Economist, Peter Smith (Quadrant), has been mapping the ducking and diving, twisting and turning of the climate hysterics (AKA rent-seekers or grant gougers) since the time when the “science was settled”, through the different phases which proved that the 'science' was far from settled.

First, the globe was not warming as the 'science' said it was. So, to keep the money coming in, global 'warming' was amended to climate 'change'; still the fault of the gas carbon dioxide, of course, which the gougers allowed the gullible to wrongly think of as dirty great chunks of black stuff. There was never a carbon dioxide tax; it was a carbon tax, which sounds much worse and gets people more panicky. Simple record checking showed those interested in truth rather than bodgie science that there had been no warming for decades, and that droughts and flooding rains, as well as instances of cyclones, bushfires etc, had not changed either. On top of all these setbacks, real scientists (very few of the urgers and rent-seekers are scientists at all) proved that climate change is a perfectly natural occurrence which has been happening since the year dot. Nothing at all to do with dreadful human beings trying to scratch out a living and get on with things.

Professor David Karoly, a “climate expert”, decided to gee up the horror story with a new paper, which an equally qualified (at least) sceptic Steve McIntyre identified as being riddled with errors, causing it to be quickly withdrawn. After four years, the report appeared again, with much less alarming propaganda. The media didn't bother to let us know about this balls-up by an 'expert'.

Continued......

….. Continued

So, what is the latest desperate ploy, as the 'science' continues to be revealed as crap? Well, CO2 is still a villain, and if its global warming effect isn't true after all, at least it is still causing another handy malady, “extreme weather”; which I take to mean all the things which the records show have not changed. Perhaps they think we have forgotten about the old lies because they have confused us with so many different reasons for ripping us off via grants and absurdly high power prices over the years since they started scare-mongering. Even if these 'experts' can control nature and drop the temperature, there will still be “extreme weather”, and CO2 will still be a nasty pasty. And, thanks to our ignorant political class, the big bucks will continue going to the climate crooks; even though we have now been through “catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, Climate Change, to Climate Disruption” without the idiots controlling the purse strings twigging that have been well and truly scammed. The scammers, having realised that sensible people no longer believe them, have re-tuned the 'threats' of CO2 so that a drop in temperature can now be blamed, and the money will keep on coming until the next Ice Age.

Hard work! trying to get reasonable in a thread that starts out so doggedly to defame every thing I believe in, see I felt the 46 degrees last summer, the stifling never going away hot nights,no way I could ever think humans have never stuffed any thing up, just visit a roadside rest area, best leave you to it.

Dear Belly,

Galileo was put under house arrest by the Vatican for
saying that the earth moved around the sun. In fact,
in 1633 the church made him recant his theory of the
universe.

Nothing much has changed in all that time. New
ideas, today - instead of being welcome for the opportunities
they open up for the improvement of the human lot, will
always become threats to those who are comfortable in their
ideologies (religious or otherwise). Little has changed
when ignorance and vested interests are confronted by
scientific facts.

Belly,

Forty six degrees! Where do you live? Marble Bar? Beliefs and ideas cannot be “defamed”. They can be disproved, and the climate itself has disproved most, if not all, of the wild claims made by confidence tricksters.

Were you biting your knuckles when you heard that Trump had withdrawn the U.S from the Paris Accord? He has got everything else right as well. You have been horribly wrong about Trump. Could you not be wrong about the AGW theory of climate change as well?

Climate change is real. The touted cause of it is not. The fraud will eventually become too obvious to ignore; in the meantime, you are being ripped off just as much as I am.

I don't know why you find it hard to be “reasonable” on this matter. Are you saying that you don't have any reasonable arguments against what I say?

ttbn,
You are lying when you claim "Simple record checking showed those interested in truth rather than bodgie science that there had been no warming for decades"; it actually showed the world had been warming for decades, and the satellite data concurred.

You don't believe it because you don't want it to be true. So like runner, you instantly decide that anything that fits your predetermined conclusion is true, and that anything that goes against it is either sloppy research or a conspiracy to falsify the evidence.

