Early Snowstorms Pound Europe

NewBie

*Retired*
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
4,944
Location
Oregon- United States of America
Early Snowstorms Pound Europe

I'll bet the kids are having a blast because of the Snow Storm situation there.

If you are in Europe, is it really as great as the news folks are saying?

Looks like the Snow Storms thing hit a month or so early?

Do any of you Europeans have any cool Snow Storm photos to share of whats happening right now? (We don't have any Snow Storms here, I miss it and am looking forward to it)
 
Last edited:

B@rt

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 21, 2001
Messages
10,467
Location
Land of Tulips and Philips
Re: Global Warming Pounds Europe

In Holland it has been too warm in the first part of autum, but now it is all of a sudden too cold for the time of year. :thinking: :shrug:
snow6ru.jpg


Very unusual for November.... :wow:
 
Last edited:

billybright

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 4, 2004
Messages
887
Location
United Kingdom
Re: Global Warming Pounds Europe

Yes, same here in the UK, very warm october, but now we have snow:thinking:
and it`s freezing cold,

i heard on the news were due the coldest winter for 10 years, brrrr:thumbsdow


B@rt said:
In Holland it has been too warm in the first part of autum, but now it is all of a sudden too cold for the time of year. :thinking: :shrug:
 

alauda

Enlightened
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
338
Location
UK
Re: Global Warming Pounds Europe

Bloody freezing in the UK...just pleased some flashlights get so hot !
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,506
Location
Flushing, NY
Re: Global Warming Pounds Europe

Global warming doesn't necessarily mean warmer temperatures everwhere all the time. It also means more temperature extremes and more erratic weather. There doesn't seem to really be a fall or spring any more. Rather, we go from cold to hot within a few weeks and vice versa.

Interestingly, an unproven theory is that the Earth may self-regulate. If it gets too warm from global warming the gulf stream will shut down and this will in turn foster a new ice age. Nobody really knows the time scale this will happen on. The climate shift, if it occurs, could be very abrupt (within a few weeks), or it could take decades.
 

NewBie

*Retired*
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
4,944
Location
Oregon- United States of America
Re: Global Warming Pounds Europe

B@rt said:
In Holland it has been too warm in the first part of autum, but now it is all of a sudden too cold for the time of year. :thinking: :shrug:
snow6ru.jpg


Very unusual for November.... :wow:


Ooh, nice!

jtr1962, imho, thats just and excuse...
 

powernoodle

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 25, 2004
Messages
2,512
Location
secret underground bunker
Re: Global Warming Pounds Europe

There is no such thing as global warming, just as there was no such thing as global cooling when Newsweek magazine warned of its dire consequences on April 28, 1975. The left has never been right about anything. Ever. And this is no different. [Note from Darell in Admin mode: This sort of partisan bashing is not tolerated on CPF. The underground is a better fit.]

For all you need to know about so-called global warming, see post 14 of this thread.

cheers! :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JonSidneyB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Messages
3,423
Location
Greenfield In
Re: Global Warming Pounds Europe

Hmmm,

Europe had a mini-ice age in the Middle Ages. How long did that last, about 300-500 years maybe?

There used to be some kind of Ice Festivile in England that is now gone due to global warming hunderds of years ago.

The mini-ice age changed the crops that many communities grew. Was a cause of much angst in France.

I don't want to minimize global warming, but if we have had 11 full blown Ice Ages and many minor ones? Couldn't each thaw from an Ice Age be called global warming???
 
Last edited:

Schuey2002

Enlightened
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
867
Location
Oregon Coast
Re: Global Warming Pounds Europe

>>"Was a cause of much angst in France."<<

Wasn't that last "Mini-Ice Age" one of the factors that helped lead up to the French Revolution?
 

ikendu

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
1,853
Location
Iowa
Re: Global Warming Pounds Europe

powernoodle said:
The left has never been right about anything. Ever. And this is no different.


