The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Actually... ITN's post here shows that even water vapor is not enough to change a region's temperature (though it moderates the extremes).

So by that rationale, just a bit of extra CO2, a drop in the bucket compared to water vapor, should certainly not cause global warming.

This part is correct.

Spongy Iris wrote:
But ITN fails to answer, why then has global warming occurred?
1) There is no extra source of energy form anywhere to warm the Earth.
2) It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN will probably now stubbornly insist that it is impossible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

That's right.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Speculative statistics, insufficient data, blah blah blah.

I'm not buying it.

It's not my problem that you ignore mathematics.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I like to use the Tunguska Blast to try to debunk ITN.

See? This is what happened from too many coal fires in too concentrated an area. It raised air pressure too high.

Fire does not raise air pressure.

Spongy Iris wrote:
That is why I think CO2 has probably caused global warming. It has increased air pressure.

Static pressure doesn't warm anything.

Now you are ignoring the ideal gas law.

I didn't mean to imply fire raised the air pressure. According to my theory, it was increasing air pressure that cracked Heaven's Glass, causing fire to enter the atmosphere in the Tunguska region, near where there was lots of coal mining going on.

It was the dynamic pressure, of pumping in more CO2, which raised the static pressure.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Actually... ITN's post here shows that even water vapor is not enough to change a region's temperature (though it moderates the extremes).

So by that rationale, just a bit of extra CO2, a drop in the bucket compared to water vapor, should certainly not cause global warming.

This part is correct.

Spongy Iris wrote:
But ITN fails to answer, why then has global warming occurred?
1) There is no extra source of energy form anywhere to warm the Earth.
2) It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN will probably now stubbornly insist that it is impossible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

That's right.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Speculative statistics, insufficient data, blah blah blah.

I'm not buying it.

It's not my problem that you ignore mathematics.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I like to use the Tunguska Blast to try to debunk ITN.

See? This is what happened from too many coal fires in too concentrated an area. It raised air pressure too high.

Fire does not raise air pressure.

Spongy Iris wrote:
That is why I think CO2 has probably caused global warming. It has increased air pressure.

Static pressure doesn't warm anything.

Now you are ignoring the ideal gas law.

I didn't mean to imply fire raised the air pressure. According to my theory, it was increasing air pressure that cracked Heaven's Glass, causing fire to enter the atmosphere in the Tunguska region, near where there was lots of coal mining going on.

It was the dynamic pressure, of pumping in more CO2, which raised the static pressure.

Fire does not raise pressure.

Fire does not 'enter the atmosphere'.

Static pressure does not increase temperature.

A tank of CO2 at 3000psi is not warmer than it's surroundings.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Actually... ITN's post here shows that even water vapor is not enough to change a region's temperature (though it moderates the extremes).

So by that rationale, just a bit of extra CO2, a drop in the bucket compared to water vapor, should certainly not cause global warming.

This part is correct.

Spongy Iris wrote:
But ITN fails to answer, why then has global warming occurred?
1) There is no extra source of energy form anywhere to warm the Earth.
2) It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN will probably now stubbornly insist that it is impossible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

That's right.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Speculative statistics, insufficient data, blah blah blah.

I'm not buying it.

It's not my problem that you ignore mathematics.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I like to use the Tunguska Blast to try to debunk ITN.

See? This is what happened from too many coal fires in too concentrated an area. It raised air pressure too high.

Fire does not raise air pressure.

Spongy Iris wrote:
That is why I think CO2 has probably caused global warming. It has increased air pressure.

Static pressure doesn't warm anything.

Now you are ignoring the ideal gas law.

I didn't mean to imply fire raised the air pressure. According to my theory, it was increasing air pressure that cracked Heaven's Glass, causing fire to enter the atmosphere in the Tunguska region, near where there was lots of coal mining going on.

It was the dynamic pressure, of pumping in more CO2, which raised the static pressure.

Fire does not raise pressure.

Fire does not 'enter the atmosphere'.

Static pressure does not increase temperature.

A tank of CO2 at 3000psi is not warmer than it's surroundings.

Fire raises temp which in a sealed body raises pressure.

Swan wrote:
Which is why fuel tanks are sprayed in a fire to reduce the pressure via fire temp.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Actually... ITN's post here shows that even water vapor is not enough to change a region's temperature (though it moderates the extremes).

So by that rationale, just a bit of extra CO2, a drop in the bucket compared to water vapor, should certainly not cause global warming.

This part is correct.

Spongy Iris wrote:
But ITN fails to answer, why then has global warming occurred?
1) There is no extra source of energy form anywhere to warm the Earth.
2) It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN will probably now stubbornly insist that it is impossible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

That's right.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Speculative statistics, insufficient data, blah blah blah.

I'm not buying it.

It's not my problem that you ignore mathematics.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I like to use the Tunguska Blast to try to debunk ITN.

See? This is what happened from too many coal fires in too concentrated an area. It raised air pressure too high.

Fire does not raise air pressure.

Spongy Iris wrote:
That is why I think CO2 has probably caused global warming. It has increased air pressure.

Static pressure doesn't warm anything.

Now you are ignoring the ideal gas law.

I didn't mean to imply fire raised the air pressure. According to my theory, it was increasing air pressure that cracked Heaven's Glass, causing fire to enter the atmosphere in the Tunguska region, near where there was lots of coal mining going on.

It was the dynamic pressure, of pumping in more CO2, which raised the static pressure.

