Talk:Arctic ice pack

2008 Sea Ice Minimum
what are the temperatures in the summer and winter at the polar ice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.21.36 (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The predictions in this article for the 2008 sea ice minimum did not hold up. I am going to remove them from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.108.210.46 (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Satellite images
Do any satellite images of the Northern Polar ice packs exist? I cannot find a single image on the web, but then perhaps I'm not looking hard enough;, all I can find are drawings, diagrams, cartoons and computer generated images of the ice pack. I feel it would be useful to have such an image included in the article, if anyone stumbling accross this comment has access to one. Elsenrail 02:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you mean on visible wavelengths? I doubt that there's usually enough cloud cover to mess up such a photo. Additionally there cannot be a satellite orbit which would allow taking an detailed image on a single shot, so scientist rely on composite images taken during 1 to 3 days or something like that. Satellites used can be f.e. in Molniya orbit or polar orbit. Data on the ice comes from other waveleghts (and the scattering of other waveleghts, (microwaves at least I guess). I think the closest what you mean would be something like http://www.seaice.dk/iwicos/latest/ which is again a computer generated composite, but from actual data (there's no recent data from the black areas). Note also the instrument used doesn't work if the angle in respect to the earth is too low (edges of the parts of the composite.).
 * In addition to above rant, the polar ice packs are of different sizes during winter and summer so a single photo would not be so useful, or that is what I feel. 91.153.52.119 06:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Decline of Arctic Sea Ice
A separate article on the Decline of Arctic Sea Ice is justified. It could be referenced both from this page and from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Retreat_of_sea_ice The huge melting this year will create a lot of interest - Another problem about photos (visible light) is that in the winter, snow on top of sea ice looks the same as snow on the land. Dansample 23:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess the article should have to be named something like: "Observed loss of sea ice after 1979 in the northern hemisphere" to survive over 30 sec's. 91.153.52.32 06:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Frustration with non-scientific belief systems
The Arctic Sea has not been ice free for a period of at least one million years, and probably much longer.

I put this in boldface because I live in a country where 45% of the population, 135 million people, believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. One can only wonder if they know that the Arctic Sea likely hasn't been ice free since the formation of the Isthmus of Panama, when the Earth's climactic system was changed to its present configuration. They need to understand that the very warm Earths of the distant past were very different systems that have limited relevance to how our climate works today. 71.36.196.36 21:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

References needed in Summer Melt section
Well written section, but needs references. Somebody may consider adding a section regarding the Antarctic Sea Ice (and the fact that it is at a maximum level since satellite imaging began in 1979), since there is a section on the Arctic Sea Ice. Cheers! --SimpleParadox 21:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you actually disputing something? If you read the talk section above, you can infer that the anonymous user

91.153.52.32 seems to know an awful lot about satellite orbits, and light and radar wavelengths. He's undoubtedly a scientist working on the subject. Capable of writing the article without looking things up. You're always welcome to do the googling for the references and put them in. Or just leave them on the talk pages and it's a lot easier for someone to put in. Cryosphere Today announced an SH record about 2 weeks ago. It was put in. Then after Cryosphere checked their data, they decided it was a new miss. so the page had to be changed to sometthing akin to saying that the SH was normal. Today Cryosphere listed a new SH record, but it's only about 1% over the old record. Not really a significant increase. Again, you're welcome to make the change. Sagredo 07:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not I can infer that anonymous user 91.153.52.32 "seems to know an awful lot about satellite orbits, and light and radar wavelengths" is immaterial to the WP:RS which strongly encourages editors to cite their sources even if they believe that they are WP:CK. I am by no means questioning anything that is contained in the section, but it does need references no matter how knowledgeable the editor may be on the subject.  While, I don't have the time necessary to look up the sources that particular editor used to write up that section of the article, I did find it necessary to tag it.  --SimpleParadox 16:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for agreeing that there's nothing to be challenged or improved! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagredo (talk • contribs) 05:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Undid edit by Sagredo. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."  As per WP:V.  Please do not remove the tag until sources for the information contained in that section are cited.  Thank you.  --SimpleParadox 16:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The topic of "See also's"
There are too many wiki pages on this subject, for example "Polar Ice cap", "arctic shrinkage", even "Sea Ice" and "Arctic Ocean" as I have no knowleage on this issue, I strongly encourage someone who has to merge those pages, or at least give reference to one another  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.87.111 (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, merely compiling them all and putting them on each page would be somewhat cluttering. I've complied these for anyone interested in determining the most important ones to include. Alphabetized:


 * Arctic Ocean
 * Arctic shrinkage
 * Antarctica
 * Antarctic ice sheet
 * Global warming
 * Greenland (Geography of)
 * Greenland ice sheet
 * Ice sheet
 * Polar ice packs
 * Sea level rise
 * Sea ice
 * - Steve3849 talk 20:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ice-free Arctic
Regarding my change of "The Arctic Sea has not been ice free for a period of at least one million years, and probably much longer." to "The Arctic Sea has not been ice free for a period of at least one million years.", I have two problems with the revert. First, the italics are not present in the original reference and their addition in this article is clearly POV emphasis; they should certainly be removed. Second, the phrase in Overpeck, et al. is "At the present rate, a summer ice-free Arctic Ocean within a century is a real possibility, a state not witnessed for at least a million years, perhaps much longer." (p2 under Arresting Future Surprises). The word "perhaps" implies speculation by the author not supported by the content of the paper whereas "probably" implies likelihood. Using the word "probably" in this article is inappropriate. Finally, the two sources listed are redundant. The basis for the claim in the first source is just a reference to the second source. It is inappropriate to include both a source and sources that just reference that source. I have thus changed the edit back to remove the italics, replace "probably" with "perhaps", and remove the redundant, non-primary source. Bjp716 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

W.W. Kellogg
"In 1979 the climatologist W. W. Kellogg wrote in an article (Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences Vol. 7 pp.63-92) that "There are good reasons to believe that the Arctic Ocean may have just two stable states, a largely frozen-over one (as at present) and an ice free one." He did not address the rate of change from one state to another but the existence of only two stable states could be taken to imply it would happen quickly."

Isn't this terribly dated? (1979) and don't the various studies that the Arctic hasn't been ice free for 700,000 years (at least) contradict it? It's also very weaselly and I think it should be removed.  Sagredo &#8857;&#9791;&#9792;&#9793;&#9794;&#9795;&#9796; 19:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Climatic Importance
Where are the citations or references for this section? This appears to be derived from some controversial research, which should at least be referenced. The stuff about the clathrate gun hypothesis is particularly conjectural and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basilcasey (talk • contribs) 12:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Summer 2008 Melting
Does this article need to be updated for this year (2008)? It looks like the hypothesis that the 2007 freeze was thin and susceptible to easy remelting was correct. e.g.: http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=fabled-northwest-passage-open-for-b-2008-08-27&sc=rss http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html (updated constantly - I am referencing the August 26 2008 entry) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/10/climatechange.arctic Thanks! 128.138.224.183 (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Polarstern is an incebreaker (as the article says) so is dubious on its own; is there evidence that a non-icebreaker could have made it, or that the PS didn't pass through any ice pack along the way? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the evidence appears to be that it did indeed pass through a fair amount of ice William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki write: "The 2008 minimum was slightly larger than 2007." Slighly larger? 600.000km2 are as large as two times germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.161.63.166 (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a pathetic politicised article
All I wanted to know is roughly how far south the sea ice extended. Instead I get to read a total load of codswallip about the world warming up when I know for a fact it is currently cooling and that total sea ice globally hasn't changed much (the antartic offsets the artic).

I just want to know roughly where the sea ice extends - this article has totally failed to tell me about sea ice because it is pretending to be a greenpeace advert. 79.79.255.151 (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally found it! (Not in this pathetic article) - historically winter sea ice extends right down to Norway and goes all the way to Greenland. Can I please put in a bid to stop this article being another in teh greenpeace global snoring series and return it to what it says on the TIN "Polar ice packs" - you wouldn't afterall expect a article on the Sahara to go on and on and on and on and on about the danger of droughts and how ... no ... no ... I'm not going to look. I can imagine it now, a bunch of scientists stuck in the artic winter, fed up with each other's company (and some more than others - with nothing to do except surf the internet!) 79.79.255.151 (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want anyone to pay attention, I suggesst you refactor all that to remove the ranting William M. Connolley (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the original poster. I arrived at this article just looking for a general idea of how the sea ice advances and retreats each year and its general location and extents; instead the article is polluted with a pile of global warming hysterics that would do better in their own article - balanced by critical opinions from the other side, naturally. Sarchives (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

