If Q has gone shall I remove his articles?

[Climate Realist]

Moncton has talked of "Sea ice extent" which is the meaure used by the alarmists- and is different from volume or surface area- as I have repeated over and over again it is you who are confused as you know nothing about science. You need to read our answers and think about and understand the answers.


Definition of Troll- for once, amazingly, WikipediA tells the truth! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

""""Do not feed the trolls" and its abbreviation "DNFTT" redirect here. For the Wikimedia essay, see "What is a troll?".

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2] In addition to the offending poster, the noun “troll” can also refer to the provocative message itself, as in that was an excellent troll you posted. """"

[Gropes]

Moncton has talked of "Sea ice extent" which is the meaure used by the alarmists- and is different from volume or surface area- as I have repeated over and over again it is you who are confused as you know nothing about science. Go away Troll. You need to read our answers and understand the answers- can't you even read?


Definition of Troll- for once, amazingly, WikipediA tells the truth! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

""""Do not feed the trolls" and its abbreviation "DNFTT" redirect here. For the Wikimedia essay, see "What is a troll?".

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2] In addition to the offending poster, the noun “troll” can also refer to the provocative message itself, as in that was an excellent troll you posted. """"

CR, why don't you go away, it's clear you can't answer the question. You know full well Monckton never mentions volume because it would have blown his case straight out of the water. Something you and your pals consistently chose to ignore because it just goes to show Monckton as another cherry picking denialist.

Now if you can't answer my question, then I suggest you stop responding to my posts and stop hurling insults at me. But do carry on bashing scientists and spreading disinformation. It is something you are good at and for you, it's probably better than playing in traffic.

[Climate Realist]

You are mis informing and distorting- Monkton did not confuse anything! As for volume- see the article on WUWT, they show- that 2007, while it had lower extent had greater thickness- there you go YOU are blown out of the water, Troll. I know you are only here to try to cause trouble and waste time because you get a kick out of it.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/2 ... st-mortem/
"
By Steve Goddard

“In everyone’s life, there is a summer of ’42 + 65″

By now, we have all been bludgeoned senseless with talk of how Arctic Ice dramatically declined in 2007 – “ much faster than the models .” We were told by the experts that this rapid decline would lead to an ice-free Arctic in 2008 ,2013 ,2030 , etc. – not to mention 1969 and 1922 . I don’t buy it. The idea of an ice-free Arctic seems implausible to me without a dramatic change in climate.
[img]
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... arctic.png [/img]

Let’s start by looking at what really happened in 2007. The graph below ( calculated from PIPS maps ) shows the average ice thickness in the Arctic Basin for 2006 – 2008. Note that the average thickness of the ice in 2007 was fairly constant through the spring and summer. In fact, 2007 had the largest average summer thickness. This is solid evidence that the low extent in 2007 was primarily due to horizontal melt and compaction of the ice, rather than vertical thinning.

Given that there was no change in average thickness, in order for the ice to disappear it would have to melt horizontally. As you can see in the graph below, the volume loss came to a hard stop in early September. The sun is too low by September for significant melt to proceed. There just isn’t enough time in the Arctic summer for all the ice to melt. "

As I said grouper- do some research, go away for a few years and learn about science, physics, maths, chemistry etc, then when you actually know something you can come back and stop acting like a Troll and learn that Arctic ice and indeed climate change is NOT influenced by man at all.

[Gropes]

You are mis informing and distorting- Monkton did not confuse anything! As for volume- see the article on WUWT, they show- that 2007, while it had lower extent had greater thickness- there you go YOU are blown out of the water, Troll. I know you are only here to try to cause trouble and waste time because you get a kick out of it.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/2 ... st-mortem/
"
By Steve Goddard

“In everyone’s life, there is a summer of ’42 + 65″

By now, we have all been bludgeoned senseless with talk of how Arctic Ice dramatically declined in 2007 – “ much faster than the models .” We were told by the experts that this rapid decline would lead to an ice-free Arctic in 2008 ,2013 ,2030 , etc. – not to mention 1969 and 1922 . I don’t buy it. The idea of an ice-free Arctic seems implausible to me without a dramatic change in climate.
[img]
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... arctic.png [/img]

Let’s start by looking at what really happened in 2007. The graph below ( calculated from PIPS maps ) shows the average ice thickness in the Arctic Basin for 2006 – 2008. Note that the average thickness of the ice in 2007 was fairly constant through the spring and summer. In fact, 2007 had the largest average summer thickness. This is solid evidence that the low extent in 2007 was primarily due to horizontal melt and compaction of the ice, rather than vertical thinning.