I enjoy seeing other's ideas, theories, explanations, research, background...but I'm not too interested in just simple posturing.
 

ikendu

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
1,853
Location
Iowa
Re: Global Warming Pounds Europe

JonSidneyB said:
Hmmm,

Europe has a mini-ice age in the Middle Ages. How long did that last, about 300-500 years maybe?

There was a nice program about the Mini-Ice Age on the Discovery (or History?) channel the other night.

No one is quite sure what caused it. One theory is that the amount of fresh water from ice melting in the artic stopped the water from the gulf stream from sinking once it had warmed Europe (fresh water being lighter than highly saline water). If the water doesn't sink once it cools, then the circulating flow from warm water up and then cooled water down stops and simply shuts down the Gulf Stream. One possibility is that while the rest of the planet might be warmer, the lack of the warm Gulf Stream would make Britain and Europe quite a bit colder.

I suppose if that actually does happen, people in Europe will say "See... global WARMING is crazy. Europe is hugely colder!".
 

Empath

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 11, 2001
Messages
8,508
Location
Oregon
Re: Global Warming Pounds Europe

Newest headlines regarding greenhouse gasses

It's strange how everything becomes political, as if that has any effect on science or fact. Developing opinions doesn't alter facts. Convincing others to accept one's beliefs doesn't alter facts. Things are as they are, and will be as they will be. Trying to alter other's opinion too, won't change it.

The latest data indicates that we're at a 27% increase in greenhouse gases than any peak in them that has occurred for the last 650,000 years. This data was collected from analysis of layers of ice frozen in the Antarctica ice. The ice can be analyzed for the content of atmospheric gases dissolved at the times the different layers were frozen. The political mind will either reject or accept that. It doesn't make any difference though. It is how it is, and all the opinion in the world won't change it.

Global warming is a simplification. If the earth and it's atmosphere is permitting the reflection and radiation of the solar energy at a reduced rate, then the energy retained is being converted, redistributed and equalized in either different manners than before, or the same manner as previously in an accelerated manner. The political mind will either agree or reject that. It doesn't make any difference though. It is how it is, and all the opinion in the world will not alter the laws regarding the conservation of energy or thermodynamics.

Someone mentioned the self-regulation of earth. It's true that we are a semi-closed system that does seek equilibrium. That in itself is the hazard we face. Forces reach a state of balance, but, while it's doing so the equation is being expressed in terms of the forces and the energy involved in the process of the "seeking of a balanced state". The equation stays balanced. The ratio of balanced forces and energy doesn't. The political mind will either reject or accept that. It doesn't make any difference though. It is how it is, and all the opinion in the world won't change it.

It's been expressed by a few that man isn't capable of altering the planet in such a manner, and that our emissions, tree cutting, asphalt paving, creation and altering of waterways and such won't make a dent. While geological activity may play a part, possibly even a great part, our actions have certainly contributed. Flora and fauna are a significant regulatory aspect of past energy/energy interplay. In addition, the actions of the flora and fauna play a part in the "balance" involved. Our destruction and alterations of carbon dioxide breathing oxygen generating forests, and elimination and alteration of huge tracts of greenery have certainly played a part. The political mind will either reject or accept that. It doesn't make any difference though. It is how it is, and all the opinion in the world won't change it.

Opinion: Recent environmental impact has been demonstrated in some changes in weather. I'd suspect that the destruction, and re-mapping of what might even dictate uninhabitable areas may become more manifest. We're a live ever changing planet geologically, with a dynamic solar influenced environment. Such is essential for the development and sustaining of the planet's organisms. By the same token, the organisms may find some areas, at some times, inhospitable to life. The areas in which we reside have been chosen due to being a "safe harbor" between events. Those areas may become more difficult to identify shortly. Our individual survival may become more a result of happenstance location, rather than proven safe location.

