A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

No Significant Relief from Global Warming



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 23rd 18, 06:36 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 331
Default No Significant Relief from Global Warming

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:05:45 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

NPR (that bastion of conservative extremism) was just talking
this morning about how all the biggest manufacturers of solar
panels are in China these days, because China has been
subsidizing them (and encouraging dumping in the international
market) for a decade or so. And how ****ed they re with the new
tariff, which brings their prices up to something more
competitive to the less (but still) subsidized US manufacturers.


It will raise the price of panels, of course. But panels are
already one of the less expensive parts of any PV system.


Heh. And solar is still subsidized in the US by a couple orders of
magnitdue more per MwH than fossil fuel generation.

No. The traditional fossil fuels are petroleum and coal, both
of which are now being priced out of the energy generation
market.


More by the low prices of natural gas than the high prices of
either, of course. There's a real glut of natural gas these
days, and it's not likely to end soon.


Coal will not recover.


And really won't be missed much. Though I suspect it will continue
to provide material for manufacturing for centuries.

It's simply too dirty and too expensive
to clean. It was already being priced out even before cheap
natural gas showed up. Petroleum costs will depend upon supply,
but most evidence points to that diminishing. Meanwhile, solar
and wind will certainly continue to get cheaper.


Except when it gets more expensive, as the subsidies end.

Yeah, hold your breath on that. It will take a lifetime to build
enough infrastructure and generating capacity to replace
gasoline powered cars with eelectrics (which will required at
least a 1/3 increase in total capacity in the US).


That's almost certainly a myth. Most of the infrastructure
already exists right in people's homes.


No, it's not. The US currently uses the equivalent of about one
terrawatt-hour in gasoline every year. That's about 1/3 of the
total electrical generating capacity in the US right now. There
isn't that much excess generating capacity, nor is there enough
transmission capacity in the current grids to handle that much
more.

And if you want to use your current 110v outlet to charge your
electric car, you'll be waiting at least 8-10 hours for every three
or four you drive. And you'll almost certainly be doing so during
peak usage hours. (Where people live - like southern California -
electricity is *more* expensive than gasoline per mile drive, by at
least twice as much.) Then, of course, there's the very large
number of people who rent their homes. My apartment complex isn't
going to install $50,000+ chargers for each of the almost 200 units
without raising the rest well beyond anything I could afford. And
there's no enclose cparking, so even if they did, people would
steal the copper anyway. I, at least, have off stree parking. Many
do not. Do you expect cities to install $50,000 chargers like
parking meters?

But the real killer, the thing for which there simply isn't a
vaiable solution, is energy transfer times. You can put enough gas
into a car to travel 300+ miles in about three minutes. For a home
charger, that's 8+ hours. For the commercial chargers in use today,
50 kw unites, that's still 2-3 hours. For Proche's proposed 350 kw
chargers, it still 20 minutes. Using existing technology, a gas
station with 16 pumps today would need nearly 200 charging stations
(at $50k+ each) to service the same number of vehicles. And a 30
megawatt power circuit coming in. To transfer energy as quickly -
300+ miles of driving in three minutes - would require a 3 megawatt
charger. Do you *really* want to see the average moron who is
trying to shave and eat breakfest while driving handling ap irce of
wire that that will literally explode if mishandled? (With debris
likely causing a chain reaction with other chargers)?

30 megawatt circuit per gas station. There are 680,000 places in
the US that sell gasoline.

(Aside from the fact that there simply isn't enough lithium
production in the world to build a couple hundred million cars, nor
will there be any time soon. And that's just the US.)

No, it's not a myth. Electric cars will soon be fine for a second
vehicle as a daily driver for people who don't commute too far. But
they cannot do everything a gasoline car does. So most people have
the choice of either buying a gasoline car that does everything
they need, or an electric car that doesn't, or buying two cars.

Good luck with that.


Battery technology is not dependent upon foreign materials,


Are there rare earth mines actually productive in the US now?
China is the biggest producer, and they've already manipulated
the market to protect their own interests.


Battery technology does not utilize much in the way of rare
earths.


It does utilize ltihium, which has its own issues.

there is no military cost.


Today.


Why would there be if we're not dependent upon foreign sources
for materials?


China is the biggest producer of rare earths. Which are used in
battery production, and wich are absolutely required for the
electronics needed for charging. (And without the electronic
controls, lithium batteries are far too dangerous for consumer
use.)

And battery technology does not have
a large environmental impact.


Now you're into retard territory.


That's not an intelligent response.


You didn't offer an intellectual statement. You said something
*stupid*.

