Just received Weather for April and read the article 'Iceberg risk in
the /Titanic/ year of 1912: was it exceptional? The best I can say
about it is that it's better than Olsen's nonsensical ravings about low
sunspot numbers being responsible. That's 'better' in the way that
hitting yourself over the head with a half-brick is better than using a
whole one.

The article claims that the 'berg travelled from SW Greenland in about
3 months; the normal period is roughly a couple of years. These
'bergs travel north along the W Greenland coast, then south along E
coast of Baffin Island and Labrador.

They look for causes for the high number of 'bergs in spring 1912
without trying the forecasting tool that was in use forty+ years ago,
the pressure anomaly between Kap Farvel and Goose Bay during the winter
months.

The 'conclusions' section concludes with this gem. 'As polar ice sheets
are increasingly losing mass as well, the iceberg risk is likely to
increase in future rather than decline.' Trouble with that idea is that
it's the sea-ice that protects the 'bergs on their up-to-3-year journey
to the Grand Banks. Reduction in that ice cover will lead to bergs
melting before they reach their destination.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Mail: 'newsman' not 'newsboy'.
"Minds are like parachutes. They only function when they're open". -
Lord Dewar (1864-1930)