The equations used by physicists regarding relationships between physical phenomena, the forces, and energy are useful and accurate. A complex area though, has not been fully defined. If an effect is brought about by a cause, then it's part of the equation. The abstract areas of man's existence are certainly affected by physical change. Man's social relationships, the governments, emotional state, and his very spirit is greatly affected by physical change. How it plays into the equation is far too complex and unpredictable to stand much chance of being derived with any degree of accuracy; at least not in the foreseeable future.

"Global warming" may be a simplification. Global change, both physical and social is occurring, and appears to have barely started. The earth will "self-regulate", even if it destroys most of us. That's not to say it will, but the potential is within view.

And now, back to the politics.... for what it's worth.
 

NewBie

*Retired*
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
4,944
Location
Oregon- United States of America
Re: Global Warming Pounds Europe

Empath,

Then there is the front that say we have greatly extended the current warming period, and we are cruising for an extra hard brush with global cooling. One of the main points was that our emissions have created an unnatural extended warm period, and the earth will swing even harder into a cold period.

Scientific American had a great article on the evidence.

However, several of their regular authors have now published their own books, and frequently attack the Dane on a regular basis in Scientific American.

In reality, the whole Global Warming fiasco is shot through like holes in Swiss Cheese.

I'll give you a couple of examples:
First CO2 debate and current levels as viewed through ice core samples:
iceco2.jpg

The latest results from the EPICA core in Antarctica have just been published this week in Science (Siegenthaler et al. and Spahni et al.). This ice core extended the record of Antarctic climate back to maybe 800,000 years, and the first 650,000 years of ice have now been analysed for greenhouse gas concentrations saved in tiny bubbles. The records for CO2, CH4 and N2O both confirm the Vostok records that have been available for a few years now

First of all, the results demonstrate clearly that the relationship between climate and CO2 that had been deduced from the Vostok core appears remarkably robust.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221#more-221
--

Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm

If one were to take that litterally(based on current popular press agenda), and the fact that the amount of CO2, and even a worse global warming gas, methane, directly link to global temperatures, we probably should be in one serious world wide heatwave...we aren't
---


Patrick J. Michaels
Professor of Environmental Science
University of Virginia
Senior fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute.

The national media have given tremendous play to the claims of Vice President Al Gore, some federal scientists, and environmental activists that the unseasonably warm temperatures of this past summer were proof positive of the arrival of dramatic and devastating global warming. In fact, the record temperatures were largely the result of a strong El Niño superimposed on a decade in which temperatures continue to reflect a warming that largely took place in the first half of this century.

Observed global warming remains far below the amount predicted by computer models that served as the basis for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa329.pdf
-



Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Most of the literate world today regards "global warming'' as both real and dangerous. Indeed, the diplomatic activity concerning warming might lead one to believe that it is the major crisis confronting mankind.

To show why I assert that there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons, I shall briefly review the science associated with those predictions.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
-


"Global warming'' is the mother of all environmental scares.
"Warming (and warming alone), through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the environmentalist's dream of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population's eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally.''
-Aaron Wildavsky
Professor of Political Science at Berkeley


Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg is now under attack from the scientific community, since he had the gumption to write a highly referenced book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," which statistically/mathmatically shows that global warming and many other environmental "threats" are overblown.


He brings out the fact in an analysis that airborne CO2 concentrations over the last quarter-century which reveals that the standard assumptions of strong exponential growth is wrong. Lomborg states that "temperatures will increase much less than the maximum estimates from the IPCC" with the likely change less than 2ºC (3.6ºF) by 2100.

The real truth is that Lomborg is behaving like a scientist here, examing the actual data and statistics, and drawing sound scientific conclusions on the topic.
-

Robert Essenhigh, the E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conservation
Ohio State
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Science Daily recently reported on a "viewpoint" published in the American Chemical Society's Chemical Innovation, that illustrates just how much debate there is about the global warming hypothesis.

