Talk:Climate change in the Arctic

Merge
I think this article should be merged with the 'Polar ice packs' article. the latter has more information on Arctic shrinkage then this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.87.111 (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The relevant section also predates this article by a few years. Afasmit (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree. A lot has been added to this article since November 2007.  See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Update to arctic ice age
According to this link, north pole has been free from ice during Eemian interglacial, 120000 years ago (page says at least 700000). Maybe this should be updated to the site?

http://www.geus.dk/publications/bull/nr10/nr10_p61-64.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.226.51 (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If there will be no arguments against adding this information to the site, I'll do it some day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.226.51 (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not opposed to mentioning it, but I would do so lightly. The article is about reduced ice cover at that time, not an ice-free ocean.  They even say their findings could be due to a polynya or ice margin change, rather than a general reduction in ice cover. StephenHudson (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's an inconvenient truth
"Recent cold snap helping Arctic sea ice, scientists find"

Anyone want to dare add that to the article and get shot down for it? 67.135.49.254 (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I dared. Thanks for the info.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing it. Did someone remove it?Mzmadmike (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It did a short jump of about 8% in the 2008 season but quickly reverted back to the usual downward trend. As described by the NSIDC: http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.211.86 (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I dare to point out that weather isn't climate. A "snap" is necessarily going to have only a temporary effect. -- 98.108.202.17 (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

So is anyone going to mention the record amounts of Arctic ice recorded in 2013. Up 60% from 2012. No one thinks this should now be included in the article? Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.145.98 (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably not in that form. This year wasn't "record-breaking" at all, as the ice area is still well below the average.  Sea Ice area/extent is fairly volatile and sensitive to weather.  So yes, we didn't have a crazy low ice count like last year, but sea ice volume is basically unchanged from last year's record low....  Sailsbystars (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Movie
Could we lose the movie? It screws up my computer :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine with me.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest this NASA image as a replacement. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Title?
The title is a bit odd. The Arctic isn't shrinking (I don't think it can, its geographically defined). Arctic ice cover is shrinking William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We're talking about shrinkage in the Arctic, not shrinkage of the Arctic. I think the title is okay.  Just like Moon landing refers to landing on the Moon, not landing of the Moon.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeees, but the connection to sea ice is missing. Arctic permafrost is shrinking, as is the snow cover. The article should have "sea ice" somewhere in the title. You can't use it for a link otherwise William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about this. However, if you change the title of this article, I think you ought to change the title of Moon landing to something like Landing of people on the Moon.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're being silly. In the case of moon landing, there is no doubt about what was landing. For example, "19xx saw the first moon landing" works. "In 2007, there was a lot of arctic shrinkage" doesn't. "In 2007, there was a lot of arctic sea ice shrinkage" does William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to go to the trouble of changing the title here, and changing all the links to it from other articles, then I won't have any huge objection. However, the current title is conveniently short, and already works in sentences of other Wikipedia articles (e.g. "scientists have predicted that the North Pole may become seasonally ice-free, perhaps as early as summer 2008, due to Arctic shrinkage" and "the pack ice is being reduced and this Arctic shrinkage may eventually make the waterways more navigable"). I didn't name this article, but it seems like a concise and catchy title.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You won't have to change all the links to here, there are bots that do that. I support the name change to Arctic sea ice shrinkage or similar. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Greenland Ice sheet (in the lead paragraph) is not sea ice. Do we want to change the scope of the article, or merely make the title more descriptive?  If the latter then, "Arctic ice shrinkage" might be the way to go.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

When I started the article, I chose the name believing it to be concise, accurate, citable (thousands of ghits), neutral, and within WP:NAME convention for a physical geography article with the intended scope of: measureable physical geographic changes to the Arctic; the scientific research (cause[s], modelling, etc.); the effects (on fauna, flora, man, society, etc). But if the article name doesn't comply with WP:NAME, or if there's consensus amongst the article's main editors (or the appropriate Wikiprojects) to a name change proposal, then it should be changed. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that you mention it, if using the definition of Arctic that refers to climatic and environmental conditions, then the Arctic could be said to be shrinking - in which case a wider scope for the article than merely ice might be in order. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What would happen if the Arctic completely melted?
Worldwide sea level would rise if Greenland were to melt. However, this factoid was recently removed. Here's what our Wikipedia article said:

If the ice on Greenland were to completely melt during some future century, then worldwide sea levels would rise an estimated 7 m.[1][2]

[1]

[2]

The first of these two references says: "A complete melt of the ice sheet would cause a global sea level rise of about 7m; but the current picture indicates that while some regions are thinning, others are apparently getting thicker." The second reference provides the "sea-level rise equivalent" of ice in Greenland, the Antarctic, et cetera. I think this particular factoid that was deleted is useful. It doesn't allege that Greenland will melt, but rather explains the importance of ice for suppressing sea level. And that is a very important function of Arctic ice.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The way its placed makes it appear to seem relevant. Indeed, if it isn't relevant its hard to see why its there. A better formulation is something like "the gr ice sheet contains enough fresh water as ice to raise sea level by 7 m" and maybe continue with something like "under gw it is expected to melt eventually, in a timescale that is unclear, but of the order of thousands of years" William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Referencing NOT, the example, "The gr ice sheet contains enough fresh water as ice to raise sea level by 7 m", is a measurement statement, and, if the accuracy is supported by citation, appropriate in this article. I think the other example, "If the ice on Greenland were to completely melt during some future century, then worldwide sea levels would rise an estimated 7 m", has speculative elements ("If", and "some future century"), so it needs a copyedit. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I added William's sentence "the gr ice sheet contains enough fresh water as ice to raise sea level by 7 m". As to whether we should add a further sentence about the unlikelihood about any complete melting of Greenlabnd in the near future, I'd support that if it's phrased well and reliably sourced.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeeeessss... but what is this doing under "recent statements"? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved it out of the "recent statements" section, although the cited news article seemed fairly recent (2007). Anyway, I hope this is better now.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)This edit by William removed a link to what I thought was a very interesting article in the journal Nature that I had inserted here. William's edit also reverted a previous edit that I made here, without explanation. Was the latter revert intentional? If so, why would we prefer a gramatically incorrect sentence like this: "However the amount of perennial ice, were below levels measured in the previous winter"? Why can't we say: "However the amount of thick perennial ice was below levels measured in the previous winter"? The word "thick" is also important here, because that was emphasized by the cited article (e.g. it was in the title of the cited article).


 * Sometimes people make small grammar mistakes in editing. Sometime people even spell "grammatically" wrongly. But spelling and grammar flames are lame - just correct the grammar William M. Connolley (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You reverted this edit. May I restore it?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of the material based on the Nature article, do others agree with William that the Nature article is not notable? Here's the material that William deleted:


 * Models predict that Greenland will become warm enough by 2100 to begin an almost complete meltdown over the course of the following several centuries.[1]


 * [1] Gregory, Jonathan; Huybrechts, Philippe; Raper, Sarah. “Threatened loss of the Greenland ice sheet” Nature, 428, 616 (2004): “The Greenland ice-sheet would melt faster in a warmer climate and is likely to be eliminated — except for residual glaciers in the mountains — if the annual average temperature in Greenland increases by more than about 3 degrees centigrade. This would raise the global average sea-level by 7 metres over a period of 1000 years or more.  We show here that concentrations of greenhouse gasses will probably have reached levels before the year 2100 that are sufficient to raise the temperature past this warming threshold.”

This seems like interesting material to me. William's edit summary says: "the actual value for 2100 seems rather more useful than some dim-and-distant possibility." But I don't agree that the deleted material is about a dim and distant possibility. It's saying that by 2100 Greenland will have reached a sufficiently high temperature to eventually completely melt. Might I suggest that we can include both the projected (very tiny) sea level increase by 2100 and the info that William deleted?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Whats your explanation for deleting the small loss up to 2100, then? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't see where in the cited source you got "10 cm" from. I still don't.  From Figure 11.16, it looks to be less than 25 cm, but I don't see "10 cm" mentioned.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I found a source for the estimated Greenland contribution to sea-level change by 2100. See Huybrechts, Philippe; de Wolde, Jan.  "The dynamic response of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to multiple-century climatic warming”, Journal of Climate, 12(8), 2169-2188, 2174 (1999).  They estimate abiut 10 cm for a medium forecast, and 21 cm on the high side.  So, I'll rephrase the article accordingly, and see what happens.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I read it off the figure you were using because I was feeling lazy. 1999 is too old. IPCC AR4 is the obvious source and table 10.7 looks to be what we want. "10 to 20 centimetres" is not correct, you are erring on the high side ( assuming you're using table 2, you've picked the mid and high but omitted the low; and you've used numbers up to 2130 which is not what people usually mean by 2100. If insead you use fig 5, then low is 3.5 cm and high is 20.8. Are you being careless or is it something worse? But anyway, that paper is too old ). AR4 gives us: [0.01-0.05] [0.01-0.06] [0.01-0.08] [0.01-0.07] [0.01-0.08] [0.02-0.12] as the 95% ranges (in m) for various scenarios over the 21st century. Picking the mid-range of these I think that 0.03-0.07 m = 3-7 cm is a fair estimate up to 2100.


