Talk:Climate change in the Arctic

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. The relevant section also predates this article by a few years. Afasmit (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree.  A lot has been added to this article since November 2007.  See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

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

message: "Recent cold snap helping Arctic sea ice, scientists find" 
Anyone want to dare add that to the article and get shot down for it? 67.135.49.254 (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I dared.  Thanks for the info.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing it.  Did someone remove it?Mzmadmike (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It did a short jump of about 8% in the 2008 season but quickly reverted back to the usual downward trend. As described by the NSIDC: http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.211.86 (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I dare to point out that weather isn't climate. A "snap" is necessarily going to have only a temporary effect. -- 98.108.202.17 (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not in that form.  This year wasn't "record-breaking" at all, as the ice area is still well below the average.  Sea Ice area/extent is fairly volatile and sensitive to weather.  So yes, we didn't have a crazy low ice count like last year, but sea ice volume is basically unchanged from last year's record low....  Sailsbystars (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's an inconvenient truth 

message: Could we lose the movie? It screws up my computer :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest this NASA image as a replacement. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie 

message: 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)
replies: text: We're talking about shrinkage in the Arctic, not shrinkage of the Arctic.  I think the title is okay.  Just like Moon landing refers to landing on the Moon, not landing of the Moon.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeees, but the connection to sea ice is missing. Arctic permafrost is shrinking, as is the snow cover. The article should have "sea ice" somewhere in the title. You can't use it for a link otherwise William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about this.  However, if you change the title of this article, I think you ought to change the title of Moon landing to something like Landing of people on the Moon.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're being silly. In the case of moon landing, there is no doubt about what was landing. For example, "19xx saw the first moon landing" works. "In 2007, there was a lot of arctic shrinkage" doesn't. "In 2007, there was a lot of arctic sea ice shrinkage" does William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: You won't have to change all the links to here, there are bots that do that. I support the name change to Arctic sea ice shrinkage or similar. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Greenland Ice sheet (in the lead paragraph) is not sea ice.  Do we want to change the scope of the article, or merely make the title more descriptive?  If the latter then, "Arctic ice shrinkage" might be the way to go.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: You're right; I just moved it.  StephenHudson (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: TOC

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree that this quote will make no sense to lay readers unless it is properly explained.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the quote, which definitely seemed unclear.  I assume it was referring to a degree days concept, where one adds up the difference between the average temperature of each day and some baseline temperature over a certain period.  Since the original source does not seem to offer any more information to clear up the quote, it seems best to remove it.  If someone can better explain it, without original research, then they should feel free to replace it.  StephenHudson (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 1000 degrees?

message: 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)
replies: text: Looks like that image may be deleted soon anyway.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: 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)
replies: text: I went ahead and condensed the 2007 material.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: 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."Expert: Arctic polar cap may disappear this summer", People's Daily Online 2008-03-01.Olav Orheim, CommentVisions.  Retrieved 2008-04-27.
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)
replies: text: I agree and have cut the sentence - frankly i don't believe it. I think there is a high likelihood of a misquote, is the source btw. even reliable? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area around the North Pole is not the entire Arctic Ocean, and certainly not the entire Arctic. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  we can guess what would happen 

message: 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. ~AH1(TCU) 20:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I missed the section above. Oops. ~AH1(TCU) 20:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Its utter rubbish, but unfortunately utter rubbish spoken by a sea ice researcher and reported on by a credulous BBC, so its hard to argue for its removal on the grounds of sanity. I suppose we'll just have to wait a few years for it to become obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Brave words William.  Let's pray your actually right about this one.Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Goodness is this an NPOV?  Tell us all, what is it you hope for exactly? 125.237.12.51 (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope WMC is right.  Evidence below suggests he may be.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summer arctic sea ice gone by 2013? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I think it is decent, but still needs a little work. Awickert (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ...yep, definitely needs quite a bit of work. Awickert (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GAN]]? 

message: 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)
replies: text: See ArcticAndrewjlockley (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my point. It should be here; it is crucial to the article as it is the definition of what is shrinking. Awickert (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: FixedAndrewjlockley (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks - just so you know, when I said that this was the definition on the Arctic page, I used the above "sometimes" definition of "arctic" without a citation. I have no idea if it's right - hence the fact tag. Awickert (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Define 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ice free North west passage?