In reality the only conspiracy to falsify evidence was the neocon conspiracy to try to convince people that it isn't happening, isn't manmade or isn't serious. The neocons are the ones who insisted on using the term "climate change" rather than "global warming". They did so because the former sounded less threatening. Before that, both terms were used almost equally in scientific papers, but "global warming" had been used more by the mainstream media - presumably because they regarded it as more attention grabbing.

All scientists know that the climate is naturally dynamic and constantly changing. But they also know that altering the composition of this planet's atmosphere alters the climate, whereas you seem to have trouble comprehending that.

I heard on the radio a few moths ago that a lot of conservatives chose to disbelieve AGW because doing something about it would require government intervention which they're ideologically opposed to - especially when involving an international agreement. Would I be correct in concluding you share this ideological opposition to government intervention?

Foxy
Please translate your last paragraph to plain English, I am confused.

So it's all some sort of international conspiracy, decades in the making intended to -
create a one-world government,
bankrupt the US economy,
create unlimited wealth for scientists,
bring western civilisation to it's knees -

Take your pick, they've all been suggested (and more).

Those suggestiona are worthy of -
the Flat Earthers,
the smoking-is-harmless lobby,
the acid-rain-comes-from-volcanos-and-not-heavy-industry lobbyists,
the moon-landing-was-a-hoax brigade,
the shape-shifting reptilian aliens are running the world or
the Queen Elizabeth runs the world's biggest drug Cartel groups.

They all exist (to name just a handful).

Or maybe, just maybe there's some truth to it but some are prepared to bet the whole world on it.

ttbn how can you, after claiming so much knowledge not know that 46 degrees was just 40 klm from the NSW coast? or that parts of Sydney got it or close for days? I rest my case and look elsewhere for information on climate change

Junk science and man made gw. One and the same just like transgenders and biology. The left are certainly the ones with blind faith.

Belly,

I don't live there, but yes, unusual conditions will occur in natural climate change. That is no reason to prostitute yourself to erroneous, often deliberately untruthful, 'reasons’ for change. It seens to me that you believers have less respect for the very thing you claim to worry about - nature - than you do for the charlatans who have invented stories which nature itself has disproved over and over again.

Aidan,

No. I am not lying. I leave that to to the conmen bastardising science. You are looking at their stats, not the right ones. You are the one unwilling to cast off nonsense that is patently untrue, so desperate are you to believe in something - anything. You will go on defending your myths because to do otherwise would make you look silly. You have yet to realise that your entire stance on this matter is silly. Your reference to 'conservatives’ is noted, and it highlights your political reasons for your beliefs. Calling me a liar confirms your lack of certainly.

Climate change - something that we have to adapt to - is not a problem; the problem is mass hysteria, which has even had some hysterics calling for “deniers” to be prosecuted. Such is their mediaeval, superstitious mindset, it's a surprise that they don't want us burned at the stake so that they could continue their black magic without criticism. This hysteria has been described as a “toxic mixture of politics, economics, science, ignorance, myopia, stupidity, fear, hubris……”. I agree with that description, as I agree with Peter Smith and other intelligent, honest people.

ttbn,
You say you're not lying, but your absurd claim that "Simple record checking showed... that there had been no warming for decades" doesn't look to me like it could have been an honest mistake. At most it is the result of extreme cherry picking, but more likely someone simply made it up. Either way, it is fundamentally dishonest, and I certainly can't avoid the conclusion that you're a liar.

"You are the one unwilling to cast off nonsense that is patently untrue"
Because I look at it and find firstly that it does make sense, and secondly that the evidence shows that it is true! For unlike you and runner, I don't pick the conclusion I want to be true and then look for evidence to support it; I look at the evidence BEFORE determining if something's true.

