MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, July 20th 2019 - 18:08 UTC



Arctic sea ice recorded its lowest maximum level on record

Monday, April 4th 2016 - 06:52 UTC
Full article 17 comments

The growth of Arctic sea ice this winter recorded the lowest maximum level on record, prompting fears of faster climate change than previously expected. Unusually warm temperatures were said to be responsible for the shrinkage. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • ChrisR

    “NASA nevertheless added that the cap of sea ice over the Arctic Ocean is always changing.”

    Yes, it varies with all sorts of parameters, but it is the NASA (lies are us) climate change wonks, formed to get much needed funds for the space travel side which is more or less broke, that always make these claims.

    Apr 04th, 2016 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Lucifer

    All the way back to 1979?
    Whew that's a long time to measure the ice that's been there for a couple billion years.

    Do they think everyone is stupid?

    Apr 04th, 2016 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LukeDig

    Deniers of climate change are either retarded, christian fanatics, or oil industry lobbysts.

    Apr 04th, 2016 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Or Turnips...

    Apr 04th, 2016 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    climate change ,

    the truth is,
    the climate has been changing on and off since before the dinosaurs,
    and will keep changing,

    as for the experts, they cannot solve the problem ,
    they only give a solution that may or may not work,

    and without the full support and help from the Americans , china , Russia , India , and other countries that are in part causing all this,
    then the rest of the world has no chance.

    but I could be wrong,
    after all, its only an opinion.

    Apr 04th, 2016 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Nicky Caviglia

    Not one warmegedinist scientist can explain global warming or to give it the rightful name Climate Change. It is multi billion $ business. one of the most successful global business that keeps on growing and growing on nothing more than an idea born out of a little warming just thirty years old.

    Apr 04th, 2016 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Lucifer

    Its certainly not a science.

    Climate change supporters are like religious fanatics can't prove it and expect everyone to believe the nonsense.

    Apr 05th, 2016 - 01:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LukeDig

    7 there are many investigations by people with more PhD´s than your common lucifer, that proved with many scientific papers otherwise.
    Of course, there´s always some working class moron defending the bussinessman that gives three fecks about him or his family.

    Apr 05th, 2016 - 03:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Lucifer

    I've known a lot of really dumb PhD holders in my life.

    You might want to see who's paying for their “research” grants before you spount any more nonsense.

    Apr 05th, 2016 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • inthegutter

    The anti-climate change argument appears to boil down to: (a) climate scientists are all liars only interested in renewing their funding and (b) governments are complicit to impose green taxes and want to exercise greater control. What other arguments are there?

    I am a scientist and fall into neither category and yet, like the vast majority of the scientific community, believe that not only is our climate changing but that the evidence strongly indicates it's anthropogenic. This evidence is also supported by detailed models that have been developed over decades. As a non-climate scientist it would actually be in my interest to not support climate science, in order to get more funding for my own research.

    Combatting climate change essentially involves us reducing our use of energy but specifically fossil fuels. Now, even if there was no anthropogenic climate change, this is advantageous for a number of reasons:
    - Reduce dependence on a finite resource (fossil fuels) which mostly is imported from, and thereby props up, a number of despotic countries. Many renewables can be generated in-situ providing energy security.
    - Reduce the massive health impacts associated with fossil fuels.

    #7 Don't make me laugh.

    #6 While climate science may be a multi-billion dollar industry, I think even you'd probably agree, that understanding the climate is incredibly important to our well being, and worth the investment. The fossil-fuel industry is multi-trillion dollar industry and as such has massive vested interests in attacking climate scientists at every turn.

    #5 The point is that western nations generally use a lot more energy (per capita) than the countries you mention. The onus lies on us to lead the way in reducing energy consumption.

    Apr 05th, 2016 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Lucifer

    If it were a science their models would work and they could be proven with repetition.
    The models have failed miserably, MISERABLY time and time again.

    Its a religion and nothing more.

    Get a real job.

    Apr 05th, 2016 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • inthegutter


    You clearly don't know anything about science. Science works by building models and testing them against data and then working to improve them if they can't fully explain the data. Just because a model that fully reproduces that data hasn't been developed doesn't mean that the model hasn't made progress, isn't useful, and is not science. For example, our current model of gravity (General Relativity) does not work on all scales (it doesn't explain all the data). Does this mean that our study of gravity (and fundamental physics) is not Science?

