Arctic sea ice maximum reaches lowest extent on record

Arctic sea ice maximum reaches lowest extent on record
Arctic sea ice extent for February 25, 2015 was 14.54 million square kilometers (5.61 million square miles). The orange line shows the 1981 to 2010 median extent for that day. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder. NSIDC scientists provide Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis content, with partial support from NASA.

NSIDC has issued an update to Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis describing winter sea ice conditions in the Arctic Ocean.

Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its maximum extent for the year on February 25 at 14.54 million square kilometers (5.61 million square miles). This year's maximum ice extent is the lowest in the satellite record.

NSIDC will release a full analysis of the winter season in early April, once monthly data are available for March.


Explore further

Arctic sea ice hits record low

More information: To read the current analysis from NSIDC scientists, see nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews
Provided by NSIDC
Citation: Arctic sea ice maximum reaches lowest extent on record (2015, April 16) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-04-arctic-sea-ice-maximum-lowest.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
42 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 16, 2015
But wait!!! Where is Ubamoron showing us the WoodForTrees plot that shows the air over his house is getting colder over the past month so we must be heading to an ice age.

How can the ice be lower since Ubadummy "knows" it is all a left wing plot to take Rygg2's money. Irony.

Apr 16, 2015
Except when there were fields of wheat and dairy farms on the island of Greenland for 400 years between CE 800 and CE 1200.

Apr 16, 2015
Shootist should look up the ten hottest years in recorded history and get back to us. A site-specific anomaly does not prove a point.

Apr 16, 2015
Now this ladies and gentlemen will make for interesting weather.
Hey shootist, what was it like in 800 and 1200 CE?

I think this will be different.

Apr 17, 2015
A week doesn't go by without another piece of data that exposes the AGW deniers as deniers.

Will they admit that global warming exists ever, after any evidence at all?

No, not ever. They're deniers, just like the nutjobs who don't "believe in" Darwin, or don't "believe in" Einstein, or don't "believe in" the Earth being round.

I always wonder how the flat earthers fix their watches after flying.

Apr 17, 2015
Would this be the same Arctic sea ice that reached all the way to Cape Cod?
Oh wait, Cape Cod is not the Arctic so it does not count, just as the US, which has been cooling since the 1930s, is not the globe according to the AGW Cult.
http://wattsupwit...ape-cod/

Apr 17, 2015
Will they admit that global warming exists ever, after any evidence at all?

No, not ever. They're deniers, just like the nutjobs who don't "believe in" Darwin, or don't "believe in" Einstein, or don't "believe in" the Earth being round.

I'm not sure of this. I read a comment recently from a denier who seemed to be coming around. His comment, however, was to blame those that accept the science for not doing anything for the last 20 years to solve the problem and stating that people that accept the science are the problem. The replies that deniers have worked to prevent anything from being done seemed to be met with denial ;).

Apr 17, 2015
The replies that deniers have worked to prevent anything from being done seemed to be met with denial ;).
They're sorrier than a dog with a broken penis.

Teh stupid, it burns.

Apr 18, 2015
@Water_Prophet
Why can't you prove/qualify ANY of your claims ?

1 "4 technical degrees" ?
2 Claim CO2's radiative forcing is 0.00009 W/m^2 ?
3 Claim wiki is in "Great agreement" with you ?
4 Why wiki shows 1.5 W/m^2 which is 16,666 X your faked figure ?
5 Business use your figures ?
6 Leader in "Predictive Analytics" ?
etc

Start with just ONE of these, from first principles PROVE your claim CO2 is a "red-herring" & your specific figure of 0.00009 W/m^2 has *ANY* basis in reality ?

Y can't U do that ?

Have been reminding you to prove your claim very often, Y can't you do that Water_Prophet ?

Heard of a kid who "cried wolf" ?

Your faked claims show you have nil credibility & are anti-Science.

ie.Science = "The discipline of the acquisition of knowledge" but, you Water_Prophet have NO discipline in ANY of your claims, Scientists can/do show workings but, YOU ignore & ONLY make idle feeble dumb claims

Water_Prophet appears as a Pathological Liar !

