Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 04-04-2016, 21:11   #3076
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,040
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenomac View Post

Or.... is this to be considered weather and not climate?
Yes, it is weather.

You really should move to my part of the world. No snow. Got a round of golf in last week, going again on Thursday - forecast is 18C. Put the screens in to get cross ventilation.

All at 51N.

Of course, our farmers are screwed with no water in the soil.

Going sailing next week temperature forecasts range from 10C to 18C

That is between 49 and 50N

This is also weather. Some El Nino tossed in for good luck.
__________________

__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Old 04-04-2016, 21:33   #3077
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,040
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Just out

https://sealevel.nasa.gov/

Lots to explore here.
__________________

__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Old 04-04-2016, 21:44   #3078
Senior Cruiser
 
Kenomac's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Adriatic Sea
Boat: Oyster 53 Cutter
Posts: 8,510
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
Yes, it is weather.

You really should move to my part of the world. No snow. Got a round of golf in last week, going again on Thursday - forecast is 18C. Put the screens in to get cross ventilation.

All at 51N.

Of course, our farmers are screwed with no water in the soil.

Going sailing next week temperature forecasts range from 10C to 18C

That is between 49 and 50N

This is also weather. Some El Nino tossed in for good luck.
So, when it's unusually cold....

Cold = weather

How convenient....
__________________
Kenomac is online now  
Old 04-04-2016, 21:53   #3079
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,040
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenomac View Post
So, when it's unusually cold....

Cold = weather

How convenient....
We also are having weather, I said that.
__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Old 05-04-2016, 05:31   #3080
Senior Cruiser
 
Kenomac's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Adriatic Sea
Boat: Oyster 53 Cutter
Posts: 8,510
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

It's April 5th, and for the first time in 30 years, I've woken up to 20 degrees F (-11C) weather in Spring time. But all of the parking lot icebergs have melted... so very sad... The climate is changing.

I will adapt.... by flying down to Mexico for ten days. And if the ocean rises up by a millimeter... I will take one giant baby step inland to compensate. I will not lie down and wait there on my back for two hundred years and drown as the ocean slowly (extremely slowly... as in hundreds of years) rises up.
__________________
Kenomac is online now  
Old 05-04-2016, 05:43   #3081
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Toronto
Boat: Sandpiper 565
Posts: 2,941
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenomac View Post
I will adapt.... by flying down to Mexico for ten days. And if the ocean rises up by a millimeter... I will take one giant baby step inland to compensate. I will not lie down and wait there on my back for two hundred years and drown as the ocean slowly (extremely slowly... as in hundreds of years) rises up.

... it's somebody else's problem, you don't really care one way or the other. We get it.

Have fun in Mexico. We were in the S of Mexico about 2 weeks ago, resort-based, although we did get alot of quality time on their Hobies. The area was greening up early, because of what the locals described as unusual rainy weather in early March.
__________________
Lake-Effect is offline  
Old 05-04-2016, 12:39   #3082
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wherever at anchor
Boat: Brent Swain Pilot House 36' Steel Sloop
Posts: 177
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

A.G. Schneiderman, Former Vice President Al Gore And A Coalition Of Attorneys General From Across The Country Announce Historic State-Based Effort To Combat Climate Change | www.ag.ny.gov

A coalition of state AGs to take on oil industry for fraud over GW.
__________________
bcguy is offline  
Old 05-04-2016, 14:50   #3083
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,961
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
A handful of internal disagreements that reads like the lurid synopsis of a telenova... does not cut it as indictment of an entire INTERNATIONAL scientific field. Sorry.

So am I. If you feel the need to conclude that my comments amount to an indictment of an entire INTERNATIONAL scientific field.

I don't think that Jack is contractually obligated to answer every scientific quibble launched at him in a sailing forum.... I expect that any serious discrepancies raised by new data will be thrashed out by the scientific community.

So you believe that how climatologists actually go about measuring the Earth's temperature, the basic foundation of all the theories that follow, is a "scientific quibble?" You don't have to have any scientific training to recognize that the more appropriate label is "fundamental."

