Europe getting better conditions from global warming?

SkiYaker2

SkiYaker2

Member
I just saw an article about this (newspaper). And it said because of something called thhe artic freshwater dome temps will drop in europe as global warming continues. This doesn't affect me because im from the us but just found it interesting (and don't say im saying global warming is a good thing cus I think quite the opposite I just found this intereting.)
 
GLOBAL WARMING DOESN'T MEAN THE WHOLE PLANET HEATS UP. FUCK!!!!! YES I AM MAD BECAUSE THIS SAME BULLSHIT COMES UP EVERY OTHER FUCKING DAY.
 
thats why i started calling it climate change, because when you say global warming, and places get colder stupid people say "hey its colder here so global warming isn't true!"
 
Then when you consider it's not "global warming" it's just climate change and take into consideration that the earths natural cycles include dramatic climate change and have since well before the existence of man kind you start to wonder are shifts in climate man made? Could you even prove if they were besides speculating based on the rate of change or historical examples of it? I'm not sure I buy the man made side of it.. It deffinatly is changing. Shit in the early 70's people were claiming we were years from a new ice ages. In the 90's people claimed cut and dry "warming" and some speculated that NY city would be flooded in 2011... Now any change in the weather, climate or big natural disasters is attributed to man made climate change....
 
Alright Alright, here is what might happen from what I know in a very simplified way:

There a little something called the gulf stream ja? and this gulf stream is called as well the "conveyor belf" as it brings hot water from the equatorial region to western Europe. By doing so, we have something like 5more degree celcius that we should have at our longitude (look a map). So the fear is that the Gulfstream stops. But why would it stop you would ask ja?

- Global warming is happening

Therefore

- More condensation (rain) and more glaciers melting (alpine+groenland and so on)

Therefore

More fresh water into ocean = less salty water

Therefore

Salty water is denser than fresh water. Cold water is denser than warm water. When the warm,

salty waters of the North Atlantic release heat to the atmosphere,

they become colder and begin to sink.

Therefore

If too less salt water, then it won't sink anymore. And if it doesn't sink, the force that propells the stream stops.

Therefore

If it stops, no more Gulfstream. No more Gulfstream, no more hot water to Northern Europe AND EAST US.

Therefore

Cold... VERY COLD.

There.. hope i helped a bit.
 
97% of the water on Earth is salt/Ocean water. making the ability for freshwater to dilute a massively unexplainably large area of saturated saltwater highly impossible to show a noticeable effect.
 
Um...yes it does. That's kinda what the inconvenient word "global" means in the term "global warming." But now there's so much counter evidence that the eco-nuts are forced to explain it. Being utterly unable to explain a paradox (and thus reveal the fraud underneath) they dub it “climate change” to cover all bases. This will continue as real scientists get their views out despite political hacks posing as climatologists and their ignorant dupes. In the meantime the kooks that brought you monkey-pox and Y2K are looking to their next apocalypse.

Global warming hoaxers are not merely liars, they're criminals: "The University of East Anglia" breached Britain's Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. Disgraced professor Phil Jones lost his job when it was discovered he pressured others to delete the data."

-The Times of London, 1/28/2010

Climategate e-mails made public in November ’10 that showed how top-level climate scientists distorted research, plotted to destroy data and conspired to prevent publication of dissenting views. Trial lawyers and used car dealers have been replaced by "climate scientists" as the world's most distrusted occupation

Algore, Father Nature himself, admitted before Congress on 3/21/07 that CO2 levels were higher during the last Ice Age. If CO2 = warming, why was the last Ice Age, with so much higher levels, so much COOLER? Father Nature also talked about water vapor being the most prevalent greenhouse gas, and that's the elephant in the room. If we're really interested in bringing down this mythical global temperature, why are we ignoring water vapor? Is it because you can't tax an ocean?

The idea that CO2 causes global warming is contradicted by weather balloons, satellites, atmospheric surveys, ice core samples, and historical temperature records - in short all scientific data. Even so, volcanoes produce more CO2 each year than all the factories, planes and SUVs combined. Shockingly, bacteria produce even more than this; far more than the humans they inhabit. We're left with no reason to believe in global warming and every reason for hippies to finally take a bath.

