Record Cold In Europe…Greenland Adds 12 Billion Tonnes Of Snow And Ice In Single Day….Enough to Cover 275 Manhattans!

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

We all recall the hysterical reactions from global warming alarmists whenever an Antarctic glacier calves and a huge chunk of ice cap breaks away in the summertime. The headlines would scream: Ice chunk as big as Manhattan breaks off! (due to global warming, they want us to believe).

Yet in the wintertime when such a mass (or even far more gets added suddenly), you only hear silence.

Our Japanese skeptic and friend Kirye at Twiiter informs us, citing data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), that Greenland added some 12 gigatonnes of snow and ice on February 24 alone.

Chart: DMI.

12 gigatones is equivalent to about 12 cubic kilometers, which would be enough to cover 12,000 sq kilometers with one meter of ice, or 24,000 sq. km. with half a meter of ice. This would be enough ice to cover 275 Manhattans (area 87.5 sq km) with half a meter of ice.

February in total so far has added some 100 gigatonnes, or enough to cover 2,285 Manhattans with half a meter of ice. Of course, we never hear about this in the media.

European “super-freeze”

Although alarmists have been recently hyperventilating over balmy Arctic temperatures, what they ignore is that the cold Arctic air has been shifted down to the middle latitudes by weather patterns. Europe today is getting pounded by a “super freeze”:

Frigid temperatures in the -20°C range have been gripping large swaths of Europe.

Germany’s highest peak, Zugspitze, sets new record low

In Germany meteorologist Dominik Jung tweets that the country’s highest peak, Zugspitze, broke a 117-year cold record this morning, posting a reading of -30.5°C. Much of Europe saw bitter cold temperatures below double-digit minus readings. The commercial meteorologist Jung comments on the Zugspitze record, citing data from the Germany DWD national weather service:

At -30.5°C there during the night into Tuesday, never has it been that cold there during the last ten-day period in February.”

The online Munich-based Abendzeitung here reports that Germany today find itself in a “shock-frozen” and that a reading on the Zugspitze below -30°C is “really an extreme for the end of February”.

Currently Germany is having its “coldest February in years.”

 

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

55 responses to “Record Cold In Europe…Greenland Adds 12 Billion Tonnes Of Snow And Ice In Single Day….Enough to Cover 275 Manhattans!”

  1. Bitter&twisted

    Just goes to show the variability of the weather.
    Something Climate Alarmists have either forgotten or, as is more likely, “weaponised” for their own purposes.

  2. AZ1971

    This same powerful system that brought all this snow to Greenland has been incorrectly ignored for both the “record” warm temperature spike at the North Pole as well as the thick sea ice blowing away from the northern coast of Greenland. Yes, strong sustained winds in a single direction HAS an impact on floating sea ice and CAN be blown away from the coast – but it doesn’t disappear. It would be interesting to see what the latest ice thickness charts of the Arctic show after all that thick ice surrounding Greenland’s coast was blown N/NW towards the pole. And southerly intrusions of warmer, moist air to the relatively cold areas surrounding the 80°N latitude will drop heavy precipitation as well as spike temperatures.

    The thing is, this is indicative of weather, not climate – much to the dismay of Labe and Hausfather.

  3. tom0mason

    Yes, but seb just told me it got so hot there in Greenland just yesterday!

    What could POSSIBLY be wrong with his notion?

    That a station on Greenland recorded a few minutes of warmth, while the rest of it stayed cold? No surely not? That the all NATURAL Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW) kicked-in like I predicted a while ago, and I warned people that cAGW advocates would use it as an excuse to noisily bang their stupid tin drum about ‘global warming’.
    Of course cAGW advocates have a understanding deficit when it comes to SSW.

    1. SebastianH

      Whatever …
      http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anom

      Of course it is not climate change that is causing such an event, just like your prediction of the “coming ice age” is not confirmed by a cold week in Europe.

      It’s funny how Pierre managed to twist the information on this event towards showing that this is still somehow a sign that it is getting cooler …

      That a station on Greenland recorded a few minutes of warmth,

      That station recorded triple the amount of above 0 °C temperatures than the average at this time of the year.

      1. AndyG55

        Seb remains IGNORANT of the effect of the wobbly jet stream.

        Nothing unusual about seb being ignorant, though.

