Talk:Sea ice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Meteorology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Meteorology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Meteorology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Glaciers (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glaciers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Glaciers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Re incomprehensible picture[edit]

This graph is total nonsense without further explanation or better legends. It might make sense to its creator, but it is hard to imagine anyone else getting any benefit whatsoever from it.

  1. It talks about "monthly averages" in the caption, but there's nothing about months in the graph.
    1. The x-axis is time, in years, which implicitly includes months as a sub-period.
Not when they are scrunched together so much.
  1. It looks funny, like it is a series of blue ovals inside black ovals. Spread out more in the horizontal direction, it might be comprehensible.
    1. Its effectively two sine waves, 6 months out of phase
It's supposed to be that; the problem is, that isn't what it looks like.
  1. Nothing identifies what is northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere.
    1. Its a very minor intelligence/comprehension test. Especially after the most recent edit, its very easy to work it out (or at least I thought it was; tell me if I'm wrong). But you could add the colours in the figure caption, if you like.
It's something missing.
It is unreasonable to expect readers to go look up the history and pick out a couple of cryptic edit comments and expect them to draw conclusions on that basis. What I might understand or not understand isn't particularly relevant.
(William M. Connolley 18:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Sorry. I really didn't realise it was this difficult. You don't need to look up the edit history, just read the text that says that the NH cycle has a smaller amplitude. OK, so I'll add it.
  1. The scientific notation legend is will put non-technical people off. Just use square megameters, with numbers 5, 10, 15, and 20. Or even millions of square kilometers, with the same numbers.
    1. Well, sorry. If I ever re-drawn it I will. But it doesn't seem worth re-drawing it just for this.
I certainly didn't think this a fatal flaw either; but it obviously needs redoing, so this should be fixed as well.
  1. Just what in the world are you trying to show with it? Maybe explaining that will make it make sense. Gene Nygaard 21:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    1. Lots of obvious things: that the interannual variation of the max/min is much smaller than the seasonal variation, for example (William M. Connolley 21:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)).
Maybe some other type of graph would be more useful?
Or maybe one similar to this over a much shorter time period, so that the wave nature shows through, to show what you were trying to show here, and a second one showing just monthly maxima over time?
In other words, play around with it and see what you can do. You are the one with the data. I don't know exactly what it should be; I just know it should be something different from what it is. This is something only a mother could love. Or "father" in this case. Gene Nygaard 22:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I also had pointed out the NH/SH ambiguity in Image talk:Sea-ice.area.nh.sh.png. Black is apparently SH, and area is in m². Making graph wider would allow seeing the sine waves as such rather than as ellipsoids. Narrower pen would also help. (SEWilco 04:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Missing references[edit]

The citations to Serreze and Stroeve are not defined. Pdn 04:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Ice Pack Images[edit]

The way these were positioned, on top of each other and alongside the page, made it difficult to compare them. I've put them all inside a table and greatly reduced their size, so that they can be "eyeballed" for differences more easily. I tried putting them into a gallery tag, but since the last image is of a different size, the images were scaled completely differently and defeated the purpose of the whole edit. If anyone has a better plan for making these look better (combine them all into one image, or crop them all to the same size, perhaps?) then feel free to change it appropriately.Fourthgeek 19:11, 18 July 2005 (CST)

Sea Ice[edit]

I believe the word should have been left as "calve" - a process for pieces of ice to break off in analogy with a cow having calves. The page is so big I cannot find where to edit, though; when I open an edit window - my screen search does not work inside an editing window.

