The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction

Message boards : Politics : The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 . . . 22 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17105
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1111725 - Posted: 31 May 2011, 13:17:43 UTC - in response to Message 1111718.  

CO-2 is good for plants. Plants transpire significantly. Transpiration has a cooling effect.

Therefore by modus ponens: CO-2 makes the immediate environment cooler.

Do you accept my premises ??

If so can, you point out the flaw in my conclusion ??


???... You've got your logic there flawed both in your blinkeredness and in the form of your challenge.

Regardless of whatever multitude of effects you try to throw into the mix, the significant one aspect that has emerged is that of atmospheric CO2 concentration. That one value is the significant driver that modulates all other effects.

As I'm sure you know and you will next glibly try to bamboozle with, the strongest 'greenhouse gas' is water vapour. However, the level of water vapour that stays in the atmosphere is in response to the conditions set by the atmospheric CO2 concentration. There's a lot of connectedness, and the strongest connections are pulled by how much CO2 we have in the atmosphere.


To follow your glib logic:

A transpiring plant leaf will cool the leaf slightly, just as you will cool yourself slightly from your sweat evaporating. Latent heat of vaporisation is a powerful thing and a strong driver for climate effects...

I could also glibly argue that your transpiration/perspiration then adds to grownd level vapour to then form low altitude clouds in the evening that then traps the ground infrared radiation overnight to add to warming that area.

(Actually, some of that does happen on the scale of forests in tropical jungles where the forest creates is own environment and speeds up the hydrological cycle...)


Without numbers and considering significance, you can befuddle any argument any way you like. The hard numbers are that we are measurably changing the atmospheric concentration of our one planet, ever faster, with ever more vast quantities of industrial CO2 pollution.

The question is just a question of when we poison our present climate system. We are racing towards that ever faster.


Act now or die?

It's still our only one planet,
Martin




See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1111725 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1112231 - Posted: 2 Jun 2011, 1:09:06 UTC

I earned an A in my graduate logic course that I took last summer. So if you accept my premises you must accept my conclusion. The "error" may be in the application of the conclusion; or there may be a flaw in the premises themselves.

C0-2 makes up less than .0004 of our atmosphere. Humans contribute only a fraction of this amount- furthermore we can't stop breathing nor oxidation of Carbon through plant decay upon which all life is based. If there is in fact regional warming, then I would suspect other causes. I would look to see if regional cooling was occurring such as Antarctic ice buildup and the coldest European winter on record.

I would look at what is going on with the Sun and see if the output has changed recently due to solar flares, sunspots, increased output and other eruptions. Perhaps the Jet stream, the Gulf stream, ocean currents and el-nino have taken on new courses.

Finally, if I were convinced that a long term warming trend was a fact I would try to find in the literature what caused the demise of the most recent ice age and see if we were experiencing the same mechanism.

Greenland was green 1000 years ago. I would be more worried that we were headed for another ice age. The last time I visited Toronto, I had a Corvette that I had to let idle for 20 minutes before I could drive it after I left it out all night. It had a Carburetor back then. A few more degrees Fahrenheit might actually be welcomed.

regards,

Daddio
ID: 1112231 · Report as offensive
Matt Giwer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 May 00
Posts: 841
Credit: 990,879
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1113345 - Posted: 5 Jun 2011, 5:04:27 UTC

Back in 1987 these same "experts" who regale us today were seriously saying that if something was not done in ten years it would be too late. 1997 has come and gone so it is too late. Buy an SUV party it up.

But like Iran getting the bomb all the predictions have come and gone and yet the same predictions were made and continue to be made year after year.

This is proof positive the experts at best do not know what they are talking about and at worst are lying. EVERY year a new ten year deadline passes without it being "too late." In fact every year not only a deadline passes but a new ten year deadline is given. At best they have no idea what they are talking about and should certainly not be taken seriously. At worst they are publicity hounds using scare tactics for personal gain.

What has truly surprised me is that when I bring this up at least one person will defend the predictions as though they cannot grasp the idea they are promoting an end of the world no different from the one that came and went a couple weeks ago.

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult
ID: 1113345 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17105
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1113467 - Posted: 5 Jun 2011, 14:15:34 UTC - in response to Message 1112231.  
Last modified: 5 Jun 2011, 14:18:35 UTC

I earned an A in my graduate logic course that I took last summer. So if you accept my premises you must accept my conclusion. ...

