Talk:Arctic sea ice decline/Archive 1

Archive 1

"nearly ice free"

The source for:

the IPCC AR5 defines "nearly ice-free conditions" as "when sea ice extent is less than 102 km6 for at least five consecutive years" and (for at least one scenario) estimates that this might occur around 2050.[1]

is http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf, page SPM-14. 2050 is read off fig 7b. I think that is worth doing, as AR5 has (or has attempted to) significantly improve its estimate over AR4 William M. Connolley (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

undid revision

hello user:Prokaryotes, you reverted my edits a few minutes ago. i was hoping we could discuss the reasoning behind this. GoGatorMeds (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The reference was not very good, and all i could find was a mention of tree loss based on a ref dated from 2004. Seek more recent science and related to sea ice. Regards. prokaryotes (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The information was taken from section "5. How will animals be affected by Arctic warming?" and specifically under the subsection 5.4, where vegetation is mentioned. The nature of the source is explaining the effects of the loss of sea ice, which I would think is not necessarily information that would require to be recent. Nonetheless, if you do not think it is a reliable source, I will try and find another one so I can re-add the information. Thank you for clarifying. GoGatorMeds (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice, section 5 is about sea ice presence, quote = Many Arctic animals, such as polar bears, seals, walruses, and seabirds, rely on the sea’s biological productivity and on the presence of sea ice. Good info, but needs better sourcing. prokaryotes (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Understood -- how do you feel about this source? [1]

Some good information from it is "Since the end of the last century, more than two million square kilometers of sea ice have disappeared, and the loss of summer ice is accelerating. Researchers call this “a stunning loss of habitat for sea ice algae and sub-ice plankton which together account for 57 percent of the total annual primary production in the Arctic Ocean.”

"But the fact that the total area under ice each summer has been shrinking at 86,000 square kilometers a year, and the annual ice melt season has been extended by at least 20 days, could have profound consequences for the entire ecosystem, and for the big, warm-blooded creatures at the top of the food chain."

"and the warming of the land surfaces in the Arctic is beginning to alter the vegetation, with consequences for caribou and other grazers."

Additionally, the article is from less than a year ago. Thoughts?GoGatorMeds (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I have a bit of a conflict of interest in judging said source - because i reblog ClimateCentral from time to time on my own blog, however generally i would advise to use science journal articles or from institutions such as NASA etc. If you check the article it's entirely based on such sources. Also please stick to parts which refer to sea ice. If you add vegetation you need to connect both. prokaryotes (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Predictions

The whole section is speculative to begin with, but if we are going to tolerate speculation then we must do so in an WP:NPOV. Deletions without respecting that is contrary to our policy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail article is an attack piece with little scientific value. The author, David Rose, has been criticised by numerous scientists for misquoting and/or misrepresenting their views. That aside, what Al Gore actually said is Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. We should, at a bare minimum, report his full remarks. I personally don't see the importance of what Gore says. Just because climate change is a topic of interest does not mean we should copy his remarks to every article here on Wikipedia. — TPX 17:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