There is lots of information
out there about the environmental issues surrounding batteries.
The lead acid battery industry achieves near 100% recycling, and
is viewed as a model for how other battery lifecycles can be
modeled. The toxins in the batteries and used for manufacturing
are usually not significant, and are manageable.


Not when you scale it up to the 60 million cars manufactured every
year. (And there isn't enough lithium production to support that
anyway.)

We don't see
environmental releases from batteries (and certainly not at the
levels we see from burning fossil fuels).


We don't see 1% as many electric cars being manufactures as
gasolien cars, either.

Nor do the production of wind or
solar production equipment.

Wind, less so. Solar requires exotic materials, as do high tech
batteries, both of which have environmental implications for
manufacture, and disposal after they're worn out.


No, not really. The bulk of the materials are not in the least
exotic


So you agree that some of the materials *are*. 60 million cars a
year.

and the manufacturing processes are the same or similar
to what we see in a great many products today, where
environmental impact is well controlled.


That's mighty fine Kool-Aid you're smoking there, son.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

  #22  
Old January 23rd 18, 07:28 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 331
Default No Significant Relief from Global Warming

Razzmatazz wrote in
:

On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 11:34:46 AM UTC-6, Chris L
Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:05:45 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

NPR (that bastion of conservative extremism) was just talking
this morning about how all the biggest manufacturers of solar
panels are in China these days, because China has been
subsidizing them (and encouraging dumping in the international
market) for a decade or so. And how ****ed they re with the
new tariff, which brings their prices up to something more
competitive to the less (but still) subsidized US
manufacturers.


It will raise the price of panels, of course. But panels are
already one of the less expensive parts of any PV system.

No. The traditional fossil fuels are petroleum and coal,
both of which are now being priced out of the energy
generation market.

More by the low prices of natural gas than the high prices of
either, of course. There's a real glut of natural gas these
days, and it's not likely to end soon.


Coal will not recover. It's simply too dirty and too expensive
to clean. It was already being priced out even before cheap
natural gas showed up. Petroleum costs will depend upon supply,
but most evidence points to that diminishing. Meanwhile, solar
and wind will certainly continue to get cheaper.

Yeah, hold your breath on that. It will take a lifetime to
build enough infrastructure and generating capacity to replace
gasoline powered cars with eelectrics (which will required at
least a 1/3 increase in total capacity in the US).


That's almost certainly a myth. Most of the infrastructure
already exists right in people's homes.

Battery technology is not dependent upon foreign materials,

Are there rare earth mines actually productive in the US now?
China is the biggest producer, and they've already manipulated
the market to protect their own interests.


Battery technology does not utilize much in the way of rare
earths.

there is no military cost.

Today.


Why would there be if we're not dependent upon foreign sources
for materials?

And battery technology does not have
a large environmental impact.

Now you're into retard territory.


That's not an intelligent response. There is lots of
information out there about the environmental issues
surrounding batteries. The lead acid battery industry achieves
near 100% recycling, and is viewed as a model for how other
battery lifecycles can be modeled. The toxins in the batteries
and used for manufacturing are usually not significant, and are
manageable. We don't see environmental releases from batteries
(and certainly not at the levels we see from burning fossil
fuels).

Nor do the production of wind or
solar production equipment.

Wind, less so. Solar requires exotic materials, as do high
tech batteries, both of which have environmental implications
for manufacture, and disposal after they're worn out.


No, not really. The bulk of the materials are not in the least
exotic and the manufacturing processes are the same or similar
to what we see in a great many products today, where
environmental impact is well controlled.


Ah but the American people have made their decision as far as
climate change - they elected the honorable Mr. Trump, who will
show the way to a clean (coal) energy future. Mr. Trump shows
that he does have coherent policies. The tariffs on solar panels
will clearly energize the boom he has sought for his beloved
coal industry. While literally EVERY OTHER country in the world
wants to help with climate change Mr. Trump uniquely understands
that you can lessen global warming if you fill the air with
enough smoke. That's how un-enlightenment works, Trump style.
Clean coal now! clean coal tomorrow! clean coal forever!!

I just saw something this morning about how reduced pollution is
cauing more global warming.

Seriously.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

  #23  
Old January 23rd 18, 07:45 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Razzmatazz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 265
Default No Significant Relief from Global Warming

On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 11:34:46 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:05:45 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

NPR (that bastion of conservative extremism) was just talking this
morning about how all the biggest manufacturers of solar panels are
in China these days, because China has been subsidizing them (and
encouraging dumping in the international market) for a decade or
so. And how ****ed they re with the new tariff, which brings their
prices up to something more competitive to the less (but still)
subsidized US manufacturers.


It will raise the price of panels, of course. But panels are already
one of the less expensive parts of any PV system.