        Spike was basically the same as in 1976, seb, also when there was a wobbly in the jet stream

        I know basic understanding of physics, science, weather, etc is very difficult for you, but do at least try to make a small amount of effort to keep up.

        1. AndyG55
        2. tom0mason

          Indeed AndyG55,

          It is not normal to have the jet-stream running south of Spain over North Africa as it currently is. CO2 can’t do that only nature can move such a huge body of air around the world. CO2 is puny (More probably non-existent) in comparison.

          Only the cAGW faithful can not see natures might because they believe they know all there is to know about weather and climate processes. These recent event show that we do not know or understand, if we did these events would not be a surprise, they would be predicted accurately. All the major weather computerized forecasts from 3 months ago missed in both timing and intensity of these European and North American events.

      2. tom0mason

        That station recorded triple the amount of above 0 °C temperatures than the average at this time of the year.

        FOR HOW LONG? THAT MATTERS.

  4. AndyG55

    Record Cold In Europe..

    and you can bet certain AGW hypocrites are using that FOSSIL FUEL sourced heating to the max !!

  5. Green Sand

    Don’t you just love weather?

    Though I doubt most would want to be around when a similar event to The Great Storm of 1703 comes around again. No reason why it shouldn’t and no reason the cause, variables that brought it about shouldn’t be the same as last time. Man has become very arrogant in claiming an ability to control the climate and therefore weather of this planet. 150 years awareness v 4.5bn years existence?

    Homo sapiens (wise and knowing man) has spawned homo superbus (arrogant man)it is a concern

    1. Steve

      Hear Hear

    2. tom0mason

      Well said.

  6. Record Cold In Europe…Greenland Adds 12 Billion Tonnes Of Snow And Ice In Single Day….Enough to Cover 275 Manhattans! | WeatherAction News

    […] Full story here […]

  7. Rex Burr

    Sorry to be pedantic but the statement ‘Enough to Cover 275 Manhattans’ is meaningless unless a depth is specified.

  8. tom0mason

    Where we can learn is to look at what actually happened during other recent cold periods …
    From the British Records only (https://www.booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1650_1699.htm) …

    –1645-1710 — “The Maunder Minimum”: Period of notably reduced solar activity. Possibly contributing to (or adding to), the downturn in temperatures during this period (though note, there were also some very warm summers, e.g. 1645!)

    1646, very hot — 31st May, 1646 (new-style date converted): Notable outbreak of tornadoes in eastern England. Specifically Thetford / Newmarket, (Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, Norfolk); Brandon Parva (Norfolk) and Swaffham Prior (Cambridgeshire). At least three different tornadoes involved. It was a notably hot day (“violent hot day”), with severe thunderstorms, heavy rain & large hail. The hail is noted as being of “extraordinary size”, and “some hollow within like rings”.

    1651-1654 — Four successive fine (i.e. often dry / hot) summers but that of 1651 appears to have been ‘fine’ only across England; Scotland though is specifically included for the other years in the various chronicles. 1651 in particular across England (only?) was noted as being dry with a ‘scorching’ summer – a ‘great’ drought with excessive heat. Kent is specifically mentioned (continental influence). It may be that only the southern half of Britain was so favoured, as there are notes that in Scotland, this year (1651) was subject to even ‘greater dearth’ than the preceding year.

    However although there were many warm periods during this solar minimum period, cold and extremely cold weather easily dominated the general climate of this period.

    The most foolish people assume that when a ‘grand minimum’ or ‘Little Ice-Age’ style cooling happens, it will be almost instant and be continuously extremely cold. This is the mind-set of the uneducated who can not be bothered to read-up about how the cold creeps up with increasingly devastating developments.
    I have come to the conclusion that the coming cooling will start very soon (about 2020) and will last about 3 to 5 solar cycles. That is to say come 2020 a new weather/climate regime will be starting. Of course the uneducatable troll that comments here, considers I am saying that come 2020 we’ll all freeze but that is what I’ve come to expect from that particular idiot cAGW egoist here.
    ✧ ✴ ✶ ✩ ✪ ✫ ✬ ✭ ✮ ✯ ✰ ✱ ✲ ✢ ✳ ✵ ✷ ✸ ✹ ✺ ✻ ✼ ✽ ✣ ✾ ✿ ❀ ❁ ❂ ❃ ❄ ❅ ❆ ❇ ❈ ❉ ❊ ❋

    1. SebastianH

      Well good thing you are so educated in all things climate. What would we all do if we had no access to your magic glass sphere? Thank you for this super duper prediction, tomOmason.