Sorry, your premises are misguided and your logic is faulty. All you need to do is make a reality check, if you would care to look...


C0-2 makes up less than .0004 of our atmosphere. Humans contribute only a fraction of this amount- ...


For just one example of many reliable sources on the subject, note Greenhouse gasses:

... There is a common misconception that the concentration levels of carbon dioxide are so small that they could not possibly be causing global warming. It is important to note that non-greenhouse gases that make up more than 99% of the Earth's atmosphere do not absorb outgoing longwave radiation so these gases cannot keep the atmosphere warm. As mentioned previously, the natural greenhouse effect (from gas concentrations before the Industrial Revolution) has kept the Earth's surface about 33 deg C warmer than with an atmosphere with no greenhouse gases. Pre-Industrial Revolution CO2 levels ranged between 190 ppm and 300 ppm. Today they are rapidly approaching 400 ppm. Because levels of carbon dioxide are well above natural levels, it should not be hard to see how these increases could cause temperatures to rise at least a few degrees. ...


I would look at what is going on with the Sun and see if the output has changed recently due to solar flares, sunspots, increased output and other eruptions.

There is a small variation. However, that is far far too small to account for the effects we are directly measuring. Indeed, the solar output is marginally lower than in the recent past, so we should be cooling if that was indeed noticeable... See: Total Solar Irradiance

Perhaps the Jet stream, the Gulf stream, ocean currents and el-nino have taken on new courses.

Those events determine the weather and distribution of rainfall for a particular area. They will change as the climate changes. Hence all the stories of doom for various areas of drought and famine... El nino / La nina can cause a short term shift in global temperature but that doesn't explain all that we see... Influence of volcanic eruptions and El Niño events

Finally, if I were convinced that a long term warming trend was a fact I would try to find in the literature what caused the demise of the most recent ice age and see if we were experiencing the same mechanism.

We are not experiencing anything like anything ever seen before. One big clue is the incredible speed of change being seen compared to what naturally happens...


Greenland was green 1000 years ago. ...

More so in name than in reality!

Greenland is a good example of how even small climate shifts can move an area from being marginally habitable to inhospitable.


It's all our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1113467 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17105
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1113475 - Posted: 5 Jun 2011, 14:26:45 UTC - in response to Message 1113345.  
Last modified: 5 Jun 2011, 14:27:45 UTC

Back in 1987 these same "experts" who regale us today were seriously saying that if something was not done in ten years it would be too late. 1997 has come and gone so it is too late. Buy an SUV party it up.

... defend the predictions as though they cannot grasp the idea they are promoting an end of the world no different from the one that came and went a couple weeks ago.

I guess after a lifetime of not noticing any change, you will be inured to any possibility that there might be change all around you...

So lets see for your one example:

Fiction: Scientists in the 1970s Were Predicting a Coming Ice Age

... During the period 1965 through 1979, their survey found 7 cooling papers, 19 neutral and 42 warming. In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming. The most often cited news story related to global cooling is the Newsweek story shown below...


I guess you and your supporting politicians are for whatever twisted reasons (greed?) happy for you to party-it-up to your demise, and for the demise of everyone else.

I guess it's all a case of where and whether or not you might care about anything.

Note, the issue of global warming has been in the scientific literature for the last 100 years or so. It's only recently that urgency is getting greater as the Industrial Revolution ploughs onwards...

It's our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1113475 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17105
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1113564 - Posted: 5 Jun 2011, 18:52:29 UTC - in response to Message 1112231.  

... logic ... accept my premises ... conclusion. The "error" may be ...


Just stumbled across these two rather apt examples:

Dr Boli: THE DUCK.

xkcd: Semicontrolled Demolition



Let the cartoon contest begin!

(Sorry, couldn't resist :-) )

It's still our only one planet,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1113564 · Report as offensive
Matt Giwer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 May 00
Posts: 841
Credit: 990,879
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1113813 - Posted: 6 Jun 2011, 10:11:02 UTC - in response to Message 1113475.  
Last modified: 6 Jun 2011, 10:13:12 UTC

[quote]Back in 1987 these same "experts" who regale us today were seriously saying that if something was not done in ten years it would be too late. 1997 has come and gone so it is too late. Buy an SUV party it up.
...
It's our only one planet,
Martin


Can't we all just get along?

