This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
A news item involving Climate change in the Arctic was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 26 September 2012. |
This article contains a translation of Folgen der globalen Erwärmung in der Arktis from de.wikipedia. Some material was translated and added to the Rise in Temperatures section |
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)
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)
"Recent cold snap helping Arctic sea ice, scientists find" [1]
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)
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)
Could we lose the movie? It screws up my computer :-( William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Worldwide sea level would rise if Greenland were to melt. However, this factoid was recently removed. [2] 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 metres (23 ft).[1][2] | ” |
[1]Black, Richard (2007-05-18). "Earth - melting in the heat?". BBC News. Retrieved 2008-01-03.
[2] "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis" (Table 11.3). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001-02-16. Retrieved 2007-12-24.
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)
(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).
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(undent)Here's what our Wikipedia article says:
Computer models predict that the sea ice area will continue to shrink in the future, citation needed 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)
(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)
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)
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 ⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 02:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
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. [1] [2] 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 ⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 04:27, 28 June 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( T C U) 20:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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( T C U) 20:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed a whole lot of "runaway" stuff [13]. 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)
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)
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)
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)
It would probably be a good idea to replace some of the imaginary sea ice numbers in this article with those from [14]; 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)
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)
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)
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 removed this photo, added here [15] 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)
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)
I think it's about time to delete this section. Some of the images, particularly those relating to ice thickness might be kept.
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)
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)
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)
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 ⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 02:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Permafrost Line Recedes 130 Km in 50 Years, Canadian Study Finds-- 174.39.223.31 ( talk) 01:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [20] (the same search in google scholar returns 18 hits). An equivalent search for "climate change in the Arctic" returns 1,210 hits [21] (and 1800 hits in google scholar). -- Abc-mn-xyz ( talk) 22:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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:
On average, shorelines in the region retreat about a half meter per year, although annual erosion in some regions now exceeds 8 meters, the new State of the Arctic Coast Report estimates. That rate is higher than anywhere else on the planet — and escalating.
Past studies probed links between ice content and Arctic coastal erosion rates — and never found any, notes Paul Overduin, a geoscientist with the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam. It now appears such analyses, which considered ice conditions averaged over kilometer or longer stretches, represented too broad a scale, he says. By narrowing its focus to a meters-long scale in breadth and depth, Ping’s group found a strong and convincing link, he says. Also novel about the study, Overduin adds, was its careful quantification of nutrients released by coastal erosion. The total annual mineral releases as chunks of coast spill into the sea add up to megatons of organic carbon and other nutrients that could fuel plankton growth, Ping’s team calculated.
A related new analysis, focusing just on erosion along Alaska’s nearly 2,000-kilometer Beaufort Sea coast, finds land losses now are twice the rate typical of the 1950s through 1980. Chien-Lu Ping of the Palmer Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and his colleagues quantified the rates and then, for the first time, correlated erosion risk with soil type. ... In the April 20 Journal of Geophysical Research, Ping’s team reports that height above sea level and ice content were the primary predictors of erosion risk along nonrocky coasts.
99.112.213.34 ( talk) 02:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
Arctic sea ice shrinks to second lowest level by Seth Borenstein (AP via The Guardian) September 15 2011; excerpt
The National Snow and Ice Data Center says Arctic Sea ice melted this summer to the second lowest level since scientists started keeping records more than 50 years ago.
The amount of ice covering the Arctic hit its lowest point late last week. Scientists calculated 1.7 million square miles (4.3 million square kilometers) of ice. Only in 2007 was there less summer sea ice, which has been dramatically declining since scientists began using satellites to monitor melt in 1979. Other records go back to 1953.
Each summer, sea ice melts and then refreezes starting in the autumn. The summer minimum is a crucial measurement for scientists monitoring manmade global warming. This year's level is 36 percent below the average minimum of 2.59 million square miles (6.7 million sq. kilometers).
