Talk:Arctic ice pack

message: what are the temperatures in the summer and winter at the polar ice  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.21.36 (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 2008 Sea Ice Minimum

message: A separate article on the Decline of Arctic Sea Ice is justified.  It could be referenced both from this page and from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Retreat_of_sea_ice
The huge melting this year will create a lot of interest - Another problem about photos (visible light) is that in the winter, snow on top of sea ice looks the same as snow on the land.   Dansample 23:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Decline of Arctic Sea Ice

message: The Arctic Sea has not been ice free for a period of at least one million years, and probably much longer.
I put this in boldface because I live in a country where 45% of the population, 135 million people, believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.  One can only wonder if they know that the Arctic Sea likely hasn't been ice free since the formation of the Isthmus of Panama, when the Earth's climactic system was changed to its present configuration.  They need to understand that the very warm Earths of the distant past were very different systems that have limited relevance to how our climate works today.  71.36.196.36 21:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frustration with non-scientific belief systems 

message: Well written section, but needs references.  Somebody may consider adding a section regarding the Antarctic Sea Ice (and the fact that it is at a maximum level since satellite imaging began in 1979), since there is a section on the Arctic Sea Ice.  Cheers! --SimpleParadox 21:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you actually disputing something?  If you read the talk section above, you can infer that the anonymous user
91.153.52.32 seems to know an awful lot about satellite orbits, and light and radar wavelengths.  He's undoubtedly a scientist working on the subject.  Capable of writing the article without looking things up.  You're always welcome to do the googling for the references and put them in.  Or just leave them on the talk pages and it's a lot easier for someone to put in.  Cryosphere Today announced an SH record about 2 weeks ago.  It was put in. Then after Cryosphere checked their data, they decided it was a new miss.  so the page had to be changed to sometthing akin to saying that the SH was normal.     Today Cryosphere listed a new SH record, but it's only about 1% over the old record.    Not really a significant increase.  Again, you're welcome to make the change. Sagredo 07:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not I can infer that anonymous user 91.153.52.32 "seems to know an awful lot about satellite orbits, and light and radar wavelengths" is immaterial to the WP:RS which strongly encourages editors to cite their sources even if they believe that they are WP:CK.  I am by no means questioning anything that is contained in the section, but it does need references no matter how knowledgeable the editor may be on the subject.  While, I don't have the time necessary to look up the sources that particular editor used to write up that section of the article, I did find it necessary to tag it.  --SimpleParadox 16:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for agreeing that there's nothing to be challenged or improved!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagredo (talk • contribs) 05:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Undid edit by Sagredo.  "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."  As per WP:V.  Please do not remove the tag until sources for the information contained in that section are cited.  Thank you.  --SimpleParadox 16:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References needed in Summer Melt section 

message: Regarding my change of "The Arctic Sea has not been ice free for a period of at least one million years, and probably much longer." to "The Arctic Sea has not been ice free for a period of at least one million years.", I have two problems with the revert.  First, the italics are not present in the original reference and their addition in this article is clearly POV emphasis; they should certainly be removed.  Second, the phrase in Overpeck, et al. is "At the present rate, a summer ice-free Arctic Ocean within a century is a real possibility, a state not witnessed for at least a million years, perhaps much longer." (p2 under Arresting Future Surprises).  The word "perhaps" implies speculation by the author not supported by the content of the paper whereas "probably" implies likelihood.  Using the word "probably" in this article is inappropriate.  Finally, the two sources listed are redundant.  The basis for the claim in the first source is just a reference to the second source.  It is inappropriate to include both a source and sources that just reference that source.  I have thus changed the edit back to remove the italics, replace "probably" with "perhaps", and remove the redundant, non-primary source.  Bjp716 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ice-free Arctic 

message: "In 1979 the climatologist W. W. Kellogg wrote in an article (Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences Vol. 7 pp.63-92) that "There are good reasons to believe that the Arctic Ocean may have just two stable states, a largely frozen-over one (as at present) and an ice free one." He did not address the rate of change from one state to another but the existence of only two stable states could be taken to imply it would happen quickly."
Isn't this terribly dated? (1979) and don't the various studies that the Arctic hasn't been ice free for 700,000 years (at least) contradict it?  It's also very weaselly and  I think it should be removed.  Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 19:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  W.W. Kellogg 

message: Where are the citations or references for this section?  This appears to be derived from some controversial research, which should at least be referenced.  The stuff about the clathrate gun hypothesis is particularly conjectural and not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basilcasey (talk • contribs) 12:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climatic Importance 

message: Does this article need to be updated for this year (2008)?  It looks like the hypothesis that the 2007 freeze was thin and susceptible to easy remelting was correct. e.g.:
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=fabled-northwest-passage-open-for-b-2008-08-27&sc=rss
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html (updated constantly - I am referencing the August 26 2008 entry)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/10/climatechange.arctic
Thanks! 128.138.224.183 (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summer 2008 Melting 

