A new study by University of Colorado at Boulder researchers indicates
older, multi-year sea ice in the Arctic is giving way to younger,
thinner ice, making it more susceptible to record summer sea-ice lows
like the one that occurred in 2007.

http://www.theanalystmagazine.com/pr/6782626.htm

On Jan 14, 10:56 am, wrote:
A new study by University of Colorado at Boulder researchers indicates
older, multi-year sea ice in the Arctic is giving way to younger,
thinner ice, making it more susceptible to record summer sea-ice lows
like the one that occurred in 2007.

http://www.theanalystmagazine.com/pr/6782626.htm

From the link:

"This thinner, younger ice makes the Arctic much more susceptible to
rapid melt," Maslanik said. "Our concern is that if the Arctic
continues to get kicked hard enough toward one physical state, it
becomes increasingly difficult to reestablish the sea ice conditions
of 20 or 30 years ago."

Which begs the question how deep was the ice in the good old days.
About 8 feet if I remember anything, was it?

If it was only 8 ft in cold cycles it would indicate that the loss is
more likely something to do with current and upper layer flow, does it
not?

Now think about this:
If the basin may have filled up with the defrosted colder less saline
water. If this is because the currents are more active on the surface,
then this parlous state of affairs could be quickly restored to
normal.

Merely stating that glowballs is responsible, is irresponsible.

Maybe I am just a curmudgeonly biased old weather sage but this whole
fracas reminds me of the time they first noticed their data dumps on
satellite were set in error.

On that discovery, instead of accepting that the the reason for the so
called Ozone Hole was the natural behaviour of gas in the upper
atmosphere, they started blaming refrigerators used in the Antarctic.

Or was it penguin hair spray? I can't remember. I can remember seeing
that diagrammes of the extent of the phenomenon matched rather closely
the extent of Aurora Australis.

But then, being a seer, I often get blamed for seering things.

Oops my bad:

"The replacement of older, thicker Arctic ice by younger, thinner ice,
combined with the effects of warming, unusual atmospheric circulation
patterns and increased melting from solar radiation absorbed by open
waters in 2007 all have contributed to the phenomenon, said Drobot.
"These conditions are setting the Arctic up for additional,
significant melting because of the positive feedback loop that plays
back on itself.""

The article already noted that both unusual atmospheric AND...
.... oops again.. no they never.

How could they tell what Arctic Ocean currents were in play from
satellite imagery.

They did try to find out though?