New to this article
Since I'm new here, I just want to bring up the fact arctic sea ice has come roaring back since the minimum level set in summer of 2007. The article does not really discuss how the decades-long trend of decreasing ice has been completely reversed over the last 2 to 2.5 years. Surely the article has to come to terms with the facts, correct? The NSIDC has a nice graphic I think we can use. I'm wondering if the article does not deserve a rewrite. What do you think? RonCram (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You have been mislead by obfuscators who only talk of surface area and not of volume. 207.189.230.42 (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Despite the fact that the extent did not reach a new minimun in 2009 due to unfavorable wind conditions in August, it did set a new record for minimun ice volume." The wording of this section shows the very clear bias in the article. I have to shake my head at conditions being described as unfavourable conditions when they don't lead to ice loss. Damn if conditions had been better we could have beaten 2007. Sorry but this really comes across badly!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.56.61.2 (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hello, I have chosen your article for the ANTH 2501 peer review. While reading your article, the sections added and edited are readable and relate to the topic. The citations are properly references and they have more then 5 references. The contributions that have been added to the article help improve it a lot, where edits such as addition of new sections containing much information which helps improve the polar ice packs article. AJSingh31 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo, I found another good website if you feel like updating some statistics. Seems like a reliable source. BennyD519 (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC) http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Misleading title
It is stated in the introduction that there are two polar ice packs: an Arctic and an Antarctic. Apart from the introduction there is little or no mentioning of the Antarctic ice pack in the article. Heaps of data and charts on the Arctic pack and none on the Antarctic. So why no change the title? – – — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.93.187.137 (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * wouldnt it be better to get some data from the antartic into the article instead? Jack Bornholm (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Antarctic Ice Extent
Currently the article states: "While the Northern Hemisphere sea ice reached new record lows, on September 12, 2007 the Southern Hemisphere sea ice area reached 15,910,000 km2 (6,143,000 sq mi), close to the maximum recorded of 16,020,000 km2 (6,185,000 sq mi)." Following this is a reference but the reference does not support the statement.

Furthermore from here we see: "On Saturday, the ice extent reached 19.51 million square kilometers, according to data posted on the National Snow and Ice Data Center Web site. That number bested record high levels set earlier this month and in 2012 (of 19.48 million square kilometers). Records date back to October 1978."

So existing article asserts maximum record Antarctic ice extent of 16M square kilometers, but the article referenced by the link I posted here shows an extent of 19.51M square kilometers. Ergo the maximum listed extent in the article as it currently exists appears to be false. Comments? SunSw0rd (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Year by year is bad
this article seems to be degenerating into a year-by-year description of sea ice changes, which is stupid William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This article seems to be redundant with the much better-written article on sea ice. If no one objects, I'm going to merge this at some point in the near-future when I get the chance, since there's nothing worth saving in this article except maybe some of the rich media.  Sailsbystars (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Sea ice may be a better written article and should certainly include a description of the polar ice packs, but Polar ice packs dererves an article of its own. What's stupid about a year by year description of its extent? No doubt editors will eventually appear to improve the quality of the article. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Polar ice packs → Arctic ice pack – per the actual scope of the current article. This article has existed for seven years and yet all of the images and all but two or three sentences of the article are about the Arctic ice pack. The brief mentions of the Antarctic ice pack are used only as comparisons to the Arctic. This issue was noted before above. —  AjaxSmack  16:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. "Polar ice packs" should become a stub with a summary of the Arctic article as one section, and a stubby Antarctic section from the mention in this article. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Global Warming
This article mentions how the ice packs have been at record lows over the past years, but makes no mention about global warming -- not even a sentence. I'm aware that this is not officially an accepted cause of this result, but I think we could say in the lede that the loss of the Arctic Ice Packs is accredited to global warming by some scientists. Although it is a highly controversial topic, I don't think it is outrageous to want to include even a small amount of information regarding the theories. Let me know what you think. GoGatorMeds (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Climate diagram
What is the location of the climate diagram? The North Pole? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.219.87.113 (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Data
User:William M. Connolley How are you defining boring in making this edit?CFredkin (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the page is about ice pack i see no reason to include years at all, except for mentioning extreme states. But i think there should be a page dedicated to each single year, which includes temps, ice extent at the poles, maybe even extreme weather events, etc. Related discussion. prokaryotes (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. I just don't think we should cherry-pick the data to support a view.CFredkin (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to discuss individual years as such. Noteworthy occurrences (e.g., the 2007 decline) should be woven into the text. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Visuals
Some graphics in this article are out of date, and some of them only show half of the seasonal cycle (there are two animations, one showing growth and one showing shrinkage!). There are a bunch of good public-domain (US gov-made) graphics at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/. Some of them are updated live. There is also raw data that could be made into excellent graphs. Please | upload some to improve the article.

I've added a link to the Antarctic sea ice article as suggested by comments above.HLHJ (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arctic ice pack. 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/20100821203547/http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php to http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

merge discussion
FYI editors here may be interested in this merge proposal NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Provide a complete history of data
Showing on the data since 1979 hides the decadal cycles (1979 was the peak of the previous cycle and we are now nearing the nadir of the current cycle) and makes it appear as if the sea ice is disappearing. It isn't, and this kind of skewed data presentation obscures that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:206:8002:40b4:2dc7:b60c:85b8:d215 (talk • contribs)
 * Watts' website does spout this talking point but here you'll need at least one decent citation to what wikipedia defines as reliable sources to be taken seriously. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Move to Arctic Sea Ice
Pack ice has a specific meaning: "any area of sea ice (ice formed by freezing of seawater) that is not landfast; it is mobile by virtue of not being attached to the shoreline or something else." I think this article includes landfast sea ice. So I believe it is more appropriate to name this article as Arctic sea ice. There is currently a redirect in effect. crandles (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Mount Allison University supported by Canada Education Program and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)