Talk:Arctic geoengineering

Untitled

"Sea ice is an effective thermal insulator, ..." this paragraph has to be rubbish, ice is no more an effective thermal insulator than most things. Water pumped up freezes because of the vertical temperature gradient. If you halved the thermal conductivity of ice it wouldn't effect this reality. Solid ice doesn't have a vastly different thermal conductivity to water, but it different in that it doesn't convect, anyway. Thickening ice that way is used on the ice roads in Canada. --BozMo talk 22:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

sea ice is an effective thermal insulator - this is a fairly common thing for sea ice folk to say. I'm sure I've said it :-). What it means is, the ice forms a thermal barrier (in winter) between the cold air and the (relatively) warm ocean, thereby preventing the ocean losing heat. Water pumped up would freeze because it is exposed to the cold air William M. Connolley (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand what it is trying to say, but isn't it complete tosh, physically speaking? "Sea ice acts as an effective thermal barrier" might be true but "insulator" already has a meaning rather at odds with this usage. The thermal conductivity of ice is about 2-2.4 W/mK (2.1 at freezing 2.4 at about -20C) and of water is about 0.58 W/mK It is possible that sea ice has a slightly lower conductivity than ordinary ice (the rubber company handbook doesn't seem to state it) but the fact that you and others have said it does not make it any less tosh. --BozMo talk 08:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's very effective, when compared to water, as it's free of convection. I'll try to incorporate this point, though.Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bulk deletion of text

I am going to look for references to describe the techniques that have been recently deleted. TP discussion prior to such edits is preferable.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether refs need to be added on first addition of the material, or if they can wait for later, depends strongly on the nature of the material and the competence of the contributor. In this case the material is clearly controversial and (IMO) dodgy at best; and (as you'll have noticed) I have no trust in you. So you need refs up front as far as I'm concerned William M. Connolley (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That's why I didn't revert, but you should have TPd of fact-tagged anyway before deletion.Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew, there should not be a bulk deletion without some discussion, especially since somebody with a great deal of knowledge of the Arctic sea ice (I would suggest more than anybody here present) spent considerable effort to produce the material in a suitable form for Wikipedia. There were some extremely interesting points of fact - for example the so-called "ice chipping", where a Russian ice-breaker breaks up sea ice in spring, with the deliberate intention of warming the local climate (therefore it is genuinely "geoengineering"). I believe you have no grounds for your opinion "dodgy at best". Please reinstate the text, or argue more cogently, while showing your own credentials for overriding an expert's statement of various facts, which the expert believes are relevant to the subject of Arctic geoengineering. John Nissen (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be verifiable, as well as true.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead/background

Please don't use the 2013 ice free date as it was never published in a journal and doesn't use a mathematically-robust projection technique.Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggested the 2013 date to show how much scientific opinion had changed in the light of events, such as sea ice retreat September 2007. I suggested qualification as "possible disappearance", because people who would suggest 2030 as "most likely date" (i.e. median date, rather than average date), accept that there is a small probability, perhaps 5% but significant, of ice disappearing end summer 2013. But see also Albert Kallio's email. John N.(94.194.140.207 (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

Peer reviewed sources only, please.Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hacking again

I stripped a whole load more poorly or unsourced stuff out. "Arctic Explorer David de Rothschild from Sculpt the Future, UK has proposed geoengineering scheme..." is next on the list, I wonder if you can guess why? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As discussed on numerous occasions, will you please tag up stuff that needs work. I'm tracking the page and will get stuff cleaned up in a few days of it being tagged. It's not constructive (or civil) to delete stuff without waiting for consensus or improvement.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

As discussed on numerous occaisions, please don't insert badly sourced information and then expect other people to clean up after you. This [1] is classic - the only source for this wacky idea is a polar explorer William M. Connolley (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

And again [2]. If the only source for this is DeR, it can't go in. Find another, if you can, or leave it out William M. Connolley (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of valid research

WMC, Please explain your 2x removal of paper showing that Arctic modelling was poor. This is clearly backed up by out-of-error-bar observational results recently.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Im being a bit POINTy, but I don't notice you explaining your removal of the IPCC ref saying things were in general well modelled William M. Connolley (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It was out of date. IPCC is not reliable in a fast-moving research environment, any more than reading a 5 year old newspaper is a reliable indication of the weather forecast.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well that is an improvement - now you are explaining your reasonning. But you are wrong. Wiki is not a newspaper; the IPCC is not out of date William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why your ref was a more current and accurate reflection of the science than was mine.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This constant removal is beginning to irk me. The current trends are clearly out of IPCC ranges and not well predicted by IPCC AR4 generation models. Why is there a continual attempt to deny this patently obvious fact?Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Define 'clearly' (aside from your own feelings), and 'well predicted' (quantitatively). Trends are long term - not something that is determined on so short a basis that the AR4 could be wrong - so thats a pretty bad description. You seem to want to press your personal POV here, rather than adhere to the weight of the literature. How much are the models in the wrong? Do other papers corroborate with this paper? What exactly does the IPCC say? What are the bounds of 'well predicted'?