Fire does not raise pressure.

Fire does not 'enter the atmosphere'.

Static pressure does not increase temperature.

A tank of CO2 at 3000psi is not warmer than it's surroundings.

Fire raises temp which in a sealed body raises pressure.

The atmosphere is not sealed, moron.

Swan wrote:
Which is why fuel tanks are sprayed in a fire to reduce the pressure via fire temp.

They aren't. People are evacuated instead.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Actually... ITN's post here shows that even water vapor is not enough to change a region's temperature (though it moderates the extremes).

So by that rationale, just a bit of extra CO2, a drop in the bucket compared to water vapor, should certainly not cause global warming.

This part is correct.

Spongy Iris wrote:
But ITN fails to answer, why then has global warming occurred?
1) There is no extra source of energy form anywhere to warm the Earth.
2) It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN will probably now stubbornly insist that it is impossible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

That's right.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Speculative statistics, insufficient data, blah blah blah.

I'm not buying it.

It's not my problem that you ignore mathematics.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I like to use the Tunguska Blast to try to debunk ITN.

See? This is what happened from too many coal fires in too concentrated an area. It raised air pressure too high.

Fire does not raise air pressure.

Spongy Iris wrote:
That is why I think CO2 has probably caused global warming. It has increased air pressure.

Static pressure doesn't warm anything.

Now you are ignoring the ideal gas law.

I didn't mean to imply fire raised the air pressure. According to my theory, it was increasing air pressure that cracked Heaven's Glass, causing fire to enter the atmosphere in the Tunguska region, near where there was lots of coal mining going on.

It was the dynamic pressure, of pumping in more CO2, which raised the static pressure.

Fire does not raise pressure.

Fire does not 'enter the atmosphere'.

Static pressure does not increase temperature.

A tank of CO2 at 3000psi is not warmer than it's surroundings.

Fire raises temp which in a sealed body raises pressure.

The atmosphere is not sealed, moron.

Swan wrote:
Which is why fuel tanks are sprayed in a fire to reduce the pressure via fire temp.

They aren't. People are evacuated instead.

LOL you said that fire does not raise pressure, this is wrong every day of the week

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Actually... ITN's post here shows that even water vapor is not enough to change a region's temperature (though it moderates the extremes).

So by that rationale, just a bit of extra CO2, a drop in the bucket compared to water vapor, should certainly not cause global warming.

This part is correct.

Spongy Iris wrote:
But ITN fails to answer, why then has global warming occurred?
1) There is no extra source of energy form anywhere to warm the Earth.
2) It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN will probably now stubbornly insist that it is impossible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

That's right.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Speculative statistics, insufficient data, blah blah blah.

I'm not buying it.

It's not my problem that you ignore mathematics.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I like to use the Tunguska Blast to try to debunk ITN.

See? This is what happened from too many coal fires in too concentrated an area. It raised air pressure too high.

Fire does not raise air pressure.

Spongy Iris wrote:
That is why I think CO2 has probably caused global warming. It has increased air pressure.

Static pressure doesn't warm anything.

Now you are ignoring the ideal gas law.

I didn't mean to imply fire raised the air pressure. According to my theory, it was increasing air pressure that cracked Heaven's Glass, causing fire to enter the atmosphere in the Tunguska region, near where there was lots of coal mining going on.

It was the dynamic pressure, of pumping in more CO2, which raised the static pressure.

Fire does not raise pressure.

Fire does not 'enter the atmosphere'.

Static pressure does not increase temperature.

A tank of CO2 at 3000psi is not warmer than it's surroundings.

Fire raises temp which in a sealed body raises pressure.

The atmosphere is not sealed, moron.

Swan wrote:
Which is why fuel tanks are sprayed in a fire to reduce the pressure via fire temp.

They aren't. People are evacuated instead.

LOL you said that fire does not raise pressure, this is wrong every day of the week

Fire does not raise pressure. You can happily enjoy your campfire, the barometer doesn't change because of it.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Actually... ITN's post here shows that even water vapor is not enough to change a region's temperature (though it moderates the extremes).

So by that rationale, just a bit of extra CO2, a drop in the bucket compared to water vapor, should certainly not cause global warming.

This part is correct.

Spongy Iris wrote:
But ITN fails to answer, why then has global warming occurred?
1) There is no extra source of energy form anywhere to warm the Earth.
2) It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN will probably now stubbornly insist that it is impossible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

That's right.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Speculative statistics, insufficient data, blah blah blah.

I'm not buying it.

It's not my problem that you ignore mathematics.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I like to use the Tunguska Blast to try to debunk ITN.

See? This is what happened from too many coal fires in too concentrated an area. It raised air pressure too high.

Fire does not raise air pressure.

Spongy Iris wrote:
That is why I think CO2 has probably caused global warming. It has increased air pressure.

Static pressure doesn't warm anything.

Now you are ignoring the ideal gas law.

I didn't mean to imply fire raised the air pressure. According to my theory, it was increasing air pressure that cracked Heaven's Glass, causing fire to enter the atmosphere in the Tunguska region, near where there was lots of coal mining going on.

It was the dynamic pressure, of pumping in more CO2, which raised the static pressure.

Fire does not raise pressure.

Fire does not 'enter the atmosphere'.

Static pressure does not increase temperature.

A tank of CO2 at 3000psi is not warmer than it's surroundings.

Fire raises temp which in a sealed body raises pressure.

The atmosphere is not sealed, moron.

