Climate Change - Yes or No

General tips, questions and answers about going green in your home and business. Achieve a more environmentally friendly lifestyle!

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby Joey » Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:29 pm

Probably just the start of many such cases.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategat ... exclusive/

http://www.climategate.com/worlds-bigge ... mate-fraud

Basically what I have been doing is trying to find some facts , Much like tracker is doing really but all I see is smoke and mirrors.
The questions I have looking for answers too:

1.How much has the earth warmed in real confirmable figures ? are these figures surface or air temperatures or both

2. How much have global sea levels risen ?

3. What evidence besides the fact that CO2 levels have risen proves this has changed anything globally ?

4. What happened the hole in the Ozone layer ? There was so much talk that it is real and many said it was going to cause the temperatures on earth to rise , why is it not talked about anymore and having any effect?

5.It's a known fact that earths tectonic plates are constantly shifting , including under the oceans that make about 2/3 of our planet , cracks 1000's of miles long , some miles deep open and shift yet no mention of it having any effect on sea levels.

6. As climate change also appears to be the driving force behind why we need to conserve water , we are constantly told we are running out , but can anyone produce figures to show that earths water levels have dropped ? We are told only the opposite that levels are rising !

7. My most important question , has anyone produced a working model of earth and all it dynamics to prove that what ever we are doing is ever going to make a difference that wasn't going to happen anyway?

Please no links to other peoples opinions , although I will safely assume already no body really knows the answers to any of my questions.
Joey
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:24 pm

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby MichaelB » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:05 pm

Joey,

With all respect, probably not a good idea to request that people don't post links to opinions when you started your post off with two links that do ;).

An example from the Pajamas Media bit.

"Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation”

The Senator is offering an opinion, an accusation, not statement of fact at this point; however, it's put powerfully enough from a powerful figure that it can sway opinion, regardless of any real facts involved or the reader having read all those emails in question so any quotes can be read in context or understanding any errors, the motivation behind them, their significance or insignificance in the bigger picture.

Comes back to my points about being able to post something as indisputable fact. Even if it is indisputable as such and is the real truth; once someone challenges it, it's not indisputable I guess :) - and this is where misinformation can have so much power in affecting how we attempt to sort out the truth from the lies.

Also, don't feel safe to assume none of your questions can be answered. I'll tackle number 6 because it doesn't need to involve climate change per se.

The "running out of water" argument is often about potable water. We can't drink sea water unless it is treated e.g. desalination - which requires energy, resources, transport etc. etc. Any water can be made fit for consumption and shipped anywhere, but it comes at a price - financially and environmentally. You can also have a ton of water in the form of rain that causes flooding, but associated disease risks make it unsuitable to drink. It's not unusual to hear of flood disaster victims appealing for water or dying through drinking it.

However, perhaps folks who write about that aspect should clarify that in each statement, then they would have to explain what potable water is and why desalination isn't necessarily the magic solution. I guess the problem with doing that is every article written on any topic would wind up fairly long with all the qualifications, explanations and such and the salient point never made or lost in all the explanations :)

When we're driving along and notice our fuel tanks are running on empty; we don't say "In this particular vehicle at this point in time, we are rapidly approaching a point where current fuel supplies will run out. However, we can refuel this vehicle at a suitable fuel station, assuming of course we can make it, we have money and the station has fuel.. etc. etc. etc."

We say.. "Oh crap, we're running out of gas!"

Eeek, I used fossil fuel to explain a point in a renewable energy forum! Self-flagellation must be carried out! :mrgreen:
Michael B.
Energy Matters Forum Team (Please note: I am not a solar tech or installer)

Check out Energy Matters' current solar power specials
or try our instant online solar quoting system!
User avatar
MichaelB
Energy Matters Team
Energy Matters Team
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:03 am

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby davidh » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:57 pm

Joey, thank you for your questions. I address them individually at the end of this post.