 * I don't think I've been careless, or "something worse." I specifically said that I was looking at Huybrechts, Philippe; de Wolde, Jan.  "The dynamic response of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to multiple-century climatic warming”, Journal of Climate, 12(8), 2169-2188, 2174 (1999).  At page 2174, there's this: "For instance, by the year 2100 in the middle scenario...the Greenland ice sheet would contribute +10.6 cm...but in the high scenario...+21.2...."  Did I misinterpret those numbers?  I don't think so, but if I did it certainly was not intentional.  You say that I have "used numbers up to 2130 which is not what people usually mean by 2100."  Where do you get the idea that I was using numbers up to 2130?  I'm trying to be a neutral editor here, whether you think so or not.


 * My apologies: I've struck that out. I misread what was going on. You can get low, mid and high from the table; the paper itself is being somewhat misleading by not including "low" in the text to balance "high" William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You say that "Models predict a sea-level contribution of 3 to 7 centimetres from changes to the mass balance of Greenland during the 21st century." I am looking at the cited Table 10.7, and I do not understand where you get those numbers from.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The ranges I gave above in brackets are from that table. Lowest is [0.01-0.05]; highest is [0.02-0.12]. Those are 95% conf levels, so I don't think we want to use 0.01-0.12 as the likely range. Averaging the low range gives a midpoint of 0.03; the high, 0.07 m William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Re mass balance vs melting: be aware that ppn goes up, so a MB contribution of 5 cm corresponds to melting of more than 5 cm's worth William M. Connolley (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How much more? I think it would be helpful if we could give numbers for sea level rise rather than for mass balance, because the latter concept will not be well understood by lay readers.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The mass balance *are* the numbers that correspond to sea level rise. The ones for melting don't, because there can be compensating changes in precipitation. SLR ~ MB ~ PPN-Melt William M. Connolley (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

TOC
The Table of Contents seems awfully far from the top of the article. Any way to move it up a bit?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right; I just moved it. StephenHudson (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

1000 degrees?
The quote: "The reduction in the intensity of cold (temperatures) during winter over these last 20 years corresponds to an accumulation (rise) of 1,000 degrees Celsius." [22] doesn't make sense to a layperson such as myself - what does the 1,000 degrees represent? Surely the Arctic isn't the hottest place on Earth? ;) Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this quote will make no sense to lay readers unless it is properly explained.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the quote, which definitely seemed unclear. I assume it was referring to a degree days concept, where one adds up the difference between the average temperature of each day and some baseline temperature over a certain period.  Since the original source does not seem to offer any more information to clear up the quote, it seems best to remove it.  If someone can better explain it, without original research, then they should feel free to replace it.  StephenHudson (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image
The use of the image Image:Arctic_Sea_Ice_area_thickness_and_volume_trends.png here is deceptive. It suggests that we are currently experiencing a downward trend in Arctic Sea Ice. In reality this image was created in 2006 and the downward trend after 2006 is only a conjecture. The hypothetical nature of the trend depicted needs to be acknowledged in the caption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like that image may be deleted soon anyway.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Computer models predict that the sea ice area will continue to shrink in the future
Is that true? As I understnad it, 2007 was unpredicted by the models. Indeed, if we were on the model track the ice extent would be considerably higher William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I modified the punctuation a little bit, so there is now a cite at the end of that sentence. It seems the cite supports the sentence.  What do you think?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps change to - "Arctic Sea ice is melting faster than global climate models predict; in fact, the record low ice extents in 2005 and 2007 are below the predictions of a regional climate model which indicates the Arctic Sea will be ice free in 2013."    Sagredo &#8857;&#9791;&#9792;&#9793;&#9794;&#9795;&#9796; 00:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All that article says is that 2005, 7 weren't incorporated into the model. It doesn't say the model predicts lower ice in 5, 7. Ice free in 2013 is implausible, BTW, but unfortunately there is no doubt he actually said it in a RS :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Here's what our Wikipedia article says:

"Computer models predict that the sea ice area will continue to shrink in the future, though there is no consensus on when the Arctic Ocean might become ice-free in summer; one study states this might happen before 2015, while a more common theory estimates between 2040 and 2100.[1]"

[1]Amos, Jonathan. "Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'", BBC News, 2007-12-12. Retrieved on 2007-12-16.

The question is whether the cited article (by Amos) supports the blockquoted sentence. I beleieve it clearly does. The Amos article says: "Scientists in the US have presented....modelling studies indicat[ing] northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years…[O]ther teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100."

I don't see why this quoted material from the cited reference does not support the blockquoted material in this Wikipedia article. There's no reason to keep the "citation needed" tag, is there?

In fact, you can ignore the bold italicized language that I just quoted from the cited reference. Why doesn't the first part of our Wikipedia sentence ("Computer models predict that the sea ice area will continue to shrink in the future") follow logically from the last part of our Wikipedia sentence ("there is no consensus on when the Arctic Ocean might become ice-free in summer; one study states this might happen before 2015, while a more common theory estimates between 2040 and 2100")? Ferrylodge (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Because, taking this at a rather primitive level, computer models didn't predict the low ice levels of 2007. So they aren't predicting lower ice for 2008 or 9. Models predict a general long term ice decline. Also, we shouldn't be giving the 2013 story such prominence, since its an extreme minority view William M. Connolley (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Models have been tweaked by inputting revised data for 2007, so the predictions have changed accordingly. As you know, that's how computer models work; when new data is collected, the new data is inputted into supercomputers, and predictions are thus revised. How about if we modify what this Wikipedia article says, to reflect your concerns:

"Computer models predict that the sea ice area will continue to shrink in the future, though there is no consensus on when the Arctic Ocean might become ice-free in summer.[1] Computer models have been criticized in the past for underestimating key melting processes.[1] One study now states that an ice-free Arctic Ocean might occur before 2015, while a much more common theory estimates between 2040 and 2100.[1]"

[1]Amos, Jonathan. "Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'", BBC News, 2007-12-12. Retrieved on 2007-12-16.

If you disagree with this, please be specific about which part you think needs improvement. It all seems to be supported by the cited source. This revised version would include the fact that computer models have been criticized, and would also say that the 2040-2100 estimate is much more common.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't address we shouldn't be giving the 2013 story such prominence, since its an extreme minority view. And where does Models have been tweaked by inputting revised data for 2007, so the predictions have changed accordingly come from? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not suggesting to put the words Models have been tweaked by inputting revised data for 2007, so the predictions have changed accordingly into the article. You're aware of that right?  Where that comment of mine came from is explained in my immediately following comment: "As you know, that's how computer models work; when new data is collected, the new data is inputted into supercomputers, and predictions are thus revised."  You acknowledge (don't you?) that newly acquired data is fed into computers to revise a model's predictions, right?


 * As far as 2013 being an extreme minority view, the cited source doesn't say that it's an extreme minority view. And the immediately following sentence in the article indicates that there are even more "extreme" views: "According to a senior advisor to the Norwegian Ministry of the Environment, the Arctic polar ice cap could be completely gone during the summer of 2008."  Do you have a reliable source that says 2013 is an extreme minority view?  I'm proposing to say that the "much" more common view is 2040-2100.  Why is that not adequate?


 * You've criticized computer models for not predicting the large extent of 2007 melting, and yet you seem to also be criticizing those scientists who have decided to take the 2007 melting into account so as to revise their predictions.