Swan wrote:
Which is why fuel tanks are sprayed in a fire to reduce the pressure via fire temp.

They aren't. People are evacuated instead.

LOL you said that fire does not raise pressure, this is wrong every day of the week

Fire does not raise pressure. You can happily enjoy your campfire, the barometer doesn't change because of it.

You are an ignorant troll.

Yes, fire raises pressure, primarily because the heat from the fire causes gases to expand, and combustion turns solids into gases, which take up more volume. This expansion and increased volume lead to a rise in pressure, especially in confined spaces.
How fire increases pressure
Thermal expansion: As fire burns, it heats the surrounding air and gases, causing them to expand and move faster. This increase in temperature leads to an increase in pressure.
Gas volume: The chemical reaction of fire converts solid fuel into gases (like carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide), which take up more space than the original solid.
Confinement: In an enclosed area, these expanded and newly formed gases have nowhere to go, leading to a significant build-up of pressure.
Flow: This higher-pressure gas then flows from the high-pressure fire area to lower-pressure areas, which can be a significant factor in fire behavior and safety tactics.

Now stop playing with your mother and get a real job

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Actually... ITN's post here shows that even water vapor is not enough to change a region's temperature (though it moderates the extremes).

So by that rationale, just a bit of extra CO2, a drop in the bucket compared to water vapor, should certainly not cause global warming.

This part is correct.

Spongy Iris wrote:
But ITN fails to answer, why then has global warming occurred?
1) There is no extra source of energy form anywhere to warm the Earth.
2) It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN will probably now stubbornly insist that it is impossible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

That's right.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Speculative statistics, insufficient data, blah blah blah.

I'm not buying it.

It's not my problem that you ignore mathematics.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I like to use the Tunguska Blast to try to debunk ITN.

See? This is what happened from too many coal fires in too concentrated an area. It raised air pressure too high.

Fire does not raise air pressure.

Spongy Iris wrote:
That is why I think CO2 has probably caused global warming. It has increased air pressure.

Static pressure doesn't warm anything.

Now you are ignoring the ideal gas law.

I didn't mean to imply fire raised the air pressure. According to my theory, it was increasing air pressure that cracked Heaven's Glass, causing fire to enter the atmosphere in the Tunguska region, near where there was lots of coal mining going on.

It was the dynamic pressure, of pumping in more CO2, which raised the static pressure.

Fire does not raise pressure.

Fire does not 'enter the atmosphere'.

Static pressure does not increase temperature.

A tank of CO2 at 3000psi is not warmer than it's surroundings.

Fire raises temp which in a sealed body raises pressure.

The atmosphere is not sealed, moron.

Swan wrote:
Which is why fuel tanks are sprayed in a fire to reduce the pressure via fire temp.

They aren't. People are evacuated instead.

LOL you said that fire does not raise pressure, this is wrong every day of the week

Fire does not raise pressure. You can happily enjoy your campfire, the barometer doesn't change because of it.

You are an ignorant troll.

Yes, fire raises pressure, primarily because the heat from the fire causes gases to expand, and combustion turns solids into gases, which take up more volume. This expansion and increased volume lead to a rise in pressure, especially in confined spaces.
How fire increases pressure
Thermal expansion: As fire burns, it heats the surrounding air and gases, causing them to expand and move faster. This increase in temperature leads to an increase in pressure.
Gas volume: The chemical reaction of fire converts solid fuel into gases (like carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide), which take up more space than the original solid.
Confinement: In an enclosed area, these expanded and newly formed gases have nowhere to go, leading to a significant build-up of pressure.
Flow: This higher-pressure gas then flows from the high-pressure fire area to lower-pressure areas, which can be a significant factor in fire behavior and safety tactics.

Now stop playing with your mother and get a real job

"You are an ignorant troll." - Swan

"You are describing yourself." - Into the Night


No, YOU are a scientifically illiterate moron!

No, YOU are describing yourself!

No, YOU don't even know what science is!

No, YOU are describing yourself!

No, YOU are a pathetic waste of a life!

No, YOU are describing yourself!

Viva climate-debate.com!

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Actually... ITN's post here shows that even water vapor is not enough to change a region's temperature (though it moderates the extremes).

So by that rationale, just a bit of extra CO2, a drop in the bucket compared to water vapor, should certainly not cause global warming.

This part is correct.

Spongy Iris wrote:
But ITN fails to answer, why then has global warming occurred?
1) There is no extra source of energy form anywhere to warm the Earth.
2) It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN will probably now stubbornly insist that it is impossible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

That's right.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Speculative statistics, insufficient data, blah blah blah.

I'm not buying it.

It's not my problem that you ignore mathematics.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I like to use the Tunguska Blast to try to debunk ITN.

See? This is what happened from too many coal fires in too concentrated an area. It raised air pressure too high.

Fire does not raise air pressure.

Spongy Iris wrote:
That is why I think CO2 has probably caused global warming. It has increased air pressure.

Static pressure doesn't warm anything.

Now you are ignoring the ideal gas law.

I didn't mean to imply fire raised the air pressure. According to my theory, it was increasing air pressure that cracked Heaven's Glass, causing fire to enter the atmosphere in the Tunguska region, near where there was lots of coal mining going on.

It was the dynamic pressure, of pumping in more CO2, which raised the static pressure.

Fire does not raise pressure.

Fire does not 'enter the atmosphere'.

Static pressure does not increase temperature.

