Talk:Measurement of sea ice

Footnote #17
It's a broken link and needs to be deleted or a different source needs to be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.206.138 (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Presatellite proxies
The notion "anything except satellites is not reliable" doesnt stand scrutiny. There is much more current reseacrh and there are much more proxies in use than suggested. Serten (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC) PS.: I have included some of the recent research about the topic and corrected some major faults, as e.g. the claim of nothing was reliable before 1979 or just two proxies would exist. Thats not based on actual and current science. The de la Mare paper in Nature is quite explicit (already in its abstract) about sea ice decline being among warming predictions, trying to deny on a POV base is not helping to improve the article. Any real science against it at hand? If not, leave the improvements as athe are or point out what is not in line, I am quite willing to improve as in the issue with "ponctual" or have it improved. Serten (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The de la Mare paper in Nature is quite explicit (already in its abstract) about sea ice decline being among warming predictions. Of course it is. Because it was already a commonplace by then. But using it as a source for such an assertion is silly; it shows complete unfamiliarity with the literature; which is what is wrong with your edits.


 * What does trying to deny on a POV base mean? That doesn't appear to connect with anything I've said. Are you concerned with the articles POV? If so, please be more explicit William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If you have a problem with citing the Mare article, then put it in brackets. Its not at all a reason to revert completely. The fairy tale about only two proxies or no reliable assumptions before the 70ies is completely wrong and not in line with current science.thats what I meant with POV base revert and denial. As stated in the improved version and for the background, some of the larger mechanism have been found just recently, and there is - according Curry and others - currently some decrease in the south, but only in one region, while increase happens as well and is stronger. In so far the statement is not completely wrong but was modified. Suggest a better wording but stop reverting. Serten (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Measurement of sea ice. 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/20100711152422/http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php to http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thinking out loud
It has become a generally accepted fact among many scientists that Global Warming is a misnomer. Climate change, however, is a fact of life that we have had to deal with for thousands of years, but atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, and climatologists have been arguing over many aspects of it ad nauseum. There are too many variables concerning facts, degrees, regions, etc. for it to be considered a finite science. It has also become a dirty political greaseball. Therefore, it is my opinion that at least the first 4 paragraphs need to be based in more than theoretical proofs, and numerous peer reviews should be offered if the text is to be taken seriously. David (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)