There are quotes, they are quoted in other media. Let's see what the editing community says about including the Gore and others point of views. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Ice-free summer?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should reliably-sourced predictions of people debating predicted effects climate change be included in the article? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sure, as long as they are notable and fairly represent what was actually said at the time, not cherry-picked and straw-manned. Thus, for the edits that lead to this RfC, No. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• What would you allow for what Al Gore has said? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if "allow" is the right concept here. Optimally, someone would do the legwork, find out the actual studies, fairly summarise them, and maybe include that Gore referenced them in his NPP acceptance speech. I don't see where Gore made a prediction in his speech - he referenced two studies which included a range of predictions, and pointed out one of the possible outcomes from each. That's something very different. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Somewhat on the fence. I posted a link to his Nobel Peace Prize (NPP) acceptance speech from which his comments are from. As noted above and on my usertalk, Gore is not an expert....he is but a spokesperson and I'm not even sure he is endorsed officially in that capacity but I may be mistaken on that part. However, he is the most famous spokesperson on this matter and was awarded the NPP for his efforts. Therefore his commentary is notable but unless we can figure how much and or what if anything we should include of his comments and how we include them we run the risk of violating NPOV. I'll watch for other comments to help determine where I stand.--MONGO 23:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• Reliably-sourced predictions of scientists opinions, yes. Activists and laypersons, no. Gore's opinion on this topic should be fleshed out on his article, in as much detail as necessary, but in few places else, otherwise the quality of our climate change articles will diminish greatly. — TPX 01:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• Seems nature is against the title of the article, as "hide the decline" of the decline is not longer possible currently. According PowerofX the Gore effect badly impacts the quality of our climate change articles as well, Mike Morano couldnt invite a better headline ;) In earnest, the way the supposed Arctic decline has been used as a narrative, as it was - in despite of antarctic seea ice - useful for alarmists is of cause of interest and clearly deserves a separate entry. Its much more important than the rather ridiculous story about poor polar bears endangered and the happy and glorious hint about rain being bad for english tourism. Wasn't rain a substantial part of any tourists program in limeyland? Serten (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a hard time parsing the grammar here - all I see is a number of sceptical canards that seem to have gone into a blender and mixed up, with sentence fragments sticking out left and right. Maybe you can try to restrict your answer to the question at hand? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The article claims a linear decline and ignores the rather cyclic influence of AMO and PDO on the arctic sea ice coverage extent, it does ignore any influence of the decadal oscillations so far. Its in so far sort of funny to ask for exclusion of activists and claim science only, as long the article and its title itself is based on activist POV and does not mention important part of the science. Quote Judith Curry "the belief that summer Arctic ice is about to disappear remains an IPCC tenet, frequently flung in the face of critics who point to the pause. Yet there is mounting evidence that Arctic ice levels are cyclical. Data uncovered by climate historians show that there was a massive melt in the 1920s and 1930s, followed by intense re-freezes that ended only in 1979 – the year the IPCC says that shrinking began." The narrative of the IPCC tenet as said is something we have to describe, from whatever side you may stand on. Serten (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC) The point apply as well to the other arctic ice related articles, climate change in the Arctic is refering mostly to greenland, not to the arctic sea ice per se, Sea ice does speak about decline in the acrtic but excludes expansion in the south, Arctic sea ice ecology and history doesnt mention the historical circular extensions at all. A statement like "Reliable and consistent records for all seasons are only available during the satellite era, from 1979 onwards" is highly POVish, as real earth science is well aware of means to research previous extensions, and there were important attempts to describe the extent and get a along the Northwest Passage much earlier, for some centuries, including John Franklin. Its however much more realwordish complex as some would prefer to see it. That said, better delete this article and take care that the others start to cover actual science. Serten (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The article does not claim a linear decline, nor does the word "linear" even occur in the article at all. The lead image shows a linear trend superimposed on the actual measurements, but that is sourced directly to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, an impeccable source. The IPCC does not say that "shrinking of the ice began in 1979", it says we have solid evidence for the shrinking since 1979, which is the first year we have SMMR data for the arctic. I don't know what you mean by "The narrative of the IPCC tenet as said is something we have to describe, from whatever side you may stand on" - I suspect you fall into a foreign language trap here. Im sure you can point to Curry's peer-reviewed publications on sea ice - please do so. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The title of the article suggests that there is decline only, thats what I mean with "linear". A historiographic narrative is the scientific expression - its social science and I left out an e, I am so sorry - for Currys notion of the decline as "a tenet flung in the faces of sceptics", meaning a (science) story often told with a certain purpose. Funny thing is that Connolley doesnt want to see Curry in any article, including her papers on the issue. Serten (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The title of the article suggests that there is decline only, thats what I mean with "linear" - then you should look up the definition of "linear" because that isn't it. The word you're looking for is "monotonic", but that too is wrong of course William M. Connolley (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Goodness, linear as counterpart to cyclic. Serten (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we all understand what you tried to say by now. But "linear" is not an antonym to "cyclic" at all. Such careless use of language makes it hard to communicate. If you have reliable sources for "cyclic", bring them on. But I suggest you open up a new section on the talk page, and don't hijack this quite specific RfC. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Reject. I don't think Carlossuarez46 is acting in good faith. This edit [2] removing well-sourced material is mere petulance and is essentially vandalism. This edit [3] is (a) sourced to the Daily Mail, which is not an acceptable source for anything to do with science, and is (b) about the opinions of Al Gore (making the somewhat unsatisfactory assumption that the Mail has accurately reported what he said), which would belong in a politics article. By contrast, the stuff in the article is sourced to actual scientific papers William M. Connolley (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Reject. I have to say this is the worst-formed RfC I've seen in quite a while. I'm forced to guess at what it's even about. The most prominent comments here are disingenuous or off-topic – I can't even tell which. I don't see how anyone could be requested to comment on this as presented – much less "support" it. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sure. If they are Climate scientists. BTW The article ice free dates appear way conservative and need to be balanced out with data like the following to better reflect different views. [4] [5][6] [7] SaintAviator lets talk 09:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years

