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: koan who wrote (31674)	2/2/2007 2:53:19 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78424

We have one percent of the data we need to make a decision, and even with all the data, we are unsure of the effects and cannot completely discount co-incidental natural increases. We need another planet to experiment with. The trouble is there are no industrial excursions of higher CO2 to compare figures with, and dinosaurs did not carry thermometers If the natural increases equate to the artificial is another question. We are comparing mythologies and airing prejudices. Scientists are holding court alright, but when they go back to the graphs it still does not signal finality with any confidence. It is easy to say that the arctic ice is receding. It seems to be. I won't deny the evidence of some warming. The trouble is we are not facing the fact that it has happened before. The Vikings were able to navigate the Northwest passage in the winter 1000 years ago. The sea may have been 25 feet higher than it is now. When you say that to scientists, and it does appear to have been a fact, all you get is some gobooledygook about the Younger Dryas and the mini ice age of the middle ages. They have no convincing denial, and their reiteration that this climate swing is markedly different is a thus in that respect a flawed argument. The biggest problem I have seen, that is still without convincing temperature average correlation, is that the CO2 content of the air today is different in composition. It's carbon 12-13 ratio is different, implying the contribution from fuel is higher than it was in the past. The thing ignored is that the contribution of ice melting in the polar areas to CO2 may be reversed to what we think. In other words, sea water contributes to increased CO2 and not the other way around. This is because the deep ocean is a CO2 sink and changes to its cycles are significant with respect to atmospheric CO2. I think jet contrails are much more significant than people realize. Due to the 9-11 effect observed, it may be that a lot of the observed temperature increases may be partly due to their contribution. EC<:-}

To: koan who wrote (31674)	2/2/2007 2:54:53 PM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 78424

We have one percent of the data we need to make a decision, and even with all the data, we are unsure of the effects and cannot completely discount co-incidental natural increases. We need another planet to experiment with. The trouble is there are no industrial excursions of higher CO2 to compare figures with, and dinosaurs did not carry thermometers If the natural increases equate to the artificial is another question. We are comparing mythologies and airing prejudices. Scientists are holding court alright, but when they go back to the graphs it still does not signal finality with any confidence. It is easy to say that the arctic ice is receding. It seems to be. I won't deny the evidence of some warming. The trouble is we are not facing the fact that it has happened before. The Vikings were able to navigate the Northwest passage in the winter 1000 years ago. The sea may have been 25 feet higher than it is now. When you say that to scientists, and it does appear to have been a fact, all you get is some gobooledygook about the Younger Dryas and the mini ice age of the middle ages. They have no convincing denial, and their reiteration that this climate swing is markedly different is a thus in that respect a flawed argument. The biggest problem I have seen, that is still without convincing temperature average correlation, is that the CO2 content of the air today is different in composition. It's carbon 12-13 ratio is different, implying the contribution from fuel is higher than it was in the past. The thing ignored is that the contribution of ice melting in the polar areas to CO2 may be reversed to what we think. In other words, sea water contributes to increased CO2 and not the other way around. This is because the deep ocean is a CO2 sink and changes to its cycles are significant with respect to atmospheric CO2. I think jet contrails are much more significant than people realize. Due to the 9-11 effect observed, it may be that a lot of the observed temperature increases may be partly due to their contribution. EC<:-}