Gold Price Monitor Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor

GDXJ 101.44

+3.5%

Nov 12 4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: The Vet who wrote (88805)	8/15/2002 10:53:44 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) of 116756

bias, agenda? This is not apparent to this fool. OK let's start again. The contrail data is not unverified. It is comparison of no flying to flying for apparently enough time to draw a conclusion about water vapour's effects from man made sources in the atmosphere and its effects on heating of the atmosphere. It is apparently a positive conclusion that there is a measurable effect from the jets in our skies. I recall the question being asked 40 years ago, but it seemed unanswerable or perhaps alarmist to me then.. Then the comparison is drawn between the AMOUNT of the contrail effect and the AMOUNT of a similar emission, i..e. carbon dioxide, other gases and and acid rain droplets. The greenhouse emission spectra which includes freon. It is apparent that comparitively, the greenhouse gases are greater in total amount as a percentage of the atmosphere. Does this lead to the conclusion that there must be an effect, despite the fact that unlike the jet contrail data we do not have a control group so to speak? Well since the effects are different "chemically" at least in part, then not exactly. But the "amount" equations must make us suspicious given that a reaction depends in part on quantity as well as things like K of reaction etc... So you did not like the rhetorical device "any fool can see". Well gotcha. You could say. "ahh but I did not see.".. ergo you are not a fool, or perhaps a fool but we are wrong, and fools have trouble seeing it.. so it may be a tad complex... perhaps it is.. It just seemed to me that if a few jets may make such a difference to the heat in our atmosphere, then the scads of carbon dioxide that we pour forth as waste from fossil fuels just on sheer amount must have an effect. We overlooked this with jet exhausts.. perhaps prejudiciously... are we making the same mistake in dismissing CO2. methane and its friends from sua culpa?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next