Talk:Polar amplification

=Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Googlepuffle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

POV issues

CLIMATE CHANGE IS FAKE. This article seems to have been written by somebody with a point of view. Polar amplification refers to the principle that BOTH poles will heat up faster than the planet as a whole.

This is plainly the understanding in the current Doran reference.

The text of the article clearly implies that the first reference (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment - International Arctic Science Committee) has defined polar amplification as ONLY referring to the arctic. This is false. The ACIA report actually quotes from the IPCC TAR as follows:

"Climate change in polar regions is expected to be among the largest and most rapid of any region on the Earth, and will cause major physical, ecological, sociological, and economic impacts, especially in the Arctic,Antarctic Peninsula, and Southern Ocean (high confidence)."

NASA and Real Climate's Gavin Schmidt may have a model which does not predict antarctic warming, but that does not somehow render insignificant the numerous other papers and models which DO predict antarctic warming.

I'll make edits now.Jsolinsky (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem here isn't POV, it's that the article is plain wrong. Rewrite, or tag for deletion? --Gergyl (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the problem here, assuming there is a problem, is that people who claim to know enough to criticize it do not make an effort to improve it, based on what wikipedia calls "reliable sources". Gergyl (talk · contribs) please start a new thread to discuss your specific criticism, alternatively make the edits you think would improve the thing. FYI, the Dr Jennifer Francis' hypothesis that arctic amplification is effecting the jetstream is a featured news story in a recent issue of Science Mag(subscription required). Don't know if that helps inform your thinking about this article, but it is an interesting read. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Friendly of you. "It is not observed in the Antarctic, largely because the Southern Ocean acts as a heat sink and because of small seasonal variations in snow cover." That is referenced to an old blog post (your "reliable source"?), and appears to be a miss-read even of that. The statement is wrong: wrong in palaeoclimate terms -- see e.g. Hansen et al 2013, where a pretty standard polar amplification of 2.0 is applied to an antarctic record -- and wrong in modern terms too. If we're going with RealClimate, why not a more recent post. That shows continental Antarctica warming of about 0.2°C/decade 1957-2006, compared with a bit over 0.1°C/decade for the same interval globally (land+ocean). It would be correct to say that modern polar amplification is less in the antarctic than the arctic; even much less. But "not observed" is simply wrong. --Gergyl (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the RSs say well enough to edit, and had no particular RS in mind when I commented before. What I said - or tried to say - I will repeat: If you know the content of enough RSs to feel qualified to critique, then then please propose some actual text based on those RSs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Why its bad to use POV definitions: I found this at qwhatis.com:

"What is Polar Amplification? Polar amplification is a climate term which means that climate change is happening faster and is more pronounced in the North Pole or the Arctic faster than anywhere else in the world. Polar amplification is caused by a number of things, and it only applies to the North Pole because the South Pole is mostly water."Jsolinsky (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Notability?

Is this actually a notable term/concept? If so, it would be a good idea to add a reference that uses it. Robofish (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

http://research.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/amplif/index.php http://research.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/amplif/amplif_jul02_2.pdf http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/polar-amplification/ http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3297.1 http://www.knmi.nl/publications/showAbstract.php?id=7097 http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~bitz/bitz_goosse.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/102/12/4397.full.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.45.85 (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Definition (Mechanisms and modeling)

Antarctic amplification occurs only in equilibrium climate simulation not in transient warming because of the strong heat uptake around antarctica and small changes in the ice sheet, see the IPCC AR5 (fig 12.10) and the text in the next page: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf This paper also highlights the difference between the fast and slow climate response, as long as global warming is dominated by the fast response there is no antarctic amplification: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/cms-filesystem-action/user_files/ih/papers/recalcitrant_2.pdf Giorgiogp2 (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to the AR5, however it is unclear why you mention ECS. The warming in Antarctica is different, ofc the article has to point out the uncertainties and unique features at the south pole, as well as highlight related research findings. prokaryotes (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I cite ECS simply because this article should point out the very different antarctica vs arctic amplification expected under transient and equilibrium warming.--Giorgiogp2 (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Equilibrium climate conditions are certainly not tied to Antarctic amplification, the current period of a transient climate phase is not well understood in the southern ocean. Otherwise please provide direct links to studies supporting your arguments, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What does it exactly mean "Equilibrium climate conditions are certainly not tied to Antarctic amplification"?