"You will go on defending your myths because to do otherwise would make you look silly."
On the contrary, defending myths in the face of the evidence (as you do) makes you look silly. Admitting you're wrong would make you look sensible, and I would gladly do so if there were compelling evidence. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and so far the deniers have scarcely supplied even ordinary evidence (merely a few quibbles about a small proportion of the temperature records). Instead of evidence they supply very dubious statistical claims that time has since proven to be false (the hiatus) and assume the climate scientists to be ignorant of things they've long been aware of.

"Your reference to 'conservatives’ is noted, and it highlights your political reasons for your beliefs"
No it doesn't, but your failure to answer my question strengthens my suspicion about the reason for yours.

I don't base my decisions on political tribalism; I make up my own mind on all issues. On some of those issues (such as SSM) I do end up siding with the conservatives; on most issues I oppose them. And while the political motive for climate change denial's strong in Australia and America, it's far weaker in the rest of the world.

Aidan,

You either talk to yourself in a mirror or to a very small group of people who think the same way you do. It is undoubtedly a shock to you to have your bullshite questioned or debunked in wider society. That's life, buddy; suck it up. I won't sink to your level of name calling, but you have proved beyond a shadow of doubt that you are not worth responding to.

ttbn,
Either you're having some pronoun trouble or you're a massive hypocrite!

You seem to want this website to be a rightwing echo chamber, And when I point out the flaws in your argument, you throw around a lot of false accusations, but fail to properly question (let alone debunk) anything I've said.

Avoiding addressing my points by saying I'm not worth responding to is a very unsportsmanlike way of conceding.

Fortunately there are other readers here who aren't so bigoted. If there were not, I would not waste my time here.

Rache you cited "acid rain" whatever happened to that? I remember Germany and their Greens Party were very concerned and closed coal plants and got more solar panels. Now the same people are building more coal plants including the dreaded brown coal lol.
What's the current state of play of acid rain? Sounds really scary, should I be concerned?

The Guardian today rabbits on about a “climate denial group”. I wasn't aware the it was possible to deny the 'climate’. The Left yappers are getting sloppier all the time.

ttbn you have that barbed comment style, the one that lets you hurl insults in the understanding only you are right,it is my considered view your self confidence is miss placed,the subject has many sides many views the English way of speaking offers so many ways to put a view without insults

JBowyer,
Europe addressed the acid rain issue, partly with end of pipe technology (filters in chimneys) and partly by replacing coal with natural gas. That should have been the end of the matter, but the big rise in the amount of shipping (using high sulfur fuel) eventually made it an issue again. I've not followed the issue closely since then, so I'm not sure whether or not they subsequently took action to reduce the amount of sulfur in shipping fuel.

They also discovered the problem of waldsterben (forest dieback due to acid rain) had not been nearly as great as they first thought.

___________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
Of course it's possible to deny the climate. 'Tis similar to how you'd be denying the weather if you'd said today is hot and sunny in Adelaide!

Thank you Auden, you absolutely personify the green nonsense. Long words "end of pipe technology"! Then say it's all still end of the world. You forgot give us more money. You did remember how the scientists, with peer review, had to admit it was not as bad (tree die back) as they said. Of course it was not because it was the usual fake science. You also said the Germans went to natural gas ignoring completely that the Germans are building more coal plants including brown coal now.
I have to say that we need to cull our science community of all this fake science. It makes stuff up, lies and then denies it does it.
Auden read the speech of President Eisenhaur, right after warning of the military industrial complex he warned of this sort of research.

JBowyer,
"End of pipe technology" is an engineering term, not "green nonsense", and certainly not "end of the world". I added a simplified version of what it involved (filters in chimneys) to minimise the risk of you misunderstanding me, but it evidently wasn't enough.

I did not specifically say the Germans went to natural gas; I said the Europeans did. AIUI the biggest shift to gas occurred in Britain. However if you look at the graphs on http://euanmearns.com/energiewende-germany-uk-france-and-spain/ you'll see there has also been a substantial reduction in coal use in Germany since the mid '80s when people began to take the problem seriously.

I told you what I knew about it, which is clearly more than you knew, and did not give you a load of irrelevant trivia. You seem to be criticising me for not discussing the content of scientific papers that neither of us have read! And you make accusations of "fake science" even though you're the one with no evidence.