From your earlier post, you asked what is the agenda of people posting on this forum. I hope it does not sound too simplistic to say that my intention is to examine rigorous scientific evidence about climate change fairly, and in an open debate with people who do not have training in research design & analysis. Perhaps that is a flawed approach in the first place, but I think it is possible, and if I have failed for some reason, than I see that as something I need to learn about so I can communicate better.

I note that some of your q's have been answered in the links I provided in earlier posts. I provided the links to other people's data in my earlier posts because these are actual data. I hoped that readers of my posts might take the time to examine the source of the data for themselves.

In regards to your links to "climate gate", I also note that this question was answered in an earlier post. An investigation has revealed that there was no fraud by the scientists involved, but rather the fraud (and theft) was by the people who hacked the email server and selectively released emails out of context, without explaining what this particular scientific debate was really about. There is an ongoing police investigation into this, but needless to say, when it comes to the safety and health of the entire planet, no one would want to take the word of the thief who resorted to stealing and fraud.

Yes, I also provided some links to interpretations of the data, which could be thought of as opinions, just as any debate could be thought of as opinion if it is not correctly referenced back to original research data.

It is, of course, easy to dismiss data if the source has not been examined and verified as being carried out to rigorous scientific standards. For this reason I have provided sources from reputable scientific institutes that have used converging evidence from several areas of research to come to their conclusions.

While it is always expected in science that questions are asked, and while critical thinking is welcomed, I note that none of your questions provide any recent data that can be used to compare to the data provided in the links to scientific institutes.

I embrace your optimism in asking for the statistically significant data, but it does not appear to serve any purpose to repeat entire data sets (and how they were analysed) on this website. Many people would find that more tedious than clicking on the link and viewing the figures, which are more easily understood than raw data sets and analyses. I also note that the figures and data in the links do provide their source references, although the intent and meaning of these sources may be obscure ... and therein is the problem of communicating science ... it takes a great deal of effort to convey just what the basis was for the comparisons in the data. Top scientists are great at doing research, but often find many barriers to conveying their findings.

"1.How much has the earth warmed in real confirmable figures ? are these figures surface or air temperatures or both"

Partly answered in a previous post ... climate change is usually measured by low atmospheric average temperature for the combination of land and ocean surfaces, as measured most accurately and recently by satellite data recordings. Contrary to the opinion of some politicians, satellite data from NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISTEMP) shows that the most recent decade was the warmest on record, and this was on top of the two previous decades (1980's & 1990's) also increasing in temperature.

"The analysis includes results for a global temperature index as described by Hansen et al. (1996). The temperature index is formed by combining the meteorological station measurements over land with sea surface temperatures obtained from in situ data before 1982 (Rayner et al. 2003) and from satellite measurements thereafter (Reynolds and Smith, 1994; Smith et al. 1996). Any users of the temperature index data, i.e., the results including sea surface temperatures, should credit Reynolds and Smith (1994) and Smith et al. (1996)." For the full list of references see Hansen and colleagues: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/hansen/hansen.html

"2. How much have global sea levels risen ?"

See the link to the CSIRO website in a previous post. This gives animations for changes in sea level over several decades. Since 1990 ~3cm per decade.

"3. What evidence besides the fact that CO2 levels have risen proves this has changed anything globally ?"

The reference to Hansen and colleagues in this post and in previous posts on this forum answers this question. However, in science we talk in terms of statistically significant probability, not proof.

"4. What happened the hole in the Ozone layer ? There was so much talk that it is real and many said it was going to cause the temperatures on earth to rise , why is it not talked about anymore and having any effect?"

The hole in the ozone layer is still discussed extensively in scientific journals, and its role in global warming is still discussed extensively (no this is not a mistake - apart from CFC's contributing to global warming, when the hole in the ozone layer finally closes, modelling shows that it could change humidity levels over Antarctica). There is a very large volume of information on this topic alone. The reason that interest in the ozone layer hole has diminished in the everyday media is that the ozone is slowly healing itself by a natural process since we stopped putting masses of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) into our atmosphere (which is very pleasing for the people who live in the most southerly latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere, because their skin cancer rates are going up alarmingly), although it has quite a way to go.