 * Maybe it would help if we stick to the issue at hand: removal of the cn tag on the statement that, "models predict that the sea ice area will continue to shrink in the future." Isn't that precisely what the footnoted 2040-2100 prediction says?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there any objection if I remove the cn tag? The footnoted 2040-2100 prediction supports the statement that "models predict that the sea ice area will continue to shrink in the future."Ferrylodge (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's another source that states computer models predict melting. "Arctic sea ice is melting at a significantly faster rate than projected by even the most advanced computer models"  So I think the cn tag should be removed.   It's also interesting to note that this was before the minimum of September 2007.  While 2013 may be an minority view, there does seem to be a significant school of thought that the observed melting is well ahead of the GCM's.    Nor does it seem that 2007 was a fluke, predictions for September 2008 look grim.    Sagredo &#8857;&#9791;&#9792;&#9793;&#9794;&#9795;&#9796; 05:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I see this all going nowhere. But to try... According to a senior advisor to the Norwegian Ministry of the Environment, the Arctic polar ice cap could be completely gone during the summer of 2008 is utter twaddle; no-one believes it.
 * Arctic sea ice is melting at a significantly faster rate than projected by even the most advanced computer models - yes; thats exactly what I am saying. Therefore, models are not currently predicting anything useful from the 2007 baseline; because 2007 (obs) is below 2007 (modelled). If you took the models literally, they are prdicting *more* ice in 2008.
 * You stated that Models have been tweaked by inputting revised data for 2007, so the predictions have changed accordingly. I see no evidence for that. Which models are you referring to? Please be specific William M. Connolley (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dr. C is right that Dr. Orheim must have been drinking when he made the "gone in 2008" statement, and it shouldn't appear in the lead. If for no other reason than the use of the term Polar cap which is usually defined to include the Greenland Ice Sheet.  But I still think Maslowski's study (2013) should be mentioned, because it is representative of those who think that the IPCC models are far to conservative with regard to Arctic sea ice.
 * How about - "The most advanced computer models gave projections that the Arctic Sea would be seasonally ice free between 2040 and 2100, however, the ice has been melting at a significantly faster rate since at least 2005. A regional climate model predicts an ice free Arctic Ocean before 2015, but this has limited acceptance by scientists."  -   Sagredo &#8857;&#9791;&#9792;&#9793;&#9794;&#9795;&#9796; 17:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It might be good to have a new section that addresses the successes and failures of computer models. Generally speaking, some scientific models are technically failsafe, because they give a very low probability to almost any conceivable outcome.  Other models offer more definitive predictions.  Models are only as good as the assumptions upon which they are based, and on the accuracy of the data that is fed into them.  Regarding Arctic ice models in particular, if all models turn out to have provided erroneously conservative predictions, then the question becomes whether to just ignore models, or to adjust the models so they're less conservative.  Models have been tweaked over the years by adjusting the assumptions upon which they're based, and by inputting more accurate data into them, so that the predictions have changed accordingly; if we decide to create a new section about modelling, then I'd be glad to provide refs about this.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As best I can tell, there seems to be consensus that the statement in the article ("models predict that the sea ice area will continue to shrink in the future") is supported by the cited source. The controversy seems to be whether those models are useful or not, but they do predict continued shrinkage, and so I'll remove the tag for now.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Image
While it may have seemed to be an update to a more current image, the use of the image of April ice extents (April of each year) is quite different from using the Septembers or each year, when the minima occur. As this section of the article is about the record minimum of Sept 2007, and how it compared with computer projections, this image is more appropriate. Ferrylodge's idea of a section about the relationship of the model's projections and the observed melting is a good idea. Also as we move away from 2007 in time, it would seem to make sense to convert the 2007 section into a historical perspective. That the ice had been in decline for some time, setting record minima every few years, then notably so in 2005, and that so very many (most?) scientists found the 2007 minimum shocking.  Sagredo &#8857;&#9791;&#9792;&#9793;&#9794;&#9795;&#9796; 02:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and condensed the 2007 material.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Area around the North Pole is not the entire Arctic Ocean, and certainly not the entire Arctic.
It is absolutely incorrect that all the ice in the Arctic will melt this year.

The Arctic includes the 2 mile thick Greenland Ice Cap. That's going to be around for quite a while. It also includes permafrost which isn't going to melt this year. Nor does Sereeze even expect all the first year sea ice to melt. Read the source articles carefully. There are many vague terms and qualifiers.

The North Pole is a single point in the Arctic Ocean. The "area around the North Pole" is, as far as I know undefined.

There area some areas of old thick sea ice (presently pushed up against Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago which would seem highly unlikely to melt this summer. Sereeze is saying that there's a considerable chance of someone going to the North Pole without using an icebreaker.

The NSIDC (where Sereeze works) has been issuing statements on their website the first week of each month. I think it's a good idea to wait and see what they post on their website in early July before using statements that have circulated through the press a dozen times

In March 2008, a senior advisor to the Norwegian Ministry of the Environment said that the Arctic polar ice cap could be completely gone during the summer of 2008. This interview may have been done in Norwegian, translated to Chinese, and then to English. It really isn't clear what is meant by polar ice cap. Most usages of that term include the Greenland Ice Sheet. I think this should be taken out for that reason.

There area some areas of old thick sea ice (presently pushed up against Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago which would seem highly unlikely to melt this summer.

There are some good comments about this at Realclimate.org  Sagredo &#8857;&#9791;&#9792;&#9793;&#9794;&#9795;&#9796; 04:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree and have cut the sentence - frankly i don't believe it. I think there is a high likelihood of a misquote, is the source btw. even reliable? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Land-based ice, especially the Greenland ice cap, are not included in "Arctic shrinkage" which refers only to the melting of sea-based ice. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 20:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

we can guess what would happen
if all the Arctic ice melts down. But one thing is certain:

There will be summer-winter period no more. In winter for Middle East, Europe, it means no ice and rain in winter, but floods and rainy days in summer. Because there would be no cooling Arctic air wind. The impacts on nature are unpredictable (no period is more than enough). There will be more rainy days at all, but without proper wind from the north to distribute the cold and water in clouds. However the year orbit of Earth will stay unaffected. The earth became much more hotter, and thus the air will be dry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janmojzis (talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Summer arctic sea ice gone by 2013?
Hi. I read in an article, probably on LiveScience.com, that scientists now estimate summer arctic sea ice could dissapear by 2013, "decades sooner than previously thought". I also saw a graph, not sure if it was on the same website, that showed a range of predicted sea ice minima according to computer models, and the actual minimum falling far below the range of predictions. I know this is probably recent research, but we should find a reference for this and include it in the article. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 20:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I missed the section above. Oops. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 20:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Its utter rubbish, but unfortunately utter rubbish spoken by a sea ice researcher and reported on by a credulous BBC, so its hard to argue for its removal on the grounds of sanity. I suppose we'll just have to wait a few years for it to become obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Brave words William. Let's pray your actually right about this one.Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Goodness is this an NPOV? Tell us all, what is it you hope for exactly? 125.237.12.51 (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope WMC is right. Evidence below suggests he may be.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Runaway/
I removed a whole lot of "runaway" stuff. I regard it as over-enthusiastic. The runaway article is currently in a poor state, and needs a lot of work before it gets linked out like this William M. Connolley (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The runaway article is now much improved and I suggest you can now safely revert your edits.Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * DoneAndrewjlockley (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:GAN?
Though this article continues to evolve, I'd like to nom it for GAN if others here think it's ready. Rosiestep (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is decent, but still needs a little work. Awickert (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ...yep, definitely needs quite a bit of work. Awickert (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Define
The first sentence says that arctic shrinkage is defined by an isotherm, but never gives a quantitative definition. What is the isotherm that defines the arctic? Over what time period was this averaged? How was it picked, and does the temperature that was picked have any physical significance? I don't know the answers to any of these questions, but I'd guess it's an annual 0 degree average. Let's see if I'm right. Awickert (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See ArcticAndrewjlockley (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That was my point. It should be here; it is crucial to the article as it is the definition of what is shrinking. Awickert (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * FixedAndrewjlockley (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - just so you know, when I said that this was the definition on the Arctic page, I used the above "sometimes" definition of "arctic" without a citation. I have no idea if it's right - hence the fact tag. Awickert (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ice free North west passage?
I'm concerned at Fig. 1. It implies that the NW passage was completely ice free. As far as I know that never happened, only an ice breaker could get through and other ships were trapped when they tried? 125.237.12.51 (talk) 09:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sea ice again
It would probably be a good idea to replace some of the imaginary sea ice numbers in this article with those from ; ''They project, based on a moderate emissions scenario, that September sea ice will most likely disappear between 2066 and 2085. That is sooner than even the most pessimistic models suggest on their own (see graph again)... include the thin, vulnerable ice of 2008 in the period of past data used to filter the models, they see summer sea ice vanishing as soon as 2059-2078.'' William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good find WMC. Are you going to work it in or shall I?  I don't know how to add images without violating copyright, the ten commandments and the highway code.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done in leadAndrewjlockley (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia commons, use a copyright tag that applies. There are nice forms to do it for things like US government sources, etc. Awickert (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Lede
I like that it was cut down, but since the predictions were removed, I feel that it would be more balanced if the third and fourth paragraphs were also removed, and the first and second were combined. I also don't think a whole paranthetical sentence should be in the lede; perhaps it could be worked into something along the lines of "arctic oscillation, which is believed to be strongly effected by global warming".