Many scientists who have tried to mathematically determine the relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature would appear to have vastly underestimated the significance of water in the atmosphere as a radiation-absorbing gas. If you ignore the water, you're going to get the wrong answer.
Essenhigh hypothesizes that the world is simply at the peak of a natural warming point which has resulted in more water vapor and hence more CO2.

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Global warming is a natural geological process that could begin to reverse itself within 10 to 20 years, predicts an Ohio State University researcher.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010615071248.htm
-


Australia's National Tidal Facility at Flinders University in South Australia, which is charged by the government of Australia to monitor sea levels in the Pacific, reports that there has been no significant rise in the Pacific Ocean.

Going back and comparing current sea levels to those of 1978, the sea level has increased a mere 0.07 millimeters or 0.002 inches.
-


David H. Rind, climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and adjunct professor of geological sciences at Columbia, naturally occurring greenhouse gases--mainly water and carbon dioxide (CO2)--help keep the planet warm and life-sustaining.

"But there's no smoking gun," adds Rind. Whether the rise in temperature can be attributed to the increased CO2 or some sort of natural climatic cycle is unknown. Computer models notwithstanding, there's no clear answer whether the rise will continue or at what rate. "Although some type of warming may be happening," says Rind, "we don't really know its magnitude; there are just too many variables."
-


Harry Hillaker, State Climatologist
Iowa Dept. of Agriculture & Land Stewardship

The theory of global warming is based on skewed data, state Climatologist Harry Hillaker told Legislative members in charge of environmental policy.

Both matched up until 1977 when temperatures taken on land-based stations worldwide began rising faster than temperatures in Iowa. Taking into account year-to-year fluctuations, Iowa's temperature has been stable for the last 50 years, Hillaker said.

"I think we're measuring urbanization, not global warming," Hillaker said, conceding that the upward global trend is subject to much debate.
http://www.junkscience.com/jan99/skewed.htm

(many like to compare now to 1977 as their evidence...)
-


Atlanta An "Urban Heat Island," With Higher Temperatures Than Surrounding Area, New NASA Study Shows

ATHENS, Ga. -- Atlanta, Georgia, is an island unto itself - an "urban heat island" - that can have temperatures up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than surrounding areas, creating its own weather and causing thunderstorms.

(why is this important? Because most of the data pointing to global warming comes from measurement sites that are now in the middle of big cities)
http://www.junkscience.com/mar99/urbanhi.htm
-


Then there's the problem of the satellite measured temperatures. These measurements, accurate to .01 degrees Celsius, find a statistically significant cooling trend in the lower atmosphere since they started taking measurements in 1979. The old models, which the U.N. said in 1990 were "generally realistic," predicted a warming of about .6 degrees Celsius since the satellite measuring started, and even newer models predict warming of .35 degrees of Celsius. This warming simply isn't happening according to the satellite data.

(new models are more accurate now, once they are properly corrected)
Do this, and put in the most likely changes in the greenhouse effect for the next century, and you get 1.2 degrees Celsius of warming in a new climate model from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research. From the new model of the United Kingdom Meteorological Organization, the same exercise will give you 1.3 degrees Celsius of warming. Or look at Tom Wigley's completely independent calculation in Nature last year. Same number: 1.3 degrees.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/6-30-97.html
-


According to Renowned Climatologist Dr. Fred Singer:

Most of this warming (up to 0.5 degrees Celsius) occurred between 1910 and 1940. And it has been during the last 50 years that about 80 percent of greenhouse gases have been added to the atmosphere.

The IPCC's own data shows essentially no warming over the last 25 years.
http://www.junkscience.com/news/tree-rings.html
-

Fred Singer
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia
President of the Science & Environmental Policy Project in Fairfax, Va.
And how do we know this? Well, a team of 26 respected economists, led by Yale Professor Robert Mendelsohn, has taken a closer look at the evidence. They have re-evaluated the United Nations report that has been used to justify the drastic policies of energy rationing and taxes, demanded by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (to the 1992 Global Climate Treaty). Where the U.N. report found only economic losses from warming, the new study, just published by the prestigious Cambridge University Press, finds mostly gains. (Ironically, the CUP also published the 1996 U.N. report.)