I really don't want to get into the whole acid rain quagmire other than to add a voice saying it was just another of those myriad climate scares based on minimum science and maximum assertion. The US ten year acid rain study ultimately reported that they had “turned up no smoking gun; that the problem is far more complicated than it been thought; that other factors combine to harm trees; and that sorting out the cause-and-effect was difficult and in some cases impossible". They reported that they found only one species of tree mildly affected and all acid lakes had natural causes.

As to Aidan's assertion that "there has also been a substantial reduction in coal use in Germany since the mid '80s when people began to take the problem seriously". Well the reason there was a significant reduction in coal use had nothing to do with concerns about acid rain or another other of the various scares but was a result of the reunification of Germany. The old east Germany factories were hopeless inefficient and when they closed down and were replaced by new Western plants, there was an automatic reduction in coal use. That all stopped around the mid 1990s when the process had played out.

That's why Germany has always been anxious to calculate reductions in emissions from 1990 - because they were able to get credit for doing nothing other than close old decrepit Soviet style factories which they'd have done anyway. Its also why Britain wanted to use the 1990 date - because they got the benefit of converting to the North Sea gas.

Belly,

Tell me, please, where I insulted you. I did make a comment about the difficulty you have expressing yourself. Can facts insult? I don't think that I've called you names or deliberately insulted you . If you feel insulted, let me know about it.

I was called a liar in this thread. Should I feel insulted? What about the old mot: 'sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me’? I hadn't taken you for pansy.

As for my being right, I do believe I am right. You may believe that I'm wrong if you wish. But, remember, we are expressing opinions here. You don't like my opinions because they don't accord with yours. I feel exactly the same about yours.

mhaze,
The reunification of Germany certainly had a lot to do with it, but the big reduction started to occur before then, and (as can be seen on the third graph) there was also a substantial increase in gas use.

_______________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
Though I pointed out you were lying when you made the false and absurd claim that "Simple record checking showed those interested in truth rather than bodgie science that there had been no warming for decades", it was only after you'd made many false accusations about my motives and said " Calling me a liar confirms your lack of certainly" (another lie) that I told you I certainly couldn't escape the conclusion that you're a liar.

If someone unironically posted "Simple record checking showed those interested in truth rather than bodgie science that the moon is made of green cheese" would you dispute that person is a liar?

The official NASA global temperatures show a 0.56 C COOLING from Feb 2016 to 2018.

No interest to MSM and kept very quiet by alarmists.

Anyone who actually believes in the global warming scam is very short in math, research ability, or has an investment in using the scam for some other purpose. There is real proof that CO2 can not cause anything like the effect claimed by the IPPC, & none to prove it does.

You Foxy in particular should have done the research, & know this is fact.

That you haven't probably means you don't want to know the answer, as it proves the immoral attitude of academia & the left.

Hasbeen,
Considering 2016 was the hottest year on record, such a drop doesn't have the significance you think it has. But I'm curious to know where you got that figure from, as it doesn't seem to be on the NASA website yet.

>There is real proof that CO2 can not cause anything like the effect claimed by the IPPC
Source?

When someone posts an article,
replete with fake knowledge and no understanding,
it is best to smile,
or chuckle loudly,
and totally ignore the posting.

Peter Smith's article sums up the long term trickery of the climate crooks; how the science was never “settled”, and how new 'science’ is introduced each time nature refuses to comply with with the models and predictions.

I added that we are in the grip of mass hysteria of the kind better suited to the Dark Ages. People have stopped thinking for themselves, and people who don't think for themselves don't think at all.

Our useless political class keeps throwing our money at the myth because they find it easier to roll over rather than fight. The are ‘getting the price of electricity down’ even though our bills clearly show that they are doing no such thing. In the last few days, an aluminium producer had to close down and wait until there was sufficient power for them to restart. We continue to export coal to India and China so that they can build and operate HELE coal-powered stations while we play, like children, with windmills and hope the sun keeps shining; and we subsidise rent-seekers on top of their gouging prices for delivering inefficient, unreliable electricity.

