3 ms·
2016 data specifically refers to Arctic Sea ice coverage, which - if you research it for yourself - you'll find is very significant.
by throwaway5752 11y ago
2016 data specifically refers to Arctic Sea ice coverage, which - if you research it for yourself - you'll find is very significant.
- Hondor 11y agoI see. But it's still not clear if it's part of a trend or not. What if the maximum arctic sea ice coverage is higher next year? That will show that 2016 record low wasn't part of the trend and maybe was an anomaly. We can't know that until more years have passed. I'm sure every year isn't a new record low. By the way, while I was researching that, I also found the "global greening" effect. This is what I'd like to see more of in mainstream media - interesting things happening with global warming that aren't all bad. It would show less of a bias.