I thought the figures were OK as they were. Pdn 02:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right. "Calve" simply looks so similar to "cave", it seemed to be an easy typo. I'll change that back. As for the pictures, however, they are better organized this way. Though as I said, if someone can make a viable improvement, that's fine. If it's decided that it's better the old way, that's fine too. It's more of an aesthetic change than anything, perhaps a matter of opinion. It just seems cleaner this way, side-by-side, instead of them trailing down the page vertically.Fourthgeek 22:16, 18 July 2005 (CST)

Merge proposal[edit]

I redirected drift ice here - there was nothing to merge. Except

[[de:Treibeis]] [[ja:流氷]]

which I don't know what to do with William M. Connolley 09:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmpf. Drift ice has resurrected itself. I've re-instated the merge proposal William M. Connolley 09:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose merge. ("resurrection": Didn't you know that drift ice is a seasonal phenomenon in many places? :-) I resurrected it, not it itself. Of course, initially it was a naive 5th-grader level text. But I intend to expand it. It is a huge well-defined subtopic of equally huge topic of sea ice, no reason to merge. In wikipedia big articles are split into smaller ones, not vice versa. Since we are at this, why don't you suggest to merge Iceberg here too? `'mikkanarxi 02:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Because sea ice is simply the same thing as drift ice. Sea ice is seasonal, too. What exactly is the distinction between SI and DI? William M. Connolley 09:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
"Seasonal" was a joke in response to your "resurrected". Sea ice is either drift ice or fast ice. Of course, the overwhelming majority of sea ice is Arctic and Antarctic ice packs, but still pack ice is but a type of sea ice. `'mikkanarxi 22:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. By bizarre co-incidence, just as you were writing this I was restoring the redirect. Fast ice is indeed just another name for sea ice, which is why it redirect to sea ice. Pack ice ditto. They are all the same thing William M. Connolley 22:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You still fail to understand my poit: "fast ice" is not another name for sea ice. It is another type of sea ice, just as timber is not the same as wood (calling a shovel a spade...). The whole ice topic is somewhat understructured, as I see. For example, do you know where in wikipedia is written what type of ice is iceberg? `'mikkanarxi 23:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
And I would agree that from the point of view of formation they are basically the same. But they have differences in many external respects. `'mikkanarxi 23:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Right now unfortunately I don't have time to sit and put these ice issues in order. `'mikkanarxi 23:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
As a final stroke, I apologize for possibly appearing as a layman asshole to you, since you surely know things here. But we laymen have a bit different perspective. `'mikkanarxi 23:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Animation removed[edit]

I removed the animation of sea ice fluctuation around a year.

REASON: it contained at least one severe error. It was not just a bit inaccurate, but coarsely. The animation shows the whole of Norwegian Sea freezing, which simply does not happen. Even during the coldest years of the so-called Little Ice Age the limit of sea ice was around 72 deg North latitude in Barents Sea, and the middle and eastern portions of Norwegian Sea, thus including the coast of Norway, were ice free year-round.

I assume the animation depicts such an ice situation that has most recently happened approximately 10 000 years ago, during the last Ice Age proper. Greetings from Finland (that is near Norway). 80.221.61.8 19:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

fast ice[edit]

The folk etymology given for fast ice as ice that has fastened to land is questionable. Fastland is Swedish for a large land mass, as opposed to a skerry or other small island; modern Swedish lies much closer to Old English (or Old Norse) than does modern English. Swedish fast has other uses and it's nearest equivalent might be the English phrase, hard and fast. — Robert Greer (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ice Floes and Drift Ice occur in fresh water[edit]

Seems incorrect to have ice floes redirect to this article if it implies seawater (salinity). It occurs regularly during the winter months in the fresh water of the Great Lakes...see Spectacle Reef Light. The word "seawater" is at odds with "freshwater" and these forms of ice apply to both. Drift ice can also be freshwater.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I note as well that the definition of Ice Floe on this page, and on Drift Ice differ. Perhaps they should use the same definition? --70.104.253.220 (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

bad picture for sea ice[edit]

i want to know how far south sea ice goes on the east and west coasts of NA, but it is impossible to tell from the article here (or the picture). [reader criticism] TCO (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

part of the biosphere[edit]

sea ice is part of the Earth's cryosphere rather than biosphere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonanimal (talkcontribs) 22:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

references getting stale[edit]

The most recent reference is dated 2006. I'd like to know what's happened to sea ice in the past four years? Is the trend of retreating northern sea ice continuing, or has it reversed? -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

2007 was exciting. 2008 and 9 were on the long term trend and rather dull William M. Connolley (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Solar cycles?[edit]

I took out:

The subtle climatic effects of the 11-year sunspot cycle can be detected in the ice extent data, as well as longer term solar output cycles like the 88-year Gleisberg cycle (see Solar Variation)which was at it's coolest point in 1986. Because there were no satellites in orbit earlier than 1978, any conclusions regarding long-term trends must take into account natural cycles in solar energy output which may have been at their lowest points at the beginning of satellite reconnaissance technology. At the warmest part of the 11-year sunspot climate cycles, like the winter of 2005-2006, sea ice is observed to reach a winter maximum extent that is smaller than in the years before or after. Because first-year sea ice is more prone to melting during the following summer season, there is often a one- or two-year lag observed in the corresponding minimum summer sea ice before the cooling half of the climate cycle can be detected as greater ice extents in the summer seasons.

I don't think it is true; there are no refs; and I couldn't see anything relevant in the solar variation article. Also, it doesn't belong under "monitoring"; it is really talking about long term trends William M. Connolley (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Short term solar output cycles exist and their effects are patently obvious[edit]

Mr. Connolley, are you PAID to censor? You reverted my contribution within ONE MINUTE of my saving the edits. If you couldn't find that relevant point in in the solar variation article, I suggest you spend a little longer than 28 seconds reading it. The last Gleisberg solar cycle was at it's minimum at about the same time that satellites were put into orbit. The last sunspot maximum was in the early-mid 2000's, and we are currently in the middle of an extended sunspot low, which has had newsworthy effects on northern hemisphere cold weather for at least the past two winters. Whether or not you LIKE the facts, they remain facts. Inconvenient facts, perhaps. Live with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregBenson (talkcontribs) 18:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea who this Mr C to whom you are speaking is; perhaps User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/The_naming_of_cats might help you. As to the substance: it looks very strongly like you are admitting to OR. This revert [1] restores what still looks like OR:
  • During the warmest years, like the winter of 2005-2006, sea ice is observed to reach a winter maximum extent that is smaller than in the years before or after. - this appears to say that warmer years have less ice. This is little other than the obvious. I would be much happier if it were more plainly stated that way. Note also the causality problem: less sea ice exposes comparatively warm sea surface, so less sea ice makes for a warmer year.
  • there is often a one- or two-year lag observed in the corresponding minimum summer sea ice before the cooling half of the climate cycle can be detected as greater ice extents in the summer seasons. - looks like pure OR, and I'm not even convinced it is true William M. Connolley (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, was it really necessary to start another section on this? Also, allegations of censorship are rarely fruitful. Also, you "live with it" tone appears pointlessly combative William M. Connolley (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, Censoring is what ClimateGate was about. is a pointlessly provocative edit comment, as well as wrong. But if you mean Climatic Research Unit email controversy‎ you will, I'm sure, be delighted to know that the latest inquiry has exhonerated the scientists, again William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sea ice extent graph wrong- new one?[edit]

The data shown is the sea ice extent graph is quite wrong. I'm not sure where it came from but here is the actual sea ice extent and it is nothing like that presented on this page. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg I suggest if there is no a suitable clean graph for use (suggestions anyone) that it should be deleted in the interests of accuracy. MarkC (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The graph you've linked to above is global, not Arctic William M. Connolley (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The article is about sea ice not arctic ice isn't it? In any case the blue line in the graph does not even represent actual sea ice... 89.240.53.170 (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
How about this then? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png Cheers 89.240.53.170 (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
That's a different picture, indeed. I'm not quite sure of your point. BTW, the pic in the article is ice volume, not area or extent William M. Connolley (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I though the point was clear. The existing graph is dominated by a hindcast from an unproven computer model (which is not in the given reference so I don't know where it came from anyway so it violated WP:VER). The red measured data covers year or so. Now it is accepted that ice area is most important in terms of radiative balance (an idea I'm sure you know well) so area is the measure of interest for the article and the graph I linked shows the historical data from a reputable source. I'd say this is more valuable than an unproven computer model (unproven because it seems to fit only a few years and quite poorly)... So, do you agree with the value/benefit of putting up actual data? MarkC (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)