You have the cart before the horse. Pollution mandates and targeted reduction of coal use were in place far in advance of fracking. Who mandated (and subsidized) coal-plants to install 3rd Day's filter thingies? What was the incentive to get into fracking and other gas exploration?

Natural gas is cleaner and less expensive than the best clean coal technologies. That's the primary cause of the decline of the U.S. coal industry, although the govt. has done all it can to hasten it.

Wow. You're completely out to lunch here. Removing lead from gas didn't make transportation cheaper. Catalytic converters didn't make transportation cheaper. Do I have to mention ethanol? Here's a hint: EPA. And the 73 oil crisis led to mandates for higher efficiency. Government mandate, not the free market. I recall that your own vehicle choice was not primarily based on lowest operating cost....

Not following your logic. There have certainly been worthwhile govt. mandates motivated by cleaner air (lead removal, cleaner emissions) as well as less worthwhile purposes (ethanol), but the principal motivation for consumers generally is less costly transportation, and that obviously includes the cost of vehicle maintenance and fuel efficiency. I don't understand what you're arguing about here. The discovery of new sources of natural gas through fracking, increased efficiencies in everything from cars to furnaces to factories, have been the big drivers of reduced emissions. In other words, exactly the type of technological advancement that started off this thread. (Thanks Keno . . . I think.)



Even including Solyndra, your government's program of backing of green companies has actually generated a profit.

Don't believe everything you read, and definitely don't believe everything you think.

The reality, if you do care to look, is that we won't willingly get weaned off of fossil fuels while their cost is absurdly low. For a number of reasons the private sector is not able or willing to undertake the work of developing and producing the new power sources we need in a useful timeframe. Government is a necessary leader and partner in this undertaking.

Except the demand for fossil fuels has not risen in relation to its drop in price. We've already seen this movie way back in the thread, but oil is a necessary commodity that underpins the world's entire economy at this point in human history, whether you or anyone else likes it or not. Even if oil was back at $100/barrel, alternative energy would not be economically viable without substantial govt. subsidies. In fact, this was the exact scenario not that long ago, and ultimately why Ken's gamble with solar panels didn't pay off. These subsidies simply transfer higher costs for you & me (and everyone) to purchase the same energy that is readily available at a lower price. Now if you can convince enough people that a cleaner environment is [U]worth[U] paying extra $$$ for, then great. But that's not the way the world works for the vast majority, which is exactly why we have govts. convincing people that a ride on their commuter train is "free" because the power is coming from the "wind." For better or worse, getting the majority of people to sign on to a higher cost of living to achieve a cleaner planet doesn't fly, at least not at this point in time.

We're definitely screwed might have a chance if most thoughtful guys like you are as mired realistic in about politics and basic economic principles mythology. [delete and replace with]

I think we probably agree on similar goals L-E, only differ (dramatically) on what the real problems are and how to realistically address them. The big variable is and always will be technology, not naiveté and wishful thinking.
__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 05-04-2016, 15:32   #3084
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,961
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
Yes - I still think that science should be judged solely on its own merits - but I gotta say that anyone who's signed on to:

Quote:
We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.


... has questionable objectivity, don't you agree? "We deny..." (not even "we seriously doubt", or " it doesn't seem likely or feasible") so let's not even try. Not very science-y.

This idiotic declaration WILL be proven wrong, sooner or later, simply because we will run out of fossil fuels... unless they figure they will be Raptured or something before it comes to pass.

Wow.
In your denunciation of these highly credentialed scientists, L-E, you apparently forgot to read the critical qualifier, namely that renewable fuels are not now economically sustainable "with present or near-term technology." What is it about the statement you don't approve of? The obvious truth of it, the fact that it was said, or maybe who was saying it? If it's the latter (as I strongly suspect), then that sorta runs contrary to your admonitions for us not to beat up on the scientific community. Or do you think that Christy -- a former member of the IPCC -- and Spencer -- a former career NASA climatologist -- no longer qualify as "scientists" because they challenge the mainstream/party line?
__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 05-04-2016, 15:53   #3085
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,040
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
namely that renewable fuels are not now economically sustainable [B]"with present or near-term technology."
Non-renewable fossil fuels are economically viable because the producers and consumers do not have to pay to dispose of the waste by-products.

