Guys, I just remembered that the stuff coming out of all fossil fuel powered vehicles is in fact CO (Carbon MONOXIDE) not CO2 (Carbon DIOXIDE). When did that happen? And why do we still keep calling it CO2 and not CO?

SR,

Whilst trolling back through my past posts on GW might do you the world of good in furthering your obviously abysmal knowledge in the issue, you'll search in vain for me saying GW hasn't occurred.

Just finding old quotes that you try to take out of context in your efforts to avoid admitting that you simply made up the original claim, won't help you here.

In your absolutist delirium, you seem to think that recognising the fact that there was a decade of no warming is the same as repudiating overall warming. Its as though you think that someone who says its cold today is denying that it was hot yesterday.
Even though I know that there was a decade (actually more than that) of no warming and am prepared to recognise it, doesn't mean that I don't also know that there was previous decades of warming and am prepared to recognise that also.

But then, hilariously (or maybe sadly), having quoted me as saying "so-called denialists" (perhaps you don't know what 'so-called' means), you then assert that I said "us denialists". Dearie me, the urge to avoid admitting error is strong in this one.

"And how is that multi-decade cooling period going?"

As expected.

T253: Just look at Miami where streets are flooding at high tide, and flooding is getting worse with time.

I can't find it at the moment but I did read a Science Report that said Florida was actually sinking & other parts of the Country behind Florida were rising.

That may account for some of the flooding.

Maybe someone else has read the same report. It was a few years ago.

Jayb, your right.I just can't remember when I became aware of this. It doesn't matter, like all my examples and posts, I have read or seen something to know that it is true, but as usual when asked by some of the pesty commentors on OLO, I can't quote link's or any reference because it is all historical and I don't care to remember such details, only the info within. So I'm glad you said it first. I did not have the guts to suggest it because I would only be attacked for not producing evidence and the usual blah, blah, blah. Good for you.

Jayb,

Its called 'glacial isostatic adjustment' or glacial rebound. Think of the North American continent as a giant plate. During the last ice age, millions (billions) of tonnes of ice weighted down the northern part of the plate (ie Canada) which sunk under the weight and therefore the other side (eg Florida) rose.

Now that the ice age has finished, the volume of ice is vastly decreased and therefore Canada is rising. Equally as it rises, the other side of the plate (eg Florida) is sinking. Florida is expected to utterly submerge over the coming centuries or millennia.

Similar effects are found around the world eg southern England is sinking while Scotland is rising. Its also why you find most rivers in the upper Northern Hemisphere running basically north-south.

I have another question. Knowing that water expands when it's heated and when it's cooled. My question is; how can we say that the ocean is expanding with only 1-2degree increase in temp, when we need to get water closer to boiling point for this to happen. I maintain there is no expansion of the oceans with such a small change in temp. Where-as, the glaciers and ice that is close to zero degrees will melt with a change of 1 or 2 degrees. As the bulk of the ice (glaciers etc) are sitting at well below zero degrees, so I can't see them melting as reported. Only the ice and snow close to zero. So if we melt all the ice, (the stuff beneath the water) will actually produce less volume when turned back into water from when it was ice. So no increase in the oceans there. The temp change has to be quite a lot to effect the volume of the oceans and therefore raise sea levels enough to be of any note.