Also, reading over the article (haven't spent a ton of time here), it smacks of the Hermione effect, with lots of sentences bantering back and forth; perhaps if more regular editors here thing it would be wise / worth the time, there could be some consensus on how to state certain points.

Anyway, hope someone finds my feedback useful; if not, please disregard. I'd be willing to help tidy things, but since I'm not responsible for the text, I don't want to step on toes by restructuring it myself. (Of course, if you want your toes stepped on, put on a pair of steel-toed boots and tell me to get to work...) Awickert (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

2013
It seems there is waaaaaaay too much weight on the 2013 ice-off. The PDF of a later version of what I believe is this same talk is here. It's never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and I think I know why: blatant cherry-picking to create a linear fit; just look at the PDF and wiggle your hands on the screen to look at what would have happened if the averaging had been done over different time-frames. I wouldn't mind mention of it, especially because of the media extravaganza that it unleashed, but I think that there is too much. Yes, ice loss could be accelerating, but this seems to be a contrived endmember. I just completely cleaned it out of the Arctic article; hope no one minds. Awickert (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WMC found a better one, look up. I think you should put it back in as 'widely reported but actually unreliable'.  We can't really miss out something that widely reported - even if we do then say it's twaddle.  I agree that his projections were 'arbitrary'.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I misconstrued myself! I left a sentence in about it; if you like, search 2013 in that article and see if you think it's OK. Awickert (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm watching it now. I like WMC's source as it's a study of studies.Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks good - I actually took the same route, and cited another study of studies there. Awickert (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 ice growth
Should we have a section in the article for the 2009 ice growth. There is a lot of info on the NSIDC web site. --71.249.115.165 (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say definitely - there seems to be space for it under "Recent expert statements", and maybe a couple other interspersed references would be good too. Although this is more recentism than I'd usually use, it's already in the structure of the article, so might as well go ahead and add it. Awickert (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As the definition goes by the July isotherm the "2009 ice growth" has not yet happened. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the ice growth and the isotherm are different definitions - it's sort of confusing (to me) because the attention is on the ice, but that's not the formal definition given here. Awickert (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ice Free NP in 1959 photo
I removed this photo, added here because there is no reference for the statement in the caption that the sub surfaced at an ice-free North Pole in 1959. The photo does not show enough of the area to see how much ice was around. It is quite possible the sub simply broke up some ice and moved around to clear an opening so it could fully surface, or that it was in a small lead. The photographer may well have been standing on an ice floe. Unless there is a ref stating that they surfaced at the North Pole with large areas of open water (not in a small lead, which are common), then the caption may be very misleading. StephenHudson (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

On the USS Skate article the ice free photo is referred to as "USS Skate at an unknown location" while the Arctic expedition is being illustrated with this rather icy photo: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/USS_Skate_(SSN-578)_surfaced_in_Arctic_-_1959.jpg

So yeah, what's up with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.211.86 (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

USGS article about a change in walrus behavior due to sea ice melting caused by Global Warming
This might be worth adding, but I don't have time. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SEA_ICE_WALRUS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.39.209.245 (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent expert statements??????
I think it's about time to delete this section. Some of the images, particularly those relating to ice thickness might be kept.

Onset of melt- Uncorrect figure
The figure showing the date of onset of melt over the Arctic Ocean was updated and corrected by the NSIDC, showing later melt date in 2008 than in the first version. The correct one: http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/200807_Figure4.png

The change between the two images is very important, as can be seen here: http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/686/hjhgjpj6.jpg I think it would be changed in Wikipedia.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.227.122.91 (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Some guy on Wikipedia interpreting a color-coded map is one thing, but do you have a reliable source for a significantly altered estimate for the 2008 Arctic Ocean melt date? --TS 14:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm? The source is NSIDC, and its just an updated graphics. I think the image pointed at in the above, was just to show why the version we used was out-of-date. The correct thing to do is to upload the new NSIDC picture to WP (since using the direct link is dependent on NSIDC)... The melt time hasn't been interpreted, its just that some of the melt hadn't stopped at the time of the image that you reverted to was made. It has now. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've updated with the new version on commons. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In RealClimate, about this issue: http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=576#comment-91375 Inline response from Gavin Schmidt: [Response: The updated figure is indeed significantly different from the first version. This one probably makes a little more sense. - gavin]

The onset of melt date is the showed in the updated image. These dates can be observed also in the images from the North Pole Webcam 2008. "In the area between Greenland, Svalbard and the North pole where the NOAA webcams are located, the NSIDC´s Figure 4 shows surface melt beginning earlier than 2008/06/10. But, the webcam images don´t show the same: 2008/06/10: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2008/images/noaa1-2008-0610-151907.jpg . I don´t see surface melt 2008/06/21: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2008/images/noaa1-2008-0621-211904.jpg Surface continues whitout melting. The Figure 4 seems to be incorrect, at least at that location." When the figure is updated: "The “new” onset of the surface melt is shown at that location in blue and dark blue, at late june: as the webcams showed (and near  past years)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.87.228.99 (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, the most updated image seems to be the last one published by NSIDC: http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090722_Figure3_thumb.png Figure 3. In recent years, sea ice melt in the Arctic Ocean has begun earlier than in the past. Colors in the map above indicate the date of melt onset; gray regions indicate areas where data is not available or not retrievable. Variations in ice type may result in some errors. Data are from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F-series satellite SSM/I and SSMIS sensors. —Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center: Algorithm provided by Thorsten Markus, Goddard Space Flight Center —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.87.228.99 (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC) More changes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.87.228.99 (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent expert statements
This needs some attention. The 2007 statements aren't so recent anymore, and there are no 2009 statements. Some suggestions: remove it altogether, rewrite it without yearly sections, or just leave it alone. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if the section is "recent" expert statements, then the dated items, i.e. all of the section, should be removed. And if the section is updated and kept, in a year or so it will again be outdated.  So just remove the whole thing.