Apr 18, 2015
I am sorry you are unable to comprehend simple proofs Mikey, I tried to keep them below HS level, but as a point of order, even if you DON'T understand them, would you please at least acknowledge they've been presented and either ignored, you didn't understand them, or you ran like a scared puppy because you wanted to keep reprinting the above non-sense over and over and over and over and over and over?

Apr 18, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
I am sorry you are unable to comprehend simple proofs Mikey, I tried to keep them below HS level, but as a point of order, even if you DON'T understand them, would you please at least acknowledge they've been presented
You've NEVER presented ANY proof of your claim of 0.00009W/m^2 EVER - not once EVER, prove me wrong, it MUST have a natural log term obviously as anyone who claims to have "4 technical degrees" including "Physical Chemistry" SHOULD know !

Comparative relative relationships are NOT quantitative as ALL scientists know except YOU !

Why is that ?

Why can't you prove your claims ?

Why are you coming across as a "Pathological Liar" ?
https://en.wikipe...al_lying

Water_Prophet anyone tracking your posts easily concludes you CANNOT prove your claims !

Why is that ?

Apr 18, 2015
WP is a troll, and lives on your responses, Mike_Massen. Ignoring it is the only way to make it stop trolling.

Apr 18, 2015
Thank you Da S!
See that Mikey, Da S has a lot of wisdom. You should take his advice.

Apr 19, 2015
Water_Prophet observed
Thank you Da S!
See that Mikey, Da S has a lot of wisdom. You should take his advice
Water_Prophet sometimes does respond only to my posts which proves he is lying as he has claimed I am on ignore, so he is caught again, so sad.

However, if people continue to make unsupported claims I will continue to remind them, that has greater comparative wisdom for the process than a singular observation from one perspective. I always take the wider view where possible, it would be too easy and lazy of me to put him on 'ignore'.

The negative of the 'ignore' is it allows idiots like Water_Prophet, to make claims and not be challenged by those who get impatient and take the easy way out lurching to the ignore option.

If the educated, interested and morally sound do not challenge the stupid liars then we all lose.

Water_Prophet prove your claims please ?

Apr 19, 2015
Da Schneib offered
WP is a troll, and lives on your responses, Mike_Massen. Ignoring it is the only way to make it stop trolling
Don't see Water_Prophet as troll as such, he's a really sick puppy, in general doesn't live on my responses, there may be a bit of that in the recent past but, not overall.

I hate cheats & liars, especially those that obfuscate Science sullying the process.

There are all sorts of cliche's re evil men getting away with it if the good do nothing and ignore such activities, human history has many great philosophies which have converged on the essentials of truth within the scientific process and that process is extending and continuing, one aspect of that, is to address the liars & cheats that hold back ethical development.

We should all focus on the Science, not mere arbitrary claims, above all challenge those that attempt to obfuscate the process as it drags all of us down. Eg Bad claims lead to the uneducated/poor being misled.

Apr 19, 2015
On reflection Da Schneib mentioned
WP is a troll, and lives on your responses, Mike_Massen. Ignoring it is the only way to make it stop trolling
I hope Water_Prophet has sense of being genuine because if so he won't respond to my addressing his claims, eg on this thread http://phys.org/n...ate.html

10 hours ago Water_Prophet stated
..Let me know if he has a good answer, I've clicked "ignore."
ie My addressing his stupid claims will NOT be replied to :-)

However, question is raised, should we not challenge false claims, should we allow any obfuscation of Science & especially so on an actual Science site to go unchecked & thus allow those who are just starting in Science to be so easily misled by the flawed logic of liars, cheats & idiots ?

Can we foresee a greater ideal where those interested in exploring contrary opinions can find evidentiary base & not be misled by obfuscation ?

In my book its wisest to address claims.

Apr 19, 2015
They're sorrier than a dog with a broken penis.

Hmm... what did you do with that dog?
No, wait, don't tell me. That's something for you and your Confessor.

Apr 19, 2015
Area and volume are better indicators.

Extent is too easily influenced by day-to-day wind direction changes and such.

Extent is more anecdotal to compare past reports of "ice" (usually ice bergs) rather than thinking of the more continuous sea ice covered by "area" and "volume".