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 23:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Arctic sea ice melted this summer to the second lowest level since record-keeping began more than 50 years ago, scientists reported Thursday, mostly blaming global warming. "This is not a random event," said oceanographer James Overland of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "It’s a long-term change in Arctic climate." ... Since the 1980s, summer Arctic ice has shrunk from something the size of the Lower 48 United States to an area that covers just the region west of the Mississippi River, said Snow and Ice Data Center senior scientist Walt Meier. ... Ice Data Center research scientist Julienne Stroeve said two factors cause summer sea ice to shrink more than normal: worsening man-made global warming and localized and seasonal Arctic weather. In 2007, local weather conditions — wind, barometric pressure and sea currents — all were the worst possible for keeping sea ice frozen, she said. But this year, those seasonal conditions weren’t too bad, she said. Even so, the data center’s measurements show one of the worst years for melt. ... Using computer models, scientists have predicted the Arctic will eventually be free of sea ice in the summer by mid-century; a few researchers say it could happen as early as 2015 or 2020. Overland and Meier said they think 2030 to 2040 is more likely for an ice-free summer.
99.19.42.166 ( talk) 06:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
99.119.128.87 ( talk) 23:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)On September 9th, at the height of its summertime shrinkage, ice covered 4.33m square km, or 1.67m square miles, of the Arctic Ocean, according to America’s National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC). That is not a record low—not quite. But the actual record, 4.17m square km in 2007, was the product of an unusual combination of sunny days, cloudless skies and warm currents flowing up from mid-latitudes. This year has seen no such opposite of a perfect storm, yet the summer sea-ice minimum is a mere 4% bigger than that record. Add in the fact that the thickness of the ice, which is much harder to measure, is estimated to have fallen by half since 1979, when satellite records began, and there is probably less ice floating on the Arctic Ocean now than at any time since a particularly warm period 8,000 years ago, soon after the last ice age.
"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)
I've reverted this addition twice now (with differing references):
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)
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 CO2, which isn't quite right. Simply changing it to say that the change in the greenhouse effect is caused by the change in the CO2 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)
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 could use more eyes also. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.uarctic.org/Adaptation_to_Climate_Change_in_the_Arctic_FIN...When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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": /info/en/?search=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)
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)
References
EMsmile ( talk) 13:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I think the further reading list adds very little value. If these refs are so important please include them as inline citations.
EMsmile ( talk) 14:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
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 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. [1] [2]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |url-access=
requires |url=
(
help)
Prototyperspective ( talk) 21:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
A news item involving Climate change in the Arctic was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 26 September 2012. |
This article contains a translation of Folgen der globalen Erwärmung in der Arktis from de.wikipedia. Some material was translated and added to the Rise in Temperatures section |
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)
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)
"Recent cold snap helping Arctic sea ice, scientists find" [1]
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)
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)
Could we lose the movie? It screws up my computer :-( William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Worldwide sea level would rise if Greenland were to melt. However, this factoid was recently removed. [2] 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 metres (23 ft).[1][2] | ” |
[1]Black, Richard (2007-05-18). "Earth - melting in the heat?". BBC News. Retrieved 2008-01-03.
[2] "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis" (Table 11.3). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001-02-16. Retrieved 2007-12-24.
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)
(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).
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(undent)Here's what our Wikipedia article says:
Computer models predict that the sea ice area will continue to shrink in the future, citation needed 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)
(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)
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)
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 ⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 02:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
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. [1] [2] 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 ⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 04:27, 28 June 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( T C U) 20:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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( T C U) 20:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed a whole lot of "runaway" stuff [13]. 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)
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)
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)
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)
It would probably be a good idea to replace some of the imaginary sea ice numbers in this article with those from [14]; 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)
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)
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)
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 removed this photo, added here [15] 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)
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)
I think it's about time to delete this section. Some of the images, particularly those relating to ice thickness might be kept.
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)
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)
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)
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 ⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 02:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Permafrost Line Recedes 130 Km in 50 Years, Canadian Study Finds-- 174.39.223.31 ( talk) 01:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [20] (the same search in google scholar returns 18 hits). An equivalent search for "climate change in the Arctic" returns 1,210 hits [21] (and 1800 hits in google scholar). -- Abc-mn-xyz ( talk) 22:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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:
On average, shorelines in the region retreat about a half meter per year, although annual erosion in some regions now exceeds 8 meters, the new State of the Arctic Coast Report estimates. That rate is higher than anywhere else on the planet — and escalating.
