Would forum be more active if not for dolts like Rav/CR/Mik

[Gropes]

Just had to start another thread to get away from Mike. I can't believe despite the fact I've posted links from NASA, the foremost experts in studying the Arctic using satellites, and he still manages to ignore what I've posted and claim Monckton didn't mislead.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.html

It's pretty clear Monckton is misleading the audience when he says the Arctic is recovering since 2007. This is complete opposite to what NASA is saying. And the only way he can get away with is with some charts showing sea ice extent. He completely ignores the volume of ice.

Unfortunately, this is the position held by CR and Ravenna as well. No wonder this forum is fading away when you have ignorant spanners that can't even accept the basic truths. After 3 months I can't even get this lot to look at science from NASA about this one subject!!!! I don't blame Q for not returning. Having to put up with such dimwits was getting too much for him. Luckily it's only last few weeks left on this forum (good riddance).

[Mike Davis]

Sorry Groupie:
You did not get away with your lies. What NASA says and What Monckton said are related to two different things. Neither is wrong but neither has any relevance. Monckton is showing the problems with the alarmist side of the climate issue by stating the ice is recovering form the minimum in 2007 and NASA is stating the current ice Extent, Volume, Area is or was the 5th lowest since they started observing. Two completely different statements about the ice that do NOT contradict each other and both true and both meaningless.
Monckton did not need to make any claims about NASA's statements because NASA's statement is self contradictory.
Quote
"Scientists who track Arctic sea ice cover from space announced today that this winter had the fifth lowest maximum ice extent on record. The six lowest maximum events since satellite monitoring began in 1979 have all occurred in the past six years (2004-2009)."
Next quote:
"The latest Arctic sea ice data from NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center show that the decade-long trend of shrinking sea ice cover is continuing. New evidence from satellite observations also shows that the ice cap is thinning as well."
The ice can not be at the 5th lowest and the shrinking continuing as well. It would be either or as the statements contradict each other and one supports Monckton's claim that the ice has recovered to the 5th lowest in 31 years from the lowest.
I found another propaganda quote:
"Until recently, the majority of Arctic sea ice survived at least one summer and often several. But things have changed dramatically, according to a team of University of Colorado, Boulder, scientists led by Charles Fowler. Thin seasonal ice -- ice that melts and re-freezes every year -- makes up about 70 percent of the Arctic sea ice in wintertime, up from 40 to 50 percent in the 1980s and 1990s. Thicker ice, which survives two or more years, now comprises just 10 percent of wintertime ice cover, down from 30 to 40 percent."
Based on what period of time is the statement made regarding "until recently" That statement totally conflicts with this graph:
http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap ... meline.pdf
And this report:
http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap ... rt-all.pdf
Which show the climate in the Arctic region in the past.

For additional reading:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_Arctic.htm

[Gropes]

Sorry Groupie:
You did not get away with your lies. What NASA says and What Monckton said are related to two different things. Neither is wrong but neither has any relevance. Monckton is showing the problems with the alarmist side of the climate issue by stating the ice is recovering form the minimum in 2007 and NASA is stating the current ice Extent, Volume, Area is or was the 5th lowest since they started observing. Two completely different statements about the ice that do NOT contradict each other and both true and both meaningless.
Monckton did not need to make any claims about NASA's statements because NASA's statement is self contradictory.
Quote
"Scientists who track Arctic sea ice cover from space announced today that this winter had the fifth lowest maximum ice extent on record. The six lowest maximum events since satellite monitoring began in 1979 have all occurred in the past six years (2004-2009)."
Next quote:
"The latest Arctic sea ice data from NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center show that the decade-long trend of shrinking sea ice cover is continuing. New evidence from satellite observations also shows that the ice cap is thinning as well."
The ice can not be at the 5th lowest and the shrinking continuing as well. It would be either or as the statements contradict each other and one supports Monckton's claim that the ice has recovered to the 5th lowest in 31 years from the lowest.

In other words, the Arctic is thinning, thankyou. That's exactly what NASA is saying. So what else are you trying to say? Are you trying to twist NASA's findings like Monckton has? No wonder this pathetic little forum is shutting down because of dolts like you\Ravenna\CR constantly twisting science about face so you lot can claim the opposite. Just as well cos those spanners don't have to avoid answering this one simple question anymore.

[Mike Davis]

How did you arrive at the Arctic is thinning with the 5th lowest thickness. Thinner would be the thinnest. Are you that stupid?
NASA contradicts themselves by making opposing claims which I pointed out and you are to stupid to see that Monckton was correct with his claim and NASA agreed with him by saying:
"Scientists who track Arctic sea ice cover from space announced today that this winter had the fifth lowest maximum ice extent on record"
If you do not know what the fifth lowest means I think you need to return to elementary school because in my time that sort of thing was taught in the lower grades.
You are probably referring to this line:
New evidence from satellite observations also shows that the ice cap is thinning as well."
Which has no reference period to compare the new evidence to and that means the statement is an opinion based on nothing more than a few observations of a dynamic situation that is in constant flux getting thicker and thinner throughout time.
The statements are meaningless because they are based on to short of a time period. Go back and read the linked report on Arctic conditions through recent history.