"5.It's a known fact that earths tectonic plates are constantly shifting , including under the oceans that make about 2/3 of our planet , cracks 1000's of miles long , some miles deep open and shift yet no mention of it having any effect on sea levels."

Except for the odd tsunami, or two, or three, here and there ... that is. If there was an effect of this, then it would show up as an association in the data with the exact dates of tsunami events.
Sea level change due to tectonic plate activity is usually .01mm per year. We are closer to 3mm per year at present.

"6. As climate change also appears to be the driving force behind why we need to conserve water , we are constantly told we are running out , but can anyone produce figures to show that earths water levels have dropped ? We are told only the opposite that levels are rising !"

The need for "fresh" water conservation is a separate issue to ocean level rise.

"7. My most important question , has anyone produced a working model of earth and all it dynamics to prove that what ever we are doing is ever going to make a difference that wasn't going to happen anyway?"

Thanks for this one Joey. I had thought I answered that, but not in response to such a broad question as this one, so here it is again:

First, the short answer is that no one could model all that, but all the models that have been made about climate change agree that things are getting hotter than they would just by natural forces alone. However, many of the variables have been accounted for in the modelling, and they are being continually refined, and it would be far too much information for this small forum.

Now for the longer answer: In the figure global temperature versus solar activity (sorry, I cannot show the figure hear, so you will need to click on the link below),
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... arming.htm
you will note that the blue line for solar activity is at a 100 year low, which suggests that if temperature were responding to much greater solar activity forces, than average global temperatures would be showing a downward trend. However, as the red line shows, they are showing at upward trend, so they are going in opposite directions.

Also in reply to Q7, the information from Hansen and colleagues 2008 (see “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?” http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126 for the abstract & pdf) shows climate palaeontology records for several hundred thousand years. Again, I cannot show the figures here. In these records there have been periods of warming that are close to the current temperatures; however, the increase in CO2 levels followed the periods of warming as a feedback mechanism, instead of being a contributor that leads the warming, as it is at present. This implies that CO2 will continue to increase as a feedback mechanism due to warming, in addition to the already overloaded levels that we have fed in from fossil fuel use, which is very alarming in itself.

We are currently feeding approximately 9 giga tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere per year from fossil fuel use, this equates to 90 giga tonnes carbon (Gtc) in 10 years, however our feed-in rate is accelerating, so this means that we will feed in closer to 100 Gtc in the next 10 years. You can do the math for what that means over the next 20 to 30 years. Remember that this is above whatever else nature puts in without us. The problem is that at that rate we are above the worst case scenario predicted by the IPCC in 2007. This has happened partly because scientists are typically conservative and prefer to underestimate rather than over-estimate. This means that instead of being wise and going for greater reductions that could prevent disastrous consequences, policy makers are working by old figures.

Ok, I’ve said enough for now.

I hope this reply addresses some of your concerns.

Cheers, David
Last edited by davidh on Sun Feb 28, 2010 2:13 am, edited 5 times in total.
davidh
Solar Fanatic
Solar Fanatic
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:51 pm

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby Gordon-Loomberah » Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:01 pm

Joey wrote:4. What happened the hole in the Ozone layer ? There was so much talk that it is real and many said it was going to cause the temperatures on earth to rise , why is it not talked about anymore and having any effect?


No time right now (trying to get ready to set off on a 400km solo mountain bike ride early tomorrow) to go through any other points, but I'll just mention that last year had the 10th largest ozone hole yet observed. Yes the ozone hole is still there.
I suspect you are confusing "the ozone hole causing warming" with the fact that CFCs are also powerful greenhouse gases, more so than CO2.
http://gunagulla.com Loomberah weather and astronomy including live solar radiation intensity and UV + Gunagulla aquaponics, organic eggs and cherries
User avatar
Gordon-Loomberah
Community Moderator
 
Posts: 5748
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:41 pm
Location: Loomberah NSW Australia

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby davidh » Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:44 pm

Just on ozone, there are several interacting factors here. Ozone was originally a big issue because it filters out unwanted harmful ultra violet radiation from the sun, which is what my skin cancer comment was about.