There seems to be no end to the skullduggery. If one leftist hoax doesn’t work, they simply invent another one.

And, while all this expensive, detrimental to Australia's economy, lunacy proceeds, the inept energy minister, Freydenberg (chief fantasist on reducing electricity prices) is arguing with his fellow 'conservatives’ (Guardian talk for anyone slightly to the right of Karl Marx) about emissions targets. If Australia emitted nothing, it would not make an iota of difference to the climate or temperatures. Even Australia's chief scientist acknowledges that, you science-lovers.

Aidan do your own research you lazy coot, it will do you good.

Do a decent job of it & it just may stop you continuing to be a "useful idiot".

Just to help there were 167 peer reviewed papers published in Germany alone last year. Go have a look.

Nice rain in Adelaide, despite Tim Flannery. Life goes on. Hot dry summers, cool wet winters. Just the same as it has always has been. Just the same as it will continue to be, with a few minor variations most people forget from year to year.

The Liberals had their little get together over the weekend. The 'vital' things for the hoi polloi membership: shifting our embassy to Jerusalem and privatising the ABC. Both motions carried but sneered at by co-'dicktators' Turnbull, Morrison and Bishop.

Not a word about the hideous cost of electricity, subsidising windmill and sunshine crooks, or Chinese bribery of politicians. Not that was publicised, anyway.

Just for you Aidan. You must have missed it in the other thread.

NASA global temperatures show a 0.56 C COOLING from Feb 2016 to 2018.

No interest to MSM and kept very quiet by alarmists.

Who told you that big fib that 2916 was the hottest on record.

Academia is no longer to be trusted. Don't ever get between a modern university & a pile of money.

Aidan,

"The reunification of Germany certainly had a lot to do with it, but the big reduction started to occur before then, and (as can be seen on the third graph) there was also a substantial increase in gas use."

The figures you see are combined East/West German figures. There was a reduction but almost all was in the East and due to the retirement or simple breakdown of Soviet era equipment as the whole Soviet empire imploded under pressure from Reagan's policies. Equally the later increase in gas was due to increased availability from the North Sea and Gazprom.

There was significant changes in the German energy mix in the 1990's but almost all of it was due to economic and political factors. People "tak[ing] the problem [climate change] seriously" had very little to do with it.

__________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,

By NASA global temperatures I assume you mean GISS. While there was asignificant decline between the dates you mention it wasn't as great as you say.

But the biggest problem with your point is that the period is too short to make any meaningful observations.

For the past 30 years, the more serious of those opposed to the great scare have been pointing out that short time frames have been misused by the alarmists to push the scare and that we need to take a much longer view of the climate. The worse thing that the opposition can do is to then play the same game.

I'm of the view that we are entering a prolonged cooling phase. But cherry-picking short anomolies in the data to prove it simply invites the alarmists to do likewise. Anything less than 15 years is meaningless.

mhaze I am commenting on the fact that 2016 is being claimed to be the warmest "EVER". It obviously wasn't.

I could also have claimed that the latest hottest "EVER" can only be claimed if you start your comparison after the turn of last centaury, & the 1930s, both of which recorded higher temperatures. Even after some unexplained reduction in the temperatures recorded at those times, they still can't get modern temperatures to equal them, so try to forget they ever occurred.

I agree that with the current trend in sun spots, we are more likely to suffer from chilblains than heat stroke in the coming decades.

I know it is probably a waste of time, but I live in hope that we can educate some of the useful idiots that have fallen for the scam.

Heard today. 300,000 Australians cannot afford electricity AT ALL. In the same media 'breath’, the government is thinking about imposing a carbon tax on motor cars. Freydenberg denies it, but we still remember Gillard's promise about a carbon tax. don't we?

mhaze,
The Germans did take the acid rain problem seriously, and AIUI treating the exhaust soon became mandatory. I don't dispute the big drop in coal use was mainly due to reunification, however it did begin before reunification.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
I hadn't heard that figure. I expect it relates to the cost of the grid connection rather than the electricity itself (but I'm always happy to be corrected if you have genuine evidence to the contrary).