A tank of CO2 at 3000psi is not warmer than it's surroundings.

Fire raises temp which in a sealed body raises pressure.

The atmosphere is not sealed, moron.

Swan wrote:
Which is why fuel tanks are sprayed in a fire to reduce the pressure via fire temp.

They aren't. People are evacuated instead.

LOL you said that fire does not raise pressure, this is wrong every day of the week

Fire does not raise pressure. You can happily enjoy your campfire, the barometer doesn't change because of it.

You are an ignorant troll.

Yes, fire raises pressure, primarily because the heat from the fire causes gases to expand, and combustion turns solids into gases, which take up more volume. This expansion and increased volume lead to a rise in pressure, especially in confined spaces.
How fire increases pressure
Thermal expansion: As fire burns, it heats the surrounding air and gases, causing them to expand and move faster. This increase in temperature leads to an increase in pressure.
Gas volume: The chemical reaction of fire converts solid fuel into gases (like carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide), which take up more space than the original solid.
Confinement: In an enclosed area, these expanded and newly formed gases have nowhere to go, leading to a significant build-up of pressure.
Flow: This higher-pressure gas then flows from the high-pressure fire area to lower-pressure areas, which can be a significant factor in fire behavior and safety tactics.

Now stop playing with your mother and get a real job

"You are an ignorant troll." - Swan

"You are describing yourself." - Into the Night


No, YOU are a scientifically illiterate moron!

No, YOU are describing yourself!

No, YOU don't even know what science is!

No, YOU are describing yourself!

No, YOU are a pathetic waste of a life!

No, YOU are describing yourself!

Viva climate-debate.com!

Swan wrote:
Yes, fire raises pressure, primarily because the heat from the fire causes gases to expand, and combustion turns solids into gases, which take up more volume. This expansion and increased volume lead to a rise in pressure, especially in confined spaces.

Swan wrote:
How fire increases pressure
Thermal expansion: As fire burns, it heats the surrounding air and gases, causing them to expand and move faster. This increase in temperature leads to an increase in pressure.
Gas volume: The chemical reaction of fire converts solid fuel into gases (like carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide), which take up more space than the original solid.
Confinement: In an enclosed area, these expanded and newly formed gases have nowhere to go, leading to a significant build-up of pressure.

Swan wrote:
Flow: This higher-pressure gas then flows from the high-pressure fire area to lower-pressure areas, which can be a significant factor in fire behavior and safety tactics.

Swan wrote:
Now stop playing with your mother and get a real job

Im a BM wrote:

"You are an ignorant troll." - Swan

"You are describing yourself." - Into the Night


No, YOU are a scientifically illiterate moron!

No, YOU are describing yourself!

No, YOU don't even know what science is!

No, YOU are describing yourself!

No, YOU are a pathetic waste of a life!

No, YOU are describing yourself!

Viva climate-debate.com!

Spongy Iris wrote:
Resetting the hockey stick formation that builds up from quotes upon quotes.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Increasing "greenhouse gases" does not always have the effect of raising temperature.

Spongy Iris wrote:
If we can't show it works every time, it causes confusion, like an experiment that cannot be repeated under all circumstances

Spongy Iris wrote:
It seems to make sense, that because they absorb more sunlight, the Earth would retain the Sun's heat a bit longer. But does it always work that way?

Spongy Iris wrote:
Let's compare Jackson, MS and Phoenix, AZ.

They get the same amount of heat from the Sun, but Jackson, MS is way cooler than Phoenix, AZ, on average, precisely because of the extra water ("greenhouse gas") in its atmosphere.

Spongy Iris wrote:
So that looks to me like it nullifies the greenhouse gas global warming theory. It only takes 1 contrary example to nullify the theory, ya?

Spongy Iris wrote:
Perhaps some may say, not so fast, let's compare Fargo, ND and Ottawa, ON.

They get the same amount of heat from the Sun, but this time, the extra water in Ottawa does in fact cause warmer temperatures.

Spongy Iris wrote:
So it seems clarification is needed. According to my theory:

Between ~ 60 to 90 miles high there is a cold band all around Earth, like cold enough to freeze carbon dioxide.

Spongy Iris wrote:

I call that band Heaven. It's solid barriers of glass.

Spongy Iris wrote:

The Sun does penetrate Heaven to heat Earth. But the refrigeration effect of Heaven is all encompassing.

Spongy Iris wrote:

In Jackson and Phoenix, the Sun has greater effect, Heaven has lesser effect. The evaporation from more water in Jackson than Phoenix makes Jackson cooler.

In Ottawa and Fargo, the Sun has lesser effect, Heaven has greater effect. More clouds in Ottawa than Fargo slows the cold descending from Heaven, making Fargo cooler.

Spongy Iris wrote:

I'm just talking averages of course.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The same phenomenon often causes cooler summer nights in Phoenix and cooler summer days in Ottawa.

IBdaMann wrote:
This thread will serve as a repository and discussion of the science of the "Greenhouse Effect."

The rules:

1) Anything claimed to be "science" must be supported with the corresponding falsifiable model that resides in the current body of science.

1a) Papers and "studies" don't qualify as science, even if they are said to be "peer reviewed" ...or even "poor reviewed" ...because anyone can write a paper.

2) You must directly answer questions that are asked about your science (no dodges, no evasion) and answers to questions that are not asked don't count as answers

2a) Wikipedia citations and other non-authoritative sources don't count as "answers"

So who will start this show?