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: 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)
replies: text: WMC found a better one, look up.  I think you should put it back in as 'widely reported but actually unreliable'.  We can't really miss out something that widely reported - even if we do then say it's twaddle.  I agree that his projections were 'arbitrary'.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sorry, I misconstrued myself! I left a sentence in about it; if you like, search 2013 in that article and see if you think it's OK. Awickert (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm watching it now. I like WMC's source as it's a study of studies.Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks good - I actually took the same route, and cited another study of studies there. Awickert (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2013 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: USGS article about a change in walrus behavior due to sea ice melting caused by Global Warming

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Interesting Study Coming Out 

message: 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)
thread_title:  baseline 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NASA Article 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Your article is not the only one of the 1920s discussing the climate change that was noted in the Arctic (one got downright Biblical! :-), but it does come via very good sourcing.  NOAA even has it in its archives .  It has been removed because the idea that the Arctic demonstrated climate change in the 1920s will threaten the idea of a "consensus" in climate science and could threaten our funding.  Such information doesn't belong in a place like Wikipedia; read the other articles—it doesn't fit in.  Note also that the photo of the USS Skate (SSN-578) in July 1958, when she surfaced into open water at the North Pole, has been taken down.  Attempts have been made to replace such photos with ones from the March 1959 mission to the North Pole, when she surfaced to 2-foot-thick ice at the North Pole (though crew have clarified that there was open water there, too).  The newsreel at  almost lets the cat out of the bag by misidentifying the date, but if you listen to it or check the copyright, you can see that it's really July 1959, not 1958.  Someday a global-warming-denier is going to catch on, since the Wikipedia entry for the submarine makes it clear, and the US Navy's photos show the lack of ice, but until then, editors are doing their best to keep the history under wraps.71.203.125.108 (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You might be more interested in politics of global warming. This kind of stuff The downside of this approach is that it would likely hurt the global-warming industry and limit funds for research and lobbying efforts when the public realizes that the "disaster" of Arctic shrinkage has previously occurred and gone away without intervention isn't acceptable, nor is 'It is therefore important for recipients of global-warming funding to keep the public ignorant of facts and no longer questioning, with such tactics as hoping for limited news coverage and scrubbing of information from Wikipedia. Your purported ref for this  plainly does not support it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 5, second column, of the source supports it thus: "So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. . .Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."  --Stephen Schneider  As for the first part of your comment, I note that you didn't keep the factual and verifiable and cited material. --71.203.125.108 (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are, I think, being deliberately deceptive. But also pointlessly so, since it is so transparent. To quote from your ref rather more fully: Perhaps you shouldn’t believe me, at least that is what Julian Simon’s characterization of my views of environmental threats would lead you to believe in APS News Back Page article (March 1996, pg. 12). Simon “quotes” me directly, as supposedly saying “Scientists should consider stretching the truth…” to get good publicity for their cause. After the March issue was in print, Simon notified the editor that this false and very damaging statement was incorrect. What he hasn’t yet admitted is that even what he states to be the “correct quote” is still an out-of-context misrepresentation of my views, a distortion he persists in perpetuating even months after I personally told him of the context of the original quote.. I really don't understand why you bother making such an easily refuted claim. The full quote is also given on the SS article. But I do tahnk you for the ref, which is useful to demonstrate the way that quote is distorted: I've added it to the SS article  William M. Connolley (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's funny.  I got the reference from the SS entry in the first place.  And you can see that I did not quote the false part of the quote.  And it is not being taken out of context here--I put up the relevant parts, with an ellipsis.  The point wasn't whether a balance has to be struck--that wasn't the question here--it was whether the public can be given the truth in a straightforward way.  I'm curious whether you even knew SS before he got caught with that statement.  Anyway, I know you're trying to make sure this entry doesn't accidentally veer into NPOV territory, and I'm sorry I took up your time.  Cheers! --71.203.125.108 (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