And I remind you that Tim Flannery did not claim it would never rain again in Adelaide (or anywhere else for that matter). He said it MAY not come (with the implied timeframe being "before the reservoirs are completely empty" rather than "ever").

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,
2016 is widely regarded as the hottest year on record, and I understood that's what NASA had claimed. Do you have any evidence it wasn't?

The 1930s weren't particularly hot globally, despite being unusually hot in the USA.

It was this thread where you first posted the 2016-18 cooling claim. Far from missing it, I responded to it. commenting on its significance (low, due to 2016 being the hottest year on record) and asking where you got the figures from. Your arrogant "do your own research" response suggests they're not even genuine.

Hasbeen,
I've now found that data you were too lazy to post a link to. For the benefit of everyone else reading this, it's at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

I notice that while the claim is true, 2018 had the fifth hottest February on record.

Gawd ! You are all still arguing about global warming !
It is an irrelevant argument.
With the fall in the economics of oil and coal production as displayed
by energy return on energy invested over the last 80 years or so the
end of their use will precede any global warming effects whether such
effects are true or not.

Our current argument about coal fired power stations can only be a
fill in while we build a nuclear power industry.

The whole concept of humans affecting the state of the Earth, is a little bit of a stretch, in my view.
Unfortunately, people are flawed, and because of this and history, remember the Y2000 bug, and other so called disasters, we must never accept things at face value.
One of the reasons the CC thing is not taken seriously by some, is because there is not consensus on the issue.
If something is black, it's black.
Here we are debating something which has a lot of 'facts' but no resolutions.
Yes it gets hot, try living here in WA, you'll think summer is the result of GW.
The 'truth' is, the Earth has been cycling since it's creation.
The cyclic effect is obvious all around us from the day/night, to hot/cold of a daily cycle.
Then there are the seasonal cycles.
And so it is that we get the one hundred year cycles, and such things as the 'El NINO' effect.
I am not surprised the Earth is probably going through it's normal cycle, whether it's warming or cooling, we don't know.
What I am confident about is, man's contribution to CC is negligeable, as scientist once said in a radio interview.
'How arrogant is mankind to think they can affect the state of the Earth'.
So history and a large portion of skepticism has taught me not to believe everything you read, hear or see.
I do believe that we would need a major event to affect something the size of the Earth.
I do not believe that localised and concentrated CO2 emissions such as highlighted in major cities, to be the cause.
Or even narrower still, that mankind has been the major cause of it.

ALTRAV,
>The whole concept of humans affecting the state of the Earth, is a little bit of a stretch, in my view.
Then you need to educate yourself; humans have had (and are still having) an enormous impact.

>Unfortunately, people are flawed... remember the Y2000 bug, and other so called disasters, we must never accept things at face value.
Remember the scientists weren't the ones predicting the millennium bug would be a disaster. I agree we shouldn't just accept things at face value, but you seem to be accepting the absence of a problem at face value.

>One of the reasons the CC thing is not taken seriously by some, is because there is not consensus on the issue.
There is overwhelming consensus on the issue from those that have studied it. Those who disagree on anything more than minor details have rarely examined it in depth.

>If something is black, it's black.
And yet to many, that dress looked white and gold!
Even for something that isn't shiny, there's disagreement as to how much of the light it must absorb to be considered black. And things have often been perceived as black on a grey TV screen.

>Here we are debating something which has a lot of 'facts' but no resolutions.
'Tis hard to reach resolutions when powerful people deny facts because they dislike them.

>not surprised the Earth is probably going through it's normal cycle, whether it's warming or cooling, we don't know.
We do know ithat the changes in temperature exceed what the cycles can explain. And that over the past few decades, a breakdown was observed between the climate and the solar activity cycle.