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
This thread will serve as a repository and discussion of the science of the "Greenhouse Effect."

The rules:

1) Anything claimed to be "science" must be supported with the corresponding falsifiable model that resides in the current body of science.

1a) Papers and "studies" don't qualify as science, even if they are said to be "peer reviewed" ...or even "poor reviewed" ...because anyone can write a paper.

2) You must directly answer questions that are asked about your science (no dodges, no evasion) and answers to questions that are not asked don't count as answers

2a) Wikipedia citations and other non-authoritative sources don't count as "answers"

So who will start this show?

More than ten years ago, IBdaMann started this thread.

Rules of Engagement for Climate "Debate".
There is a huge loop hole and gatekeeper clause.
"..non-authoritative sources don't count as 'answers'"

It turns out there are NO AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES other than IBdaMann.

Im a BM wrote:
A widely cited paper in the journal NATURE?
Heck, no! That is not an authoritative source.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann says "Nature is a shit rag.", so he can ignore my pubs as being relevant in any way.

Im a BM wrote:
A widely cited paper in the journal BIOGEOCHEMISTRY?
Heck, no! "Biogeochemistry" doesn't even exist, according to IBdaMann.

Im a BM wrote:
The world's most widely used dictionaries?
Heck, no! "Dictionaries don't define terms."

Im a BM wrote:
Only IBdaMann is allowed to do that.
Is it any surprise that this thread went viral?

Im a BM wrote:
"Because anyone can write a paper." And even though my own peer-reviewed scientific pubs have racked up thousands of citations by other scientists in their own peer reviewed pubs, THEY DON'T COUNT.

ANYONE can write a paper?

Im a BM wrote:
After more than ten years, IBdaMann never shared ANY of the paradigm-shifting scientific papers that HE wrote.

Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps "anyone can write a paper", but IBdaMann isn't anyone. Just a fake name for an obnoxious Internet troll.

Im a BM wrote:
What is the NON moron definition of "molecule"?

Im a BM wrote:
Ask God, via Google!

Im a BM wrote:
inquiry: "molecule" definition

Google and God say that: "A molecule is a group of two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds, which can be the same or different elements."

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night displays arrogance, ignorance, and stubbornness.

A helium balloon is filled with ATOMS of helium, individual, unattached by any chemical bonds. Helium is not a molecule.

Im a BM wrote:
If I had more time to be silly, I could do the ITN thing and make the whole list of "something is not something else" statements.

Im a BM wrote:
...removed ranting...

Im a BM wrote:
What is the NON moron definition of "molecule"? Ask God, via Google!

inquiry: "molecule" definition

Google and God say that: "A molecule is a group of two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds, which can be the same or different elements."

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
What is the NON moron definition of "molecule"? Ask God, via Google!

inquiry: "molecule" definition

Google and God say that: "A molecule is a group of two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds, which can be the same or different elements."

I love watching you squirm. Yes or no, does a gold nugget fit that definition?

HINT: Yes it does, to a "T"

Go ahead. I know you want to blurt out that gold is somehow not a molecule, even though it meets the definition. I'll wait while you snivel and belly-ache.
Tell me how no serious bicyclegeoalchemist worth they/their/them's salt considers a gold nugget that meets the definition of "molecule" to be a molecule.

I'm listening. I know you want to rant. You have an audience, even if you don't have a library.

Oh, I have great news. Swan is totally on your side. That should give you confidence.

.

IBdaMann wrote:

Google and God say that: "A molecule is a group of two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds, which can be the same or different elements."

Oh, I have great news. Swan is totally on your side. That should give you confidence.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
What is the NON moron definition of "molecule"? Ask God, via Google!

inquiry: "molecule" definition

Google and God say that: "A molecule is a group of two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds, which can be the same or different elements."

I love watching you squirm. Yes or no, does a gold nugget fit that definition?

HINT: Yes it does, to a "T"

Go ahead. I know you want to blurt out that gold is somehow not a molecule, even though it meets the definition. I'll wait while you snivel and belly-ache.
Tell me how no serious bicyclegeoalchemist worth they/their/them's salt considers a gold nugget that meets the definition of "molecule" to be a molecule.

I'm listening. I know you want to rant. You have an audience, even if you don't have a library.

Oh, I have great news. Swan is totally on your side. That should give you confidence.

.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
What is the NON moron definition of "molecule"? Ask God, via Google!

inquiry: "molecule" definition

Google and God say that: "A molecule is a group of two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds, which can be the same or different elements."

I love watching you squirm. Yes or no, does a gold nugget fit that definition?

HINT: Yes it does, to a "T"

Go ahead. I know you want to blurt out that gold is somehow not a molecule, even though it meets the definition. I'll wait while you snivel and belly-ache.
Tell me how no serious bicyclegeoalchemist worth they/their/them's salt considers a gold nugget that meets the definition of "molecule" to be a molecule.

I'm listening. I know you want to rant. You have an audience, even if you don't have a library.

Oh, I have great news. Swan is totally on your side. That should give you confidence.

.

Im a BM: "Helium is not a molecule."

Into the Night: "It certainly is. It is simply the atom itself. That is ALSO a molecule. Helium is not gold."

IBdaMann does NOT have any kind of federal chemist "license".

Im a BM wrote:
He should defer to the superior training that Into the Night has in this area of science.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night happens to be right that helium is not gold. Who knew?