No. The traditional fossil fuels are petroleum and coal, both of
which are now being priced out of the energy generation market.


More by the low prices of natural gas than the high prices of
either, of course. There's a real glut of natural gas these days,
and it's not likely to end soon.


Coal will not recover. It's simply too dirty and too expensive to
clean. It was already being priced out even before cheap natural gas
showed up. Petroleum costs will depend upon supply, but most evidence
points to that diminishing. Meanwhile, solar and wind will certainly
continue to get cheaper.

Yeah, hold your breath on that. It will take a lifetime to build
enough infrastructure and generating capacity to replace gasoline
powered cars with eelectrics (which will required at least a 1/3
increase in total capacity in the US).


That's almost certainly a myth. Most of the infrastructure already
exists right in people's homes.

Battery technology is not dependent upon foreign materials,


Are there rare earth mines actually productive in the US now? China
is the biggest producer, and they've already manipulated the market
to protect their own interests.


Battery technology does not utilize much in the way of rare earths.

there is no military cost.


Today.


Why would there be if we're not dependent upon foreign sources for
materials?

And battery technology does not have
a large environmental impact.


Now you're into retard territory.


That's not an intelligent response. There is lots of information out
there about the environmental issues surrounding batteries. The lead
acid battery industry achieves near 100% recycling, and is viewed as a
model for how other battery lifecycles can be modeled. The toxins in
the batteries and used for manufacturing are usually not significant,
and are manageable. We don't see environmental releases from batteries
(and certainly not at the levels we see from burning fossil fuels).

Nor do the production of wind or
solar production equipment.

Wind, less so. Solar requires exotic materials, as do high tech
batteries, both of which have environmental implications for
manufacture, and disposal after they're worn out.


No, not really. The bulk of the materials are not in the least exotic
and the manufacturing processes are the same or similar to what we see
in a great many products today, where environmental impact is well
controlled.


Ah but the American people have made their decision as far as climate change - they elected the honorable Mr. Trump, who will show the way to a clean (coal) energy future.
Mr. Trump shows that he does have coherent policies. The tariffs on solar panels will clearly energize the boom he has sought for his beloved coal industry. While literally EVERY OTHER country in the world wants to help with climate change Mr. Trump uniquely understands that you can lessen global warming if you fill the air with enough smoke. That's how un-enlightenment works, Trump style.
Clean coal now! clean coal tomorrow! clean coal forever!!
  #24  
Old January 24th 18, 06:52 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default No Significant Relief from Global Warming

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:36:39 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

Heh. And solar is still subsidized in the US by a couple orders of
magnitdue more per MwH than fossil fuel generation.


I've put in a couple of small PV system in the last few years, and
will put a good sized one in my new house. There are no subsidies, not
for the panels, not for the electronics, not for the batteries.

But the real killer, the thing for which there simply isn't a
vaiable solution, is energy transfer times. You can put enough gas
into a car to travel 300+ miles in about three minutes.


Not a problem, given that the vast majority of driving is under 50
miles, with plenty of slow charge time between. For longer trips,
there will be hybrids, exchangeable batteries, and other solutions.
People need gas stations because they don't have gasoline at home or
at work. They do have power. And with lots of cars on chargers, they
become a major part of the storage system for a wind/solar supplied
grid.

No, it's not a myth. Electric cars will soon be fine for a second
vehicle...


It's not really an issue, as they're not going to have a choice.
Electric is going to be the only game in town unless people want to
pay a fortune for a specialty vehicle.

Battery technology does not utilize much in the way of rare
earths.


It does utilize ltihium, which has its own issues.


Lithium is domestically produced.

Why would there be if we're not dependent upon foreign sources
for materials?


China is the biggest producer of rare earths. Which are used in
battery production, and wich are absolutely required for the
electronics needed for charging.


No, they're not. The only place rare earth elements are potentially
involved is in the motors, and not necessarily there. And in any case,
we can buy from China. China has their own military to defend their
own interests. They aren't a third world country that we need to
maintain a military presence in as is the case with petroleum.

Not when you scale it up to the 60 million cars manufactured every
year. (And there isn't enough lithium production to support that
anyway.)


It's always amusing to see people who lack imagination and ignore the
fact that there has never been a new technology that didn't rapidly
result in the creation of whatever it needed in the way of support.

  #25  
Old January 24th 18, 08:08 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default No Significant Relief from Global Warming

On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 10:52:56 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

No, they're not. The only place rare earth elements are potentially
involved is in the motors, and not necessarily there. And in any case,
we can buy from China.


For a while, recently, China decided to monkey with its rare earth
exports to favor domestic users. This caused quite a worldwide panic.