      Of course the uneducatable troll that comments here, considers I am saying that come 2020 we’ll all freeze but that is what I’ve come to expect from that particular idiot cAGW egoist here.

      No, I am just considering that you are claiming nonsense. That’s all.

      cold and extremely cold weather easily dominated the general climate of this period.

      That is not currently the case and will not be the case in the next years. Wan’t to take a bet? Like this Armstrong guy did in 2007 or Pierre did in 2008? One cold year and skeptics come out declase temperature will not increase further or will indeed fall in the next decade. Why you guys are so confident in this is beyond me …

      And since you call me uneducatable, I’ll call you uninformable from now on.

      1. tom0mason

        “Of course the uneducatable troll that comments here, considers I am saying that come 2020 we’ll all freeze but that is what I’ve come to expect from that particular idiot cAGW egoist here.”

        No, I am just considering that you are claiming nonsense. That’s all.

        So you now self identify as a troll, good some honesty from you at last!

        1. SebastianH

          Usually the one claiming nonsense is the troll, not the one identifying it.

          Nice try …

          1. tom0mason

            Nice try seb but no,

            All you have another uneducated statement as the knowledge free trolł

      2. AndyG55

        “I’ll call you uninformable from now on.”

        Certainly their is NO CHANCE that you will be able to inform anyone of anything.

        Certainly not about any provable warming effect of atmospheric CO2.

        Your education does seem WOEFULLY LACKING in most areas of science, and physics, that is FOR SURE, seb.

        You remain EMPTY as always, seb

  9. AndyG55
    1. SebastianH

      I don’t get it, why are some of you posting that “this is just weather” when it comes to a warm Arctic and then there comes this guy and tries to argue that snow falling in Naples means there is no AGW?

      1. sunsettommy

        Once again you overlook the 2001 IPCC projections of DECREASING snow and cold events.

        It been on the INCREASE since then, which you amazingly keep ignoring as you flail around with your willful bullcrap,

        “I don’t get it, why are some of you posting that “this is just weather” when it comes to a warm Arctic and then there comes this guy and tries to argue that snow falling in Naples means there is no AGW?”

        You have been shown in several ways and many times, that AGW conjecture is a failed conjecture.

        How much longer are you going to continue to ignore the many verified AGW failures?

        1. SebastianH

          Sunset, your imagination is strong, I give you that.

      2. AndyG55

        Poor seb,

        triggered into posting an empty load of EMPTY, as always.

        You have yet to provide ANY PROOF WHATSOEVER to back up your farcical claims of warming from human released atmospheric CO2.

        You remain EMPTY

        1. SebastianH

          I am curious, how would you classify your usual replies?

          1. AndyG55

            As trying to pin down a slimy, squirming worm to actually produce some empirical evidence to back up its idiotic AGW claims.

            In that, I have failed.

            You remain EMPTY.!

      3. tom0mason

        Because seb, you great unreasonable one, the clue is at the top of the page.

    2. tom0mason

      And tomorrow it will be parts of Britain, some that was not forecast till today, and even then 5 model give 5 different answers as to exactly where the storm will track.

      “The science is settled” for climate is BS, if you can not predict short term weather pattern there is NO CHANCE of tracking long term climate changes. Only an idiot would believe otherwise, wouldn’t they seb.

  10. dennisambler

    Balmy Arctic weather:

    Prudhoe Bay – minus 28C https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/prudhoe-bay
    Cambridge Bay- minus 26C https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/canada/cambridge-bay
    Severnaya Zemlya – minus 22C https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/@1492613
    Thule – minus 10C https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/greenland/thule-air-base
    Daneborg – minus 18C https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/greenland/daneborg

    It’s Hot in Hammerfest – plus 1C https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/norway/hammerfest

    But cold in Longyearbyen – minus 8C https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/norway/longyearbyen

    Even colder in Pevek – minus 18C https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/russia/pevek

    Really cold in Khatanga – minus 22C https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/russia/khatanga

    That’s a reasonable spread across the Arctic, check the map:http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm

    I’m off to Hammerfest, warmer than Europe, sunglasses and sunscreen packed….