There are also feedback processes from ozone to do with global warming, apart from CFC's having very high global warming potential on their own. When the ozone layer gradually starts to close over the Antarctic region, it could change the way atmospheric currents circulate, which could in turn affect humidity over Antartica. This is another area of research related to the modelling of climate change (among many hundreds).

There are literally thousands of scientists doing rigorous research on the processes contributing to climate change, from both the natural forcing perspective and the human forcing perspective. Which is why I repeat, it is very difficult to convey the enormity of the volume of independent research which is not being driven by vested interests. Most people do not realise this because they would not know where to begin to look, and would not want to look, and scientists don't often make a big fuss about it, unless it is really important ... as with human forcing of climae change.

Cheers, David
Last edited by davidh on Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
davidh
Solar Fanatic
Solar Fanatic
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:51 pm

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby Joey » Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:00 am

MichaelB wrote:Joey,

With all respect, probably not a good idea to request that people don't post links to opinions when you started your post off with two links that do ;).

Michael you are quoting this out of context , like I said I am out there looking for facts and when searching for answers with "facts" as part of search criteria I am constantly coming up with reports like the links I posted.

Michael I know you keep saying you have your own beliefs and opinions on this subject , you have shared in numerous posts now that you don't wish to express those beliefs yet your replies are clearly biased in one direction , I don't think there is any doubt in any members minds which direction that is.
I am sure if we took a poll everyone would want to hear your opinion , moderator or not everything you say is usually valuable and interesting . Or are you really davidh ? :)

Thanks for the explanation re water levels , desalination etc , it does appear too many people are crowding around the same clean ponds that are not being increased at the same rate as the population.
I just wonder how much it would cost to find ways of storing the billions of litres of pure water that never makes it to the current dams vs desalinating.

Joey, thank you for your questions. I address them individually at the end of this post.


David ,
Very much appreciate the time and effort you have put into your replies and explanations , you certainly are passionate and must dedicate massive amounts of time into your research.
At the moment I don't have enough time to follow all your references but I will get through it all and try to digest it as best as possible , Just wanted to say thank you and acknowledge you.
Joey
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:24 pm

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby MichaelB » Thu Feb 25, 2010 6:12 am

Hi Joey,

Sure, no problem - happy to share my beliefs and why I've been a little coy about jumping in boots and all.

I believe that climate change is happening at a rate that is seeing and will see significant changes in a short space of time that will alter the world as we know it. I believe that the activities of humanity are playing a substantial role in climate change. Those beliefs have not been formulated through any industry I've been involved with, more my choice of industries to participate in have evolved from those beliefs.

My reason for not getting involved in this thread as much as I'd like to is because I could spend all day just in this thread batting things back and forth. I am not a scientist, I don't feel I have any special or secret knowledge on the topic; but where I've seen specific points debated elsewhere, the debate has gone on and on and on and on with no agreement reached.

All it takes is one piece of "scientific" research to arrive at a conclusion that differs to another to throw doubt (or has been translated to), even if that research is flawed or designed to mislead, whatever the motivation behind it. I acknowledge this happens on both sides of the fence too.

My beliefs are based on what I have read, what I have experienced and observed myself regarding nature (and not necessarily climate), a basic understanding of interdependence in ecosystems and humanity's track record for being able to wreak massive environmental damage over huge areas, even areas far away from where the initial incident took place and enduring for long after it has taken place.

Having said all that and made my position on the topic clear, I will continue to moderate this thread fairly - the first post I deleted was one from another "believer" - I just don't want to see insults being hurled, red herrings being laid, it going too far off topic, trolling or other nasty stuff happening :).