The panic was somewhat unwarranted. The minerals from which rare earth
metals are extracted are widely available in many other countries. The
only problem is that the only facilities that refined those ores were in
China, because it was cheaper to do that there than anywhere else.

So if China declined to export rare earth metals, we could make do with
last years' smartphones for a while, and then make our own. And we could
then enact tariffs to protect the investment in the replacement plants
when China decided its ploy wasn't working and decided to undersell them.

It was perhaps more legal to do what was done - point out that what China
was doing violated trade agreements it had signed. But trade agreements
that force countries to export raw materials instead of manufactured
goods *are* inherently exploitive, so I couldn't whole-heartedly root for
that.

John Savard
  #26  
Old January 24th 18, 08:21 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default No Significant Relief from Global Warming

On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 10:52:56 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

It's always amusing to see people who lack imagination and ignore the
fact that there has never been a new technology that didn't rapidly
result in the creation of whatever it needed in the way of support.


Never?

I always thought that of 100 new technologies, 99 of them never catch on,
and thus don't get what they need for support.

The first thing electric cars need is electricity that isn't made from
fossil fuels. If the electricity they use comes from a coal-fired
generating plant, there is no benefit from a carbon point of view. There
could still be a local environmental benefit for things like
photochemical smog.

If *that* were to happen, then we would be reducing carbon emissions by
so much that we almost wouldn't need to force people to switch to
electric cars. Which do not have as much range as gasoline cars for the
same price. And a *battery* doesn't have the same life span as a gas
tank, because it has to do much more work.

Still, it is indeed to be expected that if we get governments that take
global warming seriously, gasoline cars will indeed be phased out.
Myself, I'd prefer a different course:

1) Switch all electrical power generation to hydro, nuclear, and, where
possible, renewables;

2) Bring in gas rationing; switch public transit to electric *trolley
buses*, and improve public transit. People will be expected to use public
transit to commute to work.

Then for people to use gasoline-powered cars to go shopping and go to the
cottage for the weekend won't produce so much carbon as to be a problem.

And it's all possible with *proven technology*, without hoping for better
electric cars than we have at present.

As a bonus, it will improve employment opportunities for people who can't
afford a car. And it will save the environmental impact of manufacturing
all those new cars for people - and wear and tear on the existing
gasoline-fuelled cars, which now won't have to be junked!

I mean, really, if you want to be environmental...

John Savard
  #27  
Old January 24th 18, 08:25 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default No Significant Relief from Global Warming

On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 4:46:04 PM UTC-7, Rodney Pont wrote:

It's not just producing co2 that matters. If we used more wood for
things and less metals it would help. I was at my doctors last week and
the couch had a wooden frame. That's carbon that's not in the
atmosphere and a lot less was created making the frame than would have
been if it had needed metal.


Wooden objects usually have to be shaped by *human hands*. Whereas metal
objects can be cast or stamped. So that makes them much more expensive,
unless they're imported from a low-wage country, and _then_ they cost
foreign exchange.

John Savard
  #28  
Old January 24th 18, 09:07 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris.B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,001
Default No Significant Relief from Global Warming

On Wednesday, 24 January 2018 06:52:56 UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:

It's always amusing to see people who lack imagination and ignore the
fact that there has never been a new technology that didn't rapidly
result in the creation of whatever it needed in the way of support.


Some say that petrol driven cars were a reaction to an excess of horse manure. Some say negative arguments over AGW and 'alternatives' is another load of horse manure. If we could only get the horse manure out of the equation we could move on.

Is anyone still driving a car from the 1910s? With a few exceptions there aren't even many 30-year-old cars on the roads today. This suggests continuing evolution a whole century after the invention of the basic motor car.

With electric cars and their support infrastructure we not only have a century of evolution to build on. We also have a century of all-round expertise in vehicle mass production, efficient labour organization but also robots, CAD and electronics to boot.

Back in 1910 there was almost nothing except resistance to change. Women still wore foolishly long skirts which dragged in the horse droppings and only the wealthy/criminals could afford a useful motor car. It took another 50 years for many Europeans to afford a secondhand car.

Tesla proved that startups can still disrupt existing [global] vehicle manufacture and their ostrich-like, management mentality. Back in 1910 it was nothing but startups in vehicle manufacture. That lasted until Ford organized serial production.

Today's world is almost totally unrecognizable from a century ago. A time traveler from 1910 would think they had traveled to another planet. Most people alive today still think there is another planet available somewhere just around the next bend. Placed there just to provide all the needs of another 5 billion car drivers, or more.