    The climate is an insanely complex system with all kinds of feedback processes. Current climate models explain most of the basic trends (including variability) though are incomplete. The job of theoretical climate scientists is to refine their models to make more accurate predictions.

    “Its a religion and nothing more.” - it really isn't, it is in fact the quite opposite. We've just go to the point where the evidence (backed up by theory) points to the single result - that is not the same as religious dogmatism.

    “Get a real job.” - In what way exactly is both being an active researcher and teaching physics not a “real job”? Admittedly my field is basic physics and thus doesn't have immediate commercial applications but then again neither did Quantum Mechanics 80 years ago and now that is basis of much of the world's economy. Next time, don't both resorting to childish jibes.

    Apr 05th, 2016 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Lucifer

    You're sad.
    It sounds like you don't even believe the nonsense your spouting.
    Over the years there's been plenty of fields people considered 'science' that are laughed about now.
    Climate change 'science' will be one of them.

    Apr 06th, 2016 - 02:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • inthegutter


    “You're sad.” what kind of comment is that?

    “Climate change” is not a science. Climate science (or climatology) is a science. “Climate change” is an observation or prediction that the climate changes and is well established scientific consensus. Generally the only people who do not believe the Earth's climate has changed or does change are those who adhere to strict religious belief (i.e. young Earth creationists).

    Climatologists study how the Earth's climate changes. Experimentalists attempt to measure the Earth climate both today and in the past. Theoretical climatologists build models to explain how the Earth's climate changes. These models include both natural (e.g. solar variation) and artificial (anthropogenic) processes.

    The trend in the data (observations) over the last 100 years are only explained when you include anthropogenic processes. Extrapolation of these models beyond the observations leads to predictions for the future where we see increasing warming.

    Given the variety of complicated and interlinked processes (there are sources of both negative and positive feedback) it is unsurprising that we have yet to develop a model which fully explains the observations, and in particular the short term variability. This does not mean that the current modelling is not science - it is just incomplete (like our understanding of fundamental physics and even gravity).

    However, despite the complexity you can obtain the same general trends (i.e. warming) from relatively basic physical chemistry. CO2 increases solar insolation, meaning that a greater fraction of sun's energy is kept on the Earth as opposed to being radiated away. Humans have significantly changed the atmospheric CO2 concentration by burning fossil fuels. Do you doubt either of these two well established facts? If you don't doubt them but still don't believe in AGW the only logical recourse is that there is another effect which balances out the effect of CO2.

    Apr 06th, 2016 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Lucifer

    Total malarkey.

    It as much of a science as Static Universe or Immovable continents. Widely believed, studied etc yet proved wrong 100 years later.

    Thinking you can “extrapolate” 100yrs worth of numbers for something multi BILLIONS of years old is pure hubris.

    Again, its a religion not a science. You can't prove anything.

    Apr 06th, 2016 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • inthegutter


    The steady state model of the Universe was a model of the Universe which fit the available observations at the time. It was ultimately falsified and replaced by an expanding Universe model. Again, Cosmology is a science, the “steady state model” was a model not a science. Science is the process of attempting to falsify models.

    “Thinking you can “extrapolate” 100yrs worth of numbers for something multi BILLIONS of years old is pure hubris.” You clearly don't get it. No one extrapolates billions of years into the future. They extrapolate 100 years at most (after which you see the uncertainties grow). They do however build models and test them over data over millions of years.

    I seriously give up. Not because of the weight of your “argument” but because of the ability to even remotely shift from dogmatic views in the face of evidence. The difference between us is, that if the evidence disfavoured the model I would accept it and “believe” a different model. You stick to a model (that humanity doesn't change the climate) despite the evidence - this is dogmatism.

    Apr 06th, 2016 - 01:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Lucifer

    No dummy, you can't take date from the last 100 years, really its not even that long, and think that data is somehow reliable enough to predict into the future. You need larger and longer sets
    That's why the models don't work.
    Climate “scientists” have gone from predicting an ice age coming in the 70s to global warming in the 2000s to Climate Change (safe generic descriptor) now. All because their so-called models are wrong.

    I stand by my statement you sad and a retard. You've done nothing to prove you're not.

    Apr 06th, 2016 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!