Talk:Climate change in Antarctica

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate change in Antarctica article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Antarctica High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica 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.AntarcticaWikipedia:WikiProject AntarcticaTemplate:WikiProject AntarcticaAntarctica articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment Mid‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Weather: Climate High‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Climate task force (assessed as High-importance).

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Extinction risk from climate change#Birds was copied or moved into Climate change in Antarctica#Penguins with this edit on 23:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Merge

Can't this just be merged into Climate of Antarctica? NumberC35 (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering about that as well. Since Antarctica is not a normal country, I am not sure if an article "climate change in Antarctica" makes a lot of sense, compared to those "Climate change in country X" articles. EMsmile (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Global warming in Antarctica. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 04:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some apparent errors

@Wakelamp: This edit has a few typos and some missing phrases: can you correct them? Jarble (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! I didn't realized that I had published it like that. I am just checking some later journal articles that cited that article, and will get back Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wakelamp: I've updated the content already, using the scientific article as source. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copied content from Antarctica

I have copied across the content that I found in the article Antartica under climate change. It looked to me like better content than what this article had so far. Normally, I would now propose that Antartica should use use an excerpt of the lead of this article. However, because Antartica is a featured article, I would expect opposition to this proposal. But it doesn't feel right to have exactly the same content in two articles, as it would double up the work in keeping it up to date. EMsmile (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap with Antarctic sea ice

It seems to me that the article Antarctic sea ice is not well interlinked with this article. There is some overlapping content there, but this article says nothing much about the antarctic sea ice. I have added it to "See also" but I think it ought to be properly integrated into the text; perhaps with a sub-heading and link across to the other article. It's difficult though as this article is organised by decades, not by sub-topics. Not sure how to change this though, and whether it should be changed. EMsmile (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updating as a part of our university course

Hello! We are three students from the Ecological Effects of Climate Changes course at Uppsala University. As a part of our course we have been assigned updating this article. Part of the assignment is to align the structure of the article with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change/Style guide. We will soon start to work with the content on our sandbox pages and our deadline to publish our result is the 19th of May. This is our first experience updating Wikipedia articles and we welcome any feedback! Amattsson (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our usernames are Vdoroshenko95 and Annchristinehedstrom. Vdoroshenko95 (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, great work, Vdoroshenko95 and User:Annchristinehedstrom. I haven't yet checked in detail but I like the new structure. Also thanks to User:Zartis22 who came to this from a different university course. EMsmile (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: EEB 4611-Biogeochemical Processes-Spring 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 1 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Degra067, Cruzb005, Mconowall (article contribs).

Changes in Ice Mass

I've corrected this article twice and twice it's been reverted with one editor calling the edit 'contentious'. The cited article says: We find large variations in and among model estimates of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment for East Antarctica, with its average rate of mass gain over the period 1992–2017 (5 ± 46 billion tonnes per year) being the least certain.

The wiki article says "estimates an average in loss of 5 ± 46 Gt ice per year during the period of the study." 65.12.145.148 (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You 65.12.145.148 are correct. The source does state what you posted. I apologize for being the first to revert your edit when (I thought) the content was counterintuitive. I've since restored the content after the other editor changed it a second time. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge "Antarctica cooling controversy" here?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctica cooling controversy is a dated article about what is now an obscure and long-resolved matter. It is also relatively small, and is written in a very inefficient manner, with a lot of extensive direct quotes or the like, so I think half or more of its text can be condensed without losing anything important. I think it can be easily merged into a sub-section here, where temperature trends are already discussed. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon that's a great idea. the content is worth keeping for historical/archiving purposes but not really as a stand-alone article. Note I have transcribed the lead of that article to this one on the history of CC science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science#Apparent_%22Antarctica_cooling%22_discrepancy . I think it should also be mentioned here: Climate change denial. I first came across it here (that article on controversies that I shrunk right down and converted to a list article): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_change_controversies . EMsmile (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge yes I had a quick look and agree Chidgk1 (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-merge clean-up

I was a little surprised by the apparent decision to carry out the merge by moving everything as is, without even removing the duplicated page image, let alone the references. (Although that low-quality article even repeatedly duplicated references 2-4 times across its own text.)

In the merge proposal, I wrote "can be easily merged into a sub-section here', where temperature trends are already discussed.", which I thought made my intention clear. Hopefully, nobody objects now that I have carried out this work. I think that the result we have now works well, with the merged material fitting neatly with the existing text. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I almost always simply merge everything to the end when I merge an article because that way if I do anything AFTER my uncontroversial ‘post merge tidy’ and another editor does not like it they can easily rollback to the end of the ‘post merge tidy’.

If I remember right the merge guidelines suggest not to edit the disappearing article before merging.

I would prefer some kind of automation to do the uncontroversial stuff but don’t want to spend the time learning how to do Wikipedia automation and writing one. Not sure I explained my merge method very well but if anyone wants to know more please ask. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guessed that was the reasoning, but I noticed you left those issues alone even in the post-merge edits, so I wanted to be sure. That, and to confirm if the post-merge clean-up went without issue. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chidgk1: that's also how I would do mergers: Merge everything first, tidy up later (rather than edit and cull first, then merge). Thanks, guys. EMsmile (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At last no more glare from the vast expanse of white

Don’t know if anyone else cares but I just switched to the new Wikipedia:Dark mode and like it Chidgk1 (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why slower than elsewhere?

The article says:

Antarctica is the coldest and driest continent on Earth, as well as the one with the highest average elevation. Further, it is surrounded by the Southern Ocean, which is by far the most effective heat sink out of any ocean. These factors mean that temperature trends over Antarctica would emerge slower and be more subtle than elsewhere

I don’t understand why being the coldest means that the temperature trend is more subtle. I know the Arctic is not a continent but that is warming faster than warmer places. So why would Antarctica warm more slowly just because it is colder? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1 I wrote an explanation for this now. It's a fairly complex effect, so that was a good question to ask. I hope it is sufficiently clear for most readers.

I am also glad to see you going through the article and making these corrections and copyedits, but right now, this is a bit of a waste of time for you. Unlike the cryosphere sections, I have not yet had much time to really edit the biodiversity paragraphs, but I am sure that once I will, I'll most likely end up making changes far more major than what you are suggesting, as a lot of that text is just fairly outdated and unstructured. There also seems to be some overlap with our other articles there, like extinction risk from climate change (which also has a lot of material on penguins), so I might end up shuffling some material around as well. I would certainly encourage you to take another look once I have done those major changes, though.

If you don't mind, I would appreciate it if you could take a similarly close look at the major ice sheet articles (Greenland ice sheet, East Antarctic ice sheet and West Antarctic ice sheet after I update it with a better paragraph on circulation. Unlike here, I consider those articles essentially "done" and GA-worthy or thereabouts, but I would be curious if your careful eye can spot similar issues there.

I also started a discussion over at the main climate change article about what should be updated there and how, and there is (another) merge discussion at attribution of recent climate change. You might be interested in participating in both. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]