 * While I'm here. I just ran across this:  | The Arctic Has Potential To Alter Earth's Climate: Arctic Land And Seas Account For Up To 25 Percent Of World's Carbon Sink  The study is here - | Sensitivity of the carbon cycle in the Arctic to climate change  I don't have the time to do anything with it.   Sagredo &#8857;&#9791;&#9792;&#9793;&#9794;&#9795;&#9796; 01:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the 2007 & 2008 expert stmts as they were >12 months old, along with the "Recent expert statements" header. I left the images alone. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Recent is dependent on the timescales that the issue is addressing. This is on the climate timescale, which means that we are talking decades. To remove some confusion, i'd suggest changing the headline instead. Outright deletion of this much material seems rather strange. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The timescale that matters is the rate at which new information comes out, not the rate at which the climate is changing. By comparison, the dozen or so years that Steady State theory was around is rather brief compared to the 13.8 byr history of the universe. Perhaps some of the expert comments could be worked into the Modelling, history, and predictions section, but some of is virtually meaningless, i. e. the fact that the Greenland Ice Sheet melted at the rate of 80 cubic miles per year in 2007 is without any frame of reference (total volume of ice or what the melting rate was before or since).   Sagredo &#8857;&#9791;&#9792;&#9793;&#9794;&#9795;&#9796; 02:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Erh? Yes and No. The timescale of authoritative information coming out on this subject, is around 1-3 per year, progress on a current issue that has a change timescale of at least a year, is like that. I have nothing against redaction of some of the info though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What would seem to me to make sense would be to delete the section, and rewrite the history & preditions section to discuss the extreme minimum of 2007, and put in the latest preditions which seem to be in step with Wadhams.  Sagredo &#8857;&#9791;&#9792;&#9793;&#9794;&#9795;&#9796; 02:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maslowski's 2013 date is looking improbable.
 * "Canada's biggest environmental story of 2007". - How significant is that really?
 * "huge chunk of ice the size of Ontario" - This one ranks right with Associate professor Carl Egede Bøggild's 80 sq. mi. per year.
 * The 2008 section is all from NSIDC monthly statements.
 * Wadhams did recently repeat his statement, giving the ice 10-20 years, so that one should be updated at the least.
 * Be my guest - i just reread the section, and i have to agree that the whole 2007 section seem to be cherry-picks. I was responding originally to the wholesale removal of that much content, and recollections of the content (which was that it was summaries about the state of the arctic). I did reread the 2008 section, which was reasonable, and fit my recollection - so i didn't check the 2007 one. Chalk it up to a gut-reaction, sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * People got very carried away when the 2007 ice extent was low. Now the excitment has faded the whole article needs a look over William M. Connolley (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I got a start on it.  Sagredo &#8857;&#9791;&#9792;&#9793;&#9794;&#9795;&#9796; 02:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Title / lede
''Arctic shrinkage is the decrease in size of the Arctic region (as defined by the 10 °C (50 °F) July isotherm). This is a change in the regional climate as a result of global warming.'' sez the lede. But *nothing* in the article addresses this. Why is there no graph of "Arctic area", if this article is about it shrinking? I think this article is actually about the Arctic getting warmer, and the sea ice (and permafrost etc) shrinking William M. Connolley (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct, the article is about warming. I've done a little googling, and never found a definition of Arctic Shrinkage that didn't seem to point back here.  I would guess that the term was coined by the media.


 * While you're pruning, Geoengineering seems to be very speculative. ..


 * The full text of the first reference,September sea-ice cover in the Arctic Ocean projected to vanish by 2100 - Julien Boé*, Alex Hall and Xin Qu  appears [here http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/csrl/publications/Hall/boe_et_al_2009a.pdf]  I didn't see how to change the reference. Sagredo &#8857;&#9791;&#9792;&#9793;&#9794;&#9795;&#9796; 23:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * From above commentary, the term seems to have been coined by the originator of this page. --71.203.125.108 (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting Study Coming Out
In regards to multiyear ice and single year sea ice and how its fooling satellites.

http://myuminfo.umanitoba.ca/index.asp?sec=2&too=100&eve=8&dat=11/27/2009&npa=21066

Cant make any changes yet since the paper isnt out but judging by this article it sounds like the paper is accepted....and has interesting implications--Snowman frosty (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

baseline
If this is a history article it needs a baseline. It should show how much ice was in the ice pack in the first measurements, how much there is now, and talk about projected shrinkage. If you don't put it here, it should be in the article on Arctic sea ice ecology and history. 4.249.3.100 (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

NASA Article
Here's an interesting bit from NASA about the increase in the length of the melt season, with a couple of public domain images —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.39.228.17 (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Science Daily Article
Permafrost Line Recedes 130 Km in 50 Years, Canadian Study Finds--174.39.223.31 (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why
I took out the 1920's stuff. It is wrong, and the CEI isn't a RS for anything, let alone science William M. Connolley (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would put the 1920s stuff in, but I don't want to get in trouble on a probation article for putting truthful information up. I know The Washington Post isn't an RS for anything, but here's the cite for anyone who wants to risk the "Wrath of Cons"...    Enjoy! --71.203.125.108 (talk) 03:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

what is wrong
I posted a factual article written in 1922 that stated that exploration expeditions report scarcely any ice has been met with as far as 81degrees 29 minutes. It further stated that great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stone. This information is not something I made up. It was reported in an article by "Monthly Weather Review" and later picked up by the AP. It was factual information and not conjecture. It seems to me that it was edited out because it doesn't fit the model of "Global Warming". It fit in with the section of modeling, history and predictions as it was history. What makes it less credible than the IPCC? Is it that it is factual and not based on junk science like the IPCC which has been proven to have published false and fraudulent information? Mrbill465 (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your article is not the only one of the 1920s discussing the climate change that was noted in the Arctic (one got downright Biblical! :-), but it does come via very good sourcing. NOAA even has it in its archives .  It has been removed because the idea that the Arctic demonstrated climate change in the 1920s will threaten the idea of a "consensus" in climate science and could threaten our funding.  Such information doesn't belong in a place like Wikipedia; read the other articles—it doesn't fit in.  Note also that the photo of the USS Skate (SSN-578) in July 1958, when she surfaced into open water at the North Pole, has been taken down.  Attempts have been made to replace such photos with ones from the March 1959 mission to the North Pole, when she surfaced to 2-foot-thick ice at the North Pole (though crew have clarified that there was open water there, too).  The newsreel at  almost lets the cat out of the bag by misidentifying the date, but if you listen to it or check the copyright, you can see that it's really July 1959, not 1958.  Someday a global-warming-denier is going to catch on, since the Wikipedia entry for the submarine makes it clear, and the US Navy's photos show the lack of ice, but until then, editors are doing their best to keep the history under wraps.71.203.125.108 (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You might be more interested in politics of global warming. This kind of stuff The downside of this approach is that it would likely hurt the global-warming industry and limit funds for research and lobbying efforts when the public realizes that the "disaster" of Arctic shrinkage has previously occurred and gone away without intervention isn't acceptable, nor is 'It is therefore important for recipients of global-warming funding to keep the public ignorant of facts and no longer questioning, with such tactics as hoping for limited news coverage and scrubbing of information from Wikipedia''. Your purported ref for this plainly does not support it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Page 5, second column, of the source supports it thus: "So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. . .Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." --Stephen Schneider  As for the first part of your comment, I note that you didn't keep the factual and verifiable and cited material. --71.203.125.108 (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are, I think, being deliberately deceptive. But also pointlessly so, since it is so transparent. To quote from your ref rather more fully: Perhaps you shouldn’t believe me, at least that is what Julian Simon’s characterization of my views of environmental threats would lead you to believe in APS News Back Page article (March 1996, pg. 12). Simon “quotes” me directly, as supposedly saying “Scientists should consider stretching the truth…” to get good publicity for their cause. After the March issue was in print, Simon notified the editor that this false and very damaging statement was incorrect. What he hasn’t yet admitted is that even what he states to be the “correct quote” is still an out-of-context misrepresentation of my views, a distortion he persists in perpetuating even months after I personally told him of the context of the original quote.. I really don't understand why you bother making such an easily refuted claim. The full quote is also given on the SS article. But I do tahnk you for the ref, which is useful to demonstrate the way that quote is distorted: I've added it to the SS article William M. Connolley (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's funny. I got the reference from the SS entry in the first place.  And you can see that I did not quote the false part of the quote.  And it is not being taken out of context here--I put up the relevant parts, with an ellipsis.  The point wasn't whether a balance has to be struck--that wasn't the question here--it was whether the public can be given the truth in a straightforward way.  I'm curious whether you even knew SS before he got caught with that statement.  Anyway, I know you're trying to make sure this entry doesn't accidentally veer into NPOV territory, and I'm sorry I took up your time.  Cheers! --71.203.125.108 (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, your "contribution" was at best ignorant and at worst intellectually dishonest. The entire quote illuminates his approach- to be both honest and effective. The reason why you omitted that part illuminates your approach.137.111.13.200 (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This Competitive Enterprise Institute cei.org? 99.19.43.164 (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Title change to "Arctic warming"
The idea that the title should be changed has come up twice on this Talk page ("Title?" section in 2008 and "Title/lede" in 2010), but both times it seems to have fizzled out. As mentioned in those discussions, the term "Arctic shrinkage" seems to be idiosyncratic to wikipedia. This article describes what most would call "Arctic warming", with an emphasis on the topic typically called "Arctic sea ice retreat". Wikipedia doesn't seem like the place for coining new terms to describe widely discussed phenomena (that's what the press is for). Why not change the article title to "Arctic warming" and preserve a redirect from "Arctic shrinkage". Is there anyone who opposes this? --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Shrinkage is appropriate. There is also warming. "Arctic shrinkage from warming". Gabriel Kielland (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to disagree, but can I ask why you see shrinkage as appropriate? "Shrinkage" here refers to the definition of Arctic as the northern area enclosed within an isotherm, which is an atypical definition and a bit confusing, I think, to most readers even if they are familiar with the subject material. A quick web search seems to support the point that "Arctic shrinkage" is not a standard term to describe the widely-discussed phenomena described in this article. "Arctic warming" seemed like the most standard term to me, perhaps mostly based on reading the previous two discussions of this point on this talk page. --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I want to further note that I'm not sure the title even makes sense. I just went to the | website in the reference at the end of the first sentence of this article, which appears to be the justification for the title. They write, "The Arctic is a region not easily delineated by one boundary or definition - it includes the Arctic Ocean and the land areas around it, including Greenland, Eurasia and North America. A climate definition of the Arctic is the 10 centigrade July isotherm." This sounds like a working definition given the current climate. If climate warmed sufficiently that most of the Arctic Ocean was no longer enclosed in this isotherm, the quoted text above seems to imply that the entire Arctic Ocean would still be part of the Arctic: the isotherm working definition would just have to be revised to a new temperature. So I'm not sure "Arctic shrinkage" makes a lot of sense. Whether or not it does, I reiterate that it appears that virtually no one except wikipedia uses this term. --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note on my talk page soliciting my input on an article name change. At the time I created the article, in 2007, I thought the name was appropriate. 3.5 years later, dozens of editors have made almost 700 edits so it's certainly stood the test of time. As the talk page has a Sanctions tag, I believe that a compelling reason for a name change should have broad/majority agreement.  Lacking that, I don't support making a change. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for this note, Rosiestep. This page has definitely had a lot of development, and I agree that a name change should have broad/majority agreement. A name change seems to be periodically proposed on this talk page, but then each time it has fizzled out. How does one go about getting the broad/majority opinion on an issue like this? --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I forget what was said in the prior two discussions about this. You might want to provide links to those discussions.  Also, if you're asserting that "arctic shrinkage" is a term unique to Wikipedia, then you might want to provide a link to null search results for the term at google books, google scholar, and google news archive.  Also, I don't think "arctic warming" would be the best title. This article seems to focus mainly on recent warming, rather than prehistorical warming.  And anyway there was both warming and cooling in prehistory, so it would seem kind of arbitrary for this article to only discuss prehistorical warming and not prehistorical cooling.  So, "modern arctic warming" might be a better title, but if you want to be ultra-neutral you might try "modern arctic climate change".  But since this article doesn't cover routine seasonal changes, how about "modern arctic climate trends"? Hope that helps.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

