way to get there. Btw as a distinction to anyone in this thread (because I've seen Freud and Jung mentioned), the ego in Freudian fantasy land and the ego in modern psychology are two different things. Ego really isn't used in psychology except when talking more or less specifically about ego death, or a feeling of being one with the universe, which is an altered state of consciousness induced by certain drugs (the idea that you can induce this state of consciousness through meditation, without the help of psychedelics, is highly unlikely). Eg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_Death

I didn't say that lol Fred56, thanks anyway. The reason there are historical cycles isn't really because of the sun at all but our position relative to it. Right now we're "moving away" you could say, and we have been for roughly 8k years. Humans are not only offsetting a cooling trend as part of a natural cycle, but are also heating up the Earth. That's why I always thought the "our climate is getting warmer anyway, we're just speeding it up" crowd was kind of funny.

Didn't we get rid of the religion forum?

No no no you're just doing it wrong. In your kernel sources type make menuconfig, exit, and tell it to save your config. Then type make && make modules_install. After you've done all that go to your drivers source and compile it. Afterwards you'll have to reboot unless you're using the same sources for the current kernel that you have installed.

It's not the sunspots causing everything. The sun fluctuates all of these parameters on an 11 year cycle and one of the effects of this is a change in the number of sunspots. In other words there's an underlying "z factor" as you'd say in correlation study.

Except for every time you brought up the years 1941 to 1976 when someone (be it me or someone else) had to inform you that CO2 and the sun are not the only two factors in the climate. Specifically during this period we had a rise in particulates.

How many times have we tried to tell you this already? You keep bringing up your "1941 to 1976" argument and several people have pointed out to you repeatedly that there's more to the climate than just CO2 and temperatures. So essentially you ignore this fact when it's inconvenient to you and embrace it whenever convenient.

I'm calling red herring and straw man on your above post. You can't just talk about irrelevant topics and/or create straw men and magically think your post somehow pertains and/or refutes my previous post. That would be like me rambling on about nothing and finishing up with, "and that's why you're wrong." It's just not good style. No. But on the same topic the climate does not just go back to the way it was. Cool periods are not followed by warm periods and vice verse. I don't know why so many people assume this; I guess it's just natural for humans to think this way or something but I can guarantee that scientists don't regard it as simply a return from colder than normal conditions to normal conditions. The Earth should actually be getting cooler right now anyway -- scientists more or less regard global warming as a 180 degree turn away from "normal." You and your correlations. That's what's wrong with your whole "1941 to 1976" reasoning. Yes CO2 levels were high back then but so was particulate pollution. Particulates have the effect that they black the sun and cool down the planet, hense why between "1941 to 1976" the Earth cooled. Of course I'm sure the recent increase in temperature is primarily caused by CO2 but this recent ~.6C degree increase is not the only effect we've had on the climate. Anthropogenic factors have been steadily causing the Earth to get hotter for over 150 years now. Just because the human impact on the climate hasn't been as overwhelming as the past 30 years doesn't mean we haven't been doing anything. In fact, again, if you look at the nice charts I posted above the Earth would be an entire degree cooler today if we were to remove the human impact on the climate from the picture. If we were following your logic on the other hand the Earth would only be .6 degrees cooler.

SkepticLance you are trying to pretend that anthropogenic global warming has only been going on for the past 30 years when in reality humans have been steadily causing the Earth to get hotter for over 150 years now, and possibly even longer if you want to consider all the stuff about rice paddies in China and farming in other parts of the world. Just because the human impact on the climate has not always been the overwhelming factor does not change the fact that in the previous 150 years we have caused the Earth to get warmer by about a degree celsius. Where natural factors have caused the temperature to bounce up and down a little, human factors have steadily been pushing mean temperatures further and further up. edit -- just have to specify that 1 degree C in 150 years comes from me reading a graph, the same one I posted earlier . The actual accepted figure, if there actually is one in the first place, is purely arbitrary.

All it says is that during the 11-year peak temperatures are on average .2C warmer then the trough. The sun does effect temperatures on the planet but it's not causing global warming.