On Jan 11, 7:34*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
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.

It has not staged a "huge" recovery. 2009 is the _third lowest year_ in
the 30 year satellite record. And the loss of multi-year ice is crucial:
"The ice cover remained thin, leaving the ice cover vulnerable to melt
in coming summers."

That's fromhttp://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html

While you are on that page, take a look at fig. 3 to see the extent of
the recovery.

And finally, the examination of the ice from ships found the ice was
less that the satellites were reporting:

"Recently published research by Barber and colleagues shows that the ice
cover was even more fragile at the end of the melt season than satellite
data indicated, with regions of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas covered by
small, rotten ice http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/words/word.pl?rotten%20ice
floes."

There is no good news from the National Snow and Ice Center, regardless
of the The Mail says.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Look at this:

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.c...ews&NewsID=242