Northern Hemisphere snow mass an historic 700 gigatons above average

Interesting how this can happen during a period of ‘global warming,’ isn’t it? You don’t suppose we’re being played do you?

Northern Hemisphere snow mass is an historic 700 gigatons above average. (A gigaton is one billion tons, so that means it’s an historic 700 billion tons above average.)

Image from the Finnish Meteorological Institute, date 19 April 2021.

https://i2.wp.com/electroverse.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/fmi_swe_tracker-38.jpg?ssl=1

Thanks to Oly for this link


29 thoughts on “Northern Hemisphere snow mass an historic 700 gigatons above average”

  1. The problem is this is not happening in the USA and there is very little interest in world news anymore. When California and the southwestern desert region acts like a desert, the uninformed panic. Overwhelmed by images from cell phones, the general public sees every storm as a disaster which the media is quick to blame on global warming, which is undoubtedly caused by humans. Every tornado and hurricane is the worst that ever occurred. If permafrost melts and fossils are found, it is a sign of impending disaster. No thought whatsoever is given to the reality the fossils must have gotten there from an earlier period when when it was warmer. sic- it’s a cycle.

    We are finding oil on moons far removed from the Earth, yet give no consideration to the origin of this oil. Was there a time when dinosaurs and giant ferns covered the moons of Saturn and Jupiter.
    Maybe our own planet’s oil and gas has nothing to do with earlier life forms and is a near inexhaustible energy source we are trying to replace with far inferior and temporary wind and solar power. This process will produce new, unique and non-recyclable waste and toxic pollution, as they deteriorate, and destroy the countryside.

    Drought conditions plague many areas used for food production and yet we take resources such as corn and use a gallon of fossil fuel to produce and deliver a gallon of ethanol which is inferior to gasoline in energy production and corrodes our engines. If and when the ice age comes ( and I am afraid it will be sooner than we think ) we will be sorry we did not produce stores of food for the famine which will surely follow close behind.

    We have been conditioned to panic and live in fear, ( just look at the disordered, confusing , and often contradictory response to Covid ) and then go along with government nonsense which allows us to be controlled.

    We have stopped thinking logically because the education system is trying to limit non-conformist thought.

    We are in deep trouble.

    • That requires considerably cooler summers in most places where spring snowfall exists.

      Swiss mountains at 2500m can have 6 metres on them in April and they still completely melt before the middle of September. Sometimes by the end of July. It’s actually a really nice way for nature to provide a regular stream of water to large parts of Europe, regular snow melt. It makes short-term droughts in summer much less of a problem….

      Likely the only places where large amounts of snow will remain in the near future would be parts of NE Alaska, northern Canada and northern Siberia.

  2. “700 gigatons” of snow with an additional 2.6 ppm of CO2!

    The low solar output combined with the extra snow reflecting sunlight should keep the Earth a bit cooler during the summer months.

    Let’s see, if “Globull Warming” causes “Global Cooling” then another 2.6 ppm of CO2 should add another 700 gigatons of snow next year for a total of 1400 gigatons of snow!
    Better stop that CO2 or we all will be buried in snow! (Yes! I’m making a joke — But, the “Globull Lie” is a joke!)

  3. Hi, Robert.

    Here’s something to look into… the actual atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    We’re told that it’s monotonically rising, but we have CO2 monitors on all the air handling equipment at work, and in the non-occupied parts of a multi-million square foot building, they’re now showing 408 ppm, whereas two years ago at this same point in the year they were showing 415 to 418 ppm.

    So is CO2 atmospheric concentration actually increasing?

  4. and as usual msm manages to be blind deaf and ignorant of what SHOULD be great news to alleviate worry and fear
    ah but it really WOULD stuff up their nice incomes from the warmist collective

  5. oh latest in Vic Aus?
    PAYING people 200$ to setup chat sessions in homes to promote the warmist crap!
    I think(have to look as its a bit “hidden”) its govt funded and am going to complain Loudly about the waste of funds

  6. It would take about 13,000 GT of water to raise the ocean levels by one inch. 700 GT represents less than one-sixteenth of an inch of sea level.

    The area of the oceans is 510,082,000 square kilometers, or
    510,082,000,000,000 square meters. The density of water is one ton per cubic meter. 700 GT of water would raise the oceans by 700/510082 meters = 0.054 inches, about one-eighteenth of an inch.

    • Who cares. The snow was before clouds thaw were water. The only way oceans level rise is IF polar caps melt which does not seem to be the case

      • Not so. The ice cap covering the North Pole could melt completely and not cause any rise in ocean level. Floating ice already is part of the level. A simple experiment to prove it is to watch the ice melt in a glass of water. Since the average temp in Antarctica is around 55 below zero, it would take a rise in temps of 85 degrees to cause that cap to melt. Not going to happen.