As sea ice shrinks to record lows, Prof Peter Wadhams warns a 'global disaster' is now unfolding in northern latitudes http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice SaintAviator lets talk 23:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

So reminiscent of that famous "prediction" from 2000 of snow-free winters within a few years http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html Skeptic2 (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"Recovery since 2012"

User:Skeptic2 has added a primary source and claims it shows "recovery" since 2012. The source itself makes no such claim, and it shows 2013 and 2014 sea ice extend nearly exactly identical (in fact, the lines indicating ice extend overlap and cross multiple times). This does not show a trend, and it certainly does not suggest (to anyone with basic scientific understanding) that "these predictions [of a nearly ice-free arctic in the 2030s] are too pessimistic". 2012 was an extreme outlier. 2013 and 2014 are reverting to the bleak "normality" of the downward trend. In other words, this edit introduces misleading WP:OR. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree, needs a source saying it shows a trend for recovery. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and reverted William M. Connolley (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. And yes the trend is a downward one toward less ice. SaintAviator lets talk 22:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, will you just accept the wording "However, measurements of Arctic sea ice extent from the Danish Meteorological Institute have shown signs of recovery since a deep minimum in 2012"? The source is authoritative. Figures for the past two years certainly make predictions of an "ice-free" Arctic in a decade or so look foolish, but if you wish to accept them then it's up to you.Skeptic2 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No, ok, but it's a primary source, and no. The DMI is, modulo minor effects, in line with e.g. the NSIDC. But no, there is no "sign of recovery" - all there is is return to the expected trend after an outlier. If you want this in, find a source that makes the claim - not a primary data source to which you seem to assign, for some reason, unwarranted weight - not because its not a good source for raw data, but because you don't seem to understand the implications of the data. By your logic, we should have predicted total loss of sea ice for ca. 1997 in 1990, for ca. 2010 in 2003 (based on the "reliable" 3 year trend!), and for ca. 2015 in 2012. Ice extend varies naturally around a secular trend - and that trend, as computed by the reliable NSIDC can be seen in the very first image of the page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If you look at this other DMI graph, you’ll see that Arctic ice coverage is about back to where it was in 2005: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php I don’t think the models predicted that. The section above (“Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years”) has a link to a story from 2012 in which someone did indeed predict total collapse of the Arctic ice sheet in 2015-16. I’ve seen enough failed climate predictions to be skeptical of them all, particularly those based on supposed secular trends. Hence my attempts to inject a note of caution. Skeptic2 (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Look at the chart top right article. Skeptic2 dont carry on this edit war. You dont have consensus or the RS. BTW have a look at the graphs here. Also keep in mind on March 9, 2014, Arctic sea ice area was at a record low for the time of the year, at only 12.88731 square kilometers.[8] SaintAviator lets talk 04:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Not an “edit war”, just a civil discussion about an area littered with too many failed predictions. You are of course free to believe that Arctic sea ice will collapse by 2016, but I hope you will flag it up as another failure (like the “snow-free winters” story) should it turn out to be wrong, as I think the DMI figures suggest it will. Talk to you again in three years.Skeptic2 (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Arctic sea ice will definitely not collapse by 2016 and I'll happily put money on that. And no your edit about recovery is not acceptable. Is that what you wanted? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Definitely? I don't have 10k to spend, but if you give good enough odds I'll go in for, say, EUR 333. My build-in imguesstometer say there is a 1 in 10 chance of an ice-free summer in 2016. "Definitely" should be worth 1 in 1000. So let's split the difference (geometrically), and I'll bet my EUR 333 vs. your EUR 33300 (or your EUR 333 vs. a pint of ale, if you are inclined to scale the bet in this direction ;-). Seriously though, the predictions described above place "nearly ice-free summers" somewhere between 2030 and 2050, not at 2016. And another serious thought: All scientific models are wrong. That does not mean that they are useless, it just means one must be aware of their limitations. And, of course, one must read what is actually predicted - even Wadhams hedges his statements ("probably", "could be"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably best to talk about the money over there :-). As for the topic of "unrealistic predictions"... the article shouldn't be mentioning 2016, or Wadhams, and it doesn't, so that's OK William M. Connolley (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

