Before signing off I thought Katie might want to read the press release from NASA about their study. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-036#4 It does not come to the same conclusion as her (are we surprised?). "The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth's glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level. " "Earth is losing a huge amount of ice to the ocean annually, and these new results will help us answer important questions in terms of both sea rise and how the planet's cold regions are responding to global change," Huh, maybe the polar caps are actually melting.

I'll give it to you NOTW, when one of you comments is rebutted you just switch to another. Your solar theory doesn't match NASA data, you misunderstand Milankovitch cycles, you have no idea of what forcings were not included in the IPCC models. I think you should go with Renny's space dust theory.

"Yet IPCC models that discount 50 natural forcings .." What would those be? Do you have any idea of what you are talking about.

Canals on Mars? Where do you get your astronomy? I believe the Mars explorer has found ice beneath the surface of Mars--its been there for a long time. Anyway, the idea that other planets can serve as an indicator of climate on earth is bogus. The only thing we have in common is solar irradiance and we can measure that very precisely now. It has not shown any variation that would explain the current warming.

You are correct about the Maunder minimum. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that it is the only influence on climate. Check the link I posted above. "Records of sunspots dating back to 1610 provide an indication of energy output from the Sun. In general, more sunspots (blue peaks) mean more intense solar activity and more energy received by the Earth. On average, there are more sunspots now than during the Maunder Minimum 350 years ago, but the increase in solar activity alone is not sufficient to explain the temperature increases that have occurred since 1950. "

Gee, I guess I'll go with NASA rather than you... http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/category/global-warming-causes/ "Scientists are still debating whether or not the Sun’s activity increased during the latter half of the 20th century, but even the highest estimates of activity can’t account for the warming observed since about 1950." Hope you are better on the Constitution than you are on climate.

"Rome and Athens are under feet of snow for the first time in 30 years." Get a grip. Check a web cam for either city, there is no snow.

We are not talking about local glaciers, we are talking about large and consistent ice loss in polar regions. Do you know the difference between signal and noise? This is a strong signal.

"Solar Cycle 25 peaking around 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries." And where does NASA say that his is going to lead to an ice age? Actually, what they say that any cooling will be swamped by global warming. Also, if you look at the graphs of solar activity, there is no increasing trend--so how does that account for current warming?

"11 year cycle 22 year cycle 200 year cycle 400 year cycle..." Why don't you look at something that actually tells you... http://geography.about.com/od/learnabouttheearth/a/milankovitch.htm Eccentricity 95,000 year Obliquity 42,000 Precession 12,000