  7. HEY !!!
    We in SC KY would like some of that snow this coming winter ya know!
    All we get is sloppy MUSH and MUD!!!
    Don’t tell my Wife…she hates cold and snow!!!

  8. you are a joke…
    you really belive the global warming is not real because of one measurement outlier?
    I suppose you are a 50 year old american that did not went to university studying
    you probably have no clue about statistics, stochastics, Differential Equations and how they work.
    I don’t consider myself an expert because in fact i understand little of Differential Equations either. But at least i don’t try spreading bullshit like you obviously do. I accept that people don’t believe science, but making up ‘facts’ out of statistical outliers is just plain dumb.
    Also people arguing like ‘back then when there was an ice age, the carbon level was much higher’ yeah you very easily can show that, but there is a little mathematical Differential equation twist to it. And knowing that it depends from where you start and how The earths systems all connect together you can also very easily show that in fact you can have ice age with quite high carbon level but in return you need much lower carbon level (around 100ppm) to get back to ice age. Once you are back in an ice age carbon can rise to about 800.000 ppm (currently we are at about 417ppm) until the ice starts melting. Still it depends on where you start. If you start in an ice age you can go up quite high without melting ice but once you are out of the ice age you need the opposite, you need to go back to 100ppm and just increasing CO2 ppm won’t cause ice age

    That’s just a little anecdote to show that not all systems work like 1+1=2. Sometimes it has a twist like ‘once you go that way you can’t go back and in order to go back something entirely different has to happen’

    And the earths system is much more complex to just be like ‘look it’s snowing right now..where is your climate change now?’ that simply doesn’t work. As said i am fine with people not beliving in science but then at least don’t title your theories as facts.

    • Hahaha, I assume you also “did not went to university studying” LOL! FYI, that “statistical outlier”, as you call it, IS a fact. You might not like it, it may not support your perception of global climate conditions, but it IS factual. Nobody made a complete analysis out of that fact, they just reported it. You’re the one who got your panties in a twist because of it, which seems strange to me. Why would the reporting of factual conditions cause you to become so aroused to the point of posting that gob of garbled logic? Well, it gave me a good laugh anyway, you’re funny! That’s the for the laugh!

    • 100 ppm CO2 atmospheric concentration would mean the end of all life on the planet… plants couldn’t respire CO2 from the air, they die; plant-eating animals have no vegetative matter to eat, they die; meat-eating animals have no plant-eating animals to eat, they die.

      Perhaps if, rather than spewing idiocy in support of your inculcated climate religion, you actually learned how the earth:atmosphere:space system interacted, and learned thermodynamics, you’d realize you’re shilling for a physical impossibility when you shill for CAGW.

      • If CO2 drops below about 162ppm, ALL green plants die, and then there is no oxygen. (Most start dying at about 204ppm.) What do these people plan to breathe? I know they’re okay with killing all humans, but what about all the other animals??

    • You are a left wing moron ! Now that we have that settled,what else do you want to say to prove you are also an idiot ??

    • To “SomePeopleAreIdiots”

      (Good name you have there).

      You are correct about the complexity of it all, but I assume you assume C02, of course mad by MAN, is warming the planet.

      Where is your data and facts for that? There really isn’t any except some people who are idiots think that as C02 goes up, temperature (World Wide) goes up because CNN said so…………

      You leave off the orbit changes of the Earth. The constantly changing Sun behavior. Earth’s Magnetic Field fluctuations, Volcanic activity UNDER the oceans, Cosmic Rays and cloud formation…etc…..but no, these are all outliers and C02 is the only thing.

    • You have the right name idiot.Robert is telling the facts.Robert never stated global warming isnt real.It real in a nature forum as is cooling .Hes saying global warming from humans is what not true in fact .So I think your the one that needs to look at the facts before you hit the replay button.

  9. yes I would definitely say there’s more than a slight possibility that we’re being played…

  10. The title of the chart is ‘Total snow mass for N hemisphere, EXCLUDING MOUNTAINS’. So, that’s only some of the total snow package.

  11. Not so. The ice cap covering the North Pole could melt completely and not cause any rise in ocean level. Floating ice already is part of the level. A simple experiment to prove it is to watch the ice melt in a glass of water. Since the average temp in Antarctica is around 55 below zero, it would take a rise in temps of 85 degrees to cause that cap to melt. Not going to happen.

  12. somepeopleareidiots is correct, you are all no doubt trump supporting throwbacks. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were in the mob that stormed the capitol. Conspiracy! Conspiracy! I guess it does give you meaning in life.

    • If you Don’t like What Robert is doing why are you on his page then.I can tell you as fact Robert was not at the mob and hes certainly isnt the mob.He just has a very strong opinion that he is sharing with everyone the fact he is doing this with out the argurements and name calling should make more respect Robert that much more.

    • Plus what does that have to do about Ice ages climate cycles? Absolutely nothing you are just coming on to put Robert down just because his ideas opposes yours.

Comments are closed.