Jump to content

Talk:Climate change in Antarctica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
‹ The template below (Copied) is being considered for merging with merged-from. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

Merge

[edit]

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]
[edit]

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

[edit]

@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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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?

[edit]
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]
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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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?

[edit]

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]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Climate change in Antarctica/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: InformationToKnowledge (talk · contribs) 15:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Well this is a major article on a genuinely vital topic. It's well-written and fully-cited.
  • Many complex technical matters are explained clearly and concisely, with suitable diagrams.
  • I've made some very small copy-edits. Thank you x 3.
  • It's a miracle that Climate of Antarctica is linked only in the 'See also' list. Surely it should be linked somewhere. Added a "See Also" link for now.
  • The article is marked EngvarB. Should it not be in either British or American English? That marking was added during the copyedit I requested. I have no opinion either way.

Images

[edit]
  • Several of the diagrams have text labels way too small to be legible at the chosen scale; either the images or the text labels need to be enlarged (or both). I think you'll find it obvious which are the culprits here, but I'll list'em if need be. I'll be honest, image adjustment is not my strongest side. For what it's worth, GOCE volunteer thought those images were acceptable in their current state.
  • Consider adding an image of one of the mosses named in the text which has responded to climate change. You could use the multiple image template to put 2 images side-by-side, for example.I chose a footprint image to represent those mosses, which I anticipate to have a greater impact.
  • The king penguin image has a helpful caption; the Atlantic krill and gentoo penguin images do not. Why are they in the article? The text gives hints which the captions should summarize. It is advisable to repeat the citations in the captions. Done.

Sources

[edit]
  • The many sources are largely scientific journal papers, i.e. of good quality, and they are clearly relevant to the subject.
  • Consider using |display-authors=5 (or near offer) for sources with many authors. I can see the argument for this, but my subjective preference is to acknowledge every co-author. References are already hidden from most readers as is; hiding "extra" authors to only be seen by editors seems like an unnecessary step.
  • Multiple journalists said these findings were "contradictory" to global warming,[35][36][37][38][39][40] - this is basically synthesis from a set of primary sources. What is needed here is a single statement in a book or review article that makes the point directly. Removed a good number of those primary sources, and emphasized articles which discussed the reaction of those sources.
  • This kind of collapse is now considered almost inevitable because it appears to have occurred during the Eemian period 125,000 years ago, when temperatures were similar to those in the early 21st century.[97][98][17][18][99] isn't synthesis but does look like over-citation.Took out two.
  • [134] should be attributed to Hayley Dunning. Done.
  • Spot-checks: [3], [16], [26], [41], [57], [86] ok.

Summary

[edit]

InformationToKnowledge? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember. Finding the right review-style citation and adjusting the diagrams was a little more complex than I thought at first, and slowed me down. I'll try to set aside the time for another stab at this as soon as tomorrow. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Made some more progress, will try to clean up the rest ASAP. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment

  • there have been several studies discussing the potential usefulness of using lichens to monitor climate change in Antarctica; perhaps this is worth a mention in this article? Here's a relevant review article: doi:10.3390/d11030042 Esculenta (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, though I generally prefer to avoid citing MDPI articles if at all possible. This review seems like it would be a good fit without carrying the same baggage, and it seems like the article could receive quite a few updates beyond lichens based on it. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that review I found added quite a lot. I think that once the basic idea of "warming benefits lichen, but too little moisture or too much snow hurts them" is conveyed, a reference to the relatively niche concept of biomonitoring might even be a little excessive for this particular article (since here we are meant to summarize the numerous impacts for the general audience first and foremost, and a description of observation methods is secondary to that.) InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
InformationToKnowledge - nearly there, can we finish up now? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take one more look at the article and place finishing touches over the weekend, and then yes, sure. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this took longer than I thought, but I think the article is about as good as it can realistically be for the foreseeable future! InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2025 (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.

Did you know nomination

[edit]

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by InformationToKnowledge (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 7 past nominations.

InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Feedback
  • Any interest in cleaning up the hook: "... that between 1990 and 2020, the South Pole warmed more than three times faster than the global average?" Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading through the article. I see it is labeled as {{EngvarB}}, but the English is clearly not American. Is this British, Canadian, Australian, or something else? I ask because some of the word choices, tenses, and sentences threw me for a loop. I was about to correct them when I realized this is acceptable in non-American English. Perhaps it should be labeled as such in the heading or talk page so someone like myself doesn't try to change it?
  • Some of the sources in this article are more than a decade old, making me wonder if the claims are still true. For example, in the "Temperature and weather changes" you write "some scientists continued to emphasize uncertainty", but that source is from 2015.
  • Not a fan of the second paragraph of the "Temperature and weather changes". It has a very in medias res approach which is confusing AF. "There were fewer than twenty permanent weather stations across the continent and only two in the continent's interior." But you aren't talking about today, you are talking prior to 1981 or some other more relatively recent date at the end of the 20th century. It would help if you could fix this.
  • Another editor has stepped in to complete a review for 2024 Tallahassee tornadoes. Because you didn't offer a full review, and only made a comment about the newness and length criteria, I think you might have to do another QPQ. Not sure about this, of course, so you may want to ask elsewhere, but from what I can tell a full review of the same article was offered by User:Cremastra.
  • The climate engineering intervention sentence in the "Long-term sea level rise" section is a bit of a red flag as it vastly simplifies this kind of thought experiment and future study and fails to note that the researchers don't support it. They write: "we do not advocate for deployment of ice sheet interventions in either the short or the medium term". I think it's important to briefly note that most scientists do not believe that anything less than drastic carbon reductions now can make a difference and that loosely mentioning this sci-fi scenario is slightly misleading without the caveats. This problem has come up many times before in other topics which is why I raise it here. It's a common talking point in climate denial that technology will easily solve the problem without reducing energy use, but this is not true. This is also a popular talking point within the effective accelerationism movement, whose advocates want to use as much fossil fuel as possible to bring about AGI. They are fond of promoting these climate engineering ideas without telling people that no scientist currently believes it can work. The argument is long and complex, but these people believe that we can get away with destroying the planet in the short term to create a planetary civilization in the long term; this will in turn allow us to fix everything we've broken. I think we need to be careful here not to feed into those ideas. For a longer, more detailed explanation of this argument, see tescrealism. When you listen to these proponents carefully, except for a small minority, they generally share an antagonism towards actualizing decarbonisation, and often promote climate engineering interventions in its place.
  • On the Antarctic continent, plants are mainly found in coastal areas; the commonest plants are lichens (386 known species), followed by mosses (133 species) and ice algae, as well as liverworts (27 species). Lichens and ice algae are not plants.
  • You've got Clem et al. 2020 cited for your hook up above, but your hook seems to derive specifically from Stammerjohn & Scambos 2020, which preceded Clem et al. You've also got both cited in the article for the hook. Stammerjohn & Scambos 2020 says: "The end result is a warming rate at the South Pole during 1989–2018 more than three times the global rate (+0.6 °C per decade versus +0.2 °C per decade)", or "in the past 30 years, the South Pole has been warming at over three times the global rate". Clem at al. 2020: "Over the last three decades, the South Pole has experienced a record-high statistically significant warming of 0.61 ± 0.34 °C per decade, more than three times the global average." Just noting this as it isn't explicit.
  • Finding a lot of issues/typos.[1] Please review.

@Viriditas: Well, I was certainly hoping for a smoother review, but I appreciate the effort invested into this. If you don't mind, it'll probably take me another day or two to start responding to this in detail - not in the least so that I can find another QPQ, where I could invest the same kind of effort. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the same thing happened to me on a QPQ about a month ago and I had to find another one right quick. One way to prevent that from happening is to use the review template in the header and to put question marks in that areas that are unknown and then mention in the review that it is still in progress and you haven't yet finished. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Review
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

QPQ: Unknown
Overall: Promoted to GA (new and long enough); sourced, neutral, and plagiarism-free; hook is cited and interesting, I think it could benefit from an image of a graph showing the warming, but it would have to be zoomed in to work; others may disagree. Could a different image work? I don't know. I made a list of issues in the article up above in the feedback section, although I fixed most of them. I would recommend that you review my changes to make sure I didn't accidentally mess anything up. I would be happier if you were able to fix the beginning of the second paragraph of the "Temperature and weather changes" as I specified in the feedback up above, as it really doesn't work for me. We're just waiting on a new QPQ to move forward and perhaps a slight fix to the hook, otherwise I think we are pretty close to done. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change_in_Antarctica&oldid=1279105209"