One possibility might be Global warming in the Arctic. We have dozens of articles like Global warming in Japan, Global warming in India, Global warming in California etc. --Nigelj (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Title change to "Climate change in the Arctic"
Thank you Anythingyouwant and Nigelj for the helpful comments at end of the section above. The previous two discussions of this question are here and here. I see what you mean, Anythingyouwant, that "arctic warming" may not sound sufficiently general (or neutral). I would think that discussions of paleoclimate Arctic climate change would belong in this article (and would be a useful addition). Based on your suggestions, at the very least replacing "warming" with "climate change" in the title I suggested seems like a good idea. Nigelj, those links were very helpful. When I clicked the links, they redirected to "Climate change in ..." (except India which redirected to "Effects of global warming on India"). A new title of Climate change in the Arctic seems like it would be consistent with both of your suggestions, consistent with other wikipedia articles about regional climate change, and would fully address my concerns with the existing title. Regarding the current title being a term unique to wikipedia, a google book search for "arctic shrinkage" excluding books that discuss wikipedia or are published by Books LLC returns 12 hits (the same search in google scholar returns 18 hits). An equivalent search for "climate change in the Arctic" returns 1,210 hits  (and 1800 hits in google scholar). --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just read the guidelines on article titles, which says wikipedia "uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". I think it's fair to say that the search results in my entry above make clear that the current title, "Arctic shrinkage", does not conform to this guideline. Page moving  guidelines say a page should be moved to a new title if the previous name "does not follow Wikipedia's naming conventions, such as that it is not the common name of the subject". I have just placed a Template:Movenotice on the article. After waiting a few days to see if there is more feedback on the new title, I will make a move request. I understand that this request may then allow further discussion to decide if the move should be finalized. I recognize that this page has received a lot of work from many users, I am relatively new to editing wikipedia, and I am trying to be as careful as possible to avoid stepping on anyone's toes. If the page is moved to a new title, a redirect from the old title should certainly be preserved. --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links to prior discussion, and the links to the search results.
 * I don't see any problem with Wikipedia having an article with the title you suggest, but I'm not sure this should be that article. This article seems to have a very particular focus, namely the alleged ongoing reduction in size of the Arctic if the Arctic is defined climatically.  This seems like a valid subject for this article, whereas Arctic climate change seems a bit broader.  The climatic definition of the Arctic is not unusual or difficult to understand.  According to the article Climate of the Arctic, "in a context of climate, the two most widely used definitions in this context are the area north of the northern tree line, and the area in which the average temperature of the warmest month is less than 10 °C (50 °F), which are nearly coincident over most land areas (NSIDC)." Using those particular definitions, the question is whether the Arctic is shrinking.  That seems like a legitimate subject for a Wikipedia article, without getting into other aspects of Arctic climate change.
 * Of course, even if this article continues to focus on Arctic shrinkage, that doesn't mean the title couldn't be improved.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these comments, Anythingyouwant. I see what you mean: looking back through the article sections, the article may perhaps be too focused on sea ice loss for the title I suggested. Personally, I think the idea of a shrinking Arctic is a misunderstanding of the terminology, which is why practically no one uses the term "Arctic Shrinkage" outside this article (see search results mentioned above). The Arctic today can be defined climatically as a summertime isotherm, which can be more relevant than the traditional 66N latitude line for ecological studies, etc. This is concisely discussed at the NSIDC link in the quote you mention: the reason for choosing the 10C summer isotherm, rather than for example 0C or 20C, is that the 10C summer isotherm lines up on average with the 66N latitude line in today's climate. During the warm Eocene or in an aggressive future warming scenario, when Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures may be higher than 10C at all locations, no one would say there is no Arctic. Rather, a new isotherm would be the convenient one to use as a climatic definition of the Arctic region. It is an odd and nonstandard use of terminology to claim that the Arctic is shrinking. If "climate change in the Arctic", while consistent with other usage on wikipedia, is too general for this article, perhaps other titles should be considered (as you suggest). --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you know if there is a more standard way to express the idea that the isotherms may be moving northward? And do you think there is enough material about that subject fir a separate article?  There is material in this article that goes beyond that subject.  Actually, this article seems more focused on diminishing arctic ice, rather than movement of isotherms.
 * For this article, how about "Loss of Arctic sea ice"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to the question, when isotherms move poleward, I'd say that is typically referred to simply as "warming". I wouldn't have any objection to the title you suggest (Loss of Arctic sea ice), which addresses my concerns with the current title. --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good answer. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Title choices
I guess we've got enough suggested titles now to choose from: (1) Arctic warming, (2) Global warming in the Arctic, (3) Climate change in the Arctic, (4) Arctic shrinkage, and (5) Loss of Arctic sea ice. The main objections to "Arctic shrinkage" (4) are that it's not a common term, and it may be confusing given that the Arctic is often defined without reference to isotherms. (1) and (2) and (5) may be perceived as less neutral because they imply (maybe correctly) that the Arctic is heating up. So, I guess (3) might be the best title, even though it may have a somewhat broader scope than what's in this article now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article Climate of the Arctic is already there. The loss of sea ice happens annually. This is about shrinkage. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Climate change in the Arctic isn't already there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand this comment, Gabriel Kielland. "Sea ice shrinkage" surely has the same definition as "sea ice loss". The former is just far less common than the latter (28,000 vs 873,000 hits, respectively, when I google the two terms in quotes). You seem to be implying that the former refers to long-term changes and the latter to seasonal changes (?). Is so, a reference would be useful. It's certainly true that sea ice loss happens every summer, as you mention. If someone says, "Northern Hemisphere temperatures are warming", you might say, "of course they are, it's springtime". Or you might say, "of course they are, we've been deglaciating on average over the past 20,000 years". But given the popular topics of discussion these days, it'd be a good guess to interpret their comment as referring to estimates of annual-mean temperature from the instrumental record since the late 1800s. Arctic sea ice loss occurs every summer, but there has also been year-to-year loss of sea ice, on average, during the satellite record (1978-present). The latter is one of the main topics of this article. Apologies if I'm misunderstanding you. --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The first comment in this section is a very nice synthesis. I agree with Anythingyouwant that the strongest choice is (3). Title (3) is neutral and clear. Regarding its scope perhaps being broader than the current content of this article, an authoritative assessment of recent climate change in the Arctic is the ACIA. The wikipedia summary of that work (here) lists "rising temperatures, loss of sea ice, unprecedented melting of the Greenland ice sheet" as the main components of the "ongoing climate change in the Arctic" (it also lists impacts). Of these topics, there's a lot of discussion in the current article about sea ice loss, a bit about the Greenland ice sheet, but not much about temperature. With an added subsection about temperature, I think the article would do ok in terms of hitting the main points regarding "climate change in the Arctic". Choices (1) and (5) are clear but don't sound as neutral, although as noted by Anythingyouwant, they are accurate. I think choice (2) is suboptimal because it describes more than just an observation (Arctic is warming), but a theory too (the cause is that this is part of the global warming story, rather than being due to soot loading on the sea ice changing its albedo [a shaky hypothesis in the literature], some regional change associated with natural variability, etc). --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, (3) is best. This article can be summarized in Climate of the Arctic, per WP:Summary style.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This article's introduction is clearly about the shrinkage of the Arctic. Alot of the article then focusses on the reduction of ice cover but not only so current title, Arctic shrinkage is fine. climate change in the Arctic would not fit the article and there is already an article about the climage of the Arctic in general. Correjon (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, the idea of a shrinking Arctic appears to be a misunderstanding of the terminology, which helps explain why "Arctic shrinkage" produces almost no search results in books or scholar. The entry above containing "misunderstanding of" describes the misuse of terminology. The entry above containing "google book search" describes the lack of search results. It's true that the introduction of this article offers a justification of the title, but the title remains at odds with common usage. --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 07:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move
Arctic shrinkage → Climate change in the Arctic — I placed a move notice on the article about a week ago, and a title change has been discussed on the talk page starting at  this section, as well as previously (1, 2). I'll summarize the key arguments here. (i) Page moving guidelines say a page should be moved if its title "does not follow Wikipedia's naming conventions, such as that it is not the common name of the subject". The title of this article is not a common name. For example, a google books search for "Arctic shrinkage" returns 12 hits (excluding books mentioning wikipedia or Books LLC), whereas an equivalent search for "climate change in the Arctic" returns 1,120 hits; the same searches on google scholar similarly return 19 hits and 1,820 hits, respectively. (ii) In addition to being an uncommon term, "Arctic shrinkage" appears to be a misunderstanding of the terminology. The Arctic is defined as the region containing the Arctic Ocean and the land areas around it, traditionally delineated by the Arctic Circle (66.5N). It is also sometimes delineated climatically using the summer isotherm which approximately coincides with the Arctic Circle (10C in today's climate), as discussed for example here and here. In a warmer climate, a different isotherm would need to be used to delineate the Arctic region: the Arctic region would not shrink. (iii) The title Climate change in the Arctic would be consistent with other wikipedia articles (e.g., here), and this article could be summarized in the existing Climate of the Arctic article per WP:Summary style (e.g.,  here). (iv) The scope of this article may currently be slightly narrower than the proposed title implies, but a slight expansion to address this would improve the article. The article in its current form already covers most of the main points highlighted in the authoritative ACIA assessment of recent climate change in the Arctic. --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support More scientific name. Going to move page + talk page.   EBE123  talkContribs 22:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ Moved "Arctic shrinkage" to "Climate change in the Arctic"  Also a redirect.   EBE123  talkContribs 22:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Global Warming Controversey
This page should cover the opposing bias to Sea Level Rises as well. 69.14.240.82 (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Add With warming, Arctic is losing ground Scientists anticipate big ecosystem changes from erosion
Add With warming, Arctic is losing ground Scientists anticipate big ecosystem changes from erosion by Janet Raloff May 21st, 2011; Vol.179 #11 (p. 13) Science News. The International Arctic Science Committee in Potsdam, Germany copublished the new report along with the Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone Project, the Arctic Council’s Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme and the International Permafrost Association. Excerpts:    99.112.213.34 (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Will need to correct "but [extent] did not return to [2007] levels "
The line: "In 2008 and 2009, Arctic sea ice minimum extent was higher than 2007, but it did not return to the levels of previous years"