I have already provided a link to a paper and the ipcc report; it quite clearly states that there is no antarctic amplification in both the cmip3 and cmip5 climate models under transient climate warming but it is expected for climate equilibrium.

From the IPCC AR5: "The lack of an amplified transient warming response in high Southern polar latitudes has been associated with deep ocean mixing,strong ocean heat uptake and the persistence of the vast Antarctic ice sheet.In equilibrium simulations,amplified warming occurs in both polar regions."

but still stronger in the arctic(see the previously cited paper by Held et al.).--Giorgiogp2 (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice that you refer to "long-term" assessments by the IPCC (the GFDL paper you linked has nothing on Antarctica), see AR5 chapter 11 for near-term changes. Also from where is this quote "In equilibrium simulations,amplified warming occurs in both polar regions"? If you cite something provide the direct link (url + page number). And please format your comments, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

So what? This article is not about polar amplification in the next few decades only. It is clearly written that the source of the previous quote is the IPCC AR5; the paper by Held et al. discuss the heat uptake in the southern ocean that limit transient warming in the antarctic region and shows the enhanced warming for the slow climate response so is very relevant for polar amplification at different timescales. --Giorgiogp2 (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, i found the quote now (Chapter 12, page 1062), however it is related to modeling under equilibrium conditions - thus it doesn't mean that Antarctic amplification "only" occurs under these conditions (as you wrote initially). Amplification response in Antarctica is different (Ozone hole, atmospheric circulation changes, melting from below etc). prokaryotes (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

P 1062

"Amplified surface warming in Arctic latitudes is also a consistent feature in climate model integrations (e.g., Manabe and Stouffer, 1980). This is often referred to as polar amplification, although numerous studies have shown that under transient forcing, this is primarily an Arctic phenomenon (Manabe et al., 1991; Meehl et al., 2007b). The lack of an amplified transient warming response in high Southern polar latitudes has been associated with deep ocean mixing, strong ocean heat uptake and the persistence of the vast Antarctic ice sheet. In equilibrium simulations, amplified warming occurs in both polar regions."

I have not looked up the cited references. Why do you think that paragraph is explicitly talking about "equilibrium conditions" ? revised later by me

What is the issue being debated in this thread? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem was that Giorgiogp2 (talk), was not very clear with his initial argument (Nutshell: Antarctic amplification only with ECS). As pointed out above, the context doesn't suggest Antarctic amplification only under ECS, it is just that the transient modeling assessed in Chapter 12/AR5, doesn't show amplification. He took two parts from different pages, the first part - original for reference: This polar amplification is not found in Antarctic regions due to deep ocean mixing, ocean heat uptake and the persistence of the Antarctic ice sheet - which explicit refers to strong warming, which is not observed in Antarctica (Chapter 12 p 1031). However, only because there isn't such a pronounced air temperature response in Antarctica, doesn't mean there aren't mechanisms, contributing to Antarctic amplification, see for instance this Scholar search, and a particular example and here, for ice shelf thinning due to tides. prokaryotes (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Polar amplification refers to the amplified warming at polar latitudes it has nothing to do with tides amplification, again the above quote from the IPCC AR5 is quite clear: "Amplified surface warming in Arctic latitudes is also a consistent feature in climate model integrations (e.g., Manabe and Stouffer, 1980). This is often referred to as polar amplification".--Giorgiogp2 (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No, PA is not only about temperature, since 1980 the definition of PA has changed, see AR5 as cited in the article now. Tides are a mechanism, which could contribute to amplification (ice shelf thinning). prokaryotes (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The currently cited IPCC chapter states this: "Second, the projected warming in wintertime shows a pronounced

polar amplification in the NH (see Box 5.1)." I still don't see any evidence that polar amplification definition has changed.

