Talk:Polar ice cap

message: The second sentence states that the ice caps are always over land, and the third sentence states that this is not a requirement.
:Yes, it says that the term polar ice cap is a misnomer since ice caps are only over land. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is explaining how the term is a misnomer.  There is no contradiction.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 05:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The opening paragraph is obtuse.  Please rewrite it so that it is understandable.  It is apparently self-contradictory, more importantly it is obscure in meaning.  (EnochBethany (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I could be wrong here but im just throwing it out there. the mars section makes me curious since it states “The planet Mars also has polar ice caps, but they consist of frozen carbon dioxide as well as water.” Does this mean its been proven that there is water on mars, or does it not apply in this case? Feel free to delete this if im wrong but im just making sure if its true or not. 167.88.178.70 23:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is frozen water on Mars, both beneath the surface and at the polar region.  References:    The question now is whether there might be liquid water in sub-surface aquifers.  Occasionally there is frozen ice visible on the surface, such as when the carbon dioxide ice sublimes in the summer.  Also it is occasionally visible on the surface in other areas.  See this ESA photo for a glimpse of water ice in a crater.  Hope this helps.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 03:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water on Mars 

message: First "the Antarctic ice cap appears to be thickening, possibly as a result of anthropogenic global warming"
is probably wrong.  Second as this is about Earth's ice cap it belongs in the section about Earth.  Third, anything close to global warming or ice caps melting is controversial enough that it should have a good external reverence.  (Hint - Go to a page that has the reference, click on edit, and copy the reference.  You don't have to change or save the page.    Go for a really good one, like NSIDC.  And paste it right back in this page. -- I'd do it myself, but it's already past my bedtime.)  Sagredo 06:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Arctic ice cap is currently shrinking, whereas the Antarctic ice cap appears to be thickening, possibly as a result of anthropogenic global warming as described in references in Antarctic ice sheet.

message: Possibly means just that. (EnochBethany (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The Arctic ice cap is currently shrinking, whereas the Antarctic ice cap appears to be thickening, possibly having nothing to do with what man does, nor being anything other than historical climate cycling

message: There's no such thing as a polar ice CAP, as there IS a "requirement with respect to size for a body of ice..." to be called an ice cap; less than 50,000 square km. This article should be titled "Polar Ice Sheet".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.91.169 (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  polar ice cap 

message: this statement under "North Pole" refers to source "Arctic Volcanoes Found Active at Unprecedented Depths", but it is not mentioned in that source of possible such correlation. Kajsunansis (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  changes to Earth's arctic ice cap are due to significant underwater volcanism 

message: I am deleting the following text, as it does not comply with Wikipedia's requirement of neutral point of view. Instead, I propose to add a neutral comment to record that the cause of global warming remains a substantially disputed issue.
"Current Global Change theorists, in trying to pin down the causes of today’s climate variations would do well to study the past – long before man occupied the earth. There is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide “drives” climate in any meaningful way. Carbon dioxide is a trace gas in the atmosphere, compared with water vapor, the spectrum of which overlies carbon dioxide. The amount of carbon dioxide contributed to the atmosphere for industrial efforts of man is less than 1% of all contributed from natural causes. Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the “greenhouse” effect. From a historical perspective, it would appear that the interaction between the sun, the earth, water vapor, wind, clouds, rains and ocean vapors, among other physical events, have a great influence on the earth’s climate changes and the growth of its polar ice caps. (2008, U.S. Senate Minority Report, Dec. 11, 2008)"
REASON - The tone of this text is of a personal nature and contentious. It appears to be making an argument about the causes of global warming, not dealing with the subject of this article. If it belongs anywhere, it should be in an article discussing global warming - possibly on the discussion page. It adds no scientific value, as the only citation is from a political grouping.
NOTE - Its argument about the cause of global warming may in fact be correct, if it were phrased neutrally, and placed in the right article.  I am not judging its factual content in removing it from here.  Michael of Lucan (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted text

message: The following text was in the "South Pole" section, clearly out of place.  It's apparently intended as a general discussion of the geological history of Earth's polar ice caps, but it's not well sourced.  If we want a section to cover this -- could be worthwhile -- it seems that it needs its own section, and a more thorough (and WP:NPOV) treatment.
:The Earth’s polar ice caps have changed dramatically at periods throughout its history.  For example, continental glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica now occupy about 10% of the earth’s land surface, but during four  epochs of the Pleistocene era (10,000 to 12,000 years ago), glaciers covered about 3 times that much area (1955, Principles of Geology)  Evidence of continental glaciation on these scales is also found in Late Paleozoic rocks (about 200 million years ago) and in Pre-Cambrian rocks (about 500 million years ago).  Many theories for these extraordinary events have been offered under such general categories as astronomic, cosmic, oceanographic and geophysical.
Agathman (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More deleted text 

message: Isn't 'Arctic' earth-specific vs. Polar being planet-generic?  Shouldn't Arctic_ice_cap redirect to Polar_ice_packs instead?  --Chibiabos (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Set Sail For The Seven Seas  331° 36' 45" NET   22:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does [Arctic ice cap] redirect here? 