They are probably using 15% extent which means as little as 15% of each square kilometer can be ice and it's entire area is counted as Ice.

"Area" means they only count the area of the ice itself, which is why it is more reliable from year to year along with volume.

You can actually have a lower than average year on extent even as volume increases if the wind direction causes the ice to consolidate instead of breaking up.

Apr 19, 2015
Really guys, *every* article.

Apr 20, 2015
I explain once or twice, and if they keep making up objections and start lying, I put them on ignore. There are simply too many nut jobs to bother with more.

Apr 20, 2015
I explain once or twice, and if they keep making up objections and start lying, I put them on ignore. There are simply too many nut jobs to bother with more.

Me to now. Neutrals know them as that as well as us. A waste of space.


Apr 20, 2015
Yeah, runrig, I noticed you don't bother with the deniers as much these days. It's a shame there are people like that, but they're not really worth wasting much time on. Especially not when an article like this, confirming global warming yet again, comes out every week or less.

Apr 20, 2015
I explain once or twice, and if they keep making up objections and start lying, I put them on ignore. There are simply too many nut jobs to bother with more.

Me to now. Neutrals know them as that as well as us. A waste of space.



Yep I'm with DaS and runrig on on this one. WP has never, not once, ever, provided any quantitative evidence to support his theory, and he never can. His posts live only because he is being fed.

Apr 21, 2015
Maggnus mentioned
Yep I'm with DaS and runrig on on this one. WP has never, not once, ever, provided any quantitative evidence to support his theory, and he never can. His posts live only because he is being fed
Questions arise:-

1.
"Is it better to ignore the uneducated in Science so they spread their misleading posts obfuscating Science or challenge them at best opportunity to qualify/prove their claims ?"

2.
If you were new to Science, naive & uneducated what would stand out more in your reading:-

a. No one challenges claims therefore there is nothing intrinsically wrong so they can be accepted ?
or
b. Dialectic is employed to bring attention to the liars, cheats who twist an agenda to aggrandize ?

Thoughtful answer would be useful to address what message we leave for others &I hope its recognised these forums are NOT internet relay chat, like some reactive ill considered retaliatory lowest common denominator but, attention to a mature Science ethic.

Apr 21, 2015
Before you all get on your high-horse, you should remember you are not the authorities here, nor are you infallible. You throw around the words "LIAR" and "Bullshit" as if you knew what you were talking about, and not just an opinion.

I had to identify myself and send proof to others in this forum and proved who I am, but most of you are still cowards, hiding behind pseudonyms, taking silly shots at others.

I suggest reduced hubris and increased humility.

Apr 21, 2015
Well, gkam, I am not sure where I stand on your position:

My detractors cyberstalked me only to find out I was in fact a real deal. Then they claimed I wasn't the person they cyber-stalkered.

I had no real interest in justifying WHO I am. My MO, is, and always will be to take physical constants, laws, relations, and the occasional gedankin model to make things plain.

My detractors already have enough info on me to discover everything they claim to want, ergo, I assume they already have, and just desire to detract.

Apr 21, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
My detractors cyberstalked me only to find out I was in fact a real deal
Mere assertions, no evidence, reminding Water_Prophet he hasnt proven ANY claims on this forum through this forum is NOT cyberstalking.

Water_Prophet claims
Then they claimed I wasn't the person they cyber-stalkered
Why is it Water_Prophet cannot prove ANY claims ?

Water_Prophet lied
I had no real interest in justifying WHO I am
No. Water_Prophet claimed he was the person who wrote a treatise on "Predictive Analytics" for the US Military.

Water_Prophet claims
My MO, is, and always will be to take physical constants, laws, relations, and the occasional gedankin model to make things plain
No. Water_Prophet did NOT use any physical constants of CO2 to prove his claim of 0.00009 W/m^2

Water_Prophet
My detractors already have enough info on me to discover everything they claim to want, ergo, I assume they already have
No, history prove him FALSE !

