COLDER Greenland GAINS Ice In June – Media Silent

[justoffal]

Delta T is always greater at the poles than it is at the equator. This is a fairly demonstrable quality. The heat absorption potential despite the reflective surface and the much smaller angle of the sun light rays simply overwhelms the the process in comparison to the average Delta T at the equator and is often not mentioned at all when the panic calls for melting ice caps due to temperature increase start dominating the next news cycle. It's as if they think the public is too stupid to be informed about that particular physical process or perhaps they are afraid that it might throw a question mark up when they are trying to paint the situation as dire only for one reason. As I have already debated here the progress of the Sun through it's midlife stage and on forward to the expanding Red Giant state is non-negotiable. As it burns through 600 million tons of hydrogen each and every second converting it to 596 million tons of helium thus losing s tiny bit of mass ever so slightly weakening its ability to control by gravitational containment an infinitesimally small increase in energy output occurs. This in turn translates into more heat traveling away from its surface. As that heat arrives here and is absorbed by our planet....the heat will have the most noticeable affect on the area that has the greatest heat transfer potential. That potential is always greater wherever the Delta T is greater. This has nothing whatsoever to do with greenhouse gas which cannot do anything at all either to speed up or slow down this process....ergo the non linear relationship of one surface to another is completely ignored.

JO

 

[Crick]

Principia Scientific International

COLDER Greenland GAINS Ice In June – Media Silent

Published on June 15, 2020

Written by Cap Allon

Excerpt:

The month of June is breaking records across the Greenland ice sheet, and not records for warmth and melt –as the mainstream media have trained you to expect– but new benchmarks for COLD and GAINS.

The SMB gains occurring right now across Greenland are truly astonishing.

Data-driven FACTS reveal vast regions to the south have been GAINING RECORD/NEAR-RECORD LEVELS of snow & ice all month.

Never before in June has the Greenland ice sheet grown by more than 4 Gigatons in a single day (since 1981 when DMI records began), but now the past week has gone and delivered two such days — June 3, and now yesterday, June 10.

In fact, yesterday’s gains actually neared 5 Gts — you can see from the chart below how anomalous that gain is for the time of year:

LINK

======

CO2 must be pooped out up there, Jack Frost refuses to stand down!

If the media were silent, you'd know nothing about this. And if you think one month overrides this

You've got a problem

 

[Crick]

Delta T is always greater at the poles than it is at the equator. This is a fairly demonstrable quality. The heat absorption potential despite the reflective surface and the much smaller angle of the sun light rays simply overwhelms the the process in comparison to the average Delta T at the equator and is often not mentioned at all when the panic calls for melting ice caps due to temperature increase start dominating the next news cycle. It's as if they think the public is too stupid to be informed about that particular physical process or perhaps they are afraid that it might throw a question mark up when they are trying to paint the situation as dire only for one reason. As I have already debated here the progress of the Sun through it's midlife stage and on forward to the expanding Red Giant state is non-negotiable. As it burns through 600 million tons of hydrogen each and every second converting it to 596 million tons of helium thus losing s tiny bit of mass ever so slightly weakening its ability to control by gravitational containment an infinitesimally small increase in energy output occurs. This in turn translates into more heat traveling away from its surface. As that heat arrives here and is absorbed by our planet....the heat will have the most noticeable affect on the area that has the greatest heat transfer potential. That potential is always greater wherever the Delta T is greater. This has nothing whatsoever to do with greenhouse gas which cannot do anything at all either to speed up or slow down this process....ergo the non linear relationship of one surface to another is completely ignored.

JO

Wow. The sun is getting hotter because of a reduction in its gravity field? Haven't heard that one before. I have to wonder why that doesn't show in the TSI data.

PS: If we were to pretend that the sun will lose its entire mass over the next 5 billion years (it's estimated remaining lifespan), then the mass lost over the last 150 years would constitute 3/100 millionths of its mass and thus of its gravity and thus would have that much impact (per your novel theory) on its heat output. And, of course, the sun will not consume its entire mass over the next 5 billion years - only a tiny fraction of that mass. So that actual increase per this effect would be even smaller. If we use the numbers you provide: 4 million tons per second, over the last 150 years the sun will have lost less than 1/105 trillionth of its mass. Sorry, try again.

 

[Sunsettommy]

If the media were silent, you'd know nothing about this. And if you think one month overrides this

View attachment 662123

You've got a problem

Another link free chart you post while you continue to ignore the ONE-month chart I posted with a link which was a YEAR AGO!

You have a problem.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Snowfall is not temperature.
Snowfall is not temperature.
Snowfall is not temperature.

 

[mamooth]

Delta T is always greater at the poles than it is at the equator. This is a fairly demonstrable quality.

Really? Well then, please demonstrate it for us.