 
I love how my political views, and views on just about everything else can be swayed by unknown people posting on a ski forum. Good post, definitely makes me think twice, but not sure how valid all of your points are
 
predictions about local climate changes in the bigger picture of global warming are very difficult to make, there are tons of different models, some can differ pretty much from others, only thing that seems to be uniform in the models would be that warming would have the strongest effect on the north and south pole ....

so, anyways, basically we don't have any idea what's going to happen, it all depends on what is going to happen with driving forces such as the gulf stream, the monsoon, el nina, el nino, etc...

there are models for what would happen if for example the gulfstream would change, but that doesn't mean it will actually change, it's just a model ....

 
Thanks, but please don't take my word for it; check out the sources listed in my message.

Here's more:

German über-magazine 'Der Spiegel' writes on 11/19/2009, "Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots."

Neil Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center, said "[Global warming] is a hoax." The British say “real evidence does point to a possible one degree Centigrade cooling over the next two decades” and Swiss scientists say “whatever slight impact humans might have on the climate is too small to measure.” Renowned meteorologist Dr. William Gray, in a recent interview with Discover Magazine said "Human-induced global-warming...is grossly exaggerated."

The UN report "proving" man-made GW is rife with forged signatures. The report claimed to be backed by 2,000 leading climatologists. But Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who DISAGREED with its findings. Reiter said his name was removed only when he threatened legal action. Then there's Chris Landsea, a scientist who resigned from the IPCC saying it was "subverted, its neutrality lost."

The co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, finally admits "global warming" is a hoax, and now says African countries should be encouraged to [create] more CO2.
 
Yeah it just drives me nuts when cattle quote all these scientific "theories" that have never been proven and just too blinded to see that someone is tryin to make money off of them. Carbon credit trading and carbon tax anyone? Hello? All it takes is two minutes to look up solar cycles and how all the planets in our solar system are warming at the same rate to punch holes through all the theoretical shams. Don't get me wrong, pollution is no friend of mine but to try to punish the little guy for what the big guys do makes zero sense. Unless of course your mindless cattle which believes anything an authoritative figure presents but I digress.
 
As the ice caps melt there is more water in the worlds oceans, thus causing ocean currents to change, therefore the global wind bodies also are altered. Take the gulf stream as an example Europe is warmed by the gulf stream and the winds which are dictated by it, however if the gulf stream was to no longer hit Europe then Europe will be colder. I can illustrate this by taking where I spend half of my year in the north of Scotland (nr. Inverness), Inverness is almost as far north as the North West Territories but no-where near as cold. Or in fact take somewhere equal latitude on the Pacific or Atlantic coast they'll still be much colder the Inverness, why global ocean currents north Atlantic drift, etc. etc.
 
Sorry to sink your iceberg, but sea level has nothing to do with the icecaps. Professor Philip Stott, of the Biogeography Department at the University of London, said "World-wide change of sea level has nothing to do with melting ice. It's through thermal expansion of the ocean - and that's an enormously slow and long process." How slow? Thousands upon thousands of years.

And no one has at yet answered the very simple question asked in my original post: If CO2 = warming, why was the last Ice Age, with so much higher levels, so much COOLER?

There are two reasons it's not answered: 1) It decimates the GW hoax utterly and 2) This was never about GW to begin with. Freeze or fry, the problem is always capitalism and the solution is always socialism. Want proof? Foreign-born billionaire and eco-activist Maurice Strong said in a 1990 interview to WEST magazine: "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
 
Actually I live in South France at the moment and it's snowing when it shouldn't be. My home mountain is at less then 2 hours drive. When we usually get a cool winter (0 - +10degree) we are now at -8...
 
The sea level will raise if the south pole melt because the ice there lays on land. The ice on the north pole is alredy in the water and if it melt it will not have any effetc on the sea level.I think the last ice age was caused when the great lakes drained in the ocean and destroyed the gulf stream.
 
Neither icecap will have any appreciable effect, and not even the wackiest of climate models predicts a complete melting of either. Please re-read my original post from an actual climatologist (unlike you.) He states, "World-wide change of sea level has nothing to do with melting ice. It's through thermal expansion of the ocean - and that's an enormously slow and long process." How slow? Thousands upon thousands of years.

I realize you Europeans have been steadily brainwashed to believe in both the wonders of socialism and the horrors of global warming (alias "capitalism), but think of how cool a non-conformist you could be to actually know the facts.
 
Acutally, it means the weather will become more unpredictable in the future and will be harder to forcast.

Climate change NOT global warming
 
News papers are NO reliable sources. (and neither is Al Gore...)

