Interesting that you would link a story with a picture of polar bears walking across the ice. Is that part of the science?
Analysis of the new record shows that since a peak in 1980, sea ice thickness has declined 53 percent. "It's an astonishing number," Kwok said.
It's even more astonishing that the ice increased from the 1940's through the 1970's. Or maybe not so astonishing:
As usual the current decadal decrease (and current yearly increase) is mostly a function of natural variability.
well thanks for coming back and gracing us with your presence. You can go back to the koolaid forum now. Making any progress over there with your "conservative" solutions to AGW?
Interesting that you would link a story with a picture of polar bears walking across the ice. Is that part of the science?Sorry. Science Daily didn't have polar bears. I went to the source. JPL added the polar bears, I guess.
It's even more astonishing that the ice increased from the 1940's through the 1970's. Or maybe not so astonishing:
I assume that because sea ice extent was relatively constant up until the 80s, sea ice volume and sea ice thickness probably were, too. It's basically impossible to find out if that's true or not.
The way I see it, either this mostly natural variability, in which case we have about an even chance of it getting cool enough for the ice to add volume over the next few years, or it's being forced primarily in one direction, in which case the odds of continuing to lose ice volume over time are higher than the odds of continuing to add ice volume over time. It certainly won't surprise you to find out that I think this isn't all natural variability and we're headed in the warming direction. I'm sorry if that makes you classify me as a koolaid drinker, but that continues to be how I interpret the scientific results. As I've noted numerous times before, it would be wonderful indeed if the mainstream scientific viewpoint on this issue is wrong. I literally hope that they and I are wrong. But I cannot realistically believe that the science is wrong and that therefore I'm wrong.
However, I will definitely grant the possibility that the Sun is behaving peculiarly, and if that persists, that might cause some interesting effects. I still think that despite a quiet Sun it's possible to set a new global surface temperature record -- this year could seriously test that possibility. Out of curiousity, what do you think that would mean? What would it do to this "decade of cooling" concept that is so skeptically popular?
Can't resist quoting Patrick Michaels at this point: "Michaels pointed out that the surface records show average global temperatures increasing at a steady rate of +0.17 degrees centigrade per decade since 1977. He also hastened to put the kibosh on recent assertions that "global warming stopped in 1998." While global average temperatures have been essentially flat since 1998, Michaels argued that natural variations in the climate mask any increases due to greenhouse gases. In particular, cooler waters in the Pacific ("La Nina") and lower solar activity have conspired to drop average global temperatures. When these trends reverse, average global temperatures will rapidly rise to reveal the established long term man-made warming trend of +0.17 degrees centigrade per decade." (This was from the International Conference on Climate Change a year ago, as described by Ronald Bailey.)
Is Michaels drinking the koolaid too?
You can go back to the koolaid forum now. Making any progress over there with your "conservative" solutions to AGW?
Forgive me for not having any idea of what you're talking about here.
I'll end on this note:
Source: Cryosphere Today