will probably need to be changed.

The nsidc report will not be out for a few days or weeks (until ice extent starts to grow again) but

"The Arctic sea ice extent index calculated by a University of Bremen research team led by Dr. Georg Heygster reached a new historical low point of 4.24 million km2 on September 8. The previous one-day minimum was 4.27 million km2 on September 17, 2007." http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/09/historical-minimum-in-sea-ice-extent.html

Andysoh (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

resource "The amount of ice covering the Arctic hit its lowest point late last week."
Arctic sea ice shrinks to second lowest level by Seth Borenstein (AP via The Guardian) September 15 2011; excerpt  97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also AP via the Boston Herald http://www.bostonherald.com/news/international/general/view/20110915arctic_sea_ice_shrinks_to_second_lowest_level/srvc=news&position=also

99.19.42.166 (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is another ... Really bad year for Arctic sea ice; New European data indicate this summer’s loss of ice cover matches the 2007 record by Janet Raloff (Web edition: October 6th, 2011) on Science News. 99.109.127.58 (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Mississippi River. 99.119.131.17 (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

resource?
[http://www.economist.com/node/21530079 Beating a retreat; Arctic sea ice is melting far faster than climate models predict. Why?] in Sep 24th 2011 print edition of The Economist. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * An excerpt ...  99.119.128.87 (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * National Snow and Ice Data Center 99.190.87.183 (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Latitude 99.35.15.199 (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Add reference?
"Research from U.S. space agency NASA this week suggested that the Arctic ice cap could be losing around 15 to 17 percent of its mass per decade." from Celebrities back Greenpeace campaign to protect Arctic June 21, 2012 Scientific American (found on Talk:Climate of the Arctic)

99.109.127.226 (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Black carbon/soot
I've reverted this addition twice now (with differing references):
 * The Arctic ice melt is believed to be caused from soot in the atmosphere and snow which absorbes more heat.     The soot primarily comes from coal burning plants.

The first reason for reverting it, is that the references are crap. The Register, notricszone and liveleak are about as far away from WP:RS's on the science of climate change as we can get. The last ones are old refs from NASA, which do not support the sentence. Black carbon certainly have an effect - and we appear to miss a section about it. But we'll need something from one of the scientific assessments, instead of some editors cherry-pick of science papers. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How about changing the text to match the reference? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * First, you are adding this to the lead, where it doesn't belong, unless you put a section into the body, that thoroughly discussed the various aspects. Second, there is the problem that using a single (or a few) references to represent the scientific assessment of what is happening, is flawed (See FAQ#21. Thirdly, the Schindell paper isn't even about the arctic, which makes it a synthesis argument. Fourth, the Ice melt and the warming are not per auto the same thing, so text is wrong as well(simple WP:SYN), even seen from the NASA paper - not to mention that the text in the article claims the warming comes from the aerosols, where the NASA ref actually states the reverse - it states that it comes from the absense of the aerosols.... Soot and sulphate aerosols have different effects... So all in all, not a good addition. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * >unless you put a section into the body
 * O.k. Will research for creating a section.
 * >is flawed (See FAQ#21
 * Is there another article that has a different viewpoint? Or what subject is not getting sufficient weight?  Lets add it also.
 * >the Schindell paper isn't even about the arctic
 * quote: ... the model suggests aerosols likely account for 45 percent or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades.
 * What do you think about the above sentence?
 * >Fourth, the Ice melt and the warming are not per auto the same thing, so text is wrong as well...
 * quote: If we want to try to stop the Arctic summer sea ice from melting completely over the next few decades, we're much better off looking at aerosols and ozone.
 * Oops too much speed reading. Thanks for pointing that out.  I changed the text. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To get the correct weight you will have to look at the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, IPCC AR4 and/or reports from the US Climate Change Science Program. The Schindell paper that you reference does not contain the 45 percent statement, in fact i'm rather confused as to why you cite the Schindell paper at all - since the only relevance seem to be that it mentions black carbon. [Did you reference the wrong paper?] - The only reason that i haven't reverted, is because i don't want to edit-war, you rely all of your text on a NASA news release. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Sentence needs editing
I was initially planning to fix the first sentence of the Social impact section: Many of the causes of climate change in the Arctic can be attributed to the effect that humans have had on the atmosphere, greenhouse effect is mainly caused by the increase in CO2 levels created by people