1.) No, CO2 concentration today is higher than during the last 400.000 years and most likely (66-90%) even during the last 20 million. Source: most recent IPCC paper (a report considering and averaging hundreds and hundreds of other publications)

2.) Volcanic CO2 emissions are really somewhat controversial, but lets assume you're right, why would the pre-industrial CO2 level have remained steady? Latest papers I red say, volcanic CO2 is in the range of 0-2% of anthropogenic emissions. This seems like a way more realistic approach, since temperature rise is specially strong since the beginning of the industrial era.
 
LOL!! Newpapers are no [sic] reliable sources? Well thanks for informing us! I assume we'll just take that wild disclaimer on your word alone with the logic you backed it up with. Oh wait, you provided nothing.

1) No, CO2 concentration today is LOWER than the last Ice Age. I provided facts showing it. Sources listing it. Names of experts saying it. You provided.... Oh wait, you provided nothing.

2) Pre-industrial CO2 did NOT remain steady. It was much higher during the last Ice Age. And volcanic CO2 is far, FAR greater than "anthropogenic emissions." I provided facts showing it. Sources listing it. Names of experts saying it. You provided.... Oh wait,

you provided nothing.

Apparently you have a different definition of “reliable source” than the rest of the English-speaking world. I urge you to publish your dictionary; I’d love to see your definitions of “junk science”, “media hoax”, and “eco-nut.”
 
"Thermal expansion and the melting of land ice, such as the Greenland ice sheet, are expected to cause the global sea-level rise. The researchers projected the global sea-level rise of 10.2 inches based on thermal expansion alone. The contribution from the land ice melting was not assessed in this study due to uncertainty."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090315155112.htmhttp://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/geofag/GEO4420/h07/papers/Raper%20and%20Braithwaite-nature04448.pdf
 
LOL! Nice try, but all you succeeding in doing was making my point for me! It's well known sea levels have been on a rising trend for CENTURIES, well before those evil SUVs began ruining poor mother earth. The cause? Natural thermal expansion. Your computer guru "climate modeler", Mr. Yin, lumped both thermal expansion and melting ice into his prediction for rising sea levels. That's like a fat man saying carbs are making him fat (melting ice) when he's stuffing himself with twinkies (thermal expansion.)

Even better, your own quote utterly ruins your point when it says, "the contribution from land ice melting was not assessed in this study due to uncertainty." I'm shocked that you even posted it...

You may be interested to know that "climate modelers" like the esteemed Mr. Yin have been 100% wrong about EVERYTHING they've predicted. Did you know these "modelers" work in isolated labs just running numbers through a computer without regard to real-world data? Kind of makes their conclusions a little less chic, eh? These are the same "modelers" who said in 1997 that the Earth would warm for the next 15 years. Um....it actually COOLED. Still believe them? They can't tell us the weather next week but you're ready to surrender to carbon taxes and crushing socialism on the word of a software geek.

Anyway, real scientists eventually became embarassed by these fools and called their bluff. On 2/26/2010 NASA climatologist Roy W. Spencer said nearly all warming models IGNORE precipitation. Rain lowers atmospheric temperature, but none of the models account for it. How much is the temperature lowered by precipitation? We don't know. Has the level or frequency of precipitation changed? We don't know that either. We don't even know the total amount of global precipitation! Thus global warming alarmists advocate a useless theory with a hole big enough to drive my SUV through.

http://ryviewpoint.blogspot.com/2010/09/roy-w-spencers-climate-confusion.html
 
this was one of the more blatantly ignorant posts ive read on here lately.

if you are trolling, then you are putting way too much effort into it.
 
wow, there sure are a lot more highly educated people and specifically climatologists on NS than I thought there were.

wait a minute! no there aren't!

most of the people in this thread are armchair scientists.

and boiling midnight

/images/flash_video_placeholder.png

 
Thank you Mr. "666" (real cool name, bra) for taking the time to read an entire thread just to tell us how bored you are with it. (Methinks the lady doth protest too much.) But I'm sure your wit is wasted here when there must be some stickers threads, or "weed" threads (or perhaps stickers with pictures of "weed" threads) where you can put your formidable intellect to full use.
 
So there's a "should" now with the climate? What "should" the Earth's correct temperature be? And if it's actually warming (which it's not), how do we know it's not warming to a "more correct" temperature? We hear no answer from the GW alarmists. Only that "it's too hot and we need to tax you." The same thing we heard in the 70's when they said "it's too cold and we need to tax you."

The main source of this nonsence is the UN's IPCC reports, little more than junk science opinion papers rife with forged signatures. Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who DISAGREED with its findings. Reiter said his name was removed only when he threatened legal action.

