2011-10-02 04:44:41Unrelenting Decline in Arctic Ice
Peter Hogarth


The Unrelenting Decline in Arctic Ice. This is on extent, the key chart is historical extent inverted hockey stick. I have seen my first version of this chart around on the web so it is doing its job. Will post other parts of the original "canary" post which was far too long. There will be a draft article relating to Ice Volume in new post, but won't have much time after this week.  Comments for this one please.

2011-10-02 05:59:22
Dana Nuccitelli

The "2" in "CO2" is a subscript, not a superscript.  But personally i just leave it as "CO2".  Also "infrared" is one word.

Figure numbering is off - there's no Figure 1.

In general you need to keep your audience in mind.  Right now it's still rather long with lots of technical detail that most people will probably gloss over, maybe even stop reading.  If your target audience is Arctic sea ice geeks, then that's fine.  Just bear in mind the more technical you make it, the fewer people will read it.  There's a trade-off between being very detailed and reaching a large audience, and right now your post errs to the side of being very detailed.  That's not necessarily a problem - we've published plenty of technical posts in the past - just something to keep in mind.

As an example, here's a paragraph in your post:

"If we look at the series of animations in figure 2, we see the that during the freezing season sea ice extent in any given year grows from the summer minimum until it butts up against the coastline. The ice edge can only move further South by advancing through the relatively narrow channels leading from the Arctic Ocean, such as the Fram and Bering straits, thus unlike the Antarctic case, the growth of Arctic ice in the Winter is constrained by the land masses which almost completely surround the Arctic Ocean."

You could cut this way down, to something like "As you can see from Figure 2, the Arctic is surrounded by land masses, which limits the growth of Arctic sea ice in the winter (this is not the case for the Antarctic)."  It's less detailed, but cuts to the point and is more likely to keep the reader's attention.  Like I said, just a suggestion, depending on the audience you want to reach.  As it stands right now, I don't think a lot of people would read the whole post.

2011-10-02 07:31:38
Peter Hogarth


Dana1981. Thanks for spotting errors, have corrected and will continue to streamline.  Been staring at the superscipts for ages wondering what was wrong with them. Have also cut out a few hundred words and removed some of the more technical bits.  Following Glenns suggestion, am wondering whether another post on "extent" is even necessary, though one on volume that is too short will add nothing to the debate. I'll probably have a think about something less mainstream but interesting next time around.  I had originally hoped to time this to hit the Sept ice minimum, but didn't have enough free time then...