Which at present isn't a coherent sentence. However, while considering how to fix the English, I realized that it asserts that the greenhouse effect is caused by the change in, which isn't quite right. Simply changing it to say that the change in the greenhouse effect is caused by the change in the  doesn't work well for a couple reasons, so while I think about alternatives, I thought I would point out the problem in case someone else has a solution.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  19:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed that. And a few other things.... :) I went through and rooted out a whole bunch of redundancy and overlap and structure things so there's actually a semi-coherent narrative to the article now.  And rewrote the whole section of your problem sentence which was pretty awfully written before... and... well, a lot.  Let me know what you think!  Sailsbystars (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

New article
Hello all, it has come to my attention that one User:Prokaryotes has created an article for Arctic sea ice decline, which I have expanded a little. It looks like there is a lot of material on this page that we could copy into that one, and I was hoping that I could get some help doing so by posting this message. Thank you, Jinkinson (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Polar amplification
Polar amplification could use more eyes also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

New link added to "See also"
Hello all, I've just added a link to an article on the Dutch wiki showing temperature data of 2 weather stations on Arctic Sea Islands and one on the northeast Siberian coast. Just as an example of the magnitude of the warming. If anybody thinks it might be of value to put the tables in the article itself, I can do that + some translation. Koos van den beukel (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The articles are linked via Wikidata already, please do not put additional links in the article text. I removed your link. --mfb (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Climate change in the Arctic. 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/20080626152700/http://www.um.dk/NR/rdonlyres/BE00B850-D278-4489-A6BE-6AE230415546/0/ArcticOceanConference.pdf to http://www.um.dk/NR/rdonlyres/BE00B850-D278-4489-A6BE-6AE230415546/0/ArcticOceanConference.pdf

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) 10:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Climate change in the Arctic. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6JqZEroXP?url=http://www.ecology.ethz.ch/education/Resilience_Stuff/Berkes_and_Jolly_2001.pdf to http://www.ecology.ethz.ch/education/Resilience_Stuff/Berkes_and_Jolly_2001.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.uarctic.org/Adaptation_to_Climate_Change_in_the_Arctic_FIN...
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927124322/http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/veranstaltungen/bericht-92741.html to http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/veranstaltungen/bericht-92741.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100118170723/http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/permafrost.jsp to http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/permafrost.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090204012056/http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2081 to http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2081

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) 12:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Climate change in the Arctic. 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/20130729155912/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/sea-ice-minimum to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/sea-ice-minimum
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219012233/http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html?entrynum=2352 to http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html?entrynum=2352
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ecology.ethz.ch/education/Resilience_Stuff/Berkes_and_Jolly_2001.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910213953/http://www.nersc.no/~oddho/Thesis/chapter3.pdf to http://www.nersc.no/~oddho/Thesis/chapter3.pdf

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) 15:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Climate change in the Arctic. 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/20071231023227/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/597.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/597.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509072101/http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/USGS_PolarBear_DeWeaver_GCM-Uncertainty.pdf to http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/USGS_PolarBear_DeWeaver_GCM-Uncertainty.pdf

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) 20:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

More correct division to paragraphs
I do not think that social impactes should be divided from the impacts of ice melting on Greenland impacts on animals etc. All these impacts impact people too. For example, when there is ice melting there is sea level rise and it has a social impacts. So I think in all these sections we should write about the social impacts also. It will facilitate reading and finding the necessary information. If you wsrite the social impact a side, you can give the false idea that something that impacts the ice or the animals can not impact humans and create doubling subsections in the section of social impacts: social impacts of ice melting, social impacts of permafrost thawing, etc. it will make us repeat the same thing twice in a very big extent.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggested changes to headings and structure
I suggest to change the headings and structure of this article to be in line with the template that has been proposed here for all articles of the nature "Climate change in Country X": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/Style_guide (see also discussion on that page's talk page). Anyone has any objections? If not, who's got time to give it a go? I am slowly working away at this for all the countries but would love some collaborators. EMsmile (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've re-arranged the structure now, as per my suggestion from a year ago. I wasn't sure if "permafrost thaw" should be a Level-1 heading (like it is now) or be moved below "Impacts on the natural environment". EMsmile (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Uppsala University Changes (May 2021) - added content but problem with references
Hello to any moderators that may be reading this right now, we are a group of students from Uppsala University working on updating and polishing this Wikipedia Article as part of a group project for one of our courses. Any feedback is welcome! --Carlos González Gozalo (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Carlos González Gozalo, my suggestion would be that before or after the time that you make bigger changes you explain here on the talk page what you plan to do or what you have done. I see a bit of editing and reverting going on but haven't been able yet to check each edit (due to time constraints). In general, it is always much better to explain on the talk page what is going on and secondly to make lots of small edits, rather than a few big ones (i.e. lots of intermittent saves). When someone sees 10,000 bytes removed in one go that makes one suspicious. User:Vsmith could you please let Carlos know what the problems were with the edits that you reverted? I haven't yet looked at actual content, just trying to help with the process after User:Olle Terenius (UU) - who works with the student editors - alerted me. EMsmile (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. I just saw on the user talk page that one problem was this: "Please do not blindly remove references again. Your edit removed plenty of references that were in use and broke quite a few references" by User:LightandDark2000) 14:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC). - Carlos: make sure you sign each entry on a talk page with the four tildes. EMsmile (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I have taken another look and have narrowed down the main problem I think. There was a bunch of cite errors that were introduced when Carlos moved content from his sandbox back into mainspace. The first time the cite error appeared is for this edit that Carlos made here. After that, he added more content from his sandbox, introducing more of those cite errors. Eventually, he realised something was wrong and tried to fix it but made it worse in the process. So I think the last "good" version is the one from 19 May at 11:09 am, i.e. this one. My plan of attack would therefore be to restore that version and then fix those cite errors (or try to). Wish me luck. EMsmile (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I have now reverted to that version from 19 May since the edits are mostly OK, except for the problem with the references (of course the new text blocks might need further word but I would say it is salvagabe). Here are the references that are in the wrong style. I will now try to convert them to the correct style. EMsmile (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have moved those refs to my sandbox now, see here. I think I am half way through but it's a bit time consuming and I have to dash off to a real-life activity now. Hopefully someone else can take over (Carlos is on a field trip, User:Olle Terenius (UU) told me, so he can't do it himself). Please have a little bit of patience, we are trying to help newbies and students to contribute to Wikipedia editing. The students were working in their sandbox here. They had copied the article to the sandbox, added content, then copied the new sections back across. So to double check which reference belongs to where one has to check the sandbox. This is time consuming and a hassle, I know. Sorry - not "my student", I am just trying to help with the process now. Please be kind despite the mistakes made (WP:NOBITE). And please don't shoot the messenger, i.e. me. :-) EMsmile (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

EMsmile (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping out EMsmile. As I read it, the AnomieBOT has taken care of the remaining references and I have verified with Carlos González Gozalo that all references are in place. Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I am suggesting to remove the further reading list
I think the further reading list adds very little value. If these refs are so important please include them as inline citations.


 * McCannon, John. A History of the Arctic: Nature, Exploration and Exploitation. Reaktion Books and University of Chicago Press, 2012. ISBN 9781780230184
 * McCannon, John. A History of the Arctic: Nature, Exploration and Exploitation. Reaktion Books and University of Chicago Press, 2012. ISBN 9781780230184
 * McCannon, John. A History of the Arctic: Nature, Exploration and Exploitation. Reaktion Books and University of Chicago Press, 2012. ISBN 9781780230184

EMsmile (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Overlap with arctic sea ice decline?
Where should the bulk of content on artic sea ice decline be placed? Here or at arctic sea ice decline? I've also written on the other talk page here. Pinging also User:Olle_Terenius_(UU). EMsmile (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Please update with: "Annual Mean Arctic Amplification 1970–2020: Observed and Simulated by CMIP6 Climate Models"
Please integrate info from/about this study into the article. It's currently featured in 2022 in science like so:

A study indicates that the Arctic is warming four times faster than global warming now, substantially faster than current CMIP6 models could project.

Prototyperspective (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I made changes to reflect 's suggested edits. Could other editors confirm the wording is accurate? Thank you.Oceanflynn (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)