As previously noted the actually mass of ice is very important also and not just coverage. A thin but larger area of ice will melt faster.
The German report (and actually quoted in the WUWT article) says:
this maximum in the ice-covered surface can not be equated with a maximum of the total volume or mass
which contradicts the title of the WUWT.
Unfortunately I don't read German but from the translation:
The German article states that in the future they want to observe the sea ice volume as is done in the Arctic. They have deployed sensors to start readings.
So WUWT is in error with regards to volume.
But when the ice wasn't there to that extent in the first place, it's an indication that something's running colder.
Like your household refrigerator - you expect ice in the freezer compartment. When you start getting ice in the refrigerator compartment, either someone reset the thermostat to the 'COLD' side - or you live in Alaska, it's 40 below, and someone left the door open. It's not much good arguing the ice is 'thin' - that the ice is there at all is an indication of colder temperatures.
As far as changing the observation process goes - now they're going to need a baseline period to figure out what's what. Do you think 40 years would be sufficient?
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.
JLawson wrote:Like your household refrigerator - you expect ice in the freezer compartment. When you start getting ice in the refrigerator compartment, either someone reset the thermostat to the 'COLD' side - or you live in Alaska, it's 40 below, and someone left the door open. It's not much good arguing the ice is 'thin' - that the ice is there at all is an indication of colder temperatures.
Your freezer doesn't have frost in it because it has an electric heater in it to defrost it. It runs on an electric timer hooked to the compressor motor; every X number of hours of compressor operation, the heater operates for Y minutes.
JLawson wrote:As far as changing the observation process goes - now they're going to need a baseline period to figure out what's what. Do you think 40 years would be sufficient?
Ummm, are the older figures somehow now suddenly invalid? There was "no weather" even though they were writing it down, until they started looking with satellites?
Really?
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.