Im a BM wrote:
Good thing he spelled that out for us. But helium atoms very RARELY attach to each other in a manner that qualifies as a "molecule".

Im a BM wrote:
Briefly and very unstable, it is not physically impossible to force two helium atoms to bond for a moment. Most helium atoms bounce about as individual atoms.

Im a BM wrote:
Given time, they exit the atmosphere and go to outer space.

Im a BM wrote:
Violating every imaginable law of thermodenial in the process.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Google and God say that: "A molecule is a group of two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds, which can be the same or different elements."

Oh, I have great news. Swan is totally on your side. That should give you confidence.

Another gotcha for the dictionary cops.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
What is the NON moron definition of "molecule"? Ask God, via Google!

inquiry: "molecule" definition

Google and God say that: "A molecule is a group of two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds, which can be the same or different elements."

I love watching you squirm. Yes or no, does a gold nugget fit that definition?

HINT: Yes it does, to a "T"

Go ahead. I know you want to blurt out that gold is somehow not a molecule, even though it meets the definition. I'll wait while you snivel and belly-ache.
Tell me how no serious bicyclegeoalchemist worth they/their/them's salt considers a gold nugget that meets the definition of "molecule" to be a molecule.

I'm listening. I know you want to rant. You have an audience, even if you don't have a library.

Oh, I have great news. Swan is totally on your side. That should give you confidence.

.

A Gold nugget of pure Gold would not be a molecule,

Swan wrote:
however pure .999 Gold is rarely found in nature

Swan wrote:
where nuggets are made.

Swan wrote:
However at least you are consistently wrong

Into the Night wrote:

Already given. The 1st law of thermodynamics, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You are making up numbers again.

Into the Night wrote:
Irrelevant. It is still a molecule. You are still ignoring Avogadro..

Into the Night wrote:
YARP
.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
What is the NON moron definition of "molecule"? Ask God, via Google!

inquiry: "molecule" definition

Google and God say that: "A molecule is a group of two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds, which can be the same or different elements."

I love watching you squirm. Yes or no, does a gold nugget fit that definition?

HINT: Yes it does, to a "T"

Go ahead. I know you want to blurt out that gold is somehow not a molecule, even though it meets the definition. I'll wait while you snivel and belly-ache.
Tell me how no serious bicyclegeoalchemist worth they/their/them's salt considers a gold nugget that meets the definition of "molecule" to be a molecule.

I'm listening. I know you want to rant. You have an audience, even if you don't have a library.

Oh, I have great news. Swan is totally on your side. That should give you confidence.

.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
What is the NON moron definition of "molecule"? Ask God, via Google!

inquiry: "molecule" definition

Google and God say that: "A molecule is a group of two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds, which can be the same or different elements."

I love watching you squirm. Yes or no, does a gold nugget fit that definition?

HINT: Yes it does, to a "T"

Go ahead. I know you want to blurt out that gold is somehow not a molecule, even though it meets the definition. I'll wait while you snivel and belly-ache.
Tell me how no serious bicyclegeoalchemist worth they/their/them's salt considers a gold nugget that meets the definition of "molecule" to be a molecule.

I'm listening. I know you want to rant. You have an audience, even if you don't have a library.

Oh, I have great news. Swan is totally on your side. That should give you confidence.

.

A Gold nugget of pure Gold would not be a molecule,

It most certainly is. You are ignoring Avogadro again.

Swan wrote:
however pure .999 Gold is rarely found in nature

Irrelevance fallacy.

Swan wrote:
where nuggets are made.

Does nature use union labor to make the gold nuggets?

Swan wrote:
However at least you are consistently wrong

Assumption of victory fallacy.

Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:

Already given. The 1st law of thermodynamics, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You are making up numbers again.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Just look at the new species called Pizzly bears, to see how the wildlife has been effected.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Irrelevant. It is still a molecule. You are still ignoring Avogadro..

What does Avogadro say that shows gold is a molecule?

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
YARP
.

What does YARP stand for?

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
What is the NON moron definition of "molecule"? Ask God, via Google!

inquiry: "molecule" definition

Google and God say that: "A molecule is a group of two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds, which can be the same or different elements."

I love watching you squirm. Yes or no, does a gold nugget fit that definition?

HINT: Yes it does, to a "T"

Go ahead. I know you want to blurt out that gold is somehow not a molecule, even though it meets the definition. I'll wait while you snivel and belly-ache.
Tell me how no serious bicyclegeoalchemist worth they/their/them's salt considers a gold nugget that meets the definition of "molecule" to be a molecule.

I'm listening. I know you want to rant. You have an audience, even if you don't have a library.

Oh, I have great news. Swan is totally on your side. That should give you confidence.

.

So, almost all the biogeochemistry threads ...

Im a BM wrote:
The "Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems" thread is holding steady with nearly 100 new "views" a day. "Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean 'Acidification'" is in second place at about 80 views a day.

Im a BM wrote:
I'm a little disappointed that the paleobiogeochemistry thread doesn't arouse as much interest as I hoped.
...deleted remaining spam...

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
What is the NON moron definition of "molecule"? Ask God, via Google!

inquiry: "molecule" definition

Google and God say that: "A molecule is a group of two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds, which can be the same or different elements."

I love watching you squirm. Yes or no, does a gold nugget fit that definition?

HINT: Yes it does, to a "T"

Go ahead. I know you want to blurt out that gold is somehow not a molecule, even though it meets the definition. I'll wait while you snivel and belly-ache.
Tell me how no serious bicyclegeoalchemist worth they/their/them's salt considers a gold nugget that meets the definition of "molecule" to be a molecule.