What a refreshing thought -after listening to the "Chicken-Littles" in academia and the media telling us about the horrors of greenhouse warming.
http://www.junkscience.com/apr99/singer.htm
-


...
Of course that can't be tolerated, so in the final version of the report, those maps were taken out and replaced with maps that relied on a different color scale whose effect is to minimize to the naked eye the differences between the two projections (again, see the maps in Schulz's article).


As Schulz writes,
Now, this is the sort of trick that would make a college sophomore blush.
...
This stunt throws into question the whole assessment process. Roger Pielke, a respected Atmospheric Scientist at Colorado State who was involved with the drafting process at the time, said, "I'm disappointed in the whole process. This has been the most closed, unhealthy scientific process I've ever been involved in."
http://techcentralstation.com/062802B.html
---


Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What you're not being told about the science of climate change

At a news conference held in Ottawa, some of North America's foremost climate experts provided evidence demonstrating that the science underlying the Kyoto Protocol is seriously flawed; a problem that continues to be ignored by the Canadian government. Scientists called on the Canadian government to delay implementation of the Kyoto Protocol until a thorough, public review of the current state of climate science has been conducted by climate experts. Such an analysis has never been organized in Canada despite repeated requests from independent, non-governmental climate scientists.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3
---


Theodor Landscheidt at Nova Scotia's Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, has shown quite conclusively that the sun waxes and wanes on quite predictable 11-year cycles, which can be moderated or intensified by longer-range, but more irregular cycles. Landscheidt, as a result, is unpopular with the UN scientists in charge of pushing the manmade global warming theory. In 1995, they wrote that the sun's effect on climate in the 20th century "has been considerably smaller than the anthropogenic (manmade effect)." But Landscheidt has demonstrated that "a change of 0.1 per cent (in solar energy) effective during a very long interval can release a real ice age."
http://www.fathersforlife.org/REA/warming13.htm
 
Last edited:

Empath

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 11, 2001
Messages
8,508
Location
Oregon
Re: Global Warming Pounds Europe

Newbie, you expect more of me than I'm going to give you. I'm not going to read all your "expert" opinions, nor yield to their efforts to re-program me.

Here's some advice that might help you learn to think for yourself, and sharpen your intuitive skills. Read "expert" opinion only as a reference, and not as a means of instruction. For any particular topic, you're going to find "expert" opinion supporting whatever decision you've adopted. You can seek out those opinions to help yourself feel more secure in your decision, or as a means to show your opinion to others in the best light. What it becomes is a matter of one person's "experts" against another person's "experts". Why bother? Neither your opinion, nor mine has any bearing on the facts.

There. I've just given you "expert" opinion. There are others here that can give you just as valid an opinion that's exactly opposite. In the end you've got to wonder, 'what's the point'? We can come up with two opposing opinions. But, reality doesn't care. Your politics and advice are too late. Just grab on and hold on tight. You're in for a wild ride.
 

greenLED

Flashaholic
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
13,263
Location
La Tiquicia
Re: Global Warming Pounds Europe

Empath said:
It's strange how everything becomes political, as if that has any effect on science or fact. Developing opinions doesn't alter facts. Convincing others to accept one's beliefs doesn't alter facts. Things are as they are, and will be as they will be. Trying to alter other's opinion too, won't change it.