My monies on 'one day'. Yes the models are still basic. Predictions are predictions. But the long term trends look ominous imho even with healthy stat error built in. The "nearly ice-free summers" (< 10%) will still be a game changer for more feedbacks i.e. methane. In the mid 2020s seems a realistic possibility for "nearly ice-free summers" due to badly modeled Methane feedback loops. SaintAviator lets talk 04:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

PS. I would just like to insert another mechanism into this discussion to show how models dont input important factors. NE USA is getting Arctic weather. The snowstorms and low temperatures are the result of a sharp southward dip in the jet stream, pulling cold air down from the Arctic in what is often described as a “polar vortex”. When this cold air moves South warmer air replaces it in the Arctic, leading to warming. Im not suggesting this go in, but its useful back ground material for now. [9] SaintAviator lets talk 01:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't suppose you'll be mentioning this, will you: Arctic sea ice volume holds up in 2014. Skeptic2 (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

BBC News BBC Sport. 404 - Page Not Found. This might be because you typed the web address incorrectly. SaintAviator lets talk 23:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I've taken the pipe out of the address so it works now. Not difficult to find in any case. Skeptic2 (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Cant see the point you say this journalist is making thats not in the article already. Start a new thread if you have a new point backed by science. BTW please follow thread conversation protocol, this is very messy. Do in fact begin a new thread if you want to continue. SaintAviator lets talk 23:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

SaintAviator lets talk , Isn't this covered under the section for Atmospheric Regime and the See also link to Polar Vortex? prokaryotes (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes somewhat. Not this though: what intrigued me was the warmer air that replaced the cold Arctic air that moved South due to the Polar Vortex. This replacement air warms the arctic and is not in the models. SaintAviator lets talk 22:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Here are some recent studies http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=arctic+polar+amplification+climate+model+air+intrusion&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2013 For instance: "Weakening of the stratospheric polar vortex by Arctic sea-ice loss" http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140902/ncomms5646/full/ncomms5646.html or "Intensified warming of the Arctic: Causes and impacts on middle latitudes" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818114000575 You have to judge the science on a case per case basis, thus it is in error to conclude:"replacement air warms the arctic and is not in the models" prokaryotes (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Theres some hard Science in the first link. There has been some mixed Science around as well. I coundnt find a study that directly explores what happens to warming in the Arctic when a huge expanse of cold air moves South and is replaced by warm air. SaintAviator lets talk 07:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW 2014 officially hottest year on record [10] SaintAviator lets talk 00:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"volumes of permanent and seasonal ice"