Apr 21, 2015
Maggnus mentioned
Yep I'm with DaS and runrig on on this one. WP has never, not once, ever, provided any quantitative evidence to support his theory, and he never can. His posts live only because he is being fed
Questions arise:-

1.
"Is it better to ignore the uneducated in Science so they spread their misleading posts obfuscating Science or challenge them at best opportunity to qualify/prove their claims ?"
WP has been challenged many, many times, and lies every time. Eventually it's time to start ignoring trolls. You have challenged WP many times and been met only with lies. It's time to use the ignore button. DNFTT.

contd

Apr 21, 2015
2. If you were new to Science, naive & uneducated what would stand out more in your reading:-
a. No one challenges claims therefore there is nothing intrinsically wrong so they can be accepted ?
or
b. Dialectic is employed to bring attention to the liars, cheats who twist an agenda to aggrandize ?
Challenge is presented a reasonable number of times, and if not answered or answered with lies, the ignore button is used. This is a reasonable manner of dealing with trolls. You have done due diligence to determine this person is a troll, it's time to use the ignore button.

Thoughtful answer would be useful to address what message we leave for others &I hope its recognised these forums are NOT internet relay chat, like some reactive ill considered retaliatory lowest common denominator but, attention to a mature Science ethic.
I give them a few chances, then use the ignore button if they ignore them. I think that's reasonable. DNFTT.

Apr 21, 2015
Da S, I think you're enabling Mikey. Shame.

Even so, I don't know what you are talking about:
I use ocean levels rising 6cm as a metric for Global Change. You don't argue with that do you? 6cm x the area of the ocean x the heat to melt ice.

I calculate 0.03Watts/m2 for fossil fuels, right from wiki, ~0.2Watts/m2 for the Sun's variation. And I think everyone can agree, that if it were at the Sun's variation, we would have "obvious to the casual observer," climate effects, like we do from the Sun, and if it were, say ~0.001Watts/m2 the environment would eat it as background noise.

This is quantitative. This is as much as fossil fuels produce. There isn't much room for any more. Is there?
This is proof isn't it? 125000 terawatt-hours produce 0.03Watts/m2, right?

I'm sorry my friend, but that's true, solid and conclusive.

I'd love to see similar calculations done for CO2, since mine don't hold water.

Apr 22, 2015
Da Schneib offered
WP has been challenged many, many times, and lies every time. Eventually it's time to start ignoring trolls
It is wrong to make sweeping generalisations and especially so as Scientists and Engineers because we KNOW there are details make cannot be lumped together. Sadly you have not been aware of subtle shifts in Water_Prophet's behaviour, which I see as a positive move.

Sadly Da Schneib, you are enabling Water_Prophet to, instead of respond more maturely ignoring challenges in Science, follow more immaturely an earlier pattern.

Da Schneib suggested
You have challenged WP many times and been met only with lies. It's time to use the ignore button. DNFTT
Fine you use it for YOU, and please use it for ME too because all you are doing at the moment is showing immense oversimplification & strongly suggesting the so called trolls should leave their rubbish unchallenged on this site !

Your idea is NOT part a good ethic for science communication !

Apr 22, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Da S, I think you're enabling Mikey. Shame
Given Water_Prophet's immense failure to prove ANY of this claims this is an immensely stupid utterance !

Water_Prophet claimed
Even so, I don't know what you are talking about
Obviously because Water_Prophet is uneducated

Water_Prophet claimed
I use ocean levels rising 6cm as a metric for Global Change. You don't argue with that do you? 6cm x the area of the ocean x the heat to melt ice
False since you don't relate it to Climate Change or Global Warming, why 6cm & where & over what period. Details Water_Prophet again CANNOT answer or even qualify ?

Water_Prophet claims
I calculate 0.03Watts/m2 for fossil fuels, right from wiki, ~0.2Watts/m2 for the Sun's variation
Careful with Water_Prophet, he lies openly without reflection or ANY apology.

Water_Prophet claimed his 0.00009W/m^ for CO2 was in "Great agreement" with wiki's 1.5 W/m^2

Utter crackpot, so easily caught out & often

Apr 22, 2015
I had to identify myself and send proof to others in this forum and proved who I am, but most of you are still cowards, hiding behind pseudonyms, taking silly shots at others
Yeah, youre a LIAR and a bullshitter and a coward for using a phony CV to justify claims about H2-induced prompt criticalities in fukushima Pu molten muck puddles which could throw macroscopic vessel parts 130km (which were really dust, you read the article wrong, but STILL continue to insist that 'experts' told you all this), and yet make NO crater.