text: This Competitive Enterprise Institute cei.org?  99.19.43.164 (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is wrong 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes. Shrinkage is appropriate. There is also warming. "Arctic shrinkage from warming". Gabriel Kielland (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to disagree, but can I ask why you see shrinkage as appropriate? "Shrinkage" here refers to the definition of Arctic as the northern area enclosed within an isotherm, which is an atypical definition and a bit confusing, I think, to most readers even if they are familiar with the subject material. A quick web search seems to support the point that "Arctic shrinkage" is not a standard term to describe the widely-discussed phenomena described in this article. "Arctic warming" seemed like the most standard term to me, perhaps mostly based on reading the previous two discussions of this point on this talk page. --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the note on my talk page soliciting my input on an article name change.  At the time I created the article, in 2007, I thought the name was appropriate. 3.5 years later, dozens of editors have made almost 700 edits so it's certainly stood the test of time. As the talk page has a Sanctions tag, I believe that a compelling reason for a name change should have broad/majority agreement.  Lacking that, I don't support making a change. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks for this note, Rosiestep. This page has definitely had a lot of development, and I agree that a name change should have broad/majority agreement. A name change seems to be periodically proposed on this talk page, but then each time it has fizzled out. How does one go about getting the broad/majority opinion on an issue like this? --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I forget what was said in the prior two discussions about this.  You might want to provide links to those discussions.  Also, if you're asserting that "arctic shrinkage" is a term unique to Wikipedia, then you might want to provide a link to null search results for the term at google books, google scholar, and google news archive.  Also, I don't think "arctic warming" would be the best title. This article seems to focus mainly on recent warming, rather than prehistorical warming.  And anyway there was both warming and cooling in prehistory, so it would seem kind of arbitrary for this article to only discuss prehistorical warming and not prehistorical cooling.  So, "modern arctic warming" might be a better title, but if you want to be ultra-neutral you might try "modern arctic climate change".  But since this article doesn't cover routine seasonal changes, how about "modern arctic climate trends"? Hope that helps.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change to "Arctic warming" 

message: 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)
replies: text: The article Climate of the Arctic is already there. The loss of sea ice happens annually. This is about shrinkage. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Climate change in the Arctic isn't already there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I don't really understand this comment, Gabriel Kielland. "Sea ice shrinkage" surely has the same definition as "sea ice loss". The former is just far less common than the latter (28,000 vs 873,000 hits, respectively, when I google the two terms in quotes). You seem to be implying that the former refers to long-term changes and the latter to seasonal changes (?). Is so, a reference would be useful. It's certainly true that sea ice loss happens every summer, as you mention. If someone says, "Northern Hemisphere temperatures are warming", you might say, "of course they are, it's springtime". Or you might say, "of course they are, we've been deglaciating on average over the past 20,000 years". But given the popular topics of discussion these days, it'd be a good guess to interpret their comment as referring to estimates of annual-mean temperature from the instrumental record since the late 1800s. Arctic sea ice loss occurs every summer, but there has also been year-to-year loss of sea ice, on average, during the satellite record (1978-present). The latter is one of the main topics of this article. Apologies if I'm misunderstanding you. --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

text: The first comment in this section is a very nice synthesis. I agree with Anythingyouwant that the strongest choice is (3). Title (3) is neutral and clear. Regarding its scope perhaps being broader than the current content of this article, an authoritative assessment of recent climate change in the Arctic is the ACIA. The wikipedia summary of that work (here) lists "rising temperatures, loss of sea ice, unprecedented melting of the Greenland ice sheet" as the main components of the "ongoing climate change in the Arctic" (it also lists impacts). Of these topics, there's a lot of discussion in the current article about sea ice loss, a bit about the Greenland ice sheet, but not much about temperature. With an added subsection about temperature, I think the article would do ok in terms of hitting the main points regarding "climate change in the Arctic". Choices (1) and (5) are clear but don't sound as neutral, although as noted by Anythingyouwant, they are accurate. I think choice (2) is suboptimal because it describes more than just an observation (Arctic is warming), but a theory too (the cause is that this is part of the global warming story, rather than being due to soot loading on the sea ice changing its albedo [a shaky hypothesis in the literature], some regional change associated with natural variability, etc). --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, (3) is best.  This article can be summarized in Climate of the Arctic, per WP:Summary style.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article's introduction is clearly about the shrinkage of the Arctic. Alot of the article then focusses on the reduction of ice cover but not only so current title, Arctic shrinkage is fine. climate change in the Arctic would not fit the article and there is already an article about the climage of the Arctic in general. Correjon (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned above, the idea of a shrinking Arctic appears to be a misunderstanding of the terminology, which helps explain why "Arctic shrinkage" produces almost no search results in books or scholar. The entry above containing "misunderstanding of" describes the misuse of terminology. The entry above containing "google book search" describes the lack of search results. It's true that the introduction of this article offers a justification of the title, but the title remains at odds with common usage. --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 07:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Title choices