Cars forced a sea change in human behaviour a century ago. Are "cars" still, really the very best we can possibly manage as an intelligent species? After a century of [usually] only the driver being transported at walking pace we haven't really learned much about adapting human behaviour "for the greater good."

Most journeys involve periods at a complete standstill in filthy and dangerous, often gridlocked traffic! Yet still billions of human beings make exactly the same mistake every morning and evening and often in between.

Most car journeys are short enough to walk or cycle, if it wasn't for the bløødy traffic! Perhaps they should just stop providing car parking altogether? There were no car parks in 1910 but there was already road chaos!

If cars ran on air and were made of candyfloss there would still be traffic jams. As selfish and arguably insane individuals, demand the same _moving_ road space as that required for a bus packed full of passengers!

Once they have vehicle control taken away from them the car driver becomes superfluous. They can travel in a vehicle better suited to the reclining, human physique.

Or, preferably, not bother to travel at all. Anyone who drives to sit in a personal office has absolutely no need for centralization of labour. Once their door closes you don't exist to your colleagues. So why even be there? Arrogance? Habit? Fear?

Why not turn a large TV screen sideways and prop it behind your desk? If anyone knocks on the office door you just sit in front of a remote camera. Or do something else far more interesting. Than pretending you actually have a purpose in business life after AI.
  #29  
Old January 24th 18, 04:01 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default No Significant Relief from Global Warming

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 23:21:45 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 10:52:56 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

It's always amusing to see people who lack imagination and ignore the
fact that there has never been a new technology that didn't rapidly
result in the creation of whatever it needed in the way of support.


Never?

I always thought that of 100 new technologies, 99 of them never catch on,
and thus don't get what they need for support.


Sure. I was referring to the technologies that _do_ catch on, and
electric cars are certainly going to be in that category. They're
cheaper to produce, more reliable, much more energy efficient to
operate, don't pollute, have better performance. They represent an
unstoppable trend on many fronts. And that, of course, will drive the
development of all manner of associated and supportive technology and
infrastructure development.

The first thing electric cars need is electricity that isn't made from
fossil fuels. If the electricity they use comes from a coal-fired
generating plant, there is no benefit from a carbon point of view. There
could still be a local environmental benefit for things like
photochemical smog.


That's not entirely true. Even from a pure carbon standpoint,
electricity produced by natural gas at a modern large power plant
results in much less carbon released than the equivalent energy
produced by an internal combustion engine.

If *that* were to happen, then we would be reducing carbon emissions by
so much that we almost wouldn't need to force people to switch to
electric cars.


If you think people are going to have to be forced, you're not
understanding the technology. These cars are so superior in so many
ways, that's all that most people will want. Demand will drive that
market.

1) Switch all electrical power generation to hydro, nuclear, and, where
possible, renewables;


Nuclear is dead. It has no future. Most countries don't want to take
the risk, both real and political, and it's simply too expensive and
introduces too many problems. There are technological fixes to much of
that, but the time and cost of developing them is much greater than
what's involved converting to wind, solar, and fully carbon
sequestered natural gas.

2) Bring in gas rationing; switch public transit to electric *trolley
buses*, and improve public transit. People will be expected to use public
transit to commute to work.


An excellent idea in principle, although one that I doubt will serve
most people in the U.S. I do think that automated cars and car sharing
will provide some of these benefits, though.

And it's all possible with *proven technology*, without hoping for better
electric cars than we have at present.


We don't have to hope. Electric cars are already cheaper and better
for everything except range. And the development pace is rapid. The
technological risks here are very small.

As a bonus, it will improve employment opportunities for people who can't
afford a car. And it will save the environmental impact of manufacturing
all those new cars for people - and wear and tear on the existing
gasoline-fuelled cars, which now won't have to be junked!


Shared ownership achieves similar goals.
  #30  
Old January 24th 18, 04:17 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default No Significant Relief from Global Warming

Knowing human nature, shared ownership tends to benefit the
irresponsible at the expense of the responsible.

As for nuclear: without it, carbon-free means obsessing about how much
energy we're using, which is diametrically opposed to moving
towards a future in which human labor is valued highly while material
things are cheap in comparison. One
where humanity's wealth and power over nature increase, seemingly without limit.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What about global warming? [email protected] Misc 0 June 12th 07 06:05 PM
dinosaur extinction/global cooling &human extinction/global warming 281979 Astronomy Misc 0 December 17th 06 01:05 PM
Solar warming v. Global warming Roger Steer Amateur Astronomy 11 October 20th 05 01:23 AM
Global warming v. Solar warming Roger Steer UK Astronomy 1 October 18th 05 10:58 AM
CO2 and global warming freddo411 Policy 319 October 20th 04 09:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.