I'm listening. I know you want to rant. You have an audience, even if you don't have a library.

Oh, I have great news. Swan is totally on your side. That should give you confidence.

.

A Gold nugget of pure Gold would not be a molecule,

It most certainly is. You are ignoring Avogadro again.

Swan wrote:
however pure .999 Gold is rarely found in nature

Irrelevance fallacy.

Swan wrote:
where nuggets are made.

Does nature use union labor to make the gold nuggets?

Swan wrote:
However at least you are consistently wrong

Assumption of victory fallacy.

You should start selling your meth instead of smoking it all

Into the Night wrote:

You are making up numbers again.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
What is the NON moron definition of "molecule"? Ask God, via Google!

inquiry: "molecule" definition

Google and God say that: "A molecule is a group of two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds, which can be the same or different elements."

I love watching you squirm. Yes or no, does a gold nugget fit that definition?

HINT: Yes it does, to a "T"

Go ahead. I know you want to blurt out that gold is somehow not a molecule, even though it meets the definition. I'll wait while you snivel and belly-ache.
Tell me how no serious bicyclegeoalchemist worth they/their/them's salt considers a gold nugget that meets the definition of "molecule" to be a molecule.

I'm listening. I know you want to rant. You have an audience, even if you don't have a library.

Oh, I have great news. Swan is totally on your side. That should give you confidence.

.

A Gold nugget of pure Gold would not be a molecule,

It most certainly is. You are ignoring Avogadro again.

Swan wrote:
however pure .999 Gold is rarely found in nature

Irrelevance fallacy.

Swan wrote:
where nuggets are made.

Does nature use union labor to make the gold nuggets?

Swan wrote:
However at least you are consistently wrong

Assumption of victory fallacy.

You should start selling your meth instead of smoking it all

I don't smoke anything, moron. Insults do not change what a molecule is. You simply want to deny English and Avogadro.

Gold is both a molecule and an element.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
What is the NON moron definition of "molecule"? Ask God, via Google!

inquiry: "molecule" definition

Google and God say that: "A molecule is a group of two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds, which can be the same or different elements."

I love watching you squirm. Yes or no, does a gold nugget fit that definition?

HINT: Yes it does, to a "T"

Go ahead. I know you want to blurt out that gold is somehow not a molecule, even though it meets the definition. I'll wait while you snivel and belly-ache.
Tell me how no serious bicyclegeoalchemist worth they/their/them's salt considers a gold nugget that meets the definition of "molecule" to be a molecule.

I'm listening. I know you want to rant. You have an audience, even if you don't have a library.

Oh, I have great news. Swan is totally on your side. That should give you confidence.

.

A Gold nugget of pure Gold would not be a molecule,

It most certainly is. You are ignoring Avogadro again.

Swan wrote:
however pure .999 Gold is rarely found in nature

Irrelevance fallacy.

Swan wrote:
where nuggets are made.

Does nature use union labor to make the gold nuggets?

Swan wrote:
However at least you are consistently wrong

Assumption of victory fallacy.

You should start selling your meth instead of smoking it all

I don't smoke anything, moron. Insults do not change what a molecule is. You simply want to deny English and Avogadro.

Gold is both a molecule and an element.

Does the nurse know that you stole her phone again?

Swan wrote:
No, pure gold is an element, not a molecule.

Swan wrote:
A molecule is typically defined as a group of two or more atoms held together by strong covalent bonds, often involving different elements.

Swan wrote:
Pure gold (Au) is a pure substance made up of only one type of atom (gold atoms).

Swan wrote:
In its solid metallic form, these atoms are arranged in a crystal lattice structure held together by metallic bonds, not covalent bonds that form discrete molecules.

Swan wrote:
Gold compounds, such as gold chloride (\(\text{AuCl}_{3}

) or chloroauric acid (\(\text{HAuCl}_{4}

), do contain gold as part of a molecule, but the pure metal itself is not a molecule.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
What is the NON moron definition of "molecule"? Ask God, via Google!

inquiry: "molecule" definition

Google and God say that: "A molecule is a group of two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds, which can be the same or different elements."

I love watching you squirm. Yes or no, does a gold nugget fit that definition?

HINT: Yes it does, to a "T"

Go ahead. I know you want to blurt out that gold is somehow not a molecule, even though it meets the definition. I'll wait while you snivel and belly-ache.
Tell me how no serious bicyclegeoalchemist worth they/their/them's salt considers a gold nugget that meets the definition of "molecule" to be a molecule.

I'm listening. I know you want to rant. You have an audience, even if you don't have a library.

Oh, I have great news. Swan is totally on your side. That should give you confidence.

.

A Gold nugget of pure Gold would not be a molecule,

It most certainly is. You are ignoring Avogadro again.

Swan wrote:
however pure .999 Gold is rarely found in nature

Irrelevance fallacy.

Swan wrote:
where nuggets are made.

Does nature use union labor to make the gold nuggets?

Swan wrote:
However at least you are consistently wrong

Assumption of victory fallacy.

You should start selling your meth instead of smoking it all

I don't smoke anything, moron. Insults do not change what a molecule is. You simply want to deny English and Avogadro.

Gold is both a molecule and an element.

Does the nurse know that you stole her phone again?

Stupid insult ignored. Mantra 1d.