see also the nsidc:http://nsidc.org/monthlyhighlights/2009/09/arctic-amplification/ --Giorgiogp2 (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You can read a definition here (it refers to climate change in general), the IPCC doesn't offer a definition but outlines related modeling and common conclusions. However, the RC definition includes the suggestion to only refer to surface temperatures. Anyway, your initial statement in regards to modeling is still wrong and adding related Antarctic amplification mechanisms and observations for PA are still valid for the article, and have been added accordingly. prokaryotes (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The RC link quite clearly refers to arctic warming and at the end of the article cecilia Bitz also states that antarctic amplification can be expected only after a long time just like the IPCC AR5 and my initial statement. "Nonetheless Arctic amplification in models (and most likely in nature too) is a robust result of forced climate change, provided the forcing is sufficiently large to overcome internal climate variability. Antarctic amplification only occurs if a model is run long enough so ocean heat uptake in the Southern Ocean does not damp the positive feedbacks and if trends in stratospheric ozone do not cause compensatory cooling. Predictions with climate models indicate that Arctic amplification will be significant (above the 95% confidence level) in one to two decades, while significant Antarctic polar amplification will take much longer.--Giorgiogp2 (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't support your conclusion that there is no PA in Antarctica with transient modeling (which very well could be, considering transient climate response stretches a century). Anyway there is no poiont in discussing this further. Also notice this recent study, which states Feedback effects associated with temperature, water vapour and clouds have been suggested to contribute to amplified warming in the Arctic, but the surface albedo feedback—the increase in surface absorption of solar radiation when snow and ice retreat—is often cited as the main contributor. Thus we have to make a distinction between amplification in the Arctic and Antarctica. prokaryotes (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Also read A Decomposition of Feedback Contributions to Polar Warming Amplification. prokaryotes (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose describing polar amplification as done in this version as " amplifying changes in the climate system at the Earth's poles, in response to global warming" without consensus on an RS to back up that definition. When an ed changes the definintion of basic concepts without RS or explanation, others will often scrutinize all lesser edits from that ed a lot more carefully. It's a credibility thing.

So, show me wrong.... why should we change from the former (and current) "greater temperature increases in the ________ compared to the earth as a whole as a result of the effect of feedbacks and other processes"

• Note I replaced "arctic" with underlining to not get sidetracked talking about Antarctica
• Note your diff creates a circular definition "Polar amplification means amplifying changes" I doubt you've got a high weight RS that does that, but you're welcome to prove me wrong. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

re prokaryotes:

You are going on citing articles that have little to do with the initial discussion about transient vs equilibrium polar amplification, the paper by Pitha et al. it's a relevant one but it's about the mechanism underlying the arctic amplification it has nothing to do with the transient climate response in antarctica, the second is a very good one and it starts defining polar amplification just like the IPCC:"Enhanced warming of the polar surface temperature with respect to the global-mean temperature, referred to as polar warming amplification (PWA)"

so can we agree at least that polar amplification refers to the amplified warming at polar latitudes and not tides etc.? It also shows that under a transient 1% co2 increase the CCSM4 model has some antarctic amplification too, this occurs at the time that co2 doubles relative to preindustrial times(569ppm) however this is just a single model and run; and after they estimate the various contribution they conclude once again that the southern ocean heat storage is a major factor limiting antarctic warming relative to arctic warming: "The cooling influence of ocean heat transport and storage is nearly 3 times larger in the Southern Hemisphere". While those are certainly good papers that could be cited going on searching for single articles and quotes that support a specific claim is really not the best way to write an article that reflect the scientific consensus.--Giorgiogp2 (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Giorgiogp2, tides is not a good example, i gave this example because it could be a mechanism for Antarctic amplification, when accelerating ice shelf lose. Good that we both can agree to "polar amplification refers to the amplified warming at polar latitudes", maybe give some input to my recent edits (see below). For the part on modeling, im not sure how relevant it is, and i have nothing against inclusion of the related parts from AR5 to outline long-term projections. prokaryotes (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Giorgiogp2 (talk · contribs), Prokaryotes (talk · contribs), and I all seem to agree - conceptually - that arctic amplification refers to warming.... not to methane feedback processes, not to not to surface albedo feedback, and not to any other mechanism. To "murder" means to take a life. It does not mean a .357 magnum. Now that we all agree that it means something or other about warming, I'm still waiting for an explanation how the wordier more ambiguous proposed "amplified changes in the climate system" (which could absurdbly be read as describing lithospheric changes) is an improvement over the original text, which explicitly and in detail described the ratio of warming there versus warming everywhere else.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

