COLDER Greenland GAINS Ice In June – Media Silent

[Grumblenuts]

That is what YOU and Mammoth ignored.

No, I addressed it directly in post #3 and post #14, and Old Rocks addressed it in post #15. Greenland did not gain mass in June It just had one large snowfall event, something common and expected. You lied about that, and got busted for lying. As is always the case, you ran weeping from the discussion and then proclamed victory.

So, the pertinent questions now:

Given how often you lie, why do you still suck so badly at it?

Were you attracted to the denier cult because of your neutered status, or was the operation part of your initiation ceremony?

Frank, Sun Devil, those questions apply to you two as well, so feel free to jump in and answer. Why is it that all deniers are such disohonst pajama bois?

Direct shots to the balls.. No mercy! LOL!

 

[mamooth]

Yes they did for several days it was well above average mass gain, the article isn't being deceptive, YOU are.

So you're choosing to lie by ignoring calving. You just just deny reality whenever reality is inconvenient to you. Same old same old. Flat earthers use the same techniques you do. They just make up their own idiot reality and scream that everyone else is a fraud.

DMI website (known this for years you idiot) themselves talks about calving as a separate data, but involves ice leaving the Island, the article is talking accumulation ON the Island.

And calving is ice going OFF the island. And you ignore it for the mass balance. Why? You're not actually that stupid. You know you're lying, but you think that the GreaterGood of your HolyCrusade justifies your lying.

"....However, increased snowfall in late April and especially mid-June has increased the surface mass balance (SMB), which does not include glacier outflow, to above average (Figure 4)...."

See? No calving taken into account. Your own source says it. Thanks for proving my point so conclusively.

Post one article headline: COLDER Greenland GAINS Ice In June – Media Silent

A kook denier cultist wrote that headline and rest rest of the propaganda. The data does not support your loopy claims. Have you noticed it's July? Why didn't you post updated data? I know why. First, because you can only parrot propaganda. Second, because you know the complete data makes you look even more dishonest. Your own source shows you're lying to everyone. That's why everyone now initially assumes that everything you say is a lie.

You can run now. Like you always do.

 

[Grumblenuts]

LOL! As though just one month's data from one island could prove or disprove anything climate related to begin with.

 

[ding]

LOL! As though just one month's data from one island could prove or disprove anything climate related to begin with.

Just like models can't either.

 

[Sunsettommy]

LOL! As though just one month's data from one island could prove or disprove anything climate related to begin with.

You are correct, but the article in post one doesn't make that declaration in the first place, thus what you say ends up a Red Herring try.

Here is that headline you forgot:

COLDER Greenland GAINS Ice In June – Media Silent

===

There have been a lot of loud media voices over a single hot day in Siberia that was a lie since there is no RECOREDED evidence that it was 100F on June 20. Many times the media have serious orgasmic bouts over a hot day of a single big melt day, but when it comes to new records for most snow and ice gain in a couple different days in a month of June, they go silent.

 

[Grumblenuts]

but the article in post one doesn't make that declaration

No kidding, thus why I started out with "As though"..

Many times the media have serious orgasmic bouts over a hot day of a single big melt day, but when it comes to new records for most snow and ice gain in a couple different days in a month of June, they go silent.

Then it would make sense for you to argue my point in both cases rather than to adopt this revenge-like two-silly-wrongs-make-a-right attitude. Short term, weather anomalies amount to nothing either way. Short term melting. Short term snowfall. What matters is the long term trends. The long term rate of change from the historical norm or informed expectation, how those rates are changing, and why.

 

[Sunsettommy]

but the article in post one doesn't make that declaration

No kidding, thus why I started out with "As though"..

Many times the media have serious orgasmic bouts over a hot day of a single big melt day, but when it comes to new records for most snow and ice gain in a couple different days in a month of June, they go silent.

Then it would make sense for you to argue my point in both cases rather than to adopt this revenge-like two-silly-wrongs-make-a-right attitude. Short term, weather anomalies amount to nothing either way. Short term melting. Short term snowfall. What matters is the long term trends. The long term rate of change from the historical norm or informed expectation, how those rates are changing, and why.

When will you admit the article does NOT make a declaration of long term climate change or short term weather events affecting climate statements?

Here is the HEADLINE again!

COLDER Greenland GAINS Ice In June – Media Silent

 

[Grumblenuts]

Back up a minute:

You are correct,

Great, there you admit that my statement was "correct" - Boom, done!
But no, you can't just let it go, so then you argue:

but the article in post one doesn't make that declaration in the first place,

I never said it did. Admit that! All I said was,

LOL! As though just one month's data from one island could prove or disprove anything climate related to begin with.

Applies equally to nutters of all stripes, including the author of your headline and OP article. Admit that.