[Gropes]

How did you arrive at the Arctic is thinning with the 5th lowest thickness. Thinner would be the thinnest. Are you that stupid?
NASA contradicts themselves by making opposing claims which I pointed out and you are to stupid to see that Monckton was correct with his claim and NASA agreed with him by saying:
"Scientists who track Arctic sea ice cover from space announced today that this winter had the fifth lowest maximum ice extent on record"
If you do not know what the fifth lowest means I think you need to return to elementary school because in my time that sort of thing was taught in the lower grades.
You are probably referring to this line:
New evidence from satellite observations also shows that the ice cap is thinning as well."
Which has no reference period to compare the new evidence to and that means the statement is an opinion based on nothing more than a few observations of a dynamic situation that is in constant flux getting thicker and thinner throughout time.
The statements are meaningless because they are based on to short of a time period. Go back and read the linked report on Arctic conditions through recent history.

Maybe NASA should measure how thick you are. What the . are you on about? Hello, Monckton does not talk about thickness at all. He just says the Arctic is doing just fine from 2007 using sea ice area as an indicator, his slide in the video even shows it. Are you trying to cherry pick words to make your case. The link I provided clearly shows Monckton contradicting NASAs assessment. You clearly are not from this planet if manage to extrapolate such dim witted assessments.

[Mike Davis]

OK!
I copied and pasted what NASA actually said and NASA agreed with Monckton by saying the ice is currently the 5th lowest for the satellite period. Monckton claimed the ice is recovering from the minimum of 2007 and if the ice is at the 5th lowest then it is recovering from the 2007 minimum.
NASA also contradicted themselves by claiming the ice loss is continuing after stating it is at the 5th lowest. If the ice loss was continuing it would be at its lowest or is that to complex for your simple mind?
I will again state for the simple minded: There is nothing to compare the ice thickness to to determine if loss is occurring. We only have a claim by a representative of NASA who know how to make space ships blow up and destroy expensive satellites among other things such as hiring a contractor such as Hansen who gives NASA such a good reputation by corrupting temperature data and making false claims.

[Mike Davis]

Was the ice thinner than this:

Or this

17 March 1959

[Mike Davis]

Deja Vu all over again!!!!
This is a repeat of your Phil Jones Fiasco.
I answer your question and you claim the question was not answered then when I copy and paste what was said you claim something different was said.

If the whole world is out to get you then it is not paranoia.
If the brain dead Zombies of the world such as you, Q, and GT were not driving all the regulars away the forum would have been more active.

[Gropes]

OK!
I copied and pasted what NASA actually said and NASA agreed with Monckton by saying the ice is currently the 5th lowest for the satellite period. Monckton claimed the ice is recovering from the minimum of 2007 and if the ice is at the 5th lowest then it is recovering from the 2007 minimum

Tell me, how thick do you have to be to not understand Monckton doesn't talk about thickness?

[Mike Davis]

I already said that Monckton did not talk about thickness and thickness is just a bunch of BS along with an attempt to redirect the issue to another meaningless measurement. There is no current reliable historic record of thickness and volume. This is just as FUDDLE Minded as making some claim about historic sea surface temperatures only worse because there are some historic measurements for sea temperature even though they are not surface temperatures.
There was no reason for Monckton to talk about Volume or thickness. Which for the mentally challenged such as you are two separate things. Thickness would be average or mean thickness and would require measurement of a meter sq or finer resolution to be relevant. That does not exist but is guessed at so the estimates are WAGS. Volume is measured by amount displaced when the dimensions are not fixed any estimates of volume are WAGS also and even if we have a method whereby we can measure volume with any amount of confidence it is accurate we do not have sufficient historic data to compare it to for it to have any meaning.
I understand they are measuring thickness and volume or thickness in an attempt to estimate volume however Ice in the Arctic is a dynamic thing and our current technology is not up to the task of providing a fine enough resolution to be reliable. I would hazard a guess that you also failed to read the link to the problems with the GRACE experiment which NASA is conducting.
You are complaining about some mention of Ice extent or area which are two separate measurements or rather estimates based on PIXEL content. You are complaining that the person did not mention Thickness or volume which are two seperate thing and are estimates based on little better than guess work.
I would consider the entire ice research projects an example of how not to do proper research except a group actually flew planes across the ice trailing devices that measured the ice thickness. However they admitted it was only a start because there was nothing to compare it to. They found the ice thicker than was estimated by others but admitted that due to the dynamic nature of the ice we can only have rough guesses. You probably missed that also because it did not fit the agenda.