We also know:
The greenhouse effect is real.
An increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' absorbs and reradiates infrared (emitted by the ground after sunlight's heated it) which has a warming effect.
Homans have altered the composition of the atmosphere, increasing its CO2 concentration by 30% over preindustrial levels.
The planet has warmed substantially in the past few decades.

And yet some people continue to baselessly claim it's coincidence...

ALTRAV (continued)
Your confidence that "man's contribution to CC is negligeable" is misplaced. You are far more arrogant, thinking whatever we do will have a negligible effect, than anyone who recognises that human actions can have major consequences.

Bazz,
As we're already seeing the global warming effects, your claim is intrinsically wrong. But it also makes two technical errors: firstly EROEI is very rarely the limiting factor. As long as net energy is positive, what counts is the financial return on investment. Secondly, although EROEI has dropped substantially for oil, the same can not be said for coal.

Aidan, you have brushed over or dismissed many of my comments.
I am not one to scare easily, because I look into the veracity of certain claims.
I won't attempt to quote even some of the comments from those involved in the research.
I heard this one recently.
A scientific team sent up a satellite to update the information of CO2 levels in cities.
They were shocked to find that the levels in the cities were not the problem and in fact the word 'negligible' was used.
What they found instead shocked them because the jungles and highly vegetated ares were in fact 30% higher than previously recorded.
I'm not sure when they take CO2 readings in cities, but I tell you for a fact and from experience, I have witnessed several cities with high levels of CO2 of an evening, and next morning, clear blue skies and fresh air. The CO2 went in two directions, out to sea and down on the ground. CO2 in it's first state, being hot is lighter than air.
Being hot, it rises.
In rising it slowly cools down, especially as nightfall approaches. This would happen quicker in winter.
In cooling it will stop rising and in fact begin to fall, because now it is heavier than air.
So it either falls or is dispersed by wind/breeze due to change in temperature from day to night.

Dear ALTRAV,

Wow. Someone who can actually see CO2 in the air. Impressive.

Steele, OK, I'm all eye's. Please enlighten me on CO and CO2?

Another 'fact' de-bunking CC (or GW), towards proving it a ripoff.
I am forever hearing how the oceans are going to rise up to 60 or 70m.
I have explained why this is a serious overreach or exaggeration.
I have shown that if we took all the ice including glaciers, snow and water in the sky, in other words, take every bit of moisture on earth, melt it, you will not raise the oceans levels by more than a couple of inches.
It is just another way to frighten people into spending money, directly or indirectly.
And all the usual thieves getting their hands on it.

ALTRAV,
I don't remember you showing that. It would be nice if it's true, as that would be one less thing to worry about. but considering you're the only person I've ever heard making that claim (despite many claiming such melting is impossible) I'm very skeptical.

Please repost your assumptions and reasoning!

//OK, I'm all eye's. Please enlighten me on CO and CO2?//

Both colourless and odourless. That's why you take a canary down the mine with you... otherwise you don't know when you've found some until it's too late.

http://www.praxair.com/-/media/documents/sds/carbon-monoxide-co-safety-data-sheet-sds-p4576.pdf?la=en
http://docs.airliquide.com.au/msdsau/AL062.pdf

//I have shown that if we took all the ice including glaciers, snow and water in the sky, in other words, take every bit of moisture on earth, melt it, you will not raise the oceans levels by more than a couple of inches.//

Might we see your working?

Because I did just my own back of the envelope calculation, and it's miles off yours:

The Greenland ice sheet is 2,850,000 cubic kilometres. Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet

The specific gravity of ice 0.917. Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Ih

So melting down the whole ice sheet will yield 2,613,450 cubic kilometres of liquid water. Source:

http://www.calculator.net/

The surface area of the Earth covered by oceans is 360,000,000 square kilometres. Source:

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/EricCheng.shtml

2,613,450 cubic kilometres divided by 360,000,000 square kilometres gives a figure of 0.00726 kilometres, which is 7.26 metres. Source:

http://www.calculator.net/

That's a bit more than a few inches, ALTRAV. Now, the 7.26m figure is only approximate - wikipedia says that melting the Greenland ice sheet should raise sea levels by 7.2 metres, a bit lower than my figure. Presumably whoever did that calculation was bit more thorough than me and didn't take short cuts like rounding off the surface area of oceans to nearest 10 million.