Swan wrote:
No, pure gold is an element, not a molecule.

It is both.

Swan wrote:
A molecule is typically defined as a group of two or more atoms held together by strong covalent bonds, often involving different elements.

Redefinition fallacy. You are ignoring English and Avogadro again.

Swan wrote:
Pure gold (Au) is a pure substance made up of only one type of atom (gold atoms).

So?

Swan wrote:
In its solid metallic form, these atoms are arranged in a crystal lattice structure held together by metallic bonds, not covalent bonds that form discrete molecules.

Type of bond doesn't matter.

Swan wrote:
Gold compounds, such as gold chloride (\(\text{AuCl}_{3}

) or chloroauric acid (\(\text{HAuCl}_{4}

), do contain gold as part of a molecule, but the pure metal itself is not a molecule.

Pure gold is also a molecule (and an element).

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
What is the NON moron definition of "molecule"? Ask God, via Google!

inquiry: "molecule" definition

Google and God say that: "A molecule is a group of two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds, which can be the same or different elements."

I love watching you squirm. Yes or no, does a gold nugget fit that definition?

HINT: Yes it does, to a "T"

Go ahead. I know you want to blurt out that gold is somehow not a molecule, even though it meets the definition. I'll wait while you snivel and belly-ache.
Tell me how no serious bicyclegeoalchemist worth they/their/them's salt considers a gold nugget that meets the definition of "molecule" to be a molecule.

I'm listening. I know you want to rant. You have an audience, even if you don't have a library.

Oh, I have great news. Swan is totally on your side. That should give you confidence.

.

A Gold nugget of pure Gold would not be a molecule,

It most certainly is. You are ignoring Avogadro again.

Swan wrote:
however pure .999 Gold is rarely found in nature

Irrelevance fallacy.

Swan wrote:
where nuggets are made.

Does nature use union labor to make the gold nuggets?

Swan wrote:
However at least you are consistently wrong

Assumption of victory fallacy.

You should start selling your meth instead of smoking it all

I don't smoke anything, moron. Insults do not change what a molecule is. You simply want to deny English and Avogadro.

Gold is both a molecule and an element.

Does the nurse know that you stole her phone again?

Stupid insult ignored. Mantra 1d.

Swan wrote:
No, pure gold is an element, not a molecule.

It is both.

Swan wrote:
A molecule is typically defined as a group of two or more atoms held together by strong covalent bonds, often involving different elements.

Redefinition fallacy. You are ignoring English and Avogadro again.

Swan wrote:
Pure gold (Au) is a pure substance made up of only one type of atom (gold atoms).

So?

Swan wrote:
In its solid metallic form, these atoms are arranged in a crystal lattice structure held together by metallic bonds, not covalent bonds that form discrete molecules.

Type of bond doesn't matter.

Swan wrote:
Gold compounds, such as gold chloride (\(\text{AuCl}_{3}

) or chloroauric acid (\(\text{HAuCl}_{4}

), do contain gold as part of a molecule, but the pure metal itself is not a molecule.

Pure gold is also a molecule (and an element).

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
What is the NON moron definition of "molecule"? Ask God, via Google!

inquiry: "molecule" definition

Google and God say that: "A molecule is a group of two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds, which can be the same or different elements."

I love watching you squirm. Yes or no, does a gold nugget fit that definition?

HINT: Yes it does, to a "T"

Go ahead. I know you want to blurt out that gold is somehow not a molecule, even though it meets the definition. I'll wait while you snivel and belly-ache.
Tell me how no serious bicyclegeoalchemist worth they/their/them's salt considers a gold nugget that meets the definition of "molecule" to be a molecule.

I'm listening. I know you want to rant. You have an audience, even if you don't have a library.

Oh, I have great news. Swan is totally on your side. That should give you confidence.

.

A Gold nugget of pure Gold would not be a molecule,

It most certainly is. You are ignoring Avogadro again.

Swan wrote:
however pure .999 Gold is rarely found in nature

Irrelevance fallacy.

Swan wrote:
where nuggets are made.

Does nature use union labor to make the gold nuggets?

Swan wrote:
However at least you are consistently wrong

Assumption of victory fallacy.

You should start selling your meth instead of smoking it all

I don't smoke anything, moron. Insults do not change what a molecule is. You simply want to deny English and Avogadro.

Gold is both a molecule and an element.

Does the nurse know that you stole her phone again?

Stupid insult ignored. Mantra 1d.

Swan wrote:
No, pure gold is an element, not a molecule.

It is both.

Swan wrote:
A molecule is typically defined as a group of two or more atoms held together by strong covalent bonds, often involving different elements.

Redefinition fallacy. You are ignoring English and Avogadro again.

Swan wrote:
Pure gold (Au) is a pure substance made up of only one type of atom (gold atoms).

So?

Swan wrote:
In its solid metallic form, these atoms are arranged in a crystal lattice structure held together by metallic bonds, not covalent bonds that form discrete molecules.

Type of bond doesn't matter.

Swan wrote:
Gold compounds, such as gold chloride (\(\text{AuCl}_{3}

) or chloroauric acid (\(\text{HAuCl}_{4}

), do contain gold as part of a molecule, but the pure metal itself is not a molecule.

Pure gold is also a molecule (and an element).

Molecules use covalent bonding, pure Gold uses non molecular metallic bonding. Ask someone who graduated high school like you obviously did not. Or you can keep jerking yourself off here as you like to do so often