write. I also "publish my little thoughts on stuff taht interests me," but I do it in a different manner than prescribed by "netiquette," the silly ideal of massively re- quoting everything that is already in the thread, immediately abovesville ... like we were all investors in the makers of memory chips.
like, the following is what I have just posted in a few items of alt.global-warming; you are not expected to read any of it; it is just "for the record, for any who would like to bother with it."
thus: because, even if there happened to be a period of cyclical glaciation, like the current Quaternary Period, exactly a million or a billion YA, they were probably very different; tempis fugit.
the fact that Morner works in this utterly mainstream field of endeavor, seems to ellude those of you who insist upon denying or confirming a concensus of an equally narrow field, climatology (viz, _A Vast Machine_, MIT Press 2011 .-)
Maldives islands are neither sinking, on their own, nor being inundated by "global" warming, according to its own tide guages.
> Why not compare to a million years ago, or a billion?
thus: it seems that the vast work of submarine vulcanism at the midocean rifts is very efficiently absorbed by the anoxic biota -- perhaps, of course, the origin of life on eaaarth. however, I have never seen any mainstream quantification of Freons enitted by volcanoes, such as the very active Mt. Erebus in Antartcitca; why, is that?
> "And still say the evidence is volcanoes are a couple of orders of > magnitude below human activities in CO2 production. "
thus: Kepler did all of the legwork, with Brahe; Newton merely algebraized his three orbital constraints, and he actually stole it from Hooke, the prior president of the Royal Society, and burnt his portraits after he became the president, where he personally authored the main political attack on Liebniz, from whom we get the *vis viva* and so on; "on the shoulders of giants" is likely a joke about Hooke's dwarfism. (Fig Newton is truly the Second (secular) Church of England.)
thus: hasn't the massive loss of humous and erosion also contributed to any of that .003m?
> However this drop is only temporary as > floodwater must eventually flow back into the sea.
thus: go with Morner's analysis, published in the Larouchiac "general science magazine," which is quite a lot better than (say) *Scienterrific Amurican;" if you hate Lyn, go ahead & vent about it, here. (the article is on http://21stcenturysciencetech.com [*].)
* formerly known as *Fusion*, before an illegal chapter 13 forced bankruptcy of the three LaRouchiac publishing entities, later declared a "fraud upon the court" by the original judge.