message: I find many Wikipedia articles that touch on global warming insufficiently neutral. I'm not going to go on a campaign "fixing" them, & I know my "fixes" will be undone. But this page, for example, points at data from NSIDC as if it supports the view that Antarctic ice volume is growing and Arctic ice decline is "not irreversible" because of spikes in volume in two recent years. My point is simply that that is a very selective part of what the NSIDC says. I added in a single quotation from NSIDC about the decline in winter arctic ice volume since 1979, since this is a major aspect of NSIDC's views and yet was left out of earlier versions. I also deleted the phrase that said that the thesis that all ice will be lost "seems to imply" that loss is "irreversible." Every scientist I've read says that the volume will rise and fall but that overall trends will be down. That's how statistics works. Ice falls from the sky in the form of rain and snow; glacier volumes will always rise and fall. The question of "irreversibility" is not raised by any of the sources cited by previous author. Wichitalineman (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: There are no requirements with respect to size or composition for a body of ice to be termed a polar ice cap, nor any geological requirement for it to be over land; only that it must be a body of solid phase matter in the polar region.
"Solid phase matter"? Would rocks count, then?
Ice caps are generally in the negative in temperature.
By this, do we mean "negative" in degrees C or in degrees F? Both those are rather arbitrary scales. There really is no such thing as an objectively negative temperature, is there? 206.208.105.129 (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is "they"? Melting the sea ice in the Arctic on water wouldn't raise sea level, however, melting the polar region ice on Greenland, Antarctica, etc would. Vsmith (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  strangenesses 

message: Please see the South Pole section in this article:
:You posted no article and forgot to sign. Please see . Regards. Gaba  (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much. The article content under dispute did not previously distinguish between sea ice and land ice.  Also the source you provided above indicates that Arctic sea ice is the critical factor for climate change.  I still believe my edits are more accurate.CFredkin (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  No CFredkin, your edit is not more accurate and the article did mention land mass in the opening before you removed it. Furthermore the article I pointed to states: "..it is quite clear that really when it comes to Antarctic ice and sea levels, sea ice is not the most important thing to measure..". The landmass of Antarctica is declining so your edit is very inaccurate. Please give WP:BRD a read and self revert your last edit Thank you. Gaba  (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Land mass is not the same as land ice.  Also, the article content on the Antarctic currently only references sea ice, which is increasing.  If you'd like to make additional edits regarding the implications of land ice, please do so.CFredkin (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit is still not accurate.  You can't just substitute "land ice" in the first sentence of the section.  There is no discussion regarding land ice in the Arctic.  And the subsequent support data point from NASA concerns sea ice.  You'll have to add additional sourcing to support any claims regarding land ice.CFredkin (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  (edit conflict) I've amended the word so now it reads land ice. I strongly advise you once again to read WP:BRD because what you did today is considered WP:EDITWAR. Lastly the article does not only reference sea ice as you claim, check again. Regards. Gaba  (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

text:  Very well, I understand your concern about the section not mentioning land ice for the Artic. I'll see about adding a source or rephrasing the statement so it's more accurate. For the record this is what you should have done from the beginning instead of reverting. I'll get back to you here. Regards. Gaba  (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rephrased the section's opening and added sources, I hope this addresses your concerns and if not please raise them here before making reverts. Regards. Gaba  (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  That seems much clearer to me now.CFredkin (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antarctic Ice Cap 

message: Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday Nicmart (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible source 

message: Is this a stub? It's not a very comprehensive article for the polar ice caps. It doesn't even mention theories about when the ice caps first formed.2601:1C0:8400:9EA:DD80:1845:6E5F:2379 (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub?

message: "Since these reports have been made public, NASA itself has revised their data and all indications from this data now fail to support the idea that the ice caps are melting. Since 1979, the ice cap totals have exceeded that years average, debunking the assertion that they have declined. There WAS a short period of decline between 2005-2010, but the data shows that since 2010 the ice cap average has been so high it has eliminated those down years from significance in the overall average from 1979 when measurements at NASA began.  Most notable is that the Polar Ice Caps did not disappear as predicted famously by Al Gore in 2007. The Polar Ice Caps are and continue to be healthy despite efforts and scare tactics to the contrary." - I suggest that capitalising 'WAS' and referring to 'scare tactics' are non-encyclopaedic, and that the section quoted above should be deleted. The only reference in the section is headed by the phrase 'Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.' Alekksandr (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: POV text re Antarctic?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Polar ice cap. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090710225721/http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/words/letter.pl?P to http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/words/letter.pl?P
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: — Assignment last updated by Chewydog19 (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Climate Justice