As well as fallout being the main cause of lung cancer, and thorium reactor research being abandoned worldwide, and Tesla never broadcasting electrical energy, and all sorts of similar such bullshit.

And your claims of learning by osmosis, and of how filling out validation forms on nuke systems and replacing vacuum tubes on SR71 secret comm equipt qualifies you to make up science, only makes this shit all the more odious.

Apr 22, 2015
Otto, I love it when you get so excited you forget what you accuse me of. Now, I get to change tubes on the SR-71 Comm equipment? Are you sure they weren't the YF-12A variant? We had solid state stuff on those birds, Toots. And I did not work on them.

otto, your need to accuse others bends and twists you in perverse ways until you lose it.

Go to the 553d Recon Wing BatCat page, and look at my picture. It will settle you down, to know such accomplished folk are ready to save you again.

Apr 23, 2015
Da Schneib offered
WP has been challenged many, many times, and lies every time. Eventually it's time to start ignoring trolls
It is wrong to make sweeping generalisations and especially so as Scientists and Engineers because we KNOW there are details make cannot be lumped together. Sadly you have not been aware of subtle shifts in Water_Prophet's behaviour, which I see as a positive move.
There are lots of people here who are willing to be wrong in order to learn something, and I treat them gently, and answer their questions. They don't lie, they don't make unsupportable claims and then refuse to respond when they're proven unsupportable, they don't post insults, and they're eager to learn something new and not so proud that they reject it because it makes them wrong.

If your deal is to try to convince the unwilling, go for it, but you could do a lot more good concentrating on the ones who want to learn rather than proving that the ones who don't are wrong.

Apr 23, 2015
Quite frankly, Mike, most people can spot a troll, and all you're doing is increasing the amount of trolling. The people who want to learn something are just as capable as you of spotting BS, and it's pretty elitist to assume you have to go around pointing out their every error in case someone believes them.

Apr 23, 2015
@Da Schneib,
Read your comments which I hope you realise all the trolls will also see and may well welcome your support for their behavior by you suggesting we give up and not challenge them at all and thus leave them the last word - this way they can further obfuscate Science and win - as it were !

This is just why I think it best you put me & Water_Prophet on 'ignore' please, despite your Science training & understanding of electrical engineering issues & others, your argumentative stance on a Science site re arbitrary generalizations of "Trolls" isnt helpful to education & doesnt do your science communication skills justice, your comments give the real trolls solace, surely you see that.

Re Water_Prophet, he is not an ordinary troll ie appears to have serious cognitive issues, please accept what I say, even if it may not be obvious to you now from a few scattered posts, his behaviour has changed despite his wishing to ego aggrandize.

ignore me please, cheers

Apr 23, 2015
Go to the 553d Recon Wing BatCat page, and look at my picture. It will settle you down, to know such accomplished folk are ready to save you again
Why? Does it mean you're any less WRONG about H2-induced prompt criticalities in fukushima Pu molten muck puddles which could throw macroscopic vessel parts 130km (which were really dust, you read the article wrong, but STILL continue to insist that 'experts' told you all this), and yet make NO crater?

As well as fallout being the main cause of lung cancer, and thorium reactor research being abandoned worldwide, and Tesla never broadcasting electrical energy, and all sorts of similar such bullshit?

No. It does mean that you're an ass for contimuing to imply that it does.

Anybody here care about gkams illustrious (alleged) CV?

Apr 23, 2015
Those of us who do are threats to those who never have.

Apr 23, 2015
Mike, that's a strawman.

Trolls live for responses.

Apr 23, 2015
Ghost of Otto,
I usually just accept what people say here at face value. They usually prove they don't have the background they claim real quick.

Apr 23, 2015
And the looser deniers just dump their soul into denying global warming from fossil fuel combustion all over again. It's so sad to see such stupidity so blatantly exposed to the masses on a science site.

Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its maximum extent for the year on February 25 at 14.54 million square kilometers (5.61 million square miles). This year's maximum ice extent is the lowest in the SATELLITE record.