Column: A carbon tax is a conservative answer to climate change
By Bob Inglis, special to the Tampa Bay Times


Bob Inglis was a Republican congressman from South Carolina from 1993-99 and 2005-11. He now directs republicEn.org, a group of free enterprise believers committed to action on climate change. He wrote this exclusively for the Tampa Bay Times.

Now that is a Republican with some smarts. (Unlike the current crop.)
__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Old 05-04-2016, 16:21   #3086
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,961
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
Let's ask a keeper of satelitte data:

Quote:
As a data scientist, I am among the first to acknowledge that all climate datasets likely contain some errors. However, I have a hard time believing that both the satellite and the surface temperature datasets have errors large enough to account for the model/observation differences. For example, the global trend uncertainty (2-sigma) for the global TLT trend is around 0.03 K/decade (Mears et al. 2011). Even if 0.03 K/decade were added to the best-estimate trend value of 0.123 K/decade, it would still be at the extreme low end of the model trends. A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!). So I don’t think the problem can be explained fully by measurement errors.

The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures | Remote Sensing Systems

This is not the first time I have posted this article for you to read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
I gave you the relevant paragraph.

My second-time around with this led me to the same conclusion as my first, namely that Mears created a set of sat-based temp data which closely mimicked the UAH sat data, thereby corroborating both. Your own posted charts of each set show roughly the same 0.4 deg. upward warming trend, all the more remarkable since one of the starting points is in 1980, and the other in 1985. The fact that Mears doesn't like his own results and claims the surface data is more reliable is well and fine, but the point I'm trying to make is not whether one type of set is more or less reliable, but rather whether both sets of sat data are a credible and reliable alternative methodology for taking the Earth's temperature. Both sets of sat data, after all, diverge significantly with the surface temp data and the modeling, but not with each other. The sat data is also the only type of data that is confirmed through an indpt. source, namely weather balloons.

BTW I use ALL temperature datasets, recognizing the issues with all of them.
Then why haven't you compared sat vs. surface, and sat vs. modeling for us? Why not just put all three on a single chart with the same start & end dates so we can compare. Oh wait, Christy/Spencer did just that for us about 60-70 pages back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
Name one science academy on the planet that disputes conclusions of the IPCC. Just one will do.

So now, rather than taking a poll of scientists "who believe that AGW exists" (most of them, incl. the skeptics, readily do), we're now taking a vote on "science academies?" What about "universities," "think tanks," scientists who work for "organizations." Is science a poll or a search for truth?

I do not know what you do for a living, but I suspect what ever you has protocols based on the consensus of best practice.

I teach sailing for four different organizations. Aside from a few differences there is a strong consensus about what is best practice.

So scientists who don't agree with your monolithic conclusions are not living up to "best practices?" There seems to be a broad consensus that MMGW plays a role, but the divergence in opinion comes down to how much and what the impact might be. How many of these scientists or the "institutions" they represent would be considered in breach of protocols because they didn't believe MMGW was catastrophic, or that humans weren't playing a significant role as compared to natural forces. "Best practices" is what determines the highest level of scientific process and procedure, not determinative of any outcome.

Your religious connotations are curious as many of the skeptics come from religious, especially Dominionist and end-timer, backgrounds; Christy is an ordained First Baptist Minister (his first profession), Spencer is an avowed creationist and an active member of the Cornwall Alliance. On the political side, Inhofe is notorious for quoting scripture, Palin is an end-timer. Perry and Bachmann are strong Dominionists.
And round & round we go. Any evidence this religious faith is skewering the temp data? No, I didn't think so. Little if nothing to see here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
Why do you mention Cook? It clear you have not read Powell, he is highly critical of Cook.