Since you are responding to what I posted lets me repeat what I posted. Since 1988 there have been nearly annual predictions of ten more years to do something or it is to late to do anything. Since 1998 there has been nearly annual evidence nothing happening and no one declaring it is too late. So we have now had a 13 year string FALSE predictions.

If it much to late to salvage the dire predictions of gloom and doom.

Is there any reason, any very new factor that is suddenly being included this year that would account for all the years of FALSE, FAILED, WORTHLESS predictions?

Pardon if I think it completely reasonable that there be an explanation for more than a decade of failed predictions AND evidence the cause of those failures has been removed from any new prediction.

Bringing it all back home CO2 has been the primary element in all the failed ten year predictions. Seems to me it is like making an annual prediction that the big one is going to hit California. If you say it every year and live long enough you will be correct.

Seems to me after so many years of failure which means NO REASON to take the predictions seriously (real reasons not those used from the pulpit about hell) people would stop grandstanding and making hysterical press releases.
Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult
ID: 1113813 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24615
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1114864 - Posted: 9 Jun 2011, 1:02:33 UTC
Last modified: 9 Jun 2011, 1:03:50 UTC

Damn, what an interesting thread - Don't know how I missed it as it's nearly 6 months old!

The following info is what I've experienced here in the UK & as I do not know about the lifestyle of other countires, I won't comment on.

All I can see so far is a debate about the big Fuel/Energy companies but very little about what we as individuals can do. As a single person, there is not a lot one can do but if every individual did the same, then the big companies will have lost billions, which will then force them to look to alternatives to replace that lost income.

I have often seen friends/family/neighbours get in their car & drive 100 yards (300 feet) to a store to buy some milk/newspaper/cigarettes & then drive home. I have also seen them do this to do their shopping.

How about walking to the store for the newspaper? (I am aware that in large countires such as the US, some stores can be a hell of a lot further than 100 yards).

Also, many of our large supermarkets now do free delivery of shopping if total exceeds £25.00.

Being an ex-lorry (truck) driver, what really annoyed me as a delivery driver was the SCHOOL RUNS. Often, I would see 20/30 cars or more all waiting to pick up their "little darlin's" & on several occasions, seen some of them arrive home to the same street within feet of each other.

Better public transport & timetable co-ordinated would make a huge difference here.

Also, for local visits to town centre to do some small shopping hits, I cycle & I also cycle to visit customers within a 3 mile radius. Keeps me fit & saves money.

If we all started doing things sensibly, I'm pretty sure that the "Fatcats" would soon notice the drop in their profits & the CO2 emissions would also drop.

If that happened & continued to happen, they would have no option but to consider alternatives & what they could do to make them more efficient which in turn will bring back their profits.
ID: 1114864 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17105
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1117278 - Posted: 15 Jun 2011, 11:53:29 UTC

Two quick fixes that are in the news:


New microchip could prevent 'standby' energy loss

NEC's memory chip uses small magnets to retain data and can cut standby consumption to zero for electronics such as TVs


UN – curbing black carbon would bring dramatic, quick benefits to all

Study says targeting black carbon would cool temperatures and improve global health, farming and economy in short time

... Major air pollutants such as black carbon, methane and ground-level ozone mostly result from the soot and gases formed by the incomplete burning of fossil fuels, wood and biomass. These pollutants only remain in the atmosphere for a few days or weeks, and are mostly seen by governments as important for health and air quality.

But the UN environment programme, working with the World Meteorological Organisation, said these "short-lived climate forcers" contribute as much as 25-30% to present-day climate change emissions, and if controlled would also provide dramatic health and farming benefits. ...




At least global warming is in people's minds from Marketing and for health. Perhaps we take our planet too much for granted...


It's our only one planet,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1117278 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17105
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1124378 - Posted: 3 Jul 2011, 21:22:33 UTC
Last modified: 3 Jul 2011, 21:24:41 UTC

Meanwhile, here's a very dirty contest of numbers adding up to a very big unholy mess:


To the Last Drop

Residents of one Canadian town are engaged in a David and Goliath-style battle over the dirtiest oil project ever known

The small town of Fort Chipewyan in northern Alberta is facing the consequences of being the first to witness the impact of the Tar Sands project, which may be the tipping point for oil development in Canada.