Let me say it for all of the AGWites out there; Deniers, We told you the ice caps would melt and they have. How does it feel to be such an idiot as you.


Apr 23, 2015
And the looser deniers just dump their soul into denying global warming from fossil fuel combustion all over again. It's so sad to see such stupidity so blatantly exposed to the masses on a science site.
Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its maximum extent for the year on February 25 at 14.54 million square kilometers (5.61 million square miles). This year's maximum ice extent is the lowest in the SATELLITE record.
Let me say it for all of the AGWites out there; Deniers, We told you the ice caps would melt and they have. How does it feel to be such an idiot as you.
I told them they were idiots when Larsen B fell off. That was 1998. If they weren't idiots they'd've made Pascal's Wager in 2001. Instead we have to try to "reduce emissions" by 2045. That will be past the point of no return: even if we fix emissions, global temperatures will increase enough to inundate most littorals in the world. And China's water war will be the biggest global conflict.

Apr 23, 2015
That is what I fear too @Da Schneib, The global warming runaway where global warming triggers the release of more CO2 and methane creating more global warming releasing more CO2 and methane; and at the same time causing a mass extinction. I'm not sure where to mankind into this mix; but needless to say modern society will be on the extinction list. Mankind is pretty cunning and will probably survive, but that probably won't come easily and not without wars and battles for sustenance.

I hate to say this but most deniers I've met and talked with are pretty dim bulbs. They just don't see the long view picture. A long view like Rush Limpballs espouses is all they need for their goose stepping future.

Apr 23, 2015
"I hate to say this but most deniers I've met and talked with are pretty dim bulbs. . . A long view like Rush Limpballs espouses is all they need for their goose stepping future."
----------------------------------------

I knew one who actually thought using relay logic.

And Lush Rimjob finally learned to avoid stepping behind the geese.

Apr 24, 2015
I think it's pretty obvious at this point that whatever we can do to reduce carbon emissions is mandatory; and I think that's down to the deniers. If we'd started doing something twenty years ago it wouldn't be as bad as it's going to be. So every time I hear another denier whining about the draconian laws we're going to have to have, I'm going to think, "You made your bed, now lie in it."

Apr 24, 2015
Da Schneib claimed
Mike, that's a strawman
Maybe, then test it & don't reply to mine or Water_Prophet's posts, put us both on ignore please

Da Schneib claimed
Trolls live for responses
I have told you before it is wrong to lump people together into a category & its clear you don't understand the ethic of Science Communication, you bark on about gkam's experience & never delve into details making arbitrary claims he claimed he was a nuclear engineer, such diatribe is pointless.

Hypocrisy is you claim don't respond but you do exactly that

Best thing we can ALL do is focus on Science AND appreciate others read these posts & learn either good or bad ways of dealing with idiots like Water_Prophet who obviously doesn't fit his imagined classification of a "Troll", please lets be smarter & focus on the Science & the dumb claims some make in Science, not experiences which are primarily subjective, ie Best to be objective

Water_Prophet prove your claims !

Apr 24, 2015
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

Apr 24, 2015
Water_Prophet claims but with immense hypocrisy
Ghost of Otto,
I usually just accept what people say here at face value
Water_Prophet has shown he can NEVER again be taken at face value as he STILL refuses to qualify any of his claims.

Science should be definitive so wannabe's like Water_Prophet don't obfuscate the process & mindlessly draw in contributors like Da Schneib goading them into getting on a band-wagon when the Da Schneib's of the world obviously have better things to do than non Science retorts, which I am looking forward to :-)

Water_Prophet shot himself in the foot again
They usually prove they don't have the background they claim real quick
The obviously accidental self-referential issue here is some guilt of Water_Prophet as he still hasnt proven even ONE of his claims:-

Can Water_Prophet start with his odd claim re CO2's radiative forcing of 0.00009W/m^2 has ANY basis in Physics & appropriate use of mathematics in that regard ?