  11. SebastianH

    As a reply to Kenneth (comments closed over there):

    We can measure how fast an object will fall from a specified height above the Earth, given the force-distance values derived from empirical experiments. Those measurements are repeatable. We have no such measurements for CO2 and its heating effect on water.

    See what you are doing here? In case of gravity it is enough that we can measure how fast object will fall (very simplistic, but ok). In case of CO2 effects you demand measurements of a very specific situation.

    This is probably the 10th time I have explained this to you in the last 2 months. And yet you continue to pretend that Earth’s gravity measurements are the direct equivalent of CO2–>water temp measurements anyway.

    And probably the 10th time I have to explain it back to you. The equivalent to measuring how fast an object falls, is measuring how much infrared CO2 absorbs/re-emits or measuring how the temperature gradient in a body of water changes when incoming LW radiation changes (no matter the source). These are the basic empirical measurements.

    Measuring how the temperature of the body of water changes in an Earth like configuration when changing CO2 concentration from X ppm to Y ppm, that is a pretty specific scenario, equivalent to me asking you to provide measurements of gravity existing in the Andromeda Galaxy. You’d say of course it exists over there, because the stars are moving like it does, but I’d demand actual measurements at some location inside the galaxy.

    That’s what you are asking for regarding the CO2 GHE effect. And you’ll probably never get an answer to that. You know this of course and will continue to ask this as if the absense of that measurement would somehow disprove the whole GHE thing.

    It’s intellectually dishonest to continue repeating these false claims.

    … then stop repeating.

    It’s been alleged for a long time that the higher the CO2 concentration rises, the weaker and weaker it’s effects on planetary temperatures.

    That’s your reply to the “dramatic drop” in CO2 concentration increases causing temperature increases? “it’s been alleged”, seriously?

    It’s – again – simple math. When you have a fixed amount of increase of an effect when the variable doubles, then that’s always the case. So for a factor of 8 we need to add up the increases of 3 doublings or 3 times the ECS (1.5 – 4.5 °C according to the IPCC).

    Another example of something that behaves like this are production learning curves (something you didn’t understand either, it’s not about other countries learning from Germany). For every doubling of produced items the prices fall by some amount or a percentage. It’s everywhere and it doesn’t mean that the effect is “too small” …

    The warming impact during 1992-2014 can be associated with a reduction in cloud cover, which allowed more solar radiation to be absorbed by the Earth system.

    McLean, 2014 & Hofer et al., 2017
    Sure … I don’t know how many times I replied to one or both of those paper quotes. There really should be a Kenneth FAQ for your standard quotes and the appropriate replies.

    P.S.: Why didn’t cloud cover change then affect your cherry picked temperature graphs?

    1. Kenneth Richard

      Measuring how the temperature of the body of water changes in an Earth like configuration when changing CO2 concentration from X ppm to Y ppm, that is a pretty specific scenario, equivalent to me asking you to provide measurements of gravity existing in the Andromeda Galaxy.

      No, for the 11th time, it’s not equivalent to that. We actually do have real-world measurements for planet Earth that tell us how fast an object will fall from a specified height above the surface. These measurements are repeatable. We have cause-effect measurement values. We have no such cause-effect measurement values for how much a body of water (it doesn’t have to be an ocean, but a tub filled with water in an enclosed transparent building with CO2 pumped in and an ambient control) is heated or cooled by CO2 concentration changes above them. Therefore, these are not equivalent. And yet you keep on comparing CO2–>water temps to gravity-force-distance measurements anyway, as if they are equivalent. They are not.

      You’d say of course it exists over there, because the stars are moving like it does, but I’d demand actual measurements at some location inside the galaxy.

      No, I wouldn’t even bring up the gravity values for other galaxies because these have nothing to do with the real-world measurements for planet Earth’s gravity-cause-effect that are indeed available.

      So for a factor of 8 we need to add up the increases of 3 doublings or 3 times the ECS (1.5 – 4.5 °C according to the IPCC).