The local community has experienced a spike in cancer cases and dire studies have revealed the true consequences of "dirty oil".

Gripped in a Faustian pact with the American energy consumer, the Canadian government is doing everything it can to protect the dirtiest oil project ever known. In the following account, filmmaker Tom Radford describes witnessing a David and Goliath struggle.

... The Alberta oil sands is arguably now the world's largest construction project. Its expansion will have an estimated $1.7 trillion impact on the Canadian economy over the coming decades. An area of boreal forest the size of Greece will be affected by industrial activity. ...

... according to the Alberta Cancer Board, Fort Chipewyan has experienced an unusually high rate of cancer. Local fishermen are finding growing numbers of deformed fish in their nets. ...



So how does an ancient forest the size of Greece, destroyed wildlife, and a few thousand poisoned people compare against a "$1.7 trillion impact"?...


It's our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1124378 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17105
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1124939 - Posted: 6 Jul 2011, 1:01:54 UTC
Last modified: 6 Jul 2011, 1:03:21 UTC

Meanwhile, the Chinese are adding some very conflicting numbers:


Global warming lull down to China's coal growth

The lull in global warming from 1998 to 2008 was mainly caused by a sharp rise in China's coal use, a study suggests.

The absence of a temperature rise over that decade is often used by "climate sceptics" as grounds for denying the existence of man-made global warming.

But the new study, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concludes that smog from the extra coal acted to mask greenhouse warming.

China's coal use doubled 2002-2007, according to US government figures.

Although burning the coal produced more warming carbon dioxide, it also put more tiny sulphate aerosol particles into the atmosphere which cool the planet by reflecting solar energy back into space. ...

... "It needs to be emphasised that any masking is short-lived, and the increased CO2 from the same coal will remain in the atmosphere for many decades and dominate the long-term warming over the next decades." ...

... Robert Kaufmann is in no doubt that temperatures will pick up if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.

"People can choose not to believe in [man-made] climate change - but the correct term here is 'belief' - believing is an act of faith, whereas science is a testing of hypotheses and seeing whether they hold up against real world data.

"Even before this paper there wasn't much scientific evidence for denying climate change, and now I don't see any credible scientific contradiction - if people don't believe it, it'll be because they choose not to believe it."



Just how can the deniers deny?!

It's our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1124939 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1124960 - Posted: 6 Jul 2011, 3:37:02 UTC - in response to Message 1124378.  

Let's see now. We had global warming so we need to emit less CO-2 and therefore we need to burn less coal. Oh, but we really didn't have global warming since we were burning coal. So if we want global warming we should not burn coal.

I am no Kurt Godel; but what we have here is a contradiction. (i. e. a paradox.)

This sentance is a lie. (is it ?)


A town has a single barber. The men in the town either shave themselves or go to the barber. The barber is a man who only shaves those who don't shave themselves. Does the barber shave himself or Who shaves the barber.
ID: 1124960 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17105
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1125074 - Posted: 6 Jul 2011, 12:18:04 UTC - in response to Message 1124960.  
Last modified: 6 Jul 2011, 12:18:38 UTC

Let's see now. We had global warming so we need to emit less CO-2 and therefore we need to burn less coal. Oh, but we really didn't have global warming since we were burning coal. So if we want global warming we should not burn coal. ...

Very good. So you can blindly play the Matt Giwer word-games trick with blind disregard to all real meaning.

Such is the art of blind denial? You've just given a classic example.


Your first two sentences are true and accurate. You last sentence ignores reality. Is your last sentence your attempt to bathe in the fuzzy blurred warmth of denial?


To add reality to your equation for burning coal:

The Chinese coal burning produces two significant pollutants: CO2 and sulphur. The CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for over a hundred years and increases the warming of our planet. The sulphur stays in the atmosphere for a mere few years and acts to reflect sunlight and so acts to cool our planet.

So, business as usual means that the CO2 will accumulate whilst the sulphur levels increase more slowly. You reach a point where so much CO2 has accumulated that the cooling effects of sulphur are overwhelmed and we get cooked.