When asked here to reply, Prokaryotes said he had "already explained it to (me) several times" and gave two diffs - here(1) and here(2). Unfortunately neither of those diffs compares/contrasts the pros/cons of the old vs new text, so they are not responsive. In what way does the proposed first sentence that WMC and I both reverted improve on the old first sentence? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Article update and Need to avoid POV Forking

Here is an overview of related science, look at permafrost melt, glaciers melting from below, mass lose etc. I plan to further extend the article in the coming days/weeks. prokaryotes (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you are planning on expanding this article, and the description of that goal sent up red flags that at best we'll be creating a large redundancy with Climate_change_in_the_Arctic, and at worst we will create a WP:POVFORK. Both should be avoided.

Request

How about first outlining specific points we think are lacking in the article here on talk, and first get consensus on the need to add them? It might well be that instead of just working on this article we improve the way a collection of articles interact, thus making an even better improvement due to the synergy. Total is more than the indivdiual sum sort of thing. Is that a reasonable approach? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The science advances fast and it is unclear to me where NPOV issues are, in the current version. Besides extending the article, there are refs in the page which need to be updated (since they are old), same for the images. prokaryotes (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't much like your re-write, sorry William M. Connolley (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Without further explaining why you reverted the new AR5 sourced content, your contributions to this article (and others as well), are not helpful. prokaryotes (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) reverted my recent edits, without providing explanation. Notice that the first sentence refers to global warming, and what follows are changes in the climate system. prokaryotes (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I did say actually, it was better as it was. Was there something in that you found hard to understand? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Your NPOV on recent edits is no measure to assess edits. There is currently an ANI discussion involving the recent reverts, William M. Connolley and NewsAndEventsGuy disrupted my edits. prokaryotes (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This is first in my wikipedia career.... about this OH FOR GOD SAKES. There, I said it. How many times must I ask you to describe your desired changes? There is no RS that defines polar amplification as "amplifying changes" of which I am aware, but I'm willing to listen if you've got an RS with chops.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence is pretty clear, Polar amplification can refer to amplifying changes in the climate system at the Earth's poles, in response to global warming. Where do you think the word amplification comes from? And great that you for the first time discuss your revert.prokaryotes (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonresponsive. And it's my 2nd complaint, after you equated the South Pole with continental Antarctica. And my third complaint is not "can refer" but does/means/describes, because we do have RSs that say that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you quote the entire part? Polar amplification can refer to amplifying changes in the climate system at the Earth's poles, in response to global warming. cite and you also should read (linked above) Climate change is amplified in the Arctic region. Arctic amplification has been found in past warm1 and glacial2 periods, as well as in historical observations3, 4 and climate model experiments5, 6. Feedback effects associated with temperature, water vapour and clouds have been suggested to contribute to amplified warming in the Arctic, but the surface albedo feedback—the increase in surface absorption of solar radiation when snow and ice retreat—is often cited as the main contributor http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2071.html If you want to improve my edits you can do this in a constructive way, which means to post HERE before you revert, and you just ignored my edit when i changed south pole to southern hemisphere. prokaryotes (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

(A) "Linked above" is probably true and definitely so ambiguous as to be useless. Is the italicized text from "Arctic amplification dominated by temperature feedbacks in contemporary climate models"? oh. Now I understand you linked it redundantly after the text.

