Talk:Measurement of sea ice

File:DMSP Block-5D3.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:DMSP Block-5D3.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 15 July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Footnote #17

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

Presatellite proxies

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

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

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

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

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Measurement of sea ice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100711152422/http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php to http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php

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

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Thinking out loud

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