Righto. Powell is highly critical of Cook because Cook "only" came up with a 97% consensus whereas Powell came up with 99%. I remember being just as excited about that one the first time as I am now. All I know is any "consensus" which includes well-known CC skeptics has no credibility.

Spend 26 minutes here:



The National Research Council is pleased to present this video that explains how scientists have arrived at the current state of knowledge about recent climate change and its causes.
Within the first 5 mins. I was educated to the fact that a 9.4 deg. temp differential could mean the difference b'twn. having to wear a sweater or not. It wasn't long after that they claimed the sat & surface date all matched each other. Was there something else I was supposed to get out of this movie?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
I have used UAH data; I have no problems with it. It shows warming.



Yes, it does. Much slower warming than either the surface data or the modeling, and consistent with the long-term warming trend the Earth has been experiencing for a very long time through natural forces. This is why the sat data up-ends the "significant" or "overwhelming" warming from MMGW your movie and the mainstream community like to preach. It is also why, I suspect, you keep refusing to put up a chart comparing all three.

I agree with Spencer on many things: his 10 worst deniers' arguments, his disdain for the sky dragon slayers at PSI.

He is signatory to the Cornwall Alliance Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming which uses the term "deny" five times.

An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

With that I disagree.

Either he lives his faith or he does not.
OK, so now you're going from being the last word on CC, to judging another man's religious faith??
__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 05-04-2016, 16:34   #3087
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,961
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
Non-renewable fossil fuels are economically viable because the producers and consumers do not have to pay to dispose of the waste by-products.

Another talking point. And how do we put a "price" on those disposal costs? Besides, the purpose of the carbon tax -- at least in the form you presented earlier -- is to provide a financial disincentive to fossil fuel consumption & emissions. That may or may not work, I don't know. What I do know, however, is that there needs to be a sufficient amount of consumption that is discretionary, i.e. can be reduced without interfering in peoples' ability to get to work, heat their homes, run their businesses, etc. And just because it may be collected at the source doesn't mean it's not paid by the consumer, whether he/she gets a "refund check" in the mail or not. But like I said, don't know and maybe worth a try, assuming it's actually well thought out (by somebody in govt. with an actual economics degree that is).

Column: A carbon tax is a conservative answer to climate change
By Bob Inglis, special to the Tampa Bay Times


Bob Inglis was a Republican congressman from South Carolina from 1993-99 and 2005-11. He now directs republicEn.org, a group of free enterprise believers committed to action on climate change. He wrote this exclusively for the Tampa Bay Times.

Now that is a Republican with some smarts. (Unlike the current crop.)
Sure. If they're not religious fanatics, then they're just dumb, right? How many times have you resorted to these sorts of arguments? Critical-thinking, or just critical of the person that doesn't agree with you?
__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 05-04-2016, 17:14   #3088
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,040
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post




And round & round we go. Any evidence this religious faith is skewering the temp data? No, I didn't think so. Little if nothing to see here.



No - it does affect their policy recommendations.

I accept their data.
__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Old 05-04-2016, 18:07   #3089
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Toronto
Boat: Sandpiper 565
Posts: 2,941
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
Natural gas is cleaner and less expensive than the best clean coal technologies. That's the primary cause of the decline of the U.S. coal industry, although the govt. has done all it can to hasten it.
You're downplaying the role of government in creating a stronger market for NG, and the subsidies and other concessions for finding new sources of NG.

Government had more than a "little to do with it", as you tried to assert earlier.

Quote:
There have certainly been worthwhile govt. mandates motivated by cleaner air (lead removal, cleaner emissions) as well as less worthwhile purposes (ethanol), but the principal motivation for consumers generally is less costly transportation, and that obviously includes the cost of vehicle maintenance and fuel efficiency. I don't understand what you're arguing about here.


This was part two of your "govt had little to do with it" argument, and as I said, you are just about completely wrong here.