The article makes no mention of these figures. Consequently this article is entirely superficial. I am sure NASA has the figures hidden away someplace, so if any experts are able, please help make this article more real. 103.227.170.9 (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverted Edits

Guys talk here. SaintAviator lets talk 05:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Where do gals talk? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Gals like to be called guys these days. BTW Im talking about the Arctic sea ice is smallest size on record over northern winter reverts. Talk dont edit war. SaintAviator lets talk 00:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Economic impact

I removed:

Changes in atmospheric weather regimes are tied to economic losses in the UK tourism economy and negative impacts for farming in the UK. However, year-round access to shipping lanes is expected to dramatically improve the economies of the Hudson Bay region, northern Alaska, Scandinavia, and Siberia. Improves access to polar waters will open up new areas for oil and natural gas exploration. Eventually, these regions may become warm enough to grow wheat, making northern territories the bread-baskets of the world. Increased food production, increased oil drilling, and increased shipping lanes will eventually make these regions industrial and technological hubs, driving global growth well through the current century.

because Screen says nothing about economic impacts, and does say the changes he finds from models are smaller than interannual variability; so that's SYN at best. http://billmoyers.com/2013/12/09/climate-change-opens-the-arctic-to-shipping-drilling-militarization/ doesn't say anything about "dramatically improve the economies", and the stuff ending "driving global growth well through the current century" just looks like it was made up William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked up the first or third refs, but #2 and #4 are both blogs and I think non-RS. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't quite sure about the billmoyers one William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure on that either... didn't examine terms and conditions....but the collection of articles and headlines sure sounds like an opinion pot.

Readded the study. prokaryotes (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

References

There's no need to state that you've re-added the study; that's obvious. What you need to say is *why* you've re-added it, without troubling yourself with addressing the reason I removed it. Please read what is written just above William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, he mentions in the supplemental video of the study on two occasions that the wetter summers in the UK impacted wildlife, tourism and crops (farming). However, the paper does not dive into these impacts. Video transcript http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/044015/media/abstract-transcript-484525-va.txt prokaryotes (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The part about wheat needs to go. The reference only mentions early settlers remarking that they couldn't plant wheat in permafrost. It doesn't necessarily follow that if the permafrost melted, they'd be able to grow wheat in Siberia. (For a start the precip in much of Siberia is far too low.) I've made a quick check of the literature for papers on the potential for expanding wheat production in Siberia with warming but came up empty. Of course the fact that I couldn't find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist so if anyone knows otherwise please give pointers. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The entire part is no longer included. prokaryotes (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Mechanism

P added a new section, called "Mechanism", as follows:

Based on a more sophisticated model, it has been suggested that there is no irreversible tipping point for sea ice, and that reducing greenhouse gases would eventually contribute to sea ice forming again, after it has declined.

The heading is wrong, because this section is not discussing the mechanism of ice decline. Its addressing something quite different, whether there is an irreversible "tipping point". The paper underlying the press release (Till J. W. Wagner and Ian Eisenman, 2015: How Climate Model Complexity Influences Sea Ice Stability. J. Climate, 28, 3998–4014. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00654.1) may or may not be sensible, but its only just published William M. Connolley (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, the study mentions The findings presented here raise the possibility that these disparities may be reconciled by similar mechanisms. 1 This study here, also relates perturbations to sea is thinning, A general theory is developed to describe the thinning of sea ice subject to climate perturbations, and it is found that the leading component of the thickness dependence of the thinning is due to the basic thermodynamics of sea ice. The section was a start, if you have suggestions to improve it, please suggest. prokaryotes (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought that the Gulf Stream had a lot to do with arctic sea ice decline. There's no mention in this article about that. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Often primary sources need ripening time, and translation by more secondary sources. That's the case here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Not posting and extending the context per recent studies is bad, because sites like WUWT already misrepresent per WEIGHT and NPOV, not mentioning the uncertainties connected to this ecosystem, pointed out in previous science. The IPCC AR4 and AR5 also had only medium confidence and noted different results. Another good study which could be part of a future section. Other than that, the study findings change nothing other then influence possible future GHG draw down scenarios, which is a good thing to note. prokaryotes (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by rebutting Anthony Watts. For that, just start your own blog or contribute to climatecentral etc. If your interpretation and translation of these primary sources is SO devastating to Watts' spin, they would probably be glad to publish your stuff. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