More reality is that sulphur is a pollutant that is directly killing people in China. Just as in the "West", China is now bringing in pollution controls to remove the sulphur from the coal burning. So, China reduces its problems from smog directly killing people. We also quickly remove the cooling effects of all that sulphur pollution.

Meanwhile, the increased concentration of CO2 remains to cook us all very much more quickly.


Sorry, but your denial helps noone.

Can you get real?

It's all the only planet we have,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1125074 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1125435 - Posted: 7 Jul 2011, 7:47:42 UTC - in response to Message 1125074.  

UN report says cost of going "Green" (CO-2 reduction) is 76 trillion dollars over the next 40 years. How much of this is the UK in for. GNP for Great Britton is 2.25 Billion dollars currently.

ID: 1125435 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17105
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1125483 - Posted: 7 Jul 2011, 12:12:04 UTC - in response to Message 1125435.  

UN report says cost of going "Green" (CO-2 reduction) is 76 trillion dollars over the next 40 years. How much of this is the UK in for. GNP for Great Britton is 2.25 Billion dollars currently.


I like the style... An immediate change of tack and argument for the sake of another 'but'...

As ever, you ignore reality in that if we don't change our ways, the cost of "business as usual" will be cripplingly vaster greater than any small short-term costs of re-tooling and re-equipping.

For Great Britain, we're in the middle of the politics for the next tranche of power stations to power Britain for the next 60 to 100 years. Hence, some sensible 'green' forward planning will be highly profitable if that technology can be sold to the rest of the world for a greener and less polluted future.


The main thing holding back development at the moment is the blind greed of the fossil fuels industry upon which we have a near fatal dependency for the moment.

There are other less polluting ways to power a nation. We need merely to look.


It's more a question of how quickly we can convert and whether that is soon enough to be the least costly for everyone...

It's still the only one planet we have,
Martin



See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1125483 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1125826 - Posted: 8 Jul 2011, 9:56:13 UTC - in response to Message 1125483.  
Last modified: 8 Jul 2011, 10:20:51 UTC

Ah, the ad-hominem attacks.

My point was simply that if the following prophesies are true:

The Earth is warming
The Earth is warming primarily due to CO-2
Man made CO-2 is the problem
If we stop or reduce man made CO-2 (combustion for energy, transportation, food production) everything will be Hunky Dory.

AND the UN cost estimate to do so is approximately correct.

We can't afford it since our socialistic economies are broke on our collective bums (nice use of the British colloquialism). Saner heads will not wreck what is left (pun intended) of our economies over religious style suppositions and dogma.

So let's all relax and have a pint of E. The end is near.

Here is my lame attempt at British-style humor to cheer you up.



Regards

Daddio
ID: 1125826 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1125828 - Posted: 8 Jul 2011, 10:25:48 UTC - in response to Message 1125483.  

[quote]UN report says cost of going "Green" (CO-2 reduction) is 76 trillion dollars over the next 40 years. How much of this is the UK in for. GNP for Great Britton is 2.25 Billion dollars currently.


Correction: thats 2.25 Trillion for the GB GNP (thats 10 to the twelveth power).
ID: 1125828 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17105
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1126991 - Posted: 12 Jul 2011, 13:03:45 UTC - in response to Message 1125828.  
Last modified: 12 Jul 2011, 13:04:19 UTC

Very good comic there as ever, even if the message and humour are a little skewed.

As for the costs of change... The cost of anticipating and managing the change, and of making changes to minimise all the adverse effects, has just got to be vastly less than blithely blundering into a vastly expensive disaster...


What is the cost of pollution?

It's still the only one planet we have,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1126991 · Report as offensive
Profile Michael John Hind
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 07
Posts: 1330
Credit: 3,632,028
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1128697 - Posted: 17 Jul 2011, 12:16:22 UTC

So much has been written about global warming, is it man made or just a natural reoccurring phenomena. By the end of this current century man will look back and say "Well what ever, new technology came to the fore and burning fossil fuels was something they did back in dem' old'n days"
ID: 1128697 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1128983 - Posted: 17 Jul 2011, 22:10:00 UTC - in response to Message 1128697.  

Martin

Thank you for your praise and criticisms.
ID: 1128983 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 . . . 22 · Next

Message boards : Politics : The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction


 
©2022 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.