Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Jan 11, 4:39 pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
"Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over 2 years old, the least in the
satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 average of 52 percent."

I don't know about you, but it seems clear to me that if ice was at
the lowest level ever two years ago and has since staged a huge
recovery, then saying that 81% of the the ice cover is less than two
years old doesn't actually add any new information and certainly is
not bad news.


On the face of it, this looks like the opinion of a person with a 2 year
time horizon, but there's more to it: if 81% of ice in some location
disappeared at least 2 years ago, then we are not seeing catastrophic
results from that.

Or are we? :-)

Brian W