      The 1.5 – 4.5 °C range is the believed-in (IPCC TAR) range for climate sensitivity plus the stronger warming from feedbacks with water vapor, cloud. The by-itself value is modeled to be 1.2°C for a 280 ppm to 560 ppm doubling, just as the by-itself value for the CO2 contribution to the natural GHE is 7.2 K. So why do you think it is that CO2 was modeled to increase temperature by less than 2 K when increased by a factor of 8? You shouldn’t be mixing and matching ECS with the direct, “convective” value for doubling CO2, as they’re different.

      1. SebastianH

        I wrote what I wanted to wrote. You don’t understand the problem and that’s ok. Just don’t expect anyone to honor your claim that there are no measurements of the effect CO2 has. That’s been measured over and over and is the same as measuring gravity from how fast objects fall.

        What has not been measured (at least not to your satisfaction) is the change in heat content resulting from a backradiation change that was caused by variations of the CO2 concentration. It has been measured for backradiation changes caused by other events though.

        This missing measurement that you base your claim on is equivalent to demanding measurements of the gravity in a distant place just to confirm that it exists there too. Or demanding an actual image of a black hole, even though we have measurements of stars orbiting a point in space of nothingness.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          Just don’t expect anyone to honor your claim that there are no measurements of the effect CO2 has [on water temperature/heat change]

          How dishonest of you to falsely claim that I have written there are “no measurements of the effect CO2 has” while purposely leaving out the emboldened, italicized, bracketed rest-of-the-quote. You know that we don’t have measurements of the caused-effects of CO2 concentration variations ON WATER TEMPERATURES. And yet you intentionally left this out to disingenuously make it appear I have written something that I have not. Pathetic.

          That’s been measured over and over and is the same as measuring gravity from how fast objects fall.

          No, for the 12th time now, measuring how fast objects fall with repeatable results is not “the same as” physically measuring how much of a temperature change is elicited in water bodies by varying the CO2 concentration up or down in the air above them (water bodies). We have no such physical measurements for the latter. We do have physical measurements for the former. So they are NOT the same. We have models and hypotheses and assumptions for one, but physical, real-world measurements for the other.

          This missing measurement that you base your claim on is equivalent to demanding measurements of the gravity in a distant place just to confirm that it exists there too.

          For the 12th time, I have not demanded gravity measurements for distant places in the universe. We actually have real-world physical measurements for planet Earth. So, for the 12th time, no, these are not “equivalent”.

          I think I will just delete your posts that repeat the same falsities over and over again. This is just getting old.

          1. yonason (from my cell phone)

            Cavendish designed an experiment to measure gravitational attraction.
            https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/cavendish-experiment

            There is no equivalent experiment to quantify the alleged warming effect of CO2. If there were, one could find it as easily as I found the one above on gravity (it took seconds).

            As to measuring gravity elsewhere in the universe, I’ve never read that Kenneth advocated that. But observations indicate that maybe we should be.
            http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2016/01/gravity-may-be-altered-by-an-unknown-fifth-force-todays-galaxy-insight.html

            I posted on that (with a different reference) one other time SebH made the same false accusation.

            He repeatedly lies about scientific knowledge/principles, and what Kenneth and others say about it/them. He deliberately (and repeatedly) ignores all evidence that doesn’t support his narrative, and especially when it conflicts. He routinely employs logical fallacies with the skill of an experienced activist. In short, whatever measures you take to limit his interference are justified, IMO.

          2. SebastianH

            No, for the 12th time now, measuring how fast objects fall with repeatable results is not “the same as” physically measuring how much of a temperature change is elicited in water bodies by varying the CO2 concentration up or down in the air above them (water bodies).

            I am saying measuring how fast objects fall IS the same as measuring how much radiation CO2 absorbs/emits.

            Measuring how much water warms when varying CO2 concentration IS the same as measuring the influence of gravity in – for example – another galaxy.

          3. Kenneth Richard

            I am saying measuring how fast objects fall IS the same as measuring how much radiation CO2 absorbs/emits.

            No, it’s not. Measuring how fast an object falls produces a real-world cause-effect result. We can consistently determine the effect of the cause (gravity’s pull relative to distance).

            With measuring how much radiation CO2 absorbs/emits, we are not provided with the measured effects corresponding to cause. Instead, these are hypothetical values that are presumed to correspond to cause, based on modeling.

            Measuring how much water warms when varying CO2 concentration IS the same as measuring the influence of gravity in – for example – another galaxy.

