On 1/12/10 10:31 AM, wrote:

• THE talk.politics.crypto clown is at it again
She/he thinks that humanity can have impact on Nature.


Humans to impact the Earth's environment -- in spades! Time
for you to wake up, Leonard and start taking global climate
change seriously.

CO2 increase, Global Temperature increase, Sea Level
increase, are all consistent with each other. Real
impact is showing up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather
patterns, shifting seasons and ice melting.

The global data CLEARLY shows:

Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2
http://www.globalchange.gov/HighResI...obal-pg-13.jpg
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1023163513.htm

Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...emp-trends.gif

And accompanying Sea Level Rise

http://www.wildwildweather.com/forec...level_rise.png

There are many sources of good data
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php

Here's some data from Iowa State University
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/facult...entations.html

More from University of Iowa

http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/fac.../schnoor_j.php

Franzen - The Chemistry and Physics of Global Climate Change
http://hfranzen.org/
http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf

On Jan 12, 11:44*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/12/10 10:31 AM, wrote:

• THE talk.politics.crypto clown is at it again
* * *She/he thinks that humanity can have impact on Nature.

* *Humans to impact the Earth's environment -- in spades! Time
* *for you to wake up, Leonard and start taking global climate
* *change seriously.

CO2 increase, Global Temperature increase, Sea Level
increase, are all consistent with each other. Real
impact is showing up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather
patterns, shifting seasons and ice melting.


yes and now the increasing mining dangers on places
where what exists on the surface its the real treasure
its giving the final blow into d destructive domino effect.

r.y

On Jan 12, 11:44*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/12/10 10:31 AM, wrote:

• THE talk.politics.crypto clown is at it again
* * *She/he thinks that humanity can have impact on Nature.

* *Humans to impact the Earth's environment -- in spades! Time
* *for you to wake up, Leonard and start taking global climate
* *change seriously.

CO2 increase, Global Temperature increase, Sea Level
increase, are all consistent with each other. Real
impact is showing up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather
patterns, shifting seasons and ice melting.


Or the Earth could still be recovering from the “Little Ice Age”.
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2...g_from_LIA.pdf

Sam,
You are (very) intelligent, well mannered, and well informed.

I don't buy the argument that recent warming is "mostly due to the
actions of man"; that is increased CO2.

I do believe that the climate is dominated by negative feedbacks that
make the climate insensitive to increases in CO2.

If it wasn't, then I can't see how we recovered from the much warmer
interglacial periods 240,000, 330,000, and 400,000 years ago. The
current interglacial period is much cooler then those previous
interglacial periods.

I believe that ongoing work on climate feedbacks will prove this.

I hope that science survives AGW. I believe in the scientific method
and I believe that the truth will eventually win. I know that we at
least can agree on this.

--Mike Jr.

[]

On 1/12/10 11:54 AM, Mike Jr wrote:


I don't buy the argument that recent warming is "mostly due to the
actions of man"; that is increased CO2.


Mike, what do you make of these:



Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are
unique within the past 200,000 years.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106

Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R. Francisd, Neal Micheluttie,
Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole, Elizabeth K. Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander
P. Wolfec

Abstract
The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains
largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability. Here we
present a lake sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the
past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on
recent changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest
stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early
Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e)
were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or
exceeding today's at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the
past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in temperature,
lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In
recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern
and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.

Arctic Sediments Show That 20th Century Warming Is Unlike Natural Variation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1023163513.htm

"There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that demonstrate that the
climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but that was due to natural causes, having to
do with well-understood patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem
has now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades is different
from those seen during any of the past warm intervals."

On Jan 12, 1:14*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/12/10 11:54 AM, Mike Jr wrote:



I don't buy the argument that recent warming is "mostly due to the
actions of man"; that is increased CO2.

* *Mike, what do you make of these:



* *Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are
* *unique within the past 200,000 years.
* * *http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106

Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R. Francisd, Neal Micheluttie,
Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole, Elizabeth K. Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander
P. Wolfec

Abstract
The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains
largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability. Here we
present a lake sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the
past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on
recent changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest
stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early
Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e)
were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or
exceeding today's at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the
past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in temperature,
lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In
recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern
and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.

Arctic Sediments Show That 20th Century Warming Is Unlike Natural Variation
* *http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1023163513.htm

"There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that demonstrate that the
climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but that was due to natural causes, having to
do with well-understood patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem
has now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades is different
from those seen during any of the past warm intervals."

First thought: With a 20th century temperature anomaly of less than
one degree?

Then I did a google search and found this:
http://www.heliogenic.net/2009/10/21...s-over-baffin/

"Somehow, that temperatures there were several degrees higher than
present for a good third of the past 10,000 years and that there has
been virtually no temperature trend in the area during past 50 years—
the time usually associated with the greatest amount of human-caused
“global warming”—was conveniently downplayed or ignored."

"Figure 1 shows the summer (June, July August) average temperature
from the weather station located at Clyde, Northwest Territory, which
is located on Baffin Island very near the site of the lake. There is
no trend here from 1943 to 2008, the period of available data. The
most remarkable events are a couple of very cold summers and one very
warm summer—all in the 1970s. Summers in the most recent decade are
little different than summers in the 1950s—hardly a sign that human-
caused “global warming” has made environmental conditions there
particularly unique.”"

----------------

I am reminded of this paper: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture08564.html

----------------

I haven't read either paper, have you?

--Mike Jr.

On Jan 12, 1:14*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/12/10 11:54 AM, Mike Jr wrote:



I don't buy the argument that recent warming is "mostly due to the
actions of man"; that is increased CO2.

* *Mike, what do you make of these:
[snip (to save space)]
Sam,
What do you make of this?

http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/...y-censored-epa

And to meat: http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

If Mann had been suppressed like this during the Bush years the echoes
from the screams would still not have died down.
The EPA paper reads like I could have written it, It mirrors in an
uncanny way how I think about the problem. There is even a reference
to Ferenc's 2007 paper "Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent
Plsnetary Atmospheres", a personal favorite.

Important to the current discussion is the reference on page 14 to
Paltridge 2009, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ThApC..98..351P

"The upper-level negative trends in q are inconsistent with climate-
model calculations and are largely (but not completely) inconsistent
with satellite data. Water vapor feedback in climate models is
positive mainly because of their roughly constant relative humidity
(i.e., increasing q) in the mid-to-upper troposphere as the planet
warms. Negative trends in q as found in the NCEP data would imply that
long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather
than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing
such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2. In this context, it is
important to establish what (if any) aspects
of the observed trends survive detailed examination of the impact of
past changes of radiosonde instrumentation and protocol within the
various international networks."

--Mike Jr.

"Mike Jr" wrote in message
...
On Jan 12, 3:11 pm, "
wrote:
On Jan 12, 12:54 pm, Mike Jr wrote:
[]

"Insane Old Fool Of No Consequence Continues To Babble Like A Senile
Old Jackass, NetKook"

Yes I know. I wish you would stop.

--Mike Jr