I don't know where that fraudulent temperature chart came from, probably from some kid's PowerPoint class at his public high school, but it's an utter fraud. And of course there's no citation attached to it. As stated before, the Earth has been COOLING for the last 15 years, not warming: 'Der Spiegel' writes on 11/19/2009, "Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots."

It's been said over and over again by REAL climatologists that there's no temperature correlation with CO2. Rather, "it's the sun stupid." Noted climatologist R. Timothy Patterson (along with countless others) says, "Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the sun’s brightness and climate indicators is not unique. Hundreds of other studies — from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile — show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."

 
sorry to dissapoint you bra, I dont smoke weed, not enough time to smoke weed and finish my engineering degree at the same time bra, gotta keep them grades up. Maxwell was taken Mr.Midnight (cool name btw, real mysterious). I only call out threads with total retards, check the electric winch thread bra, you might find it as entertaining as I did.

did you major in an environmental field or do you just spend too much time on the web surfing through non scientific climate reports just to troll NS? its late and I have class in the morning but it was nice chatting with ya bra! see you round bra.

ps: try lightening up on the grammar and punctuation it is unnecessary to prove a point and besides, this is the internet. (and it makes you look ten times worse when you misuse a semicolon while trying to be the 'professional')
 
Personally I feel that the human race is definitely having an effect on the global climate. In the last two centuries the use of fossil fuels and natural resources has increased at an exponential rate. This in itself must have some impact on the planet.

BoilingMidnight seems to have some valid points about how certain climate scientists are twisting the data, but that shouldn't invalidate all studies in the field. The only way to better understand our impact on our environment is continued scientific analysis and with better information we can make better long term decisions.

For example, the idea of Peak Oil (proposed by Campbell, Heinberg and Goodstein amongst others) that predicts that we will reach peak oil production within the next 25 to 50 years. On the other hand, there are academics who argue that with better technology and investment the peak oil production can be pushed back by another 25 or so years.

However, what is to stop the development of green energy technologies? Whether we have 25, 50 or 100 years before we run out of oil we WILL run out of oil. Is it not the prudent thing to start now before it is too late? Invalidating one side of the argument doesn't further the discovery of a solution to the problem.

So I accept BoilingMidnights arguments, but I would still argue that attempting to alleviate the impact we as a species have on our planet is something that should start sooner rather than later. Even if some studies are proven to be corrupted.

 
I normally try not to get started in these global warming threads, as I am not very educated in the subject at all. I just want to say that, up front.

I feel like you have a really good point in the text that I quoted. I've been thinking about "climate change" a lot lately, especially with the winter the northeast has been having. I just think that even if all of a sudden we find out that this "warming" is true and caused by us, what can we do about it? Sure in the long run we can decrease our emissions and CO2 outputs and everything. Except if they wanted a drastic change, if they could prove it being true, then everyone would literally have to stop driving, and every factory would have to shut down production, just to slow down this "warming". It doesn't seem very possible. So, I think we should try to decrease our emissions, and use less fossil fuels, just for our own benefit. I really don't think we can do too much to change our outcome of the situation though. I'm sure we could slow it down a little if bills/laws were passed on the matter. Basically I just think we should just live out our lives normally. Do some studies on this and try to make our carbon footprint lighter, but not change our everyday driving and tasks because of it.

That's just my thoughts on it. I think we're just along for the ride, because we can't do a TON to stop this anyways.

If there is something. I hope it's just a natural cycle of the earth though, and we're just at a warming period.
 
Thanks you my friend, and I agree with yours with one caveat: Let's let the free market decide the successful technologies, not a bureaucrat.
 
It's facsinating that a supposed "engineering student" has total disregard for

both grammar and evidence (um, that would be the quoted sources from real climatologists I listed. Still waiting for an actual argument against them; ANY of them. ) Perhaps you'd like to go for the trifecta and dismiss logic as well. Oh wait, I think you just did...

I think the real question here is what kind of "engineering school" does a person like you attend? (Psst: community colleges and internet diploma mills don't actually count.)

And for someone disdainful of those literate enough to craft an intelligible sentence, you're awfully quick to point out what you think is an error. But with your endless repetition of bits of my own thread it's clear to the rest of us that you have little to offer beyond copying the strategies of your betters. And that is indeed the sincerest form of flattery.
 
I am currently in the process of transferring to UBC from UVIC's engineering program. What was your major in again?

You deflect like a politician. Please point out where I have endlessly repeated part of 'your' thread.

Spend a little time researching actual facts instead of government and oil funded papers.

The semicolon was only in the quoted text.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top