Instead of getting irked - you should consider why you are getting reverted, and why you so often do not seem to reach consensus on your changes. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The current results are worse than worst case. They are outside the range predicted by the IPCC. This has not been predicted in climate models. The 2007/8 changes are both minima, one on area, one on volume. That's not a blip, it's a new trend, and not one that's identified by the IPCC. I keep getting reverted because I won't recognise the authority of the IPCC where more recent science contradicts their findings. The science has advanced and WP needs to recognise that the science behind AR4 was long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:WEIGHT. (Your personal opinion on what is correct or not, a trend or not, is irrelevant.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is very silly. Are you seriously trying to deny the obvious truth that the 2007 ice extent was a) valid and b) out of range?Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to deny the obvious truth that a one or two year measurement period is entirely insignificant for evaluating trends in climate? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a 1 or 2 year trend, it's a historic minima - a stock value, not a flow rate. This IS significant, the findings are well established, and it IS outside IPCC ranges. It NEEDS to go in.Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that 2008 counts because it was a min for volume is very much changing the goal posts. If you think 2009 is going to be a min for extent, please take my money (don't bother with the inevitable excuses why this is a bad idea). As for the rest, Stephan has said it. A minor point: you assert "it IS outside IPCC ranges" but you haven't got a clue what the IPCC range is William M. Connolley (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I make no claim to predict 09. Do you really need me to go and paste the charts proving it's out of range onto this page? Perhaps you'd like to accept the facts before I have to do this?Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that because you don't believe there is a sharp trend, or because you think that any one year is weather noise? I don't think you know what the IPCC range is, or even what it means William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's because I don't have a crystal ball. Are you going to make me post the graphs here? Do I really need to do this to make you stop pretending that the IPCC predicted this?Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the graph/article. http://nsidc.org/news/press/20070430_StroeveGRL.html This shows it's out of range even before the 2007/8 minima. I'm genuinely fascinated to know what argument you're going to come up with now. It would actually be a bit boring if you accepted that I'm right.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would be something like that; you prove my point. Do you understand that SD != range? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

See standard deviation. As you're well aware, this data set would back up my point further if it included 07 and 08. Would you be so kind as to explain why you are still apparently convinced that the IPCC modelling predicted this, when it patently does not?Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be two main points: ice volume as a trend and ice volume in given years. As a trend, yes, it has seemed to decrease more rapidly than the IPCC report says. However, if that's just 1 SD on the plot, then that only covers the middle 68% of their predicted range, so it may well still be inside the expanded envelope, but low, so it should be mentioned, but perhaps without as much conviction. I think a graphic like that would be very useful on the article as a NPOV way of showing predictions and results. It seems to stand up to me. However, I'm always wary of POV in lede-mongering, and would suggest that the present mode of operation (adding stuff to the lede and not the article) be stopped, as the lede is supposed to be an informative summary of the article.

As to the individual years, this past winter was Chilly over in the US of A. I had a better Nordic ski season than I've ever had in recent years. Looks like this whole climate thing is a joke, and I should just get my sedimentary basin modeling geologist butt in gear and apply for jobs make a few big $$$ at ExxonMobil. Awickert (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully the new studies we've found give a view that's both credible and take account of recent warming. I accept that it's spiky data, so hard to draw trendlines from. We can always update the article later this year when the NSICD comes out.Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey - I write exhaustive talk page comments with reason. The body should be changed before the lede, and if I'm right about the error envelope on your figure, we're still within the 2 sigma of the predictions. The addition of a figure would be helpful, though I'm not sure where to find a free one. I'm trying to initiate new action. Right now I hypothesize that the changes to the lede will be reverted within the day. Awickert (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Awicert, maybe you are best placed to do these edits. There clearly HAS been a range-out, but you can perhaps add this info in a way that prevents the edit-skirmish that's going on ATM.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I could, but I think it will be several weeks before I care enough. Awickert (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope you get round to it , as I sometimes suspect that my edits are treated differently. I'd like to see the changes stick.Andrewjlockley (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think your edits are treated differently, this is an issue, and likely a reputation that you need to overcome. My best suggestion would be to be less bold but equally industrious. In particular, editing the body of the article instead of the lede, and then editing the lede to match, is a good way to do this. Awickert (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arctic geoengineering. 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/20110725180118/http://www.cleverclimate.org/climate/12/diomede_crossroads/ to http://www.cleverclimate.org/climate/12/diomede_crossroads/

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) 17:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: WRIT 340 for Engineers - Global Innovations - Spring 2023 - 66837

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 28 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vaskogucev, Kkuznets, Afomar, Nessa0116 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by 1namesake1 (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Should the ‘Stratospheric sulfate aerosols’ section be removed?

Seems it is not specific to the Arctic and already has its own article Stratospheric aerosol injection Chidgk1 (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)