But your answer is about by a couple of orders of magnitude, which suggests you've made a miscalculation somewhere. The only way to know will be if you can show your working like I've just done.

Toni, the reason I stand by my figures is because the same assumptions were drawn many years ago and I found flaws in the science back then.
The author had not allowed for submerged ice and treated the snow as being the same as ice.
I have since come to the conclusion that the data is flawed, so I turned to visual maps of the world, and no matter how I looked at it, there was no way I could justify such a horrendous and unrealistic rise in ocean levels.
Another author qualified and corrected himself by saying his figure was at peak or worst case scenario, of tidal rises.
Toni, I can't give you current stats but I ask that you consider the ocean level as a mean level and then calculate everything above it and not below mean level.
I don't expect others to lean my way but knowing what I put together, way back when, obviously I am prepared to put my life and my families life on that proverbial line, I am that sure of my position or numbers.

//Toni, the reason I stand by my figures//

You haven't provided any figures.

//The author had not allowed for submerged ice and treated the snow as being the same as ice.//

I don't know what author your talking about, mate. So I don't know what his work consisted of. Why don't you post a link for us, we cannot read your mind.

However, my work in my previous post was based only on the Greenland ice sheet. There is, of course, a lot more ice out there. Antarctica for a start. The Greenland ice sheet is not submerged ice; it's on Greenland, which is definitely above sea level. And it's not snow; it's ice. The clue is kind of in the name 'ice sheet'. It does get snowed on; but claiming that makes it snow is like claiming that mountains are made of snow.

//I turned to visual maps of the world, and no matter how I looked at it, there was no way I could justify such a horrendous and unrealistic rise in ocean levels.//

That's not maths.

//Toni, I can't give you current stats//

Why not? What's stopping you from reproducing your maths? I linked you to a calculator and everything.

Sorry, mate, but 'I can't show you my sums but trust me, I did them a while ago, and they were spot on' just isn't going to be taken seriously unless you're Pierre de Fermat. And mate, you're no Pierre de Fermat.

//but I ask that you consider the ocean level as a mean level and then calculate everything above it and not below mean level.//

Like I just did for the Greenland ice sheet, which as we've already established is definitely above sea level by virtue of being atop Greenland?

Tell you what, ALTRAV, if it makes it easier to show us your math why not just limit yourself to the Greenland ice sheet like I did? If you can demonstrate that its melting will raise sea levels significantly less than the 7.26m I've calculated and the 7.2m claimed in the literature, that would help your case. Which at the moment is pretty flimsy because it consists entirely of an assertion that we're expected to take on faith, and you blew your credibility along time ago with your your many and varied absurdities.

//I am that sure of my position or numbers.//

You might be, but nobody else is. And they're not going to have any reason to be until your show us your working.

What's wrong, have you forgotten how to do arithmetic or something?

Toni, Ican't give any details because it was a long time ago.
Look I accept that your math's seem to corroborate your position.
I cannot and therefore will not attempt to justify my mine.
I remember thinking that the notion of 60 to 70m rise was way out of reasonable limits and that's why I turned to the maps.
It's not that I don't want to believe the result, nobody does, but that it is just too extreme when one looks at areas of ocean compared to the areas of ice and snow, even taking the depth into account.
It just doesn't look right, and so I take a more pragmatic view of these facts and figures.
I do confess not having done any 'in depth' research.
It was of interest to me years ago, not so much today.
I suppose it ultimately, (I know you will scoff), comes down to it simply being my opinion based loosely on very 'loose' information.
But seriously Toni.
Don't you think numbers like 60 or 70m seem a little extreme to you? Because that's what set me off in the first place.
But I have to give it to you.
Your figures do not lie, it's basic math's.
The facts are probably where I would find some flaws.
So if the facts and the figures are correct then, there is nothing more to say, we're all screwed!