No, my opinion is entirely different in regards to this study, I have added the study based on a secondary source, mentioned more relevant science above, all are reliable secondary sources. Thus, there are indeed enough secondary sources mentioned, and in part linked. prokaryotes (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying we should be editing in order to rebut Watts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

My edits are based on reliable sources, and my edit history reflects that - the edit discussed here meets the requirements mentioned. Are you suggesting that above secondary source does not meet RS, or are you suggesting that there needs to be additional referencing? prokaryotes (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Refs for this thread

References

"records"

After removal the same nonsense was added again without any proper justification. I have no objection against the use of the source as such. However describing it as record is plain wrong and hence it has no place in the article in that form. Whoever wants to use the source, is responsible for doing so in an appropriate fashion and providing a correct description.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I, too, cannot see any reason why we'd want a section for 2015 by itself; nor why it would be titled "record". That's very odd William M. Connolley (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You can ofc suggest another sub section name for historical events. For record see, recording is the process of capturing data, which is often referred to as a record, or see record (computer science). Hence, record is not just a recording volume. prokaryotes (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I can still see no reason for picking out 2015 as worthy of special mention. Removing the section header doesn't affect that William M. Connolley (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Because it is an important observation. 2015, because that's the current date, and the top 5 or 10 years should be mentioned, as we do on related subjects such as temperature record.prokaryotes (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Lol William, are you going to respond? Would you still object if I were to add the top 5 years? prokaryotes (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes:

Well arguing that record refers to recording volume doesn't change that picking "records" as the section title will appear rather misleading to many readers (and imho it that case the title should be singular as in (ice) record rather than the plural records).

In any case even independent of the section title William is also correct is pointing out it seems a like a somewhat random piece of recent and incomplete information added to the article that isn't really helpful nor is it really connected to the rest of the article. If you intend to have a meaningful "record" (as you indicate above), then you need at least some series of measurements over time (covering the last few decades for instance). But simply adding a simple recent data point without any reference frame and not really connected to the rest of the of the article text either is at best superfluous and at worst irritating or misleading. So all in all in this form it anything but an article improvement and the deletion was/is justified.

Having said that if you actually want to add the data for a times series over a sufficiently large interval then I don't think anybody has an objection. Note however that the graphic in the top right of the article already serves that purpose.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

As you mentioned above it was called record. Would you object to the top 5 or 10 lowest records, with additional data on extent amount? prokaryotes (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

As per everything, you should do your best to base your edits on external sources and avoid WP:OR and WP:SYN. Without going overboard on said policies. So, if oyu can find a reliable source that ranks the most recent years in terms of extent, and discusses them in the context of seaice decline, then by all means use such sources. If however you need to go back to the primary records yourself, that's rather more dubious William M. Connolley (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes:

I'm getting lost on what you are actually trying to achieve.

Now you seem to want list actual records rather the record of the ice development? Now if you include the real records that might justify the original section title. However I'm still what the purpose of the whole thing is supposed to and whether it actually will provide meaningful information to readers.

If you just want to update the article with the latest 2015 data, it seems a much better idea to me to replace the current graphic ending at 2013 with new ones that end at 2015 (something like this [11] for instance, note that the graphic is much more informative than listing one or few individual "record" figures").

If you want an actual record of the seas ice in text form in addition to existing graphics, then I'd say it needs to comprise at least 2 decades (better 3 or more).

