Well. Climate Change have always been there as a rule without our help through our globes history.So also this time.
But environment friendly we should be. Dont pollute our world around.

But that has nothing to do with climate just environment.

And as a "Peak Oiler" I hope to be believed that my point of wiew is not to continue to use fossil fuels like today.

But I dont want that to be based on a lie about CO2 as the cause of climate change. We just have left the coldest period in 7000 years. From 1340 to 1890. And is called "The Little Ice Age". Before that( from 800 to 1300) The vikings coloniced Greenland and growed rootcrups and other vegetables where we today are talkin about disaster cause the ice melts.They ambandoned the place around 1350.

 

Blackline
So we are going into the next Ice Age ?
Whatever the cause, change in Climate, is Climate change.
Why are places flooding that have never flooded before,is it true the Ice caps are melting,seas are rising? etc.
Forgive my ignorance but what is a "Peak Oiler"
regards ...JB

 

Sure we will have new "ICE" ages. But we basically dont know when the "small ones" appear. As I told you, we just have left the climate periode called "the little Ice age". Which was the coldest period for around 7000 years.It lasted from 1340 to 1890.It still had small warmer periodes inside this also. Same as The warm period we today are into have cold periodes inside. From 1890 to 1940 we had a significant warming period, but from 1940 and until 1979 we had a cooling period. In my Basement I have a lot of scientific magacines from this period and at this time we had "common knowledge" about that we was going into a new "ice age". And some was also having CO2 as the "guilty one"
After 1979 the climate started to heat again with 1998 as the big top.From this until now it is a little cooler again but not at all as in the 1970's.
About sea level rising i just want to say that there has been a linear rise in sea level from 1890 until now about 15 CM. The artic Ice cap which is the one melting now will not contribute to this cause the ice here is floating.The anthartic Ice cap in fact are growing, Both in area and Thickness.And when an if a peace of ice is ripping itself loose and float away, this is "business" as usual,or normal. The difference is that now it is news "who serve a purpose" in the political agenda.

By the way, tell me about this floodings where it "never" have been floodings before.I dont know any.

But sure you more or less allways will have extreme weather some places on the globe. The difference is that we know it right away.

About "Peak Oil" just write it on a fx google searc engine. And start reading.
And then you probably also will understand that I'm not want to continue use of fossil fuels as we have done the latest hundred years. Because they serve better ways of use than burning.
But I do not buy the CO2 part.

 

Thanks for the info Blackline most interesting.....regards ......JB

 

BL, I guess you better burn your magazines, or maybe the NASA sensors and cameras were blur...

NASA Mission Detects Significant Antarctic Ice Mass Loss


Scientists were able to conduct the first-ever gravity survey of the entire Antarctic ice sheet using data from the joint NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). This comprehensive study found the ice sheet's mass has decreased significantly from 2002 to 2005.

Isabella Velicogna and John Wahr, both from the University of Colorado, Boulder, conducted the study. They demonstrated for the first time that Antarctica's ice sheet lost a significant amount of mass since the launch of GRACE in 2002. The estimated mass loss was enough to raise global sea level about 1.2 millimeters (0.05 inches) during the survey period; about 13 percent of the overall observed sea level rise for the same period. The researchers found Antarctica's ice sheet decreased by 152 (plus or minus 80) cubic kilometers of ice annually between April 2002 and August 2005.

That is about how much water the United States consumes in three months (a cubic kilometer is one trillion liters; approximately 264 billion gallons of water). This represents a change of about 0.4 millimeters (.016 inches) per year to global sea level rise. Most of the mass loss came from the West Antarctic ice sheet.

and I do trust them a bit more than Bogus-writers in magazines and Wikipedia

 

... and here you have a quote of an article published Jan-2009:

Indeed, a common belief is that the icy slabs have even cooled slightly and possibly thickened, partly in response to the chilling seasonal effects of the ozone hole over the South Pole.

Not so, the new study says.

It calculates that West Antarctica has been warming by 0.17 degrees Celsius (0.3 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade over the past 50 years.

This is even more than the Peninsula, where the average rise is estimated as 0.11 C (0.2 F) per decade.

There has indeed been some cooling in East Antarctica, but this was mainly in the autumn, and occurred as a result of the ozone hole. There was also a period of strong cooling between 1970 and 2000.

But, overall and when calculated over 50 years, East Antarctica has warmed too -- by an average of 0.1 C (0.18 F) per decade, a figure that the authors describe as "significant".

"The sense of 'Oh, it's cooling in East Antarctica,' is based essentially on the 1970-2000 period, and it's warmed since then -- although we don't have a lot of data for the most recent period -- and it definitely warmed prior to the 1970s," Eric Steig, a professor of Earth and space sciences at the University of Washington, told AFP.

"When you look at the big picture on that, the average [trend in East Antarctica] is actually warming."

Put together, the average temperature rise for Antarctica is put at 0.12 C (0.22 F) per decade, the study said.

The work is based on a 25-year archive of observations by satellites measuring the intensity of infrared light radiated by the snow pack. These were buttressed by data from automated weather stations deployed around the Antarctic coast since 1957.

doesn't look too me like a new ice-age...

 

Hey Blackline, I knew you're going to get slammed by somebody on this board....Well, I can post articles that supports your view...here's one in particular from the weather man himself, John Coleman. It's a little long but i'm sure many will be enlightened after reading it as most of us have heard of nothing other than one sided view from the media on global warming.

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner

 

Coleman is a showman who needs publicity to sell his stuff. he founded a braodcasting (weather-)concept like others did with the Late-Night-shows american Idol, and and and.

No doubt he is good in. Pretty sure there are many US - Industry bosses who are very supportive and thankfull ($) that he supports that view.

But who cares ... all a liars.. I gonna make my last 10 years if Holland is under water or not.

 

How did you come about that John Coleman was a showman??? He founded the Weather Channel and a morning news program Good Morning America...how does that equate to the likes of late night shows and American Idol??? If you read the article you find out that the person that has been challenging the global warming theory was actually coming the "grandfather of global warming" Roger Revelle, the originator of global warming hypothesis.

Here's some insert from the article for the purpose of enlightenment:

"The Keeling curve continues to show a steady rise in CO2 in the atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. Carbon dioxide has increased from the 1958 reading of 315 to 385 parts per million in 2008. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. The percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 3.8 hundredths of one percent by volume and 41 hundredths of one percent by weight. And, by the way, only a fraction of that fraction is from mankind’s use of fossil fuels. The best estimate is that atmospheric CO2 is 75 percent natural and 25 percent the result of civilization.

Several hypotheses emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. As years have passed, the scientists have kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up."

".........Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause célèbre of the media. After all, the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling." The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain, and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge, negative impact on the economy, jobs, and our standard of living. Considerable controversy still surrounds the authorship of this article. However, I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer and he assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem. "