Apr 24, 2015
Da Schneib offered
... whatever we can do to reduce carbon emissions is mandatory; and I think that's down to the deniers
Beg Pardon - did u slip ?
Um Sorry, no sense at all, 'deniers' deny a change so they aren't compelled or likely to consider doing anything AT ALL & instead obfuscate to resist change. Besides, we should not be misled as deniers are in the minority & mostly uneducated - its easy to notice that even when a denier is "educated" they have an axe to grind or political/commercial agenda & STILL often don't have a key primary education in Physics, especially in heat flow & an aspect thereof ie. radiative forcing

Da Schneib suggested
.. started doing something twenty years ago it wouldn't be as bad as it's going to be
Indeed & overdue for Sol's upturn

Da Schneib retorted
I'm going to think, "You made your bed, now lie in it."
Not me, its exactly why Science Communication is more important Now & addressing denier claims, our bed too !

Apr 24, 2015
Um Sorry, no sense at all, 'deniers' deny a change so they aren't compelled or likely to consider doing anything AT ALL
Precisely, and in this case doing nothing means the problem got worse.

Having a little trouble with logic there, Mike?

Apr 25, 2015
Da Schneib asked
Having a little trouble with logic there, Mike?
No. Da Schneib, clearly STATED "...to reduce carbon emissions is mandatory; and I think that's down to the deniers"

1.
Other than suggesting its "down to the deniers" which proclaims the deniers SHOULD reduce carbon emissions, what else were you trying to say ?

It cannot be left to the deniers, they deny ie have greatest resistance to change, therefore any idea they WILL reduce carbon emissions is "not likely'

Besides would it make much difference anyway as the educated deniers are by far in the minority and the uneducated deniers rely on emotion & are propagandized to, deniers will likely avoid force !

But Da Schneib, your main point its 'down to the deniers', is USA grammar is different form to English, it seems clear you meant something other than what you explicitly stated

2.
What do you mean "down to the deniers", can you detail what it means, some action, a plan ?

Please clarify

Apr 25, 2015
Da Schneib asked
Having a little trouble with logic there, Mike?
No. Da Schneib, clearly STATED "...to reduce carbon emissions is mandatory; and I think that's down to the deniers"

1.
Other than suggesting its "down to the deniers" which proclaims the deniers SHOULD reduce carbon emissions, what else were you trying to say ?

I am gonna step in and try to nip this in the bud, in the interest of avoiding a prolonged debate over semantics between two posters who are actually on the same side of the issue.

I am pretty certain that all Da Schneib was saying is that it is the intransigence of the deniers, and their steadfast resistance to implementation of moderate and reasonable protocols over the past few decades, that has led to the much more urgent need for reductions in the present day.

Apr 25, 2015
DLK, you are working with fragile egos there.

If perturbed, they can turn violent.

It is time to clean up this forum.

Apr 25, 2015
@DarkLordKelvin,
Hmmm you have a point there, I'm used to taking sentences at moderate face value wishing to avoid reading anything into tangential implications/assumptions, that of course can get us into even more trouble depending on the focus of those we engage with.

When Da Schneib said
"I think it's pretty obvious at this point that whatever we can do to reduce carbon emissions is mandatory; and I think that's down to the deniers".

I should have interpreted it as if he said
"I think it's pretty obvious at this point that whatever we can do to reduce carbon emissions is mandatory and the reason why we haven't reduced those emissions is I think that's down to the deniers"

With evidence of predisposition of many to make oddball implications, its clear my question didn't address lack of precision in the proposal instead I leapt to criticize the logic at face value.

Wish Da Schneib was more complete, phrase to stand on its own mostly if possible, ya hear ;-)

Apr 25, 2015
I am pretty certain that all Da Schneib was saying is that it is the intransigence of the deniers, and their steadfast resistance to implementation of moderate and reasonable protocols over the past few decades, that has led to the much more urgent need for reductions in the present day.
Yep.

The most amusing thing is, a bunch of them are Libertarians, and they always have a fit about government regulations. Well, now we're going to have really draconian regulations- which we would not have needed if we'd started twenty years ago. Extremely ironic.

Apr 25, 2015
Mike, I suspect colloquial American English led you astray. When an American says something is "down to" someone, it has two possible meanings: either they're the last left, or it's their responsibility/their problem/they caused it/they made their bed let them lie in it. I meant it in the second sense.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more