If you want to list the 5 or 10 lowest amounts in a ranking, than that might justify your original section title, but in that case I'm not fully convinced of the usefulness of such a section. This article is about a decline or more generally a potential trend in a process, so data should come in form of a time series or an aggregation over several time spans. Having a few individual record figures however usually carries little meaningful information, so I don't quite see what is achieved by adding them to the article. On exception might be though if the lowest figures tend to cluster along the time line, that might a meanigful addition to the normal time series. Note that even the source you've originally quoted ([12]) albeit using "4th lowest" as headline primarily deals with comparing the 2015 figure to an timespan average, how it places within a cluster and how its fits into a trend since 1996. Exactly those three things are the important/relevant content of that source rather than just "4th lowest" bit. Now if you want add any of those 3 aspects into the article I don't think there will be any objections, but note that this information is partially already contained in the article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arctic sea ice decline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130910091853/http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice to http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150514034430/http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf to https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Could the Arctic have ice-free summers in our lifetime?

May be worth following up this source to update the dates in the article:

A study published Monday said if the world warms 7.2 degrees this century, the Arctic will likely have a three-month, ice-free period each summer by 2050. It would be a worst-case scenario never seen in recorded human history.

By the end of the century, the ice-free summer could jump to five months a year, the study said.

...

Why does it matter? Arctic ice not only is important to polar bears and other wildlife, but it also helps regulate the planet’s temperature. Recent studies also said that Arctic sea ice — and the lack of it — can wreak havoc with weather patterns as far away as the United States.

...

For example, if the world warms only 2.7 degrees, which was the goal set by the Paris Climate Agreement, the probability of ice-free summers drops dramatically.

With a rise of 2.7 degrees, "half of the time we stay within our current summer sea ice regime," said Alexandra Jahn, author of the study and an assistant professor at the University of Colorado. "If we reach 3.6 degrees of warming, the summer sea ice area will always be below what we have experienced in recent decades.”

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/04/02/could-arctic-have-ice-free-summers-our-lifetime/479324002/

If there are no comments here I'll follow this up when I have time.

Robert Walker (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Move and merge of sea ice decline for both poles

It has been suggested to merge Arctic sea ice decline with Antarctic sea ice decline, and move this article to Sea ice decline. Google News offers currently 27,200 results for Antarctic sea ice decline vs 31,000 for Arctic sea ice decline. Google web search is 5.470.000 results for Arctic vs 1.460.000 for the Antarctic, and Google Scholar gives 89,900 results for the Antarctic vs 204,000 results for the Arctic region. While the Antarctic results often include the Arctic, it would make sense to merge these topics because they are often discussed together. I don't think the article would become too large with adding the south pole. Some recent related news, Sea Ice Extent Sinks to Record Lows at Both Poles (NASA 2017), or ..Antarctica's sea ice is at the lowest January levels since detailed observations began in 1979.. (CNN 2019).

Proposer's !vote

• Merge I think this is a great idea. prokaryotes (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Other !votes and discussion

• Uncertain

(A) Please clarify, do you mean to create Sea ice decline and then merge both Arctic sea ice decline and Antarctic sea ice#Recent trends and climate change at that location?

(B) What happens to the rest of Antarctic sea ice?

(C) Does anything happen to Arctic ice pack?

(D) How would all these look when its all done?

(E) Are you thinking we string news stories and primary sources as they trickle out, without digesting all that material and writing an article? As I said at the WP:AN a few months ago, that is not effective writing.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

