Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E. Charters who wrote (24995)	11/10/2006 9:05:15 PM
From: koan	Respond to of 78410

SEE LC, it is not me. Slan, EC is picking on me again-lol.

To: E. Charters who wrote (24995)	11/10/2006 9:21:05 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78410

Ok EC, lets break this down. LC, do not look-lol. Lets not go into the briar patch of esoteria. Let's see if we can construct a logical equation here. One concept at a time, OK? 1) in the last 650,000 years CO2 levels have NEVER risen above 300 parts per million. Probably the last couple of million years. 2) we know there is a positive correlation between co2 levels and temperature. 3) co2 levels are now near 400 PPM and the last few years have been the hottest on record. Are you willing to agree to the above-lol?

To: E. Charters who wrote (24995)	11/12/2006 11:01:56 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 78410

I know triple PHd's whose avocation is modeling climate change and they don't agree at all that the problem is clearly man made. Yes. I'm a theoretical physicist. I claim the sun is the culprit. Nor do they agree that "most scientists agree". I can convincingly refute all other culprits. What is clear is that the mechanism of climate change due to greenhouse gases increase in the amounts so represented by human contribution is not easily tied to the actual temperature rise. True. Might add 1%. Fess up, what a lot of knee jerk scientist say is not the truth. You got that right. 3% of CO2 is man made. What the scientist would have you believe, is that if we double that contribution to 6%, then there will be major heat increase. They would because they work for the medieval church. They base this on 100 years of badly collected data, which shows in log scale a meagre 1 degree celsius rise in earth temperature. Despite the correlation with the rise in CO2 emissions, many excursions in the past have surpassed this rise by an order in magnitude without any corresponding known rise in CO2. So they tell you there is a correlation today, but when there is none, they throw up their hands? Extremely long term temperature changes over the last 100 million years is enough to throw those guys out. You see, they're on a run. They have a gut feeling that... Sea levels were much higher in 525 and 900 AD. What caused that? What caused they mini ice age of the 1300's? Nobody knows. I do. Admit that. No. Did CO2 get sucked out of the atmosphere to cause the last 3 ice ages? Changes in the solar chromosphere was the culprit. Did you know that the summers must cool slightly and the winters warm overall to cause an ice age? But this is an average thought! What happens to the average temperature then? Warmer or colder overall? Guess what. It's warmer. Do the math. Wrong calculation. Temperature change can be very abrupt, global, and persistent. In fact, you can hold me to it, for, I claim we're at the peak of temperature and soon to go plunging down the slippery slope into cold storage where they will only talk about global cooling. I am not saying CO2 cannot cause global warming. Why not? There have been periods in earth's history where CO2 rose tremendously without attendant average temperature increase. The earth's temperature has been exceedingly constant for the last 1 billion years. Please explain how CO2 raises temperature. Jeans-Rayleigh scattering? Admission of short wavelengths due to reduced ozone? For every explanation there's associated a refutation, like global dimming, exiting radiation, raised chlorophyl induced absorption. The only factor which has no counter is the sun. A fluctuation at the seventh order of the sun's output causes absolute havoc on earth. I am absolutely sure that Jet Contrails cause global warming. I made that argument 20 years ago, and no one yet has refuted it, except that the argument requires an activator. I have proposed the sun. Actually, back then I argued that the reaction of jet fuel spent gases with certain gaseous radicals in the stratosphere created intermediate gaseous compounds which multiplied the amount of short wavelengths reaching the earth somewhat down the line and related to ozone depletion by CFCs. So Charters, I'm impressed. First good comments I've read in SI for a long time, except mine, of course.