Oh, and I guess I better mention it - the opinions expressed above are not necessarily those of EM management :).
Michael B.
Energy Matters Forum Team (Please note: I am not a solar tech or installer)

Check out Energy Matters' current solar power specials
or try our instant online solar quoting system!
User avatar
MichaelB
Energy Matters Team
Energy Matters Team
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:03 am

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby Tracker » Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:07 am

.
Just announced on radio - Lord Monckton and Other's have prepared a paper proving that Global Warming is a direct response to a reduction in Cloud-Cover....

This cloud cover (naturally) would normally reflect light/heat in the same way as the Ice-Caps..

So, if there is lower cloud cover and the Global Temperature is rising, and the Ice caps are melting as a result, then "we'll all be roooned said Hanrihan" !

Oh dear - at least we can hope that Mr. VIRGIN can build an earth-escape vehicle... ! posting.php?mode=reply&f=19&t=735&sid=3a0a7c85c68e7df809bc5f3ad462f673#
.
.
Tracker
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 5108
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:54 am
Location: SYDNEY --- EA - Network, Retailer - EA

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby davidh » Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:15 pm

Thanks Tracker.
First, I couldn’t find the Christopher Monckton report on climate change due to changes in cloud cover when I searched for it on the web, so I cannot directly address that argument here. Perhaps you have a source for this? However, I suspect this refers in part to the interaction of galactic cosmic radiation events, solar flares, global dimming due to reflectance by aerosol micro-particulate from industry sources, and lowered “pan evaporation rates” due to being at a solar minimum and having less UV light at surface level. So ... until I find the source of your reference ...

I notice that Christopher Monckton loves to talk about reflective flux (albedo), so I’ll do that also. To quote him: “It is also a fact that, while those of the UN's computer models that can be forced with an increase in sea-surface temperatures all predict a consequent fall in the flux of outgoing radiation at top of atmosphere, in observed reality there is an increase [in outgoing radiation].” Christopher Monckton, The Australian, Jan 06, 2010.

Thank you Christopher; this illustrates a very important factor in the current climate science. At present, due to decreases in solar irradiation reaching the planet’s surface, the planet should be cooling, but instead the planet is warming. Now this is contrary to what would happen if less solar radiation was being reflected into space due to less cloud cover.

Let’s ask the obvious question, ‘Why is it so?’ Why is solar irradiation reaching the surface going down? Two reasons:

1. We are currently at a solar low point due to the precession cycle, orbital eccentricity changes and other reasons. I’ve explained this in previous posts, so I’m not going over it again here.

2. While some of the black carbon soot in the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning is absorbing infrared radiation and is heating, other aerosol particulates are reflecting solar irradiation back into space.
Ok, but that still means things should be getting cooler ... but they are getting warmer. Let’s explore this some more.

Another piece of climate science that Christopher Monckton is fond of is the Beer-Lambert Law of the absorption of light, “the linear relationship between absorbance and concentration of an absorbing species”, although he applies the law incorrectly in my opinion. I will explain. Christopher’s justification for using this law is because the IPCC used it to calculate the amount of radiative light energy absorbed by CO2.
To paraphrase Christopher’s words, the more CO2 you add, the less light energy will be available due to the existing CO2 particles already absorbing the available light. However he discusses this in a way that implies that the atmosphere only contains CO2, which clearly it does not; this only happens in laboratory experiments. What Christopher has conveniently ignored here is that we are talking about atmospheric CO2 which is mixed with much larger volumes of other gases, so you cannot expect that when you add a linear amount of CO2, you will get a linear decrease in the amount of CO2 available to absorb radiative light energy; the scattering of CO2 is far more diffuse than that (i.e. parts per million). Therefore, a linear reduction in absorption due to the increase of CO2 concentration does not apply. There are plenty of opportunities for the new CO2 molecules to find some light of their own, albeit from the reduced amount of light that is getting through.

What we now know is that if it were not for the reduction in climate change warming from being at a natural low in solar radiation, and from increased reflectance of light back into space by particulates in the atmosphere, global warming due to human caused climate change would be far worse than it is.