Start out by specifically defining "Delta T" for us. I ask because you don't seem to be using any normal definition of the phrase.

This in turn translates into more heat traveling away from its surface.

Yes, the sun heats up, by about 1% every 50 million years. Over the span of a few years, that increase would be ... absolutely negligable.

 

[mamooth]

Yeah the climate sensitivity ESTIMATES have come DOWN almost linearly over 30 years. Started in the TEENS -- now hover around 2 to 4.

A fine denier urban legend.

If you dont understand and model the thermo flows and CS differences, you'll NEVER REALLY HAVE great modeling of future planet temperatures.

Which is why the models have been so accurate. But then, you can alway deny that reality with another conspiracy theory.

 

[mamooth]

Another link free chart you post while you continue to ignore the ONE-month chart I posted with a link which was a YEAR AGO!

You're actually saying a one-month chart is what matters, and to ignore the larger trend?

Really?

It's such an insane thing to say, I want to confirm that it's what you actually meant.

 

[mamooth]

Below is the spectral emission and absorption bands of most of the atmospheric components. The CAGW hypothesis requires each of these components to interact.

And they do. The CO2 spectrum and and H2O spectrum overlap in a lot of places, so one has no problem warming the other with their IR emissions.

This is basic stuff, and Billy fails at it.

 

[westwall]

A fine denier urban legend.


Which is why the models have been so accurate. But then, you can alway deny that reality with another conspiracy theory.

What a farce, no, the models have been wildly INNACURATE. Over 300% off in most cases.

 

[westwall]

And they do. The CO2 spectrum and and H2O spectrum overlap in a lot of places, so one has no problem warming the other with their IR emissions.

This is basic stuff, and Billy fails at it.

They don't constructively reinforce, numbnuts.

 

[mamooth]

They don't constructively reinforce, numbnuts.

Go on, tell everyone what "constructively reinforce" means, and why it matters.

This should be hilarious.

 

[mamooth]

What a farce, no, the models have been wildly INNACURATE. Over 300% off in most cases.

Back in reality ...

 

[westwall]

Go on, tell everyone what "constructively reinforce" means, and why it matters.

This should be hilarious.

Why it's the whole system upon which your failed theory is based upon.


DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

[westwall]

Back in reality ...

And then there is the reality, not your propaganda.

 

[mamooth]

Why it's the whole system upon which your failed theory is based upon.

No, I've never heard that term used in AGW theory. If you search on the term together with "global warming", precisely zero hits come up. You appear to just be making crap up.

I'll give you another chance, just so everyone can watch you run a second time. What does "constructively reinforce" mean, in the context of the CO2 and H20 absorption/emission spectrums?

 

[mamooth]

And then there is the reality, not your propaganda.

Your deception there was to use the wildly inaccurate UAH satellite temperature model, instead of the actual surface temperature data.

Honest people, when asked to provide surface temperature data, would use temperatures measured at the surface by these things call thermometers.

You don't do that. You use microwave emissions from the whole troposphere (which is not the surface), filtered through a model with all sorts of fudge factors.

Throwing away good data in favor of bad data is a sure indicator of pseudoscience, and it's what you're doing.

 

[westwall]

Your deception there was to use the wildly inaccurate UAH satellite temperature model, instead of the actual surface temperature data.

Honest people, when asked to provide surface temperature data, would use temperatures measured at the surface by these things call thermometers.

You don't do that. You use microwave emissions from the whole troposphere (which is not the surface), filtered through a model with all sorts of fudge factors.

Throwing away good data in favor of bad data is a sure indicator of pseudoscience, and it's what you're doing.

Your fraudsters refuse to use the accurate weather stations. They have chosen to ignore 6000 out of the 9000 that exist (In fact they were forced to stop using another 600 back in 2015 because they were so inaccurate they were obvious)

Why?

Oh, yeah, because they are properly sited and ACCURATE!


DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

[mamooth]

Your fraudsters refuse to use the accurate weather stations. They have chosen to ignore 6000 out of the 9000 that exist (In fact they were forced to stop using another 600 back in 2015 because they were so inaccurate they were obvious)

Yawn.

Your conspiracy yammering is just tedious.

We get it.

All the data says your cult is a pack of frauds.

Admitting that would get you kicked out of your cult. The cult is your life, so you do not see honesty as a viable option.

Hence, you see making up some loopy conspiracy theory as your only viable option.

 

[westwall]

Yawn.

Your conspiracy yammering is just tedious.

We get it.

All the data says your cult is a pack of frauds.

Admitting that would get you kicked out of your cult. The cult is your life, so you do not see honesty as a viable option.

Hence, you see making up some loopy conspiracy theory as your only viable option.

It's a fact. Only cultists, like you, ignore facts.