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

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

message: Add  With warming, Arctic is losing ground Scientists anticipate big ecosystem changes from erosion by Janet Raloff May 21st, 2011; Vol.179 #11 (p. 13) Science News.  The International Arctic Science Committee in Potsdam, Germany copublished the new report along with the Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone Project, the Arctic Council’s Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme and the International Permafrost Association.
Excerpts:     99.112.213.34 (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add [http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/73737/title/With_warming%2C_Arctic_is_losing_ground  With warming, Arctic is losing ground Scientists anticipate big ecosystem changes from erosion] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Will need to correct "but [extent] did not return to [2007] levels " 

message: Arctic sea ice shrinks to second lowest level by Seth Borenstein (AP via The Guardian) September 15 2011; excerpt   97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also AP via the Boston Herald http://www.bostonherald.com/news/international/general/view/20110915arctic_sea_ice_shrinks_to_second_lowest_level/srvc=news&position=also
   99.19.42.166 (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another ... Really bad year for Arctic sea ice; New European data indicate this summer’s loss of ice cover matches the 2007 record by Janet Raloff (Web edition: October 6th, 2011) on Science News.  99.109.127.58 (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Mississippi River.  99.119.131.17 (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  resource "The amount of ice covering the Arctic hit its lowest point late last week." 

message: 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)
replies: text: An excerpt ...   99.119.128.87 (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

text: National Snow and Ice Data Center  99.190.87.183 (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Latitude  99.35.15.199 (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  resource? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Add reference? 

