New York Spot Price
MARKET IS OPEN
Will close in 1 hour 27 minutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Bid Ask Change Low High
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gold 588.40 589.10 +10.20 +1.76 % 581.50 592.90
Silver 10.46 10.56 +0.28 +2.75 % 10.32 10.66
Platinum 1186.00 1196.00 +10.00 +0.85 % 1178.00 1210.00
Palladium 310.00 315.00 +5.00 +1.64 % 303.00 315.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last Update on Jun 29, 2006 at 12:04.04
Everybody knows that the planet is increasing in general temperature at least atmospherically since 1850. The graph is quite clear. We also know that the there is a general increase in C02 from man-made sources in that same time. There has also been a general increase in refrigeration gases such as methane, freon and a great increase in chlorine generation. Chlorine, if it could get into the upper atmosphere would be very destructive. Until recently it was thought that it could not ascend, as it is heavier than air, but recently mechanisms have been suggested, not the least of which could be convection of Cl dissolved in water vapour which is even heavier relatively than air - of course. Freon we all know about as being extremely destructive of the ozone layer, which has an extremely important effect of shielding the planet from excessive UV, and also containing the atmosphere from "leakage" to a degree. The effect of NOx in interacting with ozone detrimentally has also been discussed. It is thought that ozonation of city water supplies in time may have the effect of balancing the loss of ozone, but it still has to get there. Ozone is produced naturally but may have to compete with depleting mechanisms unfairly. At present the ozone layer's significant depletion has been glossed over in favour of discussing the general greenhouse effect. Whereas we know about the increase in temperature and this is inarguable, and easily graphically displayed, and locally testifiable by people who keep an eye on degree days and growing seasons for decades at a time. such as farmers and amateur meterologists ... we do not know the reason.
It has been suggested that CO2 generation is the reason. This must be accompanied by a detectable CO2 blanket in the upper atmosphere, and or a droplet cloud of haze that is CO2 rich. Neither are in evidence. As well, the excursions of rich CO2 in the atmosphere in times past, which can be measured in the ice sheets of Antarctica, Greenland, and in fossilized plant matter by carbon analysis, shows no correlation between CO2 and earth temperature. We can infer temperture from world distribution of plant and animal species, ice ages and desertification.
In talking to atmospheric scientists, I can assure you that the jury is firmly out. Kyoto and the like are political assemblages driven by scientists who have managed to convince government that this effect is proven. Only they get invited to the party.
Even if you take the upper limit of possible contribution of CO2, it is not demonstrable that it has more effect than say methane from farm animals, which is more of a greenhouse gas and as plentiful as man-made exhaust from fossil fuel. It is also not known if the reduction in forest fires and cutting of trees has not reduced the natural contribution in a sufficiently offsetting way. The artifact contribution is very small. It has been suggested that man made CO2 is not more than 3% of natural. That this 1.03 contribution could make the climate changes it has is debatable. Is it that "adde parvum parvo magnus acervus erit"? Should we resort to a handy causa causans? No. causa efficiens It is a case of "causa latet, vis est notissima", we seek a "causa vera", a "causa materialis"
If you take the contribution out and the climate change out, what would you think is the replacement? A flat line climate? When has this existed before? All evidence points to similar swings throughout time that are much greater than we are experiencing, which seem naturally cyclical, -AND- the existence of even broader swings in the amount of atmospheric CO2 to multiples of our levels today without correlated changes in climate!! If we were to say CO2 changed with climate then the amount of CO2 present during ice ages must markedly decline. It does not. It often increases!
Right now we are dealing with weak probability and no cause. The allegation of a thermal blanket that is not seen, or proven to exist. It could not even be measured before 1965 and has not been convincingly measured to this date! Yet we are asked to believe it exists in theory since 1850! Absorption of CO2 is never talked about. There exists many buffers to CO2 that are completely swept under the table in any "pro-warming discussion".
Far more measurable and perhaps more serious is the depletion of the ozone layer. We do know that clouds of invisible and visible health deteriorating gases pollute cities throughout the world. For just these reasons, carbon pollution has to be reduced. For cogent reasons to do with running out of energy even more than health, we have to conserve and improve efficiency. Improving efficiency and going to alternate energy decreases greenhouse gas in an enormous way very close to home. Air will be cleaner and fuels will last us longer.
Trying to match enormous and complex temperature curves in the climate cycle and differentiate the underlying causation is enormously complex. The curve may be due to man-made effects. It may not be. No one has chased every molecule of CO2 and methane to know where it goes. The have Dalton chemistry, some computer programs, a thermometer and a record of 0.00000312% of climate history "in the bag". This is hardly hammer-nail science.
quod erat demonstrandum
decipi frons prima multos
If we tried to apply these levels of correlations to the flucuations of the stock market we would be laughed out of the halls of academia and flunked on courses in probability. We have not justified our observations. we have multiplied cause unecessarily.
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant :)
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas
Mundus vult decipi
Scientia est potentia
Veritas vos liberabit
EC<:-} |