I quote from the Australian government web site on climate change
“Has a natural reduction in cloud cover caused the warming from the mid 1980s rather than CO2?
The available evidence, as presented in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, indicates that greenhouse gases emitted by human activities have contributed more to warming over the last fifty years than any natural source. Studies have been unable to find any natural causes that explain the scale of observed warming.”

And, we are at a 100 year low in solar forcing of climate, but the solar irradiation minimum is more likely to lead to cooling, not warming. That means that natural forcing of climate change should be leading to cooling.

But how can evaporation go up over oceans if the pan-evaporation rate is going down? Because of ocean warming, which is not in dispute.

And …
From: http://www-personal.buseco.monash.edu.a ... eQ&As.html
“In somewhat more detail, the IPCC concluded:
[T]he cosmic ray time series does not correspond to global total cloud cover after 1991 or to global low-level cloud cover after 1994 … without unproven de-trending … Furthermore, the correlation is significant with low-level cloud cover based only on infrared (not visible) detection. Nor do multi-decadal (1952 to 1997) time series of cloud cover from ship synoptic reports exhibit a relationship to cosmic ray flux. However, there appears to be a small but statistically significant positive correlation between cloud over the UK and galactic cosmic ray flux during 1951 to 2000 … Contrarily, cloud cover anomalies from 1900 to 1987 over the USA do have a signal at 11 years that is anti-phased with the galactic cosmic ray flux ...[116]
Moreover, in assessing the scientific evidence for various climate forcing agents, the IPCC ranked cosmic rays as having ‘insufficient evidence’, ‘insufficient consensus’ and a ‘very low’ level of scientific understanding and a ‘General lack/doubt regarding the physical mechanism; dependence on correlation studies’.[117]
More recently, the first calculations of the magnitude of the cosmic ray effect on clouds were published, with the authors concluding that the effect of cosmic rays was about 100 times too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties: “Consequently we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change.”[118]”
See Brett Paris’ web site for the references.

Thoughts on cloud cover:

The reflectivity of clouds depends on their density. While it’s possible to emit “white” steam and create small areas of reflectance, if this steam condenses into larger dense clouds, it darkens and can absorb solar heat. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, because it can absorb infrared heat. Even without cloud cover reduction, depending on the type of cloud cover (dark or light), there could be more or less reflectance.

Do you mean cloud cover over land or ocean, or total cloud cover?

Cloud cover can increase in response to ocean warming, but will not necessarily form over land where it is needed. Less cloud could cause heating of the land surface, but much of the warming is in the oceans. Hence, because warmer oceans mean more evaporation, this in turn causes more precipitation, but often over the ocean, rather than over land where we want it.

Cheers, David
Last edited by davidh on Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
davidh
Solar Fanatic
Solar Fanatic
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:51 pm

Re: Climate Change - Yes or No

Postby Joey » Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:10 am

it appears the more I read through all these links that link to other links I end up with more questions than I start out with.

Does anyone care to answer a couple of simple questions ? and then maybe a much more difficult one.

how much is degree's has the earth warmed ?

How much in cm's have sea levels risen?

Given that there has and always will be climate change , how could anyone possible know these changes are not within "Earth" design limits ?

We are one of many thousands of living organisms that inhabit this planet , why are us humans so grandiose as to take ownership and the responsibility to control it. even more grandiose is to assume we are significant enough that it even matters what we do.

I say show me your ownership titles or tenancy agreements , design blue prints , operating instructions , operating specifications , starting inventory , temperatures , levels etc so we have a reference points.
Where do current conditions fall according to design specification ? are we arrogant enough to assume that if it comes in at a level that is outside human comfort levels then earth needs to regulated to accommodate us , the most significant of all living organisms ?
Who appointed us caretakers , who assumes ownership of something without knowing the owner , who would claim ownership for something they will never comprehend just because this something give them the ability to breath , who actually believes they can understand something more mysterious and vast than the minds of its combined inhabitants , Of course us such "Humble" humans .
Joey
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Living Green

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

new solar power specials