message: I was initially planning to fix the first sentence of the Social impact section:
Many of the causes of climate change in the Arctic can be attributed to the effect that humans have had on the atmosphere, greenhouse effect is mainly caused by the increase in CO2 levels created by people
Which at present isn't a coherent sentence. However, while considering how to fix the English, I realized that it asserts that the greenhouse effect is caused by the change in , which isn't quite right. Simply changing it to say that the change in the greenhouse effect  is caused by the change in the  doesn't work well for a couple reasons, so while I think about alternatives, I thought I would point out the problem in case someone else has a solution.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed that.  And a few other things.... :) I went through and rooted out a whole bunch of redundancy and overlap and structure things so there's actually a semi-coherent narrative to the article now.  And rewrote the whole section of your problem sentence which was pretty awfully written before... and... well, a lot.  Let me know what you think!  Sailsbystars (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence needs editing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New article 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: The articles are linked via Wikidata already, please do not put additional links in the article text. I removed your link. --mfb (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New link added to "See also"  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Climate change in the Arctic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130910091853/http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice to http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080626152700/http://www.um.dk/NR/rdonlyres/BE00B850-D278-4489-A6BE-6AE230415546/0/ArcticOceanConference.pdf to http://www.um.dk/NR/rdonlyres/BE00B850-D278-4489-A6BE-6AE230415546/0/ArcticOceanConference.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Climate change in the Arctic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6JqZEroXP?url=http://www.ecology.ethz.ch/education/Resilience_Stuff/Berkes_and_Jolly_2001.pdf to http://www.ecology.ethz.ch/education/Resilience_Stuff/Berkes_and_Jolly_2001.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.uarctic.org/Adaptation_to_Climate_Change_in_the_Arctic_FIN...
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927124322/http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/veranstaltungen/bericht-92741.html to http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/veranstaltungen/bericht-92741.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100118170723/http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/permafrost.jsp to http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/permafrost.jsp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090204012056/http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2081 to http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2081
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Climate change in the Arctic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130729155912/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/sea-ice-minimum to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/sea-ice-minimum
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219012233/http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html?entrynum=2352 to http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html?entrynum=2352
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ecology.ethz.ch/education/Resilience_Stuff/Berkes_and_Jolly_2001.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910213953/http://www.nersc.no/~oddho/Thesis/chapter3.pdf to http://www.nersc.no/~oddho/Thesis/chapter3.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Climate change in the Arctic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071231023227/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/597.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/597.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509072101/http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/USGS_PolarBear_DeWeaver_GCM-Uncertainty.pdf to http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/USGS_PolarBear_DeWeaver_GCM-Uncertainty.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More correct division to paragraphs 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Hi Carlos González Gozalo, my suggestion would be that before or after the time that you make bigger changes you explain here on the talk page what you plan to do or what you have done. I see a bit of editing and reverting going on but haven't been able yet to check each edit (due to time constraints). In general, it is always much better to explain on the talk page what is going on and secondly to make lots of small edits, rather than a few big ones (i.e. lots of intermittent saves). When someone sees 10,000 bytes removed in one go that makes one suspicious. User:Vsmith could you please let Carlos know what the problems were with the edits that you reverted? I haven't yet looked at actual content, just trying to help with the process after User:Olle Terenius (UU) - who works with the student editors - alerted me. EMsmile (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  P.S. I just saw on the user talk page that one problem was this: "Please do not blindly remove references again. Your edit removed plenty of references that were in use and broke quite a few references"  by User:LightandDark2000) 14:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I have taken another look and have narrowed down the main problem I think. There was a bunch of cite errors that were introduced when Carlos moved content from his sandbox back into mainspace. The first time the cite error appeared is for this edit that Carlos made here. After that, he added more content from his sandbox, introducing more of those cite errors. Eventually, he realised something was wrong and tried to fix it but made it worse in the process. So I think the last "good" version is the one from 19 May at 11:09 am, i.e. this one. My plan of attack would therefore be to restore that version and then fix those cite errors (or try to). Wish me luck. EMsmile (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I have now reverted to that version from 19 May since the edits are mostly OK, except for the problem with the references (of course the new text blocks might need further word but I would say it is salvagabe). Here are the references that are in the wrong style. I will now try to convert them to the correct style. EMsmile (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have moved those refs to my sandbox now, see here. I think I am half way through but it's a bit time consuming and I have to dash off to a real-life activity now. Hopefully someone else can take over (Carlos is on a field trip, User:Olle Terenius (UU) told me, so he can't do it himself). Please have a little bit of patience, we are trying to help newbies and students to contribute to Wikipedia editing. The students were working in their sandbox here. They had copied the article to the sandbox, added content, then copied the new sections back across. So to double check which reference belongs to where one has to check the sandbox. This is time consuming and a hassle, I know. Sorry - not "my student", I am just trying to help with the process now. Please be kind despite the mistakes made (WP:NOBITE). And please don't shoot the messenger, i.e. me. :-) EMsmile (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for helping out EMsmile. As I read it, the AnomieBOT has taken care of the remaining references and I have verified with Carlos González Gozalo that all references are in place. Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uppsala University Changes (May 2021) - added content but problem with references 

message: I think the further reading list adds very little value. If these refs are so important please include them as inline citations.
* 
* 
* McCannon, John. A History of the Arctic: Nature, Exploration and Exploitation. Reaktion Books and University of Chicago Press, 2012. 
* 
* 
* 
* 
EMsmile (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am suggesting to remove the further reading list 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overlap with [[arctic sea ice decline]]? 

message: Please integrate info from/about this study into the article. It's currently featured in 2022 in science like so:
A study indicates that the Arctic is warming four times faster than global warming now, substantially faster than current CMIP6 models could project.
 Prototyperspective (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made changes to reflect 's suggested edits. Could other editors confirm the wording is accurate? Thank you.Oceanflynn (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please update with: "Annual Mean Arctic Amplification 1970–2020: Observed and Simulated by CMIP6 Climate Models"