(B) I noted that article is paywalled. Have you read the entire thing? Can you quote text not in the abstract to support your desired change to the first sentence and/or that provides a definition of polar (or arctic) amplification?

(C) I was about to comment that WP:RANDY probably likes to quote abstracts without actually reading the full text, but then realized we just might have a guideline on point. Do you happen to know of any? (And of course, maybe you DO have access to the whole thing)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, the part i quoted from the abstract is referenced four times, and this is considered pretty solid science, since most related studies and AR5 acknowledge this. I think you misunderstood when i wrote amplified changes (which is per definition more commonly used as amplified warming, but both are valid.) You could have just edited the wording there, instead of reverting everything, hence why your edit is disruptive. prokaryotes (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

(A) I'll take that as "No, instead of reading the paper I just read the abstract" unless you correct me.

(B) What does "is referenced four times" mean?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Both points you raised are addressed, i provided RS as you asked. If you do not have any more concerns, you should now revert your edits back to this version. prokaryotes (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy's page edits show that he did not account for the projected long-term Antarctic amplification (besides, this was pointed out above). prokaryotes (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have concerns and I will articulate them when I am able to prioritize them, but right now I can not prioritize them because I have incomplete data and one reason I have incomplete data is that I don't understand a prior comment in this discussion. For expample, for the second time I ask what does "is referenced four times" in your comment of timestamp 21:55 28 April mean? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It means what it says, the part you take issue with, cites four references. And this is in agreement with the latest IPCC report. Do you have anything else to add? prokaryotes (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do. The most important part is a question now pending in another thread, so per WP:MULTI I suggest we continue the discussion there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Real climate source

The cited RS at issue

I tagged this "failed verification" after searching for "sink" and "snow" and finding neither term. However, I later realized it does talk about extra "heat uptake", so I can accept "heat sink" as being in the RS after all. I still can not find anything about seasonal snow in the source.

I also think we should snow down, errr, I mean slow down the unilateral undiscussed overhaul underway by actually talking about the current state of the article and how what is already there could be improved through consensus and collaboration instead of unilateral overhauling.

Request list your desired changes, not including wordsmithing, and try to get consensus on the three you think are most important. That will probably make your editing here efficient, and result in speedy improvements where there is consensus.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is pretty old. It would probably be best to poke around in the AR5 for updates William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

See for instance chapter 10 http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf p 889, in a nutshell the RC conclusion from 2004, that only slight warming occurred is still valid. prokaryotes (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, the reason why you cannot find something related to "snow" or "sink", is because the RC source is about average temperature trend in the last 40 years. The part on snow and sink was cross referenced per, AR5 chapter 11, p 983 and chapter 12, p 1031. prokaryotes (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If so then the sentence as a whole is not entirely supported by correctly formatted RS(s).NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Per the references of AR5 chapter 12, now multiple times posted here, it is. Also notice that you changed a better version with your revert. with exactly this reference. prokaryotes (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Improved article version

An improved article version (April 28, 2104), i ask other experts on the subject to restore my edits and then discuss future edits here. Additions include more article structure, sourcing per AR5, mention of climate sensitivity and mechanisms and some minor cleanup. prokaryotes (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Getting eyes here is great. There is appropriate ways such as WP:RFC, and there are big no-nos such as canvassing. If you set out to get more eyeballs please read both. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

