Talk:Ice–albedo feedback/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator: 17:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 13:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

prose

 * The main body of the article is about 1800 words; WP:LEADLENGTH suggests one or two paragraphs for the lead, about half what you have.
 * In the 1950s ... have already been making attempts to describe I'm not sure what you intended to say here, but I think you want just "... attempted to describe"
 * ... have published papers presenting => "published papers presenting" (i.e. drop "have")
 * could act as a powerful feedback => "could act as a powerful feedback mechanism". Also, this is cited to four different references, see WP:CLUMP.
 * This process was soon recognized..., I'd tie that back to the previous paragraph by saying, "This feedback process was soon recognized..."
 * This process was soon recognized as a crucial part of climate modelling in a 1974 review,[3] and in 1975, the general circulation model used by Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald to describe the effects of doubling CO2 concentration in the atmosphere - a key measurement of climate sensitivity - has also already incorporated what it described as "snow cover feedback".[17] this is a very long and complicated sentence; it could probably be broken into two or maybe even three sentences. Certainly a full stop after "1974 review".
 * Snow– and ice–albedo feedback I think you want plain hyphens there (see MOS:DASH).  who knows that stuff better than I do.
 * I am not sure about that, but yes, both en dashes should be replaced with hyphens, per MOS:HYPHEN. And very eagle eyed picking it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * most of which was concentrated in West Antarctica.[18][19][20]]]|undefined WP:CLUMP again.
 * Southern Ocean, which had absorbed 35–43% of the total heat if the information is available, it would be interesting to compare that with the size of the Southern Ocean compared with other oceans (but that's definitely beyond the scope of WP:GACR).
 * which produced cooling of about 0.06 W/m2 per decade This is confusing. You start out talking about "radiative forcing" which is measured in W/m2.  Now you switch to "cooling", measured in W/m2/decade.  I can't follow this.  Is "radiative forcing" the same thing as "cooling"?
 * The impact of ice-albedo feedback on temperature will intensify in the future as the Arctic sea ice decline is projected to become more pronounced, with a likely near-complete loss of sea ice cover (falling below 1 million km2) at the end of the Arctic summer in September at least once before 2050 under all climate change scenarios,[22] and around 2035 under the scenario of continually accelerating greenhouse gas emissions.[24] this is all one monster sentence.
 * the nadir of sea ice cover I know what that is, but I suspect a lot of people won't. Link to nadir or use a more common word.
 * Notably, while the loss of sea ice cover..., I'd drop the "Notably"; let the reader judge for themselves. And you've already called it a "historic event".
 * a source of "additional" warming why is "additional" in quotes?
 * Relative to now => "Relative to 2022" (the date of the cited paper).
 * mountain glaciers, Greenland ice sheet, West Antarctic and East Antarctic ice sheet see WP:SEAOFBLUE. I'd make it "the Greenland ice sheet, as well as the West Antarctic and East Antarctic ice sheets" (correctly piped, of course).
 * loss in area between now and 2100 => "loss in area by 2100"
 * 0.05 °C (0.090 °F) (0.04–0.06 °C) I don't understand what this means.

OK, that does it for a basic read-through. Next up is a source spot-check, but I'll come back and do that probably tomorrow. RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

source spot-check
I'm going to look in detail at a randomly chosen 10% of the citations, namely:
 * 14-d
 * Very high levels of global warming could prevent Arctic sea ice from reforming during the Arctic winter. Unlike an ice-free summer, this ice-free Arctic winter may represent an irreversible tipping point. It is most likely to occur at around 6.3 °C (11.3 °F), though it could potentially occur as early as 4.5 °C (8.1 °F) or as late as 8.7 °C (15.7 °F).
 * Verified
 * 12-c
 * There are also model estimates of warming impact from the loss of both mountain glaciers and the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. However, warming from their loss is generally smaller than from the declining sea ice, and it would also take a very long time to be seen in full.
 * Verified
 * 24
 * and around 2035 under the scenario of continually accelerating greenhouse gas emissions
 * Verified
 * 4-a
 * However, if warming occurs, then higher temperatures would decrease ice-covered area, and expose more open water or land. The albedo decreases, and so more solar energy absorbed, leading to more warming and greater loss of the reflective parts of the cryosphere. Inversely, cooler temperatures increase ice cover, which increases albedo and results in greater cooling, which makes further ice formation more likely.
 * I found the paper on the AMSO website, but I'm having trouble locating where it talks specifically about this. Could you walk me through it?
 * 4-b
 * Snow– and ice–albedo feedback have a substantial effect on regional temperatures. In particular, the presence of ice cover and sea ice makes the North Pole and the South Pole colder than they would have been without it
 * Same comment as with 4-a.
 * 23-c
 * Very high levels of global warming could prevent Arctic sea ice from reforming during the Arctic winter. Unlike an ice-free summer, this ice-free Arctic winter may represent an irreversible tipping point. It is most likely to occur at around 6.3 °C (11.3 °F), though it could potentially occur as early as 4.5 °C (8.1 °F) or as late as 8.7 °C (15.7 °F).
 * Oh, wait, this is the same statement that was cited to 14. Let me pick another one...
 * 12-h
 * Ice–albedo feedback also occurs with the other large ice masses on the Earth's surface, such as mountain glaciers, Greenland ice sheet, West Antarctic and East Antarctic ice sheet. However, their large-scale melt is expected to take centuries or even millennia, and any loss in area between now and 2100 will be negligible. Thus, climate change models do not include them in their projections of 21st century climate change: experiments where they model their disappearance indicate that the total loss of the Greenland Ice Sheet adds 0.13 °C (0.23 °F) to global warming (with a range of 0.04–0.06 °C), while the loss of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet adds 0.05 °C (0.090 °F) (0.04–0.06 °C), and the loss of mountain glaciers adds 0.08 °C (0.14 °F) (0.07–0.09 °C)
 * Mostly verified. I don't see where the paper mentions the year 2100.  It's also not clear than when you say climate change models do not include them in their projections, if that's completely supported by the paper which says "we also consider the regional warming caused solely by the loss of the Arctic summer sea ice".  Are they talking about models in general from most researchers in the field, or specifically their own models?

This has been on hold for over a week, with no response. The nom hasn't edited in 3 weeks and failed to respond to both pings and email. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to close this as failed. RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)