message: All I wanted to know is roughly how far south the sea ice extended. Instead I get to read a total load of codswallip about the world warming up when I know for a fact it is currently cooling and that total sea ice globally hasn't changed much (the antartic offsets the artic).
I just want to know roughly where the sea ice extends - this article has totally failed to tell me about sea ice because it is pretending to be a greenpeace advert. 79.79.255.151 (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want anyone to pay attention, I suggesst you refactor all that to remove the ranting William M. Connolley (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree with the original poster. I arrived at this article just looking for a general idea of how the sea ice advances and retreats each year and its general location and extents; instead the article is polluted with a pile of global warming hysterics that would do better in their own article - balanced by critical opinions from the other side, naturally. Sarchives (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a pathetic politicised article 

message: Since I'm new here, I just want to bring up the fact arctic sea ice has come roaring back since the minimum level set in summer of 2007.  The article does not really discuss how the decades-long trend of decreasing ice has been completely reversed over the last 2 to 2.5 years.  Surely the article has to come to terms with the facts, correct?   The NSIDC has a nice graphic I think we can use.   I'm wondering if the article does not deserve a rewrite.  What do you think? RonCram (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been mislead by obfuscators who only talk of surface area and not of volume.  207.189.230.42 (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New to this article

message: Hello, I have chosen your article for the ANTH 2501 peer review. While reading your article, the sections added and edited are readable and relate to the topic. The citations are properly references and they have more then 5 references. The contributions that have been added to the article help improve it a lot, where edits such as addition of new sections containing much information which helps improve the polar ice packs article. AJSingh31 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: It is stated in the introduction that there are two polar ice packs: an Arctic and an Antarctic.  Apart from the introduction there is little or no mentioning of the Antarctic ice pack in the article. Heaps of data and charts on the Arctic pack and none on the Antarctic. So why no change the title?  – –  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.93.187.137 (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: wouldnt it be better to get some data from the antartic into the article instead? Jack Bornholm (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading title 

message: Currently the article states: "While the Northern Hemisphere sea ice reached new record lows, on September 12, 2007 the Southern Hemisphere sea ice area reached 15,910,000 km2 (6,143,000 sq mi), close to the maximum recorded of 16,020,000 km2 (6,185,000 sq mi)." Following this is a reference but the reference does not support the statement.
Furthermore from here we see: "On Saturday, the ice extent reached 19.51 million square kilometers, according to data posted on the National Snow and Ice Data Center Web site.  That number bested record high levels set earlier this month and in 2012 (of 19.48 million square kilometers). Records date back to October 1978."
So existing article asserts maximum record Antarctic ice extent of 16M square kilometers, but the article referenced by the link I posted here shows an extent of 19.51M square kilometers. Ergo the maximum listed extent in the article as it currently exists appears to be false. Comments? SunSw0rd (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antarctic Ice Extent 

message: this article seems to be degenerating into a year-by-year description of sea ice changes, which is stupid William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This article seems to be redundant with the much better-written article on sea ice.  If no one objects, I'm going to merge this at some point in the near-future when I get the chance, since there's nothing worth saving in this article except maybe some of the rich media.  Sailsbystars (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year by year is bad 

message: This article mentions how the ice packs have been at record lows over the past years, but makes no mention about global warming -- not even a sentence. I'm aware that this is not officially an accepted cause of this result, but I think we could say in the lede that the loss of the Arctic Ice Packs is accredited to global warming by some scientists. Although it is a highly controversial topic, I don't think it is outrageous to want to include even a small amount of information regarding the theories. Let me know what you think. GoGatorMeds (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Warming 

message: What is the location of the climate diagram? The North Pole?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.219.87.113 (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate diagram 

message: User:William M. Connolley How are you defining boring in making this edit?CFredkin (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the page is about ice pack i see no reason to include years at all, except for mentioning extreme states.  But i think there should be a page dedicated to each single year, which includes temps, ice extent at the poles, maybe even extreme weather events, etc. Related discussion. prokaryotes (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  That makes sense to me.  I just don't think we should cherry-pick the data to support a view.CFredkin (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need to discuss individual years as such. Noteworthy occurrences (e.g., the 2007 decline) should be woven into the text. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Data 

message: Some graphics in this article are out of date, and some of them only show half of the seasonal cycle (there are two animations, one showing growth and one showing shrinkage!). There are a bunch of good public-domain (US gov-made) graphics at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/. Some of them are updated live. There is also raw data that could be made into excellent graphs. Please upload some to improve the article.
I've added a link to the Antarctic sea ice article as suggested by comments above.HLHJ (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visuals 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Arctic ice pack. 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/20100821203547/http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php to http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: FYI editors here may be interested in this merge proposal NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge discussion  

message: Showing on the data since 1979 hides the decadal cycles (1979 was the peak of the previous cycle and we are now nearing the nadir of the current cycle) and makes it appear as if the sea ice is disappearing. It isn't, and this kind of skewed data presentation obscures that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:206:8002:40b4:2dc7:b60c:85b8:d215 (talk • contribs) 
:Watts' website does spout this talking point but here you'll need at least one decent citation to what wikipedia defines as reliable sources to be taken seriously. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provide a complete history of data 

message: Pack ice has a specific meaning: "any area of sea ice (ice formed by freezing of seawater) that is not landfast; it is mobile by virtue of not being attached to the shoreline or something else." I think this article includes landfast sea ice. So I believe it is more appropriate to name this article as Arctic sea ice. There is currently a redirect in effect. crandles (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Arctic Sea Ice