Besides what I provided previously, I know firsthand (through a 10+ year association with marketing for one of the big 3 automakers) that "less costly transportation" is pretty far down the list of motivators for vehicle purchase. Do you seriously doubt this?

- top 3 sellers in 2015? trucks
- more trucks than cars sold in 2015

(WSJ)

Vehicles are more efficient and pollute less not because of the market, but because it was rammed down the automakers throats.

Quote:
The discovery of new sources of natural gas through fracking, increased efficiencies in everything from cars to furnaces to factories, have been the big drivers of reduced emissions. In other words, exactly the type of technological advancement that started off this thread. (Thanks Keno . . . I think.)
And this is our central disagreement - you say all this stuff just "happens" (the invisible hand) and government is just some nuisance that picks your pocket once a year, then wastes it... I'm saying we have to make things happen and I see government in this enterprise as the expression and servant of our collective will. (but of course the word 'collective' just sent shivers down your spine, right?)

So I guess this makes it a religious difference.

Quote:
Quote:
Even including Solyndra, your government's program of backing of green companies has actually generated a profit.
Don't believe everything you read, and definitely don't believe everything you think.
Maybe you could bolster your argument here a little?


Quote:
... the demand for fossil fuels has not risen in relation to its drop in price.


Well, look, it's not like cheap fuel made us all suddenly drive twice as fast or twice as far, or that we all now heat our houses to 80... but in fact from the vehicle sales link above...



The uptick in truck sales is a pretty darn good fit for the price drop, don'tcha think? So again...Bzzzt! Wrong.


Quote:
Even if oil was back at $100/barrel, alternative energy would not be economically viable without substantial govt. subsidies.
Quote:
In fact, this was the exact scenario not that long ago, and ultimately why Ken's gamble with solar panels didn't pay off. These subsidies simply transfer higher costs for you & me (and everyone) to purchase the same energy that is readily available at a lower price. Now if you can convince enough people that a cleaner environment is [U]worth[U] paying extra $$$ for, then great. But that's not the way the world works for the vast majority, which is exactly why we have govts. convincing people that a ride on their commuter train is "free" because the power is coming from the "wind." For better or worse, getting the majority of people to sign on to a higher cost of living to achieve a cleaner planet doesn't fly, at least not at this point in time.


Even at $100 a barrel, fossil fuels are underpriced; the actual costs will be borne by future generations cleaning up after us, deprived of a non-renewable resource that much sooner because of our current gluttony, and having to themselves bear the brunt of alternative development costs cos we you oppose proactively developing the new technologies now, while we still have the resources and time to do it. And don't say we can't afford it. If the west could waste $2T on Iraq... nuff said there.

Quote:
I think we probably agree on similar goals L-E, only differ (dramatically) on what the real problems are and how to realistically address them. The big variable is and always will be technology, not naiveté and wishful thinking.

No the big variable is core beliefs and their projection onto the issue.. Technology must be developed; you can't drill for it and it just squirts out.

The free market only cares about dessert, it doesn't always eat its veggies; as I described above, government had to force the automakers into better efficiency and less pollution. The market alone will not produce the technology for energy alternatives soon enough.
__________________
Lake-Effect is offline  
Old 05-04-2016, 18:20   #3090
Senior Cruiser
 
Kenomac's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Adriatic Sea
Boat: Oyster 53 Cutter
Posts: 8,510
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
Just out

https://sealevel.nasa.gov/

Lots to explore here.
Wow.... A 3mm or 1/16 of an inch increase in ocean levels over the past year. Let me get out my running shoes, I hope I can outrun this tsunami.
__________________

__________________
Kenomac is online now  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cruising and the Coming Storm ~ Recession, Depression, Climate Change, Peak Oil jtbsail Off Topic Forum 162 13-10-2015 13:17
Weather Patterns / Climate Change anjou Off Topic Forum 185 19-01-2010 15:08
Climate Change GordMay Off Topic Forum 445 02-09-2008 08:48
Healthiest coral reefs hardest hit by climate change GordMay Off Topic Forum 33 11-05-2007 03:07



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 20:06.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.