Past studies probed links between ice content and Arctic coastal erosion rates — and never found any, notes Paul Overduin, a geoscientist with the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam. It now appears such analyses, which considered ice conditions averaged over kilometer or longer stretches, represented too broad a scale, he says. By narrowing its focus to a meters-long scale in breadth and depth, Ping’s group found a strong and convincing link, he says. Also novel about the study, Overduin adds, was its careful quantification of nutrients released by coastal erosion. The total annual mineral releases as chunks of coast spill into the sea add up to megatons of organic carbon and other nutrients that could fuel plankton growth, Ping’s team calculated.
A related new analysis, focusing just on erosion along Alaska’s nearly 2,000-kilometer Beaufort Sea coast, finds land losses now are twice the rate typical of the 1950s through 1980. Chien-Lu Ping of the Palmer Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and his colleagues quantified the rates and then, for the first time, correlated erosion risk with soil type. ... In the April 20 Journal of Geophysical Research, Ping’s team reports that height above sea level and ice content were the primary predictors of erosion risk along nonrocky coasts.
99.112.213.34 ( talk) 02:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
Arctic sea ice shrinks to second lowest level by Seth Borenstein (AP via The Guardian) September 15 2011; excerpt
The National Snow and Ice Data Center says Arctic Sea ice melted this summer to the second lowest level since scientists started keeping records more than 50 years ago.
The amount of ice covering the Arctic hit its lowest point late last week. Scientists calculated 1.7 million square miles (4.3 million square kilometers) of ice. Only in 2007 was there less summer sea ice, which has been dramatically declining since scientists began using satellites to monitor melt in 1979. Other records go back to 1953.
Each summer, sea ice melts and then refreezes starting in the autumn. The summer minimum is a crucial measurement for scientists monitoring manmade global warming. This year's level is 36 percent below the average minimum of 2.59 million square miles (6.7 million sq. kilometers).
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 23:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Arctic sea ice melted this summer to the second lowest level since record-keeping began more than 50 years ago, scientists reported Thursday, mostly blaming global warming. "This is not a random event," said oceanographer James Overland of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "It’s a long-term change in Arctic climate." ... Since the 1980s, summer Arctic ice has shrunk from something the size of the Lower 48 United States to an area that covers just the region west of the Mississippi River, said Snow and Ice Data Center senior scientist Walt Meier. ... Ice Data Center research scientist Julienne Stroeve said two factors cause summer sea ice to shrink more than normal: worsening man-made global warming and localized and seasonal Arctic weather. In 2007, local weather conditions — wind, barometric pressure and sea currents — all were the worst possible for keeping sea ice frozen, she said. But this year, those seasonal conditions weren’t too bad, she said. Even so, the data center’s measurements show one of the worst years for melt. ... Using computer models, scientists have predicted the Arctic will eventually be free of sea ice in the summer by mid-century; a few researchers say it could happen as early as 2015 or 2020. Overland and Meier said they think 2030 to 2040 is more likely for an ice-free summer.
99.19.42.166 ( talk) 06:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
99.119.128.87 ( talk) 23:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)On September 9th, at the height of its summertime shrinkage, ice covered 4.33m square km, or 1.67m square miles, of the Arctic Ocean, according to America’s National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC). That is not a record low—not quite. But the actual record, 4.17m square km in 2007, was the product of an unusual combination of sunny days, cloudless skies and warm currents flowing up from mid-latitudes. This year has seen no such opposite of a perfect storm, yet the summer sea-ice minimum is a mere 4% bigger than that record. Add in the fact that the thickness of the ice, which is much harder to measure, is estimated to have fallen by half since 1979, when satellite records began, and there is probably less ice floating on the Arctic Ocean now than at any time since a particularly warm period 8,000 years ago, soon after the last ice age.
"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)
I've reverted this addition twice now (with differing references):
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)
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 CO2, which isn't quite right. Simply changing it to say that the change in the greenhouse effect is caused by the change in the CO2 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)
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 could use more eyes also. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.uarctic.org/Adaptation_to_Climate_Change_in_the_Arctic_FIN...When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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": /info/en/?search=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)
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)
References
EMsmile ( talk) 13:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I think the further reading list adds very little value. If these refs are so important please include them as inline citations.
EMsmile ( talk) 14:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
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 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. [1] [2]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |url-access=
requires |url=
(
help)
Prototyperspective ( talk) 21:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)