a + d) Since I've created this article here and help to shape it, you should be able to get an idea of how this would look like. I do not suggest to merge the section Antarctic sea ice#Recent trends and climate change here, rather offer a quick introduction. e) Since you do not write articles yourself it is unclear to me what you mean with effective writing. If you have improvements, you can always edit content yourself, you know. prokaryotes (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Its true I don't start new articles. There is already far too much redundancy and rarely a reason to start a new one. But there is a ton of improvement that can be made on existing ones. We have a long history of prickles. You might make more headway persuanding me by developing a user draft in your sandbox. Of course, I'm just one voice. I wonder what others think? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You link to me, so I guess I should respond. I didn't suggest merger, and I didn't necessarily suggest doing anything now. And I don't think you actually mean "merge" anyway. My suggestion was that when there was a reasonable weight of sources for Antarctic trends, then the existing Arctic sea ice decline could be moved to Sea ice decline and have the Antarctic stuff added. NAEG reasonably points out the existing Antarctic sea ice and Arctic ice pack (aside: why do they have different forms for their names? I hate that when it happens). Looking at those articles, it isn't even clear why there isn't just one Sea ice article, since both articles are fairly short (especially if you strip out the GW stuff, which really belongs in the _decline_ article(s). And oh, there is a sea ice article. It's all a bit of a mess William M. Connolley (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I mean to add per your suggestion all the _decline_ content into Sea ice decline (after we moved the current article there). So you don't think this should be done now, given the trend from the past few years, and today'se coverage? There are lots of articles discussing Antarctic sea ice. The general assumption has long been that it is not declining, even growing. Also I support merging articles about Sea ice (for both poles) into one article. prokaryotes (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Overall evaluation

Overall this article was good. it wasn't persuading its readers, all links work and most have up to date information on their sites, the images on the page are relevant, and follow the copyright regulations. The conversations on the talk page are all relevant to the problems in the article.TyBrown06 (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Mis-quoting research on last 4000 y.

My edit removing the false claim that a paper proved that the Arctic region was at its warmest in 4000y was reverted.

Apparently some want to discuss whether a paper studying melt rates can be rewritten to be studying temperature and whether a small number of Canadain sites in the study correctly constitute "the region" , in an article about the Arctic as a whole.

Several edits combining any number of different edits some adding some removing do not help discussion. So keep it to one issue.

So does someone want to correctly surmise the contents of that paper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.218.206.61 (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Ice Caps

Just removed a reference to "ice caps" used synonymously with sea ice. An ice cap is a piece of land-ice that has outgrown its topography, but is not big enough to qualify as an ice sheet. Because it floats on the ocean, sea ice cannot form an ice cap, so this term should not be used in reference to it.

Al Gore has made this mistake in quotes within this article, but I think these instances should be left to stand.

Robbie Mallett (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Update "Observations" section on old ice loss

Discussion of loss of multiyear ice is from the Guardian.

In 1988, ice that was at least 4 years old accounted for 26% of the Arctic's sea ice. By 2013, ice that age was only 7% of all Arctic sea ice. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/21/arctic-ice-melt-video)

The source could be updated to a more direct one (the Arctic Report Card 2019) which also has more recent stats on multiyear ice.

In 1985, old sea ice (> 4 years) comprised 33% of the ice cover. By March 2019, only 1.2% of the Arctic ice cover was old ice. (Perovich, D., W. Meier, M. Tschudi, S. Farrell, S. Hendricks, S. Gerland, L. Kaleschke, R. Ricker, X. Tian-Kunze, M. Webster, and K. Wood, 2019: Arctic Report Card 2019, Sea Ice. Arctic Report Card 2019, J. Richter-Menge, M. L. Druckenmiller, and M. Jeffries, Eds., http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card.)

--MacKenzieEJewell (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggested improvements (March 2021)

I have three small suggestions for improvements. I see there is a student editor here now (User:Xmckinney) so perhaps this editor wants to consider this. Firstly, I think there are too many images in the lead. I would cull that down so that we don't overload the reader at the start. See also WP:MOSLEAD. Secondly, I think these two section headings need to be placed below a Level-1 heading called "potential implications" or alike (or move into the existing section called "implications"?): tipping point, ice free summer. Thirdly, the lead should be improved to be a true summary of the entire article. It should also be longer: 4 full paragraphs would be good. EMsmile (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I have implemented my first and second suggestion now, as there were no objections. EMsmile (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Note the South

Note https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.163.188 (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Source is six years old. My recollection is that ice sheet loss is more than compensating for inland snowfall gains. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

A current source will be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.163.188 (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 9 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anne.rachael.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brunette2k16.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)