How to treat exploding research area vis a vis the jetstream

If you haven't read "Into the Maelstorm" now linked in the article, then please find a library and read it before making an opinion here. The jetstream research is a hot debate and is not settled science. I am dead opposed to cherry picking this abstract and that abstract to cram refs into articles favoring a POV. On the other hand, I am keenly interested in responsibile NPOV reporting of all sides of genuine scientific debate. Instead of making a POV favoring WP:LINKFARM out of this article, how about actually obtaining copies of the full papers (not just the abstracts) and related news items, and organizing an article about how climate professionals are investigating and debating this question? Not THAT would be notable. POV favoring linkfarming of the latest research.... nadda. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The Into the Maelstrom you linked appears to be an opinion piece? It should be noted that the extreme weather connection is not sufficient yet, because events have been only tied to changes in the last 10-15 years or something. ie. Observations of associated extreme events are not yet long enough observed, thus data remains insufficient. cite journal|title=Atmospheric science: Long-range linkage|url=http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n1/full/nclimate2079.html%7Cdoi=10.1038/nclimate2079%7Cdate=December 8, 2013|author=James E. Overland|journal=Nature climate change|volume=4|pages=11-12 prokaryotes (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't do op eds, so no, it's not an op ed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but what about the other part? I can see no reason to not mention that, it's like 101 of climate science, just pointed out - is noteworthy. prokaryotes (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You'd drive your fellow eds less batty if you use the PREVIEW button and among other things read for unidentified pronouns and the like. What other part? In your comments it is a frequent aggravation that I have no idea which of the many things mentioned are being referred to with "it" "other thing" "linked before". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

1)So the author, is a journalist and its a bad source, because you cant read anything other than some vague suggestions. Hence, why we should replace that part with the notice about insufficient data for long term projections. 2) Your Kinitsch source should be replaced with: Observations of associated extreme events are not yet long enough observed, thus data remains insufficient. cite journal|title=Atmospheric science: Long-range linkage|url=http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n1/full/nclimate2079.html%7Cdoi=10.1038/nclimate2079%7Cdate=December 8, 2013|author=James E. Overland|journal=Nature climate change|volume=4|pages=11-12 prokaryotes (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

My family subscribes. I have the hardcopy open on my desk. Are you sure you want to condemn an RS you haven't read? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I changed it, see the edit summary, a journalist article has less weight than a peer reviewed study. However, i suggest to cite the realted studies Eli mentions, rather than to use that article, but i guess these studies will also point to the limited time span in regards to drawing conclusions. prokaryotes (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:SECONDARY NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you point out what is mentioned in the article, what is not yet addressed? prokaryotes (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to leave the article alone for awhile but plan to come back to this eventually. Gives you plenty of time to read it for yourself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The topic discussion in the media should not guide the article, lets stick to the science papers, feel free to add if you have anything substantial. Here is a recent article on the context, and it appears there is no need to mention the chit chat from parts of the community (unless there are arguments which are noteworthy, and i don't regard the Curry et al 2013 hypothesis on waves as noteworthy). prokaryotes (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Crappy grammar and busted link (see WP:EGG)

However, observations of Arctic amplification and associated extreme events are not yet long enough observed, thus data remains insufficient.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Atmospheric science: Long-range linkage|url=http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n1/full/nclimate2079.html%7Cdoi=10.1038/nclimate2079%7Cdate=December 8, 2013|author=James E. Overland|journal=Nature climate change|volume=4|pages=11-12}}</ref>

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I think i fixed it now, though earlier i was able to access the study paper with ReadCube, which appears to be no longer possible. Initially this cite was for mentioning particular events, but now there might be a better reference to make the point about the climate trend, how to draw reliable conclusion. prokaryotes (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Even that comment - like so many of your comments - has crappy grammar. If you just use PREVIEW and edit your grammar for two minutes before posting, others will understand you better. That should be your priority number 1, since we are here to COLLABORATE instead of waging a war of unilateral action. I have zero idea what you tried to say from the word "initially" to the end of the remark, and its not because I don't know the subject, its because you are in such a rush you post crappy grammar. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You should look at your editing as well, before you judge others. The talk page is one thing and your recent edits on the article have been flawed (broken ref + grammar), i could go on, but why. You are the only person who claims to not understand what i type. Ofc, i welcome constructive hints, but pretending to not understand entire paragraphs, is a over reacting to bad grammar. prokaryotes (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Break

Regarding another revert of mine (last in today's series) guess I better take a break before I boomerang myself. I'll revisit this article later; but weak text is not an excuse for cramming in pet RSs; see [{WP:LINKFARM]. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No, this is no good either

You can't start an article about PA with "On a planet with an atmosphere that can restrict longwave radiation to space (a greenhouse effect), ..." William M. Connolley (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

William, can you make a better suggestion? I did some slight modifications (sorting). Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

This is just getting silly:

Polar amplification refers to the observation that any change in the net radiation balance (for example greenhouse intensification) then tends to produce a larger change in temperature near the poles than the planetary average.[citation needed]

WTF? How are we ending up with an article where people are just making up their own definition of what PA is? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Off topic edit warring about ocean currents

This diff violates WP:BRD. Talk it up here, bro.