Seems to be this Cap Allon boob's entire shtick. Huh? Global, long term trends? Wait, look over here! Look over there now! Now here!

If you've fallen for his clown show there,.. it ain't my fault nor because "the media." That's all on you.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Perfect example:

“Global warming” appears to be in charge in Portugal, Northern Poland, and parts of Scandinavia, but “weather” is most definitely ruling the remainder of the continent.

Fuck global warming, weather rules! Over, and over, and over,...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Principia Scientific International

I can hear Karl Popper banging around in his grave.

Not all our eminent scientists, engineers and related experts wish to publicly declare their affiliation with our organization, but below is a selection of those who do.

Guess who isn't listed?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Perfect example:

“Global warming” appears to be in charge in Portugal, Northern Poland, and parts of Scandinavia, but “weather” is most definitely ruling the remainder of the continent.

Fuck global warming, weather rules! Over, and over, and over,...

Now you are doing what I call avoiding the post one article completely, for a hit job on someone you obviously dislike.

This is a common problem of warmist/alarmists everywhere, they can't stay on the post one article for long, it becomes an attack on author or devolve into a bunch of attacks on "deniers" in general as mamooth is so famous for,

 

[Sunsettommy]

Principia Scientific International

I can hear Karl Popper banging around in his grave.

Not all our eminent scientists, engineers and related experts wish to publicly declare their affiliation with our organization, but below is a selection of those who do.

Guess who isn't listed?

Ha ha, now the fallacies comes pouring out.

How charming, since you have apparently realized that you can't handle a factually correct post one article.

 

[Grumblenuts]

you can't handle a factually correct post one article.

Pffft! No need since mamooth easily revealed it to be factually incorrect on page one.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Grumblenuts writes:

"LOL! As though just one month's data from one island could prove or disprove anything climate related to begin with."

Neither me or the author made any such claim.

You were responding to mamooths typically dishonest post, where the jerk has ignored what I said about calving at post 7:

"I read this a long time ago:

"The Greenland Ice Sheet evolves throughout the year as weather conditions change. Precipitation increases the mass of the ice sheet, whilst greater warmth leads to melting, which causes it to lose mass. The term surface mass balance is used to describe the isolated gain and loss of mass of the surface of the ice sheet – excluding the mass that is lost when glaciers calve off icebergs and melt as they come into contact with warm seawater.

The figures above are updated on a daily basis and show how much mass in terms of snow, ice or water is lost or gained on the surface of the Ice Sheet."

=====

I am well aware of the mass loss factor, known this for years. Allon simply pointing out a two days of record mass gain on the island, that is factually backed up by DMI and the chart he posted. It is amazing that a simple article can be so misunderstood, since he was concentrating on a single month of record mass gains for several dats in that month, that was the main thrust of his entire presentation.

Too bad you let mamooth deceive you so easily.

 

[Sunsettommy]

you can't handle a factually correct post one article.

Pffft! No need since mamooth easily revealed it to be factually incorrect on page one.

No he was being DISHONEST about it, he creates a tale that wasn't part of the article at all.

Noticed you quickly abandoned your fallacy argument, congratulations!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Pattern clear: Formulate straw based accusations. Slay own accusations with a vengeance. Declare victory. Rinse and repeat.. many times before mercifully running away.. Return soon to post new denier nonsense..

 

[mamooth]

I am well aware of the mass loss factor, known this for years. Allon simply pointing out a two days of record mass gain on the island,

Woohoo! Look at Tommy backpedal!

Tommy starts a thread saying in his title that Greenland gained mass in June. Not "for two days in June." Just "June". The whole month.

After it was pointed out to him that Greenland lost a lot of mass in June, as it does every June, he flipflops to "Well, for two days in June, Greenland gained mass, so mamooth is a big poopyhead for documenting how I was totally wrong with my claim!".

Even by Tommy's standards, that's some pathetic weaseling.

 

[toobfreak]

COLDER Greenland GAINS Ice In June – Media Silent

It costs a little more, Tommy, but I get all my ice cubes shipped in from there! Bring them in via Eskimo through Labrador to the States. Them Eskimos work cheap. Practically SLAVE labor. They got plenty of ice to spare and Greenland cubes have a nice, frosty, minty flavor! Tundra fresh! Yum!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Pattern clear: Formulate straw based accusations. Slay own accusations with a vengeance. Declare victory. Rinse and repeat.. many times before mercifully running away.. Return soon to post new denier nonsense..

Another evidence/fact free reply comes from you, it never ends because you are too busy with your dishonest thinking.

Watch for my reply to Mamooth clearly dishonest reply.

Maybe you will realize how snookered you have been.....

 

[Grumblenuts]

Too bad you let mamooth deceive you so easily.

Deceive me about what exactly? Wait, lemme guess.. Some assertion you just imagined her/him making?