:clap::clap::clap:

This is why nowdays I watch from the sidelines every time a global warming thread starts on CPF. I've gotten tired of presenting scientific facts, only to find little interest in them; the thread ultimately takes a political twist and then it's :toilet: from there. :)

As Empath very well states, the facts explaining global climate change (global warming is only part of this phenomenon) won't change. The climate system responds in varying ways depending on the spatial and temporal scale of observation (ie. planetary change sometimes seems inconsistent with local trends, etc.). The occurrence of some of these recent "anomalies" (I'm using the term loosely) is, in fact, evidence that Earth's energy balance has been disrupted. Maybe snow in Europe today seems to contradict global warming, but that is beyond the point because we are dealing with global climate change, which is what we should be concerned with (and more people increasingly are).

Yes, Earth's climate has changed in the past (both cooling and heating) and will continue it's pattern. By focusing on relatively isolated events you can make your case one way or the other. However, the ultimate resolution of this phenomenon comes from considering a global scale, and there is enough scientific evidence to support the fact that human-induced global climate change is real and disrupting our planet's natural rate of change. That trend in recent years is beyond the background level of variation we have documented. And that is the reason to worry. The global climate system is messed up (the underlying reason being the disruption in the planet's energy balance). Will humans be able to cope and survive the change and its effects? That is the ultimate unanswered question we are dealing with.:rant:

Bah, why do I bother?...

:dedhorse::dedhorse::dedhorse::dedhorse::dedhorse:

Maybe I care too much...

...and, no, I am not trying to convince anyone :nana:
 

Billson

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 18, 2003
Messages
1,248
Location
Philippines
Re: Global Warming Pounds Europe

IMHO, it doesn't matter whether there are clear scientific facts to back up global warming, the bottom line is you will notice a significant change in weather patterns just by paying attention.

For example, in our country, June to October is rainy season where it is virtually raining 24 hours a day for weeks at a time although not hard enough to cause major flooding of course. It's also typhoon (hurricane) season during these months but I don't recall being hit by even one this year. The past couple of years I have noticed that it hardly rains anymore during these months.

What about the US, it seems that the past couple of years alone has seen the US being hit by killer hurricanes several times a year when it seemed unheard of a few years ago.
 

NewBie

*Retired*
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
4,944
Location
Oregon- United States of America
Re: Global Warming Pounds Europe

Empath said:
Newbie, you expect more of me than I'm going to give you. I'm not going to read all your "expert" opinions, nor yield to their efforts to re-program me.

Here's some advice that might help you learn to think for yourself, and sharpen your intuitive skills. Read "expert" opinion only as a reference, and not as a means of instruction. For any particular topic, you're going to find "expert" opinion supporting whatever decision you've adopted. You can seek out those opinions to help yourself feel more secure in your decision, or as a means to show your opinion to others in the best light. What it becomes is a matter of one person's "experts" against another person's "experts". Why bother? Neither your opinion, nor mine has any bearing on the facts.

There. I've just given you "expert" opinion. There are others here that can give you just as valid an opinion that's exactly opposite. In the end you've got to wonder, 'what's the point'? We can come up with two opposing opinions. But, reality doesn't care. Your politics and advice are too late. Just grab on and hold on tight. You're in for a wild ride.


There you go, injecting politics.

I was just presenting the other side of the equation that I felt it was left out by you, and the sensational press.

Let me help you to understand something about how the world works. It would be very wise for you to heed and understand this point. Often the truth lies somewhere in-between, and it would be good for you to carefully understand this, it will be very helpful in the walk of life. Both sides should be looked at and weighed, and the facts that are presented, taken with a big grain of salt, distilled, and sorted, as any presentation has a goal to accomplish.

It is too bad that this wasn't done for our suckerfish or spotted owl fiasco, where those that care tried to help out, based on emotion and the feel good crowd. If we had, we wouldn't have hurt both of them in the process.

Anyhow, if we could please get back on topic, Global Warming Pounds Europe, and posting the pictures of the same, it would be much appreciated. Thanks for the short diversion Empath, lets keep it that way.

If you'd like to discuss the sematics of global warming further, please start a new thread for it.
 
Last edited:
Top