Glaciers Unassessed

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.GlaciersWikipedia:WikiProject GlaciersTemplate:WikiProject GlaciersGlacier ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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))

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

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)

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

Hmpf. Drift ice has resurrected itself. I've re-instated the merge proposal William M. Connolley 09:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. I resurrected it, not it itself. And 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)[reply]

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)[reply]