Given that there was no change in average thickness, in order for the ice to disappear it would have to melt horizontally. As you can see in the graph below, the volume loss came to a hard stop in early September. The sun is too low by September for significant melt to proceed. There just isn’t enough time in the Arctic summer for all the ice to melt. "

As I said grouper- do some research, go away for a few years and learn about science, physics, maths, chemistry etc, then when you actually know something you can come back and stop acting like a Troll and learn that Arctic ice and indeed climate change is NOT influenced by man at all.

Huh!! We're talking about Monckton here not Anthony Watts!!

It was a point I was asked to raise right in the beginning on this thread viewtopic.php?f=2&t=439&start=30. Again, why did Monckton not mention the volume? If it's a question you are not prepared to answer, I suggest you go away!

Here, watch this video, a summary of Monckton's lies and deceptions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o

[Climate Realist]

I have answered your question with data and it is not my problem if you don't like the answer- I suggest you go away if you do not want to listen to facts and data and the truth. Monckton does not mention volume, I already said that, his presentation shows sea ice- extent. Are you really that uneducated that you cannot understand what I am saying? Or are you just acting like a Troll?

I previously suggested you learn some science.

[Gropes]

I have answered your question with data and it is not my problem if you don't like the answer- I suggest you go away if you do not want to listen to facts and data and the truth. Monckton does not mention volume, I already said that, his presentation shows sea ice- extent. Are you really that dumb that you cannot understand what I am saying? Or are you just acting like a Troll?

I previously suggested you learn some science. That was a mistake, science is clearly beyond you. Start by attending primary school again. You obviously learnt nothing at school.

I see you have successfully avoided my question again! Why did Lord Monckton not mention volume to show the Arctic is shrinking? Why did only use sea ice extent to confuse the picture? I post you the video again. Why did lord monckton deliberately confuse the issue?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o

Please answer the points or go away.

[Climate Realist]

I have answered all questions in full, I suggest you take your own advice!

If you have questions about MONCTON he is capable of defending himself as he did against Abrahams very well.

[Gropes]

I have answered all questions in full, I suggest you take your own advice!

If you have questions about MONCTON he is capable of defending himself as he did against Abrahams very well.

Nope, still no answer there? Why did Monckton not mention volume to show the true state of the Arctic. Simple question!!

[Climate Realist]

If you are going to not listen to me and just repeat the same thing, then two can play at that game.

I have answered all questions in full, I suggest you take your own advice!

If you have questions about MONCKTON he is capable of defending himself as he did against Abrahams very well. I suggest you ask him. he did not confuse area and volume.

That you tube video is nothing but a pile or climate alarmist propaganda. You would do better to listen to the source- i.e Monckton himself.

[Gropes]

If you are going to not listen to me and just repeat the same thing, then two can play at that game.

I have answered all questions in full, I suggest you take your own advice!

If you have questions about MONCKTON he is capable of defending himself as he did against Abrahams very well. I suggest you ask him. he did not confuse area and volume.

That you tube video is nothing but a pile or climate alarmist propaganda. You would do better to listen to the source- i.e Monckton himself.

You haven't responded to my very simply point, why did Monckton not mention volume????????????????????????????? Very simple question! Why are you avoiding my questions????

Listen CR, if you're not going to answer my questions, I suggest you go away, seriously. These were questions I was asked to raise over 3 months ago on this thread viewtopic.php?f=2&t=439&start=30. None of you have answered it. So stop trolling me.