            No, it’s not. We could easily perform real-world experiments on planet Earth that measure to what extent the water temperature changes in a tub of water after varying CO2 concentrations above it, comparing it to ambient controls. I’ve described how such experiments could be conducted previously. No need to head to another galaxy.

          4. AndyG55

            “Measuring how much water warms when varying CO2 concentration… blah balh “

            NO, seb.. we are on THIS PLANET, we have measurements of gravity on this planet!!

            Every man-made structure relies on those measurements, a known and precise value, just as the gravity constant is known on all other planets of the Solar System if it wasn’t ,lunar and Mars landings would not be possible.

            PRODUCE THE MEASUREMENTS, showing how much a change in atmospheric CO2 concentration changes the ocean or atmospheric temperature, seb

            That is what you SAY exists, but you provide NOTHING.

            You remain EMPTY. !!

            You really are looking more and more FOOLISH and IGNORANT with every post.

            Digging deeper and deeper into the fetid AGW sewer.

        2. AndyG55

          “I wrote what I wanted to wrote”

          You writ CRAP, as always.

          Just don’t expect anyone to honor your claim that there are no measurements of the effect CO2 has. “

          THEN PRODUCE THE MEASUREMENTS that show changes in atmospheric CO2 cause changes in ocean or atmospheric temperature.

          Or just keep YAPPING like an EMPTY vassal.

          Your PATHETIC attempts to link the SCIENTIFIC FARCE that is CO2 warming to the REALITY of gravity, are just a HILARIOUS attempt at childish distraction.

          That that is ALL YOU HAVE, isn’t it,seb .

    2. AndyG55

      Seb posts another load of scientifically EMPTY nonsense.

      It really is becoming his only trick. !

      1. tom0mason

        Must be an malchemist (mal adjusted alchemist) 🙂

    3. tom0mason

      What’s up seb, you can’t keep-up so you just dump a ‘cut and paste’ load of distraction, reiterating the same old codswallop?

      You truly are a sad, illogical trołł!

  12. RAH

    Been up and down the Zugspitze several times both climbing and riding up the tram. Took the train down once. My team got caught on that mountain above the tree line on the worst winter storm in a decade in the late 1980s. The winter before that I had attended the German Army Ski Instructor training at the ski area on top.

    -23 F is colder than I ever experienced anywhere in Europe except Norway in the cumulative time of about 4 years there. And I have topped a number of mountains there when I was serving on a unit that specialized in Alpine and cold weather ops.

  13. AndyG55

    TH absolutely NAILS the recent spike one small area of the Arctic.

    Its so easy to make fools of the AGW PANIC MACHINE. 🙂

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/gfs_nh-sat1_t2_1-day-4.png

  14. Modelle: Europa friert ein – massive Kältewelle bis in den März 2018! – wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung

    […] Record Cold In Europe…Greenland Adds 12 Billion Tonnes Of Snow And Ice In Single Day….Enough to … […]

  15. CFS: Der März 2018 wird kalt in Deutschland und Europa! Droht ein Märzwinter wie 2013? – wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung

    […] Record Cold In Europe…Greenland Adds 12 Billion Tonnes Of Snow And Ice In Single Day….Enough to … […]

  16. tom0mason

    Repost from another blog a (Dutch) commenter —

    .P. • an hour ago
    “Netherlands!!! :-).
    The max temperature was -4,6 so the record max for this day was pulverized, -1,6(1920s) was the record max before this day.
    This is for de Bilt, in the middle of the Netherlands. Windchill was around -15c with wind beaufort 5.
    Tomorrow around -18/-19. Temperatures are now around -8 in the middle of the Netherlands and -6/-7 in the south and north. ”

    Breaking 98 year cold records by 5°C in March, who thinks that is usual? Only an idiot…

    1. tom0mason

      Oops that should be 3°C not 5°C.

  17. Record Cold In Europe…Greenland Adds 12 Billion Tonnes Of Snow And Ice In Single Day | Principia Scientific International

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  18. Le point sur la fonte de la calotte du Groenland – global-climat – Enjeux énergies et environnement

    […] ce que l’on pouvait lire le 27 février 2018 sur le site Notrickszone, qui se revendique climato-sceptique : « Nous nous souvenons tous des réactions hystériques des […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close