I have no problem with the section heading "ocean currents". We do have RSs that say ocean currents can be a driver of greater warming at the poles than the planetary average warming. HOWEVER the text you are edit warring over says zilch about how the changes in the ocean currents are producing greater warming at the poles than the planetary average warming. The text reads

"Decreased oxygen and low-pH during [[ENSO|La Niña]] are processes correlated with decreased primary production and a more pronounced poleward flow of ocean currents. Observed oxygen decrease potentially create [[Hypoxia (environmental)|hypoxia conditions]] of previously not observed magnitudes.<ref>{{cite journal|journal=Geophysical Research Letters|date=November 23, 2011|url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL049549/abstract|authors=Sung Hyun Nam, Hey-Jin Kim and Uwe Send|title=Amplification of hypoxic and acidic events by La Niña conditions on the continental shelf off California|volume=83|doi=10.1029/2011GL049549}}</ref>"

That's interesting, and its about ocean currents, but it ain't about how ocean currents are a driver of greater warming at the poles than the planetary average warming.

Please self revert your edit warring and then try to convince me it is an on point article improvement here in talk. Remember that WP:DS applies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It is new to me that a single revert on new page addition, is now considered edit warring. I have extended the section on ocean circulation. Please stay substantive. prokaryotes (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Re-reverting without any discussion is edit warring. 3RR is just an objective way to show, without any further evidence, that the threshold was crossed. But the crux is when you re-revert with no discussion. LOTS of people have been sanctioned for doing that even though 3RR hasn't been reached. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Polar amplification. 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://archive.is/20130917214919/http://m.rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294.full to http://m.rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294.full

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) 01:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Jet stream issues are still being debated

Just half a year ago, Dr Francis herself acknowledged that the hypothesized connection to the jet stream is not yet settled. "Despite intense efforts to understand Arctic–mid-latitude linkages, the controversy surrounding its significance and even its existence rages on. " https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0006.1 Yet in several places we present this concept in WP:WIKIVOICE instead of a neutral report of the hypothesis and current/future research efforts NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

February 2021 North American Winter Storm

Despite the temptation to attribute this very recent cold extreme to climate change and Arctic amplification through the "weakened jetstream" hypothesis, there is no evidence yet to support this kind of attribution, and the source provided by the editor in support of this claim in fact does not discuss the causes of the February 2021 North American winter storm. Rather, it only discusses the rarity of the event in a historical context, finding that cold snaps like this have occurred in Texas before. Therefore, I am correcting the Recent Arctic Amplification section to reflect this. I have already edited this section once to keep the language more accurate/neutral regarding connections between Arctic Amplification and the February 2021 North American winter storm, and so I thought it would be worthwhile to add a talk section to allow for further discussion and reduce chances for any edit warring...

Sjsmith757 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Antarctic amplification

Why was a reliably sourced statement suddenly removed as "off-topic" after four years? To spell it out, this was removed:

Antarctic amplification

Long-term climate simulations, based on CMIP5 climate modeling projects reduced sea ice cover. However, melting of Antarctic ice sheets could change vertical ocean temperature stratification and encourage sea ice growth. 

with a ref to "IPCC AR5 - Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability (Chapter 11 / page 996)" (PDF). 2013. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) I'll quote the source, bolding those parts cited in the portion @NewsAndEventsGuy: removed:

In early 21st century simulations, Antarctic sea ice cover is projected to decrease in the CMIP5 models, though CMIP3 and CMIP5 models simulate recent decreases in Antarctic sea ice extent compared to slight increases in the observations (Section 12.4.6.1). However, there is the possibility that melting of the Antarctic ice sheet could be changing the vertical ocean temperature stratification around Antarctica and encourage sea ice growth (Bintanja et al., 2013). This and other evidence discussed in Section 12.4.6.1 leads to the assessment that there is low confidence in Antarctic sea ice model projections that show near-term decreases of sea ice cover because of the wide range of model responses and the inability of almost all of the models to reproduce the mean seasonal cycle, interannual variability and overall increase of the Antarctic sea ice areal coverage observed during the satellite era (see Section 9.4.3).

YoPienso (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Simple. That RS and the sea ice projections around Antarctica (with better text) would be great (and may already be part of) articles such as sea ice, Antarctic sea ice, Global warming in Antarctica, effects of global warming et cetera..... BUT....... this article is about polar amplification, i.e., surface warming at a faster rate at the poles than elsewhere. The subsection is specifically about faster rates of surface warming in antarctica than elsewhere. Projections of near and long term sea ice extent are not about faster rates of warming in this area. So it's off topic. There is a tangential connection, as open sea water may play a role in the mechanism that drives faster warming, but this text isn't talking about such interactions and feedbacks. So it's still off topic, here. It would be great to a cover this subject (well) in a related article where its relevant. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The title of the article is "Polar amplification," not "Arctic amplication" or "Polar amplification in the Arctic" or "North polar amplification". Shouldn't the article treat of both poles? YoPienso (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure it should but a naked statement about sea ice projections in the Antarctic doesn't do that. If someone googles and google-scholars "antarctic amplification" to survey RSs, and reads enough of them to present the basic picture, perhaps the relevance of sea ice and the relevance of sea ice projections will become manifest and need to be included for feature article level quality. Just a random factoid about sea ice without context looks offtopic or EGGish to me. Here's one possible source for anyone interested in taking a whack at this NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You didn't explain why the subsection has been allowed to stand for over 4 years. That doesn't make sense; the article's been edited hundreds of times since then. YoPienso (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Sort of irrelevant, and if you're implying a lack of good faith please post to my user talk and we can discuss it there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It has it's merit since at least in the Arctic sea ice has been identified as the main driver of AA. Ofc, the situation is entirely different there, but I think too that this part should remain, offers some context. prokaryotes (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes In your first sentence at 00:22, 2 August you formulated a reason based on WP:Original research. 01:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, in my mind the amount of sea ice is so basic to amplification I saw it as the same thing. I get your point now. I was thinking of something like "Previous studies have attributed an overall weaker (or slower) polar amplification in Antarctica compared to the Arctic to a weaker Antarctic surface albedo feedback and also to more efficient ocean heat uptake in the Southern Ocean in combination with Antarctic ozone depletion" from "The polar amplification asymmetry: role of Antarctic surface height."

Another option would be to redirect to "Arctic amplification," a term also used in the literature. My personal preference would be to explain under the present article title that the phenomenon is far stronger in the Arctic than the Antarctic, and why. A short summary of the abstract from the linked source would do the trick. YoPienso (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Arctic Amplification is one of the most pronounced effects of cc, hence imho it should be a dedicated article. prokaryotes (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You can propose a split using the formal templates and a dedicated talk page thread. I'll oppose splitting until there is a length problem but I'm just one ed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Y that we should compare the two in this article based on what the RSs say, and to extent there are RSs that focus on measuring, explaining, exploring, modeling, projecting, etc etc what is happening in Antarctic in terms of amplification, then we should add appropriate text to this article also. There is no reason to split the page until we run into length or other tangible reasons. Readers will understand the Arctic dimension best if, in addition to covering the nuances directly, they are also exposed to text doing a compare-contrast to Antarctica in the same article. This yields both ease of reading and likelihood they would notice the comparison text at all (as opposed to being in a separate article). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. You've admirably put my thoughts into words. Or more accurately, we seem to be thinking alike on this. 17:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)